The Senate is scheduled to meet tomorrow

playinghooky · 02-23-2006, 02:03 PM

Article from todays Citizen:

Thursday, February 23, 2006
Round 2 of speed limit debate tomorrow

By GEOFF CUNNINGHAM Jr. Staff Writer

CONCORD — The second round of debate over the proposed boating speed limit will kick off on Friday when the Senate's Transportation and Interstate Cooperation Committee holds its first public hearing on House Bill 162.

Officials on both sides of the speed limit argument are expecting large crowds as they prepare for a hearing that is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. at Representative's Hall in the Capitol Building.

The six members of the transportation panel have expressed skepticism concerning the enforceability of the proposed law, which would put a 45 mph daytime and 25 mph nighttime speed limit on the state's lakes, ponds and rivers.

Committee Chair Sen. Robert Letourneau has described the bill as "warm and fuzzy," but has said it would likely do little to enhance safety for boaters on the state's water bodies.

However, members of the committee have been flooded with letters and e-mails from both sides of the debate in the weeks leading up to their first hearing on the bill.

Jared Teutsch of the New Hampshire Lakes Association, a group supporting the speed limit, expressed hopes that the mail, combined with a poll showing that 63 percent of registered voters support the initiative, will sway committee members to take a harder look at whether it should be passed.

"They are getting flooded from both sides. What's interesting is I think they now understand the scope of the bill. I believe they are starting to understand it and are feeling a little bit of pressure from both sides," said Teutsch.

The environmental advocate said he has been encouraged that certain members of the Senate who initially expressed outright opposition have now made comments that they are undecided on whether it should be passed.

Some lawmakers were surprised when HB 162 passed in the House on Feb. 2 by a 193 to 139 vote.

On Friday, members of the Winnipesaukee Family Alliance for Boating Safety or WinnFABS — the main group advocating the bill's passage — are expected to testify that the bill can be enforced by Marine Patrol.

Teutsch and Sandy Helve, a founder of WinnFABS, confirmed that the group is attempting to secure a marine radar device from the Squam Lake Association that will be displayed at the hearing as proof that such devices can accurately gauge boating speeds — an aspect that has been widely disputed and at the heart of the boating speed limit controversy.

Friday's hearing is tentatively scheduled for two hours, but many involved in the debate expect it will run longer due to the level of interest in the bill and the numbers who will likely testify concerning its validity.

Teutsch said he wouldn't be surprised if the hearing ran closer to four hours than its scheduled two-hour allotment.

Helve said members of her group have been contacting their senators in an attempt to urge them to support the bill's passage. She expressed hope that — despite it being a vacation week — that people will turn out on Friday to voice their opinions in person.

"You never know (who will show up), but we are hoping that many supporters will see this as an opportunity to show their support and speak as they so choose," said Helve, who owns a property on Bear Island.

Custie Crampton of the New Hampshire Recreational Boaters Association — the main group opposing the bill — said he expects there will be several people from his group present to express concerns about a measure they feel will do little to improve safety.

fasttech · 02-23-2006, 03:45 PM

If you oppose the Bill 162 please show up at the Capital Building to support your side at 8:30 in the Hall of Flags thanks.

Airwaves · 02-23-2006, 05:48 PM

I tend to agree with Senator Robert Letourneau, that this is a feel good law that can not be enforced with current MP levels.

As you may have gathered from prior posts of mine, I maintain that adquate laws are in place if MP will enforce them. Since they don't enforce the laws already in place, then this law means nothing.

There was a thread that suggested the Coast Guard come up and enforce the lake, I took that as tongue in cheek since the Coast Guard already has its own funding problems along with added missions since being transferred to Homeland Security. The only time Coast Guard personnel are on the lake in an official capacity these days is to inspect the Mount and her sister boats prior to the season.

Bottom line, I believe if this bill is approved you will see some folks pulled over and fined during the boating season of 2007. Beyond that, this bill will end up in the dust bin.

Using radar guns takes training. As I understand it many of the MP officers on the lake in the summer are college kids looking for a way to kill the summer and get paid, no one is going to waste money spending time to train them, so only the professional MP officers will have the needed training.

The tools are already there if MP wants to use them, this is just a law for the sake of making a law in my opinon.

No, my boat can not exceed the 45 mile an hour limit and I have never even come close to that on Winni and in my opinion to even think of doing 25 at night is nuts!

