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..."

[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....

[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.

[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.

[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..........

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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 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.........

[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.

[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.

[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.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

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.

All I do is read your posts and decide whether what you say is reasonable or not, based on what you say, what you have said, and my own experiences.

My conclusions on what you have printed are based mostly on what you have written. Unlike making oral presentations, written arguments, especially in a medium like this, are easily compared to previous written arguments you've made. Inconsistencies stick out like a sore thumb. I actually held back for weeks if not months when you first started posting and I noticed that things weren't adding up. Then I realized the negative effect the exaggerations, misrepresentations, inaccuracies and in some cases ( I'm not saying you here) blatant lies were having, generating a groundswell of people who were actually believing the hype.

So I began pointing out the problems with your and other's stories. And there were many problems.

Through our and others interactions many truths have come out, truths that were not apparent when you first started telling us about your bad experiences on Lake Winnipesaukee. For instance, after you had been telling us about your bad encounters (implied to be on Lake Winnipesaukee) you finally admitted that you had at that time never paddled on the lake. Later we found out that your fear of motor boats was based on a near death experience you had while paddling on the Connecticut River.

Now you tell us that you have some kind of innate ability to accurately judge distance and speed that has been "tested". Give me a break. The more you try to impress me with your qualifications, the less impressed I become.

You allude to too many close, high speed encounters on Lake Winnipesaukee to be believable. One time, I might be able to believe, but the many that you talk about, not so much.

I'm sorry you feel I'm attacking you, but to be honest with you I really don't care. The inconsistencies in your stories need to be pointed out, especially for people unfamiliar with our lake, who, if left to read your uncontested story will think that taking a kayak or similar boat on our lake is a deadly idea. It's just not true.

[Resident 2B]

WeirsBeachBoater,

Thanks for posting this list. It certainly is much longer than the "huge" list of supporting businesses.

For BI, this is another great example of why you should be very careful about what you are asking for. I am sure it is significantly longer than you thought it would be.

For me, this list also goes on the refrigerator, so that we will remember where to go when we need to make a purchase.

R2B

[WeirsBeachBoater]

No problem R2B. Glad to help out.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

WeirsBeachBoater,

Thanks for posting this list. It certainly is much longer than the "huge" list of supporting businesses.

For BI, this is another great example of why you should be very careful about what you are asking for. I am sure it is significantly longer than you thought it would be.

For me, this list also goes on the refrigerator, so that we will remember where to go when we need to make a purchase.

R2B

I have seen the list before. It's an excellent example of who opposes speed limits. Thanks for posting, a more appropriate response than sniping the supporters list.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I have seen the list before. It's an excellent example of who opposes speed limits. Thanks for posting, a more appropriate response than sniping the supporters list.

I am not picking on your for posting it, but a few of the supporters surprise me. Glendale Marine for instance, being that they are the local Manitou dealer at the lake and claim to have the fastest pontoons around- capable of 60mph. The sign they hung last year stated "Hot Rod Pontoon-60MPH!!! "

Rather odd for a supporter to advertise like this. He will be getting a call from me this week for sure. I think we all know why Rusty is a supporter, he is lucky to have a restaurant at all after his establishments involvement in a past incident.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I am not picking on your for posting it, but a few of the supporters surprise me. Glendale Marine for instance,...

He will be getting a call from me this week for sure.

Perhaps a review of the opposition list will be prudent before you make that call.

Seems Glendale Marine made both lists.

Also, seems they're not the only one.

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

These NH Businesses and Associations Oppose House Bill 847

Marine Industry Businesses

Glendale Marina - Gilford

Y Landing Marina - Meredith

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I have seen the list before. It's an excellent example of who opposes speed limits. Thanks for posting, a more appropriate response than sniping the supporters list.

I was with you until the last 9 words. I was not sniping. I was pointing out the TRUTH! Facts, as we call them. But I wouldn't expect your side to understand what facts are, supporters don't use them!

[hazelnut]

NONE OF THAT HAPPENED ON LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE!!!!

Are you serious. I really had higher hopes for you.

Do you have amnesia? I asked you to answer a yes or no question YESTERDAY!!!!!

I will quote it for those who do not want to scroll up:

Bear Islander and all supporters of the HB in question please answer a simple yes or no to the following question. No adjective, description, comment, argument just a simple y/n or if you prefer yes/no.

The biggest problem on the lake today is that boats are speeding. Yes or No

Please tell me what your answer was? It's right here on the forum for all to see.

Oh I see we are splitting hairs I should have said you yourself agreed that speed was not the BIGGEST problem. Whatever.

