So what did the Senate do?

[Airwaves]

Not being able to pick up NH news outlets (the few left) what happened? Was it a public hearing before committee? Did the committee vote? Did they schedule a vote? questions questions questions!

[fatlazyless]

Yes good question, what's the latest with HB162? Just checked the NH Gen Court website and it says that it is 'in committee' in the Senate. Over at www.thewmurchannel.com a 5:58pm article talks about what some of the players on both sides had to say but there's no info about the bill's status.

.....inquiring minds want to know!

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

... what happened? ... questions questions questions!

Try this link for Channel 9 (WMUR-TV Manchester) coverage of the hearing:

Senate holds public hearing on HB 162

Skip

[Cal]

So I guess nothing came out of the meeting today .

[chipj29]

From someone who was there:

We outnumbered the proponents of HB 162 by a 2:1 margin.(folks wore stickers) Their real agenda is the Lakes congestion on weekends. The senators continually questioned speakers on the topic of "fear & anxiety" on the water due to speed. One close-minded retired trooper said he can't understand how anybody would be opposed to a statewide boating speed limit.The senators also asked for suggestions on how to satisfy both sides. They had no suggestions.(surprise) The opponents however suggested enforcement of current laws, improved boater ed., lo-speed areas, etc.
It was nice to see the support.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by chipj29

From someone who was there:

.The senators also asked for suggestions on how to satisfy both sides. They had no suggestions.(surprise) The opponents however suggested enforcement of current laws, improved boater ed., lo-speed areas, etc.
It was nice to see the support.

How about Sat.Sun.Hol. NWZs

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Cal

How about Sat.Sun.Hol. NWZs

Rusty would be against that - tour boats need to move faster than NWZ speed to make profitable voyages.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by chipj29

From someone who was there:

We outnumbered the proponents of HB 162 by a 2:1 margin.(folks wore stickers) Their real agenda is the Lakes congestion on weekends. The senators continually questioned speakers on the topic of "fear & anxiety" on the water due to speed. One close-minded retired trooper said he can't understand how anybody would be opposed to a statewide boating speed limit.The senators also asked for suggestions on how to satisfy both sides. They had no suggestions.(surprise) The opponents however suggested enforcement of current laws, improved boater ed., lo-speed areas, etc.
It was nice to see the support.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...6-2958d5d7d427

Guess the Mass people really were on vacation (priorities) ...

[chipj29]

Among those registering at the hearing yesterday, 150 opposed the bill and 59 favored it.

[fatlazyless]

In about 1855 the 14th US President and a New Hampshire native, Franklin Pierce, 1852 - 1856, a Democrat, would not agree to abolish slavery as proposed by some in the US Congress. He said that while he strongly disagreed with slavery in principal that abolishing it would be bad for business, or something like that.

This choice by the six Senators on the Transportation committee must be a difficult decision. There's a lot of public interest focused on it. There's plenty real NH businesses and residents on both sides of the issue and there's lots of money and people's time on both sides. I bet they are thinking deep on this one.

[Rattlesnake Gal]

It really was great to see so many people in attendance!
(I suspect it would have been higher if the snowmobilers realized that this issue would be facing winter speed on the lake too. )

The moderator did a great job in regards to the speakers for and against the speed limit getting equal turns to talk.
The senators listened well and asked good questions.

In my opinion, the message that came across to the senators was that the lake is congested, mostly on the weekends, and that the 150’ safe passage law was not being obeyed. I could go on about different points of the hearing, but I think the issues have been covered well here already.

One thing I would very much like to know - how many of the supporters went over the 65 mph speed limit on the way to the hearing? Another is why someone from Holderness, who boats on Squam – a lake that has a speed limit in place, would bother with trying to pass a limit on a lake they will not be using???

My sticker in opposition to the bill made WMUR's video. I'm almost famous?

[Quilt Lady]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Among those registering at the hearing yesterday, 150 opposed the bill and 59 favored it.

. . . maybe the majority of New Hampshire residents who support the bill couldn't attend because they had real jobs and couldn't take time off. The House held their three hearings at night when people on both sides could attend.

[fatlazyless]

Gee whiz, today's www.concordmonitor.com has an article about yesterday's hearing. Yes, I detect a pro hb162 bias in it, but it's worth a read. It talks about radar, steering eyesight when not up on plane, loons, summer camps, and education vs. a speed limit.

I'd post a link except my links never seem to work, maybe cause I'm still using my 1996 web-tv box, or something. This Concord Monitor article is a lot longer than the one in today's Union Leader.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Quilt Lady

. . . maybe the majority of New Hampshire residents who support the bill couldn't attend because they had real jobs and couldn't take time off. The House held their three hearings at night when people on both sides could attend.

And was the count any different there?

[overlook]

Originally Posted by Quilt Lady

. . . maybe the majority of New Hampshire residents who support the bill couldn't attend because they had real jobs and couldn't take time off. The House held their three hearings at night when people on both sides could attend.

The majority of NH voters do not boat, That is why the 1200 voters poled were never asked if they own a boat or were experienced boaters, They were asked there age though.
Last summer I ask alot of boaters why they did not attend, there respons was they did no care or they felt this would never get this far.
My observations on all the meetings and yesterday was this is a "fear" issue and supporters are attempting to connect this with safety.

