Hb 847 Meeting In Concord.
 

The Senate Transportation commitee has set the public hearing date. It
will be Monday, April 21st 9-12am. It will be in Concord, NH in
Representatives Hall, the main Capital Hall.
This is the last public hearing before the NH Senate votes on HB847. Your
attendance is needed to show the Senate that HB847 is not right for NH.
Please visit http://www.opposehb847.com
for information on why its not right for NH and read the testimonials of
others like you.

Things you can do until then:
1. Call the Senators
2. Write the Senators
3. Plan to attend the hearing!!!
4. And pass the word to your friends and businesses to voice their
opinion!!!!

Thank you,
Custie

John Gallus
292 Prospect Street
Berlin, NH 03570-2137
(H) (603)752-1066
(O) (603)271-3077

Deborah Reynolds
5 Chaddarin Lane
Plymouth, NH 03264
(O) (603)271-3569

Joseph Kenney
PO Box 201
Union, NH 03887-0201
(H) (603)473-2569
(O) (603)271-3073

Kathleen Sgambati
25 Pine Street
Tilton, NH 03276
(H) (603)286-8931
(O) (603)271-3074

Peter Burling
20 Lang Road
Cornish, NH 03745-4209
(O) (603)271-2642

Jacalyn Cilley
2 Oak Hill Road
Barrington, NH 03825
(H) (603)664-5597
(O) (603)271-3045

Harold Janeway
225 Tyler Road
Webster, NH 03303
(O) (603)271-3041

Bob Odell
PO Box 23
Lempster, NH 03605-0023
(O) (603)271-6733

Sheila Roberge
83 Olde Lantern Road
Bedford, NH 03110-4816
(H) (603)472-8391
(O) None Specified

Molly Kelly
89 Colonial Drive
Keene, NH 03431
(H) (603)352-5605
(O) (603)271-7803

Peter Bragdon
P.O. Box 307
Milford, NH 03055 (H)
(603)673-7135
(O) (603)271-2675

David Gottesman
18 Indian Rock Road
Nashua, NH 03063-1308
(H) (603)889-4442
(O) (603)271-4152

Joseph Foster
9 Keats Street
Nashua, NH 03062-2509
(H) (603)891-0307
(O) (603)271-2111

Robert Clegg
39 Trigate Road
Hudson, NH 03051-5120
(O) (603)271-8630

Sylvia Larsen
23 Kensington Road
Concord, NH 03301
(H) (603)225-6130
(O) (603)271-2111

Theodore Gatsas
20 Market St
PO Box 6655
Manchester, NH 03104-6052
(H) (603)623-0220
(O) (603)271-8567

John Barnes
PO Box 362
Raymond, NH 03077-3062
(H) (603)895-9352
(O) (603)271-6931

Betsi DeVries
14 Old Orchard Way
Manchester, NH 03103
(H) (603)647-0117
(O) (603)271-2104

Robert Letourneau
30 South Avenue
Derry, NH 03038
(O) (603)271-8631

Lou D'Allesandro
332 St. James Avenue
Manchester, NH 03102-4950
(H) (603)669-3494
(O) (603)271-2600

Iris Estabrook
8 Burnham Avenue
Durham, NH 03824-3011
(H) (603)868-5524
(O) (603)271-3042

Michael Downing
7 Darryl Lane
Salem, NH 03079
(H) (603)893-5442
(O) (603)271-2674

Margaret Hassan
48 Court Street
Exeter, NH 03833-2728
(H) (603)772-4187
(O) (603)271-4153

Martha Fuller Clark
152 Middle Street
Portsmouth, NH 03801-4306
(O) (603)271-6933


http://www.opposehb847.com

Again, pass this on to everyone you know who can help us protect our
rights. The more letters and phones the the bigger the impact.

You can also visit www.winnfabs.com

NEW TUG boat tour...
 

