Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

BI,

You continue to put your personal "spin" of almost every factual post that is counter to your position here. Quite frankly, I have gotten to the point where I have to react to your behavior.

You continuously refuse to listen to any facts and you continuously refuse to listen to very well-supported opinions of those that do not support your position, even when they seem to have more experience on the lake than you have. As I stated in a prior post, and this was not disputed by you, you are still a "young pup", regardless of your huge, implied financial means. "Young pups" should consider the experience of us "old dogs".

You can continue to attempt to “spin” things however you want. Again, it is a free country. I, for one, have fought for our government on foreign lands for this freedom. However, your complete lack of dealing with the facts and your continuous efforts to "spin it your way" totally and completely discredits your position.

You are acting like a spoiled little rich kid. Your lack of maturity and your "power through material holdings" clearly comes through loud and clear in almost all of your posts.

Trying to control the lives of those who are not as financially well off as you imply you are is not the way to live. I see way too much of this in your behavior and posts, negatively impacting and discrediting those with meeker means. You and the other "rich folks" with lake front property do not own the lake. You only own your property. Attempting to limit the use of the lake by others who desire different usage than you feel is appropriate, is clearly wrong and clearly UN-American, and you should know this. I have no idea how you sleep at night given the way you act.

I hope that in the future you will continue to argue your points, but begin to be truthful and honest in your arguments. This will be a very refreshing change and might even show some form of maturity on your part. It might even convince some people who are “on the fence” with this issue that you are actually right. Otherwise, your unsubstantiated rants are driving people to the other side of this issue.

The internet is a gold mine for people like you. As someone who is a professional in the video production business, I am sure you not only know this, but you have been using to your complete advantage.

A very wise mentor once told me: It is nice to be important, but it more important to be nice! Great advice in my opinion!

Good luck in your trip into space. Sounds like an huge waste of money that could have been used to support NH conservation and lake resources.

I like people who put their money where their mouth is. Perhaps you will reconsider things that are important in your life and change your ways and the use of your implied large disposable income.

Going into space is not a meaningful endeavor. It is a very selfish act. This is only an ego-building, personal endeavor. You can choose to use your resources in making this world a better place, and you do not have to go into space to do it.

Thank you for listening to this well-intended advice. Remember, honesty is always the best policy!




R2B

You need to learn tolerance for opinions that differ with you own. I find his posts to be accurate, consistent and honest, sometimes to honest.

Your personal comments are so far off the mark they a laughable. You obviously never met him and do not know his service to his country, the children of New Hampshire and many other causes. You clearly do not know his age. Your post is a personal bash and does not belong on this forum. It sheds the light on you and your prejudices, but misses the mark completely on him.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Islander

You need to learn tolerance for opinions that differ with you own. I find his posts to be accurate, consistent and honest, sometimes to honest.

Your personal comments are so far off the mark they a laughable. You obviously never met him and do not know his service to his country, the children of New Hampshire and many other causes. You clearly do not know his age. Your post is a personal bash and does not belong on this forum. It sheds the light on you and your prejudices, but misses the mark completely on him.

I have no problem with your opinion regarding my comments. Freedom of speech is part of the Bill-of-Rights.

I react to what I read and I could care less that I have never met BI. I absolutely respect everyone who has served this country, but as one who spent significant time in Viet Nam, I do not think that gives me any special treatment or special rights. I also spend significant time in my retirement with the Special Olypics and Make a Wish Foundation. Again, I expect no special treatment from that either. I do not know why you seem to think BI should be treated special for what he has done of the country or for those less fortunate. I thank BI for his contribution, but I see no need for special treatment.

I have a huge problem with someone, in this case BI, who openly admits they are out to remove certain kinds of boats from the lake. Go and support your cause for whatever your reason, but when someone tells everyone on the forum that he is out to remove a certain kind of boat from the lake, then it is time to speak up in support of freedom. There is far too much "spin" that the speed limit proponents continue to place on this subject. I am sure it is a designed tactic.

