Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

[Skip]

I have had the pleasure of meeting both Lt. Dunleavy & Director Barrett over the years. I have found them both to be highly dedicated men with the utmost in integrity.

That said, I have also observed how they have tried to stay above the fray while working in positions that get much public scutiny. So it was of greast interest when I saw that Lt. Dunleavy felt compelled to reply in an editorial in our statewide newspaper today over accusations made against his Department recently in reference to HB 847.

Thank you Tim for standing up and giving another side to this story.

For those of you interested in Lt. Dunleavy's comments, you can check this LINK out that redirects you to today's on-line edition article at the Union Leader.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Skip

"...Thank you Tim for standing up and giving another side to this story..."

Yup. Especially when he contradicts his boss, the NH Marine Patrol Director:

"..David Barrett, the director of the Marine Patrol, has said radar guns can detect speeding boats only from certain angles. And only about 15 percent of boats on the lakes drive faster than 50 or 55 mph, he said..."

[Islander]

Thanks Skip

I have also met Lt. Dunleavy and found him to be extremely knowledgeable and dedicated.

However I have read his response three times and I can't find a denial. Did he leave it out by mistake? Because they way he wrote it makes one think he is unable to make a denial.

If they didn't fudge the data, why doesn't he just say so?

What he does is is..

"This bureau and its officers have earned the respect and support they receive from the boating public. They believe in their mission and are some of the most dedicated people I know. They don't deserve to have their credibility tarnished by the insinuations that Fatello made in his opening questions and comments."

Saying that they don't deserve to have their credibility tarnished, is not the same as saying it hasn't been tarnished.

As a law enforcement officer he should know how to frame a clear and unambiguous statement of innocents.

He ends by saying...

"If you truly believe that Director Barrett has so much influence over his roughly 100 employees that they would produce the statistics he desired, I respectfully suggest that you conduct some speed sampling of your own."

Once again there is no denial in that statement. Did he leave it out by mistake. Or is the statement carefully crafted to sound like a denial, but not BE a denial.

Quite frankly I think this statement raises questions and suspicions while answering none.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Yup. Especially when he contradicts his boss, the NH Marine Patrol Director:

A quotation from before the data was taken APS, why didn't you point that out???????? another little fact left out to support your statements............

Originally Posted by Islander

Once again there is no denial in that statement. Did he leave it out by mistake. Or is the statement carefully crafted to sound like a denial, but not BE a denial.

Quite frankly I think this statement raises questions and suspicions while answering none.

Ok, who exactly is paranoid???????? Looks like a clear case of paranoia in Islander's quote above....

[Islander]

Instead of questioning my post, will you please show us exactly where he denies that the data was fudged. He also never says Barrett didn't have them fudge the data. THERE IS NO DENIAL!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

Instead of questioning my post, will you please show us exactly where he denies that the data was fudged. He also never says Barrett didn't have them fudge the data. THERE IS NO DENIAL!

"If you truly believe that Director Barrett has so much influence over his roughly 100 employees that they would produce the statistics he desired, I respectfully suggest that you conduct some speed sampling of your own."

What part of the above statement don't you get?? He is stating clearly that if you really doubt the results and feel Barrett's influence made his people produce what he wanted them to find then do your own testing and prove the results wrong. Do you need it spelled out any clearer than that???

His approach was a bit more polite than to simply say to the public that they are idiots if they think the data was cooked. As a public official I think his tact in this matter was on target.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

"If you truly believe that Director Barrett has so much influence over his roughly 100 employees that they would produce the statistics he desired, I respectfully suggest that you conduct some speed sampling of your own."

What part of the above statement don't you get?? He is stating clearly that if you really doubt the results and feel Barrett's influence made his people produce what he wanted them to find then do your own testing and prove the results wrong. Do you need it spelled out any clearer than that???

His approach was a bit more polite than to simply say to the public that they are idiots if they think the data was cooked. As a public official I think his tact in this matter was on target.

Yes, it needs to be spelled out clearer than that.

I believe Lt. Dunleavy intended to deny the charges made in the article, but he never did. He really needs to clarify the situation and make a clear statement.

There is no denial in what you have quoted, and no denial in his statement.

[SIKSUKR]

This is just incredible.

[Skip]

Thank you Bear Islander, Islander and Aps. I have been looking during this debate for good examples of logical fallacy ("do you still beat your wife"), something that has run rampant through this debate. Your responses to Lt. Dunleavy's comments serve as an excellent example.

For those of you that would like to learn more, please visit this Wikipedia LINK for an excellent explanation.

And if anyone would like to ask Tim about his comments, instead of attempting to assign unknown motives to what appears to me to be a pretty clear statement, simply tear yourselves away from the keyboard and give him a call at 603-293-2037 or e-mail him at TDUNLEAVY@SAFETY.STATE.NH.US

I am sure he would appreciate the opportunity to address and respond to your concerns directly.

Yeah, I know. Its much more fun for some to assign sinister motives to his comments anonymously, but can we all be adults here for once an avail us of the opportunity to contact the source directly and attempt to get our answers before speculating any further?

One can only hope....

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Islander

Instead of questioning my post, will you please show us exactly where he denies that the data was fudged. He also never says Barrett didn't have them fudge the data. THERE IS NO DENIAL!

The scary part is how effective this tripe is with the NH house. Everything has to be spelled out in clear detail to argue against the speed limit, yet you people speak in riddle, hyperbole, use data from other states hundreds of miles away, use estimates as fact, incite fear and lie ( quote Evenstar "Look, we're not all lying", translation: some SL proponents lie). You readily disrespect the MP as liars and data fudgers, dragging their reputations through the mud so you can get your way, like a two year old.

I'll tell you something, had the MP data shown a problem with speeding, I would have accepted it and not trashed the messenger as you have. You should be ashamed.

[kjbathe]

I think some folks are working overtime to try and parse the Lieutenants words or suggest that the lack of a preferred word or denial means the opposite must be true.

I read his article and when taken as a whole -- not selectively quoted or parsed -- his point should be abundantly clear: The data and the stats are what they are, and both sides can interpret them in ways that favor their own preferences. We shouldn't start questioning the character of people just because we don't like the stats they've collected.

And for purposes of full disclosure, I don't care if we have a speed limit or not. I think the proposed speed limits are certainly fair enough and consistent with what most people would find reasonable in terms of how fast they should be operating on the big lake. But I also think it's a small portion of the overall boating public that is operating beyond what is reasonable. When you combine that small portion with the likelihood that enforcement will be in place to record or ticket the offenders, I don't think we ultimately affect any real change in behavior. After all, we're still the same people that blow by the 55 MPH speed limit sign doing 75 until we see the cruiser up ahead. It will be no different on the lake.

[Bear Islander]

I made it clear that I believe it was his intent to deny the charges.

Skip you said "appears to me to be a pretty clear statement". And I agree it certainly has that appearance, and I think that was his intent. However the appearance of a denial is not a denial.

In responding to Jack Fatello's accusations Lt. Dunleavy should have included some simple statements like "Director Barrett never pressured his officers" or "We never fudged the data". To have left these out raises questions and accomplishes the opposite of what he was trying to achieve.

I do believe this was a simple omission on his part.

I will send him an email.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

(Jack Fatello) could this be a pen name? I think forum members will remember "Fat Jack", seems a little close don't you think. So who is really playing games here, the SL proponents or the opponents? Conspiracy?

This whole thing is beyond ridiculous! Hopefully the upper chamber will see this for what it is.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

(Jack Fatello) could this be a pen name? I think forum members will remember "Fat Jack", seems a little close don't you think. So who is really playing games here, the SL proponents or the opponents? Conspiracy?

This whole thing is beyond ridiculous! Hopefully the upper chamber will see this for what it is.

Funny you should mention that, I was thinking of Fat Jack fondly last night as I was going through some old posts. Makes perfect sense!

A Whitepages search turned up a J A Fatello in Laconia, although it looks to be a Jo Ann Fatello, a 65 year old woman.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by ITD

"...A quotation from before the data was taken APS, why didn't you point that out????????..."

I don't need to point it out—it's in the link.

In 2005, Director Barrett says that radar works poorly at angles, that "only" 15% of boats exceed 55-MPH.

He then authorizes:
1) a monkey-wrench of a study by a dismissed Safety Director using
2) marked patrol boats with
3) unpaid volunteers holding
4) the "inaccurate" radar units whose
5) results are selectively thrown out to
6) result in a survey that finds that fewer boats are identified speeders when
7) the measuring zones are advertised in advance.

Moreover, what Director Barrett said in 2005 was parroting one conspicuous hero of "facts":

"...police radar...is not useful for speed limit enforcement on Lake Winnipesaukee or any other body of water..."
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...92&postcount=1

[Dick]

Fatello's article and Representative Pilliod's (sponsor of HB 847) testimony in front of the full House of Representatives essentially said the same thing, i.e., the reason that the MP boat speed survey data is not valid is because (1) the boating public knew in advance where the radar surveys were going to be conducted and therefore made sure that they slowed down in those areas, and (2) when boaters saw the "Marine Patrol" markings on the boat and an officer holding a radar gun on them, that the boater would naturally slow down.

Now here are the FACTS: First, there were a total of 9 different areas where the MP clocked boats with two different types of radar. Of the 9 areas, only 2 were known to the boating public. Second, we all know that (among several factors) radar is only accurate when the target watercraft is traveling either directly toward or directly away from the MP vessel. If the MP boat's bow is facing in the direction of the target boat, there is no way to see the "Marine Patrol" lettering on the side of the vessel. Third, the MP used several unmarked boats during the survey -- including some recreational boats.

There was no way to challenge Representative Pilliod's statements that he gave in front of the full House of Represedntatives because he said that he would not take any questions "for the sake of saving time". How many House Reps therefore accepted his statements as being factually true? They voted with bum information.

As for Fatello's article . . . he stated that the MP survey data proved that speed limits work to slow everyone down. The reality is (with or without any arbitrary blanket speed limit) that whenever we are traveling down the lake, at any speed, the vast majority of us will slow down if we see another watercraft directly in front of us (whether an MP boat or not). At the same time we will start veering off to starboard. This is called common sense and the "rules of the road" on the water. It is operating our watercraft in a reasonable manner according to the prevailing conditions. This is the way it is in most states and has worked very well for us in NH for all these years . . . and will continue to serve us very well.

