MP - Seriously?

[Joanna16]

So there we were Saturday legally anchored down in Braun Bay. Enjoying a sunny afternoon with some new friends we had met. The weather started to look questionable but we figured it be better to ride out the rain with 2 anchors down then try to head home.

Along comes Marine Patrol - we figured they we stopping by as a courtsey to tell us to check our anchors and hunker down - NOT. They came in to check our 25ft. Seriously?

When asked about the storm they said they did not know but 2 boats near to us were not legally achored and had to move. Is this really the time to be splitting hairs about the 25ft rule?????

What about the safety of that boat and it's passengers was going to be effected by them moving 5ft further away for that other boat???? Isn't it better that the captain was not physically in the water when the storm hit?

Ok let the bashing of me begin because I was in the lake during a storm. Or beacuse I own a GFBL. But really shouldn't MP have been more concerned with the weather and the 50 boats that left 5 minutes before scurring across the lake and "un-safe" speeds?

[Dave R]

Perhaps they wanted more separation because of the impending storm. In a storm, two anchors, the way they are typically set in Braun Bay, are a liability. You'd be better off with a single, properly sized, bow anchor and a 10:1 scope. Last thing you want is the boat broadside to the wind tugging on two anchors sideways, especially if the bow anchor drags and presents the stern to the weather.

[SIKSUKR]

Agreed.I know I would want a lot of extra distance between my boat and others in a bad weather situation.

[sa meredith]

Anchoring in a storm is covered very thoroughly in the NH Safe Boating Course, and, of course, you both are right on the money.
I thought the same thing, when reading the original post. Anchoring both the bow and stern in severe weather...probably not the best idea. If fact, not a good one at all.

[Woodsy]

and I agree with Joanna...

I was there saturday afternoon too. I am usually a a very big advocate of the NHMP and the FANTASTIC job they do.. But saturday afternoon was a bit excessive!

The MP arrived with 3 boats just after the bay had pretty much cleared out due to the impending storm. There werent that many boats left. I was had pulled my anchors and was heading out when a friend yelled to me his boat wouldnt start. (He was at the bay with his wife, some friends of hers and thier teenage daughter & her friends) Needless to say the wind was picking up, the sky was dark and the teenage girls were getting a bit frightened. I turned around and tied off to him (his stern line to my nose ring) The wind was picking up so I thought it was best that both boats move in unison to prevent any damage while we tried to get the boat started.

He didnt have any jumper cables, and I had lent out my jump pack to another boater earlier in the day, so the only really quick solution (other than towing him or Seatow) was to give him the second battery out of my Donzi.

I quickly disconnected and removed my second battery, placed it on my shoulder and was in the water walking it over to the other boat when the MP officer in the RIB decided it was good time to remind me of the rafting rules in Braun Bay! I explained to the officer twice that I was not rafting, but helping a broken down boater... instead of asking if they could assist (call Seatow or something) he continued on the rafting rules diatribe! After he explained to me for the 3rd time that we needed to be 25' apart, he motored away!

The funny thing is... he was WRONG!

I wasnt in the mood to argue, I just wanted to get my friends boat running and be on my way before the storm really hit!

We didnt have to be 25' apart nor were we illegal according to the rafting rules! There were no other boats within 50' of us! They all left because of the impending storm!

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

9 times out of ten the NHMP make the right call... this time it was bit over the top!

Woodsy

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

....
The funny thing is... he was WRONG!

I wasnt in the mood to argue, I just wanted to get my friends boat running and be on my way before the storm really hit!

We didnt have to be 25' apart nor were we illegal according to the rafting rules! There were no other boats within 50' of us! They all left because of the impending storm!

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

First let me say that in a repair situation or a waiting out the storm situation, I would expect the MP to be more helpful. But they are only human and they come in different personalities.

Seems like in the spirit of the law would allow your actions, to the letter of the law, I think you were in violation.

In a NRZ, you can raft two boats together and be 50' from other boats or your boats can be 25' apart. It doesn't seem like, you can't be 10' apart and not rafting, for example. You either have to have your boats touching (rafting) or be 25' away.

It sounds a little silly but that's how I read the law.

[Woodsy]

Jrc...

Because we were tied together (attached by a line connected from my bow to his stern) we were technically rafting. However we were not in violation because there were no other boats within 50' of us.

Woodsy

[jrc]

I guess that's right, you were technically rafting if your tied together, Obviously you don't have to touch to raft, we always use fenders just to make sure we don't touch.

