Speed limit makes it safe for small human powered craft?

[ITD]

We've been hearing how unsafe Winnipesaukee (Winni) is for canoes, kayaks ( all types), paddle boats and swimmers. Is this true and will a speed limit help?

We've heard (read) the accounts of camps complaining about the dangers of power boats, we've heard kayakers and others complaining about the fear of being run over (although one of the biggest complainers seems to have very limited experience on Winni, in fact previously felt free to complain about Winni. without ever being on the lake!), is it really that bad?

First I looked for statistics, fatalities on Winnipesaukee caused to a human powered boater by a power boater, I couldn't find any.

Second, I looked to my own experience, now I don't own a kayak, but do own a paddle boat and canoe. I have never really felt threatened in these but there is a caveat. I rarely venture far from the shore (if i had to estimate I would say less than 1000 feet. Now don't take this as I rarely venture far because I do, far for me anyway. But I do understand that I am in a very small craft, that is difficult to see. The times I have felt threatened are when I venture too close or into what I would characterize as traffic lanes. The times I have felt threatened, the boat operators did see me, but even 150 ft seems too close when you are so vulnerable. At no time during these encounters have the boats been going over or anywhere near 45, yet I still felt uncomfortable.

I don't think it is prudent for me to be in the middle of the Broads in a canoe, kayak or paddle boat. Do I have the right to be in the middle of the Broads, why sure, but I just don't think that is a smart thing to do. Weather conditions frequently go from calm to extreme in a short amount of time (thunderstorms, wind, etc.). On a busy day, there are many power boaters out there and I am difficult to see. The only way I would be truly safe is to eliminate all the powerboaters, then I might still consider it.

So, the main question of this thread, will a speed limit make it safe for small human powered craft?
Well if I look to the statistics for Winnipesaukee the answer is no, it is already safe.

Next question, will a speed limit make it safe to swim or use a small human powered craft in areas heavily traveled by power boats or in an area where a power boat can be reasonably expected to travel at said speed limit?
The answer is no, part of the responsibility we take on as boaters is that we should not place ourselves at unnecessary risk. Minimizing risk includes use of PFDs, awareness of conditions (wind, weather and traffic) and keeping out of situations where our chance of getting run over is increased.

Saying or inferring that a 45 mph speed limit will make you safe in a small human powered craft in the middle of Lake Winnipesaukee is just not right.

[Evenstar]

The proof is in statistics:
- The number of canoes and kayaks have decreased on Winni over the last decade of two, during a time when the numbers of paddlers has increase faster than any other type of recreational boat.
- During the last few years, how many canoe/kayak retailers have opened on Winni? How many have closed?
- To the best of my knowledge:
- There are currently no kayak clubs or organizations on Winni.
- There are no professional (as in certified) kayak tour organizations on Winni.
- There is no place to get professional kayak instruction (as in lessons) on Winni.
Visit any other large lake, especially the tourist areas, and you’ll see that all these types of businesses are thriving. Just look at Squam, Lake George, Lake Champlain, Lake Tahoe, and all of the Great Lakes.

I know a woman who owns a family camp on Winn and she decided to open up a kayak shop to sell kayaks and to provide tours and instruction. She wanted to run her business from her camp, but ended up opening her store in Lincoln. Her tours and white water instruction are on the Pemi River. She told me that Winni is just too dangerous for that type of business – because of the high speeds that some powerboats travel.

I would be surprised if anyone on this forum has spent more time in a kayak or has paddled more miles than I have. Most of my paddling has been on large lakes, so my opinions are based on actual experience. The reason that I don’t have more experience on Winni is that I saw how dangerous the lake is for paddlers – due to the high speeds of some of the powerboats. Winni is the only lake that I’ve ever felt was unsafe to be on – and the fear was not from the weather or from the conditions – it was fear of being run over from a powerboat. You can say that my fear is just perceived – but it was very real and it was a fear of self-preservation. My instincts are very good - Winni is just not a safe place for kayaks – because of the high speeds of some powerboats.

The reason that there haven’t been paddler fatalities on Winni from powerboat collisions is that the few paddlers who dare to venture out on Winni at all, pretty much hug the shore. We’ve been virtually forced off the main lake.

On any summer weekend, Squam has a large number of powerboats. But you’ll also see dozens of kayak and canoes on the water too – even out on the middle of the lake. Squam feels safe and Winni doesn’t. Why is that? I'm convinced that it is mainly because Squam has a speed limit.

A speed limit will not make any lake 100% safe for kayaks and canoes. I have never even suggested that. But it will make NH lakes much safer for us.

If the speed limit passes, I can guarantee that there will be more sea kayaks out on the main lake. And I bet you'll see a new kayak store open on the lake in the very near future.

[Cal]

ITD , your trouble is you make too much sense

[Weirs guy]

I'm sorry, was that the voice of reason? So I cant take my inflatable paddle boat from the Weirs to Alton on July 4th? ITD, I couldn't agree more.

Another interesting little side, based on the storys found in the history forum, would we be able to argue that todays lake with its big, fast power boats is less safe then 100 years ago when the weather frequently caused issues for the steamboat lines?

