Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Lake Issues > Boating Issues
Home Forums Gallery Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Links Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-11-2010, 01:45 PM   #1
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default Lawmaker wants paddlers to pay

This good bit of information is in todays edition of the LDS

CONCORD — Paddlers, rowers and sailors may pay to register their canoes, kayaks and small sailboats if the Legislature adopts a bill introduced by Representative John Byrnes (R-Swanzey) that would eliminate their exemption. “Quite simply they use the same facilities and enjoy the same services as all other boaters, but don’t pay for them,” said Byrnes, a freshman lawmaker and lifelong boater and angler. “The other boaters pay a hefty fee while the canoeists and kayakers pay nothing, but expect the same services. It is a question of being fair.”
“I’m one of them,” Byrnes continued. “I have a canoe and fly fish. I park my pickup in the lot and use the ramp. If I capsize, I expect to be rescued and if I drown, I expect Fish & Game to recover my body,” he remarked. “I’m guilty, but I’m willing to pay.” Byrnes, a retired officer of the Keene Police Department, said that he has yet to address the details of the legislation, but anticipated that it would include a modest, flat fee for all small boats powered by muscle and wind. Boat owners are liable for two fees. The boat fee (RSA 72-A:3), which varies with the age, length and power of the vessel, exempts, canoes, kayaks, rowboats and sailboards as well as sailboats less than 20 feet in length and jet-skis or “personal watercraft” of less than ten feet. The registration fee (RSA 270-E:5), which is based only on the length of vessels, exempts sailboats less than 12 feet long along with all boats propelled by human power. In addition to the registration fee boat owners are also required to pay $7.50 for the lake restoration and preservation fund, $1 for the N.H. Fish & Game search and rescue fund, for the public boat access fund. If the boat is registered with an authorized agent, generally a marina, rather than the N.H. Department of Safety, a $5 processing fee is charged.
Byrnes said that he has not determined how the proceeds from the additional fees would be allocated, but indicated that they should be applied to the programs and services from which all boaters benefit. Representative Richard Drisko (R-Hollis) chairs the Exotic Aquatic Weeds and Species Committee established by the Legislature to oversee the state’s effort to control milfoil. “Our major problem is money,” he said, explaining that expanding the number of boat registrations could provide additional funds for the matching
grants the N.H. Department of Environmental Services distributes to municipal governments and local organizations to address milfoil. However, Drisko said that past efforts to eliminate the exemption for canoes, kayaks, rowboats and small sailboats have failed. “But,” he said, “it is always worth a try.” Likewise, Jared Teutsch, president of the New Hampshire Lakes Association, said that his organization worked with the N.H. Fish & Game Department to do away with the exemption in the past and would give serious consideration
to supporting a fresh initiative that steered funds to protecting the water quality of the lakes. He noted that in Maine a $20 fee is levied on canoes and kayaks and the proceeds are applied to controlling exotic and invasive species. Last year the Legislature, at the request of the Department of Safety, doubled the boat registration fees to ensure sufficient funding for the Marine Patrol. But, Representative David Hess (R-Hooksett) has filed legislation to repeal all tax and fee increases enacted since 2007.

Last edited by Yosemite Sam; 12-17-2010 at 08:31 AM.
Yosemite Sam is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Yosemite Sam For This Useful Post:
Cal (12-14-2010), CTYankee (12-11-2010), Jonas Pilot (12-11-2010), Kamper (12-11-2010), RLW (12-11-2010)
Old 12-11-2010, 03:53 PM   #2
RLW
Senior Member
 
RLW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Alton Bay on the mountain by a lake
Posts: 2,019
Thanks: 553
Thanked 411 Times in 309 Posts
Unhappy Lawmaker wants paddlers to pay

Here we go again/still, another big controversial subject. YEP, Live Free or Die and we can add another, let them continue to us down.
__________________
There is nothing better than living on Alton Mountain & our grand kids visits.
RLW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2010, 04:28 PM   #3
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

If it moves, tax it.

If it keeps moving, regulate it.

And if it stops moving, subsidize it.


Yosemite Sam is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Yosemite Sam For This Useful Post:
moose tracks (12-17-2010), tummyman (12-11-2010)
Old 12-11-2010, 04:32 PM   #4
fpartri497
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Concord NH
Posts: 681
Thanks: 97
Thanked 47 Times in 38 Posts
Default If It moves tax It

O.K. If they start taxing toilet paper I QUIT!!!

__________________
dont worry be happy
fpartri497 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2010, 05:38 PM   #5
This'nThat
Senior Member
 
This'nThat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 534
Thanks: 19
Thanked 134 Times in 61 Posts
Default Modest, my eye

"a modest, flat fee for all small boats powered by muscle and wind"

What are the Vegas odds on this remaining a modest, flat fee anywhere in our near future? This is simply a poor excuse for money-grabbing. If Representative John Byrnes feels so guilty (as he says he does), then let him write a personal check and mail it in. And to make the recovery of his body easier, Rep Byrnes can wear a PFD at all times.

We don't need to soothe Byrnes' guilt by having him impose a fee on every aspect of our life.
This'nThat is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to This'nThat For This Useful Post:
CTYankee (12-11-2010), Yosemite Sam (12-11-2010)
Sponsored Links
Old 12-11-2010, 06:46 PM   #6
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,460
Thanks: 970
Thanked 605 Times in 339 Posts
Default

I am in favor of this fee given the fact that if you use it, pay for it.
Pineedles is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Pineedles For This Useful Post:
Kamper (12-13-2010), topwater (12-12-2010), Wolfeboro_Baja (12-16-2010)
Old 12-11-2010, 06:53 PM   #7
secondcurve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,014
Thanks: 1,105
Thanked 528 Times in 269 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineedles View Post
I am in favor of this fee given the fact that if you use it, pay for it.
Get used to it folks. Budgets in this country are way out of wack. Yes, there needs to be substantial expense cuts, but fees and taxes need to go up as well. It is going to get ugly!
secondcurve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2010, 07:12 PM   #8
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,685
Thanks: 23
Thanked 363 Times in 170 Posts
Default

I notice that all he is trying to do is "eliminate an exemption". More doublespeak for a tax that has never existed.

