NH Marine Patrol funding, or lack there of

Airwaves · 07-23-2006, 10:26 PM

I am sorry, I should have created a new thread to avoid confusion. I have taken the following from the General Discussion board under the Snorkling conversation and placed it here because it has nothing to do with the snorkling issue that was being discussed.

The first item is the Foster's Daily Democrat article, a link provided by RamJet, that dealt with the NH Marine Patrol, generally a positive article however it has some serious issues that are of major concern to me. For those of you who don't have a password, the following is the article.

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...73251471109169

Airwaves · 07-23-2006, 10:29 PM

Now that you have read the article, here is my initial post in response to the link to the article provided by Ramjet:

Quote:

RamJet:
Much of the article you linked supports exactly my concerns re: the posting of "lifeonthefarm"

So, here is the first problem, New Hampshire does not take this seriously!
1. Quote:
Barrett said the Marine Patrol doesn't receive any money from the state's general fund.

I'm guessing that Barrett's statement makes long time NH residents proud, but it scares the Hell out of me!

The second issue, the great pay! Like I said, less than $600 a week or more than $2,000 a week? HMM that's a tough one! And gee, no bennies!
Quote:
Seasonal officers are paid $14.60 per hour and do not receive health benefits or a retirement pension.

Opps, I guess I'm not the only one who noticed that good seasonal MP officers want to feed their families!
Quote:
Oftentimes, Barrett said the Marine Patrol has a difficult time retaining good officers because they receive the same law enforcement certification as police officers upon completion, and often leave the state agency for full-time jobs with other departments...."A good candidate for us is also a good candidate for another law enforcement agency," Barrett said.

HMM..so what does that leave us for next season? Oh yeah, those Rent-a-cop and High School grads out of work.

So the 65 to 70 officers left are statewide, not just on Winni! How's that for 24/7 coverage? Just look back on the "they get NO state funding" for your answer!

Quote:
Between Memorial Day and Labor Day, Dunleavy said 65 to 70 Marine Patrol officers will work full-time during the day on the state's water bodies. They will also work some night shifts on larger bodies of water like Lake Winnipesaukee.

New Hampshire is apparently good at considering laws, passing laws but fall flat when it comes to follow through. Not surprising.

BTW, In the Foster's article it stated the seasonal "officers" went through classroom and on the water training, and that is excellent. It did not mention that they went to a police academy as "lifeonthefarm" stated.

Do I sound annoyed? You bet your ASS I am! I have to cut a substantial check twice a year to NH for our place at the lake! That check is unbelievable for what is there! Yep, I'm taxed because I have a good "view" as well, but apparently the state is more concerned that I pay for what is outside of my window, and they are not concerned about my well being on the water?????!!!!!

New Hampshire does not fund the MP! The FEDS do! (read that USCG) They also get some FEDERAL gasoline tax revenue....but NO STATE FUNDING! Yeah I'm PISSED!!!

$3-point-5 million a year for the entire state operation! My community's police department's budget is more than that and my community is about 10 square miles, not the entire state of NH!

Airwaves · 07-23-2006, 10:35 PM

One final note, this is to Don more than anyone. I am not trying to push my views ahead of others, I just thought the conversation regarding the lack of funding for the NH Marine Patrol needs to be discussed.

I took the posts from above from the "General Discussion" thread called
Snorkeling, swimming, scuba diving

I included only my main posts so as to not try to edit anyone else's thoughts.

The NH Marine Patrol is a vital part of Lake Winnipesaukee, and as I have read over and over again, the lake is no long the same lake that it was in the 50's, 60's 70's or 80's.

So why is the Marine Patrol still funded like it is?

wildwoodfam · 07-24-2006, 11:07 AM

These guys on the MP are underpaid and disrespected at every turn! I am not a MP Officer. I think New Hampshire might want to study how other vacation resort areas and states with lake populations that balloon in the summers - Minnesota, (the land of 1000 lakes), New York State, Vermont (sixth largest lake in the US), Maine, etc...find out how these agencies fund their safety programs, Marine Patrols, safety officer programs, etc...

Maybe they (NH) already do cross compare with these states - maybe they do not. I don't know.

I do know this - to get and keep good qualified MP Officers - you need to pay them better than they currently are paid!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

One final note, this is to Don more than anyone. I am not trying to push my views ahead of others, I just thought the conversation regarding the lack of funding for the NH Marine Patrol needs to be discussed.

