GFBL owners: the real story

[FormulaOutlaw]

There are many many misconceptions about "our group" that I keep reading about in here. Contrary to what some people would have you believe, we are not the evil boaters of the world.

For example:

We raise infinitely much more money for charities than all other boat groups combined. The SCOPE Poker Run in Southern California raised over half a million dollars for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation in just one Poker Run.

Poker Runs: Every poker run I have ever been associated with, and that's quite a few, there is a ZERO TOLERANCE for alcohol consumed by Captains until the boat is tied up at the dock for the night. If this rule is broken, that Poker Runner is immediately disqualified for the rest of the activities and told to leave.

On the second "Speed" thread it was brought up the extent to which GFBL boaters mix alcohol with boating. In reality, 90% or better of the operators of these types of boats do NOT drink while underway. We know the effects of alcohol and a hot sunny day. And most importantly, none of us are willing to risk damage to our boats, ourselves, or others, just for the thrill of drinking and boating. Drinking slows your reactions, and when operating a GFBL at higher speeds you have to have your wits about you. You have to be able to judge waves, judge what is going on around you, read the water. It is so much more to driving one of these boats than a 35 mph bowrider. And NONE of us wants to screw up. I have been a member of the GFBL group for about fourteen years now and the times I have seen a Captain drinking I could honestly count on one hand. We are a responsible group.

The "offshore" crowd, at least down here and I suspect we are a good representative of the overall "offshore" crowd, are WITHOUT question the most courteous group on the water. This has been told to me personally by every Marine Patrol agency that plies our waters, particularly the US Coast Guard. I personally towed an elderly couple in a few weeks ago who had broken down up on the north end of Sarasota Bay, and insisted they ride with me so that my loud pipes did not bother them. In the cockpit of my boat I can carry a normal conversation up to about 4,000 rpms. I, and every GFBL boater I know would NEVER leave a stranded boater floating helplessly. We work very hard at keeping a positive image, and by all accounts down here, we succeed handsomely.

Why do we own these boats? The answer is ridiculously simple. They are a blast to drive. Do we enjoy looking at them? Sure. But that's not the reason we have them. The Ferrari owner enjoys the fact that people "check out" his automobile, but that's not the reason he shelled out that kind of money for that car. He enjoys it, plain and simple. Well we enjoy our boats. I have asked many many people, usually at docks if the sound my boat annoyed them and the general response is "what are you kidding? I love it." The exception to that is the sailboat crowd, and that's because for maybe fifteen seconds, our sound interrupts their listening to classical music while sipping their white Zinfadel as they sail at a heart pumping four miles per hour. Now that is not my personal cup of tea, but if that's what THEY like more power to them and I would NEVER EVER do anything to dissuade their enjoyment of their passion. I have no right whatsoever to deny them their enjoyment simply because I don't care for it.

We are a family, at least over on the "Marine Mafia" site. We help each other out in every imaginable scenario. And we consider other boaters our "cousins". I will readily admit we consider sailboats the "red headed stepchild" however we are again, infinitely more courteous to them they are to us. I wave at 99% of the boats I meet. Including sailboats. I am happy to state that within the last two years more and more sailboats are beginning to wave back.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind about us, either individually or as a group. I just felt it needed to be stated that we are not the evil monsters that some have made us out to be. We come from every aspect of life. Rich, middle class, poor. Doctors, plumbers, real estate agents, carpenters, used car salesmen, nurses, lawyers, mechanics, painters, you name it, it's represented somewhere.

If you don't like our boats, fine. But stop painting us to be the evil of the world. We aren't, and our deeds prove that.

For those of you that detest us ask yourselves this. When was the last time I did something for a charity, besides toss a few bucks their way so you can claim it on taxes. I mean volunteer your most precious commodity, YOUR TIME..... All of us only have so much time on Earth, do you donate some of it for a worth cause? I do. And most of my brethren do.

Lastly, (I know this has turned out rather long winded, sorry) the GFBL groups stands up for EVERYONES's right to enjoy the water. Can't "you" just lighten up a bit and cut us some slack here. You don't have to like our boats, but you will never ever convince me that we ruin your outing on the water. That is just simply not true and everyone knows that. Thank you.

FO

[Wizard of Oz]

Now that is a well written piece of commentary. Well done Formula Outlaw.

Wizard of Oz
A Poker Runner.
GFBL boater for life.

[KonaChick]

I especially enjoy the noise at 12,1,2,3 and 4 a.m. It's intoxicating!

[Boater]

Nice piece FormulaOutlaw but what do charitable contributions by anyone have to do with the issues being tossed around here? Excessively large, fast and noisy boats are still excessively large, fast and noisy, even if the driver gives to charity.

I suspect that as in all boating groups some individuals are charitable and some are not, some are responsible and some are not, some are courteous and some are not. I don't think you can make generalizations about any one group.

I have witnessed bad behavior from boats of all sizes and shapes although I have to say that at 10,000 lb, 1000HP rocket coming at me at high speed is a lot scarier than a small bowrider or sailboat and could squash me much easier. In some cases without even knowing it (see the Littlefield incident).

Again, I don't want speed limits or the banning of GFBL boats. I'm just concerned about the noise and the safety of my family in our small boat.

[Excalibur]

I want to point out that most of the home owners on the lake have multiple watercraft. We should not catagorize the boats for there speed and size, but in how they are operated. Most family cruisers will do 60 MPH and large cabin cruisers thow huge wakes. I have a few older boats including a GFBL that is fun for certain times on the lake. Lately I have been spending alot more time on the lake in my sailboat. It may be due to the gas prices or just the more relaxed feeling I get when sailing. In summary the most important part is the operators responsibility of any watercraft they operate. Maybe a limited visibility speed limit should be considered, but isn't that common sense and on the books anyway?

[FormulaOutlaw]

Originally Posted by Boater

Nice piece FormulaOutlaw but what do charitable contributions by anyone have to do with the issues being tossed around here? Excessively large, fast and noisy boats are still excessively large, fast and noisy, even if the driver gives to charity.

I suspect that as in all boating groups some individuals are charitable and some are not, some are responsible and some are not, some are courteous and some are not. I don't think you can make generalizations about any one group.

I have witnessed bad behavior from boats of all sizes and shapes although I have to say that at 10,000 lb, 1000HP rocket coming at me at high speed is a lot scarier than a small bowrider or sailboat and could squash me much easier. In some cases without even knowing it (see the Littlefield incident).

Again, I don't want speed limits or the banning of GFBL boats. I'm just concerned about the noise and the safety of my family in our small boat.

I am not trying to address "any one particular issue" anywhere. I am just trying to point out, that as a group, the GFBL crowd are decent caring human beings. That's all.

I sit on the Board of Directors for the OffshorePerformanceBoating Asociaton, (OPBA) based out of St. Petersburg, the Suncoast Offshore Racing Association based out of Sarasota. I know very many GFBL boaters. And as involved as I am, I am confident to say that I can speak for our group as a whole. We are a very responsible group. A fact that has been confirmed, as previously stated, by the law enforcement agencies that patrol our waters. I can't even begin to tell you the amount of times I've had a water cop tell me how they wish that the rest of the boaters were as courteous and respectful as you "go fast boys".

I'm sorry that at four in the morning, a GFBL boater didn't at least have the courtesey of "idling" his boat as to be as least offensive as possible. That's how anyone down here would have acted. My boat can get pretty loud at high rpms. If it's late I, and everyone I know, respect the fact that not everyone wants to be shaken out of their bed. We strive very hard not to allow that to happen.

