Kayaks in Meredith Bay
 

Hi Everyone,

Not sure if anyone else saw them, but there were three or four young kids paddling Kayaks across the heart of Meredith bay yesterday around noon time. It was a fairly choppy day with plenty of white caps and they were hardly noticeable. Of course, it our responsibility as boaters to be aware of our surroundings, but that has too be one of the busiest spots on the lake and with yesterday's conditions, I can't fathom letting my children go paddling across that bay. Just another reminder to stay alert!

Were they in the No Wake area? There is a rental shop next to the Town docks restaurant.

I guess as a kayaker, I'm especially on the look out for them, but I've never have any trouble noticing them. I have come around a corner into Glendale and had to drop off plane because they were there, but nothing dramatic.

BTW it was a great morning for kayaking on Sunday, big waves are a blast.

....speedbumps.....that's what those kayaks are....they is just like a speedbump....ya hits one and ya hardly even notice it....kayaking in a yak with a gray-grey-speckled white camoflage paint job is not zactly too brite either....with the captain's choice exhaust law change....ya would need an air horn ....a whistle wouldn't be enuf

All kayaks should be required to display tall, bright warning flags - period. Where is WINFABS when we really need them to promote safety? I hear crickets chirping, that's about it.

They should also have a means of powered propulsion in case they need to get out of harms way quickly. And navigation lights. Might as well add a horn in there, and a require a fire extinguisher.

Big block powered kayaks!!

I think they were actually picked up MP. Using binoculars, we could see MP pluck a few kayaks from the water at about this time.

I hope they were not forced to leave the area. They had every right to be out there.

I agree, everyone should have the opportunity to be "Dead Right" about where they should be able to paddle their kayaks.

Nobody should be prevented from realizing the potential of a stupid idea!

Safety Flag
 

Memory is a little foggy on this, so correct me if I am wrong. During the SL debates someone did introduced a bill to add safety flags on paddle vessels or vessels of a certain length and some idiot tacked on a requirement that swimmers must wear a fluorescent cap. NHRBA/SBONH, I can't remember which supported the safety flag but not the swimmer's cap. The bill went ITL. The other camp supported the bill. The swimmer's cap was a hot debate!

How about a head cap with blinking lights run on batteries. Or make the smimmers dive when they see a boat. Boy, you people can be nasty at times.

You'll need a dive flag for that!:laugh:

I sure hope the MP didn't make them move....

No more rules or laws
 

Why is it every time someone does something stupid on the lake we have a outpouring of ideas for new rules and regulations .
Lights and flags , give me a break , next thing we will want people wearing helmets on motor cycles .
If the MP gave them a hand that's great that's what they should be doing rather then breaking up rafters or some other pointless endeavor .

Danger builds character , just don't put your eye out

I don't know the details of the situation but MP definitely loaded up at least a couple of kayaks and it looked like they were taking them back to the town docks.

Different bills, different years. In the first SL round where there were hearings all around the lake, the House committee, which split on the SL, took all of the other problems that were cited by the public and drafted bills to get them all into their own hearing. (Biggest and most successful was new noise limits.) Some ideas, like lights on shore that look like nav lights passed. Others like flags, did not. The summer camps directors didn't like whistles because they said "If you give a kid a whistle, he'll blow it." Others said "You're supposed to be teaching safe boating." In the background, it was speculated that the SL folks (WinnFABS) didn't want other safety bills because it would detract from their focus on speed limits.

Swimming rules, kayaks, etc were discussed but there was no legislative enthusiasm.

After the SL passed, a separate bill went to the Transportation committee (HB224 of 2009) about pink swim caps 150 feet from shore. It passed the committee something like 15-0. Not the committee that usually deals with these issues. One speaker, a Water Safety Instructor, removed the bill from the consent calendar and spoke against it (Priscilla Lockwood). A committee member, as required, spoke in defense of the committee report. The bill failed in the range of 97 Yea to 201 Nay. Even the committee realized what a gaff they had made. No lengthy debate. Three minutes each side. BUT it did make some big headlines. Not much else for the papers to talk about that day, I guess.

This is one of the amusing stories that just sticks in your mind.

I can't imagine the MP forcing people to stop kayaking, unless they were drunk, or children and their parents were concerned.

