How has the lake changed????

OCDACTIVE · 08-25-2010, 11:23 AM

Well we are into another year of the speed limit. Much different then last. Beautiful Hot and Sunny Weather. No one can argue that the weather has been a deterent. The economy has not rebounded as much as hoped but I think we have turned a corner and are hopefully on the way to full recovery slowly but surely......

However with Labor Day approaching I can honestly say the lake has not become any safer. The accident rate is up, the registration rate is level (that of the early 90's) but yet we have a SL that was supposed to change all of that.

Now I don't want to see a debate get unfriendly but we have all been on the lake for many many hours and I really want to hear specifics as to if you have seen a difference.

Personally I still see the same crazy captains that either have no education or are purposely thumbing their noses at the 150 ft law, NWZ's and yes I have seen plenty of boats / PWC's exceeding the 45 mph law.

However I can say that in all instances where the SL was broken (again my personal observations) there was not a safety issue involved. However the multiple times I have been cut off by unaware captains and those going WAY too close to me caused me great concern.

So in the spirit of our webmasters request, please lets keep the conversation civil. I am sure we are able to do this, that is until the normal grenade throwers show up but lets see what rational information can be obtained before that.

Thanks

PS: I am only limited to 5 posts per day so I apologize if I don't answer your comments or questions regarding this post. However, now that we have 2 years behind us, this is the conversation that should have been taking place before the legislature jumped the gun. We now have seen 2 years of having the SL's in force. Of course we will be getting peoples beliefs at first but the facts and data from the MP are to follow soon. In the mean time all we have is personal observations AND we all know of the multiple accidents that have occured these past two years. What I am driving at is with the information that we now have from a compartive stand point have you seen a difference? Of course you will have the hardliners that say everything is perfect, but if that were the case why are many now trying to futher restrict us with more NWZ's, stricter noise restrictions, and may I dare say size / HP? I thought SL were supposed to make everything better????

brk-lnt · 08-25-2010, 11:38 AM

Seriously, why even open this discussion? All you are doing is inviting people to continue to provide more personal opinion on this, and if the last 1000 posts on this topic are any indiction, everyone is going to believe what they want to believe and not be swayed one way or the other.

There appear to be multiple agendas at play on this issue, and the posts, opinions, and "facts" presented all seem far from neutral.

Killing more electrons on this topic will ONLY lead to hostility. If you don't like or agree with any given law or regulation the place to do something about it is NOT on this forum, it's in real life.

I'd prefer to see someone post some actual statistics and trends, and even at that you'd need 4 or 5 years of the current state to even begin to show a trend that you could extrapolate from.

DEJ · 08-25-2010, 11:48 AM

I agree brk-int. With all due respect OCD this is not a good idea, it will only lead to the same old crap. Let the data and statistics speak for themselves, opinions about this have not changed on either side. Please consider deleting your original post.

DoTheMath · 08-25-2010, 12:01 PM

I see no issue with his post, as it says in the top of this section of the Winni forum:

"Warning! Avoid this area if you don't like debates and arguments!"

So, with that - respectfully, let the thread continue... (thanks Don)

DEJ · 08-25-2010, 12:06 PM

And this will accomplish what? We will get the same crowd that will say the lake feels safer this year, and the other crowd that will say nothing has changed. There that should cover it, debate over.

classic22 · 08-25-2010, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEJ

And this will accomplish what? We will get the same crowd that will say the lake feels safer this year, and the other crowd that will say nothing has changed. There that should cover it, debate over.

DEJ- OCD has always been consistent in his postings and thoughts about the speed limit that there should be more time to study the issue as the original legislation regarding speed limits intended. The fact that it was hastily put forward last summer by the pro speed limit crowd as all problems solved by the speed limit, nothing to look at here, please move along mentality to get the speed limit passed permanently has been a sticking point for many.
So as Ronald Reagan once said: Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? By the way the answer was rhetorical, as every one already knew the answer! I believe OCD by his posting is asking, are you better off with a speed limit than you were 2 years ago before the speed limit? I think in this case we all know the answer as well!

VitaBene · 08-25-2010, 01:56 PM

I am going to move beyond the SL dialogue and say that people on the lake have become less friendly and less courteous. I am not saying that every passing boater should wave to one another but when someone does something courteous, it would be nice to have that act acknowledged.

MAXUM · 08-25-2010, 03:25 PM

Since the question was asked, I'll submit a simple answer.

I don't believe anyone's mind has changed in regards to the SL. Those that decided for or against seem to be even less likely to consider any other point of view. Kinda like any political philosophy, the liberals hate the conservatives and the conservatives hate the liberals. It will never change.

Is there a noticeable difference? IMHO this is a loaded question and no offense throwing a little red meat to the wolves. Perception does NOT equal reality or fact. No offense either to the long string of so called experts and "know it alls".... if you cannot site specific reports or verifiable data sources then what you say cannot be validated and therefore is simply self proclaimed 'fact', or more accurately described as 'opinion'.

To fully understand if the SL has made an impact is to at the end of each year compare accident, summons issued etc... data before and after to get an idea. Same can be said for the boater's safety course, has it made a difference? Let the numbers answer that question.

Now if anyone can get their hands on this kind of data from the NHMP or if they would be so kind as to post it here, well then we have something to discuss. Otherwise it's just another long endless debate over who's perception is more accurate. The answer to that is very simple.... MINE! (I forgot to say I was just kidding)

Just my 02 cents before the bullets start a flying!

VtSteve · 08-25-2010, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEJ

I agree brk-int. With all due respect OCD this is not a good idea, it will only lead to the same old crap. Let the data and statistics speak for themselves, opinions about this have not changed on either side. Please consider deleting your original post.

Maybe, maybe not.

But as Don posted on the thread title.

"This separated forum is provided for the discussion and debate about controversial issues that effect the Lakes Region but are discouraged from the other more friendly areas. Debates about speed limits, no-wake zones, noise and general complaints and griping belong here. Threads in other forums that turn into debates, arguments or bickering will be moved here. Warning! Avoid this area if you don't like debates and arguments!"

Had to look didn't you?

I hope it stays civil, and hopefully interesting.

brk-lnt · 08-25-2010, 08:30 PM

My comment was not in regards to whether or not this discussion topic was allowed, but more to the point that every single one of these threads in the past have simply degraded to futility.

There is not enough data to draw a logical conclusion from, and furthermore you are forever trying to argue to disprove a negative. You say there were many accidents this year, and it's easy for someone to say "yeah, and without the speed limit we SURELY would have had more". There is NO way you can counter that kind of statement.

I'd love to see a discussion about something based in facts and reality, not just another rehashed opinion thread.

VtSteve · 08-25-2010, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

My comment was not in regards to whether or not this discussion topic was allowed, but more to the point that every single one of these threads in the past have simply degraded to futility.

There is not enough data to draw a logical conclusion from, and furthermore you are forever trying to argue to disprove a negative. You say there were many accidents this year, and it's easy for someone to say "yeah, and without the speed limit we SURELY would have had more". There is NO way you can counter that kind of statement.

I'd love to see a discussion about something based in facts and reality, not just another rehashed opinion thread.

Then rephrase it. Yes, there were far more accidents this year than last, and I believe the year before that as well.

Here's a great question, which requires nothing more than facts, that are readily available.

Have any of the accidents this year, or last, involved speeds that would indicate to you that a speed limit was needed on the lake?

The data is available, and you can get it for a decade or more.

Another question. Have any of the accidents this year indicated that a speed limit was needed on the lake? How about last year, or the year before. The facts are available, so I guess no speculation is really required.

No rehash required. Step right up to the plate and hit the pitch.

onlywinni · 08-26-2010, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

I'd prefer to see someone post some actual statistics and trends, and even at that you'd need 4 or 5 years of the current state to even begin to show a trend that you could extrapolate from.

Please feel free to show me the 4-5 years of statistics and trends that led to the SL being passed. I dont believe there are any. The only evidence offered was "feelings" and emails from what I gather.

There is one study that was completed by the Marine Patrol in 2007 and only 0.9% of boats exceeded 45mph that is 36 out of 3852.(does not appear to be the epidemic some indicated to get this law passed). Also the top speed was only 62mph far cry from the alleged speeds some people claim.

The speed zone sampling produced the following results:

• The total number of boats clocked was 3852. This number includes both motorboats and PWC’s, data collected during the day and at night.
• The average daytime speed for all vessels (powerboats and PWC’s) was 22.72 miles per hour.
• The average speed for all vessels after 8:00 p.m. was 20.42 miles per hour.
• The average weekday speed was 25.91 miles per hour.
• The average weekend speed was 28.62 miles per hour.
• The maximum speed recorded for a vessel was 62 miles per hour. A total of three vessels were clocked going this speed, two on Saturday 7/14/07 and one on Saturday, 8/04/07.
• The maximum speed for a PWC was 49 miles per hour.
• The maximum speed after 8:00 p.m. was 44 miles per hour.
• There were a total of 36 boats clocked going over 45 miles per hour which represents 0.9% of the total.

Here is the report for anyone's reference.

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...rveyreport.pdf

----------------------

I left this debate a while ago, because I dont believe I can change anyone's mind who is already made up; however someone new to the issue should know the facts. Thanks

ishoot308 · 08-26-2010, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onlywinni

Please feel free to show me the 4-5 years of statistics and trends that led to the SL being passed. I dont believe there are any. The only evidence offered was "feelings" and emails from what I gather.

There is one study that was completed by the Marine Patrol in 2007 and only 0.9% of boats exceeded 45mph that is 36 out of 3852.(does not appear to be the epidemic some indicated to get this law passed). Also the top speed was only 62mph far cry from the alleged speeds some people claim.

The speed zone sampling produced the following results:

• The total number of boats clocked was 3852. This number includes both motorboats and PWC’s, data collected during the day and at night.
• The average daytime speed for all vessels (powerboats and PWC’s) was 22.72 miles per hour.
• The average speed for all vessels after 8:00 p.m. was 20.42 miles per hour.
• The average weekday speed was 25.91 miles per hour.
• The average weekend speed was 28.62 miles per hour.
• The maximum speed recorded for a vessel was 62 miles per hour. A total of three vessels were clocked going this speed, two on Saturday 7/14/07 and one on Saturday, 8/04/07.
• The maximum speed for a PWC was 49 miles per hour.
• The maximum speed after 8:00 p.m. was 44 miles per hour.
• There were a total of 36 boats clocked going over 45 miles per hour which represents 0.9% of the total.

Here is the report for anyone's reference.

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...rveyreport.pdf

----------------------

I left this debate a while ago, because I dont believe I can change anyone's mind who is already made up; however someone new to the issue should know the facts. Thanks

What better statistical data is there than this?? Why was this data completely ignored?? This is the largest sampling of data I have seen regarding the issue yet this is the first time I have seen it.