When I first saw this proposal my gut said it was made by someone who had never operated a boat, especially at night.

So, if the law is passed you will see enforcement during the first summer, complete with TV cameras, but going forward from there? I doubt it!

Kamper · 02-23-2006, 06:53 PM

One thing I'd like to bring up about the MP. Even though it's a seasonal job, sworn peace officers in this state still have to be trained to standard qualifications.

Many of the officers are looking for a career in law enforcement and while searching for a pemanent billet take part time, temporary and seasonal jobs to get by. In the autumn many MP will become Game Wardens.

I personally knew one officer who worked part time for 3 departments and had 3 uniforms in his car so he could work at a moments' notice. This may not be the case for all NHMP but I think that describing it as a summer job for college kids is far from accurate.

ApS · 02-23-2006, 08:35 PM

Anyone listen to yesterday's HB162 debate on NPR-radio with Laura Knoy?

I was astonished how civil both sides were and how eloquent that HB162 supporter was in the closing minutes. (New Hampshire Lakes Association guy).

The non-supporters seemed to be wrapping themselves in the flag and stonewalling—LFOD and all that.

Laura Knoy was impressively up-to-speed on the subject, but she took too few callers, IMO.

Airwaves · 02-23-2006, 10:18 PM

I can only post re: what I have knowledge of.

I have a colleague that is in the MP Aux. He told me that at an event he was sitting next to a seasonal officer and at some point in the conversation asked her what her qualifications for the job were, she told him that her quals were that she was a high school graduate.

Beyond that, when my nephew, who is now in the Marine Corps, was looking for a job he found that the seasonal MP jobs paid less than $14 an hour.

Those facts do not give me confidence in the training or ability of the men and women who drive the MP boats and are tasked with enforcing the law.

sum-r breeze · 02-23-2006, 11:04 PM

Airwaves,
I used that quote from Ben Franklin in another thread and was quickly jumped all over. They tried to correct me, saying it was ESSENTIAL Liberty.
They didn't get the point though. As the rights slowly erode....so do our freedoms. I passed the Boating certification test with 99 score. I am a safe boater and have never been stopped by Marine Patrol in the 12 years I've been boating on the Lake. I had go-fast boats for 9 years. Our fast boats didn't make us reckless. They made us careful! The most reckless behavior I see is the FAMILY in the 16' bowrider with 10 people stuffed in it. They are usually crossing my bow from the port at 48mph (wide open) giving me the finger because I didn't give them the right of way quick enough! I think that's where the Marine Patrol needs to focus their efforts!

All the Best,
The Breeze
Remeber to Wave because I'll be waving back

Airwaves · 02-24-2006, 12:07 AM

I knew Ben Franklin, and liberty is liberty! You are correct, when they start to take one "minor" freedom away it leads to more.

I also have taken and passed the US Coast Guard Aux boating course, in fact I even joined them so that I could get further training from the Coast Guard itself.

Sum-r-breeze you are correct in what you say. It is not the boat that you operate, but it the operator of the boat that is the problem.

I only say that my boat can't do 45 because it can't!

I have been on boats owned by friends that have done 50 or 60 plus on the lake but only when we were in complete control of the boat and the situation. That can't be said of everyone.

Someone suggested waiting until the new mandatory boat certificate/license law took complete effect before taking action, I agree with that as well.

As an anecdote to prove what you said about small boats crossing from port. The first day I had my first boat on Winni I was crossing the broads and two boats came from my port across my bow within 50 feet, both giving me the finger and swearing because I held my course. My elderly parents were impressed by their courtesy!

In another adventure I was at the helm of a large cabin cruiser coming out of Meredith Bay at night at headway speed (slower than 6mph) and was nearly rammed by a go fast boat cutting across my port bow at a high rate of speed.

In both cases it had nothing to do with the vessels, but everything to do with the fools at the helm!

Cal · 02-24-2006, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

In another adventure I was at the helm of a large cabin cruiser coming out of Meredith Bay at night at headway speed (slower than 6mph) and was nearly rammed by a go fast boat cutting across my port bow at a high rate of speed.

In both cases it had nothing to do with the vessels, but everything to do with the fools at the helm!

It also had nothing to do with speed since they could still cut across you bow at 25 mph. Which could have wound up being worse , since they may not have cleared your bow in time. Sounds more like the 150' law anyway.
So since Captain Bonehead already broke the 150' rule what makes you think they would observe the speed limit?