Starting June 1st.. There Will Be A Two Hr.tour A New 50ft. Tug Boat.
Around Bear Island And Selective Places On Bear Island. So How
Many More Boat Want To Join The Fun...

See You All There.....

Good Post

I know two Senators that read this forum.

Director Barrett's "Shark in the Water!"
 

Yup, Islander...Even on shore, the opponents are frequently their own worst enemy.

However, I hope opponents of HB-847 wave Director Barrett's "NHMP Survey" as proof that Senate approval of the bill is unnecessary.

Why?

Because then the proponents can wave a copy of the Union Leader that has Director Barrett announcing his "temporary speed limit" before conducting the Survey! :confused: :emb: :laugh:

APS

Its great that so many opponents are going to the hearing despite the vote being a done deal. 15 Senators have already declared their support for HB847 And a majority either voted for speed limits already or used it as a campaign promise.

See you all there! I will have on a yellow WinnFABS shirt. Please say hello!

APS the majority of boaters never read up or were even aware of such a temporary limit. If you want to wave that as evidence that skewed the results please go for it. It actually helps the cause because you are concurring that the data itself was correct. That being the case good luck proving a newspaper article was responsible for making thousands of boaters instantly compliant with temporary speed laws. Hilarious :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Just seeing some of the smaller boats like a kayak can be difficult as they are low in the water and tend to blend into the waves.The 150' distance is not enough of a safety cushion for boaters at speeds above 45mph. Small boaters including many summer campers as well as kayakers and slow-trolling fishermen will all have a much safer boating experience with a 45/25mph speed limit.

With the high price of gasoline plus the physical exercise benefits, probably more people will be chosing to boat on the Big Lake in their relatively inexpensive and easy-to-use kayaks.

Going 45mph in a boat is hardly a slow speed. Is it really necessary to be boating at speeds above 45? On Route 93, the speed limit is 65, with conditions permitting. On Lake Winnipesaukee, a 45mph speed limit will make it a safer lake for all boaters. :)

Except the ones who nod off due to boredom:sleeping:

As Algore and John Kerry found out, don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

If two Senators read this board then they know that RTTOOL with TWO POSTs on this board does not represent the vast majority of the anti-boat ban posters here. We will argue how misguided this law is and how the proponents have unsavory motives, but we will not stoop to intimidation or childish stunts. If needed, we will use the ballot box to repair the wrongs.

Let's just hope the house members have some common sense and realize a speed limit is just another law that isn't going to make any difference. The people who are careful will still be careful, the people who aren't still won't be.

The House members voted 236 to 111 in favor of the speed limit bill HB847. I assume you are talking about the Senate.

I think the Senators are aware that only 9% of registered voters oppose the bill.

Sorry, BI, you are right. I am getting the shoreland protection act and this one confused. This one is awaiting the senate, the sps is awaiting the house. I still haven't heard how the house voted on the sps on Wed.

People that don't live on or boat on the lake, really don't care it there is a speed limit or not. Why should they?

All the laws money can buy
 

Let's hope the senators also realize that the survey used to educate the house and senate was conducted after an extensive and expensive marketing campaign, to "teach" the voters how they should answer the questions. It was a scientific survey - with guaranteed results. There was no organized opposition or debate about the issues before the survey, which is why those opposed to a speed limit claim that it is a "purchased" law. Which restriction on boater's rights will be bought next?

In Support of the INsupportable?
 

My folks live ½-mile from the lake in Wolfeboro. They want speed limits—maybe to protect their kids, do you suppose? :rolleye2:

Please wear a WinnFABS shirt all the time, so I can someday introduce myself and thank you for your efforts. :)

You?...can speak to what the majority of boaters read? :eek: :confused:

It's A FACT that it appeared in the state's largest newspaper before The Survey. :rolleye1: Please add that biggie to the seven other major errors I accounted for in the Survey.

I am? I wrote that? I'm concurring? Where are all these words coming from? :confused:

Even an Opponent agrees that the results were skewed: how 'bout we wave this one that also challenges The Survey's credibility?

