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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-25-2010, 11:23 AM   #1
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default How has the lake changed????

Well we are into another year of the speed limit. Much different then last. Beautiful Hot and Sunny Weather. No one can argue that the weather has been a deterent. The economy has not rebounded as much as hoped but I think we have turned a corner and are hopefully on the way to full recovery slowly but surely......

However with Labor Day approaching I can honestly say the lake has not become any safer. The accident rate is up, the registration rate is level (that of the early 90's) but yet we have a SL that was supposed to change all of that.

Now I don't want to see a debate get unfriendly but we have all been on the lake for many many hours and I really want to hear specifics as to if you have seen a difference.

Personally I still see the same crazy captains that either have no education or are purposely thumbing their noses at the 150 ft law, NWZ's and yes I have seen plenty of boats / PWC's exceeding the 45 mph law.

However I can say that in all instances where the SL was broken (again my personal observations) there was not a safety issue involved. However the multiple times I have been cut off by unaware captains and those going WAY too close to me caused me great concern.

So in the spirit of our webmasters request, please lets keep the conversation civil. I am sure we are able to do this, that is until the normal grenade throwers show up but lets see what rational information can be obtained before that.

Thanks

PS: I am only limited to 5 posts per day so I apologize if I don't answer your comments or questions regarding this post. However, now that we have 2 years behind us, this is the conversation that should have been taking place before the legislature jumped the gun. We now have seen 2 years of having the SL's in force. Of course we will be getting peoples beliefs at first but the facts and data from the MP are to follow soon. In the mean time all we have is personal observations AND we all know of the multiple accidents that have occured these past two years. What I am driving at is with the information that we now have from a compartive stand point have you seen a difference? Of course you will have the hardliners that say everything is perfect, but if that were the case why are many now trying to futher restrict us with more NWZ's, stricter noise restrictions, and may I dare say size / HP? I thought SL were supposed to make everything better????
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?

Last edited by OCDACTIVE; 08-25-2010 at 12:40 PM.
OCDACTIVE is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
XCR-700 (08-27-2010)
Old 08-25-2010, 11:38 AM   #2
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,762
Thanks: 451
Thanked 497 Times in 281 Posts
Default

Seriously, why even open this discussion? All you are doing is inviting people to continue to provide more personal opinion on this, and if the last 1000 posts on this topic are any indiction, everyone is going to believe what they want to believe and not be swayed one way or the other.

There appear to be multiple agendas at play on this issue, and the posts, opinions, and "facts" presented all seem far from neutral.

Killing more electrons on this topic will ONLY lead to hostility. If you don't like or agree with any given law or regulation the place to do something about it is NOT on this forum, it's in real life.

I'd prefer to see someone post some actual statistics and trends, and even at that you'd need 4 or 5 years of the current state to even begin to show a trend that you could extrapolate from.
__________________
[insert witty phrase here]
brk-lnt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2010, 11:48 AM   #3
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 310
Thanks: 236
Thanked 174 Times in 76 Posts
Default

I agree brk-int. With all due respect OCD this is not a good idea, it will only lead to the same old crap. Let the data and statistics speak for themselves, opinions about this have not changed on either side. Please consider deleting your original post.
DEJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2010, 12:01 PM   #4
DoTheMath
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: MA / Center Harbor
Posts: 134
Thanks: 36
Thanked 41 Times in 17 Posts
Default

I see no issue with his post, as it says in the top of this section of the Winni forum:

"Warning! Avoid this area if you don't like debates and arguments!"

So, with that - respectfully, let the thread continue... (thanks Don)
DoTheMath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2010, 12:06 PM   #5
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 310
Thanks: 236
Thanked 174 Times in 76 Posts
Default

And this will accomplish what? We will get the same crowd that will say the lake feels safer this year, and the other crowd that will say nothing has changed. There that should cover it, debate over.
DEJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 08-25-2010, 01:22 PM   #6
classic22
Member
 
classic22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton Bay
Posts: 40
Thanks: 6
Thanked 81 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DEJ View Post
And this will accomplish what? We will get the same crowd that will say the lake feels safer this year, and the other crowd that will say nothing has changed. There that should cover it, debate over.
DEJ- OCD has always been consistent in his postings and thoughts about the speed limit that there should be more time to study the issue as the original legislation regarding speed limits intended. The fact that it was hastily put forward last summer by the pro speed limit crowd as all problems solved by the speed limit, nothing to look at here, please move along mentality to get the speed limit passed permanently has been a sticking point for many.
So as Ronald Reagan once said: Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? By the way the answer was rhetorical, as every one already knew the answer! I believe OCD by his posting is asking, are you better off with a speed limit than you were 2 years ago before the speed limit? I think in this case we all know the answer as well!
classic22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2010, 01:56 PM   #7
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,101
Thanks: 1,235
Thanked 1,369 Times in 683 Posts
Default Less friendly

I am going to move beyond the SL dialogue and say that people on the lake have become less friendly and less courteous. I am not saying that every passing boater should wave to one another but when someone does something courteous, it would be nice to have that act acknowledged.
VitaBene is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to VitaBene For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (08-26-2010), LIforrelaxin (08-26-2010), XCR-700 (08-27-2010)
Old 08-25-2010, 03:25 PM   #8
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,059
Thanks: 184
Thanked 1,325 Times in 524 Posts
Default

Since the question was asked, I'll submit a simple answer.

I don't believe anyone's mind has changed in regards to the SL. Those that decided for or against seem to be even less likely to consider any other point of view. Kinda like any political philosophy, the liberals hate the conservatives and the conservatives hate the liberals. It will never change.

Is there a noticeable difference? IMHO this is a loaded question and no offense throwing a little red meat to the wolves. Perception does NOT equal reality or fact. No offense either to the long string of so called experts and "know it alls".... if you cannot site specific reports or verifiable data sources then what you say cannot be validated and therefore is simply self proclaimed 'fact', or more accurately described as 'opinion'.

To fully understand if the SL has made an impact is to at the end of each year compare accident, summons issued etc... data before and after to get an idea. Same can be said for the boater's safety course, has it made a difference? Let the numbers answer that question.

Now if anyone can get their hands on this kind of data from the NHMP or if they would be so kind as to post it here, well then we have something to discuss. Otherwise it's just another long endless debate over who's perception is more accurate. The answer to that is very simple.... MINE! (I forgot to say I was just kidding)

Just my 02 cents before the bullets start a flying!
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2010, 06:55 PM   #9
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DEJ View Post
I agree brk-int. With all due respect OCD this is not a good idea, it will only lead to the same old crap. Let the data and statistics speak for themselves, opinions about this have not changed on either side. Please consider deleting your original post.
Maybe, maybe not.

But as Don posted on the thread title.

"This separated forum is provided for the discussion and debate about controversial issues that effect the Lakes Region but are discouraged from the other more friendly areas. Debates about speed limits, no-wake zones, noise and general complaints and griping belong here. Threads in other forums that turn into debates, arguments or bickering will be moved here. Warning! Avoid this area if you don't like debates and arguments!"


Had to look didn't you?

I hope it stays civil, and hopefully interesting.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2010, 08:30 PM   #10
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,762
Thanks: 451
Thanked 497 Times in 281 Posts
Default

My comment was not in regards to whether or not this discussion topic was allowed, but more to the point that every single one of these threads in the past have simply degraded to futility.

There is not enough data to draw a logical conclusion from, and furthermore you are forever trying to argue to disprove a negative. You say there were many accidents this year, and it's easy for someone to say "yeah, and without the speed limit we SURELY would have had more". There is NO way you can counter that kind of statement.

I'd love to see a discussion about something based in facts and reality, not just another rehashed opinion thread.
__________________
[insert witty phrase here]
brk-lnt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2010, 08:47 PM   #11
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brk-lnt View Post
My comment was not in regards to whether or not this discussion topic was allowed, but more to the point that every single one of these threads in the past have simply degraded to futility.

There is not enough data to draw a logical conclusion from, and furthermore you are forever trying to argue to disprove a negative. You say there were many accidents this year, and it's easy for someone to say "yeah, and without the speed limit we SURELY would have had more". There is NO way you can counter that kind of statement.

I'd love to see a discussion about something based in facts and reality, not just another rehashed opinion thread.
Then rephrase it. Yes, there were far more accidents this year than last, and I believe the year before that as well.

Here's a great question, which requires nothing more than facts, that are readily available.

Have any of the accidents this year, or last, involved speeds that would indicate to you that a speed limit was needed on the lake?

The data is available, and you can get it for a decade or more.

Another question. Have any of the accidents this year indicated that a speed limit was needed on the lake? How about last year, or the year before. The facts are available, so I guess no speculation is really required.

No rehash required. Step right up to the plate and hit the pitch.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 07:02 AM   #12
onlywinni
Senior Member
 
onlywinni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Laconia
Posts: 108
Thanks: 6
Thanked 39 Times in 16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brk-lnt View Post
I'd prefer to see someone post some actual statistics and trends, and even at that you'd need 4 or 5 years of the current state to even begin to show a trend that you could extrapolate from.
Please feel free to show me the 4-5 years of statistics and trends that led to the SL being passed. I dont believe there are any. The only evidence offered was "feelings" and emails from what I gather.

There is one study that was completed by the Marine Patrol in 2007 and only 0.9% of boats exceeded 45mph that is 36 out of 3852.(does not appear to be the epidemic some indicated to get this law passed). Also the top speed was only 62mph far cry from the alleged speeds some people claim.

The speed zone sampling produced the following results:

• The total number of boats clocked was 3852. This number includes both motorboats and PWC’s, data collected during the day and at night.
• The average daytime speed for all vessels (powerboats and PWC’s) was 22.72 miles per hour.
• The average speed for all vessels after 8:00 p.m. was 20.42 miles per hour.
• The average weekday speed was 25.91 miles per hour.
• The average weekend speed was 28.62 miles per hour.
• The maximum speed recorded for a vessel was 62 miles per hour. A total of three vessels were clocked going this speed, two on Saturday 7/14/07 and one on Saturday, 8/04/07.
• The maximum speed for a PWC was 49 miles per hour.
• The maximum speed after 8:00 p.m. was 44 miles per hour.
There were a total of 36 boats clocked going over 45 miles per hour which represents 0.9% of the total.


Here is the report for anyone's reference.

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...rveyreport.pdf

----------------------

I left this debate a while ago, because I dont believe I can change anyone's mind who is already made up; however someone new to the issue should know the facts. Thanks
__________________
Special Thanks to the Marine Patrol for keeping us all safe on Winni
onlywinni is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onlywinni For This Useful Post:
chipj29 (08-26-2010), XCR-700 (08-27-2010)
Old 08-26-2010, 08:04 AM   #13
ishoot308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gilford, NH / Welch Island
Posts: 4,090
Thanks: 1,421
Thanked 2,872 Times in 1,090 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by onlywinni View Post
Please feel free to show me the 4-5 years of statistics and trends that led to the SL being passed. I dont believe there are any. The only evidence offered was "feelings" and emails from what I gather.

There is one study that was completed by the Marine Patrol in 2007 and only 0.9% of boats exceeded 45mph that is 36 out of 3852.(does not appear to be the epidemic some indicated to get this law passed). Also the top speed was only 62mph far cry from the alleged speeds some people claim.

The speed zone sampling produced the following results:

• The total number of boats clocked was 3852. This number includes both motorboats and PWC’s, data collected during the day and at night.
• The average daytime speed for all vessels (powerboats and PWC’s) was 22.72 miles per hour.
• The average speed for all vessels after 8:00 p.m. was 20.42 miles per hour.
• The average weekday speed was 25.91 miles per hour.
• The average weekend speed was 28.62 miles per hour.
• The maximum speed recorded for a vessel was 62 miles per hour. A total of three vessels were clocked going this speed, two on Saturday 7/14/07 and one on Saturday, 8/04/07.
• The maximum speed for a PWC was 49 miles per hour.
• The maximum speed after 8:00 p.m. was 44 miles per hour.
There were a total of 36 boats clocked going over 45 miles per hour which represents 0.9% of the total.


Here is the report for anyone's reference.

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...rveyreport.pdf

----------------------

I left this debate a while ago, because I dont believe I can change anyone's mind who is already made up; however someone new to the issue should know the facts. Thanks
What better statistical data is there than this?? Why was this data completely ignored?? This is the largest sampling of data I have seen regarding the issue yet this is the first time I have seen it.

Dan
ishoot308 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 08:19 AM   #14
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

They disputed the data because it didn't meet their agenda, similar to the NWZ at Barber's Pole. They even charged that since the MP did not support the SL, that they purposely tried to contaminate the data.

However, there have been two incidents which led to the SL that had nothing to do with speed. You all know which ones they were. It's a culture thing, and people that rub them the wrong way, Look Out.

Last year, some of the more professional protagonists, TB, El and SOTD, engaged in many "debates" over the weather and the economy. They proclaimed that the speed limit had already worked, which is why the lake was so quiet. So this year, after a multitude of accidents and drownings and capsizing stories, they couldn't detract from their positions. In spite of renewed chaos and a multitude of boneheads, they still proclaimed it was working very well.

However, another argument, the NWZ at BP, made them change their tune. Instead of the SL working there, boats are Tearing and Ripping and Flying all over the place in that area. Despite observations from people that live and boat there, the allegations continue. It's like leaving a book down to get a drink, and coming back only to find out someone's changed the chapter you were reading

Most of us do not own very fast boats, a few do. Most of us have embraced safety, additional enforcement, adding to the MP funding, and have expressed a desire to enforce the laws. When provided with facts, they get nasty. So be it, that's politics. However, these are boater's issues, and not general elections. There are a multitude of good people on both sides of every argument. But these discussions should not be arguments, but discussions.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to VtSteve For This Useful Post:
brk-lnt (08-26-2010), VitaBene (08-26-2010)
Old 08-26-2010, 08:29 AM   #15
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post
They disputed the data because it didn't meet their agenda, similar to the NWZ at Barber's Pole. They even charged that since the MP did not support the SL, that they purposely tried to contaminate the data.

However, there have been two incidents which led to the SL that had nothing to do with speed. You all know which ones they were. It's a culture thing, and people that rub them the wrong way, Look Out.