SIKSUKR · 02-24-2006, 08:31 AM

Did anyone catch in that article that Winnfabs founder Sandy Helve said that"despite it being a vacation week".What?I beleive it is vacation a week in MASSACHUSSETTS.Not in New Hampshire!!!Does that tell us where she is from?!!!??!!My point is,if that's true I don't want Mass residents telling me what the laws in my state should be.

Seaplane Pilot · 02-24-2006, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Did anyone catch in that article that Winnfabs founder Sandy Helve said that"despite it being a vacation week".What?I beleive it is vacation a week in MASSACHUSSETTS.Not in New Hampshire!!!Does that tell us where she is from?!!!??!!My point is,if that's true I don't want Mass residents telling me what the laws in my state should be.

SS - Face it, NH is just becoming a northern county of Mass now. The old NH as we know it is fading fast and is just becoming another bastion of liberalism. Live Free or Die has lost its punch. If the Old Man was still sitting high up on Cannon, he'd be shedding a tear, albeit a frozen one...

PS: A quick search on www.nhdeeds.com in Belknap County may identify the permanent address of anyone owning property in that county.

Seaplane Pilot · 02-24-2006, 02:27 PM

Yesterday's Citizen Article quoted Jared Teutsch of the New Hampshire Lakes Association. They also described him as "The environmental advocate"... What postitive bearing does a speed limit have on the environment? The slower the speed, the larger the wake. The larger the wake, the more shoreline erosion (environmental damage). Seems to me that they should be promoting faster speeds in order to reduce wake damage and erosion. Or better yet, bark up a different tree and go after the large cruisers plowing around throwing out 4-5' wakes.

Airwaves · 02-24-2006, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves
In another adventure I was at the helm of a large cabin cruiser coming out of Meredith Bay at night at headway speed (slower than 6mph) and was nearly rammed by a go fast boat cutting across my port bow at a high rate of speed.

In both cases it had nothing to do with the vessels, but everything to do with the fools at the helm!

Quote:

to which Cal replied:
It also had nothing to do with speed since they could still cut across you bow at 25 mph. Which could have wound up being worse , since they may not have cleared your bow in time. Sounds more like the 150' law anyway.
So since Captain Bonehead already broke the 150' rule what makes you think they would observe the speed limit?

I think that was my point!

Fools at the helm is the problem.

BTW he cross the port bow with about 3 feet to spare, so yes, he violated the 150' rule as well as failing to post a lookout and traveling at a speed exceeding conditions. (I wouldn't even venture a guess but it was far in excess of 25MPH)

So the MP could have gotten him on three violations, that's a $15,000 fine! But, no MPs in the area!

So how is enforcement going to change?

Cal · 02-24-2006, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I think that was my point!

Fools at the helm is the problem.

BTW he cross the port bow with about 3 feet to spare, so yes, he violated the 150' rule as well as failing to post a lookout and traveling at a speed exceeding conditions. (I wouldn't even venture a guess but it was far in excess of 25MPH)

So the MP could have gotten him on three violations, that's a $15,000 fine! But, no MPs in the area!

So how is enforcement going to change?