Islander, please refrain from sending me negative personal messages in the future. If you have something to say to me or about others be it positive or negative, say it where everyone can read it. You are the one making things personal through your use of this site's personal message feature. All future personal messages from you will now go directly to my junk mail folder.

R2B

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

I have no problem with your opinion regarding my comments. Freedom of speech is part of the Bill-of-Rights.

I react to what I read and I could care less that I have never met BI. I absolutely respect everyone who has served this country, but as one who spent significant time in Viet Nam, I do not think that gives me any special treatment or special rights. I also spend significant time in my retirement with the Special Olympics and Make a Wish Foundation. Again, I expect no special treatment from that either. I do not know why you seem to think BI should be treated special for what he has done of the country or for those less fortunate. I thank BI for his contribution, but I see no need for special treatment.

I have a huge problem with someone, in this case BI, who openly admits they are out to remove certain kinds of boats from the lake. Go and support your cause for whatever your reason, but when someone tells everyone on the forum that he is out to remove a certain kind of boat from the lake, then it is time to speak up in support of freedom. There is far too much "spin" that the speed limit proponents continue to place on this subject. I am sure it is a designed tactic.

Islander, please refrain from sending me negative personal messages in the future. If you have something to say to me or about others be it positive or negative, say it where everyone can read it. You are the one making things personal through your use of this site's personal message feature. All future personal messages from you will now go directly to my junk mail folder.

R2B

R2B

I am sorry but I think you are confused. I never suggested any "special treatment" You posted this in your bash against BI.

"I, for one, have fought for our government on foreign lands for this freedom."

You see it was you that brought up the subject of service. Does only YOUR service apply?

He is not trying to remove any boat or type of boat from the lake. Another mistake you have made. His idea was to prohibit boats of a certain horsepower made after a future date. That would allow all current boats to stay on the lake and only limit bringing in new ones.

Why is it Un-American to want a horsepower limit anyway. If a citizen truly believes that is the answer what should they do? Hide their beliefs? Freedom is the right to voice what you believe in even if other people don't like it.

If you follow this link you will find a very long list of New Hampshire lakes and ponds that have speed limits, horsepower limits or ban powerboats altogether. There is nothing new, unusual or Un-American about horsepower limits.

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...estricted.html

Your posts are, in my opinion, a personal bash that are against the rules of this forum.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

If you follow this link you will find a very long list of New Hampshire lakes and ponds that have speed limits, horsepower limits or ban powerboats altogether. There is nothing new, unusual or Un-American about horsepower limits.

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...estricted.html

I have covered this one many times before, I'd be happy to direct you to the links if you'd like. The bulk of the bodies of water in NH are limited due to their sheer size! Try putting a 25 foot boat in Milton 3 Ponds for instance... 110 acres of water. Winnipesaukee is over 6 times the size of the second largest lake and considerably deeper. From there, there is only a few that are 3000+ acres and below that it drops even faster.

How many other lakes in NH could accomodate the Mount? The Sophie C? the Doris E? You don't anything like those on Squam...

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

He is not trying to remove any boat or type of boat from the lake. Another mistake you have made. His idea was to prohibit boats of a certain horsepower made after a future date. That would allow all current boats to stay on the lake and only limit bringing in new ones.

As a separate matter I personally believe a horsepower limit is necessary and will come about someday (many years at a minimum). This certainly targets GFBL's as well as large cruisers.

Originally Posted by bear islander

"I" am targeting performance boats, the speed limit movement is not.

Seems pretty clear to me that you are incorrect on that one Islander. BI made it pretty obvious of his stand there.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Originally Posted by Islander

He is not trying to remove any boat or type of boat from the lake. Another mistake you have made. His idea was to prohibit boats of a certain horsepower made after a future date. That would allow all current boats to stay on the lake and only limit bringing in new ones.

