Governor will sign Speed Limit legislation

[Airwaves]

2Blackdogs wrote:
The Governor agrees.

Actually the only thing the governor agrees with is the removal of a campaign issue from the co-sponsor of this needless law in the wake of the Diamond Island accident.

So rather than do the right thing he took away a campaign issue from the senator who co-sponsored the bill, who was probably pandering for votes with the bill in the first place, who just happens to be running against the governor in the next election!

Remember, when the bill was proposed and the governor looked at it and the NH boating stats his comment was that he didn't think this law was necessary. It became necessary politically after Diamond Island, nothing more than that!

[2Blackdogs]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Remember, when the bill was proposed and the governor looked at it and the NH boating stats his comment was that he didn't think this law was necessary. It became necessary politically after Diamond Island, nothing more than that!

"Speed Limit Reality" has been in existence since proposal LSR430 in 2002, so the delays leading to the Diamond Island collision can only be laid at the feet of the opponents.

Any lawyer, like this Governor, would have reviewed all the relevant legislation proposed since Winnipesaukee's worst Hit & Run fatality. He would know of the existence of the mildest possible bill put forth in 2002 in response to a needless death. It was the very simple legislative proposal "25mph speed limit at-night-only". The proposal was titled LSR430, and sponsored by Representative Paul Hatch of Wolfeboro. The Governor would have reviewed correspondence put forth by both sides.

In response to this mildest of rules, a very long "open letter" to Rep Paul Hatch appeared at this Winni.com forum before you joined here. It began,

Mr. Hatch,

I feel the need to write this letter in opposition to your proposed legislation, LSR 430, imposing a 25mph nighttime speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee. For the record, I am a permanent resident of Laconia and an avid boater on Lake Winnipesaukee. I strongly disagree with your proposed legislation for the following reasons.

1. Economic Impact: I do not think the economic impact of your proposal has been thoroughly examined. Many people who live on the Laconia/Meredith side of the lake would no longer frequent many establishments in Wolfeboro such as the WOLFETRAP
{snip}

While Wolfetrap played a role, there can be no question Diamond Island played the key role, as you state. I quoted Les Hall as saying that here, and I used even fewer words to say the same thing.

But the fault lies with those who stopped the mildest political response possible (LSR430) and, in a political response to a second needless death, received HR847 instead.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

You could even say it was a slow speed, since both were traveling in the same direction.

In darkness, Might overcame Right.

Still, we lake dwellers would like to become accustomed to fewer injuries, safer lakeside yards, fewer close calls, fewer deaths, and for being noticed as living, sentient beings while on open waters.

The Governor agrees.

Darn nice of him too. So what am I to discern from your post above? Is it a larger boat that's the problem at slow speeds? "Fewer deaths" on Winni would be around zero, which is ideal in my book.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

Hey Birdsall: I completely agree..however, I think a "Roll Cage" should be mandated as well. Remember a couple of decades ago when "WhatsHerFace"...I apologize for not remembering her name..suggested the same for motorcycles? WHO WAS That? She is still around. NoBozo

Her name is Joan Claybrooke. (SP?) She also came up with "Botts Dots"..those little reflectors that were mandated to be imbedded in the centerline of most highways. This was also the time of mandated 55MPH speed limits. Don't remember if she was responsible for that. She is still very influential. NoBozo

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Actually the only thing the governor agrees with is the removal of a campaign issue from the co-sponsor of this needless law in the wake of the Diamond Island accident.

So rather than do the right thing he took away a campaign issue from the senator who co-sponsored the bill, who was probably pandering for votes with the bill in the first place, who just happens to be running against the governor in the next election!

Remember, when the bill was proposed and the governor looked at it and the NH boating stats his comment was that he didn't think this law was necessary. It became necessary politically after Diamond Island, nothing more than that!

I think there's more to it than political expediency. The bill was supported by his constituents (NH poll), passed by the house with a wide margin, then supported by the senate. He would have looked foolish had he vetoed this bill.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

I think there's more to it than political expediency. The bill was supported by his constituents (NH poll), passed by the house with a wide margin, then supported by the senate. He would have looked foolish had he vetoed this bill.

It would have indeed taken leadership to veto. The non-boating public would not have cared one way or the other. Those truly for increased safety would have applauded, especially if he stressed current rules and noted how limited MP funds would be better spent enforcing rules that matter. He would have lost some of the "lake is mine go away" -LIMGA- crowd, which unfortunately, knows how to play the political game.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Remember, when the bill was proposed and the governor looked at it and the NH boating stats his comment was that he didn't think this law was necessary. It became necessary politically after Diamond Island, nothing more than that!

Except of course . . . as usual . . . that's NOT what he ACTUALLY said, is it?


"Speaking on WGIR, Lynch said he doesn't think overall boat speeds are the most egregious problem on Lake Winnipesaukee. He said there are other problems, such as boats going too fast while too close to other boats or to shore.

He said he would consider the proposed limit if it gets to his desk."

"Not the most egregious problem" is not at all the same as "Not necessary".

He was in fact quite correct. Boat speed is not the most egregious problem on the lake. However a speed limit changes the lake in a lot more ways than just slowing boats down.

[BroadHopper]

than just slowing boats down?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

What are the other ways than just slowing boats down?

Woodsy has predicted fewer performance boats will come to the lake due to the speed limit. Some have already left, some say they will never return.

The speed limit will impact the future boat purchasing choices of lake residents.

The speed limit sets a standard of behavior for the responsible boater, and makes Winni less desirable to the irresponsible boater.

Perhaps the lake reputation will change from a place for "thrill-seeking boaters" to a place for "family boaters".

The speed limit will make the lake more kayak friendly.



And none of these changes are Dependant on how many radar units the MP have, how many tickets they write, or how well those tickets stand up in court!

[BroadHopper]

The original Formula Hull the 233 has a long history of success as a rough water hull since 1962. In fact center consoles and fishing boats are made from the same hull.

1: Albemarle 242 - still in production today hull virtually identical.
2: Bluewater 2350 - still in production - hull virtually identical.
3: Contender 25 - older non-integrated bracket models
4: Cape Craft 23 - no longer in production
5: Eden 233: built in NZ http://www.edencraft.com.au/formula.html
6: Whitewater 25 - still in production

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.


The speed limits proponents consider Formulas as performance boats.
So all these boats are considered GFBL boats? I'm confused????

[bigpatsfan]

Hello Bear Islander it is interesting how you equate the speed of a boat to being an irresponsible boater as if the mere fact that someone is going fast must mean they are irresponsible or dangerous.

If this true, then how do you explain that on land, the number of accidents and fatalities actually decreased when States increased their highway speeds. Some sates have no daytime speed limits others have between 65mph to 80mph speed limits. So on land if there is a correlation between safety and speed it is counter intuitive. Meaning that you are safer on the highway that is posted 65mph than you are on that very same highway when it is posted 55mph.

So on land, the mere fact you are going fast does not equate to being irresponsible or dangerous.

As for our lake there have been no fatalities related to speeding boats in the last ten years, twenty years… not sure when there was a fatality due to speeding. I am not sure how many accidents have been caused by boats going over 45mph. Not sure given the number of boats on the lake every year that any accident is statistically meaningful. Frankly, I am not sure that it really matters as the speed limit is here and once the State gets a taste of this revenue stream they will push speed limits on all lakes. States love money and speeding tickets are easy revenue sources.

So you are saying this is great… just what I wanted. But I say you missed part of the equation.

As a result of this speed limit, I agree with you that the Lake will become a very desirable place to boat.. Meaning the Lake will see more boats. What you think being “family friendly” will result in less boats. Does that make any sense. Really does it. Of course not. Family friendly will result in increased boaters.

So more boats will mean more boat traffic, more wakes. etc.

Face it, the speed limit law will actually have the exact opposite effect then what you were looking for.

Sometimes when you win, you actually lose.
or be careful what you ask for
either way, you did not think this thru.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Woodsy has predicted fewer performance boats will come to the lake due to the speed limit. Some have already left, some say they will never return.

The speed limit will impact the future boat purchasing choices of lake residents.

The speed limit sets a standard of behavior for the responsible boater, and makes Winni less desirable to the irresponsible boater.

Perhaps the lake reputation will change from a place for "thrill-seeking boaters" to a place for "family boaters".

The speed limit will make the lake more kayak friendly.



And none of these changes are Dependant on how many radar units the MP have, how many tickets they write, or how well those tickets stand up in court!

Our experience at the lake last week was that many people have already slowed down, probably to get the most miles per gallon. We were among those who have slowed down.

We found a couple of offenses that decreased our boating pleasure. The first was the channel cloggers who would go barely above headway in the middle of the channel or who would start tubing or wake boarding in the middle of the channel, so they obviously weren't a speed issue. The second was the people who would overtake us and then cut across our bow as soon as they had the right of way. They just as easily could have passed us on the other side. They weren't going much faster than us, and we were doing 20-25 mph, so they too were not a speed issue. The only boat that overtook us and didn't cross our bow was a GFBL with one young guy and four bikini-clad women...if I were a guy, I think I'd want to be him.

By the way, crossing another boat's bow is considered an act of war in the Navy, so we're going to make sure we're well-armed next time. . And before someone goes nuts thinking I'm going to add a gun rack to the bow rider, I was kidding.

[Coastal Laker]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The speed limit will make the lake more kayak friendly.

