Michigan Votes Forum

Discuss issues, ideas and legislation related to the Great Lake State.
Welcome to Michigan Votes Forum Sign in | Join | Help
in Search
Latest post 04-16-2008 10:48 AM by Anonymous Citizen. 5 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (6 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 01-01-2001 12:00 AM

    2008 House Bill 5607 (Allow disabled to use motorboat on non-motor lake or stream )

    Introduced in the House on January 16, 2008, to allow a disabled individual to use a boat with an electric motor operating at a "slow-no wake" speed on a lake or stream where motorized watercraft are prohibited

    The vote was 107 in favor, 1 opposed and 2 not voting

    (House Roll Call 83 at House Journal 17)

    Click here to view bill details.
  • 01-22-2008 8:46 AM In reply to

    is it possible

    is it possible that a non-motorized lake or stream has been designated as such for a reason? this "bill" is another fine example of a waste of time!
  • 01-22-2008 9:30 AM In reply to

    HB 5607

    I disagree; too many individuals would abuse such a privilage just as they abuse handi-cap parking permits. If they are that disabled they shouldn't be running around, unsupervised, in watercraft.
  • 01-22-2008 10:55 AM In reply to

    Others -- who are actually ineligible -- will abuse the access.
  • 04-15-2008 9:59 PM In reply to

    107 - 1 = 1 smart person

    Thank God for the 1 no vote. This is a dumb law that was probably made to help 1 person. If I had a house on oneof those lakes, I would sue thelegislature for being so stupid.
  • 04-16-2008 10:48 AM In reply to

    I Agree

    With whoever posted the “107-1 = 1 smart person” comment. Except make that 144-1 = 1 smart person, since 37 Senators now have joined the 107 Representatives in voting for this bill. Only one person in the whole legislature – the single smart one – actively voted against this proposal. What is it about “non-motorized” that 144 dopey legislators can’t seem to understand? Most of us (me included) are not without sympathy for the old, feeble and otherwise infirm, but providing special exemptions for them at every turn is not right. Those special privileges invariably lead to abuse. In this case, for the most obvious example of abuse, why should somebody who is perfectly capable of paddling a canoe be allowed to go along for a motorized ride on a supposedly non-motorized waterway with someone who isn’t? For goodness sake! I remember as a young teenager -- before electric trolling motors were dreamt up -- learning to paddle a canoe so a disabled uncle who no longer was able to paddle could fish quiet northern waters. That worked out just fine for everybody 50 years ago; it will work out fine today. According to the Department of Natural Resources, Michigan has more than 11,000 inland lakes. The legislative analysis of this bill notes that only “70 inland lakes, rivers and streams have been closed to motorized vessels.” That means, at most, only about 0.6% of Michigan inland waterways are completely off-limits to motorized use at this time. If this bill becomes law – and it probably will – 100% of Michigan’s inland waters will be open to motorized use. To paraphrase a very wise observation, if the goal is to provide a full spectrum of outdoor recreational opportunities, then the interests and rights of the physically able to get away from a mechanized-motorized world and go where only unmechanized transport is allowed must be recognized and preserved. This legislation is irrational, hysterical nonsense.
Page 1 of 1 (6 items)
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems