Ropeswings
 

Looking for rope swings anywhere on winni let me know if you know if some

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

This is similar to the infamous "good places to go" question which usually end in people here saying, "find your own dang spot!" for fear of overpopulation.

That being said, I've nothing else to offer. Welcome to the forum!

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

Ropeswings
 

I believe there is a rope swing near the Fun Spot just north of Weirs Beach, and also one on Rt 28 near Ossipee.

Try a search for "Rope Swings." There was a thread on this a year or two ago. All the rope swings mentioned were on private property though.

The one on Timber Island is always a blast. Private property but not enforced. Very crowded on weekends. It's lower this year, though; the log between two trees last year was VERY high!

There's always one in the audience that will help add to an already over congested spot !!

:eek:



.

Timber Island Rope swing
 

I heard that the tree that the rope swing on Timber Island was attached to has been cut down. I know that the owners of the property threatened to do this as there was a sign saying NO TRESPASSING and if the sign was removed then the tree would be cut down. I am told that the sign was still attached to the tree that was cut down. :emb::emb::eek::eek:

Isn't it illegal to cut the tree down?

Not if it's diseased or appears to be in danger of falling down. ;)

Timber Island Rope swing
 

I was told that whomever cut it dropped it straight out into the lake.

hmmm :confused: Paying a fine too Shore Land Protection... or having your Umbrella Policy canceled after a huge pay out.:(

Or worst, having to help rescue a severely injured person not knowing if they are going to sue you.

No it's Probably not illegal
 

There is a formula that calculates the amount of trees that can be "legally" cut down on the shoreline without a permit. Basically, you divide the shoreline property into 50'x50' imaginary boxes. Each tree within the box is counted with a point system depending on the size of the tree. IF there exists enough points within the box to satisfy the law, trees can be cut down. The stumps must remain undisturbed.
This is a very basic interpretation of the law. From what I recall there are plenty of trees in the area that the tree once stood. I don't think that it's illegal to drop the tree into the water, but I don't think that you can leave it there.

I think that it is a shame that the rope swing is gone. I can't however blame the property owner for not wanting to expose himself to a huge liability. We live in such a litigious society. No good deed goes unpunished when it comes to law suits.
Dan

This. I can't believe we've gotten to a place where a family can sue a theme park because their kid jumped TWO fences to get a hat, or that an INTRUDER in Massachusetts can sue the homeowner for defending himself. Grrr...

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

suing and winning are different things.

But the legal expenses don't care which.

Hmmmm... I was anchored off Timber just a couple of weeks ago and I thought I saw a rope swing.

I don't know if it's 'The Rope Swing", but it was a rope swing.

Did I miss something? Or did someone put another one back in place (I wonder how they did it without touching the property? Maybe with a ladder balanced on the back of their boat?)

SSSSSSSShhhhhhhhhh :laugh:

Ooops, sorry, I was never good at knowing how to keep the secret handshake a secret!

Now that I think about it, I believe I saw a kite string stuck in a tree.

Was surprised to see that Timber Island, which has so many 'no trespassing' signs all around its 2 1/2-mile island shoreline, has a website.

www.timberisland.org

While the website for Timber Island says 'Welcome' ...... that does not seem to be accurate at all ...... and it should probably say 'Keep Out - No Trespassing!'

Could be the 'Welcome' refers to anchoring along the shoreline, as long as you keep off the island, and do not go ashore.

Oh well, it's one of those areas where you ask yourself about all the possible uses this large island could be, and having it be a natural, undisturbed forest is a good use from a visual perspective. It's a great place to drop anchor and soak up the scenery, or go fishing from a kayak, close to the shore. It could have been developed into many 2-acre lots, similar to other islands, lining the 2 1/2 miles shoreline with island homes, docks and boats. Or, the State of NH could have bought it for 1.6-mil dollars in about 2001, a real steal-of-a-deal for the state, and created Timber Island State Park & Campground. That would have been a great use that included sailing, canoeing, horseshoe games, outdoor cooking, camping, softball games, and a rope-swing out over the water except it never happened, so's it will probably remain a primeval forest island for hundreds of years supporting the trees and wild animals like the deer and the very sturdy pin oak tree that hangs out over the water ...... with no people allowed onto the island to be swinging from the trees.