Au contraire! The affects of the impending legislation are already underway. Some folks have already begun to ditch their pricey GF boats for a bigger cruiser type boat = bigger wakes. (Even my husband and I are looking for a bigger boat and we're not really affected by the speed limit).

Anyway, bigger wakes from the increase in cruiser traffic won't make the lake more kayak friendly unless you have something like this in mind...



Who knows, maybe even surfing might become popular! I always wanted to try that.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Coastal Laker

Au contraire! The affects of the impending legislation are already underway. Some folks have already begun to ditch their pricey GF boats for a bigger cruiser type boat = bigger wakes. (Even my husband and I are looking for a bigger boat and we're not really affected by the speed limit).

Trading in a GFBL for a big cruiser may not be a good idea in the long run. As many speed limit opponents have been pointing out for years....

The big cruisers are next!

[CaptJP]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Trading in a GFBL for a big cruiser may not be a good idea in the long run. As many speed limit opponents have been pointing out for years....

The big cruisers are next!

You're right on. I don't doubt they're the next target. There's a lot of folks in denial though! (me included) Can you imagine the Doris, Sophie or Mount getting booted off the lake?

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by CaptJP

You're right on. I don't doubt they're the next target. There's a lot of folks in denial though! (me included) Can you imagine the Doris, Sophie or Mount getting booted off the lake?

They're too big anyway.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

They're too big anyway.

Scrap metal prices are up and the leftist liberals desire to break from the past...

[B R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Trading in a GFBL for a big cruiser may not be a good idea in the long run. As many speed limit opponents have been pointing out for years....

The big cruisers are next!

you guys picked on a very small minority who didn't have a lot of people sticking up for them. it's hard to argue against "speed kills".

a size limit or a horse power limit will impact a significantly larger amount of boaters/marinas/businesses. i don't see that happening in the next 20 years. a sales tax and an income will have to happen first. it'd be hard to argue that nh wouldn't lose a significant amount of cash if you ended up kicking those boats off of your lake too.

[BroadHopper]

The proponents got their inch. Now they want the mile. The Winnipesaukee grapevine are loaded with the story that the next step is to convince the legislature that since the lake is a public water supply, it should be the next Massabesic. Limit the size of boats, limit horsepower. You can't stick a finger in it let alone swim.

As a waterfront property owner, the big cruisers are my biggest fear. There is enough erosion on my shore. I voted against the speed limit because of the 25 at night limit. Big wakes at that speed.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Coastal Laker

Au contraire! The affects of the impending legislation are already underway. Some folks have already begun to ditch their pricey GF boats for a bigger cruiser type boat = bigger wakes. (Even my husband and I are looking for a bigger boat and we're not really affected by the speed limit).

Anyway, bigger wakes from the increase in cruiser traffic won't make the lake more kayak friendly unless you have something like this in mind...

Why would anyone buy a big cruiser right now, with the price of gas and all? Why not trade in for a couple of kayaks? In my sea kayak, I get about 20 MPS [mile-per-sandwich (usually peanut-butter-&-jelly)].

Most sea kayakers are not bothered by boat wakes - in fact I often do surf them. We like big waves http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BioujCzXgJg

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

...Why would anyone buy a big cruiser right now, with the price of gas and all?...

Simple.

Because folks still have a right to choose how they spend their discretionary income, and are free within reason to pursue pastimes that they enjoy. A very good friend of mine has just purchased a 38' Egg Harbor Cruiser, and is actually excited at the prospect of filling the two 150 gallon diesel tanks tonight in anticipation of us sailing her down from her current berth in Portland to our marina in Dover later this week.

It's a dream he has pursued and saved for, for many years.

Maybe someday you'll take a class that explains one of these basic traits of human behavior????

[tis]

All these limits! Who does this lake belong to anyway? We keep saying "the state of NH". Who is that? It is us!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do we have no right to keep using the lake we own and pay for without all kind of restrictions that a vocal few want?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by tis

All these limits! Who does this lake belong to anyway? We keep saying "the state of NH". Who is that? It is us!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do we have no right to keep using the lake we own and pay for without all kind of restrictions that a vocal few want?

Only 9% of New Hampshire voters were opposed to a speed limit. The "vocal few" only brought the problem to the legislature, the people of New Hampshire supported it and passed it. Please remember that BOTH candidates for Governor, Democrat and Republican, supported it.

The arguments against the big cruisers are actually better than the arguments for a speed limit. The damage done by their large wakes is well documented and almost undeniable. The lake is a municipal water supply. Erosion is a serious problem.

I can't see that the tourism issue will help the cruisers. Not many people are trailering in their Carvers for a Winnipesaukee vacation.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Skip

Maybe someday you'll take a class that explains one of these basic traits of human behavior????

Ya know, you guys are going to insult me no matter what I post in this forum. I was attempting to add to the humor in Coastal Laker's post. I thought that was fairly obvious.

Skip, I understand human behavior just fine and have taken classes on it - after all, I am a Poly-Sci major. Dreams are great, but that doesn't mean you can't be somewhat flexible with your dreams. When times change and situations change, you have to learn to adapt. We all have to make concessions in life. I've certainly had to give up my own share of dreams.

[2Blackdogs]

Originally Posted by bigpatsfan

As for our lake there have been no fatalities related to speeding boats in the last ten years, twenty years… not sure when there was a fatality due to speeding.

In the history of Lake Winnipesaukee, the only speeding charge that could ever be written.....is for a fatal collision of 6+ mph.

Most collision fatalities are well beyond 6 mph, but remain unproven, untested, undocumented and uncorroborated for exact speed by the Marine Patrol because there's no other speeding STATUTE to support a speeding CHARGE!!!

Who here has seen a written speeding charge of 6+ mph in a fatal Winni collision?

[TiltonBB]

Skip, I understand human behavior just fine and have taken classes on it - after all, I am a Poly-Sci major. Dreams are great, but that doesn't mean you can't be somewhat flexible with your dreams. When times change and situations change, you have to learn to adapt. We all have to make concessions in life. I've certainly had to give up my own share of dreams.[/QUOTE]

So if you are comfortable in a large cruiser, and you can afford a large cruiser, and you and your family and friends enjoy your days on the lake or at the dock......Why not?
No need to "adapt" No need to "make concessions" You are comfortable right where you are!
Enjoy life and the benefits you have earned by working hard and being financially secure! (Watch out for the little people in the kayaks as you use the lake like it was meant to be used.)
We don't need to revert to the stone age to keep a small minority happy. Soon enough they will find out that the speed limit makes no safety difference on the lake and only increases wakes and shore line erosion. It will actually make he lake less safe for people in small boats (and kayaks) less than 23 feet.
It is a totally "feel good" liberal left wing type of law.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Only 9% of New Hampshire voters were opposed to a speed limit.

Are you dreaming!!

Where did you get this data?

More spin and embelishment. Looks to me like you folks are on to step two in your plan. Watch out cruiser owners!

R2B

[Evenstar]

We don't need to revert to the stone age to keep a small minority happy. Soon enough they will find out that the speed limit makes no safety difference on the lake and only increases wakes and shore line erosion. It will actually make he lake less safe for people in small boats (and kayaks) less than 23 feet. It is a totally "feel good" liberal left wing type of law.

The anti-speed limit crowd keeps stating that the speed limit is something that "a small minority" wanted, yet no one ever offers any proof for that statement. Whereas polls actually show that a large majority of NH residents were in favor of the speed limit bill. And most residents that I've talked with personally are in support of speed limit.

I supported the lake speed limit totally because of safety concerns - which I have personally experienced. But I have never been a supporter of forcing any type of boat off the lake. I've kayaked on Squam for years - it is the 2nd largest lake in NH and it has a 40 mph speed limit. The wakes on Squam are not any bigger than the wakes on Winni - in fact I've experienced larger wakes on Winni. And I do not feel unsafe in my 16 foot sea kayak on Squam.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

Are you dreaming!!

Where did you get this data?

More spin and embelishment. Looks to me like you folks are on to step two in your plan. Watch out cruiser owners!

R2B

It's the same poll we have been talking about in this forum for a couple of years. I'm surprised you have not heard about it.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Nancy Christie,
NH Lakes Association
(603) 226-0299


NEW STATEWIDE POLL INDICATES STRONG SUPPORT FOR 45 MPH DAYTIME /25 MPH
NIGHTTIME SPEED LIMITS ON STATE’S PUBLIC WATERS

Concord, NH (February 16, 2006) – According to a recent poll of New Hampshire
registered voters, 63 percent favor a state law that would place a 45 mph
daytime and a 25 mph nighttime speed limit on all inland public waters – lakes,
ponds and rivers. Only 9% opposed the idea. The study was commissioned by
the New Hampshire Lakes Association, a statewide, non-profit organization whose
mission is to protect the Public Trust, and conducted by the American Research
Group of Manchester, NH...

[Resident 2B]

I thought this was the ARG poll that was full of biased wording and only polled people in Manchester that were basically asked if they thought "safe boating" was a good idea.

More than once, myself and several others have pointed out the huge flaws in this "purchased" poll.

I am very surprised that you bring it up, again. This poll was clearly a sham and this has been pointed out too many times. Pro-speed limit crowd designed it and paid for it. It was clearly a slanted poll and anyone with any sense knows it.

R2B

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

I thought this was the ARG poll that was full of biased wording and only polled people in Manchester that were basically asked if they thought "safe boating" was a good idea.

