Governor will sign Speed Limit legislation

Bear Islander · 08-11-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

The lake could easily be made safer, as could all waterways, by addressing the day to day reality of boating, especially on weekends. If people like you, that have apparently spent a great deal of time with the speed limit issue, could see the end of your noses, safety would be addressed. Pragmatic behavior is not the strong suit of the speed limit crowd. But in their defense, I can see how their false message of safety lured in the naive, while their true agenda went unnoticed. They're happy for now, and the lemmings continue to follow on the same course.

If you guys spent half the time promoting increased enforcement of existing laws, promoted additional funding, etc..., you'd have some credibility. Day in and day out, real boaters (including the GFBL boating groups), have actively promoted enforcement to no avail. While every couch potato idiot in every state cries for speed limit laws after every accident, the one thing that becomes abundantly clear is they don't know safety from a ham sandwich.

It's not about safety. It never was about safety. We have been saying that from day one until now.

If you guys spent half the time listening that you do pontificating perhaps you would realize that.

And almost every time I post that its not about safety, someone will post something like "AHA! now we know the real reason for the speed limit!"

VtSteve · 08-11-2008, 11:45 AM

Quote:

It's not about safety. It never was about safety. We have been saying that from day one until now.

If you guys spent half the time listening that you do pontificating perhaps you would realize that.

And almost every time I post that its not about safety, someone will post something like "AHA! now we know the real reason for the speed limit!"

No BI, I think we're well aware of that by now

I think I addressed that subtly in my Lemmings comment. Perhaps the media should publish an article about The Speed Limit, Their Real Intentions., just to make the lemmings feel pretty silly (assuming they even get it).

The joke's on them not you BI.

I assume that the next paddler run over by a pontoon boat going 20 mph will have an enraged public promoting a lowering of the daytime speed limit to 15 mph. Those people clearly don't get it BI. I understand your concerns, and respect them, as I think I pointed out some time ago. I should figure out a way to properly target the intended audience. Tactfully, of course

Rose · 08-11-2008, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It's not about safety. It never was about safety. We have been saying that from day one until now.

Who is "We?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The speed limit will not solve all problems, because it only addresses speeds above 45 mph (daytime) and above 25 mph at night. But it will make the lake safer, by slowing down the fastest boats.

Obviously, to some of you, it is about safety. Perhaps you should take your own advice and read what some of your fellow speed limit proponents are saying.

Bear Islander · 08-11-2008, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rose

Who is "We?"

Obviously, to some of you, it is about safety. Perhaps you should take your own advice and read what some of your fellow speed limit proponents are saying.

And I think people read far to much into the words of speed limit supporters.

Yes, a speed limit will probably make the lake a little safer by lowering the accident rate. That doesn't mean is was the reason for the speed limit. And yes, safety was certainly one of the arguments for having a speed limit. But it was never the principal reason.

It is the OPPOSITION that zeroed in on the safety issue as if it were the central argument or only reason for a speed limit.

Safety is only one of many reasons, and not the principal reason in my opinion or the opinion of the man the wrote the legislation.

How many times have the opposition argued that Winni's low accident rate proves we don't need a speed limit. It is incredible to me that they were unable to see that the accident rate means nothing because it was never the reason for the speed limit.

Pineedles · 08-11-2008, 03:15 PM

BI,
I don't kayak and don't have a boat that goes over 45 nor do I go out at night in a boat but what is the reason for the speed limit?

parrothead · 08-11-2008, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

BI,
I don't kayak and don't have a boat that goes over 45 nor do I go out at night in a boat but what is the reason for the speed limit?

Or at least pass legislation that in their heads will keep this unwanted element off their lake. Because "Right now, many Lake users are afraid of using the Lake at all, or at certain times of the week and at night, due to their fear of the boats driven at excessive speeds. This is not a balanced use of the Lake, as a relative few are using the Lake as their personal racetrack at the expense of the many others who drive smaller, slower motorized boats and non-motorized boats like canoes, kayaks, windsurfers, rowing skuls and rowboats. Anglers and swimmers have also been driven off of the Lake or have been forced to change their Lake usage for fear of their personal safety." (WINNFABS website) They don't like GFBL boats and want them gone. And if their plan works then they will move on to the next undesirable boat Cruisers, and then PWC, and then the Mount Washington, Sophie C, and Doris E. And then all motorized boats. Soon their will only be sail boats, canoes, rowboats, swimmers, and kayaks. After that they will have to limit sailboats because some of those are too big, and catamarans are too fast. Then we will have quiet lake, and everyone will be happy and not so stressed.

KonaChick · 08-11-2008, 06:12 PM

With the smokescreen of "safety for families" on the lake will anyone believe or support Winfabbs once they propose and support more legislation to get rid of boats with a certain HP? Have they bitten off their noses to spite their faces? These questions will be answered soon enough apparently.

Resident 2B · 08-11-2008, 06:14 PM

Parrothead,

You nailed it!

That is what they are all about.

Safety was the smoke screen. The lake will not be measureably safer with this law.

They had no intention of dealing with the real issues directly related to safety.

Their actions are un-American in my eyes, using false information and planning a false effort to interfere with the rights of others. But, they bought a study/survey and they lobbied better than the opposition.

Cruisers are next on their hit list, then HP limits.

Wake up (no pun intended) cruiser folks .

You are next on their list.

R2B

Evenstar · 08-12-2008, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

BI,
I don't kayak and don't have a boat that goes over 45 nor do I go out at night in a boat but what is the reason for the speed limit?

Perhaps if you did kayak out on the main lake, you would better understand why a speed limit is necessary. In my opinion, it is insane to allow unlimited speeds on a lake that is populated by small, slow moving boats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tis

I have to say I don't know anyone personally who is afraid to use the lake. If people stay away because of even the perception of the lake being dangerous, they had to get that idea from somewhere.

I know and have met many paddlers who are afraid to paddle on Winni. And all the paddlers I know, who feel that the lake is dangerous for paddlers, arrived at this conclusion based on their own personal experience on the lake (based on my conservations with them). For all these people, a lake speed limit is a safety issue. And I thingk that the majority of NH residents who support the lake speed limit, see it as only a safety issue.

BroadHopper · 08-13-2008, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Perhaps if you did kayak out on the main lake, you would better understand why a speed limit is necessary. In my opinion, it is insane to allow unlimited speeds on a lake that is populated by small, slow moving boats.

I know and have met many paddlers who are afraid to paddle on Winni. And all the paddlers I know, who feel that the lake is dangerous for paddlers, arrived at this conclusion based on their own personal experience on the lake (based on my conservations with them). For all these people, a lake speed limit is a safety issue. And I thingk that the majority of NH residents who support the lake speed limit, see it as only a safety issue.

I've been kayaking and canoeing on Winni long before you have. The biggest gripe I have and other paddlers and sailboaters have is the 150' violation. Not speed. I have yet to meet a paddler who will personally tell me they fear a GFBL boat! They fear the family boater.

As far as paddling on the Broads. With the everchanging New Hampshire weather, it will be foolish to be out in the middle of the Broads without a PFD. I see it many times. I see many kayakers in dark kayaks with dark paddles and they are difficult to see. Especially when there are white caps. Don't tell me that kayakers are the safest people on Earth. I have rescued many kayakers and canoeists who are 'over their heads' in bad weather. They thank me because I have the boat big enough for rescue.
My GFBL boat became a kayak 'savior'. Not a kayak 'killer'.

Evenstar · 08-13-2008, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

I've been kayaking and canoeing on Winni long before you have. The biggest gripe I have and other paddlers and sailboaters have is the 150' violation. Not speed. I have yet to meet a paddler who will personally tell me they fear a GFBL boat! They fear the family boater.

You (and many others here) keep acting like the speed limit only affects GFBL boats, when it affects ALL boats that can exceed 45 mph. I have never singled out GFBL boats. And I and many other paddlers have had experienced close calls on wini from high-speed boats. I'm not making this up.

Quote:

As far as paddling on the Broads. With the everchanging New Hampshire weather, it will be foolish to be out in the middle of the Broads without a PFD. I see it many times. I see many kayakers in dark kayaks with dark paddles and they are difficult to see. Especially when there are white caps. Don't tell me that kayakers are the safest people on Earth. I have rescued many kayakers and canoeists who are 'over their heads' in bad weather

Now you're judging all kayakers on the actions of a few inexperienced recreational kayakers. That would be like me judging all powerboaters on the actions of one "captain bonehead."

I never kayak without my PFD - no matter where I paddle. And I always dress for the water temperature and take extra clothing and gear with me. I have never been "over my head" on the water - and I have never needed to be rescued. I have been trained to do rescues - both with a kayak and with a powerboat.

My sea kayak is bright red and my friend's kayak is bright yellow, yet we have nearly bee run over by high-speed powerboaters on winni.

Sea kayakers do have one of the best safey records of all boaters - with the lowest percentage of fatalities of all boaters.

chase1 · 08-13-2008, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You (and many others here) keep acting like the speed limit only affects GFBL boats, when it affects ALL boats that can exceed 45 mph. I have never singled out GFBL boats. And I and many other paddlers have had experienced close calls on wini from high-speed boats. I'm not making this up.

Now you're judging all kayakers on the actions of a few inexperienced recreational kayakers. That would be like me judging all powerboaters on the actions of one "captain bonehead."

I never kayak without my PFD - no matter where I paddle. And I always dress for the water temperature and take extra clothing and gear with me. I have never been "over my head" on the water - and I have never needed to be rescued. I have been trained to do rescues - both with a kayak and with a powerboat.

My sea kayak is bright red and my friend's kayak is bright yellow, yet we have nearly bee run over by high-speed powerboaters on winni.

Sea kayakers do have one of the best safey records of all boaters - with the lowest percentage of fatalities of all boaters.

Evenstar,

I agree and do not feel that you can judge a group based on the actions of a few.....You ans I should not be restricted from kayaking in the broads just because someone else can't handle it. This is just one of the reasons I have opposed the speed limit. I do not feel it is right to restrict all powerboats boats on this lake based on the actions of a few inexperienced recreational boaters.

You can't have good boaters that are always capable and prepared for the situation, without having the new and inexperienced boater too...we all had a first day on the water.

I too have not felt in "over my head" thus far. I have always been within my abilities and not been afraid of my boating experiences. I am responsible for any situation I may encounter and accept that someday I may find myself wishing I were in the shallow end. I have been taught that there are no experts and there is always more to learn. Perhaps all those who detail their fear filled lake experiences as support for speed limits, were just in to deep.

Chase1

Evenstar · 08-13-2008, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chase1

...You ans I should not be restricted from kayaking in the broads just because someone else can't handle it. This is just one of the reasons I have opposed the speed limit. I do not feel it is right to restrict all powerboats boats on this lake based on the actions of a few inexperienced recreational boaters.

The difference is that a high-speed powerboater can easily kill a kayaker – the opposite is not true. Many powerboaters on this forum have admitted that they often have trouble seeing kayaks – and traveling at high speeds just increases the danger of hitting one of us - and too many of us have had close calls.

Quote:

Perhaps all those who detail their fear filled lake experiences as support for speed limits, were just in to deep.

The only time I have ever been in danger while kayaking are the times that highspeed powerboats have nearly run me over. And I have done Class II rapids, kayaked in ocean waters, and kayaked in cold weather. I oversee kayaking at my university. I am trained in ocean rescues and in first aid and CPR. I have taken an advanced paddling seminar and a costal navigation seminar. I’m an NCAA athlete and a registered member of the Intercollegiate Sailing Association. My team is on the water 6 days a week from the end of August until mid November - and we return to the water in late February. I know what I am doing on the water – and I know when I’m in danger.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by B R

Actually, i do think it is my business. you are one of the few very vocal proponents of the law and it's my guess you don't even come here; or have on a very few occasions.

