Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

[Dick]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Hey Dick, I even saw you go through about five times, in your white w/ red accents, 27' twin hull-Skater Cat, powered by twin Mercury 300hp high performance two-strokes which go BBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, just like an angry hornet when it flys past.......what-a-hot-boat! Understand it has seen 107mph, verified by gps. Is that correct?

I'm not that guy. While I'm not into the big high performance boats, I do love to to see them . . . most are beautiful and impressive. I do not have envy toward those who have been successful in life and can afford them.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

"It was, in my opinion, designed to delay enactment of HB847, and it did." Quote from BearIslander.

Are you saying that the speed limit study was made to delay HB 847?

[Bear Islander]

Yes, the speed limit study was invented to delay, and eventually kill, HB847. I think that is obvious. Almost one year ago the Transportation Committee was about to vote to send HB847 to the house. At the hearing the Commissioner literally called in on the telephone and proposed they retain the bill so the MP could conduct a study. If that does not meet the definition of "politically motivated" then I don't know what does.

From WMUR
Rep. James Pilliod, sponsor of the statewide speed limit bill, decried the proposal to sidetrack it for more study and called the pilot program a joke. Calling for more study is an old legislative trick for killing bills, he said, and, in this case, represents "a careful design, right from the first, of the sellers of large boats."

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...225/-1/CITIZEN

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Yes, the speed limit study was invented to delay, and eventually kill, HB847.

What ever works. There is overwhelming evidence that the bill should not pass as is - yet the proponents go on and seem to know how to get what they want in the face of a strong outcry that it is wrong. Something has to kill this bill. I applaud those that know the system well enough to fight to keep boater's rights alive.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

What ever works. There is overwhelming evidence that the bill should not pass as is - yet the proponents go on and seem to know how to get what they want in the face of a strong outcry that it is wrong. Something has to kill this bill. I applaud those that know the system well enough to fight to keep boater's rights alive.

It is refreshing to hear an opponent admit the truth about the study. Thank You.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It is refreshing to hear an opponent admit the truth about the study. Thank You.

I have no idea what the truth is about what is going on in Concord. I belong to no organization fighting the bill. I'm just one person fighting what seems to be a well funded group that thinks nothing of forcing their will on others with weak justification.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

I have no idea what the truth is about what is going on in Concord. I belong to no organization fighting the bill. I'm just one person fighting what seems to be a well funded group that thinks nothing of forcing their will on others with weak justification.

And I am just one person fighting to have a lake where a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.

[Dick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

And I am just one person fighting to have a lake where a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.

Shameless! When the FACTS do not support your position, you play the emotional cards of the American family and the children in camp. Translation: we need to inflict this boat speed restriction on our lake in order to save the children. How could anyone oppose a new law that would save children?

Any camp director who would allow the kids to swim beyond the swim line buoys or take a canoe out onto the big lake should be fired immediately. In addition, no boater in their right mind would motor through these shallow areas at any speed.

It seems the pro SL crowd will go to any shameless length to get their way . . . forget the facts . . . let's play on people's emotions.

[kjbathe]

Originally Posted by Dick

...no boater in their right mind would motor through these shallow areas at any speed.

Isn't this the issue -- the folks that are not in their right mind? If folks were out there, being reasonable, not violating the 150 foot rule, etc... this whole discussion would be moot.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by kjbathe

Isn't this the issue -- the folks that are not in their right mind? If folks were out there, being reasonable, not violating the 150 foot rule, etc... this whole discussion would be moot.

That is the issue and no law can make folks be in their right mind. I suppose the only way to ever avoid boating accidents on the lake would be to ban boating alltogether.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Dick

Shameless! When the FACTS do not support your position, you play the emotional cards of the American family and the children in camp. Translation: we need to inflict this boat speed restriction on our lake in order to save the children. How could anyone oppose a new law that would save children?

Any camp director who would allow the kids to swim beyond the swim line buoys or take a canoe out onto the big lake should be fired immediately. In addition, no boater in their right mind would motor through these shallow areas at any speed.

It seems the pro SL crowd will go to any shameless length to get their way . . . forget the facts . . . let's play on people's emotions.

I was responding as a former camp director, that is my frame of reference. I also have my only child in a Summer Camp on Winnipesaukee, that is also my frame of reference.

