My "entire argument" is that paddlers should be able to use the lake without worrying about high-speed powerboats running us over.

I'm far from the only person who feels this way - my best friend is worse than me (as far as fearing being run over. I'm just more vocal (and just be glad that you don't have to deal with me in real life). According to polls, the majority of the residents of NH want a lake speedlimit. And I heard a bunch of other people testify in the State House for it.

And I take a great deal of responsibility on making sure that I'm as safe as I can be (and please don't bring up those silly little flags again - because I've already explained why they are not a good idea). I bought the brightest colored kayak available, I bought paddles that are extremely visible. My sea kayak is made for large bodies of water - which is where I use it. I've taken courses on navigation, advanced paddling, and first-aid, I had lessons, and I have learned how to do self rescues. I even carry an extra paddle, a bilge pump, and a tow line, as well as extra clothing. Plus I have a compass and a chart of the lake - and I have cold water gear, including both a wetsuit and a drysuit. And I wear a PFD, use a spray skirt in rough conditions. I paddle hundreds of miles each summer and have never needed any kind of help from anyone. How much responsibility do you want!!!

There is nothing wrong with standing up for something that you believe in - and I happen to believe in supporting things that I believe in. I've stood up for my beliefs on this forum, when I knew I was in the minority, and when I knew that people here with find fault with everything that I post, just because my view is different. If you think that is so wrong, than I feel sorry for you. I'm my opinion, the biggest thing that is wrong with this country is that to many people are apathetic - and would rather complain about things, instead of putting in the effort to improve things.

Evenstar's entire argument
 

That is much simpler than all the above kayak math.


You sound like you have too much boat for our lake. Over equipped and overqualified to be paddling around Winnie. The vacationers I see with kayaks don't have anywhere near all that equipment you take along. PFDs, paddles, sunblock, maybe a chart and a cooler but not much else.


You have every right to stand up for yourself however how you support yourself is important. Some ways are better than others. ;)

I'd bet money that if the speed limit passes you and your friend will not feel any safer next year or the year after before the law is up for expiration. I mean if after everything you've done you don't feel safe, you never will. I kayak on the lake quite a bit and I don't feel unsafe. I also don't put myself in harms way, you apparently like to and continue to do so. Why should I be glad I don't have to deal you in real life? You're being silly there.

If you go over 45mph....
 

This could happen to you!!!! <GASP> :eek:

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p...reau/winni.jpg

Sea Kayak
 

I assume that since Evenstar paddles a sea kayak then she has used the kayak on the ocean. If Evenstar feels unsave on Winni without a speed limit then I have to assume she would also feel unsafe on the ocean with out a speed limit.

So my question to Evenstar is: Are you advocating for a speed limit on the ocean? And if not, why not? is't that where the speed limit proponents believe ocean racers or high performance boats belong

It has been said before in many previous posts that ocean racers or high performance boats belong on the ocean. Maybe sea kayaks belong on the ocean also. Leave the lake to us mere mortals in our lake kayaks to muddle around in.

Maybe at over 145mph...

The "kayak math" insult was from another thread. And I was asked to show why I thought the speed study was invalid - which I thought that I did a pretty good job of proving. What many of the critical, insulting forum members didn't seem to understand was that their was nothing wrong with my math - the problem was in the data that the report produced - which I tried to explain. But some were too busy insulting me to notice.

Now you are actually trying to twist being prepared, experienced, and trained into something negative. Give me a break!!!


So why do I feel safer on Squam, where there is a 40 mph speed limit?

I am not a person who is easily afraid - but having a high-speed powerboat bearing down on me and swerving at the last second would probably frighten any normal person. No matter how prepared I am, I cannot control the unsafe actions of others - that's where laws come in.

I do not "put myself in harms way" - I put myself on a lake that is supposed to be protected as a place for all users. Allowing powerboats to travel on the lake at unlimitted speeds is what puts me "in harms way."