From a practice point of view I think he might have a hard time describing which "vessels" require this NEW type of registration. At our place we have lots of inflatables. A couple of them look like inflatable boats, one is a dragon you ride on, one is a tube with a seat for a toddler. And of course there are a couple of small lounge rafts. Which will require these stickers?


Is this a boat? Will a Marine Patrol officer think it's a boat? What if the kids were holding paddles?
Attached Images
 
Bear Islander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2010, 07:28 PM   #9
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,605
Thanks: 247
Thanked 506 Times in 176 Posts
Thumbs down The more things change.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
I notice that all he is trying to do is "eliminate an exemption". More doublespeak for a tax that has never existed.

From a practice point of view I think he might have a hard time describing which "vessels" require this NEW type of registration. At our place we have lots of inflatables. A couple of them look like inflatable boats, one is a dragon you ride on, one is a tube with a seat for a toddler. And of course there are a couple of small lounge rafts. Which will require these stickers?


Is this a boat? Will a Marine Patrol officer think it's a boat? What if the kids were holding paddles?
Good questions.

I am seeing a number of bills regarding boating now being introduced that are poorly researched and horribly worded. We have a number of laws that many of us have noticed over the years that are vague and confusing. But instead of addressing the problems we have, we have a rush to add more red tape.

I am disappointed that so many conservatives that ran on a platform to trim Government are instead bowling each other over to add yet more layers of regulation. The only real difference I see so far with the new legislature versus the old is just a different set of special interest groups calling the shots....
Skip is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Skip For This Useful Post:
MarkinNH (12-12-2010), TiltonBB (12-15-2010), tummyman (12-11-2010), Yosemite Sam (12-11-2010)
Old 12-11-2010, 08:47 PM   #10
tummyman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 423
Thanks: 58
Thanked 306 Times in 104 Posts
Default What's next ???

This is another stupid attempt to grab money. Maybe we can have a new fee if you swim in the lake. And how about getting a sticker for your boat trailer, since it may have contributed to bringing milfoil into the lake. By the way, it has been a while since there was any chat on swim platforms and the potential for more permits....anyone hear what is going on? It is amazing with high unemployment, budgets out of control, etc. that we have idiots still submitting stupid bills in the House.... Who elects these idiots?
tummyman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2010, 09:36 PM   #11
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,492
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 281
Thanked 467 Times in 208 Posts
Default no free lunch

Are there any calling for more services from the state yet asking that state taxes not be raised to pay for them? For example, the person powered craft lobby was pretty active in passing laws to keep them safe. Why shouldn't those who benefit from enforcement services, pay for the benefit?
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Lakegeezer For This Useful Post:
Kamper (12-13-2010), Rose (12-11-2010), topwater (12-12-2010)
Old 12-11-2010, 11:11 PM   #12
Resident 2B
Senior Member
 
Resident 2B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bradenton, FL and North Shore, MA
Posts: 1,331
Thanks: 936
Thanked 295 Times in 150 Posts
Default

I think there should be a survey in Manchester asking "Do you support a tax on small human-powered watercraft operating on Lake Winnipesaukee to help defray operating costs of the NH Marine Patrol?"

I would guess the answers would be an overwhelming YES!

History has a way of repeating itself!

R2B
Resident 2B is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Resident 2B For This Useful Post:
Ryan (12-12-2010)
Old 12-12-2010, 01:32 AM   #13
Bigstan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Waltham, MA / Gilford NH
Posts: 258
Thanks: 5
Thanked 107 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Quote:
“Our major problem is money,” he said, explaining that expanding the number of boat registrations could provide additional funds for the matching grants the N.H. Department of Environmental Services distributes to municipal governments and local organizations to address milfoil
Learn a lesson from MA - there is a pool of bankrupt agencies, taxes always go into the general pool and end up being wasted.

Give them the $ and it will be a neverending tax......why don't people learn?
Bigstan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2010, 02:17 AM   #14
KTO
Senior Member
 
KTO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Meredith, NH
Posts: 390
Thanks: 27
Thanked 114 Times in 25 Posts
Default

I propose a "If it floats, then it is fee'd"...see example below:

KTO is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to KTO For This Useful Post:
Yosemite Sam (12-12-2010)
Old 12-12-2010, 05:03 AM   #15
Greene's Basin Girl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 1,514
Thanks: 394
Thanked 526 Times in 268 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KTO View Post
I propose a "If it floats, then it is fee'd"...see example below:

I love the picture!
Greene's Basin Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2010, 05:44 AM   #16
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,493
Thanks: 929
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Angry A Public-Sector Pensioner Calls Again on Taxpayers...

Quote:
Originally Posted by This'nThat View Post
If Representative John Byrnes feels so guilty (as he says he does), then let him write a personal check and mail it in...We don't need to soothe Byrnes' guilt by having him impose a fee on every aspect of our life.
With retired officers so much in the news with six-figure pensions, Representative John Byrnes would want to be less conspicuous to NH taxpayers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam View Post
Representative Richard Drisko (R-Hollis) said, explaining that expanding the number of boat registrations could provide additional funds for the matching grants the N.H. Department of Environmental Services distributes to municipal governments and local organizations to address milfoil.
Paddlers and sailors are very poor spreaders of milfoil fragments.

