Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....
 

I have had the pleasure of meeting both Lt. Dunleavy & Director Barrett over the years. I have found them both to be highly dedicated men with the utmost in integrity.

That said, I have also observed how they have tried to stay above the fray while working in positions that get much public scutiny. So it was of greast interest when I saw that Lt. Dunleavy felt compelled to reply in an editorial in our statewide newspaper today over accusations made against his Department recently in reference to HB 847.

Thank you Tim for standing up and giving another side to this story.

For those of you interested in Lt. Dunleavy's comments, you can check this LINK out that redirects you to today's on-line edition article at the Union Leader.

Was His Boss Right or Wrong?
 

Yup. Especially when he contradicts his boss, the NH Marine Patrol Director:

:confused:

Thanks Skip

I have also met Lt. Dunleavy and found him to be extremely knowledgeable and dedicated.

However I have read his response three times and I can't find a denial. Did he leave it out by mistake? Because they way he wrote it makes one think he is unable to make a denial.

If they didn't fudge the data, why doesn't he just say so?

What he does is is..

"This bureau and its officers have earned the respect and support they receive from the boating public. They believe in their mission and are some of the most dedicated people I know. They don't deserve to have their credibility tarnished by the insinuations that Fatello made in his opening questions and comments."

Saying that they don't deserve to have their credibility tarnished, is not the same as saying it hasn't been tarnished.

As a law enforcement officer he should know how to frame a clear and unambiguous statement of innocents.

He ends by saying...

"If you truly believe that Director Barrett has so much influence over his roughly 100 employees that they would produce the statistics he desired, I respectfully suggest that you conduct some speed sampling of your own."

Once again there is no denial in that statement. Did he leave it out by mistake. Or is the statement carefully crafted to sound like a denial, but not BE a denial.

Quite frankly I think this statement raises questions and suspicions while answering none.

A quotation from before the data was taken APS, why didn't you point that out???????? another little fact left out to support your statements............



Ok, who exactly is paranoid???????? Looks like a clear case of paranoia in Islander's quote above....

Instead of questioning my post, will you please show us exactly where he denies that the data was fudged. He also never says Barrett didn't have them fudge the data. THERE IS NO DENIAL!

"If you truly believe that Director Barrett has so much influence over his roughly 100 employees that they would produce the statistics he desired, I respectfully suggest that you conduct some speed sampling of your own."

What part of the above statement don't you get?? He is stating clearly that if you really doubt the results and feel Barrett's influence made his people produce what he wanted them to find then do your own testing and prove the results wrong. Do you need it spelled out any clearer than that???

His approach was a bit more polite than to simply say to the public that they are idiots if they think the data was cooked. As a public official I think his tact in this matter was on target.

Yes, it needs to be spelled out clearer than that.

I believe Lt. Dunleavy intended to deny the charges made in the article, but he never did. He really needs to clarify the situation and make a clear statement.

There is no denial in what you have quoted, and no denial in his statement.

This is just incredible.

plurium interrogationum
 

Thank you Bear Islander, Islander and Aps. I have been looking during this debate for good examples of logical fallacy ("do you still beat your wife"), something that has run rampant through this debate. Your responses to Lt. Dunleavy's comments serve as an excellent example.

For those of you that would like to learn more, please visit this Wikipedia LINK for an excellent explanation.

And if anyone would like to ask Tim about his comments, instead of attempting to assign unknown motives to what appears to me to be a pretty clear statement, simply tear yourselves away from the keyboard and give him a call at 603-293-2037 or e-mail him at TDUNLEAVY@SAFETY.STATE.NH.US

I am sure he would appreciate the opportunity to address and respond to your concerns directly.

Yeah, I know. Its much more fun for some to assign sinister motives to his comments anonymously, but can we all be adults here for once an avail us of the opportunity to contact the source directly and attempt to get our answers before speculating any further?