I still say the speed limits a lot of work for very little return.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by ITD

We've been hearing how unsafe Winnipesaukee (Winni) is for canoes, kayaks ( all types), paddle boats and swimmers. Is this true and will a speed limit help? {snip}
Saying or inferring that a 45 mph speed limit will make you safe in a small human powered craft in the middle of Lake Winnipesaukee is just not right.

I agree with you. You will not be safer with a 45 m.p.h. speed limit.

Let’s look at a REAL concern of human powered boaters. They (we) want to see and be seen. A vital part of boating safely.

NOWHERE is there any check or requirement that boaters demonstrate how well they can see or even if they can see! Is it reasonable to expect that a 45/25 speed limit will compensate for POOR VISION? You can earn a Boater Education Safety Certificate even if visually challenged or severely impaired (blind). How safe is that? Those who believe that the answer to better visibility is HB162 are not addressing their MAIN CONCERN. Vision. I would enforce the rules we already have before we look to make new rules.

The Boater Education program was designed to address many of the problems on the lakes. The program is not done and is still in the phase-in process. Why not wait to see how well the Boater Education requirement works? Maybe tweak it a bit and include a vision check or “endorsement” every 5 years. I'd rather be boating on the Lake with those who can see well (and go fast) rather than those who may be visually impaired but boat at 45 mph or below.

The rules that are already in place give canoes, swimmers, kayaks, rafts and such, a circle of protection 300 feet in diameter centered on you which require watercraft to be at headway speed, maximum 6 mph. If your kayak is 300 feet off shore then your area of “headway speed” protection should extend out to 450 feet from shore. Since we don’t carry tape measures I'll concede that you might find boaters estimating 150’ on the short side and they may cut between your kayak and shore - an infraction of the rules at any speed above headway. Even so, it is still a nice buffer IF the current 150’ safe passage rules are obeyed and enforced.

disclaimer: My boat can't go 45 mph unless it's on a trailer towed behind some suitable vehicle.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

...The proof is in statistics:
- The number of canoes and kayaks have decreased on Winni over the last decade of two, during a time when the numbers of paddlers has increase faster than any other type of recreational boat....

Those are very interesting statistics...I didn't know that type of survey had been performed on Winni...could you point us to the reference source you used? I would like to delve into those numbers a little deeper, if possible,

Thanks....

Skip

[Cal]

I was wondering the same thing , since most places don't require human power craft to be registered

[Gilligan]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

...Just look at Squam, Lake George, Lake Champlain, Lake Tahoe, and all of the Great Lakes. ... Winni is the only lake that I’ve ever felt was unsafe to be on – and the fear was not from the weather or from the conditions – it was fear of being run over from a powerboat. You can say that my fear is just perceived – but it was very real and it was a fear of self-preservation. My instincts are very good - Winni is just not a safe place for kayaks – because of the high speeds of some powerboats.

I can not debate how you feel because they are your feelings. Some regular power boaters do not want to go out on Winnipesaukee in the middle of a busy summer weekend. Not because of speed boats but the number of boats. Too many boats of all kinds and a large percentage seem to be owned by the boater uneducated or undereducated.

My impression was that kayak use on Winnie has been steadily increasing over the last few years. I see more and more each year based out of the Sanders Bay area. Are they too inexperienced to feel threatened by all those fast boats like you? Is your discomfort due to the speed of the boats or the number of boats on a busy summer weekend?

Lake George has their speed limits and is it safer there? They do not have a 150 foot safe passage requirement. Would you feel better trading the 150 foot rule for 45/25 mph speed limits? Would that really make you feel safer on Lake Winnie?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The number of canoes and kayaks have decreased on Winni over the last decade of two, during a time when the numbers of paddlers has increase faster than any other type of recreational boat.

Considering the modern rotomolded kayak has only been around for 22 years and that the sales of such have exploded only since then, I'm rather skeptical of your claim that kayak usage has decreased on the lake. I do see fewer canoes than ever but I suspect many ex-canoeists now use kayaks instead due to the near inability to swamp a kayak and the reduced sail area; something quite handy I'd suspect on such a windy lake. I have been boating on the lake since 1974 or 1975 and don't recall ever seeing a kayak on the lake in the 70s. Kind of makes sense though, they weren't popular back then. We see scads of kayaks out there when we venture out these days.

I find it hysterical to learn that you have never actually been on the lake, yet you feel compelled to compare it to other lakes as though you are some sort of expert. Do you realize how silly that is? You should try kayaking there sometime, it's a really nice lake for kayaking, especially up in and beyond Moultonboro Bay where vast boulder strewn bays and tight little inlets keep the majority of motor boaters (not me though, I live to gunkhole) away. Take a car ride up to Lee's Mills and launch your kayak there. I can assure you that you'll find it tranquil and interesting. Bring a mask,fins and snorkel too, it's a fun area to view below the surface as well. Everyone I bring up that way is amazed at how empty it is, even on a holiday weekend.

I think obvious overcrowding in the popular areas is the reason Winnipesaukee is considered too dangerous to paddle by the uninformed. Folks take one look at Weirs Beach, Meredith Bay or Wolfeboro bay and figure it's a scary place to paddle. Funny though, the speed in these places is typically a lot slower than 45 due to the huge wakes and confused seas, which, of course, only adds to the huge wakes and confused seas. A speed limit will not change this problem one iota. The general lack of power boats makes Squam a far more attractive place to paddle than Winnipesaukee. Squam has fewer power boats because it's right next to Winnipesaukee which is far more attractive to power boaters due to the amenites it offers and it's size. I suspect the speed limit on Sqaum has nothing to do with it.