Last year, some of the more professional protagonists, TB, El and SOTD, engaged in many "debates" over the weather and the economy. They proclaimed that the speed limit had already worked, which is why the lake was so quiet. So this year, after a multitude of accidents and drownings and capsizing stories, they couldn't detract from their positions. In spite of renewed chaos and a multitude of boneheads, they still proclaimed it was working very well.

However, another argument, the NWZ at BP, made them change their tune. Instead of the SL working there, boats are Tearing and Ripping and Flying all over the place in that area. Despite observations from people that live and boat there, the allegations continue. It's like leaving a book down to get a drink, and coming back only to find out someone's changed the chapter you were reading
Safety was only 1 facet of the SL law. Now back to my peaceful reading on the dock. BTW last night I slept great...no loud boats tearing by the house at 11 PM at god knows what speed.
sunset on the dock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 08:38 AM   #16
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,762
Thanks: 451
Thanked 497 Times in 281 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by onlywinni View Post
Please feel free to show me the 4-5 years of statistics and trends that led to the SL being passed. I dont believe there are any. The only evidence offered was "feelings" and emails from what I gather.
I think you guys may be unaware of which side of this debate my opinions fall on.

For the record, I think the speed limit is a pointless feel-good law.

Anyone who looks at this with a clear head can see that it was passed on opinions, emotions, and pandering instead of facts and statistics. 99% of the threads discussing the speed limits show this. You have one side citing statistics, and the other side citing touchy-feely emotions and non-scientific observations.

I also don't see any indications that the anti-SL crowd is going to place any value in some people *feeling* safer, even if there is no data to support that feeling, nor do I see the pro-SL crowd willing to look at actual data in an unbiased fashion and come to the conclusion that we're not going to ever get safety via legislation in any effective manner.

We can start as many of these threads as the server has space for, and they will all become facts vs. feelings debates, which will never do anything more than fill the server db with more random text.
__________________
[insert witty phrase here]
brk-lnt is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to brk-lnt For This Useful Post:
DEJ (08-26-2010), onlywinni (08-26-2010), VtSteve (08-26-2010)
Old 08-26-2010, 10:09 AM   #17
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,738
Thanks: 2,259
Thanked 825 Times in 574 Posts
Default Life long Winni native response.

In my opinion the lake is no longer the friendliest place on earth that I have pictured in my mind when I was growing up on The Broads. In the past, everyone get along no matter what they do or what they float. I miss the camaraderie of the water ski racing and sailboat regatta days. Although there are sailboat regattas today, I find the organizers a snobby bunch. They shun most folks outside their little cocoon.

I no longer get the 'boater's wave' from boaters around the lake. A few still do. There was a time last spring my boat broke down just outside the Weirs Channel. In the old days, just about any boater will stop to see if you need assistance. I was drifting a good hour with hundreds of boats zipping by.

I usually keep my eye out for paddlers when a sudden storm comes up. Many time I offer assistance over the years. This year I tried to lend a hand to two kayakers in trouble off Long Island. They shouted back, 'We don't like your kind! Go away!'. One sailboater off Bear Island even flipped me the birdy!

The neighborhood use to be one huge happy family. Everyone will spend a weekend night on each other's deck or porch. The children will play together and enjoy many watersports. Today the 'high rollers' from out of state moved in, tear down the 1800's style fishing cottages and build McMansions. They tend to act like they own the neighborhood and also the road! They snub their neighbors and keep to themselves.

As far as boating safety. I see very little marine patrol presence this summer. I even overheard a couple of novice boaters at a local bar telling folks that the MP budget was cut and they are to busy catching Speeders to notice other infractions. I have to believe them. I have never seen so much NWZ and 150' infractions this year than my life on the lake. I have even witness three boats traveling at max wake speed through the Weirs Channel! Wasn't there serious accidents this year because of 'minor' infractions?

Shorefront property owners are already complaining about the slower boats creating larger wakes and also that noise become a problem because they hear it longer. SL opponents have told them that this will happen and it was ignored. I also notice a number of the so called 'GFBL' boats traded in for large cruisers or yachts. Compounding the situation.

My new neighbors will call the police if one decided to do the long tradition of skinny dipping ala 'On Golden Pond'. The same neighbors will call the marine patrol if i decided to water-ski at sunrise or sunset. One neighbor even confiscate my 'drop off' ski, claiming if drifted out in front of his property!

I can go on and on. Any new laws is not going to take the lake back. It is people that can take the lake back. Trying to limit public launching, tolls at the Weirs channel, limiting the size of boats and horsepower will just make matters worst. It will actually turn the traditional lake folks into 'Outlaws'.

Let's all be reasonable.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.

Last edited by BroadHopper; 10-26-2010 at 10:10 PM.
BroadHopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 10:23 AM   #18
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DEJ View Post
SOTD, boats cannot tear by your house at 11 PM at god knows what speed because after dark the speed limit is 25 mph. The speed limit is working, haven't you heard and read about it?
Apparently SOTD has several differing "opinions". We have people tearing through the BP area, but he can sleep soundly because of how well the SL is working. In fact, several of the statements supporting the NWZ at BP differed strikingly from recent comments by two primary supporters.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 10:41 AM   #19
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brk-lnt View Post
I think you guys may be unaware of which side of this debate my opinions fall on.

For the record, I think the speed limit is a pointless feel-good law.

Anyone who looks at this with a clear head can see that it was passed on opinions, emotions, and pandering instead of facts and statistics. 99% of the threads discussing the speed limits show this. You have one side citing statistics, and the other side citing touchy-feely emotions and non-scientific observations.

I also don't see any indications that the anti-SL crowd is going to place any value in some people *feeling* safer, even if there is no data to support that feeling, nor do I see the pro-SL crowd willing to look at actual data in an unbiased fashion and come to the conclusion that we're not going to ever get safety via legislation in any effective manner.

We can start as many of these threads as the server has space for, and they will all become facts vs. feelings debates, which will never do anything more than fill the server db with more random text.
You put that nicely, thanks.

I would agree with you if these were just useless discussions of the political type. Unfortunately, many of these things are going on behind people's backs, with people using lies and baseless accusations to get legislators to sign on. It was known last year that a former(?) political operative and campaign manager type was lobbying heavily for the speed limit bill. The tactics and methods used by that group were both professional. Regardless of anyone's position on a variety of these issues, wouldn't it be reassuring to know that your real opinion is actually being heard?


These very same tactics are now being deployed by the very same folks on a NWZ issue most hadn't heard of. Whether someone supports it or not, the main issue is that a small group of people are lobbying behind people's backs, limiting access to other's opinions. While some may agree with one area and not another, makes no difference in this discussion. Fact is, they will not stop at one NWZ area, but will continue to advances their various causes whether any of you like it or not.

It should be blatantly obvious in these discussions. Some speed limit opponents support a serious discussion of the NWZ, and have not dismissed anyone's concerns at all. Hazelnut has them off guard on this one. He didn't support the speed limit, but made some very eloquent comments as to how this NWZ could benefit him personally. What caught them off guard, is that they didn't expect anyone to factually dispute their reasons, which were skillfully crafted to make everyone fearful of these big, bad, fast boaters. Those in the impacted area know that those issues aren't even issues there.

If you read the support letters for the NWZ, it really reads like a Pro speed limit discussion. This, from the very same people that say the speed limit is working so well, they can now relax

Transparency is not one of their defining characteristics.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 11:05 AM   #20
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Nice post Broadhopper,

You are right, the lake has changed and the biggest part is the attitude. One could make a valid argument one of the greatest assets of Lake Winnipesaukee in years gone by was the friendliness of the people that called that lake home (even if it was for only a few weeks per year).

If you don’t believe it, take a step back and remove the rose colored glasses. Those cabins of yesteryear where we spent our summers, where they really that nice or were they just a backdrop? Was the water cleaner back then? I remember when the Alton Bay Pavilion was a roller skating rink. After a big Saturday night when the rink was at capacity, there would be toilet paper floating in the bay all day Sunday. What made the lake great was the people, the attitude and the feeling you were part of something so much grander than yourself. That is something I think has been lost over the years.

I can understand why people want to turn the clock back, although something’s are better left in the past. I just think people are focusing on the wrong things. It is not the homes, cabins, and boats that need a change. It’s the attitude. If you really want to make a change, start with yourself, if you see somebody in trouble, STOP and lend a hand. If you don’t know your neighbors on the lake, introduce yourself. If you pass another boat wave and smile. Just treat others the way you want to be treated and you will see a change.
Kracken is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Kracken For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (08-26-2010)
Old 08-26-2010, 11:34 AM   #21
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,675
Thanks: 23
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

The problem here is that most people on this forum don't know why we have a SL. They heard somewhere, or read somewhere or just made it up in their minds that the SL is about safety. It isn't, and new was. Preventing accidents is NOT the reason we have a SL. At best it is one of the secondary or supporting reasons.

That is why all these arguments about test areas, data, trial periods and how many accidents there were in a given year are so far off target. As Bill Murry said in Meatballs "IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!"

The Anti-SL crowd, at this site and elsewhere, have been arguing the safety issue from day one. And, for the most part, at the exclusion of other more pertinent arguments. And that, in my opinion, is why they lost.

In Star Wars 5 Luke Skywalker says "I can't believe it!" Yoda responds "That is why you fail".

You want to talk about why we have a speed limit? Then drop the safety stuff.
Bear Islander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 11:44 AM   #22
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
The problem here is that most people on this forum don't know why we have a SL. They heard somewhere, or read somewhere or just made it up in their minds that the SL is about safety. It isn't, and new was. Preventing accidents is NOT the reason we have a SL. At best it is one of the secondary or supporting reasons.

That is why all these arguments about test areas, data, trial periods and how many accidents there were in a given year are so far off target. As Bill Murry said in Meatballs "IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!"

The Anti-SL crowd, at this site and elsewhere, have been arguing the safety issue from day one. And, for the most part, at the exclusion of other more pertinent arguments. And that, in my opinion, is why they lost.

In Star Wars 5 Luke Skywalker says "I can't believe it!" Yoda responds "That is why you fail".

You want to talk about why we have a speed limit? Then drop the safety stuff.
Hey BI.. You and I go round and round on this but I would love to hear it... what do you think the reasons are? cut and dry?

When I got involved in this I read every post, article, thread, news media interview etc. and everyone of them cried being afraid and safety issues as the top priority. I sat in the hearings and this was again the arguement over and over again.

We would then hear a bit of noise issues etc but never was that the primary reasonings the SL crowd asked for the limits.

I personally agree with you. I believe that the "majority" of those who started this crusade are simply trying to ban / limit performance boats from the lake. It is very unfortunate and I have been told by many different sources that their true intentions had nothing to do with speed or safety what so ever (this is why they were unwilling to negotiate in any way).. But without trying to rehash a tragic accident or sounding unsympathetic in anyway, their true intentions was to rid the lake of performance boats due to their friend dying in a night time accident, that involved a performance boat but speed was not a factor at all. Even with today's limits it woudn't have been considered a speed issue. We all know about this accident and it isn't a coincidence that the person who passed away due to this tragic accident lived in the same area as the people who started asking for a speed limit in the first place.

I know it is a big elephant in the room, and I don't want to sound unsympathetic to the family on either side. It unfortunately is the truth but no one openly admits it.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?

Last edited by OCDACTIVE; 08-26-2010 at 12:41 PM.
OCDACTIVE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 12:15 PM   #23
classic22
Member
 
classic22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton Bay
Posts: 40
Thanks: 6
Thanked 81 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
The problem here is that most people on this forum don't know why we have a SL. They heard somewhere, or read somewhere or just made it up in their minds that the SL is about safety. It isn't, and new was. Preventing accidents is NOT the reason we have a SL. At best it is one of the secondary or supporting reasons.

That is why all these arguments about test areas, data, trial periods and how many accidents there were in a given year are so far off target. As Bill Murry said in Meatballs "IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!"

The Anti-SL crowd, at this site and elsewhere, have been arguing the safety issue from day one. And, for the most part, at the exclusion of other more pertinent arguments. And that, in my opinion, is why they lost.

In Star Wars 5 Luke Skywalker says "I can't believe it!" Yoda responds "That is why you fail".

You want to talk about why we have a speed limit? Then drop the safety stuff.
BI- You are correct in stating the obvious...it never was about safety...this was just a smoke screen put up by the pro-speed limit crowd. So please enlighten the forum what it really was about! Please dont keep us in suspense any longer.
classic22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 01:10 PM   #24
All Summer Long
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nashua/Gilford
Posts: 3
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
In my opinion the lake is no longer the friendliest place on earth that I have pictured in my mind when I was growing up on The Broads.

I am a new boater and basically new to Lake Winni. I have no experience with how it used to be but I have to say I am very pleased with how many friendly and helpful people I have come across. We have been helped by so many people when we have tried to anchor or dock. Our new neighbors at the marina have been full of helpful tips and have welcomed us in to the "family". Sometimes when you look for the bad, you see the bad. There will always be the bad seeds but I like to think they don't out number the good. Hope you start running in to more of the good!
All Summer Long is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 01:14 PM   #25
Shreddy
Senior Member
 
Shreddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Moultonboro
Posts: 420
Thanks: 118
Thanked 158 Times in 86 Posts
Default

I think the SL was simply an eye opener. Most people know that the majority of boats don't/can't exceed say 60mph. The ones that can, don't do it often. No, I'm not for the SL per say, but it did set the bar similar to most speed limits off the water. The SL may be 45mph on the water, but MP realize that 50-55mph is acceptable/unenforecable. Same way going 75 on I93 most likely won't get you pulled over by a Statie.

It makes people think twice when operating a boat. I honestly don't drive any different, partly because my boat will barely hit 45mph if I'm lucky. No worries for me. My jet ski on the other hand is different.

What I'm stating is simply my take on the subject and what I think they accomplished with the law. I'd be curious to see how many, if any, tickets were issued in regards to this law. It would also be cool to see if they held up in court.

