BI hits the nail on the head.
 

You said it BI. When a Marine Patrol boat is in sight to enforce the CURRENT RULES and LAWS, the waves hitting your shore change.
A good example to me that we need more enforcement of current rules rather than adding another rule.

You said it. MP in sight people behave better.
Thanks for making the point.

Life After Speed Limits—The Topic:
 

Once HB-847 is enacted, I will ask one Lakes Region website to open its doors to new members when the spamming finally ceases there.

Another website will not be "moving" speed limit threads, and still another that will not be "purging" their Boating Forums entirely.

Another, www.tuftonboroforums.com was closed down due to the dreaded Unlimited-Speeds onslaught, and could very well re-open for business.

:cool:

Location, Location, Location
 

I understand that your dock is located in a congested section of the lake. I understand that you get tired of hearing boats throttling up in front of your house. I understand that you don't like performance boats, because they are loud. I understand that you would be happier if those boats were no longer on the lake because it would reduce the noise pollution in your area. Those are all valid points to why you don't like performance boats, I get it. But just leave it a that, they don't cause more land erosion than other boats, cruisers do. So why not just stick to the main reasons that you support a speed limit on the lake. To get loud fast boats off the lake. You propose a HP limit to try to get the cruisers off the lake. I can understand that reasoning, and can respect that. I don't think that enactment of a speed limit is going to accomplish as much as you think. Because if speed limits do truly make the lake safer, then wouldn't it be logical that more boaters will feel it is safe to go out increasing the boat traffic. Which in turn causes more wakes, causing more land erosion. I understand your point of view, I just don't agree with it. And I thank you, because I learned something new this week about how a boat wake, wakes.

I'm sorry, but you have several of those things wrong. I do not dislike performance boats, their sound, their look, or their speed. Personally I like speed, and the sound of a powerful engine. Some performance boats are beautiful, like the pirate boat that often passes our place.

However I see the lake getting out of control. Water quality is going down, kayakers afraid to go out on the water, my son's camp having to limit lake activities. Something has to change, we are going in the wrong direction.

Do you believe the directors of the camps HATE performance boats? Why do you assume my motives are not the same as theirs?

I spent 15 summers as a waterfont director, camp director or Red Cross Water Safety Instructor. I look at the lake and I see a problem I think I must do something about. However it's easier for you to assume that I just "hate performance boats". Its the easy answer, but wrong and unfair.

I hope you are wrong about the effects of a speed limit. I think it will help, at least a little.

It's a point I have always agreed with.

Having a Marine Patrol boat in view everywhere on the lake would have an incredible positive result. However the Marine Patrol can not enforce laws that do not exist. Plus there is no way we are going to see the additional funding that would be required to significantly increase their presence.

Which to do prefer....

1. Ideas that might work and can be implemented with existing equipment, funding and personnel.

2. Ideas that are fantastic in theory, but have ZERO chance of being funded or implemented.

I will go with number 1.

I think #1 would be more accurately described as "Ideas that are unnecessary and would divert existing equipment, funding and personnel away from current missions on Lake Winnipesaukee."

No answers to this post BI. They don't like it when you destroy their preconceived ideas. They like the image of us as selfish snobs that hate noise, speed and a fancy paint job. We are supposed to like wine and Brie and talk with our teeth clenched. That way they can discount what we say and call us liars when we say the problem is pollution or safety. They know they can't win those arguments, so they convince each other its all a fraud.

I suspect they really hate to hear about camp directors supporting limits. Camp directors are obviously experienced, responsible professionals with a lot of lake experience. Its hard to argue away their opinions or pretend they have a personal axe to grind.

No one thinks BI is truely rich, if he was he would be taking the $20 million astronaut trip with the Russians instead of the $0.2 million dollar bargain trip. He's not lying about pollution and safety, but they are not the primary reasons behind his HB-847 support. They're just attractive after-thoughts stuck on to pretty up the support after all the real reasons came to light and they were unsavory. BI has clearly said he hopes this law will discourage certain boats from using the lake. He says this all the time, it's no secret.

It's not about not liking certain boats, it's about not liking them in his backyard. I'm sure Teddy Kennedy loves windmills, just not where he sails.

Get a camp director on the forum to tell us what he thinks. Forgive me, if I don't take your word for it. I guarantee the camp director will be more concerned about boats traveling too close to his campers than some boat traveling over 45 MPH in the middle of the broads.

I second that, I would love to hear a single camp director say that the proposed speed limit would allow them to let their kids go out sailing and do stuff they can't now!! I didn't hear a camp director at the Senate public hearing opposing! Just a bunch of people putting words in their mouths, like they are on this forum.

