More No Rafting Zones & Losing Your Rights!!! [Archive]

Uncle Fun

08-15-2007, 11:41 AM

Here is a notice that I found on the State of NH Department of Safety Website regarding a hearing on August 31st about changing EAST COVE to a NO RAFTING zone...

Lately, there have been a lot of new areas that have become no rafting zones
(Braun Bay, Advent Cove, West Alton, etc...) all at the request/petition of
the land owners around these areas who think that they own the water in front of their places... Once these no rafting zones pass, (usually without most of the boating community knowing about it) it is almost impossible to get them to change back.

Anyone interested should try to show up at the hearing to testify AGAINST this bill or to show your opposition to it, because before you know it, EVERY COVE on the Lake will become no rafting zones... Then what will we do??? A lot of us talk and complain about not knowing that these areas became no rafting without a chance to have any say about it... Well here is your chance!!!

There is no reason that this has to happen and I really hate to see the boaters lose rights to the lake that we enjoy so much because the people in these coves do not want us there... The Hearing is August 31st at 1:00pm at the Moultonborough Town Offices... Thanks for your time!!!

*** HEARING NOTICE POSTED BELOW ***

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

Uncle Fun

08-15-2007, 11:44 AM

Uncle Fun

08-15-2007, 11:48 AM

When people buy lakeshore property that is adjacent to a public park (makes no difference if that park consists of grass or water), they should go into the purchase with the realization that the public is going to want to use their park (gasp!). Some of the public will even play music and make some noise (what a surprise). If you buy a home adjacent to a park with a ball field, you shouldn't complain when the kids hit the ball your way. Nor should you be able to sneak in a petition (because no one knew about it) to close that area of the park from any ball playing.

What all these "no rafting" petitions are doing is preventing the public from using a portion of their own water park.

When people put a dock into a public water park, they should not be surprised when bass anglers fish the public water that their dock is in.

If people do not want any portion of the public to be around them, they should not live right next to a park . . . They should live far out in the country.

Okay . . . I'm off my soapbox now.

DS

Uncle Fun

08-15-2007, 11:51 AM

In reading the notice of hearing, I'm wondering how boaters are supposed to
make this happen: "Persons wishing to testify are urged to coordinate their
testimony to avoid unnecessary duplication or repetition of testimony."

I'm sure the land owners are already organized to attend the hearing and
provide testimony. Wonder if the process allows for a signed petition to
reflect the interests of boaters?

Maybe someone should send a letter to the editor of local newspapers to
insure that more boaters are aware of this hearing.

Judi

Welchmoore

08-15-2007, 12:19 PM

Since some coves have been closed off to rafting we are seeing more rafting in a small cove across from the island we have a camp on. We were unsure of the reason but with this post I realize why. Let me just say I have nothing against rafting (responsibly) but.... when people are out there all day, drinking and having a good time and then I look out in our telescope and believe me if you think your not being watched out threre think again (everyone has telescopes). How are TAX PAYING island residents suppose to feel about people urinating in the lake??? And yes I have seen that too. That's where we get our water supply from and it's disgusting, also there has been more liter in the water like beer cans and most disgusting of all a tampon came floating by this weekend that we had to remove. How should land owners feel about that?? The lake belongs to everybody not just boaters who use the lake for a day of enjoyment, just because some bonehead boaters can afford a boat - doesn't mean they are entitled to trash the lake. I've been coming to this lake for 30 years and it's really sad that this pristine lake is starting to become polluted. More boats, more people, more pollution!

KonaChick

08-15-2007, 01:00 PM

Sadly a few bad apples do spoil the whole bunch. Imagine buying in late fall, winter or spring and looking out over a trangquil cove then July 1st comes and the same cove you thought was so peaceful turns into Fraternity House Row. Most of us have been to the popular rafting sites and are all too familiar with what goes on. Now I'm not talking about the average family who wants to anchor, fish a little, swim, enjoy lunch while listening to some tunes. I have not tolerence for the people who see this lake as their own personal party pad. They are digging their own graves and unfortunetly the ones who are losing out are the ones who abide by the laws and just want to enjoy some time on the water without being disruptive. On the flip side we made sure we did NOT buy in one of the more popular coves for just this reason. We bought a place with a nice black marker out front and PLENTY of rocks to keep the riff raff out!!! :emb:

TomC

08-15-2007, 01:04 PM

When you buy lakefront property in a cove or secluded area you have bought the land not the water in front of your property. Somehow this message hasto be gotten across to these people.

As long as boaters obey the laws of the lake (150' from shore etc.) then we
should be allowed to use the lake (all of the lake) freely. ..snip

Waterfront owners do have more rights to the waterfront than the general public:

Case law:

W. A. Sundell & a. vs. Town of New London
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
119 N.H. 839, December 12, 1979
HEADNOTE
1. Waters--Public
Both at common law and by statute, title to waters of a great pond vest in the State for public use. RSA 271:20 (Supp. 1977).
2. Waters--Public--Littoral Owners
Although statute, vesting title of lake waters in the State for public use, provides that no individual shall have any rights not common to all citizens, littoral owners have common law property rights which are more extensive than those of the public generally, which could not be taken without compensation, and which were not affected by the statute. RSA 271:20 (Supp. 1977).
3. Waters--Public--Littoral Owners
Private rights of littoral owners include but are not limited to the right to use and occupy the waters adjacent to their shore for a variety of recreational purposes, the right to erect boat houses, and to wharf out into the water.
4. Waters--Public--Littoral Owners
Although waters of great ponds are public waters, littoral owners have private property rights which are separate from, independent of, and more extensive than the public's rights.
5. Waters--Public--Littoral Owners
Since owners of shore property around lake have private littoral rights separate from the public's rights, court did not err in declining to direct verdicts for the defendant town, where littoral owners brought a private nuisance claim against the town seeking damages for interference with their littoral rights, and not for interference with rights common to the public.

So... If the waterfront owners successfully make the case that their littoral rights to use the waterfront adjacent to their properties for recreational purposes are infringed upon by a raft - then the No Rafting zone is passed..

spinker

08-15-2007, 01:16 PM

I have been boating and rafting on the lake for 23 years and I have never seen anything that you are describing taking place. Yes, there are many people having fun on the lake, but are people trying to stop you as well?

By the way can you tell me where I can purchase an X rated telescope like yours ?

I think boaters have got to get together and stop people like Welchmoore from making absurd claims as he is doing. This is the same as trying to get a no parking zone in front of your house, try it and see how far you can get.

I will be at that meeting, how about you ?

Uncle Fun

08-15-2007, 01:21 PM

Waterfront owners do have more rights to the waterfront than the general public:

3. Waters--Public--Littoral Owners
Private rights of littoral owners include but are not limited to the right to use and occupy the waters adjacent to their shore for a variety of recreational purposes, the right to erect boat houses, and to wharf out into the water.

So... If the waterfront owners successfully make the case that their littoral rights to use the waterfront adjacent to their properties for recreational purposes are infringed upon by a raft - then the No Rafting zone is passed..

Thanks for the heads up Tom... So, what exactly is your position???

I am all for land (island) owners rights and the right to use and occupy the waters adjacent to their shore for a variety of reaons that they wish... But what is the definiton of Adjacent??? Many of these coves do not have houses/cottages directly in front of where the rafting zone is (Braun Bay).
As long as the land owner can come and go by boat as they please and can swim without obstructions in front of their place and as long as you have respect for the cove and don't infringe on the land owner's rights (i.e. - follow the laws/rules appropriately) there should be NO ISSUE. THERE IS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE that rafting in this area or any area for that matter infringes on any littoral rights (that was 1979 - had to dig to find that one?) -so I think the MAJOR ISSUE in question, is that people don't want a small group of boaters in front of their property detracting from their pretty little views... If people have an issue, call the Marine Patrol and have them go check it out - that is their job... DON'T PETITION THE STATE and try to get a "Back Door" fix to a problem that you perceive as there when nobody else does! I am a responsible boater and like to raft with 5 +/- others who enjoy it as well...

Little Bear

08-15-2007, 01:39 PM

TomC

08-15-2007, 01:51 PM

So, what exactly is your position???

(that was 1979 - had to dig to find that one?)

My positon was to provide infomation to the discussion. I don't care whether the cove in question is no rafting or not. I was trying to point out that IF the property owners make their case successfully that there has been an infringement of their littoral rights, the law provides for the creation of a no rafting zone.

Info from 1979. This is case law and does not expire, unless superceded at a later date by another decision. It establishes precedent and is still relevant.

Island Lover

08-15-2007, 02:15 PM

It is often said that waterfront property owners have no more right to the lake than anyone else. However this simply is not true. The State and the State Supreme Court have recognized that waterfront property owners are the "literal" owners of the lake adjacent to their property.

This does not give them ownership of the lake, they have no say where people can swim for instance. It does give them rights to place a dock over the water, swim lines, moorings, swim rafts, water intakes etc. You can't do any of those things in the water, if you do not own the adjacent land. They also have the right to petition for a no rafting zone.

I predict that in response to the above paragraph someone will post loudly that we DO NOT OWN THE LAKE. This is quite true, but not to the point. Property owners do not own the lake, but they do have certain special rights to it.

I have personally watched people stand on their swim platform and urinate into the lake not far from my drinking water intake. How many people do this less obtrusively while in the water I will not guess. However most of those boats do not have a head.

Thanks for posting this. I will be sure to be at the hearing.

Skip

08-15-2007, 02:22 PM

...The State and the State Supreme Court have recognized that waterfront property owners are the "literal" owners of the lake adjacent to their property.

This does not give them ownership of the lake, they have no say where people can swim for instance. It does give them rights to place a dock over the water, swim lines, moorings, swim rafts, water intakes etc. You can't do any of those things in the water, if you do not own the adjacent land. They also have the right to petition for a no rafting zone...

