In the Spirit of Compromise....

[Kracken]

Thanks OCDACTIVE,

And until your boat is fixed you are welcome to take a ride in mine.

It's not the antarctic blue sports wagon with a C.B. radio and "The Rally Fun-Pack”. It is the a pea green Wagon Queen Family Truckster. You think you hate it now, but wait till you drive it to Shibley’s.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Kracken

Thanks OCDACTIVE,



It's not the antarctic blue sports wagon with a C.B. radio and "The Rally Fun-Pack”. It is the a pea green Wagon Queen Family Truckster. You think you hate it now, but wait till you drive it

I am not your everyday fool... I don't want to drive it, I just want my old car back..............

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Kracken

Thanks OCDACTIVE,

And until your boat is fixed you are welcome to take a ride in mine.

It's not the antarctic blue sports wagon with a C.B. radio and "The Rally Fun-Pack”. It is the a pea green Wagon Queen Family Truckster. You think you hate it now, but wait till you drive it to Shibley’s.

Very funny.. Thank you.. I do have two other boats... a party boat (yup thats right I drive a tri-toon as well!!!!!, and a small center consol fishing boat... So before people jump on me for thinking I only enjoy the lake going fast.........think again..

But thank you I do appreciate the offer.. I will be up the weekend of the 29th for my son's 2nd bday, but other then that I am now back to working weekends to save for the rebuild and paint job.. So no more lake for me

If I end up down your way I will definately drop you a line.

[Woodsy]

For the record...

I could certainly live with a 65MPH daytime limit... that being said, another one of my reasons (not espoused in my recent novella) for eliminating the daytime 45 MPH limit is that with a 65MPH limit, there are maybe 30-40 boats on the lake that can top that and the number rapidly decreases as spped goes up... maybe 6 boats can top 80, maybe 3 of those 6 can top 90, maybe 1 or 2 could top 100... Is it really worth having a law and more importantly spending the time, money and resources to enforce the law for these 20 or 30 boats?? Especially given the limited resources of the NHMP and the COMPLETE LACK OF DATA that suggests speed is an issue during the daylight hours. I say look at the economics and the data!

Woodsy

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by elchase

And this is supposed to be some sort of "all-inclusive compromise committee"?

Good point. One thing to be added here. We can all brainstorm as to what "we all" could agree on as to what constitutes a compromise, i.e. 55 day, 30 night, 500' safe passage, and yackity yack yack all day but in reality we need to keep the following in mind. The state legislature and executive branch are far less conservative than was the case when HB 162 was rejected, and will become increasingly so in the future. Many of the supporters of HB 162 were voted out of office (most likely unrelated to HB 162). Many people (not on this forum) are very happy with the SL and are going to point out that in fact the whole lake's region did not disintegrate (as some on the forum predicted) because of the SL. Some feel that the SL didn't go far enough.
The real debate will be in Concord (against the backdrop of a very high profile boating trial that will have national exposure). Everyone on this thread can insist that this or that is the best "compromise" but it's not a whole lot more meaningful than if we all agreed that monkeys can fly. Just because the forum members (hardly a representative slice of the NH public) agree on something doesn't necessarily make it so. It just seems to be a whole lot of mental gymnastics. Some on this forum have suggested that SL supporters can't go back to the 60's, Golden Pond, etc. and yes of course we can't go back to these times. There are more boats, more faster boats, more kayaks, canoes etc. People change, times change, and laws change to reflect this. This is an expected consequence of how societies evolve and has been a part of man's history since the beginning...the "we don't need no more laws" crowd is being overly simplistic to believe this will change. Old laws will be discarded, and new ones adopted as we move into the future. (Sure glad we can shop on Sundays now!)

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by elchase

... plus one member that claims to be a speed limit supporter but appears willing to say anything to gain the acceptance of the go-fasters ...

I must assume that you are talking about me.

You have only been on the forum a month and it appears you have not gone back and read the old SL threads. Otherwise you would know how ridiculous that statement is.

[onlywinni]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Good point. One thing to be added here. We can all brainstorm as to what "we all" could agree on as to what constitutes a compromise, i.e. 55 day, 30 night, 500' safe passage, and yackity yack yack all day but in reality we need to keep the following in mind. The state legislature and executive branch are far less conservative than was the case when HB 162 was rejected, and will become increasingly so in the future. Many of the supporters of HB 162 were voted out of office (most likely unrelated to HB 162). Many people (not on this forum) are very happy with the SL and are going to point out that in fact the whole lake's region did not disintegrate (as some on the forum predicted) because of the SL. Some feel that the SL didn't go far enough.
The real debate will be in Concord (against the backdrop of a very high profile boating trial that will have national exposure). Everyone on this thread can insist that this or that is the best "compromise" but it's not a whole lot more meaningful than if we all agreed that monkeys can fly. Just because the forum members (hardly a representative slice of the NH public) agree on something doesn't necessarily make it so. It just seems to be a whole lot of mental gymnastics. Some on this forum have suggested that SL supporters can't go back to the 60's, Golden Pond, etc. and yes of course we can't go back to these times. There are more boats, more faster boats, more kayaks, canoes etc. People change, times change, and laws change to reflect this. This is an expected consequence of how societies evolve and has been a part of man's history since the beginning...the "we don't need no more laws" crowd is being overly simplistic to believe this will change. Old laws will be discarded, and new ones adopted as we move into the future. (Sure glad we can shop on Sundays now!)

I agree, but imagine if there was a Compromise or Possible Compromises and the people on this forum/the constituents called/emailed their elected officials and asked them to consider them..

This following part is not directed at you, just a general comment:

It is evident to me that the most of the SL Supporters are not interested in a Compromise at all, because they already have what they want, so why do they need to Compromise.

It is the people who oppose the SL that need to be loud and proud and discuss this matter and try to change the law.

I should add...I appreciate the pro SL Supporters that are willing to compromise. The ones that are not I understand your reasoning even if I dont agree with it...

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I must assume that you are talking about me.

You have only been on the forum a month and it appears you have not gone back and read the old SL threads. Otherwise you would know how ridiculous that statement is.

Looks like EL is taking on some serious water! I hope his sailboat makes it back to the dock!

[Kracken]

I agree with Sunset (to a point) & Onlywinni,

This thread was started to reach a common ground between opposers and supporters. If we can reach an accord here, then maybe a petition can be started with the support of this forum. To sit here and argue about the merits of changing the law then do nothing is truly an act of futility.

BI has graciously thrown his opinion and possible support for a compromise. I do hope others will join in as well. I think there may be a member or two willing to bring a petition or resolution to Concord if we can work together. Maybe it well help sway the legislature, maybe not, but it can't hurt. I do think this forum is a good representation of the people of NH as it pertains to this legislation. To many of the people of this state, this law is a waste of time. They don't live here and they don't visit here. This legislation directly affects us. So I believe our opinions do matter.

As for the people who believe unlimited speed or 45/25 is FIRM. I am guessing a compromise will not be supported by them. They have the right to their opinion.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You have only been on the forum a month

This is up for debate as well.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Kracken

"...When you take the rights and liberties away from one group it diminishes us all..."

One of Our Founders, Ben Franklin, referred to "essential" liberties in his famous quote.

Your "right" to endanger others with speed is not an "essential" liberty.

Originally Posted by Kracken

"...I was not the target of this law…this time. But what is next...Cruisers, bass boats, ski-boats, PWC...????"

When a cruiser's wake is caught on a webcam overturning kids in a canoe...and several drown...?

Do you deny that a headline—past or present—has NOT driven our lawmakers?

Originally Posted by Kracken

"...How about this one...The lake belongs to us all. What happens if the next issue addressed in Concord is access to the lake? The majority of people in this state don’t own waterfront property. This isn’t fair to people who don’t own property. If everybody has equal rights to the lake why should they be limited to just the public beaches? Why can’t everyone enjoy the entire lake and all of the lake’s shoreline? What if the next legislation makes all shorefront public property?

An unlikely scenario: Concord is using shoreline owners' "redistributed wealth" to support the operations of the entire state.

[Kracken]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

This is up for debate as well.

Coke just came out my nose...no so good for the sinuses

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

This is up for debate as well.

So you're thinking what I'm thinking? It seems odd that one would be so rabid and passionate after just "one month" on the board. Me thinks I smell a rat. I wish Don were able to flush this one out.

[Kracken]

"A STAR is born"

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

So you're thinking what I'm thinking? It seems odd that one would be so rabid and passionate after just "one month" on the board. Me thinks I smell a rat. I wish Don were able to flush this one out.

Yup... thats what I am thinking.. Plus the language and verbage is VERY similar to that of other names that have tried this in the past.

It raises an eyebrow that someone stays side lined for sooo long then suddenly when the bill comes back up suddenly a new member is as gun-ho as they are, and are so versitile in posting multiple threads.. Looks to be A LOT of experience...

as mentioned: if it looks like and smells like........................... IT IS!

[gtagrip]

I was thinking the same thing at one point, then was going on a benefit of doubt. Not so sure anymore. The rhetoric did seem distinctively similar. Thought we might have had a copy cat on our hands!

[chase1]

What is the point of discussing a compromise at this point?

The MP spent last season enforcing specific speed zones to test and evaluate the effect and enforceability of the proposed speed limit. They also went one step further and collected boat speed data throughout other areas of the lake that were not indicated to the public. After all this there was still insufficient data to support the law because it was then amended and passed with a 2 yr sunset clause so that more data could be collected.

A petition is being submitted in Concord to repeal the current sunset clause and make the law permanent. I would think amendments would be left out of the discussion in Concord and the debate would be focused simply on weather to repeal the sunset or not. There doesn't seem to be any new data that indicates a need to rush it to permanent status, and there was certainly plenty of time and debate that lead up to the current sunset clause. No one can claim they will be safer next year either way so what reason could there be to rush the process. Let the law ride as written and evaluate it after one more season. A compromise can be discussed then if the data warrants it, but I say if after three years there is still insufficient data to support the law, stop the debate and watch the sun set.

Chase1

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Kracken

"A STAR is born"

Or perhaps we should call someone about getting these copyrighted or even patented

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Or perhaps we should call someone about getting these copyrighted or even patented

Not sure we could do that, there was already a movie made called Sybill!(for those that don't know, this is a movie about a women with a split personality)

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

it appears you have not gone back and read the old SL threads.

I have been looking at the history. Aren't you the same person that was laughing at the same group you are now pandering to, telling them they could use their cigarette boats as planters once the SL passed? Aren't you the one recently talking about how the fat lady had sung and they should just accept that they "had lost and should go home"? And I'm the crazy one? As an alleged supporter, you have appeared so pompous as to make supporters look like jerks and I have wondered whether you have really been an opposer all along just posing for that reason. Senator Spector comes to mind.

Originally Posted by hazelnut

As for my credibility, I would never defend it to you. Yours though? Let's just say the research has begun.

Like Joe the Plumber? Should I be scared and drop off the forum to avoid being "researched"? WHAT THE HECK IS THIS IMPLYING?

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

EL, As other have pointed out here you are loosing your logic......onlywinni, is not saying his boat isn't safe below 25 mph.....

He wasn't???;

Originally Posted by onlywinni

Thanks for confirming my point that I can not operate my boat at less than 25mph safely.

Originally Posted by onlywinni

So I said I cant operate my boat safely at less than 25mph and the Boattest.com tests confirms that.

I think his statement, repeated three times, is very clear. He wants us to let him tool around our crowded lake as fast as he can in a 5000 pound boat because he can't operate it safely at speeds below "only" 25 mph. No word recalibration needed.

