Three Coves Closed to Rafting

[mcdude]

this being reported today by both the Sun and the Citizen

MEREDITH — The New Hampshire Department of Safety (DOS) has prohibited "rafting" at Round, Fish and Flag coves on Lake Winnipesaukee in response to a petition presented by neighboring property owners.
In 1983 the Legislature authorized the DOS to define and regulate rafting and since 1947 property owners have been entitled to petition the department to impose operating restrictions on water bodies within or bordering municipalities. The practice of "rafting-up" involves getting two or more craft, often many, to anchor very close together for the purpose of socializing.
Cheri Pierce, whose family has owned property on Flag Cove since 1945, submitted a petition in August and the DOS held a public hearing in September, at which eight residents spoke in favor and none against forbidding rafting in the three coves. Moreover, another 13 residents submitted letters supporting the petition.
The petitioners claimed that rafting posed a safety hazard in and around the narrow, shallow inlets where the most of the water is less than six feet deep and nowhere exceeds 12 feet in depth while much of the navigable area in between 150 feet and 200 feet wide. Moreover, the shallow, warm waters and fertile sediment provide ideal conditions for milfoil, the growth and spread of which is fostered by the repeated dropping and hauling of anchors of rafting boats. The coves also provide nesting sites for loons as well as habitat for other species of wildlife. Finally. residents complained that rafting is often presents a nuisance, primarily the disposal of trash in the lake.
Unless the decision of the DOS is appealed within 30 days, the agency will draft rules to implement the ban.

Round Cove? on Round Island?
Fish Cove - on Meredith Neck up behind Stonedam Island
Flag Cove?

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by mcdude

this being reported today by both the Sun and the Citizen



Round Cove? on Round Island?
Fish Cove - on Meredith Neck up behind Stonedam Island
Flag Cove?

All these coves are next to each other on the western side of Meredith Neck.

These are all areas where I highly doubt anyone would want to raft anyway and I have never seen anyone rafting there. I also agree with the abutters that this area is rather wildlife sensitive, especially Fish cove, a very marshy area that attracts lots of wildlife. This really affects nothing as far as boating goes...

Dan

[JDeere]

I use to fish back there but almost without fail as I went through the narrow pass some lunatic would yell at me that the cove was closed and I was not allowed in.
I never replied and still went in to fish but after awhile it was just not worth the hassle.

I agree that no one would want to raft or swim in there.

[BroadHopper]

I agree there are loons nesting in the coves. From what I see going on in those coves, the loons should be protected from the land owners that zoom in and out of the coves!

[crowsnest]

I think if they dont like to see boats on the lake they should move !

[jrc]

If no one would raft in there, then why do we need a rule saying no one can raft in there? Something is fishy, no pun intended...

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by jrc

If no one would raft in there, then why do we need a rule saying no one can raft in there? Something is fishy, no pun intended...

You can read the reasons why here... http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/h...e-petition.pdf

[JDeere]

Hey I just read it the petition. Do you notice that they (Fish Cove people) are upset because people are anchoring there? Rafting, ok...I guess but anchoring.

Gosh I am feeling a real strong desire to go and fish there again. It is a great spot for some huge pickerel AND BTW I have never seen anyone rafting or partying in fish cove. Why would anyone go hang out in swamp?

[BroadHopper]

So boaters bring in the milfoil and trash. WOW! You might as well put up a barrier so that the items don't float into their pristine world!

Fish Cove is a swamp anyway, how would you find milfoil in a swamp!

[jrc]

But they said that more than 20 boats on 4th of July and 4 to 15 every weekend. Is this a backwater swamp or the next Braun Bay?

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by jrc

If no one would raft in there, then why do we need a rule saying no one can raft in there? Something is fishy, no pun intended...

Because the Enviro-Taliban say so.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

So boaters bring in the milfoil and trash. WOW! You might as well put up a barrier so that the items don't float into their pristine world!

Fish Cove is a swamp anyway, how would you find milfoil in a swamp!

I suggest a floating barrier ....A Gate strung across the cove that would require an "intruder": to Swipe their card to gain accsess to the cove. Just like a Gated comunity. What's wrong with that..???

For those of you who may not see the Humor: (Sarc). NB

[HellRaZoR004]

As I understand it they don't want anyone in there....however, they are only banning 'rafting', which means you can still go in there and anchor if greater than 25ft from a single boat or 50 ft from no greater than two boats tied together. They cannot stop you from anchoring in there.

Raft is defined as “any group of two or more boats which are stationary upon the waters of a lake or pond and which are congregated together, whether anchored, secured to one another, or adrift, provided that at least one of the boats in the group is occupied.” Rafting is “forming or being a member of a raft.”

There are designated locations where, and times during which, the size of rafts is limited and a minimum distance is required between boats and rafts.

Currently, there are rafting restrictions in certain locations on Lake Winnipesaukee, Lake Sunapee, and Ossipee Lake.