You are entitled to your opinion that every camp director on Winnipesaukee should be fired. However I don't think that is reasonable, nor is it going to happen.

If you believe that it is unsafe for children to canoe on the "big lake" then I do not understand how in good conscience you can oppose speed limits.

I do hope some Senators and the Governor take notice that Winni is not safe for children in a canoe!

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

....

I do hope some Senators and the Governor take notice that Winni is not safe for children in a canoe!

Sometimes it is:


Sometimes it isn't:


Politics 101: when you loosing based on logic, bring out the children.

How come you're friendly camp director isn't worried about the 99%+ of the boaters traveling less than 45 MPH?


If you have no friends at WinnFABS and just know one person there, how can be so sure about their motivations and actions. Does this one person speak for the entire group? You obviously think that you know enough about their actions to call someone else's viewpoint a lie.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

How come you're friendly camp director isn't worried about the 99%+ of the boaters traveling less than 45 MPH?


If you have no friends at WinnFABS and just know one person there, how can be so sure about their motivations and actions. Does this one person speak for the entire group? You obviously think that you know enough about their actions to call someone else's viewpoint a lie.

Camp directors, like mothers, worry about EVERYTHING!

I do not represent WinnFABS motives or actions, only my own. What I know about them is what I have read on their webpage or in articles.

Hazelnut - The headline of a newspaper article is written by an editor, not the reporter. Quite often, as in this case, the headline does not accurately depict what is in the article. Lt. Dunleavy, in the article, never makes the claim that the data is untainted. You will please note that the headline contains no quotation marks.

If the Lieutenant responds to my emails I will let you know. He can clear this up, your posting in various sizes and colors can not.

[hazelnut]

Bear Islander I addressed that..... Ha ha ha ha WOW!

"...I know, the conspiracy theorists will say... Well, we don't know if that is a direct quote or if the Union Leader paraphrased. Well, well, well, you FOUND IT, the loophole. Yes the editor read the letter and paraphrased the theme/message/intent. The editor deduced, scientifically mind you, that the letter makes the case/claim/argument that... ONE LAST TIME EVERYBODY TOGETHER NOW:
Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted"


WOW! This goes deeper than I thought.

[SIKSUKR]

Unbelievable.This is getting absurd.I think it's pretty clear which side makes sense and talks fact which throws mud at the wall and sees how much will stick.If you say it enough people start to believe it.That's what's happening with this bill.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

And I am just one person fighting to have a lake where a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.

When was the last time a small boat from a childrens camp got run down by a high performance boat?

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

And I am just one person fighting to have a lake where a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.

Just curious........when was the last time anyone saw a performance boat doing 130 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee?? I've heard about the Skater cat-hull that does 107 mph on GPS (never seen it though) but, to be honest, I've never actually witnessed (personally) any boat on Lake Winni that even looked like it was doing 100 mph.

And just for clarification, that's excluding sanctioned boat racing events.

[Dick]

Bear Islander . . .

You are leaning against a weak reed

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

RE: Lt. Dunleavy's letter; it addressed the besmirching of the integrity of the MP, not the data. He was speaking as a public official, but not speaking for Dave Barrett. His letter basically said that MP is an honest, trustworthy bunch, and therefore the implication is that honest people don't "fudge" data. If the posters heard that MP is honest, but still haven't heard a denial, then they are grasping at straws.


Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please! (Mark Twain)

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

RE: Lt. Dunleavy's letter; it addressed the besmirching of the integrity of the MP, not the data. He was speaking as a public official, but not speaking for Dave Barrett. His letter basically said that MP is an honest, trustworthy bunch, and therefore the implication is that honest people don't "fudge" data. If the posters heard that MP is honest, but still haven't heard a denial, then they are grasping at straws.


Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please! (Mark Twain)

If you go back and read you will find I don't think the MP officers fudged the data. The fudging was in the way it was designed. And yes they are an honest and trustworthy bunch that do not deserve to be held up to public ridicule. However when you publish a statement in the newspaper that effects a very divisive legislative battle, you need to be prepared for some heat.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

Just curious........when was the last time anyone saw a performance boat doing 130 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee?? I've heard about the Skater cat-hull that does 107 mph on GPS (never seen it though) but, to be honest, I've never actually witnessed (personally) any boat on Lake Winni that even looked like it was doing 100 mph.

And just for clarification, that's excluding sanctioned boat racing events.