I was just trying to make a joke. Don't be such a grouch.


I have stated many times on this forum that I have kayaked on the ocean. I also have sailed on the ocean a great deal, since I'm a member of my university's varsity sailing team and my school is located on the ocean. But I have never felt unsafe on the ocean due to high-speed powerboats. Perhaps that is because the ocean is so much larger then Winni.

There are bays and inland waterways that are part of the ocean when there are speed limits. But there is no speed limit on the open ocean, and I am not advocating for one.

First of all, there is no such thing as a lake kayak catagory - there are recreational kayaks and there are sea/touring kayaks.

How does a sea kayak have any negative impact on others on the lake? Since you're suggesting that they be banned from the lake, you really should have a better reason than just their name. A sea kayak is designed for large bodies of water - such as large lakes - and is much safer in large waves than any recreational kayak.

And my sea kayak has less of an impact on the environment than any powerboat, so it would make way more sense environmentally to ban powerboat than to ban sea kayaks.

Squam Lake is not the same as Winni, I don't care how many times you lump it in, that doesn't make it true. You feel safer because there's less boats? No Broads? Smaller lake? I could go on all day.

Clinging to the false illusion that "I put myself on a lake that is supposed to be protected as a place for all users" is the same as "I should be able to drive through East LA any time I want because the streets are supposed to be safe" You won't see me doing it and you won't see me kayaking the Broads on the weekend. Period. That's why you put yourself in harm's way.

I'm not being grouchy, and didn't see the joke.

I've had a few times where another boat was on a course that made me rethink my current course. Evasive action is not something any skipper should have to take if a proper lookout was in place. All, repeat All, of those encounters were at speeds between 20 and 30 mph.

Evenstar, in virtually all of the cases where you've felt "frightened", the other boat operator was either not paying attention, and/or was already in violation of at least one, probably two laws already on the books.

We've been through this before, I contend that the MP is not enforcing the laws already on the books. You seem to believe that the new law will somehow change this. I disagree. If a boat is heading towards me at 20 mph, invades my 150' space, the operator is already in violation. If they had enforced these rules, and made it well known that they were, perhaps the infractions would be limited to those that really deserve to be booted out.

BTW, your continued use of the term "high-speed powerboat" makes it abundantly clear, to me at least, that you have a very one-sided agenda that is in no way helpful in solving the problems on Winni, or any other body of water. Again, if all of this energy could have been put to good use, many more people would have been drawn in to support a single, unified bill. That bill could have addressed any issues the MP was having in covering the lake and enforcing it's existing laws.

Why do your rights as a kayaker trump my rights as a boater? What makes you so special? You stated it yourself, you feel perfectly safe on Squam. Why don't you paddle on Squam, and leave the largest lake in the state available for those who want to travel faster?

"Safer on Squam" is relative and opinion based, like most of the rhetoric used to get the bill to pass. As mentioned above, there are many other factors that distinguish Squam from Winni. Apples and oranges.

As far as high speed powerboats violating the 150' zone, this is still very subjective. I'm not saying it is not 100% true, but chew on this....

1 - Is your Kayak equipped with a radar gun? Are you? Can you tell the difference between somebody approacing your sea kayak at 44mph? 38mph? 33mph? I cannot. I ALSO have a college degree.
2 - My first time ever being pulled over on Winni, the MP asked me if I knew how close 150' was. Since I am certified to operate a boat in NH, I knew that it was roughly close enough to make out the boat registration on the hull. With that being said - Why don't you write down registrations of all of these boats that are constantly violating your 150' rule and contact the MP?

It would really validate your arguements if you could provide some concrete proof, instead of fiction (as far as we can tell) to back up some claims?

I'm sure in 2009, there will be ample MP staffing to field calls such calls

What still amazes me is that a "Sea Kayak" is designed for big water and big waves , yet is so unstable that a "safety flag" makes it unstable:confused:.
Sounds like some people are talking out of both sides of their faces.
Seems to me it's a little boat "on the edge" so to speak and being in the Broads alone is more of a safety hazzard than being hit by a real boat.

