Payback Time

[Seaplane Pilot]

Today's Laconia Daily Sun reports that Republican Laconia City Councilor Greg Knytych will challenge Democrat State Senator Kathleen Sgambati for the district 4 Senate seat. Senator Sgambati voted in favor of the Speed Limit bill, so now those of us who were against the speed limit can have our say, and vote against her - hopefully sending her packing. I, for one, will be sending a generous donation to her opponent!

God Bless America!

www.laconiadailysun.com

[Resident 2B]

I have read the article and his platform, controling spending at the state level, really interests me. However, I did not see a position on speed limits.

I will likely support him and I will definately contribute to the campaign and do some work for his campaign if he is solidly against speed limits.

R2B

[fatlazyless]

It is certainly his right to run for state senator against Senator Kathleen Sgambati. She has lots to contribute in the areas of health insurance, medical care and nursing home care, as well as supporting the motorboat speed limits.

Suggest you google Senator Kathy Sgambati. the Senator who represents Alton, Gilford, Laconia, Tilton, Belmont, and maybe Gilmanton, and Gilmanton Ironworks.

In the senate's vote of 14-10 to pass the 45/25 boat speed limit, there were two Republicans who voted yes, and two Democrats who voted no so it was not all that partisan.

[Airwaves]

Another supporter of HB847, Senator Joe Foster of Nashua, has decided NOT to run for re-election!

[Lakegeezer]

Joe Kenney wants to be Governor yet was one of the sponsors of the speed limit bill. Not only did he vote for it, but his office never responded to a written letter making the case against it. No support for Joe from me.

[SAMIAM]

That bill was shoved down our throats by the same crowd that wants to tax you for an excessive carbon footprint......in other words,the moonbats. Hopefully we can send them a message at the polls.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

That bill was shoved down our throats by the same crowd that wants to tax you for an excessive carbon footprint......in other words,the moonbats. Hopefully we can send them a message at the polls.

The Speed Limit Bill was sponsored by Jim Pilliod, R-Belmont.

[SAMIAM]

Well,duhhh....lets get rid of Jim.

[Bear Islander]

You have a constitutional right to vote for or against anybody you want, for any reason you want.

And I have a right to the opinion you are incredibly petty. You want to get ride of the people that didn't vote the way you wanted on one piece of legislation. I have been present when many bills have been debated and have been to many hearings when elected representatives have driven long hours and taken time away from the lives and families, to serve the state of New Hampshire.

I believe every member of the House and Senate voted their conscience on HB162 and HB847. When our side lost a close one two years ago I don't remember anybody calling Senators names. I disagreed with their vote but never questioned their integrity or the service they do the people.

If you dislike the job they are doing you should run for office and replace them yourselves. Then you can read where people call you names, or question you intelligence or integrity, because you have done what you think it right.

[Cal]

Guess Jimmy was an easy sell with the scare tactics.

[Evenstar]

I really don't understand voting against a senator or a representative just because they didn't vote the way you wanted them to on one little bill. That seems like an extremely narrow focus to have. In the big scheme of things, a lake speed limit (while it is very important to many of us on this forum) is a very minor issue.

I had to be in Concord on Monday for a doctor appointment, so I stopped in at the State House to visit some of the people that I had worked with last year. The senator who I worked for as an intern gave me a big hug and invited me to lunch. He told me that the speedlimit bill and a bill protecting animals that race (greyhounds and horses) generated the most email for him (I used to handle much of his email). He said that those bills were not even major issues, compared with many other bills, yet those were among the most contentious.

When HB165 was defeated, Senator John Gallus was one of the Republican Senators who defeated it - yet I never held that against him in any way and I still voted for him in the following election. And then I testified in opposition to one of his bills - and we laughed about it later when he blamed me for defeating his bill. This is not supposed to be personal. You stand up for your beliefs - and the other side presents their arguments - then our legislators decide. And then you accept their decision and get on with your life (at least until until the next important issue comes up). That's how democracy works.

I've worked for a NH Senator (actually I worked for a couple of them), so I know how hard they work and how much time many of them devote to doing what is an extremely difficult and often very frustrating job.

Bear Islander is right:

If you dislike the job they are doing you should run for office and replace them yourselves.

