How has the lake changed????

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Skip

Good point.

And while they are considerably smaller than the big Lake, there are a number of bodies of water in New Hampshire that already have horsepower limits. So indeed the lawmakers here in New Hampshire are also quite familiar with that concept.

I am confused about one thing though.

Those that supported the speed limit legislation by and large believe that there has been a positive effect on the Lake since implementation. A positive effect means that if the State believes in that perception then further legislation or restrictions are probably not that imminent. It is the nature of politics.

On the flip side of the coin a number of folks here opposed to speed limit legislation continue to state that the regulation has had no effect, and give numerous examples of how the Lake, in their perception, remains as or more dangerous. A negative effect usually results in the State not rolling back legislation, but in increasing more and more layered legislation to force people into compliance. It is the nature of politics.

Without taking sides in the debate, if I was a legislator with little or no ties to the Lake (like many are) and I viewed this website as an authoritive source of information (to which many here argued when the boating thread was temporarily moderated) I could easily be convinced that additional legislation is warranted. A lobbyist may not have a hard time convincing me of same.

I'm not taking sides in the debate but just offering an insight as to not only how the speed limit legislation was passed, with all its additional riders (dmv points, all water bodies subjected to General Boating requirements) but how Bear Islander's predictions could easily pass the Legislature in future sessions.

Interesting corners, in my humble opinion, that some folks may be painting themselves in to!

Great points Skip, several of which I have made myself. There are far too many power-hungry idiots around that would do this. When ten laws are not being enforced, we must need ten more. It's obviously not hard to convince people that safety must be the motive, so they go along.

If you get enough of these people taking advantage of people that don't really read, or have inquisitive minds, you end up with people like SOTD.

But I do understand your thoughts, very well. I don't have any faith in today's society, it shocks me when they actually do the right thing. But what does shock me is the end nature of the entire SL thing. Some people actually believed the BS about safety and all. They didn't want to participate in discussions about the MP fund being raided, or more SL discussions, because it would rile their Feelings. They don't like controversy, much less confrontation. They'd rather have people rule their lives and hope it doesn't impact them.

I see this sense of inevitability in your comments as well. Don't rock the boat, because they will tip you over. Eventually, the wave comes back to the source. The most active terrorist here is now BI, he has come out of his little island, and hopes to have a grander scheme.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

...The most active terrorist here is now BI, he has come out of his little island, and hopes to have a grander scheme...

Respectfully Steve, isn't that a pretty harsh statement?

I've had the pleasure of meeting Bear Islander at a previous forum fest and spending a pleasant amount of time agreeing and disagreeing with him on a number of issues.

I found him to be an extremely bright, interesting and very polite individual. There's a lot of things I might call him, but terrorist is not one of them!

I am sure there are a number of other posters here that I haven't met, including you, that I would find very interesting to spend some time with. Vitabene comes immediately to mind from the recent forumfest.

I just wish we could all tone the rhetoric and name calling down while we discuss these contentious issues.

The reality is we may be building walls with people we never met, who if we had the opportunity we would find are individuals we may have been friends with if given the chance.

I have a lot of friends that look at life completely different than me. We disagree but we don't insult each other when we do. Gosh, if everyone I associated with agreed with me I'd have a petty damned boring life!

Wish we could practice just a wee bit more civility here, on both sides of the equation....

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Skip

Respectfully Steve, isn't that a pretty harsh statement?

I've had the pleasure of meeting Bear Islander at a previous forum fest and spending a pleasant amount of time agreeing and disagreeing with him on a number of issues.

I found him to be an extremely bright, interesting and very polite individual. There's a lot of things I might call him, but terrorist is not one of them!

I am sure there are a number of other posters here that I haven't met, including you, that I would find very interesting to spend some time with. Vitabene comes immediately to mind from the recent forumfest.

I just wish we could all tone the rhetoric and name calling down while we discuss these contentious issues.

The reality is we may be building walls with people we never met, who if we had the opportunity we would find are individuals we may have been friends with if given the chance.

I have a lot of friends that look at life completely different than me. We disagree but we don't insult each other when we do. Gosh, if everyone I associated with agreed with me I'd have a petty damned boring life!

Wish we could practice just a wee bit more civility here, on both sides of the equation....

Yeah, maybe it is harsh Skip. And yes, BI is extremely bright, and incredibly interesting. There are some things that just transcend subtle niceties. You know, the things that change things forever? Some things are just pretty darn important, and worth speaking your mind about.

If you think about just this weekend's posts, here's what's transpired.

BI has reiterated his call for a horsepower limit, and what it's focus would be, long term. Nothing to do with speed or anything, but the obvious downsizing of boat size and speed. Whatever he wants.

Skip, you've chimed in with a subtle "observation" that if we keep harping on safety not being changed by these silly laws, more silly laws will be enacted. Just as a point of interest mind you. I don;t necessarily disagree with you.

So while the really dishonest people are out there scurrying around trying to scare people into passing ridiculous laws, BI is very happy that they are playing into his hand by turning the lake into whatever the closest version of Golden Pond they can get to.

This is akin to your neighbor pushing for speed bumps, then no motor vehicles at all, then none in the town. You get my drift. At some point, this ain't friendly anymore. There are no walls left to be built with BI, although he can say he swings one way or another. He's built the wall, and someone has to have the cojones to tear it down. I'm here to say that he and those in his court have gone way too far. I wouldn't want Winni to become a reckless cowboy lake anymore than I'd like to see it a useless lake ....

You can discuss this all you want, since you will never offer up your opinion for fear of offending someone. One day, you may wish you spoke up.

Respectfully yours, of course.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Ryan

What we keep overlooking here is there was never a speed problem in Skip's town. The speed bumps, for all intents and purposes, are not necessary and pointless.

The neighbor and town, in general, would have been better served having Skip hang out in front of his neighbor's driveway in his cruiser enforcing the traffic in their area.

Get it?

You're correct Ryan, something that should always be at the forefront.

Like most active waterways, Winni has a problem with congestion on weekends, problem boaters, and inexperienced boaters. But even the most experienced skipper has been shown to make a mistake or two.

So while everyone's got a slightly different take on the issues and remedies, there are two main sides taken on the issues(s).

1) There is a general lack of enforcement due to a variety of reasons. The primary reason is the MP budget is simply not enough to provide for enforcement of existing laws. Many here, myself included, think that the lake would be far better served by enforcing the existing laws, and be given the power they need to make the real problem boaters go away.

2) The other side generally thinks that over time, more and more laws and restrictions will be put in place. They view this as progress, since it will have the same impact as "Traffic Calming", a buzzterm developed when people want things to move more slowly.

I might have missed someone here, and it would be easy to do amongst thousands of posts. But In General, I have not heard any support from Side #2 for beefing up the MP, and getting the Legislature to realize what the issues are. Some even admit flat out, that safety is not their concern when proposing these laws. It "might" be a side benefit, but their primary impetus is to, gradually, transform the lake from it's current state of boating, into a more restricted lake where HP boaters, large cruisers,and possibly many other people and boats I haven't thought about, vanish over time.

This is the same type of plan that many areas have successfully implemented on small bodies of water. Small lakes, ponds, reservoirs, etc...I agree with that type of planning. Winni is quite a bit different, in that it's far larger than many of these restricted areas.

But getting back to enforcement and common sense. Is it not more prudent to take a look at existing regulations, and match them up to today's issues? It is the utter irony to have Side#2 point out the need for more laws, because people are breaking existing laws. I can only surmise that they think a ton of regulations and restrictions would eventually make many of their least favorite people/boats go away. That's BI's answer to the lake's problems.

