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 04-11-2011, 10:59 PM   #201
Winndow
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
Default Dept of Safety- 2 steps ahead of us-

The Marine Patrol just testified to a bill in the Senate. HB 0548: Minimum Age for Operation. Amend RSA 270:30, I to read as follows:

I. Except as provided in this paragraph, no person under 16 years of age shall operate a motorized vessel [having power in excess of 25 horsepower] on the public waters of this state unless the person is accompanied by a person 18 years of age or older who has a valid safe boater education certificate, and such person shall be liable for personal injury or property damage which may result from such operation. Any person 12 to 15 years of age with a safe boater education certificate may operate a vessel having power of 25 horsepower or less without an adult.

2 Safe Boater Education; Certificate Required. RSA 270-D:10, I is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

I. No person shall operate a motorized vessel on the public waters of this state without first obtaining a safe boater education certificate.

3 Possession Required. Amend RSA 270-D:11, I(a) to read as follows:

(a) Possess the certificate when operating a motorized vessel [with any type of power motor in excess of 25 horsepower] on the public waters of the state.

4 Safe Boater Education Certificate. Amend the introductory paragraph of RSA 270-D:13, I to read as follows:

I. The commissioner or designee shall issue a safe boater education certificate to a person [16] 12 years of age or older who:

5 Repeal. The following are repealed:

I. RSA 270-D:13, IV, relative to attendance by 15-year-olds.

II. RSA 270-D:19, relative to voluntary attendance.

6 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2012.


This would require all people operating a powerboat to take a boating course. (Currently a 3 year old can drive a 25 hp boat!) It also limits the age for operation for 12-15 yr olds to 25 hp. No one younger could operate.

This bill passed the house but met serious resistence in the Senate at the committee level because several dealers spoke in opposition. Who??
You guessed it...Jeff Thurston, Merrill Fay, Shep Browns (Littlefield), One of the Crawfords from Winnisquam Marine, and others. They cry for safety and speed limits but they argued that financially this bill hurts them because people walk away from rentals when they realize they have to take a 1/2 test! Wiinisquam Marine has a fleet of 25 hp boats just so they can avoid the law.

I was sitting in on the hearing requiring 70 yr olds to take a driving test and this was the hearing before ours. I was shocked when these dealers spoke in opposition. I figured they were going to support. $$$ talks!
Winndow is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Winndow For This Useful Post:
lawn psycho (04-12-2011), ronc4424 (04-12-2011), Seaplane Pilot (04-12-2011)
Old 04-12-2011, 08:27 AM   #202
lawn psycho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts
Default

I hope someone writes an editorial in the local papers to point out the hypocrisy.

Any dealer who supports the SL won't see $0.01 of my money.
lawn psycho is offline  
Old 04-12-2011, 08:55 AM   #203
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,434
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
If John Steven were the governor, then this 55-mph increase would have a much better chance. With Governor Lynch, it's seems very likely that he will use his veto stamp and slap a fast veto on the bill if it passes the house.

Will it even pass the House? Nobody knows until the vote is held, but most likely there's plenty state reps who are keen to the governor's veto and will not care enough about the increase to 55 to be on the losing side when it will most likely get a veto, anyway. Probably, a number of undecided state reps will be no-shows on the day of the vote and essentially be punting on this issue.
Yes, well how about that and isn't that interesting......gee whiz......no kidding!
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 04-12-2011, 10:47 AM   #204
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawn psycho View Post
I hope someone writes an editorial in the local papers to point out the hypocrisy.

Any dealer who supports the SL won't see $0.01 of my money.
Better yet, why don't you just boycott the whole state of NH.
I'm sure Maine has plenty of places that you can boat.
Rusty is offline  
Old 04-12-2011, 11:48 AM   #205
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,614
Thanks: 52
Thanked 712 Times in 292 Posts
Default

The hypocrisy is truley amazing, but as my grandfather used to say... follow the money!

The marinas dont want to lose a customer with $$$ on the table because he/she doesnt have a safe boating certificate... So any attempt to change the rules that make renting a boat a safer experience for ALL by requiring a boating certificate is going to be met with strong resistance!

Almost all of the marinas rent boats... and boat rentals equal $$$! Now while Shep's has wisely stayed out of the speed limit debate, realizing that a customer is a customer regardless of what their type of boat is... others like Thurston's (who lost the Cobalt dealership) and Fay's decided to step right in....

Thier logic?? Less speedboats = more rentals! Its actually pretty simple but obviously flawed logic. No data to support thier claims of a safer lake, and certianly no measurable rise in rental business because of the speed limit. In fact no doubt the rental business and gas sales have been off because of the economy.

I think that ANY business that takes a stance on a political issue such as this where they choose one type of customer over another is extremely shortsighted... why lose any business? I for one no longer have my bi-annual family dinner at the C-man restaurants... it wasnt much, a $700 bill for the night for the 12 of us or so.... but its still money they dont get. I try to avoid any C-Man restaurant.

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Woodsy For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (04-13-2011), Seaplane Pilot (04-13-2011)
Sponsored Links
Old 04-12-2011, 01:14 PM   #206
lawn psycho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
Better yet, why don't you just boycott the whole state of NH.
I'm sure Maine has plenty of places that you can boat.
I bet the marina (aka a lakes region business) who just got my check for the boating season would not be agreeing with you
lawn psycho is offline  
Old 04-12-2011, 05:39 PM   #207
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawn psycho View Post
I bet the marina (aka a lakes region business) who just got my check for the boating season would not be agreeing with you
I'm sure he wouldn't.

Have a good time boating this summer. Try to forget about the SL while your here.
I hope the weather is good for you!
Rusty is offline  
Old 04-12-2011, 06:08 PM   #208
lawn psycho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
I'm sure he wouldn't.

Have a good time boating this summer. Try to forget about the SL while your here.
I hope the weather is good for you!
Since my boat can barely do 50MPH I don't have many worries about the SL. I just may be the only boater out there with a radar detector though. I'm curious to see what the signals I pick-up on the water.

The cops could be real sneaky and clock people on the water as they approach a bay and then ticket them when the land at the dock. Just sayin'

I can't forget about the no-rafting areas though
lawn psycho is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 09:22 AM   #209
Chimi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 78
Thanks: 41
Thanked 35 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winndow View Post
The Marine Patrol just testified to a bill in the Senate. HB 0548: Minimum Age for Operation. Amend RSA 270:30, I to read as follows:

I. Except as provided in this paragraph, no person under 16 years of age shall operate a motorized vessel [having power in excess of 25 horsepower] on the public waters of this state unless the person is accompanied by a person 18 years of age or older who has a valid safe boater education certificate, and such person shall be liable for personal injury or property damage which may result from such operation. Any person 12 to 15 years of age with a safe boater education certificate may operate a vessel having power of 25 horsepower or less without an adult.

2 Safe Boater Education; Certificate Required. RSA 270-D:10, I is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

I. No person shall operate a motorized vessel on the public waters of this state without first obtaining a safe boater education certificate.

3 Possession Required. Amend RSA 270-D:11, I(a) to read as follows:

(a) Possess the certificate when operating a motorized vessel [with any type of power motor in excess of 25 horsepower] on the public waters of the state.

4 Safe Boater Education Certificate. Amend the introductory paragraph of RSA 270-D:13, I to read as follows:

I. The commissioner or designee shall issue a safe boater education certificate to a person [16] 12 years of age or older who:

5 Repeal. The following are repealed:

I. RSA 270-D:13, IV, relative to attendance by 15-year-olds.

II. RSA 270-D:19, relative to voluntary attendance.

6 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2012.


This would require all people operating a powerboat to take a boating course. (Currently a 3 year old can drive a 25 hp boat!) It also limits the age for operation for 12-15 yr olds to 25 hp. No one younger could operate.

This bill passed the house but met serious resistence in the Senate at the committee level because several dealers spoke in opposition. Who??
You guessed it...Jeff Thurston, Merrill Fay, Shep Browns (Littlefield), One of the Crawfords from Winnisquam Marine, and others. They cry for safety and speed limits but they argued that financially this bill hurts them because people walk away from rentals when they realize they have to take a 1/2 test! Wiinisquam Marine has a fleet of 25 hp boats just so they can avoid the law.

I was sitting in on the hearing requiring 70 yr olds to take a driving test and this was the hearing before ours. I was shocked when these dealers spoke in opposition. I figured they were going to support. $$$ talks!
Where does WINNFABS stand on this issue? They should be in full support.
Chimi is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 10:37 AM   #210
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 Chimi View Post
Where does WINNFABS stand on this issue? They should be in full support.
WinnFABS only exists for one purpose, Speed Limits. Since this legislation does not seem to impact speed limits, I assume WinnFABS takes no stand on this legislation.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 11:10 AM   #211
Chimi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 78
Thanks: 41
Thanked 35 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Then why is WINNFABS taking a stand in favor of a no-wake zone at the Barber's Pole?
Chimi is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 12:34 PM   #212
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,763
Thanks: 225
Thanked 627 Times in 367 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimi View Post
Then why is WINNFABS taking a stand in favor of a no-wake zone at the Barber's Pole?
No wake is a speed limit.
Dave R is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 01:04 PM   #213
Chimi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 78
Thanks: 41
Thanked 35 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R View Post
No wake is a speed limit.
OK. Then why do they want speed limits? From their website: "To make the lake safer WinnFABS was formed by a group of citizens who love Lake Winnipesaukee and who want to ensure safe family boating and preserve the beauty and serenity of the lake for present and future generations". Well, in my opinion, it sure would make the lake safer if anyone renting a boat (over 25hp) was required to have a full boater's education certificate. I cannot believe that WINNFABS would not support this "in the name of safety".
Chimi is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 01:08 PM   #214
Chimi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 78
Thanks: 41
Thanked 35 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
WinnFABS only exists for one purpose, Speed Limits. Since this legislation does not seem to impact speed limits, I assume WinnFABS takes no stand on this legislation.
Mr. Bear, it's not the speed itself that can be their issue - speed is irrelevent. It has to be their perceived effects of speed (danger, safety, etc) that is their concern. So if safety is their concern, why then would they want unlicensed boaters on the lake?
Chimi is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 03:40 PM   #215
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,763
Thanks: 225
Thanked 627 Times in 367 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimi View Post
OK. Then why do they want speed limits? From their website: "To make the lake safer WinnFABS was formed by a group of citizens who love Lake Winnipesaukee and who want to ensure safe family boating and preserve the beauty and serenity of the lake for present and future generations". Well, in my opinion, it sure would make the lake safer if anyone renting a boat (over 25hp) was required to have a full boater's education certificate. I cannot believe that WINNFABS would not support this "in the name of safety".
In my opinion:


They want fast boats off the lake. Safety has never had anything to do with it.

