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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-13-2008, 09:01 AM   #301
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegeezer View Post
Yes, this is a law based on fear, hate and deception, which was why so many were against it.
This law is based on safely and on the common sense. Powerboaters who feel that it is their "right" to travel at unlimited speeds on the lake has made winni dangerous for other boaters. It is as simple as that. There is no conspiracy.

Quote:
Proponents had no problem in curbing the unalienable right for the pursuit of happiness (going 60 mph in a bass boat) to alleviate the hysterical fear of being run over, hate of the big loud boats and deception about what the lake's real problems are.

Traveling at unlimited speeds on a lake is not an inalienable right. You do not have the right to pursue your own happiness when your actions violate the rights of others. That would be anarchy.

Being nearly run over by a high-speed power boater is not "hysterical fear" - it is fear for your life - and it is very real.

I do not hate any types of boats and I have never tried to deceive anyone. I have never suggested that boats traveling at high speed are the only safety problem on the lake - but is most certainly one of the problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot View Post
Now it's up to us to change the momentumof these fear mongers; otherwise they'll just keep on keepin' on.
The danger of kayaking on the main lake while power boaters are allowed to travel at unlimited speeds is very real, no matter how much you try to dismiss it. Most people who have paddled on the main lake (or on any large lake) understand the need for a speed limit. Most of the opponents of the speed limt have never even paddled on the main lake, so they have no idea why we feel that high speeds are unsafe. Months ago I challenged anyone here to join me kayaking on the main lake - yet no one has had the courage to accept my challenge. Yet you all continue to dismiss my close calls on the lake as "unfounded" - put a paddle where your mouth is - and then perhaps you'll understand the danger.

Quote:
These spineless, noodleback hacks in Concord (yes, I mean you Governor and you State Reps and Senators that fell for this BS) need to be voted out of office. They are destroying this State and what it stands for.
I talked with many of the Senators and Representatives who voted for the speed limit. I attended and testified at the House Transportation Committee Hearing, and I listened to the entire Senate debate on the bill. In my opinion, the BS was being pushed by those opposed to the bill.

NH law states in RSA 270:1:II:
Quote:
"In the interest of maintaining the residential, recreational and scenic values which New Hampshire public waters provide to residents of the state and to the promotion of our tourist industry, and in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances. Such provisions shall take into consideration the following: the variety of special uses appropriate to our lakes, public safety, protection of environment and water quality, and the continued nurture of New Hampshire's threatened and endangered species."
Most of the member of the Legislature who voted for the bill were doing so base on what this NH law states and because of the testimony of residents. That is their job.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 09:07 AM   #302
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,813
Thanks: 2,326
Thanked 849 Times in 591 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Perhaps if you did kayak out on the main lake, you would better understand why a speed limit is necessary. In my opinion, it is insane to allow unlimited speeds on a lake that is populated by small, slow moving boats.


I know and have met many paddlers who are afraid to paddle on Winni. And all the paddlers I know, who feel that the lake is dangerous for paddlers, arrived at this conclusion based on their own personal experience on the lake (based on my conservations with them). For all these people, a lake speed limit is a safety issue. And I thingk that the majority of NH residents who support the lake speed limit, see it as only a safety issue.
I've been kayaking and canoeing on Winni long before you have. The biggest gripe I have and other paddlers and sailboaters have is the 150' violation. Not speed. I have yet to meet a paddler who will personally tell me they fear a GFBL boat! They fear the family boater.

As far as paddling on the Broads. With the everchanging New Hampshire weather, it will be foolish to be out in the middle of the Broads without a PFD. I see it many times. I see many kayakers in dark kayaks with dark paddles and they are difficult to see. Especially when there are white caps. Don't tell me that kayakers are the safest people on Earth. I have rescued many kayakers and canoeists who are 'over their heads' in bad weather. They thank me because I have the boat big enough for rescue.
My GFBL boat became a kayak 'savior'. Not a kayak 'killer'.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.

Last edited by BroadHopper; 08-13-2008 at 09:57 AM. Reason: spelling
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 09:46 AM   #303
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
I've been kayaking and canoeing on Winni long before you have. The biggest gripe I have and other paddlers and sailboaters have is the 150' violation. Not speed. I have yet to meet a paddler who will personally tell me they fear a GFBL boat! They fear the family boater.
You (and many others here) keep acting like the speed limit only affects GFBL boats, when it affects ALL boats that can exceed 45 mph. I have never singled out GFBL boats. And I and many other paddlers have had experienced close calls on wini from high-speed boats. I'm not making this up.

Quote:
As far as paddling on the Broads. With the everchanging New Hampshire weather, it will be foolish to be out in the middle of the Broads without a PFD. I see it many times. I see many kayakers in dark kayaks with dark paddles and they are difficult to see. Especially when there are white caps. Don't tell me that kayakers are the safest people on Earth. I have rescued many kayakers and canoeists who are 'over their heads' in bad weather
Now you're judging all kayakers on the actions of a few inexperienced recreational kayakers. That would be like me judging all powerboaters on the actions of one "captain bonehead."

I never kayak without my PFD - no matter where I paddle. And I always dress for the water temperature and take extra clothing and gear with me. I have never been "over my head" on the water - and I have never needed to be rescued. I have been trained to do rescues - both with a kayak and with a powerboat.

My sea kayak is bright red and my friend's kayak is bright yellow, yet we have nearly bee run over by high-speed powerboaters on winni.

Sea kayakers do have one of the best safey records of all boaters - with the lowest percentage of fatalities of all boaters.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 12:12 PM   #304
chase1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 53
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
You (and many others here) keep acting like the speed limit only affects GFBL boats, when it affects ALL boats that can exceed 45 mph. I have never singled out GFBL boats. And I and many other paddlers have had experienced close calls on wini from high-speed boats. I'm not making this up.


Now you're judging all kayakers on the actions of a few inexperienced recreational kayakers. That would be like me judging all powerboaters on the actions of one "captain bonehead."

I never kayak without my PFD - no matter where I paddle. And I always dress for the water temperature and take extra clothing and gear with me. I have never been "over my head" on the water - and I have never needed to be rescued. I have been trained to do rescues - both with a kayak and with a powerboat.

My sea kayak is bright red and my friend's kayak is bright yellow, yet we have nearly bee run over by high-speed powerboaters on winni.

Sea kayakers do have one of the best safey records of all boaters - with the lowest percentage of fatalities of all boaters.
Evenstar,

I agree and do not feel that you can judge a group based on the actions of a few.....You ans I should not be restricted from kayaking in the broads just because someone else can't handle it. This is just one of the reasons I have opposed the speed limit. I do not feel it is right to restrict all powerboats boats on this lake based on the actions of a few inexperienced recreational boaters.

You can't have good boaters that are always capable and prepared for the situation, without having the new and inexperienced boater too...we all had a first day on the water.

I too have not felt in "over my head" thus far. I have always been within my abilities and not been afraid of my boating experiences. I am responsible for any situation I may encounter and accept that someday I may find myself wishing I were in the shallow end. I have been taught that there are no experts and there is always more to learn. Perhaps all those who detail their fear filled lake experiences as support for speed limits, were just in to deep.

Chase1
chase1 is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 12:12 PM   #305
Alton Bay Bob
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 46
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Coexistence

I am fairly new to this subject although I have been reading it with interest the past several weeks. I guess I never really thought about the coexistence of various types of water craft on the lake and everyone's "rights". I paddle my kayak early in the morning before most power boaters are up and about. When it is beautiful and quiet... I use my 21 foot powerboat most of the rest of the day when everyone else is on the water and the wakes come at me from all sides. I stay at my dock on Saturday and most Sunday afternoons when it is crazy out there. I think I just use common sense and stay safe.

The following quote prompted this post..

The danger of kayaking on the main lake while power boaters are allowed to travel at unlimited speeds is very real, no matter how much you try to dismiss it. Most people who have paddled on the main lake (or on any large lake) understand the need for a speed limit. Most of the opponents of the speed limt have never even paddled on the main lake, so they have no idea why we feel that high speeds are unsafe. Months ago I challenged anyone here to join me kayaking on the main lake - yet no one has had the courage to accept my challenge. Yet you all continue to dismiss my close calls on the lake as "unfounded" - put a paddle where your mouth is - and then perhaps you'll understand the danger.


As neither an opponent or proponent of speed limits and a fair paddler, I would never take you up on your offer to paddle the main lake either this year..with no speed limit ...or next year when there is a speed limit during a time when there was a lot of boat traffic. It would not make sense to me. I would not feel safe with boats "100 mph" this year or 44 mph next year.i would still feel the danger.. I'll paddle when it's quiet.


]
Alton Bay Bob is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 08-13-2008, 12:24 PM   #306
B R
Senior Member
 
B R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 140
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

The truth is she doesn't even come here often. She refuses to say how often but from previous posts, I'd bet she's paddled on this lake less than 10 times in her life. She simply wants the speed limit and that's it!!!
__________________
"You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know"
B R is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 12:46 PM   #307
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

I'd be interested to hear the answer to this one as well.

I did google performace boat accident, 2005, NH and got nothing except a discussion on this forum about a PWC ramming the side of a Formula near Christmas Island, and a Laconia Citizen writer admitting that his editors insisted that anything over headway speed be written as "high speed".

I couldn't find the accident Pineedles described, anyone else?

Quote:
Originally posted by Chipj29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander
I think you know about the accidents. Look up a few posts for a high performance boat that flipped in 2005 at 90 mph. Dumb luck nobody was killed. There is a fatal accident this year, a fatal accident last year and a double fatality on a nearby lake.