You guys love using this argument. No, the two lakes are not exactly the same - because no two lakes are exactly the same. But Squam is the second largest lake in NH, so it is as close as any lake in NH to Winni - and the two lakes are just over 2 miles apart. There are not "less boats" on Squam" - at least not by square acre of water.

It is not the same thing. A NH law guarantees me the right - RSA 270:1 states in part: "it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances."

You won't accept Squam as a comparison between the two largest lakes in NH; then you try to compare kayaking on the main lake with driving through East LA!!!???

What you are leaving out is my statement that, when the operator of a high-speed powerboat invades my 150 foot zone, it is because he does not see me, and not because he intentionally came too close to me. And the reason that he didn't see me is because he was traveling faster than his ability to see small boats. Not because our brightly colored kayaks are difficult to see.

I have no agenda, other than my belief that all boats should be able to use NH lakes without the fear of being run over. My use of "high-speed powerboat" is just a short way of saying any boat that is going over 45 mph - which is the maximum speed allowed in this Bill. I meant nothing more than that. As I have stated over and over again: I have nothing against powerboats of any kind - and my intent is not to ban any type of boat from using the lake.

My rights don't trump your rights - but yours don't trump mine either. I do paddle on Squam, but I also have the right,under the NH law, to paddle on Winni as well - and I have the right to be safe while doing this. There is no NH law that gives you the right to travel at high-speeds on any NH lake.

I've also explained this before - but no one believes me, so why bother. The fact is that my spatial awareness is much better than average - due to the fact that the right side of my brain is overdeveloped (to compensate for the damage to my left side. And I'm not talking about boats going 46 mph - I'm talking about boats going more like 60mph. And I do have a pretty good idea what 40-45mph looks like from boating 100's of hours on Squam, where there is a 40mph speed limit.

My kayak is about 16 feet long - if a powerboat is within 3 or 4 of my boat lengths, they are way closer than 150 feet. And I don't exactly have time to try to see the registration - since I'm doing everything I can to keep myself from being run over.

I never lie. And I'm not exaggerating. And many other paddlers have stated that they have has very similar close calls on the lake. I'm just one of the few who is willing to post on this forum - where powerboat owners are allowed to verbally attack and insult paddlers.

And it amazes me that you are still making negative comments about a type of boat that you know nothing about and have never even even been in.

Evenstar, this is where I lose you. There are bays and inlets on Winni just as there are are on the ocean and there are large wide open areas on Winni just like the ocean. So you are free to paddle those bays and inlets on Winni just like the ocean. Why would it be any different facing an off shore power boat a mile off shore in an open area of the ocean just like in the broads on Winni?

I think you meet resistance on this forum because your posts appear arrogant and you come off as a know it all who does not want to be questioned and what ever you say is gospel. Did it really matter that I called a recreational kayak a lake kayak? You are participating in these debates and you should expect to be questioned and asked to support your opinions. It takes two to tango as they say. You have questioned and attacked others on this forum. You should stop complaining about it.

The comment about the name sea kayak was tongue in cheek because previously on this forum speed limit proponents said the name off shore powerboat indicates they belong on the ocean. I was simply applying the same principle (it was a joke). So no, I am not advocating banning them from the lake. You twisted what I said just as you have accused others of doing to your posts.

In your last comment you seem to be advocating for banning power boats. Why don't you advocate banning automobiles from the road? Oh, wait, you would not be able to get your kayak to the lake. Seriously though, the new 2and 4 stroke engines are very efficient and clean. you should not worry too much about the impact on the environment.

Taz, I applaud this post and I was nodding my head in approval while reading it. This post so eloquently states exactly what I feel when reading this particular members posts. Thank you for putting into words what so many of us feel.