I think it was the summer of 2005. I did not measure the speed myself but it was claimed to have gone 130 mph.

[Dick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I think it was the summer of 2005. I did not measure the speed myself but it was claimed to have gone 130 mph.

"Claimed" . . . is this another fact-based piece of data ? or is it an exagerated piece of _______ ?

[trfour]

Couldn't find that boat that did 130 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee.

http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/sideline/8707/

[BroadHopper]

Why do people who support the speed limits do nothing but blast the Opposers??? I see no actual evidence from the supporters to substantiate their claims. The opposers do a good job of backing their claims.
I can see where Gov Lynch is coming from. Can the supporters give someone concrete facts rather than a bunch of fallacies?

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I think it was the summer of 2005. I did not measure the speed myself but it was claimed to have gone 130 mph.

How many children in canoes were run over?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by EricP

How many children in canoes were run over?

Is that supposed to be funny?

I'm sure the Senators are amused.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Is that supposed to be funny?

I'm sure the Senators are amused.

Point being is there was no accident so talking about a fast boat that didn't have an accident is no defense of the need for a speed limit.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

[QUOTE=Bear Islander;62834]Yes, the speed limit study was invented to delay, and eventually kill, HB847. I think that is obvious. Almost one year ago the Transportation Committee was about to vote to send HB847 to the house. At the hearing the Commissioner literally called in on the telephone and proposed they retain the bill so the MP could conduct a study. If that does not meet the definition of "politically motivated" then I don't know what does.

From WMUR
Rep. James Pilliod, sponsor of the statewide speed limit bill, decried the proposal to sidetrack it for more study and called the pilot program a joke. Calling for more study is an old legislative trick for killing bills, he said, and, in this case, represents "a careful design, right from the first, of the sellers of large boats."

I was hoping you would say this. The Speed limit study was a direct result of your friends at Winnfabs!!!! When they lost last year they went back to the drawing board, and used an RSA, I am not 100% but I think 270:12? They then got their 25 signatures and placed a petition before the Dept of Safety to out a restriction on Lake Winnipesaukee. At that time the Commissioner was going to act, but alas Winnfabs got HB 847 introduced. Once that happened, the Commissioner decided that he would not step on the toes of the legislators, and let them decide. When the committee was struggling with whether or not the speed limit had merit, the commissioner offered this study to help determine whether there was a problem. Once the study started and Winnfabs found out it wasn't going their way, they went back to the reps in their pockets and had JLCRT kill the funding of this study. Luckily the MP went on and finished the study. So was the the study politically motivated YES, BY WINNFABS!!!! You won't admit it, but I will shout it to the mountains, the pro-speed limit side, will stoop to any level, lie, cheat, steal to try and get this passed!

[Bear Islander]

[QUOTE=WeirsBeachBoater;62840]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Yes, the speed limit study was invented to delay, and eventually kill, HB847. I think that is obvious. Almost one year ago the Transportation Committee was about to vote to send HB847 to the house. At the hearing the Commissioner literally called in on the telephone and proposed they retain the bill so the MP could conduct a study. If that does not meet the definition of "politically motivated" then I don't know what does.

From WMUR
Rep. James Pilliod, sponsor of the statewide speed limit bill, decried the proposal to sidetrack it for more study and called the pilot program a joke. Calling for more study is an old legislative trick for killing bills, he said, and, in this case, represents "a careful design, right from the first, of the sellers of large boats."

I was hoping you would say this. The Speed limit study was a direct result of your friends at Winnfabs!!!! When they lost last year they went back to the drawing board, and used an RSA, I am not 100% but I think 270:12? They then got their 25 signatures and placed a petition before the Dept of Safety to out a restriction on Lake Winnipesaukee. At that time the Commissioner was going to act, but alas Winnfabs got HB 847 introduced. Once that happened, the Commissioner decided that he would not step on the toes of the legislators, and let them decide. When the committee was struggling with whether or not the speed limit had merit, the commissioner offered this study to help determine whether there was a problem. Once the study started and Winnfabs found out it wasn't going their way, they went back to the reps in their pockets and had JLCRT kill the funding of this study. Luckily the MP went on and finished the study. So was the the study politically motivated YES, BY WINNFABS!!!! You won't admit it, but I will shout it to the mountains, the pro-speed limit side, will stoop to any level, lie, cheat, steal to try and get this passed!

