Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't this take place in Australia??? Last time I checked that was at least a few hour drive from Winnipesaukee...:laugh: Can you find anything closer?

Lets check out a few quotes on www.kayakforum.com about safety:

"I just saw on the evening news here in Maine that a kayaker had his kayak cut in half in a collison with a powerboat.

Information gleaned from the TV report:
The incident occurred on Long Lake.
It was 11:30 at night.
The kayaker displayed a warning light and shouted loudly enough to wake people on shore.
When the collision seemed imminent he capsized and wet exited.
The kayaker was unhurt.
The power boat, according to wardens, was operating legally.
There seemed to be some issue in the powerboater reporting the incident promptly.
The powerboater was fined $500. "

Please note that this took place at 11:30pm !!! Do you think that the kayaker was acting dangerously being out at 11:30PM??

Here are a few opinions of the above incident by kayakers:

"Many paddlers seem intent on ignoring all of this and using whatever lights they have or like - including strobes - which are illegal except as emergency signals."

"If he had time for all that - couldn't he have just paddled clear? A stoke or two should be sufficient to get out of the direct path. Waving a light and shouting wastes valuable time in a situation like this. Stupid thinking IMO (same goes for waving paddles, blowing horns/whistles, etc. - unless the paddler is disabled somehow).

I'm not saying all collisions are avoidable - but in this case - there were two vessels involved. One unaware of any danger - the other failed to maneuver knowing a collision was imminent. By my understanding of ANY rules the paddler was at fault. "

A few more quotes from the above site, from kayakers about kayakers:

"Lots of casual kayakers are in la-la land
It's true. SOTs litter the waters surface in summer. They're rentals...then there's the EcoChallenge wannabes who charge about like they're hounding your rear on the freeway. Do they understand what the Navigation Rules are? Do they even recognize what those shapes are sailing/motoring at them as they paddle into the channel in front of those shapes? Many boaters have stories of such near-misses. Is it any wonder that boaters have a certain opinion of kayakers? "

"The above thread got me thinking about what appears to be a general attitude among sea kayakers toward power boaters. Past posts have made reference to six pack guzzling idiots endangering themselves and others. I think it's human nature perhaps to view our particular activity as superior and more pure than the other guys, but I just wanted to remind my fellow paddlers that MANY a sea kayakers life has been saved by a powerboater. Most often we don't hear about this, but I assure you it happens! Sure there are poor boaters, but it seems that kayakers account for a good percentage of mishaps where I live. I think the truth is that the majority of power boaters are pretty good. They have expensive vessels that they care about, insurance, and are more heavily scrutinized than kayakers. So in the spirit of cooperation I'd encourage paddlers to be friendly and courteous to all boaters. I think it goes a long way. Happy and safe paddling! "

"I'm not able to comment on statitistics but after 30 years on the water I can say that almost every time out I'm scared by what I see. First is the large number of kayakers who seem to feel that a PFD on the back deck will save them. I challenge any of these people to try and put on a PFD in a warm pool, never mind in cold water after a capsize. Second is the large amount of "luggage" I see on both front and rear decks. This raises the centre of gravity, contributing to instability, it can be a factor in capsizing in rough water and will certainly impede a safe re-entry. Third is what I consider ill advised clothing - dressing for the air temperature seems to be the norm instead of dressing for the water temperature. I could go on but I think you get the picture. I don't want to see unnnecessary legislation and would encourage all experienced paddlers to give advice on these matters, even when it's not been asked for. It could just save a life. Sorry to be so morbid at this time of year. Have a happy and safe Christmas and New Year. "

I can go on pasting for a while but I think you get the drift. Safety is an issue in all types of boating, I would not necessarily claim that kayakers are the opitimy of safety. There are many more fatal accidents each year involving paddlers than there are powerboaters. Most seem to be the error of the paddler.

Some interesting info about Lake Macquarie…

http://members.aol.com/lakemach2otaxi/index.html


Also, interestingly, the people of Lake Macquarie seem to have more pressing concerns than aqua speed limits, as “residents are invited to learn more about Landcare projects at an Open Day at Kahibah on Sunday 25 February.”