Fatello's article (or whatever his/her name really is) goes on to speculate that the MP professionals cooked the data to suit the wishes of the Director of the Div. of Water Safety. That is a shameful accusation and an insult to the professional officers in the Marine Patrol.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Dick

Fatello's article and Representative Pilliod's (sponsor of HB 847) testimony in front of the full House of Representatives essentially said the same thing, i.e., the reason that the MP boat speed survey data is not valid is because (1) the boating public knew in advance where the radar surveys were going to be conducted and therefore made sure that they slowed down in those areas, and (2) when boaters saw the "Marine Patrol" markings on the boat and an officer holding a radar gun on them, that the boater would naturally slow down.

Now here are the FACTS: First, there were a total of 9 different areas where the MP clocked boats with two different types of radar. Of the 9 areas, only 2 were known to the boating public. Second, we all know that (among several factors) radar is only accurate when the target watercraft is traveling either directly toward or directly away from the MP vessel. If the MP boat's bow is facing in the direction of the target boat, there is no way to see the "Marine Patrol" lettering on the side of the vessel. Third, the MP used several unmarked boats during the survey -- including some recreational boats.

There was no way to challenge Representative Pilliod's statements that he gave in front of the full House of Represedntatives because he said that he would not take any questions "for the sake of saving time". How many House Reps therefore accepted his statements as being factually true? They voted with bum information.

As for Fatello's article . . . he stated that the MP survey data proved that speed limits work to slow everyone down. The reality is (with or without any arbitrary blanket speed limit) that whenever we are traveling down the lake, at any speed, the vast majority of us will slow down if we see another watercraft directly in front of us (whether an MP boat or not). At the same time we will start veering off to starboard. This is called common sense and the "rules of the road" on the water. It is operating our watercraft in a reasonable manner according to the prevailing conditions. This is the way it is in most states and has worked very well for us in NH for all these years . . . and will continue to serve us very well.

Fatello's article (or whatever his/her name really is) goes on to speculate that the MP professionals cooked the data to suit the wishes of the Director of the Div. of Water Safety. That is a shameful accusation and an insult to the professional officers in the Marine Patrol.

First if you want to represent things as FACTS, you need to explain how you know them. For instance where did you get the information that unmarked boats were used? Are you a MP officer? Things are not facts because they are anonymously posted on the internet.

Second I don't think anyone believes that Marine Patrol Officers cooked the data, I sure don't. The cooking part is the way the study was designed and in the purpose of the study. It was, in my opinion, designed to delay enactment of HB847, and it did.

[Dick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

First if you want to represent things as FACTS, you need to explain how you know them. For instance where did you get the information that unmarked boats were used? Are you a MP officer? Things are not facts because they are anonymously posted on the internet.

You can confirm these FACTS for yourself by asking the MP officers themselves who actually conducted the surveys. You can speak directly with their supervisors as well. That's what I did. You might want to start with the MP officer whose name appears on this original thread. He is not hard to find.

[Dick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"Second I don't think anyone believes that Marine Patrol Officers cooked the data . . ."

Did you read the Fatello article? He and many others who support inflicting this new law on us believe the data was biased/cooked. The data does not support their position and so there must be something wrong with the data and the MP personnel who conducted the surveys.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Dick

You can confirm these FACTS for yourself by asking the MP officers themselves who actually conducted the surveys. You can speak directly with their supervisors as well. That's what I did. You might want to start with the MP officer whose name appears on this original thread. He is not hard to find.

I have contacted him and requested the data. A comparison of the speeds recorded in marked and unmarked boats could be very illuminating.

If for instance if unmarked boats took 10% of the readings but recorded 90% of the higher speeds, that would tell quite a bit.

Were you given any facts along those lines?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I have contacted him and requested the data. A comparison of the speeds recorded in marked and unmarked boats could be very illuminating.

If for instance if unmarked boats took 10% of the readings but recorded 90% of the higher speeds, that would tell quite a bit.

Were you given any facts along those lines?

What would that tell????? If there is mayhem and the wild west and enough high speed boats for Evenstar to have "close encounters" on the few times she has been on Lake Winnipesaukee, then I would expect to see the problem in ten percent of the readings or in the other ninety percent for that matter. One of the beauties of statistical sampling is that if an event exists, especially to the degree the SL crowd portrays, then it would be nearly impossible for said event not to be present in the sample..........

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

First if you want to represent things as FACTS, you need to explain how you know them. For instance where did you get the information that unmarked boats were used?[ Are you a MP officer? Things are not facts because they are anonymously posted on the internet.

Second I don't think anyone believes that Marine Patrol Officers cooked the data, I sure don't. The cooking part is the way the study was designed and in the purpose of the study. It was, in my opinion, designed to delay enactment of HB847, and it did.

That will be one long email...

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

In responding to Jack Fatello's accusations Lt. Dunleavy should have included some simple statements like "Director Barrett never pressured his officers" or "We never fudged the data". To have left these out raises questions and accomplishes the opposite of what he was trying to achieve.

I do believe this was a simple omission on his part.

I will send him an email.

It would seem a lot easier to dial 603-293-2037...

P.S.- Another NH advantage - not necessary to dial the area code if in the state...

[Bear Islander]

If the speeds recorded in the unmarked boats were higher than in the marked boats, it would support the premise that boats go slower when the MP is in sight. It would indicate that only the speeds recorded by the unmarked boats were untainted.

But until we have data we don't know a thing. It might only have been one unmarked boat on a rainy day. Or Dick is pulling a fast one and there were no unmarked boats.

The question of unmarked boats has been talk about since day one. If they existed why has it taken so long to tell us. And why were they not mentioned in the study report.

Once again an assertion that raises more questions than it answers.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

...you people speak in riddle, hyperbole, use data from other states hundreds of miles away, use estimates as fact, incite fear and lie ( quote Evenstar "Look, we're not all lying", translation: some SL proponents lie).

ITD, please stop twisting everything that I post. In your own post you're doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

As I have already posted in another thread when you tried to use this same thing against me: "I posted "we are not all lying", because I can't be certain that no one has lied about this. All I can be 100% certain about is that I have never lied, and that safety is my only agenda in supporting this bill."

I have never done anything but been totally honest in all of my posts. And now you have the nerve to try to use my honesty against me, by twisting my words into a completely distorted "translation", suggesting that I'm saying something that I didn't. For your information, due to my head injury, I do not even have the ability to lie. How low will you stoop in trying to discredit me?

Originally Posted by ITD

If there is mayhem and the wild west and enough high speed boats for Evenstar to have "close encounters" on the few times she has been on Lake Winnipesaukee, then I would expect to see the problem in ten percent of the readings or in the other ninety percent for that matter. One of the beauties of statistical sampling is that if an event exists, especially to the degree the SL crowd portrays, then it would be nearly impossible for said event not to be present in the sample..........

I have experienced more than one highspeed powerboat who violated my 150 foot zone on Winni, because they were apparently going to fast to notice me in time to stay further away.

The fact that I have had these dangerous encounters on a lake that I have not spent a great deal of time on (compared to other large NH lakes), shows me that speed is a much larger problem on Winni than what is being protrayed on by the anti-speed limit people on this forum. If I had not had these close encounters on Winni, I would have returned to the lake much more often, because I happen to love this lake. And it's not much fun to go to a lake alone, because none of my paddling friends are willing to spend time there - because of "the speeds of the powerboats" (their reasons, not mine).

I have also shown, from their own report, that the MP only recorded the speeds of boats for less than 2% of the daylight hours during the 11 weeks that they collected data. Areas A and B were the primary test zones (which is clear in the report), and these primary test zones were the two that boaters knew about. What pecentage of boats were recording in areas A and B? How many boats were were clocked on the Broads? This was clearly not a fair reflection of the speeds of the entire lake.

I don't feel that the MP "fudged" any of the data - but that the study was not done properly. According to what I have been taught at my university, this study is not what any experts would view as a viable study.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If the speeds recorded in the unmarked boats were higher than in the marked boats, it would support the premise that boats go slower when the MP is in sight. It would indicate that only the speeds recorded by the unmarked boats were untainted.

But until we have data we don't know a thing. It might only have been one unmarked boat on a rainy day. Or Dick is pulling a fast one and there were no unmarked boats.

The question of unmarked boats has been talk about since day one. If they existed why has it taken so long to tell us. And why were they not mentioned in the study report.

Once again an assertion that raises more questions than it answers.

Once again, I quote myself: "If there is mayhem and the wild west and enough high speed boats for Evenstar to have "close encounters" on the few times she has been on Lake Winnipesaukee, then I would expect to see the problem in ten percent of the readings or in the other ninety percent for that matter."

So if I understand your position, these scary, loud, ultrafast boats, that are unable to avoid "close calls" with a prolific kayaker, are so abundant that island folk see them all the time, are so prevalent that women and children are afraid to venture out on the lake, these speeding boats suddenly become so competent that they are able to evade both marked and unmarked speed traps or even just marked boats? I don't think so............

[Alton Bay]

So, are you people contacting their senators? Don't assume that everyone else is calling. If you question the NH house decision, you've got to get your letters out.

[fatlazyless]

Maybe 400 yards to the east of Penny Island, and buoy 3 is where the Marine Patrol were set up to monitor speed. From that spot they could aim their radar at a boat as it passed through the buoy 3 gut narrows from either west or east. The MP boat that is the white older model fiberglass, recreational style hull w/ a radar arch, about 24' long, powered by an inboard engine with the large M-A-R-I-N-E P-A-T-R-O-L, easy-to-read letters on both sides of the hull was the boat which I saw on many different days during the speed stake-out, last summer.

Placing my right hand on top of my msn-tv box, that I purchased at a garage sale for $15.00, and pledging unbiased honesty, I do hereby DECLARE!!!

Hey Dick, I even saw you go through about five times, in your white w/ red accents, 27' twin hull-Skater Cat, powered by twin Mercury 300hp high performance two-strokes which go BBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, just like an angry hornet when it flys past.......what-a-hot-boat! Understand it has seen 107mph, verified by gps. Is that correct?

