Life after speed limits

Cal · 04-02-2008, 06:51 PM

Since kayakers seem to want free run of the lake , I've run across a power boat suitable for kayak territory. After all , isn't turnabout fair play

Not only that , maybe a speed limit won't extend up creeks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtXkpytTD3s

Evenstar · 04-02-2008, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cal

Since kayakers seem to want free run of the lake , I've run across a power boat suitable for kayak territory. After all , isn't turnabout fair play

Not only that , maybe a speed limit won't extend up creeks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtXkpytTD3s

Paddlers have always had "free run" of all NH lakes - it's only been relatively recently that the high speeds of powerboats (along with the attitudes of some operators) have made the lake(s) unsafe for us.

Just remember that you can only go 6 mph, unless you are more than 150 feet from shore and from other boats. There are not too many "creeks" in NH that are over 300 feet wide.

Joe Kerr · 04-03-2008, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cal

Since kayakers seem to want free run of the lake , I've run across a power boat suitable for kayak territory. After all , isn't turnabout fair play

Not only that , maybe a speed limit won't extend up creeks

Kayakers don't want free run of the lake. Just a timid vocal minority who want to go out without fear. Fearless kayakers

.

I believe those kayakers would love to be up the creek with those powerboats but with their paddles.

There must not be any 150 foot rule up that creek and it looked like fun.

How slow was that boat measured in feet per hour?

Rattlesnake Guy · 04-03-2008, 06:55 PM

The boat did not appear to be going 45mph. I felt unsafe just watching the video. Kept expecting to hit a rock.

Proud to say I have not made a Kayak unsafe ever. Except for the one I tried to get into years ago.

Airwaves · 04-03-2008, 11:05 PM

While the video gave me quite the belly laugh, and I also had to wonder what kind of hull this boat had to hit those rocks and shallows and survive.

I have to agree with Evenstar on this one;

Quote:

Just remember that you can only go 6 mph, unless you are more than 150 feet from shore and from other boats.

She's right about that.

SIKSUKR · 04-04-2008, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

While the video gave me quite the belly laugh, and I also had to wonder what kind of hull this boat had to hit those rocks and shallows and survive.
I have to agree with Evenstar on this one;
She's right about that.

Agreed,she is right.6 mph when within 150 of boats(and yes that includes Kayaks)A law that is ALREADY in place.

Dave R · 04-04-2008, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

While the video gave me quite the belly laugh, and I also had to wonder what kind of hull this boat had to hit those rocks and shallows and survive.

I'm pretty sure they are made of rather thick, welded aluminum and contain many bulkheads for added strength. It would be easy to weld on repair panels over wear areas as needed.

Looks like a lot of fun. I'd try it for sure.

Hottrucks · 04-06-2008, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

While the video gave me quite the belly laugh, and I also had to wonder what kind of hull this boat had to hit those rocks and shallows and survive..

Those hulls are flat bottom Jet boats and the bottom have a 1" thick plate of Teflon ( like a snow machine slider or a bed liner for your truck) which allows them to slide over most anything...with them being jet driven like a sea doo they require very little water and there is nothing to drag...theres about a million videos of those boats, they are very popular out west and the over seas..and yes they go well over 45 have a tremendous amount of Hp but are very inefficient turning it into speed

Skipper · 04-27-2008, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Agreed,she is right.6 mph when within 150 of boats(and yes that includes Kayaks)A law that is ALREADY in place.

Why don't people understand this principle? There are plenty of laws that regulate speed on the lakes. There is too much personal attacks instead of debating which issues are important and then debating the issues.

Seaplane Pilot · 04-27-2008, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipper

Why don't people understand this principle? There are plenty of laws that regulate speed on the lakes. There is too much personal attacks instead of debating which issues are important and then debating the issues.

I'll tell you why. Because these left wing liberals love the nanny state concept. They know what's best for everyone and will do anything in their power to control and regulate every aspect of your life. This idiotic speed limit bill is a perfect example. Let's create multiple layers of laws that regulate the same thing. NH is in the red already, so let's just spend more tax dollars on resources required to implement and enforce a new speed limit law, rather than education and enforcement of the laws already on the books. Please people - wake up! Flush these bleeding hearts out of Concord and send them back from where they came. They have done nothing but ruin what once was a great state. Sad to say it's now like Massachusetts North.

Bear Islander · 04-27-2008, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

I'll tell you why. Because these left wing liberals love the nanny state concept. They know what's best for everyone and will do anything in their power to control and regulate every aspect of your life. This idiotic speed limit bill is a perfect example. Let's create multiple layers of laws that regulate the same thing. NH is in the red already, so let's just spend more tax dollars on resources required to implement and enforce a new speed limit law, rather than education and enforcement of the laws already on the books. Please people - wake up! Flush these bleeding hearts out of Concord and send them back from where they came. They have done nothing but ruin what once was a great state. Sad to say it's now like Massachusetts North.

The only reason to NOT have a 45 mph speed limit is because a few rich people want to go dangerously fast on a crowded lake. Incredibly they seem to have convinced a few people that don't have fast boats that its REALLY about personal freedom. They spread the lie that it will cost money to enforce (it cost nothing). They even spread two mutually exclusive theories that A) Nobody is going to leave the lake or slow down and B) The lakes region economy will be ruined when the high performance boats leave.

They point to a study they think says nobody is speeding (it doesn't), while forgetting the simple reality that if nobody is speeding, then nobody will be inconvenienced by this law.

The few that own these expensive, highly polluting, global warming, gas hogs, fly around the lake at speeds up to 130 mph scaring the living hell out of family boaters. They have no concept of how many small boaters, including children's campers, they are keeping off of the water.

They are coming to Winnipesaukee because the are being regulated off other lakes. As this trend continues their numbers will grow. Their wakes kill loons, and erode the shore. The water quality of the lake is slowly dropping.

What this is really about is money. The marine manufacturer's and people that sell and service high performance boats will do ANYTHING, tell any lie, play any card, enlist any well intentioned freedom lover, to stop this legislation.

hazelnut · 04-27-2008, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Incredibly they seem to have convinced a few people that don't have fast boats that its REALLY about personal freedom. They spread the lie that it will cost money to enforce (it cost nothing). They even spread two mutually exclusive theories that A) Nobody is going to leave the lake or slow down and B) The lakes region economy will be ruined when the high performance boats leave.They point to a study they think says nobody is speeding (it doesn't), while forgetting the simple reality that if nobody is speeding, then nobody will be inconvenienced by this law.
The few that own these expensive, highly polluting, global warming, gas hogs, fly around the lake at speeds up to 130 mph scaring the living hell out of family boaters. They have no concept of how many small boaters, including children's campers, they are keeping off of the water.
They are coming to Winnipesaukee because the are being regulated off other lakes. As this trend continues their numbers will grow. Their wakes kill loons, and erode the shore. The water quality of the lake is slowly dropping.
What this is really about is money. The marine manufacturer's and people that sell and service high performance boats will do ANYTHING, tell any lie, play any card, enlist any well intentioned freedom lover, to stop this legislation.

Another post worthy of being printed out and pasted to my wall. You do a great job of pointing out just about every misconception that you are feeding yourself and everyone. I do not even know where to begin with this post. This is the biggest pile of fear and hate mongering I've ever read on this forum. Portions of this post border on outright lies. You sit in your glass house and throw stones at all the "polluters" yet you jet around the country and then are prepared to hop in a Rocket Ship for YOUR personal pleasure. I'm sure this rocket is a hybrid gas electric though, right.

How dare you even go down that road. Where in the world did you come up with the 130mph boats zipping around the lake. WHEN? WHERE? As I said before I'm on the lake every day in the summer and I have yet to see these 130mph boats terrorizing innocent boaters on the lake. Wakes killing loons? This is an outrageous bold faced LIE!!! Performance boats wakes are in no way exclusively the biggest wakes. My bowrider at 18MPH makes a bigger wake than a performance boat at 70MPH. What about the Cabin Cruisers? This is NOT about money. It is about legislation of a recreational activity that offends a select few. It is legislation based on fear and hate mongering and you just did a fine job pointing that out.

I do believe that your post reached an all time low and it is the most offensive piece of untruth, bias, and downright hate. If I am alone so be it but I'd like to see what the rest of this community thinks about Bear Islanders latest post. I for one am disgusted by it.

EricP · 04-27-2008, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Another post worthy of being printed out and pasted to my wall. You do a great job of pointing out just about every misconception that you are feeding yourself and everyone. I do not even know where to begin with this post. This is the biggest pile of fear and hate mongering I've ever read on this forum. Portions of this post border on outright lies. You sit in your glass house and throw stones at all the "polluters" yet you jet around the country and then are prepared to hop in a Rocket Ship for YOUR personal pleasure. I'm sure this rocket is a hybrid gas electric though, right.

How dare you even go down that road. Where in the world did you come up with the 130mph boats zipping around the lake. WHEN? WHERE? As I said before I'm on the lake every day in the summer and I have yet to see these 130mph boats terrorizing innocent boaters on the lake. Wakes killing loons? This is an outrageous bold faced LIE!!! Performance boats wakes are in no way exclusively the biggest wakes. My bowrider at 18MPH makes a bigger wake than a performance boat at 70MPH. What about the Cabin Cruisers? This is NOT about money. It is about legislation of a recreational activity that offends a select few. It is legislation based on fear and hate mongering and you just did a fine job pointing that out.

I do believe that your post reached an all time low and it is the most offensive piece of untruth, bias, and downright hate. If I am alone so be it but I'd like to see what the rest of this community thinks about Bear Islanders latest post. I for one am disgusted by it.

You said it well and I agree. I am not only disgusted, but really put off by his latest post.

Cal · 04-27-2008, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The only reason to NOT have a 45 mph speed limit is because a few rich people want to go dangerously fast on a crowded lake. Incredibly they seem to have convinced a few people that don't have fast boats that its REALLY about personal freedom. They spread the lie that it will cost money to enforce (it cost nothing). They even spread two mutually exclusive theories that A) Nobody is going to leave the lake or slow down and B) The lakes region economy will be ruined when the high performance boats leave.

They point to a study they think says nobody is speeding (it doesn't), while forgetting the simple reality that if nobody is speeding, then nobody will be inconvenienced by this law.

The few that own these expensive, highly polluting, global warming, gas hogs, fly around the lake at speeds up to 130 mph scaring the living hell out of family boaters. They have no concept of how many small boaters, including children's campers, they are keeping off of the water.

They are coming to Winnipesaukee because the are being regulated off other lakes. As this trend continues their numbers will grow. Their wakes kill loons, and erode the shore. The water quality of the lake is slowly dropping.

What this is really about is money. The marine manufacturer's and people that sell and service high performance boats will do ANYTHING, tell any lie, play any card, enlist any well intentioned freedom lover, to stop this legislation.

A perfect example of what your accusing the opposition of doing.

