How has the lake changed????

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Contrary to popular belief, that fatal accident many years ago was not the reason Bear islanders started a push for a speed limit. The reason was the growing cowboy atmosphere, the "get out of my way" mentality. That accident was however the "impetus" behind the speed limit. It was the shock that got some people up off their butts with the determination to do something about the lakes problems.

They felt a speed limit was a do-able solution. More enforcement and education might have been a better solution, but they require serious funding, and that just was NOT going to happen. Better to go with a plan that might actually happen, than with a better plan that has no chance at all.

The speed limit was never intended to "fix" the lake. It is just one way to make things a little better over time. Or perhaps just slow the rate of decline. It is not a "magic bullet" fix and was never intended as such. A speed limit does not bring about a quick victory, it will not "change the lake" in only a year or two. It will change the lake by thousands of small victories.

My brother-in-laws friend has been bringing his performance boat to Winni for years. This year he went to Long Lake because of the speed limit. A small victory.

Imagine a wife standing in a boat showroom and saying "why are we spending all this extra cash for a boat that will go 80 MPH when the lake has a 45 MPH limit?" You can also imagine the husband with a pained expression and a salesman that is looking at the floor. When this happens it will be another small victory.

The speed limit, enforced or not, sets a standard of behavior. It points the lake in a different direction. It sends a message to the cowboys. And that message is "go elsewhere".

Funny, I just put a deposit down on another "performance boat" yesterday...trading in my '89 "performance boat" for another. A small defeat for you. As with the last I will use it in a safe and prudent manner that is suitable for the conditions in which I choose to operate it. As do my friends with their "performance boats". There has been no mass exodus of boats that can easily exceed the speed limit and that do on a regular basis. Or will there be.

Bear Islander you with your personal agenda as well as others of the same ilk will NEVER influence my decision to buy a certain type of boat or where or how to operate it. And I'm confident that my other "performance" minded boat owning friends to a person would agree with me. BTW, My wife suggested that it was time for a new one. Yet another apparent defeat.

I have yet to be pulled over in the broads when operating my boat, the same is true as when driving my car on I93 in excess of the SL. For those boaters that do get stopped for "speeding", I'd be willing to bet that they were also operating in an unsafe and imprudent manner in a high traffic area. Not out on the main part of the lake with plenty of room.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Yankee

BTW, My wife suggested that it was time for a new one. Yet another apparent defeat.

Yankee - I think you've died and gone to heaven. The WIFE suggested it was time for a new one? Take care of that Mrs. she's a keeper!

[VtSteve]

So I'll answer my own question. No, the SL has done nothing to calm down the BI NWZ, but over a period of decades, perhaps most people will be either sailing, or driving 16' outboards with 5 hp, maybe even solar engines.

The wakes are big, and the HP limit we will seek in the future will put and end to any boat that has more than 300 hp, hopefully less than that. We knew that nothing would come of this law, but there will be more to come. And Jeezum Crow, we wanted to do something.

[Yankee]

You've hit it square on the head VTSteve. The next target will be the amount of horsepower that a boat can have. And after that, it will be limits on a boat's displacement. And because a boat won't be able to go fast anymore, the excuse will be the big scary wakes that they make.

I think that in the end, motorized boats will be outlawed except for the priviledged few.

[sunset on the dock]

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling".

[VtSteve]

At some point SOTD, you'll be recanting all of your great stories of sitting on the dock in peace and quiet. Similar to your new stories in the BP area, which conflict wildly with what you say the SL has done for the lake. The fact that you can so fluently spew this kind of waste and try to sell it as observations and truth, makes everyone suspect of all future moves.

I know you'll be able to do it, as you can do 180 degree turns on a dime better than anyone. At headway speed, I wonder how long it takes you to travel to the BP area.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

At some point SOTD, you'll be recanting all of your great stories of sitting on the dock in peace and quiet. Similar to your new stories in the BP area, which conflict wildly with what you say the SL has done for the lake. The fact that you can so fluently spew this kind of waste and try to sell it as observations and truth, makes everyone suspect of all future moves.

No contradiction at all. Unquestionably the lake is quieter and more civilized than it's been in many years. Many agree. And yes, we did go to the BP today and saw boats going in both directions through this narrow area. It didn't take long, maybe 5 minutes, to see how fast boats were closer than 150' from the island, each other, and that the wakes were quite large. I do indeed pity the people on those 2 little islands, if for no other reason than that irritating drone from the GFBL's that passed. Didn't see Cecil B. Demille, a.k.a. HN filming however. And given the number of posters who regularly brag about breaking the SL (and one who bragged last year and probably wishes he hadn't), I hope these people fight to retain their hard won gains. As for all the futile talk that the SL could ever be repealed, I would think the Little Birch and Squirrel Is. people would use that argument too.
Hey...what happened to that kinder, gentler VtSteve who promised to behave a short while back? Now that was a short lived Epiphany.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Yankee

You've hit it square on the head VTSteve. The next target will be the amount of horsepower that a boat can have. And after that, it will be limits on a boat's displacement. And because a boat won't be able to go fast anymore, the excuse will be the big scary wakes that they make.

I think that in the end, motorized boats will be outlawed except for the priviledged few.

Instead of allowing the "privileged few" to use power boats, I hope it will be islanders that get to keep their power boats. After all, we NEED them to get to and from our homes.

However legislation like that will be a long time coming, if ever, and I will not support it.

What I will support is a 300 HP limit for boats manufactured after 2012. Exceptions for commercial boats and law enforcement obviously.

[winni83]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Instead of allowing the "privileged few" to use power boats, I hope it will be islanders that get to keep their power boats. After all, we NEED them to get to and from our homes.

However legislation like that will be a long time coming, if ever, and I will not support it.

What I will support is a 300 HP limit for boats manufactured after 2012. Exceptions for commercial boats and law enforcement obviously.

This simply astounds me. This is a quote which must be saved for future reference. My lord, my 25 foot cuddy is within 40 horsepower of that limit and it is underpowered by most standards. If I abide by the relevant speed limit and obey the various boating, navigation and rules of passage, of what business is it of your to limit the horsepower on my boat? Are you postulating that a boat of more than the "approved" horsepower is prima facie evidence that one is a cowboy or will otherwise violate the above rules, or is this simply in pursuit of what I now believe to be the ultimate goal of Winnfabs and its fellow travelers, namely through various means over a period of time to effectively ban all but the boats which the Winnfabs crowd approves of. How about we make rules so that no boat capable of violating all of the other rules can be operated on the Lake – problem of enforcement and marine patrol funding solved! First a speed limit, then reductions in the speed limit, then proliferating no wake zones, then a horsepower restriction, then a reduction in the horsepower restriction and then whatever else this group can think of. I think this “make the lake safe” mantra has confirmed its true intentions and in so doing may have awakened a sleeping giant among those who, like me, own more kayaks, row boats and canoes than power boats, have one boat which on a good day can maybe exceed the daytime speed limit, but have had it up to my eyeballs with this crowd. I certainly will do all I can at the next opportunity to counter this trend.

[Bear Islander]

Many lakes and ponds in New Hampshire and around the country have horsepower limits. I have argued on this forum for a HP limit since 2002, nothing new about that.

I have read many times that the only solution to the cowboy mentality is enforcement and education. That there is no way to legislate a solution. But think about the effects of a REALLY low HP limit. A 100 HP or 50 HP limit would change this lake over night. A drastic solution to be sure. However the premise does prove that you CAN legislate serious change.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Many lakes and ponds in New Hampshire and around the country have horsepower limits. I have argued on this forum for a HP limit since 2002, nothing new about that.

