Attn. MD Boaters!!!!!
02-08-2006, 03:16 PM
#21
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Crownsville, Maryland
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Attn. MD Boaters!!!!!
here's one
Let me make it very clear – I fully support mandatory seat belts and other safety equipment for automobiles. However, I have consistently resisted laws that try to impose common sense on folks. I have taken Boaters’ Safety courses and make my children wear PFDs, but I choose not to wear one constantly while boating. This is a well intended, but misguided piece of proposed legislation that I will work hard to defeat.
Let me repeat: I DO NOT FAVOR IMPOSING THIS RESTRICTION ON BOATERS!
I appreciate your thoughts on this issue and trust that you will continue to respect the waters and use good judgment on your own without the State imposing this law on you as a reaction to a tragedy that occurred in a freak accident on an overloaded water taxi at the Inner Harbor a few years ago.
Thanks for contacting me with your opinion and let me know if we can ever be of assistance to you. In the meantime, I will work to defeat this bill, but seriously doubt that it will ever see the light of day beyond the committee to which it has been assigned. Thanks.
Delegate John Bohanan
Let me make it very clear – I fully support mandatory seat belts and other safety equipment for automobiles. However, I have consistently resisted laws that try to impose common sense on folks. I have taken Boaters’ Safety courses and make my children wear PFDs, but I choose not to wear one constantly while boating. This is a well intended, but misguided piece of proposed legislation that I will work hard to defeat.
Let me repeat: I DO NOT FAVOR IMPOSING THIS RESTRICTION ON BOATERS!
I appreciate your thoughts on this issue and trust that you will continue to respect the waters and use good judgment on your own without the State imposing this law on you as a reaction to a tragedy that occurred in a freak accident on an overloaded water taxi at the Inner Harbor a few years ago.
Thanks for contacting me with your opinion and let me know if we can ever be of assistance to you. In the meantime, I will work to defeat this bill, but seriously doubt that it will ever see the light of day beyond the committee to which it has been assigned. Thanks.
Delegate John Bohanan
02-08-2006, 03:50 PM
#23
VIP Member
VIP Member
Re: Attn. MD Boaters!!!!!
Originally Posted by Sloman
here's one
Let me make it very clear – I fully support mandatory seat belts and other safety equipment for automobiles. However, I have consistently resisted laws that try to impose common sense on folks. I have taken Boaters’ Safety courses and make my children wear PFDs, but I choose not to wear one constantly while boating. This is a well intended, but misguided piece of proposed legislation that I will work hard to defeat.
Let me repeat: I DO NOT FAVOR IMPOSING THIS RESTRICTION ON BOATERS!
I appreciate your thoughts on this issue and trust that you will continue to respect the waters and use good judgment on your own without the State imposing this law on you as a reaction to a tragedy that occurred in a freak accident on an overloaded water taxi at the Inner Harbor a few years ago.
Thanks for contacting me with your opinion and let me know if we can ever be of assistance to you. In the meantime, I will work to defeat this bill, but seriously doubt that it will ever see the light of day beyond the committee to which it has been assigned. Thanks.
Delegate John Bohanan
Let me make it very clear – I fully support mandatory seat belts and other safety equipment for automobiles. However, I have consistently resisted laws that try to impose common sense on folks. I have taken Boaters’ Safety courses and make my children wear PFDs, but I choose not to wear one constantly while boating. This is a well intended, but misguided piece of proposed legislation that I will work hard to defeat.
Let me repeat: I DO NOT FAVOR IMPOSING THIS RESTRICTION ON BOATERS!
I appreciate your thoughts on this issue and trust that you will continue to respect the waters and use good judgment on your own without the State imposing this law on you as a reaction to a tragedy that occurred in a freak accident on an overloaded water taxi at the Inner Harbor a few years ago.
Thanks for contacting me with your opinion and let me know if we can ever be of assistance to you. In the meantime, I will work to defeat this bill, but seriously doubt that it will ever see the light of day beyond the committee to which it has been assigned. Thanks.
Delegate John Bohanan
02-08-2006, 04:16 PM
#24
VIP Member
VIP Member
Re: Attn. MD Boaters!!!!!
Originally Posted by Beak Boater
Ted
Thanks for the heads up. I wonder how this would effect Va. boaters that use the Potomac River. The river is MD to the high tide mark.
Thanks for the heads up. I wonder how this would effect Va. boaters that use the Potomac River. The river is MD to the high tide mark.
__________________
Happily retired and living in Heavens waiting room.
Happily retired and living in Heavens waiting room.
02-08-2006, 07:27 PM
#25
Charter Member # 545
Gold Member
Re: Attn. MD Boaters!!!!!
Craig
Just wanted you to know whats going on. Before you may have out run the Marine Police, not sure now!!!!
Just wanted you to know whats going on. Before you may have out run the Marine Police, not sure now!!!!
02-09-2006, 10:16 AM
#26
Gold Member
Gold Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hollywood, MD
Posts: 1,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Attn. MD Boaters!!!!!
Some good news....
Update:
Maryland House Bill 140 on Mandatory Life Jacket Wear
Feb. 8, 2006
BoatU.S. Government Affairs VP Margaret Podlich testified before the Maryland House Environmental Matters Committee today on H.B. 140, a bill that originally proposed to require everyone on the outside of a boat to wear a life jacket. The bill was introduced by Baltimore Del. Catherine Pugh. BoatU.S. also submitted written testimony on behalf of more than 34,000 BoatU.S. members in Maryland, to oppose this bill.