Thank you for posting a concise and correct synopsis of waterfront littoral rights. Too many others over the years, on both sides of the issue, have mangled the true meaning of the case often cited. You did a great job here fairly presenting what the Court has intended...:)

Skip

Lakegeezer

08-15-2007, 02:35 PM

A few years ago, a neighborhood near us quietly tried to have their "cove" designated as a no-jetski zone. At the meeting, there were several who provided comments against it, and only the group's lawyer was for it. Their proposal was turned down. Fighting against a water rights grab can work.

Adding more no-rafting zones concentrates the crowd into other areas, which forces the residents there to want more no-rafting zones. With the price of gas, rafting is the environmental friendly thing to do. There needs to be more, not fewer places to raft. Trash and mal-behavior occurs no matter if the boats are rafting or just there by themselves. I don't see that as a reasonable reason to close down public property.

If you care about using the cove, list your reasons here in the forum why the no-rafting proposal should be turned down. Then, plan to go to the meeting. The people own the lake, but if the people don't show up, those with special interests may win.

Uncle Fun

08-15-2007, 02:41 PM

I am a property owner near East Cove and I am also a member of NHRBA.

Seems like these people in the yacht clubs (from where the majority of rafters in East Cove come) don't want us land owners in their "private areas"

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I support NHRBA in their fight against the speed limit. However, these cabin cruisers coming from the big yacht clubs cause far more damage to shoreline and personal property, and are far more dangerous to swimmers, etc., than any speeding boats. I don't agree with their support against a no-rafting zone in East Cove, if in fact this is their position.

Little Bear - PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE tell me you are kidding here... Do you realize that the sole purpose of the NHRBA (New Hampshire Recreational Boaters Association) of which you claim you are a (paying) member (because memberships are not free) is for the RIGHTS OF BOATERS??? Take a look at their website (NHRBA.COM) - This is a quote directly from the "About Us" page --> "We are chartered to promote and protect the interests of boaters and boating enthusiasts in the State of New Hampshire. This is achieved through legislative monitoring, administrative rules efforts, and public outreach programs.

Never before has there been an association which solely represented the interests of New Hampshire’s boating public."

On one hand, you indicate that you support the speed limit fight (obviously convenient for when you are using your boat) - BUT on the other hand, when your boat is at your dock, you take off your NHRBA hat and want all the land owners rights too!!! Sounds like a pretty good package... Makes me wish I had waterfront property... I DON'T... My boat is my waterfront home and I would like to keep the rights to it...

By the way... Do you have any PROOF or ACTUAL EVIDENCE of the following quote of yours: "However, these cabin cruisers coming from the big yacht clubs cause far more damage to shoreline and personal property, and are far more dangerous to swimmers, etc., than any speeding boats" or did you just want to throw this in as your own opinon instead of stating FACT???

Further, how can you possibly compare a Yacht Club (which is basically a condo association made up of numerous owners, renters, and guests) with you personally being a land owner??? Do any of these owners, renters, or guests actually trespass on your personal PRIVATELY owned land??? I didn't think so... Just because they go on the water in front of your place does not mean they don't belong there (unless they swim up to shore and walk around your property and trespass) - just as if you take your boat in front of any yacht club - you can go there without expectation or fear of repercussion. So, please, by all means, I will look forward to seeing you raft in front of one of the many Yacht Clubs on the lake in the near future (but please don't walk on the property)!!!

LDR4

08-15-2007, 03:03 PM

I am a property owner near East Cove and I am also a member of NHRBA. I received this same message yesterday that Uncle Fun has posted stating: "There is no reason that this has to happen and I really hate to see the boaters lose rights to the lake that we enjoy so much because the people in these coves do not want us there..."

This statement came from the webmaster of a well-known yacht club on the lake, which will remain nameless in this post. However, this same yacht club has private property signs posted at every corner of the club, and I believe signs out in the lake telling people that the club is a private club, do not enter, no wake, etc. Seems like these people in the yacht clubs (from where the majority of rafters in East Cove come) don't want us land owners in their "private areas", but get upset when waterfront owners complain about boats in the coves near their houses. I say we get a whole bunch of land owners together and start rafting all day, right inside these yacht clubs - then let's see how these same people feel about it. Watch how fast they try to kick us out. Hey, the water belongs to the State (so they say), so I'm going to start making arrangements for a big Labor Day bash right inside their yacht club. How 'bout it Uncle Fun - you in??

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I support NHRBA in their fight against the speed limit. However, these cabin cruisers coming from the big yacht clubs cause far more damage to shoreline and personal property, and are far more dangerous to swimmers, etc., than any speeding boats. I don't agree with their support against a no-rafting zone in East Cove, if in fact this is their position.

You have got to be kidding....
The yacht club you are referring to is Spinnaker Cove and I have been a member for 8 years and I am also a past commodore so I know a little bit about the signage there.
Yes there are "Private Property" Signs there. It is after all a "private club"
Since our membership pays dues and fees to belong shouldn't they expect soem "private" privliges that the general public does not get.
Somehow I don't think that "Public welcome" signs will do the trick.
as for the break wall, there are absolutely no "Keep out" signs anywhere. only "no wake" signs.
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.

Speaking of your property, how do you know all those rafting boats are from Spinnaker?
I have a big 'ol cabin cruiser and I have never even heard of East Cove let alone been raftinf there.

Just because you have to dish out a small fortune for the taxes on your lakefront property does not mean you control what you have to look at out your front window.
This petition is just another attempt by the well funded landowners to take total control of the lake.
I will be at the hearing as well.

LDR4

08-15-2007, 03:15 PM

I have personally watched people stand on their swim platform and urinate into the lake not far from my drinking water intake. How many people do this less obtrusively while in the water I will not guess. However most of those boats do not have a head.

Thanks for posting this. I will be sure to be at the hearing.[/QUOTE]

Island Lover,
I have a large "cabin Cruiser" and spend most of my time on weekends rafting with a group of friends who have similar boats. We all have heads in the boats and use them when needed. I am not saying that there are not people who urinate in the water from their boat, which is neither right nor condoned. but are you going to tell me that it is only boaters who do this? What about people on shore using their lakefront property. Can you honestly say that cousin Bob who has been at your BBQ all day woofing down the Keystone lights is going to wipe his dirty feet off and go in to use your facilities when mother nature calls? I think not. You will be able to tell who he is because he is the one in waste deep water, not moving, with a great since of relief on his face.
Give be a break!

Little Bear

08-15-2007, 03:50 PM

You have got to be kidding....
The yacht club you are referring to is Spinnaker Cove and I have been a member for 8 years and I am also a past commodore so I know a little bit about the signage there.
Yes there are "Private Property" Signs there. It is after all a "private club"
Since our membership pays dues and fees to belong shouldn't they expect soem "private" privliges that the general public does not get.
Somehow I don't think that "Public welcome" signs will do the trick.
as for the break wall, there are absolutely no "Keep out" signs anywhere. only "no wake" signs.
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.

Speaking of your property, how do you know all those rafting boats are from Spinnaker?
I have a big 'ol cabin cruiser and I have never even heard of East Cove let alone been raftinf there.

Just because you have to dish out a small fortune for the taxes on your lakefront property does not mean you control what you have to look at out your front window.
This petition is just another attempt by the well funded landowners to take total control of the lake.
I will be at the hearing as well.

Dave,

I never said that all those rafting boats were from Spinnaker. I said they were from "yacht clubs" - not one in particular, which I think is a valid statement. Of course I was being facicious when I suggested that we set up rafting inside the yacht clubs. I was trying to make the point that the argument can work in many ways. The other point is that a no-rafting policy does not close down the cove. It just limits the amount of boats that can tie together while at anchor, and also the spacing between boats that are anchored. Why is that such a big problem?

Little Bear

08-15-2007, 03:59 PM

Little Bear - PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE tell me you are kidding here... Do you realize that the sole purpose of the NHRBA (New Hampshire Recreational Boaters Association) of which you claim you are a (paying) member (because memberships are not free) is for the RIGHTS OF BOATERS??? Take a look at their website (NHRBA.COM) - This is a quote directly from the "About Us" page --> "We are chartered to promote and protect the interests of boaters and boating enthusiasts in the State of New Hampshire. This is achieved through legislative monitoring, administrative rules efforts, and public outreach programs.

Never before has there been an association which solely represented the interests of New Hampshire’s boating public."

On one hand, you indicate that you support the speed limit fight (obviously convenient for when you are using your boat) - BUT on the other hand, when your boat is at your dock, you take off your NHRBA hat and want all the land owners rights too!!! Sounds like a pretty good package... Makes me wish I had waterfront property... I DON'T... My boat is my waterfront home and I would like to keep the rights to it...

By the way... Do you have any PROOF or ACTUAL EVIDENCE of the following quote of yours: "However, these cabin cruisers coming from the big yacht clubs cause far more damage to shoreline and personal property, and are far more dangerous to swimmers, etc., than any speeding boats" or did you just want to throw this in as your own opinon instead of stating FACT???

Further, how can you possibly compare a Yacht Club (which is basically a condo association made up of numerous owners, renters, and guests) with you personally being a land owner??? Do any of these owners, renters, or guests actually trespass on your personal PRIVATELY owned land??? I didn't think so... Just because they go on the water in front of your place does not mean they don't belong there (unless they swim up to shore and walk around your property and trespass) - just as if you take your boat in front of any yacht club - you can go there without expectation or fear of repercussion. So, please, by all means, I will look forward to seeing you raft in front of one of the many Yacht Clubs on the lake in the near future (but please don't walk on the property)!!!