Look'n thru my Walmart binoculars, I could see '107mph Dick" wearing a phantom black, Mercury Outboards, designer shirt, trimmed with the same rainbow colors as the twin Merc 300 rac'n two-strokes. Hey, 107mph Dick, that is one very sharp, 'set the water on fire,' look'n shirt! Sure wish walmart sold that shirt.

[Dick]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Hey Dick, I even saw you go through about five times, in your white w/ red accents, 27' twin hull-Skater Cat, powered by twin Mercury 300hp high performance two-strokes which go BBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, just like an angry hornet when it flys past.......what-a-hot-boat! Understand it has seen 107mph, verified by gps. Is that correct?

I'm not that guy. While I'm not into the big high performance boats, I do love to to see them . . . most are beautiful and impressive. I do not have envy toward those who have been successful in life and can afford them.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

"It was, in my opinion, designed to delay enactment of HB847, and it did." Quote from BearIslander.

Are you saying that the speed limit study was made to delay HB 847?

[Bear Islander]

Yes, the speed limit study was invented to delay, and eventually kill, HB847. I think that is obvious. Almost one year ago the Transportation Committee was about to vote to send HB847 to the house. At the hearing the Commissioner literally called in on the telephone and proposed they retain the bill so the MP could conduct a study. If that does not meet the definition of "politically motivated" then I don't know what does.

From WMUR
Rep. James Pilliod, sponsor of the statewide speed limit bill, decried the proposal to sidetrack it for more study and called the pilot program a joke. Calling for more study is an old legislative trick for killing bills, he said, and, in this case, represents "a careful design, right from the first, of the sellers of large boats."

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...225/-1/CITIZEN

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Yes, the speed limit study was invented to delay, and eventually kill, HB847.

What ever works. There is overwhelming evidence that the bill should not pass as is - yet the proponents go on and seem to know how to get what they want in the face of a strong outcry that it is wrong. Something has to kill this bill. I applaud those that know the system well enough to fight to keep boater's rights alive.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

What ever works. There is overwhelming evidence that the bill should not pass as is - yet the proponents go on and seem to know how to get what they want in the face of a strong outcry that it is wrong. Something has to kill this bill. I applaud those that know the system well enough to fight to keep boater's rights alive.

It is refreshing to hear an opponent admit the truth about the study. Thank You.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It is refreshing to hear an opponent admit the truth about the study. Thank You.

I have no idea what the truth is about what is going on in Concord. I belong to no organization fighting the bill. I'm just one person fighting what seems to be a well funded group that thinks nothing of forcing their will on others with weak justification.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

[QUOTE=Bear Islander;62834]Yes, the speed limit study was invented to delay, and eventually kill, HB847. I think that is obvious. Almost one year ago the Transportation Committee was about to vote to send HB847 to the house. At the hearing the Commissioner literally called in on the telephone and proposed they retain the bill so the MP could conduct a study. If that does not meet the definition of "politically motivated" then I don't know what does.

From WMUR
Rep. James Pilliod, sponsor of the statewide speed limit bill, decried the proposal to sidetrack it for more study and called the pilot program a joke. Calling for more study is an old legislative trick for killing bills, he said, and, in this case, represents "a careful design, right from the first, of the sellers of large boats."

I was hoping you would say this. The Speed limit study was a direct result of your friends at Winnfabs!!!! When they lost last year they went back to the drawing board, and used an RSA, I am not 100% but I think 270:12? They then got their 25 signatures and placed a petition before the Dept of Safety to out a restriction on Lake Winnipesaukee. At that time the Commissioner was going to act, but alas Winnfabs got HB 847 introduced. Once that happened, the Commissioner decided that he would not step on the toes of the legislators, and let them decide. When the committee was struggling with whether or not the speed limit had merit, the commissioner offered this study to help determine whether there was a problem. Once the study started and Winnfabs found out it wasn't going their way, they went back to the reps in their pockets and had JLCRT kill the funding of this study. Luckily the MP went on and finished the study. So was the the study politically motivated YES, BY WINNFABS!!!! You won't admit it, but I will shout it to the mountains, the pro-speed limit side, will stoop to any level, lie, cheat, steal to try and get this passed!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

I have no idea what the truth is about what is going on in Concord. I belong to no organization fighting the bill. I'm just one person fighting what seems to be a well funded group that thinks nothing of forcing their will on others with weak justification.

And I am just one person fighting to have a lake where a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.

[Dick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

And I am just one person fighting to have a lake where a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.

Shameless! When the FACTS do not support your position, you play the emotional cards of the American family and the children in camp. Translation: we need to inflict this boat speed restriction on our lake in order to save the children. How could anyone oppose a new law that would save children?

Any camp director who would allow the kids to swim beyond the swim line buoys or take a canoe out onto the big lake should be fired immediately. In addition, no boater in their right mind would motor through these shallow areas at any speed.

It seems the pro SL crowd will go to any shameless length to get their way . . . forget the facts . . . let's play on people's emotions.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

And I am just one person fighting to have a lake where a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.

When was the last time a small boat from a childrens camp got run down by a high performance boat?

[Bear Islander]

[QUOTE=WeirsBeachBoater;62840]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Yes, the speed limit study was invented to delay, and eventually kill, HB847. I think that is obvious. Almost one year ago the Transportation Committee was about to vote to send HB847 to the house. At the hearing the Commissioner literally called in on the telephone and proposed they retain the bill so the MP could conduct a study. If that does not meet the definition of "politically motivated" then I don't know what does.

From WMUR
Rep. James Pilliod, sponsor of the statewide speed limit bill, decried the proposal to sidetrack it for more study and called the pilot program a joke. Calling for more study is an old legislative trick for killing bills, he said, and, in this case, represents "a careful design, right from the first, of the sellers of large boats."

I was hoping you would say this. The Speed limit study was a direct result of your friends at Winnfabs!!!! When they lost last year they went back to the drawing board, and used an RSA, I am not 100% but I think 270:12? They then got their 25 signatures and placed a petition before the Dept of Safety to out a restriction on Lake Winnipesaukee. At that time the Commissioner was going to act, but alas Winnfabs got HB 847 introduced. Once that happened, the Commissioner decided that he would not step on the toes of the legislators, and let them decide. When the committee was struggling with whether or not the speed limit had merit, the commissioner offered this study to help determine whether there was a problem. Once the study started and Winnfabs found out it wasn't going their way, they went back to the reps in their pockets and had JLCRT kill the funding of this study. Luckily the MP went on and finished the study. So was the the study politically motivated YES, BY WINNFABS!!!! You won't admit it, but I will shout it to the mountains, the pro-speed limit side, will stoop to any level, lie, cheat, steal to try and get this passed!

I don't have "friends" at WinnFABS, I only know one person connected with them. I am in no way responsible for what they do or say, and visa versa.

Most speed or horsepower limits on lakes in New Hampshire have been enacted by administrative rule. The Dept. of Safety is petitioned by a group of citizens, after a public hearing process the Commissioner has the power to enact a rule. In 1973 I petitioned the Dept. for a ban on water-skiing on Sunset Lake. It was granted and is in effect to this day.

A group of citizens, I assume WinnFABS supporters, petitioned for a speed limit on Winnipesaukee. That the Commissioner used this petition as a excuse to perform a speed study that would delay HB847 was a cruel joke. It may have been brilliant political strategy, but to say that WinnFABS asked for or wanted the study is a lie.

This would be like your complaining to the town that your streetlight is burned out, and they respond by taking down the pole.

Both sides have used political maneuvers to achieve their goals. That is, unfortunately, the way it works.

[kjbathe]

Originally Posted by Dick

...no boater in their right mind would motor through these shallow areas at any speed.

Isn't this the issue -- the folks that are not in their right mind? If folks were out there, being reasonable, not violating the 150 foot rule, etc... this whole discussion would be moot.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Dick

Shameless! When the FACTS do not support your position, you play the emotional cards of the American family and the children in camp. Translation: we need to inflict this boat speed restriction on our lake in order to save the children. How could anyone oppose a new law that would save children?

Any camp director who would allow the kids to swim beyond the swim line buoys or take a canoe out onto the big lake should be fired immediately. In addition, no boater in their right mind would motor through these shallow areas at any speed.

It seems the pro SL crowd will go to any shameless length to get their way . . . forget the facts . . . let's play on people's emotions.

I was responding as a former camp director, that is my frame of reference. I also have my only child in a Summer Camp on Winnipesaukee, that is also my frame of reference.

You are entitled to your opinion that every camp director on Winnipesaukee should be fired. However I don't think that is reasonable, nor is it going to happen.

If you believe that it is unsafe for children to canoe on the "big lake" then I do not understand how in good conscience you can oppose speed limits.

I do hope some Senators and the Governor take notice that Winni is not safe for children in a canoe!

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I don't need to point it out—it's in the link.

In 2005, Director Barrett says that radar works poorly at angles, that "only" 15% of boats exceed 55-MPH.

A comment BEFORE the study, when nobody, including you had any idea how many speeding boats were on the lake.......

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

He then authorizes:
1) a monkey-wrench of a study by a dismissed Safety Director using

Didn't go your way, would have been the gold standard of studies had it proven your point. Sore loser, there is no problem, you need to twist, fabricate and use data from far away to prove point....

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

2) marked patrol boats with

Hmmmm, another poster on this site disagrees with this assertion, says unmarked boats were indeed used, this theory may just get blown out of the water, pun intended, just like "all the test zones were announced before the test".

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

3) unpaid volunteers holding

Here we go again, so now you are saying all the readings were taken by "unpaid volunteers" ? Doesn't sound right APS, just like most of the SL things you post, kills your creditability.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

4) the "inaccurate" radar units whose
5) results are selectively thrown out to

Once again, not the whole story. The radar units, used in their intended environment are very accurate. Innaccuracies arise when used on boats. Incident angle issues, which cause the reading to be lower than the actual speed can be an issue. The MP stated they used only readings taken head on. They took this step because otherwise you and your side would be jumping all over the results for cosine error, can't do that now, so now you insinuate the opposite, that high speed results were omitted, give me break. If I take the results and shift them for a 30 degree cosine error, the number of boats over 45 mph go from less than 1 percent to less than 3 percent. Face it, there is no speed problem on the lake, the speed limit is a waste of time , money and resources.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

6) result in a survey that finds that fewer boats are identified speeders when

I just covered that, you are wrong, or worse.......