Dan

VtSteve · 08-26-2010, 08:19 AM

They disputed the data because it didn't meet their agenda, similar to the NWZ at Barber's Pole. They even charged that since the MP did not support the SL, that they purposely tried to contaminate the data.

However, there have been two incidents which led to the SL that had nothing to do with speed. You all know which ones they were. It's a culture thing, and people that rub them the wrong way, Look Out.

Last year, some of the more professional protagonists, TB, El and SOTD, engaged in many "debates" over the weather and the economy. They proclaimed that the speed limit had already worked, which is why the lake was so quiet. So this year, after a multitude of accidents and drownings and capsizing stories, they couldn't detract from their positions. In spite of renewed chaos and a multitude of boneheads, they still proclaimed it was working very well.

However, another argument, the NWZ at BP, made them change their tune. Instead of the SL working there, boats are Tearing and Ripping and Flying all over the place in that area. Despite observations from people that live and boat there, the allegations continue. It's like leaving a book down to get a drink, and coming back only to find out someone's changed the chapter you were reading

Most of us do not own very fast boats, a few do. Most of us have embraced safety, additional enforcement, adding to the MP funding, and have expressed a desire to enforce the laws. When provided with facts, they get nasty. So be it, that's politics. However, these are boater's issues, and not general elections. There are a multitude of good people on both sides of every argument. But these discussions should not be arguments, but discussions.

sunset on the dock · 08-26-2010, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

They disputed the data because it didn't meet their agenda, similar to the NWZ at Barber's Pole. They even charged that since the MP did not support the SL, that they purposely tried to contaminate the data.

However, there have been two incidents which led to the SL that had nothing to do with speed. You all know which ones they were. It's a culture thing, and people that rub them the wrong way, Look Out.

Last year, some of the more professional protagonists, TB, El and SOTD, engaged in many "debates" over the weather and the economy. They proclaimed that the speed limit had already worked, which is why the lake was so quiet. So this year, after a multitude of accidents and drownings and capsizing stories, they couldn't detract from their positions. In spite of renewed chaos and a multitude of boneheads, they still proclaimed it was working very well.

However, another argument, the NWZ at BP, made them change their tune. Instead of the SL working there, boats are Tearing and Ripping and Flying all over the place in that area. Despite observations from people that live and boat there, the allegations continue. It's like leaving a book down to get a drink, and coming back only to find out someone's changed the chapter you were reading

Safety was only 1 facet of the SL law. Now back to my peaceful reading on the dock. BTW last night I slept great...no loud boats tearing by the house at 11 PM at god knows what speed.

BroadHopper · 08-26-2010, 10:09 AM

In my opinion the lake is no longer the friendliest place on earth that I have pictured in my mind when I was growing up on The Broads. In the past, everyone get along no matter what they do or what they float. I miss the camaraderie of the water ski racing and sailboat regatta days. Although there are sailboat regattas today, I find the organizers a snobby bunch. They shun most folks outside their little cocoon.

I no longer get the 'boater's wave' from boaters around the lake. A few still do. There was a time last spring my boat broke down just outside the Weirs Channel. In the old days, just about any boater will stop to see if you need assistance. I was drifting a good hour with hundreds of boats zipping by.

I usually keep my eye out for paddlers when a sudden storm comes up. Many time I offer assistance over the years. This year I tried to lend a hand to two kayakers in trouble off Long Island. They shouted back, 'We don't like your kind! Go away!'. One sailboater off Bear Island even flipped me the birdy!

The neighborhood use to be one huge happy family. Everyone will spend a weekend night on each other's deck or porch. The children will play together and enjoy many watersports. Today the 'high rollers' from out of state moved in, tear down the 1800's style fishing cottages and build McMansions. They tend to act like they own the neighborhood and also the road! They snub their neighbors and keep to themselves.

As far as boating safety. I see very little marine patrol presence this summer. I even overheard a couple of novice boaters at a local bar telling folks that the MP budget was cut and they are to busy catching Speeders to notice other infractions. I have to believe them. I have never seen so much NWZ and 150' infractions this year than my life on the lake. I have even witness three boats traveling at max wake speed through the Weirs Channel! Wasn't there serious accidents this year because of 'minor' infractions?

Shorefront property owners are already complaining about the slower boats creating larger wakes and also that noise become a problem because they hear it longer. SL opponents have told them that this will happen and it was ignored. I also notice a number of the so called 'GFBL' boats traded in for large cruisers or yachts. Compounding the situation.

My new neighbors will call the police if one decided to do the long tradition of skinny dipping ala 'On Golden Pond'. The same neighbors will call the marine patrol if i decided to water-ski at sunrise or sunset. One neighbor even confiscate my 'drop off' ski, claiming if drifted out in front of his property!

I can go on and on. Any new laws is not going to take the lake back. It is people that can take the lake back. Trying to limit public launching, tolls at the Weirs channel, limiting the size of boats and horsepower will just make matters worst. It will actually turn the traditional lake folks into 'Outlaws'.

Let's all be reasonable.

All Summer Long · 08-26-2010, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

In my opinion the lake is no longer the friendliest place on earth that I have pictured in my mind when I was growing up on The Broads.

I am a new boater and basically new to Lake Winni. I have no experience with how it used to be but I have to say I am very pleased with how many friendly and helpful people I have come across. We have been helped by so many people when we have tried to anchor or dock. Our new neighbors at the marina have been full of helpful tips and have welcomed us in to the "family". Sometimes when you look for the bad, you see the bad. There will always be the bad seeds but I like to think they don't out number the good. Hope you start running in to more of the good!

BroadHopper · 08-26-2010, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All Summer Long

I am a new boater and basically new to Lake Winni. I have no experience with how it used to be but I have to say I am very pleased with how many friendly and helpful people I have come across. We have been helped by so many people when we have tried to anchor or dock. Our new neighbors at the marina have been full of helpful tips and have welcomed us in to the "family". Sometimes when you look for the bad, you see the bad. There will always be the bad seeds but I like to think they don't out number the good. Hope you start running in to more of the good!

The folks that keeps their boats at a large marina such as MVYC or WAM are different. Due to the close proximity of boats, and the commonality between the folks that stay at a marina, fuels a camaderie like no other. Like the old days. Stick around a few years and you will no what I mean.

I know folks who didn't care for the crowd in a particular marina, will move on to another marina. I can't understand the folks who moved to Winnipesaukee, who doesn't like it, decides to 'rock the boat' and hopefully make 'change for the better'. Why can't they moved on? Plenty of waterfront property outside of Winnipesaukee. My new neighbors actually tried to make me move! I am the weirdo, yet I was here first!

VtSteve · 08-26-2010, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEJ

SOTD, boats cannot tear by your house at 11 PM at god knows what speed because after dark the speed limit is 25 mph. The speed limit is working, haven't you heard and read about it?

Apparently SOTD has several differing "opinions". We have people tearing through the BP area, but he can sleep soundly because of how well the SL is working. In fact, several of the statements supporting the NWZ at BP differed strikingly from recent comments by two primary supporters.

Kracken · 08-26-2010, 11:05 AM

Nice post Broadhopper,

You are right, the lake has changed and the biggest part is the attitude. One could make a valid argument one of the greatest assets of Lake Winnipesaukee in years gone by was the friendliness of the people that called that lake home (even if it was for only a few weeks per year).

If you don’t believe it, take a step back and remove the rose colored glasses. Those cabins of yesteryear where we spent our summers, where they really that nice or were they just a backdrop? Was the water cleaner back then? I remember when the Alton Bay Pavilion was a roller skating rink. After a big Saturday night when the rink was at capacity, there would be toilet paper floating in the bay all day Sunday. What made the lake great was the people, the attitude and the feeling you were part of something so much grander than yourself. That is something I think has been lost over the years.

I can understand why people want to turn the clock back, although something’s are better left in the past. I just think people are focusing on the wrong things. It is not the homes, cabins, and boats that need a change. It’s the attitude. If you really want to make a change, start with yourself, if you see somebody in trouble, STOP and lend a hand. If you don’t know your neighbors on the lake, introduce yourself. If you pass another boat wave and smile. Just treat others the way you want to be treated and you will see a change.

brk-lnt · 08-26-2010, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onlywinni

Please feel free to show me the 4-5 years of statistics and trends that led to the SL being passed. I dont believe there are any. The only evidence offered was "feelings" and emails from what I gather.

I think you guys may be unaware of which side of this debate my opinions fall on.

For the record, I think the speed limit is a pointless feel-good law.

Anyone who looks at this with a clear head can see that it was passed on opinions, emotions, and pandering instead of facts and statistics. 99% of the threads discussing the speed limits show this. You have one side citing statistics, and the other side citing touchy-feely emotions and non-scientific observations.

I also don't see any indications that the anti-SL crowd is going to place any value in some people *feeling* safer, even if there is no data to support that feeling, nor do I see the pro-SL crowd willing to look at actual data in an unbiased fashion and come to the conclusion that we're not going to ever get safety via legislation in any effective manner.

We can start as many of these threads as the server has space for, and they will all become facts vs. feelings debates, which will never do anything more than fill the server db with more random text.

VtSteve · 08-26-2010, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

I think you guys may be unaware of which side of this debate my opinions fall on.

For the record, I think the speed limit is a pointless feel-good law.

Anyone who looks at this with a clear head can see that it was passed on opinions, emotions, and pandering instead of facts and statistics. 99% of the threads discussing the speed limits show this. You have one side citing statistics, and the other side citing touchy-feely emotions and non-scientific observations.

I also don't see any indications that the anti-SL crowd is going to place any value in some people *feeling* safer, even if there is no data to support that feeling, nor do I see the pro-SL crowd willing to look at actual data in an unbiased fashion and come to the conclusion that we're not going to ever get safety via legislation in any effective manner.

We can start as many of these threads as the server has space for, and they will all become facts vs. feelings debates, which will never do anything more than fill the server db with more random text.

You put that nicely, thanks.

I would agree with you if these were just useless discussions of the political type. Unfortunately, many of these things are going on behind people's backs, with people using lies and baseless accusations to get legislators to sign on. It was known last year that a former(?) political operative and campaign manager type was lobbying heavily for the speed limit bill. The tactics and methods used by that group were both professional. Regardless of anyone's position on a variety of these issues, wouldn't it be reassuring to know that your real opinion is actually being heard?

These very same tactics are now being deployed by the very same folks on a NWZ issue most hadn't heard of. Whether someone supports it or not, the main issue is that a small group of people are lobbying behind people's backs, limiting access to other's opinions. While some may agree with one area and not another, makes no difference in this discussion. Fact is, they will not stop at one NWZ area, but will continue to advances their various causes whether any of you like it or not.