I have read many times that the only solution to the cowboy mentality is enforcement and education. That there is no way to legislate a solution. But think about the effects of a REALLY low HP limit. A 100 HP or 50 HP limit would change this lake over night. A drastic solution to be sure. However the premise does prove that you CAN legislate serious change.

Good point.

And while they are considerably smaller than the big Lake, there are a number of bodies of water in New Hampshire that already have horsepower limits. So indeed the lawmakers here in New Hampshire are also quite familiar with that concept.

I am confused about one thing though.

Those that supported the speed limit legislation by and large believe that there has been a positive effect on the Lake since implementation. A positive effect means that if the State believes in that perception then further legislation or restrictions are probably not that imminent. It is the nature of politics.

On the flip side of the coin a number of folks here opposed to speed limit legislation continue to state that the regulation has had no effect, and give numerous examples of how the Lake, in their perception, remains as or more dangerous. A negative effect usually results in the State not rolling back legislation, but in increasing more and more layered legislation to force people into compliance. It is the nature of politics.

Without taking sides in the debate, if I was a legislator with little or no ties to the Lake (like many are) and I viewed this website as an authoritive source of information (to which many here argued when the boating thread was temporarily moderated) I could easily be convinced that additional legislation is warranted. A lobbyist may not have a hard time convincing me of same.

I'm not taking sides in the debate but just offering an insight as to not only how the speed limit legislation was passed, with all its additional riders (dmv points, all water bodies subjected to General Boating requirements) but how Bear Islander's predictions could easily pass the Legislature in future sessions.

Interesting corners, in my humble opinion, that some folks may be painting themselves in to!

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Skip

Good point.

And while they are considerably smaller than the big Lake, there are a number of bodies of water in New Hampshire that already have horsepower limits. So indeed the lawmakers here in New Hampshire are also quite familiar with that concept.

I am confused about one thing though.

Those that supported the speed limit legislation by and large believe that there has been a positive effect on the Lake since implementation. A positive effect means that if the State believes in that perception then further legislation or restrictions are probably not that imminent. It is the nature of politics.

On the flip side of the coin a number of folks here opposed to speed limit legislation continue to state that the regulation has had no effect, and give numerous examples of how the Lake, in their perception, remains as or more dangerous. A negative effect usually results in the State not rolling back legislation, but in increasing more and more layered legislation to force people into compliance.

Without taking sides in the debate, if I was a legislator with little or no ties to the Lake (like many are) and I viewed this website as an authoritative source of information (to which many here argued when the boating thread was temporarily moderated) I could easily be convinced that additional legislation is warranted. A lobbyist may not have a hard time convincing me of same.

I'm not taking sides in the debate but just offering an insight as to not only how the speed limit legislation was passed, with all its additional riders (dmv points, all water bodies subjected to General Boating requirements) but how Bear Islander's predictions could easily pass the Legislature in future sessions.

Interesting corners, in my humble opinion, that some folks may be painting themselves in to!

Skip,

I believe that the real issue is that safety minded people need to fully support the Marine Patrol to enforce all of the existing laws (including the speed limit), and to oppose the legislature and governor's raiding of the MP budget (particularly when the department is really a profit center).

[Skip]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Skip,

I believe that the real issue is that safety minded people need to fully support the Marine Patrol to enforce all of the existing laws (including the speed limit), and to oppose the legislature and governor's raiding of the MP budget (particularly when the department is really a profit center).

But therein lies the rub....

The Legislature will never admit that they are raiding a fund. If they truly view it as a "profit center" as you indicate then they will justify the transfer of funds as excess monies.

It is human nature for them to believe that they are not harming the Marine Patrol mission, that is why they will be easy to convince that the only solution is to layer on more restrictive legislation.

By the way, it was a great pleasure to get to talk to you at length last week. Hope we get to do it again some time in the future!

When I have a few moments more I will opine on while it may be aggravating at times to boat on Winni, or any other waterbody in New Hampshire, the statistics show that boating is a very safe activity in this State. I will use snowmobiling as a comparable.

But that's for another time & another thread as I am still awaiting some additional statistics...

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by Skip

But therein lies the rub....

The Legislature will never admit that they are raiding a fund. If they truly view it as a "profit center" as you indicate then they will justify the transfer of funds as excess monies.

It is human nature for them to believe that they are not harming the Marine Patrol mission, that is why they will be easy to convince that the only solution is to layer on more restrictive legislation.

Skip, respectfully, this is why the tea party movement is relevent. We are sick of the way things have always been done, Repubs and Dems. We need a new way to conduct the People's Business.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Skip, respectfully, this is why the tea party movement is relevent. We are sick of the way things have always been done, Repubs and Dems. We need a new way to conduct the People's Business.

I truly see your point, but don't want this to morph into an unrelated political thread.

But you and others (I hope) see what I have seen go on in the legislature for the past decades I've had to follow it.

Many people ask "how did we get all these convoluted laws and regulations"? I think the speed limit issue, and how it expanded from a single issue on a single lake, into a law that covers all lakes on some issues, one lake on one issue and now interweaves with your Driver's License is a perfect example of legislation gone wild!

Hey, maybe we could get one of the cable channels to pick this up as a reality series: Legislation Gone Wild! I'd think that BI would make the perfect host...that is after he safely returns from orbit....

[RANGER CANOE CO]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

[/U][/B]
Skip, respectfully, this is why the tea party movement is relevent. We are sick of the way things have always been done, Repubs and Dems. We need a new way to conduct the People's Business.

Pineedles, respectfully, ITS NOT MY BRAND. Its about getting Gov off our backs. We tax payers, most who dont live anywhere near you paid for a SL study and IT GOT thrown out the window, uncompleted and ignored. Huge waste of MP time and $. And then passed yet another stupid law. Thats not my brand of TEA. Its the PROBLEM..........

[Pineedles]

Ranger, I am a bit confused by your reply. Would you please clarify. Thank you.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Skip

Good point.

And while they are considerably smaller than the big Lake, there are a number of bodies of water in New Hampshire that already have horsepower limits. So indeed the lawmakers here in New Hampshire are also quite familiar with that concept.

I am confused about one thing though.

Those that supported the speed limit legislation by and large believe that there has been a positive effect on the Lake since implementation. A positive effect means that if the State believes in that perception then further legislation or restrictions are probably not that imminent. It is the nature of politics.

On the flip side of the coin a number of folks here opposed to speed limit legislation continue to state that the regulation has had no effect, and give numerous examples of how the Lake, in their perception, remains as or more dangerous. A negative effect usually results in the State not rolling back legislation, but in increasing more and more layered legislation to force people into compliance. It is the nature of politics.

Without taking sides in the debate, if I was a legislator with little or no ties to the Lake (like many are) and I viewed this website as an authoritive source of information (to which many here argued when the boating thread was temporarily moderated) I could easily be convinced that additional legislation is warranted. A lobbyist may not have a hard time convincing me of same.

I'm not taking sides in the debate but just offering an insight as to not only how the speed limit legislation was passed, with all its additional riders (dmv points, all water bodies subjected to General Boating requirements) but how Bear Islander's predictions could easily pass the Legislature in future sessions.

Interesting corners, in my humble opinion, that some folks may be painting themselves in to!

Great points Skip, several of which I have made myself. There are far too many power-hungry idiots around that would do this. When ten laws are not being enforced, we must need ten more. It's obviously not hard to convince people that safety must be the motive, so they go along.

If you get enough of these people taking advantage of people that don't really read, or have inquisitive minds, you end up with people like SOTD.

But I do understand your thoughts, very well. I don't have any faith in today's society, it shocks me when they actually do the right thing. But what does shock me is the end nature of the entire SL thing. Some people actually believed the BS about safety and all. They didn't want to participate in discussions about the MP fund being raided, or more SL discussions, because it would rile their Feelings. They don't like controversy, much less confrontation. They'd rather have people rule their lives and hope it doesn't impact them.

