In the Spirit of Compromise....

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by tis

If there have been no tickets, then there isn't a need for the law. I think that proves it. If all these people were speeding, surely they would have caught someone! I am sure there have been tickets for the others offenses, showing there is a need for some of those laws.

That's not true. Anyone can see that people have slowed down...just sit on the dock and watch. People used to blow by here at 70 MPH, now they don't. Everyone around here at least is commenting on how the noise problem is so much improved as well. Speed limit not working? Ridiculous.

[BroadHopper]

OK so the SL is working. Everyone is slowing down.

But the Boneheads are worst than ever. They know that valuable MP resources are tied up on radar training and buying radars. So they are having a field day!

I have slowed down a bit. Not because of the SL. Because of the gas prices and economy.

Last Tuesday night, when I was showing guests the Bahre estate, I notice a storm coming the NW. I took a full throttle return home to Lakeport across the Broads. Damn right I was speeding. I'm not going to be caught in a thuderstorm. Ironically, there were several boats doing the same thing. Including a MP RIB. I'm surprise he didn't pull anyone over.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

OK so the SL is working. Everyone is slowing down.

But the Boneheads are worst than ever. They know that valuable MP resources are tied up on radar training and buying radars. So they are having a field day!

I have slowed down a bit. Not because of the SL. Because of the gas prices and economy.

Last Tuesday night, when I was showing guests the Bahre estate, I notice a storm coming the NW. I took a full throttle return home to Lakeport across the Broads. Damn right I was speeding. I'm not going to be caught in a thuderstorm. Ironically, there were several boats doing the same thing. Including a MP RIB. I'm surprise he didn't pull anyone over.

Thank You for acknowledging the SL is working.

I think speeding to get home just before or during a thunderstorm is an unwritten exception to the rules. In fact its not all that unwritten. The concept of "force majeure" says you can break the law in extreme circumstances. Like robbing a bank when someone is holding a gun on your family. Dozens of boats go through the Bear Island NWZ full speed just before and during a bad storm. And I have seen the MP watch them and do nothing. I have done it myself with no feeling of guilt.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by elchase

Thanks Steve, I had a great day on the lake. It was hot and sunny here and Winnipesaukee was very busy, but very civilized again. Hope you enjoyed the day up on your lake.
I just can't get over the difference a simple little law has made. You might not be able to see that from your vantage in VT, but having been out on Lake Winnipesaukee for well over 600 hours so far this spring/summer, I have witnessed the improvement first hand.

Glad everything's working out for you El. I'm just astounded at your "well over 600 hours" this year. In a year of pretty bad weather, that's an astounding accomplishment. I just put about 8 hours on this weekend. That's a third of my entire summer hours now, a new low

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Thank You for acknowledging the SL is working.

I think speeding to get home just before or during a thunderstorm is an unwritten exception to the rules. In fact its not all that unwritten. The concept of "force majeure" says you can break the law in extreme circumstances. Like robbing a bank when someone is holding a gun on your family. Dozens of boats go through the Bear Island NWZ full speed just before and during a bad storm. And I have seen the MP watch them and do nothing. I have done it myself with no feeling of guilt.

I agree with you here BI. But if the the bill makes 45 statutary then that means the above unwritten law is no longer true. Keeping it arbitrary and 'reasonable and prudent' fits in very well.

That being said. The current law can be pretty vague when it comes to court play. The judge has a pretty grey area to play with.

I wonder how ELChase will feel if we full throttle through Meredith Bay to escape a thunderstorm. 'Not in my backyard!'

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

I wonder how ELChase will feel if we full throttle through Meredith Bay to escape a thunderstorm. 'Not in my backyard!'