No it is not your business. The reason that I am one of the few proponents of the speed limit on this forum is because of the way that the opponents here treat us. Most members who do support the speed limit are not about to put up with all the personal attacks and ridicule and false statements and outright lies that I have had to deal with here. Anyone who posts in this forum in support of the lake speed limit immediately becomes a target.

I wrote: “But I've paddled there more times than you have suggested”. So my reply was that I’ve paddled on winni more than 10 times. So you can stop trying to guess and you can stop making up false accusations about me. I answered your question. I HONESTLY don’t know how many times I have paddled on any NH lake – I paddle a LOT on a LOT of lakes and on the ocean. I have a hard enough time just keeping track of miles I paddle. I passed 1000 miles early in my 3rd summer of paddling (which is somewhere between 300 and 400 hours of paddling).

Quote:

you said yourself you have paddled 250 miles on NH lakes.

The last time I checked, winni was a NH lake – and that is roughly how far I have paddled JUST THIS SUMMER. Where did I write that winni was excluded from the NH lakes that I have paddled on this summer???

Quote:

why then do you have to push your agenda on a lake you don't even visit very often?

Because I’m a NH resident and would like to be able to paddle safely on my state’s largest lake – without having high-speed powerboats violate my 150 foot zone – because they are going too fast to notice me. Geeze! How many times do I have to state my reasons here??? They haven’t changed, since the first time that I paddled on winni in 2005 (I didn’t buy my first kayak until 2004). And, as I wrote in my previous post: “I plan on paddling on winni a lot more often once the speed limit goes into effect.” In case you haven’t noticed, I and many others feel that winni is not currently a safe lake for paddlers – due to the high speeds of some powerboats.

Quote:

I'd like to use their argument to say you shouldn't have a say in this fight since you don't even boat here regularly. I think it is a relevant question and one you have refused to answer. You not having an answer should be answer enough for most of us.

I did answer your question the best I can – I stated that it was more than you suggested – so, in case you’re still having trouble: THIS MEANS MORE THAN 10 TIMES. I never lie, so I’m not going to just make up a number, when I honestly don’t know exactly. As Bear Islander stated, I actually have more right to post my views on the lake than any non-resident does.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by COWISLAND NH

Like my parents said it's who ya know.....now we all know who was whining about all the dangerous boats on the lake to all those reps. What we really need to ask is how many of those people who voted acually have been on the lake and had such scary experiences.....or have they just heard the scary speed boat stories from a small "in" house group!

Again I am being accused of doing something that I haven’t done. Interns are not allowed to push their own political views while working at the State House – I could not even email the Senators in support of this bill. I was allowed to testify at the House Committee Hearing only because it was held during my spring break (while interns had the week off).

My point about knowing most of the Senators is that I intimately know the process of hearings and on how much time is spent at collecting and reading data so that a Senator can make an informed vote. I do know that at least three of the Senators are avid kayakers – and one Senators told me that her husband was nearly run over by a high-speed powerboat on Winni. The Senators I know who voted for the bill are not the “spineless, noodleback hacks” that Seaplane Pilot accused them of being.

BroadHopper · 08-13-2008, 10:52 PM

I agree with Skip. Let's move on. As long as everyone boat, whether motor, paddle or sail in a reasonable and prudent manner, everyone should be satisfied. Pointing fingers at each other and flapping our wings is a mean to no ends. This should eliminate future restrictions to our sport of boating. The problem is the damage is done and we will see more restrictions with 'feel good' laws.

VtSteve · 08-14-2008, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B R

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1709 post 36 you wrote:

While kayaking on Squam last summer, my friend and I were both swamped by a speeding boat that passed within 40 feet of us and never even slowed down. So enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here.

It took this long, After the speed limit was placed into law, for people to cut to the chase and give some real views. Evenstar said the years ago, which is what many opponents of the bill stated.

Why close a forum? Sure, we've beat it to death, but it's not gotten stale. Occasionally, new tidbits come up. Frankly, it's far more relevant than anything in the media. Perhaps someone out there will get the idea that increased enforcement is really needed, don't know.

But burying a topic as important as this one serves no one. I haven't seen anything like this board for information coming from so many sides on one issue. There's some good stuff here, seriously. If the MP's and others read these threads, this one and the Captain Bonehead thread, that's not a bad thing.

Evenstar · 08-14-2008, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

It took this long, After the speed limit was placed into law, for people to cut to the chase and give some real views. Evenstar said the years ago, which is what many opponents of the bill stated.

I wrote that before I had kayaked on winni. After paddling out on the lake a few times and nearly being run over by high-speed boaters, I saw why a speed limit was also needed. I still belive that lack of enforcement of current boating laws is still a major issue. I believe that both are equally important.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

No, it’s based on the fact that a handful of people want to rid the lake of performance boats!! If it was based on common sense, there wouldn’t BE a speed limit. BUT, not everyone uses common sense, and, as we all know, YOU CAN’T LEGISLATE COMMON SENSE! If people are that fearful, perhaps they don’t belong on the lake.

No, that is just your opinion – it is not a fact. As I’ve stated several times on this forum, if all boaters had enough common sense, we would not need a speed limit – or many other laws. It is not common sense to travel at speeds that are beyond your ability to see other boaters in time to remain outside of their 150 foot zone – but it happens all the time. You can legislate a maximum lake speed that is safer for everyone on the lake – and that’s what this law does.

Quote:

So, first, it’ll be the performance boats to disappear, then it’ll be the cabin cruisers, then the bass boats and finally, it’ll be anyone who doesn’t own shorefront property. Then the property owners will have their lake to themselves, kind of like what’s happened to Squam Lake.

There are bass boats on Squam – in fact (as I have already posted) they held their final NH competition on Squam a few years ago. The state is the one responsible for the limited access on Squam – and this is a problem on many NH lakes. The state owned public across from the Science Center in Holderness was actually donated to the state by the Squam Lake Association – and became the first public access on the lake.

Quote:

You claim you have the right to kayak ANYWHERE on the lake yet you fear being run over by a powerboat so you push for a speed limit to “make the lake safer”. At what point does your right to kayak anywhere interfere with my rights to enjoy my powerboat at speed?!?

NH law guarantees me that right – it is not something that I just claim. You can still use the entire lake – you just won’t be able to legally exceed the speed limit. There is no law the gives you the “right” to travel on NH lakes at unlimited speeds.

Quote:

Bicycles are not allowed on the interstate highways for a reason; they’re a slow-moving vehicle in close proximity to fast-moving vehicles. This is the same as a kayak or canoe in a wide open area on the main lake where powerboats could be travelling at higher speeds. Instead of a speed limit, maybe it’s time slow-moving watercraft were restricted from certain parts of the main lake (like bicycles from the interstate)!!

Lakes are not part of a high-speed transportation network. The main lake is not a private race area for high-performance power boats - it is for everyone to use – and it would be wrong to divide the lake up into sections for different types of boats – and a nightmare for the MP to enforce. You are also forgetting that paddlers were actually here first. There is no good reason for me not to be able to use my sea kayak on the entire lake – other than the fact that a few powerboaters feel that their “right” to travel at unlimited speeds is more important that the rights of others to use the main lake.

Quote:

I have no problem with people pursuing an activity they enjoy so long as they are willing to accept the risks associated with it. It annoys me when someone wants to do something but they don’t want to accept the risks involved with that activity (fearing something will happen to them) so they lobby for a law in an attempt to make it safer for them. Afraid the parachute won’t open? DON’T GO PARACHUTING!!! Are you a kayaker that fears being run over by a powerboat (ANY powerboat)?? Then don't go in areas frequented by powerboats!

I accept the risks involved with kayaking on large lakes – but that does not mean that I have to just sit back and let a few high-speed powerboaters make the lake unsafe for paddlers – because of their selfish needs of traveling at unsafe speeds.

Quote:

You are putting assumptions upon your statement. The FACT is that no one has taken you up on your challenge. The reasons are not yours to assume or postulate without proof. . . . If I did happen to kayak, I’d be more than happy to go with you but I’m sure I wouldn’t be able to keep up with you since we all know how fit and healthy you are and I’m not. Besides, I thought the whole idea behind the “challenge” was to see who had the cojones to go out kayaking with you, not who was stronger and faster!

I made my kayak-with-me challenge because there were way too many people on this forum stating that my fears were unfounded – or were greatly exaggerated – when they had never even paddled on the main lake. If members of the opposition were as open-minded as they claim to be, someone would have been willing to actually try paddling with me. When did I ever say that I would not wait for a slower paddler? Despite what many here may think of me, I’m actually a very nice person and would never invite someone to kayak with me and then just speed off ahead of them. I would NEVER get very far away from an inexperienced kayaker, in case they were in need of my help.

Quote:

And finally, if YOU have so much courage, why push for a speed limit? Just go out kayaking and get your thrills. If you love kayaking in open water where there’s a possibility of you being run over by a powerboat (like in The Broads), THAT’S the risk YOU have to assume!!

I can (and do) get all sorts of thrills without putting my life in danger. I broke my leg last semester on the sailing team (my captain creamed me – totally by mistake) – and I’m returning to the sailing team this semester – so I’m very used to taking risks. NCAA athletes have to sign all sorts of release forms – stating that we accept the physical risks of participating in our sports. But I should not have to accept being put in danger (of being killed) – just because a few powerboaters don’t have the sense to travel at reasonable speeds – THAT is NOT a risk I should have to accept.

Quote:

I didn’t know laws were also being voted on based on FEAR. That's not what this country was built on.

This law is based on a safety issue (even if the opponents refuse to admit it) – and there are tons of laws that are based on safety issues.
I have spoken out mostly because I saw how paddlers were effectively being forced from paddling on the main lake – just because of the actions of a small percentage of powerboaters. Yet you and many other powerboaters who claim that the speed lime will force GFBL off the lake don’t seem to have any trouble with paddlers being forced off the main lake.

Wolfeboro_Baja · 08-14-2008, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

No, that is just your opinion – it is not a fact. As I’ve stated several times on this forum, if all boaters had enough common sense, we would not need a speed limit – or many other laws. It is not common sense to travel at speeds that are beyond your ability to see other boaters in time to remain outside of their 150 foot zone – but it happens all the time. You can legislate a maximum lake speed that is safer for everyone on the lake – and that’s what this law does.

Just like your opinions (like the one where we need a speed limit to make the lake safer) are not facts. Actually, BI has made no bones about the "fact" that his reason for a speed limit is to limit, reduce or eliminate performance boats on the lake. I'm sure there are several others with similar thinking so don't tell me it's "just my opinion". As for my vision, it's fine. I do not drive "faster than my ability to see" because my ability to see doesn't change with the speed I'm travelling at. I can see a kayaker 1/4 mile away, whether I'm doing 45mph or 65mph! And if I'm travelling at 65mph, I'm looking far ahead to make sure there is no one in my path that would put them or me in any danger.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

There are bass boats on Squam – in fact (as I have already posted) they held their final NH competition on Squam a few years ago. The state is the one responsible for the limited access on Squam – and this is a problem on many NH lakes. The state owned public across from the Science Center in Holderness was actually donated to the state by the Squam Lake Association – and became the first public access on the lake.

Reference twoplustwo's post above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

NH law guarantees me that right – it is not something that I just claim. You can still use the entire lake – you just won’t be able to legally exceed the speed limit. There is no law the gives you the “right” to travel on NH lakes at unlimited speeds.