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

7) the measuring zones are advertised in advance.

You know better by now, this is pretty much a bald faced mischaracterization of the truth, when you print this at this time............

[hazelnut]

Seriously way too many individuals on this forum must be X-Files fans or major conspiracy theorists. Many of you have lost any and all credibility on this forum over the last 24 hours.

Tim Dunleavy does an EXCELLENT job DENYING allegations of fudging the data.

Let's begin with the HEADLINE!!!!!!!
Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted

Here it is again:
Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted

Let's try ...... BLUE:
Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted

Ok not clear enough how about....... ORANGE oooooooooohhhhhh:

Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted
oooohhhh prettyyyyyy.

Now I am no Rocket Scientist but if the headline states, one more time:
Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted
I can only deduce, scientifically mind you, that the "DATA" produced by "MARINE PARTROL" is "UNTAINTED." Wait I know, I know, the conspiracy theorists will say... Well, we don't know if that is a direct quote or if the Union Leader paraphrased. Well, well, well, you FOUND IT, the loophole. Yes the editor read the letter and paraphrased the theme/message/intent. The editor deduced, scientifically mind you, that the letter makes the case/claim/argument that... ONE LAST TIME EVERYBODY TOGETHER NOW:

Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted

Wow green is pretty too.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

....

I do hope some Senators and the Governor take notice that Winni is not safe for children in a canoe!

Sometimes it is:


Sometimes it isn't:


Politics 101: when you loosing based on logic, bring out the children.

How come you're friendly camp director isn't worried about the 99%+ of the boaters traveling less than 45 MPH?


If you have no friends at WinnFABS and just know one person there, how can be so sure about their motivations and actions. Does this one person speak for the entire group? You obviously think that you know enough about their actions to call someone else's viewpoint a lie.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by kjbathe

Isn't this the issue -- the folks that are not in their right mind? If folks were out there, being reasonable, not violating the 150 foot rule, etc... this whole discussion would be moot.

That is the issue and no law can make folks be in their right mind. I suppose the only way to ever avoid boating accidents on the lake would be to ban boating alltogether.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

How come you're friendly camp director isn't worried about the 99%+ of the boaters traveling less than 45 MPH?


If you have no friends at WinnFABS and just know one person there, how can be so sure about their motivations and actions. Does this one person speak for the entire group? You obviously think that you know enough about their actions to call someone else's viewpoint a lie.

Camp directors, like mothers, worry about EVERYTHING!

I do not represent WinnFABS motives or actions, only my own. What I know about them is what I have read on their webpage or in articles.

Hazelnut - The headline of a newspaper article is written by an editor, not the reporter. Quite often, as in this case, the headline does not accurately depict what is in the article. Lt. Dunleavy, in the article, never makes the claim that the data is untainted. You will please note that the headline contains no quotation marks.

If the Lieutenant responds to my emails I will let you know. He can clear this up, your posting in various sizes and colors can not.

[hazelnut]

Bear Islander I addressed that..... Ha ha ha ha WOW!

"...I know, the conspiracy theorists will say... Well, we don't know if that is a direct quote or if the Union Leader paraphrased. Well, well, well, you FOUND IT, the loophole. Yes the editor read the letter and paraphrased the theme/message/intent. The editor deduced, scientifically mind you, that the letter makes the case/claim/argument that... ONE LAST TIME EVERYBODY TOGETHER NOW:
Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted"


WOW! This goes deeper than I thought.

[SIKSUKR]

Unbelievable.This is getting absurd.I think it's pretty clear which side makes sense and talks fact which throws mud at the wall and sees how much will stick.If you say it enough people start to believe it.That's what's happening with this bill.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

And I am just one person fighting to have a lake where a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.

Just curious........when was the last time anyone saw a performance boat doing 130 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee?? I've heard about the Skater cat-hull that does 107 mph on GPS (never seen it though) but, to be honest, I've never actually witnessed (personally) any boat on Lake Winni that even looked like it was doing 100 mph.

And just for clarification, that's excluding sanctioned boat racing events.

[Dick]

Bear Islander . . .

You are leaning against a weak reed

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

RE: Lt. Dunleavy's letter; it addressed the besmirching of the integrity of the MP, not the data. He was speaking as a public official, but not speaking for Dave Barrett. His letter basically said that MP is an honest, trustworthy bunch, and therefore the implication is that honest people don't "fudge" data. If the posters heard that MP is honest, but still haven't heard a denial, then they are grasping at straws.


Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please! (Mark Twain)

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

Just curious........when was the last time anyone saw a performance boat doing 130 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee?? I've heard about the Skater cat-hull that does 107 mph on GPS (never seen it though) but, to be honest, I've never actually witnessed (personally) any boat on Lake Winni that even looked like it was doing 100 mph.

And just for clarification, that's excluding sanctioned boat racing events.

I think it was the summer of 2005. I did not measure the speed myself but it was claimed to have gone 130 mph.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

RE: Lt. Dunleavy's letter; it addressed the besmirching of the integrity of the MP, not the data. He was speaking as a public official, but not speaking for Dave Barrett. His letter basically said that MP is an honest, trustworthy bunch, and therefore the implication is that honest people don't "fudge" data. If the posters heard that MP is honest, but still haven't heard a denial, then they are grasping at straws.


Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please! (Mark Twain)

If you go back and read you will find I don't think the MP officers fudged the data. The fudging was in the way it was designed. And yes they are an honest and trustworthy bunch that do not deserve to be held up to public ridicule. However when you publish a statement in the newspaper that effects a very divisive legislative battle, you need to be prepared for some heat.

[rickstr66]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

This would be like your complaining to the town that your streetlight is burned out, and they respond by taking down the pole.

No. This would be like you complaining your street light is out and they come out and check it to make sure it needs fixing, then fixing it if there is a problem.

[Dick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I think it was the summer of 2005. I did not measure the speed myself but it was claimed to have gone 130 mph.

"Claimed" . . . is this another fact-based piece of data ? or is it an exagerated piece of _______ ?

[trfour]

Couldn't find that boat that did 130 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee.

http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/sideline/8707/

[BroadHopper]

Why do people who support the speed limits do nothing but blast the Opposers??? I see no actual evidence from the supporters to substantiate their claims. The opposers do a good job of backing their claims.
I can see where Gov Lynch is coming from. Can the supporters give someone concrete facts rather than a bunch of fallacies?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

ITD, please stop twisting everything that I post. In your own post you're doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

As I have already posted in another thread when you tried to use this same thing against me: "I posted "we are not all lying", because I can't be certain that no one has lied about this. All I can be 100% certain about is that I have never lied, and that safety is my only agenda in supporting this bill."

I have never done anything but been totally honest in all of my posts. And now you have the nerve to try to use my honesty against me, by twisting my words into a completely distorted "translation", suggesting that I'm saying something that I didn't. For your information, due to my head injury, I do not even have the ability to lie. How low will you stoop in trying to discredit me?


I have experienced more than one highspeed powerboat who violated my 150 foot zone on Winni, because they were apparently going to fast to notice me in time to stay further away.

The fact that I have had these dangerous encounters on a lake that I have not spent a great deal of time on (compared to other large NH lakes), shows me that speed is a much larger problem on Winni than what is being protrayed on by the anti-speed limit people on this forum. If I had not had these close encounters on Winni, I would have returned to the lake much more often, because I happen to love this lake. And it's not much fun to go to a lake alone, because none of my paddling friends are willing to spend time there - because of "the speeds of the powerboats" (their reasons, not mine).

I have also shown, from their own report, that the MP only recorded the speeds of boats for less than 2% of the daylight hours during the 11 weeks that they collected data. Areas A and B were the primary test zones (which is clear in the report), and these primary test zones were the two that boaters knew about. What pecentage of boats were recording in areas A and B? How many boats were were clocked on the Broads? This was clearly not a fair reflection of the speeds of the entire lake.

I don't feel that the MP "fudged" any of the data - but that the study was not done properly. According to what I have been taught at my university, this study is not what any experts would view as a viable study.

Evenstar, I twist nothing, I just quote you, whether it discredits you or not is completely on you and what you write.

As far as the statement "Look, we're not all lying", you said it, I didn't make it up. For it to be true you must think some pro-speed limit people have lied, otherwise it's a lie. Pretty simple logic, they must have taught you that at the University.

Your "close encounters" are just too extraordinary for me to believe. Especially for the limited number of times you have been on the lake. If they're true, you must be like the guy who keeps getting hit by lightning, maybe he should stay in during thunderstorms.

Each "close encounter" would be a perfect storm of mistakes and bad luck, from being near a boat going above 45mph (highly unlikely based on the data) to the 150 ft distance violations (happens to me only 1 or 2 times per summer, and I am on the lake much more than you), it just doesn't make sense.

I think a more likely explanation is that you are a very bad judge of distance and speed.........

[WeirsBeachBoater]

"In 1973 I petitioned the Dept. for a ban on water-skiing on Sunset Lake. It was granted and is in effect to this day."

So you have a long history with nanny laws. or your NIMBY attitude.

Good to know, any chance Virgin Galactic can just drop you off out there?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

"In 1973 I petitioned the Dept. for a ban on water-skiing on Sunset Lake. It was granted and is in effect to this day."

So you have a long history with nanny laws. or your NIMBY attitude.

Good to know, any chance Virgin Galactic can just drop you off out there?

At the time I was the director of a United Fund children's camp on that lake. Water skiers from another camp, on another lake, were disrupting our camps activities. I was advocating for the 6 to 11 year old, inner city children that were my responsibility. Judd Gregg did the legal work.

Sorry if that doesn't fit your NIMBY theory.

[Bear Islander]

This is the boat. 130 mph, twin 850HP engines. Isn't that more than the Mount?

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=112221

[Bear Islander]

Lt. Dunleavy has contacted me with the information that some of the data was collected from unmarked boats, but that which data came from which type of boat was not recorded. This increases the validity of the study data in my eyes.