I want you to give me Lake Winnipesaukee specific statistics... Guess what YOU CAN'T. You are really grabbing at straws here. I should have expected it to go down this road. I had such high hopes.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

I actually held back for weeks if not months when you first started posting and I noticed that things weren't adding up.

For instance, after you had been telling us about your bad encounters (implied to be on Lake Winnipesaukee) you finally admitted that you had at that time never paddled on the lake.[/quote]
This is just not true. In my 2nd post on this forum I wrote: "Even though this is called the Winnipesaukee forums, isn't it about the entire Lakes Region? I mean, it's ok to ask about Squam and other lakes, isn't it. The thing is that I haven't even been on Winni yet, but I do plan on exploring it some this year in my kayak. In fact I just got my Bizer chart this morning. I wrote that on my very first day as a member.

Later we found out that your fear of motor boats was based on a near death experience you had while paddling on the Connecticut River.

In my very next post I wrote: I haven't kayaked on Winni yet, but I have been on other NH lakes enough to comment on high speeds.
That incident that I had on the CT river was not the first time that I have had a close call high-speed power boats. I never said that it was a "near death experience" and I'm not afraid of powerboats - just of the idiots who go too fast to see me.

Now you tell us that you have some kind of innate ability to accurately judge distance and speed that has been "tested". Give me a break. The more you try to impress me with your qualifications, the less impressed I become.

I never lie. I have been tested. When you have had a severe head injury, you get tested ALOT - in all sorts of ways. I have had electrocephalogram tests, MRI tests, and all sorts of medical, written, and vision, language, comprehension, and awareness tests. Just like anyone, I have strengths and weaknesses. Language is one of my weaknesses. Spatial awareness is one on my strengths. The woman who tested me told me that my spatial awareness is "off the charts". Look up spatial awareness.

I’ve explained what areas I am experienced in and have admitted my lack of experience in others. I have NEVER once pretended to have had any more experience or ability than what I actually have.

I'm sorry you feel I'm attacking you, but to be honest with you I really don't care. The inconsistencies in your stories need to be pointed out

You are attacking me! You are making up outright lies about what I wrote in this forum - just to discredit me. That is underhanded, it is wrong, and it is against the rules of this forum! I have always been totally honest here - you have not.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This is just not true. In my 2nd post on this forum I wrote: "Even though this is called the Winnipesaukee forums, isn't it about the entire Lakes Region? I mean, it's ok to ask about Squam and other lakes, isn't it. The thing is that I haven't even been on Winni yet, but I do plan on exploring it some this year in my kayak. In fact I just got my Bizer chart this morning. I wrote that on my very first day as a member.

In my very next post I wrote: I haven't kayaked on Winni yet, but I have been on other NH lakes enough to comment on high speeds.
That incident that I had on the CT river was not the first time that I have had a close call high-speed power boats. I never said that it was a "near death experience" and I'm not afraid of powerboats - just of the idiots who go too fast to see me.


I never lie. I have been tested. When you have had a severe head injury, you get tested ALOT - in all sorts of ways. I have had electrocephalogram tests, MRI tests, and all sorts of medical, written, and vision, language, comprehension, and awareness tests. Just like anyone, I have strengths and weaknesses. Language is one of my weaknesses. Spatial awareness is one on my strengths. The woman who tested me told me that my spatial awareness is "off the charts". Look up spatial awareness.

I’ve explained what areas I am experienced in and have admitted my lack of experience in others. I have NEVER once pretended to have had any more experience or ability than what I actually have.


You are attacking me! You are making up outright lies about what I wrote in this forum - just to discredit me. That is underhanded, it is wrong, and it is against the rules of this forum! I have always been totally honest here - you have not.

I know what spatial awareness is, and I also looked it up. "Spatial awareness is an organised knowledge of objects including oneself, in a given space. Spatial awareness also involves understanding the relationships of these objects when there is a change of position."

Nowhere in the definitions of Spatial Awareness does it mention the "ability to judge distance and speed". The human brain cannot accurately judge distance or speed without some type of tool. We can estimate, but our estimates generally are not very good. That's why we have rulers, tape measures and speedometers. You are, once again, mistaken if you think you can accurately judge distance and speed. Especially speed, while sitting in your kayak. In fact, that is probably the problem with your perceptions of the lake.

Pointing out inconsistencies in your posts, which are plentiful, does not make me a liar. You feel as though you should be able to post whatever you like and not be challenged as to your information's veracity. Well, when the information you post will result in restrictions imposed on me, you better have your act together. If I see a problem with your post, I am going to point it out. You can cry all you want about it, but that is the way it is.