Quote:
Representative David Hess (R-Hooksett) has filed legislation to repeal all tax and fee increases enacted since 2007.
But the NH Legislature won't be able to steal those increases to pay the pensions of retired officers from Keene!

Quote:
Jared Teutsch noted that in Maine a $20 fee is levied on canoes and kayaks and the proceeds are applied to controlling exotic and invasive species.
Let's try not copy taxation from highly-regulated states that continue to bleed population.
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2010, 10:47 AM   #17
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineedles View Post
I am in favor of this fee given the fact that if you use it, pay for it.
Using that logic then how about Boogie and Surf Boards? They “use it” so why not “pay for it” as well?

How about other users that the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department is involved with, i.e., birdwatch or hiking. A wide range of outdoors enthusiasts benefit from the department's work in wildlife biology and habitat protection, but only canoers and kayakers would get stuck with this particular fee -- presumably because they use watercraft on which they can stick a decal, making it easy to monitor compliance.
Yosemite Sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2010, 11:02 AM   #18
Argie's Wife
Senior Member
 
Argie's Wife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton
Posts: 1,908
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 533
Thanked 577 Times in 259 Posts
Default

Not only is this one of the worst ideas I've heard for raising revenue, but it's going to be the most difficult to enforce. It's going to further hurt tourism in our state, like the camping tax, and cause people to think twice before coming to NH for vacation, as our neighbors don't have this silly tax.

Is there even enough room on a kayak to place a registration sticker so it can be seen? I can't imagine what it's going to take in MP hours, etc. to enforce this... of course, that means that they'll have to hire more officers, have more training, and increase that budget... so more taxes will have to be raised.

No.

No.

No.

Don't let this pass!

More taxes = Not good!

Write your representatives and let them know you oppose this!

Click here to see addresses for your area reps: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/hous...rs/belknap.htm


Next thing to be taxed - floating coolers:

Argie's Wife is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Argie's Wife For This Useful Post:
MarkinNH (12-12-2010), Slickcraft (12-12-2010), Sunrise Point (12-12-2010), Yosemite Sam (12-12-2010)
Old 12-12-2010, 02:03 PM   #19
RLW
Senior Member
 
RLW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Alton Bay on the mountain by a lake
Posts: 2,019
Thanks: 553
Thanked 411 Times in 309 Posts
Post

This law would only be good on large lakes that are patrolled as the small, medium to near large are not patrolled at all. They should be as there are more unregistered boats, rules broken on them than one can shake a stick at. Just my worth
__________________
There is nothing better than living on Alton Mountain & our grand kids visits.
RLW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2010, 02:32 PM   #20
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Massachusetts and Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,316
Thanks: 343
Thanked 424 Times in 245 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip View Post
Good questions.

........

I am disappointed that so many conservatives that ran on a platform to trim Government are instead bowling each other over to add yet more layers of regulation. The only real difference I see so far with the new legislature versus the old is just a different set of special interest groups calling the shots....

That's the problem, this guy isn't conservative and I doubt he thinks himself one.
ITD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2010, 02:47 PM   #21
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,685
Thanks: 23
Thanked 363 Times in 170 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Argie's Wife View Post
Not only is this one of the worst ideas I've heard for raising revenue, but it's going to be the most difficult to enforce. It's going to further hurt tourism in our state, like the camping tax, and cause people to think twice before coming to NH for vacation, as our neighbors don't have this silly tax.

Is there even enough room on a kayak to place a registration sticker so it can be seen? I can't imagine what it's going to take in MP hours, etc. to enforce this... of course, that means that they'll have to hire more officers, have more training, and increase that budget... so more taxes will have to be raised.

No.

No.

No.

Don't let this pass!

More taxes = Not good!

Write your representatives and let them know you oppose this!

Click here to see addresses for your area reps: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/hous...rs/belknap.htm


Next thing to be taxed - floating coolers:

I like this, where can I get one?


The floating cooler is nice as well.
Bear Islander is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bear Islander For This Useful Post:
chipj29 (12-13-2010)
Old 12-12-2010, 05:07 PM   #22
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,460
Thanks: 970
Thanked 605 Times in 339 Posts
Default Imo

I stand by the belief that there should be a fee. I am not going to debate it, because like all other controversial subjects some people will get ridiculous in their examples of what should be licensed and what should not. Bogey boards, sure. Rubber duckies, if you can ride it, why not. Stick a decal on a hiker's butt, OK. Of course these examples are insane, but I pay a huge property tax, for the privilege of using a house that can never be sold for 2-3 weeks a year. I'm not bitter, but I would like to see the tax and fee burden shared.

If you don't agree, fine I can live with that.
Pineedles is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Pineedles For This Useful Post:
topwater (12-12-2010)
Old 12-12-2010, 05:12 PM   #23
robmac
Senior Member
 
robmac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Nashua,Meredith
Posts: 949
Thanks: 211
Thanked 106 Times in 81 Posts
Default

Just what I need more things to register
Attached Images
 
robmac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2010, 05:49 PM   #24
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineedles View Post
I stand by the belief that there should be a fee. I am not going to debate it, because like all other controversial subjects some people will get ridiculous in their examples of what should be licensed and what should not. Bogey boards, sure. Rubber duckies, if you can ride it, why not. Stick a decal on a hiker's butt, OK. Of course these examples are insane, but I pay a huge property tax, for the privilege of using a house that can never be sold for 2-3 weeks a year. I'm not bitter, but I would like to see the tax and fee burden shared.