One can only hope....:)

The scary part is how effective this tripe is with the NH house. Everything has to be spelled out in clear detail to argue against the speed limit, yet you people speak in riddle, hyperbole, use data from other states hundreds of miles away, use estimates as fact, incite fear and lie ( quote Evenstar "Look, we're not all lying", translation: some SL proponents lie). You readily disrespect the MP as liars and data fudgers, dragging their reputations through the mud so you can get your way, like a two year old.

I'll tell you something, had the MP data shown a problem with speeding, I would have accepted it and not trashed the messenger as you have. You should be ashamed.

Please...
 

I think some folks are working overtime to try and parse the Lieutenants words or suggest that the lack of a preferred word or denial means the opposite must be true.

I read his article and when taken as a whole -- not selectively quoted or parsed -- his point should be abundantly clear: The data and the stats are what they are, and both sides can interpret them in ways that favor their own preferences. We shouldn't start questioning the character of people just because we don't like the stats they've collected.

And for purposes of full disclosure, I don't care if we have a speed limit or not. I think the proposed speed limits are certainly fair enough and consistent with what most people would find reasonable in terms of how fast they should be operating on the big lake. But I also think it's a small portion of the overall boating public that is operating beyond what is reasonable. When you combine that small portion with the likelihood that enforcement will be in place to record or ticket the offenders, I don't think we ultimately affect any real change in behavior. After all, we're still the same people that blow by the 55 MPH speed limit sign doing 75 until we see the cruiser up ahead. It will be no different on the lake.

I made it clear that I believe it was his intent to deny the charges.

Skip you said "appears to me to be a pretty clear statement". And I agree it certainly has that appearance, and I think that was his intent. However the appearance of a denial is not a denial.

In responding to Jack Fatello's accusations Lt. Dunleavy should have included some simple statements like "Director Barrett never pressured his officers" or "We never fudged the data". To have left these out raises questions and accomplishes the opposite of what he was trying to achieve.

I do believe this was a simple omission on his part.

I will send him an email.

This name seems familiar
 

(Jack Fatello) could this be a pen name? I think forum members will remember "Fat Jack", seems a little close don't you think. So who is really playing games here, the SL proponents or the opponents? Conspiracy?

This whole thing is beyond ridiculous! Hopefully the upper chamber will see this for what it is.

Funny you should mention that, I was thinking of Fat Jack fondly last night as I was going through some old posts. Makes perfect sense!

A Whitepages search turned up a J A Fatello in Laconia, although it looks to be a Jo Ann Fatello, a 65 year old woman.

One Very Mish-Moshed Study...
 

:confused: I don't need to point it out—it's in the link.

In 2005, Director Barrett says that radar works poorly at angles, that "only" 15% of boats exceed 55-MPH.

He then authorizes:
1) a monkey-wrench of a study by a dismissed Safety Director using
2) marked patrol boats with
3) unpaid volunteers holding
4) the "inaccurate" radar units whose
5) results are selectively thrown out to
6) result in a survey that finds that fewer boats are identified speeders when
7) the measuring zones are advertised in advance.

Moreover, what Director Barrett said in 2005 was parroting one conspicuous hero of "facts":

Here are some FACTS
 

Fatello's article and Representative Pilliod's (sponsor of HB 847) testimony in front of the full House of Representatives essentially said the same thing, i.e., the reason that the MP boat speed survey data is not valid is because (1) the boating public knew in advance where the radar surveys were going to be conducted and therefore made sure that they slowed down in those areas, and (2) when boaters saw the "Marine Patrol" markings on the boat and an officer holding a radar gun on them, that the boater would naturally slow down.

Now here are the FACTS: First, there were a total of 9 different areas where the MP clocked boats with two different types of radar. Of the 9 areas, only 2 were known to the boating public. Second, we all know that (among several factors) radar is only accurate when the target watercraft is traveling either directly toward or directly away from the MP vessel. If the MP boat's bow is facing in the direction of the target boat, there is no way to see the "Marine Patrol" lettering on the side of the vessel. Third, the MP used several unmarked boats during the survey -- including some recreational boats.

There was no way to challenge Representative Pilliod's statements that he gave in front of the full House of Represedntatives because he said that he would not take any questions "for the sake of saving time". How many House Reps therefore accepted his statements as being factually true? They voted with bum information.

