Hb 847 Meeting In Concord.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

How many of those 9% were active boaters who use the lake?
If they wanted to do a survey, it should have been done amongst people who have a vested interest.

The group polled do have a vested interest. They were the owners of the lake.

Lakegeezer
"There was no organized opposition or debate about the issues before the survey"

I think you should check the dates. I was quoting the second poll.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Between Voters, and Boaters!!! I challenge you to poll registered Boaters!
The numbers we heard today were 600 people in the Manchester area were polled. 78% allegedly said they would support a speed limit. So what is that? 450 voters from Manchester. Ok how many were Boaters????? Exactly probably not many! I would bet I could get 450 voters to agree to ban Bihydrogen monoxide!!!

[wifi]

I think the proper term is dihydrogen monoxide, but still

[Bear Islander]

So was anybody at the hearing? How did things go?

[WeirsBeachBoater]

I was there. Went very well, there was a majority by my count Opposed to HB 847, with many new faces. There was the usual faces from Winnfabs, they are still using the same canned speeches. Towards the end, as I stayed for the whole thing, it became clear that the proponents were disturbed, as Sandy Helve spoke out of turn, that she felt that the balance of speakers was not fair, the chairman then pointed out that the list as he was presented showed more opponents of the bill signed up to speak! In a great display of professionalism the Chair let one last member of Winnfabs speak, although as a point of order he didn't have to let that happen. Still after the gentleman spoke there were 2 more opponents left. I think the Senators on the committee have all the info, and will make the right decision and finally put this special interest bill to pasture. Two things I took away from the hearing, 1. Polls mean nothing. 2. This bill has finally been outed for what it is, a special interest groups crusade. Nothing more. It's not about safety, it's about ridding "their" lake of boats they don't like. This became most evident to me when the last amendment came up! All they have done is start as a winni only, then when that didn't appear to be working, they switched it to all lakes, that way they thought they could get more votes, an momentum. Then when that was flopping, what did they do, went back to winni only with a sunset clause as a disguise.... Guess what, Still not working. Facts are facts. NH lakes, and Winnipesaukee accident rates are among the best in the US. As a matter of fact they have improved over the past 4yrs! Don't believe the hype!

[Islander]

My take was pretty much the exact opposite.

I will wait for the vote.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

I was there. Went very well, there was a majority by my count Opposed to HB 847, with many new faces. There was the usual faces from Winnfabs, they are still using the same canned speeches. Towards the end, as I stayed for the whole thing, it became clear that the proponents were disturbed, as Sandy Helve spoke out of turn, that she felt that the balance of speakers was not fair, the chairman then pointed out that the list as he was presented showed more opponents of the bill signed up to speak! In a great display of professionalism the Chair let one last member of Winnfabs speak, although as a point of order he didn't have to let that happen. Still after the gentleman spoke there were 2 more opponents left. I think the Senators on the committee have all the info, and will make the right decision and finally put this special interest bill to pasture. Two things I took away from the hearing, 1. Polls mean nothing. 2. This bill has finally been outed for what it is, a special interest groups crusade. Nothing more. It's not about safety, it's about ridding "their" lake of boats they don't like. This became most evident to me when the last amendment came up! All they have done is start as a winni only, then when that didn't appear to be working, they switched it to all lakes, that way they thought they could get more votes, an momentum. Then when that was flopping, what did they do, went back to winni only with a sunset clause as a disguise.... Guess what, Still not working. Facts are facts. NH lakes, and Winnipesaukee accident rates are among the best in the US. As a matter of fact they have improved over the past 4yrs! Don't believe the hype!

You were sooooo Right!

[EricP]

There was a very good turnout, quite impressive IMHO.
Those opposed outnumbered those for. I base this on the volume of people sporting the NO HB847 stickers hended out. There were even quite a few opposed who didn't have one on. I myself m opposed to HB847.

I will give the chairman and the commitee kudos for changing up the testimony so basically we heard from alternating points of view throughout the morning. This was my first ever hearing so I have no clue if that's normal, but the chairman made it a point to let us know that;s his preferred style.

The reigning theme from supporters is simple: fear, nothing else but fear mongering, period. That's all I heard from them over and over. One woman even went as far as to spell it out. "Formula Boats". She stated she personally taught 50 people how to water ski and wouldn't take a new skier out anymore. Let's be real here, Monday through Thursday, Friday morning, Saturday morning and Sunday mornings are all good times to teach some to ski, there are just times when there are a lot of boats on the lake and maybe not a good time to teach someone. This has nothing to do with speed, it's simple math. This is not your father's or grandfather's lake. What ws the US population when your father and grandfathers roamed he lake and what is the US population now? Huge differences. So with more people living then it stands to reason more boats are owned and therefore more boats show up to enjoy the lake. This transaltes to congestion, not speed as a problem. That's why she's afraid to teach people to ski, to many boats at certain times so you adjust your pattern. Simple solution.

I heard many more compelling reasons to not impose a speed limit than for. The 150' rule is probably our best safety measure by far, and this is the first year that boating certification is mandatory so I think we should let it bake, it's been demonstrated time and again that NH is a safe state to boat in with our current laws and there's no need to change that.