Islander · 04-27-2008, 11:24 AM

Great post BI! They hate to hear the truth!

The age old excuse of the polluters is to say someone else is polluting more. As if that excuses their behavior. It doesn't matter how much fuel BI may waste elsewhere. It's a way to attack the messenger when their arguments fail.

Anyone thinking wakes don't destroy loon nests should do a little reading.

hazelnut · 04-27-2008, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

Great post BI! They hate to hear the truth!

The age old excuse of the polluters is to say someone else is polluting more. As if that excuses their behavior. It doesn't matter how much fuel BI may waste elsewhere. It's a way to attack the messenger when their arguments fail.

Anyone thinking wakes don't destroy loon nests should do a little reading.

Yes and it's ONLY the performance boats wakes that are doing it. The big bad nasty MEN and their testosterone driven craft, cigar hanging out of the mouth, hunting down those loons and their babies... oh yes especially the babies.

Don't you get it? Obviously you do not. Performance boat wakes are not the biggest wakes on the lake. Not by a long shot. If this is a crusade against wakes and the harm they do to the loons lets hit the problem head on. Hmmmmm I know lets BAN THE SOPHIE C. Oh but wait the Sophie goe slow and brings precious mail to Bear Island. We can't ban Sophie. Why not? The loons are suffering and they are dying. Sophie does have the biggest wake on the lake.

Lakegeezer · 04-27-2008, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The only reason to NOT have a 45 mph speed limit is because a few rich people want to go dangerously fast on a crowded lake. Incredibly they seem to have convinced a few people that don't have fast boats that its REALLY about personal freedom.

Your reasoning is not accurate or the only reason. Many that are against speed limits are neither rich, or own a boat that goes above 45. Other reasons have been given. One example; the faster the boat goes, the faster the noise is gone from where you are. Another example; in bass fishing contests, one winning strategy is to get to your favorite hole first. A third example; the thrill of speed on a jet ski. Bass boats and jet skis don't require that you are rich.

Your claim of crowded lake is also a problem. Yes, Bear Island may be crowded, but its just one of 360+ islands. Most of the lake, most of the time, is not crowded. This is another reason to oppose the new restrictions. I saw three boats this morning. Where is the danger in going 80 in that crowd?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

They spread the lie that it will cost money to enforce (it cost nothing).

To enforce, it will indeed cost money. There will be more calls to the MP, with claims that a boat was going too fast. Extra calls and any dispatches will cost money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

They even spread two mutually exclusive theories that A) Nobody is going to leave the lake or slow down and B) The lakes region economy will be ruined when the high performance boats leave.

Your most valid point. Hard to tell what would happen. The heavy boats will likely take the place of ultra-fast boats that do leave, and we'll have more wake, erosion, etc. The economy is being ruined anyway - speed limit or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

They point to a study they think says nobody is speeding (it doesn't), while forgetting the simple reality that if nobody is speeding, then nobody will be inconvenienced by this law.

You are stretching it here. There are plenty of boats going over 45 - just not for long periods or very often in crowded areas. We know that people will be inconvenienced by the law. Bass boats for sure. Jet skis for sure. The ability to legally and safely go fast will be gone. The right of persuit of happiness (legally

) will be gone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The few that own these expensive, highly polluting, global warming, gas hogs, fly around the lake at speeds up to 130 mph scaring the living hell out of family boaters.

You leave out the jet skis and bass boats in your formula. Speeds of 130 mph are rare and unrealistic. If this is your worry, work on a limit that is reasonable, not a pokey 45.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

They have no concept of how many small boaters, including children's campers, they are keeping off of the water.

Pilots going over 45 are not the only reason for the kid camper keeper's fear. Captain bonehead in all forms are the reason. Kids are being over protected in many ways these days. Let the camp do what they need to do. Parents can choose camps on less scary lakes, but don't seem to be doing that. Focus on the bonehead issues and hope that a camp kid (or any other) is never injured. Let's also hope they learn to live in the real world where there is danger to be aware of. Running your life based on unfounded fears is not a skill that should be taught.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

They are coming to Winnipesaukee because the are being regulated off other lakes.

Have we seen any studies that show this is true? If so, what is the impact on the economy? Will we have enough rich folks here to support a good supermarket and maybe even an office supply store?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

As this trend continues their numbers will grow. Their wakes kill loons, and erode the shore. The water quality of the lake is slowly dropping.

This statement needs to be backed up with facts. I'm under the impression that large, heavy displacement boats make the wake the erodes the shore and kills the loons. By "This trend", I assume you mean very-fast boats. This morning, I saw a bass boat zip by at what must have been 60. There was only one foot of the boat still in the water. The wake was an inch or two by the time it reached the shore. The water quality is declining, but I challenge you to relate it to boats going over 45.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

What this is really about is money. The marine manufacturer's and people that sell and service high performance boats will do ANYTHING, tell any lie, play any card, enlist any well intentioned freedom lover, to stop this legislation.

This is one point of view, and one that the speed limit opponents disagree with. What this is really about is the existing freedom to satisfy a need for speed that is being threatened without valid cause.

WeirsBeachBoater · 04-27-2008, 11:55 AM

I think BI needs a time out. Go to your corner and we will let you know when it's time to come out!

Loons, this is my favorite, I went to the Loon Preservation place in Moultonborough, years ago when all this speed limit nonsense started. I didn't reveal my intentions for asking questions but I asked this one.

What is the #1 threat to loons. Their answer: Paddlers!!!!! They think it's ok to paddle up to these loon nesting areas, and in doing so cause great stress to the loons, some of the chicks have heart attacks because of it. Funny how now years later(I am sure no one from winnfabs donates the loon society) the #1 threat appears to be performance boats.

I personally have had it up to here with all the B.S. I can't wait for the Senate vote, because then it will be over, or at least for now. I need a break, I want to enjoy our lake, and not have to talk about HB 847. I wish Don would just ban this subject, it has divided what once was a fun place to post.

hazelnut · 04-27-2008, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

Loons, this is my favorite, I went to the Loon Preservation place in Moultonborough, years ago when all this speed limit nonsense started. I didn't reveal my intentions for asking questions but I asked this one.
What is the #1 threat to loons. Their answer: Paddlers!!!!! They think it's ok to paddle up to these loon nesting areas, and in doing so cause great stress to the loons, some of the chicks have heart attacks because of it. Funny how now years later(I am sure no one from winnfabs donates the loon society) the #1 threat appears to be performance boats.

WOW! Very interesting. Evanstar, Islander, Bear Islander, care to comment?

Being the open minded individual I am I'll let this one slide and say that I'm sure it is a very small percentage of paddlers who are ignorant enough to disturb a nesting site. I hope. But those awful power boaters, they oughta be run out of town. They must be responsible for some other major issue. Like..... rainy Saturdays or something. Has to be their fault.

Evenstar · 04-27-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

WOW! Very interesting. Evanstar, Islander, Bear Islander, care to comment?

Being the open minded individual I am I'll let this one slide and say that I'm sure it is a very small percentage of paddlers who are ignorant enough to disturb a nesting site. I hope.

I will gladly comment - especially since I also get to be a myth-buster.

First of all, I don't paddle anywhere near loon nesting sites, nor do I know any other paddlers who do. Most paddlers (at least all the ones I know - who actually live here) are very environmentally responsible people.

Last year I worked for a Senator who was on the Wildlife, Fish and Game committee so I was very involved with the NH Fish and Game, since I often had to attend meetings when my Senator had a conflict. I've met personally several times with a biologist who studies NH loons, and I attended hearings on bills drafted to protect loons. Never once did anyone from the Fish and Game or this biologist state that paddlers were causing loons to die. They all said that the #1 cause was from lead poisoning, and the #2 reason was being struck by powerboats.

The Loon Preservation Committee (yes, the one in Moultonborough)
actually states on their website: "Results of our mortality studies have shown that lead sinkers and jigs are the primary cause of death of adult loons, while boat and personal watercraft collisions account for more chick deaths than any other cause."

tis · 04-27-2008, 05:30 PM

hazelnut, I don't think it is a very small percentage of paddlers who disturb the loons. We have had babies the last few years and they stay in a protected cove and people paddle as close as they can to see them. The loons then feel trapped as they get close. You can see the loons getting very nervous and start trying to swim out around them. We and our neighbors often have to yell at them to stay their distance. I don't think they mean any harm, they want to see them, but don't realize when they go so close they scare them. They don't use their heads and think about what they are doing.

hazelnut · 04-27-2008, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tis

hazelnut, I don't think it is a very small percentage of paddlers who disturb the loons. We have had babies the last few years and they stay in a protected cove and people paddle as close as they can to see them. The loons then feel trapped as they get close. You can see the loons getting very nervous and start trying to swim out around them. We and our neighbors often have to yell at them to stay their distance. I don't think they mean any harm, they want to see them, but don't realize when they go so close they scare them. They don't use their heads and think about what they are doing.

If that is the case tis maybe we need some sort of legislation against paddlers using small coves.

Bear Islander · 04-28-2008, 12:50 AM

This is a good example of misdirection. I say big wakes kill loons, the response is that paddlers also kill loons.

If I say big boats cause pollution, the response is, spacecraft cause pollution.

Point the finger at the other guy. Other people pollute, so its ok for you to pollute. Other boats kill loons, so its ok if your boat kills loons. Take responsibility for your own actions, stop blaming others.

The question is do big wakes kill loons. The answer, if anyone cares to check, is yes.

Cal · 04-28-2008, 05:58 AM

I , for one , love loons. They're really good with barbeque sauce

ITD · 04-28-2008, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I say big wakes kill loons, ..........

Another scientific fact.......

gtxrider · 04-28-2008, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

This is a good example of misdirection. I say big wakes kill loons, the response is that paddlers also kill loons.

If I say big boats cause pollution, the response is, spacecraft cause pollution.

Point the finger at the other guy. Other people pollute, so its ok for you to pollute. Other boats kill loons, so its ok if your boat kills loons. Take responsibility for your own actions, stop blaming others.

The question is do big wakes kill loons. The answer, if anyone cares to check, is yes.

If big wakes kill loons and going faster makes smaller wakes than save the loons, go fast!!!!

hazelnut · 04-28-2008, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

This is a good example of misdirection. I say big wakes kill loons, the response is that paddlers also kill loons.

If I say big boats cause pollution, the response is, spacecraft cause pollution.

Point the finger at the other guy. Other people pollute, so its ok for you to pollute. Other boats kill loons, so its ok if your boat kills loons. Take responsibility for your own actions, stop blaming others.

The question is do big wakes kill loons. The answer, if anyone cares to check, is yes.

NO not misdirection at all. It is called hearing the truth Bear Islander and it hurts.

#1 Remember I am not the one sitting up in my glass castle pointing the finger at all of the polluters and loon killers. Do as I say not as I do, right BI? I'm the guy with the modest runabout. I'm not the guy jetting around in planes and rockets. So if anything I take offense to you criticizing ANYONE for their actions with regard to pollution. My actions pollute far less than you and I'm sure there are many who pollute more than you. However, unless you want to sacrifice the recreational activities that you enjoy that cause pollution then I suggest you give up on that argument.

