Boating decal, rental bills clear hurdles....

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Looking at it now amended, this really only effects out of state registered craft. NH bow numbers will not have to display an additional sticker. So if someone from ME or MA comes to the lake they will have to get this sticker to go beside their MA1234 Bow #'s. I also saw that the rental agent bill made it through the House and on to the Senate. I especially like that one, its about time rental agents were made more accountable. IMO

[LIforrelaxin]

I find this bill very interesting. You would think that in a state where the tourists are extremely important to the enconomy they would try to do things to entice people to come and visit. Not that I think many people will be detered from coming to NH because of this extra fee.... but it may stop some..... Another issue here I see, is that if the state expects out of staters to pay a fee to go boating, then the state better start making improvements in both the availability and conditions of public ramps.... After growing up out west where there where always nice ramps and docking facilities for the general public at lakes and rivers, I find that the facilities all over the northeast are poor, and if a state like NH wants out of state boater to pay a fee to use it lakes, it needs to also provide the facilities for people to do so....

I know they are working on this, on many lakes..... but if they want to pass a bill like this they need to hasten thier efforts....

[Airwaves]

Back in the 70's NH had something called a "Commuter Tax". NH imposed a tax on Mass and Maine residents (and anyone else) that commuted to work in NH but lived out of state.

As I recall it was ruled an illegal tax because it was imposed on one group of people (out of state residents) but not another (in state residents who worked out of state.)

So how would this be different? If out of state boaters are required to purchase a decal to boat in NH and that decal was made available to an in state boater for free.

Given that registrations are reciprocal between states how would this be legal?

It would be like saying to MA, ME, VT, NY drivers you need to pay a fee (beyond those obnoxious tolls that hit everyone) to drive in NH but NH registered vehicles do not have to pay the additional fee.

I have both a NH and MA registered boat. So I am not qualified in one, but I am in the other?

Lawyers are going to make a killing!

[Woodsy]

Its no different than Maine requiring out-of-state boaters to purchase a "Milfoil" sticker... In fact ALOT of states charge different fees to boat on thier state waters. Lake George NY has an access fee.

I am sure its very much allowed

Woodsy

[LIforrelaxin]

It is all in the wording.... if NH (or Maine, or NY) made out of staters Register boats then it would be a problem....but why if they call it an "Milfoil fee" or "education fee" then I am sure it slides through the loop holes..... Now do I think it is right....hell no.... why someone may ask.... because what is next..... not necessarily a "commuter tax" but gezzz what about a "education sticker" for an automobile to make sure out of staters know any state specific driving rules.... There is a slippery slope here...

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Its no different than Maine requiring out-of-state boaters to purchase a "Milfoil" sticker... In fact ALOT of states charge different fees to boat on thier state waters. Lake George NY has an access fee.

I am sure its very much allowed

Woodsy

Woodsy is correct. There is a huge legal difference between tax and fee issues concerning the motoring public and fees individual states attach for state owned entities, like inland waters.

The States receive federal funding for roadways and there is ample case law discerning what fees and taxes can be imposed on folks travelling roadways.

However, the inland waterways are owned by the State of New Hampshire with no such federal impositions. The State can and does charge access fees where necessary.

In Airwaves case, he/she will not have to purchase a sticker for his/her New Hampshire registered boat, but will have to purchase a sticker for the boat not registered in this State, if the bill is passed as proposed.

I am no way saying the bill is fair or even a smart proposal. My only point here is the State is allowed to impose such fees on its inland waters if it so desires.

Think of it as an enhanced registration fee for an out of state entity. No more illegal than the different set of fees each state charges for its out of state OHRVers, snowmobilers, hunters, etc.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Skip

Woodsy is correct. There is a huge legal difference between tax and fee issues concerning the motoring public and fees individual states attach for state owned entities, like inland waters.

The States receive federal funding for roadways and there is ample case law discerning what fees and taxes can be imposed on folks travelling roadways.

However, the inland waterways are owned by the State of New Hampshire with no such federal impositions. The State can and does charge access fees where necessary.

