Labor Day Weekend on the Lake...

So you choose not to post valid data or want to cite what the MP or the Marine Trades have stated about the SL and what value it brings or if it was warranted? Or do you simply want to keep referring back to opinions written on blogs as factual data and what "everyone" thinks? That is a mighty large claim.

Did you want to bring us up to date what the Winnfabs are currently doing to improve safety on the lake.

These are the issues the need discussion and action, not where a couple of boats legally meet and enjoy themselves on Labor Day weekend.

sumrluvr wrote:So you choose not to post valid data or want to cite what the MP or the Marine Trades have stated about the SL and what value it brings or if it was warranted? Or do you simply want to keep referring back to opinions written on blogs as factual data and what "everyone" thinks? That is a mighty large claim.

Did you want to bring us up to date what the Winnfabs are currently doing to improve safety on the lake.

These are the issues the need discussion and action, not where a couple of boats legally meet and enjoy themselves on Labor Day weekend.

I have little respect for the Marine Trades Association...their sponsors made money for themselves by selling boats that drove the family boater from the lake. Short term profits at the expense of the long term viability(read prosperity)of the lake. I'm sorry some businesses suffered. But when one door closes, another opens. As I said earlier, buggy whip sales plummeted when cars came into fashion. Smart people left the buggy whip factory and went to work in the automotive industry. As per Mr. Blodgett's letter, I too have a sense that for every loud obnoxious boater that left, 5 family boaters returned. Perhaps for every dollar lost by selling performance boats, five will be made by other lake's region employers. Time will tell. My family was far more inclined to cross the Broads and go to Wolfeboro for shopping and ice-cream. I know of one hospitality player near me in Meredith who reports a banner year, perhaps the best in five. Winnfabs has done more to enhance my family's enjoyment of the lake than I ever thought possible. Bravo.
  My issue is not "where a couple of boats legally meet and enjoy themselves...". My post pointed out that part of their fun was centered on specifically annoying and punishing sl supporters (I'm sure most everyone along their path was annoyed). And just like this loud minority was the catalyst for our present sl, those who flout their "right" to annoy others will be responsible for even more Draconian laws.

Amy B wrote:

sumrluvr wrote:So you choose not to post valid data or want to cite what the MP or the Marine Trades have stated about the SL and what value it brings or if it was warranted? Or do you simply want to keep referring back to opinions written on blogs as factual data and what "everyone" thinks? That is a mighty large claim.

Did you want to bring us up to date what the Winnfabs are currently doing to improve safety on the lake.

These are the issues the need discussion and action, not where a couple of boats legally meet and enjoy themselves on Labor Day weekend.

I have little respect for the Marine Trades Association...their sponsors made money for themselves by selling boats that drove the family boater from the lake. I'm sorry some business suffered. But when one door closes, another opens. As I said earlier, buggy whip sales plummeted when cars came into fashion. Smart people left the buggy whip factory and went to work in the automotive industry. As per Mr. Blodgett's letter, I too have a sense that for every loud obnoxious boater that left, 5 family boaters returned. Perhaps for every dollar lost by selling performance boats, five will be made by other lake's region employers. Time will tell. My family was far more inclined to cross the Broads and go to Wolfeboro for shopping and ice-cream. I know of one hospitality player near me in Meredith who reports a banner year, perhaps the best in five. Winnfabs has done more to enhance my family's enjoyment of the lake than I ever thought possible. Bravo.
  My issue is not "where a couple of boats legally meet and enjoy themselves...". My post pointed out that part of their fun was centered on specifically annoying and punishing sl supporters (I'm sure most everyone along their path was annoyed). And just like this loud minority was the catalyst for our present sl, those who flout their "right" to annoy others will be responsible for even more Draconian laws.

You have every right to your "opinions". As long as you continue to preface your posts with (I have no specific data to back these claims up) I believe we can all then get along.

Your buggy whip comparison while amusing is the progression of a technology not the implementation of a law on the preface of safety in order to reduce the use of a type of craft used in an area. That is an agenda.

The Marine Trades if you recall was independent for there were two members quite outspoken in favor of the SL. However since the SL these two marinas have done nothing in support of the M.T. nor has their sales or rentals increased (according to people who work there) All the while the owners claim differently in hopes to draw support for a law that did not accomplish what you claim above or they intended.

