Life after speed limits

[Skipper]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Agreed,she is right.6 mph when within 150 of boats(and yes that includes Kayaks)A law that is ALREADY in place.

Why don't people understand this principle? There are plenty of laws that regulate speed on the lakes. There is too much personal attacks instead of debating which issues are important and then debating the issues.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Skipper

Why don't people understand this principle? There are plenty of laws that regulate speed on the lakes. There is too much personal attacks instead of debating which issues are important and then debating the issues.

I'll tell you why. Because these left wing liberals love the nanny state concept. They know what's best for everyone and will do anything in their power to control and regulate every aspect of your life. This idiotic speed limit bill is a perfect example. Let's create multiple layers of laws that regulate the same thing. NH is in the red already, so let's just spend more tax dollars on resources required to implement and enforce a new speed limit law, rather than education and enforcement of the laws already on the books. Please people - wake up! Flush these bleeding hearts out of Concord and send them back from where they came. They have done nothing but ruin what once was a great state. Sad to say it's now like Massachusetts North.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

I'll tell you why. Because these left wing liberals love the nanny state concept. They know what's best for everyone and will do anything in their power to control and regulate every aspect of your life. This idiotic speed limit bill is a perfect example. Let's create multiple layers of laws that regulate the same thing. NH is in the red already, so let's just spend more tax dollars on resources required to implement and enforce a new speed limit law, rather than education and enforcement of the laws already on the books. Please people - wake up! Flush these bleeding hearts out of Concord and send them back from where they came. They have done nothing but ruin what once was a great state. Sad to say it's now like Massachusetts North.

The only reason to NOT have a 45 mph speed limit is because a few rich people want to go dangerously fast on a crowded lake. Incredibly they seem to have convinced a few people that don't have fast boats that its REALLY about personal freedom. They spread the lie that it will cost money to enforce (it cost nothing). They even spread two mutually exclusive theories that A) Nobody is going to leave the lake or slow down and B) The lakes region economy will be ruined when the high performance boats leave.

They point to a study they think says nobody is speeding (it doesn't), while forgetting the simple reality that if nobody is speeding, then nobody will be inconvenienced by this law.

The few that own these expensive, highly polluting, global warming, gas hogs, fly around the lake at speeds up to 130 mph scaring the living hell out of family boaters. They have no concept of how many small boaters, including children's campers, they are keeping off of the water.

They are coming to Winnipesaukee because the are being regulated off other lakes. As this trend continues their numbers will grow. Their wakes kill loons, and erode the shore. The water quality of the lake is slowly dropping.

What this is really about is money. The marine manufacturer's and people that sell and service high performance boats will do ANYTHING, tell any lie, play any card, enlist any well intentioned freedom lover, to stop this legislation.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Incredibly they seem to have convinced a few people that don't have fast boats that its REALLY about personal freedom. They spread the lie that it will cost money to enforce (it cost nothing). They even spread two mutually exclusive theories that A) Nobody is going to leave the lake or slow down and B) The lakes region economy will be ruined when the high performance boats leave.They point to a study they think says nobody is speeding (it doesn't), while forgetting the simple reality that if nobody is speeding, then nobody will be inconvenienced by this law.
The few that own these expensive, highly polluting, global warming, gas hogs, fly around the lake at speeds up to 130 mph scaring the living hell out of family boaters. They have no concept of how many small boaters, including children's campers, they are keeping off of the water.
They are coming to Winnipesaukee because the are being regulated off other lakes. As this trend continues their numbers will grow. Their wakes kill loons, and erode the shore. The water quality of the lake is slowly dropping.
What this is really about is money. The marine manufacturer's and people that sell and service high performance boats will do ANYTHING, tell any lie, play any card, enlist any well intentioned freedom lover, to stop this legislation.

Another post worthy of being printed out and pasted to my wall. You do a great job of pointing out just about every misconception that you are feeding yourself and everyone. I do not even know where to begin with this post. This is the biggest pile of fear and hate mongering I've ever read on this forum. Portions of this post border on outright lies. You sit in your glass house and throw stones at all the "polluters" yet you jet around the country and then are prepared to hop in a Rocket Ship for YOUR personal pleasure. I'm sure this rocket is a hybrid gas electric though, right. How dare you even go down that road. Where in the world did you come up with the 130mph boats zipping around the lake. WHEN? WHERE? As I said before I'm on the lake every day in the summer and I have yet to see these 130mph boats terrorizing innocent boaters on the lake. Wakes killing loons? This is an outrageous bold faced LIE!!! Performance boats wakes are in no way exclusively the biggest wakes. My bowrider at 18MPH makes a bigger wake than a performance boat at 70MPH. What about the Cabin Cruisers? This is NOT about money. It is about legislation of a recreational activity that offends a select few. It is legislation based on fear and hate mongering and you just did a fine job pointing that out.

I do believe that your post reached an all time low and it is the most offensive piece of untruth, bias, and downright hate. If I am alone so be it but I'd like to see what the rest of this community thinks about Bear Islanders latest post. I for one am disgusted by it.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Another post worthy of being printed out and pasted to my wall. You do a great job of pointing out just about every misconception that you are feeding yourself and everyone. I do not even know where to begin with this post. This is the biggest pile of fear and hate mongering I've ever read on this forum. Portions of this post border on outright lies. You sit in your glass house and throw stones at all the "polluters" yet you jet around the country and then are prepared to hop in a Rocket Ship for YOUR personal pleasure. I'm sure this rocket is a hybrid gas electric though, right. How dare you even go down that road. Where in the world did you come up with the 130mph boats zipping around the lake. WHEN? WHERE? As I said before I'm on the lake every day in the summer and I have yet to see these 130mph boats terrorizing innocent boaters on the lake. Wakes killing loons? This is an outrageous bold faced LIE!!! Performance boats wakes are in no way exclusively the biggest wakes. My bowrider at 18MPH makes a bigger wake than a performance boat at 70MPH. What about the Cabin Cruisers? This is NOT about money. It is about legislation of a recreational activity that offends a select few. It is legislation based on fear and hate mongering and you just did a fine job pointing that out.

I do believe that your post reached an all time low and it is the most offensive piece of untruth, bias, and downright hate. If I am alone so be it but I'd like to see what the rest of this community thinks about Bear Islanders latest post. I for one am disgusted by it.

You said it well and I agree. I am not only disgusted, but really put off by his latest post.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The only reason to NOT have a 45 mph speed limit is because a few rich people want to go dangerously fast on a crowded lake. Incredibly they seem to have convinced a few people that don't have fast boats that its REALLY about personal freedom. They spread the lie that it will cost money to enforce (it cost nothing). They even spread two mutually exclusive theories that A) Nobody is going to leave the lake or slow down and B) The lakes region economy will be ruined when the high performance boats leave.

They point to a study they think says nobody is speeding (it doesn't), while forgetting the simple reality that if nobody is speeding, then nobody will be inconvenienced by this law.

The few that own these expensive, highly polluting, global warming, gas hogs, fly around the lake at speeds up to 130 mph scaring the living hell out of family boaters. They have no concept of how many small boaters, including children's campers, they are keeping off of the water.

They are coming to Winnipesaukee because the are being regulated off other lakes. As this trend continues their numbers will grow. Their wakes kill loons, and erode the shore. The water quality of the lake is slowly dropping.

What this is really about is money. The marine manufacturer's and people that sell and service high performance boats will do ANYTHING, tell any lie, play any card, enlist any well intentioned freedom lover, to stop this legislation.

A perfect example of what your accusing the opposition of doing.

[Islander]

Great post BI! They hate to hear the truth!

The age old excuse of the polluters is to say someone else is polluting more. As if that excuses their behavior. It doesn't matter how much fuel BI may waste elsewhere. It's a way to attack the messenger when their arguments fail.

Anyone thinking wakes don't destroy loon nests should do a little reading.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Islander

Great post BI! They hate to hear the truth!

The age old excuse of the polluters is to say someone else is polluting more. As if that excuses their behavior. It doesn't matter how much fuel BI may waste elsewhere. It's a way to attack the messenger when their arguments fail.

Anyone thinking wakes don't destroy loon nests should do a little reading.

Yes and it's ONLY the performance boats wakes that are doing it. The big bad nasty MEN and their testosterone driven craft, cigar hanging out of the mouth, hunting down those loons and their babies... oh yes especially the babies.

Don't you get it? Obviously you do not. Performance boat wakes are not the biggest wakes on the lake. Not by a long shot. If this is a crusade against wakes and the harm they do to the loons lets hit the problem head on. Hmmmmm I know lets BAN THE SOPHIE C. Oh but wait the Sophie goe slow and brings precious mail to Bear Island. We can't ban Sophie. Why not? The loons are suffering and they are dying. Sophie does have the biggest wake on the lake.

[parrothead]

I can't get my head around how performance boats can cause more wake damage than other boats. Now mind you I am not a Marine Engineer here, but having spent a fair amount of time water skiing behind boats that makes no sense to me. I have slalomed, wake boarded, and knee boarded behind a few different boats. When you slalom ski you want the boat to be going faster because the wake is smaller. Now when you wake board or knee board you want the boat to be going slower to make a bigger wake for tricks. OK so using that logic how can a performance boat on plane cause more wake damage than any other type of boat? Also by design performance boats are long and proportionately thinner boats than other designs, so at slower speeds the hull cuts through the water causing less "plowing" of water which causes a smaller wake. Have you ever been behind a ski boat going at slow speeds? The hull tends to plow through the water causing a large wake for the size of the boat, which is great for a wakeboarder, but not so much for a loon's nest. So please can someone explain to me in scientific terms where this logic has validity? No agendas here just seems that the logic is flawed to me.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The only reason to NOT have a 45 mph speed limit is because a few rich people want to go dangerously fast on a crowded lake. Incredibly they seem to have convinced a few people that don't have fast boats that its REALLY about personal freedom.

Your reasoning is not accurate or the only reason. Many that are against speed limits are neither rich, or own a boat that goes above 45. Other reasons have been given. One example; the faster the boat goes, the faster the noise is gone from where you are. Another example; in bass fishing contests, one winning strategy is to get to your favorite hole first. A third example; the thrill of speed on a jet ski. Bass boats and jet skis don't require that you are rich.

Your claim of crowded lake is also a problem. Yes, Bear Island may be crowded, but its just one of 360+ islands. Most of the lake, most of the time, is not crowded. This is another reason to oppose the new restrictions. I saw three boats this morning. Where is the danger in going 80 in that crowd?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

They spread the lie that it will cost money to enforce (it cost nothing).

To enforce, it will indeed cost money. There will be more calls to the MP, with claims that a boat was going too fast. Extra calls and any dispatches will cost money.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

They even spread two mutually exclusive theories that A) Nobody is going to leave the lake or slow down and B) The lakes region economy will be ruined when the high performance boats leave.

Your most valid point. Hard to tell what would happen. The heavy boats will likely take the place of ultra-fast boats that do leave, and we'll have more wake, erosion, etc. The economy is being ruined anyway - speed limit or not.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

They point to a study they think says nobody is speeding (it doesn't), while forgetting the simple reality that if nobody is speeding, then nobody will be inconvenienced by this law.

You are stretching it here. There are plenty of boats going over 45 - just not for long periods or very often in crowded areas. We know that people will be inconvenienced by the law. Bass boats for sure. Jet skis for sure. The ability to legally and safely go fast will be gone. The right of persuit of happiness (legally ) will be gone.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The few that own these expensive, highly polluting, global warming, gas hogs, fly around the lake at speeds up to 130 mph scaring the living hell out of family boaters.

You leave out the jet skis and bass boats in your formula. Speeds of 130 mph are rare and unrealistic. If this is your worry, work on a limit that is reasonable, not a pokey 45.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

They have no concept of how many small boaters, including children's campers, they are keeping off of the water.

