Bonehead Cruiser

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

WOW, you really got revved up this time! I will try and answer your questions.

I'm not revved up. I'm on the road, it's raining where I am at in China, and I can't take another long game of chess against one of my formidable expatriate German opponents. You also can only read and use the gym so much so discussing lake issues is on the agenda

You're missing the point.

1. I know there are lakes with Hp limits (not just NH, but throughout the country). They are typically small bodies of water. We are discussing Winni. The mere fact that a vessel the size of the Mount operates on the lake is defacto evidence that any other boat on the water is not an issue.

You can ask for what ever you want but I steadfastly believe you have no chance realistic chance to get it passed. Unlike the SL issue, the cruisers on Winni are priced into the market. I actually think that removing the cruisers could hurt your cause. If marinas changes their model to promote smaller boats they would have to make up sales by volume. I'd rather see a handful of large cruisers on the lake than an increase in boats overall.

What I think is sleazy is the legislation you would propose. Using a surrogate of Hp doesn't not correlate to wake size. I can take a ski boat with a less than 300 Hp motor and put wake bags in them to make monster wakes if you wish And, you aren't the lone wolf, far from it. APS would love to see cruisers taken off the lake.

2. Wakes. My wife and I have a couple spots we've found that nobody seems to know are good for anchoring. One of those areas is also an area where on weekends it's not uncommon for the area to have some tubers and skiers who pass by and they send a wake across the water. Most of those boats are the typcial bowrider and a Hp restriction would do nothing for those wakes. We just properly set the anchor and life is good. In fact, while floating on the tethered tube sometimes the wake is nice to have. So how does a Hp limit fix your "knocking a child down?" I'm sorry but I think the argument is to use the word "child" to garner attention but is a failure on your part to be pragmatic. In fact, I've been out on windy days at the sand bar where there were no boats around and the waves and rollers knocked the boat and everyone else around. That same child you referenced would get knocked down absent of a boat created wake....

3. Water quality. Sorry but there are TONS of old septics around the lake. You speak in general terms and then get specific to your case. I simply point out that you bring up erosion, and water quality due to wakes as generic arguments for removal of large boats (whatever the definition may be). It really amounts to rhetoric. But, when you look further into things you'll see that shorefront owners do a lot of damage to the lake but marginalize it when called on it. It's total hypocrisy for a shorefront owner to cry for water quality when the mere presence of their camps are a damage to the lakeshore. Trees get cut to build all those homes. Do you think all those houses right on the shore are good for the lake? "Legal" and good for water quality are not the same thing. We both know pragmatically that the camps aren't going to get moved or torn down merely for the good of the lake.

How many times do we see floating debris from docks or items from shorefronts that end up in the lake? Do you think all those wood pilings from docks are a good thing to have in the water? Go around the lake and see how the shore lines are littered with docks.

I simply point out that if you want to use water quality and erosion to ban certain boats that I will systematically start showing you data on how shore front owners like you are more of the problem. It's hypocrisy at its finest.

Since you like to point to how other lakes operate, did you know many states restrict ANY development on lake shores. Why? Water quality and to keep the waters available for recreation. It avoids the very issues that allowing homes to be built on the shores of a State resources creates.

Sorry to inform you, but you (and others like you) are as much as the problem than what it is you wish to ban.

4. I no longer support the 150 ft rule for passing vessels. Why bring it up? Arguments like yours have shown me how the rule gives unrealistic expectations. Another thread for another day.

5. The point of the study for blood pressure and stress is to show the cumulative impacts. Many of them had normal resting BP but they are in the study because they have some kind of cardiac disease Of course it's hard to "read people through a forum but ready your posts over the years I don't think you are "happy" with the lake or else you would not be trying to pass restrictions on boats that exist on the lake today.

6. Don't think for a minute that a Hp restriction would not remove existing boats off the lake in short order. It would be less than 10 years before most of the cruisers left the lake.

7. Here's an idea. Ban any future home development on the lake. That would mean less docks, less people, less boats, less erosion, less clear cutting. No houses can be expanded beyond their current foot print. Win-win. I think it would do more for the lake.

From the shore looking towards the water, you want to regulate activities by various legislation. Perhaps it's time to get out on the water and look take a hard look back at yourself.

I'm out. Back to bed for me. Jet lag sucks. Carry on.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

I'm not revved up. I'm on the road, it's raining where I am at in China, and I can't take another long game of chess against one of my formidable expatriate German opponents. You also can only read and use the gym so much so discussing lake issues is on the agenda

You're missing the point.

1. I know there are lakes with Hp limits (not just NH, but throughout the country). They are typically small bodies of water. We are discussing Winni. The mere fact that a vessel the size of the Mount operates on the lake is defacto evidence that any other boat on the water is not an issue.