Some of them want fewer boats on the lake and are doing what they can to make it less attractive for boaters. The unecessary NWZs are a perfect way to keep boats away.
Dave R is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Dave R For This Useful Post:
chipj29 (04-14-2011)
Old 04-13-2011, 03:43 PM   #216
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,763
Thanks: 225
Thanked 627 Times in 367 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimi View Post
So if safety is their concern, why then would they want unlicensed boaters on the lake?

I bet there's a large contingent of them that don't want any "extra" boaters on the lake, but it serves them better overall to have backing by boat dealers, so they remain silent on the renters.
Dave R is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 05:05 PM   #217
Chimi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 78
Thanks: 41
Thanked 35 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R View Post
I bet there's a large contingent of them that don't want any "extra" boaters on the lake, but it serves them better overall to have backing by boat dealers, so they remain silent on the renters.
Well isn't that interesting. Thanks for enlightening me on this subject. I think calls to my reps and senator are in order right away. So I guess they want their cake and want to eat it too.
Chimi is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 05:35 PM   #218
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimi View Post
Well isn't that interesting. Thanks for enlightening me on this subject. I think calls to my reps and senator are in order right away. So I guess they want their cake and want to eat it too.
Comment deleted by author.

Last edited by Rusty; 04-14-2011 at 07:31 AM.
Rusty is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 08:00 PM   #219
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

Comment removed by author.

Last edited by Pineedles; 04-14-2011 at 09:34 AM. Reason: Other poster removed their comment.
Pineedles is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 08:36 PM   #220
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineedles View Post
Once again, when someone has nothing to add to the discussion, they insult someone!

Comment deleted by author.

Last edited by Rusty; 04-14-2011 at 07:30 AM.
Rusty is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 09:32 PM   #221
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 Chimi View Post
OK. Then why do they want speed limits? From their website: "To make the lake safer WinnFABS was formed by a group of citizens who love Lake Winnipesaukee and who want to ensure safe family boating and preserve the beauty and serenity of the lake for present and future generations". Well, in my opinion, it sure would make the lake safer if anyone renting a boat (over 25hp) was required to have a full boater's education certificate. I cannot believe that WINNFABS would not support this "in the name of safety".
What is so hard to believe about an organization formed to fight one specific issue.

There are lots of important issues that WinnFABS does not have a position on. Global warming, universal health care, the financial crisis, nuclear power, racism and the no fly zone in Libya, just to name a few.
Bear Islander is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Bear Islander For This Useful Post:
Rusty (04-14-2011)
Old 04-14-2011, 07:14 AM   #222
lawn psycho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
What is so hard to believe about an organization formed to fight one specific issue.
So does Winnsfabs promote safety or just a speed limit? What data do you have the indicates a speed limit promotes safety on Lake Winnipesaukee?

You can try and parse the issue of the speed limit and safety but when they are clearly related by WinnFlabs own assertions, what is so hard to understand about why you would be called out for it?

If all you want is a speed limit with no data to support it, you will have people continue to question your "real" intent. It's not safety......
lawn psycho is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lawn psycho For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (04-14-2011), Chimi (04-14-2011)
Old 04-14-2011, 08:31 AM   #223
Chimi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 78
Thanks: 41
Thanked 35 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
What is so hard to believe about an organization formed to fight one specific issue.

There are lots of important issues that WinnFABS does not have a position on. Global warming, universal health care, the financial crisis, nuclear power, racism and the no fly zone in Libya, just to name a few.
From what I have read, WINNFABS' core issue is safety. Unlicensed boaters (renting boats with hundreds of horsepower) are a serious safety issue. What's so hard to understand and why the hostility? Do you want kayers and campers run over by unlicensed rental boaters? This makes absolutely no sense to me.
Chimi is offline  
Old 04-14-2011, 09:34 AM   #224
jmen24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 223
Thanked 318 Times in 181 Posts
Default

BI made the comment regarding WINNIFABS single position a few months ago. Stating it was all about speed and that was it.

But, has anyone else noticed that the usual supporters haven't made a peep since.

Apparently, the folks in Concord weren't the only ones that were duped into thinking they had the peoples safety in mind.

That's the difference between being a big financial player and a member of the trench squad. Some really know and the others just think they do. That pill has to hurt. And it's too bad, some of the supporters probably were really interested in the overall improved safety of the lake. They will have to look elsewhere if they are interested in actually improving the safety and experience for everyone and not just the wealthy few.

Just think of all the posts on this site from years ago (and fairly recently) that are in complete contrast to this one position only stance, that we have recently been confirmed to be true.

BI, I am not talking about WINNIFABS original stance (the non-supporters have known that from the get go), but what all your supporters were told (or not told), so they would fight the fight they have.

I can tell you that if I had made a contribution to this organization and was told something different then (to get my money), than what is coming to light now. I would be looking for a few other folks that feel the same way and getting the courts involved. Feels like fraud to me!
jmen24 is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jmen24 For This Useful Post:
Chimi (04-14-2011), jarhead0341 (04-14-2011)
Old 04-14-2011, 10:05 AM   #225
Chimi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 78
Thanks: 41
Thanked 35 Times in 22 Posts
Default

I'm starting to think that we've hit a nerve on this subject. Peel away the bark and see what's really behind it. Wow, and to think that they campaigned on a safety theme, but really it was a theme to get rid of bigger boats. Kind of like the Lakes Region Conservation Trust soliciting support to buy the Castle in the Clouds, then closing the snowmobile trails. Oh well, hopefully they get exposed for this game and they get shut down. I've already contacted my senator and representatives about unlicensed rental boaters causing me fear.
Chimi is offline  
Old 04-14-2011, 12:57 PM   #226
Chimi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 78
Thanks: 41
Thanked 35 Times in 22 Posts
Default

WINNFABS: An acronym which stands for:

WINN Winnipesaukee
F amily
A lliance
B oating
S afety

Safety - it's in their name. Nowhere do I see speed limits in their name.

Safety - something that's lacking on the lake when unlicensed renters can rent a boat with a lot of horsepower and cause havoc and mayhem.
Chimi is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Chimi For This Useful Post:
RTTOOL (04-14-2011)
Old 04-14-2011, 08:37 PM   #227
jarhead0341
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 39
Thanks: 31
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
WinnFABS only exists for one purpose, Speed Limits. Since this legislation does not seem to impact speed limits, I assume WinnFABS takes no stand on this legislation.
Really ........ this comment has to hurt for a few
jarhead0341 is offline  
Old 04-15-2011, 10:48 PM   #228
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 jarhead0341 View Post
Really ........ this comment has to hurt for a few
You are being a little over dramatic.

WinnFABS was created to fight one battle, speed limits. It NEVER had any other purpose. It never claimed to have any other purpose.

Your argument that WinnFABS should be fighting other battles that you want them to, has no merit.

Get over it already.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 04-16-2011, 06:29 AM   #229
jarhead0341
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 39
Thanks: 31
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
You are being a little over dramatic.

WinnFABS was created to fight one battle, speed limits. It NEVER had any other purpose. It never claimed to have any other purpose.

Your argument that WinnFABS should be fighting other battles that you want them to, has no merit.

Get over it already.
WINN
F- family
A- alliance
B-boating
S- slowness

perhaps this would have been a less misleading name
jarhead0341 is offline  
Old 04-16-2011, 09:43 AM   #230
Chimi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 78
Thanks: 41
Thanked 35 Times in 22 Posts
Thumbs down Something's rotten in Denmark

Apparently there are many more people out there that smell a WinnFABS rat:

http://www.laconiadailysun.com/story/brett-goodhue-4-15
Chimi is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chimi For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (04-17-2011), NHBUOY (04-16-2011), Pineedles (04-16-2011)
Old 04-16-2011, 09:48 AM   #231
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

Perhaps you should form your own organization. Then you can run it however you want.

That makes more sense than whining about the way the opposition runs their organization.

Lost in all this is any meaningful conversation about the pros and cons of legislation that is soon to be voted on.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 04-16-2011, 10:59 AM   #232
NHBUOY
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Loon Mtn. winters...Meredith Neck summers
Posts: 398
Thanks: 288
Thanked 93 Times in 59 Posts
Default

...still...Mr. Goodhue makes a good point...
NHBUOY is offline  
Old 04-16-2011, 12:39 PM   #233
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

This well written letter is in todays Laconia Citizen:

Running the gauntlet

Editor, The Citizen:

Boaters take notice: A proposal to change boating speeds is back in Concord — again. The bill to create a special “Winnipesaukee Speeding Zone” was passed by a recent Senate vote. This new proposed change is sponsored by the so-called “Safe Boaters”, who are eager to see Lake Winnipesaukee’s scenery — all in one hour! Especially if you happen to find yourself in Alton or Wolfeboro waters, the new “Speeding Zone” will allow speedboats to cross your pathway at newer and more exhilarating speeds than permitted by present law.

At any one moment, Winnipesaukee’s visitors are already challenged in finding exactly where their boat is located on the lake. Whatever haphazard speeds they will be encountering near “The Speeding Zone” is anyone’s guess. To travel to any other spot on the Lake, this new “Speeding Zone” would entrap every Wolfeboro boater into “running the gauntlet” of high-speed boats.

House legislators can’t be seriously considering a “yes” vote on this hazardous proposal. Should one supporting Senator been absent, this proposal would have died in the Senate. To impoverish our treasury even further, expect each of Enforcement’s citations for excessive and reckless speeding behavior to be reduced by 10 mph. Inside our newest life-jackets, manufacturers’ disclosures emphasize our PFDs can’t meet safety standards at this proposed speed! This scary proposal follows our lake’s safest seasons under the current 45/30-mph limits. If it ain’t broke, why fix it.

Robert Kennington

Wolfeboro
Rusty is offline  
Old 04-16-2011, 01:41 PM   #234
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 328
Thanks: 242
Thanked 179 Times in 80 Posts
Default An even better letter in today's Laconia Daily Sun

To the editor,

The Winnipesaukee Family Alliance for Boating Safety (WinnFABS) lobbied successfully to get a speed limit imposed on Lake Winnipesaukee. Recently SB-27 has proposed to a compromise in raising the speed limit to 55 mph in the section of Winnipesaukee known as the Broads. Personally, I believe that there never was a need for a speed limit and that there are many other problems on the lake causing hazards to safety. I also believe that WinnFABS cares little about safety, but operates under the auspices of safety in their elitist efforts to scrub Lake Winnipesaukee of so-called performance boats.