I was very happy to hear several people point out that while Lake George has a speed limit it does not have the 150' safe passaage rule. That laone means we're not comparing apples to apples.

Another guy spoke to the fear of kayaking across the broads. I liked his analogy. He stated he has a 38 foot boat but you won't see him driving it to China. It's not safe. Same goes for kayaking in the broads on a weekend when there's a lot of traffic, it's just not safe. Now if someone, like Evenstar, has good skills and wants to kayak in the broads, then you have to understand the risks and compensate for them. Like someone else here suggested, put a flag on the bow or stern so it's easier to see you. It's perfectly legal to walk down Meredith Neck Road at midnight on a cloudy weekend night in the Summer, but if I were to do so I's understand that it could be dangerous and wear something light in color, maybe even reflective or carry a flashlight so I am visible. It's not required but I ain't no dummy! Safety goes both ways. When you engage in something you know could be risky you make sure you account for it. It's so crazy to scream "I want a law" rather than to accept some personal responsibility for our endeavors.

I heard a couple proponents repeatedly use the term excessive speed, but not speeding. I think this says a lot to the opposition. It's not speeding, but excessive speed they keep talking about. Excessive speed can be defined as 10 MPH when within 150' of anything else. That's speeding, and I bet that happens a zillion times more than boats traveling over 45 MPH. I have had close calls on my PWCs at slow speeds and none with boats at high speeds. All were 150' infractions. I am always watching everything around me, not because of fear, but because I just don't want to get hurt.

I heard 2 people speak to the 600 person survey. I would want to know more about the sampling. How many of those 600 boat on Winni and how many boat on really small lakes? How many don't boat at all? Exactly what was aksed and how was the question asked? For example" "Excuse me sir, would you be in favor of a speed limit on NH lakes knowing that people are dying ev ery day in high speed accidents on our waters?" or "Do you think we need speed limits on NH lakes?". I personally dismiss this so called survey. I don't believe it to be a fair representation of Winni boaters, which is what this bill is about.

I can't offer an opinion as to how I think it went. I know they listened to all testimonials, asked reasonable questions, and took notes and so in that respect it was a good hearing. Noone got upset, there was no yelling or fighting. I'm glad I went and showed my opposition to the bill and am thankful to all those who were opposed and offered lots of reasons why we don't need the bill passed.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by EricP

. . . This transaltes to congestion, not speed as a problem. That's why she's afraid to teach people to ski, to many boats at certain times so you adjust your pattern. Simple solution.

Congestion is certainly a factor. But it is not the only factor. My best friend and I have only kayaked on Winni during the week – yet we have had close calls with high-speed boats in the middle of the week – when congestion was not a factor at all.

The 150' rule is probably our best safety measure by far, and this is the first year that boating certification is mandatory so I think we should let it bake, it's been demonstrated time and again that NH is a safe state to boat in with our current laws and there's no need to change that.

The 150 foot rule hasn’t protected me from people who were going faster than their ability. Boats have violated my 150 foot zone just because they were going too fast.

Another guy spoke to the fear of kayaking across the broads. I liked his analogy. He stated he has a 38 foot boat but you won't see him driving it to China. It's not safe. Same goes for kayaking in the broads on a weekend when there's a lot of traffic, it's just not safe.

Winni is not all that big. It’s only 20 miles long – and there’s only about 2 square miles of the entire lake where you can be more than a mile from a shoreline. The only reason that it is not safe for me is because there are boats that are traveling too fast. My sea kayak is made for large bodies of water. I have safely kayaked out in the middle of Squam on the busiest weekends of the summer – because it has a speed limit.

Now if someone, like Evenstar, has good skills and wants to kayak in the broads, then you have to understand the risks and compensate for them. Like someone else here suggested, put a flag on the bow or stern so it's easier to see you. It's perfectly legal to walk down Meredith Neck Road at midnight on a cloudy weekend night in the Summer, but if I were to do so I's understand that it could be dangerous and wear something light in color, maybe even reflective or carry a flashlight so I am visible. It's not required but I ain't no dummy! Safety goes both ways. When you engage in something you know could be risky you make sure you account for it. It's so crazy to scream "I want a law" rather than to accept some personal responsibility for our endeavors.

How many times do I have to explain this?

Why don’t you people stick to what you know?

A sea kayak is long and narrow. My kayak is only 22 inches wide! I control it with thigh braces . . . and by leaning (which is called “putting it on edge”). Paddling a sea kayak is a constant balancing act.
A flag that would be large enough and tall enough to actually make a difference in my visibility would make my kayak very unstable – and it would make my kayak practically impossible to steer in even a moderate breeze, since it would make my kayak like a weathervane.

My kayak is very visible – its upper hull is bright red and its lower hull is white. My friend’s kayak it bright yellow. My paddle blades are bright orange and my PFD is red.

We are extremely visible!

Yet some high speed boats have still violated our 150 foot zone – in the middle of a sunny afternoon – because they were going too fast and they didn’t see us in time. That is the problem.

