Dept of Safety- 2 steps ahead of us-
 

The Marine Patrol just testified to a bill in the Senate. HB 0548: Minimum Age for Operation. Amend RSA 270:30, I to read as follows:

I. Except as provided in this paragraph, no person under 16 years of age shall operate a motorized vessel [having power in excess of 25 horsepower] on the public waters of this state unless the person is accompanied by a person 18 years of age or older who has a valid safe boater education certificate, and such person shall be liable for personal injury or property damage which may result from such operation. Any person 12 to 15 years of age with a safe boater education certificate may operate a vessel having power of 25 horsepower or less without an adult.

2 Safe Boater Education; Certificate Required. RSA 270-D:10, I is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

I. No person shall operate a motorized vessel on the public waters of this state without first obtaining a safe boater education certificate.

3 Possession Required. Amend RSA 270-D:11, I(a) to read as follows:

(a) Possess the certificate when operating a motorized vessel [with any type of power motor in excess of 25 horsepower] on the public waters of the state.

4 Safe Boater Education Certificate. Amend the introductory paragraph of RSA 270-D:13, I to read as follows:

I. The commissioner or designee shall issue a safe boater education certificate to a person [16] 12 years of age or older who:

5 Repeal. The following are repealed:

I. RSA 270-D:13, IV, relative to attendance by 15-year-olds.

II. RSA 270-D:19, relative to voluntary attendance.

6 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2012.


This would require all people operating a powerboat to take a boating course. (Currently a 3 year old can drive a 25 hp boat!) It also limits the age for operation for 12-15 yr olds to 25 hp. No one younger could operate.

This bill passed the house but met serious resistence in the Senate at the committee level because several dealers spoke in opposition. Who??
You guessed it...Jeff Thurston, Merrill Fay, Shep Browns (Littlefield), One of the Crawfords from Winnisquam Marine, and others. They cry for safety and speed limits but they argued that financially this bill hurts them because people walk away from rentals when they realize they have to take a 1/2 test! Wiinisquam Marine has a fleet of 25 hp boats just so they can avoid the law.

I was sitting in on the hearing requiring 70 yr olds to take a driving test and this was the hearing before ours. I was shocked when these dealers spoke in opposition. I figured they were going to support. $$$ talks!

I hope someone writes an editorial in the local papers to point out the hypocrisy.

Any dealer who supports the SL won't see $0.01 of my money.

Yes, well how about that and isn't that interesting......gee whiz......no kidding!

Better yet, why don't you just boycott the whole state of NH.
I'm sure Maine has plenty of places that you can boat.

The hypocrisy is truley amazing, but as my grandfather used to say... follow the money!

The marinas dont want to lose a customer with $$$ on the table because he/she doesnt have a safe boating certificate... So any attempt to change the rules that make renting a boat a safer experience for ALL by requiring a boating certificate is going to be met with strong resistance!

Almost all of the marinas rent boats... and boat rentals equal $$$! Now while Shep's has wisely stayed out of the speed limit debate, realizing that a customer is a customer regardless of what their type of boat is... others like Thurston's (who lost the Cobalt dealership) and Fay's decided to step right in....

Thier logic?? Less speedboats = more rentals! Its actually pretty simple but obviously flawed logic. No data to support thier claims of a safer lake, and certianly no measurable rise in rental business because of the speed limit. In fact no doubt the rental business and gas sales have been off because of the economy.

I think that ANY business that takes a stance on a political issue such as this where they choose one type of customer over another is extremely shortsighted... why lose any business? I for one no longer have my bi-annual family dinner at the C-man restaurants... it wasnt much, a $700 bill for the night for the 12 of us or so.... but its still money they dont get. I try to avoid any C-Man restaurant.

Woodsy

I bet the marina (aka a lakes region business) who just got my check for the boating season would not be agreeing with you;)

I'm sure he wouldn't.

Have a good time boating this summer. Try to forget about the SL while your here.
I hope the weather is good for you! :)

Since my boat can barely do 50MPH I don't have many worries about the SL. I just may be the only boater out there with a radar detector though. I'm curious to see what the signals I pick-up on the water.

The cops could be real sneaky and clock people on the water as they approach a bay and then ticket them when the land at the dock. Just sayin'

I can't forget about the no-rafting areas though;)

Where does WINNFABS stand on this issue? They should be in full support.

WinnFABS only exists for one purpose, Speed Limits. Since this legislation does not seem to impact speed limits, I assume WinnFABS takes no stand on this legislation.

Then why is WINNFABS taking a stand in favor of a no-wake zone at the Barber's Pole?

No wake is a speed limit.

