Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

It's official ha ha ha ha ha ha

We've gone from sane point counterpoint to pure insane speculation.

I'm putting so many laugh faces to indicate the reality that I just laughed so hard I spit water all over my screen... ha ha ha ha ha

By far the best post on this entire forum I have ever seen. I'm printing this one and hanging it on the wall.

When you stop laughing can you explain how the accident could have happened if the lake had a horsepower limit?

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

When you stop laughing can you explain how the accident could have happened if the lake had a horsepower limit?

I'm pretty sure I did that already but I'll give it to you again. A 200hp motor can power a bass boat at breakneck speeds.... Some of them top over 70mph. What is the difference if it was a cigarette boat or a bass boat? If there was a horsepower limit it wouldn't matter. Lives could still be lost. Tell me you don't agree that a 70mph bass boat could kill three people, either on the boat or on land?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I'm pretty sure I did that already but I'll give it to you again. A 200hp motor can power a bass boat at breakneck speeds.... Some of them top over 70mph. What is the difference if it was a cigarette boat or a bass boat? If there was a horsepower limit it wouldn't matter. Lives could still be lost. Tell me you don't agree that a 70mph bass boat could kill three people, either on the boat or on land?

No you have not answered the question. There are no Bass boats in this scenario.

We are talking about a REAL accident that killed three people on Winnipesaukee. A Cigarette boat at high speed. The question is would a horsepower limit have prevented that accident?

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

No you have not answered the question. There are no Bass boats in this scenario.

We are talking about a REAL accident that killed three people on Winnipesaukee. A Cigarette boat at high speed. The question is would a horsepower limit have prevented that accident?

I believe he already answered the question, but I'll answer it as well:

No.

To say otherwise is to imply that a 200 to 300 hp boat could not possibly strike land and kill its occupants, when of course it could. What do you think would happen to me if my 260 hp boat struck a rocky shore at its maximum speed of approximately 52 mph? If you ask me, I would say the most likely scenario would be death. Survival would be pure luck.

Why are there no bass boats in this scenario? Does your horsepower limit also contain a ban on bass boats?

[chipj29]

The point that BI is trying to make is that if there had been a horsepower limit in place, that particular boat would not have been on the lake, therefore the accident would have been prevented. In his eyes anyway.

In my eyes, the accident still would have happened, just on a different boat. Many many boats, with a lot less than 300 HP have the power and speed to get in that same accident.

[Woodsy]

BI,

Your logic path is so FLAWED it amazes me! It's your position that had there been HP Limits in place in 1975, this boat would not have been on Lake Winnipesaukee and therefore this horrific accident would not have occurred and 3 people might be alive? Correct?

By following that same logic, IF the operator of the boat in question had not been drinking, and was sober the accident would not have occurred! (we already have BWI laws)

(This same logic can be applied to the Littlefield/Hartman accident as well)

We can further extrapolate: Had the operator in question been operating another lower HP boat drunk, all things being equal, the accident still would have occurred.... and 3 people would still be dead! Reference the accident last year when the boat ran up on Eagle Island... It was not a high HP boat and it went quite aways onto Eagle Island! But for the grace of God, (I firmly believe he has a soft spot for Fools) those darn DRUNKEN kids are alive to tell the tale!

Most accidents that involve alcohol would not occur if you removed the alcohol from the equation! Show me a fatal high speed collision (boat or land)that occurred on Lake Winnipesaukee with a SOBER operator....

I will be waiting patiently for your reply!

Woodsy

PS: For the record, a 1975 Cigarette didn't go faster than 60-65MPH.... it probably had twin 454's with TRS drives... they were amazingly HEAVY boats and those Drives took alot of HP to spin.

[hazelnut]

How many times has Bear Islander "claimed he wasn't targeting a certain type of boat?" Hmmm funny how his true colors seem to be so vivid in this debate.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

BI,

Your logic path is so FLAWED it amazes me! It's your position that had there been HP Limits in place in 1975, this boat would not have been on Lake Winnipesaukee and therefore this horrific accident would not have occurred and 3 people might be alive? Correct?

By following that same logic, IF the operator of the boat in question had not been drinking, and was sober the accident would not have occurred! (we already have BWI laws)

(This same logic can be applied to the Littlefield/Hartman accident as well)

We can further extrapolate: Had the operator in question been operating another lower HP boat drunk, all things being equal, the accident still would have occurred.... and 3 people would still be dead! Reference the accident last year when the boat ran up on Eagle Island... It was not a high HP boat and it went quite aways onto Eagle Island! But for the grace of God, (I firmly believe he has a soft spot for Fools) those darn DRUNKEN kids are alive to tell the tale!

Most accidents that involve alcohol would not occur if you removed the alcohol from the equation! Show me a fatal high speed collision (boat or land)that occurred on Lake Winnipesaukee with a SOBER operator....

I will be waiting patiently for your reply!

Woodsy

PS: For the record, a 1975 Cigarette didn't go faster than 60-65MPH.... it probably had twin 454's with TRS drives... they were amazingly HEAVY boats and those Drives took alot of HP to spin.

There is a huge hole in your theory. We can't fix drunks. There is no way to keep them off the lake. BWI was against the law in 1975 and he violated the law BECAUSE HE COULD.

A drunk can not get in a high horsepower boat and hit a cottage if there are no high horsepower boats on the lake.

