More No Rafting Zones & Losing Your Rights!!! - Page 2

GWC... · 08-25-2007, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It would be nice if the world were sensible and considerate.

I live in the real world where a percentage are users and abusers. They think the world owes them. Because of this minority we need laws, police and no rafting zones.

In other words, punish the properly behaving majority for the wrongful actions of the minority.

It would be nice if the world were sensible and considerate, you say...

GWC... · 08-27-2007, 05:55 PM

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY
NOTICE OF HEARING
PURSUANT TO RSA 270:43, A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PETITION TO PROHIBIT AND/OR
RESTRICT RAFTING OF BOATS IN LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE, EAST COVE ON LONG
ISLAND WILL BE HELD ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 31, 2007 AT 1:00 PM.
THE HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED AT THE MOULTONBOROUGH TOWN OFFICES,
MOULTONBOROUGH, NEW HAMPSHIRE.
THE SPECIFIC RESTRICTION REQUESTED IS TO ADOPT A RULE PROHIBITING RAFTING IN
ALL OF EAST COVE ON LONG ISLAND, LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE. THE SPECIFIC AREA
REQUESTED TO BE DESIGNATED IS A COVE SITUATED ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF LONG
ISLAND AT ABOUT THE MIDPOINT; WEST ACROSS FROM LITTLE BEAR ISLAND AND
SARAH'S POINT; AND EAST OF THE SOUTHERLY SHORES AREA OF LONG ISLAND.
LOCATED ON TAX MAP #4, AREAS 280 AND 281 OF THE TOWN OF MOULTONBOROUGH
AND IS ABUTTED BY LOTS 80, 79, 79A, 79B, 78, 76, 76B, AND 74C.
TESTIMONY WILL BE ALLOWED THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:
(1) THE SIZE OF THE BODY OF WATER OR PORTION THEREOF FOR WHICH
RULEMAKING ACTION IS BEING CONSIDERED.
(2) THE EFFECT WHICH ADOPTING OR NOT ADOPTING THE RULE (S) WOULD HAVE
UPON:
(A) PUBLIC SAFETY;
(B) THE MAINTENANCE OF RESIDENTIAL, RECREATIONAL, AND
SCENIC VALUES;
(C) THE VARIETY OF USES OF SUCH BODY OF WATER OR PORTION
THEREOF;
(D) THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER QUALITY;
(E) THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES.
(3) THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AFFECTED, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY
ADOPTING OR NOT ADOPTING THE RULE(S); AND
(4) THE AVAILABILITY AND PRACTICALITY OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULE(S).
PERSONS WISHING TO TESTIFY ARE URGED TO COORDINATE THEIR TESTIMONY TO
AVOID UNNECESSARY DUPLICATION OR REPETITION OF TESTIMONY. THE
DEPARTMENT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SEVEN (7) DAYS SUBSEQUENT TO THE
SCHEDULED HEARING MUST RECEIVE SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN MATERIAL.
AUTHORITY FOR HEARING: RSA 270:12, RSA 270:43, SAF-C 407 AND SAF-C 409.
JOHN J. BARTHELMES, COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
BY: C. N. DUCLOS, BUREAU CHIEF
DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, BUREAU OF HEARINGS,
33 HAZEN DRIVE, CONCORD, NH 03305
TEL # 603-271-3486
EMAIL: SAFETY-HEARINGS@SAFETY.STATE.NH.US
SPEECH/HEARING IMPAIRED HELP LINE TTY/TDD RELAY:
1-800-735-2964

URL:http://www.nh.gov/safety/news/docume..._NoRafting.pdf

TomC · 09-03-2007, 06:28 AM

...what happened at the hearing?

sum-r breeze · 09-05-2007, 10:11 PM

I know Tom C asked....But I'll ask again. Does anyone know what happened at the hearing??? I wrote a lengthy EMail to the administrator of the hearing, I don't know how much that's worth. I have to work to afford my place in NH and to feed my boating addiction, so a Friday meeting was not attendable for me.