Pilots going over 45 are not the only reason for the kid camper keeper's fear. Captain bonehead in all forms are the reason. Kids are being over protected in many ways these days. Let the camp do what they need to do. Parents can choose camps on less scary lakes, but don't seem to be doing that. Focus on the bonehead issues and hope that a camp kid (or any other) is never injured. Let's also hope they learn to live in the real world where there is danger to be aware of. Running your life based on unfounded fears is not a skill that should be taught.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

They are coming to Winnipesaukee because the are being regulated off other lakes.

Have we seen any studies that show this is true? If so, what is the impact on the economy? Will we have enough rich folks here to support a good supermarket and maybe even an office supply store?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

As this trend continues their numbers will grow. Their wakes kill loons, and erode the shore. The water quality of the lake is slowly dropping.

This statement needs to be backed up with facts. I'm under the impression that large, heavy displacement boats make the wake the erodes the shore and kills the loons. By "This trend", I assume you mean very-fast boats. This morning, I saw a bass boat zip by at what must have been 60. There was only one foot of the boat still in the water. The wake was an inch or two by the time it reached the shore. The water quality is declining, but I challenge you to relate it to boats going over 45.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

What this is really about is money. The marine manufacturer's and people that sell and service high performance boats will do ANYTHING, tell any lie, play any card, enlist any well intentioned freedom lover, to stop this legislation.

This is one point of view, and one that the speed limit opponents disagree with. What this is really about is the existing freedom to satisfy a need for speed that is being threatened without valid cause.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

I think BI needs a time out. Go to your corner and we will let you know when it's time to come out!

Loons, this is my favorite, I went to the Loon Preservation place in Moultonborough, years ago when all this speed limit nonsense started. I didn't reveal my intentions for asking questions but I asked this one.

What is the #1 threat to loons. Their answer: Paddlers!!!!! They think it's ok to paddle up to these loon nesting areas, and in doing so cause great stress to the loons, some of the chicks have heart attacks because of it. Funny how now years later(I am sure no one from winnfabs donates the loon society) the #1 threat appears to be performance boats.

I personally have had it up to here with all the B.S. I can't wait for the Senate vote, because then it will be over, or at least for now. I need a break, I want to enjoy our lake, and not have to talk about HB 847. I wish Don would just ban this subject, it has divided what once was a fun place to post.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

Loons, this is my favorite, I went to the Loon Preservation place in Moultonborough, years ago when all this speed limit nonsense started. I didn't reveal my intentions for asking questions but I asked this one.
What is the #1 threat to loons. Their answer: Paddlers!!!!! They think it's ok to paddle up to these loon nesting areas, and in doing so cause great stress to the loons, some of the chicks have heart attacks because of it. Funny how now years later(I am sure no one from winnfabs donates the loon society) the #1 threat appears to be performance boats.

WOW! Very interesting. Evanstar, Islander, Bear Islander, care to comment?

Being the open minded individual I am I'll let this one slide and say that I'm sure it is a very small percentage of paddlers who are ignorant enough to disturb a nesting site. I hope. But those awful power boaters, they oughta be run out of town. They must be responsible for some other major issue. Like..... rainy Saturdays or something. Has to be their fault.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

WOW! Very interesting. Evanstar, Islander, Bear Islander, care to comment?

Being the open minded individual I am I'll let this one slide and say that I'm sure it is a very small percentage of paddlers who are ignorant enough to disturb a nesting site. I hope.

I will gladly comment - especially since I also get to be a myth-buster.

First of all, I don't paddle anywhere near loon nesting sites, nor do I know any other paddlers who do. Most paddlers (at least all the ones I know - who actually live here) are very environmentally responsible people.

Last year I worked for a Senator who was on the Wildlife, Fish and Game committee so I was very involved with the NH Fish and Game, since I often had to attend meetings when my Senator had a conflict. I've met personally several times with a biologist who studies NH loons, and I attended hearings on bills drafted to protect loons. Never once did anyone from the Fish and Game or this biologist state that paddlers were causing loons to die. They all said that the #1 cause was from lead poisoning, and the #2 reason was being struck by powerboats.

The Loon Preservation Committee (yes, the one in Moultonborough)
actually states on their website: "Results of our mortality studies have shown that lead sinkers and jigs are the primary cause of death of adult loons, while boat and personal watercraft collisions account for more chick deaths than any other cause."

[tis]

hazelnut, I don't think it is a very small percentage of paddlers who disturb the loons. We have had babies the last few years and they stay in a protected cove and people paddle as close as they can to see them. The loons then feel trapped as they get close. You can see the loons getting very nervous and start trying to swim out around them. We and our neighbors often have to yell at them to stay their distance. I don't think they mean any harm, they want to see them, but don't realize when they go so close they scare them. They don't use their heads and think about what they are doing.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by tis

hazelnut, I don't think it is a very small percentage of paddlers who disturb the loons. We have had babies the last few years and they stay in a protected cove and people paddle as close as they can to see them. The loons then feel trapped as they get close. You can see the loons getting very nervous and start trying to swim out around them. We and our neighbors often have to yell at them to stay their distance. I don't think they mean any harm, they want to see them, but don't realize when they go so close they scare them. They don't use their heads and think about what they are doing.

If that is the case tis maybe we need some sort of legislation against paddlers using small coves.

[Bear Islander]

This is a good example of misdirection. I say big wakes kill loons, the response is that paddlers also kill loons.

If I say big boats cause pollution, the response is, spacecraft cause pollution.

Point the finger at the other guy. Other people pollute, so its ok for you to pollute. Other boats kill loons, so its ok if your boat kills loons. Take responsibility for your own actions, stop blaming others.

The question is do big wakes kill loons. The answer, if anyone cares to check, is yes.

[Cal]

I , for one , love loons. They're really good with barbeque sauce

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I say big wakes kill loons, ..........

Another scientific fact.......

[gtxrider]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

This is a good example of misdirection. I say big wakes kill loons, the response is that paddlers also kill loons.

If I say big boats cause pollution, the response is, spacecraft cause pollution.

Point the finger at the other guy. Other people pollute, so its ok for you to pollute. Other boats kill loons, so its ok if your boat kills loons. Take responsibility for your own actions, stop blaming others.

The question is do big wakes kill loons. The answer, if anyone cares to check, is yes.

If big wakes kill loons and going faster makes smaller wakes than save the loons, go fast!!!!

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

This is a good example of misdirection. I say big wakes kill loons, the response is that paddlers also kill loons.

If I say big boats cause pollution, the response is, spacecraft cause pollution.

Point the finger at the other guy. Other people pollute, so its ok for you to pollute. Other boats kill loons, so its ok if your boat kills loons. Take responsibility for your own actions, stop blaming others.

The question is do big wakes kill loons. The answer, if anyone cares to check, is yes.

NO not misdirection at all. It is called hearing the truth Bear Islander and it hurts.

#1 Remember I am not the one sitting up in my glass castle pointing the finger at all of the polluters and loon killers. Do as I say not as I do, right BI? I'm the guy with the modest runabout. I'm not the guy jetting around in planes and rockets. So if anything I take offense to you criticizing ANYONE for their actions with regard to pollution. My actions pollute far less than you and I'm sure there are many who pollute more than you. However, unless you want to sacrifice the recreational activities that you enjoy that cause pollution then I suggest you give up on that argument.

#2 You blame "big wakes" for killing loons. Well you need to back that up with statistical data that shows that those wakes belong to the boats you are trying to rid the lake of. You also need to accept that paddlers have just as negative an impact on the loon population. That information came from the Loon Preservation Center, not your personal opinion. Sure I will accept that wakes kill loons, but lets all share the blame because your runabout carries a pretty big wake climbing up on plane as does mine.

Misdirection? I hardly think so.

[Bear Islander]

Yes, scientific fact.

http://www.ffdp.ca/hww2.asp?cid=7&id=53

http://www.pc.gc.ca/apprendre-learn/...an3case4_e.asp

Please don't respond that other things kill loons, we all know that. However I would be interested in data that shows loons are NOT effected by boat wakes.

Hazelnut wants me to post the bow numbers of boats that kill loons. Sorry, I can't do that. I will fall back on the knowledge that bigger boats have bigger wakes.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Yes, scientific fact.

http://www.ffdp.ca/hww2.asp?cid=7&id=53

http://www.pc.gc.ca/apprendre-learn/...an3case4_e.asp

Please don't respond that other things kill loons, we all know that. However I would be interested in data that shows loons are NOT effected by boat wakes.

Hazelnut wants me to post the bow numbers of boats that kill loons. Sorry, I can't do that. I will fall back on the knowledge that bigger boats have bigger wakes.

Where did I say that? Bear Islander big wakes kill loons! YES I agree. Please re-read my post. You need to accept the fact that your boat (as does mine) produces a wake in certain situations capable of killing loons. Unless you want to give up your runabout stop pointing fingers at everyone else. You are the one raising these issues so stop calling it misdirection when somebody points the finger right back at you. Look in the mirror!

[Bear Islander]

Bigger boats make bigger wakes. When we start regulating boats, should we start with the little ones? Everybody pollutes a little, its a matter of degree.

Lower horsepower means less environmental impact.

You seem to feel that only people that don't pollute can complain about pollution. That's ridiculous, I live in the real world. I will "point my finger" where I see fit.

[tis]

As has said before BI, waves don't kill loons, people who are too stupid to stop their wake when they see a loon is what hurts them! Big boats and fast boats don't hurt a thing! The people who don't know how to drive them (and I don't think that is so many) do.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by tis

As has said before BI, waves don't kill loons, people who are too stupid to stop their wake when they see a loon is what hurts them! Big boats and fast boats don't hurt a thing! The people who don't know how to drive them (and I don't think that is so many) do.

I posted up in #20 that the actual #1 cause for loon deaths (given by the experts) is from lead poisoning, and the #2 reason was being struck by powerboats.

Paddlers and wakes are not the main cases (although wakes can destroy their nests).

Yes, people control boats - it is the action of people that determine how fast a boat goes (within the boats capabilities).

Guess what? The speed limit controls the people!

So perhaps you should all think of this bill as a people-speed limit, rather than a law against boats - which many here have been suggesting.

[Gilligan]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Yes, people control boats - it is the action of people that determine how fast a boat goes (within the boats capabilities).

Guess what? The speed limit controls the people!

So perhaps you should all think of this bill as a people-speed limit, rather than a law against boats - which many here have been suggesting.

Stop guessing. The Marine Patrol controls people more than any speed limit could. Enforcement keeps people under control.

[B R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You seem to feel that only people that don't pollute can complain about pollution. That's ridiculous, I live in the real world. I will "point my finger" where I see fit.

Maybe you can start with a mirror.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Bigger boats make bigger wakes. When we start regulating boats, should we start with the little ones? Everybody pollutes a little, its a matter of degree.

Lower horsepower means less environmental impact.

You seem to feel that only people that don't pollute can complain about pollution. That's ridiculous, I live in the real world. I will "point my finger" where I see fit.

That about sums it all up folks. Do as I say not as I do.

[ishoot308]

"Lower horsepower means less environmental impact."

Bear Islander with all due respect you are kidding right??...

A 10 horsepower or similar outboard manufactured in the 60's, 70's or 80's which MANY small aluminum boats use on the lake, pollute FAR more than any of todays newer four stroke or two stroke Etec style engines with horsepower up to 300 H.P.

Dan

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

"Lower horsepower means less environmental impact."

Bear Islander with all due respect you are kidding right??...

A 10 horsepower or similar outboard manufactured in the 60's, 70's or 80's which MANY small aluminum boats use on the lake, pollute FAR more than any of todays newer four stroke or two stroke Etec style engines with horsepower up to 300 H.P.

Dan

Dan, that is an unfair comparison. Couldn't you at least have compared motors made in the same millennium?

Try comparing outboards made in the same year by the same manufacturer. That is a reasonable comparison.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Dan, that is an unfair comparison. Couldn't you at least have compared motors made in the same millennium?