You can ask for what ever you want but I steadfastly believe you have no chance realistic chance to get it passed. Unlike the SL issue, the cruisers on Winni are priced into the market. I actually think that removing the cruisers could hurt your cause. If marinas changes their model to promote smaller boats they would have to make up sales by volume. I'd rather see a handful of large cruisers on the lake than an increase in boats overall.

What I think is sleazy is the legislation you would propose. Using a surrogate of Hp doesn't not correlate to wake size. I can take a ski boat with a less than 300 Hp motor and put wake bags in them to make monster wakes if you wish And, you aren't the lone wolf, far from it. APS would love to see cruisers taken off the lake.

2. Wakes. My wife and I have a couple spots we've found that nobody seems to know are good for anchoring. One of those areas is also an area where on weekends it's not uncommon for the area to have some tubers and skiers who pass by and they send a wake across the water. Most of those boats are the typcial bowrider and a Hp restriction would do nothing for those wakes. We just properly set the anchor and life is good. In fact, while floating on the tethered tube sometimes the wake is nice to have. So how does a Hp limit fix your "knocking a child down?" I'm sorry but I think the argument is to use the word "child" to garner attention but is a failure on your part to be pragmatic. In fact, I've been out on windy days at the sand bar where there were no boats around and the waves and rollers knocked the boat and everyone else around. That same child you referenced would get knocked down absent of a boat created wake....

3. Water quality. Sorry but there are TONS of old septics around the lake. You speak in general terms and then get specific to your case. I simply point out that you bring up erosion, and water quality due to wakes as generic arguments for removal of large boats (whatever the definition may be). It really amounts to rhetoric. But, when you look further into things you'll see that shorefront owners do a lot of damage to the lake but marginalize it when called on it. It's total hypocrisy for a shorefront owner to cry for water quality when the mere presence of their camps are a damage to the lakeshore. Trees get cut to build all those homes. Do you think all those houses right on the shore are good for the lake? "Legal" and good for water quality are not the same thing. We both know pragmatically that the camps aren't going to get moved or torn down merely for the good of the lake.

How many times do we see floating debris from docks or items from shorefronts that end up in the lake? Do you think all those wood pilings from docks are a good thing to have in the water? Go around the lake and see how the shore lines are littered with docks.

I simply point out that if you want to use water quality and erosion to ban certain boats that I will systematically start showing you data on how shore front owners like you are more of the problem. It's hypocrisy at its finest.

Since you like to point to how other lakes operate, did you know many states restrict ANY development on lake shores. Why? Water quality and to keep the waters available for recreation. It avoids the very issues that allowing homes to be built on the shores of a State resources creates.

Sorry to inform you, but you (and others like you) are as much as the problem than what it is you wish to ban.

4. I no longer support the 150 ft rule for passing vessels. Why bring it up? Arguments like yours have shown me how the rule gives unrealistic expectations. Another thread for another day.

5. The point of the study for blood pressure and stress is to show the cumulative impacts. Many of them had normal resting BP but they are in the study because they have some kind of cardiac disease Of course it's hard to "read people through a forum but ready your posts over the years I don't think you are "happy" with the lake or else you would not be trying to pass restrictions on boats that exist on the lake today.

6. Don't think for a minute that a Hp restriction would not remove existing boats off the lake in short order. It would be less than 10 years before most of the cruisers left the lake.

7. Here's an idea. Ban any future home development on the lake. That would mean less docks, less people, less boats, less erosion, less clear cutting. No houses can be expanded beyond their current foot print. Win-win. I think it would do more for the lake.

From the shore looking towards the water, you want to regulate activities by various legislation. Perhaps it's time to get out on the water and look take a hard look back at yourself.

I'm out. Back to bed for me. Jet lag sucks. Carry on.

I am on your side LP. BUT you are boring many people who get tired of reading long winded presentations. If you can't make your point in a few short sentances...you have lost your audience.... AND.. you start to sound just like the opposition..BI.. BREVITY works for me. NB

[Pineedles]

I like reading LP's replies. They may be long, but they are intelligent thoughts put to "paper".

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

I like reading LP's replies. They may be long, but they are intelligent thoughts put to "paper".

I enjoy them myself.

Getting back to the first post in this thread.....

Aside from the fact that everything the offending wave make did was illegal......Remember when it was OK to call an arsehole an arsehole?

Remember when Grumpy Old Men was a movie, and not long term idiots that became curmudgeons living near a lake?

Does anyone remember when people that lied to townsfolk would be run out of town on a rail?