In decent visibility I can spot most other kayaks up to a mile away – but I’m only going about 5 mph.

I bought an expensive sea kayak because I wanted a kayak that was safe to use out on large lakes and on coastal waters - my kayak was designed expecially for this. I carry safety equipment with me and wear the proper clothing for the water temperature. I have taken seminars on advanced paddling and on coastal navigation. I have done everything possible to ensure my safety.

I'm "screaming" because, no matter how skilled I am, or how prepared I am, or how visible my kayak and I are . . . high speed boaters have endangered me on Winni - because they were going too fast!

This is not about me being unsafe or doing unsafe things - this is about high speed boat operators who will not slow down to a safe speed without the state enacting a speed limit.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Originally Posted by wifi

I think the proper term is dihydrogen monoxide, but still

I googled dihydrogen monoxide, came up as a nasty mix!!! Yikes!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The group polled do have a vested interest. They were the owners of the lake.

Lakegeezer
"There was no organized opposition or debate about the issues before the survey"

I think you should check the dates. I was quoting the second poll.

By vested interest, I meant the users of the lake, not the citizens who "own" the lake.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

By vested interest, I meant the users of the lake, not the citizens who "own" the lake.

I understand you. However polling the most interested group is not really the point. The citizens own the lake and have the responsibility, through their elected representatives, for regulating it.

If it were a law regulating large trucks would you only poll truckers? For a poll on casino gambling in NH, would you only poll gamblers?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I understand you. However polling the most interested group is not really the point. The citizens own the lake and have the responsibility, through their elected representatives, for regulating it.

If it were a law regulating large trucks would you only poll truckers? For a poll on casino gambling in NH, would you only poll gamblers?

It would depend on the law being proposed. For example, if the law was for regulating large trucks on restricted access highways, then I would want to poll the people who actually use those highways. I think the highway users opinion should carry more weight than the opinion of one who never uses the highway.

My opinion is that polling the most interested group is the way to go. Sure, all citizens opinions matter. As stated above, the users opinion should carry more weight than a non-user.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I understand you. However polling the most interested group is not really the point. The citizens own the lake and have the responsibility, through their elected representatives, for regulating it.

If it were a law regulating large trucks would you only poll truckers? For a poll on casino gambling in NH, would you only poll gamblers?

I don't necessarily agree. Laws regulating large trucks would potentially affect everyone on the road depending on the type of law. Casino gambling as well would affect all as it can change many things to do with our society.

Some voter in Manchester who has never been on a boat on Winnipesaukee and never will , and who have no knowledge of boating really is not an important opinion in my view. Regulating boating laws on Winnipesaukee has a much tighter circle of effect.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I understand you. However polling the most interested group is not really the point. The citizens own the lake and have the responsibility, through their elected representatives, for regulating it.

If it were a law regulating large trucks would you only poll truckers? For a poll on casino gambling in NH, would you only poll gamblers?

Once again a spin that dizzies up the mind. Talk about comparing apples to MANGOS for gods sake. Why should anyone who has never even boated on Winni and never intends to have anything to say? This a recreational issue. I could care less what speed they travel on "xyz lake" in Massachusetts. Why should I tell those people how to use the lake they frequent? Why? Is it my civic duty to regulate their activities?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

...Why should anyone who has never even boated on Winni and never intends to have anything to say? ...

They "should" have a say because it's their lake. It is their responsibility and their property. In fact they have the final say.

However I think polls, especially exit polls, are used to much in our society. I have quoted this poll to counter the idea that the "people" don't want HB847. I will admit it would be difficult not to use a poll that so clearly supports your argument.

The weakness of this poll is not that many will not have boated on Winnipesaukee. It's the inadvisability of relying on the opinion of people that know very little about about the details and history of the topic.

[Lakegeezer]

NH citizens that are lake users should have a stronger say on lake issues than the general NH population, because they have more knowledge of reality. The NH general population should get involved with issues such as water quality and economic issues, but should stay away from micromanagement of how to drive a boat - especially since the rules already define safe boating.

My big problem with the polls is that they can (and have been) impacted by a PR campaign. The image that the WinnFabs have been promoting is a lake that is out of control. It has been effective in swaying opinion, and no doubt impacting the local economy. On most of the lake, most of the time, it is far from true.

[Resident 2B]

Folks,

If the proponents wanted to do a survey that was fair, they would have done it in Laconia, or Meredith, or Alton, or Wolfeboro. However, if they did the survey in one of these places, they knew they would not get the desired result. So they did the survey in Manchester, not a center of lake knowledge in my opinion, after a well-designed PR campaign that told the people in Manchester that the lake was full of dangerously fast boats. They got the result they wanted even though the people that they polled had no first-hand knowledge of boating on the lake.

In the end they got "hard evidence". That is what they wanted and that is what they bought!

Do not get fooled by this!! Of course it makes no sense. They paid for a survey that would support their cause. That is exactly what it is. The survey is complete crap!! They know it and we know it. However, it supports their cause just like the other smoke and mirrors they use.