Seems pretty clear to me that you are incorrect on that one Islander. BI made it pretty obvious of his stand there.

You are wrong codeman. That quote is totally accurate. I have been posting my position on this for a long time. Obviously I don't post the entire proposal every time I refer to it.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...5784#post55784

Your post was right after mine, you must have read it back then.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You are wrong codeman. That quote is totally accurate. I have been posting my position on this for a long time. Obviously I don't post the entire proposal every time I refer to it.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...5784#post55784

Your post was right after mine, you must have read it back then.

I posted YOUR OWN quote from yesterday where you clearly stated "I am targeting performance boats". You wrote it yourself. How is that wrong? Seems quite clear to me. You don't have to go that far back to see.

I was arguing Islanders post, not yours. Islander stated that you were not targeting any particular type of boat.

Again, tell me how my post was wrong???

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I posted YOUR OWN quote from yesterday where you clearly stated "I am targeting performance boats". You wrote it yourself. How is that wrong? Seems quite clear to me. You don't have to go that far back to see.

I was arguing Islanders post, not yours. Islander stated that you were not targeting any particular type of boat.

Again, tell me how my post was wrong???

You were wrong because you know my belief very well. Take a look at these past posts of yours. You are even telling other people about my proposal.


http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...2008#post62728

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...2008#post67118

My quote that "I" am targeting high performance boats was to explain that the speed limit movement is not targeting them, just me.

I am only targeting ones manufactured after 2008. Sorry if that was not clear. I have not changed my views or tried to hide them.

[codeman671]

Rather than continue to quibble, argue about peoples intentions, etc let's try to put some fixes in place ourselves.

If safety around the camps on the lake is one of the true concerns that people have that are driving a speed limit, why not push for a safety zone around the camps? I don't mean this as an attempt at a speed limit compromise as I don't see any chance of that, but why not put a sincere effort towards fixing this portion of the problem? This could be solved at the MP level.

Coming past Cattle Landing and turning towards Mark the channel between Mark and Bear is very narrow, probably more so than between others that are already NWZ's. The bay between Mark and Camp Lawrence is a heavily traveled area for watersports, especially by the camps. Putting a NWZ in at the end of Mark, just a short one on such a bad corner, would slow people down, cut down on wake damage, and make it a safer area for all?

I think a short NWZ coupled with a warning marker near the end of Bear warning of a reduced speed or caution zone would help. I would not want to see the whole area go NWZ as many people enjoy it for watersports, but just slowing the traffic or possibly diverting it elsewhere may help.

Sure, I do live in that area and it would help us as well, but if safety near the Camps is one of the true issues, lets work together to try to fix it on a local level.

Any thoughts?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Rather than continue to quibble, argue about peoples intentions, etc let's try to put some fixes in place ourselves.

If safety around the camps on the lake is one of the true concerns that people have that are driving a speed limit, why not push for a safety zone around the camps? I don't mean this as an attempt at a speed limit compromise as I don't see any chance of that, but why not put a sincere effort towards fixing this portion of the problem? This could be solved at the MP level.

Coming past Cattle Landing and turning towards Mark the channel between Mark and Bear is very narrow, probably more so than between others that are already NWZ's. The bay between Mark and Camp Lawrence is a heavily traveled area for watersports, especially by the camps. Putting a NWZ in at the end of Mark, just a short one on such a bad corner, would slow people down, cut down on wake damage, and make it a safer area for all?

I think a short NWZ coupled with a warning marker near the end of Bear warning of a reduced speed or caution zone would help. I would not want to see the whole area go NWZ as many people enjoy it for watersports, but just slowing the traffic or possibly diverting it elsewhere may help.

Sure, I do live in that area and it would help us as well, but if safety near the Camps is one of the true issues, lets work together to try to fix it on a local level.

Any thoughts?

Interesting idea. There could be "camp zones" similar to the school zones we have on our roads. I would certainly be in favor.

