Believe It or Not! - More Anti-SL Legislation
 

SBONH has asked the legislature to form a committee to review existing laws pertaining to safety on Lake Winnipesaukee. Laws deemed to be unnecessary would be eliminated. SBONH has gone so far as to confirm that one of the laws that would be reviewed is the current Speed Limit.

Will it ever end!

Who from SBOHN has confirmed this?

The new president of SBONH. He is a member here.

Misinterpetation
 

Good Morning all,

Let me put a hault to this right away.

The discussion was on a bill to form a committee to review ALL laws and prioritize them based on safety.

With the continued budget cutting and the MP being rolled under the state police, SBONH is concerned that boating safety will be swept under the carpet.

The new sbonh president stated that this committee was to be designated to prioritize all laws (speed limit included now that it is a law) as well as safe passage etc. In no way was this to remove or discontinue any law. Simply a study for all boating laws. Some of which are quite outdated i.e. boats 28 ft and larger have to have a "mounted" brass bell. This was a coast guard regulation before back up air horns were invented.

So please before posting something that may be misinterpretted, please feel free to drop any sbonh member or board member a message. SBONH has its own website where questions can be asked even if you are not a member.

Thank you again for your concerns and interest in SBONH.

Thank you for confirming what I wrote in my original post.

In strait speech "review and prioritize safety laws" means eliminate the speed limit. A law is either on the books or it is not. What is the point of reviewing and prioritizing existing laws if they are not going to be altered? Spin, Spin, Spin!

Why do we need to review a law that took effect only this past January and failed to be modified only this past spring? Could it be that you are looking for any possible means to kill the speed limit? That's what I think.

If you really want to "put a halt" to this kind of scrutiny all you need to do is stop trying to "back door" eliminate the speed limit.

I honestly do not know where you are getting this unless trying to cause a stir.

1. prioritize safety "laws" does not mean only one law. ALL LAWS to be reviewed.
2. This was a committee to focus on all safety regulations to be able to provide focus. With the current budget cuts we want to make sure that the MP has a study to show what laws will provide the most safety and list them accordingly. This way if there are further budget cuts the laws that are most helpful are statistically verified so they can be focused on.
3. Not stirring the pot but if the SL is so useful to safety then you have nothing to worry about even if this was the intention, which its not.
4. Due to budget cuts no committees are being formed on any topic so this is a mute point because the bill has been withdrawn.
5. It is safe to say with less resources it will be difficult to enforce all laws as competently as in the past. That being said a study showing what regulations are most helpful is only logical.
6. There are some out dated laws on the books that also need to be addressed. From our research and discussions there has never been an extensive review of all boating laws. It only makes sense that over time these should be reviewed to make sure we are utilizing current technology and not enforcing out dated or redundant regulations.

No need to spin every LSR that is safety related into a SL debate.

You would think wrong. I stand by my statement when I said prioritize (safe pasage and SL included), I did not say put them on the bottom of the list of priorities. I used the word as noted below.

pri·or·i·tize/prīˈôrəˌtīz/

Verb:

1.Designate or treat (something) as more important than other things: "prioritize your credit card debt".

Step 1 - Convince the Legislature to form a committee to review, analyze and prioritize Lake Winnipesaukee safety laws.

Step 2 - Convince that committee to find that speed limits are redundant or unenforceable or unnecessary or low priority or whatever else you can think of as long as it's bad.

Step 3 - Launch another anti-SL campaign using the committee findings as the backbone of the argument.

I don't believe in most conspiracy theories, but this goes beyond just a theory. This is obvious.

Oh give it a rest BI. Your mind must be in outer sapce already.:rolleye1:

BI, I don't know what I can say that will placate you, but I will make this statement: while I am president of SBONH, there will be no attempts by said organization, front door or back door, to overturn or subvert the SL.

The SL is the law of the land now and I support it. I want everyone that recreates on our Lake to have a good experience, to have fun and be safe. I want the MP to enforce the laws that allow that.

What I (personally) don't care about is:

1. Someone that decides to drop anchor next to an island designated a wildlife sanctuary and sleeps aboard his/ her boat overnight.

2. That there are 4 boats tied together in a raft or that the rafted boats are too close to the ones next to them.

3. A boat over 26' having a bell onboard as a backup to their electric horn (a whistle or airhorn would be a perfectly acceptable substitute). The CG only requires a bell for boats longer than 60' IIRC.

Thanks VB for the clarification.

No offense but really this looks like the playbook that was used to get the SL passed in the first place.

Step1, convince the legislature, media and anyone else how the lake is completely out of control.

