Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

... take all island property by eminent domain..... .....stop all antique septic systems from running into the lake....

What makes you think failed septic systems are only an island problem? I suspect islanders are more aware and more diligent than mainlanders about this problem.

Dave R - The analysis is still done every year, the results may not be online.

I notice from another thread that you can't take your boat on some other bodies of water. See what I mean about ever increasing restrictions because of pollution. Will this restriction come to the big lake sooner or later? I predict Yes!

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

I have an idea to help the alleged pollution problem! I think I will get together a group, called the WMA, Winni Mainlanders Association. Petition the legislature to take all island property by eminent domain. That will instantly clean up the water quality by taking hundreds of boats off the lake, stop all antique septic systems from running into the lake. Now look what you have done, I am starting to make as much sense as FLL or BI.... Geez

HEY! Hands off my Island you flatlander!!!!!!!!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Cal - Thanks, I guess I will have to take my chances.

I guess you will , since I truely doubt your concern about congestion and pollution. It is all about speed and thats all , isn't it?

[RLW]

Originally Posted by phoenix

Lt. Dunleavy may break a record for the most replies on one thread

I don't believe it. As in all threads, everyone has a tendency to go off subject like myself answering this quote.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Cal

I guess you will , since I truely doubt your concern about congestion and pollution. It is all about speed and thats all , isn't it?

You might not have posted that if you had ever seen me drive my Seadoo. I love speed, next year I will be going Mach 4 as I leave the atmosphere.

Pollution is not my first concern, nor is speed. The direction the lake is going in is my first concern. It's all about bigger, faster, louder and get those kayaks out of my way. The opposition has actually suggested that children's camps may need to hire Marine Patrol details to protect their boats. Talk about clueless!!!

As with all things in life there are limits. How big is to big for this lake? How fast is to fast? Are there places that kayaks and canoes should not go?

Next summer visit a children's camp on Winnipesaukee for a day. Talk to the director and waterfront staff. I think you will find a new perspective.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Les,
Glad to see my suggestion was to subtle for you.

[fatlazyless]

Here's an advance preview of what I'm gonna say when HB847 passes the senate.

Well golleeeee....I'm speechless....I don't know what to say, so why don't I just say,

sometimes you win,


& sometimes YOU LOSE!

:


Hey, if you like the lake at 75mph, you'll like it ten times better at 45mph,
so just slow down & look at the view,
& use less gasoline, understand!

Going 45mph is a wicked fast speed for most normal boats.

This has been a public service message brought to you from your local mental health rehabilitation center! ..b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b...

[Bear Islander]

There is a saying in sports .... get cocky, get stuffed!

And something about waiting for a fat lady to sing or a Governor to sign the legislation.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Dave R - The analysis is still done every year, the results may not be online.

I notice from another thread that you can't take your boat on some other bodies of water. See what I mean about ever increasing restrictions because of pollution. Will this restriction come to the big lake sooner or later? I predict Yes!

Have you seen the water quality results for the last 5 years?

I do see what you mean by ever increasing restrictions, but we both know it's never been about pollution.

BTW, in that thread, it was determined that I can legally take my boat on Squam, I just can't take a porta-potti and a bed at the same time.

[Airwaves]

As I bring your attention to post #277 written by AL, Skipper of the Sea Que an my response at #289, both on page 3 of this thread, there is another search underway for a missing snowmobiler

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Just to echo the question raised by AL, where is the outrage and stated fear by Winfabs and their supporters over snowmobile deaths? I tried to start a thread asking this question following the deaths of 5 snowmobilers in 1 weekend but I guess it didn't pass the muster of our webmaster.

So why the concern over a problem that doesn't exist on Lake Winnipesaukee in the summer (boat speed or as the Marine Patrol has shown, lack of excessive speed) but no concern whatsoever by this same group of people over fatalities in the winter?

Could it be because the real agenda has nothing to do with safety but it is about getting a certain class of boats off the lake, period?

I do not speak for WinnFABS, but I will point out that the "B" in WinnFABS stands for "boating". I must assume that is why they are not involved in snowmobile legislation.

Your argument that we don't need speed limits because people are dying in snowmoblies make no sense what so ever. Apples and oranges! If you feel the need, found WinnFASS. (first "S" for snowmobile)

[Gilligan]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Your argument that we don't need speed limits because people are dying in snowmoblies make no sense what so ever. Apples and oranges! If you feel the need, found WinnFASS. (first "S" for snowmobile)

Here is how it works:
Apples = Lake Winnie deaths from speeding boats over 45 mph.
Oranges = Lake Winnie deaths from snowmobiles.

Both the apples and the oranges represent serious personal injury. One yields an overwhelmingly high % of deaths compared to the other.

You have a mountain of oranges and a mole hill of apples. Which should you address first? Why concentrate on the mole hill instead of the mountain?

It makes no sense whatsoever to expend all this energy on the apples (deaths from boats over 45 mph) and neglect the oranges (high number of snowmobile deaths).

Just compare the numbers. Snomobiles cause so many more deaths than fast boats.

an aside. I laughed at your WinnFASS comment.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

Here is how it works:
Apples = Lake Winnie deaths from speeding boats over 45 mph.
Oranges = Lake Winnie deaths from snowmobiles.

Both the apples and the oranges represent serious personal injury. One yields an overwhelmingly high % of deaths compared to the other.

You have a mountain of oranges and a mole hill of apples. Which should you address first? Why concentrate on the mole hill instead of the mountain?

It makes no sense whatsoever to expend all this energy on the apples (deaths from boats over 45 mph) and neglect the oranges (high number of snowmobile deaths).

Just compare the numbers. Snomobiles cause so many more deaths than fast boats.

an aside. I laughed at your WinnFASS comment.

By your faulty logic we should fix all problems in the order of relative danger.

If we assume statistics show automobiles cause more deaths than trains, planes or snowmobiles. Then by your logic, we should stop all efforts to make trains, planes and snowmobiles safer. Once we have automobiles nice and safe we can start work on one of the others.

Should this method be extended to medicine as well? Let's cure Cancer before we start working on AIDS, Cerebral Palsy, Alzheimer's, Spinal Cord Injury etc. etc. etc.

Sorry, but your methodology is idiotic. There is no logical or particle reason why all safety efforts can not proceed in parallel. There is NOTHING whatsoever about the speed limit movement that is stopping snowmobile safety efforts or even slowing them down.

The WinnFASS idea is not really a joke. It seems that your idea of how to make snowmobile's safer is to try and kill the effort to make boating safer.

At least I, and others that support speed limits, are trying to do something positive. You may believe that we are misdirected, but at least we are not sitting on our fat asses and whining about snowmobile dangers not being addressed by WinnFABS!

If you think snowmobile dangers on the lake need to be addressed then put down the remote control and stand up and do something about it. Feel free to hit me up for a small donation.

[Airwaves]

BI wrote in part:

It seems that your idea of how to make snowmobile's safer is to try and kill the effort to make boating safer.

And there it is, the lie they keep repeating over and over and over that strikes fear into the minds of non-boaters among the population and legislature.

Boating is not safe! Boating on Lake Winnipesaukee is not safe!

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol accident records show there hasn't been a vessel to vessel accident cause by speed on Lake Winnipesaukee in years.

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol accident records show there hasn't been a boating fatality caused by speed on Lake Winnipesaukee in years.

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol research this past summer showed fewer than 1 percent of the boats clocked by radar were going faster than the proposed speed limit.

It doesn't matter that this is the first year that every operator of a boat on Lake Winnipesaukee and New Hampshire will be required to have obtained a safe boating certificate.

It doesn't matter that the very thing they say is happening on Lake Winnipesaukee when Hi Performance boats are out there is happening when the boats are away for the winter, they just ignore that. Who needs a safe lake in the winter?

These things are to be ignored when you're ultmate goal is to eliminate a specific class of boat, period!

And BTW BI just so you don't think I ignored it, I did respond to your apples and oranges post but since it's been about 24 hours I will assume my response won't make it so don't read anything into my silence on the topic.

[fatlazyless]

Just checked the quik bill search at the NH Senate and after passing the house on 1/31, it now shows 3/13: "Introduced and Referred to Transportation and Interstate Cooperation."

On March 16, 2006, hb162 was drowned in the senate by a vote of 15-9.

Wonder what it will be this year, and when it will occur? The legislature is in session today and tomorrow, but I have no clue as to when hb847 will splash across the senate floor?

Reminds me of a saying from the back of a marina forklift: If you want to go splash,
you best have the cash!

After that hb847 gets passed, I wanna see a NH Marine Trades Assoc bumper sticker that says: We have the cash, so where's our splash?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

And there it is, the lie they keep repeating over and over and over that strikes fear into the minds of non-boaters among the population and legislature.

Boating is not safe! Boating on Lake Winnipesaukee is not safe!

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol accident records show there hasn't been a vessel to vessel accident cause by speed on Lake Winnipesaukee in years.

I've posted this several times, but have been pretty much ignored every time: The absense of boat fatalities and collisions is NOT proof that the lake is save. What about close calls?

There are no statistics on close calls, but that doesn't mean they are not happening. In fact it has been my personal experience that they happen rather often.

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol research this past summer showed fewer than 1 percent of the boats clocked by radar were going faster than the proposed speed limit.

I've shown why that study was not even a valid study. They basically did everything wrong; in fact that study was so flawed that it could be used for an example of all the things not to do, when you are attempting to do a valid study.

It doesn't matter that the very thing they say is happening on Lake Winnipesaukee when Hi Performance boats are out there is happening when the boats are away for the winter, they just ignore that. Who needs a safe lake in the winter?

I'm actually in favor of having lake speed limits apply to snowmobiles.

These things are to be ignored when you're ultmate goal is to eliminate a specific class of boat, period!

My goal is to make NH lakes safer, period. The original bill was for all NH lakes, and that's still my goal. I honestly feel that a speed limit is a good way to make any lake safer. It's not the only way, but it is part of the overall solution.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

BI wrote in part:

And there it is, the lie they keep repeating over and over and over that strikes fear into the minds of non-boaters among the population and legislature.

Boating is not safe! Boating on Lake Winnipesaukee is not safe!

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol accident records show there hasn't been a vessel to vessel accident cause by speed on Lake Winnipesaukee in years.

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol accident records show there hasn't been a boating fatality caused by speed on Lake Winnipesaukee in years.

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol research this past summer showed fewer than 1 percent of the boats clocked by radar were going faster than the proposed speed limit.

It doesn't matter that this is the first year that every operator of a boat on Lake Winnipesaukee and New Hampshire will be required to have obtained a safe boating certificate.

It doesn't matter that the very thing they say is happening on Lake Winnipesaukee when Hi Performance boats are out there is happening when the boats are away for the winter, they just ignore that. Who needs a safe lake in the winter?

These things are to be ignored when you're ultmate goal is to eliminate a specific class of boat, period!

And BTW BI just so you don't think I ignored it, I did respond to your apples and oranges post but since it's been about 24 hours I will assume my response won't make it so don't read anything into my silence on the topic.

You are correct, those things don't matter. As I have explained many times it's not just about safety. In fact safety is not my primary reason for wanting speed limits.

Any "reasonable" person can understand that what happens on the ice in winter has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with HB847. It's just misdirection and denial.

Plus safety is not an absolute. There is no such thing as a "safe" lake. Safety is relative, and speed limits will make it safer.

Your restrictions that only certain accidents count, and only if the speed can be absolutely determined, and only if it happened boat to boat etc. etc. are silly, more denial. Winnipesaukee does not have an invisible safety shield that protects it from serious accidents. The Coast Guard considers speed to be one of the primary causes of boat accidents. They don't recognize any exception for this lake.

I have asked why the Long Lake accident can't happen here. I have received no answer!!!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I have asked why the Long Lake accident can't happen here. I have received no answer!!!

It has been answered in the past. I have answered it prior to. It can happen here. It can happen here with or without a speed limit!!!

A speed limit will not stop a drunken driver from speeding. If he is smashed and wants to drive, I don't think a speed limit will deter him from cranking it up. We have clearly seen that doing 60+mph innebriated will kill someone as happened on Long Lake, we have also seen that you don't have to do over 30mph to kill someone here. If a person gets hammered and gets behind the wheel they are already breaking the law, so what makes you think that a speed limit will curb their behavior???

If you want to stop the deaths, stop the drunks. Why have MP hang out just around the corner from the Meredith docks watching people come out of the NWZ? Why not have them at the dock watching people get in their boats. Why don't local police put some focus on policing at the docks as well? We eat out in Meredith often by boat and I can't tell you how many times we see smashed people stumbling down the docks and getting into their boats.

How about spot checks leaving the Naswa? Stop the drunks and lives will be saved.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You are correct, those things don't matter. As I have explained many times it's not just about safety. In fact safety is not my primary reason for wanting speed limits.

I just don't understand this comment BI. Why wouldn't safety be the issue. It should be the only issue. All efforts should be directed towards making/keeping the lake safe. A speed limit does not address the issue. The issues are compliance with existing laws. The issues involve BWI as was stated here. The issues involve inexperienced "captains" getting the keys to a rental. The issues involve ignorance or just plain defiance of the 150 foot LAW! The efforts of the law makers and the Marine Patrol should be focused towards these endeavors not a complete waste of time Speed Limit. When the next fatality occurs after the Speed Limit law is passed what will you say? The Meredith tragedy would not have been prevented with this law. This law changes nothing with regard to safety. Yes SAFETY what's that you say? SAFETY, the number one issue that should be the main focus!

[Airwaves]

BI wrote:

You are correct, those things don't matter. As I have explained many times it's not just about safety. In fact safety is not my primary reason for wanting speed limits.

So reality doesn't matter, what matters is you get a type of boat you don't like off the public waterway.

My point about what happens on the ice that is being ignored by your crowd while you wage a crusade against Hi Performance boats with a solution in search of is to feature the statement you just made. SAFETY IS NOT THE ISSUE even though it says so in the acronym WinnFABS, Winnipesaukee Family Alliance for Boating SAFETY.

Thanks

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I just don't understand this comment BI. Why wouldn't safety be the issue. It should be the only issue. All efforts should be directed towards making/keeping the lake safe. A speed limit does not address the issue. The issues are compliance with existing laws. The issues involve BWI as was stated here. The issues involve inexperienced "captains" getting the keys to a rental. The issues involve ignorance or just plain defiance of the 150 foot LAW! The efforts of the law makers and the Marine Patrol should be focused towards these endeavors not a complete waste of time Speed Limit. When the next fatality occurs after the Speed Limit law is passed what will you say? The Meredith tragedy would not have been prevented with this law. This law changes nothing with regard to safety. Yes SAFETY what's that you say? SAFETY, the number one issue that should be the main focus!

Safety is an issue, it's not the only issue. Even if you could do the impossible and make the lake completely safe, that does not solve all the problems. We have talked about pollution and overcrowding. That kayakers feel they are being driven from the lake.

