divers flag

[hoytglp]

I cant believe that someone would use a divers flag to keep boats away from their dock. Divers better beware because if everyone starts this practice the divers flag will be useless when it is being used correctly. At worcester point you will find this happening, I do not know if there is any law against it.

[Bear Islander]

If you had a place on a point as I do, and you have watched boats pass within 25 feet of your dock while children were in the water, you might have a different opinion. I have used a diving flag to keep boats away and quite frankly, if it works, I don't care if it's illegal.

But I don't use a diving flag anymore because it's counterproductive. Some boats are drawn to the flag out of curiosity. An inflatable boat works better. And moorings have another use other than a place to tie up a boat.

However if you have swimmers in the water and one of them is using a snorkel, the law REQUIRES that you use a diving flag. This may be the one rule that is broken more often than the 150' minimum safe passage rule.

[Islander]

Here is the law in question. It indicates snorkelers must have a flag but doesn't say swimmers can't.

http://www.boat-ed.com/nh/course/p4-...requipment.htm

Can you tell us hoytglp if there were swimmers in the water when you saw this? If there were no swimmers then using the flag is just plain wrong

[Kamper]

I'd go along with using the flag if there were swimmers in the water. Also, a swim line is a good idea. You're supposed to have a permit for them but most of the people I know that use them have never botherred. They are expensive if you only use the styrofoam bulbs but I've seen several other materials used like playground balls with netting. One thing that scared me was the propane tanks that used to bob a mile north of the Alton bandstand.

[Bear Lover]

Bleach bottles make a great float. They are strong, seal tight and have a handle to tie the rope to.

[Kamper]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Bleach bottles make a great float. They are strong, seal tight and have a handle to tie the rope to.

If you put a little cement in one and let it cure cap down, they'd float upright too. The rowing club in Nashua uses them but they look crappy laying on their sides.

[Silver Duck]

I was actually planning to start a thread on this subject tonight, but hoytglp beat me to it.

The flag in question has been there in the same exact position for at least the past three weekends. It's not actually on the point; it's way further down Worcester Island (on the side closer to the Varney Islands) and fairly far from shore. Nobody actually swims or snorkels for three solid weeks, let alone dives!

Given that it is just plain wrong to mis-use a safety warning such as a "diver down" flag/bouy, is it illegal? I'd just love to file a complaint on this bozo; or maybe some of our Winni scuba types would be interested in preserving the integrity of the "diver down" flag.

I also suspect that there's another one being mis-used on the way into Wolfboro Bay.

Silver Duck

[Kamper]

If you feel that strongly about it, then call the NHMP. They'll let you know if it's legal and might talk to the resident.

[hoytglp]

There were no swimmers.

[hoytglp]

This is direct to Bear Islander and his comment about boats driving 25' by his children in the water...
i can see your frustration and anger towards these boats because it is rare to find boats that follow the 150' rule, but does that mean that when i am anchored and a boat drives by me 25' away over headway speed that i should place divers flags around my boat to keep them away?
i usually try to wave my arms to these boaters or yell towards them, but usually these attempts are failed because even if they see me or hear me, they still have no idea what i am yelling about...
i understand your frustration, once again, but this 150' law-breaking is an issue that we all have to deal with and until marine patrol finds a way to solve most of it, i think it's best if we leave the divers flag for divers use

[Bear Islander]

The Marine Patrol will never be able to enforce the 150' rule all the time.

My point is that when you have swimmers in the water you need to find a way to protect them from boats operated by idiots. This problem is more acute if you are on a point in a high traffic area. Use a swim raft, mooring, inflatable MP boat, whatever.

As I said, I don't think a dive fag is the answer, but they are not just for SCUBA.

[Winnipesaukee Divers]

I was anchored off Melody Island yesterday afternoon and was doing a little yaking around the islands and rocks. As I have said in the past, a little of that goes a long ways with me and returned back to my boat early as the rest of the group continued on. While sitting on our boat I scanned Doug Hill Cove to check out the activity when I noticed the bright new dive flag, I mentioned to Diver Paul (another Yak wimp) that someone was diving over there... His comment to me was "how boring", since that's the place we do dive training and we each have logged on nearly a hundred dives there. I also noticed there were no bubble in the area as well. My first though was someone must have lost their flag... My next response was, let's paddle over there and get it....

I had no sooner said that and in come the MPs to the rescue. I said to Diver Paul, "we’re to late, he's going for it". Well, the MP hovered around the flag and then over to the beach and back to the flag again and back to the beach again, this time he was there for quite awhile and finely pulled up the flag and left...

From the lectures I have received from the MP's before, they can cite you for obstructing navigation for misuse of the dive flag... I suspect form the amount of time he spent there someone got the lecture and with complaints about the new owners of the cove tiring to keep out the riffraff (I guess that would be me), I wouldn't be surprised to hear the cited them as well, but I guess we'll never know for sure.

I'm always on the look out for treasures and if I see an abandoned flag you can be sure it will be mine in a hart beat...

[Winnipesaukee Divers]

Make that Sunday afternoon in the last post. The power went off yesterday afternoon just as I was sending it out. I guess it didn’t go until I turned it back on this morning.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Winnipesaukee Divers

...From the lectures I have received from the MP's before, they can cite you for obstructing navigation for misuse of the dive flag...