If your Senator and Representatives are honest and are trying to do what is right for the people of NH, you should be very thankful for their service - even when you disagree with the way they voted on one little bill.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Bear Islander is right: If your Senator and Representatives are honest and are trying to do what is right for the people of NH, you should be very thankful for their service - even when you disagree with the way they voted on one little bill.

But if they vote what they think is right, no matter what their constituents think, then they are not doing their job.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by chipj29

But if they vote what they think is right, no matter what their constituents think, then they are not doing their job.

Not entirely true.

Representaives are supposed to vote the way the majority of their constituents would want them to. If they fail to do that, they should be voted out.

Senators are supposed to vote for what is best for the state, regardless of popularity or potential for personal gain. Senators are supposed to prevent popular, but bad legislation. If they fail to do that, they should be voted out.

I think it's great that so many represenatives and senators are willing to sacrifice their time, money and energy to serve our state, but the willingness to do so does not automatically mean they are good at it. A positive vote for HB847 may not mean much in the whole scheme of things, but realistic people can see it shows a general lack of common sense. Not voting for someone that lacks common sense is not petty, it's just smart, informed voting.

I only hope that those who opt not to vote for HB847 supporters, really know who they are voting for. It could get worse, common sense is not very common...

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I really don't understand voting against a senator or a representative just because they didn't vote the way you wanted them to on one little bill. That seems like an extremely narrow focus to have. In the big scheme of things, a lake speed limit (while it is very important to many of us on this forum) is a very minor issue.

I had to be in Concord on Monday for a doctor appointment, so I stopped in at the State House to visit some of the people that I had worked with last year. The senator who I worked for as an intern gave me a big hug and invited me to lunch. He told me that the speedlimit bill and a bill protecting animals that race (greyhounds and horses) generated the most email for him (I used to handle much of his email). He said that those bills were not even major issues, compared with many other bills, yet those were among the most contentious.

When HB165 was defeated, Senator John Gallus was one of the Republican Senators who defeated it - yet I never held that against him in any way and I still voted for him in the following election. And then I testified in opposition to one of his bills - and we laughed about it later when he blamed me for defeating his bill. This is not supposed to be personal. You stand up for your beliefs - and the other side presents their arguments - then our legislators decide. And then you accept their decision and get on with your life (at least until until the next important issue comes up). That's how democracy works.

I've worked for a NH Senator (actually I worked for a couple of them), so I know how hard they work and how much time many of them devote to doing what is an extremely difficult and often very frustrating job.

Bear Islander is right: If your Senator and Representatives are honest and are trying to do what is right for the people of NH, you should be very thankful for their service - even when you disagree with the way they voted on one little bill.

Many people vote solely on the basis of party affiliation, some based on personal rights or gun issues solely, this isn't new stuff here.

WINNFABS thought it was important to show the voting records of those in State office. Someone even commented about them being instrumental in getting some out of office? Whatever. I note that WINNFABS didn't bother to update their site for the Senate vote, much less the Governor waiting for the bill itself. Perhaps they are off to other exciting things.

I might add the following to your comment about "He said that those bills were not even major issues, compared with many other bills, yet those were among the most contentious. ".

If these bills were the most contentious, and generated a lot of correspondence and calls, he should therefore deduce that they ARE important, at least to his constituents. Perhaps he should get out more often, and maybe find out why this issue IS important. The fact that people went out of their way to express their concerns should have been a hint. This is a mistake that our leaders in Washington make every day. Far too often, politicians think that legislation that involves people's rights are not important issues, so they treat these issues in a vacuum.

In the grand scheme of things, yes, this is an important issue to the people on this forum, and boaters everywhere. Far too often, bad idea spread like fungus. Safety issues in particular, are far too often addressed by people that know squat about the problems and issues themselves. They are easy targets for those that set up elaborate campaigns for whatever benefit. If these groups as a whole had their way, every boater would be wearing an expensive inflatable PFD, a helmet, knee pads, and have a governor on the engine set to golf cart speed.

Politically, it's pretty easy, generally speaking, to guess correctly which party does this more often than not. There are three main groups in these issues.

1) A group that thinks legislation is the only way to protect people from their own stupidity and other's stupidity. They rarely follow up on the results, the primary focus is on legislation, not results.

2) A group that thinks it's every man/woman for themself. Any restriction of rights is bad.

3) A group that thinks moderation and caution should be used, extreme care, when tampering with rights issues.

