Kayak Legislation

[rick35]

I read in today’s NH Sunday News that there are two bills in the works related to kayaks. Kayak fees are on the docket as are required visibility flags.

I do not support fees as I don’t see how it can be administered or enforced. That would add another responsibility to law enforcement and they already have plenty on their plates. And we would need a way for people to easily get a sticker. I think the $10 fee could be used up with administration and enforcement leaving little or nothing for safety and ramp improvement.

As for visibility flags I’m not sure. I have bright orange kayaks and wear an orange PFD and I have had a few close calls. Is a small flag going to help? Probably not if a boater is distracted. But there are a lot of dark kayaks on the lake and a flag may help in those cases.

[thinkxingu]

No on fees and flags. Unnecessary burdens and the $10 cost will be eaten by administrative costs with close to zero percent chance of enforcement.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[radar4401]

I agree with the wasted administration costs. I put it with all the other loony laws they want to put into law. What are you going to do with visitors? A big disincentive to come to NH.

[MAXUM]

Link to some of the bills under consideration including the aforementioned.

https://www.unionleader.com/news/pol...152e0fb16.html


As I read some of this stuff I often times wonder why this stuff gets serious consideration when you look at some of the actual challenges that are of ongoing concern to the citizens of this state. Keep that in mind as you read some of this nonsense, and I guarantee you that when these sponsors are running for election they never mention the stuff they actually are spending their time on. Both political parties are guilty of this and it's pretty disgusting.

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Link to some of the bills under consideration including the aforementioned.

https://www.unionleader.com/news/pol...152e0fb16.html


As I read some of this stuff I often times wonder why this stuff gets serious consideration when you look at some of the actual challenges that are of ongoing concern to the citizens of this state. Keep that in mind as you read some of this nonsense, and I guarantee you that when these sponsors are running for election they never mention the stuff they actually are spending their time on. Both political parties are guilty of this and it's pretty disgusting.

What an incredible waste of time money and resources.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[tis]

It makes you wonder if they don't have something better to do than sit and think up more laws, rules and regulations.

[MAXUM]

I'd like to see a bill making it a Class A felony to waste the state's resources introducing useless legislation. Most of that short list would qualify.

[Kamper]

Two talking points on fees...

$10 is the camel's nose under the tent. More to come.

If more folks put ID stickers on their kayaks, the MP would know where to start looking, and for whom, the dozen or so times a year they find empties in the water. This may have muted the calls for formal registration.

I know several people who have multiple kayaks because 2nd 3rd 4th... hand they are cheap. The will moan about registering all of them. I would too but since I don't have one, I would like them to pay something for the services they are using IE state ramps and access points, parks, rescue and patrol services. Especially the MP chasing down the GoFast that wake-washed their kid in violation of no-wake laws and common sense.

[Winilyme]

I've got three bright kayaks that we've been using on the lake for five years with no issues. As for taxing yakkers for using ramps, parks, rescue and patrol services, seriously, what percentage of those costs could possibly be attributable to kayaks? Mind you, I have no problems with my motorboaters registration.

Yet, there are irresponsible kayakers out there just as there are irresponsible motorboaters. And in both cases they are the primary drivers of a need to enforce. Because enforcing requires resources, if anything, increase fines for irresponsible behavior to cover any funding needs. Don't tax folks that are using the lake in a low impact, environmentally sensitive manner and in my experience are nearly always respectful to their surroundings.

By the way, I can't say I know the stats so maybe I'm missing something here. But I would wager that there are a lot more bike (the peddle version) related accidents than there are with kayaks. Are they going to require annual bike registration now too?

Ridiculous.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

I've got three bright kayaks that we've been using on the lake for five years with no issues. As for taxing yakkers for using ramps, parks, rescue and patrol services, seriously, what percentage of those costs could possibly be attributable to kayaks? Mind you, I have no problems with my motorboaters registration.

Yet, there are irresponsible kayakers out there just as there are irresponsible motorboaters. And in both cases they are the primary drivers of a need to enforce. Because enforcing requires resources, if anything, increase fines for irresponsible behavior to cover any funding needs. Don't tax folks that are using the lake in a low impact, environmentally sensitive manner and in my experience are nearly always respectful to their surroundings.

By the way, I can't say I know the stats so maybe I'm missing something here. But I would wager that there are a lot more bike (the peddle version) related accidents than there are with kayaks. Are they going to require annual bike registration now too?

Ridiculous.

Agreed. If they're short on cash, I'd have no problem with an increased registration on my sailboat. But a kayak fee of $10 is just ridiculous--they have virtually zero environmental or enforcement expenses

[tis]

I was just reminded that people whose boats are not registered in NH don't contribute to the costs of using the lake. Excellent point don't you think?

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by tis

I was just reminded that people whose boats are not registered in NH don't contribute to the costs of using the lake. Excellent point don't you think?

Don't forget NH boats don't pay a fee in other states, except most notably Lake George NY.

Dave

[tis]

Originally Posted by upthesaukee

Don't forget NH boats don't pay a fee in other states, except most notably Lake George NY.

Dave

But if we are going to argue that kayaks need to pay a fee to contribute to the services their owners use, then we must argue that boats the come in from another state should contribute, don't you agree?

[Descant]

This bill has been brought up in the past, or something similar, and has always died. However, there is some validity to the issues brought up by more and more kayaks. Not on the lakes so much, but the ones who test themselves on spring river rapids and don't pass the test. Fish and Game and MP still have to do search and rescue or recovery.
As someone who pays power boat registration fees that benefit ramps and access that I don't use, I'm happy to have yakkers contribute to these facilities. However, it looks like, after $3 overhead, the money goes 50% to Navigation safety fund (MP) and the other 50% of this fee goes to lake restoration and preservation (e.g. milfoil control). Nothing for ramps?