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

what he is indicating is that at 25 mph he is comfortably on plane, and feels he has good control of the boat with a quick nimble response that feels in control... as he back down from there the boats starts to back down off the plane and he gets into a region where the boat is bow high (reduced visibility) and probably sluggish to the response... until he backs far enough out of the throttle that the boat settles down in the water.....

You got all that from "I cant operate my boat safely at less than 25mph"? Wow. And I'm the one with the credibility problem?

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

when you blurt out what comes to your mind to support that goal you loose your credibility.....

I agree.

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

I will say it agian... this is a dam big lake, room for everyone......

Not if we have multi-ton craft running around on it going speeds at which the craft "cant be operated safely" according to their operators, there isn't. No lake is big enough for that.

Originally Posted by onlywinni

What are you basing your 95% of boats cant pass 45mph on this lake.

This number was generated by your side...when they thought it would help them. They claimed to have done a survey. They wanted to show that the number of high-speed boats was trivial, so it suited them to "prove" that only 5% of the boats on the lake could reach the limit and to ask "why enact a law that will effect so few"?. Now you see the mistake of this logic and want to discredit your own findings?

[LIforrelaxin]

Well it looks like we all may be of the opinion that what we think is a ........ is probably indeed a........

Anyways.....

Now some people talk about what ideas we generate here being of no real value.... because we aren't the ones make the decision... well let me put this out there....

If we had a couple of SL supporters, and a couple of opposers, and a couple of people like me that just want to have a good comprimise, that can prove through this forum, that we can discuss this matter with out mud slingingy and being nasty....

Then the next step needs to happen, that group needs to get together and talk and come up with an effective comprimise.... that group could then go to the state house and seek and audiance with some of the representatives to discuss the matter....

We live in a Democracy People, it is not only our right, but our obligation to be involved in the government.... however we can't just be opposers or supporters and walk into the state offices and make a difference, however if you have some people from both side that are willing to put forth a comprimise then you have something you can go to the state house and put forth.....

Anyways I will get off my soap box........

[Kracken]

I actually just saw a picture of the STAR of that movie...

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by elchase

You got all that from "I cant operate my boat safely at less than 25mph"? Wow. And I'm the one with the credibility problem?

OK normally I don't let myself get upset at what some says in here.... but EL... you are barking at the wrong person....

My statement was extrapulated from various post made by Onlywinni, and from my own experience handling many many pleasure boats..... Why is it your the only one that seems to have a problem with this statement here????

[OCDACTIVE]

I am not going to quote the HUGE post above by EL for as everyone can see it has no basis for this discussion. Trying to pick apart peoples threads to prove a point wasn't this threads intention. We have made some real progress and as long as it doesn't turn into a mud slinging match we can continue our work and maybe get something hammered out. El is simply trying to get everyone off topic and the thread shut down. Please don't let that happen and just stay on the discussion at hand. Everyone has tried to be nice and try to reason in a subjective fashion. Some are not willing to partake in a compromise so maybe they should go back to the thread they trumpeted as a place where they will not be attacked or argued with.

Here we are actually trying to get something accomplished.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Kracken

Isn’t the purpose of this forum for all BOATERS to discuss their view points?

Just a thought….

Maybe if every member, opposers, supporters, and people just sitting on the fence could give a speed limit they believe is fair. If you say 45/25 that is fine, if you say unlimited…that’s fine too, it’s just an opinion. Maybe we are not that far apart. If every member could give a number…not a reason, just a number ( I am looking right at you Mee-n-Mac).

I think it would be interesting to see where the boaters of Winnipesaukee stand.

Set the night speed limit to either 30 or 35 MPH. Why ? My best attempts to get a handle on it tell me the average joe might get into trouble above 40 MPH at night. I doubt there's much safety benefit to 25 vs 30 vs 35. But there's certainly a difference in boat handling and efficiency. Tell you what, in the spirit of compromise and to keeps things nautical, make it 30 knots.

For daytime let it be unlimited in the Broads and 1000' ft away from any other boat. It's the 45 MPH the supporters want in all other places. Reasonable and prudent clause applies at all times as it always has. Why ? Because the number of truly fast boats is so low that the "speed" problem is more theoretical than actual and since you can't please either side completely ... send them to play in different rooms !

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I guess elchase didn't get this far into the article

Elchase should have read this article as well ....

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...WS02/708069649

wherein it said ....

"Anyone who has been on the water can clearly see that the amount of boat traffic is down significantly from years past. Even on the sunny Fourth of July weekend, boating activity was way below normal."

and ...

"Marine Patrol Director David Barrett does not believe that the speed limit has much effect on boating, but the weather has."

and ...

"Those who know the lake best all agree that, aside from the economy, the weather has been the one thing that has hurt boating this season."

and finally ...

"When asked if the new speed limit could have an affect on boating activity, Thurston said that he didn't see it contributing to the lack of activity.

"I don't think it's been an issue at all," he said about the speed limits. "Mother Nature is a compelling factor. I think the big crowds are here."


Opinions may vary but the minority is usually wrong.

[trfour]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Set the night speed limit to either 30 or 35 MPH. Why ? My best attempts to get a handle on it tell me the average joe might get into trouble above 40 MPH at night. I doubt there's much safety benefit to 25 vs 30 vs 35. But there's certainly a difference in boat handling and efficiency. Tell you what, in the spirit of compromise and to keeps things nautical, make it 30 knots.

For daytime let it be unlimited in the Broads and 1000' ft away from any other boat. It's the 45 MPH the supporters want in all other places. Reasonable and prudent clause applies at all times as it always has. Why ? Because the number of truly fast boats is so low that the "speed" problem is more theoretical than actual and since you can't please either side completely ... send them to play in different rooms !

And just maybe, I can get away with a comment here.... Enforce the laws that are and were law before the speed limit. First of all, lets disallow darts and a dartboard with speed limit stickers pasted all over it in the lawmaker's chambers.... The lawmaker's have unlimited resources at their disposal. They are not where they are to throw indiscriminate patches, but instead to collectively solve problems, and to protect the public at Large. Sometimes they get carried off the pathway.
I understand that most of them are trying to enjoy their summer vacations at this time, so I as well will go away now!

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by trfour

And just maybe, I can get away with a comment here.... Enforce the laws that are and were law before the speed limit.

Sounds like the discussions from years past. Perhaps my memory is foggy. But I don't recall any of the SL proponents being engaged in discussions concerning enforcement. To downplay any other problems, some of the most vocal shills have stated there are no other problems on the lake. A pretty ridiculous assertion. But the main point is this, SL proponents are rarely, if ever, promoting safety. The espouse fear, and have great contempt for those that take the discussion to broader areas of enforcement and safety.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Sounds like the discussions from years past. Perhaps my memory is foggy. But I don't recall any of the SL proponents being engaged in discussions concerning enforcement. To downplay any other problems, some of the most vocal shills have stated there are no other problems on the lake. A pretty ridiculous assertion. But the main point is this, SL proponents are rarely, if ever, promoting safety. The espouse fear, and have great contempt for those that take the discussion to broader areas of enforcement and safety.

Most of your posts are reasonable, but you are way off base here.

What you call safety threads I would call "Divert attention from the SL" threads or even "Convince people we are interested in safety" threads.

I joined the NHRBA shortly after it was formed. I was soon told to "go away" they didn't want any spies from the speed limit supporters. To bad I wasn't able to take part in the vote they had about supporting HB162 or not. I guess the vote came out that they would oppose it, big surprise.

So give me a break with all this "SL supporters don't want safety" talk.

And please tell me where SL supporters claimed there were "no other problems on the lake". That doesn't pass the laugh test.

[hazelnut]

... Bear Islander I do and will always have a difficult time drawing a correlation between the SL Law and addressing safety on the lake. Based on what most of us here observe going over 45MPH has nothing to do with all the incidents on the lake jeopardizing our lives. When thinking about supporting the law did you just throw your hands up in exasperation one day and say "well it's a start!" I am curious as to how you reached the conclusion that it would actually address the Cap. Boneheads on the lake. This isn't to say that there isn't one or two idiots that have done 50+ and caused and incident or made someone "scared." My position is and will always be why create a law that only addresses the minority? I just don't understand it? The majority problems need to be addressed. Why waste time and money on something that has little or no impact on the real problems plaguing the lake. This (for you elChase) is why I actually care about this "fight." I am sick and tired of the diversion of funds and attention towards a law that I predict won't work towards fixing the problem. Not because I support people doing 100MPH across the broads, Ludicrous in my opinion, sorry. But to target the guy who wants to do 55-65 maybe even 75 across the broads, eh who cares. As long as he does it safely I don't care. How many boats can actually do 75+ anyway? The law is a waste of resources plain and simple.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Most of your posts are reasonable, but you are way off base here.

What you call safety threads I would call "Divert attention from the SL" threads or even "Convince people we are interested in safety" threads.

I joined the NHRBA shortly after it was formed. I was soon told to "go away" they didn't want any spies from the speed limit supporters. To bad I wasn't able to take part in the vote they had about supporting HB162 or not. I guess the vote came out that they would oppose it, big surprise.

So give me a break with all this "SL supporters don't want safety" talk.

And please tell me where SL supporters claimed there were "no other problems on the lake". That doesn't pass the laugh test.

Sure it does. I usually put in terms like "rarely, if ever", and "mostly", and sometimes think of you personally as I do it. You get pretty confusing when you start adding in terms like "erosion" and "environment", as though the SL specifically helps those areas out. I do know, BI, that your own ideas in regards to the lake, and boating in general on the lake, are far less shallow, and thus, far more complex than those of "Most" of the pro SL crowd.

But let's get to the meat of the issue may we? It's hard to differentiate from safety and the SL law itself, since that was the guise it was passed on. But I don't really care about the two opposing groups in the SL debate, they were both biased, and in the end, myopic in their focus. I will say that the NHRBA appeared to at least do Something targeted towards safety, where the other organization? Maybe nothing?

But this is you and me having a discussion. I say, "most" pro speed limit advocates, especially those that are emphatically pro speed limit, are Rarely, if Ever seen in discussions involving overall safety on the lake. Some of the more ridiculous proponents did join in, but only to add that the lake is a wonderful, safe, and friendly place this year, And Last because of their new law. One particular proponent basically called anyone that said it was not, a liar. But he then added that traffic on the lake was not down, and would not comment when proven to be quite ridiculous in making those statements.

You're one of the very few SL promoters that ever gets engaged in some of these discussions, although I wish you did more often. You were quite vocal about the shenanigans that take place around Bears Island, particularly the kid's camps. People flying through the NWZ daily. But then you couch, and time your statements to make sure it doesn't interfere with a certain law. So how are things around your parts these days, particularly on weekends?

For people that are generally not cognizant of their bad actions, enforcement is needed. I fully recognize that some people do things that annoy experienced boaters not out of stupidity or arrogance, but that they may be new to the game, and do not Know the right way. Those are the ones that many of us try to help out. Then there are those others. We all know the kind, and their actions. No one specific group, they come in all flavors.

Hazelnut is dead spot on accurate. Many (most) of us, are pretty sick of the activity that goes on on lakes across the country, let alone just Winni. By no means am I a goody two shoes safety advocate. I deplore the thought of wearing a PFD at all times in a boat. So instead of trying to diss genuine thoughts, why don't you show everyone where the overwhelming majority of the SL crowd engages in anything other than steadfastly sticking to the SL alone. Many are so scared that the SL provisions will be found to be unneeded, they just lie about what's going on. I'm sorry to say BI, that you yourself just will not address some of the things reported because deep down, you just think that the law will rid the lake of "some" boats, which can only be a better thing. I agree, twelve boats on the lake would be great, just mine maybe better.