As far as a driver "giving to charity", we are giving our time to help others. And again, time is, for all of us, our most precious commodity. Whether you are a GFBL boater, or whatever, someone who willingly gives their time to help others speaks volumns of that person's character.

Again, this Thread is not about any issues anywhere. I also don't want this Thread to be dragged into an "issue" Thread. It is only trying to point out that as a group, we are good people.

Thank you...FO

[Cal]

Formula Outlaw,
Nice to see the "other" side of the coin presented with such style and class








Who wrote it for you

Just kidding

[upthesaukee]

One only has to sit at Braun bay, West Alton, the fireworks anywhere, the Weirs, and see the alcohol consumption while boating. It is not just one "class" of boat or owner, it is the broad brush of boaters.


I personally try to drive defensively while out on the lake, just as I do when I am on the highway. I do not have a problem with the go fast boats as a class, only the few jerks that would drive the way they do in any boat. Same is true of the jerk in the rented 19 foot bowrider (same size as mine).

I have tried to stay out of these threads as they seem to get into a name calling thread, which is not what this forum has been about.

I compliment you, Formula Outlaw, on the lead post in this thread. Extremely well written and informative, and commend you and your organizations for their contributions to needy charities. I am also involved in charity work, and appreciate what your group(s) have done.

Common sense and education will go a long way in making boating better for all of us. Thanks for taking the time to inform us.

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Most family cruisers will do 60 MPH and large cabin cruisers thow huge wakes.

I think you are way off on this. The "standard" family boat is a 17' to 22' bowrider. There are a few that will do 60 mph but a top speed of 45 mph is more the mark. Mine is 20' 280 hp. It has the largest engine I could get without a twin prop outdrive. With smooth water, no passengers and trimmed just right I can get it to 55. Normal cruising top speed is about 50. This is very fast for a "family" boat.

Formula Outlaw thinks we hate fast boats and fast boaters. That's not true. We just think there need to be limits. 45 mph is not my first choice, I would be happy with 60. If the law doesn't pass at 45, I predict it will be back soon at a higher number. Eventually it will pass. Look at it this way, how much opposition would a 70 mph limit have. Very little!

[FormulaOutlaw]

Originally Posted by upthesaukee

One only has to sit at Braun bay, West Alton, the fireworks anywhere, the Weirs, and see the alcohol consumption while boating. It is not just one "class" of boat or owner, it is the broad brush of boaters.


I personally try to drive defensively while out on the lake, just as I do when I am on the highway. I do not have a problem with the go fast boats as a class, only the few jerks that would drive the way they do in any boat. Same is true of the jerk in the rented 19 foot bowrider (same size as mine).

I have tried to stay out of these threads as they seem to get into a name calling thread, which is not what this forum has been about.

I compliment you, Formula Outlaw, on the lead post in this thread. Extremely well written and informative, and commend you and your organizations for their contributions to needy charities. I am also involved in charity work, and appreciate what your group(s) have done.

Common sense and education will go a long way in making boating better for all of us. Thanks for taking the time to inform us.

Thank you, I appreciate the positive feedback. And again, this Thread
is not about any issues. I an only trying to provide some insight as to "who we are".

And you are entirely correct that education and common sense (something that seems, unfortunately, to be lacking severely in most walks of life today) is the answer to most of our problems.

Cooperation goes a long ways too.

Thank you all for taking the time to read my Thread.

FormulaOutlaw

[ApS]

Originally Posted by FormulaOutlaw

"...We are a family, at least over on the "Marine Mafia" site. We help each other out in every imaginable scenario. And we consider other boaters our "cousins"..."

The "Marine Mafia" site?

Shouldn't we be permitted to determine for ourselves the family you describe?

Would you kindly post a URL for a recent Winnipesaukee-related thread for our consideration?

[FormulaOutlaw]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The "Marine Mafia" site?

Shouldn't we be permitted to determine for ourselves the family you describe?

Would you kindly post a URL for a recent Winnipesaukee-related thread for our consideration?

I don't believe anyone is stopping anyone from making any determination about anything. Where in any post in this Thread was it suggested that you were not able to do so? This Thread is NOT about issues. It is about a group of people where there are a lot of misconceptions involved. That's all. Please don't try to put a different spin on it. You may certainly agree, or disagree, with what I wrote.

I will not post anything for anyone's consideration. That is not what this Thread is about. However, if you want to look, you will find a personal apology to Don from me posted on OSO. I also emailed him a personal apology. Sorry Acres, but that's as close as I'm going to come. I am not going to allow you to drag me, or this thread, into another disintegrating topic.

As far as one of your other posts being moderated, why in the world would you possibly think that would concern me? Or anyone else for that matter?

Enjoy your summer. FO

[masher44]

Hey Audio and Formula ! Great posts! I now know you were never a hockey player in a previous life

Just wanted to add my two cents and after seeing the time you have spent in this forum, I wish to continue your support...

After much reading, I think what I would like to add is that every boater... fast or slow, loud or quiet... does it to have fun. If we were each to inherit a million bucks.... no two of us would spend it the same way. We all have different taste. I am a go fast boater and was raised in New England boating the waters of MA, VT, NY and NH. Our boat was an 18 foot bow rider and now I own a Fountain. My point is that I respect all types of responsible boaters and boats... regardless of the performance. Some of my favorite boats in the world are tall ships. We all do this to have fun. We have a handful in our crowd to blame for mistakes and so do the ski boats, jet skis, cruisers etc etc.... There is no way to point one finger at one type of boat... just one finger at one type of boater.... the irresponsible boater. They can have any type of boat, be any age, from anywhere. Everyone knows whom I am speaking of. My bottom line is I love to be on the lake and I prefer my type of boat over the others. GFBL boaters are a very responsible group as a whole.... just as every type of boater.. there is no reason to single out any type of group... next time you see a go-fast at the dock, go up and talk to the owner... I bet you will see they are not so bad after all. We like to have fun like everyone else. A few ruin it for the many is the preception....and the truth.

Despite all the "rumors" on this site, I read some great posts and some not so great posts.... sounds like it is the exact reason we have these types of venues....
Keep it up guys! With the meritorious way you guys are going, they might sponsor a Poker Run for us....

[BroadHopper]

I like what being said in the thread. I agrre it is the 'nut' behind the boat. Not the boat. I have a problem with those who rent boats and or PWCs. They need to be educated on the rules and regulations as well as boating etiquete. Boat Owners in general are not the problem. I could add the newbies to this list. But I notice lately that the salesperson who sells a boat will go out with the new owner and instructs rhe owner on the basics.

[overlook]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

I think you are way off on this. The "standard" family boat is a 17' to 22' bowrider. There are a few that will do 60 mph but a top speed of 45 mph is more the mark. Mine is 20' 280 hp. It has the largest engine I could get without a twin prop outdrive. With smooth water, no passengers and trimmed just right I can get it to 55. Normal cruising top speed is about 50. This is very fast for a "family" boat.

Formula Outlaw thinks we hate fast boats and fast boaters. That's not true. We just think there need to be limits. 45 mph is not my first choice, I would be happy with 60. If the law doesn't pass at 45, I predict it will be back soon at a higher number. Eventually it will pass. Look at it this way, how much opposition would a 70 mph limit have. Very little!

Any speedlimit presented without a subtancial reason or solution, will have very little merit. Pulling numbers out of the air is just to have a limit becomes redundant. At 70 or even 120 there will be opposision.