You're right; poor choice of words on my part. You absolutely have the right to paddle on the lake but you need to accept the risks involved with paddling on a lake frequented by powerboats of all types because WE have a right to be there as well. And, up until the speed limit law takes effect, it IS AND HAS BEEN our right to travel at unlimited speeds on the lake. This has been perfectly legal, and on a quiet day mid-week when traffic is light and not congested, there is no problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Lakes are not part of a high-speed transportation network. The main lake is not a private race area for high-performance power boats -

I never said it was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

- it is for everyone to use – and it would be wrong to divide the lake up into sections for different types of boats – and a nightmare for the MP to enforce.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You are also forgetting that paddlers were actually here first. There is no good reason for me not to be able to use my sea kayak on the entire lake – other than the fact that a few powerboaters feel that their “right” to travel at unlimited speeds is more important that the rights of others to use the main lake.

Don't start with the "we-were-here-first" crap because that just sounds like you're whining. You make it sound like there are 100-plus performance boats constantly criss-crossing the lake at speeds of 55mph and higher. You and I both know that's not true. No one has ever said a kayaker or canoer can't use the lake but if you're going to venture into high-traffic (or higher-speed) areas, you have to accept that risk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I accept the risks involved with kayaking on large lakes – but that does not mean that I have to just sit back and let a few high-speed powerboaters make the lake unsafe for paddlers – because of their selfish needs of traveling at unsafe speeds.

It's only unsafe when someone knowingly puts themselves in harm's way. If they choose to do that, then they must accept the risk associated with it. I refer you to Alton Bay Bob's comment regarding kayaking on the lake, "As neither an opponent (n)or proponent of speed limits and a fair paddler, I would never take you up on your offer to paddle the main lake either this year..with no speed limit ...or next year when there is a speed limit during a time when there was a lot of boat traffic. It would not make sense to me. I would not feel safe with boats "100 mph" this year or 44 mph next year.i would still feel the danger.. I'll paddle when it's quiet." Sounds like simple common sense to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

When did I ever say that I would not wait for a slower paddler? Despite what many here may think of me, I’m actually a very nice person and would never invite someone to kayak with me and then just speed off ahead of them. I would NEVER get very far away from an inexperienced kayaker, in case they were in need of my help.

I never said you did but the tone of your posts (on this particular point) always seems to me like you're boasting of your abilities (you started out making an "offer" but it quickly became a "challenge"). Did it ever occur to you that maybe no one took you up on the offer simply because no one wants to go kayaking (with you or anyone else for that matter)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

But I should not have to accept being put in danger (of being killed) – just because a few powerboaters don’t have the sense to travel at reasonable speeds – THAT is NOT a risk I should have to accept.

What's reasonable (read "safe") to you is not always reasonable to me. I enjoy going fast and WHEN THE CONDITIONS ARE RIGHT, there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This law is based on a safety issue (even if the opponents refuse to admit it) – and there are tons of laws that are based on safety issues.

It's a law based on an unfounded need. If it were based on safety, they would have gone further and provided more funding for the MP (so they could better enforce the existing laws) and maybe even toughened up the boating certificate requirement. Boating certificate.......it should be part of your driver's license, like licensing for motorcycles, cars, commercial vehicles, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Yet you and many other powerboaters who claim that the speed lime will force GFBL off the lake don’t seem to have any trouble with paddlers being forced off the main lake.

There is no law forcing paddlers off the lake and I'm not trying to force them off the lake. I just want them to use common sense before going paddling in an area that they fear! If they fear it, they shouldn't go paddling there. There's approximately 71 square miles of lake; don't tell me there's no where else for them to paddle.

You can have the last word if you want but I'm finished arguing this issue. We both know where the other stands and we both know we will not change each others' mind. Bottom line is, we must agree to disagree.

Audiofn · 08-14-2008, 08:54 PM

Evenstar: I have also raced sailboats, anything from Lasers to the most high performance boats out there such as Melges, and International 14's back when they were cool. I have been in more collisions in them then my power boat. Again it has NOTHING to do with speed and everything to do with the person behind the wheel. More accidents happend at slow speeds then high ones, FACT. You will be no safer after the speed limit then you are now. In fact since the proponents of the speed limit say that there are so many people that are afraid of the lake now, after the speed limit the lake will have even more boats on it. This will make the lake even more unsafe as it will be even more overcrowded.......

Evenstar · 08-14-2008, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoplustwo

Nice spin doctoring, but an enormous pile of hooey. Eminent domain caused the donation to which you refer, and it was not donated by the SLA.

My "spin" came directly from NH Public Radio Transcripts - From August 14, 2001 broadcast:
“In the mid 90’s, when the private landowner decided it was time to sell the ramp, the association bought it, made some repairs, and invited the public to use it. Meanwhile, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department continued to look for an access point that it could own, in order to fulfill a state law that says it must. At one point, Fish and Game appeared to have found a spot. But neighbors objected, and when the state was slow to buy the land, the neighbors bought it first. The attending bad publicity helped convince John Thompson to get the lakes association involved."

"The Squam Lakes Association had offered its boat ramp to the state before, but the state rejected it, citing safety concerns, including a lack of public parking. Then the office of state planning took another look at the site. It brought in the department of transportation and other interested parties. Plans were drawn up to redesign the site to include two ramps, a dock, and parking for 26-vehicles. Finally, fish and game accepted the lake association’s offer to donate its ramp."

"For Richard Tichko, project leader for Fish and Game’s statewide access program, the dedication of a publicly owned ramp on Squam is a crowning achievement.” http://www.nhpr.org/node/1408

Back in 1999 HB-599 was introduced. This bill was for the “Acquisition of Sites for Public Access to Squam Lake. The fish and game department shall acquire no less than 4 sites, by eminent domain if necessary, to provide year-round public access to Squam Lake.” This bill still hasn’t made it out of the House committee. http://gencourt.state.nh.us/SofS_Arc...use/HB539H.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

Just like your opinions (like the one where we need a speed limit to make the lake safer) are not facts.

It is indeed a fact that, with all else being equal, slower speeds are always safer than faster speeds. You can argue all you want, but this is a known fact.

I never said that everyone who exceeds 45 mph are traveling beyond their ability to see smaller boats in time – but it has been my experience that many are traveling at speeds that are faster than their abilities.

You still haven’t showed me where NH law gives you the “right” to travel at unlimited speeds on any lake in NH. Show me the RSA that states that this is a right the state grants power boaters, and then I’ll believe you. The absence of a speed limit does not permit you the right to travel at speeds that are dangerous to other boaters.

Quote:

I never said it was.

Excused me! But you compared bicycles on the Interstate to kayaks on the main lake. Unlike the Interstate, the main lake is not exclusively for high speed travel – but for use of boats are all speeds – including not moving at all.

Quote:

Don't start with the "we-were-here-first" crap because that just sounds like you're whining.

Yet you seem to have the attitude that those with the most horsepower should be able to travel at unlimited speeds, no matter how this negatively affects other boats on the lake. The fact remains that we WERE here first and we have the least negative impact on the lake and on people using the lake.

Quote:

No one has ever said a kayaker or canoer can't use the lake but if you're going to venture into high-traffic (or higher-speed) areas, you have to accept that risk.

I have been nearly run over on the shore side of an island, because a high-speed boater didn’t stop to consider that a boat might be on the other side of the island when he took his boat into the area at high speed.

I have been nearly run over at the end of Center Harbor, roughly 200 feet off the shore, when a high speed boater was not paying enough attention to see our two kayaks.

I have been nearly run over by a boat traveling at high-speed within less than 15 minutes of launching my kayak on Winni.

ALL the above have happened on weekdays when visibility was excellent and boating traffic was low. So stop trying to put all the blame on paddlers and stop trying to tell me that this is just a normal risk that anyone who wants to paddle on the lake should just accept – because that is not only untrue, but NH law states that “it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses.” According to NH law, I have the right to kayak on the lake without putting my life at risk by the high speeds of powerboaters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audiofn

Evenstar: I have also raced sailboats, anything from Lasers to the most high performance boats out there such as Melges, and International 14's back when they were cool. I have been in more collisions in them then my power boat.

Then you are also aware that sailboats race within inches of each other, so of course there are going to be some collisions – but that is when you’re racing.

But I have never come remotely close of having a sailboat run over me in my sea kayak. Yet I have had many close calls on winni with power boats that were traveling at high speeds. I have never had a powerboat on Squam unintentionally violate my 150 foot zone – mostly because Squam has a 40 mph daytime speed limit. So, it has been my own personal experience that SPEED has EVERYTHING to do with it.

GWC... · 08-14-2008, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Then you are also aware that sailboats race within inches of each other, so of course there are going to be some collisions – but that is when you’re racing.

But I have never come remotely close of having a sailboat run over me in my sea kayak.

Obviously, you have never ventured into the Broads during a sailboat race...

Since this sub-Forum is about to be closed, it would be apposite to bid you farewell, since your agenda precluded your posting in the regular sections of this website.

Evenstar · 08-15-2008, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GWC...

Obviously, you have never ventured into the Broads during a sailboat race...

I race sailboats . . . I'm not about to kayak through the middle of a sailboat race.

Quote:

Since this sub-Forum is about to be closed, it would be apposite to bid you farewell, since your agenda precluded your posting in the regular sections of this website.

My "agenda" is about kayaking on lakes in the Lakes Region. What is your agenda?

My first two posts were in the Site Support Forum and I have made numerous posts in the Boating Forum and In the General Discussion Forum - so please stop with the false accusations. Yes I have mostly posted in the Speed Limit Forum, but if you check, you'll also notice that over 90% of my posts are direct replies to comments or questions that were made to me directly. If you don't want me posting as much, stop directing comments at me.

Your post is the sort of stuff that has ruined this forum.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by alsadad

Actually, in the absence of a law restricting speed, and since, as BI has pointed out, there is no reasonable and prudent standard in place, as of today I'm not sure the law places any restriction on the right of a boater to travel at any speed, other than NWZs, safe passage, etc. If it did we wouldn't be having this debate.

You neglected the other half of my statement: "The absence of a speed limit does not permit you the right to travel at speeds that are dangerous to other boaters." My reply to Wolfeboro_Baja was that powerboaters do not have the right to put kayaks at risk anywhere on the lake - including the main lake.

Quote:

. . the appropriate officials could decide that kayaks, for example, have no place on Winnipesaukee, or at least on certain parts of the lake, just as they have decided that PWCs do not belong on certain bodies of water and that powerboats above a certain horsepower do not belong on other bodies of water. They could decide that if kayaking on the big lake is so bloody dangerous, then perhaps that activity should be prohibited or restricted, and in the interest of promoting the goals espoused in the RSA, designate some other place for safe kayaking. I guess I'm just saying file this under be careful what you ask for.

They would have to have a really good reason to limit paddlers on any lake, since no boaters have less of a negative impact on a lake and on people using a lake. To ban paddlers from using part of winni, just so a few high performance boaters can travel at unlimited speeds is not a good reason. Such a prohibition would never make it pass a public hearing. And public support for paddlers is increasing, as the number of NH residents who take up paddling is currently increasing each year.

alsadad · 08-15-2008, 08:34 AM

Evenstar: You still haven’t showed me where NH law gives you the “right” to travel at unlimited speeds on any lake in NH.

Actually, in the absence of a law restricting speed, and since, as BI has pointed out, there is no reasonable and prudent standard in place, as of today I'm not sure the law places any restriction on the right of a boater to travel at any speed, other than NWZs, safe passage, etc. If it did we wouldn't be having this debate.