25 at night--large wakes, then bows up for better ride, and most important boaters will not feel it would be worth the trip to go out to dine ECT> Too long a ride or uncomfortable.
45 day--not any safer either, no statistics show any collision above 45 involving two boats.
Speed limits do work: this why we have the crrent laws on NH waterways.
A well placed MP boat will do a great deal to improve safety than diminishing the enjoyment of other boaters.

[Quilt Lady]

Originally Posted by Cal

And was the count any different there?

Yes. (I actually attended the meetings.)

[Coastal Laker]

Originally Posted by Quilt Lady

. . . maybe the majority of New Hampshire residents who support the bill couldn't attend because they had real jobs and couldn't take time off. The House held their three hearings at night when people on both sides could attend.

Ooooh, I wouldn't start down this path. I don't agree with the context of the bill and I have a "real job." I thought this issue was important enough for me to take half the day off to be certain I could attend. Perhaps many supporters believed that they've got this one in the bag after the House vote and didn't need to come. Who really knows?

[Rattlesnake Gal]

The senators asked both sides of the issue if there could be a compromise. Neither side offered any.
codeman671 started a great thread on the forum and it got nowhere. Why?
(Thanks McDude for showing me how to insert links on the new forum that look good!)

Could there be speed limits on certain areas of the lake instead of the whole thing?
You don’t see 65 mph speed limits on all roads, why should it be the same on the lake?
Is compromise out of the question?

The area behind Sleepers comes to mind over near the West Alton sandbar. I have heard from residents over that way that boats speed through in an unsafe manner. I’m sure there are other congested areas that a speed limit might make sense too. It wouldn’t have to be radar enforced either; Marine Patrol officers could have some sort of gauge (markers) point A to B and if you go through faster than the correct speed limit it could result in a citation. (No radar training equals money saved for the taxpayers.)

Many examples of the speed problem really didn’t come across as speed related to me. The loons for example - won’t a baby loon be just as dead being hit at 45 mph? (I suppose one could argue that it might have more time to swim away, but it doesn’t seem likely.) Please don’t get me wrong about the loons, I love them and get very upset when people infringe on their nesting areas causing them to abandon the eggs or try to get too close for a picture.

The director of one of the local camps that is in favor of the bill spoke of how the kids cannot swim to an area island safely and that sailing on the weekends is too dangerous. I fail to see where the 45/25 mph will help that. Why not have an escort boat for swimming that will serve two purposes. First, keep other boaters away and second, someone will be close by to offer assistance if a camper gets in trouble. He also mentioned 4th of July traffic after the fireworks. The speed limit won’t fix that, the number of boats that is the problem.

Another question - why would any establishment claim to support or oppose this issue? Why not stay neutral? How many people here on the forum will boycott them for their views?

Please give thought to any responses you might have to my questions and suggestions.
I would very much appreciate civil, constructive feedback. Thanks!

Sincerely,
RG

[Rattlesnake Gal]

PS to Quilt Lady
Rattlesnake Guy and his co-worker both took the morning off from their real jobs to attend this meeting.

[Airwaves]

From the Manchester Union Leader article:
But they also criticized a program that lets boaters take their certification test online.

“It’s a joke,” one speaker said.

I agree with that. As I understand it (and this may have changed, I am not certain) the NH certification test is not recognized in other states because it has not been approved by the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA).

However courses approved by NASBLA are recognized in NH, meaning anyone can take a Power Squadron, Coast Guard Aux or NASBLA approved course from any other state.

Taking a certificate test on line proves nothing except that the person taking the test knows how to google!

On line testing for the certificate should NOT be allowed period!!!!!!

So, no new date for a committee vote has been set???

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Quilt Lady

. . . maybe the majority of New Hampshire residents who support the bill couldn't attend because they had real jobs and couldn't take time off. The House held their three hearings at night when people on both sides could attend.

Are you implying that the people who DID attend do not have "real" jobs? Come on, please be serious, and respect both sides here.

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

So, no new date for a committee vote has been set???

I tried to find the link where I read this, but to no avail...must be the gray hair, what little I have left, kicking in: The Senate is on vacation next week, and deliberation will resume when they return.

[Quilt Lady]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Gal

Is compromise out of the question?

RG, you are the voice of reason that has been missing from this debate from the beginning! So far, no one has wanted to compromise and in the end, no one is going to be happy with whatever the results are. I'm sure there is middle ground which will give each side a partial victory. So why can't we all stop the arguing and complaining and work towards a solution that we all can live with?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Gal

...The senators asked both sides of the issue if there could be a compromise. Neither side offered any...codeman671 started a great thread...Could there be speed limits on certain areas of the lake instead of the whole thing?...Is compromise out of the question?
Sincerely,
RG

Rattlesnake Gal, you have posed a great question.

And the answer is yes, compromise is easily available, and a workable solution has always been right in front of anyone who is seriously interested in safety and reaching a compromise that would be fair and equitable to all.

It is found in RSA 270:12 (I), which I reprint in its entirety at the end of this post.