Thousands? Nobody made round-trips for several weeks? No Jet-Skis? :confused:

Hundreds of readings—maybe. :rolleye2:

I have the daily benefit (and advantage) of paralleling a major boating mecca on a highway where the speed limit is 45. The vast majority of boaters below these bridges aren't going near that fast; however, the boaters that are exceeding the speed of all these trucks and cars on those bridges are a clear and present danger to everyone—and everything—on the waters below.

For a moment, think of the burning of tobacco in restaurants. :coolsm:



Lake Winnipesaukee is not the only locale dealing with inappropriate watercraft. Between the four surfers in this videotape—and the one vessel with an engine—you'd be in support of the Jet-Ski? :eek: :eek:

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i1...WCvsSurfer.jpg

How many of those 9% were active boaters who use the lake?
If they wanted to do a survey, it should have been done amongst people who have a vested interest.

The group polled do have a vested interest. They were the owners of the lake.

Lakegeezer
"There was no organized opposition or debate about the issues before the survey"

I think you should check the dates. I was quoting the second poll.

There is a difference!
 

Between Voters, and Boaters!!! I challenge you to poll registered Boaters!
The numbers we heard today were 600 people in the Manchester area were polled. 78% allegedly said they would support a speed limit. So what is that? 450 voters from Manchester. Ok how many were Boaters????? Exactly probably not many! I would bet I could get 450 voters to agree to ban Bihydrogen monoxide!!!

I think the proper term is dihydrogen monoxide, but still :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

So was anybody at the hearing? How did things go?

I googled dihydrogen monoxide, came up as a nasty mix!!! Yikes!

I was there. Went very well, there was a majority by my count Opposed to HB 847, with many new faces. There was the usual faces from Winnfabs, they are still using the same canned speeches. Towards the end, as I stayed for the whole thing, it became clear that the proponents were disturbed, as Sandy Helve spoke out of turn, that she felt that the balance of speakers was not fair, the chairman then pointed out that the list as he was presented showed more opponents of the bill signed up to speak! In a great display of professionalism the Chair let one last member of Winnfabs speak, although as a point of order he didn't have to let that happen. Still after the gentleman spoke there were 2 more opponents left. I think the Senators on the committee have all the info, and will make the right decision and finally put this special interest bill to pasture. Two things I took away from the hearing, 1. Polls mean nothing. 2. This bill has finally been outed for what it is, a special interest groups crusade. Nothing more. It's not about safety, it's about ridding "their" lake of boats they don't like. This became most evident to me when the last amendment came up! All they have done is start as a winni only, then when that didn't appear to be working, they switched it to all lakes, that way they thought they could get more votes, an momentum. Then when that was flopping, what did they do, went back to winni only with a sunset clause as a disguise.... Guess what, Still not working. Facts are facts. NH lakes, and Winnipesaukee accident rates are among the best in the US. As a matter of fact they have improved over the past 4yrs! Don't believe the hype!

My take was pretty much the exact opposite.

I will wait for the vote.

I was there
 

There was a very good turnout, quite impressive IMHO.
Those opposed outnumbered those for. I base this on the volume of people sporting the NO HB847 stickers hended out. There were even quite a few opposed who didn't have one on. I myself m opposed to HB847.

I will give the chairman and the commitee kudos for changing up the testimony so basically we heard from alternating points of view throughout the morning. This was my first ever hearing so I have no clue if that's normal, but the chairman made it a point to let us know that;s his preferred style.

The reigning theme from supporters is simple: fear, nothing else but fear mongering, period. That's all I heard from them over and over. One woman even went as far as to spell it out. "Formula Boats". She stated she personally taught 50 people how to water ski and wouldn't take a new skier out anymore. Let's be real here, Monday through Thursday, Friday morning, Saturday morning and Sunday mornings are all good times to teach some to ski, there are just times when there are a lot of boats on the lake and maybe not a good time to teach someone. This has nothing to do with speed, it's simple math. This is not your father's or grandfather's lake. What ws the US population when your father and grandfathers roamed he lake and what is the US population now? Huge differences. So with more people living then it stands to reason more boats are owned and therefore more boats show up to enjoy the lake. This transaltes to congestion, not speed as a problem. That's why she's afraid to teach people to ski, to many boats at certain times so you adjust your pattern. Simple solution.

