Re: NH House Bill 162
Good night Mopower.
|
Re: NH House Bill 162
Night , night pm203
Night , night Formula Outlaw Night , night John Boy :D :D |
Re: NH House Bill 162
Originally Posted by ^HB162^
If you guys are so boat smart, how come you didn't know that New Hampshire boating rules don't apply to Federal (aka Coast Guard) waters.
That's how this thread started. Or was it "tell a lie and stir up the pot"! |
Re: NH House Bill 162
Originally Posted by mopower
Night , night pm203
Night , night Formula Outlaw Night , night John Boy :D :D LMAO again......:drink: |
Re: NH House Bill 162
Originally Posted by ^HB162^
Great Answer
But the question was.... Do you support the right of a majority of New Hampshire citizens, by way of their elected representatives, to enact a speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee? Its kind of a yes or no thing |
Re: NH House Bill 162
Audiofn,
Quiet, cant you see we are sleeping? :D |
Re: NH House Bill 162
Originally Posted by ^HB162^
TRUE!
But what percentage can post a link to an independent study that backs up their percentages? http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/boat/ |
Re: NH House Bill 162
Originally Posted by ^HB162^
Barrett has proved he is a good bureaucrat by changing his mind on HB162. I think he saw the writing on the wall.
Yesterday, in a Citizen article, he said he supports a new bill by Rep. Whalley that will create tougher noise limits that are easier to test. Below is a quote. I don't know about sound testing, will this be a problem for performance boaters? "Whalley is proposing a scaled-down test which simply requires a Marine Patrol officer to hold a decibel-measuring device four feet away from an idling boat. The bill changes the decibel level to 90 for boats built before 1990, and 88 for newer vessels. While the decibel levels are raised in the proposed legislation, Whalley pointed out it was necessary to do so because the new test would be conducted at a much closer range." http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...73231879771210 Are you guys aware that not being a paying member here I can't see the images you are posting? Man you really are a little slow. I almost feel bad for turning your arguments against you. Now if you read the artical correctly you will notice that the law is talking about noise. This thread is about the speed limit. So just because the MP is for a different safer way to test boats DB level does NOT mean that he is for the speed limit. Are you fallowing the bouncing ball? Man your aguments are pathetic. |
Re: NH House Bill 162
Originally Posted by ^HB162^
New Hampshire boating regulations cover lakes and ponds, plus rivers where they are less than 2 miles wide.
I would look it up and post the link, but its better that you learn to do these things for yourself. were is says: Three Nautical Mile Line-- The Three Nautical Mile Line, previously identified as the outer limit of the territorial sea, is retained on NOAA's nautical charts as it continues to depict the jurisdictional limit of other laws. The 9-nautical mile Natural Resource Boundary off the Gulf coast of Florida, Texas, and Puerto Rico, and the Three Nautical Mile Line elsewhere remain in most cases the inner limit of Federal fisheries jurisdiction and the outer limit of the jurisdiction of the states. The territorial sea was extended from three to twelve nautical miles by Presidential Proclamation No. 5928 on December 27, 1988 Now take a week or so to digest that site and tell me you are sorry and you are WRONG. It is a national line not just for NH. You think NH can say that they do not want to have jurisdiction from thier cost line out to 3 mile. Get a clue. Clean our your bong water it is effecting your brains ability to fallow the logical steps. |
Re: NH House Bill 162
Originally Posted by ^HB162^
Barrett has proved he is a good bureaucrat by changing his mind on HB162. I think he saw the writing on the wall.
Yesterday, in a Citizen article, he said he supports a new bill by Rep. Whalley that will create tougher noise limits that are easier to test. Below is a quote. I don't know about sound testing, will this be a problem for performance boaters? "Whalley is proposing a scaled-down test which simply requires a Marine Patrol officer to hold a decibel-measuring device four feet away from an idling boat. The bill changes the decibel level to 90 for boats built before 1990, and 88 for newer vessels. While the decibel levels are raised in the proposed legislation, Whalley pointed out it was necessary to do so because the new test would be conducted at a much closer range." http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...73231879771210 Are you guys aware that not being a paying member here I can't see the images you are posting? |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:30 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.