I'd have no problem with people running for safety in my backyard and have never indicated otherwise, but your post is obviously not about my tolerance, it is saying "Although you've never told us, we have been investigating and know where you live". Not much of an investigation since my address is listed with my phone number next to my name...alphabetically...Nice detective work. This also explains some of the weird hang-ups we've been getting.
Is this what happens to people who do not agree with you? Do you think it helps your cause to intimidate those who don't carry your water, scare them off the forum, then say "Look, everyone who is still posting here opposes the speed limit, therefore it should be repealed."? You guys are no different on the forum than you are on the lake ..."Get out or our way"...You are nothing but a bunch of bullies, then you cry that you are being "discriminated against". Disliking bullies is not a hate crime.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by elchase

I'd have no problem with people running for safety in my backyard and have never indicated otherwise, but your post is obviously not about my tolerance, it is saying "Although you've never told us, we have been investigating and know where you live". Not much of an investigation since my address is listed with my phone number next to my name...alphabetically...Nice detective work. This also explains some of the weird hang-ups we've been getting.
Is this what happens to people who do not agree with you? Do you think it helps your cause to intimidate those who don't carry your water, scare them off the forum, then say "Look, everyone who is still posting here opposes the speed limit, therefore it should be repealed."? You guys are no different on the forum than you are on the lake ..."Get out or our way"...You are nothing but a bunch of bullies, then you cry that you are being "discriminated against". Disliking bullies is not a hate crime.

It's not rocket science. Your grammar, phrases, texts etc. is the same as before.

While you are trolling here. You have not given one solitary compromise to the speed limit issue. That is what this thread is all about. Play the game or get out!

[VtSteve]

Some good solutions up there.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by elchase

I'd have no problem with people running for safety in my backyard and have never indicated otherwise, but your post is obviously not about my tolerance, it is saying "Although you've never told us, we have been investigating and know where you live". Not much of an investigation since my address is listed with my phone number next to my name...alphabetically...Nice detective work. This also explains some of the weird hang-ups we've been getting.
Is this what happens to people who do not agree with you? Do you think it helps your cause to intimidate those who don't carry your water, scare them off the forum, then say "Look, everyone who is still posting here opposes the speed limit, therefore it should be repealed."? You guys are no different on the forum than you are on the lake ..."Get out or our way"...You are nothing but a bunch of bullies, then you cry that you are being "discriminated against". Disliking bullies is not a hate crime.

You should NOT be harrassed because of your words or actions and hope that no one from this forum is doing so.

I don't care where you live, who you are, if you are a multi-nicker or anything else about you. Most people have way too much on their plate to waste their time trying to find out.

This thread was started to discuss compromises which has been done pretty well in many of the 212 posts above this one. You, on the other hand, have not offered one compromise. Between that and your smarmy attitude you have put yourself at odds with virtually everyone on this forum. There is no bullying going on, but when you put forth incindiery comments, expect a like response.

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

It's not rocket science. Your grammar, phrases, texts etc. is the same as before.

I can't even figure out how to respond. You are criticizing MY grammar? Even when I jumble the words around I can't guess what this was supposed to mean. Please say it in English.

Originally Posted by VitaBene

You should be harrassed because of your words...

I truncated "and actions" from the quote because there have been no actions. But this shows the mentality of the people we are dealing with here. You think I want to make friends with people like this? Besides the guy who claims to be a boater yet seems logged into this forum 24-7 and has not had a non-SL post since he joined (be HE is not a troll), I feel like I'm debating with a bunch of leg-breakers. And this behavior is supposed to help you with Concord? I disagree on what the best compromise is, so people are conducting covert operations to find out where I live and calling my home to harass, and you justify such outrageous behavior because I allegedly "have not offered one compromise" (that suits you).
I will say it again. The current law is a perfect compromise between the mayhem we had on this lake up until 2007 and the "Golden Pond" that nobody really wants or expects. It allows boats to go pretty darn fast (up to 45 mph) anywhere on the lake that is not restricted by some other pre-exisiting law, and it leaves almost all of the other lakes open to whatever behavior you guys deem "prudent". That sounds like a pretty fair compromise to me.
You guys want a compromise of the compromise, but that is not compromising, it is taking. The SL law is working just great. I was out on the lake for 6 hours this morning and saw one boat that might have been breaking it. The weather has been great for over 5 weeks straight now, so that is no longer an excuse. Crowds of tourists are back, so that is no excuse. Gas is much lower this year so that is no excuse. You guys simply cannot accept the fact that the SL was a good idea, has worked, and should be made permanent. We will never agree, and I will not suggest some "compromise" to take us back towards the troubles that got us here.
Harass all you want. I'll be back on the lake enjoying the civility in three minutes while you guys sit by your computers calculating my daily boating time to try to disprove it.