And that is just local. There is absolutely no reason to ignore national statistics. The New Hampshire accident rate is rising while most states have seen them fall. More than enough evidence for anybody that has an open mind.

Plus, after all that is said, safety is still not the main reason we need speed limits.


If this thread follows the usual routine, we will now be given lame excuses why none of those deaths count.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chipj29
OK what speed was the fatal accident this year?
How about the fatal accident last year?
How would a speed limit have prevented these 2 accidents?

You can have the one accident on the broads. What was the speed?

Yes, NH's accident rate may be rising. But how many of those accidents have been directly caused by speeds over 45/25?
Hi. Any relevant stats for me yet?
Airwaves is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 01:29 PM   #308
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by B R View Post
The truth is she doesn't even come here often. She refuses to say how often but from previous posts, I'd bet she's paddled on this lake less than 10 times in her life. She simply wants the speed limit and that's it!!!
Here's the REAL TRUTH:

The truth is that I likely spend more time on the water than most people on this forum and I paddle more miles on NH lakes than most of you. The truth also is that I've had close calls every single time that I have paddled on winni - and that it is nearly impossible for me to find someone who is willing to paddle with me on the lake. I plan on paddling on winni a lot more often once the speed limit goes into effect.

Because of a serious injury and needing treatment for cancer this summer, and the numerous thunder storms, I have not been able to paddle as much this summer, but I have still managed to paddle over 250 miles on NH lakes so far.

You are also neglecting the fact that this bill was originally for all NH lakes, but that it has since become amended so that it now only affects winni. I'm still fighting for a speed limit for all NH lakes.

I simply want a speed limit because I have had too many close calls with high-speed powerboats - and I have seen the difference that a lake speed limit actually makes.

It is also the truth that I am a NH resident and a multi-generation native - which is not true of many of the speed limit opponents. Most NH residents also appear to support lake speed limits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alton Bay Bob View Post
As neither an opponent or proponent of speed limits and a fair paddler, I would never take you up on your offer to paddle the main lake either this year..with no speed limit ...or next year when there is a speed limit during a time when there was a lot of boat traffic.
I have to return to my University in just over a week, since my team has to be back on campus before the non-athletes return. So I probably won't be able to join you this summer, as there's just not time. But I would be happy to paddle with you next summer - just as soon as I graduate and return home.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 01:39 PM   #309
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

From the statics posted, it would seem if you ban drownings, PWC's, and people falling down, boating accidents would be about nil.

I know there have been a ton of GFBL accidents. there was a 37' cruiser that hit the island, everyone's up to speed on that one.

There was the merideth bay incident, when a Baja ran up on a smaller boat from behind, driver was slightly influenced by something other than night air. He was supposedly doing 28 mph, I'll give you 30 if you must.

The accident in Maine has been brought up several times. Plus, I mentioned one from eons ago.

It should be pretty easy to come up with lists each time this question is asked, since there are some that thinks it's an epidemic.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 01:49 PM   #310
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

I know about those accidents VTSteve, it just seems to me that if an accident such as the one Pineedles described, A High Performance boat, flipped on The Broads of Lake Winnipesaukee doing 90 Miles an Hour in 2005 during the heat of the debate of HB162, then I'd have no problem at all finding information about it? Ya think?

There would have been debris, a rescue, Marine Patrol boats, WinnFabs all over the place, Media coverage and APS would have posted a million pics of the accident on the forum!

Last edited by Airwaves; 08-13-2008 at 01:54 PM. Reason: Added line about APS' photography career :)
Airwaves is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 01:56 PM   #311
alsadad
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 43
Thanks: 6
Thanked 40 Times in 9 Posts
Cool Local access

Boy, am I glad the weather's improving and we can all get out and enjoy the lake. Yesterday I was flipping through the channels and hit the local access cable channel just in time to see the following:

Host: "And now for today's Point/Counterpoint segment on the reasons for a lake speed limit. Take it away..."

"It's not about safety. "

"I didn't say the speed limit is not about safety."

"It never was about safety. We have been saying that from day one until now."

"And yes, safety was certainly one of the arguments for having a speed limit."

Host: "Thank you for that perspective, Bear Islander, and thank you for that other perspective...ah... Bear Islander. Okay, well, be sure to tune in tomorrow for a panel discussion featuring representatives from manufacturers of Formula, Cigarette, and Norstar boats entitled 'Instilling fear: getting weenies off your lake before it's too late.' And on Friday, Rose and Evenstar will offer a scintillating debate on the topic "I Bet Mine is Bigger Than Yours: Lake Footprint vs. The 150 Foot Zone.' Please tune in."
alsadad is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 02:06 PM   #312
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 Airwaves

Remember, I am not an advocate of the speed limit, as my earlier post on missing seeing the boats cover the mile from Center Harbor's docks to Little One Mile. But I too could not find the reference to my cousin's accident. But I firmly can state that it did occur. The boat was towed out, and there was damage but not enough to sink it. I believe they hit some debris and it flipped the boat corkscrew wise.
Pineedles is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 02:15 PM   #313
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 BroadHopper View Post
I like to see what Skip has to say about this. Seem to me there has to be some control over unreasonable and unprudent speed in a boat.

BroadHopper

There is a New Hampshire law that references reasonable and prudent speeds. This is it in part.

No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

Does this sound familiar? Is this the law you were referring to?
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 02:17 PM   #314
B R
Senior Member
 
B R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 140
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Here's the REAL TRUTH:

The truth is that I likely spend more time on the water than most people on this forum and I paddle more miles on NH lakes than most of you. The truth also is that I've had close calls every single time that I have paddled on winni - and that it is nearly impossible for me to find someone who is willing to paddle with me on the lake. I plan on paddling on winni a lot more often once the speed limit goes into effect.
Sorry you've been held up this summer.

Since the speed limit is ONLY for Lake Winnipesaukee, can you answer a simple question? How many times have you EVER paddled on Lake Winnipesaukee?
__________________
"You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know"
B R is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 02:35 PM   #315
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,073
Thanks: 215
Thanked 895 Times in 506 Posts
Default

I'll bet "Randy" has only been on Winni less than a dozen times.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 02:56 PM   #316
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by B R View Post
Sorry you've been held up this summer.

Since the speed limit is ONLY for Lake Winnipesaukee, can you answer a simple question? How many times have you EVER paddled on Lake Winnipesaukee?
Personally, THAT is none of your business! I actually have no idea at how many times I have paddled on Winni or on any other NH lake, since I don't keep track of such things. But I've paddled there more times than you have suggested - which you determined how exactly??? Since I've never given a number, how in the world did you come up with "less than 10 times"??? That was obviously just another lame attempt to discredit me.

Why do I have to constantly provide proof on this forum for my qualifications??? Others here like you simple throw out wild accusations and false statements, and then won't even respond when their "facts" are questioned. Yet when someone like me honestly tries to answer questions, their posts get ripped apart and they become a target. So how many hours do all the opponents here have on the lake in recent years???

There are Senators and Representatives who voted against the speed limit who don't even own a boat. And there are even move who have never even been on the lake.

The thing is that I have paddled on winni enough to know that high-speed boaters are dangerous to paddlers.

And I'm a NH resident (unlike many of the opponents here) - which I feel is actually more important. And I actually took the time to attend hearings and to testify. Plus I actually know most of the Senators and many of the Representatives - and I know the NH Legislative process better than most here, because I internered at the State House last year.

It really doesn't matter if I have paddled on winni 25 times or 1000 times - because I'm still one of the only people on this forum who has actually paddled across the broads and I've done that many times. So get off my case.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 03:03 PM   #317
sa meredith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 986
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 32
Thanked 352 Times in 137 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
- because I'm still one of the only people on this forum who has actually paddled across the broads and I've done that many times. So get off my case.
Hang on now...when I was younger I "paddled" across a broad or two and I......oh wait, you meant the lake, didn't you?
sa meredith is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 03:15 PM   #318
Rose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 498
Thanks: 62
Thanked 71 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineedles View Post
Remember, I am not an advocate of the speed limit, as my earlier post on missing seeing the boats cover the mile from Center Harbor's docks to Little One Mile. But I too could not find the reference to my cousin's accident. But I firmly can state that it did occur. The boat was towed out, and there was damage but not enough to sink it. I believe they hit some debris and it flipped the boat corkscrew wise.
Could this be it?

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopo...php?photo=3030
Rose is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 03:16 PM   #319
B R
Senior Member
 
B R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 140
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Actually, i do think it is my business. you are one of the few very vocal proponents of the law and it's my guess you don't even come here; or have on a very few occasions.

you said yourself you have paddled 250 miles on NH lakes. why then do you have to push your agenda on a lake you don't even visit very often?

a few years ago, there were some posters coming from the OSO forum who got shot down because they didn't boat often enough for the proponents of the law. I'd like to use their argument to say you shouldn't have a say in this fight since you don't even boat here regularly. I think it is a relevant question and one you have refused to answer. You not having an answer should be answer enough for most of us.
__________________
"You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know"

Last edited by B R; 08-13-2008 at 03:47 PM.
B R is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 03:21 PM   #320
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 881
Thanks: 313
Thanked 493 Times in 188 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy View Post
Destroying this state for what it stands for? Don't forget many of these so called hacks were voted out of office after the previous speed limit bill was defeated. And Governor Lynch's opponent, Joe Kenney(R), also supported the speed limit. Speed limit proponents vote too, and they'll vote this November.
That's what makes America so great - you vote your way, I'll vote mine. And hopefully enough people will realize that we have become a nanny state, and get rid of these BUMS! Just like that new bicycle law - what rocket scientist thought of that one? Wait a few months and watch all the head-on collisions caused by people that have to pull over into oncoming traffic to avoid some bone-head that should not be riding on certain secondary highways. (sound familiar - kind of like kayaks that should not be out in the broads. Kayaks can go far more places than powerboats on the lake, yet they insist on exercising their "Rights" to travel anywhere and everywhere.) Then they cry fear and safety, and the nannys in Concord (most of whom probably have never been on the lake) make knee-jerk, emotion based decisions and let "fear" drive their decisions. We'll see who wins this battle in 2 years. People are fed up with these liberal politicians, so I believe the pendulum will swing the other way once again.
Seaplane Pilot is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 03:22 PM   #321
B R
Senior Member
 
B R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 140
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
So how many hours do all the opponents here have on the lake in recent years???
I've averaged 150 hours logged on my boat per year over the past 7 years (does not include hours under anchor). hitting 220 hours one year and as low as 100 hours two years ago. 90 hours so far this year (gas prices).

