![]() |
![]() |
|
Home | Forums | Gallery | Webcams | Blogs | YouTube Channel | Classifieds | Calendar | Register | FAQ | Donate | Members List | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 193
Thanks: 21
Thanked 19 Times in 11 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
Is the quality of government tracking good enough to account for a NET gain in boat registrations? Several states require that all boats be registered. What happens when you lose your registered kayak to rapids, your wife backs over it, or it drifts off to Greenland? While some may report the loss, it's more often the case that it gets forgotten. Exports, totalled, stolen, parted-out, impounded, dumped, sunk, stored, recalled, lost-at-sea, and normal attrition among the general population of boats would account for some significant LOSS. A new-but-unrequired boat registration would be recorded wrongly as a net gain among registrations. 1% is not a good sign. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
I agree that measurement error could cause a 1% change. In NH, this number does not include paddle boats, so that's not a factor. So for the last few years there has not been a meaningful change in the total number of power boats. By my observation, there are lot more PWC now than there were 5 or 10 years ago, and since the total boats hasn't changed much, there must be less power boats. I don't know if this is good or bad. It does make me question all the talk of overcrowding on the lake. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|