[ApS]

Clarifications edited in red.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

"...I feel that rescues need to be treated separately. People who require rescuing...should be billed for the cost of their rescues...NH actually has one of the lowest costs for rescues of any state..."

Some of the most expen$ive boating rescues may already be billed to insurance companies, but I read
too-seldom of billings that get paid by one person.

Originally Posted by COWISLAND NH

Does any one know if there is a proposed bill to get canoes and kayaks to start paying for their use of the lake? MP will need more $ to enforce some new laws. I thought I heard of some sort of bill a while back....I think it's a great idea.

1) We'd previously covered this topic.

It's mean-spirited to bring it up again. Why penalize against the many who cannot afford more gasoline or "more boat", and try to enjoy this scenic lake gently. It's showing even more "sour grapes" to demand that I sell a taxed house to pay another tax on an insignificant boat that in many other states doesn't require any addition tax for registration.

Maine—already losing population—is hardly the state to start copying their regulations and registrations.

Youngsters who have read the book First You Must Row a Little Boat by Bode, would be discouraged from boating by having to register their exempt rowboat. First You Must Row a Little Boat was written to show why countless aspects of operating lesser boats avoids the future confusions that larger cruisers feel at the dock—and beyond. (At just $9, it could be a stocking-stuffer for the aspiring young boater).

2) Why penalize the many paddlers who peaceably boat on NH's quieter lakes, ponds and streams to benefit some perceived increase of rescues on "the lake"?

There are many more non-powered craft in garages, lofts, barns, backyards or stored on automobile racks.

A rack of six rowing sculls near me would have to pay $66 for the privilege of rowing between 6AM and 8AM only on the days that were calm enough!

My own eclectic flotilla would be $55—money that would be better spent at area restaurants and other Lakes Region businesses.

3) Vermont, which has many more raging rivers and streams than NH (and many-more rescues), doesn't require registration for paddlers.

DART helicopters evacuate many injured Vermont paddlers by air to Dartmouth/Hitchcock Hospital in New Hampshire. Are Vermont individuals assessed for their rescues by New Hampshire entities?

4) What happens to the frequently-cited Coast Guard statistics when the number of "registered boats" in NH doubles or triples?

There are many more unpowered boats than powered boats in New Hampshire. They're just not on all NH lakes, not on all NH lakes all at once, and not every day. Rental companies would be penalized also, reduce their inventory and would raise their fees to compensate.

NH didn't require "no-engine" sailboats to be registered until about 1985: were Legislators "thinking clean" back then? I don't think so: they simply wanted more money from the public.

With a new requirement adding 200,00+ new registrations, there's at least one category of CG statistics that would become swollen by imponderables: "Falls From Boat".

Those returning to "the lake"—or those distant from "the lake"—shouldn't be hampered.

5) Canoes with a trolling motor require registration! I think that's wrong as well—if for no other reason than the filthy environment that petroleum-fueled craft leave behind.

A government can tax to discourage, or not-tax to encourage. Lake Winnipesaukee shores and waters can be benefited by environmentally-clean boats. As I wrote years ago on these pages: double registration fees for the most excessive boats—later—double them again.

A 45 MPH solar/hybrid/wind turbine powered 50' boat should not be taxed, although anyone who can afford one today shouldn't be bothered by the present tax. (Especially when the energy required for it is inexhaustible).

BTW, an 8-foot inflatable—with a trolling motor—requires registration today.

Originally Posted by COW ISLAND NH

"...More laws = more money needed...."

What laws would those be?

Please don't answer.

Originally Posted by jrc

"...I think all boats should pay these fees, it's only fair...For full disclosure, I have canoe and I would be willing to pay the fee...."

Y'know, that's not quite full disclosure when your other boat can't possibly fit beneath Wolfeboro's bridge. You're OK with the "There-are-Two-Americas" meme?

All my seven boats will fit under the Wolfeboro bridge, and do most of my summer-boating on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Good idea- that also solves a bigger problem in my estimation- how to identify the owners of canoes or kayaks found floating in the water (did someone fall off needing rescue or did the vessel just float away in a storm).

1) My canoe/kayak registrations would have an answering machine at the listed number—in a distant state—and I doubt NH would snail-mail me about a found kayak anyway.

2) With 45-minute NHMP response times considered "reasonable", any rescue should be taken out of the issue.

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

I'm all for it. If you have to register your sunfish, then why do canoes, kayaks and rowboats get a free ride?

To expand on a previous kayaking quote by jrc: "Because two wrongs don't make a right?"

BTW I: Some "Sunfish" and their clones are made in lengths that are exempt from registration. I don't think the small-boat manufacturers should be hampered in any additional manner.

BTW II: We don't use the same 150-foot-passage "at any given time". And we CERTAINLY don't use it at the same rate!

BTW III: Selecting text for answering is termed "parsing text".