Hb 847 Meeting In Concord.

[Airwaves]

So, beyond Bear Islander, no member of the speed limit crowd has commented on my proposal at a compromise, adopt Rule 6.

The question has been raised whether Governor Lynch will sign the bill or not, I don't know. Politics is a funny thing.

But to come back to previous posts;

Originally posted by APS
Managing boaters traveling at 70 to 130+ is not micromanaging: it's managing protected inland waters from the criss-crossing of boats traveling at wide-open (and insane) speeds. IMHO.

Here again, the New Hampshire Marine Patrol research, conducted on Lake Winnipesaukee (in New Hampshire just so that you don't have to go searching far and wide) did not show that to be true. It showed that fewer than 1 percent of the boats clocked by radar, done in much the same way the Marine Patrol will conduct radar posts if this bill becomes law, were traveling over 45 and as I recall off the top of my head the highest speed recorded was in the low 60's.

Originally posted by Evenstar:
First Skip digs up something that happened 25 years ago, which has nothing at all to do with the speed limit. I'm not even sure what you're getting at, other than to use this tragedy to poke fun at me.

I don't think, although I can't speak for everyone, that people are poking fun at you, just your thought process. At the same time you lament a kayak accident from 25 years ago being dragged up, the speed limit crowd points to an accident involving a Cigarette Boat nearly 40 years ago!

So an accident 25 years ago is not germain, but one 40 years ago is? Neither accident is relavent and that was the point.

Originally posted by APS:

1) Director Barrett's "Temporary Speed Limit" soothed the waters last season.

2) Certification with reciprocity is deeply flawed for New Hampshire—and a two year sunset provision is a good test, and Not Forever.

3) I think the governor will sign it. Who would want the ramifications of the next incident on his hands?

1) Director Barrett's research was just that, research. Bear Islander openly accused the Marine Patrol of fudging the results of that research. I disagree! The Marine Patrol conducted the research in the same way that I expect they will set up radar posts if this bill becomes law. I also expect the same results because speed is not a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee

2) This is the first year all powerboaters in New Hampshire are required to have a NASBLA approved safe boating certificate.
As Evenstar's former Coast Guard Station Commander from Florida wrote, paraphrasing here, As boater education increases, accidents decrease. Lake Winnipesaukee has one of the best safety records in the area, if not the best! Speed has not been blamed in any accident on Winnipesaukee in years! So since this is the first year safe boating certificates are required for all powerboaters, this would be the time for the two year "sunset test"!

In the 1970's when the Cigarette Boat accident in Gilford happend (still waiting for any kind of a link or PDF file from a newspaper article) nothing was required, as a matter of fact I believe there was still an on the water event involving sailboats going from point to point, landing on town docks, going to a bar, throwing back a drink, then going to the next point race. I don't recall what they called it but alcohol and driving, on land and on water, were not looked upon as a bad thing back in those days! Times have changed, and for the better I might add!


3) Will Governor Lynch sign this bill if it's approved? That's the wildcard. I don't know the inside politics of NH so I can only speculate on two points.

A. Is the bill necessary? Even Governor Lynch questions the need.
B. The bill would require either additional funding for the Marine Patrol or cutback in the services currently provided, either way I doubt Governor Lynch would approve.

So the wildcard is politics and on that point I don't know.

[Airwaves]

Since I am a moderated contributor, I can not edit a post so that even now, prior to my post getting on line, when I have discovered I made an error, I can't fix it without a separate post.

This is the separate post.

In my previous post I said, that Bear Islander accused the Marine Patrol of fudging data. I was wrong, those were not the words he used. The following is his quote;

"Second I don't think anyone believes that Marine Patrol Officers cooked the data, I sure don't. The cooking part is the way the study was designed and in the purpose of the study".

BI you have my apologies. The rest of my post stands as written.
AW

[Bear Islander]

If Lynch refuses to sign I will have even more respect for him. It would be a gutsy thing for him to do.

[Grady223]

When is the bill to go for a Senate vote?

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by Grady223

When is the bill to go for a Senate vote?

One way would be to keep an eye on the most recent Senate calendar (NOT the journal) at this link, http://gencourt.state.nh.us/scaljourns/.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If Lynch refuses to sign I will have even more respect for him. It would be a gutsy thing for him to do.

Not sure what you mean? Are you referring to the executive manuever where the gov doesn't sign it, doesn't veto it, but just lets it sit on his desk for ten days, and thus becomes a passed law without his signature.

There must be a political name for that legislative sidestep. "Whoopsie, yes it is now law, but don't blame me because I did not sign it."

[Skip]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

...Not sure what you mean? Are you referring to the executive manuever where the gov doesn't sign it, doesn't veto it, but just lets it sit on his desk for ten days, and thus becomes a passed law without his signature...

Actually that timetable is wrong.

When a Bill reaches the Governor's desk, he must either sign or veto it within five days, not ten. If he fails to veto and does not sign the Bill within that time frame (weekend & holidays excluded), it becomes law without his signature.

However, the above paragraph only applies if the Bill is submitted to the Governor while the Legislature is still in session. If the Bill reaches the Governor's desk after a legislative session has expired and the Governor refuses to sign it within the necessary five days, the Bill then dies in what is known as the "pocket veto", an no official veto from the Governor is necessary.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Not sure what you mean? Are you referring to the executive manuever where the gov doesn't sign it, doesn't veto it, but just lets it sit on his desk for ten days, and thus becomes a passed law without his signature.

There must be a political name for that legislative sidestep. "Whoopsie, yes it is now law, but don't blame me because I did not sign it."

It would take some guts for the Governor to veto or let the bill die. It's popular with the general public and will have passed the Senate, and by a large margin, the House.

Any future accidents would be on his head. Imagine he veto's the bill and there is a high speed, fatal accident on the lake! Fair or unfair, he would take the heat.

I think he should sign it, but I would respect his courage if he didn't.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Any future accidents would be on his head. Imagine he veto's the bill and there is a high speed, fatal accident on the lake! Fair or unfair, he would take the heat.

Considering that hasn't yet happened, it is pretty hard to "imagine".

Conversely, if he DOES veto the bill, and the proverbial sky doesn't fall, will you then give him credit for not implementing a needless law that solves no problems?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Considering that hasn't yet happened, it is pretty hard to "imagine".

Conversely, if he DOES veto the bill, and the proverbial sky doesn't fall, will you then give him credit for not implementing a needless law that solves no problems?

You mean if there are no high speed accidents

No accidents involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit

People stop complaining about boat noise

Congestion stops being a problem on the lake

Wakes stop eroding the shores

Kayakers, canoers etc. are no longer afraid to use the lake.

Water quality stops dropping

Children's camps are able to use the lake whenever they wish

The loon population rebounds

Families that were staying away come back



Yes, absolutely, if all that happens I will be happy to say I was wrong!

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You mean if there are no high speed accidents

No accidents involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit

People stop complaining about boat noise

Congestion stops being a problem on the lake

Wakes stop eroding the shores

Kayakers, canoers etc. are no longer afraid to use the lake.

Water quality stops dropping

Children's camps are able to use the lake whenever they wish

The loon population rebounds

Families that were staying away come back



Yes, absolutely, if all that happens I will be happy to say I was wrong!

There's a safe answer if there ever were one...

Why?

Because none of the above will ever happen as a result of the passage of the Speed Limit Bill.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander
You mean if there are no high speed accidents

No accidents involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit

People stop complaining about boat noise

Congestion stops being a problem on the lake

Wakes stop eroding the shores

Kayakers, canoers etc. are no longer afraid to use the lake.

Water quality stops dropping

Children's camps are able to use the lake whenever they wish

The loon population rebounds

Families that were staying away come back



Yes, absolutely, if all that happens I will be happy to say I was wrong!

Okay, now we're getting somewhere! You're wrong on all counts.
1. Nope, no boating accidents there.
2. WInnipesaukee has a noise limit regulation in place, right? That would be an enforcement issue....duh!
3. That would be a planning and zoning issue with the towns, they want money they grant developments. On water the 150' law.
4. Boats on plane don't erode the shore.
5. Kayakers, canoers etc. continue to use the lake and die in more numbers than powerboaters due to drunk boating and hypothermia, not collisions.
6. Some have compared Winnipesaukee to Quabbin. Quabbin does not allow boats or camps. Wanna do that?
7. Bear Islander continues to link the two, then deny it. However performance boats/speed limits don't appear to be at play here.
8. Hi Performance boats generally don't go near Loon nesting areas, it appears the major problem is the family boat and paddler.
9. As someone who rents to families, the economy, not boating is the key. Most former hotels and motels are now condos, there are fewer places for the "family"to go.

Not a single issue was raise by Bear Islander in his top "9" list that had to do with a speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee!

This is the first year of mandatory boater safety certificates, let it work!

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You mean if there are no high speed accidents

No accidents involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit

So what your saying is...

It's perfectly acceptable for a 300HP family bowrider to have a fatal accident on Lake Winnipesaukee? After all, they would not have left due to a speed limit! WOW! I kinda expect that kind of glib statement from APS, not you!

There have been NO ACCIDENTS ON LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE in the last 5 1/2 years involving a "Boat that might have left due to a speed limit" In fact I find it funny that you guys have to use the sensationalized boating accident that occurred in other states to make your point! Unfortunately the common theme with all the accidents you use as examples is Alcohol Intoxication! I am STILL waiting for you to post an example of a hi-speed boating accident that DID NOT INVOLVE ALCOHOL! Good thing I am not holding my breath!