A boat going 90 MPH uses up a lot of lake. We are talking about a crowded limited resource. There are limits, and we have reached them. How big is to big? How fast is to fast? My answer is that 90 MPH is way to fast for this lake. That the big cruisers are to big for this lake.

And again the biggest problem is the direction the lake is going in. I will bet the average boats horsepower has risen steadily for decades. I am guilty of this as well. I started power boating in the 60's with a 2.5 HP. Since then every boat I have had has been considerably more horsepower than the one before it. We need to start going in the OTHER direction.

Overcrowding, water quality, safety, fear, noise, pollution, erosion and sharing a limited public resource. That is what it's about. I say this over and over, but Airwaves et al only hear "they hate our boats"!

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Overcrowding, water quality, safety, fear, noise, pollution, erosion and sharing a limited public resource. That is what it's about. I say this over and over, but Airwaves et al only hear "they hate our boats"!

Airwaves and all (and al too ) hear a lot more than you think.
Many are questioning the reasoning that more speed limits should be the next step (and a necessary step) in making things better.

Many folks are concerned about the ITEMS quoted above. Speaking for myself, I just do not think speed limits are the solution.

Overcrowding and sharing a public resource. Yep, on a nice summer weekend it is crowded. Lets say you want to take your family or group on a boat trip from Meredith to Alton Bay to get ice cream across from the public dock. Which boat will take up more lake for more time - a boat going 30 mph or a boat traveling 60 mph? I imagine the 60 mph boat will use HALF as much lake time as the slower boat. That would ease boating overcrowding but not the crowds waiting for public dock space. Then we could argue about boating use by time (a 3 hour tour) or by destination (A specific trip from point A to point B and maybe C). However, either way, speed limits will not help this overcrowding.

Noise should not be addressed by speed limits. Fishing boats at 6 AM make too much noise for me while I'm trying to sleep. The remedy was closing the near by launch ramp until 8:30 or 9 AM. Noise limits and enforcement, not speed limits will help with noise.

Kayaks are being pushed off the lake you say. Fix it with speed limits. Heck, my wife doesn't want to go out mid day on a busy summer weekend in our 24 footer because there are too many boats and to many wakes, not because of their speed. My kids (now 22 and 18) love a crowded lake ride. But, If my wife wants a boat ride we go before 10 AM. Or we will go out later in the day. Or go out during the weekdays. She loves a sunset cruise and it's not crowded. Timing our boating, not speed limits is our answer. No one kind of craft is being pushed off the lake by speeding boats. Overcrowding is not just an alleged problem for kayaks. The same with alleged fear.

Wouldn't the false sense of security brought about by speed limits bring MORE boats to the lake. Not GFBLs but more trailered boats from out of the area. Increasing crowding and decreasing safety.

How do people know about the current rules of the lake? How do they know about the 150 foot rule and other lake or NH specific rules? Is it posted at all launch ramps? Nope. On billboards? How do tourists find out about these rules? Too many don't. But they have Boater Safety Certificates - sure, but NH has made it so that it is easier to get an acceptable on-line certificate from another state with NO testing on NH specific rules, like the 150' rule. Speed limits gonna fix that too? Nope. If visitors and some regulars don't know about the 150' rule how will they learn about any new speed limits?

We are listening but do not agree with all that we hear. However, this is the USA and you have every right to be wrong .

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

...Overcrowding, water quality, safety, fear, noise, pollution, erosion and sharing a limited public resource. That is what it's about. I say this over and over...

Well said and I do believe in your sincerity. I also agree with you on a few points. YES the lake is getting too crowded. Water Quality is a major concern. Safety, noise, fear all good points. We just totally and completely disagree on a solution that will actually work. I slide more towards the right on this issue. Making laws as a "lets throw this against the wall and see if it works" approach is a horrible way to govern.
My fear is this law will pass and the powers that be will pat themselves on the back and say "well we did our job, the people wanted a safer lake and we delivered." The reality is the lake will be no safer and none of the issues you mentioned above will be addressed. Where does that leave us? Will the lawmakers undertake real measures to address the concerns or will they be fed up with "Lake Winni" talk and table any discussion addressing real concerns. Especially when it will cost money to enact the measures such as increased patrol and enforcement. I believe you have even said yourself that they won't throw any more money into any initiatives involving policing the lake. So instead this blanket arbitrary 45MPH speed limit gets thrown in the books as a safety solution and as a solution to the problems you listed? It just will not work! It also sets us back several years in terms of addressing the real problems and that is a fact.

[Bear Islander]

Skipper

Speed limits are not the best solution to ALL of these problems. That would be a horsepower limit. However speed limits will IMPROVE all those things.

Other lakes that have enacted speed limits report improved conditions. The same will happen on Winnipesaukee. Your argument that speed limits will bring more power boats, confusion and congestion is ridiculous on it's face and contrary to experience.

Speed limits will bring more "boats", but they will be of the human or wind powered kind.

By the way, you lose all credibility when you make claims like "noise will not be addressed by speed limits". It is an example of the twisted logic necessary to oppose reasonable solutions to a serious problems.



The questions still unanswered by the opposition

1. How big is to big?
2. How fast is to fast?
3. Is the average horsepower per powerboat on the rise?

[Gilligan]

Airways, Hazelnut, Skipper of Sea Que, and a few others have excellent posts. While speed limit advocates are changing their tune and grasping at straws.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

By your faulty logic we should fix all problems in the order of relative danger.
Should this method be extended to medicine as well? Let's cure Cancer before we start working on AIDS, Cerebral Palsy, Alzheimer's, Spinal Cord Injury etc. etc. etc.

Sorry, but your methodology is idiotic. There is no logical or particle reason why all safety efforts can not proceed in parallel. There is NOTHING whatsoever about the speed limit movement that is stopping snowmobile safety efforts or even slowing them down.

I never said stop everything. My methods are not idiotic. I am pointing out that the number of deaths by snowmobile far and away exceeds death by boat. IMO that may be more of a concern than speed limits. We do not have a snowmobile forum but we have one for speed limits. I question the lopsidedness. Safety efforts can work in parallel. Did I read where there are actually snowmobile speed limits?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

At least I, and others that support speed limits, are trying to do something positive. You may believe that we are misdirected, but at least we are not sitting on our fat asses and whining about snomobile dangers not being addressed by WinnFABS!

I applaud you for not sitting on your fat behind and whining about snowmobile dangers. Who is continually whining about boat speed limits?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If you think snowmobile dangers on the lake need to be addressed then put down the remote control and stand up and do something about it. Feel free to hit me up for a small donation.

I am not on a crusade. I never said stop trying to make the Lake safer. I care about safety for all and that includes boaters and snowmobile riders and everyone. I disagree with you and Evenstar about the need for speed limits and the results that speed limits will bring about.

My methods are not idiotic. We should prioritize resources relative to danger and importance. Put more money into AIDS research than you use for finding a cure for hangnails. The method is the degree of relevance. We don't stop one in favor of another. We look at what needs to be done and adjust our effort accordingly. Research cures for cancer and AIDS and CP and other major problems at the same time. You put quite a spin on my comments.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

...We do not have a snowmobile forum but we have one for speed limits. I question the lopsidedness. ... ....Did I read where there are actually snowmobile speed limits?....

There is a Winter Sports Forum and almost every thread is about snowmobiles. There is a speed limit for snowmobiles, but for some reason it does not apply on lake ice.

hazelnut

Using a radar gun now and then, that they already own, will not break the MP budget.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

"...Which boat will take up more lake for more time - a boat going 30 mph or a boat traveling 60 mph...?"

You'd be off by a small factor on most lakes.

Every boat in NH is theorically surrounded by an invisible acre of heightened observance of safety; unfortunately, it's the Lake's least-enforced—and most-violated—rule. On NH lakes with "Safe Passage", you'd be off by a huge factor.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"...A boat going 90 MPH uses up a lot of lake..."

How many acres-per-second is that?

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...BI wrote in part:
Boating is not safe! Boating on Lake Winnipesaukee is not safe...!"

Boating has become increasingly less safe on all inland waters. Why else is the Coast Guard pushing PFDs on all boaters while the boat is moving?

Why is the National Marine Manufacturers Association offering free DVDs to encourage boating on our waters? Powerboat numbers are down and, IMHO, it's due to increased size, weight, speed and close calls on protected inland waters.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol accident records show there hasn't been a vessel to vessel accident cause by speed on Lake Winnipesaukee in years..."

What speeds would you like to attribute to the two crashes in 2003 and 2004? The Formula/Seadoo crash in 2005? The Bayliner into Eagle Island in 2006? The Camp Island crash? The GFBL onto Parker Island resulting in broken bones? The hundreds of boaters' "close calls"?

Nobody knows!

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol accident records show there hasn't been a boating fatality caused by speed on Lake Winnipesaukee in years..."

Regarding Winnipesaukee's most famous fatality-hit-and-run, we didn't have the speed estimate until three years ago (or the perp in jail). Sentenced to a max of seven years—now he's out after less than three?

One more MPH and, instead of striking the rear of the boat, he would have crossed the middle of the boat—very possibly eliminating all the witnesses!

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol research this past summer showed fewer than 1 percent of the boats clocked by radar were going faster than the proposed speed limit..."

Does that research pass the "sniff" test?

Who would even call it a "Beta" test?

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...It doesn't matter that this is the first year that every operator of a boat on Lake Winnipesaukee and New Hampshire will be required to have obtained a safe boating certificate..."

For NH's unique boating rules, the certificate plan is seriously flawed: on-line testing comes to mind, as does the nationwide omission of the "Safe Passage" rule.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...It doesn't matter that the very thing they say is happening on Lake Winnipesaukee when Hi Performance boats are out there is happening when the boats are away for the winter, they just ignore that. Who needs a safe lake in the winter? These things are to be ignored when you're ultmate goal is to eliminate a specific class of boat, period...!

'Wish I could understand this question, but where locations permit year-round boating, there are an ample number of crashes that point to excess speed.

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...We eat out in Meredith often by boat and I can't tell you how many times we see smashed people stumbling down the docks and getting into their boats..."

You previously asked about a compromise?

Of all the possible venues for a compromise, it appears that "self-policing" isn't going to be one of them....

Afterthought:
Just think how quiet the Speed Limits forum will become when the Senate passes the bill: their collective conscience will be clean—for two years, anyway—and law-abiding boaters will be as content as possible.

Finally, something concrete to enforce.

[fatlazyless]

As for the reason why the 45mph land speed limit does not apply to snowmobiles when on a frozen lake surface? It probably has something to do with the same legislative reasons why a three seat jetski is legally a boat.

Now, if the motorboat speed limits soon gets passed, is it likely that it will be rescinded if the Republicans regain a majority in the legislature? It's an interesting question. Senator Joe Kenney is a Republican, and supports the boat speed limits, and he could well be the Republican candidate to oppose Gov Lynch in November.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

That kayakers feel they are being driven from the lake.

One anyway.And that came from one who was never on the lake before this debate so she was not driven away.She actually came here because she heard about this debate and was called out for never having been on the lake and commenting like she had.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I will bet the average boats horsepower has risen steadily for decades. I am guilty of this as well. I started power boating in the 60's with a 2.5 HP. Since then every boat I have had has been considerably more horsepower than the one before it. We need to start going in the OTHER direction.

This has got to be the most hypicritical statement you have made so far.Do as I say and not as I do,right?Can you say AL GORE?You have the nerve to stand on your soapbox telling us we need to downsize horsepower and you have done just the opposite?Why am I not suprized?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

This has got to be the most hypocritical statement you have made so far.Do as I say and not as I do,right? Can you say AL GORE? You have the nerve to stand on your soapbox telling us we need to downsize horsepower and you have done just the opposite?Why am I not suprized?

True, and what kind of pollution will a rocket joy ride into space introduce into the atmosphere? How much pollution does a plane bring pleasure hikers to the Poles put into the air? Pretty hypocritical to claim pollution here when one does extra-curricular activities elsewhere that are just as damaging.

Go ahead, put the HP limit in place. Everyone that wants a large cruiser can just buy an older, more polluting one and continue to use the lake to get by your model year limit. The newer the technology, the cleaner the burn.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

One anyway.And that came from one who was never on the lake before this debate so she was not driven away.She actually came here because she heard about this debate and was called out for never having been on the lake and commenting like she had.

That's totally untrue!

How could you possibly know my reason for joining this forum? You really should get your "facts" straight before posting criticism about me or my posts.

The truth is that I joined this forum to learn more about Winni, as I was planning to kayak on the lake. Here's my first post. My "coming here" really had nothing at all to do with the speed limit bill, although I've always been in favor of a speed limit on ALL NH lakes. The truth is that I didn't even "hear" about this debate until after I had joined this forum.

I have been totally honest here and have never once misrepresented my experience or my time on the lake. I never once implied that I had kayaked on Winni, before I actually did. In fact I posted several times that I had not yet paddled on Winni.

I've only kayaked on Winni a few years, and not nearly as much as I would have liked too - mainly because my best friend doesn't feel very safe on a lake where we have had close calls with high speed powerboats EVERY SINGLE TIME that we have paddled there. That's a fact.

If there isn’t a problem, why then does Winni have such a bad reputation among paddlers? Here are some more facts:

You see way more kayaks and canoes on Squam, and on all the other large lakes in NH. This is especially true for sea kayakers . . . who tend to be the most experienced paddlers. I have never seen more than a couple of sea kayaks on Winni on any given day - yet I have never been on Squam without seeing dozens of sea kayaks. Why is that?

I’m on several paddling forums – No one has EVER recommended Winni as a good place to kayak, in fact the opposite is true - I've been told that Winni is not a safe lake to paddle on.

Winni isn’t even in AMC’s book on places to kayak in NH. And at the Sea Kayaking in NH website, Winni was never even mentioned.

It's also a fact that many of my paddling friends will not join me on Winni, "because of the high speeds that boats go on that lake" (their words, not mine). And some of those people used to paddle there regularly. So several people I know personally have actually been driven off the lake due to the high speeds of the powerboats.

That's the honest truth, whether you believe it or not.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

....Finally, something concrete to enforce.

As opposed to the 150foot law?


Bear Islander you claim that only wind powered vessels and Kayaks will be drawn to a safer lake but NOT the thousands of runabout owners who will feel "safer." Sorry my friend you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you agree that Winni will be a draw for the wind and paddle crowd you have to allow for the possibility that Winni will become more attractive to the family trailered runabout crowd. To deny that is disingenuous at best. IMHO I'd rather have the comparatively small crowd of GFBL's than the onslaught of small runabouts trailered to the lake each day. At least most of the GFBL crowd has a stake in the lake being that they probably own real estate on or around the lake. I'd rather not attract the transient crowd who might not care what shape they leave the lake in when they leave.