I hope that in the end, the Senate will see through all of this and do the right thing. I believe the Senate knows crap when they see it.

R2B

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

Folks,

If the proponents wanted to do a survey that was fair, they would have done it in Laconia, or Meredith, or Alton, or Wolfeboro. However, if they did the survey in one of these places, they knew they would not get the desired result. So they did the survey in Manchester, not a center of lake knowledge in my opinion, after a well-designed PR campaign that told the people in Manchester that the lake was full of dangerously fast boats. They got the result they wanted even though the people that they polled had no first-hand knowledge of boating on the lake.

In the end they got "hard evidence". That is what they wanted and that is what they bought!

Do not get fooled by this!! Of course it makes no sense. They paid for a survey that would support their cause. That is exactly what it is. The survey is complete crap!! They know it and we know it. However, it supports their cause just like the other smoke and mirrors they use.

I hope that in the end, the Senate will see through all of this and do the right thing. I believe the Senate knows crap when they see it.

R2B

What evidence do you have that the proponents did this survey?

Do you have evidence that the proponents paid for this survey as you claim?

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

What evidence do you have that the proponents did this survey?

Do you have evidence that the proponents paid for this survey as you claim?

He is policy director of some pro hb847 group and he presented the stats as though they collected them. Lame presentation, and he didn't sell it well.

[KonaChick]

APS your jetski/sufer picture is priceless. How ignorant do you think people are? Most legit surfing competitions HIRE jetskis to bring surfers out, rescue stranded surfers and to be available in case of surfer emergency. Your picture is just an example of mother nature and how unpredictable she can be. Shame on you for your blatant fear mongering and trying to link this picture with ANYTHING that could happen on the lake...tsk tsk tsk.

[DoTheMath]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

APS your jetski/sufer picture is priceless. How ignorant do you think people are? Most legit surfing competitions HIRE jetskis to bring surfers out, rescue stranded surfers and to be available in case of surfer emergency. Your picture is just an example of mother nature and how unpredictable she can be. Shame on you for your blatant fear mongering and trying to link this picture with ANYTHING that could happen on the lake...tsk tsk tsk.

I'm a-diggin' you KonaChick... one more keen eye and sharp mind keeping a look out!

APS - duuuuude, looks like you have no surfing experience either, huh!?!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

APS your jetski/sufer picture is priceless. How ignorant do you think people are? Most legit surfing competitions HIRE jetskis to bring surfers out, rescue stranded surfers and to be available in case of surfer emergency. Your picture is just an example of mother nature and how unpredictable she can be. Shame on you for your blatant fear mongering and trying to link this picture with ANYTHING that could happen on the lake...tsk tsk tsk.

I can't believe I missed that part of his post. I actually saw that video on TV recently, on one of those "Worlds Wildest Video" shows. The jet ski was there for the exact reason you state...to assist the surfers. The guy on the jet ski came across the top of the wave and went a hair too far, and the wave sucked him in. There was nothing he could do. And I have to say, he was in no way going at an excessive speed. Except for when the jet ski was riderless going down the wave.
Anyway, the guy was supposed to be there. He just mishandled a wave. Nice try on the horror spin and fear mongering APS.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

What evidence do you have that the proponents did this survey?

Do you have evidence that the proponents paid for this survey as you claim?

http://www.winnfabs.com/StatewidePoll.htm

ARG did the survey and they do not work for free.

WINNSFABS is using the data.

Who else would have paid for it??

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it is a duck!!


R2B

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

http://www.winnfabs.com/StatewidePoll.htm

ARG did the survey and they do not work for free.

WINNSFABS is using the data.

Who else would have paid for it??

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it is a duck!!


R2B

Sounds like pretty solid evidence to me! Hard to deny that.

[Just Sold]

News Article in Fosters today:

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...805/-1/CITNEWS

[Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Sounds like pretty solid evidence to me! Hard to deny that.

If you call that "solid" evidence, please don't go out on the lake ice.






And from a REPUBLICAN Representative in a Winnipesaukee town.
Rep. Alida Mill ham, R-Gilford, agreed, saying that New Hampshire lawmakers are always hesitant to pass laws that impact people's freedoms, but she said certain issues reach a "tipping point" where action is necessary.

"I think New Hampshire is at that point," said Millham.

Millham said she has had two close calls while boating on the lake where speed played a part in a safety concern.

Can anyone explain why this boating Legislators opinion does not count?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Islander

..."I think New Hampshire is at that point," said Millham.

Millham said she has had two close calls while boating on the lake where speed played a part in a safety concern.[/COLOR]

Can anyone explain why this boating Senators opinion does not count?

I can.

She is not a Senator, she is a member of the House from Belknap County (Republican from Gilford).

The House has already had its say....

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Skip

I can.

She is not a Senator, she is a member of the House from Belknap County (Republican from Gil ford).

The House has already had its say....

She is a republican that is familiar with the lake. Therefore she must be hiding a secret hatred of performance boats. It can't really be about safety.

Why no correction about the American Research Group?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Islander

...Why no correction about the American Research Group?...