Regards,
The Breeze
Wave 'cuz I'll be waving back

Rattlesnake Guy · 09-06-2007, 07:52 PM

Is a no rafting zone a "preferred" anchoring spot? A place where folks wanted to raft because it was attractive to do so but now less crowded because they can't? Anyone have a map showing these areas that might be attractive to single boats? This might free up space in other areas for the people who want to raft. Everything has an equilibrium.

Airwaves · 09-06-2007, 09:18 PM

IIs this an issue that Non-resident property owners have a say in, or is this a voters only issue?

It seems to me that if non-resident, taxypayer, property owners can't vote in elections or have no say in policy, then why should they be allowed to file a petition changing the make-up of the use of the lake?

Or was this petition exclusivly the work of permanent residents of the area?

Dave R · 09-07-2007, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

Is a no rafting zone a "preferred" anchoring spot? A place where folks wanted to raft because it was attractive to do so but now less crowded because they can't? Anyone have a map showing these areas that might be attractive to single boats? This might free up space in other areas for the people who want to raft. Everything has an equilibrium.

They aren't less crowded, probably more crowded now. The boats are now anchored a few feet apart rather than tied a foot apart so there's less "open" space. The spacing is supposed to be 25' but it seems to be universally ignored (by boaters and MP). It's one of those "seemed like a good idea at the time" laws that's failed to have the desired effect.

AC2717 · 09-07-2007, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave R

They aren't less crowded, probably more crowded now. The boats are now anchored a few feet apart rather than tied a foot apart so there's less "open" space. The spacing is supposed to be 25' but it seems to be universally ignored (by boaters and MP). It's one of those "seemed like a good idea at the time" laws that's failed to have the desired effect.

I was out there last Monday,
Will not mention where, I pulled up to a nice open spot near an old sea ray cruiser that was anchored, I was about 30 feet away from them or so, I anchored, set my stern anchor and then in a couple of minutes all of a sudden I see the two boats closer and closer together, so I thought one of my anchors released so I went scurrying with bumpers to prevent anything, Looked an both my lines were tight and holding strong. Then I looked at the cruiser, they guy was only running a bow anchor, so they I asked him after he heard me making noise to help because we were going to hit if he had a stern anchor, his answer, well I was just going with the wind, I picked up and moved about 60 feet away, but because of that the guy took up almost the whole side of the sand bar because he was swinging with the wind, how rude! many came close to him set up and then saw he had not stern anchor and then had to move, there was about 12 boats on one side and then him on the other by himself, I think he wanted it that way.

chmeeee · 09-07-2007, 07:54 AM

The Bizer map shows no rafting zones. Thats how I found most of the places that I go to anchor/swim. Ironic, isn't it?

jrc · 09-07-2007, 08:26 AM

In the same train of thought as Chmeeee, I never tried East Cove before, I'll have to try it out. Now that I know exactly where it is.

Nauset · 09-18-2007, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daveg

If you and your friends would like to raft inside our club, come on over. However since you would then be in violation of the 150 ft from property rule, we would have to call the marine patrol (who by the way is who you should call if you have a "problem" with rafters in front of your property.

Maybe someone could clear up some confusion I'm having. I know that most of the designated no-rafting zones have a '150 from shore rule and there is a rule for headway speed within '150 feet of everything except a marker or a fish. But, I have never heard of a rule of no-rafting within '150 of all property on the lake. If someone could post that law here it would be helpful to boaters as most believe as I do that rules on rafting and anchoring apply to no-rafting zones.

LIforrelaxin · 09-18-2007, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sum-r breeze

I know Tom C asked....But I'll ask again. Does anyone know what happened at the hearing??? I wrote a lengthy EMail to the administrator of the hearing, I don't know how much that's worth. I have to work to afford my place in NH and to feed my boating addiction, so a Friday meeting was not attendable for me.