What RSA 270:12 does is allow residents to petition the Department of Safety to restrict speeds, horsepower, or prohibits motorized use alltogether after an applicable public hearing process.

This is basically the same process that has been used successfully over many years to limit speeds, horsepower or motorized use on over 80 bodies of water in New Hampshire.

In the case of Winnipesaukee, petitioners would need to find 25 signers in each bordering community to restirct speeds lakewide, or find 25 petitioners in each bordering (and affected community) to limit speeds in particular sections of the big Lake. Likewise, abutting communities on other public bodies of water could do the same.

The caveat? You have to convince the Safety Commissioner (and his staff) that yours is a reasonable request that can be enforced fairly. This process was put in to effect many years ago to take the politics out of lake restrictions as the decisions are made by appointed and career professionals and not by politicians. It is basically a mirror image of how speed limit laws are ammended for our roadways.

It forces the petitioners to work with law enforcement on the determination & setting of reasonable restrictions. It makes people think, have reasonable cause and come to a compromised solution after a public hearing is held locally for any and all proposed resticted areas.

To me, it doesn't get any fairer than that!

I had intended to speak to this very issue Friday, but I'll just leave it at "certain people did not want this subject brought up". Therefore, I will broach this compromise solution on my own, not as any part of an organized group, to the Senate. And I encourage anyone else agreeing with my position to copy from or improve upon my suggestions here.

After listening for many months to both sides of the issue, do I believe additional restrictions (speed/horsepower) are necessary on certain portions of Winnipesaukee (and other bodies of water in the State)? I certainly do.

Do I believe that a one sized solution for Winnipesaukee or the entire State is appropriate? No.

Do I believe that the solutions we look for require all parties to sit down an hammer out compromises with the Safety Department that will ensure fair legislation that can be equally enforced across the entire State? Of course.

Will the process require time, energy and an honest committment of effort by all parties truly professing an overall goal of better boating safety? Obviously.

The "scorched earth" approach currently dictated in HB 162 is not a wise process in which to govern the people.

A reasonable and workable alternative already on the books has proven its effectiveness for many years.

You know, sometimes the answers we are looking for are truly right under our noses.

RSA 270:12, with applicable passages highlighted in red:

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270
SUPERVISION OF NAVIGATION; REGISTRATION OF BOATS AND MOTORS; COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER
Administration and Enforcement
Section 270:12
270:12 Operating Restrictions. –
I. The commissioner of safety shall, after receiving a petition signed by 25 or more residents or property owners of each affected town or towns in which a lake, pond or river is located and after notice and hearing, at which it appears that the public interest requires, adopt rules under RSA 541-A governing the maximum horsepower of boat engines and outboard motors or prescribe maximum speed limits for the operation of such boats or outboard motors applicable to or upon all or any portion of the public waters of this state. The commissioner of safety shall, in like manner and after notice and hearing, prohibit the use of motorboats and outboard motors on bodies of public water having an area of 35 acres or less; provided, that said prohibition shall not be construed as affecting the bodies of water covered by RSA 270:75-109. Hearings under this section shall be held in the vicinity of the body of water under consideration during the months of June, July, August and September following the date of the petition.
II. Notwithstanding the provisions of RSA 270:12, I, any hearings regarding the closing or restricting of any body of water to seaplanes shall be addressed to and heard by the commissioner of safety or his designee. Prior to issuing a decision, the commissioner shall consult with the director of aeronautics, rail, and transit, department of transportation.

[Airwaves]

Quilt Lady wrote:

So why can't we all stop the arguing and complaining and work towards a solution that we all can live with?

I think that's a fine idea.

Here's what I would propose, see if it flies.

1. Increase the number of MP officers on Winni
2. Tie violations of the Inland boating rules in with the drivers license of
the vessel operator.
3. Enforce the 150' headway speed law. (as well as other laws on the books)
4. Bring the NH Boating certificate law up to the standards of the NASBLA and
eliminate the "on-line certificate" option.

In reading the various posts on both sides of this issue it seems to me that the underlying issue in this debate is the 150' headway speed law that is not being followed or routinely enforced.

There needs to be better communication and response between boaters/shoreside residents with MP so that they can identify where the violations are happening and can adjust their man/woman power accordingly.

I have seen conditions on Winni where doing 60 MPH is fine, I have seen other conditions in which doing 30 would be fool hardy.

Thoughts?
BTW even though I am a taxpayer in NH, I don't get a vote so yes, I'm just one of those "Massachusetts know it alls" that shouldn't be allowed to have a say. Just as long as I keep paying my taxes!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Quilt Lady

RG, you are the voice of reason that has been missing from this debate from the beginning! So far, no one has wanted to compromise

Ah , excuse me. If you go back and look at the poll on here , MORE people voted for a speed limit 50 to 70 mph than voted for 45...That's not compromise



P.S. Including myself

[overlook]

Originally Posted by Cal

Ah , excuse me. If you go back and look at the poll on here , MORE people voted for a speed limit 50 to 70 mph than voted for 45...That's not compromise



P.S. Including myself

I myself do not believe there is reason for compamise, the issue is over calming fears and the understanding how speed relates to these fears. I am hoping this bill is killed and we as boaters can address the issues that relate to the complaints that have been presented.
One example the campground at Roberts cove, maybe NHRBA can do a study to extend the no wake zone to increase a buffer from boats on plane.
Think about this, now MP does not need to park a boat at Eagle point, that frees up one boat to be placed at another problem area on conjested days.
Now thats a realistic tool in the MP's tool box.
I am optomistic that something good will come from all this.
Safer boating is all we really want. My biggest fear is an uneducated or expirienced boater.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Taking a certificate test on line proves nothing except that the person taking the test knows how to google!