If you don't agree, fine I can live with that.
Sorry Pineedles....didn't mean to get you upset. I just think that the Federal, State and Local govenments need to stop this tax and spend thought process and get more creative with ways to fund some of their departments.
I'm willing to pay a little to register my 2 kayaks and 2 canoes but when does the taxing of everything that we ejoy doing finally stop?
Yosemite Sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2010, 06:56 PM   #25
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,460
Thanks: 970
Thanked 605 Times in 339 Posts
Default

I know Sam, where does it stop? I can't answer that, but I still believe that if there IS a TAX or FEE, that it has to be equal. I don't know what will stop the spending of OUR money by GOV'T., but I guess I'm just giving up on trying to control them. Even the recent election doesn't make me very happy about the way things are being done.
Pineedles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 12:03 AM   #26
Bigstan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Waltham, MA / Gilford NH
Posts: 258
Thanks: 5
Thanked 107 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineedles View Post
I stand by the belief that there should be a fee. I am not going to debate it, because like all other controversial subjects some people will get ridiculous in their examples of what should be licensed and what should not. Bogey boards, sure. Rubber duckies, if you can ride it, why not. Stick a decal on a hiker's butt, OK. Of course these examples are insane, but I pay a huge property tax, for the privilege of using a house that can never be sold for 2-3 weeks a year. I'm not bitter, but I would like to see the tax and fee burden shared.

If you don't agree, fine I can live with that.
That is the point - this tax revenue will not be 'shared'. Your personal payout will never go down. The $ will be used to make up for whatever shortfalls occur in other areas. It is simply a way of generating additional revenue. We need government to live within it's means, not look to expand into a new tax base.

We made it this far without this tax, we can make it the rest of the way. Government needs to cut back like the rest of us. Show me where their layoffs are, or where they have tried to balance their budget without adding additional tax revenue. Show me that and I will consider paying a new tax.
Bigstan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 09:14 AM   #27
Argie's Wife
Senior Member
 
Argie's Wife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton
Posts: 1,908
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 533
Thanked 577 Times in 259 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineedles View Post
I stand by the belief that there should be a fee. I am not going to debate it, because like all other controversial subjects some people will get ridiculous in their examples of what should be licensed and what should not. Bogey boards, sure. Rubber duckies, if you can ride it, why not. Stick a decal on a hiker's butt, OK. Of course these examples are insane, but I pay a huge property tax, for the privilege of using a house that can never be sold for 2-3 weeks a year. I'm not bitter, but I would like to see the tax and fee burden shared.

If you don't agree, fine I can live with that.
I respectfully submit the following:

Then why not a usage fee?

Why not ask the people using the public ramps to pay an entry fee for using the lake?

The lake front property owners already pay a tax - property tax - and shouldn't have to pay again to register a boat, even if it has motor or paddle - period. If the weekend warriors that come up here to camp or whatever (non-property owners/tax payers) need to fork over some money, then do it when they enter the water. It would be easier to maintain, boats could be checked for milfoil, and there would less MP's on the water.

I am not in favor of raising revenue from anything that may hurt tourism in NH, which hurts businesses in the long run - especially small businesses. Taxes have been raised on prepared food (restaurant tax), vehicle registration, boat registration, camping, etc. - this impacts the locals but it really impacts the tourists and the non-voting tax-payers. It really helps no one and in this bad economy is a poor proposal for raising revenue.
Argie's Wife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 09:26 AM   #28
RailroadJoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 620
Thanks: 259
Thanked 158 Times in 100 Posts
Default

Yup, now we can hire a whole bunch more state workers to watch over the ramps and collect money. Think!
RailroadJoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 09:49 AM   #29
robmac
Senior Member
 
robmac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Nashua,Meredith
Posts: 949
Thanks: 211
Thanked 106 Times in 81 Posts
Default

I agree with AW,I got my tax bill and then boat registration bill. Might be time for a second job that is after I get back to work.
robmac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 11:24 AM   #30
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 33
Thanked 437 Times in 247 Posts
Default

There are always two parts of any budget shortfall, spending and taxes. Just because people agree that spending should be cut, doesn't mean that fees should not be adjusted.

I believe that fees addressed at a user of services is more conservative and even libertarian than general taxes paid by the masses to benefit a few.

NH must and will provide rescue services to a drowning kayaker. Should the kayaking community help pay for this service through fees or should everyone in NH pay through general taxes?
jrc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 12:09 PM   #31
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,073
Thanks: 215
Thanked 895 Times in 506 Posts
Default

Will I have to register my water skis? How about all you divers? Those fin propelled wetsuits fit right into that catagory don't they?
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 12:13 PM   #32
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,460
Thanks: 970
Thanked 605 Times in 339 Posts
Default

As for ramp fees, I already pay a fee for my jet ski launched at Center Harbor. Don't other launch sites charge already? I have only seen powerboats launch at CH, no yaks or noes.

I guess I'm looking at this from a non-resident, non-voting, non-local business owner's perspective. That's who I am. Frankly, I am guessing though that this proposal is headed nowhere.
Pineedles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 12:20 PM   #33
Argie's Wife
Senior Member
 
Argie's Wife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton
Posts: 1,908
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 533
Thanked 577 Times in 259 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc View Post
There are always two parts of any budget shortfall, spending and taxes. Just because people agree that spending should be cut, doesn't mean that fees should not be adjusted.

I believe that fees addressed at a user of services is more conservative and even libertarian than general taxes paid by the masses to benefit a few.