I took the posts from above from the "General Discussion" thread called
Snorkeling, swimming, scuba diving

I included only my main posts so as to not try to edit anyone else's thoughts.

The NH Marine Patrol is a vital part of Lake Winnipesaukee, and as I have read over and over again, the lake is no long the same lake that it was in the 50's, 60's 70's or 80's.

So why is the Marine Patrol still funded like it is?

kjbathe · 07-24-2006, 03:02 PM

If we talk about funding, I think we need to ask what Marine Patrol thinks they should be doing, what they're not capable of doing that they'd like to, and if they think they need more funding as a solution? We may think a 30 minute response time to Green's Basin is too much, but does MP find that an acceptable risk? How many accidents or calls for service do they get per annum in that area of the lake? Does Mutual Aid provide adequate coverage to mitigate the risk. Is it even an area of concern?

I'll personally defer those answers to the public safety agencies that perform the ongoing risk analyses, population studies, growth predictions, etc... For example, we don't have fire stations positioned around the state to provide sub-two-minute response times to every home in every remote location. The risk, cost and usage profile simply don't support neighborhood-specific fire departments. I expect that MP operates on much the same principle: Have a presence in the high risk and visibility areas that require it most.

What I'm hearing in this discussion is that everyone has an opinion of what Marine Patrol should be doing, when, and where. And usually folks wanted something done in hindsight, to someone else, or someplace else that didn't bother them.

If Marine Patrol had a $1B budget, I think we'd just have three times as many tickets issued, three times as many people tickee off at MP officers, and three times as many people complaining about warnings given to snorkelers.

I also don't believe the State of NH should be required to fund the agency if it already has a mechanism in place to provide sufficient funding. Yes, I'm assuming that the funding is roughly adequate for the agency to fulfill it's mission. If boater registrations are getting it done to the agency's satisfaction, that's ideal -- boaters are the primary 'customers' of the safety and enforcement services, and I'm more than happy to pay for it that way. Yes, I live here, I enjoy the lake, I don't have an issue with Marine Patrol, and I'm certainly not looking for someone else to foot the bill for a service I use and that a majority of people in the state do not.

lakershaker · 07-24-2006, 03:48 PM

I own island property on the lake that is only accessible /used while I have my boat in the water. I love coming up to the lake, and I pay a property tax to the town of Alton at the same rate as people who live here year round. That is fine, because as many have said on the forum, if I don't like it I can always sell...

Well, maybe we should have a higher registration cost or a supplemental fee for large cabin cruisers. As I see it, the folks who own their "floating cabins" use just as many resources, if not more by always being on the water. Case in point is the cruiser at the Weirs that just caught on fire. The owner was from out of state, so the only money going to the state for his usage of the resources was a modest registration fee. Also, the usage of their floating cabins causes much more environmental damage from the large wakes. These "Floating Cabins" have a kitchen, a septic system, A/C, and a 35' boat with a 9.5' beam has about 80' of waterfrontage and the owners use their floating cabin for the same season I do. But these lake residents only pay a relatively small registration fee. In MA, CT or many other states, they would have to pay a personal property tax on the boat, which would level the playing, or paying, field. Since NH doesn't charge this tax, it makes the area even more attractive than it already is, and attracts more boats from those other jurisdictions, which causes a strain on the lake and the infrastructure – a vicious cycle.

There appear to be lots of non-landowner boaters on the forum who fiercely defend their use of the lake – as they should. I am saying that those boats that have sleeping, eating and sanitary facilities should pay a premium for the considerably higher strain they place on the lake. The general registration fee doesn’t seem to cover it.

Silver Duck · 07-24-2006, 06:47 PM

methinks you have an unrealistic picture of the cost of maintaining a "floating cabin" - but I sure wish it was accurate!

First of all, many cruiser owners own condominium slips, and do directly pay real estate taxes. For the rest of us, well, let's just say that slips for a large boat aren't cheap. I would imagine that a fair proportion of our slip fees (and Winter storage fees) go toward paying the marina's real estate taxes.

And, keep in mind that, unlike real estate, a boat is a depreciating asset.

But, with that said, I really wouldn't mind kicking in something extra to support more MP presence. After all, we cruiser owners live even closer to thr lake than an island property owner!