I see this sense of inevitability in your comments as well. Don't rock the boat, because they will tip you over. Eventually, the wave comes back to the source. The most active terrorist here is now BI, he has come out of his little island, and hopes to have a grander scheme.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

...The most active terrorist here is now BI, he has come out of his little island, and hopes to have a grander scheme...

Respectfully Steve, isn't that a pretty harsh statement?

I've had the pleasure of meeting Bear Islander at a previous forum fest and spending a pleasant amount of time agreeing and disagreeing with him on a number of issues.

I found him to be an extremely bright, interesting and very polite individual. There's a lot of things I might call him, but terrorist is not one of them!

I am sure there are a number of other posters here that I haven't met, including you, that I would find very interesting to spend some time with. Vitabene comes immediately to mind from the recent forumfest.

I just wish we could all tone the rhetoric and name calling down while we discuss these contentious issues.

The reality is we may be building walls with people we never met, who if we had the opportunity we would find are individuals we may have been friends with if given the chance.

I have a lot of friends that look at life completely different than me. We disagree but we don't insult each other when we do. Gosh, if everyone I associated with agreed with me I'd have a petty damned boring life!

Wish we could practice just a wee bit more civility here, on both sides of the equation....

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Skip

Respectfully Steve, isn't that a pretty harsh statement?

I've had the pleasure of meeting Bear Islander at a previous forum fest and spending a pleasant amount of time agreeing and disagreeing with him on a number of issues.

I found him to be an extremely bright, interesting and very polite individual. There's a lot of things I might call him, but terrorist is not one of them!

I am sure there are a number of other posters here that I haven't met, including you, that I would find very interesting to spend some time with. Vitabene comes immediately to mind from the recent forumfest.

I just wish we could all tone the rhetoric and name calling down while we discuss these contentious issues.

The reality is we may be building walls with people we never met, who if we had the opportunity we would find are individuals we may have been friends with if given the chance.

I have a lot of friends that look at life completely different than me. We disagree but we don't insult each other when we do. Gosh, if everyone I associated with agreed with me I'd have a petty damned boring life!

Wish we could practice just a wee bit more civility here, on both sides of the equation....

Yeah, maybe it is harsh Skip. And yes, BI is extremely bright, and incredibly interesting. There are some things that just transcend subtle niceties. You know, the things that change things forever? Some things are just pretty darn important, and worth speaking your mind about.

If you think about just this weekend's posts, here's what's transpired.

BI has reiterated his call for a horsepower limit, and what it's focus would be, long term. Nothing to do with speed or anything, but the obvious downsizing of boat size and speed. Whatever he wants.

Skip, you've chimed in with a subtle "observation" that if we keep harping on safety not being changed by these silly laws, more silly laws will be enacted. Just as a point of interest mind you. I don;t necessarily disagree with you.

So while the really dishonest people are out there scurrying around trying to scare people into passing ridiculous laws, BI is very happy that they are playing into his hand by turning the lake into whatever the closest version of Golden Pond they can get to.

This is akin to your neighbor pushing for speed bumps, then no motor vehicles at all, then none in the town. You get my drift. At some point, this ain't friendly anymore. There are no walls left to be built with BI, although he can say he swings one way or another. He's built the wall, and someone has to have the cojones to tear it down. I'm here to say that he and those in his court have gone way too far. I wouldn't want Winni to become a reckless cowboy lake anymore than I'd like to see it a useless lake ....

You can discuss this all you want, since you will never offer up your opinion for fear of offending someone. One day, you may wish you spoke up.

Respectfully yours, of course.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Ryan

What we keep overlooking here is there was never a speed problem in Skip's town. The speed bumps, for all intents and purposes, are not necessary and pointless.

The neighbor and town, in general, would have been better served having Skip hang out in front of his neighbor's driveway in his cruiser enforcing the traffic in their area.

Get it?

You're correct Ryan, something that should always be at the forefront.

Like most active waterways, Winni has a problem with congestion on weekends, problem boaters, and inexperienced boaters. But even the most experienced skipper has been shown to make a mistake or two.

So while everyone's got a slightly different take on the issues and remedies, there are two main sides taken on the issues(s).

1) There is a general lack of enforcement due to a variety of reasons. The primary reason is the MP budget is simply not enough to provide for enforcement of existing laws. Many here, myself included, think that the lake would be far better served by enforcing the existing laws, and be given the power they need to make the real problem boaters go away.

2) The other side generally thinks that over time, more and more laws and restrictions will be put in place. They view this as progress, since it will have the same impact as "Traffic Calming", a buzzterm developed when people want things to move more slowly.

I might have missed someone here, and it would be easy to do amongst thousands of posts. But In General, I have not heard any support from Side #2 for beefing up the MP, and getting the Legislature to realize what the issues are. Some even admit flat out, that safety is not their concern when proposing these laws. It "might" be a side benefit, but their primary impetus is to, gradually, transform the lake from it's current state of boating, into a more restricted lake where HP boaters, large cruisers,and possibly many other people and boats I haven't thought about, vanish over time.

This is the same type of plan that many areas have successfully implemented on small bodies of water. Small lakes, ponds, reservoirs, etc...I agree with that type of planning. Winni is quite a bit different, in that it's far larger than many of these restricted areas.

But getting back to enforcement and common sense. Is it not more prudent to take a look at existing regulations, and match them up to today's issues? It is the utter irony to have Side#2 point out the need for more laws, because people are breaking existing laws. I can only surmise that they think a ton of regulations and restrictions would eventually make many of their least favorite people/boats go away. That's BI's answer to the lake's problems.

But the issues will remain. Many of the problem boaters are not even in the sights of the restrictions he, and others, propose. With a HP limit, existing speed limit, and whatever else they can think of, you'll still have a problem with boats from 18' and up going the speed limit or well under, endangering other boaters due to arrogance, drinking, inexperience, or a combination of all three.

Bottom line, I don't think any of their proposals match up with any of the issues or problems.

BI basically says So What?

Skip says to avoid any talk of safety issues at all, because the lawmakers and do-gooders will simply come up with more laws and more restrictions, because they aren't smart enough to do anything else.

But he rightfully points out, that this shows people how stupid laws and useless regulations come about in the first place.

Doesn't anyone else see how ridiculous this has become, and that there really are things you can do about it?

[Bear Islander]

I see things differently Steve.

Several years ago some people, starting on Bear Island, perceived a problem. They stood up, got together, raised money, and started working for a speed limit solution. You may think their solution was misguided, but at least they stood up and DID something.

The other side believed standing around talking about the problem, or posting about the need for more education and enforcement etc. was the answer. But it's just talk. There is no money for that.

I am proud that I was part of a movement that actually took a stand and made a difference. Even if it does get us called terrorists.

If someone else has a better idea than speed or horsepower limits, I recommend they stand up and actually do something productive. Because Skip is correct, if speed limits don't do the job then we will be looking for another solution. Probably one you will not like.

Some people will look at a problem, throw up there hands and say it can't be solved. I'm not built that way. It can be solved, it WILL be solved, tho it might take decades. Tough problems require tough solutions. Unpopular solutions.

If, as you say, a 300 HP limit will not solve the problem then we may need to try a 200 HP solution. Or 100 or 50 or 25. Eventually, somewhere along the process, the cowboy mentality will cease to be a problem. After all, a cowboy in a kayak is just not that scary.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Several years ago some people, starting on Bear Island, perceived a problem.

I stopped reading at this buzz word.