The big hangup is, nobody has any idea how many kayaks are out there. It's hard to justify a new fee when you don't have any idea how much money it will generate, unless you just like new fees. If it doesn't bring in enough, just raise it next year.
Here's the bill: http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_sta...txtFormat=html

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Top-Water

Reciprocity

Not arguing with you ......... but what if everyone who works in Massachusetts who lives up here had to purchase a car registration for down there.

Some things in life just don't seem to be fair. But they kinda are. There are a lot more cars crossing the border towards mass 5 days a week than there are boats

Don't forget...for those of us that have the pleasure of working in MA and living in NH we still pay MA state income tax. That's not nothing!

[Barney Bear]

Perhaps the next watercraft to require registration will be paddleboards. OUCH!

[barefootbay]

How about canoes and row boats ?

[fatlazyless]

By paddling, rowing or sailing (a sailboat under 12') you really save a lot on the annual registration, motor, gasoline, and insurance by not having any annual registration, motor, gasoline, or insurance. The cost for annual NH motorboat registration starts at about $50/year.

So, paying $10/year is very small potatoes compared to what you save by going "human power."

In addition, the law says it applies to paddle/row vessels launched from a public launch ramp, and does not apply to paddle/row vessels launched from private property.

.... NH needs to keep on paddling!

[tis]

At one time out of state registered boats could not operate on the lake.

[MAXUM]

So this is interesting.... if you read the bill being proposed. This does not appear to be a mandatory "fee". Instead it establishes a "donation" program for operators of non motorized boats. The F&G shall administer it.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill...xtFormat=amend

Not sure where the author of the Union Leader article got his information, clearly didn't he actually read the bill.

[8gv]

Last month I noticed several leaves floating in the lake.

They had fallen from one of my trees.

This week I got a notice in the mail telling me to register them!

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by 8gv

Last month I noticed several leaves floating in the lake.

They had fallen from one of my trees.

This week I got a notice in the mail telling me to register them!

Was that before or after you got the note from DES telling you that tree cannot be cut down or trimmed?

[Descant]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

So this is interesting.... if you read the bill being proposed. This does not appear to be a mandatory "fee". Instead it establishes a "donation" program for operators of non motorized boats. The F&G shall administer it.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill...xtFormat=amend

Not sure where the author of the Union Leader article got his information, clearly didn't he actually read the bill.

Some years ago the gas tax refund form was changed to allow donations to these same two funds (Navigation safety and Lake preservation). As much as people whined then that these functions (Milfoil and MP) were underfunded, not many people stepped up with a (tax deductible) donation to support these issues. We could still use more MP and less milfoil, right?
As long as these two issues continue to be problematic, there will be attempts to find better funding, mostly from those who benefit, rather than the general taxpayer, which is mostly business taxes since individuals pay little or no state taxes as such (Yeah, Yeah. I know. Interest and dividends. And this year, they tried to add capital gains).

[tis]

Originally Posted by Descant

Some years ago the gas tax refund form was changed to allow donations to these same two funds (Navigation safety and Lake preservation). As much as people whined then that these functions (Milfoil and MP) were underfunded, not many people stepped up with a (tax deductible) donation to support these issues. We could still use more MP and less milfoil, right?
As long as these two issues continue to be problematic, there will be attempts to find better funding, mostly from those who benefit, rather than the general taxpayer, which is mostly business taxes since individuals pay little or no state taxes as such (Yeah, Yeah. I know. Interest and dividends. And this year, they tried to add capital gains).

I agree, and I don't think any lake related taxes have decrease yet we seem to have less MP coverage on the lake. Money doesn't always get used for what is intended.

[chaseisland]

As I've said before, live fee or die.

[The Real BigGuy]

I always chuckle when I hear people complaining about new fees, taxes, and tax increases but at the same time want annual pay raises for themselves (but fight over raises for state employees) want more or better recreational services, want better roads, when they complain about RE tax increases but not about the increased market value of their homes, and generally when THEY want but don’t want to pay. Where do they think the $$$ are going to come from? Oh, right, this is NH - it’s THE OTHER GUY’s responsibility to pay.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by tis

It makes you wonder if they don't have something better to do than sit and think up more laws, rules and regulations.

That's exactly the problem. Most legislators measure themselves on how much new legislation they introduce, and they promote the bills/laws they created when they run for re-election.

Wouldn't it be great if we started voting for the ones who DON'T create new laws/rules, and even better, repeal many of the useless ones already there.

[Winnisquamer]

Originally Posted by chaseisland

As I've said before, live fee or die.

That ship sailed into the abyss about a decade and a half ago.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

That's exactly the problem. Most legislators measure themselves on how much new legislation they introduce, and they promote the bills/laws they created when they run for re-election.

Wouldn't it be great if we started voting for the ones who DON'T create new laws/rules, and even better, repeal many of the useless ones already there.

Absolutely. And if they get in and create more laws/rules/taxes, then we vote them out next time. Incumbents seem to keep getting voted back in. Most don't have any idea what they have done. It's all about name recognition I think.

[chaseisland]

Was a state employee for 46 years. Thus I'll claim my right to complain about fees.

[Lin]

First off our family owns 7 kayaks and 2 canoes. 7 out of 9 are brightly colored. And all of our life jackets are bright red or yellow. I would not be for a mandatory fee but as the real bill to be introduced offers, I could picture donating a fee but don’t feel it should be required because this bill is not specific to lake Winni but it would be all lakes; rivers and ponds regardless of size across the entire state. That would make enforcement ridiculous. Also that is not a small flag the other bill wants, it is 4’ We don’t have motors (elect/gas) on any of ours but I know in MA you have to have a canoe registered to use an engine and I can see that.

I also think that a lot of people that kayak and canoe give to various non-profit groups like loon preservation; lakes region conservation trust, New Hampshire Lakes Association, lake Winnipesaukee association and similar across the state, I do.

Crazy bill cause I could see bikes next like someone else said. Besides New Hampshire is the live free or die state.