I do wish a breakdown were available as that would be informative.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

This is the boat. 130 mph, twin 850HP engines. Isn't that more than the Mount?

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=112221

I love the quote found on that link:

"I'll bet "Acres of Idiots, Bear Lover, and a whole bunch of the "Team Weinie" bunch are just loving that bad boy..."

If you really want to get nitpicky since I know you do, the link never states that the boat in question has hit 130mph on Winnipesaukee, just that it is capable of it. There is mention of the 100mph range being achieved. Much bigger difference than the 3mph that irked you.

It is owned by Gary Robertson, the owner of Robertson Powersports. Any reports of this boat having a close call with a kayaker?

[Sunset Bob]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

"In 1973 I petitioned the Dept. for a ban on water-skiing on Sunset Lake. It was granted and is in effect to this day."

So you have a long history with nanny laws. or your NIMBY attitude.

Good to know, any chance Virgin Galactic can just drop you off out there?

Are you talking about Sunset Lake in Alton? If you are I am not aware of any such ban.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I love the quote found on that link:

"I'll bet "Acres of Idiots, Bear Lover, and a whole bunch of the "Team Weinie" bunch are just loving that bad boy..."

If you really want to get nitpicky since I know you do, the link never states that the boat in question has hit 130mph on Winnipesaukee, just that it is capable of it. There is mention of the 100mph range being achieved. Much bigger difference than the 3mph that irked you.

It is owned by Gary Robertson, the owner of Robertson Powersports. Any reports of this boat having a close call with a kayaker?

If you want to get even more nit picky you will find that I never claimed this boat or any other ever went 130 mph on Winni. In one post I wrote that going 130 mph is legal. In another post I indicated it was "claimed" this boat went 130 mph.

My camp was in Greenfield, NH.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by bear islander

In 1973 I petitioned the Dept. for a ban on water-skiing on Sunset Lake. It was granted and is in effect to this day.

Are you sure about that???


Sunset Lake (aka Gould Pond) - Greenfield
SAF-C 402.78 - (a) No person shall operate a motorboat on Sunset Lake in Greenfield at a speed exceeding 10 MPH. However, this restriction shall not apply between 4:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. or sunset, whichever occurs first, on Monday through Saturday, both inclusive, and further provided during the restricted hours, motorboats shall not be operated at a speed exceeding 30 MPH.
(b) All waterskiing on Sunset Lake shall be in a counter-clockwise direction during the unlimited hours.

Sunset Lake - Hampstead
RSA 270:74-a - Skicraft banned 12/31/89.
SAF-C 402.79 All persons operating motorboats on that portion of Sunset Lake in the town of Hampstead, in excess of headway speed shall travel in a counterclockwise direction around Sunset Lake, while keeping a minimum distance of 150 feet from other boats, swimmers, rafts, docks and shore. This provision shall exclude powerboats being used for emergency situations where a direct line of travel is required and appropriate.

[Bear Islander]

Thanks codeman that is the one. It brings back memories. It was originally a ban on water skiing except during those hours. The Greenfield Town Beach had a big sign to that effect at the boat launch. It must have been changed to a 10 mph limit at a later time to make it more uniform with other rules. It amounts to the same thing, not easy to ski at 10 mph.

Water-skiing was allowed between 4:30 and 7:00 because our free swim ended at 4:30 and the children went to the playground. Supper was over around 6:30 or 6:45 so our evening waterfront activities started around 7:00PM. Sunday was rest day with no swimming classes for the speedboats to disturb. We still had free swim but to be fair there was one full day for the other lake residents to use their boats. Besides Camp Winimac, the evil rich kid camp, didn't water ski on Sundays.

The counter-clockwise thing was to prevent a dropped ski from entering our swim area. Due to the shape of the lake, boats traveling in that direction would never be headed directly toward our waterfront.

You didn't think I was making this stuff up.... did you?

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

At the time I was the director of a United Fund children's camp on that lake. Water skiers from another camp, on another lake, were disrupting our camps activities. I was advocating for the 6 to 11 year old, inner city children that were my responsibility. Judd Gregg did the legal work.

Sorry if that doesn't fit your NIMBY theory.

Did the camp you worked at own the lake???

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

Evenstar, I twist nothing, I just quote you, whether it discredits you or not is completely on you and what you write.

You twist everything that I post!

As far as the statement "Look, we're not all lying", you said it, I didn't make it up. For it to be true you must think some pro-speed limit people have lied, otherwise it's a lie. Pretty simple logic, they must have taught you that at the University.

You know nothing about logic. "It is the mistake of confusing logical implication and conversational implicature by thinking that "some are" statements logically imply "some are not" statements, when the former statements only conversationally implicate the latter. source: Paul Grice, "Logic and Conversation", reprinted in Studies in the Way of Words (Harvard, 1989).

Just because I can't be sure that no speed limit supporter is lying, does not mean or imply that some are lying. Again, you are trying to use my absolute honesty against me, which is totally unfair.

Your "close encounters" are just too extraordinary for me to believe.

I don't care if you believe me or not. You are judging my experience solely on what you have experienced and are attacking my credability just because I have experienced things that you haven't. I never lie. Can you honestly say that?

I think a more likely explanation is that you are a very bad judge of distance and speed.........

I've already explained to you in a previous post that I am an excellent judge of distance and speed - have you like no memory?

You really need to get a life. Attacking someone just because they don't share you're views is really pretty pathetic.

[Bear Islander]

The State of New Hampshire owns the lake. And every one of our 300 to 400 underprivileged campers was a year-round resident of New Hampshire. The camp owned about 50% of the lakefront but only used a small portion.

There was a public hearing where all views were expressed and a compromise was reached by way of allowing people to water ski when our waterfront was not in use. The Commissioner of Safety presided over the hearing and made his decision. To bad both sides were not able to work out a similar compromise on Winni.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You didn't think I was making this stuff up.... did you?

Some things yes, this no...

I wasn't sure if it was in NH or if there was a Sunset Lake in Mass you were talking about so I pulled it up.

Thanks for the clarification.

[overlook]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Yes, the speed limit study was invented to delay, and eventually kill, HB847. I think that is obvious. Almost one year ago the Transportation Committee was about to vote to send HB847 to the house. At the hearing the Commissioner literally called in on the telephone and proposed they retain the bill so the MP could conduct a study. If that does not meet the definition of "politically motivated" then I don't know what does.

From WMUR
Rep. James Pilliod, sponsor of the statewide speed limit bill, decried the proposal to sidetrack it for more study and called the pilot program a joke. Calling for more study is an old legislative trick for killing bills, he said, and, in this case, represents "a careful design, right from the first, of the sellers of large boats."

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...225/-1/CITIZEN

That study was a result from the meeting in Meridith. Your organization requested that meeting, Pillod's motives are clear. When it was realized that the results were not in favor of HB-847, thats when that closed meeting occurred.

[Bear Islander]

I don't have an organization. Other than that I'm not sure what you are talking about. However this who did what to whom years ago stuff has nothing to do with the "do we need speed limits" question.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

...However this who did what to whom years ago stuff has nothing to do with the "do we need speed limits" question...

Hmmm, did I just read that correctly?

[Bear Islander]

Depends on how you read it.

Part of this argument has degenerated into what people on each side did over a year ago. A he said, she said argument.

Another part of this argument seems to be a "let's catch BI in a lie" thing. Questioning everything I post.

The important question is "Does the lake need a speed limit or not". I say it does.

Pillod's or Barrett's motives in 2005 or 2007 are not germane.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Depends on how you read it.

Part of this argument has degenerated into what people on each side did over a year ago. A he said, she said argument.

Another part of this argument seems to be a "let's catch BI in a lie" thing. Questioning everything I post.

The important question is "Does the lake need a speed limit or not". I say it does.

Pillod's or Barrett's motives in 2005 or 2007 are not germane.

Nice job Bear, redirect. But it's not that easy. The people on your side have been caught being less than truthful. You have skewered the messenger, implying that the data is useless. In a perfect world, everyone would tell the whole unmitigated truth and a reasonable understanding could be reached. Unfortunately some on your side have exaggerated and made up stories to bolster their argument.

So, to answer your question, does the lake need a speed limit? Based on the statistics and test data the answer is no.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by ITD

Nice job Bear, redirect. But it's not that easy. The people on your side have been caught being less than truthful. You have skewered the messenger, implying that the data is useless. In a perfect world, everyone would tell the whole unmitigated truth and a reasonable understanding could be reached. Unfortunately some on your side have exaggerated and made up stories to bolster their argument.

So, to answer your question, does the lake need a speed limit? Based on the statistics and test data the answer is no.

I am not responsible for "others on my side". I may not post the "whole unmitigated truth" but my veracity is unassailable.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"...Lt. Dunleavy has contacted me with the information that some of the data was collected from unmarked boats, but that which data came from which type of boat was not recorded..."

Would that be their new, unmarked Jet-Ski radar platforms?

While the addition of radar locations is a good thing, it's also "Science Conducted-on-the-Fly".

Originally Posted by ITD

"...this is pretty much a bald faced mischaracterization of the truth, when you print this at this time............"

Then I find myself in very good company.

With only two opportunities to respond (to your seven in this thread), please allow this one Supporter to summarize the findings of "The Study". (Now referred to as "The Survey").

1) The study was a last-minute swerve into NH lawmakers' deliberations. Now that "The Survey" has been implicitly recognized as such (by the two-to-one majority vote in the House) was it not a last-minute dodge?
2) The only unmarked patrol boats are Jet-Skis—as described in local Winnipesaukee forums. (Need a link?)
3) Unpaid volunteers weren't pointing the radar? (This link says they were).
4) It wasn't only Director Barrett who claimed radar inaccuracies. http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...92&postcount=1 (Until the "study" happily disclosed that it can be—when results you don't like get discarded).
5) Results weren't thrown out? (The NHMP stated so!)
6) The study contradicts the Director. (Was he wrong in 2005 or in 2007?)
7) The measuring zones were not only advertised in New Hampshire sources, but at many Internet boating sites. Other locations were announced later on—though I witnessed zero sites—and none were in my "problem-boat" neighborhood.