#2 You blame "big wakes" for killing loons. Well you need to back that up with statistical data that shows that those wakes belong to the boats you are trying to rid the lake of. You also need to accept that paddlers have just as negative an impact on the loon population. That information came from the Loon Preservation Center, not your personal opinion. Sure I will accept that wakes kill loons, but lets all share the blame because your runabout carries a pretty big wake climbing up on plane as does mine.

Misdirection? I hardly think so.

Bear Islander · 04-28-2008, 07:36 AM

Yes, scientific fact.

http://www.ffdp.ca/hww2.asp?cid=7&id=53

http://www.pc.gc.ca/apprendre-learn/...an3case4_e.asp

Please don't respond that other things kill loons, we all know that. However I would be interested in data that shows loons are NOT effected by boat wakes.

Hazelnut wants me to post the bow numbers of boats that kill loons. Sorry, I can't do that. I will fall back on the knowledge that bigger boats have bigger wakes.

hazelnut · 04-28-2008, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Yes, scientific fact.

http://www.ffdp.ca/hww2.asp?cid=7&id=53

http://www.pc.gc.ca/apprendre-learn/...an3case4_e.asp

Please don't respond that other things kill loons, we all know that. However I would be interested in data that shows loons are NOT effected by boat wakes.

Hazelnut wants me to post the bow numbers of boats that kill loons. Sorry, I can't do that. I will fall back on the knowledge that bigger boats have bigger wakes.

Where did I say that? Bear Islander big wakes kill loons! YES I agree. Please re-read my post. You need to accept the fact that your boat (as does mine) produces a wake in certain situations capable of killing loons. Unless you want to give up your runabout stop pointing fingers at everyone else. You are the one raising these issues so stop calling it misdirection when somebody points the finger right back at you. Look in the mirror!

Bear Islander · 04-28-2008, 10:32 AM

Bigger boats make bigger wakes. When we start regulating boats, should we start with the little ones? Everybody pollutes a little, its a matter of degree.

Lower horsepower means less environmental impact.

You seem to feel that only people that don't pollute can complain about pollution. That's ridiculous, I live in the real world. I will "point my finger" where I see fit.

tis · 04-28-2008, 12:06 PM

As has said before BI, waves don't kill loons, people who are too stupid to stop their wake when they see a loon is what hurts them! Big boats and fast boats don't hurt a thing! The people who don't know how to drive them (and I don't think that is so many) do.

B R · 04-28-2008, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You seem to feel that only people that don't pollute can complain about pollution. That's ridiculous, I live in the real world. I will "point my finger" where I see fit.

Maybe you can start with a mirror.

hazelnut · 04-28-2008, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Bigger boats make bigger wakes. When we start regulating boats, should we start with the little ones? Everybody pollutes a little, its a matter of degree.

Lower horsepower means less environmental impact.

You seem to feel that only people that don't pollute can complain about pollution. That's ridiculous, I live in the real world. I will "point my finger" where I see fit.

That about sums it all up folks. Do as I say not as I do.

Evenstar · 04-28-2008, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tis

As has said before BI, waves don't kill loons, people who are too stupid to stop their wake when they see a loon is what hurts them! Big boats and fast boats don't hurt a thing! The people who don't know how to drive them (and I don't think that is so many) do.

I posted up in #20 that the actual #1 cause for loon deaths (given by the experts) is from lead poisoning, and the #2 reason was being struck by powerboats.

Paddlers and wakes are not the main cases (although wakes can destroy their nests).

Yes, people control boats - it is the action of people that determine how fast a boat goes (within the boats capabilities).

Guess what? The speed limit controls the people!

So perhaps you should all think of this bill as a people-speed limit, rather than a law against boats - which many here have been suggesting.

ishoot308 · 04-28-2008, 12:28 PM

"Lower horsepower means less environmental impact."

Bear Islander with all due respect you are kidding right??...

A 10 horsepower or similar outboard manufactured in the 60's, 70's or 80's which MANY small aluminum boats use on the lake, pollute FAR more than any of todays newer four stroke or two stroke Etec style engines with horsepower up to 300 H.P.

Dan

GWC... · 04-28-2008, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

This is a good example of misdirection. I say big wakes kill loons, the response is that paddlers also kill loons.

If I say big boats cause pollution, the response is, spacecraft cause pollution.

Point the finger at the other guy. Other people pollute, so its ok for you to pollute. Other boats kill loons, so its ok if your boat kills loons. Take responsibility for your own actions, stop blaming others.

The question is do big wakes kill loons. The answer, if anyone cares to check, is yes.

You and Al Gore are like two peas in a pod...

Bear Islander · 04-28-2008, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ishoot308

"Lower horsepower means less environmental impact."

Bear Islander with all due respect you are kidding right??...

A 10 horsepower or similar outboard manufactured in the 60's, 70's or 80's which MANY small aluminum boats use on the lake, pollute FAR more than any of todays newer four stroke or two stroke Etec style engines with horsepower up to 300 H.P.

Dan

Dan, that is an unfair comparison. Couldn't you at least have compared motors made in the same millennium?

Try comparing outboards made in the same year by the same manufacturer. That is a reasonable comparison.

codeman671 · 04-28-2008, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Dan, that is an unfair comparison. Couldn't you at least have compared motors made in the same millennium?

Try comparing outboards made in the same year by the same manufacturer. That is a reasonable comparison.

It is a very fair comparison, similar to what I have brought up before with you. Every year the technology gets cleaner and more efficient, yet you are targeting the newer models. There are many older, less efficient two strokes spitting oil and gas wherever they go, yet you wish to target newer, cleaner burning engines.

What do you think is better for the lake, a 32' Whaler Outrage with twin 250hp Verados or 2 19' starcrafts with 80's vintage Merc 90's? IMHO the 4 stroke, more efficent loop charged Verados even though the HP is considerably more.

If you truly want to work on something to prevent added pollution, how about pushing for a ban on 2 strokes? This will help curb pollution much more than limiting engines to 300hp.

jrc · 04-28-2008, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Dan, that is an unfair comparison. Couldn't you at least have compared motors made in the same millennium?

Try comparing outboards made in the same year by the same manufacturer. That is a reasonable comparison.

Why is it unfair, a lot of those old outboards are still on the lake and polluting this millenium. Any attempt to clean up pollution cause by boat motors would have to start with old two-strokes. Old being anything before 1998 and suspect being anything before 2006.

http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/ard/ard-31.htm

My boat engine is three star rated, is yours?

CARB'S One Star label identifies engines that meet CARB's 2001 exhaust emission standards. Engines meeting these standards produce 75% fewer emissions than conventional carbureted two-stroke engines. These engines are equivalent to the US EPA's 2006 standards for marine engines.
The Two Star label identifies engines that meet CARB's 2004 exhaust emission standards. Engines meeting these standards produce 20% fewer emissions than One Star (Low Emission) engines.
The Three Star label identifies engines that meet CARB's 2008 exhaust emission standards. Engines meeting these standards produce 65% fewer emissions than One Star (Low Emission) engines.

Airwaves · 04-28-2008, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
“They spread the lie that it will cost money to enforce (it cost nothing).”

If you are a businessman you know that to be a false statement. If you are required to do more with less, then productivity suffers. In this case the more is not only setting up radar posts, but now developing and implementing Homeland Security regulations to get recreational boaters to keep an eye out along the coast for terrorists. Both of these things will either require more money, or diversion of manpower. Additional money is not coming down the pike to hire necesary personnel to man radar posts and develop and implement Homeland Security measures and not make cuts in safety patrols so your speed limit law will make the lake less safe. So by diverting resources it is costing us money because we will be getting less for our boating dollar.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bear Islander
“They point to a study they think says nobody is speeding (it doesn't)”

No one was speeding, in this case going over the proposed speed limit, because HB847 is not law. Less than 1 percent of the boats clocked on Lake Winnipesaukee, in research conducted much in the same way this law would be enforced if it’s approved, were exceeding the proposed speed limit.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bear Islander
“while forgetting the simple reality that if nobody is speeding, then nobody will be inconvenienced by this law.”

What it actually means is the proposed law is an unnecessary waste of diminishing Marine Patrol resources.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bear Islander“The few that own these expensive, highly polluting, global warming, gas hogs, fly around the lake at speeds up to 130 mph scaring the living hell out of family boaters. They have no concept of how many small boaters, including children's campers, they are keeping off of the water.”

So you are NOT linking performance boats and children’s camps…again? And where did you get data about this 130mph boat scaring the living hell out of family boaters?

Quote:

Originally posted by Bear Islander
“They are coming to Winnipesaukee because the are being regulated off other lakes. As this trend continues their numbers will grow. Their wakes kill loons, and erode the shore. The water quality of the lake is slowly dropping.”

The wake of a boat up on plane, any boat up on plane is negligible. Can wakes kill a loon? Sure but the stress of someone deciding to paddle up to those pretty birds can kill them as well.

You have written about your dream to impose a horse power limit on the lake as well. If you think the wake of a boat on plane is an errosion problem think of what the wake created by an underpower boat will be! Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

As for water quality, as has been pointed out you keep targeting newer engines that are far less polluting than older engines. Maybe in BI’s world no one has a boat or engine older than a year but in the real world that is not the case.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bear Islander
“What this is really about is money. The marine manufacturer's and people that sell and service high performance boats will do ANYTHING, tell any lie, play any card, enlist any well intentioned freedom lover, to stop this legislation.”

I haven’t seen many exaggerations being made by opponents, we have been using statistics from New Hampshire to make our case, while on the other hand, well all you have to do is re-read your post to see the bold face lies and fear mongering in this discussion.

Originally posted by Hazelnut:

Quote:

“Another post worthy of being printed out and pasted to my wall. You do a great job of pointing out just about every misconception that you are feeding yourself and everyone. I do not even know where to begin with this post. This is the biggest pile of fear and hate mongering I've ever read on this forum. Portions of this post border on outright lies.”

I’ve got to agree with you Hazelnut. Bear Islander just keeps churning out the fear in hopes that someone in Concord will take up his message and get Hi Performance boats off the lake, then start in with cruisers next session!

Any credibility that Bear Islander still had with me on this subject, and it wasn’t much at this point, has been expended.

So, proponents and opponents I call on both sides to urge the adoption of USCG Navigation Rule 6 in place of HB 847 and both sides will get what they say they want.

ishoot308 · 04-28-2008, 09:40 PM

B.I.

I fully agree that my comparison is unfair, but that is part of my point...

I have been reading this thread with great interest, and while I certainly agree you have a right to your opinion, I feel you are grasping at straws to make your speed limit point. The death of loons by wake and saying higher horsepower motors cause more environmental impact, just discredits your position immensely.

