........noise! - Split from The Island Influence

[fatlazyless]

It could be the noise factor. Conceptualize this......the thundering noise made by twin 450hp V8 gasoline inboards.....or the......the buzzing sound from a pair of 225hp two-stroke carbureted V6 outboards. To some, these sound incredibly good, and to some others they sound like a big thunderous noisy nuisance. I'm not on an island but can see Bear, Mark, Mink, Timber, & Governor's (not a real island), plus the Dolly's and Horse. On a sunny summertime Saturday or Sunday it's about as quiet as a loud chainsaw. Having a 45mph speed limit would over time tone down the big fast performance boats since there would probably be less of them. Why buy a performance boat if the speed limit is 45? But, plenty of performance cars get sold and the speed limit is 65, so what do I know?

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

It could be the noise factor. Conceptualize this......the thundering noise made by twin 450hp V8 gasoline inboards.....or the......the buzzing sound from a pair of 225hp two-stroke carbureted V6 outboards. To some, these sound incredibly good, and to some others they sound like a big thunderous noisy nuisance. I'm not on an island but can see Bear, Mark, Mink, Timber, & Governor's (not a real island), plus the Dolly's and Horse. On a sunny summertime Saturday or Sunday it's about as quiet as a loud chainsaw. Having a 45mph speed limit would over time tone down the big fast performance boats since there would probably be less of them. Why buy a performance boat if the speed limit is 45? But, plenty of performance cars get sold and the speed limit is 65, so what do I know?

I think you are 98.734% correct re:the noise factor As Woodsy and others have also said noise is a big part of the issue. I suspect many support HB-162 if only in hopes of reducing the noise. The thing is I'd rather see the noise regulations tightened (if needed) or perhaps just enforced more vigorously than see a (too low IMO) speed limit trying to be a noise limit. Funny thing is this would probably find near universal support. The only question would be how loud is too loud ?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

I think you are 98.734% correct re:the noise factor As Woodsy and others have also said noise is a big part of the issue. I suspect many support HB-162 if only in hopes of reducing the noise. The thing is I'd rather see the noise regulations tightened (if needed) or perhaps just enforced more vigorously than see a (too low IMO) speed limit trying to be a noise limit. Funny thing is this would probably find near universal support. The only question would be how loud is too loud ?

I was going to mention the noise issue too , which I believe is the true issue here. You see , now at a slower speed , it will take them longer to get past your house , so you can enjoy it longer.
So be careful what you wish for...you might just get it.
And those docked and moored sailboats on a breezy night , clank , clank , clank , clank. That will have you talking to yourself in a short time

[JTA]

As an islander, I am neither here nor there on the speed limit. Performance boats only bother me when they are very loud and I think there is already a law on the books about that. What bothers me most are very large cruiser-style boats that plow huge wakes while their operators could give a %#$!.

[Islander]

Although I support HB162 I would rather have seen a horsepower limit phased in over several years. It would have been an easier way to keep speeds down. And it would also have addressed the danger and erosion of large wakes and limited noise.

After HB162 passes I will speak to my rep and see what can be done.

[ApS]

Living on two lakes, I have a unique perspective.

We have roughly the same mix of boats on my Florida lake as does Winnipesaukee: Jet-Skis, GFBLs, Bass Boats, bow-riders, and lots of pontoon boats. Excepting airboats, noise isn't a factor! Why is that?

Because Lake Winnipesaukee is surrounded by steep shorelines, hills, islands and mountains, it's most likely that noise is echoed by the landscape. (Something that can't happen on Florida lakes).

That's why Lake Winnipesaukee is very special, and needs to be safeguarded from intrusions.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Because Lake Winnipesaukee is surrounded by steep shorelines, hills, islands and mountains, it's most likely that noise is echoed by the landscape. (Something that can't happen on Florida lakes).

Great in theory if the surounding area is rock , stone and/or concrete as in a stadium .
In reality , mother nature has supplied trees , bushes , shrubbery and even weeds , all of which act as a sound deadener much like the difference in a room with wall to wall carpet verses a room with hardwood floors. The carpeted room will be quieter and have less echo
So lets stop the clearing of land for McMansions

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Cal

So lets stop the clearing of land for McMansions

Just curious about why the houses are referred to as "McMansions". I thought that name was given to the cookie cutter houses that have some "mansion-like" features that seem to appear everywhere except in New England. Go to the newest suburbs of Denver, Dallas, Indy, Atlanta, Chicago or San Diego to see what I mean. I see "real" mansions and almost no cookie cutter homes around the lake. Lots of interesting architecture, big and small; and absolutely huge houses out there.

