Winnipesaukee Forum

Winnipesaukee Forum (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/index.php)
-   Boating Issues (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   Bonehead Cruiser (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12228)

Broken Glass 06-05-2011 10:34 AM

Bonehead Cruiser
 
I was fishing this morning between Goveners Island and Timber Island. A Black Regal about 38' or so came out of Silver Sands, full tilt, passed me about 75' to starboard, and almost swamped me. I was in a Grady White 248 Voyager . I barely had time to turn 90 degrees and get my bow into his wake. His wake was so big that I buried my bow pulpit when the wake came. I have never come close to buring the pulpit on any water on this lake. As he passed I laid on my horn and he never moved his head or looked my way. Had he swamped me he would have kept right on going. This guy should learn the rules concerning his wake responsibility, and perhaps even try a liitle boating courtesy.

topwater 06-05-2011 10:45 AM

LOL, You know his wake really isn't the problem, It was the HIGHSPEED you were going and you came with-in 75 ft of him. Shame on you for thinking a person owning a 38ft Regal would do anything that would be bad for someone else. Did you get his Bow#'s, chances are that would tell the WHOLE story. And to think summer has just started.
But to all of you 38ft cruisers who do this to me on Winnie this year, I will follow you all day long until you tie up and discuss this with you person to person. I will be the one in a Blue 21ft bass boat w/225Yamaha on the back, with NH registration.:)

NoRegrets 06-05-2011 10:47 AM

I bet he was not going full tilt but wake board speed. Glad you were not need to swim. There are two large black Regals that I have witnessed that are clueless. They are not representative of the brand or class of boat but of bonehead captains.

NBR 06-05-2011 11:33 AM

Capt'n Boneheads
 
Exactly the reason I don't fish Winnie on the weekends after Memorial Day and not at all between July 4 and Labor Day. To many that are inconsiderate or more likely just don't know what they are doing.

While the speed limit makes no difference to me I have never been endangered by speed on Winnie but I sure have by plow speed wakes and violations of the 150' rule!

jrc 06-05-2011 06:03 PM

My cruiser is smaller and blue, but I know what BG means. A mishandled cruiser can make a monster wake. Some of this is training, bad training.

I was boat shopping for my current boat and the salesman took me out on 34 foot v-drive boat. I was looking at outdrive boats and he was trying to sell me on the wonders of v-drives, we drove around in that thing at 12 mph, slow cruising he called it. We were making monster wakes, probably the biggest possible, and he was beaming with pride that his boat could cruise half on plane.

When you buy a boat from these guys, this is the guy who shows you the ropes.

Broken Glass 06-05-2011 06:14 PM

I was trolling at 1.8MPH so I don't think that I cut this guy off. I agree that the speed of the passing boats has never been a problem while fishing. The huge wakes are another story....

Bear Islander 06-06-2011 12:40 PM

This is a perfect example of why the lake needs a 300 horsepower limit on non-commercial boats manufactured after 2012.

jarhead0341 06-06-2011 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 159250)
This is a perfect example of why the lake needs a 300 horsepower limit on non-commercial boats manufactured after 2012.

So with less horsepower boats that would normal be able to plane out would chug along and make bigger wakes and never be able to get on plane........ brilliant!

Chimi 06-06-2011 01:26 PM

Stop - enough already!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 159250)
This is a perfect example of why the lake needs a 300 horsepower limit on non-commercial boats manufactured after 2012.

Here we go again - more ridiculous laws, rules and limits. Why exempt the commercial boats - they make huge wakes the same as non-commercial boats? Send the Mt. Washington to the ocean where she belongs, as far as I'm concerned.

jrc 06-06-2011 01:30 PM

Unskilled and/or arrogant operators come in all horsepower.

I spend a lot of time at anchor in areas with lots of wake. I can tell you by sight how big the wake will be. Even a mid-sized bowrider with it's nose stuck way in the air will give you a monster wake.

topwater 06-06-2011 01:47 PM

Not like a 38ft Regal plowing along. No comparison... Bow rider might have a large wake, but still nothing like a cruiser plowing water.

Dave R 06-06-2011 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by topwater (Post 159259)
Not like a 38ft Regal plowing along. No comparison... Bow rider might have a large wake, but still nothing like a cruiser plowing water.

The OP said it was at "full tilt". My experience with them is that even cleanly on plane, they kick a monstorus wake, I can't imagine how bad it would be at plowing speed.

jrc 06-06-2011 03:27 PM

I wasn't there so I'm not going top get into arguements about which wake was bigger.

And sure a big boat mishandled will make a bigger wake than a small boat mishandled. But, a large boat can be operated with an acceptable wake.

I've seen a couple of the 38-40' Regal flybridge cruisers around the lake and they don't seem to have disproportionate wakes. Though I never had the close encounter the OP mentions.

VitaBene 06-06-2011 04:33 PM

Power vs Weight
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 159250)
This is a perfect example of why the lake needs a 300 horsepower limit on non-commercial boats manufactured after 2012.

As was noted above, many boats, regardless of size, are underpowered so they struggle to get on or maintain plane resulting in huge wakes.

Unfortunately, it is more noticeable on the bigger cruisers.

Yankee 06-06-2011 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 159250)
This is a perfect example of why the lake needs a 300 horsepower limit on non-commercial boats manufactured after 2012.

Really? Please explain why. Why not enforce the laws that we already have instead of yet another that cannot be enforced?

The truth is that you have another agenda don't you?

NH_boater 06-06-2011 06:27 PM

- Go fast boats eliminated by speed limit. Check!
- Public sandbars under attack, awaiting confirmation of kill.
- Next target acquired, big boats.
- Future target, your boat and your boating pleasure!

Bear Islander 06-06-2011 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yankee (Post 159290)
Really? Please explain why. Why not enforce the laws that we already have instead of yet another that cannot be enforced?

The truth is that you have another agenda don't you?

The lake is a limited resource that is to small for large, high horsepower boats that belong on the ocean. Their large wake is dangerous and is damaging to private property, water quality, loon nests, erosion etc.

A horsepower limit is the EASIEST law to enforce. Horsepower and year of manufacture is printed on every registration.

Horsepower limits are my top agenda and always have been.

Dhuberty24 06-06-2011 09:20 PM

Go to Squam lake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BroadHopper 06-06-2011 09:47 PM

Winnfabs Agenda
 
I have been telling everyone all along and they ignored me! Give Wiinfabs the inch (SL) and they will go the mile! Their next agenda is to declare the lake a drinking water resevoir and limit the size of boat and motors. Like the Quabin resevoir and the Masebesic reservoir. I think the size is 16' and the HP is 25.