I form opinions by issue, not party affiliation. I tend to research all issues before forming an opinion, and look for common sense and pragmatism when doing so. I value the opinions of people directly impacted by issues, since they are on in the line of fire. I discount opinions and research offered up by fringe groups, trade groups, or special attack groups setup for lobbying of specific issues.

I have read all of the posts I could here and elsewhere on this subject, waded through reports and articles from around the country, and solicited opinions from fellow boaters I meet. This is how I formed my opinion on the speed limit issue, and led me to the unanimous conclusion that the primary causes of boating accidents are,

1) Drunks
2) Irresponsible, careless and negligent boaters.
3) Inexperienced, unknowledgable boaters that get themselves into trouble unwittingly
4) Accidents happen in any activity.

While boater education has picked up markedly the last decade, (Hat's off to Boat US and power squadrons, to name but two fine organizations), enforcement has either broken even or declined. Enforcement of existing laws, more and more attention to boater education and training, and safe boater's involvement in the process are the proper course to take to solve the problems.

We have drunks running boats up on islands, PWC's buzzing around like bugs, people drowning, hitting docks, and occasionally, hitting other craft. We also have a lack of funding for enforcing the boating laws already on the books for a variety of reasons. Budget crunches abound, energy costs are sky high, and HSA has a much higher priority than the relatively low number of boating accidents each year. No, yelling for help with bogus stats does not help the issue.

In the meantime, the only thing that will help is concerned boaters have to chip in. Call in their hull numbers for the crazies out there (there aren't that many really, an easy thing to do). There are a couple of boaters here in prison for accidents the last dozen or so years. But you have to catch them first.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I really don't understand voting against a senator or a representative just because they didn't vote the way you wanted them to on one little bill. That seems like an extremely narrow focus to have. In the big scheme of things, a lake speed limit (while it is very important to many of us on this forum) is a very minor issue.

I had to be in Concord on Monday for a doctor appointment, so I stopped in at the State House to visit some of the people that I had worked with last year. The senator who I worked for as an intern gave me a big hug and invited me to lunch. He told me that the speedlimit bill and a bill protecting animals that race (greyhounds and horses) generated the most email for him (I used to handle much of his email). He said that those bills were not even major issues, compared with many other bills, yet those were among the most contentious.

When HB165 was defeated, Senator John Gallus was one of the Republican Senators who defeated it - yet I never held that against him in any way and I still voted for him in the following election. And then I testified in opposition to one of his bills - and we laughed about it later when he blamed me for defeating his bill. This is not supposed to be personal. You stand up for your beliefs - and the other side presents their arguments - then our legislators decide. And then you accept their decision and get on with your life (at least until until the next important issue comes up). That's how democracy works.

I've worked for a NH Senator (actually I worked for a couple of them), so I know how hard they work and how much time many of them devote to doing what is an extremely difficult and often very frustrating job.

Bear Islander is right: If your Senator and Representatives are honest and are trying to do what is right for the people of NH, you should be very thankful for their service - even when you disagree with the way they voted on one little bill.

I think this was very well said Evanstar and I have to say that I agree with you and Bear Islander on this one. You present a very fair and convincing case especially with the personal experience you have had in this very area. An elected representative has so many issues to deal with day in and day out. One should look at an overall pattern of voting to decide whether or not they accurately represent your views and concerns. One issue does not make or break a candidate.

[B R]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I think this was very well said Evanstar and I have to say that I agree with you and Bear Islander on this one. You present a very fair and convincing case especially with the personal experience you have had in this very area. An elected representative has so many issues to deal with day in and day out. One should look at an overall pattern of voting to decide whether or not they accurately represent your views and concerns. One issue does not make or break a candidate.

This is all well and good. One issue does not make or break a candidate. Ok, I can agree with that.

But how can you look at the Senators and not see the vote for what is was? This wasn't just one vote, this was voting for something that sounds good while ignoring the fact that speed is not a problem on the lake. This was a vote that wasn't based on facts. How can you re-elect anyone who doesn't vote on the facts but with pure emotion? This law was passed without any facts to substantiate the bill. Sorry, no one's convinced me otherwise. And you probably can't convince me. I've been on the lake for 10 years and certainly know what I see. And I don't see speed as a problem for the lake.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by B R

... ignoring the fact that speed is not a problem on the lake...

That is not a fact, it is your opinion. The legislators heard a great deal of statistics, testimony and argument to the contrary.