But my theory is that all waterways would be far, far better places, if the existing laws in place were enforced, and the aholes knew they would be enforced. The most active SL supporters don't really care about this part, since it's not in the top three in their agenda. So while many of us support more funding for the MP, and more co-operation with them in trying to get the bad guys off the water, they remain silent.

You tell me that's BS?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

... Bear Islander I do and will always have a difficult time drawing a correlation between the SL Law and addressing safety on the lake. Based on what most of us here observe going over 45MPH has nothing to do with all the incidents on the lake jeopardizing our lives. When thinking about supporting the law did you just throw your hands up in exasperation one day and say "well it's a start!" I am curious as to how you reached the conclusion that it would actually address the Cap. Boneheads on the lake. This isn't to say that there isn't one or two idiots that have done 50+ and caused and incident or made someone "scared." My position is and will always be why create a law that only addresses the minority? I just don't understand it? The majority problems need to be addressed. Why waste time and money on something that has little or no impact on the real problems plaguing the lake. This (for you elChase) is why I actually care about this "fight." I am sick and tired of the diversion of funds and attention towards a law that I predict won't work towards fixing the problem. Not because I support people doing 100MPH across the broads, Ludicrous in my opinion, sorry. But to target the guy who wants to do 55-65 maybe even 75 across the broads, eh who cares. As long as he does it safely I don't care. How many boats can actually do 75+ anyway? The law is a waste of resources plain and simple.

I can tell you the exact moment when I knew Winnipesaukee needed a speed limit. I was taking to the director of a non-profit children's camp on the lake and he told me he could not let his small boats go out on the lake on certain days because of the lakes cowboy atmosphere. I have subsequently spoken to other camp directors on the lake that said much the same thing.

Reason number two is that as a former NH camp director I support the New Hampshire's Camp Directors Association endorsement of speed limits.

I have other reasons for supporting a speed limit, but the ones above are all I need.

[BroadHopper]

I just can't understand how the speed limit law control the Capt, Boneheads around the summer camps? Maybe we should enact a law to keep boaters 1500 feet away from summer camps. I think that would be more effective.

BTW, I spent many summers at various summer camps. I even became a CIT/counselor and camp brings back wonderful memories. The Boneheads were a nuisance! Not the speeders.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

When a cruiser's wake is caught on a webcam overturning kids in a canoe...and several drown...?

Do you deny that a headline—past or present—has NOT driven our lawmakers?

Missed this one. So the lawmakers were driven to pass the SL law partly because of a cruiser wake? I do remember "some" people discussing cruiser wakes quite a bit. Has the SL law slowed down the cruisers to 45 mph as well?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

I just can't understand how the speed limit law control the Capt, Boneheads around the summer camps? ...

That's simple. Captain Boneheads that move to another lake because they don't like the speed limit don't bother summer camps. Captain Boneheads that don't come to Winni because of the speed limits don't bother summer camps.

You can't deny that there is a cowboy atmosphere out there at times. If you are a camp director thinking about sending out canoes, row boats, sailboats and kayaks with children in them then that atmosphere is a serious consideration and worry.

A speed limit will not make Winni into Golden Pond, but it is a viable step to getting the lake under better control. We all know there are performance boaters that have left the lake and claim they will not return while there is a speed limit. Hopefully some of them are the Captains we speak of.

[BroadHopper]

Are at the maximum at 25 mph. Creating shore erosion. Guess the SL proponents do not want to hear about consequences.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I can tell you the exact moment when I knew Winnipesaukee needed a speed limit. I was taking to the director of a non-profit children's camp on the lake and he told me he could not let his small boats go out on the lake on certain days because of the lakes cowboy atmosphere. I have subsequently spoken to other camp directors on the lake that said much the same thing.

Reason number two is that as a former NH camp director I support the New Hampshire's Camp Directors Association endorsement of speed limits.

I have other reasons for supporting a speed limit, but the ones above are all I need.

Well those are pretty fine reasons, on the surface. I'm sure they probably appreciate the lower traffic on the lake as a whole this year. I certainly remember you mentioning the camps and their safety issues at length many times. A lot of the discussions morphed into NWZ violations, not to mention 150' violations. Many of us thought it was not only prudent, but based on your observations and others, necessary, that the NWZ be expanded, and that a larger safety zone be installed in those areas.

My guess is that some violations will occur still, and that it will be back to normal when summer returns, with a multitude of boats. Congestion always brings problems with it. If some of the more vocal SL proponents are correct, many of their friends will be back on the lake again, now that they say it's safer.

It's always more important to go with the best solutions, not the favored answer. Sounded like an enforcement problem then, and my guess is, it will continue to be an enforcement problem in the future. You have a webcam there, ever stream it to the MP?

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

That's simple. Captain Boneheads that move to another lake because they don't like the speed limit don't bother summer camps. Captain Boneheads that don't come to Winni because of the speed limits don't bother summer camps.

You can't deny that there is a cowboy atmosphere out there at times. If you are a camp director thinking about sending out canoes, row boats, sailboats and kayaks with children in them then that atmosphere is a serious consideration and worry.

A speed limit will not make Winni into Golden Pond, but it is a viable step to getting the lake under better control. We all know there are performance boaters that have left the lake and claim they will not return while there is a speed limit. Hopefully some of them are the Captains we speak of.

Something I would hope for as well. Unfortunately, Hope doesn't feed the bulldog. I would assume mostly a-holes would leave and go elsewhere, which is what many hoped for in the first place I'm sure. Heck, I'd support them leaving as well.

With all of the problems endured by the summer camps, one would think that the MP would have had a field day, PRE-SL Law. But apparently they either didn't patrol the trouble zones much, or their actions had no impact?

Funny how we've come back full circle to some of the original sources of the discussion

Forgetting about the SL law, compromise, and all that BS for a minute. Let me try something different.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I can tell you the exact moment when I knew Winnipesaukee needed a speed limit. I was taking to the director of a non-profit children's camp on the lake and he told me he could not let his small boats go out on the lake on certain days because of the lakes cowboy atmosphere. I have subsequently spoken to other camp directors on the lake that said much the same thing.

Reason number two is that as a former NH camp director I support the New Hampshire's Camp Directors Association endorsement of speed limits.

I have other reasons for supporting a speed limit, but the ones above are all I need.

It is the concerns of people like the camp director that BI mentions that my position shifted somewhat from anti-speed limit to boating safety. Anti seemed too negative.

I believe most want boating safety. I am also for everyone being able to enjoy the lake.


R2B

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You can't deny that there is a cowboy atmosphere out there at times. If you are a camp director thinking about sending out canoes, row boats, sailboats and kayaks with children in them then that atmosphere is a serious consideration and worry.

A speed limit will not make Winni into Golden Pond, but it is a viable step to getting the lake under better control. We all know there are performance boaters that have left the lake and claim they will not return while there is a speed limit. Hopefully some of them are the Captains we speak of.

I can't deny it and I won't deny it. This was the crux of a discussion recently between elchase and myself and others. I firmly believe that cowboy atmosphere is ever present on the lake and has not been affected by the new law. This supports my main point. I truly believe that any resources directed at this law is a waste. True, Winni will never be confused with Golden Pond but I think this was the wrong step. It deflected attention away from the real problem.

I still question whether or not a large amount of boaters actually possess a Boaters License. A kid at one of the Marina's sort of confirmed that for me when he told me that many people ask him what the fine is for driving a boat without a license. But I digress.

I think the current law was thrown in as a supposed cheap and easy magic bullet that many thought would "fix" the lake. I don't think by my experiences that anything has been fixed. I know it's early but it doesn't look promising.

As for the camps, if you know where I am you'll know that there are two camps very close to me. I see what you mean with your concern about the campers safety. I see people using the kids in kayaks and sailboats like a slalom course. Instead of altering their course and giving the kids a huge buffer they pick the gaps between the pack of boats. Scary stuff. However, I've never observed this activity taking place at more than 25-35 MPH. Not saying it hasn't happened before it just seems that generally speaking speed isn't the issue with this one.

So I defer to my point that we are targeting the minority problem in hopes of fixing the majority problem. I have a hard time with that correlation.

Also, I hope you don't see these posts as ganging up on you it just seems that you are the only SL Supporter interested in engaging in actual debate right now.

[pm203]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I can tell you the exact moment when I knew Winnipesaukee needed a speed limit. I was taking to the director of a non-profit children's camp on the lake and he told me he could not let his small boats go out on the lake on certain days because of the lakes cowboy atmosphere. I have subsequently spoken to other camp directors on the lake that said much the same thing.

Reason number two is that as a former NH camp director I support the New Hampshire's Camp Directors Association endorsement of speed limits.

I have other reasons for supporting a speed limit, but the ones above are all I need.

If the safety of the children is the primary responsibility of the camps, shouldn't the camps restrict themselves to safer parts of the lake? Why should it be the other way around?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...If some of the more vocal SL proponents are correct, many of their friends will be back on the lake again, now that they say it's safer..."

Our friends were supposed to move back overnight?

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Missed this one....Has the SL law slowed down the cruisers to 45 mph as well?

My reply was to member Kracken's post #94:

There, I maintained that no watercraft—including the cruiser—is safe from The Ravages of..."The Headline".

You missed this one because "you are new here".

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"...Captain Boneheads that move to another lake because they don't like the speed limit don't bother summer camps.
Captain Boneheads that don't come to Winni because of the speed limits don't bother summer camps..."

This is just wrong:

Those who want unlimited speeds can never be a Captain Bonehead.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...I will take a cue from BI & others.... At the risk absolute futility what kind of compromise would possibly work...??"

Three reasons you face "absolute futility" are your own constituents who, just this week:

1) have stated "their right" to exceed any speed limit,

2) have stated they will "spite" any speed limit,

3) have quoted illegal speeds of themselves breaking the present speed limit, described like-minded buddies breaking the present speed limit, and
left unreported like-minded buddies who were breaking the present speed limit.

4) invite like-minded buddies to break the present speed limit off their shoreline. (OK, there are four reasons).

Among Opposers who pledge to ignore the compromise—what kind of compromise could possibly be found?

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by pm203

If the safety of the children is the primary responsibility of the camps, shouldn't the camps restrict themselves to safer parts of the lake? Why should it be the other way around?

What part of the lake is safe?????

[Irrigation Guy]

BI - Don't you think the camp directors would be more concerned about someone going say 20-40 mph and 100 feet or less from one of their boats, then say someone going may 50mph plus in the broads or in the an open area hundreds if not thousands of feet from the nearest boat?

[pm203]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

What part of the lake is safe?????

Maybe certain coves/bays or other areas that could be roped off.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by pm203

If the safety of the children is the primary responsibility of the camps, shouldn't the camps restrict themselves to safer parts of the lake? Why should it be the other way around?

In the first place - The entire lake should be safe enough for children in a canoe! If it isn't then we need to take whatever step are necessary to make it so.

In the second place - A children's camp on the lake must send its boats out from its own waterfront. How would a camp on Bear Island, for instance, launch its canoes, sailboats etc. from another part of the lake. That is just plain silly.

Thirdly - The camps were here first. The Bear Island camps recently celebrated their 100th anniversary. I hope they can still be in operation in another hundred years. And that is what speed limits are REALLY all about.

