Today's elections

[Seaplane Pilot]

I had the distinct pleasure today of not voting for Rep. James Pilliod, the sponsor of this year's HB 162, proposing speed limits on the lake. Man that felt great!:laugh:

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Just about ready to go down and do our civic duty as well ;)

[WeirsBeachBoater]

I hope everyone got out to vote today. I also hope that everyone remembers who tried to limit our freedoms on the lake also! I know it changed my voting!

[ITD]

I had the distinct pleasure today of not voting for Rep. James Pilliod, the sponsor of this year's HB 162, proposing speed limits on the lake. Man that felt great!:laugh:

From a non-voting taxpayer, thank you.

[fatlazyless]

In case you didn't hear, incumbent Rep James Pilliod (R) Belmont did very well with the voters and was the leading vote getter for state rep in his district.

How about a round of applause for all the informed Belmont area voters who bucked the landslide trend and decided to stick with their local Republican state representative.

......clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap...!

[ApS]

Republican James Pilliod survived due to the speed limit bill closely associated with his name, IMHO.

That a single issue could have such effects is unfortunate, but the defeated Senators wouldn't see the writing on the wall: it's possible that they took artificially inflated Internet polls as Gospel rather than what family boaters are witnessing every day.

"Cooling" the issue, per jrc's earlier post, didn't fool Tuesday's voters.

"...“Why,” asked Washington, “did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” “To cool it,” quoth Jefferson. “Even so,” said Washington, “we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”...

[Lakegeezer]

it's possible that they took artificially inflated Internet polls as Gospel rather than what family boaters are witnessing every day. APS points out the problem. Family boaters show up at the big lake, and experience fear. In reality, there is no safety issue, just a fear issue. This is why experienced boaters are fighting the proposals for speed limits. People respond better to smart laws than feel-good laws. Speed limits won't reduce the fear among family boaters, because a boat passing within 50 feet at 35 MPH can be a lot scarier than a 60 MPH big-fast boat obeying the law of passage. Education and compliance of the passage laws would reduce fear a lot more than speed limits. The speed limit law is feel-good legislation, but impacts the freedom of responsible citizens. We'll see what happens with the Dems in power. If they go overboard with laws in new NH, their desired tenure may turn out more like twoure.

[Lakewinniboater]

it's possible that they took artificially inflated Internet polls as Gospel rather than what family boaters are witnessing every day.

"Cooling" the issue, per [B]jrc's earlier post, didn't fool Tuesday's voters.

I am a family boater and I am extremely against limiting my civil liberties!!!!! I see mostly UNEDUCATED FAMILY boaters creating unsafe environments. I am also against discrimination and prejudism of any kind!! I don't have a GFBL boat, however, I have no problem with them. They are much more experienced than the Captain Bonehead family boaters that I see out there!

[chipj29]

I spoke with my local Representative last year regarding HB162. Actually I emailed her, and she wrote back. She ended up calling me at home that night (she used to live down the street so I know her), and we discussed HB162 at length. I explained to her my views, and she explained hers, and she told me that she was planning on voting FOR HB162. And in this election, that one issue cost her my vote.

I do think a lot more highly of her than did before, because of that phone call. Unfortunately for her, we don't agree on the speed limit issue, which is why she lost my vote. But alas, it didn't matter, as she was re-elected to her seat. I do respect her for making that call though, as she knew we did not agree and she wanted to hear my side...kudos to her for that.

[Dave R]

If there is another speed limit bill, I am going to request my Representatives and Senator to ammend the bill to allow for overnight anchoring. That would be family friendly.

[John A. Birdsall]

I see no problem with this as long as it is in the Broads and 300' from shore and a minimum of 150' from another boat. Also that they have a personal non discharge Porta potty.:laugh:

[codeman671]

If there is another speed limit bill, I am going to request my Representatives and Senator to ammend the bill to allow for overnight anchoring. That would be family friendly.