Winni Divers has it right, below is the applicable RSA...note in particular subsection II...

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270
SUPERVISION OF NAVIGATION; REGISTRATION OF BOATS AND MOTORS; COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER
Interference With Navigation
Section 270:26
270:26 Injuring Buoys, Placing Obstructions. –
I. Any person who knowingly removes, destroys, moves, or injures any buoy, beacon, or other navigational aid placed in, on, or adjacent to any of the public waters of the state for the purpose of guiding and protecting navigation and boating thereon shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
II. Any person who knowingly places an obstruction dangerous to navigation in any of the public waters of the state without reasonable precaution to protect the public from such obstruction shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
III. Any person who shall moor or make fast a boat, vessel, raft, or float of any description to a buoy, beacon, or other navigational aid placed in, on, or adjacent to the public waters of the state shall be guilty of a violation

[Grant]

Many boaters ignore dive flags anyway. Some of the instances I've seen have been downright absurd -- and would be comical if they weren't so incredibly dangerous. Abusing a dive flag in this manner only increases the "boy who cried wolf" effect, putting more divers in jeopardy. That being said, I can certainly sympathize with the folks living on points who have boats zoom so close to shore while people are swimming. The traffic volume on the Lake is escalating, as is the number of clueless and far-from-courteous boaters. People will improvise and resort to creative ways to protect their little slice of waterfront...so this is not surprising.


But, please, don't assume that a random dive flag means there's no one below the surface. Senter Cove Guy and I have done some dives in areas that would seem rather odd -- around Melvin Bay, for example -- and we certainly don't deserve props in the head because of our curiosity...

[SIKSUKR]

This might sound like a odd question but,If your using a dive flag,are you not for the most part diving from a boat?I understand one could shore dive and tow his flag with him but for the most part don't you divers dive from your boat?If this was the case,the boat itself would seem to help more as protection than a small dive flag.I know I would feel a whole lot safer having a boat for a marker than just a flag on the big lake.SS

[Winnipesaukee Divers]

As to why I think your question was dumb… well, actually I don’t. It gives me a good chance to explain my diving techniques to you. Most all of my dives are done from a boat, however, I almost never dive directly under the boat. Keep in mind I'm searching for treasure and therefore I cover a lot of ground. Here’s a typical dive plan for me: descend to the bottom to check the anchor, get orientated and strike out on a compass heading. As I scour the bottom with my hands I keep my heading and watch my air supply. Once I blow out a thousand PSI or half of my useable air supply, I turn the dive, set over and follow a reciprocating course back to the general vicinity of the boat's anchor. I usually have somewhere around 500 PSI of air remaining once I surface. Of course this whole plan can be dramatically altered if I should find something good or I get cold, tired or bored. The dive flag is tethered to me as the lead diver; the reel has a big handle that I loop my arm through. I pay out the line as needed and take it in as I get back into shallower waters. Since the line is 150' long I can be as much as 75' away from the flag at times. If I should have to surface for any reason I always reel in the line and actually have the flag in my hand when I break the surface. If the dive group is more than 3 we break up into teams of two and each team has a lead diver with a flag.

I always try to anchor our dive boat out of way, in closer to shore where it will be safer and mark it with an extra flag so people will know why it is anchored where it is and swim along the bottom to where I actually want to dive. I can cover up to a quarter of a mile under water real fast. Actually the term "swim" is a misnomer, I don't actually swim at all. I pull myself along the bottom with my hands and use my legs and fins to stabilize me with long, slow strokes from the hips. Your leg muscles will use up to 40% more energy than your arms and thus need 40% more oxygen to burn the calories. In order to maximize my air supply I conserve as much energy as I can.

BTW: I never have to worry about my dive buddy’s air supply… the big guy always uses more air and even though I carry 20- 40% more air then they, with the muscle mass I’m supporting I’m always first out.

[Silver Duck]

Skip

Once again, thanks for the info; it's nice to have an expert to answer this kind of question!

Bear Islander - for the record, if this guy (or anybody else) wants to put up a proper swim line according to the applicable rules, it's fine by me and more power to them! I doubt that anybody out there is actually crazy enough to want to hit a swimmer, but there are a lot of thoughtless types on the lake these days.

It's Grant's "wolf effect" that worries me. Next time I'm in that cove (almost every weeked, it's our favorite "lunch stop"), if the bouy is still there, the MP will be getting a phone call.

Silver Duck

[Lakewinniboater]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If you had a place on a point as I do, and you have watched boats pass within 25 feet of your dock while children were in the water, you might have a different opinion. I have used a diving flag to keep boats away and quite frankly, if it works, I don't care if it's illegal.
.

I can understand wanting children safe! Go about getting the proper permission for having a cordened off swim area or something of that nature.

However, you have been quite vocal about wanting laws passed. Yet, you are the first to say you would break them if it suits your needs.

I am not trying to be argumentative or rude. I am just making a point. IF you are wanting laws passed and you are willing to break them..... what makes anyone think that HB 162 will help anyone?

Just curious. Again, not trying to be rude. Just looking for some honest dialogue without anger.