Broadhopper, Hope my grammar, text, and phrases were ok.

[OCDACTIVE]

There have been many requests put nicely, hinted at and said in a round about way.

So let me try the direct approach.

EL CHASE. We know what you think, we know you have no wish to discuss changing anything what so ever, in any shape or form.

This thread is not your sounding board to oppose changes. You started a supporters thread to do just that. We (opposers) have stayed out of that per the web masters request, respecting what that threads intentions are.

If you want to start an Speed Limit argument thread feel free.

If you are not interested in discussing anything other then leaving the SL as is. PLEASE GO BACK TO THE SUPPORTERS THREAD. (clear enough?)

Your continous banter trying to get this thread shut down is no longer appreciated. Humerous at first but now is just annoying.

Again, I ask the webmaster to assist so that we can continue to discuss a compromise without this continuous back and forth.

[4Fun]

I just wish someone from the proponent side would be "Man" enough to just stand up and admit "we just don't like large expensive boats and want them gone" and stop playing the almighty safety card. Let's debate the real problem.

It gets tiring defending a position when you know saftey is not really even the argument.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by 4Fun

I just wish someone from the proponent side would be "Man" enough to just stand up and admit "we just don't like large expensive boats and want them gone" and stop playing the almighty safety card. Let's debate the real problem.

It gets tiring defending a position when you know saftey is not really even the argument.

I think this post summed it up nicely for the other side. It read like a closed-door meeting of Winfabs.


http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...&postcount=188

[Shreddy]

Originally Posted by elchase

I can't even figure out how to respond. You are criticizing MY grammar? Even when I jumble the words around I can't guess what this was supposed to mean. Please say it in English.


I truncated "and actions" from the quote because there have been no actions. But this shows the mentality of the people we are dealing with here. You think I want to make friends with people like this? Besides the guy who claims to be a boater yet seems logged into this forum 24-7 and has not had a non-SL post since he joined (be HE is not a troll), I feel like I'm debating with a bunch of leg-breakers. And this behavior is supposed to help you with Concord? I disagree on what the best compromise is, so people are conducting covert operations to find out where I live and calling my home to harass, and you justify such outrageous behavior because I allegedly "have not offered one compromise" (that suits you).
I will say it again. The current law is a perfect compromise between the mayhem we had on this lake up until 2007 and the "Golden Pond" that nobody really wants or expects. It allows boats to go pretty darn fast (up to 45 mph) anywhere on the lake that is not restricted by some other pre-exisiting law, and it leaves almost all of the other lakes open to whatever behavior you guys deem "prudent". That sounds like a pretty fair compromise to me.
You guys want a compromise of the compromise, but that is not compromising, it is taking. The SL law is working just great. I was out on the lake for 6 hours this morning and saw one boat that might have been breaking it. The weather has been great for over 5 weeks straight now, so that is no longer an excuse. Crowds of tourists are back, so that is no excuse. Gas is much lower this year so that is no excuse. You guys simply cannot accept the fact that the SL was a good idea, has worked, and should be made permanent. We will never agree, and I will not suggest some "compromise" to take us back towards the troubles that got us here.
Harass all you want. I'll be back on the lake enjoying the civility in three minutes while you guys sit by your computers calculating my daily boating time to try to disprove it.

Broadhopper, Hope my grammar, text, and phrases were ok.

Since the speed limit is working "so well", we should probably fight to get them to bring it down to 35 mph during the day and 15 mph at night! That will SURELY solve all the problems on the lake...If that doesn't work next year, we'll have to fight for 25 day/5 night!