More than once, myself and several others have pointed out the huge flaws in this "purchased" poll.

I am very surprised that you bring it up, again. This poll was clearly a sham and this has been pointed out too many times. Pro-speed limit crowd designed it and paid for it. It was clearly a slanted poll and anyone with any sense knows it.

R2B

If you know about the poll, then why did you call my 9% reference dreaming, spin and embellishment? Seems like you were the one with the spin going.

So is there a poll that has different results?

The boating industry has deep pockets and could easily have sponsored their own poll to counter this one.

Isn't it possible that the boating industry did do their own poll, but decided to keep the results under wraps?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Why would anyone buy a big cruiser right now, with the price of gas and all? Why not trade in for a couple of kayaks? In my sea kayak, I get about 20 MPS [mile-per-sandwich (usually peanut-butter-&-jelly)].

Most sea kayakers are not bothered by boat wakes - in fact I often do surf them. We like big waves http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BioujCzXgJg

There's some really good deals on big boats right now. Even with the price of gas costing people an extra $50-$150 a weekend compared to two years ago, it's a vastly cheaper way to get a "weekend place" at the lake than buying a lake house. They don't use much gas at the dock or at anchor, and there's plenty of dock space available too. Honestly, I can't think of a better time to buy a big cruiser, if you've got the means. If I didn't mind being stuck on one lake, I'd consider getting a big cruiser. I can't say Manitou did not catch my eye...

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Dave R

There's some really good deals on big boats right now. Even with the price of gas costing people an extra $50-$150 a weekend compared to two years ago, it's a vastly cheaper way to get a "weekend place" at the lake than buying a lake house. They don't use much gas at the dock or at anchor, and there's plenty of dock space available too. Honestly, I can't think of a better time to buy a big cruiser, if you've got the means. If I didn't mind being stuck on one lake, I'd consider getting a big cruiser. I can't say Manitou did not catch my eye...

Anyone that paid for lake real estate, not to mention the taxes, might understand the financial attraction. Heck, I thought of buying Ron's Glastron mini cruiser just for that purpose. I'd keep a boat over on Winni just for weekend wave making

[bigpatsfan]

What does it matter what an opinion poll says.

If you were to ask people if lowering the speed limit on highways would save lives I am sure the answer would be “yes”. But the real answer is “no”.

The role of the government is to see past perceptions and see the truth for what it is. They failed us here.

Bear Islander you and the other speed limit supporters never looked at the true results of your actions.

As stated many times, the speed limit law will do nothing to improve boating safety and in fact there is a very good argument that the increased number of boats that will be boating on “Family Friendly” Lake Winnipesaukee will actually reduce boating safety.

The makeup of people moving to Lake Winnipesaukee is changing. Do you really believe that the people building a $3M home, paying $40k in real estate taxes care about the cost of gas or the size of their boat Given the wealth of these people we can expect them to have influence on our elected officials. So I don’t see any additional laws limiting boating. What I do see are more boats on the lake and as a result of these mansions being built I am sure we will see more and more larger boats on the Lake which is a trend started 30 years ago. (compare the average boat size in 1978 and the average boat size in 2008)

I enjoying kayaking on the Lake and I miss the good old days but I do realize that you cannot turn the clock back. And what has me most upset is that the pro-speed limit people can not see is that their actions will dramatically increase the trends of the past thirty years…. More and more boats and larger and larger boats.

[VtSteve]

Boating surely has changed. I've seen GFBL boaters looking at cruisers, pontoon boats have sold better than anything else. If I wanted to reside on a quiet lake, do the nature and small camp thing, fish, I'd not do it on a big lake. Smaller boats on big lakes have issues. As I told my dad over twenty years ago, there's a reason that Winni boaters were trending towards bigger boats. Self-defense and big wakes. Sure there's the more room bit, plus trying to take a twenty mile cruise on a busy lake in a 20' boat can be quite slow, and very bumpy. That's how the GF crowd got started on Winni in the first place.

There are plenty of lakes here in Vermont to do the small boat thing, many are very quiet, offer great fishing, perfect for kayaking, rowing, canoes, even 12' aluminum boats do quite well. If I had any of those boats, I'd rarely, if ever, venture out into Lake Champlain. On a very congested lake like Winni, I'd never do it. I don't think you can turn a larger lake into a smaller one, which is a vision some folks have in mind.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by bigpatsfan

What does it matter what an opinion poll says.
If you were to ask people if lowering the speed limit on highways would save lives I am sure the answer would be “yes”. But the real answer is “no”.

Actually there's data that supports both that it does and it doesn't. It's just not conclusive. One area where the data seems to be conclusive is that the difference in speeds between vehicles has a direct relationship between the number of accidents. That, to me, is one of the main arguments for enacting a lake speed limit.

The role of the government is to see past perceptions and see the truth for what it is. They failed us here.

The truth (as I see it) is that allowing boats to travel at unlimited speeds on NH lakes is very dangerous. The legislature did not fail NH residents in enacting this law.

Bear Islander you and the other speed limit supporters never looked at the true results of your actions.

And how do you know that? I've posted many times that I kayak a great deal on Squam. Squam has had a 40 mph speed limit for years, yet the wakes are not larger on Squam and the boats are not bigger on Squam.

As stated many times, the speed limit law will do nothing to improve boating safety and in fact there is a very good argument that the increased number of boats that will be boating on “Family Friendly” Lake Winnipesaukee will actually reduce boating safety.

With all else being equal, the fact is that slower is safer - so your statement is wrong. And I've never seen any evidence that a speed limit increases the number of boats on a lake.

I enjoying kayaking on the Lake and I miss the good old days but I do realize that you cannot turn the clock back. And what has me most upset is that the pro-speed limit people can not see is that their actions will dramatically increase the trends of the past thirty years…. More and more boats and larger and larger boats.

No, but you can draw the line on how fast boats are allowed to travel. Again, there's no evidence that what you state will happen. And, even if it does happen - that is a separate issue, and as such, can be dealt with through specific regulations.

[twoplustwo]

Apples and oranges.

I've posted many times that I kayak a great deal on Squam. Squam has had a 40 mph speed limit for years, yet the wakes are not larger on Squam and the boats are not bigger on Squam.

That's because they've made it so hard to get on Squam. One furiously fought public boat launch with lousy parking hardly compares to the veritable cornucopia of public launches on Winni. If you don't own there, they don't want you there. Where some of the new money is concerned, they don't want them there, either.

Speed limits don't keep boats off of Squam. The SLA keeps boats off of Squam.

[Bear Islander]

When the speed limit was first proposed many people thought it had zero chance of ever being enacted. Many members here were vocal that it would never, never pass. I am hearing the exact same thing now about big cruisers.

There will be no dramatic increase in the number of big cruisers, because there is no place to dock them. There are slips available now because of the economy, but when they are gone, that is it.

Winnipesaukee marinas have far more slips than the law allows at this time. They can keep them because they are grandfathered. They can't rebuild the docks for larger boats or increase the number of slips.

You can't rent or lease a mooring, so the only way to add a cruiser slip is to buy or rent private property.

[Little Bear]

I travel to work by boat early morning (7:30 am or so) and park my boat in one of the marinas in Saunder's Cove. On several occasions the water has been flat calm, no other boats, not many distractions. Also on several occasions, I've not seen kayaks until I'm within about 100 yards or so. I train my eye now to look at the shoreline when entering Saunder's Bay to look for something moving. Again, this is a weekday, early morning, no other traffic. Are these kayakers nuts or what? They have dull, earth tone kayaks, they sit low in the water and provide nothing at all that gives them additional visibility to boaters. Oh, by the way, I travel at around 27 MPH, so I'm not going fast. In addition, I have 20/20 eyesight, so that's not a problem. The problem is that these kayakers seem to think that they are invincible and that they have inalienable rights to be on the lake, any place at any time. Now I have no problem with them out in Saunder's Bay early morning weekdays, but these kayakers that think they should be out in mid-day, heavy traffic on the weekends, need their heads examined. With heavy boat traffic and boat chop it's nearly impossible to see these kayakers. We should enact some kind of law that 1) mandates some device or color that enhances their visibility to other boaters, and 2) restrict the time and location where these kayaks can operate. In my opinion, the simple fact that any of these kayakers choose to operate in congested areas during heavy traffic, tells me they are only there to cause trouble. Time to call our state reps that are so concerned about everyone's safety and have them address this real safety issue. I'm sending a letter to the Governor about this today or tomorrow.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Little Bear

... The problem is that these kayakers seem to think that they are invincible and that they have inalienable rights to be on the lake, any place at any time...

They do have an inalienable right to be on the lake, any place, any time.

If you think you will ever get a law passed that will limit kayaks to keep them out of the way of power boats, then you are dreaming. If boats and kayaks can't co-exist on Saunders Bay then perhaps a NWZ is needed.

A regulation requiring them to have flags or some other conspicuity device is a good idea. Personally I think wearing a navy blue life jacket in a navy blue kayak is insane.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

They do have an inalienable right to be on the lake, any place, any time.

Their inalienable rights require proper navigation lights between 1/2 hour before sunset to 1/2 hour after sunrise, if I recall correctly. I have never seen a kayak so equipped, but I suppose they could be installed. At this time of year that's between ~8p and 6a..