Regards,
The Breeze
Wave 'cuz I'll be waving back

Has anybody heard anything about the Hearing?

jrc · 09-18-2007, 10:52 AM

I can not find a law or rule that says you cannot anchor near shore outside of designated no rafting zones.

There are rules about anchoring in mooring fields, or indirectly addressing anchoring within swim lines. There are lots of mooring rules. I'm sure you can't anchor such that you block navigation. In general you can anchor anywhere you want to, unless one of these rules apply.

I personally don't anchor where I will be a nusiance to shorefront dwellers. Of course that's a subjective judgement.

mwl · 09-24-2007, 09:28 AM

I agree, just like everything else in this world. It only takes a few jerks to ruin it for the rest.

However, there are several coves my family and I have frequented since the 60's. We'd drop anchor, have lunch, fish and swim all afternoon while enjoying the untouched natural shorline. Now many of these coves have had their natural shorlines destroyed. Dozens of trees have been cut down and it's riddled with large homes. Some of my favorite Bass fishing spots have now been replaced with a large dock or beach. I don't visit these overdeveloped coves any longer. Some posts have targeted boats as a cause of erosion. Development and rain storms cause erosion - not waves. After we've enjoyed a day on the lake, we leave it exactly as we found it.

Most of the posts from anti-rafting people claim to love the natural beauty of the lake and how boaters are runing their lake experience.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Little Bear · 09-24-2007, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mwl

Some posts have targeted boats as a cause of erosion. Development and rain storms cause erosion - not waves.

If waves don't cause erosion, then what does one call the damage done to the shoreline by large waves, including - but not limited to collapsing walls, soils sucked into the lake and undermining of the shoreline 2-3 feet? This damage is specifically done by waves from large cruisers, so if it's not called erosion, then please tell me the appropriate terminology.

Phantom · 09-24-2007, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Bear

This damage is specifically done by waves from large cruisers, so if it's not called erosion, then please tell me the appropriate terminology.

Why are all the damaging waves caused by boats?

Seems to me God does a pretty good job with his wind whipped waves especially on the Northern sides Bear, Diamond, Rattlesnake -- along the shores of Gilford and let's not leave out where I am, the South -SouthEastern end of Merideth Bay.

Food for discussion at next Sunday's Mass.

jrc · 09-24-2007, 02:20 PM

I'm surprised, but according to most sources I've check with a google search, this from MSN Encarta is a the typical definition:

Erosion, removal of rock and soil material by natural processes, principally running water, glaciers, waves, and wind.

Any human contribution is usually blamed on removal of vegetation, like trees and grass.

There is no single word for damage to shorelines structures caused by boat wakes. How about "wake damage"?

Or be more to the point, just call it bad stuff caused by things I don't like.

Little Bear · 09-24-2007, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phantom

Why are all the damaging waves caused by boats?

Seems to me God does a pretty good job with his wind whipped waves especially on the Northern sides Bear, Diamond, Rattlesnake -- along the shores of Gilford and let's not leave out where I am, the South -SouthEastern end of Merideth Bay.

Food for discussion at next Sunday's Mass.

Phantom, I agree that the areas you mentioned are subject to large waves from natural causes. However, the area where I live is protected and I have rarely seen a natural wave cause any type of erosion, due to the relatively short fetch in front of my house. However the man-made waves are huge. After a cruiser goes by, it's really amazing to see all the clumps of grass and soil in the water. Again, if this is not "erosion" than I don't know what is.

mwl · 10-08-2007, 09:46 AM

My point is that if your NATURAL shorline had not been destroyed and replaced with grass & sand, waves from wind, boats or whatever would not cause any damage. Please take a look at some natural shorline and see what is there and how waves do not afftect it.

You'll probalbly have to look elsewhere other than the area you have your house to find some. One of the islands such as Stonedam is a good example. We're fortunate that there are still some areas protected from overdevelopment the boating public can still enjoy.