No one in a prohibited location or at a prohibited time may:

-Form or allow a boat, which you are operating or in charge of, to join a raft consisting of three or more boats.

-Form or allow a boat, which you are operating or in charge of, to join a raft if any part of such raft is less than 50 feet from any other raft or less than 50 feet from any occupied single boat that is stationary on the waters of the same lake or pond.

-Anchor a single boat and cause it to remain stationary on the waters of a lake or pond, other than momentarily, if any part of such boat is less than 50 feet away from any raft or less than 25 feet away from any other single boat which is stationary on the waters of such lake or pond.

Edit: BTW - how many people live in this 2-bedroom house at 16 Ritsher Rd, MEREDITH, NH 03253? I count at least 5? Are they all considered 'owners'?

[brk-lnt]

Interesting, I wasn't familiar with these coves before. This issue has certainly made me aware of them though. I think I'll have to take a few cruises through there next summer to see what all the fuss is about...

[jrc]

Don't forget that the rafting rules as defined in Saf-C 407.01 prevent anchoring a single boat less than 150 feet from shore in a no rafting zone.

I looked up these areas on my trusty Bizer map and now I know what the rule is about. I see boats anchoring in there especially near shore at the entrance to the coves. Never see large rafts but always boats anchor with their sterns to shore and likely closer than 150 feet.

I plan to write an email or snail mail today for the DOS. I'll do dome digging and get the address, and see if email is accepted.

[GTO]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

You can read the reasons why here... http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/h...e-petition.pdf

I think it is humerous that these people bring into the picture the wildlife. I bet they didn't have any questions or concerns when they built their houses along the shore and took down trees to do so, you know trees, the things that wildlife live in or around.

[Happy Gourmand]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

You can read the reasons why here... http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/h...e-petition.pdf

Good reasons. I guess, but you'd think that the petition request writer would at least spell Winnipesaukee correctly.

[ishoot308]

I think the abutters main concern is the spread of invasive weeds by dropping and hauling in of anchors. As anyone knows when these weeds are cut they simply spread even thicker. Knowing this area quite well I feel this is a legitimate concern especially the fish cove area. The weeds are everywhere and getting worse every year.

As far as the other concerns noted, I can't comment as I do not live on those shorelines but I am surprised anyone would want to raft or anchor there. Shallow, weedy, very rocky area and lousy bottom. Great for bass fishing though!

Dan

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by HellRaZoR004

Edit: BTW - how many people live in this 2-bedroom house at 16 Ritsher Rd, MEREDITH, NH 03253? I count at least 5? Are they all considered 'owners'?

This is where the law seems to not be keeping up with the times.... In days gone by there where normally a single landowner, or maybe two in the case of husband and wife. But now in the days of time shares etc. it is possible to have multiple owner, and trustees....

I think this is a fine example, of where the law surrounding petitions need to be revisited, to deal with this... conceivably one home could have 25 people listed on the deed... and this file a petition legally.

[jrc]

If we allow milfoil spread to be an automatic trigger for no rafting zones, then huge swaths of the lake will easily become no rafting zones. If we want that law then we should pass that law.

This is classis bootstrapping, we have a law to deal with boat crowding and we are misusing it to deal with weed spread, as a cloak to deal with "I don't want boats in front of my house".

[JDeere]

This is classis bootstrapping, we have a law to deal with boat crowding and we are misusing it to deal with weed spread, as a cloak to deal with "I don't want boats in front of my house"

Bingo! Expect to be harassed anytime you enter the swamp...errhhh...I mean cove.

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by The Phantom Gourmand

Good reasons. I guess, but you'd think that the petition request writer would at least spell Winnipesaukee correctly.

I struggle to believe there is any truth that boats were rafting in fish cove. I have fished in there before and never, not once ever saw anyone else there. I simply do not believe that this is true.

[Bear Islander]

Nobody showed up at the meeting to speak against the no rafting zones. Posting here might be fun but it does nothing to stop the proliferation of these zones.

If you really want to do something you need individuals or an organization that can request the DOS inform them of hearings so they can show up and make an argument against the zones.

At a hearing you could ask questions like "Do you have any pictures of multiple boats rafting in your cove?" "Why don't you have pictures?" "Don't you think you should have brought some kind of evidence to support you claim?"

Anyway you still have 28 days to file an appeal with the DOS to stop this zone. Which one of you is writing that?

[JDeere]

Anyway you still have 28 days to file an appeal with the DOS to stop this zone.
Which one of you is writing that?

I nominate Bear Islander. Do I hear a second?

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Nobody showed up at the meeting to speak against the no rafting zones. Posting here might be fun but it does nothing to stop the proliferation of these zones.

Hmmmmm....................kind of like when the shore owners were trying to sneak through the no wake zone in the Barber Pole area. Nobody showed up to those either as they tried to hide/push through the meetings with no public knowledge if I remember correctly!