Bear Islander 06-07-2011 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadHopper (Post 159317)
....Their next agenda is to declare the lake a drinking water resevoir....

The lake already IS a drinking water reservoir!!!!!!

VitaBene 06-07-2011 08:32 AM

Consistent
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 159314)
The lake is a limited resource that is to small for large, high horsepower boats that belong on the ocean. Their large wake is dangerous and is damaging to private property, water quality, loon nests, erosion etc.

A horsepower limit is the EASIEST law to enforce. Horsepower and year of manufacture is printed on every registration.

Horsepower limits are my top agenda and always have been.

BI has been consistent on this point. We disagree, but he is consistent!

Chimi 06-07-2011 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 159314)
The lake is a limited resource that is to small for large, high horsepower boats that belong on the ocean. Their large wake is dangerous and is damaging to private property, water quality, loon nests, erosion etc.

A horsepower limit is the EASIEST law to enforce. Horsepower and year of manufacture is printed on every registration.

Horsepower limits are my top agenda and always have been.

Perhaps the state should just take all island property by eminent domain. Think of the reduced boat traffic and reduced impact on the lake, water quality, shorelines, loon nests, etc. You can apply this bizzare logic to any subject you wish. Unfortunately, I think these weaklings in Concord will fall for just about anything at this point. Interestingly enough, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University just released its 2011 State Freedom rankings http://mercatus.org/freedom-50-states-2011 . I think they need to take another look at this because freedom isn't what it used to be in good, ole' NH.

ApS 06-07-2011 10:56 AM

Their Pond is Drying Up!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 159338)
The lake already IS a drinking water reservoir!!!!!!

Wolfeboro, too, has their eye on Lake Winnipesaukee as a drinking water reservoir.

Yankee 06-07-2011 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 159314)
The lake is a limited resource that is to small for large, high horsepower boats that belong on the ocean. Their large wake is dangerous and is damaging to private property, water quality, loon nests, erosion etc.

A horsepower limit is the EASIEST law to enforce. Horsepower and year of manufacture is printed on every registration.

Horsepower limits are my top agenda and always have been.

You site water quality, loon nests, and erosion and yet again you fail to answer why enforcing current laws such as the 150 feet rule are deficient. Why not focus your energy on enforcement or modification of current laws?

As for the EASE of HP enforcement, just how do envision the state does that? Pull the engines from every boat that is registered and put them on a dynamometer? NH cannot even fund the NHMP to enforce the laws already on the books.

And yet again I say that you have another agenda--it wasn't the SL and it's not high HP engines.

lawn psycho 06-07-2011 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 159250)
This is a perfect example of why the lake needs a 300 horsepower limit on non-commercial boats manufactured after 2012.

1. You seem to hate everything about boats on Winni? You should seriously consider moving as you must be a miserable _____.

2. Take a cruise around BI. See all those houses sitting close to the shore? Where do the go to the bathroom? How many of those houses have beaches that they added?
You want to protect water quality? Tear downing your friggin house and have Ms Helve do the same. Put your money where you mouth is.

3. Under 300 Hp? MUUUUWAHAHAHAHA. Good luck with that. Different animal than the speed limit. This is one were the marinas and boating industry will squash you. My 22 ft boat has a 320 Hp motor and any less it would be underpowered.

4. You seem to like to pull things out of thin air (or certain orifices) but since the 45 MPH limit was arbitrary why not make the limit 299.7345 so the number matches the random nature of numbers you use?

Oh yeah, you can take the same displacement motor and increase the Hp above the plate rating and it's not big money to do right from the factory:laugh:

Horsepower has no correlation to wake but then you where never one to care about factual data anyways....:rolleye1:

Sure, go after the larger boats with bigger displacement (as in weight, not engine displacement). You think the marinas who get $$$$$$$$$$$$ from those boats that sit mostly tied to their docks all season are going to lay silent on this? I think even you know better but go ahead and try so I can get some popcorn and watch as you, Sandy, EL, APS, et al wage this battle. It will be good entertainment.

There is also an organization already up and running that won't have to play catch-up if you and you ilk are foolish enough to get the ear of a legislator and throw a Hp bill into the pile ;)

The lake water quality is waiting for you to call the wrecking ball company. We're waiting....

lawn psycho 06-07-2011 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimi (Post 159369)
Perhaps the state should just take all island property by eminent domain. Think of the reduced boat traffic and reduced impact on the lake, water quality, shorelines, loon nests, etc. You can apply this bizzare logic to any subject you wish. Unfortunately, I think these weaklings in Concord will fall for just about anything at this point. Interestingly enough, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University just released its 2011 State Freedom rankings http://mercatus.org/freedom-50-states-2011 . I think they need to take another look at this because freedom isn't what it used to be in good, ole' NH.

See all those houses and lean-to camps all around the lake were you can spit from a window and it will land in the lake? How close do you think all those septics are from the places built over the years? Soil microbes travel laterally in soil up to 100 ft from a septic.

Elimination of shore front homes would do wonders for lake water quality.

This idea of the state eliminating shore front homes is not as far fetched as you think...

VtSteve 06-07-2011 07:52 PM

BI has been on the HP limit kick for years. As was evidenced by his outrage over the elimination of a really dumb boat certificate law, it clearly shows the selfishness of it all. A 300 HP limit would eliminate all cruisers, a very high percentage of bowriders and other recreational boats. I'm not all that fond of cruiser lakes, so maybe I will author the law :eek:

We told people that the SL supporters were after much more, at least the powerful ones were. Nobody believed it, in spite of some of the most ridiculous arguments ever seen.

The ones that hate Don are gone now, I'm sure all of you that Thanked their posts would be delighted to know what they say on the Other forums. Enlightening for sure. They played good people for patsies, and legislators for complete fools. And, they won.

Now they're coming to get you :eek:

NHBUOY 06-07-2011 08:09 PM

...ALL ski resorts have the Skiers & Borders Resposibility Codes, as well as, Respect, Courtesy & Etiquette guidelines/rules for Parks, Halfpipes, and off-piste terrains...major infractions can get people hurt, involve the police, or (my personal nightmare :eek:), pull your pass...There has been a BIG push on getting the ignorant consumer "educated" to the "rules" and it has seemed to work from the chairlift I usually sit on...:laugh:...check out any trail map...:idea:...maybe a Winni "trail map"...:idea:...my point is...let's stop trying to change/argue over who belongs, and educate the ignorant of the proper bahavior while on the Lake...it's the driver/sailor/paddler/walker on water(bi :laugh:), NOT the boat...