NH must and will provide rescue services to a drowning kayaker. Should the kayaking community help pay for this service through fees or should everyone in NH pay through general taxes?
Budgets are based on the previous year's expenses and on expected revenue for that year. Shortfalls can occur when there's unanticipated expenses, such as a sudden increase in fuel prices, and that's when something like a contingency fund can be set up. Money within a budget line item can be transferred to the budget line item where you have an anticipated shortfall - or a municipality may leave that budget line item alone just to show where there was a shortfall for next year's budget planning... Generally speaking, if something within a budget is a MAJOR capital improvement expense (like renovating a town building or purchasing police cruisers), it will be paid for in a fund that extends out over several years vs. a one-time high payment which would result in a tax increase for that year...

That being said...

Personally, I don't place the cost of rescue at the same level as hiring more MP personnel or other use-related activities. It may be that an emergency never happens - or it may be that there are several on a lake in a year - and who can plan on someone just needing a tow back to shore vs. someone needing the DHART (Dartmouth's helicopter) to take them to a trauma center? You can't plan emergencies... and whether it was me, my kids, you, or your loves ones, I don't think you can put a price (or charge) on emergency services provided by municipalities. All towns have a "mutual aid" policy that I know of - they will come to each other's aid at a time of need, with no charge - and reciprocate. You can't put a price on that!
Argie's Wife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 02:40 PM   #34
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,435
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default ...just copy-cat the WMNF fee tubes!

Every town, city or the state with a boat ramp on a lake has the opportunity there to install one of those steel fee deposit tubes similar to what's used in the White Mountain National Forest trail head parking lots. They are about 48" high x 10" diameter and get anchored into a concrete base, right next to the launch ramp. Without having to pay a town attendant, it would be there 24/7, and every time someone used the ramp to access the lake with a trailer they could be expected to pay a fee.....say 10-dollars. These would in all likelihood greatly increase the revenue stream and lower the cost of collection.

For security, the local police could stake out the boat ramp from a distance with a pair of binoculars and slap any boat ramp scofflaws with a 75-dollar fine, plus publish their name into the local newspaper police beat column! Plus, just have the local police eye ball the ramp as they roll past as part of their regular routine.

The big question would probably be: Which town employee can be trusted with the key to the all cash, fee tube padlock. No doubt, it would not be a first for so called trusted town employees to undergo a criminal transformation by turning themselves into "ten dollar bill collectors" as a new source for personal income.

So, if it requires a trailer to use the ramp, the fee tube must be fed ten dollarinos.....no exceptions...........period!

Hey...if the town decides to put steel fee deposit tubes down at the town ramps at Lake Waukewan, Big Lake: Meredith Bay, and Shep Brown's....I'll can volunteer myself to be administrate'n the official removal of the revenue stream from the fee tubes ..... !
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!

Last edited by fatlazyless; 12-13-2010 at 08:35 PM.
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 04:37 PM   #35
jmen24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 223
Thanked 318 Times in 181 Posts
Default Lack of Knowledge on funding!

Folks, F&G does not have access to the general fund, in or out. They get a $50,000 dollar match per year from the general fund for non-game related use.

I have no problem with paying a fee for my canoes as long as long as ALL of the proceeds go to Fish and Game. Marine Patrol funds their budget from our taxes, F&G does not.

Most S&R is headed by F&G, most (the others are typically on the town level) public access sites in the state of NH are aquired by, developed to a useful standard by and maintained by, Fish and Game. This includes all lakes, ponds, rivers and streams in NH.

The only boats I own are paddle craft and I have no issue with this request, as long as the money goes to the agency that needs and will provide the best use of it, Fish and Game. If MP gets any of this money than I will not hold the same position that I have stated today.

Don't believe me. Do some research.
http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Insi..._QandA.new.htm

And before anyone tells me to give them my own money so they can keep theirs. I have conservation plates on my vehicle, I pay over $100 a year in hunting and fishing licenses, as well as OHRV registrations ($50+), I donate information gathered in my time in the woods, to help the state biologists with game management. And I also donate an amount of money each year as a personal contribution.

I somehow believe that this has nothing to do with funding a vital agency in this state that is in serious need of additional funding. And more to do with filling the state coffers.
jmen24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 05:14 PM   #36
ronc4424
Senior Member
 
ronc4424's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Danvers,Ma & Ashland,Nh
Posts: 71
Thanks: 147
Thanked 18 Times in 11 Posts
Default

I agree with jmen24 100%. I would think that since the state had to spend extra money on radar guns and manpower to enforce the newly enacted speed limits to improve safety for canoes and kayaks that they would jump at the chance to pitch in. I pay my fair share to recieve the same benifits they do.
ronc4424 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 05:34 PM   #37
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,435
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

I'll probably be the first one busted for paddling without a sticker, or for unloading a boat down the ramp without paying. Not paying at the ramp is like a local sport for all the locals....nobody pays....everybody just unloads and ignores the sign down at Shep Brown's town ramp.

Pay to paddle....NO WAY JOSE......Live Free of Die....you gots to stand up and fight for your rights......
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!

Last edited by fatlazyless; 12-13-2010 at 07:50 PM.
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 07:58 PM   #38
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,460
Thanks: 970
Thanked 605 Times in 339 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
I'll probably be the first one busted for paddling without a sticker, or for unloading a boat down the ramp without paying.:
I think I'll suggest a new provision to the proposed bill. "Shoot the first person who breaks this law."

Sorry FLL, you set yourself up for that one. I am guessing you did it on purpose.
Pineedles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 08:26 PM   #39
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,435
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineedles View Post
I think I'll suggest a new provision to the proposed bill. "Shoot the first person who breaks this law."

Sorry FLL, you set yourself up for that one. I am guessing you did it on purpose.
That's no problemo....first time anyone tries to shoot me.....I'll fast bop them over the head with a broom handle......EL KABONG!.........problem solved! ..

