Now I know this is outrageous but...
 

I like to play golf. My parents deck would make a perfect driving range. It has an unobstructed view of Meredith Bay. I could throw a mat down on the deck, pull out my driver and start driving golf balls out into the bay. Now most of the time my golf balls would fall harmlessly into the water, but I'm sure a few of them would hit boats. Now I am just enjoying my favorite past-time and no one should bash me on this site for doing what I want to do. Is that right Pontiac... Just want to make sure, because I have tournament soon and it would save the drive to range.

Wow!
 

Golf balls into the lake???? Yeah, that's about the same as riding a smowmobile across the lake! Give me a break. While I am not crazy about what he did, I don't believe it to be the crime everyone is making it out to be. For Pete's sake, stop and think for one second, one bloody second, how is it THAT different from riding a jet ski across the lake. Of course the snowmobile can sink, but under power? about the same thing. Of course it is wrong, and he violated the no wake zone (along with hundreds of others), but I still think it would be a pretty cool thing to see...and remember...it is actually a real sport, that is done IN WATER.
Hitting golf balls into the water?! That's the best you've got?!
Sell your argument, and I may buy it....but after that analogy...you have no credibility.

Could you please tell me when this tournament is , im all in , I too have much practice in this field but my unobstructed view was paugus bay , a cool 9 iron with a slight breeze would send my #1 titlest sailing within inches of its intended target (moored dingy) and oh the sound when it found its target hevenly fun.thanks for any info:laugh:

Snowmobiles are not PWCs
 

First let me state again that the individual did not violate the "no wake" zone, or any other boating statute. Only watercraft can violate boating regulations, and a sled never obtains the status of a watercraft...no matter how it is operated.

That said there is a tremendous amount of difference between a snowmobile being operated on water and a PWC or any other watercraft. A sled operator has very little immediate directional control of his sled and depends on constant or accelerating speed to keep the sled afloat and moving forward. Any release of the throttle will result in almost immediate sinking. The sled also cannot compensate or maneuver over or through a wake or wave. Turns must be made with great anticipation and substantial clearance.

In short a sled operator, by the nature of the vehicle he is operating, has extremely limited control and must remain at speed at all times. It is obvious to see how this can present a serious danger to the boating or swimming public that may be operating in the general vicinity of this foolish act.

And let me add that whether the operator places himself in danger or not while operating and subsequently sinking said sled, his action clearly places rescuers and the general public in danger whether the act is committed on a warm summer day or in the middle of winter.

How?

Because in either case when a bystander dials 911 to report the incident, first responders have no idea whether the operator or any other person is in danger. They will respond accordingly. And unfortunately everytime a police officer, firefighter or medic has to respond in an emergency fashion to the scene of an incident it presents a serious situation for all involved along the way.

Additionally, when emergency responders are involved in responding to such an incident that means that the response to an additional emergency could be delayed.

Finally, the "sport" you speak of is conducted under controlled conditions with appropriate safety equipment and personnel on immediate standby. It is not done unannounced on a summer weekend at a crowded public lake.

As a longtime snowmobiler and public safety employee, I also volunteer my time as a Snowmobile Safety Instructor to teach young sledders the appropriate and safe way to respect the sport of snowmobiling. Skimming is a topic we cover clearly and seriously with our audience, due in part to the horrific incidents that occur across the country and here in New Hampshire each and every year. It's easy to draw the line in the sand on this issue, don't ever do it unless you are an experienced operator at a sanctioned event.


...For Pete's sake, stop and think for one second, one bloody second...

Outstanding advice.....I hope you think about it!

Give me a break
 

That is why the subject of the post was "I know this outrageous but.." SA Meredith I would never hit golf balls into the lake first of all. Secondly as Skip posted Watercross is done on a closed course. Now I agree the videos on line are pretty cool to watch, but skimming is against the law in NH. My analogy of hitting golf balls into the lake was in response to Pontiac's post about not bashing the kid for doing something "he likes to do in his spare time". Well I like to hit golf balls why can't I hit them out into the lake? If this kid can take his snowmobile and go at a high rate of speed on a public waterway, not be able to steer well and if he stops sink a snowmobile into the lake. Why can't I hit golf balls into the Lake? That is where the analogy came from.

While I am not crazy about what he did, I don't believe it to be the crime everyone is making it out to be.