OK. Then why do they want speed limits? From their website: "To make the lake safer WinnFABS was formed by a group of citizens who love Lake Winnipesaukee and who want to ensure safe family boating and preserve the beauty and serenity of the lake for present and future generations". Well, in my opinion, it sure would make the lake safer if anyone renting a boat (over 25hp) was required to have a full boater's education certificate. I cannot believe that WINNFABS would not support this "in the name of safety".

Mr. Bear, it's not the speed itself that can be their issue - speed is irrelevent. It has to be their perceived effects of speed (danger, safety, etc) that is their concern. So if safety is their concern, why then would they want unlicensed boaters on the lake?

In my opinion:


They want fast boats off the lake. Safety has never had anything to do with it.

Some of them want fewer boats on the lake and are doing what they can to make it less attractive for boaters. The unecessary NWZs are a perfect way to keep boats away.

I bet there's a large contingent of them that don't want any "extra" boaters on the lake, but it serves them better overall to have backing by boat dealers, so they remain silent on the renters.

Well isn't that interesting. Thanks for enlightening me on this subject. I think calls to my reps and senator are in order right away. So I guess they want their cake and want to eat it too.

Comment deleted by author.

Comment removed by author.

Comment deleted by author.

What is so hard to believe about an organization formed to fight one specific issue.

There are lots of important issues that WinnFABS does not have a position on. Global warming, universal health care, the financial crisis, nuclear power, racism and the no fly zone in Libya, just to name a few.

So does Winnsfabs promote safety or just a speed limit? What data do you have the indicates a speed limit promotes safety on Lake Winnipesaukee?

You can try and parse the issue of the speed limit and safety but when they are clearly related by WinnFlabs own assertions, what is so hard to understand about why you would be called out for it?

If all you want is a speed limit with no data to support it, you will have people continue to question your "real" intent. It's not safety......

From what I have read, WINNFABS' core issue is safety. Unlicensed boaters (renting boats with hundreds of horsepower) are a serious safety issue. What's so hard to understand and why the hostility? Do you want kayers and campers run over by unlicensed rental boaters? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

BI made the comment regarding WINNIFABS single position a few months ago. Stating it was all about speed and that was it.

But, has anyone else noticed that the usual supporters haven't made a peep since.

Apparently, the folks in Concord weren't the only ones that were duped into thinking they had the peoples safety in mind.

That's the difference between being a big financial player and a member of the trench squad. Some really know and the others just think they do. That pill has to hurt. And it's too bad, some of the supporters probably were really interested in the overall improved safety of the lake. They will have to look elsewhere if they are interested in actually improving the safety and experience for everyone and not just the wealthy few.

Just think of all the posts on this site from years ago (and fairly recently) that are in complete contrast to this one position only stance, that we have recently been confirmed to be true.

BI, I am not talking about WINNIFABS original stance (the non-supporters have known that from the get go), but what all your supporters were told (or not told), so they would fight the fight they have.

I can tell you that if I had made a contribution to this organization and was told something different then (to get my money), than what is coming to light now. I would be looking for a few other folks that feel the same way and getting the courts involved. Feels like fraud to me!

I'm starting to think that we've hit a nerve on this subject. Peel away the bark and see what's really behind it. Wow, and to think that they campaigned on a safety theme, but really it was a theme to get rid of bigger boats. Kind of like the Lakes Region Conservation Trust soliciting support to buy the Castle in the Clouds, then closing the snowmobile trails. Oh well, hopefully they get exposed for this game and they get shut down. I've already contacted my senator and representatives about unlicensed rental boaters causing me fear.

WINNFABS: An acronym which stands for:

WINN Winnipesaukee
F amily
A lliance
B oating
S afety

Safety - it's in their name. Nowhere do I see speed limits in their name.

Safety - something that's lacking on the lake when unlicensed renters can rent a boat with a lot of horsepower and cause havoc and mayhem.

Really ........ this comment has to hurt for a few

You are being a little over dramatic.

WinnFABS was created to fight one battle, speed limits. It NEVER had any other purpose. It never claimed to have any other purpose.

Your argument that WinnFABS should be fighting other battles that you want them to, has no merit.

Get over it already.

WINN
F- family
A- alliance
B-boating
S- slowness

perhaps this would have been a less misleading name

Something's rotten in Denmark
 

Apparently there are many more people out there that smell a WinnFABS rat:

http://www.laconiadailysun.com/story/brett-goodhue-4-15

Perhaps you should form your own organization. Then you can run it however you want.

That makes more sense than whining about the way the opposition runs their organization.

Lost in all this is any meaningful conversation about the pros and cons of legislation that is soon to be voted on.

...still...Mr. Goodhue makes a good point...

This well written letter is in todays Laconia Citizen:

Running the gauntlet

Editor, The Citizen:

Boaters take notice: A proposal to change boating speeds is back in Concord — again. The bill to create a special “Winnipesaukee Speeding Zone” was passed by a recent Senate vote. This new proposed change is sponsored by the so-called “Safe Boaters”, who are eager to see Lake Winnipesaukee’s scenery — all in one hour! Especially if you happen to find yourself in Alton or Wolfeboro waters, the new “Speeding Zone” will allow speedboats to cross your pathway at newer and more exhilarating speeds than permitted by present law.