I can tell from years of dialogue that you are a smart guy. I don't know a lot about your background, but I would imagine that with travelling into space comes certain risks. I'm pretty sure that you've been over each and every one of them in detail. How can you do that? Because they're documented. They're printed on paper. You can look down at them and see them in black and white. You can make reasonable, informed decisions based on what has been presented to you.

When you start using ambiguous terms like "perceived" and "fear" and other ideas or concepts that are palpable to those with self-serving interests, we diverge.

This debate has been worn thin and I still have yet to find the speed problem that the SL fixed. I have no horse in this race. I do not own a boat that fits your agenda and I'm not a cowboy. I just continue to see through the lies and deception that led to the restriction of other people's enjoyment.

Maybe I just need more money to buy a lobbyist...

[Bearislandmoose]

How has the lake changed? Since I am currently back in the discussion, I should weigh in on this:
I don't think there are any of you who have been on this lake as long and have spent as much time boating on it who will not instantly agree that the past two summers have been the most enjoyable for boating and other recreational activities that we have seen for maybe 20 years. While there are still enough cigarette boats to make it clear that nobody has been chased from the lake by the SL, there is now enough civility to make all boaters feel welcomed and safe. Anyone who says differently is either emotionally pre-pubescent or blind, or both, in my humble opinion.
The status quo is now simply heavenly. We have people on this forum (including the supreme "safe" boater) boasting about how the SL has not cramped their style one bit, and we have kayakers boasting about how they can finally enjoy the lake again. We have camp directors buying canoes again, and sailing clubs expanding activities and running schools again. We have poker races, and we have sailing regattas again.
How could life be any sweeter than it was these past two years? And nobody can blame it on rain anymore.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

The 'performance crowd' are now trading in their boats for the big yachts. The big wakes are eroding the shorelines and this is a bigger threat than SL.

Another tactic from the Democratic playbook; If everyone seems happy with the status quo, scare them into thinking it is just an illusion. They aren't really happy, they just think they are. "The man" is really working behind the scenes to undermine it all. Nice try.
You keep schpilling this tripe, but I've not seen one example where one of your small group of "get out of my way" cowboys has traded his Thunder Boat for a Carver and gone around swamping those "fat cat shore front owners" to punish them for the SL. Can you give us a few specific examples? And if they are doing so, its all the more reason to start adding more NWZs, isn't it?

Since you are referring to the playbook anyway, maybe you should go back and try that "but you're a poacher" ploy again. That worked so well for you last time.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

... I'm sick and tired of the Democrats from the southern states moving up here and telling NH natives what we can and cannot do.

I'm as sick of it as you are, but once Mr. Verdonck moved up here, he became an equal citizen of this state, and we have to respect that. I just wish he'd adapt to the way we do things up here. Calling your group "Safe Boaters" was the type of shady tactic you usually see in the politics "down there", not up here. Eventually he'll learn that the people up here are too smart for stunts like that...it backfires when it is done up here. It's like saying "I know you people up there in NH are a bunch of idiots (to use Hazelnut's term), so I don't have to be honest with you...you'll buy anything I sell you." I got very offended by that and know that many others around here did too.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I see things differently Steve.

Several years ago some people, starting on Bear Island, perceived a problem. They stood up, got together, raised money, and started working for a speed limit solution. You may think their solution was misguided, but at least they stood up and DID something.

The other side believed standing around talking about the problem, or posting about the need for more education and enforcement etc. was the answer. But it's just talk. There is no money for that.

I am proud that I was part of a movement that actually took a stand and made a difference. Even if it does get us called terrorists.

If someone else has a better idea than speed or horsepower limits, I recommend they stand up and actually do something productive. Because Skip is correct, if speed limits don't do the job then we will be looking for another solution. Probably one you will not like.

Some people will look at a problem, throw up there hands and say it can't be solved. I'm not built that way. It can be solved, it WILL be solved, tho it might take decades. Tough problems require tough solutions. Unpopular solutions.

If, as you say, a 300 HP limit will not solve the problem then we may need to try a 200 HP solution. Or 100 or 50 or 25. Eventually, somewhere along the process, the cowboy mentality will cease to be a problem. After all, a cowboy in a kayak is just not that scary.

BI, what good will it do to pass another feel good law when there is no monetary support for enforcing the rules. Just heaping more rules on the MP
to enforce is not going to help- it will hinder.

The problem that I have with your version of problem solving is that it will not work- forcing people to do things via a law will only result in the law abiding doing those things.

Instead of spending $ on lobbyists and getting laws passed that don't need passing, perhaps that same level of energy can and should be spent in Concord telling our legislators that they need to educate and enforce: both can be achieved through a better funded NHMP.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

BI, what good will it do to pass another feel good law when there is no monetary support for enforcing the rules. Just heaping more rules on the MP to enforce is not going to help- it will hinder.

The problem that I have with your version of problem solving is that it will not work- forcing people to do things via a law will only result in the law abiding doing those things. ...
.

So I think you are saying that if a HP limit becomes law, people will simply ignore it, and the Marine Patrol will be helpless to enforce it.

You think EVERY owner of an illegal boat will openly flaunt the law and take the risk of their boat being impounded?

That the Marine Patrol will throwing up their collective hands in frustration and admit they can not read a boat registration?

A horsepower limit must be one of the easiest laws to enforce. If the HP on your registration is more than allowed you boat is impounded. See you in court. It will be just that simple. Violations will be rare, mostly by someone that launches a boat without getting the word.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

So I think you are saying that if a HP limit becomes law, people will simply ignore it, and the Marine Patrol will be helpless to enforce it.

You think EVERY owner of an illegal boat will openly flaunt the law and take the risk of their boat being impounded?

That the Marine Patrol will throwing up their collective hands in frustration and admit they can not read a boat registration?

A horsepower limit must be one of the easiest laws to enforce. If the HP on your registration is more than allowed you boat is impounded. See you in court. It will be just that simple. Violations will be rare, mostly by someone that launches a boat without getting the word.

Just do something... even if it's wrong.

The scary thing is that you could traverse the state and ask people if they think 300 HP in a boat is too much (now remember Ma'am your minivan parked there has a little over 170 HP) and the answer by the uninformed would be absolutely. Well maybe if they had headlights...

I saw one of those little hydrofoil type boats out the other day, it was maybe 18', had probably 1/2 the 270HP my 46 MPH BR packs but could easily break the SL by 30 MPH. 300 HP is not about cowboys. Any racer knows it is about weight and HP.

So explain what you are really after. The HP limit does not solve your cowboy problem, because a kayaker that gets run over by a boat going 70 is not going to care that it was an 18' boat with a 135HP engine on it.

I have gone on the record on numerous occasions explaining that I do not own a performance boat nor do I own a boat with greater than 300HP. With all due respect to Pastor Martin Niemöller:

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Performance Boaters
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Performance Boater.

THEN THEY CAME for the 300plusHP boaters,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a 300plusHP boater.

THEN THEY CAME for the Big Cruiser boaters,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Big Cruiser Boater.

THEN THEY CAME for me (the Bowrider Boater)
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Ryan

...Stopping every boat that they 'believe' might be exceeding your HP limit will only lead to probable cause issues (Skip) and takes away MP resources from policing the ACTUAL issues on the lake, not those perceived issues...

Please folks, if you are going to drag me into the conversation and throw about legal terms at least know what you are talking about.

You do not need "probable cause" to stop a boat. You need "probable cause" to effect an arrest.

You only need "articulable suspicion" to stop and temporarily detain a boat operator.

There is a significant legal difference between these two legal concepts.

Thank you....

[VtSteve]

I know what you guys mean. BI is laughing out loud at those of us promoting safety, freely acknowledging that the SL he supports was in now way designed to stop the problems on the lake. That would have been an interesting addition to the old SL discussions. To those that supported the SL, how would this have sounded?