P.S. I don't include the wind and paddle crowd in that comment, as they usually respect mother nature.

[fatlazyless]

When the rebuttals head for the outer limits of outer space. something tells me that one side is getting a little nervous about a soon-to-be-here vote in the senate.

And, on the brite side for all the go fast- be louds, HB847 does not take effect till January 1, 2009, as it is now written. So, that gives you one last summer to cruise at 65mph or more. And hey, if the Repubs regain their NH majority in Nov '08, probably the speed limits will get drowned again.

I can hear Republican Senior Political Advisor, Gene Chandler (R) Bartlett speaking from the house podium: "In memory of the late you-know-who, let's kill this whacky HB847 and steer NH away from the NANNY STATE." Full speed ahead & let's go back to the good old days.

As that well known English jet-skier, Lord Byron, said back in 1888, "all power corrupts, and all power corrupts," absolutely, or something, or something!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

When the rebuttals head for the outer limits of outer space. something tells me that one side is getting a little nervous about a soon-to-be-here vote in the senate.

Not at all, I have no reason to be nervous. I have no vested interest in the outcome either way. I don't own a boat that goes over 55mph, my average top speed that I run is 45-50mph. Honestly, I could care less. What I don't want is another useless unenforced law that people are claiming to be necessary. One that was pushed through due to lies, misinterpretations, misinformation, deception, etc.

When pollution is brought up as an overall point to push for a speed limit I feel the need to point out other activities that are just as polluting. Finely tuned GFBL's are going to burn more efficiently than an older 2 stroke, a family cruiser, etc. Fire up your old aluminum boat and watch the oil slick in the water...

[hazelnut]

And there it is Codeman. Plainly stated you do not even own a GFBL and neither do I. As a matter of fact I can emphatically state that I will NEVER own one. I think they are one dimensional and I have no use for them as I have children and they do not make good family boats. I stand to lose absolutely NOTHING with the passage of this law.

FLL you are missing the point big time. This is not a personal issue. Obviously it is to you as you have shown with your immature childish posts with the we win you lose happy dancing banana gimmick. If that isn't inflammatory in nature I don't know what is Don? I digress. Anyway, FLL there are some individuals in this country, like it or not, that disagree with the passage of laws based on a problem that is non existent. This law addresses Speed. The problems of the lake are not speed. They are in no particular order overcrowding, safety, pollution, ignorance to name a few. The Speed Limit does not address these concerns. With the passage of this law we are only delaying any potential we may have had to actually address the issues concerning Lake Winnipesaukee. You will se no measurable change in the areas of concern after this law passes. Sorry!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

..This has got to be the most hypicritical statement you have made so far.Do as I say and not as I do,right?Can you say AL GORE?You have the nerve to stand on your soapbox telling us we need to downsize horsepower and you have done just the opposite?Why am I not suprized?

I purchased my current boat many years ago.

It's not hypocritical to admit ones past mistakes and move forward. I also believed there were WMD's in Iraq!


My share of the fuel to get me to space or Antarctica is less than a 1,800 horsepower GFBL cruising the lake for a weekend.

[KonaChick]

With the economy the way it is and appears to be heading plus the cost of gas, maybe the overcrowding issue will soon be a non-issue.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The questions still unanswered by the opposition

1. How big is to big?
2. How fast is to fast?
3. Is the average horsepower per powerboat on the rise?

A response for the prosecution:

1) There is no single definition for "too big".
When I bought my boat at Silver Sands, I saw a 53' Carver parked there. While I personally think that 53' is too big (or, more accurately somewhat pointless) for this lake, that is only my own opinion. Others might say my 24' cuddy is too big, and still others might think that 75' is plenty comfy.

2) There is no single definition for "too fast".
The best answer is probably a variable speed limit, much like there is not 1 single speed limit that governs all blacktop. 55 MPH is too fast through the Weirs channel, but not too fast for the broads.

3) Who cares? The average everything in the US is in the rise. From drink sizes to houses. HP as applied to boats is sort of interesting. Boats have no variable transmission, the engine shaft rotation to propeller rotation ratio is fixed, as is the propeller pitch (save for some very extreme edge cases). Boats also never have to climb hills, nor do they coast down hills. So, the HP required to move a given hull at a given speed is fairly constant (winds, currents, and weight loading can affect this). Cruiser planing hulls have a maximum speed before they start to chine-walk and become very unstable, there is a very real cutoff point where more HP cannot be effectively utilized. Most operators never operate their boats anywhere near this speed. So, the fact that engine HP may be increasing on average doesn't mean much by itself. You certainly can't draw the conclusion that more HP == more speed. You might be able to draw conclusions of:
a) Boats are getting heavier/larger on average
b) People are buying engines larger than necessary and under-utilizing these engines


You keep tossing these straw-man arguments into the mix, they don't really seem to make a lot of sense. If your concern is overall lake safety and enjoyment, rallying for existing laws to be better enforced would solve your problems. While there are always cases of people with more money than brains, Winnipesauke is not generally an attractive location for overly large or fast boats. The surface area and configuration just do not support those types of vessels in a way that makes them a cost-effective purchase for most people.

The prosecution still has not produced any evidence that anything other than a rounding-error's worth of incidents on the lake can be attributed to, or resolved by, a speed limit.

Your position along the lines of "we know a speed limit won't do much, but in lieu of even more laws in others aspects of boating, we'll take whatever additional legislation we can get" really doesn't do much to lend credibility or sympathy to your position. Being that I'm an avid DIYer, the term "use the right tool for the job" comes to mind. You don't try to hammer in nails with a wrench because you don't have a hammer. You go and get a hammer, even if it's more net effort than just using the wrench to do a half-assed job of pounding nails.

You want to make the lake better, safer, more enjoyable? I'd be all for it, if the approach was logical and likely to be effective. Throwing more poorly thought out laws on top of the current stack of un-enforced laws is simply a lazy approach. Fight for a proper solution, or get out of the ring.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It's not hypocritical to admit ones past mistakes and move forward.

By "moving forward" are you downgrading your boat to something more in-line with your personal opinion of what is appropriate for the lake?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

...rallying for existing laws to be better enforced would solve your problems....

Sorry, there are no speed or horsepower limits..... yet.

Winnipesauke is not generally an attractive location for overly large or fast boats.

You must live in Greens Basin! There are sure attracted to where I hang out!

The prosecution still has not produced any evidence that anything other than a rounding-error's worth of incidents on the lake can be attributed to, or resolved by, a speed limit.

Not True. We have produced plenty. And once again you are stuck on the safety issue.

... really doesn't do much to lend credibility or sympathy to your position...

I'm not looking for credibility or sympathy. I give my honest opinion no matter which side it favors. Truth told to reasonable people brings it's own credibility.

I don't post here to try and convince the opposition, that is a waste of time.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Sorry, there are no speed or horsepower limits..... yet.

In theory, if the 150' rule were either enforced or followed along with no wake zones being enforced/followed, 99% of what you claim to be the "upside" to the speed limit law (safety, land erosion, etc.) would be met by currently existing laws.

You must live in Greens Basin! There are sure attracted to where I hang out!

I never said they didn't exist, just that this lake is not generally attractive to those kinds of boats, you can't get "full" enjoyment from them. Refer to my money/brains caveat in my original post, some people will still bring their big toys to the kiddie pool, but as a percentage of the overall boats on the lake, performance boats and large cruisers are an overall minority.

Not True. We have produced plenty. And once again you are stuck on the safety issue.

You have produced arguments and data that further convince yourselves. You haven't offered logical support of your arguments. This is of course becoming a circular issue, so it's probably not a rat-hole worth going down.

I don't post here to try and convince the opposition, that is a waste of time.

And I suppose I'm not posting here to try to convince the prosecution to see the fallacy of their arguments.

[Airwaves]

Let me take this opportunity to clarify a few points.
First:

BI wrote:
Overcrowding, water quality, safety, fear, noise, pollution, erosion and sharing a limited public resource. That is what it's about. I say this over and over, but Airwaves et al only hear "they hate our boats"!

Every one of those points you touched on is true and needs to be addressed, except one, I do not own or operate a boat that will exceed 45 MPH! If you look at the thread asking about gasoline tank size you would realize this.

Evenstar wrote:
If there isn’t a problem, why then does Winni have such a bad reputation among paddlers?

Because the speed limit crowd has been fear mongering, not only among paddlers but among the general population and legislature. Facts do not support the 'fear' that the speed limit crowd has presented.

APS wrote:
Boating has become increasingly less safe on all inland waters. Why else is the Coast Guard pushing PFDs on all boaters while the boat is moving?

Actually as safe boating education expands boating has become safer everywhere. If you'd like to look at the USCG accident reports you'll see that boating has become safer, period. In 2006 according the USCG report there were 16 boating deaths caused by speed in the US, 16 in the entire country!

As for the push for the use of PFD's, as a member of the Coast Guard family I can tell you it has nothing to do with speed but everything to do with saving lives. Even as we tow a disabled boat to shore we require all POB, persons on board, to wear a life jacket during the tow, as we require all Coast Guard personel to wear life jackets at all times while underway. Nope, not speed just trying to prevent the loss of life when someone falls overboard.

Bottom line:

Your side has admitted that boating safety is not an issue on Lake Winnipesaukee when it comes to speed. 99-point-1 percent of boaters clocked by radar last summer were traveling at speeds under your limit.

Did you feel safer?

I commend you and WinnFabs for bringing the issue to a debate and causing a close look at what is happening on Lake Winnipesaukee. However you went wrong when it was shown that the problems on the lake had to do with the violation of existing rules, such as safe passage and lack of enforcement, not excessive speed.

What WinnFabs and their supporters should have done at that point, that would have had the support of nearly all of us, is to refocus the effort to lobby for more Marine Patrol personnel and enforcement of existing laws.

You (collectively) didn't do that and it sparked this unnecessary fight.

Now that New Hampshire is facing a $50,000,000 deficit over the next couple of years I hope that you will work with your opponents to look for solutions, not unfunded mandates for the Marine Patrol.

I am always willing to talk, PM me with ideas.
AW

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

You'd be off by a small factor on most lakes.

Every boat in NH is theorically surrounded by an invisible acre of heightened observance of safety; unfortunately, it's the Lake's least-enforced—and most-violated—rule. On NH lakes with "Safe Passage", you'd be off by a huge factor.
How many acres-per-second is that?

Aaah the ole foolishness of the fast boat "using up" more of the lake. To answer the above question directly, it's 60 times less than would be "used up" in a minute. Or 3600 times less than would be "used up" in an hour. Why not ApM or ApH, they're as equally meaningless as ApS and could "boast" bigger numbers to boot ! (a favorite tactic of yours)

Last I checked the lake was still there after the "fast" boat used it. When I'm waiting for the boat with the RoW to pass, I'd rather it be faster rather than slower so I wait less. When I have the RoW, the faster I'm moving the less the other guy has to wait. This is simple enough for most to grasp. The boats that are the most egregious users of space are those which are just sitting there, unmoving. I can't use their lake space at all. At least a moving boat frees up the space it uses.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Boating has become increasingly less safe on all inland waters. Why else is the Coast Guard pushing PFDs on all boaters while the boat is moving?

I'm curious as to how you arrived at the above conclusion. The USCG stats show a declining to flat fatality rate, and accident rate, the last decade. Doesn't sound like it's getting more dangerous to me. Then again these stats include some ocean water so perhaps you're trying to indicate that the safe waters of the oceans are masking the unsafe inland waters ???

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Why is the National Marine Manufacturers Association offering free DVDs to encourage boating on our waters? Powerboat numbers are down and, IMHO, it's due to increased size, weight, speed and close calls on protected inland waters.

That's in your opinion of course. Mine my say it's more to do with flat or decling boat sales. And since you're retired you probably don't understand why someone who's in the working world these days might not either have the free time nor free $$s to spend on a new boat. Here's a question ... what do you think PWC sales vs those of conventional boats ?

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

What speeds would you like to attribute to the two crashes in 2003 and 2004? The Formula/Seadoo crash in 2005? The Bayliner into Eagle Island in 2006? The Camp Island crash? The GFBL onto Parker Island resulting in broken bones? The hundreds of boaters' "close calls"?

Nobody knows!

And how many would have been changed by a speed limit ? Nobody knows ! (but I could guess, and say very little)

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Regarding Winnipesaukee's most famous fatality-hit-and-run, we didn't have the speed estimate until three years ago (or the perp in jail). Sentenced to a max of seven years—now he's out after less than three?

Wow, just think of all the extra time he would have served for violating, by 3 mph, a speed limit. The mind boggles !

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

One more MPH and, instead of striking the rear of the boat, he would have crossed the middle of the boat—very possibly eliminating all the witnesses!

Or perhaps by going 1 mph slower he might have parked his boat on top of the Hartman's and sunk it and drowned them all. Perhaps if he had been going 10 mph faster his course would have passed in front of the Hartman's and missed them entirely. But by all means please do bring up this incident as something to do with speed limits, I'd love another opportunity to show just how silly that line of reasoning is !

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Does that research pass the "sniff" test?

Who would even call it a "Beta" test?

I would. You have suspiscions, now back them up with evidence. It's what we would call science.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

For NH's unique boating rules, the certificate plan is seriously flawed: on-line testing comes to mind, as does the nationwide omission of the "Safe Passage" rule.

No disagreement on those.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

'Wish I could understand this question, but where locations permit year-round boating, there are an ample number of crashes that point to excess speed.

You previously asked about a compromise?

Of all the possible venues for a compromise, it appears that "self-policing" isn't going to be one of them....

No doubt you'll find crashes related to fast speeds. So what ? (see more below)

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Afterthought:
Just think how quiet the Speed Limits forum will become when the Senate passes the bill: their collective conscience will be clean—for two years, anyway—and law-abiding boaters will be as content as possible.

Finally, something concrete to enforce.

Funny, I keep hearing about it not needing enforcement .... But so what, they could feel just as good and have just concrete a law with limits of 35/10 or 55/35. What makes any of these (or some other numbers) correct ?

[Silver Duck]

I average about 150 hours per season, mostly on weekends, visiting all areas of the lake.

I can think of only three areas that feel overcrowded, i.e., the "slot" between Bear Island and Meredith Neck , the area between Eagle Island and the Weirs , and, sometimes, portions of Winter Harbor.

Now, if WinnFabs wants to push for a speed limit there, I'm aboard big time! In fact, headway speed as a limit seems about right to me (though it may be a major PITA for island folks heading out of Sheps and Handy Landing.)

But, honestly, to me it's seemed that over the last two seasons, at most times most areas of the lake have born a distinct resemblance to those "Where is everybody?" Virgin Atlantic commercials. My wife and I have often remarked on that subject.

Silver Duck

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Skipper

Speed limits are not the best solution to ALL of these problems. That would be a horsepower limit. However speed limits will IMPROVE all those things.