I've kayaked in some pretty rough water and some heavy boat traffic right in front of MP headquarters. They boat right past me without a concern. Sunday there was some serious wave action between Varney and Locke's Island. At other times it's been wall to wall boats. Dozen of MP boats have passed me.

I do think kayaking is a little too easy to learn, which gets people in trouble. In five minutes, you feel like you've mastered moving the boat around. Then you go too far from shore, swamp the boat and can't get back in. Since you didn't have a PFD on, now you are clinging to the kayak and waving for help.

They were no where near the no wake zone......these guys were smack dead in the middle of the main thoroughfare....I agree, more laws isn't the answer, but common sense should prevail. It's like taking talking a stroller across 495 and under the guise that pedestrians have the right away

I agree. Maybe kayak rental companies, concerned parents, etc. should start voluntarily equipping their kayaks with flags. No new laws needed for common sense. If it seems logical it will catch on. Sort of like helmets on the ski slopes. There are no laws mandating helmets but most skiers wear them.

WinnFABS (you spelled it wrong) was created for one purpose and one purpose ONLY. Having achieved that purpose they are no longer active.

There are organizations however that have been created to support safe boating on Winnipesaukee on an ongoing basis. I'm sure these organizations would be helpful if you were to contact them with your concerns about boating safety. One such organization is SBONH (sbonh.org) They have helped me in the past with boating legislation problems and I'm sure they will help you as well.

In the future I recommend you try working with an ACTIVE boating safety organization rather than blaming them for inactivity.

SBONH
This group is dedicated to discussing safe power boating and recreational activities on Lake Winnipesaukee and the other inland lakes of the Lakes Region in NH. We work together to help shape legislation that affects our freedoms and enjoyment of the lakes.

Sorry, but, the lake is for everyone....do the next right thing, and everyone can enjoy a beautiful day on the water..:cool:

I agree!

I enjoy being both a kayaker and power boat user. I do not support further regulation. The rules are already in place. If you have taken the boater safety exam and have a license to operate a boat, you are familiar with the rules. Simply observe them and everyone can enjoy being on the water.

There are way too many power boat operators who need to learn and obey the rules. If you are having difficulty determining what 150 feet looks like, it's half the distance between the end zones of a football field. I believe it is also equal to two legal lengths of a 75' water ski tow ropes. That means you must be moving at headway speed (producing no wake) if you are that distance or nearer to any other boat, swimmer, kayak, dock and shoreline, or in a no-wake zone.

It's really simple, obey the rules and show respect. It is a privilege, not a right, to be able to use the state owned waterways.

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/dGnnxAivEhA?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGnnxAivEhA

Saw these on Top gear a while ago. They actually did a demo Day about 5 years ago out in Moultonborough.

BI, Sorry I forgot the second "N" in WINNFABS. Perhaps that "N" should stand for do "NOTHING". If they really cared about safety, then they would still be "active" and would be trying to make the lake safer for kayaks too. But, we know the rest of the story.

Sometimes children grow-up in spite of their parents.

I agree wholeheartedly that there are way too many power boat operators that need to learn the basic rules. However, I also think some of the burden of responsibility should rest with the kayakers as well. Think about it: when you enter a major highway such as Rt. 93 or 95, there is a sign that states something like " bicycles, horses, pedestrians prohibited". There's obviously a reason for this; perhaps it's because people are too stupid to use common sense, so common sense must be "imposed" by the State.

I compare kayakers paddling in busy areas, at busy times, to people riding a bicycle on Rt. 93 - it should be prohibited. Kayakers like to thump their chests and say "they have every right to be on any part of the lake at any time". Perhaps true from a "legal" perspective, but quite irresponsible in my opinion. I think the State should use the same basis for prohibiting bicycles on 93, and legislate a requirement for kayakers to use a tall, bright flag at the very least. Also, the argument claimed by kayakers that a flag impedes their ability to right the kayak in case of a rollover is not valid. At the very least they could put tin foil on their hat, which would increase visibility somewhat (no joke).

Expressways, like route 93, were built with federal subsidies for the specific (we could say "express") purpose of high speed vehicle traffic. They are an alternate to the many surface roads that will get you there just the same, but at a slower pace.

Winnipesaukee is a (essentially) naturally occurring body of water that the state has declared a general-use waterway. If you were arguing about restricting kayaks near locks on the ICW, I could relate to your analogy.