Then, again, perhaps Australians view matters differently than you.

Did you find the land and people much different from life in Littleton, NH?

http://www.lakemac.com.au/news/news_...s.asp?key=2004


For those who are curious, some info on Speers Point on Lake Macquarie…

http://www.answers.com/topic/speers-...ew-south-wales

So this doesn’t count, just because it didn’t happen on Winni?

My point is that powerboats have indeed hit kayaks before . . . so we have valid reasons to be concerned for our safety on lakes that allow powerboats to travel at unlimited speeds, where many powerboats admit that they can’t often see kayaks very well.

Quote:

Please note that this took place at 11:30pm !!! Do you think that the kayaker was acting dangerously being out at 11:30PM??

What I read was that the kayak had a warning light . . . which apparently met Maine’s regulations, since it was the powerboat that was cited for “operating illegally”, and not the paddler.

As far as being able to paddle a few strokes to avoid the collision . . . the top speed of paddling a kayak is about 6MPH, which is only 8.8 feet per second. In my case, at my top speed, it takes me nearly 2 seconds to just paddle the length of my kayak. So unless the guy had more than a few seconds warning, he could not have paddled out of the way of the oncoming boat.

Quote:

There are many more fatal accidents each year involving paddlers than there are powerboaters.

This is completely untrue: Most fatal boating accidents involve powerboats (85% in 2005) – not paddlers.
According to the United States Coast Guard’s 2005 Boating Statistics:
In 2005 there were 78 fatalities among paddlers (49 canoes and 29 kayaks), And there were 501 fatalities among powerboaters (54 in Cabin Motorboats, 10 in Houseboats, 1 in a Jet Boat, 351 in Open Motorboats, 65 on Personal Watercraft, 20 in Pontoon Boats).

How fast, how far
 

True enough but how much time is needed ? If you can be seen "far away" (see below) why limit speed to a low number ?
I have no problems seeing kayakers and canoeists "far away" as well. So if you, sitting low, can see the kayaker why are you so worried that the boater, no doubt sitting higher, can not ? Do you think you need a mile to avoid a run-over at 45 mph ? How much sighting distance do you calculate is needed for a boat to safely run 45 and not run you over ? for 65 ? for 85 ?

Yes and I don't think it (the flag) is needed. The problem is not that you can't be seen, it whether the person will be looking. You can reduce people's speed but that won't make them look. At some point (speed limit) you're restricting normal people going about what is a safe activity because some small percentage of the population are boneheads. This is why people are getting so upset. The onus of making "you" feel safe from the bonehead boaters is being laid on the backs of the performance boaters. You, rightly, don't like it when the same is tried on you.
The question is whether the fear level can be justified by the risk. Bad things are always going to happen when people and machinery are combined. Let's say that a 45 mph limit is enacted. Do you think that no runovers will ever occur thenceforth ? I wouldn't think so. So when one does occur will "you" say that you're afraid and the speed limit must be reduced even more ? How low an accident rate is needed for you not to be afraid and why should other people be restricted to satisfy your fears ? And when you're satisfied, what do we do with the person who's still afraid ? There will never be no boating accidents so long as human beings are at the helm. At some point you need to accept that there's some level of risk in what you're doing. This is where the stats come in. You're at more risk now from the bonehead boater than the fast boater. Slow the faster boater down and your risk level isn't going to change in any practical manner.

ps - Just how fast was that bowrider speedboat going with it's 5 kids in the bow ? Over 45 mph ?


FWIW : Can anyone tell me what doesn't qualify as a speedboat these days ? Between the above and the Crownline cruiser speedboat I'm left wondering.

And you think speeding boats are a problem:emb: :emb:

Rattlesnake?
 