Bear Islander 06-07-2011 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yankee (Post 159406)
You site water quality, loon nests, and erosion and yet again you fail to answer why enforcing current laws such as the 150 feet rule are deficient. Why not focus your energy on enforcement or modification of current laws?

As for the EASE of HP enforcement, just how do envision the state does that? Pull the engines from every boat that is registered and put them on a dynamometer? NH cannot even fund the NHMP to enforce the laws already on the books.

And yet again I say that you have another agenda--it wasn't the SL and it's not high HP engines.

Enforcing current laws will do nothing to remove high horsepower boats from the lake. I think that is obvious.

A few scofflaws may take a 280 hp engine and increase it a little over the limit. So What! Try telling a Marine Patrol Officer that your 46' twin engine Carver is under 300hp.

As to your last comment, you have me confused. What is my agenda if not HP?

topwater 06-08-2011 05:12 AM

BI, What type, style, and length boat do you have? Or are you another one of those that have a kayak and a canoe and knows everything about speed.

VtSteve 06-08-2011 05:53 AM

A HP limit of 300 would definitely get you closer to Golden Pond BI. Would you recommend special exemptions for island dwellers? Many bowriders and cuddies would not make the 300 hp cut, and would probably limit the boat size to as much as an underpowered 24' boat. Although, Sea Ray has been known to sell 26' pocket cruisers with underpowered small blocks.

The trend now is towards diesels and outboards.

I can only imagine how the LR economy would deal with such a limit. The marinas and boat dealers would be the first hit. Since many have the agenda to limit lake access, trailer boating isn't all that much fun either. Then you'd have island people trying to get their belongings out for the summer with underpowered boats.

At least you've been honest about your agendas BI, you want to eliminate 2/3 of the boats on the lake, instead of concentrating on a small niche group. If the SL folks presented their case and reasoning honestly, people would have known that it was a takeover.

No rafting
No overnighting
no HP over 300
More and more No Wake Zones
45 mph daytime speed limit


All of these regulations, and a skeleton crew of Marine Patrol to enforce the laws, and keep up with the drunks. Winni is starting to sound like a small pond.

Bear Islander 06-08-2011 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve (Post 159436)
A HP limit of 300 would definitely get you closer to Golden Pond BI. Would you recommend special exemptions for island dwellers? Many bowriders and cuddies would not make the 300 hp cut, and would probably limit the boat size to as much as an underpowered 24' boat. Although, Sea Ray has been known to sell 26' pocket cruisers with underpowered small blocks.

The trend now is towards diesels and outboards.

I can only imagine how the LR economy would deal with such a limit. The marinas and boat dealers would be the first hit. Since many have the agenda to limit lake access, trailer boating isn't all that much fun either. Then you'd have island people trying to get their belongings out for the summer with underpowered boats.

At least you've been honest about your agendas BI, you want to eliminate 2/3 of the boats on the lake, instead of concentrating on a small niche group. If the SL folks presented their case and reasoning honestly, people would have known that it was a takeover.

No rafting
No overnighting
no HP over 300
More and more No Wake Zones
45 mph daytime speed limit


All of these regulations, and a skeleton crew of Marine Patrol to enforce the laws, and keep up with the drunks. Winni is starting to sound like a small pond.

I own a 280 hp bowrider (now you know where the number 300 comes from) and a 15 hp aluminum. I also have a kayak, a canoe and a homemade human powered pedal cat. My favorite kind of boat to operate is a PWC but I don't own one right now.

Steve, I think you are a little confused about island dwellers. My bowrider is probably the fastest boat on the island and I only know of one island boat that has more horsepower than mine.

You can't seriously think that 2/3 of the boats on the lake are over 300 hp. That is just nuts. My guess would be under 5%. Anyway the law I would like to see will not remove ANY boats from the lake. I think you missed that point. It would also, over the years, create more work for marinas and boat re-builders as older, high HP boats became more in demand. There will still be sales of high HP boats except they will be used boats.

If you don't think 300 hp is the right number then fine, make it 350, 400 whatever you like. Boat prices tend to jump when you move past a single prop outdrive. I think that is a logical place to make a cutoff point. By the way, I only know of one boat on the island with more than one prop.

Shreddy 06-08-2011 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 159449)
I own a 280 hp bowrider (now you know where the number 300 comes from) and a 15 hp aluminum. I also have a kayak, a canoe and a homemade human powered pedal cat. My favorite kind of boat to operate is a PWC but I don't own one right now.

Steve, I think you are a little confused about island dwellers. My bowrider is probably the fastest boat on the island and I only know of one island boat that has more horsepower than mine.

You can't seriously think that 2/3 of the boats on the lake are over 300 hp. That is just nuts. My guess would be under 5%. Anyway the law I would like to see will not remove ANY boats from the lake. I think you missed that point. It would also, over the years, create more work for marinas and boat re-builders as older, high HP boats became more in demand. There will still be sales of high HP boats except they will be used boats.

If you don't think 300 hp is the right number then fine, make it 350, 400 whatever you like. Boat prices tend to jump when you move past a single prop outdrive. I think that is a logical place to make a cutoff point. By the way, I only know of one boat on the island with more than one prop.

The right number is 235,564,234,654pi divided by 2 plus 3. That's the right number. Yes, I factored in all variables and I'm positive that's the maximum horsepower on Lake Winni. It's 100% accurate. End of discussion. Go out and enjoy the good weather.

NoBozo 06-08-2011 06:39 PM

I don't know BI personally but he has posted enough that I think I know him well enough to ask this question...Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

How many horsepower does it take to get to the Edge Of SPACE?

As posted by himself, BI has signed on ($200,000) to ride Virgin Galactic to the Edge of Space...1 of 6 passengers at a time.

BTW: I have NO PROBLEM with people spending their OWN money any way they want. ..I just get Confused ..when their philosophy seems to conflict with their real life actions: :D :D NB

BroadHopper 06-09-2011 06:38 AM

Bonehead Pontooner
 
About 6:30 PM last night a large pontoon boat loaded with families plowed through the Weirs Channel at about 15 mph. He was throwing a good size wake and traveling way to fast in a no wake zone. I was motioning to him to slow down. The skipper just stared at me with a big grin across his face. The definitely need marine patrol presence. The boneheads are out in full force!