I do understand he could get in a lower horsepower boat and have a similar accident. The damage however would be far less, and with a little luck, not fatal.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

How many times has Bear Islander "claimed he wasn't targeting a certain type of boat?" Hmmm funny how his true colors seem to be so vivid in this debate.

I have explained this several times, so I think you know the answer and are only doing this for effect. Here it is one more time, try and get it straight.

I have NEVER claimed I am not targeting high power boats. My idea, as you know very well, is a 300 HP limit for boats made after 2008.

I am not targeting any boats on the lake now. Only ones made after 2008.

This has been my position for the last 5 years.

Got It?

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There is a huge hole in your theory. We can't fix drunks. There is no way to keep them off the lake. BWI was against the law in 1975 and he violated the law BECAUSE HE COULD.

A drunk can not get in a high horsepower boat and hit a cottage if there are no high horsepower boats on the lake.

I do understand he could get in a lower horsepower boat and have a similar accident. The damage however would be far less, and with a little luck, not fatal.

What science are you basing this on. You HAVE to be kidding us here? So a 250hp Bass Boat going 70 or a 300hp Bowrider going 50 slamming into the shore wouldn't do damage and kill the occupants. I'll tell you what give it a try and let me know the outcome. (Please don't actually do it because we will be scraping you up with a spatula.)

This is where credibility comes into play.. I'm sorry but it just does. Got it?

[chmeeee]

Here you say that its only for new boats:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

My idea, as you know very well, is a 300 HP limit for boats made after 2008.

I am not targeting any boats on the lake now. Only ones made after 2008.

This has been my position for the last 5 years.

Got It?

But here, in response to my post, you said it would be for all boats:

Originally Posted by chmeeee

Even if they enacted a horsepower limit, which I sincerely doubt they would, it would have to only cover boats that were produced after the date the law was enacted. I am going to assume that the boat that crashed into the house was produced before today, no?

They're not going to enact a law that renders their own residents' possesions illegal and nearly worthless, it just would never happen. Given that, it would take at least 20 years, if not more, to get the high power boats off the lake with a HP limit, since it would take that long for them to wear out. In fact, they'd probably last even longer since there would be added incentive to keep them up.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It has happened before many times, it will happen again. Many years ago I was involved with another lake passing similar limits. At the hearing many residents asked who is going to pay for their useless boats. The unspoken answer was nobody.

Besides a horsepower limit doesn't make your boat worth less. Sell it, or use it elsewhere.

In this accident scenario we are supposing that a speed limit or horsepower limit was in place at that time. I thought that was obvious.

The point is that once you regulate a boat off of the lake it can no longer have accidents here. And a boat that leaves voluntarily because of a speed limit can't be involved in accidents either. Problem Solved!

Do you enjoy contradicting yourself so much?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

What science are you basing this on. You HAVE to be kidding us here? So a 250hp Bass Boat going 70 or a 300hp Bowrider going 50 slamming into the shore wouldn't do damage and kill the occupants. I'll tell you what give it a try and let me know the outcome. (Please don't actually do it because we will be scraping you up with a spatula.)

This is where credibility comes into play.. I'm sorry but it just does. Got it?

The science is physics.

I notice you picked two boats right next to each other on the spectrum. Now try a 15 hp alumacraft and a 1,700 hp Nor-Tech. Who lives this time?

Your trying to say size, weight, length, speed and horsepower don't make a difference in an accident. Which of course is silly. You don't need an engineering degree to know that (however I have one).

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Island Lover

Please belive me that this matter is highly personal and very emotional. At least to me (and apparently to several others), BI seems to be saying that we (and everybody else) can not be trusted to safely operate anything larger or faster than a low speed bowrider, so the type of boat that we favor must be driven off the lake.

I, for one, find his message to be extremely insulting.

Silver Duck

SD, I agree with you 100%. BI has his own agenda and frankly I believe he is so nearsighted he just cannot allow himself to see the reason of any other point of view. I have owned many vessels over the past 55 years and never so much as dinged a prop. Yes, some of them went well over 60 knots, some had 600hp and only went 28 kts, some were commercial but most were pleasure. One of the best laws I have seen in the boating community is the 150' zone as required in most NH inland waters. Anyone with a modicum of nautical experience should be able to see that if the 150' rule was to be strongly enforced it would be much more effective in preventing collisions than any arbitrary speed limit.
Maybe I'll look at this thread in a couple weeks to see if anything has changed but I won't bet on it.

[Skip]

Man, this thread is really starting to get a little nasty.

You know, I have had the pleasure to share healthy give & take with most of you here for years, and found you all to (under some of the occasional gruffness ) really be a great bunch of folks.

I have even had the pleasure of meeting some of you personally at a couple of forum fests, and know that in person you guys are really quite pleasant to be around (right Rich?)....

A simple request from me...as the one who started the thread. Could we all (myself included) find our way back to the orignal intent of the thread, try to keep the personalities in check and maybe gracefully bow out if we don't have anyting new or substantial to offer?

We all frequent Don's great site out of our love for the same Lake and its surrounding beauty, many of us just enjoy the freedom to worship it in our own unique way.

And lest we forget; in the end, no matter what the outcome, we all have to share the same beautiful gift Mother Nature has gracefully bestowed upon us!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chmeeee

Here you say that its only for new boats:

But here, in response to my post, you said it would be for all boats:

Do you enjoy contradicting yourself so much?

I'm not contradicting myself. But I can understand that you are confused.

I would like to see a horsepower limit. To be fair I think it should be grandfathered so it doesn't force existing boats off the lake. I have said 2008 but it may be more like 2020 by the time it happens.

