View Single Post
Old 06-11-2011, 05:49 PM   #49
lawn psycho
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts

Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
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 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.
lawn psycho is offline   Reply With Quote