So, how do you carry a broom that can be concealed for self protection purposes......use a whisk broom! ..
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2010, 08:36 AM   #40
Argie's Wife
Senior Member
 
Argie's Wife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton
Posts: 1,908
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 533
Thanked 577 Times in 259 Posts
Default

I spoke with two members of the NH House of Representatives yesterday and both thought this bill wouldn't float, especially in a Republican-majority house. I noted it was a Republican who proposed the bill, and both still thought it was a bit of an obnoxious tax. (My words -- not theirs).
Argie's Wife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2010, 09:44 PM   #41
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 1,503
Thanks: 230
Thanked 844 Times in 348 Posts
Default Tax Structure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegeezer View Post
Are there any calling for more services from the state yet asking that state taxes not be raised to pay for them? For example, the person powered craft lobby was pretty active in passing laws to keep them safe. Why shouldn't those who benefit from enforcement services, pay for the benefit?
Because that is not how our tax system works. If it did, and the people who benefit from government services paid their own way, wouldn't your taxes increase for each dependent instead of going down? Wouldn't a single, childless person pay less in taxes because they required less from government services such as schools?
The system is pre-loaded and structured to take the money from those who earn it and have it, not those who consume the services paid for by taxes and fees.

Hmmm........That does seem kind of backwards.
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 08:58 AM   #42
Argie's Wife
Senior Member
 
Argie's Wife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton
Posts: 1,908
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 533
Thanked 577 Times in 259 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB View Post
Because that is not how our tax system works. If it did, and the people who benefit from government services paid their own way, wouldn't your taxes increase for each dependent instead of going down? Wouldn't a single, childless person pay less in taxes because they required less from government services such as schools?
The system is pre-loaded and structured to take the money from those who earn it and have it, not those who consume the services paid for by taxes and fees.

Hmmm........That does seem kind of backwards.
Taking that logic forward, your taxes pay for a fire department's budget but what if you never have a fire at your home? Your taxes pay for road repairs done by your town's highway department but what if you never drive down those roads? Your taxes pay for welfare services your town has to provide and what if you never need assistance?
Argie's Wife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 11:02 AM   #43
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,809
Thanks: 2,326
Thanked 848 Times in 590 Posts
Default Food for thought

If hikers have to pay the rescue bill, shouldn't nonmotorized water craft owners should do the same? I think it is only fair.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 11:29 AM   #44
Bearislandmoose
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 43
Thanks: 3
Thanked 15 Times in 11 Posts
Default Is this a Speed Limit discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegeezer View Post
the person powered craft lobby was pretty active in passing laws to keep them safe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident 2B View Post
I think there should be a survey in Manchester ...History has a way of repeating itself! R2B
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronc4424 View Post
the state had to spend extra money on radar guns and manpower to enforce the newly enacted speed limits to improve safety for canoes and kayaks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineedles View Post
because like all other controversial subjects some people will get ridiculous in their examples
Like this bill, this thread is nothing but a not-so-well veiled attack on our SL law and on those who support it (which happens to be the vast majority of Lake Winnipesaukee's owners and users) . I thought there was a special sub-forum for this nonsense?
Bearislandmoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 12:35 PM   #45
Wolfeboro_Baja
Senior Member
 
Wolfeboro_Baja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hopkinton NH
Posts: 395
Thanks: 88
Thanked 80 Times in 46 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
If hikers have to pay the rescue bill, shouldn't nonmotorized water craft owners should do the same? I think it is only fair.
That's the alternative and I agree, it is fair. Either pay a small registration fee now or get socked with a huge bill for S&R services if and when you ever need them.

We all have car, home, boat, medical and life insurance, right? We're paying a lot of money for it, all the while hoping that we'll never need to actually use the insurance but if we do, the insurance takes care of the big bills. In this case, I would think of a registration fee as insurance; let's say $5-$10/yr to register versus $3000-$4000 bill for S&R services. I'm betting most of us would rather pay the annual fee than get hit with that huge S&R bill if and when we ever needed it.

As for "usage" fees, like Pineedles, I already pay to launch my boat at West Alton Marina (prior to that, Ames Farm Inn). If the state ever gets off their butt and builds a public ramp, THEN I could agree to paying a usage fee but until then, I'm already paying someone for the privilege of using a public body of water. And that's ON TOP of all the other fees I pay to register my MOTORboat; I don't see why canoers and kayakers can't share the load.
Wolfeboro_Baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 02:02 PM   #46
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,460
Thanks: 970
Thanked 605 Times in 339 Posts
Default

I think that is a good compromise that rescues on water should be paid by the non-motoized rescuee. I could go along with that. Hey, I am the first to agree that if you give more money to the Govt' the more they'll spend it.
Pineedles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 03:50 PM   #47
NoRegrets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hudson - NH
Posts: 408
Thanks: 233
Thanked 212 Times in 88 Posts
Default

I personally think it stinks. Human powered activity should not be managed by our government. It will take more money in administrative costs than will be earned by the fees (if kept reasonable).

It is one thing to manage cars, planes, and automobiles that are worth thousands and thousands of dollars vs. a few hundred dollar kayak.

If we use the rationalle that it is fair to register everything or require a permit of everyone that may need assistance then it may end up taking each person that uses the outdoors 6 months of time to fill out, submitt, and correct all the forms it will take to registor and get proper permits. The paper work and certification process would suck!

I have a boat, 2 kayaks, canoe, 3 bicycles (one tandom that would take special consideration) and 4 pairs of snow shoes. Maybe they can tax hicking boots or running shoes as they may need assistance. I am very very very afraid of the need for a nanny state. I do belive in self responsibility.

I hope everyone has a great holliday season and gets a chance to give charity to someone that deserves it! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
NoRegrets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 04:00 PM   #48
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoRegrets View Post
I personally think it stinks. Human powered activity should not be managed by our government. It will take more money in administrative costs than will be earned by the fees (if kept reasonable).