As far as personal attacks go, reread what you write about me. You call me: a liar, underhanded, wrong and other things. Who's comments are bordering on personal attacks? Why yours are. It's ok though, I'm a grown up, I can take it.

The only thing I want to discredit is your message, that the lake is a dangerous place for kayaks because of boats travelling above 45 mph. It's simply not true. It's not supported by the statistics, the speed survey or many people's extensive experience on the lake.

Lighten up, stick to the facts, quit crying about personal attacks when you lose in the arena of ideas.........

BTW, I'm aware of your initial posts, they were used to point out that you didn't have extensive experience on the lake when your later posts gave the impression that you did.

[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

[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............

[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

[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????

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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".

[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.

[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...

[Bear Islander]

Those Nashua islanders should have bought themselves a big twin engine fire boat, portable Indian Pumps and received firefighting training like the residents of Bear Island did.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Those Nashua islanders should have bought themselves a big twin engine fire boat, portable Indian Pumps and received firefighting training like the residents of Bear Island did.

Or they could repair the access, like they did. But of course that's not the point.

BTW you do realize that acording to the USCG, NH boat registrations have been nearly flat or decreasing over the last few years. So the overcrowding rational is bunk. There are only about 2% more boats today than 5 years ago.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

Or they could repair the access, like they did. But of course that's not the point.

BTW you do realize that acording to the USCG, NH boat registrations have been nearly flat or decreasing over the last few years. So the overcrowding rational is bunk. There are only about 2% more boats today than 5 years ago.

The lake was overcrowded 5 years ago. We have been arguing speed limits for 3. And a 2% increase is an increase.

How have the registration of longer boats changed?

If I sold my bow rider and purchased a Nor-Tech last year, how does that effect those numbers? IT DOESN'T!

[hazelnut]

Bear Islander,

I do appreciate your honesty. I believe you are a reasonable person who is frustrated with the state of things on the lake. We share common ground with regard to our feelings about safety on the lake. As you have stated we just disagree on the solution. I do not expect to convert you. It's a shame it has come to this. I know you think that there is a light at the end of the tunnel with a speed limit. I really do not believe that a speed limit will solve anything. Education and enforcement is the answer.

Side note: is this truly a partisan issue? Are you a democrat

[hazelnut]

jrc,

Excellent post. It further solidifies my point. Imagine that Bear Islander? A foolish law enacted preventing us from using our Island Homes? Based on fear mongering and no real fact? People dreaming up scenarios that "could" or "might" happen.

[Bear Islander]

Sorry, not a good analogy at all. You have already admitted a problem exists on the lake, we only differ on the solution.

Remember earlier in this thread when Dick posted..

"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."

It seems like Dick also sees the danger.

If I ever get an inkling that living on the island is endangering my child, I will leave immediately, no legislation will be required.

[Cal]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out even if there were no other boats on the lake , simply for the rescue distance in case of a mishap.

[Bear Islander]

Our emergency response time is good. Several 911 calls have been made from the island in recent years, one from our home. The Marine Patrol usually arrives first, the fire boat is not far behind. There must be many homes in Meredith and the surrounding area, that due to their remote location have longer response times than the islands. From the Fire Station to my cabin is less than four miles.

[hazelnut]

So we agree there is a problem of congestion, and dangerous behavior right?

Let's simplify the debate even further:

Bear Islander and all supporters of the HB in question please answer a simple yes or no to the following question. No adjective, description, comment, argument just a simple y/n or if you prefer yes/no.

The biggest problem on the lake today is that boats are speeding. Yes or No


My answer = NO!

[Bear Islander]

No










.....

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

So we agree there is a problem of congestion, and dangerous behavior right?

Let's simplify the debate even further:

Bear Islander and all supporters of the HB in question please answer a simple yes or no to the following question. No adjective, description, comment, argument just a simple y/n or if you prefer yes/no.

The biggest problem on the lake today is that boats are speeding. Yes or No


My answer = NO!

....

...


...

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is your idea of compromising with Nature?

Sounds like your idea of compromise with the proponents is the old saying, "My way or the highway! (and good riddance)"

P.S.- Lady Bird would very disappointed in your viewpoint toward wildflowers.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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.

Please provide proof that performance boats are polluting the drinking water any more than other motorized watercraft. For that matter, prove that they pollute the water more than waterfront homes and businesses.