I just can't understand how some property owners can come up here, destroy (and I mean destroy) the natural beauty of the lake and then have the nerve to complain about boaters who only make waves.

Little Bear · 10-09-2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mwl

My point is that if your NATURAL shorline had not been destroyed and replaced with grass & sand, waves from wind, boats or whatever would not cause any damage. Please take a look at some natural shorline and see what is there and how waves do not afftect it.

You'll probalbly have to look elsewhere other than the area you have your house to find some. One of the islands such as Stonedam is a good example. We're fortunate that there are still some areas protected from overdevelopment the boating public can still enjoy.

I just can't understand how some property owners can come up here, destroy (and I mean destroy) the natural beauty of the lake and then have the nerve to complain about boaters who only make waves.

My shoreline is natural - never been replaced with grass and/or sand. Only thing I did was to build a perched beach in accordance with DES regs, but the natural shoreline had to remain virtually untouched. All of the natural, untouched shoreline has been seriously eroded; not by waves from wind, but rather by waves from huge cruisers. There is not enough fetch in front of my house for waves from wind to get any larger than 12 inches at the most. The erosion of the land is substantially higher up the slope from the waterline and no wave from wind could ever reach this high. If I get out there this weekend I'll take some pictures and post them here so you can see for yourself.

TomC · 10-10-2007, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mwl

I just can't understand how some property owners can come up here, destroy (and I mean destroy) the natural beauty of the lake and then have the nerve to complain about boaters who only make waves.

and I can't understand why some boaters think its OK to artificially generate damaging waves via a mechanical contrivance, but draw the line at a property owner changing the shorefront with docks, beaches, etc...

Either everyone goes all natural and you can boat by unmolested shorefronts paddling in your hollowed-out tree canoe, or you accept that man modifies his environment and compromises between all users of the lake must be made...

sum-r breeze · 10-10-2007, 09:42 PM

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AT THE HEARING??!!!!!!!!!!!

The Breeze

LIforrelaxin · 10-10-2007, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sum-r breeze

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AT THE HEARING??!!!!!!!!!!!

The Breeze

I couldn't find any results on this by doing a search. However I did find a web page where I believe it will show up once it is published.

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/h...craft2007.html

I also looked back at a few previous years and it appears back in 2005 a similar petitions was filed for East Cove and was denied......

ApS · 10-11-2007, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Bear

"...There is not enough fetch in front of my house for waves from wind to get any larger than 12 inches at the most. The erosion of the land is substantially higher up the slope from the waterline and no wave from wind could ever reach this high..."

I have the same situation at my place.

What's causing it is erosion of soil and duff along the shoreline. Rainfall naturally moves "makeup dirt" from uphill down to the water, where it is again eroded.

My neighbors—who have few trees left and steeper lots—have a much worse problem. They've had to dredge their dock areas twice to keep their boats from hitting the bottom. (And they have 50' docks).

SIKSUKR · 10-11-2007, 09:44 AM

I think mwl AND little bear have valid points even though they are conflicting.Shorefront that is naturally exposed to wind driven waves do appear to have natural rocky shores that protect from the same.Take a look at the western shore of Timber.Conversely,smaller coves that never recieve wind driven waves don't have that rocky shore in general.When manmade wakes constantly pound these areas,they are destructive for sure.Without constant manmade fixes to ward off the destruction of the waves,the shoreline will erode and would eventually get to rocky shore barriers.But at the cost of the property owners land?There in lies the rub.I can certainly understand both sides of this one.

sum-r breeze · 10-17-2007, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

I couldn't find any results on this by doing a search. However I did find a web page where I believe it will show up once it is published.

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/h...craft2007.html

I also looked back at a few previous years and it appears back in 2005 a similar petitions was filed for East Cove and was denied......

Thanks for the link! I'll keep checking through the Fall. I'm glad they were denied in 05 let's hope for the same outcome this round.