Other lakes that have enacted speed limits report improved conditions. The same will happen on Winnipesaukee. Your argument that speed limits will bring more power boats, confusion and congestion is ridiculous on it's face and contrary to experience.

It's not Skipper's argument though. It's the one brought up by various supporters, that small and normal boats, not just human powered craft, are too scared to be on the lake. Presumably if the fear factor is removed then "they will come". I tend to doubt this but that's their argument.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Speed limits will bring more "boats", but they will be of the human or wind powered kind.

And this is preferable ... why ?

FWIW : I doubt the above.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The questions still unanswered by the opposition

1. How big is to big?
2. How fast is to fast?
3. Is the average horsepower per powerboat on the rise?

I'll answer them if you do.
1) Don't really know but I do know that the size won't be affected at all by a speed limit. Cruisers aren't fast.
2) As stated before it depends on where and when and the conditions but as an upper limit .... 100 mph.
3) Yes, who cares.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Because the speed limit crowd has been fear mongering, not only among paddlers but among the general population and legislature. Facts do not support the 'fear' that the speed limit crowd has presented.

There are many facts that support a speedlimit, but most of the anti-limit crowd just dismiss them as non-facts, exagerations, or non-issues

My best friend and I have had close calls with high speed powerboats EVERY SINGLE TIME that we have paddled on Winni. So our views are based on our actual experiences on the lake, not on any "fear mongering".

The same is true with other people who I have talked with. Most of my paddling friends as sea-kayakers, which is not a timid group, but are rather had-core paddlers. Most of their views are based on their own experiences on the lake. Sea kayakers are not that easily scared.

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 is 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. This woman is a certified expert kayak instructor, with many years of experience, and she feels that class II and III rapids are safer than kayaking on Winni.

Again, from my own experience, and from what others have told me, close calls between powerboats and paddlers happen rather often. So far we have been really lucky that no one has been killed.

As I’ve point out several times the statistical chance of me being run over by a powerboat increases as the speeds of powerboats on the lake increases. When a mistake happens the consequences of that mistake increase exponentially as speed increases.

The four MP officers that I spoke with personally all want a lake speed limit law - that's also a fact. They see a speed limit as a "necessary" tool.

When compared with our neighboring states NH has the worse boating accident record:
NH has the highest number of boating accidents of all 4 states
NH has 11 times more boating accidents / square mile of inland water than the next highest state. (Source: United States Coast Guard Boating Statistics 2001 – 2005)
NH has the highest number of boating accidents / number of registered boats.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The study is so flawed that, for all intents, the data collected is totally meaningless. Basically, according to research methodology standards, they did nearly everything wrong.

No, not really. The only thing they did that I'd object to is advertise some of the test zones. The data from those areas may be suspect.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I haven’t missed the point at all. Squam, which is the second largest lake in NH, has had a 40mph daytime speed limit for years. From my experience it is fairly well enforced and seems to work well. This is called precedence – having a speed limit on a NH lake is not something new (which is why I never did understand the “need” for a pilot program on Winni).

You missed my point. Go back and read my 2 posts on this matter. What makes the limits (45/25) chosen for Winni, or those on Squam, the "safe" ones ? Where's your science to back up those numbers ?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You would never be able to ban kayaks from the lake. Kayaking is one of the fastest growing recreational sports in America and NH’s economy depends on recreation. According to the 2005 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium study (http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_squa...warnick341.pdf), from 1993 to 2003 kayaking experienced (by far) the fastest growth of any water-based recreation activity in the Northeast. Over this 10-year period, kayak use grew by 16.0% (power boating only grew by 2.3%). And our numbers are still growing. If you actually tried to ban kayaks on Winni, it would just unite us against powerboaters. I really don’t think that you want that.

Again you missed my point. Forget the practicality or legalities, would you think my proposal to be fair ? If not, why not ?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Now you’re missing the point. The Interstate is designed for high speed and has a minimum speed limit. It was designed for high-speed transportation. Winni is not part of a high-speed transportation network.

Again you missed my point. You present the opinions of some MPs that a speed limit might help catch BUIs and that, because of that, it's a good idea. Try that reasoning out in the car world. If you don't like my example of Rt 93 then try a limit of 15 mph on all other roads. Certainly it would help catch DUIs for exactly the same reasons the analog would help catch BUIs. If you don't like the reasoning in the car world, I don't see how it "works" in the boating world.

Also consider what makes Rt 93 "safe" for "high" (ha) speeds.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Powerboaters have stated that they often have trouble seeing kayaks. I have had way too many close calls from powerboats, because the operator didn’t notice me until they were way too close. Many other paddlers have experienced the same type of close calls.That’s “concrete” enough for me.

Tell you what, let's do our own study this summer on Winni. Let's you and I go out paddling for a day and see how many close calls we have.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

My point was that a 45 mph speed limit is not an actual “hindrance” to anyone, and that the lake is not a big as many try to make it out to be. I could easily paddle the entire length in an afternoon. There’s less than 2 square miles of the entire lake that is over a mile from a shore.

The difference is that recreation does not pose a threat to anyone’s safety. I kayak and sail on the ocean, so I know that there’s a way more room there than there is on NH’s largest lake. The compromise is that this bill was originally written to include all NH lakes. Now it has been watered down to just cover Winni – and it has a 2-year sunset clause. My side has compromised enough already.

It's more than a hindrance to people who want to boat faster than 45 mph. Up to some limit I don't see that danger to you and other paddlers from anyone paying attention. While there's more room on the ocean, I don't get your reasoning on this point. If you kayak on the ocean aren't you in danger there too ? Aren't you less visible in the large swells typical on the ocean ?

EDIT : As to compromising, why not have certain sections of the lake speed restricted and others not ? Why isn't this a fair compromise ?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

No, not really. The only thing they did that I'd object to is advertise some of the test zones. The data from those areas may be suspect.

"May" be suspect? give me a break. There are all sorts of errors in the way that the study was done and in the report itself: The report does not even give the statistical analysis of the data collected – if it had, then the percentages would have been factored into the analysis, and the degree of accuracy of the study would have been given.

On top of that, data collected is not considered viable unless it can be determined that it accurately represents the entire study group. And studies of this type are never considered to be viable when members of the test population know about the study (or when the locations of the two main study areas were well known).

Do you expect anyone to believe that this study accurately determined the boat speeds on the entire lake over the entire summer? There just wasn't enough data collected to make the study viable (since only portions of the lake were covered, and data was collected during less than 2% of the daytime boating season).

So 98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all. And yet 11 boats were still recorded at speeds of over 50mph. If we assume that this is a fair sampling (as most here seem to be suggesting), these 11 boats actually translate into an estimated 539 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph (over the entire 770 total daylight boating hours during the 11 weeks of the study).

And that’s just in the sample areas of the lake! What about the rest of the lake?

You missed my point. Go back and read my 2 posts on this matter. What makes the limits (45/25) chosen for Winni, or those on Squam, the "safe" ones ? Where's your science to back up those numbers?

No, I didn’t miss your point. My “science” is the logic of precedence - which is based on what has already worked elsewhere. Squam has had a 40/20 mph speed limit for many years, which has been enforced by the very same Marine Patrol. So perhaps this would be a better limit, since it has been used successful on a large NH lake for years.

Again you missed my point. Forget the practicality or legalities, would you think my proposal to be fair? If not, why not?

Look, I didn’t miss any of your points – yet you’re totally missing (or ignoring) most of mine. The problem is that you’re trying to push my answers into your own slant – and I’m not letting you do that.

What would be your justification for banning kayaks from the lake? Especially sea kayaks, which are designed especially for large bodies of water. What harm or danger does a kayaker present to anyone? We make no damaging wakes, do not pollute the water, and are nearly silent on the water. A speed limit does not target any type of boat, anymore than a highway speed limit targets any type of vehicle.

Again you missed my point. You present the opinions of some MPs that a speed limit might help catch BUIs and that, because of that, it's a good idea.

No, I didn’t. And BUI is just one of many reasons. A lake is a body of water that we use for recreation – Interstate highways are specifically designed for high-speed transportation. Yet even Interstates have speed limits. Allowing unlimited speeds on our lakes makes no sense at all. Most people don’t even realize that our state permits boats to travel on most of our lakes at unlimited speeds, and when they do find out, most are appalled.

Tell you what, let's do our own study this summer on Winni. Let's you and I go out paddling for a day and see how many close calls we have.

I’ve offered to kayak on Winni with anyone / anytime (well, once I complete my spring semester). But be prepared for a real workout, as I generally paddle 16 to 20 miles in an afternoon, and I won’t be hugging the shoreline.

Up to some limit I don't see that danger to you and other paddlers from anyone paying attention. While there's more room on the ocean, I don't get your reasoning on this point. If you kayak on the ocean aren't you in danger there too? Aren't you less visible in the large swells typical on the ocean?

But we’re talking about a lake where high speed boats have actually hit islands – which are a LOT more visible than my kayak. My point is that 40 or 45 mph may very well be that limit. No one is totally attentive 100 percent of the time, and sun, spray, and fatigue all reduce the ability to see a small boat in time. High speeds just increase the danger when there is inattention, or when visibility is at all reduced (or when someone is BUI). You can argue all you want, but that’s a fact.

As far as kayaking on the ocean goes: Swells do not really make a small boat less visible. That’s because 50% of the time I’m on top of the swell – which actually makes me more visible than on flat water – since I’m that many more feet higher. Another thing – swells and large waves tend to slow down most high-speed powerboats.

EDIT : As to compromising, why not have certain sections of the lake speed restricted and others not ? Why isn't this a fair compromise ?

Here's my compromise: Get rid of the amendments that changed this bill from "all NH lakes" to just Lake Winnipesaukee, and added a 2-year sunset clause. Then I'll be willing to discuss your compromise. So far, my side has had to make all the concessions.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

"...I can think of only three areas that feel overcrowded, i.e., the "slot" between Bear Island and Meredith Neck , the area between Eagle Island and the Weirs , and, sometimes, portions of Winter Harbor...But, honestly, to me it's seemed that over the last two seasons, at most times most areas of the lake have born a distinct resemblance to those "Where is everybody?"

Except for a view years ago from the deck of the Mount Washington, I can't speak to Meredith or Eagle Island's situations; however, I have seen what you described here to family boating in Winter Harbor.

People are staying away from Winter Harbor and it could be due to the frequent visits by ocean-racers to two Winter Harbor addresses in particular—why those two addresses, I don't know.

Wake-surfers and overpowered boats towing tubes appear to be adding to Winter Harbor's unfriendly waters as well.

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...The boats that are the most egregious users of space are those which are just sitting there, unmoving...At least a moving boat frees up the space it uses..."

That makes no sense at all.

This little boat may be in your way, but I'd rather be in front of his one acre of "Safe Passage" than the many, many, many acres a Nor-Tech has responsibility for in front of him every second at 130-MPH. (Or a Skater at 140-MPH or jet-boats at 150-MPH.)

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...Actually as safe boating education expands boating has become safer everywhere. If you'd like to look at the USCG accident reports you'll see that boating has become safer, period. In 2006 according the USCG report there were 16 boating deaths caused by speed in the US, 16 in the entire country! ..."

Jet-Skis "spiked" fatalities in the 90s.

Improvements in that particular market have, indeed, lowered the overall rates of crashes and deaths. At the same time, boat sales have been trailing off, prompting the "Discover Boating" DVD program. (Few of us seasoned boaters had to "discover" boating).

Flat or declining boat sales preceeded any economic downturn, and may be traced to the decidedly unfriendly introduction of boats more suitable to ocean racing. As I pointed out, New Hampshire (and likely other states) can't report a speed for which there are no numbers or witnesses. Sixteen (16) speed deaths may only reflect the numbers for which there was some collaborative evidence: the rest are not counted at all.

A decade ago, we never saw the magazine on the news-shelves titled Extreme Boating , with "Extreme Drinks" listed among the articles inside.

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...And since you're retired you probably don't understand why someone who's in the working world these days might not either have the free time nor free $$s to spend on a new boat.

Although all who perish on our waters are rightfully missed, retirees have a right to a full life and fully-enjoyed pensions.

The view from the middle of an unpowered boat—or any boat at anchor—upon the approach of an unproven driver at the wheel of an extreme ocean-racer isn't one of those enjoyments. Giving up weekends to the cowboys is one thing: giving up night travel has become another.

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...Wow, just think of all the extra time he would have served for violating, by 3 mph, a speed limit. The mind boggles !

What speed limit could he have observed? There was none.

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...Or perhaps by going 1 mph slower he might have parked his boat on top of the Hartman's and sunk it and drowned them all. Perhaps if he had been going 10 mph faster his course would have passed in front of the Hartman's and missed them entirely..."

Of your two extremes, only by going slower would he have certainly missed the Wellcraft.

He was approaching from their right rear quarter, and overrode the slower boat's rearmost seat. With all involved having much to lose, a speed limit could have changed everything. Sadly, my warning of Winnipesaukee's excessive-speed problem appeared in newsprint on August 9, 2001. (And wasn't taken to heart by August 11, 2001.) Seven years hasn't improved the view from my dock.

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...You have suspiscions, now back them up with evidence. It's what we would call science..."

Having spent an entire career in science, I know good science.

As I previously addressed, much was left to learning-curve, guesswork, and a dismissive attitude towards collected numbers: NHMP only played at becoming scientists.

[Airwaves]

Evenstar wrote in part:
My best friend and I have had close calls with high speed powerboats EVERY SINGLE TIME that we have paddled on Winni. So our views are based on our actual experiences on the lake, not on any "fear mongering".

Funny you keep repeating that, high speed powerboats and close calls every time. As an anecdote let me tell you a quick story that happened to me last week. I was driving down Rt 133 on a dry sunny day, traffic was light, I drove past Avid Technology and there was a traffic cop standing there. He began to give me the signal to slow down. I looked at my speedometer, I was doing 35 MPH, I looked up and the officer was still signalling me to slow down. He was standing in front of a sign that says Speed Limit 40!
Even trained professionals sometimes can't judge speed acurately so I am going to assume that you can tell how fast a "high speed powerboat" is going? Sorry, not happening.

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 is on the Pemi River.

I'm not aware there is a lot of white water on Winnipesaukee to use to instruct students, where is it?

As I’ve point out several times the statistical chance of me being run over by a powerboat increases as the speeds of powerboats on the lake increases.

So you would be less dead being run over by a boat doing 44 than 46? Close calls would point to a violation of the safe passage rule, not excessive speed. As the Marine Patrol research shows, 99.1% of the boats clocked last summer were doing speeds that were less than the proposed speed limit. So you are consistantly running into the less than 1 percent of boats that exceed 45 MPH while on your Winni paddles? I doubt it.

The four MP officers that I spoke with personally all want a lake speed limit law - that's also a fact. They see a speed limit as a "necessary" tool.

