Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Yeah thats it keep digging.... It's all you've got now because your credibility is now the joke of the forum..... Sorry but it's true.

Will you please try and make your posts less personal?

This forum was set aside with less restrictions. That doesn't mean you need to abuse that privilege.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Will you please try and make your posts less personal?

This forum was set aside with less restrictions. That doesn't mean you need to abuse that privilege.

Islander,

I am sorry if you think it is personal to state facts.

This person (I won't name names) uses an accident from 30 years ago without any details to back his claim that winni needs a Horsepower and Speed limit?? I mean come on are you kidding me. Actually the more I find out about this accident the more ridiculous it is that he used it as "fact" supporting his argument. How can ones credibility even be considered when they push garbage like that. It happened 30 YEARS AGO! If anything I can use it in my argument stating how SAFE the lake is. Here I'll do it... pretend you've never heard about the accident....... Guys, winni doesn't need speed limits or horsepower limits. Winni has a more than 30 year history of no fatalities due to boat on land collisions.

Sounds silly doesn't it? Any more silly than using it to prove we DO need limits. So this persons credibility shatters more and more as they kick and scream about this accident. Sorry Islander facts is facts.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Winni has a more than 30 year history of no fatalities due to boat on land collisions.

There was one last summer that killed a teenager.

He did not bring up this accident, it was talked about in this thread for a day before he talked about it. I believe he is doing an excellent job of supporting his opinion against the majority in the forum. His posts are far less personal, and frankly silly, as yours. I am only asking that we raise the bar a little. I am not Islander.

The cigarete hit a dock, the teenager hit a piling, same difference to me.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

There was one last summer that killed a teenager.

Am I missing something? I recall an accident of a teenager on a PWC dying, but not ending up on land...??? Someone who had NO RIGHT being on that machine. Hardly any damage to the machine, I remember talk of a piling strike but definitely not ending up on land. Hardly any damage to the machine either...

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Will you please try and make your posts less personal?

This forum was set aside with less restrictions. That doesn't mean you need to abuse that privilege.

I think that others have made personal comments, including BI. Why are you the ony one complaining??? Hazelnut and BI are not.

[hazelnut]

Here chew on this one everyone

http://ossipeelake.org/news/2006/10/...-speed-limits/

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I think that others have made personal comments, including BI. Why are you the ony one complaining??? Hazelnut and BI are not.

Let's make it official.

I am complaining.

[Woodsy]

BI..

If the best you can do to bolster your position is bring up an accident that occurred on Lake Winnipesaukee over 33 years ago... You are really, really reaching! In fact, that argument could be spun to show how safe the lake really is!

I ALMOST agree with you on one point... as weight and speed increase, the POTENTIAL for damage also increases. That is just simple physics. However, the POTENTIAL for an accident or death does not necessarily increase! In fact, if you looked at the annual NHMP or even the annual USCG Safety Reports, the opposite is true!! The slowest of watercraft, canoes & kayaks are far, far more deadly...

Lake Winnipesaukee is home to about maybe 5-6 boats that can top 100, and over the summer maybe 5-6 others may frequent the lake. While the visiting boats prob wouldn't boat here anymore, the owners of the local Hi-Po boats have vested interests in Lake Winnipesaukee and aren't going to leave the lake! They will trade them in for big cruisers... then what? Oh wait! You think that can be solved by a HP limit!

Do you honestly think the NH Legislature is going to enact any sort of HP Limit or Size Limit on Lake Winnipesaukee? Do you have any idea what that will do to the economy of the lake? The marinas? The businesses? The people that rely on those businesses for thier livelyhood? Good luck trying to get that passed on the state largest lake! The economy is tough enough as it is...

You have stated that the speed limit is about safety, yet you have no data to support your position. The WINNCRABS crowd dismisses the MP study as flawed, when in fact as far as UNFUNDED studies go, they did a pretty damm good job. WINNCRABS just didn't like the results! Ultimately, your goal is to rid YOUR lake of people you consider undesireable... What you don't like is thier ostentatious lifestyle, compared to what you consider your relatively low key lifestyle. However others might find your $200,000 6 minute spaceflight a bit ostentatious.

