Braun Bay Rafting Bill

[breathe easy]

Betsey Patten spoke about the Braun Bay anti rafting bill at the last Selectmen meeting. It's here on the MCA site (http://moultonboroughcitizensalliance.org/2010/01/moultonboro-selectmen-meeting-9.html). ( towards the end of part one around 58 minutes).
She said the hearing date is 1/21 , but the House website has not published that yet.

[lawn psycho]

Betsey Patten spoke about the Braun Bay anti rafting bill at the last Selectmen meeting. It's here on the MCA site (http://moultonboroughcitizensalliance.org/2010/01/moultonboro-selectmen-meeting-9.html). ( towards the end of part one around 58 minutes).
She said the hearing date is 1/21 , but the House website has not published that yet.

This is the time for people to start writing and calling their representatives.

I also recommend writing Ms Patten. Don't blow your cool and give a ranting email or letter. Concise, logical writings are what get their attention. Food for thought.

This is a case where the few want to impact the many. It's a lake with boats on it. What's more to understand?

Many of us contribute significantly to the local and State economy. If this passes, I will cancel my one week reservation in Moultonborough to show my appreciation. Meredith hotels seems to like my money, maybe I'll go there instead.

[BroadHopper]

Hold on to whatever you have left.

After the SL bill, and this rafting bill, there are supporters that wants to regulate the size of boats and the horse power. There are folks that are under the imperssion that Winnipesaukee needs to be the next Squam lake. It will raise waterfront property values. ou can see that now as lake front properties are consolidated and sold at astronomical prices. Such as the multi million dollar sale in Meredith. I believe that was originally 4 seperate lots.

That is why we need to stand up and be counted.

[lawn psycho]

For those who did not watch the video:

Statements from Ms. Patten:
1. Stated she does not know the NH afting laws (but is proposing state bill about one).

2. Stated that her bill is in response to complaints from residents around Bruan Bay

3. Stated that the upcoming hearing will include statements from Bruan Bay residents.

Can someone from Moultonborough make a public records request to Ms Patten to get:
1. Name(s) of complaintants?
2. Nature and number of complaints by party?

I could do this but makes more convincing argument to come from a resident.
Does someone know what the stance is from NHMP on this issue?
What is the stance from the boat dealers/marinas in Moultonborough?

With very few sandbars on the lake, this should be a rallying cry for boaters to be heard.

[lawn psycho]

Here is the proposed bill:http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/m_billtext.aspx?billnumber=HB1466.html

Here is the person to flood with emails and letters.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376041

Representative Betsey Patten (r)
Carroll- District 04
Seat #:4007
Incumbent
Home Address:
46 Patten Hill Road
Moultonborough, NH 03254-2657
Phone: (603)253-6927
Email: blpatten@hotmail.com

[elchase]

Here is the person to flood with emails and letters.
I called her just now. She says she has gotten much more support for the rafting ban than opposition to it. Sounds like (as with other topics on this forum) the opinions of those who post here are not reflecting the opinions of the majority.
Here's a better use of our time;
I don't understand why nobody is making a big deal about the way the State confiscated the sand bar off Ellacoya State Park. The beautiful sandy bottom is only a couple of feet deep out to about 150 yards from shore. The water is the cleanest in the lake. When I was a kid, that was the best place on the lake to swim, snorkel, fish, raft, and learn to ski. Then the state roped it all off to keep boats out. WHY? There is room there for at least fifty boats there. And there are no home owners there to bother...it is state owned shore front. The must have about four acres of water surface roped off and even on the busiest days of the year, the park guests might use a quarter of it. The entire western two thirds of the roped off area barely sees a swimmer. There is still plenty of room for the beach guests on the eastern end towards Lake Shore Park. Why do they have all that water roped off? How can we get those ropes removed and get permission to let boaters raft there again?
Let's call our reps and get a bill introduced to make Ellacoya a rafting zone again.

[lawn psycho]

I called and spoke with Ms. Patten. The #1 complaint from residents near Braun Bay is the number of boats.

Not noise, not trash. Boats. The goal of this legislation is to thin out Braun Bay.

I informed her that changing the rafting law would have no affect since most boats are not tied up anyways and some are simply not properly spaced and it's just a matter of enforcing the existing regulations.

She mentioned that porti-pottis on the fish and game land were given as an idea but apparently not well received by shore owners. Shore front owners will never be satisfied as long as anyboat is near their property IMO.

I did mention to her that the State of NH needs to acquire land to protect future access.

Please folks, give her a call and write letters. If you don't speak up now your ability to enjoy the lake will continue to be eroded.

[Misty Blue]

Sorry, i'm not a lawyer...

Does this mean that rafting control has gone from the Kona area to the whole Braun Bay from long point to Far Echo?

Sounds to me if three 3 boat rafts are on the bay, anywhere people can't form more that three 2 boat rafts in kona.

Am I reading this right?

Misty Blue

[lawn psycho]

I contacted NHMP. Here are the official complaint numbers from Braun Bay last year. Hundreds of boats over the summer and 6 complaints (safe passage violation would not be Braun Bay specific IMO).

So essentially two residents complaining and Ms. Patten is trying to pass a state law to restrict access to Braun Bay, a very popular sandbar.

For the record, Ms Patten also did not contact or consult with the NHMP about this legislation. She also is a non-boater who "hasn't been on Braun Bay in a long time." Quote is from my phone conversation with her.

Directly from NHMP:
In response to your inquiry, I offer the following;

The Marine Patrol received 10 calls for service this past boating season for the Braun Bay area. One call was simply reporting a drifting boat after a windy evening. The other nine calls were as follows:

6 Rafting Violations/Noise Complaints (includes the report of an intoxicated person)

2 reports from boaters

4 complaints from residents. One resident was responsible for three of the calls.



2 Safe Passage Violations

1 from a boater reporting skiers too close to other boats

1 from resident reporting PWC activity too close to shore

1 Sea Plane Complaint (3 calls about this same incident, 1 boater and 2 nearby residents)

[lawn psycho]

Sorry, i'm not a lawyer...

Does this mean that rafting control has gone from the Kona area to the whole Braun Bay from long point to Far Echo?

Sounds to me if three 3 boat rafts are on the bay, anywhere people can't form more that three 2 boat rafts in kona.

Am I reading this right?

Misty Blue

I am not sure what the official delineation mark would be for Braun Bay. NHMP would have to declare some kind of marker as the boundary or enforcement could get sticky real fast.

You need to contact her and let her know your stance on this issue.

[chase1]

Her news proposal:
270:133 Braun Bay. No person shall form or allow the boat which he or she is operating or in charge of to be a member of a raft consisting of 3 or more boats in Braun Bay at any time when there are already 3 rafts consisting of 3 or more boats in Braun Bay. In this section, “raft” shall have the same meaning as in RSA 270:42, IV. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a violation.

Based on the current sign at Braun Bay we are already restricted from any rafts consisting of more than 2 boats, so a raft of 3 or more boats is currently restricted. If her bill passes as is can we have up 3 rafts consisting of 3 or more boats in Braun Bay......

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2854&stc=1&d=1250705228

Chase1

[lawn psycho]

Her news proposal:
270:133 Braun Bay. No person shall form or allow the boat which he or she is operating or in charge of to be a member of a raft consisting of 3 or more boats in Braun Bay at any time when there are already 3 rafts consisting of 3 or more boats in Braun Bay. In this section, “raft” shall have the same meaning as in RSA 270:42, IV. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a violation.

Based on the current sign at Braun Bay we are already restricted from any rafts consisting of more than 2 boats, so a raft of 3 or more boats is currently restricted. If her bill passes as is can we have up 3 rafts consisting of 3 or more boats in Braun Bay......

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2854&stc=1&d=1250705228

Chase1

I got clarification from the NHMP today. Although there are many "bays" by common name on the lake, none of them have an official delineation mark as to where they begin and end. Her bill, if it were to pass, would be 100% unenforceable.

I can also tell you that NHMP stated that they do not support the bill as written and they were never consulted on the language in which it was drafted.

However, during my discussion with Ms Patten that her bill would be ineffective, she indicated her goal is to reduce the number of boats in the bay and she would amend the bill if necessary.

I actually almost didn't want to bring this up as if a legislator is too lazy/dumb as to draft an ineffective bill, it deserves to get killed in a committee and let them chew on it for another year.

If you are sitting on the sidelines, you better start writing and calling your legislator before you're impacted. It takes 5 minutes of your time.

[Pineedles]

I got clarification from the NHMP today. Although there are many "bays" by common name on the lake, none of them have an official delineation mark as to where they begin and end. Her bill, if it were to pass, would be 100% unenforceable.

I can also tell you that NHMP stated that they do not support the bill as written and they were never consulted on the language in which it was drafted.

However, during my discussion with Ms Patten that her bill would be ineffective, she indicated her goal is to reduce the number of boats in the bay and she would amend the bill if necessary.

I actually almost didn't want to bring this up as if a legislator is too lazy/dumb as to draft an ineffective bill, it deserves to get killed in a committee and let them chew on it for another year.

If you are sitting on the sidelines, you better start writing and calling your legislator before you're impacted. It takes 5 minutes of your time.



I think you have given Ms. Patten her own personal government epitaph. "too lazy/dumb" to do the people's work well! Ms. Patten, YOU ARE A LOSER and need to resign, because you don't have a clue of what a People's representative is all about! I vote for lazy, as you obviously didn't talk to too many people about this issue!

[lawn psycho]

So this bill is being heard by the Resources, Recreation, & Development committee.

See here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H22

Here is the email to the entire committee:
HouseResourcesRecreationandDevelopment@leg.state.n h.us

As always, let your voice be heard or be willing to suffer the consequences of complacency.

[Descant]

As a member of the RR & D Committee, I have not received any emails on this bill (HB1466). To address everybody on the committee requires a "~" as the first character in the address.

~HouseResourcesRecreationandDevelopment@leg.state. nh.us
This bill has not been scheduled yet, only assigned to the RR & D Committee.

Be sure your email includes your address, and Winnipesaukee connection, not just your name.

Rep. Chris Christensen
Hillsborough Dist 19
Merrimack, NH

[lawn psycho]

Chris, thank you for the heads-up. I sent a very detailed email to the committee and it did not get bounced back so I am very suprised to hear that you have not received any correspondence.

I will send it again.

[TomC]

I received this notice when i tried to send an email to the commitee:

"This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Delivery to the following recipients failed."

~houseresourcesrecreationanddevelopment@leg.state. nh.us

Update: The space in the address caused the failure since the domain would not be recognized. I cut/pasted the address directly from Descant's email, so anyone else who does that must delete the space

[Lakepilot]

I received this notice when i tried to send an email to the commitee:

"This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Delivery to the following recipients failed."

~houseresourcesrecreationanddevelopment@leg.state. nh.us

Could it be the space before nh.us

[Descant]

I have received two emails so far. One on each side of the issue. Presumably the rest of the committee has received these as well.

I cannot explain a "space" in the committee address since I cut and pasted the address from the NH.gov web site.

[lawn psycho]

I have received two emails so far. One on each side of the issue. Presumably the rest of the committee has received these as well.

I cannot explain a "space" in the committee address since I cut and pasted the address from the NH.gov web site.

Chris, can you state your view on this issue?

[Sunbeam lodge]

Hold on to whatever you have left.

After the SL bill, and this rafting bill, there are supporters that wants to regulate the size of boats and the horse power. There are folks that are under the imperssion that Winnipesaukee needs to be the next Squam lake. It will raise waterfront property values. ou can see that now as lake front properties are consolidated and sold at astronomical prices. Such as the multi million dollar sale in Meredith. I believe that was originally 4 seperate lots.