I don't have "friends" at WinnFABS, I only know one person connected with them. I am in no way responsible for what they do or say, and visa versa.

Most speed or horsepower limits on lakes in New Hampshire have been enacted by administrative rule. The Dept. of Safety is petitioned by a group of citizens, after a public hearing process the Commissioner has the power to enact a rule. In 1973 I petitioned the Dept. for a ban on water-skiing on Sunset Lake. It was granted and is in effect to this day.

A group of citizens, I assume WinnFABS supporters, petitioned for a speed limit on Winnipesaukee. That the Commissioner used this petition as a excuse to perform a speed study that would delay HB847 was a cruel joke. It may have been brilliant political strategy, but to say that WinnFABS asked for or wanted the study is a lie.

This would be like your complaining to the town that your streetlight is burned out, and they respond by taking down the pole.

Both sides have used political maneuvers to achieve their goals. That is, unfortunately, the way it works.

[hazelnut]

Seriously way too many individuals on this forum must be X-Files fans or major conspiracy theorists. Many of you have lost any and all credibility on this forum over the last 24 hours.

Tim Dunleavy does an EXCELLENT job DENYING allegations of fudging the data.

Let's begin with the HEADLINE!!!!!!!
Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted

Here it is again:
Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted

Let's try ...... BLUE:
Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted

Ok not clear enough how about....... ORANGE oooooooooohhhhhh:

Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted
oooohhhh prettyyyyyy.

Now I am no Rocket Scientist but if the headline states, one more time:
Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted
I can only deduce, scientifically mind you, that the "DATA" produced by "MARINE PARTROL" is "UNTAINTED." Wait I know, I know, the conspiracy theorists will say... Well, we don't know if that is a direct quote or if the Union Leader paraphrased. Well, well, well, you FOUND IT, the loophole. Yes the editor read the letter and paraphrased the theme/message/intent. The editor deduced, scientifically mind you, that the letter makes the case/claim/argument that... ONE LAST TIME EVERYBODY TOGETHER NOW:

Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted

Wow green is pretty too.

[rickstr66]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

This would be like your complaining to the town that your streetlight is burned out, and they respond by taking down the pole.

No. This would be like you complaining your street light is out and they come out and check it to make sure it needs fixing, then fixing it if there is a problem.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

"In 1973 I petitioned the Dept. for a ban on water-skiing on Sunset Lake. It was granted and is in effect to this day."

So you have a long history with nanny laws. or your NIMBY attitude.

Good to know, any chance Virgin Galactic can just drop you off out there?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

"In 1973 I petitioned the Dept. for a ban on water-skiing on Sunset Lake. It was granted and is in effect to this day."

So you have a long history with nanny laws. or your NIMBY attitude.

Good to know, any chance Virgin Galactic can just drop you off out there?

At the time I was the director of a United Fund children's camp on that lake. Water skiers from another camp, on another lake, were disrupting our camps activities. I was advocating for the 6 to 11 year old, inner city children that were my responsibility. Judd Gregg did the legal work.

Sorry if that doesn't fit your NIMBY theory.

[Bear Islander]

This is the boat. 130 mph, twin 850HP engines. Isn't that more than the Mount?

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=112221

[Bear Islander]

Lt. Dunleavy has contacted me with the information that some of the data was collected from unmarked boats, but that which data came from which type of boat was not recorded. This increases the validity of the study data in my eyes.

I do wish a breakdown were available as that would be informative.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

This is the boat. 130 mph, twin 850HP engines. Isn't that more than the Mount?

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=112221

I love the quote found on that link:

"I'll bet "Acres of Idiots, Bear Lover, and a whole bunch of the "Team Weinie" bunch are just loving that bad boy..."

If you really want to get nitpicky since I know you do, the link never states that the boat in question has hit 130mph on Winnipesaukee, just that it is capable of it. There is mention of the 100mph range being achieved. Much bigger difference than the 3mph that irked you.

It is owned by Gary Robertson, the owner of Robertson Powersports. Any reports of this boat having a close call with a kayaker?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I love the quote found on that link:

"I'll bet "Acres of Idiots, Bear Lover, and a whole bunch of the "Team Weinie" bunch are just loving that bad boy..."