I used the highway comparison/analogy strictly from a common sense point of view. Obviously someone at some bureaucratic level felt it necessary to restrict bikes, horses and the like from these roadways for specific reasons, but the fundamental reason was that they felt it was dangerous. Which is exactly my point. What is so wrong with requiring a kayak to have a flag for visibility? Same reason that lights are required by any vessel (motorized or non-motorized) at night - so they can be seen by other boaters. These kayaks are difficult to see on sunny days and/or in choppy water. Therefore, they should be required to do something that improves their visibility to other boaters.

Show me the data where people in Kayaks were either injured or killed by any motorized power vessel and then we can talk about what a Kayak should be required to do.
Also is there data that the MP has that shows close calls between a Kayak and a motorized vessel that would require some new laws to be developed.

If a power boater can't see a 17' kayak why would they be able to see a 1' flag? And a flag will clearly make it at least a little harder to right an overturned kayak. People down in kayaks quite regularly.

I will agree that anybody that goes out in a navy blue kayak wearing a navy blue life jacket is a moron. However there are many ways to increase conspicuity other than flags.

Kayaks do not not have the same right to be anywhere on the lake that power boats do. They have MORE right to be on the lake than power boats. If there really is a safety conflict between power boats and kayaks it is the power boat that needs to be restricted.

The restriction was necessary because the highways were built specifically for high speed travel. In most cases even for the vehicles that ARE allowed on the highway there is a minimum speed as well. Those roadways are purpose-built.

The lake is not purpose built. It's not safe or logical to assume that some or all portions of it are restricted to only certain kinds of traffic. Part of operating on this lake is the understanding that you could come across power boats, sail boats, kayaks, swimmers, etc. essentially anywhere.

If you can't maneuver your boat around kayaks and keep a lookout for them, you probably shouldn't be boating. As BI pointed out, the kayakers should also take care to not accidentally dress in what is essentially water camouflage.

ALL users of the lake should consider it a basic duty to watch out for other users, but that doesn't mean imposing oddball safety requirements.

Why do they have MORE right to be on the lake than power boats? Sorry, I'm sticking to my argument that kayakers have some burden to make themselves visible to other boaters. I don't believe they have the majority of burden, but they should have some. A kayak sits just inches above the water, and is arguably difficult to see due to a number of factors. A flag, on the other hand, would sit feet above the water and would be required to be of a color visible from a distance. I think hunter orange would be an appropriate color for a flag.

Speaking of hunters, maybe we could use that as an analogy as well. The State mandates that hunters wear orange so they can be seen, even though common sense would say that they would wear it regardless. Why is the argument with kayaks any different? I just don't understand all of the resistance to something so simple, yet so beneficial. Could it be that kayakers don't like the State breathing down their backs and imposing rules? I wonder???

Hunters in New Hampshire DO NOT need to wear orange. Only in good old Massachusetts is it mandatory.

I don't think it matters whether something was created for a purpose or not.

The greater the discrepancy between the speeds (and size, etc.) of various users, the more likely there is to be problems. Highways are built to allow fast travel with traffic only coming in at designated places and with lanes built to allow them to accelerate to highway speed before they enter traffic. Walkers, bikers, and horses are a distraction, travel at much slower speeds, and are prone to sudden unpredictable maneuvers. They don't mix well with highway traffic and cannot cope well with a high speed impact, i.e. they will be killed.

With roads we have the luxury and ability to build to accommodate different modes of travel and even to avoid mixing incompatible modes.

With water we don't have that luxury. Everyone uses the same resource. That means that different users have to assume responsibility to be aware and deal with different modes of water use. Why should the onus be solely on powerboat users? Powerboat users already know that close to the shore (150 ft.) they have to be going slow. There are likely to be waders, floaters, swimmers, non power boaters, and paraphernalia. These other users have a valid, heightened expectation of safety in this area. But as you venture out further from shore, especially in heavily used power boating lanes, these other classes of users would be prudent and wise to recognize an increased possibility of danger AND to take responsibility to do whatever they can to mitigate that danger. It is certainly the responsibility of a power boat to avoid them. But doing things to increase your visibility, bright colors, reflective strips?, flags, are not an unreasonable burden on the other users to minimize their own danger. THEY are the ones they are going to be worse off in a collision.

Pontificating about their rights to use the lake doesn't increase safety. Their rights to use the lake are not superior in essence to any one else's. The rules are not there to say one lake user is superior to another. They are there to attempt to improve safety for all. The rules are also not meant to be all that you should be aware of when using the water. Common sense about your personal situation can help keep you safe.