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by overlook

Any speedlimit presented without a subtancial reason or solution, will have very little merit....

One death is reason enough.

In a situation like this you need to consider the point of view of a politician that is going to vote on a speed limit. Rule #1 is cover your butt. If you vote against a speed limit and next year there is a high profile accident involving speed, some will say you are responsible.

The only reason this speed limit has a chance is because another Bear Island resident was killed by a GFBL were speed was an issue. That incident and the specter of more in the future will be on their minds when they vote. Nobody wants to be on the wrong side of a thing like that!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by FormulaOutlaw

"...I am just trying to point out, that as a group, the GFBL crowd are decent caring human beings. That's all.

I sit on the Board of Directors for the OffshorePerformanceBoating Asociaton, (OPBA) based out of St. Petersburg, the Suncoast Offshore Racing Association based out of Sarasota. I know very many GFBL boaters. And as involved as I am, I am confident to say that I can speak for our group as a whole. We are a very responsible group.

Maybe you're owed an apology then.

Your Sarasota Bay -- and the Gulf of Mexico adjacent -- are ocean waters consistent with offshore boating locations that GFBLs were designed for.

However, I noted at GFBLs première website, "OSO", that "Formula Outlaw" is trying to increase speed limits close to shore -- threatening the endangered manatee.

How is this a responsible action by "a very responsible group" -- and what is "the real story" -- as stated?

http://snipurl.com/e09w

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

One death is reason enough.

Better consider banning boating of ALL types , all together then. And how about the carnage on the highways ? Unfortunately death is a part of life and we all take chances every day , whether it's boating , crossing the street , or plugging in an electric mixer in the kitchen.
Overkill is not the answer , no pun intended

[FormulaOutlaw]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Maybe you're owed an apology then.

Your Sarasota Bay -- and the Gulf of Mexico adjacent -- are ocean waters consistent with offshore boating locations that GFBLs were designed for.

However, I noted at GFBLs première website, "OSO", that "FormulaOutlaw" is trying to increase speed limits close to shore -- threatening the endangered manatee.

How is this a responsible action by "a very responsible group" -- and what is "the real story" -- as you say?

Manatees are protected:
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/a...p/t-70241.html

Acres: I have never advocated increasing any speed limits "next to shore" We virtually have none. In the Thread you referenced above, after a tragic accident in Tampa Bay killing a local well known restaurant owner, there was the typical "kneejerk" reaction by some callling for speed limits on Tampa Bay. 80% of people polled by the local newspaper agreed that speed limits we not necessary. I am in complete amazement how you consistently twist facts, a post, a Thread, anything and everything, around to somehow advance your own agenda. There is absolutely no way anyone could have read that Thread and make the claim that I was calling to increase speed limits near shore. It's simply not there. What I was claiming, that in my opinon, those proposed speed limits were not necessary, something that over 80% if the people that responded to the St. Pete Times poll agreed with. That accident was just that, a tragic accident caused by a rogue wave that the driver did not see.

The Manatee: one of my favorite subjects. For the real "story" on the state of the Manatee, rather than take my account, I suggest you go to the website of the Citizens for Florida's Waterways which is: www.cffw.org

There you will learn "fact from fiction" concerning the Manatee.

However there are two FACTS you should take into strong consideration:

1) The Manatee, despite severe objections by the Save the Manatee Club, is in the process of being "downgraded" from the "endangered species" list. This is coming from the Federal Government.

2) Over the course of the last twelve years, boating registrations and boat useage has absolutely SKYROCKETED in Florida, YET AT THE EXACT SAME TIME, the Manatee population, by ALL accounts, has increased a minimum of over 300%. Stop and think about that for a second. We have to be doing something right down here in order for that fact to have taken place. That is the one question the Save the Manatee Club has NEVER answered, how to explain that.

Scientists are now telling us that they believe the Manatee reacts to a "high pitched" propellor whine as "danger" and the "low pitch whine" of a boat idling, may actually confuse them. As more research is being done on the Manatee, more and more sentiments seem to be going against what the Save the Manatee Club preaches.

Lastly, having boated on "Lake Winnie", there is nothing there that would convince me that "Lake Winnie" cannot handle the GFBL boats. ALL boats need to be operated in a safe responsible manner, whether power, sail, or paddle.

[overlook]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

One death is reason enough.

In a situation like this you need to consider the point of view of a politician that is going to vote on a speed limit. Rule #1 is cover your butt. If you vote against a speed limit and next year there is a high profile accident involving speed, some will say you are responsible.

The only reason this speed limit has a chance is because another Bear Island resident was killed by a GFBL were speed was an issue. That incident and the specter of more in the future will be on their minds when they vote. Nobody wants to be on the wrong side of a thing like that!

Nobody in there right mind would hold a politician's vote againt them unless they neglect the facts.

If you are refering to the incident two summers ago, the only referance to speed is that one boat was going faster than the other. Marine patrole did not list speed as a direct factor. People die on highways at 55mph even when the posted limit is 65.

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by overlook

Nobody in there right mind would hold a politician's vote againt them unless they neglect the facts.

If you are referring to the incident two summers ago, the only reference to speed is that one boat was going faster than the other. Marine patrole did not list speed as a direct factor. People die on highways at 55mph even when the posted limit is 65.

I would hold a politicians vote against them, and I will. And I am in my right mind. They make the wrong choice they are OUT!

Speed was an issue in that accident. The GFBL boat was going more than the 25 mph proposed speed limit. This issue was minor because there was no speed limit so no violation and no fault to the driver.

But more importantly you are missing the point that the GFBL boat would not have been on the lake at all if there was a speed limit. People don't dock their 150k$ 90 mph boat on a lake with a 45 mph limit.

[CMG]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

I think you are way off on this. The "standard" family boat is a 17' to 22' bowrider. There are a few that will do 60 mph but a top speed of 45 mph is more the mark. Mine is 20' 280 hp. It has the largest engine I could get without a twin prop outdrive. With smooth water, no passengers and trimmed just right I can get it to 55. Normal cruising top speed is about 50. This is very fast for a "family" boat.

Formula Outlaw thinks we hate fast boats and fast boaters. That's not true. We just think there need to be limits. 45 mph is not my first choice, I would be happy with 60. If the law doesn't pass at 45, I predict it will be back soon at a higher number. Eventually it will pass. Look at it this way, how much opposition would a 70 mph limit have. Very little!

There is NO way to determine an accurate speed of fiberglass boats - Per the head of the MP. Its not an opinion.

[overlook]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

I would hold a politicians vote against them, and I will. And I am in my right mind. They make the wrong choice they are OUT!

Speed was an issue in that accident. The GFBL boat was going more than the 25 mph proposed speed limit. This issue was minor because there was no speed limit so no violation and no fault to the driver.

But more importantly you are missing the point that the GFBL boat would not have been on the lake at all if there was a speed limit. People don't dock their 150k$ 90 mph boat on a lake with a 45 mph limit.

I quess I should have underlined " UNLESS" in my previous reply, and for that I apologize. If a 36ft. Baja was at 25mph the bow would be higher and would obstruct the view for the operator, creating a more dangerous situation. On plane the slower a boat travels the larger the wake.

Education is the key.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

I would hold a politicians vote against them, and I will. And I am in my right mind. They make the wrong choice they are OUT!