[Great Idea]

Bear Islander,

You bring up a good point regarding "points" or corners. We have the same problem. I am always amazed at how close boaters will come to a corner or pennisula. They regularly come within 25-40 ft of the shore and our swim raft. On many occasions boats come that close at a very high rate of speed while kids/people are in the water. "Cutting the corner" so to speak. The surprising thing is that many of these offenders are residents/experienced boaters who do it on a regular basis. Don't they realize that in order to maintain a safe/legal distance from objects/shore they need to navigate their boat in an arc around a corner or point and not in a straight line. It never ceases to amaze me that many boaters are completely oblivious to this or just don't care. Any more ideas/insight as to why this happens and how to constructively address it? Speaking up or flagging them down as I have done in the past does little but anger/embarrass folks and they just continue to do it. Dive flags I realize are a poor/illegal answer however there must be something that can be done? We have had a couple VERY close calls with kids in the water and boats/jetskis.

[Bear Islander]

What some of you seem to be missing is that dive flags are NOT ILLEGAL! In fact they are required if you are using a snorkel.

We tend to use the word "diver" to mean "SCUBA diver". However a dive flag is REQUIRED BY LAW if you are diving, with SCUBA gear, or without SCUBA gear.


Lakewinniboater

The principle of force majeure allows me to take extreme measures, even break the law, to protect my children. However this principle does not give one license to operate a boat at a dangerous or illegal speed because you enjoy it.

[Lakewinniboater]

I agree about protecting your children. However, it does not include breaking rules.

Being a responsible parent is teaching children about dangers and keeping them from harms way.

Simply apply to have a bouy of some sort put there or a designated swim area with ropes and floats!

I am sure that there is/was not someone using a snorkel at all times that you had the diver flag out. As you yourself stated.

I also agree that there are some irresponsible people out there. However, if you want to protect the children (which you should) apply for the appropriate measures.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Great Idea

Bear Islander,

Any more ideas/insight as to why this happens and how to constructively address it?

Try a point bobber set 150 feet from the closest point. Single boats at cruising speed often want to take the optimal path, so showing them where that point is located would make it easier for the captain to comply. Anchoring it is a challenge, especially if there is deep water 150 out. If the bobber strays to 151 feet from shore, its a navigational hazard.

[Lakewinniboater]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Lakewinniboater

The principle of force majeure allows me to take extreme measures, even break the law, to protect my children. However this principle does not give one license to operate a boat at a dangerous or illegal speed because you enjoy it.

P.S.

Who said anything about speed. I personally don't speed in my boat. My boat wouldn't go past your belovedly proposed 45 either.

This is a discussion about improper usage of dive flags that can potentially put divers at risk. You yourself continuously state that you are for safety. Yet if the rules don't work for you ... you state that it is ok to break them.

My question was why not apply for the appropriate safety devices. That is all. Nothing in the discussion mentions speed

[Great Idea]

Thanks LG,

What exactly is a point bobber and will Marine Patrol let me put one out? Haven't seen any? We asked once if we could put out a swim area buoy to warn boaters however they said it was a hazard even 40-60 feet from shore. Any additional info would be greatly appreciated. I am a diver and do have a dive flag..... kidding. Won't do that one.

[Kamper]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

...
The principle of force majeure allows me to take extreme measures, even break the law, to protect my children. ...

"Force majeure" is not a legal principle. It means the something is done because the person doing it has the strength to accomplish their objective by violent means. Claiming a defense by "force majeur" in court will probably be the same effect as confessing premeditation.

There are reasonable actions you can take to protect your family. When someone is in the water use the diver flag or anchor a brightly colorred cheap inflatable dingy out there. Put out a swim line. These things are well within your rights. Pre-emptive violence is not, and talking that way makes you sound silly.

Good luck!

[New Hampshire Native]

Must be a Massachusetts term......never heard it used in New Hampshire in 40 years.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Lakewinniboater

I agree about protecting your children. However, it does not include breaking rules.

Being a responsible parent is teaching children about dangers and keeping them from harms way.

Simply apply to have a bouy of some sort put there or a designated swim area with ropes and floats!

I am sure that there is/was not someone using a snorkel at all times that you had the diver flag out. As you yourself stated.

I also agree that there are some irresponsible people out there. However, if you want to protect the children (which you should) apply for the appropriate measures.

Are you saying you would never break the rules to protect a child? How about speeding through a no wake zone to get a dying child medical attention? I did say I was talking about extreme circumstances. There are situations where common sense and good judgment are more important than the letter of the law.

I have not used a dive flag in many years, as I said they are counterproductive. But when I did, the flag was only in the water when people were swimming.

As I said in an earlier post, an inflatable boat and a mooring work better.

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by Kamper

"Force majeure" is not a legal principle. It means the something is done because the person doing it has the strength to accomplish their objective by violent means. Claiming a defense by "force majeur" in court will probably be the same effect as confessing premeditation.

There are reasonable actions you can take to protect your family. When someone is in the water use the diver flag or anchor a brightly colorred cheap inflatable dingy out there. Put out a swim line. These things are well within your rights. Pre-emptive violence is not, and talking that way makes you sound silly.

Good luck!

I found this on the internet. Sounds like it's a recognized principle.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cat/netherlands1994.html

"34. The exclusion of articles 42 and 43 of the Criminal Code does not, however, exclude the possibility of raising the defence of force majeure. Force majeure may be defined in abstract terms as every force, coercion or compulsion which a person cannot reasonably be expected to resist. Force majeure exists where a person is forced to commit an offence by means of severe (mental) pressure and he could not be expected to have acted differently at the time of such action. "

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by Lakewinniboater

P.S.

