more expert testimony on SB-27

[Novah]

Originally Posted by Rusty

It wouldn't surprise me a bit Sue Doe-Nym.

Do you think any of these Go Fast Boaters were being “reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions”?

Do you think that any of these Go Fast Boaters took into consideration the following Coast Guard “RULES” which is written in SB-27

(A) The state of visibility.
(B) The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels.
(C) The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions.
(E) The state of wind, sea, and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards.
(F) The draft in relation to the available depth of water.

Rusty - I am against the speed limit. However, I agree there were some shots in the video that showed a pre-speed limit law being broken. The problem was not the speed of the boats, it was the closeness. It is illegal to travel under 150 feet from another boat even if the other operator is your good buddy.

There existing law to control this says anything over headway speed requires 150 feet between the boats. That is probably the law that is broken the most on our lakes. And yes, the boats in the video appear to be breaking it. They would have been breaking it at 45 miles per hour as well so the speed limit is not fixing the problem.

[MAXUM]

Well isn't that something, Thurston complaining about the safety of the lake and the speed limit. Hey how many times have I seen some yahoo outfitted with one of his rental boats, out there on the lake doing things far more dangerous and foolish than just going "fast"?

I say banning rentals is much more likely to have an affect on the overall safety of the lake.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

I say banning rentals is much more likely to have an affect on the overall safety of the lake.

Perhaps banning them entirely is going a bit too far but I don't see why they can't be required to produce a similar "license certification" as they would to rent a car!! You don't see National, Budget, Hertz or Avis renting a car to anyone without a valid driver's license! Renting a boat should be the same.

I still think the state should be licensing boat operators, just like they license operators of motorcycles, cars, trucks and airplane pilots, etc!

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

I still think the state should be licensing boat operators, just like they license operators of motorcycles, cars, trucks and airplane pilots, etc!

I don't disagree with your premise, but a License to fly a plane is a whole different category. The State has nothing to do with getting a Pilots License. The FAA (Federal) requires prospective pilots to get flight instruction from FAA Certified Flight Instructors AND have a minimum number of flight hours AND pass a written exam AND take a rigerous "Behind The Wheel" exam with an FAA Check Pilot...NOT your flight instructor, before being issued a License.

The FAA minimum number of Flight hours required is 40, BUT in Real Life it usually runs better than 60 hours.....IN The Plane. BTW: That is for a Full Fledged Pilots License..not the so called "Sports Pilot License" which is a relatively new category which carries numerous RESTRICTIONS. NB

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

I don't disagree with your premise, but a License to fly a plane is a whole different category. The State has nothing to do with getting a Pilots License. The FAA (Federal) requires prospective pilots to get flight instruction from FAA Certified Flight Instructors AND have a minimum number of flight hours AND pass a written exam AND take a rigerous "Behind The Wheel" exam with an FAA Check Pilot...NOT your flight instructor, before being issued a License.

The FAA minimum number of Flight hours required is 40, BUT in Real Life it usually runs better than 60 hours.....IN The Plane. BTW: That is for a Full Fledged Pilots License..not the so called "Sports Pilot License" which is a relatively new category which carries numerous RESTRICTIONS. NB

Mea culpa......that one was a bad example but you know what I was getting at. Something more than a "quickie quiz" administered by the marina renting the boat should be required! Like Seaplane Pilot said, has a marina ever flunked someone with money to spend?

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

Like Seaplane Pilot said, has a marina ever flunked someone with money to spend?

Wanna bet that more citations were issued to operators of rental boats for various infractions compared to the total number of speeding tickets handed out to ALL boaters?

I'd sure be curious to know just how many people "flunked". I agree w/ Seaplane no way anyone is going to turn away money that's sitting on the counter.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Wanna bet that more citations were issued to operators of rental boats for various infractions compared to the total number of speeding tickets handed out to ALL boaters?

I'll take that bet. Why? MP probably issues more warnings and tells renters "don't do that again" and gives them a free pass rather than issue a ticket.

The first order of business would be to get the MP to even record this level of detail. I doubt they do but maybe they'll suprise us.

In any event, it is ironic (err, moronic) that rental places would open their mouths about passing restrictive boating laws.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Well isn't that something, Thurston complaining about the safety of the lake and the speed limit. Hey how many times have I seen some yahoo outfitted with one of his rental boats, out there on the lake doing things far more dangerous and foolish than just going "fast"?

I say banning rentals is much more likely to have an affect on the overall safety of the lake.

Not just Thurston's but Fay's as well. Seriously, I think it's time for a bill to require a full Boater's Education Certificate to rent a boat (or PWC), not just a 10 second "quiz" given by the renter himself. (I wonder how many have actually "flunked" the renter, passing up the nice rental fee? I don't feel safe on the lake with these loose-cannon, unexperienced, uneducated renters operating boats. What do you say Senator Forrester? Senator Bradley? Hello...are you out there?