That is why we need to stand up and be counted.

BTW was this property once owned by Dennis Koslowsky of Tyco fame?

[CC185]

I'm usually a very calm person but after reading what may happen in Braun Bay I had to reply. First of all, I am a Winni vacationer and have spent the last four years renting on Bear Is which includes spending time in Braun Bay enjoying the company of fellow boaters. It makes me sick to think that NH legislators would consider a law restricting the number of boats in Braun Bay to, if I understand the proposal, less than ten boats based on four complaints, three from the same person. This insane law would take away one of the only locations to raft boats on Winni that is enjoyed by the boating public. I have never met a group of people that are more pleasent and fun to be around than the people I have met at Braun Bay. Am I missing something here? Less people in Braun Bay means what? I can't see boats from my lake house? You live on a Lake and boating/rafting are part of the life style. The way the proposed bill reads, in my opinion, is vague at best and I agree with the rest of the posts that the bill is unclear. I keep wondering how stupid politicians get in office. I can tell you that if Braun Bay rafting is curtailed my wife and I along with the friends we vacation with will head to another lake. Maybe that is your desire to limit the number of people on the lake. So I pose this question; is this what the good people in Moultonborough want? The property owners will lose income from the rentals, the grocery stores and restraunts will have fewer customers along with the gas stations, corner stores, ice cream shops, etc. I can take my hard earned dollars and spend them elsewhere. WAKE UP PEOPLE!! Maybe I was wrong about NH.........Live Free or Die for the choosen few.

[BroadHopper]

BTW was this property once owned by Dennis Koslowsky of Tyco fame?

I believe it was once own by the head of COMPAQ before it was sold to HP. He was an avid performance boat fan who sponsored the offshore boat races on Lake Winnipesaukee back in the 90's.

[tis]

That's what I recall too, the guy from Compaq, and he built the walls.

[arthurc]

I sent an Email to the Committee using the ~ symbol on Saturday evening. Within two hours I had an acknowledgement from Chris Christensen. He said he was leaning against the bill but wanted to get more info. He also indicated personal involvement by voters would go a long way to defeating it. He also would talk to anyone about it.

[OCDACTIVE]

At least Mr. Christensen is willing to listen to the people. There are too many state reps. that unfortunately are beyond ignorant to the effects of the laws they are voting on. Many seem to only vote on things without listening to the facts and understand the actual effects of the law. Or are in the pockets of well funded groups and lobbiests. This will ruin a natural resource that should be enjoyed by all. Another "feel good" piece of legislation that only stretches the MP's resources and drives people out of our state hurting the already fragile economy.

Braun Bay is one of the most visited and in my opinion one of the major reasons many people visit Lake Winnipsaukee. Why should a few complaints from less then 5 people ruin it for generations of people who have visited the lake over the decades!?!

I think we all need to band together and let our reps. know how we feel. The boating community of NH is represented very well here on Winni.com and we can make a difference. Please don't just voice your opinion. Make it known to the state legislature.

[Yosemite Sam]

There are too many state reps. that unfortunately are beyond ignorant to the effects of the laws they are voting on.


Evidently you have researched this and have the data that gives the names of the reps that are ignorant as to what laws they are voting for. Can you give me the names of the reps and what laws they don’t understand?


Or are in the pockets of well funded groups and lobbiests.


What lobbyist and well funded groups are you talking about.


If you can give me this information I will write each one of them to make sure they do their job right.

[OCDACTIVE]

Evidently you have researched this and have the data that gives the names of the reps that are ignorant as to what laws they are voting for. Can you give me the names of the reps and what laws they don’t understand?




What lobbyist and well funded groups are you talking about.


If you can give me this information I will write each one of them to make sure they do their job right.

Evidently you didn't read the beginning where the sponsor of the bill wasn't completely aware of the effects and was only sponsoring the bill based on a couple of complaints.

Statements from Ms. Patten:
1. Stated she does not know the NH afting laws (but is proposing state bill about one).

To me this would warrent as ignorant in this situation. There are plenty of other bills out there that when you speak to the reps. they are unaware of the bill no matter the substance. I dont have the time to do your research for you. sorry.

If you want to write everyone of them to go over their voting records have at it.

[Yosemite Sam]

I dont have the time to do your research for you. sorry.




Nor did you do any research for yourself!

It's not fair to make statements about a group of people and then not have the data to back it up.

This post is talking about one certain rep and you lump the rest of them in with her. That is just not fair!

[OCDACTIVE]

Nor did you do any research for yourself!

It's not fair to make statements about a group of people and then not have the data to back it up.

This post is talking about one certain rep and you lump the rest of them in with her. That is just not fair!

I do not need to justify myself to you nor will I.

However I said Many not "all". It was refreshing to see that Rep. Christensen is willing to listen to the people.

There are many issues being discussed at the state house. And I don't know if you are involved or not. However I am and from first hand experience it is unfortunate how many Reps. do not understand the legislation "not only this one" before they cast their votes. Many simply vote along party lines.

[Yosemite Sam]

I do not need to justify myself to you nor will I.

However I said Many not "all". It was refreshing to see that Rep. Christensen is willing to listen to the people.

There are many issues being discussed at the state house. And I don't know if you are involved or not. However I am and from first hand experience it is unfortunate how many Reps. do not understand the legislation "not only this one" before they cast their votes. Many simply vote along party lines.


What seems to be unfortunate here is that if a lawmaker votes for something that you don't like, then they didn't do their research properly and therefore they are ignorant.

I firmly believe that we need to give our legislative body more credit for what they do even if they don't vote our way each time.

[DEJ]

[QUOTE=Yosemite Sam;116886]What seems to be unfortunate here is that if a lawmaker votes for something that you don't like, then they didn't do their research properly and therefore they are ignorant.

That is not what OCDACTIVE said YS, I suggest you go back, read and comprehend what he posted.

[Yosemite Sam]

That is not what OCDACTIVE said YS, I suggest you go back, read and comprehend what he posted.



Please explain to me what he said that I didn't comprehend?

[DEJ]

Post #26 should explain it for you. Glad I could help you. :D

[Yosemite Sam]

Post #26 should explain it for you. Glad I could help you. :D



Thank you. Now it is clear as mud!

[DEJ]

Comprehension - the act or action of grasping with the intellect.

Not all of us have those skills evidently. :laugh:

[OCDACTIVE]

What seems to be unfortunate here is that if a lawmaker votes for something that you don't like, then they didn't do their research properly and therefore they are ignorant.

I firmly believe that we need to give our legislative body more credit for what they do even if they don't vote our way each time.


First I have utmost respect for those who are willing to serve "the people".

Also, there have been many votes against my thoughts such as the gaming bill. The data from a social perspective did not recommend it, financially it did. Although what I wanted did not happen the data was there and the current legislative body did what it thought was in the best interests of "the people".

This bill clearly is not in the best interest of the majority of the people and the sponsor themself by her own admission is not clear on the current laws yet she is presenting this bill.

Back on topic, what are your thoughts on this bill? Or are you just trying to find an argument on a topic because we haven't seen eye to eye on past issues? I noticed this thread has been up for quite awhile and you hadn't responded before... Be careful there are names for people who do that. Not saying that is the case here..... :rolleye2::confused:

[NoRegrets]

Yo-Sam. All you have to do is listen to any of the debates from the Mass race for senator and you can see how accurate OCD's observations were. Look at the change and transparancy we got. The people serving on the national level used to be the cream of the crop and the locals were not bad but not the same caliberr. I think he was being polite and thank the powers to be that there are still reps. like Mr Christensento deal with. It is impossible to get any of my reps to even talk to the little people!

[Yosemite Sam]

Be careful there are names for people who do that. Not saying that is the case here..... :rolleye2::confused:


This proves my point that if someone disagrees with you or ask you to explain something that they don't understand, then they are either ignorant or a troll.

Does asking for clarification about something make me a troll?

From what I have read here about the Braun Bay proposed bill, Ms Patten hasn't done the proper research needed to convince me that this bill is needed.

[DEJ]

You pretty much nailed it OCD.

[SIKSUKR]

Sounds like somebody might be a state represenitive or an elected official.

[OCDACTIVE]

This proves my point that if someone disagrees with you or ask you to explain something that they don't understand, then they are either ignorant or a troll.

Does asking for clarification about something make me a troll?

From what I have read here about the Braun Bay proposed bill, Ms Patten hasn't done the proper research needed to convince me that this bill is needed.

Well since we agree on this that the information provided does not warrent this new law no need to argue the point. Thanks for your support.

[Mink Islander]

Back on topic, what are your thoughts on this bill? Or are you just trying to find an argument on a topic because we haven't seen eye to eye on past issues? I noticed this thread has been up for quite awhile and you hadn't responded before... Be careful there are names for people who do that. Not saying that is the case here..... :rolleye2::confused:[/QUOTE]


In my experience on this forum, when people start questioning the motives of other forum members instead of staying "on topic", the discussion too often turns nasty and non-constructive.

Not saying that's the case here :confused::rolleye2:

[elchase]

I wrote all of the reps and got back numerous friendly replies. Sometimes it is better to just write to their personal addresses.
I think ten boats anchored all day in a cove that size is plenty...probably as much abuse as any cove can stand. Remember, we are not just talking about boats sitting inertly atop the water here. People are peeing and littering. Bilge pumps are kicking on and off. Like any place else that people frequent, lots of "stuff" is being left behind. Like any other rafting cove on the lake, the bottom is covered with sunk Budweiser empties, and worse. And therein lies the problem. Too many partiers have taken too much of a toll for too long on what used to be such a nice spot, or this bill would not have ever gotten filed. Blame them...blame yourselves.
Ten boats might not be the right number, but at least it is a start. Now the reps can argue about whether it should be ten boats or eight or sixteen, but at least we have a proposal with a fixed number, and that number can be debated and tweeked. That is how the legislative process is supposed to work.
What is your suggestion? "No limits"? "Let people decide for themselves"? Sounds familiar.
Meanwhile, a much better rafting spot continues to be roped off to all boats...right off Ellacoya State Beach in Gilford. The cleanest water in the lake. The nicest bottom. Acres and acres of 3-ft deep sandy bottom off shore of state-owned land with nobody using it. A natural flushing system (Ellacoya Brook) to wash the pee away. Ropes say "Keep out". Why? Where's the outrage?

[chipj29]

I wrote all of the reps and got back numerous friendly replies. Sometimes it is better to just write to their personal addresses.
I think ten boats anchored all day in a cove that size is plenty...probably as much abuse as any cove can stand. Remember, we are not just talking about boats sitting inertly atop the water here. People are peeing and littering. Bilge pumps are kicking on and off. Like any place else that people frequent, lots of "stuff" is being left behind. Like any other rafting cove on the lake, the bottom is covered with sunk Budweiser empties, and worse. And therein lies the problem. Too many partiers have taken too much of a toll for too long on what used to be such a nice spot, or this bill would not have ever gotten filed. Blame them...blame yourselves.
Ten boats might not be the right number, but at least it is a start. Now the reps can argue about whether it should be ten boats or eight or sixteen, but at least we have a proposal with a fixed number, and that number can be debated and tweeked. That is how the legislative process is supposed to work.
What is your suggestion? "No limits"? "Let people decide for themselves"? Sounds familiar.
Meanwhile, a much better rafting spot continues to be roped off to all boats...right off Ellacoya State Beach in Gilford. The cleanest water in the lake. The nicest bottom. Acres and acres of 3-ft deep sandy bottom off shore of state-owned land with nobody using it. A natural flushing system (Ellacoya Brook) to wash the pee away. Ropes say "Keep out". Why? Where's the outrage?