Silver Duck

jrc · 07-24-2006, 08:19 PM

To paraphase lakershaker: I own ... property on the lake that is only accessible /used while I have my boat in the water... That's true for our floating cabins as well.

We pay thousands a year in slip rental and a good portion of that the slip owner pays in property tax. We also pay a lot to register our boats which gives us the right to use the lake. If the registration fees are too low to maintain the marine patrol, then they should be raised for everyone. We buy all of our fuel on the lake, the marina uses some of that money to pay their property tax. We buy all our food and drink around the lake. Shaws, Garwoods, Gueseppie's, Nadia's, Pepper's and even Walmart, have seen my money and sent some of it to the state.

As for environmental damage, my boat has a three star pollution rating. Older smaller boats pollute a lot more. The worst being the two-stroke outboards, you know, the ones used in sailboats and small runabouts.

I'll grant you that some cruisers can't or won't run their boats to produce a minimum wake. I don't know if this is arrogance, ignorance or just poorly designed boats. It's a real problem and it should be addressed.

My boat also has a sticker on it that says it meets all current rules regarding septic discharge. How many lake properties would meet today's septic rules?They don't grandfather boats.

Very few people with out of state registrations are living on their cruising boats. You can't overnight on NH lakes, so you need a slip. If you have a slip your boat will probably be in it more than 30 days, so you need NH registration.

snowbird · 07-25-2006, 06:46 AM

We, in NH, have to pay a personal property tax on our cars. Why not on boats?

ossipeeboater · 07-25-2006, 08:10 AM

I agree the pay is light but Marine Patrol is always going to be a part time job because the real season is less than 4 months and 80% of that traffic is on 12 weekends plus the 4th of July so we're really talking 20-30 busy days where more patrolling is needed. That's going to limit who can and will take the job to people starting out, retired or if they addressed the pay maybe they could run local police and state police details out on the lake. That's what is done in many other states where instead of running a separate marine patrol they have county sherrifs and local police who in addition to their regular 40 hour job work details at the lake along with the seasonal officers hired to work full time on the lake similar to our marine patrol. I'm sure for many police officers if you pay them detail rate($30/hr) they would rather make it cruising winni for 6-8 hours than standing at a construction site when it's 90 out. Laconia gets details from all over the state for the 9 days of bike week, certainly at a good rate of pay the Marine Patrol probably can do the same for the 30 busy days of the NH boating season.

The money shouldn't come out of the general fund but I don't think for most of us who puts $50-100 a weekend in gas in our boats a $25 raise in registration fees would be that objectionable and at 100,000 boats that 2.5 million should be more than enough to buy and operate some new MP boats and pay detail rate to the officers you could get to work them while also paying the existing 85 MP's at a better rate of pay.

Airwaves · 07-25-2006, 12:10 PM

According to the article, MP is funded exclusively through boat registrations and they get a portion of the federal gasoline tax dollars.

I've said this before and it certainly wouldn't be an added burden on anyone, why not just eliminate the state gasoline tax rebates for gasoline sold at marinas statewide and then earmark the state gasoline tax revenue generated by marinas to the Marine Patrol?

This would have to be IN ADDITION to the lame funding sources now.

Sure some folks could get around the tax by gassing up at the gas station at home, but most wouldn't.

It's fair, it doesn't increase any tax we aren't already paying we just wouldn't be able to file for a rebate.

How much would it raise? I don't know how much the state tax is now, but someone much better at math than me could probably give us a rough figure to see if it would be adequate or more $ would be needed. If more money is needed then we could look at raising boat registration fees etc. It would seem to me you do the easy stuff first.

I do have another proposal that would increase the quality of recruits for the Marine Patrol (read that: make the job full time and attractive to professional law enforcement people) but that will wait for another time.

lfm · 07-25-2006, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I've said this before and it certainly wouldn't be an added burden on anyone, why not just eliminate the state gasoline tax rebates for gasoline sold at marinas statewide and then earmark the state gasoline tax revenue generated by marinas to the Marine Patrol?

This would have to be IN ADDITION to the lame funding sources now.

Sure some folks could get around the tax by gassing up at the gas station at home, but most wouldn't.

It's fair, it doesn't increase any tax we aren't already paying we just wouldn't be able to file for a rebate.
.

Let me get this straight - eliminate a tax rebate with out increasing the taxes I pay. I suppose I should forfeit my federal tax refund when the feds withhold too much. Just think of all the federal programs that could be funded that way without increasing taxes.