[bigdog]

This Bill and potential law is a total outrage, ridiculous, and just another tax generating fee by the folks in Concord who represent us. I've never heard of a such law in another State ?

Only way to prevent this bill from passing is for everyone to contact their State Representatives in both the House and Senate to voice their objection.
They'll be a LOT of State offices up for re-election in the next election, and they seem to only listen to the voters during this time.

This Bill must be stopped dead in it's tracks, as it's not only bad for NH taxpayers who own and use kayaks/canoes on our lakes, ponds, and rivers, but for all the tourists who use their kayaks on NH waterways.

[thinkxingu]

According to one of the links above, the bill is sponsored by Jeff Goley from Manchester. I have emailed him for clarification (voluntary vs. mandatory) and rationale. I will report whatever I hear (or not).

Happy New Year!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by bigdog

This Bill and potential law is a total outrage, ridiculous, and just another tax generating fee by the folks in Concord who represent us. I've never heard of a such law in another State ?

Only way to prevent this bill from passing is for everyone to contact their State Representatives in both the House and Senate to voice their objection.
They'll be a LOT of State offices up for re-election in the next election, and they seem to only listen to the voters during this time.

This Bill must be stopped dead in it's tracks, as it's not only bad for NH taxpayers who own and use kayaks/canoes on our lakes, ponds, and rivers, but for all the tourists who use their kayaks on NH waterways.

agreed

here is an idea, enforce existing safe boater laws that are already in place. They apply to any and all water craft.

our legislators like to law us to death and ignore existing laws. I think they think that if the put a law out there for every possible situation it will work and that just telling people what the law is will stop them from doing something. When the simplest enforcement of existing laws will work and has been proven.

hey you, with the kayak kayaking across boats in the channel, here is a warning and then a ticket, knock it off,
hey you with the motorboat going way to close to swimmers or another watercraft, knock it off or here's a ticket.

does all drunk driving laws prevent drunk driving? No
but enforcement of the law with check points and harsh fines certainly put a dent in it along with creating awareness of not that just drunk driving is bad, but oh crap i better not get caught cause I need my license so I will just not try it.

Repeat offenders are repeat offenders because they do not learn their lesson either from their own choosing or the courts not making them learn their lesson

[thinkxingu]

Here is the response I received. The details make the bill make much more sense.

"The original bill was for a $10 registration fee on canoes and kayaks that used state public launches. Currently these access sites are funded through motor boat registration fees. Approximately 43 percent of launches are only accessible to canoes and kayaks while the maintenance for these sites are paid through registration of motor boats. I am not sure why canoe and kayak owners feel they should not have to pay a small fee to maintain and increase access to NH waters. I see it as a matter of fairness to all who enjoy the use of these launch sites.

The bill has been amended to make it a voluntary program similar to the hike safe card. The funds generated will go to the state boat access fund.

I have attached a link to a Union Leader editorial from a few years back regarding this issue.

https://www.unionleader.com/opinion/...d65c3c4e1.html


Rep. Jeff Goley"

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[AC2717]

how will they know when I come off my private land with my kayak that I did not come off of a launch? or a friend was visiting with their kayak and came off private land

that to me is a major flaw here

[Lin]

Originally Posted by AC2717

how will they know when I come off my private land with my kayak that I did not come off of a launch? or a friend was visiting with their kayak and came off private land

that to me is a major flaw here

I was going to say the same thing. Not everyone uses a launch. We don’t we use our association beach to launch. There are thousands of private homes and associations and non launch carry ins throughout the state.

Another thought I had after I posted last night was instead of a registration (although now voluntary) would be a say a $5.00 mandatory “tax” placed on the end sale of new canoes and kayaks that would go into maintaining ramps and for services rendered. There are definitely pros and cons to the idea though. but would be the easiest and most consistent program vs a registration. The cons are we already have our kayaks canoes and burden would be placed on new owners and repeat buyers. Also it is another tax but if the state wants fiscal responsibility of canoes and kayaks it is a fairer option vs catching up with all the older ones already on the lakes ponds and rivers statewide.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by AC2717

how will they know when I come off my private land with my kayak that I did not come off of a launch? or a friend was visiting with their kayak and came off private land

that to me is a major flaw here

Since you are not using the launch ramp you are not affected. Since it is voluntary you can choose whether to participate, or not.

The explanation by the State Representative said the intent was to have users of the ramps pay something towards maintenance. It was felt that the ramps are currently maintained using motorboat registration fees and that was unfair since there are other users of the ramps that do not contribute towards their upkeep.

Although I am not in favor of more government regulations and fees, with the explanation the intent of the legislation makes sense to me.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Since you are not using the launch ramp you are not affected. Since it is voluntary you can choose whether to participate, or not.

The explanation by the State Representative said the intent was to have users of the ramps pay something towards maintenance. It was felt that the ramps are currently maintained using motorboat registration fees and that was unfair since there are other users of the ramps that do not contribute towards their upkeep.

Although I am not in favor of more government regulations and fees, with the explanation the intent of the legislation makes sense to me.

Agreed on all points.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Descant]

Looks like: When you go into a club or theater, you buy a ticket or pay a cover charge. When you enter some, not all, state parks, you pay an entrance fee. Sounds like this is similar. You buy a sticker (season pass) to use a ramp provided and maintained by Fish and Game. If you're using a ramp owned by your association, you're paying through HOA fees. No sticker needed. Similar, right?
If Thinkxingu (sp?) has a copy of Rep. Goley's amendment, it would be great to publish it here. One of the quirks of the legislature is that they publish bills on line that have not been passed, but they don't put amendments on line until they pass. As we see in this thread, an amendment can make significant changes even before there is a public hearing.