I've never placed much stock in what "Dick" Bennett and his Group has had to say....

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Islander

She is a republican that is familiar with the lake. Therefore she must be hiding a secret hatred of performance boats. It can't really be about safety.

The term RINO jumped into my thoughts....

Being a sponsor of the Bill might explain her wordage...

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Islander

And from a REPUBLICAN Representative in a Winnipesaukee town.
Rep. Alida Mill ham, R-Gilford, agreed, saying that New Hampshire lawmakers are always hesitant to pass laws that impact people's freedoms, but she said certain issues reach a "tipping point" where action is necessary.

"I think New Hampshire is at that point," said Millham.

Millham said she has had two close calls while boating on the lake where speed played a part in a safety concern.

Can anyone explain why this boating Legislators opinion does not count?

I was there, she had no idea what she was saying. She never said the word speeding, she said "excessive speed" twice. Which again can be 10 MPH when two vessels are within 150' of each other and more than likely what her two close calls were. I could almost read that in her testimony. When the chairman asked her what this "tipping point" was, she fumbled for words and threw a very incoherent sentence and explanation together. Also I don't have to count her opinion, she doesn't represent me.

Those who were in favor of HB847 kept using the phrase "excessive speed" to make their points and in some cases very sheepishly as if to make us believe excessive speed means over 45 MPH when in fact it's doesn't

[Islander]

Originally Posted by EricP

I was there, she had no idea what she was saying. She never said the word speeding, she said "excessive speed" twice. Which again can be 10 MPH when two vessels are within 150' of each other and more than likely what her two close calls were. I could almost read that in her testimony. When the chairman asked her what this "tipping point" was, she fumbled for words and threw a very incoherent sentence and explanation together. Also I don't have to count her opinion, she doesn't represent me.

Those who were in favor of HBO kept using the phrase "excessive speed" to make their points and in some cases very sheepishly as if to make us believe excessive speed means over 45 MPH when in fact it's doesn't

That was a direct quote from the article Just Sold posted.

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...805/-1/CITNEWS

Hazelnut - The wheels are coming off the opposition bus amid false accusations about WinnFABS and you come up with "crumbling"? You are losing touch, wait for the vote.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Islander

That was a direct quote from the article Just Sold posted.

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...805/-1/CITNEWS

The article is not accurate, he apparently used the word "speed" instead of "excessive speed", which are effectively the same thing anyway, but exactly what she said. I wonder if the hearing is recorded and if we can get copies of it, I know what she said because it annoyed me. I'll say it again and ask you to address this comment, a simple agree or disagree is all that is required: "10 MPH is excessive speed when within 150' of pretty much anything else out there"

There is no way you can disgree with that statement and IMHO is really what her problem was at whatever incidents happened. Had those incidents she cited happened with boats going over 45 MPH she would have said speeding, or traveling over 45 MPH, or something to that affect, but she didn't and I suggest that is because it was really 150' violations and she was spinning them into the speed limit arguement. I hardly think a speed limit would have affected those situations.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

If you call that "solid" evidence, please don't go out on the lake ice.

And from a REPUBLICAN Representative in a Winnipesaukee town.
Rep. Alida Mill ham, R-Gilford, agreed, saying that New Hampshire lawmakers are always hesitant to pass laws that impact people's freedoms, but she said certain issues reach a "tipping point" where action is necessary.

"I think New Hampshire is at that point," said Millham.

Millham said she has had two close calls while boating on the lake where speed played a part in a safety concern.

Can anyone explain why this boating Legislators opinion does not count?

So then, please enlighten us with who actually ordered and paid for the survey?

Actual speed is a matter of opinion unless being measured electronically. Not everyone can look at a vessel under way and estimate with a fair level of accuracy at what speed it is traveling. "Speed played a part in safety" does not mean that a boat was necessarily speeding. Probably an infringement of the 150' rule.

Spin away...

[Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

So then, please enlighten us with who actually ordered and paid for the survey?

Actual speed is a matter of opinion unless being measured electronically. Not everyone can look at a vessel under way and estimate with a fair level of accuracy at what speed it is traveling. "Speed played a part in safety" does not mean that a boat was necessarily speeding. Probably an infringement of the 150' rule.

Spin away...

I don't know who paid for the poll. I have been told the American Research Group did it on their own. Perhaps you guys should known the answer before you blame WinnFABS.

I don't know the details behind the representatives encounters on the lake. But no matter what happened, one of our elected leaders thinks it's a problem that needs to be addressed.

[hazelnut]

Wow kinda feels like it's crumbling for the supporters side. Hope so Who knows until the votes are counted though. Does anyone know when the official voe takes place?

[Skip]

While the current legislation we are discussing is not specifically mentioned in this op-ed piece, I thought that this particular opinion is both timely and relevant to the discussion at hand.

Charlie Arlinghause in this morning's Union Leader.

[chase1]

Originally Posted by Islander

If you call that "solid" evidence, please don't go out on the lake ice.