One safety issue that has recently surfaced is the fact that anyone renting a boat over 25 horsepower need not have the required Boater's Education Certificate that all boaters over the age of 16 are required to have in order to operate a boat in the State of N.H. Instead, any dealer or renter of boats who is approved by the commissioner may administer a temporary safety examination and issue a temporary (14 day) certificate, which entitles them to rent and operate the boat. This is like the fox guarding the hen house! How can we possibly allow the dealer or renter of the boat to administer these temporary tests? How many marinas have "flunked" the renter, thereby forfeiting a nice $400 rental fee for the day? How can we allow people with zero boating experience, who have not taken the required class and obtained the full Boaters Education Certificate out on the waters of our lakes with boats which may have hundreds of horsepower? This is a recipe for mayhem and disaster and is one of the root causes of safety problems on Lake Winnipesaukee.

However, a little research will show that several of the marinas that specialize in boat rentals on Lake Winnipesaukee (Thurston's and Fay's just to name two) have thrown their support for the speed limits behind WinnFABS — the same organization whose last name is "Safety". There was a hearing in Concord this week on HB-0548, a bill to require (in essence) anyone operating a boat over 25-hp to have a full Boater Education Certificate (eliminating the temporary certificate issued by the marinas renting the boats). Guess who spoke in opposition to the bill – the owners of Thurstons Marina, Fay's Marina and Shep Brown's Marina — these same marinas that are renting boats to people with no Boater Education Certificates. They cry for speed limits in the name of safety, but protest this bill requiring Boater Education Certificates because it hurts them financially. This is unconscionable and is further proof that they care little about safety and more about their wallets.

Even more perplexing is the fact that since these same marinas supported WinnFABS efforts for the speed limit, WinnFABS has chosen to remain silent on the issue of allowing non-licensed boaters to rent boats and operate on our waters. People who supported WinnFABS thinking that they were the foundation of safe boating got sold a pig in a poke. The time has come to expose their agenda for what it really is — an effort to scrub Lake Winnipesaukee of performance boats by a bunch of elitists that want the lake for themselves. I think a call to your senator and reps is in order to urge them to support HB-0548 and get unexperienced, unlicensed boaters off of our waters.

Brett Goodhue

Gilford
. .
DEJ is offline  
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to DEJ For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (04-16-2011), chipj29 (04-18-2011), hazelnut (04-17-2011), lawn psycho (04-16-2011), Ryan (04-18-2011)
Old 04-16-2011, 02:21 PM   #235
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

DEJ,

Déjà vu all over again. Forum member “Chimi” already posted that letter in post #230.
Rusty is offline  
Old 04-16-2011, 02:53 PM   #236
jmen24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 223
Thanked 318 Times in 181 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
This well written letter is in todays Laconia Citizen:

Running the gauntlet

Editor, The Citizen:

Boaters take notice: A proposal to change boating speeds is back in Concord — again. The bill to create a special “Winnipesaukee Speeding Zone” was passed by a recent Senate vote. This new proposed change is sponsored by the so-called “Safe Boaters”, who are eager to see Lake Winnipesaukee’s scenery — all in one hour! Especially if you happen to find yourself in Alton or Wolfeboro waters, the new “Speeding Zone” will allow speedboats to cross your pathway at newer and more exhilarating speeds than permitted by present law.

At any one moment, Winnipesaukee’s visitors are already challenged in finding exactly where their boat is located on the lake. Whatever haphazard speeds they will be encountering near “The Speeding Zone” is anyone’s guess. To travel to any other spot on the Lake, this new “Speeding Zone” would entrap every Wolfeboro boater into “running the gauntlet” of high-speed boats.

House legislators can’t be seriously considering a “yes” vote on this hazardous proposal. Should one supporting Senator been absent, this proposal would have died in the Senate. To impoverish our treasury even further, expect each of Enforcement’s citations for excessive and reckless speeding behavior to be reduced by 10 mph. Inside our newest life-jackets, manufacturers’ disclosures emphasize our PFDs can’t meet safety standards at this proposed speed! This scary proposal follows our lake’s safest seasons under the current 45/30-mph limits. If it ain’t broke, why fix it.

Robert Kennington

Wolfeboro
Glad to see that Bob can actually write a well formed paragraph, instead of the hacked together cut and paste that we see here. A lot more respect would be given if this was the new adopted posting style from here on out.
jmen24 is offline  
Old 04-16-2011, 03:57 PM   #237
NHBUOY
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Loon Mtn. winters...Meredith Neck summers
Posts: 398
Thanks: 288
Thanked 93 Times in 59 Posts
Default

...btw...there is/was a measured mile on the Wolfboro side of Rattlesnake Island that we used WAY back in the dark ages to get accurate top speed numbers...until "somebody" in Wolfboro got a Raydar gun for X-mas...I bet Mr. Birdsall remembers...
NHBUOY is offline  
Old 04-16-2011, 03:59 PM   #238
NHBUOY
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Loon Mtn. winters...Meredith Neck summers
Posts: 398
Thanks: 288
Thanked 93 Times in 59 Posts
Default

...the Kennington letter sounds more like a ranting than a legit counter argument for a "speed zone"...
NHBUOY is offline  
Old 04-17-2011, 09:48 AM   #239
Chimi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 78
Thanks: 41
Thanked 35 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
You are being a little over dramatic.

WinnFABS was created to fight one battle, speed limits. It NEVER had any other purpose. It never claimed to have any other purpose.

Your argument that WinnFABS should be fighting other battles that you want them to, has no merit.

Get over it already.
Riddle me this Batman: Why did/does WinnFABS want speed limits? What is the primary reason? Do tell.
Chimi is offline  
Old 04-17-2011, 10:07 AM   #240
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 Chimi View Post
Riddle me this Batman: Why did/does WinnFABS want speed limits? What is the primary reason? Do tell.
Sorry, but I have answered this question probably 30 times. You are welcome to go back and read those posts. They are all in the speed limits forum.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 04-17-2011, 10:22 AM   #241
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimi View Post
Riddle me this Batman: Why did/does WinnFABS want speed limits? What is the primary reason? Do tell.

You have made up your mind that WinnFabs only goal is to keep GFBL boats off the lake so why keep asking that question.

If WinnFabs says there goal is safety, then you say "What is the primary reason?"

So why keep asking that question if you (in your mind) know the answer. It really is an obsession with you.

Why don't you ask the SBONH folks why they support going faster if their primary goal is safety? Going faster in any vehicle is less safe that going slower.
Rusty is offline  
Old 04-17-2011, 04:51 PM   #242
lawn psycho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
Why don't you ask the SBONH folks why they support going faster if their primary goal is safety? Going faster in any vehicle is less safe that going slower.
Nice try but that's a classic strawman argument. Why not make highways all have 25 MPH speed limits too....
lawn psycho is offline  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:38 PM   #243
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawn psycho View Post
Nice try but that's a classic strawman argument. Why not make highways all have 25 MPH speed limits too....

It’s not “strawman”, it’s straw man. Two words, not one.

Your comment is the straw man approach. You are trying to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. It won’t work my friend!
Rusty is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Rusty For This Useful Post:
Skip (04-17-2011)
Old 04-17-2011, 06:24 PM   #244
lawn psycho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post

It’s not “strawman”, it’s straw man. Two words, not one.

Your comment is the straw man approach. You are trying to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. It won’t work my friend!
No I was trying to point out the fallacy of your argument with an example.... Did you notice I posed the argument as a question? Carry on....
lawn psycho is offline  
Old 04-17-2011, 06:51 PM   #245
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,763
Thanks: 225
Thanked 627 Times in 367 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
Going faster in any vehicle is less safe that going slower.
Good thing you're not an airplane pilot...
Dave R is offline  
Old 04-17-2011, 07:14 PM   #246
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R View Post
Good thing you're not an airplane pilot...
You know for a fact that I'm not an airplane pilot?

You are assuming something and making a judgement of being true without evidence or validation.
Rusty is offline  
Old 04-17-2011, 07:37 PM   #247
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,763
Thanks: 225
Thanked 627 Times in 367 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
You know for a fact that I'm not an airplane pilot?

You are assuming something and making a judgement of being true without evidence or validation.
Nope. I assumed you weren't because you don't seem to understand the fundamentals of flight.

If you are an airplane pilot, you may want to bone up on the fundamentals...

Either way, your statement was very wrong. Flying too slow tends to lead to tying the record for lowest altitude.
Dave R is offline  
Old 04-17-2011, 08:01 PM   #248
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R View Post
Nope. I assumed you weren't because you don't seem to understand the fundamentals of flight.

If you are an airplane pilot, you may want to bone up on the fundamentals...

Either way, your statement was very wrong. Flying too slow tends to lead to tying the record for lowest altitude.
I guess I thought that everyone understood that what we talked about most of the time when it came to speed was boats and automobiles. I guess I was wrong.
Planes need thrust and uplift to stay in the air and that doesn’t always relate to speed though. Have you ever seen the Harrier do a vertical/short takeoff and landing?

Rusty is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Rusty For This Useful Post:
Skip (04-17-2011)
Old 04-17-2011, 09:19 PM   #249
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,763
Thanks: 225
Thanked 627 Times in 367 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
I guess I thought that everyone understood that what we talked about most of the time when it came to speed was boats and automobiles. I guess I was wrong.
Planes need thrust and uplift to stay in the air and that doesn’t always relate to speed though. Have you ever seen the Harrier do a vertical/short takeoff and landing?

Yes, I have actually, several times and it is cool. You realize that those have the worst safety record of any jet in the military, right?
Dave R is offline  
Old 04-18-2011, 08:50 AM   #250
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,859
Thanks: 496
Thanked 290 Times in 154 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
You have made up your mind that WinnFabs only goal is to keep GFBL boats off the lake so why keep asking that question.

If WinnFabs says there goal is safety, then you say "What is the primary reason?"

So why keep asking that question if you (in your mind) know the answer. It really is an obsession with you.