It should be blatantly obvious in these discussions. Some speed limit opponents support a serious discussion of the NWZ, and have not dismissed anyone's concerns at all. Hazelnut has them off guard on this one. He didn't support the speed limit, but made some very eloquent comments as to how this NWZ could benefit him personally. What caught them off guard, is that they didn't expect anyone to factually dispute their reasons, which were skillfully crafted to make everyone fearful of these big, bad, fast boaters. Those in the impacted area know that those issues aren't even issues there.

If you read the support letters for the NWZ, it really reads like a Pro speed limit discussion. This, from the very same people that say the speed limit is working so well, they can now relax

Transparency is not one of their defining characteristics.

Bear Islander · 08-26-2010, 11:34 AM

The problem here is that most people on this forum don't know why we have a SL. They heard somewhere, or read somewhere or just made it up in their minds that the SL is about safety. It isn't, and new was. Preventing accidents is NOT the reason we have a SL. At best it is one of the secondary or supporting reasons.

That is why all these arguments about test areas, data, trial periods and how many accidents there were in a given year are so far off target. As Bill Murry said in Meatballs "IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!"

The Anti-SL crowd, at this site and elsewhere, have been arguing the safety issue from day one. And, for the most part, at the exclusion of other more pertinent arguments. And that, in my opinion, is why they lost.

In Star Wars 5 Luke Skywalker says "I can't believe it!" Yoda responds "That is why you fail".

You want to talk about why we have a speed limit? Then drop the safety stuff.

OCDACTIVE · 08-26-2010, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The problem here is that most people on this forum don't know why we have a SL. They heard somewhere, or read somewhere or just made it up in their minds that the SL is about safety. It isn't, and new was. Preventing accidents is NOT the reason we have a SL. At best it is one of the secondary or supporting reasons.

That is why all these arguments about test areas, data, trial periods and how many accidents there were in a given year are so far off target. As Bill Murry said in Meatballs "IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!"

The Anti-SL crowd, at this site and elsewhere, have been arguing the safety issue from day one. And, for the most part, at the exclusion of other more pertinent arguments. And that, in my opinion, is why they lost.

In Star Wars 5 Luke Skywalker says "I can't believe it!" Yoda responds "That is why you fail".

You want to talk about why we have a speed limit? Then drop the safety stuff.

Hey BI.. You and I go round and round on this but I would love to hear it... what do you think the reasons are? cut and dry?

When I got involved in this I read every post, article, thread, news media interview etc. and everyone of them cried being afraid and safety issues as the top priority. I sat in the hearings and this was again the arguement over and over again.

We would then hear a bit of noise issues etc but never was that the primary reasonings the SL crowd asked for the limits.

I personally agree with you. I believe that the "majority" of those who started this crusade are simply trying to ban / limit performance boats from the lake. It is very unfortunate and I have been told by many different sources that their true intentions had nothing to do with speed or safety what so ever (this is why they were unwilling to negotiate in any way).. But without trying to rehash a tragic accident or sounding unsympathetic in anyway, their true intentions was to rid the lake of performance boats due to their friend dying in a night time accident, that involved a performance boat but speed was not a factor at all. Even with today's limits it woudn't have been considered a speed issue. We all know about this accident and it isn't a coincidence that the person who passed away due to this tragic accident lived in the same area as the people who started asking for a speed limit in the first place.

I know it is a big elephant in the room, and I don't want to sound unsympathetic to the family on either side. It unfortunately is the truth but no one openly admits it.

Bear Islander · 08-26-2010, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

...their true intentions was to rid the lake of performance boats due to their friend dying in a night time accident, that involved a performance boat but speed was not a factor at all. Even with today's limits it woudn't have been considered a speed issue...

Incredible that you can say that when the MPs speed estimate was HIGHER than the current speed limit. That's not really important, but it is one of the little FACTS that anti-sl people keep forgetting. Yes, I know, only 3 mph higher, but higher is higher.

I have many reasons for supporting the SL but number one is children's camps. Some camps are keeping their small boats in on weekends because of the cowboy atmosphere on the lake. To me that is an indication that things are getting out of control and something needs to be done. There is also the question of where the lake is going. What will it be like in 5, 10 or 20 years? Three NE states have state wide speed limits. As more limits are enacted elsewhere is Winni to be the destination for speed enthusiasts? I don't like that idea. We need a speed limit now so hopefully most of these people will go somewhere else.

The single word answer to why we have a speed limit is fear. The fear of a camp director to send out his boats. The fear of a kayaker to come to this lake. The fear of an elderly couple to leave their island home on a weekend. That last one is VERY real. The fear of a parent to let their child take out a boat or canoe. The fear that our beautiful natural resource is being taken over by a small minority of "get out of my way" boaters.

For some it is about erosion, water quality, loon nests, fair distribution of resources, pollution, tourist dollars, wake damage, privacy, noise and yes even boating accidents.

OCDACTIVE · 08-26-2010, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Incredible that you can say that when the MPs speed estimate was HIGHER than the current speed limit. That's not really important, but it is one of the little FACTS that anti-sl people keep forgetting. Yes, I know, only 3 mph higher, but higher is higher.

I have many reasons for supporting the SL but number one is children's camps. Some camps are keeping their small boats in on weekends because of the cowboy atmosphere on the lake. To me that is an indication that things are getting out of control and something needs to be done. There is also the question of where the lake is going. What will it be like in 5, 10 or 20 years? Three NE states have state wide speed limits. As more limits are enacted elsewhere is Winni to be the destination for speed enthusiasts? I don't like that idea. We need a speed limit now so hopefully most of these people will go somewhere else.

The single word answer to why we have a speed limit is fear. The fear of a camp director to send out his boats. The fear of a kayaker to come to this lake. The fear of an elderly couple to leave their island home on a weekend. That last one is VERY real. The fear of a parent to let their child take out a boat or canoe. The fear that our beautiful natural resource is being taken over by a small minority of "get out of my way" boaters.

For some it is about erosion, water quality, loon nests, fair distribution of resources, pollution, tourist dollars, wake damage, privacy, noise and yes even boating accidents.

Hey BI... This is why we will always keep going round and round.

1. yes I apologize the "ESTIMATED" speed was 28mph (but remember they just pushed it to 30 mph night time).. But that is splitting hairs. We both know "speed" was not the issue. But this tragic event is the underlying reason why the people who started their agenda for the speed limits. You can't argue that, but it is funny that you nor the pro-sl crowd will even admit to it.

2. Camps....... Yes we all know you were a camp director and want to SL's to help "protect" the camps. I will never convince you otherwise and you will never convince me that the SL helps protect the camps more then putting resources towards enforcing the 150' law near the camps. So we can agree to disagree there.

3. Seriously though, you don't "need" a speed limit to deter people from coming to the lake... Those who truely want to continously go fast and test their boats go to the ocean anyway. Never have I ever heard one of my offshore race boat captains say "I can't wait to get to a lake to test my boat". The true race boats go to the ocean because they can't be muffled and they would cross the lake too quickly before getting dialed in anyway.. That is a reaching argument.

4. Fear.. You hit it.. But how is this solved by a SL. People fear fast boats?? We have all agreed that the majority of boats on the lake can not exceed 45 mph anyway. This doesn't improve fear because as this thread is titled "Nothing has changed" even Dir. Barrett said in the House Trasportation Hearing "nothing will change on the lake either way" so why does the SL calm this fear? Nothing has changed...

5. You mentioned in your last post that Safety has nothing to do with it. However if people are fearful that they aren't "safe" then how doesn't safety have everything to do with it. If we truely want to improve safety on the lake doesn't this actually not only improve the lake but help to calm those fears.

I still think this is where the Pro-SL's aguments fall off the track because they can not be substaniated. Feelings should not dictate law.

We can continue this over a beer soon.. (o'douls for me

)

DEJ · 08-26-2010, 02:48 PM

BI, you stated "the MPs speed estimate was HIGHER than the current speed limit".

Estimate is the key word here, it very well could have been 24mph but we know that does not fit your agenda. Perhaps this type of stuff is why some here do not trust you and question your motives.

Shreddy · 08-26-2010, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Incredible that you can say that when the MPs speed estimate was HIGHER than the current speed limit. That's not really important, but it is one of the little FACTS that anti-sl people keep forgetting. Yes, I know, only 3 mph higher, but higher is higher.

I have many reasons for supporting the SL but number one is children's camps. Some camps are keeping their small boats in on weekends because of the cowboy atmosphere on the lake. To me that is an indication that things are getting out of control and something needs to be done. There is also the question of where the lake is going. What will it be like in 5, 10 or 20 years? Three NE states have state wide speed limits. As more limits are enacted elsewhere is Winni to be the destination for speed enthusiasts? I don't like that idea. We need a speed limit now so hopefully most of these people will go somewhere else.

The single word answer to why we have a speed limit is fear. The fear of a camp director to send out his boats. The fear of a kayaker to come to this lake. The fear of an elderly couple to leave their island home on a weekend. That last one is VERY real. The fear of a parent to let their child take out a boat or canoe. The fear that our beautiful natural resource is being taken over by a small minority of "get out of my way" boaters.

For some it is about erosion, water quality, loon nests, fair distribution of resources, pollution, tourist dollars, wake damage, privacy, noise and yes even boating accidents.

Cowboys don't need to go over 45mph to be cowboys, most can't even go 45mph. The speed limit encompasses a safety problem for MAYBE (and I'll admit this is speculation), 20% at most, of operators on the lake and that is INCLUDING PWC's as well. Most vessels simply can't reach that speed. It's apparent that the ones that do, do not do it often (yes the do it).

The issue of safety during the day is not one of speed but rather knowledge of how to operate a boat, understanding of laws already enacted (excluding the SL law), and knowledge of how to properly navigate the lake.

I'm not trying to be one-sided but I feel strongly about my above opinion.

LIforrelaxin · 08-26-2010, 03:52 PM

I am going to stay out of all prior discussion here. And straight up answer the question of how has the lake changed this year... or more to the point over the last two years with speed limits. Well to tell you the truth I really haven't seen an overall change that would indicate to me that there has been any change what so ever. As the speed limit itself is extremely hard and time consuming to enforce and the MP presence on the lake is better spent doing other things I really have not felt as though the speed limit or the enforcing of it has slowed people down.

I continue to see the same problems I have always seen by inconsiderate boaters, or even the considerate boaters that prove once in a while that we are all human and make mistakes. Fortunately for them these things always seem to happen when the MP isn't around. And when the MP is around they are looking for the more serious and more easily enforced infractions.

This past summer I have had issues with a Marina owner, who later called and apologized to me for his actions, to rental boat owners, and everyone in between. All of these problems would be dealt with laws already in existence prior to the SL, through things that would most easily be dealt with by having a Coast Guard #6 style law calling for speeds that are safe and prudent for the given conditions.