[Fat Jack]

It appears that all of the 9% of NH voters who oppose HB162 are hanging on this forum. Were one to use only this forum as a basis, one might mistakenly believe that HB162 does not have overwhelming popular support among the rest of NH's voters. Aren't NH's voters the ones who elect our Senators to "represent" them?

[JDeere]

Does anyone know that date the Senate is voting on HB-162. If it has already been posted I must have missed it.

[Rattlesnake Gal]

I hesitate greatly hopping into any thread on the HB 162, but being on The Broads I have been witness to a great number of things. Believe it or not, there are a great number of kayaks out and about. Take a ride along the shore of our island and you will spot lots of them. Canoes too. These people just chose their time of use wisely, on calm weather days and when there is less boat traffic.

In my opinion, boater education should be the focus here. The 150’ rule is what I see to be the most violated, making the lake unsafe. Marine Patrol has the authority to ticket anyone who is operating unsafely or without control. They do not need a speed limit in place for this. I do not want them to be sidetracked from their safety mission by looking for speeding boats. They are over taxed and over burdened as it is.

If canoeists and kayakers want to feel safer, wear orange vests like the ones runners wear. Or better yet, an orange flag that is on a fiberglass pole. There has been only one time that we were out and did not see the people kayaking. It was on a severely overcast day with a light rain and much fog. The kayaks were between Ship and Moose Islands and the mainland. They were wearing dark clothes and were not visible until we were way too close for comfort. Bright clothing or some safety lights would have been in order. We were using our lights, which meant they saw us before we saw them. I do understand that all kayakers do not act this irresponsible.

This lake is huge and has many locations that are perfect for canoes, rowboats, paddleboats and kayaks that larger powerboats would not care to go. I often go out in a canoe and I cannot tell you how many times the 150’ rule was violated. I suspect that Skipper of the Sea Que is right, these boaters are estimating the 150’ on the short side.

I love this great lake and I am happy to share the lake with all types of boaters. There is plenty of room for all the fun.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

It appears that all of the 9% of NH voters who oppose HB162 are hanging on this forum. Were one to use only this forum as a basis, one might mistakenly believe that HB162 does not have overwhelming popular support among the rest of NH's voters. Aren't NH's voters the ones who elect our Senators to "represent" them?

The poll has nothing to do with representation. There was no massive outcry by a majority of the people to pass another speed law (remember, we already have one). Instead, there was a poll crafted and paid for by the group that is sponsoring and lobbying for the law. Slanted polls are part of the political action committee process. You can buy a laws. But our senators are supposed to be smart enough to realize that (unless they have been paid off behind the scenes). This forum is more representative of boaters, and while the discussion has been heated, its pretty clear that the logical winner is "no additional speed limits required". This is a bad law. It encourages disrespect of other boating laws by safe boaters, because it is stupid to ask someone to stick to 45 on a wide open lake in the middle of the week, when there is no traffic. They will look around and wonder "why". Some will wonder if the 150 rule is based on similarly purchased opinions. The current laws we have about reasonable speed - and especially the 150 passage rule - should be enforced in the crowded and undisciplined area of the lake (where I think most of the sponsors of the additional speed law tend to hang out). This law makes no sense to safe and experienced boaters - and every new law that makes no sense means that the rest of the laws (even those that do make sense) deserve less respect. Normally, as citizens, we are encouraged to tattle on scofflaws. I will still watch in awe and enjoyment when boats scream by at 60+, and hope they get away with safely going so fast. I will continue to wish bad karma on those come closer to me than 150 feet and who pull skiers or kids on tubes through crowded travel lanes.

[SAMIAM]

This is a typical example of the kind of argument that supporters of HB 162 are asking us to believe.
In todays Laconia Sun, Roy A. Carsen of Gilford,in a letter to the editor,relates the story of a sailboat/powerboat collision.
"A former employee of mine had a sailboat on Winnepesaukee for several years until being involved in a collision with a speeding motorboat.The bow of the motorboat penetrated the hull of the sailboat and came within inches of hitting their young children sleeping below.This family still lives in the area,but their boating is limited now to the "safer" waters of the Maine coast"
I believe that story is greatly exagerated.A powerboat,even at 45mph would probably go right through a sailboat or, at the very least,be so horrific as to cause serious injury or death to the occupants.I can't imagine the result if this boat was truly "speeding" as Mr. Carsen says.
Just another example of the exaggerations and distortions that supporters of the bill are using to try and scare the public.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Dave R

...I'm rather skeptical of your claim that kayak usage has decreased on the lake. I do see fewer canoes than ever but I suspect many ex-canoeists now use kayaks instead due to the near inability to swamp a kayak and the reduced sail area; something quite handy I'd suspect on such a windy lake. I have been boating on the lake since 1974 or 1975 and don't recall ever seeing a kayak on the lake in the 70s. Kind of makes sense though, they weren't popular back then. We see scads of kayaks out there when we venture out these days.

I find it hysterical to learn that you have never actually been on the lake, yet you feel compelled to compare it to other lakes as though you are some sort of expert.