I have come up every single weekend since mid-june with a few weekends before that.

See, that wasn't so hard.
__________________
"You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know"
B R is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 03:42 PM   #322
B R
Senior Member
 
B R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 140
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default This is where I'm getting my info

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1709 post 36 you wrote:


Why just Winni?
I'm just wondering why Lake Winnipesaukee is being singled out for a bill to impose a limit on speed. Why not a state speed limit for all lakes? After all, aren't high speeds likely to be even more dangerous on smaller lakes?

I haven't kayaked on Winni yet, but I have been on other NH lakes enough to comment on high speeds. Yes, I have felt very unsafe at times, wondering if that speeding boat even sees me. In a sit in kayak, you actually sit below the water line and your top speed is maybe 5 MPH.

While kayaking on Squam last summer, my friend and I were both swamped by a speeding boat that passed within 40 feet of us and never even slowed down. So enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."


So, on April 2005 you state you've never boated on winni. And because of circumstances not under your control, you haven't paddled on winni this year. so that leaves 05, 06, 07 and 08. I just have a gut feeling you haven't boated on the lake more than 10 times. it can't be that hard to remember since you've had SO many close calls on the lake. if that were me, I think i'd remember all those life threatening times spent on the lake.
__________________
"You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know"
B R is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 04:15 PM   #323
chase1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 53
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Personally, THAT is none of your business! I actually have no idea at how many times I have paddled on Winni or on any other NH lake, since I don't keep track of such things.
Evenstar,

Boaters ofter discuss how much time they spend on the water in conversation. Kind of like the way salesmen point out how many miles they drive or fly.

I like you can not provide any detail as to my excursions and time spent paddling. Although I think (not confirmed in any way) the same would be true for the majority of power boaters most power boats have hr meters, so at the very least owners know how many hrs were spent underway.

I was under the impression that you kept a Juornal or Log.

Chase1
chase1 is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 04:45 PM   #324
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 B R View Post
Actually, i do think it is my business. you are one of the few very vocal proponents of the law and it's my guess you don't even come here; or have on a very few occasions.

you said yourself you have paddled 250 miles on NH lakes. why then do you have to push your agenda on a lake you don't even visit very often?

a few years ago, there were some posters coming from the OSO forum who got shot down because they didn't boat often enough for the proponents of the law. I'd like to use their argument to say you shouldn't have a say in this fight since you don't even boat here regularly. I think it is a relevant question and one you have refused to answer. You not having an answer should be answer enough for most of us.
B R

Evenstar has a lot more right to say what happens to the lake than you do.

You have indicated you are not a New Hampshire citizen. Evenstar claims she is a New Hampshire citizen.

The citizens of New Hampshire OWN Lake Winnipesaukee. Therefore it would seem Evenstar owns the lake and you do not.

Control of the lake is in the hands of the citizens of New Hampshire, not visitors. This is true even if those visitors own property and pay taxes.

As I remember those OSO members were from out of state.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 05:00 PM   #325
COWISLAND NH
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 35
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

And I'm a NH resident (unlike many of the opponents here) - which I feel is actually more important. And I actually took the time to attend hearings and to testify. Plus I actually know most of the Senators and many of the Representatives - and I know the NH Legislative process better than most here, because I internered at the State House last year.

Like my parents said it's who ya know.....now we all know who was whining about all the dangerous boats on the lake to all those reps. What we really need to ask is how many of those people who voted acually have been on the lake and had such scary experiences.....or have they just heard the scary speed boat stories from a small "in" house group!
COWISLAND NH is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 05:39 PM   #326
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 Bear Islander View Post
BroadHopper

There is a New Hampshire law that references reasonable and prudent speeds. This is it in part.

No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

Does this sound familiar? Is this the law you were referring to?
Nice try, BI, but that's from HB-847! Stop trying to bait people into an argument.
Wolfeboro_Baja is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 06:03 PM   #327
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 Wolfeboro_Baja View Post
Nice try, BI, but that's from HB-847! Stop trying to bait people into an argument.
Actually the attempt is to end the argument. People keep thinking that there has been a reasonable and prudent law in New Hampshire. They make the claim and will not believe they are wrong. It is possible some of them may have read the reasonable and prudent part of HB847 or HB162 and it stuck in their heads. There must be some reason why so many believe a law exists that doesn't.

Well now there is a reasonable and prudent law in New Hampshire, HB847.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 06:10 PM   #328
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by COWISLAND NH View Post
Like my parents said it's who ya know.....now we all know who was whining about all the dangerous boats on the lake to all those reps. What we really need to ask is how many of those people who voted acually have been on the lake and had such scary experiences.....or have they just heard the scary speed boat stories from a small "in" house group! [/COLOR][/COLOR]
yeah right...like no one who was against the speed limit was there, like the big GFBL lobby and NHRBA(with their $) all saying:" there's no speed problem, we just need to enforce existing laws". Get real.
Turtle Boy is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 06:15 PM   #329
Islander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
Default

BroadHopper has asked Skip for clarification. i wonder why he has not responded. He can end the argument.

You out there Skip?
Islander is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 06:46 PM   #330
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,605
Thanks: 247
Thanked 506 Times in 176 Posts
Unhappy A plea to the Webmaster...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander View Post
BroadHopper has asked Skip for clarification. i wonder why he has not responded. He can end the argument.

You out there Skip?
Actually, the only thing I can say to end any of the arguments here is simple:

....Don, please suspend the speed limit threads indefinitely....

It's over.

The Governor has signed the bill and it becomes law next year.

Everyone has two years to review the bill and make their voices heard at the appropriate time when the bill gets set to expire several years from now.

Don has been extremely fair in allowing both sides great latitude in airing their respective opinions during the lengthy time this subject has been before the public.

He has also been extremely lenient in letting a handful of individuals on both sides of the issue beat this issue to death.

But it is time to put this issue behind us and move on!

In the many years I have been fortunate to be a guest of Don's, I have seen and participated in many spirited debates. But in most cases those debates were short lived, and except for the occasional troll or drum beater, everyone picked up the pieces and quickly moved on to other issues...usually issues of common interest that strengthend this great website and didn't tear it apart.

Yeah, I know....if I don't like it just ignore it.

But I happen to care very deeply about this site and many of the regular folks that have populated these threads for years. And, this is strictly my opinion, I think a number of the great folks that regularly posted here are tired of the animosity, tired of the speed limit debate popping up all over the place, and just generally tired of the negativity this particular debate has generated.

Listen, some of you drum beaters are obviously very technically savvy when it comes to the internet. And some of you obviously have the time. I beg any one of you, on either side of the issue, to start your own website devoted solely to this debate. Move it away from here and let this site return to some semblance of calm, a signature that made this site the great place that it still is.

I'll say it one last time....it is long past time that we all (myself included) move on!

Thank you.....

Skip
Skip is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 08:08 PM   #331
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

Skip

I agree with much of what you say. However I believe in leaving those decisions to the webmaster. Since he has not closed the forum I can only conclude he wants it open. I also assume that as long as it is open I am free to post.

I would gladly set up a separate site for this discussion. But who would want me as webmaster?
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 09:42 PM   #332
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by chase1 View Post
...You ans I should not be restricted from kayaking in the broads just because someone else can't handle it. This is just one of the reasons I have opposed the speed limit. I do not feel it is right to restrict all powerboats boats on this lake based on the actions of a few inexperienced recreational boaters.
The difference is that a high-speed powerboater can easily kill a kayaker – the opposite is not true. Many powerboaters on this forum have admitted that they often have trouble seeing kayaks – and traveling at high speeds just increases the danger of hitting one of us - and too many of us have had close calls.

Quote:
Perhaps all those who detail their fear filled lake experiences as support for speed limits, were just in to deep.
The only time I have ever been in danger while kayaking are the times that highspeed powerboats have nearly run me over. And I have done Class II rapids, kayaked in ocean waters, and kayaked in cold weather. I oversee kayaking at my university. I am trained in ocean rescues and in first aid and CPR. I have taken an advanced paddling seminar and a costal navigation seminar. I’m an NCAA athlete and a registered member of the Intercollegiate Sailing Association. My team is on the water 6 days a week from the end of August until mid November - and we return to the water in late February. I know what I am doing on the water – and I know when I’m in danger.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by B R View Post
Actually, i do think it is my business. you are one of the few very vocal proponents of the law and it's my guess you don't even come here; or have on a very few occasions.
No it is not your business. The reason that I am one of the few proponents of the speed limit on this forum is because of the way that the opponents here treat us. Most members who do support the speed limit are not about to put up with all the personal attacks and ridicule and false statements and outright lies that I have had to deal with here. Anyone who posts in this forum in support of the lake speed limit immediately becomes a target.