In my opinion, NO areas of the lake should be roped off to keep people out (unless for a legit reason such as milfoil abatement). The lake is for ALL people to use.

[DEJ]

What is next, a bill limiting the number of boats on the lake? This mentality of limiting everything simply because a few complain is getting ridiculous.

[SIKSUKR]

What is next, a bill limiting the number of boats on the lake? This mentality of limiting everything simply because a few complain is getting ridiculous.

Agreed,but we may have turned the corner after the event in Massachusetts yesterday.

[jmen24]

Agreed,but we may have turned the corner after the event in Massachusetts yesterday.

Agreed, as long as the supporters of the losing team don't flock here!:eek:

[Misty Blue]

elchase:

I don't know where you are finding trash, etc. in the Kona area of Braun Bay.

I live on the bay and have a view of the sand bar where those dirty boaters spend so much time. I have an intrest in the bay to say the least.

First the bay, in my opinion, is not overcrowded. Yes I have seen as many as seventy boats up in the bay in the past. There are usually fewer boats than that and they are using the sandbar for six hours a day, two days a week for eight to ten weeks a year. It doesn't seem more busy (traffic wise) than Weirs, Alton, Wolfeboro etc. Boats that are anchored don't scare me. Laws like this one would place "controls" on the bay that are in effect 24/7 from ice out to ice in. What' more, as written, it encompesses the entire bay not just the state land on the north shore.

As for trash. Where are you getting this? We conoe and kayak there all the time and I am shocked at how clean it is! I expect that the people enjoying the area self police themselves well. I have seen people asking others not to wash their boats there because they are playing in the water.

I have hunted in the Kona area my whole life and have only once or twice found human waste (poop) in the area. Same thing goes for cans.

Sorry but I think that this is just a case of a "squeeky wheel" getting the ear of a Rep. who is not up to par on the subject.

Misy Blue

[BroadHopper]

I wrote all of the reps and got back numerous friendly replies. Sometimes it is better to just write to their personal addresses.
I think ten boats anchored all day in a cove that size is plenty...probably as much abuse as any cove can stand. Remember, we are not just talking about boats sitting inertly atop the water here. People are peeing and littering. Bilge pumps are kicking on and off. Like any place else that people frequent, lots of "stuff" is being left behind. Like any other rafting cove on the lake, the bottom is covered with sunk Budweiser empties, and worse. And therein lies the problem. Too many partiers have taken too much of a toll for too long on what used to be such a nice spot, or this bill would not have ever gotten filed. Blame them...blame yourselves.
Ten boats might not be the right number, but at least it is a start. Now the reps can argue about whether it should be ten boats or eight or sixteen, but at least we have a proposal with a fixed number, and that number can be debated and tweeked. That is how the legislative process is supposed to work.
What is your suggestion? "No limits"? "Let people decide for themselves"? Sounds familiar.
Meanwhile, a much better rafting spot continues to be roped off to all boats...right off Ellacoya State Beach in Gilford. The cleanest water in the lake. The nicest bottom. Acres and acres of 3-ft deep sandy bottom off shore of state-owned land with nobody using it. A natural flushing system (Ellacoya Brook) to wash the pee away. Ropes say "Keep out". Why? Where's the outrage?

ElChase: Why don't you propose to your cronies on the legislature to swap Braun Bay for Ellacoya State Beach! That is an excellent idea!

[BernerGuy]

"No person shall form or allow the boat which he or she is operating or in charge of to be a member of a raft consisting of 3 or more boats in Braun Bay at any time when there are already 3 rafts consisting of 3 or more boats in Braun Bay. In this section, “raft” shall have the same meaning as in RSA 270:42, IV. "


Hence, if there are 2 rafts consisting of 700 boats each, then a 3rd raft can be made with an infinite number of boats and so long as a 4th raft is not made everything is fine? This bill is not something I favor, but I see this as a HUGE loophole.

[NoRegrets]

I am not a Braun Bay frequenter but it is amazing to read about the positives and then the horrors of the location. Stories from both property owners and boaters come from 2 extreme perspectives. Is everyone talking about the same place or are there 2 Braun bays?

One of the addicting features of the Winni Forum is allowing these diverse perspectives to be pondered.

One man's treasure is another's trash. There are times I love the quiet and solitude on the lake and other times I enjoy a great party. It is not possible to have both at the same time but you cannot control public resources when used in a legal way. If there is a trash issue I am sure the repeat users of the bay could organize a "clean-up" party on a periodic basis. I have seen many boaters try to pick up trash they find and take care of it later. Most of the positive posters seem reasonable.

I hope this is an effort to get an issue on the table and let the debate begin and address the real issues. I am truly against having the government create laws to manage how or when we can use public resources for enjoyment. Eventually we would end up spending all our discretionary time checking the law books for what we could or could not do before we ventured onto public property.

Thank you Massachusett*E*s voters for the backbone and sending the message across the country to stop the "Bribes for Votes" process!

[Resident 2B]

... Stories from both property owners and boaters come from 2 extreme perspectives. Is everyone talking about the same place or are there 2 Braun bays? ....

How correct NoRegrets!

Not only are there "two Braun Bays" it seems most of the same gang has a radically different view of the whole lake! You cannot go faster than they want and you cannot stop to enjoy public shallow water. I guess if you have personal phone numbers of law-makers, you get special treatment, while the rest of us just get to pay tax and usage bills.

So nice of them to let us use their lake!!!

Watch out for their next restriction! They seem to think they are special and they admit they are politically connected with access the private phone lines of law-makers. At least that is the present case. Elections can and will change things when they get out-of-hand. Just look a bit south for proof!

R2B

[chipj29]

Just another unnecessary (proposed) law, that is already covered by existing laws. What problems does it address?
1. Littering? Laws against littering are on the books.
2. Human poop in the woods? There are laws against indecent exposure on the books.
3. Dumping black/grey water? There are laws against that too.

So what exactly would this accomplish, other than to satisfy a few chronic complainers (a very small minority)?

[Yosemite Sam]

How correct NoRegrets!

Not only are there "two Braun Bays" it seems most of the same gang has a radically different view of the whole lake! You cannot go faster than they want and you cannot stop to enjoy public shallow water. I guess if you have personal phone numbers of law-makers, you get special treatment, while the rest of us just get to pay tax and usage bills.

So nice of them to let us use their lake!!!

Watch out for their next restriction! They seem to think they are special and they admit they are politically connected with access the private phone lines of law-makers. At least that is the present case. Elections can and will change things when they get out-of-hand. Just look a bit south for proof!

R2B

"they" are awful people aren't "they"

[gtagrip]

What is your suggestion? "No limits"? "Let people decide for themselves"? Sounds familiar.
?

Yup, why let the citizens of this country decide things for themselves? Big Brother is the way to go?! Let's have more government control. I guess that way of thinking worked out well for Martha Coakly didn't it! Thank You Massachusetts! NH, watch out, your next!:eek:

[Airwaves]

Here is a rough transcript of Braun Bay bill before Moultonborough Selectmen
1/7/10 by Betsy Patten. According to her testimony there is a hearing on this bill Thursday Jan 21st. I have not doubled checked that information:



Rep Patten “I also put in a bill about the rafting that is happening, how many boats are in Braun Bay and that hearing will be coming up on the 21st which is probably next week?, next week the 28th? No,

Selectman, “I think there’s already a thing on there”

Rep Patten “Well what happens is that you can, I think you can put 3 boats together in a raft, what happens at Braun Bay is that there is multiples of 3 and it just grows and grows and grows and I have gotten complaints, and I have always heard that under the law enforcement on the water, there wasn’t anything that law enforcement on the land can do unless marine patrol was out there, and so I wanted to be able to…what I put in was to limit how many rafting conglomerations can be out there, Say you can put three rafts of three out there, I don’t know where it’s going to go. The hearing is, I’m going to ask people for their input that are down in Braun Bay and we’ll see what happens with that so, every time I get a complaint it’s like lets talk about it and lets see if we can do ..mumbles….”

[Yosemite Sam]

Here is a rough transcript of Braun Bay bill before Moultonborough Selectmen
1/7/10 by Betsy Patten. According to her testimony there is a hearing on this bill Thursday Jan 21st. I have not doubled checked that information:



Rep Patten “I also put in a bill about the rafting that is happening, how many boats are in Braun Bay and that hearing will be coming up on the 21st which is probably next week?, next week the 28th? No,

Selectman, “I think there’s already a thing on there”

Rep Patten “Well what happens is that you can, I think you can put 3 boats together in a raft, what happens at Braun Bay is that there is multiples of 3 and it just grows and grows and grows and I have gotten complaints, and I have always heard that under the law enforcement on the water, there wasn’t anything that law enforcement on the land can do unless marine patrol was out there, and so I wanted to be able to…what I put in was to limit how many rafting conglomerations can be out there, Say you can put three rafts of three out there, I don’t know where it’s going to go. The hearing is, I’m going to ask people for their input that are down in Braun Bay and we’ll see what happens with that so, every time I get a complaint it’s like lets talk about it and lets see if we can do ..mumbles….”

Thank you Airwaves!

Information like that is what is needed to carry on a good debate about the Braun Bay Bill.

What Rep Patten stated makes since because she is asking for input and is collecting data. She doesn't claim to be a know it all and is open for suggestions.

Good job Airwaves!

[OCDACTIVE]

I am not a "rules" gureu when it comes to the legislature and committees however can't you hold discussions in committee without proposing a new law???? wouldn't that be the wiser move? and save the citizens less tax money in paperwork and having to hold hearings etc? Especially if you really aren't sure what it is you are proposing?

[robmac]

I was under the impression that you can and should.

[breathe easy]

Here is the link to the bills status:
HB 1466 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/memberbill_status.aspx?lsr=2182&ecode=376041#nl)

No hearing date has been scheduled as far as I can tell.

[lawn psycho]

Doing some more background research on rafting areas on Lake Winnipesaukee, here are the NRZs for the lake. I grouped them by Town. It appears those in Moultonborough feel they have exclusive rights to their little areas. That or they want to lead the lake in excluding those nasty boat people.

What I take from this is:
1. Seems like there must be a lot of prime swimming spots I need to check out this summer;)
2. Many of these are totally non-enforceable as written and would not stand a chance if a violation was written for rafting. Laws have to be precise and there is no “spirit of the law” or “intent of the law” to get a conviction.

Example 1: Buzzell Cove, Green’s Basin, and East Cove are known to whom? There is no officially recognized area of any of these locations nor are they defined. MP could put up markers and it still would not hold up in court. Any of these that use the name of an unofficial bay or cove would get tossed out of court. Said another way, none of the bays or coves are officially recognized by the State of NH.

Example 2: The word “about" which I have bolded would kill this one. It either is or isn’t. Brickyard Cove, encompassing a described area that would run south of an imaginary line running about 2,300 feet from the northern tip of Clay Point to the southern tip of Barndoor Island;
So Officer, did you measure the line? No? Did you locate the precise Northern Tip? No? Where is Brickyard Cove officially recognized by the State of NH? It’s not? Dismissed.

Looks like you better have all the area tax maps available in your boat instead of a map. I don’t think those would hold up either. Imagine if you designated speed limits on city streets based on lots lines rather than signs. Gimme a break.