[Aquadeziac]

Problem is with a horsepower regulation is proving horsepower. You can't use the advertised howsepower rating of an engine because a highly modified version would look exactly like the stock version. And testing horsepower ratings requires the use of an engine dyno to prove or disprove any given horsepower figure. i.e. the GFB with the highly modified 596 with balancing, blueprinting, internal engine work and dyno tested at 650+ howsepower will visually look the same as the 496 or 502 that is in a 26' cuddy or a 28' Express Cruiser. If its the noise factor, change the law to read "all exhaust must exit vessel below water surface".Face it, water is a damn good natural muffler. And if you look you will find there are states that don't allow above water exhaust exits. NH has a law that exhaust can exit above or below through the prop, but switchable exhaust (Captain's Choice, Quiet Call etc) is illegal. Yet several years ago at a local boat show, a local dealer had a beautiful 21' Bowrider on display with exhaust cutouts factory installed. The salesman explained to me that because "it was factory installed" it was legal in NH. Knowing the law, I confronted the manager, and after much discussion, was then told that a number of their inventory is sold outside of NH. Nothing like backpedaling. Kinda tough explainin to MP why theres no water and exhaust coming from your thru-transoms. And very expensive to change after the fact. Caveat Emptor.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Ranger

Islander, I have a boat with only a 90HP motor that will do almost 63mph. With this knowledge, what would your suggestion of a horsepower limit phased in over several years look like? An example of what you are thinking is what I am interested in. Thanks.

The proponents of this bill will not stop with the speed limit, before you know if they will be pushing for Winni to be for kayaks, sail boats and NH residents only...Heck, maybe even alcohol free! Bring back prohibition...

[Cobalt]

In viewing some of the classic photos of the Lake taken in the 1930s or 40's posted on this forum, we see magnificient laker boats make out of mahogany with aircraft engines and open exhausts. These boats were capable of speeds well in excess of 45, and the survivors that skim the Lake today demonstate this fact.

These magnificient craft together with their modern day brethren are examples of Americana that are a part of the tradition of this incredible Lake. They provide jobs for American workers, and support numerous businesses in the Lakes Region.

I live on the water and welcome any regulator, senator, or representative who plans to vote on the pending regulation to spend a Saturday or Sunday with me and see for yourself how little impact and limited noise these boats actually make when crusing for the 8 weeks or 16 weekend days during the summer.

There is louder and more annoying noise created by chainsaws, leaf blowers, and lawn mowers that are prevalent during the summer and fall. Please look at the real issue and not place the blame on this sport or incredible boats, but rather focus on education and enforcement of existing laws. We do not need more government regulation and encroachment on those activities that helped create the mystique of Lake Winnipesaukee.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Just curious about why the houses are referred to as "McMansions". I thought that name was given to the cookie cutter houses that have some "mansion-like" features that seem to appear everywhere except in New England. Go to the newest suburbs of Denver, Dallas, Indy, Atlanta, Chicago or San Diego to see what I mean. I see "real" mansions and almost no cookie cutter homes around the lake. Lots of interesting architecture, big and small; and absolutely huge houses out there.

I used that term only because I've seen it many times on here. You are right about the houses here.

[cowisl]

There are laws already in place for noise. If it was properly enforced, then there wouldnt be an issue. The last thing we need are more laws that wont be properly enforced.

[Cheffy]

Seems to me....that over the past 23 years, boating has had it's ups and downs on our lake. I remember spending lots of time ont he lake in our 33' trojan. Many days rafting in Braun Bay or Blueberry Cove, and our weekly trips to Meredith or Wolfboro. I remember so much about those days....but what I don't remember is anyone saying....."Did you hear how loud that boat was?"

To have a boat on the winni is not an expense that many of us can afford.....nor can many of us afford to live on the edge of the lake....But for those of you that can....remember what you felt like when you first started visiting the lake...or when you got your first boat and began floating around from bay to bay.....Felt lucky didn't you. This area has such beauty. And I always enjoyed that....I always enjoyed the look of our fresh painted boat, with it's well oiled teak decks and mast that I had worked on as a child. What a sight it was.

These days best I can do is stand on the shore somewhere and watch, and remember those good times. I would think, and yes it is only my opinion which I am allowed to have, that the beauty of the lake...the light that shimmers off the water....the private little coves ect....would be more then enough to distract you from a loud boat every now and then, or a boat that cruises by doing 65, and is in and out of your lives in about 1 minute.

It's almost like people who get a penthouse appartment in a city, because they CAN afford it...complain years later because they are going to build another skyscraper...and it's gonna block their view.....Well there are certain things to expect when you gather ALOT of people, from all different areas, and all different egos together. Some anchor for the day and go swimming...and others speed from one end to the other. And yes....unfortunate things happen......Unfortunate things happen to my children sometimes too...they may run too fast and fall down...does this mean that I'm going to dress them in padded clothes, dawn them in helmets and other protective gear and put a 10 foot fence around them? NO, it means that I will say lightly too them...."You can't run too fast hun...you could hurt yourself again...ok?" And they will most likely do it again...and maybe even again...but they will learn their lesson........

You can't change the course......People will do what they will do...until they learn, regardless of law. And everytime one of these issues comes to front.....and everyone starts talking about it....the only true shame in it, is that all of you that are lucky enough to live on the shores of the good winni...or have a boat that you can enjoy....end up being uptight, and forgetting about all the wonderful things around you...and just concentrate...infact listen even more carefully for that load boat to come by...so you can look over at your company and say..."Thats what I've been talking about...these damn people go soo fast...their trying to pass a law.....ect...." And poof.......there goes 10 minutes of time that you lost.