But the issues will remain. Many of the problem boaters are not even in the sights of the restrictions he, and others, propose. With a HP limit, existing speed limit, and whatever else they can think of, you'll still have a problem with boats from 18' and up going the speed limit or well under, endangering other boaters due to arrogance, drinking, inexperience, or a combination of all three.

Bottom line, I don't think any of their proposals match up with any of the issues or problems.

BI basically says So What?

Skip says to avoid any talk of safety issues at all, because the lawmakers and do-gooders will simply come up with more laws and more restrictions, because they aren't smart enough to do anything else.

But he rightfully points out, that this shows people how stupid laws and useless regulations come about in the first place.

Doesn't anyone else see how ridiculous this has become, and that there really are things you can do about it?

[Bear Islander]

I see things differently Steve.

Several years ago some people, starting on Bear Island, perceived a problem. They stood up, got together, raised money, and started working for a speed limit solution. You may think their solution was misguided, but at least they stood up and DID something.

The other side believed standing around talking about the problem, or posting about the need for more education and enforcement etc. was the answer. But it's just talk. There is no money for that.

I am proud that I was part of a movement that actually took a stand and made a difference. Even if it does get us called terrorists.

If someone else has a better idea than speed or horsepower limits, I recommend they stand up and actually do something productive. Because Skip is correct, if speed limits don't do the job then we will be looking for another solution. Probably one you will not like.

Some people will look at a problem, throw up there hands and say it can't be solved. I'm not built that way. It can be solved, it WILL be solved, tho it might take decades. Tough problems require tough solutions. Unpopular solutions.

If, as you say, a 300 HP limit will not solve the problem then we may need to try a 200 HP solution. Or 100 or 50 or 25. Eventually, somewhere along the process, the cowboy mentality will cease to be a problem. After all, a cowboy in a kayak is just not that scary.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Several years ago some people, starting on Bear Island, perceived a problem.

I stopped reading at this buzz word.

I can tell from years of dialogue that you are a smart guy. I don't know a lot about your background, but I would imagine that with travelling into space comes certain risks. I'm pretty sure that you've been over each and every one of them in detail. How can you do that? Because they're documented. They're printed on paper. You can look down at them and see them in black and white. You can make reasonable, informed decisions based on what has been presented to you.

When you start using ambiguous terms like "perceived" and "fear" and other ideas or concepts that are palpable to those with self-serving interests, we diverge.

This debate has been worn thin and I still have yet to find the speed problem that the SL fixed. I have no horse in this race. I do not own a boat that fits your agenda and I'm not a cowboy. I just continue to see through the lies and deception that led to the restriction of other people's enjoyment.

Maybe I just need more money to buy a lobbyist...

[Bearislandmoose]

How has the lake changed? Since I am currently back in the discussion, I should weigh in on this:
I don't think there are any of you who have been on this lake as long and have spent as much time boating on it who will not instantly agree that the past two summers have been the most enjoyable for boating and other recreational activities that we have seen for maybe 20 years. While there are still enough cigarette boats to make it clear that nobody has been chased from the lake by the SL, there is now enough civility to make all boaters feel welcomed and safe. Anyone who says differently is either emotionally pre-pubescent or blind, or both, in my humble opinion.
The status quo is now simply heavenly. We have people on this forum (including the supreme "safe" boater) boasting about how the SL has not cramped their style one bit, and we have kayakers boasting about how they can finally enjoy the lake again. We have camp directors buying canoes again, and sailing clubs expanding activities and running schools again. We have poker races, and we have sailing regattas again.
How could life be any sweeter than it was these past two years? And nobody can blame it on rain anymore.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

The 'performance crowd' are now trading in their boats for the big yachts. The big wakes are eroding the shorelines and this is a bigger threat than SL.

Another tactic from the Democratic playbook; If everyone seems happy with the status quo, scare them into thinking it is just an illusion. They aren't really happy, they just think they are. "The man" is really working behind the scenes to undermine it all. Nice try.
You keep schpilling this tripe, but I've not seen one example where one of your small group of "get out of my way" cowboys has traded his Thunder Boat for a Carver and gone around swamping those "fat cat shore front owners" to punish them for the SL. Can you give us a few specific examples? And if they are doing so, its all the more reason to start adding more NWZs, isn't it?

Since you are referring to the playbook anyway, maybe you should go back and try that "but you're a poacher" ploy again. That worked so well for you last time.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

... I'm sick and tired of the Democrats from the southern states moving up here and telling NH natives what we can and cannot do.

I'm as sick of it as you are, but once Mr. Verdonck moved up here, he became an equal citizen of this state, and we have to respect that. I just wish he'd adapt to the way we do things up here. Calling your group "Safe Boaters" was the type of shady tactic you usually see in the politics "down there", not up here. Eventually he'll learn that the people up here are too smart for stunts like that...it backfires when it is done up here. It's like saying "I know you people up there in NH are a bunch of idiots (to use Hazelnut's term), so I don't have to be honest with you...you'll buy anything I sell you." I got very offended by that and know that many others around here did too.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

I'm as sick of it as you are, but once Mr. Verdonck moved up here, he became an equal citizen of this state, and we have to respect that. I just wish he'd adapt to the way we do things up here. Calling your group "Safe Boaters" was the type of shady tactic you usually see in the politics "down there", not up here. Eventually he'll learn that the people up here are too smart for stunts like that...it backfires when it is done up here. It's like saying "I know you people up there in NH are a bunch of idiots (to use Hazelnut's term), so I don't have to be honest with you...you'll buy anything I sell you." I got very offended by that and know that many others around here did too.

Speak for yourself - there is no "WE". It's you and your ilk, period. Your agenda is so transparent and you and your entire group are imploding (just like the democratic party). You really need to find a new hobby. I heard candle making is quite nice

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

... once Mr. Verdonck moved up here, he became an equal citizen of this state, and we have to respect that...

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Speak for yourself - there is no "WE". It's you and your ilk, period.

I don't agree. I think all of us have to accept the fact that a lot of people, like OCD, are moving north into NH and once they are here, they are NH citizens and have the same rights and privileges as you and me. While you may not like that, it is what it is. I just wish the people moving up here would be doing so because they like what NH is and has always been and want to enjoy that with us, not because they want to bring to NH what drove them out of MA, or wherever. And coming here and using the name "Safe Boaters" on a club started by a "Thunder Club" member for the stated purpose or repealing our safe boating laws is just so "MA", that I don't feel OCD knows what NH is really all about. He'll learn.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

I'm as sick of it as you are, but once Mr. Verdonck moved up here, he became an equal citizen of this state, and we have to respect that. I just wish he'd adapt to the way we do things up here. Calling your group "Safe Boaters" was the type of shady tactic you usually see in the politics "down there", not up here. Eventually he'll learn that the people up here are too smart for stunts like that...it backfires when it is done up here. It's like saying "I know you people up there in NH are a bunch of idiots (to use Hazelnut's term), so I don't have to be honest with you...you'll buy anything I sell you." I got very offended by that and know that many others around here did too.

Ahhhh... it is so glad to have you back, I needed a good laugh!

I see you are back down in the basement again.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

...why are you all for initiating laws? ...

I'm not trying to initiate any laws. I like things just the way they are on the lake now, as do the overwhelming majority of the Lake's owners. I say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

And thank you for not insulting or calling me any names, that was refreshing.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

I think it did more harm than good.