Because of the size factor! Winni is not "just like the ocean." I have been on ocean bays that are much larger than the entire lake. A bay on Winni is nothing like the ocean bays that I have kayaked and sailed on. I have spent more time boating on ocean bays than I have on Winni – and I have never once had a close encounter, while on ocean waters, with a high-speed powerboat. Like I said earlier, there’s a LOT more room there. I would kayak on the ocean more except for the fact that my home is 2-½ hours away from the ocean.

I have never attacked another member, except in my own defense. Show me just one instance where I have done otherwise.

Yet I have been personally attacked – often in very personal and hateful ways, and made fun of since my first week on this forum. I don’t mind being questioned – but I do mind constantly being misquoted and having my words taken out of context and used against me. That is wrong. It is also not fair that my explanations are usually either totally ignored or are ridiculed. It is not fair that I constantly have to defend myself, and that I have to constantly repeat myself – that I am repeatedly questioned (sometimes by the same person) about something that I have already explained numerous times.

It is also not fair that I make one post and 5 or 6 other members attack me – and pick apart everything that I write. It is also not fair that my ability, knowledge, age, and experience are constantly under attack and that I have to provide “credentials” for everything. I’ll continue to complain as long as the forum rules are being broken by others – if the rules of these forums were enforced, I would not have to complain.

I have posted numerous times on this forum that I have language issues – due to brain damage. I am extremely literal, am a very open person, and don't really know how to be anything but honest and direct - that's the only way that I can communicate. Your post did not seem like a joke to me – and others here have been serious when they wrote that kayaks should be banned from Winni. When a person is joking, they generally let others know by adding a smilie – since you didn’t, how was I to know that you were joking.

I twisted no part of your post, but responded literally to exactly what you wrote. That is not twisting anything. Others have twisted my words completely.

Now who’s twisting things? I was only talking about environmental reasons, and merely stated that, since “my sea kayak has less of an impact on the environment than any powerboat, so it would make way more sense environmentally to ban powerboat than to ban sea kayaks.” I have stated many times on this forum, including at least once earlier today, that I am not advocating for the banning of any type of boat.

Evenstar, if a off shore power boat or power boat, it does not matter what kind is 50 feet , 100 feet, 150 feet away from you or what ever the distance away from you that makes you feel unsafe, then its irrelevant whether it is in the ocean or the lake. The space around you is not what counts, what counts is the distance between you and the power boat. So the point of my original question is why are you targeting the lake as the only place speed limits should implemented? The very same situation could happen on the ocean. It just so happens you were fortunate when paddling on the ocean that you did not encounter any off shore power boats or boats that made you feel unsafe.

Look at all the posts you have entered, some, one right after another on the very same thread. Look at the length of many of your posts. Its clear you are fixated on this issue. It looks like you are looking to pick a fight. You called one poster silly when he mentioned the flag. Thats not a personal attack? Thats just one example. You made light of my calling a recreational kayak a lake kayak. If it were reversed you would call that a personal attack. Thats called hypocrisy.

You continue to ask why your posts are attacked, picked apart and questioned. Thats why I posted what I felt would be helpful hints to let you know why. However, based on your history I did expect you to respond as you did and I did not expect you to heed the advise. Your not required to defend yourself you know. Maybe just once you could let it go and not respond, but I know you won't and there will be a long response with all kinds of highlighted quotes.

You don't think you twisted what I said about sea kayaks? Show me where I used the word ban or where I said kayaks should be banned? If you were reading and paying attention to all of the speed limit proponents posts, specifically where they reference off shore power boats, and I believe you have since this issue arose 2-3 years ago you would understand the tongue in cheek joke I reference. I don't use smilies, sorry, you'll have to THINK to figure out the jokes.

You are very melodramatic, attacked "personally" and in "hateful" ways. Stop playing the victim card. Its very tiresome.

When was environmental issues brought up in my post? I do not see the word environmental in my post. If you are not advocating banning any boats then why would you reference banning powerboats for environmental reasons? This is why posters sometimes don't understand your posts. They can be confusing.