Correct, so then it becomes somewhat of a least-common-denominator factor. I too disagree that kayakers have MORE of a right to the lake. Everyone has equal rights, and everyone has a duty/burden to be aware of other users of the lake.

If you are worried about your ability to spot a kayak, which is MUCH larger and brighter colored than various debris in the water that you should also be on the lookout for (for the safety of yourself and your passengers), then get off the lake or slow down.

I'm pretty sure you can spot a kayaker at headway speed (if you can't you REALLY shouldn't be piloting a boat). As you operate at higher speeds, you assume a responsibility to be more aware of your surroundings.

Well Said!
 

Very well said Brk! I couldn't agree more!

Dan

Points well taken. However, if a flag adds that extra layer of visibility and safety, then what's the problem? Isn't being more visible a better thing? I just don't understand why anyone would object to this? Can someone please explain?

Because a flag on a kayak looks stupid.

Ha! Good one Rusty! That's a knee slapper for sure. But seriously, isn't it better to look stupid, but at the same time be safe? I wish someone would give a serious response, because I am having trouble understanding why anyone would object to a simple flag. Please - someone?

I don't think anyone is objecting a flag would add a little extra visibility...if one choses....however, making a law requiring all kayaks have one is a little much.

Well stated.

A flag on a kayak...it just goes against the grain. No Thanks! If I have to have a flag on my kayak, I'll give up using it. :(

Kayaks can roll over quite easily. One must then use the paddle to right the kayak before you drown. I remember many years ago a man drowned in Wolfboro Bay while practicing righting his kayak. A flag would make it more difficult to right an overturned kayak. You can argue that the flag is not much of an impediment but I would disagree. Any impediment when life is on the line is a serious problem.

You are correct however that any safety conscious kayaker should have taken some steps to make themselves visible before leaving shore. I have a lime green kayak and my life jackets are red and yellow for this very reason. I have read that a study found orange paddle blades help with conspicuity because they are usually moving.

I agree with you on colors, BI, the color of a kayak is important too. Blue kayaks are pretty but often hard to see. I think orange is an easier color to see.

It seems to me that the benefits of a flag far outweigh the risks. This company makes a flag with a breakaway feature, so rollover should not be an issue:

http://www.touringkayaks.com/gear.htm

I see people with fishing poles and other types of paraphernalia attached to their kayaks, so what's the problem with a flag? Maybe they should come up with method whereby the flag just rests loose into the base. That way, if a rollover occurs, then the flag just falls out when the kayak is upside down. There goes $29.95, but if it's that much of a concern that it can cause an impediment to rollover, it should be worth the price.

I am still confused as to why kayakers reject this idea. I think the State should mandate these flags for any kayak that is 150' from shore - period.

Thank you BI. Great to see you still active and willing to assist with these issues. SBONH is still alive and well. We have been monitoring and working with the MP on upcoming legislation. We are happy to help with any issue affecting our lakes and waterways. If there are concerns or issues that need attention, please feel free to PM me or visit sbonh.org.

BI, I will be visiting the first week of July. Perhaps we can meet up? PM if you are available.

Warm Regards,

Scott V.

Wow, here we are back in the dungeon. I guess I should have known, we'd end up down here.

I really think the whole kayak visibility thing is overblown, other than that moron nighttime kayaker a few years back. I kayak in Winnipesaukee a lot, I've never felt unseen. Yes people will come too close, but they see me, they just don't care. They can't judge 150' and their boats "don't make a wake".

I would use a flag if I felt it would help. It won't visibility is not an issue. Courtesy and competence is the issue. The whole "can't right the kayak" issue is another red herring. A vanishingly small number of lake kayaks with lake kayakers can do an eskimo roll.

Really if you can't see a 12' foot long kayak from your boat, just give up boating. How can you see a swimmer, a loon, a log, a piece of wood from a dock?

My kayaks are red and orange and the paddles are bright yellow. I mostly kayak in areas away from heavy boat traffic but when I enter an area that is heavily travelled, I take a very direct route across, not meander in the busy area. I have no current interest in kayaking in the broads or in Meredith Bay but if I did I would want maximum visibility, including a flag.

