Sound travels at night

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Steve it seems boats busting a NWZ gets you angry. If so don't live next to a NWZ.

I don't, but you do. Yes, busting a NWZ irritates me. I guess I'm just still stuck in the past with what you claimed irritated you, not the recent proclamations as to what you're really concerned about. Yes, congestion sucks, we all have to deal with it somehow. I hate the boneheads. I hate boats cutting me off, and those that are way too close. Boats following those with tubers or skiers also bother me.

But I do state what I mean, and do not obfuscate the message, nor do I mislead the reader. I try to focus on real issues and try to participate in solving them. One of the very first things I would have done over there, is push hard for years for increased MP funding, not more laws. But then again, I addressed the problems stated, not hidden agendas.

[SAMIAM]

I'm probably the only person on the forum who welcomes NWZ violators.....I live in a no wake zone and it's nice to have a few waves to clean my beach every now and then.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I don't, but you do. Yes, busting a NWZ irritates me. I guess I'm just still stuck in the past with what you claimed irritated you, not the recent proclamations as to what you're really concerned about. Yes, congestion sucks, we all have to deal with it somehow. I hate the boneheads. I hate boats cutting me off, and those that are way too close. Boats following those with tubers or skiers also bother me.

But I do state what I mean, and do not obfuscate the message, nor do I mislead the reader. I try to focus on real issues and try to participate in solving them. One of the very first things I would have done over there, is push hard for years for increased MP funding, not more laws. But then again, I addressed the problems stated, not hidden agendas.

This hidden agenda stuff is either crap or bad memory. It's the opposition that keeps talking about safety, so naturally the pro-limit side responds about safety. And I'm sure that for some on "my" side it is only about safety. But I have been telling people for years that "its not just about safety" or that "safety is not my first concern".

Read this post by Woodsy from 2005. In it Representative Pilliod, the author of the original bill, clearly states it is all about "Fear". He also makes it plain he thinks high performance boats don't belong on the lake, and that they should go to the ocean.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ad.php?p=23856

"...However I will tell you that I am, I have thousands literally, of supporters on the lake who are just scared and that’s what it amounts to. Fear. It has nothing to do with death rate, or anything else, the numbers of arrests for speed and all the rest of it..."

..."why don’t you go on the ocean which these boat/boats were designed for"....

You can read down a few posts and see what others, including yours truly, has to say about it.

So you see Steve this hidden agenda stuff is pure baloney. So please either stop posting about it or tell me specifically what you think has been hidden.

[VtSteve]

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...&postcount=506
Bear Islander - 4-15-2008

""Is 45 mph safer than 55 mph? Yes. "

Thank You! That is all the justification I need for HB847

All the rest of the rhetoric is justification, denial amd misdirection. Plus a sad attempt to rewrite the Coast Guard statistics. A 45 mph speed limit will make the lake safer."

Bear Islander 4-15-2008
"I didn't pick 45. I would have chosen a higher number. But that is the legislation we have. I have chosen to support it.

If every speed is safer than the one higher, then a speed limit will make the lake safer."

Bear Islander 4-16-2008
"I wish the 150' rule were really the panacea you think it is. Unfortunately it is not a magic shield against boating accidents. It did not prevent last years fatal accident, or the one 5 years ago. It would not have made any difference if there was a 150' rule on Long Lake last summer.

Violations of the 150' rule are possibly the most common boating complaint on this forum. It has been pointed out many times that large numbers of boaters seem unaware of its existence.

Even if the 150' rule worked as well as we all wished it did, it would not change the fact that slower is safer."

Ok enough, I'm busy today.

You've used water quality, erosion, kids camps, referenced 90mph in a NWZ, noise, just about everything. The past two weeks or so, you get into the Congestion. You just plain think having the speed limit would cut down on congestion. In various threads, you say you never said this was about safety, waves, pollution, whatever. In another reference, you even state that you would have made the daytime limit higher than 45.

I know it's sometimes confusing to stay focused when responding to so many different issues. But if you had always stated that congestion and lowering the mount of boat traffic on the lake was paramount, then that would have been the focus of your arguments. Until lately, it never has been. And unfortunately, I have wasted far too much time going back through your posts trying to come up with a central theme. There are many Central Themes, which have of course changed over time. Now it's congestion.