In another discussion I was suggesting hypothetically that a horsepower limit would have prevented an accident that happened in 1975.

My comment about selling a boat was to demonstrate that a horsepower limit does not change the value of a boat. And just because I think grandfathering is a good idea doesn't mean that's what the law will say when passed. The legislature rarely checks with me before they pass a law. If they did HB847 would be a horsepower limit.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The science is physics.

I notice you picked two boats right next to each other on the spectrum. Now try a 15 hp alumacraft and a 1,700 hp Nor-Tech. Who lives this time?

Your trying to say size, weight, length, speed and horsepower don't make a difference in an accident. Which of course is silly. You don't need an engineering degree to know that (however I have one).

BECAUSE YOU SAID A 300 HP LIMIT !!!!!!!!! OH MY GOOD GOD!!!!! Seriously Bear Islander take a break you are losing it.

OK YOU KNOW WHAT.... Yep you're right a HP limit WOULD HAVE prevented that accident from happening.... There are you happy..... Lets all drive our aluminum 15hp boats and we'll all be so happy and everything will be wonderful and nobody will be scared and we can all sing and hug.......

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

....Your trying to say size, weight, length, speed and horsepower don't make a difference in an accident. Which of course is silly. You don't need an engineering degree to know that (however I have one).

You can't correlate these factors with safety. The safest mode of transportation is jet airliner and they can weight 750,000 lb and travel near the speed of sound. The key factor in safety is not hitting other things.

BTW I'm still looking for facts on that 70's accident.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

First if you want to represent things as FACTS, you need to explain how you know them. For instance where did you get the information that unmarked boats were used? Are you a MP officer? Things are not facts because they are anonymously posted on the internet...

Was it a Cigarette (brand) or a cigarette (nickname)? How fast was it going? How many HP did it have? Who was killed, boaters or islanders?

So far, all I have is somebodies uncle said something at a hearing.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

BECAUSE YOU SAID A 300 HP LIMIT !!!!!!!!! OH MY GOOD GOD!!!!! Seriously Bear Islander take a break you are losing it.

OK YOU KNOW WHAT.... Yep you're right a HP limit WOULD HAVE prevented that accident from happening.... There are you happy..... Lets all drive our aluminum 15hp boats and we'll all be so happy and everything will be wonderful and nobody will be scared and we can all sing and hug.......

Why don't you go back and read Skip's last post.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Islander

Why don't you go back and read Skip's last post.

I noticed you didn't tell Bear Islander to go back and read it. Stop seeing his posts with rose colored glasses and please stop addressing me.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I noticed you didn't tell Bear Islander to go back and read it. Stop seeing his posts with rose colored glasses and please stop addressing me.

He is not "yelling" with capitals. He is not using long strings of !!!!!!!!!, he doesn't post things like "OH MY GOOD GOD!!!!! Seriously Bear Islander take a break you are losing it."

I am amazed at his patience!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

You can't correlate these factors with safety. The safest mode of transportation is jet airliner and they can weight 750,000 lb and travel near the speed of sound. The key factor in safety is not hitting other things.

BTW I'm still looking for facts on that 70's accident.



Was it a Cigarette (brand) or a cigarette (nickname)? How fast was it going? How many HP did it have? Who was killed, boaters or islanders?

So far, all I have is somebodies uncle said something at a hearing.

I posted the link this morning, Sorry if you missed it.

http://www.winnipesaukeeforum.com/ar...mes;read=62784

Once again, I got involved with this accident by responding to a post by SIKSUKR. Perhaps he has more data on the boat and owner. He is the one that supplied a lot of that information to the forum back in 2003. I don't know if he knew the owner, but he knew where the owner worked and lived.

Why does this matter?

[Airwaves]

Islander, it took you to get me to go back on my pledge that I was done with this thread because of your claim that Bear Islander doesn't YELL in caps or use !!!!!.

Bear Islander wrote this post directed at me regarding his statement that summer camps are afraid to allow campers onto the water because of performance boats going too fast. When I questioned him about it he denied making a link between summer camps and performance boats. As you may recall I repeatedly challenged him on that position, eventually he wrote YELLED this;

#429

I HAVE NOT POSTED ABOUT THE SUBJECT EITHER WAY. I HAVE NOT POSTED THEY ARE COMMITTING VIOLATIONS. I HAVE NO POSTED THEY ARE NOT COMMITTING VIOLATIONS. I HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO LINK THE TWO.

STOP PRETENDING THAT I HAVE!!!!!!!

Can you really not understand that these are two totally different things? I think you understand perfectly but can't let it go.

DROP IT!!!!!!!

Of course Bear Islander's post # 35 states exactly the opposite of what he denied during the “He said she said” session in which he claimed he never tried to link speed, perfomance boats and and summer camps.

“And I am just one person fighting to have a lake where a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.”

By writing
"I am just one person fighting to have a lake where a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.”

Bear Islander linked the two issues in his argument and by denying it, he/she lost most of their credibility. The great thing about a forum like this is that anyone can go back and look at what was actually posted.

As for the mid 70's Cigarette Boat accident that killed 3 that Bear Islander and his supporters are bringing up, I was directed to this posting on Winnipesaukee.Com

Posted By: Waterbaby
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2003 at 10:09 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Boat enters cottage - upside down... (SIKSUKR)

You are right, and it was my uncle and his sister and brother-in-law who were killed. At the time it was the only Cigarette on the lake, and it was late March or early April of 1975.