I feel that if people keep trying to regulate the boating on Winnipesaukee the are going to eventually harm what we have all come to love. A place where we can come and enjoy ourselves. Quite personally I know what I have to deal with when I take my boat out. I know where to go on the lake when I don't want to deal with the crowds. And I accept the stress of being in the busy areas when I go there...

I also feel that the people that think SL will make things safer....or more enjoyable are only kidding themselves. Boats that break the speed limits are few and far between... short for short burst here and there it happens but... it not like there are cowboys that are flying around at either 6mph or 50mph and don't know how to achieve anything in between. If you aren't comfortable on the lake, you aren't going to be, no mater how many laws and regulations there are, and that is the bottom line... I have more trouble with the issues mother nature throws at me out on the lake then anything....

LIforrelaxin · 08-26-2010, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The single word answer to why we have a speed limit is fear. The fear of a camp director to send out his boats. The fear of a kayaker to come to this lake. The fear of an elderly couple to leave their island home on a weekend. That last one is VERY real. The fear of a parent to let their child take out a boat or canoe. The fear that our beautiful natural resource is being taken over by a small minority of "get out of my way" boaters.

Bear Islander,

I will totally agree with this one word answer here.... Fear is the problem and the reason we ended up with the Law.... The problem is that no matter how many rules and regulations are put into place fears will never be calmed... because there is always something new to fear.... Fears must be dealt with...
not regulated.

loony · 08-26-2010, 04:22 PM

let the facts speak for themselves.

I have not gone searching too much, but what I'd like to see is the marine patrol or a local newspaper publish marine patrol reports, similar to weekly police reports you read in the paper. This IS public information, but I never see it published.
This way we know how many citations were given out, and for what.
We'll also find out what their focus is.

If anyone know where to find it please share it.

VtSteve · 08-26-2010, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

1) I have many reasons for supporting the SL but number one is children's camps. Some camps are keeping their small boats in on weekends because of the cowboy atmosphere on the lake. To me that is an indication that things are getting out of control and something needs to be done.

2) There is also the question of where the lake is going. What will it be like in 5, 10 or 20 years? Three NE states have state wide speed limits. As more limits are enacted elsewhere is Winni to be the destination for speed enthusiasts? I don't like that idea. We need a speed limit now so hopefully most of these people will go somewhere else.

3) The single word answer to why we have a speed limit is fear. The fear of a camp director to send out his boats. The fear of a kayaker to come to this lake. The fear of an elderly couple to leave their island home on a weekend. That last one is VERY real. The fear of a parent to let their child take out a boat or canoe. The fear that our beautiful natural resource is being taken over by a small minority of "get out of my way" boaters.

4) For some it is about erosion, water quality, loon nests, fair distribution of resources, pollution, tourist dollars, wake damage, privacy, noise and yes even boating accidents.

1) So what about this year BI? Are the camps letting everyone out on the water again?

2) I'll have to agree with you on that vision. Some kind of limit might be a deterrent for the rogue cowboy. I don't agree with 45 mph, I think that's ridiculous. But you've supported different limits like me, so we're still in agreement.

3) I'll address the "get out of my way boaters" first. Again, I agree. I boat around numerous obstacles here. The worst are large sailboats, and lots of them. Many performance boats, lots of tubers and whatevers. I've had no problems at all with all but one arrogant performance boater. The rest are very friendly, and for the most part, handle their crafts well. If I had to define the GOOMW boater, I'd say a day boater with a tube, or a drunk boater.

As for fear? Subjective. If there's that many boaters that elicit fear, then I'd say an enforcement problem is huge. If they are afraid because they fear noise or size? Then I don't know what to tell you. I know your NWZ on Bear Island has been a constant problem. As you well know, enforcement works only if they are there. (got one this year)

We share a concern that too many people are arrogant, careless, too many drinkers, and cowboys of all kinds. You were realistic in thinking that the MP would not have increased funds, nor would the SL supporters assist in any way to mention enforcement. The ironic part is many SL proponents have a love/hate relationship with the MP.

Thanks for being a good person to have on board for discussions BI. I mean that

Mee-n-Mac · 09-01-2010, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The single word answer to why we have a speed limit is fear. The fear of a camp director to send out his boats. The fear of a kayaker to come to this lake. The fear of an elderly couple to leave their island home on a weekend. That last one is VERY real. The fear of a parent to let their child take out a boat or canoe. The fear that our beautiful natural resource is being taken over by a small minority of "get out of my way" boaters.

Not to drag out an old post but BI is correct in that it was "fear" that drove the SL bill. But what was it that the above people were afraid of ? If it's getting runover by a too fast boat then the SL may be a solution. If it's some "cowboy behavior" (?) then I don't see it getting addressed by the SL. The question should be was this fear justified in the 1'st place and then whether a SL truthfully addresses it. That's why people cite the various stats as to accidents and boat speeds. To believe the SL will address the fear issue is to believe that an incredibly small number of "fast" boaters are causing all the problems listed. It's akin to having the Dalton gang in town and causing all the ruckus. Moreover it ignores the ill done to all the responsible people who aren't causing problems when boating in excess of the now posted SL. I prefer the sniper rifle to the shotgun for these problems. Go after the specific people who are causing the problems. Leave to non-problem people alone. I don't see this as being any harder or more costly to do than passing and enforcing a SL law.

Just an analogy for people to think about ... We all see moronic and dangerous driving while on the roads. It's not restricted to any class or type of vehicle, nor any age or gender or other type of driver, that I can see. Is the answer to reduce speeds, say on the highway, to some low limit in hopes that the more fleet of these drivers would go elsewhere ? I doubt people would allow that ... as it would actually affect them as well as the fast, moronic drivers ! And it only deters (at best) the "fast" moronic drivers, leaving the "slow" moronic drivers still on the road to cause accidents and generally sow dissatisfaction and aggrevation. I would agitate for a more comprehensive and fairer solution myself.

And now to the anti-SL people ... I continue with the above analogy. I note the roads we all drive on have some SL. We can argue whether it's the proper limit but arguing that there shouldn't be any limits; anywhere, anytime is a losing argument. You'd have been much better off (IMO) settling for limit(s) that have some demonstrable basis as being both safe and reasonable. You left open the possibility that some innocent kayaker, just sitting there in the Broads, could possibly be run over by a non CaptB boater just because he couldn't see and take action in time due to his (truely) excessive speed. Logic and reason rarely win the day in politics but you have a stronger position to argue from with them on your side. You needed to show, both in theory and in practice, just where the above fear is and isn't justified.

hazelnut · 08-26-2010, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

When I got involved in this I read every post, article, thread, news media interview etc. and everyone of them cried being afraid and safety issues as the top priority. I sat in the hearings and this was again the arguement over and over again.

...and speaking of those hearings. My lord the out and out lies that one specific Marina Owner told were enough to make your head spin. I can not believe that this man could sit there and answer questions and actually flat out LIE to the Transportation Committee just to pass a stupid SL law. It was actually scary and I might chalk it up to senility because he's kind of really old.
Then there was this large woman that got up and told this tall tale of a boat that was about to hit her and she heard a girl on the offending boat say "look out daddy!" So I'm sitting there like "Great story about a 150 rule violation and how fast or should I say how slow does a boat have to be going for you to be able to hear the occupants of said boat."

The whole hearing process was hysterical as person after person got up and told these stories of near misses and almost what if's. One more sensational than the next. All stories had one detail or another that made it impossible for the boat in each scenario to be going more than 20MPH, such as "I saw he wasn't looking" or "I heard her say" "His bow was way high in the air and he couldn't see us." etc. etc. etc. The worst of them all was this woman who was asked if she would be open to allowing the broads to be a higher speed or a seasonal limit and she flat out said no! The reason, She uses the broads to go shopping and so do other Islanders.

I can't make this stuff up. I'm sure we could have a whole thread on this topic though.

Oh woops the original question, No the lake hasn't changed, one bit. Still the same knuckleheads doing the same things they always did. Ignoring the 150foot and being discourteous. The worst one to me is the Right of Way. Isn't that boating 101?

sunset on the dock · 08-26-2010, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

The worst of them all was this woman who was asked if she would be open to allowing the broads to be a higher speed or a seasonal limit and she flat out said no! The reason, She uses the broads to go shopping and so do other Islanders.

I can't make this stuff up. I'm sure we could have a whole thread on this topic

Umh....I was there too. You said she lived on an island? Was she shopping for food? Your spin might make it look like she was shopping for a new hat.

hazelnut · 08-27-2010, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Umh....I was there too. You said she lived on an island? Was she shopping for food? Your spin might make it look like she was shopping for a new hat.

Food, hats, whatever

Let's go with food, even better: "I need to go grocery shopping so everyone on the lake needs to slow down for me."

Either way SOTD don't you see how silly this logic is. I am surprised the Committee didn't actually laugh in her face. I heard many chuckles in the room during her "testimony," it was hard to keep a straight face.

Hey for what it is worth the hearings were pretty entertaining. The fantastic stories of fear and danger were worthy of movie offers from Hollywood.

sunset on the dock · 08-27-2010, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Food, hats, whatever

Let's go with food, even better: "I need to go grocery shopping so everyone on the lake needs to slow down for me."

Either way SOTD don't you see how silly this logic is. I am surprised the Committee didn't actually laugh in her face. I heard many chuckles in the room during her "testimony," it was hard to keep a straight face.

I didn't hear those chuckles but there were a few regarding attire and grooming appropriate for appearing in front of a legislative body. OCD seemed pretty much the only SL opponent who owned a tie. Mrs. Sunset commented about dirty torn jeans, people who hadn't visited a barber in way too long, sweatshirts with football logos, and women in tank tops. Now you'll probably argue that you don't need to dress to impress, that it's just a difference in age etc. but bottom line...there is an appropriate way to appear before a state legislative body. And judging simply by the outcome, that being overwhelming support in both houses, they were not impressed. Many thought the scruffy appearance of the opposition spoke volumes and helped our cause. JMO but your nasty and belittling comment about a lady who needs to pass through the broads for life's necessities needed to be addressed.

OCDACTIVE · 08-27-2010, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I didn't hear those chuckles but there were a few regarding attire and grooming appropriate for appearing in front of a legislative body. OCD seemed pretty much the only SL opponent who owned a tie. Mrs. Sunset commented about dirty torn jeans, people who hadn't visited a barber in way too long, sweatshirts with football logos, and women in tank tops. Now you'll probably argue that you don't need to dress to impress, that it's just a difference in age etc. but bottom line...there is an appropriate way to appear before a state legislative body. And judging simply by the outcome, that being overwhelming support in both houses, they were not impressed. Many thought the scruffy appearance of the opposition spoke volumes and helped our cause. JMO but your nasty and belittling comment about a lady who needs to pass through the broads for life's necessities needed to be addressed.

Thanks Sunset.. I tried to look my best..

I heard the chuckles but that is neither here no there...