Uncle Fun,

Take a look at the size of the boats in the cove. Also, take a look at the ensign flags they fly, identifying the yacht club they come from. The majority of these boats are from yacht clubs, period. As far as NHRBA is concerned, I stated I support their position against the speed limit. I have a boat that will exceed the speed limit, but not by much. I guess it's more that I am against these people that are trying to impose a speed limit for reasons that are unrelated to speed - I don't buy their agenda. As far as no-rafting/East Cove is concerned, I don't believe that the NHRBA mission of protecting boaters' rights is really relevant in this case. I know it's a stretch, but when there are 10 boats anchored together in a cove, can one really consider this boating? I also stated in a reply to Dave that the no-rafting zone does not prohibit use of the cove by any boater whatsoever, but rather only regulates the use of the cove by limiting the number of boats that can tie together while at anchor, thereby limiting the impact to the shoreline, ecosystem, etc. What's the big problem with that?

Island Lover

08-15-2007, 04:06 PM

Island Lover,
I have a large "cabin Cruiser" and spend most of my time on weekends rafting with a group of friends who have similar boats. We all have heads in the boats and use them when needed. I am not saying that there are not people who urinate in the water from their boat, which is neither right nor condoned. but are you going to tell me that it is only boaters who do this? What about people on shore using their lakefront property. Can you honestly say that cousin Bob who has been at your BBQ all day woofing down the Keystone lights is going to wipe his dirty feet off and go in to use your facilities when mother nature calls? I think not. You will be able to tell who he is because he is the one in waste deep water, not moving, with a great since of relief on his face.
Give be a break!

I don't know your cousin Bob, but if he urinates in the water he is a criminal.

He is not welcome on my island for a barbecue or anything else.

jrc

08-15-2007, 04:29 PM

....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....

There is no 150 from property rule unless you're in a no rafting zone. Then in most cases you must be 150 from shore. Spinaker cove is not a no rafting zone. I can and have anchored within a few feet of the outside of the Spinaker cove breakwall (to fish) and I guess I could anchor and fish within the breakwall. The club cannot stop me from boating in the area enclosed by the breakwall. I know the two yacht clubs that I frequent cannot keep fishermen from their basins. Obviously I could not obstruct a boater from using his dock.

I'm not sure what this has to do with rafting.

LDR4

08-15-2007, 04:39 PM

Dave,

The other point is that a no-rafting policy does not close down the cove. It just limits the amount of boats that can tie together while at anchor, and also the spacing between boats that are anchored. Why is that such a big problem?

Why is that such a problem??? Rafting limits the number of boats that can be tied to togeather to just 2 and they have to be at least 50 feet away from another boat. To put that in a "Landowner's scenerio" it would be like you having a get togeather with 4 or five other couples to have a few drinks, cook a little, do some swimming etc. but all of the other couples had to stay at least 50 feet away from you and one of your friends unless they "swam" over to your beach to vist. They of course would have to swim back to their designated spot 50 feet from you to go get more food or drinks but they could always "swim" back to vist later.
In my opinion I would think that one large raft of boats (say 10) in one spot would be less invasive of your "view of the lake" than 5 groups of 2 boats each spread throughout your cove each 50 feet from the other.

mattmike

08-15-2007, 06:12 PM

Have they sold any of those lots at Johnson's Cove in Winter Harbor. Someone may be in for a shock when they see what they have purchased. On a nice Saturday there can be 20+ boats in there. Do the realtors have a legal obligation to tell the buyer about that if they view the lot on a weekday? Do the buyers have any recourse?

codeman671

08-15-2007, 07:59 PM

By the way... Do you have any PROOF or ACTUAL EVIDENCE of the following quote of yours: "However, these cabin cruisers coming from the big yacht clubs cause far more damage to shoreline and personal property, and are far more dangerous to swimmers, etc., than any speeding boats" or did you just want to throw this in as your own opinon instead of stating FACT???

Uncle Fun- I'll respond to that one...There have been previous posts about large cabin cruisers doing shoreline and personal property damage. This should be no surprise. And dangerous to swimmers? Heck ya! I am a waterfront owner and as a rule of thumb we do not let any kids under the age of 14 or so swim at our place without a life jacket on and adults watching, it doesn't matter how good of a swimmer they are. The unexpected boat wakes can be obnoxious and dangerous to small swimmers. Our swim raft will rock violently in the waves from boat wakes, picture a 7 year old swimming up to it and preparing to board it when a wake hits and drives it into their little head. It has happened, luckily nobody was seriously hurt.

Where do these big cruisers come from? Yacht clubs mostly. Drive around the lake, most waterfront owners do not own large cabin cruisers, they already live there and don't have the need for a large cruiser.

As far as being more dangerous to swimmers than speeding boats I think this is totally valid. Every weekend we face the large boat wakes yet I can't remember the last time a speeding boat interfered with our swimming. The faster the boat is traveling, the smaller the wake as a rule of thumb.

I have been a day boater in the past prior to owning on the water and have enjoyed the sand bars and would hate to see them no longer useable. If someone buys land in front of a known rafting area they should know in advance what that means. I will say though that I would be thoroughly upset if boats just started hanging out in front of our house when it has NOT been a previously used spot for this type of activity.

We have friends just down from us who subdivided their property, sold their cottages and are going to build further down in the cove. In the past there was a boat or two there on occasion but this year I am seeing 8-10 at a time. I would be not overly thrilled to be building my house and have to look at this. Land owners do pay a lot of money for their property and should be able to enjoy it. I am not saying that we have more rights than others but picture it on both sides before passing a judgement against those who wish not to look at a floating party every weekend out the front window.

Paugus Bay Resident

08-15-2007, 09:24 PM

Don't forget that many, if not most cruiser owners are also waterfront property owners. With slips being assessed at $100 to $150K property taxes can run well over $2,000 plus common area assesments. While not as much as most waterfront homes, it's no small chunk of change.

jrc

08-15-2007, 10:05 PM

One thing water front property owners should remember, no rafting zones push boaters to other spots, maybe in front of your house. I used to always try for one of the popular snady spots. I'd get out early and try to get a good spot before the crowds. But I've given up on them, I can't relax. I turn my head for a few minutes and boats are surrounding me and pushing the distance rules. Maybe some are 24', maybe not, I'm not taking a chance. I leave and go somewhere else. Maybe that nice quiet cove with only a few houses. Maybe in the middle of a cove where people usually waterski. I'm going to go somewhere, I'm not going to drive around in circles all day.

Since the whole cruiser wake subject renewed, I've been very attentive to wakes this summer. My observations are that mush speed operation plays a much bigger role than boat size. Sitting behind Timber in a raft up, you really notice wakes and who makes them. I'm going to have to take some pictures.

Island Lover

08-16-2007, 08:31 AM

...I used to always try for one of the popular snady spots. I'd get out early and try to get a good spot before the crowds. But I've given up on them, I can't relax. I turn my head for a few minutes and boats are surrounding me and pushing the distance rules. Maybe some are 24', maybe not, I'm not taking a chance. I leave and go somewhere else. ....

Thank You!

Your own quote sums up why property owners want no rafting zones.

jrc

08-16-2007, 10:00 AM

Thank You!

Your own quote sums up why property owners want no rafting zones.

I think you miss the point, someone elses NRZ will cause me to go to your shoreline. When you get your NRZ I'll go to someone elses. But then they will want one, when will it stop? Instead of tightly clustered in a few spots, (usually without houses) anchored boats will be spread out everywhere.

It's not the having a boat 24' feet away that makes me nervous, it's getting a ticket because he's there.

BTW I am a property owner. I own two parcels of NH waterfront property, one on the big lake.

Islander

08-16-2007, 11:13 AM

I think you miss the point, someone elses NRZ will cause me to go to your shoreline. When you get your NRZ I'll go to someone elses. But then they will want one, when will it stop? Instead of tightly clustered in a few spots, (usually without houses) anchored boats will be spread out everywhere.

It's not the having a boat 24' feet away that makes me nervous, it's getting a ticket because he's there.

BTW I am a property owner. I own two parcels of NH waterfront property, one on the big lake.

I can't imagine a property owner being worried about where you go when they get their NRZ. They just want you away from them.

If you build a home on big lake and look out one morning to see the water covered with boats, music playing, kids standing in ankle deep water at your beach while their parent is screaming at you that you don't own the lake and your wondering what is in that fat diaper, remember this thread.

I'm sure you can tell me that lots of rafters are respectful, law abiding folk. But you know the old story about the bad apples that screw things up for all.

Weirs guy

08-16-2007, 11:46 AM

...kids standing in ankle deep water at your beach while their parent is screaming at you that you don't own the lake and your wondering what is in that fat diaper...

Isn't that what pit bulls are for? :laugh:

Uncle Fun

08-16-2007, 12:19 PM

The unexpected boat wakes can be obnoxious and dangerous to small swimmers.

As far as being more dangerous to swimmers than speeding boats I think this is totally valid. Every weekend we face the large boat wakes yet I can't remember the last time a speeding boat interfered with our swimming. The faster the boat is traveling, the smaller the wake as a rule of thumb.

picture it on both sides before passing a judgement against those who wish not to look at a floating party every weekend out the front window.

CODEMAN: I don't know how this whole thread that is supposed to be about RAFTING got on all these other topics about speed, wake size, and peeing in the water... BUT, since you opened the can up... You noted the "UNEXPECTED boat wakes can be obnoxious and dangerous..." Obviously, you agree that they are not done ON-PURPOSE... They are unexpected... Now that you know the possibility exists - EXPECT THEM!!! So what if a big boat makes a bigger wake??? ALL BOATS MAKE A WAKE - from the smallest rowboat to the Mt. Washington... Heck, waves are even created by WIND when there are no boats around!!! Next you are going to tell me that you want to regulate wake size (or wind speed) too!!! I am more concerned with a person operating their boat in a safe and responsible manner than how fast they are going because your RAFT is bouncing too much!!! But I digress because I would like to stay on the rafting topic...