Step2, play on emotions surrounding a tragic accident, create a false impression that this was all due to thousands of go fast boats screaming around the lake completely out of control, and oh throw in as much dramatic language as possible even if most of it is embellished and fabricated.

Step3, launch a tasteless campaign to marginalize anyone who questions the need for such a speed limit , including smearing the character of some of the most outspoken critics instead of having a civil debate on the merits of the proposal.

I'm with ya, I don't believe in conspiracy theories either... ;)

Excellent post!

That's good to hear!

And if the speed limit wasn't passed; do you really think WINFABS would have stopped trying to get one passed?

ohhh the hypocrisy.......

Once again you miss the point. I am not a member of WinnFABS and never have been. And I supported the recent failed attempt to increase the speed limit.

Just two little facts you neglected.

And, what does SBONH really stand for as an acronym?


:laugh::rolleye2: Speedy Boaters of New Hampshire :rolleye2::laugh:


How's about a three hour time slot; Sundays: 10-1, when the SBONH sets up a high speed, optional zone with orange marker buoys running from Clay Point down to Treasure Island for performance boaters who just want to have a little fun? Could become a good go-to venue for slow-boaters and kayaks who just want to watch from a safe distance similar to the NH Speedway in Loudon.

"Set the water on fire........Sundays......10-1.......be there!!!":rolleye2::laugh:

What does WINNFABS stand for as an acronym?

Winnipesaukee Fabricators of B... S... :laugh:

I don't see any earthshaking news in boating safety there.

Your "spelling error" got corrected by a factor of 13.4 FEET..:laugh:

That is unfortunate that you are unable to draw the line from needless regulations that occupy marine patrol resources to those laws the need to be enforced.

Lets break it down very simply:

Would you rather have a MP officer patrolling rafting areas to ensure that each boat is anchored a minimum of 50 feet apart or have them on Patrol in areas where the most infractions occur of the safe passage law?

What is unfortunate is we have many laws that are not safety related (as you have pointed out in your post) that the Marine Patrol must enforce. With the budget being cut and resources being depleated it is important that the laws that are "safety" related are given the man power to make a difference and protect our lakes.

Bear Islander, you are responsible for starting this unwarranted thread! It is turning into a debate by pro and con that could turn into some really wild untrue accusations.

If you are concerned at all about winnepesaukee.com and getting beyond this devisive topic, you should shut your side of SL supporters down (whether you belong to winnfabs or not) with some more calming words than "That's good to hear!":(

The purpose of a forum is to discuss topics. Very often those topics are divisive. Not all threads are going to be of the "The fall colors are beautiful" variety.

Respectful back and forth discussions on important lake issues makes winnipesaukee.com a vibrant, pertinent and useful part of the community in my opinion.

You claim this thread is unwarranted. I disagree. This is the speed limit forum and it has been admitted that the legislation I refereed to DOES pertain to speed limits.

I was happy to read VB's comments and I accept them at face value and hope they prove prophetic.

Frankly I think the sub heading of SPEED LIMITS should be removed. I don't think there was much civil discourse, but I will say that you didn't engage in the over the top comments, as did others. Since the speed limit is here to stay, I would advocate removing the topic from the Lake Issues area. JMO.

Speaking of "civil discourse" I just have to point out that the only cheap shot or personal comment in this thread was yours in post number 9.

Even if speed limits are here to stay there still is a need to evaluate how well or how poorly they are being enforced. And how speed limits effect the lake, boating and the lake community. In particular the economic impart of speed limits are of particular interest to many people including myself. This is a topic that will be ongoing for some time.

Economic impact
 

Plymouth state University uses statistics from room and meals tax collection, surveys and other data. It is a known fact posted here and in NH Business Review, the state as a whole did not do as well as the surrounding states in increasing tourist revenue. NH revenue increase from last year was only 4% when ther other states showed 8% and more. Many hotels and restuarants have closed. I heard the Balsams Resort is closed.
PSU will not give statistics by region, but I heard in the LOB halls that room and meals collection this year is far below expectations.

NH Hospitality Assoc. and NH marine Trade Assoc. have not made comments about the economy since the SL debates. This make you wonder what Mclear and Thurston who are the principals are trying to hide.

BI, not a cheap shot. A reference to your space trip. Meant to be funny. Oh forget it.

The Winnfab crowd has done far more damage than was anticipated.

Having the highest meals and room tax has done most of the damage me thinks...