There would be resistance in some areas. There are a lot of camps that would like protection. Then what about public beaches, association beaches etc.

Some camps may be in areas that are high traffic, difficult to set up a zone without impeding navigation.

[hazelnut]

I would be in favor of a "Camp Zone" just like a school zone.

Monday - Friday 8am-7pm or something to that effect, put up a 500-1000 foot zone no wake/no travel zone? I don't know it aint a perfect idea but it is a start. As for associations and town beaches they would not fall into the same category in my opinion. Special regard for schools and camps yes.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I would be in favor of a "Camp Zone" just like a school zone.

Monday - Friday 8am-7pm or something to that effect, put up a 500-1000 foot zone no wake/no travel zone? I don't know it aint a perfect idea but it is a start. As for associations and town beaches they would not fall into the same category in my opinion. Special regard for schools and camps yes.

I would think weekends should be included if safety is the issue, this is when the bulk of the traffic is present. There is not that many camps on the lake so I don't think it would impede on many spots.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I would think weekends should be included if safety is the issue, this is when the bulk of the traffic is present. There is not that many camps on the lake so I don't think it would impede on many spots.

My thoughts on that were that camps could have more area maybe even 1000 feet plus strictly enforced during the week. On the weekends camps could curtail open water activities in favor of activities within the immediate vicinity of the shore/beach area.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

My thoughts on that were that camps could have more area maybe even 1000 feet plus strictly enforced during the week. On the weekends camps could curtail open water activities in favor of activities within the immediate vicinity of the shore/beach area.

Will the camp be paying the MP to sit there in his boat and enforce this? Some thoughts??

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Will the camp be paying the MP to sit there in his boat and enforce this? Some thoughts??

Nope, look at it just like a cop might stake out a school zone.

As far as notifying boaters perhaps the marine patrol could give the camps rights to put out temporary No Wake buoys each day as needed?

[Silver Duck]

I think that Camp Zones are a fine idea, whether or not the speed limit is enacted!

Could this be done by the MP administratively, or would legislation be needed to create a new category of zone?

Silver Duck

[Silver Duck]

Evenstar

I, for one, have never numbered you among the "run 'em off the lake" set.

However, I think that you're a bit optimistic about Captain Bonehead's idea of "reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions" being anything less than the posted maximum.

For instance, over the last six seasons, I've spent many nights sitting in the cockpit of my cruiser (inside the enclosure, of course) on pitch dark and rainy nights, with visibility maybe 100 ft, at best. (The only reason I'd have left my slip on some of those nights was if the dock was on fire!)

Yet, I can't even begin to count the number of times I've seen boats leave the public docks and come up on plane before they even reach the no wake markers. Definitely not reasonable and prudent behavior by my standards.

The 60 year old cynic in me keeps telling me that "reasonable and prudent" seems to be in short supply with some folks. I don't much like it, but I suspect that Captain B is going to adopt 45 mph as reasonable and prudent by definition (until he hits something or somebody, and the MP can hang a violation of subparagraph A on him.)

But, I do hope that you're right, and I'm being too pessimistic. Time will tell.

Silver Duck

[Silver Duck]

Islander

Since, as you say (and I'll accept your word on it) neither you nor Bear Lover were "involved in any way with creating the speed limit legislation", why should I accept your theory on the reasons behind the legislation over my own (which is shared by a number of other forum members)?

I'm not calling you a liar, I merely feel that my view of the reasons behind the speed limit is correct and your isn't. I rather doubt that either of us has any possibility of convincing the other.

By the way, excellent pun!

Silver Duck

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

IIslander, please refrain from sending me negative personal messages in the future. If you have something to say to me or about others be it positive or negative, say it where everyone can read it. You are the one making things personal through your use of this site's personal message feature. All future personal messages from you will now go directly to my junk mail folder.

R2B

Please post it for us all to enjoy

[ApS]

Originally Posted by chipj29

"...How do YOU think the USCG defines excessive speed...?