Bear Islander 06-09-2011 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoBozo (Post 159494)
I don't know BI personally but he has posted enough that I think I know him well enough to ask this question...Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

How many horsepower does it take to get to the Edge Of SPACE?

As posted by himself, BI has signed on ($200,000) to ride Virgin Galactic to the Edge of Space...1 of 6 passengers at a time.

BTW: I have NO PROBLEM with people spending their OWN money any way they want. ..I just get Confused ..when their philosophy seems to conflict with their real life actions: :D :D NB

I'm sorry you are confused about my philosophy. I have no problem with high speed boats or big boats. Provided they are operated where it is appropriate. And in my opinion Winnipesaukee is not the appropriate venue.

My destination is not the "Edge of Space". We will travel well past the edge of space, into space itself.

VtSteve 06-09-2011 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 159557)
I'm sorry you are confused about my philosophy. I have no problem with high speed boats or big boats. Provided they are operated where it is appropriate. And in my opinion Winnipesaukee is not the appropriate venue.

My destination is not the "Edge of Space". We will travel well past the edge of space, into space itself.

I'll not argue with your HP limits, you've explained them well enough.

Such a rush thinking about outer space, you're a lucky guy.

I know what you'd like on Winni, at least I think I do, some only guess.
_______________________________________________
Without quibbling over HP, most Volvo and Mercruiser V8 stern drives are between 220HP and 320 or so if memory serves me right, those would be the 5.0 and 5.7 liter engines. Mine's a 5.0 at 260HP. Those engines, as well as some V6 powerplants, would be on boats from about 19' through 23'24'. At some point, the HO engines are preferable due to the weight of the boat. So you have bowriders, cuddies and deck boats with these engines. Some smaller cruisers as well, which are very underpowered and tend to use more gas and plow for quite a ways.

I know those aren't your target boats. If I read you correctly, these are the boats that would be prevented from being used on Winnipesaukee for boat model years 2012 and later.

1) Most every cruiser (but certainly not all), from around 26' and up. (don;t hold me to exact estimates, because I've seen Bayliner cruisers with a 5.0 or 5.7 less than 300 hp)

2) Any and all boats having a Mercruiser 525, or 6.2 liter engine. This would cover some cruisers, but mostly all performance boats.

3) Most any boat with twin engines. Again, mostly limited to cruisers and performance boats.

4) Quite a few newer 300 hp to 350 hp outboards out there. Bass boats, etc..


So what can be bought new and run on your Lake Winnipesaukee?

All sailboats, human-powered etc...
Party boats
recreational boats that meet your restrictions
Hardly any cruisers.

Basically, Winni would be a lake for boats under 25', but some over that size would meet the criteria.

I guess in a perfect world, everyone would have the same boat I did, or maybe boating on the lake would be just for me. No nasty waves on weekends, no traffic, no nothing but what I wanted. Trust me BI, I know where you are coming from. I've seen out of control lakes, filled with boneheads that seem to be able to afford anything. I just think your version of Nirvana should not become law.

lawn psycho 06-10-2011 12:02 AM

I don't know where you guys are getting your assumptions but there are a lot of 350 and 454 cu in motors on boats. TONS of them.

Should someone try and pass a Hp or boat displacement limit, it would then have to be written to exempt certain vessels like the Mount Washington. However I suspect you would then be violating commerce laws as you would then be granting a monopoly to a single business.

This has no chance of happening and I hope the "Miserables" take up this cause and try and get a bill sponsored. I seriously want to see someone try and bring it forward.

BI and the gang now have a credibilty issue based on statements during the SL debate.....

lawn psycho 06-10-2011 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 159557)
My destination is not the "Edge of Space". We will travel well past the edge of space, into space itself.

One-way ticket?

Bear Islander 06-10-2011 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawn psycho (Post 159641)
I don't know where you guys are getting your assumptions but there are a lot of 350 and 454 cu in motors on boats. TONS of them.

Should someone try and pass a Hp or boat displacement limit, it would then have to be written to exempt certain vessels like the Mount Washington. However I suspect you would then be violating commerce laws as you would then be granting a monopoly to a single business.

This has no chance of happening and I hope the "Miserables" take up this cause and try and get a bill sponsored. I seriously want to see someone try and bring it forward.

BI and the gang now have a credibilty issue based on statements during the SL debate.....

Sometimes you need to read the fine print.

"A 300 horsepower limit on non-commercial boats manufactured after 2012"


My proposal does not include any boat now in existence, or commercial boats.

Take a trip back to 2005 and read what was said about speed limits on this forum. Notice that speed limits have "no chance" and "will never pass" and are "just a joke". You will also notice yours truly making the EXACT same arguments I make today, and every one of them the truth.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1425

gtagrip 06-10-2011 11:31 AM

[QUOTE=Bear Islander;159690]Sometimes you need to read the fine print.

"A 300 horsepower limit on non-commercial boats manufactured after 2012"


My proposal does not include any boat now in existence, or commercial boats.


Why is that? Is it that eventually over time these older large boats with the "eccessive hp" will just disappear from the lake? I smell something cooking in the kitchen. :cool:

Grandpa Redneck 06-10-2011 06:10 PM

[QUOTE=gtagrip;159704]
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 159690)
Sometimes you need to read the fine print.

"A 300 horsepower limit on non-commercial boats manufactured after 2012"


My proposal does not include any boat now in existence, or commercial boats.


Why is that? Is it that eventually over time these older large boats with the "eccessive hp" will just disappear from the lake? I smell something cooking in the kitchen. :cool:

I smell somethin' an it aint from the Kitchen:devil:

VtSteve 06-10-2011 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 159690)
Sometimes you need to read the fine print.

"A 300 horsepower limit on non-commercial boats manufactured after 2012"


My proposal does not include any boat now in existence, or commercial boats.

Take a trip back to 2005 and read what was said about speed limits on this forum. Notice that speed limits have "no chance" and "will never pass" and are "just a joke". You will also notice yours truly making the EXACT same arguments I make today, and every one of them the truth.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1425


No question, that's what you've wanted all along. Interesting to note that even back then, the real voice of reason was DaveR. There's absolutely no question in my mind, and I'm sure you will agree, that the SL crowd really wants a culture change, no matter what they have to do to get it.

Some silly naive people believe the SL was about safety. BI knows it never was, as he's stated many times. It's about one group controlling others. And they believe so strongly in it, they will deceive, lie, cheat, whatever it takes to get there. Just think, these people are doing what's right for you :eek:

BI, there's two threats to our nation and boating itself. Reckless people with no regard for anyone else, and people with visions such as yours that have no regard for anyone else. Both sides steal freedoms from others, and neither side cares about anyone other than themselves, or people just like them. Bottom line, both you and the cowboys are selfish, reckless, and quite hypocritical.