Originally Posted by LocalRealtor

BI - Don't you think the camp directors would be more concerned about someone going say 20-40 mph and 100 feet or less from one of their boats, then say someone going may 50mph plus in the broads or in the an open area hundreds if not thousands of feet from the nearest boat?

You are getting hung up on the actual speeds involved. It's the cowboy atmosphere that is the problem. Not weather a given boat is going 25, 45 or 65.

In a perfect world a camp director wants to send his boats out on a tranquil empty lake. In the real world he looks out at the way the lake is on a summer weekend and makes a hard choice between sending the boats out or keeping them in.

I doubt any Captain Boneheads understand the hundreds and even thousands of children they are keeping off the lake by their antics. It is also true outside the camps. I know many parents, including me, think twice about letting the kids go out on days when the lake is buzzy.

[KTO]

Alright I feel like adding my two cents, most of which will be shot down in a second. I'm also returning to the "compromise" idea about 100 posts back.

1) How about a weekend speed limit? Isn't that statistically when the most accidents/Cap'n Bonehead situations occur? I've been on the lake twice on a weekend this summer and both times we ran into people who can't follow 150' rules (Some apparently can't even measure 20', it seems). The lake is just too crowded on the weekend, unfortunately.

2) My numbers would be 60/30. Have you ever been on a jetski? They are meant to go fast and are pretty easy to control if you know what you are doing. Jetski is my boat of choice, I've been boating on the lake since I was 2, and knew the lake and the rules even before I took the course. I'm still a smarter driver than many older adults who took the course, why punish the responsible? I agree, the lake is pretty small overall and incredible speeds can be unsafe, but 45 is a bit LOW!

3) A costly idea, so this will never work, but getting more marine patrol on the lake to get people for the original rules that STILL aren't followed. It's a GREAT idea to instate new rules when the old ones don't work. I guess it's all about who gets caught and who doesn't.

4) Here's a compromise. It's the best one actually. The worst part is I'm wasting my time writing it: Why can't we just be responsible boaters? Show a little respect and use a little common sense! Read the rules, understand the rules. Just because you passed a 100 question multiple choice test means nothing unless you can prove this knowledge on the lake, assuming you didn't cheat on that online exam. A little responsibility goes a long way and if Cap'n Boneheads didn't exist, would we even be HAVING a discussion about speed limits? REMEMBER: You don't own the lake, you have to share it with 85,000 +/- other boaters. If sharing is too tough for you, TOUGH!

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

In the first place - The entire lake should be safe enough for children in a canoe! If it isn't then we need to take whatever step are necessary to make it so.

In the second place - A children's camp on the lake must send its boats out from its own waterfront. How would a camp on Bear Island, for instance, launch its canoes, sailboats etc. from another part of the lake. That is just plain silly.

Thirdly - The camps were here first. The Bear Island camps recently celebrated their 100th anniversary. I hope they can still be in operation in another hundred years. And that is what speed limits are REALLY all about.

You are getting hung up on the actual speeds involved. It's the cowboy atmosphere that is the problem. Not weather a given boat is going 25, 45 or 65.

In a perfect world a camp director wants to send his boats out on a tranquil empty lake. In the real world he looks out at the way the lake is on a summer weekend and makes a hard choice between sending the boats out or keeping them in.

I doubt any Captain Boneheads understand the hundreds and even thousands of children they are keeping off the lake by their antics. It is also true outside the camps. I know many parents, including me, think twice about letting the kids go out on days when the lake is buzzy.

It's been going on for quite some time from what I've read. Looks like the prisoners have taken over the prison.

See guys, BI and I agree on most of the points. He just holds out Hope that the law will do something, because apparently, nobody else on the lake will. Sounds like somebody's not been enforcing anything for quite some time.

[pm203]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

In the first place - The entire lake should be safe enough for children in a canoe! If it isn't then we need to take whatever step are necessary to make it so.

Maybe in a perfect world, but this will never be reality. There are too many conditions and situations to allow it. Just like every other place in the world, there are certain places children will always be in danger and shouldn't be exposed to .A lake or any body of water should always be of high concern. A speed limit does not address these concerns, as the data proves.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by pm203

A speed limit does not address these concerns, as the data proves.

A SL is just one (integral) part of the solution for improving conditions on the lake. No SL supporter would argue that it's the only solution. And as was said in an earlier post, we can't just go back to the less crowded conditions on the lake in 1960 when everyone could willy-nilly just do whatever they want on the lake. Times have changed and we have to change with them.
As far as voting out legislators who support the SL...I suspect that those who favor unlimited speeds on Lake Winnipesaukee as their major concern in NH politics represent such a tiny fraction of NH voters that "voting the bums out" is just a pipe-dream, especially if you keep in mind that many of the legislators who opposed HB 162 were voted out. Most NH voters have other bigger concerns than whether a few boaters can go as fast as they want.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

In the first place - The entire lake should be safe enough for children in a canoe! If it isn't then we need to take whatever step are necessary to make it so....

I agree with BI. With obvious exceptions:

This is a two way street, as long as we have large vessels (up to Mt Washington scale) we must contend with the fact that all vessels must follow some rules of the water. Large vessels cannot stop or turn very fast. If a canoe paddles out in front of the Mt Washinton at 150 feet there will be a problem.

Canoes are not very stable. If you paddle your canoe in a busy area or during high winds, you should be safe from collision but waves and wakes are another matter. No law can fix the wind, and short of banning all boats no law can make a canoe stable.

Finally, just because the lake is safe for children to canoe, it doesn't mean that the lake has to be safe for children in a canoe, when they are not there. For example, on the road school zones are 20 mph when children are present, it doesn't mean that every road is 20 mph all the time. If I see a canoe near my path I slow down, I don't slow down because someday someone might want to canoe.

[Kracken]

Not bad Acres Per Second.

You know some history.
You want to debate…lets debate.
But let’s make in constructive.

If “my” speed is endangering others isn’t that an accusation that needs to be proved? The legislature seems to thing so. That is why the speed limit law is temporary and it is being used to study the effects. Some people don’t want the results to be analyzed. They want the law made permanent before the facts can be studied. Ramming this law through before the sunset provision is over is irresponsible. Does this sound familiar to you? Adding a law that restricts individual’s action because of a perceived problem is wrong. Making it permanent before getting the facts is ludicrous.

The only true experts here are the marine patrol. They have stated speed is not the problem. If you ask a State Trooper what are the major contributing factors of highway accidents you will get the same answers anyplace in this country.

Alcohol and speed.

So my question to you Acres is simple.
Do you think the law should be made permanent before the facts are studied?

As for the cruiser’s wake, I am unfamiliar with that event.

A couple of questions come to mind.
Was the driver of the cruiser operating his vessel within the law?
Would a speed limit have prevented this accident?
Were the children in the canoe wearing PFDs?

[Chimi]

I will be filming all weekend, and will be sending the film to every state rep and senator. The film will be enlightening to these reps and senators that have never been on a boat, let alone spent the weekend on Winnipesaukee. The documentary will clearly show that the problem is not excessive speed GFBL boats, but rather will provide proof that there are far more serious problems, that jeopardize safety on the water. If these people are going to vote on something, they should vote on facts, not fiction created by a core group of people with an agenda. I'm going to document what really goes on out there and how dangerous these conditions are. If a GFBL boat passes too fast or too close, he'll get filmed too. It's time that the truth be told, and video does not lie.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Chimi

I will be filming all weekend, and will be sending the film to every state rep and senator. The film will be enlightening to these reps and senators that have never been on a boat, let alone spent the weekend on Winnipesaukee. The documentary will clearly show that the problem is not excessive speed GFBL boats, but rather will provide proof that there are far more serious problems, that jeopardize safety on the water. If these people are going to vote on something, they should vote on facts, not fiction created by a core group of people with an agenda. I'm going to document what really goes on out there and how dangerous these conditions are. If a GFBL boat passes too fast or too close, he'll get filmed too. It's time that the truth be told, and video does not lie.

Are you aware that some representatives and senators have homes on the lake? That some of them have worked professionally on the lake in commercial and law enforcement boats? That at least one is a former Marine Patrol Officer? That before voting on speed limits many of them were given rides on performance boats?

Who says video doesn't lie. You only see what the camera operator points the camera at. Even then you only see what they choose not to edit out. If you film all weekend you will have to edit out quite a bit. I have been interviewed on camera for up to an hour and then seen my words edited down to 20 seconds.

Even if you were to come up with a video that PROVES the problem is not excessive speed, the argument will be that your video proves the speed limit is working.

Originally Posted by Chimi

I will be filming all weekend, and will be sending the film to every state rep and senator. The documentary will clearly show that the problem is not excessive speed GFBL boats,

Chimi,
Sounds like you have already decided what the film that you have not yet taken is going to show. That's how Michael Moore sets out to make his "documentaries" too. I wonder if the editing will not help to make that point as well?
It would be telling if a full weekend of filming resulted in only fifteen minutes of violations. Now if you had filmed for 16 hours a couple of years ago before we had a speed limit, you'd have been able to make a real documentary 16 hours long and showing 16 hours of continuous mayhem.
I could surely film far less that "all weekend" and get plenty of footage of go-fast boats obeying the speed limit and other boats enjoying more passive activities as a result. If I do that, would you accept it as "the truth"?
And although I'm sure word has already been sent around to selected boaters telling them just where to go to misbehave and get on the film, it might be nice to post on the forum just where/when you will be filming so other people who want to give the impression that things are really bad out there this year can come by and wreak some havoc for the cameras as well. Of course, this might attract a patrol boat or two, but isn't enforcement and safety, and getting these "captain boneheads" off the lake what we all want anyway?
PS: You might also want to tell your friends to be sure they drape a towel over their bow numbers during filming.

[Kracken]

After reading through the speed limit threads it reminded me of a short story by Kurt Vonnegut. (Some of you might remember him from Rodney Dangerfield’s Back to School.)

Harrison Bergeron is a dystopian story that takes place in the year 2081. In the story, societal equality has been achieved by handicapping the more intelligent, athletic or beautiful members of society down to the level of the lowest common endowment. This is due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments to the U.S Constitution. This process is central to the society, designed so that no one will feel inferior to anyone else.

If you want to check it out here is link: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

[VtSteve]

Now that BI has come back to engage in his rational voice.

The problems on waterways are well know to those that actually are out on the water, particularly weekends. There are other issues, of course. People should not be afraid to be on the water for fear of getting run over. The rules of the water used to be know by a majority of boaters. The last decade or more brought people into boating that may not have had any prior experience. We probably all forget this, as the water is second nature to some of us.

We have a group of people that thought a SL would be the proper solution to "fix" the problems. Many of us knew that wasn't the answer, but unfortunately, the debate focused only on the SL, and not on the problems.

BI laid out what I think is the single most important aspect of safety on the waterway. He's done that long ago. In doing so, it pinpoints the number one problem on the lake today. ENFORCEMENT. Yes, here I go again.
(To address our lurkers that are knashing their teeth now. Yes, ENFORCEMENT. Which does not mean crowding a boat traveling safely to get him to slow to headway speed. It doesn't mean harassment, not any of that. )

What it does mean is this. If I'm the head of the MP, I've either read about BI's complaints, or heard about them somewhere else. I've heard about some of my MP's doing things that I probably would prefer they don't do. So what's the solution?

Meeting time men, and women. Starting Friday night through Sunday afternoons, you will do the following. Unmarked boats will be around the summer camp areas, with camcorders rolling, and other MP's not that far off, but out of sight. Take notice of what's going on. If you see a boat traveling between canoes and other boats, or dangerously close to anything, STOP THEM. CITE THEM. Then repeat the process.