Why don't you ask the SBONH folks why they support going faster if their primary goal is safety? Going faster in any vehicle is less safe that going slower.
How many accidents have there been on Lake Winnipesaukee that were directly attributed to speeds above the current limits?
__________________
Getting ready for winter!
chipj29 is offline  
Old 04-18-2011, 09:52 AM   #251
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 33
Thanked 437 Times in 247 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
I guess I thought that everyone understood that what we talked about most of the time when it came to speed was boats and automobiles. I guess I was wrong.
Well I wouldn't bring up automobiles. As any web search will tell you, auto accident death rates have fallen dramatically as the speed limits have gone up of the last 30 years. From Wikipedia:

"The number of deaths – and deaths relative to the total population – have declined over the last two decades. From 1979 to 2005, the number of deaths per year decreased 14.97% while the number of deaths per capita decreased by 35.46%. Traffic fatalities in 2009 were the lowest in 60 years."

So there is no statistical correlation in between speed limits and safety in automobiles.

What do people attribute the decrease in deaths to, increased enforcement of DUI laws.
jrc is offline  
Old 04-18-2011, 11:11 AM   #252
Chimi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 78
Thanks: 41
Thanked 35 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
You have made up your mind that WinnFabs only goal is to keep GFBL boats off the lake so why keep asking that question.

If WinnFabs says there goal is safety, then you say "What is the primary reason?"

So why keep asking that question if you (in your mind) know the answer. It really is an obsession with you.

Why don't you ask the SBONH folks why they support going faster if their primary goal is safety? Going faster in any vehicle is less safe that going slower.
No, I have not made up my mind, that's why I'm asking the question. (PS: You seem to make a point of correcting spelling/grammar, so I'll do the same: In your 1st sentence "there" should be "their". In your last sentence "that" should be "than"). All I want to know is what WinnFABS stands for. Obviously a speed limit, but why? Is it to make the lake "safer" or is it to save the planet by reducing fuel consumption? If it's to make the lake safer, then why won't they support other legislation that will really improve safety? (such as the temporary boating license issued by marinas)? Please, no spin this time. Just tell it like it is.

Last edited by Chimi; 04-18-2011 at 11:47 AM.
Chimi is offline  
Old 04-18-2011, 12:36 PM   #253
lawn psycho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimi View Post
No, I have not made up my mind, that's why I'm asking the question. (PS: You seem to make a point of correcting spelling/grammar, so I'll do the same: In your 1st sentence "there" should be "their". In your last sentence "that" should be "than"). All I want to know is what WinnFABS stands for. Obviously a speed limit, but why? Is it to make the lake "safer" or is it to save the planet by reducing fuel consumption? If it's to make the lake safer, then why won't they support other legislation that will really improve safety? (such as the temporary boating license issued by marinas)? Please, no spin this time. Just tell it like it is.
Chimi, when people don't have a good argument or poor logic they deflect from the topic by pointing out spelling and grammatical errors. In a battle of intellect Rusty would show up unarmed.....
lawn psycho is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to lawn psycho For This Useful Post:
Chimi (04-18-2011)
Old 04-18-2011, 12:45 PM   #254
ishoot308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gilford, NH / Welch Island
Posts: 4,301
Thanks: 1,532
Thanked 3,098 Times in 1,193 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chipj29 View Post
How many accidents have there been on Lake Winnipesaukee that were directly attributed to speeds above the current limits?
None...

Dan
ishoot308 is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ishoot308 For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (04-18-2011), Pineedles (04-18-2011), Ryan (04-18-2011)
Old 04-18-2011, 09:30 PM   #255
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 chipj29 View Post
How many accidents have there been on Lake Winnipesaukee that were directly attributed to speeds above the current limits?
Below is a quote from David Barrett the head of the New Hampshire Marine Patrol and a long time opponent of speed limits. And these three are not just accidents attributed to speed. They are FATAL accidents attributed to speed.


Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed.


More than enough evidence to support a speed limit.

Now I assume you guys will give some convoluted reasoning why these accidents don't count. The general public is not interested in convoluted arguments. They want speed limits.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 04-18-2011, 10:27 PM   #256
ishoot308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gilford, NH / Welch Island
Posts: 4,301
Thanks: 1,532
Thanked 3,098 Times in 1,193 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Below is a quote from David Barrett the head of the New Hampshire Marine Patrol and a long time opponent of speed limits. And these three are not just accidents attributed to speed. They are FATAL accidents attributed to speed.


Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed.


More than enough evidence to support a speed limit.

Now I assume you guys will give some convoluted reasoning why these accidents don't count. The general public is not interested in convoluted arguments. They want speed limits.
With all due respect, the question was how many accidents have been attributed to speed "above the current limits", this would mean 46 MPH or greater. I stand by my answer of none...

Dan
ishoot308 is offline  
Old 04-19-2011, 07:23 AM   #257
lawn psycho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
.......The general public is not interested in convoluted arguments. They want speed limits.
The general public or the boating public?
lawn psycho is offline  
Old 04-19-2011, 07:58 AM   #258
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,859
Thanks: 496
Thanked 290 Times in 154 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Below is a quote from David Barrett the head of the New Hampshire Marine Patrol and a long time opponent of speed limits. And these three are not just accidents attributed to speed. They are FATAL accidents attributed to speed.


Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed.


More than enough evidence to support a speed limit.

Now I assume you guys will give some convoluted reasoning why these accidents don't count. The general public is not interested in convoluted arguments. They want speed limits.
Thanks, but that doesn't answer my question. If a boat crashes while going 25 mph in a NWZ and someone dies, wouldn't that also be attributed to speed?

What speed caused the 3 boating deaths? Were any of them >25/45?
__________________
Getting ready for winter!
chipj29 is offline  
Old 04-19-2011, 08:09 AM   #259
lawn psycho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chipj29 View Post
Thanks, but that doesn't answer my question. If a boat crashes while going 25 mph in a NWZ and someone dies, wouldn't that also be attributed to speed?

What speed caused the 3 boating deaths? Were any of them >25/45?
Do intoxicated people even care about speed limits?
lawn psycho is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to lawn psycho For This Useful Post:
NHBUOY (04-19-2011)
Old 04-19-2011, 11:33 AM   #260
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawn psycho View Post
Do intoxicated people even care about speed limits?
Why don't you ask the president of the SBONH, he has a lot of experience about that topic. That's what the rumor mill is saying anyway.
Rusty is offline  
Old 04-19-2011, 11:50 AM   #261
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

As I predicted you respond with denials and incorrect information.

I'm starting to think most of you only know about two of those fatal accidents. The ones that received all the publicity.

And as usual you are not going by the estimated speeds for the accidents. You are going what is the minimum possible speed.

Can you name all three accidents?
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 04-19-2011, 12:17 PM   #262
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,859
Thanks: 496
Thanked 290 Times in 154 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
As I predicted you respond with denials and incorrect information.

I'm starting to think most of you only know about two of those fatal accidents. The ones that received all the publicity.

And as usual you are not going by the estimated speeds for the accidents. You are going what is the minimum possible speed.

Can you name all three accidents?
And as I predicted you respond by avoiding the question.
__________________
Getting ready for winter!
chipj29 is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to chipj29 For This Useful Post:
lawn psycho (04-19-2011), NHBUOY (04-19-2011)
Old 04-19-2011, 03:59 PM   #263
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimi View Post
No, I have not made up my mind, that's why I'm asking the question. (PS: You seem to make a point of correcting spelling/grammar, so I'll do the same: In your 1st sentence "there" should be "their". In your last sentence "that" should be "than"). All I want to know is what WinnFABS stands for. Obviously a speed limit, but why? Is it to make the lake "safer" or is it to save the planet by reducing fuel consumption? If it's to make the lake safer, then why won't they support other legislation that will really improve safety? (such as the temporary boating license issued by marinas)? Please, no spin this time. Just tell it like it is.
This was in the LDS today, I hope it helps answer your question:

To the editor,

Responding to Brett Goodhue's letter to the editor, dated April 16, It appears, at first glance, that Mr. Goodhue is not a registered voter in Gilford and some of his information is patently false. Shep Brown's Marina has never been a supporter, rather an adamant opposer, of WinnFABS. The NH Marine Trades Association also have not been in support of speed limits for boats anywhere. The boat dealers reason for being in business is to make a profit and keeping their patrons happy with their sales and services.

Mr. Goodhue obviously has not paid attention over the years, WinnFABS has never said it wants the performance boats off the big lake, only that they use common sense and courtesy when operating their vessels. That includes complying with the speed limits of 45/30 mph at which all water sports, except speed for the sake of speed alone, can and have been practiced over many years. They have had their way for as long as we can remember, over 40 plus years and we now believe it's time for everyone to realize that accidents, injuries and fatalities can easily be averted by slowing down. It is we believe a very simple factor of physics that is not that hard to understand.

The marina owners would like the Boaters Education Safety Certificate law to remain as it has been for a lot of years so that any one wanting to rent a boat for an hour or so still has to have the proper certification required by the current law and not have to hold their entire family up for an extended time waiting for them to study the book, take an on-line test, with the possibility of failing the score requirements, and not to be able to enjoy a half day with their families on the water.

Now you believe that 12-15 year olds should be taking a somewhat lengthy test that does not provide them with a whit of operating experience and then allow them to operate a vessel of 25 hp or less without an adult on board — give us all a break.

By the by, since 2005 or earlier, WinnFABS has not been about anything but speed. We are not like the current bunch, SBONH, that claim to be about everything to do with boating safety but haven't asked for any new laws that have a darn thing to do with same.

Bill Bertholdt

Gilford
.
Rusty is offline  
Old 04-19-2011, 04:12 PM   #264
Chimi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 78
Thanks: 41
Thanked 35 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
This was in the LDS today, I hope it helps answer your question:

To the editor,

Responding to Brett Goodhue's letter to the editor, dated April 16, It appears, at first glance, that Mr. Goodhue is not a registered voter in Gilford and some of his information is patently false. Shep Brown's Marina has never been a supporter, rather an adamant opposer, of WinnFABS. The NH Marine Trades Association also have not been in support of speed limits for boats anywhere. The boat dealers reason for being in business is to make a profit and keeping their patrons happy with their sales and services.

Mr. Goodhue obviously has not paid attention over the years, WinnFABS has never said it wants the performance boats off the big lake, only that they use common sense and courtesy when operating their vessels. That includes complying with the speed limits of 45/30 mph at which all water sports, except speed for the sake of speed alone, can and have been practiced over many years. They have had their way for as long as we can remember, over 40 plus years and we now believe it's time for everyone to realize that accidents, injuries and fatalities can easily be averted by slowing down. It is we believe a very simple factor of physics that is not that hard to understand.