But again don't exaggerate, the lady in question lives in the bear island area. Boat is at Shep Browns. The broads are MILES away. The crossing is 1/4 mile wide...

The comment that gained chuckles was that the Broads are the hub of the lake and you can't get anywhere unless you go through them. This is simply a lie playing to the ignorance of the committee members who by their own admission (some) had never been to the lake.

We all know island residents choose a marina as close to their island as possible that normally does not have to take you into the Broads. With the excpetion of Parker Island and a few others these marina are normally in very accessible places so that people do not have travel in the broads due to the high winds and weather that can occur.

This is just another attempt of twisting the facts to try to gain support.

Pretty Silly....

PS. next hearing come and say hello! Are you coming to Hazelnuts tomorrow?

hazelnut · 08-27-2010, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I didn't hear those chuckles but there were a few regarding attire and grooming appropriate for appearing in front of a legislative body. OCD seemed pretty much the only SL opponent who owned a tie. Mrs. Sunset commented about dirty torn jeans, people who hadn't visited a barber in way too long, sweatshirts with football logos, and women in tank tops. Now you'll probably argue that you don't need to dress to impress, that it's just a difference in age etc. but bottom line...there is an appropriate way to appear before a state legislative body. And judging simply by the outcome, that being overwhelming support in both houses, they were not impressed. Many thought the scruffy appearance of the opposition spoke volumes and helped our cause. JMO but your nasty and belittling comment about a lady who needs to pass through the broads for life's necessities needed to be addressed.

: laugh:

Oh so now the SL was passed on a dress code.

: laugh:

As for me I had Khaki Pants neatly pressed mind you,

and a very nice button down shirt, cleaned and pressed. My only tragic flaw was that I wore my (mind you very expensive and brand new) Fleece Jacket with a tiny Patriots Logo located on the left side. I was freshly shaved and had a haircut just the day before. Heck I think I looked pretty darn good.

I even got a wink from Ms. Clark. J/K

No the lady that feels the need to have the rest of the boating public slow down in the largest part of the lake so SHE can go grocery shopping needs to be addressed. What a complete joke.

Does she call Mother Nature and yell at her when the wind whips up the lake into 3 foot swells too?

Not to mention the fact that she doesn't even live on the Broads. Oh get this one of the people sitting with us on OUR side mind you has a house ON the Broads. I won't post her name but she is a member here. I believe she got a chuckle out of the comment from that woman and SHE actually uses the Broads to access her house. Sorry SOTD you need to lighten up and realize how silly all of that was. To paraphrase comments you have made:
It was like the SL opponents were driving around throwing puppies out of boats going 185 MPH while deliberately running down children in blow up boats in the middle of the broads.
For gods sake it was a Speed Limit hearing. Why all the lies just to pass a stupid silly law? Especially considering there was no reason for it. I mean I came in and just spoke from the heart and never once made up a silly story or made up lies. Yet your side got up and lied and stretched the truth and made up fantastic stories and we can't laugh about it. I mean no big deal it's over so now it's just kind of funny to recap and retell the tall tales of the hearing.""

Ok ok ok sorry sorry my apologies to BroadHopper and the rest of the membership for derailing this thread, I'll take this back on topic after I wipe the tears from my eyes from laughing so hard...

BroadHopper I think you bring up some great points. I fully support "camp zones." I really think that this would be a great cause to support. The reality is though the general lake itself has not changed one way or the other this summer. I still think that education is going to be the ultimate answer. Even if it means increased patrol and random checkpoints. I hate to even say it but it may come to that some day. What we need is a way to increase revenue for the Marine Patrol to allow them to increase their numbers. Non-motorized registration fees anyone?

BroadHopper · 08-27-2010, 09:26 AM

As a respectable Senior financial officer of a Fortune 100 company, I realized appearance makes a big difference in a presentation. Maybe next time I will dig out my 'Woodstock' attire and hopefully fit in to them

classic22 · 08-27-2010, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I didn't hear those chuckles but there were a few regarding attire and grooming appropriate for appearing in front of a legislative body. OCD seemed pretty much the only SL opponent who owned a tie. Mrs. Sunset commented about dirty torn jeans, people who hadn't visited a barber in way too long, sweatshirts with football logos, and women in tank tops. Now you'll probably argue that you don't need to dress to impress, that it's just a difference in age etc. but bottom line...there is an appropriate way to appear before a state legislative body. And judging simply by the outcome, that being overwhelming support in both houses, they were not impressed. Many thought the scruffy appearance of the opposition spoke volumes and helped our cause. JMO but your nasty and belittling comment about a lady who needs to pass through the broads for life's necessities needed to be addressed.

Not quite sure how some intolerant, story imbelishing women crossing the broads to shop for hats or a loaf of bread has any thing to do with how people may or may not have dressed for the hearings, but I know I was there in suit and tie, and many others who were there testifiying against speed limits were wearing appropriate attire. Did I see one guy come in and testify in a pair of jeans? sure did.....although he was not part of the organized oposition, who cares...he probably stopped in from his job, testified and left...he got involved. Now lets look at the people who testified for the speed limit...most of them fossils, Mrs Kravitz types, cant have a good time because they are miserable people in general, and want every one else to be miserable. Most were dressed frumpy looking in clothing popular in the Carter administration, wearing velcro tie sneakers...now thats what I call dressed for success. If you believe that how people may or may not have appeared before the hearings is what caused them to vote for speed limits, I believe you are sadly mistaken. In reality the law was voted in by a legislature, that came to power in a tide of Obamamism that washed over our state and country. The good news is this little social experiment will be well on its way to being repaired come this november. Stay tuned.

Kracken · 08-27-2010, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I didn't hear those chuckles but there were a few regarding attire and grooming appropriate for appearing in front of a legislative body. OCD seemed pretty much the only SL opponent who owned a tie. Mrs. Sunset commented about dirty torn jeans, people who hadn't visited a barber in way too long, sweatshirts with football logos, and women in tank tops. Now you'll probably argue that you don't need to dress to impress, that it's just a difference in age etc. but bottom line...there is an appropriate way to appear before a state legislative body. And judging simply by the outcome, that being overwhelming support in both houses, they were not impressed. Many thought the scruffy appearance of the opposition spoke volumes and helped our cause. JMO but your nasty and belittling comment about a lady who needs to pass through the broads for life's necessities needed to be addressed.

Since we are talking about what to wear when meeting with the New Hampshire Legislators I think the most important accessory would have to be a broom.

Kracken · 08-27-2010, 10:14 AM

I have to give credit where credit is due.

Sunset on The Dock is absolutely right.

The speed limit opposition was grossly unprepared at every turn, while the supporters were well funded, organized, prepared and professionally dressed.

Hopefully there is a lesson learned.

VtSteve · 08-27-2010, 10:49 AM

I think a lesson was learned. But it would appear that those that may have been unprepared, were also naive. Most good people that value their character, would be embarrassed to continue a discussion within a group that has found them to be deceitful.

I always knew you were slick SOTD, but even the slipperiest scamster slips up eventually. This past month, you've set a new record. I know for sure you would never have belittled people for their attire if you wanted the discussion to continue. You're a master baiter, that can tell fables fluently without remorse or regret. I've had a lot of experience working amongst regulators, professional paid experts and witnesses. Some people just have the knack, thankfully, a small minority. But when that certain smell is in the air, bells and sirens go off.

Usually people at the local level don't go to such extremes as you to carefully craft, and continually repeat falsehoods for such small gains. If part of a grander plan, that makes sense for players. But at this level, it seems almost pathological.

I think the title of this thread should change. It should be entitled

"What the heck are these people really up to?"

I think even people that support the SL or other laws may be to embarrassed to comment for fear of being on your side. For those people that either testified before, or have written letters this year on the NWZ, did you give them coaching lessons, or just write the letters yourself?

winni83 · 08-27-2010, 11:18 AM

Does the word “elitist” ring a bell? I would be more concerned about deception rather than appearance. A classic example of purporting to respond to an allegedly “nasty and belittling comment” by making your own nasty and belittling comment. You do not like what your opponents say, which is your right, but now you do not like how they look. Did they have an offensive odor too? Perhaps they did not bathe to your satisfaction or perhaps their very existence perturbs you, especially if these people have the gall to occupy the same body of water as you.

Bear Islander · 08-27-2010, 04:36 PM

What is so strange about a resident of the Bear Island area having to go through the Broads to shop? I don't know if there is an official definition of "The Broads" but around here it includes the east side of Bear Island.

Someone said she claimed to be from the Bear Island "area". Could that be Six Mile Island? The absolutely have to go through the broads to shop.

I know some people call the waters south of Three Mile Island the "Northern Broads" but couldn't that be shortened to Broads. Perhaps that woman was correct and you guys are in the wrong on this one.

MAXUM · 08-27-2010, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I think a lesson was learned. But it would appear that those that may have been unprepared, were also naive. Most good people that value their character, would be embarrassed to continue a discussion within a group that has found them to be deceitful.

I always knew you were slick SOTD, but even the slipperiest scamster slips up eventually. This past month, you've set a new record. I know for sure you would never have belittled people for their attire if you wanted the discussion to continue. You're a master baiter, that can tell fables fluently without remorse or regret. I've had a lot of experience working amongst regulators, professional paid experts and witnesses. Some people just have the knack, thankfully, a small minority. But when that certain smell is in the air, bells and sirens go off.

Usually people at the local level don't go to such extremes as you to carefully craft, and continually repeat falsehoods for such small gains. If part of a grander plan, that makes sense for players. But at this level, it seems almost pathological.

I think the title of this thread should change. It should be entitled

"What the heck are these people really up to?"

I think even people that support the SL or other laws may be to embarrassed to comment for fear of being on your side. For those people that either testified before, or have written letters this year on the NWZ, did you give them coaching lessons, or just write the letters yourself?

If I may I think there is an easy way to sum this up - and is applicable to various subjects, especially when discussing politics. If you the position you take is simply indefensible then smear and demonize your opponent. What those that engage in this kind of rhetoric don't realize is that eventually you loose all credibility. Not only that it leads to a wave of opposition to your position, for no other reason than your behavior represents something foul.

** Just for clarification, what I said here is to augment that which VtSteve is pointing out as I whole heartily agree with his premise and who it is targeted to. In no way was I intending to suggest that VtSteve is engaging in the behavior described. On the contrary I respect his contributions along with many others who have put substance and thought into their postings on this debate which found itself meandering off on unrelated tangents.**

Bear Islander · 08-28-2010, 11:46 AM

Contrary to popular belief, that fatal accident many years ago was not the reason Bear islanders started a push for a speed limit. The reason was the growing cowboy atmosphere, the "get out of my way" mentality. That accident was however the "impetus" behind the speed limit. It was the shock that got some people up off their butts with the determination to do something about the lakes problems.

