Governor will sign Speed Limit legislation

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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...

[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.

[gtagrip]

One other thing regarding the 150' "space, in many previous posts you had claimed that "your" 150' space had been violated many or all the time. Contradicts what you said in your previous post #199 about "no it isn't, yours is"
Do you have plans to be a politician someday? You'd be good at it.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

One other thing regarding the 150' "space, in many previous posts you had claimed that "your" 150' space had been violated many or all the time. Contradicts what you said in your previous post #199 about "no it isn't, yours is".

You're confusing the 150 foot zone with footprint. I didn't contradict anything that I wrote. As I stated before (as per NH law) only boats exceeding headway speed have to maintain a 150 foot buffer. My 150 foot zone is in reference to that buffer.

If the 150 foot was part of my footprint, as you and others here keep insisting, then I would have to remain 150 feet away from shorelines and from other kayaks. Since I am not required by NH law to do so, you are wrong. When a boat slows down to headway speed, their footprint is also reduced, since they no longer are required to maintain a 150 foot buffer.

Swimmers do not have a 150' footprint - neither do loons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by chipj29

And I have the right to judge you based on you avoiding the subject of the question posed. I am not going to argue with you on this anymore.

I was responding to a single part of your post - just like most others here do - that's why I only quoted that part. You asked how and I post one possible way this could happen. It's as simple as that.

I never suggested that 100 boston whalers have the same footprint as 1 high-performance boat. You need to take that up with the original poster. Please stop trying to make this into an argument.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

I find it interesting that Evenstar brings out her communication problem when she is called out on her method of comparing 1 performance boat to 100 family boats (by chip's post #169, a 23' family bowrider)!!! ANYONE reading his post would have known the comparison to be made was with a 23' bowrider and not a kayak!! Evenstar, you very much have an agenda and your honesty goes only as deep as necessary to achieve that agenda, as evidenced by your performance-boat-to-kayak comparison (THAT'S an apples-to-oranges comparison if ever I saw one!)!!

Geez! What is it with some of you people? How many times do I have to explain this? I was NOT responding to the entire post! I was ONLY responding to the FINAL QUESTION. I was MERELY showing how it is POSSIBLE for one large boat to have the same footprint as 100 small boats (and kayaks are small boats) - that's all. As I've stated many times, I don't have any hidden agenda. I do not lie, so it is wrong for you to suggest that I am being dishonest, when I am being totally honest.

This is not the first time that I've admitted to having a learning disability on this forum. Writing is a very difficult and time consuming process to me and I'm very insecure about not being clear enough when I write. I was just hoping for a little understanding on why having my posts picked apart frustrates me so much. Instead my openness and honesty gets used against me.

[BroadHopper]

Evenstar,

You have not answer my question. How many kayakers does it take to raise $75,000 for charity. I feel the kayakers should replace lost revenue.

[fatlazyless]

Here'd my donation; an unopened box of granola. Granola power!

Hmmm...am trying to think of something that's actually somewhat intelligent to add to this thread.

Speed limits and shoreline protection.....2008....passed with the Democrats in control of the NH house, senate, gov's council, and executive....without that majority it never would have happened. Even with the majority it was not an easy go. Old ways die hard.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Evenstar, You have not answer my question. How many kayakers does it take to raise $75,000 for charity. I feel the kayakers should replace lost revenue.

And you never answered mine - and I asked my question first:
So why do you have to exceed 45 mph to barefoot waterski, when competitions are held where maximium speeds are less than 45 mph?

Here's my answer:

1.) There isn't any loss revenue - you're just projecting that there could be.

2.) If there is actually a future loss of revenue, it's not the fault of kayakers. It would be the fault of your group for not adapting.

You don't have to exceed 45 mph to raise revenue for charity - paddles raise money for charities all the time - at speeds under 6 mph.

[sa meredith]

Evenstar...I gotta ask. I read your posts from time to time, and am wondering...Do you like the torture? Every single time someone tries to "bait you", you bite.
You make decent arguments, and your thoughts seem coherent, and I believe most of your statements to be factual...and my guess would be most people can see that.
But they know, if they drop their line in the water, you'll take the bait.
Just my observation.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Evenstar...I gotta ask. I read your posts from time to time, and am wondering...Do you like the torture? Every single time someone tries to "bait you", you bite.
You make decent arguments, and your thoughts seem coherent, and I believe most of your statements to be factual...and my guess would be most people can see that.
But they know, if they drop their line in the water, you'll take the bait.
Just my observation.

No, I don't like torture.

As I've posted a number of times, I have language issues - so when it appears that my points are not understood, I tend to blame myself first, for not being clear in what I posted, so I try my best to explain what I was trying to say the first time - which is really frustrating for me.

I'm just not used to people on a forum being insincere in what they post. None of the other forums that I am a member of allow "baiting" or personal attacks. And they are not permitted on this forum either (according to the FAQ). So why is this being allowed here???

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

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.

And I have the right to judge you based on you avoiding the subject of the question posed. I am not going to argue with you on this anymore.

And I agree completely with gtagrip when he states that you have the same 150 ft circle as a boat. Think of yourself as a small island. You may not be able to move, but you still have that same 150 ft circle that all craft travelling faster than headway speed have to avoid.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I was not responding to the entire post - I DO have the right to do that you know.

