Economic dangers of an unnecessary boating law!

Airwaves · 11-11-2009, 06:34 PM

I was surfing the net looking for the average boat registration payment to NH when I stumbled across a study completed in June 2003.

It addresses the economic impact of NH's surface water uses and breaks it down into various subsections ie: Boating, Fishing, Swimming etc.

We've been down the road of statistics vs emotion before. Now let's throw money into the equation and then ask, does New Hampshire want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

robmac · 11-12-2009, 08:46 AM

Very interesting study,never thought the numbers were that high.

ApS · 11-12-2009, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...We've been down the road of statistics vs emotion before. Now let's through money into the equation and then ask, does New Hampshire want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg...?"

It's outdated: The people who wrote this were unaware of the name "Littlefield".

BroadHopper · 11-12-2009, 10:48 AM

As i read this '1000 lakes and 10,0000 miles of rivers and streams', I am truly amaze as to the amount of water that the state has to cover. It must be a tremendous job for DES, Fish and Game and the Marine Patrol to protect.

I remember Lt. Dunleavy talk about the manpower of Marine Patrol a couple of years ago. 'That at the most in a given time there is about 90 full time officers working.' I can't recall if he mention the number of part timers working. This tells me that the MP is grossly understaffed to take on the responsibility of protecting our waters. I can't imagine the logistic of what body of water should have a patrol boat and what body should not!

Yet, USCG statistics says that NH is the safest place to boat. I applaud the Marine Patrol for being very effective and efficient.

I should also applaud the DES in keeping our waterways clean. It is a daunting task as more and more people are moving to our waterways.

Airwaves · 11-12-2009, 09:24 PM

I know that elchase posted his response to another thread...why? Probably because he wants this one, like the actual Coast Guard and Marine Patrol information to disappear.

Quote:

Orginally posted by Elchase:

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
I was surfing the net looking for the average boat registration payment to NH when I stumbled across a study completed in June 2003.It addresses the economic impact of NH's surface water uses and breaks it down into various subsections ie: Boating, Fishing, Swimming etc.We've been down the road of statistics vs emotion before. Now let's through money into the equation and then ask, does New Hampshire want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

Funny you should bring this up. The lead partner at this firm, the guy most involved with this project, was one of the biggest and most vocal supporters of a permanent 45/25 speed limit. He spoke at several events and hearings about the negative impact that high speed boating was having on our "golden egg". He talked about how hard the state has worked for so long to market our lakes and mountains and to project a "natural" image for NH to attract tourists. He worried aloud about the destruction to that image that such a contrary, aggressive, and "unnatural" activity was having and how much of a negative economic impact it was having. Why do you think we don't have photos of 6-ton cigarette boats blasting across the water on the font of our tourist brochures? The very experts you are quoting are some of your most avid opponents on this issue.
Now, please tell us what you found about the registration payments and how, assuming they have increased, that is the fault of a SL that the state has not yet invested $10K into.

Who is involved in the partnership does not matter. What matters is the findings of the economic impact of boating in NH.

Resident 2B · 11-12-2009, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

It's outdated......

It might be 6-years-old now, but I am not aware of any comprehensive study like this that has superseded this study. Therefore, it is the most recent, comprehensive study done on the economic impact of water sports on our lakes.

Facts are facts! This is so hard for some people to comprehend.

No smoke, no spin, just the facts!

R2B

Airwaves · 11-18-2009, 02:01 PM

This thread has been up for a week and linked to the most comprehensive report I have seen to date of the economic impact on NH by boaters and yet outside of APS who claims the study is "outdated" and the post by elchase that I had to move over here from another thread that questions why we are quoting information written supposedly by a supporter, the supporters have had nothing to say! Why? Let's review

NH waters have been documented as the safest in New England and among the safest in the country, that certainly goes against the fear mongering that they have been churning out for years!

They ignore the fact that creating a hostile environment for tourists will chase them, and the substantial amount of revenue they bring with them to operate municipalities and the state and retailers, away to more tourist friendly places.