Side note, I'm completely for the night time speed limit as it can be tough to navigate even as an experienced boater. I do understand that certain boats need certain speeds to stay on plane as well.
Shreddy is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Shreddy For This Useful Post:
AC2717 (08-26-2010)
Old 08-26-2010, 01:35 PM   #26
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,738
Thanks: 2,259
Thanked 825 Times in 574 Posts
Default Marina vs. The lake

Quote:
Originally Posted by All Summer Long View Post
I am a new boater and basically new to Lake Winni. I have no experience with how it used to be but I have to say I am very pleased with how many friendly and helpful people I have come across. We have been helped by so many people when we have tried to anchor or dock. Our new neighbors at the marina have been full of helpful tips and have welcomed us in to the "family". Sometimes when you look for the bad, you see the bad. There will always be the bad seeds but I like to think they don't out number the good. Hope you start running in to more of the good!
The folks that keeps their boats at a large marina such as MVYC or WAM are different. Due to the close proximity of boats, and the commonality between the folks that stay at a marina, fuels a camaderie like no other. Like the old days. Stick around a few years and you will no what I mean.

I know folks who didn't care for the crowd in a particular marina, will move on to another marina. I can't understand the folks who moved to Winnipesaukee, who doesn't like it, decides to 'rock the boat' and hopefully make 'change for the better'. Why can't they moved on? Plenty of waterfront property outside of Winnipesaukee. My new neighbors actually tried to make me move! I am the weirdo, yet I was here first!
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 02:00 PM   #27
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,675
Thanks: 23
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
...their true intentions was to rid the lake of performance boats due to their friend dying in a night time accident, that involved a performance boat but speed was not a factor at all. Even with today's limits it woudn't have been considered a speed issue...
Incredible that you can say that when the MPs speed estimate was HIGHER than the current speed limit. That's not really important, but it is one of the little FACTS that anti-sl people keep forgetting. Yes, I know, only 3 mph higher, but higher is higher.

I have many reasons for supporting the SL but number one is children's camps. Some camps are keeping their small boats in on weekends because of the cowboy atmosphere on the lake. To me that is an indication that things are getting out of control and something needs to be done. There is also the question of where the lake is going. What will it be like in 5, 10 or 20 years? Three NE states have state wide speed limits. As more limits are enacted elsewhere is Winni to be the destination for speed enthusiasts? I don't like that idea. We need a speed limit now so hopefully most of these people will go somewhere else.

The single word answer to why we have a speed limit is fear. The fear of a camp director to send out his boats. The fear of a kayaker to come to this lake. The fear of an elderly couple to leave their island home on a weekend. That last one is VERY real. The fear of a parent to let their child take out a boat or canoe. The fear that our beautiful natural resource is being taken over by a small minority of "get out of my way" boaters.

For some it is about erosion, water quality, loon nests, fair distribution of resources, pollution, tourist dollars, wake damage, privacy, noise and yes even boating accidents.
Bear Islander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 02:16 PM   #28
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Incredible that you can say that when the MPs speed estimate was HIGHER than the current speed limit. That's not really important, but it is one of the little FACTS that anti-sl people keep forgetting. Yes, I know, only 3 mph higher, but higher is higher.

I have many reasons for supporting the SL but number one is children's camps. Some camps are keeping their small boats in on weekends because of the cowboy atmosphere on the lake. To me that is an indication that things are getting out of control and something needs to be done. There is also the question of where the lake is going. What will it be like in 5, 10 or 20 years? Three NE states have state wide speed limits. As more limits are enacted elsewhere is Winni to be the destination for speed enthusiasts? I don't like that idea. We need a speed limit now so hopefully most of these people will go somewhere else.

The single word answer to why we have a speed limit is fear. The fear of a camp director to send out his boats. The fear of a kayaker to come to this lake. The fear of an elderly couple to leave their island home on a weekend. That last one is VERY real. The fear of a parent to let their child take out a boat or canoe. The fear that our beautiful natural resource is being taken over by a small minority of "get out of my way" boaters.

For some it is about erosion, water quality, loon nests, fair distribution of resources, pollution, tourist dollars, wake damage, privacy, noise and yes even boating accidents.
Hey BI... This is why we will always keep going round and round.

1. yes I apologize the "ESTIMATED" speed was 28mph (but remember they just pushed it to 30 mph night time).. But that is splitting hairs. We both know "speed" was not the issue. But this tragic event is the underlying reason why the people who started their agenda for the speed limits. You can't argue that, but it is funny that you nor the pro-sl crowd will even admit to it.

2. Camps....... Yes we all know you were a camp director and want to SL's to help "protect" the camps. I will never convince you otherwise and you will never convince me that the SL helps protect the camps more then putting resources towards enforcing the 150' law near the camps. So we can agree to disagree there.

3. Seriously though, you don't "need" a speed limit to deter people from coming to the lake... Those who truely want to continously go fast and test their boats go to the ocean anyway. Never have I ever heard one of my offshore race boat captains say "I can't wait to get to a lake to test my boat". The true race boats go to the ocean because they can't be muffled and they would cross the lake too quickly before getting dialed in anyway.. That is a reaching argument.

4. Fear.. You hit it.. But how is this solved by a SL. People fear fast boats?? We have all agreed that the majority of boats on the lake can not exceed 45 mph anyway. This doesn't improve fear because as this thread is titled "Nothing has changed" even Dir. Barrett said in the House Trasportation Hearing "nothing will change on the lake either way" so why does the SL calm this fear? Nothing has changed...

5. You mentioned in your last post that Safety has nothing to do with it. However if people are fearful that they aren't "safe" then how doesn't safety have everything to do with it. If we truely want to improve safety on the lake doesn't this actually not only improve the lake but help to calm those fears.

I still think this is where the Pro-SL's aguments fall off the track because they can not be substaniated. Feelings should not dictate law.

We can continue this over a beer soon.. (o'douls for me )
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (08-26-2010), Pineedles (08-26-2010), Shreddy (08-26-2010)
Old 08-26-2010, 02:48 PM   #29
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 310
Thanks: 236
Thanked 174 Times in 76 Posts
Default

BI, you stated "the MPs speed estimate was HIGHER than the current speed limit".

Estimate is the key word here, it very well could have been 24mph but we know that does not fit your agenda. Perhaps this type of stuff is why some here do not trust you and question your motives.
DEJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 03:06 PM   #30
Shreddy
Senior Member
 
Shreddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Moultonboro
Posts: 420
Thanks: 118
Thanked 158 Times in 86 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Incredible that you can say that when the MPs speed estimate was HIGHER than the current speed limit. That's not really important, but it is one of the little FACTS that anti-sl people keep forgetting. Yes, I know, only 3 mph higher, but higher is higher.

I have many reasons for supporting the SL but number one is children's camps. Some camps are keeping their small boats in on weekends because of the cowboy atmosphere on the lake. To me that is an indication that things are getting out of control and something needs to be done. There is also the question of where the lake is going. What will it be like in 5, 10 or 20 years? Three NE states have state wide speed limits. As more limits are enacted elsewhere is Winni to be the destination for speed enthusiasts? I don't like that idea. We need a speed limit now so hopefully most of these people will go somewhere else.

The single word answer to why we have a speed limit is fear. The fear of a camp director to send out his boats. The fear of a kayaker to come to this lake. The fear of an elderly couple to leave their island home on a weekend. That last one is VERY real. The fear of a parent to let their child take out a boat or canoe. The fear that our beautiful natural resource is being taken over by a small minority of "get out of my way" boaters.

For some it is about erosion, water quality, loon nests, fair distribution of resources, pollution, tourist dollars, wake damage, privacy, noise and yes even boating accidents.
Cowboys don't need to go over 45mph to be cowboys, most can't even go 45mph. The speed limit encompasses a safety problem for MAYBE (and I'll admit this is speculation), 20% at most, of operators on the lake and that is INCLUDING PWC's as well. Most vessels simply can't reach that speed. It's apparent that the ones that do, do not do it often (yes the do it).

The issue of safety during the day is not one of speed but rather knowledge of how to operate a boat, understanding of laws already enacted (excluding the SL law), and knowledge of how to properly navigate the lake.

I'm not trying to be one-sided but I feel strongly about my above opinion.
Shreddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 03:52 PM   #31
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,192
Thanks: 772
Thanked 621 Times in 334 Posts
Default

I am going to stay out of all prior discussion here. And straight up answer the question of how has the lake changed this year... or more to the point over the last two years with speed limits. Well to tell you the truth I really haven't seen an overall change that would indicate to me that there has been any change what so ever. As the speed limit itself is extremely hard and time consuming to enforce and the MP presence on the lake is better spent doing other things I really have not felt as though the speed limit or the enforcing of it has slowed people down.

I continue to see the same problems I have always seen by inconsiderate boaters, or even the considerate boaters that prove once in a while that we are all human and make mistakes. Fortunately for them these things always seem to happen when the MP isn't around. And when the MP is around they are looking for the more serious and more easily enforced infractions.

This past summer I have had issues with a Marina owner, who later called and apologized to me for his actions, to rental boat owners, and everyone in between. All of these problems would be dealt with laws already in existence prior to the SL, through things that would most easily be dealt with by having a Coast Guard #6 style law calling for speeds that are safe and prudent for the given conditions.

I feel that if people keep trying to regulate the boating on Winnipesaukee the are going to eventually harm what we have all come to love. A place where we can come and enjoy ourselves. Quite personally I know what I have to deal with when I take my boat out. I know where to go on the lake when I don't want to deal with the crowds. And I accept the stress of being in the busy areas when I go there...

I also feel that the people that think SL will make things safer....or more enjoyable are only kidding themselves. Boats that break the speed limits are few and far between... short for short burst here and there it happens but... it not like there are cowboys that are flying around at either 6mph or 50mph and don't know how to achieve anything in between. If you aren't comfortable on the lake, you aren't going to be, no mater how many laws and regulations there are, and that is the bottom line... I have more trouble with the issues mother nature throws at me out on the lake then anything....
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to LIforrelaxin For This Useful Post:
brk-lnt (08-26-2010)
Old 08-26-2010, 04:00 PM   #32
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,192
Thanks: 772
Thanked 621 Times in 334 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post

The single word answer to why we have a speed limit is fear. The fear of a camp director to send out his boats. The fear of a kayaker to come to this lake. The fear of an elderly couple to leave their island home on a weekend. That last one is VERY real. The fear of a parent to let their child take out a boat or canoe. The fear that our beautiful natural resource is being taken over by a small minority of "get out of my way" boaters.
Bear Islander,

I will totally agree with this one word answer here.... Fear is the problem and the reason we ended up with the Law.... The problem is that no matter how many rules and regulations are put into place fears will never be calmed... because there is always something new to fear.... Fears must be dealt with...
not regulated.
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to LIforrelaxin For This Useful Post:
Wolfeboro_Baja (08-30-2010)
Old 08-26-2010, 04:22 PM   #33
loony
Senior Member
 
loony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 70
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Default

let the facts speak for themselves.

I have not gone searching too much, but what I'd like to see is the marine patrol or a local newspaper publish marine patrol reports, similar to weekly police reports you read in the paper. This IS public information, but I never see it published.
This way we know how many citations were given out, and for what.
We'll also find out what their focus is.

If anyone know where to find it please share it.
loony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 05:09 PM   #34
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
1) I have many reasons for supporting the SL but number one is children's camps. Some camps are keeping their small boats in on weekends because of the cowboy atmosphere on the lake. To me that is an indication that things are getting out of control and something needs to be done.

2) There is also the question of where the lake is going. What will it be like in 5, 10 or 20 years? Three NE states have state wide speed limits. As more limits are enacted elsewhere is Winni to be the destination for speed enthusiasts? I don't like that idea. We need a speed limit now so hopefully most of these people will go somewhere else.

3) The single word answer to why we have a speed limit is fear. The fear of a camp director to send out his boats. The fear of a kayaker to come to this lake. The fear of an elderly couple to leave their island home on a weekend. That last one is VERY real. The fear of a parent to let their child take out a boat or canoe. The fear that our beautiful natural resource is being taken over by a small minority of "get out of my way" boaters.


4) For some it is about erosion, water quality, loon nests, fair distribution of resources, pollution, tourist dollars, wake damage, privacy, noise and yes even boating accidents.

1) So what about this year BI? Are the camps letting everyone out on the water again?

2) I'll have to agree with you on that vision. Some kind of limit might be a deterrent for the rogue cowboy. I don't agree with 45 mph, I think that's ridiculous. But you've supported different limits like me, so we're still in agreement.

3) I'll address the "get out of my way boaters" first. Again, I agree. I boat around numerous obstacles here. The worst are large sailboats, and lots of them. Many performance boats, lots of tubers and whatevers. I've had no problems at all with all but one arrogant performance boater. The rest are very friendly, and for the most part, handle their crafts well. If I had to define the GOOMW boater, I'd say a day boater with a tube, or a drunk boater.

As for fear? Subjective. If there's that many boaters that elicit fear, then I'd say an enforcement problem is huge. If they are afraid because they fear noise or size? Then I don't know what to tell you. I know your NWZ on Bear Island has been a constant problem. As you well know, enforcement works only if they are there. (got one this year)


We share a concern that too many people are arrogant, careless, too many drinkers, and cowboys of all kinds. You were realistic in thinking that the MP would not have increased funds, nor would the SL supporters assist in any way to mention enforcement. The ironic part is many SL proponents have a love/hate relationship with the MP.


Thanks for being a good person to have on board for discussions BI. I mean that
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 05:24 PM   #35
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
When I got involved in this I read every post, article, thread, news media interview etc. and everyone of them cried being afraid and safety issues as the top priority. I sat in the hearings and this was again the arguement over and over again.
...and speaking of those hearings. My lord the out and out lies that one specific Marina Owner told were enough to make your head spin. I can not believe that this man could sit there and answer questions and actually flat out LIE to the Transportation Committee just to pass a stupid SL law. It was actually scary and I might chalk it up to senility because he's kind of really old.
Then there was this large woman that got up and told this tall tale of a boat that was about to hit her and she heard a girl on the offending boat say "look out daddy!" So I'm sitting there like "Great story about a 150 rule violation and how fast or should I say how slow does a boat have to be going for you to be able to hear the occupants of said boat." The whole hearing process was hysterical as person after person got up and told these stories of near misses and almost what if's. One more sensational than the next. All stories had one detail or another that made it impossible for the boat in each scenario to be going more than 20MPH, such as "I saw he wasn't looking" or "I heard her say" "His bow was way high in the air and he couldn't see us." etc. etc. etc. The worst of them all was this woman who was asked if she would be open to allowing the broads to be a higher speed or a seasonal limit and she flat out said no! The reason, She uses the broads to go shopping and so do other Islanders.