On line testing for the certificate should NOT be allowed period!!!!!!

I would normally tend to agree but the statistics show improved safety so the online test seems to be working. I took the test online, but I knew the rules beforehand so it was very easy, not that there are many rules to know...

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I agree with that. As I understand it (and this may have changed, I am not certain) the NH certification test is not recognized in other states because it has not been approved by the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA).

However courses approved by NASBLA are recognized in NH, meaning anyone can take a Power Squadron, Coast Guard Aux or NASBLA approved course from any other state. ...

NASBLA = National Association of State Boating Law Administrators

The NH boater Education Certificate is (and I thought always has been) NASBLA recognized and approved. You can double check on NASBLA approval on the NH Boater Ed page BoatEd NH .

What did change a few years ago is that NH does NOT recognize some NASBLA approved course certificates. Most notably the BoatUS Foundation on-line course (also not accepted in CT or NY). Here is the NASBLA site which shows what courses are accepted and any state restrictions NASBLA course listings .

If in doubt about your certificate, call and ask the appropriate authorities (Marine Patrol here on Winnie). Be sure to TAKE NAMES.

The NH BoatEd course certificate is NASBLA approved and accepted in other states.

Safe boating to all..

[fatlazyless]

That's really something that there was already a state law which deals with horsepower size and speed limits. What-da-ya-know and how-about-that? Good grief!

Maybe that's a good compromise solution. A good deal is one where both sides benefit so maybe, maybe?

Here's that link to today's, Feb 25, Concord Monitor article about yesterday's Senate Transportation Committee hearing. A lengthy and interesting article!

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...0060225/REPOSI...

...hope it works!

[Skip]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

...That's really something that there was already a state law which deals with horsepower size and speed limits. What-da-ya-know and how-about-that? Good grief!...Maybe that's a good compromise solution. A good deal is one where both sides benefit so maybe, maybe?...

FLL, you're right on the money. There has been an Administrative solution to this dilemma all along. Ain't it amazing, all the money spent by the extremist individuals and their lobbyists/lawyers on the far sides of the issue, and no one mentioned the existing and well working RSA that provides a solution for the concerns raised. Hmmm, maybe the lawyers & lobbyists weren't looking for an easy solution, the more billable hours they draw this debate out the more they line their pockets! Nah, that couldn't be the case...

However, this issue is no longer in the Administrative avenue where RSA 270:12 dictated it be, but the law has been short-circuited and now we find the solution in the muddy political arena.

But back to your original point Less.....

A wise man once said: Politics is the art of compromise

Absent a reasonable approach to this debate, which means that some areas need to addressed in reference to speed, noise, and crowding without invoking blanket policy, regardless of the Senate's action in the upcoming weeks, we are all only one boating accident away from totalitarian boating regulations that no one will be pleased with.

[Airwaves]

Dave R wrote:

I would normally tend to agree but the statistics show improved safety so the online test seems to be working. I took the test online, but I knew the rules beforehand so it was very easy, not that there are many rules to know...

I understand what you are saying, however taking an open book test does not educate anyone. On line means boaters just trying to get documented without the studay can look up the answers or reading them from the book, get their certificate and still not have appropriate knowledge.

I would say that the improved safety on the water is coming from more folks taking safe boating courses than from the people just looking up the answers online.

Allowing online testing compromises the certificate program and calls into question how many boaters just did it online by looking up the answers and still don't have knowledge of the rules.

That is why I would advocate doing away with the certificate portion of the online test, use it as practice. I took the online sample test and without ever cracking open a NH regs book or looking anything up I scored an 88, it's not that hard to begin with.

Skipper of the Sea Que wrote:

The NH boater Education Certificate is (and I thought always has been) NASBLA recognized and approved. You can double check on NASBLA approval on the NH Boater Ed page BoatEd NH .

What did change a few years ago is that NH does NOT recognize some NASBLA approved course certificates. Most notably the BoatUS Foundation on-line course (also not accepted in CT or NY). Here is the NASBLA site which shows what courses are accepted and any state restrictions NASBLA course listings .

As I said, the NH course may well be recognized now.

I know in years past it was not recognized and was not valid in other states that require a certificate.

When it was first passed the NH Marine Patrol website stated that it was valid only in NH and not recognized by other states, so perhaps that has changed. If so, all the better!

On-line courses should NOT be recognized by any state for a boating certificate.

[Airwaves]

To: Skipper of the Sea Que,

I did some checking and you are correct that NASBLA now recognizes the NH course, that's the good news. However according to the State of NH website the other portion of your information appears to be incorrect, that or the state hasn't updated their material.