They already have the tool, NH law requires operating a vessel in a safe manner, if the MP officers you spoke with witness a boat operating at a speed that is faster than the conditions warrant, they can be cited.

There are already two laws on the books in NH that address all the concerns that you have raised:
270-D:2 VI. (a) (the 150' rule) and
270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats.

The only thing your new law will do is to put financial stress on the already overstressed budget of the Marine Patrol. In all the debate from your side I still have not heard a suggestion about how to pay for this new law, keeping in mind that the Governor is warning of a $50,000,000 budget deficit.

[Airwaves]

Posted by APS:

Jet-Skis "spiked" fatalities in the 90s.

Improvements in that particular market have, indeed, lowered the overall rates of crashes and deaths. At the same time, boat sales have been trailing off, prompting the "Discover Boating" DVD program. (Few of us seasoned boaters had to "discover" boating).

Flat or declining boat sales preceeded any economic downturn, and may be traced to the decidedly unfriendly introduction of boats more suitable to ocean racing. As I pointed out, New Hampshire (and likely other states) can't report a speed for which there are no numbers or witnesses. Sixteen (16) speed deaths may only reflect the numbers for which there was some collaborative evidence: the rest are not counted at all.

A decade ago, we never saw the magazine on the news-shelves titled Extreme Boating , with "Extreme Drinks" listed among the articles inside.

Funny how APS takes my response to his quote, but forgets to include the statement he made that I responded to, so let's review shall we? THE ORIGINAL POST BY APS

APS:
Boating has become increasingly less safe on all inland waters. Why else is the Coast Guard pushing PFDs on all boaters while the boat is moving?

Then my entire response to APS on that topic:

Actually as safe boating education expands boating has become safer everywhere. If you'd like to look at the USCG accident reports you'll see that boating has become safer, period. In 2006 according the USCG report there were 16 boating deaths caused by speed in the US, 16 in the entire country!

As for the push for the use of PFD's, as a member of the Coast Guard family I can tell you it has nothing to do with speed but everything to do with saving lives. Even as we tow a disabled boat to shore we require all POB, persons on board, to wear a life jacket during the tow, as we require all Coast Guard personel to wear life jackets at all times while underway. Nope, not speed just trying to prevent the loss of life when someone falls overboard.

At that point APS dropped his assertion that the "push" by the Coast Guard for boaters to wear PFDs was either new or related to the speed of a boat.

Jet-Skis "spiked" fatalities in the 90s.

Did I quote anything from a decade ago? No, but there was a PWC death on Lake Winnipesaukee last year but to the best of my knowledge it had nothing to do with speed or a collision.

Improvements in that particular market have, indeed, lowered the overall rates of crashes and deaths. At the same time, boat sales have been trailing off, prompting the "Discover Boating" DVD program. (Few of us seasoned boaters had to "discover" boating).

Golly gee Mr. Wizard, if your business is falling off because of the economy or other factors I guess marketing is out of the question!

Flat or declining boat sales preceeded any economic downturn, and may be traced to the decidedly unfriendly introduction of boats more suitable to ocean racing.

Of course, that's it! The downturn in boat sales is due to unfriendly boats, BTW as I have repeatedly pointed out, there are no ocean racers on Lake Winnipesaukee, but I guess you believe that if a boat is manufactured by a company linked to professional racing teams then all of their products are ocean racers!

As I pointed out, New Hampshire (and likely other states) can't report a speed for which there are no numbers or witnesses. Sixteen (16) speed deaths may only reflect the numbers for which there was some collaborative evidence: the rest are not counted at all.

Just as New Hampshire can't report a speed for the accident in Meredith, that is a bogus argument and you know it. I guess you don't believe in forensic evidence either?

A decade ago, we never saw the magazine on the news-shelves titled Extreme Boating , with "Extreme Drinks" listed among the articles inside.

And we come back to an argument that the speed limit folks ignore, but now and again throw up trying to link it to boats on Lake Winnipesaukee that don't exist (ocean racers). A magazine that includes information on "extreme" drinks! Of course! It must mean all boaters who operate a vessel capable of going over whatever speed APS deems unnecessary, are drunk! But that can't be because all drunk boating accidents are the direct result of excessive speed, right?

Now can someone please tell me what an "Extreme" drink is?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...Now can someone please tell me what an "Extreme" drink is?

Well...let's just take a peek inside Extreme Boats magazine....

At the Helm - Fall Heatwave Poker Run
Extreme Mail Box - Letters from our readers
Offshore Racing - "War of the Worlds"
Extreme Girls - Nikki
Extreme Drinks - (Featured this month—Champagne)

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...It must mean all boaters who operate a vessel capable of going over whatever speed APS deems unnecessary, are drunk! But that can't be because all drunk boating accidents are the direct result of excessive speed, right...?

The number of accidents attributable to high speed will be suppressed when collision speeds are unknown.

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...We have clearly seen that doing 60+mph innebriated will kill someone as happened on Long Lake...If a person gets hammered and gets behind the wheel they are already breaking the law, so what makes you think that a speed limit will curb their behavior???

1) Long Lake has no speed limit—today. Similarly-sized Lake Geneva has a 15-MPH limit at night—easy for a concerned citizen to act with a single cellphone call. (And flashing blue lights can be seen for many miles).

2) NH's "hit-and-run" boating law is an example of a penalty that had never occurred to the Senate before 2001. It was clearly and obviously necessary.

The needed Winnipesaukee speed limit comes with newly-enhanced penalties for the sociopathic risk that brings drugs, alcohol, thrills, and excess speed to Lake Winnipesaukee. At some moment in time, the would-be impaired will learn of this new law and go elsewhere.

Originally Posted by hazelnut

"...[concrete]...as opposed to the 150foot law...?"

Speed-recording instruments aid enforcement because it's a "concrete" measure. No instrument exists to scientifically aid the 150-foot rule—a rule unknown to too many visiting certificate holders.

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...The USCG stats show a declining to flat fatality rate, and accident rate, the last decade. Doesn't sound like it's getting more dangerous to me...Then again these stats include some ocean water so perhaps you're trying to indicate that the safe waters of the oceans are masking the unsafe inland waters ???

1) Trends are down primarily due to a decade's-worth of restrictive requirements on Jet-Ski operation.

Jet-Skis were targeted due to underage demographics, pollution, unique noise, unsafe operation, blunt trauma injuries, poor mechanical ergonomics leading to mishaps and too-frequent tragic headlines.

There are hundreds of thousands of US acres where Jet-Skis are not permitted to operate.

2) Ocean? I presently overlook Florida ocean waters with a multitude of overpowered and overweight boats: there's no reason for speed limits where I am because there are thousands of square miles of ocean out there!

(Or noise limitations either, 'cause there are no hills).

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...they could feel just as good and have just concrete a law with limits of 35/10 or 55/35. What makes any of these (or some other numbers) correct ?

Lake Geneva has speed limits: 35/15. One must be careful what one wishes for.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...APS dropped his assertion that the "push" by the Coast Guard for boaters to wear PFDs was either new or related to the speed of a boat..."

Haven't we all been watching a progressive PFD "push" by the CG?

The Coast Guard Commandant withdrew his "PFDs for every moving boater" requirement in 2005. However, beyond a certain speed—about 70—there's no reason to wear an off-the-shelf PFD anyway.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...there are no ocean racers on Lake Winnipesaukee, but I guess you believe that if a boat is manufactured by a company linked to professional racing teams then all of their products are ocean racers!

"Race on Sunday...Sell on Monday"?

NASCAR? Harley Earl? Bill France?

And Lastly...How about adding this to the certification test?

Someone asked about an eye test: here's a question of perception for NH's boating certificate test...

Question 45: Tunnel Vision...
These two images are the very same view of Lake Winnipesaukee:

Which view simulates 60-MPH, and which is the view at headway speed?

[Hottrucks]

thought I would pass one what Exteme is

http://www.digitalexcellent.com/kaya...e-kayaking.php

[Airwaves]

APS wrote:
The Coast Guard Commandant withdrew his "PFDs for every moving boater" requirement in 2005. However, beyond a certain speed—about 70—there's no reason to wear an off-the-shelf PFD anyway.

You are not serious about that statement are you? Ever get hit in the head by the boom of a sailboat? Lose your balance on your powerboat and fall overboard? I don't know too many people that can tread water when they are barely conscious or worse. No reason to wear a life jacket under 70? I'm thinking that you should go back and take safe boating course before you hurt someone, possibly yourself!

Extreme Drinks - (Featured this month—Champagne)

If you say so

The number of accidents attributable to high speed will be suppressed when collision speeds are unknown.

Of course, just like with the Marine Patrol research it doesn't back your point of view so therefor it must be wrong.

APS wrote:
Quote:

"Race on Sunday...Sell on Monday"?

NASCAR? Harley Earl? Bill France?

Yep, Mercedes, Porche on land, Donzi, Formula on sea. All companies that sponsor professional race teams and their professional racing equipment is not "stock" off the showroom like the beginning of "stock" car racing that morfed into NASCAR.

In case you hadn't noticed those NASCAR racers aren't off the showroom floor any longer either!

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Funny you keep repeating that, high speed powerboats and close calls every time. . . . Even trained professionals sometimes can't judge speed acurately so I am going to assume that you can tell how fast a "high speed powerboat" is going? Sorry, not happening.

I “keep bringing” high speed powerboats and close calls because that’s what I and others have experienced and why so many paddlers see the sense of enacting a speed limit on lakes. When you’re in a small, human powered boat, and a power boat comes way too close, going way too fast, you’d perhaps understand a bit better. At last year’s House Transportation Committee hearing, this was reason that came up the most in the pro-speed limit side’s testimonies.

I’ve already posted several times why I have a pretty good idea of what 40 mph looks like on the water. No one’s 100% accurate, but I can tell when a boat is going way faster than 40 mph. Besides, a speed limit is the LIMIT – it doesn’t mean that it is always ok to drive that fast – perhaps that officer had a good reason for telling you to slow down.

I'm not aware there is a lot of white water on Winnipesaukee to use to instruct students, where is it?

I wrote that she wanted to “provide tours and instruction” on Winni – ON THE LAKE, but she felt that it was safer to do this on white water – in the Pemigewassett River.

My point was that white water kayaking is generally considered to be more dangerous than kayaking on a lake – yet she was more concerned about the liability of the high-speed powerboats on Winni, than having her clients run river rapids.

So you would be less dead being run over by a boat doing 44 than 46? Close calls would point to a violation of the safe passage rule, not excessive speed. As the Marine Patrol research shows, 99.1% of the boats clocked last summer were doing speeds that were less than the proposed speed limit. So you are consistantly running into the less than 1 percent of boats that exceed 45 MPH while on your Winni paddles? I doubt it.

Read some of my recent posts. I’ve explained all this numerous times before.

Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce happens to agrees with me: “Avoiding collisions on the water differs in many ways from avoiding collisions while driving in your car. The one contributing factor which is similar between boats as compared to automobiles is SPEED. It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.” http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/122098tip.htm

As I’ve pointed out in my previous post (up in #348 in this thread):
1.) data was collected during less than 2% of the daytime hours over just 11 weeks
2.) only a relatively small section of the lake was covered
3.) the two main areas were very well advertised

The Broads was not even included in the study - even though that is the section of the lake where boats generally hit the highest speeds – why was this area of the lake left out of a speed limit study?

I cover a lot more of the lake in any one of my paddles than what those pilot areas covered, and my paddles were not limited to just those 11 weeks. So why is it so difficult to accept that I have at least one close call during 6 to 8 hours of paddling?

They already have the tool, NH law requires operating a vessel in a safe manner, if the MP officers you spoke with witness a boat operating at a speed that is faster than the conditions warrant, they can be cited.

They want the lake speed limit for the same reason that we have highway speed limits. What is a safe speed for condition is so arbitrary that it would not even stand up in court. Why don’t we just allow unlimited highway speeds and let police stop everyone who is traveling at “unsafe speeds” – whatever that is?

The only thing your new law will do is to put financial stress on the already overstressed budget of the Marine Patrol. In all the debate from your side I still have not heard a suggestion about how to pay for this new law, keeping in mind that the Governor is warning of a $50,000,000 budget deficit.

It’s not “my new law.” The law that I wanted would have covered all NH lakes – and it would have been permanent. I don’t see that enacting a speed limit will add a significant amount to the Marine Patrol budget.

As I’ve pointed out: Squam Lake has had a speed limit for years – which is enforced by the exact same Marine Patrol. If they can enforce it on Squam, they can enforce it on Winni.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Evenstar
I “keep bringing” high speed powerboats and close calls because that’s what I and others have experienced and why so many paddlers see the sense of enacting a speed limit on lakes. When you’re in a small, human powered boat, and a power boat comes way too close, going way too fast, you’d perhaps understand a bit better. At last year’s House Transportation Committee hearing, this was reason that came up the most in the pro-speed limit side’s testimonies.

And as statistics show those “high speed” powerboats are not traveling at ‘high speed”. What they are apparently doing is violating the 150’ law, a law that is already on the books.

Originally posted by Evenstar
I wrote that she wanted to “provide tours and instruction” on Winni – ON THE LAKE, but she felt that it was safer to do this on white water – in the Pemigewassett River.

My point was that white water kayaking is generally considered to be more dangerous than kayaking on a lake – yet she was more concerned about the liability of the high-speed powerboats on Winni, than having her clients run river rapids.

And that is just an excuse. She certainly can provide safe tours and instruction on Lake Winnipesaukee unless you are also trying to say that all 72 square miles of the lake is too congested for kayaks. If she is providing white water instruction that is something she can’t do on Winni, period.

Originally posted by Evenstar
Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce happens to agrees with me: “Avoiding collisions on the water differs in many ways from avoiding collisions while driving in your car. The one contributing factor which is similar between boats as compared to automobiles is SPEED. It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.” http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/122098tip.htm

While the Former Commanding Officer of US Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce, CWO Krzenski (C.O. in 2000 not now) did write the above, he also wrote this:

Statistics have repeatedly demonstrated that accidents and deaths are significantly reduced when boating education is increased. Every boater should be encouraged to take a recognized boating safety course. Some boat insurance companies actually provide discounts for completion of these courses. Please call the U.S. Coast Guard's Customer Service Hotline at (800)-368-5647 to determine the location and date that the next boating safety course is offered near you.
http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/022599f.htm

Since this is the first year New Hampshire requires the operators of all powerboats to have obtained a safe boating certificate I submit to you that you and the supporters of a “solution in search of a problem” are jumping the gun! Statistics show boating is getting safer and this is the first season that safe boating certificates are required in New Hampshire.

I might also point out that Station Fort Pierce is in Florida, I believe it’s in Dade County (Miami). Florida has more than 9 times the number of registered boats than New Hampshire. Over 988,000 vs. 101,000 according to the USCG Boating statistics. So you are comparing apples and oranges when you compare Lake Winnipesaukee to Florida boating.