Also, I am EMPATHETIC... In case you don't know what that means... It means that I have the ability to put myself in anothers shoes and see things from another view point... So, I can see your and all the other land owners points... You do not want 5-10 big boats tied up in front of YOUR house because it will spoil YOUR view... Isn't that being a little selfish??? It's okay as long as it happens some where else on the lake... Basically that is what this all boils down to... It doesn't matter that the MAJORITY of the boats are tied up not causing any harm or destruction, or that summer is basically only 8 weekends long (July & August), and that you have your pretty little UNOBSTRUCTED view the whole other 10 months of the year when the boats are in storage and the weather is not great... You don't want anyone there at anytime of the year for any reason PERIOD... Where is the compromise??? Rafting is NOT a major problem on the lake... The landowners are making it one... Why can't we all get along??? In fact, tell me where your house is and we will come raft there and leave the area in better condition than we found it... This way you can see that all BIG BOAT owners are not BIG BAD PEOPLE... I can invite you on the boat for some food and laughs and you can invite me to try that wild bucking raft of yours... I'll even pay admission to try it...

Uncle Fun

08-16-2007, 12:27 PM

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXII/270/270-44.htm

From the State of NH Website - so that we all know that we are talking about the same thing...

If you can't open the link, I will post it below...

**************************************************

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270
SUPERVISION OF NAVIGATION; REGISTRATION OF BOATS AND MOTORS; COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER
Rafting of Boats
Section 270:44
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;
II. Form or allow the boat which he is operating or in charge of to be a member of a raft if any part of such raft is:
(a) Less than 50 feet from any other raft; or
(b) Less than 50 feet from any occupied single boat which is stationary upon the waters of the same lake or pond.
III. Anchor a single boat and cause it to remain stationary upon the waters of a lake or pond other than momentarily if any part of such boat is:
(a) Less than 50 feet away from any raft; or
(b) Less than 25 feet away from any other single boat which is stationary upon the waters of such lake or pond.
Source. 1983, 314:2, eff. June 18, 1983.

Rose

08-16-2007, 12:41 PM

But you know the old story about the bad apples that screw things up for all.

I've had a homeowner hop on his boat, charge up to us (breaking the 150' rule both with regards to shore and to us), then proceed with the old "how would you like it if I parked in front of your house" line. We were one boat with two people and a dog onboard (and he stayed onboard), anchored 150' from shore, carefully aligning ourselves at the midpoint between two well-spaced homes, with the radio so as it couldn't be heard once we were in the water.

It's boorish behavior like this that makes some boaters come down hard against landowners. As the saying goes, you catch more flies with sugar water than with vinegar.

jrc

08-16-2007, 01:08 PM

I can't imagine a property owner being worried about where you go when they get their NRZ. They just want you away from them....

I think most people around the lake including people on the islands want the lake to be fairly used. They don't want to screw their neighbors just to make their view a little better. They are concerned about all the lake, not just the little piece in front of their house.

I going to assume the a few bad apples don't reflect the opinions of all island people.

But if I'm wrong, I guess since only boaters have kids (fat diapers) eventually the demographics will change. :laugh:

SIKSUKR

08-16-2007, 02:23 PM

Is it me or what?I know I never raft in front of other peoples houses cuz I know I wouldn't like it.I'm not saying you can't,only that I won't.In my observations it seems 99% of rafting takes place in front of unoccupied property so I think most rafters feel like I do about where to raft.

winnilakegirl

08-16-2007, 02:32 PM

Just an FYI to all those property owners crabbing. There is no law (been checked out through the Boat patrol and confirmed) stating I can not go up to the High Water Mark on any land around the lake. If I swim up to your shore and stand no higher than that point I am well within my rights. The 150ft law is for going above head way speed only.If I want i can pull up to your dock and tie up since your dock is within that high water safe area.

But out of courtesy to all the LAND Owners we--boaters ---respect the land owners and try to stay 150ft away at all times. Only the very rude people don't follow the unwritten law for respect. As a boater for over 40 years on the lake I know the rules but get angry when people to take away my rights to a public place just because they own the land next to it.

As to rafting I can go either way. If the rafter are causing trouble then yes they should be told to break it up---such as blocking access to a cove or to ones property . But if the are not causing trouble leave them alone. I agree with the land owners the looking at the rafter isn't the most pleasant views but that is a price they have to pay if they own a place with a view. Same thing as a mountain view and someone puts up a gross tall home in the way.

As to the crap about yacht clubs --I am offended by that. I have had my boats in many "Yacht Clubs" all over the lake. They are just marinas with fancy names. They are private clubs with fancy name who happen to have boats parked on the lake. They are owned by several people instead of just on land owner. I am a holder in a Yacht Club . Get over the crap

Winnilakegirl

codeman671

08-16-2007, 02:48 PM

KonaChick

08-16-2007, 02:53 PM

Island Lover

08-16-2007, 02:59 PM

So let me get this straight, you think that it is in your legal right to pull up to and tie off to anyones dock and hang out? I think you are sadly mistaken. I think that the laws you need to look into are beyond that of the "Boat Patrol" as you deem them. I am sure you are not in your rights to walk right up onto a persons shore and stand at or just below their high water mark. Check that with "Boat patrol", or maybe state law and let us know what you find-in writing... :laugh:

This is a perfect example of someone that THINKS they know their rights. I doubt if she has spoken to the "boat patrol" at all. This is the kind of misinformation that is passed around while rafting.

winnilakegirl - boat on over to one of the big marinas and tie up. Tell them the boat patrol told you it was your right!

Islander

08-16-2007, 04:06 PM

If I want i can pull up to your dock and tie up since your dock is within that high water safe area.

Winnilakegirl

So you keep your boat at one of the lakes Yacht Clubs. Don't you just hate paying the big bucks for a slip, then you find that someone else has tied up at your dock and there was nothing you can do about it.

I think you should have thought that argument through a little before posting it.

jrc

08-16-2007, 04:11 PM

With the internet and all it's really amazing that so much mis-information still exists.

Winnilakegirl is clearly wrong on using a private dock:

270:64-a Docking, Mooring Prohibited. –
I. (a) No person shall dock, moor, make fast, or otherwise secure a vessel to a dock, mooring, or pier of another, knowing that the person is not licensed or privileged to do so.
... III. No person shall cause a vessel that he is operating or otherwise in control of, to remain secured in violation of this section in defiance of an order to move such vessel or have such vessel removed, which was personally communicated to him, whether verbally or in writing by the owner or authorized agent of the owner of the structure or other property or by a peace officer...

This very similar to tresspassing laws in NH. A sign or written or verbal communication makes a dock off-limits.

I'm pretty sure she is generally correct on the swimming to the high water mark, but I don't have time to look it up now.

BroadHopper

08-16-2007, 04:19 PM

I hope Skip can help me on this one.

Many years ago, I had to tie up to a private dock due to a terrible thunder storm that created huge waves. The land owner called the police and the police called to marine patrol. I can't recall who it was on the marine patrol, but he said to me and the land owner that a boat owner has the right to tie to a private dock in emergency or in inclement weather without permission. So I was in my right mind to seek shelter from the storm.

I think island girl is partly right. But it depends on the situation.

sa meredith

08-16-2007, 04:33 PM

Although I am fairly new to boating (3 years), I find there are very few coves on the lake to anchor that have no homes. Very few...although I may be wrong, it's just what my experience has been so far. The bottom line is this...
homeowners do not own the lake, and if people are anchored properly, within legal limits, there is nothing a homeowner should have to say... as long as said people are not disturbing the peace, or any such things.
As for rafting, the rules cannot keep getting changed. I have freinds who always went to Braun, but now it is "No Rafting", so they and their friends switched to East Cove, and it seems "the Rules Police" are following them there. This cannot keep happening...
Lastly, I recently came upon a cove over in Winter Harbor...very small...but no homes at all...however "For Sale Signs" every 20 yards or so. Probably 10 in all. Seemed like a nice quiet place to hang out. Is anyone familiar with this cove????

Mee-n-Mac

08-16-2007, 06:12 PM

Isn't that what pit bulls are for? :laugh:

Since the remote 'gator business went belly up I've been thinking about new opportunities. This is one. Remote controlled water snakes ... big black swimming ones. Get just one to patrol your shoreline and watch the rafters depart faster than a GFBL ! Command it to submerge just below an offending boat and watch the kiddies squeal in terror. Aaah yes I can see it now ...

No wait, not snakes .... but eels. Big black swimming eels with pointy fangs and tentacle thingees. Yaaaa, that's the ticket ... remote controlled eels.

No wait ......

TomC

08-16-2007, 06:56 PM

Lastly, I recently came upon a cove over in Winter Harbor...very small...but no homes at all...however "For Sale Signs" every 20 yards or so. Probably 10 in all. Seemed like a nice quiet place to hang out. Is anyone familiar with this cove????

a very poplular hangout.. and you can bet that the people who drop $800K on a building lot are going to petition for it to be a NRZ as soon as they settle in...

KonaChick

08-16-2007, 07:00 PM

I had no idea that anyone could come tie up to my dock at any time they wish and that I do not own my dock because technically it's in the water. I'm thinking of a new business venture...docking $25 a day...for $35 I'll even wash your boat for you. With all the money we're spending on waterfront property taxes I need to send my kids to college somehow!! :emb:

I take this back..since anyone can tie up at my dock at any time and it's perfectly legal there's no way I'd be able to charge $25 for it. OK my final offer is use of my bathroom, I'll make you lunch AND clean your boat all for the low low fee of $29.99 !!!!

Skip

08-16-2007, 07:10 PM

I take this back..since anyone can tie up at my dock at any time and it's perfectly legal there's no way I'd be able to charge $25 for it. OK my final offer is use of my bathroom, I'll make you lunch AND clean your boat all for the low low fee of $29.99 !!!!

Alright KC, you've got a deal!

I'll have my people call your people and they can finalize the contracts!!! ;)

ITD

08-16-2007, 07:31 PM

Captain Zipper

08-16-2007, 07:46 PM

I don't own property on the lake but I do vacation up there and it is nice to anchor on the sand bars. The ones I go to have no homes nearby.

Here is my 2 cents.

When are the majority of "little" people going to join together and complain about taxes? Too many hard working, blue collar people are getting financially pushed out of their homes that they've had in their families for generations.