With regard to affecting tourism, I've seen a proportionate number of every motorized type having a negative effect on my boating experience. Where is your proof that performance boats are affecting tourism at a disproportionate rate?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Rose

Please provide proof that performance boats are polluting the drinking water any more than other motorized watercraft. For that matter, prove that they pollute the water more than waterfront homes and businesses.

With regard to affecting tourism, I've seen a proportionate number of every motorized type having a negative effect on my boating experience. Where is your proof that performance boats are affecting tourism at a disproportionate rate?

First, I never made that claim. But more importantly, why don't YOU prove that performance boats pollute less.

The proof that tourism is being effected is in the below list of speed limit supporters. You will note many are tourist related. There are even several marinas in there. Including marinas that sell large fast boats.

The Common Man
Ashalnd Insurance
Strictly Rentals
Wild Meadow Canoes and Kayaks
Centre Harbor Cellars
Center Harbor Inn
AMC (Appalachian Mountain Club)
NH Audubon
New Hampshire Lakes Association (NHLA)
Decker Machinery Company
The Architectural Studio
Fay’s Boat Yard
Birch Island Camp Association
Gilford Islands Association (GIA)
Jolly Island Association
Lockes Island Association
Belknap Landscaping Company
Design Quest
DK Net Design
E&S Insurance LLC
The Hair Factory
Mike’s Ala Carte Catering
Pepi Herrmann Crystal, Inc.
Glendale Marine
River Edge Marina
Squam Lakes Association (SLA)
Cottage Place on Squam Lake
Squam Lake Inn
Me Designs
Barrons Billiards
Blooms Vanity
J&J Printing
LaBelles Shoe Store
Central & Northern Title
Haughey, Philpot & Laurent
Lakeside Hotel Assoc.
Sundial Shops
Paugus Bay Marina
Best Western Silver Fox Inn
Griffin Bodi Krause
Municipal Resources, Inc.
Great Northern Trading Co
Meredith Marina
Y-Landing
Bear Island Conservation Association (BICA)
East Bear Island Conservation Association
AMC- 3 Mile Island
Winnipesaukee Rowing Club
Alexandria Lamp Shop
Case N’ Keg
Chris Dupont Painting
Christopher P. Williams, Architects
Eisenberg Chiropractic
Hawkins Photography
Hobo Railroad
Landscapes By Tom
League of NH Craftsmen
Mastiff Builders
Omni Signs
Patricia’s “Specially for You”
Pemi Glass Company
Pretty Petunias Garden Center
Remax Bay Side Real Estate
Remcon/North
Sagecliff Software, Inc.
The Village Perk
Winnipesaukee Scenic Railroad
GASCO Realty, LLC
51 Main Street, LLc
Inns & Spa at Mill Falls
Meredith Bay Painting
The Lake House Grille
Lago
Camp
Town Docks Restaurant
Mame's
The Gallery at Mill Falls
Oglethorp
Guiseppies Resturant
Northern Air Trading
Lady of the Lake Clothing
Adorments
Creative Clothing
Christopher P. Williams, Architect
Oak Street Associates
Old Mill Insurance
Innisfree Bookstore
Phoenix Leasing, Inc.
Silver Top Ventures
Minuteman Plumbing & Heating
Sava Designs
Horn Insurance
Harts Restaurant
Fermentation Station LLC
Hunter's
Waukewan Antiques
Village Greenery
Etcetera Shop
Associated Surveyors
Moulton Farm
Barber Pole Association
Trexler’s Marina
Land’s End
Wyman Trail Association
Loon Preservation Committee
1st T Development Corporation
The Woodshed Restaurant
Castle in the Clouds
Amoskeg Insurance
EPTAM Plastics
The Common Man Inn
Corner House Inn
Seacoast Kayak
Tilton Veterinary Hospital
Waterville Valley Condo Rental
Thurston’s Marina
Lighthouse Inn
Weirs Beach Motel and Cottages
Van's Hotel Enterprises
Wolfboro Inn
Island Real Estate of New Hampshire
LB Boat Restoration
Millie B
Wolfeboro Trolley Company
Wolfetrap Restaurant

[Bear Islander]

No







...

[hazelnut]

While that list represents individual businesses that support the Speed Limit it absolutely DOES NOT represent PROOF that tourism is being affected by fast boats. That my friend is one gigantic leap.

[Bear Islander]

The point is not if they think tourism if effected by fast boats.

The point is that they support a speed limit. And that, in my opinion, constitutes all the proof necessary. Many of these business are run by good old American Yankees, (the good kind, not the baseball kind). They know which side of the bread is buttered (and other euphemisms like that).