As for Fatello's article . . . he stated that the MP survey data proved that speed limits work to slow everyone down. The reality is (with or without any arbitrary blanket speed limit) that whenever we are traveling down the lake, at any speed, the vast majority of us will slow down if we see another watercraft directly in front of us (whether an MP boat or not). At the same time we will start veering off to starboard. This is called common sense and the "rules of the road" on the water. It is operating our watercraft in a reasonable manner according to the prevailing conditions. This is the way it is in most states and has worked very well for us in NH for all these years . . . and will continue to serve us very well.

Fatello's article (or whatever his/her name really is) goes on to speculate that the MP professionals cooked the data to suit the wishes of the Director of the Div. of Water Safety. That is a shameful accusation and an insult to the professional officers in the Marine Patrol.

First if you want to represent things as FACTS, you need to explain how you know them. For instance where did you get the information that unmarked boats were used? Are you a MP officer? Things are not facts because they are anonymously posted on the internet.

Second I don't think anyone believes that Marine Patrol Officers cooked the data, I sure don't. The cooking part is the way the study was designed and in the purpose of the study. It was, in my opinion, designed to delay enactment of HB847, and it did.

Source of the FACTS
 

You can confirm these FACTS for yourself by asking the MP officers themselves who actually conducted the surveys. You can speak directly with their supervisors as well. That's what I did. You might want to start with the MP officer whose name appears on this original thread. He is not hard to find.

Did you read the Fatello article? He and many others who support inflicting this new law on us believe the data was biased/cooked. The data does not support their position and so there must be something wrong with the data and the MP personnel who conducted the surveys.

I have contacted him and requested the data. A comparison of the speeds recorded in marked and unmarked boats could be very illuminating.

If for instance if unmarked boats took 10% of the readings but recorded 90% of the higher speeds, that would tell quite a bit.

Were you given any facts along those lines?

What would that tell????? If there is mayhem and the wild west and enough high speed boats for Evenstar to have "close encounters" on the few times she has been on Lake Winnipesaukee, then I would expect to see the problem in ten percent of the readings or in the other ninety percent for that matter. One of the beauties of statistical sampling is that if an event exists, especially to the degree the SL crowd portrays, then it would be nearly impossible for said event not to be present in the sample..........

That will be one long email...

It would seem a lot easier to dial 603-293-2037...

P.S.- Another NH advantage - not necessary to dial the area code if in the state...

If the speeds recorded in the unmarked boats were higher than in the marked boats, it would support the premise that boats go slower when the MP is in sight. It would indicate that only the speeds recorded by the unmarked boats were untainted.

But until we have data we don't know a thing. It might only have been one unmarked boat on a rainy day. Or Dick is pulling a fast one and there were no unmarked boats.

The question of unmarked boats has been talk about since day one. If they existed why has it taken so long to tell us. And why were they not mentioned in the study report.

Once again an assertion that raises more questions than it answers.

ITD, please stop twisting everything that I post. In your own post you're doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

As I have already posted in another thread when you tried to use this same thing against me: "I posted "we are not all lying", because I can't be certain that no one has lied about this. All I can be 100% certain about is that I have never lied, and that safety is my only agenda in supporting this bill."

I have never done anything but been totally honest in all of my posts. And now you have the nerve to try to use my honesty against me, by twisting my words into a completely distorted "translation", suggesting that I'm saying something that I didn't. For your information, due to my head injury, I do not even have the ability to lie. How low will you stoop in trying to discredit me?

I have experienced more than one highspeed powerboat who violated my 150 foot zone on Winni, because they were apparently going to fast to notice me in time to stay further away.

The fact that I have had these dangerous encounters on a lake that I have not spent a great deal of time on (compared to other large NH lakes), shows me that speed is a much larger problem on Winni than what is being protrayed on by the anti-speed limit people on this forum. If I had not had these close encounters on Winni, I would have returned to the lake much more often, because I happen to love this lake. And it's not much fun to go to a lake alone, because none of my paddling friends are willing to spend time there - because of "the speeds of the powerboats" (their reasons, not mine).