I linked the Director's quotes (and another Supporter's exact quote). Now I'll quote one of your Fellow Opponents:

Rep. David Russell said the limit was too arbitrary. “As far as I’m concerned, numbers don’t make it...,”

Links:
Concord Monitor links:
http://ossipeelake.org/news/2005/10/...akes-proposed/
http://ossipeelake.org/news/2007/07/...not-enforcing/

Other link:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...92&postcount=1

[hazelnut]

Bear Islander,

You obviously have a strong belief in the need for a speed limit. So let's strip away all the peripheral debate and twisting of words and succinctly state our case as to why we need this law. Lets try to avoid embellishment and conjecture. I will do the same in a very simple statement that I believe to be based on fact not emotion.

Please keep in mind that I own a 25 foot bowrider capable of only 49 MPH. I have very young children all under the age of 5. I love to kayak and swim. I live on an island just like you. I also think the lake is way too crowded. I also think that it can be dangerous to boat on the lake. I wanted to say all of this to give you some background information on who I am. I will never own a "GFBL" boat as it has been termed.

Here is my statement:
Based on facts and statistics, speed has never been an issue with regard to accidents or deaths on the lake. In fact with the completion of the recent study done on the lake it has been proven that most boaters do not even exceed 45mph on a regular basis. The real issue is uneducated boaters and more importantly rude boaters. Those individuals who put themselves their passengers and other boaters swimmers and kayakers in harms way due to their ignorance and flat out "I don't care attitude." What we need is increased funding for the Marine Patrol to have the tools to patrol the waters and enforce the laws that are already in place. Instead of wasting money on a law that solves nothing, lets put all this effort, energy and funding towards enforcing what is already a solid system of boating on the lake. If every boat on the lake followed every law currently on the books we would not be having this discussion.

Not quite succinct but I believe it makes a strong case.

One more thing. Please do not quote me or dispute me in your statement. I want to hear a fact based original thought.

[fatlazyless]

Here's an analogy to the safety problem created by high speed boating. Like when you are driv'n down route 93 at 65mph and a car passes you that's going 95mph. You don't see it coming up behind you, you don't know about it, it comes and goes so fast you just think to yourself "what a damned jerk that is, hope there's a trooper stake-out, up ahead to stop that nut."

Danger and fear is increased by a lot when you got much faster boats sharing the waters.

I could be out there in my 14' aluminum , silver colored, fishing row-boat that basically blends into the water, and I'm thinking this could be a dangerous spot because I know the 8000lb-32'-1200hp 'Snake Dancer' could be right down on my little fishing spot going 75mph, any second, so no I better find a more protected fishing spot. At that speed, and with the sun, waves, and big long fiberglass hull, just how good can the 'Snake Dancer' look'n ahead, driver's lookout be?

Winnipesaukee has all types of, motor-sail-paddle-row-swim all sharing the same water. High speed lowers the safety and increases the fear. Is fear a factor? It is to me.

In the last ten years, there's lots more kayaks out on Winnipesaukee. Compared to a canoe, kayaks are designed low in the water for increased stability. Easy to paddle, cartop, transport, launch, fun to use, and relatively cheap, & evironmentally friendly, kayaks have lots of users and they is out there, all over the place, on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Do you know what the "Snake Dancer' boats like to call kayaks....they call them .........Speed Bumps......!

[WeirsBeachBoater]

1. Snake Dance hasn't been on this lake for years!

2. It was 42' not 32'

3. It had no where near that HP.

4. It was all show and no go as they say!

So the only way you should have "feared" that boat was if you were afraid of loud colors and or Snakes!

[fatlazyless]

You must be think'n of a different 'Snake Dancer' because there's been one the last few summer's that is a large, white gfbl w/ a big long snake on its' hull, & it says 'Snake Dancer' in big letters on both sides of the hull next to a great big long wiggly snake. And, that Snake likes to go bomb'n thru the buoy 3 gut.

[hazelnut]

FLL,

Your post is entertaining. However, fear as a factor to create a law just does not hold water. You are using conjecture in your argument.

con·jec·ture /kənˈdʒɛktʃər/
–noun
1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.

You are speculating that Snake Dancer will run you over. Snake dancer has not run you over. It has not been proven that Snake dancer WILL run you over. If Snake Dancer DOES run you over you yourself said that your "silver colored, fishing row-boat... basically blends into the water" At 45mph I might run you over in my bowrider.

You are AFRAID that he will run you over so we should make a law that he can't drive over 45? That is an extremely arbitrary argument. I have a fear of flying. I am afraid to fly. Planes actually HAVE crashed and KILLED people. Should we outlaw flight?

[Dick]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Bear Islander,

You obviously have a strong belief in the need for a speed limit. So let's strip away all the peripheral debate and twisting of words and succinctly state our case as to why we need this law. Lets try to avoid embellishment and conjecture. I will do the same in a very simple statement that I believe to be based on fact not emotion.

Please keep in mind that I own a 25 foot bowrider capable of only 49 MPH. I have very young children all under the age of 5. I love to kayak and swim. I live on an island just like you. I also think the lake is way too crowded. I also think that it can be dangerous to boat on the lake. I wanted to say all of this to give you some background information on who I am. I will never own a "GFBL" boat as it has been termed.

Here is my statement:
Based on facts and statistics, speed has never been an issue with regard to accidents or deaths on the lake. In fact with the completion of the recent study done on the lake it has been proven that most boaters do not even exceed 45mph on a regular basis. The real issue is uneducated boaters and more importantly rude boaters. Those individuals who put themselves their passengers and other boaters swimmers and kayakers in harms way due to their ignorance and flat out "I don't care attitude." What we need is increased funding for the Marine Patrol to have the tools to patrol the waters and enforce the laws that are already in place. Instead of wasting money on a law that solves nothing, lets put all this effort, energy and funding towards enforcing what is already a solid system of boating on the lake. If every boat on the lake followed every law currently on the books we would not be having this discussion.

Not quite succinct but I believe it makes a strong case.

One more thing. Please do not quote me or dispute me in your statement. I want to hear a fact based original thought.

Hazelnut . . . well written and quickly to the point . . . based upon FACT. Let's hope our Senators have the wisdom and courage to discuss and vote based upon objective information and not emotional stories.

[LDR4]

I have been on this lake for over 40 years, I have never had a boat that would exceed 45 mph, and I have never had a "close encounter" with a speeding boat. I can not help but feel that the supporters of this bill have more than "boater's safety" on their agenda.

My question is this....Has anyone really thought out how this speed limit will be upheld in our courts?? If I was ticketed for a speeding violation on the lake, I would immediately appeal it to get a court hearing. I would then argue the point that how can I be expected to know how fast I was going when my boat does not, nor is required to have a speedometer.
I would be very surprised if that defense did not hold up in court.

This is going to be such a waste of time and money for our limited Marine Patrol and court personnel to deal with.

If the legislature really wants to make the lake safer, why not devote thier energies to stricter education and licensing requirements?? Has anyone ever seen some of the "daily Renters" that are operating rental boats on this lake after simply paying the rental charge and signing a form that says they know what they are doing??? To me that is a much more dangerous situation than the monority of boats that are on the lake exceeding 45 MPH

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by daveg

Has anyone ever seen some of the "daily Renters" that are operating rental boats on this lake after simply paying the rental charge and signing a form that says they know what they are doing??? To me that is a much more dangerous situation than the monority of boats that are on the lake exceeding 45 MPH

I have and I will give them as wide a berth as possible since you never know what they're going to do or what they're capable of. Here's my favorite example; who remembers the docks at Burger King in Paugus Bay? They're floaters, not fixed, so they're low on the water. I was there one day a few years ago and watched somone, either a day renter or newbie, I don't know, almost drive RIGHT OVER THE DOCK into the slip on the other side!! Yes, I exaggerate some; he actually drove the bow up onto the dock a foot or two before he cut power and the boat slipped back off the way it was driven on!! THAT'S the type of uneducated boater that's making the lake unsafe!!

How about the no wake area between Eagle and Governor Islands? How many boats have you seen going through there like the no-wake zone doesn't even exist? From my personal experience, maybe half will slow down but they're certainly not doing "no wake" speed. Do they care? Apparently not. This is just another example of an existing law that needs stronger enforcement and every time I see something like this, I think "I'm getting blamed (and others like me) for an unsafe lake just because I (we) own a performance boat."

I can't speak for anyone else, but the LAST thing I want to do is injure someone on the lake; I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I did. I'm not rich and I have too much invested in my boat to risk damaging it so I'm going to do everything I can to stay out of harm's way AND keep safely away from other boaters, kayakers, canoeists, divers, swimmers, etc. so as to minimize the risk of injury to anyone else on the lake.

And yes, I do enjoy going fast but only when the conditions permit it.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

You must be think'n of a different 'Snake Dancer' because there's been one the last few summer's that is a large, white gfbl w/ a big long snake on its' hull, & it says 'Snake Dancer' in big letters on both sides of the hull next to a great big long wiggly snake. And, that Snake likes to go bomb'n thru the buoy 3 gut.

Yes the Snake Dance I was referring to was yellow and Blue. I have not seen your white boat by that name...

[Bear Islander]

Hazelnut

Lake Winnipesaukee is congested. It is a limited public resource and large, fast boats use up a disproportionately large amount of that resource. Camp directors have been keeping children off the lake at times because they feel it is unsafe. Many operators of small boats and unpowered craft feel intimidated, and unsafe.

Some operators of larger boats have the opinion that unpowered craft need to stay away from certain parts of the lake. This attitude is dangerous and unsupportable by law, fairness or common sense. It is however indicative of the problems on the lake.

Other states and other lakes have enacted speed limits. As this trend continues Winnipesaukee will become more attractive to high speed boating. Without a speed limit more and more high performance boats will be attracted to Winnipesaukee's "No Limits" attitude.

The lake is the drinking water supply for thousands of people. Although the lake meets the definition of pristine at this time, the water quality in our bays is dropping. The trend toward larger and faster boating is adding to this problem through pollution and erosion.

Tourism is vital to the economy of the lakes region. Many local hotels, restaurateurs and even marina operators complain that some people are staying away do to a general perception that the lake is unsafe, or less enjoyable. Failure of HB847 to be enacted can only add this this perception. And with tourism, perception is more powerful than reality.