One of your points in your previous post state that lower horsepower has less environmental impact. If environmental impact is one of the reasons, you are going after a speed limit on the lake, why not go after the 70 year old man fishing in his 12 foot Jon boat with his vintage 10 HP Johnson, Evinrude, or Mercury blowing smoke, oil, and other pollutants all over lake?? Is it because he can't speed, so polluting the lake is O.K.?? Am I missing something here??

The fact is a large percentage of the motors on the lake are small older two strokes that cause 15 times the pollution of newer engines, and
I am sure you are aware that many vacation camps and local fisherman have one of these tied up to their dock.

Just so you understand my position, I am completely against a speed limit on the lake. In my opinion, all that is needed is enforcment of the current laws and in particular the 150' rule. Believe it or not it really is that simple...

Regards;

Dan

Islander · 04-28-2008, 10:05 PM

You folks have found a new low in logic!

Over and over we hear that if you are not familiar with the lake and boating your opinion about speed or horsepower limits (like in a poll) doesn't matter. Now you can't advocate horsepower limits if you have a power boat, because that must be hypocritical.

So who can have an opinion on horsepower limits? It has to be someone that has boating experience on Winnipesaukee but has recently gotten rid of their boat because of environmental concerns. Out of the billions on this planet only what... 4 or 5 can have an opinion about horsepower limits.

I believe BI also supports a ban on two stroke engines.

Gilligan · 04-29-2008, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Yes, people control boats - it is the action of people that determine how fast a boat goes (within the boats capabilities).

Guess what? The speed limit controls the people!

So perhaps you should all think of this bill as a people-speed limit, rather than a law against boats - which many here have been suggesting.

Stop guessing. The Marine Patrol controls people more than any speed limit could. Enforcement keeps people under control.

hazelnut · 04-29-2008, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

You folks have found a new low in logic!

Over and over we hear that if you are not familiar with the lake and boating your opinion about speed or horsepower limits (like in a poll) doesn't matter. Now you can't advocate horsepower limits if you have a power boat, because that must be hypocritical.
So who can have an opinion on horsepower limits? It has to be someone that has boating experience on Winnipesaukee but has recently gotten rid of their boat because of environmental concerns. Out of the billions on this planet only what... 4 or 5 can have an opinion about horsepower limits.

I believe BI also supports a ban on two stroke engines.

Again with the Rose colored glasses.

You are missing the point entirely. I'm sorry if I believe it to be completely disingenuous at best for someone to tell others what to do when they are themselves an offender. If you don't believe that to be the case here then I am sorry. Change begins with oneself and if Bear Islander wants the rest of the users of the lake to stop polluting, killing loons, and have a lower horsepower boat then he should begin by insuring he fits within those parameters himself. Otherwise it comes off as a hollow, politician like stance. Again, "Do as I say not as I do."

Bear Islander · 04-29-2008, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Again with the Rose colored glasses.

You are missing the point entirely. I'm sorry if I believe it to be completely disingenuous at best for someone to tell others what to do when they are themselves an offender. If you don't believe that to be the case here then I am sorry. Change begins with oneself and if Bear Islander wants the rest of the users of the lake to stop polluting, killing loons, and have a lower horsepower boat then he should begin by insuring he fits within those parameters himself. Otherwise it comes off as a hollow, politician like stance. Again, "Do as I say not as I do."

I do "fit within those parameters myself". Any suggestion to the contrary is unfair and only made because attack and ridicule is your method.

Please tell us who IS entitled to advocate a horsepower limit?

Woodsy · 04-29-2008, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I do "fit within those parameters myself". Any suggestion to the contrary is unfair and only made because attack and ridicule is your method.

Please tell us who IS entitled to advocate a horsepower limit?

HP limits aside.... you are definitely entitled to your opinion!

However, you are more than bit hypocritical when you start bringing up environmental issues.... especially considering all that you have accomplished!

How is it you can justify burning TONS of hydrocarbon laden jet fuel to fly you and your family out west, to burn TONS more jet fuel to get the rocket to launch altitude, then burn more fuel so you can spend a few minutes weightless?

I suppose I could harp on the TONS of jet fuel that was required to get your butt to staging point for your trip the North Pole, or the HUNDREDS OF TONS of jet fuel required to get your butt to staging point for your trip to the South Pole....

Don't get me wrong, I think its GREAT that you are successful enough to afford making your dreams a reality... However, you can't go pointing fingers at other peoples choices of recreation when your choices pollute far more....

Woodsy

hazelnut · 04-29-2008, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I do "fit within those parameters myself". Any suggestion to the contrary is unfair and only made because attack and ridicule is your method.

Please tell us who IS entitled to advocate a horsepower limit?

What little I have garnered from reading your posts I am aware that you have a runabout and an aluminum dinghy. You're the one who singled out Performance boats as the "Loon Killers." I maintain that your runabout, and mine, are just as capable of killing loons with our wakes. So you might want to drop that argument.
Unless your aluminum boat has oars or an engine made within the last 2 years you may also want to drop the pollution argument because you're polluting more than several boats combined.
Your horsepower limit equated to saving loons and solving pollution comes off as laughable when you are a contributor. Consider it an attack if you will. I am merely asking you to look in the mirror before you post ramblings that cast a negative shadow over "everyone else" but yourself.

ApS · 04-29-2008, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

"...You're the one who singled out Performance boats as the "Loon Killers..."

No, that would be me.

Google "surfacing loon", and I'll give you the benefit of my having witnessed a surfacing loon—who promptly retreated to the depths, splashing me—while in my sailboat!

ApS · 04-29-2008, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

"...Unless your aluminum boat has oars or an engine made within the last 2 years you may also want to drop the pollution argument because you're polluting more than several boats combined..."

Horsepower on one boat doesn't count?

ITD · 04-29-2008, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Yes, scientific fact.

http://www.ffdp.ca/hww2.asp?cid=7&id=53

http://www.pc.gc.ca/apprendre-learn/...an3case4_e.asp

Please don't respond that other things kill loons, we all know that. However I would be interested in data that shows loons are NOT effected by boat wakes.

Hazelnut wants me to post the bow numbers of boats that kill loons. Sorry, I can't do that. I will fall back on the knowledge that bigger boats have bigger wakes.

Some more opinions, the first one even qualifies its statement with the word "may" as in it may be a problem. Hardly scientific fact........

Bear Islander · 04-29-2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

What little I have garnered from reading your posts I am aware that you have a runabout and an aluminum dinghy. You're the one who singled out Performance boats as the "Loon Killers." I maintain that your runabout, and mine, are just as capable of killing loons with our wakes. So you might want to drop that argument.
Unless your aluminum boat has oars or an engine made within the last 2 years you may also want to drop the pollution argument because you're polluting more than several boats combined.
Your horsepower limit equated to saving loons and solving pollution comes off as laughable when you are a contributor. Consider it an attack if you will. I am merely asking you to look in the mirror before you post ramblings that cast a negative shadow over "everyone else" but yourself.

Big wakes, especially when the lake is high in the spring can destroy loon nests or wash out the eggs. The bigger cruisers can cause huge wakes. They are not "just as capable" they are "far more capable", and far more likely. Perhaps you don't get a lot of wake where you are, but I get plenty. The wake from our boats is not much more than I get on a windy day. The big cruisers wake is a lot more than the Mount, other tourist boats or the Bear.

A few years ago I traded in my PWC for an aluminum boat with oars and a small four stoke. I miss my GTX. I use the small boat for most daily runs. However I believe that living on an island a larger boat is needed at times.

YOU are the one that said my aluminum boat is not safe in all water temperatures and weather conditions! I agree to the point that I think I need a larger boat for safety at times. I don't know what kind of boat I will buy to replace my bowrider when that time comes. But pollution, horsepower and wake will be a large part of my decision.

The "look in the mirror" type of argument can be made about anybody that owns a power boat.

If they don't own a power boat then the obviously have no idea what they are talking about. Did you ever see "Catch 22".

ITD · 04-29-2008, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Horsepower on one boat doesn't count?

Cool boat, which part of the lake is it docked?

jrc · 04-29-2008, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

...
Please tell us who IS entitled to advocate a horsepower limit?

The right to advocate comes for the same place as our right to argue with you.

Bear Islander · 04-29-2008, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

The right to advocate comes for the same place as our right to argue with you.

Sorry, that's not what I am asking.

In your opinion who is entitled to advocate for a horsepower limit? Because it seems I don't make the cut.

hazelnut · 04-29-2008, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The only reason to NOT have a 45 mph speed limit is because a few rich people want to go dangerously fast on a crowded lake. Incredibly they seem to have convinced a few people that don't have fast boats that its REALLY about personal freedom. They spread the lie that it will cost money to enforce (it cost nothing). They even spread two mutually exclusive theories that A) Nobody is going to leave the lake or slow down and B) The lakes region economy will be ruined when the high performance boats leave.
They point to a study they think says nobody is speeding (it doesn't), while forgetting the simple reality that if nobody is speeding, then nobody will be inconvenienced by this law.
The few that own these expensive, highly polluting, global warming, gas hogs, fly around the lake at speeds up to 130 mph scaring the living hell out of family boaters. They have no concept of how many small boaters, including children's campers, they are keeping off of the water.
They are coming to Winnipesaukee because the are being regulated off other lakes. As this trend continues their numbers will grow. Their wakes kill loons, and erode the shore. The water quality of the lake is slowly dropping.
What this is really about is money. The marine manufacturer's and people that sell and service high performance boats will do ANYTHING, tell any lie, play any card, enlist any well intentioned freedom lover, to stop this legislation.

Bear Islander all of my latest comments are stemming from this post. If you post something like this you need to back it up. Two statements stick out as particularly offensive and border on ridiculous:

The few that own these expensive, highly polluting, global warming, gas hogs, fly around the lake at speeds up to 130 mph...

If this is your concern you are going backwards by legislating newer cleaner burning boats off the lake. Oh and by the way give me a break with the flying around at 130mph.

They are coming to Winnipesaukee because the are being regulated off other lakes. As this trend continues their numbers will grow. Their wakes kill loons, and erode the shore.

This was YOUR quote directed at Performance boats, now you are switching gears to this because you dug yourself another hole:

Big wakes, especially when the lake is high in the spring can destroy loon nests or wash out the eggs. The bigger cruisers can cause huge wakes. They are not "just as capable" they are "far more capable", and far more likely. Perhaps you don't get a lot of wake where you are, but I get plenty. The wake from our boats is not much more than I get on a windy day. The big cruisers wake is a lot more than the Mount, other tourist boats or the Bear.

Am I the only one seeing this?????

I feel like I'm talking to a politician.

Bear Islander · 04-29-2008, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Bear Islander all of my latest comments are stemming from this post. If you post something like this you need to back it up. Two statements stick out as particularly offensive and border on ridiculous:

The few that own these expensive, highly polluting, global warming, gas hogs, fly around the lake at speeds up to 130 mph...