Wow
 

Islander why is my post questioning BI's preconceived ideas any different than him questioning mine? Why are his opinions more correct than mine? This is a debate, we are debating an issue that affects the boating community on Winnipesaukee. I questioned a point that was brought up and in fact did research on it before I posted my questions.
I am not against safety, I was responsible for 100's of campers over the years I transported them back and forth from the mainland to Bear Island. In fact for the years that I worked there it was my responsibility to get every staff member and camper to the island. I drove the Bear every change day when the campers left and came to the island. In my opinion education and enforcement are a better way to make the lake safer. If the speed limit is passed I will operate my families boat within the law as I have been doing all along. As for pollution and erosion, I didn't buy BI's opinion on the matter. And apparently he didn't buy mine. So be it, life goes on we agree to disagree.
Where did anyone ever say that they hate the fact camp directors support limits. We are just making our own choices on this issue. I just happen not be making the same choice as you. And since this is a public forum I have just as much right to let my opinion be know as you do. I did, and provided the reasons why.

If I can provide that, will you change your position on HB847?


Anybody?

Gilligan stated that now, even without a speed limit, the presence of MP slows boats down. Imagine that...they are somehow enforcing a law that doesn't exist.

#1 What does one have to do with the other and
#2 Instead of talking about it, do it. Go ahead.


So if this supposed camp director "FEELS" like the lake would be safer with HB847 we should all just cave in and say, yup BI you were right??

I have to agree with sentiments put forth by Parrothead and a few others. Islander has no original ideas on this forum. All I ever see from Islander is whining when someone "isn't nice" to BI or Islander trashes other peoples opinions and discounts them. And Islander has a problem with OTHER people on this forum, well I have a complaint to lodge against Islander. If your sole purpose on this forum is to come here and say BI is right and everyone else is an idiot, I respectfully request you refrain from doing so. How about being constructive and forming your OWN ideas for once? That'd be refreshing. :rolleye2:

Sorry, perhaps you are not aware there is a speed limit in front of my cabin.

They'd feel good
 

My guess is that some camp directors and staff would vote for speed limits. In life after speed limits few, if any, would act differently when making the rules about how campers could use the lake.

I want to see if anybody has the guts to put their words on the line. From past experience I think opponents will post they doubt the truth about camp directors and HB847. Then when the evidence is produced they will look for 27 reasons to discount or discredit what the camp directors say.

So answer the question now please. What do YOU think camp directors think about limits?

Ok
 

You may think they are nice to look at and all, but not on Winnipesaukee. Through most of the thread about Lt. Dunleavy you stated repeatedly that you didn't think that GFBL boats have a place on Winnipesaukee. You didn't say that GFBL boats not following the laws have no place on Winnipesaukee, you said all GFBL. So following that logic I assume you don't like GFBL boats. Now we should discuss the reason why. How about a GFBL boat whose operator follows the speed limit law if it is passed? Does that boat still not have a place on Winni? Can they enjoy the lake like everyone else, or should they leave? They are doing nothing different than any other boater on the lake.
Do they cause erosion? Any power boat in motion will contribute to erosion. So it can't just be that, because cruisers are much more offenders than any other type of boat.
Pollution? Any internal combustion engine will contribute to pollution, as well as cars, planes, trains, and space ships (sorry had to throw that in). Do GFBL boats produce more pollution than any other boat. Yes! I'll give you that. Some have two or three engines compared to the normal runabouts one so they produce more exhaust. Also performance boats with through hull exhaust do contribute more to noise pollution than boats with through prop exhaust. So GFBL boats do contribute more to pollution. But given the number of GFBL boats on the lake compared to the other types I can't imagine it will make that big of an impact. The increase in boat traffic in general is more of a pollution concern than just GFBL boats.
So I guess hate might be a strong word, but you certainly don't want them on Winni. As for camp directors "hating" performance boats, I really don't care. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, you, me, and Camp Directors. And I know you will take this as spin, but you state in the first sentence of your post that you don't dislike GFBL boats, and in the next paragraph you ask why if directors hate performance boats why can't your motives be the same. Well they can't be because you like performance boats and they apparently don't. Not that we have heard from them as to what their opinion is. You stated your opinion as a one time Camp Director, so we do know that at least one Camp Director doesn't like perfomance boats. You.

One again you have misread what I posted. I never said camp directors hate performance boats. Perhaps I was being to subtle, but my points was that camp director are in favor of speed limits because it will improve camp life, NOT because they HATE performance boats. I don't believe camp directors hate performance boats and I don't either. We both have the same objective in mind, a better lake.