I'm sure it did just that for a very few people. I know of at least eight of them. But those people were the ones who caused all this in the first place, so they have to live with what they wrought. And those are the people you should be mad at, not following. These people "thundered" around the lake at completely inappropriate speeds in completely inappropriate vessels, causing many of the lake's more appropriate users to stay home. Weekends especially had become a time for "regular folk" to leave their boats sitting at their docks, because it had become a free-for-all out there. How was that fair? These few loud aggressive boaters were on this very forum bragging about speeds like 80 or 90 MPH, on this lake! On the weekend! How in the world could that have been "safe"? And some of these same boaters had names on their boats that suggested no respect for others...suggested that they'd love an opportunity to run you down if you didn't get out of their way. And some of them would be on these forums and the other GFBL forums after those same weekends talking about all the time they had spent at Naswa, how much they had drunk over the same weekend they were boating so fast, and how big their heads were on Monday morning. How did they get home from the Naswa in that condition? Meanwhile, we have people being killed on the lake by some of these same drivers in some of these same boats, going too fast, and we are supposed to excuse it because "they were drinking"?
Then these same cowboys start an anti-SL club and name it "Safe" boaters??? And you guys fall for it???
I feel bad for the good, safe boater who likes the high speed thrill and who had bought an expensive offshore boat and used to like to put the throttle down now and then, when it was safe to others for him to do so (like on a Wednesday afternoon in late November). But he was not the object of that SL law, he is an unintended but necessary victim of it. And he needs to recognize who brought the law on him. It was not Warren or Ed or Sandy (assuming those are all not the same teenage boy). It was people like OCD. This is one of the very people who could not understand what Lake Winnipesaukee was to so many people and made the SL such an overwhelming favorite. Now you rally behind him and expect him to get it repealed for you? It's like hiring OJ Simpson as your spokesman in an anti gun control campaign. He might get the NWZ at the Barber's Pole repealed, but the fastest you'll ever be able to go through there (legally) is 45mph.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

He might get the NWZ at the Barber's Pole repealed, but the fastest you'll ever be able to go through there (legally) is 45mph.

Unless of course the get out of my way crowd continues to thumb their nose at reasonable limits. I could see this crowd pushing the likes of LeTourneau and Forsythe to push for a bill such that there would be no speed limit on the broads("hey, what have we got to lose"). In response, their opposition agrees that yes, the broads can have a faster speed limit(45 MPH) than the rest of the lake while the bays and coves would all have a SL of 30-35 MPH. One might easily argue that 45 MPH is too fast for Wolfeboro Bay, Winter Harbor(or even the Barber Pole). And then the people in the Barber Pole might not even need to pursue a NWZ! Funny how things sometimes work out.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

... don't preach to me or tell me what to do unless you decided to be civil.

Agreed. I am a big advocate of civility.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

What make you guys thank the lake is better off?

Thank you for not calling me any names.

To answer your question; I found boating much more enjoyable the past two years.
I found that plenty of the big performance boats were still around, they just seemed to have been going slower this year. I can't say whether they stayed under 45 all the time, but they certainly were not out there going 80 or 90 anymore, at least while I was out there.
While I saw just as many boaters on the lake this past year, I noticed a greater number of those were smaller "family" boats; 21-footers and such. Yet I felt a lot more respect and friendliness out there. Maybe it was just a coincidence, or maybe I just happened to be in the right place at the right time so often over the past two years, but that is what I saw.
While I do have a power boat that might be able to do 45 (not really sure), I typically spend my boating time trolling or sailing. I never had a single case this year or last where a big performance boat was thundering straight at me, way too fast, and I had to worry whether he was going to run me down. I never once had to say an Act of Contrition or think about jumping overboard. I cannot count the number of times in past years where I had such incidents. Maybe it was just a coincidence.
You might disagree...you might be seeing things differently. That is your right. You might have seen hundreds of former performance boaters now piloting Carvers and using them to terrorize the shore front owners with huge eroding wakes. But I did not see that...not once. You didn't see what I saw, I didn't see what you saw. No big deal. I don't think you are lying and I hope you don't think I am lying. I just saw different things than you did.

Isn't a civil debate fun?

Ed

[sunset on the dock]

The biggest thing we noticed this summer was a difference in our trip through the Broads to go to Wolfeboro. Same thing...no huge performance boats coming up behind you (we wondering whether our relatively small boat will be seen) then passing by you with a deafening roar. No boats tearing out through the inlet to Wolfeboro Bay at some ungodly speed. We were far more comfortable having the kids out in kayaks and our 11 y/o seemed so proud to have a little more independence which comes not only with age but our comfort level to let him venture further from the cottage. Our neighbors pretty much agree that the noise level was significantly less. The whole scenario seems more in tune to what people want when coming to the lake for recreation. And all this with businesses in the area (according to some article I read in the LDS or Citizen) reporting they are doing significantly better than last year.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

... passing by you with a deafening roar.

They call that "thundering". There are actually clubs for these people built around this activity. They are called "thunder clubs". And they have forums where they brag about who is the best "thunderer". I swear this is the truth. You can't make this stuff up.

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

... Like loud mouth from George Diner flaunting the Meridith bay no wake. How about Rusty Maclear and his big resort? Dumping tons of phosphate and chemicals on his million dollar lawn? He's one of the founders. How about Brad Thurston and his looney renters. They are really bad. How come the founders can't show good examples of being good for the lake?

I can't speak for them, but anyone selfishly breaking our laws is a real idiot in my book (sorry for using such a harsh term, but sometimes it is called for). I don't know any of these people, but I think you should report them. I have no qualms about reporting illegal activity when I see it.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I see things differently Steve.

Several years ago some people, starting on Bear Island, perceived a problem. They stood up, got together, raised money, and started working for a speed limit solution. You may think their solution was misguided, but at least they stood up and DID something.

The other side believed standing around talking about the problem, or posting about the need for more education and enforcement etc. was the answer. But it's just talk. There is no money for that.

I am proud that I was part of a movement that actually took a stand and made a difference. Even if it does get us called terrorists.

If someone else has a better idea than speed or horsepower limits, I recommend they stand up and actually do something productive. Because Skip is correct, if speed limits don't do the job then we will be looking for another solution. Probably one you will not like.

Some people will look at a problem, throw up there hands and say it can't be solved. I'm not built that way. It can be solved, it WILL be solved, tho it might take decades. Tough problems require tough solutions. Unpopular solutions.

If, as you say, a 300 HP limit will not solve the problem then we may need to try a 200 HP solution. Or 100 or 50 or 25. Eventually, somewhere along the process, the cowboy mentality will cease to be a problem. After all, a cowboy in a kayak is just not that scary.

BI, what good will it do to pass another feel good law when there is no monetary support for enforcing the rules. Just heaping more rules on the MP
to enforce is not going to help- it will hinder.

The problem that I have with your version of problem solving is that it will not work- forcing people to do things via a law will only result in the law abiding doing those things.

Instead of spending $ on lobbyists and getting laws passed that don't need passing, perhaps that same level of energy can and should be spent in Concord telling our legislators that they need to educate and enforce: both can be achieved through a better funded NHMP.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

BI, what good will it do to pass another feel good law when there is no monetary support for enforcing the rules. Just heaping more rules on the MP to enforce is not going to help- it will hinder.

The problem that I have with your version of problem solving is that it will not work- forcing people to do things via a law will only result in the law abiding doing those things. ...
.

So I think you are saying that if a HP limit becomes law, people will simply ignore it, and the Marine Patrol will be helpless to enforce it.

You think EVERY owner of an illegal boat will openly flaunt the law and take the risk of their boat being impounded?

That the Marine Patrol will throwing up their collective hands in frustration and admit they can not read a boat registration?