The Breeze
Wave cuz I'll be Wavin' back

sum-r breeze · 10-29-2007, 09:12 PM

I hope the people in East Cove are happy that they got their "No Rafting" Zone approved. I used to think the interests of the many outweighed the influence of the few but I am sadly mistaken. New Hampshire hasn't learned the lesson of Cape Cod...If you treat the tourists like crap they won't come back. The more stuff you take away from the Boaters (speed limits, no rafting zones, no jet skis, no boat rentals) the less boaters you'll have. That's more than likely what they want.....but beware of the backlash. Empty slips, low gas sales all around the lake, low boat sales, low restaurant attendence, Vacancy signs lit at all the Hotels, the list goes on and on. Then we'll here Channel 9 news tell us that tourism in lakes region is off by 40% and everybody will be shrugging their shoulders trying to figure out why. Remember these words" Beware of the Backlash" it's already started.
The Breeze

LIforrelaxin · 10-29-2007, 11:27 PM

Upon looking at the web page I also noticed that a second cove in Meredith was also made a no rafting zone. Advent cove ...... I am not really sure where this cove is, or how busy of a place it is but it has appearently met the same fate as East Cove.

Personally I have no stake in the game, but it is unfortunate that they are making things difficult on the day boaters.....

SIKSUKR · 10-30-2007, 10:06 AM

Advent cove is just west/northwest of Pine Island.

Taz · 11-01-2007, 05:52 PM

I know several boaters who frequent East Cove myself included. I don't think we will stop going there. The Only difference will be that we will now be tied in 2's. It may even be worse now because we will be more spread out.

jrc · 11-01-2007, 08:19 PM

Actually it sounds like great place, I'll try it next year. I don't like to raft that much any, to risky for the boat finish.

Weirs guy · 11-02-2007, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

Actually it sounds like great place, I'll try it next year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taz

I know several boaters who frequent East Cove myself included. I don't think we will stop going there. The Only difference will be that we will now be tied in 2's. It may even be worse now because we will be more spread out.

And perhaps that is the ultimate way to stop the creation of new No rafting zone shenanigans.

LIforrelaxin · 11-02-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weirs guy

And perhaps that is the ultimate way to stop the creation of new No rafting zone shenanigans.

I doubt it....in fact after this ruling East cove continues to fill up I would imagine they land owners will move onto a new tactic.....

Although knowing the cove, and assuming the MP comes in and starts ticketing people.... there really won't be room for many boats.....

Airwaves · 11-03-2007, 11:01 PM

In post #106 I asked the question.

Who has the right to petition for these changes? Residents only, Resident taxpayers only, Real Estate owners, Resident real estate taxpayers only, abuttors, resident abuttors only....who?

Who gets to petiton the state for changes in designation of the state waterways, or who is excluded from petitions?

No one responded, so does anyone know?

Skip · 11-04-2007, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

In post #106 I asked the question.

Who has the right to petition for these changes? Residents only, Resident taxpayers only, Real Estate owners, Resident real estate taxpayers only, abuttors, resident abuttors only....who?

Who gets to petiton the state for changes in designation of the state waterways, or who is excluded from petitions?

No one responded, so does anyone know?

If there is an applicable Lake Association, 25 members of that association regardless of their residency status.

Otherwise, a combination of 25 folks that either declare the particular town as their residency or are property owners in that particular town.

For further review:

Saf-C 414.02 Petition for Assisted Lake Protection.

(a) Any lakes association with 25 or more members, or group of 25 or more residents or property owners in a town or towns in which a lake is located may petition the commissioner to designate that lake for assisted protection, including an order specifying how the petitioners or the lake association which they represent may, consistent with applicable law, assist the department in the department’s efforts to regulate the operation of boats on the subject lake as specified in Saf-C 414.08.

I thought that maybe you were contacting the good folks at NHMP and awaiting thier response to share with us....