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Here is how I dissect this list.

See the bold for explanation, My favorite is how all the Great American dining establishments are listed individually. There are 6 Alex Ray places, that should only count once! Many others in Bold are tenants of Rusty McClear, and I asked at least one when this list came out why they were on it. I was told she didn't feel she had a choice!

I could go on and on. But the bottom line is this list is a joke, most of it is repeats, and some businesses didn't even know they were listed. If anyone wants I can go into more details!




The Common Man 1.
Ashalnd Insurance
Strictly Rentals
Wild Meadow Canoes and Kayaks
Centre Harbor Cellars
Center Harbor Inn
AMC (Appalachian Mountain Club)
NH Audubon
New Hampshire Lakes Association (NHLA)
Decker Machinery Company
The Architectural Studio
Fay’s Boat Yard
Birch Island Camp Association
Gilford Islands Association (GIA)
Jolly Island Association
Lockes Island Association
Belknap Landscaping Company
Design Quest
DK Net Design
E&S Insurance LLC
The Hair Factory
Mike’s Ala Carte Catering
Pepi Herrmann Crystal, Inc.
Glendale Marine
River Edge Marina
Squam Lakes Association (SLA)
Cottage Place on Squam Lake
Squam Lake Inn
Me Designs
Barrons Billiards
Blooms Vanity
J&J Printing
LaBelles Shoe Store
Central & Northern Title
Haughey, Philpot & Laurent
Lakeside Hotel Assoc.
Sundial Shops
Paugus Bay Marina
Best Western Silver Fox Inn
Griffin Bodi Krause
Municipal Resources, Inc.
Great Northern Trading Co Rusty tenant
Meredith Marina
Y-Landing = Were not aware they were listed. Call them and ask now!
Bear Island Conservation Association (BICA)
East Bear Island Conservation Association
AMC- 3 Mile Island
Winnipesaukee Rowing Club
Alexandria Lamp Shop
Case N’ Keg
Chris Dupont Painting
Christopher P. Williams, Architects
Eisenberg Chiropractic
Hawkins Photography

Landscapes By Tom
League of NH Craftsmen
Mastiff Builders
Omni Signs
Patricia’s “Specially for You”
Pemi Glass Company
Pretty Petunias Garden Center
Remax Bay Side Real Estate
Remcon/North
Sagecliff Software, Inc.
The Village Perk
Winnipesaukee Scenic Railroad + Hobo Railroad Same owner!!!!!
GASCO Realty, LLC
51 Main Street, LLc
Inns & Spa at Mill Falls Rusty again
Meredith Bay Painting
The Lake House Grille 2.
Lago 3.
Camp 4.
Town Docks Restaurant 5. Alex ray
Mame's
The Gallery at Mill Falls Rusty again
Oglethorp
Guiseppies Resturant Felt threatened by landlord (Ask Julie I did)
Northern Air Trading
Lady of the Lake Clothing
Adorments Rusty tenants
Creative Clothing
Christopher P. Williams, Architect
Oak Street Associates
Old Mill Insurance
Innisfree Bookstore Rusty tenant
Phoenix Leasing, Inc. Another Rusty McClear partner!
Silver Top Ventures Principal Office Address: Mill Falls Marketplace
312 Daniel Webster Highway
Meredith NH 03253 Wonder who that could be??? Rusty you sneak
Minuteman Plumbing & Heating
Sava Designs
Horn Insurance
Harts Restaurant
Fermentation Station LLC
Hunter's
Waukewan Antiques
Village Greenery
Etcetera Shop
Associated Surveyors
Moulton Farm
Barber Pole Association
Trexler’s Marina
Land’s End
Wyman Trail Association
Loon Preservation Committee
1st T Development Corporation
The Woodshed Restaurant
Castle in the Clouds
Amoskeg Insurance
EPTAM Plastics
The Common Man Inn 6. Guess who? Alex again
Corner House Inn
Seacoast Kayak
Tilton Veterinary Hospital
Waterville Valley Condo Rental
Thurston’s Marina
Lighthouse Inn
Weirs Beach Motel and Cottages
Van's Hotel Enterprises
Wolfboro Inn
Island Real Estate of New Hampshire
LB Boat Restoration

Wolfeboro Trolley Company+Millie B Same Owner!!!!
Wolfetrap Restaurant

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

... the bottom line is this list is a joke...

The list may be a joke, but the joke is on you.

I only copied the list, I will take no responsibility for it. I suggest you go to the source and complain to them. I copied it from OffShoreOnly.com the performance boating site where the opposition hangs out.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The list may be a joke, but the joke is on you.