I can't make this stuff up. I'm sure we could have a whole thread on this topic though.

Oh woops the original question, No the lake hasn't changed, one bit. Still the same knuckleheads doing the same things they always did. Ignoring the 150foot and being discourteous. The worst one to me is the Right of Way. Isn't that boating 101?
hazelnut is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
Just Sold (08-30-2010), VtSteve (08-26-2010)
Old 08-26-2010, 07:42 PM   #36
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
The worst of them all was this woman who was asked if she would be open to allowing the broads to be a higher speed or a seasonal limit and she flat out said no! The reason, She uses the broads to go shopping and so do other Islanders.

I can't make this stuff up. I'm sure we could have a whole thread on this topic
Umh....I was there too. You said she lived on an island? Was she shopping for food? Your spin might make it look like she was shopping for a new hat.
sunset on the dock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 07:53 PM   #37
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,059
Thanks: 184
Thanked 1,325 Times in 524 Posts
Default

Dramatics and embellishment unfortunately grab people's attention even though many statements are simply inaccurate. We also live in a time where public forums like this exist and anyone can put anything on them and get people all whipped up. So the combination of the two can and does have a toxic affect on any decisions that are being made. This is why it is imperative that the rhetoric for and against must be taken at face value and under the context it's given. These hearings must be presented with hard data that can be presented as evidence to separate fact from fiction.

Unfortunately now a days its far easier to just paint a picture that suits your agenda and somehow that is acceptable and taken seriously.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 08:18 PM   #38
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Sounds like cable TV Max
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 09:41 PM   #39
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,059
Thanks: 184
Thanked 1,325 Times in 524 Posts
Default

Not to far off VTSteve, there is a fine line between fact and fiction.

There is little argument that the successful passage of the SL and various NWZ's are a result of fear and to a great degree spin. I make no bones about it, I favored the SL but not for the reason many here site. I had no doubts that it would NOT make the lake any safer and to date I see no evidence that is has. What I do think it does is provide a valuable tool for the MP to use when necessary when dealing with a reckless operator. The current laws, such as for example "reckless operation" is far to vague and therefore a judgment call by the MP who witnessed said behavior. If challenged in court it can be tough to prove. A speed limit violation can be proven and therefore provides a cut and dry means to have a violation stick.

That said, I don't believe it was necessary to sanction the entire lake to a limit, rather there are areas where a speed limit is not necessary such as the broads while other areas a limit could have been put into place. This would have created IMHO far less division and would have provided a solution were those that want to go fast can and keep things under relative control elsewhere. There is no reason why this could not have been done, but such ideas were lost to those that were vehemently on one side of the issue or another.

I'd be curious to know who thinks this is unreasonable and if so why?

Finally for the purposes of disclosure, I am now a proud VIP member of SBONH and have a whole lot of respect for this organization, it's members and their efforts to promote safety through education.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (08-27-2010), ishoot308 (08-27-2010)
Old 08-27-2010, 07:26 AM   #40
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
Umh....I was there too. You said she lived on an island? Was she shopping for food? Your spin might make it look like she was shopping for a new hat.
Food, hats, whatever Let's go with food, even better: "I need to go grocery shopping so everyone on the lake needs to slow down for me."

Either way SOTD don't you see how silly this logic is. I am surprised the Committee didn't actually laugh in her face. I heard many chuckles in the room during her "testimony," it was hard to keep a straight face.

Hey for what it is worth the hearings were pretty entertaining. The fantastic stories of fear and danger were worthy of movie offers from Hollywood.
hazelnut is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
Martha Marlee (08-27-2010), OCDACTIVE (08-27-2010)
Old 08-27-2010, 07:37 AM   #41
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
Not to far off VTSteve, there is a fine line between fact and fiction.

There is little argument that the successful passage of the SL and various NWZ's are a result of fear and to a great degree spin. I make no bones about it, I favored the SL but not for the reason many here site. I had no doubts that it would NOT make the lake any safer and to date I see no evidence that is has. What I do think it does is provide a valuable tool for the MP to use when necessary when dealing with a reckless operator. The current laws, such as for example "reckless operation" is far to vague and therefore a judgment call by the MP who witnessed said behavior. If challenged in court it can be tough to prove. A speed limit violation can be proven and therefore provides a cut and dry means to have a violation stick.

That said, I don't believe it was necessary to sanction the entire lake to a limit, rather there are areas where a speed limit is not necessary such as the broads while other areas a limit could have been put into place. This would have created IMHO far less division and would have provided a solution were those that want to go fast can and keep things under relative control elsewhere. There is no reason why this could not have been done, but such ideas were lost to those that were vehemently on one side of the issue or another.

I'd be curious to know who thinks this is unreasonable and if so why?

Finally for the purposes of disclosure, I am now a proud VIP member of SBONH and have a whole lot of respect for this organization, it's members and their efforts to promote safety through education.

Maxum that was a refreshing post! WOW. I am an opponent to the SL law. However, you make great points without sensationalism. You have a logical viewpoint that makes good sense. I still think the Coast Guard Rule (6) is it? Could work for the lake, (Reasonable and Prudent). Either way I appreciate your perspective on the matter. In the end I thought to myself that I could live with exactly what you suggested. Add to that we keep a 30MPH night time SL and I am on board. Unfortunately when this "keep the broads open" was suggested the people who were ardent supporters, namely the woman who needs to go shopping, were seen for their real motives. They were completely against compromise and it was evident to many that their agenda was not safety. It was and always will be an attempt to rid the lake of what they consider undesirable boats. Again with the NIMBY attitude.
hazelnut is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
MAXUM (08-27-2010)
Old 08-27-2010, 08:12 AM   #42
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,738
Thanks: 2,259
Thanked 825 Times in 574 Posts
Default Jeez!

Now we are back on the same subject that gets Don teed. Let's get back on the subject if the lake is better.

A few things off topic. I am in complete agreement with BI about fear around the summer camps. Summer camps should have NWZ around the front of their properties. Even have a buoy or two situated out front to steer the boats away. That's a heck of a lot more logical than a lake wide SL.

I was a YMCA camp director in my days. Speed limits was not a problem. It is the incosiderate boaters that I feared the most. Steering them away form the camps lakefront is the best solution.

As for Winfabs, I was one of the founding members. The original intent of Winfabs was to save property value as I stated in another thread. Lake George property values rised after the speed limits was enacted. Majority of the founders are not native of the area so they have no clue what the lake was like. They started the fear spin to convinced the common folks to vote for the new law.

As for Rep. Pilliod, his famous 'Searays belong in the seas' dialogue is what really set off this high performance debate.

Let's not argue about all this here. Do something productive and notify your representatives that they have been misleaded and that we really need no boating zones around the summer camps, Rule #6, and a distracted boating law. Tell them they need to do this if they plan on staying another term!

Another thing. I strongly believe the NWZ at the Barber's Pole is proposed because of the summer camp next to it. Let's put a couple of bouys out there. That will save the headache of erosion on the shores when boat come off/on plane.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 08:25 AM   #43
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Most of the outspoken proponents of one law or another on the lake flat out lied, both about their intentions, and what was actually happening on the lake. There were many SL supporters that had some good ideas, presented them honestly, and were generally good people to deal with. It's unfortunate that so many people couldn't see past angry and contentious posts and see the outright lies that caused much of the angst.

Some had the vision to look way ahead, and saw some kind of SL as a way to protect Winni from becoming a Havasu or LOTO or other such crazy spots. Those people made me think hard and long, and did sway my opinion over time. I thought maybe a 65 SL daytime might satisfy everyone more or less.

But I might add, as BI stated many times, the SL opponents were not willing the first go around to compromise on anything. But it's hard to compromise, or even discuss issues, when one side has no facts, credibility, hides their true intentions, and generally pulls the wool over an unsuspecting public. Whatever the outcome on any issue, I'd prefer the process to be up front, and have people with honest character and integrity doing the advocation, for both sides. It's really sad that many still don't get this, maybe one day they will.

Now we have the BP NWZ issue. Fully supported behind the scenes by many of the same people. It's easy to spot them. They come out of nowhere with hysterical claims, broad-based stories of fear and woe, and leave people in the area scratching their heads as to when all of this mayhem is occurring. Some of the letters written in support of this NWZ are so far fetched and amazing, there must have been a common memo circulating that listed bullet lists for suggestions.

But I don't know who's more harmful to the lake. Those that produce the lies to gain support, or those that eat this BS up, then send nasty messages blaming us for pointing the lies out. The sheer idiocy of one supporter's comments. The MP saw repeated violations of the 150' safe passage rule, so lets have another new rule in place.


Regardless of position on any issue, I'm delighted to see many honest people come out here and state their opinions and stories. It's very refreshing, and would make for good discussion groups with the MP as well.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 08:29 AM   #44
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Sorry BH.

To stay on topic.....

BI stated many times that it was the camps he was concerned about, amongst other things. So back on topic, has it changed anything there?
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 08:32 AM   #45
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
Food, hats, whatever Let's go with food, even better: "I need to go grocery shopping so everyone on the lake needs to slow down for me."

Either way SOTD don't you see how silly this logic is. I am surprised the Committee didn't actually laugh in her face. I heard many chuckles in the room during her "testimony," it was hard to keep a straight face.
I didn't hear those chuckles but there were a few regarding attire and grooming appropriate for appearing in front of a legislative body. OCD seemed pretty much the only SL opponent who owned a tie. Mrs. Sunset commented about dirty torn jeans, people who hadn't visited a barber in way too long, sweatshirts with football logos, and women in tank tops. Now you'll probably argue that you don't need to dress to impress, that it's just a difference in age etc. but bottom line...there is an appropriate way to appear before a state legislative body. And judging simply by the outcome, that being overwhelming support in both houses, they were not impressed. Many thought the scruffy appearance of the opposition spoke volumes and helped our cause. JMO but your nasty and belittling comment about a lady who needs to pass through the broads for life's necessities needed to be addressed.
sunset on the dock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 08:48 AM   #46
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,192
Thanks: 772
Thanked 621 Times in 334 Posts
Default Summer camps

Well BI brought up summer camps, and VtSteve has asked the question has there been any improvement in the camps water activities since the enactment of the Speed limits...

Well here is what I have to say, I have several camps around me... that I pass on my regular boating trips... I personally have not seen a decline in their water activities in the last 20 years. Certainly you don't see the younger kids in the canoes, kayaks and small sail boats on the weekends, but you do see the older kids. But this is what I would expect. And during the week, when I have had the chance they have kids of all ages out on the water, with counselors chasing them down...

Now somethings to not given the economy since 2000 I have noticed that all the camps have had dwindling attendance.... and it got even worse during the last 3 years. Now as attendance at the camps has gone down so to has the number of boats from said camps that you see on the water...

Now if that isn't bad enough we have Insurance to think about here two... in this day and age with sue happy lawyers and parents, camps are fighting for survival and trying to keep there insurance cost down... I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some of the camps, have less of a water presence on the weekends because of insurance reasons, and their policy is dictating that they keep the boats on sure for Sat. and Sunday.

Now when you add all these twist and turns into the pot there is another different picture that starts to form. A picture that is not one of speed and its effects. But rather one first of economic affordability and second of safety... safety is not dictated by speed.... safety is dictated by common sense, education, and adherence to the rules....

Additional rules and regulations are not going to revive the summer camp feel and the sight of kids in canoes, and sail fish out on the lake... however responsible boating through education and adherence to the rules will. The focus needs not to be on how can we further legislate the lake to control the behavior, the rules are there... the focus needs to get back to where it was 10-15 years ago, and be about how do we educate people, and get the money to the MP to enforce the adherence to the rules that are already in place.
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 08:57 AM   #47
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
I didn't hear those chuckles but there were a few regarding attire and grooming appropriate for appearing in front of a legislative body. OCD seemed pretty much the only SL opponent who owned a tie. Mrs. Sunset commented about dirty torn jeans, people who hadn't visited a barber in way too long, sweatshirts with football logos, and women in tank tops. Now you'll probably argue that you don't need to dress to impress, that it's just a difference in age etc. but bottom line...there is an appropriate way to appear before a state legislative body. And judging simply by the outcome, that being overwhelming support in both houses, they were not impressed. Many thought the scruffy appearance of the opposition spoke volumes and helped our cause. JMO but your nasty and belittling comment about a lady who needs to pass through the broads for life's necessities needed to be addressed.
Thanks Sunset.. I tried to look my best..

I heard the chuckles but that is neither here no there...

But again don't exaggerate, the lady in question lives in the bear island area. Boat is at Shep Browns. The broads are MILES away. The crossing is 1/4 mile wide...

The comment that gained chuckles was that the Broads are the hub of the lake and you can't get anywhere unless you go through them. This is simply a lie playing to the ignorance of the committee members who by their own admission (some) had never been to the lake.

We all know island residents choose a marina as close to their island as possible that normally does not have to take you into the Broads. With the excpetion of Parker Island and a few others these marina are normally in very accessible places so that people do not have travel in the broads due to the high winds and weather that can occur.

This is just another attempt of twisting the facts to try to gain support.

Pretty Silly....