The ONLY Cigarette on the lake! That seals it! Lets ban all performance boats for an accident that happened 32 years ago!

I don't know what happened and I submit to all of you that unless you were directly involved with the accident or investigation, you don't know what happened 32 years ago either.

In March/April 1975 laws and attitudes were very very different than they are today. Do not try to impose today's standards on accepted practices of 30 years ago.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Islander, it took you to get me to go back on my pledge that I was done with this thread because of your claim that Bear Islander doesn't YELL in caps or use !!!!!.

Bear Islander wrote this post directed at me regarding his statement that summer camps are afraid to allow campers onto the water because of performance boats going too fast. When I questioned him about it he denied making a link between summer camps and performance boats. As you may recall I repeatedly challenged him on that position, eventually he wrote YELLED this;

#429

Of course Bear Islander's post # 35 states exactly the opposite of what he denied during the “He said she said” session in which he claimed he never tried to link speed, performance boats and and summer camps.



By writing
"I am just one person fighting to have a lake where a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.”

Bear Islander linked the two issues in his argument and by denying it, he/she lost most of their credibility. The great thing about a forum like this is that anyone can go back and look at what was actually posted.

As for the mid 70's Cigarette Boat accident that killed 3 that Bear Islander and his supporters are bringing up, I was directed to this posting on Winnipesaukee.Com


The ONLY Cigarette on the lake! That seals it! Lets ban all performance boats for an accident that happened 32 years ago!

I don't know what happened and I submit to all of you that unless you were directly involved with the accident or investigation, you don't know what happened 32 years ago either.

In March/April 1975 laws and attitudes were very very different than they are today. Do not try to impose today's standards on accepted practices of 30 years ago.

Hello

I have read your post very carefully and I find no contradiction in what BI posted. In one instance he says he wants a lake where "a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.”

It is clear he is talking about the fear in the minds of camp directors. Fear in the mind of a camp director is not the same as violations by performance boats. Seeing a big boat coming at you at high speed can cause fear even if the boat violates no regulations. A parent or camp director watching small children out in a boat while high performance boats go by may be in extreme fear, even if the performance boats are operating legally.

You may see this as being a very fine point, however he is quite correct when he said he never posted about violations. He posted about fear. Woodsy has said its not about speed, its about fear. He has a point.

There is a big difference between a mother (or director) saying she is afraid to let her children go onto the lake on weekends, and saying that boats are breaking the law. I will also add that the greater the speed the greater the fear, and the idea of a boat going 130 mph when my kids are on the lake scares the hell out of me!

I just checked and the two posts in question came 65 days apart. Even if I agreed with your interpretation, wouldn't it be a case of bad memory? Why do you assume its part of a plot? You are looking very hard to find fault when you are comparing posts that are months apart.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...Reference the accident last year when the boat ran up on Eagle Island...it went quite aways onto Eagle Island! But for the grace of God, (I firmly believe he has a soft spot for Fools) those darn DRUNKEN kids are alive to tell the tale...!

They didn't "just hit the island": They hit shallows before running out of inertia. If they hadn't hit shallows (and a bunch of trees), the cottage that they landed at would have been their terminal destination. (Add the hazard of downed electrical wires for them—and rescuers).



The Mount advised NHMP that the boat was "traveling at a high rate of speed", and never reappeared on the other side of Eagle Island.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...For the record, a 1975 Cigarette didn't go faster than 60-65MPH...they were amazingly HEAVY boats..."

Suitable for ocean waters? An ocean-racer? Heavy and slow? And now they are fast?

Originally Posted by Seeker

"...Anyone with a modicum of nautical experience should be able to see that if the 150' rule was to be strongly enforced it would be much more effective in preventing collisions than any arbitrary speed limit..."

Anyone know how many years we've been complaining about the ineffectiveness of "Unsafe Passage", and how many years complaining of the ineffectiveness in the enforcement of "Unsafe Passage"?

We tried "The New Hampshire Way", but I think it's proven: "Unsafe Passage" was a well-intentioned flop from the 50s. Ridding the lake of unproven high-speed "drivers" with a proven track record remains the task for the terminal safety of us "lesser boaters".

Originally Posted by jrc

"...BTW I'm still looking for facts on that 70's accident...So far, all I have is somebodies uncle said something at a hearing..."

Here's the link: (Interesting reading, but don't expect The Opposition to elaborate favorably.)

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...The ONLY Cigarette on the lake...!"

Yup...and the only boat to make such tragic headlines, too.

Had those same headlines made their appearance last year, even Woodsy would have tossed in his hand.

(Well, maybe not Woodsy—make that Winnilaker).

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...Do not try to impose today's standards on accepted practices of 30 years ago..."

Huh??? Thirty years ago, cottages were sorta-still considered "off-limits" to 34-foot boats entering their dining rooms at high speed.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...Most accidents that involve alcohol would not occur if you removed the alcohol from the equation! Show me a fatal high speed collision (boat or land)that occurred on Lake Winnipesaukee with a SOBER operator....

FACT: Alcohol is in use on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...IF the operator of the boat in question had not been drinking, and was sober the accident would not have occurred! (we already have BWI laws)...(This same logic can be applied to the Littlefield/Hartman accident as well)..."

FACT: Alcohol is in use on Lake Winnipesaukee.

(But I repeat myself).

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There is a huge hole in your theory. We can't fix drunks. There is no way to keep them off the lake. BWI was against the law in 1975 and he violated the law BECAUSE HE COULD.