Airwaves · 11-04-2007, 12:22 PM

I wouldn't bother the folks at NHMP for something that! I felt pretty certain the answer could be found here on the forum

Just looking for an RSA or other applicable numer, thanks!

Interesting that they allow us out of state taxpayers to get involved in something like this.

As for my suggestion about putting AToN changes on their website, it's not something that I am personally concerned with since I pulled our boat a while back so I was recommending to folks that are concerned it could be something they might want to approach the director about.

08-27-2007, 05:55 PM	#102
GWC... Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,325 Thanks: 5 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Just a reminder for those who care... STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY NOTICE OF HEARING PURSUANT TO RSA 270:43, A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PETITION TO PROHIBIT AND/OR RESTRICT RAFTING OF BOATS IN LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE, EAST COVE ON LONG ISLAND WILL BE HELD ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 31, 2007 AT 1:00 PM. THE HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED AT THE MOULTONBOROUGH TOWN OFFICES, MOULTONBOROUGH, NEW HAMPSHIRE. THE SPECIFIC RESTRICTION REQUESTED IS TO ADOPT A RULE PROHIBITING RAFTING IN ALL OF EAST COVE ON LONG ISLAND, LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE. THE SPECIFIC AREA REQUESTED TO BE DESIGNATED IS A COVE SITUATED ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF LONG ISLAND AT ABOUT THE MIDPOINT; WEST ACROSS FROM LITTLE BEAR ISLAND AND SARAH'S POINT; AND EAST OF THE SOUTHERLY SHORES AREA OF LONG ISLAND. LOCATED ON TAX MAP #4, AREAS 280 AND 281 OF THE TOWN OF MOULTONBOROUGH AND IS ABUTTED BY LOTS 80, 79, 79A, 79B, 78, 76, 76B, AND 74C. TESTIMONY WILL BE ALLOWED THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: (1) THE SIZE OF THE BODY OF WATER OR PORTION THEREOF FOR WHICH RULEMAKING ACTION IS BEING CONSIDERED. (2) THE EFFECT WHICH ADOPTING OR NOT ADOPTING THE RULE (S) WOULD HAVE UPON: (A) PUBLIC SAFETY; (B) THE MAINTENANCE OF RESIDENTIAL, RECREATIONAL, AND SCENIC VALUES; (C) THE VARIETY OF USES OF SUCH BODY OF WATER OR PORTION THEREOF; (D) THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER QUALITY; (E) THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES. (3) THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AFFECTED, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY ADOPTING OR NOT ADOPTING THE RULE(S); AND (4) THE AVAILABILITY AND PRACTICALITY OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULE(S). PERSONS WISHING TO TESTIFY ARE URGED TO COORDINATE THEIR TESTIMONY TO AVOID UNNECESSARY DUPLICATION OR REPETITION OF TESTIMONY. THE DEPARTMENT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SEVEN (7) DAYS SUBSEQUENT TO THE SCHEDULED HEARING MUST RECEIVE SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN MATERIAL. AUTHORITY FOR HEARING: RSA 270:12, RSA 270:43, SAF-C 407 AND SAF-C 409. JOHN J. BARTHELMES, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BY: C. N. DUCLOS, BUREAU CHIEF DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, BUREAU OF HEARINGS, 33 HAZEN DRIVE, CONCORD, NH 03305 TEL # 603-271-3486 EMAIL: SAFETY-HEARINGS@SAFETY.STATE.NH.US SPEECH/HEARING IMPAIRED HELP LINE TTY/TDD RELAY: 1-800-735-2964 URL:http://www.nh.gov/safety/news/docume..._NoRafting.pdf __________________ [Assume funny, clever sig is here. Laugh and reflect... ]

09-03-2007, 06:28 AM	#103
TomC Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Lakes Region Posts: 547 Thanks: 9 Thanked 29 Times in 20 Posts	so... ...what happened at the hearing?