[Islander]

Originally Posted by B R

you guys picked on a very small minority who didn't have a lot of people sticking up for them. it's hard to argue against "speed kills".

a size limit or a horse power limit will impact a significantly larger amount of boaters/marinas/businesses. i don't see that happening in the next 20 years. a sales tax and an income will have to happen first. it'd be hard to argue that nh wouldn't lose a significant amount of cash if you ended up kicking those boats off of your lake too.

The legislation being written will allow for a long period before full enactment and/or grandfather status for boats already on lake Winnipesaukee.

So there will be no big impact to marinas or businesses. In fact very little will change except the number of big cruisers will not increase. Over time they will go away through attrition.

I have no idea why you would think we need a sales and income tax before we can have a horsepower limit. Apples and orange juice. Anyway 500 HP is more than enough on a this lake.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

They do have an inalienable right to be on the lake, any place, any time.

They do????? Where is this spelled out?

[Silver Duck]

I'm gonna make history here, and side strongly with Bear Islander on this one.

Kayaks have the exact same rights as any other type of boat. NH law makes it very clear that the public is to have unrestricted access to the larger lakes, and does not differentiate between paddle craft, sail boats, or motor boats in that right to access.

Though considering how many snapped off Navaids I've seen lately , if I owned a dull collored kayak and wanted to use it on Winni I'd for sure grab a can of dayglo orange spray paint and take care of business before going out!

Silver Duck

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

They do????? Where is this spelled out?

A kayak falls under the definition of both "boat" and "vessel" in NH law:

TITLE XXII - NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY - CHAPTER 270-D
BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS

Section 270-D:1 Definitions:

I. "Boat'' means every description of watercraft other than seaplanes, capable of being used or used as a means of transportation on the water and which is primarily used for noncommercial purposes, or leased, rented, loaned or chartered to another for such use.

XI. "Vessel'' means any type of watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water, except a seaplane.

So kayaks have the exact same rights to be on any part of NH lakes as any boat - at any time of day (as long as they meet the non-daylight lighting regulations).

Boat color is up to the owner. When I bought my kayak I bought the brightest color available - and I bought paddles that had bright orange blades. Paddle blades are often the first thing you see, since they extend higher than anything else and because they are generally in motion.

[ossipeeboater]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

They do have an inalienable right to be on the lake, any place, any time.

If you think you will ever get a law passed that will limit kayaks to keep them out of the way of power boats, then you are dreaming. If boats and kayaks can't co-exist on Saunders Bay then perhaps a NWZ is needed.

A regulation requiring them to have flags or some other conspicuity device is a good idea. Personally I think wearing a navy blue life jacket in a navy blue kayak is insane.

Because I live in a busy section of Ossipee Lake and I let my 8 year old paddle alone I bought him a day glow orange kayak for the visibility and his life jacket is yellow. I have to say I see way to many dark blue or green kayaks in the evening and they are far too hard to see even at slow speeds

[Audiofn]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Why would anyone buy a big cruiser right now, with the price of gas and all? Why not trade in for a couple of kayaks? In my sea kayak, I get about 20 MPS [mile-per-sandwich (usually peanut-butter-&-jelly)].

Most sea kayakers are not bothered by boat wakes - in fact I often do surf them. We like big waves http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BioujCzXgJg

It is really quite simple. Not all of us are consumed by the price of fuel. Sure I would rather pay 1.50 a gallon. I am sure that those in Europe are wishing that they could have our fuel prices even what they are today. When fuel was 1.50 a gallon I could not afford to fill up my boat. Today with fuel at over 4.00 a gallon I have no problem paying to fill up my boat. The problem that I have is finding the time to not be working and use the thing. Last I checked fuel is STILL the cheapest part of owning a boat.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Islander

The legislation being written will allow for a long period before full enactment and/or grandfather status for boats already on lake Winnipesaukee.

So there will be no big impact to marinas or businesses. In fact very little will change except the number of big cruisers will not increase. Over time they will go away through attrition.

I have no idea why you would think we need a sales and income tax before we can have a horsepower limit. Apples and orange juice. Anyway 500 HP is more than enough on a this lake.

Did I miss something again? Is there more legislation coming?

[bigpatsfan]

So 500HP is more than enough but 502HP is not. So if I have two or three engines do I combined their HP to see if it is too much power. Also, where do I measure this HP, at the prop, the outdrive, at the crankshaft??? Drawing a line and saying anything under this line is okay but anything over this line is not okay is very disturbing.

As for where are the big boats going to dock…you have got to be kidding me. Do you travel the lake at all? Big boats go with big homes which by the way seem to have two to three boats each. There is plenty of undeveloped land still available on this lake and given what has been going in I do not see the State limiting how many docks they can build (Have you not seen the home that the French President stayed at last year… many docks and a huge three berth boathouse). If the market demands it then, marinas will add dock space to accommodate larger boats This is a free market society, which makes it difficult for a State to limit business ability to make money. So they keep the same number of docks but put bigger boats in them and move the smaller boats to an in/out service.

Kayakers and power boaters have co-existed for longer than all of us have been alive so why the kayakers want to make this an us versus them or a David vs. Golith just doesn’t make sense.

Give me a reason why you believe that now with the lake being safer, why the total number of boats on the lake will diminish?? If the total number of boats do not diminish then by enacting a speed limit you actually lost. If the total number of boats on the lake does diminish then you won… don’t see that happening.. family friendly means more boats.

Oh yea, know one knows how many boats are on the lake… there is no easy way to determine this as people register their boats throughout the State not just in Laconia. So this talk about grandfathering…. Just a bunch of

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by bigpatsfan

So 500HP is more than enough but 502HP is not. So if I have two or three engines do I combined their HP to see if it is too much power. Also, where do I measure this HP, at the prop, the outdrive, at the crankshaft??? Drawing a line and saying anything under this line is okay but anything over this line is not okay is very disturbing.

As for where are the big boats going to dock…you have got to be kidding me. Do you travel the lake at all? Big boats go with big homes which by the way seem to have two to three boats each. There is plenty of undeveloped land still available on this lake and given what has been going in I do not see the State limiting how many docks they can build (Have you not seen the home that the French President stayed at last year… many docks and a huge three berth boathouse). If the market demands it then, marinas will add dock space to accommodate larger boats This is a free market society, which makes it difficult for a State to limit business ability to make money. So they keep the same number of docks but put bigger boats in them and move the smaller boats to an in/out service.

Kayakers and power boaters have co-existed for longer than all of us have been alive so why the kayakers want to make this an us versus them or a David vs. Golith just doesn’t make sense.

Give me a reason why you believe that now with the lake being safer, why the total number of boats on the lake will diminish?? If the total number of boats do not diminish then by enacting a speed limit you actually lost. If the total number of boats on the lake does diminish then you won… don’t see that happening.. family friendly means more boats.

Oh yea, know one knows how many boats are on the lake… there is no easy way to determine this as people register their boats throughout the State not just in Laconia. So this talk about grandfathering…. Just a bunch of

Horsepower limits are in place and working on lakes and ponds across New Hampshire and across the country.

Where is all this undeveloped shore front you are talking about? The are a few undeveloped lots here and there. But those long stretches of undeveloped shore you see from your boat are conservation land. They can't be developed.

The State ALREADY limits how many slips you can have on private land based on a frontage formula.

Marinas WILL NOT be adding any docks. The State allows a marina to have only one slip for every 25 feet of lake frontage. Virtually all marinas have more than that and depend on their grandfather status. Therefore a marina can not add a slip or change their dock space. Not even by one inch.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by bigpatsfan

If the total number of boats do not diminish then by enacting a speed limit you actually lost.

not so bigpatsfan... you have to look at the impact of different kinds of boats on the lake and those who use it. Clearly the 500 plus horsepower boat roaring loudly around the lake at 70 MPH driven by an owner who feels Winnipesaukee is his private speedway has a much greater impact than the Boston Whaler with a family boating to Wolfeboro to get an ice cream cone. I'd take 100 of the latter over 1 of the former. Now a few months ago there were vehement arguments by the no limits crowd that HB 847 would negatively impact or even destroy the lake's region economy. Now we're hearing the "you won but you lost argument" that there will be more boats on the lake. Make up your mind!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

not so bigpatsfan... you have to look at the impact of different kinds of boats on the lake and those who use it. Clearly the 500 plus horsepower boat roaring loudly around the lake at 70 MPH driven by an owner who feels Winnipesaukee is his private speedway has a much greater impact than the Boston Whaler with a family boating to Wolfeboro to get an ice cream cone. I'd take 100 of the latter over 1 of the former.

Really? You would rather see 100 "family" boats than 1 boat that you feel is too fast? WOW! You must not spend that much time on the lake then...because that is exactly how it is right now.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Clearly the 500 plus horsepower boat roaring loudly around the lake at 70 MPH driven by an owner who feels Winnipesaukee is his private speedway has a much greater impact than the Boston Whaler with a family boating to Wolfeboro to get an ice cream cone. I'd take 100 of the latter over 1 of the former. !

Love this logic.100 times more boats will have less impact?Wow,now there is clear thinking!

[Orion]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Marinas WILL NOT be adding any docks. The State allows a marina to have only one slip for every 25 feet of lake frontage. Virtually all marinas have more than that and depend on their grandfather status. Therefore a marina can not add a slip or change their dock space. Not even by one inch.

What about Mt. View Yacht Club? That place has been digging back into the wetlands and adding docks as long as I can remember. When it was Gilford Marina, back in the 60's it was about 1/3 the size it is today. Since the time I rented a dock about 10 years ago, they have added another two or three rows of docks. Granted, they are not extending their waterfront dockage, but digging back and creating your own bay seems to be unrestricted, or at least it was a few years ago.