Your idea may have merrit as a method to increase funding of the marine patrol by increasing the taxes paid by the segment of the population that benefits the most from MP services, but lets be honest - its not free money and it does place an additional tax burden on some.

Dave R · 07-25-2006, 01:25 PM

Am I alone in thinking that there's plenty of MP on lake right now and I see no need to fund them any more than they already get? I think some folks will break the laws whenever they can get away with it, no matter how much you fund the MP. Even if you triple the MP funding and/or presence, there will still be plenty of areas left un-patroled at any given time.

The lake really is not the free-for-all/lawless frontier some would have you think it is. The majority of Winnipesaukee boaters are pretty well behaved and the general "feel" of the lake is quite cautious compared to waterways in the rest of the country. Take a ride on the ICW, or the CT River sometime.

I see increases in MP funding as a waste of money and would much rather see my tax money spent on more important things, like alternative energy research and reasonably priced health care.

Rayhunt · 07-25-2006, 04:31 PM

So we need to pay more to regulate ourselves

.. Enough is enough. Just park an empty MP boat at the busy areas .. Everyone is on their best behavior when they see the blue stripe and seal..

Airwaves · 07-25-2006, 08:41 PM

lfm wrote:

Quote:

Your idea may have merrit as a method to increase funding of the marine patrol by increasing the taxes paid by the segment of the population that benefits the most from MP services, but lets be honest - its not free money and it does place an additional tax burden on some.

It would place an additional tax burden on whom? Certainly not the folks operating the go-fast boats, the big Carvers or for that matter anyone who boats recreationally on Winni or elsewhere in the state. If it creates a burden for folks who earn their living on the water, lobstermen etc. then creating a commercial fishing exemption would be as easy as adding a line to the law.

As far as not really being a tax increase you're right, it is a tax but it is one that you are paying now anyway the difference is you wouldn't get the refund and the folk who we rely on to rescue us when we're in trouble and protect us from Cap'n Bonehead would get additional resources to help them do just that.

if you are getting a refund on your federal taxes then you really should talk with your accountant!

Skip · 07-25-2006, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave R

...Am I alone in thinking that there's plenty of MP on lake right now and I see no need to fund them any more than they already get? ...

Nope Dave, you're not alone at all!

Skip

jrc · 07-25-2006, 10:02 PM

Airwaves, do you work in DC

Boater's get a refund on gasoline taxes, because that tax is a road tax. You want to add an MP tax on gasoline and pretend you didn't because it's happens to be the same rate as the road tax. If you set the rate a little lower than the road tax, you could claim that it was a tax cut.

In general, I like the feel of the lake as DaveR puts it. Weekends in the area between the Weirs channel and Eagle Island can be crazy. And I'm sure there are other intermitent hot spots. But the bulk of the lake is a paradise. I could boat on the cape, Boston harbor, Glouster, Moosehead, Sebago, Squam or even Champlain. I chose Winnipesaukee because it has everything.

The only issue I had with the MP was their show of force at the sandbar. The MP should patrol the lake. If they see infractions or just un-safe activities, they should address them. They should give advice, warnings or tickets using their best judgement or some reasonable guidelines. Tying up 10 officers for hours to give out parking tickets (no rafting) on a busy afternoon seemed misguided.

Now I guess if we had a huge amount of MP officers, they could patrol every nook and cranny, still have enough staff to blanket the sandbar. I don't think we need that.

lfm · 07-25-2006, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

As far as not really being a tax increase you're right, it is a tax but it is one that you are paying now anyway the difference is you wouldn't get the refund and the folk who we rely on to rescue us when we're in trouble and protect us from Cap'n Bonehead would get additional resources to help them do just that.

You are missing the point, if I get a rebate on a tax paid then I am not already paying that tax at the end of the day. Take away my rebate and you are increasing my tax burden. The bottom line is, it would mean fewer dollars in my pockets and more dollars in the states coffers.

And Dave, Skip is right you are not alone!

Airwaves · 07-27-2006, 08:24 PM

I don't work in DC but I like you're idea of selling it as a tax cut! You are a follower of Karl Rove no doubt!

I do want to point out that in addition to law enforcement, the MP has to administer all things water! Safe boating classes, safe boating certificates, boat registrations, aides to navigation, etc etc.