If you really want to get nitpicky since I know you do, the link never states that the boat in question has hit 130mph on Winnipesaukee, just that it is capable of it. There is mention of the 100mph range being achieved. Much bigger difference than the 3mph that irked you.

It is owned by Gary Robertson, the owner of Robertson Powersports. Any reports of this boat having a close call with a kayaker?

If you want to get even more nit picky you will find that I never claimed this boat or any other ever went 130 mph on Winni. In one post I wrote that going 130 mph is legal. In another post I indicated it was "claimed" this boat went 130 mph.

My camp was in Greenfield, NH.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

At the time I was the director of a United Fund children's camp on that lake. Water skiers from another camp, on another lake, were disrupting our camps activities. I was advocating for the 6 to 11 year old, inner city children that were my responsibility. Judd Gregg did the legal work.

Sorry if that doesn't fit your NIMBY theory.

Did the camp you worked at own the lake???

[Bear Islander]

The State of New Hampshire owns the lake. And every one of our 300 to 400 underprivileged campers was a year-round resident of New Hampshire. The camp owned about 50% of the lakefront but only used a small portion.

There was a public hearing where all views were expressed and a compromise was reached by way of allowing people to water ski when our waterfront was not in use. The Commissioner of Safety presided over the hearing and made his decision. To bad both sides were not able to work out a similar compromise on Winni.

[Sunset Bob]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

"In 1973 I petitioned the Dept. for a ban on water-skiing on Sunset Lake. It was granted and is in effect to this day."

So you have a long history with nanny laws. or your NIMBY attitude.

Good to know, any chance Virgin Galactic can just drop you off out there?

Are you talking about Sunset Lake in Alton? If you are I am not aware of any such ban.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by bear islander

In 1973 I petitioned the Dept. for a ban on water-skiing on Sunset Lake. It was granted and is in effect to this day.

Are you sure about that???


Sunset Lake (aka Gould Pond) - Greenfield
SAF-C 402.78 - (a) No person shall operate a motorboat on Sunset Lake in Greenfield at a speed exceeding 10 MPH. However, this restriction shall not apply between 4:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. or sunset, whichever occurs first, on Monday through Saturday, both inclusive, and further provided during the restricted hours, motorboats shall not be operated at a speed exceeding 30 MPH.
(b) All waterskiing on Sunset Lake shall be in a counter-clockwise direction during the unlimited hours.

Sunset Lake - Hampstead
RSA 270:74-a - Skicraft banned 12/31/89.
SAF-C 402.79 All persons operating motorboats on that portion of Sunset Lake in the town of Hampstead, in excess of headway speed shall travel in a counterclockwise direction around Sunset Lake, while keeping a minimum distance of 150 feet from other boats, swimmers, rafts, docks and shore. This provision shall exclude powerboats being used for emergency situations where a direct line of travel is required and appropriate.

[Bear Islander]

Thanks codeman that is the one. It brings back memories. It was originally a ban on water skiing except during those hours. The Greenfield Town Beach had a big sign to that effect at the boat launch. It must have been changed to a 10 mph limit at a later time to make it more uniform with other rules. It amounts to the same thing, not easy to ski at 10 mph.

Water-skiing was allowed between 4:30 and 7:00 because our free swim ended at 4:30 and the children went to the playground. Supper was over around 6:30 or 6:45 so our evening waterfront activities started around 7:00PM. Sunday was rest day with no swimming classes for the speedboats to disturb. We still had free swim but to be fair there was one full day for the other lake residents to use their boats. Besides Camp Winimac, the evil rich kid camp, didn't water ski on Sundays.

The counter-clockwise thing was to prevent a dropped ski from entering our swim area. Due to the shape of the lake, boats traveling in that direction would never be headed directly toward our waterfront.

You didn't think I was making this stuff up.... did you?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You didn't think I was making this stuff up.... did you?

Some things yes, this no...

I wasn't sure if it was in NH or if there was a Sunset Lake in Mass you were talking about so I pulled it up.

Thanks for the clarification.

[overlook]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Yes, the speed limit study was invented to delay, and eventually kill, HB847. I think that is obvious. Almost one year ago the Transportation Committee was about to vote to send HB847 to the house. At the hearing the Commissioner literally called in on the telephone and proposed they retain the bill so the MP could conduct a study. If that does not meet the definition of "politically motivated" then I don't know what does.