Plus, the largest concentration of the largest boats on the lake can be found here and at the neighboring marina.

So, more boats to come.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Love this logic.100 times more boats will have less impact?Wow,now there is clear thinking!

Have you heard of the term "Carbon Footprint?"

Well, this is similar - only it is what I call your "Lake Footprint."

This is based on your boat's size X your average speed on the water X your length of time on the water.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to grasp the idea that (over the same time period) a large, fast moving boat is using more of the lake surface area than a small, slow moving boat.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Did I miss something again? Is there more legislation coming?

VSteve, See the reply I posted earlier. They want Winnipesaukee to have the same restrictions as lake Massibesic.

[Turtle Boy]

I still disagree Chip and Siksukr. 100 of the latter boats can go by me and they're barely noticable, then comes the roaring GFBL and all conversation stops(literally, because you can no longer hear a conversation). And you still havn't answered the question, will there be more boats on this newer family friendly lake or is the NH lake's region economy going to go down the toilet because the GFBLs "feel unwelcome"?

[parrothead]

1 GFBL boat = 100 family boaters? So a 30 foot GFBL boat uses up much more lake than 100 20-25 foot family boats? How?

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Clearly the 500 plus horsepower boat roaring loudly around the lake at 70 MPH driven by an owner who feels Winnipesaukee is his private speedway has a much greater impact than the Boston Whaler with a family boating to Wolfeboro to get an ice cream cone.

A family on a boston Whaler? Now that is asking for trouble. I can see that when a storm comes up on the Broads. No common sense.

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

They do have an inalienable right to be on the lake, any place, any time.

If you think you will ever get a law passed that will limit kayaks to keep them out of the way of power boats, then you are dreaming. If boats and kayaks can't co-exist on Saunders Bay then perhaps a NWZ is needed.

A regulation requiring them to have flags or some other conspicuity device is a good idea. Personally I think wearing a navy blue life jacket in a navy blue kayak is insane.

The same way you were dreaming when you conjured up the phony need for a speed limit? Dreams do come true, you know. I have a dream...If safety was really the agenda, then it would seem to me that the state reps and senators would jump at the chance to legislate more laws to ensure the safety of kayakers, by way of restricting where they can travel on the lake and what addtional safety/visibility devices that they must have. I hear complaints about safety flags impeding the kayaker's ability to recover from an overturned kayak. It would seem to me that a simple release handle would free the flag from the kayak, thereby removing any problems. The flag would just float and the kayaker would just pick it up and re-attach it to the kayak. Why are kayaker's so opposed to increasing their visibility to powerboats? Why should kayaks take priority over powerboats? On what basis? Why aren't bicycles allowed on Route 93? If bikes and cars can't co-exist on Route 93, then perhaps a 10mph speed limit on Route 93 is in order. Bikes are restricted from certain roads and kayaks should be restricted from certain parts of the lake at certain times. Same analogy in my opinion, and the foundation on which a case should be made to the Legislature and Governor.

[2Blackdogs]

Originally Posted by parrothead

1 GFBL boat = 100 family boaters?

That's about right for the ratio at present.

Four Winns owners aren't the problem.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Have you heard of the term "Carbon Footprint?"

Well, this is similar - only it is what I call your "Lake Footprint."

This is based on your boat's size X your average speed on the water X your length of time on the water.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to grasp the idea that (over the same time period) a large, fast moving boat is using more of the lake surface area than a small, slow moving boat.

So 100 "smaller" boats have less of a "lake footprint" than 1 "large, fast moving boat"???

There is no way that you can be serious.

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Have you heard of the term "Carbon Footprint?"

Well, this is similar - only it is what I call your "Lake Footprint."

This is based on your boat's size X your average speed on the water X your length of time on the water.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to grasp the idea that (over the same time period) a large, fast moving boat is using more of the lake surface area than a small, slow moving boat.

Of course a larger boat "uses" more lake, because it is larger. Speed has nothing to do with making it "use" more lake. A 30 foot boat sitting still uses thirty feet of lake, when moving it still "uses" 30 feet of lake at a time. Once it moves out of the 30 feet it is currently using then another boat can "use" that same 30 feet of water. Now a faster moving 30 foot boat can experience more of the lake in an hour than a slower 30 foot boat, but it will still only use 30 feet at a time. A faster boat will have more of an effect on a a boat crossing its bow than a slower. It will also move out of the same boats "space" quicker. On the same note if you are trying to get to your dock and a fisherman in a 12 foot dinghy is stopped in front of it, then that smaller slower boat is also impacting how you use the lake. I don't get how this becomes part of the speed limit debate. The speed of a boat can affect others around it, but that speed could be standing still or going a bazzilion mph.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by chipj29

So 100 "smaller" boats have less of a "lake footprint" than 1 "large, fast moving boat"??? There is no way that you can be serious.

I'm totally serious about my formula, but the exact numbers will depend on the variables. Give me the footprint of a large boat and its average speed and I'll figure out how many of my sea kayaks it equals.

Originally Posted by parrothead

Of course a larger boat "uses" more lake, because it is larger. Speed has nothing to do with making it "use" more lake. A 30 foot boat sitting still uses thirty feet of lake, when moving it still "uses" 30 feet of lake at a time.

Of course speed is a factor! The amount of lake that you're using in a given time period is water that another boat can't use in that same time period.

Perhaps this will help: change the word "using" to "consuming."

[rickstr66]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I'm totally serious about my formula, but the exact numbers will depend on the variables. Give me the footprint of a large boat and its average speed and I'll figure out how many of my sea kayaks it equals.


Of course speed is a factor! The amount of lake that you're using in a given time period is water that another boat can't use in that same time period.

Perhaps this will help: change the word "using" to "consuming."

Evenstar: As has already been said, one 30' boat uses 30' of lake at a time. One hundred 10' boats use 1000' of lake at a time

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Have you heard of the term "Carbon Footprint?"

Well, this is similar - only it is what I call your "Lake Footprint."

This is based on your boat's size X your average speed on the water X your length of time on the water.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to grasp the idea that (over the same time period) a large, fast moving boat is using more of the lake surface area than a small, slow moving boat.

Ok,who do I sound like?"How come you guys resort to namecalling with demeaning statements like the above?This must be against the rules of this forum"."That is a libelist comment and you could be sued for slandering me."

So Ms rocket scientist,tell me again how 100 Boston Whalers have less carbon footprint than 1 GFBL boat.

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I'm totally serious about my formula, but the exact numbers will depend on the variables. Give me the footprint of a large boat and its average speed and I'll figure out how many of my sea kayaks it equals.


Of course speed is a factor! The amount of lake that you're using in a given time period is water that another boat can't use in that same time period.

Perhaps this will help: change the word "using" to "consuming."

A boat does not "consume" water. By consuming you would mean that once a boat passed through a particular area of water, no other vessel could use that water.

Dictionary.com Consume - –verb (used with object) 1. to destroy or expend by use; use up.
2. to eat or drink up; devour.
3. to destroy, as by decomposition or burning: Fire consumed the forest.
4. to spend (money, time, etc.) wastefully.
5. to absorb; engross: consumed with curiosity.
–verb (used without object) 6. to undergo destruction; waste away.
7. to use or use up consumer goods.

The area of water that a boat occupies is based on its length, width, and height. And during the period of time that a boat occupies that area obviously no other boat can occupy the same space. But the boat doesn't consume that area, otherwise there would be a big hole in the lake after the boat passes. So while a faster boat would be able to go more places in a given period of time, it would not restrict another boat from going to the same places at a slower speed. This is why I don't understand how this gets pulled into the speed limit debate. And as I said in my last post the only impact a faster boat would have on other boaters is crossing bow to bow, or if a faster boat ran up on the stern of a slower boat. And "faster" is a relative term, since the "faster" boat only has to be going faster than the boats around it. Other than that a boat traveling at a slower speed actually consumes (to ues your term) a particular area of water longer than a faster boat. The worst offender of using a particualr area of lake would be someone at anchor, because no one else can use that particular piece of water until they move. So a larger boat anchored would have a very large "Lake Footprint" because there could be many kayaks floating in the same spot. If you had the ability to stop time and freeze all the boats on the lake. The boat going 100mph would not be consuming anymore of the lake than the same sized boat at anchor.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Have you heard of the term "Carbon Footprint?"

Well, this is similar - only it is what I call your "Lake Footprint."

This is based on your boat's size X your average speed on the water X your length of time on the water.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to grasp the idea that (over the same time period) a large, fast moving boat is using more of the lake surface area than a small, slow moving boat.

Now you have really lost it...

Your formula is crap. And honestly, who cares? At any given time a 30' GFBL takes up 240 square feet (less of course due to the taper of the hull), and a 30' family boat takes up the same. When that 30' GFBL moves forward at 60mph, the space that it has occupied is now vacant. At any given time each boat takes up the same amount of space. How much distance a boat can cover depending on their speed matters how???

There is nothing to debate here because what you are debating about is foolish and makes not one bit of sense. Carbon footprint? I am quite familiar with it and the whole carbon credit concept.

If scaring a few GFBL's away and replacing them with many family boats, don't you think the multiple engines will be more of a pollutant than a few 'high hp" boats?

Here, I will start your next sentence for you. "You cannot out-debate me so you choose to criticize me" ...