A horsepower limit must be one of the easiest laws to enforce. If the HP on your registration is more than allowed you boat is impounded. See you in court. It will be just that simple. Violations will be rare, mostly by someone that launches a boat without getting the word.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

So I think you are saying that if a HP limit becomes law, people will simply ignore it, and the Marine Patrol will be helpless to enforce it.

You think EVERY owner of an illegal boat will openly flaunt the law and take the risk of their boat being impounded?

That the Marine Patrol will throwing up their collective hands in frustration and admit they can not read a boat registration?

A horsepower limit must be one of the easiest laws to enforce. If the HP on your registration is more than allowed you boat is impounded. See you in court. It will be just that simple. Violations will be rare, mostly by someone that launches a boat without getting the word.

Just do something... even if it's wrong.

The scary thing is that you could traverse the state and ask people if they think 300 HP in a boat is too much (now remember Ma'am your minivan parked there has a little over 170 HP) and the answer by the uninformed would be absolutely. Well maybe if they had headlights...

I saw one of those little hydrofoil type boats out the other day, it was maybe 18', had probably 1/2 the 270HP my 46 MPH BR packs but could easily break the SL by 30 MPH. 300 HP is not about cowboys. Any racer knows it is about weight and HP.

So explain what you are really after. The HP limit does not solve your cowboy problem, because a kayaker that gets run over by a boat going 70 is not going to care that it was an 18' boat with a 135HP engine on it.

I have gone on the record on numerous occasions explaining that I do not own a performance boat nor do I own a boat with greater than 300HP. With all due respect to Pastor Martin Niemöller:

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Performance Boaters
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Performance Boater.

THEN THEY CAME for the 300plusHP boaters,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a 300plusHP boater.

THEN THEY CAME for the Big Cruiser boaters,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Big Cruiser Boater.

THEN THEY CAME for me (the Bowrider Boater)
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Ryan

...Stopping every boat that they 'believe' might be exceeding your HP limit will only lead to probable cause issues (Skip) and takes away MP resources from policing the ACTUAL issues on the lake, not those perceived issues...

Please folks, if you are going to drag me into the conversation and throw about legal terms at least know what you are talking about.

You do not need "probable cause" to stop a boat. You need "probable cause" to effect an arrest.

You only need "articulable suspicion" to stop and temporarily detain a boat operator.

There is a significant legal difference between these two legal concepts.

Thank you....

[VtSteve]

I know what you guys mean. BI is laughing out loud at those of us promoting safety, freely acknowledging that the SL he supports was in now way designed to stop the problems on the lake. That would have been an interesting addition to the old SL discussions. To those that supported the SL, how would this have sounded?

"You should support the speed limit, it won't really solve anything, but it's something we can get passed. We know you'll go along with it because it sounds Safe. So even though we lie about our reasons, we're really not bad people, so please don't try to hurt our feelings. We are working on many rules, regulations, and some outright bans that may actually do something in the future.

So don't let all these mean-spirited people dissuade you from supporting whatever law we decide may pass. Some people actually think we care whether or not the MP actually enforces these silly laws we come up with, We Don't. Every time we pass a new law, and the MP cannot or does not enforce it, we'll just come up with another law, and then another, and yet another.

We just can't stop ourselves. Every time a boat wake hits shore, it hurts our feelings. We like our own powerboats, of course. But this is about ridding the lake of other people's boats, not yours. Picture a wave-free lake, with all boats having small, 25 hp engines. Except for the camp boats with their monster wakes, of course.

We don't expect anything to really come of these laws, except fewer people (hopefully) will be boating on Winni after awhile. So keep up the good work Safe Boaters, inspecting vessels, pushing for enforcement, and all that really silly stuff. We're Really doing things, making laws, rubbing elbows with legislators that want votes, really neato stuff. We don't really know what's next on the agenda, but it will likely be something boaters don't like."

[classic22]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I see things differently Steve.

Several years ago some people, starting on Bear Island, perceived a problem. They stood up, got together, raised money, and started working for a speed limit solution. You may think their solution was misguided, but at least they stood up and DID something.

The other side believed standing around talking about the problem, or posting about the need for more education and enforcement etc. was the answer. But it's just talk. There is no money for that.

I am proud that I was part of a movement that actually took a stand and made a difference. Even if it does get us called terrorists.

If someone else has a better idea than speed or horsepower limits, I recommend they stand up and actually do something productive. Because Skip is correct, if speed limits don't do the job then we will be looking for another solution. Probably one you will not like.


Some people will look at a problem, throw up there hands and say it can't be solved. I'm not built that way. It can be solved, it WILL be solved, tho it might take decades. Tough problems require tough solutions. Unpopular solutions.

If, as you say, a 300 HP limit will not solve the problem then we may need to try a 200 HP solution. Or 100 or 50 or 25. Eventually, somewhere along the process, the cowboy mentality will cease to be a problem. After all, a cowboy in a kayak is just not that scary.

All these "solutions" would be well and good if there WAS a problem, however the statistics show a far different picture. That being said, some of us are standing up and working to "fix" your solutions.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I see things differently Steve.

Several years ago some people, starting on Bear Island, perceived a problem. They stood up, got together, raised money, and started working for a speed limit solution. You may think their solution was misguided, but at least they stood up and DID something.

The other side believed standing around talking about the problem, or posting about the need for more education and enforcement etc. was the answer. But it's just talk. There is no money for that.

I am proud that I was part of a movement that actually took a stand and made a difference. Even if it does get us called terrorists.

If someone else has a better idea than speed or horsepower limits, I recommend they stand up and actually do something productive. Because Skip is correct, if speed limits don't do the job then we will be looking for another solution. Probably one you will not like.

Some people will look at a problem, throw up there hands and say it can't be solved. I'm not built that way. It can be solved, it WILL be solved, tho it might take decades. Tough problems require tough solutions. Unpopular solutions.

If, as you say, a 300 HP limit will not solve the problem then we may need to try a 200 HP solution. Or 100 or 50 or 25. Eventually, somewhere along the process, the cowboy mentality will cease to be a problem. After all, a cowboy in a kayak is just not that scary.

It looks to me like I outlined it pretty well BI. The people "perceived" a problem, and started working on a speed limit solution. Yes, they Did do something. It sounds to me like people found out there were fish in the lake, and they all went out and bought tennis rackets?

Can you imagine what your approach would be like on the roadways? There seems to be problems everywhere, aggressive drivers, drunk drivers. So let's make everyone buy a Smart Car.

If I read your post correctly, you outline it as a Cowboy problem. I just can't believe that a man of your obvious intellect, could possibly offer up such half-baked "solutions" that don't even address the nature of the problem. You're proposing a scatter gun approach that isn't even aiming at the target This kind of thought process doesn't even make it at the Government level (most of the time). I think maybe even a lot of SL supporters had a bewildered look on their faces when reading your last post.

I know one solution that would work just fine. Ban boating entirely. Then you can start working on the mainland.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

It looks to me like I outlined it pretty well BI. The people "perceived" a problem, and started working on a speed limit solution. Yes, they Did do something. It sounds to me like people found out there were fish in the lake, and they all went out and bought tennis rackets?

Can you imagine what your approach would be like on the roadways? There seems to be problems everywhere, aggressive drivers, drunk drivers. So let's make everyone buy a Smart Car.

If I read your post correctly, you outline it as a Cowboy problem. I just can't believe that a man of your obvious intellect, could possibly offer up such half-baked "solutions" that don't even address the nature of the problem. You're proposing a scatter gun approach that isn't even aiming at the target This kind of thought process doesn't even make it at the Government level (most of the time). I think maybe even a lot of SL supporters had a bewildered look on their faces when reading your last post.