Originally posted by Evenstar
They want the lake speed limit for the same reason that we have highway speed limits. What is a safe speed for condition is so arbitrary that it would not even stand up in court. Why don’t we just allow unlimited highway speeds and let police stop everyone who is traveling at “unsafe speeds” – whatever that is?

They have the tools now if they want to use them. Yes a charge of negligent operation of a boat for operating it at a speed determined to be unsafe for the existing conditions can be upheld in court. If you have to ask what an unsafe speed for the conditions that exist are then you don’t belong on the water.

As for your charge that the Marine Patrol research means nothing, of course not it doesn't back your position. It shows what all of us have known right along. Speed is not the problem.

[Hottrucks]

Hey Bi i think I found a way around the Speed limit someone sent this to me and i thought you'd get a kick out of it........so let enjoy the summer what ever happens......hope you guys can enjoy the light heartiness of this.....

Look for me this summer!!!!!!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AApGZECbHwU

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

And as statistics show those “high speed” powerboats are not traveling at ‘high speed”. What they are apparently doing is violating the 150’ law, a law that is already on the books.

Replying to you is like replying to a wall - because like many others here, you refuse to consider any facts that don't happen to agree with your narrow look on things. The truth is that most people outside of a powerboat forum happen to support lake speed limits.

And that is just an excuse. She certainly can provide safe tours and instruction on Lake Winnipesaukee unless you are also trying to say that all 72 square miles of the lake is too congested for kayaks. If she is providing white water instruction that is something she can’t do on Winni, period.

Again, you're not very good at replying to what I actually posted. Read my posts, before just criticizing what you think I posted. This is a perfect example.

What I posted is that the woman owns a family camp on Winni, and that is where she wanted to run her kayak business from. She concluded that it was too dangerous to take kayak groups out on Winni from her camp. She didn't have the entire lake to pick from. And she wasn't planning on doing white water instruction on Winni!!!! She only did that because of the liability of running kayak tours on Winni.

I might also point out that Station Fort Pierce is in Florida, I believe it’s in Dade County (Miami). Florida has more than 9 times the number of registered boats than New Hampshire. Over 988,000 vs. 101,000 according to the USCG Boating statistics. So you are comparing apples and oranges when you compare Lake Winnipesaukee to Florida boating.

Just because boater education is working doesn't negate the fact that "it has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.” And the Chief Warrant Officer was not just talking about Florida boaters. According to http://www.worldatlas.com, Florida has 11,761 sq miles of inland waters, compared to NH's 382 sq miles. So FL has 84 boats/squ mile of inland water, while NH has 264 registered boats for every square mile. So which state has the more congested lakes?

a charge of negligent operation of a boat for operating it at a speed determined to be unsafe for the existing conditions can be upheld in court.

Name me one casethat has held up in court in NH, where someone has actually been found guilty of traveling at an unsafe speed on any of our lakes.

As for your charge that the Marine Patrol research means nothing, of course not it doesn't back your position. It shows what all of us have known right along. Speed is not the problem.

The study was completely flawed from the very beginning. It was nothing more than a political smoke screen. If they were actually serious of recording the fastest speeds on the lake, why was the Broads left out of the speed limit study?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Replying to you is like replying to a wall - because like many others here, you refuse to consider any facts that don't happen to agree with your narrow look on things. The truth is that most people outside of a powerboat forum happen to support lake speed limits.

I would surmise that most people on a powerboat forum own or at least use a boat. So the people that don't use boats on the lake want a speed limit? Why?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

What I posted is that the woman owns a family camp on Winni, and that is where she wanted to run her kayak business from. She concluded that it was too dangerous to take kayak groups out on Winni from her camp. She didn't have the entire lake to pick from. And she wasn't planning on doing white water instruction on Winni!!!! She only did that because of the liability of running kayak tours on Winni.

I want to open a hot dog stand on I-93, which is adjacent to my property, on summer weekends to take advantage of the traffic at the Hooksett tolls. Does that mean it is a good idea?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I would surmise that most people on a powerboat forum own or at least use a boat. So the people that don't use boats on the lake want a speed limit? Why?

Lots of reasons.

If they are citizens of New Hampshire then the lake is their property. They may see the need to have their property operated in a safe and fair manner. And it is their responsibility.

Or, like me, they may have children at a Winnipesaukee summer camp.

[JayDV]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Lots of reasons.

If they are citizens of New Hampshire then the lake is their property. They may see the need to have their property operated in a safe and fair manner. And it is their responsibility.

Or, like me, they may have children at a Winnipesaukee summer camp.

In all fairness, in gathering survey responses from the average person-on-the-street fitting the demagraphic "non-boater" a census taker can, and easily does, present the argument in order to evoke the yes/no reply that will support their respective position. The responsibility is to the census taker to accurately present a position with politcal or biased rhetoric. Then the general public can stand and be counted. Of course, as they vote, then the appropriate actions can be taken or laws enacted.

An unfortunate story comes to mind. A recent home makeover tv show arranged to makeover a run down house for a family that couldn't do for themselves. The show-people arranged for hundreds of local businesses and people to assist in the project. The family was sent on a vacation in a warm climate for 5 or 6 days. The house was razed and a new one constructed. 24 hrs a day until the house was completed. Materials, services, meals, and manual labor were mostly donated for the cause. A magnificent public effort. The display of community support was emotionally overwhelming. The show pulled off the major coup, the family was welcomed back by the people and city officials.

The drawback was those people that helped got minimal return for their efforts. The rest of the neighborhood doesn't support the new house when it comes to location, location. The people got a small thank you. The city got national acclaim, the tv show's sponsors got their money's worth. And the family got the nice vacation, a new home and belongings, a monstrous amount of cash and unconfirmed (to me) rumor says their rental income house is currently up for sale.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Replying to you is like replying to a wall - because like many others here, you refuse to consider any facts that don't happen to agree with your narrow look on things. The truth is that most people outside of a powerboat forum happen to support lake speed limits...

And Evenstar you are SO open minded. Let us bask in your open mindedness. Remember you are the one who supports a law that is solely based on discrimination. You can spin it any way you like but the law is just a means to an end. You are putting all your eggs in one basket with this one, praying that there will be a mass exodus of all the High Performance boats. In the end that is all your crowd cares about. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I am all for laws, rules, regulations etc. that promote safety on the lake. Targeting the guy going 75MPH across the broads WILL NOT promote safety. It's the idiot doing 35MPH in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem. This activity will continue and your crowd will have the cry wolf stigma with lawmakers when you try for additional legislation and funding for safety initiatives. Talk to us after the law passes and let me know how "safe" you feel on the lake. My prediction, you'll feel just as you do now.... "ascared."

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by JayDV

In all fairness, in gathering survey responses from the average person-on-the-street fitting the demagraphic "non-boater" a census taker can, and easily does, present the argument in order to evoke the yes/no reply that will support their respective position. The responsibility is to the census taker to accurately present a position with politcal or biased rhetoric. Then the general public can stand and be counted. Of course, as they vote, then the appropriate actions can be taken or laws enacted.

I don't believe your responce IS fair. It pre-supposes a bias. You dislike the results, so you assume they must be flawed.

The research was done by the American Research Group, Inc. An organization with very high credentials. The poll was not done at the request of speed limits supporters or paid for by them. The group polled was New Hampshire voters, not non-boaters. This is one of the questions...

Do you believe that a 45 miles per hour daytime and 25 miles per hour nighttime speed limit for boats will make New Hampshire lakes safer or not?

Only 9% answered in the negative.

Many that oppose speed limits will report that this is an unpopular law being pushed through by a few. The facts are the EXACT opposite. This law has wide approval by the owners of the lake.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Targeting the guy going 75MPH across the broads WILL NOT promote safety. It's the idiot doing 35MPH in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem.

WRONG!

It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem".

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

.......You dislike the results, so you assume they must be flawed........

The pot calling the kettle black once again, sounds like you with the study done by the MP last summer.............

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by ITD

The pot calling the kettle black once again, sounds like you with the study done by the MP last summer.............

The difference is that the MP study WAS flawed. As an example the type of boat performing the test and if it was a marked police boat or not, was not considered important enough to even write down!!!

However the MP study results are not surprising, and DO NOT argue against speed limits. More misdirection.

Unlike JayDV, I actually READ a study, poll or report before I post that it is biased and flawed.

[JayDV]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The difference is that the MP study WAS flawed. As an example the type of boat performing the test and if it was a marked police boat or not, was not considered important enough to even write down!!!

However the MP study results are not surprising, and DO NOT argue against speed limits. More misdirection.

Unlike JayDV, I actually READ a study, poll or report before I post that it is biased and flawed.

After re-reading my post, Bear Islander, I guess I deserved your reply. The intent was not to say you were like that. I have found you to be a learned person and would expect nothing less. For the misunderstanding I am sincerely sorry. The reason I used the quote function was mainly for the "responsibilty" section and I didn't want to have anything taken out of context.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

WRONG!

It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem".

WRONG! Again but that's nothing new. The guy going 75MPH ACROSS THE BROADS is most definitely NOT THE PROBLEM.

The guy weaving in and out of a congested doing even 30MPH area violating the 150ft LAW is the problem. Very rarely do you see a boat doing above 50MPH in a congested zone. The more you argue that point the more you lose credibility so please keep pushing that one it only helps make my case that you are fear mongering.

Speed is a relative term BI. I consider it speeding when a guy is doing 45 in and around the Weirs on a Saturday. A guy going 95 on a Tuesday across the Broads isn't speeding!

[Bear Islander]

"It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem".

Perhaps you did not read carefully enough.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I wrote that she wanted to “provide tours and instruction” on Winni – ON THE LAKE, but she felt that it was safer to do this on white water – in the Pemigewassett River.

My point was that white water kayaking is generally considered to be more dangerous than kayaking on a lake – yet she was more concerned about the liability of the high-speed powerboats on Winni, than having her clients run river rapids.

So what you are saying is she'd rather have students do something that everyone in the business knows is dangerous instead of doing something that has a perfect safety record? And this is someone who's opinion you value? If she is basing her decision on liability, she needs a new insurance agent.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem".

Perhaps you did not read carefully enough.

Clearly that would be a problem, however it is not the problem on Winnipesaukee. It is the 25-45mph boats disobeying the current laws that are the problem/danger. Also, the drunks at night that do not have to speed to kill.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

According to http://www.worldatlas.com, Florida has 11,761 sq miles of inland waters, compared to NH's 382 sq miles. So FL has 84 boats/squ mile of inland water, while NH has 264 registered boats for every square mile. So which state has the more congested lakes?

I think that is a bit of a skewed comparison. How much of Florida is the Everglades? How navigable by powerboats are the Everglades?

The largest lake in Florida has a average depth of 9 feet (20 feet at the deepest point!) and covers an expansive 730 square miles compared to 72 square miles of Winnipesaukee and an average depth of 43 feet. The drainage basin that it dumps into covers 4600 miles of more, basically un-navigable water. The map on the site that you linked to shows the bottom 20% of the state to be basically swamp.

NH only has 18 miles of coast whereas Florida has over 8000 miles. Do you think that the 988,000 registered boats all boat on inland waters? I think this was the most skewed comparion to date on this site.

You may want to do some recalculating...

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem".

Perhaps you did not read carefully enough.

Clearly I did and I stand by the point that the person actually doing 35MPH "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem!"

Not the fantasy land scenario that you have concocted to insight fear. So once again please continue down this path as it further digs you deeper and deeper into a hole built on fear mongering and twisted logic.

...awaiting tall tale with regard to 75MPH boat weaving through a crowded bay.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Evenstar
My best friend and I have had close calls with high speed powerboats EVERY SINGLE TIME that we have paddled on Winni

How fast, how close, where and how many times?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander
You dislike the results, so you assume they must be flawed

Where have I seen that before?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander
It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem

And while you are playing with words your intent is clear, to imply that this is a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee when it fact it is NOT! Fear Mongering at it's worst!

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I would surmise that most people on a powerboat forum own or at least use a boat. So the people that don't use boats on the lake want a speed limit? Why?

Not all boats are powerboats, and not all boat owners/users are on powerboat forums. Plus our lakes are not for the sole benefit of powerboat owners.

I want to open a hot dog stand on I-93, which is adjacent to my property, on summer weekends to take advantage of the traffic at the Hooksett tolls. Does that mean it is a good idea?

Winni is not a limited access highspeed tranportation system. There is nothing unreasonable about wanting to run a kayak business from your property on NH's largest state.

Originally Posted by hazelnut

And Evenstar you are SO open minded. Let us bask in your open mindedness. Remember you are the one who supports a law that is solely based on discrimination. You can spin it any way you like but the law is just a means to an end. You are putting all your eggs in one basket with this one, praying that there will be a mass exodus of all the High Performance boats. In the end that is all your crowd cares about. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I am all for laws, rules, regulations etc. that promote safety on the lake. Targeting the guy going 75MPH across the broads WILL NOT promote safety. It's the idiot doing 35MPH in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem. This activity will continue and your crowd will have the cry wolf stigma with lawmakers when you try for additional legislation and funding for safety initiatives. Talk to us after the law passes and let me know how "safe" you feel on the lake. My prediction, you'll feel just as you do now.... "ascared."

Hazelnut, as someone who has fought personal discrimination, I take great offense in your post. The truth is that I’m a very open-minded person. And I’m not “spinning” anything, nor am I part of any group. I’ve stated many times that I’m not anti-powerboat, and that my goal is not to force any type of boat off any NH lake. Yet apparently you don’t believe me - so I also greatly resent that you are, by your accusations, calling me a liar.

A speed limit does one thing – it makes it illegal to exceed a certain speed. How does that discriminate against any type of boat, anymore than a highway speed limit discriminates against any type of motor vehicle? There’s a big difference between fighting for my rights to safely kayak on the lakes in my native state and being afraid. My safety has been violated by high-speed powerboats, on way too many occasions. Most “reasonable people” (a legal term) would agree that high speed is certainly a factor in safety – it isn’t the only factor, but slowing down boats will make any lake safer. BTW; I’m not a timid person – I’m currently on crutches basically due to my lack of fear. Borrow a kayak and try to follow me out on the main lake someday – you’ll likely be the one “ascared,” not me.

Originally Posted by Dave R

So what you are saying is she'd rather have students do something that everyone in the business knows is dangerous instead of doing something that has a perfect safety record? And this is someone who's opinion you value? If she is basing her decision on liability, she needs a new insurance agent.

I’m taking about the degrees of liability, not insurance coverage. And NH hardly has a “perfect safety record” – in fact, NH has by far the worse boating safety of any of our neighboring states.

This woman considered her options and concluded that taking clients out touring on Winni in kayaks is more dangerous than taking them down class II and Class III rapids. She is a certified kayak instructor both for coastal waters and for white water and yes, I do respect her opinion.