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

People stop complaining about boat noise

I am pretty sure we already have a law on the books to address boat noise... and it is ENFORCED! How does a speed limit help with noise? Fay's sells thier family bowrider Chapparalls with thru hull exhaust and switchable exhaust (illegal I know, but it doesnt seem to stop Ole Merrill!) so even the family boats make noise!

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Congestion stops being a problem on the lake

The Lake Winnipesaukee is not congested... there are maybe 8-9 WEEKENDS out of the summer the lake has some busy spots... and they are usally centered around the different town docks... Weirs, Meredith, Alton etc. How is a speed limit going affect congestion? A speed limit will not drastically reduce the number of boats plying Lake Winnipesaukee! In fact its the WinnFabs position that EVEN MORE boats will come to Lake Winnipesaukee if a speed limit were to pass!

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Wakes stop eroding the shores

The only way to prevent boat wakes from eroding the shoreline is to eliminate boats completely. Is this your suggestion? Regardless of size or HP, every planing hull ever manufactured throws a tremendouse wake while transitioning from displacement to on-plane and viceversa.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Kayakers, canoers etc. are no longer afraid to use the lake.

Kayakers & Canoeists have to share the lake with everyone else! Thier fear while real to some of them, is completely unfounded! There have been no incidents of any canoe or kayker being injured from a collision with a powerboat at any speed on Lake Winnipesaukee! The only accident involving a kayak or canoe in recent memory is the one that occurred last year... but ultimately, the kayakers were in the wrong! Paddling at night without a light, and intoxicated is asking for trouble... naked and without a life jacket just compounds the situation! How is a speed limit going to remedy this situation?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Water quality stops dropping

If you have an issue with water quality, why not push for a ban on ALL 2-stroke motors on Lake Winnipesaukee? They by far the worse polluters on the lake! Why not campaign for cleaner powerplants in the Midwest to alleviate the acid rain and help restore the lakes PH? I really dont see how using a speed limit to get rid of a few large fast boats only to replace them with a greater number of smaller boats helps the water quality?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Children's camps are able to use the lake whenever they wish

Childrens Camps are a great resource, however, ultimately they have to share the lake with everyone else. A speed limit will not enable Childrens Camps to use the lake whenever they wish, especially if as WinnFabs states more boats will come to the lake if there is a speed limit! However, a "CAMP ZONE" NWZ that extends out 300'-500' might just do the trick! There is an idea that doesnt infringe on anybody and protects the children!

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The loon population rebounds

Unfortunately, the Loon population is not going to dramatically rebound... it really isnt a question about boat wakes or speed, the reality is Loons are terratorial birds, and a nesting pair needs space... traditionally Loons nest in quiet calm coves. Not the place you find speeding Hi-performance boats! Lake Winnipesaukee doesn't have any habitat left for them to nest! People have built on just about evey piece of shoreline on Lake Winnipesaukee. Unless your advocating a building moratorium and taking peoples houses & camps by emminent domain there isnt much that is going to dramatically affect the Loon population on Lake Winnipesaukee. Perhaps your $200,000 space flight money would be better spent by tearing down your camp and converting the property back to its natural state? Maybe the Loons would appreciate it?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Families that were staying away come back

Just where are these families supposed to stay? Where are they supposed to put thier boats? There are only a few cottage rental places left as most have been converted to condos. That leaves the expensive hotels like Church Landing, The Inn at Mills Falls, BayPoint, Chase House, NASWA and the Margate. All but two are owned by one company! Most of these places get between $180 -$330 per night during the summer season! How is this affordable to the average family? Especially given the state of the economy and the price of gas! How is a speed limit going to help make a visit to Lake Winnipesaukee more affordable for the average Joe?


Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

So what your saying is...

No, that's not what I am saying.

I am able to make my own points without your putting words in my mouth.

I'll make it simple. The lake will be better with a speed limit than without one.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

No, that's not what I am saying.

I am able to make my own points without your putting words in my mouth.

I'll make it simple. The lake will be better with a speed limit than without one.

Let me make it simple, the lake does not need a speed limit. There is not a problem the speed limit will solve. The speed limit will cause meager MP finances to be further strained. MP will be taken from useful duties, such as monitoring the Weirs area for 150 foot violations and other concerns, to set up speed traps in the Broads and other low density areas to catch the less than 0.5 % who may travel over 45 mph. It won't save the loons, it won't make less wakes, it won't reduce noise, it won't reduce congestion. The speed limit will INCREASE the probability of a death, because the MP have LESS time for more useful enforcement.


Woodsy was quoting your written posts in this forum, that's not putting words in your mouth.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

No, that's not what I am saying.

I am able to make my own points without your putting words in my mouth.

I'll make it simple. The lake will be better with a speed limit than without one.

That is YOUR opinion. Here is mine:

The lake will not be better with a speed limit.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by ITD

Woodsy was quoting your written posts in this forum, that's not putting words in your mouth.

Woodsy posted this...

So what your saying is...

It's perfectly acceptable for a 300HP family bowrider to have a fatal accident on Lake Winnipesaukee?



Where did I say that?

That's called putting words in someones mouth. I never said that or anything like it, and I certainly never would. Woodsy knew that when he posted it. He was doing it for effect.

[B R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'll make it simple. The lake will be better with a speed limit than without one.

In your Opinion (there ya go, you keep forgetting to add that).

[Woodsy]

BI...

I did not put words in your mouth!

You stated....

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

No accidents involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit

Explain your meaning then? Perhaps I am interpreting your statement wrong? Your statement was crystal clear! I merely extrapolated the obvious. You want no accidents involving boats that might have left because of a speed limit.

Statistically, boating accidents are going to happen regardless of any and all laws & regulation. Your statement above would lead one to belive that as long as the accidents do not happen to involve a high performance boat, you're ok with it! So if some 300HP family bowrider causes a fatal accident, well then its ok because it didnt involve a high performance boat. The logic path you use is pretty simple.

The biggest problem with your argument is that there haven't been any accidents that caused serious injury or death "involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit" on Lake Winnipesaukee in 5 1/2 years! The one accident that occurred happened at night @ approx 28MPH and get this... that accident involved ALCOHOL! By your own admission, high speed accidents are so rare you need to search far & wide to come up with a high speed accident, and when you do they all inevitably involve ALCOHOL! I am STILL waiting for you to produce the SOBER high speed accident data...

Ultimately, your mind is made up You just don't like High Performance Boats and thats that! You ought to just be straight up about it instead of using ridiculous, misleading, false propaganda coupled with a healthy dose of fear to prove your point.

Woodsy

[fatlazyless]

HB167, which was the 2006 version of HB847, got nixed on March 16, 2006. And, as of today, May 2, 2008, which is six weeks later along a similar legislative schedule, the speed limits bill is still very much alive & kicking. Apparently, HB847 has legs otherwise it would have already been nixed.

Anyone know what is going on with HB847. Like, is it resting inside a plain manilla folder in the "in" shelf of the Senate President's 220 year old state house desk, or somewhere. Like, if you could pinpoint exactly where this bill is physically and intellectually located.....where's it at? How's it work? Do the 24 state senators all come back from a lengthy lunch where the senator who buys the final ice-breaker gets to decide what bill gets acted upon, or what?

I got to wonder...wonder...wonder where-o-where it is...just a simple answer please...this simple inquiring mind needs to know?

[B R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You mean if there are no high speed accidents

No accidents involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit

People stop complaining about boat noise

Congestion stops being a problem on the lake

Wakes stop eroding the shores

Kayakers, canoers etc. are no longer afraid to use the lake.

Water quality stops dropping

Children's camps are able to use the lake whenever they wish

The loon population rebounds

Families that were staying away come back

What effect are you going for here? Is this the "kitchen sink" effect?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

BI...

I did not put words in your mouth!

You stated....



Explain your meaning then? Perhaps I am interpreting your statement wrong? Your statement was crystal clear! I merely extrapolated the obvious. You want no accidents involving boats that might have left because of a speed limit.

Statistically, boating accidents are going to happen regardless of any and all laws & regulation. Your statement above would lead one to belive that as long as the accidents do not happen to involve a high performance boat, you're ok with it! So if some 300HP family bowrider causes a fatal accident, well then its ok because it didnt involve a high performance boat. The logic path you use is pretty simple.

The biggest problem with your argument is that there haven't been any accidents that caused serious injury or death "involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit" on Lake Winnipesaukee in 5 1/2 years! The one accident that occurred happened at night @ approx 28MPH and get this... that accident involved ALCOHOL! By your own admission, high speed accidents are so rare you need to search far & wide to come up with a high speed accident, and when you do they all inevitably involve ALCOHOL! I am STILL waiting for you to produce the SOBER high speed accident data...

Ultimately, your mind is made up You just don't like High Performance Boats and thats that! You ought to just be straight up about it instead of using ridiculous, misleading, false propaganda coupled with a healthy dose of fear to prove your point.

Woodsy

Woodsy we were talking about a possible future situation where, many years from now, we look back at previous years and determine if the speed limit was needed or not.

This is hard to do as we can't know about accidents that were prevented. If they were prevented they never happened.

Once again you are taking one small comment and running hog wild with it and assuming it says things it doesn't.

This is a quote by you from post #678 of the other thread.

While the visiting boats prob wouldn't boat here anymore, the owners of the local Hi-Po boats have vested interests in Lake Winnipesaukee and aren't going to leave the lake!

If there will be less high speed boats on the lake with a speed limit, then there will be less chance of high speed boating accidents.

