You are a senator how do you vote on HB-847

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

OH MY HEAD!!!

It actually pains me to respond to some of your posts! It matters because it is a PERSONAL LIBERTY that I (and others) happen to exercise! It matters because it COSTS MONEY to implement & maintain! It matters because you have no basis of fact for your argument other than FEAR!

I would be pretty interested to see the RSA that explains how an anchored boat is somehow an illegal mooring....

Woodsy

Sorry Woodsy, I know that it matters to you very much. However the number of boats going over 45 does not matter TO THE ARGUMENT. We need speed limits "no matter" how many boats go over 45 now. The argument is not relevant.



Saf-C 401.12 "Mooring" when used as a noun means a mooring anchor or other fixed object or stationary point, with or without a mooring buoy together with attached chains, cables, ropes, and pennants and related equipment used for the purpose of securing a watercraft.


270:61 Mooring Permit Required; Limitations. –

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Sorry Woodsy, I know that it matters to you very much. However the number of boats going over 45 does not matter TO THE ARGUMENT. We need speed limits "no matter" how many boats go over 45 now. The argument is not relevant.



Saf-C 401.12 "Mooring" when used as a noun means a mooring anchor or other fixed object or stationary point, with or without a mooring buoy together with attached chains, cables, ropes, and pennants and related equipment used for the purpose of securing a watercraft.


270:61 Mooring Permit Required; Limitations. –

BI...

It's YOUR OPINION that the number of boats traveling over 45 isn't relevant. To many others it is in fact the crux of the argument... Why pass a law that cost people thier liberty and taxpayers money if the number of baots that travel over 45 MPH is a small percentage! Wouldnt the time & money be better spent elsewhere?

You want this law to get a certain type of boat off the lake and to your credit you make no secret of that, however many others who support the passsage of HB-847 say something completely different...

As far as your Quote of SAF-C-401.12 - You need too look up the definition of "Mooring Anchor"! There is a HUGE difference between a "MOORED" boat and an "ANCHORED" boat! A MOORING is considered a permanent anchor point! Thats why you need PERMITS to get one!

Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

BI...

It's YOUR OPINION that the number of boats traveling over 45 isn't relevant. To many others it is in fact the crux of the argument... Why pass a law that cost people thier liberty and taxpayers money if the number of baots that travel over 45 MPH is a small percentage! Wouldnt the time & money be better spent elsewhere?

You want this law to get a certain type of boat off the lake and to your credit you make no secret of that, however many others who support the passsage of HB-847 say something completely different...

As far as your Quote of SAF-C-401.12 - You need too look up the definition of "Mooring Anchor"! There is a HUGE difference between a "MOORED" boat and an "ANCHORED" boat! A MOORING is considered a permanent anchor point! Thats why you need PERMITS to get one!

Woodsy

We can argue the definitions all day. I have been involved with this and the Marine Patrol. There are plenty of people that would like to find a way around the mooring rules. If you think the MP will let you stay because you are using a "boat anchor" instead of a "mooring anchor", you are mistaken.

If you attach a boat to the bottom of the lake it's a mooring in the Marine Patrols eyes. To be "anchored" instead of "moored" you must be on board (or I guess swimming near by).

If you find it's legal to anchor a kayak without anybody on board, please let me know. I have two kayaks and a couple of cement blocks I will use to keep power boats away. Who needs a swim line permit, just get a bunch of old kayaks. I don't think so.

Skip - ask your MP friends about this one. You may be surprised. I have had the MP explain it to me in detail. I called the office and got a firm confirmation. You can't "anchor" an empty boat. I tried it, they didn't buy it.


Saf-C 401.12 "Mooring" when used as a noun means a mooring anchor or other fixed object or stationary point, with or without a mooring buoy together with attached chains, cables, ropes, and pennants and related equipment used for the purpose of securing a watercraft.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Saf-C 401.12 "Mooring" when used as a noun means a mooring anchor or other fixed object or stationary point, with or without a mooring buoy together with attached chains, cables, ropes, and pennants and related equipment used for the purpose of securing a watercraft.

I thought there was a time frame portion of the anchor/mooring difference. I thought anchoring was temporary and mooring was more permanent. There could be no one on board of a dive boat in use so are they anchored legally or moored illegally? Or, as BI indicated, at a sand bar as the boaters are in the water or on a public beach or out for a ride with a friend on a SeaDoo? Hmmm another law that we need a law firm to figure out .

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

I thought there was a time frame portion of the anchor/mooring difference. I thought anchoring was temporary and mooring was more permanent. There could be no one on board of a dive boat in use so are they anchored legally or moored illegally? Or, as BI indicated, at a sand bar as the boaters are in the water or on a public beach or out for a ride with a friend on a SeaDoo? Hm mm another law that we need a law firm to figure out .

The states definition of a mooring is very broad, perhaps on purpose. A rope tied to a brick meets the criteria. What is the difference between an unattended boat at anchor and a boat on a mooring, not much!

Perhaps the Marine Patrol use the duck rule. If it walks like a duck....