You may be unconvinced. You can disagree with this evidence, or discount its relevance. I don't understand how you can claim it doesn't exist.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander
That is not a fact, it is your opinion. The legislators heard a great deal of statistics, testimony and argument to the contrary.
You may be unconvinced. You can disagree with this evidence, or discount its relevance. I don't understand how you can claim it doesn't exist.

AHH, but it is a fact!

Speed is not now and has not been for years a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee, at least not until WinnFabs and its supporters decided to make it so.

Looking at statistics (facts) gathered over the years it is hard to imagine anyone who, reviewing the statistics objectively, would agree with WinnFabs.

The House is the body that represents you and me, the folks who live next door and take our opinions and bring them to Concord. That's why the NH House is so large.

The Senate is supposed to be the body that does not react to the winds of public opinion, but instead reflect and vote on what is in the overall interest of the state. In this case a majority of Senators disregarded the fact that speed is not now and has not ever been an issue on Lake Winnipesaukee and instead acted like members of the House. Because of their I can now go 800MPH on Waukewaun, but only 45 on Winni! LOL

Do I think this was a Republican V Democrat issue? No way. It was introduced by a Republican and had a majority of support from Democrats, WHY? Politics.
At some point the Democrats that supported the Republican initiative will come back and call in their markers. That is how it works.

Will Governor Lynch sign this bill? Again, politics, I don't know what he wants that's on the fence that this bill could be used for or against, so who knows?

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

In this case a majority of Senators disregarded the fact that speed is not now and has not ever been an issue on Lake Winnipesaukee

What are you saying? Of course speed is an issue. Try that argument with a family that is fishing and has a boat legally go by them at 70 MP just 150' away. Try that argument with a family with kids swimming in Winter Harbor and has a boat legally go by at 70 MPH only 150' away. Speed is the issue. And if that 1% of boaters(per this forum) leaves the lake or slows down, it could be an economic windfall, according to my post this AM referring to the NH Lakes ,Rivers, Streams and Ponds Partnership report.

BTW, if Seaplane Pilot considers being called "petty" a personal attack that should be edited or removed, well then this thread should switch to discussing only things we can all agree on, like "boy those black flies are annoying".

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

What are you saying? Of course speed is an issue. Try that argument with a family that is fishing and has a boat legally go by them at 70 MP just 150' away. Try that argument with a family with kids swimming in Winter Harbor and has a boat legally go by at 70 MPH only 150' away. Speed is the issue. And if that 1% of boaters(per this forum) leaves the lake or slows down, it could be an economic windfall, according to my post this AM referring to the NH Lakes ,Rivers, Streams and Ponds Partnership report.

A boat going by at 70 MPH, 150' away is no different than a boat going by at 70 MPH, 1.5 miles away, it's just going by.

We had your second scenario happen constantly on the CT River in MA (where the speed limit has been 45 for years) and it was nothing but entertaining. Not one family in our large group of families was at all bothered by it, even though it was clear they boats were completely ingoring the speed limit. Replace those boats with one going by at 30 MPH, 15' away (which could very well be legal in MA) and we'd be bothered.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Turtle Boy references - The Economic Impact of Potential Decline in New Hampshire Water Quality:
The Link Between Visitor Perceptions, Usage and Spending Phase IV Report, May 2007
Steering Committee of the Lakes, Rivers, Streams & Ponds Partnership -(that's a mouthful) but he did not include a link to this report.

Economic-Study-Phase-IV-Brochure - pdf

One conclusion of the "report": Key Regional Findings - Perceived water quality decline could mean varying economic losses for state’s regions.

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

What are you saying? Of course speed is an issue. {snip}. Speed is the issue. And if that 1% of boaters(per this forum) leaves the lake or slows down, it could be an economic windfall, according to my post this AM referring to the NH Lakes ,Rivers, Streams and Ponds Partnership report.

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

I suspect that lost revenue from GFBL boats will be more than offset by other boaters and vacationers. They might not be spending it at the gas dock or the dockside restaurant, but there are many other lake's region vendors who will benefit. (check out the Phase IV Report on the Economic Value of NH's Surface Waters- the Link Between Visitor Perception, Usage, and Spending prepared by the NH Lakes, Rivers, Streams and Ponds Partnership-2007 if you don't believe me)

Or check it out for your own edification.

