Life after speed limits
 

Since kayakers seem to want free run of the lake , I've run across a power boat suitable for kayak territory. After all , isn't turnabout fair play:D
Not only that , maybe a speed limit won't extend up creeks:laugh::laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtXkpytTD3s

Paddlers have always had "free run" of all NH lakes - it's only been relatively recently that the high speeds of powerboats (along with the attitudes of some operators) have made the lake(s) unsafe for us.

Just remember that you can only go 6 mph, unless you are more than 150 feet from shore and from other boats. There are not too many "creeks" in NH that are over 300 feet wide. :)

Very good video
 

Kayakers don't want free run of the lake. Just a timid vocal minority who want to go out without fear. Fearless kayakers :laugh: .

I believe those kayakers would love to be up the creek with those powerboats but with their paddles.

There must not be any 150 foot rule up that creek and it looked like fun.

How slow was that boat measured in feet per hour?

The boat did not appear to be going 45mph. I felt unsafe just watching the video. Kept expecting to hit a rock.

Proud to say I have not made a Kayak unsafe ever. Except for the one I tried to get into years ago.

While the video gave me quite the belly laugh, and I also had to wonder what kind of hull this boat had to hit those rocks and shallows and survive.

I have to agree with Evenstar on this one;
She's right about that.

Agreed,she is right.6 mph when within 150 of boats(and yes that includes Kayaks)A law that is ALREADY in place.

I'm pretty sure they are made of rather thick, welded aluminum and contain many bulkheads for added strength. It would be easy to weld on repair panels over wear areas as needed.

Looks like a lot of fun. I'd try it for sure.

Those hulls are flat bottom Jet boats and the bottom have a 1" thick plate of Teflon ( like a snow machine slider or a bed liner for your truck) which allows them to slide over most anything...with them being jet driven like a sea doo they require very little water and there is nothing to drag...theres about a million videos of those boats, they are very popular out west and the over seas..and yes they go well over 45 have a tremendous amount of Hp but are very inefficient turning it into speed

I agree
 

Why don't people understand this principle? There are plenty of laws that regulate speed on the lakes. There is too much personal attacks instead of debating which issues are important and then debating the issues.

I'll tell you why. Because these left wing liberals love the nanny state concept. They know what's best for everyone and will do anything in their power to control and regulate every aspect of your life. This idiotic speed limit bill is a perfect example. Let's create multiple layers of laws that regulate the same thing. NH is in the red already, so let's just spend more tax dollars on resources required to implement and enforce a new speed limit law, rather than education and enforcement of the laws already on the books. Please people - wake up! Flush these bleeding hearts out of Concord and send them back from where they came. They have done nothing but ruin what once was a great state. Sad to say it's now like Massachusetts North.:(

The only reason to NOT have a 45 mph speed limit is because a few rich people want to go dangerously fast on a crowded lake. Incredibly they seem to have convinced a few people that don't have fast boats that its REALLY about personal freedom. They spread the lie that it will cost money to enforce (it cost nothing). They even spread two mutually exclusive theories that A) Nobody is going to leave the lake or slow down and B) The lakes region economy will be ruined when the high performance boats leave.

They point to a study they think says nobody is speeding (it doesn't), while forgetting the simple reality that if nobody is speeding, then nobody will be inconvenienced by this law.

The few that own these expensive, highly polluting, global warming, gas hogs, fly around the lake at speeds up to 130 mph scaring the living hell out of family boaters. They have no concept of how many small boaters, including children's campers, they are keeping off of the water.

They are coming to Winnipesaukee because the are being regulated off other lakes. As this trend continues their numbers will grow. Their wakes kill loons, and erode the shore. The water quality of the lake is slowly dropping.

What this is really about is money. The marine manufacturer's and people that sell and service high performance boats will do ANYTHING, tell any lie, play any card, enlist any well intentioned freedom lover, to stop this legislation.

Another post worthy of being printed out and pasted to my wall. You do a great job of pointing out just about every misconception that you are feeding yourself and everyone. I do not even know where to begin with this post. This is the biggest pile of fear and hate mongering I've ever read on this forum. Portions of this post border on outright lies. You sit in your glass house and throw stones at all the "polluters" yet you jet around the country and then are prepared to hop in a Rocket Ship for YOUR personal pleasure. I'm sure this rocket is a hybrid gas electric though, right.:rolleye2: How dare you even go down that road. Where in the world did you come up with the 130mph boats zipping around the lake. WHEN? WHERE? As I said before I'm on the lake every day in the summer and I have yet to see these 130mph boats terrorizing innocent boaters on the lake. Wakes killing loons? This is an outrageous bold faced LIE!!! Performance boats wakes are in no way exclusively the biggest wakes. My bowrider at 18MPH makes a bigger wake than a performance boat at 70MPH. What about the Cabin Cruisers? This is NOT about money. It is about legislation of a recreational activity that offends a select few. It is legislation based on fear and hate mongering and you just did a fine job pointing that out.