The marina owners would like the Boaters Education Safety Certificate law to remain as it has been for a lot of years so that any one wanting to rent a boat for an hour or so still has to have the proper certification required by the current law and not have to hold their entire family up for an extended time waiting for them to study the book, take an on-line test, with the possibility of failing the score requirements, and not to be able to enjoy a half day with their families on the water.

Now you believe that 12-15 year olds should be taking a somewhat lengthy test that does not provide them with a whit of operating experience and then allow them to operate a vessel of 25 hp or less without an adult on board — give us all a break.

By the by, since 2005 or earlier, WinnFABS has not been about anything but speed. We are not like the current bunch, SBONH, that claim to be about everything to do with boating safety but haven't asked for any new laws that have a darn thing to do with same.

Bill Bertholdt

Gilford
.

Two points: 1) What does being a "registered voter" have to do with the price of tea in China? 2) Apparently, an "hour" is not enough time for an unlicensed boater to run somebody over because he has no idea how to a) drive a boat and/or b) has no clue on the rules and regulations specific to the State of NH. Well, too bad, he might keep his family waiting while he might learn a technique or rule that would help him avoid killing someone! This is the most absurd argument I've ever heard. This is just more spin from WinnFABS to take the attention off of the real problem on the lake. Thanks for nothing!
Chimi is offline  
Old 04-19-2011, 04:34 PM   #265
lawn psycho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts
Default

The fact that Bertholdt replied like he did just confirms the claims of the original editorial. Open sentences to attack Goodhue's residency? How about giving us a break and stick to germaine facts.

WinnFlabs is definitely losing it and their wits. The editorial is 100% opinion, no facts and provides nothing we haven't heard to the argument. Can you say broken record?

Looks like the sting of the Goodhue editorial hit Bill right in the nose

WinnFlabs duped many supporters in the name of "safety" and now they want to spin it another direction? Good luck with that....
lawn psycho is offline  
Old 04-19-2011, 04:45 PM   #266
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 33
Thanked 437 Times in 247 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
Why don't you ask the president of the SBONH, he has a lot of experience about that topic. That's what the rumor mill is saying anyway.
Do you any facts to back up your innuendo? I mean this arguing about speed limits and such is interesting but are you accusing Scott Verdonck of commiting a crime? You should either say what you mean or drop the subject.
jrc is offline  
Old 04-19-2011, 04:48 PM   #267
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 328
Thanks: 242
Thanked 179 Times in 80 Posts
Default Letters mean little to nothing.

Here is an actual "article" written by an actual "reporter" that is trained in journalism.


Laconia Daily Sun April 8th on SBONH
President insists Safe Boaters is not a 1 issue group; few own 'performance' craft, he says
By Michael Kitch
Apr 08, 2011 12:00 am
CONCORD — In the ongoing debate over boating speed limits, Safe Boaters of New Hampshire (SBONH), the group that has opposed restrictions on speed, has been painted by critics as a "go fast," "thunder boat" crowd of hard-drinking helmsmen hell-bent on whipping across the water at breakneck speeds leaving canoeists, kayakers and anglers trembling in their wash.

Not surprisingly, Scott Verdonck, the president of the organization, bridles at this characterization. Alluding to widely circulated e-mails, in which he tells of drinking bouts, he claims that "they are jokes and quotes taken completely out of context." He insists that he never drinks when driving anything — "not a boat, a car, a farm tractor or a bicycle."

The fabricated personal attacks, he said, are aimed at discrediting the organization.

In June, 2008, when the first legislation to limit boat speeds was enacted, the opposition was led by the New Hampshire Recreational Boaters Association, whose president, Erica Blizzard of Laconia, was at the helm when her boat struck Diamond Island. One of her passengers lost her life, Blizzard and the other were severely injured. With that the association disappeared from view.

"We have nothing to do with the Recreational Boaters Association," Verdonck said.

SBONH, he recounted, began in November 2009, after the Legislature had set the speed limits for two years and before it voted to make them permanent. When the legislation was filed to make the speed limits permanent, Verdonck contends that SBONH took no position for or against them, but objected to making them permanent until the Department of Safety completed a two year study, which he maintains was the intent of the law. He said that SBONH supported a bill to extend the study another year and only turned against speed limits when it failed.

"We came together because we didn't like the way things were being done," Verdonck said. He estimated that SBONH counts around 100 members, most of whom are year round residents of New Hampshire, while others are seasonal residents and regular visitors. He said that "performance boaters," owners of vessels designed and equipped for speed, were a small minority of the membership.

Verdonck claims that SBONH's agenda is not confined to speed limits. "Our mission is 'to promote safe boating through education and effective legislation,''' he said. "We are not a single issue group." He said that SBONH has developed relationship with other organizations and stakeholders with shared interests and has worked closely with lawmakers and state agencies, especially the New Hampshire Department of Safety (DOS).

Apart from the speed limit issue, SBONH has supported legislation to close a loophole in the mandatory boater education law that ensures that no one younger than 12 can operate a motorboat without supervision of a certified adult while enabling 12 to 15-year-olds to become certified to operate vessels of 25 horsepower or less.

Verdonck said that this year the organization requested legislation to enable boaters to tie up to public docks in the event of medical emergencies or inclement weather, which was tabled because lawmakers found it encroached on local control. SBONH also supported a bill to allow boats to be fitted with a device to reduce exhaust noise to levels set by statute. Verdonck said the group plans to request other legislation to improve safety on the water next year. "We intend to pursue safety issues through effective legislation for years to come," he said.

Last year SBONH incurred the wrath of residents of the Barber Pole area of Tuftonboro when it challenged a petition to have the channel designated a "no wake zone." After granting the designation, the DOS reversed its decision when it discovered the petition was invalid. Verdonck insists that SBONH took no position for or against the "no wake zone" but objected to the inadequate notice of the public hearing, which left interested residents unable to attend, and to the flawed petition.

Last week, residents again petitioned DOS for a "no wake zone" at Barber Pole. Verdonck said that SBONH would again remain strictly neutral while acknowledging that "we will inform our membership and individuals may take positions for and against the proposal."

Despite the sharp differences between SBONH and the Winnipesaukee Family Alliance for Boating Safety (WinnFABs) over speed limits, Verdonck said that there may be more common ground between the two than first appears. "We both recognize that there are issues, including safety issues, on the lake that need to be managed," he said. "Where we disagree is that we don't believe that excessive speed is the primary, let alone the only issue and that speed limits will solve all the problems."

In particular, Verdonck emphasized the importance of concentrating the limited resources of Marine Patrol on closer enforcement of the so-called "safe passage" or "150-foot rule," which requires boats to slow to headway speed (6 mph.) within 150 feet of shore, docks, moorings, rafts. swimmers and other vessels. "That is the most important problem and boating while intoxicated is the most dangerous," he said.
.
DEJ is offline  
Old 04-19-2011, 05:01 PM   #268
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DEJ View Post
Here is an actual "article" written by an actual "reporter" that is trained in journalism.


Laconia Daily Sun April 8th on SBONH
President insists Safe Boaters is not a 1 issue group; few own 'performance' craft, he says
By Michael Kitch
Apr 08, 2011 12:00 am
CONCORD — In the ongoing debate over boating speed limits, Safe Boaters of New Hampshire (SBONH), the group that has opposed restrictions on speed, has been painted by critics as a "go fast," "thunder boat" crowd of hard-drinking helmsmen hell-bent on whipping across the water at breakneck speeds leaving canoeists, kayakers and anglers trembling in their wash.

Not surprisingly, Scott Verdonck, the president of the organization, bridles at this characterization. Alluding to widely circulated e-mails, in which he tells of drinking bouts, he claims that "they are jokes and quotes taken completely out of context." He insists that he never drinks when driving anything — "not a boat, a car, a farm tractor or a bicycle."

The fabricated personal attacks, he said, are aimed at discrediting the organization.

In June, 2008, when the first legislation to limit boat speeds was enacted, the opposition was led by the New Hampshire Recreational Boaters Association, whose president, Erica Blizzard of Laconia, was at the helm when her boat struck Diamond Island. One of her passengers lost her life, Blizzard and the other were severely injured. With that the association disappeared from view.

"We have nothing to do with the Recreational Boaters Association," Verdonck said.

SBONH, he recounted, began in November 2009, after the Legislature had set the speed limits for two years and before it voted to make them permanent. When the legislation was filed to make the speed limits permanent, Verdonck contends that SBONH took no position for or against them, but objected to making them permanent until the Department of Safety completed a two year study, which he maintains was the intent of the law. He said that SBONH supported a bill to extend the study another year and only turned against speed limits when it failed.

"We came together because we didn't like the way things were being done," Verdonck said. He estimated that SBONH counts around 100 members, most of whom are year round residents of New Hampshire, while others are seasonal residents and regular visitors. He said that "performance boaters," owners of vessels designed and equipped for speed, were a small minority of the membership.

Verdonck claims that SBONH's agenda is not confined to speed limits. "Our mission is 'to promote safe boating through education and effective legislation,''' he said. "We are not a single issue group." He said that SBONH has developed relationship with other organizations and stakeholders with shared interests and has worked closely with lawmakers and state agencies, especially the New Hampshire Department of Safety (DOS).

Apart from the speed limit issue, SBONH has supported legislation to close a loophole in the mandatory boater education law that ensures that no one younger than 12 can operate a motorboat without supervision of a certified adult while enabling 12 to 15-year-olds to become certified to operate vessels of 25 horsepower or less.

Verdonck said that this year the organization requested legislation to enable boaters to tie up to public docks in the event of medical emergencies or inclement weather, which was tabled because lawmakers found it encroached on local control. SBONH also supported a bill to allow boats to be fitted with a device to reduce exhaust noise to levels set by statute. Verdonck said the group plans to request other legislation to improve safety on the water next year. "We intend to pursue safety issues through effective legislation for years to come," he said.

Last year SBONH incurred the wrath of residents of the Barber Pole area of Tuftonboro when it challenged a petition to have the channel designated a "no wake zone." After granting the designation, the DOS reversed its decision when it discovered the petition was invalid. Verdonck insists that SBONH took no position for or against the "no wake zone" but objected to the inadequate notice of the public hearing, which left interested residents unable to attend, and to the flawed petition.

Last week, residents again petitioned DOS for a "no wake zone" at Barber Pole. Verdonck said that SBONH would again remain strictly neutral while acknowledging that "we will inform our membership and individuals may take positions for and against the proposal."

