Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

And as statistics show those “high speed” powerboats are not traveling at ‘high speed”. What they are apparently doing is violating the 150’ law, a law that is already on the books.

Replying to you is like replying to a wall - because like many others here, you refuse to consider any facts that don't happen to agree with your narrow look on things. The truth is that most people outside of a powerboat forum happen to support lake speed limits.

And that is just an excuse. She certainly can provide safe tours and instruction on Lake Winnipesaukee unless you are also trying to say that all 72 square miles of the lake is too congested for kayaks. If she is providing white water instruction that is something she can’t do on Winni, period.

Again, you're not very good at replying to what I actually posted. Read my posts, before just criticizing what you think I posted. This is a perfect example.

What I posted is that the woman owns a family camp on Winni, and that is where she wanted to run her kayak business from. She concluded that it was too dangerous to take kayak groups out on Winni from her camp. She didn't have the entire lake to pick from. And she wasn't planning on doing white water instruction on Winni!!!! She only did that because of the liability of running kayak tours on Winni.

I might also point out that Station Fort Pierce is in Florida, I believe it’s in Dade County (Miami). Florida has more than 9 times the number of registered boats than New Hampshire. Over 988,000 vs. 101,000 according to the USCG Boating statistics. So you are comparing apples and oranges when you compare Lake Winnipesaukee to Florida boating.

Just because boater education is working doesn't negate the fact that "it has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.” And the Chief Warrant Officer was not just talking about Florida boaters. According to http://www.worldatlas.com, Florida has 11,761 sq miles of inland waters, compared to NH's 382 sq miles. So FL has 84 boats/squ mile of inland water, while NH has 264 registered boats for every square mile. So which state has the more congested lakes?

a charge of negligent operation of a boat for operating it at a speed determined to be unsafe for the existing conditions can be upheld in court.

Name me one casethat has held up in court in NH, where someone has actually been found guilty of traveling at an unsafe speed on any of our lakes.

As for your charge that the Marine Patrol research means nothing, of course not it doesn't back your position. It shows what all of us have known right along. Speed is not the problem.

The study was completely flawed from the very beginning. It was nothing more than a political smoke screen. If they were actually serious of recording the fastest speeds on the lake, why was the Broads left out of the speed limit study?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Replying to you is like replying to a wall - because like many others here, you refuse to consider any facts that don't happen to agree with your narrow look on things. The truth is that most people outside of a powerboat forum happen to support lake speed limits.

I would surmise that most people on a powerboat forum own or at least use a boat. So the people that don't use boats on the lake want a speed limit? Why?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

What I posted is that the woman owns a family camp on Winni, and that is where she wanted to run her kayak business from. She concluded that it was too dangerous to take kayak groups out on Winni from her camp. She didn't have the entire lake to pick from. And she wasn't planning on doing white water instruction on Winni!!!! She only did that because of the liability of running kayak tours on Winni.

I want to open a hot dog stand on I-93, which is adjacent to my property, on summer weekends to take advantage of the traffic at the Hooksett tolls. Does that mean it is a good idea?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I would surmise that most people on a powerboat forum own or at least use a boat. So the people that don't use boats on the lake want a speed limit? Why?

Lots of reasons.

If they are citizens of New Hampshire then the lake is their property. They may see the need to have their property operated in a safe and fair manner. And it is their responsibility.

Or, like me, they may have children at a Winnipesaukee summer camp.

[JayDV]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Lots of reasons.

If they are citizens of New Hampshire then the lake is their property. They may see the need to have their property operated in a safe and fair manner. And it is their responsibility.

Or, like me, they may have children at a Winnipesaukee summer camp.

In all fairness, in gathering survey responses from the average person-on-the-street fitting the demagraphic "non-boater" a census taker can, and easily does, present the argument in order to evoke the yes/no reply that will support their respective position. The responsibility is to the census taker to accurately present a position with politcal or biased rhetoric. Then the general public can stand and be counted. Of course, as they vote, then the appropriate actions can be taken or laws enacted.

An unfortunate story comes to mind. A recent home makeover tv show arranged to makeover a run down house for a family that couldn't do for themselves. The show-people arranged for hundreds of local businesses and people to assist in the project. The family was sent on a vacation in a warm climate for 5 or 6 days. The house was razed and a new one constructed. 24 hrs a day until the house was completed. Materials, services, meals, and manual labor were mostly donated for the cause. A magnificent public effort. The display of community support was emotionally overwhelming. The show pulled off the major coup, the family was welcomed back by the people and city officials.

The drawback was those people that helped got minimal return for their efforts. The rest of the neighborhood doesn't support the new house when it comes to location, location. The people got a small thank you. The city got national acclaim, the tv show's sponsors got their money's worth. And the family got the nice vacation, a new home and belongings, a monstrous amount of cash and unconfirmed (to me) rumor says their rental income house is currently up for sale.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by JayDV

In all fairness, in gathering survey responses from the average person-on-the-street fitting the demagraphic "non-boater" a census taker can, and easily does, present the argument in order to evoke the yes/no reply that will support their respective position. The responsibility is to the census taker to accurately present a position with politcal or biased rhetoric. Then the general public can stand and be counted. Of course, as they vote, then the appropriate actions can be taken or laws enacted.

I don't believe your responce IS fair. It pre-supposes a bias. You dislike the results, so you assume they must be flawed.

The research was done by the American Research Group, Inc. An organization with very high credentials. The poll was not done at the request of speed limits supporters or paid for by them. The group polled was New Hampshire voters, not non-boaters. This is one of the questions...

Do you believe that a 45 miles per hour daytime and 25 miles per hour nighttime speed limit for boats will make New Hampshire lakes safer or not?

Only 9% answered in the negative.

Many that oppose speed limits will report that this is an unpopular law being pushed through by a few. The facts are the EXACT opposite. This law has wide approval by the owners of the lake.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

.......You dislike the results, so you assume they must be flawed........

The pot calling the kettle black once again, sounds like you with the study done by the MP last summer.............

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by ITD

The pot calling the kettle black once again, sounds like you with the study done by the MP last summer.............

The difference is that the MP study WAS flawed. As an example the type of boat performing the test and if it was a marked police boat or not, was not considered important enough to even write down!!!

However the MP study results are not surprising, and DO NOT argue against speed limits. More misdirection.

Unlike JayDV, I actually READ a study, poll or report before I post that it is biased and flawed.

[JayDV]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The difference is that the MP study WAS flawed. As an example the type of boat performing the test and if it was a marked police boat or not, was not considered important enough to even write down!!!

However the MP study results are not surprising, and DO NOT argue against speed limits. More misdirection.

Unlike JayDV, I actually READ a study, poll or report before I post that it is biased and flawed.

After re-reading my post, Bear Islander, I guess I deserved your reply. The intent was not to say you were like that. I have found you to be a learned person and would expect nothing less. For the misunderstanding I am sincerely sorry. The reason I used the quote function was mainly for the "responsibilty" section and I didn't want to have anything taken out of context.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I would surmise that most people on a powerboat forum own or at least use a boat. So the people that don't use boats on the lake want a speed limit? Why?

Not all boats are powerboats, and not all boat owners/users are on powerboat forums. Plus our lakes are not for the sole benefit of powerboat owners.

I want to open a hot dog stand on I-93, which is adjacent to my property, on summer weekends to take advantage of the traffic at the Hooksett tolls. Does that mean it is a good idea?

Winni is not a limited access highspeed tranportation system. There is nothing unreasonable about wanting to run a kayak business from your property on NH's largest state.

Originally Posted by hazelnut

And Evenstar you are SO open minded. Let us bask in your open mindedness. Remember you are the one who supports a law that is solely based on discrimination. You can spin it any way you like but the law is just a means to an end. You are putting all your eggs in one basket with this one, praying that there will be a mass exodus of all the High Performance boats. In the end that is all your crowd cares about. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I am all for laws, rules, regulations etc. that promote safety on the lake. Targeting the guy going 75MPH across the broads WILL NOT promote safety. It's the idiot doing 35MPH in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem. This activity will continue and your crowd will have the cry wolf stigma with lawmakers when you try for additional legislation and funding for safety initiatives. Talk to us after the law passes and let me know how "safe" you feel on the lake. My prediction, you'll feel just as you do now.... "ascared."

Hazelnut, as someone who has fought personal discrimination, I take great offense in your post. The truth is that I’m a very open-minded person. And I’m not “spinning” anything, nor am I part of any group. I’ve stated many times that I’m not anti-powerboat, and that my goal is not to force any type of boat off any NH lake. Yet apparently you don’t believe me - so I also greatly resent that you are, by your accusations, calling me a liar.

A speed limit does one thing – it makes it illegal to exceed a certain speed. How does that discriminate against any type of boat, anymore than a highway speed limit discriminates against any type of motor vehicle? There’s a big difference between fighting for my rights to safely kayak on the lakes in my native state and being afraid. My safety has been violated by high-speed powerboats, on way too many occasions. Most “reasonable people” (a legal term) would agree that high speed is certainly a factor in safety – it isn’t the only factor, but slowing down boats will make any lake safer. BTW; I’m not a timid person – I’m currently on crutches basically due to my lack of fear. Borrow a kayak and try to follow me out on the main lake someday – you’ll likely be the one “ascared,” not me.

Originally Posted by Dave R

So what you are saying is she'd rather have students do something that everyone in the business knows is dangerous instead of doing something that has a perfect safety record? And this is someone who's opinion you value? If she is basing her decision on liability, she needs a new insurance agent.

I’m taking about the degrees of liability, not insurance coverage. And NH hardly has a “perfect safety record” – in fact, NH has by far the worse boating safety of any of our neighboring states.

This woman considered her options and concluded that taking clients out touring on Winni in kayaks is more dangerous than taking them down class II and Class III rapids. She is a certified kayak instructor both for coastal waters and for white water and yes, I do respect her opinion.

Originally Posted by codeman671

I think that is a bit of a skewed comparison. How much of Florida is the Everglades? How navigable by powerboats are the Everglades? The largest lake in Florida has a average depth of 9 feet (20 feet at the deepest point!) and covers an expansive 730 square miles compared to 72 square miles of Winnipesaukee and an average depth of 43 feet. The drainage basin that it dumps into covers 4600 miles of more, basically un-navigable water. The map on the site that you linked to shows the bottom 20% of the state to be basically swamp.