I'm also telling Al Gore about your space mission, and how your carbon footprint will be really, really huge :laugh:

Bear Islander 06-10-2011 11:13 PM

Tell me Steve, is the air getting thin up on that high horse of yours? So now I am a threat to our nation and have no regard for anyone else. I could be insulted but I'm not. Your words just prove that you don't know me.

If you get out of Vermont and come to the lake this summer I will take you for a ride and show you Bear Island.

lawn psycho 06-11-2011 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 159690)
Take a trip back to 2005 and read what was said about speed limits on this forum. Notice that speed limits have "no chance" and "will never pass" and are "just a joke". You will also notice yours truly making the EXACT same arguments I make today, and every one of them the truth.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1425

BI, the SL versus HP and/or displacement restrictions is an entirely different beast.

I will say it now, if you want to ban a certain class or size of boat, using Hp or other means to achieve that goal (much like the SL) is sleazy and misleading.

You ignore my posts about erosion and water quality. You and your neighbors properties do more damage to water quality and erosion than boats but yet you don't acknowledge it or are willing to do anything about it. Where does the septic water go from island properties, please enlighten me.

Remember this EVERY time you see the man made beaches...... I have three friends on the lake and have seen one of their neighbors buy bags of sand and dumps them on his beach at night. So you have to reconcile the shorefront owners water quality and erosion impact hypocrisy before you even think about mentioning a boat. Do you think man made beaches are natural and don't add sedmiment into the water?

Island dwellers have tons of higher Hp boats. I know several island properties that actually have 26-28 ft cruisers too. Interesting is watching the island residents violate the 150 ft rule coming into and leaving their docks. There is a Pro-Line on the south side of Rattlesnake who does it almost every time coming and going and he's not alone.

If you want to impact the size of boats on Winni you will impact every marina and boat dealer in the State of NH. If the State's largest lake were to have a restriction, then how would you not claim it was needed Statewide? Don't expect to have the support of marinas and the boating industry. Some marinas are filled with cruisers and some of them hardly ever leave their "home port". The slip, maintenance, and storage fees for those boats are huge. Oh yeah, let's not forget all the marinas where people own large slips who would now have a worthless investment. You can divide a 35 ft slip into two 20 ft slips either so reconfiguring the slips is a non-starter as well....

I seriously want this to be brought forward as it will define the lake one way or the other as the SL has already been a lightening rod. It won't impact me and I suspect you'll lose this battle. Please bring it forward as it will start peeling back the onion on people like you with similar views. I will say it again, a size restriction won't happen and I want you to spend your time trying to make it happen.

Personally, if I was going to spend huge money on a big cruiser I would get bored on Winni. However, the wakes from these boats are not the menace and the exaggerations are just silly. I know when I am out on my boat it does not match the pandemonium portrayed on this forum.

You are willing to permit the Mount, which circles the lake all summer multiple times per day to throw wakes, but want to ban individual boats. So do you want to prevent wakes erosion or not?

You posted in the 2005 thread about a child being knocked over by a wake. It appears you love red herrings. If a child is that small to be "knocked over" (assuming this really happened) then they likely should not be allowed that far in the water. Go to the beach and I guess you can blame aircraft carriers for causing waves and knocking children over in the surf. Perhaps you should call the Secretary of the Navy and have a few words with him:rolleye1:

Why did you buy a camp on an island surrounded by water but yet you hate the way the lake has operated for decades? Your escapades and the things I have seen you post shows me you will never be happy or fulfilled. I was involved in a research study (still ongoing but I am no longer involved with) where we measured cardiac parameters while placing patients in "stressful" situations and could easily elevate their blood pressure and other blood markers. I can't imagine what it must be like for some of you who sit at the waters edge and seem miserable. If you want calm, go to another lake. Winni is a huge lake, not a pond.

VtSteve 06-11-2011 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 159766)
Tell me Steve, is the air getting thin up on that high horse of yours? So now I am a threat to our nation and have no regard for anyone else. I could be insulted but I'm not. Your words just prove that you don't know me.

If you get out of Vermont and come to the lake this summer I will take you for a ride and show you Bear Island.


Yes, perhaps too strong. Let me put it this way. My boat is only 22'. It would indeed be wonderful for me if everyone else had a boat the same size, or smaller. In a perfect world, everything would revolve around me and my wants and visions of what is perfect.

But it doesn't BI.

As I've stated in the past, you and I agree on a lot of things, far more than we disagree on in fact. I guess my feeling on this issue is similar to Hazelnut's on the BP NWZ. While he thought it would benefit him personally, he didn't think it was a good idea for the other boaters, nor the lake. While you and I may want a calm lake free of cruiser wakes, I really don;t think it's up to you or me to decide how people lawfully use the lake.

Analogy: We have so many large sailboats in my harbor here, sometimes I can't get out of the bay. These boats are all at least 6' to 8' larger than mine, many much larger than that. They clog up the bay, run reckless routes together that tie up channel traffic. But, they are one of the most practical boats to use over here. Perfect lake for sailing. And, they are a beautiful site. I learn to co-exist, even with the bonehead sailors ;)


Love to meet you BI, I've been on Bear many times, probably since I was around 7 years old or so. Haven't been on it for years. It's a great island.

BroadHopper 06-11-2011 08:38 AM

Renagades
 
I notice a rental boat Friday night with numbers on the outboard. In the past the marinas will display their name on the side of a rental boat. This paricular boat did not. The boat was full of little children out on the front with their legs dangling over the deck while underway. I was stopped once while in a no wake zone underway by the MP and I was told everyone has to be seated inside the cockpit while underway. I had a guest that was sitting on the engine hatch in the middle.

So I am under the impression everyone is to be seated in the cockpit while underway. Is that true?

Bear Islander 06-11-2011 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawn psycho (Post 159767)
BI, the SL versus HP and/or displacement restrictions is an entirely different beast.

I will say it now, if you want to ban a certain class or size of boat, using Hp or other means to achieve that goal (much like the SL) is sleazy and misleading.

You ignore my posts about erosion and water quality. You and your neighbors properties do more damage to water quality and erosion than boats but yet you don't acknowledge it or are willing to do anything about it. Where does the septic water go from island properties, please enlighten me.