According to this a certificate from any NASBLA course is good in NH, it doesn't list any exceptions:

Any person who holds a certificate issued from any state that meets or exceeds the requirements of the Boating Education Law (is NASBLA approved) shall be exempt. New Hampshire will accept proof of certification issued by another state.

This is the part of the NH law that I questioned and why I thought NH was not NASLBA approved, because the NH course isn't recognized anywhere else!

c. Persons who pass a safe boater equivalency exam with a grade of 80% or higher. This certificate will only be acceptable on New Hampshire public waters and not be recognized by other states. Call 888-254-2125 to sign up

So if you are traveling to another state that requires a boating certificate the NH certificate won't help you, at least not according to the NH website.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

To: Skipper of the Sea Que,

I did some checking and you are correct that NASBLA now recognizes the NH course, that's the good news. However according to the State of NH website the other portion of your information appears to be incorrect...This is the part of the NH law that I questioned and why I thought NH was not NASLBA approved, because the NH course isn't recognized anywhere else!...So if you are traveling to another state that requires a boating certificate the NH certificate won't help you, at least not according to the NH website...

Although the Skipper can answer this as well as I, I'll try to help.

The Skipper is correct, the NH course is NASBLA approved (internet or classroom) and recognized in other States.

The portion of the regulation that you cite only refers to the testing out option offered in New Hampshire. In New Hampshire you can opt to "test out" without taking the NASBLA course. If you "test out", you must have a minimum score of 80% and your "test out" certificate is only good in this State.

Hope this helped clear up the confusion.

Skip

[Airwaves]

So if you "challenge" the NH test without taking the course there is a restriction that the certificate is not recognized in other states?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

So if you "challenge" the NH test without taking the course there is a restriction that the certificate is not recognized in other states?

Correct, it states so right on the certificate/license....though I don't know of many people who have utilized this portion of the licensing, its just as easy (or easier) to go on-line and get the NASBLA certified certificate instead!

Skip

[Airwaves]

So if you challenge the test you have a restricted certificate, but if you take the test on line (without taking the course) you don't have any restrictions?

Why does that not make any sense to me?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

...So if you challenge the test you have a restricted certificate, but if you take the test on line (without taking the course) you don't have any restrictions?...

I would assume (boy, I don't like using that word) that the State's position is that to successfully pass the NASBLA approved course online, that you would have had to have first read the curriculum to find the correct answers. Obviously the State's goal is to have you familiarize yourself one way or the other with the content of material in the NASBLA approved course.

However, successfully testing out (getting an overall 80% or better sans the 70% or better for the on-line test) would negate that position.

I guess that if you have obtained the knowledge to score 80% or better you obtained the knowledge either by getting the answers form the NASBLA course or from another source (Power Squadron, Coast Guard, etc.). So I agree, it makes no sense to test out when it is just as easy to obtain the NASBLA certificate.

Anyway, we're starting to beat the horse here, this is New Hampshire and "it is what it is".....

Skip

[Airwaves]

True, NH is a world unto it's own, no doubt about it...

Regardless, where I was going with this before I got sidetracked, since the state has mandated boater education, and since it appears the state's course is now NASBLA approved, then it seems to me that before lawmakers do anything to alter the course of events on the lake they might want to wait until the phase in is completed.

Boat US Magazine had an interesting article on state mandated safe boating courses this month.

It can be found here:
http://www.boatus.com/news/curve_0306.htm

No editorializing on my part, I just found it interesting.

[BroadHopper]

Instead of everybody being to the far left or far right, it is great to see everyone on a compromise mood. I always agree with the minority version of the bill and always wonder how the 45/25 numbers was ever developed.

****

I could not attend the meeting as I was in CO on vacation. What is surprising is that I find a lot of boaters from the West Coast and Colorado watching this debate closely. Seems like NH can be 'First in the Nation' to set any proceedings. Most boaters are in agreement that the safe passage rule is a good one and can benefits lakes in other states. I am surprised that not too many states have that rule. Lake George for one, do not have a safe passage rule.
I"m serious to find out what kind of compromises that will come out of this meeting. I think this is a great step in the right direction.

[fatlazyless]

No, that's not what I was thinking. My next paragraph from the above quoted post that you did not include here, goes on to say that this is a big decision for our NH state senators because there's real people's recreational time and real businesses on both sides of this speed limit issue. So, it's a difficult decision for them and they are gonna have to think deep.

I also brought it up because it's a true and interesting piece of NH history. He is considered to be one of the worst US Presidents, ever. Suggest you put 'President Franklin Pierce slavery, bad for business' into google and do a search.

If the 24 NH state senators choose not to pass the 45-25 law, it would not be the first time a NH politician has made a poor choice just like Franklin Pierce.

[Silver Duck]

you aren't seriously comparing being unconvinced of the necessity for a speed limit to tollerating something as inherenty foul and evil as slavery, are you?