Guard the NWZ and the camps, and other boaters, like your job depends on it. IT DOES. If I see one of my men traveling at 3.0 mph through the Weirs channel, with dozens of boats floating sideways trying to stay behind, I'll have you picking up trash for the rest of the summer. Don't come back either. I want the BONEHEADS to know we mean business. Instruct them, don't harass them. If a boater is "somewhat" close to another boat, use some judgment. Is it in a narrower portion of the lake? Is he otherwise doing a good job, and not rampaging through the water? Use some common sense. Is he being arrogant? Beer cans?

Now men, we've all read BI's stories about the camps, and have heard directly from the camp directors themselves. I want the camp directors to be put at ease, and the children to be safe. I also want on my desk by the end of the month of August, every patrolman's personal experiences, as well as suggestions for any additional suggestions or rules they may feel would help out in the future.

You have your orders now, and I fully expect them to be followed.

[Kracken]

Originally Posted by elchase

Chimi,
Sounds like you have already decided what the film that you have not yet taken is going to show. That's how Michael Moore sets out to make his "documentaries" too. I wonder if the editing will not help to make that point as well?
It would be telling if a full weekend of filming resulted in only fifteen minutes of violations. Now if you had filmed for 16 hours a couple of years ago befero we had a speed limit, you'd have been able to make a real documentary 16 hours long and showing 16 hours of continuous mayhem.
I could surely film far less that "all weekend" and get plenty of footage of go-fast boats obeying the speed limit and other boats enjoying more passive activities as a result. If I do that, would you accept it as "the truth"?
And although I'm sure word has already been sent around to selected boaters telling them just where to go to misbehave and get on the film, it might be nice to post on the forum just where/when you will be filming so other people who want to give the impression that things are really bad out there this year can come by and wreak some havoc for the cameras as well. Of course, this might attract a patrol boat or two, but isn't enforcement and safety, and getting these "captain boneheads" off the lake what we all want anyway?
PS: You might also want to tell your friends to be sure they drape a towel over their bow numbers during filming.

WOW,

I actually have to agree with Elchase.
But I have to admit, He had me at Michael Moore comment.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by pm203

Maybe in a perfect world, but this will never be reality. There are too many conditions and situations to allow it. Just like every other place in the world, there are certain places children will always be in danger and shouldn't be exposed to .A lake or any body of water should always be of high concern. A speed limit does not address these concerns, as the data proves.

This is where our philosophies diverge. You think parts of the lake are not safe for children in a canoe. Therefore we should keep children in canoes away from those areas.

I think the answer is to do whatever is necessary to make the ENTIRE lake safe for children. My original idea has been a 300 horsepower limit. Other people favor a 45/25 speed limit.

You think that if the speed limit is unable to provide this safety then we should get rid of the speed limit. I believe we need to take increasingly drastic steps until the lake IS safe. If 300 HP doesn't work then we need a 200HP limit. If that doesn't work lets try a 100 HP limit. If 45/25 doesn't work we should try 25 mph day and night.

If we had a 100 HP 25 mph limit then the cowboy atmosphere would not exist. You know that, and I know that. I doubt that drastic a step in necessary, but I will support it if need be.

[pm203]

BI, no offense, but I think you are on the wrong lake for what you would like to see. And, I agree about the cowboy mentality, but that doesn't come from speed and go fast boats. It comes from too many ameteur captains with no regard for the law or respect for others. I see it almost every time I go out on the lake. And, I still don't feel that the whole lake should be made available to the camps. They should have a designated area or time of day deemed safe to be on the lake. The lake doesn't belong to any one group. And, no one group should have to suffer at the expense of the other.

Originally Posted by pm203

The lake doesn't belong to any one group. And, no one group should have to suffer at the expense of the other.

Sign this guy up. How do I make this my signature?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by pm203

BI, no offense, but I think you are on the wrong lake for what you would like to see. And, I agree about the cowboy mentality, but that doesn't come from speed and go fast boats. It comes from too many ameteur captains with no regard for the law or respect for others. I see it almost every time I go out on the lake. And, I still don't feel that the whole lake should be made available to the camps. They should have a designated area or time of day deemed safe to be on the lake. The lake doesn't belong to any one group. And, no one group should have to suffer at the expense of the other.

Children need to be safe on ALL lakes. If a cowboy mentality exists, you take whatever steps are required to control it.

Are you suggesting that children's camps and performance boats can't exist on the same area of the lake at the same time? If so then it is the performence boats that have to go. PERIOD!

The entire lake is BY LAW available to children's camps. The camps own considerable waterfront property and have every right to use the lake. They are also the "literal owners" of the lake area adjacent to the property they own. Suggesting that camps should be banned from parts of the lake is outrageous and indefensible. I will assume you made that comment without thinking it through.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

In the first place - The entire lake should be safe enough for children in a canoe! If it isn't then we need to take whatever step are necessary to make it so.

In the second place - A children's camp on the lake must send its boats out from its own waterfront. How would a camp on Bear Island, for instance, launch its canoes, sailboats etc. from another part of the lake. That is just plain silly.

Thirdly - The camps were here first. The Bear Island camps recently celebrated their 100th anniversary. I hope they can still be in operation in another hundred years. And that is what speed limits are REALLY all about.



You are getting hung up on the actual speeds involved. It's the cowboy atmosphere that is the problem. Not weather a given boat is going 25, 45 or 65.

In a perfect world a camp director wants to send his boats out on a tranquil empty lake. In the real world he looks out at the way the lake is on a summer weekend and makes a hard choice between sending the boats out or keeping them in.

I doubt any Captain Boneheads understand the hundreds and even thousands of children they are keeping off the lake by their antics. It is also true outside the camps. I know many parents, including me, think twice about letting the kids go out on days when the lake is buzzy.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Children need to be safe on ALL lakes. If a cowboy mentality exists, you take whatever steps are required to control it.

Are you suggesting that children's camps and performance boats can't exist on the same area of the lake at the same time? If so then it is the performence boats that have to go. PERIOD!

The entire lake is BY LAW available to children's camps. The camps own considerable waterfront property and have every right to use the lake. They are also the "literal owners" of the lake area adjacent to the property they own. Suggesting that camps should be banned from parts of the lake is outrageous and indefensible. I will assume you made that comment without thinking it through.

I agree with you 100% BI. But I wonder why you went with this, considering the fact that the violations mentioned all occurred at lower speeds Part of the reason everybody isn't totally in agreement at one time or another is that facts that are known, are often not stated consistently in one post or another.

We also agree that "whatever steps are needed to control it" is the proper answer. Whomever the cowboys are, it's THEM that need to be dealt with. But since this discussion seems to be headed in the right direction.......

Appreciate your input, as always.

[BroadHopper]

I agree that the boneheads have a 'cowboy' mantality.

I agree that the lake should be safe for all recreational use of the lake.

We need to come up with laws that the MP needs to reign in these outlaws. Creating the speed limit law actually took away the effectiveness of the MP. We notice ther is less presence of the MPO this year and there was an article in the papers of limited fundings available for MP to do their job. Buying the laser guns and training added to the limited fundings and cut back manpower even more! If the law have address additional fundings then this shouldn't have happen.

If the speed limit law will scare away some of these 'cowboys', then it is working but does it have to be at the expense of those who speed reasonably and prudent? Why not increase the 150' rule to 300' to scare off some more cowboys? Then it will effect another group of boaters. Why not make the whole lake a NWZ to scare off the cowboys. That will really p.o. a lot of boaters. I don't think this is the answer.

If we are to enact new laws, we need to do it without putting a burden financially as well as use up the valuable manpower of the MP. A good law makes the MP more sffective not less.

Winnfibs actually made the comment at the Meredith public meeting that a goal to make the lake 'On Golden Pond' is the ultmatum. I think at this stage of lake development it will be impossible to go back 50 years. I'm sure everyone would love this to happen. But we need to be realistic.

We ned to think about the best solution without sacrificing the enjoyment of safe boating on the lake.

[pm203]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Children need to be safe on ALL lakes. If a cowboy mentality exists, you take whatever steps are required to control it.

Are you suggesting that children's camps and performance boats can't exist on the same area of the lake at the same time? If so then it is the performence boats that have to go. PERIOD!

The entire lake is BY LAW available to children's camps. The camps own considerable waterfront property and have every right to use the lake. They are also the "literal owners" of the lake area adjacent to the property they own. Suggesting that camps should be banned from parts of the lake is outrageous and indefensible. I will assume you made that comment without thinking it through.

Of course Children need to be safe on the lake. But, on the same breath, they should not be in the broads on a busy weekend. Or do you think that they should be?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by pm203

Of course Children need to be safe on the lake. But, on the same breath, they should not be in the broads on a busy weekend. Or do you think that they should be?

Children's camps have a right to send their boats into the broads, buzzy weekend or no. Suggesting they should be banned from the broads is INSANE!

A responsible camp director may determine the broads to be unsafe for certain boating activity, but that is the director's decision, not yours, or mine.

[pm203]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Children's camps have a right to send their boats into the broads, buzzy weekend or no. Suggesting they should be banned from the broads is INSANE!

A responsible camp director may determine the broads to be unsafe for certain boating activity, but that is the director's decision, not yours, or mine.

I am not suggesting that anyone be banned. However, sending children into the broads on the weekend wouldn't be the most prudent thing to do. There are even certain adults that stay away from this area on the weekends. All I am saying is that there is a time and place for everything. Sending children into the broads on a busy weekend is wrong. They don't belong there. They belong in a more protected area for their own safety and enjoyment. A responsible camp director would see that.

[NoRegrets]

Well put pm203.

Even though this world is shrinking, it is still full of places for the human spirit to explore, challenge, or conquer. The human spirit does not like to be constrained by artificial laws but society does need to insure one person’s freedom does not cause REAL harm to others. This is the fine line we are trying to reconcile.

Life can be or should be led in a manor that extends our conscious thoughts beyond the limits of our forefathers. Technical advances should be used to challenge us as adults. Children need to be “awakened’ into this vast world in a stepped process. They will get burned by the stove, skin their knees, fall off the bike, break the car, tip the canoe, run a jet ski into another boat, and so on. We all try our best to “tell’ kids to be careful but they stay invincible until they start getting personal experiences.

I do not think the speed limit for children’s safety is the pivotal point for deciding the SL issue. I also respect BI for his points made but the world should not slow down to the lowest common denominator.

All boats need to respect the 150’ rule and I think the suggestion on running the Marine Patrol for a few months the way VTSteve suggested is brilliant and is high on my list of actionable suggestions.

The density of population utilizing the lake will not return to past levels. Pedestrians do not play in the road like we did in the fifties or sixties anymore! Today’s children learn real fast that they need to go to the skate park or organized areas now. Shame on parents or designated responsible adults for allowing children to be placed in harms way and I think we should all try to find a solution for the Winni camps. They are important because they build memories and experiences away from tv’s and toys. It should be part of our social responsibility to make this happen.

As far as trying to file boneheads and presenting it to the politicians, I am afraid of them. They may outlaw boats altogether!

Sorry for rambling on but I am closing down so I can join the weekend commuters and head to the lake. Hope to see many of you out there this weekend.

[Dave R]

I think that the camp director decisions to keep kids ashore during busy boating periods are simply examples of good judgement.

When I was teaching my kids to ride their bikes, we went to a parking lot at a nearby state park. If we found the lot busy with cars (such as on a Summer weekend at mid-day), we did not let the kids ride and simply went back when the lot was empty.