Well the whole rafting enforcement theme has been bounced around here before. I'm not getting on my soapbox again.

But its seems like a big picture view by the MP, at least in this particular incidence may have been better. But then again I wasn't there.

[bigpatsfan]

I guess what was missing in the MP conversation with Joanna16 was any mentioned of a storm or what Joanna16 should do during this storm. Instead it appears that the MP was sent out to enforce the “no rafting” statue and that was what this autobot did.

In reading the large number of posts on many different threads regarding MP officers, it appears that the officers need additional training not only on boating and criminal laws but more importantly on how to interact with the populace. When reading the posts, most people are complaining about the officers demeanor.

This is not surprising as the Marine Patrol, as a group, is the least trained police department in the State. The majority of the officers are part time officers and as a result do not benefit from Police Standards and Trainings full time academy.

The State should seriously look at either abolishing the MP division and have the State Police handle boating or significantly increase the MP officers training.

[Winnipesaukee]

Joanna, I'll take some bashing too.

First of all, if caught in a storm and you have two anchors, I recommend anchoring "Bahama" style with as much scope as possible. It limits swing which assures that the anchors will hold. Not to mention you have two anchors in the ground...

Second, I believe the law says you can break a law if it is reasonably safe to do so, in a case of emergency.

I'm very pro-cop, but it seems that many (but not all) members of the MP have been unwilling to provide boaters any kind of real aid, as evidenced by the OP's post and my experiences with them. I don't dislike them; they just need to tweak their "mission" a bit. Don't they close their doors at 2AM? Don't their boats even lack VHF radios?

I don't subscribe to SeaTow or BoatUS. If I ever need help for whatever reason, I'm sure I can simply give a call on the radio and request assistance, and someone will help me out. I would and have done the same for others. It is considered good seamanship for a boater to assist another if they are in need. I expect MP to be part of that network of seaman-like boaters, but again, doesn't seem to really be the case....

[bigpatsfan]

Their mission is fine:

The Marine Patrol’s mission is to provide a safe, enjoyable, and environmentally responsible use for all of the State’s public waters.

It is their execution that needs work.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Winnipesaukee

Joanna, I'll take some bashing too.
I'm very pro-cop, but it seems that many (but not all) members of the MP have been unwilling to provide boaters any kind of real aid, as evidenced by the OP's post and my experiences with them.
I don't subscribe to SeaTow or BoatUS. If I ever need help for whatever reason, I expect MP to be part of that network of seaman-like boaters, but again, doesn't seem to really be the case....

I have to post in support of MP for a recent event.Two Saturdays ago I was to meet a friend at Braun Bay.I went over on my PWC while my girlfriend went with a couple friends in their boat.I get a call while waiting in Braun from them and they inform me they are dead in the water right by Eagle Island.It's pretty windy out so I'm a little concerned about how their boat will fair being dead.I move as fast as I can to get to them but that still takes about 10 minutes.When I arrived MP was already assisting them.They had been blown towards Pitchwood and MP saw them in trouble.MP tossed them a line and towed them back to a safe area and then called Seatow for them.He waited till Seatow arrived until leaving.Needless to say my friends were very happy that the MP arrived to help them.

[Woodsy]

I am a huge supporter of the NHMP and think they do a TREMENDOUS job given thier funding level, seasonal employees etc... They really do! Winiipesaukee regardless of what some of the detractors say, is one of the safest places to boat in the country and a lot of that has to do with the proffessionalism of the NHMP!

I just think in this particular instance it was a bit over the top given the storm and the lack of boats...

Woodsy

[KonaChick]

With the way these storms have been for the last few weeks if MP cruised the lake warning boaters of storms, that's all they'd be doing!

[Airwaves]

Rather than cruise the lake warning boaters of an impending storm they could just do a VHF broadcast when severe thunderstorm warnings are posted for the area.

During the severe weather at the end of bike week I heard NHMP HQ do a broadcast on their dispatch channel warning MP boats to find a secure area to ride out the storm, they certainly could do the same for the general boating population.

Just an aside, boaters on Winnipesaukee really should have a VHF with a wx alert feature for just these conditions since most over the air radio stations in the area are computers with no live person behind the mic to let you know when things like this are happening and satellite radio will be no help at all!

[kchace]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Rather than cruise the lake warning boaters of an impending storm they could just do a VHF broadcast when severe thunderstorm warnings are posted for the area.