From WMUR
Rep. James Pilliod, sponsor of the statewide speed limit bill, decried the proposal to sidetrack it for more study and called the pilot program a joke. Calling for more study is an old legislative trick for killing bills, he said, and, in this case, represents "a careful design, right from the first, of the sellers of large boats."

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...225/-1/CITIZEN

That study was a result from the meeting in Meridith. Your organization requested that meeting, Pillod's motives are clear. When it was realized that the results were not in favor of HB-847, thats when that closed meeting occurred.

[Bear Islander]

I don't have an organization. Other than that I'm not sure what you are talking about. However this who did what to whom years ago stuff has nothing to do with the "do we need speed limits" question.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

...However this who did what to whom years ago stuff has nothing to do with the "do we need speed limits" question...

Hmmm, did I just read that correctly?

[Bear Islander]

Depends on how you read it.

Part of this argument has degenerated into what people on each side did over a year ago. A he said, she said argument.

Another part of this argument seems to be a "let's catch BI in a lie" thing. Questioning everything I post.

The important question is "Does the lake need a speed limit or not". I say it does.

Pillod's or Barrett's motives in 2005 or 2007 are not germane.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Depends on how you read it.

Part of this argument has degenerated into what people on each side did over a year ago. A he said, she said argument.

Another part of this argument seems to be a "let's catch BI in a lie" thing. Questioning everything I post.

The important question is "Does the lake need a speed limit or not". I say it does.

Pillod's or Barrett's motives in 2005 or 2007 are not germane.

Nice job Bear, redirect. But it's not that easy. The people on your side have been caught being less than truthful. You have skewered the messenger, implying that the data is useless. In a perfect world, everyone would tell the whole unmitigated truth and a reasonable understanding could be reached. Unfortunately some on your side have exaggerated and made up stories to bolster their argument.

So, to answer your question, does the lake need a speed limit? Based on the statistics and test data the answer is no.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by ITD

Nice job Bear, redirect. But it's not that easy. The people on your side have been caught being less than truthful. You have skewered the messenger, implying that the data is useless. In a perfect world, everyone would tell the whole unmitigated truth and a reasonable understanding could be reached. Unfortunately some on your side have exaggerated and made up stories to bolster their argument.

So, to answer your question, does the lake need a speed limit? Based on the statistics and test data the answer is no.

I am not responsible for "others on my side". I may not post the "whole unmitigated truth" but my veracity is unassailable.

[hazelnut]

Bear Islander,

You obviously have a strong belief in the need for a speed limit. So let's strip away all the peripheral debate and twisting of words and succinctly state our case as to why we need this law. Lets try to avoid embellishment and conjecture. I will do the same in a very simple statement that I believe to be based on fact not emotion.

Please keep in mind that I own a 25 foot bowrider capable of only 49 MPH. I have very young children all under the age of 5. I love to kayak and swim. I live on an island just like you. I also think the lake is way too crowded. I also think that it can be dangerous to boat on the lake. I wanted to say all of this to give you some background information on who I am. I will never own a "GFBL" boat as it has been termed.

Here is my statement:
Based on facts and statistics, speed has never been an issue with regard to accidents or deaths on the lake. In fact with the completion of the recent study done on the lake it has been proven that most boaters do not even exceed 45mph on a regular basis. The real issue is uneducated boaters and more importantly rude boaters. Those individuals who put themselves their passengers and other boaters swimmers and kayakers in harms way due to their ignorance and flat out "I don't care attitude." What we need is increased funding for the Marine Patrol to have the tools to patrol the waters and enforce the laws that are already in place. Instead of wasting money on a law that solves nothing, lets put all this effort, energy and funding towards enforcing what is already a solid system of boating on the lake. If every boat on the lake followed every law currently on the books we would not be having this discussion.

Not quite succinct but I believe it makes a strong case.

One more thing. Please do not quote me or dispute me in your statement. I want to hear a fact based original thought.

[fatlazyless]

Here's an analogy to the safety problem created by high speed boating. Like when you are driv'n down route 93 at 65mph and a car passes you that's going 95mph. You don't see it coming up behind you, you don't know about it, it comes and goes so fast you just think to yourself "what a damned jerk that is, hope there's a trooper stake-out, up ahead to stop that nut."

Danger and fear is increased by a lot when you got much faster boats sharing the waters.