.......

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/fos...?pid=173551782

Virginia Spaulding Champlin (1921-2014) was the daughter of Rolland H Spaulding, a Republican Governor of New Hampshire, one hundred years ago from 1/1/1915 - 1/2/1917

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolland_H._Spaulding

.......

Somehow or other, in my mind, it just seems to me that had Gov Rolland Spaulding been a Democrat, and not a Republican, that today, one hundred years later, we would be having Timber Island State Park & Campground, as opposed to TimberIsland.Org, and it would have a rope swing hanging from a tree, to go swing out over the water.......weeeeeoooooo!

Old Timber Island Rope Swing
 

I took a ride over to the Timber Island Rope Swing on Monday July 27 and confirmed that the tree itself and the rope swing was cut down. The tree with the sign that said something to the effect "If this sign is removed from this tree then the rope and tree will be cut down" was still posted on the tree. LOL So much for that!

Have you ever witnessed that swing in action ?

It's dangerous a s hell !


.

Do you know why it's labeled 'No Trespassing' all around it?

I heard that the inside area is full of nudists. They don't want you peeking at all the 'Wildlife' and 'Nature' that is going on in there.

Glad we hit the swing last summer. I wouldn't call it dangerous, my kids did it with no problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why
 

Does anyone know why it was cut down?

Being an "attractive nuisance" (unlike me, I'm just a plain old, regular nuisance), I suspect it was cut down to discourage trespassing and potentially dangerous behavior/injuries on private property.

Just a Thought
 

The L.R.C.T. also controls Stonedam Island. Open to the public. Timber Island, keep out every where? What is the diffrence?
Or did three groups crave out three lots, and give the rest away? Less property tax's this way, and no one else? Just a thought.

It was such a fun swing, I have a few videos on the swing from the week before it was cut down. I watched a father swim out with his young kids and they all had a blast on the swing. I did a few swings myself. The tree is now a water hazard. It was such a nice cove to just hang out and watch the show. As I recall, there are no white crosses with peoples names on them scattered around the rope area....

So the "NO TRESPASSING" signs did not deter you from.... trespassing?

Sorry to quote you specifically, but you were the last one to post so I chose yours to quote. I see several others that chose to IGNORE the no trespassing signs.

IIRC, the landowner him/herself was posting on this site several years ago RE: people trespassing to use his PRIVATE rope swing. Some even using his property as a private toilet/dog walk.

Shame on you!

A decade
 

This actually goes back to 2004.

This is just one of many plea's by the owner of property/rope swing.


http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...read.php?t=850

Not sure it's so clear cut--we're near a swing I know the owner doesn't mind people using but has put up a "No Trespassing" sign to protect himself.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

Out doors, I'm assuming you've never been there. The sign was solely there for liability reasons. The rope swing could have easily been removed. From the looks of the rope, it had been there for years. The sign said if it was removed the tree would be to. This tells people they can use it, but be respectful.

Legal action over a rope swing in Sandown
 

Article in the Union Leader about a lawsuit filed by a father over injuries to his son incurred from someone on a rope swing while the son was swimming. Town owns the recreation area on the pond.

http://www.unionleader.com/Broken-neck-leads-to-lawsuit

From the article: "that despite being seen as a hazard" So, the kid/family knew it was a hazard, and the father let him use it, the kid lost, now it is every one else's fault. Got to love it.

Let him use it? It sounds like someone else who was using the rope swing hit the kid, who was swimming, according to the article. Also, it wasn't the kid/family that knew the swing was a hazard, but rather the town, which failed to take any action to mitigate the hazard located on town property. At least according to the lawsuit.

...they failed to warn the teen that he shouldn't have been swimming there...if this has been an issue, why was the kid swimming there in the first place?

Shouldn't he own up to his own mistakes as it sounds like the kid (and the father) both knew it was dangerous.

Maybe the kid/father didn't realize that it was unsafe until after the injury, and only then did they find out that the town had been previously warned about the unsafe conditions. Based on only the linked article, I don't think that anyone can say that the kid/father knew it was dangerous.

My first post here was an attempt to correct a misreading of the linked article. According to the article:

1)The kid was not hurt through his use of the rope swing.

2)The lawsuit claims that it is the town that had prior knowledge of unsafe conditions, not the boy/father.

