Life after speed limits

[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.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
“They spread the lie that it will cost money to enforce (it cost nothing).”

If you are a businessman you know that to be a false statement. If you are required to do more with less, then productivity suffers. In this case the more is not only setting up radar posts, but now developing and implementing Homeland Security regulations to get recreational boaters to keep an eye out along the coast for terrorists. Both of these things will either require more money, or diversion of manpower. Additional money is not coming down the pike to hire necesary personnel to man radar posts and develop and implement Homeland Security measures and not make cuts in safety patrols so your speed limit law will make the lake less safe. So by diverting resources it is costing us money because we will be getting less for our boating dollar.

Originally posted by Bear Islander
“They point to a study they think says nobody is speeding (it doesn't)”

No one was speeding, in this case going over the proposed speed limit, because HB847 is not law. Less than 1 percent of the boats clocked on Lake Winnipesaukee, in research conducted much in the same way this law would be enforced if it’s approved, were exceeding the proposed speed limit.

Originally posted by Bear Islander
“while forgetting the simple reality that if nobody is speeding, then nobody will be inconvenienced by this law.”

What it actually means is the proposed law is an unnecessary waste of diminishing Marine Patrol resources.

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.”

So you are NOT linking performance boats and children’s camps…again? And where did you get data about this 130mph boat scaring the living hell out of family boaters?

Originally posted by Bear Islander
“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.”

The wake of a boat up on plane, any boat up on plane is negligible. Can wakes kill a loon? Sure but the stress of someone deciding to paddle up to those pretty birds can kill them as well.

You have written about your dream to impose a horse power limit on the lake as well. If you think the wake of a boat on plane is an errosion problem think of what the wake created by an underpower boat will be! Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

As for water quality, as has been pointed out you keep targeting newer engines that are far less polluting than older engines. Maybe in BI’s world no one has a boat or engine older than a year but in the real world that is not the case.

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.”

I haven’t seen many exaggerations being made by opponents, we have been using statistics from New Hampshire to make our case, while on the other hand, well all you have to do is re-read your post to see the bold face lies and fear mongering in this discussion.

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.”

I’ve got to agree with you Hazelnut. Bear Islander just keeps churning out the fear in hopes that someone in Concord will take up his message and get Hi Performance boats off the lake, then start in with cruisers next session!

Any credibility that Bear Islander still had with me on this subject, and it wasn’t much at this point, has been expended.

So, proponents and opponents I call on both sides to urge the adoption of USCG Navigation Rule 6 in place of HB 847 and both sides will get what they say they want.

[Islander]

You folks have found a new low in logic!

Over and over we hear that if you are not familiar with the lake and boating your opinion about speed or horsepower limits (like in a poll) doesn't matter. Now you can't advocate horsepower limits if you have a power boat, because that must be hypocritical.

So who can have an opinion on horsepower limits? It has to be someone that has boating experience on Winnipesaukee but has recently gotten rid of their boat because of environmental concerns. Out of the billions on this planet only what... 4 or 5 can have an opinion about horsepower limits.


I believe BI also supports a ban on two stroke engines.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Islander

You folks have found a new low in logic!

Over and over we hear that if you are not familiar with the lake and boating your opinion about speed or horsepower limits (like in a poll) doesn't matter. Now you can't advocate horsepower limits if you have a power boat, because that must be hypocritical.
So who can have an opinion on horsepower limits? It has to be someone that has boating experience on Winnipesaukee but has recently gotten rid of their boat because of environmental concerns. Out of the billions on this planet only what... 4 or 5 can have an opinion about horsepower limits.
I believe BI also supports a ban on two stroke engines.

Again with the Rose colored glasses.

You are missing the point entirely. I'm sorry if I believe it to be completely disingenuous at best for someone to tell others what to do when they are themselves an offender. If you don't believe that to be the case here then I am sorry. Change begins with oneself and if Bear Islander wants the rest of the users of the lake to stop polluting, killing loons, and have a lower horsepower boat then he should begin by insuring he fits within those parameters himself. Otherwise it comes off as a hollow, politician like stance. Again, "Do as I say not as I do."

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Again with the Rose colored glasses.

You are missing the point entirely. I'm sorry if I believe it to be completely disingenuous at best for someone to tell others what to do when they are themselves an offender. If you don't believe that to be the case here then I am sorry. Change begins with oneself and if Bear Islander wants the rest of the users of the lake to stop polluting, killing loons, and have a lower horsepower boat then he should begin by insuring he fits within those parameters himself. Otherwise it comes off as a hollow, politician like stance. Again, "Do as I say not as I do."

I do "fit within those parameters myself". Any suggestion to the contrary is unfair and only made because attack and ridicule is your method.

Please tell us who IS entitled to advocate a horsepower limit?

[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...