I could be out there in my 14' aluminum , silver colored, fishing row-boat that basically blends into the water, and I'm thinking this could be a dangerous spot because I know the 8000lb-32'-1200hp 'Snake Dancer' could be right down on my little fishing spot going 75mph, any second, so no I better find a more protected fishing spot. At that speed, and with the sun, waves, and big long fiberglass hull, just how good can the 'Snake Dancer' look'n ahead, driver's lookout be?

Winnipesaukee has all types of, motor-sail-paddle-row-swim all sharing the same water. High speed lowers the safety and increases the fear. Is fear a factor? It is to me.

In the last ten years, there's lots more kayaks out on Winnipesaukee. Compared to a canoe, kayaks are designed low in the water for increased stability. Easy to paddle, cartop, transport, launch, fun to use, and relatively cheap, & evironmentally friendly, kayaks have lots of users and they is out there, all over the place, on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Do you know what the "Snake Dancer' boats like to call kayaks....they call them .........Speed Bumps......!

[WeirsBeachBoater]

1. Snake Dance hasn't been on this lake for years!

2. It was 42' not 32'

3. It had no where near that HP.

4. It was all show and no go as they say!

So the only way you should have "feared" that boat was if you were afraid of loud colors and or Snakes!

[fatlazyless]

You must be think'n of a different 'Snake Dancer' because there's been one the last few summer's that is a large, white gfbl w/ a big long snake on its' hull, & it says 'Snake Dancer' in big letters on both sides of the hull next to a great big long wiggly snake. And, that Snake likes to go bomb'n thru the buoy 3 gut.

[hazelnut]

FLL,

Your post is entertaining. However, fear as a factor to create a law just does not hold water. You are using conjecture in your argument.

con·jec·ture /kənˈdʒɛktʃər/
–noun
1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.

You are speculating that Snake Dancer will run you over. Snake dancer has not run you over. It has not been proven that Snake dancer WILL run you over. If Snake Dancer DOES run you over you yourself said that your "silver colored, fishing row-boat... basically blends into the water" At 45mph I might run you over in my bowrider.

You are AFRAID that he will run you over so we should make a law that he can't drive over 45? That is an extremely arbitrary argument. I have a fear of flying. I am afraid to fly. Planes actually HAVE crashed and KILLED people. Should we outlaw flight?

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

You must be think'n of a different 'Snake Dancer' because there's been one the last few summer's that is a large, white gfbl w/ a big long snake on its' hull, & it says 'Snake Dancer' in big letters on both sides of the hull next to a great big long wiggly snake. And, that Snake likes to go bomb'n thru the buoy 3 gut.

Yes the Snake Dance I was referring to was yellow and Blue. I have not seen your white boat by that name...

[Dick]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Bear Islander,

You obviously have a strong belief in the need for a speed limit. So let's strip away all the peripheral debate and twisting of words and succinctly state our case as to why we need this law. Lets try to avoid embellishment and conjecture. I will do the same in a very simple statement that I believe to be based on fact not emotion.

Please keep in mind that I own a 25 foot bowrider capable of only 49 MPH. I have very young children all under the age of 5. I love to kayak and swim. I live on an island just like you. I also think the lake is way too crowded. I also think that it can be dangerous to boat on the lake. I wanted to say all of this to give you some background information on who I am. I will never own a "GFBL" boat as it has been termed.

Here is my statement:
Based on facts and statistics, speed has never been an issue with regard to accidents or deaths on the lake. In fact with the completion of the recent study done on the lake it has been proven that most boaters do not even exceed 45mph on a regular basis. The real issue is uneducated boaters and more importantly rude boaters. Those individuals who put themselves their passengers and other boaters swimmers and kayakers in harms way due to their ignorance and flat out "I don't care attitude." What we need is increased funding for the Marine Patrol to have the tools to patrol the waters and enforce the laws that are already in place. Instead of wasting money on a law that solves nothing, lets put all this effort, energy and funding towards enforcing what is already a solid system of boating on the lake. If every boat on the lake followed every law currently on the books we would not be having this discussion.

Not quite succinct but I believe it makes a strong case.

One more thing. Please do not quote me or dispute me in your statement. I want to hear a fact based original thought.

Hazelnut . . . well written and quickly to the point . . . based upon FACT. Let's hope our Senators have the wisdom and courage to discuss and vote based upon objective information and not emotional stories.