Don't take this personally, I'm just trying to be helpful.

Perhaps you misspoke, misremembered, or simply forgot your attack of the Webmaster...

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...&postcount=131

Here's a fact for you to contemplate:

Opponents were being moderated long before you were.

"if the rules of these forums were enforced, I would not have to complain."


If the rules on Winni were enforced, we'd not be having this discussion.

This is a recurring theme in your posts, often emphasized in bold, and repeated quite frequently. The problem is that as far as I can tell, your conclusion here about people traveling too fast to see you in time seems to have no evidence to support it, it's just your own assumption.

And while your assumption MAY be true, until you provide some sort of data to back up your claims, I think most people are dismissing this argument of yours.

While your position may or may not be true, it is no more valid than the position that your kayak is too difficult to spot at any speed, and that you are intentionally putting yourself in harms way.

What the NH law doesn't say about mutual use of the lake is that people should apply a reasonable level of common sense, so as all users of the lake can enjoy portions of it simultaneously. I guess the problem with common sense is that it is not so common.

There are many many places on the lake that are difficult or impossible for powerboats to operate. These would seem to make excellent places to enjoy sports such as yours. There are also many many coves, bays, and other areas where you can kayak "alongside" other users of the lake (powerboats, etc.)

If you are having repeated infractions with powerboats, or any other user of the lake, YOU are most likely putting yourself in that position needlessly. It is reasonable to expect that you have a right to enjoy the lake in your kayak. It is unreasonable to expect that the entire boating population on the lake should somehow route around you to allow you to kayak wherever you please.

As an example of my statement above, which you will surely take issue with... The Mount travels a known path on its tours of the lake. By your logic, should you be able to paddle around in its path, while it adjusts course to avoid you?

Or, the area around most town docks can become quite congested on busy summer weekends as boats jockey for a slip. Would you expect that you should be able to paddle around in these areas "safely" (by your definition), while the boats maintain a course to avoid you?

It's all about the numbers. Your statistics knowledge should help you with this. You are by yourself (virtually speaking) in this converstation. You have your beliefs, and the 5 or 6 other members who respond to you have their beliefs. Since you are in the minority here...by far I might add...you only feel like you are being ganged up on. You are posting on a website in which a recent poll stated that a majority of the members were against a speed limit. So you should expect to feel like the minority.

I would liken it to a person who does not drink going into a bar and saying that the bar should be banned from selling alcohol.

Who's the moderator?
 

There is only one moderator for this website. And I think he continues to do an excellent job balancing the opinions of the many here while wielding his moderator sword carefully and with much consideration.

Do you have any idea how many hours a week he has to spend perusing these speed limit threads? Do you have any idea how much he and his family have sacrificed over the years to allow us the freedom to use this beloved website?

No, you don't. Or you would not be making such an uninformed statement as I have quoted above.

Its simple. You have been given ample opportunity to make your point...again & again & again & again. There are a significant amount of posters within the speed limit threads that have not been convinced by your arguments. Accept that fact and move on. But please, do not attempt to hide the inability of your arguments to convince others by attacking the integrity of our gracious host.

Quite frankly if you truly feel the way you have indicated above, simply find another venue to post your thoughts. Perhaps devote your ample mental prowess towards creating your own kayak themed lakes region website where you can then experience the responsibility of moderating your own threads. Perhaps then you can earn the right to return here, with some sense of credibility, and criticize the job our webmaster is doing running this website!

To the rest...sorry for the rant, but enough is enough. :(

Skip

I'd agree with that Skip. The moderator has done an exceptional job of allowing a spirited debate to continue, and I'm sure he's had to intervene at times that most of us may not have witnessed.

He's a very gracious host, and I also appreciate his efforts. I originally found this site when doing some research for a trip. It's an invaluable source for those of us with ties to the region, that no longer live in the area.