A drunk can not get in a high horsepower boat and hit a cottage if there are no high horsepower boats on the lake.

I do understand he could get in a lower horsepower boat and have a similar accident. The damage however would be far less, and with a little luck, not fatal.

BI...

It wasn't the boat that killed him... He killed himself and the others...

He violated the law not because he could, but because he was DRUNK and didn't care... didn't think it could happen to him... etc, etc... and it cost him and 2 others thier lives! I refer to this as AIS (Alcohol Induced Stupidity)

WE CAN FIX DRUNK BOATING/DRIVING! There has been a HUGE cultural shift in attitude towards DWI/BWI! Aggressive enforcement coupled with harsh BWI/DWI penalties is the key! Thats what the LEO community and the government have been telling us! In 1975 when this accident occurred, you could still legally drink & drive in NH! You really can't apply todays moral attitude to an accident that occurred 33 years ago.

For example... 33 years ago "All In The Family" was a top rated show! Widely considered an icon of american television, the humor on that show would at best be described as racist & homophobic today. That show would never be produced today!

As far as HP limits go... how do you propose to enforce them? Is the NHMP going to dyno test every alleged violator? Yet another unfunded mandate the NHMP would be charged with enforcing?

Woodsy

PS: Still waiting for the High Speed SOBER accident data!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

BI...

It wasn't the boat that killed him... He killed himself and the others...

He violated the law not because he could, but because he was DRUNK and didn't care... didn't think it could happen to him... etc, etc... and it cost him and 2 others thier lives! I refer to this as AIS (Alcohol Induced Stupidity)

WE CAN FIX DRUNK BOATING/DRIVING! There has been a HUGE cultural shift in attitude towards DWI/BWI! Aggressive enforcement coupled with harsh BWI/DWI penalties is the key! Thats what the LEO community and the government have been telling us! In 1975 when this accident occurred, you could still legally drink & drive in NH! You really can't apply todays moral attitude to an accident that occurred 33 years ago.

For example... 33 years ago "All In The Family" was a top rated show! Widely considered an icon of american television, the humor on that show would at best be described as racist & homophobic today. That show would never be produced today!

As far as HP limits go... how do you propose to enforce them? Is the NHMP going to dyno test every alleged violator? Yet another unfunded mandate the NHMP would be charged with enforcing?

Woodsy

PS: Still waiting for the High Speed SOBER accident data!

You make some good points about alcohol abuse. However it is still a big problem in our society.

A horsepower limit is easy to enforce. The HP is listed on your registration.

Yes, I know, in many cases when you register a boat they just write down what you tell them. However then you would be breaking another law with a false registration. I'm sure some boats could sneak it under the wire, but try telling the MP your Nor-Tech is 299 HP.

There are many other lakes that have horsepower limits and enforce them without to much trouble.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Islander

Hello

I have read your post very carefully and I find no contradiction in what BI posted. In one instance he says he wants a lake where "a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.”

It is clear he is talking about the fear in the minds of camp directors. Fear in the mind of a camp director is not the same as violations by performance boats. Seeing a big boat coming at you at high speed can cause fear even if the boat violates no regulations. A parent or camp director watching small children out in a boat while high performance boats go by may be in extreme fear, even if the performance boats are operating legally.

You may see this as being a very fine point, however he is quite correct when he said he never posted about violations. He posted about fear. Woodsy has said its not about speed, its about fear. He has a point.

There is a big difference between a mother (or director) saying she is afraid to let her children go onto the lake on weekends, and saying that boats are breaking the law. I will also add that the greater the speed the greater the fear, and the idea of a boat going 130 mph when my kids are on the lake scares the hell out of me!

I just checked and the two posts in question came 65 days apart. Even if I agreed with your interpretation, wouldn't it be a case of bad memory? Why do you assume its part of a plot? You are looking very hard to find fault when you are comparing posts that are months apart.

Islander...

ANY boat at ANY speed near children should be a serious concern to all! But to my knowledge no child attending a summer camp here on Lake Winnipesaukee has been struck by a speeding powerboat! EVER! While it is definitely natural to worry about children, especially when they are on the water, there are certainly other ways that fear of being struck by a boat can be mitigated... Without taking away another person's liberty!

Someone proposed a "Camp Zone" as a buffer around the Summer Camps? You already have a 150' NWZ buffer, why not double it or triple it around camps to 300' - 500'? Drop a few bright orange info buoys and be done with it? Why would this not work?

The way you post, you would think it was a routine thing to see a boat going 130 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee... this is blatantly not the case! There are MAYBE 5-6 boats on the lake that can top 100 MPH! That Nortech everyone keeps using as an example was guest on the lake...

Woodsy

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Dear Islander,

Please tell me who posted this and please tell me if I see it correctly. Is it in all bold with exclamation points? Please once again I request that you remove your rose colored glasses. I admire that you are sticking up for your friend but please butt out as it I never addressed you in the first place. Your comments are unwanted and biased. This is the last time I will address the issue, please refrain from getting involved. Bear Islander is a big boy and he can handle himself....

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I posted the link this morning, Sorry if you missed it.

http://www.winnipesaukeeforum.com/ar...mes;read=62784

Once again, I got involved with this accident by responding to a post by SIKSUKR. Perhaps he has more data on the boat and owner. He is the one that supplied a lot of that information to the forum back in 2003. I don't know if he knew the owner, but he knew where the owner worked and lived.