Try comparing outboards made in the same year by the same manufacturer. That is a reasonable comparison.

It is a very fair comparison, similar to what I have brought up before with you. Every year the technology gets cleaner and more efficient, yet you are targeting the newer models. There are many older, less efficient two strokes spitting oil and gas wherever they go, yet you wish to target newer, cleaner burning engines.

What do you think is better for the lake, a 32' Whaler Outrage with twin 250hp Verados or 2 19' starcrafts with 80's vintage Merc 90's? IMHO the 4 stroke, more efficent loop charged Verados even though the HP is considerably more.

If you truly want to work on something to prevent added pollution, how about pushing for a ban on 2 strokes? This will help curb pollution much more than limiting engines to 300hp.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Dan, that is an unfair comparison. Couldn't you at least have compared motors made in the same millennium?

Try comparing outboards made in the same year by the same manufacturer. That is a reasonable comparison.

Why is it unfair, a lot of those old outboards are still on the lake and polluting this millenium. Any attempt to clean up pollution cause by boat motors would have to start with old two-strokes. Old being anything before 1998 and suspect being anything before 2006.

http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/ard/ard-31.htm

My boat engine is three star rated, is yours?

CARB'S One Star label identifies engines that meet CARB's 2001 exhaust emission standards. Engines meeting these standards produce 75% fewer emissions than conventional carbureted two-stroke engines. These engines are equivalent to the US EPA's 2006 standards for marine engines.
The Two Star label identifies engines that meet CARB's 2004 exhaust emission standards. Engines meeting these standards produce 20% fewer emissions than One Star (Low Emission) engines.
The Three Star label identifies engines that meet CARB's 2008 exhaust emission standards. Engines meeting these standards produce 65% fewer emissions than One Star (Low Emission) engines.

[ishoot308]

B.I.

I fully agree that my comparison is unfair, but that is part of my point...

I have been reading this thread with great interest, and while I certainly agree you have a right to your opinion, I feel you are grasping at straws to make your speed limit point. The death of loons by wake and saying higher horsepower motors cause more environmental impact, just discredits your position immensely.

One of your points in your previous post state that lower horsepower has less environmental impact. If environmental impact is one of the reasons, you are going after a speed limit on the lake, why not go after the 70 year old man fishing in his 12 foot Jon boat with his vintage 10 HP Johnson, Evinrude, or Mercury blowing smoke, oil, and other pollutants all over lake?? Is it because he can't speed, so polluting the lake is O.K.?? Am I missing something here??

The fact is a large percentage of the motors on the lake are small older two strokes that cause 15 times the pollution of newer engines, and
I am sure you are aware that many vacation camps and local fisherman have one of these tied up to their dock.

Just so you understand my position, I am completely against a speed limit on the lake. In my opinion, all that is needed is enforcment of the current laws and in particular the 150' rule. Believe it or not it really is that simple...

Regards;

Dan

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Yes, scientific fact.

http://www.ffdp.ca/hww2.asp?cid=7&id=53

http://www.pc.gc.ca/apprendre-learn/...an3case4_e.asp

Please don't respond that other things kill loons, we all know that. However I would be interested in data that shows loons are NOT effected by boat wakes.

Hazelnut wants me to post the bow numbers of boats that kill loons. Sorry, I can't do that. I will fall back on the knowledge that bigger boats have bigger wakes.

Some more opinions, the first one even qualifies its statement with the word "may" as in it may be a problem. Hardly scientific fact........

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

This is a good example of misdirection. I say big wakes kill loons, the response is that paddlers also kill loons.

If I say big boats cause pollution, the response is, spacecraft cause pollution.

Point the finger at the other guy. Other people pollute, so its ok for you to pollute. Other boats kill loons, so its ok if your boat kills loons. Take responsibility for your own actions, stop blaming others.

The question is do big wakes kill loons. The answer, if anyone cares to check, is yes.

You and Al Gore are like two peas in a pod...

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The only reason to NOT have a 45 mph speed limit is because a few rich people want to go dangerously fast on a crowded lake. Incredibly they seem to have convinced a few people that don't have fast boats that its REALLY about personal freedom. They spread the lie that it will cost money to enforce (it cost nothing). They even spread two mutually exclusive theories that A) Nobody is going to leave the lake or slow down and B) The lakes region economy will be ruined when the high performance boats leave.
They point to a study they think says nobody is speeding (it doesn't), while forgetting the simple reality that if nobody is speeding, then nobody will be inconvenienced by this law.
The few that own these expensive, highly polluting, global warming, gas hogs, fly around the lake at speeds up to 130 mph scaring the living hell out of family boaters. They have no concept of how many small boaters, including children's campers, they are keeping off of the water.
They are coming to Winnipesaukee because the are being regulated off other lakes. As this trend continues their numbers will grow. Their wakes kill loons, and erode the shore. The water quality of the lake is slowly dropping.
What this is really about is money. The marine manufacturer's and people that sell and service high performance boats will do ANYTHING, tell any lie, play any card, enlist any well intentioned freedom lover, to stop this legislation.

Bear Islander all of my latest comments are stemming from this post. If you post something like this you need to back it up. Two statements stick out as particularly offensive and border on ridiculous:

The few that own these expensive, highly polluting, global warming, gas hogs, fly around the lake at speeds up to 130 mph...

If this is your concern you are going backwards by legislating newer cleaner burning boats off the lake. Oh and by the way give me a break with the flying around at 130mph.

They are coming to Winnipesaukee because the are being regulated off other lakes. As this trend continues their numbers will grow. Their wakes kill loons, and erode the shore.

This was YOUR quote directed at Performance boats, now you are switching gears to this because you dug yourself another hole:

Big wakes, especially when the lake is high in the spring can destroy loon nests or wash out the eggs. The bigger cruisers can cause huge wakes. They are not "just as capable" they are "far more capable", and far more likely. Perhaps you don't get a lot of wake where you are, but I get plenty. The wake from our boats is not much more than I get on a windy day. The big cruisers wake is a lot more than the Mount, other tourist boats or the Bear.

Am I the only one seeing this?????

I feel like I'm talking to a politician.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Bear Islander all of my latest comments are stemming from this post. If you post something like this you need to back it up. Two statements stick out as particularly offensive and border on ridiculous:

The few that own these expensive, highly polluting, global warming, gas hogs, fly around the lake at speeds up to 130 mph...

If this is your concern you are going backwards by legislating newer cleaner burning boats off the lake. Oh and by the way give me a break with the flying around at 130mph.

They are coming to Winnipesaukee because the are being regulated off other lakes. As this trend continues their numbers will grow. Their wakes kill loons, and erode the shore.

This was YOUR quote directed at Performance boats, now you are switching gears to this because you dug yourself another hole:

Big wakes, especially when the lake is high in the spring can destroy loon nests or wash out the eggs. The bigger cruisers can cause huge wakes. They are not "just as capable" they are "far more capable", and far more likely. Perhaps you don't get a lot of wake where you are, but I get plenty. The wake from our boats is not much more than I get on a windy day. The big cruisers wake is a lot more than the Mount, other tourist boats or the Bear.

Am I the only one seeing this?????

I feel like I'm talking to a politician.

If you stop analyzing and comparing everything I say with a microscope you will not have these problems. You are comparing every post in hopes of catching me in a lie. You will NEVER catch me in a lie because I am giving you my honest opinions.

There are no inconsistencies in the posts you quote, you are looking for what is not there, and jumping on nothing at all.

I have NO IDEA what your point is about those three examples in bold type. Every word is absolute truth!

[COWISLAND NH]

Geesh BI...if laws and regulation where made on peoples likes a dislikes we would have regulations on EVERYTHING. Voice your opinion but please do not justify why your opinions should be laws. If people like yourself are SCARED TO HELL by other boats you should ask your self why??? Is it just the sheer speed of them passing by?? Or are they too close?? Are you intimidated by the size??? Why then don't we stop all the big trucks on the highway bc they scare the crap out of my little old grandmom?! Most of the boat owners that have the boats that are going faster then you know how to drive them in a safe manner, and they have been driving around the lake for years w/ little to no issues. Being scared or intimidated by someone else is no reason to make laws to restrict them...maybe you need to be more confident in you abilities to drive a boat in company.
LIVE FREE OR DIE....

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by COWISLAND NH

Voice your opinion but please do not justify why your opinions should be laws.

Why not?


.

[COWISLAND NH]

We need you to come back to reality....thats why.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by COWISLAND NH

We need you to come back to reality....thats why.

I'm asking why I should voice my opinions but not justify them?

If I believe a law will make the lake safer and cleaner, why should I not say so?

Should I only voice opinions the majority agree with?

[fatlazyless]

BIg trucks on the highways require a commercial drivers license and all violations stay on your record for fifteen years. For trucks, the posted speed limit is the speed limit. No fudge factor above what's posted is allowed by the police. Most highway lanes are 12' wide, and tractor trailers have a trailer that is 8 1/2' wide, and lane control is a big deal. Truckers can get ticketed for being out of their lane for lousy lane control.

Unlike Lake Winnipesaukee, NH's road system has lanes with painted lines, and speed limits. Doesn't Lake Winnipesaukee need a 45-25 speed limit on the proposed HB 847, two year temporary trial basis from Jan 1, 2009 to Jan 1, 2011. After two years, the Marine Patrol will have lots of speed limit enforcement experience for the legislature to consider. HB 847 is not carved into granite, it's a two year look-see, and then gets reconsidered. Why not give it a try? Let's try it...after all....you just might like it.

Hey, by January 1, 2011, the republicans could be back in the majority at the statehouse, and what will they do?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

BIg trucks on the highways require a commercial drivers license (1) and all violations stay on your record for fifteen years(2).For trucks, the posted speed limit is the speed limit. No fudge factor above what's posted is allowed by the police. Most highway lanes are 12' wide, and tractor trailers have a trailer that is 8 1/2' wide, and lane control is a big deal. (3) Truckers can get ticketed for being out of their lane for lousy lane control. (4)

Unlike Lake Winnipesaukee, NH's road system has lanes with painted lines, and speed limits. Doesn't Lake Winnipesaukee need a 45-25 speed limit on the proposed HB 847, two year temporary trial basis from Jan 1, 2009 to Jan 1, 2011. After two years, the Marine Patrol will have lots of speed limit enforcement experience for the legislature to consider. HB 847 is not carved into granite, it's a two year look-see, and then gets reconsidered. Why not give it a try? Let's try it...after all....you just might like it.

Hey, by January 1, 2011, the republicans could be back in the majority at the statehouse, and what will they do?

1. Boaters in the state of NH are required to have certificates. Similar to specialized licensing.
2. It has been talked about that any speeding ticket you get on the lake would go onto your driving record.
3. The state of NH has a 150' rule.
4. Boaters can be ticketed for violating the 150' rule.

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Should I only voice opinions the majority agree with?

In this case the majority does agree with you..............slower is safer!

Thar being the case a law that enforces that only makes sense.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by JDeere

In this case the majority does agree with you..............slower is safer!

Thar being the case a law that enforces that only makes sense.

Are you so sure?

Here is an article from 2006 done by an independent source.

Readers In Poll Say ‘No’ to Winnipesaukee Speed Limits
Manchester — October 1, 2006 — Keep Lake Winnipesaukee free of speed limits for boaters, urged a majority of people responding to a New Hampshire Union Leader Web survey.

“The real issue on Winnipesaukee (or any other body) is that some boaters still choose to operate under the influence of stupidity,” wrote speed-limit opponent Kevin Drew of Milford. “Unfortunately, there is no law against that.”

By nearly a 2-to-1 margin, respondents gave a thumb’s down to a push to convince the state Department of Safety to set a 45 mph speed limit on the state’s largest lake during the day and a 25 mph limit at night. The Legislature already defeated a similar proposal this year. The same petition process was used to set speed limits on Squam Lake about 10 years ago.