"You should support the speed limit, it won't really solve anything, but it's something we can get passed. We know you'll go along with it because it sounds Safe. So even though we lie about our reasons, we're really not bad people, so please don't try to hurt our feelings. We are working on many rules, regulations, and some outright bans that may actually do something in the future.

So don't let all these mean-spirited people dissuade you from supporting whatever law we decide may pass. Some people actually think we care whether or not the MP actually enforces these silly laws we come up with, We Don't. Every time we pass a new law, and the MP cannot or does not enforce it, we'll just come up with another law, and then another, and yet another.

We just can't stop ourselves. Every time a boat wake hits shore, it hurts our feelings. We like our own powerboats, of course. But this is about ridding the lake of other people's boats, not yours. Picture a wave-free lake, with all boats having small, 25 hp engines. Except for the camp boats with their monster wakes, of course.

We don't expect anything to really come of these laws, except fewer people (hopefully) will be boating on Winni after awhile. So keep up the good work Safe Boaters, inspecting vessels, pushing for enforcement, and all that really silly stuff. We're Really doing things, making laws, rubbing elbows with legislators that want votes, really neato stuff. We don't really know what's next on the agenda, but it will likely be something boaters don't like."

[classic22]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I see things differently Steve.

Several years ago some people, starting on Bear Island, perceived a problem. They stood up, got together, raised money, and started working for a speed limit solution. You may think their solution was misguided, but at least they stood up and DID something.

The other side believed standing around talking about the problem, or posting about the need for more education and enforcement etc. was the answer. But it's just talk. There is no money for that.

I am proud that I was part of a movement that actually took a stand and made a difference. Even if it does get us called terrorists.

If someone else has a better idea than speed or horsepower limits, I recommend they stand up and actually do something productive. Because Skip is correct, if speed limits don't do the job then we will be looking for another solution. Probably one you will not like.


Some people will look at a problem, throw up there hands and say it can't be solved. I'm not built that way. It can be solved, it WILL be solved, tho it might take decades. Tough problems require tough solutions. Unpopular solutions.

If, as you say, a 300 HP limit will not solve the problem then we may need to try a 200 HP solution. Or 100 or 50 or 25. Eventually, somewhere along the process, the cowboy mentality will cease to be a problem. After all, a cowboy in a kayak is just not that scary.

All these "solutions" would be well and good if there WAS a problem, however the statistics show a far different picture. That being said, some of us are standing up and working to "fix" your solutions.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I see things differently Steve.

Several years ago some people, starting on Bear Island, perceived a problem. They stood up, got together, raised money, and started working for a speed limit solution. You may think their solution was misguided, but at least they stood up and DID something.

The other side believed standing around talking about the problem, or posting about the need for more education and enforcement etc. was the answer. But it's just talk. There is no money for that.

I am proud that I was part of a movement that actually took a stand and made a difference. Even if it does get us called terrorists.

If someone else has a better idea than speed or horsepower limits, I recommend they stand up and actually do something productive. Because Skip is correct, if speed limits don't do the job then we will be looking for another solution. Probably one you will not like.

Some people will look at a problem, throw up there hands and say it can't be solved. I'm not built that way. It can be solved, it WILL be solved, tho it might take decades. Tough problems require tough solutions. Unpopular solutions.

If, as you say, a 300 HP limit will not solve the problem then we may need to try a 200 HP solution. Or 100 or 50 or 25. Eventually, somewhere along the process, the cowboy mentality will cease to be a problem. After all, a cowboy in a kayak is just not that scary.

It looks to me like I outlined it pretty well BI. The people "perceived" a problem, and started working on a speed limit solution. Yes, they Did do something. It sounds to me like people found out there were fish in the lake, and they all went out and bought tennis rackets?

Can you imagine what your approach would be like on the roadways? There seems to be problems everywhere, aggressive drivers, drunk drivers. So let's make everyone buy a Smart Car.

If I read your post correctly, you outline it as a Cowboy problem. I just can't believe that a man of your obvious intellect, could possibly offer up such half-baked "solutions" that don't even address the nature of the problem. You're proposing a scatter gun approach that isn't even aiming at the target This kind of thought process doesn't even make it at the Government level (most of the time). I think maybe even a lot of SL supporters had a bewildered look on their faces when reading your last post.

I know one solution that would work just fine. Ban boating entirely. Then you can start working on the mainland.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

It looks to me like I outlined it pretty well BI. The people "perceived" a problem, and started working on a speed limit solution. Yes, they Did do something. It sounds to me like people found out there were fish in the lake, and they all went out and bought tennis rackets?

Can you imagine what your approach would be like on the roadways? There seems to be problems everywhere, aggressive drivers, drunk drivers. So let's make everyone buy a Smart Car.

If I read your post correctly, you outline it as a Cowboy problem. I just can't believe that a man of your obvious intellect, could possibly offer up such half-baked "solutions" that don't even address the nature of the problem. You're proposing a scatter gun approach that isn't even aiming at the target This kind of thought process doesn't even make it at the Government level (most of the time). I think maybe even a lot of SL supporters had a bewildered look on their faces when reading your last post.

I know one solution that would work just fine. Ban boating entirely. Then you can start working on the mainland.

VT, I agree with you 100%. I have another idea...vote every bleeding heart, nanny state liberal out of office whenever possible. Elect people with brains of their own that can see through the smoke and mirror agendas. It reminds me of the famous speech by Howard Beale in the movie Network. "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore".

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/Movi...hnetwork2.html

Whatever happens, I am not leaving - neither is my boat.

[RANGER CANOE CO]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

VT, I agree with you 100%. I have another idea...vote every bleeding heart, nanny state liberal out of office whenever possible. Elect people with brains of their own that can see through the smoke and mirror agendas. It reminds me of the famous speech by Howard Beale in the movie Network. "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore".

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/Movi...hnetwork2.html

Whatever happens, I am not leaving - neither is my boat.

Primary day, so, do your home work in your districts and remove them. Law makers that pass unfounded redundent laws that take way your rights. That dont even own a boat or boat on the lake and side with non full time residents.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by RANGER CANOE CO

Primary day, so, do your home work in your districts and remove them. Law makers that pass unfounded redundent laws that take way your rights. That dont even own a boat or boat on the lake and side with non full time residents.

Do it - get out and vote for people with brains. I know where my votes are going today.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If, as you say, a 300 HP limit will not solve the problem then we may need to try a 200 HP solution. Or 100 or 50 or 25. Eventually, somewhere along the process, the cowboy mentality will cease to be a problem. After all, a cowboy in a kayak is just not that scary.

Huh??

First, We would have to agree that there is a problem.

In your mind BI, what specifically is the problem?

Second, one would have to agree what causes the problem. Lack of experience, lack of common sense, lack of ability, lack of training?

Some people with a lot of training, a boating license and a lot of experience will just attain the rank of Captain Bonehead. They just were not meant to operate a boat. How will you fix that?

So anyone with over 300 HP is a cowboy? The family of 5 that enjoys the lake on their 32 Carver aft cabin, or any boat that requires more than 300 HP to move it must be operated by a cowboy? (Just curious: Do you think that anyone on route 93 that is not driving a Prius has too much horsepower)?

There are many families that cannot afford lakefront property and buy cabin cruisers in the 30 to 40 foot range so they and their families can have the chance to be on the lake. Would you deny them the opportunity?

PS. You still have not answered my question about the loss of tax revenue to all of the cities and towns. As a matter of fact, you didn't answer any of my questions. (When confronted with specifics you fold up fast)!

[VtSteve]

It's good to give it another rest. I'd love to see the 99% that don't participate give an opinion or ideas if they have any. No rebuttal necessary on my part anymore. Everyone enjoy the rest of the summer.