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Not just Thurston's but Fay's as well. Seriously, I think it's time for a bill to require a full Boater's Education Certificate to rent a boat (or PWC), not just a 10 second "quiz" given by the renter himself. (I wonder how many have actually "flunked" the renter, passing up the nice rental fee? I don't feel safe on the lake with these loose-cannon, unexperienced, uneducated renters operating boats. What do you say Senator Forrester? Senator Bradley? Hello...are you out there?

I think you are onto something with that suggestion!
Now is the time to get a bill going that will require a full Boater's Education Certificate to rent a boat (or PWC). No more of this 14 Day Temporary NH Safe Boating Certificate that is administrated by crooks who only want the money and could care less about the safety of honest hard working safe boaters. I’ll bet that there wasn’t one customer of these dishonest boat rental businesses that passed that test. We’ve got to get them off our Lakes before it’s too late. I’m sure statistics will show that the majority of tickets issued by the MP are to people who only had a temporary certificate.
Hey, how many times have I seen some yahoo outfitted with one of Shep Brown’s Boat Basin rental boats out there on the lake doing things far more dangerous and foolish than just going "fast"? I am going to pass the word around to boycott any boat rental business that allows anyone to rent a boat to someone who only has a temporary certificate. I’ll make sure to tell them that IMHO Shep Brown’ Boat Basin is the biggest offender.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Rusty

I think you are onto something with that suggestion!
Now is the time to get a bill going that will require a full Boater's Education Certificate to rent a boat (or PWC). No more of this 14 Day Temporary NH Safe Boating Certificate that is administrated by crooks who only want the money and could care less about the safety of honest hard working safe boaters. I’ll bet that there wasn’t one customer of these dishonest boat rental businesses that passed that test. We’ve got to get them off our Lakes before it’s too late. I’m sure statistics will show that the majority of tickets issued by the MP are to people who only had a temporary certificate.
Hey, how many times have I seen some yahoo outfitted with one of Shep Brown’s Boat Basin rental boats out there on the lake doing things far more dangerous and foolish than just going "fast"? I am going to pass the word around to boycott any boat rental business that allows anyone to rent a boat to someone who only has a temporary certificate. I’ll make sure to tell them that IMHO Shep Brown’ Boat Basin is the biggest offender.

Now you're barking up the right tree. Go after a real problem. Not sure about Shep's, but Thurstons is probably the worst offender.

[NHBUOY]

...let's see if I got this right...an INORDINATE amount of "licensed boaters" DON'T (or WON'T) follow the simple "Rules of the Road(water)" & operate their boats while under the influence...Enforce THESE rules/laws...Don't make NEW laws that are going to be "ignored" & NOT enforced...

[fatlazyless]

If John Steven were the governor, then this 55-mph increase would have a much better chance. With Governor Lynch, it's seems very likely that he will use his veto stamp and slap a fast veto on the bill if it passes the house.

Will it even pass the House? Nobody knows until the vote is held, but most likely there's plenty state reps who are keen to the governor's veto and will not care enough about the increase to 55 to be on the losing side when it will most likely get a veto, anyway. Probably, a number of undecided state reps will be no-shows on the day of the vote and essentially be punting on this issue.

[Winndow]

The Marine Patrol just testified to a bill in the Senate. HB 0548: Minimum Age for Operation. Amend RSA 270:30, I to read as follows:

I. Except as provided in this paragraph, no person under 16 years of age shall operate a motorized vessel [having power in excess of 25 horsepower] on the public waters of this state unless the person is accompanied by a person 18 years of age or older who has a valid safe boater education certificate, and such person shall be liable for personal injury or property damage which may result from such operation. Any person 12 to 15 years of age with a safe boater education certificate may operate a vessel having power of 25 horsepower or less without an adult.

2 Safe Boater Education; Certificate Required. RSA 270-D:10, I is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

I. No person shall operate a motorized vessel on the public waters of this state without first obtaining a safe boater education certificate.

3 Possession Required. Amend RSA 270-D:11, I(a) to read as follows:

(a) Possess the certificate when operating a motorized vessel [with any type of power motor in excess of 25 horsepower] on the public waters of the state.

4 Safe Boater Education Certificate. Amend the introductory paragraph of RSA 270-D:13, I to read as follows:

I. The commissioner or designee shall issue a safe boater education certificate to a person [16] 12 years of age or older who:

5 Repeal. The following are repealed:

I. RSA 270-D:13, IV, relative to attendance by 15-year-olds.

II. RSA 270-D:19, relative to voluntary attendance.

6 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2012.


This would require all people operating a powerboat to take a boating course. (Currently a 3 year old can drive a 25 hp boat!) It also limits the age for operation for 12-15 yr olds to 25 hp. No one younger could operate.

This bill passed the house but met serious resistence in the Senate at the committee level because several dealers spoke in opposition. Who??
You guessed it...Jeff Thurston, Merrill Fay, Shep Browns (Littlefield), One of the Crawfords from Winnisquam Marine, and others. They cry for safety and speed limits but they argued that financially this bill hurts them because people walk away from rentals when they realize they have to take a 1/2 test! Wiinisquam Marine has a fleet of 25 hp boats just so they can avoid the law.