First of all, I’m not the one who brought up Florida, Airwaves did that. But he’s on your side, so you’re not about to call him out on this “skewed comparison.” I was merely bringing up the fact that Florida is also much larger than NH and has a LOT more inland water for all those boats. And, as you so kindly pointed out, many of those registered Florida boats are off that 8000 miles of coastline, so there’s actually a much smaller percentage using those 11,761 sq miles of inland waters.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Evenstar:
First of all, I’m not the one who brought up Florida, Airwaves did that.

HELLO! Who was the one quoted "Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce"?

YOU!

I pointed out that USCG Station Fort Pierce is in Florida, something you conveniently "forgot" to post.

And the fact of the matter is that much of Florida's "inland waters" are exactly what has been described, swamp. By far most of Florida's 988,000 registered boats are used in the Atlantic or Gulf, not inland so you quoting the former CO of a Coast Guard Station in Florida is not applicable to the Lake Winnipesaukee debate.

Now to say I am the one that brought up Florida? You have lost all credibility in this debate with me.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Hazelnut, as someone who has fought personal discrimination, I take great offense in your post. The truth is that I’m a very open-minded person. And I’m not “spinning” anything, nor am I part of any group. I’ve stated many times that I’m not anti-powerboat, and that my goal is not to force any type of boat off any NH lake. Yet apparently you don’t believe me - so I also greatly resent that you are, by your accusations, calling me a liar.
A speed limit does one thing – it makes it illegal to exceed a certain speed. How does that discriminate against any type of boat, anymore than a highway speed limit discriminates against any type of motor vehicle? There’s a big difference between fighting for my rights to safely kayak on the lakes in my native state and being afraid. My safety has been violated by high-speed powerboats, on way too many occasions. Most “reasonable people” (a legal term) would agree that high speed is certainly a factor in safety – it isn’t the only factor, but slowing down boats will make any lake safer. BTW; I’m not a timid person – I’m currently on crutches basically due to my lack of fear. Borrow a kayak and try to follow me out on the main lake someday – you’ll likely be the one “ascared,” not me.

For one I do Kayak and I am NOT ascared. I Kayak in areas where power boats infrequently go. I also use my brain and kayak along the shore. It is a large resource that we can all share. Kayaks are great and I welcome them with open arms. Unfortunately you are closing your mind to other peoples idea of recreation. You support a law that stops those people from enjoying their speed boat to its full potential. That is discriminatory, sorry if you don't like it but facts are facts. They haven't hurt anyone yet you scream you're scared and if something scares you we should all stop doing it so you're not scared anymore??? By the way I own two kayaks and NO "speed boats." My bow-rider does 45. Highway limits and boat limits = Comparing Apples and Oranges. Not even going to bother with that one.

You obviously internalized and spun my post to make me seem like the big bad guy calling you a liar???? Pure silliness. Stick to the issue this is nothing personal. Bravo for fighting discrimination etc. I stick by my post and I will further explain to you that this law will not make you feel safer. The same idiots who populate our lake with little to no regard for safe boating will be out in full force. If you think that a 45 MPH speed limit will increase your safety in a Kayak out in the middle of the lake you are kidding yourself. A boat within 300 feet of you doing 35 will scare the *#$% out of you. If you were so open minded as you say you are you would at least concede that this law will not address the safety issue.

My post/posts have only ever been about one main point. Passing and or supporting laws, ANY laws that do not actually address a real concern/problem is down right irresponsible. I've heard it here time and time again from others on "your side" that there will never be adequate funding to actually address the safety concerns so we might as well just support the speed limit. Again, the means to an end. So again and again supporters of the limit have been asked and continuously fail to provide proof that SPEED is the major public safety issue ON WINNIPESAUKEE and therefore we need a SPEED limit ON WINNIPESAUKEE. All we ever get back are circumstantial, fictional, what-if, I'm scared, blah blah blah.....

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

For one I do Kayak and I am NOT ascared. I Kayak in areas where power boats infrequently go. I also use my brain and kayak along the shore. It is a large resource that we can all share. Kayaks are great and I welcome them with open arms.

Now you’re suggesting that I’m not using my brain because I choose to take my sea kayak out on the main lake, instead of just staying “along the shore.” So why is it that you feel that it is smarter to “stay along the shore?”

Unfortunately you are closing your mind to other peoples idea of recreation. You support a law that stops those people from enjoying their speed boat to its full potential. That is discriminatory, sorry if you don't like it but facts are facts. They haven't hurt anyone

It is not discriminatory to support a law that places a maximum speed for ALL boats. No one has the right to put others at risk, just so that they can “enjoying their speed boat to its full potential.” To not support this law is to support the idea that those with the most (horse)power get to control others use of the lake - as you already seem to feel that kayaks should be limited to just the area along the shore.”

[quote] . . . yet you scream you're scared and if something scares you we should all stop doing it so you're not scared anymore???[/quote
When have I ever written that I was scared? I have written that I have had close calls, and that my safety has been violated – neither is being scared. If I was scared, I would not kayak on Winni.

Highway limits and boat limits = Comparing Apples and Oranges. Not even going to bother with that one.

Of course you’re not going to “bother,” since you can’t argue against my logic. Lake speed limits do not discriminate against speed boats any more than highway speed limits discriminate against motorcycles (or fast cars). Doesn’t a highway speed limit infringe on the “right” of a motorcyclist to “enjoy their bike to it full potential?” Seems a lot like comparing apples to apples to me. Yet whenever someone makes a good analogy that refutes the anti-speed limit claims on this forum, it is brushed off with the old “comparing apples and oranges” side step.

You obviously internalized and spun my post to make me seem like the big bad guy calling you a liar???? Pure silliness. Stick to the issue this is nothing personal.

You made it personal by accusing me of being closed-minded, discriminating, trying to force one type of boat off the lake, and being part of a group. All of which is untrue, and which I have previously stated was untrue. So you are clearly calling me a liar. Perhaps you are the one who should “stick to the issue,” rather than resort to personal attacks on others.

I stick by my post and I will further explain to you that this law will not make you feel safer. The same idiots who populate our lake with little to no regard for safe boating will be out in full force. If you think that a 45 MPH speed limit will increase your safety in a Kayak out in the middle of the lake you are kidding yourself. A boat within 300 feet of you doing 35 will scare the *#$% out of you. If you were so open minded as you say you are you would at least concede that this law will not address the safety issue.

Boats 300 feet away from me, going 35mph have never scared me. I’m supporting this law because I’ve personally seen the difference that a lake speed limit has. Squam Lake has a 40mph speed limit – not only does it feel safer than Winni, it also attracts way more paddlers – many of whom don’t feel that it is unsafe to venture away from the shore. Why is that? Oh, sorry . . . this is probably one of those apples and oranges thingies again. So is Squam the apple or the orange?

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Now you’re suggesting that I’m not using my brain because I choose to take my sea kayak out on the main lake, instead of just staying “along the shore.” So why is it that you feel that it is smarter to “stay along the shore?”

As I said it is a large resource so I use the shoreline and the less traveled areas while I let the Powerboats use the large areas of the lake. It's called sharing. You know give and take.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

It is not discriminatory to support a law that places a maximum speed for ALL boats. No one has the right to put others at risk, just so that they can “enjoying their speed boat to its full potential.” To not support this law is to support the idea that those with the most (horse)power get to control others use of the lake - as you already seem to feel that kayaks should be limited to just the area along the shore.”

No one is putting anyone at risk. You are using scare tactics. I'm sure you have had close calls just as I have. To pin the blame on boats exceeding 45MPH is laughable. You must be a magnet then. I'll have to follow you around then and be enlightened.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Of course you’re not going to “bother,” since you can’t argue against my logic. Lake speed limits do not discriminate against speed boats any more than highway speed limits discriminate against motorcycles (or fast cars). Doesn’t a highway speed limit infringe on the “right” of a motorcyclist to “enjoy their bike to it full potential?” Seems a lot like comparing apples to apples to me. Yet whenever someone makes a good analogy that refutes the anti-speed limit claims on this forum, it is brushed off with the old “comparing apples and oranges” side step.

*Sigh* Since you forced me to do this here we go. Highway limits are in place because PEOPLE HAVE DIED!!! Nobody has died on Winni due to excessive speed. So now it's back on you. Every time we ask you to give hard concrete evidence as to why we need a speed limit YOU side step it and say you have had "Close Calls" or your safety is compromised. Way too circumstantial to base legislature on, sorry.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You made it personal by accusing me of being closed-minded, discriminating, trying to force one type of boat off the lake, and being part of a group. All of which is untrue, and which I have previously stated was untrue. So you are clearly calling me a liar. Perhaps you are the one who should “stick to the issue,” rather than resort to personal attacks on others.

Do I REALLY have to do this Evenstar? Ok here we go: DIRECT QUOTE from YOU:
"Replying to you is like replying to a wall - because like many others here, you refuse to consider any facts that don't happen to agree with your narrow look on things."
Feels like Kindergarten here but.... You started it. I believe that was directed at Airwaves but I suppose I could take offense I guess I fall into the "many others here" who refuse to consider your "facts."

Originally Posted by Evenstar

....Squam Lake has a 40mph speed limit – not only does it feel safer than Winni, it also attracts way more paddlers – many of whom don’t feel that it is unsafe to venture away from the shore. Why is that? Oh, sorry . . . this is probably one of those apples and oranges thingies again. So is Squam the apple or the orange?

Squam is the Apple. Winni is the Orange. It's obvious why each lake attracts different types of boats. That is the beauty of New Hampshire. There are lakes for every type of boater. So you think a Speed Limit dictates why Speed Boats don't populate Squam? Ummmm OK I was thinking more along the lines of its size relative to Winni. My guess is that anything over 45 on Squam would shrink it to a 5 minute ride end to end.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

As I said it is a large resource so I use the shoreline and the less traveled areas while I let the Powerboats use the large areas of the lake. It's called sharing. You know give and take.

The main reason that I own a sea kayak is because I happen to enjoy going out on large lakes (not just hugging the shoreline) – that’s what my boat is designed for. I’m not willing to give up using the main lake just because some speed boats owners fell that they have the right to use their boats “to their full potential.” Yes, compromise involves give and take – but so far the paddlers have been the only ones who are giving and the power boat operators are the ones doing all the taking. That’s not compromise.