I don't recall being upset by this, or ever thinking we needed laws to discourage people in cars from using the parking lot, even though bikes have been around a lot longer than cars, and cyclists have just as much right to use said parking lot as car drivers.

Just to be clear, there is absolutely no history of kids on bikes getting run over in the parking lot we used, even though at times it was pretty crazy with people in sporty cars, in big RVs, and on motorcycles all coming and going. Some people even let their kids bomb around the parking lot on bikes during these crazy times. Still, we felt it was better to wait until the place was empty. I think we were simply using good judgement.

[Kracken]

BEAR!!!!

I have read many of your posts and while I may not agree with you on most, I respect your point of view. Your logic seems well thought out and you state your opinions in an objective manner. With that being said…

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Children's camps have a right to send their boats into the broads, buzzy weekend or no. Suggesting they should be banned from the broads is INSANE!

You lost me on this one.

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You are getting hung up on the actual speeds involved. It's the cowboy atmosphere that is the problem. Not weather a given boat is going 25, 45 or 65.

In a perfect world a camp director wants to send his boats out on a tranquil empty lake. In the real world he looks out at the way the lake is on a summer weekend and makes a hard choice between sending the boats out or keeping them in.

I doubt any Captain Boneheads understand the hundreds and even thousands of children they are keeping off the lake by their antics. It is also true outside the camps. I know many parents, including me, think twice about letting the kids go out on days when the lake is buzzy.

I think you may have just agreed with many in opposition of the SL. It's not the speed it's the Captain BH not being careful and giving room properly to those that they should. The existing rules do address those issues and just aren't being enforced, a SL isn't gonna change that.

[VtSteve]

Case in point. It's going to be a crazy weekend out there because it's the first weekend of summer

I just witnessed something new here on Lake Champlain. Coming back at twilight, through 15 minutes past sundown, many, many boats heading through the bay. It's about six miles out to the broad lake. Coming in, at 21.5 mph.

I saw

1) six PWC's at full clip (no lights, law says no PWC's) off my port bow.

2) four different boats, no lights, willy nilly, too close, no right of way, etc...

3) worst of all, at the beginning of my return from pizza eating at sunset....

Two boats off my starboard bow, closing quickly. I was apparently in the middle My lights were on, none from theirs. One was a Sea Doo small craft Boat, the other was a quai GF boat around 25/26'. The Sea Doo saw me. I might have actually made a mistake by immediately slowing to headway speed. (I was wondering if I should just turn around and gun it). The other larger boat?

He never changed course, never slowed down, AND NEVER EVEN SAW ME He was standing in the center of the boat, head turned starboard towards the read, TALKING TO A PASSENGER!!!!

Both were doing probably around 35 to 40 mph.


But wait, it gets better.

A POLICE BOAT witnessed the boats and PWC's out at dark with no lights. He just kept going, and HE was too close to me.

Sad, so sad.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

A POLICE BOAT witnessed the boats and PWC's out at dark with no lights. He just kept going, and HE was too close to me.

Sad, so sad.

I have witness similar episodes on Lake Sebago in ME. Lake Webster in MA. Lake George in NY, Lake Norman in NC, The intercoastal in FL. No wonder the Boneheads are from out of state!

We just need a law to make sure our MPs are fully funded and have the latest technology to enforce the current laws. Not more laws to burden the MPOs

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

I have witness similar episodes on Lake Sebago in ME. Lake Webster in MA. Lake George in NY, Lake Norman in NC, The intercoastal in FL. No wonder the Boneheads are from out of state!

We just need a law to make sure our MPs are fully funded and have the latest technology to enforce the current laws. Not more laws to burden the MPOs

It won't happen. I sort of share BI's frustration in this. Many pretty much knew that funding wouldn't increase, and enforcement wouldn't be very good either. So, they reasoned that the SL law might cut down on cowboys and boat traffic, and have some positive impact.

Maybe they're not wrong.

But this is the reason that I'm not out there shouting about heroics on the water either. Some good is done, but bad as well.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

This is where our philosophies diverge. You think parts of the lake are not safe for children in a canoe. Therefore we should keep children in canoes away from those areas.

I think the answer is to do whatever is necessary to make the ENTIRE lake safe for children. My original idea has been a 300 horsepower limit. Other people favor a 45/25 speed limit.

You think that if the speed limit is unable to provide this safety then we should get rid of the speed limit. I believe we need to take increasingly drastic steps until the lake IS safe. If 300 HP doesn't work then we need a 200HP limit. If that doesn't work lets try a 100 HP limit. If 45/25 doesn't work we should try 25 mph day and night.

If we had a 100 HP 25 mph limit then the cowboy atmosphere would not exist. You know that, and I know that. I doubt that drastic a step in necessary, but I will support it if need be.

For real... So get ready to sell your boat BI. Where does the ludicrousness end? Are we all to drive 12 foot aluminum dinghy's with electric motors? At some point Parental responsibility trumps the whole argument. Or are you a subscriber to the "new" parenting style where everyone else is at fault but me? I give you the benefit of the doubt on this and say no. Seriously though would you send your kid out on a bicycle on I-93? No you wouldn't. Some roadways are not safe for bicycles, just like some parts of the lake. For you to say the "ENTIRE" lake should be safe for children is an extreme reach. Just like the "ENTIRE" world should be safe for children. If that were the case you need to put your 260HP Bowrider in the rack and kayak to and fro the Island. Let's keep this discussion real please. I agree with a bunch of your points and I think you do appreciate safety more than most SL supporters but I do think you have overreached on this point.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

For the record...I could certainly live with a 65MPH daytime limit..."

OK:

Supporters give you 65-MPH.

Opponents give us 5-dB reduction in exhaust noise.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

For real... So get ready to sell your boat BI. Where does the ludicrousness end? Are we all to drive 12 foot aluminum dinghy's with electric motors? At some point Parental responsibility trumps the whole argument. Or are you a subscriber to the "new" parenting style where everyone else is at fault but me? I give you the benefit of the doubt on this and say no. Seriously though would you send your kid out on a bicycle on I-93? No you wouldn't. Some roadways are not safe for bicycles, just like some parts of the lake. For you to say the "ENTIRE" lake should be safe for children is an extreme reach. Just like the "ENTIRE" world should be safe for children. If that were the case you need to put your 260HP Bowrider in the rack and kayak to and fro the Island. Let's keep this discussion real please. I agree with a bunch of your points and I think you do appreciate safety more than most SL supporters but I do think you have overreached on this point.

As usual you are taking my comments a lot further than I ever intended.

There are many lakes where this "cowboy attitude" does not exist. Where 280 HP bowriders and canoes exist in relative harmony.

Many people on this forum think that is not possible on Winnipesaukee. They have "given up" and accept the cowboy mentality as inevitable and unalterable. This is pure BULL! I have not given up. This destructive attitude can and will be changed. I place "No Limits" on what we need to do to end this insanity.

I have given the extreme example to prove a point. If there were a 100 HP 25 mph limit on this lake then you would not have this cowboy atmosphere. Therefore it IS POSSIBLE to legislate away the cowboy attitude on this lake. My extreme example will not be necessary. However I am in favor of increased regulation and enforcement until things change. It seems your answer is to throw up your hands and say the task is impossible. I don't think that way. Besides, I love a good fight.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

As usual you are taking my comments a lot further than I ever intended.

There are many lakes where this "cowboy attitude" does not exist. Where 280 HP bowriders and canoes exist in relative harmony.

Many people on this forum think that is not possible on Winnipesaukee. They have "given up" and accept the cowboy mentality as inevitable and unalterable. This is pure BULL! I have not given up. This destructive attitude can and will be changed. I place "No Limits" on what we need to do to end this insanity.

I have given the extreme example to prove a point. If there were a 100 HP 25 mph limit on this lake then you would not have this cowboy atmosphere. Therefore it IS POSSIBLE to legislate away the cowboy attitude on this lake. My extreme example will not be necessary. However I am in favor of increased regulation and enforcement until things change. It seems your answer is to throw up your hands and say the task is impossible. I don't think that way. Besides, I love a good fight.

OK OK I took your post quite literally for sure. Still though there has to be some middle ground. Every activity we do outside sitting in a bubble has a risk to it. I believe in reducing that risk on this lake. I just don't believe that Speed was the risk. It is that Cowboy attitude we speak of. The carelessness of the average boater. While it is POSSIBLE to legislate away the cowboy attitude by limiting boats to 100hp it is ludicrous to even talk about it because it won't happen. Besides even at 100hp limit you could still put a bonehead behind the wheel of a 25hp dinghy and he could kill someone in a kayak.

While you think I may have taken your comments further than you intended I don't see how I could have read it any differently. You actually suggested we keep pushing until we have a 100hp limit and I feel my rebuttal was as extreme as your statement. Where does it end? 0hp? Wind and paddles only? By your own suggestion you have a "No Limit" attitude towards fixing the problem and I think the only true way to eliminate all risk is to wrap everyone in life jackets within 100 feet of water and only allow paddles and wind power and even THAT doesn't guarantee safety.

My focus is and remains on correctly addressing the problem and not throwing law after law at the problem to see what sticks. Lets step back use the data and make and enforce laws that actually target the dangerous drivers on the lake.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

OK OK I took your post quite literally for sure. Still though there has to be some middle ground. Every activity we do outside sitting in a bubble has a risk to it. I believe in reducing that risk on this lake. I just don't believe that Speed was the risk. It is that Cowboy attitude we speak of. The carelessness of the average boater. While it is POSSIBLE to legislate away the cowboy attitude by limiting boats to 100hp it is ludicrous to even talk about it because it won't happen. Besides even at 100hp limit you could still put a bonehead behind the wheel of a 25hp dinghy and he could kill someone in a kayak.

While you think I may have taken your comments further than you intended I don't see how I could have read it any differently. You actually suggested we keep pushing until we have a 100hp limit and I feel my rebuttal was as extreme as your statement. Where does it end? 0hp? Wind and paddles only? By your own suggestion you have a "No Limit" attitude toward fixing the problem and I think the only true way to eliminate all risk is to wrap everyone in life jackets within 100 feet of water and only allow paddles and wind power and even THAT doesn't guarantee safety.

My focus is and remains on correctly addressing the problem and not throwing law after law at the problem to see what sticks. Lets step back use the data and make and enforce laws that actually target the dangerous drivers on the lake.

A 100HP lake is unlikely but not impossible. A few years ago a lot of people said a speed limit was impossible. The entire lake has been made "no wake" a few times. And if you will remember it worked. There were very few violations. And although it was a pain getting to and from the island at that time, the lake was a beautiful, tranquil thing to experience during those times. Don't be to quick to say what is impossible. A HP limit is coming.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Maybe the "Broads Free Zone" or "65 Zone" could look like this?

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There are many lakes where this "cowboy attitude" does not exist. Where 280 HP bowriders and canoes exist in relative harmony.

I hate to ask you to back up this one.................

The only one I know is Lake Dillon in Colorado. It is so frigging cold up there, there is hardly any boating.......................

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

OK:

Supporters give you 65-MPH.

Opponents give us 5-dB reduction in exhaust noise.

I'd be more than happy with 65 or so. And I'd love to not listen to the loud noise as well. I almost ordered a Baja 278 but was turned off by the exhaust offerings. They assured me it "could" be done differently.