I do believe that your post reached an all time low and it is the most offensive piece of untruth, bias, and downright hate. If I am alone so be it but I'd like to see what the rest of this community thinks about Bear Islanders latest post. I for one am disgusted by it.

You said it well and I agree. I am not only disgusted, but really put off by his latest post.

A perfect example of what your accusing the opposition of doing.

Great post BI! They hate to hear the truth!

The age old excuse of the polluters is to say someone else is polluting more. As if that excuses their behavior. It doesn't matter how much fuel BI may waste elsewhere. It's a way to attack the messenger when their arguments fail.

Anyone thinking wakes don't destroy loon nests should do a little reading.

Yes and it's ONLY the performance boats wakes that are doing it. The big bad nasty MEN and their testosterone driven craft, cigar hanging out of the mouth, hunting down those loons and their babies... oh yes especially the babies.

Don't you get it? Obviously you do not. Performance boat wakes are not the biggest wakes on the lake. Not by a long shot. If this is a crusade against wakes and the harm they do to the loons lets hit the problem head on. Hmmmmm I know lets BAN THE SOPHIE C. Oh but wait the Sophie goe slow and brings precious mail to Bear Island. We can't ban Sophie. Why not? The loons are suffering and they are dying. Sophie does have the biggest wake on the lake.:confused:

Accuracy?
 

Your reasoning is not accurate or the only reason. Many that are against speed limits are neither rich, or own a boat that goes above 45. Other reasons have been given. One example; the faster the boat goes, the faster the noise is gone from where you are. Another example; in bass fishing contests, one winning strategy is to get to your favorite hole first. A third example; the thrill of speed on a jet ski. Bass boats and jet skis don't require that you are rich.

Your claim of crowded lake is also a problem. Yes, Bear Island may be crowded, but its just one of 360+ islands. Most of the lake, most of the time, is not crowded. This is another reason to oppose the new restrictions. I saw three boats this morning. Where is the danger in going 80 in that crowd?

To enforce, it will indeed cost money. There will be more calls to the MP, with claims that a boat was going too fast. Extra calls and any dispatches will cost money.

Your most valid point. Hard to tell what would happen. The heavy boats will likely take the place of ultra-fast boats that do leave, and we'll have more wake, erosion, etc. The economy is being ruined anyway - speed limit or not.

You are stretching it here. There are plenty of boats going over 45 - just not for long periods or very often in crowded areas. We know that people will be inconvenienced by the law. Bass boats for sure. Jet skis for sure. The ability to legally and safely go fast will be gone. The right of persuit of happiness (legally ;)) will be gone.

You leave out the jet skis and bass boats in your formula. Speeds of 130 mph are rare and unrealistic. If this is your worry, work on a limit that is reasonable, not a pokey 45.

Pilots going over 45 are not the only reason for the kid camper keeper's fear. Captain bonehead in all forms are the reason. Kids are being over protected in many ways these days. Let the camp do what they need to do. Parents can choose camps on less scary lakes, but don't seem to be doing that. Focus on the bonehead issues and hope that a camp kid (or any other) is never injured. Let's also hope they learn to live in the real world where there is danger to be aware of. Running your life based on unfounded fears is not a skill that should be taught.

Have we seen any studies that show this is true? If so, what is the impact on the economy? Will we have enough rich folks here to support a good supermarket and maybe even an office supply store?

This statement needs to be backed up with facts. I'm under the impression that large, heavy displacement boats make the wake the erodes the shore and kills the loons. By "This trend", I assume you mean very-fast boats. This morning, I saw a bass boat zip by at what must have been 60. There was only one foot of the boat still in the water. The wake was an inch or two by the time it reached the shore. The water quality is declining, but I challenge you to relate it to boats going over 45.


This is one point of view, and one that the speed limit opponents disagree with. What this is really about is the existing freedom to satisfy a need for speed that is being threatened without valid cause.

I think BI needs a time out. Go to your corner and we will let you know when it's time to come out!

Loons, this is my favorite, I went to the Loon Preservation place in Moultonborough, years ago when all this speed limit nonsense started. I didn't reveal my intentions for asking questions but I asked this one.

What is the #1 threat to loons. Their answer: Paddlers!!!!! They think it's ok to paddle up to these loon nesting areas, and in doing so cause great stress to the loons, some of the chicks have heart attacks because of it. Funny how now years later(I am sure no one from winnfabs donates the loon society) the #1 threat appears to be performance boats.

I personally have had it up to here with all the B.S. I can't wait for the Senate vote, because then it will be over, or at least for now. I need a break, I want to enjoy our lake, and not have to talk about HB 847. I wish Don would just ban this subject, it has divided what once was a fun place to post.