Silver Duck

[Woodsy]

The Senators heard lots of testimony at the hearing that was extremely similar to the R,R & D committe hearings this past summer. They heard about 150' Safe Passage, pros & cons of radar, and all of the relevant enforcement issues of HB-162, including potential costs, and the logistics of using radar. What they didn't hear, was anything specific about excessive speed. The honorable Senator Burling was clearly looking to somehow reach a compromise with the two sides. Unfortunately, one rather long winded speaker actually refered to Hi-Performance boaters as criminals, and another went on and on, even though the Senate Commitee Chairman asked her politely to stop on numerous occasions and submit her testimony as written. (There was supposed to be a 3 minute limit on testimony, but like at the summer hearings, it was generously ignored)

There are a lot of ways to compromise. The problem lies in actually hammering out a solution. The proponents of HB-162 spoke about fear, and I have no doubt that thier fear is real. I addressed the issue when it was my turn to talk. As I told the senators, unfortunately no law is a magic wand that will eliminate fear. Fear can only be eliminated by education. If HB-162 were to pass, it really wouldn't do much to help out those trying to get to Bear Island from Y Landing. It is a congested part of the lake and a speed limit won't ease that congestion. But adding another NWZ will.

The summer camp director spoke about kids not being able to swim out to an island... I tend to agree with him that just stinks. But a solution might be to hire an MP boat for a few hours, similar to a detail cop for a construction site. A Marine Patrol boat with lights flashing would go a long way in insuring the safety of the young swimmers.

Most of the problems presented and testified tended be related more to congestion than excessive speed. I think with boater education and better funding for the Marina Patrol I think we would see almost immeadiate results and a much calmer atmosphere on the lake.

Woodsy

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The summer camp director spoke about kids not being able to swim out to an island...Woodsy

Question to all: would the summer camp director fell better if the kids were run over by a slow moving boat as opposed to one going 45+MPH?

Sorry, but it just amazes me how clouded this issue has become.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Weirs guy

Question to all: would the summer camp director fell better if the kids were run over by a slow moving boat as opposed to one going 45+MPH?

Sorry, but it just amazes me how clouded this issue has become.

Isn't that the truth. I'll bet my boat you would hear about it a whole lot more if it were over 45
Just like Littlefields was ALWAYS noted as "a performance boat","a performance boat","a performance boat". It could have been almost any type power boat except perhaps a pontoon boat , which probably would not ride up the back of another boat but skewer it instead .

[GWC...]

If so many realize that the MP is financially restricted to enforce the current rules, regulations, and laws, then why not add $100 to all boating registrations and make canoes and kayaks register, as well.

In other words, whatever you are paying to "boat" on the Lake, add $100 to the pot - pay to play and be supervised, if unable to act responsibly, so that the Lake may be enjoyed by all.

Gee, what an idea!

Give the MP what it needs financially to supervise those unable to act responsibly, so that the Lake may be enjoyed by all.

I must be a frigg'n genius...

[ITD]

Originally Posted by GWC...

If so many realize that the MP is financially restricted to enforce the current rules, regulations, and laws, then why not add $100 to all boating registrations and make canoes and kayaks register, as well.

In other words, whatever you are paying to "boat" on the Lake, add $100 to the pot - pay to play and be supervised, if unable to act responsibly, so that the Lake may be enjoyed by all.

Gee, what an idea!

Give the MP what it needs financially to supervise those unable to act responsibly, so that the Lake may be enjoyed by all.

I must be a frigg'n genius...

Careful what you ask for GWC, I'm willing to bet NH takes in more on boat regs. than it pays for MP. Any additional money would be diverted in a heartbeat, you can bet the holders of the pursestrings would check out the statistics, determine the lake is safe and divert the extra money you want to collect to some pork project.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Seems like NH can be 'First in the Nation'

BroadHopper -- if you are reffering to "first in the nation to set a speed limit -- that's not true. Albiet there are no lakes nearly comperable to Winni & others Mass Inland waters has long been 45

No one stake me to the pole ! i am very much against HB162

[T.H.E. Binz]

Enough of HB 162 . . . just make boat registration fees 50 cents per rated hosrepower and use the additional funds to hire more MPs to enforce the laws we have (and give the MPs a raise while we're at it).

[fatlazyless]

I think your suggestion of charging 50 cents/horsepower is a good one. It would not be too difficult to do since all motorboats already have to be registered. Fifty cents seems like not enough money for the privilege of boating in NH. Seriously now, making it five dollars per horsepower and eliminating the interstate reciprocity agreement would be good. Also, let's bring back those little metal boat license plates that go on the stern and make sure they say "Live Free or Die' on the plate. Honest, I'm not kidding here.

At five dollars per horsepower, an 1150 hp boat would pay an extra $5750./year while a 40 horsepower would pay $200./year. Sailboats, kayaks ,rowboats, and all non-engine and non-motor boats could be no-charge. It would raise new money and encourage boats without engines and smaller horsepower. Why not!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

I think your suggestion of charging 50 cents/horsepower is a good one. It would not be too difficult to do since all motorboats already have to be registered. Fifty cents seems like not enough money for the privilege of boating in NH. Seriously now, making it five dollars per horsepower and eliminating the interstate reciprocity agreement would be good. Also, let's bring back those little metal boat license plates that go on the stern and make sure they say "Live Free or Die' on the plate. Honest, I'm not kidding here.

At five dollars per horsepower, an 1150 hp boat would pay an extra $5750./year while a 40 horsepower would pay $200./year. Sailboats, kayaks ,rowboats, and all non-engine and non-motor boats could be no-charge. It would raise new money and encourage boats without engines and smaller horsepower. Why not!