I know one solution that would work just fine. Ban boating entirely. Then you can start working on the mainland.

VT, I agree with you 100%. I have another idea...vote every bleeding heart, nanny state liberal out of office whenever possible. Elect people with brains of their own that can see through the smoke and mirror agendas. It reminds me of the famous speech by Howard Beale in the movie Network. "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore".

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/Movi...hnetwork2.html

Whatever happens, I am not leaving - neither is my boat.

[RANGER CANOE CO]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

VT, I agree with you 100%. I have another idea...vote every bleeding heart, nanny state liberal out of office whenever possible. Elect people with brains of their own that can see through the smoke and mirror agendas. It reminds me of the famous speech by Howard Beale in the movie Network. "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore".

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/Movi...hnetwork2.html

Whatever happens, I am not leaving - neither is my boat.

Primary day, so, do your home work in your districts and remove them. Law makers that pass unfounded redundent laws that take way your rights. That dont even own a boat or boat on the lake and side with non full time residents.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by RANGER CANOE CO

Primary day, so, do your home work in your districts and remove them. Law makers that pass unfounded redundent laws that take way your rights. That dont even own a boat or boat on the lake and side with non full time residents.

Do it - get out and vote for people with brains. I know where my votes are going today.

[winni83]

I am not at all sure that the proponents of the Speed Limit Law and laws and regulations of a similar ilk are mostly liberals or that the opponents of such items are mostly conservatives. I, for one, am a moderate Democrat, and I guess that would make me a liberal, but I have always been opposed to such items and to the mentality which goes along with supporting these kinds of laws and regulations. I think there are ample opportunities properly to categorize the proponents of such laws and regulations without assigning political labels. I would hope that the opposition to these kinds of laws and regulations would transcend party or political labels.

[Seaplane Pilot]

For one, Rep. James Pilliod is a Republican and was a big supporter of speed limits. I am happy to report that I cast a vote against him (or did not cast a vote in favor of him) about 1 hour ago.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

For one, Rep. James Pilliod is a Republican and was a big supporter of speed limits. I am happy to report that I cast a vote against him (or did not cast a vote in favor of him) about 1 hour ago.

Excellent example of a voter doing his homework.

In Pilliod's race there are 8 Republicans vying for 7 spots on the ballot for Republicans in the General Election in November in the Town of Belmont. By not voting for Pilliod you greaten the chances that he does not survive the primary and hence does not appear on the ballot in November.

Hopefully many more voters like SP will scutinize their ballots in their respective communities as well!

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

For one, Rep. James Pilliod is a Republican and was a big supporter of speed limits. I am happy to report that I cast a vote against him (or did not cast a vote in favor of him) about 1 hour ago.

But again...he is a Republican, one of many supporting the SL. This is why those who project a huge Republican sweep in November will somehow enable the speed limit to be overturned are delusional. A speed limit may be the most overwhelming issue in the state to some on this forum but believe me it is not to most people in the state. And even if it were, with 9/10 people supporting the SL petition, an 80% agreement among polled voters that a SL was necessary, large bipartisan support in both houses...well you get the picture. Likewise, the people of the state will never allow the Broads to be exempted. People who use this area for fishing, sailing, or otherwise getting from one place to another will never allow these loud and fast behemoths to dominate and marginalize the families that want to boat there.

I have heard of proposals being discussed where boat registration fees will be based on HP, not length ... $1 per HP and that there will be a small fee to register kayaks and canoes. Does anyone have any more info on this?

[Shreddy]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

But again...he is a Republican, one of many supporting the SL. This is why those who project a huge Republican sweep in November will somehow enable the speed limit to be overturned are delusional. A speed limit may be the most overwhelming issue in the state to some on this forum but believe me it is not to most people in the state. And even if it were, with 9/10 people supporting the SL petition, an 80% agreement among polled voters that a SL was necessary, large bipartisan support in both houses...well you get the picture. Likewise, the people of the state will never allow the Broads to be exempted. People who use this area for fishing, sailing, or otherwise getting from one place to another will never allow these loud and fast behemoths to dominate and marginalize the families that want to boat there.

I have heard of proposals being discussed where boat registration fees will be based on HP, not length ... $1 per HP and that there will be a small fee to register kayaks and canoes. Does anyone have any more info on this?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You got it wrong, they're charging a flat registration fee for any boat with thru-hull exhaust of $5,000 per year.

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

People who use this area for fishing, sailing, or otherwise getting from one place to another will never allow these loud and fast behemoths to dominate and marginalize the families that want to boat there.

Hummm, Cant say that I have EVER seen anything like that going on Winnipesaukee, sure your not talking about somewhere else???

As for fast and loud, seems to me the most common fast boats are the fisherman in bassboats and the loudest are the classics that have old school marine engines with wide open above the waterline exhaust with no mufflers.

And to be 100% honest, I have NEVER had a problem with either!

As for the "behemoths" well my only observation has been if they can afford to pay for the gas, all the power to them,,, There not to my liking, and I dont see myself ever having a 30' plus Baja, Fountain, Formula, etc, but I dont begrudge anyone that does.

Regulating boats because based on appearance is just about as mindless as the incompetents that want to restrict guns because they look like “black military” rifles.

Fact is that my tiny CVX and most bassboats will easily blow past 75 MPH and are far more dangerous to the operator, the passengers and any other boat near them at that speed when compared to any of the “behemoths” you mention. And those same “behemoths” almost always have modern marine exhausts that include mufflers to ensure that they meet sound control standards, where as the classics that I could not ever think of banning most often have no such sound dampening devices nor a way to retrofit them.

The same mentality has been applied to gun control over the years, where a semi-auto AR-15 has been demonized even though its anemic .223 pales by comparison to any modern hunting rifle.

It’s sad to see the vocal opinionated self-absorbed and omniscient few lead the rest of the sheep to slaughter.

I for one am so happy I was born early enough to have seen the pinnacle of our society, because unless common sense is restored soon the future looks bleak and uncharacteristically un-American, where rules and laws are written to control every facet of our lives and individual choice and freedom are mere meaningless words of our ancestors,,,

[ApS]

Originally Posted by XCR-700

Fact is that my tiny CVX and most bassboats will easily blow past 75 MPH and are far more dangerous to the operator, the passengers and any other boat near them at that speed when compared to any of the “behemoths” you mention.

Some interesting developments have appeared, as there are now 74 defendants at the Candle Wood Lake crash last year. Three articles are above—the last being the better summary.

Regarding your view of how "harmless" bass boats are (and the differences between "Civil" and "Criminal" law), it would make for good discussions as a new thread somewhere.

Originally Posted by XCR-700

It’s sad to see the vocal opinionated self-absorbed and omniscient few lead the rest of the sheep to slaughter.

Among those who are "the self-absorbed and omniscient" one boater—convicted of manslaughter—attempted later to get a dial-tone at 90-MPH on the Interstate.

Originally Posted by Skip

In Pilliod's race there are 8 Republicans vying for 7 spots on the ballot for Republicans in the General Election in November in the Town of Belmont. By not voting for Pilliod you greaten the chances that he does not survive the primary and hence does not appear on the ballot in November. Hopefully many more voters like SP will scutinize their ballots in their respective communities as well!

Excellent example of a voter doing his homework.

Originally Posted by XCR-700

I for one am so happy I was born early enough to have seen the pinnacle of our society.

Years ago, we just "voted": the above is "Gaming the System", IMHO.