PS. next hearing come and say hello! Are you coming to Hazelnuts tomorrow?
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 09:14 AM   #48
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
I didn't hear those chuckles but there were a few regarding attire and grooming appropriate for appearing in front of a legislative body. OCD seemed pretty much the only SL opponent who owned a tie. Mrs. Sunset commented about dirty torn jeans, people who hadn't visited a barber in way too long, sweatshirts with football logos, and women in tank tops. Now you'll probably argue that you don't need to dress to impress, that it's just a difference in age etc. but bottom line...there is an appropriate way to appear before a state legislative body. And judging simply by the outcome, that being overwhelming support in both houses, they were not impressed. Many thought the scruffy appearance of the opposition spoke volumes and helped our cause. JMO but your nasty and belittling comment about a lady who needs to pass through the broads for life's necessities needed to be addressed.
: laugh:
Oh so now the SL was passed on a dress code. : laugh:

As for me I had Khaki Pants neatly pressed mind you, and a very nice button down shirt, cleaned and pressed. My only tragic flaw was that I wore my (mind you very expensive and brand new) Fleece Jacket with a tiny Patriots Logo located on the left side. I was freshly shaved and had a haircut just the day before. Heck I think I looked pretty darn good. I even got a wink from Ms. Clark. J/K

No the lady that feels the need to have the rest of the boating public slow down in the largest part of the lake so SHE can go grocery shopping needs to be addressed. What a complete joke. Does she call Mother Nature and yell at her when the wind whips up the lake into 3 foot swells too? Not to mention the fact that she doesn't even live on the Broads. Oh get this one of the people sitting with us on OUR side mind you has a house ON the Broads. I won't post her name but she is a member here. I believe she got a chuckle out of the comment from that woman and SHE actually uses the Broads to access her house. Sorry SOTD you need to lighten up and realize how silly all of that was. To paraphrase comments you have made:
It was like the SL opponents were driving around throwing puppies out of boats going 185 MPH while deliberately running down children in blow up boats in the middle of the broads.
For gods sake it was a Speed Limit hearing. Why all the lies just to pass a stupid silly law? Especially considering there was no reason for it. I mean I came in and just spoke from the heart and never once made up a silly story or made up lies. Yet your side got up and lied and stretched the truth and made up fantastic stories and we can't laugh about it. I mean no big deal it's over so now it's just kind of funny to recap and retell the tall tales of the hearing.""

Ok ok ok sorry sorry my apologies to BroadHopper and the rest of the membership for derailing this thread, I'll take this back on topic after I wipe the tears from my eyes from laughing so hard...

BroadHopper I think you bring up some great points. I fully support "camp zones." I really think that this would be a great cause to support. The reality is though the general lake itself has not changed one way or the other this summer. I still think that education is going to be the ultimate answer. Even if it means increased patrol and random checkpoints. I hate to even say it but it may come to that some day. What we need is a way to increase revenue for the Marine Patrol to allow them to increase their numbers. Non-motorized registration fees anyone?
hazelnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 09:26 AM   #49
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,738
Thanks: 2,259
Thanked 825 Times in 574 Posts
Default Sounds like I was overdressed.

As a respectable Senior financial officer of a Fortune 100 company, I realized appearance makes a big difference in a presentation. Maybe next time I will dig out my 'Woodstock' attire and hopefully fit in to them
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to BroadHopper For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (08-27-2010)
Old 08-27-2010, 09:27 AM   #50
classic22
Member
 
classic22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton Bay
Posts: 40
Thanks: 6
Thanked 81 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
I didn't hear those chuckles but there were a few regarding attire and grooming appropriate for appearing in front of a legislative body. OCD seemed pretty much the only SL opponent who owned a tie. Mrs. Sunset commented about dirty torn jeans, people who hadn't visited a barber in way too long, sweatshirts with football logos, and women in tank tops. Now you'll probably argue that you don't need to dress to impress, that it's just a difference in age etc. but bottom line...there is an appropriate way to appear before a state legislative body. And judging simply by the outcome, that being overwhelming support in both houses, they were not impressed. Many thought the scruffy appearance of the opposition spoke volumes and helped our cause. JMO but your nasty and belittling comment about a lady who needs to pass through the broads for life's necessities needed to be addressed.
Not quite sure how some intolerant, story imbelishing women crossing the broads to shop for hats or a loaf of bread has any thing to do with how people may or may not have dressed for the hearings, but I know I was there in suit and tie, and many others who were there testifiying against speed limits were wearing appropriate attire. Did I see one guy come in and testify in a pair of jeans? sure did.....although he was not part of the organized oposition, who cares...he probably stopped in from his job, testified and left...he got involved. Now lets look at the people who testified for the speed limit...most of them fossils, Mrs Kravitz types, cant have a good time because they are miserable people in general, and want every one else to be miserable. Most were dressed frumpy looking in clothing popular in the Carter administration, wearing velcro tie sneakers...now thats what I call dressed for success. If you believe that how people may or may not have appeared before the hearings is what caused them to vote for speed limits, I believe you are sadly mistaken. In reality the law was voted in by a legislature, that came to power in a tide of Obamamism that washed over our state and country. The good news is this little social experiment will be well on its way to being repaired come this november. Stay tuned.
classic22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 10:04 AM   #51
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
I didn't hear those chuckles but there were a few regarding attire and grooming appropriate for appearing in front of a legislative body. OCD seemed pretty much the only SL opponent who owned a tie. Mrs. Sunset commented about dirty torn jeans, people who hadn't visited a barber in way too long, sweatshirts with football logos, and women in tank tops. Now you'll probably argue that you don't need to dress to impress, that it's just a difference in age etc. but bottom line...there is an appropriate way to appear before a state legislative body. And judging simply by the outcome, that being overwhelming support in both houses, they were not impressed. Many thought the scruffy appearance of the opposition spoke volumes and helped our cause. JMO but your nasty and belittling comment about a lady who needs to pass through the broads for life's necessities needed to be addressed.
Since we are talking about what to wear when meeting with the New Hampshire Legislators I think the most important accessory would have to be a broom.
Kracken is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Kracken For This Useful Post:
classic22 (08-27-2010)
Old 08-27-2010, 10:14 AM   #52
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default

I have to give credit where credit is due.

Sunset on The Dock is absolutely right.


The speed limit opposition was grossly unprepared at every turn, while the supporters were well funded, organized, prepared and professionally dressed.

Hopefully there is a lesson learned.
Kracken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 10:27 AM   #53
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,059
Thanks: 184
Thanked 1,325 Times in 524 Posts
Default

One can only hope that in time this subject can be re-visited and I see no reason why some areas of the lake should not be re-opened for those that would like to go faster than 45 MPH.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 10:49 AM   #54
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default Where is the character?

I think a lesson was learned. But it would appear that those that may have been unprepared, were also naive. Most good people that value their character, would be embarrassed to continue a discussion within a group that has found them to be deceitful.

I always knew you were slick SOTD, but even the slipperiest scamster slips up eventually. This past month, you've set a new record. I know for sure you would never have belittled people for their attire if you wanted the discussion to continue. You're a master baiter, that can tell fables fluently without remorse or regret. I've had a lot of experience working amongst regulators, professional paid experts and witnesses. Some people just have the knack, thankfully, a small minority. But when that certain smell is in the air, bells and sirens go off.

Usually people at the local level don't go to such extremes as you to carefully craft, and continually repeat falsehoods for such small gains. If part of a grander plan, that makes sense for players. But at this level, it seems almost pathological.

I think the title of this thread should change. It should be entitled

"What the heck are these people really up to?"

I think even people that support the SL or other laws may be to embarrassed to comment for fear of being on your side. For those people that either testified before, or have written letters this year on the NWZ, did you give them coaching lessons, or just write the letters yourself?
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to VtSteve For This Useful Post:
LIforrelaxin (08-27-2010), VitaBene (08-27-2010)
Old 08-27-2010, 11:18 AM   #55
winni83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 197
Thanks: 15
Thanked 83 Times in 49 Posts
Default Sotd

Does the word “elitist” ring a bell? I would be more concerned about deception rather than appearance. A classic example of purporting to respond to an allegedly “nasty and belittling comment” by making your own nasty and belittling comment. You do not like what your opponents say, which is your right, but now you do not like how they look. Did they have an offensive odor too? Perhaps they did not bathe to your satisfaction or perhaps their very existence perturbs you, especially if these people have the gall to occupy the same body of water as you.
winni83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 04:36 PM   #56
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,675
Thanks: 23
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

What is so strange about a resident of the Bear Island area having to go through the Broads to shop? I don't know if there is an official definition of "The Broads" but around here it includes the east side of Bear Island.

Someone said she claimed to be from the Bear Island "area". Could that be Six Mile Island? The absolutely have to go through the broads to shop.

I know some people call the waters south of Three Mile Island the "Northern Broads" but couldn't that be shortened to Broads. Perhaps that woman was correct and you guys are in the wrong on this one.
Bear Islander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 06:03 PM   #57
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 310
Thanks: 236
Thanked 174 Times in 76 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Perhaps that woman was correct and you guys are in the wrong on this one.
Perhaps, however as usual you present nothing but your opinion on this issue. Perhaps they were right?
DEJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 06:48 PM   #58
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,059
Thanks: 184
Thanked 1,325 Times in 524 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post
I think a lesson was learned. But it would appear that those that may have been unprepared, were also naive. Most good people that value their character, would be embarrassed to continue a discussion within a group that has found them to be deceitful.

I always knew you were slick SOTD, but even the slipperiest scamster slips up eventually. This past month, you've set a new record. I know for sure you would never have belittled people for their attire if you wanted the discussion to continue. You're a master baiter, that can tell fables fluently without remorse or regret. I've had a lot of experience working amongst regulators, professional paid experts and witnesses. Some people just have the knack, thankfully, a small minority. But when that certain smell is in the air, bells and sirens go off.

Usually people at the local level don't go to such extremes as you to carefully craft, and continually repeat falsehoods for such small gains. If part of a grander plan, that makes sense for players. But at this level, it seems almost pathological.

I think the title of this thread should change. It should be entitled

"What the heck are these people really up to?"

I think even people that support the SL or other laws may be to embarrassed to comment for fear of being on your side. For those people that either testified before, or have written letters this year on the NWZ, did you give them coaching lessons, or just write the letters yourself?
If I may I think there is an easy way to sum this up - and is applicable to various subjects, especially when discussing politics. If you the position you take is simply indefensible then smear and demonize your opponent. What those that engage in this kind of rhetoric don't realize is that eventually you loose all credibility. Not only that it leads to a wave of opposition to your position, for no other reason than your behavior represents something foul.

** Just for clarification, what I said here is to augment that which VtSteve is pointing out as I whole heartily agree with his premise and who it is targeted to. In no way was I intending to suggest that VtSteve is engaging in the behavior described. On the contrary I respect his contributions along with many others who have put substance and thought into their postings on this debate which found itself meandering off on unrelated tangents.**

Last edited by MAXUM; 08-28-2010 at 07:15 PM.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
VtSteve (08-28-2010)
Old 08-28-2010, 11:46 AM   #59
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,675
Thanks: 23
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Contrary to popular belief, that fatal accident many years ago was not the reason Bear islanders started a push for a speed limit. The reason was the growing cowboy atmosphere, the "get out of my way" mentality. That accident was however the "impetus" behind the speed limit. It was the shock that got some people up off their butts with the determination to do something about the lakes problems.

They felt a speed limit was a do-able solution. More enforcement and education might have been a better solution, but they require serious funding, and that just was NOT going to happen. Better to go with a plan that might actually happen, than with a better plan that has no chance at all.

The speed limit was never intended to "fix" the lake. It is just one way to make things a little better over time. Or perhaps just slow the rate of decline. It is not a "magic bullet" fix and was never intended as such. A speed limit does not bring about a quick victory, it will not "change the lake" in only a year or two. It will change the lake by thousands of small victories.

My brother-in-laws friend has been bringing his performance boat to Winni for years. This year he went to Long Lake because of the speed limit. A small victory.

Imagine a wife standing in a boat showroom and saying "why are we spending all this extra cash for a boat that will go 80 MPH when the lake has a 45 MPH limit?" You can also imagine the husband with a pained expression and a salesman that is looking at the floor. When this happens it will be another small victory.

The speed limit, enforced or not, sets a standard of behavior. It points the lake in a different direction. It sends a message to the cowboys. And that message is "go elsewhere".
Bear Islander is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bear Islander For This Useful Post:
ApS (08-28-2010), fatlazyless (08-28-2010)
Old 08-28-2010, 12:10 PM   #60
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,224
Thanks: 192
Thanked 474 Times in 350 Posts
Default

If you read the Winnipesaukee speed limits law passed by the NH legislature, it allows for organized motorboat racing. So, why not try for some type of racing three-hour time span, say Saturdays from 9-noon, and seek out some friendly commercial sponsors who get their logo on one of the marker buoys.

Picture this; four large marker buoys that delineate a 5-mile dragstrip on the water somewhere. Each marker buoy has a friendly commercial sponsor such as Progressive Insurance, Hannaford's, Hawaiian Suntan bikini team, and H K Motorsports.

Picture this; it's 9am Saturday at the starting line, a spot between Parker Island and Clay Point: Ladies & Gentlemen, start your engines; ready, set, and bang.......and it's the start to another Lake Winnipesaukee, Saturday morning at the weekly, watery drag strip for a speedy morning at the races.....yahooooo....weeee-doggie! That could be a very happening event!

Sounds good....gotta love the sound of V8 big-blocks cranking out 625 horses as the big boats power down the broads.....a very happening weekly event! Would it attract a spectator's gallery of boaters just there to watch the races? Most likely yes......I know I'd be there! So, be there, or be a square.....high speed motorboats have a place to go.....on a watery drag strip.....and everybody is happy......budda-budda-boom!
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2010, 02:02 PM   #61
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
That accident was however the "impetus" behind the speed limit. It was the shock that got some people up off their butts with the determination to do something about the lakes problems.


The speed limit, enforced or not, sets a standard of behavior. It points the lake in a different direction. It sends a message to the cowboys. And that message is "go elsewhere".
Two very conflicting statements. Congress acts like the first, flinging any terrible law at whatever the problem of the day is.

The message to the cowboys used to be Wyatt Earp. Now it's sending "messages". So there are still idiots on the lake, going well under the speed limit, most of whom do not drive high HP boats.

I gave you too much credit BI.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2010, 02:27 PM   #62
Yankee
Senior Member
 
Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Thanks: 19
Thanked 38 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Contrary to popular belief, that fatal accident many years ago was not the reason Bear islanders started a push for a speed limit. The reason was the growing cowboy atmosphere, the "get out of my way" mentality. That accident was however the "impetus" behind the speed limit. It was the shock that got some people up off their butts with the determination to do something about the lakes problems.

They felt a speed limit was a do-able solution. More enforcement and education might have been a better solution, but they require serious funding, and that just was NOT going to happen. Better to go with a plan that might actually happen, than with a better plan that has no chance at all.

The speed limit was never intended to "fix" the lake. It is just one way to make things a little better over time. Or perhaps just slow the rate of decline. It is not a "magic bullet" fix and was never intended as such. A speed limit does not bring about a quick victory, it will not "change the lake" in only a year or two. It will change the lake by thousands of small victories.