I wrote: “But I've paddled there more times than you have suggested”. So my reply was that I’ve paddled on winni more than 10 times. So you can stop trying to guess and you can stop making up false accusations about me. I answered your question. I HONESTLY don’t know how many times I have paddled on any NH lake – I paddle a LOT on a LOT of lakes and on the ocean. I have a hard enough time just keeping track of miles I paddle. I passed 1000 miles early in my 3rd summer of paddling (which is somewhere between 300 and 400 hours of paddling).

Quote:
you said yourself you have paddled 250 miles on NH lakes.
The last time I checked, winni was a NH lake – and that is roughly how far I have paddled JUST THIS SUMMER. Where did I write that winni was excluded from the NH lakes that I have paddled on this summer???

Quote:
why then do you have to push your agenda on a lake you don't even visit very often?
Because I’m a NH resident and would like to be able to paddle safely on my state’s largest lake – without having high-speed powerboats violate my 150 foot zone – because they are going too fast to notice me. Geeze! How many times do I have to state my reasons here??? They haven’t changed, since the first time that I paddled on winni in 2005 (I didn’t buy my first kayak until 2004). And, as I wrote in my previous post: “I plan on paddling on winni a lot more often once the speed limit goes into effect.” In case you haven’t noticed, I and many others feel that winni is not currently a safe lake for paddlers – due to the high speeds of some powerboats.

Quote:
I'd like to use their argument to say you shouldn't have a say in this fight since you don't even boat here regularly. I think it is a relevant question and one you have refused to answer. You not having an answer should be answer enough for most of us.
I did answer your question the best I can – I stated that it was more than you suggested – so, in case you’re still having trouble: THIS MEANS MORE THAN 10 TIMES. I never lie, so I’m not going to just make up a number, when I honestly don’t know exactly. As Bear Islander stated, I actually have more right to post my views on the lake than any non-resident does.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by COWISLAND NH View Post
Like my parents said it's who ya know.....now we all know who was whining about all the dangerous boats on the lake to all those reps. What we really need to ask is how many of those people who voted acually have been on the lake and had such scary experiences.....or have they just heard the scary speed boat stories from a small "in" house group!
Again I am being accused of doing something that I haven’t done. Interns are not allowed to push their own political views while working at the State House – I could not even email the Senators in support of this bill. I was allowed to testify at the House Committee Hearing only because it was held during my spring break (while interns had the week off).

My point about knowing most of the Senators is that I intimately know the process of hearings and on how much time is spent at collecting and reading data so that a Senator can make an informed vote. I do know that at least three of the Senators are avid kayakers – and one Senators told me that her husband was nearly run over by a high-speed powerboat on Winni. The Senators I know who voted for the bill are not the “spineless, noodleback hacks” that Seaplane Pilot accused them of being.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 08-13-2008, 10:52 PM   #333
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,813
Thanks: 2,326
Thanked 849 Times in 591 Posts
Arrow Move on

I agree with Skip. Let's move on. As long as everyone boat, whether motor, paddle or sail in a reasonable and prudent manner, everyone should be satisfied. Pointing fingers at each other and flapping our wings is a mean to no ends. This should eliminate future restrictions to our sport of boating. The problem is the damage is done and we will see more restrictions with 'feel good' laws.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 08-14-2008, 06:02 AM   #334
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B R View Post
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1709 post 36 you wrote:



While kayaking on Squam last summer, my friend and I were both swamped by a speeding boat that passed within 40 feet of us and never even slowed down. So enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here.
It took this long, After the speed limit was placed into law, for people to cut to the chase and give some real views. Evenstar said the years ago, which is what many opponents of the bill stated.

Why close a forum? Sure, we've beat it to death, but it's not gotten stale. Occasionally, new tidbits come up. Frankly, it's far more relevant than anything in the media. Perhaps someone out there will get the idea that increased enforcement is really needed, don't know.

But burying a topic as important as this one serves no one. I haven't seen anything like this board for information coming from so many sides on one issue. There's some good stuff here, seriously. If the MP's and others read these threads, this one and the Captain Bonehead thread, that's not a bad thing.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 08-14-2008, 11:10 AM   #335
alsadad
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 43
Thanks: 6
Thanked 40 Times in 9 Posts
Default Missed opportunity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
BroadHopper

There is a New Hampshire law that references reasonable and prudent speeds. This is it in part.

No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

Does this sound familiar? Is this the law you were referring to?
Perhaps the law would have enjoyed more widespread support if it had included the "reasonable and prudent" language, without adding a hard number limit, and added other measures that addressed significant problems on the lake. Some possibilities might be:

• Providing additional funding to promote stronger enforcement of existing boating regulations, including a reasonable and prudent limit.

• Stricter boating education requirements.

• Designating parts of the lake for certain activities and prohibiting others from those areas, not to exclude, but to "provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses."

• A restriction on weekend use of the lake that would permit only boaters over the age of 50 who own "family bow riders" no more than 23 feet long. (Well, okay, that's a long shot.)

I'm sure there are other steps that I haven't thought of that would genuinely address the problems on the lake. I could certainly understand if the MP did not particularly welcome "reasonable and prudent" without an objective limit, simply because it would be more difficult to enforce. And, of course, many if not all of these proposals would have spawned their own special interest opposition.

Judging from their opinions expressed in posts on this forum, some folks seem to believe that the speed limit is the magic bullet to cure all of the lake's problems (one person even predicted an economic windfall). Others favor the speed limit but acknowledge that it falls short of perfection. Still others do not feel strongly one way or the other, while some vehemently oppose the speed limit. But it does seem as though everyone cares about improving conditions at the lake, even if we don't all agree on the best way to do so (please don't cue the guitars for Kumbaya). Perhaps we've all missed an opportunity, but we have 2 years to correct that. I'm not a political activist and I don't know how best to do this. But I hope that the pro-limit people recognize how hard the opponents will fight the renewal of the current law, and that those who oppose the law recognize how hard others will fight to keep it.

Any ideas?
alsadad is offline  
Old 08-14-2008, 11:37 AM   #336
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 1,250
Thanked 1,375 Times in 688 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Skip

I agree with much of what you say. However I believe in leaving those decisions to the webmaster. Since he has not closed the forum I can only conclude he wants it open. I also assume that as long as it is open I am free to post.

I would gladly set up a separate site for this discussion. But who would want me as webmaster?
I think you will see by his sticky that he wants to close this sub forum. It is a shame that some people on this forum have raised the vitriol to an absurd level- both proponents and opponents.

Please read your posts prior to hitting submit and ask yourself if you would "say" the same thing in person that you would when posting anonomously online.

Have a good day,

John
VitaBene is offline  
Old 08-14-2008, 12:11 PM   #337
chase1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 53
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
The difference is that a high-speed powerboater can easily kill a kayaker – the opposite is not true. Many powerboaters on this forum have admitted that they often have trouble seeing kayaks – and traveling at high speeds just increases the danger of hitting one of us - and too many of us have had close calls.


The only time I have ever been in danger while kayaking are the times that highspeed powerboats have nearly run me over. And I have done Class II rapids, kayaked in ocean waters, and kayaked in cold weather. I oversee kayaking at my university. I am trained in ocean rescues and in first aid and CPR. I have taken an advanced paddling seminar and a costal navigation seminar. I’m an NCAA athlete and a registered member of the Intercollegiate Sailing Association. My team is on the water 6 days a week from the end of August until mid November - and we return to the water in late February. I know what I am doing on the water – and I know when I’m in danger.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No it is not your business. The reason that I am one of the few proponents of the speed limit on this forum is because of the way that the opponents here treat us. Most members who do support the speed limit are not about to put up with all the personal attacks and ridicule and false statements and outright lies that I have had to deal with here. Anyone who posts in this forum in support of the lake speed limit immediately becomes a target.

I wrote: “But I've paddled there more times than you have suggested”. So my reply was that I’ve paddled on winni more than 10 times. So you can stop trying to guess and you can stop making up false accusations about me. I answered your question. I HONESTLY don’t know how many times I have paddled on any NH lake – I paddle a LOT on a LOT of lakes and on the ocean. I have a hard enough time just keeping track of miles I paddle. I passed 1000 miles early in my 3rd summer of paddling (which is somewhere between 300 and 400 hours of paddling).


The last time I checked, winni was a NH lake – and that is roughly how far I have paddled JUST THIS SUMMER. Where did I write that winni was excluded from the NH lakes that I have paddled on this summer???


Because I’m a NH resident and would like to be able to paddle safely on my state’s largest lake – without having high-speed powerboats violate my 150 foot zone – because they are going too fast to notice me. Geeze! How many times do I have to state my reasons here??? They haven’t changed, since the first time that I paddled on winni in 2005 (I didn’t buy my first kayak until 2004). And, as I wrote in my previous post: “I plan on paddling on winni a lot more often once the speed limit goes into effect.” In case you haven’t noticed, I and many others feel that winni is not currently a safe lake for paddlers – due to the high speeds of some powerboats.


I did answer your question the best I can – I stated that it was more than you suggested – so, in case you’re still having trouble: THIS MEANS MORE THAN 10 TIMES. I never lie, so I’m not going to just make up a number, when I honestly don’t know exactly. As Bear Islander stated, I actually have more right to post my views on the lake than any non-resident does.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Again I am being accused of doing something that I haven’t done. Interns are not allowed to push their own political views while working at the State House – I could not even email the Senators in support of this bill. I was allowed to testify at the House Committee Hearing only because it was held during my spring break (while interns had the week off).