From the Phase IV study: Purpose
The primary goal of this study was to answer the question:
“How would the state economy be affected if residents and visitors who fish, boat and swim perceive any negative changes to the water quality in the areas where they recreate?”

The secondary study goals were to create useful information for policy makers, and promote “big picture” thinking that overcomes the perception that growth and healthy public waters are mutually exclusive.

----
Another key conclusion of the report:
Key Statewide Findings
Current perception of water quality is very good.
The survey looked at the following criteria in this State Wide lakes study:

[note:The first percentage # = Satisfaction: % of respondents Satisfied or Very Satisfied.
The 2nd % = Rating: percentage of respondents giving highest rating.]

Overall quality 85% 74%
Clarity & purity 79% 65%
Crowding 60% 91%
Views & scenery 94% 91%
Water level or flow 90% 66%[/b]

Seems like a vast majority were currently satisfied with the lakes. Not that I am validating the study, just my observation.

Interested readers should check out this short report. It doesn't mention SPEED or economic windfall but Turtle Boy must believe the report supports his theory. I leave it to you to make your own informed decision.

Safe boating to all

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

BTW, if Seaplane Pilot considers being called "petty" a personal attack that should be edited or removed, well then this thread should switch to discussing only things we can all agree on, like "boy those black flies are annoying".

Turtle Boy, some of us are quite sensitive you know

My feelings were hurt

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Speed is the issue. And if that 1% of boaters(per this forum) leaves the lake or slows down, it could be an economic windfall, according to my post this AM referring to the NH Lakes ,Rivers, Streams and Ponds Partnership report.

I read the report. It says nothing of an economic windfall. It only predicts economic losses if people stop visiting the state due to perceived water clarity issues. One would have to be insane to conclude, from reading that report, that a drop in boater visits could ever lead to an economic windfall. It says precisely the opposite.

[B R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

That is not a fact, it is your opinion. The legislators heard a great deal of statistics, testimony and argument to the contrary.

You may be unconvinced. You can disagree with this evidence, or discount its relevance. I don't understand how you can claim it doesn't exist.

What statistics? I was at the hearing on President's day with my two sons and we didn't hear a single statistic, just a lot a "fear of the lake" stories. Can you please provide me with any statistics that show that speed is a problem on the lake? The marine patrol report is full of statistics; but you don't seem to like those.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by B R

What statistics? I was at the hearing on President's day with my two sons and we didn't hear a single statistic, just a lot a "fear of the lake" stories. Can you please provide me with any statistics that show that speed is a problem on the lake? The marine patrol report is full of statistics; but you don't seem to like those.

No... I am not going to provide you with any more copies of statistics I have already posted. I have done so over and over again. Go back and read my old posts, they are all there.

Pay close attention to where the boating accident rate in New Hampshire is on the rise while it is falling in other states. Also review the US Coast Guard Statistics showing speed to be one of the four top causes of boating accidents. The boating deaths on this and other nearby lakes is also illuminating to anyone with a somewhat open mind.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

No... I am not going to provide you with any more copies of statistics I have already posted. I have done so over and over again. Go back and read my old posts, they are all there.

Pay close attention to where the boating accident rate in New Hampshire is on the rise while it is falling in other states. Also review the US Coast Guard Statistics showing speed to be one of the four top causes of boating accidents. The boating deaths on this and other nearby lakes is also illuminating to anyone with a somewhat open mind.

You keep dodging the question regarding speed limits in those other states where accident rates drop. Did those lakes institute better enforcement policies or what? They don't have speed limits as far as I've seen. Kinda shoots very large holes in your theory BI.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

No... I am not going to provide you with any more copies of statistics I have already posted. I have done so over and over again. Go back and read my old posts, they are all there.

Pay close attention to where the boating accident rate in New Hampshire is on the rise while it is falling in other states. Also review the US Coast Guard Statistics showing speed to be one of the four top causes of boating accidents. The boating deaths on this and other nearby lakes is also illuminating to anyone with a somewhat open mind.

Please define "speed".
The coast guard calls it "excessive speed". But what exactly is excessive speed?
A. Any speed over the limits in HB847
B. Any speed that people are afraid of
C. Any speed deemed excessive for the conditions. This would include a NWZ violation.

The speed limit supporters always point to these stats that discuss "excessive speed". However when asked for the definition of that, they never answer.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I think this was very well said Evanstar and I have to say that I agree with you and Bear Islander on this one. You present a very fair and convincing case especially with the personal experience you have had in this very area.