[BroadHopper]

Actually I don't think anyone raft in those areas anyway so that is why no one shows up at the meeting. Bear Islander has a valid point, let the DOS know that rafting is not an issue. If the hearings were not on work days I can make it a point to show up and ask the golden question to the land owners. Where's the proof????

I seriously doubt they can close the coves off to the public. If that is their intent they are barking up the wrong tree.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Anyway you still have 28 days to file an appeal with the DOS to stop this zone. Which one of you is writing that?

If you have a link or something as a reference I'll write an appeal and file it.

[HellRaZoR004]

Can anyone appeal, or do you need to be a Meredith resident?

Where do you hear of these petitions in the first place - other than on a forum like this. Not being a resident of Meredith makes it difficult unless I hear of it from somewhere else...etc...

[jrc]

Any aggrieved person can request an appeal. I plan to draft one tonight from myself. I suggest that other boaters that enjoy a little time at anchor, draft their own. Stamps are cheap.

It not real clear in the rules where to send them but the original petition is sent to this address:

Bureau of Hearings
Department of Safety
33 Hazen Drive
Concord, New Hampshire 03305

Just to be safe, I will send a copy to the Marine Patrol at:

Department of Safety
Bureau of Marine Patrol
31 Dock Road
Gilford, NH 03249-7627

I'm still thinking about how to state my request and will post here if anyone is interested. The other big question is what if DOS agrees to a rehearing, then it needs to be more than just me. Maybe I need to nudge that boating group...

[jrc]

BTW the applicable rules are in this link starting at section 409

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rule.../saf-c400.html

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by JDeere

I nominate Bear Islander. Do I hear a second?

I don't have a dog in this hunt. And if I lived in one of those coves I would probably want a NRZ. I only posted to say action is what you need.

I would recommend sending a letter to the DOS stating you are a member of an informal group of Winnipesaukee boaters that are opposed to the proliferation of NRZs. Ask to be informed of the time and place of any future hearings concerning NRZs.

I'd be surprised if they didn't comply.

[GTO]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

You can read the reasons why here... http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/h...e-petition.pdf

The first page of signatures, the people are from Alton Bay, Plymouth, Sandwich, Holderness, Compton.......not Meredith

[MAXUM]

It's called a community organizing effort. Haven't we already witnessed what a disaster those people are?

I'd go in there and anchor just out of spite but I don't want to get my boat all dirty in that swamp.

[tbonies]

Thanks for this post. Now I know where I DEFINITELY will fish and raft next summer!

[First Mate]

I will send a letter. I anchor in those coves nearly every weekend. The no wake area makes it nice for swimming and eating lunch, it is very quiet and not entirely weedy. I have seen a couple of boats rafted together a few times only, near the wooded shore of Flag Cove (didn't know the name before). I have never seen anyone barbeque, and I haven't seen much trash. It is just not that crowded in there.

There is a small seaplane that occasionally docks at a home there...and there's a double decker pontoon boat with a slide...my only point being that it isn't just kayaks and canoes and wildlife in there.

I had no idea about the 150' rule, that certainly will limit the ability to anchor. (IMHO that should be a separate restriction from rafting.) I noticed that there are already 15 areas of the lake that are restricted (thanks jrc for the link). It seems too easy...signatures from 2006?

I don't know how much good it will do, but at least I can try to be heard. Otherwise I wouldn't have known until I saw the revision on Bizer's next chart. Thanks so much for starting the thread, McDude.

[First Mate]

I did a bit more digging, it seems that a rehearing would have to be requested at this point...but if I'm not mistaken, there should be a written account of the decision. It's pretty hard to challenge "a preponderance of the facts" if you don't have them.

Here is the original notice of meeting: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/h...ove-notice.pdf

Christopher Casko, Bureau Administrator
Department of Safety, Bureau of Hearings
33 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03305

(603) 271-3486

[jrc]

I have drafted my letter, send me a private message if you want a copy. I plan to proof-read and mail tomorrow.

The process to appeal this is confusing but given the obvious process issues in the original petition, I hope the DOS people are open to the appeal.

[HellRaZoR004]

Originally Posted by First Mate

I did a bit more digging, it seems that a rehearing would have to be requested at this point...but if I'm not mistaken, there should be a written account of the decision. It's pretty hard to challenge "a preponderance of the facts" if you don't have them.

Here is the original notice of meeting: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/h...ove-notice.pdf

Christopher Casko, Bureau Administrator
Department of Safety, Bureau of Hearings
33 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03305

(603) 271-3486

The link above doesn't work.

[Lakegeezer]

We've seen this problem before. As yet another set of cove owners close off their private area to the public, boaters now must squeeze into the remaining coves to anchor for a picnic, making them crowded and potentially trigger more restrictions. Will there be any coves left to anchor in by 2020?