Skip for the most part I agree with what you are saying, however people must realize here that the State does get Federal Money that goes to help protect the lakes and rivers, as well I believe there is some Federal Money that goes to the Marine Patrol.... So much like the roadways there are some issues here that could make this a slippery slope and cause a lot of controversy. And much like Making NH recongnize out of state registrtions back in the 80s the Federal Goverment has input to all of this as well.... Hence why this is being called a "education" sticker....there are loop holes all over the place.... and once they do this for boats don't think they will not think about clever ways to do things for automobiles....weather they are able to pass anything or not is another story.....

[Airwaves]

I found this story on the wire today, as I read it, both in state Maine boaters and out of state boaters have been required to buy a "milfoil" sticker. (unlike the proposed law in NH where NH boaters would not be required to buy the sticker)
The change will mean that Maine registered boats won't have to display the second sticker, but the fee (tax) will be included in their registration while out of state boaters will have to pay the fee (tax) and display the decal.

Maine boaters are required to get two stickers when they register their boats. But that will change under a law that's been enacted by the Legislature.
A bill signed into law yesterday by Governor Baldacci combines Maine's ten-dollar lake and river protection sticker fee with the state's watercraft registration fee. It means the state will issue only one sticker to Maine resident boat owners.
The new law won't change fees that are charged. But it will save the state money by streamlining production and administration costs.
Only watercraft registered outside Maine will have to display a current lake and river protection sticker.

I also wanted to point out the same thing LIforrelaxin posted. NH does get federal dollars for the inland waterways so while the state "owns" inland waters such as Winnipesaukee, federal dollars are involved.

If NH passes something like this, and it ticks off the "right" people in MA, I can see a new border war...my warped mind could see a MA lawmaker deciding all NH registered motor vehicles traveling in MA pay an "insurance fee" to drive on MA roads since according to the NH DMV website

New Hampshire is unusual in that you are not required to have automobile insurance. This policy reflects the state's traditionally conservative philosophy of minimized regulation; however, while New Hampshire prefers that drivers carry liability insurance if at all possible, certain drivers are required to carry it.

We haven't had a good border war since the days of Mel Thompson and Ed King!

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

...I also wanted to point out the same thing LIforrelaxin posted. NH does get federal dollars for the inland waterways so while the state "owns" inland waters such as Winnipesaukee, federal dollars are involved...

You are both correct, and I would venture to say that there are federal dollars involved in every aspect of recreation here in New Hampshire....from hiking to bird watching to snowmobiling and ATVs. The difference is when you receive federal funds specifically for roadways there are significant strings attached....a few threads away the debate on seat belt usage is a perfect example, the feds are withholding 3 million a year in highway safety funds until we mandate seatbelt usage.

There are no such strings attached concerning the funding we receive (or most other states for that matter) for many of our recreationtal endeavours.

Remember, while this is being called an educational sticker the bill clearly states that the purpose of the sticker is an access fee for out of state registered boats. The only educational aspect to this sticker is the fact that you will get an educational pamphlet when you receive the sticker. States can and do charge out of state visitors access fees at a different rate then residents. I see no federal or constitutional issues with this practice.

Don't be mislead by the name. This bill has little to do with education and everything to do with having an out of state access fee. It may be a horrible idea but it is a practice well recognized and well implemented throughout the country.

[tis]

Years ago, if your boat wasn't registered in NH, you were required to pay a fee to be on the lake. Maybe if people don't want to pay it, there will be a few less boats, pleasing some of the people who complain that the lake is too busy?

[Silver Duck]

I seriously doubt that a $20 fee will even make the average out of state boater blink, let alone keep them away. After all, boating is not a cheap passtime, , and $20 is pretty insignificant in the overall cost of owning a boat!

I suspect that the key to easy acceptance of the new stickers will be to make them easy to obtain, especially for "spur of the moment" visitors.

Silver Duck

[Phantom]

Silver Duck -- I agree completely

example: How many people stay away because of the $charge$ to launch the boat ?