I agree that the length of time seems important. But I can't find it in the rules.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

I thought there was a time frame portion of the anchor/mooring difference. I thought anchoring was temporary and mooring was more permanent. There could be no one on board of a dive boat in use so are they anchored legally or moored illegally? Or, as BI indicated, at a sand bar as the boaters are in the water or on a public beach or out for a ride with a friend on a SeaDoo? Hmmm another law that we need a law firm to figure out .

Good point Skipper, andf it brings up an element of the offense the many laypeople don't understand....intent.

The State must show what your intention was in committing the offense. That is why no time frame needs to be specified for this particular offense, and why the blanket definition " a boat anchored with no one in it is an illegal mooring" is not a correct definition.

It also explains why you can see, on any given wekend, dozens if not hundreds of anchored unattended boats scattered about Winni or Ossipee with full marine patrol presence, and no summonses being issued.

Here's an example:

You anchor your boat and all head off for a swim, or a walk ashore, or what have you. Your actions are temporary in nature and you have no intent of making that particular anchoring point a permanent or semi-permanent point to return to on a regular basis. Your intent is to anchor...not create a mooring. You therefore have not created an offense, and you see this happening virtually anytime you boat on Winni.

Second case. You decide that you are going to control a particular sectiuon of your lake by anchoring a kayak or other vessel out in the navigable portion of the waterway to force the 150 foot rule, or to circumvent the swim line requirements. Here your intentions are completely different and you will run afoul of the NHMP if they are made aware of ther situation and derive the same intent.

A whole world of difference according to my friends at the NHMP.

I apologize to Don and the readers for being baited in to this thread hijacking. As always, anyone is welcome to PM me offline for addtional information or resources to opursue to find correct interpretations of New Hamposhire's boating regulations....

Anchors away!

Skip

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch... er... I mean topic:

I vote against the proposed addition of a 45/25mph speed limit.

If I'm a Senator I might change my vote if the current NH law were amended to reflect the laws used on many out-of-state lakes with speed limits - that is, remove the 150 foot rule. If speed limits work on those other lakes that have no 150' rule then we should make NH work as well as those other state's lakes.

AL, Skipper of the Sea Que

Kayakers love water --- Boaters love people

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

Meanwhile, back at the ranch... er... I mean topic:

I vote against the proposed addition of a 45/25mph speed limit.

If I'm a Senator I might change my vote if the current NH law were amended to reflect the laws used on many out-of-state lakes with speed limits - that is, remove the 150 foot rule. If speed limits work on those other lakes that have no 150' rule then we should make NH work as well as those other state's lakes.

AL, Skipper of the Sea Que

Kayakers love water --- Boaters love people

I must respectfully disagree on that. I think that removing the 150' law is an IMMEDIATE danger to everyone on the lake. Allowing it to be legal for boats to travel 45mph within 30 feet of each other is extremely dangerous. One false, slight turn of the wheel at that distance and people can die. If boats are traveling that close and someone takes a wave the wrong way it could mean a collision as well.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I must respectfully disagree on that. I think that removing the 150' law is an IMMEDIATE danger to everyone on the lake. Allowing it to be legal for boats to travel 45mph within 30 feet of each other is extremely dangerous. One false, slight turn of the wheel at that distance and people can die. If boats are traveling that close and someone takes a wave the wrong way it could mean a collision as well.

I agree!

The 150' rule is violated all the time. But how close will they come if we don't have it. At least its existence is a reminder to maintain separation. It also provides an opportunity for the Marine Patrol to boat stop Capt. Bonehead.

[neckdweller]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I agree!

The 150' rule is violated all the time. But how close will they come if we don't have it. At least its existence is a reminder to maintain separation. It also provides an opportunity for the Marine Patrol to boat stop Capt. Bonehead.

Not that they need a reason to stop people, but it is also a built in excuse for MP to pull people over to inspect or whatever. It's an almost impossible rule to argue with - can people say with certainty that they're 160' away and not 149'? I always err well on the side of caution to avoid any potential dealings with Marine Patrol. Not that I have anything to hide, but it's not my idea of fun times on the lake.

I spend a lot of time on my jet ski on Moultonborough Bay, which isn't exactly a narrow passageway. Over the last couple years, I've had four or five different experiences of Marine Patrol blatently changing their course which if we both kept on our current headings would have brought us within 150'. There was no obvious reason (other boats, markers, etc.) to do this other than to see whether I'd react appropriately.

Doing a Capt. Bonehead test is all well and good, but it also has some shades of "let's see if we can get this guy".

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by neckdweller

I've had four or five different experiences of Marine Patrol blatently changing their course which if we both kept on our current headings would have brought us within 150'. There was no obvious reason (other boats, markers, etc.) to do this other than to see whether I'd react appropriately.

Doing a Capt. Bonehead test is all well and good, but it also has some shades of "let's see if we can get this guy".

I've seen this a lot too, and don't believe it is appropriate. They are not only trying to entrap, but they are being discourteous. There is enough of that going on without our MP joining in. They should be setting a good example of proper boating manners.