When you say "I have the sense" that for every performance boater that has left 5 family boaters returned. FYI if you have to start a sentence saying "I have the sense" it is better to say "you have no clue" for boater registrations still have not begun to climb since the SL.

If you or your family really were scared to cross the broads before the speed limit then there are some serious issues there. There has been no change on the lake according to the MP based on accident data before and after. So this is just another attempt to make things sound better for the point you are trying to make with no substance.

So far the accident data, marine trades numbers or the tourism studies in the state of New Hampshire does not support your "views". That is all I am saying. And whether or not a group of boaters chose whichever bay for whatever reason, if they were legal and there were no complaints I cannot agree with you that everyone they past by were annoyed. On the other hand many people may have been pleased to see that the scare tactics of the SL activists have not scared all the good law abiding performance boaters from the lake.

My 2 cents. I agree, I don't think many people feel any safer crossing the broads now than they did before. I think that is a ridiculous statement. Sure, there might be a few, but they will find something else to be afraid of. I just can't believe that many people were affected by the fast boats on the lake.

sumrluvr wrote:

Amy B wrote:

sumrluvr wrote:So you choose not to post valid data or want to cite what the MP or the Marine Trades have stated about the SL and what value it brings or if it was warranted? Or do you simply want to keep referring back to opinions written on blogs as factual data and what "everyone" thinks? That is a mighty large claim.

Did you want to bring us up to date what the Winnfabs are currently doing to improve safety on the lake.

These are the issues the need discussion and action, not where a couple of boats legally meet and enjoy themselves on Labor Day weekend.

I have little respect for the Marine Trades Association...their sponsors made money for themselves by selling boats that drove the family boater from the lake. I'm sorry some business suffered. But when one door closes, another opens. As I said earlier, buggy whip sales plummeted when cars came into fashion. Smart people left the buggy whip factory and went to work in the automotive industry. As per Mr. Blodgett's letter, I too have a sense that for every loud obnoxious boater that left, 5 family boaters returned. Perhaps for every dollar lost by selling performance boats, five will be made by other lake's region employers. Time will tell. My family was far more inclined to cross the Broads and go to Wolfeboro for shopping and ice-cream. I know of one hospitality player near me in Meredith who reports a banner year, perhaps the best in five. Winnfabs has done more to enhance my family's enjoyment of the lake than I ever thought possible. Bravo.
  My issue is not "where a couple of boats legally meet and enjoy themselves...". My post pointed out that part of their fun was centered on specifically annoying and punishing sl supporters (I'm sure most everyone along their path was annoyed). And just like this loud minority was the catalyst for our present sl, those who flout their "right" to annoy others will be responsible for even more Draconian laws.

You have every right to your "opinions". As long as you continue to preface your posts with (I have no specific data to back these claims up) I believe we can all then get along.

Your buggy whip comparison while amusing is the progression of a technology not the implementation of a law on the preface of safety in order to reduce the use of a type of craft used in an area. That is an agenda.

The Marine Trades if you recall was independent for there were two members quite outspoken in favor of the SL. However since the SL these two marinas have done nothing in support of the M.T. nor has their sales or rentals increased (according to people who work there) All the while the owners claim differently in hopes to draw support for a law that did not accomplish what you claim above or they intended.

When you say "I have the sense" that for every performance boater that has left 5 family boaters returned. FYI if you have to start a sentence saying "I have the sense" it is better to say "you have no clue" for boater registrations still have not begun to climb since the SL.

If you or your family really were scared to cross the broads before the speed limit then there are some serious issues there. There has been no change on the lake according to the MP based on accident data before and after. So this is just another attempt to make things sound better for the point you are trying to make with no substance.

So far the accident data, marine trades numbers or the tourism studies in the state of New Hampshire does not support your "views". That is all I am saying. And whether or not a group of boaters chose whichever bay for whatever reason, if they were legal and there were no complaints I cannot agree with you that everyone they past by were annoyed. On the other hand many people may have been pleased to see that the scare tactics of the SL activists have not scared all the good law abiding performance boaters from the lake.