Who said anything about speed. I personally don't speed in my boat. My boat wouldn't go past your belovedly proposed 45 either.

This is a discussion about improper usage of dive flags that can potentially put divers at risk. You yourself continuously state that you are for safety. Yet if the rules don't work for you ... you state that it is ok to break them.

My question was why not apply for the appropriate safety devices. That is all. Nothing in the discussion mentions speed

Sorry, but you brought up speed. HB162 is the Winnipesaukee speed limit bill.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

....I found this on the internet. Sounds like it's a recognized principle.....

Force majeure is a legal concept normally applied in contractural and international law. In my many years experience, no one has ever twisted it enough to use as a defense in a court case I was involved with in this State.

The principal applied on occasion here is known as the doctrine of competing harms...in effect the wrong you commit is outweighed by the more grevious harm anticipated by the other party.

Would it apply in the case of placing a diving flag in front of your property to deter a possibility of an errant boater straying too close?

I would say given the facts presented here the answer is clearly no. There are a number of remedies readily available to address the situations previoulsy described.

Placing a swim raft, unapproved buoy or float out in the water to deter boating by altering their navigational path is also illegal.

You can do it, (as obviously some do) but you do so at your own risk. In this case a fancy legal term found on the internet will get you at best a chuckle from the Court if that's where you eventually land by taking some of the advice offered in this particular thread....

Skip

[TomC]

I see it frequently in my work. It is referenced as a defense for certain situations where a contractor appears to be in default of some element of a contract (usually delivery) due to a matter beyond his control. It is then used as the excuse for the delay and is generally considered acceptable. Things like a strike, war, act of God, etc. Since the "contract law" discussion forum is elsewhere on the internet - we now return to boating issues!

[Lakewinniboater]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Sorry, but you brought up speed. HB162 is the Winnipesaukee speed limit bill.

Please do not cloud the issue. I brought it up ONLY in response to you stating that people (me) shouldn't speed just because they like to.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Skip

Force majeure is a legal concept normally applied in contractural and international law. In my many years experience, no one has ever twisted it enough to use as a defense in a court case I was involved with in this State.

The principal applied on occasion here is known as the doctrine of competing harms...in effect the wrong you commit is outweighed by the more grevious harm anticipated by the other party.

Would it apply in the case of placing a diving flag in front of your property to deter a possibility of an errant boater straying too close?

I would say given the facts presented here the answer is clearly no. There are a number of remedies readily available to address the situations previoulsy described.

Placing a swim raft, unapproved buoy or float out in the water to deter boating by altering their navigational path is also illegal.

You can do it, (as obviously some do) but you do so at your own risk. In this case a fancy legal term found on the internet will get you at best a chuckle from the Court if that's where you eventually land by taking some of the advice offered in this particular thread....

Skip

Skip and others in this have decided that the use of a dive flag to protect swimmers is illegal. The truth is not only is it legal to use a dive flag it is required. I posted this link way back at the beginning.

http://www.boat-ed.com/nh/course/p4-...requipment.htm

So unless you guys can post something that says its illegal, why don't you give it a rest!

Just cause you think its a bad idea doesn't make it a crime.

And skip, if you are an attorney why can't you spell contractual, grievous or previously?

[Kamper]

I am, possibly, corrected.

[Lakewinniboater]

Originally Posted by Islander

And skip, if you are an attorney why can't you spell contractual, grievous or previously?

in his defense.... probably like most of us, he uses spell check. This is simply a forum. I really don't check my grammar or spelling errors here. This is generally for quick responses.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Islander

Skip and others in this have decided that the use of a dive flag to protect swimmers is illegal. The truth is not only is it legal to use a dive flag it is required...So unless you guys can post something that says its illegal, why don't you give it a rest!

Just cause you think its a bad idea doesn't make it a crime...

And skip, if you are an attorney why can't you spell contractual, grievous or previously?

Sorry Islander, I haven't decided the legality of this issue, the New Hampshire State Legislature has. And be very careful of making legal statements based on the generic articles found in the New Hampshire Boater's Guide. This guide is written by an out-of-state firm that covers many other states and mistakes are present in the documentation. The documents that are pertinent for citing are this State's RSAs.....

Once again, the law on Diver Flags:

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270
SUPERVISION OF NAVIGATION; REGISTRATION OF BOATS AND MOTORS; COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER
Scuba Diving and Snorkeling
Section 270:31
270:31 Scuba Diving and Snorkeling. –
I. Any person engaged in scuba diving on any of the public waters of the state and any person engaged in snorkeling in normally traveled navigable public waters shall have a diver's flag, consisting of a red flag with a diagonal white stripe, displayed indicating that diving activities are in progress. The bottom of said flag shall extend at least 3 feet above the surface of the water, the view of which shall be unobstructed for 360 degrees.
II. Any person engaged in scuba diving or snorkeling shall remain within 75 feet of their dive flag. Boaters shall remain a minimum of 150 feet away from any posted dive flag, unless there are circumstances which prevent the operator from maintaining a minimum of 150 feet, in which case the operator shall maintain headway speed.
III. The commissioner of safety may adopt rules pursuant to RSA 541-A relative to restricting scuba diving between sunset and sunrise

The flag is not authorized for "swimmers". The laws that cover swimmers can be found under swim lines and maintaining minimum distances. Thes regulations have been previously posted on this site, but if you contact me off line I will be happy once again to forward you the appropriate citations.