My love of boating started on Winni when I was just a small kid, and it continues to this day. I hate to become an old geezer on this point, but I'll not be repeatedly preached to by someone that one day plunked a kayak into a lake and discovered that life is not perfect. My boat cushion has more experience on the lake than her, blah blah blah.

Until the adults get together and decide on plans for meeting with the marine patrol to discuss the real issues, nothing will be solved. I plan to do much the same thing here this summer on my own pond. We have the idiots and offenders, and the patrols were very lax here last summer IMO. As I'm quite sure those in the CG and State Police would much rather be out on the water doing their jobs, I certainly don't blame them, other forces are at work here. There's always those that love to jump to conclusions, support a feel good cause or two, and then there's the mature people that actually do something about it.

I simply cannot have much respect for whiners, selfish ones at that. The problems on most bodies of water are pretty easy to spot. It's high time serious boaters pitch in and help solve the problems.

I thanks those that have made these discussions informative, mostly civil, and pretty helpful to those of us that actually want to help out. Once again, I join Skip in thanking our generous host for his labors, his restraint, and for providing this site for the many other uses it offers.

A tip of my hat to you sir.

Skip, The man!
 

I agree with Skip. The webmaster is a grateful host and probably the reason this forum is one of the most talked about forum on the web.

I live on Lake Winni since I was about 7. My parent move to the lake from Winnisquam. At my age, I have to admit, I am well experieced to say a thing or two on this forum.

I occasionally step in to say a thing or two. Enough is enough!

I kayak every morning from sunrise to about 8 or 9 AM. I have no issues with the powerboaters who are respectful at all! The idea of being able to paddle on the lake on a misty morning and hear the loon cry is the best experience I had all my life. To this day I get goosebumps.

There is a time and place for all watercrafts. Be it paddleboats, sailboats or powerboats. If everyone is out at a decent time and everyone recognize each other's place then there shouldn't be a problem. The Captain Boneheads are not limited to skippering powerboats. I have seen them in paddleboats and sailboats as well. Education is a strong tool. Let's get the word out. But to fight for what ails you will have no end in sight.
:)

VtSteve makes some good points, however his statement about having little respect for whiners, selfish ones at that , deserves further comment. Evenstar, in my opinion, has been reepeatedly and angrily denounced for opinions which differ from most of the posters on this forum. Her concerns echo those of many of us who feel that boating on Winni has taken on a "wild west, anything goes" atmosphere. The rancor leveled at her and others who have supported a speed limit for Winni has driven away or kept away those who may have dissenting opinions, again in my opinion. Many, many people have earnestly embraced the 45/25 speed limit as a reasonable solution, and there has been no shortage of "whiners" and melodrama in the anti speed limit camp. A few arguments/issues I've had difficulty with:

1) We should not have a speed limit because there are not enough resources to enforce them. Well in my NH town we have many many miles of road and just 1 or 2 cops to enforce speed limits. I can drive for miles and miles with little expectation of seeing a police cruiser. Does that mean we should repeal all speed limits in town? Obviously not...the speed limit alone is a deterrent for most people.

2) The arguments that a speed limit will unequivably drive business from the state . Many business owners have been proponents of the speed limit because they feel it will improve business and that said wild west atmosphere has in fact driven many power boaters away.

3) That the pro speed limit group has a monopoly on all of the melodrama in this controversy over speed limits on the lake. After the house passed the first speed limit, one objector moaned " if the old man of the mtn were still standing, he would have shed a tear today". Oh brother.

4) A poll showing that the majority of NH people are in favor of speed limits has been dismissed with a variety of specious (and angry, bitter) arguments . Our legislators in the House and Senate are characterized as having been totally bamboozled by the Winnfabs (sometimes referred to as Winncrabs, Winnfarts) crowd. One poster commented that we need to vote these hacks out. Isn't that what happened after the last election with a Senate that rejected speed limits?