They felt a speed limit was a do-able solution. More enforcement and education might have been a better solution, but they require serious funding, and that just was NOT going to happen. Better to go with a plan that might actually happen, than with a better plan that has no chance at all.

The speed limit was never intended to "fix" the lake. It is just one way to make things a little better over time. Or perhaps just slow the rate of decline. It is not a "magic bullet" fix and was never intended as such. A speed limit does not bring about a quick victory, it will not "change the lake" in only a year or two. It will change the lake by thousands of small victories.

My brother-in-laws friend has been bringing his performance boat to Winni for years. This year he went to Long Lake because of the speed limit. A small victory.

Imagine a wife standing in a boat showroom and saying "why are we spending all this extra cash for a boat that will go 80 MPH when the lake has a 45 MPH limit?" You can also imagine the husband with a pained expression and a salesman that is looking at the floor. When this happens it will be another small victory.

The speed limit, enforced or not, sets a standard of behavior. It points the lake in a different direction. It sends a message to the cowboys. And that message is "go elsewhere".

MAXUM · 08-27-2010, 10:27 AM

One can only hope that in time this subject can be re-visited and I see no reason why some areas of the lake should not be re-opened for those that would like to go faster than 45 MPH.

MAXUM · 08-26-2010, 07:53 PM

Dramatics and embellishment unfortunately grab people's attention even though many statements are simply inaccurate. We also live in a time where public forums like this exist and anyone can put anything on them and get people all whipped up. So the combination of the two can and does have a toxic affect on any decisions that are being made. This is why it is imperative that the rhetoric for and against must be taken at face value and under the context it's given. These hearings must be presented with hard data that can be presented as evidence to separate fact from fiction.

Unfortunately now a days its far easier to just paint a picture that suits your agenda and somehow that is acceptable and taken seriously.

VtSteve · 08-26-2010, 08:18 PM

Sounds like cable TV Max

MAXUM · 08-26-2010, 09:41 PM

Not to far off VTSteve, there is a fine line between fact and fiction.

There is little argument that the successful passage of the SL and various NWZ's are a result of fear and to a great degree spin. I make no bones about it, I favored the SL but not for the reason many here site. I had no doubts that it would NOT make the lake any safer and to date I see no evidence that is has. What I do think it does is provide a valuable tool for the MP to use when necessary when dealing with a reckless operator. The current laws, such as for example "reckless operation" is far to vague and therefore a judgment call by the MP who witnessed said behavior. If challenged in court it can be tough to prove. A speed limit violation can be proven and therefore provides a cut and dry means to have a violation stick.

That said, I don't believe it was necessary to sanction the entire lake to a limit, rather there are areas where a speed limit is not necessary such as the broads while other areas a limit could have been put into place. This would have created IMHO far less division and would have provided a solution were those that want to go fast can and keep things under relative control elsewhere. There is no reason why this could not have been done, but such ideas were lost to those that were vehemently on one side of the issue or another.

I'd be curious to know who thinks this is unreasonable and if so why?

Finally for the purposes of disclosure, I am now a proud VIP member of SBONH and have a whole lot of respect for this organization, it's members and their efforts to promote safety through education.

hazelnut · 08-27-2010, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Not to far off VTSteve, there is a fine line between fact and fiction.

There is little argument that the successful passage of the SL and various NWZ's are a result of fear and to a great degree spin. I make no bones about it, I favored the SL but not for the reason many here site. I had no doubts that it would NOT make the lake any safer and to date I see no evidence that is has. What I do think it does is provide a valuable tool for the MP to use when necessary when dealing with a reckless operator. The current laws, such as for example "reckless operation" is far to vague and therefore a judgment call by the MP who witnessed said behavior. If challenged in court it can be tough to prove. A speed limit violation can be proven and therefore provides a cut and dry means to have a violation stick.

That said, I don't believe it was necessary to sanction the entire lake to a limit, rather there are areas where a speed limit is not necessary such as the broads while other areas a limit could have been put into place. This would have created IMHO far less division and would have provided a solution were those that want to go fast can and keep things under relative control elsewhere. There is no reason why this could not have been done, but such ideas were lost to those that were vehemently on one side of the issue or another.

I'd be curious to know who thinks this is unreasonable and if so why?

Finally for the purposes of disclosure, I am now a proud VIP member of SBONH and have a whole lot of respect for this organization, it's members and their efforts to promote safety through education.

Maxum that was a refreshing post! WOW. I am an opponent to the SL law. However, you make great points without sensationalism. You have a logical viewpoint that makes good sense. I still think the Coast Guard Rule (6) is it? Could work for the lake, (Reasonable and Prudent). Either way I appreciate your perspective on the matter. In the end I thought to myself that I could live with exactly what you suggested. Add to that we keep a 30MPH night time SL and I am on board. Unfortunately when this "keep the broads open" was suggested the people who were ardent supporters, namely the woman who needs to go shopping

, were seen for their real motives. They were completely against compromise and it was evident to many that their agenda was not safety. It was and always will be an attempt to rid the lake of what they consider undesirable boats. Again with the NIMBY attitude.

BroadHopper · 08-27-2010, 08:12 AM

Now we are back on the same subject that gets Don teed. Let's get back on the subject if the lake is better.

A few things off topic. I am in complete agreement with BI about fear around the summer camps. Summer camps should have NWZ around the front of their properties. Even have a buoy or two situated out front to steer the boats away. That's a heck of a lot more logical than a lake wide SL.

I was a YMCA camp director in my days. Speed limits was not a problem. It is the incosiderate boaters that I feared the most. Steering them away form the camps lakefront is the best solution.

As for Winfabs, I was one of the founding members. The original intent of Winfabs was to save property value as I stated in another thread. Lake George property values rised after the speed limits was enacted. Majority of the founders are not native of the area so they have no clue what the lake was like. They started the fear spin to convinced the common folks to vote for the new law.

As for Rep. Pilliod, his famous 'Searays belong in the seas' dialogue is what really set off this high performance debate.

Let's not argue about all this here. Do something productive and notify your representatives that they have been misleaded and that we really need no boating zones around the summer camps, Rule #6, and a distracted boating law. Tell them they need to do this if they plan on staying another term!

Another thing. I strongly believe the NWZ at the Barber's Pole is proposed because of the summer camp next to it. Let's put a couple of bouys out there. That will save the headache of erosion on the shores when boat come off/on plane.

VtSteve · 08-27-2010, 08:25 AM

Most of the outspoken proponents of one law or another on the lake flat out lied, both about their intentions, and what was actually happening on the lake. There were many SL supporters that had some good ideas, presented them honestly, and were generally good people to deal with. It's unfortunate that so many people couldn't see past angry and contentious posts and see the outright lies that caused much of the angst.

Some had the vision to look way ahead, and saw some kind of SL as a way to protect Winni from becoming a Havasu or LOTO or other such crazy spots. Those people made me think hard and long, and did sway my opinion over time. I thought maybe a 65 SL daytime might satisfy everyone more or less.

But I might add, as BI stated many times, the SL opponents were not willing the first go around to compromise on anything. But it's hard to compromise, or even discuss issues, when one side has no facts, credibility, hides their true intentions, and generally pulls the wool over an unsuspecting public. Whatever the outcome on any issue, I'd prefer the process to be up front, and have people with honest character and integrity doing the advocation, for both sides. It's really sad that many still don't get this, maybe one day they will.

Now we have the BP NWZ issue. Fully supported behind the scenes by many of the same people. It's easy to spot them. They come out of nowhere with hysterical claims, broad-based stories of fear and woe, and leave people in the area scratching their heads as to when all of this mayhem is occurring. Some of the letters written in support of this NWZ are so far fetched and amazing, there must have been a common memo circulating that listed bullet lists for suggestions.

But I don't know who's more harmful to the lake. Those that produce the lies to gain support, or those that eat this BS up, then send nasty messages blaming us for pointing the lies out. The sheer idiocy of one supporter's comments. The MP saw repeated violations of the 150' safe passage rule, so lets have another new rule in place.

Regardless of position on any issue, I'm delighted to see many honest people come out here and state their opinions and stories. It's very refreshing, and would make for good discussion groups with the MP as well.

VtSteve · 08-27-2010, 08:29 AM

Sorry BH.

To stay on topic.....

BI stated many times that it was the camps he was concerned about, amongst other things. So back on topic, has it changed anything there?

LIforrelaxin · 08-27-2010, 08:48 AM

Well BI brought up summer camps, and VtSteve has asked the question has there been any improvement in the camps water activities since the enactment of the Speed limits...

Well here is what I have to say, I have several camps around me... that I pass on my regular boating trips... I personally have not seen a decline in their water activities in the last 20 years. Certainly you don't see the younger kids in the canoes, kayaks and small sail boats on the weekends, but you do see the older kids. But this is what I would expect. And during the week, when I have had the chance they have kids of all ages out on the water, with counselors chasing them down...

Now somethings to not given the economy since 2000 I have noticed that all the camps have had dwindling attendance.... and it got even worse during the last 3 years. Now as attendance at the camps has gone down so to has the number of boats from said camps that you see on the water...

Now if that isn't bad enough we have Insurance to think about here two... in this day and age with sue happy lawyers and parents, camps are fighting for survival and trying to keep there insurance cost down... I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some of the camps, have less of a water presence on the weekends because of insurance reasons, and their policy is dictating that they keep the boats on sure for Sat. and Sunday.

Now when you add all these twist and turns into the pot there is another different picture that starts to form. A picture that is not one of speed and its effects. But rather one first of economic affordability and second of safety... safety is not dictated by speed.... safety is dictated by common sense, education, and adherence to the rules....

Additional rules and regulations are not going to revive the summer camp feel and the sight of kids in canoes, and sail fish out on the lake... however responsible boating through education and adherence to the rules will. The focus needs not to be on how can we further legislate the lake to control the behavior, the rules are there... the focus needs to get back to where it was 10-15 years ago, and be about how do we educate people, and get the money to the MP to enforce the adherence to the rules that are already in place.

classic22 · 08-26-2010, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The problem here is that most people on this forum don't know why we have a SL. They heard somewhere, or read somewhere or just made it up in their minds that the SL is about safety. It isn't, and new was. Preventing accidents is NOT the reason we have a SL. At best it is one of the secondary or supporting reasons.

That is why all these arguments about test areas, data, trial periods and how many accidents there were in a given year are so far off target. As Bill Murry said in Meatballs "IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!"

The Anti-SL crowd, at this site and elsewhere, have been arguing the safety issue from day one. And, for the most part, at the exclusion of other more pertinent arguments. And that, in my opinion, is why they lost.

In Star Wars 5 Luke Skywalker says "I can't believe it!" Yoda responds "That is why you fail".

You want to talk about why we have a speed limit? Then drop the safety stuff.