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by Descant

Looks like: When you go into a club or theater, you buy a ticket or pay a cover charge. When you enter some, not all, state parks, you pay an entrance fee. Sounds like this is similar. You buy a sticker (season pass) to use a ramp provided and maintained by Fish and Game. If you're using a ramp owned by your association, you're paying through HOA fees. No sticker needed. Similar, right?
If Thinkxingu (sp?) has a copy of Rep. Goley's amendment, it would be great to publish it here. One of the quirks of the legislature is that they publish bills on line that have not been passed, but they don't put amendments on line until they pass. As we see in this thread, an amendment can make significant changes even before there is a public hearing.

Fish and game ramps are free to boaters...example, the Wellington state park ramp is a fish and game ramp and in summer when you trailer a boat in to launch there is no “park” fee. Beach users pay a fee. All fish and game ramps are free to boaters/fishermen.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

Fish and game ramps are free to boaters...example, the Wellington state park ramp is a fish and game ramp and in summer when you trailer a boat in to launch there is no “park” fee. Beach users pay a fee. All fish and game ramps are free to boaters/fishermen.

I haven't read the amendment, but it sounds like "free, but if you want to help keep it up, buy a sticker": Power boats pay through their registration for as variety of state funds. As noted above, some launches cater only to carry in craft. I believe Rep. Goley is a member of the House F & G Committee and is offering this as a contribution to F & G finances without raising hunting and fishing license fees.

[Hillcountry]

If kayaks and other paddle craft use public/state facilities they should pay as they may be taking up precious parking spaces for those that do pay (power boats and fishermen)
I have a tracked UTV vehicle that is not allowed on snowmobile trails (too wide) but I must register it as “other” with a full snowmobile/ATV registration even though all I do is drive into the ice for ice fishing. I maintain that there should be an “ice fishing only” sticker at a reduced rate. Everyone that uses the state’s resources should pay for their privilege.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

If kayaks and other paddle craft use public/state facilities they should pay as they may be taking up precious parking spaces for those that do pay (power boats and fishermen)
I have a tracked UTV vehicle that is not allowed on snowmobile trails (too wide) but I must register it as “other” with a full snowmobile/ATV registration even though all I do is drive into the ice for ice fishing. I maintain that there should be an “ice fishing only” sticker at a reduced rate. Everyone that uses the state’s resources should pay for their privilege.

Interresting idea. Write to Rep. Goley, or others on the F & G Committee. Maybe they'll do more amending?

[bigdog]

I'm not a pessimist or being negative here, but if anyone thinks or believes this Kayak/Canoe registration fee will actually be used for F & G budget, I think you're dreaming...

This registration may be initially earmarked for F & G purpose, but when the State needs additional funding for a new project, or to offset another State fund bucket, they move the money around at their will, that's just a fact.
If there was a guaranty that the registration money would stay in F&G budget
that would be great, they need the money and that Dept. is always way under-funded.

The new registration may be optional at first, but that's just to allow legislators to get their footing established, to make it permanent ! Tell me that doesn't happen ?

Not to digress here, but I remember the story about funding the Mass. Turnpike. The Mass Legislature sold the taxpayers the story that the loan to fund the project would be a 30 yr Bond loan, after that there would be no more tolls.The turnpike opened in 1957, and you know the rest of the story....

Apologies for going off-topic, and sorry to open any wounds, but this is just an example when State govt. goes off the rails !

[Descant]

Originally Posted by bigdog

I'm not a pessimist or being negative here, but if anyone thinks or believes this Kayak/Canoe registration fee will actually be used for F & G budget, I think you're dreaming...

This registration may be initially earmarked for F & G purpose, but when the State needs additional funding for a new project, or to offset another State fund bucket, they move the money around at their will, that's just a fact.
If there was a guaranty that the registration money would stay in F&G budget
that would be great, they need the money and that Dept. is always way under-funded.

The new registration may be optional at first, but that's just to allow legislators to get their footing established, to make it permanent ! Tell me that doesn't happen ?...

There may be a little truth in your thoughts, but it does take a new law passed and signed by the governor to move money out of dedicated funds. Different from a departments operating budget where things can be moved around. In order to raid a dedicated fund you have to go through the whole legislative process. So, most dedicated funds get spent down so there won't be enough to raid.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Descant

Looks like: When you go into a club or theater, you buy a ticket or pay a cover charge. When you enter some, not all, state parks, you pay an entrance fee. Sounds like this is similar. You buy a sticker (season pass) to use a ramp provided and maintained by Fish and Game. If you're using a ramp owned by your association, you're paying through HOA fees. No sticker needed. Similar, right?
If Thinkxingu (sp?) has a copy of Rep. Goley's amendment, it would be great to publish it here. One of the quirks of the legislature is that they publish bills on line that have not been passed, but they don't put amendments on line until they pass. As we see in this thread, an amendment can make significant changes even before there is a public hearing.

See my posting #25 which includes a link to the current amendment.

[kawishiwi]

Originally Posted by AC2717

how will they know when I come off my private land with my kayak that I did not come off of a launch? or a friend was visiting with their kayak and came off private land

that to me is a major flaw here

Not so hard, just enforce the law at the access.

[FlyingScot]

I posted against this before Think's excellent detective work. But I am in favor of those using public launches chipping in 10 or 20 bucks per year to help the lake.

Actually, at the risk of incurring widespread wrath, I would support $10-20 per public ramp use of every boat, registered or not, money to be earmarked for lake ecology programs. It's similar to the fees for state parks, about the same price as a ticket to the movies, and just a bit extra on the day's gas bill.

[tis]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

I posted against this before Think's excellent detective work. But I am in favor of those using public launches chipping in 10 or 20 bucks per year to help the lake.

Actually, at the risk of incurring widespread wrath, I would support $10-20 per public ramp use of every boat, registered or not, money to be earmarked for lake ecology programs. It's similar to the fees for state parks, about the same price as a ticket to the movies, and just a bit extra on the day's gas bill.

I agree, if kayaks have to pay a fee at the ramps all boats should.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by tis

I agree, if kayaks have to pay a fee at the ramps all boats should.

Registered boats already pay, through their registration, for lake protection (milfoil) MP, Search and Rescue (Fish & Game), etc. A portion of un-refunded gas tax also goes to F&G each year.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Descant

Registered boats already pay, through their registration, for lake protection (milfoil) MP, Search and Rescue (Fish & Game), etc. A portion of un-refunded gas tax also goes to F&G each year.

It does if it's registered in NH.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by tis

It does if it's registered in NH.

That is true. However there are also boats that register in New Hampshire that may never be used in New Hampshire waters so they are contributing to the state without using any of the resources.

(I heard this from a friend)

[tis]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

That is true. However there are also boats that register in New Hampshire that may never be used in New Hampshire waters so they are contributing to the state without using any of the resources.

(I heard this from a friend)

Or you might have three or four boats that you pay for but wouldn't use any more than if you just had one so you would be paying more. There are all kind of ifs.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Since you are not using the launch ramp you are not affected. Since it is voluntary you can choose whether to participate, or not.

The explanation by the State Representative said the intent was to have users of the ramps pay something towards maintenance. It was felt that the ramps are currently maintained using motorboat registration fees and that was unfair since there are other users of the ramps that do not contribute towards their upkeep.

Although I am not in favor of more government regulations and fees, with the explanation the intent of the legislation makes sense to me.

fully understand that, but how to the "enforcers" of the law know that

[Descant]

Originally Posted by AC2717

fully understand that, but how to the "enforcers" of the law know that

If the amendment passes, it is voluntary. Nothing to enforce. I expect to see more amendments since the amendment to give funds to public water access is different from the original bill which gave money to MP and lake protection (milfoil control).

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Descant

If the amendment passes, it is voluntary. Nothing to enforce. I expect to see more amendments since the amendment to give funds to public water access is different from the original bill which gave money to MP and lake protection (milfoil control).

even more foolish, yes let's waste time on voluntary fees but pay someone real tax dollars to process it

[Descant]

Originally Posted by AC2717

even more foolish, yes let's waste time on voluntary fees but pay someone real tax dollars to process it

The overhead is covered from the fee, not tax dollars. Fish and Game, like the parks division at DNCR, is essentially self-supporting and does not rely on tax dollars.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Descant

The overhead is covered from the fee, not tax dollars. Fish and Game, like the parks division at DNCR, is essentially self-supporting and does not rely on tax dollars.

all realized, but in reality is there enough "voluntary fee payments" going to cover the costs associated

never understood the purpose of "voluntary" when it comes to fees. Either it is a required fee or not? otherwise its a donation, and its something that can be done on end user level and not at the state level where as previously posted by others, won't amount to much more than an toe in the door for more to come.

C'mon people it is a kayak

[Descant]

AC2717: The original bill charged a fee. The amendment changed that to voluntary. Don't cross the two.
The example they're following is other voluntary plans in the parks division such as a "Parks" license plate and a "Hike safe" card. The "Moose" plate has raised substantial funds for conservation. The parks also use "Iron Rangers" to collect parking fees at trail heads. It's mostly an honor system. Seems to work. Carry in Carry out, mostly works, although I guess there will always be some people who leave trash and litter. I giggle at the (local) park that has a Carry in Carry out sign next to a trash barrel. I guess for people who can't read.
The reason for such a ramp fund bill is that it enables Fish and Game to print and sell the stickers and it mandates where the funds will be allocated. I'd say they don't have that specific authority now. So, it's as much to direct F & G as it is to encourage sticker purchase.

[MAXUM]

Just remember that this is as previously pointed out the important part for now is putting a framework into place. At some later time with another amendment "voluntary" becomes "mandatory".

I see this as a multi year and slow walked effort but let's not be naïve here, the end game is clear and not voluntary. I'm sure some would love to charge you a fee just because you exist and other to what extent you exist.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Just remember that this is as previously pointed out the important part for now is putting a framework into place. At some later time with another amendment "voluntary" becomes "mandatory".

I see this as a multi year and slow walked effort but let's not be naïve here, the end game is clear and not voluntary. I'm sure some would love to charge you a fee just because you exist and other to what extent you exist. :rolleye2

You may be right in the long run. I recall around 2001 when $3 was added to the boat registration fee to help control Milfoil and other invasive species. I think it is up to $9.50 now. However as lake association members know, the public has been asking for more help with milfoil control. Those who use F & G ramps are asking for more improvements, better parking, etc. There is some sentiment that yakkers should participate in managing our waters instead of just saying they cause no harm (except the cost of SAR as discussed above.) I'd rather pay a directed fee where I see direct benefit, than a general tax where we trust the legislature to pick and choose my priorities.

[Descant]

We're up to post #70+ on this thread and have stayed pretty much on topic. Thank you all. It's been a good conversation.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Descant

AC2717: The original bill charged a fee. The amendment changed that to voluntary. Don't cross the two.
The example they're following is other voluntary plans in the parks division such as a "Parks" license plate and a "Hike safe" card. The "Moose" plate has raised substantial funds for conservation. The parks also use "Iron Rangers" to collect parking fees at trail heads. It's mostly an honor system. Seems to work. Carry in Carry out, mostly works, although I guess there will always be some people who leave trash and litter. I giggle at the (local) park that has a Carry in Carry out sign next to a trash barrel. I guess for people who can't read.
The reason for such a ramp fund bill is that it enables Fish and Game to print and sell the stickers and it mandates where the funds will be allocated. I'd say they don't have that specific authority now. So, it's as much to direct F & G as it is to encourage sticker purchase.

Was it FLL who was seen reaching into that barrel and carrying some items out?

[MAXUM]

The state could always consider adding a option on every boat registration renewal to donate $$

There is no option to donate to this when purchasing a fishing license, there are other options but not this specifically.

The state could also consider using the lottery to raise money where certain special games could be introduced specifically benefitting the F&G.