My point about knowing most of the Senators is that I intimately know the process of hearings and on how much time is spent at collecting and reading data so that a Senator can make an informed vote. I do know that at least three of the Senators are avid kayakers – and one Senators told me that her husband was nearly run over by a high-speed powerboat on Winni. The Senators I know who voted for the bill are not the “spineless, noodleback hacks” that Seaplane Pilot accused them of being.
Evenstar,

Once again I agree. A high speed power boater can easily kill a kayaker. In fact almost all power boaters can easily kill a kayaker and the opposite is not true. Do you want to limit NH lakes to kayaks only. The fact is that there are laws in place that successfully keep power boaters from killing kayakers.

I have read your resume in previous posts and understand that you are an accomplished kayaker and sailor. I was not questioning your abilities and comfort level on the water, When I said,,, Perhaps all those who detail their fear filled lake experiences as support for speed limits, were just in to deep. I am sorry if you read it that way. I did not mean you.

The fact is that there are boats (power, sail, paddle) on NH lakes. These boats are ore owned and operated by both residents and tourists with various levels of experience and ability. Many are not at your level and may be in over there heads more than they realize. It is not right to limit everyone because some are simply inexperienced and afraid of the recreational activity they themselves choose to participate in.


I believe that everyone and anyone has the equal right to post their views regarding the lake, including BR. This is a lake forum not a state election. If residents have more right than non residents ...do some residents have more right than others. I like you am a resident of NH but I also own a summer place on this lake. You may want to check with BI but I don't think I have any more right than you.

Equal right to express does not mean that everything shared is held at equal value. For example: I have been water skiing with professional skiers and hold there ski advise higher than of my neighbor. I think that is what BR was trying to get at when he questioned your time on the one lake affected by the new speed limit. Winnipesaukee is in fact the only lake it applies to.

I know you feel things will be different next year on Winni and plan to visit more often. I dont think you will see much change at all. There will still be a few inexperienced boaters that come too close to you, just like there will still be some inexperienced kayakers that need to be rescued by BR.

Chase1
chase1 is offline  
Old 08-14-2008, 12:54 PM   #338
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 Evenstar View Post
This law is based on safely and on the common sense. Powerboaters who feel that it is their "right" to travel at unlimited speeds on the lake has made winni dangerous for other boaters. It is as simple as that. There is no conspiracy.
No, it’s based on the fact that a handful of people want to rid the lake of performance boats!! If it was based on common sense, there wouldn’t BE a speed limit. BUT, not everyone uses common sense, and, as we all know, YOU CAN’T LEGISLATE COMMON SENSE! If people are that fearful, perhaps they don’t belong on the lake.

As for a conspiracy, after reading all these posts for and against a speed limit, I believe there is one; it’s a movement by some shorefront property owners to get boats they don’t like off their lake. BI, as one of those property owners, has admitted he wants to rid the lake of performance boats. So, first, it’ll be the performance boats to disappear, then it’ll be the cabin cruisers, then the bass boats and finally, it’ll be anyone who doesn’t own shorefront property. Then the property owners will have their lake to themselves, kind of like what’s happened to Squam Lake.

BI, you said in your post #324 that “The citizens of New Hampshire OWN Lake Winnipesaukee.” Interesting coming from you since you’re not a citizen of NH, but you DO have a lot of money to blow on island property, boats, cars, camping trips to Antarctica and sub-orbital spaceflights! Well, I AM a citizen, born and raised here as were my parents. Unfortunately, I do not own shorefront property on the lake because it’s too expensive; wealthy people like you have priced average citizens like me out of the market. However, it’s beginning to look to me like a small group of people (both NH and out-of-state citizens) want full control of the lake to themselves. If we truly believe that ALL CITIZENS of NH own the lake, then that small group of shorefront property owners should not be allowed to have laws passed that ban other citizens from using the lake just because they choose to enjoy a different style of boating. Since your citizenship is Massachusetts, I believe you should have no say in the control of the lake.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Traveling at unlimited speeds on a lake is not an inalienable right. You do not have the right to pursue your own happiness when your actions violate the rights of others. That would be anarchy.
You claim you have the right to kayak ANYWHERE on the lake yet you fear being run over by a powerboat so you push for a speed limit to “make the lake safer”. At what point does your right to kayak anywhere interfere with my rights to enjoy my powerboat at speed?!? Bicycles are not allowed on the interstate highways for a reason; they’re a slow-moving vehicle in close proximity to fast-moving vehicles. This is the same as a kayak or canoe in a wide open area on the main lake where powerboats could be travelling at higher speeds. Instead of a speed limit, maybe it’s time slow-moving watercraft were restricted from certain parts of the main lake (like bicycles from the interstate)!!

I have no problem with people pursuing an activity they enjoy so long as they are willing to accept the risks associated with it. It annoys me when someone wants to do something but they don’t want to accept the risks involved with that activity (fearing something will happen to them) so they lobby for a law in an attempt to make it safer for them. Afraid the parachute won’t open? DON’T GO PARACHUTING!!! Are you a kayaker that fears being run over by a powerboat (ANY powerboat)?? Then don't go in areas frequented by powerboats! People that are afraid to fly, don’t fly unless it’s absolutely necessary (and then they’re a nervous wreck the entire time they’re in the air)! People that are afraid of driving at speed should avoid the interstate highways (but they don't) because they’re only going to cause a traffic jam travelling 35mph in a 65mph zone (when the minimum limit on the interstate is 45mph!)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Months ago I challenged anyone here to join me kayaking on the main lake - yet no one has had the courage to accept my challenge. Yet you all continue to dismiss my close calls on the lake as "unfounded" - put a paddle where your mouth is - and then perhaps you'll understand the danger.
You are putting assumptions upon your statement. The FACT is that no one has taken you up on your challenge. The reasons are not yours to assume or postulate without proof. You seem to do this a lot. As far as I’m concerned, taking you up on your “challenge” has nothing to do with courage so stop carrying on about how no one has the “courage” to go with you. For me, physical activity, (including kayaking), does not interest me at this point in my life (much to my physician’s chagrin) so you will not see me in a kayak. If I did happen to kayak, I’d be more than happy to go with you but I’m sure I wouldn’t be able to keep up with you since we all know how fit and healthy you are and I’m not. Besides, I thought the whole idea behind the “challenge” was to see who had the cojones to go out kayaking with you, not who was stronger and faster! As for your close calls, I don’t question that you’ve had them (I’ve had a few myself and I’m in a 25’ powerboat). I only question your estimates of speed and distance but since I wasn’t with you when any of them happened, I can’t say your estimates are right or wrong on their speed or distance from you at the time. And finally, if YOU have so much courage, why push for a speed limit? Just go out kayaking and get your thrills. If you love kayaking in open water where there’s a possibility of you being run over by a powerboat (like in The Broads), THAT’S the risk YOU have to assume!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Most of the member of the Legislature who voted for the bill were doing so base on what this NH law states and because of the testimony of residents. That is their job.
I didn’t know laws were also being voted on based on FEAR. That's not what this country was built on.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Now you're judging all kayakers on the actions of a few inexperienced recreational kayakers. That would be like me judging all powerboaters on the actions of one "captain bonehead."
But that’s EXACTLY what you’re doing; you’re pushing for a speed limit based on the actions of a handful of bonehead boaters (well, perhaps more than a handful)!!!


With apologies to Martin Niemoller for taking liberties with his quote:

"First they came for the Performance Boaters but I was not a Performance Boater so I did not speak out;
Then they came for the Cabin Cruisers but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out;
Then they came for the Bass Boaters but I was not a fisherman so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

Last edited by Wolfeboro_Baja; 08-14-2008 at 12:57 PM. Reason: Added the last paragraph
Wolfeboro_Baja is offline  
Old 08-14-2008, 01:45 PM   #339
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,495
Thanks: 931
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Default

Since the subforum has nearly outlived its main benefit (keeping the word speed out of the rest of the topics), its time was running out anyway: there are only two topics in the sub-forum remaining unlocked.

I thought I'd enter the debate now only to show my most overlooked argument here—and the last image I'd sent to the Governor's website while he sought comments.

The below message, sent just prior to the Diamond Island incident, had an unintended, but favorable consequence for proponents of the measure:
Attached Images
 
__________________
.Sailing—Good for you and good for the world...

...and you won't stink...
ApS is offline  
Old 08-14-2008, 02:46 PM   #340
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post
It took this long, After the speed limit was placed into law, for people to cut to the chase and give some real views. Evenstar said the years ago, which is what many opponents of the bill stated.
I wrote that before I had kayaked on winni. After paddling out on the lake a few times and nearly being run over by high-speed boaters, I saw why a speed limit was also needed. I still belive that lack of enforcement of current boating laws is still a major issue. I believe that both are equally important.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja View Post
No, it’s based on the fact that a handful of people want to rid the lake of performance boats!! If it was based on common sense, there wouldn’t BE a speed limit. BUT, not everyone uses common sense, and, as we all know, YOU CAN’T LEGISLATE COMMON SENSE! If people are that fearful, perhaps they don’t belong on the lake.
No, that is just your opinion – it is not a fact. As I’ve stated several times on this forum, if all boaters had enough common sense, we would not need a speed limit – or many other laws. It is not common sense to travel at speeds that are beyond your ability to see other boaters in time to remain outside of their 150 foot zone – but it happens all the time. You can legislate a maximum lake speed that is safer for everyone on the lake – and that’s what this law does.