Where Sumr did I say I was afraid to cross the Broads. My enjoyment in crossing the Broads took a quantum leap forward however. Yes, granted, virtually all the fatal collisions in recent memory have involved performance boats. But my enjoyment on the lake has far more to do with things other than safety that were accomplished by the SL. I won't dwell on the safety issue because that was not my main reason for supporting the sl.
And by more boaters returning to the lake, they include families like mine who never stopped registering their boats but just are inclined to use them more (which of course supports the local economy). Besides, many trailer their registered boats from other states. In any case, I applaud Thurston's and Fay's for their courage and foresight. Time will tell regarding the economics but I certainly won't rely on your 2 year old data.

Where Sumr did I say I was afraid to cross the Broads.

You wrote you and your family were more inclined to cross them leading one to believe that you were scared to do it prior. I apologize if I misread that but see how posts can be easily misinterpreted?


Yes, granted, virtually all the fatal collisions in recent memory have involved performance boats.

I never said that any fatal collisions involved performance boats only that the accident data has not changed. But now that you bring it up I can find only two well publicized fatal collisions in the past 12 years. Both having nothing to do with speed. However the number one reason for a fatality was cold water drowning. Also there have been dozens of non-performance boat accidents and collisions. The SL has done nothing to stop these. Where are the Winnfabs on this now?

I won't dwell on the safety issue because that was not my main reason for supporting the sl.

But this is the number one reason the Winnfabs claimed it was needed. Why the change?

Time will tell regarding the economics but I certainly won't rely on your 2 year old data.

Apparently you are relying on no data or at least anything or any professional body that does not support your claims of a better lake.


We can do this all day long but it will get us no where. I simply am saying you keep chiming in to push an agenda against a type of boater you dislike. You have no evidence or data to support the claim of a better lake nor has any economic improvement derived from it but the opposite thus far.

sumrluvr wrote:Where Sumr did I say I was afraid to cross the Broads.

You wrote you and your family were more inclined to cross them leading one to believe that you were scared to do it prior. I apologize if I misread that but see how posts can be easily misinterpreted?


Yes, granted, virtually all the fatal collisions in recent memory have involved performance boats.

I never said that any fatal collisions involved performance boats only that the accident data has not changed. But now that you bring it up I can find only two well publicized fatal collisions in the past 12 years. Both having nothing to do with speed. However the number one reason for a fatality was cold water drowning. Also there have been dozens of non-performance boat accidents and collisions. The SL has done nothing to stop these. Where are the Winnfabs on this now?

 I won't dwell on the safety issue because that was not my main reason for supporting the sl.

But this is the number one reason the Winnfabs claimed it was needed. Why the change?

Time will tell regarding the economics but I certainly won't rely on your 2 year old data.

Apparently you are relying on no data or at least anything or any professional body that does not support your claims of a better lake.


We can do this all day long but it will get us no where. I simply am saying you keep chiming in to push an agenda against a type of boater you dislike. You have no evidence or data to support the claim of a better lake nor has any economic improvement derived from it but the opposite thus far.

Fact is...whenever you find a fatal crash on Winnipesaukee you will find a performance boat. Now...I can't speak for Winnfabs but having visited their site they list other reasons for a SL. Time for you to check it out again too. There is no change. And as an aside, I remember a poster on another forum noting that even if safety were not a factor, his enjoyment of the lake has been enhanced. Why? Because as an analogy he might be perfectly safe having a family picnic on the median strip of I-95 but he would not choose to have his family picnic there either!

Why do you suppose people don't like these boats?

While you claim to have all the facts much of what you say is simply conjecture. A few marinas reporting lackluster profits? Marinas are just one of hundreds of types of businesses catering to tourists in the lake's region. It is naive and simplistic to assert that just because this sector may have seen a drop in business that that applies to all businesses. While this year's data may not be in, as in a previous post many many lake's region businesses are saying revenue is approaching pre recession levels. Your approach is like saying that because the tequila sales in the area may have taken a small downward blip mirroring fewer performance boaters in the area then everything else is down too. You have to look at all the factors, not the least of which would be sales of ice-cream or even wine sales. Again, when one door closes, another opens.
While I'm not necessarily for or against casinos the logic I see here is what often is touted when there is a push to establish a casino. "Look at all the jobs it will create" as if that in and of itself is sufficient explanation. Other businesses may suffer. Crime may be affected. Some will say it is not the kind of people one wants attracted to the area.
Just like you have your opinion, I have mine. Hard and fast data may still be lacking but your "data" has no more validity than mine. And until more data is available, we use our senses and experience to make rational assessments. Mine are based on years in the lake's region.
I understand why you look at certain microcosms of data to support what you want. You want to go fast. But you can't and you'd do anything to change that. I'm sorry.