If you're going to pick my posts apart,at least try get what I posted correct.

“The number of canoes and kayaks” is the combined number of paddled boats on the lake. I never said there were less kayaks on the lake now than there were 2 decades ago. Plus the 70’s was 3 decades ago – I said “the last decade or two”.

I never said that there were no paddlers on Winni - but that the numbers were way down, especially compared to other large lakes. You see way more kayaks and canoes on Squam, and on most other large lakes.

If there isn’t a problem, why then does Winni have such a bad reputation among paddliers?
I’m on several paddling forums – No one has ever recommended Winni as a good place to kayak.
Winni isn’t even in AMC’s book on places to kayak in NH.
And at “Sea Kayaking in NH”, Winni isn’t even mentioned: http://www.trails.com/activity.asp?areaid=10650

How did you ever get that I “have never actually been on the lake” out of what I posted? I’ve kayaked on Winni – I’ve posted that several times.

There is not a “general lack of power boats” on Squam. That is totally false. There are a large number of powerboats there, which are by far the largest type of boat on Squam. I’m on Squam nearly every weekend during the summer - the speed limit is working on Squam.

And I really don't get the wake argument. I'll admit that I don't know much about power boats, but don't most power boats get on plane somewhere near 20 mph - which is way below the proposed 45 mph speed limit? Are there actually any recreational powerboats that aren't on plane by 45 mph?

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

There was no massive outcry by a majority .....Slanted polls .... You can buy a laws.

This is a "slanted poll" question?
"Do you favor or oppose a state law placing a 45 miles per hour daytime
and 25 miles per hour nighttime speed limit on boats operating on New
Hampshire lakes?"
How so?

And this lopsided response (7 to 1) is not "a massive outcry by a majority"?
63% - Favor
9% - Oppose
Give me a break!

Whose trying to "buy a law" here? NH's lakes are not owned by just "boaters" or just GFBL dealerships...they are owned by NH's citizens. This poll surveyed NH citizens.
Seems to me that when those citizens demand a law in such overwhelming numbers, yet some Senators, like Letoruneau, Boyce and Clegg (who have taken campaign contributions from the Marine Trades Association and the GFBL marinas) ignore those demands and side with the contributors against the mandate of those who elected them, then it is the contributors who are "buying". No? Or don't you believe in democracy?

But regardless, whether HB162 passes or not, the tide has finally turned in NH. The citizens will ultimately get what they want on their lakes, and those who insist on driving their boats really fast will have to trailer over to Champlian or to the coast....until the citizens there get fed up too. In the end, Lake Winnipesaukee will be a safe place to boat again, whether through HB162, or the next version that can be submitted as early as next September.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

A powerboat,even at 45mph would probably go right through a sailboat or, at the very least,be so horrific as to cause serious injury or death to the occupants. I can't imagine the result if this boat was truly "speeding" as Mr. Carsen says.

This is a great point. Imagine the death and destruction if this power boat had been going say 90, as 9% of NH's citizen feel is ok? At that speed, the operator's reaction time would have been the same as at 45, but his stopping distance and the distance he would have traveled during that reaction time would have both been doubled, his impact force would have been quadrupled, his kinetic energy (the killer) would have been quadrupled, and the victim would not have had to worry about heading off to Maine for safe sailing. In fact, we would probably still be finding little chunks of him and his boat floating around the lake.

And because the victim here was a slow-moving sailboat, the Glendale and Coast Guard statistics would list this as a "sail boating" accident at "slow speed", and there would be no record of a "speed-related accident" anywhere.

[Jan]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

It appears that all of the 9% of NH voters who oppose HB162 are hanging on this forum.

There are many supporters out here. We're just not into bickering.

It is sad that now this board looks more like offshores only than the one I've always enjoyed.

[BroadHopper]

If you were to look at the number of users who are proponents of the 45/25 rule on this forum, it is minor as oppose to those who are against it or feels that it infringe upon their civil liberties.
We had two high speed ice boats crashed the other day resulting in a death. I say we should support all vehicles using the lake, summer and winter to obey the 45/25 rule, regardles of what they are. I bet that will open up another can of worms.

[John A. Birdsall]

disclaimer: My boat can't go 45 mph unless it's on a trailer towed behind some suitable vehicle.

Al stated this, not this raises a question can you tow your boat over 45mph

stupid question.

I been reading these posts posted today, with blame of the speed limit proposal on kayaks, and canoes. I do not find them responsible for this change, nor do I find it the big boats go fast either. It is the fault of every boat/boater that fails to follow the rules and regulations, to take responsibility of their actions. If boats/boaters would follow and abide by the 150' rule Their should not be a problem. However, I think at night we need to have a speed limit, and I am thinking that 25 is really too fast. And my thoughts are when their is a group say in Alton Bay, or the Weirs, or Wolfeboro Harbor watching fireworks and leaving. But again 150' rule is not being inforced is it. I think on the 4th of July in Alton their is over 1000 boats for the fireworks, and I wonder how many get ticketed for failuer to obseve the 150' rule when leaving. I know that they are not doing headway speed.

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

NH's lakes are not owned by just "boaters" or just GFBL dealerships...they are owned by NH's citizens. This poll surveyed NH citizens.

So...