I was sitting in on the hearing requiring 70 yr olds to take a driving test and this was the hearing before ours. I was shocked when these dealers spoke in opposition. I figured they were going to support. $$$ talks!

[lawn psycho]

I hope someone writes an editorial in the local papers to point out the hypocrisy.

Any dealer who supports the SL won't see $0.01 of my money.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

I hope someone writes an editorial in the local papers to point out the hypocrisy.

Any dealer who supports the SL won't see $0.01 of my money.

Better yet, why don't you just boycott the whole state of NH.
I'm sure Maine has plenty of places that you can boat.

[Woodsy]

The hypocrisy is truley amazing, but as my grandfather used to say... follow the money!

The marinas dont want to lose a customer with $$$ on the table because he/she doesnt have a safe boating certificate... So any attempt to change the rules that make renting a boat a safer experience for ALL by requiring a boating certificate is going to be met with strong resistance!

Almost all of the marinas rent boats... and boat rentals equal $$$! Now while Shep's has wisely stayed out of the speed limit debate, realizing that a customer is a customer regardless of what their type of boat is... others like Thurston's (who lost the Cobalt dealership) and Fay's decided to step right in....

Thier logic?? Less speedboats = more rentals! Its actually pretty simple but obviously flawed logic. No data to support thier claims of a safer lake, and certianly no measurable rise in rental business because of the speed limit. In fact no doubt the rental business and gas sales have been off because of the economy.

I think that ANY business that takes a stance on a political issue such as this where they choose one type of customer over another is extremely shortsighted... why lose any business? I for one no longer have my bi-annual family dinner at the C-man restaurants... it wasnt much, a $700 bill for the night for the 12 of us or so.... but its still money they dont get. I try to avoid any C-Man restaurant.

Woodsy

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Better yet, why don't you just boycott the whole state of NH.
I'm sure Maine has plenty of places that you can boat.

I bet the marina (aka a lakes region business) who just got my check for the boating season would not be agreeing with you

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

I bet the marina (aka a lakes region business) who just got my check for the boating season would not be agreeing with you

I'm sure he wouldn't.

Have a good time boating this summer. Try to forget about the SL while your here.
I hope the weather is good for you!

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

I'm sure he wouldn't.

Have a good time boating this summer. Try to forget about the SL while your here.
I hope the weather is good for you!

Since my boat can barely do 50MPH I don't have many worries about the SL. I just may be the only boater out there with a radar detector though. I'm curious to see what the signals I pick-up on the water.

The cops could be real sneaky and clock people on the water as they approach a bay and then ticket them when the land at the dock. Just sayin'

I can't forget about the no-rafting areas though

[Chimi]

Originally Posted by Winndow

The Marine Patrol just testified to a bill in the Senate. HB 0548: Minimum Age for Operation. Amend RSA 270:30, I to read as follows:

I. Except as provided in this paragraph, no person under 16 years of age shall operate a motorized vessel [having power in excess of 25 horsepower] on the public waters of this state unless the person is accompanied by a person 18 years of age or older who has a valid safe boater education certificate, and such person shall be liable for personal injury or property damage which may result from such operation. Any person 12 to 15 years of age with a safe boater education certificate may operate a vessel having power of 25 horsepower or less without an adult.

2 Safe Boater Education; Certificate Required. RSA 270-D:10, I is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

I. No person shall operate a motorized vessel on the public waters of this state without first obtaining a safe boater education certificate.

3 Possession Required. Amend RSA 270-D:11, I(a) to read as follows:

(a) Possess the certificate when operating a motorized vessel [with any type of power motor in excess of 25 horsepower] on the public waters of the state.

4 Safe Boater Education Certificate. Amend the introductory paragraph of RSA 270-D:13, I to read as follows:

I. The commissioner or designee shall issue a safe boater education certificate to a person [16] 12 years of age or older who:

5 Repeal. The following are repealed:

I. RSA 270-D:13, IV, relative to attendance by 15-year-olds.

II. RSA 270-D:19, relative to voluntary attendance.

6 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2012.


This would require all people operating a powerboat to take a boating course. (Currently a 3 year old can drive a 25 hp boat!) It also limits the age for operation for 12-15 yr olds to 25 hp. No one younger could operate.

This bill passed the house but met serious resistence in the Senate at the committee level because several dealers spoke in opposition. Who??
You guessed it...Jeff Thurston, Merrill Fay, Shep Browns (Littlefield), One of the Crawfords from Winnisquam Marine, and others. They cry for safety and speed limits but they argued that financially this bill hurts them because people walk away from rentals when they realize they have to take a 1/2 test! Wiinisquam Marine has a fleet of 25 hp boats just so they can avoid the law.

I was sitting in on the hearing requiring 70 yr olds to take a driving test and this was the hearing before ours. I was shocked when these dealers spoke in opposition. I figured they were going to support. $$$ talks!