[chipj29]

If there are 100 boats on the lake, each with its own 150 ft circle around it...how can that possibly take up more of the "lake footprint" than 1 boat with a single 150 ft circle around it?

Lets make a couple assumptions, then some calculations based on those.

1. A smaller "family" boat is a 23 ft bowrider. Average width might be 8 ft. You could say that the boat occupies 184 square feet (23 ft long x 8 ft wide). Not exactly accurate, but close enough.
2. A larger "fast" boat is a 32 footer. Average with probably about the same 8 ft. You could say that this boat occupies 256 square feet (32 ft long x 8 ft wide).

3. 100 smaller boats, each occupying 184 square feet, occupy 18,400 square feet (100 boats x 184 sf). This does not take into account the 150 ft circle around each. Sorry, that math is too much for me. Let's just pretend they are all rafting.
4. 1 larger fast boat occupies 256 sf, as determined above. Same 150 ft circle too.

Conclusion-The 100 smaller boats occupy 18,144 FEWER square feet than 1 single larger boat...again, not taking the 150 ft circle into consideration (18,400-256).

So tell me again...how does 1 large boat have a larger footprint than 100 smaller boats?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Ok,who do I sound like?"How come you guys resort to namecalling with demeaning statements like the above?This must be against the rules of this forum"."That is a libelist comment and you could be sued for slandering me." So Ms rocket scientist,tell me again how 100 Boston Whalers have less carbon footprint than 1 GFBL boat.

My "rocket scientist" comment wasn't meant to be an insult in any way to you or to anyone. Did I state or even suggest that you were dumb? Did I state that I was a rocket scientist? No, I didn't do either, so get off my case. My comment was that it should be obvious a large, fast moving boat is using more of the lake surface area than a small, slow moving boat.

And I never made any comment about carbon footprints - so figure that one out yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by parrothead

A boat does not "consume" water. By consuming you would mean that once a boat passed through a particular area of water, no other vessel could use that water.

Consume was not the best choice of words - I was just trying to make a point and I have language issues, so I sometimes don't use the correct word. But your own quoted definition, #7. to use or use up consumer goods. Boats on a lake are using the water that they sit on or pass through.

Perhaps "Impact" in a better word. In this case "Recreational Impact" is directly related to your "Lake Footprint" (which is determined by using my formula).
----------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by chipj29

So tell me again...how does 1 large boat have a larger footprint than 100 smaller boats?

Again, the exact number would depend on the variables. But here's an example:

My sea kayak's footprint on the water is around 28 square feet. My friend has the same kayak. And we generally paddle pretty close to each other. Since we never travel faster than no wake speed, we don't have to stay 150 feet from each other, or from any other boat (or the shore, or anything else). So we're each only using 28 square feet of the lake. But, to be fair, I'll add a 5 foot area around each kayak, which increases our footprint to 48 sf.

A 30 x 8 foot powerboat's footprint is 240 square feet. When it is traveling above no wake speed its footprint increases to 17,911 sf, since it now includes the area contained within the 150 foot circle surrounding it.

In this example, the powerboat's footprint equals 373 of our sea kayaks. Is this clear enough for everyone?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

My "rocket scientist" comment wasn't meant to be an insult in any way to you or to anyone. Did I state or even suggest that you were dumb? Did I state that I was a rocket scientist? No, I didn't do either, so get off my case. My comment was that it should be obvious a large, fast moving boat is using more of the lake surface area than a small, slow moving boat.

And I never made any comment about carbon footprints - so figure that one out yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Consume was not the best choice of words - I was just trying to make a point and I have language issues, so I sometimes don't use the correct word. But your own quoted definition, #7. to use or use up consumer goods. Boats on a lake are using the water that they sit on or pass through.

Perhaps "Impact" in a better word. In this case "Recreational Impact" is directly related to your "Lake Footprint" (which is determined by using my formula).
----------------------------------------------------------------



Again, the exact number would depend on the variables. But here's an example:

My sea kayak's footprint on the water is around 28 square feet. My friend has the same kayak. And we generally paddle pretty close to each other. Since we never travel faster than no wake speed, we don't have to stay 150 feet from each other, or from any other boat (or the shore, or anything else). So we're each only using 28 square feet of the lake. But, to be fair, I'll add a 5 foot area around each kayak, which increases our footprint to 48 sf.

A 30 x 8 foot powerboat's footprint is 240 square feet. When it is traveling above no wake speed its footprint increases to 17,911 sf, since it now includes the area contained within the 150 foot circle surrounding it.

In this example, the powerboat's footprint equals 373 of our sea kayaks. Is this clear enough for everyone?

Crystal clear. Now do me a favor and calculate the footprint of 100 powerboats versus 1 powerboat.

Again...how does 1 "fast" boat have more of a footprint than 100 "smaller" boats? Is this a clear enough question for you?

[Rose]

And I never made any comment about carbon footprints - so figure that one out yourself.

You mentioned carbon footprint in post #155. Also, the original statement by Turtle Boy in post #151 was that he'd take 100 Boston Whalers over 1 GFBL boat anyday, so you can't use the numbers for kayaks to argue the original statement.

[VtSteve]

BI you're starting to sound like the only sane person in your camp now.

Evenstar, Ya's gotta be kidding with the kayak math again. Seriously, you're way overboard here.

TB, 100 runabouts versus just ONE GFBL boat? What happened to congestion?

There has to be a group of pragmatic people out there that isn't on one extreme or another. Talk about cocky and arrogant.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

My "rocket scientist" comment wasn't meant to be an insult in any way to you or to anyone. Did I state or even suggest that you were dumb? Did I state that I was a rocket scientist? No, I didn't do either, so get off my case.
And I never made any comment about carbon footprints - so figure that one out yourself..[/B] Is this clear enough for everyone?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most informed people would know that when someone uses the phrase "you don't have to be a rocket scientist" that it refers to "you don't have to be too intelligent ".Is that clear enough for you?You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that or the fact that you DID make a comment about carbon footprints in that same post.Is this clear enough?

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

:

TB, 100 runabouts versus just ONE GFBL boat? What happened to congestion?

There has to be a group of pragmatic people out there that isn't on one extreme or another. Talk about cocky and arrogant.

Vt Steve...I'm surprised you're having so much trouble with the concept. People on my shore would agree that the passing of 100 small boats in the course of an afternoon is just quiet background noise and preferable to the load roar of just 1 GFBL going by in a manner such that all conversation is impossible. In fact, lots of people feel this way. They were the grass roots effort behind the passage of HB 847.
So who's being cocky and arrogant? HB 847 passed and you need to get over it and move on.

[parrothead]

I don't read anything about noisy boats.

Why speed limits from the WINNFABS website.

"Safety

HB 847 sets reasonable, commonsense 45 MPH daytime and 25 MPH nighttime speed limits on the Lake, which will slow everyone down, allowing more reaction and stopping time. This will, in turn, allow better prevention of boating accidents and close calls for the public safety of all.

Lake Winnipesaukee is a family vacation destination, not a race track. Just as we have speed limits on our highways, the boat congestion on Lake Winnipesaukee and the increasing number of boats traveling at speeds in excess of 45 mph is a cause for alarm.

Boats have no brakes, brake lights, head lights or side mirrors. And Lake Winnipesaukee, unlike our highways, doesn’t have lane markings, traffic signs, traffic lights. What the lake does have is a highly inconsistent surface (bumpy waves), wind and often compromised visibility supporting its varied lake users, frequently children, teens and families in small craft.

Imagine driving a car across a parking lot at highway speed. Imagine a variety of traffic traveling at speeds ranging from 5 - 80+ mph. Imagine no traffic signs, no lane dividers, no turns signals. Now, imagine suddenly running into a series of 3-ft deep potholes. You don’t need to imagine this situation. You need to boat on Lake Winnipesaukee. "

[bigpatsfan]

What the speed limit people want to do is ignore reality.

The reality is the average size of the boat on this lake is getting larger. How many 30’ foot boats did you see in 1991, 2001 or now.

There are more docks now in 2008 than there were in 2001 or in 1991. We even have marinas in 2008 that we did not have in 1998 .

A lot of Marinas have expanded…. West Alton, Parker Marine, Gilian, Lakeport landing…etc. these Marinas have added docks and have added to their in/out ability.

So if marinas are expanding you would have to assume that boat traffic is increasing. Now look at the increased number of homes on the lake and the significant docking systems they have built and you can see another source of increased boats.

So there will be more boats on the lake every year. It is a trend that has been going on for more than 30 years. And yes Marinas will expand to meet this demand as they have been doing for the past 30 years. Legislation will not stop this as we live in a free market society.

There will be NO legislations to limit horsepower, size of boats or whatever because of the money that is being generated by these boats (registrations, taxes on docks, etc). The State and Towns did not lose any money implementing a speed limit and it was such a “feel good” law they went with it. But don't mess with their income stream.

So again what the speed limit people did was to increase the rate of this growth with the misguided thought that people would go away from one of the most beautiful lakes in New Hampshire… yea, that makes sense.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Vt Steve...I'm surprised you're having so much trouble with the concept. People on my shore would agree that the passing of 100 small boats in the course of an afternoon is just quiet background noise and preferable to the load roar of just 1 GFBL going by in a manner such that all conversation is impossible. In fact, lots of people feel this way. They were the grass roots effort behind the passage of HB 847.
So who's being cocky and arrogant? HB 847 passed and you need to get over it and move on.