Hey Cal, is that Rattlesnake Island on the right side of the photo? :D:laugh::D:laugh:

we better pass a law
 

Limiting the size of great whites!!!!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ok...everyone gives good arguments for and against speed limits and I enjoy reading them....they help to educate for the most part. We're at the point now where people need to make up their own minds and I'm amost at that point! I know you're all so excited for me!:laugh: Here's a question for you all. Why do you have speed limits on the roads then? Don't they cut down on the number of fatalities and accidents? Wouldn't a speed limit on a body of water do the same thing? I know there are no stats to prove there is a problem with speed accidents either...I'm just curious to what people's thoughts on this are.

We do have speed limits on the water: 6 MPH, where necessary, and for good reason. It's not unlike driving in-town and I think the need is obvious. Out on the highway, speed limits are mostly set to keep the speed differential down. With mere inches between vehicles, it's a good idea to keep the speed differential in check. This is why we have lower limits on the highway as well.

With at least 150 feet, by law, between boats exceeding 6 MPH, the speed differential is as relevant as the speed differential between your car on route 93 and a tree 150 feet from your car on the side of the highway. Do you ever feel compelled to slow to 45 solely because of trees near the highway?

Some, including me, would argue that some highway speed limits are set for revenue enhancement. I think the heavily patrolled 55 MPH zones on 93 by Manchester, Concord and Salem are perfect examples of this.

and now a little help
 

If this thread has gotten a little too stressfull for you... and you could use some help..

Click Here

http://www.bouldertherapist.com/html...achine%201.mp3

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Just a little humor... all nasty replies ignored..:D

Lakes don't have lanes
 

<O:p</O:p
But there are lanes on highways, and the trees don’t move out onto the highway. Here’s an analogy:
<O:p</O:p
Picture a huge open parking lot, were there’s nothing but acres of pavement. Then add a couple hundred cars and tell the drivers that they can drive just as fast as they want - as long as they stay 150 feet from the edge of the parking lot and from the other vehicles - at those times they must slow down to 6 mph. Oh, yeah – none of the cars have regular brakes (only their parking brake works). Now add 30 or 40 bicyclists – who are given the same rules. How long do you think it will be before the first collision occurs?


ADDED 2/26 at 11:18 PM: I'm being moderated to the point that I can't even post anymore (I posted my last reply this morning, and it still hasn't appeared). I can no longer even defend myself or respond to any questions that are directed to me, so debating is now totally impossible. Apparently only the anti-speed limit view is now being permitted on this forum - so I hope you guys have a nice one-sided discussion here.

Road and lake
 

Let's talk about speed limits on land for a minute. What purpose do you think they might serve ? I can name 2 up front. First they're there to prevent "you" from hitting "me" due to "your" excessive speed. Secondly they're there to prevent the driver from going too fast for the road and hurting themselves. Continuing on the latter point, it's not too hard to imagine a blind corner (or like) where, absent some signage, even an attentive driver could be going to fast to make the corner. For the most part, when people are talking about speed limits for the lake, this isn't the situation they're concerned about. Moreover, IMO, it's not the Govt's job to keep me safe from myself. If it want's to advise what to do then advise ... but don't restrict.

The first reason is (purportedly) why people are advocating for a speed limit. Back on land you have intersections and corners and hills and obstructions that limit a persons ability to see what lies ahead (and act accordingly). This reason plays a part in why the around town speed limits are lower than what we have on the highways. Coming back to the water there are parts of the lake that are comparable to being "around town" (think coming around L. Bear, btw Long I, near FL10) and other parts that are more "highway like" (think Broads). The 45 mph limit might be appropriate for the former but isn't, IMO, for the latter. What would you think if RT93 imposed a 45 mph, in all places at all times, just because a local road was connected to it* ? Or because sometimes it backed up enough due to traffic congestion that 45 mph made sense at those times ? In the latter case existing road speed laws holds that the driver is supposed to exercise control an,d use speeds which are reasonable and prudent for the conditions. You can be stopped and cited for doing 50 mph on a road posted for 55 mph if the conditions are such that 50 is unreasonable. The problem I have with the proposed 45 mph limit is that it seeks to impose a "worst case" limit in all places and at all times that's overly restrictive. I understand Evenstar's concerns but I think she's safe at speeds far above the proposed 45 mph limit. This, and not pure luck and probability, is why boats, canoes and kayaks aren't being runover every weekend. I could go on but this is long enough for one post.