I have also shown, from their own report, that the MP only recorded the speeds of boats for less than 2% of the daylight hours during the 11 weeks that they collected data. Areas A and B were the primary test zones (which is clear in the report), and these primary test zones were the two that boaters knew about. What pecentage of boats were recording in areas A and B? How many boats were were clocked on the Broads? This was clearly not a fair reflection of the speeds of the entire lake.

I don't feel that the MP "fudged" any of the data - but that the study was not done properly. According to what I have been taught at my university, this study is not what any experts would view as a viable study.

Once again, I quote myself: "If there is mayhem and the wild west and enough high speed boats for Evenstar to have "close encounters" on the few times she has been on Lake Winnipesaukee, then I would expect to see the problem in ten percent of the readings or in the other ninety percent for that matter."

So if I understand your position, these scary, loud, ultrafast boats, that are unable to avoid "close calls" with a prolific kayaker, are so abundant that island folk see them all the time, are so prevalent that women and children are afraid to venture out on the lake, these speeding boats suddenly become so competent that they are able to evade both marked and unmarked speed traps or even just marked boats? I don't think so............

So, are you people contacting their senators? Don't assume that everyone else is calling. If you question the NH house decision, you've got to get your letters out.

.....buoy 3 gut!
 

Maybe 400 yards to the east of Penny Island, and buoy 3 is where the Marine Patrol were set up to monitor speed. From that spot they could aim their radar at a boat as it passed through the buoy 3 gut narrows from either west or east. The MP boat that is the white older model fiberglass, recreational style hull w/ a radar arch, about 24' long, powered by an inboard engine with the large M-A-R-I-N-E P-A-T-R-O-L, easy-to-read letters on both sides of the hull was the boat which I saw on many different days during the speed stake-out, last summer.

Placing my right hand on top of my msn-tv box, that I purchased at a garage sale for $15.00, and pledging unbiased honesty, I do hereby DECLARE!!! :)

Hey Dick, I even saw you go through about five times, in your white w/ red accents, 27' twin hull-Skater Cat, powered by twin Mercury 300hp high performance two-strokes which go BBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, just like an angry hornet when it flys past.......what-a-hot-boat! Understand it has seen 107mph, verified by gps. Is that correct?

Look'n thru my Walmart binoculars, I could see '107mph Dick" wearing a phantom black, Mercury Outboards, designer shirt, trimmed with the same rainbow colors as the twin Merc 300 rac'n two-strokes. Hey, 107mph Dick, that is one very sharp, 'set the water on fire,' look'n shirt! Sure wish walmart sold that shirt.

I'm not that guy
 

I'm not that guy. While I'm not into the big high performance boats, I do love to to see them . . . most are beautiful and impressive. I do not have envy toward those who have been successful in life and can afford them.

Another fun one, let me take this one....
 

"It was, in my opinion, designed to delay enactment of HB847, and it did." Quote from BearIslander.

Are you saying that the speed limit study was made to delay HB 847?

Yes, the speed limit study was invented to delay, and eventually kill, HB847. I think that is obvious. Almost one year ago the Transportation Committee was about to vote to send HB847 to the house. At the hearing the Commissioner literally called in on the telephone and proposed they retain the bill so the MP could conduct a study. If that does not meet the definition of "politically motivated" then I don't know what does.

From WMUR
Rep. James Pilliod, sponsor of the statewide speed limit bill, decried the proposal to sidetrack it for more study and called the pilot program a joke. Calling for more study is an old legislative trick for killing bills, he said, and, in this case, represents "a careful design, right from the first, of the sellers of large boats."

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...225/-1/CITIZEN

Kill Bill redux
 

What ever works. There is overwhelming evidence that the bill should not pass as is - yet the proponents go on and seem to know how to get what they want in the face of a strong outcry that it is wrong. Something has to kill this bill. I applaud those that know the system well enough to fight to keep boater's rights alive.

It is refreshing to hear an opponent admit the truth about the study. Thank You.