Speed was an issue in that accident. The GFBL boat was going more than the 25 mph proposed speed limit. This issue was minor because there was no speed limit so no violation and no fault to the driver.

But more importantly you are missing the point that the GFBL boat would not have been on the lake at all if there was a speed limit. People don't dock their 150k$ 90 mph boat on a lake with a 45 mph limit.

I don't want to start another "war" over this point and I've said this in other forms before so I'll say it just this once more. I'm unsure how you can catagorically state that "speed was an issue in that accident". Last I knew the MP has estimated Littlefield's speed to be <30 mph. So let's say he was at the upper end of this and doing 30. The Hartmans boat was doing NWS (<6mph) so let's say it was 3 mph for a difference of 27 mph. I'd say the MP thought the speed issue was minor because it was minor, not because there's no night time SL. If you want to opine the speeds were greater OK but what's your basis for believing this higher speed ? I would add the following for your consideration. A SL of 25 mph also means 2 boats heading towards each other could, lawfully, have a differential speed of 50 mph. If a head-on collision occurs under this condition would excess speed to be blamed ? If not then how can a slower differential speed be at fault ? Of all the possible collision scenarios, head-on and overtaking (as was this case) by the stern are the easiest to recognize and avoid because there's no "am I on a collsion course or not" mental calculations to botch. Of the two (head-on or overtaking) I further say the latter is the easiest collision to avoid. So easy that even Littlefield's defense must have figured it out and came up with the lights out story so as to give their client an "out". I opined way back then and still think it now, the MP nailed the prime factor in the "accident", they just couldn't prove it.

As to your other point ("that the GFBL boat would not have been on the lake at all if there was a speed limit"), I would say maybe so but I'll opine maybe not. I think people buy such boats not for just their top end speed but for other factors as well. I would say there's a number of Porsches and Ferraris and BMWs and Corvettes and other more mundane performance cars sold and operated on our streets despite our low 55/65 MPH SLs (which these cars can exceed by 2x - 3x). People buy them for reasons beyond their top speed as well. A lake SL might cut down on the numbers of such boats perhaps but I don't think you see them gone from the lake.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Audiofn

"Also as for URL's that talk about Winni.... Check out www.donzi.net and you will find many threads on Winni. In fact we have a poker run there every year. If you care to stop by I would be happy to show you around and give ya a ride.

1) Wow. Thank you for the www.donzi.net URL. They are my kind of boaters -- all gearheads. They are the boat part of powerboating.

2) While Googling an "Ohio-River" GFBL hit-and-run, however, I stumbled across the Internet's oldest and largest GFBL site: They are the power part of powerboating.

While the "Ohio-River" reference was found there -- what else I found astonished even old, jaded, me.

3) How's about our oldest contributors here: GWC, Fat Jack, and Skip, giving their opinions regarding this URL:

http://snipurl.com/e09w

What I S the occasion for this thread?

Well, it's just another 36-foot GFBL fatal wreck: the boat was witnessed -- by dozens of boaters -- soaring 70 feet into the air.

1) See these concerns anywhere in that thread?
2) What do their concerns appear to be?
3) Will our thread be closed soon?
4) See any familiar user names?
5) Should the DNC be "cc'd"?


(If the URL is unavailable -- some maintain that it is not available -- I can e-mail it to you).

I archive everything.


ApS

[codeman671]

A 36 foot Baja is on full plane at 30mph but can be kept level at 25mph with the use of tabs and having the drives down a bit. This would not keep the nose too high in the air to obstruct view. I have driven one. A bit more wake would be caused but not a lot as the tabs would be pushing the nose down.

Lets not forget that the infamous accident was at night and visability was decreased from the night, not necessarily just the bow of the boat being too high. Nobody really knows that for sure except for who was there. I have seen numerous boats driving too fast at night without proper lighting, and definitely not just GFBL's. When I boat at night for an extended period of time I prefer to use a night vision scope or goggles to help. The cost is relatively cheap these days and it makes it practically like daylight.

A speed limit will not drive the GFBL's away completely, honestly I doubt if it will have much impact at all on them leaving the lake. If I owned a $150k GFBL I would not want to drop it in the ocean and leave it there to watch it deteriorate in salt water. It wreaks havoc on the graphics not to mention the mechanics of the boat.

No speed limit!!!

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by codeman671

A 36 foot Baja is on full plane at 30mph.

Where did you get this data? What motor was in this boat? What type of prop did it have? Even if this was accurate (for the sake of argument only) is it your opinion that a boat that needs to get to 30MPH to get its nose down far enough so the driver can see where he is going is safe for a lake full of smaller boats and people? This is such an outrageous position that I would think you'd be embarrassed to take it. Do you really contend that this boat belongs on our lake?
Is it your "right" to operate a boat like this out there while "speedbumps" like me are peacefully puttering around? Do you guys have ANY respect for others?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

I would hold a politicians vote against them, and I will. And I am in my right mind. They make the wrong choice they are OUT!

Speed was an issue in that accident. The GFBL boat was going more than the 25 mph proposed speed limit. This issue was minor because there was no speed limit so no violation and no fault to the driver.

But more importantly you are missing the point that the GFBL boat would not have been on the lake at all if there was a speed limit. People don't dock their 150k$ 90 mph boat on a lake with a 45 mph limit.

Excuse me , but I really believe , given the circumstances , the same thing could have happened with a 20' bowrider with a V6 engine. It just happened to be a 30 something Baja .Again , it's not the boat...they do not operators themselves.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

is it your opinion that a boat that needs to get to 30MPH to get its nose down far enough so the driver can see where he is going is safe for a lake full of smaller boats and people?

It seems to me, that a boats planning speed, forward visability, etc. is somewhat irrelevant. It is up to the operator to determine when it is safe to go on plane. I have a simlar boat to the one in question (albeit 3 feet shorter) and I can maintain plane at 18 mph (GPS) without tabs. If I use tabs to get on plane (which I often do), there is virtually no bow rise, and I can maintain full visability. Regardless, I will only get on plane after looking 360 and determining it is safe to do so (I've ben boating here accident free for 42 years, so I think my judgement is honed).

I've seen plenty of smaller boats with their bows up in the air 3+ feet (especially if they don't distribute their load). I can't imagine they can see much forward.

Again, it's the operator, not the boat.

[codeman671]

The data as far as planing speed is advertised on the Baja website and can be verified by Channel Marine.

Taken from the Baja site: "2005 BAJA 36 OUTLAW
Speeds near 80 mph. 3.5 seconds to plane at 30 mph. " Once again, I have driven one, it is true.

My position was that people were blaming a bow being high in the air cutting down on visibility as a cause for the accident when in fact that does not have to be the case at this speed. It is possible for the boat to be nose-down at this speed, if it was high in the air it was due to the driver, not the boat. And is this lake really full of smaller boats and people? I think that there is a pretty healthy mix of boat types and sizes.

As far as the "you guys" comments, I will once again state that I do not own a GBFL so watch where you point your finger. I do not necessarily approve of how some people handle their GFBL's on the lake but I have seen just as many morons and weekend warriors in family boats that should probably not be allowed on the road nonetheless the water on this lake. People that have had no boating education or experience. Hell, there are even plenty that have the experience and just don't care. We all know how much of a joke the NH online boating exam is, anyone can pass it being that they could look the info up as they take the test.

People need to stop blaming the boats and point the finger at the operators. Starting with you.

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by CMG

There is NO way to determine an accurate speed of fiberglass boats - Per the head of the MP. Its not an opinion.