If this is your concern you are going backwards by legislating newer cleaner burning boats off the lake. Oh and by the way give me a break with the flying around at 130mph.

They are coming to Winnipesaukee because the are being regulated off other lakes. As this trend continues their numbers will grow. Their wakes kill loons, and erode the shore.

This was YOUR quote directed at Performance boats, now you are switching gears to this because you dug yourself another hole:

Big wakes, especially when the lake is high in the spring can destroy loon nests or wash out the eggs. The bigger cruisers can cause huge wakes. They are not "just as capable" they are "far more capable", and far more likely. Perhaps you don't get a lot of wake where you are, but I get plenty. The wake from our boats is not much more than I get on a windy day. The big cruisers wake is a lot more than the Mount, other tourist boats or the Bear.

Am I the only one seeing this?????

I feel like I'm talking to a politician.

If you stop analyzing and comparing everything I say with a microscope you will not have these problems. You are comparing every post in hopes of catching me in a lie. You will NEVER catch me in a lie because I am giving you my honest opinions.

There are no inconsistencies in the posts you quote, you are looking for what is not there, and jumping on nothing at all.

I have NO IDEA what your point is about those three examples in bold type. Every word is absolute truth!

COWISLAND NH · 04-29-2008, 01:53 PM

Geesh BI...if laws and regulation where made on peoples likes a dislikes we would have regulations on EVERYTHING. Voice your opinion but please do not justify why your opinions should be laws. If people like yourself are SCARED TO HELL by other boats you should ask your self why??? Is it just the sheer speed of them passing by?? Or are they too close?? Are you intimidated by the size??? Why then don't we stop all the big trucks on the highway bc they scare the crap out of my little old grandmom?!

Most of the boat owners that have the boats that are going faster then you know how to drive them in a safe manner, and they have been driving around the lake for years w/ little to no issues. Being scared or intimidated by someone else is no reason to make laws to restrict them...maybe you need to be more confident in you abilities to drive a boat in company.

LIVE FREE OR DIE....

Bear Islander · 04-29-2008, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by COWISLAND NH

Voice your opinion but please do not justify why your opinions should be laws.

Why not?

.

COWISLAND NH · 04-29-2008, 02:43 PM

We need you to come back to reality....thats why.

Bear Islander · 04-29-2008, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by COWISLAND NH

We need you to come back to reality....thats why.

I'm asking why I should voice my opinions but not justify them?

If I believe a law will make the lake safer and cleaner, why should I not say so?

Should I only voice opinions the majority agree with?

fatlazyless · 04-29-2008, 03:36 PM

BIg trucks on the highways require a commercial drivers license and all violations stay on your record for fifteen years. For trucks, the posted speed limit is the speed limit. No fudge factor above what's posted is allowed by the police. Most highway lanes are 12' wide, and tractor trailers have a trailer that is 8 1/2' wide, and lane control is a big deal. Truckers can get ticketed for being out of their lane for lousy lane control.

Unlike Lake Winnipesaukee, NH's road system has lanes with painted lines, and speed limits. Doesn't Lake Winnipesaukee need a 45-25 speed limit on the proposed HB 847, two year temporary trial basis from Jan 1, 2009 to Jan 1, 2011. After two years, the Marine Patrol will have lots of speed limit enforcement experience for the legislature to consider. HB 847 is not carved into granite, it's a two year look-see, and then gets reconsidered. Why not give it a try? Let's try it...after all....you just might like it.

Hey, by January 1, 2011, the republicans could be back in the majority at the statehouse, and what will they do?

hazelnut · 04-29-2008, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If you stop analyzing and comparing everything I say with a microscope you will not have these problems. You are comparing every post in hopes of catching me in a lie. You will NEVER catch me in a lie because I am giving you my honest opinions.
There are no inconsistencies in the posts you quote, you are looking for what is not there, and jumping on nothing at all.
I have NO IDEA what your point is about those three examples in bold type. Every word is absolute truth!

WOW! I've seen it all now. So we are supposed to just accept that all of your opinions are fact? HA. Someone has a Megalomaniac complex.

Bear Islander, if you go and post your thoughts on an open forum you are opening yourself up to analysis and criticism. ESPECIALLY in a highly debated topic forum. Also, it is not inconsistencies that I am looking for. You posted opinions that you claim are facts. Your opinions are most certainly not factual. I won't use the word lie but you have stretched the truth beyond reason. So if you need me to further explain why I bold typed those latest whoppers I will.

The few that own these expensive, highly polluting, global warming, gas hogs, fly around the lake at speeds up to 130 mph...

S T R E T C H. Prove it. Where are the 130mph TERRORIZING family boaters. Prove it. Which boats on the lake are REALLY causing the most pollution and causing "Global Warming."

Then you yourself originally blamed High Performance boats for killing baby loons in this statement:

They [Performance Boats] are coming to Winnipesaukee because the are being regulated off other lakes. As this trend continues their numbers will grow. Their wakes kill loons, and erode the shore.

However when pushed and questioned you changed your statement to this:

Big wakes, especially when the lake is high in the spring can destroy loon nests or wash out the eggs. The bigger cruisers can cause huge wakes. They are not "just as capable" they are "far more capable", and far more likely.

So which is Bear Islander? Who is killing the baby loons?

Why do I even raise the issue? It goes right back to the word of the day. Credibility. Opinions are one thing but you sling around these "facts" and expect everyone to believe them. I ain't buyin' it sorry.

Little known fact: Go back and search the old forum. I once raised the issue of having a Speed Limit. Yup, surprise, surprise, I was once an undecided, leaning towards a limit. Over the years I would read these forums and I became convinced otherwise due to the CREDIBLE posts by the opposition. I was also driven to this viewpoint by rants from the proponents, who I felt were disingenuous in their motives. You make some of the strongest cases every day as to why I do NOT support a speed limit. In other words I feel that you hurt the position rather than help it. Just my opinion though.

Bear Islander · 04-29-2008, 04:06 PM

Thanks, now at least I know what you are getting at.

ALL high horsepower boats create big wakes, GFBL and cabin cruisers. They BOTH kill loons and pollute the lake. They belong on the ocean, not Lake Winnipesaukee.

See, there wasn't any discrepancy. Just you looking for one.

jrc · 04-29-2008, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Sorry, that's not what I am asking.

In your opinion who is entitled to advocate for a horsepower limit? Because it seems I don't make the cut.

I don't care what you advocate, you have freedom of speech and Don has graciously allowed all of us to use this forum as a sounding board.

You can expect that if you advocate for something hypocritical to your lifestyle, stuff like saving fuel and preventing poluution, that others will use that fact to discredit the cause you advocate for.

Airwaves · 04-29-2008, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by APS

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut
"...Unless your aluminum boat has oars or an engine made within the last 2 years you may also want to drop the pollution argument because you're polluting more than several boats combined..."

Horsepower on one boat doesn't count?

I just thought I'd share the origins of the photograph APS is pushing on us now as something seen rounding Bear Island trolling for loons!!!

http://www.snopes.com/photos/boats/drugrunner.asp

Cal · 04-29-2008, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

ALL high horsepower boats create big wakes, GFBL and cabin cruisers. They BOTH kill loons and pollute the lake. They belong on the ocean, not Lake Winnipesaukee.

.

Look at the size of this 70 mph wake

. I haven't seen anything that big since "The Perfect Storm"

codeman671 · 04-29-2008, 07:40 PM

Here is a monster wake coming off a 30' twin engine 600hp gas guzzling shoreline eroding loon killing (8500lb dry weight) bowrider at 58mph. I can really see the concern this wake would cause... :rolleye1

Dave R · 04-29-2008, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

Here is a monster wake coming off a 30' twin engine 600hp gas guzzling shoreline eroding loon killing (8500lb dry weight) bowrider at 58mph. I can really see the concern this wake would cause...

298SS, right? Nice riding, great looking, nicely priced, and often overlooked boat. A friend of mine that's been in the industry for 45 years told me that it has the finest riding hull of any 30 footer he's ever been aboard. He's on his second Monterrey, a 330.

codeman671 · 04-29-2008, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave R

298SS, right? Nice riding, great looking, nicely priced, and often overlooked boat. A friend of mine that's been in the industry for 45 years told me that it has the finest riding hull of any 30 footer he's ever been aboard. He's on his second Monterrey, a 330.

You got it! Great boat. I love the 330SY, just more boat than I need. If I did not have a house on the water that would be my choice.

For comparison, here is what 18mph looks like in a 22' bowrider with 260hp and no ballast. This one is a Rinker 226 R1. Which one looks like the loon killer? Cal, got any extra BBQ sauce?

Rattlesnake Guy · 04-29-2008, 08:07 PM

If you have ever seen the waves that mother nature whips up several times a year and believe that boat wakes kill loons it is hard to imagine that any of them could possibly survive.

If we could just figure out how to disguise boat wakes to look like little natural waves.

ApS · 04-30-2008, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

"...If we could just figure out how to disguise boat wakes to look like little natural waves..."

Loons select nest sites that are free of Mother Nature's biggest waves; unfortunately, mankind creates its own tsunamis for these birds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

http://www.snopes.com/photos/boats/drugrunner.asp

Snopes says I'm not "pushing" anything. It's a drug-running boat—just more stealthy than the usual replica drug-boat of the average Winnipesaukee cowboy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"...ALL high horsepower boats create big wakes...".

NorTech, capable of 130-MPH on Winnipesaukee, is a tunnel hull design: it has "high horsepower".

It is similar to the tunnel hull boat that passed me at about 110-MPH (too close to my dock) and a Hobie (too close to the Hobie, which had five young girls on it).

It was remarkable to see the water left with no wake at all! Tunnel hulls ride on a cushion of air, unlike most other designs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"...They BOTH kill loons and pollute the lake..."

1) Loon nestlings are not necessarily the victims of excess speed on the lake.

Like the endangered manatee elsewhere or the not-so-endangered diver at Winnipesaukee, Loons are exposed to excessive speedsters when surfacing for air.

2) How can a polluter with 2000 horsepower can be compared to one with 20 horsepower?

The volume of fresh air converted to smoke is far greater with big engines. (For anyone nearby or downwind—particularly on a calm day—or near one idling at a dock or restaurant).

3) If any horsepower-restriction approach is worthwhile for Winnipesaukee, a NASCAR solution would be more efficient: restrict the air-intake diameter.

However, a speed limit is easier to monitor (by cellphone-equipped boater-victims) and enforce (by officers), particularly at night.

Orion · 04-30-2008, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

If you have ever seen the waves that mother nature whips up several times a year and believe that boat wakes kill loons it is hard to imagine that any of them could possibly survive.

If we could just figure out how to disguise boat wakes to look like little natural waves.