It's not just about the number of MP Officers on the water. It's about the unfunded mandates from the state, a state which does not provide revenue for the Marine Patrol.

Look, I'm not a Marine Patrol officer or even a big fan of law enforcement, but I understand they do more than just harrass folks and hand out tickets.

It's not up to me, I'm only a taxpayer in New Hampshire! I don't have the right to vote! But sooner or later you folks will figure it out. Hopefully it's before my wake.

John A. Birdsall · 07-27-2006, 10:09 PM

JRC, I have seen the conjestion, and problems caused at the sandbar in question, and I think the land owners need to have some respect. Not all out their are causing a problem, but a parking lot on the lake is sort of dumb. Someone has to get hurt before anyone does anything? I think the marine patrol deserve a hand on the back for doing the job, to protect and serve.

jrc · 07-27-2006, 11:17 PM

I'll grant you that this a gray area and it's a matter of degrees and point of view. Obviously anything can be carried to excess. I've seen that sand bar and Braun bay much more crowded than that day and much more rowdy. Maybe a periodic crackdown is a way of nipping trouble in the bud, but I felt that day was overkill.

Sandbars are fun places, so it makes sense that people will congregate and park (anchor) there. People boat on the lake so they can enjoy the lake. To some that means swimming and wading in shallow water with a sandy bottom.

You really have to be creative to find a situation were a person can get hurt just by violating the prohibition on anchoring 150' from shore, but it is a rule so it should be enforced.

I'm not saying the MP shouldn't patrol and maintain the peace. I'm also not saying that they should ignore scofflaws, just that the response should be proportionate to the crime.

How about this, a single MP boat comes through and tells people that they are violating the rules and they have to move. He continues on his patrol and returns later. Anyone still in violation gets a ticket. Do this randomly for a few busy days, then stop giving warnings. The problem is solved, the people will police themselves.

bobio · 07-31-2006, 08:47 PM

Can anyone tell me how the money from tickets is used. Does it go into the MP budget? I realize that the MP can sometimes be a real pain in the neck, but I want to thank them for the help they gave me this past Sunday in locating my pwc.

Kamper · 08-02-2006, 05:35 PM

RE: Fines

It's probably the same as fines for all other offenses. That money goes into the general fund. The legislature then makes appropriations from the general fund to pay for running the state.

SBC · 08-03-2006, 08:00 AM

Kamper is correct.

Airwaves · 08-06-2006, 12:14 AM

So boating fines are placed into the general fund, and according to Director Barrett the Marine Patrol doesn't get ANY money from the general fund!

So those violating boating laws and subjected to fines are NOT helping to support law enforcement on the water.

As the signs along the highways say:
That's the New Hampshire Way!

07-23-2006, 10:26 PM	#1
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	NH Marine Patrol funding, or lack there of I am sorry, I should have created a new thread to avoid confusion. I have taken the following from the General Discussion board under the Snorkling conversation and placed it here because it has nothing to do with the snorkling issue that was being discussed. The first item is the Foster's Daily Democrat article, a link provided by RamJet, that dealt with the NH Marine Patrol, generally a positive article however it has some serious issues that are of major concern to me. For those of you who don't have a password, the following is the article. http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...73251471109169

07-24-2006, 03:48 PM	#6
lakershaker Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Rattlesnake Isl. - Simsbury, CT Posts: 271 Thanks: 90 Thanked 44 Times in 26 Posts	The "Other" Lakefront property owners could be taxed... I own island property on the lake that is only accessible /used while I have my boat in the water. I love coming up to the lake, and I pay a property tax to the town of Alton at the same rate as people who live here year round. That is fine, because as many have said on the forum, if I don't like it I can always sell... Well, maybe we should have a higher registration cost or a supplemental fee for large cabin cruisers. As I see it, the folks who own their "floating cabins" use just as many resources, if not more by always being on the water. Case in point is the cruiser at the Weirs that just caught on fire. The owner was from out of state, so the only money going to the state for his usage of the resources was a modest registration fee. Also, the usage of their floating cabins causes much more environmental damage from the large wakes. These "Floating Cabins" have a kitchen, a septic system, A/C, and a 35' boat with a 9.5' beam has about 80' of waterfrontage and the owners use their floating cabin for the same season I do. But these lake residents only pay a relatively small registration fee. In MA, CT or many other states, they would have to pay a personal property tax on the boat, which would level the playing, or paying, field. Since NH doesn't charge this tax, it makes the area even more attractive than it already is, and attracts more boats from those other jurisdictions, which causes a strain on the lake and the infrastructure – a vicious cycle. There appear to be lots of non-landowner boaters on the forum who fiercely defend their use of the lake – as they should. I am saying that those boats that have sleeping, eating and sanitary facilities should pay a premium for the considerably higher strain they place on the lake. The general registration fee doesn’t seem to cover it.