I think you misunderstood what he has saying. Read this!

http://www.kustomsignals.com/product...ename=handheld

Boat speed limits are enforced all over the world, including many NH lakes and ponds.

But what does the difficulty of enforcement have to do with the argument. There are many, many unenforceable laws on the books.

If the owners of high performance boats are as law abiding, friendly, reasonable and responsible as has been described in this forum, then enforcement will not be a problem. They will do the right thing and obey the law. Or are you suggesting they will all break the law?

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

I think you misunderstood what he has saying. Read this!

http://www.kustomsignals.com/product...ename=handheld

Boat speed limits are enforced all over the world, including many NH lakes and ponds.

But what does the difficulty of enforcement have to do with the argument. There are many, many unenforceable laws on the books.

If the owners of high performance boats are as law abiding, friendly, reasonable and responsible as has been described in this forum, then enforcement will not be a problem. They will do the right thing and obey the law. Or are you suggesting they will all break the law?

Excellent point!

If the GFBL people are responsible citizens they will obey the speed limit. Most people will obey the law, with or without enforcement. And an officers estimate of speed is admissible in Court anyway.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Taken from the Baja site: "2005 BAJA 36 OUTLAW
Speeds near 80 mph. 3.5 seconds to plane at 30 mph. "

The Baja page you are quoting is for a boat equipped with twin 575 HP motors (an unfathonable 1150 HP!!!). See http://www.powerboatmagazine.com/2001tests/feb1.php for data on a standard 36 Outlaw with "only" 575 HP.....planes in 3.5 seconds at 16.5 MPH.

If you supe a boat up with faster props and bigger engines to get higher top-end speed, of course you will sacrifice planing speed, is that not your own fault? If I put straight pipes on my bike, can I use the argument that there should be no noise statutes because my altered bike can't pass? Should we really be compromising public safety to make allowances for 1150 HP racing boats on this otherwise beautiful inland freshwater mountain lake?

The bottom line is this...speed kills. It kills on highways, it kills on ski slopes, it kills on race tracks. History is replete with evidence and statistics to verify that speed and safety are polar opposites. 45MPH on water in a boat with no brakes, no headlights, no tires, no seat belts, no road signs, no lane lines, and compromised steering is equivalent to at least 100MPH on land in an automobile. If this bill was about a 100MPH speed limit on 93, you guys would all be moaning about that too...complaining about such an infringement on your "rights". Whether this bill goes through or not, the time is rapidly approaching when one will. The big accident is all it is going to take to show Flynn and Barrett for the idiots they are and force the Governor to put someone in there who takes safety seriously. The way you guys fly around this lake, bobbing and weaving at full throttle well within 150 feet of any boat that gets in your way, that big accident is inevitable. Leaving you all unfettered as you've been is like giving guns to kids...its just a matter of when. Where are you guys going to go for your "partying" then?

[FormulaOutlaw]

Maybe I should rename this thread:

Let's argue more about speed limits.
My only question would be what are people going to blame once speed limits are (IF) imposed, and accidents still happen??????

Maybe limiting the size of waves that "Mother Nature" can produce would help.....

[codeman671]

Fat Jack, my quote was taken from the Baja web page, the article which you posted the link for only backs up my theory that the boat can be well on plane at under 30mph. If it will be at full plane with that much hp at only 16.5mph don't you think that with normal hp it will still be on plane at far less? Being on plane is not necessarily related to speed but more so the efficiency of the hull. Once the boat is up out of the water it does not matter how much power you have under you. It wil maintain plane. I think that having a 36' boat on plane at 16.5mph is quite impressive, probably a lower speed than a lot of family boats. My 30' non GFBL bowrider does not plane that slow yet still does upwards of 60mph. Does this qualify me as the evil partying boater that you point at me as being??? Gimme a break..

And correct me if I am wrong there has never been a 100mph speed limit on 93 or anywhere in NH so why "we" be complaining of infringement on our rights if it was to be lessened??? I own two sports cars that are capable of over 150mph but that does not mean I drive that way. I drive safely and defensively. All my posts have tried to do is to back up that boaters are the wrongdoers and fingerpointers, its not the fault of the boat. Obviously you have a vendetta against GFBL's and you are certainly entitled to it. I have a problem with ignorant people who do not know how to handle the boats they are driving, be it a GFBL or a sailboat or kayak.

[codeman671]

Furthermore regarding your speed comments, yes speed kills but is it really the speed or the inability of the person involved handling the speed that they are traveling? A minivan can hit 100mph but does this make it an evil vehicle that should be banned from the streets? Certainly not, unless you are one of this people who gets in their gas powered car every day and drives to work but hates gas powered vehicles and protests of what they do to the environment...

[Fat Jack]

Exactly right!

[FormulaOutlaw]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Exactly right!

I applaud your own admission that you are a hypocritical individual.

I also take extreme offense of you liking us to "children with loaded guns". I can't speak for the GFBL group on "the Lake", (I suspect they are very much like us down here), but down here we are BY FAR the most courteous, responsible, well mannered group that will be found on the water. I have personally been told this many times by every Law Enforcement Agency that patrols our waters.

You don't like our boats, fine. You don't like us, fine. But keep your insulting analogies to yourself.

FO

[ApS]

Originally Posted by FormulaOutlaw

Maybe I should rename this thread: Let's argue more about speed limits.

...And this thread was assumed to go...Where?

Originally Posted by Audiofn

As for the Soaring 70 feet in the air. Don't you think that anyone that would account for a situation like that would have to be discredited as not having any idea what they are talking about? The top of my house is only 17 feet to the peak..."

Everybody else is wrong?

Originally Posted by St. Petersburg Times

"...So plenty of boaters were watching at 2 p.m. when Parker's boat hit a wake 1 mile south of the Gandy Bridge, caught air and rolled to the left before landing upright...."

"...'It is hard to understand why these individuals were traveling at such a high rate of speed,' witness Michael Smith told investigators 'They could have hurt or killed other boaters.'..."

"...Sears, who was sitting beside Parker as he drove, told Manson the boat went about 70 feet into the air after it hit the wake...."

http://www.saintpetersburgtimes.com/...lt_in_fa.shtml

I witnessed a 25-foot Donzi "soar" last summer -- and reported it on this Forum. One of my gauges was a 31-foot-tall mast. The "soar", near shore, easily exceeded twice the Donzi's length. I "caught" the soar -- near the 24-foot-missile's apogee -- when a family member suddenly gasped and pointed at it.

Originally Posted by Mee'n'Mac

"I don't want to start another "war" over this point and I've said this in other forms before so I'll say it just this once more...Of the two (head-on or overtaking) I further say the latter is the easiest collision to avoid. So easy that even [****]'s defense must have figured it out and came up with the lights out story so as to give their client an "out"..."

1) Why didn't the defense select the "I-couldn't-see-over-the-22-foot-bow-on-my-36-foot-Baja-offshore-because-my-trim-tabs-and-my-drives-were-misadjusted-at-night" Theory?
Because they sell GFBLs?

2) At the calculated <30MPH, or <20MPH net, why weren't the boat or passengers struck by GFBL propellers?

3)What normally happens when a "slow" impact from a multi-ton boat overwhelms a one-ton 24-footer?

4) If he "soared" after striking an errant wake (at a speed we can't even imagine), wouldn't that account for the reduced impact "appearance"?

Even Physics can't answer those questions: reenactment is the only resolution.