I suggest you move to Squam Lake, where they long ago enacted all types of snobbish rules to keep THIER lake to themselves! A speed limit that has NEVER been enforced, no boats with porta potties or cuddy cabins etc, etc. (I guess they want you to relieve yourself in the lake?) In fact until just a few years ago, there was NO PUBLIC ACCESS on Squam. The Squam Lake Assoc would purchase the properties the State proposed for use as a boat launch. It wasn't until the state threatened to take a VERY EXPENSIVE piece of property by emminent domain, that a compromise was reached for a small public launch!


Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

BI..

If the best you can do to bolster your position is bring up an accident that occurred on Lake Winnipesaukee over 33 years ago... You are really, really reaching! In fact, that argument could be spun to show how safe the lake really is!

I ALMOST agree with you on one point... as weight and speed increase, the POTENTIAL for damage also increases. That is just simple physics. However, the POTENTIAL for an accident or death does not necessarily increase! In fact, if you looked at the annual NHMP or even the annual USCG Safety Reports, the opposite is true!! The slowest of watercraft, canoes & kayaks are far, far more deadly...

Lake Winnipesaukee is home to about maybe 5-6 boats that can top 100, and over the summer maybe 5-6 others may frequent the lake. While the visiting boats prob wouldn't boat here anymore, the owners of the local Hi-Po boats have vested interests in Lake Winnipesaukee and aren't going to leave the lake! They will trade them in for big cruisers... then what? Oh wait! You think that can be solved by a HP limit!

Do you honestly think the NH Legislature is going to enact any sort of HP Limit or Size Limit on Lake Winnipesaukee? Do you have any idea what that will do to the economy of the lake? The marinas? The businesses? The people that rely on those businesses for thier livelyhood? Good luck trying to get that passed on the state largest lake! The economy is tough enough as it is...

You have stated that the speed limit is about safety, yet you have no data to support your position. The WINNCRABS crowd dismisses the MP study as flawed, when in fact as far as UNFUNDED studies go, they did a pretty damm good job. WINNCRABS just didn't like the results! Ultimately, your goal is to rid YOUR lake of people you consider undesireable... What you don't like is thier ostentatious lifestyle, compared to what you consider your relatively low key lifestyle. However others might find your $200,000 6 minute spaceflight a bit ostentatious.

I suggest you move to Squam Lake, where they long ago enacted all types of snobbish rules to keep THIER lake to themselves! A speed limit that has NEVER been enforced, no boats with porta potties or cuddy cabins etc, etc. (I guess they want you to relieve yourself in the lake?) In fact until just a few years ago, there was NO PUBLIC ACCESS on Squam. The Squam Lake Assoc would purchase the properties the State proposed for use as a boat launch. It wasn't until the state threatened to take a VERY EXPENSIVE piece of property by emminent domain, that a compromise was reached for a small public launch!


Woodsy

I respect your honesty. Obviously I disagree on many key points.

You suggest I move to Squam, I suggest that anyone that wants to operate high horsepower boats go to the Atlantic Ocean.

It is a shame that many responsible boaters like yourself will be harmed if HB847 becomes law. I regret that.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Let's make it official.

I am complaining.

Then practice what you preach...

Move on.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Let's make it official.

I am complaining.

Sorry if you feel that way... I'll try not to laugh anymore. But come on when you posted about that accident 30 years ago were you serious? And if you were didn't some small part of you twinge and say "this is a stretch?"

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The answers to your bolded comments are right in the text.

You are quite right about Boneheads coming in all sizes. The question is what kind of boat do you want to land on your home, a Cigarette or a sea kayak? If a sea kayak hits a dock at full speed it might scuff its bows. If a Cigarette hits a dock at full speed..... people die.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

A 22' bowrider at 45mph is just as dangerous with a drunk behind the wheel as any other boat on the water - including a kayak with a drunk operator!

If you really believe that I suggest you enroll in a basic physics course, because you do not know how to Do The Math.

A kayak with a drunk operator, a 22' bowrider with a drunk operator, a 1,700 horsepower Nor-Tech with a drunk operator. They are all just as dangerous?

I really hope some Senators are reading this.

One night, I am out in 22' bowrider, with a 150 hp outboard, travelling along at a "safe" 25 mph in nice clear calm conditions. I have not had a single drink. I am maintaining proper watch. All of a sudden directly in my path is a canoe, with 2 naked people in it. Now tell me, who is more dangerous? Me or the canoer?