A speed limit will be for the most part self enforcing as, over time, the worst "would be offenders" will boat elsewhere. Other lakes, within New Hampshire and without, have enacted speed limits with few enforcement problems. Squam and Lake George being prime examples. The Squam speed limit is working without special funding or enforcement.

My first choice for a solution to these problems would be a liberal horsepower limit. My second choice is a speed limit. Increased funding for education and enforcement are wonderful ideas. However funding is unsure and frankly unlikely. Limits will do the job quicker and more effectively, and will cost almost nothing.

The inconvenience this legislation will cause among the responsible performance boaters on the lake is unfortunate and regrettable but necessary.

[hazelnut]

Bear Islander,

That was well said.

While I disagree with having a speed limit I do believe that something needs to be done to ensure the safety of everyone on the lake. I do believe that the lake has become overcrowded and at times dangerous.

My belief will and always will be that greater enforcement of the existing laws will cure all that ails the lake. We need to fund more officers to patrol more areas of the lake. I am not bothered by a Cigarette boat doing 85MPH across the broads. Those guys usually know when it is prudent to drive those speeds. The majority of the offenders "Captain Boneheads" drive bowriders, and runabouts. Trust me, I spent the entire summer on the lake and boated just about every day. The 150 foot rule is usually broken at 25-35MPH in congested areas. My biggest problem had to do with Bass boats last year. I had run ins with at least 10 last year. Sorry to stereotype but the first few times seemed coincidental after that it became a trend.

What seems backwards to me is that the biggest lake is being debated for a speed limit when smaller lakes will have none? Unfortunately this bill has so many supporters because they see it as a way to get rid of certain types of boats because they don't like them. It has no merit as a safety issue. It is truly a case of discrimination against one particular class. For example what if the lake had half as many boats on it regardless of type. What if the remaining boats were captained by courteous and careful individuals. Couldn't we all agree that would probably solve all these issues we discuss. You see it isn't the type of boat that is making it unsafe, it is the amount of boats and those who are behind the wheel. A speed limit is a back door loophole cop-out approach to solve a problem we ALL AGREE exists, unsafe conditions, not speed. Why can't the legislature actually do their job and come up with an equitable solution the does not discriminate against either side? I'd love to see safer conditions on the lake but I do not think that this is the answer.

[JayDV]

Thank you Bear Islander and Hazelnut. I enjoyed both of your presentations very much. BI made suggestions to control the lake vessels' speeds, HN suggests better boater education and patrol enforcement. Both "corners" recognize the other's argument but obviously are committed to their cause.

Something we used to do in school at this point was to change sides and argue your opponent's position. Obviously the practice is to argue to win (not the try to see who hits the softest .. oops you win )

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Hazelnut

Lake Winnipesaukee is congested. It is a limited public resource and large, fast boats use up a disproportionately large amount of that resource. Camp directors have been keeping children off the lake at times because they feel it is unsafe. Many operators of small boats and unpowered craft feel intimidated, and unsafe.

Some operators of larger boats have the opinion that unpowered craft need to stay away from certain parts of the lake. This attitude is dangerous and unsupportable by law, fairness or common sense. It is however indicative of the problems on the lake.

Other states and other lakes have enacted speed limits. As this trend continues Winnipesaukee will become more attractive to high speed boating. Without a speed limit more and more high performance boats will be attracted to Winnipesaukee's "No Limits" attitude.

The lake is the drinking water supply for thousands of people. Although the lake meets the definition of pristine at this time, the water quality in our bays is dropping. The trend toward larger and faster boating is adding to this problem through pollution and erosion.

Tourism is vital to the economy of the lakes region. Many local hotels, restaurateurs and even marina operators complain that some people are staying away do to a general perception that the lake is unsafe, or less enjoyable. Failure of HB847 to be enacted can only add this this perception. And with tourism, perception is more powerful than reality.

A speed limit will be for the most part self enforcing as, over time, the worst "would be offenders" will boat elsewhere. Other lakes, within New Hampshire and without, have enacted speed limits with few enforcement problems. Squam and Lake George being prime examples. The Squam speed limit is working without special funding or enforcement.

My first choice for a solution to these problems would be a liberal horsepower limit. My second choice is a speed limit. Increased funding for education and enforcement are wonderful ideas. However funding is unsure and frankly unlikely. Limits will do the job quicker and more effectively, and will cost almost nothing.

The inconvenience this legislation will cause among the responsible performance boaters on the lake is unfortunate and regrettable but necessary.

Bear Islander...

Your a bit off base here with some of your assumptions.

1. While I agree that there can be a congestion issue on Lake Winnipesaukee, the congestion ONLY occurs in certain areas (Weirs, Alton Bay and between Bear Is and Meredith Neck) on nice summer weekends. The rest of the lake sees very little congestion even on the nicest of summer weekends. During the week the lake has very little boat traffic... even fewer during the off season!


2. There is a certain "Fear Factor" at work here. This is soley because you & WinnFabs type hype it up. There is no data to even remotely suggest that boating on Lake Winnipesaukee is at all unsafe. One (1) fatal accident in 5 years is a pretty exemplary safety record. The fact that there was alcohol involved in the accident on Lake Winnipesaukee (and the one in Long Lake in ME .11BAC) speaks volumes as to what the real issue should be. A drunk isn't going to care about a speed limit, any more than he cared about jumping behind the wheel drunk and driving away! Do really think it would make any of the victims families feel better if the offender was also slapped with a $50 speeding citation?

3. Prudence dictates that Camp Directors should monitor how the children in thier care use the lake. I would not rely on a speed limit to protect the kids in my care. I don't think taking the kids kayaking or swimming from island to island on a busy summer saturday/sunday is such a great idea. MTWTF swimming/kayaking trip might be a better plan. Perhaps even hire a MP detail to watch over the kids if a Sat/Sun excursion is necessary. Maybe even allow extended swim areas for summer camps? A speed limit will do nothing to protect summer campers. On another note, when was the last time a camper was hurt by a boat... speeding or otherwise? Please list the details where/when etc.... Inquiring minds want to know!

4. Large fast boats do not use up a disproportionately large amount of the lake. Quite frankly, there just aren't enough of them out there. The MP data showed just 3 boats out of 3800+ going faster than 60 MPH, 62 MPH to be exact. There were 7 speed zones, only 2 of them public knowledge.

5. Lake Winnipesaukee will not become more congested as time goes on. Quite frankly the lake is pretty much built out as far as boats go. There is precious little waterfront that hasn't already been built on, the state is reviewing the waterfront lease arrangement along the state owned RR ROW, the cities and towns are not letting the marinas expand thier rack storage, and the public launch facilities are small with very little parking. Where are these additional boats going to come from?

6. Lake Winnipesaukee will not become a more attractive destination for Hi-Performance boats just because other places have enacted speed limits. See my reasoning above... there are only a few places on the lake where you can put in and take out a large Hi-performance boat all of them private, and unless you are staying with a friend or at one of the hotels (NASWA, Christmas Is, Margate, Church Landing etc) there isn't anyplace to dock it! Of course, if you are staying at one of the hotels, then you are helping to support tourism. So there goes the Hi-Pperformance boats are bad for tourism theory! When was the last time you saw 10 people in kayaks paddle up to restaurant, go in, have a $500-600 meal then paddle away?

7. Pollution is an issue to be sure. But most Hi-Performance boats emit a fraction of the pollution emitted by a 20HP 2 stroke outboard. Your rocket ride will emit more pollutants into the atmosphere than all of the boats on Winni combined!


Woodsy

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Lake Winnipesaukee is congested. It is a limited public resource and large, fast boats use up a disproportionately large amount of that resource. Camp directors have been keeping children off the lake at times because they feel it is unsafe. Many operators of small boats and unpowered craft feel intimidated, and unsafe.

Bear Islander.

Being that my place looks across at Camp Lawrence and I see plenty of traffic in the area all day long I do not see speeding being the issue in my particular area. The open bay between Mark and Bear is clearly one of the more popular watersports spots on the lake, the Camp boat is out there every morning when the camp is in session taking kids waterskiing.

The main safety issue I see is people coming through the area that do not know what 150' looks like, or criss-crossing each other while towing skiers. I am surprised that the camp does not have more of a designated "stay-out" zone around it, as I have seen boats coming out of homes on Bear to the left of the camp cut very close to the beach.

I was sitting on my jet ski (stopped) with a few friends last season about 100' from shore and a clown cut in between myself and shore, he was towing a skier and yelled at me for being in his line! Being that he stayed approximately the same distance from shore upon leaving his place he was within 75' of the camp beach and further down the shore passed within 25' of me at best. For the record it was a yellow Sugar Sand Tango jet boat.

My point is that there are safety issues on the lake, but the speed limit won't fix it. How often have you seen 38' Fountains doing 80mph 100' from shore? Personally I wish they would invoke the NWZ that had been discussed as you round the corner of Mark. The markers are close together and with the field of rocks on the Bear side there is not enough space in my opinion for boats to pass safely at speed. We do see boats tear around the corner from time to time, I am more upset with how close people cut the corner. I have had people come inside or actually hit my moorings which are no more than 90' from shore.

For the record, I agree that speed is fun, when done safely and in the proper area. I am a speed junkie myself, although I do not own a boat faster than 55ish. In between the islands is no place for it, but in the broads have at it! I do agree with 25mph at night. I will admit that I have gone much faster in the Broads at night coming back from Alton, but would have no issue with a 25mph limit.

There are other solutions for safety on the lake. I would love to see no accidents, close calls, etc.. If the GFBL's are scaring people away, let them! It keeps crowding down...

[Bear Islander]

Hazelnut

There are just two important points we can not agree on. Nobody is going to all this time, expense and trouble to pass a speed limit because they don't like a certain kind of boat. I can't make you guys believe that, but it's true. Why can't you just assume that most of the proponents want a speed limit for the same reasons I do?

I disagree that enforcing the existing laws and educating boaters will achieve a better lake. The worst offenders are unteachable. And huge increases in education and enforcement just are not going to happen. I prefer to go with a solution that actually will work, instead of one that is a nice idea but virtually impossible to achieve.