People who live in Salem and never boat on any lake should have as much of a say in how we use our lake as we do? Why is it I have a feeling you'd be very much against the same Salem residents painting the road in front of your house pink? Come on, the poll questions were skewed to give a certain answer any you know it.

So far the supporters of this bill have only been able to point to one accident involving a speeding boat, reported 3rd hand via an editorial no less, to support that this law would make the lake safer? Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

This is a "slanted poll" question?
"Do you favor or oppose a state law placing a 45 miles per hour daytime
and 25 miles per hour nighttime speed limit on boats operating on New
Hampshire lakes?"
How so?

How about "Do you favor additional enforcement efforts of the current speed limit law which prohibits boaters from traveling too fast for conditions"? How about "Do you favor additional enforcement of the 150 foot avoidance rule"? Or, if I wanted to slant a few my way "Do you favor an additional speed limit law that goes beyond federal maritime laws"? Do you favor impacting someone driving record because they are boating at 60 MPH in the middle of the broads on an uncrowded day"?

It was a slanted poll, because it went to people who haven't taken the boater's education class, don't know what the existing laws are, and haven't been given both sides of the story. People have been educated that all bad boating behavior is caused by speeds over 45, and we all KNOW that is not true. The poll question is simple enough - it just isn't a fair question. Look at what congress did when asked to vote on going to war in Iraq after being educated with false information. Overwhelming in favor. Same story here. Believing the false information.

[Fat Jack]

John,
you also raise an interesting issue;

Looking only at the nightime portion of HB162, it is clear that the Coast Guard is in support of the 25MPH limit, if not slower.

While all of the water skiing sites recommend a speed at or below 25MPH for recreational water skiing, the Coast Guard Auxiliary's "Safety Tips for Water Skiing" publication (http://www.uscgboating.org/safety/metlife/water_ski.htm)
warns that "Any boat traveling fast enough to tow a skier is traveling too fast to navigate safely at night."

Of course, there will be some on this forum who will figure out some angle for reasoning that even this clear warning does not apply to NH lakes, where the water is denser, skiers are faster, or statistics are not kept on boat speeds.

And I wonder why the CG would even bother to warn about night time speed anyway, since according to Director Barrett and some on this forum; "There is no correlation between speed and danger in a marine environment".

[Woodsy]

Fat Jack...

Actually you are wrong in your assumptions. What your missing in ALL of your equations that relate to speed and reaction time is the one thing that is absolutely critical... distance! One of the primary things that relate to all accidents is visibility. At what distance was the other boat visible? On the water, visibility is usually measured in MILES! On the roadways, it is measured in feet. If all current laws are being obeyed (150' away from shore etc), there are very few places on the Lake where a boat on plane (regardless of speed) wouldn't have ample time to correct thier course or stop to avoid a collision. All drivers are responsible for the safe operation of thier boat. So if a Capt. Bonehead was bearing down on you regardless of speed, it is your obligation to do everything possible to avoid a collision, regardless of the other boats course and speed.

The proof of this is in the statistics... no collisions on Lake Winnipesaukee at speeds greater than 45 MPH. NONE, NADA, EMPTY SET, ZERO! The one boat/boat collision we did have last year involved a small SeaRay and a STATIONARY pontoon boat!

Visibility is the key to operating any vehicle safely. Night operation is a completely different scenario, as your visibility is reduced, reasonable & prudent dictates that your speed should also be reduced.

Woodsy

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Aren't NH's voters the ones who elect our Senators to "represent" them?

Actually no, that's what Representatives do, hence the title. Senators are there to provide wisdom to the lawmaking, something missing in much of the population. They are the top dog of the two groups.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Actually no, that's what Representatives do, hence the title. Senators are there to provide wisdom to the lawmaking, something missing in much of the population. They are the top dog of the two groups.

My college professors must not have known what they were talking about. Can you point me to a reference where I can read about this unique "super senate" system of state government you describe? How do all the other branches fit onto this governmental totem pole? Whose the "top dog" of the whole state? Would that be the Governor, the Supreme Court or the Senate President?
Very Intersting.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

If you're going to pick my posts apart,at least try get what I posted correct.

“The number of canoes and kayaks” is the combined number of paddled boats on the lake. I never said there were less kayaks on the lake now than there were 2 decades ago. Plus the 70’s was 3 decades ago – I said “the last decade or two”.

I never said that there were no paddlers on Winni - but that the numbers were way down, especially compared to other large lakes. You see way more kayaks and canoes on Squam, and on most other large lakes.

If there isn’t a problem, why then does Winni have such a bad reputation among paddliers?
I’m on several paddling forums – No one has ever recommended Winni as a good place to kayak.
Winni isn’t even in AMC’s book on places to kayak in NH.
And at “Sea Kayaking in NH”, Winni isn’t even mentioned: http://www.trails.com/activity.asp?areaid=10650

How did you ever get that I “have never actually been on the lake” out of what I posted? I’ve kayaked on Winni – I’ve posted that several times.

There is not a “general lack of power boats” on Squam. That is totally false. There are a large number of powerboats there, which are by far the largest type of boat on Squam. I’m on Squam nearly every weekend during the summer - the speed limit is working on Squam.