Originally Posted by John A. Birdsall

What I would like to know is how many speeding tickets on the lake were handed out, and what happened in court. (if it got there)

To me that would say what the difference in speed limit law has done.
With seeing people doing in excess of the speed limit almost all the time I do not concern myself. But those that are doing it within 150' that is what bothers me. I seen the mp GET buzzed by a jet ski with about 40' distance going perhaps full bore. The MP got the man, but what happened in court or how much of a fine did he pay?

Because the Legislature is skilled at raiding NHMP resources, the difference may never be measureable. The only measure I can envision is by the reduction of one-boat crashes involving "the usual suspects".

[Ryan]

Candlewood Lake: The Facts
Candlewood Lake Length: 16 miles
Candlewood Lake Width: 500 feet - 3.2 miles
Maximum Depth: Between 80-90 feet
Average Depth: 40 feet
Shore Line Length: 85-109 miles depending on the measure/criteria
Shore Line as Radius controlled by CL&P: 60+ miles
Surface Area: 8.4 Square Miles
Acres: 5,400
Elevation: 400+ feet
Candlewood Lake Watershed Area: 25,000 miles

Daytime Speed Limit: 45 mph

Night-time Speed Limit: 25mph

Speed Limit within 100ft of Shore, Boats, Docks, etc: 6 mph

[XCR-700]

Well how about a trip out the mouth of the Merrimack river on a modestly quiet weekend day,,,

Operating distance at speed from the hard rock jetty is often under 50’ and separation from other boaters operating at speed sometimes less than that, and as for what “operating speed” is, well it ranges from anchored/free drifting to as fast as they can go without loosing control and I have never seen an accident myself there nor seen any MP/CG/HM ticketing anyone, EVER!

Not that I would like to see that kind of madness on Winnipesaukee, but it sure makes me wonder how anyone ever survived without the 150' boat separation/distance from shore and 50 MPH speed limits,,,

And there are far busier inlets than this one out there,,,

So I say relevant, but keep things in perspective,,,

Originally Posted by Ryan

Candlewood Lake: The Facts
Candlewood Lake Length: 16 miles
Candlewood Lake Width: 500 feet - 3.2 miles
Maximum Depth: Between 80-90 feet
Average Depth: 40 feet
Shore Line Length: 85-109 miles depending on the measure/criteria
Shore Line as Radius controlled by CL&P: 60+ miles
Surface Area: 8.4 Square Miles
Acres: 5,400
Elevation: 400+ feet
Candlewood Lake Watershed Area: 25,000 miles

Daytime Speed Limit: 45 mph

Night-time Speed Limit: 25mph

Speed Limit within 100ft of Shore, Boats, Docks, etc: 6 mph

[ApS]

Originally Posted by XCR-700

Well how about a trip out the mouth of the Merrimack river on a modestly quiet weekend day...I have never seen an accident myself there nor seen any MP/CG/HM ticketing anyone, EVER...
Not that I would like to see that kind of madness on Winnipesaukee, but it sure makes me wonder how anyone ever survived without the 150' boat separation/distance from shore and 50 MPH speed limits,,,So I say relevant, but keep things in perspective,,,

Thank you for seeing it my way. But, like "the nocturnal-animals" mentioned elsewhere here, you're not going to see nocturnal accidents during the daytime.

The following example is taken from the night-time experience of five boaters: It's at night that waterways would appear entirely the same—regardless of their size or geography.

Merrimack Inlet is certainly different: there are many more islands and many narrow passages around Lake Winnipesaukee.

Our "150-foot barrier" keeps boaters away from most rocky shorelines.

Distanced from spar buoys, that "150-feet" keeps boaters away from the vast majority of the hazards that are remaining.

Tubers and waterskiers are prevented from striking one another—while passing—by virtue of their combined tow-lengths equalling less than 150-feet. For Lake Winnipesaukee, I see the concept as ingenious, and I'd not want the 150-foot law to be ignored by visitors—nor overturned by New Hampshire's "experts in safe boating".

Boaters who visit here from other lakes and salt water need to be aware that Lake Winnipesaukee is a location that is highly recreational.

(Some might substitute "highly" with the word: "extremely"!)

In the case of the Candlewood Lake collision, what follow are some comments—the first two being those from "oversize" boaters, who are generally sympathetic to the Formula 24 that was pierced through the bow by the fast-running bass boat—the "privileged-vessel".

The Formula 24 is further described here, as "a speedboat":

"24 Formula that the guy had for less than a month hit a triton bass boat at high speed. Driver and passenger in Formula died and a 3rd passenger (the firefighter) is in critical condition. Both Bass boat guys are OK. Steering wheel from Formula was found in the back seat."

PLEASE don't run at speed in the dark, folks. These accidents are far too common.

More comments—now from the Media—following the collision. Do any of these sound familiar?

"For too long, the lake has been like the Wild West, not patrolled or supervised, and for too long lake safety has been about finger-pointing, excuses and confusion,"

"Layton was at the wheel, located on the right side of the Formula, and Wanat was in the left-side passenger seat. Sullivan was sitting behind Wanat, witnesses said."

"As they left the restaurant dock, Layton gunned the 365-horsepower motor, and the Formula sped away through the "no wake" zone there at an estimated 35 miles per hour."

"The speedboat was going even faster as it roared past the Candlewood Lake Club, where retired Bethel police officer Ray Pacheco...on a security detail."

"I looked at my employee and said, 'Damn, that boat is hauling,' " Pacheco told EnCon police.

"Further up the lake, at Orchard Point, bass fisherman Richard Tomasini was alone in his boat when he heard a "loud speedboat" approaching."

"The vessel was traveling '45 to 50 knots' when it went past."

"Seconds later, the sound of crunching fiberglass, followed by the whine of a boat's propeller spinning out of the water, reached his ears."

"Back at the Candlewood Lake Club, Pacheco heard a sound 'like a shotgun bang.'"

"In her bedroom, Rasor described the noise as 'a large boom.'"

"The bass boat hit the Formula almost head on, its prow slicing into the speedboat and ripping through the hull directly into the cockpit area."

"The speedboat's momentum carried both vessels north another 150 feet, according to the DEP's Boating Accident Reconstruction Unit. The impact was so great that a mirror image of a Gatorade bottle label was imprinted into the fabric of Layton's seat."

"[The Formula's] Layton likely died instantly. [The Formula's] Wanat was also killed and thrown overboard."

"[The Formula's] Sullivan, sitting in the rear, remained in the boat but was critically injured and covered by wreckage."

"...10 months to the day after the accident, Environmental Conservation police issued their report on the crash."

"The investigation concluded that the [Formula] operated by Mr. Layton failed to yield to the [Bass Boat] vessel as required by the federal rules of navigation,"

"Investigators found no indications that [the bass-boaters] had been drinking, but there were 19 empty beer cans in the Formula. [The Formula of] Layton's blood alcohol level was 0.19, more than twice the legal limit for operation of a car or boat."

"The speedboat's [The Formula] throttle was also fully opened, meaning the engine was running at maximum speed."

"Contributing factors, DEP said, were the time of day, alcohol, and excessive speed."

Haven't we seen this before?

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If, as you say, a 300 HP limit will not solve the problem then we may need to try a 200 HP solution. Or 100 or 50 or 25. Eventually, somewhere along the process, the cowboy mentality will cease to be a problem. After all, a cowboy in a kayak is just not that scary.

Huh??

First, We would have to agree that there is a problem.

In your mind BI, what specifically is the problem?

Second, one would have to agree what causes the problem. Lack of experience, lack of common sense, lack of ability, lack of training?

Some people with a lot of training, a boating license and a lot of experience will just attain the rank of Captain Bonehead. They just were not meant to operate a boat. How will you fix that?