Saf-C 407.03 Prohibited Areas.

(a) Rafting as defined in RSA 270:42, V, shall be prohibited in the following areas of Lake Winnipesaukee unless covered by one of the exceptions specified in RSA 270:45:

MOULTONBOROUGH (6 areas)
(1) The Kona Mansion, so-called, in Moultonborough, east of an imaginary line running north and south from the red top mark buoy located on the western tip of Avery's Point on the south to the Kona Farm gas docks on the north;
(4) Braun Bay, within 300 feet of both fish and game property lines, to be delineated by marine patrol with orange mooring balls;
(5) Braun Bay, at a distance less than 75 feet from shore, to be delineated by marine patrol with orange mooring balls;
(8) The entire area known as Green’s Basin, in the town of Moultonborough;
(10) The entire area known as Buzzell Cove, in the town of Moultonborough;
(13) The entire area known as East Cove, in the town of Moultonborough;

ALTON (4 areas)
(2) Small's Cove in Alton, southwest of an imaginary line running southeast-northwest from light 75 on the northwestern end to the northernmost point of land marking the entrance to the first cove, south of Small's Cove on the south;
(6) The area known as Cedar Cove, specifically identified as the area opposite Plum Island which borders the town of Alton tax map 18, lot numbers 12 through 20 and 55;
(11) Brickyard Cove, encompassing a described area that would run south of an imaginary line running about 2,300 feet from the northern tip of Clay Point to the southern tip of Barndoor Island;
(15) Roberts Cove, in the town of Alton, encompassing a described area as between the body of water in Roberts Cove, east of a line running north to south from the westerly boundary of lot 41 on tax map 48 to the westerly boundary of lot 1 on tax map 48.

MEREDITH (2 areas)

(12) The entire area known as Black Cove, in the town of Meredith, encompassing an area in Meredith tax map S-7, east from the northern most point of Lot 5-1 to the southeastern most point of Lot 1;
(14) The entire area known as Advent Cove, in the town of Meredith; and

TUFTONBOROUGH (2 areas)
(7) The area of Winter Harbor from the southern boundary of the town of Tuftonboro tax map 63, lot number 14 to the southern boundary of tax map 15, lot number 20.
(9) Orchard Cove, on the east side of Cow Island, in the town of Tuftonboro;

GILFORD (1 area)
(3) Wentworth Cove, southwest of Governor's Island Bridge west of an imaginary north-south line, running from light 43 on the north to the black top buoy, located off Wentworth Cove Estates on the south;

[lawn psycho]

I wrote all of the reps and got back numerous friendly replies. Sometimes it is better to just write to their personal addresses.
I think ten boats anchored all day in a cove that size is plenty...probably as much abuse as any cove can stand. Remember, we are not just talking about boats sitting inertly atop the water here. People are peeing and littering. Bilge pumps are kicking on and off. Like any place else that people frequent, lots of "stuff" is being left behind. Like any other rafting cove on the lake, the bottom is covered with sunk Budweiser empties, and worse. And therein lies the problem. Too many partiers have taken too much of a toll for too long on what used to be such a nice spot, or this bill would not have ever gotten filed. Blame them...blame yourselves.
Ten boats might not be the right number, but at least it is a start. Now the reps can argue about whether it should be ten boats or eight or sixteen, but at least we have a proposal with a fixed number, and that number can be debated and tweeked. That is how the legislative process is supposed to work.
What is your suggestion? "No limits"? "Let people decide for themselves"? Sounds familiar.
Meanwhile, a much better rafting spot continues to be roped off to all boats...right off Ellacoya State Beach in Gilford. The cleanest water in the lake. The nicest bottom. Acres and acres of 3-ft deep sandy bottom off shore of state-owned land with nobody using it. A natural flushing system (Ellacoya Brook) to wash the pee away. Ropes say "Keep out". Why? Where's the outrage?

You are trying to give a solution to something where there is no problem.

OMG:eek::eek::eek::eek: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Honey, did you see that:eek::eek:!!!!, there's boats out there on the water. Quick, call the Marine Patrol!!!

All those "partiers" in Braun Bay are mostly families enjoying the few warm days of summer. Swimming, sun bathing, socializing. Widespread drunken frat party, we all know that's not even close to reality.

If water from bilge pumps are an issue, then the State of NH should require every private dock to be pulled so their bilge pump isn't cycling 24/7 for the entire boating season. Being realistic, that "bilge" water that you want to somehow relate too toxic waste is the very water that came from the lake. Wow what a half-brained fear-mongering attempt to misinform.

If someone is going to put trash in the lake, they will do it whether that are rafting at a sandbar or not. I am among the many who will stop my boat to pluck something out of the water. The problem with you making a statement like this is you are using a generalization with no factual evidence. My experience is that most people are careful to keep trash out of the water.

In fact, I would argue that lakefront or near lake front properties add more to water quality issues than every boat on the lake. Your roof, house, and all impervious surfaces prevent water from penetrating the ground and getting filtered. Your septic system is your indirect yellow and brown contributions to the lake. Your driveway and the salt and sand from nearby roads that makes into the lake are not exactly desirable. The oil that is on your driveway that gets washed into the lake. Sealcoat your driveway, yep, that's harmful too. It's seems like the ban should be those who LIVE near the lake then there is no problem.....

Your post demonstrates to me that all the red herring issues you raise for Braun Bay are not a "problem" as long as it get's moved to another area of the lake so you don't have to see boats in the Bay. The NHMP data also shows your complaints are not backed by facts.

I agree that parts/all of Ellacoya could be opened up to boaters.

[Yosemite Sam]

1. Seems like there must be a lot of prime swimming spots I need to check out this summer;)
2. Many of these are totally non-enforceable as written and would not stand a chance if a violation was written for rafting. Laws have to be precise and there is no “spirit of the law” or “intent of the law” to get a conviction.


You tell em psycho, you're going to spend your vacation next summer going from prime swimming spot to prime swimming spot on Lake winni and if anyone says anything to you about it being a restricted area, they had better watch out.

I hope the rest of your family can enjoy what this fantastic Lake has to offer while you are looking for trouble.

Have fun!

[lawn psycho]

You tell em psycho, you're going to spend your vacation next summer going from prime swimming spot to prime swimming spot on Lake winni and if anyone says anything to you about it being a restricted area, they had better watch out.

I hope the rest of your family can enjoy what this fantastic Lake has to offer while you are looking for trouble.

Have fun!

You're right Sam, I am going to use those sites as excuse to explore other areas of the lake. That's EXACTLY what I am going to do. They are almost like a an 'X' on a treasure map. Apparently exercising my civil liberities by traveling and swimming on public property is "looking for trouble" to you.

Don't get miffed at me because many of the NRZ locations on the books are poorly written, unenforceable laws. Go speak to your legislator who voted for/against it.

[Yosemite Sam]

You're right Sam, I am going to use those sites as excuse to explore other areas of the lake. That's EXACTLY what I am going to do. They are almost like a an 'X' on a treasure map. Apparently exercising my civil liberities by traveling and swimming on public property is "looking for trouble" to you.

Don't get miffed at me because many of the NRZ locations on the books are poorly written, unenforceable laws. Go speak to your legislator who voted for/against it.


You’re right, my wording was wrong, your civil liberties allow you to swim on public property. I should have said: you will tell them how poorly written, and unenforceable their laws are.

[Resident 2B]

I just hope the casual readers of this forum can see what a small few are attempting to do to pass laws to further restrict the public's use of a public lake. They won round one, a subject that I can not mention because it is closed, and now they are going for another win. They use personal connections to law-makers to spin lies and blow smoke. Very un-American, in my opinion.

YS, sorry I did not put "they" in large font red. Perhaps you can re-size the words and color them in again. Your help is deeply appreciated! :rolleye2:

R2B

[elchase]

I can read the headlines now. "ACTIVISTS TRY TO CHANGE RAFTING LAW IN THE DEAD OF WINTER! An activist organization has filed a bill that would limit rafting in Braun Bay without supporting data!..."
There are nuts in every tree who think they are entitled to more than they have earned. Let the people who live on Braun Bay have some peace. Your right to swing your fist ends at their nose. They paid top dollar for their homes and pay a disproportionate amount of tax on it. Their higher than deserved taxes fund your school systems, pay for your police protection, and pave your roads. Don't kill the golden egg laying goose. All they ask is that you don't anchor in front of their houses all day, turn up your radios, pee in their front yard, and leave your trash behind when you go. If one of your neighbors drove up and parked in front of your mobile home, turned up the radio, started opening up Bud's one after the next and peeing on your rhododendrons, then drove away after 8 hours leaving a pile of beer cans behind, you'd be the first to call to the trailer park manager and ask for relief. He might say "but the land in here is all common and the other residents have the same right to use it", but you know that you'd never accept that. So why should they? Treat people with respect and they will return the favor. This rule applies to other things as well (and you know what I mean). If the people of Braun Bay had been treated with respect the way you claim, then this would not have become an issue. Point your blame where it belongs...at the perpetrators, not at the victims. That is the Republican way.

[DEJ]

Here are some facts from people who actually took the time to find out the facts vs. speculation.

From post #7 in this thread
I called and spoke with Ms. Patten. The #1 complaint from residents near Braun Bay is the number of boats.

Not noise, not trash. Boats. The goal of this legislation is to thin out Braun Bay.

From post #9 in this thread
I contacted NHMP. Here are the official complaint numbers from Braun Bay last year.
6 Rafting Violations/Noise Complaints (includes the report of an intoxicated person)
2 reports from boaters
4 complaints from residents. One resident was responsible for three of the calls.

[OCDACTIVE]

Here are some facts from people who actually took the time to find out the facts vs. speculation.

From post #7 in this thread
I called and spoke with Ms. Patten. The #1 complaint from residents near Braun Bay is the number of boats.

Not noise, not trash. Boats. The goal of this legislation is to thin out Braun Bay.

From post #9 in this thread
I contacted NHMP. Here are the official complaint numbers from Braun Bay last year.
6 Rafting Violations/Noise Complaints (includes the report of an intoxicated person)
2 reports from boaters
4 complaints from residents. One resident was responsible for three of the calls.

Come on DEJ.......... Don't let facts cloud the issue...... :laugh:

I wonder how many of those with opinions for the bill actually visit braun bay?

[Yosemite Sam]

Come on DEJ.......... Don't let facts cloud the issue...... :laugh:

I wonder how many of those with opinions for the bill actually visit braun bay?



So 6 Rafting Violations/Noise Complaints (includes the report of an intoxicated person) and 4 complaints from residents from Braun Bay means nothing to you? These complaints/violations are the ones that are on record, but I’m sure there have been confrontations between land owners and boaters that are not part of this data.

I really think that you are not giving any thought at all as to why this could be a problem to the owners of lake front property in this area.

In your mind, just how many rafting violations and complaints from residents does it take to get something done so that landowners and boaters can coexist?

[OCDACTIVE]

So 6 Rafting Violations/Noise Complaints (includes the report of an intoxicated person) and 4 complaints from residents from Braun Bay means nothing to you? These complaints/violations are the ones that are on record, but I’m sure there have been confrontations between land owners and boaters that are not part of this data.

I really think that you are not giving any thought at all as to why this could be a problem to the owners of lake front property in this area.

In your mind, just how many rafting violations and complaints from residents does it take to get something done so that landowners and boaters can coexist?

you may want to correct that.. 4 complaints, 3 from the same person = 2 complaints.. Just a heads up.