[AC2717]

if we are really looking at accepting a charge or voluntary fee then
instead of a kayak fee, charge a parking fee for the vehicle in the parking areas for ramp access
now it becomes - not a on water enforcement or a ramp enforcement. and you do not need people to run it, just a pay station in the parking lot, and when they don't pay the police can ticket and generate revenue that way for the town as well.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by AC2717

if we are really looking at accepting a charge or voluntary fee then
instead of a kayak fee, charge a parking fee for the vehicle in the parking areas for ramp access
now it becomes - not a on water enforcement or a ramp enforcement. and you do not need people to run it, just a pay station in the parking lot, and when they don't pay the police can ticket and generate revenue that way for the town as well.

Difficult to enforce.

How would you know if they had launched a kayak and owed the fee?

What if the vehicle owner is just there to jump on a friends powerboat for the day? That friend would have already paid his "fee" through registration.

Would you exclude vehicles with trailers that might have hauled a boat, but could have brought in a kayak?

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Difficult to enforce.

How would you know if they had launched a kayak and owed the fee?

What if the vehicle owner is just there to jump on a friends powerboat for the day? That friend would have already paid his "fee" through registration.

Would you exclude vehicles with trailers that might have hauled a boat, but could have brought in a kayak?

simple, just like a regular parking lot, doesn't mater if boat or kayak, your car is in the lot you pay to use it. I'm not deciphering between boat or kayak

[rick35]

Originally Posted by AC2717

simple, just like a regular parking lot, doesn't mater if boat or kayak, your car is in the lot you pay to use it. I'm not deciphering between boat or kayak

What lots would I need to pay to use? I already pay taxes to Meredith for poor parking at Shep Browns. Would you have me pay again? This is a very complicated topic. Every idea that has been discussed has flaws. If you can’t do it equitably the best solution is to not do it at all.

[fatlazyless]

Down at the parking lot at the Weirs Beach sandy beach area, the City of Laconia has a $2.00/hour pay-to-park parking lot system in place that uses a single pay station, takes quarters or credit cards, and has numbered all the different parking spaces with space numbers.

It seems to work very good, especially with using 2-quarters for 15-minutes, or 8-quarters for one hour.

A pay-to-park system seems like a doable situation for getting users to pay, at your local boat launch ramp ......... like, why not!

[thinkxingu]

It sounds like most people realize and understand the need for financial support for lake access in NH. Whether that is a result of revenue vs. needs or proper diversion of funds and how to fix the problem or raise the needed funds seems to be the sticking points.

I have no answers for those, but can we just take a moment to celebrate this joyful moment of positive discussion? GOOOO TEAMMMM!!!

Seriously, though, the Hike Safe card has really earned a following--each year, I see reminders posted on hiking forums I belong to and the overwhelming response is that it's worth supporting.

Is maybe a "Boat Safe" card an option, where a portion of the money goes to marine safety organizations and the rest into making sure water access facilities are safe? Maybe the state could work out a deal with restaurants, businesses, tow companies, etc. for discounts to those who purchase one?

I'd gladly hand over $20 for a Boat Safe card if I could save even 5% on a trip to ParaFUNalia or $5 off a fill-up at Ambrose Cove or...ooh! ooh! a free topping on my Candy Bar Explosion sundae at the new 19-Mile Bay store!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[rick35]

I think the moose plates idea might be a way to get donations. I see a lot of them on the road so it looks like it is a success. Maybe a plate with a nautical flag sticker to show your support? Sign me up!

[Hillcountry]

Simple. Just make kayakers buy a $5 sticker to use the vessel on any state waters...same with canoes, paddle boats etc...$5 doesn’t break anyone’s bank roll and it pays their way to support the resource.
Marine patrol/F&G can enforce as a regular duty on their lakes. Make the sticker large enough to see at a distance. Solved.
These vessels have had a free ride for long enough.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

It sounds like most people realize and understand the need for financial support for lake access in NH. Whether that is a result of revenue vs. needs or proper diversion of funds and how to fix the problem or raise the needed funds seems to be the sticking points.

I have no answers for those, but can we just take a moment to celebrate this joyful moment of positive discussion? GOOOO TEAMMMM!!!

Seriously, though, the Hike Safe card has really earned a following--each year, I see reminders posted on hiking forums I belong to and the overwhelming response is that it's worth supporting.

Is maybe a "Boat Safe" card an option, where a portion of the money goes to marine safety organizations and the rest into making sure water access facilities are safe? Maybe the state could work out a deal with restaurants, businesses, tow companies, etc. for discounts to those who purchase one?

I'd gladly hand over $20 for a Boat Safe card if I could save even 5% on a trip to ParaFUNalia or $5 off a fill-up at Ambrose Cove or...ooh! ooh! a free topping on my Candy Bar Explosion sundae at the new 19-Mile Bay store!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

How much do you think the state would have to increase the business profits tax to offset the reduced revenue from commercial establishments that offer the discount?

Remember, any amount taken off the gross revenue of a business is profit not realized.

[Winilyme]

Might as well include bicycles too while we're at it. US News ranks NH 44th worst out of 50 states for transportation infrastructure. CNBC gives NH an 'F'.

If we still don't have enough cash then we can forage for scraps - wagons, rafts, tricycles, drones, SUPs, baby carriages...

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

Might as well include bicycles too while we're at it. US News ranks NH 44th worst out of 50 states for transportation infrastructure. CNBC gives NH an 'F'.

If we still don't have enough cash then we can forage for scraps - wagons, rafts, tricycles, drones, SUPs, baby carriages...

You're right! Bicyclists are a PITA and pay nothing! Infrastructure...lol

[Winilyme]

Originally Posted by Top-Water

Your so cruel. What about the children.

Lemonade stand. Five $1.00 servings sold and they've got their sticker.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

You're right! Bicyclists are a PITA and pay nothing! Infrastructure...lol

It is somewhat interesting that Rt-49, 12 miles length, running through Campton, Thornton and Waterville Valley from Route 93-Exit 28 to Waterville Valley is maybe the only state road in central NH that has three foot wide, paved shoulders or side lanes suitable for bicycles.