09-05-2007, 10:11 PM	#104
sum-r breeze Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Burlington Ma / Laconia NH Posts: 396 Thanks: 155 Thanked 201 Times in 97 Posts	East Cove I know Tom C asked....But I'll ask again. Does anyone know what happened at the hearing??? I wrote a lengthy EMail to the administrator of the hearing, I don't know how much that's worth. I have to work to afford my place in NH and to feed my boating addiction, so a Friday meeting was not attendable for me. Regards, The Breeze Wave 'cuz I'll be waving back

09-06-2007, 07:52 PM	#105
Rattlesnake Guy Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,254 Thanks: 423 Thanked 366 Times in 175 Posts	I have a question. Is a no rafting zone a "preferred" anchoring spot? A place where folks wanted to raft because it was attractive to do so but now less crowded because they can't? Anyone have a map showing these areas that might be attractive to single boats? This might free up space in other areas for the people who want to raft. Everything has an equilibrium.

09-06-2007, 09:18 PM	#106
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	So, who gets to give their opinion on this? IIs this an issue that Non-resident property owners have a say in, or is this a voters only issue? It seems to me that if non-resident, taxypayer, property owners can't vote in elections or have no say in policy, then why should they be allowed to file a petition changing the make-up of the use of the lake? Or was this petition exclusivly the work of permanent residents of the area?

09-07-2007, 07:54 AM	#109
chmeeee Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Central CT Posts: 90 Thanks: 19 Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts	The Bizer map shows no rafting zones. Thats how I found most of the places that I go to anchor/swim. Ironic, isn't it?

09-07-2007, 08:26 AM	#110
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	In the same train of thought as Chmeeee, I never tried East Cove before, I'll have to try it out. Now that I know exactly where it is.

09-18-2007, 10:52 AM	#113
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	I can not find a law or rule that says you cannot anchor near shore outside of designated no rafting zones. There are rules about anchoring in mooring fields, or indirectly addressing anchoring within swim lines. There are lots of mooring rules. I'm sure you can't anchor such that you block navigation. In general you can anchor anywhere you want to, unless one of these rules apply. I personally don't anchor where I will be a nusiance to shorefront dwellers. Of course that's a subjective judgement.

09-24-2007, 09:28 AM	#114
mwl Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I agree, just like everything else in this world. It only takes a few jerks to ruin it for the rest. However, there are several coves my family and I have frequented since the 60's. We'd drop anchor, have lunch, fish and swim all afternoon while enjoying the untouched natural shorline. Now many of these coves have had their natural shorlines destroyed. Dozens of trees have been cut down and it's riddled with large homes. Some of my favorite Bass fishing spots have now been replaced with a large dock or beach. I don't visit these overdeveloped coves any longer. Some posts have targeted boats as a cause of erosion. Development and rain storms cause erosion - not waves. After we've enjoyed a day on the lake, we leave it exactly as we found it. Most of the posts from anti-rafting people claim to love the natural beauty of the lake and how boaters are runing their lake experience. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

09-24-2007, 02:20 PM	#117
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	I'm surprised, but according to most sources I've check with a google search, this from MSN Encarta is a the typical definition: Erosion, removal of rock and soil material by natural processes, principally running water, glaciers, waves, and wind. Any human contribution is usually blamed on removal of vegetation, like trees and grass. There is no single word for damage to shorelines structures caused by boat wakes. How about "wake damage"? Or be more to the point, just call it bad stuff caused by things I don't like.

10-08-2007, 09:46 AM	#119
mwl Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	My point is that if your NATURAL shorline had not been destroyed and replaced with grass & sand, waves from wind, boats or whatever would not cause any damage. Please take a look at some natural shorline and see what is there and how waves do not afftect it. You'll probalbly have to look elsewhere other than the area you have your house to find some. One of the islands such as Stonedam is a good example. We're fortunate that there are still some areas protected from overdevelopment the boating public can still enjoy. I just can't understand how some property owners can come up here, destroy (and I mean destroy) the natural beauty of the lake and then have the nerve to complain about boaters who only make waves.