You don't pass laws and change something that has been in use for decades where there are already protection laws in place because 2 lake front owners had an issue. Address that issue and move on. No need for big brother to police us all. So until the MP says there is an issue and new regulations need to be passed for safety and the bays protection, I don't believe there is an additional need for repetative laws..

Now a question for you:

would you rather have our MP officers cracking down on major safety viloations, such as BUI, or sitting in braun bay with a tape measure?

[OCDACTIVE]

One other point for those reading this that don't visit the bay or haven't been there.

The sand bar sits in front of undeveloped land. This area is NOT on someones "front lawn" as some have claimed. Only on the busiest boating days of the year does the anchorage spread beyond this "non-developed area" where there are NO houses.
Carry on

[DEJ]

1 last point for those reading this that don't visit the bay or haven't been there.

The sand bar sits in front of undeveloped land. This area is NOT on someones "front lawn" as some have claimed. Only on the busiest boating days of the year does the anchorage spread beyond this "non-developed area" where there are NO houses.
Carry on


Don't cloud the issue with facts OCD. :D

[OCDACTIVE]

Don't cloud the issue with facts OCD. :D

Those always seem to get in the way of Feel good legislation like this.

[Yosemite Sam]

Now a question for you:

would you rather have our MP officers cracking down on major safety viloations, such as BUI, or sitting in braun bay with a tape measure?


You may want to correct that to read.... would you rather have our MP officers cracking down on major safety violations, such as BUI and Speeding. And the answer to that is “Yes”.

I don’t want a law to ban boaters and swimmers from having fun on any Lake in NH. I just think that landowners should have their rights to peace and quiet during the summer months just as I’m sure you want at your home year round. If only one resident has a complaint, to me that is enough to try to get something done. It’s unfortunate that it had to get to the drafting of a law, but to that resident it means everything in the world to them.

[OCDACTIVE]

You may want to correct that to read.... would you rather have our MP officers cracking down on major safety violations, such as BUI and Speeding. And the answer to that is “Yes”.

I don’t want a law to ban boaters and swimmers from having fun on any Lake in NH. I just think that landowners should have their rights to peace and quiet during the summer months just as I’m sure you want at your home year round. If only one resident has a complaint, to me that is enough to try to get something done. It’s unfortunate that it had to get to the drafting of a law, but to that resident it means everything in the world to them.

I am on the lake front and have had plenty of issues with fisherman hitting my boats and docks by overcasting. (in some cases ripping my cover and vinyl) I see this as an inconvenience as being on the lake front. Should I complain then have a represenative draft a bill to ban lake shore fishing because I find this to disturb my piece and quiet?

[Yosemite Sam]

I am on the lake front and have had plenty of issues with fisherman hitting my boats and docks by overcasting. (in some cases ripping my cover and vinyl) I see this as an inconvenience as being on the lake front. Should I complain then have a represenative draft a bill to ban lake shore fishing because I find this to disturb my piece and quiet?


What does "I am on the lake front" mean?

Do you own Lake front property or are you using public boating facilities?

[OCDACTIVE]

What does "I am on the lake front" mean?

Do you own Lake front property or are you using public boating facilities?

Family owns property but since I am not "the owner" I didn't want to portray that I am.

[lawn psycho]

I can read the headlines now. "ACTIVISTS TRY TO CHANGE RAFTING LAW IN THE DEAD OF WINTER! An activist organization has filed a bill that would limit rafting in Braun Bay without supporting data!..."
There are nuts in every tree who think they are entitled to more than they have earned. Let the people who live on Braun Bay have some peace. Your right to swing your fist ends at their nose. They paid top dollar for their homes and pay a disproportionate amount of tax on it. Their higher than deserved taxes fund your school systems, pay for your police protection, and pave your roads. Don't kill the golden egg laying goose. All they ask is that you don't anchor in front of their houses all day, turn up your radios, pee in their front yard, and leave your trash behind when you go. If one of your neighbors drove up and parked in front of your mobile home, turned up the radio, started opening up Bud's one after the next and peeing on your rhododendrons, then drove away after 8 hours leaving a pile of beer cans behind, you'd be the first to call to the trailer park manager and ask for relief. He might say "but the land in here is all common and the other residents have the same right to use it", but you know that you'd never accept that. So why should they? Treat people with respect and they will return the favor. This rule applies to other things as well (and you know what I mean). If the people of Braun Bay had been treated with respect the way you claim, then this would not have become an issue. Point your blame where it belongs...at the perpetrators, not at the victims. That is the Republican way.

el, I live a few miles/trailer parks over from "W". Ever been on Ocean Ave in Kennebunkport? Those oceanfront homes aren't cheap (because they upgraded to double wides) and they deal with tourist traffic ALL DAY. And you know what, they knew it was a sightseeing/tourist area and they adjust too it. They get a nice view of the ocean without leaving the trailer park. That view has a price though......

Paying higher taxes does not give you any additional entitlements. I would have expected a rational person to understand that. If you bought waterfront property and live near the lake tourist area and that is what you are entitled too. No refunds or rainchecks. Extreme seclusion and privacy are not included.

The Bay has additional boats for fewer than a dozen weekends for maybe 5-6 hours. Your claim of "hardship" doesn't hold water (or ice today).

And here's something that you may find interesting. In 2003 a study was done that shows boating/swimming/fishing in the State of NH provides more revenue and jobs than do waferfront property taxes.
http://www.nhlakes.org/docs/EcoStudyPhaseII.pdf

I'm sure the hotel owners around the lake sure appreciate my business to help them pay their taxes too;)

[lawn psycho]

If only one resident has a complaint, to me that is enough to try to get something done. It’s unfortunate that it had to get to the drafting of a law, but to that resident it means everything in the world to them.

Say what?!?

What needs to happen is development stopped. Maybe it's those on the shorefront that should realize that they are part of the problem. In fact I'm sure we can dig up some old maps and prove that many homes are not where they are supposed to be or that they never properly aquired development or land rights.

Protect a natural and economic resource. Ban all future contruction, additions. No additional docks.

There. Problem solved.

[Yosemite Sam]

Family owns property but since I am not "the owner" I didn't want to portray that I am.


Fisherman are hitting your boats on your family owned docks by overcasting. (in some cases ripping your cover and vinyl) and you only see this as an inconvience for being on the lake front.

I really hate to say this because it might get me banned from this forum, but you are living in a fantasy world with some of your comments and it shows just how immature you really are?

[DEJ]

YS, please think before you post. Your comment was completely uncalled for.

[OCDACTIVE]

Fisherman are hitting your boats on your family owned docks by overcasting. (in some cases ripping your cover and vinyl) and you only see this as an inconvience for being on the lake front.

I really hate to say this because it might get me banned from this forum, but you are living in a fantasy world with some of your comments and it shows just how immature you really are?

I guess some of us are here to discuss the issues and have more of a tolerance for our fellow boater and neighbor.

It is an inconvenience... Did I say something??? Absolutely when I saw it occur. Other times I just find tangled line and hook in my cover. Unfortunately not all of us convey the same courtesies as we would to our fellow man. I realize being on the lake shore has its advantages and its disadvantages. Do I feel I need a law to penalize every fisherman? Absolutley not. For the one or two people who are ignorant shouldn't ruin it for everyone else. So I don't feel a new law should be placed on the entire group. Also because I am already protected by one "destruction of personal property".

I don't think you should be banned from the site. Your comments are entertaining and you are showing your true colors... People can make their own judgments.

[BroadHopper]

I am on the lake front and have had plenty of issues with fisherman hitting my boats and docks by overcasting. (in some cases ripping my cover and vinyl) I see this as an inconvenience as being on the lake front. Should I complain then have a represenative draft a bill to ban lake shore fishing because I find this to disturb my piece and quiet?

My family owned lakefront property since 1892. We see lots of issues in front of the property, but we expect it. After all, the lake is a public park.
If we banned boaters from the lake then I guess folks that live next to public parks can ban baseball because it hit their cars and building. Ban basketball because of the constant noise from dribbling. Ban kiddie rides because of the constant squelling of happy kids.

OMG! I just found the next agenda with these folks! God forbid!

I just don't like folks who move here in the past decade tell me what I can and can not do on this lake. I've been here since birth!

[Woodsy]

First and foremost....

The lake DOES NOT BELONG TO THE FORTUNATE FEW WHO OWN WATERFRONT PROPERTY!!! No offense to any waterfront owning member here but your littoral rights to the lake stop at the high water mark and your dock.... there is ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to peace and quiet when you abut a public park!!!

It is truly amazing to me how people do not see the big picture... every liberty you take away diminishes the whole lake!

We already have a push to make the law should not be mentioned permanent... despite the NHMP saying in an article today that there isnt enough data yet to make a determination!

We have a push in Gilford to shut down Ames Farm permanently using zoning regulations... arguably the best public access boat ramp on the lake!

The towns that do have boat launches either charge a fee or ar limited to town residents only.

We have a no rafting law already that limits the PUBLIC use of the best sandbars on the lake for anchoring and swimming... and now there is push to further restrict the publics RIGHT to use the lake!!

What message does this send to the tourists who come here to visit? How are these short sighted rules going to effect the regions economy? Eventually people will go to places where they are made to feel welcome...

We are already seeing the effects of this during Bike Week... the bikers have been made to feel unwelcome by a host of local ordinances, price gouging, and an overwhelming police presence especially in Laconia. As a result, bikers have been going elsewhere, other places have picked up the slack.... and thier tourist $$$!

The boaters will go elsewhere as well.... No way to easily launch your boat and park the truck & trailer, dont go over 45... you might get a ticket! No fun for your kids when you cant anchor anywhere shallow and go swimming.

It all adds up to big bunch of "why bother going to Winni.... its no fun" and that adds up to hospitality businesses closing, a decrease in property values and an increase in property taxes to make up for loss of revenue!

We are already seeing the effects of this.... sad!

Woodsy

[Yosemite Sam]

I guess some of us are here to discuss the issues and have more of a tolerance for our fellow boater and neighbor.

It is an inconvenience... Did I say something??? Absolutely when I saw it occur. Other times I just find tangled line and hook in my cover. Unfortunately not all of us convey the same courtesies as we would to our fellow man. I realize being on the lake shore has its advantages and its disadvantages. Do I feel I need a law to penalize every fisherman? Absolutley not. For the one or two people who are ignorant shouldn't ruin it for everyone else. So I don't feel a new law should be placed on the entire group. Also because I am already protected by one "destruction of personal property".

I don't think you should be banned from the site. Your comments are entertaining and you are showing your true colors... People can make their own judgments.

I'll bet that if your parents knew that you were writing such nonsense they would spank your bottom.

You are very lucky to have parents that own lake front property and that you can use it whenever you want to.
I'll bet that if you had the responsibilities that go with owning that land you would have a different attitude.

Now that I know you use your parents property and probably live miles away from it, I'll leave you alone because I thought I was talking to a person who might have worked hard to own their own water front on Lake Winni.

You had me fooled!

[DEJ]

All I can say is WOW! :confused:

[OCDACTIVE]

YS. Again I do not have to answer to you nor do you have a clue what you are talking about. I said Family.....

I have consistently tried to keep this on topic and you are consistently trying to make it personal. Time to take a step back and relax.

There's a bridge somewhere you can go sit under and ponder that.

[NoRegrets]

Yo-Sam? Is your intent to shut down another thread?
I enjoy all the perspectives but please do not risk everyones enjoyment or addiction by goading in this mannor....

Do we need more laws or can common sense be used?

[Misty Blue]

Before the Kona area (not the whole bay) in Braun Bay was a no rafting area there were a bunch of boats rafted together all packed in to the sand bar in Braun Bay.