Since anchoring within 150 ft of shoreline part of the privatization, even the single family boaters are restricted. This reduces the recreational value of the lake for those that don't own property on it. The coves are where boaters can enjoy a quiet time and relax. Out in open water, anchoring in the wind and wake is less relaxing. Property owners can enjoy their cove full time, morning and evening, weekend and week day, spring, summer and fall. Boaters will only be a annoyance for a few hours on nice weekend days for about 8-10 weeks - at most. It is selfish to force them out.

It disturbs me that we usually hear of the new rafting and now anchoring restrictions after the decision has been made. There seems to be no watchdog group, protecting the boating public. While the public hearing was probably posted, it sure wasn't mentioned here, where those effected would hear about it. Why can't the state require effective public notice, just to give these restrictions a fair hearing?

[BroadHopper]

Probably the reason why marinas have slips available year round. A decade ago you had to be on a waiting list.

Winnisquam marinas have records years lately as more and more boaters are transferring to Winnisquam as well as Newfound Lake. Both, excellent lakes for rafting and anchoring. They are not rocky or muddy like Winnipesaukee. Both have boater friendly state ramps and parks.

I keep a large boat on the big lake and use it often off season and during the week. During the weekends and holidays, Winnisquam is a blast!

[Phantom]

I found Fish cove on mmy handy dandy Bizer map .... where are the others ?

Are they the two coves to the right ?

.

[jrc]

All the coves are a together and behind Ledge Island.

My letter is in the mail, it covers a request for appeal. If you want to slow down the appropriation of public areas of the lake by shore front owners, you owe it to your self to send one of your own.

For the cost of a stamp you can at least let the DOS know how you feel about this.

Bear Islander says that he would probably be for the NRZ if he lived there and I understand his reasoning. For a little work of collecting signatures, the petitioners had the State of NH essentially give them free property. Property the state holds in trust for all of us, is now restricted for our use and more enjoyable for them.

The petition process is amazingly lopsided, the threshold for signatures is tiny, the timing is swift, notification is only required of abutters, yet the lake belongs to all of NH.

[First Mate]

HellRaZor, I'm not sure why the previous link didn't work -- it does for me. To insert it I used the "link" button in the message window. Please advise if there's a better way...

I found the written decision, it is dated 11/6/13. Thirty days is the time frame to request a rehearing:

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/h...s-decision.pdf


And here is a link to a compendium of all the decisions:

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/h...um/watercraft/

A no-rafting petition was also approved on Lake Monomonac in July. Funny that no opposition attended that hearing or spoke against it. It is clear to me that the process is flawed.

Sorry to have been slow to respond (there's been a death in the family), but I will be working on my letter.

[HellRaZoR004]

Originally Posted by First Mate

HellRaZor, I'm not sure why the previous link didn't work -- it does for me. To insert it I used the "link" button in the message window. Please advise if there's a better way...

I found the written decision, it is dated 11/6/13. Thirty days is the time frame to request a rehearing:

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/h...s-decision.pdf


And here is a link to a compendium of all the decisions:

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/h...um/watercraft/

A no-rafting petition was also approved on Lake Monomonac in July. Funny that no opposition attended that hearing or spoke against it. It is clear to me that the process is flawed.

Sorry to have been slow to respond (there's been a death in the family), but I will be working on my letter.

Sorry to hear about your loss. Thanks again for posting the link, it must have been my connection as it is working now!

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

It disturbs me that we usually hear of the new rafting and now anchoring restrictions after the decision has been made. There seems to be no watchdog group, protecting the boating public. While the public hearing was probably posted, it sure wasn't mentioned here, where those effected would hear about it. Why can't the state require effective public notice, just to give these restrictions a fair hearing?

Actually, SBONH have been publicizing this action since September. You will see a number of bills pertaining to boating coming up on the website. Take a look, it is open to the public.

If there is enough objections to a particular bill or hearing, SBONH will actively look into it. Until now, SBONH notice the 'chatter' on this thread.

I agree that we should let DOS know that basing NRZ on environmental issues and throw in 'big rafting parties exists' when there is no proof. We all can prove that the area is not good for rafting because of topography and we need DOS to hear this. I have sent my letter and I am sure the other members of SBONH did the same. If we give the property owners an inch they will go the mile.

Please visit SBONH.org and please feel free to leave comments so that SBONH will know how you feel.

We may be quiet, but we are still engaged, ready to embraced our rights, and drive it home.

[sum-r breeze]

Originally Posted by crowsnest

I think if they dont like to see boats on the lake they should move !