And from a REPUBLICAN Representative in a Winnipesaukee town.
Rep. Alida Mill ham, R-Gilford, agreed, saying that New Hampshire lawmakers are always hesitant to pass laws that impact people's freedoms, but she said certain issues reach a "tipping point" where action is necessary.

"I think New Hampshire is at that point," said Millham.

Millham said she has had two close calls while boating on the lake where speed played a part in a safety concern.

Can anyone explain why this boating Legislators opinion does not count?

I thought she first stated that she had been boating on the Lake for 56 yrs or something to that effect. Two close calls in 56 yrs is nothing that concerns me. Sorry............who is to say she was not at fault in those situations.

Chase1

[ApS]

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

"...APS - duuuuude, looks like you have no surfing experience either, huh!?! ..."

Several forum members know that my younger years were spent at Lanakai Beach, Oahu, Hawaii—YES, I have surfing experience. (Just no "duuuuude" experience)

Boaters in the mix were not a problem—but they are now—and are being banned in several places.

Originally Posted by EricP

"...I have had close calls on my PWCs at slow speeds and none with boats at high speeds. All were 150' infractions..."

PWCs have close calls too? Now empathize with the boater who doesn't have an engine in order to swerve. Sailboats and kayaks can't swerve.

BTW, All collisions are 150' infractions: If your PWC is damaged and needs less than $2000 to repair, a report to NHMP is unnecessary. (A recent change for NH boaters—upped from $500).

...but the statistic is lost: The Coast Guard estimates that only 10% of non-fatal collision reports make it to their desk.

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

"...The NH general population...should stay away from micromanagement of how to drive a boat - especially since the rules already define safe boating.

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

Originally Posted by chipj29

"...Except for when the jet ski was riderless going down the wave..."

Hmmm...riderless?

The quantity of "incidents" with riderless and overpowered 4½-ton boats are legion. Long Lake's "driver-free ride" last year endangered lake dwellers 130 feet up from the shoreline. (Not a record, BTW...500 feet is a recent record.)

Originally Posted by EricP

"...this is the first year that boating certification is mandatory so I think we should let it bake...,"

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

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

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

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Several forum members know that my younger years were spent at Lanakai Beach, Oahu, Hawaii—YES, I have surfing experience. (Just no "duuuuude" experience)

Boaters in the mix were not a problem—but they are now—and are being banned in several places.


PWCs have close calls too? Now empathize with the boater who doesn't have an engine in order to swerve. Sailboats and kayaks can't swerve.

BTW, All collisions are 150' infractions: If your PWC is damaged and needs less than $2000 to repair, a report to NHMP is unnecessary. (A recent change for NH boaters—upped from $500).

...but the statistic is lost: The Coast Guard estimates that only 10% of non-fatal collision reports make it to their desk.


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


Hmmm...riderless?

The quantity of "incidents" with riderless and overpowered 4½-ton boats are legion. Long Lake's "driver-free ride" last year endangered lake dwellers 130 feet up from the shoreline. (Not a record, BTW...500 feet is a recent record.)
How many "riderless" incidents have there been on Winnipesaukee? You posted a picture of a riderless jet ski going down the face of a 12 foot wave. What does that have to do with a speed limit on Lake Winni?
1) Director Barrett's "Temporary Speed Limit" soothed the waters last season.

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

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

The governor has stated in the past that he will not sign it.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

The governor has stated in the past that he will not sign it.

That is not what the Governor said.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

That is not what the Governor said.

What has he said?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

What has he said?

"MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Gov. John Lynch said Thursday that he's not sure he'd sign a plan to set overall boat speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee

The House on Wednesday approved setting speed limits for a two-year trial period. The bill that now goes to the Senate would set limits of 45 mph during the day and 25 mph at night.

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

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

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

...but the statistic is lost: The Coast Guard estimates that only 10% of non-fatal collision reports make it to their desk.

Wh is this? Because damages ranging between $500-$2000 are not serious and certainly nothing that a speed limit will prevent. Anything serious would be reported, a boat hitting a rock and not sinking or a few boats bumping at a dock are of no concern to the CG.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...Wh is this? Because damages ranging between $500-$2000 are not serious and certainly nothing that a speed limit will prevent..."

If you ran over any one of my four sailboats (each not reaching a value of $2000)—and it sank out of sight forever—I would not need to report that loss to the NHMP/Coast Guard. (If the boat's occupants remained unkilled, uncrushed, and undrowned, that is.)

Conversely, if your $2200 purple-and-yellow-plastic graphics decal got damaged in the collision, you'd need to file a report. (You have 24-hours to report any of the boat's occupants killed, crushed, or drowned).

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...Anything serious would be reported, a boat hitting a rock and not sinking or a few boats bumping at a dock are of no concern to the CG..."

A boat hitting a rock is not a collision: dock bumps seldom do $2000 damage.

Rock-striking would be "running aground" or "striking a fixed object". Each is a separate category in CG statistics, and which receive full Coast Guard statistical attention IF reported to the NHMP.

New Hampshire recorded only two full-season BUIs and two "Running Agrounds" in recent years—statewide!