Despite the sharp differences between SBONH and the Winnipesaukee Family Alliance for Boating Safety (WinnFABs) over speed limits, Verdonck said that there may be more common ground between the two than first appears. "We both recognize that there are issues, including safety issues, on the lake that need to be managed," he said. "Where we disagree is that we don't believe that excessive speed is the primary, let alone the only issue and that speed limits will solve all the problems."

In particular, Verdonck emphasized the importance of concentrating the limited resources of Marine Patrol on closer enforcement of the so-called "safe passage" or "150-foot rule," which requires boats to slow to headway speed (6 mph.) within 150 feet of shore, docks, moorings, rafts. swimmers and other vessels. "That is the most important problem and boating while intoxicated is the most dangerous," he said.
.
This is just more spin from the SBONH to take the attention off of the real problem on the lake. Thanks for nothing!

I like it where he says: Alluding to widely circulated e-mails, in which he tells of drinking bouts, he claims that "they are jokes and quotes taken completely out of context."

He sure is a big JOKESTER isn't he. Has anyone ever read some of that trash???
Rusty is offline  
Old 04-19-2011, 05:38 PM   #269
lawn psycho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
This is just more spin from the SBONH to take the attention off of the real problem on the lake. Thanks for nothing!

I like it where he says: Alluding to widely circulated e-mails, in which he tells of drinking bouts, he claims that "they are jokes and quotes taken completely out of context."

He sure is a big JOKESTER isn't he. Has anyone ever read some of that trash???
Rusty, please submit every email, every joke, and every derogatory comment you've ever told in your life (written or spoken). When you can prove to me you're clean as a whistle then come back and make these statements..... I'm waiting
lawn psycho is offline  
Old 04-19-2011, 07:35 PM   #270
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawn psycho View Post
Rusty, please submit every email, every joke, and every derogatory comment you've ever told in your life (written or spoken). When you can prove to me you're clean as a whistle then come back and make these statements..... I'm waiting
Sorry psycho but I don't have any of that stuff scattered all over the World Wide Web to show you. I have too much respect for myself and my family to do that.
Rusty is offline  
Old 04-19-2011, 07:38 PM   #271
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 lawn psycho View Post
..... I'm waiting
I'm waiting to see if anybody can name the three fatal accident on Winni in the last 10 years. You guys keep claiming they don't apply to an argument for speed limits. Now I don't think you even know what they are!

If you can't name them, please stop saying they don't apply.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 04-19-2011, 07:42 PM   #272
lawn psycho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
I'm waiting to see if anybody can name the three fatal accident on Winni in the last 10 years. You guys keep claiming they don't apply to an argument for speed limits. Now I don't think you even know what they are!

If you can't name them, please stop saying they don't apply.
I do and we've already hashed through this. Edit: How do you want to count the drunk falling overboard on the Mount and what law do you want to pass to stop it?
lawn psycho is offline  
Old 04-19-2011, 07:45 PM   #273
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 33
Thanked 437 Times in 247 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
...

He sure is a big JOKESTER isn't he. Has anyone ever read some of that trash???
No I haven't, please show me this so I can make an informed decision. If you can't show this and back up your arguements, you really shouldn't expect me to take you seriously. Plus you should retract your innuendo.
jrc is offline  
Old 04-19-2011, 08:15 PM   #274
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 33
Thanked 437 Times in 247 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
I'm waiting to see if anybody can name the three fatal accident on Winni in the last 10 years. ...
I have a little problem when you say three, obviously Blizzard and Littlefield were convicted of causing a fatal accident, so we have all kinds of data.

But the two fishermen in 2009, the guy who fell off the Mount, the guy who just fell off his hovercraft, the two people who drowned from their boats in 2006, the diver in 2004, which one is number three?
jrc is offline  
Old 04-19-2011, 08:19 PM   #275
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc View Post
No I haven't, please show me this so I can make an informed decision. If you can't show this and back up your arguements, you really shouldn't expect me to take you seriously. Plus you should retract your innuendo.
Not retraction necessary my friend. I never accused anyone of BWI and if you can show me where I have then I'll retract it.

I don't think the audience on this forum wants to see those e-mails and forum comments again that were made by the president of the SBONH.
Please don't push me to post these because I don't really like reading them either.

Thank you
Rusty is offline  
Old 04-19-2011, 11:36 PM   #276
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 jrc View Post
I have a little problem when you say three, obviously Blizzard and Littlefield were convicted of causing a fatal accident, so we have all kinds of data.

But the two fishermen in 2009, the guy who fell off the Mount, the guy who just fell off his hovercraft, the two people who drowned from their boats in 2006, the diver in 2004, which one is number three?
WOW! You really don't know!

Sorry, the third accident is none of the above.
Bear Islander is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Bear Islander For This Useful Post:
Rusty (04-20-2011)
Old 04-20-2011, 06:33 AM   #277
jarhead0341
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 39
Thanks: 31
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Default

wow....... back to the mid 70' s alcohol related accident again .... you know the one that we have no official data on how fast the boat was travelling
jarhead0341 is offline  
Old 04-20-2011, 06:46 AM   #278
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Altogether of the 80 people who signed the roll at the House Transportation Committee hearing yesterday, 73 marked themselves opposed to SB-27.

Where has all the support for the Bill gone???? I think the hand writing is on the wall about this Bill!


Below is the article that is in today's LDS:

CONCORD — After nearly six years what can be said for or against speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee has been said and yesterday was said again before the House Transportation Committee during a two-and-a-half hour hearing on Senate Bill 27, which would raise the limit on The Broads to 55 mile per hour.

No stranger to the issue, Rep. Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry), who chairs the committee, opened the hearing by announcing that apart from the bill's sponsors, the 50 people seeking to speak would be limited to two minutes. "Keep it civil," he reminded the overflow crowd, "or I will shut you off." Likewise, directing members of the committee to keep their questions relevant and short, he warned "otherwise I'll shut the committee off. Let's hope we can get through this nicely and quickly," he said.

In 2009 the Legislature set limits of 45 mph. in daylight and 25 mph. after dark for two years but last year, after raising the nighttime limit to 30 mph., made them permanent. This year Safe Boaters of New Hampshire (SBONH), formed in opposition to the speed limits, sought to replace them with a standard of "reasonable and prudent," but, at the urging of lawmakers agreed to a bill that would maintain the limits while exempting The Broads, which would be designated a 55 mph. zone.

Last month SB-27 carried the Senate by the narrowest of margins —13 to 11. Senators Jeanie Forrester (R-Meredith) and Jeb Bradley (R) Wolfeboro voted against changing the current law while Jim Forsythe (R-Strafford), the third senator representing the Lakes Region, voted for the bill.

"Good things always happen in Holy Week," Senator Lou D'Allesandro (D-Manchester), who introduced SB-27, told the committee. He said that the bill kept the speed limits in place except for "a specified area — The Broads. That is the only change." When Representative Lisa Sontsas (R-Nashua) alluded to highway driving and whether a posted limit of 55 mph. amounted to a practical limit of 65 mph., D'Allesandro simply read from the bill.

Speaking against the bill, Forrester recalled that she, together with her parents and brother, was the victim of a boating accident on Lake Huron caused by excessive speed that left her mother and brother with lasting injuries. Moreover, she said that e-mails and letters from individuals and businesses, especially those in the hospitality industry around the lake, were running three-to-one in opposition to any change to the speed limits.

Forrester was echoed by representatives from the Lakes Region, including Alida Millham (R-Gilford), Harry Accornero (R-Laconia) , Elaine Swinford (R-Barnstead), Bob Luther (R-Laconia) and Bill Tobin (R-Sanbornton) also spoke against increasing the speed limit on The Broads.

Jeff Thurston of Thurston's Marina at The Weirs emphasized that "uniformity is important," urging the committee not to "create a zone of frenzied activity," which he cautioned would further stretch the scarce resources of Marine Patrol. He said that exempting The Broads from the 45 mph. speed limit would be "impractical and not enhance safety."

Dick Bouley, a lobbyist representing the Winnipesaukee Family Alliance for Boating Safety (WinnFABS), the organization that from the beginning has led the effort to curb speed on the lake, told the committee that he was "disturbed" that the bill was originally assigned to the Resources, Recreation and Development Committee, which includes three members from the Lakes Region, was referred to the Transportation Committee, where the region is unrepresented. He urged the committee members to pay special attention to lawmakers and residents of the Lakes Region.

Altogether of the 80 people who signed the roll at the hearing, 73 marked themselves opposed to SB-27.

The bill drew its strongest support from SBONH, who have consistently challenged the need for speed limits, frequently citing David Barrett, the director of Marine Patrol, who has said more than once that speed is not a problem on the lake. Likewise, the organization has consistently argued that there is no statistical evidence to support the claims of WinnFABS that excessive speeds have increased the risks of boating on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Scott Verdonck, president of SBONH, insisted that SB-27 represents a compromise by maintaining speed limits on the most heavily travelled parts of the lake while raising the daytime limit just 10 mph. on The Broads where there are no islands and little traffic.

Dick Smith, conservation director of the New Hampshire Bass Federation, said his group saw no need for speed limits, but "reluctantly supported SB-27." He explained that bass fisherman pilot fast boats, designed to get them from one fishing spot to another in the least time to allow the maximum time for fishing. Questioning the wisdom of speed limits, he said that at some times 45 mph. is too fast and at others it is too slow.

Ultimately, said Smith the debate has dragged on for far too too long. "Let's put this to bed," he told the committee. "Let's stop it and let's go fishing."
.
Rusty is offline  
Old 04-20-2011, 07:23 AM   #279
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 33
Thanked 437 Times in 247 Posts
Default

Bear Islander, in a few weeks I have a milestone birthday, so I'm old and forgetful, let me off the hook and tell me what fatal boating accident in the last decade you are talking about. My point was that there were a lot more than three, and speed had nothing to do with the majority of them.

Rusty, sorry I made the mistake of thinking that you were a normal person that just got a little overzealous and neglected the unwritten rules that you need to back up what you say and the rules that say, I wouldn't want my name smeared with rumors and innuendo, so I won't smear others.
jrc is offline  
Old 04-20-2011, 07:30 AM   #280
lawn psycho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
WOW! You really don't know!

Sorry, the third accident is none of the above.
So explain to me why 45 MPH is justified over any other speed as a numerical limit?