It appears we will continue to agree to disagree.

One of my largest contentions with the speed limit is the rouse that Winnfabs used to push it through. They used two tragic accidents and promoted these as reasons for a new law that had nothing to do with safety or speed. You admit you wanted the law for reasons outside of safety. If I understand your post correctly you don't like the people. That is an utter shame and also a narcisitic personal agenda against certain people to make the lake "feel" better for you, whether it is or not.

The lake is big enough to support all people, craft, types of boats. The Winnfabs used the guise of safety to promote an agenda against people. That is why this is and always will be such a contentious issue. The law is discriminatory but as long as they got their way they don't care who it ultimately affected.

The other contention is how it was pushed into law. The Winnfabs cried safety and to have a study performed. They then, WITHOUT THE DATA THEY REQUESTED from the study THEY REQUESTED, made conclusions that the law was working fine and the study proved it was necessary to make permanent. This happened for due to the political powers in Concord and manipulated the system to do so. Made a shady deal with the Senate Transportation committee with the promise of a compromise only to have it recinded on the House side. They cried they needed to push it or it would sunset, however would not agree to extend the study to give them plenty of time to analyze the data. They never had any intention of doing this, which is very unfortunate because that data could have stopped the arguments for years past and to come.

None of this is disputed. I was in the rooms and spoke to each and every senator, committee member and even the Winnfabs lobbiest. This was all confirmed. It simply was a sham to push the study into law before the change in the political atmosphere in NH's capital.

This is why there is such bitter feelings on both sides. I for one would have loved to have seen the data, but now we can only speculate. It really was a shame but you have to hand it to the Winnfabs and their legislative supporters; they manipulated the system and did it well.

OMG elchase is back.

Achigan wrote:OMG elchase is back.

Yup where have you been? good to see you however!

sumrluvr wrote:It appears we will continue to agree to disagree.

One of my largest contentions with the speed limit is the rouse that Winnfabs used to push it through. They used two tragic accidents and promoted these as reasons for a new law that had nothing to do with safety or speed. You admit you wanted the law for reasons outside of safety. If I understand your post correctly you don't like the people. That is an utter shame and also a narcisitic personal agenda against certain people to make the lake "feel" better for you, whether it is or not.

The lake is big enough to support all people, craft, types of boats. The Winnfabs used the guise of safety to promote an agenda against people. That is why this is and always will be such a contentious issue. The law is discriminatory but as long as they got their way they don't care who it ultimately affected.

The other contention is how it was pushed into law. The Winnfabs cried safety and to have a study performed. They then, WITHOUT THE DATA THEY REQUESTED from the study THEY REQUESTED, made conclusions that the law was working fine and the study proved it was necessary to make permanent. This happened for due to the political powers in Concord and manipulated the system to do so. Made a shady deal with the Senate Transportation committee with the promise of a compromise only to have it recinded on the House side. They cried they needed to push it or it would sunset, however would not agree to extend the study to give them plenty of time to analyze the data. They never had any intention of doing this, which is very unfortunate because that data could have stopped the arguments for years past and to come.

None of this is disputed. I was in the rooms and spoke to each and every senator, committee member and even the Winnfabs lobbiest. This was all confirmed. It simply was a sham to push the study into law before the change in the political atmosphere in NH's capital.

This is why there is such bitter feelings on both sides. I for one would have loved to have seen the data, but now we can only speculate. It really was a shame but you have to hand it to the Winnfabs and their legislative supporters; they manipulated the system and did it well.