California, for example, still requires reports of >$500 damage, which makes California "look" more hazardous to boaters.

Conversely, New Hampshire reports so few Winnipesaukee damage reports—the threshold being $2000—it instantly assumes a "statistically safer" lake over California's lakes.

Pret-t-y smart of our tourist-state's Legislators, huh?

[DoTheMath]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Several forum members know that my younger years were spent at Lanakai Beach, Oahu, Hawaii—YES, I have surfing experience. (Just no "duuuuude" experience)

Er - first off it's Lanikai Beach in O'ahu - and just because you've been to the North Pole, doesn't make you Santa Claus.

I've been to more than one of the Hawaiian islands but I don't claim to be to be King Kamehameha!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

http://www.winnfabs.com/StatewidePoll.htm

ARG did the survey and they do not work for free.

WINNSFABS is using the data.

Who else would have paid for it??

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it is a duck!!


R2B

It's very easy to deny evidence that is not evidence at all.

What makes you believe that the ARG does not work for free?

Yes, WinnFABS is using the data. Would the opposition use the data if it supported their position?

The ARG has been taking what they call the "New Hampshire Poll" on current events, quarterly for more than 30 years. It is my understanding that the speed limit questions were part of that poll. If there is evidence to the contrary I would appreciate someone producing it.

I have quoted that study many times, but would not have done so if I thought it was paid for by one side.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

...What makes you believe that the ARG does not work for free?...

Almost overlooked this.

Anyway, the poll was commissioned and paid for by the NH Lakes Association, a supporter of WINNFABS and a solid proponent of speed limit legislation:



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


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

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

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Skip

Almost overlooked this.

Anyway, the poll was commissioned and paid for by the NH Lakes Association, a supporter of WINNFABS and a solid proponent of speed limit legislation:



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


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

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

Ya but Skip, it doesn't specifically say that they paid for the poll...
More spin coming in T-minus 3....2....1....

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Skip

Almost overlooked this.

Anyway, the poll was commissioned and paid for by the NH Lakes Association, a supporter of WINNFABS and a solid proponent of speed limit legislation:



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


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

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

Thanks Skip, so it was NOT WinnFABS that paid for the study! Nice how you try and tar with the same brush, obviously the NHLA and WinnFABS are not the same, not even in the same ballpark. However if you support speed limits you must be part of the same "vast left wing conspiracy".

However from the dates that looks like the second study done in 2006. Who paid for the "New Hampshire Poll" done in the spring of 2005?

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Thanks Skip. Glad you got to the bottom of that. I can connect the dots and follow the $$ trail. Chipj29, you are right, it does not claim WinnFabs paid for the poll but others can connect the dots too. The $$ might not make any difference if the poll is not biased.

It's been explained before but let me try to explain it this way:

If my dear elderly aunt were still alive (her family were long time residents of Manchester) she might have been one of those polled. She would have been misled and answered the questions under false assumptions. The poll taker would probably say who he was and that he was conducting a telephone poll.

Then he starts the poll. The bias starts with the set up statement - it is not properly worded

The Script for the poll wording starts:

"Do you favor or oppose a law that would impose speed limits for boats on large lakes in New Hampshire?"

(so there is no confusion, I have stopped quoting and now present my brief summary of the 4 questions and my comments)

That set-up makes it sound like there are NO speed limits on the lake(s) and nothing in the law about reasonable speeds or the 150' law. Only a small percentage of those polled might know what is already in place. Laws are already in place about reasonable speed. What is Marine Patrol having trouble enforcing and how would a 45/25 speed limits help the MP? Not mentioned to those polled.

There were 3 answer choices: Favor, Oppose, Undecided.

The 4 questions all specify a 45mph day and 25 mph night speed limit for boats. The questions:
Do you favor a 45/25 limit? Do you BELIEVE 45/25 will make lakes safer, make lakes more enjoyable, help MP enforce boating laws.

My elderly aunt would sure want safer and friendlier lakes. Help Marine Patrol enforce the law, who wouldn't want that? Sure she would tend to FAVOR the best sounding of the ONLY CHOICES PRESENTED to her. She wouldn't know that there were already speed limits and laws regarding reasonable speed on the big lake.

Obviously do you favor or oppose a law that would impose speed limits for boats MUST mean that speed is not currently addressed. A FALSE assumption to start with. It would HELP the Marine Patrol to impose 45/25 mph speed limits. Did the MP ever say they were in need of this limit to "help" them or is this all an attempt at adding bias to the response to the poll questions?

The funding, the wording - is this really an unbiased poll?

Thanks again Skip. And Chipj, I'm gonna get dizzy from all the upcoming spinning

Sigh... let them vote already and get this over with!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

Sigh... let them vote already and get this over with!

On that, I think we ALL agree!!

[Bear Islander]

Hi Skip

Good to see we have finally sucked you into the fight!

My post referred to the New Hampshire Poll taken in June 2005. This is the one that started all the POLL controversy. I see you have found that the later poll with more questions was ordered by NHLA.

Do you know if the New Hampshire Poll was paid for? It looks like it is part of their ongoing public opinion polls.