Thanks Hazelnut!

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Bear Islander and Evenstar have a point. One issue should not make or break a candidate. Broadbase taxes, school funding, healthcare and funding the state retirement system are more important issues for the Lakes Region than a speed limit. However, it is very telling when elected officials pass a bill that so many were against and adds new restrictions to a targeted group. The issue was lake safety, and they did nothing to improve it. What other nanny laws will they pass because some group funds a campaign of hype?

Thanks for clarifying my point by listed some of the more important issues.

Most bills that are at all controversial stir up the emotions of people on both sides. At the House Transportation Committee Hearing there were just as many people that testified for the bill as against it - so no matter how a Senator votes, their decision is going to upset a large number of people. Emotional bills are pretty much a no win for them.

There was no "targeted group" - as a lake speed limit affects all boats. That's like saying that highway speed limits targets high-performance cars.

Did you listen to the Senate discussion? Those that spoke in support of the bill, spoke mostly about safety. I've spoken to a number of the Senators who voted in favor of the speed limit - and they believe that it will improve safety on the lake. Going slower is safer - that's a fact, on land and on water. You might not agree with a particular speed limit - but, with everything else being equal, slower is safer.

BTW: One of the Republican Senators who voted against the speed limit actually thinks that Winni is so large that you can't even see land when you're in the middle of it. Talk about being uninformed about something that you are voting against!

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Many people vote solely on the basis of party affiliation, some based on personal rights or gun issues solely, this isn't new stuff here.

The Senator who I worked for always voted his conscience and most of the Senators I know also vote their conscience. Two Republican Senators voted for this bill and two democrats voted against it - so this was not a party-line vote.

I am not a member of WINNFABS.

If these bills were the most contentious, and generated a lot of correspondence and calls, he should therefore deduce that they ARE important, at least to his constituents. Perhaps he should get out more often, and maybe find out why this issue IS important.

You obviously know nothing about this senator to make those comments.

The most important bills are the ones that will have the most effect on the most people - not the ones that upset a relatively small, but very vocal, percentage of the population. These are what I call Political Bills - since they generate the most media coverage. Last year's Civil Union bill (HB 437) is a good example of an emotionally charged Political Bill.

...led me to the unanimous conclusion that the primary causes of boating accidents are, 1) Drunks; 2) Irresponsible, careless and negligent boaters.
3) Inexperienced, unknowledgable boaters that get themselves into trouble unwittingly;4) Accidents happen in any activity.

Yes, and 1 through 3 all become more dangerous as speed increases. Which is why slower speed are safer.

As far as #4 goes, I do not remember hearing any Senator who voted in favor of the speed limit (or any other supporter) stating that a lake speed limit would eliminate all accidents. Most supporters feel that unlimited speeds on a recreational lake puts some boaters at unnecessarily high risks, which a speed limit will help reduce.

[B R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You have a constitutional right to vote for or against anybody you want, for any reason you want.

And I have a right to the opinion you are incredibly petty. You want to get ride of the people that didn't vote the way you wanted on one piece of legislation. I have been present when many bills have been debated and have been to many hearings when elected representatives have driven long hours and taken time away from the lives and families, to serve the state of New Hampshire.

I believe every member of the House and Senate voted their conscience on HB162 and HB847. When our side lost a close one two years ago I don't remember anybody calling Senators names. I disagreed with their vote but never questioned their integrity or the service they do the people.

If you dislike the job they are doing you should run for office and replace them yourselves. Then you can read where people call you names, or question you intelligence or integrity, because you have done what you think it right.

I think those that voted for this law are fiscally irresponsible to the entire state of NH. This was no time to enact laws that cost money (and I know you don't think it does; I disagree).

When HB162 was defeated, Winnfabs went after the Senators who voted against it and they were voted out of office. Why is this any different?

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You have a constitutional right to vote for or against anybody you want, for any reason you want.

And I have a right to the opinion you are incredibly petty. You want to get ride of the people that didn't vote the way you wanted on one piece of legislation. I have been present when many bills have been debated and have been to many hearings when elected representatives have driven long hours and taken time away from the lives and families, to serve the state of New Hampshire.

I believe every member of the House and Senate voted their conscience on HB162 and HB847. When our side lost a close one two years ago I don't remember anybody calling Senators names. I disagreed with their vote but never questioned their integrity or the service they do the people.