So anyone with over 300 HP is a cowboy? The family of 5 that enjoys the lake on their 32 Carver aft cabin, or any boat that requires more than 300 HP to move it must be operated by a cowboy? (Just curious: Do you think that anyone on route 93 that is not driving a Prius has too much horsepower)?

There are many families that cannot afford lakefront property and buy cabin cruisers in the 30 to 40 foot range so they and their families can have the chance to be on the lake. Would you deny them the opportunity?

PS. You still have not answered my question about the loss of tax revenue to all of the cities and towns. As a matter of fact, you didn't answer any of my questions. (When confronted with specifics you fold up fast)!

[VtSteve]

It's good to give it another rest. I'd love to see the 99% that don't participate give an opinion or ideas if they have any. No rebuttal necessary on my part anymore. Everyone enjoy the rest of the summer.

The only reason I continued with these threads, is because I care. I've seen other areas where the boating life has had the life ripped right from it. These are areas that some would like to copy the rules from, but they are areas that have from 2-8 times the accident rates as well.

I'm far from a cowboy, probably too careful if one can be. I don't like reckless, and I don't like hot dogs on the water. There are many that don't care that much about boating, but love to just look at the lake. I love both, and they coexist just fine. I just hope those that choose not to post read the comments carefully in these forums. I'm no politician, and will never run for office

Everybody should rethink their boating world and just look at some of the proposals and wishes that are on the table here.

Special message to the adolescents and cowboys on the lake. This is what happens when you don't listen, and cannot control yourself. Your bad manners have not gone unnoticed, anywhere. You probably have several more years left to make complete donkeys out of yourself, and be the arrogant cusses you are. If up to me, you'd be tracked down on the lake, then swept off it. Be thankful that the legislative-happy bunch takes years to deal with anything.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Huh??

First, We would have to agree that there is a problem.

In your mind BI, what specifically is the problem?

Second, one would have to agree what causes the problem. Lack of experience, lack of common sense, lack of ability, lack of training?

Some people with a lot of training, a boating license and a lot of experience will just attain the rank of Captain Bonehead. They just were not meant to operate a boat. How will you fix that?

So anyone with over 300 HP is a cowboy? The family of 5 that enjoys the lake on their 32 Carver aft cabin, or any boat that requires more than 300 HP to move it must be operated by a cowboy? (Just curious: Do you think that anyone on route 93 that is not driving a Prius has too much horsepower)?

There are many families that cannot afford lakefront property and buy cabin cruisers in the 30 to 40 foot range so they and their families can have the chance to be on the lake. Would you deny them the opportunity?

PS. You still have not answered my question about the loss of tax revenue to all of the cities and towns. As a matter of fact, you didn't answer any of my questions. (When confronted with specifics you fold up fast)!

I answered all your questions in post #84. The fact that you do not like or will not accept my answers, does not mean I have not made them.

I don't see any significant loss of revenues to the towns. Taxes are on real estate. Marinas are not going to go out of business. They might have to alter a few slips now and then to convert from large boats to small. All this will take place over many years. How does that involve a crippling tax loss? Please be specific or give an example.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

...

There are many families that cannot afford lakefront property and buy cabin cruisers in the 30 to 40 foot range so they and their families can have the chance to be on the lake. Would you deny them the opportunity? ...

I don't know what a 40 foot cabin cruiser costs but I bet it is MORE than a modest waterfront property. 35 Bear Island is for sale and they are only asking $199k. It needs work but has a fantastic view of the mountains.

I also don't know what a slip costs for one of those things, 5k or 6k per year? But I bet that big slip will cost more than taxes plus utilities for an island home.

Even if you add a new bow rider and valet service an island home is cheaper.




http://www.newenglandmoves.com/real-...f25a213394079e

[Woodsy]

BI...

Your a bit off base with your numbers! At first glance a $200K island property that needs work might seem like a bargain... especially to someone who can plunk down that much for a 6 minute weightless joyride. However, look at the true costs...

$200,000 for the island property
$50,000 in work (looks like septic might be an issue according to your link)
$2,500+ taxes yearly (based on $12.54 per 1000 tax rate) likely to increase
$15,000 (modest used bowrider in 20' range)
$2,500 (yearly valet fee for 20' boat)

$270,000 first year total with a minimum of $5000 recurring expenses (you get intrest write off on mortgage & prop taxes)

***************

$150,000 for 3-4 year old 38' cruiser ( i have seen them alot cheaper but figured I should aim high for the sake of argument)
$4,000 - Slip rental (Mountain View or equiv)

$154,000 first year total with $4000 recurring expenses. (you get intrest write off on boat loan)

You could purchase a slip @ Mountain View for $60,000-70,000 to secure your lake access, however with a rental fee of only 4,000 - 5,000 it will take 15 plus years to pay for itself... and you will be paying a yearly fee to the MVYC association....

Its still way way cheaper to go cabin cruiser than island property.... pros and cons to both.

Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

OK Woodsy

I will accept your figures. But you need to add maintainace costs and winter storage.

The big difference is that after 10 or 20 years the island home will be worth a lot more and the boat will be worth very little.

I do think they are in the same ballpark.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

OK Woodsy

I will accept your figures. But you need to add maintainace costs and winter storage.

The big difference is that after 10 or 20 years the island home will be worth a lot more and the boat will be worth very little.

I do think they are in the same ballpark.

How do you know that the lot or house will be worth more in 10 or 20 years. Look at the last 5 years and see where we are going.

You can buy used cabin cruisers in the 35 foot range for under $100,000. If you own a slip in a marina your annual costs (fees and taxes) will be about $2,500. Great deal for those that can't afford a waterfront home.

As for your contention that a vessel would be worth substantially less in a few years: I owned a 35 foot cabin cruser on this lake that I purchased in 1996. I sold it in 2003 for more than I paid for it. Don't be so sure of yourself!

I know one couple that owns a 38 foot boat and live aboard it for the summer. In the winter they rent a condo in the area for $500 per month. Cheap living and they are right on the lake. Would you deprive them of this opportunity, or just tell them that they can't ever get a new boat and if they decide to sell their slip it will be worth 1/4 of what they paid because of a horsepower regulation?

In reference to your previous posts: The marinas will have to make adjustments? MVYC has 284 slips with individual owners. What adjustments do you make to a 44 foot slip?

You obviously have many uninformed opinions that scare people. Uninformed people get to vote. That is scary!

I will take a step on the wild side and assume that your Winnipesaukee home came about as a result of family money or inheritance. There is no way that someone whose thinking is as disfunctional as yours has been gainfully employed and earned enough money himself to own a second home on Winnipesaukee.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

I will take a step on the wild side and assume that your Winnipesaukee home came about as a result of family money or inheritance. There is no way that someone whose thinking is as disfunctional as yours has been gainfully employed and earned enough money himself to own a second home on Winnipesaukee.

Thank you... That really made me laugh out loud. My first inclination was to ignore it but then I figured... what the heck, I'll give you a little of my bio.

I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth into a three decker in Boston. Just a few blocks from the projects. My father managed a hardware store so the day I was 14 I applied for working papers to work with him for 85 cents an hour. After he died I drove a cab nights to put myself through 6 years of college. It took 10 years to pay off my student loans. Since Jr. high there was only one place I wanted to work. After college I got a job there as a temp. 34 years later I own the company.

It was all a lot of fun. I'd do it again in a heartbeat. I did inherit plenty from my family, just not any money.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Thank you... That really made me laugh out loud. My first inclination was to ignore it but then I figured... what the heck, I'll give you a little of my bio.