I don't know what really happened before, during or after the incident, so I don't know who is at fault, if anyone, but I do know what the article says.

What ever happened to if I hurt my self being an idiot/irresponsible or doing anything with some sort of inherent risk it's my fault, not the cities, not the states, not the land owner. But instead it's my fault for me putting my self in that situation? Feel bad the kid got hurt because we all just want to have fun with ropeswings and there is never bad intentions but it's sad how everyone has to sue everyone over everything these days.

I feel bad for what my kids will have to grow up in, they won't be allowed to have any fun or do anything we got to do as kids.

I agree with TMI Guy that the article does not say the father/kid/lawyer admitted to knowing it was dangerous, BUT in order for the accident to happen, the pair had to be swimming in an area that, as a teen and father, they knew to be potentially dangerous.

This is akin to someone getting hurt on a piece of playground equipment and suing the town because they had no idea that one could fall from the monkey bars. Time for people to start taking responsibility for their choices.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

I'm assuming in this case that yes the family contacted a lawyer and the lawyer is pursuing the case against the town.

But sometimes you loose control of a situation when insurance is involved. A few years ago my wife was hurt after falling off her own horse at a small farm we board our horse at. Our health insurance company badgered us to the point of harassment trying to find another party responsible so they would not have to cover her medical bills. Yes I know this is normal, but in most cases you talk to someone on the phone or send in the form and your done, not in this case. They continued to contact the property owner (they must have check the ambulance logs) and the Insurance CO of the person that ran the horse boarding operation (we never gave that name out, don't know how they found it).

It was our horse and she had an accident, sorry. They did end up covering the accident, but the barn manager was spooked by her insurance company asking her questions and we had to move the horses. (Many horse people are nut cases anyway) ;)

Discretionary Function Immunity
 

When municipalities in NH get sued they generally claim to be immune and turn the matter over to Primex. The New Hampshire Public Risk Management Exchange or "Primex", is a public entity risk pool organized and operating as a trust on behalf of member municipalities, schools, counties and other governmental entities. In many cases, Primex uses the defense of "discretionary function immunity" to escape liability. Even if you are successful with a suit the liability is capped at $275,000

To be entitled to discretionary function immunity, a municipality must show that the alleged act or omission complained of constitutes the exercise of an executive or planning function involving the making of a based public policy decision which is characterized by the exercise of a high degree of official judgment or discretion.

In other words, discretionary function immunity attaches to decisions that involve the prudent allocation of municipal resources and the weighing of competing economic, social, and political factors.

1. So this is what happens when you have a portion of the population that is out to get something for nothing. Even worse, there are ample number of dirt bag lawyers that will take these cases.


2. Dare I ask where are those same protections for the citizens?

How do you get from the article that the kid was being an idiot/irresponsible? I don't know if he was or not, but nothing in the article implies that he was. What we know from the article is that he was swimming at a popular town-owned swimming hole and someone using a rope swing there struck him.

I would say that any place you can swim is "potentially dangerous." It's a good bet that the lawsuit argues this particular location is made more dangerous than it otherwise would have been because of conditions that the town (but not the kid/father) was aware of but did nothing to remediate.

Nicely said.

Also noteworthy from the article:
"The swing was recognized as a hazard by at least one selectman in 2012, the suit said, and a resident brought it to the board’s attention at meetings in 2012, 2013 and 2015."

As Tilton BB pointed out....
To be entitled to discretionary function immunity, a municipality must show that the alleged act or omission complained of constitutes the exercise of an executive or planning function involving the making of a based public policy decision which is characterized by the exercise of a high degree of official judgment or discretion.

I think it is pretty clear when I also said doing anything with some sort of inherent risk. Wake boarding, water skiing, swimming are all risky. There is also some risk on a rope swing, if you can't understand the risks involved before doing it you have zero business doing it in my opinion, that is exactly how you get hurt and thats exactly how you ruin it for everyone else regardless of the activity. You for some reason only focused on me calling in reality my self an idiot not even him and saying if i get hurt being an idiot/irresponsible its no ones fault but my own. If I am swimming under a rope swing while people are jumping off of it chances are i am going to get land on. I think they call it gravity? But then again I was raised to take responsibility for your own actions. Something kids these days have no clue about.