For those who belittle boaters who might not "see" a kayak, there are few problems in closer to the shore where waves are usually smaller. But put a darker colored, low lying boat in 2 to 3 ft. chop and YES, the boat can disappear in the waves where a flag would still be above the waves.

If you want to play in an area with increased danger but refuse to take actions that increase your visibility because they are inconvenient, well, I'm not to sympathetic to you. Equal rights to access also means equal responsibility to ensure safety. I really don't care if a law is passed since so many boaters already ignore the existing laws. If you want to kayak with disregard to keeping yourself as safe as possible, it's your right to be stupid.

This has nothing to do with visibility, it's about revenge!

WINNFABS pushed the speed limit and SBONH members want to take something away from them (apparently all of WINNFABS members are kayakers and none of them powerboat:confused:), so they grab on to every chance they get to impose a stupid idea that will take away some enjoyment of the lake for someone else.

As a founding member of SBONH (that happens to only own paddle craft), I am embarrassed by this behavior!

While the organization is not pushing (or sponsoring) these ideas, they are certainly not coming out against them. The talk on the subject is, what the loopholes are and how to get something like this flag idea passed so NH will be the only state in the country to impose this type of requirement on paddle craft.

For a group that was founded to fight the restriction of THEIR liberties, they certainly don't mind (backdoor) spearheading the removal of someone else's.

If SBONH is alive and well, I would like to know where the meetings are being held so that the general membership can have a say in what the organization works on, because they are certainly not happening on the members forum.

The mindset of constantly splitting a majority into smaller pieces is TOXIC THINKING and extends far beyond how you enjoy floating on water!

Keep this up and soon we will only be allowed to look at water!

JeffK, hit it right, if you paddle in the middle of a congested area, you get what you get with an idea like that.

Huh? Who mentioned anything about any agenda?

You do know that your posting history is not private, right?

We agree on many things, but this tit for tat is going to cause more problems than it will ever fix!

I know that posting history is not private. This thread started because some kids in kayaks were apparently in a position where they needed to be assisted by Marine Patrol. A simple suggestion about an easy remedy to improve kayak visibility is being spun into a hidden agenda accusation? No hidden agenda here, just bringing up a point that flag would make all the difference in the world.

I have wanted to write exactly what you just so elegantly wrote. However every time I do I seem to get a year off for bad behavior.

I won't add anymore to you comments and want to thank you for telling it the way it is.

Agenda?
 

Personally I don't have one.

To me this is an issue of recognizing the impact of your actions and taking responsibility for them.

If a person is walking on the sidewalk, next to the road, they are fairly safe. Cars are not supposed to be on the sidewalk. When a person decides to walk along the edge of the road for some reason, they are at much higher risk. Maybe there is NO sidewalk and they have no choice. When they cross the street, even higher risk. You can argue that cars are responsible not to hit pedestrians and you would be right. Some people are dead right. Ever come upon someone walking along a road at night wearing dark clothes? WHY, I ask, are they not aware of the risk and wearing lighter color clothes? There is no law that says they have to but for Pete's sake!

Here you have power boaters telling you that under certain conditions there can be visibility problems for small boats and asking for reasonable attempts to increase visibility. The response is that kayakers refuse to be inconvenienced by such steps. OK, that's your choice, just like the person walking along the road at night wearing dark clothes.

All of this subtle "protesting" against a valuable concept and idea has me thinking more about this. Honestly, there was no agenda, but now that the issue has been raised, maybe there really is an agenda. I'm deeply intrigued by the fact that such strong and immediate resistance to a simple safety flag was put forth. Why? Is it really about the flag itself; the fact that a flag looks "stupid", or the fact that it poses a non-realistic safety hazard? Or is it more about a class of boaters that don't want rules imposed upon them, and don't want their perceived "superior rights" over other boaters eroded? It never really occurred to me before now, but I'm intrigued by the fact that this seemingly same group of people in general had no problem supporting an agenda a few years ago that impacted a different group of boaters. But now, now that the spotlight is on them...man does the protesting start right up. This horse is dead, but the message is crystal clear. Seaplane Pilot is taking off, flying above all of this mess! ;)

I was clearly anti boat speed limit, and I'm clearly anti kayak flag law for exactly the same reason, there is no clear danger. Do a google search, there are very few boat vs kayak collisions. This is not a real problem so why fix it?

Its the same old same old.....