Boats passing within 150 feet of each other are required to slow to headway speed, six miles per hour, but often don’t.

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

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Are you so sure?

Here is an article from 2006 done by an independent source.

Readers In Poll Say ‘No’ to Winnipesaukee Speed Limits
Manchester — October 1, 2006 — Keep Lake Winnipesaukee free of speed limits for boaters, urged a majority of people responding to a New Hampshire Union Leader Web survey.

“The real issue on Winnipesaukee (or any other body) is that some boaters still choose to operate under the influence of stupidity,” wrote speed-limit opponent Kevin Drew of Milford. “Unfortunately, there is no law against that.”

By nearly a 2-to-1 margin, respondents gave a thumb’s down to a push to convince the state Department of Safety to set a 45 mph speed limit on the state’s largest lake during the day and a 25 mph limit at night. The Legislature already defeated a similar proposal this year. The same petition process was used to set speed limits on Squam Lake about 10 years ago.

Boats passing within 150 feet of each other are required to slow to headway speed, six miles per hour, but often don’t.

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

I'm not sure an on-line internet survey by a newspaper is an "independent source". It's more like who got the word out to his friends telling them to go post against speed limits.

On www.offshoreonly.com a request was posted with a link asking everyone to go post on the Union Leader survey.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm not sure an on-line internet survey by a newspaper is an "independent source". It's more like who got the word out to his friends telling them to go post against speed limits.

On www.offshoreonly.com a request was posted with a link asking everyone to go post on the Union Leader survey.

Who cares? If it is true, the people who voted posted their feelings and voted the way that they felt was right. Why would this be any different that polling people from Manchester that may not even know the lake?

Votes are votes.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Who cares? If it is true, the people who voted posted their feelings and voted the way that they felt was right. Why would this be any different that polling people from Manchester that may not even know the lake?

Votes are votes.

So Votes are Votes. The fact that a high performance boating site sent its members there to post doesn't make a difference?

I think we should do a "Do the Yankees Suck?" survey at Fenway Park. That way we can settle the question at last. After all "votes are votes"!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

So Votes are Votes. The fact that a high performance boating site sent its members there to post doesn't make a difference?

I think we should do a "Do the Yankees Suck?" survey at Fenway Park. That way we can settle the question at last. After all "votes are votes"!

And having an "independent survey company" with no affiliation or backing to a pro speed limit crowd ask a bunch of people who probably don't know a damn thing about Winnipesaukee is any better?

For the record, the Yankees do suck.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

So Votes are Votes. The fact that a high performance boating site sent its members there to post doesn't make a difference?

I think we should do a "Do the Yankees Suck?" survey at Fenway Park. That way we can settle the question at last. After all "votes are votes"!

Kinda like asking boaters if they think there should be a speed limit?

I like your idea about the Fenway Survey though. I say we do it. I bet the results would be YES!

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

So Votes are Votes. The fact that a high performance boating site sent its members there to post doesn't make a difference?

I think we should do a "Do the Yankees Suck?" survey at Fenway Park. That way we can settle the question at last. After all "votes are votes"!

While we're at it, why not a survey on lake issues in a city 50 miles from the lake?

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm not sure an on-line internet survey by a newspaper is an "independent source". It's more like who got the word out to his friends telling them to go post against speed limits.

On www.offshoreonly.com a request was posted with a link asking everyone to go post on the Union Leader survey.

Is it your point that WinnFABS was not able to do this successfully and thus, you spin the results?!?!?!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm not sure an on-line internet survey by a newspaper is an "independent source". It's more like who got the word out to his friends telling them to go post against speed limits.

On www.offshoreonly.com a request was posted with a link asking everyone to go post on the Union Leader survey.

They spam every survey. Remember, "...delete your cookies and vote again and again..."?

Originally Posted by GWC...

Is it your point that WinnFABS was not able to do this successfully and thus, you spin the results?!?!?!

WinnFABS concerns itself with arriving alive while boating on Lake Winnipesaukee: OSO is concerned about being voted off EVERY lake, and spams EVERY initiative.

Here's a quote of interest:

Join Date: Aug 2003

Location: Boston, Ma

Posts: 1,483

I think i voted too much. It won't let me vote anymore,,,,blank screen

Originally Posted by chmeeee

While we're at it, why not a survey on lake issues in a city 50 miles from the lake?

This thread starts with a topic 2900 miles away on peaceful waters, and just down-river from where kayakers have their kind of fun.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

They spam every survey. Remember, "...delete your cookies and vote again and again..."?


WinnFABS concerns itself with arriving alive while boating on Lake Winnipesaukee: OSO is concerned about being voted off EVERY lake, and spams EVERY initiative.

Here's a quote of interest:
Join Date: Aug 2003

Location: Boston, Ma

Posts: 1,483

I think i voted too much. It won't let me vote anymore,,,,blank screen

So one guys quote on OSO means that all posters on the site vote more than once? Oh, OK.
So winnfabs is concerned with "arriving alive", and I think that is great. But when was the last time that someone did not "arrive alive" due to a high speed accident?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

So one guys quote on OSO means that all posters on the site vote more than once? Oh, OK.
So winnfabs is concerned with "arriving alive", and I think that is great. But when was the last time that someone did not "arrive alive" due to a high speed accident?

Last summer on Long Lake.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Last summer on Long Lake.

That's right - Long Lake in the State of Maine.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

That's right - Long Lake in the State of Maine.

Does Maine have a 150ft safe passage law?

If I post "Bush is an idiot" that is obviously opinion even if I don't specify. Actually that one borders on factual.

I say that as a Registered Republican. GO McCain!!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Last summer on Long Lake.

I am sorry, I didn't realize winnfabs was concerned with accidents that occur on lakes outside of the state of NH.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I am sorry, I didn't realize winnfabs was concerned with accidents that occur on lakes outside of the state of NH.

1. My answer fit your question perfectly.

2. New Hampshire has no shield of invulnerability that protects boats from fatal accidents. That accident could just as easily have happened on Winnipesaukee.

3. I am not connected with WinnFABS.


Hazelnut-

Can you explain how the accident would have been prevented by a 150' rule?

GO McCain! (one of my clients)

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"...However when they are starting up they have as big a wake as any boat on the lake...I'm sure good operators can lessen these effects. But most do not..."

Meaning, it is possible to "eliminate ignorant behavior through education?"

Originally Posted by parrothead

"...I can't get my head around how performance boats can cause more wake damage than other boats..."

Start with 4½ tons.

Originally Posted by chipj29

"...And yes, that accident could have happened on Winnipesaukee. It could have happened on the Merrimack River. It could have happened on [gasp] Squam Lake...But it didn't happen in any of those places. It happened on Long Lake. In the beautiful state of Maine.

and...

Originally Posted by chipj29

I am sorry, I didn't realize winnfabs was concerned with accidents that occur on lakes outside of the state of NH.

and...

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

That's right - Long Lake in the State of Maine.

Senators vote on laws that affect case law produced by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Here's 504,000 reasons New Hampshire Senators must consider high-speed crashes from other jurisdictions.

Originally Posted by chipj29

"...So one guys quote on OSO means that all posters on the site vote more than once? Oh, OK..."

Well, if OK means OK, then here's some more proof of multiple voting.

I had previously chosen a spam-voter from Boston, as he would also likely spam any on-line poll for unlimited speeds on New Hampshire's inland protected waters.

Here they go:

With as many memebers (sic) as we have here, certainly we can change those results

Go vote

The power of *** we are up by a significant margine. (sic)
Dont worry ****, just keep this thread rocking.

Voted as well several times. It's 53%, NO.

Come on guys lets stick together and scew (sic) the hell out of this poll.

voted several times -- NO. Check out the poll numbers now. ZGood (sic) luck

Vote up, everyone! We don't need any more negative publicity regarding this matter. We certainly don't need ignorant non-boaters taking polls like this away from us.

[ ]

The power of the board must be kicking in. We are up from 23% to 35% against speed limits.

I just gave us about a 60-70 NO votes and it will now not register any more of my votes.

Point is....when you make noise, people will listen. Keep voting...

I guess we are making a difference 1050 No / 540 Yes !!

I bet you won't here (sic) about this poll again!

Yeah, I'd saw we swayed that poll back in the right direction

Today speed limits. Tomorrow....

No, submit, close the box, No, submit, close the box. I took it from 640 to over 700 then it stopped counting my votes.

Speed wins!

Should there be a speed limit for boaters...?
no: 2179 votes
yes: 688 votes

Group hug..............................

I use History, whereas BI uses Logic...

Opponents seem stuck in the same arguments with BI, and may just not want to read what I'm finding in History; for example, did you see the on-line post on "I drove drunk" by the creator of the "A.I.S." condition?

[Excalibur]

I will find it funny to see all the small pleasure boats being pulled over around and after sunset for going over the 25 mph speed limit.

Then there will be the 30 foot plus boats not being able to plane and making a huge wake..

We may even see a few boats with out running lights going along with night vision goggles. My spot light has pissed a few off in the past...

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If you stop analyzing and comparing everything I say with a microscope you will not have these problems. You are comparing every post in hopes of catching me in a lie. You will NEVER catch me in a lie because I am giving you my honest opinions.
There are no inconsistencies in the posts you quote, you are looking for what is not there, and jumping on nothing at all.
I have NO IDEA what your point is about those three examples in bold type. Every word is absolute truth!

WOW! I've seen it all now. So we are supposed to just accept that all of your opinions are fact? HA. Someone has a Megalomaniac complex.

Bear Islander, if you go and post your thoughts on an open forum you are opening yourself up to analysis and criticism. ESPECIALLY in a highly debated topic forum. Also, it is not inconsistencies that I am looking for. You posted opinions that you claim are facts. Your opinions are most certainly not factual. I won't use the word lie but you have stretched the truth beyond reason. So if you need me to further explain why I bold typed those latest whoppers I will.

The few that own these expensive, highly polluting, global warming, gas hogs, fly around the lake at speeds up to 130 mph...

S T R E T C H. Prove it. Where are the 130mph TERRORIZING family boaters. Prove it. Which boats on the lake are REALLY causing the most pollution and causing "Global Warming."

Then you yourself originally blamed High Performance boats for killing baby loons in this statement:

They [Performance Boats] are coming to Winnipesaukee because the are being regulated off other lakes. As this trend continues their numbers will grow. Their wakes kill loons, and erode the shore.

However when pushed and questioned you changed your statement to this:

Big wakes, especially when the lake is high in the spring can destroy loon nests or wash out the eggs. The bigger cruisers can cause huge wakes. They are not "just as capable" they are "far more capable", and far more likely.

So which is Bear Islander? Who is killing the baby loons?

Why do I even raise the issue? It goes right back to the word of the day. Credibility. Opinions are one thing but you sling around these "facts" and expect everyone to believe them. I ain't buyin' it sorry.

Little known fact: Go back and search the old forum. I once raised the issue of having a Speed Limit. Yup, surprise, surprise, I was once an undecided, leaning towards a limit. Over the years I would read these forums and I became convinced otherwise due to the CREDIBLE posts by the opposition. I was also driven to this viewpoint by rants from the proponents, who I felt were disingenuous in their motives. You make some of the strongest cases every day as to why I do NOT support a speed limit. In other words I feel that you hurt the position rather than help it. Just my opinion though.

[Bear Islander]

Thanks, now at least I know what you are getting at.

ALL high horsepower boats create big wakes, GFBL and cabin cruisers. They BOTH kill loons and pollute the lake. They belong on the ocean, not Lake Winnipesaukee.

See, there wasn't any discrepancy. Just you looking for one.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

ALL high horsepower boats create big wakes, GFBL and cabin cruisers. They BOTH kill loons and pollute the lake. They belong on the ocean, not Lake Winnipesaukee.

.