And I really don't get the wake argument. I'll admit that I don't know much about power boats, but don't most power boats get on plane somewhere near 20 mph - which is way below the proposed 45 mph speed limit? Are there actually any recreational powerboats that aren't on plane by 45 mph?

My apologies. I misread and thought you hadn't had your kayak on Winnipesaukee yet.

My "general lack of power boats" statement was in comparison to Winnipesaukee, I guess I wasn't entirely clear about that. I realize Squam has power boats but I think we can both agree, it is not as cowded as Winnipesaukee. Winni gets crowded and that's surely why it's not popular with paddlers.

Wakes are smaller the faster you go above plowing speed or the slower you go below plowing speed. Plowing speed is where the boat is as fast as it can go without being on plane and also happens to be the least efficient speed a boat can do. You are quite correct that most boats plane at around 20 MPH, it happens to be the minimum planing speed for my boat. I know of no boats that cannot plane below 45. There is a huge difference in the size of the wake between 20 and 45 though.

My boat's wake at 50 MPH


My boat's wake at 20 MPH

[Woodsy]

Fat Jack...

If you need to know how our NH government works, I suggest you read this.... its pretty interesting. You probably didn't get the whole checks & balances concept.

http://www.state.nh.us/constitution/constitution.html

The Senate has to approve the laws that the House of Representatives inititate. Further, all money bills have to originate in the House of Representatives.



Woodsy

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

My college professors must not have known what they were talking about. Can you point me to a reference where I can read about this unique "super senate" system of state government you describe? How do all the other branches fit onto this governmental totem pole? Whose the "top dog" of the whole state? Would that be the Governor, the Supreme Court or the Senate President?
Very Intersting.

You need to go to a better college, I learned this stuff in 11th grade...

" James Madison explained that the Senate's role was "first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led."

In this case, you'd be the one trying to lead people into transient impressions...

"The New Hampshire Senate was founded in 1784 and is the higher of the state's two legislative chambers. The Senate is comprised of 24 members who are elected every two years. Generally, sessions are held annually from early January to the end of June."

This is what I meant by stating he senate was the "top dog" compared to the house of reps.

[Woodsy]

Fat Jack...

Perhaps you didn't understand your proffessor?

Here is an easier to understand explanation from Wikpedia...

"The Framers of the Constitution created a bicameral Congress out of a desire to have two houses to check each other. One house was intended to be a "people's house" that would be very sensitive to public opinion. The other house was intended to be a more reserved, more deliberate forum of elite wisdom. The Constitution provides that the approval of both chambers is necessary for the passage of legislation. The exclusive powers enumerated to the Senate in the Constitution are regarded as more important than those exclusively enumerated to the House. "

Woodsy

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

How about "Do you favor an additional speed limit law that goes beyond federal maritime laws"? Do you favor impacting someone driving record because they are boating at 60 MPH in the middle of the broads on an uncrowded day"?

Now those would be slanted questions. But if your side wanted to know the popular opinions on these issues, I suppose you should have taken a poll...or did you? If you showed me results of a legitmately conducted and statistically accurate poll that asked an adequate sampling of NH voters "Do you favor or oppose impacting someone's driving record because they are boating at 60 MPH in the middle of the broads on an uncrowded day?" and the answer was 7 to 1 in opposition, I would be the very first to admit that the overwhelming majority of NH's voters oppose impacting someone's driving record because they are boating at 60 MPH in the middle of the broads on an uncrowded day.

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Look at what congress did when asked to vote on going to war in Iraq after being educated with false information.

I thought we were the liberals? Was congress "lied to"? Did Gore really win the '00 election too? But how is this related to dangerously fast boat speeds anyway? Talk about reaching for an argument!

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

It appears that all of the 9% of NH voters who oppose HB162 are hanging on this forum. Were one to use only this forum as a basis, one might mistakenly believe that HB162 does not have overwhelming popular support among the rest of NH's voters. Aren't NH's voters the ones who elect our Senators to "represent" them?

Jack,

What does this have to do with what I posted?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by ITD

Jack,

What does this have to do with what I posted?

itwas aimed at me

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Jan

There are many supporters out here. We're just not into bickering. It is sad that now this board looks more like offshores only than the one I've always enjoyed.

Oh, I don't know about that.

Just a month after Don started this forum six years ago, he had to ask "Where IS Everybody"; thereupon, someone started a thread titled, Baja Hammer Owners???

It didn't take long for the "noise and speed" complaints to suddenly appear back in March of 2000.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...ames;read=8077

I'm with you Mike. All big, obnoxious, polluting powerboats should be banned from the lake. They make me crazy when they zoom by, blatantly ignoring the 150' rule, then wave to me... Don't they know what their wake does to me?

It’s time something was done….. Life is too short to have these Yahoos endangering life, disturbing the peace of the great waters and polluting the waters that we play in. God intended us to use his bountiful lake with more respect.

Or a reply by gh@alton bay:

Randy,
You're right, Iroquois was sold off for development. Last I heard the loud boat and its loud owner are now mooching off his parents at a small lake in Milton. We won't miss him and his drinking buddies. One of their wives drove past our place towing the boat's trailer and after drinking beer all afternoon took the corner board off our place. Of course she denied it despite the fact that a reflector was left in the road and their trailer suddenly sported some damage. Needless to say we don't miss their 2 week beer binges in Alton Bay.