Since the no rafting zone became law and the anchorage spacing was enforced we have the same number of boats (well almost) and now they are spread out of the sandbar area all over the top of the bay, even behind Glines island now.

They (the boaters) seem to want to keep out of the landowners way and still anchor in undeveloped areas when they can. I expect that they don't want to anchor in front of my house any more than I want them to do so.

I think that limiting access to Braun Bay sandbar will cause the boaters to spread out to other places where they will be even less popular.

I plan to be at the selectman's meeting next Thursday the 28th at 7 PM. You have to pre register if you want to speak prior to 4PM on Monday.

Be careful of what you ask for.

Misty Blue.

[Resident 2B]

I'll bet that if your parents knew that you were writing such nonsense they would spank your bottom.

You are very lucky to have parents that own lake front property and that you can use it whenever you want to.
I'll bet that if you had the responsibilities that go with owning that land you would have a different attitude.

Now that I know you use your parents property and probably live miles away from it, I'll leave you alone because I thought I was talking to a person who might have worked hard to own their own water front on Lake Winni.

You had me fooled!

Well, aren't you so special! You only talk to land owners that have worked hard to own water front on Lake Winni.

I thought this was a forum open to all who are interested in talking about the lake in a civil manner.

R2B (A person who worked hard to own water front on Lake Winni)

[gtagrip]

My family owned lakefront property since 1892. We see lots of issues in front of the property, but we expect it. After all, the lake is a public park.
If we banned boaters from the lake then I guess folks that live next to public parks can ban baseball because it hit their cars and building. Ban basketball because of the constant noise from dribbling. Ban kiddie rides because of the constant squelling of happy kids.

OMG! I just found the next agenda with these folks! God forbid!

I just don't like folks who move here in the past decade tell me what I can and can not do on this lake. I've been here since birth!

Or, like the people that by next to Logan airport and then want runways shut down because the jets are loud. Duh!

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Elchase
Let the people who live on Braun Bay have some peace.

I was unaware that anyone LIVES ON Braun Bay.

I was always under the impression the waters are owned by everyone in the state for the enjoyment of ALL...

If we want to carry out El's logic to the extreme then Lake Winnipesaukee is owned privately by the waterfront property owners and no one else is allowed...that would include island residents unless they also own shorefront on the mainland.

Let us waterfront owners have some peace!!! :rolleye2:

[gtagrip]

Originally posted by Elchase


I was always under the impression the waters are owned by everyone in the state for the enjoyment of ALL...:

I also think this was El's position on that other law we cannot speak about. Can we say hypocrite!:rolleye2:

[BroadHopper]

Or, like the people that by next to Logan airport and then want runways shut down because the jets are loud. Duh!

And like the folks who recently move to Meredith and want the church to stop ringing the bells every hour. The church been doing this since the 1700's. Remember that El?

And the folks that moved into a development next to the Hudson Speedway and they wanted the speedway shut down because of the noise.

And the folks that banned the Pledge of Allegiance and prayers from schools.

This will never stop. We will no longer be the land of the free. We have lost our bravery.

[wifi]

And like the folks who recently move to Meredith and want the church to stop ringing the bells every hour.....

The same folks that were pressing for the fire house not to blow its horn on fires. :eek:

Actually, its a great notification for non firefighters, so they can gawk at that unmentionable thing come out of the 'barn' :laugh:

[Breakwater]

Lets look at the proposed law...

270:133 Braun Bay. No person shall form or allow the boat which he or she is operating or in charge of to be a member of a raft consisting of 3 or more boats in Braun Bay at any time when there are already 3 rafts consisting of 3 or more boats in Braun Bay. In this section, “raft” shall have the same meaning as in RSA 270:42, IV. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a violation.

It is my recoomendation, as a user of the bay, that we support this bill!!! Why?

As written, this bill seems to allow for three rafts of three of three boats which is currently illegal! It does not speak to any of the current rafting practices in Braun Bay! If everyone else (other than the first three rafts of three) continues to limit their raft to 2 boats and maintains the proper spacing, Rep. Patten has simply allowed more boats in the "No Rafting Zone".

My question for Rep. Patten is:

1. Do our elected officials and adjacent property owners remember the Braun Bay of the 1980' and early 90's?? It has come a long way. Maybe they should do their homework!

2.Which law do we obey? RSA 270:44 or the proposed 270:133

"RSA 270:44-Size of Rafts; Separation of Rafts and Single Boats. – Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, no person shall, in a prohibited location or at a prohibited time:
I. Form or allow the boat which he is operating or in charge of to be a member of a raft consisting of 3 or more boats;" (allows a max of 2 boats)

Does she now intend to allow rafts of 3 boats?

3. Do you remember when Braun Bay was regulated like every other zone in the State where rafting had to be 150' from shore? After several hearings conducted by the Dept. of Safety at Moultonborough Academy, the administrative rule for Braun Bay was changed to allow anchoring w/in 75' of shore. The reasoning for this was the fact that the prime anchoring area abutted State property. This was viewed as a compromise between the competing uses of our public waters. A compromise that RSA 270:1, II and III declares.

270:1 Declaration of Policy. –

II. In the interest of maintaining the residential, recreational and scenic values which New Hampshire public waters provide to residents of the state and to the promotion of our tourist industry, and in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances. Such provisions shall take into consideration the following: the variety of special uses appropriate to our lakes, public safety, protection of environment and water quality, and the continued nurture of New Hampshire's threatened and endangered species.
III. It is the intent of the legislature to recognize in RSA 270:42-46 that the cumulative effect of boats congregated as ""rafts'' differs from that of the same number of boats scattered and, therefore, requires specific appropriate regulation.

Let's pass this legislation and prove a point!

Sorry for the long post-

[lawn psycho]

Breakwater, thanks for the Declaration of policy. That is great info.

And you are correct that this bill is a reversal of the current Braun Bay policy. Someone raised this issue previously as well.

However, simply letting this thing pass would embolden other waterfront owners to think that they can draft a bill on a post-it note to their local rep and push these things thorugh. I beleive what is important is for people to write the committee and their local reps so they understand that rafting is not some evil thug activity by boaters.

Look at the vitriole from a poster above regarding "trash" in the sandbar. It's far from reality but you will get a non-boater committee member to get an image in their head.

We need to educate the committee so that when this or other similar bills get proffered, legislators understand the over amplification of issues from shorefront owners. Feed the committee a steady dose of the facts and it puts large holes in the sails of the shorefront owners argument.

[VtSteve]

Most that support this new Bill don't seem to know much about it, but the do like new bills :emb:

It seems that many of the people supporting new laws limiting access or activities on the lake are not only angry, but have some very prejudiced views towards a variety of groups.

I wonder how many people read this post, and thought "Hmmmmmm...."

"The sand bar sits in front of undeveloped land. This area is NOT on someones "front lawn" as some have claimed. Only on the busiest boating days of the year does the anchorage spread beyond this "non-developed area" where there are NO houses.
Carry on"

It would seem that once again, facts defy rumor.

[Breakwater]

I agree. We need to put a stop to this. I was just on a late nite rant!

[VitaBene]

I'll bet that if your parents knew that you were writing such nonsense they would spank your bottom.

You are very lucky to have parents that own lake front property and that you can use it whenever you want to.
I'll bet that if you had the responsibilities that go with owning that land you would have a different attitude.

Now that I know you use your parents property and probably live miles away from it, I'll leave you alone because I thought I was talking to a person who might have worked hard to own their own water front on Lake Winni.

You had me fooled!

Time to put those guns down!

[NoBozo]

270:133 Braun Bay. No person shall form or allow the boat which he or she is operating or in charge of to be a member of a raft consisting of 3 or more boats in Braun Bay at any time when there are already 3 rafts consisting of 3 or more boats in Braun Bay. In this section, “raft” shall have the same meaning as in RSA 270:42, IV. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a violation.

I think the wording here is very poor. 3..OR More..boats in a raft is prohibted by the strict interpretation of the Wording. This means TWO boats Max in a raft. The wording in the proposed bill is going to lead to endless speculation as to what it means when different people read it....MPs, boaters, shoreside residents, PHDs..etc.

If the intent of the bill is to limit the number of boats in a raft to TWO boats max..lets just say so. ..it should be in PLAIN English. :D :D NB

PS: I've never been to Braun Bay before so as to notice all the Mayhem, but I intend to have a look next summer...just a LOOK, I'm not going to stop and anchor. :)

[BroadHopper]

It is very nice area. It's a bit crowded on weekends. But most boaters are very friendly and will help out in anchoring your boat. It is very clean, contrary to others opinion. Otherwise, I and others will not allow our children/grandchildren to swim. Sometimes on weekend you get the college crowd and they tend to get a little rowdy. Just a call to the MP usually does the trick.

I usually avoid it on weekends and holidays as I don't like crowds. It is perfect on weekdays and during the month of September.

Back in the days the sand bar in front of Ellacoya was very popular. Many of us learn to water ski there. Unfortunately the state added two spar buoys and boats are not allowed between the buoys and the beach.

[lawn psycho]

PS: I've never been to Braun Bay before so as to notice all the Mayhem, but I intend to have a look next summer...just a LOOK, I'm not going to stop and anchor. :)

Not exactly words the bills proponents want to hear :) You can also check out the other NRZs above as they are nice places to swim....

Drop anchor and stay awhile. You can meet some fun people out there.

[Formula]

Not exactly words the bills proponents want to hear :) You can also check out the other NRZs above as they are nice places to swim....

Drop anchor and stay awhile. You can meet some fun people out there.

I just went through Brawn Bay and i do not see what all the fuss is about...I saw no boats rafting:)

[lawn psycho]

I just went through Brawn Bay and i do not see what all the fuss is about...I saw no boats rafting:)

So what would happen if a bunch of bob houses set-up on Braun Bay and tied their places together with rope?

[elchase]

So what would happen if a bunch of bob houses set-up on Braun Bay and tied their places together with rope?

I'm sure that if you start recruiting people to gather there in large numbers, party obnoxiously all day with loud music, pee on the ice, and leave your garbage behind, then it will just be a matter of time before you excite a bill aimed at that. Then the rest of your friends on this forum will be up in arms about our "nanny" legislature passing unnecessary laws that take away your freedoms, and they'll all be overlooking the real problem...you.

[lawn psycho]

I'm sure that if you start recruiting people to gather there in large numbers, party obnoxiously all day with loud music, pee on the ice, and leave your garbage behind, then it will just be a matter of time before you excite a bill aimed at that. Then the rest of your friends on this forum will be up in arms about our "nanny" legislature passing unnecessary laws that take away your freedoms, and they'll all be overlooking the real problem...you.

I see the good in things. Someone in the bob house is spending time outdoors, enjoying the lake. Spending money at local businesses. They are also likely socializing with other ice fishermen.

You must live a miserable existence. Watch out, the boogey-man is just around the corner ready to pounce.

Don't move to Alton. Those groupy pilots are just ruining things over there:rolleye1:

[OCDACTIVE]

I don't know why we continue to propose legislature that is redundant. Just answer me this:

Aren't there already laws against littering?

Aren't there already disturbing the peace laws?

Aren't there already rafting laws?

Aren't there already drunk in public laws?

Why do we continue to restrict those who abide by the laws and try to enjoy our lake? Braun Bay has been a top rafting spot for decades. Generations of families have enjoyed it. Why are we trying to stop this?

Even residents of the bay who have posted here says these issues are not a problem. So why are we trying to enact a law to fix something that isn't broken... just my 2 cents.