07-24-2006, 06:47 PM	#7
Silver Duck Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Billerica, MA Posts: 364 Thanks: 40 Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts	With all due respect.... methinks you have an unrealistic picture of the cost of maintaining a "floating cabin" - but I sure wish it was accurate! First of all, many cruiser owners own condominium slips, and do directly pay real estate taxes. For the rest of us, well, let's just say that slips for a large boat aren't cheap. I would imagine that a fair proportion of our slip fees (and Winter storage fees) go toward paying the marina's real estate taxes. And, keep in mind that, unlike real estate, a boat is a depreciating asset. But, with that said, I really wouldn't mind kicking in something extra to support more MP presence. After all, we cruiser owners live even closer to thr lake than an island property owner! Silver Duck

07-25-2006, 06:46 AM	#9
snowbird Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Gilford Islander Posts: 55 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post	Personal property tax We, in NH, have to pay a personal property tax on our cars. Why not on boats?

07-25-2006, 04:31 PM	#14
Rayhunt Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Gilford NH Posts: 112 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Hmm So we need to pay more to regulate ourselves .. Enough is enough. Just park an empty MP boat at the busy areas .. Everyone is on their best behavior when they see the blue stripe and seal..

07-23-2006, 10:35 PM	#3
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	One final note, this is to Don more than anyone. I am not trying to push my views ahead of others, I just thought the conversation regarding the lack of funding for the NH Marine Patrol needs to be discussed. I took the posts from above from the "General Discussion" thread called Snorkeling, swimming, scuba diving I included only my main posts so as to not try to edit anyone else's thoughts. The NH Marine Patrol is a vital part of Lake Winnipesaukee, and as I have read over and over again, the lake is no long the same lake that it was in the 50's, 60's 70's or 80's. So why is the Marine Patrol still funded like it is?

07-24-2006, 03:02 PM	#5
kjbathe Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 281 Thanks: 3 Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts	If we talk about funding, I think we need to ask what Marine Patrol thinks they should be doing, what they're not capable of doing that they'd like to, and if they think they need more funding as a solution? We may think a 30 minute response time to Green's Basin is too much, but does MP find that an acceptable risk? How many accidents or calls for service do they get per annum in that area of the lake? Does Mutual Aid provide adequate coverage to mitigate the risk. Is it even an area of concern? I'll personally defer those answers to the public safety agencies that perform the ongoing risk analyses, population studies, growth predictions, etc... For example, we don't have fire stations positioned around the state to provide sub-two-minute response times to every home in every remote location. The risk, cost and usage profile simply don't support neighborhood-specific fire departments. I expect that MP operates on much the same principle: Have a presence in the high risk and visibility areas that require it most. What I'm hearing in this discussion is that everyone has an opinion of what Marine Patrol should be doing, when, and where. And usually folks wanted something done in hindsight, to someone else, or someplace else that didn't bother them. If Marine Patrol had a $1B budget, I think we'd just have three times as many tickets issued, three times as many people tickee off at MP officers, and three times as many people complaining about warnings given to snorkelers. I also don't believe the State of NH should be required to fund the agency if it already has a mechanism in place to provide sufficient funding. Yes, I'm assuming that the funding is roughly adequate for the agency to fulfill it's mission. If boater registrations are getting it done to the agency's satisfaction, that's ideal -- boaters are the primary 'customers' of the safety and enforcement services, and I'm more than happy to pay for it that way. Yes, I live here, I enjoy the lake, I don't have an issue with Marine Patrol, and I'm certainly not looking for someone else to foot the bill for a service I use and that a majority of people in the state do not.