Since the USCG makes no speed determinations from waters where they have no jurisdiction, the USCG relies on the reports of mostly part-time Winnipesaukee officers. However, nobody's seen any determination of the speed at which Winnipesaukee's Eagle Island crash occurred, as one example.

Who would find "THE FACT" of excessive speeds on Winnipesaukee where no speeds are ever determined?

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

"...how about Poker Runs, how many have you participated in!? Rough numbers will be fine ) ..."

Every weekend boater—willing or not—participates in some way in a Poker Run. One might empathize with this Winnipesaukee bass fisherman on one Poker Run weekend.



In 2007, it was nice to see that Donzi finally filed the required NHMP permit after years of "fun".

Originally Posted by Cal

"...1) Since the bodies of the Malia brothers were never found , alcohol factor is in question..."

The oldest brother's body was found; however, as in so many other cases, a determination of alcohol's metabolites was never announced.

Originally Posted by Cal

"...2). Speed was excessive for conditions. They came out of a relatively calm inlet into a very rough ocean. They had more money and courage than experience and sense..."

Thanks, but what the request was, "What would those three brothers be telling us about a 'Need for Speed' on Winnipesaukee's protected inland waters?" (Where they could endanger more boaters, and boat even faster than they did).

Originally Posted by Cal

"...Frankly they had no business operating anything more than a 20' Bayliner with v6 power..."

Is the special training available to operate a boat capable of over 50-MPH? (Yes).

Is the special training required to operate a boat capable of over 50-MPH? (No).

Three brothers lost to the thrill of speed together is an especially tragic loss—I can't readily dismiss it.

Originally Posted by jrc

"...You have proven the slower than EXCESSIVE speed is safer than faster than EXCESSIVE speed. We all agree to that. What you haven't done is provide any information to prove that 45 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee is EXCESSIVE or unsafe..."

What was the speed of the Rattlesnake Island crash? The fatality in Tuftonboro collision? The Parker Island crash? The Camp Island crash? The fatality off Parker Island of a seasoned boat mechanic? The upside-down crash into a cottage that took three lives? The most recent Long Lake collision? The kayak collision?

Answer: Nobody knows—not the NHMP and, most famously, not the Coast Guard itself.

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

"...Yeah - Brewster - and I have an MBA from Wharton - ok, so now we've got the edu. background out of the way..."

Sorry, I've never heard of Wharton. (Sure sounds important, though).

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

"...So - let me ask, was your tunnel-hull racer bigger than 1/12th scale? I'm not talking models - I'm talking the real deal. And if it was a "tunnel-hull racer" as you refer to it, I'm also not referring to the ones with a 15hp. outboard on it that's 10' long. I'm talking a full sized, I'm-really-all-grown-up-now performance boat, Skater, Cigarette, Outerlimits... that kind of performance boat..."

Mine was a "real" prototype: think of a Jet-Ski only 18" high, but with a tunnel-hull underside. Here's what the tunnel-hull design looks like underneath.



However, a wake overwhelmed me on its first outing. (And how I discovered that a 6-gallon gas tank can be a floatation device!) As a 17-year-old—and not yet a high school graduate—I could only afford a 15-HP outboard. (And it was second-hand).

Since then, it's always been closed-course speeds for my thrills: the option of being extracted trying to "crawl away" from a collision has always been more appealing than trying to "keep from drowning".

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

"...Your past posts read a bit differently than if you had real experience with what I am referring to and what you are so freely bashing. Come on - let's get it out there and see what you've got to offer in the way of REAL experience that can support your stance..."

I don't have the disposable income that would permit me a REAL toy that even some local governments can't afford. I also don't have the disposable income that would permit me to pay an annual five-figure insurance premium: I'm one of those "lesser" boaters, with one of those "lesser" credit ratings.

I should own a 20' Bayliner, I guess.