If the state of New Hampshire continues to restrict our use of the lake (that is supposed to belong to everyone) then the tourists just won't come. When the tourists don't come, there won't be anyone to eat at the restaurants, fuel up their boats, shop at the grocery stores, and generally support the economy. It bears a striking resemblence to how the Govt enacts laws without pondering through all the unintended consequences. "You have to PASS the no rafting zone to find out what's IN the no rafting zone" Maybe we can get a reduction in our boat rgistration fees, seeing as we can't use all of the lake. A No Rafting Zone was also enacted in one of our favorite areas of Long Island, East Cove. We don't go there any more so the land owners won. The lake is a social environment in July and August and a cash cow for the cities and towns surrounding it. I think the state needs a more thorough process for for these kind of restrictions that serves more people than the few that show up to push their agenda. Invariably the hearing is ONLY when the land owners are around, typically January or some other Winter month when most of the boaters are away from the lake. The hand full of signatures threshold needs to be reconsidered for something as severe as No Rafting

The Breeze
Wave 'cuz I'll be wavin' back

[tis]

Geez, you guys are really tough on landowners.

[jrc]

I am a landowner.

There needs to be balance. This decision was made with no input from anyone opposed to it. So how can it possibly claim to take into account the needs of people never part of the process?

The process is ripe for misuse. I don't know if all the rules were followed to the letter of the law. But the notification rules are weird, I own land on the lake but I wasn't notified. Sure, for large lakes it impractical to notify all the abutters in writing but a public notice beyond the DOS website would be a start.

Broadhopper, I'm surprised that SBONH did not notify it's membership and get feedback. Yes there is some chatter on their website but an email should have been sent.

[Bear Islander]

"DOS held a public hearing in September, at which eight residents spoke in favor and none against forbidding rafting in the three coves. Moreover, another 13 residents submitted letters supporting the petition."

13 letters supporting the NRZ and not even one against. Plus nobody showed up to speak against the NRZ. If this hearing was important enough to post on the SBONH webpage why was it not important enough to write even on letter to the DOS in opposition? Why was it not important enough to take one minute to post about it here?

Part of being a watchdog organization is spreading the word.

[sum-r breeze]

Originally Posted by jrc

I am a landowner.

There needs to be balance. This decision was made with no input from anyone opposed to it. So how can it possibly claim to take into account the needs of people never part of the process?

The process is ripe for misuse. I don't know if all the rules were followed to the letter of the law. But the notification rules are weird, I own land on the lake but I wasn't notified. Sure, for large lakes it impractical to notify all the abutters in writing but a public notice beyond the DOS website would be a start.

Broadhopper, I'm surprised that SBONH did not notify it's membership and get feedback. Yes there is some chatter on their website but an email should have been sent.

I think the DOS needs to adopt a different approach. The default position should be a NO with a "prove to us why we should say yes" When they are more ready to take our access away than to keep us free to enjoy the lake, everybody loses.
We need to fight for our right to use as much of the lake as possible. I too pay property taxes to the state of NH along with hefty boat registration fees, so I feel that I'm already paying for my fair share of lake access and I don't like the state making it slowly dwindle down to a few overcrowded areas loaded with boat wakes and drunk 20 something's. The DOS needs to let us "live free or die"

The Breeze
Wave 'cuz I'll be wavin' back

[BroadHopper]

This is the big reason why I don't post upcoming and pending bills in the NH legislature. It is up to those interested to check SBONH.org from time to time for information. sbonh.org is available 24/7.

Please post comments, even as a guest, on the website. SBONH wants to hear from you whether you own a boat or not. SBONH is not limited to the Lakes Region area.

[tis]

I often see the notice of these hearings on the east side of the lake. I would assume for the hearings on other parts of the lake it is in the local papers there too?

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"DOS held a public hearing in September, at which eight residents spoke in favor and none against forbidding rafting in the three coves. Moreover, another 13 residents submitted letters supporting the petition."

13 letters supporting the NRZ and not even one against. Plus nobody showed up to speak against the NRZ. If this hearing was important enough to post on the SBONH webpage why was it not important enough to write even on letter to the DOS in opposition? Why was it not important enough to take one minute to post about it here?

Part of being a watchdog organization is spreading the word.

Hi B.I.,

Glad to see you still visit from time to time. To help clarify some confustion here: SBONH was made aware of the petition. Our goal is not dictate where NWZ or NRZ's should occur. That is for those directly affected to do. We did actively look at the petition and more importantly engaged in conversations with the attorney for the DOS hearings and DOS director to ensure that all parties were notified and the petition was granted only after certified mail notices had been sent to all abutters. These steps were taken and fulfilled by the petitioners which allowed the DOS to grant a hearing. The hearing was also posted on the DOS website as required.

There are a number of these petitions that have been submitted this year. Some did not have the proper notifications, some did have the requirements and were granted their hearings.

SBONH has been in constant contact with the DOS and kept an eye on any of those that did not seem to meet the required criteria that was passed in last years: Abutters Bill that was put forth and ushered through the legislature by SBONH.

As long as the requirements are adhered to so that all abutters are notified and the state lists the hearing on their website SBONH is satisfied with the situation. We are not responsible for notifying the general public for that would be a full time job considering the number of these that are filed per year. Hopefully the new procedures in place help to notify all those directly affected. The only reason this one became a sticky wicket is that it is affecting Lake Winni which gains much more attention then other smaller bodies of water.