Infact...do me a favor...maybe those of you that are so into these issues should get together once a week for a few hours to bittle amongst fellow supporters....and invite those of us that are less fortunate to spend those few hours out on your boats or property to enjoy ourselves, in what most everyone else still considers a heavinly enviornment.

Perhaps there are some wealthy folks out there that would like to just make some donations to the NH MP, so that they may better occupy the lake, and enforce the laws that we already overlook.......(quick story of reference...when I was wondering when It would be legal to take my daughter out of her car seat, and put her in a booster...I called Meredith, Center Harbor..Laconia, Gilford Belmont...and the State Police.....NONE of them were clear on what the law is. And its a moving violation, which carries a hefty fine...and can also be construed as child endagerment....and none of them new......)

Come on folks....no offense....but the only legitimate concern on the table to support a speed limit...is erosion....and I'm sure there are many people that would rather drop stones in all they way around the lake to prevent it, rather then have another law thats poorly enforced.

Sorry to have gone on for so long.....but life is very difficult right now....and this time of the year if for being positive, and thankful....not for complaining...enjoy what you have.....

[Bear Lover]

Cheffy

Erosion is just one of the problems, and not the most important. Safety is number 1. If you knew someone killed by a high performance boat you would see that. Noise, congestion, pollution, conservation, swamped Loon nests and the overall hectic nature of the lake are also problems that are "on the table".

Dropping stones in the water to prevent erosion is against the law.

[Cal]

Cheffy ,
BRAVO , well spoken , but unfortunately the worst offenders have a deaf ear when it comes to others opinions. It's their way or no way , just ask them.
In the true interest of safety , how about banning ALL power boats except for the Mount and mail boats. Bet most islanders would change their tunes then(except those with bridges). No gas OR electric power and sail boats limited to 16'. Oh yes , NO aux. power for sailors either . They would be limited to island travel on commercial vessels with paid professional captains. But of course this would come with a fee each time , not to mention the boats schedule and NOT theirs.
Now there will be some mainlanders who would LOVE this proposal because they are sail boaters and would like to return to 1900 and have the lake to themselves. But then they would complain about the wakes from the Mount or SophieC. Some people are never happy unless they have something to complain about. It's just part of human nature

Have a GREAT Christmas
(If I'm still allowed to use the "C" word)





And that could not only be another entire thread , but an entire forum

[codeman671]

Bear Lover, if the tragedy that you are referring to had taken place with a Larson or some other family boat instead of a Baja (that was not doing a ridiculous speed either) would this be an issue?

I can see the noise portion as a valid complaint for a few boaters who are breaking the law, but congestion, pollution, conservation, etc are not to be solved by this. I think that you will see zero change in congestion. Also, performance boat owners take pride in their machines and typically keep them in tip-top running condition. A proper fuel mix, typically on the lean side keeps pollution down. Its the old 2 stroke out boards and poorly maintained family boats that dump pollution into the lake. And as far as swamped loons nests we have discussed numerous times where the big wakes come from, certainly not from fast boats...

[Cheffy]

Our area in and around the lakes has much to do about nature.....And I understand that mankind needs to take steps to preserve as much of the land around us as we can...for as long as we can....But there is one problem....EVOLUTION..... We as man have inhabited the earth for how long now? And over time, we have eroded everything from trees and animals, all the way to the atmosphere...it is inevitable...Man kind will leave it's footprint on our lake. While we sit around and enjoy it...lets remember we are PART of it. You folks who live on the lake, that now suddenly have a preservation quest, lets talk about the damage to the ecosystem that your house had part in when it was built? Did your land when you bought it already have a beach? Or did you clear bushes and dare I say...potential nesting spots so that you could enjoy a nice clear sandy spot...maybe you even took care of some of that troublesome algee that kept getting caught on your propeller...youknow..that green slimy stuff that fish and other water creatures use for cover and food......Perhaps while looking out your bedroom window you said....gosh...I think I'll cut down those three trees over there so I'll have an even better view....I know I know..this is not everyone...But little by little....for our own gratification, we find reasons to look past preservation...and look at our own comforts and desires. Many good people live and boat on the lake...people without a mean bone in their body...and little by little...those same good people make small excuses...nothing major...no big deal.....Right? The only way to reverse the damage that mankind has done to nature...is to remove mankind...and that aint gonna happen. perhaps just by setting the example each day...and planting some new trees....cleaning shore lines.....and acting overly responsible....others may join along......BUT......the one thing about the human element...is that it is ever changing, always failing...., and never perfect....so evolution will takes it's course....