No one is putting anyone at risk. You are using scare tactics. I'm sure you have had close calls just as I have. To pin the blame on boats exceeding 45MPH is laughable. You must be a magnet then. I'll have to follow you around then and be enlightened.

I am relating what my own actual experience has been. How is that “scare tactics?” I never said that I have never had issues with boats going under the speed limit - just that all my close calls have been with faster boats. If you followed me, you would have to venture away from the shore, where the faster boats are.

*Sigh* Since you forced me to do this here we go. Highway limits are in place because PEOPLE HAVE DIED!!! Nobody has died on Winni due to excessive speed. So now it's back on you. Every time we ask you to give hard concrete evidence as to why we need a speed limit YOU side step it and say you have had "Close Calls" or your safety is compromised. Way too circumstantial to base legislature on, sorry.

You aren’t going to be cited with excessive speed when there’s no speed limit – “excessive speed” is just too subjective, so MP will almost always cite the operator with something else first. Operators of fast boats have had accidents on winni at speeds over 45mph – they’ve even run into islands! So I feel that we’ve been very fortunate that no one has yet run over a paddler. A speed limit with not prevent that from happening, but I believe that it will make it less likely. I’ve had close calls on Winni with boats going over 45mph, that came well within my 150 foot zone, because they didn’t see me – that’s been my honest experience, but that’s not good enough for you. That is not sidestepping – that’s recounting my actual experience.

A great deal of legislation is based on the experience of residents. One of the Senators told me that her husband has had similar close calls with high-speed powerboats – so that’s not going to have any effect on her vote?

Do I REALLY have to do this Evenstar? Ok here we go: DIRECT QUOTE from YOU: "Replying to you is like replying to a wall - because like many others here, you refuse to consider any facts that don't happen to agree with your narrow look on things."
Feels like Kindergarten here but.... You started it. I believe that was directed at Airwaves but I suppose I could take offense I guess I fall into the "many others here" who refuse to consider your "facts."

Now you're using my response to someone else to justify personally attacking me? My reply was just my impression of what it feels like to me to reply to Airways. From his responses I felt like he was not being very objective, but was taking a very narrow view on things - and that most of my points were not reaching him. I wasn’t calling Airways a wall, nor was I calling him closed-minded. And it is true that my facts and my hard questions are almost always ignored by most here.

Squam is the Apple. Winni is the Orange. It's obvious why each lake attracts different types of boats. That is the beauty of New Hampshire. There are lakes for every type of boater. So you think a Speed Limit dictates why Speed Boats don't populate Squam? Ummmm OK I was thinking more along the lines of its size relative to Winni. My guess is that anything over 45 on Squam would shrink it to a 5 minute ride end to end.

Winni is 20 miles long, Squam is 8 miles long. They are both large NH lakes, so they are both apples – Winni just a larger apple – the ocean (which is not a large lake) is the orange. At 45mph, it only takes 27 minutes to travel the length of Winni. Why does anyone “need” to “shrink” Winni to less than that?

Originally Posted by Airwaves

HELLO! Who was the one quoted "Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce"? YOU! I pointed out that USCG Station Fort Pierce is in Florida, something you conveniently "forgot" to post. And the fact of the matter is that much of Florida's "inland waters" are exactly what has been described, swamp. By far most of Florida's 988,000 registered boats are used in the Atlantic or Gulf, not inland so you quoting the former CO of a Coast Guard Station in Florida is not applicable to the Lake Winnipesaukee debate. Now to say I am the one that brought up Florida? You have lost all credibility in this debate with me.

Airways, read your own post. I never even mentioned Florida when I quoted the Chief Warrant Officer – not because I “forgot to post it”, but because Florida has absolutely nothing to do with his article. He never even mentioned Florida, because he wasn’t writing about Florida boaters. His article was about The U.S. Coast Guard’s Navigation Rules, not just Florida’s boating rules! You were the one who brought Florida into this discussion, not me.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

... I’m not willing to give up using the main lake just because some speed boats owners fell [sic] that they have the right to use their boats “to their full potential.” ....

This is the attitude I speak of. I mean why should YOU have to give up something YOU like to do? Hey YOU don't own a fast boat so YOU shouldn't have to deal with them. So anyone on this lake that enjoys using their speed boat in the broads at a speed above 45MPH has to cease to do so because YOU don't want them to? Guess what, those boaters enjoy their speed boats just as much as you enjoy kayaking. Someone is losing their right here and it isn't you so why should you care. Due to the fact that it currently is NOT a law it is well within their rights to go 75MPH across the broads. Once this law is passed they will lose that right after they did nothing to deserve losing it in the first place. You still have the right to go across the broads either way. You will of course tell us all that it is dangerous now but it will be safe or safer after the law. I maintain that it will not be any safer due to the inattentive careless boaters that populate the lake.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I am relating what my own actual experience has been. How is that “scare tactics?” I never said that I have never had issues with boats going under the speed limit - just that all my close calls have been with faster boats. If you followed me, you would have to venture away from the shore, where the faster boats are.

All I'm saying is that I've been on this lake since the late 70's early 80's and I've boated sailed kayaked cruised on everything from a 10 foot rowboat to driving the Doris E. herself and I've had my share of incidents. The way you relay these incidents and the volume of them that only seem to involve one type of boat seems to be quite a stretch, or perhaps embellishment. You can whine about how I'm calling you a liar now but all I'm saying is that you must have one heck of a dark cloud hanging over your head to have had that many "incidents."

Originally Posted by Evenstar

.... So I feel that we’ve been very fortunate that no one has yet run over a paddler. A speed limit with not prevent that from happening, but I believe that it will make it less likely.....

So we should just make it a law? That solidifies my point. Legislature without a problem to solve. Lets go around making laws to prevent things that MIGHT happen. That is a dangerous and very LIBERAL way to govern.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Now you're using my response to someone else to justify personally attacking me? My reply was just my impression of what it feels like to me to reply to Airways. From his responses I felt like he was not being very objective, but was taking a very narrow view on things - and that most of my points were not reaching him. I wasn’t calling Airways a wall, nor was I calling him closed-minded. And it is true that my facts and my hard questions are almost always ignored by most here.

Yes I am using your own words against you. Stinks doesn't it? If you want to throw out attacks whether in general or towards one individual be prepared to have those words come back to haunt you. By your comments anyone who does not agree with you is not open minded or objective or "narrow minded."

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Winni is 20 miles long, Squam is 8 miles long. They are both large NH lakes, so they are both apples – Winni just a larger apple – the ocean (which is not a large lake) is the orange. At 45mph, it only takes 27 minutes to travel the length of Winni. Why does anyone “need” to “shrink” Winni to less than that?

Hey thanks for posting the stats to prove my point. If you think that an 8 mile long lake and a 27 mile long lake have anything whatsoever in common then you are 100% in fantasy land. Oh I see it's semantics, Small Apples and Big Apples. What???? If I had a performance boat Speed Limit or No Speed Limit I would NEVER put it on Squam. IT'S ONLY 8 MILES LONG!?!?!
Winni has 72 Square Miles of water. Squam isn't even half that size. Are you serious on this one? Of course Squam attracts more kayakers just like Mirror, Kanasatka, Wentworth, etc. They are small lakes with less traffic an less chance of getting stuck in a major windswept storm etc. I can think of tons of reasons why kayakers prefer squam. Fast Boats are only one of hundreds of reasons why winni might not be as attractive to kayakers.

[DoTheMath]

Funny - maybe if Winni is "too small" for big-bad-performance-boats-that-can-travel-the-length-in-no-time... then maybe it is "too big" for it-would-take-me-all-weekend-to-get-from-one-end-to-the-other-in-my-plastic-bottle-paddle-powered-boat!?

Just some food for thought!?

(Keep up the good fight Hazelnut! )

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

This is the attitude I speak of. I mean why should YOU have to give up something YOU like to do? Hey YOU don't own a fast boat so YOU shouldn't have to deal with them. So anyone on this lake that enjoys using their speed boat in the broads at a speed above 45MPH has to cease to do so because YOU don't want them to? Guess what, those boaters enjoy their speed boats just as much as you enjoy kayaking. Someone is losing their right here and it isn't you so why should you care.

Paddlers have and are losing their rights to use Winni. I have a number of friends who will no longer paddle on Winni, because they do not feel that it is safe to paddle on a lake where power boats are traveling at such high speeds. There are many fishermen who will no longer take their small power boats out on Winni for the same reason. My best friend, who is the person I kayak with the most, also feels that Winni is too dangerous to kayak on – because of the close calls we have had on the lake. So I either have to kayak on Winni alone, or I have to find someone else who is brave enough to go with me. Bear Islander has posted repeatedly about the fear of camp directors to put their small boats on the lake.

Fear should not be this much of an issue on any lake!

You really don’t get it do you. Other boaters already have lost their right to use the lake. Yet you just side-step all this, by stating that we are just a bunch of timid boaters, or that we are all exaggerating, or that we are all making up having close calls with high speed boats. I was at the Transportation Committee hearing – I heard all the testimonies. My friend and I are not the only one’s who have had close calls from high-speed powerboats on Winni.

What have high-speed power boat owners given up so far? So far those with the most horsepower have had their own way – even though they are effectively pushing other boaters off the lake by their own selfish actions. Well, guess what? Some of us are really getting sick of being pushed around. Our only means of fighting back is a lake speed limit law.

All we are asking is for boats to slow down, so that we can enjoy the lake as well. You’re telling me that I should be willing to give up kayaking on the main lake, so that the high-speed powerboats can continue to be free to go as fast as they want – that having more horsepower somehow entitles you to more rights. Personally I’m really sick of this selfish “get out of my way attitude.”

If you think that an 8 mile long lake and a 27 mile long lake have anything whatsoever in common then you are 100% in fantasy land. . . .If I had a performance boat Speed Limit or No Speed Limit I would NEVER put it on Squam. IT'S ONLY 8 MILES LONG! Winni has 72 Square Miles of water. Squam isn't even half that size. Are you serious on this one? Of course Squam attracts more kayakers just like Mirror, Kanasatka, Wentworth, etc. They are small lakes with less traffic an less chance of getting stuck in a major windswept storm etc. I can think of tons of reasons why kayakers prefer squam. Fast Boats are only one of hundreds of reasons why winni might not be as attractive to kayakers.