Remember this EVERY time you see the man made beaches...... I have three friends on the lake and have seen one of their neighbors buy bags of sand and dumps them on his beach at night. So you have to reconcile the shorefront owners water quality and erosion impact hypocrisy before you even think about mentioning a boat. Do you think man made beaches are natural and don't add sedmiment into the water?

Island dwellers have tons of higher Hp boats. I know several island properties that actually have 26-28 ft cruisers too. Interesting is watching the island residents violate the 150 ft rule coming into and leaving their docks. There is a Pro-Line on the south side of Rattlesnake who does it almost every time coming and going and he's not alone.

If you want to impact the size of boats on Winni you will impact every marina and boat dealer in the State of NH. If the State's largest lake were to have a restriction, then how would you not claim it was needed Statewide? Don't expect to have the support of marinas and the boating industry. Some marinas are filled with cruisers and some of them hardly ever leave their "home port". The slip, maintenance, and storage fees for those boats are huge. Oh yeah, let's not forget all the marinas where people own large slips who would now have a worthless investment. You can divide a 35 ft slip into two 20 ft slips either so reconfiguring the slips is a non-starter as well....

I seriously want this to be brought forward as it will define the lake one way or the other as the SL has already been a lightening rod. It won't impact me and I suspect you'll lose this battle. Please bring it forward as it will start peeling back the onion on people like you with similar views. I will say it again, a size restriction won't happen and I want you to spend your time trying to make it happen.

Personally, if I was going to spend huge money on a big cruiser I would get bored on Winni. However, the wakes from these boats are not the menace and the exaggerations are just silly. I know when I am out on my boat it does not match the pandemonium portrayed on this forum.

You are willing to permit the Mount, which circles the lake all summer multiple times per day to throw wakes, but want to ban individual boats. So do you want to prevent wakes erosion or not?

You posted in the 2005 thread about a child being knocked over by a wake. It appears you love red herrings. If a child is that small to be "knocked over" (assuming this really happened) then they likely should not be allowed that far in the water. Go to the beach and I guess you can blame aircraft carriers for causing waves and knocking children over in the surf. Perhaps you should call the Secretary of the Navy and have a few words with him:rolleye1:

Why did you buy a camp on an island surrounded by water but yet you hate the way the lake has operated for decades? Your escapades and the things I have seen you post shows me you will never be happy or fulfilled. I was involved in a research study (still ongoing but I am no longer involved with) where we measured cardiac parameters while placing patients in "stressful" situations and could easily elevate their blood pressure and other blood markers. I can't imagine what it must be like for some of you who sit at the waters edge and seem miserable. If you want calm, go to another lake. Winni is a huge lake, not a pond.

WOW, you really got revved up this time! I will try and answer your questions.

I don't see anything sleazy or misleading about wanting a HP limit. As you can see I have been talking about banning large boats for years. As a citizen I have every right to support any kind of legal legislation I want. That is the American way. Perhaps you are not aware but many New Hampshire lakes and ponds already have HP limits. There is nothing bizarre, unusual or unconstitutional about HP limits. In fact the US Constitution gives me the RIGHT to support HP limits.

You seem to think island dwellers are emptying their sewage into the lake. The truth is that probably 90% of my neighbors either have newer homes with approved septic or they have had new septic systems installed in recent years. Getting a new septic on an island is more expensive than on the mainland because truck loads of sand must be brought to the island by barge. It usually costs about $50k.

My septic, like most of them, is pumped back up hundreds of feet away from the lake by a septic pump. It is then dispersed in a state approved leach field. There may be a few old septic systems still in use on the island but they are getting pretty rare.

There may be high HP boats on some islands but I am only talking about the island I am familiar with, Bear Island. There are NO performance boats on our island.

Eventually, over many years, some slips might have to be changed for smaller boats. But please remember even with my proposed legislation there will be high HP boats on the lake for decades, even generations. Nobody with an existing boat will be effected.

The incident with a child really did happen. She was standing in waist deep water a few feet from my dock having a fine time when a huge wake knocked her back several feet into the rocks. I am very familiar with the wake from the Mount Washington, is passes right by my place every day. The wake from the mount is the slow roller type and is not as destructive as you get from big non-commercial boats.

You mention perched (or man made) beaches. None of my neighbors have a perched beach in fact I am unaware of any on Bear Island. They a mostly a mainland phenomenon. Unfortunately the state allows these things. If you want to start an organization to fight against perched beaches I will join and give a small donation.

I thank you for your concern but my blood pressure is just fine. My wife always says that her blood pressure drops ten points when she gets to the island. You must think I sit on my dock grumbling about all the big or high speed boats I see go by. The truth is I love the lake just the way it is, especially on weekdays. I support speed limits and horsepower limits because I want to keep it that way. The real problem is not the way the lake is now, but the danger of what it may become. Perhaps you have forgotten that I SUPPORTED the recent increase in the speed limit on the broads.

You talk about other people that support my views on HP. Unfortunately there are none. I am just one voice in the wilderness when it comes to HP limits.

I hope I answered all your questions.

lawn psycho 06-11-2011 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 159799)
WOW, you really got revved up this time! I will try and answer your questions.

I'm not revved up. I'm on the road, it's raining where I am at in China, and I can't take another long game of chess against one of my formidable expatriate German opponents. You also can only read and use the gym so much so discussing lake issues is on the agenda:)

You're missing the point.

1. I know there are lakes with Hp limits (not just NH, but throughout the country). They are typically small bodies of water. We are discussing Winni. The mere fact that a vessel the size of the Mount operates on the lake is defacto evidence that any other boat on the water is not an issue.

You can ask for what ever you want but I steadfastly believe you have no chance realistic chance to get it passed. Unlike the SL issue, the cruisers on Winni are priced into the market. I actually think that removing the cruisers could hurt your cause. If marinas changes their model to promote smaller boats they would have to make up sales by volume. I'd rather see a handful of large cruisers on the lake than an increase in boats overall.

What I think is sleazy is the legislation you would propose. Using a surrogate of Hp doesn't not correlate to wake size. I can take a ski boat with a less than 300 Hp motor and put wake bags in them to make monster wakes if you wish:laugh: And, you aren't the lone wolf, far from it. APS would love to see cruisers taken off the lake.