There were loud passings everyday way over 20 years ago. The noise lasted longer then, since the boats were slower. Maybe the niche groups were the grass roots efforts, but the congestion is noted by many as the main problem on the lake. The passing of 100 smaller boats may in fact be quieter, but that's about it. Most lakes have noise limitations, I think Winni does as well. You and I both know the best way to mitigate the noise, is to lower the decibel limits. Pretty tricky stuff huh?

So my original assertion stands. People like BI that wanted less congestion overall will have to wait for another day. People like you that just want the GFBL boats to leave might be happy, but I doubt it. In any case, I'd prefer a dozen GFBL boats going by my camp instead of 100 of anything else.

[gtagrip]

O.K. I have to disagree with Evenstar's 28ft square foot usage of water. If we have to obey a 150' rule, then I think her footprint is much larger than the 28ft.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Vt Steve...I'm surprised you're having so much trouble with the concept. People on my shore would agree that the passing of 100 small boats in the course of an afternoon is just quiet background noise and preferable to the load roar of just 1 GFBL going by in a manner such that all conversation is impossible. In fact, lots of people feel this way. They were the grass roots effort behind the passage of HB 847.
So who's being cocky and arrogant? HB 847 passed and you need to get over it and move on.

You are either not a waterfront land owner or are just plain nuts. 100 boats in an afternoon is congestion, 1 passing quickly making more noise would be much more pleasing to me than dealing with constant noise and wakes all afternoon long. When was the last time a boat went by your house and was loud enough from a few hundred feet away that you actually could not hold a conversation (especially considering at speed it is in your close proximity for 30 seconds or less)?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Rose

You mentioned carbon footprint in post #155. Also, the original statement by Turtle Boy in post #151 was that he'd take 100 Boston Whalers over 1 GFBL boat anyday, so you can't use the numbers for kayaks to argue the original statement.

1.) Yes, I MENTIONED the term, but I didn’t make any COMMENT about it. Making a comment about something generally means that you’re expressing an opinion about it – which I didn’t do.
2.) I wasn’t arguing the original statement, I was just replying directly to chipj29, who asked: “So tell me again...how does 1 large boat have a larger footprint than 100 smaller boats?” He didn’t state that those 100 boats had to be powerboats – so I had every right to use any type of boat, including sea kayaks – even if it proves a point that you and some others here would like to disregard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Evenstar, Ya's gotta be kidding with the kayak math again. Seriously, you're way overboard here.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with my math. Just because you don’t like the results, gives you no right to insult me. How am I “way overboard”???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here’s a better (hopefully) explanation on why speed is a factor:
Your impact on others on the lake is directly related to how much of the lake you are using. So, unless you are traveling in tight circles, a boat traveling at higher speeds will use a larger percentage of the lake in the same period of time than a boat that is traveling at slower speeds. (A kayaker who just paddles around in a small bay is using a very small percentage of the lake. The same would be true for a fisherman, who just trolls in a small bay all afternoon.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by gtagrip

O.K. I have to disagree with Evenstar's 28ft square foot usage of water. If we have to obey a 150' rule, then I think her footprint is much larger than the 28ft.

You can disagree all you want with me, but the 150 foot rule only applies to boats that are traveling faster that headway speed – and I can’t paddle faster than 6 mph. The actual footprint of my sea kayak is around 28 sf. But I used 48 sf in my calculations, since I included a 5 foot buffer (17,922 / 48 = 373.15). I was being generous with the 5 foot circle, since there is no minimum distance that I have to remain from other kayaks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those who took my question: “Is this clear enough for everyone?” the wrong way, I’m sorry – I was just trying to make sure that I was explaining things clearly.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

1.) Yes, I MENTIONED the term, but I didn’t make any COMMENT about it. Making a comment about something generally means that you’re expressing an opinion about it – which I didn’t do.
2.) I wasn’t arguing the original statement, I was just replying directly to (1)chipj29, who asked: “So tell me again...how does 1 large boat have a larger footprint than 100 smaller boats?” He didn’t state that those 100 boats had to be powerboats – so I had every right to use any type of boat, including sea kayaks – even if it proves a point that you and some others here would like to disregard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------



There is absolutely nothing wrong with my math. Just because you don’t like the results, gives you no right to insult me. How am I “way overboard”???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here’s a better (hopefully) explanation on why speed is a factor:
Your impact on others on the lake is directly related to how much of the lake you are using. So, unless you are traveling in tight circles, a boat traveling at higher speeds will use a larger percentage of the lake in the same period of time than a boat that is traveling at slower speeds. (A kayaker who just paddles around in a small bay is using a very small percentage of the lake. The same would be true for a fisherman, who just trolls in a small bay all afternoon.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------



(2) You can disagree all you want with me, but the 150 foot rule only applies to boats that are traveling faster that headway speed – and I can’t paddle faster than 6 mph. The actual footprint of my sea kayak is around 28 sf. But I used 48 sf in my calculations, since I included a 5 foot buffer (17,922 / 48 = 373.15). I was being generous with the 5 foot circle, since there is no minimum distance that I have to remain from other kayaks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those who took my question: “Is this clear enough for everyone?” the wrong way, I’m sorry – I was just trying to make sure that I was explaining things clearly.

Bold #1
You are so full of it. You replied to my post #169, in which I specifically referred to a family boat being a bowrider.

Bold #2
The 150ft rulle absolutely applies to kayaks. Other boats have to stay more than 150ft away from you, no matter your speed. Therefore you have the same 150ft circle as all other watercraft, powered or not.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by chipj29

The 150ft rulle absolutely applies to kayaks. Other boats have to stay more than 150ft away from you, no matter your speed. Therefore you have the same 150ft circle as all other watercraft, powered or not.

Not if the other boats are at headway speed.

This "faster boats use more of the lake" argument is silly. Any rocket scientist could tell you an obect does not increase in mass or volume due to speed. A 30' boat is a 30' boat no matter how fast it's going. The only time a boat "uses" excessive lake space is when it occupies space in an area too narrow or too congested to pass it safely at speed.

[NoBozo]

I think what many people may be missing here..and maybe Evenstar has not been able to get across...She May Be concerned that the Footprint...of a Scary GFBL may coincide with the footprint of a Sea Kayak...at the same time...and place. Would that be considered assimilation?

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

There is absolutely nothing wrong with my math. Just because you don’t like the results, gives you no right to insult me. How am I “way overboard”???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can disagree all you want with me, but the 150 foot rule only applies to boats that are traveling faster that headway speed – and I can’t paddle faster than 6 mph. The actual footprint of my sea kayak is around 28 sf. But I used 48 sf in my calculations, since I included a 5 foot buffer (17,922 / 48 = 373.15). I was being generous with the 5 foot circle, since there is no minimum distance that I have to remain from other kayaks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, why all the noise about speeding boats invading your space?!

All of a sudden, for the convenience of your hypothesis, your kayak doesn't require other boaters traveling at greater than headway speed to keep 150 feet from you.

They do and that means you have a 150' circle around you; hence the true footprint of your kayak when on the Lake.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to grasp the idea...

To debate or debase, that is the question...

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

1.) Yes, I MENTIONED the term, but I didn’t make any COMMENT about it. Making a comment about something generally means that you’re expressing an opinion about it – which I didn’t do.
2.) I wasn’t arguing the original statement, I was just replying directly to chipj29, who asked: “So tell me again...how does 1 large boat have a larger footprint than 100 smaller boats?” He didn’t state that those 100 boats had to be powerboats – so I had every right to use any type of boat, including sea kayaks – even if it proves a point that you and some others here would like to disregard.

"Definitions of comment on the Web:

* make or write a comment on; "he commented the paper of his colleague"
* remark: a statement that expresses a personal opinion or belief or adds information; "from time to time she contributed a personal comment on his account"
* a written explanation or criticism or illustration that is added to a book or other textual material; "he wrote an extended comment on the proposal"
* explain or interpret something"

You were using the term "carbon footprint" to explain something, thus it's not erroneous for anyone to state that you commented about it.

As for the type of boat, you know damn well the original statement was about 100 Boston Whalers. Your decision to ignore that invalidates your equation.

[2Blackdogs]

Originally Posted by Dave R

This "faster boats use more of the lake" argument is silly.

It was used successfully at the Senate transportation committee hearing.

[BroadHopper]

The Easter Seal Poker Run generated $75,000 for a non-profit. Now with the speed limit next year, they may not hold another poker run.

So how many kayakers will it take to generate this lost revenue?????

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Bold #1 You are so full of it. You replied to my post #169, in which I specifically referred to a family boat being a bowrider. Bold #2 The 150ft rulle absolutely applies to kayaks. Other boats have to stay more than 150ft away from you, no matter your speed. Therefore you have the same 150ft circle as all other watercraft, powered or not.

You have absolutely no right to insult me, just because I support the lake speed limit law. I am doing my best to be clear in what I post - if you do not understand what I wrote, please ask me to clarify, rather than judge me on what you think my motives were.

1.) I was replying ONLY to your final question in that post. Since you did not limit your question to only powerboats, I didn’t feel that my answer needed to be limited to powerboats. I was just showing how it is possible for 1 powerboat to have a larger footprint than 100 smaller boats (I used my sea kayak as an example, since I knew its dimensions). I was NOT trying to start an argument here, just show how it is indeed possible. It is not my fault that you didn’t use the word “power” in your question.