Where does WINNFABS stand on this issue? They should be in full support.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Chimi

Where does WINNFABS stand on this issue? They should be in full support.

WinnFABS only exists for one purpose, Speed Limits. Since this legislation does not seem to impact speed limits, I assume WinnFABS takes no stand on this legislation.

[Chimi]

Then why is WINNFABS taking a stand in favor of a no-wake zone at the Barber's Pole?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Chimi

Then why is WINNFABS taking a stand in favor of a no-wake zone at the Barber's Pole?

No wake is a speed limit.

[Chimi]

Originally Posted by Dave R

No wake is a speed limit.

OK. Then why do they want speed limits? From their website: "To make the lake safer WinnFABS was formed by a group of citizens who love Lake Winnipesaukee and who want to ensure safe family boating and preserve the beauty and serenity of the lake for present and future generations". Well, in my opinion, it sure would make the lake safer if anyone renting a boat (over 25hp) was required to have a full boater's education certificate. I cannot believe that WINNFABS would not support this "in the name of safety".

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Chimi

OK. Then why do they want speed limits? From their website: "To make the lake safer WinnFABS was formed by a group of citizens who love Lake Winnipesaukee and who want to ensure safe family boating and preserve the beauty and serenity of the lake for present and future generations". Well, in my opinion, it sure would make the lake safer if anyone renting a boat (over 25hp) was required to have a full boater's education certificate. I cannot believe that WINNFABS would not support this "in the name of safety".

In my opinion:


They want fast boats off the lake. Safety has never had anything to do with it.

Some of them want fewer boats on the lake and are doing what they can to make it less attractive for boaters. The unecessary NWZs are a perfect way to keep boats away.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Chimi

OK. Then why do they want speed limits? From their website: "To make the lake safer WinnFABS was formed by a group of citizens who love Lake Winnipesaukee and who want to ensure safe family boating and preserve the beauty and serenity of the lake for present and future generations". Well, in my opinion, it sure would make the lake safer if anyone renting a boat (over 25hp) was required to have a full boater's education certificate. I cannot believe that WINNFABS would not support this "in the name of safety".

What is so hard to believe about an organization formed to fight one specific issue.

There are lots of important issues that WinnFABS does not have a position on. Global warming, universal health care, the financial crisis, nuclear power, racism and the no fly zone in Libya, just to name a few.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

What is so hard to believe about an organization formed to fight one specific issue.

So does Winnsfabs promote safety or just a speed limit? What data do you have the indicates a speed limit promotes safety on Lake Winnipesaukee?

You can try and parse the issue of the speed limit and safety but when they are clearly related by WinnFlabs own assertions, what is so hard to understand about why you would be called out for it?

If all you want is a speed limit with no data to support it, you will have people continue to question your "real" intent. It's not safety......

[Chimi]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

What is so hard to believe about an organization formed to fight one specific issue.

There are lots of important issues that WinnFABS does not have a position on. Global warming, universal health care, the financial crisis, nuclear power, racism and the no fly zone in Libya, just to name a few.

From what I have read, WINNFABS' core issue is safety. Unlicensed boaters (renting boats with hundreds of horsepower) are a serious safety issue. What's so hard to understand and why the hostility? Do you want kayers and campers run over by unlicensed rental boaters? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

[jmen24]

BI made the comment regarding WINNIFABS single position a few months ago. Stating it was all about speed and that was it.

But, has anyone else noticed that the usual supporters haven't made a peep since.

Apparently, the folks in Concord weren't the only ones that were duped into thinking they had the peoples safety in mind.

That's the difference between being a big financial player and a member of the trench squad. Some really know and the others just think they do. That pill has to hurt. And it's too bad, some of the supporters probably were really interested in the overall improved safety of the lake. They will have to look elsewhere if they are interested in actually improving the safety and experience for everyone and not just the wealthy few.

Just think of all the posts on this site from years ago (and fairly recently) that are in complete contrast to this one position only stance, that we have recently been confirmed to be true.

BI, I am not talking about WINNIFABS original stance (the non-supporters have known that from the get go), but what all your supporters were told (or not told), so they would fight the fight they have.

I can tell you that if I had made a contribution to this organization and was told something different then (to get my money), than what is coming to light now. I would be looking for a few other folks that feel the same way and getting the courts involved. Feels like fraud to me!

[Chimi]

I'm starting to think that we've hit a nerve on this subject. Peel away the bark and see what's really behind it. Wow, and to think that they campaigned on a safety theme, but really it was a theme to get rid of bigger boats. Kind of like the Lakes Region Conservation Trust soliciting support to buy the Castle in the Clouds, then closing the snowmobile trails. Oh well, hopefully they get exposed for this game and they get shut down. I've already contacted my senator and representatives about unlicensed rental boaters causing me fear.

[Chimi]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

WinnFABS only exists for one purpose, Speed Limits. Since this legislation does not seem to impact speed limits, I assume WinnFABS takes no stand on this legislation.