My brother-in-laws friend has been bringing his performance boat to Winni for years. This year he went to Long Lake because of the speed limit. A small victory.

Imagine a wife standing in a boat showroom and saying "why are we spending all this extra cash for a boat that will go 80 MPH when the lake has a 45 MPH limit?" You can also imagine the husband with a pained expression and a salesman that is looking at the floor. When this happens it will be another small victory.

The speed limit, enforced or not, sets a standard of behavior. It points the lake in a different direction. It sends a message to the cowboys. And that message is "go elsewhere".
Funny, I just put a deposit down on another "performance boat" yesterday...trading in my '89 "performance boat" for another. A small defeat for you. As with the last I will use it in a safe and prudent manner that is suitable for the conditions in which I choose to operate it. As do my friends with their "performance boats". There has been no mass exodus of boats that can easily exceed the speed limit and that do on a regular basis. Or will there be.

Bear Islander you with your personal agenda as well as others of the same ilk will NEVER influence my decision to buy a certain type of boat or where or how to operate it. And I'm confident that my other "performance" minded boat owning friends to a person would agree with me. BTW, My wife suggested that it was time for a new one. Yet another apparent defeat.

I have yet to be pulled over in the broads when operating my boat, the same is true as when driving my car on I93 in excess of the SL. For those boaters that do get stopped for "speeding", I'd be willing to bet that they were also operating in an unsafe and imprudent manner in a high traffic area. Not out on the main part of the lake with plenty of room.
__________________
__________________
__________________
So what have we learned in the past two thousand years?

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

. . .Evidently nothing.

(Cicero, 55 BC augmented by me, 2010 AD)
Yankee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2010, 07:20 PM   #63
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,059
Thanks: 184
Thanked 1,325 Times in 524 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee View Post

BTW, My wife suggested that it was time for a new one. Yet another apparent defeat.

Yankee - I think you've died and gone to heaven. The WIFE suggested it was time for a new one? Take care of that Mrs. she's a keeper!
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2010, 07:50 PM   #64
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

So I'll answer my own question. No, the SL has done nothing to calm down the BI NWZ, but over a period of decades, perhaps most people will be either sailing, or driving 16' outboards with 5 hp, maybe even solar engines.

The wakes are big, and the HP limit we will seek in the future will put and end to any boat that has more than 300 hp, hopefully less than that. We knew that nothing would come of this law, but there will be more to come. And Jeezum Crow, we wanted to do something.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2010, 08:14 PM   #65
Yankee
Senior Member
 
Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Thanks: 19
Thanked 38 Times in 23 Posts
Default

You've hit it square on the head VTSteve. The next target will be the amount of horsepower that a boat can have. And after that, it will be limits on a boat's displacement. And because a boat won't be able to go fast anymore, the excuse will be the big scary wakes that they make.

I think that in the end, motorized boats will be outlawed except for the priviledged few.
__________________
__________________
__________________
So what have we learned in the past two thousand years?

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

. . .Evidently nothing.

(Cicero, 55 BC augmented by me, 2010 AD)
Yankee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2010, 09:00 PM   #66
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling".
sunset on the dock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 08:14 AM   #67
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

At some point SOTD, you'll be recanting all of your great stories of sitting on the dock in peace and quiet. Similar to your new stories in the BP area, which conflict wildly with what you say the SL has done for the lake. The fact that you can so fluently spew this kind of waste and try to sell it as observations and truth, makes everyone suspect of all future moves.

I know you'll be able to do it, as you can do 180 degree turns on a dime better than anyone. At headway speed, I wonder how long it takes you to travel to the BP area.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 12:32 PM   #68
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,675
Thanks: 23
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee View Post
You've hit it square on the head VTSteve. The next target will be the amount of horsepower that a boat can have. And after that, it will be limits on a boat's displacement. And because a boat won't be able to go fast anymore, the excuse will be the big scary wakes that they make.

I think that in the end, motorized boats will be outlawed except for the priviledged few.
Instead of allowing the "privileged few" to use power boats, I hope it will be islanders that get to keep their power boats. After all, we NEED them to get to and from our homes.

However legislation like that will be a long time coming, if ever, and I will not support it.

What I will support is a 300 HP limit for boats manufactured after 2012. Exceptions for commercial boats and law enforcement obviously.
Bear Islander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 01:34 PM   #69
winni83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 197
Thanks: 15
Thanked 83 Times in 49 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Instead of allowing the "privileged few" to use power boats, I hope it will be islanders that get to keep their power boats. After all, we NEED them to get to and from our homes.

However legislation like that will be a long time coming, if ever, and I will not support it.

What I will support is a 300 HP limit for boats manufactured after 2012. Exceptions for commercial boats and law enforcement obviously.

This simply astounds me. This is a quote which must be saved for future reference. My lord, my 25 foot cuddy is within 40 horsepower of that limit and it is underpowered by most standards. If I abide by the relevant speed limit and obey the various boating, navigation and rules of passage, of what business is it of your to limit the horsepower on my boat? Are you postulating that a boat of more than the "approved" horsepower is prima facie evidence that one is a cowboy or will otherwise violate the above rules, or is this simply in pursuit of what I now believe to be the ultimate goal of Winnfabs and its fellow travelers, namely through various means over a period of time to effectively ban all but the boats which the Winnfabs crowd approves of. How about we make rules so that no boat capable of violating all of the other rules can be operated on the Lake – problem of enforcement and marine patrol funding solved! First a speed limit, then reductions in the speed limit, then proliferating no wake zones, then a horsepower restriction, then a reduction in the horsepower restriction and then whatever else this group can think of. I think this “make the lake safe” mantra has confirmed its true intentions and in so doing may have awakened a sleeping giant among those who, like me, own more kayaks, row boats and canoes than power boats, have one boat which on a good day can maybe exceed the daytime speed limit, but have had it up to my eyeballs with this crowd. I certainly will do all I can at the next opportunity to counter this trend.
winni83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 03:55 PM   #70
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,675
Thanks: 23
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Many lakes and ponds in New Hampshire and around the country have horsepower limits. I have argued on this forum for a HP limit since 2002, nothing new about that.

I have read many times that the only solution to the cowboy mentality is enforcement and education. That there is no way to legislate a solution. But think about the effects of a REALLY low HP limit. A 100 HP or 50 HP limit would change this lake over night. A drastic solution to be sure. However the premise does prove that you CAN legislate serious change.
Bear Islander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 04:13 PM   #71
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post
At some point SOTD, you'll be recanting all of your great stories of sitting on the dock in peace and quiet. Similar to your new stories in the BP area, which conflict wildly with what you say the SL has done for the lake. The fact that you can so fluently spew this kind of waste and try to sell it as observations and truth, makes everyone suspect of all future moves.
No contradiction at all. Unquestionably the lake is quieter and more civilized than it's been in many years. Many agree. And yes, we did go to the BP today and saw boats going in both directions through this narrow area. It didn't take long, maybe 5 minutes, to see how fast boats were closer than 150' from the island, each other, and that the wakes were quite large. I do indeed pity the people on those 2 little islands, if for no other reason than that irritating drone from the GFBL's that passed. Didn't see Cecil B. Demille, a.k.a. HN filming however. And given the number of posters who regularly brag about breaking the SL (and one who bragged last year and probably wishes he hadn't), I hope these people fight to retain their hard won gains. As for all the futile talk that the SL could ever be repealed, I would think the Little Birch and Squirrel Is. people would use that argument too.
Hey...what happened to that kinder, gentler VtSteve who promised to behave a short while back? Now that was a short lived Epiphany.

Last edited by sunset on the dock; 08-29-2010 at 08:39 PM. Reason: grammar,added content
sunset on the dock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 04:39 PM   #72
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,601
Thanks: 245
Thanked 501 Times in 173 Posts
Smile HP limits in New Hampshire...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Many lakes and ponds in New Hampshire and around the country have horsepower limits. I have argued on this forum for a HP limit since 2002, nothing new about that.

I have read many times that the only solution to the cowboy mentality is enforcement and education. That there is no way to legislate a solution. But think about the effects of a REALLY low HP limit. A 100 HP or 50 HP limit would change this lake over night. A drastic solution to be sure. However the premise does prove that you CAN legislate serious change.

Good point.

And while they are considerably smaller than the big Lake, there are a number of bodies of water in New Hampshire that already have horsepower limits. So indeed the lawmakers here in New Hampshire are also quite familiar with that concept.

I am confused about one thing though.

Those that supported the speed limit legislation by and large believe that there has been a positive effect on the Lake since implementation. A positive effect means that if the State believes in that perception then further legislation or restrictions are probably not that imminent. It is the nature of politics.

On the flip side of the coin a number of folks here opposed to speed limit legislation continue to state that the regulation has had no effect, and give numerous examples of how the Lake, in their perception, remains as or more dangerous. A negative effect usually results in the State not rolling back legislation, but in increasing more and more layered legislation to force people into compliance. It is the nature of politics.

Without taking sides in the debate, if I was a legislator with little or no ties to the Lake (like many are) and I viewed this website as an authoritive source of information (to which many here argued when the boating thread was temporarily moderated) I could easily be convinced that additional legislation is warranted. A lobbyist may not have a hard time convincing me of same.

I'm not taking sides in the debate but just offering an insight as to not only how the speed limit legislation was passed, with all its additional riders (dmv points, all water bodies subjected to General Boating requirements) but how Bear Islander's predictions could easily pass the Legislature in future sessions.

Interesting corners, in my humble opinion, that some folks may be painting themselves in to!
Skip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 04:55 PM   #73
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,101
Thanks: 1,235
Thanked 1,369 Times in 683 Posts
Default Enforcement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip View Post
Good point.

And while they are considerably smaller than the big Lake, there are a number of bodies of water in New Hampshire that already have horsepower limits. So indeed the lawmakers here in New Hampshire are also quite familiar with that concept.

I am confused about one thing though.

Those that supported the speed limit legislation by and large believe that there has been a positive effect on the Lake since implementation. A positive effect means that if the State believes in that perception then further legislation or restrictions are probably not that imminent. It is the nature of politics.

On the flip side of the coin a number of folks here opposed to speed limit legislation continue to state that the regulation has had no effect, and give numerous examples of how the Lake, in their perception, remains as or more dangerous. A negative effect usually results in the State not rolling back legislation, but in increasing more and more layered legislation to force people into compliance.

Without taking sides in the debate, if I was a legislator with little or no ties to the Lake (like many are) and I viewed this website as an authoritative source of information (to which many here argued when the boating thread was temporarily moderated) I could easily be convinced that additional legislation is warranted. A lobbyist may not have a hard time convincing me of same.

I'm not taking sides in the debate but just offering an insight as to not only how the speed limit legislation was passed, with all its additional riders (dmv points, all water bodies subjected to General Boating requirements) but how Bear Islander's predictions could easily pass the Legislature in future sessions.

Interesting corners, in my humble opinion, that some folks may be painting themselves in to!
Skip,

I believe that the real issue is that safety minded people need to fully support the Marine Patrol to enforce all of the existing laws (including the speed limit), and to oppose the legislature and governor's raiding of the MP budget (particularly when the department is really a profit center).
VitaBene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 05:01 PM   #74
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,601
Thanks: 245
Thanked 501 Times in 173 Posts
Smile I think they are interrelated....

Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaBene View Post
Skip,

I believe that the real issue is that safety minded people need to fully support the Marine Patrol to enforce all of the existing laws (including the speed limit), and to oppose the legislature and governor's raiding of the MP budget (particularly when the department is really a profit center).
But therein lies the rub....

The Legislature will never admit that they are raiding a fund. If they truly view it as a "profit center" as you indicate then they will justify the transfer of funds as excess monies.

It is human nature for them to believe that they are not harming the Marine Patrol mission, that is why they will be easy to convince that the only solution is to layer on more restrictive legislation.

By the way, it was a great pleasure to get to talk to you at length last week. Hope we get to do it again some time in the future!

When I have a few moments more I will opine on while it may be aggravating at times to boat on Winni, or any other waterbody in New Hampshire, the statistics show that boating is a very safe activity in this State. I will use snowmobiling as a comparable.

But that's for another time & another thread as I am still awaiting some additional statistics...
Skip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 05:27 PM   #75
Yankee
Senior Member
 
Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Thanks: 19
Thanked 38 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post

Many lakes and ponds in New Hampshire and around the country have horsepower limits. I have argued on this forum for a HP limit since 2002, nothing new about that.

I have read many times that the only solution to the cowboy mentality is enforcement and education. That there is no way to legislate a solution. But think about the effects of a REALLY low HP limit. A 100 HP or 50 HP limit would change this lake over night. A drastic solution to be sure. However the premise does prove that you CAN legislate serious change.
Your logic is, well, illogical. No, it is nonsencical, and does nothing to prove your premise. For example, how do you propose the local officials test for horsepower? Becasue they would have to test each boat and everytime it goes out. All my vehicle's engines--including my boat and are anything but in a stock configuration. What makes you think that engines mods would suddenly stop? Legislate that.

Still you spew the mantra that a law enacted in the worst economy on 80 years is the sole reason for no speeding tickets, and a "quieter lake". Your twisted logic concludes that no speeding tickets is exclusive to SL legislation?

Lastly, you insist on and continue to insult performance boat owners such as myself by calling us "cowboys". Perhaps the webmaster should step in and remind you of the rules of this forum. I'm sure that you would not find it becoming if "us cowboys" started calling you and others of like opinion "lake geezers" or such other IMO, appropriate term.

Post script: This whole discussion is stupid. Attempting to have a factual, cogent discussion with you is like trying to push on a rope that's been dangling in the water all summer: you can't and all you do end up with is a slimy hand.

giddy up.
__________________
__________________
__________________
So what have we learned in the past two thousand years?

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

. . .Evidently nothing.

(Cicero, 55 BC augmented by me, 2010 AD)
Yankee is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Yankee For This Useful Post:
pm203 (09-08-2010)
Old 08-29-2010, 05:52 PM   #76
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,427
Thanks: 956
Thanked 594 Times in 332 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip View Post
But therein lies the rub....

The Legislature will never admit that they are raiding a fund. If they truly view it as a "profit center" as you indicate then they will justify the transfer of funds as excess monies.