[granitebox]

elchase is well past the "annoying" adjective....he's likely converting some supporters in the process.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by elchase

I can't even figure out how to respond. You are criticizing MY grammar? Even when I jumble the words around I can't guess what this was supposed to mean. Please say it in English.


I truncated "and actions" from the quote because there have been no actions. But this shows the mentality of the people we are dealing with here. You think I want to make friends with people like this? Besides the guy who claims to be a boater yet seems logged into this forum 24-7 and has not had a non-SL post since he joined (be HE is not a troll), I feel like I'm debating with a bunch of leg-breakers. And this behavior is supposed to help you with Concord? I disagree on what the best compromise is, so people are conducting covert operations to find out where I live and calling my home to harass, and you justify such outrageous behavior because I allegedly "have not offered one compromise" (that suits you).
I will say it again. The current law is a perfect compromise between the mayhem we had on this lake up until 2007 and the "Golden Pond" that nobody really wants or expects. It allows boats to go pretty darn fast (up to 45 mph) anywhere on the lake that is not restricted by some other pre-exisiting law, and it leaves almost all of the other lakes open to whatever behavior you guys deem "prudent". That sounds like a pretty fair compromise to me.
You guys want a compromise of the compromise, but that is not compromising, it is taking. The SL law is working just great. I was out on the lake for 6 hours this morning and saw one boat that might have been breaking it. The weather has been great for over 5 weeks straight now, so that is no longer an excuse. Crowds of tourists are back, so that is no excuse. Gas is much lower this year so that is no excuse. You guys simply cannot accept the fact that the SL was a good idea, has worked, and should be made permanent. We will never agree, and I will not suggest some "compromise" to take us back towards the troubles that got us here.
Harass all you want. I'll be back on the lake enjoying the civility in three minutes while you guys sit by your computers calculating my daily boating time to try to disprove it.

Broadhopper, Hope my grammar, text, and phrases were ok.

Elchase, please note I missed a key word and have edited it (and no, it was not a Fruedian slip). You should never be harrassed off line over an internet forum. If you are because of a SL debate, that is pretty disgusting.

Regarding the civility- it is Tuesday last time I checked usually not the busiest day of the week.

The reason that most of us regular runabout boaters take issue with your point of view is that you cannot get past the SL being some panacea that cures all that is bad. Some of the things I saw coming back in from Moultonborough Bay on Sunday headed through the buoys that lead to Suissevale were amazing (in view of MP I might add, but it was so busy that the wiser course of action on his part perhaps was to ignore).

I think more of us than you think could care less about a speed limit because our boats can barely exceed it- we do care that the more important rules need to be enforced and that those enforcement efforts should not suffer because MP is trying to catch the few boats speeding that are capable of doing so. I don't oppose a SL, I oppose the notion that it is going to fix anything.

I don't care what you say- whether a 14 foot jon boat with a 25 or a 7000 lb GFBL runs you over, you will be just as dead. But guess what, if either is a 150' away from me the only way I can be harmed is if he shoots me.

If your true agenda is to rid the lake of large boats, good luck with that. If that happens, the economy of the region will be decimated.

But again, you should NOT be harrassed offline- debated with here, certainly, even heatedly.

Regarding your time on the lake, I think most are envious. I hope you get 1200 hours in, I love seeing people enjoy our lake.

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Elchase, please note I missed a key word and have edited it (and no, it was not a Fruedian slip).

Thanks Sir, your correction is noted and appreciated. My comments still hold though for those who gave the original post their "thanks". Maybe it speaks towards just who has been making the calls.

Originally Posted by VitaBene

If your true agenda is to rid the lake of large boats, good luck with that.

I have absolutely no agenda. I only want to preserve the status quo, which has been very civil and enjoyable. Preserving the status quo is the antithesis of an agenda. Those who want to see things go back to or towards the anarchy we had on the lake up until a couple of years ago are the ones with an agenda, and a sorry one, in my view.

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

This thread is not your sounding board to oppose changes. You started a supporters thread to do just that. We (opposers) have stayed out of that per the web masters request, respecting what that threads intentions are.