This situation somewhat reminds me of the situation in New Orleans.....although I do feel very badly for those in that area.....I am puzzled.... In a nut shell, someone walked along through a marshy, very much nature inhabited area one day long long ago...and said...hmmmm If we could only dig all of this out....get rid of everything....Build a wall around it a few feet higher....maybe put some big pumps in to keep the water out...and BUILD......so we can enjoy it that is........ How long would it take for human element to show it's other flaw....POOR JUDGMENT....A once beautiful area...over populated.....and now shattered.....Blame it on who ever or whatever you want to....but it was the human element that failed New Orleans. Just as in years to come....will fail our beautiful lake. Evolution my friends....Evolution.....

[Cheffy]

Cal....all this debate has got me going lol....I think we should start another forum on the "c" word thing lol. I love a good debate! And I'm probably in the same thought realm as yourself. I don't know about everyone else....But SANTA is coming to my house this year....and for years to come...

Merry Christmas to ALL (even you non believers)...And to all a good night!

[Cheffy]

Since I am on a roll here lol......this one goes out to all you folks who belive more rule, laws, regulations and limits are needed in todays society.....

While I am very much a law abiding citizen, who grew up with very strict parents, and a nice stint in the service......I do however disagree with the government regulating our daily lives. I for one am a person that wakes up in the morning, and not only abides by the laws of our land, but makes my own judgments on how to conduct myself. These judgments are based on my morels and standards. And at the end of the day I have the personal gratification that I did it "on my own", and not by some rule of daily living handbook the size of war and peace that my government gave me to live by.

Keep asking our goverment to help us control ourselves....and in 20 years you'll turn on the tube..(probably just a 1/4 inche invisible peice of glass by then) to watch a Pats game....and you'll find them playing flag football because it will illegal to touch-push-or tackle someone. Gosh...the will probably outlaw pigskin and leather by then....and play with helium filled nurf balls...jsut so no one gets hurt....

Let the idiots suffer.......I by the way....enjoy watching the idiot that passes me on a snowy day, run himself into a utility pole...it's survival of the fittest. Humans are not Geese....maybe if we were....our week ones would be a little smarter......

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cheffy

Just as in years to come....will fail our beautiful lake. Evolution my friends....Evolution.....

How right you are! Keep in mind mankind is at the top of the food chain and eventually we will eat , kill ,or just destroy everything around us , including ourselves.
At this point , Mother Nature will take over and purge the Earth of all our refuse and it will then become an Eden like none of us has nor ever will see
The only control we have over this is perhaps what millenium the occurs

[Dave R]

My pessimistic thoughts on preservation:

Good thing no one was able preserve the glacier that left the lake like it is a few thousand years ago.

When the sun turns into a red giant and this planet becomes vapor, all the preservation will be for naught.

Everything tangible is temporary except energy. Preservation is just prolonging the inevitable destruction of everything.

Merry Christmas!

[Orion]

Originally Posted by Cheffy

I for one am a person that wakes up in the morning, and not only abides by the laws of our land, but makes my own judgments on how to conduct myself. These judgments are based on my morels and standards. And at the end of the day I have the personal gratification that I did it "on my own", and not by some rule of daily living handbook the size of war and peace that my government gave me to live by.
...

Cheffy,
If everyone behaved like you we would certainly need no laws. Unfortunately and sadly we live in a totally different society, where for many there is no regard for their fellow man, only for their own gratification.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Cal

How right you are! Keep in mind mankind is at the top of the food chain and eventually we will eat , kill ,or just destroy everything around us , including ourselves. At this point , Mother Nature will take over and purge the Earth of all our refuse and it will then become an Eden like none of us has nor ever will see. The only control we have over this is perhaps what millenium the occurs

Originally Posted by Dave R

My pessimistic thoughts on preservation:
Good thing no one was able preserve the glacier that left the lake like it is a few thousand years ago.
When the sun turns into a red giant and this planet becomes vapor, all the preservation will be for naught.
Everything tangible is temporary except energy. Preservation is just prolonging the inevitable destruction of everything.
Merry Christmas!

Wow guys ... spending too much time in the malls ? Looking and fighting for that last parking space ?? I thought the post holiday blues were supposed to come, well, after the holidays. Besides everyone knows that the aliens will come and pick our bones clean long before either of your scenarios happen. I saw a movie on it this summer ... so it must be true !

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Wow guys ... spending too much time in the malls ? Looking and fighting for that last parking space ?? I thought the post holiday blues were supposed to come, well, after the holidays. Besides everyone knows that the aliens will come and pick our bones clean long before either of your scenarios happen. I saw a movie on it this summer ... so it must be true !

Funny, but this has been one of the least stressful Christmas shopping seasons for me and I am a pretty upbeat person. I just think it's funny to worry about preservation so much when complete destruction of all we touch is inevitable.

While I don't advocate destruction and recklessness for the sake of destruction and recklessness, I also like to live by this motto: "Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "...holy ****, what a ******* ride!".

carpe diem

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by cowisl

The last thing we need are more laws that wont be properly enforced.