Eventually there will be 300 McMansions surrounding the lake and that will be it.

That being said, the people moving in; or should I say, buying up the land and building McMansions don't want a bunch of boaters, of any type, class or gender, "pee'ers or non" in front of their McMansion. These people, we'll call them "entitled" have the money and the connections to get things done; like quietly getting the "no rafting zone" agenda's pushed thru. (But no one said life is fair.)

A couple quick examples;

A) On a street was a kennel. The kennel had been there for 40 years. The farm land to the left of and behind the kennel was developed and "big" houses were built. It wasn't too long before the "new" homeowners petitioned to get the kennel ousted due to the noise. Gee, didn't you see the kennel when you were buying the house?

B) Two gun ranges (1 private, 1 used by the State Police) next to a mountain. A group of McMansions were built half way up the mountain and wouldn't you know it, here comes the petition to shut down the gun ranges.

Wealthy individuals don't care about you and me. They want what they want and "once they get it"; they don't want anyone else to get it. Somebody please try to tell me I'm wrong.

It all comes down to the have and have nots. Whether it be kennels, pistol ranges, or "no rafting zones".

As far as rafting goes?

I think I'll start selling an anchoring kit and in it will be a 50 tape measure and 4 empty bleach bottles and to each is attached a few feet of line and a soft bag weight. When you get to the sandbar, anchor your boat and then put out the bottles 50' to each side of your boat.

Shoot a flare across the bow of any boat that comes within your perimeter. "Be off you scally wag!"

The truth about pee'ing? I also think that for every "1" you see on the swim platform doing it; their are "20" in the water doing it.

Have your water tested or dig a well. I'm not saying the pee'ers are right, I'm just saying it happens.

I figure the lake should be real clean in another 50 years; by then there will only be 300 houses on it and the home owners will only be in their houses 2 weeks out of the year. And public access to schmoes will be a thing of the past.

Tick.....tock.......tick.......tock

Hugs,

CZ

Uncle Fun

08-16-2007, 07:55 PM

Take a look at the size of the boats in the cove. Also, take a look at the ensign flags they fly, identifying the yacht club they come from. The majority of these boats are from yacht clubs, period.

As far as NHRBA is concerned, I stated I support their position against the speed limit. I have a boat that will exceed the speed limit, but not by much. I guess it's more that I am against these people that are trying to impose a speed limit for reasons that are unrelated to speed - I don't buy their agenda. As far as no-rafting/East Cove is concerned, I don't believe that the NHRBA mission of protecting boaters' rights is really relevant in this case. I know it's a stretch, but when there are 10 boats anchored together in a cove, can one really consider this boating?

Little Bear: These are YOUR WORDS broken down...

1)Take a look at the size of the boats in the cove. Also, take a look at the ensign flags they fly, identifying the yacht club they come from. The majority of these boats are from yacht clubs, period. *DOES IT MATTER WHERE THE BOATS THAT ARE RAFTING COME FROM??? Does it matter if the boats that are rafting are 20' or 40' long??? We actually have several friends who are waterfront land property owners who take their boat out and meet us... Guess what, THEY RAFT ALONG SIDE US TOO!!! Imagine, a land owner associating (and rafting) with people from those Yacht Clubs... THE NERVE!!! I don't see what this has to do with the Rafting Argument... A boat is a boat is a boat... It makes no difference if it is a landowner operating it, or if it was trailered to the lake, or, (Heaven Forbid), if it is a Yacht Club boat...

2)I guess it's more that I am against these people that are trying to impose a speed limit for reasons that are unrelated to speed - I don't buy their agenda. *What about the people trying to impose a NO RAFTING restriction for other than LEGITIMATE reasons... I.E. Because it blocks your view... I DON'T BUY THAT AGENDA... I've said it before and I will say it again... RAFTING IS NOT A PROBLEM... It is only a PERCEIVED (Made Up) one by some (not all) Land Owners who are inadvertently showing their hidden agendas of wanting a nice view with no one in front of their places by trying to throw out arguments such as: Peeing in the water, Dirty Fat Diapers, Loud Music, Trash, Obstructed Views, Big Waves, Eco Systems, Etc... Etc... Etc...

3)As far as no-rafting/East Cove is concerned, I don't believe that the NHRBA mission of protecting boaters' rights is really relevant in this case. *I will have to RESPECTFULLY disagree with you here and say it is COMPLETELY RELEVANT in this case... Do you not think the rights of boaters are being infringed upon by FRIVOLOUS PETITIONS and Unwarranted calls to marine patrol when there are a few boats tied up in front of your cove??? Maybe you better take some time and think this through... In fact, argue both sides of the agenda to yourself before you respond so I won't have to take all this time to try to educate you further... We need the NHRBA to protect ALL RIGHTS of Boaters... Not just pick and choose what rights you think are important (like speed limits).

4) I know it's a stretch, but when there are 10 boats anchored together in a cove, can one really consider this boating? *Please don't tell me that we are now going to try to DEFINE what boating is and how, when, where, and why, people are or should be using their boats... To me, 10 boats anchored together is THE ESSENCE of boating... It is what I look forward to... I don't want to drive around the lake aimlessly all day blowing through expensive gas and creating tons of big waves... I want to spend time on my boat with other people whom I have things in common with, in a nice quiet area, where we can chat and eat and have fun and enjoy each others company... WHAT A CONCEPT!!!

Thanks For Your Understanding and Empathy toward us Boaters who are Not Land Owners...

KTO

08-16-2007, 08:15 PM

I'm sure you can tell me that lots of rafters are respectful, law abiding folk. But you know the old story about the bad apples that screw things up for all.

To start, I'm saying that I AM NOT AGAINST RAFTING AT ALL!!! But as Islander said and as I have clearly seen, people do ruin it for the rest! There's an area near us where people have gotten out of control. They drink their Corona's and dump them in the water, we found trash upon trash in the water (I went snorkeling in the area one monday), never mind the fat diaper...how about the one (or several) that are thrown behind trees because the culprit's parents can't stand the smell!

And it only get's worse! Just two weekends ago, these rafters were parking on private community property, walking across private community property (note that these people left their cars on PRIVATE PROPERTY!) and paid no attention to the community itself.

I feel bad for the boaters who just like to quietly raft and swim around their boats and picnic and are being troubled because of a choice few, but what other option is there?

Pineedles

08-16-2007, 09:00 PM

This isn't the tick tick tock of the clock against the wall but rather the tempers that are flaring in this thread and the bomb that may explode. Thankfully, there are only a couple of weeks of summer left. I can''t believe I said that!! I am a shore front owner that has not experienced rafters in front of my property so I am unqualified as to how it would make me feel. I guess it would bother me, no matter how well they conducted themselves. I am hopeful though that before anyone gets shot, we can tone down the retoric and understand that rights and the law come after common sense and courtesy have failed.:D

Uncle Fun

08-16-2007, 09:01 PM

1)They drink their Corona's and dump them in the water, we found trash upon trash in the water (I went snorkeling in the area one monday), never mind the fat diaper...how about the one (or several) that are thrown behind trees because the culprit's parents can't stand the smell!

2)And it only get's worse! Just two weekends ago, these rafters were parking on private community property, walking across private community property (note that these people left their cars on PRIVATE PROPERTY!) and paid no attention to the community itself.

I feel bad for the boaters who just like to quietly raft and swim around their boats and picnic and are being troubled because of a choice few, 3)but what other option is there?

KTO - I appreciate the fact that you are not against 'RAFTING AT ALL...' But if these petitions pass, you are saying you are against ALL RAFTING... Why would anyone let a few of these inconsiderate idiots ruin it for EVERY OTHER PERSON who shows some responsibility on the lake....

1)Why not yell out to the people who are throwing their Coronas overboard or confront them about their trash/diapers??? If they are on your land leaving their diapers behind your trees, they are trespassing... You should post no trespassing signs... Or, better yet, why not call the marine patrol, fish & game, DES, or the local PD - whoever will respond to cite the people littering on the lake or littering and trespassing on the land. Actually, I know it is not your job to confront the violators, sorry - so lets just post it a no rafting zone and then they can dump their trash and diapers some where else... Making an area no rafting will not solve that problem!!!

2)And it only get's worse! Just two weekends ago, these rafters were parking on private community property, walking across private community property (note that these people left their cars on PRIVATE PROPERTY!) and paid no attention to the community itself. *- KTO can you elaborate on this??? I am a little confused as how the rafters (who are boaters tied together) parked their boats on community property, walked across (water?) private community property and left their cars/boats (illegally - I'm assuming) on private property and paid no attention to the community itself. Is this your own personal property that this happened on??? If not, why is it your issue??? If it is your property, why didn't you do something about it at the time, like have the cars towed or tell them to move along... Actually, I'm obviously kidding a bit here... I am thinking that you actually mean the people who had cars, parked them and went to meet the rafters??? Did they swim out to them or something??? Usually, when we go to a quiet secluded cove, you cannot get there by car... So I don't get the gist of this portion of your argument... Rafting has nothing to do with cars obstructing a water front property owner's path of travel into and out of his cove/dock by boat and/or obstructing their swimming areas... Sorry for my confusion...

3) WHAT OTHER OPTION IS THERE??? How about EDUCATION!!! Let's get the boaters educated about keeping the water and surrounding land clean and trash free. I know all of my rafting friends have garbage cans and garbage bags that we use on our boats... When we gat back, we all make a trip to the dumpster! Let's get a little responsibility on each side and the lake will be a better place... NO MORE FINGER POINTING... ACCOUNTABILITY and RESPONSIBILITY IS KEY!!!

Captain Zipper

08-16-2007, 09:18 PM

Pineedles,

"common sense and courtesy"

YOWZER! How many people nowadays know what these two words mean?

People are really getting rude in cars and boats and online.

I stop for pedestrians and get honked at or almost rear ended.

The amount of tailgaters every day is astounding.

Alright, I better quit my whining or just move to Montana and join a cult.