2.) The 150 foot circle only applies to boats traveling at speeds over 6 mph. It does not apply to boats that are stationary or that are moving at 6mph or less. The buffer must be maintained by the fast boat, not by a boat traveling at 6 mph or less. When a fast moving boat slows down to 6 mph, it no longer is required to stay 150 feet away from other boats or from the shore.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Rose

You were using the term "carbon footprint" to explain something, thus it's not erroneous for anyone to state that you commented about it. As for the type of boat, you know damn well the original statement was about 100 Boston Whalers. Your decision to ignore that invalidates your equation.

Rose, I explained both already – to the best of my ability. You don’t have to like my explanations, but they are my honest reasons. You can’t just invalidate my calculations just because you don’t like the results. My equation is totally valid.
------------------------------------------------------------------

This part is not directed at anyone in particular:

Look, I’ve explained this before, but it just gets dismissed as invalid as well: Due to a severe head injury when I was very young, I have a language problem, which affects my ability to write. Because of this, writing a reply is very difficult for me and it takes me a very long time. I do the best I can, so having every word in my posts dissected as an attempt to discredit me is very unfair. I do not have any hidden agenda at all. I’m extremely honest and literal – I can’t help it. I’m very transparent, and I do my best to answer any comments directed at me as clearly as I can. Yet others here feel that it is ok to constantly insult me, just because I have a different opinion than them.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

The Easter Seal Poker Run generated $75,000 for a non-profit. Now with the speed limit next year, they may not hold another poker run. So how many kayakers will it take to generate this lost revenue?????

You need more than one known variable in order to solve a math problem. Besides, this is actually more of a legal question, which I’ll try to answer:

From the text of HB 847: “(d) The speed limitations set forth in subparagraph (b) shall not apply to boat racing permitted under RSA 270:27.” From RSA 270:27: “Boat Racing. – No commercial boat, private boat or sail boat shall race with another such boat over a predetermined course on any of the public waters of the state unless the course is laid out and marked in a manner satisfactory to the director of safety services and said race is held under a permit issued by said director to a recognized sponsoring organization stating the date and place of the race.”

The speed limit still allows for races, just as long as you obtain a permit for one.

You never answered my question: If barefoot water skiing competitions are limited to a top speed of 43.2 mph, why can't you still enjoy your hobby at speeds up to 45 mph?

[Audiofn]

Evenstar: Poker runs are not races so I do not think that entrants would be allowed to exceed the speed limit. It is certainly a shame to loose all that income for some great causes.

I thought that you had to go real fast for barefooting as well. I guess it depends on the person. For example using the below info my ideal speed would be around 42mph but I have small feet so maybe more? My son would be about 25 mph. I did talk to a friend of mine that is nationally ranked and he runs much faster however....

This is the guideline that I found.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ideal Barefoot Speed

The old rule of thumb is:

Your weight divided by 10 + 20

This is just a general rule so you will need to experiment with whatever speed works best for you (the size of your feet can make a difference too). As you progress, you will probably want to go faster since the water feels much harder and easier to "stand" on at higher speeds. A few MPH makes a big difference! However, the falls are harder too so don't get too drastic with higher speeds!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You have absolutely no right to insult me, just because I support the lake speed limit law. I am doing my best to be clear in what I post - if you do not understand what I wrote, please ask me to clarify, rather than judge me on what you think my motives were.

1.) I was replying ONLY to your final question in that post. Since you did not limit your question to only powerboats, I didn’t feel that my answer needed to be limited to powerboats. I was just showing how it is possible for 1 powerboat to have a larger footprint than 100 smaller boats (I used my sea kayak as an example, since I knew its dimensions). I was NOT trying to start an argument here, just show how it is indeed possible. It is not my fault that you didn’t use the word “power” in your question.

2.) The 150 foot circle only applies to boats traveling at speeds over 6 mph. It does not apply to boats that are stationary or that are moving at 6mph or less. The buffer must be maintained by the fast boat, not by a boat traveling at 6 mph or less. When a fast moving boat slows down to 6 mph, it no longer is required to stay 150 feet away from other boats or from the shore.
------------------------------------------------------------------

I honestly think you are either have trouble remembering some posts that you make, or that you are full of it. I really should not have had to point out that I was discussing 1 "fast" boat versus 100 "smaller" boats, meaning family bowriders, which I pointed to specifically in my post. Reread post #169 that I made, and tell me where I was not being specific about the type of boats I was discussing.
Sorry if that insults you, but I stand behind it...I believe you were being disingenious.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Rose, I explained both already – to the best of my ability. You don’t have to like my explanations, but they are my honest reasons. You can’t just invalidate my calculations just because you don’t like the results. My equation is totally valid.

In mathematics, if you are given a problem with certain constants and certain variables, you can't throw out what doesn't fit into your solution of the equation. You'd get a big, red X on your paper. So, yes, I can invalidate your equation. It has nothing to do with liking your answer or not.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You never answered my question: If barefoot water skiing competitions are limited to a top speed of 43.2 mph, why can't you still enjoy your hobby at speeds up to 45 mph?

Where's the heck are you getting your information? Here are the rule books to ABC and IWSF sanction races. There is no mention of speed limits other than safe and prudent speed.

http://barefoot.org/technical.htm

[2Blackdogs]

Originally Posted by Audiofn

Evenstar: Poker runs are not races so I do not think that entrants would be allowed to exceed the speed limit. It is certainly a shame to loose all that income for some great causes.

Broadhopper just wrote that the Easter Seal Poker Run may not held next year due to the speed limit, which becomes effective next year.

You disagree with Broadhopper that the Easter Seal Poker Run relies on speed for its success?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

Broadhopper just wrote that the Easter Seal Poker Run may not held next year due to the speed limit, which becomes effective next year.

You disagree with Broadhopper that the Easter Seal Poker Run relies on speed for its success?

The two things might not be linked. You are assuming the Poker Run would be canceled because they can't go fast.

It could be that the Poker Run would be canceled because there are fewer boats on the lake to take part in it.

[Audiofn]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

You disagree with Broadhopper that the Easter Seal Poker Run relies on speed for its success?

In my opinion they would not be as successfull as they are with the speed boats. Not only are the speed boats a draw to the event for people with out boats but they are also the ones that are dropping the big cash for donations and such. I have not been to many poker runs were there were a lot of sailboats or family trucksters running around. I guess it would be easy enough to figure out. How much was raised by the Kayakers or sailboaters at their events VS. this poker run? No matter what it is a great loss for the charrity

[gtagrip]

Evenstar, if I am traveling at 7 miles per hour, your foot print is larger than 28ft.

[gtagrip]

The guidlines Evenstar refers to for everyone else but herself in certain instances, i.e. devices to be used so boaters have a better visual, kind of sound like Barak Obama claiming "that cars in Boston are currently melting the Polar Ice Cap"? What!
Anybody see the report on NECN the other day with regards to the Olympics being held in Bejing and the unbelievable amounts of pollution in Bejing. If residents have to wear masks during the day in Bejing during bad pollution days, what is he talking about.
I guess he was afrain to criticize the Chinese, much easier to cristicize our own country! Geez!

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by GWC...

So, why all the noise about speeding boats invading your space?! All of a sudden, for the convenience of your hypothesis, your kayak doesn't require other boaters traveling at greater than headway speed to keep 150 feet from you. They do and that means you have a 150' circle around you; hence the true footprint of your kayak when on the Lake.

Now you're just trying to start an argument. I already explained this in detail: "The 150 foot circle only applies to boats traveling at speeds over 6 mph. It does not apply to boats that are stationary or that are moving at 6mph or less. The buffer must be maintained by the fast boat, not by a boat traveling at 6 mph or less. When a fast moving boat slows down to 6 mph, it no longer is required to stay 150 feet away from other boats or from the shore."

It is perfectly legal for two kayak to paddle inches from each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by gtagrip

Evenstar, if I am traveling at 7 miles per hour, your foot print is larger than 28ft.

No it isn't - but yours is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chipj29 and Rose: I explained myself as clearly as I know how, but you two just want to argue. I made it extremely clear that that I was only responding to the final question: “So tell me again...how does 1 large boat have a larger footprint than 100 smaller boats?” I was not responding to the entire post - I DO have the right to do that you know. How often do others here respond to just one sentence (or just one word) in my posts? I was being totally sincere and totally honest in my reply - so quit judging me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Where's the heck are you getting your information? Here are the rule books to ABC and IWSF sanction races. There is no mention of speed limits other than safe and prudent speed.

I posted this earlier: According to the American Barefoot Club: "In the United States, USA Water Ski sanctions more than 50 barefoot tournaments each year. . . . Barefoot water ski events – wake slalom, tricks and jumping – are similar to the three events in traditional water skiing. Differences arise in the speed of the boat and the skier (depending upon age division, barefoot events are sometimes faster, with a top speed for the Open Division of 43.2 mph)."

Maximum speeds are given in the 2008 ABC & IWSF Barefoot Water-Ski Rulebook, on p.58:
"C 1405) BOAT SPEED AND PATH
A) The nominated boat speed shall be at the option of the contestant, up to a maximum of 72kph ± 1.5 kph or 44.7 mph ± 1 mph."

[gtagrip]

Evenstar, I am required by law to stay 150 feet from you when I am going a "fast" 7 miles per hour. I am not required to stay away from my self. I need to stay away 150 feet away from you, hence your foot print is larger than 28ft.