Sorry , it was too early and I wasn't awake enough to catch it

That's also why I don't operate my boat that early

02-23-2006, 02:03 PM	#1
playinghooky Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alton Bay Posts: 61 Thanks: 7 Thanked 11 Times in 4 Posts	The Senate is scheduled to meet tomorrow Article from todays Citizen: Thursday, February 23, 2006 Round 2 of speed limit debate tomorrow By GEOFF CUNNINGHAM Jr. Staff Writer CONCORD — The second round of debate over the proposed boating speed limit will kick off on Friday when the Senate's Transportation and Interstate Cooperation Committee holds its first public hearing on House Bill 162. Officials on both sides of the speed limit argument are expecting large crowds as they prepare for a hearing that is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. at Representative's Hall in the Capitol Building. The six members of the transportation panel have expressed skepticism concerning the enforceability of the proposed law, which would put a 45 mph daytime and 25 mph nighttime speed limit on the state's lakes, ponds and rivers. Committee Chair Sen. Robert Letourneau has described the bill as "warm and fuzzy," but has said it would likely do little to enhance safety for boaters on the state's water bodies. However, members of the committee have been flooded with letters and e-mails from both sides of the debate in the weeks leading up to their first hearing on the bill. Jared Teutsch of the New Hampshire Lakes Association, a group supporting the speed limit, expressed hopes that the mail, combined with a poll showing that 63 percent of registered voters support the initiative, will sway committee members to take a harder look at whether it should be passed. "They are getting flooded from both sides. What's interesting is I think they now understand the scope of the bill. I believe they are starting to understand it and are feeling a little bit of pressure from both sides," said Teutsch. The environmental advocate said he has been encouraged that certain members of the Senate who initially expressed outright opposition have now made comments that they are undecided on whether it should be passed. Some lawmakers were surprised when HB 162 passed in the House on Feb. 2 by a 193 to 139 vote. On Friday, members of the Winnipesaukee Family Alliance for Boating Safety or WinnFABS — the main group advocating the bill's passage — are expected to testify that the bill can be enforced by Marine Patrol. Teutsch and Sandy Helve, a founder of WinnFABS, confirmed that the group is attempting to secure a marine radar device from the Squam Lake Association that will be displayed at the hearing as proof that such devices can accurately gauge boating speeds — an aspect that has been widely disputed and at the heart of the boating speed limit controversy. Friday's hearing is tentatively scheduled for two hours, but many involved in the debate expect it will run longer due to the level of interest in the bill and the numbers who will likely testify concerning its validity. Teutsch said he wouldn't be surprised if the hearing ran closer to four hours than its scheduled two-hour allotment. Helve said members of her group have been contacting their senators in an attempt to urge them to support the bill's passage. She expressed hope that — despite it being a vacation week — that people will turn out on Friday to voice their opinions in person. "You never know (who will show up), but we are hoping that many supporters will see this as an opportunity to show their support and speak as they so choose," said Helve, who owns a property on Bear Island. Custie Crampton of the New Hampshire Recreational Boaters Association — the main group opposing the bill — said he expects there will be several people from his group present to express concerns about a measure they feel will do little to improve safety.

02-23-2006, 05:48 PM	#3
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	I tend to agree with Senator Robert Letourneau, that this is a feel good law that can not be enforced with current MP levels. As you may have gathered from prior posts of mine, I maintain that adquate laws are in place if MP will enforce them. Since they don't enforce the laws already in place, then this law means nothing. There was a thread that suggested the Coast Guard come up and enforce the lake, I took that as tongue in cheek since the Coast Guard already has its own funding problems along with added missions since being transferred to Homeland Security. The only time Coast Guard personnel are on the lake in an official capacity these days is to inspect the Mount and her sister boats prior to the season. Bottom line, I believe if this bill is approved you will see some folks pulled over and fined during the boating season of 2007. Beyond that, this bill will end up in the dust bin. Using radar guns takes training. As I understand it many of the MP officers on the lake in the summer are college kids looking for a way to kill the summer and get paid, no one is going to waste money spending time to train them, so only the professional MP officers will have the needed training. The tools are already there if MP wants to use them, this is just a law for the sake of making a law in my opinon. No, my boat can not exceed the 45 mile an hour limit and I have never even come close to that on Winni and in my opinion to even think of doing 25 at night is nuts! When I first saw this proposal my gut said it was made by someone who had never operated a boat, especially at night. So, if the law is passed you will see enforcement during the first summer, complete with TV cameras, but going forward from there? I doubt it! Last edited by Airwaves; 02-23-2006 at 06:26 PM.

02-23-2006, 08:35 PM	#5
ApS Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro Posts: 5,788 Thanks: 2,085 Thanked 742 Times in 532 Posts	Hooray for supporters... Anyone listen to yesterday's HB162 debate on NPR-radio with Laura Knoy? I was astonished how civil both sides were and how eloquent that HB162 supporter was in the closing minutes. (New Hampshire Lakes Association guy). The non-supporters seemed to be wrapping themselves in the flag and stonewalling—LFOD and all that. Laura Knoy was impressively up-to-speed on the subject, but she took too few callers, IMO.