Woodsy

You arguments are so one sided and unrealistic, I hardly know how to respond.

As one example you idea that children's camps should hire Marine Patrol details to protect their children from power boats is completely INSANE!!! I would email it to every Senator as an example of where the opposition thinking is going, but truthfully it's so bizarre I think they would take it for a joke.

You ask when was the last time a camper was harmed by a speeding boat. They are harmed every time they can't go out in a boat because the people responsible for their safety will not take the risk. Perhaps when people are enjoying their 1,500 horsepower ride down the lake they should think about how many small children they are keeping on shore.

[hazelnut]

I'm sorry but you can not make me believe it because you say it in your own argument:

Quote: "(The Lake).. is a limited public resource and large, fast boats use up a disproportionately large amount of that resource....Many operators of small boats and unpowered craft feel intimidated, and unsafe.

This is a direct quote from your own statement as to why you support the bill. This is your statement. Am I missing something. I'm not trying t to be rude here but this crux of your argument. Fast boats use up too much of the resource, therefore we must rid the lake of them. You yourself pitted the small boats vs the big boats in your own argument.

Please explain how you can then go on to say, "Nobody is going to all this time, expense and trouble to pass a speed limit because they don't like a certain kind of boat." Just 5 posts later?

Other direct quotes:
"As this trend continues Winnipesaukee will become more attractive to high speed boating. Without a speed limit more and more high performance boats will be attracted to Winnipesaukee..."
and:
"The trend toward larger and faster boating is adding to this problem through pollution and erosion."

Again your argument is against certain types of boats that you do not want on the water. Big fast boats are now to blame for erosion and pollution. Not the 45 foot Carver that makes 4 foot waves?

I'm not saying you don't LIKE a certain kind of boat I am saying you are discriminating against a certain type of boat. Your argument blames the boat not the driver. That is a flawed argument in my eyes.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You twist everything that I post!

You know nothing about logic. "It is the mistake of confusing logical implication and conversational implicature by thinking that "some are" statements logically imply "some are not" statements, when the former statements only conversationally implicate the latter. source: Paul Grice, "Logic and Conversation", reprinted in Studies in the Way of Words (Harvard, 1989).

Just because I can't be sure that no speed limit supporter is lying, does not mean or imply that some are lying. Again, you are trying to use my absolute honesty against me, which is totally unfair.

I don't care if you believe me or not. You are judging my experience solely on what you have experienced and are attacking my credability just because I have experienced things that you haven't. I never lie. Can you honestly say that?

I've already explained to you in a previous post that I am an excellent judge of distance and speed - have you like no memory?

You really need to get a life. Attacking someone just because they don't share you're views is really pretty pathetic.

Evenstar, you tell us about your expertise, you make it sound like you have years of experience on the lake when in fact you have hours of experience on the lake, now you tell us you are an excellent judge of distance and speed.

I am indeed growing tired of our exchanges. I'm actually starting to feel a little bad for you, for if you feel quoting your own words and showing problems with the words is a personal attack, you have lead a very charmed and sheltered life.......

[winnilaker]

There is only one word to describe what you read. "Sensationalism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism

It's works in papers.
Worked in the House.
Time will tell if it works in the Senate.

Feel free to quote from the above link, it accurately describes what we're experiencing.

[Bear Islander]

I can love a wildflower, but when one grows in my lawn I will kill it. That doesn't mean I hate it, it's just in the wrong place.

Many high performance boats are beautiful, I even like the sound (except late at night) but if they disrupt children's camps, pollute my drinking water or endanger tourism, then they need to go.

I have explained to you the damage I believe the increasing numbers of larger faster boats are doing to the lake I love. I'm sorry, but it's time to go.

It's not about hatred or dislike, it's about them being in the wrong place.

I will reference two old movies "Old Yeller" and "The Yearling".

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

Evenstar, you tell us about your expertise, you make it sound like you have years of experience on the lake when in fact you have hours of experience on the lake, now you tell us you are an excellent judge of distance and speed.

I am indeed growing tired of our exchanges. I'm actually starting to feel a little bad for you, for if you feel quoting your own words and showing problems with the words is a personal attack, you have lead a very charmed and sheltered life.......

All you want to do is tear my posts apart in an attempt to misquote me. Misquoting is changing the meaning of what I wrote or taking it out of context.

Why can't you just accept that other people have had different experiences than you? To you, someone must be lying, unless they see things exactly as you. Guess what? We're all different (thank God), and everyone is entitled to thier own opinion.

My ability to judge distance and speed has been tested - so this is not just a claim. I've explained all this before: I suffered a severe head injury to the left side of my brain when I was little, because of this the right side of my brain became overdeveloped – I test “off the charts” in spatial awareness. So I tend to be pretty accurate in being able to estimate things like speed and distance. That’s because I can only think in images.

Plus I have spent a great deal of time on Squam, where the fastest boats consistently push the 40mph limit – so I have a pretty good idea what 45 mph looks like. And I know what 150 feet looks like. If a speeding boat is less than 9 of my kayak lengths from me - they are too close. And I have had highspeed boats on Winni come within less than 5 kayak lengths, before they appeared to notice me.

There has been nothing "charmed" about my life. I have had a very difficult life. Although I will admit that I was very sheltered for many years.

[hazelnut]

My opinion, I too love the look and the sound of a performance boat, in the proper setting. When they held the races on the broads I was there front and center, loving every minute of it.
However, It does not thrill me to have them zipping by my house with loud exhaust preventing normal conversation. I have noticed that through increased law enforcement the real loud boats are becoming fewer and fewer. That is a good example of better enforcement of current laws in effect.

With that said this Speed Limit bill is disguising itself as a "Safety Measure" that will help make the lake safer. Safer than what? No accidents attributed to speed ever? The real agenda is ridding the lake of what some percieve as undesirable.

You make no excuses for that with your comment. I appreciate your honesty on that. However, it all seems a bit biased. The whole "Let's get rid of these loud fast boats even though they haven't done anything wrong, we just think they are too loud and there are too many of them."

You are an Islander, so am I. What if the mainlanders got enough people together to lead a charge to rid the lake of excess boat traffic by limiting Islanders access? They could claim we traverse back and forth too much using too more than our fair share of the resource. After all I don't think it would be hard to convince some minds that Islanders boat more than most of the boating public, agree? So what if by some convoluted, crazy manor some mainlander was able to get the ear of some State Rep to write up a bill. Now equating this to the Speed Limit bill it would have to be an arbitrary bill that doesn't address the actual problem so instead of coming right out and saying we want to get rid of Islanders it would be something to the effect of, a HUGE TAX on Island homeowners that own boats or something to that effect. Like a toll or a usage fee. It would only apply to Island homeowners and the proponents would argue that we use the lake more we "take up more space" going back and forth. We should pay more of the taxes to use that resource. After all we Islanders add to that congestion more than most don't we? I have put you on the other side of the argument now Bear Islander. I don't agree with what I have just posted, I could argue that I use the lake less than most mainlanders but I could NEVER convince them of that because they would throw it in my face that I must use it more because I have to get back and forth.

Remember people are being directly and arbitrarily affected by this Bill. Just because you and the Bill supporters "feel" that these boats don't belong here.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Then I find myself in very good company.

If you are referring to Hillary in that article, then you and I will see eye to eye on very little I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

With only two opportunities to respond (to your seven in this thread), please allow this one Supporter to summarize the findings of "The Study". (Now referred to as "The Survey").

Hmmm, and who is to blame if your access has been limited?????

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) The study was a last-minute swerve into NH lawmakers' deliberations. Now that "The Survey" has been implicitly recognized as such (by the two-to-one majority vote in the House) was it not a last-minute dodge?

This is your opinion APS, stated as fact. I actually thought the study was a good idea when I heard about it because I knew the reports of fast boats, mayhem and the wild west were wrong, or sensationalism. A study/survery like this apparently frightened the people who knew they were exagerating to get their way, hence the frenzied effort to discredit it and even prevent it from being published.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

2) The only unmarked patrol boats are Jet-Skis—as described in local Winnipesaukee forums. (Need a link?)

Actually a quote and link would be nice. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps some MP officers are boaters too???

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

3) Unpaid volunteers weren't pointing the radar? (This link says they were).

Unpaid volunteer = Marine Patrol Auxiliary member Ray Petty

You know, why is every line you write carefully crafted to give the wrong impression to a reader? The truth shall set you free my friend. An auxiliary officer is hardly a schmoe off the street. In fact I'm willing to bet they even have some police type powers.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

4) It wasn't only Director Barrett who claimed radar inaccuracies. http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...92&postcount=1 (Until the "study" happily disclosed that it can be—when results you don't like get discarded).
5) Results weren't thrown out? (The NHMP stated so!)

Already covered this, had results not been thrown out you still would have complained, about cosine error. And in that case it would be justified, now it is not. Who said this survey wasn't well designed.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

6) The study contradicts the Director. (Was he wrong in 2005 or in 2007?)

Why yes it does contradict the Director, he estimated 15% were travelling over 45 mph, when in FACT only 0.9% were. It's amazing what you learn when you study. This unprecedented study show that the people talking about mayhem, wild west, speeding boats everywhere were at best mistaken, at their worst liars.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

7) The measuring zones were not only advertised in New Hampshire sources, but at many Internet boating sites. Other locations were announced later on—though I witnessed zero sites—and none were in my "problem-boat" neighborhood.

I've only seen the two proposed speed limit areas advertised, where I believe less than 30 % of the readings were taken. The other areas were not advertised to my knowledge, if they were show me.

Some of your links don't work, is that by design????

[jrc]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

...What if the mainlanders got enough people together to lead a charge to rid the lake of excess boat traffic by limiting Islanders access? ...

Not for the same reason, but in Nashua people were prohibited from using their island homes because the only access was cut-off by water. The fire department said if we can't get our trucks there, you can't live there. Imagine if the state fire marshal had the same thought. How can they protect the children on the islands from fire and injury if they can't get fire truck or ambulances there? For safety reasons you may not be allowed to live there.

Now that would be a stupid law with no evidence to back up the dangers and only driven by irrational fear of a statistically improbable event. But what about the children...