Your whole response to the sequence of events over the fast few years reminds me of a child who can't get his way and has an outburst..."It's not fair, they didn't play fair, they cheated". A landslide vote with a bigger majority in the house year after year (78% last): "they were fear mongers". Scientifically conducted polls show a similar majority in favor of speed limits: "they used leading questions in these polls". A majority of participants sign in Concord at the hearings in favor of a SL:" All the SL opponents have jobs...we couldn't attend".
Maturity is a process of accepting things you can't have. This is a place you need to find.

This is WELL before the last vote. You need to get your facts straight. If you want to discuss specifically how this occurred I would be happy to, however the facts of the matter do not and will not shed kindly on your group.

If you want to discuss the last vote, it is what it is however the reps and senators sent piles of information that showed some very shady actions by the SL group.

It is all a shame. If the law was needed the MP would have been the first to support it. They were in favor of the study to put this to bed once and for all. However as the initial results came out the Winnfabs and cronies had to resort to political games that luckily for them worked.

It was a sham that they should be ashamed of.

PS: Welcome back EL, BIM, FM how forums aren't the same without you.. :-) But seriously talk about the issue and stop trying to make it personal. This seems like a page taken from the liberal playbook.

sumrluvr wrote:

PS: Welcome back EL, BIM, FM how forums aren't the same without you.. :-)  But seriously talk about the issue and stop trying to make it personal. This seems like a page taken from the liberal playbook.

Aren't you the one who just made it personal with the above statement? Here is personal: I made a phone call to my neighbor last night....someone who was a bit more of an active participant at the time. He said if you want to make it personal to remind you of the hypocrisy of bragging on line of binge drinking exploits while at the same time proposing a law consisting of "reasonable and prudent" as the standard for speed. Then deleting them once you were exposed. I saw the Braun Bay one. Nice. Sounds like this was one of the many nails in your coffin exposing the real agenda of your group. To use one of your lines which you pull whenever you disagree with a forum poster: You have lost all credibility on this forum.

Yes, good to see you too sumr. Funny it is the same old argument over and over and over. Just like National Politics. You would think we would get sick of it.

Aren't you the one who just made it personal with the above statement? Here is personal: I made a phone call to my neighbor last night....someone who was a bit more of an active participant at the time. He said if you want to make it personal to remind you of the hypocrisy of bragging on line of binge drinking exploits while at the same time proposing a law consisting of "reasonable and prudent" as the standard for speed. Then deleting them once you were exposed. I saw the Braun Bay one. Nice. Sounds like this was one of the many nails in your coffin exposing the real agenda of your group. To use one of your lines which you pull whenever you disagree with a forum poster: You have lost all credibility on this forum.

Remember earlier it was clearly shown how quickly a post can be mis-interpreted? This is again another example of how the pro-SL crowd had no basis to stand on and decided to make personal attacks rather than fight the issue. Again a utter shame however these types of attacks are very similar and common to the liberal playbook.

Also, your neighbor, if he/she was involved he/she would know that SBONH did not come about until the Winnfabs began their efforts to circumvent the study or should we call it "ploy" they requested.

These unfounded personal attacks against SBONH and myself did not happen until the law was challenged last time around. You need to get your timeline straight.

WHL wrote:Yes, good to see you too sumr.  Funny it is the same old argument over and over and over.  Just like National Politics.  You would think we would get sick of it.

Thank you WHL.. I like to chime in when the same nonsense is being spouted off or there are vile attempts to stir the pot.

I think the arguments have all been made.

Pro-SL - Started this entire action not to improve the lake or for safety but as a response to a tragic accident. They could not ban a type of boat so they used the SL to make it less attractive for a certain type of boater to come to the lake. Plain and simple.

Anti-SL - Do not want a law that isn't warranted by data or supported by the professionals charged with the protecting the lake.


Everything else is just frosting on the cake.

sumrluvr wrote:

Remember earlier it was clearly shown how quickly a post can be mis-interpreted? This is again another example of how the pro-SL crowd had no basis to stand on and decided to make personal attacks rather than fight the issue.

Oh you poor misunderstood little boy. As I said, polls showed strong support for the SL; 78% of the House agreed; sign ins in Concord pro SL had an even higher percentage. Yet the little boy who brags about how to outwit the marine patrol on booze cruises in Braun Bay still thinks he and SBONH were treated unfairly. Sorry...you lost. Move on.