Less high speed boats = Less high speed accidents

No high speed boats = No high speed accidents




B R-
It's an honest answer to a question I was asked

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Woodsy we were talking about a possible future situation where, many years from now, we look back at previous years and determine if the speed limit was needed or not.

This is hard to do as we can't know about accidents that were prevented. If they were prevented they never happened.

How can we say if any accidents have been prevented? What is the benchmark? Because right now, the bar has been set at zero accidents. It will be kind of hard to improve on that.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

How can we say if any accidents have been prevented? What is the benchmark? Because right now, the bar has been set at zero accidents. It will be kind of hard to improve on that.

It is only "Zero Accidents" if you have your head stuck in the sand.


No matter how many times you say it, or wish it, that doesn't make it so.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It is only "Zero Accidents" if you have your head stuck in the sand.


No matter how many times you say it, or wish it, that doesn't make it so.

My head is firmly above water, thanks. Please tell me about the last fatal accident that occurred at a speed over the proposed limit (I know about Littlefield).

This time, tell me about one on Lake Winnipesaukee.

[BlackCatIslander]

I don't think anyone is changing sides and the volleys seem to be pretty fast. As somewhat of a neutral observer, it seems as civility is in danger of becoming a casualty.

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by BlackCatIslander

I don't think anyone is changing sides and the volleys seem to be pretty fast. As somewhat of a neutral observer, it seems as civility is in danger of becoming a casualty.

What he said.

I too have been watching these volleys for some time now. The same basic points have been going back and forth for several years now. Yet no one has budged from their basic positions.

Why don't you guys give it a rest?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

What he said.

I too have been watching these volleys for some time now. The same basic points have been going back and forth for several years now. Yet no one has budged from their basic positions.

Why don't you guys give it a rest?

Because the press reads this forum and the Senate has not voted yet.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Because the press reads this forum and the Senate has not voted yet.

Ditto,

Democracy is messy business. I too have been following these exchanges and while they are certainly passionate, they have been for the most part respectful.

While these debates are outside of the normal course of these forums, our webmaster has set aside a special area for this topic so that people offended or sick of the debate can easily avoid it. Please use this option and avoid the debate if it bothers you, rather than complaining here about the debate and jeopardizing this medium. This sub forum has been priceless for ferreting out the truth as to what the speed limit is about.

Thank you Don.

[Dave R]

If Senators are really reading this forum, they should know that Bear Island is adjacent to one of the busiest narrow passages on the lake. Any law that reduces the number of boats on the lake would benefit Bear Island residents, especially those on the northwest side, greatly. The support of speed limits, HP limits, and displacement limits by Bear Islander, clearly indicates his desire to reduce the number of boats on the lake. His motives are extremely self-serving.

I can empathize, but I cannot support a law aimed squarely at reducing boats when everyone in NH should be able to enjoy the lake in a safe and reasonable manner, not just those with lakefront homes near busy areas.

Most of the speed limit opponents are family boaters, like me, who do not have fast boats, and probably never will. We won't be affected by a speed limit, but we are not naive enough to think it's really about safety. It's not, it's pure, selfish, snobbery.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

My head is firmly above water, thanks. Please tell me about the last fatal accident that occurred at a speed over the proposed limit (I know about Littlefield).

This time, tell me about one on Lake Winnipesaukee.

If you know about Littlefield then you were lying when you said zero accidents!

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Because the press reads this forum and the Senate has not voted yet.

So, now we are to believe the Senate members have Old Timer's (Alzheimer’s) and must constantly be reminder that the Lake is unsafe and a Speed Limit is a panacea for its ills.

Finally, some rationale for the constant ranting...

And here I thought it was the old adage, tell yourself a lie often enough and you will believe it to be the truth...

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Islander

If you know about Littlefield then you were lying when you said zero accidents!

Again, must I really clarify? OK then.

Please tell me about the last accident that happened on Lake Winnipesaukee in which the primary cause was speed in excess of the proposed speed limit.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Again, must I really clarify? OK then.

Please tell me about the last accident that happened on Lake Winnipesaukee in which the primary cause was speed in excess of the proposed speed limit.

Littlefield

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Islander

Littlefield

Laughable...We all know it was alcohol.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by EricP

Laughable...We all know it was alcohol.

That's not what the jury determined.

[VtSteve]

It seems that one of the most obvious things lacking in this argument is enforcement. The 150' law is not being enforced, they are not able to enforce it effectively, or it's the perception of many that it's not the law that's important, but the speed.

Fact is, the 150' law has always been a good one. If the marine patrol was able to enforce it diligently, it would deter unsafe boating practices. If they can't enforce that, how's the speed limit going to be enforced? In addition, any and all information available for the lake suggests that the vast majority of all lake boating accidents occurs at speeds lower than the speed limit set. It's pretty obvious what the intended result of the limit is.

My boat is only 22', yet can go 55 mph or faster. Many of today's boats can in fact exceed the speed limit. Speed clearly isn't the issue. Common sense and respect is. I'd be in favor of a 200' distance limit frankly. Maybe it would be easier for people to estimate. But then again, I've kept a safe distance and close lookout on boats for my entire life. There are idiots out there, so get them to comply, or get them to leave.

It's fairly obvious that many are disturbed by these large, and many times, noisy boats. That's obvious. Many will still be disturbed by them whether they are traveling at 30 mph or 60 mph. They simply want them to leave. They probably feel the same way about those boats that I felt living on Winni with those obnoxious Cruisers making obscene wakes. Hint: The wakes from boats on plane are usually fairly small. The Cruisers wakes are always damaging whether they are going 10 mph or 30. Check your boat at the dock when they go by. I understand how hard it would be to pass a law that states "We Want Those Boats Gone."



USCG Rule 6, dealing with Safe Speed, is a universal standard that deals with common sense. Someone pointed this law out, but no responses. As always, it's usually the enforcement of existing laws that is lacking. BWI and reckless behavior are the two most prevalent causes of boating accidents. There are laws against them, but they continue to be the highest contributing factor.

The speed limit advocates should at least be honest. If the law passes, they should immediately start concocting excuses and spins designed to explain the accidents in the future. If history is a guide, the accidents, close calls, and fearful feelings will continue.

It's really very simple.

1) When in congested waters, be alert, slow down, be careful as heck.

2) When pulling a skier/tuber/wakeboarder. Do so safely, you don't own the lake either. Have some common sense. If not born with it, buy some.

3) PFC's. Come on already, buy a clue.

4) Unpowered vessels. It was not safe 50 years ago to be where some of you venture now, and nothing's changed.

5) Large cruisers. Your wakes can be very destructive, and even dangerous. A primary reason for shore stations. Try to at least give the impression that you care.

6) Go Fast Boats. All of the above apply to you as well. It's simply not OK to be launching your boat at 70 mph and doing Whoopies in congested waters where other boats are going far slower. The 150' limit is breached with ease, and the speed does not allow you time enough to weave in and out of traffic.

It's dangerous, and would be covered under the reckless boating laws in place now. It's simply not OK to do as you please, as with all boaters, and you've painted a target on your backs as a result. This obviously applies to the small percentage that just don't have any common sense or courtesy. I know many of these people, and most are responsible, safe boaters.

[jrc]

Great first post, Vtsteve!

[Dave R]

Welcome VTSteve. Perhaps I'll drop in ya on Champlain this Summer.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

...There are idiots out there, so get them to comply, or get them to leave....

...They probably feel the same way about those boats that I felt living on Winni with those obnoxious Cruisers making obscene wakes. Hint: The wakes from boats on plane are usually fairly small. The Cruisers wakes are always damaging whether they are going 10 mph or 30. Check your boat at the dock when they go by...


5) Large cruisers. Your wakes can be very destructive, and even dangerous. A primary reason for shore stations. Try to at least give the impression that you care.

6) Go Fast Boats. All of the above apply to you as well. It's simply not OK to be launching your boat at 70 mph and doing Whoopies in congested waters where other boats are going far slower. The 150' limit is breached with ease, and the speed does not allow you time enough to weave in and out of traffic.

It's dangerous, and would be covered under the reckless boating laws in place now. It's simply not OK to do as you please, as with all boaters, and you've painted a target on your backs as a result. This obviously applies to the small percentage that just don't have any common sense or courtesy. I know many of these people, and most are responsible, safe boaters.

Thanks VtSteve, for pointing out that large cruisers and GFBLs are create big destructive wakes and dangerous situations.

I don't think we can get them to comply so I think we should "get them to leave" as you suggest.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Islander

Littlefield

Originally Posted by EricP

Laughable...We all know it was alcohol.

Originally Posted by Islander

That's not what the jury determined.

You cannot be serious...

[Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

You cannot be serious...

You guys always want facts and evidence. The only "evidence" produced at trial was a couple of glasses of wine. The rest was unsupported testimony of his demeanor. The "fact" is the jury, that were on the case for weeks, found him not guilty of BWI.

I guess that doesn't fit your agenda!

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Islander

You guys always want facts and evidence. The only "evidence" produced at trial was a couple of glasses of wine. The rest was unsupported testimony of his demeanor. The "fact" is the jury, that were on the case for weeks, found him not guilty of BWI.

I guess that doesn't fit your agenda!

The fact is the jury found him guilty of not keeping a proper lookout while operating a boat.

No mention of his operating a boat at an unreasonable speed.