I heard many more compelling reasons to not impose a speed limit than for. The 150' rule is probably our best safety measure by far, and this is the first year that boating certification is mandatory so I think we should let it bake, it's been demonstrated time and again that NH is a safe state to boat in with our current laws and there's no need to change that.

I was very happy to hear several people point out that while Lake George has a speed limit it does not have the 150' safe passaage rule. That laone means we're not comparing apples to apples.

Another guy spoke to the fear of kayaking across the broads. I liked his analogy. He stated he has a 38 foot boat but you won't see him driving it to China. It's not safe. Same goes for kayaking in the broads on a weekend when there's a lot of traffic, it's just not safe. Now if someone, like Evenstar, has good skills and wants to kayak in the broads, then you have to understand the risks and compensate for them. Like someone else here suggested, put a flag on the bow or stern so it's easier to see you. It's perfectly legal to walk down Meredith Neck Road at midnight on a cloudy weekend night in the Summer, but if I were to do so I's understand that it could be dangerous and wear something light in color, maybe even reflective or carry a flashlight so I am visible. It's not required but I ain't no dummy! Safety goes both ways. When you engage in something you know could be risky you make sure you account for it. It's so crazy to scream "I want a law" rather than to accept some personal responsibility for our endeavors.

I heard a couple proponents repeatedly use the term excessive speed, but not speeding. I think this says a lot to the opposition. It's not speeding, but excessive speed they keep talking about. Excessive speed can be defined as 10 MPH when within 150' of anything else. That's speeding, and I bet that happens a zillion times more than boats traveling over 45 MPH. I have had close calls on my PWCs at slow speeds and none with boats at high speeds. All were 150' infractions. I am always watching everything around me, not because of fear, but because I just don't want to get hurt.

I heard 2 people speak to the 600 person survey. I would want to know more about the sampling. How many of those 600 boat on Winni and how many boat on really small lakes? How many don't boat at all? Exactly what was aksed and how was the question asked? For example" "Excuse me sir, would you be in favor of a speed limit on NH lakes knowing that people are dying ev ery day in high speed accidents on our waters?" or "Do you think we need speed limits on NH lakes?". I personally dismiss this so called survey. I don't believe it to be a fair representation of Winni boaters, which is what this bill is about.

I can't offer an opinion as to how I think it went. I know they listened to all testimonials, asked reasonable questions, and took notes and so in that respect it was a good hearing. Noone got upset, there was no yelling or fighting. I'm glad I went and showed my opposition to the bill and am thankful to all those who were opposed and offered lots of reasons why we don't need the bill passed.

By vested interest, I meant the users of the lake, not the citizens who "own" the lake.

I understand you. However polling the most interested group is not really the point. The citizens own the lake and have the responsibility, through their elected representatives, for regulating it.

If it were a law regulating large trucks would you only poll truckers? For a poll on casino gambling in NH, would you only poll gamblers?

It would depend on the law being proposed. For example, if the law was for regulating large trucks on restricted access highways, then I would want to poll the people who actually use those highways. I think the highway users opinion should carry more weight than the opinion of one who never uses the highway.

My opinion is that polling the most interested group is the way to go. Sure, all citizens opinions matter. As stated above, the users opinion should carry more weight than a non-user.

I don't necessarily agree. Laws regulating large trucks would potentially affect everyone on the road depending on the type of law. Casino gambling as well would affect all as it can change many things to do with our society.

Some voter in Manchester who has never been on a boat on Winnipesaukee and never will , and who have no knowledge of boating really is not an important opinion in my view. Regulating boating laws on Winnipesaukee has a much tighter circle of effect.