"The New Hampshire Poll is an independent poll that has surveyed New Hampshire residents on social, political, and economic issues on a regular basis since 1976"

They say it is "independent" to my way of thinking that means not paid for by one side. Do you think this is not true?

http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Hi Skip

Good to see we have finally sucked you into the fight!

My post referred to the New Hampshire Poll taken in June 2005. This is the one that started all the POLL controversy. I see you have found that the later poll with more questions was ordered by NHLA.

Do you know if the New Hampshire Poll was paid for? It looks like it is part of their ongoing public opinion polls.

"The New Hampshire Poll is an independent poll that has surveyed New Hampshire residents on social, political, and economic issues on a regular basis since 1976"

They say it is "independent" to my way of thinking that means not paid for by one side. Do you think this is not true?

http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/

So you think that they just did this poll for the heck of it? It does not fit into their regular topics. We already found who asked for it!

Quarterly results:
NH Business Conditions
Personal Finances
NH/US in a Recession
Lynch Job Ratings
Bush Job Ratings in NH

Non-quarterly surveys:
Shaheen/Sununu
Guinta/Lynch
4-Year Term
Civil Unions
Smoking Ban
Boat Speed Limits
Income Tax
Kelo Amendment
2004 Democratic Tracking
2004 Democratic Presidential Preference
December 1976

Return to ARG home

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

So you think that they just did this poll for the heck of it? It does not fit into their regular topics. We already found who asked for it!

Quarterly results:
NH Business Conditions
Personal Finances
NH/US in a Recession
Lynch Job Ratings
Bush Job Ratings in NH

Non-quarterly surveys:
Shaheen/Sununu
Guinta/Lynch
4-Year Term
Civil Unions
Smoking Ban
Boat Speed Limits
Income Tax
Kelo Amendment
2004 Democratic Tracking
2004 Democratic Presidential Preference
December 1976

Return to ARG home

Skip found a different poll done a year later.

And Yes, I believe the "New Hampshire Poll" is done as part of their ongoing independent surveys.

In any event a responsible person would know the answer BEFORE posting that it was WinnFABS. If you post without knowing and later find out your guess was right that is luck, not vindication.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

...Hi Skip

Good to see we have finally sucked you into the fight!...

Hi Richard,

Nope....not suckered in just yet, was only dipping my big toe...when the "stuff" starts to pile up deeper than my waders, I'll do that on occasion!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Skip

Hi Richard,

Nope....not suckered in just yet, was only dipping my big toe...when the "stuff" starts to pile up deeper than my waders, I'll do that on occasion!

Watch out Skip , here it comes

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

Thanks Skip, so it was NOT WinnFABS that paid for the study! Nice how you try and tar with the same brush, obviously the NHLA and WinnFABS are not the same, not even in the same ballpark. However if you support speed limits you must be part of the same "vast left wing conspiracy".

However from the dates that looks like the second study done in 2006. Who paid for the "New Hampshire Poll" done in the spring of 2005?

The article was written in Feb 06 and mentions a previous study, I don't think it is unrealistic that they could be talking abut the 05 study, especially if the results were only released later in the year.

It was commissioned by a clear supporter of Winnfabs, people that are probably members of Winnfabs as well. Basically the same people! A pretty basic way of putting just enough distance between the two so that it is not so obvious that Winnfabbs is behind it. No conspiracy theory needed...

The solid fact here is that it was started by a supporter of the speed limit. That is hard to deny. If this was to be a real survey it should have been conducted by a neutral party and with a group that had solid knowledge of the lake instead of people that may not have ever even been here. Your group claims that the MP speed study was tainted but don't think this one is? Give me a break!!!

At this point I don't really care what happens. I think that it is a pathetic campaign that the supporters have concocted to push this through. Fear, lies and misconceptions are all that this is based on. It won't affect me either way.

I hope you get what you wish for, the end result many not be as pleasant as you think...

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

Folks,

If the proponents wanted to do a survey that was fair, they would have done it in Laconia, or Meredith, or Alton, or Wolfeboro. However, if they did the survey in one of these places, they knew they would not get the desired result. So they did the survey in Manchester, not a center of lake knowledge in my opinion, after a well-designed PR campaign that told the people in Manchester that the lake was full of dangerously fast boats. They got the result they wanted even though the people that they polled had no first-hand knowledge of boating on the lake.

In the end they got "hard evidence". That is what they wanted and that is what they bought!

Do not get fooled by this!! Of course it makes no sense. They paid for a survey that would support their cause. That is exactly what it is. The survey is complete crap!! They know it and we know it. However, it supports their cause just like the other smoke and mirrors they use.

I hope that in the end, the Senate will see through all of this and do the right thing. I believe the Senate knows crap when they see it.

R2B

This is the post that started this funding discussion. BI can spin it all he wants. I did not mention a specific poll. My point was they bought a poll and the poll was biased towards their desired result and taken in an area that is not close to the lake at all.

I believe the statements I made have been justified.

The survey is crap!!!!

Thanks all!

R2B