2. Wakes. My wife and I have a couple spots we've found that nobody seems to know are good for anchoring. One of those areas is also an area where on weekends it's not uncommon for the area to have some tubers and skiers who pass by and they send a wake across the water. Most of those boats are the typcial bowrider and a Hp restriction would do nothing for those wakes. We just properly set the anchor and life is good. In fact, while floating on the tethered tube sometimes the wake is nice to have. So how does a Hp limit fix your "knocking a child down?" I'm sorry but I think the argument is to use the word "child" to garner attention but is a failure on your part to be pragmatic. In fact, I've been out on windy days at the sand bar where there were no boats around and the waves and rollers knocked the boat and everyone else around. That same child you referenced would get knocked down absent of a boat created wake....

3. Water quality. Sorry but there are TONS of old septics around the lake. You speak in general terms and then get specific to your case. I simply point out that you bring up erosion, and water quality due to wakes as generic arguments for removal of large boats (whatever the definition may be). It really amounts to rhetoric. But, when you look further into things you'll see that shorefront owners do a lot of damage to the lake but marginalize it when called on it. It's total hypocrisy for a shorefront owner to cry for water quality when the mere presence of their camps are a damage to the lakeshore. Trees get cut to build all those homes. Do you think all those houses right on the shore are good for the lake? "Legal" and good for water quality are not the same thing. We both know pragmatically that the camps aren't going to get moved or torn down merely for the good of the lake.

How many times do we see floating debris from docks or items from shorefronts that end up in the lake? Do you think all those wood pilings from docks are a good thing to have in the water? Go around the lake and see how the shore lines are littered with docks.

I simply point out that if you want to use water quality and erosion to ban certain boats that I will systematically start showing you data on how shore front owners like you are more of the problem. It's hypocrisy at its finest.

Since you like to point to how other lakes operate, did you know many states restrict ANY development on lake shores. Why? Water quality and to keep the waters available for recreation. It avoids the very issues that allowing homes to be built on the shores of a State resources creates.

Sorry to inform you, but you (and others like you) are as much as the problem than what it is you wish to ban.

4. I no longer support the 150 ft rule for passing vessels. Why bring it up? Arguments like yours have shown me how the rule gives unrealistic expectations. Another thread for another day.

5. The point of the study for blood pressure and stress is to show the cumulative impacts. Many of them had normal resting BP but they are in the study because they have some kind of cardiac disease;) Of course it's hard to "read people through a forum but ready your posts over the years I don't think you are "happy" with the lake or else you would not be trying to pass restrictions on boats that exist on the lake today.

6. Don't think for a minute that a Hp restriction would not remove existing boats off the lake in short order. It would be less than 10 years before most of the cruisers left the lake.

7. Here's an idea. Ban any future home development on the lake. That would mean less docks, less people, less boats, less erosion, less clear cutting. No houses can be expanded beyond their current foot print. Win-win. I think it would do more for the lake.

From the shore looking towards the water, you want to regulate activities by various legislation. Perhaps it's time to get out on the water and look take a hard look back at yourself.

I'm out. Back to bed for me. Jet lag sucks. Carry on.

NoBozo 06-11-2011 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawn psycho (Post 159819)
I'm not revved up. I'm on the road, it's raining where I am at in China, and I can't take another long game of chess against one of my formidable expatriate German opponents. You also can only read and use the gym so much so discussing lake issues is on the agenda:)

You're missing the point.

1. I know there are lakes with Hp limits (not just NH, but throughout the country). They are typically small bodies of water. We are discussing Winni. The mere fact that a vessel the size of the Mount operates on the lake is defacto evidence that any other boat on the water is not an issue.

You can ask for what ever you want but I steadfastly believe you have no chance realistic chance to get it passed. Unlike the SL issue, the cruisers on Winni are priced into the market. I actually think that removing the cruisers could hurt your cause. If marinas changes their model to promote smaller boats they would have to make up sales by volume. I'd rather see a handful of large cruisers on the lake than an increase in boats overall.

What I think is sleazy is the legislation you would propose. Using a surrogate of Hp doesn't not correlate to wake size. I can take a ski boat with a less than 300 Hp motor and put wake bags in them to make monster wakes if you wish:laugh: And, you aren't the lone wolf, far from it. APS would love to see cruisers taken off the lake.

2. Wakes. My wife and I have a couple spots we've found that nobody seems to know are good for anchoring. One of those areas is also an area where on weekends it's not uncommon for the area to have some tubers and skiers who pass by and they send a wake across the water. Most of those boats are the typcial bowrider and a Hp restriction would do nothing for those wakes. We just properly set the anchor and life is good. In fact, while floating on the tethered tube sometimes the wake is nice to have. So how does a Hp limit fix your "knocking a child down?" I'm sorry but I think the argument is to use the word "child" to garner attention but is a failure on your part to be pragmatic. In fact, I've been out on windy days at the sand bar where there were no boats around and the waves and rollers knocked the boat and everyone else around. That same child you referenced would get knocked down absent of a boat created wake....

3. Water quality. Sorry but there are TONS of old septics around the lake. You speak in general terms and then get specific to your case. I simply point out that you bring up erosion, and water quality due to wakes as generic arguments for removal of large boats (whatever the definition may be). It really amounts to rhetoric. But, when you look further into things you'll see that shorefront owners do a lot of damage to the lake but marginalize it when called on it. It's total hypocrisy for a shorefront owner to cry for water quality when the mere presence of their camps are a damage to the lakeshore. Trees get cut to build all those homes. Do you think all those houses right on the shore are good for the lake? "Legal" and good for water quality are not the same thing. We both know pragmatically that the camps aren't going to get moved or torn down merely for the good of the lake.

How many times do we see floating debris from docks or items from shorefronts that end up in the lake? Do you think all those wood pilings from docks are a good thing to have in the water? Go around the lake and see how the shore lines are littered with docks.

I simply point out that if you want to use water quality and erosion to ban certain boats that I will systematically start showing you data on how shore front owners like you are more of the problem. It's hypocrisy at its finest.

Since you like to point to how other lakes operate, did you know many states restrict ANY development on lake shores. Why? Water quality and to keep the waters available for recreation. It avoids the very issues that allowing homes to be built on the shores of a State resources creates.

Sorry to inform you, but you (and others like you) are as much as the problem than what it is you wish to ban.

4. I no longer support the 150 ft rule for passing vessels. Why bring it up? Arguments like yours have shown me how the rule gives unrealistic expectations. Another thread for another day.

5. The point of the study for blood pressure and stress is to show the cumulative impacts. Many of them had normal resting BP but they are in the study because they have some kind of cardiac disease;) Of course it's hard to "read people through a forum but ready your posts over the years I don't think you are "happy" with the lake or else you would not be trying to pass restrictions on boats that exist on the lake today.