Could it be that, like with most of the "facts" that they have been presenting in this discussion, when those "facts" are examined they fall apart they switch tactics and just ignore what is the truth and instead step up the fear mongering?

I guess things are rosy enough in New Hampshire economically to allow the state to walk away from hundreds of millions of dollars annually. (2002 dollars)

BroadHopper · 11-18-2009, 02:10 PM

Airwaves. I don't think you will get an answer from the supporters. Opponents uses facts and it can be backed up. Yet the supporters use the 'fear factor' which can only be backed up by skewed polls.

That is why politicians can never be good business men and vice versa.

11-11-2009, 06:34 PM	#1
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	Economic dangers of an unnecessary boating law! I was surfing the net looking for the average boat registration payment to NH when I stumbled across a study completed in June 2003. It addresses the economic impact of NH's surface water uses and breaks it down into various subsections ie: Boating, Fishing, Swimming etc. We've been down the road of statistics vs emotion before. Now let's throw money into the equation and then ask, does New Hampshire want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg? Last edited by Airwaves; 11-12-2009 at 07:12 PM. Reason: Spelling police! through to throw!

11-12-2009, 10:48 AM	#4
BroadHopper Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Laconia NH Posts: 5,560 Thanks: 3,176 Thanked 1,097 Times in 790 Posts	Water Coverage As i read this '1000 lakes and 10,0000 miles of rivers and streams', I am truly amaze as to the amount of water that the state has to cover. It must be a tremendous job for DES, Fish and Game and the Marine Patrol to protect. I remember Lt. Dunleavy talk about the manpower of Marine Patrol a couple of years ago. 'That at the most in a given time there is about 90 full time officers working.' I can't recall if he mention the number of part timers working. This tells me that the MP is grossly understaffed to take on the responsibility of protecting our waters. I can't imagine the logistic of what body of water should have a patrol boat and what body should not! Yet, USCG statistics says that NH is the safest place to boat. I applaud the Marine Patrol for being very effective and efficient. I should also applaud the DES in keeping our waterways clean. It is a daunting task as more and more people are moving to our waterways. __________________ Someday may never be an actual day.

11-18-2009, 02:01 PM	#7
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	Nothing from supporters! This thread has been up for a week and linked to the most comprehensive report I have seen to date of the economic impact on NH by boaters and yet outside of APS who claims the study is "outdated" and the post by elchase that I had to move over here from another thread that questions why we are quoting information written supposedly by a supporter, the supporters have had nothing to say! Why? Let's review NH waters have been documented as the safest in New England and among the safest in the country, that certainly goes against the fear mongering that they have been churning out for years! They ignore the fact that creating a hostile environment for tourists will chase them, and the substantial amount of revenue they bring with them to operate municipalities and the state and retailers, away to more tourist friendly places. Could it be that, like with most of the "facts" that they have been presenting in this discussion, when those "facts" are examined they fall apart they switch tactics and just ignore what is the truth and instead step up the fear mongering? I guess things are rosy enough in New Hampshire economically to allow the state to walk away from hundreds of millions of dollars annually. (2002 dollars)

11-18-2009, 02:10 PM	#8
BroadHopper Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Laconia NH Posts: 5,560 Thanks: 3,176 Thanked 1,097 Times in 790 Posts	Facts is more powerful than fiction, yet is stranger than fiction. Airwaves. I don't think you will get an answer from the supporters. Opponents uses facts and it can be backed up. Yet the supporters use the 'fear factor' which can only be backed up by skewed polls. That is why politicians can never be good business men and vice versa. __________________ Someday may never be an actual day.

The Following User Says Thank You to Airwaves For This Useful Post:
robmac (11-12-2009)

11-12-2009, 08:46 AM	#2
robmac Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Nashua,Meredith Posts: 951 Thanks: 213 Thanked 106 Times in 81 Posts	Very interesting study,never thought the numbers were that high.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Airwaves For This Useful Post:
Resident 2B (11-12-2009)