Once again a spin that dizzies up the mind. Talk about comparing apples to MANGOS for gods sake. Why should anyone who has never even boated on Winni and never intends to have anything to say? This a recreational issue. I could care less what speed they travel on "xyz lake" in Massachusetts. Why should I tell those people how to use the lake they frequent? Why? Is it my civic duty to regulate their activities?

They "should" have a say because it's their lake. It is their responsibility and their property. In fact they have the final say.

However I think polls, especially exit polls, are used to much in our society. I have quoted this poll to counter the idea that the "people" don't want HB847. I will admit it would be difficult not to use a poll that so clearly supports your argument.

The weakness of this poll is not that many will not have boated on Winnipesaukee. It's the inadvisability of relying on the opinion of people that know very little about about the details and history of the topic.

Local knowledge should = local control
 

NH citizens that are lake users should have a stronger say on lake issues than the general NH population, because they have more knowledge of reality. The NH general population should get involved with issues such as water quality and economic issues, but should stay away from micromanagement of how to drive a boat - especially since the rules already define safe boating.

My big problem with the polls is that they can (and have been) impacted by a PR campaign. The image that the WinnFabs have been promoting is a lake that is out of control. It has been effective in swaying opinion, and no doubt impacting the local economy. On most of the lake, most of the time, it is far from true.

More smoke and mirrors....
 

Folks,

If the proponents wanted to do a survey that was fair, they would have done it in Laconia, or Meredith, or Alton, or Wolfeboro. However, if they did the survey in one of these places, they knew they would not get the desired result. So they did the survey in Manchester, not a center of lake knowledge in my opinion, after a well-designed PR campaign that told the people in Manchester that the lake was full of dangerously fast boats. They got the result they wanted even though the people that they polled had no first-hand knowledge of boating on the lake.

In the end they got "hard evidence". That is what they wanted and that is what they bought!

Do not get fooled by this!! Of course it makes no sense. They paid for a survey that would support their cause. That is exactly what it is. The survey is complete crap!! They know it and we know it. However, it supports their cause just like the other smoke and mirrors they use.

I hope that in the end, the Senate will see through all of this and do the right thing. I believe the Senate knows crap when they see it.

R2B

What evidence do you have that the proponents did this survey?

Do you have evidence that the proponents paid for this survey as you claim?

Some guy at the meeting presented these stats
 

He is policy director of some pro hb847 group and he presented the stats as though they collected them. Lame presentation, and he didn't sell it well.

APS your jetski/sufer picture is priceless. How ignorant do you think people are? Most legit surfing competitions HIRE jetskis to bring surfers out, rescue stranded surfers and to be available in case of surfer emergency. Your picture is just an example of mother nature and how unpredictable she can be. Shame on you for your blatant fear mongering and trying to link this picture with ANYTHING that could happen on the lake...tsk tsk tsk.

I'm a-diggin' you KonaChick... one more keen eye and sharp mind keeping a look out! ;):D

APS - duuuuude, looks like you have no surfing experience either, huh!?! ;):rolleye2:

http://www.winnfabs.com/StatewidePoll.htm

ARG did the survey and they do not work for free.

WINNSFABS is using the data.

Who else would have paid for it??

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it is a duck!!


R2B

Sounds like pretty solid evidence to me! Hard to deny that.

News Article in Fosters today:

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...805/-1/CITNEWS

I can't believe I missed that part of his post. I actually saw that video on TV recently, on one of those "Worlds Wildest Video" shows. The jet ski was there for the exact reason you state...to assist the surfers. The guy on the jet ski came across the top of the wave and went a hair too far, and the wave sucked him in. There was nothing he could do. And I have to say, he was in no way going at an excessive speed. Except for when the jet ski was riderless going down the wave. :eek:
Anyway, the guy was supposed to be there. He just mishandled a wave. Nice try on the horror spin and fear mongering APS.