CI,
Why the big objection to a law that won't be enforced? If it won't be enforced, what harm can it do you? I don't buy the argument that you all are afraid of wasting the legislature's time or a few sheets of paper passing and printing up a meaningless law. The legislature is going to be in Concord next month anyway, so its not like they have to create a special session over this. And there will surely be other new laws next year anyway, so typing in a few extra lines before the revised statutes go out for printing is not going to add any real expense. So what's the big whoop?
If the boat speeds can't be measured, no citations will be issued and this will have only been a waste of the supporters' time...no skin off your back...a little off mine. Or if MP can't defend their measurements in court, the first citations they do issue will be thrown out and the law will quickly become a non-issue. So why all the fuss?
I don't believe HB162 would be ineffective, but I have to question the legitimacy of that argument by the opposers. We propose and pass laws every year in this state that are ineffective or silly. Few object so vociferously as they are doing here. Rep Currier, a strong HB162 opponent, last year submitted a bill to annex Killington Vermont (seriously). ****

If this law was not going to have any effect, I find it very hard to believe that you all would be objecting so loudly.

[Silver Duck]

Jack

Any law that will not or can not be enforced weakens all laws by teaching folks that laws needn't be obeyed. It's the old "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" syndrome!

Silver Duck

[Aquadeziac]

I fail to see where everyone seems to think it can't be enforced. I have seen the equipment first-hand and it has even been demonstrated on television. It is handheld laser based, with a viewing screen, digital readout, and can produce an enhanced photo of a license plate at over 1/2 mile. It is accurate on fiberglass as well as metal. It is accurate at every angle, head-on, from side, from rear, even from above. Kinda tough trying to convince a judge when he has a photo of your boat log stamped with date,time & speed from a properly calibrated laser gun, eh? Surely there must be a State Trooper that reads this forum that can verify this. The technology is there. Marine Patrol just has to be equipped with it.

[cowisl]

Jack,

I appreciate your view on the issue. I do not believe the speed limit will make the lake any safer, or will bring it back to the days of when there where hardly any boats on the lake.

Thanks silver duck for the response!

[fatlazyless]

In today, Jan 7, www.fosters.com. there's an article about a new boat noise law proposed by Rep Michael Whalley (R) Alton. There's a quote where he says "People on the shore couldn't care less what a boat is doing out on the water." He says it is the noise that bothers them the most.

Rep Whalley, you need to rethink that thought. Many times, I have witnessed performance boats that speed through the narrow Bear Island-Cattle landing passage when it has other smaller boats present and it bothers me.

It can be a jungle out there!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

In today, Jan 7, www.fosters.com. there's an article about a new boat noise law proposed by Rep Michael Whalley (R) Alton. There's a quote where he says "People on the shore couldn't care less what a boat is doing out on the water." He says it is the noise that bothers them the most.

Rep Whalley, you need to rethink that thought. Many times, I have witnessed performance boats that speed through the narrow Bear Island-Cattle landing passage when it has other smaller boats present and it bothers me.

It can be a jungle out there!

If that's the case wouldn't they be breaking the 150' rule already?

[Ski Man]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

I suspect many support HB-162 if only in hopes of reducing the noise.

Not me, and not anyone of the speed limit advocates I have dealt with. They are pretty universally just concerned about the dangers of high speed boating on our crowded lakes and about the safety that a speed limit would ensure. Why do speed limit opponents keep misstating the objectives of supporters?

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

I'd rather see the noise regulations tightened (if needed) or perhaps just enforced more vigorously than see a (too low IMO) speed limit trying to be a noise limit. Funny thing is this would probably find near universal support.

Again, I could not disagree with you more. Noise is obviously a problem on NH's lakes that most everyone opposes, but only a safety problem when it is loud enough and close enough to do ear damage, or when it is so loud as to interfere with one's ability to hear other warnings. You could even say that it is safer when you can hear a boat coming at you at 100 miles an hour than when you cannot. So stricter noise laws would certainly not improve safety, they would just improve our quality of life. Reducing boat noise would never substitute for the safety advantages of a speed limit. So I don't agree that you'd find "universal support" for a stricter noise limit instead of a speed limit. In fact, I expect you'd probably find "universal opposition" from the speed limit advocates for that trade. They are universally concerned about speed and its impact on our safety. But you will surely find universal support for a stricter noise limit in conjunction with a speed limit.

[fatlazyless]

Todays, Jan 7, www.citizen.com has an article about noise & speed on Lake George, New York. It's worth a read.

[Fat Jack]

Something about this bill smells funny.

While no one will argue against a better noise law, one has to question what this is really about. I am all for it and I hope it passes, but when I read who is behind HB1624, (Rep Whalley who owns a chain of jet ski dealerships and has been the biggest opponent to SL's in the House, The Marine Trades Association of which Whalley is certainly a member, and Director Barrett who seems to have opposed every GFBL restriction in the past except those that the MTA and NHRBA have wanted), and reading that Whalley told the House Transportation Committee that "noise, more than speed, is a concern for the people who enjoy the state's waterways" (says who?), it becomes pretty obvious that HB1624 is really just a counter-measure against HB162. Are we really to otherwise believe that the MTA has suddenly "gotten some religion" and volunteered to put limitations on themselves for our sake? Weren't they the very reason that our existing noise law was so badly weakened in the first place?