RSA 270:1:II has been cited frequently as supporting the contention that a speed limit is needed on the lake. But it strikes me that this could be a two-edged sword. The RSA does not state that every body of water must support every possible use, but rather that the state's public waters, in total, should be regulated so as to "provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses." It seems to me that in theory, without getting to the political considerations, the appropriate officials could decide that kayaks, for example, have no place on Winnipesaukee, or at least on certain parts of the lake, just as they have decided that PWCs do not belong on certain bodies of water and that powerboats above a certain horsepower do not belong on other bodies of water. They could decide that if kayaking on the big lake is so bloody dangerous, then perhaps that activity should be prohibited or restricted, and in the interest of promoting the goals espoused in the RSA, designate some other place for safe kayaking. I guess I'm just saying file this under be careful what you ask for.

VitaBene · 08-15-2008, 08:35 AM

People- Have you been paying attention to Don at all. He is tired (that is how I read it anyway) of this foolish bickering on this sub forum; bickering that is starting to pervade other threads and forums on this site. At some point one of you has to be the bigger person and stop responding and trying to get the last word in.

Can't we all just get along

! It is over- there were no winners. However, if we are not careful we will lose this fabulous forum.

Have a good day,

John

chase1 · 08-14-2008, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The difference is that a high-speed powerboater can easily kill a kayaker – the opposite is not true. Many powerboaters on this forum have admitted that they often have trouble seeing kayaks – and traveling at high speeds just increases the danger of hitting one of us - and too many of us have had close calls.

The only time I have ever been in danger while kayaking are the times that highspeed powerboats have nearly run me over. And I have done Class II rapids, kayaked in ocean waters, and kayaked in cold weather. I oversee kayaking at my university. I am trained in ocean rescues and in first aid and CPR. I have taken an advanced paddling seminar and a costal navigation seminar. I’m an NCAA athlete and a registered member of the Intercollegiate Sailing Association. My team is on the water 6 days a week from the end of August until mid November - and we return to the water in late February. I know what I am doing on the water – and I know when I’m in danger.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No it is not your business. The reason that I am one of the few proponents of the speed limit on this forum is because of the way that the opponents here treat us. Most members who do support the speed limit are not about to put up with all the personal attacks and ridicule and false statements and outright lies that I have had to deal with here. Anyone who posts in this forum in support of the lake speed limit immediately becomes a target.

I wrote: “But I've paddled there more times than you have suggested”. So my reply was that I’ve paddled on winni more than 10 times. So you can stop trying to guess and you can stop making up false accusations about me. I answered your question. I HONESTLY don’t know how many times I have paddled on any NH lake – I paddle a LOT on a LOT of lakes and on the ocean. I have a hard enough time just keeping track of miles I paddle. I passed 1000 miles early in my 3rd summer of paddling (which is somewhere between 300 and 400 hours of paddling).

The last time I checked, winni was a NH lake – and that is roughly how far I have paddled JUST THIS SUMMER. Where did I write that winni was excluded from the NH lakes that I have paddled on this summer???

Because I’m a NH resident and would like to be able to paddle safely on my state’s largest lake – without having high-speed powerboats violate my 150 foot zone – because they are going too fast to notice me. Geeze! How many times do I have to state my reasons here??? They haven’t changed, since the first time that I paddled on winni in 2005 (I didn’t buy my first kayak until 2004). And, as I wrote in my previous post: “I plan on paddling on winni a lot more often once the speed limit goes into effect.” In case you haven’t noticed, I and many others feel that winni is not currently a safe lake for paddlers – due to the high speeds of some powerboats.

I did answer your question the best I can – I stated that it was more than you suggested – so, in case you’re still having trouble: THIS MEANS MORE THAN 10 TIMES. I never lie, so I’m not going to just make up a number, when I honestly don’t know exactly. As Bear Islander stated, I actually have more right to post my views on the lake than any non-resident does.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again I am being accused of doing something that I haven’t done. Interns are not allowed to push their own political views while working at the State House – I could not even email the Senators in support of this bill. I was allowed to testify at the House Committee Hearing only because it was held during my spring break (while interns had the week off).

My point about knowing most of the Senators is that I intimately know the process of hearings and on how much time is spent at collecting and reading data so that a Senator can make an informed vote. I do know that at least three of the Senators are avid kayakers – and one Senators told me that her husband was nearly run over by a high-speed powerboat on Winni. The Senators I know who voted for the bill are not the “spineless, noodleback hacks” that Seaplane Pilot accused them of being.

Evenstar,

Once again I agree. A high speed power boater can easily kill a kayaker. In fact almost all power boaters can easily kill a kayaker and the opposite is not true. Do you want to limit NH lakes to kayaks only. The fact is that there are laws in place that successfully keep power boaters from killing kayakers.

I have read your resume in previous posts and understand that you are an accomplished kayaker and sailor. I was not questioning your abilities and comfort level on the water, When I said,,, Perhaps all those who detail their fear filled lake experiences as support for speed limits, were just in to deep. I am sorry if you read it that way. I did not mean you.

The fact is that there are boats (power, sail, paddle) on NH lakes. These boats are ore owned and operated by both residents and tourists with various levels of experience and ability. Many are not at your level and may be in over there heads more than they realize. It is not right to limit everyone because some are simply inexperienced and afraid of the recreational activity they themselves choose to participate in.

I believe that everyone and anyone has the equal right to post their views regarding the lake, including BR. This is a lake forum not a state election. If residents have more right than non residents ...do some residents have more right than others. I like you am a resident of NH but I also own a summer place on this lake. You may want to check with BI but I don't think I have any more right than you.

Equal right to express does not mean that everything shared is held at equal value. For example: I have been water skiing with professional skiers and hold there ski advise higher than of my neighbor. I think that is what BR was trying to get at when he questioned your time on the one lake affected by the new speed limit. Winnipesaukee is in fact the only lake it applies to.

I know you feel things will be different next year on Winni and plan to visit more often. I dont think you will see much change at all. There will still be a few inexperienced boaters that come too close to you, just like there will still be some inexperienced kayakers that need to be rescued by BR.

Chase1

chase1 · 08-11-2008, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

And I think people read far to much into the words of speed limit supporters.

Yes, a speed limit will probably make the lake a little safer by lowering the accident rate. That doesn't mean is was the reason for the speed limit. And yes, safety was certainly one of the arguments for having a speed limit. But it was never the principal reason.

It is the OPPOSITION that zeroed in on the safety issue as if it were the central argument or only reason for a speed limit.

Safety is only one of many reasons, and not the principal reason in my opinion or the opinion of the man the wrote the legislation.

How many times have the opposition argued that Winni's low accident rate proves we don't need a speed limit. It is incredible to me that they were unable to see that the accident rate means nothing because it was never the reason for the speed limit.

Directly from the Winnfabs website. Only the Bold parts are related to safety.

Quote:

WHY A SPEED LIMIT??
What is the problem and why is HB 847 the solution?

Lakes Region Economic Health
Safety
Equal Access or Management

Lakes Region Economic Health
Speed limits and safety go hand-in-hand with the family-friendly vacation destination image that the Lakes Region and New Hampshire have successfully created, thereby supporting the tourism industry on which this region’s (and State’s) economy depends and thrives.

As Senator Carl Johnson states, "New Hampshire’s tourism industry is essential to the economic growth and stability of our state. Visitor dollars not only benefit New Hampshire’s businesses, but ultimately benefit all of our citizens."

If Lake Winnipesaukee and the Lakes Region are known as a safe and enjoyable place to visit with family and friends, more vacationers will come, they will come more often, and they will spend more recreational dollars on boating, swimming, fishing, shopping, eating meals, staying in lodging, going to local attractions, buying gas for their boats and cars and doing other activities. This will yield the ultimate benefits of vacationers having a wonderful time and the economy being boosted by their spending. Everyone wins.

However, if more and more families and individuals decide that Lake Winnipesaukee is too dangerous and unpleasant to boat or use, their taking their recreational dollars elsewhere could negatively affect the image and economy of the Lake and the Lake’s Region, even that of New Hampshire. It is imperative to prevent this from happening before the problem grows out of control.

New Hampshire has speed limits on its highways, its 7000 miles of State-owned backwoods trails and many of its lakes and ponds. Placing the reasonable, commonsense 45/25 MPH speed limits on its largest lake would be consistent with the State’s protecting users of all of its major natural resources by saying to tourists and residents alike, "We are serious about you and your family’s safety when you use Lake Winnipesaukee--whether you live here or are visiting.

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.

Equal Access or Management
Right now, many Lake users are afraid of using the Lake at all, or at certain times of the week and at night, due to their fear of the boats driven at excessive speeds. This is not a balanced use of the Lake, as a relative few are using the Lake as their personal racetrack at the expense of the many others who drive smaller, slower motorized boats and non-motorized boats like canoes, kayaks, windsurfers, rowing skuls and rowboats. Anglers and swimmers have also been driven off of the Lake or have been forced to change their Lake usage for fear of their personal safety.

The 45/25 speed limits will allow a more safe and enjoyable co-existence of many types of Lake pursuits simultaneously. Everyone’s stress levels will be reduced with more safely manageable, controllable boat speeds, as they boat, fish or otherwise enjoy the Lake. The legislative objectives of HB 847 are safety, simple fairness, and equal access, and it treats all boats the same. It does not single out a specific boat brand or model. Just as highway speed limits do not restrict the right of citizens to purchase high performance cars, HB 847 doesn’t restrict the right to own and operate a certain boat. Just as we all own cars that can go faster than the speed limits on the road, people can own boats that can go faster than the 45 MPH and 25 MPH speed limits. However, public safety laws should prevent the use of boats at speeds which place other users of the public waterways at risk and therefore, prevent equal access to the Lake by everyone.

Chase1

Bear Islander · 08-11-2008, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chase1

Directly from the Winnfabs website. Only the Bold parts are related to safety.

Chase1

Actually most of the parts you put in bold are not about safety. They are about fear. If people stay away from the lake because of the PERCEPTION the lake is dangerous, that effects tourism.

The lake had a growing reputation for thrill-seeking. That kept some people away and caused other to leave. Human being being what they are, a reputation of danger actually becomes more important than the actual statistics. That may not seem fair, but it's very real.

tis · 08-11-2008, 07:22 PM

I have to say I don't know anyone personally who is afraid to use the lake. If people stay away because of even the perception of the lake being dangerous, they had to get that idea from somewhere. I think BI knows where.

BroadHopper · 08-11-2008, 08:00 PM

That is what I have been saying all along! They want the lake to be like Masebesic Lake. Limit HP and size! I and others overheard the speed limits proponents talking about it during a legislature hearing. Do a search in the speed limit section. About what one of the bill sponsors have to say about SeaRay boats.

Silver Duck · 08-11-2008, 08:25 PM

BI

I wasn't going to become involved in this thread again, but I can't let the idea that the lakes region is actually interested in promoting tourism pass un-challenged.

Actions speak louder than words. If the NH and the people of the lakes region truly want to promote tourism:

- Why do some of your Meredith Neck neighbors get away with referring to tourists as "undesirable transients" in Meredith board meetings without being shouted down?

- Why do they get away with using the term "RV Park on the water" as a put-down in connection with marinas without their attitudes being adjusted by town officials?

- Why has the Marine Patrol put cove after cove off limits to rafting by administrative rule (including most of the good sand bars)? This is particularly offensive to a tourist, since merely being anchored too close to another boat in such areas is grounds for being rousted by the MP.

- For that matter, why does the MP put any effort at all into rousting rafters when they could be busting Captain Bonehead for major safety violations?

- Why did NH put a major road block in the way of vacationers bringing boats to the lake (i.e., requiring a proctored exam in connection with the safety certificate, which, by personal experience and a great number of postings, seems to be turning out to be almost useless)?

- Why did NH let the shorefront residents get away with makng Squam all but inaccessible to tourists for a couple of years?

- Why do NH folks go around with insulting bumper stickers (even on boats) with slogans such as "Leave your wallet, but LEAVE" or "It's Tourist Season, so why can't I shoot them"?