Because I have a better idea . How about $5 per pound for canoes , kayaks , and $1 per pound for sailboats since they have the most to gain by this insanity

[Airwaves]

FLL wrote in part:

eliminating the interstate reciprocity agreement would be good. Also, let's bring back those little metal boat license plates that go on the stern and make sure they say "Live Free or Die' on the plate. Honest, I'm not kidding here.

As I recall, NH finally went to reciprocity and bow numbers because the Coast Guard finally (and rightfully) got sick of being the boat registry for NH vessels that use the ocean. Those pretty little "Live Free or Die" license plates are not acceptable on the open seas!

[Airwaves]

GWC wrote:

If so many realize that the MP is financially restricted to enforce the current rules, regulations, and laws, then why not add $100 to all boating registrations and make canoes and kayaks register, as well.

In other words, whatever you are paying to "boat" on the Lake, add $100 to the pot - pay to play and be supervised, if unable to act responsibly, so that the Lake may be enjoyed by all.

Gee, what an idea!

Give the MP what it needs financially to supervise those unable to act responsibly, so that the Lake may be enjoyed by all.

I must be a frigg'n genius...

I am not up to speed on the way things work at the NH Statehouse, but I know in Mass that any revenue generated is placed in the general fund and can be used for anything the legislature deems and not earmarked for the agency generating the income. I think the only exception of this rule is a users fee so the wording would be critical, otherwise additional money could just go to pay for things not related to boating.

What happens to the money generated by the state tax on gasoline used in boats?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

GWC wrote:
What happens to the money generated by the state tax on gasoline used in boats?

Boat gas tax is refunded if you apply for it

[Airwaves]

Boat gas tax is refunded if you apply for it

Then keep it to help fund the Marine Patrol!

Does MP currently get the money from the gas tax that is not refunded to boaters or does it go into the highway or general fund?

Anyone know how much it is? If MP doesn't get this money then perhaps legislation should be proposed that would allow that money to go to MP operations.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Phantom

BroadHopper -- if you are reffering to "first in the nation to set a speed limit -- that's not true. Albiet there are no lakes nearly comperable to Winni & others Mass Inland waters has long been 45

What I meant Phantom is a state wide speed limit. It's scary to a lot of boaters.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by GWC...

If so many realize that the MP is financially restricted to enforce the current rules, regulations, and laws, then why not add $100 to all boating registrations and make canoes and kayaks register, as well.

In other words, whatever you are paying to "boat" on the Lake, add $100 to the pot - pay to play and be supervised, if unable to act responsibly, so that the Lake may be enjoyed by all.

One hundred dollars still buys a lot of groceries. Some folks scrape together $75 to buy a used fiberglass Lincoln el-cheapo canoe so that they can boat—at all!

The lake should be for all peaceable boaters to enjoy, even the financially strapped.

[Steve]

Maybe I missed it, but was anything decided? How long does it take the Senate to make a decision on something like this?

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

One hundred dollars still buys a lot of groceries. Some folks scrape together $75 to buy a used fiberglass Lincoln el-cheapo canoe so that they can boat—at all!

The lake should be for all peaceable boaters to enjoy, even the financially strapped.

Your point is well taken and I agree.

Unfortunately, some are in fear of using the unsafe Lake and desire a speed limit to remedy their fear. Their remedy requires $$$$$ and that places a financial burden upon those financially challenged.

If the MP were properly funded, the current rules, regulations, and laws would provide for a safer Lake and dispel the fears of most Lake users - the rest will require professional help to overcome their fears.

Ever use a pay toilet?

Sometimes life is harsh for the financially challenged.

If the boaters pony-up, the swimmers (no fee required) will be able to swim without the alleged fears mentioned in the HB162 threads.

As an after thought, it never ceases to amaze me how people are able to afford cigarettes while complaining of being financially challenged – the joys of being an addict.

Again, sometimes life is harsh for the financially challenged.

[WT-RXT]

Originally Posted by Quilt Lady

. . . maybe the majority of New Hampshire residents who support the bill couldn't attend because they had real jobs and couldn't take time off. The House held their three hearings at night when people on both sides could attend.

I take exception to your comment assuming those attending the hearing in opposition to hb162 do not have real jobs.
I have a "real job" and attended the hearing since it was on one of my days off. In fact, as a federal employee, I assume you pay income tax, so I want to thank you for your contribution to my yearly base salary of $138K, I think that qualifies as a a "real job". At my ripe old age of 51, I am eligible to retire and responsibility rip around the lake at 65mph!

Thanks, again!!!

[Airwaves]

Orignally posted by WT-RXT
At my ripe old age of 51, I am eligible to retire and responsibility rip around the lake at 65mph!

Thanks, again!!!

Please don't gloat.

The fight is far from over!

Even if the full Senate kills this bill next week don't think for a minute think that the supporters won't file it again at their first opportunity because they will!

[SIKSUKR]

I believe that before last week,the gloating has been coming from the supporters of HB162 since the house voted to approve the bill.

[MAXUM]

Why not just put it on the November ballot and let the people decide?

Let the folks be the ones to decide this one... once and for all!