Why does this matter?

To be fair BI,this incident was from recall and I can't substantiate fact.What my aging brain remembers(and I could be wrong but this is how I remember)was that the driver was the owner of Davidson Construction which I believe at the time was located in Manchester.I recall that a "cigarette boat",not necesarily the brand but the type,crashed into a home on the lake at night and the driver was DWI and killed.I don't know of other fatalities whether they were on land or in the boat.That's pretty much all I recall.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

BI...

For example... 33 years ago "All In The Family" was a top rated show! Widely considered an icon of american television, the humor on that show would at best be described as racist & homophobic today. That show would never be produced today!

Another freedom already lost

[gtxrider]

Originally Posted by Cal

I don't care if the speed limit on Hopatcong is 110 mph. It's not big enough to be worth a 100 mile drive to get there. It deserves a speed limit. It's not much bigger that a puddle.

Having been on Lake Hopatcong on a weekend, trying to exceed 30 MPH would be like trying to speed on the Cross Bronx Expressway at rush hour! Not likely to happen!!

You cannot compare Jersey swamps, oops I mean lakes to Lake Winnipesaukee!

Its not speed that kills it is the sudden stop! You can have all the laws you want but that does not prevent people from breaking them. The 150' law is a prime example!!!

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Islander
I just checked and the two posts in question came 65 days apart. Even if I agreed with your interpretation, wouldn't it be a case of bad memory? Why do you assume its part of a plot? You are looking very hard to find fault when you are comparing posts that are months apart.

So if someone writes something 65 days ago, then REPEATEDLY tries to deny that they wrote it or attempts to deny he was trying to link high performance boats and the fear of a summer camp director that kids will be run down by boats doing 130 MPH then that’s okay because, what? He forgot what he wrote 2 months ago? Forgot to go back and look?

He denied writing it; he denied trying to link the two issues. Period.

Originally posted by APS

Yup...and the only boat to make such tragic headlines, too.

So are you saying the accident 33 years ago was the first fatal boating accident on Lake Winnipesaukee? Seriously, are you?

Originally posted by APS
Quote:

Huh??? Thirty years ago, cottages were sorta-still considered "off-limits" to 34-foot boats entering their dining rooms at high speed.

30 years ago drinking and driving was not a crime. Drinking and driving was something that was dismissed as bad judgment and anyone caught doing it was sent on their way. Today those standards, practices and laws have thankfully changed and you are responsible for your actions.

Originally posted by APS
FACT: Alcohol is in use on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Duh! Wait, there is already a law against Boating While Intoxicated!

Originally posted by Bear Islander
There are many other lakes that have horsepower limits and enforce them without to much trouble.

That’s true, and I can tell you personally, that as someone looking to expand waterfront holdings on lakes in NH that I have rejected three very nice properties that fit my criteria because they are what my family calls on “no fun lakes” , those that ban petroleum based motors, and even one where you were only allowed to use a PWC or waterski counter clockwise during certain hours of the day! RIGHT! I’m going to buy into something like that! Granted, the lakes or ponds were small but those restrictions, I believed were excessive and I didn’t buy. Looking to make Lake Winnipesaukee something like that and I'll leave here as well and I don't own a high performance boat!

Again, I call on the speed limit crowd to tell me, if safety is the actual concern why not adopt Rule 6?

ADOPT RULE 6 AND BOTH SIDES GET WHAT THEY SAY THEY WANT!

[TiltonBB]

BI,

Many people have who cannot afford, or do not want to own lake front homes have purchased large cabin cruisers and use them like a summer home. By necessity more than three hundred horsepower are required to move these boats, yet most top out at 25-30 MPH. Many of those same people have purchased (or rent slips) to accomodate those boats.

1. What will happen to the value of those slips when no large boats are here to need them anymore?

2. How will the towns make up for the lost tax revenue? Example: Mountain View Yacht Club in Gilford has 284 slips, most approved for larger boats that require over 300 horsepower. It's safe to say that at least 200 of the boats in just that one marina have over 300 horsepower. Reduce the demand for those large boat slips and you have reduced the market value (Think tax value)

3. Should the government enact a law that will seriously impact the local marina businesses that sell those boats? (I know what you are thinking, instead of selling a $350,000 boat they could sell $250 plastic kayaks)

4. How will the state make up for the lost corporate tax revenue when the major marinas on the lake do substantially less business?

5. With less demand comes lower prices. Most people do not want to be at the lake to paddle their kayak or sit on the shore and eat granola. Fewer people will choose to purchase first or second homes on the lake, choosing to go elsewhere where the regulations don't exist. Are you prepared to see your home value decrease? (At the same time the towns will increase the tax rate to make up for lost revenue)

[jrc]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

BI,

Many people have who cannot afford, or do not want to own lake front homes have purchased large cabin cruisers and use them like a summer home...

I fall into this category and it is clear that BI is after people like me. I say BI personally because he has said it clearly on the forum. I strongly believe the many people in WinnFABS also have his goal, but they have not said it publicly. It is also my guess that BI will have reasons that every bad effect you list will either actually be good or acceptable losses.

What he and probably the WinnFABS people really want is either a time machine to an imagined idyllic past or complete control of who and what uses the their lake.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

BI,
Are you prepared to see your home value decrease? (At the same time the towns will increase the tax rate to make up for lost revenue)

Based on my observations and limited understanding of BI, I think he doesn't care a bit about a drop in property value. This is my own opinion, but his agenda leads me to this conclusion.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

BI,

Many people have who cannot afford, or do not want to own lake front homes have purchased large cabin cruisers and use them like a summer home. By necessity more than three hundred horsepower are required to move these boats, yet most top out at 25-30 MPH. Many of those same people have purchased (or rent slips) to accommodate those boats.