Some things never change—You'll recognize some familiar names, too.

(Including one who replaced an illegal exhaust with a different illegal exhaust!)

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Dave R

My boat's wake at 50 MPH

My boat's wake at 20 MPH

Dave,
I can make the same wakes come from my boat at any speeds between 15 and 35 MPH by playing with my trim and throttle. I refuse to believe that the boat in those photos cannot be planed just fine at below 20 MPH by an operator who knows how to drive it and wants to plane it. Let me know what make/model/engine you have and I'll find out for you what speed the manufacturer says it should be planing at. Maybe there's something wrong with your trim.
And of course, the skier had a lot to do with things too. Maybe you should have photoshopped him out.

[codeman671]

Evenstar, where are you getting these "statistics"??? How about some proof to back your claims that the number of paddlers are decreasing instead of an opinion deemed as a statistic? Seems to me that since the population has gone up dramatically on the past decade or two that the population of paddlers would go up as well. Not exactly rocket science...

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

It appears that all of the 9% of NH voters who oppose HB162 are hanging on this forum. Were one to use only this forum as a basis, one might mistakenly believe that HB162 does not have overwhelming popular support among the rest of NH's voters. Aren't NH's voters the ones who elect our Senators to "represent" them?

Jack,

Did it ever occur to you that, and this is just a guess, that it's not suprising that most of the people here who are expressing a different opinion than yours appear to be long time vacationers and local folk? Who are all well coursed on the lake are also very experienced boaters on Winni?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

...The proof is in statistics...

Hi Evenstar,

Any chance you have found those reference materials (statistics) yet?

Thanks,

Skip

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Dave R

"...There is a huge difference in the size of the wake between 20 and 45 though...."

That's a wake-boarder—you have to create a big wake for him.

I've seen ski-boats who add water ballast to their boats to create a monster wake (and moving passengers to the stern).

[Weirs guy]

Lets try this poll question with the NH voters: "Do you favor paying an increase in your taxes, even by a small amount, to enforce a speed limit on NH lakes." Lets see how many voters who don't use the lakes support that. "Hmmm, I can spend my tax money on better books for my kids school, or on a radar gun for the marine patrol."

[Woodsy]

Fat Jack...

Just an FYI...

When you use trim tabs to artificially plane a boat at a speed lower than what the hull would normally plane at, the wake increases dramatically. So although with trim tabs you can get just about any boat to plane off at 25 MPH, the wake created will be increased. Also, not all boats have trim tabs, nor are they required to have them.

Woodsy

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Dave,
I can make the same wakes come from my boat at any speeds between 15 and 35 MPH by playing with my trim and throttle. I refuse to believe that the boat in those photos cannot be planed just fine at below 20 MPH by an operator who knows how to drive it and wants to plane it. Let me know what make/model/engine you have and I'll find out for you what speed the manufacturer says it should be planing at. Maybe there's something wrong with your trim.
And of course, the skier had a lot to do with things too. Maybe you should have photoshopped him out.

It's a 2000 Regal 2550 LSC with a 7.4 MPI Bravo 3 swinging 26" props with a 2.0:1 drive ratio. It's really not a good boat for low speed planing due to the stepped hull, even with the tabs fully deployed and the drive tucked all the way under. The stepped hull is awesome for fuel efficiency once up to 27 to 32 MPH though. If you can tell me how to run it better, I'm all ears.

The "skier" is actually wakeboarding so we were trying to plane as slow as possible and make a wake for him, I don't normally cruise like that. It planes slower with a wakeboarder than it does without (more drag but less weight). If he is not back there, and I have a typical load, my minimum planing speed is around 22 MPH, unless I make everyone sit in the cabin. In that shot it was just me and a spotter on board with very little fuel. I was not trying to mislead anyone with those photos, just showing how going faster makes less wake on any given boat on plane. It's not a new concept.

[Finder]

Originally Posted by Dave R

It's a 2000 Regal 2550 LSC with a 7.4 MPI Bravo 3 swinging 26" props with a 2.0:1 drive ratio. It's really not a good boat for low speed planing due to the stepped hull, even with the tabs fully deployed and the drive tucked all the way under. The stepped hull is awesome for fuel efficiency once up to 27 to 32 MPH though. If you can tell me how to run it better, I'm all ears.

The "skier" is actually wakeboarding so we were trying to plane as slow as possible and make a wake for him, I don't normally cruise like that. It planes slower with a wakeboarder than it does without (more drag but less weight). If he is not back there, and I have a typical load, my minimum planing speed is around 22 MPH, unless I make everyone sit in the cabin. In that shot it was just me and a spotter on board with very little fuel. I was not trying to mislead anyone with those photos, just showing how going faster makes less wake on any given boat on plane. It's not a new concept.

Dave and other wakeboarders. Do you have any idea what your wakes do to the shoreline? Most coves have been protected from the weather and natural waves for years. Now due to a higher lake level during the tourist season and clueless boaters the shoreline is eroding. Trees are being undermined and previously sandy bottoms are being silted over. These are hard facts, but I don't expect anything to change for the better.

[gtxrider]

Do you have wake boarders in your cove? Are they within 150' of shore, docks, other boats? We ski/wakeboard in Alton Bay and I we tried to run in Peggy's Cove or Loon Cove I think we would be running close to shore, rocks, other boats..... If you have boarders in your cove call the MP.