Go back and read my post - I wrote that Winni IS ONLY 20 MILES LONG. I can paddle 20 miles in 4 hours. At 45 mph it only takes 27 minutes. Lake Champlain is 110 miles long – which is 5.5 times longer than Winni. Squam is much closer in size to Winni, than Winni is to Champlain. If Squam is a small lake, compared to Winni; than Winni must be a small lake, campared to Champlain. Yet sea kayaks are very popular on Champlain.

So why do kayakers prefer Champlain and Squam over Winni?

Winni and Squam are about the only two NH lakes that I can paddle on all afternoon without going around in circles. So they are both apples to me. (I guess my ocean = orange went right over your head.)

Originally Posted by codeman671

Actually it takes a lot longer than 27 minutes to travel from end to end. Obviously you have never done it. It takes more than just a calculator to figure that. There is no straight line to go from absolute end to end.

I wrote: "At 45mph, it only takes 27 minutes to travel the length of Winni." That is a true statement. Starting at the tip of Alton Bay, and keeping at least 200 feet from shore, I get that is 20.4 miles to the end of Center Harbor.

Comparing apples to apples, Winnipesaukee is 6+ times the size of Squam. Squam is shallow and rocky, not a great place to boat in general in my opinion with anything larger than a small bowrider or pontoon. I would dare to say this is closer to an apples to oranges comparison.

Power boat owners hit rocks all the time on Winni. Read my comments above concerning Squam, Winni, and Champlain.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Paddlers have and are losing their rights to use Winni. I have a number of friends who will no longer paddle on Winni, because they do not feel that it is safe to paddle on a lake where power boats are traveling at such high speeds. There are many fishermen who will no longer take their small power boats out on Winni for the same reason. My best friend, who is the person I kayak with the most, also feels that Winni is too dangerous to kayak on – because of the close calls we have had on the lake. So I either have to kayak on Winni alone, or I have to find someone else who is brave enough to go with me. Bear Islander has posted repeatedly about the fear of camp directors to put their small boats on the lake.

Fear should not be this much of an issue on any lake!

You really don’t get it do you. Other boaters already have lost their right to use the lake. Yet you just side-step all this, by stating that we are just a bunch of timid boaters, or that we are all exaggerating, or that we are all making up having close calls with high speed boats. I was at the Transportation Committee hearing – I heard all the testimonies. My friend and I are not the only one’s who have had close calls from high-speed powerboats on Winni.

Yeah I really don't get it and everyone else who doesn't agree with you just doesn't get it and isn't open minded and so enlightened as you. Lets just legislate on fear. Great way to govern. Just so YOU get it I'll explain further. I do not and never intend to own a performance boat. I actually enjoy kayaking. I am just someone who has a real big problem letting fear dictate how laws pass. Also, contrary to your post no kayakers rights have been ever taken from them. They still have every right to kayak on the lake.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

What have high-speed power boat owners given up so far? So far those with the most horsepower have had their own way – even though they are effectively pushing other boaters off the lake by their own selfish actions. Well, guess what? Some of us are really getting sick of being pushed around. Our only means of fighting back is a lake speed limit law.
All we are asking is for boats to slow down, so that we can enjoy the lake as well. You’re telling me that I should be willing to give up kayaking on the main lake, so that the high-speed powerboats can continue to be free to go as fast as they want – that having more horsepower somehow entitles you to more rights. Personally I’m really sick of this selfish “get out of my way attitude.”

Where did I tell you to give up anything. I maintain that regardless of a 45 MPH speed limit you'll still be a sitting duck in the broads. Careless and inattentive boaters will still be out in full force. The get out of my way attitude is not the sole possession of the high performance boat.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Go back and read my post - I wrote that Winni IS ONLY 20 MILES LONG. I can paddle 20 miles in 4 hours. At 45 mph it only takes 27 minutes. Lake Champlain is 110 miles long – which is 5.5 times longer than Winni. Squam is much closer in size to Winni, than Winni is to Champlain. If Squam is a small lake, compared to Winni; than Winni must be a small lake, campared to Champlain. Yet sea kayaks are very popular on Champlain.
So why do kayakers prefer Champlain and Squam over Winni?
Winni and Squam are about the only two NH lakes that I can paddle on all afternoon without going around in circles. So they are both apples to me. (I guess my ocean = orange went right over your head.)

No I read it and I still can not believe you are trying to compare the two lakes. Keep doing it though it further undermines your argument. Squam would never ever ever draw the same types of boats even if it did NOT have a speed limit and winni did squam would not attract high performance boats. Why is that hard for you to understand?


I never expect to change your mind but I just love how you can sling comments calling everyone narrow minded and how we "just don't get it" and thngs "go over our head." God forbid anyone else makes the same claim about you.

Finally, because I'm all done with you, here is some food for thought. You support a law that is based on legislating against could have and might haves. A law that targets a problem that doesn't exist. A law that targets a certain type of recreation, even though these people haven't done anything wrong. Your law is based on fear mongering and whether you like it or not is discriminatory. Whether or not you "take great offense to that" or not is really not my problem it is unfortunately the truth. Just because you do not like how someone else gets their kicks doesn't give you the right to stop them because it scares you. Stop acting as if every performance boater that gets behind the wheel of his or her boat is this uncaring demonic presence hell bent on ruining your good time.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Winni is 20 miles long, Squam is 8 miles long. They are both large NH lakes, so they are both apples – Winni just a larger apple – the ocean (which is not a large lake) is the orange. At 45mph, it only takes 27 minutes to travel the length of Winni. Why does anyone “need” to “shrink” Winni to less than that?

Actually it takes a lot longer than 27 minutes to travel from end to end. Obviously you have never done it. It takes more than just a calculator to figure that. There is no straight line to go from absolute end to end.

Comparing apples to apples, Winnipesaukee is 6+ times the size of Squam. Squam is shallow and rocky, not a great place to boat in general in my opinion with anything larger than a small bowrider or pontoon. I would dare to say this is closer to an apples to oranges comparison.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Winni is 20 miles long, Squam is 8 miles long. They are both large NH lakes, so they are both apples – Winni just a larger apple – the ocean (which is not a large lake) is the orange. At 45mph, it only takes 27 minutes to travel the length of Winni. Why does anyone “need” to “shrink” Winni to less than that?

Maybe I can enlighten to some other reasons people don't want speeds limits on Winni and to BE LIKE Squam.

1. Squam Lake Shore owners make every attempt to limit public access to THEIR LAKE.
2. Squam Lake owners have prohibited Jetskis.
I don't need to get into all the other Squam restrictions do I?

Tell me again about Give and Take. Please tell me and everyone here more about how you want Winni to be more like Squam. The more the merrier please!

According to the MP site on restrictions on public waters, how many restrict Kayak use? ......... Waiting..........
How many public waters have restrictions on motorized craft?........ Waiting.......

Tell me again about Give and Take.

Sounds more like Take and more Take, me and me. Regardless of any speed limit, period!!!

If you could get cabin cruisers off the lake, because kayakers could capsize, you would. This is not about a speed limit and you know it, its about who wants to win this battle and the ego that goes along with winning, from both sides. This, "I'm scared to kayak in the broads", may win your necessary votes, but its not the reason nor will it really solve your concerns. But its a battle and history shows life wouldn't interesting without them.

I'm not going to ask you to stop, it's entertaining. But in this case the truths are hidden.

[Mashugana]

Assume that everyone followed the boating laws as they stand right now. If everyone followed the 150 foot rule would that lead to a safe feeling for those few who are afraid of the lake or worry about errosion from fast boat wake?

Base your answer on the improbable theory that every boater will heed all current rules and laws including the 150 feet safe passage laws and No Wake Zones. No accidental or intentional rule violations. Now, of what benefit is a 45/25mph speed limit?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Mashugana

... Now, of what benefit is a 45/25mph speed limit?[/b]

First thing is you are stuck on the safety aspect of the question. There are many good reasons for a speed limit that have NOTHING to do with safety.

A speed limit will lower pollution, erosion, congestion etc. It will allow a more reasonable distribution of a limited resource.

With respect to safety any solution that requires absolute and total compliance with a given law is silly. It just is not going to happen, this is the real world. Back in the 60's there was a saying "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?" A lovely idea, but it doesn't help us with what to do about Iraq.

If nobody illegally used drugs, then all the laws against the production, transportation and sale of drugs would be unnecessary.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

First thing is you are stuck on the safety aspect of the question. There are many good reasons for a speed limit that have NOTHING to do with safety.

A speed limit will lower pollution, erosion, congestion etc. It will allow a more reasonable distribution of a limited resource.

I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean here BI. Lower polution, OK; I agree - faster speeds equals less MPG and means more gas burnt per distance. That gives us more carbon emmisions and more exhaust gasses in the lake.

Erosion and congestion, I don't get. Having observed boats crusing by for over 15 years, my conclusion is that the faster a boat goes, the less wake it leaves behind. Also, the faster it goes, the faster is is "out of here and over there". A fast boat will tend to head towards lightly traveled parts of the lake, so it has plenty of room to avoid other craft.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean here BI. Lower polution, OK; I agree - faster speeds equals less MPG and means more gas burnt per distance. That gives us more carbon emmisions and more exhaust gasses in the lake.

Erosion and congestion, I don't get. Having observed boats crusing by for over 15 years, my conclusion is that the faster a boat goes, the less wake it leaves behind. Also, the faster it goes, the faster is is "out of here and over there". A fast boat will tend to head towards lightly traveled parts of the lake, so it has plenty of room to avoid other craft.

Boats that have moved to another body of water do not cause ANY erosion or congestion on Winnipesaukee.

The opposition has claimed many times that the economy of the lakes area will be ruined when high performance boats leave the lake. We have seen evidence on this forum and elsewhere that boats are already leaving the lake because of coming speed limits. A speed limit will effect the future purchase decisions of Winnipesaukee boaters. It is ludicrous to assume high performance boats will continue to operate in large numbers on Winni.

Over the years the number of performance boats on this lake will decline, just like they have on all the other lakes that have enacted speed limits.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Boats that have moved to another body of water do not cause ANY erosion or congestion on Winnipesaukee.

The opposition has claimed many times that the economy of the lakes area will be ruined when high performance boats leave the lake. We have seen evidence on this forum and elsewhere that boats are already leaving the lake because of coming speed limits. A speed limit will effect the future purchase decisions of Winnipesaukee boaters. It is ludicrous to assume high performance boats will continue to operate in large numbers on Winni.