:eek:

Alright; group hug anyone?

CZ

KBoater

08-17-2007, 10:34 AM

MnM
You could get with WD and use some of his trained eels. You may have to learn how to feed them at night though.:eek:
:laugh: :laugh:

jceria

08-17-2007, 11:33 AM

KonaChick

08-17-2007, 11:46 AM

I was under the assumption you can go up to the high water mark. I use to tell my guest to keep their feet in the water to be safe. I wonder if the home owners get defensive about someone parking on a PUBLIC street in front of their house? :rolleye2:
Maybe we should start dumping sand in the middle of the Broads and make a rafting zone to please everyone. ;)Do I as a homeowner get defensive if someone parks in front of my house on the public street on occassion?? No big deal. Do I get defensive if someone parks there EVERY day , hangs out on the street, drinking beer, throwing said beer cans on street, inviting ten of their friends to come over and park and do the same?? You betcha..and would do anything that's in my legal power to stop it. Am I being unreasonable? I don't think so.

sa meredith

08-17-2007, 12:38 PM

brk-lnt

08-17-2007, 12:46 PM

Do I as a homeowner get defensive if someone parks in front of my house on the public street on occassion?? No big deal. Do I get defensive if someone parks there EVERY day , hangs out on the street, drinking beer, throwing said beer cans on street, inviting ten of their friends to come over and park and do the same?? You betcha..and would do anything that's in my legal power to stop it. Am I being unreasonable? I don't think so.

A public place is a public place. The proximity of your dwelling to an area available for public use has no bearing on things. Especially if the area was public (even if relatively unused) BEFORE you made your purchase.

The "public" is allowed to use public areas, be they made of earth, water, or any other element. Some areas also allow open drinking, others do not. That is a case by case basis. Littering is illegal in all public areas that I've ever known of, and is rude and inconsiderate.

If people are littering in any area, then that is bad. If people are congregating in some place that you simply don't like or approve of (but which is otherwise legal), then that is *too* bad for you.

This is a story that we see all too often. Everyone seems to be in favor of limiting the rights of everyone else. Call me silly, but Karma is a bitch. Wait until somebody decides that something you enjoy is detrimental to them, and they band up to prevent you from enjoying something that you have a legal right to enjoy.

Island Lover

08-17-2007, 02:01 PM

This discussion is getting a bit foolish...
Look, a street's intended purpose is certainly not to hang out, invite friends, and drink beer...all while playing some music. But the lake???? Yeah, I would say hanging with friends while whooping it up a bit is a perfectly reasonable use.
But there should be no discussion.....the people in the water ARE BREAKING NO LAWS!!!! End of subject. If they were, then fine, pursue it. But if they are rafting in a legal area, and not disturbing the peace, too bad if you don't like it. MOVE!

What are you talking about?

Nobody is talking about doing anything to legal rafters!

The question is if there should be a NRZ in East Cove. This question has expanded into the advisability of NRZ's in general.

By the way, this is America, people can complain, stay silent, move or stay as they see fit.

sa meredith

08-17-2007, 02:18 PM

Island Lover...I was responding to post #57. I felt comparing rafters to people hanging out in the street a bit of a stretch. That's all...

KTO

08-17-2007, 05:02 PM

KTO - I appreciate the fact that you are not against 'RAFTING AT ALL...' But if these petitions pass, you are saying you are against ALL RAFTING... Why would anyone let a few of these inconsiderate idiots ruin it for EVERY OTHER PERSON who shows some responsibility on the lake....

How do you stop someone from causing a problem or making a mess...you make it sound easy to reason with people who are drunk :D

1)Why not yell out to the people who are throwing their Coronas overboard or confront them about their trash/diapers??? If they are on your land leaving their diapers behind your trees, they are trespassing... You should post no trespassing signs... Or, better yet, why not call the marine patrol, fish & game, DES, or the local PD - whoever will respond to cite the people littering on the lake or littering and trespassing on the land. Actually, I know it is not your job to confront the violators, sorry - so lets just post it a no rafting zone and then they can dump their trash and diapers some where else... Making an area no rafting will not solve that problem!!!

Actually, we called Marine Patrol and they said to call them if any of this occurrs, but what can they do if they never SAW anyone doing this or the people deny it the whole time? We are going to start calling though if it gets out of control.

2)And it only get's worse! Just two weekends ago, these rafters were parking on private community property, walking across private community property (note that these people left their cars on PRIVATE PROPERTY!) and paid no attention to the community itself. *- KTO can you elaborate on this??? I am a little confused as how the rafters (who are boaters tied together) parked their boats on community property, walked across (water?) private community property and left their cars/boats (illegally - I'm assuming) on private property and paid no attention to the community itself. Is this your own personal property that this happened on??? If not, why is it your issue??? If it is your property, why didn't you do something about it at the time, like have the cars towed or tell them to move along... Actually, I'm obviously kidding a bit here... I am thinking that you actually mean the people who had cars, parked them and went to meet the rafters??? Did they swim out to them or something??? Usually, when we go to a quiet secluded cove, you cannot get there by car... So I don't get the gist of this portion of your argument... Rafting has nothing to do with cars obstructing a water front property owner's path of travel into and out of his cove/dock by boat and/or obstructing their swimming areas... Sorry for my confusion...

This was all car parking on private property (It's a private community, which we did just recieve No Trespassing signs) They would walk along our property, cross over to another property, and it's shallow enough to wade out to your boat where these boaters park. (It pretty easy to carry your 12 pack of beer over the water too! ;) )

3) WHAT OTHER OPTION IS THERE??? How about EDUCATION!!! Let's get the boaters educated about keeping the water and surrounding land clean and trash free. I know all of my rafting friends have garbage cans and garbage bags that we use on our boats... When we gat back, we all make a trip to the dumpster! Let's get a little responsibility on each side and the lake will be a better place... NO MORE FINGER POINTING... ACCOUNTABILITY and RESPONSIBILITY IS KEY!!!

Let's get started! Rule #1, respect the lake and the people around it.

Kamper

08-17-2007, 05:22 PM

... I use to tell my guest to keep their feet in the water to be safe. ...

I used to help maintain a large private beach in Laconia. That's what I used to tell people too. I always said it nicely and smiled. The properties on either side of us changed hand fairly often and that's the advice I gave to new neighbors. Nobody ever gave us grief over it.

It sounds like a reasonable suggestion for everybody because Winnipissakuee's level is artificially adjusted and some beaches are improved. It would take a surveyor and a lawyer to say where you are actually legal to be standing. That was my theory anyway.

ApS

08-18-2007, 06:27 AM

"...As for rafting, the rules cannot keep getting changed. I have freinds who always went to Braun, but now it is "No Rafting", so they and their friends switched to East Cove, and it seems "the Rules Police" are following them there. This cannot keep happening...
Lastly, I recently came upon a cove over in Winter Harbor...very small...but no homes at all...however "For Sale Signs" every 20 yards or so. Probably 10 in all. Seemed like a nice quiet place to hang out. Is anyone familiar with this cove..."????
You're describing Johnson's Cove, the site of a major Wolfeboro industry before WWII. I'll cover it in the "History" forum and include a vintage photo. I know it well.

As I've previously written, there used to be rafters off my shore years ago. They just enjoyed an afternoon's lunch at anchor; however, nearby Johnson's Cove has attracted many of Winnipesaukee's largest cruisers.

On weekends starting at 10AM, you can see a line of cruisers approaching from across the Broads. Last year, many flew the "Martini-glass" burgee—now replaced by a yellow burgee. A few have "Alton Bay" lettering. Too-few cruisers slow to headway speed when entering Winter Harbor; curiously, at their customary 4PM departures, nearly all do! :confused:

Cruiser wakes make anchoring off Winter Harbor shorelines (and lunch) impossible: even large boats are given "mal-de-mer" moments. A neighboring floatplane has left for quieter waters. Docks, presently 26" above the lake level, get washed.

Coves offer the only respite to violent tossing by wakes and that's why rafters are concentrating in coves. That's 182 miles of Winnipesaukee shorelines—like mine—being unused for rafting.

Johnson's Cove was owned by the same individual since WWII; however, most of that Cove's shoreline was bought recently by a developer—my source says for 3 million dollars. One lot, although soggy, is for sale for $4¾ million.

Even with prices like that, I don't see Johnson's Cove staying the same rafting site for long. If the lots are shown Monday through Thursday (or from helicopter in the off-season), prospective buyers will see only one or two boats anchored there—maybe none. (Prior to 1990, you didn't see any rafting there, period).

Since "wake-surfing" has entered Winter Harbor this year, even Johnson's Cove gets shaken up.

If ocean-cruisers, ocean-racers, and ocean-surfing went to the ocean, rafting by boaters could be spread out along Winnipesaukee's 182 miles and become more family-accessible.

Partying in coves is a separate issue: if you Google "party-cove", there's a lot not to like. Party-Cove videos are an Internet cottage industry. :eek:

winnilakegirl

08-20-2007, 01:57 PM

Oh yeah, then, according to your logic, it's ok for me to swim out to your boat, climb on board and drink your beer since it is all within the "high water" mark. :D

Did I say on the water---no I said in the water. The boat sits on the water. And just for an FYI to all the people saying you can not tie up to a dock any where--I admit I neglected to say if it was in an emergency ---such as stated by one person who had to pull in to a dock during a storm.

So put that in your pipe and smoke all you know it alls

winnilakegirl

winnilakegirl

08-20-2007, 02:09 PM

This is a perfect example of someone that THINKS they know their rights. I doubt if she has spoken to the "boat patrol" at all. This is the kind of misinformation that is passed around while rafting.

winnilakegirl - boat on over to one of the big marinas and tie up. Tell them the boat patrol told you it was your right!