Originally Posted by codeman671

I think that is a bit of a skewed comparison. How much of Florida is the Everglades? How navigable by powerboats are the Everglades? The largest lake in Florida has a average depth of 9 feet (20 feet at the deepest point!) and covers an expansive 730 square miles compared to 72 square miles of Winnipesaukee and an average depth of 43 feet. The drainage basin that it dumps into covers 4600 miles of more, basically un-navigable water. The map on the site that you linked to shows the bottom 20% of the state to be basically swamp.

First of all, I’m not the one who brought up Florida, Airwaves did that. But he’s on your side, so you’re not about to call him out on this “skewed comparison.” I was merely bringing up the fact that Florida is also much larger than NH and has a LOT more inland water for all those boats. And, as you so kindly pointed out, many of those registered Florida boats are off that 8000 miles of coastline, so there’s actually a much smaller percentage using those 11,761 sq miles of inland waters.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Evenstar:
First of all, I’m not the one who brought up Florida, Airwaves did that.

HELLO! Who was the one quoted "Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce"?

YOU!

I pointed out that USCG Station Fort Pierce is in Florida, something you conveniently "forgot" to post.

And the fact of the matter is that much of Florida's "inland waters" are exactly what has been described, swamp. By far most of Florida's 988,000 registered boats are used in the Atlantic or Gulf, not inland so you quoting the former CO of a Coast Guard Station in Florida is not applicable to the Lake Winnipesaukee debate.

Now to say I am the one that brought up Florida? You have lost all credibility in this debate with me.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Hazelnut, as someone who has fought personal discrimination, I take great offense in your post. The truth is that I’m a very open-minded person. And I’m not “spinning” anything, nor am I part of any group. I’ve stated many times that I’m not anti-powerboat, and that my goal is not to force any type of boat off any NH lake. Yet apparently you don’t believe me - so I also greatly resent that you are, by your accusations, calling me a liar.
A speed limit does one thing – it makes it illegal to exceed a certain speed. How does that discriminate against any type of boat, anymore than a highway speed limit discriminates against any type of motor vehicle? There’s a big difference between fighting for my rights to safely kayak on the lakes in my native state and being afraid. My safety has been violated by high-speed powerboats, on way too many occasions. Most “reasonable people” (a legal term) would agree that high speed is certainly a factor in safety – it isn’t the only factor, but slowing down boats will make any lake safer. BTW; I’m not a timid person – I’m currently on crutches basically due to my lack of fear. Borrow a kayak and try to follow me out on the main lake someday – you’ll likely be the one “ascared,” not me.

For one I do Kayak and I am NOT ascared. I Kayak in areas where power boats infrequently go. I also use my brain and kayak along the shore. It is a large resource that we can all share. Kayaks are great and I welcome them with open arms. Unfortunately you are closing your mind to other peoples idea of recreation. You support a law that stops those people from enjoying their speed boat to its full potential. That is discriminatory, sorry if you don't like it but facts are facts. They haven't hurt anyone yet you scream you're scared and if something scares you we should all stop doing it so you're not scared anymore??? By the way I own two kayaks and NO "speed boats." My bow-rider does 45. Highway limits and boat limits = Comparing Apples and Oranges. Not even going to bother with that one.

You obviously internalized and spun my post to make me seem like the big bad guy calling you a liar???? Pure silliness. Stick to the issue this is nothing personal. Bravo for fighting discrimination etc. I stick by my post and I will further explain to you that this law will not make you feel safer. The same idiots who populate our lake with little to no regard for safe boating will be out in full force. If you think that a 45 MPH speed limit will increase your safety in a Kayak out in the middle of the lake you are kidding yourself. A boat within 300 feet of you doing 35 will scare the *#$% out of you. If you were so open minded as you say you are you would at least concede that this law will not address the safety issue.

My post/posts have only ever been about one main point. Passing and or supporting laws, ANY laws that do not actually address a real concern/problem is down right irresponsible. I've heard it here time and time again from others on "your side" that there will never be adequate funding to actually address the safety concerns so we might as well just support the speed limit. Again, the means to an end. So again and again supporters of the limit have been asked and continuously fail to provide proof that SPEED is the major public safety issue ON WINNIPESAUKEE and therefore we need a SPEED limit ON WINNIPESAUKEE. All we ever get back are circumstantial, fictional, what-if, I'm scared, blah blah blah.....

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

For one I do Kayak and I am NOT ascared. I Kayak in areas where power boats infrequently go. I also use my brain and kayak along the shore. It is a large resource that we can all share. Kayaks are great and I welcome them with open arms.

Now you’re suggesting that I’m not using my brain because I choose to take my sea kayak out on the main lake, instead of just staying “along the shore.” So why is it that you feel that it is smarter to “stay along the shore?”

Unfortunately you are closing your mind to other peoples idea of recreation. You support a law that stops those people from enjoying their speed boat to its full potential. That is discriminatory, sorry if you don't like it but facts are facts. They haven't hurt anyone

It is not discriminatory to support a law that places a maximum speed for ALL boats. No one has the right to put others at risk, just so that they can “enjoying their speed boat to its full potential.” To not support this law is to support the idea that those with the most (horse)power get to control others use of the lake - as you already seem to feel that kayaks should be limited to just the area along the shore.”

[quote] . . . yet you scream you're scared and if something scares you we should all stop doing it so you're not scared anymore???[/quote
When have I ever written that I was scared? I have written that I have had close calls, and that my safety has been violated – neither is being scared. If I was scared, I would not kayak on Winni.

Highway limits and boat limits = Comparing Apples and Oranges. Not even going to bother with that one.

Of course you’re not going to “bother,” since you can’t argue against my logic. Lake speed limits do not discriminate against speed boats any more than highway speed limits discriminate against motorcycles (or fast cars). Doesn’t a highway speed limit infringe on the “right” of a motorcyclist to “enjoy their bike to it full potential?” Seems a lot like comparing apples to apples to me. Yet whenever someone makes a good analogy that refutes the anti-speed limit claims on this forum, it is brushed off with the old “comparing apples and oranges” side step.

You obviously internalized and spun my post to make me seem like the big bad guy calling you a liar???? Pure silliness. Stick to the issue this is nothing personal.

You made it personal by accusing me of being closed-minded, discriminating, trying to force one type of boat off the lake, and being part of a group. All of which is untrue, and which I have previously stated was untrue. So you are clearly calling me a liar. Perhaps you are the one who should “stick to the issue,” rather than resort to personal attacks on others.

I stick by my post and I will further explain to you that this law will not make you feel safer. The same idiots who populate our lake with little to no regard for safe boating will be out in full force. If you think that a 45 MPH speed limit will increase your safety in a Kayak out in the middle of the lake you are kidding yourself. A boat within 300 feet of you doing 35 will scare the *#$% out of you. If you were so open minded as you say you are you would at least concede that this law will not address the safety issue.

Boats 300 feet away from me, going 35mph have never scared me. I’m supporting this law because I’ve personally seen the difference that a lake speed limit has. Squam Lake has a 40mph speed limit – not only does it feel safer than Winni, it also attracts way more paddlers – many of whom don’t feel that it is unsafe to venture away from the shore. Why is that? Oh, sorry . . . this is probably one of those apples and oranges thingies again. So is Squam the apple or the orange?

[Mashugana]

Assume that everyone followed the boating laws as they stand right now. If everyone followed the 150 foot rule would that lead to a safe feeling for those few who are afraid of the lake or worry about errosion from fast boat wake?

Base your answer on the improbable theory that every boater will heed all current rules and laws including the 150 feet safe passage laws and No Wake Zones. No accidental or intentional rule violations. Now, of what benefit is a 45/25mph speed limit?

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Now you’re suggesting that I’m not using my brain because I choose to take my sea kayak out on the main lake, instead of just staying “along the shore.” So why is it that you feel that it is smarter to “stay along the shore?”

As I said it is a large resource so I use the shoreline and the less traveled areas while I let the Powerboats use the large areas of the lake. It's called sharing. You know give and take.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

It is not discriminatory to support a law that places a maximum speed for ALL boats. No one has the right to put others at risk, just so that they can “enjoying their speed boat to its full potential.” To not support this law is to support the idea that those with the most (horse)power get to control others use of the lake - as you already seem to feel that kayaks should be limited to just the area along the shore.”

No one is putting anyone at risk. You are using scare tactics. I'm sure you have had close calls just as I have. To pin the blame on boats exceeding 45MPH is laughable. You must be a magnet then. I'll have to follow you around then and be enlightened.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Of course you’re not going to “bother,” since you can’t argue against my logic. Lake speed limits do not discriminate against speed boats any more than highway speed limits discriminate against motorcycles (or fast cars). Doesn’t a highway speed limit infringe on the “right” of a motorcyclist to “enjoy their bike to it full potential?” Seems a lot like comparing apples to apples to me. Yet whenever someone makes a good analogy that refutes the anti-speed limit claims on this forum, it is brushed off with the old “comparing apples and oranges” side step.

*Sigh* Since you forced me to do this here we go. Highway limits are in place because PEOPLE HAVE DIED!!! Nobody has died on Winni due to excessive speed. So now it's back on you. Every time we ask you to give hard concrete evidence as to why we need a speed limit YOU side step it and say you have had "Close Calls" or your safety is compromised. Way too circumstantial to base legislature on, sorry.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You made it personal by accusing me of being closed-minded, discriminating, trying to force one type of boat off the lake, and being part of a group. All of which is untrue, and which I have previously stated was untrue. So you are clearly calling me a liar. Perhaps you are the one who should “stick to the issue,” rather than resort to personal attacks on others.

Do I REALLY have to do this Evenstar? Ok here we go: DIRECT QUOTE from YOU:
"Replying to you is like replying to a wall - because like many others here, you refuse to consider any facts that don't happen to agree with your narrow look on things."
Feels like Kindergarten here but.... You started it. I believe that was directed at Airwaves but I suppose I could take offense I guess I fall into the "many others here" who refuse to consider your "facts."

Originally Posted by Evenstar

....Squam Lake has a 40mph speed limit – not only does it feel safer than Winni, it also attracts way more paddlers – many of whom don’t feel that it is unsafe to venture away from the shore. Why is that? Oh, sorry . . . this is probably one of those apples and oranges thingies again. So is Squam the apple or the orange?

Squam is the Apple. Winni is the Orange. It's obvious why each lake attracts different types of boats. That is the beauty of New Hampshire. There are lakes for every type of boater. So you think a Speed Limit dictates why Speed Boats don't populate Squam? Ummmm OK I was thinking more along the lines of its size relative to Winni. My guess is that anything over 45 on Squam would shrink it to a 5 minute ride end to end.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Mashugana

... Now, of what benefit is a 45/25mph speed limit?[/b]

First thing is you are stuck on the safety aspect of the question. There are many good reasons for a speed limit that have NOTHING to do with safety.

A speed limit will lower pollution, erosion, congestion etc. It will allow a more reasonable distribution of a limited resource.

With respect to safety any solution that requires absolute and total compliance with a given law is silly. It just is not going to happen, this is the real world. Back in the 60's there was a saying "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?" A lovely idea, but it doesn't help us with what to do about Iraq.

If nobody illegally used drugs, then all the laws against the production, transportation and sale of drugs would be unnecessary.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

First thing is you are stuck on the safety aspect of the question. There are many good reasons for a speed limit that have NOTHING to do with safety.

A speed limit will lower pollution, erosion, congestion etc. It will allow a more reasonable distribution of a limited resource.

I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean here BI. Lower polution, OK; I agree - faster speeds equals less MPG and means more gas burnt per distance. That gives us more carbon emmisions and more exhaust gasses in the lake.

Erosion and congestion, I don't get. Having observed boats crusing by for over 15 years, my conclusion is that the faster a boat goes, the less wake it leaves behind. Also, the faster it goes, the faster is is "out of here and over there". A fast boat will tend to head towards lightly traveled parts of the lake, so it has plenty of room to avoid other craft.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean here BI. Lower polution, OK; I agree - faster speeds equals less MPG and means more gas burnt per distance. That gives us more carbon emmisions and more exhaust gasses in the lake.

Erosion and congestion, I don't get. Having observed boats crusing by for over 15 years, my conclusion is that the faster a boat goes, the less wake it leaves behind. Also, the faster it goes, the faster is is "out of here and over there". A fast boat will tend to head towards lightly traveled parts of the lake, so it has plenty of room to avoid other craft.

Boats that have moved to another body of water do not cause ANY erosion or congestion on Winnipesaukee.

The opposition has claimed many times that the economy of the lakes area will be ruined when high performance boats leave the lake. We have seen evidence on this forum and elsewhere that boats are already leaving the lake because of coming speed limits. A speed limit will effect the future purchase decisions of Winnipesaukee boaters. It is ludicrous to assume high performance boats will continue to operate in large numbers on Winni.

Over the years the number of performance boats on this lake will decline, just like they have on all the other lakes that have enacted speed limits.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Boats that have moved to another body of water do not cause ANY erosion or congestion on Winnipesaukee.

The opposition has claimed many times that the economy of the lakes area will be ruined when high performance boats leave the lake. We have seen evidence on this forum and elsewhere that boats are already leaving the lake because of coming speed limits. A speed limit will effect the future purchase decisions of Winnipesaukee boaters. It is ludicrous to assume high performance boats will continue to operate in large numbers on Winni.

Over the years the number of performance boats on this lake will decline, just like they have on all the other lakes that have enacted speed limits.

Are there large numbers of high speed performance boats in Winni? I certainly see some but IMHO not large numbers. Maybe one is too many for BI, it certainly seems so.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Are there large numbers of high speed performance boats in Winni? I certainly see some but IMHO not large numbers. Maybe one is too many for BI, it certainly seems so.

A butterfly is a beautiful thing, but it does not belong in my soup. A high performance boat can be beautiful and fun. But the lake is to small and fragile for their growing numbers.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

A butterfly is a beautiful thing, but it does not belong in my soup. A high performance boat can be beautiful and fun. But the lake is to small and fragile for their growing numbers.

Your speed limit crusade will do nothing to lower the growing numbers of high performance boats. It's kind of like painting a brick house, it makes a few people feel better, but then it starts peeling, causing problems while solving nothing.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

A butterfly is a beautiful thing, but it does not belong in my soup. A high performance boat can be beautiful and fun. But the lake is to small and fragile for their growing numbers.

You still did not answer my question. Are there large numbers of performance boats on Lake Winnipesaukee? I stick by my statement that I just don't see large numbers of boats on the lake..some, but not large numbers.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

As I said it is a large resource so I use the shoreline and the less traveled areas while I let the Powerboats use the large areas of the lake. It's called sharing. You know give and take.

The main reason that I own a sea kayak is because I happen to enjoy going out on large lakes (not just hugging the shoreline) – that’s what my boat is designed for. I’m not willing to give up using the main lake just because some speed boats owners fell that they have the right to use their boats “to their full potential.” Yes, compromise involves give and take – but so far the paddlers have been the only ones who are giving and the power boat operators are the ones doing all the taking. That’s not compromise.