I only copied the list, I will take no responsibility for it. I suggest you go to the source and complain to them. I copied it from OffShoreOnly.com the performance boating site where the opposition hangs out.

Bear Islander, Yesterday I thought we were on to something better here. I thought maybe we could elevate the discussion beyond hearsay and conjecture. I thought for a minute we could get beyond the usual banter.

Then you go and post this "LIST" as, let me go back and quote you, "proof that tourism is being effected."
I then refute the list as I believe it does not represent proof of anything with regard to tourism. Tourism is affected by so many external factors that is an oversimplification to tie it to one agenda. Just like the statement that "tourism will be negatively affected by a speed limit," not a good argument in my opinion due to socioeconomic factors.
Anyway when someone, Weirsbeachboater to be specific, comes along and further questions the integrity of the list and calls it joke, which after reading the post I concur, you go ahead and say THIS????

The list may be a joke, but the joke is on you.

I only copied the list, I will take no responsibility for it...

Do you see how you begin to lose credibility or not? Do you know the phrase "have your cake and eat it too." Well you can't. When you post something as PROOF of your argument you need to be able to stand by it and defend it. Otherwise any further posts have absolutely no merit. This list is tainted and flawed, not to mention it represents a SMALL number of Winnipesaukee businesses. Oh the list may seem long and impressive but whip out the phone book and go to the Business section of the book. Now print out your little list and compare it to the hundreds of pages of just one towns business listings. As pointed out it seems that one organization Common man/Rusty McClear represents the majority of the "list." Now you want to call it a spin when people point out the inadequacies of the list? Regardless of where the list was posted the facts are the facts.

[jrc]

I'll finish this up then bow out of this thread until new data arrives. I will never convince BI and he will not scare me. It's like trying to convince my wife that polar bears don't eat penquins. They look so tasty why wouldn't they eat them.

That's the list of places that supported HB -161 three years ago, that is not a list of places who currently support a speed limit.

So to finish lets look at the last twenty years. The boat registrations in NH grew about 2% a year since 1988. Around 2002 they flatenned and then started shrinking about 2% a year. This is also true at the national level. (don't buy boat stocks) There are now double the amount of PWC sold as in 1988. Since PWC are a large portion of the total number of registered boats, I would have to reason that there has to be less non-pwc boats. Otherwise we would have more total growth.

I don't know what a Nor-tech is, I'm into comfort not speed. The USCG stats do differentiate between engine type and length but the stats are presented differently each year so trends are hard to follow. If you get past banning fast boats and get to banning big boats, it might be worth the trouble to ferret out the data and plot it.

Now maybe the USCG fudged all this data just so they can get jobs in the boating industry. Sounds silly, huh?

[Bear Islander]

I have no doubt polar bears would eat penguins if they didn't live on opposite ends of the earth.

[Resident 2B]

Regarding the list of supporters.....

Now I know where I will no longer spend any of my money, regardless of the final outcome.

Thanks so much for this list. It is key to the future activities of my family, and I hope many other families.

It is too bad that Mame's is listed. We have been going there once a week for years, but we will never go there again.

Hart’s has also been a place for us to go very often, but we will not go there any more either.

I will print this list and hang it on the refrigerator with "Do Not Support" as a heading.

I refuse to do business with any business that lacks any common sense regarding safe boating on the lake. Speed limits do not address the real safety problems that exist on the lake. Boneheads, disregarding the existing rules, including the well designed 150” rule, are the real safety issue. This bill does nothing to address these irresponsible operators.

WinnFab's agenda is not about safety at all. Instead, the WinnFabs agenda is all about restricting boaters that happen to own a certain type of boat. To me, this is not something that we Americans should be supporting, as it is imposing restrictions on a certain group because another group does not like them. Whatever happened to freedom, something that was at the root of our country's beginning? There are no facts to support any of WinnFab’s claims that speed is a factor in safety or in accidents on our lake.

I would have hoped the local business on the list had more sense than to support this predatory bill. But since these businesses have openly supported this bill, we now know what we have to do. If you are in favor of real safe boating on the lake and are not supporting HB-847, please join me in a 100% boycott of these businesses. Their actions in supporting this bill tell me they are irrational in their business decisions. Therefore, they should not be supported by people that realize what the real safety issues are on the lake.

In this case, money should talk and BS should walk. Do not support any business that intends to restrict your personal freedom because of fabricated and embelished reasons that have no basis in fact. WinnFabs can fool some of the people all of the time, but they cannot, and should not, fool all of the people all of the time.