07-24-2006, 08:19 PM	#8
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	To paraphase lakershaker: I own ... property on the lake that is only accessible /used while I have my boat in the water... That's true for our floating cabins as well. We pay thousands a year in slip rental and a good portion of that the slip owner pays in property tax. We also pay a lot to register our boats which gives us the right to use the lake. If the registration fees are too low to maintain the marine patrol, then they should be raised for everyone. We buy all of our fuel on the lake, the marina uses some of that money to pay their property tax. We buy all our food and drink around the lake. Shaws, Garwoods, Gueseppie's, Nadia's, Pepper's and even Walmart, have seen my money and sent some of it to the state. As for environmental damage, my boat has a three star pollution rating. Older smaller boats pollute a lot more. The worst being the two-stroke outboards, you know, the ones used in sailboats and small runabouts. I'll grant you that some cruisers can't or won't run their boats to produce a minimum wake. I don't know if this is arrogance, ignorance or just poorly designed boats. It's a real problem and it should be addressed. My boat also has a sticker on it that says it meets all current rules regarding septic discharge. How many lake properties would meet today's septic rules?They don't grandfather boats. Very few people with out of state registrations are living on their cruising boats. You can't overnight on NH lakes, so you need a slip. If you have a slip your boat will probably be in it more than 30 days, so you need NH registration.

07-25-2006, 08:10 AM	#10
ossipeeboater Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 157 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	I agree the pay is light but Marine Patrol is always going to be a part time job because the real season is less than 4 months and 80% of that traffic is on 12 weekends plus the 4th of July so we're really talking 20-30 busy days where more patrolling is needed. That's going to limit who can and will take the job to people starting out, retired or if they addressed the pay maybe they could run local police and state police details out on the lake. That's what is done in many other states where instead of running a separate marine patrol they have county sherrifs and local police who in addition to their regular 40 hour job work details at the lake along with the seasonal officers hired to work full time on the lake similar to our marine patrol. I'm sure for many police officers if you pay them detail rate($30/hr) they would rather make it cruising winni for 6-8 hours than standing at a construction site when it's 90 out. Laconia gets details from all over the state for the 9 days of bike week, certainly at a good rate of pay the Marine Patrol probably can do the same for the 30 busy days of the NH boating season. The money shouldn't come out of the general fund but I don't think for most of us who puts $50-100 a weekend in gas in our boats a $25 raise in registration fees would be that objectionable and at 100,000 boats that 2.5 million should be more than enough to buy and operate some new MP boats and pay detail rate to the officers you could get to work them while also paying the existing 85 MP's at a better rate of pay.

07-25-2006, 12:10 PM	#11
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	According to the article, MP is funded exclusively through boat registrations and they get a portion of the federal gasoline tax dollars. I've said this before and it certainly wouldn't be an added burden on anyone, why not just eliminate the state gasoline tax rebates for gasoline sold at marinas statewide and then earmark the state gasoline tax revenue generated by marinas to the Marine Patrol? This would have to be IN ADDITION to the lame funding sources now. Sure some folks could get around the tax by gassing up at the gas station at home, but most wouldn't. It's fair, it doesn't increase any tax we aren't already paying we just wouldn't be able to file for a rebate. How much would it raise? I don't know how much the state tax is now, but someone much better at math than me could probably give us a rough figure to see if it would be adequate or more $ would be needed. If more money is needed then we could look at raising boat registration fees etc. It would seem to me you do the easy stuff first. I do have another proposal that would increase the quality of recruits for the Marine Patrol (read that: make the job full time and attractive to professional law enforcement people) but that will wait for another time.

07-25-2006, 01:25 PM	#13
Dave R Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 2,974 Thanks: 246 Thanked 736 Times in 438 Posts	Am I alone in thinking that there's plenty of MP on lake right now and I see no need to fund them any more than they already get? I think some folks will break the laws whenever they can get away with it, no matter how much you fund the MP. Even if you triple the MP funding and/or presence, there will still be plenty of areas left un-patroled at any given time. The lake really is not the free-for-all/lawless frontier some would have you think it is. The majority of Winnipesaukee boaters are pretty well behaved and the general "feel" of the lake is quite cautious compared to waterways in the rest of the country. Take a ride on the ICW, or the CT River sometime. I see increases in MP funding as a waste of money and would much rather see my tax money spent on more important things, like alternative energy research and reasonably priced health care.