02-23-2006, 11:04 PM	#7
sum-r breeze Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Burlington Ma / Laconia NH Posts: 396 Thanks: 155 Thanked 201 Times in 97 Posts	Franklin Airwaves, I used that quote from Ben Franklin in another thread and was quickly jumped all over. They tried to correct me, saying it was ESSENTIAL Liberty. They didn't get the point though. As the rights slowly erode....so do our freedoms. I passed the Boating certification test with 99 score. I am a safe boater and have never been stopped by Marine Patrol in the 12 years I've been boating on the Lake. I had go-fast boats for 9 years. Our fast boats didn't make us reckless. They made us careful! The most reckless behavior I see is the FAMILY in the 16' bowrider with 10 people stuffed in it. They are usually crossing my bow from the port at 48mph (wide open) giving me the finger because I didn't give them the right of way quick enough! I think that's where the Marine Patrol needs to focus their efforts! All the Best, The Breeze Remeber to Wave because I'll be waving back

02-24-2006, 08:31 AM	#10
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	Did anyone catch in that article that Winnfabs founder Sandy Helve said that"despite it being a vacation week".What?I beleive it is vacation a week in MASSACHUSSETTS.Not in New Hampshire!!!Does that tell us where she is from?!!!??!!My point is,if that's true I don't want Mass residents telling me what the laws in my state should be. __________________ SIKSUKR

02-23-2006, 03:45 PM	#2
fasttech Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Laconia NH Posts: 30 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	If you oppose the Bill 162 please show up at the Capital Building to support your side at 8:30 in the Hall of Flags thanks.

02-23-2006, 06:53 PM	#4
Kamper Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Thornton's Ferry Posts: 1,296 Thanks: 67 Thanked 166 Times in 126 Posts	One thing I'd like to bring up about the MP. Even though it's a seasonal job, sworn peace officers in this state still have to be trained to standard qualifications. Many of the officers are looking for a career in law enforcement and while searching for a pemanent billet take part time, temporary and seasonal jobs to get by. In the autumn many MP will become Game Wardens. I personally knew one officer who worked part time for 3 departments and had 3 uniforms in his car so he could work at a moments' notice. This may not be the case for all NHMP but I think that describing it as a summer job for college kids is far from accurate.

02-23-2006, 10:18 PM	#6
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	I can only post re: what I have knowledge of. I have a colleague that is in the MP Aux. He told me that at an event he was sitting next to a seasonal officer and at some point in the conversation asked her what her qualifications for the job were, she told him that her quals were that she was a high school graduate. Beyond that, when my nephew, who is now in the Marine Corps, was looking for a job he found that the seasonal MP jobs paid less than $14 an hour. Those facts do not give me confidence in the training or ability of the men and women who drive the MP boats and are tasked with enforcing the law.

02-24-2006, 12:07 AM	#8
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	I knew Ben Franklin, and liberty is liberty! You are correct, when they start to take one "minor" freedom away it leads to more. I also have taken and passed the US Coast Guard Aux boating course, in fact I even joined them so that I could get further training from the Coast Guard itself. Sum-r-breeze you are correct in what you say. It is not the boat that you operate, but it the operator of the boat that is the problem. I only say that my boat can't do 45 because it can't! I have been on boats owned by friends that have done 50 or 60 plus on the lake but only when we were in complete control of the boat and the situation. That can't be said of everyone. Someone suggested waiting until the new mandatory boat certificate/license law took complete effect before taking action, I agree with that as well. As an anecdote to prove what you said about small boats crossing from port. The first day I had my first boat on Winni I was crossing the broads and two boats came from my port across my bow within 50 feet, both giving me the finger and swearing because I held my course. My elderly parents were impressed by their courtesy! In another adventure I was at the helm of a large cabin cruiser coming out of Meredith Bay at night at headway speed (slower than 6mph) and was nearly rammed by a go fast boat cutting across my port bow at a high rate of speed. In both cases it had nothing to do with the vessels, but everything to do with the fools at the helm!

02-24-2006, 02:27 PM	#12
Seaplane Pilot Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,177 Thanks: 662 Thanked 943 Times in 368 Posts	NH Lakes Association Yesterday's Citizen Article quoted Jared Teutsch of the New Hampshire Lakes Association. They also described him as "The environmental advocate"... What postitive bearing does a speed limit have on the environment? The slower the speed, the larger the wake. The larger the wake, the more shoreline erosion (environmental damage). Seems to me that they should be promoting faster speeds in order to reduce wake damage and erosion. Or better yet, bark up a different tree and go after the large cruisers plowing around throwing out 4-5' wakes.