To answer your last question directly, we're already at the point where boat-boat collisions due to speed alone are essentially a random number in any given year. Pass a law and I don't see how it'll make any difference in the accident rate. The few boneheads who don't use good judgement today aren't going to be deterred by a speed limit. The drunks aren't likely to care much either.


*In fact this isn't that far from the truth. The present 55/65 mph laws are a compromise from the days when 55 mph was the rule. Because so many people were driving above 55 mph and federal highway funds were being threathened, the western states forced a compromise that left 55 as the rule where population density was above a certain number. 65 became the rule where population was scarce enough (like out west). This was just a political ploy, much as the 55 limit became, having no grounding in any science or engineering. And we here in the NE are still stuck with it. Out west you see limits that are the 70 mph (and higher :eek: ) that was the law when I was younger (and had cars not as good as those today).

Is there any common ground?
 

Mee-n-Mac

If I correctly understand what you posted, it makes a lot of sense. I fully agree that there are, indeed, times and places where 45 mph (or, even slower) makes sense, and times and places where it's an unreasonably restrictive limit.

But, would the boating community be able to reach a concensus about this to offer as a guide to the legislature? (As little as I like it, for reasons stated many times in previous postings, I'm pretty sure that some kind of speed limit is going to pass this time.)

Let's try a few questions, and see whether we can come up with something we could all live with.

First, I've heard very little complaining at the idea of a night time speed limit. Is there some agreement amongst us that this wouldn't be a bad idea? If so, are we happy at the proposed 25 mph?

Second, would most of us be reasonably content with some areas of the lake having a 45 mph (or some other figure) limit and some areas having a higher (or no) speed limit.

Third, if so, what areas should be restricted speed areas, and which don't really require restrictions?

Silver Duck

Were you there? I wasn't. Unless you have an official report of the actualy facts of the incident I would not make such hasty judgement of the details. Maybe in Australia they discriminate against foreigners in kayakers the way certain groups on Winni discriminate against powerboaters or GFBL's.


And according to the kayakers forum, kayakers have wandered into shipping lanes and places they really do not belong putting themselves and others at unnecessary risk. Kayakers can be reckless too, and put themselves in harm's way all to often.

Actually if you reread what was quoted in my post the warden involved stated that the powerboater was acting LEGALLY, not illegally. I have not had a chance to dig for the actual incident report but if you have please post a link. Being that the boater was only fined $500 and the main complaint seemed to be their lack of a hasty reporting of the incident it does not seem to me that they found too much fault with the boater.

Lets reread my post again for something else, a quote from a kayaker from the kayaker's forum:

"Many paddlers seem intent on ignoring all of this and using whatever lights they have or like - including strobes - which are illegal except as emergency signals."

Nothing in the post that I read mentioned anything about the light used being legal for navigation use in the state of Maine. It could have been a penlight for all we know...

My comment was tailored towards the findings in NH for 2006. All of the fatalities reported in the 2006 NHMP report were from drownings from paddlers, swimmers off boats, and the unfortunate rescue sinking on the CT River. None were from fatal reckless boating accidents. I am sure if I take the time (of course I am sure someone else will or has) to go back over past NH reports each and every year you will find more fatalities tied to paddlers, swimming accidents off anchored boats and capsizes than you will from the reckless boating accidents which you are so worried about.

I think a lot of people tried the "common ground" approach last year and unfortunately it did not go anywhere. I personally have no issue with 25mph at night and have stated so before. This seems to be a non-issue. Many have suggested setting speed limit zones in different areas makes sense although I do not see the proponents of the bill wanting to settle or negotiate whereas many of us against it as written would.

I think that some of the smaller bodies of water should have speed limits. I personally think that 70-80mph on Ossipee or Lovell Lake for instance is a bit much, but it is certainly fine on many parts of Winni. Maybe a group should sit down with a legislator and try to draw up a new, alternative bill that is much less of an "all or nothing" approach to give the lawmakers something else to consider instead of approving or denying what is at hand. If this is already being attempted I would love to get involved.