So let's say the kid that got hurt and is now suing the town was using the rope swing, even though we can't tell from the article whether he was or not. Your statement above implies that kids should be able to do stuff like that and have fun, just like we did when we were kids. I take it that you wouldn't feel the kid was being an idiot or irresponsible just for using the rope swing. Now let's say that as soon as the kid let go of the rope and landed in the water, another kid grabbed the rope, swung out and let go right on top of the first kid before he had a chance to swim out of the way, landing on the first kid and seriously injuring him. Is the first kid an idiot or irresponsible in any way for getting hurt?

Now let's say that the town had been informed on several prior occasions that kids using the rope swing at this public swimming hole had a history of acting recklessly in this manner, but did nothing to stop it. Maybe this is the first time the kid that got hurt had ever been to this swimming hole, and neither he nor his family had heard about any prior dangerous practices. Based on the above account that may or may not be true, is the kid that got hurt an idiot or irresponsible?

The point is, based on the facts presented in the linked article, we just don't know. Folks read the posts here, maybe read the article (and not very carefully), and jump to the conclusion that the kid's family is sue happy, trying to rip-off the town for something that was the kid's fault. Before you jump to a conclusion, step back, consider what you know and don't know, and realize that every day people get hurt and incur damages because of the actions/inactions/negligence of someone else, through no fault of their own. Not every law suit is a plaintiff looking for an undeserved big pay day.

Different viewpoint
 

Interesting take.

1. I would not automatically assume that someone is trying to get "something for nothing". Some claims are very legitimate. To simplify DFI: If someone trips and falls on a sidewalk in Concord, and the city had considered fixing the sidewalk but not done so (instead deciding to spend their resources on other municipal needs) the city could use DFI as a defense to claim that in their discretion the money was better spent elsewhere.

2. Some people would say that this is the "protection for the citizens" because the reduction in claim settlements saves the citizens money and only negatively affects one person, the claimant.

:Is the first kid an idiot or irresponsible in any way for getting hurt?"

I would say thats kids being kids, exactly like we did as kids, so I should sue someone because of it?

The fact is the entire country is sue happy. I wish I became a lawyer instead of an engineer, because I see some hilarious lawsuits everywhere now. I heard recently a kid got bit by a snake at animal kingdom and the grandmother died, so the families suing.:emb: Sad world, maybe I should start sueing people like everyone else and buy a nicer boat.

I was sued by a drunk driver who didn't have a drivers licence who rear ended me while I was stopped at a red light. Like I really wanted to spend my hard earned money to go to court over that nonsense? Pathetic what people try to get away with, I didn't say this kids family was sue happy. But lets get serious, the average age on this forum was what like over 55? for that many years nobody had problems doing these activities and now all of a sudden everyone is having problems with? Who hasn't jumped off of a rope swing and hurt them selves? I know I surely have because they are dangerous, everyone knows that! youtube rope swings and I bet you you'll find a ton of videos of people smashing into the ground.

Maybe this is the problem. It sounds like you don't understand the basic facts as described in the article. The kid didn't get hurt by jumping off the rope swing, and he didn't get hurt all by himself. There was allegedly at least one other person involved who played a major part in causing the injury, and the suit also alleges that the town bears some responsibility because they were aware of and failed to mitigate a hazardous situation. Maybe that's the case, maybe not, but I fail to see how you can pin complete blame on the kid for his injury, given the scenario described in the article.

#1-------The Union Leader cant even get a headline correct..The Town of Chester is being sued , NOT Sandown

#2------- The "park" was closed at dusk and incident happened well after dark.

#3------- The kid was not just swimming in the area , he had just gone off the swing,didnt get out of the way, and because it was dark the next kid in line went and landed on top of him....

Even if they dont win a lawsuit , it will cost the (my) town a fortune to defend itself

And the rope swing has been there since before i was old enough to swim(i'm 57 now)

Back in the Day
 

Picture from Cummins Cove

March 04. 2016 5:41PM
 

BRENTWOOD – The town of Chester has asked a judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed after a Sandown teen was seriously injured when he was struck by someone on a rope swing while swimming at Wason Pond last summer. -

See more at: http://www.unionleader.com/Town-of-C....lQPS7zns.dpuf