It is human nature for them to believe that they are not harming the Marine Patrol mission, that is why they will be easy to convince that the only solution is to layer on more restrictive legislation.

Skip, respectfully, this is why the tea party movement is relevent. We are sick of the way things have always been done, Repubs and Dems. We need a new way to conduct the People's Business.
Pineedles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 06:02 PM   #77
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,601
Thanks: 245
Thanked 501 Times in 173 Posts
Wink Legislation Gone Wild, coming to a TV set soon?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineedles View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip View Post
But therein lies the rub....

The Legislature will never admit that they are raiding a fund. If they truly view it as a "profit center" as you indicate then they will justify the transfer of funds as excess monies.

It is human nature for them to believe that they are not harming the Marine Patrol mission, that is why they will be easy to convince that the only solution is to layer on more restrictive legislation.

Skip, respectfully, this is why the tea party movement is relevent. We are sick of the way things have always been done, Repubs and Dems. We need a new way to conduct the People's Business.
I truly see your point, but don't want this to morph into an unrelated political thread.

But you and others (I hope) see what I have seen go on in the legislature for the past decades I've had to follow it.

Many people ask "how did we get all these convoluted laws and regulations"? I think the speed limit issue, and how it expanded from a single issue on a single lake, into a law that covers all lakes on some issues, one lake on one issue and now interweaves with your Driver's License is a perfect example of legislation gone wild!

Hey, maybe we could get one of the cable channels to pick this up as a reality series: Legislation Gone Wild! I'd think that BI would make the perfect host...that is after he safely returns from orbit....
Skip is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Skip For This Useful Post:
Pineedles (08-30-2010)
Old 08-29-2010, 06:48 PM   #78
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip View Post
Good point.

And while they are considerably smaller than the big Lake, there are a number of bodies of water in New Hampshire that already have horsepower limits. So indeed the lawmakers here in New Hampshire are also quite familiar with that concept.

I am confused about one thing though.

Those that supported the speed limit legislation by and large believe that there has been a positive effect on the Lake since implementation. A positive effect means that if the State believes in that perception then further legislation or restrictions are probably not that imminent. It is the nature of politics.

On the flip side of the coin a number of folks here opposed to speed limit legislation continue to state that the regulation has had no effect, and give numerous examples of how the Lake, in their perception, remains as or more dangerous. A negative effect usually results in the State not rolling back legislation, but in increasing more and more layered legislation to force people into compliance. It is the nature of politics.

Without taking sides in the debate, if I was a legislator with little or no ties to the Lake (like many are) and I viewed this website as an authoritive source of information (to which many here argued when the boating thread was temporarily moderated) I could easily be convinced that additional legislation is warranted. A lobbyist may not have a hard time convincing me of same.

I'm not taking sides in the debate but just offering an insight as to not only how the speed limit legislation was passed, with all its additional riders (dmv points, all water bodies subjected to General Boating requirements) but how Bear Islander's predictions could easily pass the Legislature in future sessions.

Interesting corners, in my humble opinion, that some folks may be painting themselves in to!
Great points Skip, several of which I have made myself. There are far too many power-hungry idiots around that would do this. When ten laws are not being enforced, we must need ten more. It's obviously not hard to convince people that safety must be the motive, so they go along.

If you get enough of these people taking advantage of people that don't really read, or have inquisitive minds, you end up with people like SOTD.

But I do understand your thoughts, very well. I don't have any faith in today's society, it shocks me when they actually do the right thing. But what does shock me is the end nature of the entire SL thing. Some people actually believed the BS about safety and all. They didn't want to participate in discussions about the MP fund being raided, or more SL discussions, because it would rile their Feelings. They don't like controversy, much less confrontation. They'd rather have people rule their lives and hope it doesn't impact them.

I see this sense of inevitability in your comments as well. Don't rock the boat, because they will tip you over. Eventually, the wave comes back to the source. The most active terrorist here is now BI, he has come out of his little island, and hopes to have a grander scheme.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 07:09 PM   #79
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,601
Thanks: 245
Thanked 501 Times in 173 Posts
Default Can we keep some of the rhetoric in check?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post
...The most active terrorist here is now BI, he has come out of his little island, and hopes to have a grander scheme...
Respectfully Steve, isn't that a pretty harsh statement?

I've had the pleasure of meeting Bear Islander at a previous forum fest and spending a pleasant amount of time agreeing and disagreeing with him on a number of issues.

I found him to be an extremely bright, interesting and very polite individual. There's a lot of things I might call him, but terrorist is not one of them!

I am sure there are a number of other posters here that I haven't met, including you, that I would find very interesting to spend some time with. Vitabene comes immediately to mind from the recent forumfest.

I just wish we could all tone the rhetoric and name calling down while we discuss these contentious issues.

The reality is we may be building walls with people we never met, who if we had the opportunity we would find are individuals we may have been friends with if given the chance.

I have a lot of friends that look at life completely different than me. We disagree but we don't insult each other when we do. Gosh, if everyone I associated with agreed with me I'd have a petty damned boring life!

Wish we could practice just a wee bit more civility here, on both sides of the equation....
Skip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 07:26 PM   #80
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 1,396
Thanks: 212
Thanked 758 Times in 310 Posts
Default You have to be kidding

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Instead of allowing the "privileged few" to use power boats, I hope it will be islanders that get to keep their power boats. After all, we NEED them to get to and from our homes.

However legislation like that will be a long time coming, if ever, and I will not support it.

What I will support is a 300 HP limit for boats manufactured after 2012. Exceptions for commercial boats and law enforcement obviously.
Every "No wake" area brings larger wakes as boats slow down and speed up. Get a "No wake" zone in front of your house, get larger wakes. Is that what people want?

A 300 HP limit?

So your adgenda is clear: Make Winnipesaukee into a pond with canoes and kayaks.

Perhaps you are just that dense. Most cruisers and liveaboards, even with small blocks V8's have 500+ HP. Many have much more. Is it your intention that all of those boats leave the lake?

Marinas like Silver Sands, Spinnaker Cove, MVYC (284 slips occupied by Gilford taxpayers that ask for little if any services) are full of boats with families that spend their weekends and vacations on their boats. Did you want to throw them off the lake or just diminish the value of their docks? What happens to the town of Gilford when they lose in excess of 1/2 million dollars in tax revenue from people that use no services?

What about the other marinas with boats over 30 feet? What do you say to them? Find 10 kayak owners to rent your dock?

What happens to the value of these boat docks? What do you say to all of the owners? "Sucks to be you"?

BI, please answer each specific question. You obviously have an adgenda that has not been well thought out and will do irreparable harm to the lake and the finances of the communities around it. Is that what you really want?
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 07:38 PM   #81
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,675
Thanks: 23
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee View Post
Your logic is, well, illogical. No, it is nonsencical, and does nothing to prove your premise. For example, how do you propose the local officials test for horsepower? Becasue they would have to test each boat and everytime it goes out. All my vehicle's engines--including my boat and are anything but in a stock configuration. What makes you think that engines mods would suddenly stop? Legislate that.

Still you spew the mantra that a law enacted in the worst economy on 80 years is the sole reason for no speeding tickets, and a "quieter lake". Your twisted logic concludes that no speeding tickets is exclusive to SL legislation?

Lastly, you insist on and continue to insult performance boat owners such as myself by calling us "cowboys". Perhaps the webmaster should step in and remind you of the rules of this forum. I'm sure that you would not find it becoming if "us cowboys" started calling you and others of like opinion "lake geezers" or such other IMO, appropriate term.

Post script: This whole discussion is stupid. Attempting to have a factual, cogent discussion with you is like trying to push on a rope that's been dangling in the water all summer: you can't and all you do end up with is a slimy hand.

giddy up.
No need to test for horsepower, it is printed right on your registration. Yes you could modify your engine or even drop in a different one. Then or course you would be committing a crime when you register your boat with information you know to be incorrect. Even then you could only cheat on the horsepower a little, the Marine Patrol officers are not idiots.

More importantly you are missing the fact that HP limits exist on many New Hampshire lakes already WITHOUT enforcement problems.

Sorry but I have never claimed the speed limit has made a perceptible difference yet. I think the jury is still out on that.

Sorry again, I have never called performance boaters or any other particular boater a cowboy. Some boaters do in fact have a cowboy mentality. Some operate performance boats, one went by my home not long ago. But cowboys can be found in any kind of power boat.

Have you actually read my posts? Or are you to busy railing against them?
Bear Islander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 07:46 PM   #82
Yankee
Senior Member
 
Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Thanks: 19
Thanked 38 Times in 23 Posts
Default

'sigh', no more rope pushing for me. I've got better things to do. Oh, and giddy up. I'll be here long after your gone.
__________________
__________________
__________________
So what have we learned in the past two thousand years?

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

. . .Evidently nothing.

(Cicero, 55 BC augmented by me, 2010 AD)
Yankee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 07:51 PM   #83
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,675
Thanks: 23
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB View Post
Every "No wake" area brings larger wakes as boats slow down and speed up. Get a "No wake" zone in front of your house, get larger wakes. Is that what people want?

A 300 HP limit?

So your adgenda is clear: Make Winnipesaukee into a pond with canoes and kayaks.

Perhaps you are just that dense. Most cruisers and liveaboards, even with small blocks V8's have 500+ HP. Many have much more. Is it your intention that all of those boats leave the lake?

Marinas like Silver Sands, Spinnaker Cove, MVYC (284 slips occupied by Gilford taxpayers that ask for little if any services) are full of boats with families that spend their weekends and vacations on their boats. Did you want to throw them off the lake or just diminish the value of their docks? What happens to the town of Gilford when they lose in excess of 1/2 million dollars in tax revenue from people that use no services?

What about the other marinas with boats over 30 feet? What do you say to them? Find 10 kayak owners to rent your dock?

What happens to the value of these boat docks? What do you say to all of the owners? "Sucks to be you"?

BI, please answer each specific question. You obviously have an adgenda that has not been well thought out and will do irreparable harm to the lake and the finances of the communities around it. Is that what you really want?
Actually I think I can answer all the questions at once. No boat will have to leave the lake. Perhaps you didn't read my idea closely enough. Only boats manufactured after 2012 would be effected. It would be many years before the number of high HP boats on the lake would drop. After 10 or 20 years there would still be high HP boats around. Yes, over many years some marinas that cater to high HP boats would have to change their slips.

I think my agenda is very well thought out.
Bear Islander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 08:45 PM   #84
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Instead of allowing the "privileged few" to use power boats, I hope it will be islanders that get to keep their power boats. After all, we NEED them to get to and from our homes.

However legislation like that will be a long time coming, if ever, and I will not support it.

What I will support is a 300 HP limit for boats manufactured after 2012. Exceptions for commercial boats and law enforcement obviously.
BI,

I know your a smart guy, your posts are well thought out and solid...I can only assume your account was hacked.

You don't actually believe boat manufactureres would even consider this? Passing a fedral law is the only way a 300hp limit could happen however, such legislation would DESTROY the boating industry. What side would have the deeper pockets?

It will NEVER happen

You need to change your password.
Kracken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 09:58 PM   #85
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip View Post
Respectfully Steve, isn't that a pretty harsh statement?

I've had the pleasure of meeting Bear Islander at a previous forum fest and spending a pleasant amount of time agreeing and disagreeing with him on a number of issues.

I found him to be an extremely bright, interesting and very polite individual. There's a lot of things I might call him, but terrorist is not one of them!

I am sure there are a number of other posters here that I haven't met, including you, that I would find very interesting to spend some time with. Vitabene comes immediately to mind from the recent forumfest.

I just wish we could all tone the rhetoric and name calling down while we discuss these contentious issues.

The reality is we may be building walls with people we never met, who if we had the opportunity we would find are individuals we may have been friends with if given the chance.

I have a lot of friends that look at life completely different than me. We disagree but we don't insult each other when we do. Gosh, if everyone I associated with agreed with me I'd have a petty damned boring life!

Wish we could practice just a wee bit more civility here, on both sides of the equation....
Yeah, maybe it is harsh Skip. And yes, BI is extremely bright, and incredibly interesting. There are some things that just transcend subtle niceties. You know, the things that change things forever? Some things are just pretty darn important, and worth speaking your mind about.

If you think about just this weekend's posts, here's what's transpired.

BI has reiterated his call for a horsepower limit, and what it's focus would be, long term. Nothing to do with speed or anything, but the obvious downsizing of boat size and speed. Whatever he wants.

Skip, you've chimed in with a subtle "observation" that if we keep harping on safety not being changed by these silly laws, more silly laws will be enacted. Just as a point of interest mind you. I don;t necessarily disagree with you.

So while the really dishonest people are out there scurrying around trying to scare people into passing ridiculous laws, BI is very happy that they are playing into his hand by turning the lake into whatever the closest version of Golden Pond they can get to.

This is akin to your neighbor pushing for speed bumps, then no motor vehicles at all, then none in the town. You get my drift. At some point, this ain't friendly anymore. There are no walls left to be built with BI, although he can say he swings one way or another. He's built the wall, and someone has to have the cojones to tear it down. I'm here to say that he and those in his court have gone way too far. I wouldn't want Winni to become a reckless cowboy lake anymore than I'd like to see it a useless lake ....

You can discuss this all you want, since you will never offer up your opinion for fear of offending someone. One day, you may wish you spoke up.

Respectfully yours, of course.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2010, 12:57 AM   #86
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,675
Thanks: 23
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracken View Post
BI,

I know your a smart guy, your posts are well thought out and solid...I can only assume your account was hacked.

You don't actually believe boat manufactureres would even consider this? Passing a fedral law is the only way a 300hp limit could happen however, such legislation would DESTROY the boating industry. What side would have the deeper pockets?

It will NEVER happen

You need to change your password.
It already HAS happened on other lakes and ponds in New Hampshire. How can something that has already happened be impossible?

Winni is large and the lakes that already have HP limits are small. But legally that makes no difference.

Boat manufactuerers would not have a say in this. They can of course lobby against it. But it only requires the NH legislature and the Governors signature to put a HP limit on Winnipesaukee. It also could be accomplished by a Dept. of Safety administrative rule being adopted. Legislation is not even required if you go that route. Most of the HP limits on other lakes were done by administrative rule.