- Etc. ad nauseum!

Over the last few years, it's become my considered and dejected opinion that tourists are about as welcome in the lakes region as typhoid carriers!

Silver Duck

Pineedles · 08-11-2008, 09:14 PM

I don't have a fear of GFB, unless I was riding on board one.

My cousin flipped his in 2005 going 90 MPH in the broads. He is a stupid ass anyway and I have no love or sympathy for him and I am glad he will seek other lakes to practice his stupidity in. But my real fear is being swamped by waves. I was entering Meredith Bay last year and my Meredith Marina 21' rental was nearly swamped by the wake of multiple waves as I proceeded at headway speed to avoid the huge waves that were bone shattering at speeds above headway. It's too many boats I guess that is making it a less desirable lake. However, the number of captain boneheads, like my cousin, that will desert the lake will probably not make a difference. Just my opinion.

chase1 · 08-11-2008, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Actually most of the parts you put in bold are not about safety. They are about fear. If people stay away from the lake because of the PERCEPTION the lake is dangerous, that effects tourism.

Like this one part where they reference fear of there personal safety
"Right now, many Lake users are afraid of using the Lake at all, or at certain times of the week and at night, due to their fear of the boats driven at excessive speeds. This is not a balanced use of the Lake, as a relative few are using the Lake as their personal racetrack at the expense of the many others who drive smaller, slower motorized boats and non-motorized boats like canoes, kayaks, windsurfers, rowing skuls and rowboats. Anglers and swimmers have also been driven off of the Lake or have been forced to change their Lake usage for fear of their personal safety."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The lake had a growing reputation for thrill-seeking. That kept some people away and caused other to leave. Human being being what they are, a reputation of danger actually becomes more important than the actual statistics. That may not seem fair, but it's very real.

It does not seem fair however I am aware and accept that life itself is not fair......again I reference your group:

Winnfabs-"The legislative objectives of HB 847 are safety, simple fairness, and equal access, and it treats all boats the same"

Anyone aware that the "reputation of danger" was indeed unfounded according to statistics should have done the right thing and worked to correct that perception. Instead many like yourself actually fueled it. Some in the name of "safety" as promoted by the bill creators, and you for your proclaimed agenda.

Thank you to all who opposed this law.

Chase1

KonaChick · 08-12-2008, 09:35 AM

Has Winnfabs cut of their nose to spit their face? Will they be believed the next time they try to get legislation passed which apparently is now focused on HP limits? Will the boating population organize against them this time in a more focused way to put them out of business?? Stay tuned.....

Bear Islander · 08-12-2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chase1

Like this one part where they reference fear of there personal safety
"Right now, many Lake users are afraid of using the Lake at all, or at certain times of the week and at night, due to their fear of the boats driven at excessive speeds. This is not a balanced use of the Lake, as a relative few are using the Lake as their personal racetrack at the expense of the many others who drive smaller, slower motorized boats and non-motorized boats like canoes, kayaks, windsurfers, rowing skuls and rowboats. Anglers and swimmers have also been driven off of the Lake or have been forced to change their Lake usage for fear of their personal safety."

It does not seem fair however I am aware and accept that life itself is not fair......again I reference your group:

Winnfabs-"The legislative objectives of HB 847 are safety, simple fairness, and equal access, and it treats all boats the same"

Anyone aware that the "reputation of danger" was indeed unfounded according to statistics should have done the right thing and worked to correct that perception. Instead many like yourself actually fueled it. Some in the name of "safety" as promoted by the bill creators, and you for your proclaimed agenda.

Thank you to all who opposed this law.

Chase1

Once again what I actually said is twisted into what you want it to say.

The accident statistics are more than enough to justify a speed limit.

I post that the reputation for danger has more effect on the general public than the actual statistic. And you think that means the lake safe.

The statistics are bad, the reputation is worse.

WinnFABS is not "my group". I take no credit or responsibility for their publications. I represent my own opinions, they are not always the same as WinnFABS.

chipj29 · 08-12-2008, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Once again what I actually said is twisted into what you want it to say.

The accident statistics are more than enough to justify a speed limit.

I post that the reputation for danger has more effect on the general public than the actual statistic. And you think that means the lake safe.

The statistics are bad, the reputation is worse.

WinnFABS is not "my group". I take no credit or responsibility for their publications. I represent my own opinions, they are not always the same as WinnFABS.

Ugh, I hate getting sucked back in this thread...but...

Can you please post the statistics that support the need for a speed limit. You know, all the incidents that were directly caused by speeds over 45/25.

You know as well as I do that the statistics aren't bad...you just want them to seem like they are, by using the Coast Guard stat that says "excessive speed". Excessive speed. Hmmm, an interesting term, no? What exactly does excessive speed mean? Does it mean a speed over 45/25? Or does it mean a speed that is not reasonable or prudent for the conditions?

Bear Islander · 08-12-2008, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

Ugh, I hate getting sucked back in this thread...but...

Can you please post the statistics that support the need for a speed limit. You know, all the incidents that were directly caused by speeds over 45/25.

You know as well as I do that the statistics aren't bad...you just want them to seem like they are, by using the Coast Guard stat that says "excessive speed". Excessive speed. Hmmm, an interesting term, no? What exactly does excessive speed mean? Does it mean a speed over 45/25? Or does it mean a speed that is not reasonable or prudent for the conditions?

I think you know about the accidents. Look up a few posts for a high performance boat that flipped in 2005 at 90 mph. Dumb luck nobody was killed. There is a fatal accident this year, a fatal accident last year and a double fatality on a nearby lake.

And that is just local. There is absolutely no reason to ignore national statistics. The New Hampshire accident rate is rising while most states have seen them fall. More than enough evidence for anybody that has an open mind.

Plus, after all that is said, safety is still not the main reason we need speed limits.

If this thread follows the usual routine, we will now be given lame excuses why none of those deaths count.

BroadHopper · 08-12-2008, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I think you know about the accidents. Look up a few posts for a high performance boat that flipped in 2005 at 90 mph. Dumb luck nobody was killed. There is a fatal accident this year, a fatal accident last year and a double fatality on a nearby lake.

And that is just local. There is absolutely no reason to ignore national statistics. The New Hampshire accident rate is rising while most states have seen them fall. More than enough evidence for anybody that has an open mind.

Plus, after all that is said, safety is still not the main reason we need speed limits. If this thread follows the usual routine, we will now be given lame excuses why none of those deaths count.

If this is true, why aren't the drivers cited for unreasonable and or unprudent speed?

Bear Islander · 08-12-2008, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

If this is true, why aren't the drivers cited for unreasonable and or unprudent speed?

Because there has never been a law or regulation that would allow such a citation. Until HB847 was enacted there has been no law or regulation about "unreasonable and or imprudent speed".

You have probably been told that such a law does exist. IT DOESN'T!!!!

People will regularly post that it exists, when asked to prove it they never come back with an answer.

chipj29 · 08-12-2008, 02:07 PM

OK what speed was the fatal accident this year?
How about the fatal accident last year?
How would a speed limit have prevented these 2 accidents?

You can have the one accident on the broads. What was the speed?

Yes, NH's accident rate may be rising. But how many of those accidents have been directly caused by speeds over 45/25?

COWISLAND NH · 08-12-2008, 03:31 PM

I tried to get a log of the accidents that occurred on the lake last year from MP, but was told no such "log" exists. I would like to get some facts as to how many accidents were caused by speeding (I guess that means over 45mph)?? Anyone? I think the real fear most boaters that support the speed limit have is related to an operator’s lack of experience and confidence. As for the fear of the kayakers.....I just don't get why the lake is not big enough to share the water with the type of boats that can go faster than 45. Most of the areas that allow boats to hit speeds in excess of 45 would provide ample room for both to share (boats can’t go every where kayakers can go). I have heard the arguments from some kayakers that their fear is related to getting "buzzed" by power boats, but are the power boats all to blame? Also, BI suggestion that “The lake had a growing reputation for thrill-seeking”…….so what…are we all supposed to have 2 kids, drive a bow rider, and go to bed at 8pm. It’s a big lake and everyone should get to enjoy it the way they like

. Plus….how many deaths/accidents occurred on the lake that are not related to speed- PLENTY, being on the water there is always a risk (how about the death of the dad in Barnstead, off his pontoon boat?

)

Boaters love boats, kayakers love water, I love having beer on the island!

Airwaves · 08-12-2008, 08:55 PM

Cowisland NH, I think if you dropped Lt Dunleavey a line asking him for the boating statistics for whatever year and body of water you're looking for, not a log, you'll have better luck.

If you are going to drop him a line ask him if they are posted on any official website in the state. I've searched for them in the past and come up empty...the NH breakout of the USCG Stats don't provide information regarding where accidents may have occurred.

I am a little surprised by Pineedle's statement that her cousin flipped a boat on the broads doing 90MPH in 2005. I would have thought that if that happened it would have been brought up ad naseum by the speed limit crowd during the debate...

BroadHopper · 08-13-2008, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Because there has never been a law or regulation that would allow such a citation. Until HB847 was enacted there has been no law or regulation about "unreasonable and or imprudent speed".

You have probably been told that such a law does exist. IT DOESN'T!!!!

People will regularly post that it exists, when asked to prove it they never come back with an answer.

I like to see what Skip has to say about this. Seem to me there has to be some control over unreasonable and unprudent speed in a boat.

Bear Islander · 08-13-2008, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

I like to see what Skip has to say about this. Seem to me there has to be some control over unreasonable and unprudent speed in a boat.

BroadHopper

There is a New Hampshire law that references reasonable and prudent speeds. This is it in part.

No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

Does this sound familiar? Is this the law you were referring to?

Wolfeboro_Baja · 08-13-2008, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

BroadHopper

There is a New Hampshire law that references reasonable and prudent speeds. This is it in part.

No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

Does this sound familiar? Is this the law you were referring to?

Nice try, BI, but that's from HB-847! Stop trying to bait people into an argument.

Bear Islander · 08-13-2008, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

Nice try, BI, but that's from HB-847! Stop trying to bait people into an argument.

Actually the attempt is to end the argument. People keep thinking that there has been a reasonable and prudent law in New Hampshire. They make the claim and will not believe they are wrong. It is possible some of them may have read the reasonable and prudent part of HB847 or HB162 and it stuck in their heads. There must be some reason why so many believe a law exists that doesn't.

Well now there is a reasonable and prudent law in New Hampshire, HB847.

alsadad · 08-14-2008, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

BroadHopper

There is a New Hampshire law that references reasonable and prudent speeds. This is it in part.

No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

Does this sound familiar? Is this the law you were referring to?

Perhaps the law would have enjoyed more widespread support if it had included the "reasonable and prudent" language, without adding a hard number limit, and added other measures that addressed significant problems on the lake. Some possibilities might be:

• Providing additional funding to promote stronger enforcement of existing boating regulations, including a reasonable and prudent limit.

• Stricter boating education requirements.

• Designating parts of the lake for certain activities and prohibiting others from those areas, not to exclude, but to "provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses."

• A restriction on weekend use of the lake that would permit only boaters over the age of 50 who own "family bow riders" no more than 23 feet long. (Well, okay, that's a long shot.)

I'm sure there are other steps that I haven't thought of that would genuinely address the problems on the lake. I could certainly understand if the MP did not particularly welcome "reasonable and prudent" without an objective limit, simply because it would be more difficult to enforce. And, of course, many if not all of these proposals would have spawned their own special interest opposition.

