Springfield Cove NRZ Hearing

[Winnisquamer]

Actually looks like a nice spot to raft...

[Lakeboater]

Is this the cove with the huge house that sold about a year ago? The house that the President of France stayed once?

[HellRaZoR004]

It's pretty clear the new owner of this massive estate doesn't want people in the area.



The basis for this request is mostly on pollution and spread of invasive plants, which IMO should fall under laws we currently have, and therefore should be enforced over additional regulation. What they have requested as a NRZ is a large area.

[AC2717]

another story of someone moving in where a perceived nuisance is to them and them trying to change the way things are.
This should not even be an issue. What was there first. the new owner or the people rafting.

[LIforrelaxin]

This story will never change. The problem is lake front property owners want serenity the way they want it... And we are becoming society that has no tolerance for what doesn't suit us....

Wait hold on I am a shore front owner.... So why am I not all for this...

This is a big lake for everyone to enjoy... I don't like that my neighbors, and people that put in at the public launch near by play loud music while waterskiing... but its only on the weekends and I can have my paradise all week long.. when they aren't there... So guess what... I live with it...

Soon rafting will not be possible anywhere on the lake... As homeowners in these coves learn that if they use the environment, and pollution as the basis these Petitions while become more common, and likely continue to pass.

Sure you prevent the "Rafts" but people can still come and anchor......

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by HellRaZoR004

It's pretty clear the new owner of this massive estate doesn't want people in the area.



The basis for this request is mostly on pollution and spread of invasive plants, which IMO should fall under laws we currently have, and therefore should be enforced over additional regulation. What they have requested as a NRZ is a large area.

It starts with an environmental basis but then quickly becomes a list of complaints about boaters.

Not that I ever go there, but what's the procedure if people wanted to speak against this?

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

[HellRaZoR004]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

It starts with an environmental basis but then quickly becomes a list of complaints about boaters.

Not that I ever go there, but what's the procedure if people wanted to speak against this?

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

A couple years ago we had a similar petition in the town I live to restrict motorized access to one of the ponds. I disagreed with the rationale and wrote a petition to argue against implementing the ban. I gathered the necessary signatures and sent it to the state, as outlines in the notice (similar to what Don provided). Ultimately the request for ban was denied and motorize activities is still allowed.

Not being a resident of Wolfeboro, where this NRZ is being proposed, may affect how much leverage we have...Ultimately I still believe we should petition against it, as it erodes our privilege to use a public entity.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by HellRaZoR004

A couple years ago we had a similar petition in the town I live to restrict motorized access to one of the ponds. I disagreed with the rationale and wrote a petition to argue against implementing the ban. I gathered the necessary signatures and sent it to the state, as outlines in the notice (similar to what Don provided). Ultimately the request for ban was denied and motorize activities is still allowed.

Not being a resident of Wolfeboro, where this NRZ is being proposed, may affect how much leverage we have...Ultimately I still believe we should petition against it, as it erodes our privilege to use a public entity.

As the water is public property owned by the state I would think any NH resident or non resident in that case should and would have a right to speak out

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by AC2717

As the water is public property owned by the state I would think any NH resident or non resident in that case should and would have a right to speak out

That is correct they do..... and can and have for other issues.... that is why there is a public notice..... But the people with the most sway in the mater are those directly effected that directly abut the property in question.....

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

That is correct they do..... and can and have for other issues.... that is why there is a public notice..... But the people with the most sway in the mater are those directly effected that directly abut the property in question.....

I agree and if half of what they say can be proven to be true, especially the part about having substantiated police reports of nudity / sex in public view while rafting, its a slam dunk for the land owners.

Dan

[Rich]

why.. lewd acts have nothing to do with rafting, that's about laws that are already on the books, and rafting has nothing to do with nudity, etc.

Why make more laws, because current laws are not enforced?

Boaters against this should send in comments and try to attend the meeting.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Rich

why.. lewd acts have nothing to do with rafting, that's about laws that are already on the books, and rafting has nothing to do with nudity, etc.

Why make more laws, because current laws are not enforced?

Boaters against this should send in comments and try to attend the meeting.

My point was / is... this is one of the items the landowners will be using for ammunition and it is VERY effective. Substantiated Police reports of lewd conduct occurring while rafting in public view of children will be a show stopper at the hearing, that's a fact!

What do you think is going to happen when one of the landowners shows up with a video of the supposed loud music, public intoxication, nudity and littering...do you really think the panel is just going to brush it aside and say "hey, we already have laws on the books for these infractions" and do nothing??... History of these cases has proven differently... I have personally seen videos exactly like this at hearings and its quite embarrassing to watch and trust me when I tell you that it is very effective!

I'm not for more laws or taking away rafting rights whatsoever, quite the contrary actually, I'm simply stating what ammunition will be used at the hearing that has proven to be very effective at getting rafting rights taken away.

If the boating public wants to beat this, they better get their ducks in a row with a good game plan and come out in numbers because as LIR stated previously, the landowners have the most "sway" at these hearings...

Dan

[Rich]

Dan,

Sorry, I'm not disagreeing with you. It's a bit sad.

If boaters want to fight this, the details are in the links presented:

TESTIMONY WILL BE ALLOWED THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:

(1) THE SIZE OF THE BODY OF WATER OR PORTION THEREOF FOR WHICH RULEMAKING ACTION IS BEING CONSIDERED.

(2) THE EFFECT WHICH ADOPTING OR NOT ADOPTING THE RULE (S) WOULD HAVE UPON:

(A) PUBLIC SAFETY;
(B) THE MAINTENANCE OF RESIDENTIAL, RECREATIONAL, AND SCENIC VALUES;
(C) THE VARIETY OF USES OF SUCH BODY OF WATER OR PORTION THEREOF;
(D) THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER QUALITY; (E) THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES.

(3) THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AFFECTED, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY ADOPTING OR NOT ADOPTING THE RULE(S); AND

(4) THE AVAILABILITY AND PRACTICALITY OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULE(S).

PERSONS WISHING TO TESTIFY ARE URGED TO COORDINATE THEIR TESTIMONY TO AVOID UNNECESSARY DUPLICATION OR REPETITION OF TESTIMONY. THE DEPARTMENT, WITHIN A PERIOD OF SEVEN (7) DAYS SUBSEQUENT TO THE SCHEDULED HEARING MUST RECEIVE SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN MATERIAL MAILED OR EMAILED AND RECEIVED BEFORE 4:15 PM ON JUNE 21, 2016.

I think you send here:

CHRISTOPHER CASKO, BUREAU ADMINISTRATOR
DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, BUREAU OF HEARINGS,
33 HAZEN DRIVE, CONCORD, NH 03305
TEL # 603-271-3486
EMAIL: SAFETY-HEARINGS@DOS.NH.GOV

As you can see, they want to hear about specific issues.