To quote you:

Originally Posted by Islander

I guess that doesn't fit your agenda!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

You guys always want facts and evidence. The only "evidence" produced at trial was a couple of glasses of wine. The rest was unsupported testimony of his demeanor. The "fact" is the jury, that were on the case for weeks, found him not guilty of BWI.

I guess that doesn't fit your agenda!

Of course they didn't find him guilty of BWI- he took off and hid for a day or two and avoided being stopped/caught. It takes more proof than a couple glasses of wine on a receipt to prove BWI. I am sure Skip can enlighten you on the process of incrimination in a BWI/DWI case.

Do you honestly believe that this accident wasn't somewhat alcohol induced? It clearly was not speed. If you do, you are probably the only one.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Of course they didn't find him guilty of BWI- he took off and hid for a day or two and avoided being stopped/caught. It takes more proof than a couple glasses of wine on a receipt to prove BWI. I am sure Skip can enlighten you on the process of incrimination in a BWI/DWI case.

Do you honestly believe that this accident wasn't somewhat alcohol induced? It clearly was not speed. If you do, you are probably the only one.

yeah , and OJ wasn't guity either

[Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Of course they didn't find him guilty of BWI- he took off and hid for a day or two and avoided being stopped/caught. It takes more proof than a couple glasses of wine on a receipt to prove BWI. I am sure Skip can enlighten you on the process of incrimination in a BWI/DWI case.

Do you honestly believe that this accident wasn't somewhat alcohol induced? It clearly was not speed. If you do, you are probably the only one.

The question here is which boating accidents should be attributed to alcohol. I think accidents where there is a conviction for BWI can be attributed to alcohol. Are you suggesting the Coast Guard statistics should be based on the majority opinion of the people that frequent the local internet boating forum? That doesn't sound very scientific, does it.

No official determination of BWI was made. However it WAS officially determined that the speed was 28 mph. And that, as we all know, is more than the proposed limit.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Islander

.... However it WAS officially determined that the speed was 28 mph. And that, as we all know, is more than the proposed limit.

Actually if you believe Skip, then Littlefield was not operating beyond the limits in proposed law.

Originally Posted by Skip

...The proposed law this year is in the same format as previous proposals, the speed limit will be a "prima facie" limit based on the unreasonable speed concept and not an "absolute" limit, as found in nearby Maine.

The difference? Significant to law enforcement personnel.

In Maine and other States that have "absolute" speed limits, it is an accepted concept that regardless of conditions any speed over the posted limit is proof of guilt.

In New Hampshire the proposed boating speed limits will be based on the same principles as our terrestial limits, the "prima facie" and "unreasonable speed" concept.

Simply stated, while any spped over the posted limit is "prima facie" evidence that an offense has occured, the operator can use an affirmative defense that given the time, place and conditions the speed at the time was not "unreasonable".

Let's say that it is 5:00 PM on a Wednesday afternoon in the middle of the Broads. Its a bright and clear day with unlimited visibility. Its only you and the MP radar boat. You will not receive a ticket for 46 in a 45 unless that poor MP officer never wants to face the wrath of that particular court again.

It is a pretty poorly kept secret that in New Hampshire, depending on the Department, the leeway under normal conditions to succesfully get a conviction before a Municipal Court judge is anywhere from 10 to 15 MPH over the posted limit.

Can anyone seriously argue that if Littlefield had been sober and maintained a proper watch that 28 MPH was "unreasonable" on that normally clear night? If 28 MPH is unreasonable on a normal night, then the Marine patrol operates unreasonably pretty much every night. So Littlefield would not have been quilty of violating the HB-847 if it existed at the time.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

Actually if you believe Skip, then Little field was not operating beyond the limits in proposed law.



Can anyone seriously argue that if Littlefield had been sober and maintained a proper watch that 28 MPH was "unreasonable" on that normally clear night? If 28 MPH is unreasonable on a normal night, then the Marine patrol operates unreasonably pretty much every night. So Littlefield would not have been quilty of violating the HB-847 if it existed at the time.

Another explanation that 28 is less than 25.

This is really very funny

The opposition repeatedly insists that Littlefield is guilty, guilty, guilty of BWI. Yet at the same time they insist he would be innocent, innocent, innocent of speeding if there had been a speed limit.

Why is it so important that was not speeding, but is guilty of BWI? Can anyone imagine a reason? Could it be because that fits the opposition agenda?

[Skip]

It is unfortunate that even though the public record of this felony is published and readily available, some still have not taken but a moment to review the case they cite.

We have covered this several times before, but once again I will provide the link to the full transcript of the Littlefield appeal HERE and accentuate pertinent portions of the following paragraphs where the Court clearly recognizes the jury’s right to consider the ample evidence provided of Daniel Littlefield’s intoxication on the night of the tragedy.

As this transcript and the original trial transcript clearly show, Daniel Littlefield committed, was convicted and served his sentence for the felony of Negligent Homicide while failing to maintain a proper lookout while operating his vessel due in part to his intoxicated state.

From the appeal:


...There was significant evidence presented concerning the defendant’s consumption of alcohol and his attention level that evening. The defendant testified that he drank four beers during the afternoon of August 11. He also testified that he drank two full glasses of wine, and a portion of a third glass, over the course of the evening in Meredith. Steven Plimpton testified that at approximately 9:00 p.m., he observed the defendant grab a railing after apparently stumbling up the stairs from the beach to the bar area of the Town Docks restaurant. Plimpton also testified that he commented to Tsakiris, "Wow, he seems intoxicated." Tsakiris testified to this same incident. Diane Girard, who had known the Littlefields for a number of years, testified that she started to talk with the defendant that evening, but eventually walked away because she couldn’t understand him very well; it appeared to her that he had been drinking too much — he was slurring his words, and was unsteady on his feet. Jeff Jaran, the chief of police in Sandwich, knew the defendant as an acquaintance for many years. Chief Jaran testified that he spoke with the defendant that evening. He believed the defendant had had "a lot to drink"; the defendant was obviously impaired and "visibly intoxicated," his speech was slurred, and he was unsteady on his feet.
Judith Kelley, a long-time friend of the defendant’s, spoke to the defendant at the Town Docks restaurant that evening. Aware that the defendant had returned the previous day from a two-week business trip overseas, she testified that he "looked tired," and she thought "that maybe he had jet lag or . . . he just didn’t seem wide awake and bright-eyed." Robert Phelps testified that as the Baja prepared to leave the Meredith docks shortly before 9:30 p.m., he observed that the operator had difficulty installing the boat’s stern light, and in pulling away from the dock, because he "realized that he hadn’t undone the stern line." The defendant testified that as he piloted the Baja, he held the boat’s wheel with one hand and had his other arm around his wife, with whom he carried on a conversation. He further testified that prior to the collision, he was looking "straight ahead" at the lights on the Weirs and some boats "way out in the distance."
Given our standard of review in this case, we believe there was substantial evidence of the defendant’s intoxication, his attention level while piloting the Baja, the speed at which he operated his boat on a dark, moonless night, and his failure to see a properly illuminated boat in front of him.
The defendant contends, however, that the jury’s verdict of not guilty on indictment #03-S-007 meant that it had reached a unanimous decision that Mr. Hartman’s death did not occur because the defendant’s ability to operate the Baja was impaired by alcohol to any degree. The defendant further contends that because the jury acquitted him on indictment #03-S-007, it could not take into account evidence of his intoxication in deciding its verdict on the charge of failure to keep a proper lookout. Thus, he argues that we cannot consider that same evidence in our review of the sufficiency of the evidence. The State argues that the jury could consider the evidence of the defendant’s intoxication on the charge of failure to keep a proper lookout. We agree with the State, as our established jurisprudence regarding inconsistent verdicts, and the ability of the jury to consider all of the evidence in deliberating on either charge, belies the defendant’s argument. See State v. Brown, 132 N.H. 321 (1989); Ebinger, 135 N.H. 264; Pittera, 139 N.H. 257...

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Islander

Another explanation that 28 is less than 25.

This is really very funny

What's even funnier is that the best example the pro-speed limit crowd can come up with is a case where the details are highly debatable, at best.

I'd wager that you, and everyone else, reading and commenting on these threads have gone "28 in a 25" on many occasions, even if you were attempting to adhere to speed limit laws. Trying to get an accurate MPH (or KPH) reading in most boats is an exercise in futility. For the purposes of the arguments here about speed limits, 28 MPH is equivalent to 25 MPH. You can turn this into a statistical argument, but I've personally never heard of someone getting pulled over for 3MPH over the limit.

You trumpet on and on about how a speed limit law will be some magic savior for the lake. Soon the sun will shine, kayakers will be able to paddle without fear and camp directors can raise a new generation of little sailors. This Rockwell-ian magazine cover is not brought about by slowing down 2% of the boats on the lake.

The pro-speed limit group is operating off of NO solid evidence or statistics to support their position. The majority of the "pro" cases are peoples own guesses and interpretations about how a speed limit law will help the lake. However, reality shows that speeding is not really an overall issue on Winnipesaukee.

The senators who read this forum must also know that a speed limit for the lake won't really solve any problems. The bill is written as a 2 year "test drive". With ZERO deaths or accidents on the lake attributed solely to speed IF the bill passes you had better hope that number stays at zero. A single case after the bill would be a 1000% increase in the wrong direction. The other "quality of life" type factors touted as benefits from a speed limit law are difficult to measure, at best, and near impossible to link to any laws passed.

If there was a bona-fide case for speed limits, these debate threads wouldn't go on for hundreds of posts. It is difficult for even the most pig-headed person to argue against a well organized list of sold statistics. Despite what you might think, there is no such list of undeniable pro-speed limit facts in play here. This is nothing more than an emotional issue.