Originally Posted by Audiofn

"...Unfortunately the boat sank before we got there...and took the owner down with it...The guy was a very famous drag car guy "Johnny Nitrous"...I saw this accident and I still drive my boat as often as I can. It was a sobering thing to watch a man die ...but accidents do happen on the water.

Here's something edifying about one who has the "risk-taker-mentality": Johnny Nitrous:

"Then he replaces the rear end and one month later he's doing 100MPH+ on loop 101 (Phoenix) and drops the drive shaft! OUCH!!!"
http://www.dodgedakotas.com/boards/v8/2393-1.html

I forget what they say about Karma.

[Cal]

As for ANY boat soaring 70 feet in the air , just think how high that really is. An aquaintance of mine was killed in a motorcycle accident and was thrown 50 feet in the air. That was 50' forward NOT 50 FEET STRAIGHT UP. So when someone tells me a boat soared 70 feet in the air , to me that means 70 feet forward. In all reality do you realize how much energy it would take to lift 4 or 5 tons that high?????
Lets have a little reality check before we skew the facts to meet your own agenda

[FormulaOutlaw]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

...And this thread was assumed to go...Where?


Everybody else is wrong?
I witnessed a 25-foot Donzi "soar" last summer -- and reported it on this Forum. One of my gauges was a 31-foot-tall mast. The "soar", near shore, easily exceeded twice the Donzi's length. I "caught" the soar -- near the 24-foot-missile's apogee -- when a family member suddenly gasped and pointed at it.


1) Why didn't the defense select the "I-couldn't-see-over-the-22-foot-bow-on-my-36-foot-Baja-offshore-because-my-trim-tabs-and-my-drives-were-misadjusted-at-night" Theory?
Because they sell GFBLs?

2) At the calculated <30MPH, or <20MPH net, why weren't the boat or passengers struck by GFBL propellers?

3)What normally happens when a "slow" impact from a multi-ton boat overwhelms a one-ton 24-footer?

4) If he "soared" after striking an errant wake (at a speed we can't even imagine), wouldn't that account for the reduced impact "appearance"?

Even Physics can't answer those questions: reenactment is the only resolution.

Here's something edifying about one who has the "risk-taker-mentality": Johnny Nitrous:


I forget what they say about Karma.

Acres, your first comment is EXACTLY what I, and many others, are talking about. This Thread wasn't designed to go ANYWHERE. That's the point. That's why you "never get it". You are constantly takng a subject around Robin Hood's barnyard in a lame effort to have people join you in your abstract points of view. If you ever bothered to take the time and actually make an effort to understand what some of us state here, you might realize water runs downhill.

So one witness states that he can't understand why people would want to go that fast. Now isn't that just reason enough to chain all of us to the docks.....The good thing is that "he doesn't have to understand" why some of us might want to go faster than others. It's not his business. Nor yours.

Chris Parker's accident was just that, a tragic accident. People also get killed at 35 mph, or 60 mph, or 25 mph, and every speed in between. And many of them are just bad luck accidents. Not all, but many. Or some. Or whatever. I'm on the Board of Directors for the boat club that Chris was a member of. He was the first member to be killed in a boating accident. We ALL took it very hard. We know what happened. We have tried to learn from it. We HAVE learned from it. But we still like to go fast, RESPONSIBLY.
Not all the time, but when we safely can, and we have the "want". Whether you understand that or not, I could care less, but stop preaching the sky is falling. Like a friend of mine pointed out: I don't particularly care for the clanking of lanyards or lines, or whatever the sailboat crowd call the, against aluminum masts when docked. But I certainly am not going to complain about it. It's not my business. Those people are enjoying what they enjoy and I have no right whatsoever to discourage those people. NOR DO YOU...

You don't like us fine. You don't like our boats fine. But get off our backs.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Getting a bit OT for the thread here ...

Originally Posted by APS

1) Why didn't the defense select the "I-couldn't-see-over-the-22-foot-bow-on-my-36-foot-Baja-offshore-because-my-trim-tabs-and-my-drives-were-misadjusted-at-night" Theory?
Because they sell GFBLs?

Why oh why would the defense not opt for such a brilliant line of reasoning ? Hmmm I can't say for sure but I suspect it just may have been the I-didn't-trim-therefore-am-a-moron-and-didn't-operate-my-boat-properly-so-convict-me reason. But that's just my guess.

Originally Posted by APS

2) At the calculated <30MPH, or <20MPH net, why weren't the boat or passengers struck by GFBL propellers?

A good question. Perhaps you could ask the MP to release the photos of the stern of the Wellcraft and then reconstruct the accident from the impact marks where the outdrives hit. Without knowing what outdrives were used in that Baja I can't say how much they would have kicked up on impact and how long they would have taken to return to a down position.

Originally Posted by APS

3)What normally happens when a "slow" impact from a multi-ton boat overwhelms a one-ton 24-footer?

Don't know, how slow is your "slow". A more Madrasah-like answer would be "Oh, so you consider that normal !?! "

Originally Posted by APS

4) If he "soared" after striking an errant wake (at a speed we can't even imagine), wouldn't that account for the reduced impact "appearance"?

Continuing in form from #3 .... This would be the errant wake from the "third boat" ? How unlucky that the wake occured just where it did so the Baja didn't just soar, at some unimaginable velocity, right over the Wellcraft completely. Then again I guess the "flip" side of the grassy knoll ... errr ... errant wake theory is that it could have been worse and had the Baja return to lake at just the wrong spot.

Originally Posted by APS

Even Physics can't answer those questions: reenactment is the only resolution.

I'm not so sure about that, the modeling for the 2 boats and water (putting aside errant wakes and snakehead fish and alien abductions) wouldn't be as hard as has been done for other things. Given the computing power readily available these days and finite element analysis* I'd bet a good simulation (aka physics digitized) would yeild as good a result as re-enactment. Via the model you get to play and replay differing scenarios and see the range of possibilites that yeilds the same physical results. Even so I like the idea (re-enactment).

That said I'll doubt you'll ever see either simulation or re-enactment done by the defense. I believe it would blow holes in the "it was just a minor bump" statements. On the chance I'm wrong re: bump severity, the defense should have jumped for a re-enactment. Though it wouldn't make a difference in the basic facts of the case it would have lended credence to the defense's story as to why he motored away afterwards. Ooops I forgot my M-like response ... "Why you could re-enact but it might be hard to find volunteers to sit in the Wellcraft ".


*I'd bet a simple rigid body model would suffice for the boats and still be accurate enough.

[Fat Jack]

Formula Outlaw,
Just curious....Aren't you writing from Florida? Are you a citizen of NH? Do you even own property in NH? Why do you have to get involved in arguments on a forum two thousand miles away, about a lake in a distant part of the country? Why do you argue with the owners of a NH lake about the laws that THEY want to enact on THEIR lake? What interest does Lake Winnipesaukee have to a guy way down in Sarasota? Don't they have any of these forums in Florida that are more relevant to YOUR lakes? Or are those forums all too crowded with people from NH sticking their noses into Florida's business?
I don't mean all this in a bad way, I just want to understand why us Granite Staters have to keep arguing with people from other states about how we manage OUR lake. Shouldn't this argument be limited to the people who own the lake? Then, once WE decide democratically about the rules we want to put down, we will tell you what they are, and you can either abide by them or go somewhere else. This just seems like the way it's supposed to work to me.
FJ

[restauranteer]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

...Why do you have to get involved in arguments on a forum two thousand miles away, about a lake in a distant part of the country?...What interest does Lake Winnipesaukee have to a guy way down in Sarasota? Don't they have any of these forums in Florida that are more relevant ... Shouldn't this argument be limited to the people who own the lake?...This just seems like the way it's supposed to work to me.
FJ

Well, as we say in the kitchen; what's good for the goose is good for the gander!