5) That this law is really only a thinly disguised way of getting boats/boaters off the lake that they don't like. In reality, reasonable people and their representatives make laws all the time to restrict objectionable behavior that is felt to be inappropriate. For example, we have laws in my town that regulate dogs who bark all night. Have we enacted legislation against dogs/owners that we don't like? Call it whatever you want. And if people object to boats going 70 MPH 150' from the little put put from which they are fishing...well.

Well, enough for now, but to Evenstar, just because you've been singled out and maligned in a forum where you are the minority doesn't mean that no one hasn't noted your sincere committment to what you believe in. Keep up the good work. The speed limit will happen. Maybe people will even slow down enough to ... see the turtles.

The MP has a difficult time enforcing the current laws on the books. Most importantly the 150 foot rule and DUI!

So the pro speed limit crowd references the poll over and over, and the anti speed limit crowd references the speed study. Flaws in both polls have been exposed and debated here in the recent months.

We've taken a poll here which yielded a vastly different result than the one in Manchester....

The speed limit study (no matter how you add/subtract/divide/multiply) shows that under 1% of the sample study were exceeding the propsed limits.

In conclusion, I ask you - what problem is the speed limit addressing?

Do you mean other than the long list that has already been presented many times?

Repeatedly, the obvious things argued were ignored. Having a speed limit will not, repeat, will not, prevent the 150' rule from being violated. There were some that finally broke down and claimed that their support for 45/25 was primarily based on getting rid of as many GFBL boats as they could. Evenstar was repeatedly making the claim that she was in constant fear of "high-speed boats" invading her 150' area, and never once (to the best of my feeble memory), complained about the lack of enforcement. She also went through some rather dubious statistical feats to try and discredit the MP speed study.

I've always contended that the major areas being cited as reason enough for the speed limit were flawed. BI's many posts regarding the NWZ being violated, sometimes at very high speeds, spoke to the complete lack of enforcement there. The 150' rule is one of the most fundamental safety laws on the lake. But according to many, it is violated constantly. I'm admitting that I'm assuming here, that in order to avoid discussions about increased MP presence and funding for enforcement, she in particular went out of her way to come up with some rather creative reasoning. I don't automatically assume that by having a speed limit it will cut down on the number of 150' violations. I base this assumption only on the fact that the vast majority of violations I've witnessed over the years through now, and other's stated posts, are done by boaters not exceeding the proposed speed limit.

The last desperation of some concluded that the tragic accident that occurred in the bay, was reason enough for the speed limit. The boat was "calculated" to be doing 28mph at night, not 25mph or less. The more crap that was thrown out regarding erosion, waves, etc... I quickly realized there were other reasons for the limit being proposed. Some admitted to it, others to this day do not.

I think the reason she was "singled out", as you put it, is not because of her position. Heck, everyone has opinions. It was the fact that she engages in behavior on the lake that many of us old timers viewed as imprudent forty years ago, let alone today. That was an opinion, so fine and fair. But to use outrageous extrapolations of data and call it statistical evidence that proves a study is flawed, totally dismiss the flag on kayak issue that I know many kayakers actually think is a good idea, and to repeatedly state opinions as fact is subject to a heated debate.

The fact that no proponents of the new law, (again, that I'm aware of), ever engaged in a discussion of the lack of enforcement or additional funding, spoke volumes as to where their stands really were on the issue. They apparently weren't scared that the new speed limit would be enforced, only that it was passed.

So no, I have no respect for whiners that will not, repeat, will not address concerns about enforcement, and will not even begin to discuss their own behavior. Many of us have been boating for decades, and know full well what the problems on the water are. The first time I had the discussion of reckless behavior on Winni was some 25 years ago, which is a couple of decades plus longer than she ever dropped her sea kayak in the lake. Her complaints almost coincided with her boat getting wet there. But instead of realizing that the laws she cites repeatedly be enforced, she spent a great deal of time supporting this new law, never really entering into a discussion as to how it would be enforced.