Well excuse me for caling them the boat patrol---they ar the Marine Patrol---and as far as I know they are up to date with the laws of the water. I know my right and I just shows how dunb you are---Are you from Mass. It would explainn a lot

winnilakegirl

Irrigation Guy

08-20-2007, 03:03 PM

Well excuse me for caling them the boat patrol---they ar the Marine Patrol---and as far as I know they are up to date with the laws of the water. I know my right and I just shows how dunb you are---Are you from Mass. It would explainn a lot

winnilakegirl

LOL...see that little icon on the top right hand side of the reply box, it's an ABC with a check mark under it? You might be in a better position to speak from about education if you tried using it.

I seem to be on the other side of most discussions with the folks you are complaining about, but what you have typed looks ridiculous. Sorry.

Captain Zipper

08-20-2007, 03:39 PM

Okay Winnilakegirl, take 3 deep breaths and let them out slowly.

Find that inner "happy" place. :laugh:

Picture those other mean posters walking around with their 'flies' down, does that help? There we go.

You go girlfriend, "I" appreciate your posts! :D

cz

ITD

08-20-2007, 04:28 PM

If I want i can pull up to your dock and tie up since your dock is within that high water safe area.

If my dock is within that magical "high water safe area", then so is your boat. BTW, if any of your boat is below the water line, then it is in the water. If you can tie up to my dock, then I'll swim out to your boat and drink your beer. If I'm out of beer, that would qualify as an emergency.

Island Lover

08-20-2007, 06:29 PM

Well excuse me for caling them the boat patrol---they ar the Marine Patrol---and as far as I know they are up to date with the laws of the water. I know my right and I just shows how dunb you are---Are you from Mass. It would explainn a lot

winnilakegirl

"I know my right and I just shows how dunb you are---Are you from Mass. It would explainn a lot"

WOW! That made me laugh so hard I spit out a mouthful of Wine and Brie all over my Harvard Diploma.

I don't believe in questioning peoples spelling and grammar on a public forum, we are all friends here.......right?

But when you call someone "dunb" you need to spell it right!

Yes, I am originally from Massachusetts. That is where I learned to spell, use reasonable grammar and not tell lies on a public forum.

Your "I meant during an emergency" excuse doesn't pass the laugh test.

Skip

08-20-2007, 07:18 PM

Some very interesting opinions and posts on this particular subject, most of which has been asked and answered over the years here in a variety of other posts. And in actuality winnilakegirl, while not absolutely clear in her postings, actually has the gist of the concerns correct!

First, by statute any water body greater then 10 acres in size is a public body of water in this State, open to all (landowner or visitor). The littoral rights often cited here refer to a limited right of a lakeside landowner to encroach upon the public waters by building a dock, outbuilding, swim raft or installation of a swim line….if the installation of such does not infringe upon neighboring property owners enjoyment of the water. In most cases the aforementioned structures are only allowed if permitted by the local and or State agency having jurisdiction. Non landowners do not share the same littoral right to build structures into a public waterway.

Any person has the ability to enjoy the public waterway. If you have installed a swim line, however tacky or tasteless it may be any person can come in to the area encompassing that line (except by boat) as the water contained is public domain. In addition no law enforcement agency I am aware of is going to quibble over surveys or attorneys, if the swimmer’s feet are wet then they are enjoying a public domain.

But here is where it gets interesting, and where some have a misconception about trespass law here in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire has a long history (dating back to colonial times) of recognizing the concept of open land. What that means, under general conditions, is that if a person has not been forewarned to stay off land, or there are not obvious impediments to its openness, then a person is not trespassing if he crosses that land. Obvious impediments include certain fencing, signage or evidence that the owners had previously conveyed to that person not to cross their land.

That brings us full circle to the tying of boats to private docks, or a swimmer stepping out of the water on to shore. If I tie my boat to your dock, and there is no signage warning not to, I have not trespassed. If I step out of the public domain waterway and on to your beach, I have not trespassed unless the property was posted. That said, I must leave your dock or your property immediately and in the quickest manner if you tell me to depart. And if I leave my boat tied to your dock, denying you the privilege to enjoy same, then you have the right to have my boat removed at my expense, whether I am present or not. Also, if I do not leave immediately upon your request, if you can show that the property had been posted or you have evidence that I had been previously warned not to cross your property then I can be arrested for criminal trespass.

Thankfully most people, except for very good reason, do not purposely tie there boats to others docks or properties, do not come up on private beaches and usually back off when confronted by a property owner. It has not become enough of a problem that the legislature has found it necessary to make anything but minor changes to the trespass statute over the years.

Let’s hope that enough common sense remains out there that we don’t have to ask to be regulated every single moment of our lives!

salukigirl

08-20-2007, 07:24 PM

I was responding to post #57. I felt comparing rafters to people hanging out in the street a bit of a stretch. That's all...

In my previous subdivision, a clause was written into the contract forbidding anyone to park on the street. I think it is plausible for many, familiar to such rules, to compare NRZ's to people hanging out on the street.

Paugus Bay Resident

08-20-2007, 07:46 PM

Let’s hope that enough common sense remains out there that we don’t have to ask to be regulated every single moment of our lives!
Amen to that Skip!

SIKSUKR

08-21-2007, 10:13 AM

As usual,Skip is the voice of reason and well thought out posts,which are usually supported by quoted laws and ordinances.

LDR4

08-21-2007, 10:45 AM

For those wishing to attend the meeting regarding the Petition for the No Rafting Zone in East Cove, here is the time and location of the meeting:

1:00 pm on Friday August 31st

Moultonborough Town Offices
6 Holland St, Moultonborough, NH

Located behind the Fire/Police Department.
1/8 mile north on Route 109 past the intersection with Route 25.

Uncle Fun

08-21-2007, 11:43 AM

Thanks for the info on the location Dave...

You can bet I'll be there with bells on!!!

Maybe we'll even meet some of our Forum "Friends"...

Excalibur

08-21-2007, 11:57 AM

Uncle Fun

08-21-2007, 01:15 PM

Is not a ,"no rafting zone", a place where you can not tie more then two boats together?

Boats can anchor anywhere they would like on the lake and most people stay away from a populated shorefront.

My family has even seen Mitt Romney swim off his boat in a quiet area with his family.

Even as a waterfront landowner I have anchored in some of the few remaining unpopulated nice bays and coves on the lake for a swim. I have met friends who where sharing the same cove and had a few water balloon battles or would swim over for a refreshment. Some where from a marina or condo but most where from another waterfront home, who just wanted to enjoy another part of the lake.

Hi Excalibur...

"Is not a ,"no rafting zone", a place where you can not tie more then two boats together?" --> I think this is a double negative although I am not an English teacher... Here is my affirmative double negative answer... YES... A no rafting zone is NOT a place where you can not time more than two boats together... :) If you read RSA 270:44 as outlined in post # 32 above - or at this link http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXII/270/270-44.htm - you will see that it indicates a raft is 3 or more boats *(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)* - Maybe that'll clear up the muddy water a bit for you :)

I am glad to see that you are a land owner and that you raft too!!! So you can actually see it from both sides of the coin because you have been there and done that so-to-speak... So as not to get into a big long discertation about rafting, rights, etc... make sure you read from the first post on this thread to the last one and you should get yourself up to speed on all the issues on both sides...

I don't think any of the above posts/threads need to be re-hashed this week... We pretty much went over every possible scenario and issue last week as outlined above, and now we are all just waiting to be heard by the Hearings Examiner on August 31st...

Gatto Nero

08-21-2007, 04:37 PM

Partying in coves is a separate issue: if you Google "party-cove", there's a lot not to like.

I guess that would be considered one of those "matter of opinion" things, huh?. Thanks for the link.

I've never been able to find anything like that in my telescope :D

winnilakegirl

08-22-2007, 08:31 AM

"I know my right and I just shows how dunb you are---Are you from Mass. It would explainn a lot"

WOW! That made me laugh so hard I spit out a mouthful of Wine and Brie all over my Harvard Diploma.

I don't believe in questioning peoples spelling and grammar on a public forum, we are all friends here.......right?

But when you call someone "dunb" you need to spell it right!

Yes, I am originally from Massachusetts. That is where I learned to spell, use reasonable grammar and not tell lies on a public forum.

Your "I meant during an emergency" excuse doesn't pass the laugh test.

Well to you I am sorry I spelled wrong. In one statement you say you don't pick on spelling yet the next line you do. Make up your mind. It must be nice to be able to type correctly 100% of the time. To the perfect person I bow to thee. (Let me have a throw up bowl now).

And you being from Mass explains a lot. Mass people don't follow the rules on the road why should they on the water or land next to the water. Make up rules to suit themselves and screw everyone else. (But some Mass people learn when they are not in Mass that they are no longer gods of the world anymore)

Courtesy to others comes natural to NH natives but I guess some people who come here can't learn this. I guess you fall in this group---from reading your posts. Everyone is allowed their opinion (with or without spelling errors) and if the law is stated to them by a law officier then they have the right to believe it is a true fact. Whether you believe it or not is your right even if I think you are wrong. I will believe what I was told over anything you state since you don't know all---even though you were brought up to believe that. Sorry to break your bubble:emb:

SIKSUKR

08-22-2007, 10:14 AM

Whoa.Easy Winni.I'm born and raised in NH and might have some feelings about out of staters but you lower yourself when you hurl insults at a whole group,that is very unfair and does not show you as being naturally courteous as you claim.I disagree with most of Island lovers posts but you're point gets lost in those kind of posts.I actually agree with IL's rebuttal post.You called IL out about being dumb and pretty dumb spelling.None of us are perfect spellers but what did you expect when you called IL dumb with 3 writing errors in 2 short sentences?

Weirs guy

08-22-2007, 12:19 PM

People, 3 lines,

44
THOUSAND
acres.

Its amazing how we go from one poster trying to rally the troops to stop what they feel is a loss of their rights to another group trying to secure what they feel is their rights to the whole full diapers and peeing on my dock. What a great group of people we have here. Is it labor day yet? :D

Skip, I hate to poke the bees nest here, but I'm curious about the legality (big word for me, ahthankya) of swimming out to a boat in the lake and hoping on. Any thoughts?