And we have heard from the camp directors. And yes they do support HB847.

They might support them
 

I don't want to say they do support them, because I don't know. So everyone can we concede to BI that some Camp Directors support a speed limit? We don't have any evidence to say they do, or don't. BI states that they do, and they might. As for what that has to do with the passing of speed limits on Winni, I don't know. Camps are "consumers" on the lake just like the rest of us. BI started to whole proposition that camps should be important in the decision making process for this bill. I worked for two camps on Winni, and they are two of my favorite places on the planet. I made great friends their, and have wonderful memories of the time spent there. Every time I am on the lake I drive by the camps to see how they are doing. I have volunteered my time to help prepare the camps for opening. The camps have a very special place in my heart. They do good things for kids every summer. I learned a lot while I was there, and hopefully taught some too. But I don't think that they have anymore right to the lake than the rest of us They have designated swimming areas which are already covered by law. They have designated mooring fields which are also protected under current laws. When driving the ski boats, pulling skiers I had to follow the rules like everyone else, no special camp privileges. So while a camp directors opinion should be heard, no more weight should be given it than anyone else. So BI I give you that Camp Directors may support a speed limit. Will it change my mind. No.

I disagree. I think children's camps deserve and require special consideration. Just like our schools do. They are in fact a different type of school.

Several HB847 opponents on this forum have spoken out in favor of "camp zones" around the lakes children's camps. I joint them in that worthy idea. I wish you did as well.

I seem to remember, which is tougher after all these years, that the camp boats themselves used to make me slow down so I wouldn't get jarred. Those big hulls made for some waves.

I think the wave issue and erosion issue ought to be discarded. I'll take the wake from a 42 Fountain anyday over a 32' Carver or whatever the barge of choice is nowadays.

I think most HB847 opponents would like to discard the erosion and pollution arguments. However they are central to HB847.

How about we get ride of the Fountain and the Carver and every other boat that belongs on larger bodies of water.


I think most people like special consideration for the camps. If parrothead really worked at the camps I think he would as well.

Good point
 

I support a camp zone, and before you say what?? Let me explain. Any camp has the right to petition for a NWZ to be placed around their waterfront. Just like any other group is able. But the other residents in the area that should not have their use of the lake impeded just because they happen to live next to a camp. The first scenario that came to mind was where water skiing is taught at Camp Lawrence. This area is a somewhat protected area between Mark Island and Bear. Now if a camp zone is instituted would water skiing still be allowed in this area? Would the only boat that would be allowed to go above headway speed be the camp ski boat? Or would there be a zone set aside that only the camp boats could enter and no one else? I don't want the camps to be resented because they infringe on everyone elses use of a public resource. Now a no wake zone extending out from the swim areas 300 feet and just encompasses the area right in front of the swim area would impact the general public less. I have been to a few other camps by boat and can remember that their swim areas could support NWZs. Sandy Island camp, Camp Belknap, North Woods, are the first ones that come to mind. There is room for the general public to avoid the no wake zones, and not be impacted by them. The extra distance would provide a zone for the camp canoes, and sail boats to move around in. Also maybe help with wave size by the time it reaches the swim instruction area. But it would be up to the camps to petition the state and provide reasons why this no wake zone is needed, just like everyone else. Being that it is a petition the people in the area are given the choice to support it or not, and to raise any concerns in a public forum. The camps could do that now without any new laws or regulations.

Sorry, I didn't realize he was talking about a No Wake Zone in front of your house. Unless boaters go through that area at higher speeds, and only slow down when MP is present...which I doubt is the case.

Had to laugh at the big boat issue, my dad use to shake his fist at the Thronkers way back in the 70's.

I have no problem with camp areas being protected someway.

The issue I was trying to address is the wake and erosion issue, which you seem to think is "central" to the law. I have to say, anyone that's been on a lake for more than a day has to realize the wakes coming from planing hulls gets bigger as they go slower. As for the cruisers, they're just BIG all the time. :emb:

I'll agree that there are several issues here, and very few are addressed by the speed limit law. The only by product of this law is that boats that can do 80, mph and all that, might just go elsewhere. If that's the intended result, people should just say so.

Otherwise, I'd recommend that everyone that is responsible, and hates this type of law, do the following.

Every Saturday afternoon, every boater, regardless of the size of boat, throttle up to around 12mph to 18 mph, whatever produces the largest wake before planing occurs. Do that every Saturday for a couple of hours. See what happens then.

If you want to, and are truly dedicated, do it at night too.

Boats go through the NWZ at high speed, full speed , ludicrous speed, whatever you can imagine.