I have stayed away from the opposers thread in respect for the webmaster's directive. He indicated that all threads except the opposers thread and supporters thread were open for both sides to debate. You want a monopoly on all threads except the supporters thread and that was not the rule as I understood, but I will certainly respect that if the moderator changes the directive. Meanwhile, the supporters thread is for people who enjoy the benefits of the current law and want to share their support for and positive anecdotes about it. I understood the opposers thread to be for people who are dissatisfied with the current law and want to share their opposition to and negative anecdotes about it, and suggestions for changing it. You seem to feel that this thread is only for people who are dissatisfied with the current law and want to share their opposition to and negative anecdotes about it, and suggestions for changing it. That to me sounds more like the description of the opposers thread, and I suggest that it is you, Sir, that is in the wrong thread. Who put you in charge?

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

I ask the webmaster to assist

So do I.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by elchase

So do I.

All you wish is to get these threads shut down to further your agenda. I have been more the civil in all of my posts although you have baited everyone of them. Trolling gets you no where so you continue to pick a fight...

You have been asked very politely to go elsewhere concerning this thread. I have even suggested you start an argument thread but you continue to banter.

You are not only trolling you are beginning to define Troll...

Why do you continue to cause issues when as you can see people are actually in here trying to compromise? You obviously do not want to compromise so please be gone.

Oh the reason you don't is no one follows you....

You feel the GFB needs attention.. Look in the mirror.

[OCDACTIVE]

So lets get back to what this thread was started for.....

From what I have seen there has been a few specific compromises set forth.

Maybe VTsteve could get a poll going (I am not that great with computers)

1. Current law - Broads unlimited
2. compromised speed:
A. 50 day 30 night
B. 55 day 35 night
C. 65 day 35 night
D. unlimited day 30 night
(I believe I got them all, so I apolgize if I missed one)
3. limits in specific bays only.
4. No limits but keeping current verbage of current law eliminating the specific speed limits.
5. (for supporters) keep as is.
6. Keep Laws in place but unlimited over a specific distance
A. 300 ft
B. 500 ft
C. 1000 ft
7. Unlimited (no limits)

I think after reading back through all the "Non-compromising" posts this is all of them. Please point out if I missed any.

Anyone want to start the comments on what you think are the most plausible?

(and yes EL we know your answer is #5, so no need for comment)

[Just Sold]

Elchase
You have had your 30 seconds and then some and in that time you have driven your point home so deep that it is obvious that others who have posted in this thread and me have been worn out by your continual justification of your view and right to discuss the SL. We have heard you from the 3^rd post of this thread to now.
I respect your right to comment and be a part of this discussion but you have literally worn out your point so that it is now deader than dead. Please take a break and understand Ocdactive is right – let’s get back to what this thread is about – a discussion about compromise as it relates to the SL which you are definitely not in favor of and I know everyone understands that by now.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

"...(and yes EL we know your answer is #5, so no need for comment)

1) Last I checked, this thread remains open to both sides for comments.

2) My vote (and the votes of ALL of my family, my tenants, and many other lakeside—but unrecognized—tenants) is the same: #5.

(But see below).

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

"...Anyone want to start the comments on what you think are the most plausible...?"

The previous suggestion for a reduction in exhaust noise was left off.

A promised reduction of "Exhaust Noise" could go a long way towards getting any compromise through legislation. (If, as opponents have contended, that noise was a factor in WinnFABS' "agenda").

I'll "liberalize" that compromise even more by adding that a boat that is inaudible at six miles distance will be granted unlimited speeds on Winnipesaukee. How about THAT?

Those that fail (and had exceeded 65-MPH) will pay a fee to the NHMP at the rate of $100 per decibel over the present 86dB limit.

A different thread's suggestion of a "Lake Winnipesaukee-only-license" sounds like another valuable piece to add to the compromises previously stated.

IMHO.