Overnight anchoring could prove to be more dangerous than speeding boats if not handled properly. All it would take would be one moron to anchor in an area they shouldn't without lights and they will get flattened. We have all seen what can happen to a basically stationary vessel that is hit by a boat doing 25+/-mph...:eek:

Designated anchoring areas that are WELL marked and lit would be key. I see much more potential danger in this proposition than the current situation on the lake with no speed limit. Let's face it, you can't leave your lights on all night long without killing your battery unless you set up a bank of batteries that will handle the lights for an entire night. And you don't want to leave your boat running all night long for fear of CO poisoning.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Overnight anchoring could prove to be more dangerous than speeding boats if not handled properly. All it would take would be one moron to anchor in an area they shouldn't without lights and they will get flattened. We have all seen what can happen to a basically stationary vessel that is hit by a boat doing 25+/-mph...:eek:

Designated anchoring areas that are WELL marked and lit would be key. I see much more potential danger in this proposition than the current situation on the lake with no speed limit. Let's face it, you can't leave your lights on all night long without killing your battery unless you set up a bank of batteries that will handle the lights for an entire night. And you don't want to leave your boat running all night long for fear of CO poisoning.

While I'm fairly certain DaveR was being facetious the idea could be workable. I'm thinking that there are sections of the water that are presently unusable, and even dangerous :eek: , at night. Certainly with the new legislature we all can take pride and support any effort that eliminates anything that might, maybe, could be of any danger whatsoever ! As an example, people are always complaining about the Witches. Mind you this is about their danger during the day ... heck they must be even worse at night. So the State of NH should put this latent asset to good use and provide shorepower hookups to a ring of buoys around the Witches. More lights will now ring the Witches making them safer, visiting tourist families will get to anchor overnight, and the State could charge a few $$s (something that it'll need to help offset all the new programs designed to "help" us all) for the privilege. Yup, DRZs and overnight anchoring are coming soon ! :rolleye2:

[Airwaves]

Okay, so I am confused. Yes, it happens! :)

From the posts above I get the impression that the Republican Representatives that were re-elected support speed limits?

I thought from reading other posts that this was a Democratic initiative and now that Democrats control the legislature that folks were afraid speed limits would be first and foremost on the agenda?

So the Republican Party...you know the party that promotes less government intrusion on our lives...(unless it's in the bedroom) was the party that supported this?

LAKEGEEZER correctly wrote:
Speed limits won't reduce the fear among family boaters, because a boat passing within 50 feet at 35 MPH can be a lot scarier than a 60 MPH big-fast boat obeying the law of passage.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

I hope that everyone who had a strong opinion (either way) about HB162 is equally vigorous in voicing their concerns over school funding to their reps. We have a deadline looming in June and IMHO the ramifications are far greater than a speed limit on Winni.

[Airwaves]

PBR wrote:
I hope that everyone who had a strong opinion (either way) about HB162 is equally vigorous in voicing their concerns over school funding to their reps. We have a deadline looming in June and IMHO the ramifications are far greater than a speed limit on Winni.
That should be the number ONE priority!

[fatlazyless]

I've said this before, maybe five years ago, but here goes. Only Alaska and NH have both no sales and no income tax. One year residents of Alaska get their Alaska dividend of about 5k/each, paid in April for making it thru the winter. The money comes from BP Amoco,Exxon Mobil, and Chevron for Alaskan oil wells.

So, every time you buy a gallon of gasoline, Alaska residents get to collect a small part of their dividend.

Now, what has New Hampshire got to offer the rest of the country and world similar to Alaska's situation?

Like the Old Man of the Mountain, the NH tax system will not last forever. He hung up there on the side of Cannon mountain for twelve thousand years, all patched together with cement and mending wire as time went by, but finally got washed off the cliff in a big rain storm on May 3, 2003.

If it can happen to the Old Man, can it happen to "no sales tax, no income tax" New Hampshire?

[SAMIAM]

FLL....Get your wallet out.....the dems will soon be around.
I've told my staff to just leave the cash register open so that they can help themselves.

[Dave R]

Overnight anchoring could prove to be more dangerous than speeding boats if not handled properly. All it would take would be one moron to anchor in an area they shouldn't without lights and they will get flattened. We have all seen what can happen to a basically stationary vessel that is hit by a boat doing 25+/-mph...:eek:

Designated anchoring areas that are WELL marked and lit would be key. I see much more potential danger in this proposition than the current situation on the lake with no speed limit. Let's face it, you can't leave your lights on all night long without killing your battery unless you set up a bank of batteries that will handle the lights for an entire night. And you don't want to leave your boat running all night long for fear of CO poisoning.