You'll need to make a few changes to make the analogy work more like the real world: The human powered vehicles cannot exceed 7 MPH, The vehicle brakes improve with the square of the speed above 20 MPH, only the most expensive 5% of motorized vehicles can exceed 70 MPH, the parking lot is 72 square miles, and the parking lot will have to become bumpier with more traffic or wind.

Oh wait, that experiment has already taken place over the last 100+ years. Turns out that it works fine. High speeds collisions are quite rare. You are much more likely to be in a car collision on the way to the lake.

National rules for all recreational vessels including kayaks set forth by the Coast Guard:


"Mandatory Accessories United States of America

In the United States boating regulations vary from state to state but on a national level the United States Coast Guard requires that:

All recreational boats must carry one wearable PFD for each person aboard. The USCG divides PFD’s into 3 categories: type I: off shore type II: Near shore type III: flotation aid
Your kayak must include a system to signal your presence such as flares, signal mirror or flashlight
All recreational vessels, including kayaks, are required to display navigational lights between sunset and sunrise and during other periods of reduced visibility like fog, rain or haze.
The USCG, working with affiliated local organizations, offers all small craft owners a free, annual Vessel Safety Check (VSC). An educational procedure, rather than an enforcement of the law, the VSC helps to increase the safety of everyone involved with small craft boating. "

A simple warning light displayed on the kayak incident in Maine may not have been enough to meet Coast Guard regulations, the kayaker may have been at fault more than Evenstar thinks.

This is taken directly from Maine Boating Laws:
"(5) Watercraft Manually Propelled: All other watercraft, not propelled by machinery, such as rowboats, canoes and rafts, and which are only operated by hand power, rowed, paddled or navigated by the current shall have ready at hand a lantern or flashlight showing a white light which shall be exhibited in sufficient time to prevent collision."

The powerboat hit the kayak and the kayak had the required warnng light, and the powerboat was fined - yet you're still trying to place the blame on the paddler - give it a rest.

Yes, "Great Whites" (of sorts) rule Winnipesaukee too.
 

For those dismissing small boaters' "FEAR", this is a real photograph.

And Winnipesaukee's speedsters are expressing no empathy with this guy?

:confused: Problem! :eek:

Some ideas
 

1) 25 at night bothers me just a bit, I think 30 - 35 would be more appropriate. Here's why: Back when the whole HB-162 question came up I sat down and tried to figure out what would be reasonable speed limits. I did my own analysis and the end results back up what my 30 years of boating told me. Figuring out what's appropriate for night-time, vs day-time, is a bit more uncertain. The big problem (for boat-boat collisions) is not that an aware skipper won't see the other guy but that it's much harder to judge distances at night. At what distance will a competent, but not superhuman, skipper figure out that he's "danger close" and take corrective action ? How effective will this action be ? Somewhere on some PC I have the numbers but the end result is that for a simple encounter btw 2 boats I'd be worried over 45 mph. So I back off 10 - 15 mph and arrive at what I think is a safe limit but not unecessarily restrictive. Now I find I'm always taking action waaay before the distance I set for above analysis but I'm a pretty cautious person, perhaps more so that what I'm count on in my above average skipper.

2) and 3) Again any place that doesn't have the sightlines to support "high speed" becomes a candidate for a speed limit. You could approach this as set zones (which I think I mentioned back in prior discussion) or do an extension of the NWS/150' rule (as has been suggested by another forum member). Slow to 45 mph when with 450' (a SWAG, not my real numbers) of shore or another boat.... or 60 within 600' or ... well you get the idea. Certainly a lot of the inter-island channels become speed zones by either method and the Broads remains limit free. Perhaps we could persuade Bizer to put out a chart with distance contours instead of depth contours to see what such a plan would look like. ;) :D


FWIW : I think I recall Cal mentioning the concept of a speed limit on weekends and holidays vs one of the above concepts. Instead of dividing the cake up into pieces, it's more like timesharing.