BI- You are correct in stating the obvious...it never was about safety...this was just a smoke screen put up by the pro-speed limit crowd. So please enlighten the forum what it really was about! Please dont keep us in suspense any longer.

Shreddy · 08-26-2010, 01:14 PM

I think the SL was simply an eye opener. Most people know that the majority of boats don't/can't exceed say 60mph. The ones that can, don't do it often. No, I'm not for the SL per say, but it did set the bar similar to most speed limits off the water. The SL may be 45mph on the water, but MP realize that 50-55mph is acceptable/unenforecable. Same way going 75 on I93 most likely won't get you pulled over by a Statie.

It makes people think twice when operating a boat. I honestly don't drive any different, partly because my boat will barely hit 45mph if I'm lucky. No worries for me. My jet ski on the other hand is different.

What I'm stating is simply my take on the subject and what I think they accomplished with the law. I'd be curious to see how many, if any, tickets were issued in regards to this law. It would also be cool to see if they held up in court.

Side note, I'm completely for the night time speed limit as it can be tough to navigate even as an experienced boater. I do understand that certain boats need certain speeds to stay on plane as well.

John A. Birdsall · 09-30-2010, 01:31 PM

What I would like to know is how many speeding tickets on the lake were handed out, and what happened in court. (if it got there)

To me that would say what the difference in speed limit law has done.
With seeing people doing in excess of the speed limit almost all the time I do not concern myself. But those that are doing it within 150' that is what bothers me. I seen the mp GET buzzed by a jet ski with about 40' distance going perhaps full bore. The MP got the man, but what happened in court or how much of a fine did he pay?

ApS · 10-22-2010, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VitaBene

I am going on the record that SBONH is an ardent supporter of New Hampshire's Safe Passage law (AKA 150' rule) and the NH Marine Patrol's enforcement of said law. It is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.

You are hereby, "recorded on the record".

---------------------------

Is SBONH now claiming to be experts in safe boating?

By any chance, would that be individually—or collectively?

---------------------------

Your gripe isn't with me, anyway.

This is where your misdirection came from:

Quote:

Originally Posted by XCR-700

I neither support the 150’ rule nor the speed limits, nor most of the “well thought out” restrictions.

You probably also disagree with his assessment of SBONH members:

Quote:

Originally Posted by XCR-700

For the moment the pen rules, but very soon the barbarians will be mounted for battle,,,

Nice imagery!

---------------------------

The only thing that surprised me was that the Formula took a fatal hit from a Bassboat. (And that the two in the Bassboat survived the collision even though they were pushed backwards for such a great distance by the impact).

But any of us could have predicted this crash's fatal outcome.

08-25-2010, 11:23 AM	#1
OCDACTIVE Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro Posts: 1,045 Thanks: 444 Thanked 574 Times in 178 Posts	How has the lake changed???? Well we are into another year of the speed limit. Much different then last. Beautiful Hot and Sunny Weather. No one can argue that the weather has been a deterent. The economy has not rebounded as much as hoped but I think we have turned a corner and are hopefully on the way to full recovery slowly but surely...... However with Labor Day approaching I can honestly say the lake has not become any safer. The accident rate is up, the registration rate is level (that of the early 90's) but yet we have a SL that was supposed to change all of that. Now I don't want to see a debate get unfriendly but we have all been on the lake for many many hours and I really want to hear specifics as to if you have seen a difference. Personally I still see the same crazy captains that either have no education or are purposely thumbing their noses at the 150 ft law, NWZ's and yes I have seen plenty of boats / PWC's exceeding the 45 mph law. However I can say that in all instances where the SL was broken (again my personal observations) there was not a safety issue involved. However the multiple times I have been cut off by unaware captains and those going WAY too close to me caused me great concern. So in the spirit of our webmasters request, please lets keep the conversation civil. I am sure we are able to do this, that is until the normal grenade throwers show up but lets see what rational information can be obtained before that. Thanks PS: I am only limited to 5 posts per day so I apologize if I don't answer your comments or questions regarding this post. However, now that we have 2 years behind us, this is the conversation that should have been taking place before the legislature jumped the gun. We now have seen 2 years of having the SL's in force. Of course we will be getting peoples beliefs at first but the facts and data from the MP are to follow soon. In the mean time all we have is personal observations AND we all know of the multiple accidents that have occured these past two years. What I am driving at is with the information that we now have from a compartive stand point have you seen a difference? Of course you will have the hardliners that say everything is perfect, but if that were the case why are many now trying to futher restrict us with more NWZ's, stricter noise restrictions, and may I dare say size / HP? I thought SL were supposed to make everything better???? __________________ Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet? Last edited by OCDACTIVE; 08-25-2010 at 12:40 PM.

08-25-2010, 11:38 AM	#2
brk-lnt Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: South Down Shores Posts: 1,938 Thanks: 533 Thanked 568 Times in 334 Posts	Seriously, why even open this discussion? All you are doing is inviting people to continue to provide more personal opinion on this, and if the last 1000 posts on this topic are any indiction, everyone is going to believe what they want to believe and not be swayed one way or the other. There appear to be multiple agendas at play on this issue, and the posts, opinions, and "facts" presented all seem far from neutral. Killing more electrons on this topic will ONLY lead to hostility. If you don't like or agree with any given law or regulation the place to do something about it is NOT on this forum, it's in real life. I'd prefer to see someone post some actual statistics and trends, and even at that you'd need 4 or 5 years of the current state to even begin to show a trend that you could extrapolate from. __________________ [insert witty phrase here]

08-25-2010, 01:56 PM	#7
VitaBene Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Moultonborough Posts: 3,532 Thanks: 1,574 Thanked 1,608 Times in 823 Posts	Less friendly I am going to move beyond the SL dialogue and say that people on the lake have become less friendly and less courteous. I am not saying that every passing boater should wave to one another but when someone does something courteous, it would be nice to have that act acknowledged.

08-25-2010, 08:30 PM	#10
brk-lnt Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: South Down Shores Posts: 1,938 Thanks: 533 Thanked 568 Times in 334 Posts	My comment was not in regards to whether or not this discussion topic was allowed, but more to the point that every single one of these threads in the past have simply degraded to futility. There is not enough data to draw a logical conclusion from, and furthermore you are forever trying to argue to disprove a negative. You say there were many accidents this year, and it's easy for someone to say "yeah, and without the speed limit we SURELY would have had more". There is NO way you can counter that kind of statement. I'd love to see a discussion about something based in facts and reality, not just another rehashed opinion thread. __________________ [insert witty phrase here]

08-26-2010, 10:09 AM	#16
BroadHopper Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Laconia NH Posts: 5,512 Thanks: 3,118 Thanked 1,090 Times in 784 Posts	Life long Winni native response. In my opinion the lake is no longer the friendliest place on earth that I have pictured in my mind when I was growing up on The Broads. In the past, everyone get along no matter what they do or what they float. I miss the camaraderie of the water ski racing and sailboat regatta days. Although there are sailboat regattas today, I find the organizers a snobby bunch. They shun most folks outside their little cocoon. I no longer get the 'boater's wave' from boaters around the lake. A few still do. There was a time last spring my boat broke down just outside the Weirs Channel. In the old days, just about any boater will stop to see if you need assistance. I was drifting a good hour with hundreds of boats zipping by. I usually keep my eye out for paddlers when a sudden storm comes up. Many time I offer assistance over the years. This year I tried to lend a hand to two kayakers in trouble off Long Island. They shouted back, 'We don't like your kind! Go away!'. One sailboater off Bear Island even flipped me the birdy! The neighborhood use to be one huge happy family. Everyone will spend a weekend night on each other's deck or porch. The children will play together and enjoy many watersports. Today the 'high rollers' from out of state moved in, tear down the 1800's style fishing cottages and build McMansions. They tend to act like they own the neighborhood and also the road! They snub their neighbors and keep to themselves. As far as boating safety. I see very little marine patrol presence this summer. I even overheard a couple of novice boaters at a local bar telling folks that the MP budget was cut and they are to busy catching Speeders to notice other infractions. I have to believe them. I have never seen so much NWZ and 150' infractions this year than my life on the lake. I have even witness three boats traveling at max wake speed through the Weirs Channel! Wasn't there serious accidents this year because of 'minor' infractions? Shorefront property owners are already complaining about the slower boats creating larger wakes and also that noise become a problem because they hear it longer. SL opponents have told them that this will happen and it was ignored. I also notice a number of the so called 'GFBL' boats traded in for large cruisers or yachts. Compounding the situation. My new neighbors will call the police if one decided to do the long tradition of skinny dipping ala 'On Golden Pond'. The same neighbors will call the marine patrol if i decided to water-ski at sunrise or sunset. One neighbor even confiscate my 'drop off' ski, claiming if drifted out in front of his property! I can go on and on. Any new laws is not going to take the lake back. It is people that can take the lake back. Trying to limit public launching, tolls at the Weirs channel, limiting the size of boats and horsepower will just make matters worst. It will actually turn the traditional lake folks into 'Outlaws'. Let's all be reasonable. __________________ Someday may never be an actual day. Last edited by BroadHopper; 10-26-2010 at 10:10 PM.

The Following User Says Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
XCR-700 (08-27-2010)

08-25-2010, 11:48 AM	#3
DEJ Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 539 Thanks: 514 Thanked 309 Times in 152 Posts	I agree brk-int. With all due respect OCD this is not a good idea, it will only lead to the same old crap. Let the data and statistics speak for themselves, opinions about this have not changed on either side. Please consider deleting your original post.

08-25-2010, 12:01 PM	#4
DoTheMath Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: MA / Moultonborough Posts: 146 Thanks: 46 Thanked 43 Times in 18 Posts	I see no issue with his post, as it says in the top of this section of the Winni forum: "Warning! Avoid this area if you don't like debates and arguments!" So, with that - respectfully, let the thread continue... (thanks Don)

08-25-2010, 12:06 PM	#5
DEJ Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 539 Thanks: 514 Thanked 309 Times in 152 Posts	And this will accomplish what? We will get the same crowd that will say the lake feels safer this year, and the other crowd that will say nothing has changed. There that should cover it, debate over.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to VitaBene For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (08-26-2010), LIforrelaxin (08-26-2010), XCR-700 (08-27-2010)

08-25-2010, 03:25 PM	#8
MAXUM Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kuna ID Posts: 2,755 Thanks: 246 Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts	Since the question was asked, I'll submit a simple answer. I don't believe anyone's mind has changed in regards to the SL. Those that decided for or against seem to be even less likely to consider any other point of view. Kinda like any political philosophy, the liberals hate the conservatives and the conservatives hate the liberals. It will never change. Is there a noticeable difference? IMHO this is a loaded question and no offense throwing a little red meat to the wolves. Perception does NOT equal reality or fact. No offense either to the long string of so called experts and "know it alls".... if you cannot site specific reports or verifiable data sources then what you say cannot be validated and therefore is simply self proclaimed 'fact', or more accurately described as 'opinion'. To fully understand if the SL has made an impact is to at the end of each year compare accident, summons issued etc... data before and after to get an idea. Same can be said for the boater's safety course, has it made a difference? Let the numbers answer that question. Now if anyone can get their hands on this kind of data from the NHMP or if they would be so kind as to post it here, well then we have something to discuss. Otherwise it's just another long endless debate over who's perception is more accurate. The answer to that is very simple.... MINE! (I forgot to say I was just kidding) Just my 02 cents before the bullets start a flying!