Over the years the number of performance boats on this lake will decline, just like they have on all the other lakes that have enacted speed limits.

Are there large numbers of high speed performance boats in Winni? I certainly see some but IMHO not large numbers. Maybe one is too many for BI, it certainly seems so.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Are there large numbers of high speed performance boats in Winni? I certainly see some but IMHO not large numbers. Maybe one is too many for BI, it certainly seems so.

A butterfly is a beautiful thing, but it does not belong in my soup. A high performance boat can be beautiful and fun. But the lake is to small and fragile for their growing numbers.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

A butterfly is a beautiful thing, but it does not belong in my soup. A high performance boat can be beautiful and fun. But the lake is to small and fragile for their growing numbers.

Your speed limit crusade will do nothing to lower the growing numbers of high performance boats. It's kind of like painting a brick house, it makes a few people feel better, but then it starts peeling, causing problems while solving nothing.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

A butterfly is a beautiful thing, but it does not belong in my soup. A high performance boat can be beautiful and fun. But the lake is to small and fragile for their growing numbers.

You still did not answer my question. Are there large numbers of performance boats on Lake Winnipesaukee? I stick by my statement that I just don't see large numbers of boats on the lake..some, but not large numbers.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

You still did not answer my question. Are there large numbers of performance boats on Lake Winnipesaukee? I stick by my statement that I just don't see large numbers of boats on the lake..some, but not large numbers.

Not to quibble but it depends on what you call large numbers. There are a lot more than there used to be. And the numbers will grow as other lakes enact speed limits. Many states have limits, Maine is considering them now.

There are performance boaters on Winni now that have moved here because the lakes they came from passed limits. Lake George for example. Do you want Winni to be the only lake for performance boating?

When the numbers of performance boats is enough to limit summer camp activities, then that is "large numbers".

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There are performance boaters on Winni now that have moved here because the lakes they came from passed limits. Lake George for example. Do you want Winni to be the only lake for performance boating?

Wow! This is great. Maybe this is the answer to spark the rennovation of Weirs Beach. Put a race course out on the broads and have weekly speed trials. No wake of course, till out past Govnr's Island. With speed boats at the Weirs and sailing from Fays, the West side lake economy should pick up nicely.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
Not to quibble but it depends on what you call large numbers. There are a lot more than there used to be. And the numbers will grow as other lakes enact speed limits. Many states have limits, Maine is considering them now.

Since you seem to know more than we do, how many are there on Lake Winnipesaukee? Personally last summer I saw two!

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
There are performance boaters on Winni now that have moved here because the lakes they came from passed limits. Lake George for example. Do you want Winni to be the only lake for performance boating?

Funny, the two I saw had NH bow numbers. I thought New York issued bow numbers that begin with NY? Hmmm...

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
When the numbers of performance boats is enough to limit summer camp activities, then that is "large numbers".

Where is this summer camp that seems to be the target of performance boats and what are the boats doing that would keep campers out of the water?

It seems to me that if performance boats were causing problems and havoc among summer campers somewhere on Lake Winnipesaukee then there would be a records of multiple calls to the Marine Patrol and local police in the town where the infraction is occurring. It would also seem to me that when questioned by legislators the Marine Patrol would present those reports, unless of course there were no reports or they are unfounded.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Since you seem to know more than we do, how many are there on Lake Winnipesaukee? Personally last summer I saw two!


Funny, the two I saw had NH bow numbers. I thought New York issued bow numbers that begin with NY? Hmmm...


Where is this summer camp that seems to be the target of performance boats and what are the boats doing that would keep campers out of the water?

It seems to me that if performance boats were causing problems and havoc among summer campers somewhere on Lake Winnipesaukee then there would be a records of multiple calls to the Marine Patrol and local police in the town where the infraction is occurring. It would also seem to me that when questioned by legislators the Marine Patrol would present those reports, unless of course there were no reports or they are unfounded.

You know I get tired of your putting words in my mouth. Why do you feel the need to expand what I say into far more than it was? I never made ANY comments about summer camps being targeted by performance boats. I never claimed any infractions by performance boats whatsoever.

Pretending I said things I never did is just another way of telling lies.

If I understand you correctly you only saw two performance boats on the lake last summer. Are you having problems with your vision, or do you have some extreme definition of the term "performance boat"?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I never claimed ANY comments about summer camps being targeted by performance boats. I never claimed any infractions by performance boats whatsoever.

No infractions you say? Then pray tell what is the issue??? Why are YOU targeting performance boats then?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

No infractions you say? Then pray tell what is the issue??? Why are YOU targeting performance boats then?

I explained my position of summer camps earlier in this thread. See post 35, 38, 40, 45, 59, 64, 66, 69, 87, 92 and 104.

#87 is the best one, but do not miss the part in #90 where Woodsy thinks children's camps should hire Marine Patrol details to protect their children.

Also interesting is #36 where Dick, who opposes speed limits, claims any camp director that allows a canoe out on Winnipesaukee should be fired.

It's nice when the opposition makes your arguments for you.

[Mashugana]

I asked:

Originally Posted by Mashugana

Assume that everyone followed the boating laws as they stand right now. If everyone followed the 150 foot rule would that lead to a safe feeling for those few who are afraid of the lake or worry about errosion from fast boat wake?

Base your answer on the improbable theory that every boater will heed all current rules and laws including the 150 feet safe passage laws and No Wake Zones. No accidental or intentional rule violations. Now, of what benefit is a 45/25mph speed limit?

Your reply did not answer my hypothetical question. Noise is addressed in the rules as well as the 150 foot rule. You want speed limits to limit noise rather than the noise laws?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

First thing is you are stuck on the safety aspect of the question. There are many good reasons for a speed limit that have NOTHING to do with safety.

A speed limit will lower pollution, erosion, congestion etc. It will allow a more reasonable distribution of a limited resource.

With respect to safety any solution that requires absolute and total compliance with a given law is silly. It just is not going to happen, this is the real world. Back in the 60's there was a saying "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?" A lovely idea, but it doesn't help us with what to do about Iraq.

If nobody illegally used drugs, then all the laws against the production, transportation and sale of drugs would be unnecessary.

Errosion? Look at the picture of that big boat throwing that huge wake at well below 45 mph. Speed limits won't help there. It is not a safety issue relating to speed.
Congestion? Fast boats will be out of the way quicker than slow boats. Some claim that speed limits will attrack more small boats leading to more errosion, polution and congestion but that is not my point.

Assume that everyone followed all the rules as they are today. Would a speed limit make the lake safer? How can it make the lake quieter? slow boats have blaring stereos and some have loud engines too. Will there be less errosion from those plowing boats? Will campers be able to use the lake more often on weekedays?
Please do not dismiss the question. Just saying that it is a "SILLY" assumption is not an answer.

Thank you.

[Bear Islander]

Why assume the impossible? All the people will never obey all the boating laws.

What if there where a hundred fatal accidents a year on the lake all involving high speeds. Would you be in favor of a speed limit then? Don't bother answering, it doesn't matter. It will never happen either.

I make you the argument that a speed limit will help erosion. You respond that big slow boats cause erosion as well. Yes, that is true, but it has NOTHING to do with the question. Pointing the finger in another direction does not solve any problems.

A boat going fast uses up a greater area of the lake then when going slow. Your get out of the way theory is quite frankly mashugana. It takes a lot of open water for a boat to be able to travel at 90 mph. Boats going headway speed use up very little space, you can have quite a few of them in a very small area. Naturally I am giving you the extreme examples, however the theory holds true for all speeds.

A speed limit will make the lake quieter because fast boats make more noise then slow boats.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

A boat going fast uses up a greater area of the lake then when going slow.

Not always true. Let's take the narrows called the graveyard. A series of boats trolling through clogs the passage for much longer than a boat going 50. If I'm two miles away, I can adjust my spead to sync up with the 50 MPH boat speeding through the graveyard, and have my turn while on plane. If I have to wait for the trollers, I have to come off plane and add extra exhaust to the waters to come back on plane aftewards. I am in the vicinity longer so create a more concentrated plume of exhaust. Plus, I create more wake by coming off and back on plane. In this case, the faster the better. Here's another example. If a boat crosses the lake at 60 rather than 30 mph, they are on the water half as long, so out of more people's way, meaning less congestion. Boats at headway speed take up huge space. Not only are they a blockage, but they back up others who wish to get by.

[Silver Duck]

In my opinion, the speed limit effort is not primarily about safety and never really has been (although many well-intentioned folks have climbed aboard that particular band wagon.)

During the early stages of this debate, some speed limit supporters stated quite clearly on this forum that the intent of the speed limit was to drive performance boats off the lake and that 45 was chosen as a speed limit which would do so. So far as I can tell, that original goal has not changed one iota over the intervening years.

What's truly at issue here is not whether it is safe for boats to go faster than 45 mph, but whether the tastes of one group of people will be allowed to dictate how other folks will be allowed to enjoy the lake.

I, personally, do not believe that any one group of people should be allowed to dictate how others may use the lake.

I also believe that we are at the brink of a very slippery slope, indeed. If this campaign is successful, it will not be the end of the process. (Actually, the opening guns of the effort to eliminate cruisers are already being fired on another thread.)

Silver Duck

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

In my opinion, the speed limit effort is not primarily about safety and never really has been (although many well-intentioned folks have climbed aboard that particular band wagon.)

During the early stages of this debate, some speed limit supporters stated quite clearly on this forum that the intent of the speed limit was to drive performance boats off the lake and that 45 was chosen as a speed limit which would do so. So far as I can tell, that original goal has not changed one iota over the intervening years.

What's truly at issue here is not whether it is safe for boats to go faster than 45 mph, but whether the tastes of one group of people will be allowed to dictate how other folks will be allowed to enjoy the lake.

I, personally, do not believe that any one group of people should be allowed to dictate how others may use the lake.

I also believe that we are at the brink of a very slippery slope, indeed. If this campaign is successful, it will not be the end of the process. (Actually, the opening guns of the effort to eliminate cruisers are already being fired on another thread.)

Silver Duck

So the problems the children's camps are having is what... A lie? Unimportant?

[Mashugana]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Why assume the impossible? All the people will never obey all the boating laws.