Let's put it another way. There is no law in New Hampshire that specifically says "...you can not stand in the middle of the road to slow traffic in your neighborhood..." although the New Hampshire Motor Vehicle code makes it abundantly clear, through numerous general references, that obstructing traffic in this nature would allow me to be cited or arrested.

To argue that there must be a specific law prohibiting every single improper act is, quite frankly, as absurd as it is impossible!

Sorry for the spelling errors, I'm not much of a typist and I don't bother with spell check for quick retorts on this site. I did however win my fifth grade spelling bee. I could fax you the award if you would provide me an appropriate number to reach you at

And no, I am not an attorney. But I do deal with them on a fairly regular basis. Next time I am dealing with one, I'll ask them the secret to their spellin' success

Skip

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by Lakewinniboater

Please do not cloud the issue. I brought it up ONLY in response to you stating that people (me) shouldn't speed just because they like to.

If you re-read the post you will find it was Bear Islander not me that brought up speed. You may also find he was using an example and not talking about you.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Great Idea

Bear Islander,

You bring up a good point regarding "points" or corners. We have the same problem. I am always amazed at how close boaters will come to a corner or pennisula. They regularly come within 25-40 ft of the shore and our swim raft. On many occasions boats come that close at a very high rate of speed while kids/people are in the water. "Cutting the corner" so to speak. The surprising thing is that many of these offenders are residents/experienced boaters who do it on a regular basis. Don't they realize that in order to maintain a safe/legal distance from objects/shore they need to navigate their boat in an arc around a corner or point and not in a straight line. It never ceases to amaze me that many boaters are completely oblivious to this or just don't care. Any more ideas/insight as to why this happens and how to constructively address it? Speaking up or flagging them down as I have done in the past does little but anger/embarrass folks and they just continue to do it. Dive flags I realize are a poor/illegal answer however there must be something that can be done? We have had a couple VERY close calls with kids in the water and boats/jetskis.

I see the same issue (though not as close) from time to time w/people not rounding Echo Pt. There's apparently very little neuron activity going on and people are just following the path of least resistance (straight line course), seemly oblivious to others about them. Best course of action I can suggest is to break out the camcorder or digicam and snap a video/picture* of the offender(s) and send them to the Marine Patrol. While they may not be sufficient evidence for a fine, perhaps the MP could send the owners a reminder of the 150' rule and hint they might want to start following it. I suspect if it's regularly violated by the same people, some action will happen.


*to be of any use you'll have to have the picture capture an object of known dimensions at a known distance from the camera. From these 2 pieces of information (plus the boat's LOA, already known via the registration) the distance from the camera to the boat can be determined.

[PROPELLER]

Islander, I fail to see on that web site where it says swimmers are required to use a dive flag. Could you point it out, maybe I missed it. It says scuba divers & snorkelers, I don't see swimmers.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

Islander, I fail to see on that web site where it says swimmers are required to use a dive flag. Could you point it out, maybe I missed it. It says scuba divers & snorkelers, I don't see swimmers.

Sorry, I was not specific enough in that last post, however it was mentioned a few times in earlier posts that we are talking about swimming when there is a snorkel in use. Whenever when the kids are in the water at my place there are always masks, snorkels and dive sticks in use.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

I see the same issue (though not as close) from time to time w/people not rounding Echo Pt. There's apparently very little neuron activity going on and people are just following the path of least resistance (straight line course), seemly oblivious to others about them. Best course of action I can suggest is to break out the camcorder or digicam and snap a video/picture* of the offender(s) and send them to the Marine Patrol. While they may not be sufficient evidence for a fine, perhaps the MP could send the owners a reminder of the 150' rule and hint they might want to start following it. I suspect if it's regularly violated by the same people, some action will happen.


*to be of any use you'll have to have the picture capture an object of known dimensions at a known distance from the camera. From these 2 pieces of information (plus the boat's LOA, already known via the registration) the distance from the camera to the boat can be determined.

I have the BearCam taking just the kind of pictures you are talking about. Do you think the boats in these pictures are 150' from the dock?

[Bear Islander]

Here is the other one.

[Silver Duck]

if they're a big enough bonehead to ignore the 150 ft. rule, they're probably gonna ignore a diver down flag (or anything else but an MP boat sitting there!)

Couldn't you petition the MP to move the no wake bouys out a bit more (maybe from the black marker over to Bouy #4, or something?)

I surely wouldn't mind the extra couple of minutes getting through there, even as often as I go by your place, and would be happy to support such a petition. (Actually, I like to come off plane well out and by the time I'm going by your dock I'm down almost to dead slow anyway, maybe 5 mph as opposed to 3.2 mph when throttled back all the way.)

Silver Duck

[John A. Birdsall]

well let see you put something into the lake to mark 150' as Lakegeezer stated. That sounds good, but now you have to stay 150' from that. Hmm if we keep putting markers 150' from other markers we will soon have nothing but headway speed on the lake. Foolish, yes it sounds so, but we had a neighbor that put a clorox bottle 150' from shore to show the kids the distance and they got a ticket for going within 150' of the clorox bottle. Maybe the marker system used in the lake and put in by authorized state employees should be the only markers on the lake!