Should HB847 pass, the only thing on your side is the current economy, which will do more to minimize boat traffic on the lake than all your rally cries amplified 100 times.

[Islander]

Skip why do you do this. You sit back saying nothing then jump in with an accusation and long non-responsive answer. I'm sure you are aware that what I posted was correct, yet you pretend I have made some sort of mistake.

I posted that Dan was not convicted of BWI

I posted that his speed was determined to be 28 mph.

Both of those things are true! Why do you pretend I have made some kind of error? Please just answer the question. Was Dan convicted of BWI or found not- guilty of BWI? Just because you don't like his being found not-guilty is not a justification to pretend it didn't happen.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Islander

Skip why do you do this. You sit back saying nothing then jump in with an accusation and long non-responsive answer. I'm sure you are aware that what I posted was correct, yet you pretend I have made some sort of mistake.

I posted that Dan was not convicted of BWI

I posted that his speed was determined to be 28 mph.

Both of those things are true! Why do you pretend I have made some kind of error? Please just answer the question. Was Dan convicted of BWI or found not- guilty of BWI? Just because you don't like his being found not-guilty is not a justification to pretend it didn't happen.

I am just presenting the facts of the case, and that the jury could and did consider Littlefield intoxicated, and that intoxication was the primary reason he was unable to maintain a proper lookut of his vessel.

That you refuse to acknowledge the facts as clearly stated by the Belknap Superior Court cast cited previously is your own business. However, the readers of this particular thread are entitled to see that your interpretation of the case is wrong.

I only step in when you grossly misrepresent case law, New Hampshire statutes or basic concepts of law.

Which you continue to do so with this particular case.

I hope this answers your questions.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Skip

I am just presenting the facts of the case, and that the jury could and did consider Littlefield intoxicated, and that intoxication was the primary reason he was unable to maintain a proper lookut of his vessel.

That you refuse to acknowledge the facts as clearly stated by the Belknap Superior Court cast cited previously is your own business. However, the readers of this particular thread are entitled to see that your interpretation of the case is wrong.

I only step in when you grossly misrepresent case law, New Hampshire statutes or basic concepts of law.

Which you continue to do so with this particular case.

I hope this answers your questions.

Except that you are not presenting the facts in the case are you. You can not answer a couple of simple questions.

I only claimed that he was found not-guilty of BWI. Was my statement true or not?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Islander

Except that you are not presenting the facts in the case are you. You can not answer a couple of simple questions.

I only claimed that he was found not-guilty of BWI. Was my statement true or not?

Any reasonable person can determine for themselves whether the question asked has been answered.

Spin on....

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Skip

Any reasonable person can determine for themselves whether the question asked has been answered.

Spin on....

Thanks Skip.

Skip has confirmed the not-guilty of BWI verdict. He was charged with BWI, he was found not-guilty of BWI. I hope that is the last we hear on that subject.

[chipj29]

So let me ask this. If there was a speed limit of 25 at night, would that have prevented the Littlefield accident?

[Silver Duck]

Islander

You are correct that Dan was not convicted of BUI (though the jury seems to have considered alcohol to be a contributing factor to "failing to maintain a proper lookout") and that the speed at the time of collision was determined to be 28 mph.

However, I'm curious whether you think that, had an otherwise identical collision occured at 25 mph rather than 28 mph, the outcome would have been materially different? If so, on what do you base this conclusion? To me, it seems counter intuitive that 3 mph would have made a big difference. However, I'm willing to listen to scientific evidence to the contrary if you have some to present!

I'll happily admit that 25 mph at night is a safer speed than 45 mph, or 65 mph; I limit myself to hull speed after dark (about 7 - 8 mph). I just don't think that 25 mph is slow enought to eliminate the likelihood of another tragedy should a collision occur. Personally, I think that safety at night can only be attained through a combination of operator vigilence and, perhaps, something that makes a boat easier to spot from astern. I know from exoperience that it's sometimes difficult to tell from a distance whether the white light in front of you is a boat's stern light or somebody's porch light!

I just don't think that, by itself, the 25 mph speed limit after dark will be enough to make it completely safe to be out there at night.

Silver Duck

[Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

So let me ask this. If there was a speed limit of 25 at night, would that have prevented the Littlefield accident?

Possibly, we will never know. If there had been a 45/25 speed limit in place for many years before the accident, Dan might have been operating a bow rider. Or someone on board may have said "hey isn't there a nighttime speed limit?" Or Dan may have said to himself "I need to be careful not to break the speed limit, I don't want them to stop me for speed and find out I have had two glasses of wine tonight and a couple of beers this afternoon!".

[hazelnut]

The irony of the whole speed limit debate is that the proponents only have one or two cases over a 40 year period to even present as "evidence." It is laughable. I'll even concede them to you and say YES you are 100% right, whatever you want to prove with those cases, bravo, well done. So where does that leave us? 40 years with 2 incidents that YOU say COULD have been prevented by a speed limit? Hysterical, that's what it is. We should base a law on this? If the senate doesn't see right through this they may need a vacation. So far it has been a colossal waste of their time when they could have been debating more important real issues. Not too mention we probably set ourselves back years in terms of addressing the real needs of lake winni. It will be a while before they take up any new initiatives I'm sure. So what are we left with? A potential 45/25 law that will have little or no affect on safety on the lake. Then what? Does winnfabs cry wolf again? The legislature will then see the organization for what it is, an organization with an agenda. They will ignore it and those of us that are REALLY concerned with safety will have no voice. Thanks winnfabs, great work!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

The irony of the whole speed limit debate is that the proponents only have one or two cases over a 40 year period to even present as "evidence." It is laughable. I'll even concede them to you and say YES you are 100% right, whatever you want to prove with those cases, bravo, well done. So where does that leave us? 40 years with 2 incidents that YOU say COULD have been prevented by a speed limit? Hysterical, that's what it is. We should base a law on this? If the senate doesn't see right through this they may need a vacation. So far it has been a colossal waste of their time when they could have been debating more important real issues. Not too mention we probably set ourselves back years in terms of addressing the real needs of lake winni. It will be a while before they take up any new initiatives I'm sure. So what are we left with? A potential 45/25 law that will have little or no affect on safety on the lake. Then what? Does winnfabs cry wolf again? The legislature will then see the organization for what it is, an organization with an agenda. They will ignore it and those of us that are REALLY concerned with safety will have no voice. Thanks winnfabs, great work!

Once again you have forgotten that safety is only one of the many reasons to have a speed limit.

[Lakegeezer]

Looks like the existing laws worked. While there wasn't enough evidence to convict for BWI laws (because it was a hit and run), the jury used the evidence to declare that he was going to fast for his condition. BWI was indeed part of the conviction. This makes more sense than a speed limit.

Defining a speed for all conditions (or condition) - and changing a status quo that has proven to be safe and effective, is what the the debate should be about. Discussion about how to ban boat types as a tribute to Littlefield's victim should be a different debate.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

The irony of the whole speed limit debate is that the proponents only have one or two cases over a 40 year period to even present as "evidence." It is laughable. I'll even concede them to you and say YES you are 100% right, whatever you want to prove with those cases, bravo, well done. So where does that leave us? 40 years with 2 incidents that YOU say COULD have been prevented by a speed limit? Hysterical, that's what it is. We should base a law on this?

There have been plenty of “incidents” in just recent years – that was pretty evident at the House hearing that I attended. The problem is that those in opposition to the bill are saying that we don’t need a speed limit since no one’s been killed on Winni lately.

Well, I’m not willing to wait for a fatality – especially when I could become the fatality. No one officially records close calls, near misses, or fortunate escapes from harm – yet those happen all the time. I have personally had dangerous “incidents” on Winni and I believe a speed limit would have prevented most of those, or at least reduced the danger involved.

Boats on Winni, which were traveling well in excess of 45 mph, have violated my 150 foot zone by a considerate amount . . . in some cases, within 50 feet of me - because the operator was traving too fast.

And this has occurred more than once – sometimes even more than once in a single outing. And many other paddlers on the lake have experienced this as well.

The bill is about safety – no matter how you try to spin it. And that’s what the Senators should be looking at. I contend that speeds above the limits in the bill are very unsafe on a busy lake that is populated with small, slow moving boats.

I’ve seen the difference that a speed limit cam make on a large NH lake. Squam is not only a good example – it also shows the NH’s Marine Patrol is perfectly capable of enforcing a speed limit.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Looks like the existing laws worked. While there wasn't enough evidence to convict for BWI laws (because it was a hit and run), the jury used the evidence to declare that he was going to fast for his condition. BWI was indeed part of the conviction. This makes more sense than a speed limit.

Defining a speed for all conditions (or condition) - and changing a status quo that has proven to be safe and effective, is what the the debate should be about. Discussion about how to ban boat types as a tribute to Littlefield's victim should be a different debate.

Thanks for posting that decision, first time I had read it all. To use that case, or any of the others, in relation to a discussion over GF boats or speed limits is quite telling.