Statistical studies aside, I call that BS every time I see it. Those that are never wrong, rarely engage in discussion that could lead to obvious solutions. As one of the MP dudes said, you'd think Winni was total carnage during the summer. In reality, there are some boaters that need to be spanked for their actions, or just taken off the lake. So don't get all teary eyed about angry rebuttals, the total refusal to debate facts or solutions that would be obvious to most is the real issue.

The next step is already on the table. Next summer, exactly what will be done to solve the problems?

Now there's an unbiased statistical sampling (not). It's like polling 4 foxes and a chicken on what they'd like to have for dinner.

Why is that unbiased? Because it was on a Boating Forum on Winnipesaukee.com Forum where all members had a chance to vote?

Because it involved people that have an inkling of interest in Winnipesaukee and/or because it directly contradicts the Manchester poll?

Or because it doesn't support the agenda of the pro speed limit crowd?

(For the record, I didn't vote)

Back to my original question - What problem is the speed limit going to solve in 2009?

You certainly don't live in Moultonborough - they've got a handful they can lend you. :D

It will be interesting to see how much enforcement goes into the law. As discussed once or twice (or more...), accurately getting a boat speed isn't as easy as a cop driving around with his radar on. If the goal of this is to make the lake safer, they'll be out looking for people during the peak boating times in all the usual areas. If they're looking to get everyone who's violating the law, they'll be up bright and early to get the bass boats that go cruising by my house with just their prop in the water.

For the record, I'm against the limit although not really for my personal gain. My jet ski will break the law, but it's pretty much in the margin of error range of the limit and I'm not doing that all that often. I think there are more issues with the 150' rule and general Capt. inattention. The proponents of the law will say that at least the boneheads are going slower. I guess that's a win for them but I say that they're still boneheads and they're still captaining a multi-ton vessel.

Increased enforcement is a great idea. To bad it will never happen. It's a pipe dream. You might as well look to Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy to solve the lakes problems.

Skip posted this a while back
A speed limit will have at least some deterrent effect without additional funding. Solutions that will never be implemented are not solutions.

No, because this is primarily a forum for those who are against a speed limit. And as in my previous post, the rancor leveled against dissenting opinion has driven off/kept away the speed limit proponents. Chicken for dinner anyone?

[QUOTE=Turtle Boy;70939]Can you back that with fact? Or is this going to be based on your opinion?

One doesn't need a Ph.D. in mathematics or statistics to see that this is primarily a forum for the no speed limit crowd, which is why the previous poll of NH residents has far more statistical significance.

So, based on your opinion, a poll on a forum that represents members of the Winnipesaukee community has a lesser significance than a poll which questions NH citizens with no interest whatsoever in the lakes region?

Opinions aside, you still haven't illustrated what problem the speed limit bill is going to solve. I'll wait....

Funny how people see things different.How about maybe it represents how the people that use this lake really feel and not those who have never been in a boat.The numbers speak volumes,especially from where they are derived.

We post here because we use the lake. This forum is for ALL who use the lake. It just so happens that more people who frequent this forum are against the speed limit. Which to me means that more people frequent the lake are against it.

Why do people who never boat on Winnipesaukee have more say than those of us who do?

This is exactly why I have a problem with my local representative. She had never been on Winni, and had no intentions to do so. Heck, her region is the Concord area. So who was she representing when she voted in favor of HB847?

Please re-read my posts of today. Yes indeed, it has less significance. For example, if you wanted an unbiased look at alcohol issues in this country, you wouldn't poll people at a temperance meeting or your local bar. If you want an un-biased sampling of opinion about Winni speed limits, you wouldn't poll a Winnfabs meeting or this forum.
Again re-read my initial post of today...the speed limit will address the "wild west, anything goes" mentality that is driving so many people away from the lake.

Interesting theory but statistically flawed...see my previous post...if you want a valid, statistically neutral opinion about alcohol use in this country, don't go to a temperence meeting or to your local bar. If you want the same for speed limits, don't go to this forum or to a Winnfabs meeting