[LakeSnake]

If a proposal is going to voted on I suggest that we some how "elect" two proposals in case the most popular gets shot down by the legislature out of the gate for some unforseen reason. Just always good to have a plan B on the ready. I'm not sure how to do that with the forum poll's? Maybe two seperate polls? (I'm out of school on the technical forum stuff)

[NoRegrets]

OCDACTIVE - Nice job at directing the thread to a summary and evaluation process.

How about this for a compromise?

Let the year finish and wait for next year to run its course. Maybe the weather and economy will change and we can collect more statistics we can all argue about.

At the end of that period let the debate start again.

Oh wait, that was what was supposed to happen so it really is not a compromise.

What happened? The process has been hijacked by whom for what benefit?

Now we must compromise to get back on track to an unfinished and agreed upon process.

Maybe we should fight to get back on track – sorry not much of a compromise!

PS. As a long time reader but embarrasing light contributer I really appriciate the effort many of you have done over the years to keep the content and discussions entertaining!

[Shreddy]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) Last I checked, this thread remains open to both sides for comments.

2) My vote (and the votes of ALL of my family, my tenants, and many other lakeside—but unrecognized—tenants) is the same: #5.

(But see below).


The previous suggestion for a reduction in exhaust noise was left off.

A promised reduction of "Exhaust Noise" could go a long way towards getting any compromise through legislation. (If, as opponents have contended, that noise was a factor in WinnFABS' "agenda").

I'll "liberalize" that compromise even more by adding that a boat that is inaudible at six miles distance will be granted unlimited speeds on Winnipesaukee. How about THAT?

Those that fail (and had exceeded 65-MPH) will pay a fee to the NHMP at the rate of $100 per decibel over the present 86dB limit.

A different thread's suggestion of a "Lake Winnipesaukee-only-license" sounds like another valuable piece to add to the compromises previously stated.

IMHO.

WOW, I feel honored! APS is giving me credit for my idea of the Winnipesaukee only license! Unless of course, somebody else suggested it too. Today is going to be a good day

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) Last I checked, this thread remains open to both sides for comments.

2) My vote (and the votes of ALL of my family, my tenants, and many other lakeside—but unrecognized—tenants) is the same: #5.

(But see below).


The previous suggestion for a reduction in exhaust noise was left off.

A promised reduction of "Exhaust Noise" could go a long way towards getting any compromise through legislation. (If, as opponents have contended, that noise was a factor in WinnFABS' "agenda").

I'll "liberalize" that compromise even more by adding that a boat that is inaudible at six miles distance will be granted unlimited speeds on Winnipesaukee. How about THAT?

Those that fail (and had exceeded 65-MPH) will pay a fee to the NHMP at the rate of $100 per decibel over the present 86dB limit.

A different thread's suggestion of a "Lake Winnipesaukee-only-license" sounds like another valuable piece to add to the compromises previously stated.

IMHO.

APS, appreciate the comments (on both sides) however you can only beat a dead horse so many times... If anyone wants to post new fresh ideas then by all means go for it. Trying to derail the thread by trolling is what I meant by (no comment needed)

I also see you point of decibel levels. You have always been a proponent of sound restrictions. While I do not agree with them, I do recognize your position and applaud you for sticking to it over the years.

I can not speak for other GFBL boaters on the forum, however there are engines that can not go thru hub or under water exhaust. The back pressure would be too much. I have put Gibson Mufflers on my boat that brings the decible level down to "legal" standards on the lake. It used to be MUCH MUCH louder (music to my ears but I can understand not to everyone else on the lake)

What upsets me is I would be more then willing to also install captains call on my boat. Similar to silent choice. It allows for the engine to be further muffled under 2000 RPMS. This works very well when you are near shore, idleing through canals, or starting your boat at the dock. I would be more then happy to use it and still keep my mufflers on. However, our state legislatures, most of whom have never been on a boat, in their infinate wisdom banned switchable exhaust. While I see the other side (you always have that one guy who doesn't run mufflers with switchable) overall the lake would be a much quieter place. I see plenty of boats now that have no mufflers might as well allow switchable exhaust for those of us who will actually use it.