Judging from their opinions expressed in posts on this forum, some folks seem to believe that the speed limit is the magic bullet to cure all of the lake's problems (one person even predicted an economic windfall). Others favor the speed limit but acknowledge that it falls short of perfection. Still others do not feel strongly one way or the other, while some vehemently oppose the speed limit. But it does seem as though everyone cares about improving conditions at the lake, even if we don't all agree on the best way to do so (please don't cue the guitars for Kumbaya). Perhaps we've all missed an opportunity, but we have 2 years to correct that. I'm not a political activist and I don't know how best to do this. But I hope that the pro-limit people recognize how hard the opponents will fight the renewal of the current law, and that those who oppose the law recognize how hard others will fight to keep it.

Any ideas?

chase1 · 08-12-2008, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I think you know about the accidents. Look up a few posts for a high performance boat that flipped in 2005 at 90 mph. Dumb luck nobody was killed. There is a fatal accident this year, a fatal accident last year and a double fatality on a nearby lake.

And that is just local. There is absolutely no reason to ignore national statistics. The New Hampshire accident rate is rising while most states have seen them fall. More than enough evidence for anybody that has an open mind.

Plus, after all that is said, safety is still not the main reason we need speed limits.

If this thread follows the usual routine, we will now be given lame excuses why none of those deaths count.

Bear Islander,

If the speed limit is not about safety, and never was, why look at accident statistics. They are in fact low but unless we are discussing safety why look at them at a notional or statewide level. This speed limit is a Lake Winnipesaukee regulation ONLY. I understand that you are one man just voicing his opinion and in no way speak for the group that got this law passed....What is the actual problem you think speed limit supporters are referencing and trying to solve.

Chase1

Bear Islander · 08-12-2008, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chase1

Bear Islander,

If the speed limit is not about safety, and never was, why look at accident statistics. They are in fact low but unless we are discussing safety why look at them at a notional or statewide level. This speed limit is a Lake Winnipesaukee regulation ONLY. I understand that you are one man just voicing his opinion and in no way speak for the group that got this law passed....What is the actual problem you think speed limit supporters are referencing and trying to solve.

Chase1

I didn't say the speed limit is not about safety.

Safety was not the main reason the legislation was written. Representative Pilliod was clear that it was about fear.

In my opinion there are many good reasons for a speed limit. Safety is one of them, but not at the top of the list.

Lakegeezer · 08-13-2008, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Safety was not the main reason the legislation was written. Representative Pilliod was clear that it was about fear.

Yes, this is a law based on fear, hate and deception, which was why so many were against it. Proponents had no problem in curbing the unalienable right for the pursuit of happiness (going 60 mph in a bass boat) to alleviate the hysterical fear of being run over, hate of the big loud boats and deception about what the lake's real problems are. Next thing you know, we'll be curbing your speech, tapping your phone and watch you browse the internet, just to keep us safe. Oh wait... never mind.

Seaplane Pilot · 08-13-2008, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Yes, this is a law based on fear, hate and deception, which was why so many were against it. Proponents had no problem in curbing the unalienable right for the pursuit of happiness (going 60 mph in a bass boat) to alleviate the hysterical fear of being run over, hate of the big loud boats and deception about what the lake's real problems are. Next thing you know, we'll be curbing your speech, tapping your phone and watch you browse the internet, just to keep us safe. Oh wait... never mind.

Now it's up to us to change the momentum of these fear mongers; otherwise they'll just keep on keepin' on. These spineless, noodleback hacks in Concord (yes, I mean you Governor and you State Reps and Senators that fell for this BS) need to be voted out of office. They are destroying this State and what it stands for. The time is now to start the grass-roots efforts to find representation that will make rational decisions in the best interests of the population at large, not decisions based on fear mongers. Personally, I cannot wait for the next elections. On that subject, we need to vote Shea-Porter and Hodes out as well. "Useless" is one word that comes to mind.

Turtle Boy · 08-13-2008, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Now it's up to us to change the momentum of these fear mongers; otherwise they'll just keep on keepin' on. These spineless, noodleback hacks in Concord (yes, I mean you Governor and you State Reps and Senators that fell for this BS) need to be voted out of office. They are destroying this State and what it stands for. The time is now to start the grass-roots efforts to find representation that will make rational decisions in the best interests of the population at large, not decisions based on fear mongers. Personally, I cannot wait for the next elections. On that subject, we need to vote Shea-Porter and Hodes out as well. "Useless" is one word that comes to mind.

Destroying this state for what it stands for? Don't forget many of these so called hacks were voted out of office after the previous speed limit bill was defeated. And Governor Lynch's opponent, Joe Kenney(R), also supported the speed limit. Speed limit proponents vote too, and they'll vote this November.

chipj29 · 08-13-2008, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I think you know about the accidents. Look up a few posts for a high performance boat that flipped in 2005 at 90 mph. Dumb luck nobody was killed. There is a fatal accident this year, a fatal accident last year and a double fatality on a nearby lake.

And that is just local. There is absolutely no reason to ignore national statistics. The New Hampshire accident rate is rising while most states have seen them fall. More than enough evidence for anybody that has an open mind.

Plus, after all that is said, safety is still not the main reason we need speed limits.

If this thread follows the usual routine, we will now be given lame excuses why none of those deaths count.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

OK what speed was the fatal accident this year?
How about the fatal accident last year?
How would a speed limit have prevented these 2 accidents?

You can have the one accident on the broads. What was the speed?

Yes, NH's accident rate may be rising. But how many of those accidents have been directly caused by speeds over 45/25?

Hi. Any relevant stats for me yet?

Seaplane Pilot · 08-13-2008, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Destroying this state for what it stands for? Don't forget many of these so called hacks were voted out of office after the previous speed limit bill was defeated. And Governor Lynch's opponent, Joe Kenney(R), also supported the speed limit. Speed limit proponents vote too, and they'll vote this November.

That's what makes America so great - you vote your way, I'll vote mine. And hopefully enough people will realize that we have become a nanny state, and get rid of these BUMS! Just like that new bicycle law - what rocket scientist thought of that one? Wait a few months and watch all the head-on collisions caused by people that have to pull over into oncoming traffic to avoid some bone-head that should not be riding on certain secondary highways. (sound familiar - kind of like kayaks that should not be out in the broads. Kayaks can go far more places than powerboats on the lake, yet they insist on exercising their "Rights" to travel anywhere and everywhere.) Then they cry fear and safety, and the nannys in Concord (most of whom probably have never been on the lake) make knee-jerk, emotion based decisions and let "fear" drive their decisions. We'll see who wins this battle in 2 years. People are fed up with these liberal politicians, so I believe the pendulum will swing the other way once again.

Evenstar · 08-13-2008, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Yes, this is a law based on fear, hate and deception, which was why so many were against it.

This law is based on safely and on the common sense. Powerboaters who feel that it is their "right" to travel at unlimited speeds on the lake has made winni dangerous for other boaters. It is as simple as that. There is no conspiracy.

Quote:

Proponents had no problem in curbing the unalienable right for the pursuit of happiness (going 60 mph in a bass boat) to alleviate the hysterical fear of being run over, hate of the big loud boats and deception about what the lake's real problems are.

Traveling at unlimited speeds on a lake is not an inalienable right. You do not have the right to pursue your own happiness when your actions violate the rights of others. That would be anarchy.

Being nearly run over by a high-speed power boater is not "hysterical fear" - it is fear for your life - and it is very real.

I do not hate any types of boats and I have never tried to deceive anyone. I have never suggested that boats traveling at high speed are the only safety problem on the lake - but is most certainly one of the problems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Now it's up to us to change the momentumof these fear mongers; otherwise they'll just keep on keepin' on.

The danger of kayaking on the main lake while power boaters are allowed to travel at unlimited speeds is very real, no matter how much you try to dismiss it. Most people who have paddled on the main lake (or on any large lake) understand the need for a speed limit. Most of the opponents of the speed limt have never even paddled on the main lake, so they have no idea why we feel that high speeds are unsafe. Months ago I challenged anyone here to join me kayaking on the main lake - yet no one has had the courage to accept my challenge. Yet you all continue to dismiss my close calls on the lake as "unfounded" - put a paddle where your mouth is - and then perhaps you'll understand the danger.

Quote:

These spineless, noodleback hacks in Concord (yes, I mean you Governor and you State Reps and Senators that fell for this BS) need to be voted out of office. They are destroying this State and what it stands for.

I talked with many of the Senators and Representatives who voted for the speed limit. I attended and testified at the House Transportation Committee Hearing, and I listened to the entire Senate debate on the bill. In my opinion, the BS was being pushed by those opposed to the bill.

NH law states in RSA 270:1:II:

Quote:

"In the interest of maintaining the residential, recreational and scenic values which New Hampshire public waters provide to residents of the state and to the promotion of our tourist industry, and in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances. Such provisions shall take into consideration the following: the variety of special uses appropriate to our lakes, public safety, protection of environment and water quality, and the continued nurture of New Hampshire's threatened and endangered species."

Most of the member of the Legislature who voted for the bill were doing so base on what this NH law states and because of the testimony of residents. That is their job.

Alton Bay Bob · 08-13-2008, 12:12 PM

I am fairly new to this subject although I have been reading it with interest the past several weeks. I guess I never really thought about the coexistence of various types of water craft on the lake and everyone's "rights". I paddle my kayak early in the morning before most power boaters are up and about. When it is beautiful and quiet... I use my 21 foot powerboat most of the rest of the day when everyone else is on the water and the wakes come at me from all sides. I stay at my dock on Saturday and most Sunday afternoons when it is crazy out there. I think I just use common sense and stay safe.

The following quote prompted this post..

The danger of kayaking on the main lake while power boaters are allowed to travel at unlimited speeds is very real, no matter how much you try to dismiss it. Most people who have paddled on the main lake (or on any large lake) understand the need for a speed limit. Most of the opponents of the speed limt have never even paddled on the main lake, so they have no idea why we feel that high speeds are unsafe. Months ago I challenged anyone here to join me kayaking on the main lake - yet no one has had the courage to accept my challenge. Yet you all continue to dismiss my close calls on the lake as "unfounded" - put a paddle where your mouth is - and then perhaps you'll understand the danger.

As neither an opponent or proponent of speed limits and a fair paddler, I would never take you up on your offer to paddle the main lake either this year..with no speed limit ...or next year when there is a speed limit during a time when there was a lot of boat traffic. It would not make sense to me. I would not feel safe with boats "100 mph" this year or 44 mph next year.i would still feel the danger.. I'll paddle when it's quiet.

]

B R · 08-13-2008, 12:24 PM

The truth is she doesn't even come here often. She refuses to say how often but from previous posts, I'd bet she's paddled on this lake less than 10 times in her life. She simply wants the speed limit and that's it!!!

Evenstar · 08-13-2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B R

The truth is she doesn't even come here often. She refuses to say how often but from previous posts, I'd bet she's paddled on this lake less than 10 times in her life. She simply wants the speed limit and that's it!!!

Here's the REAL TRUTH:

The truth is that I likely spend more time on the water than most people on this forum and I paddle more miles on NH lakes than most of you. The truth also is that I've had close calls every single time that I have paddled on winni - and that it is nearly impossible for me to find someone who is willing to paddle with me on the lake. I plan on paddling on winni a lot more often once the speed limit goes into effect.

Because of a serious injury and needing treatment for cancer this summer, and the numerous thunder storms, I have not been able to paddle as much this summer, but I have still managed to paddle over 250 miles on NH lakes so far.

You are also neglecting the fact that this bill was originally for all NH lakes, but that it has since become amended so that it now only affects winni. I'm still fighting for a speed limit for all NH lakes.

I simply want a speed limit because I have had too many close calls with high-speed powerboats - and I have seen the difference that a lake speed limit actually makes.