[Lakegeezer]

I'd like to see the law that says you have to stay 150 from a clorox bottle. That sounds like a ticket worth fighting.

[Kamper]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

I'd like to see the law that says you have to stay 150 from a clorox bottle. That sounds like a ticket worth fighting.

The MP might have assumed the bottle was a swim line marker. No rule says you need more than one float. If there is a swim line it establishes a swim-safety zone and the no-wake zone is pushed 150 feet beyond it.

Anyone can swim inside a float-line. The landowner has a right to establish a "swim-safety zone" but the lake is public domain. Powerred boats may not enter a swim-safety zone except to launch and recover. Float lines can be interpreted as navigation markers so tamperring with them or tieing off to one can supposedly get you cited. I doubt the state is going to expend much effort watching over them beyond NWZ violations, especially if it's your own zone you're violating.

Also the rule on NWZ includes bouys and floats which most people interpret as navigation markers and rafts.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Kamper

The MP might have assumed the bottle was a swim line marker. No rule says you need more than one float. [snip]

Also the rule on NWZ includes bouys and floats which most people interpret as navigation markers and rafts.

This topic has been discussed on the forum before. Navigation aids (buoys) all by themselves are NOT subject to the 150 foot No Wake Zone rules. Rocks are not covered either. Flashing Light 46 (on Nipple Rock) near Round Island is a great example. You can zoom on plane very close to that marker as long as you are over 150 feet from Round Island (and other boats of course). If the light were on an island and not a ROCK then we would indeed have to be at headway within 150 feet of the island (not the navigation aid).

Designated Swim areas are delineated by swim lines. We must be at headway within 150 feet of those lines too (with a few specific exceptions). I was under the assumption that swim lines had to be approved and follow certain guidelines. I do not think a single Clorox bottle constitutes a legitimate swim line. Maybe the bottle was closer than 150 feet to shore or to a swim raft and that is why the MP stopped the boat. As Lakegeezer said, I' too would fight the ticket if it were for being above headway within 150 feet of a Clorox bottle (and no other violation).

When in doubt, always slow down or stop.

Happy and safe boating.

[Lakewinniboater]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

Designated Swim areas are delineated by swim lines. We must be at headway within 150 feet of those lines too (with a few specific exceptions)

This is a great point. One that I think many people seem to not understand. Not just the "boneheads" that are completely ignorant of the law. From the complaints I have heard. (trust me I complain about the idiots too) It seems that some people misunderstand this rule and think that boats and PWC's need to STAY 150' from shore, docks, etc.

I have been present when residents complain that a boat or PWC has come within 150' at headway speed. They completely believe that they should not come within that range and think that anything within this range is theirs.

Now, most of us know that this is complete untrue! We do not own nor have RIGHTS to water. I think we need to EDUCATE everyone..... non-boaters and boaters about the true meaning of 150' safe passage rule.

I also, read an article this weekend, this person had stated that they were beginning to see an improvement in boaters knowledge of "right of way" and "150'" rule.

I must say that I am generally forced to give way, even if I am the stand on vessel. However, THIS WEEKEND, I didn't have to even ONCE!!! INCREDIBLE. I am very happy about this.

However, I haven't myself seen an improvement on 150' yet. I have faith that it is coming though!!!!!

OK.... I am off for another great day on the lake. Happy boating to all and have a safe day!

[Islander]

Actually waterfront property owners do have common law rights to the area of lake in front of their property. This is often misunderstood because the state owns the lake.

It is this right that allows docks, moorings, boathouses, water intakes, swim rafts, aqua-therms, swim lines etc. to be placed in the lake. In fact the state will grant permits for these things only to waterfront property owners, proving they have more rights to that part of the lake than anyone else.

[Aquadeziac]

What happened to the fact that the Lake is public domain right up to the high water mark? Hang all the swim lines, rafts, docks, et al, that you want, you still can't stop me from anchoring on your sandy shore and swimming for the day. Legal and good manners/common sense are two different subjects. Again, I am courtious enough to respect people's privacy, but there are an outstanding number of people out there that only think of themselves.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Aquadeziac

What happened to the fact that the Lake is public domain right up to the high water mark? Hang all the swim lines, rafts, docks, et al, that you want, you still can't stop me from anchoring on your sandy shore and swimming for the day. Legal and good manners/common sense are two different subjects. Again, I am courtious enough to respect people's privacy, but there are an outstanding number of people out there that only think of themselves.

In most circumstance you can indeed anchor is shallow water and swim all you want at a beach. However if it is a no rafting zone then you can't anchor within 150' of the shore. And if the property owner gets a permit for swim lines then you can't anchor there at all.

Just the fact that a property owner CAN get a swim line permit proves that he has more rights to that little part of the lake than the general public does.

[Bear Islander]

The Supreme Cout of New Hampshire has determined that waterfront property owners have rights to the "waters adjacent to their shore" that the general public does not have. But they didn't say you can't anchor and take a swim.