We anchor overnight in other states quite a bit. The anchor light draws very little current and is no big deal to leave on for hours on end. The law states that you must have an anchor light on when anchoring at night. That said, I doubt safety was ever the impetus for prohibiting overnight anchoring on NH lakes though. I am sure it was due to shore property owner complaints of excessive noise and other irresponsible actions of the folks anchored.

For proper anchoring, one needs a 7 to 1 scope (length of rode vs. vertical distance from bitter end to anchor) so there's an obvious need to anchor in fairly shallow water or you'd need hundreds of feet of anchor rode. I carry 265 feet, which is only enough for 37 feet of water. If you did happen to have hundreds of feet of anchor rode and could anchor in deep water, you really would not want to be able to swing in the arc hundreds of feet of deployed rode would allow. One must also consider the expected wind and waves. A shallow, portected, sandy bottomed cove is perfect for anchoring. The broads, not so good...

[Dave R]

Okay, so I am confused. Yes, it happens! :)

From the posts above I get the impression that the Republican Representatives that were re-elected support speed limits?

I thought from reading other posts that this was a Democratic initiative and now that Democrats control the legislature that folks were afraid speed limits would be first and foremost on the agenda?

So the Republican Party...you know the party that promotes less government intrusion on our lives...(unless it's in the bedroom) was the party that supported this?

LAKEGEEZER correctly wrote:
Speed limits won't reduce the fear among family boaters, because a boat passing within 50 feet at 35 MPH can be a lot scarier than a 60 MPH big-fast boat obeying the law of passage.

The Republican party did not support the bill, per se (the Senate voting records show quite the contrary). It just so happened that some of the biggest proponents in the house were Republicans. Party affiliation seems almost moot in the NH house; those folks have very specific agendas and are probably not deeply concerned with what the party wants. One would ideally assume they'd only care about what their constituents want but that's rarely the case, since they are human after all.

[ApS]

"...I doubt safety was ever the impetus for prohibiting overnight anchoring on NH lakes though. I am sure it was due to shore property owner complaints of excessive noise and other irresponsible actions of the folks anchored..."

It could also be perfectly innocent anchoring producing the complaints:

One of my McMansion neighbors (with a five acre lawn) draws lake water through a long, bright green, 4-inch plastic pipe from the deepest part of our local water. It is, at minimum, 200 yards long.

Between what the charts indicate the depth to be, and how far out the pipe is still visible from the surface, that pipe is lying on the bottom in between 20 to 40 feet of water. It's only because of its bright color that it contrasts so well against the depths. There are probably many others out there.

[Dave R]

It could also be perfectly innocent anchoring producing the complaints:

One of my McMansion neighbors (with a five acre lawn) draws lake water through a long, bright green, 4-inch plastic pipe from the deepest part of our local water. It is, at minimum, 200 yards long.

Between what the charts indicate the depth to be, and how far out the pipe is still visible from the surface, that pipe is lying on the bottom in between 20 to 40 feet of water. It's only because of its bright color that it contrasts so well against the depths. There are probably many others out there.

Valid point, but then again, someone could just as easily snag a water pipe by legally anchoring during the day.

[The Big Kahuna]

Has anyone realized if we limit the speed limit on the lake to 45 mph that no seaplanes can legally take off or land on the lake unless they can do so at 45 mph?

[Skip]

Has anyone realized if we limit the speed limit on the lake to 45 mph that no seaplanes can legally take off or land on the lake unless they can do so at 45 mph?

Exemption explained in this THREAD. (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2718&highlight=seaplane):liplick:

[The Big Kahuna]

Exemption explained in this THREAD. (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2718&highlight=seaplane):liplick:

Thank you, the thread does answer the question that they are exempt from boating laws.

[Rayhunt]

Valid point, but then again, someone could just as easily snag a water pipe by legally anchoring during the day.
4 inch ? Is most likely for the sprinkler system.. as any new house over 4000 sq. ft must have a fire suppresion system by law now. 4 inch would not make sense for a domestic intake