If you dislike the job they are doing you should run for office and replace them yourselves. Then you can read where people call you names, or question you intelligence or integrity, because you have done what you think it right.

There was one post on this thread that contained a silly name, and just once.

I don't think that one post is worthy of your lengthy diatribe on integrity and service.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You have a constitutional right to vote for or against anybody you want, for any reason you want.

And I have a right to the opinion you are incredibly petty.

You know BI, that sound an awful lot like a personal attack on me. That was not necessary, and I think your post should be edited or removed. I am represented by a Senator that voted for something that I feel strongly against. I did not attack her personally (or you for that matter), but I simply brought forth that the electoral process allows an individual the freedom to vote against someone that does not follow one's personal positions on the issues. I fully intend to vote against Senator Sgambati (who, by the way, never had the professional courtesy to return e-mails or phone calls) and vote in a candidate that has more conservative views. You also have no idea what I do or do not do in the field of public service. I may be a politician for all you know.

[ITD]

Pffffft, I will be sending out many checks if I can determine that a pro speed limit legislator will be replaced by an anti-speed limit legislator. Anyone who would vote on a law like this that is justified by scare tactics and hyperbole needs to go quickly. These are the same people who will be raising your taxes. Before you know it they'll be doing moonbat things like this: New Hampshire Legislature to Vote on Impeaching Bush and Cheney -- House bill 24.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

That bill was shoved down our throats by the same crowd that wants to tax you for an excessive carbon footprint......in other words,the moonbats. Hopefully we can send them a message at the polls.

Seems to me that a few of the legislators who voted against HB 162 were sent a message at the polls...and they lost their jobs.

[Lakegeezer]

Bear Islander and Evenstar have a point. One issue should not make or break a candidate. Broadbase taxes, school funding, healthcare and funding the state retirement system are more important issues for the Lakes Region than a speed limit. However, it is very telling when elected officials pass a bill that so many were against and adds new restrictions to a targeted group. The issue was lake safety, and they did nothing to improve it. What other nanny laws will they pass because some group funds a campaign of hype?

So, I take back my claim that Joe Kenney will not receive my support if he runs for Governor. He's my local senator, and gets points for that, but so far he flunked the part where he gets to weigh the issues and make an appropriate decision. He was a co-sponsor of the bill, so he clearly doesn't understand boating, the lake, or safety issues. Let's see what he has to say about taxes.

[SAMIAM]

I will admit that I have a selfish interest in this issue and that is the economy of the lakes region.I do not own a "go fast" boat but,being in business,I have seen the economic effect that these folks have in our shops,stores and restaurants.They are generally the most affluent of out summer visitors....we do not have much industry or manufacturing in this area.We are mostly dependant on our vacation and service business'.and the guy with the 150k boat likes to spend money.
It might seem petty to some that I would vote for or against someone based on this issue alone,but tough times are ahead and it doesn't seem wise to make a big segment of our boaters to feel unwelcome.
I know from previous posts that Bear Islander would be happy to see nothing but kayak's and canoe's on the lake and that is a very warm and fuzzy picture....unless you need to make a living here.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

I will admit that I have a selfish interest in this issue and that is the economy of the lakes region.I do not own a "go fast" boat but,being in business,I have seen the economic effect that these folks have in our shops,stores and restaurants.They are generally the most affluent of out summer visitors....we do not have much industry or manufacturing in this area.We are mostly dependant on our vacation and service business'.and the guy with the 150k boat likes to spend money.
It might seem petty to some that I would vote for or against someone based on this issue alone,but tough times are ahead and it doesn't seem wise to make a big segment of our boaters to feel unwelcome.
I know from previous posts that Bear Islander would be happy to see nothing but kayak's and canoe's on the lake and that is a very warm and fuzzy picture....unless you need to make a living here.

Maybe so, but....there are some business owners supporting speed limits who feel that this minority(1% per some of this forum's contributors) has indeed driven away business. One could argue that with $4.50/gal gas that there will be a shift by boaters to smaller boats. Not all GFBL boaters are rolling in money (and judging by the # of these used boats for sale, I suspect many are hurting). Similarly, not all high rollers choose to drive a GFBL boat. There are many comfortable people who choose to spend their money in the lake's region on other pursuits. I suspect that lost revenue from GFBL boats will be more than offset by other boaters and vacationers. They might not be spending it at the gas dock or the dockside restaurant, but there are many other lake's region vendors who will benefit. (check out the Phase IV Report on the Economic Value of NH's Surface Waters- the Link Between Visitor Perception, Usage, and Spending prepared by the NH Lakes, Rivers, Streams and Ponds Partnership-2007 if you don't believe me).