I don't think you want to answer that question because the answer will not support the speed limit cause. You, Evenstar and other speed limit fans know that we already have the rules we need. We just need to enforce the rules and laws we already have.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

What if there where a hundred fatal accidents a year on the lake all involving high speeds. Would you be in favor of a speed limit then? Don't bother answering, it doesn't matter. It will never happen either.

What will never happen, all the speed deaths or my answer? Might it be that you think I could never change my position on the subject? I am not stuck in the groove. I have an open mind. Speed limits are not the answer here.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I make you the argument that a speed limit will help erosion. You respond that big slow boats cause erosion as well. Yes, that is true, but it has NOTHING to do with the question. Pointing the finger in another direction does not solve any problems.

You brought up erosion as a benefit of speed limits. I simply responded that speed limits will not reduce erosion by using the big boat example. Others have presented valid arguments about erosion, speed and plowing boats. Speed Limits are not the answer to that concern

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

A speed limit will make the lake quieter because fast boats make more noise then slow boats.

My inital question still is valid. There are rules and laws about maximum noise limits. Noise Limit laws deal with NOISE. Speed limits will NOT lower the level of loudness allowed by law. I'm not that "crazy" to believe it would. Many slow boats can make plenty of noise and have loud sound systems.

I concur that there will never be 100% rule compliance including any potential speed limit rule. My question takes away the variable. It assumes the current rules are followed and enforced 100%.

When you skirt the question it speaks volumes about your position.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

"...A fast boat will tend to head towards lightly traveled parts of the lake, so it has plenty of room to avoid other craft..."

"Oh, would that it were true, would that it were true..." (Apologies to John F. Kerry).

Originally Posted by hazelnut

WRONG!...The guy going 75MPH ACROSS THE BROADS is most definitely NOT THE PROBLEM...Speed is a relative term...A guy going 95 on a Tuesday across the Broads isn't speeding!

You can increase the GPS speed of your performance boat by taking it to less-choppy waters; unfortunately, that's where the people are.

Even in The Broads, among the sailboats, drifting I/Os, inflatables, kayaks, and even cruisers out there, I'd call that "Reckless Endangerment".

That rich neighbor in his tunnel-hull going past my dock at about 110-MPH—dodging swimmers, tubers—missing a neighbor's Hobie with five pre-teen girls—should have been arrested!

Now that I think of it, I haven't seen him around these past few seasons....

And now, top speeds for tunnel-hulls are over 170-MPH!

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...You are not serious about that statement are you? Ever get hit in the head by the boom of a sailboat? Lose your balance on your powerboat and fall overboard? I don't know too many people that can tread water when they are barely conscious or worse. No reason to wear a life jacket under 70? I'm thinking that you should go back and take safe boating course before you hurt someone, possibly yourself...!

I wrote over 70.

That observation is based on the 2005 Poker Run Smoke on the Waters, where three passengers drowned after their shoes, clothes, and mandated PFDs were ripped off at a USCG-observed 70-MPH.

"Always wear clean underwear" couldn't apply at that outrageous speed.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

[Extreme Drinks: Champagne]

It's 14% alcohol: I wouldn't take a dismissive stance on Champagne as an extreme drink among extreme boaters.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Clearly that would be a problem, however it is not the problem on Winnipesaukee. It is the 25-45mph boats disobeying the current laws that are the problem/danger. Also, the drunks at night that do not have to speed to kill.

Yup. Every slower boater is the problem—and the drunks who do have the speed to kill?

Originally Posted by codeman671

The largest lake in Florida has a average depth of 9 feet (20 feet at the deepest point!) You may want to do some recalculating...

Not any more: it's four feet.

But every Floridian can drive to the ocean within 1½ hours: even on ocean waters, they recorded 80 fatalities recently.

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Are there large numbers of high speed performance boats in Winni? I certainly see some but IMHO not large numbers. Maybe one is too many for BI, it certainly seems so.

I know of one: at 4½ tons, it was too much boat for The Big Lake.

Originally Posted by Lake Geezer

"...Not always true. Let's take the narrows called the graveyard. A series of boats trolling through clogs the passage for much longer than a boat going 50...If I have to wait for the trollers..."

Why am I reminded of tailgating by this?

Geesh—leave earlier.

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

"...Actually, the opening guns of the effort to eliminate cruisers are already being fired on another thread..."

Ae you saying that Mashugana's question wasn't totally motivated to improve the safety of bow-riding passengers—and that it wasn't an altruistic gesture to Winnipesaukee's boating public?

Originally Posted by Mashugana

"...Assume that everyone followed all the rules as they are today...Just saying that it is a "SILLY" assumption is not an answer..."

We know how to pronounce "assume".

Pronounce after me: ass-u-me.

Originally Posted by ITD

"...Your speed limit crusade will do nothing to lower the growing numbers of high performance boats..."

There's no question that high performance boats are increasing in numbers—so are the headlines of tragedy.

Nobody answered my speed limit question before—so here it is again:

What headline would cause you to change your mind?

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Why assume the impossible? All the people will never obey all the boating laws.

Why not make the assumption for the sake of discussion?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

A speed limit will make the lake quieter because fast boats make more noise then slow boats.

. I know that some boaters like to be loud and some big fast boats are so expensive that no $$ is left for a good muffler .

Noise is not a new issue. I remember a forum thread from 8 years ago on the subject. Someone wanted to make their boat louder to get closer to the legal limit. That whole thread from the archives makes me laugh a bit. Anyway, there was a post that addresses making any size boat sound loud. I'll reprint it below but you can read it and the thread if you wish:
The original post from 2000 Forum Archive

Re: More Sound Please - I've got your answer!!!

Posted By: Skipper of the Sea Que (CQ)
Date: Thursday, May 18, 2000 at 5:54 p.m.

In Response To: More Sound Please!!! (Screw-Canoe)

I have an excellent cassette and CD of a LOUD boat motor at various stages of RPM. No need to modify your engine, just plop in my tape or CD and PUMP up the volume. Track 1 for idle, Track 2 for fast acceleration, and etc...

I assume you have a 5,000 watt stereo system on-board so that you can play your music loud enough for all of us within 5 miles of your boat to enjoy (whether or not we want to). SO, why modify your engine when you can buy MY tape or CD and achieve your goal of sounding like a BIG GUN on the lake?

Of course my tapes and CDs come with a "self destruct" remote mechanism I can use if/when I get annoyed at the noise.....

AL
-------------------------

Go Fast does not necessarily mean Be Loud. Going slow does not mean quiet. varoom varoom under the Weirs Bridge is not fast or quiet. It is the boaters choice to be loud or not. When I was on my honeymoon (lakeside of course) it was the loud fishing boats that woke us up, not the big fast boats you speak of. Many motor boats of all sizes and types were able to be considerably loud at idle, during warm up and out on the water.

As has been said several times. Sound level laws are already in place. To add a speed limit in an attempt to lower sound levels is not the way to insure less boat noise.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

Why not make the assumption for the sake of discussion?

I have answered the question several times. Here is a longer version, I hope it makes you happy.

Even if all boating laws are obeyed all the time by all the boats we still need a speed limit. I have made it plain that safety is not the only reason, or even my principal reason, for wanting speed limits.

As to safety it is possible to flip a boat at high speed and kill the passengers. I don't mention the operator because that is his own responsibility. The State certainly has a duty to protect the children on board. Please remember you are arguing for NO LIMITS, that means 130 mph, 200 mph, 300 mph whatever. The fact that there are are no boats on the lake capable of certain speeds does not change the reality that you want NO LIMITS! If you argued for a 100 mph limit you would have some kind of credibility. But to think that a boat traveling at ANY speed on a small congested lake is not a safety issue is JUST PLAIN NUTS!

Consider also that a similar argument can be made about highways. If we all obeyed all the other laws why would we need speed limits on our highways? If we all obeyed all the other laws why do we need DWI laws? It's not easy for a drunk driver to kill someone, even himself, without violating some other law. It may be possible, but its hard to think of a scenario.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I have answered the question several times. Here is a longer version, I hope it makes you happy. No, your answer is not the reason I am happy.

Even if all boating laws are obeyed all the time by all the boats we still need a speed limit. (but WHY) I have made it plain that safety is not the only reason, or even my principal reason, for wanting speed limits. Kayaks and campers are not as important as WHAT? Answer the question {snip}
Please remember you are arguing for NO LIMITS, (No I'm not) that means 130 mph, 200 mph, 300 mph whatever. The fact that there are are no boats on the lake capable of certain speeds does not change the reality that you want NO LIMITS! (in reality I don't favor ADDITIONAL limits like 45/25mp) If you argued for a 100 mph limit you would have some kind of credibility. I have no credibility? really? But to think that a boat traveling at ANY speed on a small congested lake is not a safety issue is JUST PLAIN NUTS!

remarks in blue were added by Skipper of the Sea Que

I don't believe anti-speed limit advocates are arguing for absolutely "NO LIMITS". What I hear is, No additional speed limits". For me it means this speed limit bill is not an answer. Some have suggested higher speed limits but we are dealing with a 45/25mph issue here. Those are the limits I don't think will solve problems. There are speed limits already: 6 mph, headway speed, speed limits for passing within 150' of boats, land and people. We have a law (Skip may need to quote it) about reasonable speed. Don't put words in my mouth please. 300 mph is way too fast to be a reasonable speed on the lake IMO.

You (or any speed limit proponents) are not answering the question posed by mashugana and your weak reasons for not answering are that we still need speed limits so why answer the question. You claim the need for more speed limits are to address noise, congestion and erosion. I believe that at least 2 of those 3 are all covered by existing laws. Congestion is another topic. There are more people everywhere. Slowing them down means more people in the same area for a longer time.

Originally Posted by mashugana

Assume that everyone followed the boating laws as they stand right now. If everyone followed the 150 foot rule would that lead to a safe feeling for those few who are afraid of the lake or worry about erosion from fast boat wake?

Base your answer on the improbable theory that every boater will heed all current rules and laws including the 150 feet safe passage laws and No Wake Zones. No accidental or intentional rule violations. Now, of what benefit is a 45/25mph speed limit?

I think his question raises a very good point which has yet to be properly answered. Carry on guys and gals.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

... We have a law (Skip may need to quote it) about reasonable speed. Don't put words in my mouth please. 300 mph is way too fast to be a reasonable speed on the lake IMO.
...

Please give me more detail on the "reasonable speed" law.

[DoTheMath]

I posted this to another thread, but it seems to apply here as well...