The only reason I continued with these threads, is because I care. I've seen other areas where the boating life has had the life ripped right from it. These are areas that some would like to copy the rules from, but they are areas that have from 2-8 times the accident rates as well.

I'm far from a cowboy, probably too careful if one can be. I don't like reckless, and I don't like hot dogs on the water. There are many that don't care that much about boating, but love to just look at the lake. I love both, and they coexist just fine. I just hope those that choose not to post read the comments carefully in these forums. I'm no politician, and will never run for office

Everybody should rethink their boating world and just look at some of the proposals and wishes that are on the table here.

Special message to the adolescents and cowboys on the lake. This is what happens when you don't listen, and cannot control yourself. Your bad manners have not gone unnoticed, anywhere. You probably have several more years left to make complete donkeys out of yourself, and be the arrogant cusses you are. If up to me, you'd be tracked down on the lake, then swept off it. Be thankful that the legislative-happy bunch takes years to deal with anything.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Huh??

First, We would have to agree that there is a problem.

In your mind BI, what specifically is the problem?

Second, one would have to agree what causes the problem. Lack of experience, lack of common sense, lack of ability, lack of training?

Some people with a lot of training, a boating license and a lot of experience will just attain the rank of Captain Bonehead. They just were not meant to operate a boat. How will you fix that?

So anyone with over 300 HP is a cowboy? The family of 5 that enjoys the lake on their 32 Carver aft cabin, or any boat that requires more than 300 HP to move it must be operated by a cowboy? (Just curious: Do you think that anyone on route 93 that is not driving a Prius has too much horsepower)?

There are many families that cannot afford lakefront property and buy cabin cruisers in the 30 to 40 foot range so they and their families can have the chance to be on the lake. Would you deny them the opportunity?

PS. You still have not answered my question about the loss of tax revenue to all of the cities and towns. As a matter of fact, you didn't answer any of my questions. (When confronted with specifics you fold up fast)!

I answered all your questions in post #84. The fact that you do not like or will not accept my answers, does not mean I have not made them.

I don't see any significant loss of revenues to the towns. Taxes are on real estate. Marinas are not going to go out of business. They might have to alter a few slips now and then to convert from large boats to small. All this will take place over many years. How does that involve a crippling tax loss? Please be specific or give an example.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

...

There are many families that cannot afford lakefront property and buy cabin cruisers in the 30 to 40 foot range so they and their families can have the chance to be on the lake. Would you deny them the opportunity? ...

I don't know what a 40 foot cabin cruiser costs but I bet it is MORE than a modest waterfront property. 35 Bear Island is for sale and they are only asking $199k. It needs work but has a fantastic view of the mountains.

I also don't know what a slip costs for one of those things, 5k or 6k per year? But I bet that big slip will cost more than taxes plus utilities for an island home.

Even if you add a new bow rider and valet service an island home is cheaper.




http://www.newenglandmoves.com/real-...f25a213394079e

[Woodsy]

BI...

Your a bit off base with your numbers! At first glance a $200K island property that needs work might seem like a bargain... especially to someone who can plunk down that much for a 6 minute weightless joyride. However, look at the true costs...

$200,000 for the island property
$50,000 in work (looks like septic might be an issue according to your link)
$2,500+ taxes yearly (based on $12.54 per 1000 tax rate) likely to increase
$15,000 (modest used bowrider in 20' range)
$2,500 (yearly valet fee for 20' boat)

$270,000 first year total with a minimum of $5000 recurring expenses (you get intrest write off on mortgage & prop taxes)

***************

$150,000 for 3-4 year old 38' cruiser ( i have seen them alot cheaper but figured I should aim high for the sake of argument)
$4,000 - Slip rental (Mountain View or equiv)

$154,000 first year total with $4000 recurring expenses. (you get intrest write off on boat loan)

You could purchase a slip @ Mountain View for $60,000-70,000 to secure your lake access, however with a rental fee of only 4,000 - 5,000 it will take 15 plus years to pay for itself... and you will be paying a yearly fee to the MVYC association....

Its still way way cheaper to go cabin cruiser than island property.... pros and cons to both.

Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

OK Woodsy

I will accept your figures. But you need to add maintainace costs and winter storage.

The big difference is that after 10 or 20 years the island home will be worth a lot more and the boat will be worth very little.

I do think they are in the same ballpark.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I don't know what a 40 foot cabin cruiser costs but I bet it is MORE than a modest waterfront property. 35 Bear Island is for sale and they are only asking $199k. It needs work but has a fantastic view of the mountains.

I also don't know what a slip costs for one of those things, 5k or 6k per year? But I bet that big slip will cost more than taxes plus utilities for an island home.

Even if you add a new bow rider and valet service an island home is cheaper.




http://www.newenglandmoves.com/real-...f25a213394079e

For what it's worth, I've looked at that property and essentially the price reflects the lot, not the building which pretty much needs a wrecking ball taken to it. Retrofitting that place is not worth the effort. So now you're out the cost of demolition and removal, site work and at least a septic to get something reasonably usable. Granted how much is necessary to fix the place up is directly related to how elaborate a place you want, but even erecting a simple camp will push the price tag in my estimation out close to 300K and hit the tax bill pretty hard.

In the end it's worth what somebody is willing to pay for it, but I'd rather invest in property that will be more likely to gain value versus a boat that is guaranteed to loose value. Total cost of ownership is a wash in my book, both have similar reoccurring costs.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

...Skip says to avoid any talk of safety issues at all, because the lawmakers and do-gooders will simply come up with more laws and more restrictions, because they aren't smart enough to do anything else...

Well there you go Steve.

I had to sit back for a few hours before I replied to your post.

Let me start by saying you just answered a question you posed to me off line as to why I don't offer my opinion in these threads.

I never, ever said to avoid any talk of safety issues. I never said legislators aren't smart. You have attempted to paraphrase me and in doing so have taken me completely out of context.

Hmm, who have I heard complain loud and clear about the same thing in other threads? Why you, of course.

If you want to have an intelligent and adult debate about this issue, then stick to the legislation. There's an old adage in political debate; debate the issue and not the man. Its also the core concept around Robert's Rules of Order.

It is apparent that there are still too many people related to this subject that cannot stick to the debate but have to degrade themselves into personal attacks of their opponents or their opponent's motivation.

That is why with thousands of registered members here, all of who must have some opinion of this issue, 99% of them refuse to partake in this discussion.

That is why Don had to moderate the boating thread, not because of the subject at hand but because of the handful of posters that couldn't, and still don't, debate like adults.

Here's the bottom line. Whether I support speed limits or not I am completely convinced that they are here to stay. I am completely convinced that the Lake is nowhere near as dangerous as some here continually portray it. And I am completely convinced that speed limits will move to other bodies of water.

There will be no huge new influx of cash to the NHMP. They will continue to do the job that they do with the limited resources they are given. I happen to think they do a damn fine job and as a taxpayer and boater I DO NOT want to see the agency taken over by the State Police, or expanded to such a degree that there's an officer in every nook & cranny of the Lake. I do not need to be babysat by the Government when I am relaxing. If the Lake becomes too crazy for me I will simply boat elsewhere, knowing that my perception of craziness is bliss to the boater that takes my place.

Oh, and I'm bowing out of these threads for good with the final observation:

There are a handful of pro speed limit supporters that act and post like juveniles.

There are a boatload of anti speed limit supporters that act and post like juveniles.

After having followed this debate closely for a number of years I have come to the final conclusion: In my book you win Bear Islander. Not because you are necessarily correct on the subject, but you have taken the high ground with thoughtful, provocative but always on subject debate since day one. You sir are a gentleman and a fantastic debater. I tip my hat to you and give you my blessings as I know you still have a little fight left in you here!