There are so few boat vs. kayak collisions that a rule is not needed. The burden of safety applies to the kayaker/canoeist as well as the power boater. If you go out on ANY busy lake or waterway in a dark colored kayak/canoe with dark paddles and a dark life vest (if you even wear one), you increase the odds of something tragic happening to you. If you have a bright colored kayak, with bright paddles and a bright colored life vest, you decrease the odds of something tragic happening.

Statistically speaking, at some point an accident will occur, and it will be horrible. Fingers will pointed and somebody will get vilified, probably the operator of the powerboat. Ultimately, nothing will change as there is no reason for it.

Same silly logic as the speed limit.... another useless rule that has done NOTHING to make the lake safer... collisions still occur on occasion, with the same frequency as before. People still drive their boats foolishly and erratically, sometimes drunk or high ignoring the rules (See Stand On thread) and some people (myself included) still speed occasionally on the lake, albeit now with consequences. Same as on all of the roadways in the United States! Silly feel good useless legislation!

Woodsy

it is NH!
 

I would find it surprising that our State that doesn't require helmets for motorcyclists would require a flag for kayakers... not to change the topic or any judgement, but trying to make a comparison...

Just my two cents, kumbaya, let's all enjoy the beautiful summer on the lake!!! -PIG

Ah, would that it were so. If someone is killed or seriously hurt, people will be upset and legislators respond to upset people even when there is no real basis to. Some feel good response would be proposed and possibly even passed. The worst people to fix a problem are lawmakers, who rarely understand the ramifications of the laws they pass. It's unfortunate that people cannot use common sense to avoid such problems as much as possible without the goad of law.

Let's get real
 

People run into ISLANDS! What makes anyone think a flag is going to protect a kayak. Let's face it, you realistically can see a kayak a mile away. If you're not paying attention, a flag isn't going to help and will just be another, unnecessary, stupid, law.

I still think certain kayaks are hard to see. We sit here on shore and some of them you are able to see easily and some blend so nicely with the water that you can hardly see them.

Safety is a relative thing... Statistically, accidents WILL happen, and while they may be preventable, the cost vs. reward is ALWAYS in play, like it or not.

I am for personal choice/responsibility in just about everything. Choose poorly and get hurt, you have to share some if not all of the burden. Unfortunately in todays litigious society, that gets lost in the translation.

If you want to get serious about Kayak/Canoeist safety.... Mandate that Life jackets must be worn at all times by all persons and be of a highly visible color. Drowning is leading cause of death in human powered boats..... This helps reduce drowning deaths and increases their visibility to others.

Bright colored paddles wouldn't hurt either. Maybe even reflective tape! 2.00" wide band front & rear of every Kayak/Canoe a little on the paddles. There are way better options than to mandate a flag....

There are lots of simple but expensive solutions to societal problems. Ultimately society decides not pay, that its too expensive or burdensome and the problem persists.


Woodsy

.....them were the bad-good old days!
 

This year so far seems like there are less boats on the lake down at FL-3, down by the south end of Bear Island; less motorboats, less sailboats, and less kayaks; less all types of boats. It is usually very empty of any boats which is very different than in the past.

It used to be that the performance style boats were the die-hard boaters who would be out there in any weather and any time of day, but not any more....it's become a much quieter lake....and a little bit boring. I kinda miss the bad ole days, when there would be 2-3 feet wakes rolling in all Saturdays and Sundays, and the noise level sounded like your ears were inside a chainsaw ...my-my-my .....them were the bad-good old days.....sigh!

Ya knows....going 45-mph in a boat is hardly going slow .... especially going 45-mph in a kayak.:laugh:

.... Sundays; nine to noon in the broads.....no speed limit Sundays ....bring it on!

...who knows ... total conjecture here ....but maybe the kids in the Meredith Bay kayaks were out with no pfd's on-board, and kids below a certain age are required to have pfd's on-board .... plus as public safety officers, the MP's have the discretion to use their judgment to stop what they think is an unsafe situation ....

I hope that someday the government will stop trying to protect people from themselves.
What choices you make in your life should strictly be left up to you as long as someone else doesn't get hurt by your actions.
Going out in the Broads in your Kayak without a life jacket is dumb but it should be your choice.

Going fast in a high powered boat could endanger someone else and needs to have limits set.