Methinks the canoers put ME in danger!

[Silver Duck]

Island Lover

Please belive me that this matter is highly personal and very emotional. At least to me (and apparently to several others), BI seems to be saying that we (and everybody else) can not be trusted to safely operate anything larger or faster than a low speed bowrider, so the type of boat that we favor must be driven off the lake.

I, for one, find his message to be extremely insulting.

Silver Duck

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Island Lover

Please belive me that this matter is highly personal and very emotional. At least to me (and apparently to several others), BI seems to be saying that we (and everybody else) can not be trusted to safely operate anything larger or faster than a low speed bowrider, so the type of boat that we favor must be driven off the lake.

I, for one, find his message to be extremely insulting.

Silver Duck

I'm sorry you fell that way. I am not talking about you or any of the other responsible boaters on Winni. Unfortunately there is no way practical way to control the irresponsible boater except things like speed limits or horsepower limits.

Plus I do believe that in the long run we must lower the environmental impact of boating on the lake. I fell the only practical way to do that is a horsepower limit. I think these limits will come one day, probably not soon, but they will come. I hope there is a way to lessen the impact they will have on the responsible boaters that are already here.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Unfortunately there is no way practical way to control the irresponsible boater except things like speed limits or horsepower limits.

BI....

Thats not true... there is a VERY practical way to control the irresponsible boater. The same way they control the irresponsible car driver... Increased Police presence! Ask any LEO... lots of thier patrols involve "showing the flag" so to speak! Its truly amazing how people tend to obey the rules when there is a LEO around.

Speed limits, HP limits, Size limits mean nothing if the agency tasked with enforcing the rules is underfunded and/or understaffed! In order to get increased MP patrols, we need BETTER FUNDING FOR THE NHMP! NHMP is funded soley by boaters for boaters... I for one would support a modest increase in my registration fee if it went to directly funding the NHMP.

Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

BI....

Thats not true... there is a VERY practical way to control the irresponsible boater. The same way they control the irresponsible car driver... Increased Police presence! Ask any LEO... lots of thier patrols involve "showing the flag" so to speak! Its truly amazing how people tend to obey the rules when there is a LEO around.

Speed limits, HP limits, Size limits mean nothing if the agency tasked with enforcing the rules is underfunded and/or understaffed! In order to get increased MP patrols, we need BETTER FUNDING FOR THE NHMP! NHMP is funded soley by boaters for boaters... I for one would support a modest increase in my registration fee if it went to directly funding the NHMP.

Woodsy

I agree!

I support increased funding for the Marine Patrol. However I do not believe it will happen. Skip posted about this a while back, and in his opinion (worth a lot more than mine) it wasn't going to happen.

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Island Lover

Please belive me that this matter is highly personal and very emotional. At least to me (and apparently to several others), BI seems to be saying that we (and everybody else) can not be trusted to safely operate anything larger or faster than a low speed bowrider, so the type of boat that we favor must be driven off the lake.

I, for one, find his message to be extremely insulting.

Silver Duck

SD, I agree with you 100%. BI has his own agenda and frankly I believe he is so nearsighted he just cannot allow himself to see the reason of any other point of view. I have owned many vessels over the past 55 years and never so much as dinged a prop. Yes, some of them went well over 60 knots, some had 600hp and only went 28 kts, some were commercial but most were pleasure. One of the best laws I have seen in the boating community is the 150' zone as required in most NH inland waters. Anyone with a modicum of nautical experience should be able to see that if the 150' rule was to be strongly enforced it would be much more effective in preventing collisions than any arbitrary speed limit.
Maybe I'll look at this thread in a couple weeks to see if anything has changed but I won't bet on it.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Sorry if you feel that way... I'll try not to laugh anymore. But come on when you posted about that accident 30 years ago were you serious? And if you were didn't some small part of you twinge and say "this is a stretch?"

SIKSUKR posted about that accident in post #615 (before I posted about it). He wanted to know how a speed limit could have changed the outcome of that accident. So you see, I did not bring it up. SIKSUKR knew he was talking about a REAL accident. He was one of the people that provided information on the operator to the forum back in August 2003.

I responded in post #616 that if a horsepower limit were in place it would have prevented the accident.

In post #617 you went all haywire.