[fatlazyless]

Statewide referendum ballot questions are a no-go in New Hampshire. Not sure why, maybe the state constitution or an rsa or something?

Today's news: possible Senate vote on thursday, and HB162 horribly doomed and a most likely no-go. HB162 would fare better if it just applied to Winnipesaukee only because some Dem & Repub senators could then vote yes.

Read all about it in today's www.fosters.com!

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...2/News1303/103..

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Statewide referendum ballot questions are a no-go in New Hampshire. Not sure why, maybe the state constitution or an rsa or something?

My guess is there is no provision for it in the State Constitution. To bad on issues like this it would be better served to let the people decide.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

My guess is there is no provision for it in the State Constitution. To bad on issues like this it would be better served to let the people decide.

It would have too be spelled out more clearly. Not just "Are you in favor of a speed limit".
I have no problem with a speed limit , but not 45 mph. 60/65/70 is much more realistic. I'm liable to fall asleep at 45
There are some nights that 25 is too much , yet a clear full moon night , 25 is fine.
My point is you can't fill in the blank numbers of a speed limit AFTER the questions answered.
The poll taken here , months back , I voted for , I believe 65 mph. After the fact , proponents tauted it as a great percentage was in favor of HR162.
In fact less than half voted for 25/45. A geat number voted for a speed limit BUT NOT 45MPH but the proponents seem to have forgotten that

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

My guess is there is no provision for it in the State Constitution. To bad on issues like this it would be better served to let the people decide.

I disagree with the end of this post - let the people decide. It implies all the people, and an issue so regional shouldn't be decided by a state wide vote. Instead, we should trust our representatives. The state population as a whole can be lobbied by those that raise the most money - we've just seen it done with the pro-limit sponsored survey that was given into evidence. I suspect that a majority of non-boaters don't care one way or the other, unless they had a good or bad experience to color their opinion.

This is a regional issue in the lakes region. Many people pursue their happiness by going fast; and many people are scared by big and/or fast boats on the big lakes. Mixing these two types of people can be explosive, given the right spark. If the people are to decide, I suggest that the vote should be taken among the people that have a stake in the matter, not the lobbied masses. An honest targeted vote should be cast, then accepted by all. Let's not fight it over and over. As it stands, I will accept the 45 speed limit if our senators decide that it should be so - but I hope that they vote it down. In either event, I will continue to put my efforts towards a safe lake that is self sustaining.

[GWC...]

Not in my backyard...

Senators will vote for passage if it does not effect their backyard:

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...053/-1/CITIZEN

[MAXUM]

Geezer-

Well here is the catch to all this. Let the reps decide, many who have no clue about boating, or let the people decide, many who have no clue about boating either. Either way has it's issues, however I'd much prefer to have had my voice directly heard. The public is just as easily swayed in opinion as our state reps are, so really what's the difference?

Suppose in the end it doesn't matter... but I personally think something needs to be done, if not a speed limit then better enforcement on the part of the MP for those that choose to operate recklessly. Also if the MP really wants to get serious they should start to patrol in unmarked vessels. It's no good if you can spot them miles away!

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Suppose in the end it doesn't matter... but I personally think something needs to be done, if not a speed limit then better enforcement on the part of the MP for those that choose to operate recklessly. Also if the MP really wants to get serious they should start to patrol in unmarked vessels. It's no good if you can spot them miles away!

While I'm all for more enforcement of existing laws, I'm not really sure there is that much of a problem. I think the lake is far less "frantic" than it was 4 years ago. I see many more people being good than being bad. I spent a day on the ICW in central NJ last year and lemme tell ya, we got it sooooo good up here compared to NJ. I saw some amazingly stupid stuff that I've never seen on Winnipesaukee.

[Resident 2B]

I had been a close to shore ocean boater for ten years until we decided to give that up and focus our vacationing, and now living, most of the summer on Lake Winnipesaukee beginning a few years ago.

From personal observations, compared to boating in and around Boston Harbor and the ports along the North Shore of Ma., boating on Lake Winnipesaukee is very passive. Even though the 150' rule is not fully observed by all, for the most part it is observed and it is effective in making a safer boating experience.

The big challange in making the transition from ocean to the lake is learning the lake and the NH bouy system, but that is something that is managable with some work and time. Adapting our learning from USCG Aux classes to the lake was easy and the internet version of the safe boating class helped in this transition.

In addition to power boating, we also kayak. We are very near to Weirs Beach, the busiest part of the lake, and we can kayak almost every day. We kayak early when things are flat, we stay away from the channel when things start to get busy and we use common sense at all times when in the boat or the kayak. To us, the lake is big enough for all to enjoy, as long as we all use a little common sense.

On busy boating days, bringing the kayak to less congested parts of the lake or to the smaller lakes around, either by car or by boat, is also a great common sense option. I do not see why anyone would choose to kayak in the broads on busy weekends, unless they were thrill seekers. There are so many other, more responsible, options for kayaking.

It would be great if we could all get along. I realize there are two very polarized camps around the "safer boating" issues, but there is no real or big problem to be solved in our opinion. Perhaps we should have a week or two to cool off after HB-162 is voted in the senate and use that time to think about getting along better.