Truth?
 

I have no idea what the truth is about what is going on in Concord. I belong to no organization fighting the bill. I'm just one person fighting what seems to be a well funded group that thinks nothing of forcing their will on others with weak justification.

[QUOTE=Bear Islander;62834]Yes, the speed limit study was invented to delay, and eventually kill, HB847. I think that is obvious. Almost one year ago the Transportation Committee was about to vote to send HB847 to the house. At the hearing the Commissioner literally called in on the telephone and proposed they retain the bill so the MP could conduct a study. If that does not meet the definition of "politically motivated" then I don't know what does.

From WMUR
Rep. James Pilliod, sponsor of the statewide speed limit bill, decried the proposal to sidetrack it for more study and called the pilot program a joke. Calling for more study is an old legislative trick for killing bills, he said, and, in this case, represents "a careful design, right from the first, of the sellers of large boats."

I was hoping you would say this. The Speed limit study was a direct result of your friends at Winnfabs!!!! When they lost last year they went back to the drawing board, and used an RSA, I am not 100% but I think 270:12? They then got their 25 signatures and placed a petition before the Dept of Safety to out a restriction on Lake Winnipesaukee. At that time the Commissioner was going to act, but alas Winnfabs got HB 847 introduced. Once that happened, the Commissioner decided that he would not step on the toes of the legislators, and let them decide. When the committee was struggling with whether or not the speed limit had merit, the commissioner offered this study to help determine whether there was a problem. Once the study started and Winnfabs found out it wasn't going their way, they went back to the reps in their pockets and had JLCRT kill the funding of this study. Luckily the MP went on and finished the study. So was the the study politically motivated YES, BY WINNFABS!!!! You won't admit it, but I will shout it to the mountains, the pro-speed limit side, will stoop to any level, lie, cheat, steal to try and get this passed!

And I am just one person fighting to have a lake where a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.

Shameless
 

Shameless! When the FACTS do not support your position, you play the emotional cards of the American family and the children in camp. Translation: we need to inflict this boat speed restriction on our lake in order to save the children. How could anyone oppose a new law that would save children?

Any camp director who would allow the kids to swim beyond the swim line buoys or take a canoe out onto the big lake should be fired immediately. In addition, no boater in their right mind would motor through these shallow areas at any speed.

It seems the pro SL crowd will go to any shameless length to get their way . . . forget the facts . . . let's play on people's emotions.

When was the last time a small boat from a childrens camp got run down by a high performance boat?

[QUOTE=WeirsBeachBoater;62840]I don't have "friends" at WinnFABS, I only know one person connected with them. I am in no way responsible for what they do or say, and visa versa.

Most speed or horsepower limits on lakes in New Hampshire have been enacted by administrative rule. The Dept. of Safety is petitioned by a group of citizens, after a public hearing process the Commissioner has the power to enact a rule. In 1973 I petitioned the Dept. for a ban on water-skiing on Sunset Lake. It was granted and is in effect to this day.

A group of citizens, I assume WinnFABS supporters, petitioned for a speed limit on Winnipesaukee. That the Commissioner used this petition as a excuse to perform a speed study that would delay HB847 was a cruel joke. It may have been brilliant political strategy, but to say that WinnFABS asked for or wanted the study is a lie.

This would be like your complaining to the town that your streetlight is burned out, and they respond by taking down the pole.

Both sides have used political maneuvers to achieve their goals. That is, unfortunately, the way it works.

Isn't this the issue -- the folks that are not in their right mind? If folks were out there, being reasonable, not violating the 150 foot rule, etc... this whole discussion would be moot.

I was responding as a former camp director, that is my frame of reference. I also have my only child in a Summer Camp on Winnipesaukee, that is also my frame of reference.

You are entitled to your opinion that every camp director on Winnipesaukee should be fired. However I don't think that is reasonable, nor is it going to happen.

If you believe that it is unsafe for children to canoe on the "big lake" then I do not understand how in good conscience you can oppose speed limits.

I do hope some Senators and the Governor take notice that Winni is not safe for children in a canoe!