6. Don't think for a minute that a Hp restriction would not remove existing boats off the lake in short order. It would be less than 10 years before most of the cruisers left the lake.

7. Here's an idea. Ban any future home development on the lake. That would mean less docks, less people, less boats, less erosion, less clear cutting. No houses can be expanded beyond their current foot print. Win-win. I think it would do more for the lake.

From the shore looking towards the water, you want to regulate activities by various legislation. Perhaps it's time to get out on the water and look take a hard look back at yourself.

I'm out. Back to bed for me. Jet lag sucks. Carry on.

I am on your side LP. BUT you are boring many people who get tired of reading long winded presentations. If you can't make your point in a few short sentances...you have lost your audience.... AND.. you start to sound just like the opposition..BI..:look: BREVITY works for me. NB

Pineedles 06-11-2011 07:11 PM

I like reading LP's replies. They may be long, but they are intelligent thoughts put to "paper".:)

VtSteve 06-11-2011 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles (Post 159827)
I like reading LP's replies. They may be long, but they are intelligent thoughts put to "paper".:)

I enjoy them myself.

Getting back to the first post in this thread.....

Aside from the fact that everything the offending wave make did was illegal......Remember when it was OK to call an arsehole an arsehole?

Remember when Grumpy Old Men was a movie, and not long term idiots that became curmudgeons living near a lake?

Does anyone remember when people that lied to townsfolk would be run out of town on a rail?

Does anyone remember when we'd just go out in the boat and run around, possibly to visit friends, possibly to travel nowhere in particular? Just to be on the water, with whomever was there, or no one at all.

What's lacking today is not common interests. Not agreement, we'll never have more or less of that. What's lacking is character, honesty, humanity. LS really does have a point, several in fact. I live next door to someone that couldn't ever possibly be happy, ever. "Nothing's Right" is his favorite saying. Life's too short to live like that IMO.

You just keep enjoying yourself and do what you do LS.

ApS 06-12-2011 05:56 AM

Mostly, I Appreciate LP's Posts...
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by lawn psycho (Post 159819)
Sorry but there are TONS of old septics around the lake.

1) The cleanest lakes in the Lakes Region have "Class-A" water: their islands have out-houses—go figure. :confused:

Maybe not so many dishwashers, greenest of lawns, and water-softeners using "forever" salt. :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawn psycho (Post 159819)
I no longer support the 150 ft rule for passing vessels. Why bring it up?

2) The 150'-Rule applies to just about every hazardous encounter one could have on a NH lake, and not just passing or skiing—but shorelines—and anywhere-near navigation markers. :rolleye2:

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawn psycho (Post 159819)
Don't think for a minute that a HP restriction would not remove existing boats off the lake in short order. It would be less than 10 years before most of the cruisers left the lake.

3) Like their name, "cruisers" are expected to cruise. Oversized cruisers are really second homes / tax shelters for some people.

Like The Mount, oversized cruisers could be locally re-powered—diesels, maybe—and continue as before. :cool:

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawn psycho (Post 159819)
Here's an idea. Ban any future home development on the lake.

4) Resulting in an economic "Armageddon" for New Hampshire? :eek:

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawn psycho (Post 159799)
However, the wakes from these boats are not the menace and the exaggerations are just silly. I know when I am out on my boat it does not match the pandemonium portrayed on this forum.

5) Bring your boat over to my dock :) tie up here—we can talk about any wakes you might care to discuss. :eek2:

lawn psycho 06-12-2011 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve (Post 159838)
Does anyone remember when we'd just go out in the boat and run around, possibly to visit friends, possibly to travel nowhere in particular? Just to be on the water, with whomever was there, or no one at all.

What's lacking today is not common interests. Not agreement, we'll never have more or less of that. What's lacking is character, honesty, humanity. LS really does have a point, several in fact. I live next door to someone that couldn't ever possibly be happy, ever. "Nothing's Right" is his favorite saying. Life's too short to live like that IMO.

You just keep enjoying yourself and do what you do LS.

Steve, you get the point I am trying to make. I am all for fair use of the lake.

I seriously want the Hp debate to go into a bill. It think it will stir up a hornets nest way more than people bargain for and open up a lot of debate on many of the regulations on the lake. I BEG someone to bring it forward.

My wife and I are already looking for alternatives to Winni now that we're empty nesters. For what we pay for using the boat on the lake we certainly don't feel like we're getting what we paid for.

When you ban people from being within 25 ft of each other with their boats at the biggest sandbars on the largest lake in the State, it shows how ridiculus we've become as a society. My BIL have explored the rafting law and there is some constitutional questions that come up. Given the time and energy to wage such a battle we've tabled it, for now. States hate being questioned on their authority.

I think this song is appropriate for what Winni has become.
http://youtu.be/gl347DRnW-g

Pineedles 06-12-2011 06:48 PM

Signs
 
Who would have thought we would still be battling the establishment 50 years later.

VtSteve 06-12-2011 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles (Post 159888)
Who would have thought we would still be battling the establishment 50 years later.

I was thinking the very same thing reading some of these threads awhile back.

Fact is, the Boomer generation make their parents look like ultra radicals by comparison :eek: The constant need for conformity and moderation, is quite strange from a group that was brought up in an age of diversity and cultural vision. The ultimate irony is the uniform conformity that some of these groups want.

If you have any degree of individualism left, think about it. Different and Visionary used to mean good things. People used to use terms like Fruit and nutter and hippie and tree hugger as derogatory terms. Now those same folks have rebelled and are very PC conscious. Politics aside, they come from all political persuasions. Both Dems and R's were involved in the lake taming. They paddle kayaks and canoes, run sailboats, and attend wine and cheese festivals. Their children frown on many things as well. Motorcycles are bad, bikes are good. God help you if you don't slow your car to a complete stop when Muffy and Buffy go flying through a stop sign on their new Trek bikes en route to some garden show.

It's funny to watch in real life, as both Muffy and Buffy would cut you off at any chance they get in their own car. And let's not forget Archie the right winger. He's all for slowing people down and treating everyone with courtesy, but he views this as America darn it, and we can do as we please. Right up until he gets in his own boat or car. Then Clear the Way for Mr. Selfish. Maybe he owns a bar and over-serves people, maybe even boaters. That certainly doesn't mean he can't come online and trash those very same people that make him wealthy. No sir.

The real problem, Pineedles is not the establishment, per se. It's how bad and corrupt the Establishment has become. It's far worse now that the boomer generation, and their kids, have become far worse than when we "didn't trust anyone over 30". Far worse. Social engineering on a massive scale.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.