Yup , it's been done in areas of Chesapeake Bay that are like Weirs Beach on the weekends. They have Sat/Sun/Holiday NWZs , any other time(like monday thru friday) it's a ghost town with no speed limits and guess what? It works great:)

hummmm
 

Interesting concept.... with some merit I do believe..... The question is would the state consider it..... I think seeing both sides of the arguement that this would be a good way to make both parties happier....

No compromise
 

I dont think the speed limit proponents will compromize and have localized speed limits/ no wake zones..
They have a hidden agenda which is to get boats off the lake period.
Anyone familiar with Winnipesaukee knows the congestion is localized to certain areas at certain times. ie: weekends at the weirs etc.
Nope , no compromise :(

Would you like some cheese with your whine? :D :laugh:

Welcome to the real world.

Do you think that you are the only forum member whose post is reviewed before being posted?

Are you so self-consumed that you forget that the Webmaster has a REAL LIFE and being a Webmaster is not part of it? This website is a hobby or have you not ascertained that knowledge?

The reason for the length of posting delays is the Webmaster's REAL LIFE schedule. He does the best of his ability given his REAL LIFE schedule.

It would appear that you want the Webmaster to modify his REAL LIFE schedule to accommodate you and your lifestyle.

You could always post your thoughts and stress your lifestyle on another website. This is not the only website on the planet or in the Lakes Region. Since you have severe issues with the Webmaster, perhaps life would be less stressful for you if you were to promote your lifestyle on a different website, one that does not moderate any posts. Then, again, you would be subjected to more personal attacks, scrutiny and ridicule, of your posts.

Life is choices and challenges.

Cooks have a great saying, "If you can't take the heat; get out of the kitchen." They are not about to reduce the flame to cool the kitchen to your desire, which is to say, they are not willing to modify their lifestyle unnecessarily to accommodate your lifestyle.

Again, life is choices and challenges.

Here's a thought:

Put on a survival suit, get in your kayak, paddle with the waterfowl in the open water off the Corinthian Yacht Club in Wolfeboro for awhile, and release some of the stress before you have a stroke.

Check it out...
http://www.wcyc-nh.com/wcyc-nh_008/clubcampage.html

unnecessary roughness
 

GWC: Vicious and uncalled for.

What on earth are you talking about, her "lifestyle"? Does she live with barn animals? Did I miss something? She's an athlete, for godsake. She's out there getting exercise and taking care of her body and soul. I, for one, admire that as I sit here on my lazy backside.

You might not agree with her arguments, but the personal attack is over the top.

While the discussion might be one-sided, Evenstar, there are plenty of us out here that agree with you. We just choose not to engage in the same old arguments. Anyone else want to speak up on behalf of Evenstar? :)

Kayaks
 

Personally i'm tired of this Kayak sympathy argument.
No statistics point to you being in any danger out there in your Kayak ! If your scared you have the choice to go elsewhere or stick to the shoreline like everyone else. Life is a risk.. When will we ban Mountain climbers from attempting Everest or K2
I see it as Darwinism if you want to paddle out in front of the weirs or around governors island on a saturday in July.
I don't see many island residents packing there weekend groceries in a kayak and heading out.
Its called common sense.

Just a friendly suggestion GWC...you might also want to do whatever it is you do to relase stress..before you have a stroke! Maybe Evenstar could teach you the fine points of kayaking..you might relax and enjoy it! :)

....whatever....
 

All this regurgitation of the s-a-m-e o-l-d s-t-u-f-f just makes me weary. It's getting hard to come up with reasons to stay on the lake.

I must confess that I prefer being 10 miles out to sea (in federal waters) far more than being on the lake. Peace and quiet, no arguing, no crowding, no 150 ft rule, no debating on who is more educated, who interprets statistics correctly, who is scared, who is not... nothing... just peace and quiet. Even the loud boats are quiet if you can understand that - since they come and go so fast you don't hear them.

:)

Lakeport Landing signboard
 

'Worry is a Misuse of Your Imagination.'