Yesterday, BoatU.S. spoke with Pugh’s staff that there would be substantial changes in the bill. These changes were not made available in writing prior to or during the committee hearing. However, at the beginning of the hearing there was clarification from Del. Pugh on her intent to address safety issues of water taxis only.
Because of the potential impact on recreational boating, the hearing room was packed and, in addition to BoatU.S., there were representatives of many boating groups, commercial captains and dozens of boaters. Of three pages of witnesses signed up to testify, no one supported H.B. 140 as introduced. Because the bill had substantially been altered from its previous draft, much of the verbal testimony that recreational boating representatives planned was shortened, however BoatU.S. made a point of thanking the committee for its work to remove recreational boaters from the bill.
Last year, an accident with multiple fatalities occurred in Baltimore Harbor when a water taxi capsized. Del. Pugh wants to require safety briefings and demonstrations on how to don a life jacket at the beginning of water taxi trips of any length. At the hearing, representatives of water taxis and tour boats presented information on existing U.S. Coast Guard regulations requiring safety briefings to passengers. In the event of shorter trips (less than 15 minute segments), the taxi is allowed to display this information on written placards. This is existing law, and commercial captains work with their local USCG inspectors to assure compliance. Differences between federal law and Del. Pugh’s bill will have to be worked out.
BoatU.S. appreciates the high level of interest and involvement that members have shown on this issue in the last two weeks. BoatU.S. will continue to monitor this bill and insure that any rewrite of this bill, or newly introduced bills, are acceptable to boating interests.
Update:
Maryland House Bill 140 on Mandatory Life Jacket Wear
Feb. 8, 2006
BoatU.S. Government Affairs VP Margaret Podlich testified before the Maryland House Environmental Matters Committee today on H.B. 140, a bill that originally proposed to require everyone on the outside of a boat to wear a life jacket. The bill was introduced by Baltimore Del. Catherine Pugh. BoatU.S. also submitted written testimony on behalf of more than 34,000 BoatU.S. members in Maryland, to oppose this bill.
Yesterday, BoatU.S. spoke with Pugh’s staff that there would be substantial changes in the bill. These changes were not made available in writing prior to or during the committee hearing. However, at the beginning of the hearing there was clarification from Del. Pugh on her intent to address safety issues of water taxis only.
Because of the potential impact on recreational boating, the hearing room was packed and, in addition to BoatU.S., there were representatives of many boating groups, commercial captains and dozens of boaters. Of three pages of witnesses signed up to testify, no one supported H.B. 140 as introduced. Because the bill had substantially been altered from its previous draft, much of the verbal testimony that recreational boating representatives planned was shortened, however BoatU.S. made a point of thanking the committee for its work to remove recreational boaters from the bill.
Last year, an accident with multiple fatalities occurred in Baltimore Harbor when a water taxi capsized. Del. Pugh wants to require safety briefings and demonstrations on how to don a life jacket at the beginning of water taxi trips of any length. At the hearing, representatives of water taxis and tour boats presented information on existing U.S. Coast Guard regulations requiring safety briefings to passengers. In the event of shorter trips (less than 15 minute segments), the taxi is allowed to display this information on written placards. This is existing law, and commercial captains work with their local USCG inspectors to assure compliance. Differences between federal law and Del. Pugh’s bill will have to be worked out.
BoatU.S. appreciates the high level of interest and involvement that members have shown on this issue in the last two weeks. BoatU.S. will continue to monitor this bill and insure that any rewrite of this bill, or newly introduced bills, are acceptable to boating interests.
02-09-2006, 12:33 PM
#28
Gold Member
Gold Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hollywood, MD
Posts: 1,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Attn. MD Boaters!!!!!
If anyone's interested in the topic, my brother in law, the guy who wrote the article about "the nanny state" is going to be a guest on WBAL radio today at 3:30 to talk about the PFD bill and whats wrong with the state trying to govern every aspect of our lives.
you can listen online at http://www.wbal.com/shows/smith/
you can listen online at http://www.wbal.com/shows/smith/
02-09-2006, 05:47 PM
#30
VIP Member
VIP Member
Re: Attn. MD Boaters!!!!!
I just received another response and attached wwere the list of the sponsers, not surprisingly. They are all from Baltimore City, more than likely dont own or have been on a boat in years (assumption on my part). But it goes to show how narrow minded they are to think that ALL of the state of MD lives in there little city. Click the links and see some of the other special interest bills they are "doing" for their city at our expense....
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/billfile/hb0140.htm
Delegate Catherine E. Pugh, District 40
Delegate Curt Anderson, District 43
Delegate Clarence Davis, District 45
Delegate Marshall T. Goodwin, District 40
Delegate Hattie N. Harrison, District 45
Delegate Ruth M. Kirk, District 44
Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, District 40
Delegate Maggie McIntosh, District 43
Delegate Jeffrey A. Paige, District 44
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/billfile/hb0140.htm
Delegate Catherine E. Pugh, District 40
Delegate Curt Anderson, District 43
Delegate Clarence Davis, District 45
Delegate Marshall T. Goodwin, District 40
Delegate Hattie N. Harrison, District 45
Delegate Ruth M. Kirk, District 44
Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, District 40
Delegate Maggie McIntosh, District 43
Delegate Jeffrey A. Paige, District 44