And with that I bid a fond adieu...I'll see everyone over on the adult section of the website!

[VtSteve]

Before you run off Skip. Please tell me if I took this post of yours out of context.

On the flip side of the coin a number of folks here opposed to speed limit legislation continue to state that the regulation has had no effect, and give numerous examples of how the Lake, in their perception, remains as or more dangerous. A negative effect usually results in the State not rolling back legislation, but in increasing more and more layered legislation to force people into compliance. It is the nature of politics.

Without taking sides in the debate, if I was a legislator with little or no ties to the Lake (like many are) and I viewed this website as an authoritive source of information (to which many here argued when the boating thread was temporarily moderated) I could easily be convinced that additional legislation is warranted. A lobbyist may not have a hard time convincing me of same.

I'm not taking sides in the debate but just offering an insight as to not only how the speed limit legislation was passed, with all its additional riders (dmv points, all water bodies subjected to General Boating requirements) but how Bear Islander's predictions could easily pass the Legislature in future sessions.

Interesting corners, in my humble opinion, that some folks may be painting themselves in to!

So if the lake is not safer because of one law that didn't address the issues, more laws will be forthcoming. Yes, I guess I did paraphrase you, which is the most logical meaning to be derived from your statement. You certainly don't give Legislators any credit for looking at facts, or even past history. OK, you didn't Say they were stupid. But you've certainly painted them as pretty easy to sway, and not very hard to fool. That's My opinion. While you've not adopted a stance one way or the other, you make a good case as to why no big time enforcement should be requested. Point taken there.

As BI said, this is all a win-win for him in the end, you've simply stated why and what the Legislators would do if the lobbyists lobbied for more. I fully understand what you're saying, I really do. What I was trying to point out, is that there are many SL supporters that didn't think ahead in this manner, and thought the campaign was all on the up and up. All very good things to bring up in public, don't you think?

You brought up an interesting Catch-22 argument in your Painting themselves into corners argument, which is not very far from the truth, actually.

OK BI, Skip says you win. I might as well help you draw up plans for the 50 HP limit, at least that way people can keep small Whalers or something like that. You win.

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Many lakes and ponds in New Hampshire and around the country have horsepower limits. I have argued on this forum for a HP limit since 2002, nothing new about that.

I have read many times that the only solution to the cowboy mentality is enforcement and education. That there is no way to legislate a solution. But think about the effects of a REALLY low HP limit. A 100 HP or 50 HP limit would change this lake over night. A drastic solution to be sure. However the premise does prove that you CAN legislate serious change.

Your logic is, well, illogical. No, it is nonsencical, and does nothing to prove your premise. For example, how do you propose the local officials test for horsepower? Becasue they would have to test each boat and everytime it goes out. All my vehicle's engines--including my boat and are anything but in a stock configuration. What makes you think that engines mods would suddenly stop? Legislate that.

Still you spew the mantra that a law enacted in the worst economy on 80 years is the sole reason for no speeding tickets, and a "quieter lake". Your twisted logic concludes that no speeding tickets is exclusive to SL legislation?

Lastly, you insist on and continue to insult performance boat owners such as myself by calling us "cowboys". Perhaps the webmaster should step in and remind you of the rules of this forum. I'm sure that you would not find it becoming if "us cowboys" started calling you and others of like opinion "lake geezers" or such other IMO, appropriate term.

Post script: This whole discussion is stupid. Attempting to have a factual, cogent discussion with you is like trying to push on a rope that's been dangling in the water all summer: you can't and all you do end up with is a slimy hand.

giddy up.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Yankee

Your logic is, well, illogical. No, it is nonsencical, and does nothing to prove your premise. For example, how do you propose the local officials test for horsepower? Becasue they would have to test each boat and everytime it goes out. All my vehicle's engines--including my boat and are anything but in a stock configuration. What makes you think that engines mods would suddenly stop? Legislate that.

Still you spew the mantra that a law enacted in the worst economy on 80 years is the sole reason for no speeding tickets, and a "quieter lake". Your twisted logic concludes that no speeding tickets is exclusive to SL legislation?

Lastly, you insist on and continue to insult performance boat owners such as myself by calling us "cowboys". Perhaps the webmaster should step in and remind you of the rules of this forum. I'm sure that you would not find it becoming if "us cowboys" started calling you and others of like opinion "lake geezers" or such other IMO, appropriate term.

Post script: This whole discussion is stupid. Attempting to have a factual, cogent discussion with you is like trying to push on a rope that's been dangling in the water all summer: you can't and all you do end up with is a slimy hand.

giddy up.

No need to test for horsepower, it is printed right on your registration. Yes you could modify your engine or even drop in a different one. Then or course you would be committing a crime when you register your boat with information you know to be incorrect. Even then you could only cheat on the horsepower a little, the Marine Patrol officers are not idiots.

More importantly you are missing the fact that HP limits exist on many New Hampshire lakes already WITHOUT enforcement problems.

Sorry but I have never claimed the speed limit has made a perceptible difference yet. I think the jury is still out on that.

Sorry again, I have never called performance boaters or any other particular boater a cowboy. Some boaters do in fact have a cowboy mentality. Some operate performance boats, one went by my home not long ago. But cowboys can be found in any kind of power boat.

Have you actually read my posts? Or are you to busy railing against them?

[Yankee]

'sigh', no more rope pushing for me. I've got better things to do. Oh, and giddy up. I'll be here long after your gone.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Instead of allowing the "privileged few" to use power boats, I hope it will be islanders that get to keep their power boats. After all, we NEED them to get to and from our homes.

However legislation like that will be a long time coming, if ever, and I will not support it.

What I will support is a 300 HP limit for boats manufactured after 2012. Exceptions for commercial boats and law enforcement obviously.

Every "No wake" area brings larger wakes as boats slow down and speed up. Get a "No wake" zone in front of your house, get larger wakes. Is that what people want?

A 300 HP limit?

So your adgenda is clear: Make Winnipesaukee into a pond with canoes and kayaks.

Perhaps you are just that dense. Most cruisers and liveaboards, even with small blocks V8's have 500+ HP. Many have much more. Is it your intention that all of those boats leave the lake?

Marinas like Silver Sands, Spinnaker Cove, MVYC (284 slips occupied by Gilford taxpayers that ask for little if any services) are full of boats with families that spend their weekends and vacations on their boats. Did you want to throw them off the lake or just diminish the value of their docks? What happens to the town of Gilford when they lose in excess of 1/2 million dollars in tax revenue from people that use no services?

What about the other marinas with boats over 30 feet? What do you say to them? Find 10 kayak owners to rent your dock?

What happens to the value of these boat docks? What do you say to all of the owners? "Sucks to be you"?

BI, please answer each specific question. You obviously have an adgenda that has not been well thought out and will do irreparable harm to the lake and the finances of the communities around it. Is that what you really want?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Every "No wake" area brings larger wakes as boats slow down and speed up. Get a "No wake" zone in front of your house, get larger wakes. Is that what people want?

A 300 HP limit?

So your adgenda is clear: Make Winnipesaukee into a pond with canoes and kayaks.

Perhaps you are just that dense. Most cruisers and liveaboards, even with small blocks V8's have 500+ HP. Many have much more. Is it your intention that all of those boats leave the lake?

Marinas like Silver Sands, Spinnaker Cove, MVYC (284 slips occupied by Gilford taxpayers that ask for little if any services) are full of boats with families that spend their weekends and vacations on their boats. Did you want to throw them off the lake or just diminish the value of their docks? What happens to the town of Gilford when they lose in excess of 1/2 million dollars in tax revenue from people that use no services?

What about the other marinas with boats over 30 feet? What do you say to them? Find 10 kayak owners to rent your dock?