I think the 525's and up need more than prop exhaust systems, but don't know. I have no desire to have expensive rebuilds, like trannys every 200 hours, engines sooner. Not for me. Saw a beautiful old Formula 280 today, great boat for me. Quiet as well

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

A 100HP lake is unlikely but not impossible. A few years ago a lot of people said a speed limit was impossible. The entire lake has been made "no wake" a few times. And if you will remember it worked. There were very few violations. And although it was a pain getting to and from the island at that time, the lake was a beautiful, tranquil thing to experience during those times. Don't be to quick to say what is impossible. A HP limit is coming.

Could be, but it's hard to do given even the old fashioned makeup of the lake.

What you've been describing BI is the Bonehead atmosphere, the Cowboys are Boneheads as well. You admitted speed wasn't the big deal. So what's the problem with dealing with those you say are cowboys? Do the MP's have any stones at all?

So now you have the SL. Are the cowboys all gone? How about the everyday, garden variety of Bonehead that infests all lakes? You may not be throwing up your hand and quitting, but you're sure taking the hardest approach.

[Irrigation Guy]

Speed is not the issue, its lack of consideration for others, and the safe passage rule.

Case in point, I was in my pontoon boat today, goes pretty slow(20 max) and was cruising along, up behind me comes a 24 foot boat bow high and getting closer(we were passing between lil bear and m'neck in a narrow section of the lake), this moroon was so close behind me I could have hit him with my coke can. I looked over my shoulder and pulled to the side letting this guy by(my wife terrified with sleeping baby in her arms), upon passing a gave a yell asking if he was a moron(obvious, but wanted him to know I was mad).

He passes me, and pulls up ahead less than a half mile, stops off loads his tube and passenger and starts tubing. I guess i was slowing him down by what 30 seconds?

We need the MP to concentrate on the most basic rule to make us all safe, the safe passage rule!

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

A 100HP lake is unlikely but not impossible. A few years ago a lot of people said a speed limit was impossible. The entire lake has been made "no wake" a few times. And if you will remember it worked. There were very few violations. And although it was a pain getting to and from the island at that time, the lake was a beautiful, tranquil thing to experience during those times. Don't be to quick to say what is impossible. A HP limit is coming.

Originally Posted by LocalRealtor

Speed is not the issue, its lack of consideration for others, and the safe passage rule.

Case in point, I was in my pontoon boat today, goes pretty slow(20 max) and was cruising along, up behind me comes a 24 foot boat bow high and getting closer(we were passing between lil bear and m'neck in a narrow section of the lake), this moroon was so close behind me I could have hit him with my coke can. I looked over my shoulder and pulled to the side letting this guy by(my wife terrified with sleeping baby in her arms), upon passing a gave a yell asking if he was a moron(obvious, but wanted him to know I was mad).

He passes me, and pulls up ahead less than a half mile, stops off loads his tube and passenger and starts tubing. I guess i was slowing him down by what 30 seconds?

We need the MP to concentrate on the most basic rule to make us all safe, the safe passage rule!

The MP is apparently useless trying to even be near these idiots. If they were all tied up tracking down 100 mph drunk drivers I'd cut them some slack, but that's obviously not the case. All Winni has is people like ElChase having tantrums over the go fasts. Would have made a nice video, but I can see you guys had your hands full

Boating really does suck at times, and those that cry the loudest to the legislature can't do anything about it. I'm sure El had a most pleasant, peaceful day on the lake

Didn't mean to quote BI in this one. But after seeing it, it just made me realize how utterly silly his HP statement is. For god's sake people, get a clue.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Could be, but it's hard to do given even the old fashioned makeup of the lake.

What you've been describing BI is the Bonehead atmosphere, the Cowboys are Boneheads as well. You admitted speed wasn't the big deal. So what's the problem with dealing with those you say are cowboys? Do the MP's have any stones at all?

So now you have the SL. Are the cowboys all gone? How about the everyday, garden variety of Bonehead that infests all lakes? You may not be throwing up your hand and quitting, but you're sure taking the hardest approach.

In my opinion the speed limit is working.

At least my approach has a chance of doing some good. Looking for more enforcement and education to turn things around is not going to happen. They are "pie in the sky" nice ideas. The Marine Patrol are facing budget cuts, not increases.

I know you will say they are wasting dollars chasing speeders. However there have been no speeding tickets written so that can't be true.

What we need to do is rigidly enforce the laws we have now.

[VtSteve]

What we need to do is rigidly enforce the laws we have now.

As we've always said. They can't enforce the obvious, so give them an even harder law to enforce, while ignoring the obvious.

You won't know if the speed limit has worked at all until around the summer of 2011. I say, let's wait until then. The SL supporters know it's crap, so they want to make it permanent, just because. What the heck, go for it.

Let's stake out the camps and see how those 25 mph Cowboys are doing.

Amazing that all those Safety people never helped the MP get additional funding. Heck, most of them hate the term Boneheads. Good luck BI, you'll need it.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I'm sure El had a most pleasant, peaceful day on the lake :emb.

Thanks Steve, I had a great day on the lake. It was hot and sunny here and Winnipesaukee was very busy, but very civilized again. Hope you enjoyed the day up on your lake.
I just can't get over the difference a simple little law has made. You might not be able to see that from your vantage in VT, but having been out on Lake Winnipesaukee for well over 600 hours so far this spring/summer, I have witnessed the improvement first hand.
I did see one of those Capt Boneheads in a non-GFBL that you guys keep talking about. My son and I were drifting about 25 feet south of the lit buoy off Welch, casting worms at the buoy for bass. A larger boat was coming along south of us, heading east to west with a little hydroplane running next to him on his north side. The bigger boat was going to pass south of us about maybe 100 to 200 feet (who can tell the difference?), and the little boat was heading straight at us. It looked like a little 14-foot or so homemade thing with a 20HP Johnson on it. We could see the smiling driver looking right as us as he approached, so we never got scared, just confused and annoyed. I figured he had to change course a bit and expected that was going to cut just north of the buoy, which would still put him only 30 or 40 feet from us, but to our astonishment, he passes right between us and the buoy. Right over our lines, not more than 10 feet from us at no less than 25 miles an hour. We're holding out our arms in a "what the heck?" gesture, and he gives us a big smile and holds up his beer. I looked at my son and we both broke out laughing. This was stupid enough to be comical. I know people say "10 feet" when it was really 50, but this was 10 feet. I was close enough to the buoy to cast beyond it and this guy split the difference.
But then I realized that never once did I get scared. If the guy had hit us dead-on there certainly would have been some damage but that little thing would not have killed us. I compared this to how heart-stopping-scared I've felt in past situations where I've had big heavy cigarettes coming at me at 60 or 70 miles an hour, even when much further away. Usually you can only see the big hull and wonder whether the driver can see you or is even looking. While this guy was driving as bad, he simply was not putting us at the same risk. His boat was small, and it was only going 25 or so.
There are certainly Captain Boneheads driving craft of all sizes; little fishing boats, sailboats, cruisers, and GFBLs. And the SL certainly will not get them all off the lake or turn them into good boaters in all regards. But it is amazing how much less dangerous these Captain Boneheads in the smaller slower boats are than the Captain Boneheads driving 70 in big heavy boats. Its amazing how much less terrorizing boats are when they are heading at you at 25 mph than at 70.
You guys need to understand that laws like the SL are not caused by responsible drivers like you protest to be, but are caused by the idiots who have been terrorizing us because they drive like idiots, drive huge heavy boats, and drive them very fast in places where it is not "prudent" to do so. You guys had a good thing, and they ruined it for you...we didn't. Your anger should be directed at them, and not at those who simply want to recreate on the lake without undue fear or risk.
Focus your energies on saving the other lakes where you can still drive as fast as you want from SLs before you lose them too. Do this by going after the people who really cost you your freedom here...the Captain Boneheads who drive GFBLs. If you don't get them off Sunapee, Newfound, Champlain, and all the other still-unlimited lakes, then SLs are inevitable there too, and you will only have yourselves to blame for failing to recognize your true enemy while you still had time.

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

Maybe the "Broads Free Zone" or "65 Zone" could look like this?

Rattlesnake Guy,
Is this really a compromise in your view? Have you thought this through? You want to banish 95% of the lake's boaters to 30% of the lake. Take away the 150-ft buffer around the shoreline and islands and you leave us 12% of the lake to boat on. Crowd us all into that 12% and we will all be within 150 feet of eachother, essentially having 0% of the lake to exceed headway speed on. Meanwhile, you and your small group get 70% of the lake to selfishly fly around as you please? Great "compromise".
The speed limit is working fine. The people who wanted the law are content with its results...how often does that happen? The people whose bad behavior the law was aimed at are behaving (for the most part)...how often does that happen? As I said above, focus your anger and energy at the GFBL-driving Captain Boneheads while you still have time to save the other lakes that let you drive as fast as you want before these jerks force society to seek SLs on those too. You know who these guys are. They are the ones bragging about flaunting the SL. They are the ones who think that laws don't apply to them. They are the ones who cost you your freedom.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by elchase

It looked like a little 14-foot or so homemade thing with a 20HP Johnson on it. We could see the smiling driver looking right as us as he approached, so we never got scared, just confused and annoyed. I figured he had to change course a bit and expected that was going to cut just north of the buoy, which would still put him only 30 or 40 feet from us, but to our astonishment, he passes right between us and the buoy. Right over our lines, not more than 10 feet from us at no less than 25 miles an hour. We're holding out our arms in a "what the heck?" gesture, and he gives us a big smile and holds up his beer. I looked at my son and we both broke out laughing. This was stupid enough to be comical. I know people say "10 feet" when it was really 50, but this was 10 feet. I was close enough to the buoy to cast beyond it and this guy split the difference.
But then I realized that never once did I get scared. If the guy had hit us dead-on there certainly would have been some damage but that little thing would not have killed us. I compared this to how heart-stopping-scared I've felt in past situations where I've had big heavy cigarettes coming at me at 60 or 70 miles an hour, even when much further away. Usually you can only see the big hull and wonder whether the driver can see you or is even looking. While this guy was driving as bad, he simply was not putting us at the same risk. His boat was small, and it was only going 25 or so.

Unless you were piloting the Sea Shepherd, a 14' 20 HP boat going 25MPH that strikes you certainly can kill you or injure you severely. It sounds like the only law this guy didn't break was the SL. But because of that, and the fact that it was not a GFBL, you are pretty much OK with it.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

In my opinion the speed limit is working.



I know you will say they are wasting dollars chasing speeders. However there have been no speeding tickets written so that can't be true.

If there have been no tickets, then there isn't a need for the law. I think that proves it. If all these people were speeding, surely they would have caught someone! I am sure there have been tickets for the others offenses, showing there is a need for some of those laws.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by tis

If there have been no tickets, then there isn't a need for the law. I think that proves it. If all these people were speeding, surely they would have caught someone! I am sure there have been tickets for the others offenses, showing there is a need for some of those laws.

That's not true. Anyone can see that people have slowed down...just sit on the dock and watch. People used to blow by here at 70 MPH, now they don't. Everyone around here at least is commenting on how the noise problem is so much improved as well. Speed limit not working? Ridiculous.

[BroadHopper]

OK so the SL is working. Everyone is slowing down.

But the Boneheads are worst than ever. They know that valuable MP resources are tied up on radar training and buying radars. So they are having a field day!

I have slowed down a bit. Not because of the SL. Because of the gas prices and economy.

Last Tuesday night, when I was showing guests the Bahre estate, I notice a storm coming the NW. I took a full throttle return home to Lakeport across the Broads. Damn right I was speeding. I'm not going to be caught in a thuderstorm. Ironically, there were several boats doing the same thing. Including a MP RIB. I'm surprise he didn't pull anyone over.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

OK so the SL is working. Everyone is slowing down.