No one is putting anyone at risk. You are using scare tactics. I'm sure you have had close calls just as I have. To pin the blame on boats exceeding 45MPH is laughable. You must be a magnet then. I'll have to follow you around then and be enlightened.

I am relating what my own actual experience has been. How is that “scare tactics?” I never said that I have never had issues with boats going under the speed limit - just that all my close calls have been with faster boats. If you followed me, you would have to venture away from the shore, where the faster boats are.

*Sigh* Since you forced me to do this here we go. Highway limits are in place because PEOPLE HAVE DIED!!! Nobody has died on Winni due to excessive speed. So now it's back on you. Every time we ask you to give hard concrete evidence as to why we need a speed limit YOU side step it and say you have had "Close Calls" or your safety is compromised. Way too circumstantial to base legislature on, sorry.

You aren’t going to be cited with excessive speed when there’s no speed limit – “excessive speed” is just too subjective, so MP will almost always cite the operator with something else first. Operators of fast boats have had accidents on winni at speeds over 45mph – they’ve even run into islands! So I feel that we’ve been very fortunate that no one has yet run over a paddler. A speed limit with not prevent that from happening, but I believe that it will make it less likely. I’ve had close calls on Winni with boats going over 45mph, that came well within my 150 foot zone, because they didn’t see me – that’s been my honest experience, but that’s not good enough for you. That is not sidestepping – that’s recounting my actual experience.

A great deal of legislation is based on the experience of residents. One of the Senators told me that her husband has had similar close calls with high-speed powerboats – so that’s not going to have any effect on her vote?

Do I REALLY have to do this Evenstar? Ok here we go: DIRECT QUOTE from YOU: "Replying to you is like replying to a wall - because like many others here, you refuse to consider any facts that don't happen to agree with your narrow look on things."
Feels like Kindergarten here but.... You started it. I believe that was directed at Airwaves but I suppose I could take offense I guess I fall into the "many others here" who refuse to consider your "facts."

Now you're using my response to someone else to justify personally attacking me? My reply was just my impression of what it feels like to me to reply to Airways. From his responses I felt like he was not being very objective, but was taking a very narrow view on things - and that most of my points were not reaching him. I wasn’t calling Airways a wall, nor was I calling him closed-minded. And it is true that my facts and my hard questions are almost always ignored by most here.

Squam is the Apple. Winni is the Orange. It's obvious why each lake attracts different types of boats. That is the beauty of New Hampshire. There are lakes for every type of boater. So you think a Speed Limit dictates why Speed Boats don't populate Squam? Ummmm OK I was thinking more along the lines of its size relative to Winni. My guess is that anything over 45 on Squam would shrink it to a 5 minute ride end to end.

Winni is 20 miles long, Squam is 8 miles long. They are both large NH lakes, so they are both apples – Winni just a larger apple – the ocean (which is not a large lake) is the orange. At 45mph, it only takes 27 minutes to travel the length of Winni. Why does anyone “need” to “shrink” Winni to less than that?

Originally Posted by Airwaves

HELLO! Who was the one quoted "Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce"? YOU! I pointed out that USCG Station Fort Pierce is in Florida, something you conveniently "forgot" to post. And the fact of the matter is that much of Florida's "inland waters" are exactly what has been described, swamp. By far most of Florida's 988,000 registered boats are used in the Atlantic or Gulf, not inland so you quoting the former CO of a Coast Guard Station in Florida is not applicable to the Lake Winnipesaukee debate. Now to say I am the one that brought up Florida? You have lost all credibility in this debate with me.

Airways, read your own post. I never even mentioned Florida when I quoted the Chief Warrant Officer – not because I “forgot to post it”, but because Florida has absolutely nothing to do with his article. He never even mentioned Florida, because he wasn’t writing about Florida boaters. His article was about The U.S. Coast Guard’s Navigation Rules, not just Florida’s boating rules! You were the one who brought Florida into this discussion, not me.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

You still did not answer my question. Are there large numbers of performance boats on Lake Winnipesaukee? I stick by my statement that I just don't see large numbers of boats on the lake..some, but not large numbers.

Not to quibble but it depends on what you call large numbers. There are a lot more than there used to be. And the numbers will grow as other lakes enact speed limits. Many states have limits, Maine is considering them now.

There are performance boaters on Winni now that have moved here because the lakes they came from passed limits. Lake George for example. Do you want Winni to be the only lake for performance boating?

When the numbers of performance boats is enough to limit summer camp activities, then that is "large numbers".

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There are performance boaters on Winni now that have moved here because the lakes they came from passed limits. Lake George for example. Do you want Winni to be the only lake for performance boating?

Wow! This is great. Maybe this is the answer to spark the rennovation of Weirs Beach. Put a race course out on the broads and have weekly speed trials. No wake of course, till out past Govnr's Island. With speed boats at the Weirs and sailing from Fays, the West side lake economy should pick up nicely.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
Not to quibble but it depends on what you call large numbers. There are a lot more than there used to be. And the numbers will grow as other lakes enact speed limits. Many states have limits, Maine is considering them now.

Since you seem to know more than we do, how many are there on Lake Winnipesaukee? Personally last summer I saw two!

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
There are performance boaters on Winni now that have moved here because the lakes they came from passed limits. Lake George for example. Do you want Winni to be the only lake for performance boating?

Funny, the two I saw had NH bow numbers. I thought New York issued bow numbers that begin with NY? Hmmm...

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
When the numbers of performance boats is enough to limit summer camp activities, then that is "large numbers".

Where is this summer camp that seems to be the target of performance boats and what are the boats doing that would keep campers out of the water?

It seems to me that if performance boats were causing problems and havoc among summer campers somewhere on Lake Winnipesaukee then there would be a records of multiple calls to the Marine Patrol and local police in the town where the infraction is occurring. It would also seem to me that when questioned by legislators the Marine Patrol would present those reports, unless of course there were no reports or they are unfounded.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Since you seem to know more than we do, how many are there on Lake Winnipesaukee? Personally last summer I saw two!


Funny, the two I saw had NH bow numbers. I thought New York issued bow numbers that begin with NY? Hmmm...


Where is this summer camp that seems to be the target of performance boats and what are the boats doing that would keep campers out of the water?

It seems to me that if performance boats were causing problems and havoc among summer campers somewhere on Lake Winnipesaukee then there would be a records of multiple calls to the Marine Patrol and local police in the town where the infraction is occurring. It would also seem to me that when questioned by legislators the Marine Patrol would present those reports, unless of course there were no reports or they are unfounded.

You know I get tired of your putting words in my mouth. Why do you feel the need to expand what I say into far more than it was? I never made ANY comments about summer camps being targeted by performance boats. I never claimed any infractions by performance boats whatsoever.

Pretending I said things I never did is just another way of telling lies.

If I understand you correctly you only saw two performance boats on the lake last summer. Are you having problems with your vision, or do you have some extreme definition of the term "performance boat"?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I never claimed ANY comments about summer camps being targeted by performance boats. I never claimed any infractions by performance boats whatsoever.

No infractions you say? Then pray tell what is the issue??? Why are YOU targeting performance boats then?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

No infractions you say? Then pray tell what is the issue??? Why are YOU targeting performance boats then?

I explained my position of summer camps earlier in this thread. See post 35, 38, 40, 45, 59, 64, 66, 69, 87, 92 and 104.

#87 is the best one, but do not miss the part in #90 where Woodsy thinks children's camps should hire Marine Patrol details to protect their children.

Also interesting is #36 where Dick, who opposes speed limits, claims any camp director that allows a canoe out on Winnipesaukee should be fired.

It's nice when the opposition makes your arguments for you.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

... I’m not willing to give up using the main lake just because some speed boats owners fell [sic] that they have the right to use their boats “to their full potential.” ....

This is the attitude I speak of. I mean why should YOU have to give up something YOU like to do? Hey YOU don't own a fast boat so YOU shouldn't have to deal with them. So anyone on this lake that enjoys using their speed boat in the broads at a speed above 45MPH has to cease to do so because YOU don't want them to? Guess what, those boaters enjoy their speed boats just as much as you enjoy kayaking. Someone is losing their right here and it isn't you so why should you care. Due to the fact that it currently is NOT a law it is well within their rights to go 75MPH across the broads. Once this law is passed they will lose that right after they did nothing to deserve losing it in the first place. You still have the right to go across the broads either way. You will of course tell us all that it is dangerous now but it will be safe or safer after the law. I maintain that it will not be any safer due to the inattentive careless boaters that populate the lake.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I am relating what my own actual experience has been. How is that “scare tactics?” I never said that I have never had issues with boats going under the speed limit - just that all my close calls have been with faster boats. If you followed me, you would have to venture away from the shore, where the faster boats are.

All I'm saying is that I've been on this lake since the late 70's early 80's and I've boated sailed kayaked cruised on everything from a 10 foot rowboat to driving the Doris E. herself and I've had my share of incidents. The way you relay these incidents and the volume of them that only seem to involve one type of boat seems to be quite a stretch, or perhaps embellishment. You can whine about how I'm calling you a liar now but all I'm saying is that you must have one heck of a dark cloud hanging over your head to have had that many "incidents."

Originally Posted by Evenstar

.... So I feel that we’ve been very fortunate that no one has yet run over a paddler. A speed limit with not prevent that from happening, but I believe that it will make it less likely.....

So we should just make it a law? That solidifies my point. Legislature without a problem to solve. Lets go around making laws to prevent things that MIGHT happen. That is a dangerous and very LIBERAL way to govern.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Now you're using my response to someone else to justify personally attacking me? My reply was just my impression of what it feels like to me to reply to Airways. From his responses I felt like he was not being very objective, but was taking a very narrow view on things - and that most of my points were not reaching him. I wasn’t calling Airways a wall, nor was I calling him closed-minded. And it is true that my facts and my hard questions are almost always ignored by most here.

Yes I am using your own words against you. Stinks doesn't it? If you want to throw out attacks whether in general or towards one individual be prepared to have those words come back to haunt you. By your comments anyone who does not agree with you is not open minded or objective or "narrow minded."

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Winni is 20 miles long, Squam is 8 miles long. They are both large NH lakes, so they are both apples – Winni just a larger apple – the ocean (which is not a large lake) is the orange. At 45mph, it only takes 27 minutes to travel the length of Winni. Why does anyone “need” to “shrink” Winni to less than that?

Hey thanks for posting the stats to prove my point. If you think that an 8 mile long lake and a 27 mile long lake have anything whatsoever in common then you are 100% in fantasy land. Oh I see it's semantics, Small Apples and Big Apples. What???? If I had a performance boat Speed Limit or No Speed Limit I would NEVER put it on Squam. IT'S ONLY 8 MILES LONG!?!?!
Winni has 72 Square Miles of water. Squam isn't even half that size. Are you serious on this one? Of course Squam attracts more kayakers just like Mirror, Kanasatka, Wentworth, etc. They are small lakes with less traffic an less chance of getting stuck in a major windswept storm etc. I can think of tons of reasons why kayakers prefer squam. Fast Boats are only one of hundreds of reasons why winni might not be as attractive to kayakers.

[DoTheMath]

Funny - maybe if Winni is "too small" for big-bad-performance-boats-that-can-travel-the-length-in-no-time... then maybe it is "too big" for it-would-take-me-all-weekend-to-get-from-one-end-to-the-other-in-my-plastic-bottle-paddle-powered-boat!?

Just some food for thought!?

(Keep up the good fight Hazelnut! )

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I explained my position of summer camps earlier in this thread. See post 35, 38, 40, 45, 59, 64, 66, 69, 87, 92 and 104.

#87 is the best one, but do not miss the part in #90 where Woodsy thinks children's camps should hire Marine Patrol details to protect their children.

Also interesting is #36 where Dick, who opposes speed limits, claims any camp director that allows a canoe out on Winnipesaukee should be fired.

It's nice when the opposition makes your arguments for you.

My main point was the fact that you mentioned performance boats had made no infractions...Rather comical given some of your stands.

I have no problem with the concept of keeping our children safe. In case you forgot or did not know, my house faces Camp Lawrence. The issue that I have is the boats that do not heed the 150' rule who constantly are coming too close to their ski boat (the white center console) or us when we are wakeboarding in the bay between Mark and Bear. It is not the peformance guys doing this.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Winni is 20 miles long, Squam is 8 miles long. They are both large NH lakes, so they are both apples – Winni just a larger apple – the ocean (which is not a large lake) is the orange. At 45mph, it only takes 27 minutes to travel the length of Winni. Why does anyone “need” to “shrink” Winni to less than that?

Actually it takes a lot longer than 27 minutes to travel from end to end. Obviously you have never done it. It takes more than just a calculator to figure that. There is no straight line to go from absolute end to end.

Comparing apples to apples, Winnipesaukee is 6+ times the size of Squam. Squam is shallow and rocky, not a great place to boat in general in my opinion with anything larger than a small bowrider or pontoon. I would dare to say this is closer to an apples to oranges comparison.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

My main point was the fact that you mentioned performance boats had made no infractions...Rather comical given some of your stands.

I have no problem with the concept of keeping our children safe. In case you forgot or did not know, my house faces Camp Lawrence. The issue that I have is the boats that do not heed the 150' rule who constantly are coming too close to their ski boat (the white center console) or us when we are wakeboarding in the bay between Mark and Bear. It is not the peformance guys doing this.

One again, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said performance boats were not committing infractions. I also never said performance boats were committing infractions. I never talked about performance boat infractions at all.

I have said that the New Hampshire Camp Directors Association supports speed limits. I had talked to Winnipesaukee camp directors that claim they are afraid to send their small boats out on the lake. That is all the evidence I need to convince me the lake needs a speed limit. All the other arguments I put forth are just extra.

A speed limit will not solve the problems you mention, nothing will. They are however a step in the right direction.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

One again, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said performance boats were not committing infractions. I also never said performance boats were committing infractions. I never talked about performance boat infractions at all.

I have said that the New Hampshire Camp Directors Association supports speed limits. I had talked to Winnipesaukee camp directors that claim they are afraid to send their small boats out on the lake. That is all the evidence I need to convince me the lake needs a speed limit. All the other arguments I put forth are just extra.

A speed limit will not solve the problems you mention, nothing will. They are however a step in the right direction.

Put words in your mouth? It was YOUR quote that I provided back to you! You clearly stated that you had never claimed any infractions by performance boats. If there are no infractions, what are you complaining about??? If there are no infractions, then why do you claim of issues of 75mph boats traveling through crowded bays???

Frostbite? Lack of sunshine? Need to get back to the island??? Not sure what your issue is but you need to take it easy.

Originally Posted by bear islander

I never claimed ANY comments about summer camps being targeted by performance boats. I never claimed any infractions by performance boats whatsoever.