What am I talking about? Drove by the Lakeport Landing Marina on Union Ave, Laconia yesterday, and was surprised to see that message on their big signboard. In the past, it has said 'Governor Craig Benson' and more recently it said 'Senator Robert Boyce.' Today, it says 'Worry is a Misuse of Your Imagination.'

Lakeport is the only Winnipesaukee Formula dealer and Formula is the one brand that Lakeport carries.

Translation from New Hampshire-speak to American English-speak = 'Don't Worry - Be Happy!'

Hey, after Governor Craig Benson and Senator Robert Boyce it's terrific to see that Lakeport Landing is getting a new attitude adjustment and lightening up here. From Craig Benson to "Worry is a Misuse of Your Imagination." Get it? So, why are they saying this?

I think that the point that he was trying to make was that more paddlers die from their own demise then from people hitting them. For example if a guy flips over and can not get back on his boat. There are with out a doubt more deaths from that then collisions.

Us coastguard regulations take precidence over state for lighting I believe. So if you look at the posted requirements above then you will see that Kayaks are required to have the same lighting that any other boat is based on size and tonage more then anything.

Don't give up over the moderation. As long as your post is worth while they seem to always post them. I am anti speed limit and also moderated.

Kayaks, canoes, rowboats, & sailboats less than 12'
 

Lately, there's been talk of requiring kayaks, canoes, rowboats, and sailboats less than 12' to purchase a ten dollar annual decal as a way to fund the Fish & Game Dept, which is broke. Kayaks, canoes, rowboats and sailboats less than 12' are all quiet, human powered vehicles which do little to disturb the environment and many would agree they add a welcome human element to the over-horsepowered lake. It makes a lot more sense to apply a yearly sticker to the inflatable vinyl rafts, waterskis and boogie boards that get towed behind the motorboats because they increase the overall length and imprint of a motor boat. Essentially, a 20' motorboat becomes a 95' vessel when it is used to tow Junior or Missy at the end of a 75' tow line.

So, a Fish & Game sticker for kayaks should be a no-go, while a sticker on that inflatable tow-behind is the way-to-go!

Yup...Let's Drain Revenue from All Those 12' Sailboats!
 

A sailboat that's less than 12' is a very inefficient design—as owners of the Alcort "Minifish" will tell you. Are there two "Minifish" in the whole state? Owners of the popular 14' "Sunfish" are presently paying a motorboat-equivalent in registration fees. :(

And increases its "acres-per-second" coefficient? :laugh:

Watching for the poor family shlump who car-topped his canoe in the hope of enjoying a navigable U.S. waterway is a pitiful—even shameful—waste of the NHMP.

1) Canoes and kayaks are of microscopic environmental concern; indeed, operators of canoes and kayaks are often acutely aware of the environment.

2) Fish & Game would receive an immense windfall from your proposal.

3) Inflatable tow-behind toys, with the short non-recyclable lifespan of all vinyl products are of environmental concern. Even their shelf-life is short!

I agree 100% with your proposal. :) Who wouldn't? :confused:

Tax them all , then they get to collect even MORE money:D

I agree, ApS. In addition to filling up the landfills and leaching toxins into the ground, I for one know that my gas mileage (which stinks to begin with) tanks when pulling a couple of kids on a double tube.:eek: I limit my poor deprived children to a few days of tubing over the course of the summer until they can pay the extra gas bill.

I'm not sure I agree we should be taxing inflatables through a registration fee, though. Seems to me the extra bill at the gas dock amounts to a user tax, but since the State gives us our gas taxes back at the end of the season:) :confused: :confused: :) , the "user tax" is going straight to the oil companies.:( :( :(

Umm, because a much bigger lake is right down the road and so that's where the boaters go

There's a river by Mt Hood east of Portland, OR, I think it's the Columbia river, where they do some serious windsurfing, the wind there is always high and I'd bet they get some good speeds recorded there as well. I've seen as many as 100 windsurfers out there and it's a pretty cool site.

I completely threw out your whole rant when I saw this comment. :mad: Obviously you don't like PWC, but no reason to resort to name calling and insulting them. They are regulated by the same laws that your boats are.

??
 

What exactly is Winnfabb?