Mr. Bear, it's not the speed itself that can be their issue - speed is irrelevent. It has to be their perceived effects of speed (danger, safety, etc) that is their concern. So if safety is their concern, why then would they want unlicensed boaters on the lake?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Chimi

So if safety is their concern, why then would they want unlicensed boaters on the lake?

I bet there's a large contingent of them that don't want any "extra" boaters on the lake, but it serves them better overall to have backing by boat dealers, so they remain silent on the renters.

[Chimi]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I bet there's a large contingent of them that don't want any "extra" boaters on the lake, but it serves them better overall to have backing by boat dealers, so they remain silent on the renters.

Well isn't that interesting. Thanks for enlightening me on this subject. I think calls to my reps and senator are in order right away. So I guess they want their cake and want to eat it too.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Chimi

Well isn't that interesting. Thanks for enlightening me on this subject. I think calls to my reps and senator are in order right away. So I guess they want their cake and want to eat it too.

Comment deleted by author.

[Pineedles]

Comment removed by author.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Once again, when someone has nothing to add to the discussion, they insult someone!

Comment deleted by author.

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

WinnFABS only exists for one purpose, Speed Limits. Since this legislation does not seem to impact speed limits, I assume WinnFABS takes no stand on this legislation.

Really ........ this comment has to hurt for a few

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

Really ........ this comment has to hurt for a few

You are being a little over dramatic.

WinnFABS was created to fight one battle, speed limits. It NEVER had any other purpose. It never claimed to have any other purpose.

Your argument that WinnFABS should be fighting other battles that you want them to, has no merit.

Get over it already.

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You are being a little over dramatic.

WinnFABS was created to fight one battle, speed limits. It NEVER had any other purpose. It never claimed to have any other purpose.

Your argument that WinnFABS should be fighting other battles that you want them to, has no merit.

Get over it already.

WINN
F- family
A- alliance
B-boating
S- slowness

perhaps this would have been a less misleading name

[Chimi]

Apparently there are many more people out there that smell a WinnFABS rat:

http://www.laconiadailysun.com/story/brett-goodhue-4-15

[Bear Islander]

Perhaps you should form your own organization. Then you can run it however you want.

That makes more sense than whining about the way the opposition runs their organization.

Lost in all this is any meaningful conversation about the pros and cons of legislation that is soon to be voted on.

[NHBUOY]

...still...Mr. Goodhue makes a good point...

[Rusty]

This well written letter is in todays Laconia Citizen:

Running the gauntlet

Editor, The Citizen:

Boaters take notice: A proposal to change boating speeds is back in Concord — again. The bill to create a special “Winnipesaukee Speeding Zone” was passed by a recent Senate vote. This new proposed change is sponsored by the so-called “Safe Boaters”, who are eager to see Lake Winnipesaukee’s scenery — all in one hour! Especially if you happen to find yourself in Alton or Wolfeboro waters, the new “Speeding Zone” will allow speedboats to cross your pathway at newer and more exhilarating speeds than permitted by present law.

At any one moment, Winnipesaukee’s visitors are already challenged in finding exactly where their boat is located on the lake. Whatever haphazard speeds they will be encountering near “The Speeding Zone” is anyone’s guess. To travel to any other spot on the Lake, this new “Speeding Zone” would entrap every Wolfeboro boater into “running the gauntlet” of high-speed boats.

House legislators can’t be seriously considering a “yes” vote on this hazardous proposal. Should one supporting Senator been absent, this proposal would have died in the Senate. To impoverish our treasury even further, expect each of Enforcement’s citations for excessive and reckless speeding behavior to be reduced by 10 mph. Inside our newest life-jackets, manufacturers’ disclosures emphasize our PFDs can’t meet safety standards at this proposed speed! This scary proposal follows our lake’s safest seasons under the current 45/30-mph limits. If it ain’t broke, why fix it.

Robert Kennington

Wolfeboro

[DEJ]

To the editor,

The Winnipesaukee Family Alliance for Boating Safety (WinnFABS) lobbied successfully to get a speed limit imposed on Lake Winnipesaukee. Recently SB-27 has proposed to a compromise in raising the speed limit to 55 mph in the section of Winnipesaukee known as the Broads. Personally, I believe that there never was a need for a speed limit and that there are many other problems on the lake causing hazards to safety. I also believe that WinnFABS cares little about safety, but operates under the auspices of safety in their elitist efforts to scrub Lake Winnipesaukee of so-called performance boats.

One safety issue that has recently surfaced is the fact that anyone renting a boat over 25 horsepower need not have the required Boater's Education Certificate that all boaters over the age of 16 are required to have in order to operate a boat in the State of N.H. Instead, any dealer or renter of boats who is approved by the commissioner may administer a temporary safety examination and issue a temporary (14 day) certificate, which entitles them to rent and operate the boat. This is like the fox guarding the hen house! How can we possibly allow the dealer or renter of the boat to administer these temporary tests? How many marinas have "flunked" the renter, thereby forfeiting a nice $400 rental fee for the day? How can we allow people with zero boating experience, who have not taken the required class and obtained the full Boaters Education Certificate out on the waters of our lakes with boats which may have hundreds of horsepower? This is a recipe for mayhem and disaster and is one of the root causes of safety problems on Lake Winnipesaukee.