Skimming is illegal, therefore, it's a crime. That took less than one bloody second to figure out. And a big, fat ditto to Skip. Every second emergency responders have to spend on a Darwin Award Winner is time they aren't able to spend responding to real emergencies. Kids being kids, we all did stupid stuff, blah blah blah. Stretching emergency resources thin due to stupidity is serious business. A heart attack victim versus our summer skimmer? Let the dumb kid sink.

One question.....
 

I have one question, and only one. Please answer this, Skip, Parrothead, Twoplustwo, GTO, anyone else who cares to. And please, stop and think carefully before responding. Also, it is just a question. There is no "hidden adgenda" here AT ALL!
The question:
Yes, the event was illegal, and yes, important emergency resources could have been put to better use, as oppossed to responding to this foolish thing.
But I don't put it in the catagory of a blatant dis-regard of the law. And further, I don't think the guy should be ripped apart on this board by you folks...now the question...
If it turns out (and we will know soon), that Erica Blizzard was driving her boat "very drunk", and therefore performed an illegal act, and took the time of emergency responders, who could have been needed elsewhere, are all you fine folks going to point that same high power of perception at her, and rip her up on this board? I'll take a daytime skimmer, over a drunk night time boater.
Do I smell double standard? Maybe too early, but time will tell.

In fact, Towplustwo, you say "let the kid dumb kid sink". If it turns out she was drunk, can I expect a post reading "let the drunk girl sink?". Just a question.

In fact, Towplustwo, you say "let the kid dumb kid sink". If it turns out she was drunk, can I expect a post reading "let the drunk girl sink?". Just a question.

If the dumb kid sank, he was doing it alone. Considering there were two other people in need of emergency assistance on that boat, I think you already know the answer to that question.

Yes, it is too early to be sniffing a double standard. And yes, if it is determined she was operating that boat while drunk, then that takes it from a tragic accident to a criminal act which obviously deserves and will receive villification.

SA Meredith
 

In my mind there would be no double standard for me. If the investigation shows that Erica was intoxicated, then that accident moves from unfortunate to preventable. There is no excuse for driving anything while drunk. Can I propose a what if scenario? Would you think that the snowmobiler's actions were so cool if he injured someone on his trip across the lake?

worse, isn't it...
 

Well, gee, twoplustwo, if it turns out she was drunk sort of makes it worse, doesn't it. You say "If the dumb kid sank, he was doing it alone." Erica involved two other people. Would be worse. We will see.

Parrothead...sorry, that does not work. The FACT is, noone was hurt.
However, in Erica's case there is a very good possibility (due to physical evidence) that she was indeed drunk, or at the very least drinking. And the FACT is, a girl was killed (involuntarily murdered?). I don't believe the skimmer hit anybody.

Well, gee, twoplustwo, if it turns out she was drunk sort of makes it worse, doesn't it. You say "If the dumb kid sank, he was doing it alone." Erica involved two other people. Would be worse. We will see.

Well, gee, I don't think it takes a visit from Captain Obvious to figure that out. I don't recall ever saying I was in favor of drunk boating and people dying as a result of it, and I don't know why this one kid's enormous stupidity cannot stand on it's own for what it was. The kid did something against the law, he was rightfully charged. If she did something against the law, she should be charged. One has nothing to do with the other. Why you seem to think I want this kid hanged but want to ignore the other situation, if, in fact, it turns out to warrant criminal charges is beyond me. I never indicated that, I certainly wouldn't support that, and I'm tired of you typing at me like I should be wearing a helmet.

Ok
 

If Erica is found to be intoxicated she took a gamble with her life, everyone in the boat, in house, and on the lake that night. And unfortunately she lost that gamble. The snowmobiler took a gamble skimming across the lake. He just happened to be lucky. He could have hit a wave wrong and been thrown, he could have been unable to avoid an obstacle, or just sunk the snowmobile. Both Erica's intoxication and the skimming are avoidable. Erica not drinking and the snowmobiler leaves the snowmobile in the truck. Now everyone gambles their life everyday, you could get hit by a bus, or have a car accident. But the odds of harm are much higher while boating intoxicated or skimming a snowmobile across the Lake. So yes the kid didn't injure anyone, but it could have just as easily gone the other way.

Look...
 