I tried to explain to you in subsequent posts that we were talking about a REAL accident that happen on Winni, but you were to buzzy hitting the key to pay attention.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

SIKSUKR posted about that accident in post #615 (before I posted about it). He wanted to know how a speed limit could have changed the outcome of that accident. So you see, I did not bring it up. SIKSUKR knew he was talking about a REAL accident. He was one of the people that provided information on the operator to the forum back in August 2003.

I responded in post #616 that if a horsepower limit were in place it would have prevented the accident.

In post #617 you went all haywire.

I tried to explain to you in subsequent posts that we were talking about a REAL accident that happen on Winni, but you were to buzzy hitting the key.

Ok then do me a favor because you still haven't done this. GIVE US A NUMBER!!! What horsepower? 500? 400? 250? 10? Just name a number.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Ok then do me a favor because you still haven't done this. GIVE US A NUMBER!!! What horsepower? 500? 400? 250? 10? Just name a number.

If you are asking what his proposed HP limit is, it has been posted many times. Over 300hp on boat model year 2008 and newer are to be banned.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by codeman671

If you are asking what his proposed HP limit is, it has been posted many times. Over 300hp on boat model year 2008 and newer are to be banned.

So is he trying to sell us on the idea that a 250hp boat is incapable of causing bodily injury or death?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

So is he trying to sell us on the idea that a 250hp boat is incapable of causing bodily injury or death?

Your missing the point, I own a 280 HP boat.

[hazelnut]

AHA! My boats 300hp though.... its a runabout that only does 49. Am I banned?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

AHA! My boats 300hp though.... its a runabout that only does 49. Am I banned?

Your OK, it's the boats OVER 300 HP that are evil.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Your OK, it's the boats OVER 300 HP that are evil.

Phew!!! As for winnilaker.... I aint paddlin to the island!!!

[TiltonBB]

BI,

Many people have who cannot afford, or do not want to own lake front homes have purchased large cabin cruisers and use them like a summer home. By necessity more than three hundred horsepower are required to move these boats, yet most top out at 25-30 MPH. Many of those same people have purchased (or rent slips) to accomodate those boats.

1. What will happen to the value of those slips when no large boats are here to need them anymore?

2. How will the towns make up for the lost tax revenue? Example: Mountain View Yacht Club in Gilford has 284 slips, most approved for larger boats that require over 300 horsepower. It's safe to say that at least 200 of the boats in just that one marina have over 300 horsepower. Reduce the demand for those large boat slips and you have reduced the market value (Think tax value)

3. Should the government enact a law that will seriously impact the local marina businesses that sell those boats? (I know what you are thinking, instead of selling a $350,000 boat they could sell $250 plastic kayaks)

4. How will the state make up for the lost corporate tax revenue when the major marinas on the lake do substantially less business?

5. With less demand comes lower prices. Most people do not want to be at the lake to paddle their kayak or sit on the shore and eat granola. Fewer people will choose to purchase first or second homes on the lake, choosing to go elsewhere where the regulations don't exist. Are you prepared to see your home value decrease? (At the same time the towns will increase the tax rate to make up for lost revenue)

[jrc]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

BI,

Many people have who cannot afford, or do not want to own lake front homes have purchased large cabin cruisers and use them like a summer home...

I fall into this category and it is clear that BI is after people like me. I say BI personally because he has said it clearly on the forum. I strongly believe the many people in WinnFABS also have his goal, but they have not said it publicly. It is also my guess that BI will have reasons that every bad effect you list will either actually be good or acceptable losses.

What he and probably the WinnFABS people really want is either a time machine to an imagined idyllic past or complete control of who and what uses the their lake.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

BI,
Are you prepared to see your home value decrease? (At the same time the towns will increase the tax rate to make up for lost revenue)

Based on my observations and limited understanding of BI, I think he doesn't care a bit about a drop in property value. This is my own opinion, but his agenda leads me to this conclusion.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

BI,

Many people have who cannot afford, or do not want to own lake front homes have purchased large cabin cruisers and use them like a summer home. By necessity more than three hundred horsepower are required to move these boats, yet most top out at 25-30 MPH. Many of those same people have purchased (or rent slips) to accommodate those boats.