First its fast boats now its slow boats... Ban them all I say and lets go back to birch bark canoes or dugouts.

[Woodsy]

Large wakes erode the shoreline... this is not exactly news. If the tourism is increased as proponents of HB-162 will have you believe, then there will be more boats, creating more wakes, leading to greater shoreline erosion.

I find it pretty funny that alot of the HB-162 supporters complained that the lake was too crowded.... yet they tout HB-162 as the harbinger of increased tourism and lake usage...

But on the upside, it won't be the fault of the hi-performance boater....

Woodsy

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The proof is in statistics:
- The number of canoes and kayaks have decreased on Winni over the last decade of two, during a time when the numbers of paddlers has increase faster than any other type of recreational boat.

You know, this is just wrong, to say something like this without any proof or statistics. Any reasonable person who has spent any time on Lake Winnipesaukee would disagree with you. We're still waiting for the proof.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

- During the last few years, how many canoe/kayak retailers have opened on Winni? How many have closed?

What a resource our Webmaster has provide for us right here, answers at our fingertips and a great venue for small businesses to sell their product. It took about five minutes to come up with 5 business that sell or specialize in kayaks. Had you even the slightest interest in accuracy or truth, you too would have looked.

Action Fish Kayak kits
Fay's boat Yard (Hobie Kayaks)
Sports and Marine Parafunalia (been here, many models of Kayaks, great store)
Wild Meadow Canoes and Kayaks (Been here too, seems to be a thriving business with great selection)
Winnipesaukee Kayak LLC


These are the result of 5 minute search of the links section of this website, try it out....

Originally Posted by Evenstar

- To the best of my knowledge:
- There are currently no kayak clubs or organizations on Winni.
- There are no professional (as in certified) kayak tour organizations on Winni.
- There is no place to get professional kayak instruction (as in lessons) on Winni.

Found one, took me less than a minute, if I looked a little harder I'm sure I'd find more.

Was going to continue on to the rest of your post but I'm tired and you're wrong. At one point I believed that you have a lot of Kayak experience, but now I'm not so sure.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Finder

Dave and other wakeboarders. Do you have any idea what your wakes do to the shoreline? Most coves have been protected from the weather and natural waves for years. Now due to a higher lake level during the tourist season and clueless boaters the shoreline is eroding. Trees are being undermined and previously sandy bottoms are being silted over. These are hard facts, but I don't expect anything to change for the better.

I'm not a wakeboarder. My guest did it once for about 10 minutes last year, when that picture was taken. I wouldn't say I was clueless, I am aware that my wake eventually ends up on shore, with everyone else's. I'm also aware that my boat's exhaust is adding to global warming and that the fuel usage is lining the pockets of Saudi oil Princes who probably fund terrorism.

Sometimes I just don't worry about such things because in the whole scheme of things, it's all pretty minor. Let's face it, the entire planet will be vapor when the sun nears the end of it's life and becomes a red giant. Who's gonna care that Winnipesaukee's surface area has been increased fractionally by shoreline erosion then? For that matter, was anyone there to complain when the glaciers carved the lake out in the first place? I bet that was a bit tougher on the shoreline than a few wakes. What about the next glacier? I imagine it'll undo or add to any erosion I and every wakeboarder ever caused, a trillion times over. Maybe all my greenhouse gases will hep prevent the next glacier and I'm actaully doing the lake a huge favor, erosion wise. But then, maybe those oil funded terrorists will setoff a backpack nuke killing thousands of people, some of whose last thoughts will be: "I wish I'd tried wakeboarding, just once, even for just 10 minutes".

But seriously, I'm not the guy you should be targeting for wakeboarding erosion guilt. We are not into water sports like that at all.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Finder

Dave and other wakeboarders. Do you have any idea what your wakes do to the shoreline? Most coves have been protected from the weather and natural waves for years. Now due to a higher lake level during the tourist season and clueless boaters the shoreline is eroding. Trees are being undermined and previously sandy bottoms are being silted over. These are hard facts, but I don't expect anything to change for the better.

On the plus side, the wakes prevent milfoil from taking hold. You never see it in areas that have waves, only quiet coves.

[overlook]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

John,
you also raise an interesting issue;

Looking only at the nightime portion of HB162, it is clear that the Coast Guard is in support of the 25MPH limit, if not slower.

While all of the water skiing sites recommend a speed at or below 25MPH for recreational water skiing, the Coast Guard Auxiliary's "Safety Tips for Water Skiing" publication (http://www.uscgboating.org/safety/metlife/water_ski.htm)
warns that "Any boat traveling fast enough to tow a skier is traveling too fast to navigate safely at night."

Of course, there will be some on this forum who will figure out some angle for reasoning that even this clear warning does not apply to NH lakes, where the water is denser, skiers are faster, or statistics are not kept on boat speeds.

And I wonder why the CG would even bother to warn about night time speed anyway, since according to Director Barrett and some on this forum; "There is no correlation between speed and danger in a marine environment".

This is in reference to towing waterskiers at night. Find were they say boating at night? That is a pathetic spin... A waterskier could hit objects such as markers ect.

Take off your blinders.