1. What will happen to the value of those slips when no large boats are here to need them anymore?

2. How will the towns make up for the lost tax revenue? Example: Mountain View Yacht Club in Gilford has 284 slips, most approved for larger boats that require over 300 horsepower. It's safe to say that at least 200 of the boats in just that one marina have over 300 horsepower. Reduce the demand for those large boat slips and you have reduced the market value (Think tax value)

3. Should the government enact a law that will seriously impact the local marina businesses that sell those boats? (I know what you are thinking, instead of selling a $350,000 boat they could sell $250 plastic kayaks)

4. How will the state make up for the lost corporate tax revenue when the major marinas on the lake do substantially less business?

5. With less demand comes lower prices. Most people do not want to be at the lake to paddle their kayak or sit on the shore and eat granola. Fewer people will choose to purchase first or second homes on the lake, choosing to go elsewhere where the regulations don't exist. Are you prepared to see your home value decrease? (At the same time the towns will increase the tax rate to make up for lost revenue)

The cost of lakefront homes is not that much more than large cabin cruisers. In some cases less. Before lakefront prices went nuts a few years ago, several homes in my area sold for under $100k. I just checked the current valuations on Bear Island and found 39 homes under $300k. How much is a new big Carver? And think of how much you can save on slip rental and fuel!

1. They will convert to slips for smaller boats.

2. The town may have more take revenues as people that have left the lake or stayed away do to the unfair use by the rich few ends.

3. Governments enact laws that effect businesses every day. Governments have a RESPONSIBILITY to enact laws that will improve safety and reduce pollution, even if there may be economic impact. Over the years how many times have the auto makers told us increased safety and pollutions standards would put them out of business, or increase the price of cars to where nobody can afford them? The answer is EVERY time.

4. The marinas may do MORE business. Perhaps you have forgotten that several of the marinas in the area support speed limits.

5. Demand will, if anything, increase.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I just checked the current valuations on Bear Island and found 39 homes under $300k. How much is a new big Carver? And think of how much you can save on slip rental and fuel!

Valuations are not what the real estate is truly worth on the market these days. What's your slice of Bear Island appraised for? What do you think it would bring on the market? I know for a fact that there is a $250K+ delta between my appraisal and what it can/would go for on the market. Most waterfront properties are in the same category. The new big Carver that you wish to ban is not even close to real estate value...

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Valuations are not what the real estate is truly worth on the market these days. What's your slice of Bear Island appraised for? What do you think it would bring on the market? I know for a fact that there is a $250K+ delta between my appraisal and what it can/would go for on the market. Most waterfront properties are in the same category. The new big Carver that you wish to ban is not even close to real estate value...

You can check Bear Island evaluations at the link below. My place has a tax value of 341,100. Two months ago an appraiser went to our place by skimobile to value it for refinance. They valued it at 347,000. Our place is, in my opinion, a little better than average for the island.

http://data.visionappraisal.com/MeredithNH/DEFAULT.asp

It's easier to price used boats so I checked usedboats.com and found they list 12 Carvers that are 2007 or 2008 model years. They ranged from 299,000 to 1,474,610 with an average price of $655,000. New Carvers obviously sell for more.

http://www.usedboats.com/used-carver-boats.htm

So you see Carvers cost a lot more than waterfront property. And obviously a boat will not hold its value like real estate will. Making the waterfront home even cheaper in the long run.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You can check Bear Island evaluations at the link below. My place has a tax value of 341,100. Two months ago an appraiser went to our place by skimobile to value it for refinance. They valued it at 347,000. Our place is, in my opinion, a little better than average for the island.

http://data.visionappraisal.com/MeredithNH/DEFAULT.asp

It's easier to price used boats so I checked usedboats.com and found they list 12 Carvers that are 2007 or 2008 model years. They ranged from 299,000 to 1,474,610 with an average price of $655,000. New Carvers obviously sell for more.

http://www.usedboats.com/used-carver-boats.htm

So you see Carvers cost a lot more than waterfront property. And obviously a boat will not hold its value like real estate will. Making the waterfront home even cheaper in the long run.

True all around Bear Islander. Your house has some big positives, great location!

It is also very true that a Yacht like a Carver is not a good investment that is for sure.

However, with all that said who are we to dictate how people spend their leisure time on the lake? Many of those Yacht owners who own slips in the Marinas would never trade their lifestyle for yours and mine (island life). They don't look at it as a bottom line issue. They enjoy having their boat at the mainland. Remember an island home is not for everyone.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

True all around Bear Islander. Your house has some big positives, great location!

It is also very true that a Yacht like a Carver is not a good investment that is for sure.

However, with all that said who are we to dictate how people spend their leisure time on the lake? Many of those Yacht owners who own slips in the Marinas would never trade their lifestyle for yours and mine (island life). They don't look at it as a bottom line issue. They enjoy having their boat at the mainland. Remember an island home is not for everyone.

It is not for you or I to tell people how to spend their leisure time (unless they want to go into space). However we have every right to voice our opinions when that lifestyle causes pollution or safety problems on a crowded lake.