[LIforrelaxin]

To Further emphasize what OCD has said. While you could look at organizations like SBONH, as watch dogs. How they interpret that roll can be vastly different then what is expected.

SBONH, has never been about dictating the right way and wrong way to use our waterways. As a public resource, it is for the public at large to decide how the waterways will be used. What SBONH has been endeavoring to do is make sure that proper processes and controls are in place, and that when laws are passed they make sense.

It makes perfect sense to make an area a no-rafting or no-wake zone, when the abbutters all agree that it is in the best interest of the area to do so.

Hence in this instance, a petition was issued, and people signed in agreement that there was a reason to declare this area of the lake a NRZ. AS part of the process all abbutters to the area in question where notified, as so was the public at large. So the process was followed. SBONH made sure of that.

Now if no one raises a concern about the issue, why would SBONH go out and start sending up Red Flags all over the place, for no reason, when there is no evidence to support this as a bad idea, or not in the best interest of the area.

[jrc]

OCDACTIVE, while I appreciate the role that SBONH takes and the work taken on this case, it would not be that much effort to email members with all pending cases.

It would serve at least two purposes, first reminding members that the organization is still involved and reminding them of the continuing value of SBONH. This will encourage support of SBONH.

Second informing members and allowing them to take further action. Yeah I know that we should check the SBONH and DOS websites but a lot of us really just want to enjoy the lake. We kind of forget that these things are happening in the background.

This was a wake-up call for me.

[jrc]

LIforrelaxing, I agree with you regarding SBONH being a watchdog of the process and not really concerned with the outcome. But informing people beforehand is a watchdog function.

I disagree regarding abutters having the only say in these types of restrictions. The lake belongs to more people then the abutters of these coves. Other users of the lake and especially these coves should have a say in the hearings. If DOS still thinks it's a good idea then, they can make the rules. These coves do not belong to the abutters.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

... engaged in conversations with the attorney for the DOS hearings and DOS director to ensure that all parties were notified...

...As long as the requirements are adhered to so that all abutters are notified and the state lists the hearing on their website SBONH is satisfied with the situation. We are not responsible for notifying the general public for that would be a full time job considering the number of these that are filed per year...

I'm sorry but you own post is making my point. All parties were NOT notified. Every Winnipesaukee boater that has been in one of those coves, or might enter one of those coves in the future is an "interested party". This lake is not the property of the residents of the coves and their abutters.

It is nice that you checked to see if all the abutters were notified. However I have a hard time imagining why any resident of a cove would NOT want a NRZ. It is the boaters wishing to access the cove that would have a complaint! And apparently nobody is informing them.

I can not see how taking a minute to notify the lakes boating community would not be part of your process. Posting on the basics on this forum would take you about two minutes. Hardly the "full time job" you claim. And this thread has almost 3,000 views, an easy way to inform the community. If you will send me notices in the future I will be happy to post them on this forum.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm sorry but you own post is making my point. All parties were NOT notified. Every Winnipesaukee boater that has been in one of those coves, or might enter one of those coves in the future is an "interested party". This lake is not the property of the residents of the coves and their abutters.

It is nice that you checked to see if all the abutters were notified. However I have a hard time imagining why any resident of a cove would NOT want a NRZ. It is the boaters wishing to access the cove that would have a complaint! And apparently nobody is informing them.

I can not see how taking a minute to notify the lakes boating community would not be part of your process. Posting on the basics on this forum would take you about two minutes. Hardly the "full time job" you claim. And this thread has almost 3,000 views, an easy way to inform the community. If you will send me notices in the future I will be happy to post them on this forum.

B.I.,

SBONH never claimed to be in charge or notifying the boating public but to provide information to our membership that may affect lakes and waterways around the state. The boating public must take some personal responsibility to check the DOS website. Part of the abutters bill was to make sure that it was published 2 weeks prior to any hearing on their website which they have done. Prior to the new law all there was, was a notification in the Union Leader legal notices. I am sure we all comb through that regularly. :-)

We made sure that in this particular situation that all notifications were sent according to the new law. In the past there were no such notifications and even those directly affected on a certain area of the lake may not have known that waters in their own front yard were being changed.

At SBONH we provide forums to discuss these issues. There was an ongoing discussion about this however since no one seemed to have an issue with the petition and all regulations had been adhered to there was no reason for SBONH to file a position, send a press release or send out an alert to membership for a call to action. Also there are dozens of petitions filed statewide yearly. There is no way to know which ones will be a hot button issue and which ones won't. As always it is easy to cast opinions after the fact then getting involved. That was one reason SBONH was started: To keep its members informed and assist with any issues they may bring to light. This one was not a controversial issue nor did it violate the regulations put in place.