During the severe weather at the end of bike week I heard NHMP HQ do a broadcast on their dispatch channel warning MP boats to find a secure area to ride out the storm, they certainly could do the same for the general boating population.

Just an aside, boaters on Winnipesaukee really should have a VHF with a wx alert feature for just these conditions since most over the air radio stations in the area are computers with no live person behind the mic to let you know when things like this are happening and satellite radio will be no help at all!

While boating last year I heard the NHMP issue issue a storm warning via VHF ch16. It was timely and welcomed. It gave me a chance to get the boat tucked into a protected space.

Ken

[liberator211]

First and foremost I think the MP does a great job the majority of the time. They do surprise me from time to time with the way they harass me. Just last night I took a dusk cruise from Cummings Cove area into Paugus bay and left around 7:30. I went into the Weirs channel and the MP boat was also in the channel. We exchanged waves as we passed each other. As I departed the channel heading back towards Pitchwood around 8:00 I put up my stern light and turned my lights on. The MP was just sitting outside the channel off the flashing black marker near Hoits Point (no lights on). While pulling out I see three different jet skis still running without lights and another bonehead tubing with his lights on. This is now 8:15-8:30 and I am wondering why the heck the MP is not addressing either one of these issues. I take off and sure enough the lights go on and who does the MP pull over? Me of course; not the jet skiers who are still out or the bonehead with his kids tubing at near dark. I was far away from everybody including the MP so I knew I did not break any headway rules. We go through the whole thing of safety equipment, registration, boater’s license etc. After passing with flying colors they tell me they are going to issue me a ticket for not having properly displayed my running lights when we passed in the channel. Oh by the way they did not have any running lights on either when we passed in the Weirs Channel. Of course I did not bring that up or ask them why it was me and not the other knuckle heads they pulled over. I was able to apologize profusely and also receive a verbal warning but I mean come on. One last tidbit of information; I am young and own a go fast style boat so you now know the reason it was me who was pulled over and not the family tubing at dusk or the jet skiers. Has not been the first time I have been pulled-over nor do I expect it to be the last time. Have a good day everybody.

[Winnipesaukee]

You should have welcomed the ticket, asked the MP why their lights were off, and why they didn't pull over the boneheads on jet skis. Then you should have taken a picture of the MP boat and the jet skis.

[VtSteve]

Is this fairly new behavior on the lake? From many reports this year, it "appears" that a certain group of boaters has been targeted for some harassment. Possibly some is justified to make a statement, hard to tell since we only hear one side of the story. I'm not disputing your account at all, and it would appear that in your case at least, the MP not only has a problem with harassment, but one of upholding the law as well.

I realize I'm throwing this out there with no basis in fact other than posts here and elsewhere. I do that, because if there is a problem, it needs to be addressed so credibility remains intact. I know of at least one other lake where some powerful interests have influenced the targets the MP routinely single out.

[Island-Ho]

Liberator - Your post indicates the alledged lighting infraction occurred between 8:15 and 8:30. This is very picky by MP, especially as you had turned on your lights before he stopped you. On 7/21 susnset was at 8:20pm, and lights are required between sunset and sunrise. MP probably waited until after the inquery and safety inspection before he wrote the ticket, so the time on the ticket will unfortunately be after sunset. I don't know what times are entered on a ticket, but you might want to compare those with actual sunset time. There is probably not enough accurate time noted to be of any use fighting it. Was the tuber there after he was finished with you? Maybe that was his next target.

[Airwaves]

Just to follow up on Island-Ho's thoughts

Even if the time of the ticket is at the end of the stop and after sunset wouldn't the MP boat call the stop into MPHQ when the stop was first initiated? So if you wanted to dispute the ticket and timeline the MPHQ should have the time of the inital stop written in their log.

BTW I beleive liberator said he was able to talk MP out of a ticket and just received a verbal warning.

As for MP targeting groups. If I had to venture a guess I'd say they are probably more focused on boats they believe might be able to go above the new speed limit law in anticipation of it taking effect. Kind of putting folks on notice this year. That, coupled with boat traffic being lighter they have less to do.

[John A. Birdsall]

Originally Posted by Island-Ho

Liberator - Your post indicates the alledged lighting infraction occurred between 8:15 and 8:30. This is very picky by MP, especially as you had turned on your lights before he stopped you. On 7/21 susnset was at 8:20pm, and lights are required between sunset and sunrise. MP probably waited until after the inquery and safety inspection before he wrote the ticket, so the time on the ticket will unfortunately be after sunset. I don't know what times are entered on a ticket, but you might want to compare those with actual sunset time. There is probably not enough accurate time noted to be of any use fighting it. Was the tuber there after he was finished with you? Maybe that was his next target.