07-25-2006, 10:02 PM	#17
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	Airwaves, do you work in DC Boater's get a refund on gasoline taxes, because that tax is a road tax. You want to add an MP tax on gasoline and pretend you didn't because it's happens to be the same rate as the road tax. If you set the rate a little lower than the road tax, you could claim that it was a tax cut. In general, I like the feel of the lake as DaveR puts it. Weekends in the area between the Weirs channel and Eagle Island can be crazy. And I'm sure there are other intermitent hot spots. But the bulk of the lake is a paradise. I could boat on the cape, Boston harbor, Glouster, Moosehead, Sebago, Squam or even Champlain. I chose Winnipesaukee because it has everything. The only issue I had with the MP was their show of force at the sandbar. The MP should patrol the lake. If they see infractions or just un-safe activities, they should address them. They should give advice, warnings or tickets using their best judgement or some reasonable guidelines. Tying up 10 officers for hours to give out parking tickets (no rafting) on a busy afternoon seemed misguided. Now I guess if we had a huge amount of MP officers, they could patrol every nook and cranny, still have enough staff to blanket the sandbar. I don't think we need that.

07-27-2006, 08:24 PM	#19
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	I don't work in DC but I like you're idea of selling it as a tax cut! You are a follower of Karl Rove no doubt! I do want to point out that in addition to law enforcement, the MP has to administer all things water! Safe boating classes, safe boating certificates, boat registrations, aides to navigation, etc etc. It's not just about the number of MP Officers on the water. It's about the unfunded mandates from the state, a state which does not provide revenue for the Marine Patrol. Look, I'm not a Marine Patrol officer or even a big fan of law enforcement, but I understand they do more than just harrass folks and hand out tickets. It's not up to me, I'm only a taxpayer in New Hampshire! I don't have the right to vote! But sooner or later you folks will figure it out. Hopefully it's before my wake.

07-27-2006, 10:09 PM	#20
John A. Birdsall Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Norwich, CT Posts: 599 Thanks: 27 Thanked 51 Times in 35 Posts	sandbar JRC, I have seen the conjestion, and problems caused at the sandbar in question, and I think the land owners need to have some respect. Not all out their are causing a problem, but a parking lot on the lake is sort of dumb. Someone has to get hurt before anyone does anything? I think the marine patrol deserve a hand on the back for doing the job, to protect and serve.

07-27-2006, 11:17 PM	#21
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	I'll grant you that this a gray area and it's a matter of degrees and point of view. Obviously anything can be carried to excess. I've seen that sand bar and Braun bay much more crowded than that day and much more rowdy. Maybe a periodic crackdown is a way of nipping trouble in the bud, but I felt that day was overkill. Sandbars are fun places, so it makes sense that people will congregate and park (anchor) there. People boat on the lake so they can enjoy the lake. To some that means swimming and wading in shallow water with a sandy bottom. You really have to be creative to find a situation were a person can get hurt just by violating the prohibition on anchoring 150' from shore, but it is a rule so it should be enforced. I'm not saying the MP shouldn't patrol and maintain the peace. I'm also not saying that they should ignore scofflaws, just that the response should be proportionate to the crime. How about this, a single MP boat comes through and tells people that they are violating the rules and they have to move. He continues on his patrol and returns later. Anyone still in violation gets a ticket. Do this randomly for a few busy days, then stop giving warnings. The problem is solved, the people will police themselves.

07-31-2006, 08:47 PM	#22
bobio Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: South Shore, Ma./ South Down Shores, N.H. Posts: 60 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	Can anyone tell me how the money from tickets is used. Does it go into the MP budget? I realize that the MP can sometimes be a real pain in the neck, but I want to thank them for the help they gave me this past Sunday in locating my pwc.

08-02-2006, 05:35 PM	#23
Kamper Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Thornton's Ferry Posts: 1,296 Thanks: 67 Thanked 166 Times in 126 Posts	Where do the fines go? RE: Fines It's probably the same as fines for all other offenses. That money goes into the general fund. The legislature then makes appropriations from the general fund to pay for running the state.

08-03-2006, 08:00 AM	#24
SBC Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: NH fresh waters and forests Posts: 72 Thanks: 12 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	Where do the fines go? Kamper is correct.

08-06-2006, 12:14 AM	#25
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	So boating fines are placed into the general fund, and according to Director Barrett the Marine Patrol doesn't get ANY money from the general fund! So those violating boating laws and subjected to fines are NOT helping to support law enforcement on the water. As the signs along the highways say: That's the New Hampshire Way!