You said you had a hard time imagining why a resident might not want a NRZ in their area. I cannot speak for them. In this situation it seems like you are correct for their was no opposition. However, that same argument was made for the Barber's Pole NWZ petition. There 10 to 1 came out against once the abutters were notified. There is no way to know how abutters will react, however at least now they will know and can have the right to speak on the issue.

The abutters bill will not fix every petition situation from a notification standpoint but it took a very large stride in the right direction. Again this was one of many petitions that have been filed around the state. It is impossible to make every boater aware of these changes nor is it SBONH's responsibility to do so. We do try to post all hot topics on our forum.

I know you are VIP member there so you have access to the important topics as does the general public as well. Please feel free to join into the conversation and point out those issues / hearings you feel are important to bring to light. Also as a member of the boating public and a member on winni.com you can always post issues you feel are important here as well.

However, if you have specific questions or suggestions I would be happy to speak with you. You should still have my phone #. If not let me know and I will PM it.

Thank you everyone for your continued support. Please let us know if there are any other issues that you would like to see us take a look at.

Warm Regards,

Scott V.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm sorry but you own post is making my point. All parties were NOT notified. Every Winnipesaukee boater that has been in one of those coves, or might enter one of those coves in the future is an "interested party". This lake is not the property of the residents of the coves and their abutters.

It is nice that you checked to see if all the abutters were notified. However I have a hard time imagining why any resident of a cove would NOT want a NRZ. It is the boaters wishing to access the cove that would have a complaint! And apparently nobody is informing them.

I can not see how taking a minute to notify the lakes boating community would not be part of your process. Posting on the basics on this forum would take you about two minutes. Hardly the "full time job" you claim. And this thread has almost 3,000 views, an easy way to inform the community. If you will send me notices in the future I will be happy to post them on this forum.

I love it when people tell volunteers how to do their "job"

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm sorry but you own post is making my point. All parties were NOT notified. Every Winnipesaukee boater that has been in one of those coves, or might enter one of those coves in the future is an "interested party". This lake is not the property of the residents of the coves and their abutters.

It is nice that you checked to see if all the abutters were notified. However I have a hard time imagining why any resident of a cove would NOT want a NRZ. It is the boaters wishing to access the cove that would have a complaint! And apparently nobody is informing them.

I can not see how taking a minute to notify the lakes boating community would not be part of your process. Posting on the basics on this forum would take you about two minutes. Hardly the "full time job" you claim. And this thread has almost 3,000 views, an easy way to inform the community. If you will send me notices in the future I will be happy to post them on this forum.

So B.I. by this logic, which I will say is neither right nor wrong, every person who has registered a boat within the state of NH should be notified, as they might one day decide to boat on Lake Winnipesaukee, and might decide to gather with some friends and raft in those specific coves.

Logistically we can turn this whole process in to a tightly locked process so that everyone and their brother is notified, when a change is being proposed. However is this the right thing to do. Imagine, getting notified every time your town, received a request for a zoning change on a piece of property. The request effect the entire public body in the area, and everyone that drives past the property and might want to use it to park their car and make a phone call.

People have to decide what is prudent. In the eyes of most people, notifying the people that are most directly effected by an action, is the adequate way of dealing with an issue. A public notification is done prescribed manor, so that anyone not directly effected, that is looking and wants to stay abreast of changes that may effect them, can do so. All it takes is going to the DOS website and look at the list of proposed changes and hearing every few weeks.

The issue is not that a group like SBONH, should be tagged with the responsibility of notifying the boating public. The boating public should be concerned and keep track of things them selves. SBONH fills this void, by giving the interested boater, a place to visit and easily see if there are any current issues in the State of NH, that they may want to speak up about. Thus SBONH, has put forth a reasonable effort to make sure that the boating public is notified. They should not be tasked with blurping in every forum available around the lake, as they have provided their own forum to do such.

In the past when SBONH has tried to be pro-active and notified people of important issues the officers of the group have been ostracized and label as trouble makers. Whether people agreed with their position or not.

[jrc]

Without throwing stones or beating a dead horse, in the back of my mind I felt that SBONH was watching the rule making and would let their members know if there were things to worry about.

They were watching that the process was followed and that's a big step. I now know that they are not following each individual rule request and that is still a blind spot. I guess the only foolproof answer is vigilance of the DOS website.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by jrc

Without throwing stones or beating a dead horse, in the back of my mind I felt that SBONH was watching the rule making and would let their members know if there were things to worry about.

They were watching that the process was followed and that's a big step. I now know that they are not following each individual rule request and that is still a blind spot. I guess the only foolproof answer is vigilance of the DOS website.

Thank you JRC. We will try to make any new hearings more prevalent when we hear about them. However, again it is tough to know which ones will cause a controversy. Outside of the DOS website please check the SBONH forums. Our membership has been great at bringing up possible issues, hearings and other hot topics not seen elsewhere.

As a group, if the membership is in favor of a specific position as true representation of the boating public (in state and out of state users) SBONH will be happy to take action.

Thank you once again for your continued support.