It is also the truth that I am a NH resident and a multi-generation native - which is not true of many of the speed limit opponents. Most NH residents also appear to support lake speed limits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alton Bay Bob

As neither an opponent or proponent of speed limits and a fair paddler, I would never take you up on your offer to paddle the main lake either this year..with no speed limit ...or next year when there is a speed limit during a time when there was a lot of boat traffic.

I have to return to my University in just over a week, since my team has to be back on campus before the non-athletes return. So I probably won't be able to join you this summer, as there's just not time. But I would be happy to paddle with you next summer - just as soon as I graduate and return home.

B R · 08-13-2008, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Here's the REAL TRUTH:

The truth is that I likely spend more time on the water than most people on this forum and I paddle more miles on NH lakes than most of you. The truth also is that I've had close calls every single time that I have paddled on winni - and that it is nearly impossible for me to find someone who is willing to paddle with me on the lake. I plan on paddling on winni a lot more often once the speed limit goes into effect.

Sorry you've been held up this summer.

Since the speed limit is ONLY for Lake Winnipesaukee, can you answer a simple question? How many times have you EVER paddled on Lake Winnipesaukee?

Airwaves · 08-13-2008, 12:46 PM

I'd be interested to hear the answer to this one as well.

I did google performace boat accident, 2005, NH and got nothing except a discussion on this forum about a PWC ramming the side of a Formula near Christmas Island, and a Laconia Citizen writer admitting that his editors insisted that anything over headway speed be written as "high speed".

I couldn't find the accident Pineedles described, anyone else?

Quote:

Originally posted by Chipj29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander
I think you know about the accidents. Look up a few posts for a high performance boat that flipped in 2005 at 90 mph. Dumb luck nobody was killed. There is a fatal accident this year, a fatal accident last year and a double fatality on a nearby lake.

And that is just local. There is absolutely no reason to ignore national statistics. The New Hampshire accident rate is rising while most states have seen them fall. More than enough evidence for anybody that has an open mind.

Plus, after all that is said, safety is still not the main reason we need speed limits.

If this thread follows the usual routine, we will now be given lame excuses why none of those deaths count.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29
OK what speed was the fatal accident this year?
How about the fatal accident last year?
How would a speed limit have prevented these 2 accidents?

You can have the one accident on the broads. What was the speed?

Yes, NH's accident rate may be rising. But how many of those accidents have been directly caused by speeds over 45/25?

Hi. Any relevant stats for me yet?

VtSteve · 08-13-2008, 01:39 PM

From the statics posted, it would seem if you ban drownings, PWC's, and people falling down, boating accidents would be about nil.

I know there have been a ton of GFBL accidents. there was a 37' cruiser that hit the island, everyone's up to speed on that one.

There was the merideth bay incident, when a Baja ran up on a smaller boat from behind, driver was slightly influenced by something other than night air. He was supposedly doing 28 mph, I'll give you 30 if you must.

The accident in Maine has been brought up several times. Plus, I mentioned one from eons ago.

It should be pretty easy to come up with lists each time this question is asked, since there are some that thinks it's an epidemic.

Airwaves · 08-13-2008, 01:49 PM

I know about those accidents VTSteve, it just seems to me that if an accident such as the one Pineedles described, A High Performance boat, flipped on The Broads of Lake Winnipesaukee doing 90 Miles an Hour in 2005 during the heat of the debate of HB162, then I'd have no problem at all finding information about it? Ya think?

There would have been debris, a rescue, Marine Patrol boats, WinnFabs all over the place, Media coverage and APS would have posted a million pics of the accident on the forum!

alsadad · 08-13-2008, 01:56 PM

Boy, am I glad the weather's improving and we can all get out and enjoy the lake. Yesterday I was flipping through the channels and hit the local access cable channel just in time to see the following:

Host: "And now for today's Point/Counterpoint segment on the reasons for a lake speed limit. Take it away..."

"It's not about safety. "

"I didn't say the speed limit is not about safety."

"It never was about safety. We have been saying that from day one until now."

"And yes, safety was certainly one of the arguments for having a speed limit."

Host: "Thank you for that perspective, Bear Islander, and thank you for that other perspective...ah... Bear Islander. Okay, well, be sure to tune in tomorrow for a panel discussion featuring representatives from manufacturers of Formula, Cigarette, and Norstar boats entitled 'Instilling fear: getting weenies off your lake before it's too late.' And on Friday, Rose and Evenstar will offer a scintillating debate on the topic "I Bet Mine is Bigger Than Yours: Lake Footprint vs. The 150 Foot Zone.' Please tune in."

ApS · 08-14-2008, 01:45 PM

Since the subforum has nearly outlived its main benefit (keeping the word speed out of the rest of the topics), its time was running out anyway: there are only two topics in the sub-forum remaining unlocked.

I thought I'd enter the debate now only to show my most overlooked argument here—and the last image I'd sent to the Governor's website while he sought comments.

The below message, sent just prior to the Diamond Island incident, had an unintended, but favorable consequence for proponents of the measure:

twoplustwo · 08-14-2008, 03:25 PM

...out of respect for the webmaster, and my agreement that this should be shut down.

The state is the one responsible for the limited access on Squam – and this is a problem on many NH lakes. The state owned public across from the Science Center in Holderness was actually donated to the state by the Squam Lake Association – and became the first public access on the lake.

Nice spin doctoring, but an enormous pile of hooey. The SLA took credit for helping to broker the donation of less than a half acre of land, a boat ramp, four boat slips, and a beat up old boathouse for the public launch. They did not donate it, some of their members did, and only as a last resort. The SLA and wealthy Squam owners were responsible from day one for every attempt to limit access to Squam, and only threats by the state to take property by eminent domain to force public access caused the pittance of access now referred to as the public boat launch on Squam. When the State attempted to purchase a 6 acre parcel on Squam for a launch, the money men hopped in and snatched it up without a thought to the extra 50 grand they threw over the state's offer. Eminent domain caused the donation to which you refer, and it was not donated by the SLA.

chase1 · 08-13-2008, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I didn't say the speed limit is not about safety.

Safety was not the main reason the legislation was written. Representative Pilliod was clear that it was about fear.

In my opinion there are many good reasons for a speed limit. Safety is one of them, but not at the top of the list.

perhaps this is why you at times think people are twisting your words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It's not about safety. It never was about safety. We have been saying that from day one until now.

If you guys spent half the time listening that you do pontificating perhaps you would realize that.

And almost every time I post that its not about safety, someone will post something like "AHA! now we know the real reason for the speed limit!"

Chase1

chase1 · 08-12-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Once again what I actually said is twisted into what you want it to say.

The accident statistics are more than enough to justify a speed limit.

I post that the reputation for danger has more effect on the general public than the actual statistic. And you think that means the lake safe.

The statistics are bad, the reputation is worse.

WinnFABS is not "my group". I take no credit or responsibility for their publications. I represent my own opinions, they are not always the same as WinnFABS.

Bear Islander,

I am sorry for linking you to the speed limit supporters. I do not want anything to do with them, myself. I was not trying to make a point of connecting you with them.

Statements like this create a preception that you are representing more than our own opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It's not about safety. It never was about safety. We have been saying that from day one until now.

Perhaps you shoudl correct your post to read (I have been saying). Speed limit proponents such as Winnfabs have clearly used safety in their campaign which many have pointed out.

I disagree with your own opinions that accident statistics are bad that they justify a speed limit. I do agree with your opinion about the reputation being worse than reality.

I do personally feel the lake is safe however I never made comment to that in my last post. I commented that - anyone aware that the "reputation of danger" was indeed unfounded according to statistics should have done the right thing and worked to correct that perception. Instead many like yourself actually fueled it. Some in the name of "safety" as promoted by the bill creators, and you for your proclaimed agenda.

Chase1

Rose · 08-11-2008, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

And I think people read far to much into the words of speed limit supporters.

What are people supposed to think when one of the largest groups who lobbied for passage of this bill contains the word "safety" in their acronym?

08-11-2008, 03:15 PM	#5
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,549 Thanks: 1,074 Thanked 672 Times in 369 Posts	Sitting on the side lines BI, I don't kayak and don't have a boat that goes over 45 nor do I go out at night in a boat but what is the reason for the speed limit?

08-11-2008, 06:14 PM	#8
Resident 2B Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: North Shore, MA Posts: 1,358 Thanks: 996 Thanked 314 Times in 164 Posts	Smoke and mirrors Parrothead, You nailed it! That is what they are all about. Safety was the smoke screen. The lake will not be measureably safer with this law. They had no intention of dealing with the real issues directly related to safety. Their actions are un-American in my eyes, using false information and planning a false effort to interfere with the rights of others. But, they bought a study/survey and they lobbied better than the opposition. Cruisers are next on their hit list, then HP limits. Wake up (no pun intended) cruiser folks . You are next on their list. R2B

08-13-2008, 10:52 PM	#14
BroadHopper Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Laconia NH Posts: 5,615 Thanks: 3,245 Thanked 1,115 Times in 801 Posts	Move on I agree with Skip. Let's move on. As long as everyone boat, whether motor, paddle or sail in a reasonable and prudent manner, everyone should be satisfied. Pointing fingers at each other and flapping our wings is a mean to no ends. This should eliminate future restrictions to our sport of boating. The problem is the damage is done and we will see more restrictions with 'feel good' laws. __________________ Someday may never be an actual day.

08-15-2008, 08:35 AM	#23
VitaBene Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Moultonborough Posts: 3,614 Thanks: 1,666 Thanked 1,650 Times in 853 Posts	People- Have you been paying attention to Don at all. He is tired (that is how I read it anyway) of this foolish bickering on this sub forum; bickering that is starting to pervade other threads and forums on this site. At some point one of you has to be the bigger person and stop responding and trying to get the last word in. Can't we all just get along! It is over- there were no winners. However, if we are not careful we will lose this fabulous forum. Have a good day, John Last edited by VitaBene; 08-17-2008 at 02:25 AM.

08-11-2008, 08:00 PM	#28
BroadHopper Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Laconia NH Posts: 5,615 Thanks: 3,245 Thanked 1,115 Times in 801 Posts	R2B and Parrothead That is what I have been saying all along! They want the lake to be like Masebesic Lake. Limit HP and size! I and others overheard the speed limits proponents talking about it during a legislature hearing. Do a search in the speed limit section. About what one of the bill sponsors have to say about SeaRay boats. __________________ Someday may never be an actual day. Last edited by BroadHopper; 08-11-2008 at 08:01 PM. Reason: spelling

08-11-2008, 06:12 PM	#7
KonaChick Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 518 Thanks: 19 Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts	With the smokescreen of "safety for families" on the lake will anyone believe or support Winfabbs once they propose and support more legislation to get rid of boats with a certain HP? Have they bitten off their noses to spite their faces? These questions will be answered soon enough apparently.

08-14-2008, 08:54 PM	#18
Audiofn Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Bedford, MA/Naples, ME Posts: 162 Thanks: 3 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	Evenstar: I have also raced sailboats, anything from Lasers to the most high performance boats out there such as Melges, and International 14's back when they were cool. I have been in more collisions in them then my power boat. Again it has NOTHING to do with speed and everything to do with the person behind the wheel. More accidents happend at slow speeds then high ones, FACT. You will be no safer after the speed limit then you are now. In fact since the proponents of the speed limit say that there are so many people that are afraid of the lake now, after the speed limit the lake will have even more boats on it. This will make the lake even more unsafe as it will be even more overcrowded.......