Good Afternoon,

I have been staying off to the side as I believe everything that needs to be said has been. Woodsy has said it the best that unfortunately accidents will occur regardless how much legislation is passed. It is an unfortunate reality that we cannot make every action in the world safe. Inherently when you have groups of people performing any action over time there will be mishaps and worse yet major mistakes. You cannot legislate common sense.

Regarding the above quote, I did feel a response was warranted and SBONH's official position should be conveyed as I believe there is some misinterpretation as to our goals and motives.

First I want to be clear: SBONH has not taken an official position on Kayak flags nor have we even broached the subject. This has been an ongoing debate for years along with many others i.e. paddlers fees, mandatory cold season life jacket regulations and bright colored swim caps. These are ongoing discussions that are brought up in Concord from time to time and again on these forums whenever there is any type of mishap, close call, accident or basically whenever an issue is brought up in our local media.

That being said SBONH has not introduced nor even discussed this topic. In no way what so ever would such a measure be taken without discussions with the membership, department of safety and other lakes regions groups. And in absolutely no way would revenge be any such motive for any new legislation.

SBONH believes in safer boating for all classes and types of boaters. In many cases, as we have worked for in the past, we find more legislation does not solve problems or make the lake safer. We believe boater education, participation and in legislation that works.

I am not sure if I took Jmen24's post out of context or I mis-read it, if so I apologize, however before anyone misinterprets SBONH's motivations I felt it needed to be addressed.

Carry on.

Statistically that has never been proven as quoted from Dir. Barrett. However, we don't need to kick that horse again.

Without going back to edit my post, I will clarify that it should read SBONH Members.

I did state that SBONH does not have an official stance for or against this issue. There are a few members that can't seem to move on with their anger toward the "opposition" and constantly make the rest of us look like fools!

The discussion (unfortunately not visible to the majority) taking place is between one such member (that is a part of this forum and thread) and another member that very dramatically resigned his membership here.

It was not my intention to imply that SBONH is behind this idea and I missed the omission in the proof of my post!

The remainder about discussions happening behind the scenes remains as it stands and is not a professional way to run an organization. "Laying low" is not a recognized business or organization model associated with producing results.

Rusty....

Your logic is just a little flawed... going out in the broads without a life jacket in a canoe or kayak could ABSOLUTELY endanger someone else. The rescuers who have to respond if you capsize and cant get back into the kayak or canoe... the boater who may have run you over because you capsized and weren't visible! There are endless possibilities, and most are somewhat remote. Statistically they WILL happen eventually.

By your logic there should be limits or regulations on just about everything....

The government cannot protect people from themselves or others bent on causing mayhem of all sorts. There is no such thing as a perfect law abiding citizen. Well, ok maybe statistically there are one or two! :)

If someone is bent on being stupid, or carrying out a willful act of violence, there is not much that can be done to prevent it. You can make all the rules/laws/regulations you want... it doesn't mean people are going to obey them. This is price we pay for a free society.

They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety - Benjamin Franklin

The SL debate is dead... as far as I am concerned. The People For Useless Legislation won. No doubt they will win many more battles before I die.

Woodsy

Again I apologize if I misinterpreted or took the post out of context.

My only intention was to make sure that if any other member read it the way that I did, that we had an official statement on the matter so it couldn't be used or taken out of context elsewhere.

Thank you once again for your continued membership and please feel free to bring any concerns or issues to the board as they continue to work in the most effective manner to assist the Dept. of Safety and address boating concerns in NH.

< Yawn > --- Don't know bout the rest of you but this is getting a tad boring.....

Seems this thread started off innocently enough with a general message to stay alert









.

When canoeing I wear a yellow vest... I would rather someone be able to see me. To each their own:)

And maybe "drove" at a reasonable velocity...
 

It's been my experience that a 17-foot kayak is more readily seen than many other small watercraft on the lake.

I photographed this Winnipesaukee watercraft on a relatively quiet day. It has two small kids in it, while their "in-charge" adults are lounging ¼-mile away.
:confused:

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i1...ps0971df32.jpg

One recent case of a demolished kayak "run-over" was blamed on the powerboat operator's inability to see—due to the angle of the sun.

Fewer laws would be needed if powerboat "drivers" wore their hats as they should be worn.

:rolleye1:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nymZi-TeBH...ckwardscap.jpg

Love the pics. But its "cool" they will say.

Fewer laws would be needed if kayak "drivers" wore their PFDs as they should be worn.