It was totally re-constructed with these new "bicycle" lanes added in about 1982 during the Gov John Sununu administration.

Here's a big thank-you for building Route 49 with these well designed bike lanes going out to Governor John Sununu. Whatever extra it cost, it was money very well spent. It's a beautiful 12-mile bicycle pedal, traveling within the woods of the WMNF, and running along the nearby Mad River.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

Might as well include bicycles too while we're at it. CNBC gives NH an 'F'.

I'm proud to get an "F" from CNBC.

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by Top-Water

Your so cruel. What about the children.

“Children” do not belong on our roadways!

[Kamper]

Bicycles...

I lived in a town that required bikes to be registered, when I was a kid. I never heard of anyone getting a ticket for an unregistered bike and after we had lived there a couple years my folks decided we could take our chances. People with multiple bikes would register them one at a time and swap out the lights and horns/bells.

The jig was up when they ran out of stickers and told everyone not to worry since no more were going to be bought that year.

This will probably happen with canoe/kayak stickers if it is only voluntary.

[The Real BigGuy]

Kamper, your input jogged my memory. When I was a kid I remember bikes having a maybe 7 inch long vertical license plate coming up from their rear reflector. Don’t know if it was a local or state requirement but they disappeared in the late 50’s early 60’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Woodsy]

I think Kayaks should bear some of the F&G/MP burden.... $5 - $10 fee with a numbered sticker is not a bad idea.

Woodsy

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I think Kayaks should bear some of the F&G/MP burden.... $5 - $10 fee with a numbered sticker is not a bad idea.

Woodsy

Question: Are unpowered sail boats such as Sunfish types required to be registered?

If so then kayaks should be subject to the same rules

[The Real BigGuy]

I think the registration requirement for sail boats is based on length. I want to say 13 ft. but I could be wrong. I think kayaks only hit that length when you are talking high end or they are ocean kayaks.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[chachee52]

Originally Posted by joey2665

Question: Are unpowered sail boats such as Sunfish types required to be registered?

If so then kayaks should be subject to the same rules

Technically a sun fish is supposed to be registered, as I read the law. Any sailboat over 12" (if I remember correctly) and a sunfish is 13'9". This is down from 16ft back in the day that my buddy and I used to race a Hobie 16 and that did not need to be registered.
My 2 cents with this, Why can't they do a card like hikers do? If you get rescued and have the card you are taken care of, if you didn't pay for the card, you have to pay for the rescue efforts. (I understand its not as simple as that and there are other things that go on)
I do understand that there are places that kayakers are putting in and taking parking spots from boaters that are paying for registration fees. This way people that actually use ramps and such have to pay, people that just have kayaks for in front of their house and never transport them don't have to pay. And for someone like myself and my father-in-law who have multiple kayaks (he builds wooden ones) we don't have to pay $200 dollars for boats that we are only using one at a time anyway.

[bigdog]

For those registered voters who live in Gilford who wish to voice your opposition or approval to the proposed Kayak fee (HB 640), your State representative is:
Senator Harold French
District 7
Phone: 603.271.4063
email:Harold.French@leg.state.nh.us

FYI, State District 7 includes the following towns:
Andover, Belmont, Boscawen, Canterbury, Franklin, Gilford, Northfield, Salisbury, Webster and Laconia

This Bill is still in the NH 'House', so it would more sense to contact your House Rep for your town.
FYI House District 2 covers Gilford and Meredith, your House Reps are:
Glen C. Aldrich: 343 Old Lakeshore Road Lot 43 Gilford, NH 03249-6598
Harry H. Bean: 234 Saltmarsh Pond Road Gilford, 03249-7567
Deanna E. Jurius: 49 Stoney Brook Road Meredith, NH 03253-4707
Jonathan D. Mackie: 20 Campground Road Meredith, NH 03253

If I have inaccurately mis-stated anything here, please feel free to chime in.......

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by chachee52

My 2 cents with this, Why can't they do a card like hikers do? If you get rescued and have the card you are taken care of, if you didn't pay for the card, you have to pay for the rescue efforts.

This sounds remarkably similar to what thinkxingu suggested in post #79.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by bigdog

For those registered voters who live in Gilford who wish to voice your opposition or approval to the proposed Kayak fee (HB 640), your State representative is:
Senator Harold French
District 7
Phone: 603.271.4063
email:Harold.French@leg.state.nh.us

FYI, State District 7 includes the following towns:
Andover, Belmont, Boscawen, Canterbury, Franklin, Gilford, Northfield, Salisbury, Webster and Laconia

This Bill is still in the NH 'House', so it would more sense to contact your House Rep for your town.
FYI House District 2 covers Gilford and Meredith, your House Reps are:
Glen C. Aldrich: 343 Old Lakeshore Road Lot 43 Gilford, NH 03249-6598
Harry H. Bean: 234 Saltmarsh Pond Road Gilford, 03249-7567
Deanna E. Jurius: 49 Stoney Brook Road Meredith, NH 03253-4707
Jonathan D. Mackie: 20 Campground Road Meredith, NH 03253

If I have inaccurately mis-stated anything here, please feel free to chime in.......

Just be aware the current language of the bill as it sits amended is this is NOT a mandatory fee, it is establishing a voluntary "donation".

The original language of the bill did wish to establish a mandatory fee.

[bigdog]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Just be aware the current language of the bill as it sits amended is this is NOT a mandatory fee, it is establishing a voluntary "donation".

The original language of the bill did wish to establish a mandatory fee.

It may be a 'voluntary donation", as written, if the bill passes, but that allows a foot in the door, which could be changed at a later date to 'mandatory'.
Do you honestly want to take that chance? Squash the bill in it's current state.