As stated in the past, we are family boaters with two kayaks and a 23' bowrider. We live near the Weirs. We do not have any capability to go over 45 MPH in any of our boats. Safety is our concern and HB847 does not address safety in our opinion.

R2B

[Bear Islander]

That is in fact why the list was posted on offshoreonly. It's the list of businesses they will never use again.

[Lakegeezer]

Its too bad that a group hasn't formed to promote safety rather than exclusion, something like WinnSafe. The report from the MP shows that few boats are going over 45. Experienced boaters know that 99% of the safety issues occur under 45.

Places on "the list" won't miss a family here and there, because they are not represented by a group. The WinnFabs tricked businesses to sign on during their well funded marketing campaign. Many who signed probably thought they were signing up for safety - not revenge. You really can't blame them. They are fooling a lot of folks on this forum too.

What would your business do if someone asked you to sign a petition on safety? They show you a push-poll study showing 90% of non-boaters feel the same way their members do. They show you news articles and editorials that were printed within days of "educational" press releases. They talk about safety, about how kids can't canoe on weekends, how kayakers are almost run over and how Winnipesaukee has become an unfriendly place. Many of their facts are true, but some critical ones are not. They are describing Captain Bonehead, not boats going over 45 MPH. WinnFabs methods remind me too much of why the US is in Iraq. They used fear and lies to justify revenge, and fooled the house into voting for their law.

If we are to reduce the fear of boating on the lake, we need to trust those who are trying to make things better, not assume they are fools that have been swayed by fabrications. So far, that group or any proposed law has not appeared.

[JayDV]

When those store owner/operators were approached for signing the list ...

1) How was the subject introduced? As a support request for the speed bill? As an informative conversation with both petitions offered and a choice of which one to sign?

2) In the subject matter: Was the audience asked what their concerns were, vis a vis lake safety (swimmers, camp kids, power boaters, non-power boaters, pollution)? Were they offered full choice of solutions to choose from (speed limit, horsepower restriction, boater education, better enforcement) ?

Bear Islander - With all due respect, I was wondering why you qualify your concern of kids to just camp kids or your own? Of the camps on Winni, there are only a few on the islands. I haven't read anywhere here that the camps from the mainland have voiced the same outside boating concerns you listed. I applaud your efforts toward our families children, and as a former day-care host, I can understand the safety concerns. I hope my question aren't misconstrued.

Nor, for that matter, have I read of any concerns of the swimmers at the public beaches operated by the townships. Can anyone offer the formal town positions on the lake safety issues?

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Places on "the list" won't miss a family here and there, because they are not represented by a group. The WinnFabs tricked businesses to sign on during their well funded marketing campaign. Many who signed probably thought they were signing up for safety - not revenge. You really can't blame them. They are fooling a lot of folks on this forum too.

Lakegeezer,

I think you are correct in most cases. However, there are some businesses listed that are driving this discriminatory bill. I will certainly stay away from them, but I am sure they will not be hurt from it. I do not think it is right to deceive people in an attempt to get a certain group off the lake. That is un-American and so very wrong. How these people can live like that is beyond me.

When you think about it, the package of misinformation and hidden agendas had to have an impact on elected members of the House as well. I believe the Representatives were, in many cases, voting for the bill because of the impact the misinformation had on people in their district, making those without direct experience on the lake to think this was all about safety. Who can be against safety? When so many people contact a Rep, the Rep has to listen.

Contacting State Senators to let them know what has come out recently in this forum is very important. I believe the Senators are more educated about the situation than the Reps were, but you never know.

R2B

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

First, I never made that claim. But more importantly, why don't YOU prove that performance boats pollute less.

The proof that tourism is being effected is in the below list of speed limit supporters. You will note many are tourist related. There are even several marinas in there. Including marinas that sell large fast boats.

You're singling out high performance boats. If they don't pollute any more than other motorized watercraft, you can't use that as an argument as to why they should go, and you did make the claim that it was time for them to go. That would be discriminatory and in violation of the public trust. If they all pollute equally, all motorized watercraft must go. And besides, I find it hard to believe that someone who wastes energy on a heated driveway is that concerned about the environment.

As for my need to prove that they're not polluting more...I ASKED YOU FIRST...NEENER, NEENER, NEENER. In all seriousness, as a proponent of a speed limit looking to make a major change on the lake, it is your burden to prove your case. Once you show your proof, then it is my burden to refute it. But if it's truly just a safety issue, then keep it as a safety issue...don't cloud it with pollution.