I guess you're correct, there has been no Hidden Agenda. I remember the discussions over waves and how the law would help that. I was puzzled, then we moved onto another facet of the debate. Your real agenda didn't actually dawn on me until sometime last month. That's about the time you finally stated it. If you stated this much earlier, then forgive me, I must have missed it.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...&postcount=506
Bear Islander - 4-15-2008

""Is 45 mph safer than 55 mph? Yes. "

Thank You! That is all the justification I need for HB847

All the rest of the rhetoric is justification, denial amd misdirection. Plus a sad attempt to rewrite the Coast Guard statistics. A 45 mph speed limit will make the lake safer."

Bear Islander 4-15-2008
"I didn't pick 45. I would have chosen a higher number. But that is the legislation we have. I have chosen to support it.

If every speed is safer than the one higher, then a speed limit will make the lake safer."

Bear Islander 4-16-2008
"I wish the 150' rule were really the panacea you think it is. Unfortunately it is not a magic shield against boating accidents. It did not prevent last years fatal accident, or the one 5 years ago. It would not have made any difference if there was a 150' rule on Long Lake last summer.

Violations of the 150' rule are possibly the most common boating complaint on this forum. It has been pointed out many times that large numbers of boaters seem unaware of its existence.

Even if the 150' rule worked as well as we all wished it did, it would not change the fact that slower is safer."

Ok enough, I'm busy today.

You've used water quality, erosion, kids camps, referenced 90mph in a NWZ, noise, just about everything. The past two weeks or so, you get into the Congestion. You just plain think having the speed limit would cut down on congestion. In various threads, you say you never said this was about safety, waves, pollution, whatever. In another reference, you even state that you would have made the daytime limit higher than 45.

I know it's sometimes confusing to stay focused when responding to so many different issues. But if you had always stated that congestion and lowering the mount of boat traffic on the lake was paramount, then that would have been the focus of your arguments. Until lately, it never has been. And unfortunately, I have wasted far too much time going back through your posts trying to come up with a central theme. There are many Central Themes, which have of course changed over time. Now it's congestion.

I guess you're correct, there has been no Hidden Agenda. I remember the discussions over waves and how the law would help that. I was puzzled, then we moved onto another facet of the debate. Your real agenda didn't actually dawn on me until sometime last month. That's about the time you finally stated it. If you stated this much earlier, then forgive me, I must have missed it.

I don't see what those quotes prove. Like I said, the opposition wanted to focus on the safety issue so that is what I responded to.

45 IS safer than 55.

That IS all the justification that is necessary (however there is a lot more)

Coast Guard statistics DO support HB847

A 45 mph speed limit WILL make the lake safer

I DID NOT pick 45

45 IS lower than I believe necessary

Bigger boats DO cause more pollution

Bigger wakes DO cause more erosion

Water quality IS dropping

Children's camps ARE limiting their boating

There IS fear in the lake community

The lake DOES have a thrill-seeking reputation

Tourism IS negatively effected by the above

Every word is true. Every word is consistent. Every argument points to a reason I support speed limits. I am not limited to one argument. I can have more than one agenda!

[COWISLAND NH]

Bigger boats DO cause more pollution

Bigger wakes DO cause more erosion

Water quality IS dropping

QUOTE]

What's next...no boats on the lake over 18 feet??? YADDA YADDA YADDA.
Careful what you vote for....I don't want to be swimming to the island in ten years!

[SIKSUKR]

First,boats that didn't fit winnfabs and their supporters idea of what should be on the lake were labeled Go Fast Be Load.Then the lake has been labeled dangerous because of the "Cowboy" and "Wild West" attitudes.Now any boat that can go much faster than 45 is labeled a "Thrillseeker".The scare tactics continue even after the law was signed in.What's next?Will it be those evil"Mechanical Monsters" that used to be called power boats?

[Ryan]

How about this logic:

0 MPH is safer than 1 MPH. We should ban movement on the lake.