I am free to advocate for a horsepower limit if I wish. The responsibility of enacting a horsepower limit falls on the legislature.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You can check Bear Island evaluations at the link below. My place has a tax value of 341,100. Two months ago an appraiser went to our place by skimobile to value it for refinance. They valued it at 347,000. Our place is, in my opinion, a little better than average for the island.

http://data.visionappraisal.com/MeredithNH/DEFAULT.asp

It's easier to price used boats so I checked usedboats.com and found they list 12 Carvers that are 2007 or 2008 model years. They ranged from 299,000 to 1,474,610 with an average price of $655,000. New Carvers obviously sell for more.

http://www.usedboats.com/used-carver-boats.htm

So you see Carvers cost a lot more than waterfront property. And obviously a boat will not hold its value like real estate will. Making the waterfront home even cheaper in the long run.

Figuring 2007-2008 used, yes the value is higher but out of all the pages of used Carvers only a handul were over the assessed value of your property. Regardless, my point was that assessed value and market value when it comes to waterfront/island property are no where near comparable by a large gap. I can provide a few examples from Mark is you like. This has been covered previously in FLL's post about property taxes.

If you were to list your property today do you feel $347k is a fair asking price, a price that you would cash out at? I doubt it highly, being that the true market for the land alone is not far from that.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Figuring 2007-2008 used, yes the value is higher but out of all the pages of used Carvers only a handul were over the assessed value of your property. Regardless, my point was that assessed value and market value when it comes to waterfront/island property are no where near comparable by a large gap. I can provide a few examples from Mark is you like. This has been covered previously in FLL's post about property taxes.

If you were to list your property today do you feel $347k is a fair asking price, a price that you would cash out at? I doubt it highly, being that the true market for the land alone is not far from that.

We were talking about A NEW big Carver. That is what I originally posted.

The market value a year or two ago was higher. At that time there was a gap between the tax value and market value. However with the drop in the market I think they are about the same, as my experience proves.

Last summer we purchased the empty lot next to ours for exactly 200k. Its tax value is 185,600. Again very little difference, and probably even closer by now.

I think property values are lower than you think. Certainly they are on an island. And as you can see the price of Cabin Cruisers is quite high.

Sorry if this puts holes in the "rich landowners wanting to get rid of the poor folks in cabin cruisers" theory.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You can check Bear Island evaluations at the link below. My place has a tax value of 341,100. Two months ago an appraiser went to our place by skimobile to value it for refinance. They valued it at 347,000. Our place is, in my opinion, a little better than average for the island.

http://data.visionappraisal.com/MeredithNH/DEFAULT.asp

It's easier to price used boats so I checked usedboats.com and found they list 12 Carvers that are 2007 or 2008 model years. They ranged from 299,000 to 1,474,610 with an average price of $655,000. New Carvers obviously sell for more.

http://www.usedboats.com/used-carver-boats.htm

[color=purple]So you see Carvers cost a lot more than waterfront property.[[color] And obviously a boat will not hold its value like real estate will. Making the waterfront home even cheaper in the long run.

Happy to read that Governors Island property is priced so low...

Are we in a deep Depression?

Is it 1929, already?

Will the spin ever stop?

[Gilligan]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

And think of how much you can save on slip rental and fuel!

1. They will convert to slips for smaller boats.

2. The town may have more take revenues as people that have left the lake or stayed away do to the unfair use by the rich few ends.

3. Governments enact laws that effect businesses every day. Governments have a RESPONSIBILITY to enact laws that will improve safety and reduce pollution, even if there may be economic impact. Over the years how many times have the auto makers told us increased safety and pollutions standards would put them out of business, or increase the price of cars to where nobody can afford them? The answer is EVERY time.

4. The marinas may do MORE business. Perhaps you have forgotten that several of the marinas in the area support speed limits.

5. Demand will, if anything, increase.

There are too many posts from Bear Islander to read thetm over again to find quotes. I recall that he wants to impose new speed limits and horsepower limits to reduce congestion and pretend that his way is the best and safest way.

Here you say that marinas may do more business and demand for slips will increase. This you say will lead to less congestion and a safer lake for campers, families and kayaks. How does that work?

Converting condo type boat slips to accomodate smaller boats should be real easy. New documents. Plenty paperwork. Legal issues. New permits if they grant them. New construction if allowed. No more "few rich" to pay for all that work if it is allowed. You have thought this through thoroughly.

Those who are left after being Bear Ilandered will have to pay more so the towns can receive the same income they would if those rich few were still paying their fair share. On top of that who will pay for all the slips to be redone?

All of this you say will reduce congestion, result in smaller wakes, make the lake safer for campers and kayakers and families. Demand for slips and marina services will increase.

The studies the government has made do not support your arguments. Their responsibility should be to enforce the laws we already have.

Your plans do not make sense.

[Gilligan]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Another interesting conspiracy theory. Except that the Webmaster would know the truth, IP's are logged I believe.

Surely someone with modest means or even vast personal wealth could afford 2 IPs. Even use a proxy.

What is it that you say Webmaster knows as truth?

Bear Islander must have been a used car salesman at some time. Say whatever it takes to make a sale.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

"...The studies the government has made do not support your arguments..."

"We're from the Government, and we're here to help you" never rang truer than when "the Government" conducted their self-admitted flawed speed survey after illogically announcing that there would be a "Temporary Speed Limit" on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Originally Posted by Gilligan

"...Your plans do not make sense..."

Actually, I find BI's arguments to be fully based on inarguable logic—and Logic is a subject in which I have some training.