So, for Acres Per Second - just out of curiosity, do you have any (real) experience with "high-performance" boats!? How about anyone on this thread that is in favor of a speed limit!? Real experience - not from watching them on TV, maybe - have you ever piloted a boat above, say... 60 mph? How about 80mph? And how about that magic number of 100mph everyone keeps referring to? Do you know anything about how they work, how they operate - what it takes to make them run... in a safe manner? Most people (99%) I have spoken with about this topic - that are in favor of a speed limit - have NO clue what a boat that will run at higher speeds is all about, aside from what they may have seen on TV one Saturday. They have never even been in a boat that will run anywhere near 80mph, let-alone 100mph. But they think they know what it's all about, "ohh - that boat looks really fast, it must be dangerous!". How about people discuss the FACTS from first-hand experience only! There are car accidents every day, there was a 16 yr old kid killed down here in Lexington the other night - he was in a MINI VAN that struck a tree! It was driven by another teenager - it was a result of operator error! Do we need to outlaw mini-vans from being on the road now 'cuz they get into accidents and kill people!? I know several people with Porsche's, Ferrari's and Lamborghini's with no accidents OR speeding tickets in them... Hmmm, dumb-luck or just responsible operators!?

Like Sgt. Friday used to say - "just the facts ma'am". I don't see how one groups speculation and desires should over-shadow another's, ESPECIALLY when there are no FACTS to support them! This is the Live Free or Die state, it is a free country last I checked and our freedoms should be held in the highest regard. We have laws on the lake today that aren't (or can't be due to lack of coverage) even enforced - 150' safe passage always comes to mind - how about we work on those first!? We can't teach common sense - I agree 100% - but we can teach people to be better and more safety-conscious boaters.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...I don’t know what type PFDs the crew was wearing or whether the PFDs were off the shelf or not...If either the Poker Run itself or the accident were observed by the Coast Guard it's a safe bet it wasn't held in New Hampshire!..."

Poker Run promoters are still "talking" special racing PFDs for their ocean-racers on protected inland waters.

The Poker Run was at Grand Haven, Lake Michigan. (The freshwater is very different there, donchaknow).

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...USCG Nav rules have not been adopted by NH..."

Yeah...too bad. A few posts back, Lakegeezer just quoted Rule 6:

Quoting...
RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions..

Yet in the night-time "Kayak Cut in Half" collision, it was dismissed!

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

"...I personally do not oppose the idea of a speed limit per se. But I vehemently oppose implementing one that is specifically designed to drive a particular type of boat off the lake because some folks disapprove of that type of boat.

It would be up to the individual whether to exceed 45-MPH or not—irrespective of boat design.

(After dark: 25-MPH).

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...APS ignored the specifics I asked him as well..."

We're even? ,,,I never got an answer to:

"What headline would cause you to change your mind?"

(Those NH Senators in opposition? Please include the word "children" in your answer.)

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

"...My suggestions for dealing with someone that actually harms a child can't be printed in a family-oriented forum...."

Civil law doesn't protect children as well as it protects retirees. But with all the creative penalties around, why did a judge use up a perfectly good jail cell to punish Lake Winnipesaukee's most experienced performance boater?

I'd have sentenced him to weekends sitting in a kayak, anchored off the lake's most talked-about flashing light, day and night, every June through September—for five years. A diary would be required proof of compliance to record NHMP passings, and scheduled calls to a Probation Officer. (He would be permitted only two D-cells for his light). Like you, I'd ban him from the lake forever after completing his sentence.

Oh yeah...I'd also mandate that he carry the whistle that meets NH boating laws.

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

...So, for Acres Per Second - just out of curiosity, do you have any (real) experience with "high-performance" boats...!?"

When I should have been paying attention at Wolfeboro's Brewster Academy, I designed, built, and later operated, my third boat: a tunnel-hull racer.

I'm all grown up now.

[Seeker]

Just when is the Senate expecting to vote on the speed limit bill? Is it still in committee?

[DoTheMath]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

When I should have been paying attention at Wolfeboro's Brewster Academy, I designed, built, and later operated, my third boat: a tunnel-hull racer.

I'm all grown up now.

Yeah - Brewster - and I have an MBA from Wharton - ok, so now we've got the edu. background out of the way... So - let me ask, was your tunnel-hull racer bigger than 1/12th scale? I'm not talking models - I'm talking the real deal. And if it was a "tunnel-hull racer" as you refer to it, I'm also not referring to the ones with a 15hp. outboard on it that's 10' long. I'm talking a full sized, I'm-really-all-grown-up-now performance boat, Skater, Cigarette, Outerlimits... that kind of performance boat. Your past posts read a bit differently than if you had real experience with what I am referring to and what you are so freely bashing. Come on - let's get it out there and see what you've got to offer in the way of REAL experience that can support your stance.

Oh, and how about Poker Runs, how many have you participated in!? Rough numbers will be fine )

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

... We have a law (Skip may need to quote it) about reasonable speed. Don't put words in my mouth please. 300 mph is way too fast to be a reasonable speed on the lake IMO.

...

I will save you some time. There is no such law. I have been told many times that such a law exists, it doesn't. When people look and can't find it they come up with this instead...

270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

If you are really desperate for an answer I suppose "careless and negligent" can look like "reasonable speed" but of course it isn't.

[Silver Duck]

BI

You asked "So the problems the children's camps are having is what... A lie? Unimportant?"

My response is H**L No!!!

So far as I'm concerned, any operator of any type of boat that recklessly endangers a child, in whatever way, deserves no mercy. At a minimum, confiscate his boat and take away his privilege to operate a boat in NH forever. Tar and feathers might be good, too. You knock 'em down and I'll stomp on 'em! My suggestions for dealing with someone that actually harms a child can't be printed in a family-oriented forum.

But, as I've said all along, to get my buy-in you need to go after the specific bone heads that are doing the endangering rather than punishing the many for the sins of the few.

I also feel that Camp Directors need to exercise due dilligence in protecting their campers, though. For instance, on swims that go outside marked areas there need to be plenty of highly visible safety boats, and I wouldn't let a kid get more than a few feet from shore in a canoe - period. (IMHO, the darned things are death traps. Stock up on decent kayaks for paddle sports, and tradition be danged.)

I'll let you in on a well kept secret. I personally do not oppose the idea of a speed limit per se. But I vehemently oppose implementing one that is specifically designed to drive a particular type of boat off the lake because some folks disapprove of that type of boat.

Silver Duck

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

...

But I vehemently oppose implementing one that is specifically designed to drive a particular type of boat off the lake because some folks disapprove of that type of boat.

Silver Duck

I hope one day you finally find out how wrong you are about that. I'm not sure how you people got that idea in your heads, but it seems there is no way to get it out.

A local camp has to limit access to the lake because at times it is to dangerous to send out small boats. An ex camp director with a child in that camp decides to support a speed limit he thinks may help. So obviously his REAL reason is because he hates one particular type of boat.

It doesn't pass the laugh test, but you will not let go of your misconceptions.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
A local camp has to limit access to the lake because at times it is to dangerous to send out small boats. An ex camp director with a child in that camp decides to support a speed limit he thinks may help. So obviously his REAL reason is because he hates one particular type of boat.

Bear Islander...I am confused. You wrote to me;

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
You know I get tired of your putting words in my mouth. Why do you feel the need to expand what I say into far more than it was? I never made ANY comments about summer camps being targeted by performance boats. I never claimed any infractions by performance boats whatsoever.

Pretending I said things I never did is just another way of telling lies.

Yet now you again imply that summer camps (at least one) belives it's too dangerous because of speeding boats? It is a camp director's JOB to be protective of his/her children. I would prosecute any camp director that did not, however their concern in this case is not valid even according to you.

Originally posted by Bear Islander:

...

I will save you some time. There is no such law. I have been told many times that such a law exists, it doesn't. When people look and can't find it they come up with this instead...

270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

If you are really desperate for an answer I suppose "careless and negligent" can look like "reasonable speed" but of course it isn't.

While NH has not adopted the USGC Navigation Rules, something I think should be done then improved upon as the state sees fit, 270:29-a and Rule 6 are similar enough that 270:29-a can, and should, be used by the Marine Patrol in instances where the officer believes the operator of a boat was traveling at a speed in excess of conditions that would endanger the lives and safety of the public.

RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:

(a) By all vessels:

The state of visibility;
The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels;
The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions;
At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights;
The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards;
The draft in relation to the available depth of water.
(b)Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:

The characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the radar equipment;
Any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use;
The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather and other sources of interference;
The possibility that small vessels, ice and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range;
The number, location and movement of vessels detected by radar;
The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.

Now I have to credit you that you have admitted, unlike most of your speed limit advocates, that safety is not the issue. You are trying to eliminate a certain type of boat from Lake Winnipesaukee.

You wrote something I liked. "A butterfly is a beautiful thing, but it does not belong in my soup".
The only problem with that analogy is that Lake Winnipesaukee is not YOUR soup, it's OUR soup.

[Bear Islander]

I don't know why you are confused. Posting that camps are having to keep in their boats and posting that high performance boats are committing violations are two totally different things.

Please remember that I never said high performance boats were NOT committing violations near children's camps. I have only said I never made that claim. I dislike having words put in my mouth. If I want to make that claim, and can back it up, I will. Until I do so, then I have not done so.

Perhaps you need to read my posts more closely and not infer more than I am saying.

My soup is made with lake water.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

That should about do it! Solves the kayak and camp problems by defining safe, rather than having it based on fear. Maybe our law-makers should take a new look at this, rather than the mess they are creating.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander"
I don't know why you are confused. Posting that camps are having to keep in their boats and posting that high performance boats are committing violations are two totally different things.

Please remember that I never said high performance boats were NOT committing violations near children's camps. I have only said I never made that claim. I dislike having words put in my mouth. If I want to make that claim, and can back it up, I will. Until I do so, then I have not done so.

Perhaps you need to read my posts more closely and not infer more than I am saying.

My soup is made with lake water.

Yet you keep bringing it up in an obvious attempt to link the two and are now trying to distance yourself from your statements. So if you don't know something to be true why bring it up? In a continued attempt to twist the facts and fear monger!

And here is a little contradiction for you.
First there is your statement:

I never claimed any infractions by performance boats whatsoever

Now there is this:

I never said high performance boats were NOT committing violations near children's camps.

So, they are or they are NOT?