As for a Winni only license... I really don't think it would help the economy or is a realisitic idea. It is fine for those of us who predominently boat there but it could drive new comers away.. IMHO

[4Fun]

I agree with the noise issue. I am a gear head myself but there really is no reason for excessive noise. If you can hear a boat 2 miles away I say it is probably too loud.

I also suggest if GBFL boats were significantly quieter in the past there would be no speed limit today. It's the same with snowmobiles. If the noise is low people ignore them.

[VtSteve]

I like it

I don't mind a little noise. But straight pipes, dry pipes, whatever, is way too much on a small lake. It gets old real fast. Some lakes have banned the Captain's Call/Silent Choice, which is pretty stupid IMO, and defeats the purpose. The reason they did this is that it's a PITA to pull boats over for sound testing. I understand this. Maybe someone can chime in with their thoughts on how to better police this.

For licensing issues. The wonderful little certificate is a good instruction for all boaters, not just newbies. Winni is not the only waterway, so why not make it consistent? People need on the water tests, just as in cars. Perhaps a new business for some enterprising people, perhaps a new revenue stream for the MP. However it's done, another series of common sense procedures would have to be developed in order to accomplish this. Given the bureaucracy that exists everywhere, probably an ETA of around 2-3 years?

I envision someone taking their own boat, or a rental boat, out with an instructor. The applicant would then go through some basic maneuvers and try to pass the test, and more importantly, learn something. There could even be on the water instruction similar in fashion to driver's ed. Before everyone goes all crazy on this, let me finish.
It would cover

Navigation, charts, markers, buoys
Trouble spots, congested areas
NWZ's, bridges, harbors and bays
How to deal with traffic safely, how to plan your moves ahead of time
Best way to navigate through waves, rough water scenarios
Safety in watersports (always high on the list of injuries)
Safety in refueling
Docking, securing the boat properly
Anything else people can think of

This would impact everyone on the lake. The course instruction could be administered through the MP, Power Squadron, whomever. The fees would not only cover costs, but would also be structured to provide revenue for the MP, preferably in their in-between budget times.

I'll leave the details as to how and how much, what happens to boaters that are on the lake and time limits, etc... to people in the MP.

My first choice would be to start this up ASAP, and assign a date that every boater had to complete the course by, say 2011 or so. That would give the powers that be time to fine-tune the administration of the courses and such.

I think it would create safer waterways, more aware boaters, and quite possibly help the MP with their funding issues. I have no problem at all paying an extra $100 a year (just a WAG and not a serious number), towards this type of program. Maybe even factor in a (hire an MP to ride with you in your boat option).

Maybe with the additional ammo in their budget, the MP would also be able to effectively deal with the cowboys on the lake. It could also go a long way towards making all boaters more in tune with the real issues, and perhaps establish better rapport with the MP.

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

What upsets me is I would be more then willing to also install captains call on my boat. Similar to silent choice. It allows for the engine to be further muffled under 2000 RPMS. This works very well when you are near shore, idleing through canals, or starting your boat at the dock. I would be more then happy to use it and still keep my mufflers on. However, our state legislatures, most of whom have never been on a boat, in their infinate wisdom banned switchable exhaust. While I see the other side (you always have that one guy who doesn't run mufflers with switchable) overall the lake would be a much quieter place. I see plenty of boats now that have no mufflers might as well allow switchable exhaust for those of us who will actually use it.

Excellent topic. What steps would be needed to get the State to accept Captain's Call? I'll be the first one to step up and get this going. This is really a stupid rule and again shows that these lawmakers have no clue when they vote for these issues. Any suggestions would be welcomed and appreciated. LB

[BroadHopper]

If reducing exhaust noise will help with a reasonable compromise for speed limits, then I am for that. We just need to be reasonable as to how much we want to reduce the noise level. 5 DB sounds reasonable.

I'm not sure about licensing. I don't want to take away more resources from the MP. If the bill contains a clause that pays for this than I am OK with it.