Quote:
So, first, it’ll be the performance boats to disappear, then it’ll be the cabin cruisers, then the bass boats and finally, it’ll be anyone who doesn’t own shorefront property. Then the property owners will have their lake to themselves, kind of like what’s happened to Squam Lake.
There are bass boats on Squam – in fact (as I have already posted) they held their final NH competition on Squam a few years ago. The state is the one responsible for the limited access on Squam – and this is a problem on many NH lakes. The state owned public across from the Science Center in Holderness was actually donated to the state by the Squam Lake Association – and became the first public access on the lake.

Quote:
You claim you have the right to kayak ANYWHERE on the lake yet you fear being run over by a powerboat so you push for a speed limit to “make the lake safer”. At what point does your right to kayak anywhere interfere with my rights to enjoy my powerboat at speed?!?
NH law guarantees me that right – it is not something that I just claim. You can still use the entire lake – you just won’t be able to legally exceed the speed limit. There is no law the gives you the “right” to travel on NH lakes at unlimited speeds.

Quote:
Bicycles are not allowed on the interstate highways for a reason; they’re a slow-moving vehicle in close proximity to fast-moving vehicles. This is the same as a kayak or canoe in a wide open area on the main lake where powerboats could be travelling at higher speeds. Instead of a speed limit, maybe it’s time slow-moving watercraft were restricted from certain parts of the main lake (like bicycles from the interstate)!!
Lakes are not part of a high-speed transportation network. The main lake is not a private race area for high-performance power boats - it is for everyone to use – and it would be wrong to divide the lake up into sections for different types of boats – and a nightmare for the MP to enforce. You are also forgetting that paddlers were actually here first. There is no good reason for me not to be able to use my sea kayak on the entire lake – other than the fact that a few powerboaters feel that their “right” to travel at unlimited speeds is more important that the rights of others to use the main lake.

Quote:
I have no problem with people pursuing an activity they enjoy so long as they are willing to accept the risks associated with it. It annoys me when someone wants to do something but they don’t want to accept the risks involved with that activity (fearing something will happen to them) so they lobby for a law in an attempt to make it safer for them. Afraid the parachute won’t open? DON’T GO PARACHUTING!!! Are you a kayaker that fears being run over by a powerboat (ANY powerboat)?? Then don't go in areas frequented by powerboats!
I accept the risks involved with kayaking on large lakes – but that does not mean that I have to just sit back and let a few high-speed powerboaters make the lake unsafe for paddlers – because of their selfish needs of traveling at unsafe speeds.

Quote:
You are putting assumptions upon your statement. The FACT is that no one has taken you up on your challenge. The reasons are not yours to assume or postulate without proof. . . . If I did happen to kayak, I’d be more than happy to go with you but I’m sure I wouldn’t be able to keep up with you since we all know how fit and healthy you are and I’m not. Besides, I thought the whole idea behind the “challenge” was to see who had the cojones to go out kayaking with you, not who was stronger and faster!
I made my kayak-with-me challenge because there were way too many people on this forum stating that my fears were unfounded – or were greatly exaggerated – when they had never even paddled on the main lake. If members of the opposition were as open-minded as they claim to be, someone would have been willing to actually try paddling with me. When did I ever say that I would not wait for a slower paddler? Despite what many here may think of me, I’m actually a very nice person and would never invite someone to kayak with me and then just speed off ahead of them. I would NEVER get very far away from an inexperienced kayaker, in case they were in need of my help.

Quote:
And finally, if YOU have so much courage, why push for a speed limit? Just go out kayaking and get your thrills. If you love kayaking in open water where there’s a possibility of you being run over by a powerboat (like in The Broads), THAT’S the risk YOU have to assume!!
I can (and do) get all sorts of thrills without putting my life in danger. I broke my leg last semester on the sailing team (my captain creamed me – totally by mistake) – and I’m returning to the sailing team this semester – so I’m very used to taking risks. NCAA athletes have to sign all sorts of release forms – stating that we accept the physical risks of participating in our sports. But I should not have to accept being put in danger (of being killed) – just because a few powerboaters don’t have the sense to travel at reasonable speeds – THAT is NOT a risk I should have to accept.

Quote:
I didn’t know laws were also being voted on based on FEAR. That's not what this country was built on.
This law is based on a safety issue (even if the opponents refuse to admit it) – and there are tons of laws that are based on safety issues.
I have spoken out mostly because I saw how paddlers were effectively being forced from paddling on the main lake – just because of the actions of a small percentage of powerboaters. Yet you and many other powerboaters who claim that the speed lime will force GFBL off the lake don’t seem to have any trouble with paddlers being forced off the main lake.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 08-14-2008, 03:25 PM   #341
twoplustwo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 456
Thanks: 51
Thanked 39 Times in 21 Posts
Default my last comment...

...out of respect for the webmaster, and my agreement that this should be shut down.

The state is the one responsible for the limited access on Squam – and this is a problem on many NH lakes. The state owned public across from the Science Center in Holderness was actually donated to the state by the Squam Lake Association – and became the first public access on the lake.

Nice spin doctoring, but an enormous pile of hooey. The SLA took credit for helping to broker the donation of less than a half acre of land, a boat ramp, four boat slips, and a beat up old boathouse for the public launch. They did not donate it, some of their members did, and only as a last resort. The SLA and wealthy Squam owners were responsible from day one for every attempt to limit access to Squam, and only threats by the state to take property by eminent domain to force public access caused the pittance of access now referred to as the public boat launch on Squam. When the State attempted to purchase a 6 acre parcel on Squam for a launch, the money men hopped in and snatched it up without a thought to the extra 50 grand they threw over the state's offer. Eminent domain caused the donation to which you refer, and it was not donated by the SLA.
twoplustwo is offline  
Old 08-14-2008, 05:55 PM   #342
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 My last word on this

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
No, that is just your opinion – it is not a fact. As I’ve stated several times on this forum, if all boaters had enough common sense, we would not need a speed limit – or many other laws. It is not common sense to travel at speeds that are beyond your ability to see other boaters in time to remain outside of their 150 foot zone – but it happens all the time. You can legislate a maximum lake speed that is safer for everyone on the lake – and that’s what this law does.
Just like your opinions (like the one where we need a speed limit to make the lake safer) are not facts. Actually, BI has made no bones about the "fact" that his reason for a speed limit is to limit, reduce or eliminate performance boats on the lake. I'm sure there are several others with similar thinking so don't tell me it's "just my opinion". As for my vision, it's fine. I do not drive "faster than my ability to see" because my ability to see doesn't change with the speed I'm travelling at. I can see a kayaker 1/4 mile away, whether I'm doing 45mph or 65mph! And if I'm travelling at 65mph, I'm looking far ahead to make sure there is no one in my path that would put them or me in any danger.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
There are bass boats on Squam – in fact (as I have already posted) they held their final NH competition on Squam a few years ago. The state is the one responsible for the limited access on Squam – and this is a problem on many NH lakes. The state owned public across from the Science Center in Holderness was actually donated to the state by the Squam Lake Association – and became the first public access on the lake.
Reference twoplustwo's post above.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
NH law guarantees me that right – it is not something that I just claim. You can still use the entire lake – you just won’t be able to legally exceed the speed limit. There is no law the gives you the “right” to travel on NH lakes at unlimited speeds.
You're right; poor choice of words on my part. You absolutely have the right to paddle on the lake but you need to accept the risks involved with paddling on a lake frequented by powerboats of all types because WE have a right to be there as well. And, up until the speed limit law takes effect, it IS AND HAS BEEN our right to travel at unlimited speeds on the lake. This has been perfectly legal, and on a quiet day mid-week when traffic is light and not congested, there is no problem.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Lakes are not part of a high-speed transportation network. The main lake is not a private race area for high-performance power boats -
I never said it was.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
- it is for everyone to use – and it would be wrong to divide the lake up into sections for different types of boats – and a nightmare for the MP to enforce.
Agreed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
You are also forgetting that paddlers were actually here first. There is no good reason for me not to be able to use my sea kayak on the entire lake – other than the fact that a few powerboaters feel that their “right” to travel at unlimited speeds is more important that the rights of others to use the main lake.
Don't start with the "we-were-here-first" crap because that just sounds like you're whining. You make it sound like there are 100-plus performance boats constantly criss-crossing the lake at speeds of 55mph and higher. You and I both know that's not true. No one has ever said a kayaker or canoer can't use the lake but if you're going to venture into high-traffic (or higher-speed) areas, you have to accept that risk.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
I accept the risks involved with kayaking on large lakes – but that does not mean that I have to just sit back and let a few high-speed powerboaters make the lake unsafe for paddlers – because of their selfish needs of traveling at unsafe speeds.
It's only unsafe when someone knowingly puts themselves in harm's way. If they choose to do that, then they must accept the risk associated with it. I refer you to Alton Bay Bob's comment regarding kayaking on the lake, "As neither an opponent (n)or proponent of speed limits and a fair paddler, I would never take you up on your offer to paddle the main lake either this year..with no speed limit ...or next year when there is a speed limit during a time when there was a lot of boat traffic. It would not make sense to me. I would not feel safe with boats "100 mph" this year or 44 mph next year.i would still feel the danger.. I'll paddle when it's quiet." Sounds like simple common sense to me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
When did I ever say that I would not wait for a slower paddler? Despite what many here may think of me, I’m actually a very nice person and would never invite someone to kayak with me and then just speed off ahead of them. I would NEVER get very far away from an inexperienced kayaker, in case they were in need of my help.
I never said you did but the tone of your posts (on this particular point) always seems to me like you're boasting of your abilities (you started out making an "offer" but it quickly became a "challenge"). Did it ever occur to you that maybe no one took you up on the offer simply because no one wants to go kayaking (with you or anyone else for that matter)?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
But I should not have to accept being put in danger (of being killed) – just because a few powerboaters don’t have the sense to travel at reasonable speeds – THAT is NOT a risk I should have to accept.
What's reasonable (read "safe") to you is not always reasonable to me. I enjoy going fast and WHEN THE CONDITIONS ARE RIGHT, there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to do that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
This law is based on a safety issue (even if the opponents refuse to admit it) – and there are tons of laws that are based on safety issues.
It's a law based on an unfounded need. If it were based on safety, they would have gone further and provided more funding for the MP (so they could better enforce the existing laws) and maybe even toughened up the boating certificate requirement. Boating certificate.......it should be part of your driver's license, like licensing for motorcycles, cars, commercial vehicles, etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Yet you and many other powerboaters who claim that the speed lime will force GFBL off the lake don’t seem to have any trouble with paddlers being forced off the main lake.
There is no law forcing paddlers off the lake and I'm not trying to force them off the lake. I just want them to use common sense before going paddling in an area that they fear! If they fear it, they shouldn't go paddling there. There's approximately 71 square miles of lake; don't tell me there's no where else for them to paddle.