My soup is also made of the same lake water!

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I hope one day you finally find out how wrong you are about that. I'm not sure how you people got that idea in your heads, but it seems there is no way to get it out.

A local camp has to limit access to the lake because at times it is to dangerous to send out small boats. An ex camp director with a child in that camp decides to support a speed limit he thinks may help. So obviously his REAL reason is because he hates one particular type of boat.

It doesn't pass the laugh test, but you will not let go of your misconceptions.

Hi Bear Islander, just want to clarify something here. I worked for both the camps that are on your island. While employed there for eight years, I drove the boats and assisted in the boating programs (waterskiing,sailing, etc...) I was working there when the decision was made to not run boating programs on weekends. The speed limit will not change the issues that caused this decision to be made. This decision was made because of the congestion around Bear Island on weekends. Watersking was canceled because it was not fun for the kids. It is very hard to instruct a novice skier in choppy conditions, and the experienced ones didn't want to go because you can't do anything except hold on and try not to fall. Plus the ski boat was a Ski Tique by Correct Craft that would take water over the bow at the drop of a hat. It was not safe to send the campers out in canoes and sail boats because it was so rough the boats would capsize. Then the instructors spent more time righting boats than instructing. So other programming is provided for the weekends, and the boating is reserved for the weekdays, when there is less traffic. I was on the water almost everyday from just after ice out until I had to go back to college. I drove a boat more than a car, and went all over the lake in the process. In my experience the the speed of the boats around me were never an issue. I did have boaters cut me off, come to close to kids while skiing, driving under the influence (actually hit the island by the dining hall), anchoring off the end of camp drinking and swearing in front of kids, and coming to close to marked swim areas. These issues are all intelligence related not speed related. Can only remember one incident in the 8 years I was there with a go fast. It was 1 or 2 in the morning and my cabin was right by the main dock at Lawrence. The guy went by up on plane and woke me up. Coulda strangled him.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by parrothead

Hi Bear Islander, just want to clarify something here. I worked for both the camps that are on your island. While employed there for eight years, I drove the boats and assisted in the boating programs (waterskiing,sailing, etc...) I was working there when the decision was made to not run boating programs on weekends. The speed limit will not change the issues that caused this decision to be made. This decision was made because of the congestion around Bear Island on weekends. Watersking was canceled because it was not fun for the kids. It is very hard to instruct a novice skier in choppy conditions, and the experienced ones didn't want to go because you can't do anything except hold on and try not to fall. Plus the ski boat was a Ski Tique by Correct Craft that would take water over the bow at the drop of a hat. It was not safe to send the campers out in canoes and sail boats because it was so rough the boats would capsize. Then the instructors spent more time righting boats than instructing. So other programming is provided for the weekends, and the boating is reserved for the weekdays, when there is less traffic. I was on the water almost everyday from just after ice out until I had to go back to college. I drove a boat more than a car, and went all over the lake in the process. In my experience the the speed of the boats around me were never an issue. I did have boaters cut me off, come to close to kids while skiing, driving under the influence (actually hit the island by the dining hall), anchoring off the end of camp drinking and swearing in front of kids, and coming to close to marked swim areas. These issues are all intelligence related not speed related. Can only remember one incident in the 8 years I was there with a go fast. It was 1 or 2 in the morning and my cabin was right by the main dock at Lawrence. The guy went by up on plane and woke me up. Coulda strangled him.

We certainly agree that the congestion and lack of boater "intelligence" is a problem particularly on weekends. The speed limit is not targeted against go fast boats. That is a misconception many people on this forum have. I personally think they have no place on the lake for several reasons, but that is in many ways a separate argument from speed.

The congestion and lack of intelligence is growing. Already there are days, other than weekends, when camp boating must be limited. My biggest concern is where the lake is headed. If things get worse camp activities may have to be limited even more.

One thing we can do is enact a speed limit. It will not solve the lakes problems but will improve things. A speed limit is a tool the MP can use to limit some of the worst situations.

Continuing to NOT have a speed limit will attract even more idiots to this lake. Especially when other lakes continue to enact speed limits.

Other lakes that have passed speed limits claim they have worked to slow the pace and reduce congestion.

The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association supports speed limits. With all do respect, as they say, I think that group has a better handle than you on current conditions and what is needed to improve them.

[Resident 2B]

BI,

You continue to put your personal "spin" of almost every factual post that is counter to your position here. Quite frankly, I have gotten to the point where I have to react to your behavior.

You continuously refuse to listen to any facts and you continuously refuse to listen to very well-supported opinions of those that do not support your position, even when they seem to have more experince on the lake than you have. As I stated in a prior post, and this was not disputed by you, you are still a "young pup", regardless of your huge, implied financial means. "Young pups" should consider the experience of us "old dogs".

You can continue to attempt to “spin” things however you want. Again, it is a free country. I, for one, have fought for our government on foreign lands for this freedom. However, your complete lack of dealing with the facts and your continuous efforts to "spin it your way" totally and completely discredits your position.

You are acting like a spoiled little rich kid. Your lack of maturity and your "power through material holdings" clearly comes through loud and clear in almost all of your posts.

Trying to control the lives of those who are not as financially well off as you imply you are is not the way to live. I see way too much of this in your behavior and posts, negatively impacting and discrediting those with meeker means. You and the other "rich folks" with lake front property do not own the lake. You only own your property. Attempting to limit the use of the lake by others who desire different usage than you feel is appropriate, is clearly wrong and clearly un-American, and you should know this. I have no idea how you sleep at night given the way you act.

I hope that in the future you will continue to argue your points, but begin to be truthful and honest in your arguments. This will be a very refreshing change and might even show some form of maturity on your part. It might even convince some people who are “on the fence” with this issue that you are actually right. Otherwise, your unsubstantiated rants are driving people to the other side of this issue.

The internet is a gold mine for people like you. As someone who is a professional in the video production business, I am sure you not only know this, but you have been using to your complete advantage.

A very wise mentor once told me: It is nice to be important, but it more important to be nice! Great advice in my opinion!

Good luck in your trip into space. Sounds like an huge waste of money that could have been used to support NH conservation and lake resources.

I like people who put their money where their mouth is. Perhaps you will reconsider things that are important in your life and change your ways and the use of your implied large disposable income.

Going into space is not a meaningful endeavor. It is a very selfish act. This is only an ego-building, personal endeavor. You can choose to use your resources in making this world a better place, and you do not have to go into space to do it.

Thank you for listening to this well-intended advice. Remember, honesty is always the best policy!




R2B

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

. The speed limit is not targeted against go fast boats. That is a misconception many people on this forum have.

THAT'S IT! I am now convinced you are so full of it , your eyes must be brown

So this means I won't have to obey a speed limit

The more you talk , the more you discredit yourself but you've already been told the and continue to prove it.

You're more out of touch than Bush

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Replying to you is like replying to a wall - because like many others here, you refuse to consider any facts that don't happen to agree with your narrow look on things. The truth is that most people outside of a powerboat forum happen to support lake speed limits...

And Evenstar you are SO open minded. Let us bask in your open mindedness. Remember you are the one who supports a law that is solely based on discrimination. You can spin it any way you like but the law is just a means to an end. You are putting all your eggs in one basket with this one, praying that there will be a mass exodus of all the High Performance boats. In the end that is all your crowd cares about. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I am all for laws, rules, regulations etc. that promote safety on the lake. Targeting the guy going 75MPH across the broads WILL NOT promote safety. It's the idiot doing 35MPH in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem. This activity will continue and your crowd will have the cry wolf stigma with lawmakers when you try for additional legislation and funding for safety initiatives. Talk to us after the law passes and let me know how "safe" you feel on the lake. My prediction, you'll feel just as you do now.... "ascared."

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Targeting the guy going 75MPH across the broads WILL NOT promote safety. It's the idiot doing 35MPH in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem.

WRONG!

It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem".

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

WRONG!

It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem".

WRONG! Again but that's nothing new. The guy going 75MPH ACROSS THE BROADS is most definitely NOT THE PROBLEM.

The guy weaving in and out of a congested doing even 30MPH area violating the 150ft LAW is the problem. Very rarely do you see a boat doing above 50MPH in a congested zone. The more you argue that point the more you lose credibility so please keep pushing that one it only helps make my case that you are fear mongering.

Speed is a relative term BI. I consider it speeding when a guy is doing 45 in and around the Weirs on a Saturday. A guy going 95 on a Tuesday across the Broads isn't speeding!

[Bear Islander]

"It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem".

Perhaps you did not read carefully enough.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem".

Perhaps you did not read carefully enough.

Clearly that would be a problem, however it is not the problem on Winnipesaukee. It is the 25-45mph boats disobeying the current laws that are the problem/danger. Also, the drunks at night that do not have to speed to kill.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem".

Perhaps you did not read carefully enough.

Clearly I did and I stand by the point that the person actually doing 35MPH "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem!"

Not the fantasy land scenario that you have concocted to insight fear. So once again please continue down this path as it further digs you deeper and deeper into a hole built on fear mongering and twisted logic.

...awaiting tall tale with regard to 75MPH boat weaving through a crowded bay.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Evenstar
My best friend and I have had close calls with high speed powerboats EVERY SINGLE TIME that we have paddled on Winni

How fast, how close, where and how many times?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander
You dislike the results, so you assume they must be flawed

Where have I seen that before?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander
It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem

And while you are playing with words your intent is clear, to imply that this is a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee when it fact it is NOT! Fear Mongering at it's worst!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

According to http://www.worldatlas.com, Florida has 11,761 sq miles of inland waters, compared to NH's 382 sq miles. So FL has 84 boats/squ mile of inland water, while NH has 264 registered boats for every square mile. So which state has the more congested lakes?

I think that is a bit of a skewed comparison. How much of Florida is the Everglades? How navigable by powerboats are the Everglades?

The largest lake in Florida has a average depth of 9 feet (20 feet at the deepest point!) and covers an expansive 730 square miles compared to 72 square miles of Winnipesaukee and an average depth of 43 feet. The drainage basin that it dumps into covers 4600 miles of more, basically un-navigable water. The map on the site that you linked to shows the bottom 20% of the state to be basically swamp.

NH only has 18 miles of coast whereas Florida has over 8000 miles. Do you think that the 988,000 registered boats all boat on inland waters? I think this was the most skewed comparion to date on this site.

You may want to do some recalculating...