If my memory serves me correctly lights are to be turned on 1/2 hr before sunset and 1/2 hour after sunrise. Now I have not looked at the regs about this for some time, but I believe that is the case, which says the lights need to be on at 7:50 PM

[Kamper]

Originally Posted by bigpatsfan

...
The State should seriously look at either abolishing the MP division and have the State Police handle boating or significantly increase the MP officers training.

I vote for plan "B." For the sake of space, let's completely disregard the SP/HP integration issues. I think a properly trained cadre of specialists dedicated to the task will be better for the boating community than Troopers who would be more likley to be re-assigned to other duties (imo). Since most of the MP positions are seasonal there would be serious retension issues to work out with the unions, too.

As you suggested the temps/part-timers might benefit from additional training. I prefer to think they are all trying their best but there are a lot of details that are difficult to learn on the job.

[Lakegeezer]

While we can debate if the rafting law should be enforced during a weather emergency, another approach would be to challenge the law itself. Should the no-rafting areas laws be repealed?

The energy crisis is a longer term issue than an impending storm and a ban on rafting makes less sense than it did when fuel was cheap. Some areas of the citizen's lake are better than others for "hanging out on your boat". Braun Bay and Kona are examples of nice places - but use is limited by the rafting rules. This forces people to burn gas, while driving around looking for a legal spot to anchor. As other spots get crowded, there is pressure to add new no-rafting zones too. More driving around, less places to hang out. This doesn't make sense to me.

There are two alternatives. Eliminate all no-rafting zones or ban rafting for the whole lake. Perhaps a two year trial for each approach would be worth a shot.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Perhaps they wanted more separation because of the impending storm. In a storm, two anchors, the way they are typically set in Braun Bay, are a liability. You'd be better off with a single, properly sized, bow anchor and a 10:1 scope. Last thing you want is the boat broadside to the wind tugging on two anchors sideways, especially if the bow anchor drags and presents the stern to the weather.

Dave...

The NHMP were essentially quoting the rulebook... their mission was to enforce the rafting rules and write warnings or violations. They never said you might want to get out of here or spread out before the storm hits...

That is particularly good advice on anchoring....

But given the 3-4' of water in Braun Bay, and its relatively protected area (from the wind - lots of tall trees) I dont think they were in any danger. If they removed the rear anchor and the other boats around them did not, then there is the potential for the boat to swing in the wind and cause a collision.

Woodsy

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Dave...

The NHMP were essentially quoting the rulebook... their mission was to enforce the rafting rules and write warnings or violations. They never said you might want to get out of here or spread out before the storm hits...

That is particularly good advice on anchoring....

But given the 3-4' of water in Braun Bay, and its relatively protected area (from the wind - lots of tall trees) I dont think they were in any danger. If they removed the rear anchor and the other boats around them did not, then there is the potential for the boat to swing in the wind and cause a collision.

Woodsy

I kinda figured, that's why I wrote "perhaps". The rest of my post was meant solely to be educational. In your situation, I think I would have said "yup" and then ignored the MP and kept on doing what you were doing with the battery.

[Winnipesaukee]

Can someone justify MP not carrying VHF radios? That really bothers me.

[Airwaves]

Just curious, did MP do a general broadcast on VHF 16 about the severe wx going through much of the area right now?

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by Winnipesaukee

Can someone justify MP not carrying VHF radios? That really bothers me.

They don't have to carry VHF radios. The VHF channels commonly used for emergency broadcasts are programmed in the police radios on board and in dispatch.

[liberator211]

Just for those of you who missed it I was able to get a verbal warning and never got a ticket. The earlier post regarding the time of infraction brings out a question; when should your lights be turned-on? I boat on many waterways including Winni and I was always under the understanding that your running lights should be on one hour before sunset by the book. Is the correct and the way the law reads? Thanks.

[kchace]

Originally Posted by liberator211

Just for those of you who missed it I was able to get a verbal warning and never got a ticket. The earlier post regarding the time of infraction brings out a question; when should your lights be turned-on? I boat on many waterways including Winni and I was always under the understanding that your running lights should be on one hour before sunset by the book. Is the correct and the way the law reads? Thanks.

No, sunset to sunrise.