Where is your outrage when fellow prolific poster Madrasahs...err ApS continually brings up incidents that occur in Florida??? What relevance to this Lake does the constant quotations and URL's to distant websites in distant states have to do with Winnipesaukee?

Don't know about you, but I come here to visit and learn about Winnipesaukee, if I want to read about Florida boating accidents or OBO happenings, I am quite able to navigate there on my own without any additinal help...

You can't have it both ways....

By the way, who, in your opinion, owns the Lake anyway? I have read the State Constitution and laws and regulations of New Hampshire front to back, and I still can't find that receipt that says who owns the Lake!

As always, your appetite may vary!

Salute!

[jarhead]

Fat Jack who said you or any one person or group of people own the lake?

[Evenstar]

The lakes in New Hampshire are public waters. Like any other state property, they are collectively owned by the residents of this state.

Here's the legal wording: from: TITLE L - WATER MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION
CHAPTER 483-A
NEW HAMPSHIRE LAKES MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION PROGRAM
Section 483-A:1
483-A:1 Statement of Policy. – New Hampshire's lakes are one of its most important natural resources; vital to wildlife, fisheries, recreation, tourism, and the quality of life of its citizens. It is the policy of the state to insure the continued vitality of New Hampshire lakes as key environmental, social, and economic assets for the benefit of present and future generations. The state shall encourage and assist in the development of management plans for the waters as well as the shoreland to conserve and protect outstanding characteristics, including recreational, aesthetic, and those of community significance, so that these valued characteristics shall endure as part of lake uses to be enjoyed by the citizens of New Hampshire.
Source. 1990, 118:2, eff. June 18, 1990.

[restauranteer]

Isn't it ironic....that we just closed a thread after determining that a certain "member" (don't want to single anyone out) has a right to air his opinion and then that same "member" turns around in his next series of posts and tries to silence the opinion of another "member"!!!

Is ironic the right word, or should I be using the word hypocritical?

Ooops, gotta run....something's burning in the oven!

Bon apetit!

[jarhead]

Where does it state ownership in this chapter??? Thanx for the info.

[Evenstar]

Whatever. Personally I think that this person made a good point . . . that Lake Winnipesaukee is owned by the citizens of New Hampshire, and not by anyone else. The regulatory laws on any lake in New Hampshire should be primarilly for the protection of the lake and for it's citizens, rathar than for outsiders.

I added this part after I read Jarhead's post: The owner is shown by the statement "New Hamphire's lakes" and later, with "citizens of New Hampshire". It's pretty clear to me.

[jarhead]

Where does it state that ?it doesn't . The lakes are resource but they are not owned by anyone , you seem inteligent enough to realize that they are for the residents benifit for econmical ,tourism and personal needs and uses.But nowhere does it state ownership.

[Evenstar]

Hey, I don't want to argue with you about such an obvious point. It does say "citizens of New Hampshire", not "US citizens", or "for all humans".

[PROPELLER]

If the lakes in NH are owned by the citizens(or I would rather use residents) of NH, where do second homeowners who are registered to vote in another state & claim permanent residence in another state fit into this equation? As we all well know, many property owners in NH come from other states, namely Massachusetts.

This brings me to my next point. Many of the supporters of the speed limit & no rafting bills are property owners in NH but permanently reside & are registered to vote in another state. This is interesting because at the no rafting bill hearing, one of the sponsors of the bill stated that he was approached by a property owner to write this bill & sponsor it but that property owner happens to be a Massachusetts resident, he was not a constituent of the sponsor or any other NH state legislator. If we believe what Evenstar & Fat Jack said in prior posts then these non voting property owners have no say in how we as NH residents conduct our business or legislate.

[jarhead]

Not an argument it is a debate of sorts.does it say own or uses to be enjoyed.I enjoy the lake to does that also mean that i own it, no.

[Fat Jack]

Do you live here? Presuming you do, do you have anything to say about the lake? If you want to talk with APS about the goings on in Florida, I welcome you to join a thread down there.
What, have you been on this forum for a week now? You said when you joined last week that you were doing so to get into arguments. You must be proud of your accomplishments so far. But I'd prefer to stick to Lake Winnipesaukee issues.
I bet there are more challenging arguments down in Florida if that is all you are looking for. In all of your meticulous research, could you find ONE post from me that argued for a speed limit in Florida? For any change in the laws in Florida? Is that why you had to resort to quoting the post of some other member to use against me?

Bon apetit!

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by jarhead

Fat Jack who said you or any one person or group of people own the lake?

The State Legislature. Do your own research.

[Fat Jack]

Did I post even ONCE in that thread? In fact, I did not have to. Some GFBL tries to quiet my common sense opinions by soliciting her other GFBL buddies to vote me off the forum, claiming it's not because my opinion is different than theirs (ya, right), and all of the real members see right through it and come to my defense.
Again, you must resort to the posts of other members and act as if they are mine. In fact, it was one of your own team that you are citing. So whose the hypocrite now? Those acute researching skills of yours seem to be fading.Try this stuff on some other forum. It's getting old here already, after only a week.
Let's stick to issues related to the lake, assuming again you have ever even been here.

Bon apetit!

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

at the no rafting bill hearing, one of the sponsors of the bill stated that he was approached by a property owner to write this bill & sponsor it but that property owner happens to be a Massachusetts resident, he was not a constituent of the sponsor or any other NH state legislator.

It's funny, because I know this property owner well, and he has been a resident of Gilford his entire life. I don't recall anyone saying otherwise at any hearing. If you have any support for your accusation, can you provide more specifics? I would be happy to join you in reporting his illegal status to the proper authorities. Perhaps he is "The Fugitive".

Aside from that, I agree with you. I own property in Massachusetts, but I am not allowed to vote there. Except that I can donate to the campaigns of candidates I like, I cannot influence their elections and have no opportunity to contribute to their legislative processes. That's something I accepted when I chose to reside in NH. I do hope that the residents of MA will vote in a way that compliments my interests too, but I understand that is really out of my control. If they make some laws that really conflict with my interests, then I will consider whether to sell my property or to move to MA and get involved to change those laws back. This is the American way.
I'm sure that those residents of MA who would like to see some law and order returned to the lake are hoping that we, the citizens of NH, succeed in our quest for a reasonable limit on boat speeds. We appreciate whatever support they can give. I'm sure the legislators give some small amount of weight to the opinions of non-resident taxpayers. But if we, the citizens of NH, start to see legislators more concerned with the opinions of MA residents than of us, we will act quickly to get them out of office. That too is the American way. Such is the power of being a citizen of the state.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

...If we believe what Evenstar & Fat Jack said in prior posts then these non voting property owners have no say in how we as NH residents conduct our business or legislate.

Hey, I quoted a state law. So this was not just my opinion or something that I just said, or made up. This is actually what the NH law says.

[PROPELLER]

Your missing the point, its open to interpretation. Just because you believe it does not make it so. Its only your opinion, not a fact. All I'm saying is if someone thinks the way you & Fat Jack do, then what all the non voting property owners think is irrelevant.