[Bear Islander]

In my opinion the issue here is not the rights of property owners but the rights of Winnipesaukee boaters to use coves for rafting. It seems that the legal process, the DOS, and even SBONH are not giving enough consideration to these boaters.

I believe there is a large number of boaters that are dismayed that over the years more and more coves are enacting NRZs. I believe that these boaters would object to all, or almost all, of these NRZs.

In a previous post I said property owners would almost never complain about a No Rafting Zone. The response was an example where property owners disliked a No WAKE Zone. I can imagine property owners not wanting a NWZ, I can't imagine property owners in a cove not wanting a NRZ!

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

In my opinion the issue here is not the rights of property owners but the rights of Winnipesaukee boaters to use coves for rafting. It seems that the legal process, the DOS, and even SBONH are not giving enough consideration to these boaters.

I believe there is a large number of boaters that are dismayed that over the years more and more coves are enacting NRZs. I believe that these boaters would object to all, or almost all, of these NRZs.

In a previous post I said property owners would almost never complain about a No Rafting Zone. The response was an example where property owners disliked a No WAKE Zone. I can imagine property owners not wanting a NWZ, I can't imagine property owners in a cove not wanting a NRZ!

B.I.

I believe you are splitting hairs here.

First: we all agree that the lake is owned by the state and EVERY boater and boater type should have the right to use it. SBONH incorporated this into the abutters bill by asking for the requirement that the information be listed on the DOS website and not just a small blurb in the legal notices of the Union Leader which many boaters in state and especially out of state may not have access to. Furthermore we try to post on our forums as well to vet whether or not there is an issue. If you have a better way of informing every boater about every change that may or may not occur please do so.

Second, If you read above: I stated that the petitioners for the Barbers Pole NWZ made the same argument saying "why would anyone disagree with this proposal". I just used this as an example where-by they also couldn't imagine there would be opposition but there clearly was. It is difficult to speculate what every boater and or land owner would believe. Being on the water as well I would object to a NWZ or NRZ in front of my property for I do not feel it would be warranted.

I believe there has been an appeal filed from an independent party. If this is a serious topic for you I would recommend filing a letter of support to that appeal.

Also, please feel free to participate in the ongoing conversations on the sbonh forums if you have other issues you would like us to examine.

Happy Thanksgiving!

[jrc]

For the land owners there is almost no downside to having their area declared a NRZ. It keeps "the riffraff" out, doesn't cost anything, and doesn't affect their use of the area.

Indirectly, a NRZ is a flag to boaters, it must be a popular place to anchor if it's been declared a NRZ. I've checked out almost every NRZ just to see if I'm missing a good spot to anchor.

[Chaselady]

Just because you can't "raft" doesn't mean you can't go in and drop anchor. Just don't tie up with anyone. Stay away from the other boats...spread out nicely so you all take up the whole cove, fire up the grill, party, and really drive the property owners nuts.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Chaselady

Just because you can't "raft" doesn't mean you can't go in and drop anchor. Just don't tie up with anyone. Stay away from the other boats...spread out nicely so you all take up the whole cove, fire up the grill, party, and really drive the property owners nuts.

There is no way that landowners in a cove can prevent anchoring on the water.

[jrc]

Absolutely you don't need to raft everywhere, all the time and that's why we sometimes go to an NRZ to anchor.

But in some cases and this case especially, the only good anchoring spots are near shore where the bottom is sandy.

The NRZ rules restrict even single boats from anchoring 150' from shore. So making these coves NRZ effectively closes them to anchoring.

People seldom want to anchor in shallow mucky water.

[jrc]

Just to complete this thread, let me tell you about the email I received today. I was denied my petition for a rehearing. Once again if anyone wants a copy just PM me. From the beginning I thought this was a long shot but I thought I had a better chance than I did. Let me list my thoughts on the why I lost:

1) If you miss the initial hearing, a rehearing is a huge hurdle. The rules are setup to do this once, not keep having rehearings. An argument that might sway the hearing is not enough for requesting a rehearing.

2) I got sloppy and lazy on my request. I'm not a lawyer, I treated the request as an appeal to fairness and common sense. The response from the original petitioner, came from a email address in the California judiciary. Her response was researched and referenced several applicable NH laws.

3) There was no groundswell of support for the rehearing. Only three of us sent in requests and one was withdrawn. So from the hearing officers point of view there was little reason to reopen a closed issue.

My actions going forward:

1) Watch the DOS website for petitions affecting my favorite areas. I have the shortcut on my desktop, plus I set up a web site watch to send me an email if the page changes.

2) Get a lawyer, If I have to deal with this process again. I made a lot of rookie errors in my request, that clearly showed up in the denial.

3) Build support, I know a bunch of people that I told casually about this. If my favorite area was under fire, I would push them to write.

All in all, I'm glad I tried. I'm also relieved it was denied. If I could only recruit two others to write, I'm betting that I would have been alone at the rehearing.