Just one point, not pro or con speed limits, but to clarify the impact of big wakes. Natural waves can be bigger than most wakes, but they occur in the same areas of the lake for the most part. It takes a long reach for the wind to wip up the big waves, as Rattlesnake Island dwellers (north side) well know. The problem is when the unnatural waves are generated in areas that loons choose to nest in which are protected inlets that don't get these natural waves because the wind doesn't have the long stretch of water to whip them up.

JDeere · 04-30-2008, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Should I only voice opinions the majority agree with?

In this case the majority does agree with you..............slower is safer!

Thar being the case a law that enforces that only makes sense.

hazelnut · 04-30-2008, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDeere

In this case the majority does agree with you..............slower is safer!

Thar being the case a law that enforces that only makes sense.

Are you so sure?

Here is an article from 2006 done by an independent source.

Readers In Poll Say ‘No’ to Winnipesaukee Speed Limits
Manchester — October 1, 2006 — Keep Lake Winnipesaukee free of speed limits for boaters, urged a majority of people responding to a New Hampshire Union Leader Web survey.

“The real issue on Winnipesaukee (or any other body) is that some boaters still choose to operate under the influence of stupidity,” wrote speed-limit opponent Kevin Drew of Milford. “Unfortunately, there is no law against that.”

By nearly a 2-to-1 margin, respondents gave a thumb’s down to a push to convince the state Department of Safety to set a 45 mph speed limit on the state’s largest lake during the day and a 25 mph limit at night. The Legislature already defeated a similar proposal this year. The same petition process was used to set speed limits on Squam Lake about 10 years ago.

Boats passing within 150 feet of each other are required to slow to headway speed, six miles per hour, but often don’t.

Read it here
http://ossipeelake.org/news/2006/10/...-speed-limits/

chipj29 · 04-30-2008, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

BIg trucks on the highways require a commercial drivers license (1) and all violations stay on your record for fifteen years(2).For trucks, the posted speed limit is the speed limit. No fudge factor above what's posted is allowed by the police. Most highway lanes are 12' wide, and tractor trailers have a trailer that is 8 1/2' wide, and lane control is a big deal. (3) Truckers can get ticketed for being out of their lane for lousy lane control. (4)

Unlike Lake Winnipesaukee, NH's road system has lanes with painted lines, and speed limits. Doesn't Lake Winnipesaukee need a 45-25 speed limit on the proposed HB 847, two year temporary trial basis from Jan 1, 2009 to Jan 1, 2011. After two years, the Marine Patrol will have lots of speed limit enforcement experience for the legislature to consider. HB 847 is not carved into granite, it's a two year look-see, and then gets reconsidered. Why not give it a try? Let's try it...after all....you just might like it.

Hey, by January 1, 2011, the republicans could be back in the majority at the statehouse, and what will they do?

1. Boaters in the state of NH are required to have certificates. Similar to specialized licensing.
2. It has been talked about that any speeding ticket you get on the lake would go onto your driving record.
3. The state of NH has a 150' rule.
4. Boaters can be ticketed for violating the 150' rule.

Bear Islander · 04-30-2008, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Are you so sure?

Here is an article from 2006 done by an independent source.

Readers In Poll Say ‘No’ to Winnipesaukee Speed Limits
Manchester — October 1, 2006 — Keep Lake Winnipesaukee free of speed limits for boaters, urged a majority of people responding to a New Hampshire Union Leader Web survey.

“The real issue on Winnipesaukee (or any other body) is that some boaters still choose to operate under the influence of stupidity,” wrote speed-limit opponent Kevin Drew of Milford. “Unfortunately, there is no law against that.”

By nearly a 2-to-1 margin, respondents gave a thumb’s down to a push to convince the state Department of Safety to set a 45 mph speed limit on the state’s largest lake during the day and a 25 mph limit at night. The Legislature already defeated a similar proposal this year. The same petition process was used to set speed limits on Squam Lake about 10 years ago.

Boats passing within 150 feet of each other are required to slow to headway speed, six miles per hour, but often don’t.

Read it here
http://ossipeelake.org/news/2006/10/...-speed-limits/

I'm not sure an on-line internet survey by a newspaper is an "independent source". It's more like who got the word out to his friends telling them to go post against speed limits.

On www.offshoreonly.com a request was posted with a link asking everyone to go post on the Union Leader survey.

The Big Kahuna · 04-30-2008, 09:11 AM

[QUOTE=Cal;66635]Since kayakers seem to want free run of the lake , I've run across a power boat suitable for kayak territory. After all , isn't turnabout fair play

Not only that , maybe a speed limit won't extend up creeks

Kayakers should be able to paddle the lake where ever and when ever they want to. It is up to those of us who have motor boats to respect their space and make it safe, no matter what speed. I am sure Kayakers enjoy a few waves that the boats make as long as wakes aren't spray from boats passing to close. Basic consideration is the issue here, not speed.

codeman671 · 04-30-2008, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm not sure an on-line internet survey by a newspaper is an "independent source". It's more like who got the word out to his friends telling them to go post against speed limits.

On www.offshoreonly.com a request was posted with a link asking everyone to go post on the Union Leader survey.

Who cares? If it is true, the people who voted posted their feelings and voted the way that they felt was right. Why would this be any different that polling people from Manchester that may not even know the lake?

Votes are votes.

GWC... · 04-30-2008, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm not sure an on-line internet survey by a newspaper is an "independent source". It's more like who got the word out to his friends telling them to go post against speed limits.

On www.offshoreonly.com a request was posted with a link asking everyone to go post on the Union Leader survey.

Is it your point that WinnFABS was not able to do this successfully and thus, you spin the results?!?!?!

Bear Islander · 04-30-2008, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

Who cares? If it is true, the people who voted posted their feelings and voted the way that they felt was right. Why would this be any different that polling people from Manchester that may not even know the lake?

Votes are votes.

So Votes are Votes. The fact that a high performance boating site sent its members there to post doesn't make a difference?

I think we should do a "Do the Yankees Suck?" survey at Fenway Park. That way we can settle the question at last. After all "votes are votes"!

codeman671 · 04-30-2008, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

So Votes are Votes. The fact that a high performance boating site sent its members there to post doesn't make a difference?

I think we should do a "Do the Yankees Suck?" survey at Fenway Park. That way we can settle the question at last. After all "votes are votes"!

And having an "independent survey company" with no affiliation or backing to a pro speed limit crowd

ask a bunch of people who probably don't know a damn thing about Winnipesaukee is any better?

For the record, the Yankees do suck.

hazelnut · 04-30-2008, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

So Votes are Votes. The fact that a high performance boating site sent its members there to post doesn't make a difference?

I think we should do a "Do the Yankees Suck?" survey at Fenway Park. That way we can settle the question at last. After all "votes are votes"!

Kinda like asking boaters if they think there should be a speed limit?

I like your idea about the Fenway Survey though.

I say we do it. I bet the results would be YES!

chmeeee · 04-30-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

So Votes are Votes. The fact that a high performance boating site sent its members there to post doesn't make a difference?

I think we should do a "Do the Yankees Suck?" survey at Fenway Park. That way we can settle the question at last. After all "votes are votes"!

While we're at it, why not a survey on lake issues in a city 50 miles from the lake?

Mashugana · 05-01-2008, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If you stop analyzing and comparing everything I say with a microscope you will not have these problems. You are comparing every post in hopes of catching me in a lie. You will NEVER catch me in a lie because I am giving you my honest opinions.

Bear Islander. You are the only one who knows if you are giving us your honest opinions or not. We may not agree with your opinions or we can point out the fallacy in your opinions but they are YOUR opinions. I don't think anyone can argue that point.

Readers should examine everything you say because you also post what you claim to be facts not only your opinions. Some of us believe that your facts (or should I say opinions) are not always accurate. Sometimes it appears like your "opinion" changes. Of course you have the right to change your mind but you can not change facts. You can twist them. You just do not like it when contradictions of your facts, or should I say opinions, are pointed out.

You can lie about facts.

ApS · 05-01-2008, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm not sure an on-line internet survey by a newspaper is an "independent source". It's more like who got the word out to his friends telling them to go post against speed limits.

On www.offshoreonly.com a request was posted with a link asking everyone to go post on the Union Leader survey.

They spam every survey. Remember, "...delete your cookies and vote again and again..."?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GWC...

Is it your point that WinnFABS was not able to do this successfully and thus, you spin the results?!?!?!

WinnFABS concerns itself with arriving alive while boating on Lake Winnipesaukee: OSO is concerned about being voted off EVERY lake, and spams EVERY initiative.

Here's a quote of interest:

Quote:

Join Date: Aug 2003

Location: Boston, Ma

Posts: 1,483

I think i voted too much. It won't let me vote anymore,,,,blank screen

Quote:

Originally Posted by chmeeee

While we're at it, why not a survey on lake issues in a city 50 miles from the lake?

This thread starts with a topic 2900 miles away on peaceful waters, and just down-river from where kayakers have their kind of fun.

Bear Islander · 05-01-2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mashugana

Bear Islander. You are the only one who knows if you are giving us your honest opinions or not. We may not agree with your opinions or we can point out the fallacy in your opinions but they are YOUR opinions. I don't think anyone can argue that point.

Readers should examine everything you say because you also post what you claim to be facts not only your opinions. Some of us believe that your facts (or should I say opinions) are not always accurate. Sometimes it appears like your "opinion" changes. Of course you have the right to change your mind but you can not change facts. You can twist them. You just do not like it when contradictions of your facts, or should I say opinions, are pointed out.

You can lie about facts.

I really don't think I claim opinions to be facts. Perhaps I should be more careful to add "in my opinion", however in most cases I think the context does this already. If I post "Bush is an idiot" that is obviously opinion even if I don't specify. It could be that a critical reader is finding fault where none exists.

My opinions on the subjects of boats, speed and horsepower have not changed in years. Any evidence to the contrary is either my fault in not expressing myself well, or the readers fault in over analyzing what I say. Recently Hazelnut thought I was being inconsistent because in one post I claimed cabin cruisers were killing loons, and in another post I claimed GFBLs were killing loons. He made quite a thing about it not realizing the (to me) obvious answer that both are true.

Do you go over the posts of speed limit opponents as carefully as you go over mine? Are you as quick to find "inconsistencies"? Do you make as big a deal out of any perceived error?

I think there is a natural human tendency to think that those that agree with us must be telling the truth, and those that disagree with us must be lying.

chipj29 · 05-01-2008, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

They spam every survey. Remember, "...delete your cookies and vote again and again..."?

WinnFABS concerns itself with arriving alive while boating on Lake Winnipesaukee: OSO is concerned about being voted off EVERY lake, and spams EVERY initiative.

Here's a quote of interest:
Join Date: Aug 2003

Location: Boston, Ma

Posts: 1,483

I think i voted too much. It won't let me vote anymore,,,,blank screen

So one guys quote on OSO means that all posters on the site vote more than once? Oh, OK.
So winnfabs is concerned with "arriving alive", and I think that is great. But when was the last time that someone did not "arrive alive" due to a high speed accident?