10-10-2007, 09:42 PM	#122
sum-r breeze Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Burlington Ma / Laconia NH Posts: 396 Thanks: 155 Thanked 201 Times in 97 Posts	Again DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AT THE HEARING??!!!!!!!!!!! The Breeze

10-11-2007, 09:44 AM	#125
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	I think mwl AND little bear have valid points even though they are conflicting.Shorefront that is naturally exposed to wind driven waves do appear to have natural rocky shores that protect from the same.Take a look at the western shore of Timber.Conversely,smaller coves that never recieve wind driven waves don't have that rocky shore in general.When manmade wakes constantly pound these areas,they are destructive for sure.Without constant manmade fixes to ward off the destruction of the waves,the shoreline will erode and would eventually get to rocky shore barriers.But at the cost of the property owners land?There in lies the rub.I can certainly understand both sides of this one. __________________ SIKSUKR

10-29-2007, 09:12 PM	#127
sum-r breeze Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Burlington Ma / Laconia NH Posts: 396 Thanks: 155 Thanked 201 Times in 97 Posts	Another Blow To Our Freedom.... I hope the people in East Cove are happy that they got their "No Rafting" Zone approved. I used to think the interests of the many outweighed the influence of the few but I am sadly mistaken. New Hampshire hasn't learned the lesson of Cape Cod...If you treat the tourists like crap they won't come back. The more stuff you take away from the Boaters (speed limits, no rafting zones, no jet skis, no boat rentals) the less boaters you'll have. That's more than likely what they want.....but beware of the backlash. Empty slips, low gas sales all around the lake, low boat sales, low restaurant attendence, Vacancy signs lit at all the Hotels, the list goes on and on. Then we'll here Channel 9 news tell us that tourism in lakes region is off by 40% and everybody will be shrugging their shoulders trying to figure out why. Remember these words" Beware of the Backlash" it's already started. The Breeze

10-29-2007, 11:27 PM	#128
LIforrelaxin Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee Posts: 2,821 Thanks: 1,014 Thanked 880 Times in 514 Posts	A second blow Upon looking at the web page I also noticed that a second cove in Meredith was also made a no rafting zone. Advent cove ...... I am not really sure where this cove is, or how busy of a place it is but it has appearently met the same fate as East Cove. Personally I have no stake in the game, but it is unfortunate that they are making things difficult on the day boaters..... __________________ Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....

10-30-2007, 10:06 AM	#129
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	Advent cove is just west/northwest of Pine Island. __________________ SIKSUKR

11-01-2007, 05:52 PM	#130
Taz Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 345 Thanks: 3 Thanked 68 Times in 46 Posts	East Cove I know several boaters who frequent East Cove myself included. I don't think we will stop going there. The Only difference will be that we will now be tied in 2's. It may even be worse now because we will be more spread out.

11-01-2007, 08:19 PM	#131
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	Actually it sounds like great place, I'll try it next year. I don't like to raft that much any, to risky for the boat finish.

11-03-2007, 11:01 PM	#134
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	Does anyone really know? In post #106 I asked the question. Who has the right to petition for these changes? Residents only, Resident taxpayers only, Real Estate owners, Resident real estate taxpayers only, abuttors, resident abuttors only....who? Who gets to petiton the state for changes in designation of the state waterways, or who is excluded from petitions? No one responded, so does anyone know?

11-04-2007, 12:22 PM	#136
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	Not for that I wouldn't bother the folks at NHMP for something that! I felt pretty certain the answer could be found here on the forum Just looking for an RSA or other applicable numer, thanks! Interesting that they allow us out of state taxpayers to get involved in something like this. As for my suggestion about putting AToN changes on their website, it's not something that I am personally concerned with since I pulled our boat a while back so I was recommending to folks that are concerned it could be something they might want to approach the director about.