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Maybe so, but....there are some business owners supporting speed limits who feel that this minority(1% per some of this forum's contributors) has indeed driven away business.

Common wisdom is that it is the captain boneheads, going well under 45, that make the lake seem unsafe, and the hyped up "education" campaign from Winnfabs did more gratuitous damage to the lake's reputation than anything else in the past 5 years.

[Commodore]

Speed (over the proposed speed limit) is not restricted to big money GFBLs. Many boats are capable of going faster than 45 mph. The summary of that study concludes that currently an overwhelming majority of polled users are satisfied or VERY satisfied with conditions at NH lakes.

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Maybe so, but....there are some business owners supporting speed limits who feel that this minority(1% per some of this forum's contributors) has indeed driven away business. One could argue that with $4.50/gal gas that there will be a shift by boaters to smaller boats. Not all GFBL boaters are rolling in money (and judging by the # of these used boats for sale, I suspect many are hurting). Similarly, not all high rollers choose to drive a GFBL boat. There are many comfortable people who choose to spend their money in the lake's region on other pursuits. I suspect that lost revenue from GFBL boats will be more than offset by other boaters and vacationers. They might not be spending it at the gas dock or the dockside restaurant, but there are many other lake's region vendors who will benefit. (check out the Phase IV Report on the Economic Value of NH's Surface Waters- the Link Between Visitor Perception, Usage, and Spending prepared by the NH Lakes, Rivers, Streams and Ponds Partnership-2007 if you don't believe me).

The summary of that report does not mention GFBL boaters as a current problem or a perceived problem. Even if it was part of the report the high ratings and satisfaction levels indicate that there IS NO PROBLEM let alone one that needs to be addressed by a new speed limit law.

Any perception that the qualities of the lake are declining comes from those who claim that GFBLs are chasing people from the scary wild west boating on our lakes. The perception comes from speed limit advocates.

[2Blackdogs]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Today's Laconia Daily Sun reports that Republican Laconia City Councilor Greg Knytych will challenge Democrat State Senator Kathleen Sgambati for the district 4 Senate seat. Senator Sgambati voted in favor of the Speed Limit bill, so now those of us who were against the speed limit can have our say, and vote against her - hopefully sending her packing. I, for one, will be sending a generous donation to her opponent!

God Bless America!

www.laconiadailysun.com

The poll had 64 votes opposed to speed limits, but less than a handful want to replace their Senator?

[fatlazyless]

'Making a law for a problem that doesn't exist' is simply not true. Lake Winnipesaukee is the go-to lake for large, powerfull, and fast boats. From 22 to 47' go fasts powered by twin engines capable of going 60-107mph. The owners obviously bought these go-fasts to be using them and Lake Winnipesaukee is where they live.

Racing cars have race tracks. Go-fast boats have Lake Winnipesaukee!

So, what about all the kayaks, sailboats, and smaller boats that want to use the lake? Kind of tough sharing the water with these big monster boats!

HI-speed boating needs its own venue, like maybe Sundays from 2-5, out in the broads, in a designated area, just like a race track. To say that the entire lake should be a race track is a no-go.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by FLL
Lake Winnipesaukee is the go-to lake for large, powerfull, and fast boats. From 22 to 47' go fasts powered by twin engines capable of going 60-107mph. The owners obviously bought these go-fasts to be using them and Lake Winnipesaukee is where they live.

The problem with that argument that you continually ignore because it flys in the face of your "logic" is the statistics show these boats are not a problem!

Because a boat is capable of speed doesn't go hand in hand with causing problems.

Look at the stats from above and show me JUST ONE of those "22 to 47' go fasts powered by twin engines capable of going 60-107mph." that caused or was even involved in an accident on Lake Winnipesaukee that HB847 would address.

Still waiting for Islander to enlighten us about those 47 accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee involving speed in 2006!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

So, what about all the kayaks, sailboats, and smaller boats that want to use the lake? Kind of tough sharing the water with these big monster boats!

I thought that is what Squam is for...