$peed Limit
 

I am new to this forum, but a longtime boater on Winnipesaukee (over 50 years) and a High Performance Boating enthusiast. I was disappointed when the SL Law passed and then re-affirmed without much consideration for the SAFE enjoyment of high performance boating on Lake Winnipesaukee. This surely contributed to the economic downturn in the area. However, most high performance boats are owned by small business owners who have been crushed by the collapse of our financial system due to the real estate bubble that is now imploding. The economic impact of the speed limit is relatively minor in comparison. The question that needs to be asked is "will these small business owners return to the lakes region when the real estate market and the economy improves"? Probably not the ones that enjoy high performance boating. Perhaps many people think the Lake is better place without them???

There still are a lot of HP boats on the lake. The SL really hasn't made much a difference that way. However, all of the negative publicity coupled with the false scare tatics made by the SL supporters probably have scared some people off. All that BS about cowboys and safety painted the lake in a negative manner.

so.... what do you think the SL has accomplished?

Quite frankly? Nothing good.

What did the speed limit do?
 

IMHO the speed limit has not made the Lake any safer. It has caused a serious amount of ill will, negative publicity and false impressions. Among some it created a false sense of security. It has polarized both boaters and non-boaters and generated animosity.

What is worse, I believe it has changed the atmosphere of this site. Winnipesaukee dot com is just not the same. I do not have a Go Fast boat. Never did. I regret how the whole Speed Limit situation has irreversibly changed this forum which I loved so much. It took away something very special.

No Joke :(

SL just increased the divide between lot owners and lake users IMO. So, the divide on this site just mirrors reality.

I've been on this site a long-time and there has always been that undertone of us vs them. The SL just painted the elephant bright yellow and put a bullhorn on its trunk. False sense of entitlement.

What a waste of time and resources. No hidden agenda?

What do these folks do down there in Concord?

Yes, we do need a congressional committee to review whether a boat needs a brass bell or not. Study it. Bring in a bunch of brass bells to the hearings. Ding them all. Check the decibal readings on all. Study the composition of brass bells versus steel bells. Set minimum size for all. Bring in the brass bell industry to testify. Bring in the brass bell lobbyists. Make a report. Publish the report.

Yes, yes, yes. Study all. We do need another study.

Can we get the names of the folks on this committee? I'd like to see the minutes of such committee posted some place.

In the power Squadron, they are known as a "bell in a box" because that is where most are kept!

Vitabene...

Mine is def a "Bell In The Box"! LOL! the chances of me being out on the lake in a fogged in situation are pretty much slim to none. Although If I were an ocean boater that would be a different story.

Woodsy

I chuckled on Sunday when I put our "bell in a box" on our new boat. It never left the box when I bought our last Monterey in 05, it is still in the box to go in this one even though a few years have passed between larger boats where it was needed.

Since the people at SBONH are busy and involve in boater safety, maybe they should take a look at the equipment requirements for NH boats? There are subtle differences between the NH requirments, and the USCG. Some might make sense to adjust like this one.

Good news!
 

SBONH petitioned the NH Marine Patrol to remove the inland requirement of the "brass bell".

This requirement was part of administration rules and not an RSA.

At the beginning of this years legislative session the Marine Patrol at the request of SBONH submitted to have this rule removed. Since that time the rules have been approved and just awaiting final signature, which will not happen until this coming fall. So it should be changed by the 2013 boating season.

I was going to wait to announce this until it is official, however seeing this conversation I thought I would mention that SBONH has be conducting a full review of all rules and RSA's that may be obsolete on inland waterways.

Please remember this change is NOT official as of yet, so please continue to carry your bell until further notice.

We have a big mounted bell in our boat but it isn't brass. It is silver colored. It rings when it is really rough. This can drive you crazy. It would be nice not to have it there, but I wouldn't take it off, it came with the boat.

The bell makers guild will sue!

:laugh: I know! Guess it must meet approval though. We never got a ticket for a silver bell instead of a brass bell!!

You know, I got a ticket for not having a bell when we upgraded in size form a 24' to 30'. MP told me that for nay boat in size 26' and over needs to have a bell on board and under 26' does not. So, why does a 26' boat needs a bell and under 26' does not need a bell? I have never figured this one out.

I guess it's O.K. to be stuck in the fog in a boat under 26' but not O.K. in a boat over 26'? Where's the logic? :emb:

Why should it ever end, just because supporters of a bill got it through that means the issue is now frozen for all time?

How about the folks who were in opposition or are now, they don't have a right to try to change the rules as did the first group???

Interesting perspective,,, :mad:

And we will.

Take a look
 

at my signature. The constitution gives us the rights to pursue.