____________________________
New Hampshire General Laws § 271:20. State Water Jurisdiction; Published List of Public Waters;

I. All natural bodies of fresh water situated entirely in the state having an area of 10 acres or more are state-owned public waters, and are held in trust by the state for public use; and no corporation or individual shall have or exercise in any such body of water any rights or privileges not common to all citizens of this state; provided, however, the state retains its existing jurisdiction over those bodies of water located on the borders of the state over which it has exercised such jurisdiction.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[PROPELLER]

Islander, I remember when Govenor Romney put out swim lines 2 years ago & some neighbors kayaked inside the swim line & some fishermen fished inside the swim line. When he complained I recall that it was stated on this website that they did nothing illegal. Maybe discourtious but not illegal.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Here is the other one.

That PWC looks like it's bearly above headway speed and the boat pictured looks an awfull lot like the one that was at that dock in the previous picture.I don't doubt you have a problem with boats coming too close to you,I just hope your not staging photos to make your point.In fact,I went by your place yesterday and before I did I had three incidents within 5 minutes between Bear and Cook's point near the Kona Mansion area so I know these boneheads are there.I was at headway speed with nobody in sight in an area 1 1/2 miles wide when out of nowhere 4 guys in a 18 foot bowrider come from behind me at full speed not 30 feet away.To say I was po'd would be an understatement.They had the whole bay but had to take the shortest line I'm guessing.Not a 1/2 mile later I'm 50 feet from the marker at Avery's point when another 18 ft bowrider with a family comes out of that bay inside the marker and cuts between me and the marker at full speed while I'm at headway speed.I try to give them hand signals to show them they are way too close but they wave back at me like I was being friendly.I'm really hot now when 1 minute later a PWC buzzes me at about 70 ft.I'm on a PWC so I'm starting to wonder if I have a target on me.My point is,I that was the worst sequence of offenders I have ever encountered and it was in an area with very little traffic so it's no surprize to me now that very nearby you have had problems at your property.I can see why you would be upset if this is occuring right off your shore. SS

[Bear Islander]

SIKSUKR

The pictures are not staged in any way, they are regular BearCam images. I was 100 miles away when the second one was taken. However that is my boat.

I posted the pictures as a response to the suggestion from Mee-n-Mac that I set up a camera to catch 150' rule violations. I do have the BearCam set up that can do just that. The irony of it is that the first boat I caught was my own! A copy of that picture was presented to the operator, but that is a different story.

The PWC was going about 20 mph, to fast for that close to my dock.

99% of the problem with boats coming to close was solved a few years back when my neighbor and I put out our moorings. It's only $25 per year and you can also use them to tie up a boat. The remaining 1% of the problem are total morons that nothing but a granite breakwater will stop. On second thought it would probably just get them airborne.

[Woodsy]

Bear Islander...

Geez.... if your own family can't seem to obey the rules.... LOL! Does he have his safe boaters certificate? There seems to be no hope for anyone!

(This is meant to be a tongue in cheek post... not meant mean spirited at all)

Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

Woodsy

The operator was old enough not to need a certificate. But I now have my own law that every operator of the big boat must have a certificate. Everybody else can use the 15HP aluminum, the canoe or the pedal boat.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

Islander, I remember when Governor Romney put out swim lines 2 years ago & some neighbors kayaked inside the swim line & some fishermen fished inside the swim line. When he complained I recall that it was stated on this website that they did nothing illegal. Maybe discourtious but not illegal.

As I remember it, the Massachusetts State Police detail guarding the Govenor put out those lines without a permit. That is why a boat could legally enter the area.

Below is a copy of the swim line rules. Boats are not allowed in swim areas. They also require that only the shore front property owner can obtain a permit. This shows the property owner has rights to the lake that others do not have.
________________________

Saf-C 404.08 Swim Lines.

(a) No person shall operate a boat within any permitted swim line on any public body of water.

(b) No person shall put or place a swim line in the public waters of any public body of water without prior written approval of the director.

(c) An application for a swim line permit, DSSS 41, shall be submitted to the director by the shore front property owner, or a duly authorized agent.

[Orion]

How does one know what is a permitted swim line and what is just a line of of floats placed by a property owner to keep boats further out? There are a lot of random floats placed at many properties around the lake. Do they have some sort of sticker like a permitted mooring ball?

[Kamper]

Originally Posted by Orion

How does one know what is a permitted swim line... Do they have some sort of sticker like a permitted mooring ball?

Just like mooring balls and docks, they need a permit from the town. If you want to know if there is a permit you can go to the town hall and ask. You will probably need the name of the land owner but the clerk may be able to figure it out from the maps. I'm pretty sure stickers are not required for float lines, where would they go?

For safety and courtesy I prefer to stay well out from shore whenever I am above head-way speed. There really are relativly few places on the lake where swim lines, docks and mooring balls will cause any great restriction of boating activities that would not be required by other considerations. (IMO)

[PROPELLER]

Islander, is a kayak a boat under that law? kayaks do not require registration & therefore maybe exempt from that law. Maybe Skip can comment on that. As far as the fishermen, they were not operating their boat within the swimline just casting their line within the swimlines.

[SIKSUKR]

While I appreciate your honesty BI,I think it was a little disengenuous to post a picture of your own boat with a caption"do you think these boats are 150 ft from shore?".Also,all I ride is a PWC and I can tell you that at 20 mph it is up on plane.That Pwc is going more than headway but is probably doing 10 mph.I still don't doubt you have an issue with boats too close to shore but you lose a little punch in your point by doing this.Good luck warding off those offenders cuz we all know there is lot of them out there.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

Islander, is a kayak a boat under that law? kayaks do not require registration & therefore maybe exempt from that law. Maybe Skip can comment on that. As far as the fishermen, they were not operating their boat within the swimline just casting their line within the swimlines.