WOW! Very interesting. Evanstar, Islander, Bear Islander, care to comment?

Being the open minded individual I am I'll let this one slide and say that I'm sure it is a very small percentage of paddlers who are ignorant enough to disturb a nesting site. I hope. But those awful power boaters, they oughta be run out of town. They must be responsible for some other major issue. Like..... rainy Saturdays or something. Has to be their fault.:D

I will gladly comment - especially since I also get to be a myth-buster.

First of all, I don't paddle anywhere near loon nesting sites, nor do I know any other paddlers who do. Most paddlers (at least all the ones I know - who actually live here) are very environmentally responsible people.

Last year I worked for a Senator who was on the Wildlife, Fish and Game committee so I was very involved with the NH Fish and Game, since I often had to attend meetings when my Senator had a conflict. I've met personally several times with a biologist who studies NH loons, and I attended hearings on bills drafted to protect loons. Never once did anyone from the Fish and Game or this biologist state that paddlers were causing loons to die. They all said that the #1 cause was from lead poisoning, and the #2 reason was being struck by powerboats.

The Loon Preservation Committee (yes, the one in Moultonborough)
actually states on their website: "Results of our mortality studies have shown that lead sinkers and jigs are the primary cause of death of adult loons, while boat and personal watercraft collisions account for more chick deaths than any other cause."

hazelnut, I don't think it is a very small percentage of paddlers who disturb the loons. We have had babies the last few years and they stay in a protected cove and people paddle as close as they can to see them. The loons then feel trapped as they get close. You can see the loons getting very nervous and start trying to swim out around them. We and our neighbors often have to yell at them to stay their distance. I don't think they mean any harm, they want to see them, but don't realize when they go so close they scare them. They don't use their heads and think about what they are doing.

If that is the case tis maybe we need some sort of legislation against paddlers using small coves. ;)

This is a good example of misdirection. I say big wakes kill loons, the response is that paddlers also kill loons.

If I say big boats cause pollution, the response is, spacecraft cause pollution.

Point the finger at the other guy. Other people pollute, so its ok for you to pollute. Other boats kill loons, so its ok if your boat kills loons. Take responsibility for your own actions, stop blaming others.

The question is do big wakes kill loons. The answer, if anyone cares to check, is yes.

I , for one , love loons. They're really good with barbeque sauce;)

Another scientific fact.......:rolleye1:

Now I don't understand!
 

If big wakes kill loons and going faster makes smaller wakes than save the loons, go fast!!!!

NO not misdirection at all. It is called hearing the truth Bear Islander and it hurts.

#1 Remember I am not the one sitting up in my glass castle pointing the finger at all of the polluters and loon killers. Do as I say not as I do, right BI? I'm the guy with the modest runabout. I'm not the guy jetting around in planes and rockets. So if anything I take offense to you criticizing ANYONE for their actions with regard to pollution. My actions pollute far less than you and I'm sure there are many who pollute more than you. However, unless you want to sacrifice the recreational activities that you enjoy that cause pollution then I suggest you give up on that argument.

#2 You blame "big wakes" for killing loons. Well you need to back that up with statistical data that shows that those wakes belong to the boats you are trying to rid the lake of. You also need to accept that paddlers have just as negative an impact on the loon population. That information came from the Loon Preservation Center, not your personal opinion. Sure I will accept that wakes kill loons, but lets all share the blame because your runabout carries a pretty big wake climbing up on plane as does mine.

Misdirection? I hardly think so.

Yes, scientific fact.

http://www.ffdp.ca/hww2.asp?cid=7&id=53

http://www.pc.gc.ca/apprendre-learn/...an3case4_e.asp

Please don't respond that other things kill loons, we all know that. However I would be interested in data that shows loons are NOT effected by boat wakes.

Hazelnut wants me to post the bow numbers of boats that kill loons. Sorry, I can't do that. I will fall back on the knowledge that bigger boats have bigger wakes.

Where did I say that? Bear Islander big wakes kill loons! YES I agree. Please re-read my post. You need to accept the fact that your boat (as does mine) produces a wake in certain situations capable of killing loons. Unless you want to give up your runabout stop pointing fingers at everyone else. You are the one raising these issues so stop calling it misdirection when somebody points the finger right back at you. Look in the mirror!

Bigger boats make bigger wakes. When we start regulating boats, should we start with the little ones? Everybody pollutes a little, its a matter of degree.

Lower horsepower means less environmental impact.

You seem to feel that only people that don't pollute can complain about pollution. That's ridiculous, I live in the real world. I will "point my finger" where I see fit.

As has said before BI, waves don't kill loons, people who are too stupid to stop their wake when they see a loon is what hurts them! Big boats and fast boats don't hurt a thing! The people who don't know how to drive them (and I don't think that is so many) do.