Does anyone remember when we'd just go out in the boat and run around, possibly to visit friends, possibly to travel nowhere in particular? Just to be on the water, with whomever was there, or no one at all.

What's lacking today is not common interests. Not agreement, we'll never have more or less of that. What's lacking is character, honesty, humanity. LS really does have a point, several in fact. I live next door to someone that couldn't ever possibly be happy, ever. "Nothing's Right" is his favorite saying. Life's too short to live like that IMO.

You just keep enjoying yourself and do what you do LS.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Does anyone remember when we'd just go out in the boat and run around, possibly to visit friends, possibly to travel nowhere in particular? Just to be on the water, with whomever was there, or no one at all.

What's lacking today is not common interests. Not agreement, we'll never have more or less of that. What's lacking is character, honesty, humanity. LS really does have a point, several in fact. I live next door to someone that couldn't ever possibly be happy, ever. "Nothing's Right" is his favorite saying. Life's too short to live like that IMO.

You just keep enjoying yourself and do what you do LS.

Steve, you get the point I am trying to make. I am all for fair use of the lake.

I seriously want the Hp debate to go into a bill. It think it will stir up a hornets nest way more than people bargain for and open up a lot of debate on many of the regulations on the lake. I BEG someone to bring it forward.

My wife and I are already looking for alternatives to Winni now that we're empty nesters. For what we pay for using the boat on the lake we certainly don't feel like we're getting what we paid for.

When you ban people from being within 25 ft of each other with their boats at the biggest sandbars on the largest lake in the State, it shows how ridiculus we've become as a society. My BIL have explored the rafting law and there is some constitutional questions that come up. Given the time and energy to wage such a battle we've tabled it, for now. States hate being questioned on their authority.

I think this song is appropriate for what Winni has become.
http://youtu.be/gl347DRnW-g

[Pineedles]

Who would have thought we would still be battling the establishment 50 years later.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Who would have thought we would still be battling the establishment 50 years later.

I was thinking the very same thing reading some of these threads awhile back.

Fact is, the Boomer generation make their parents look like ultra radicals by comparison The constant need for conformity and moderation, is quite strange from a group that was brought up in an age of diversity and cultural vision. The ultimate irony is the uniform conformity that some of these groups want.

If you have any degree of individualism left, think about it. Different and Visionary used to mean good things. People used to use terms like Fruit and nutter and hippie and tree hugger as derogatory terms. Now those same folks have rebelled and are very PC conscious. Politics aside, they come from all political persuasions. Both Dems and R's were involved in the lake taming. They paddle kayaks and canoes, run sailboats, and attend wine and cheese festivals. Their children frown on many things as well. Motorcycles are bad, bikes are good. God help you if you don't slow your car to a complete stop when Muffy and Buffy go flying through a stop sign on their new Trek bikes en route to some garden show.

It's funny to watch in real life, as both Muffy and Buffy would cut you off at any chance they get in their own car. And let's not forget Archie the right winger. He's all for slowing people down and treating everyone with courtesy, but he views this as America darn it, and we can do as we please. Right up until he gets in his own boat or car. Then Clear the Way for Mr. Selfish. Maybe he owns a bar and over-serves people, maybe even boaters. That certainly doesn't mean he can't come online and trash those very same people that make him wealthy. No sir.

The real problem, Pineedles is not the establishment, per se. It's how bad and corrupt the Establishment has become. It's far worse now that the boomer generation, and their kids, have become far worse than when we "didn't trust anyone over 30". Far worse. Social engineering on a massive scale.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Sorry but there are TONS of old septics around the lake.

1) The cleanest lakes in the Lakes Region have "Class-A" water: their islands have out-houses—go figure.

Maybe not so many dishwashers, greenest of lawns, and water-softeners using "forever" salt.

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

I no longer support the 150 ft rule for passing vessels. Why bring it up?

2) The 150'-Rule applies to just about every hazardous encounter one could have on a NH lake, and not just passing or skiing—but shorelines—and anywhere-near navigation markers.

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Don't think for a minute that a HP restriction would not remove existing boats off the lake in short order. It would be less than 10 years before most of the cruisers left the lake.

3) Like their name, "cruisers" are expected to cruise. Oversized cruisers are really second homes / tax shelters for some people.

Like The Mount, oversized cruisers could be locally re-powered—diesels, maybe—and continue as before.

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Here's an idea. Ban any future home development on the lake.

4) Resulting in an economic "Armageddon" for New Hampshire?

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

However, the wakes from these boats are not the menace and the exaggerations are just silly. I know when I am out on my boat it does not match the pandemonium portrayed on this forum.

5) Bring your boat over to my dock tie up here—we can talk about any wakes you might care to discuss.