1. What will happen to the value of those slips when no large boats are here to need them anymore?

2. How will the towns make up for the lost tax revenue? Example: Mountain View Yacht Club in Gilford has 284 slips, most approved for larger boats that require over 300 horsepower. It's safe to say that at least 200 of the boats in just that one marina have over 300 horsepower. Reduce the demand for those large boat slips and you have reduced the market value (Think tax value)

3. Should the government enact a law that will seriously impact the local marina businesses that sell those boats? (I know what you are thinking, instead of selling a $350,000 boat they could sell $250 plastic kayaks)

4. How will the state make up for the lost corporate tax revenue when the major marinas on the lake do substantially less business?

5. With less demand comes lower prices. Most people do not want to be at the lake to paddle their kayak or sit on the shore and eat granola. Fewer people will choose to purchase first or second homes on the lake, choosing to go elsewhere where the regulations don't exist. Are you prepared to see your home value decrease? (At the same time the towns will increase the tax rate to make up for lost revenue)

The cost of lakefront homes is not that much more than large cabin cruisers. In some cases less. Before lakefront prices went nuts a few years ago, several homes in my area sold for under $100k. I just checked the current valuations on Bear Island and found 39 homes under $300k. How much is a new big Carver? And think of how much you can save on slip rental and fuel!

1. They will convert to slips for smaller boats.

2. The town may have more take revenues as people that have left the lake or stayed away do to the unfair use by the rich few ends.

3. Governments enact laws that effect businesses every day. Governments have a RESPONSIBILITY to enact laws that will improve safety and reduce pollution, even if there may be economic impact. Over the years how many times have the auto makers told us increased safety and pollutions standards would put them out of business, or increase the price of cars to where nobody can afford them? The answer is EVERY time.

4. The marinas may do MORE business. Perhaps you have forgotten that several of the marinas in the area support speed limits.

5. Demand will, if anything, increase.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I just checked the current valuations on Bear Island and found 39 homes under $300k. How much is a new big Carver? And think of how much you can save on slip rental and fuel!

Valuations are not what the real estate is truly worth on the market these days. What's your slice of Bear Island appraised for? What do you think it would bring on the market? I know for a fact that there is a $250K+ delta between my appraisal and what it can/would go for on the market. Most waterfront properties are in the same category. The new big Carver that you wish to ban is not even close to real estate value...

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Valuations are not what the real estate is truly worth on the market these days. What's your slice of Bear Island appraised for? What do you think it would bring on the market? I know for a fact that there is a $250K+ delta between my appraisal and what it can/would go for on the market. Most waterfront properties are in the same category. The new big Carver that you wish to ban is not even close to real estate value...

You can check Bear Island evaluations at the link below. My place has a tax value of 341,100. Two months ago an appraiser went to our place by skimobile to value it for refinance. They valued it at 347,000. Our place is, in my opinion, a little better than average for the island.

http://data.visionappraisal.com/MeredithNH/DEFAULT.asp

It's easier to price used boats so I checked usedboats.com and found they list 12 Carvers that are 2007 or 2008 model years. They ranged from 299,000 to 1,474,610 with an average price of $655,000. New Carvers obviously sell for more.

http://www.usedboats.com/used-carver-boats.htm

So you see Carvers cost a lot more than waterfront property. And obviously a boat will not hold its value like real estate will. Making the waterfront home even cheaper in the long run.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You can check Bear Island evaluations at the link below. My place has a tax value of 341,100. Two months ago an appraiser went to our place by skimobile to value it for refinance. They valued it at 347,000. Our place is, in my opinion, a little better than average for the island.

http://data.visionappraisal.com/MeredithNH/DEFAULT.asp

It's easier to price used boats so I checked usedboats.com and found they list 12 Carvers that are 2007 or 2008 model years. They ranged from 299,000 to 1,474,610 with an average price of $655,000. New Carvers obviously sell for more.

http://www.usedboats.com/used-carver-boats.htm

So you see Carvers cost a lot more than waterfront property. And obviously a boat will not hold its value like real estate will. Making the waterfront home even cheaper in the long run.

True all around Bear Islander. Your house has some big positives, great location!

It is also very true that a Yacht like a Carver is not a good investment that is for sure.