However, a little research will show that several of the marinas that specialize in boat rentals on Lake Winnipesaukee (Thurston's and Fay's just to name two) have thrown their support for the speed limits behind WinnFABS — the same organization whose last name is "Safety". There was a hearing in Concord this week on HB-0548, a bill to require (in essence) anyone operating a boat over 25-hp to have a full Boater Education Certificate (eliminating the temporary certificate issued by the marinas renting the boats). Guess who spoke in opposition to the bill – the owners of Thurstons Marina, Fay's Marina and Shep Brown's Marina — these same marinas that are renting boats to people with no Boater Education Certificates. They cry for speed limits in the name of safety, but protest this bill requiring Boater Education Certificates because it hurts them financially. This is unconscionable and is further proof that they care little about safety and more about their wallets.

Even more perplexing is the fact that since these same marinas supported WinnFABS efforts for the speed limit, WinnFABS has chosen to remain silent on the issue of allowing non-licensed boaters to rent boats and operate on our waters. People who supported WinnFABS thinking that they were the foundation of safe boating got sold a pig in a poke. The time has come to expose their agenda for what it really is — an effort to scrub Lake Winnipesaukee of performance boats by a bunch of elitists that want the lake for themselves. I think a call to your senator and reps is in order to urge them to support HB-0548 and get unexperienced, unlicensed boaters off of our waters.

Brett Goodhue

Gilford
. .

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by Rusty

This well written letter is in todays Laconia Citizen:

Running the gauntlet

Editor, The Citizen:

Boaters take notice: A proposal to change boating speeds is back in Concord — again. The bill to create a special “Winnipesaukee Speeding Zone” was passed by a recent Senate vote. This new proposed change is sponsored by the so-called “Safe Boaters”, who are eager to see Lake Winnipesaukee’s scenery — all in one hour! Especially if you happen to find yourself in Alton or Wolfeboro waters, the new “Speeding Zone” will allow speedboats to cross your pathway at newer and more exhilarating speeds than permitted by present law.

At any one moment, Winnipesaukee’s visitors are already challenged in finding exactly where their boat is located on the lake. Whatever haphazard speeds they will be encountering near “The Speeding Zone” is anyone’s guess. To travel to any other spot on the Lake, this new “Speeding Zone” would entrap every Wolfeboro boater into “running the gauntlet” of high-speed boats.

House legislators can’t be seriously considering a “yes” vote on this hazardous proposal. Should one supporting Senator been absent, this proposal would have died in the Senate. To impoverish our treasury even further, expect each of Enforcement’s citations for excessive and reckless speeding behavior to be reduced by 10 mph. Inside our newest life-jackets, manufacturers’ disclosures emphasize our PFDs can’t meet safety standards at this proposed speed! This scary proposal follows our lake’s safest seasons under the current 45/30-mph limits. If it ain’t broke, why fix it.

Robert Kennington

Wolfeboro

Glad to see that Bob can actually write a well formed paragraph, instead of the hacked together cut and paste that we see here. A lot more respect would be given if this was the new adopted posting style from here on out.

[Chimi]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You are being a little over dramatic.

WinnFABS was created to fight one battle, speed limits. It NEVER had any other purpose. It never claimed to have any other purpose.

Your argument that WinnFABS should be fighting other battles that you want them to, has no merit.

Get over it already.

Riddle me this Batman: Why did/does WinnFABS want speed limits? What is the primary reason? Do tell.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Chimi

Riddle me this Batman: Why did/does WinnFABS want speed limits? What is the primary reason? Do tell.

Sorry, but I have answered this question probably 30 times. You are welcome to go back and read those posts. They are all in the speed limits forum.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Chimi

Riddle me this Batman: Why did/does WinnFABS want speed limits? What is the primary reason? Do tell.

You have made up your mind that WinnFabs only goal is to keep GFBL boats off the lake so why keep asking that question.

If WinnFabs says there goal is safety, then you say "What is the primary reason?"

So why keep asking that question if you (in your mind) know the answer. It really is an obsession with you.

Why don't you ask the SBONH folks why they support going faster if their primary goal is safety? Going faster in any vehicle is less safe that going slower.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Why don't you ask the SBONH folks why they support going faster if their primary goal is safety? Going faster in any vehicle is less safe that going slower.

Nice try but that's a classic strawman argument. Why not make highways all have 25 MPH speed limits too....

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Nice try but that's a classic strawman argument. Why not make highways all have 25 MPH speed limits too....

It’s not “strawman”, it’s straw man. Two words, not one.

Your comment is the straw man approach. You are trying to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. It won’t work my friend!

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

It’s not “strawman”, it’s straw man. Two words, not one.