We've been over this before. Do you REALLY believe a speed limit would have made even the slightest difference in these case? In the Blizzard case even if MP was correct in their numbers we're talking a different of maybe 2-5 MPH. If you want to split hairs then fine but it won't help your argument.

With most boats doing well under the speed limit (even before the SL was slammed through) and a limited number of MP officers (they can't be everywhere) I personally think the SL is a waste of time as an enforcement tool. A lot of effort with little results.

You have wanted to and support restricting all sorts of activities of boaters on Winni. Rafting, overnight anchoring, speed, horsepower, etc. I'm not being a wise arse but why did you buy a lake front property? It's not like people are beaching there boats on your property and lighting a bon-fire for a party.

I just don't understand why people get so wound up about boating activities on a lake. I hope you weren't suprised after moving onto BI that boats would be going by. When I read your posts you make it seem as if every boater out there to cause trouble and infringing on your minute little world.

Is it really that big a deal that someone with a nice Cobalt can easily cruise along at 55 MPH going from Center Harbor to Wolfboro to meet some friends or over to Meredith to walk around or to the Weirs to waste a few quarters playing Galaga in the arcade? Heaven forbid they head over to a nice sandbar and drop anchor and get 149.9999 feet from shore as they might just be having too much of a good time! 150 ft and they're OK.

When I read editorials like Bill's it is clear to me that he's gotten to a win-lose stance rather than sticking to what's important.

Regardless of what we type here on the forum I suspect that most legislators already have their minds made up on how they'll vote. I hope the 55 MPH limit passes (still too low) because even my middle of the road Four Winns can do 45 MPH on calm days in comfort and nobody feels like it's being driven by Mario Andretti. When everyday boats like mine start getting restricted like this you should not be suprised at the back-lash. Your side has benefitted the most by misinformation as if I took every legislator out on a boat at 45 MPH they would quickly realize it's not that fast, not by a long shot.

Instead of going for the red herring arguments why don't you and the WinnFlabs consortium start putting perspective into the discussion?

Red Herring Example1: Has the lake been overrun by fast boats for the last 40 years as Bill asserts? I think not.

Red Herring Example2: How many campers have been run over by fast boats? Zero! But yet and others have thrown that into the mix for the soundbite. Let us not forget most camps operate during the week when the lake is practically a ghost town.

You can bet if the 45 MPH sticks that this issue isn't going away. WinnFlabs is not working towards safety and their arguments are deceptive to anyone who supports there SL efforts.

SBONH has promoted safety inspections. Ask MP and they will tell you boats are out there without adequate equipment.

SBONH worked to help reduce the noise issue which I think is the elephant in the room for many of the SL supported but they won't admit it. So now maybe you can refer to the boats as GFBQ, eh? Personally, I find the guy who comes into the sandbar as Johnny come lately with his mega bass speakers for the whole area to hear as more of a PITA nuisance than a boat going by.

SBONH supports the 150 ft rule and supports increased BUI enforcement.

Those are things that really impact the quality and safety of the lake. We should all be happy for that. A speed limit will do nothing for the lake IMO.

I for one will be the wacky guy who waves to all my fellow boaters (even you and Rusty). I would like to see more comraderie out on the lake.

In fact, I am hoping we can find a nice spot and have a nice big Winni.com raft-up sometime later this year. I'll even tip my homemade lemonade an/or sun tea to ya'!
lawn psycho is offline  
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to lawn psycho For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (04-20-2011), eillac@dow (04-20-2011), ishoot308 (04-20-2011), Rusty (04-20-2011), Ryan (04-20-2011), Sue Doe-Nym (04-20-2011)
Old 04-20-2011, 07:47 AM   #281
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

LP,

That was a very well written post. Thank you!

I will also be a wacky guy who waves to all my fellow boaters (including you LP).
Rusty is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Rusty For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (04-20-2011)
Old 04-20-2011, 08:15 AM   #282
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,434
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

Every lake and river in Massachusetts has a 45-mph speed limit for motorboats. It's a state wide law! That alone makes it a good reason for New Hampshire to do the same thing!

The State of Montana used to have no speed limit on their interstate highways, but not anymore. They now have a posted speed limit just like all the other states. The problem with no speed limits in Montana was that people would drive their cars there just to open them up, driving as fast as they could go, just for the experience or the fun of it, or some non-reason called "the need for speed."

Going 45-mph in a boat is hardly a slow speed. 45-mph is very fast for most all boats and if this 55-mph speed limit gets passed through the House for some whacko-fruitloop manipulation coming from "leadership" reason then you can bet your go-fast that Governor Lynch will be right there with a fast VETO on it! You can expect to see Gov Lynch's VETO coming right at you at about 107-mph.......zoom.....roooarrrr.....budda, budda, bing!

Way-to-go.......Gov Lynch.......one fast veto (anticipated in advance)!

At yesterday's State House hearing chaired by Rep Sherman Packard, 73 out of the 80 people who signed the hearing roll indicated they were opposed to SB-27 and the proposed increase from 45 to 55-mph. (Today's LaDaSun SB-27 article)
..........

"Boating activist has need for speed;" today's April 20 www.cmonitor.com front page article.....Monitor articles are almost always much lengthier than the U.L. and have follow up email comments, too.
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!

Last edited by fatlazyless; 04-20-2011 at 09:11 AM.
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 04-20-2011, 08:48 AM   #283
Chimi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 78
Thanks: 41
Thanked 35 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Another clear, concise letter to the editor of today's Laconia Daily Sun. Someone else who sees through Mr. Berthold's & WinnFABS continuous avoidance of the real issues. Thank you Mr. Stewart (Now please go register to vote because Mr. Berthold and WinnFABS will be checking on you for sure).

http://www.laconiadailysun.com/story/terry-stewart-4-19

It's reasonable to allow for higher speeds on largest part of lake
Apr 20, 2011 12:00 am
To the editor, It’s very unfortunate that the fuddy duddies are still harping about the boating speed limit and wasting the valuable time of our state’s leadership. Given the more pressing problems we are facing I’d really prefer my representatives to keep their eye on th...
To the editor,

It’s very unfortunate that the fuddy duddies are still harping about the boating speed limit and wasting the valuable time of our state’s leadership. Given the more pressing problems we are facing I’d really prefer my representatives to keep their eye on the budget problems. I believe representative Forsythe used common sense in concluding that if we have faster speed limits on I-93 then we do on Rt.106, then it’s reasonable to have a faster speed limit in the Broads of Lake Winnipesaukee.

Of course, common sense doesn’t seem to matter to the WinnFABS crowd. WinnFABS local mouth piece, Mr. Bertholdt, has a lot of nerve accusing anyone of making misleading statements after some of the whoppers he’s been spouting. Most, if not all of his data, comes from waterways other than New Hampshire. Much of it is Coast Guard data encompassing every other body of water in the U.S., including our oceans. The problem for the WinnFABS folks is that the facts simply don’t support their rhetoric. The fact is that 90-percent of our lake’s boating fatalities occurred on boats that weren’t even moving and most of the others were alcohol related. I do agree with his statements on more rigid requirements on boater education, however that has little to do with speed limits.

Apparently Mr. Bertholdt hasn’t listened to one of his own lengthy tomes lately. He often refers to his opposition as “spoiled brats” and the “go fast make noise crowd”. You see it’s not about safety; it’s really about “those people”. Seriously, who would suggest canoeing in the middle of the Broads as a “safe” activity? Even with zero boats on the lake that would be dangerous on most days. As far as noise is concerned; thanks to WinnFABS efforts, we all get to listen to those loud boats go by slowly and for a much longer period of time. Life was clearly better when the noise simply went by quickly.

If we must have a speed limit, which we really don’t, then there isn’t any reason why it can’t be reasonable in the sense that it allows for higher speeds in the largest part of the lake that provides plenty of reaction time. The proposed 55 MPH daytime limit isn’t outrageous. Many of the “right kind” of people that Mr. Berthold would approve of own leisure craft and wave runners that are safely driven at that speed. Safety as whole won’t be effected by the speed limit change because it was never a factor to begin with. Can’t we all just get along and live with this change and move on with our lives?

Terry Stewart

Gilford
Chimi is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chimi For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (04-21-2011), lawn psycho (04-20-2011), Ryan (04-20-2011)
Old 04-20-2011, 09:14 AM   #284
lawn psycho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
"Boating activist has need for speed;" today's April 20 www.cmonitor.com front page article.....Monitor articles are almost always much lengthier than the U.L. and have follow up email comments, too.
That's awesome! My boat is on the front page. Four Winns should give me some royalty money for getting their brand out there.
lawn psycho is offline  
Old 04-20-2011, 09:59 AM   #285
Dhuberty24
Senior Member
 
Dhuberty24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hooksett,NH
Posts: 82
Thanks: 11
Thanked 32 Times in 19 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=fatlazyless;155268]Every lake and river in Massachusetts has a 45-mph speed limit for motorboats. It's a state wide law! That alone makes it a good reason for New Hampshire to do the same thing!

That is the dumbest reason for a speedlimit I have ever heard. If Massachusetts jumps of a bridge are you going to?
Dhuberty24 is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dhuberty24 For This Useful Post:
chipj29 (04-20-2011), Grandpa Redneck (04-20-2011)
Old 04-20-2011, 11:11 AM   #286
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 lawn psycho View Post

Red Herring Example2: How many campers have been run over by fast boats? Zero! But yet and others have thrown that into the mix for the soundbite. Let us not forget most camps operate during the week when the lake is practically a ghost town.
You are all for camaraderie, getting all sides together, and enjoying the lake with lemonade. Yet you still insist on using and insulting misnomer when referring to WinnFABS.

I disagree with much of your post, but one paragraph is so nuts I just have to call you on it.

Do you really think most camps on the lake are closed on weekends? The truth is they just look closed because they will not send out their sailboats, kayaks and canoes onto a weekend cowboy filled lake.

It is unfortunate that when people take their "nice Cobalt can easily cruise along at 55 MPH going from Center Harbor to Wolfboro" they have no idea how many thousands of children are being kept off the lake so you can have a nice ride.

THAT is the truth of the situation. Thousands inconvenienced so that dozens can go fast. But you are going by so fast, you can't see, or even imagine what you are doing.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 04-20-2011, 11:17 AM   #287
Chimi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 78
Thanks: 41
Thanked 35 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
You are all for camaraderie, getting all sides together, and enjoying the lake with lemonade. Yet you still insist on using and insulting misnomer when referring to WinnFABS.