Maybe you can start with a mirror.

That about sums it all up folks. Do as I say not as I do.

I posted up in #20 that the actual #1 cause for loon deaths (given by the experts) is from lead poisoning, and the #2 reason was being struck by powerboats.

Paddlers and wakes are not the main cases (although wakes can destroy their nests).

Yes, people control boats - it is the action of people that determine how fast a boat goes (within the boats capabilities).

Guess what? The speed limit controls the people!

So perhaps you should all think of this bill as a people-speed limit, rather than a law against boats - which many here have been suggesting.

Say What???
 

"Lower horsepower means less environmental impact."

Bear Islander with all due respect you are kidding right??...

A 10 horsepower or similar outboard manufactured in the 60's, 70's or 80's which MANY small aluminum boats use on the lake, pollute FAR more than any of todays newer four stroke or two stroke Etec style engines with horsepower up to 300 H.P.

Dan

You and Al Gore are like two peas in a pod...

Dan, that is an unfair comparison. Couldn't you at least have compared motors made in the same millennium?

Try comparing outboards made in the same year by the same manufacturer. That is a reasonable comparison.

It is a very fair comparison, similar to what I have brought up before with you. Every year the technology gets cleaner and more efficient, yet you are targeting the newer models. There are many older, less efficient two strokes spitting oil and gas wherever they go, yet you wish to target newer, cleaner burning engines.

What do you think is better for the lake, a 32' Whaler Outrage with twin 250hp Verados or 2 19' starcrafts with 80's vintage Merc 90's? IMHO the 4 stroke, more efficent loop charged Verados even though the HP is considerably more.

If you truly want to work on something to prevent added pollution, how about pushing for a ban on 2 strokes? This will help curb pollution much more than limiting engines to 300hp.

Why is it unfair, a lot of those old outboards are still on the lake and polluting this millenium. Any attempt to clean up pollution cause by boat motors would have to start with old two-strokes. Old being anything before 1998 and suspect being anything before 2006.

http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/ard/ard-31.htm

My boat engine is three star rated, is yours?

CARB'S One Star label identifies engines that meet CARB's 2001 exhaust emission standards. Engines meeting these standards produce 75% fewer emissions than conventional carbureted two-stroke engines. These engines are equivalent to the US EPA's 2006 standards for marine engines.
The Two Star label identifies engines that meet CARB's 2004 exhaust emission standards. Engines meeting these standards produce 20% fewer emissions than One Star (Low Emission) engines.
The Three Star label identifies engines that meet CARB's 2008 exhaust emission standards. Engines meeting these standards produce 65% fewer emissions than One Star (Low Emission) engines.

If you are a businessman you know that to be a false statement. If you are required to do more with less, then productivity suffers. In this case the more is not only setting up radar posts, but now developing and implementing Homeland Security regulations to get recreational boaters to keep an eye out along the coast for terrorists. Both of these things will either require more money, or diversion of manpower. Additional money is not coming down the pike to hire necesary personnel to man radar posts and develop and implement Homeland Security measures and not make cuts in safety patrols so your speed limit law will make the lake less safe. So by diverting resources it is costing us money because we will be getting less for our boating dollar.

No one was speeding, in this case going over the proposed speed limit, because HB847 is not law. Less than 1 percent of the boats clocked on Lake Winnipesaukee, in research conducted much in the same way this law would be enforced if it’s approved, were exceeding the proposed speed limit.

What it actually means is the proposed law is an unnecessary waste of diminishing Marine Patrol resources.

So you are NOT linking performance boats and children’s camps…again? And where did you get data about this 130mph boat scaring the living hell out of family boaters?

The wake of a boat up on plane, any boat up on plane is negligible. Can wakes kill a loon? Sure but the stress of someone deciding to paddle up to those pretty birds can kill them as well.

You have written about your dream to impose a horse power limit on the lake as well. If you think the wake of a boat on plane is an errosion problem think of what the wake created by an underpower boat will be! Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

As for water quality, as has been pointed out you keep targeting newer engines that are far less polluting than older engines. Maybe in BI’s world no one has a boat or engine older than a year but in the real world that is not the case.

I haven’t seen many exaggerations being made by opponents, we have been using statistics from New Hampshire to make our case, while on the other hand, well all you have to do is re-read your post to see the bold face lies and fear mongering in this discussion.

Originally posted by Hazelnut:
I’ve got to agree with you Hazelnut. Bear Islander just keeps churning out the fear in hopes that someone in Concord will take up his message and get Hi Performance boats off the lake, then start in with cruisers next session!

Any credibility that Bear Islander still had with me on this subject, and it wasn’t much at this point, has been expended.

So, proponents and opponents I call on both sides to urge the adoption of USCG Navigation Rule 6 in place of HB 847 and both sides will get what they say they want.