And HB1624 is not at all about safety. It is part of a bigger plan, including the "minority recommendation" and other efforts to confuse the legislature, and it is clearly only intended to be used as a tool against the speed limits of HB162. It plays into the false accusation that we keep hearing on this forum from the NHRBA members (and from Director Barrett) that we are “disingenuous” and not really concerned with the safety of speed limits, but are really just using speed limits as a decoy to get performance boats off the lakes, in this case because they are noisy.

I'm sure that the word being spread around Concord by Rep Whalley et al is that since safety isn't the "real issue", perhaps a bill like this will make performance boats more tolerable and shut us up.

We should have all seen this coming with some of the posts we've been seeing from the opposers in the past couple of weeks. NHRBA was obviously involved with this hoax too. The similarity of all these arguments and tactics coming from different directions is just too much of a coincidence for it to be otherwise.

I'm certainly in favor of HB1624, as I am sure will be all HB162 supporters if it really sets out to do what this article implies. But it simply does not address the safety concerns posed by high speeds and should not be used as a substitute for HB162. HB1624 does not address the speed and danger problems that the RR&D Committee described in their HB162 Majority Report, that almost 70% of NH's citizens want to see addressed by speed limits. HB1624 is not a safety initiative.

I guess one could even argue that if a boat is headed towards you at 90MPH, it is safer for you that you can hear it coming. Without speed limits, quieter boats speeding across our overcrowded lakes would actually be less safe to some degree. So although I do support HB1624, I hope no one will be fooled into thinking that it is a substitute or compromise for the real safety bill; HB162.

It will also be interesting to see if this backfires on Whalley, the MTA, and NHRBA. They are surely seeing this as the lesser of the two evils for them and banking a great deal on the chance that this will help them overcome HB162. But they might end up with both "evils". If HB162 passes, they will be in the miserable position of having to tell their members that they not only have speed limits to deal with, but that they might also have tougher noise regulations, through their own backing.

Since Lake George has found that speed limits not only improve safety but also reduce noise, why don't they just support the speed limits if they are sincere about this?

[Silver Duck]

Ski Man

Ever since this debate (argument?) began, several of the more vociferous Bear Island supporters of HB162 have made it very, very clear that they, at least, are pushing the bill as a way to drive performance boats off the lake. That statement has been made on numerous occasions; there is no possible mistake about at least their intent!

In fact, that statement is the sole reason I oppose HB162 - even though I don't own a performence boat, have no particular desire to do so, and don't particularly even like the things!

Silver Duck

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Ski Man

Ever since this debate (argument?) began, several of the more vociferous Bear Island supporters of HB162 have made it very, very clear that they, at least, are pushing the bill as a way to drive performance boats off the lake. That statement has been made on numerous occasions; there is no possible mistake about at least their intent!

In fact, that statement is the sole reason I oppose HB162 - even though I don't own a performence boat, have no particular desire to do so, and don't particularly even like the things!

Silver Duck

NOT TRUE!

I'm sure you have read many times that we want to push high performance boats off the lake. However it's the opposition that is posting it, not Bear Island residents.

Please show me where this has ever been posted by a Bear Islander! If you can't then please stop making absurd claims you can't stand behind.

[Silver Duck]

Island Lover

The posts to which I referred go back to the earlier threads that Don shut off; I've no idea of how to search for them. I can tell you that they were posted by a person with "Bear" in their screen name (as a hint, if you know how to do such a search and want to be bothered). You might look for earlier posts of mine on these threads stating that I didn't believe in punishing a whole group for the misconduct of a few persons.

I am in no way mistaken about that person's agenda; it turned me against what I initially thought was not at all a bad idea (and still don't, though I think that 60 or so would be more reasonable than 45). While you're at it, you might want to look for posts in roughly the same timeframe (not by the same person) hinting that cruisers should be the next target. I very clearly remember one with a photograph of a number of express cruisers stating that these were the real problem.....

On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing to accept that you sincerely believe that a speed limit is necessary.

Silver Duck

[Silver Duck]

FLL

I agree with you that the narrow passage at the cattle landing end of the neck can be a jungle, though it's not only the GFBLs that go through there too darned fast (not to mention 3 or 4 abreast in both directions, on plane!)

I've often wondered why folks in that area haven't pushed for a NWZ? Lord knows, it could use one, at least during the busy season!

Silver Duck

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Island Lover

The posts to which I referred go back to the earlier threads that Don shut off; I've no idea of how to search for them. I can tell you that they were posted by a person with "Bear" in their screen name (as a hint, if you know how to do such a search and want to be bothered). You might look for earlier posts of mine on these threads stating that I didn't believe in punishing a whole group for the misconduct of a few persons.

I am in no way mistaken about that person's agenda; it turned me against what I initially thought was not at all a bad idea (and still don't, though I think that 60 or so would be more reasonable than 45). While you're at it, you might want to look for posts in roughly the same timeframe (not by the same person) hinting that cruisers should be the next target. I very clearly remember one with a photograph of a number of express cruisers stating that these were the real problem.....