But the Boneheads are worst than ever. They know that valuable MP resources are tied up on radar training and buying radars. So they are having a field day!

I have slowed down a bit. Not because of the SL. Because of the gas prices and economy.

Last Tuesday night, when I was showing guests the Bahre estate, I notice a storm coming the NW. I took a full throttle return home to Lakeport across the Broads. Damn right I was speeding. I'm not going to be caught in a thuderstorm. Ironically, there were several boats doing the same thing. Including a MP RIB. I'm surprise he didn't pull anyone over.

Thank You for acknowledging the SL is working.

I think speeding to get home just before or during a thunderstorm is an unwritten exception to the rules. In fact its not all that unwritten. The concept of "force majeure" says you can break the law in extreme circumstances. Like robbing a bank when someone is holding a gun on your family. Dozens of boats go through the Bear Island NWZ full speed just before and during a bad storm. And I have seen the MP watch them and do nothing. I have done it myself with no feeling of guilt.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by elchase

Thanks Steve, I had a great day on the lake. It was hot and sunny here and Winnipesaukee was very busy, but very civilized again. Hope you enjoyed the day up on your lake.
I just can't get over the difference a simple little law has made. You might not be able to see that from your vantage in VT, but having been out on Lake Winnipesaukee for well over 600 hours so far this spring/summer, I have witnessed the improvement first hand.

Glad everything's working out for you El. I'm just astounded at your "well over 600 hours" this year. In a year of pretty bad weather, that's an astounding accomplishment. I just put about 8 hours on this weekend. That's a third of my entire summer hours now, a new low

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by elchase

Rattlesnake Guy,
Is this really a compromise in your view? Have you thought this through? You want to banish 95% of the lake's boaters to 30% of the lake. Take away the 150-ft buffer around the shoreline and islands and you leave us 12% of the lake to boat on. Crowd us all into that 12% and we will all be within 150 feet of eachother, essentially having 0% of the lake to exceed headway speed on. Meanwhile, you and your small group get 70% of the lake to selfishly fly around as you please? Great "compromise".

elchase,
I think one of us is confused.
Like others before, I am saying to have a no speed limit zone in the broads region. "Everyone" can go everywhere on the lake. Everyone can go 0 to 45 on 100 percent of the legal parts of the lake. You can go 0 to 65 or beyond on 22% of the lake. The part of the lake where the boats and people are the most visible and furthest apart. Yes, I do think it's a compromise. It's less than the fast boats would have without a speed limit and it's less than the SL proponents would have with a speed limit. Neither side would be "happy" but both could have some of what they want.

PS My boat only goes 45 behind my truck. The fast zone would be in front of my camp where my family swims and kayaks near the shore. I fear the boats going 30 within 150 feet a lot more than the ones going 60 a quarter mile out.

[NoRegrets]

Where was everyone? In my tenth season on the lake this was the first weekend that I was able to get out of Paugus Bay as if it were a weekday. High noon on Saturday we went by the Naswa and there were less than 10 boats there. We drove straight into the channel without waiting. This was the first time this has ever happened! On Sunday we went through around 1:30 and the Naswa was rocking but still had a few open slips and we were 4th in line to get through the channel.

There were still alot of family tubers out there but no where near the number of boats as past seasons.

elchase, what lake were you on this weekend? I was on Winnipesaukee.

The reduced traffic is great but the boneheads are still here. Does anyone know if the officials have a way to estimate the boat traffic? I think I remember an estimate of 10,000 boats per weekend from a few years ago.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by NoRegrets

Where was everyone? In my tenth season on the lake this was the first weekend that I was able to get out of Paugus Bay as if it were a weekday. High noon on Saturday we went by the Naswa and there were less than 10 boats there. We drove straight into the channel without waiting. This was the first time this has ever happened! On Sunday we went through around 1:30 and the Naswa was rocking but still had a few open slips and we were 4th in line to get through the channel.

There were still alot of family tubers out there but no where near the number of boats as past seasons.

elchase, what lake were you on this weekend? I was on Winnipesaukee.

The reduced traffic is great but the boneheads are still here. Does anyone know if the officials have a way to estimate the boat traffic? I think I remember an estimate of 10,000 boats per weekend from a few years ago.

The SL law has pretty much gotten the GFBL Captain Boneheads off the water, didn't you know that? Hard to believe the traffic would be down this past weekend, quite possibly the best of the year. I cruised well out of my normal area way down south, maybe many explored the outer reaches of Winni. It was quite calm this weekend, so it was a great chance to do so.

[Chimi]

Originally Posted by elchase

Chimi,
Sounds like you have already decided what the film that you have not yet taken is going to show. That's how Michael Moore sets out to make his "documentaries" too. I wonder if the editing will not help to make that point as well?
It would be telling if a full weekend of filming resulted in only fifteen minutes of violations. Now if you had filmed for 16 hours a couple of years ago before we had a speed limit, you'd have been able to make a real documentary 16 hours long and showing 16 hours of continuous mayhem.
I could surely film far less that "all weekend" and get plenty of footage of go-fast boats obeying the speed limit and other boats enjoying more passive activities as a result. If I do that, would you accept it as "the truth"?
And although I'm sure word has already been sent around to selected boaters telling them just where to go to misbehave and get on the film, it might be nice to post on the forum just where/when you will be filming so other people who want to give the impression that things are really bad out there this year can come by and wreak some havoc for the cameras as well. Of course, this might attract a patrol boat or two, but isn't enforcement and safety, and getting these "captain boneheads" off the lake what we all want anyway?
PS: You might also want to tell your friends to be sure they drape a towel over their bow numbers during filming.

Wow, the truth video might actually prove that your blessed speed limit was really just your way of ridding the lake of a certain type of vessel. Nice Michael Moore comment by the way. You know, I never thought of having my friends come by and perform dangerous acts, just so I could manipulate the video. Thanks for the ideas though! I have hours of footage from the weekend, showing every type of vessel involved in dangerous, bonehead moves. Yet there was hardly an occasion where a GFBL boat was either speeding or violating the 150' rule. A jet ski can kill someone just as easy as a 40' boat. Where's the outrage over these bozos?

More filming to take place next weekend. Then the copies get made and sent to every rep and senator. I may even include a bag of microwave popcorn so they can enjoy the entertainment. Bye Bye speed limit - nice knowing ya...

[BroadHopper]

I stayed up around Moultoboro Bay area last weekend. The 'Walmart side of the lake' has been too congested for my taste in the past few years. I think the Boneheads are scared of rocks and pretty much stay on the other side of the graveyard.

My observation of the bay area is that boating activities are pretty much the same.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by elchase

I did see one of those Capt Boneheads in a non-GFBL that you guys keep talking about. My son and I were drifting about 25 feet south of the lit buoy off Welch, casting worms at the buoy for bass. A larger boat was coming along south of us, heading east to west with a little hydroplane running next to him on his north side. The bigger boat was going to pass south of us about maybe 100 to 200 feet (who can tell the difference?), and the little boat was heading straight at us. It looked like a little 14-foot or so homemade thing with a 20HP Johnson on it. We could see the smiling driver looking right as us as he approached, so we never got scared, just confused and annoyed. I figured he had to change course a bit and expected that was going to cut just north of the buoy, which would still put him only 30 or 40 feet from us, but to our astonishment, he passes right between us and the buoy. Right over our lines, not more than 10 feet from us at no less than 25 miles an hour. We're holding out our arms in a "what the heck?" gesture, and he gives us a big smile and holds up his beer. I looked at my son and we both broke out laughing. This was stupid enough to be comical. I know people say "10 feet" when it was really 50, but this was 10 feet. I was close enough to the buoy to cast beyond it and this guy split the difference.
But then I realized that never once did I get scared. If the guy had hit us dead-on there certainly would have been some damage but that little thing would not have killed us. I compared this to how heart-stopping-scared I've felt in past situations where I've had big heavy cigarettes coming at me at 60 or 70 miles an hour, even when much further away. Usually you can only see the big hull and wonder whether the driver can see you or is even looking. While this guy was driving as bad, he simply was not putting us at the same risk. His boat was small, and it was only going 25 or so.
There are certainly Captain Boneheads driving craft of all sizes; little fishing boats, sailboats, cruisers, and GFBLs. And the SL certainly will not get them all off the lake or turn them into good boaters in all regards. But it is amazing how much less dangerous these Captain Boneheads in the smaller slower boats are than the Captain Boneheads driving 70 in big heavy boats. Its amazing how much less terrorizing boats are when they are heading at you at 25 mph than at 70.
You guys need to understand that laws like the SL are not caused by responsible drivers like you protest to be, but are caused by the idiots who have been terrorizing us because they drive like idiots, drive huge heavy boats, and drive them very fast in places where it is not "prudent" to do so. You guys had a good thing, and they ruined it for you...we didn't. Your anger should be directed at them, and not at those who simply want to recreate on the lake without undue fear or risk.
Focus your energies on saving the other lakes where you can still drive as fast as you want from SLs before you lose them too. Do this by going after the people who really cost you your freedom here...the Captain Boneheads who drive GFBLs. If you don't get them off Sunapee, Newfound, Champlain, and all the other still-unlimited lakes, then SLs are inevitable there too, and you will only have yourselves to blame for failing to recognize your true enemy while you still had time.



The speed limit is working fine. The people who wanted the law are content with its results...how often does that happen? The people whose bad behavior the law was aimed at are behaving (for the most part)...how often does that happen? As I said above, focus your anger and energy at the GFBL-driving Captain Boneheads while you still have time to save the other lakes that let you drive as fast as you want before these jerks force society to seek SLs on those too. You know who these guys are. They are the ones bragging about flaunting the SL. They are the ones who think that laws don't apply to them. They are the ones who cost you your freedom.

I did another read of your post El, and it's quite possibly the worst statements, and certainly the most irresponsible I've ever read. But at least many can see in print exactly where you are coming from.

First, you're not afraid of this beer-drinking bonehead because his boat is small. You even slough it off and have a good laugh.

because......

All of your hatred and anger are focused on another group, specifically, the GFBL group of boaters. Only "they are the ones that think that laws don't apply to them", right El?

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't share this type of prejudice. Not on the water, not anywhere. It's not productive, not rational, and speaks at a level well below that of anyone I'd associate with. It's pretty much the essence of what sparks so much protest in the Winfabs movement.

You were dragged, kicking and screaming into a safety debate, and while only now you mention there are Boneheads that cause most of the problem, you you now say it's the GFBL "jerks" that are the reason the SL was passed, ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary. I knew you would see an opening to the debate, and you took it. But instead of getting all rational on us, you spout your anger toward a single, small group of boaters. You say nothing of enforcement, and even laugh off a very close encounter because the Bonehead's boat was small.

Being selfish and arrogant does nothing to promote safety, nor does it deal with any of the problems at hand. In the nature of moving forward and having discussions that actually deal with issues, I certainly don't want the "jerks" making up stuff as they go along to promote myopic agendas based on anger. There are plenty of good-natured people that seem to think a SL might work, or is necessary. They are open to discussion, and we all share a common hope of safety on the waters. You sir, are not one of these people. Whenever a group, no matter how small or large, focuses all of their energy behind feelings of anger, hate, or even rage, it never ends up well.

I find it hard to believe that someone that spends at least 6 hours a day, seven days a week, every week on the water can only find one particular group to focus such anger towards.