Bear Islander · 05-01-2008, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

So one guys quote on OSO means that all posters on the site vote more than once? Oh, OK.
So winnfabs is concerned with "arriving alive", and I think that is great. But when was the last time that someone did not "arrive alive" due to a high speed accident?

Last summer on Long Lake.

Seaplane Pilot · 05-01-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Last summer on Long Lake.

That's right - Long Lake in the State of Maine.

hazelnut · 05-01-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

That's right - Long Lake in the State of Maine.

Does Maine have a 150ft safe passage law?

If I post "Bush is an idiot" that is obviously opinion even if I don't specify. Actually that one borders on factual.

I say that as a Registered Republican. GO McCain!!

chipj29 · 05-01-2008, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Last summer on Long Lake.

I am sorry, I didn't realize winnfabs was concerned with accidents that occur on lakes outside of the state of NH.

Bear Islander · 05-01-2008, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

I am sorry, I didn't realize winnfabs was concerned with accidents that occur on lakes outside of the state of NH.

1. My answer fit your question perfectly.

2. New Hampshire has no shield of invulnerability that protects boats from fatal accidents. That accident could just as easily have happened on Winnipesaukee.

3. I am not connected with WinnFABS.

Hazelnut-

Can you explain how the accident would have been prevented by a 150' rule?

GO McCain! (one of my clients)

B R · 05-01-2008, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

1. My answer fit your question perfectly.

2. New Hampshire has no shield of invulnerability that protects boats from fatal accidents. That accident could just as easily have happened on Winnipesaukee.

3. I am not connected with WinnFABS.

Hazelnut-

Can you explain how the accident would have been prevented by a 150' rule?

GO McCain! (one of my clients)

I'll take a stab at this.

you've previously pointed out that if a law is enacted, that people will simply obey the law without the need for much enforcement. following that logic, the long lake accident would have been prevented by the 150' law simply because the driver of the boat would have had to slow down to head way speed when coming within 150' of shore. no one dies with the 150' law in place on long lake.

chipj29 · 05-01-2008, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

1. My answer fit your question perfectly.

2. New Hampshire has no shield of invulnerability that protects boats from fatal accidents. That accident could just as easily have happened on Winnipesaukee.

3. I am not connected with WinnFABS.

Hazelnut-

Can you explain how the accident would have been prevented by a 150' rule?

GO McCain! (one of my clients)

Yes, you are right, I should have phrased my question to specifically include Winnipesaukee. I should know that I needed to clarify that we are discussing Lake Winnipesaukee, on a website called winnipesaukee.com.
I never said you were connected to winnfabs. APS brought it up in his post, not me. I was replying to him initially.
And yes, that accident could have happened on Winnipesaukee. It could have happened on the Merrimack River. It could have happened on [gasp] Squam Lake. How could it have happened on Squam Lake when they already have a speed limit you ask? Well if one is going to get drunk and fire up their boat, they could theoretically do it anywhere. Even GFBLs come on trailers.

But it didn't happen in any of those places. It happened on Long Lake. In the beautiful state of Maine.

Bear Islander · 05-01-2008, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B R

I'll take a stab at this.

you've previously pointed out that if a law is enacted, that people will simply obey the law without the need for much enforcement. following that logic, the long lake accident would have been prevented by the 150' law simply because the driver of the boat would have had to slow down to head way speed when coming within 150' of shore. no one dies with the 150' law in place on long lake.

The GFBL boat in question could not have slowed down as it approached within 150' of the shore.

There was no one on board to slow it down.

Wolfeboro_Baja · 05-01-2008, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Can you explain how the accident (on Long Lake) would have been prevented by a 150' rule?

By the same token, can you explain how that accident would/could have been prevented by a 45 MPH speed limit (or 25 MPH, if it happened at night, I don't know if it did)?? You're assuming that every drunk boater will still observe a speed limit, even in an inebriated condition!! They don't on land, in their car, why would you expect anything different on water in a boat??

Also, if there was no one IN his boat and the boat continued on to crash onshore, he obviously didn't avail himself of the kill switch lanyard included on most performance boats. I'll presume that's another bad choice considering his inebriated condition.

parrothead · 05-01-2008, 03:40 PM

I can't get my head around how performance boats can cause more wake damage than other boats. Now mind you I am not a Marine Engineer here, but having spent a fair amount of time water skiing behind boats that makes no sense to me. I have slalomed, wake boarded, and knee boarded behind a few different boats. When you slalom ski you want the boat to be going faster because the wake is smaller. Now when you wake board or knee board you want the boat to be going slower to make a bigger wake for tricks. OK so using that logic how can a performance boat on plane cause more wake damage than any other type of boat? Also by design performance boats are long and proportionately thinner boats than other designs, so at slower speeds the hull cuts through the water causing less "plowing" of water which causes a smaller wake. Have you ever been behind a ski boat going at slow speeds? The hull tends to plow through the water causing a large wake for the size of the boat, which is great for a wakeboarder, but not so much for a loon's nest. So please can someone explain to me in scientific terms where this logic has validity? No agendas here just seems that the logic is flawed to me.

Bear Islander · 05-01-2008, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

By the same token, can you explain how that accident would/could have been prevented by a 45 MPH speed limit (or 25 MPH, if it happened at night, I don't know if it did)?? You're assuming that every drunk boater will still observe a speed limit, even in an inebriated condition!! They don't on land, in their car, why would you expect anything different on water in a boat??

Also, if there was no one IN his boat and the boat continued on to crash onshore, he obviously didn't avail himself of the kill switch lanyard included on most performance boats. I'll presume that's another bad choice considering his inebriated condition.

The opposition often makes asinine statements like "a speed limit is unnecessary because there are no high speed accidents". The Long Lake accident is proof otherwise, even if a speed limit could not have prevented it.

However the accident it question MIGHT have been prevented by a speed limit. The operator brought the boat up from Massachusetts. If Long Lake had a speed limit he MAY have gone elsewhere. Although a speed limit MIGHT keep high speed boats off of a lake, a horsepower limit almost certainly would have.

A central point that keeps falling on deaf ears is that a boat that is not ON the lake can't be involved in an accident.

Parrothead-

If you move to a place just outside of a no-wake-zone you will learn about GFBLs and wake. On plane they may have a reasonable wake. However when they are starting up they have as big a wake as any boat on the lake. All that horsepower has to go somewhere. I'm sure good operators can lessen these effects. But most do not.

MAXUM · 05-01-2008, 05:04 PM

You hit the nail on the head, basic consideration is the issue along with a little common sense. Thing is both seem to completely disappear when it comes to any recreational activity, in that there are those that come hell or high water I'm going to have a good time, how I see fit, and screw what everyone else thinks or is bothered by it. Well now you see what happens as a result, more laws put on the books to try to legislate behavior. Fact is a speed limit is highly affective, it's much easier to challenge a ticket for reckless operation than it is for breaking a speed limit. I welcome the speed limit experiment, will be interesting to see if it makes any difference at all. My guess is it won't.

ApS · 05-01-2008, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"...However when they are starting up they have as big a wake as any boat on the lake...I'm sure good operators can lessen these effects. But most do not..."

Meaning, it is possible to "eliminate ignorant behavior through education?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by parrothead

"...I can't get my head around how performance boats can cause more wake damage than other boats..."

Start with 4½ tons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

"...And yes, that accident could have happened on Winnipesaukee. It could have happened on the Merrimack River. It could have happened on [gasp] Squam Lake...But it didn't happen in any of those places. It happened on Long Lake. In the beautiful state of Maine.

and...

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

I am sorry, I didn't realize winnfabs was concerned with accidents that occur on lakes outside of the state of NH.

and...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

That's right - Long Lake in the State of Maine.

Senators vote on laws that affect case law produced by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Here's 504,000 reasons New Hampshire Senators must consider high-speed crashes from other jurisdictions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

"...So one guys quote on OSO means that all posters on the site vote more than once? Oh, OK..."

Well, if OK means OK, then here's some more proof of multiple voting.

I had previously chosen a spam-voter from Boston, as he would also likely spam any on-line poll for unlimited speeds on New Hampshire's inland protected waters.

Here they go:

Quote:

With as many memebers (sic) as we have here, certainly we can change those results

Go vote

Quote:

The power of *** we are up by a significant margine. (sic)
Dont worry ****, just keep this thread rocking.

Quote:

Voted as well several times. It's 53%, NO.

Come on guys lets stick together and scew (sic) the hell out of this poll.

Quote:

voted several times -- NO. Check out the poll numbers now. ZGood (sic) luck

Quote:

Vote up, everyone! We don't need any more negative publicity regarding this matter. We certainly don't need ignorant non-boaters taking polls like this away from us.

[

]

Quote:

The power of the board must be kicking in. We are up from 23% to 35% against speed limits.

Quote:

I just gave us about a 60-70 NO votes and it will now not register any more of my votes.

Quote:

Point is....when you make noise, people will listen. Keep voting...

Quote:

I guess we are making a difference 1050 No / 540 Yes !!

Quote:

I bet you won't here (sic) about this poll again!

Quote:

Yeah, I'd saw we swayed that poll back in the right direction

Quote:

Today speed limits. Tomorrow....

Quote:

No, submit, close the box, No, submit, close the box. I took it from 640 to over 700 then it stopped counting my votes.

Quote:

Speed wins!

Should there be a speed limit for boaters...?
no: 2179 votes
yes: 688 votes

Quote:

Group hug..............................

I use History, whereas BI uses Logic...

Opponents seem stuck in the same arguments with BI, and may just not want to read what I'm finding in History; for example, did you see the on-line post on "I drove drunk" by the creator of the "A.I.S." condition?

04-28-2008, 05:58 AM	#24
Cal Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Pitman , NJ Posts: 627 Thanks: 40 Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts	I , for one , love loons. They're really good with barbeque sauce __________________ Paddle faster , I think I here banjos

04-28-2008, 12:28 PM	#35
ishoot308 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Gilford, NH / Welch Island Posts: 6,271 Thanks: 2,400 Thanked 5,287 Times in 2,058 Posts	Say What??? "Lower horsepower means less environmental impact." Bear Islander with all due respect you are kidding right??... A 10 horsepower or similar outboard manufactured in the 60's, 70's or 80's which MANY small aluminum boats use on the lake, pollute FAR more than any of todays newer four stroke or two stroke Etec style engines with horsepower up to 300 H.P. Dan

04-29-2008, 01:53 PM	#57
COWISLAND NH Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 35 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Live and let Live Geesh BI...if laws and regulation where made on peoples likes a dislikes we would have regulations on EVERYTHING. Voice your opinion but please do not justify why your opinions should be laws. If people like yourself are SCARED TO HELL by other boats you should ask your self why??? Is it just the sheer speed of them passing by?? Or are they too close?? Are you intimidated by the size??? Why then don't we stop all the big trucks on the highway bc they scare the crap out of my little old grandmom?! Most of the boat owners that have the boats that are going faster then you know how to drive them in a safe manner, and they have been driving around the lake for years w/ little to no issues. Being scared or intimidated by someone else is no reason to make laws to restrict them...maybe you need to be more confident in you abilities to drive a boat in company. LIVE FREE OR DIE....