Look at the size of this 70 mph wake. I haven't seen anything that big since "The Perfect Storm"

[codeman671]

Here is a monster wake coming off a 30' twin engine 600hp gas guzzling shoreline eroding loon killing (8500lb dry weight) bowrider at 58mph. I can really see the concern this wake would cause... :rolleye1

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Here is a monster wake coming off a 30' twin engine 600hp gas guzzling shoreline eroding loon killing (8500lb dry weight) bowrider at 58mph. I can really see the concern this wake would cause...

298SS, right? Nice riding, great looking, nicely priced, and often overlooked boat. A friend of mine that's been in the industry for 45 years told me that it has the finest riding hull of any 30 footer he's ever been aboard. He's on his second Monterrey, a 330.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Dave R

298SS, right? Nice riding, great looking, nicely priced, and often overlooked boat. A friend of mine that's been in the industry for 45 years told me that it has the finest riding hull of any 30 footer he's ever been aboard. He's on his second Monterrey, a 330.

You got it! Great boat. I love the 330SY, just more boat than I need. If I did not have a house on the water that would be my choice.

For comparison, here is what 18mph looks like in a 22' bowrider with 260hp and no ballast. This one is a Rinker 226 R1. Which one looks like the loon killer? Cal, got any extra BBQ sauce?

[Rattlesnake Guy]

If you have ever seen the waves that mother nature whips up several times a year and believe that boat wakes kill loons it is hard to imagine that any of them could possibly survive.

If we could just figure out how to disguise boat wakes to look like little natural waves.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

"...If we could just figure out how to disguise boat wakes to look like little natural waves..."

Loons select nest sites that are free of Mother Nature's biggest waves; unfortunately, mankind creates its own tsunamis for these birds.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

http://www.snopes.com/photos/boats/drugrunner.asp

Snopes says I'm not "pushing" anything. It's a drug-running boat—just more stealthy than the usual replica drug-boat of the average Winnipesaukee cowboy.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"...ALL high horsepower boats create big wakes...".

NorTech, capable of 130-MPH on Winnipesaukee, is a tunnel hull design: it has "high horsepower".

It is similar to the tunnel hull boat that passed me at about 110-MPH (too close to my dock) and a Hobie (too close to the Hobie, which had five young girls on it).

It was remarkable to see the water left with no wake at all! Tunnel hulls ride on a cushion of air, unlike most other designs.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"...They BOTH kill loons and pollute the lake..."

1) Loon nestlings are not necessarily the victims of excess speed on the lake.

Like the endangered manatee elsewhere or the not-so-endangered diver at Winnipesaukee, Loons are exposed to excessive speedsters when surfacing for air.

2) How can a polluter with 2000 horsepower can be compared to one with 20 horsepower? The volume of fresh air converted to smoke is far greater with big engines. (For anyone nearby or downwind—particularly on a calm day—or near one idling at a dock or restaurant).

3) If any horsepower-restriction approach is worthwhile for Winnipesaukee, a NASCAR solution would be more efficient: restrict the air-intake diameter.

However, a speed limit is easier to monitor (by cellphone-equipped boater-victims) and enforce (by officers), particularly at night.

[Orion]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

If you have ever seen the waves that mother nature whips up several times a year and believe that boat wakes kill loons it is hard to imagine that any of them could possibly survive.

If we could just figure out how to disguise boat wakes to look like little natural waves.

Just one point, not pro or con speed limits, but to clarify the impact of big wakes. Natural waves can be bigger than most wakes, but they occur in the same areas of the lake for the most part. It takes a long reach for the wind to wip up the big waves, as Rattlesnake Island dwellers (north side) well know. The problem is when the unnatural waves are generated in areas that loons choose to nest in which are protected inlets that don't get these natural waves because the wind doesn't have the long stretch of water to whip them up.

[Mashugana]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If you stop analyzing and comparing everything I say with a microscope you will not have these problems. You are comparing every post in hopes of catching me in a lie. You will NEVER catch me in a lie because I am giving you my honest opinions.

Bear Islander. You are the only one who knows if you are giving us your honest opinions or not. We may not agree with your opinions or we can point out the fallacy in your opinions but they are YOUR opinions. I don't think anyone can argue that point.

Readers should examine everything you say because you also post what you claim to be facts not only your opinions. Some of us believe that your facts (or should I say opinions) are not always accurate. Sometimes it appears like your "opinion" changes. Of course you have the right to change your mind but you can not change facts. You can twist them. You just do not like it when contradictions of your facts, or should I say opinions, are pointed out.

You can lie about facts.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Mashugana

Bear Islander. You are the only one who knows if you are giving us your honest opinions or not. We may not agree with your opinions or we can point out the fallacy in your opinions but they are YOUR opinions. I don't think anyone can argue that point.

Readers should examine everything you say because you also post what you claim to be facts not only your opinions. Some of us believe that your facts (or should I say opinions) are not always accurate. Sometimes it appears like your "opinion" changes. Of course you have the right to change your mind but you can not change facts. You can twist them. You just do not like it when contradictions of your facts, or should I say opinions, are pointed out.

You can lie about facts.

I really don't think I claim opinions to be facts. Perhaps I should be more careful to add "in my opinion", however in most cases I think the context does this already. If I post "Bush is an idiot" that is obviously opinion even if I don't specify. It could be that a critical reader is finding fault where none exists.

My opinions on the subjects of boats, speed and horsepower have not changed in years. Any evidence to the contrary is either my fault in not expressing myself well, or the readers fault in over analyzing what I say. Recently Hazelnut thought I was being inconsistent because in one post I claimed cabin cruisers were killing loons, and in another post I claimed GFBLs were killing loons. He made quite a thing about it not realizing the (to me) obvious answer that both are true.

Do you go over the posts of speed limit opponents as carefully as you go over mine? Are you as quick to find "inconsistencies"? Do you make as big a deal out of any perceived error?

I think there is a natural human tendency to think that those that agree with us must be telling the truth, and those that disagree with us must be lying.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The few that own these expensive, highly polluting, global warming, gas hogs, fly around the lake at speeds up to 130 mph scaring the living hell out of family boaters. They have no concept of how many small boaters, including children's campers, they are keeping off of the water.

Here is the direct quote in question. Don't you think any reasonable person would deduce from this comment that you are saying that there are boats flying around the lake, speeding, some of them doing 130mph, terrorizing families.

Your rebuttal is hysterical by the way BI. Bill Clinton could take lessons. "I did not have relations with that woman." Actually it's more like Clemens, we must have all misremembered your post.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Here is the direct quote in question. Don't you think any reasonable person would deduce from this comment that you are saying that there are boats flying around the lake, speeding, some of them doing 130mph, terrorizing families.

Your rebuttal is hysterical by the way BI. Bill Clinton could take lessons. "I did not have relations with that woman." Actually it's more like Clemens, we must have all misremembered your post.

Except my statement is accurate.

Funny perhaps, but 100% accurate.

[luckypete]

Greetings all,

OK... now I want everyone to take a deep breath...go ahead...I'll wait.....now, don't you feel better? No, ok let's try another one....that's good....breathe in...hold it....slow exhale....nice. There, now that the blood pressure is under control, I have a proposal. It may sound crazy at first, but Bear with me. (how did you like the pun?)

There's a little lake just north of Winni that goes by the name of Squam. I understand that there are certain "restrictions" on that body of water which are appealing to some and not so appealing to others. Whether it's size restrictions on boats, conditional land use permits or whatever, it sounds like a nice quiet, slow, safe and serene body of water. No GFBL's (what does that stand for by the way?), no kayakers in immediate danger of being....of being...I don't know, what are kayakers in immediate danger of again? The loons up there, I am told, are much more...what's the word?... Loonish than they are on Winni! And yes, whether you believe it or not, the little children up there are well above average. Doesn't it sound like a dream? Hmmm...come on, I know some of you feel that way right? Well here's my idea.

Leave! If other people are having too much fun, or being silly or enjoying themselves in a way that you find unpalatable, just remove yourself from that environment. It's simple really. Put up the old For Sale sign, put your stuff in a boat and go! Just head north, buy a place on Squam or Rust Pond or Mirror lake or Beach Pond or wherever. All of these places are beautiful and maybe more to your liking. No....are you sure? I'm serious, I'll think you'll be happier there. Are you sure you really want to stay on the big lake? I mean, when it gets really windy, the waves can get scary out there. Perhaps something a little less intimidating would be more to your liking.

Seriously, 99% of the folks operating a boat on the lake are doing so in a safe manner. So what is really getting under you skin is the so called "one percenters". And guess what, there is no legislation or enforcement that will ever keep us 100% safe. Welcome to life!

[Islander]

Originally Posted by luckypete

Greetings all,

OK... now I want everyone to take a deep breath...go ahead...I'll wait.....now, don't you feel better? No, ok let's try another one....that's good....breathe in...hold it....slow exhale....nice. There, now that the blood pressure is under control, I have a proposal. It may sound crazy at first, but Bear with me. (how did you like the pun?)

There's a little lake just north of Winni that goes by the name of Squam. I understand that there are certain "restrictions" on that body of water which are appealing to some and not so appealing to others. Whether it's size restrictions on boats, conditional land use permits or whatever, it sounds like a nice quiet, slow, safe and serene body of water. No GFBL's (what does that stand for by the way?), no kayakers in immediate danger of being....of being...I don't know, what are kayakers in immediate danger of again? The loons up there, I am told, are much more...what's the word?... Loonish than they are on Winni! And yes, whether you believe it or not, the little children up there are well above average. Doesn't it sound like a dream? Hmmm...come on, I know some of you feel that way right? Well here's my idea.

Leave! If other people are having too much fun, or being silly or enjoying themselves in a way that you find unpalatable, just remove yourself from that environment. It's simple really. Put up the old For Sale sign, put your stuff in a boat and go! Just head north, buy a place on Squam or Rust Pond or Mirror lake or Beach Pond or wherever. All of these places are beautiful and maybe more to your liking. No....are you sure? I'm serious, I'll think you'll be happier there. Are you sure you really want to stay on the big lake? I mean, when it gets really windy, the waves can get scary out there. Perhaps something a little less intimidating would be more to your liking.

Seriously, 99% of the folks operating a boat on the lake are doing so in a safe manner. So what is really getting under you skin is the so called "one percenters". And guess what, there is no legislation or enforcement that will ever keep us 100% safe. Welcome to life!

Pete you are so right. Squam is such a wonderful place. However it seems you don't know the good news, we are soon to have those "restrictions" right here on Winnipesaukee. So there is no need to move! It will be wonderful! Aren't we Lucky Pete?

[Airwaves]

Hey Islander! Here are two of my favorite restrictions on Squam! This is what happens when common sense lawmaking is allowed to be replaced by fear mongering and the desire by a few landowners to keep "undesirables" away!

Squam Lake - Holderness/Ashland
RSA 270:74, IV - Skicraft banned 10/01/88.
RSA 270:77 - No person shall, at any time, place in, on, use or operate any houseboat, on Squam Lake.

270:73 Definitions.
V. "Ski craft'' means any motorized watercraft or private boat which is less than 13 feet in length as manufactured, is capable of exceeding a speed of 20 miles per hour, and has the capacity to carry not more than the operator and one other person while in operation. The term includes a jet ski, surf ski, fun ski, or other similar device. "Ski craft'' does not include any watercraft or boat with twin hulls and which is greater than 11 feet long, greater than 5 feet wide, and powered by an outboard motor

270-A:1 Definitions.
II. "Houseboat'' means any ship, boat, raft, float, catamaran or marine craft of any description upon or within which are located sleeping and toilet facilities, regardless of whether such facilities are of a permanent or temporary nature.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Islander

Pete you are so right. Squam is such a wonderful place. However it seems you don't know the good news, we are soon to have those "restrictions" right here on Winnipesaukee. So there is no need to move! It will be wonderful! Aren't we Lucky Pete?