On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing to accept that you sincerely believe that a speed limit is necessary.

Silver Duck

This is the post you are talking about, made by "Bear Lover"

Your missing the point. A speed limit is not what the majority want. What they want is those "big, loud, gas guzzling, mine is bigger than yours" boats off of the lake. A speed limit is what they will use as the way to do it. Nobody is going to spend a small fortune to keep a muscle boat on a lake with a 45 mph limit.

And after the speed limit passes they will want a horse power limit, or some other method, to get the cabin cruisers off the lake.

If you really think it can't happen read the list of NH lakes with speed and or horsepower limits. It's about 1 in 3.

If you will read closely she is talking about the motives of OTHER PEOPLE. This was in the middle of a hot argument. And since then she has apologized for the comment and says she has changed her mind after meeting responsible performance boaters at the hearings.

Could it be she just likes bears?

And your comment was "several of the more vociferous Bear Island supporters" who are the others?

I wanted a 60 mph limit as well.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

I've often wondered why folks in that area haven't pushed for a NWZ?

It's my understanding that there have been at least two attempts to put a NWZ at that Cattle Landing channel, both opposed by the Director of Safety because he felt it would be too much of an imposition on boaters (Is that a "safety" concern?). I also read that when the town of Center Harbor and its businesses petitioned for a NWZ petition in an attempt to get the kind of boost that Meredith got from its, Barrett opposed that because he said the NW markers would cause a hazard (???). I also heard that he opposed several previous attempts to get a NWZ at the Eagle Island channel, until NHRBA was the petitioner.
Perhaps if NHRBA files new NWZ petitions for Center Harbor and Cattle Landing, Barrett will approve them. Wouldn't that be in line with NHRBA's official agenda anyway?

[Silver Duck]

Actually, I.L., a very kind person helped me out by finding additional quotes along the same lines by the same poster (though minus the references to cruisers). However, I'd prefer not to turn my responses into a mud slinging contest. I'd be glad to PM them to you if you want; just let me know. By the way, the post by Bear Lover that you quoted was not the one that I was referring to.

I'm very glad to hear that Bear Lover has realized that there are some responsible people on the lake who choose to drive performance boats. The thrust of my postings on this subject from the start has been that, if we would only treat each other with courtesy, look out for each other, be tollerant of folks whose tastes in boating are different from our own and respect their particular needs, there is room for all of us to enjoy our beautiful lake!

Sadly, that tollerance seems lacking in many of the postings that I've read. There is no possible way to mistake the tenor of the postings by some HB162 supporters:
There has been little reference to excessive speed on the part of other kinds of boats (many of which regularly operate well in excess of 45 mph),
The performance boating community has been singled out for villification,
Some of the members of our own forum community who own performance boats have been treated with a degree of disrespect that I find totally unacceptable, and
Even the bill's own sponsor seems to have stated that the bill is more aimed at some people's perceptions of danger than documented, provable levels of danger.

Sorry, but I'm still convinced that, for many HB162 supporters,this brouhahah is about booting performance boats off of the lake.

I hardly find your statement that Bear Lover was talking about other people's intentions toward cruisers very comforting, since she was talking about "what the majority want"!

I've about "said my say" on this topic.

Silver Duck

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

that statement is the sole reason I oppose HB162

Silver Duck,
You most likely heard that statement from the opposers of HB162 who were misstating the goals of the supporters, not from its supporters, who only care about their safety. It has been exactly the opposers' strategy to fool people into thinking that way, and it obviously works to some extent, as it did on you. It's probably the reason most opposers oppose the bill...they have been tricked.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Ski Man

Not me, and not anyone of the speed limit advocates I have dealt with. They are pretty universally just concerned about the dangers of high speed boating on our crowded lakes and about the safety that a speed limit would ensure. Why do speed limit opponents keep misstating the objectives of supporters?

I was simply opining (hence the use of the word suspect) that there are probably supporters who care more about the noise than safety. I seem to recall that WinnFABS own site (use to) list noise (and quality of life) as a reason for a speed limit so I'm not off in left feild here.

Originally Posted by Ski Man

Again, I could not disagree with you more. Noise is obviously a problem on NH's lakes that most everyone opposes, but only a safety problem when it is loud enough and close enough to do ear damage, or when it is so loud as to interfere with one's ability to hear other warnings. You could even say that it is safer when you can hear a boat coming at you at 100 miles an hour than when you cannot. So stricter noise laws would certainly not improve safety, they would just improve our quality of life. Reducing boat noise would never substitute for the safety advantages of a speed limit. So I don't agree that you'd find "universal support" for a stricter noise limit instead of a speed limit. In fact, I expect you'd probably find "universal opposition" from the speed limit advocates for that trade. They are universally concerned about speed and its impact on our safety. But you will surely find universal support for a stricter noise limit in conjunction with a speed limit.

I didn't say anything about any trade but rather that a noise law would find near universal acceptance. I'm sure the some of GFBL crowd would disagree with me, so be it. Again you pass noise laws to control noise, speed laws to control speed.