I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth into a three decker in Boston. Just a few blocks from the projects. My father managed a hardware store so the day I was 14 I applied for working papers to work with him for 85 cents an hour. After he died I drove a cab nights to put myself through 6 years of college. It took 10 years to pay off my student loans. Since Jr. high there was only one place I wanted to work. After college I got a job there as a temp. 34 years later I own the company.

It was all a lot of fun. I'd do it again in a heartbeat. I did inherit plenty from my family, just not any money.

BI- that's a great story. All opinion differences aside, what you've done is quite remarkable and a great example of living the American dream.

[pm203]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Thank you... That really made me laugh out loud. My first inclination was to ignore it but then I figured... what the heck, I'll give you a little of my bio.

I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth into a three decker in Boston. Just a few blocks from the projects. My father managed a hardware store so the day I was 14 I applied for working papers to work with him for 85 cents an hour. After he died I drove a cab nights to put myself through 6 years of college. It took 10 years to pay off my student loans. Since Jr. high there was only one place I wanted to work. After college I got a job there as a temp. 34 years later I own the company.

It was all a lot of fun. I'd do it again in a heartbeat. I did inherit plenty from my family, just not any money.

Too bad you didn't learn to get along with others. I find your views very disturbing.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

OK Woodsy

I will accept your figures. But you need to add maintainace costs and winter storage.

The big difference is that after 10 or 20 years the island home will be worth a lot more and the boat will be worth very little.

I do think they are in the same ballpark.

BI...

No question the island home is the better option... it will appreciate in value over time while the boat will depreciate. However, you have winter storage & maintenance for both boats, and while not equal, there isnt that much disparity. also the buy in is ALOT less for the boat/slip than island property. You will need at least $20,000 to put down on the island property to get financed nowadays, especially considering its seasonal nature. This doesnt take into account how your going to afford the $10,000 - $15,000 septic system that the property needs....

The buy in for the boat requires a much smaller downpayment, and the money needed to rent the slip....


Woodsy

PS: While we differ on opinions BI, you are the embodiment of the American Dream!

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I don't know what a 40 foot cabin cruiser costs but I bet it is MORE than a modest waterfront property. 35 Bear Island is for sale and they are only asking $199k. It needs work but has a fantastic view of the mountains.

I also don't know what a slip costs for one of those things, 5k or 6k per year? But I bet that big slip will cost more than taxes plus utilities for an island home.

Even if you add a new bow rider and valet service an island home is cheaper.




http://www.newenglandmoves.com/real-...f25a213394079e

For what it's worth, I've looked at that property and essentially the price reflects the lot, not the building which pretty much needs a wrecking ball taken to it. Retrofitting that place is not worth the effort. So now you're out the cost of demolition and removal, site work and at least a septic to get something reasonably usable. Granted how much is necessary to fix the place up is directly related to how elaborate a place you want, but even erecting a simple camp will push the price tag in my estimation out close to 300K and hit the tax bill pretty hard.

In the end it's worth what somebody is willing to pay for it, but I'd rather invest in property that will be more likely to gain value versus a boat that is guaranteed to loose value. Total cost of ownership is a wash in my book, both have similar reoccurring costs.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

...Skip says to avoid any talk of safety issues at all, because the lawmakers and do-gooders will simply come up with more laws and more restrictions, because they aren't smart enough to do anything else...

Well there you go Steve.

I had to sit back for a few hours before I replied to your post.

Let me start by saying you just answered a question you posed to me off line as to why I don't offer my opinion in these threads.

I never, ever said to avoid any talk of safety issues. I never said legislators aren't smart. You have attempted to paraphrase me and in doing so have taken me completely out of context.

Hmm, who have I heard complain loud and clear about the same thing in other threads? Why you, of course.

If you want to have an intelligent and adult debate about this issue, then stick to the legislation. There's an old adage in political debate; debate the issue and not the man. Its also the core concept around Robert's Rules of Order.

It is apparent that there are still too many people related to this subject that cannot stick to the debate but have to degrade themselves into personal attacks of their opponents or their opponent's motivation.

That is why with thousands of registered members here, all of who must have some opinion of this issue, 99% of them refuse to partake in this discussion.

That is why Don had to moderate the boating thread, not because of the subject at hand but because of the handful of posters that couldn't, and still don't, debate like adults.

Here's the bottom line. Whether I support speed limits or not I am completely convinced that they are here to stay. I am completely convinced that the Lake is nowhere near as dangerous as some here continually portray it. And I am completely convinced that speed limits will move to other bodies of water.

There will be no huge new influx of cash to the NHMP. They will continue to do the job that they do with the limited resources they are given. I happen to think they do a damn fine job and as a taxpayer and boater I DO NOT want to see the agency taken over by the State Police, or expanded to such a degree that there's an officer in every nook & cranny of the Lake. I do not need to be babysat by the Government when I am relaxing. If the Lake becomes too crazy for me I will simply boat elsewhere, knowing that my perception of craziness is bliss to the boater that takes my place.

Oh, and I'm bowing out of these threads for good with the final observation:

There are a handful of pro speed limit supporters that act and post like juveniles.

There are a boatload of anti speed limit supporters that act and post like juveniles.

After having followed this debate closely for a number of years I have come to the final conclusion: In my book you win Bear Islander. Not because you are necessarily correct on the subject, but you have taken the high ground with thoughtful, provocative but always on subject debate since day one. You sir are a gentleman and a fantastic debater. I tip my hat to you and give you my blessings as I know you still have a little fight left in you here!

And with that I bid a fond adieu...I'll see everyone over on the adult section of the website!

[VtSteve]

Before you run off Skip. Please tell me if I took this post of yours out of context.

On the flip side of the coin a number of folks here opposed to speed limit legislation continue to state that the regulation has had no effect, and give numerous examples of how the Lake, in their perception, remains as or more dangerous. A negative effect usually results in the State not rolling back legislation, but in increasing more and more layered legislation to force people into compliance. It is the nature of politics.

Without taking sides in the debate, if I was a legislator with little or no ties to the Lake (like many are) and I viewed this website as an authoritive source of information (to which many here argued when the boating thread was temporarily moderated) I could easily be convinced that additional legislation is warranted. A lobbyist may not have a hard time convincing me of same.

I'm not taking sides in the debate but just offering an insight as to not only how the speed limit legislation was passed, with all its additional riders (dmv points, all water bodies subjected to General Boating requirements) but how Bear Islander's predictions could easily pass the Legislature in future sessions.

Interesting corners, in my humble opinion, that some folks may be painting themselves in to!

So if the lake is not safer because of one law that didn't address the issues, more laws will be forthcoming. Yes, I guess I did paraphrase you, which is the most logical meaning to be derived from your statement. You certainly don't give Legislators any credit for looking at facts, or even past history. OK, you didn't Say they were stupid. But you've certainly painted them as pretty easy to sway, and not very hard to fool. That's My opinion. While you've not adopted a stance one way or the other, you make a good case as to why no big time enforcement should be requested. Point taken there.

As BI said, this is all a win-win for him in the end, you've simply stated why and what the Legislators would do if the lobbyists lobbied for more. I fully understand what you're saying, I really do. What I was trying to point out, is that there are many SL supporters that didn't think ahead in this manner, and thought the campaign was all on the up and up. All very good things to bring up in public, don't you think?

You brought up an interesting Catch-22 argument in your Painting themselves into corners argument, which is not very far from the truth, actually.

OK BI, Skip says you win. I might as well help you draw up plans for the 50 HP limit, at least that way people can keep small Whalers or something like that. You win.