As for raising the speed limit, are there any statistics that says the new limit is safe and reasonable? What is the best speed limit for day and or night? I was thinking if there is an average high speed of all mototrized boats manufactured in the US. We can use that number as a base for discussion. I can't find this information, but it doesn't mean it is out there.

The only reason I don't like the 45/25 numbers is that it is based on another lake. I don't think the legislature should apply it to Winnipesaukee!

[VtSteve]

I prefer not to get back into the speed limit itself. There never was anything factual or statistical to back it up, and several of the biggest proponents finally spit out exactly why they like it and support it. It becomes more of a cultural and philosophical issue, and it's time to move on from that.

It's pretty apparent, once again, that those that really want to have a safe lake, and get this issue over and done with, have many things in common. A very large segment would not oppose sensible noise limits. Most would allow for a slightly modified nigh time speed limit. And most everybody wants to assist in limiting as much as possible dangerous boaters and dangerous activities on the water. Most everyone would approve anything that got the MP what they need to do it. (this does not mean putting more boats on the water and throwing money at it).

I think an association of boaters should be formed that can act as the liaison between the Dept. of Safety and boaters. While it's nice that one very detailed response was posted to the board, many other complaints that cannot be whisked away will never be answered. Community groups have been interfacing with LEO's for many years. Why not a lake group? No, not the blowhard group with myopic agenda and culture wars). A real group that actually points out real issues and trouble spots. Develop some rapport between the community and the MP.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I think an association of boaters should be formed that can act as the liaison between the Dept. of Safety and boaters.

How about the gfbl's restart the engine on the NH Recreational Boater's Assn, and get its' website up and running again?


You know that for the last 35 years the NH Marine Trades Assn was a very successfull liason between a number of boat & marina businesses and some of the state legislators. The Marine Trades Assn made lots of political contributions in the range of 100-200-300, and a few in the 500-1000 dollar range to some of NH's 400 state reps and 24 state senators..

That liason system used to work just fine! What happened?

[jrc]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

If reducing exhaust noise will help with a reasonable compromise for speed limits, then I am for that. We just need to be reasonable as to how much we want to reduce the noise level. 5 DB sounds reasonable...

To make a reasoanble dent in the noise issue, I think you need a DB limit, but you also need an instant and simple measurement. Right now it's hard to make valid measuremnts and a lot of people just ignore the law.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by jrc

To make a reasoanble dent in the noise issue, I think you need a DB limit, but you also need an instant and simple measurement. Right now it's hard to make valid measuremnts and a lot of people just ignore the law.

Is that still true ? I thought there was a change to the dB testing that allows the officer to put a meter to the boat while at the dock. If the reading is too high a citation can be issued or a summons for the more formal test.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...0/270-37-a.htm

270:37-a Stationary Sound Level Testing Authorized. –
I. The director or the director's agent may use stationary sound level testing to determine marine engine noise levels for boats. Such testing shall be conducted while boats are stationary on the water according to test SAE J2005.
II. Noise levels in decibels for stationary sound level testing shall be established for a specific distance between the boat tested and the testing device, at levels which correlate with noise levels in decibels, as set forth in RSA 270:37.
III. Testing procedures for stationary sound level testing shall be measured according to procedures established pursuant to rules adopted under RSA 270:39.
IV. Any test conducted pursuant to this section shall be sufficient to establish a violation of RSA 270:37.
Source. 1989, 143:6, eff. May 17, 1989. 2006, 234:3, eff. June 1, 2006.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by elchase

My comments still hold though for those who gave the original post their "thanks". Maybe it speaks towards just who has been making the calls.

I have been trying to ignore you, but you troll better than I am able to ignore. For the record, my thanks was for adding the bold-ed word "NOT" and it was added after 3:00 PM today. It was not for the original post. I do not support any illegal actions or threats. In the future, please refrain from changing the intend of anything I say.

You really are a piece of work and do everything you can to stir things up. Quite frankly, I cannot understand why you are still able to post, since you add no value to the subject discussion of this thread while breaking at least a few of the forum rules.

Please, get yourself a life!

You are now back on ignore, so do not bother replying.

R2B.