At any one moment, Winnipesaukee’s visitors are already challenged in finding exactly where their boat is located on the lake. Whatever haphazard speeds they will be encountering near “The Speeding Zone” is anyone’s guess. To travel to any other spot on the Lake, this new “Speeding Zone” would entrap every Wolfeboro boater into “running the gauntlet” of high-speed boats.

House legislators can’t be seriously considering a “yes” vote on this hazardous proposal. Should one supporting Senator been absent, this proposal would have died in the Senate. To impoverish our treasury even further, expect each of Enforcement’s citations for excessive and reckless speeding behavior to be reduced by 10 mph. Inside our newest life-jackets, manufacturers’ disclosures emphasize our PFDs can’t meet safety standards at this proposed speed! This scary proposal follows our lake’s safest seasons under the current 45/30-mph limits. If it ain’t broke, why fix it.

Robert Kennington

Wolfeboro

An even better letter in today's Laconia Daily Sun
 

To the editor,

The Winnipesaukee Family Alliance for Boating Safety (WinnFABS) lobbied successfully to get a speed limit imposed on Lake Winnipesaukee. Recently SB-27 has proposed to a compromise in raising the speed limit to 55 mph in the section of Winnipesaukee known as the Broads. Personally, I believe that there never was a need for a speed limit and that there are many other problems on the lake causing hazards to safety. I also believe that WinnFABS cares little about safety, but operates under the auspices of safety in their elitist efforts to scrub Lake Winnipesaukee of so-called performance boats.

One safety issue that has recently surfaced is the fact that anyone renting a boat over 25 horsepower need not have the required Boater's Education Certificate that all boaters over the age of 16 are required to have in order to operate a boat in the State of N.H. Instead, any dealer or renter of boats who is approved by the commissioner may administer a temporary safety examination and issue a temporary (14 day) certificate, which entitles them to rent and operate the boat. This is like the fox guarding the hen house! How can we possibly allow the dealer or renter of the boat to administer these temporary tests? How many marinas have "flunked" the renter, thereby forfeiting a nice $400 rental fee for the day? How can we allow people with zero boating experience, who have not taken the required class and obtained the full Boaters Education Certificate out on the waters of our lakes with boats which may have hundreds of horsepower? This is a recipe for mayhem and disaster and is one of the root causes of safety problems on Lake Winnipesaukee.

However, a little research will show that several of the marinas that specialize in boat rentals on Lake Winnipesaukee (Thurston's and Fay's just to name two) have thrown their support for the speed limits behind WinnFABS — the same organization whose last name is "Safety". There was a hearing in Concord this week on HB-0548, a bill to require (in essence) anyone operating a boat over 25-hp to have a full Boater Education Certificate (eliminating the temporary certificate issued by the marinas renting the boats). Guess who spoke in opposition to the bill – the owners of Thurstons Marina, Fay's Marina and Shep Brown's Marina — these same marinas that are renting boats to people with no Boater Education Certificates. They cry for speed limits in the name of safety, but protest this bill requiring Boater Education Certificates because it hurts them financially. This is unconscionable and is further proof that they care little about safety and more about their wallets.

Even more perplexing is the fact that since these same marinas supported WinnFABS efforts for the speed limit, WinnFABS has chosen to remain silent on the issue of allowing non-licensed boaters to rent boats and operate on our waters. People who supported WinnFABS thinking that they were the foundation of safe boating got sold a pig in a poke. The time has come to expose their agenda for what it really is — an effort to scrub Lake Winnipesaukee of performance boats by a bunch of elitists that want the lake for themselves. I think a call to your senator and reps is in order to urge them to support HB-0548 and get unexperienced, unlicensed boaters off of our waters.

Brett Goodhue

Gilford
. .

DEJ,

Déjà vu all over again. Forum member “Chimi” already posted that letter in post #230.

Glad to see that Bob can actually write a well formed paragraph, instead of the hacked together cut and paste that we see here. A lot more respect would be given if this was the new adopted posting style from here on out.

...btw...there is/was a measured mile on the Wolfboro side of Rattlesnake Island that we used WAY back in the dark ages to get accurate top speed numbers...until "somebody" in Wolfboro got a Raydar gun for X-mas...I bet Mr. Birdsall remembers...

...the Kennington letter sounds more like a ranting than a legit counter argument for a "speed zone"...

Riddle me this Batman: Why did/does WinnFABS want speed limits? What is the primary reason? Do tell.

Sorry, but I have answered this question probably 30 times. You are welcome to go back and read those posts. They are all in the speed limits forum.