Gatto Nero

08-22-2007, 03:16 PM

ApS

08-23-2007, 04:50 AM

People, 3 lines,
44
THOUSAND
acres.
If the lake was a round lake, things would be different.

With growing numbers of rafters concentrating in a limited number of coves, their collective behavior comes under closer scrutiny—both audibly and visibly. This is a lake with residences.

(Which reminds me—today, I've got to spear an empty beer can lying near my shore). :rolleye2:

chipj29

08-23-2007, 07:50 AM

That beer can HAD to have come from a rafter. I mean it couldn't have blown off of somebodies picnic table in the high winds the other day.

jceria

08-23-2007, 10:23 AM

codeman671

08-23-2007, 11:04 AM

Mass drivers don't follow the rules? That's a pretty DUMB statement. It's one thing to blast someone, but try to sound a little intelligent by spelling correctly at least.

I have live almost all my life in NH and now live in Mass. Where do I fall in?
Step 9 driver here!

Not to sound overly critical here, but you used live instead of lived in an email harassing someone else on their spelling/grammar... :laugh:

Uncle Fun

08-23-2007, 11:58 AM

Not to sound overly critical here, but you used live instead of lived in an email harassing someone else on their spelling/grammar... :laugh:

<img src="images/smilies/offtopic.gif"> <img src="images/smilies/offtopic.gif"><img src="images/smilies/offtopic.gif"><img src="images/smilies/offtopic.gif">

Phantom

08-24-2007, 06:41 AM

LET Me Check ----- Yup, the thread was "No Rafting .... "

Don't you think you folks are being a wee bit childish and CERTAINLY off Topic for the thread !!

Don, might be a good time to dispose of this thread before it becomes a spot for some to simply throw rocks at another member of the forum

ApS

08-24-2007, 08:40 AM

That beer can HAD to have come from a rafter. I mean it couldn't have blown off of somebodies picnic table in the high winds the other day.
Rafters disappeared from this mile of shoreline years ago. I think Johnson's Cove in Wolfeboro is still relatively clean. (I have to go look).

I still think the State should create an island by dumping sand on the ice in some protected location that would benefit rafters...but you've brought up a trashy recollection from last year:

I scooped a Budweiser beer can out of the lake before it sank; however, the can was factory sealed—couldn't sink—but was only half full! What kind of beer purchaser throws beer into the lake? :confused: :blush: :look:

Anyway, the beer can (the one that still needs spearing :emb: ) could have been whipped out of somebody's boat by the wind—just as in cases where we see boaters circling back to retrieve other lost items.

My point was that Winnipesaukee's lakesides are nearly completely residential in nature. Noise and aesthetics count where the "View Tax" has to be paid—and it's not just residential roadsides that have to be picked up, but the lakesides too.

jceria

08-24-2007, 10:50 AM

Just defending myself as a Mass driver. I guess you felt you had to nit pick!
It was spelled correct it was the grammar!

gtxrider

08-24-2007, 12:34 PM

Since the remote 'gator business went belly up I've been thinking about new opportunities. This is one. Remote controlled water snakes ... big black swimming ones. Get just one to patrol your shoreline and watch the rafters depart faster than a GFBL ! Command it to submerge just below an offending boat and watch the kiddies squeal in terror. Aaah yes I can see it now ...

No wait, not snakes .... but eels. Big black swimming eels with pointy fangs and tentacle thingees. Yaaaa, that's the ticket ... remote controlled eels.

No wait ......
How about a killer rabbit or a small mine field. Living down here in civilization we have cars parked in front of houses all the time. But I quess anchored boats in front of the beach can get to you but life is too short.

Mee-n-Mac

08-24-2007, 04:47 PM

How about a killer rabbit or a small mine field. Living down here in civilization we have cars parked in front of houses all the time. But I quess anchored boats in front of the beach can get to you but life is too short.

While these are both excellent, and no doubt effective, ideas I fear a blood sucking leech ... errr ... lawyer would put the kibosh on at least the mine field. The rabbit might get you plausible deniability though, just have to watch out for those holy handgrenades ....

However your keen insight has given me another idea. How about an underwater minefield but instead of bombs ... it has stink bombs ! Yes upon command you release truly obnoxious odors which bubble up under the rafted boats you wish to annoy. It has the added appeal in that it has consumables. As a business you then get to service and replace the stink modules, all while stealing ... err, charging your rubes ... err, customers an exhorbitant ... err, justifiably high service fee. Yes, I think you've inspired a winner !!! :coolsm:

Bear Islander

08-24-2007, 05:34 PM

Native American music on a good loud stereo system will clean out the rafters.

The "Chicken Dance" on a loop tape should also work.

Lakegeezer

08-24-2007, 06:48 PM

Any more no-rafting zones will concentrate the rafters into other coves, so only two proposals make sense to me. It has to be all or nothing. One proposal is to put a moratorium on new no-rafting zones. The other is to prohibit rafting everywhere. My preference is for a freeze on new no-rafting zones and a grandfather clause for what is already there. That way, all coves on the lake will share the load of rafters. It shouldn't matter if the cove residents have been there for generations or if they are the president. The lake belongs to the citizens of NH. They choose to share it.

GWC...

08-24-2007, 07:27 PM

All but 1,500 feet of a popular beach area along the southeastern shore of Ossipee Lake will be closed to the public starting today.
One way to solve the rafting problem, if you are on that side of the fence.

Will the Lake be next? :eek:

In a news release, the alliance said "the rafting community swelled to more than 3,000 people on a single day last year, with tents, beach chairs and portable grills brought to the site by boat. Pictures of latrines built by rafters in the wetlands have circulated among state officials this year, a situation one elected official described as 'a minefield with used toilet paper."

The beach area, known locally as Long Sands, has become a popular recreation spot for boaters on the lake. Inaccessible by land, it is a gathering place for hundreds who arrive by boat, especially on the weekends.

At a May planning meeting on the future of the state-owned site, nearby property owner George Eisner said the situation is out of hand.

"We've got a situation where 1,000 people are running around, and there's no control. There's more toilet paper and human waste there than there are plants," Eisner said. "The state has no policy with regard to the use of the area, and its management has been a complete disaster."
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Access+to+Lake+Ossipee+restr icted&articleId=b712daa7-0890-4e5d-aca9-ef5140400930

Uncle Fun

08-24-2007, 09:54 PM

Hey GWC,

Great Catch on the article... It's nice to see that this issue happens on other lakes as well... Here is a quote from the 'Your Comments' section just below the article...

"This is your typical liberal template. Exaggerate the truth and reality as stated in this column. 3,000 people in one day on long sands is an outright lie. Here we go again, the vast majority pays the price based on a few liberals and state liberal bureaucrates imposing their agenda on the majority. I for one will continue to use long sands as I always have with respect for the beach area."
- Art Tozzi, Danforth Bay

I have never been to Ossippee, but I tend to believe what Mr. Tozzi is saying because I have seen the falsifications and exaggerations right here on this very thread!!!

Also, GWC - I think you should have put in the REAL REASON the area is being closed... (from the same article) - It is "to allow for the protection and restoration of rare and endangered plants and natural communities." The closure will remain in effect while a management plan for the 400-acre Ossipee Lake Natural Area is developed by the department over the winter, according to Susan Francher, forest resource planner with the New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands.

State officials said the area provides critical habitat for three state endangered plants -- grassleaf goldenrod, slender bog clubmoss and mermaidweed -- as well as one state threatened plant, hairy hudsonia.

So there you have it... Just like any good debate on a hot topic... You have those that believe the rafters caused the problem and are all at fault... Then you have the TRUTH from the STATE OF NH who owns the land that they are trying to save some endangered plants...

Either way, you will never get 3,000 people in East Cove which is why I started this post in the first place!!! Not to mention, I think (for the most part) the people I see rafting on Winnipesaukee are more respectful with regards to the land and trash/waste. Read the article and judge for yourself... It is quite possible that the land owner has or had an agenda quite similar to those on the 'big lake'... (most likely he doesn't have a boat!)

LIforrelaxin

08-24-2007, 10:58 PM

Well I have scanned over a lot of this thread. And you can make valid point either way on this arguement. I think one thing that needs to be addressed here is that no one is saying that someone can or can't anchor where they would like here the issue is "Rafting" e.g. The connecting of two or more boats weather at anchor or adrift... according to the Boat Ed web site. As I waterfront home owner I don't have any issue with a boat floating or anchoring out in front of my place... but when 20 or 30 boats do it is a bit much. And that is where the issue lies. I can think of a little cove on long Island that has become over run with people anchoring in it. And its not that people are anchoring in it that is the issue, it is that I have passed by the cove when it has been chock full of boats. So much so that the residents in side that cove may be having issues getting in and out from thier docks.

In my opinion the big issue here is that people need to be a bit more sensible and considerate.... if your looking for a place to anchor and you come accross a cove that is filling up move on..... don't just drop anchor cause it your cove.... There is a huge lake out there....with plenty of places to drop anchor..... but people seem to all want to flock to Hot spots.... and that is what is creating the problem..... And sure if this flocking behavior continues there are going to be more and more restrictions.....There is a big lake out there spread out and use it.....

Paugus Bay Resident

08-25-2007, 09:22 AM

In my opinion the big issue here is that people need to be a bit more sensible and considerate
That says it all for me.

Bear Islander

08-25-2007, 12:06 PM

GWC...

08-25-2007, 12:27 PM

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/documents/003_NOTICE_EastCove_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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Little Bear

10-09-2007, 10:22 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.

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

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:confused:

LIforrelaxin

10-10-2007, 11:54 PM

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

The Breeze:confused:

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/hearings/compendium/watercraft/watercraft2007.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

"...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

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/hearings/compendium/watercraft/watercraft2007.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

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

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

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

Skip

11-04-2007, 09:31 AM

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....;)