It is one thing to manage cars, planes, and automobiles that are worth thousands and thousands of dollars vs. a few hundred dollar kayak.

If we use the rationalle that it is fair to register everything or require a permit of everyone that may need assistance then it may end up taking each person that uses the outdoors 6 months of time to fill out, submitt, and correct all the forms it will take to registor and get proper permits. The paper work and certification process would suck!

I have a boat, 2 kayaks, canoe, 3 bicycles (one tandom that would take special consideration) and 4 pairs of snow shoes. Maybe they can tax hicking boots or running shoes as they may need assistance. I am very very very afraid of the need for a nanny state. I do belive in self responsibility.

I hope everyone has a great holliday season and gets a chance to give charity to someone that deserves it! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
I bought some "hicking boots" one time and everybody called me Larry the Cable Guy!
Yosemite Sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 06:30 PM   #49
jmen24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 223
Thanked 318 Times in 181 Posts
Default

If the government shouldn't regulate for human powered activity, then they should perhaps not provide the access or amenities for such activities. There are many reasons that the state or federal gov't provides us with hiking trails and access points for water sports.

If folks had put their money where thier mouth was and donated money to groups that manage and maintain, then a fee like this would not be necessary.

How many times have you gone hiking up a mountain or on a trail or paddling down a river or stream and not given a second thought as to how you are able to do that, my guess is most of the time. Those trails and access points didn't just show up one day.

Heck, most people that are hiking on the mountains around here don't even know the proper trail etiquette for passing hikers in the opposite direction; do you? Very rarely do I observed that on any of the more accessible trails and you can tell the folks that don't know from a bend or two down the trail.

Personally, I would like to see more camping along our rivers in this state. Maine has 1000's of open camp sites along their rivers that are really well kept and make for great weeks on river. Not all of these are managed by private groups, more often, it is the state that provides and maintains these sites.

NH does not have any money for things like this and I am not thinking that this fee will provide for that, but it would be nice if the folks that are behind the writing of this bill, had these types of projects in mind.
jmen24 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jmen24 For This Useful Post:
Pineedles (12-16-2010)
Old 12-16-2010, 07:54 PM   #50
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,493
Thanks: 929
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Exclamation A PENSIONED-Lawmaker Wants Us to Pay...Again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmen24 View Post
Most S&R is headed by F&G, most (the others are typically on the town level) public access sites in the state of NH are aquired by, developed to a useful standard by and maintained by, Fish and Game. This includes all lakes, ponds, rivers and streams in NH.
1) ...including Vermont's very long border with New Hampshire.

2) Anyone check this year's NHF&G rescue log?

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Newsroom/newsroom.htm

The majority are lost hikers—many from out-of-state—and a Vermont kayaker who was lost on Vermont's very long border with New Hampshire.

Yup. Let's tax ourselves into Prosperity.

ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 08:59 PM   #51
Belmont Resident
Senior Member
 
Belmont Resident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belmont NH but prefer Jackman Maine
Posts: 1,857
Thanks: 491
Thanked 409 Times in 251 Posts
Default Hey why shouldn't they.

They pissed and moaned enough during the speed limit hearings. If they want to have a say about what goes on then let them pay just like the rest of us do to use the lake.
Belmont Resident is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Belmont Resident For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (12-16-2010)
Old 12-16-2010, 11:09 PM   #52
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,685
Thanks: 23
Thanked 363 Times in 170 Posts
Default

There are some things that should be free. Like walking down a sidewalk or through a park. Walking along the ocean or riding a bike down a road. Or visiting a public library. Sitting in a courtroom and watching justice be done.

There must be a million bicycles in New Hampshire. Think of how much money we can raise there. And don't forget tricycles and baby carriages. They use our streets and sidewalks every day.

“Quite simply they use the same facilities and enjoy the same services as all other boaters, but don’t pay for them,” said Byrnes, a freshman lawmaker and lifelong boater and angler. “The other boaters pay a hefty fee while the canoeists and kayakers pay nothing, but expect the same services. It is a question of being fair.”

When I was small I had a little red fire truck that I rode up and down the sidewalk all day. You know the kind where you pump the pedals and half of the time you end up going backwards. Let's require stickers on them as well.
Bear Islander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 07:44 AM   #53
Belmont Resident
Senior Member
 
Belmont Resident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belmont NH but prefer Jackman Maine
Posts: 1,857
Thanks: 491
Thanked 409 Times in 251 Posts
Default yes but

Just how much money do you think it cost all of us to pay for the long drawn out battle over things like the speed limit? Hey in my opinion if you use the lake and want to have an opinion about what goes on, on the lake then why not charge a fee.
For that matter why not make it mandatory to have insurance on them also.
Way to many paddlers, not all, have no sense of responsibility. Why place all the fees on powered boats. Who is suppose to pay for all those rescue operations for none powered boaters?
Belmont Resident is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Belmont Resident For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (12-17-2010)
Old 12-17-2010, 08:43 AM   #54
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,435
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

The hot tub and kayak store in Meredith, across from the Volvo dealer, had a couple or red motorized kayaks for sale last summer. They were pretty short, only about 9 or 10 feet long, considering they had a 25-hp Honda jet style motor, with no propeller, tucked away in the stern. Never saw one out on the lake, but just in the store showroom.

Guess what? This motorized kayak should make all the pro-slap-a-sticker-fee-on-kayaks people very pleased and happy because....guess what....it requires a NH registration and also required a special registration bow numbers holder mounted on the top of the bow area just so the numbers would be visible and easier to see.

NH registrations for motorized kayaks? - right on!