Amy B wrote:

sumrluvr wrote:

Remember earlier it was clearly shown how quickly a post can be mis-interpreted? This is again another example of how the pro-SL crowd had no basis to stand on and decided to make personal attacks rather than fight the issue.

Oh you poor misunderstood little boy. As I said, polls showed strong support for the SL; 78% of the House agreed; sign ins in Concord pro SL had an even higher percentage. Yet the little boy who brags about how to outwit the marine patrol on booze cruises in Braun Bay still thinks he and SBONH were treated unfairly. Sorry...you lost. Move on.

Great minds discuss issues; Average minds discuss events; Poor minds discuss people.

You have proven my point. Not once have you addressed the issue over the past 6 posts and only try to defame me and use personal attacks.

We work in conjunction with the MP and other safety organizations so there is no need to outwit them when they are on your side or doing anything to raise an eyebrow.

We lost thus far. I believe cooler and more reasonable heads will prevail in the future.

APSound wrote:I didn't know that you knew Scott V, he is a nice guy. I met him last year. Is he on this forum?

Yes, but he will only say so when confronted with his own duplicitous words—that appeared in print!

Amy B wrote: at the same time proposing a law consisting of "reasonable and prudent

"
The term "reasonable and prudent" was not proposed by SBONH.

"Reasonable and prudent" was already part of the NH Boating Law pertaining to Lake Winnipesaukee but not the rest of the state, I wonder how that happened WinnFABS? 

RSA 270 D:2 X(a)  General Rules for Operating a Vessel on the Water:
 X. (a) No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

sumrluvr wrote:

Amy B wrote:

sumrluvr wrote:

Remember earlier it was clearly shown how quickly a post can be mis-interpreted? This is again another example of how the pro-SL crowd had no basis to stand on and decided to make personal attacks rather than fight the issue.

Oh you poor misunderstood little boy. As I said, polls showed strong support for the SL; 78% of the House agreed; sign ins in Concord pro SL had an even higher percentage. Yet the little boy who brags about how to outwit the marine patrol on booze cruises in Braun Bay still thinks he and SBONH were treated unfairly. Sorry...you lost. Move on.

Great minds discuss issues; Average minds discuss events; Poor minds discuss people.

You have proven my point. Not once have you addressed the issue over the past 6 posts and only try to defame me and use personal attacks.

We work in conjunction with the MP and other safety organizations so there is no need to outwit them when they are on your side or doing anything to raise an eyebrow.

We lost thus far. I believe cooler and more reasonable heads will prevail in the future.

In reality your perception of a personal attack is pointing out hypocrisy and untruths that you have tried cover up. Now and then we hear of a politician who, say, has built a political career based on the premise of family values for example. Then he is caught in a compromising position which undermines his whole moralistic facade and exposes him as somewhat of a fraud. Your posts about eluding the marine patrol in Braun Bay and doubling the sl on the Broads after it became law do not exactly mesh with a description of someone who works "in conjunction with the MP" (I can post them later when/if they get sent to me). I don't care if you call it a personal attack at all. It is what it is. Most likely the disgraced politician would similarly call it a personal attack and say it was politically motivated.

And speaking of politics, the most conservative NH State Legislature in a long time was sent packing last year. Next year's projections seem to be worse. With the most conservative House siding with sl supporters with a 78% margin, your perception of cooler heads overturning the sl would seem slim to none.

Amy, please don't post anything you KNOW you shouldn't.

I continue to discuss the issue and the shameful way this was pushed on the state and the boating public.

You continue to spout off posts with no context behind them. Yes by themselves they the wrong conclusions can be drawn and do not look favorable. However no matter the context I provide you and your cronies do not believe it for it doesn't support your agenda.

Again this law was started by a group as a response to a tragic accident with no intention of improving the lake or safety. Do you deny this?

sumrluvr wrote:Again this law was started by a group as a response to a tragic accident with no intention of improving the lake or safety.

How many fatal collisions?

News Hawk wrote:

sumrluvr wrote:Again this law was started by a group as a response to a tragic accident with no intention of improving the lake or safety.

How many fatal collisions?

The "ONE" that started this entire agenda was the Littlefield/Hartman accident.