It's obvious, not just from the testimony, but from his actions leaving the dock, he was at least somewhat impaired. If he was piloting a 18 foot bowrider, he would be equally impaired. The fact that he was doing 28 mph, is a pretty ludicrous analogy to supporting a 25 mph speed limit at night. Now if you want to state your gut feeling that a Baja boat owner is more likely than an 18' bowrider owner to get involved in such an accident, then by all means, do so.
It's been my experience on this bog lake over here, that the really dangerous boaters tend to be the smaller boats, particularly 18 feet to 24 feet or so. Just a broad observation I know, but many in the $100,000 dollar an up crowd tend to realize what they have. Yes, there are some that have far too much testosterone for their own good

As for water quality and erosion debates. There can't be a reasonable debate about the size of waves from a cruiser versus the go fast boats can there? The cruiser's wake is pretty large from 10 mph up to higher speeds. The GF boats have a momentary larger wake getting to plane, then it levels out to very normal.

I can understand the unstated intent of the law, or at least, the supporters. I really can. It would have been far more reasonable to attack the alleged problems by first, targeting enforcement of the 150' rule. I note that nobody commented on my post, which specifically mentioned the problem. Wonder why? Enforcement requires funding, step 1. If you want a speed limit to quietly address the fact that you would love to rid the lake of "those boaters", then at least have the common sense to enact a speed limit that doesn't limit the huge percentage of boats that safely can travel at 60 mph. I'll bet many proponents of this new law PO me when their boats go by as well. Go 15mph or so in front of my soon to be rocking boat, and I'll think up some new laws myself.

Rid the waters of violators, and you'll have a safer boating experience.

Disingenuous arguments leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

[Airwaves]

It's clear that the supporters of HB847 aren't pushing the measure because of safety issues.

I have proposed, several times, a measure already in place for most of the boating community that would give the Marine Patrol the "tools in their arsenal" that supporters of HB847 say they need without having to spend additional money or divert manpower. No takers!

I have asked several specific questions of supporters that have made strong claims to provide data, they have not.

So now let me ask, why this bill now? Why would they be pushing so hard during this and the prior leglislative session for this speed limit bill?

Could it be that because safe boating certificates are now mandatory and it has been shown conclusively that boater education reduces boating accidents and that in all likelihood the lake will become an even safer place to enjoy? That fact will make it more difficult for them to perpetuate the lies that the lake isn't safe in order to get a bill like this passed later!

Not a single supporter of HB847 that claims that this is about safety has even commented on the suggestion that the language of HB847 be replaced with the language of Nav Rule 6.

Since the proposed compromise has been out there for a while without comment from those claiming that this is about safety I now submit to you that even those supporters who claim that this is about safety realize that everyone is finally aware that HB847 is nothing more than an effort to ban a certain type of boat from Lake Winnipesaukee.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Once again you have forgotten that safety is only one of the many reasons to have a speed limit.

Exactly. And there is no evidence that shows that the lake is not safe right now.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Exactly. And there is no evidence that shows that the lake is not safe right now.

Do you mean other than the accidents and deaths.

We had a death last summer, doesn't that indicate the lake is not safe?

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

We had a death last summer, doesn't that indicate the lake is not safe?

Deaths occur from many things. You have not presented any arguments that indicate your proposed speed limits would have any net, or measurable, increase in lake safety.

Almost every recreational activity has some amount of deaths associated with it. Do not take this to mean that the world needs more laws...

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by Islander

Another explanation that 28 is less than 25.

This is really very funny

The opposition repeatedly insists that Littlefield is guilty, guilty, guilty of BWI. Yet at the same time they insist he would be innocent, innocent, innocent of speeding if there had been a speed limit.

Why is it so important that was not speeding, but is guilty of BWI? Can anyone imagine a reason? Could it be because that fits the opposition agenda?

Islander, OK if the boat was traveling above the speed limit. Are you happy? It has been said. He was guilty of speeding. He was above the posted speed limit . If HB-847 is passed. But can you look beyond your agenda to see that is not the reason why this accident occurred? Are you going to sit there and say the only reason why this accident occurred was because Littlefield was going 28 mph instead of 25. Nothing else contributed to the accident. Can you say with absolute certainty that this accident would never have occurred because the speed limit was in place. Can you say that he wasn't intoxicated at the time with certainty. How fast was the other boat going? Was it going 25 mph? If both boats were following the speed limit law to the exact MPH then obviously they would have never collided. So ok I provided the one scenario that would cause the speed limit to be pertant here. If both boats were going exactly 25 mph, not 1 mph less or more, then the speed limit would have saved this accident. But the real reason was that Littlefield wasn't paying attention and ran over another boat. If he had seen it he would have avoided it. We can't say for certain he was drunk because he ran, and there was enough time before the police got him for the alcohol he allegedly drank wore off. But according to eye witness accounts, which I don't think you are one, he was slurring his words and stumbling. I mean come on we are not sheep here. We can reason on our own and come to a conclusion. You just seem to have a different conclusion, so please enlighten me, why would the speed limit have saved Mr. Hartman?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Do you mean other than the accidents and deaths.

We had a death last summer, doesn't that indicate the lake is not safe?

There have been several deaths on I-93, does that indicate that the highway is not safe?

What was the cause of the accident in which someone died last summer on the lake?

[Islander]

Originally Posted by parrothead

You just seem to have a different conclusion, so please enlighten me, why would the speed limit have saved Mr. Hartman?

See post 158

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

There have been several deaths on I-93, does that indicate that the highway is not safe?

What was the cause of the accident in which someone died last summer on the lake?

Yes, it does. I-93 is not safe. No highway is safe. The lake is not safe and it never will be.


With respect the last summers accident. You posted "there is no evidence that shows that the lake is not safe right now" A fatal accident is evidence the lake is not safe no matter what the cause.

We can never make the lake safe. We can make it safer!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Deaths occur from many things. You have not presented any arguments that indicate your proposed speed limits would have any net, or measurable, increase in lake safety.

That is not true. I have presented many arguments. You reject them.

There is a difference between not presenting arguments, and not presenting arguments that you like.

[KonaChick]

From what I can tell and from what's reported in this article, camps on Bear Island are doing just fine!!


http://yellowbordermagazine.com/ngm/.../fulltext.html

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

From what I can tell and from what's reported in this article, camps on Bear Island are doing just fine!!


http://yellowbordermagazine.com/ngm/.../fulltext.html

That is really ridiculous KonaChick, you should be ashamed of yourself. To what crazy ends will you go to try and make a point. As if that article has ANYTHING to do with this discussion.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

That is not true. I have presented many arguments. You reject them.

There is a difference between not presenting arguments, and not presenting arguments that you like.

Technically your arguments have been more discredited than rejected.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Technically your arguments have been more discredited than rejected.

In your opinion

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by Islander

See post 158

But the speed limit wouldn't have saved Mr. Hartman. Littlefield would still have over taken the Hartmans and collided with them if he was going 25.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

In your opinion

And I don't think I am alone in that opinion.

You've presented some insightful opinions on how a speed limit law might have a positive impact on the lake. However, it's been just that, opinions and emotions.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander

That is really ridiculous KonaChick, you should be ashamed of yourself. To what crazy ends will you go to try and make a point. As if that article has ANYTHING to do with this discussion.

It seems to me it's perfectly germain to this discussion if you're bringing up accidents that have nothing to do with speed on Lake Winnipesaukee and insist that they are relevant to this discussion. The article KonaChick links to discribes a very pleasant place to be, not the fear gripped kids, counselors and directors that you would like us to believe populate the camps.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It would take some guts for the Governor to veto or let the bill die. It's popular with the general public and will have passed the Senate, and by a large margin, the House.

Any future accidents would be on his head. Imagine he veto's the bill and there is a high speed, fatal accident on the lake! Fair or unfair, he would take the heat.

I think he should sign it, but I would respect his courage if he didn't.

That's an opinion. Based on a rough 2-1 turnout in Concord against HB847 my opinion is that it's NOT popular with the general public!

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

There have been plenty of “incidents” in just recent years – that was pretty evident at the House hearing that I attended. The problem is that those in opposition to the bill are saying that we don’t need a speed limit since no one’s been killed on Winni lately.
Well, I’m not willing to wait for a fatality – especially when I could become the fatality. No one officially records close calls, near misses, or fortunate escapes from harm – yet those happen all the time. I have personally had dangerous “incidents” on Winni and I believe a speed limit would have prevented most of those, or at least reduced the danger involved.

Not true, we're saying we don't need a speed limit because the stats don't support it.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Boats on Winni, which were traveling well in excess of 45 mph, have violated my 150 foot zone by a considerate amount . . . in some cases, within 50 feet of me - because the operator was traving too fast.

And this has occurred more than once – sometimes even more than once in a single outing. And many other paddlers on the lake have experienced this as well.

Based on the very low number of boats that actually travel over 45MPH the the unusually high number of close calls with these boats you say are traveling over 45MPH I suggest you really don't know what 45MPH looks like as you claim to. I have had my 150' zone violated by idiots before. And that's the real problem, and a speed limit won't fix that. You can't fix stupid. But we can enforce the laws on the books and this is our first full year with mandatory boater certification so I already feel "safer" (not that I felt unsafe).

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The bill is about safety – no matter how you try to spin it. And that’s what the Senators should be looking at. I contend that speeds above the limits in the bill are very unsafe on a busy lake that is populated with small, slow moving boats.

Actually the bill is about fear and perceived safety. The 150' rule addreses your concern about fast moving boats getting along with small, slow boats.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I’ve seen the difference that a speed limit cam make on a large NH lake. Squam is not only a good example – it also shows the NH’s Marine Patrol is perfectly capable of enforcing a speed limit.

Squam is small and a totally different lake than Winni, not even a valid comparison.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by EricP

That's an opinion. Based on a rough 2-1 turnout in Concord against HB847 my opinion is that it's NOT popular with the general public!