You can have the last word if you want but I'm finished arguing this issue. We both know where the other stands and we both know we will not change each others' mind. Bottom line is, we must agree to disagree.
Wolfeboro_Baja is offline  
Old 08-14-2008, 08:54 PM   #343
Audiofn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bedford, MA/Naples, ME
Posts: 162
Thanks: 3
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Evenstar: I have also raced sailboats, anything from Lasers to the most high performance boats out there such as Melges, and International 14's back when they were cool. I have been in more collisions in them then my power boat. Again it has NOTHING to do with speed and everything to do with the person behind the wheel. More accidents happend at slow speeds then high ones, FACT. You will be no safer after the speed limit then you are now. In fact since the proponents of the speed limit say that there are so many people that are afraid of the lake now, after the speed limit the lake will have even more boats on it. This will make the lake even more unsafe as it will be even more overcrowded.......
Audiofn is offline  
Old 08-14-2008, 10:29 PM   #344
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by twoplustwo View Post
Nice spin doctoring, but an enormous pile of hooey. Eminent domain caused the donation to which you refer, and it was not donated by the SLA.
My "spin" came directly from NH Public Radio Transcripts - From August 14, 2001 broadcast:
“In the mid 90’s, when the private landowner decided it was time to sell the ramp, the association bought it, made some repairs, and invited the public to use it. Meanwhile, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department continued to look for an access point that it could own, in order to fulfill a state law that says it must. At one point, Fish and Game appeared to have found a spot. But neighbors objected, and when the state was slow to buy the land, the neighbors bought it first. The attending bad publicity helped convince John Thompson to get the lakes association involved."

"The Squam Lakes Association had offered its boat ramp to the state before, but the state rejected it, citing safety concerns, including a lack of public parking. Then the office of state planning took another look at the site. It brought in the department of transportation and other interested parties. Plans were drawn up to redesign the site to include two ramps, a dock, and parking for 26-vehicles. Finally, fish and game accepted the lake association’s offer to donate its ramp."

"For Richard Tichko, project leader for Fish and Game’s statewide access program, the dedication of a publicly owned ramp on Squam is a crowning achievement.”
http://www.nhpr.org/node/1408

Back in 1999 HB-599 was introduced. This bill was for the “Acquisition of Sites for Public Access to Squam Lake. The fish and game department shall acquire no less than 4 sites, by eminent domain if necessary, to provide year-round public access to Squam Lake.” This bill still hasn’t made it out of the House committee. http://gencourt.state.nh.us/SofS_Arc...use/HB539H.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja View Post
Just like your opinions (like the one where we need a speed limit to make the lake safer) are not facts.
It is indeed a fact that, with all else being equal, slower speeds are always safer than faster speeds. You can argue all you want, but this is a known fact.

I never said that everyone who exceeds 45 mph are traveling beyond their ability to see smaller boats in time – but it has been my experience that many are traveling at speeds that are faster than their abilities.

You still haven’t showed me where NH law gives you the “right” to travel at unlimited speeds on any lake in NH. Show me the RSA that states that this is a right the state grants power boaters, and then I’ll believe you. The absence of a speed limit does not permit you the right to travel at speeds that are dangerous to other boaters.

Quote:
I never said it was.
Excused me! But you compared bicycles on the Interstate to kayaks on the main lake. Unlike the Interstate, the main lake is not exclusively for high speed travel – but for use of boats are all speeds – including not moving at all.

Quote:
Don't start with the "we-were-here-first" crap because that just sounds like you're whining.
Yet you seem to have the attitude that those with the most horsepower should be able to travel at unlimited speeds, no matter how this negatively affects other boats on the lake. The fact remains that we WERE here first and we have the least negative impact on the lake and on people using the lake.

Quote:
No one has ever said a kayaker or canoer can't use the lake but if you're going to venture into high-traffic (or higher-speed) areas, you have to accept that risk.
I have been nearly run over on the shore side of an island, because a high-speed boater didn’t stop to consider that a boat might be on the other side of the island when he took his boat into the area at high speed.

I have been nearly run over at the end of Center Harbor, roughly 200 feet off the shore, when a high speed boater was not paying enough attention to see our two kayaks.

I have been nearly run over by a boat traveling at high-speed within less than 15 minutes of launching my kayak on Winni.

ALL the above have happened on weekdays when visibility was excellent and boating traffic was low. So stop trying to put all the blame on paddlers and stop trying to tell me that this is just a normal risk that anyone who wants to paddle on the lake should just accept – because that is not only untrue, but NH law states that “it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses.” According to NH law, I have the right to kayak on the lake without putting my life at risk by the high speeds of powerboaters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiofn View Post
Evenstar: I have also raced sailboats, anything from Lasers to the most high performance boats out there such as Melges, and International 14's back when they were cool. I have been in more collisions in them then my power boat.
Then you are also aware that sailboats race within inches of each other, so of course there are going to be some collisions – but that is when you’re racing.

But I have never come remotely close of having a sailboat run over me in my sea kayak. Yet I have had many close calls on winni with power boats that were traveling at high speeds. I have never had a powerboat on Squam unintentionally violate my 150 foot zone – mostly because Squam has a 40 mph daytime speed limit. So, it has been my own personal experience that SPEED has EVERYTHING to do with it.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 08-14-2008, 11:01 PM   #345
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Then you are also aware that sailboats race within inches of each other, so of course there are going to be some collisions – but that is when you’re racing.

But I have never come remotely close of having a sailboat run over me in my sea kayak.
Obviously, you have never ventured into the Broads during a sailboat race...

Since this sub-Forum is about to be closed, it would be apposite to bid you farewell, since your agenda precluded your posting in the regular sections of this website.
__________________
[Assume funny, clever sig is here. Laugh and reflect... ]
GWC... is offline  
Old 08-15-2008, 08:34 AM   #346
alsadad
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 43
Thanks: 6
Thanked 40 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Evenstar: You still haven’t showed me where NH law gives you the “right” to travel at unlimited speeds on any lake in NH.

Actually, in the absence of a law restricting speed, and since, as BI has pointed out, there is no reasonable and prudent standard in place, as of today I'm not sure the law places any restriction on the right of a boater to travel at any speed, other than NWZs, safe passage, etc. If it did we wouldn't be having this debate.

RSA 270:1:II has been cited frequently as supporting the contention that a speed limit is needed on the lake. But it strikes me that this could be a two-edged sword. The RSA does not state that every body of water must support every possible use, but rather that the state's public waters, in total, should be regulated so as to "provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses." It seems to me that in theory, without getting to the political considerations, the appropriate officials could decide that kayaks, for example, have no place on Winnipesaukee, or at least on certain parts of the lake, just as they have decided that PWCs do not belong on certain bodies of water and that powerboats above a certain horsepower do not belong on other bodies of water. They could decide that if kayaking on the big lake is so bloody dangerous, then perhaps that activity should be prohibited or restricted, and in the interest of promoting the goals espoused in the RSA, designate some other place for safe kayaking. I guess I'm just saying file this under be careful what you ask for.
alsadad is offline  
Old 08-15-2008, 08:35 AM   #347
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 1,250
Thanked 1,375 Times in 688 Posts
Default

People- Have you been paying attention to Don at all. He is tired (that is how I read it anyway) of this foolish bickering on this sub forum; bickering that is starting to pervade other threads and forums on this site. At some point one of you has to be the bigger person and stop responding and trying to get the last word in.

Can't we all just get along! It is over- there were no winners. However, if we are not careful we will lose this fabulous forum.

Have a good day,

John

Last edited by VitaBene; 08-17-2008 at 02:25 AM.
VitaBene is offline  
Old 08-15-2008, 06:27 PM   #348
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWC... View Post
Obviously, you have never ventured into the Broads during a sailboat race...
I race sailboats . . . I'm not about to kayak through the middle of a sailboat race.

Quote:
Since this sub-Forum is about to be closed, it would be apposite to bid you farewell, since your agenda precluded your posting in the regular sections of this website.
My "agenda" is about kayaking on lakes in the Lakes Region. What is your agenda?

My first two posts were in the Site Support Forum and I have made numerous posts in the Boating Forum and In the General Discussion Forum - so please stop with the false accusations. Yes I have mostly posted in the Speed Limit Forum, but if you check, you'll also notice that over 90% of my posts are direct replies to comments or questions that were made to me directly. If you don't want me posting as much, stop directing comments at me.