I disagree with much of your post, but one paragraph is so nuts I just have to call you on it.

Do you really think most camps on the lake are closed on weekends? The truth is they just look closed because they will not send out their sailboats, kayaks and canoes onto a weekend cowboy filled lake.

It is unfortunate that when people take their "nice Cobalt can easily cruise along at 55 MPH going from Center Harbor to Wolfboro" they have no idea how many thousands of children are being kept off the lake so you can have a nice ride.

THAT is the truth of the situation. Thousands inconvenienced so that dozens can go fast. But you are going by so fast, you can't see, or even imagine what you are doing.
Let's not forget now about the unlicensed rental boaters. They, of course, never go near campers, kayaks and canoes and never cause a safety hazard. Oh yeah, and according to Mr. Berthold, they only want to rent for an hour or so and don't want to keep their families waiting while they take an actual boater education class. How many marinas on this lake offer a 1-hour boat rental? Answer: Probably none. I believe you'll find that it's either a 1/2 day or full day minimum rental, so again, Mr. Berthold's lies and mistruths come right to the head of the class.
Chimi is offline  
Old 04-20-2011, 11:19 AM   #288
lawn psycho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
You are all for camaraderie, getting all sides together, and enjoying the lake with lemonade. Yet you still insist on using and insulting misnomer when referring to WinnFABS.

I disagree with much of your post, but one paragraph is so nuts I just have to call you on it.

Do you really think most camps on the lake are closed on weekends? The truth is they just look closed because they will not send out their sailboats, kayaks and canoes onto a weekend cowboy filled lake.

It is unfortunate that when people take their "nice Cobalt can easily cruise along at 55 MPH going from Center Harbor to Wolfboro" they have no idea how many thousands of children are being kept off the lake so you can have a nice ride.

THAT is the truth of the situation. Thousands inconvenienced so that dozens can go fast. But you are going by so fast, you can't see, or even imagine what you are doing.
Thousands of children? Are you guys compulsive exaggerators?

See you out on the lake
lawn psycho is offline  
Old 04-20-2011, 11:20 AM   #289
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

And somehow the lake fills with thousands of children when boats pass by at 45 MPH?
Pineedles is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Pineedles For This Useful Post:
AllAbourdon (04-20-2011)
Old 04-20-2011, 12:04 PM   #290
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,543
Thanks: 105
Thanked 377 Times in 243 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
You are all for camaraderie, getting all sides together, and enjoying the lake with lemonade. Yet you still insist on using and insulting misnomer when referring to WinnFABS.

I disagree with much of your post, but one paragraph is so nuts I just have to call you on it.

Do you really think most camps on the lake are closed on weekends? The truth is they just look closed because they will not send out their sailboats, kayaks and canoes onto a weekend cowboy filled lake.

It is unfortunate that when people take their "nice Cobalt can easily cruise along at 55 MPH going from Center Harbor to Wolfboro" they have no idea how many thousands of children are being kept off the lake so you can have a nice ride.

THAT is the truth of the situation. Thousands inconvenienced so that dozens can go fast. But you are going by so fast, you can't see, or even imagine what you are doing.
I've stayed out of this battle for a while, it is time to put my 2 cents in.

Is 55mph in the Broads vs 45mph really that different? That does not allow for speeders to be blasting by Lawrence or Nokomis endangering children. Some of the articles I have read make the proposed change sound like the 10mph increase spells the end of people's safety on the lake which simply isn't true. Chances are you probably won't even notice a difference. I can't imagine every fast boat in the northeast is going to converge on the 9.5 mile long "speed zone" to get a few extra mph in. If the limit was 20-30mph faster maybe...

I don't have a dog in this fight. My jet ski is quite fast but my fastest boat will only do 55mph and I doubt that MP is going to give me a second glance if I am doing 50-55mph in a pontoon vs 45mph. I could truly care less one way or the other if it passes or not as I am not affected. Does that mean I will intentionally push the limit? No.

Hats off to Winnfabs for their aggressive fight on this, but the truth behind this is that they are exaggerating the truth and have been for some time.
codeman671 is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to codeman671 For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (04-21-2011), Ryan (04-20-2011), Seaplane Pilot (04-20-2011)
Old 04-20-2011, 12:42 PM   #291
gtagrip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 301
Thanks: 115
Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
The truth is they just look closed because they will not send out their sailboats, kayaks and canoes onto a weekend cowboy filled lake.
When you say "cowboy filled lake" do you mean that it is very busy and congested on weekends with all sorts of watercraft on the lake? Thought so!
gtagrip is offline  
Old 04-20-2011, 01:00 PM   #292
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 lawn psycho View Post
Thousands of children? Are you guys compulsive exaggerators?

See you out on the lake
Thank you for once again displaying how out of touch you people are.

Bear Island alone has two camps with 4 two week (including Saturdays and Sundays) sessions of 300 campers. That is 1,200 campers just on one island.


I'm still waiting to hear about the third fatal accident in the last ten years.
Bear Islander is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Bear Islander For This Useful Post:
Skip (04-20-2011)
Old 04-20-2011, 01:27 PM   #293
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,763
Thanks: 225
Thanked 627 Times in 367 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
Every lake and river in Massachusetts has a 45-mph speed limit for motorboats. It's a state wide law! That alone makes it a good reason for New Hampshire NOT to do the same thing!

fixed it for you
Dave R is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dave R For This Useful Post:
Grandpa Redneck (04-20-2011), lawn psycho (04-20-2011)
Old 04-20-2011, 01:28 PM   #294
gtagrip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 301
Thanks: 115
Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
I'm still waiting to hear about the third fatal accident in the last ten years.
Could it possibly be the under aged ladd that took out his parents waverunner without their permission and crashed it?
gtagrip is offline  
Old 04-20-2011, 01:29 PM   #295
lawn psycho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Thank you for once again displaying how out of touch you people are.

Bear Island alone has two camps with 4 two week (including Saturdays and Sundays) sessions of 300 campers. That is 1,200 campers just on one island.


I'm still waiting to hear about the third fatal accident in the last ten years.
No thank you for showing how much you distort facts. You said, "thousands of children are being kept off the lake."

The camps have sent kids out on the water before the speed limit. And how many were run over? And let's untwist the distortion. There are never thousands of kids standing on the beach with kayak in hand sighing because boats are keeping them off the water. It's simply not true and you know it.

In fact, any camp that put all 300 kids out in boats on the water I would question the ability to properly supervise that many kids.

RED HERRING
lawn psycho is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to lawn psycho For This Useful Post:
gtagrip (04-20-2011)
Old 04-20-2011, 01:35 PM   #296
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,614
Thanks: 52
Thanked 712 Times in 292 Posts
Default

BI...

So essentially your saying that during an 8 week summer session, there are 300 children at any given time on Bear Island? and of these kids how many are actually old enough to venture onto the water unsupervised? Not exactly thousands....

Lets talk some facts.... the lake is very very quiet during the week. The camps can effectively and safely run thier watersport programs during the week. The ONLY time those children may be inconvenienced is on saturdays... thats the day EVERYONE boats. Saturdays are the busiest days on the lake by far. A few sundays qualify on the holiday weekends. So why not schedule the water fun then? Whats so hard about that?

The Camp/Childrens freedoms do not trump anyone elses freedoms.... There has never been ANY accident involving a child at camp and a hi speed (< current limits) boat EVER! Not 1 accident!!! I think there is plenty of room on this lake to share with everyone!

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Woodsy For This Useful Post:
Chimi (04-20-2011)
Old 04-20-2011, 01:44 PM   #297
lawn psycho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts
Default

Woodsy, it's some of those same kids who are out on the water doing 65+ on waverunners and skiing behind Nautiques's but of course that doesn't matter to BI either.
lawn psycho is offline  
Old 04-20-2011, 02:15 PM   #298
Chimi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 78
Thanks: 41
Thanked 35 Times in 22 Posts
Default Maybe the clues lie here?

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...read.php?t=720

Interesting how APS (then Madrashas) thought the lake problems were caused by boat waves back in 2004. They all got tired of beating that dead horse so they had to start on something else - speed limits.
Chimi is offline  
Old 04-20-2011, 03:07 PM   #299
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,543
Thanks: 105
Thanked 377 Times in 243 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawn psycho View Post
Woodsy, it's some of those same kids who are out on the water doing 65+ on waverunners and skiing behind Nautiques's but of course that doesn't matter to BI either.
Huh??? What are you talking about?
codeman671 is offline  
Old 04-20-2011, 03:22 PM   #300
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 Woodsy View Post
BI...

So essentially your saying that during an 8 week summer session, there are 300 children at any given time on Bear Island? and of these kids how many are actually old enough to venture onto the water unsupervised? Not exactly thousands....

Lets talk some facts.... the lake is very very quiet during the week. The camps can effectively and safely run thier watersport programs during the week. The ONLY time those children may be inconvenienced is on saturdays... thats the day EVERYONE boats. Saturdays are the busiest days on the lake by far. A few sundays qualify on the holiday weekends. So why not schedule the water fun then? Whats so hard about that?

The Camp/Childrens freedoms do not trump anyone elses freedoms.... There has never been ANY accident involving a child at camp and a hi speed (< current limits) boat EVER! Not 1 accident!!! I think there is plenty of room on this lake to share with everyone!

Woodsy
Woodsy

If unsupervised means no counselors actually in the boat, then nearly 100% of campers go out on the lake "unsupervised" at some point. A sailboat or war canoe might have two older (about 14 year old), campers and two younger (about 7 year old) campers.

Everyday is pretty much the same at camp. Usually two activity periods in the morning, two in the afternoon and perhaps one in the evening. Activities are rotated so if 15 campers can do sailing in one period then 75 can be in sailboats in a day. The same is true for kayaks, canoes, and water skiing. Therefore you could theoretically have 75 x 4 = 300 campers on the lake in one day. Each camp on Bear has only 150 campers each so on a really good day you could average 2 boat experiences, per camper, per day.

In reality there is a good chance you will lose 2 days or more of boating a week because of rain, high winds or it being session swap day. Add 2 days for the weekend cowboys and you might only be able to put boats out on the lake 3 out of 7 days in a week.

Can camps double up on off water activities on weekends? Yes, they do it all the time. Is that fair and reasonable? No, it's not! Are most boaters oblivious to the damage they are doing to the programming in children's camps? Yes, they are!
Bear Islander 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 04:00 AM.


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

This page was generated in 0.35088 seconds