Since nobody's even addressed the issue of enforcement of Existing laws, let alone what impact the new laws, all the arguments are off target.

It has been noted by BI that people now flaunt the existing laws in place. That's wrong, and needs to be addressed first. IMO, because of emotions and fear, they feel a new law will solve the problems and rid the lake of the trouble makers.

IMO, enforcement of existing laws will do that. If not, additional laws targeted AND ENFORCED, could be the means towards the end result.

IF the MP cannot enforce the exiting laws, they need to be given the means to do so. All of the efforts toward getting this feel good law enacted will be for naught.

[winnidiver]

It's terrible when it rains all weekend,there is nothing to do.So you sit at the computer and argue about speed limits, on the lake.I was laid off in Feb.One of the things I did was read the forum every day It was fun and I found the speed limit debate interesting.Now it's May.You people are saying the same thing you were saying in Feb,March and probable in Dec too.Everyone has made some good points pro and con.Now I have one thing to say.Get out on the water.GET A LIFE.
I am going out and enjoy the lake no matter what they do in Concord.Happy Spring everyone.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

That is really ridiculous KonaChick, you should be ashamed of yourself. To what crazy ends will you go to try and make a point. As if that article has ANYTHING to do with this discussion.

I think the point being that camp directors, counselors and kids at the camps on BI seem pretty happy and safe even though we have no speed limit. It's a great article btw and I'm happy to see you read it!!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

I think the point being that camp directors, counselors and kids at the camps on BI seem pretty happy and safe even though we have no speed limit. It's a great article btw and I'm happy to see you read it!!

I was there is 2001 when the National Geographic reporter and photographer were at the Island. Of course this was years before the speed limit talk started. They took pictures of the Sophie at the Mail Dock and several cabins, but it was the camps that got the coverage.

We all purchased several copies when it was in National Geographic the next year.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I was there is 2001 when the National Geographic reporter and photographer were at the Island. Of course this was years before the speed limit talk started. They took pictures of the Sophie at the Mail Dock and several cabins, but it was the camps that got the coverage.

We all purchased several copies when it was in National Geographic the next year.

I wonder if 7 years later the talk wouldn't be of boy/girl dances, toasting marshmallows over an open fire or the tranquility the lake has to offer but of the unsafe conditions facing these campers on a daily basis as they wander into the waters of Winnipesaukee...it would be interesting to compare.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...Yes, there are some that have far too much testosterone for their own good..."

How about professional athlete Cedric Benson arrested yesterday—drunk—"driving" his 30' CIGARETTE BOAT?

I mention this as the following appears today at Yahoo!

"He should be kicked out of Chicago, but it has nothing to do with this. Seriously, driving a boat drunk isn't serious at all. I know its a crime and all, but come on...no one driving a boat is sober, its just a fact...obviously you've never been on a boat."

('Not going to link to a site that allows foul language—Google "Bearsfan", "NY Guy".)

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...IF the MP cannot enforce the exiting laws, they need to be given the means to do so..."

Your laws on Lake Champlain are undoubtedly enforced by full-time officers. You may not know that Lake Winnipesaukee has a Marine Patrol composed of part-timers employed seasonally.

BTW, have you voted in our newest poll yet?

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

"...BWI was indeed part of the conviction..."

Once again, he was acquitted of the count of BWI—otherwise he'd still be in jail. Concord mandated a brand new law after the lake's most experienced and most educated performance boater had his "incident".

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

"...It is difficult for even the most pig-headed person to argue against a well organized list of sold statistics..."

"Sold"?

I think the MP statistical survey was sold —during two months of an announced "Temporary Speed Limit".

The survey was conducted during a Temporary Speed Limit, that was in effect. THAT is a published FACT.

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

"...However, reality shows that speeding is not really an overall issue on Winnipesaukee..."

Time for a Reality-Check?


Erosion is not an issue,
Pollution is not an issue,
Hartman is not an issue,
Speeding is not an issue,
Unlimited speed is not an issue,
Education is no longer an issue,
Inappropriate boats are not an issue,
Drunks in 4½-tons boats are not an issue,
There is "No Problem" on Lake Winnipesaukee,
Long Lake and other states' tragedies are not an issue,
and Woodsy says, radar doesn't work on water.

How's this summary so far?

[Neanderthal Thunder]

]Parrothead wrote,

You just seem to have a different conclusion, so please enlighten me, why would the speed limit have saved Mr. Hartman?

I see one way.

If a limit had been in place, the Marine Patrol could have given a written warning. Once stopped, the MPs could have noticed slurred speech, and given a field sobriety test. A NHMP boat on patrol wouldn't appear any different from any other boat in the darkness to Littlefield. Until the the flashing blue lights went on, that is.

There is no way to stop a Littlefield or identify any other drunken boater under existing laws.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Neanderthal Thunder

]Parrothead wrote,

I see one way.

If a limit had been in place, the Marine Patrol could have given a written warning. Once stopped, the MPs could have noticed slurred speech, and given a field sobriety test. A NHMP boat on patrol wouldn't appear any different from any other boat in the darkness to Littlefield. Until the the flashing blue lights went on, that is.

There is no way to stop a Littlefield or identify any other drunken boater under existing laws.

This is assuming that they had been there to speed check the boat in the first place. Most indicators are that this is somewhat unlikely.

Additionally, if the speed was only 28MPH, it's unlikely they would have done anything about a boat going 3MPH over.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Neanderthal Thunder

I see one way.

If a limit had been in place, the Marine Patrol could have given a written warning. Once stopped, the MPs could have noticed slurred speech, and given a field sobriety test. A NHMP boat on patrol wouldn't appear any different from any other boat in the darkness to Littlefield. Until the the flashing blue lights went on, that is.

There is no way to stop a Littlefield or identify any other drunken boater under existing laws.

There is SERIOUS problem with your assumption....

1. The accident occurred just past the Meredith NWZ... the offending boat was or just had transitioned to on-plane... not a whole lot of time for the NHMP to grab a speed reading...

2. Unless the NHMP radar gun was on the EXACT same path & bearing, the Law Of Cosines WOULD have shown the offending boat traveling at a speed LESS than 28MPH! So they wouldn't have been stopped anyway!

3. Perhaps had the Common Man not overserved Danny that night (and convieniently LOST the recipt that showed just how much alcohol had been consumed) this tragedy might not have occurred at all!

Woodsy

[Neanderthal Thunder]

Sorry for the delay. I was out of town, having surgury.

It doesn't matter where the Marine Patrol nails his butt. At night, and at 25 mph, a good place would be off the waterfront gin mills. There is no point in prowling the usual places during the day, and having no success. Just showing the flag only slows the drunks for a while, and hasn't worked for decades to stop the drunks . Darkness conceals all the NHMP presence.

Again, there is no way to stop a Littlefield or identify any other drunk boater under existing laws.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Neanderthal Thunder

Sorry for the delay. I was out of town, having surgury.

It doesn't matter where the Marine Patrol nails his butt. At night, and at 25 mph, a good place would be off the waterfront gin mills. There is no point in prowling the usual places during the day, and having no success. Just showing the flag only slows the drunks for a while, and hasn't worked for decades to stop the drunks . Darkness conceals all the NHMP presence.

Again, there is no way to stop a Littlefield or identify any other drunk boater under existing laws.

You think we should have a law in place that's sole purpose is to provide the police an opportunity to violate the 4th amendent? If the police don't have a good reason to stop you, I don't think that traveling 3 MPH over the speed limit would give them reason. The MP are very good at spotting drunks, they don't need to violate our rights to do it.

Now I agree that the MP should stake out waterfront gin mills. But they should do it day and night. Remember the goal is to prevent drunk driving, arresting drunk drivers serves that goal. Scareing drunks not to drive also serves that goal.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Neanderthal Thunder
At night, and at 25 mph, a good place would be off the waterfront gin mills. There is no point in prowling the usual places during the day, and having no success. Just showing the flag only slows the drunks for a while, and hasn't worked for decades to stop the drunks . Darkness conceals all the NHMP presence

Originally posted by jrc
Now I agree that the MP should stake out waterfront gin mills.

I wonder if that would even be legal if done on a regular basis? If it is legal then I would speculate that it isn't done more often because of political/economic or even legal (harassment) pressure that the owners of the establishments would bring to bear?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by jrc

"...The MP are very good at spotting drunks..."

Yup. The MPs start by looking for debris fields: shards of fiberglass, styrofoam coolers, sponges, engine compartment hoods, PFDs, hats, shoes, swim platform fragments, ejected passengers...et-cetera.


Hey...Nobody's noticed that it got through Transportation? With "Ought To Pass"?

[fatlazyless]

Today's www.citizen.com has a news article about yesterday's Senate Transportation Committee vote of 3-2 to recommend approving HB 847. It says that the full 24 member Senate will probably vote next Thursday.

One interesting thought to consider. Senator Joe Kenney (R) Wakefield has mentioned that he supports the Winnipesaukee speed limits. His district includes Wolfeboro. As you probably know, he is running for Governor, and he works a communications specialist in the US Marine Corps where he has been an officer since 1980.

Semper Fidelis, Senator Kenney!

[Island Lover]

The Citizen artice quotes the owner of Thurstons Marina. If speed limits were bad for boating and tourism, why would so many marina owners support HB847?


Jeff Thurston of Thurston's Marina in Weirs Beach is among the local dealers supporting the proposed law as a way of ensuring that everyone can use the lake with a sense that they are safe.

Thurston said he has traveled to Lake George in New York and witnessed that a speed limit can work and not have negative consequences on business.