Your post is the sort of stuff that has ruined this forum.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by alsadad View Post
Actually, in the absence of a law restricting speed, and since, as BI has pointed out, there is no reasonable and prudent standard in place, as of today I'm not sure the law places any restriction on the right of a boater to travel at any speed, other than NWZs, safe passage, etc. If it did we wouldn't be having this debate.
You neglected the other half of my statement: "The absence of a speed limit does not permit you the right to travel at speeds that are dangerous to other boaters." My reply to Wolfeboro_Baja was that powerboaters do not have the right to put kayaks at risk anywhere on the lake - including the main lake.

Quote:
. . the appropriate officials could decide that kayaks, for example, have no place on Winnipesaukee, or at least on certain parts of the lake, just as they have decided that PWCs do not belong on certain bodies of water and that powerboats above a certain horsepower do not belong on other bodies of water. They could decide that if kayaking on the big lake is so bloody dangerous, then perhaps that activity should be prohibited or restricted, and in the interest of promoting the goals espoused in the RSA, designate some other place for safe kayaking. I guess I'm just saying file this under be careful what you ask for.
They would have to have a really good reason to limit paddlers on any lake, since no boaters have less of a negative impact on a lake and on people using a lake. To ban paddlers from using part of winni, just so a few high performance boaters can travel at unlimited speeds is not a good reason. Such a prohibition would never make it pass a public hearing. And public support for paddlers is increasing, as the number of NH residents who take up paddling is currently increasing each year.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 08-16-2008, 09:01 AM   #349
Islander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaBene View Post
People- Have you been paying attention to Don at all. He is tired (that is how I read it anyway) of this foolish bickering on this sub forum; bickering that is starting to pervade other threads and forums on this site. At some point one of you has to be the bigger person and stop responding AFN trying to get the last word in.

Can't we all just get along! It is over- there were no winners. However, if we are not careful we will lose this fabulous forum.

Have a good day,

John
John

What do you mean by "there were no winners"!!!

Talk about trying to get the last word! If you want to stop the controversy then don't post controversial lies!

Bear Island won, WINNFABS won, Lake Winnipesaukee won, Sandy won, common sense won, 99% of the boaters on the lake won, I won!

There are lots of winners.
Islander is offline  
Old 08-16-2008, 09:24 AM   #350
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,813
Thanks: 2,326
Thanked 849 Times in 591 Posts
Thumbs up No winners

The law is not an absolute law. It is arbitrary with 45/25 being a guide line. It is more of a reasonable and prudent law. And it is over in 2 years.

Having said that, The proponents didn't win because they want a permanent absolute law. The opponents didn't win because there is a guide line to their speeding. The lakefront property owners didn't win because of the erosion problem of large wakes due to 25 at night.

But overall, everyone wins as there is a reasonable and prudent law in place. I would like to see that law in place permanently. It will be an effective tool for enforcing safety on the lake. Along with the 150' rule.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 08-16-2008, 10:59 AM   #351
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
To ban paddlers from using part of winni, just so a few high performance boaters can travel at unlimited speeds is not a good reason.

Sounds reasonable enough to me
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos
Cal is offline  
Old 08-16-2008, 11:22 AM   #352
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
The law is not an absolute law. It is arbitrary with 45/25 being a guide line. It is more of a reasonable and prudent law. And it is over in 2 years.
The 45/25 lake speed limit is no more of a guideline than NH highway speed limits are a guide line. The exact same legal language is used in both.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 08-16-2008, 12:49 PM   #353
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
My "agenda" is about kayaking on lakes in the Lakes Region. What is your agenda?

My first two posts were in the Site Support Forum and I have made numerous posts in the Boating Forum and In the General Discussion Forum - so please stop with the false accusations.
You started two threads: one in the Site Support Forum section and the other in the Speed Limit section.

Your first post, in the Site Support Forum section, was 04-02-2005, 12:03 PM

Your first Speed Limit post was 04-04-2005, 09:01 AM

You posted thirteen times, between then and 04-05-2005, 11:26 PM, to that thread.

How many times have you posted to threads relating to kayaks, especially threads seeking advice, since your first post on this Forum? Almost three and a half years of posting and fewer times than you posted to a Speed Limit thread between 04-04-2005, 09:01 AM and 04-05-2005, 11:26 PM.

The evidence speaks for itself…
__________________
[Assume funny, clever sig is here. Laugh and reflect... ]
GWC... is offline  
Old 08-16-2008, 06:12 PM   #354
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Time to hold a wake...

Speaking of which, a prelude to the next line in the sand...

Name:  aaaaBig_toy_Waterskiiing.jpg
Views: 305
Size:  19.8 KB
__________________
[Assume funny, clever sig is here. Laugh and reflect... ]
GWC... is offline  
Old 08-17-2008, 12:25 AM   #355
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWC... View Post
Your first post, in the Site Support Forum section, was 04-02-2005, 12:03 PM. Your first Speed Limit post was 04-04-2005, 09:01 AM.
You posted thirteen times, between then and 04-05-2005, 11:26 PM, to that thread.
And nearly every single post that I made were to reply to posts that were directed at me. You see, you guys have this little game that you play with anyone new who posts in favor of a lake speed limit: you bombard them with replies, hoping that when they try to respond to everyone, that they will be banned for flooding; or that they will just give up, due to all the hostility. This is a pretty crummy way to treat a new member - yet I've witnessed it happen too many times here.

And the truth is that I posted in the Boating Forum on 04-04-2005, and nearly all my early posts were also in the Boating Forum since there was no Speed Limit Forum back then.

Quote:
How many times have you posted to threads relating to kayaks, especially threads seeking advice, since your first post on this Forum?
Many of my posts are specifically related to kayaks. In fact, I probably have posted more information about kayaks than any member here.

The truth is that there are very few threads about kayaks. I could only find 6 threads in the Boating Forum that had the word “kayak” in the title:
Kayaking on Lake Winnipesaukee – which I posted in
Kayak Launch Sites – which I posted in
Jet Kayak boats
Kayak Cut in Half in Meredith – which I posted in
Smith River Canoe and Kayak Race
Kayak Racing

Other than Most of the advice given on this forum by the powerboaters is that kayaks don’t belong on the main lake. So it's no wonder that there aren't more kayak threads here.

Yes, the evidence does speaks for itself.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 08-17-2008, 01:56 AM   #356
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 1,250
Thanked 1,375 Times in 688 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander View Post
John

What do you mean by "there were no winners"!!!

Talk about trying to get the last word! If you want to stop the controversy then don't post controversial lies!

Bear Island won, WINNFABS won, Lake Winnipesaukee won, Sandy won, common sense won, 99% of the boaters on the lake won, I won!

There are lots of winners.
Islander,

Please- do not call me a liar- I have never posted a lie on this site and never will. Do not say things from your couch what you would not say to me or anyone else in person. In this case I take your comment very personally. The purpose of my post that you took issue with was to extend an olive branch to both sides of this issue- but obviously you did not get that.

Setting your personal attack aside- as I and others have said on this forum, this lake will change little based on a speed limit being imposed. I took a ride around the lake on my motorcycle today and stopped in the Weirs to see the progress on the repair work and to watch the traffic coming out of the Weirs channel. Guess what- I did not see a single boat exceeding what will be the new speed limit, though I did see one near T-boning due to a failure of a "boater" (the quotations are added to acknowledge that owning a boat does not in my eyes make one a boater) to understand the concept of stand on and give way as well as numerous violations of the 150' rule. I was there for a grand total of 10 minutes. It was a madhouse and will be after the speed limit goes into effect.

Do you think this new law will be enforced more stringently than the 150' rule? Do you think that the performance boats will disappear and Winnipesaukee will become Squam lake? If so, I heard there is a bridge for sale somewhere in NY that you may want to check out.

Sorry Don for getting pulled back into this debate but I could not let this one slide.
VitaBene is offline  
Old 08-17-2008, 08:25 AM   #357
Webbsatwinni
Senior Member
 
Webbsatwinni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lebanon Ct and Rattlesnake Island Since 2007
Posts: 610
Thanks: 180
Thanked 137 Times in 72 Posts
Default

I have not posted on the speed limit debate (mostly because I do not have the knowledge to speak intelligently about it) but have watched the back and forth. That said, I am on my deck drinking my morning coffee and I am glad to see a few GFBL boats that have not heard about the law or do not care, either way, I love to watch them go by in the morning and will be sad to see that part of the Winnipesaukee experience go away.

Just my two cents,

On a side note, my wife is happy saving all of the money I was dreaming of spending on a GFBL.
Webbsatwinni is offline  
Old 08-17-2008, 11:11 AM   #358
Audiofn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bedford, MA/Naples, ME
Posts: 162
Thanks: 3
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

I was sitting on my dock this AM and along comes a pontoon boat wide open in the no wake zone not 15 feet from my dock. The last time a speed boat did that was...... never. Unfortunately I think that this law while for some was good intentioned and others had obvious alterior motives and others like BI made not quams about the issue and why they wanted the law past (at leate they were honest!! ) I just don't see this making anyone feel safer out there on the lake. I think that it is sad that while this law will likely do nothing to improve peoples feelings of safty on the lake it will get reintroduced and passed again. I really hope that people do feel safer but honestly I think that this will not help one bit. We still need more funding, we still need more education, we still need people to want to abide by the rules. Untill then nothing is really going to change.
Audiofn is offline  
Closed Thread

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 01:38 PM.


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

This page was generated in 0.24912 seconds