What happens to the value of these boat docks? What do you say to all of the owners? "Sucks to be you"?

BI, please answer each specific question. You obviously have an adgenda that has not been well thought out and will do irreparable harm to the lake and the finances of the communities around it. Is that what you really want?

Actually I think I can answer all the questions at once. No boat will have to leave the lake. Perhaps you didn't read my idea closely enough. Only boats manufactured after 2012 would be effected. It would be many years before the number of high HP boats on the lake would drop. After 10 or 20 years there would still be high HP boats around. Yes, over many years some marinas that cater to high HP boats would have to change their slips.

I think my agenda is very well thought out.

[Kracken]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Instead of allowing the "privileged few" to use power boats, I hope it will be islanders that get to keep their power boats. After all, we NEED them to get to and from our homes.

However legislation like that will be a long time coming, if ever, and I will not support it.

What I will support is a 300 HP limit for boats manufactured after 2012. Exceptions for commercial boats and law enforcement obviously.

BI,

I know your a smart guy, your posts are well thought out and solid...I can only assume your account was hacked.

You don't actually believe boat manufactureres would even consider this? Passing a fedral law is the only way a 300hp limit could happen however, such legislation would DESTROY the boating industry. What side would have the deeper pockets?

It will NEVER happen

You need to change your password.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Kracken

BI,

I know your a smart guy, your posts are well thought out and solid...I can only assume your account was hacked.

You don't actually believe boat manufactureres would even consider this? Passing a fedral law is the only way a 300hp limit could happen however, such legislation would DESTROY the boating industry. What side would have the deeper pockets?

It will NEVER happen

You need to change your password.

It already HAS happened on other lakes and ponds in New Hampshire. How can something that has already happened be impossible?

Winni is large and the lakes that already have HP limits are small. But legally that makes no difference.

Boat manufactuerers would not have a say in this. They can of course lobby against it. But it only requires the NH legislature and the Governors signature to put a HP limit on Winnipesaukee. It also could be accomplished by a Dept. of Safety administrative rule being adopted. Legislation is not even required if you go that route. Most of the HP limits on other lakes were done by administrative rule.

The federal government has nothing to do with this.

Nobody that I know of is actually trying to do this. This is just one man's idea, mine. I very much doubt we will see a HP limit on Winni any time soon. However in the long run I think additional limts of some kind will be coming.

If down the road things get worse instead of better, if we have a couple of more high profile accidents, then legislation could pass.

Or I could be wrong.

[Kracken]

BI,


Lets say NH passes a law that all new boats built after 2012 need to be 300 hp or less? Do you a company like Genmar would stop building 300+ hp boats because they couldn't sell them in NH? Do you think Formula would close their doors? Do you believe Carver would start building kayaks?

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Kracken

BI,


Lets say NH passes a law that all new boats built after 2012 need to be 300 hp or less? Do you a company like Genmar would stop building 300+ hp boats because they couldn't sell them in NH? Do you think Formula would close their doors? Do you believe Carver would start building kayaks?

BI is correct. Many bodies of water do have HP limits, quite a few. The boat companies are not impacted directly, but the dealers on the lake would be selling only those boats that are within the limits.

My boat is 22' with a 260 hp stern drive. Not impacted, yet. You'd still be able to buy underpowered small cruisers, probably up to around 26 feet, that have that same engine, or possibly the 5.7 300 hp. You'd have others that opt for the much more efficient Yanmar diesels, most of which are far under 300 hp, on boats that make very large wakes. Most of the bowriders and recreational speed boats fall in that range as well.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Kracken

BI,


Lets say NH passes a law that all new boats built after 2012 need to be 300 hp or less? Do you a company like Genmar would stop building 300+ hp boats because they couldn't sell them in NH? Do you think Formula would close their doors? Do you believe Carver would start building kayaks?

I don't understand your point. I am not trying to put those companies out of business.

If Winnipesaukee enacted a horsepower limit I think those huge companies would barely notice. They would fight against it probably, but mostly they would be fighting against a trend. The boating industry put up a fight against speed limits, they lost.

The horsepower limits on other lakes have already effected boat sales in those areas.

There is also an up side for the boating industry. Servicing and rebuilding older boats will be a growing business as boat owners try to keep their older, high HP, boats in the water.

[Kracken]

“What I will support is a 300 HP limit for boats manufactured after 2012. Exceptions for commercial boats and law enforcement obviously.”

Bear Islander,

Obviously there is some confusion here. I took this statement as you would endorse and foresee 300hp limit on manufacturers starting in less than 18 months.

Where you actually stating that you would support legislation that requires all vessels manufactured after the 2011 model year to be less than 300 horsepower for use in New Hampshire waterways?

Maybe I did misunderstand you, if so my apologies.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Kracken

“What I will support is a 300 HP limit for boats manufactured after 2012. Exceptions for commercial boats and law enforcement obviously.”

Bear Islander,

Obviously there is some confusion here. I took this statement as you would endorse and foresee 300hp limit on manufacturers starting in less than 18 months.

Where you actually stating that you would support legislation that requires all vessels manufactured after the 2011 model year to be less than 300 horsepower for use in New Hampshire waterways?

Maybe I did misunderstand you, if so my apologies.

Actually I am only talking about a 300 HP limit on lake Winnipesaukee.

[Kracken]

My apologies Bear Islander

I do think it’s still the wrong solution to the problem.

I take from your postings that you are a big picture guy. You are concerned with what the lake will be like 5-10-15 years down the road. No harm with that at all; however there are so many variables involved that it is hard to predict with any certainty.

Personally I don’t think if things are left unchecked that 20 years from now there will be high performance boats and cruisers tied to every dock around the lake. There are too many boundaries to entrance. Big horsepower costs big bucks. Yes there seems to be a lot more high performance boats and cruisers on the lake than there were 20 years ago. But I think we have hit the high water mark on that. As the cost of fuel continues to rise the amount of new big horsepower boats on the lake will drop.

The argument will rage on about the speed limit, some say they lake has changed and they are right. I am on the Broads side of Rattlesnake; a few years ago we use to watch big HP boats fly by at 80 mph+ all day long. When the gas went to $5.00+ that is when the behavior changed.

[jmen24]

Here is a link that lists every single public boat access in the state of NH. It also lists any restrictions that may be present at that access location.

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Outd...ites_table.htm

Take a few minutes and read through the list to see what types of water bodies have HP restrictions. Note that the chart has a column for acreage, that is the total size of the body of water. The only information that is not present is depth, but that can be found here for a cross reference.

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Fishing/bathy_maps.htm

If you happen to notice a lake or pond on these lists that have a (**) noting additional restrictions. You will have to search for the restrictions by the name of the body of water.

I know BI and myself are well aware of what these bodies of water that have a HP limit have in common, just wanted to make sure everyone else does as well.

[RTTOOL]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It already HAS happened on other lakes and ponds in New Hampshire. How can something that has already happened be impossible?

Winni is large and the lakes that already have HP limits are small. But legally that makes no difference.

Boat manufacturers would not have a say in this. They can of course lobby against it. But it only requires the NH legislature and the Governors signature to put a HP limit on Winnipesaukee. It also could be accomplished by a Dept. of Safety administrative rule being adopted. Legislation is not even required if you go that route. Most of the HP limits on other lakes were done by administrative rule.

The federal government has nothing to do with this.

Nobody that I know of is actually trying to do this. This is just one man's idea, mine. I very much doubt we will see a HP limit on Winni any time soon. However in the long run I think additional limts of some kind will be coming.

If down the road things get worse instead of better, if we have a couple of more high profile accidents, then legislation could pass.

Or I could be wrong.

Maybe you and governor can run the world