Most boats go reasonably slow, however that speed drops incredibly when the MP are around. The most dramatic difference, laughable really, is how the NWZ line moves. When a patrol boat is around the NWZ begins and ends 200' to 400' OUTSIDE the NWZ. When the patrol in not around many boats bring back the throttle as they pass the marker.

Several times a day boats go through full speed, even at night. Now and then they have to replace the marker after it gets hit at night.

The most common violator is a very large cruise boat that passes more than once a day. I will not guess at its speed, but I have seen boats being overtaken by it have to go full throttle, in the NWZ, to get out of its way.

Well that sucks that people don't obey the NWZ. And I mean that seriously. However, it is great that people slow down when MP is around to enforce the current law.

Just a thought, but it that's a problem out in front of your place, and since I beleive you already have a webcamera in operation, why not point it in a direction that whould catch the violation on the web, and at an angle that would show the violator's bow number and/or boat name. I'd be willing to be that if you had these violations on tape and the MP could track them down a visit by a law enforcement officer would help your situation.

I would support camp zones.

You must reflect on this BI. I am also appalled to hear this, probably more than you can imagine. Before I even comment on the ramifications, you MUST reflect on your positions and responses in this forum. Just re-read what you've said, and I think you'll find that your responses have been irrational, emotional, and resulting in no real solution. I'd be on your side on this one BI, believe me I am.

I'm surprised you people are surprised. I suppose I have seen it for so many years it doesn't surprise me anymore. PWCs go through full speed the most, we don't even blink when they do it. I'm sure some have no idea it's a NWZ. One beautiful Cigarette (a real one) would go through at about 90. I thought maybe he was clueless. Then I found out he was from Cooks Point. That is within sight, so he must have known about the NWZ.

We had a neighbor that would throw tennis ball at them, but he is gone now.

A have a few videos but you can't read bow numbers from that distance. I have been thinking of setting a camera up with motion detection. Take a picture of every boat that goes through.

I've seen boats buzz through there as well as we idle through on our SeaDoos. Idiots will be idiots, probably the same people that pass you in the breakdown lane (not the one on 93 that allows travel). Great spot for MP in an unmarked boat.

BI

Why don't you and your neighbors petition to have the NWZ extended? I've always felt that it is too small, and adjust my behavior accordingly. I'd even be happy to show up at a hearing and speak in favor of expanding the NWZ!

Silver Duck

So. What does this have to do with the speed limit again?

They are breaking the speed limit in a NWZ for chrisakes. Does that mean a speed limit of 45 they will do 125mph ?

Get some common sense already, The issue is enforcement, not more laws.

Although I have not, in the past, agreed with BI in most of his positions, I acompletely agree with Silver Duck and I would completely support an extension of the No-Wake zone in that area of the lake. To me, this extension is in the best interest of the overall lake environment. The wakes of all boats must be considered when establishing and expandig No Wake Zones. In this case, the overall lake environment would be best served by expanding this No Wake Zone. We must be fair in these situations!

R2B

The reality of the situation is that if the speed boats were quite we would not be having this conversation now. I have talked to a few legislatures and they all say that is the main reason for the complaining. Most MP's will tell you that speed boats are not a safty concern. Most people that drive them have a very large amount of time under their belts. That is not to say that they are never involved in accidents but they are involved in very few. The noise is what bothers most people.

The Long Lake Accident we still do not know much about. They have kept the details of that accident very hush hush. We still do not know if Ray Trotts boat (the smaller one) had his lights on or not. There are a lot of other details that we still do not know about. I am sure it will all come out in the trial. Then we can talk about that accident with some facts.

I suspected that to be the truth. As an opponent to the speed limit I can honestly say that SOME not all of the owners of these GFBL boats are their own worst enemies in all this. If everyone had complied with noise ordinances and kept a low profile then we wouldn't even be talking about speed limits. It isn't really in their nature for most of these owners who are trying to get everyone to look at them, so they go bigger louder brighter. I really have no problem with the bigger, brighter, as I love to look at these boats. It's the louder I have the problem with. When I have to suspend my conversation until a boat goes by that's obnoxious.

I'm not sure increasing the size of the NWZ will make any difference. It's already about three times as large as the law allows. And it isn't about wake its about slowing people down in a crowded area. The biggest advantage of the NWZ is it keeps many boats away. Before the NWZ was enacted that was the most scary place on the lake. Worse than Eagle island was.

In general I don't think laws that require intense enforcement are the best answer. The NWZ solved 99% of the problems it was intended to solve. If the MP could show up more often and make it 99.9% that would be great, it's not likely to happen however.

I'd say a 99% success rate is pretty good....

An ironic quote considering your support of the speed limits.