I'm not cynical, but I don't don't believe everything the govt .tells me......
When it comes to looking for new sources of revenue, the govt will come knocking and look under every rock, this is just one of those potential rocks !

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by bigdog

It may be a 'voluntary donation", as written, if the bill passes, but that allows a foot in the door, which could be changed at a later date to 'mandatory'.
Do you honestly want to take that chance? Squash the bill in it's current state.

I'm not cynical, but I don't don't believe everything the govt .tells me......
When it comes to looking for new sources of revenue, the govt will come knocking and look under every rock, this is just one of those potential rocks !

I completely agree and said as much earlier in this discussion but if you're going to engage your representative it's probably good to know the current language as amended.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

I completely agree and said as much earlier in this discussion but if you're going to engage your representative it's probably good to know the current language as amended.

It could be weeks before the committee reports, with or without the amendment, or some other amendment. Better at this point to advocate for or against something more generic. Should yakkers participate in the costs of ramps or not? How the committee gets there is a secondary issue. Or should the original bill pass and support milfoil control and MP?

Bill as proposed: Yakkers pay for Milfoil control and MP?
Bill as amendment: Yakkers pay for more ramp access/maintenance.
third option: Kill everything and yakkers let power boats pay for everything.

[fatlazyless]

A gallon of gas now goes for about 2.33/gal here in NH.

The federal tax/gal is 18.4 cents.

New Hampshire state gas tax is 23.8 cents/gal.

Vermont state gas tax is 31.8 cents/gal.

Maine state gas tax is 30.0 cents/gal.

Massachusetts state gas tax is 26.5 cents/gal.

With many cars getting better gas mileage, say 30-miles/gal, a gallon goes further than it used to go, so maybe New Hampshire could raise the state gas tax from 23.8 up to 25.0 as a serious good way to help pay for roads, bridges, sidewalks, state police, local police, snow removal, and boat ramps.

And, eliminate the boat gas tax refund.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

A gallon of gas now goes for about 2.33/gal here in NH

And, eliminate the boat gas tax refund.

The gas tax is classified as a road use tax. It also applies to any off road equipment such as bulldozers and cranes. The law would have to be changed for that to happen and there would be substantial opposition to that change.

It would also have to take into consideration the laws regarding dyed fuel. Fuel high in sulfur and sold for uses off the road is blue; fuel low in sulfur and sold largely for tax-exempt off highway uses is red. You could expect substantial opposition from the construction industry and their lobbyists.

There was one company that got state approval (not NH) to run two fuel tanks with different fuels. When the air brake parking button was popped it automatically switched to the non-taxed fuel tank. When the brakes were released it switched back to the taxed fuel. Interesting concept.

[The Real BigGuy]

Red fuel is also home heating oil. Big issues 10 years ago with heating oil companies bringing the hose around to fill their delivery trucks.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[thinkxingu]

Posted on my town's Facebook page:

Update on that proposed bill to require a 4 foot flag on kayaks from my committee chair.

"I am pleased to report that HB1593 has been withdrawn by the sponsor. No bill to require flags on kayaks will be introduced into the House this session."

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[LIforrelaxin]

This thread made my head spin. While I understand the two sides to all the arguments, so of the excuses, and some of statements made here are not fully evolved.

As it appears the flag Bill has been withdrawn, I am not going to discuss that issue.....

But I do want to talk a bit about the canoe / Kayak decal which has come up numerous times in the past. And it never seems to happen, much like the plan a few years back to make people get a decal for swim rafts. Most times bill like these are put in the docket to appease someone... They stir up a little controversy and then disappear. They would disappear quicker and more permanently if people argued correctly, but most often they do not. As is the case in this thread, boat registrations are brought up, the comparison is not apples to apples.

Yes at one time, NH didn't recognize out of state boat registration. Then NH got told if you don't fall inline with the Federal Government, you are going to loose federal monies. The federal government wanted full reciprocity between states on boating registration, just as had been done on other vehicles. However boats carry an unique stipulation, that you have to register them in the location where they are most often used. This was done to protect states like NH from loosing to much revenue. So with that bit of history aside lets talk about the registering of paddle craft.

Why does this get brought up. Well generally it is because the subset of lake users that paddle on the water ways, generally are not paying anything to do so, right wrong or indifferent. However if a kayak goes missing or ends up in trouble in the middle of the lake, the expect and rightfully so services from Fish and Game, or the MP. Many times when this subject comes up you find power boaters yelling and screaming that they have to pay to play, so why shouldn't others. What the state has to determine, is how much revenue do they gain vs. how much will the loose if they enact a fee on paddlers. The last time I saw this debated, it was a quick decision, that they would likely loose more room and meals tax money they they would gain fee money, because of such as use fee. At something like 9.5% meals and room tax it doesn't take long to get to 10 dollars......

Do the math think it through it just doesn't make sense...... If people would stop screaming about how unfair it is that paddlers don't have to pay anything, this would probably never come up again.

[Kamper]

If I had 10 kayaks and had to pay $10 to register each one, I would probably sell 8 or 9 of them.

[chachee52]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

This sounds remarkably similar to what thinkxingu suggested in post #79.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Sorry, didn't read all the posts, just skimmed through them to try to catch up. But yes, that is exactly what I was talking about. It just makes sense for what is being suggested.

[fatlazyless]

Under 12' a sailboat without a motor doesn't get registered.

I have a C&L Echo sailboat that is 11' 11 3/4" length so it does not have to get registered because it is less than 12' and has no motor. The rudder is not added when measuring the length, it is just the hull.

Between 12' and 20' and without a motor, a sailboat is required to get an annual NH registration that costs about $40/year and displaying either the yearly sticker or the sticker and the bow numbers is okay.

Seemingly, this proposed kayak law would lower the registration fee for sailboats 12' to 20' without a motor from $40 down to $10 per year.

In actual practice, it is not too unusual for NH sailboats, size 12'-16' without a motor to go without an annual registration sticker for years and never ever get stopped? ...