"Saf-C 403.14 Time for Lights. Proper lighting, as required in Saf-C 403.15 and Saf-C 403.16, shall be displayed between sunset and sunrise. Lights shall be lighted at such times and no other lights which might be mistaken for the prescribed lights shall be exhibited."

Ken

[The Big Kahuna]

I have never seen MP do anything to help anyone. I have been boating for 20years on this lake, in that 20 years I never seen the MP stop to help anyone. Of the 10 - 15 boats I have helped over the years MP passed by at least 5 times, this includes sail boats that were turned over, boats that ran out of gas, boats that would not start. They passed by the boaters in need, and I stopped to help. In one case they circled back and gave me a hard time and used the old safety check on us, for what I still can't figure out. I was trying to help a sail boat by pulling his mast out of the water, I had tied a line to the back side of his boat and we were pulling them up-right. I could tell my story again about the time I ran out of gas with my inlaws on board, mother inlaw, sister inlaws with all their kids, late at night down in Alton Bay after the fireworks, with boats racing by, the MP 50 ft. away and refused to help me as I floated in the middle of the bay out of gas. I had to paddle the boat to shore and safety. I would tell that story again but the results would be the same, MP has still refused to help us. Bottom line is they could care less about boaters safety on this lake, as far as I am concerned they are useless and should be replaced by Fish and Game, who do a superior job, and do care about safety and are far better trained.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Joanna16

So there we were Saturday legally anchored down in Braun Bay. {snip}
Along comes Marine Patrol - we figured they we stopping by as a courtsey to tell us to check our anchors and hunker down - NOT. They came in to check our 25ft. Seriously?

When asked about the storm they said they did not know but 2 boats near to us were not legally achored and had to move. Is this really the time to be splitting hairs about the 25ft rule?????

What about the safety of that boat and it's passengers was going to be effected by them moving 5ft further away for that other boat???? Isn't it better that the captain was not physically in the water when the storm hit?

First, to Joanna16's thread starter. Why did MP enforce no-rafting rules rather than warn you about the storm? You answered your own question about the storm warning: They said they did not know... they would have to know about the storm before they could warn you. They probably did not know about it at MP Headquarters therefore no warning to the Patrol Boats or on VHF 16. This may be the storm that CLA talked about in the weather thread HERE mentioning that warnings came late, after the storm passed.

I was not at the lake during the storm however, in years past I have heard the Marine Patrol issue weather warnings on VHF channel 16. Most of us have heard Bill, (Mighty Mo II) issue weather warnings on VHF 16 over many years. He is a member of the Marine Patrol Auxiliary and a great help to boaters. If he is on-the-air less this season I hope it is because he is out using his recently regained vision.

I've also heard the Captain of the Mount Washington issue weather warnings on VHF 16 in addition to numerous recreational boaters.

Lt. Dunleavy responded to Airwaves' e-mails with very logical explanations. I think the MP does a fine job. I'd like to see more of them. The few times I've been stopped over the last few decades I knew why as soon as I saw those blue lights. The officers were very courteous and efficient. They wanted to be sure I knew the rules. They agreed with my judgement calls and I did not receive any tickets.

I like to listen to communications radios and have trouble keeping an ear on Channel 16 sometimes myself. Kids, chit chat, radio checks (calling MP, MP, is my radio working?) and other improper uses of channel 16 make it hard even for me to always listen. Imagine all the stuff MP listens to at dispatch and (over motor noise) in patrol boats. Distress calls to MP via VHF 16 if not heard directly by MP dispatch should be heard by someone who will relay the message - even call them on the phone to get them on Ch 16. I can easily understand why MP patrol boats don't normally communicate on VHF Ch 16 - The dispatcher is the one to handle 2-way radios and telephone calls for aid from the public.

No Rafting Rules enforcement at Braun Bay is nothing new. I chuckled while reading the Forum Archives from 2000 about the Braun Bay MP Invasion. For some interesting reading try these threads:
5 - 7 MP boats invade Braun Bay. And more discussion of Braun Bay invasion. My comment post on No Rafting Zone activities from June 2000 is found HERE.

A few familiar names in those archives (Rose, was that you back then?) and similar complaints - I wonder how many current forum regulars posted to those threads under other names - no registration was required to post back in those days.

Airwaves, I know who you are - and I might accept bribes - I do need a new boat

Kayakers love water - a kayakers body is comprised of 80 - 85% water - therefore kayakers love most of themselves