Seems that just about anything is a "boat". However there is nothing to say that a swimmer could not cross into the swim area, or even stay all day.

270:48 Definitions. – In this subdivision:
II. "Boat" means and includes every type of watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on the water.


SIKSUKR

I'm sorry that you think me disingenuous, perhaps you are taking what goes on here more seriously than I am. I will try to be more specific in the future.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I posted the pictures as a response to the suggestion from Mee-n-Mac that I set up a camera to catch 150' rule violations. I do have the BearCam set up that can do just that. The irony of it is that the first boat I caught was my own! A copy of that picture was presented to the operator, but that is a different story.

I was going to comment that that guy in the white boat must know you well, since he seems to be buffing the end of your dock with his gelcoat ! Too bad you can't make out his registration #. But I guess you know the #. More seriously the flagpole makes an excellent reference point so if you could capture some of the #s it would interesting to see what the NHMP would do with the pictures (assuming the new moorings aren't always effective). As an aside I see that the people captured here are doing what I call 1/2 way wrong. I believe they know they're supposed to be @ NWS but can't quite force themselves to slow down so they "compromise" and go at mush speed.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The remaining 1% of the problem are total morons that nothing but a granite breakwater will stop. On second thought it would probably just get them airborne.

Now that would make an interesting picture !

[Skip]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

Islander, is a kayak a boat under that law? kayaks do not require registration & therefore maybe exempt from that law. Maybe Skip can comment on that. As far as the fishermen, they were not operating their boat within the swimline just casting their line within the swimlines.

Some points of clarification.....

Yes, a kayak is considered a "boat". You cannot operate a "boat" within a state permitted swimline. I think it was Kamper who stated you could operate a power boat within to "launch and recover". That is not correct, there is no exception. Also Kamper stated to check with the Town on swim lines. Again, that is not correct, swimlines are granted solely at the discretion of the Director of the Division of Safety Services or his designee.

Here are some pertinent regulations:

Saf-C 404.08 Swim Lines.
(a) No person shall operate a boat within any permitted swim line on any public body of water.
(b) No person shall put or place a swim line in the public waters of any public body of water without prior written approval of the director.

A final note on waterfront "rights".

As pointed out by others, these are not absolute rights. The water in Winnipesaukee is controlled solely at the discretion of the State and its authorized agencies (and the Towns abutting the Lake, at the permission of the State).

The Lake is owned by the public. No abutter can refuse use of the Lake adjacent to their property by any other member of the public. As correctly pointed out, a property owner can erect a swimline, boathouse, mooring, dock or swim raft if he meets the criteria designated by the governing Town fathers and gets the appropriate permission to encroach on the Lake from the designated State agency. However, the waters around and underneath any government granted structure is still for public use. Outside of the well discussed restrictions on boating within certain areas, a member of the public has full right to individually occupy any of this State owned and controlled public body of water.....

And now, for my final two cents on this particular thread.....

Its unfortunate that a minority of the public refuses to use any common sense or acceptable standards of decency when utilizing their rights to the Lake, but such is life in a free society such as ours. As many others have pointed out before me...you cannot legislate common sense.

And yes, life is too short to continually dwell on the negative aspects of the Lake when there is so much more good to be enjoyed. Thankfully of the many thousands of individuals who own recreate and live at work at the Lake, and the hundreds of individuals that regularly visit the Lake through Don's kindness, only a handful continually carp about the negative aspects they feel surround this beautiful community.

It appears that the vast majority are ever thankful that they get to enjoy Winnipesaukee in one form or another.

And in my book, that's the way it ought to be....

Skip

[SIKSUKR]

HEAR HEAR Skip!!Well said.

[Silver Duck]

Just as a point of information, both of the offending dive flags were gone this past weekend. Who knows, maybe the people that put them out read this thread!

And, for the property owners that have contributed to this thread: if the boneheads are truly endangering people that are swimming off your property , for Heavens's sake please do put out a swim line! Don't wait! We don't need another tragedy on the lake!

Silver Duck

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Islander

As I remember it, the Massachusetts State Police detail guarding the Govenor put out those lines without a permit. That is why a boat could legally enter the area.

Below is a copy of the swim line rules. Boats are not allowed in swim areas. They also require that only the shore front property owner can obtain a permit. This shows the property owner has rights to the lake that others do not have.
________________________

Saf-C 404.08 Swim Lines.

(a) No person shall operate a boat within any permitted swim line on any public body of water.

(b) No person shall put or place a swim line in the public waters of any public body of water without prior written approval of the director.

(c) An application for a swim line permit, DSSS 41, shall be submitted to the director by the shore front property owner, or a duly authorized agent.

My recollection is that the "swim line" was a series of anchored, non-connected, floats.

You could slalom a canoe or bass boat through them, and not technically "cross" any line.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=65395

How this enhanced Romney's enjoyment of the lake, I don't know.

It seems like a simple courtesy would have been extended by the State of New Hampshire to the visiting Governor back then, and negative (or just wrong) comments left off...today.