However, with all that said who are we to dictate how people spend their leisure time on the lake? Many of those Yacht owners who own slips in the Marinas would never trade their lifestyle for yours and mine (island life). They don't look at it as a bottom line issue. They enjoy having their boat at the mainland. Remember an island home is not for everyone.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You can check Bear Island evaluations at the link below. My place has a tax value of 341,100. Two months ago an appraiser went to our place by skimobile to value it for refinance. They valued it at 347,000. Our place is, in my opinion, a little better than average for the island.

http://data.visionappraisal.com/MeredithNH/DEFAULT.asp

It's easier to price used boats so I checked usedboats.com and found they list 12 Carvers that are 2007 or 2008 model years. They ranged from 299,000 to 1,474,610 with an average price of $655,000. New Carvers obviously sell for more.

http://www.usedboats.com/used-carver-boats.htm

So you see Carvers cost a lot more than waterfront property. And obviously a boat will not hold its value like real estate will. Making the waterfront home even cheaper in the long run.

Figuring 2007-2008 used, yes the value is higher but out of all the pages of used Carvers only a handul were over the assessed value of your property. Regardless, my point was that assessed value and market value when it comes to waterfront/island property are no where near comparable by a large gap. I can provide a few examples from Mark is you like. This has been covered previously in FLL's post about property taxes.

If you were to list your property today do you feel $347k is a fair asking price, a price that you would cash out at? I doubt it highly, being that the true market for the land alone is not far from that.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You can check Bear Island evaluations at the link below. My place has a tax value of 341,100. Two months ago an appraiser went to our place by skimobile to value it for refinance. They valued it at 347,000. Our place is, in my opinion, a little better than average for the island.

http://data.visionappraisal.com/MeredithNH/DEFAULT.asp

It's easier to price used boats so I checked usedboats.com and found they list 12 Carvers that are 2007 or 2008 model years. They ranged from 299,000 to 1,474,610 with an average price of $655,000. New Carvers obviously sell for more.

http://www.usedboats.com/used-carver-boats.htm

[color=purple]So you see Carvers cost a lot more than waterfront property.[[color] And obviously a boat will not hold its value like real estate will. Making the waterfront home even cheaper in the long run.

Happy to read that Governors Island property is priced so low...

Are we in a deep Depression?

Is it 1929, already?

Will the spin ever stop?

[Gilligan]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

And think of how much you can save on slip rental and fuel!

1. They will convert to slips for smaller boats.

2. The town may have more take revenues as people that have left the lake or stayed away do to the unfair use by the rich few ends.

3. Governments enact laws that effect businesses every day. Governments have a RESPONSIBILITY to enact laws that will improve safety and reduce pollution, even if there may be economic impact. Over the years how many times have the auto makers told us increased safety and pollutions standards would put them out of business, or increase the price of cars to where nobody can afford them? The answer is EVERY time.

4. The marinas may do MORE business. Perhaps you have forgotten that several of the marinas in the area support speed limits.

5. Demand will, if anything, increase.

There are too many posts from Bear Islander to read thetm over again to find quotes. I recall that he wants to impose new speed limits and horsepower limits to reduce congestion and pretend that his way is the best and safest way.

Here you say that marinas may do more business and demand for slips will increase. This you say will lead to less congestion and a safer lake for campers, families and kayaks. How does that work?

Converting condo type boat slips to accomodate smaller boats should be real easy. New documents. Plenty paperwork. Legal issues. New permits if they grant them. New construction if allowed. No more "few rich" to pay for all that work if it is allowed. You have thought this through thoroughly.

Those who are left after being Bear Ilandered will have to pay more so the towns can receive the same income they would if those rich few were still paying their fair share. On top of that who will pay for all the slips to be redone?

All of this you say will reduce congestion, result in smaller wakes, make the lake safer for campers and kayakers and families. Demand for slips and marina services will increase.

The studies the government has made do not support your arguments. Their responsibility should be to enforce the laws we already have.

Your plans do not make sense.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

"...The studies the government has made do not support your arguments..."

"We're from the Government, and we're here to help you" never rang truer than when "the Government" conducted their self-admitted flawed speed survey after illogically announcing that there would be a "Temporary Speed Limit" on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Originally Posted by Gilligan

"...Your plans do not make sense..."

Actually, I find BI's arguments to be fully based on inarguable logic—and Logic is a subject in which I have some training.