Yeah, right. We'll also see Indians (sorry - Native Americans) traveling to the Weirs in their birch bark canoes, setting up fishing nets. If you look up in the sky, you might even see a pig fly by. Ain't gonna happen in this lifetime or ever.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by luckypete

Greetings all,
Seriously, 99% of the folks operating a boat on the lake are doing so in a safe manner. So what is really getting under you skin is the so called "one percenters". And guess what, there is no legislation or enforcement that will ever keep us 100% safe. Welcome to life!

I happen to enjoy both lakes - and as a NH resident, I believe I have the legal right to do so. New Hampshire RSA 270:1:II states in part: “. . . it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances.”

I have just as much right to safely kayak on Winni as I do on Squam, but it has been my experience that I am less safe on Winni, due mostly to the high speeds of some powerboats. Whether you or others believe it or not, some people on Winni operated their powerboats at speeds that are beyond their ability to spot smaller boats (like kayaks) in time. My 150 foot zone has been violated by some of these people - not intentially, but just because they were traveling too fast.

99% of the folks on Winni are not operating their boats in a safe manner, at least not 100% of the time.

People on this forum keep claiming that I am exaggerating, or that I can't tell when a boat is going faster then 45mph, or that I can't judge distances. Yet no one on this forum has had the guts to borrow a kayak and go out on the main lake with me.

If you guys would just experience the lake from my perspective once, perhaps you would finally believe me. And you might even agree that perhaps we do need a speed limit. The truth is that it is not as safe on Winni as you think - at least not for paddlers.

[Gilligan]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I have just as much right to safely kayak on Winni as I do on Squam, but it has been my experience that I am less safe on Winni, due mostly to the high speeds of some powerboats. Whether you or others believe it or not, some people on Winni operated their powerboats at speeds that are beyond their ability to spot smaller boats (like kayaks) in time. My 150 foot zone has been violated by some of these people - not intentially, but just because they were traveling too fast.

99% of the folks on Winni are not operating their boats in a safe manner, at least not 100% of the time.

Where is my calculator. Less than 100% of the time there are 99% of boaters that operate unsafely. I'll have to work on that to fully comprehend the implications.

I suggest you contact Marine Patrol. One of them on a Sea Doo following you from a distance could bag all those 150' violators. You seem to be a magnet for them. The word will spread quickly and those that still break the law will face the consequences while you feel safer. Of course you could help your situation by making yourself more visible.

Evenstar, I seem to remember that someone did offer to go kayak with you this coming season.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

Where is my calculator. Less than 100% of the time there are 99% of boaters that operate unsafely. I'll have to work on that to fully comprehend the implications.

This isn't rocket science. My point was that a lot more than 1% of the boaters on Winni are operating unsafely - and few of those who do generally operate safely, do so 100% of the time.

I suggest you contact Marine Patrol. One of them on a Sea Doo following you from a distance could bag all those 150' violators. You seem to be a magnet for them. The word will spread quickly and those that still break the law will face the consequences while you feel safer. Of course you could help your situation by making yourself more visible.

Why is it that you feel the need to pick my posts apart, without fully reading them? I've posted over and over in this forum that I am not the only paddler who has had close calls with high-speed power boats. I've also posted over and over - and even used large red text - that my kayak and I are very visible. The only reason that I'm not seen is because some powerboat operators are not paying attention - or they are traveling faster than their ability.

Evenstar, I seem to remember that someone did offer to go kayak with you this coming season.

Let me make it easy for you. In the "Lt. Dunleavy" thread, Mee-n-Mac made an off-handed joke that "we go out paddling for a day and see how many close calls we have." I replied to Mee-n-Mac in the very next post - #348, where I wrote, "I’ve offered to kayak on Winni with anyone / anytime (well, once I complete my spring semester). But be prepared for a real workout, as I generally paddle 16 to 20 miles in an afternoon, and I won’t be hugging the shoreline."

He never responded top my offer - nor has anyone else. Perhaps it was the fact that I do not hug the shoreline like he does. I made this a standing offer a couple of years ago - and my offer still stands, but so far no one on this forum has had the guts to actually go with me on the main lake in a kayak. And yet you guys call me "afraid".

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This isn't rocket science. My point was that a lot more than 1% of the boaters on Winni are operating unsafely - and few of those who do generally operate safely, do so 100% of the time.
Why is it that you feel the need to pick my posts apart, without fully reading them? I've posted over and over in this forum that I am not the only paddler who has had close calls with high-speed power boats. I've also posted over and over - and even used large red text - that my kayak and I are very visible. The only reason that I'm not seen is because some powerboat operators are not paying attention - or they are traveling faster than their ability.
Let me make it easy for you. In the "Lt. Dunleavy" thread, Mee-n-Mac made an off-handed joke that "we go out paddling for a day and see how many close calls we have." I replied to Mee-n-Mac in the very next post - #348, where I wrote, "I’ve offered to kayak on Winni with anyone / anytime (well, once I complete my spring semester). But be prepared for a real workout, as I generally paddle 16 to 20 miles in an afternoon, and I won’t be hugging the shoreline."
He never responded top my offer - nor has anyone else. Perhaps it was the fact that I do not hug the shoreline like he does. I made this a standing offer a couple of years ago - and my offer still stands, but so far no one on this forum has had the guts to actually go with me on the main lake in a kayak. And yet you guys call me "afraid".

I'm sorry to say this but the majority of people here probably think that you're not that smart about your recreation choices. While you are at it why not go for a swim across the broads. I just don't see this as a speed limit issue. I think you nailed it on the head when you said: "The only reason that I'm not seen is because some powerboat operators are not paying attention."
A sped limit won't change that. So as far as I see it you are deliberately putting yourself in harms way. I believe that the operators of every vessel are required to keep a sharp lookout but that is not the case. I know you feel passionately about your right to paddle across the broads but even the swimmers do something to draw attention to themselves. Most "Broads" swimmers swim off a boat and don't venture more than a few feet from it. Others who have done the whole length of the lake usually have an entourage of support boats with them. You Kayaking across the broads isn't much different IMO. I think most Marine Patrol officers would caution against it, not because of speed, but because of traffic and inattentive boaters. However, being that it is not illegal they couldn't stop you. I bet if you asked them they would prefer it if you didn't do it. A speed limit won't change their mind. With that said why couldn't you make special arrangements with a chase boat when you decide to take on this risky endeavor. Any way you slice it speed limit or no speed limit you are taking a large risk when you kayak across the equivalent of I-93 on lake winni.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This isn't rocket science. My point was that a lot more than 1% of the boaters on Winni are operating unsafely - and few of those who do generally operate safely, do so 100% of the time.


Why is it that you feel the need to pick my posts apart, without fully reading them? I've posted over and over in this forum that I am not the only paddler who has had close calls with high-speed power boats. I've also posted over and over - and even used large red text - that my kayak and I are very visible. The only reason that I'm not seen is because some powerboat operators are not paying attention - or they are traveling faster than their ability.


Let me make it easy for you. In the "Lt. Dunleavy" thread, Mee-n-Mac made an off-handed joke that "we go out paddling for a day and see how many close calls we have." I replied to Mee-n-Mac in the very next post - #348, where I wrote, "I’ve offered to kayak on Winni with anyone / anytime (well, once I complete my spring semester). But be prepared for a real workout, as I generally paddle 16 to 20 miles in an afternoon, and I won’t be hugging the shoreline."

He never responded top my offer - nor has anyone else. Perhaps it was the fact that I do not hug the shoreline like he does. I made this a standing offer a couple of years ago - and my offer still stands, but so far no one on this forum has had the guts to actually go with me on the main lake in a kayak. And yet you guys call me "afraid".

I think that about 99.657% of boaters realize that it's just not a prudent thing to do in the Main Lake. Perhaps we need to enact some rules and regulations, for safety's sake of course

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_New...kayaking/7360/


Rescuers cite need to regulate kayaking

Published: April 30, 2008 at 10:24 AM

WASHINGTON, April 30 (UPI) -- The growing popularity of kayaking in the United States is prompting rescue organizations to call for laws requiring kayakers to take boating safety courses.

The head of the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators says an explosion in the number of kayakers along the nation's waterways has become a "huge drain" on rescue teams, USA Today reported Wednesday.

"Paddling represents our greatest risk in the recreational boating community," says John Fetterman, who is also a member of the Maine Marine Patrol.

Fetterman told USA Today he supports legislation to require kayakers to take courses that teach them the basics of water safety.

No government agency tracks the number of kayak-related rescues nationally each year but the U.S. Coast Guard does track boating fatalities. Twenty-seven people died kayaking in 2006, the most recent year for which numbers are available, USA Today says.

Experts says one of the reasons for the sport's popularity is that kayaks are relatively inexpensive and can be hauled and used with ease."

[Seaplane Pilot]

You know, every time I'm on an on-ramp to a major highway in NH (Rt. 93, 95, 89) I see a sign that says something like: No horses, bicycles, scooters, etc. They put these signs up for safety reasons. Now, in my opinion, Winnipesaukee is the lake equivalent of a major highway, and kayaks, canoes, paddle boats, etc., are the water equivalent of scooters, bicycles and horses. Therefore, I believe that we should ban the use of kayaks, canoes and paddle boats on Winnipesaukee (for their own safety) and force them to utilize the lake equivalent of secondary roads, i.e smaller lakes and ponds. This sounds logical and fair to me. Time to contact the Senators and Reps to have them introduce a bill. The precedence is certainly in place for this to pass.

[B R]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

You know, every time I'm on an on-ramp to a major highway in NH (Rt. 93, 95, 89) I see a sign that says something like: No horses, bicycles, scooters, etc. They put these signs up for safety reasons. Now, in my opinion, Winnipesaukee is the lake equivalent of a major highway, and kayaks, canoes, paddle boats, etc., are the water equivalent of scooters, bicycles and horses. Therefore, I believe that we should ban the use of kayaks, canoes and paddle boats on Winnipesaukee (for their own safety) and force them to utilize the lake equivalent of secondary roads, i.e smaller lakes and ponds. This sounds logical and fair to me. Time to contact the Senators and Reps to have them introduce a bill. The precedence is certainly in place for this to pass.

a compromise might be to have a 150' law in place. for their own safety and the safety of others, they cannot go more than 150' from shore. boats can't go more than headway speed when that close to shore so no fear of speeding boats.

[Cal]

That makes too much sense

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Now, in my opinion, Winnipesaukee is the lake equivalent of a major highway, and kayaks, canoes, paddle boats, etc., are the water equivalent of scooters, bicycles and horses.

That's that problem! We have let high-speed power boaters turn our largest lake into the "equivalent of a major highway."[/quote]

Therefore, I believe that we should ban the use of kayaks, canoes and paddle boats on Winnipesaukee (for their own safety) and force them to utilize the lake equivalent of secondary roads, i.e smaller lakes and ponds. This sounds logical and fair to me. . . The precedence is certainly in place for this to pass.

And what precedence would that be??? The risk of injury or death for powerboaters is much higher than for paddlers. My sea kayak is made for large bodies of water - not for ponds. Name some small lakes and ponds in NH whern I can paddle 20 miles without going around in circles.

My kayak doesn't polute, moves through the water nearly silently, doesn't create damaging wakes - and I am not a risk to others on the lake. And you guys want to ban us!

Originally Posted by B R

a compromise might be to have a 150' law in place. for their own safety and the safety of others, they cannot go more than 150' from shore. boats can't go more than headway speed when that close to shore so no fear of speeding boats.

That's not a compromise. And I have had speeding boats violate my 150 foot zone when I've been within 150 feet of shore - since they can travel at unlimited speeds at 151 feet from the shore.

Other than being at risk from powerboats, how is my paddling on the lake unsafe for me - and I would love to know how my kayak and I are making the lake unsafe for others. Please explain that statement.