04-29-2008, 03:36 PM	#61
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,760 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,014 Times in 739 Posts	BIg trucks on the highways require a commercial drivers license and all violations stay on your record for fifteen years. For trucks, the posted speed limit is the speed limit. No fudge factor above what's posted is allowed by the police. Most highway lanes are 12' wide, and tractor trailers have a trailer that is 8 1/2' wide, and lane control is a big deal. Truckers can get ticketed for being out of their lane for lousy lane control. Unlike Lake Winnipesaukee, NH's road system has lanes with painted lines, and speed limits. Doesn't Lake Winnipesaukee need a 45-25 speed limit on the proposed HB 847, two year temporary trial basis from Jan 1, 2009 to Jan 1, 2011. After two years, the Marine Patrol will have lots of speed limit enforcement experience for the legislature to consider. HB 847 is not carved into granite, it's a two year look-see, and then gets reconsidered. Why not give it a try? Let's try it...after all....you just might like it. Hey, by January 1, 2011, the republicans could be back in the majority at the statehouse, and what will they do? __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

04-29-2008, 07:40 PM	#67
codeman671 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 3,499 Thanks: 221 Thanked 815 Times in 489 Posts	Here is a monster wake coming off a 30' twin engine 600hp gas guzzling shoreline eroding loon killing (8500lb dry weight) bowrider at 58mph. I can really see the concern this wake would cause... :rolleye1 Attached Images

04-02-2008, 06:51 PM	#1
Cal Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Pitman , NJ Posts: 627 Thanks: 40 Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts	Life after speed limits Since kayakers seem to want free run of the lake , I've run across a power boat suitable for kayak territory. After all , isn't turnabout fair play Not only that , maybe a speed limit won't extend up creeks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtXkpytTD3s __________________ Paddle faster , I think I here banjos

04-03-2008, 06:55 PM	#4
Rattlesnake Guy Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,254 Thanks: 423 Thanked 366 Times in 175 Posts	The boat did not appear to be going 45mph. I felt unsafe just watching the video. Kept expecting to hit a rock. Proud to say I have not made a Kayak unsafe ever. Except for the one I tried to get into years ago.

04-27-2008, 11:24 AM	#15
Islander Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 321 Thanks: 0 Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts	Great post BI! They hate to hear the truth! The age old excuse of the polluters is to say someone else is polluting more. As if that excuses their behavior. It doesn't matter how much fuel BI may waste elsewhere. It's a way to attack the messenger when their arguments fail. Anyone thinking wakes don't destroy loon nests should do a little reading.

04-27-2008, 11:55 AM	#18
WeirsBeachBoater Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 709 Blog Entries: 9 Thanks: 39 Thanked 148 Times in 65 Posts	I think BI needs a time out. Go to your corner and we will let you know when it's time to come out! Loons, this is my favorite, I went to the Loon Preservation place in Moultonborough, years ago when all this speed limit nonsense started. I didn't reveal my intentions for asking questions but I asked this one. What is the #1 threat to loons. Their answer: Paddlers!!!!! They think it's ok to paddle up to these loon nesting areas, and in doing so cause great stress to the loons, some of the chicks have heart attacks because of it. Funny how now years later(I am sure no one from winnfabs donates the loon society) the #1 threat appears to be performance boats. I personally have had it up to here with all the B.S. I can't wait for the Senate vote, because then it will be over, or at least for now. I need a break, I want to enjoy our lake, and not have to talk about HB 847. I wish Don would just ban this subject, it has divided what once was a fun place to post.

04-27-2008, 05:30 PM	#21
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,744 Thanks: 752 Thanked 1,459 Times in 1,016 Posts	hazelnut, I don't think it is a very small percentage of paddlers who disturb the loons. We have had babies the last few years and they stay in a protected cove and people paddle as close as they can to see them. The loons then feel trapped as they get close. You can see the loons getting very nervous and start trying to swim out around them. We and our neighbors often have to yell at them to stay their distance. I don't think they mean any harm, they want to see them, but don't realize when they go so close they scare them. They don't use their heads and think about what they are doing.

04-28-2008, 12:50 AM	#23
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,764 Thanks: 32 Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts	This is a good example of misdirection. I say big wakes kill loons, the response is that paddlers also kill loons. If I say big boats cause pollution, the response is, spacecraft cause pollution. Point the finger at the other guy. Other people pollute, so its ok for you to pollute. Other boats kill loons, so its ok if your boat kills loons. Take responsibility for your own actions, stop blaming others. The question is do big wakes kill loons. The answer, if anyone cares to check, is yes.

04-28-2008, 07:36 AM	#28
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,764 Thanks: 32 Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts	Yes, scientific fact. http://www.ffdp.ca/hww2.asp?cid=7&id=53 http://www.pc.gc.ca/apprendre-learn/...an3case4_e.asp Please don't respond that other things kill loons, we all know that. However I would be interested in data that shows loons are NOT effected by boat wakes. Hazelnut wants me to post the bow numbers of boats that kill loons. Sorry, I can't do that. I will fall back on the knowledge that bigger boats have bigger wakes.

04-28-2008, 10:32 AM	#30
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,764 Thanks: 32 Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts	Bigger boats make bigger wakes. When we start regulating boats, should we start with the little ones? Everybody pollutes a little, its a matter of degree. Lower horsepower means less environmental impact. You seem to feel that only people that don't pollute can complain about pollution. That's ridiculous, I live in the real world. I will "point my finger" where I see fit.

04-28-2008, 12:06 PM	#31
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,744 Thanks: 752 Thanked 1,459 Times in 1,016 Posts	As has said before BI, waves don't kill loons, people who are too stupid to stop their wake when they see a loon is what hurts them! Big boats and fast boats don't hurt a thing! The people who don't know how to drive them (and I don't think that is so many) do.

04-28-2008, 09:40 PM	#41
ishoot308 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Gilford, NH / Welch Island Posts: 6,271 Thanks: 2,400 Thanked 5,287 Times in 2,058 Posts	B.I. I fully agree that my comparison is unfair, but that is part of my point... I have been reading this thread with great interest, and while I certainly agree you have a right to your opinion, I feel you are grasping at straws to make your speed limit point. The death of loons by wake and saying higher horsepower motors cause more environmental impact, just discredits your position immensely. One of your points in your previous post state that lower horsepower has less environmental impact. If environmental impact is one of the reasons, you are going after a speed limit on the lake, why not go after the 70 year old man fishing in his 12 foot Jon boat with his vintage 10 HP Johnson, Evinrude, or Mercury blowing smoke, oil, and other pollutants all over lake?? Is it because he can't speed, so polluting the lake is O.K.?? Am I missing something here?? The fact is a large percentage of the motors on the lake are small older two strokes that cause 15 times the pollution of newer engines, and I am sure you are aware that many vacation camps and local fisherman have one of these tied up to their dock. Just so you understand my position, I am completely against a speed limit on the lake. In my opinion, all that is needed is enforcment of the current laws and in particular the 150' rule. Believe it or not it really is that simple... Regards; Dan

04-28-2008, 10:05 PM	#42
Islander Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 321 Thanks: 0 Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts	You folks have found a new low in logic! Over and over we hear that if you are not familiar with the lake and boating your opinion about speed or horsepower limits (like in a poll) doesn't matter. Now you can't advocate horsepower limits if you have a power boat, because that must be hypocritical. So who can have an opinion on horsepower limits? It has to be someone that has boating experience on Winnipesaukee but has recently gotten rid of their boat because of environmental concerns. Out of the billions on this planet only what... 4 or 5 can have an opinion about horsepower limits. I believe BI also supports a ban on two stroke engines.

04-29-2008, 02:43 PM	#59
COWISLAND NH Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 35 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	We need you to come back to reality....thats why.

04-29-2008, 04:06 PM	#63
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,764 Thanks: 32 Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts	Thanks, now at least I know what you are getting at. ALL high horsepower boats create big wakes, GFBL and cabin cruisers. They BOTH kill loons and pollute the lake. They belong on the ocean, not Lake Winnipesaukee. See, there wasn't any discrepancy. Just you looking for one.

04-29-2008, 08:07 PM	#70
Rattlesnake Guy Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,254 Thanks: 423 Thanked 366 Times in 175 Posts	If you have ever seen the waves that mother nature whips up several times a year and believe that boat wakes kill loons it is hard to imagine that any of them could possibly survive. If we could just figure out how to disguise boat wakes to look like little natural waves.

04-30-2008, 09:11 AM	#77
The Big Kahuna Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Gilford Posts: 148 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	As well they should [QUOTE=Cal;66635]Since kayakers seem to want free run of the lake , I've run across a power boat suitable for kayak territory. After all , isn't turnabout fair play Not only that , maybe a speed limit won't extend up creeks Kayakers should be able to paddle the lake where ever and when ever they want to. It is up to those of us who have motor boats to respect their space and make it safe, no matter what speed. I am sure Kayakers enjoy a few waves that the boats make as long as wakes aren't spray from boats passing to close. Basic consideration is the issue here, not speed.

05-01-2008, 03:40 PM	#97
parrothead Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Merrimack, NH Posts: 132 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Wakes I can't get my head around how performance boats can cause more wake damage than other boats. Now mind you I am not a Marine Engineer here, but having spent a fair amount of time water skiing behind boats that makes no sense to me. I have slalomed, wake boarded, and knee boarded behind a few different boats. When you slalom ski you want the boat to be going faster because the wake is smaller. Now when you wake board or knee board you want the boat to be going slower to make a bigger wake for tricks. OK so using that logic how can a performance boat on plane cause more wake damage than any other type of boat? Also by design performance boats are long and proportionately thinner boats than other designs, so at slower speeds the hull cuts through the water causing less "plowing" of water which causes a smaller wake. Have you ever been behind a ski boat going at slow speeds? The hull tends to plow through the water causing a large wake for the size of the boat, which is great for a wakeboarder, but not so much for a loon's nest. So please can someone explain to me in scientific terms where this logic has validity? No agendas here just seems that the logic is flawed to me. __________________ If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane

05-01-2008, 05:04 PM	#99
MAXUM Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kuna ID Posts: 2,755 Thanks: 246 Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts	You hit the nail on the head, basic consideration is the issue along with a little common sense. Thing is both seem to completely disappear when it comes to any recreational activity, in that there are those that come hell or high water I'm going to have a good time, how I see fit, and screw what everyone else thinks or is bothered by it. Well now you see what happens as a result, more laws put on the books to try to legislate behavior. Fact is a speed limit is highly affective, it's much easier to challenge a ticket for reckless operation than it is for breaking a speed limit. I welcome the speed limit experiment, will be interesting to see if it makes any difference at all. My guess is it won't.