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onlywinni For This Useful Post:
chipj29 (08-26-2010), XCR-700 (08-27-2010)

08-26-2010, 08:19 AM	#14
VtSteve Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,320 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 230 Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts	They disputed the data because it didn't meet their agenda, similar to the NWZ at Barber's Pole. They even charged that since the MP did not support the SL, that they purposely tried to contaminate the data. However, there have been two incidents which led to the SL that had nothing to do with speed. You all know which ones they were. It's a culture thing, and people that rub them the wrong way, Look Out. Last year, some of the more professional protagonists, TB, El and SOTD, engaged in many "debates" over the weather and the economy. They proclaimed that the speed limit had already worked, which is why the lake was so quiet. So this year, after a multitude of accidents and drownings and capsizing stories, they couldn't detract from their positions. In spite of renewed chaos and a multitude of boneheads, they still proclaimed it was working very well. However, another argument, the NWZ at BP, made them change their tune. Instead of the SL working there, boats are Tearing and Ripping and Flying all over the place in that area. Despite observations from people that live and boat there, the allegations continue. It's like leaving a book down to get a drink, and coming back only to find out someone's changed the chapter you were reading Most of us do not own very fast boats, a few do. Most of us have embraced safety, additional enforcement, adding to the MP funding, and have expressed a desire to enforce the laws. When provided with facts, they get nasty. So be it, that's politics. However, these are boater's issues, and not general elections. There are a multitude of good people on both sides of every argument. But these discussions should not be arguments, but discussions.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to VtSteve For This Useful Post:
brk-lnt (08-26-2010), VitaBene (08-26-2010)

08-26-2010, 11:05 AM	#20
Kracken Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Alton Posts: 223 Thanks: 46 Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts	Nice post Broadhopper, You are right, the lake has changed and the biggest part is the attitude. One could make a valid argument one of the greatest assets of Lake Winnipesaukee in years gone by was the friendliness of the people that called that lake home (even if it was for only a few weeks per year). If you don’t believe it, take a step back and remove the rose colored glasses. Those cabins of yesteryear where we spent our summers, where they really that nice or were they just a backdrop? Was the water cleaner back then? I remember when the Alton Bay Pavilion was a roller skating rink. After a big Saturday night when the rink was at capacity, there would be toilet paper floating in the bay all day Sunday. What made the lake great was the people, the attitude and the feeling you were part of something so much grander than yourself. That is something I think has been lost over the years. I can understand why people want to turn the clock back, although something’s are better left in the past. I just think people are focusing on the wrong things. It is not the homes, cabins, and boats that need a change. It’s the attitude. If you really want to make a change, start with yourself, if you see somebody in trouble, STOP and lend a hand. If you don’t know your neighbors on the lake, introduce yourself. If you pass another boat wave and smile. Just treat others the way you want to be treated and you will see a change.

The Following User Says Thank You to Kracken For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (08-26-2010)

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to brk-lnt For This Useful Post:
DEJ (08-26-2010), onlywinni (08-26-2010), VtSteve (08-26-2010)

08-26-2010, 11:34 AM	#23
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,757 Thanks: 31 Thanked 429 Times in 203 Posts	The problem here is that most people on this forum don't know why we have a SL. They heard somewhere, or read somewhere or just made it up in their minds that the SL is about safety. It isn't, and new was. Preventing accidents is NOT the reason we have a SL. At best it is one of the secondary or supporting reasons. That is why all these arguments about test areas, data, trial periods and how many accidents there were in a given year are so far off target. As Bill Murry said in Meatballs "IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!" The Anti-SL crowd, at this site and elsewhere, have been arguing the safety issue from day one. And, for the most part, at the exclusion of other more pertinent arguments. And that, in my opinion, is why they lost. In Star Wars 5 Luke Skywalker says "I can't believe it!" Yoda responds "That is why you fail". You want to talk about why we have a speed limit? Then drop the safety stuff.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (08-26-2010), Pineedles (08-26-2010), Shreddy (08-26-2010)

08-26-2010, 02:48 PM	#27
DEJ Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 539 Thanks: 514 Thanked 309 Times in 152 Posts	BI, you stated "the MPs speed estimate was HIGHER than the current speed limit". Estimate is the key word here, it very well could have been 24mph but we know that does not fit your agenda. Perhaps this type of stuff is why some here do not trust you and question your motives.

08-26-2010, 03:52 PM	#29
LIforrelaxin Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee Posts: 2,827 Thanks: 1,017 Thanked 881 Times in 515 Posts	I am going to stay out of all prior discussion here. And straight up answer the question of how has the lake changed this year... or more to the point over the last two years with speed limits. Well to tell you the truth I really haven't seen an overall change that would indicate to me that there has been any change what so ever. As the speed limit itself is extremely hard and time consuming to enforce and the MP presence on the lake is better spent doing other things I really have not felt as though the speed limit or the enforcing of it has slowed people down. I continue to see the same problems I have always seen by inconsiderate boaters, or even the considerate boaters that prove once in a while that we are all human and make mistakes. Fortunately for them these things always seem to happen when the MP isn't around. And when the MP is around they are looking for the more serious and more easily enforced infractions. This past summer I have had issues with a Marina owner, who later called and apologized to me for his actions, to rental boat owners, and everyone in between. All of these problems would be dealt with laws already in existence prior to the SL, through things that would most easily be dealt with by having a Coast Guard #6 style law calling for speeds that are safe and prudent for the given conditions. I feel that if people keep trying to regulate the boating on Winnipesaukee the are going to eventually harm what we have all come to love. A place where we can come and enjoy ourselves. Quite personally I know what I have to deal with when I take my boat out. I know where to go on the lake when I don't want to deal with the crowds. And I accept the stress of being in the busy areas when I go there... I also feel that the people that think SL will make things safer....or more enjoyable are only kidding themselves. Boats that break the speed limits are few and far between... short for short burst here and there it happens but... it not like there are cowboys that are flying around at either 6mph or 50mph and don't know how to achieve anything in between. If you aren't comfortable on the lake, you aren't going to be, no mater how many laws and regulations there are, and that is the bottom line... I have more trouble with the issues mother nature throws at me out on the lake then anything.... __________________ Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....

The Following User Says Thank You to LIforrelaxin For This Useful Post:
brk-lnt (08-26-2010)

The Following User Says Thank You to LIforrelaxin For This Useful Post:
Wolfeboro_Baja (08-30-2010)

08-26-2010, 04:22 PM	#31
loony Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 101 Thanks: 0 Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts	let the facts speak for themselves. I have not gone searching too much, but what I'd like to see is the marine patrol or a local newspaper publish marine patrol reports, similar to weekly police reports you read in the paper. This IS public information, but I never see it published. This way we know how many citations were given out, and for what. We'll also find out what their focus is. If anyone know where to find it please share it.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
Just Sold (08-30-2010), VtSteve (08-26-2010)

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
Martha Marlee (08-27-2010), OCDACTIVE (08-27-2010)

08-27-2010, 09:26 AM	#40
BroadHopper Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Laconia NH Posts: 5,512 Thanks: 3,118 Thanked 1,090 Times in 784 Posts	Sounds like I was overdressed. As a respectable Senior financial officer of a Fortune 100 company, I realized appearance makes a big difference in a presentation. Maybe next time I will dig out my 'Woodstock' attire and hopefully fit in to them __________________ Someday may never be an actual day.

The Following User Says Thank You to BroadHopper For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (08-27-2010)

The Following User Says Thank You to Kracken For This Useful Post:
classic22 (08-27-2010)

08-27-2010, 10:14 AM	#43
Kracken Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Alton Posts: 223 Thanks: 46 Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts	I have to give credit where credit is due. Sunset on The Dock is absolutely right. The speed limit opposition was grossly unprepared at every turn, while the supporters were well funded, organized, prepared and professionally dressed. Hopefully there is a lesson learned.

08-27-2010, 10:49 AM	#44
VtSteve Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,320 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 230 Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts	Where is the character? I think a lesson was learned. But it would appear that those that may have been unprepared, were also naive. Most good people that value their character, would be embarrassed to continue a discussion within a group that has found them to be deceitful. I always knew you were slick SOTD, but even the slipperiest scamster slips up eventually. This past month, you've set a new record. I know for sure you would never have belittled people for their attire if you wanted the discussion to continue. You're a master baiter, that can tell fables fluently without remorse or regret. I've had a lot of experience working amongst regulators, professional paid experts and witnesses. Some people just have the knack, thankfully, a small minority. But when that certain smell is in the air, bells and sirens go off. Usually people at the local level don't go to such extremes as you to carefully craft, and continually repeat falsehoods for such small gains. If part of a grander plan, that makes sense for players. But at this level, it seems almost pathological. I think the title of this thread should change. It should be entitled "What the heck are these people really up to?" I think even people that support the SL or other laws may be to embarrassed to comment for fear of being on your side. For those people that either testified before, or have written letters this year on the NWZ, did you give them coaching lessons, or just write the letters yourself?

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to VtSteve For This Useful Post:
LIforrelaxin (08-27-2010), VitaBene (08-27-2010)

08-27-2010, 11:18 AM	#45
winni83 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Moultonborough, NH Posts: 423 Thanks: 17 Thanked 212 Times in 134 Posts	Sotd Does the word “elitist” ring a bell? I would be more concerned about deception rather than appearance. A classic example of purporting to respond to an allegedly “nasty and belittling comment” by making your own nasty and belittling comment. You do not like what your opponents say, which is your right, but now you do not like how they look. Did they have an offensive odor too? Perhaps they did not bathe to your satisfaction or perhaps their very existence perturbs you, especially if these people have the gall to occupy the same body of water as you.

08-27-2010, 04:36 PM	#46
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,757 Thanks: 31 Thanked 429 Times in 203 Posts	What is so strange about a resident of the Bear Island area having to go through the Broads to shop? I don't know if there is an official definition of "The Broads" but around here it includes the east side of Bear Island. Someone said she claimed to be from the Bear Island "area". Could that be Six Mile Island? The absolutely have to go through the broads to shop. I know some people call the waters south of Three Mile Island the "Northern Broads" but couldn't that be shortened to Broads. Perhaps that woman was correct and you guys are in the wrong on this one.

The Following User Says Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
VtSteve (08-28-2010)