Originally Posted by Cal

That makes too much sense

That makes absolutely no sense and is probably unconstitutional - you can a type of vessel from a recreational body of water, just so others can continue to travel at unlimited speeds.

A speed limit however makes total sense - and doesn't ban anyone.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Gee, maybe we should just shut down the major interstate highways as well. Let's go back to horse and buggy travel on dirt paths and cross the oceans in sailing vessels vs. airplanes. It's called progress.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Evenstar
That makes absolutely no sense and is probably unconstitutional - you can a type of vessel from a recreational body of water, just so others can continue to travel at unlimited speeds.

Actually here is a link to a list of recreational bodies of water in New Hampshire that are restricted for use by particular types of vessel etc. So if it's okay to ban or limit various boats that are propelled by an engine why is it unconstitutional to do the same with human powered vessels?

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

Oh, btw when I printed this out it was 20 PAGES LONG!

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Gee, maybe we should just shut down the major interstate highways as well. Let's go back to horse and buggy travel on dirt paths and cross the oceans in sailing vessels vs. airplanes. It's called progress.

And progress often requires new regulations - the laws have changed / are changing.

There is nothing old-fashioned about me or my kayak. My sea kayak is made out of a high-tech, light-weight composite material, called Airalite - that wasn't even available a few years ago. Even my paddle is high-tech. And, when the water is cold, I wear a high-tech breathable drysuit.

Perhaps you are the one who needs to adjust the this new eco-friendly world. Gas-gusseling high-speed boats are so out there. High-tech paddling is the new in thing.

Originally Posted by B R

i remember naked people in a canoe just last year (not 30 or 40 years ago) that endangered a boating family last year. if this were law, that probably doesn't happen.

That's really stretching things - as far as I know, it is just as possible to be naked in a powerboat or to be naked within 150 feet of shore. And how was the boating family actually "endangered" by this? In all my paddling, I have never once encountered a naked paddler.

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Not only are YOU self centered but you fail at comprehension. I'll slow it down for you. A speed limit does not equate to attention. A boat traveling at 45, 35, or 25 operated by an inattentive operator is 100 times more dangerous than a boat operating at 75MPH with an attentive operator. You obviously have ZERO high speed boating experience so there is absolutely no way you could or would ever comprehend how it works. I'll try to spell it out. Boaters operating at high speeds usually focus all of their attention on the task at hand and keep the sharpest of sharp lookouts. Casual boaters cruising at or around 25-30MPH are much more likely to take a casual approach and get lulled into a sense of security while they carry on and converse, sightsee, etc and end up failing to keep a sharp watch.

Haselnut, are you just on this forum to insult others?

Excuse me; I have no trouble at comprehension. I’m likely smarter than you, so don’t treat me like an idiot just because I happen to disagree with you.

Now let me explain something to you. Inattention above 45 mph is more dangerous than intention at slower speeds – simply because you are traveling faster – anyone with any sense at all knows that. Show me any scientific evidence that proves that higher speeds actually increase a person’s attention span. A person who is inattentive at 35mph will still be just as inattentive at 70mph.

How many powerboat operators have Attention Deficit Disorder? How many consume alcohol while they are boating? How many have less than perfect vision? If all high-speed operators are so acutely attentive, why don’t they see me in time to stay clear of my 150 foot zone?

I contend that slowing down increases your ability to see better – if that isn’t true, then why can I see other kayaks a mile off, while operators of boats traveling at high speeds seem to have so much trouble seeing me?

Sorry I'll never ever agree that kayaking in the broads is wise speed limit or no speed limit. I think it is dumb actually. Tell me you can't get a good workout hugging the shoreline? Comparing your craft to powerboats is absolutely ridiculous. Your profile in the water is much closer to a swimmer. If you can't understand that there is no point in even discussing rational thoughts with you. Just like swimming in the broads alone is stupid, so is kayaking in the broads. There is a place for everyone on the lake to do their favorite activity.

Hazelnut, you’re not “sorry,” so please quit posting that you are. But you are a powerboat snob, if you actually think that it isn't “a real boat" unless it has a motor! My kayak is actually more sea worthy than many powerboats.

There is nothing “stupid” about taking a SEA KAYAK across the Broads – my kayak is designed to handle large waves, and I’m very experienced – and have all the proper gear. Have you ever even been in a sea kayak? Do you even know what one looks like? “You obviously have ZERO” sea kayaking “experience so there is absolutely no way you could or would ever comprehend how it works.”

You think everyone else is selfish yet you are the only one trying to take away somebodies activities. Coves are for skiing, shoreline for kayaks, paddleboats and canoes, large open spaces for speed boats. How is that not sharing.

Who gave you the right to divide up the lake, and to exclude others from using ‘your part’??? The main lake is not and never will be the private domain of powerboats.

All a speed limit does is make you slow down to what the state has determined is a safer speed for others on the lake – it doesn’t kick you off the lake, of permit you from using any part of the lake – and you think that is unfair, while stating that paddlers should not be able to use the entire lake just so you can travel at unlimited speeds on it. Others, who I was replying to here, have stated outright that kayaks should not even be permitted on the lake at all!

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Haselnut, are you just on this forum to insult others?
Excuse me; I have no trouble at comprehension. I’m likely smarter than you, so don’t treat me like an idiot just because I happen to disagree with you.
Now let me explain something to you. Inattention above 45 mph is more dangerous than intention at slower speeds – simply because you are traveling faster – anyone with any sense at all knows that. Show me any scientific evidence that proves that higher speeds actually increase a person’s attention span. A person who is inattentive at 35mph will still be just as inattentive at 70mph.
How many powerboat operators have Attention Deficit Disorder? How many consume alcohol while they are boating? How many have less than perfect vision? If all high-speed operators are so acutely attentive, why don’t they see me in time to stay clear of my 150 foot zone?
I contend that slowing down increases your ability to see better – if that isn’t true, then why can I see other kayaks a mile off, while operators of boats traveling at high speeds seem to have so much trouble seeing me?
Hazelnut, you’re not “sorry,” so please quit posting that you are. But you are a powerboat snob, if you actually think that it isn't “a real boat" unless it has a motor! My kayak is actually more sea worthy than many powerboats.
There is nothing “stupid” about taking a SEA KAYAK across the Broads – my kayak is designed to handle large waves, and I’m very experienced – and have all the proper gear. Have you ever even been in a sea kayak? Do you even know what one looks like? “You obviously have ZERO” sea kayaking “experience so there is absolutely no way you could or would ever comprehend how it works.”
Who gave you the right to divide up the lake, and to exclude others from using ‘your part’??? The main lake is not and never will be the private domain of powerboats.
All a speed limit does is make you slow down to what the state has determined is a safer speed for others on the lake – it doesn’t kick you off the lake, of permit you from using any part of the lake – and you think that is unfair, while stating that paddlers should not be able to use the entire lake just so you can travel at unlimited speeds on it. Others, who I was replying to here, have stated outright that kayaks should not even be permitted on the lake at all!

Yeah that's it You're smarter, and stronger than everyone on this forum
Evanstar you are so far gone down the Self Centered highway you can't even see how Self Centered you are. I do Kayak, actually I do it often. I also powerboat often. My point was that the lake is such a large resource that there is enough room for everyone. But you are so blinded and narrow minded you fail to yield the point that you could keep to the shores and allow power boaters their space. Just as I don't tear around coves when people are water skiing. I also steer well clear of sailboats, whether in groups or alone.

All I'm saying is that this lake is unique in that it offers recreation for all. You can't handle that though, you want want want. You also think you will be all of a sudden magically safer after the speed limit. I continue to stand by my post that it is dumb to kayak in the broads speed limit or no speed limit. And you're right about that I make zero apologies about that statement. As for me being a power boat snob, laughable. I love canoing and kayaking, there is no better way to see the lake. I just do it safely, for my safety and that of the power boaters. You are a power boat hater so you think your rights trump everyone else's.

Just a bit of advice Mr He-man Smartypants, there will always be someone who is smarter, stronger, faster than you. That attitude will get you in some pretty big trouble some day. You know nothing about most of these posters and I've seen you insult them regularly, most recently:

... so I’m probably in better shape that most of you.
and
I’m likely smarter than you,


All that sounds like is that you still live at home and have a lot to learn.

[VtSteve]

Isn't youth grand?

No comments on this one?


http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_New...kayaking/7360/


Rescuers cite need to regulate kayaking

Published: April 30, 2008 at 10:24 AM



We just had a couple of overturned kayakers rescued this week, they were drunk.

[EricP]

I'd like a law that states if you're going to kayak across the broads, or other large congested areas of the lake, you must have a flag that sticks up 3' from either the bow or stern of your kayak so you can be seen from further than 150' away by other recrerational users of Lake Winnipesaukee.

[Mashugana]

Originally Posted by EricP

I'd like a law that states if you're going to kayak across the broads, or other large congested areas of the lake, you must have a flag that sticks up 3' from either the bow or stern of your kayak so you can be seen from further than 150' away by other recrerational users of Lake Winnipesaukee.

What a great idea EdicP. A flag with it's base at least 3 feet above the kayak would be excellent. Evenstar would be seen from even further away with a flag like that. That certainly would help her feel safer. An excellent solution.

I wonder how they will toss out your idea. They will say that it won't work. Then they may call it or you idiotic and make HB847 appear to be the only solution.

I say good for you. EricP should get an award for such a great idea. A flag for kayaks so they can be seen from a longer distance.

By the way, does Evenstar represent the average kayaker on the big lake?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by EricP

I'd like a law that states if you're going to kayak across the broads, or other large congested areas of the lake, you must have a flag that sticks up 3' from either the bow or stern of your kayak so you can be seen from further than 150' away by other recrerational users of Lake Winnipesaukee.

EricP, why do you keep bringing this up? You just posted this same thing two weeks ago in the "HB 847 Meeting ..." thread, where I thought that I had explained why this is not a good idea - but you neglected to even respond to my reply. Here's exactly what I posted earlier:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

How many times do I have to explain this? Why don’t you people stick to what you know?

A sea kayak is long and narrow. My kayak is only 22 inches wide! I control it with thigh braces . . . and by leaning (which is called “putting it on edge”). Paddling a sea kayak is a constant balancing act.
A flag that would be large enough and tall enough to actually make a difference in my visibility would make my kayak very unstable – and it would make my kayak practically impossible to steer in even a moderate breeze, since it would make my kayak like a weather-vane.

My kayak is very visible – its upper hull is bright red and its lower hull is white. My friend’s kayak it bright yellow. My paddle blades are bright orange and my PFD is red.

We are extremely visible!

Yet some high speed boats have still violated our 150 foot zone – in the middle of a sunny afternoon – because they were going too fast and they didn’t see us in time. That is the problem.

In decent visibility I can spot most other kayaks up to a mile away – but I’m only going about 5 mph.This is not about me being unsafe or doing unsafe things - this is about high speed boat operators who will not slow down to a safe speed without the state enacting a speed limit.

I'll also add that a flag would make rolls, and self-rescues impossible to do. And I never go out on the main lake when visibility is not good. Oh, and my bikini is bright blue - maybe I need to get a fluorescent orange one, with strobe lights. (Sorry, but I just completed a 2-hour international law final, so I'm a bit giddy right now.)

Originally Posted by Mashugana

What a great idea EdicP. . . . By the way, does Evenstar represent the average kayaker on the big lake?

Probably not, but there's no way of knowing, since most are not going to post on such a hostle forum. (read what I posted above, for why a flag isn't a "great idea"

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Evanstar read the title of YOUR post #189 posted just yesterday at 9:18am. It speaks volumes about your character.

No it doesn't - I was responding directly to three people who posted that kayaks should either be banned from the lake or prevented from venturing more than 150 from shore. In my opinion, their only reasoning was so that they could continue to travel at unlimited speeds on the lake - this is a pretty selfish reason to ban any type of boat (and before you jump all over me again - a speed limit doesn't ban any type of boat).