"I think it's long overdue, and I applaud the insight that was displayed by the House and now this committee. Families and children should feel safe being out on the water," said Thurston.

The Weirs Beach business owner expressed his feeling that officials must act to "nurture" a lake that is among its biggest tourist draws in the state.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

The Citizen artice quotes the owner of Thurstons Marina. If speed limits were bad for boating and tourism, why would so many marina owners support HB847?

Probably because he has no stake in it, all of his lines are small and will not be affected in sales. What does he care? A few of his Cobalts (the ones that don't end up on the bottom) would be the only ones that would break the proposed limit-and not by much.

The opponents list contains almost every dealer on the lake besides them. Here is a portion of the list-mostly marine related:

ACL Industries - Manchester
Adam's Marina - Winnisquam
Andrew's Marine Service - Alton Bay
Atlantic Watercraft Club (charter of American Watercraft Association) - Salem
Averys Auto & Marine - Newport
Back Bay Marina - Wolfeboro
Biggart Marine - Plaistow
Bob's Beacon Marine - Newbury
Browns Auto and Marine - Newport
Center Harbor Dock & Pier Co. - Center Harbor
Channel Marine - Laconia
Dasilva Motorsports - Hampstead, Moultonboro
Dave’s Motorboat Shoppe, LLC - Gilford
Derry Marine & Salvage - Derry
Diamond Shine Boat Detailing - Gilford
Dock Doctor - Gilford
Dover Marine - Portsmouth
East Coast Marine Storage - Epping
Eastcoast Flightcraft Marine of New Hampshire - Meredith
East Coast Performance Center - Salem
Epping Motor Sports - Epping
Extreme Motor Sports - Windham
Gator Signs - Gilford
George's Marina - Dover
Gillan Marine Inc - Alton Bay
Granite State Boatworks - Milford
Glendale Marina - Gilford
Gray's Marina - Enfield
Great Bay Marina - Newington
Green's Marine, Inc. - Hooksett
Goodhue Marine, Inc. - Center Harbor
Hampton River Marina - Hampton
Harpers Boat Restoration - Meredith
HK Powersports - Laconia, Tilton, Hooksett
Irwin Marine - Laconia, Hudson, Alton, Litchfield
Jack Willey's - Tilton
JFG Enterprises Prop
Jim's Mopar Performance - Salem
JP Boating, LLC - Laconia
Lakeport Landing Marina - Laconia
Lakes Region Fiberglass - Laconia
Lakeside Boat Rentals - Alton Bay
Little Bay Marina - Dover
Lucky Lenny's Power Place - Tilton
Marine USA - Milford
Marlin Products Div. Pompanette LLC - Charlestown
Melvin Village Marina - Melvin Village
Miles Marine - Gilford
Moultonborough Canvas - Moultonborough
National Boat - Deerfield
Nault's Windham Honda - Windham
New England Boat & Motor - Laconia
New England Correct Craft - Rochester
Nimar International, Inc. - Walpole
Norm's Marina Inc. - Hinsdale
North/South Performance Boats - Alton Bay
One Stop Toy Shop - Epping
Outdoor Performance Center - Bridgewater
Outdoor Prop Service - Laconia
Owen's Marine - Hooksett
Philbricks Sports Center - Dover
Plaistow Motorsports - Plaistow
Pompanette, LLC - Charlestown
Production Trailer + Dock - Meredith
Professional Mariner, LLC - Rye
R & R Cycles - Manchester
Ray’s Marina & RV Sales, Inc - Milton
Ray Marine, Inc. - Nashua
Rochester Motor Sports - Rochester
Rockingham Boat Repair and Sales - Hampstead
S & W Sports - Concord
Sargents Marine - Georges Mills
Shep Brown's Boat Basin - Meredith, Gilford
Ship Shape Marine Works - Meredith
Shorline CoverWorks - Laconia
SilverSands Marina - Gilford
Sonic Power Marine of New England, LLC - Weirs Beach
Sunapee Harbor Marine - Sunapee
The Trailer Outlet - Tilton
Vintage Race Boat Shop - Wolfeboro
Ward's Boat Shop - Center Ossipee
Watermark Marine Construction - Gilford
Wentworth by the Sea Marina - New Castle
West Marine - Portsmouth
Windham Marine - Windham
Winnipesaukee Motorsports - Meredith
Winnipesaukee Marine Construction - Gilford
Winnisquam Marine - Winnisquam
Y Landing Marina - Meredith

Thurston won't see any of my money going forward...That is for sure.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

The Citizen artice quotes the owner of Thurstons Marina. If speed limits were bad for boating and tourism, why would so many marina owners support HB847?


Jeff Thurston of Thurston's Marina in Weirs Beach is among the local dealers supporting the proposed law as a way of ensuring that everyone can use the lake with a sense that they are safe.

Thurston said he has traveled to Lake George in New York and witnessed that a speed limit can work and not have negative consequences on business.

"I think it's long overdue, and I applaud the insight that was displayed by the House and now this committee. Families and children should feel safe being out on the water," said Thurston.

The Weirs Beach business owner expressed his feeling that officials must act to "nurture" a lake that is among its biggest tourist draws in the state.

Thurston's loses a lot of Cobalt sales to East Coast Flightcraft. East Coast Flightcraft also happens to be a Fountain (GFBL) dealer. It's easy to see why Jeff Thurston likes the bill, it goes for the throat of his biggest competitor.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

The Citizen artice quotes the owner of Thurstons Marina. If speed limits were bad for boating and tourism, why would so many marina owners support HB847?

How exactly do you extrapolate 1 quote to be "so many marina owners"?

It appears that there are far more marinas opposed to the bill than for it. The only marine-related stores that would seem to logically support the bill would be the paddle-boat sellers.

This is about more than bad/not bad for tourism, it's about more needless laws that will go unenforced and solve no issues.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

How exactly do you extrapolate 1 quote to be "so many marina owners"?

It appears that there are far more marinas opposed to the bill than for it. The only marine-related stores that would seem to logically support the bill would be the paddle-boat sellers.

This is about more than bad/not bad for tourism, it's about more needless laws that will go unenforced and solve no issues.

Thurston's is not the only one, there are more on this supporters list.

The Common Man
Ashalnd Insurance
Strictly Rentals
Wild Meadow Canoes and Kayaks
Centre Harbor Cellars
Center Harbor Inn
AMC (Appalachian Mountain Club)
NH Audubon
New Hampshire Lakes Association (NHLA)
Decker Machinery Company
The Architectural Studio
Fay’s Boat Yard
Birch Island Camp Association
Gilford Islands Association (GIA)
Jolly Island Association
Lockes Island Association
Belknap Landscaping Company
Design Quest
DK Net Design
E&S Insurance LLC
The Hair Factory
Mike’s Ala Carte Catering
Pepi Herrmann Crystal, Inc.
Glendale Marine
River Edge Marina
Squam Lakes Association (SLA)
Cottage Place on Squam Lake
Squam Lake Inn
Me Designs
Barrons Billiards
Blooms Vanity
J&J Printing
LaBelles Shoe Store
Central & Northern Title
Haughey, Philpot & Laurent
Lakeside Hotel Assoc.
Sundial Shops
Paugus Bay Marina
Best Western Silver Fox Inn
Griffin Bodi Krause
Municipal Resources, Inc.
Great Northern Trading Co
Meredith Marina
Y-Landing
Bear Island Conservation Association (BICA)
East Bear Island Conservation Association
AMC- 3 Mile Island
Winnipesaukee Rowing Club
Alexandria Lamp Shop
Case N’ Keg
Chris Dupont Painting
Christopher P. Williams, Architects
Eisenberg Chiropractic
Hawkins Photography
Hobo Railroad
Landscapes By Tom
League of NH Craftsmen
Mastiff Builders
Omni Signs
Patricia’s “Specially for You”
Pemi Glass Company
Pretty Petunias Garden Center
Remax Bay Side Real Estate
Remcon/North
Sagecliff Software, Inc.
The Village Perk
Winnipesaukee Scenic Railroad
GASCO Realty, LLC
51 Main Street, LLc
Inns & Spa at Mill Falls
Meredith Bay Painting
The Lake House Grille
Lago
Camp
Town Docks Restaurant
Mame's
The Gallery at Mill Falls
Oglethorp
Guiseppies Resturant
Northern Air Trading
Lady of the Lake Clothing
Adorments
Creative Clothing
Christopher P. Williams, Architect
Oak Street Associates
Old Mill Insurance
Innisfree Bookstore
Phoenix Leasing, Inc.
Silver Top Ventures
Minuteman Plumbing & Heating
Sava Designs
Horn Insurance
Harts Restaurant
Fermentation Station LLC
Hunter's
Waukewan Antiques
Village Greenery
Etcetera Shop
Associated Surveyors
Moulton Farm
Barber Pole Association
Trexler’s Marina
Land’s End
Wyman Trail Association
Loon Preservation Committee
1st T Development Corporation
The Woodshed Restaurant
Castle in the Clouds
Amoskeg Insurance
EPTAM Plastics
The Common Man Inn
Corner House Inn
Seacoast Kayak
Tilton Veterinary Hospital
Waterville Valley Condo Rental
Thurston’s Marina
Lighthouse Inn
Weirs Beach Motel and Cottages
Van's Hotel Enterprises
Wolfboro Inn
Island Real Estate of New Hampshire
LB Boat Restoration
Millie B
Wolfeboro Trolley Company
Wolfetrap Restaurant