And your list of businesses is not proof that it is affecting tourism...how about proving that those businesses saw a loss in revenue, and that it was directly related to high performance boats on the lake? Good luck.

[fatlazyless]

Lake Winnipesaukee has been the go-to lake for high speed motorboats since about 1925. Whenever someone has a 'fast boat' on one of the many other NH lakes which annoys the neighbors, the fast boater gets told "your boat is too danged fast for this little lake, so why don't you take it over to the Big Lake, Lake Winnipesaukee.

Now, what's happened, is all the Winnipesaukee neighbors are just telling the 'fast boats' the same thing. 'Why don't you go take your fast boat over to the South Pole, or somewhere!'

And on the eighth day, God said "Melt down those fast boat, fiberglass hulls, and beat them into kayaks, and the world will be a better place!" Plus, try a bowl of granola, too. Understand the NH Dept of Mental Health is setting up a 'NH Fast Boat Rehabilitation Hospital', where fast-boaters can be admitted so's they can be cured of their "THE NEED FOR SPEED!" Balancing on one leg and eating granola at the same time is a very effective therapy.

[Bear Islander]

Talk about spin. If the list is so wrong, so inaccurate, so unfair and was obtained fraudulently, then why did the opposition post it on offshoreonly.com

Is there a list of businesses that oppose HB847? If there is then post it.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Rose

"...You're singling out high performance boats...As for my need to prove that they're not polluting more...don't cloud it with pollution...I ASKED YOU FIRST...NEENER, NEENER, NEENER..."

As one whose avocation deals with performance and high speed, I'm advising that there are products available through Internet sites that you definitely don't want in your recreational waters—much less in household waters.

One organic product in particular is objectionable to most civilized peoples of the world, but is in use in high performance applications—sadly.

Much to my dismay, it was recommended to me by friends at racetracks.

Describing it here specifically would promote its performance-enhancing properties and its even more widespread use.

(And it's not even toluene, which IS in widespread use).

[phoenix]

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

[Island Girl]

The most replies was on the Ice-In 2006 thread.... over 29,000 replies!!!!

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...earchid=490716

We take our ice-in and ice-out very seriously!!

IG

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by phoenix

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

Originally Posted by Island Girl

The most replies was on the Ice-In 2006 thread.... over 29,000 replies!!!!

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...earchid=490716

We take our ice-in and ice-out very seriously!!

IG

May want to rethink the situation...

Ice-in Watch 2006 ( 1 2 3)
Island Girl 03-06-2006 06:43 AM
by Diamond Isle 221 28,791

Boat Sinking????? ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
sa meredith 01-07-2008 11:15 AM
by Senter Cove Guy 306 35,894

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Girl

The most replies was on the Ice-In 2006 thread.... over 29,000 replies!!!!

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...earchid=490716

We take our ice-in and ice-out very seriously!!

IG

The 2006 ice-in was 29k views, not replies. It was only 221 replies, less than the 259 on this thread. Certainly not as much outside traffic coming in to watch this thread, but more posters involved.

Bear Islander wins so far with the highest number of posts on this thread. I think the Winni thong should be his prize although there is an argument on another thread about what size.

User Name Posts
Bear Islander 55
hazelnut 26
fatlazyless 13
ITD 11
codeman671 11
WeirsBeachBoater 10
Evenstar 10
Wolfeboro_Baja 9
Dick 9
Acres per Second 8
KonaChick 5
Mee-n-Mac 5
GWC... 5
Lakegeezer 5
parrothead 5
Dave R 5
chipj29 4
Islander 4
Skip 4
Skipper of the Sea Que 4
Rose 4
jrc 4
Resident 2B 3
Hottrucks 3
EricP 3
JayDV 3
Alton Bay 3
kjbathe 2
SIKSUKR 2
brk-lnt 2
trfour 2
BroadHopper 2
Island Girl 1
Rattlesnake Guy 1
daveg 1
Mark 1
Mashugana 1
Steveo 1
Island Lover 1
Neanderthal Thunder 1
rickstr66 1
winnilaker 1
phoenix 1
Seaplane Pilot 1
winnidiver 1
overlook 1
Cal 1
Woodsy 1
nightrider 1
michael c 1
Sunset Bob 1
Show Thread & Close Window

[Island Girl]

mea culpa!!! I stand corrected!

IG

[Island Girl]

Ice-In Watch 2007 270 replies 25,361 views


lol
IG

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...earchid=491420

[RLW]

Originally Posted by phoenix

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

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