Your comment is the straw man approach. You are trying to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. It won’t work my friend!

No I was trying to point out the fallacy of your argument with an example.... Did you notice I posed the argument as a question? Carry on....

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Going faster in any vehicle is less safe that going slower.

Good thing you're not an airplane pilot...

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Good thing you're not an airplane pilot...

You know for a fact that I'm not an airplane pilot?

You are assuming something and making a judgement of being true without evidence or validation.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Rusty

You know for a fact that I'm not an airplane pilot?

You are assuming something and making a judgement of being true without evidence or validation.

Nope. I assumed you weren't because you don't seem to understand the fundamentals of flight.

If you are an airplane pilot, you may want to bone up on the fundamentals...

Either way, your statement was very wrong. Flying too slow tends to lead to tying the record for lowest altitude.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Rusty

You have made up your mind that WinnFabs only goal is to keep GFBL boats off the lake so why keep asking that question.

If WinnFabs says there goal is safety, then you say "What is the primary reason?"

So why keep asking that question if you (in your mind) know the answer. It really is an obsession with you.

Why don't you ask the SBONH folks why they support going faster if their primary goal is safety? Going faster in any vehicle is less safe that going slower.

How many accidents have there been on Lake Winnipesaukee that were directly attributed to speeds above the current limits?

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by chipj29

How many accidents have there been on Lake Winnipesaukee that were directly attributed to speeds above the current limits?

None...

Dan

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

How many accidents have there been on Lake Winnipesaukee that were directly attributed to speeds above the current limits?

Below is a quote from David Barrett the head of the New Hampshire Marine Patrol and a long time opponent of speed limits. And these three are not just accidents attributed to speed. They are FATAL accidents attributed to speed.


Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed.


More than enough evidence to support a speed limit.

Now I assume you guys will give some convoluted reasoning why these accidents don't count. The general public is not interested in convoluted arguments. They want speed limits.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Below is a quote from David Barrett the head of the New Hampshire Marine Patrol and a long time opponent of speed limits. And these three are not just accidents attributed to speed. They are FATAL accidents attributed to speed.


Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed.


More than enough evidence to support a speed limit.

Now I assume you guys will give some convoluted reasoning why these accidents don't count. The general public is not interested in convoluted arguments. They want speed limits.

With all due respect, the question was how many accidents have been attributed to speed "above the current limits", this would mean 46 MPH or greater. I stand by my answer of none...

Dan

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

.......The general public is not interested in convoluted arguments. They want speed limits.

The general public or the boating public?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Below is a quote from David Barrett the head of the New Hampshire Marine Patrol and a long time opponent of speed limits. And these three are not just accidents attributed to speed. They are FATAL accidents attributed to speed.


Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed.


More than enough evidence to support a speed limit.

Now I assume you guys will give some convoluted reasoning why these accidents don't count. The general public is not interested in convoluted arguments. They want speed limits.

Thanks, but that doesn't answer my question. If a boat crashes while going 25 mph in a NWZ and someone dies, wouldn't that also be attributed to speed?

What speed caused the 3 boating deaths? Were any of them >25/45?

[Chimi]

Originally Posted by Rusty

You have made up your mind that WinnFabs only goal is to keep GFBL boats off the lake so why keep asking that question.

If WinnFabs says there goal is safety, then you say "What is the primary reason?"

So why keep asking that question if you (in your mind) know the answer. It really is an obsession with you.

Why don't you ask the SBONH folks why they support going faster if their primary goal is safety? Going faster in any vehicle is less safe that going slower.

No, I have not made up my mind, that's why I'm asking the question. (PS: You seem to make a point of correcting spelling/grammar, so I'll do the same: In your 1st sentence "there" should be "their". In your last sentence "that" should be "than"). All I want to know is what WinnFABS stands for. Obviously a speed limit, but why? Is it to make the lake "safer" or is it to save the planet by reducing fuel consumption? If it's to make the lake safer, then why won't they support other legislation that will really improve safety? (such as the temporary boating license issued by marinas)? Please, no spin this time. Just tell it like it is.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Chimi

No, I have not made up my mind, that's why I'm asking the question. (PS: You seem to make a point of correcting spelling/grammar, so I'll do the same: In your 1st sentence "there" should be "their". In your last sentence "that" should be "than"). All I want to know is what WinnFABS stands for. Obviously a speed limit, but why? Is it to make the lake "safer" or is it to save the planet by reducing fuel consumption? If it's to make the lake safer, then why won't they support other legislation that will really improve safety? (such as the temporary boating license issued by marinas)? Please, no spin this time. Just tell it like it is.

Chimi, when people don't have a good argument or poor logic they deflect from the topic by pointing out spelling and grammatical errors. In a battle of intellect Rusty would show up unarmed.....