And I have the right to point out the errors in your argument. You did not answer the question that was asked. If you did that in a courtroom, what do you think the opposing attorney would do? But since you have no desire to listen to anything other than your own opinion, I'm wasting my time.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

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.

I find it interesting that Evenstar brings out her communication problem when she is called out on her method of comparing 1 performance boat to 100 family boats (by chip's post #169, a 23' family bowrider)!!! ANYONE reading his post would have known the comparison to be made was with a 23' bowrider and not a kayak!! Evenstar, you very much have an agenda and your honesty goes only as deep as necessary to achieve that agenda, as evidenced by your performance-boat-to-kayak comparison (THAT'S an apples-to-oranges comparison if ever I saw one!)!!


On a separate note, I'm sitting on a deck in Wolfeboro right now watching the comedy of boaters in Wolfeboro Bay!! It's an interesting vantage point to compare the right way and wrong way to boat!

1) I've watched more than one "family" boat motoring through the mooring field in front of me leaving a wake; the only boat I have seen going through the mooring field at no-wake speed was a PERFORMANCE boat!! Go figure!!!

2) I've watched island people (apparently islanders because they only come in to pick up supplies and leave) as they leave the private docks between the Windrifter Yacht Club and WCYC power up when they're not more than 50' from the end of the docks!!!!

3) I just watched a "family" boat (a Boston Whaler with a man, woman, & 3 children on board) refuse to move out of the way of the Mt. Washington as she was backing away from the public dock!! The Mount blew her horn 3 times as she started to back away from the dock, slowed and blew it AGAIN 3 times and this boat SIMPLY REFUSED TO MOVE out of her way!! The Mount had to stop, make a wide swing around the Boston Whaler to complete the turn-around and leave the bay!

4) I am CONSTANTLY seeing boats leaving or arriving at the Wolfeboro town docks, completely OBLIVIOUS to the 150' rule, powering up well within 150' of other boats and/or the mooring field near me!!

5) Strangely, an Eliminator cat-hull performance boat waited until they were more than far enough away from other boats, docks, mooring fields, etc. before they powered up!!

Now, would someone please explain to me how next year's speed limit will prevent all this illegal activity from continuing to happen because I DON'T SEE HOW IT WILL!! These are people that either don't KNOW the laws or choose NOT TO FOLLOW them!!! And if they're not following these laws, what makes you think the lake will be safer by having a speed limit and having MORE of these bonehead boaters on the water?!?!?

[tc_mike]

I really don't mind the speed limit - I really don't see that it solves anything - but I can live with it or I can live without it (just hope it does not cause any significant fruitless tax increase). I have a boat that probably won't do much over 45 if any. I do have a Jetski, but 45 is plenty fast for me. I am not trying to take sides on the speed limit debate. Something that I have noticed in my 7 years on the lake is that I find myself *more* comfortable boating around performance boats than the average family boat. I have more confidence that a performance boat will obey the 150' rule, understand proper navigation rules, and in general maintain a higher level of courtesy and professionalism while boating (I am not talking about noise in any way). I've always attributed it to the fact that making such an investment requires a certain kind of passion and pride that carries over into behavior and attitidue. I'm definately a bit (just a bit) more nervous/cautious approaching a family boat then I am a performance boat. Anyway - this is just my general observation over the years. Yes, I've witnessed many exceptions and yes, my observation is a generalization.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Rose

And I have the right to point out the errors in your argument. You did not answer the question that was asked. If you did that in a courtroom, what do you think the opposing attorney would do? But since you have no desire to listen to anything other than your own opinion, I'm wasting my time.

Oh Rose....stop making so much sense!

I mean, geesh, some might find it "insulting"....




Skip

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Now you're just trying to start an argument.

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

Using paralegal terminology? We're not in the courtroom. This is a website Forum; hence, this is a debate.

Then again, when not winning; it's best to divert the subject at hand.

It is perfectly legal for any two boats to operate inches from each other, at headway speed.

Paddle-power boats may leave marks if the paddlers are using normal length paddles and traveling side-by-side, within inches of each other.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by GWC...

Using paralegal terminology? We're not in the courtroom. This is a website Forum; hence, this is a debate. Then again, when not winning; it's best to divert the subject at hand.

This particular forum is for the discussion of a lake speed limit BILL, which is will soon be a LAW - so is more than appropriate to use a world like LEGAL in the debate. BTW: Rose is the one using all the paralegal terminology (look at post #203, the one just before your post - where you accused me of doing this).

How am I diverting the discussion? The people here who are trying to divert the discussion are the ones that always resort to personal attacks, when they are incapable of out debating others.

Paddle-power boats may leave marks if the paddlers are using normal length paddles and traveling side-by-side, within inches of each other.

And the you include a photo of two kayakers, who aren't even paddling as "proof?"

I'm 6 feet tall and use a paddle that is made for someone my size - so it is a "normal length paddle." And I often paddle 20 or less inches from other kayaks - without making contact. 20 inches is inches, not feet. And I have a photo as "proof" as well - only mine shows kayakers who are actually paddling:

I even race sailboats where we are often just inches apart - which is also perfectly legal (according to the Racing Rules of Sailing).

[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.

[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!

[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?

[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

[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)?

[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?

[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" ...

[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.

[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.