Look, I'm not trying to a jerk. And my analogy is just that, an analogy. I wish nothing but the best for Erica, her family, and all others affected by the incident.
My point is just this...be careful when reacting passionately in a public forum.
You need to be consistent to have credibility. I remember first reading about Diamond Island, and all the sympathy that came out, and yet I could not help but think back to previous threads were it was stated time and again that a captain's first and most important responsibility is the safety of his/her passengers. Sort of a double edge sword.
In this case, someone like Twoplustwo (in my opinion) can't post something like "I'll keep Erica in my thoughts and prayers", and then vilify another person who acted irresponsibly. Erica's actions had tragic results...the skimmers, not so much. Were is the consistency here?

Facts is the difference
 

At this time the investigation into the Diamond Island accident is still not completed. The skimmer was caught and there is no question what he did. If this skimmer God forbid had hurt or killed himself or others, my response would be still to offer condolences to the families involved. I would think that it's too bad because it all could have been avoided. The same with the Diamond Island accident. If the facts of the case include that Erica was intoxicated, then I will still feel for the families involved. And feel extra bad that it all could have been avoided. Luckily we don't have to offer condolences to the skimmer's family or anyone else. He got lucky and wasn't hurt, but as I said before it could easily have gone the other way.

my credibility?
 

I think good thoughts and prayers are absolutely appropriate when someone is in intensive care and their best friend is dead. I'd like to think my Higher Power was more concerned with healing at that point, as well. If that makes me less credible in your eyes, oh well. I'll get over it. Probably by the time I hit the submit button.

Fair enough
 

Ok, fair enough. Just be sure when the investigation is over, and Erica is found responsible (either sober or drunk) for what occured on a boat being captained by her, you post something similar to the above.
Words like "moron", and "such inspired individuals".

Remember, these are not my thoughts, but your's. I feel very badly for her, as life will never be the same. Sometimes, people make poor decisions, in the heat of the moment...and 9 out of 10 times they get away with it. Which has been my point all along...don't make villans out of the skimmers, although what they did was wrong. It turned out to be a harmless thrill ride.
No one should crucify them or call them morons, like you did. But if you want to that's fine. Just be consistent in your judging of people who act in ways you do not agree with.

Peace?
 

Twoplustwo and anyone else... Olive branch. OK?

would you please create a library of all of my posts?
 

Then I can copy and paste as I need to in the future. Should I PM you first, so you can check for my credibility, meter the severity of my chosen words, and callibrate my attacks for equal venom levels?:laugh:

So parrothead has no credibility because you don't like his analogy, I have no credibility because I offered prayers prior to the investigation ending and the DA making an announcement. Maybe you should ask the webmaster to create a credibility filter for you, it would make your life so much easier here on the forum.

Ok
 

OK, I'm out...
I just don't get the sarcasm?! Why?
I make a point, and then submit actual facts and site instances to support that point. In this case, I expose your double standard with previous posts.

And you retort with something similar to "well, you're a big fat bubble head".
I don't believe anyone on this forum should refer to a person as a moron, and be insulting to them because they did something disagreeable on the lake.
I would love to hear you explain how a person who performs a foolish act (sober or not) that leads to a death escapes your rath, and someone who's act ends harmlessly, is called a moron by you.
I don't believe either should be villified on this board. Neither one.
I wonder how you can seperate the two.
I mean no ill intent. I am truly just curious.

I thought calling him a moron was rather mild. I suppose breaking a law would be considered "disagreeable".

In this case, I expose your double standard with previous posts.

The facts are clear with the summer skimmer. The facts have not been made public with the Blizzard accident. Once they are out there, I can and will have my opinion. At that point, you can decide if several of us of have that double standard you've accused us of having. Until that point, your accusations are baseless and insulting.

I call the kid and his actions moronic. You like to refer to them as 'something disagreeable on the lake'. You say potahhto.. If my use of the term moron offends you, I can only suggest that filter again, as you won't convince me that his actions were anything other than moronic.

If my teen pulled a stunt like that, her only means of transportation would be those two things known as feet at the bottom of her legs, and those would be handcuffed together, for good measure.

Already then
 

Smile...it's a new day..and the Sox won last night.
To each, his own.
Probably got a bit carried away yesterday...I do that sometimes.