I have kayaked on a lake with an enforced speed limit - it's not perfect, because there are always people who violate laws, but there's a huge difference in the safety factor for paddlers.

I am not a selfish person, but I will stand up for my right to use the entire lake - since there is no reason that an experienced sea kayaker should not be able to do so. There are only a couple of lakes in this state where I can paddle for 20 miles without going around in circles.

[B R]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

That's not a compromise. And I have had speeding boats violate my 150 foot zone when I've been within 150 feet of shore - since they can travel at unlimited speeds at 151 feet from the shore.

Other than being at risk from powerboats, how is my paddling on the lake unsafe for me - and I would love to know how my kayak and I are making the lake unsafe for others. Please explain that statement.


That makes absolutely no sense and is probably unconstitutional - you can a type of vessel from a recreational body of water, just so others can continue to travel at unlimited speeds.

A speed limit however makes total sense - and doesn't ban anyone.

i remember naked people in a canoe just last year (not 30 or 40 years ago) that endangered a boating family last year. if this were law, that probably doesn't happen.

[Chris Craft]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I happen to enjoy both lakes - and as a NH resident, I believe I have the legal right to do so. New Hampshire RSA 270:1:II states in part: “. . . it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances.”

I have just as much right to safely kayak on Winni as I do on Squam, but it has been my experience that I am less safe on Winni, due mostly to the high speeds of some powerboats. Whether you or others believe it or not, some people on Winni operated their powerboats at speeds that are beyond their ability to spot smaller boats (like kayaks) in time. My 150 foot zone has been violated by some of these people - not intentially, but just because they were traveling too fast.

99% of the folks on Winni are not operating their boats in a safe manner, at least not 100% of the time.

People on this forum keep claiming that I am exaggerating, or that I can't tell when a boat is going faster then 45mph, or that I can't judge distances. Yet no one on this forum has had the guts to borrow a kayak and go out on the main lake with me.

If you guys would just experience the lake from my perspective once, perhaps you would finally believe me. And you might even agree that perhaps we do need a speed limit. The truth is that it is not as safe on Winni as you think - at least not for paddlers.

Tell ya what, you take a ride with me in a speed boat and I will go for a paddle with you. Would have to work out the date as I am building a house but I have a few friends on the lake that I am sure we can get you a ride. If you have a 2nd yak then I would go for a paddle with you. Who knows maybe you will change my opinion, maybe I will change yours. If not we will have a fun day.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Chris Craft

Tell ya what, you take a ride with me in a speed boat and I will go for a paddle with you. Would have to work out the date as I am building a house but I have a few friends on the lake that I am sure we can get you a ride. If you have a 2nd yak then I would go for a paddle with you. Who knows maybe you will change my opinion, maybe I will change yours. If not we will have a fun day.

Chris Craft, I only have one kayak (I’m a financially-challenged, full-time college student). But if you can borrow one, I would be totally willing. But, unless you have cold water gear, we’ll have to wait until late June for the water to be warm enough for you. I’m totally willing to ride in a speed boat on the lake, but that’s not necessary, since I have been in and have operated powerboats before, and I don’t have anything against powerboats. If you’re serious about this, and can rent or borrow a kayak, pm me and we can make plans to get together.

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I'm sorry to say this but the majority of people here probably think that you're not that smart about your recreation choices. While you are at it why not go for a swim across the broads.

Of course they don’t, because the majority on this forum are power boat operators – who don’t know anything about sea kayaks. Look, I’m not swimming across the lake – I’m using a boat just like everyone else on this forum. The only difference is that I can pick up my boat by myself and that it is human powered.

My sea kayak is designed especially for large bodies of water – so, there is nothing extreme about using it out on my state’s largest lake. I’m a collegiate athlete, and kayaking is one of the things I do to keep in top shape. My “non-smart” recreational choices also include collegiate sailing, and hiking, and cross-country skiing – so I’m probably in better shape that most of you. Only on this forum would a healthy form of recreation be considered to be less safe than speeding across a lake at unlimited speeds. Yeah, there’s no slant here!!!

I just don't see this as a speed limit issue. I think you nailed it on the head when you said:"The only reason that I'm not seen is because some powerboat operators are not paying attention."

This is very much a speed limit issue! Why didn’t you post my entire sentence, which concluded with “-or they are traveling faster than their ability.” ??? If high speed boats slowed down perhaps they would have time to see mean – then they could stay out of my 150 foot zone.

So as far as I see it you are deliberately putting yourself in harms way. I believe that the operators of every vessel are required to keep a sharp lookout but that is not the case. I know you feel passionately about your right to paddle across the broads but even the swimmers do something to draw attention to themselves. Most "Broads" swimmers swim off a boat and don't venture more than a few feet from it. You Kayaking across the broads isn't much different IMO.

Again, I’m not swimming across the lake. I’m in a boat the is just as much a boat as what you use on the lake.

I think most Marine Patrol officers would caution against it, not because of speed, but because of traffic and inattentive boaters. However, being that it is not illegal they couldn't stop you. I bet if you asked them they would prefer it if you didn't do it. A speed limit won't change their mind. With that said why couldn't you make special arrangements with a chase boat when you decide to take on this risky endeavor. Any way you slice it speed limit or no speed limit you are taking a large risk when you kayak across the equivalent of I-93 on lake winni.

Hazelnut - you basically just supported most of the reasons why we need a lake speed limit. Thanks for making my points for me. There is nothing risky about me taking my sea kayak across the lake – other than the fact that some power boat operators are traveling at speeds that make this unsafe for paddlers. I’m in great shape, I’m very experienced at kayaking, and I have all the proper equipment to do this safely. My kayak is 16 feet long and it is bright red, with a white hull – if someone can’t see me then they are going faster than their ability to see. In most conditions I can see another kayak up to a mile away.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I think that about 99.657% of boaters realize that it's just not a prudent thing to do in the Main Lake. Perhaps we need to enact some rules and regulations, for safety's sake of course

Why is it not prudent? (see my reply above)

There are people who always get in over their heads – due to inexperience and/or to not using/having the proper equipment – or to not paying attention to the weather. The same thing happens with hiking – but that doesn’t mean that hiking is unsafe.

How many of those rescues were in white-water or out in the ocean? How many were in cold water? How many of those paddlers were not wearing the proper gear? I would guarantee that only a tiny percentage of those rescues involved paddlers in sea kayaks.

I’ve taken coastal navigation and advanced paddling. I have all the proper gear and can do self-rescues. I even have CPR training – since I do my work study on the waterfront, instruction and overseeing the use of kayaks at my university. I have actually assisted a power boat that was in trouble – I have never needed to be rescued and I paddle hundreds of miles each year.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Chris Craft, I only have one kayak (I’m a financially-challenged, full-time college student). But if you can borrow one, I would be totally willing. But, unless you have cold water gear, we’ll have to wait until late June for the water to be warm enough for you. I’m totally willing to ride in a speed boat on the lake, but that’s not necessary, since I have been in and have operated powerboats before, and I don’t have anything against powerboats. If you’re serious about this, and can rent or borrow a kayak, pm me and we can make plans to get together.


[COLOR=black]Of course they don’t, because the majority on this forum are power boat operators – who don’t know anything about sea kayaks. Look, I’m not swimming across the lake – I’m using a boat just like everyone else on this forum. The only difference is that I can pick up my boat by myself and that it is human powered.
My sea kayak is designed especially for large bodies of water – so, there is nothing extreme about using it out on my state’s largest lake. I’m a collegiate athlete, and kayaking is one of the things I do to keep in top shape. My “non-smart” recreational choices also include collegiate sailing, and hiking, and cross-country skiing – so I’m probably in better shape that most of you. Only on this forum would a healthy form of recreation be considered to be less safe than speeding across a lake at unlimited speeds. Yeah, there’s no slant here!!!

This is very much a speed limit issue! Why didn’t you post my entire sentence, which concluded with “-or they are traveling faster than their ability.” ??? If high speed boats slowed down perhaps they would have time to see mean – then they could stay out of my 150 foot zone.

Again, I’m not swimming across the lake. I’m in a boat the is just as much a boat as what you use on the lake.
Hazelnut - you basically just supported most of the reasons why we need a lake speed limit. Thanks for making my points for me. There is nothing risky about me taking my sea kayak across the lake – other than the fact that some power boat operators are traveling at speeds that make this unsafe for paddlers. I’m in great shape, I’m very experienced at kayaking, and I have all the proper equipment to do this safely. [COLOR=black]My kayak is 16 feet long and it is bright red, with a white hull – if someone can’t see me then they are going faster than their ability to see. In most conditions I can see another kayak up to a mile away.[/COLOR
Why is it not prudent? (see my reply above)
Thee are people who always get in over their heads – due to inexperience and/or to not using/having the proper equipment – or to not paying attention to the weather. The same thing happens with hiking – but that doesn’t mean that hiking is unsafe.
How many of those rescues were in white-water or out in the ocean? How many were in cold water? How many of those paddlers were not wearing the proper gear? I would guarantee that only a tiny percentage of those rescues involved paddlers in sea kayaks.

I’ve taken coastal navigation and advanced paddling. I have all the proper gear and can do self-rescues. I even have CPR training – since I do my work study on the waterfront, instruction and overseeing the use of kayaks at my university. I have actually assisted a power boat that was in trouble – I have never needed to be rescued and I paddle hundreds of miles each year.

Not only are YOU self centered but you fail at comprehension.
I'll slow it down for you. A speed limit does not equate to attention. A boat traveling at 45, 35, or 25 operated by an inattentive operator is 100 times more dangerous than a boat operating at 75MPH with an attentive operator. You obviously have ZERO high speed boating experience so there is absolutely no way you could or would ever comprehend how it works. I'll try to spell it out. Boaters operating at high speeds usually focus all of their attention on the task at hand and keep the sharpest of sharp lookouts. Casual boaters cruising at or around 25-30MPH are much more likely to take a casual approach and get lulled into a sense of security while they carry on and converse, sightsee, etc and end up failing to keep a sharp watch. I've seen it and encountered it daily.
Sorry I'll never ever agree that kayaking in the broads is wise speed limit or no speed limit. I think it is dumb actually. Tell me you can't get a good workout hugging the shoreline? Comparing your craft to powerboats is absolutely ridiculous. Your profile in the water is much closer to a swimmer. If you can't understand that there is no point in even discussing rational thoughts with you. Just like swimming in the broads alone is stupid, so is kayaking in the broads. There is a place for everyone on the lake to do their favorite activity. You think everyone else is selfish yet you are the only one trying to take away somebodies activities. Coves are for skiing, shoreline for kayaks, paddleboats and canoes, large open spaces for speed boats. How is that not sharing. No, you want it all and if you can't have it you'll kick and scream and tell everyone else that they are wrong. The whole argument is ridiculous. If I saw a canoe in the broads I'd rescue them because I would be sure they'd be in trouble. A canoe is more visible than a kayak. Why would you even THINK to go out there. I'll make this SAME statement after the speed limit passes. The speed limit will not change any of the above statements.

[Chris Craft]

I have as of late had more problems with Kayaks then jet ski's. Come in to the harbor (ocean) and they are lined up tip to tail across the channel clogging it up so that I have no place to go. This is in a 45 mile per hour zone. That is unsafe but not because of my speed but because they are clogging up the entire channel. There is no need for it. By your rational Evenstar I should be able to drop my speed boat in any lake and drive it up to any posted speed limit. There are lakes that restrict our ability to go on them. So why is it so unfair for us to be able to safely use lake Winni?

As the poster above staited when some one drives a boat at a high rate of speed their attention goes to what they are doing. I can not tell you how many times that I have seen sail boats collide especially around race courses.

People are just way to anxious to legislate us trying to make it so that no one can ever get hurt/die. You can not do that. Live Free or die..... not any more I guess....