[fatlazyless]

You know, now that I tink about it, that crowded passage between Bear Island & the Cattle Landing dock is way more interesting as a crowded area. Making it a no-wake zone would make it boring. Throw in five bow-riders, one 42' Carver, one 28' twin-hull cat go-fast, four jet-skis, one work-barge, two 20' pontoons, one 22' capri sailboat, one sunfish, two Bajas, one Cobalt , and one 14' Alumacraft; stir it all up, and there you go buddy, that's your sunny Saturday afternoon in that passage way. And, that's why I have a boat lift.

When I become King of the Big Lake, everyone will be required to have only a 14' Alumacraft row boat.For the privileged special few, they get to have a 9.9 Evinrude from 1986. It shall be ruled!

And, Sundays at noon will be set aside for Alumacraft joisting above the Timber Island trench in order to keep the salmon fat & happy. It shall be ruled!

[Island Lover]

Less

When you are king, consider the new four stroke 9.9s. Quieter, easier to start and less pollution.

[ApS]

LOL ! FLL's turning me around on NWZs and speed-limits!

You're reminding me why boat launching ramps are such an asset!

What will I do with my spare time when we get a Lake George-style speed limit here ?

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

I was simply opining that there are probably supporters who care more about the noise than safety.

I've met many supporters, but not one who cares less about safety. Your opinion was probably derived from NHRBA's attempts to make this bill appear to be anti-cigarette boat, instead of being the safety bill that it really is.

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

you pass noise laws to control noise, speed laws to control speed.

exactly.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Your opinion was probably derived from NHRBA's attempts to make this bill appear to be anti-cigarette boat, instead of being the safety bill that it really is.

No attempts made here, it's only one of our issues with it. So how do you argue, that a WinnFABs officer, shows a picture of a go fast boat to the committee and STATES, publicly, that if the speed limit passes these boats will leave the lake. And that why would anybody need to have a boat like this on the lake.

So NHRBA is not forcing any opinion on people, it's just out there in the open. Now I believe some people are true and want a speed limit in the name of safety, I appreciate their honestly. Need I post the sponsoring representative opinion again?

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

... Now I believe some people are true and want a speed limit in the name of safety, I appreciate their honestly. Need I post the sponsoring representative opinion again?

I hope you not dragging up that old "fear" quote again!

YES, in my opinion HB162 is about "fear". Fear that children swimming near my dock will be killed by a high speed boat that has about 1 second to see them and react. Fear that a GFBL will go up and over my family boat at high speed. Fear that the lake is becoming a proving ground for faster and faster boats that have been run out of other States by speed limits. Fear that the lakes economy is being ruined by a growing tourist perception of an out of control lake.

Safety is connected with fear. I fasten my cars seat belt for safety. Which is another way of saying I "fear" going through the windshield.

Yes, its all about fear!

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

When I become King of the Big Lake, everyone will be required to have only a 14' Alumacraft row boat.For the privileged special few, they get to have a 9.9 Evinrude from 1986. It shall be ruled!

Can we get special dispensation for smaller boats ? Like if I have an old wooden boat, smaller than 14', can it have more HP ? I used to run an old 'Rude (18HP) on one of these ....

[Silver Duck]

but I'd like to propose even more stringent solutions!

W/R/T endangering children swimming near your dock, nobody, in any kind of boat, has any business running on plane anywhere close to your dock. Not ever! Let's all cooperate to see that such boneheads get caught and banned from the lake - permanently, one strike and you're out!

W/R/T being run over in your boat, yes, I fear that too. Especially where I like to pootle along at night while running at hull speed (maybe 6 - 7 mph). Here the 45 mph limit would definitely help, in that there'd be more time to spot the bonehead and get out of the way. (Sadly, 45 is still more than fast enough to make a collision potentially deadly.) But again, nobody in any kind of boat has any business being within 150 feet of you while on plane. Such folks ar either scofflaws or inattentive operators. Either way, they're boneheads and we don't need them on the lake, either! (Though, maybe one strike and you're out is a bit harsh. What say you?)

W/R/T the lake becoming a proving ground, I'm not quite sure what to say to that. I'll freely admit that some performance boats can reach speeds which should not be attempted by anybody other than experienced race drivers under controlled conditions, but probably are. I feel certain that these speeds are well above 45 mph in that kind of boat; but there is a sane limit. I'd be curious to get some input from some performance boaters about what they think that limit is.

W/R/T the economy being ruined by an out of control lake, well, at least for me personally, the craziness over by the Weirs on a weekend afternoon seems more out of control and "nervouses" me more than go fasts out in the broads (but, admittedly, different things bother different people.) Even in a 30 ft. cruiser, I avoid that area like the plague at such times. I'm not at all certain that even 45 mph is reasonable in those areas when boat traffic gets heavy; but tht would mean that the MP would need to enforce both absolute and conditions-based speed limits. Personally, I think that having the MP over there (and maybe over by marker #3?) bagging boneheads would do more to bring the lake under control than having them hang out in open water waiting for speeders.

Silver Duck