LOL everyone does. I've quietly read through the thread and see that everyone had their minds channeled differently. The skimming incident points to daredevil stupidity. These aren't controlled events that have a high likelihood of succeeding, they have a high rate of failure. Yes, it is illegal. This article points to the main problem.

http://www.freelists.org/archives/ka.../msg00034.html

I'd have to say, people doing that on a lake, especially where they did it, are pretty much on their own.

It's not a good analogy to use the boating accident. Boats belong on the lake, and it's not illegal, or inherently dangerous. Perhaps the conditions were such that she screwed up, possibly something else contributed to the mishap. We'll know soon. It's had a tremendous impact on families and friends, as any accident and fatality does. That doesn't change. People's feelings towards the operator do change depending on the circumstances, which is fair. If some moron drives into a rock ledge at 100mph on the highway and is drunk beyond sane, my sympathies lie with the survivors, not the operator. If someone rides a snow machine in the lake, tries to turn and sinks and drowns, same answer.

There are many tragedies everyday, some are simply accidents and can't be avoided, others involve decisions that were misjudgments that failed despite good intentions. Still others are avoidable, and involve stupid decisions, with the full intent of being reckless and careless, whether it be for the thrill of it or just because. These can only be prevented by the operator, not society. There's only so much sincere sympathy out there, and it shouldn't be reserved for stupid.

Let's get back on track!
 

The last few post are moving away from the original Qusetion. How dumb is dumb?

Most post are negelcting the fact that there were 2 individuels that attempted this "STUNT". We have gone from the 150' rule. No-Wake Zone and now to the boating "ACCIDENT" off of Diamond.

May be it is time to close this thread?

Well some said dumb, some said stooooopid, ignorant, dangerous, legal/illegal, you name it.

There were two individuals that attempted this "stunt". If you have more explanations to add regarding the dumbness factor, maybe we won't have to close this thread.

There is more out there?
 

If you have not got your fill of this topic there is another Thread on the General Forum covering this.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...8118#post78118

Enjoy!

Please
 

What I dont get is how these kids can even be compared to the people on that boat. They didnt kill anybody, 1. They werent intoxicated, 2. Lastely, they put others in far less danger than those girls did. What is wrong with people even comparing the 2 situations. Get a clue!

In related news, for those that would like to see this for themselves, check out Top Gear on BBC America on Saturday at 4 PM. It was on tonight (actually a rerun from 2005 in Britain, but new to here). They raced a snowmobile against a Jeep across a lake. :D

charge dropped
 

guess you really have to choose your words wisely (Today's Citizen)

Here's the link. http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...925/-1/CITIZEN

Looks like justice was served. He was busted for driving a snowmobile over open water. Charges for reckless conduct were dropped. The first charge implies the second, so there was no cause for the second charge. It looks like he got away with speeding in a no-wake zone though. He paid his fool-fee and has stories to tell. Another lake legand is written, and nobody was hurt.

Well said, Lakegeezer.
A stunt that will be fun to talk about by him and friends/family for years to come. A bit foolish, yes. But, no harm done.
As I have said before...thru the years, different generations do different things. Time was when it was "cool" to jump off the Weirs Bridge, or jump the Mount's wake. Foolish things, but great stories/memories.

Miller won because of technicalities.

Doubt he'll be laughing when he receives Sisti's bill...

Apparently, Miller is a slow learner of his own wordage...

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...925/-1/CITIZEN

Good for Mr Miller. Wish I got to see it...no harm except to him

Sisti
 

I'm looking at this name all day..."Sisti"...and thinking, "why do I know this name?"
I believe this is the guy who defended Pam Smart when she had her husband killed back in the early 90's.
Little piece of useless information for everyone...

Some people I know judge a persons guilt by whether they use that lawyer or not... of course, I am just kidding :D

He also defended Dan Littlefield in the fatal a few years ago.

Littlefield
 

How many years did Littlefield get?
And, am I right to say, at that time, Meredith Bay was not the no wake zone that it is now?

Fisrt skimmer gets charges dropped
 

The first skimmer got some of his charges dropped. John Miller was the first of two that day to take a chance and give it a go, both were unsuccessfull. miller got marine wreckless conduct dropped and was charged only with fish and game violations.

Miller gets charges dropped
 

John Miller got charges Dropped. I say good for him. What does everyone else think.