[Dave R]

The extra $20 I spend every year for my Maine milfoil sticker does not bother me. The hassle of getting it at the Bridgton ME town hall, which has limited hours, bothers me. The folks that enforce the sticker laws should have them for sale for $25 for those that don't have a chance to get one through "normal means" and don;t mind spending an extra fiver for convenience.

[Airwaves]

Silver Duck wrote:

I seriously doubt that a $20 fee will even make the average out of state boater blink, let alone keep them away. After all, boating is not a cheap passtime, , and $20 is pretty insignificant in the overall cost of owning a boat!

AHHH you underestimate just how petty a Mass Legislator can be

How could the move be justified on Beacon Hill in retaliation for a $20 sticker in NH?

Revenue from an "insurance fee" on uninsured or under insured NH drivers could be placed into the "high risk pool" and it would have several immediate benefits in Mass.

1. It would reduce the amount of money insurance companies pay into the pool (by extension the amount of money good drivers pay into it)

2. It would reduce the number of Mass residents registering their car in NH to avoid paying insurance

3. Reducing the number of Mass residents registering in NH would boost sales and excise tax revenue.

4. Reducing the number of uninsured or under insured cars from NH on Mass roads would result in the Insurance Division looking at more cuts in premiums.

Since Mass requires its own residents to purchase a minimum amount of insurance this wouldn't be like the old commuter tax NH imposed years ago.

All it has to do is hit a Mass lawmaker the wrong way. Or actually any Mass resident for that matter since in Mass we can request specific bills be filed through our reps/senators, someone points out how much $ NH is getting from its boaters "education fee" from MA residents...

As for paying access fees for things like launching a boat, you are buying a service so it's really not the same argument.

I'm not saying these things will come to pass, I am just saying that they could.

[Woodsy]

Airwaves...

Although NH doesn't require insurance, a NH registered vehicle is required to have insurance in order to drive legally in Massachusetts.

Woodsy

[jrc]

If I read this right, a non-resident can drive in Mass for 30 days each year without liabilty insurance as long as the vehicle would be legal to drive in the non-resident's state. It's a little convoluted but that how I read it.

PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT


TITLE XIV. PUBLIC WAYS AND WORKS


CHAPTER 90. MOTOR VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT


MOTOR VEHICLES


Chapter 90: Section 3. Operation of motor vehicles owned by non-residents; liability insurance; vehicles used in connection with place of business; suspension or revocation of right to operate vehicle; registration


Section 3. Subject to the provisions of section three A and except as otherwise provided in this section and in section ten, a motor vehicle or trailer owned by a non-resident who has complied with the laws relative to motor vehicles and trailers, and the registration and operation thereof, of the state or country of registration, may be operated on the ways of this commonwealth without registration under this chapter, to the extent, as to length of time of operation and otherwise, that, as finally determined by the registrar, the state or country of registration grants substantially similar privileges in the case of motor vehicles and trailers duly registered under the laws and owned by residents of this commonwealth; provided, that no motor vehicle or trailer shall be so operated on more than thirty days in the aggregate in any one year or, in any case where the owner thereof acquires a regular place of abode or business or employment within the commonwealth, beyond a period of thirty days after the acquisition thereof, except during such time as the owner thereof maintains in full force a policy of liability insurance providing indemnity for or protection to him, and to any person responsible for the operation of such motor vehicle or trailer with his express or implied consent, against loss by reason of the liability to pay damages to others for bodily injuries, including death at any time resulting therefrom, caused by such motor vehicle or trailer, at least to the amount or limits required in a motor vehicle liability policy as defined in section thirty-four A.

[Airwaves]

Although NH doesn't require insurance, a NH registered vehicle is required to have insurance in order to drive legally in Massachusetts.

Woodsy

True, but the changes I envision would also require proof of that insurance, such as a "boater eduction deca....opps "insurance coverage decal" if a NH vehicle is uninsured or under insured in order to drive in MA.

jrc;
you are correct in the law as currently instituted. again, what I envision is a change to the MA laws if the appropriate persons are ticked off enough, a newly written law if you will.

[Skip]

The Marine Patrol takes a stance against the education decal proposal.

Entire story can be read HERE at the on-line edition of today's Citizen.