[frank m.]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

Your missing the point, its open to interpretation. Just because you believe it does not make it so. Its only your opinion, not a fact. All I'm saying is if someone thinks the way you & Fat Jack do, then what all the non voting property owners think is irrelevant.

Is this "open to interpretation"?

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 271
PILOTS, HARBOR MASTERS, AND PUBLIC WATERS
Defining Certain Public Waters
Section 271:20
271:20 State Water Jurisdiction; Published List of Public Waters; Rulemaking. –
I. All natural bodies of fresh water situated entirely in the state having an area of 10 acres or more are state-owned public waters, and are held in trust by the state for public use; and no corporation or individual shall have or exercise in any such body of water any rights or privileges not common to all citizens of this state; provided, however, the state retains its existing jurisdiction over those bodies of water located on the borders of the state over which it has exercised such jurisdiction.
II. The department of environmental services shall prepare, maintain, and publish an official list of all public waters in the state. The commissioner of the department of environmental services shall adopt rules, pursuant to RSA 541-A, relative to this publication.
Source. 1901, 9:2. PL 152:16. RL 182:17. RSA 271:20. 1977, 24:2. 1990, 177:2, eff. June 26, 1990.

[restauranteer]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Here's the legal wording: from: TITLE L - WATER MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION
CHAPTER 483-A
NEW HAMPSHIRE LAKES MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION PROGRAM
Section 483-A:1
483-A:1 Statement of Policy....

... characteristics shall endure as part of lake uses to be enjoyed by the citizens of New Hampshire.[/b]
Source. 1990, 118:2, eff. June 18, 1990.

Ah Evenstar...like a first year cooking student, good try.

But go back and carefully read what you have cited. This policy states that the waterways shall be enjoyed by the citizens of New Hampshire. No where is the word "ownership" used or implied.

Tricky stuff, those New Hampshire laws....like a sticky souffle!

Bon appetit!

[FormulaOutlaw]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Formula Outlaw,
Just curious....Aren't you writing from Florida? Are you a citizen of NH? Do you even own property in NH? Why do you have to get involved in arguments on a forum two thousand miles away, about a lake in a distant part of the country? Why do you argue with the owners of a NH lake about the laws that THEY want to enact on THEIR lake? What interest does Lake Winnipesaukee have to a guy way down in Sarasota? Don't they have any of these forums in Florida that are more relevant to YOUR lakes? Or are those forums all too crowded with people from NH sticking their noses into Florida's business?
I don't mean all this in a bad way, I just want to understand why us Granite Staters have to keep arguing with people from other states about how we manage OUR lake. Shouldn't this argument be limited to the people who own the lake? Then, once WE decide democratically about the rules we want to put down, we will tell you what they are, and you can either abide by them or go somewhere else. This just seems like the way it's supposed to work to me.
FJ

1) yes
2) no
3) no
4,5, and 6) I consider myself a member of the "boating community" which "Lake Winni" is a part of. Therefore I consider myself a "cousin" of the GFBL group that enjoys "the Lake". I am arguing the concept of the "I don't like it so you can't do it" philosophy that is prevalent among a few of the members of this Forum. Where do you think that YOU have the right to decide who and who does not get to enjoy the lake? I don't particularly care for sailboats, but I certainly am not only going to not try to force them off the lake but DEFEND their right to be there.

Whether playing pro hockey, or just dealing with life, I have never been afraid to "stick my nose in it" when necessary. Trying to rid "the Lake" of the GFBL group simply because a few of you don't like these boats is wrong. Ergo, I'm sticking my nose in it.

I'm not arguing about how you run your lake, I'm arguing the self centered concept or ideaology that a few of you display. After all, I'm only expressing my opinion, whether any of you agree or disagree with me does not matter. It seems however as of late, more of this Forum's members seem to be agreeing with me. Does not matter, again, I'm only expressing my opinion.

I think that everyone who enjoys the lake, or just enjoys boating, should be entitled to express their opinion on these issues, which by the way is now on a Thread I started and stated I did not want issues discussed here. Guess I lost that one huh.......

It's no secret that "the group" who wants to rid the lake of the GFBL boats actually has meetings to plan strategy on how to achieve that goal. I can guarantee you this, you people are in for a fight. THAT IS NOT A THREAT....

I can also tell you that even if a speed limit is enacted it will not cause the GFBL group to leave in mass numbers. They will not allow "that group" to "win".

Bottom line is this: one group does not have the right to try to eliminate another group simply based on the fact that the first group does not like the second group's "boat of choice. This is just plain wrong. And there is no way that anyone can spin that to make it right.

I am not alone, by any means, in what I see here. I am not alone in my opinion. However, even if I was, I would still stand up and be heard for what I believe to be right. I defend everyone's right to agree, or disagree with me. That is a whole lot more than what "some" on this Forum would do. And that makes me a much better man for it.

So until "that group" quits trying to railroad the GFBL group, I'm here for the long haul. I also plan on trailering up this year to enjoy "Lake Winnie" along with other spots I am familar with.

Enjoy your summer. FO

[codeman671]

271:20 State Water Jurisdiction; Published List of Public Waters; Rulemaking. –
I. All natural bodies of fresh water situated entirely in the state having an area of 10 acres or more are state-owned public waters, and are held in trust by the state for public use

There is no interpretation needed there, the state clearly claims title.

[FormulaOutlaw]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Do you live here? Presuming you do, do you have anything to say about the lake? If you want to talk with APS about the goings on in Florida, I welcome you to join a thread down there.
What, have you been on this forum for a week now? You said when you joined last week that you were doing so to get into arguments. You must be proud of your accomplishments so far. But I'd prefer to stick to Lake Winnipesaukee issues.
I bet there are more challenging arguments down in Florida if that is all you are looking for. In all of your meticulous research, could you find ONE post from me that argued for a speed limit in Florida? For any change in the laws in Florida? Is that why you had to resort to quoting the post of some other member to use against me?

Bon apetit!

Let's see now, I believe todays date to be April 16, 2005. Under my screen name on this Forum it clearly states "Join Date Jan. 2005". In the above quoted post you clearly state "What, have you been on this forum for a week now?", which was posted yesterday. Guess that says all that needs to be said about your "powers of observation" or how much effort you put forth to research factual information. Frankly, I'd be quite embarassed over that one. Yes, I am making a little fun of you here.

Again, it makes no difference to me about where I may choose to reside. I see what I believe to be a "wrong" being brought about by a group of self centered individuals and I object to that. If you object to my wading in on these issues because I happen to live in Florida, well object away. That's your right and I welcome you to exercise it. Will your objections keep me off this Forum or out of this debate? ABSOLUTELY NOT.....

You state you prefer to stick to the "Lake Winni" issues. Good for you. I'm not afraid to "expand my horizons" so to speak, if I see something I think is wrong if it pertains to something that I have an interest in. Trust me, I make the time to stick my nose into many issues here in Florida, primarily the Manatee fantasy. I have been asked to start a West Coast chapter of the Citizen's for Florida's Waterways which I am going to eagerly take on. Don't worry though, even with this new venture I am undertaking, I will still make the time to stay active here.

So you see, I'm just one of those people who simply is not afraid to stand up and be counted. And I certainly can understand why people of your group do not care for me because you see me as a hurdle to your personal agenda. Like I said before, until "that group" get off the backs of the GFBL group, I'm not going anywhere. Believe me when I say, you can object all you want, I'm in this for the long haul.

This summer if you see a Formula with "OUTLAW" emblazened on the hullsides, come by and say hello.