NH registrations for paddled kayaks and paddled or rowed canoes? - no way.....never-ever-ever! ..
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 08:56 AM   #55
moose tracks
Senior Member
 
moose tracks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wappingers Falls, NY / Sanbornton, NH
Posts: 277
Thanks: 312
Thanked 39 Times in 31 Posts
Default Tax It !

Quote:
Originally Posted by robmac View Post
Just what I need more things to register
If it is powered by muscle then TAX IT! - "Live with Taxes or Die"
__________________
Moose Tracks
moose tracks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 12:06 PM   #56
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,265
Thanks: 792
Thanked 653 Times in 354 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Argie's Wife View Post
Not only is this one of the worst ideas I've heard for raising revenue, but it's going to be the most difficult to enforce. It's going to further hurt tourism in our state, like the camping tax, and cause people to think twice before coming to NH for vacation, as our neighbors don't have this silly tax.
I personally am wondering if there is a number of people, who are trying to do just that. Through rules and regulations that make it hard to enjoy yourself they are trying to make NH a elitest state. First their where speedlimits.... Now that has kept a certain group from wanting to come to the lake, but it hasn't helped as much as initially thought. Well what is next, lets start making it less enjoyable for others...

ideas I consistently here kicked around

-- use tax or registration for kayaker, conoeist and row boat owneres
-- HP restrictions on boats on inland waters
-- use permits for out of state registered boats
-- campers and hikers taxes / fees

I am starting to think that while NH has thrived by being the play ground for the Northeast US, that there aren't some that would like to get rid of the tourists and all the money they bring to the state. NH will have a fall from grace if this happens. By making it harder and more of a financial burden on the tourist NH only hurts itself.
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LIforrelaxin For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (12-17-2010), moose tracks (12-17-2010)
Old 12-18-2010, 11:30 AM   #57
topwater
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 302
Thanks: 85
Thanked 116 Times in 48 Posts
Default

Tourist will NEVER stop coming. maybe thats just what NH needs is a fewer &#*% coming up here and ruining it for the majority of the people. The out of staters think that NH will close if they don't come up. In any state you have to PAY to PLAY. Don't like and Don't come up. Tourist come here to get away from the CRAP in thier state. They won't stop coming!! IMHO if laws and rules that were applied to the State of NH were made by people that were born and raised in NH, Not the implants from other states, New Hampshire would still be a Great State that is once was.
Say what you want, but so many out of staters (not all) have moved here to get away from situations in thier own state that they didn't like, only to move here and try to impliment they same things up here. I think you would be amazed how many not born and raised people indivituals are in NEW HAMPSHIRE politics. Yes, it is thier right to run for office, however its hard to teach old dogs new tricks.
Things will NEVER change for the better and I know it, just like this country, once we were strong, well respected, powerful , and prosperous, now, well you can see the difference for yourself.
BUT, I will have a MERRY CHRISTMAS, and I hope everyone else has a MERRY CHRISTMAS as well.
topwater is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to topwater For This Useful Post:
Yankee (12-18-2010)
Old 12-19-2010, 05:04 AM   #58
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,493
Thanks: 929
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Thumbs down Regardless of Who Proposes these Laws...

Quote:
Originally Posted by topwater View Post
Tourist will NEVER stop coming...They won't stop coming!!
These are the folks who will be most impacted:

(Add it up).



OOooooooo...New Hampshire forgot to tax the bicycles of tourists! When they're not getting lost on the lake, they're wearing out the state's roadways!



ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2010, 10:12 AM   #59
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by topwater View Post
Say what you want, but so many out of staters (not all) have moved here to get away from situations in thier own state that they didn't like, only to move here and try to impliment they same things up here. I think you would be amazed how many not born and raised people indivituals are in NEW HAMPSHIRE politics.
In particular the president of SBONH is one who moved here from out of state and wishes to change our NH laws. Even the Abenaki Indians came here from "out of state".
sunset on the dock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2010, 06:05 PM   #60
Yankee
Senior Member
 
Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Thanks: 19
Thanked 38 Times in 23 Posts
Default

I for one was born, raised, and live here stdotd. And I will support anyone or any organization that promotes safer boating. SBONH has at least made an attempt to do just that. And please eschew yet another of your obsession laden diatribes.

I'm not sure where your rant was going with the Abenaki reference, but whatever.

IMO,the people who are complaining in this thread about taxes, fees, etc... are their their own worst enemies. They have no one to blame but themselves. In their arrogance these people want to visit, vacation, own second homes here in NH yet they do not wish to pay for services that they're accustomed to back in their home state. Heaven help us locals if the roads are too bumpy, crowded or unsafe. Or that the police couldn't respond fast enough, or that the fire department didn't have the staff or equipment to put out the fire in their McMansion.
__________________
__________________
__________________
So what have we learned in the past two thousand years?

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of Obamunism should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest the Republic become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

. . .Evidently nothing.

(Cicero, 55 BC augmented by me, 2010 AD)
Yankee is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Yankee For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (12-19-2010), chipj29 (12-20-2010), jmen24 (12-19-2010), topwater (12-19-2010)
Old 01-24-2011, 05:53 AM   #61
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,493
Thanks: 929
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Thumbs down Among Many Other Classes of Small Sailboats...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Argie's Wife View Post
I spoke with two members of the NH House of Representatives yesterday and both thought this bill wouldn't float, especially in a Republican-majority house. I noted it was a Republican who proposed the bill, and both still thought it was a bit of an obnoxious tax. (My words -- not theirs).
This 8-foot sailboat is used for instructing our smallest sailors in safe boating.



The largest class of sailboat on Lake Winnipesaukee will be taxed under this proposed bill.
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.38382 seconds