08-15-2008, 08:34 AM	#22
alsadad Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 45 Thanks: 8 Thanked 41 Times in 10 Posts	Evenstar: You still haven’t showed me where NH law gives you the “right” to travel at unlimited speeds on any lake in NH. Actually, in the absence of a law restricting speed, and since, as BI has pointed out, there is no reasonable and prudent standard in place, as of today I'm not sure the law places any restriction on the right of a boater to travel at any speed, other than NWZs, safe passage, etc. If it did we wouldn't be having this debate. RSA 270:1:II has been cited frequently as supporting the contention that a speed limit is needed on the lake. But it strikes me that this could be a two-edged sword. The RSA does not state that every body of water must support every possible use, but rather that the state's public waters, in total, should be regulated so as to "provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses." It seems to me that in theory, without getting to the political considerations, the appropriate officials could decide that kayaks, for example, have no place on Winnipesaukee, or at least on certain parts of the lake, just as they have decided that PWCs do not belong on certain bodies of water and that powerboats above a certain horsepower do not belong on other bodies of water. They could decide that if kayaking on the big lake is so bloody dangerous, then perhaps that activity should be prohibited or restricted, and in the interest of promoting the goals espoused in the RSA, designate some other place for safe kayaking. I guess I'm just saying file this under be careful what you ask for.

08-11-2008, 07:22 PM	#27
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,837 Thanks: 764 Thanked 1,474 Times in 1,029 Posts	I have to say I don't know anyone personally who is afraid to use the lake. If people stay away because of even the perception of the lake being dangerous, they had to get that idea from somewhere. I think BI knows where.

08-11-2008, 08:25 PM	#29
Silver Duck Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Billerica, MA Posts: 364 Thanks: 40 Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts	BI I wasn't going to become involved in this thread again, but I can't let the idea that the lakes region is actually interested in promoting tourism pass un-challenged. Actions speak louder than words. If the NH and the people of the lakes region truly want to promote tourism: - Why do some of your Meredith Neck neighbors get away with referring to tourists as "undesirable transients" in Meredith board meetings without being shouted down? - Why do they get away with using the term "RV Park on the water" as a put-down in connection with marinas without their attitudes being adjusted by town officials? - Why has the Marine Patrol put cove after cove off limits to rafting by administrative rule (including most of the good sand bars)? This is particularly offensive to a tourist, since merely being anchored too close to another boat in such areas is grounds for being rousted by the MP. - For that matter, why does the MP put any effort at all into rousting rafters when they could be busting Captain Bonehead for major safety violations? - Why did NH put a major road block in the way of vacationers bringing boats to the lake (i.e., requiring a proctored exam in connection with the safety certificate, which, by personal experience and a great number of postings, seems to be turning out to be almost useless)? - Why did NH let the shorefront residents get away with makng Squam all but inaccessible to tourists for a couple of years? - Why do NH folks go around with insulting bumper stickers (even on boats) with slogans such as "Leave your wallet, but LEAVE" or "It's Tourist Season, so why can't I shoot them"? - Etc. ad nauseum! Over the last few years, it's become my considered and dejected opinion that tourists are about as welcome in the lakes region as typhoid carriers! Silver Duck

08-11-2008, 09:14 PM	#30
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,549 Thanks: 1,074 Thanked 672 Times in 369 Posts	My Fear I don't have a fear of GFB, unless I was riding on board one. My cousin flipped his in 2005 going 90 MPH in the broads. He is a stupid ass anyway and I have no love or sympathy for him and I am glad he will seek other lakes to practice his stupidity in. But my real fear is being swamped by waves. I was entering Meredith Bay last year and my Meredith Marina 21' rental was nearly swamped by the wake of multiple waves as I proceeded at headway speed to avoid the huge waves that were bone shattering at speeds above headway. It's too many boats I guess that is making it a less desirable lake. However, the number of captain boneheads, like my cousin, that will desert the lake will probably not make a difference. Just my opinion.

08-12-2008, 09:35 AM	#32
KonaChick Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 518 Thanks: 19 Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts	Has Winnfabs cut of their nose to spit their face? Will they be believed the next time they try to get legislation passed which apparently is now focused on HP limits? Will the boating population organize against them this time in a more focused way to put them out of business?? Stay tuned.....

08-12-2008, 02:07 PM	#38
chipj29 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bow Posts: 1,874 Thanks: 521 Thanked 308 Times in 162 Posts	OK what speed was the fatal accident this year? How about the fatal accident last year? How would a speed limit have prevented these 2 accidents? You can have the one accident on the broads. What was the speed? Yes, NH's accident rate may be rising. But how many of those accidents have been directly caused by speeds over 45/25? __________________ Getting ready for winter!

08-12-2008, 03:31 PM	#39
COWISLAND NH Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 35 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I tried to get a log of the accidents that occurred on the lake last year from MP, but was told no such "log" exists. I would like to get some facts as to how many accidents were caused by speeding (I guess that means over 45mph)?? Anyone? I think the real fear most boaters that support the speed limit have is related to an operator’s lack of experience and confidence. As for the fear of the kayakers.....I just don't get why the lake is not big enough to share the water with the type of boats that can go faster than 45. Most of the areas that allow boats to hit speeds in excess of 45 would provide ample room for both to share (boats can’t go every where kayakers can go). I have heard the arguments from some kayakers that their fear is related to getting "buzzed" by power boats, but are the power boats all to blame? Also, BI suggestion that “The lake had a growing reputation for thrill-seeking”…….so what…are we all supposed to have 2 kids, drive a bow rider, and go to bed at 8pm. It’s a big lake and everyone should get to enjoy it the way they like. Plus….how many deaths/accidents occurred on the lake that are not related to speed- PLENTY, being on the water there is always a risk (how about the death of the dad in Barnstead, off his pontoon boat?) Boaters love boats, kayakers love water, I love having beer on the island!

08-12-2008, 08:55 PM	#40
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	Cowisland NH, I think if you dropped Lt Dunleavey a line asking him for the boating statistics for whatever year and body of water you're looking for, not a log, you'll have better luck. If you are going to drop him a line ask him if they are posted on any official website in the state. I've searched for them in the past and come up empty...the NH breakout of the USCG Stats don't provide information regarding where accidents may have occurred. I am a little surprised by Pineedle's statement that her cousin flipped a boat on the broads doing 90MPH in 2005. I would have thought that if that happened it would have been brought up ad naseum by the speed limit crowd during the debate...

08-13-2008, 12:12 PM	#54
Alton Bay Bob Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 46 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Coexistence I am fairly new to this subject although I have been reading it with interest the past several weeks. I guess I never really thought about the coexistence of various types of water craft on the lake and everyone's "rights". I paddle my kayak early in the morning before most power boaters are up and about. When it is beautiful and quiet... I use my 21 foot powerboat most of the rest of the day when everyone else is on the water and the wakes come at me from all sides. I stay at my dock on Saturday and most Sunday afternoons when it is crazy out there. I think I just use common sense and stay safe. The following quote prompted this post.. The danger of kayaking on the main lake while power boaters are allowed to travel at unlimited speeds is very real, no matter how much you try to dismiss it. Most people who have paddled on the main lake (or on any large lake) understand the need for a speed limit. Most of the opponents of the speed limt have never even paddled on the main lake, so they have no idea why we feel that high speeds are unsafe. Months ago I challenged anyone here to join me kayaking on the main lake - yet no one has had the courage to accept my challenge. Yet you all continue to dismiss my close calls on the lake as "unfounded" - put a paddle where your mouth is - and then perhaps you'll understand the danger. As neither an opponent or proponent of speed limits and a fair paddler, I would never take you up on your offer to paddle the main lake either this year..with no speed limit ...or next year when there is a speed limit during a time when there was a lot of boat traffic. It would not make sense to me. I would not feel safe with boats "100 mph" this year or 44 mph next year.i would still feel the danger.. I'll paddle when it's quiet. ]

08-13-2008, 12:24 PM	#55
B R Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 140 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post	The truth is she doesn't even come here often. She refuses to say how often but from previous posts, I'd bet she's paddled on this lake less than 10 times in her life. She simply wants the speed limit and that's it!!! __________________ "You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know"

08-13-2008, 01:39 PM	#59
VtSteve Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,320 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 230 Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts	From the statics posted, it would seem if you ban drownings, PWC's, and people falling down, boating accidents would be about nil. I know there have been a ton of GFBL accidents. there was a 37' cruiser that hit the island, everyone's up to speed on that one. There was the merideth bay incident, when a Baja ran up on a smaller boat from behind, driver was slightly influenced by something other than night air. He was supposedly doing 28 mph, I'll give you 30 if you must. The accident in Maine has been brought up several times. Plus, I mentioned one from eons ago. It should be pretty easy to come up with lists each time this question is asked, since there are some that thinks it's an epidemic.

08-13-2008, 01:49 PM	#60
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	I know about those accidents VTSteve, it just seems to me that if an accident such as the one Pineedles described, A High Performance boat, flipped on The Broads of Lake Winnipesaukee doing 90 Miles an Hour in 2005 during the heat of the debate of HB162, then I'd have no problem at all finding information about it? Ya think? There would have been debris, a rescue, Marine Patrol boats, WinnFabs all over the place, Media coverage and APS would have posted a million pics of the accident on the forum! Last edited by Airwaves; 08-13-2008 at 01:54 PM. Reason: Added line about APS' photography career :)

08-13-2008, 01:56 PM	#61
alsadad Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 45 Thanks: 8 Thanked 41 Times in 10 Posts	Local access Boy, am I glad the weather's improving and we can all get out and enjoy the lake. Yesterday I was flipping through the channels and hit the local access cable channel just in time to see the following: Host: "And now for today's Point/Counterpoint segment on the reasons for a lake speed limit. Take it away..." "It's not about safety. " "I didn't say the speed limit is not about safety." "It never was about safety. We have been saying that from day one until now." "And yes, safety was certainly one of the arguments for having a speed limit." Host: "Thank you for that perspective, Bear Islander, and thank you for that other perspective...ah... Bear Islander. Okay, well, be sure to tune in tomorrow for a panel discussion featuring representatives from manufacturers of Formula, Cigarette, and Norstar boats entitled 'Instilling fear: getting weenies off your lake before it's too late.' And on Friday, Rose and Evenstar will offer a scintillating debate on the topic "I Bet Mine is Bigger Than Yours: Lake Footprint vs. The 150 Foot Zone.' Please tune in."

08-14-2008, 01:45 PM	#62
ApS Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro Posts: 6,034 Thanks: 2,280 Thanked 787 Times in 563 Posts	Since the subforum has nearly outlived its main benefit (keeping the word speed out of the rest of the topics), its time was running out anyway: there are only two topics in the sub-forum remaining unlocked. I thought I'd enter the debate now only to show my most overlooked argument here—and the last image I'd sent to the Governor's website while he sought comments. The below message, sent just prior to the Diamond Island incident, had an unintended, but favorable consequence for proponents of the measure: Attached Images __________________ Is it "Common Sense" isn't.

08-14-2008, 03:25 PM	#63
twoplustwo Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Moultonborough Posts: 456 Thanks: 51 Thanked 39 Times in 21 Posts	my last comment... ...out of respect for the webmaster, and my agreement that this should be shut down. The state is the one responsible for the limited access on Squam – and this is a problem on many NH lakes. The state owned public across from the Science Center in Holderness was actually donated to the state by the Squam Lake Association – and became the first public access on the lake. Nice spin doctoring, but an enormous pile of hooey. The SLA took credit for helping to broker the donation of less than a half acre of land, a boat ramp, four boat slips, and a beat up old boathouse for the public launch. They did not donate it, some of their members did, and only as a last resort. The SLA and wealthy Squam owners were responsible from day one for every attempt to limit access to Squam, and only threats by the state to take property by eminent domain to force public access caused the pittance of access now referred to as the public boat launch on Squam. When the State attempted to purchase a 6 acre parcel on Squam for a launch, the money men hopped in and snatched it up without a thought to the extra 50 grand they threw over the state's offer. Eminent domain caused the donation to which you refer, and it was not donated by the SLA.