[elchase]

I don't know why we continue to propose legislature that is redundant.

Because in most jurisdictions the law enforcement agencies appreciate having as many bullets in their guns as they can. We see over and over again how lawyers weasel their clients out of convictions and how over-matched our police are when they get into court. If they cite someone for drunkenness, there will be a twelve month battle over the validity of the blood sample and their proper handling of it. If they cite them for littering, they will rely on hope that they can get fingerprints off the litter that are reliable enough to withstand the lawyer's long and expensive challenge. If they cite them for urinating, they will need dna samples that are carefully kept and protected from contamination so they cannot be refuted by some Johnny Cochoran. But a simple picture of the boats tied together with the Braun Bay shore in the background will be hard for even F. Lee Bailey to refute.

In most jurisdictions, law enforcers look at laws as tools that they can selectively use if and when the need arises, and know this is a good thing. They appreciate a full palette of laws that they can use at their discretion as the circumstances warrant.

In most jurisdictions, law enforcers aren't the one's complaining about the "enforceability" or "redundancy" of laws like the perpetrators do. They recognize their duty to do their best to enforce the will of the legislature and they do their job.

Law enforcers have discretion to enforce the laws when it is appropriate and in instances where they feel the citations can be upheld, so for them, having one more option when they see a violator can only be a benefit. Having a law that is "unenforceable" or "redundant" cannot hurt them...they don't have to cite it if they don't see the need. But citing someone with five violations always gives a better chance of one sticking than citing them with four. It is always one more charge that can be used to their advantage in a plea bargain. Only in Glendale does law enforcement generally seem more concerned about the rights of the perpetrators than the rights of the rest of society. And that is not their charge.

In most jurisdictions, law enforcement works with the legislature to craft laws that can be enforced, rather than sitting back in Glendale and trying to sabotage pending public-interest legislation by telling the public why a law under consideration will be unenforceable, and telling the potential perpetrators that they need not obey the law because there will be no attempt to enforce it anyway (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=116264&postcount=12).

We see this pattern repeating itself over and over from Glendale and have to wonder sometimes whose side they are on.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Kind of like building a house next to Old Faithful and being P'd at all the people who come to enjoy it.

Tourism is the largest industry in NH.
Winnipesaukee is one of the largest tourist destinations in NH
Some people rafting are NH taxpayers
All people rafting are contributing to our economy.

Question: Does the propensity to rafting in front of a property area change the real estate value of that property?

[OCDACTIVE]

Question: Does the propensity to rafting in front of a property area change the real estate value of that property?

I wouldn't think so considering there are "NO" houses next to the sandbar... I don't think the wildlife take assesments on their houses.. LOL

[NoRegrets]

I believe the reason some individuals love to have laws and control is to compensate for an unfulfillied desire to be something they are not! Instead of going forward and exploring the world, taking on challenges, or becomming constructive citizens they seem fixated on small issues and try to manuver politicians and local media to score perceived "big time" laws. I have not been impressed with by any of the control freeks that support non-essential and trival issues although it does give a good view of what is wrong with our country. These individuls must view themselves as the new breed of Danial Boones, Henry DuPonts, Fords, Mellons, or great industralists.

Keep up the good fight! Massachusett-e-s just did! :rolleye2:

[VtSteve]

I'm sure that if you start recruiting people to gather there in large numbers, party obnoxiously all day with loud music, pee on the ice, and leave your garbage behind, then it will just be a matter of time before you excite a bill aimed at that. Then the rest of your friends on this forum will be up in arms about our "nanny" legislature passing unnecessary laws that take away your freedoms, and they'll all be overlooking the real problem...you.

There are plenty of laws against bad behavior as you described. Many have said your description of the bay, as usual, is way over the top. The sand bar people use is NOT in front of people's waterfront homes.

So if you're wrong about the condition of the bay, and mostly wrong about the boaters that use it, and people's waterfront is not in jeopardy from these people's activities, what's you point El? Just another Gestapo activity for you?

[lawn psycho]

Question: Does the propensity to rafting in front of a property area change the real estate value of that property?


Let's suppose for a minute that it did. The sandbar has been used for many decades. If the argument were true, then the buyer got the discount up front. That discount would get passed along to the next buyer. It's no different then a person moving into a home on a busy street or near a highway.

[hazelnut]

Why is it that 2 people are allowed to derail yet another thread?

[VitaBene]

Let's suppose for a minute that it did. The sandbar has been used for many decades. If the argument were true, then the buyer got the discount up front. That discount would get passed along to the next buyer. It's no different then a person moving into a home on a busy street or near a highway.

Your analogy is good LP. The problem is that the proponents are trying to create Winnipesaukee's version of a highway noise mitigation wall.

[jmen24]

I usually avoid it on weekends and holidays as I don't like crowds. It is perfect on weekdays and during the month of September.



Wow, you are willing to "live and let live" what a concept. I hope you have kids Broadhopper so we can continue to pass on this thought process to the future generations, otherwise we are in real trouble.

Bill after bill, it just keeps coming out of the state house. Its feels like having a conversation with someone that is talking with there mouth full. A considerable amount of crap is coming out but nothing makes any sense.

Add this to the lake speed limit, trying to ban beer tents at bike week, exhaust noise testing for motorcycles requiring a tach being installed, when most bikes are manufactured without, banning access to the lake via public boat launches on a public lake. Are we really heading in this direction or am I dreaming, who would think these things are for the good of the state.

[BroadHopper]

I have kids and grandkids. I want them to enjoy the lake as much as I did, my parents did and my grandparents. The way things are going I am willing to bet my grandkids will not enjoy the lake. As with all greedy folks, they only care about today, to hell with tomorrow. "I'm not going to be here, why should I protect the future?"

[robmac]

I remember growing up my Dad telling all his children wonderful stories about his youth ( this used to cost 25 cents) and we could do this. Reading the responces about the old days and what folks did is great but I must agree that my daughter will never get to enjoy the lake like so many of us have. I am a newbie on the lake,I've been here since 74 and I've seen so much change and not for the good. Sorry Don for going astray with this.

[alsadad]

I find this business with the proposed Braun Bay rafting bill and the Gilford boat launch ordinance far too vague and, dare I say, subtle. How about we just lay all our cards on the table, pull out all the stops, say what we really mean, and unload every other cliché we can think of. I think the NH Legislature should consider the following bill:

WHEREAS owners of expensive waterfront homes pay exorbitant amounts of real estate taxes; and

WHEREAS said exorbitant real estate taxes contribute greatly to the public coffers and facilitate wasteful government spending, in addition to conferring an unwarranted sense of superiority on the owners;

Be it hereby RESOLVED that henceforth and forevermore the owners of expensive waterfront homes shall enjoy full and exclusive rights to the use of the state’s rivers, lakes and streams;

Be it hereby further RESOLVED that, except when they are working as landscapers and maids at the aforementioned expensive waterfront homes, all other people (also known as “common riff-raff”) shall be confined to their double-wides where they can kick the dog, spit tobacco juice and litter to their heart’s content. :rolleye2:

On a more serious note, I am perplexed about the purpose of this bill. The portion of Braun Bay designated as a “No Rafting Zone” is already off-limits to any rafts consisting of 3 or more boats. Correct? This proposed bill limits to 3 the number of rafts consisting of 3 or more boats in all of Braun Bay. So logically the three 3-boat rafts referenced in the bill would have to be located outside of the NRZ. Correct? Now, many of you spend more time there than I do, but I am hard-pressed to recall any time when I’ve seen more than a few boats anchored outside of the sandbar/NRZ area. Is this more common than I realize?

Also, does this bill as written mean that boaters could form rafts in Braun Bay, each consisting of, say, 90 boats, provided the rafts are located outside of the designated NRZ and that there are no more than 3 of the rafts? So, if I go to Braun Bay with two friends because we want to raft, and there are already three 3-boat rafts in the bay (outside of the NRZ of course), we can leave and go somewhere else, OR we can simply join up to one of the existing rafts. I’m not really that big on rafting, and I’d have to get 2 friends first, but if this is permissible under the bill, then the proposed law seems ludicrous to me.

[SIKSUKR]

I have a question that may have already been answered in the past but here goes. When are you considered in a NRZ on not in it? How far away from shore do you have to be for to not be in the NRZ?

[LakeSnake]

Bill after bill, it just keeps coming out of the state house. Its feels like having a conversation with someone that is talking with there mouth full. A considerable amount of crap is coming out but nothing makes any sense.

Add this to the lake speed limit, trying to ban beer tents at bike week, exhaust noise testing for motorcycles requiring a tach being installed, when most bikes are manufactured without, banning access to the lake via public boat launches on a public lake. Are we really heading in this direction or am I dreaming, who would think these things are for the good of the state.

That's easy - people from south of the border

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by LakeSnake
That's easy - people from south of the border

As someone from "south of the border" everyone knows where I stand on the law that must not be mentioned.

It seems foolish to me to propose this Braun Bay bill because of the complaints of two people and write it in such a manner as to contradict existing law on rafting

Ditto on the Gilford measure on public boat ramps.

All these initiatives seem to have come from people "north of the border" you know the ones that in addition to paying taxes actually get to vote on who their representatives are and on initiatives? :coolsm:

[jmen24]

I can tell you that not many natives can afford waterfront property in this state anymore and the ones that had it will or have had to give it up due to over inflated property value. But, typically after selling they can then afford another home on the water, but they still cannot pay the taxes on it.

South of the border is possible, most of these laws are directly targeted at the Lakes Region as a whole though. I can tell you I have been thinking longer and harder about buying a boat and keeping it on Winni, gets closer every year to being like a movie from the 90's(name escapes me) that the government posts the scofflaw's picture on a game show and everyone goes out and hunts them down to win a prize. Maybe its time for a change of scenery, as I do not like what the scenery around here is changing into.

[robmac]

jmen,I agree looking at the cost to tow my boat back to Winni or staying in FL even without thinking about the economy makes me wonder. It just doesn't seem to make sense to inact laws that further prevent boaters and families from being able to enjoy a lake where generations have been going for years. As a NH resident I call and write to my state reps and let my and other peoples feelings be known as well as write and advise they read the posts on this site. Progress is good but sometimes not for the better.

[Yosemite Sam]

jmen,I agree looking at the cost to tow my boat back to Winni or staying in FL even without thinking about the economy makes me wonder. It just doesn't seem to make sense to inact laws that further prevent boaters and families from being able to enjoy a lake where generations have been going for years. As a NH resident I call and write to my state reps and let my and other peoples feelings be known as well as write and advise they read the posts on this site. Progress is good but sometimes not for the better.

What are some of the laws that keep you and your family from having a good time on any Lake in NH? Also how will any of the proposed laws keep you and your family from having a good time on any Lake in NH.

I know that there are some laws and proposed laws that will change the way some people use the Lake, but just which ones effect you.

I can’t think of any law or proposed law that will keep me from having fun on any Lake in NH.

Thank you

[Dave R]

What are some of the laws that keep you and your family from having a good time on any Lake in NH? Also how will any of the proposed laws keep you and your family from having a good time on any Lake in NH.

I know that there are some laws and proposed laws that will change the way some people use the Lake, but just which ones effect you.

I can’t think of any law or proposed law that will keep me from having fun on any Lake in NH.

Thank you


I know question was asked of another, but I feel compelled to answer from my point of view.