The federal government has nothing to do with this.

Nobody that I know of is actually trying to do this. This is just one man's idea, mine. I very much doubt we will see a HP limit on Winni any time soon. However in the long run I think additional limts of some kind will be coming.

If down the road things get worse instead of better, if we have a couple of more high profile accidents, then legislation could pass.

Or I could be wrong.
Bear Islander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2010, 05:14 AM   #87
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default

BI,


Lets say NH passes a law that all new boats built after 2012 need to be 300 hp or less? Do you a company like Genmar would stop building 300+ hp boats because they couldn't sell them in NH? Do you think Formula would close their doors? Do you believe Carver would start building kayaks?
Kracken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2010, 05:37 AM   #88
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracken View Post
BI,


Lets say NH passes a law that all new boats built after 2012 need to be 300 hp or less? Do you a company like Genmar would stop building 300+ hp boats because they couldn't sell them in NH? Do you think Formula would close their doors? Do you believe Carver would start building kayaks?
BI is correct. Many bodies of water do have HP limits, quite a few. The boat companies are not impacted directly, but the dealers on the lake would be selling only those boats that are within the limits.

My boat is 22' with a 260 hp stern drive. Not impacted, yet. You'd still be able to buy underpowered small cruisers, probably up to around 26 feet, that have that same engine, or possibly the 5.7 300 hp. You'd have others that opt for the much more efficient Yanmar diesels, most of which are far under 300 hp, on boats that make very large wakes. Most of the bowriders and recreational speed boats fall in that range as well.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2010, 07:35 AM   #89
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,675
Thanks: 23
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracken View Post
BI,


Lets say NH passes a law that all new boats built after 2012 need to be 300 hp or less? Do you a company like Genmar would stop building 300+ hp boats because they couldn't sell them in NH? Do you think Formula would close their doors? Do you believe Carver would start building kayaks?
I don't understand your point. I am not trying to put those companies out of business.

If Winnipesaukee enacted a horsepower limit I think those huge companies would barely notice. They would fight against it probably, but mostly they would be fighting against a trend. The boating industry put up a fight against speed limits, they lost.

The horsepower limits on other lakes have already effected boat sales in those areas.

There is also an up side for the boating industry. Servicing and rebuilding older boats will be a growing business as boat owners try to keep their older, high HP, boats in the water.
Bear Islander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2010, 08:38 AM   #90
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default

“What I will support is a 300 HP limit for boats manufactured after 2012. Exceptions for commercial boats and law enforcement obviously.”

Bear Islander,

Obviously there is some confusion here. I took this statement as you would endorse and foresee 300hp limit on manufacturers starting in less than 18 months.

Where you actually stating that you would support legislation that requires all vessels manufactured after the 2011 model year to be less than 300 horsepower for use in New Hampshire waterways?

Maybe I did misunderstand you, if so my apologies.
Kracken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2010, 08:48 AM   #91
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,675
Thanks: 23
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracken View Post
“What I will support is a 300 HP limit for boats manufactured after 2012. Exceptions for commercial boats and law enforcement obviously.”

Bear Islander,

Obviously there is some confusion here. I took this statement as you would endorse and foresee 300hp limit on manufacturers starting in less than 18 months.

Where you actually stating that you would support legislation that requires all vessels manufactured after the 2011 model year to be less than 300 horsepower for use in New Hampshire waterways?

Maybe I did misunderstand you, if so my apologies.
Actually I am only talking about a 300 HP limit on lake Winnipesaukee.
Bear Islander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2010, 08:58 AM   #92
jmen24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 223
Thanked 318 Times in 181 Posts
Default Let's take a look at HP restricted waters in NH

Here is a link that lists every single public boat access in the state of NH. It also lists any restrictions that may be present at that access location.

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Outd...ites_table.htm

Take a few minutes and read through the list to see what types of water bodies have HP restrictions. Note that the chart has a column for acreage, that is the total size of the body of water. The only information that is not present is depth, but that can be found here for a cross reference.

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Fishing/bathy_maps.htm

If you happen to notice a lake or pond on these lists that have a (**) noting additional restrictions. You will have to search for the restrictions by the name of the body of water.

I know BI and myself are well aware of what these bodies of water that have a HP limit have in common, just wanted to make sure everyone else does as well.
jmen24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2010, 09:22 AM   #93
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default

My apologies Bear Islander

I do think it’s still the wrong solution to the problem.

I take from your postings that you are a big picture guy. You are concerned with what the lake will be like 5-10-15 years down the road. No harm with that at all; however there are so many variables involved that it is hard to predict with any certainty.

Personally I don’t think if things are left unchecked that 20 years from now there will be high performance boats and cruisers tied to every dock around the lake. There are too many boundaries to entrance. Big horsepower costs big bucks. Yes there seems to be a lot more high performance boats and cruisers on the lake than there were 20 years ago. But I think we have hit the high water mark on that. As the cost of fuel continues to rise the amount of new big horsepower boats on the lake will drop.

The argument will rage on about the speed limit, some say they lake has changed and they are right. I am on the Broads side of Rattlesnake; a few years ago we use to watch big HP boats fly by at 80 mph+ all day long. When the gas went to $5.00+ that is when the behavior changed.
Kracken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2010, 09:46 AM   #94
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
What we keep overlooking here is there was never a speed problem in Skip's town. The speed bumps, for all intents and purposes, are not necessary and pointless.

The neighbor and town, in general, would have been better served having Skip hang out in front of his neighbor's driveway in his cruiser enforcing the traffic in their area.

Get it?
You're correct Ryan, something that should always be at the forefront.

Like most active waterways, Winni has a problem with congestion on weekends, problem boaters, and inexperienced boaters. But even the most experienced skipper has been shown to make a mistake or two.

So while everyone's got a slightly different take on the issues and remedies, there are two main sides taken on the issues(s).

1) There is a general lack of enforcement due to a variety of reasons. The primary reason is the MP budget is simply not enough to provide for enforcement of existing laws. Many here, myself included, think that the lake would be far better served by enforcing the existing laws, and be given the power they need to make the real problem boaters go away.

2) The other side generally thinks that over time, more and more laws and restrictions will be put in place. They view this as progress, since it will have the same impact as "Traffic Calming", a buzzterm developed when people want things to move more slowly.

I might have missed someone here, and it would be easy to do amongst thousands of posts. But In General, I have not heard any support from Side #2 for beefing up the MP, and getting the Legislature to realize what the issues are. Some even admit flat out, that safety is not their concern when proposing these laws. It "might" be a side benefit, but their primary impetus is to, gradually, transform the lake from it's current state of boating, into a more restricted lake where HP boaters, large cruisers,and possibly many other people and boats I haven't thought about, vanish over time.

This is the same type of plan that many areas have successfully implemented on small bodies of water. Small lakes, ponds, reservoirs, etc...I agree with that type of planning. Winni is quite a bit different, in that it's far larger than many of these restricted areas.

But getting back to enforcement and common sense. Is it not more prudent to take a look at existing regulations, and match them up to today's issues? It is the utter irony to have Side#2 point out the need for more laws, because people are breaking existing laws. I can only surmise that they think a ton of regulations and restrictions would eventually make many of their least favorite people/boats go away. That's BI's answer to the lake's problems.

But the issues will remain. Many of the problem boaters are not even in the sights of the restrictions he, and others, propose. With a HP limit, existing speed limit, and whatever else they can think of, you'll still have a problem with boats from 18' and up going the speed limit or well under, endangering other boaters due to arrogance, drinking, inexperience, or a combination of all three.

Bottom line, I don't think any of their proposals match up with any of the issues or problems.

BI basically says So What?

Skip says to avoid any talk of safety issues at all, because the lawmakers and do-gooders will simply come up with more laws and more restrictions, because they aren't smart enough to do anything else.

But he rightfully points out, that this shows people how stupid laws and useless regulations come about in the first place.

Doesn't anyone else see how ridiculous this has become, and that there really are things you can do about it?
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2010, 11:59 AM   #95
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,675
Thanks: 23
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

I see things differently Steve.

Several years ago some people, starting on Bear Island, perceived a problem. They stood up, got together, raised money, and started working for a speed limit solution. You may think their solution was misguided, but at least they stood up and DID something.

The other side believed standing around talking about the problem, or posting about the need for more education and enforcement etc. was the answer. But it's just talk. There is no money for that.

I am proud that I was part of a movement that actually took a stand and made a difference. Even if it does get us called terrorists.

If someone else has a better idea than speed or horsepower limits, I recommend they stand up and actually do something productive. Because Skip is correct, if speed limits don't do the job then we will be looking for another solution. Probably one you will not like.

Some people will look at a problem, throw up there hands and say it can't be solved. I'm not built that way. It can be solved, it WILL be solved, tho it might take decades. Tough problems require tough solutions. Unpopular solutions.

If, as you say, a 300 HP limit will not solve the problem then we may need to try a 200 HP solution. Or 100 or 50 or 25. Eventually, somewhere along the process, the cowboy mentality will cease to be a problem. After all, a cowboy in a kayak is just not that scary.
Bear Islander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2010, 12:30 PM   #96
RANGER CANOE CO
Senior Member
 
RANGER CANOE CO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Squam
Posts: 52
Thanks: 25
Thanked 15 Times in 12 Posts
Default what kind of TEA do you drink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineedles View Post
[/U][/B]
Skip, respectfully, this is why the tea party movement is relevent. We are sick of the way things have always been done, Repubs and Dems. We need a new way to conduct the People's Business.
Pineedles, respectfully, ITS NOT MY BRAND. Its about getting Gov off our backs. We tax payers, most who dont live anywhere near you paid for a SL study and IT GOT thrown out the window, uncompleted and ignored. Huge waste of MP time and $. And then passed yet another stupid law. Thats not my brand of TEA. Its the PROBLEM..........
RANGER CANOE CO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2010, 12:45 PM   #97
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,427
Thanks: 956
Thanked 594 Times in 332 Posts
Default

Ranger, I am a bit confused by your reply. Would you please clarify. Thank you.
Pineedles is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Pineedles For This Useful Post:
ishoot308 (08-30-2010)
Old 08-30-2010, 12:47 PM   #98
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 245
Thanks: 216
Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Several years ago some people, starting on Bear Island, perceived a problem.
I stopped reading at this buzz word.

I can tell from years of dialogue that you are a smart guy. I don't know a lot about your background, but I would imagine that with travelling into space comes certain risks. I'm pretty sure that you've been over each and every one of them in detail. How can you do that? Because they're documented. They're printed on paper. You can look down at them and see them in black and white. You can make reasonable, informed decisions based on what has been presented to you.

When you start using ambiguous terms like "perceived" and "fear" and other ideas or concepts that are palpable to those with self-serving interests, we diverge.

This debate has been worn thin and I still have yet to find the speed problem that the SL fixed. I have no horse in this race. I do not own a boat that fits your agenda and I'm not a cowboy. I just continue to see through the lies and deception that led to the restriction of other people's enjoyment.

Maybe I just need more money to buy a lobbyist...
__________________
Please do not feel the trolls.
Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Ryan For This Useful Post:
DEJ (08-30-2010)
Old 08-30-2010, 12:55 PM   #99
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,101
Thanks: 1,235
Thanked 1,369 Times in 683 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
I see things differently Steve.

Several years ago some people, starting on Bear Island, perceived a problem. They stood up, got together, raised money, and started working for a speed limit solution. You may think their solution was misguided, but at least they stood up and DID something.

The other side believed standing around talking about the problem, or posting about the need for more education and enforcement etc. was the answer. But it's just talk. There is no money for that.

I am proud that I was part of a movement that actually took a stand and made a difference. Even if it does get us called terrorists.

If someone else has a better idea than speed or horsepower limits, I recommend they stand up and actually do something productive. Because Skip is correct, if speed limits don't do the job then we will be looking for another solution. Probably one you will not like.

Some people will look at a problem, throw up there hands and say it can't be solved. I'm not built that way. It can be solved, it WILL be solved, tho it might take decades. Tough problems require tough solutions. Unpopular solutions.

If, as you say, a 300 HP limit will not solve the problem then we may need to try a 200 HP solution. Or 100 or 50 or 25. Eventually, somewhere along the process, the cowboy mentality will cease to be a problem. After all, a cowboy in a kayak is just not that scary.
BI, what good will it do to pass another feel good law when there is no monetary support for enforcing the rules. Just heaping more rules on the MP
to enforce is not going to help- it will hinder.

The problem that I have with your version of problem solving is that it will not work- forcing people to do things via a law will only result in the law abiding doing those things.

Instead of spending $ on lobbyists and getting laws passed that don't need passing, perhaps that same level of energy can and should be spent in Concord telling our legislators that they need to educate and enforce: both can be achieved through a better funded NHMP.
VitaBene is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to VitaBene For This Useful Post:
DEJ (08-30-2010)
Old 08-30-2010, 01:12 PM   #100
classic22
Member
 
classic22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton Bay
Posts: 40
Thanks: 6
Thanked 81 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
I see things differently Steve.

Several years ago some people, starting on Bear Island, perceived a problem. They stood up, got together, raised money, and started working for a speed limit solution. You may think their solution was misguided, but at least they stood up and DID something.

The other side believed standing around talking about the problem, or posting about the need for more education and enforcement etc. was the answer. But it's just talk. There is no money for that.

I am proud that I was part of a movement that actually took a stand and made a difference. Even if it does get us called terrorists.

If someone else has a better idea than speed or horsepower limits, I recommend they stand up and actually do something productive. Because Skip is correct, if speed limits don't do the job then we will be looking for another solution. Probably one you will not like.


Some people will look at a problem, throw up there hands and say it can't be solved. I'm not built that way. It can be solved, it WILL be solved, tho it might take decades. Tough problems require tough solutions. Unpopular solutions.

If, as you say, a 300 HP limit will not solve the problem then we may need to try a 200 HP solution. Or 100 or 50 or 25. Eventually, somewhere along the process, the cowboy mentality will cease to be a problem. After all, a cowboy in a kayak is just not that scary.
All these "solutions" would be well and good if there WAS a problem, however the statistics show a far different picture. That being said, some of us are standing up and working to "fix" your solutions.
classic22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:04 AM.


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

This page was generated in 0.61999 seconds