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Chimi

No, I have not made up my mind, that's why I'm asking the question. (PS: You seem to make a point of correcting spelling/grammar, so I'll do the same: In your 1st sentence "there" should be "their". In your last sentence "that" should be "than"). All I want to know is what WinnFABS stands for. Obviously a speed limit, but why? Is it to make the lake "safer" or is it to save the planet by reducing fuel consumption? If it's to make the lake safer, then why won't they support other legislation that will really improve safety? (such as the temporary boating license issued by marinas)? Please, no spin this time. Just tell it like it is.

This was in the LDS today, I hope it helps answer your question:

To the editor,

Responding to Brett Goodhue's letter to the editor, dated April 16, It appears, at first glance, that Mr. Goodhue is not a registered voter in Gilford and some of his information is patently false. Shep Brown's Marina has never been a supporter, rather an adamant opposer, of WinnFABS. The NH Marine Trades Association also have not been in support of speed limits for boats anywhere. The boat dealers reason for being in business is to make a profit and keeping their patrons happy with their sales and services.

Mr. Goodhue obviously has not paid attention over the years, WinnFABS has never said it wants the performance boats off the big lake, only that they use common sense and courtesy when operating their vessels. That includes complying with the speed limits of 45/30 mph at which all water sports, except speed for the sake of speed alone, can and have been practiced over many years. They have had their way for as long as we can remember, over 40 plus years and we now believe it's time for everyone to realize that accidents, injuries and fatalities can easily be averted by slowing down. It is we believe a very simple factor of physics that is not that hard to understand.

The marina owners would like the Boaters Education Safety Certificate law to remain as it has been for a lot of years so that any one wanting to rent a boat for an hour or so still has to have the proper certification required by the current law and not have to hold their entire family up for an extended time waiting for them to study the book, take an on-line test, with the possibility of failing the score requirements, and not to be able to enjoy a half day with their families on the water.

Now you believe that 12-15 year olds should be taking a somewhat lengthy test that does not provide them with a whit of operating experience and then allow them to operate a vessel of 25 hp or less without an adult on board — give us all a break.

By the by, since 2005 or earlier, WinnFABS has not been about anything but speed. We are not like the current bunch, SBONH, that claim to be about everything to do with boating safety but haven't asked for any new laws that have a darn thing to do with same.

Bill Bertholdt

Gilford
.

[Chimi]

Originally Posted by Rusty

This was in the LDS today, I hope it helps answer your question:

To the editor,

Responding to Brett Goodhue's letter to the editor, dated April 16, It appears, at first glance, that Mr. Goodhue is not a registered voter in Gilford and some of his information is patently false. Shep Brown's Marina has never been a supporter, rather an adamant opposer, of WinnFABS. The NH Marine Trades Association also have not been in support of speed limits for boats anywhere. The boat dealers reason for being in business is to make a profit and keeping their patrons happy with their sales and services.

Mr. Goodhue obviously has not paid attention over the years, WinnFABS has never said it wants the performance boats off the big lake, only that they use common sense and courtesy when operating their vessels. That includes complying with the speed limits of 45/30 mph at which all water sports, except speed for the sake of speed alone, can and have been practiced over many years. They have had their way for as long as we can remember, over 40 plus years and we now believe it's time for everyone to realize that accidents, injuries and fatalities can easily be averted by slowing down. It is we believe a very simple factor of physics that is not that hard to understand.

The marina owners would like the Boaters Education Safety Certificate law to remain as it has been for a lot of years so that any one wanting to rent a boat for an hour or so still has to have the proper certification required by the current law and not have to hold their entire family up for an extended time waiting for them to study the book, take an on-line test, with the possibility of failing the score requirements, and not to be able to enjoy a half day with their families on the water.

Now you believe that 12-15 year olds should be taking a somewhat lengthy test that does not provide them with a whit of operating experience and then allow them to operate a vessel of 25 hp or less without an adult on board — give us all a break.

By the by, since 2005 or earlier, WinnFABS has not been about anything but speed. We are not like the current bunch, SBONH, that claim to be about everything to do with boating safety but haven't asked for any new laws that have a darn thing to do with same.

Bill Bertholdt

Gilford
.

Two points: 1) What does being a "registered voter" have to do with the price of tea in China? 2) Apparently, an "hour" is not enough time for an unlicensed boater to run somebody over because he has no idea how to a) drive a boat and/or b) has no clue on the rules and regulations specific to the State of NH. Well, too bad, he might keep his family waiting while he might learn a technique or rule that would help him avoid killing someone! This is the most absurd argument I've ever heard. This is just more spin from WinnFABS to take the attention off of the real problem on the lake. Thanks for nothing!

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

If John Steven were the governor, then this 55-mph increase would have a much better chance. With Governor Lynch, it's seems very likely that he will use his veto stamp and slap a fast veto on the bill if it passes the house.

Will it even pass the House? Nobody knows until the vote is held, but most likely there's plenty state reps who are keen to the governor's veto and will not care enough about the increase to 55 to be on the losing side when it will most likely get a veto, anyway. Probably, a number of undecided state reps will be no-shows on the day of the vote and essentially be punting on this issue.

Yes, well how about that and isn't that interesting......gee whiz......no kidding!