Here's one affects me directly:

"270:77 Squam and Conway Lakes and Silver Lake in Madison. – No person shall at any time place in or upon, or use, or operate upon, Squam Lake or Conway Lake or Silver Lake in Madison any houseboat. Whoever violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a violation. Boards of health and health officers of towns abutting said lakes shall have power and authority to enforce the provisions of this section."

I have a trailer boat that happens to have a porta-potti and sleeping berths which makes it a "Houseboat" under 270-A:1 (see below). I'd love to take my boat on Squam Lake for a day, but I cannot because the lake front owners on that lake petitioned the legislature for this law to keep the lake off limits to the likes of people like me.

270-A:1 II. ""Houseboat'' means any ship, boat, raft, float, catamaran or marine craft of any description upon or within which are located sleeping and toilet facilities, regardless of whether such facilities are of a permanent or temporary nature.


Here's another:

270-A:3 Where Overnight Mooring Prohibited. – No houseboat shall be beached or grounded, or tied to the shore of any of the inland surface waters of the state for an overnight period or any part of an overnight period, except as permitted in RSA 270-A:2 or in cases of emergency. No houseboat shall be anchored on any of the inland surface waters of the state for an overnight period or any part of an overnight period except as permitted in RSA 270-A:2 or in cases of emergency.

No such law exists in any other state that I know of. My family and I routinely enjoy quietly anchoring overnight on inland waters in ME and MA without any problems. I also enjoyed doing so as a kid aboard my parent's boat on Winnipesaukee when the law was revoked briefly during the mid 70s. I would love to now, but I cannot.

[lawn psycho]

What are some of the laws that keep you and your family from having a good time on any Lake in NH? Also how will any of the proposed laws keep you and your family from having a good time on any Lake in NH.

I know that there are some laws and proposed laws that will change the way some people use the Lake, but just which ones effect you.

I can’t think of any law or proposed law that will keep me from having fun on any Lake in NH.

Thank you

I have two other friends who have boats and our families often tie up at the sandbar in a raft. Usually 2-3 times per year we get together on the same day on the lake when our schedules align. A rafting law on Braun Bay now means our boats would have to be 25.0000000 ft apart. Not exactly the same fun and social gathering when we are tied together separated by bumpers.

So if those same boats are tied together or anchored seperately, why should you have a care in the world???

So yes, it does impact me and it does interfere with how I enjoy the lake.

[Yosemite Sam]

House boats and rafting, thank you.

Are there anymore laws or proposed laws that keep you from having fun on any lake in NH?

[Pineedles]

Please do not lump all shorefront property owners into the same pot. We are very diverse and all have different agendas. My present agenda is contained in the site www.sbonh.org.

I see a growing trend in this thread to start blaming shorefront owners with instigating laws to restrict boater's rights. While the posted complainants are only 2 shorefront owners, please remember this, it's only 2 people! I'm sure that there are alot more people in Braun Bay then 2 who have no problem with rafting.:D

[lawn psycho]

House boats and rafting, thank you.

Are there anymore laws or proposed laws that keep you from having fun on any lake in NH?

1. Can't have pets at Ellacoya.
2. Speed limit
3. Rafting

And the inability to anchor overnight although it does not impact me is stupid. A LOT of people do overnights on their boats.

[Dave R]

Please do not lump all shorefront property owners into the same pot. We are very diverse and all have different agendas. My present agenda is contained in the site www.sbonh.org.

I see a growing trend in this thread to start blaming shorefront owners with instigating laws to restrict boater's rights. While the posted complainants are only 2 shorefront owners, please remember this, it's only 2 people! I'm sure that there are alot more people in Braun Bay then 2 who have no problem with rafting.:D

Good point. I should not have implied that in my last post and I apologize.

[Dave R]

I have two other friends who have boats and our families often tie up at the sandbar in a raft. Usually 2-3 times per year we get together on the same day on the lake when our schedules align. A rafting law on Braun Bay now means our boats would have to be 25.0000000 ft apart. Not exactly the same fun and social gathering when we are tied together separated by bumpers.

So if those same boats are tied together or anchored seperately, why should you have a care in the world???

So yes, it does impact me and it does interfere with how I enjoy the lake.


That's a good point. We've had some really fun raft-ups in places where they are legal and it would be fun to have 3-4 boats rafted in Braun Bay.

[Yosemite Sam]

House Boats
Rafting
Can't have pets at Ellacoya.
Speeeeeeeeeeee Liiiiiii I can’t say it.



Looking at those four items, I don't see a trend by our NH lawmakers that they are trying to stop anyone from having fun on NH Lakes.

[Pineedles]

House Boats
Rafting
Can't have pets at Ellacoya.
Speeeeeeeeeeee Liiiiiii I can’t say it.



Looking at those four items, I don't see a trend by our NH lawmakers that they are trying to stop anyone from having fun on NH Lakes.

You're right Sam. As long as it is the kind of fun that THEY think we should be having. This is why I joined www.sbonh.org. Not because I have a big fast boat, but because I object to others passing judgement on what they think I should enjoy. BTY how's your cholesterol level? There are laws in effect that deny your right to buy a big juice hamburger because it's bad for you. In the past, some thought that folks with blonde hair and blue eyes were the only ones that deserved to live. I am not comparing you or anyone else to these people, but if you allow discrimination because it doesn't affect you, you will be the next one on the list.

[Yosemite Sam]

You're right Sam. As long as it is the kind of fun that THEY think we should be having. This is why I joined www.sbonh.org. Not because I have a big fast boat, but because I object to others passing judgement on what they think I should enjoy. BTY how's your cholesterol level? There are laws in effect that deny your right to buy a big juice hamburger because it's bad for you. In the past, some thought that folks with blonde hair and blue eyes were the only ones that deserved to live. I am not comparing you or anyone else to these people, but if you allow discrimination because it doesn't affect you, you will be the next one on the list.

I know we disagree about the (I can't say it law), but I don't think that this law is the start of many more laws that will effect how we use our Lakes to have fun.

I guess time will tell won't it Pineedles.

[lawn psycho]

I know we disagree about the (I can't say it law), but I don't think that this law is the start of many more laws that will effect how we use our Lakes to have fun.

I guess time will tell won't it Pineedles.

Then why does Moultonborough have the commanding lead in NRZ's? As soon as one area gets an exclusion or special treatment, then the snowball keeps rolling.

The proposed Gilford ordinance is yet another example. You can bet someone in another lake town will think about "what about me".

Let's put this in perspective. When people are on the beach on the seacoast do they limit how many people can lay side by side on their towels while sunbathing? It's exactly the same thing.

[BroadHopper]

House boats and rafting, thank you.

Are there anymore laws or proposed laws that keep you from having fun on any lake in NH?

Waterskiing and barefoot skiing. I cannot enjoy barefoot skiing as I cannot go over 45 mph. I need to go at least 50 to enjoy the sport. In waterskiing, I cannot take off from a dock or land near a dock. The boat must be 150' away from any other object. I have been reprimanded by the MP when I drop of my skis to ski. They claim that the waterski floating in the water is a hazard. I need to take off from a beach or dock to ski on one ski or barefoot. It is extremely difficult to teach kids to ski when they are 150' away from shore.

[BroadHopper]

I know we disagree about the (I can't say it law), but I don't think that this law is the start of many more laws that will effect how we use our Lakes to have fun.

When WinnFabs decided to enact the SL law, I was on their side. I don't have a fast boat and we do need some kind of control as the lake was getting crowded. I was with the principles of WinnFabs and NH Lake Association before one of the public hearings. They were talking to the sponsor of the bill about enacting future laws to limit size of boats and limit horsepower. They were also talking about how property values on Lake George went up after the SL law went into effect. Then I suddenly realize it is not about safety, it's about greed! I told them 'I'm outta here'. The sponsor says 'We've got to start somewhere!'

[elchase]

Here's one affects me directly: "270:77 No houseboats on Squam Lake or Conway Lake or Silver Lake...
Here's another: 270-A:3 No Overnight Mooring...

I don't know exactly what caused these laws to be enacted, but I'd bet my last dollar that in every case it was not so simple as "the rich lake front owners petitioned for this law to keep the lake off limits to the likes of people like me." More likely, some obnoxious jerks continuously misbehaved and abused a freedom and ruined a good thing for everyone. If you investigate, you'll surely find a history of a problem getting worse and worse and good people exhausting all other means to contain it, and the legislature finally having to resort to a broadbrush law that inadvertently limits the freedoms of the non-jerks in order to limit the misbehavior of the jerks. As I've said over and over again about every one of these laws...Your anger should be directed at the jerks. They ruined it for you. It was not the good, passive people that simply couldn't take it anymore and just wanted some peace that ruined it for you.

[Woodsy]

Yosemite....

It is already happening.... perhaps you want to look the other way and dont want to connect the dots.... but I will! Slowly but surely the public's RIGHT to the lake is being eroded....

1. The Braun Bay Bill.... the water belongs to the PUBLIC! The water does not belong to the waterfront property owners. Thier littoral rights end at the high water mark & thier dock! Yet here we are limiting the PUBLIC use of a PUBLIC RESOURCE because some whiny *ss property owner doesnt like anyone in THIER water! Once Braun Bay becomes restricted, more & more bays & coves will petition for NRZ status because boats will be forced to look elsewhere

2. The Gilford (Ames Farm) zoning change petition.... here we have a place that has been launching and recovering boats for the PUBLIC for decades yet some wealthy jack*ss property owner found some sort of loophole forcing them to close... this legislation is written so as to put the final nail in Ames Farm... Yet another way of limiting PUBLIC ACCESS to a PUBLIC RESOURCE! I have said it before I would sell both properties for alot of $$$ to a deep pocketed developer and then see how happy these snotty waterfront people are when there are 300 condos where a comparitively peaceful farm used to be......

3. The law that shall not be mentioned.... squarely aimed at restricting the freedom of a minority of boaters... not going to get into it as this argument has been beaten to death.

4. The rumors swirling about HP limits, size restriction etc... nobody thought the speed limit would come to pass, especially given the history of Lake Winnipesaukee! Yet it has, it is being aggressively pusued in the legislature. If that can become law with little real evidence to support it what is next?

5. Its not just the lake where restrictions have been passed and yet more contemplated.... just ask the bikers if they feel welcome!!

Just keep your head buried in the sand folks... eventually there will be a law restricting or eliminating some activity that you or your family treasure....

Woodsy

PS: NH's economy derives a very large portion of its income from tourism! Make the tourists and others feel unwelcome and they will spend thier hard earnd cash elsewhere! Then see how your taxes are.....

[sunset on the dock]

Let's face it...laws come, laws go, just as society evolves. Think Blue Laws. It was once illegal in California to shoot any game from a moving vehicle unless it was a whale. It was once illegal to feed your slaves lobster more than 3 times a week. Was there this much angst on Winnipesaukee when they enacted life jacket laws ("my father never had to have life jackets in his boat when we were growing up...people are taking away my freedoms...wah wah wah")? There were origionally no laws about septic discharge from boats on the lake.
I'm against what the mega mansions are doing to the character of the lake as much as anyone and I'm glad to see new laws restricting how they can develop/destroy the shorefront....so it's not simply about new laws designed specifically to $crew the little guy. I'm happy to see new laws regarding septic system design to further protect the lake's water quality(which is deteriorating by the way). The sky is falling scenarios in this thread are getting to be a bit too much...thankyou Yosemite for injecting a little sanity into this discussion.

[DEJ]

Sunset, I think you missed the point of YS's question which was "What are some of the laws that keep you and your family from having a good time on any Lake in NH"?

Most of what you posted has nothing to do with this discussion.