Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > Boating
Home Forums Gallery YouTube Channel Classifieds Links Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-06-2004, 06:58 AM   #1
Belmont Resident
Senior Member
 
Belmont Resident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belmont NH but prefer Jackman Maine
Posts: 1,857
Thanks: 491
Thanked 409 Times in 251 Posts
Default Timber Island residents just rude

This weekend we witnessed first hand how the new owners handle boaters.
We witnessed rude and foul language toward those trying to be friendly. We also heard from others that small children using the rope swing were reprimanded after promises that it would remain open. Boaters near the beach facing Round Island who tried to be nice were greeted with negative responses. (By near I mean 35-40 ft from the beach).

We have driven past the little cove where there appears to be a home and seen several boats anchored in there. If these are not the land owners' boats then the people anchoring there are rude and should not be in such close proximity to the dock and surrounding beach. If these boats are owned by non-residents they should show a little courtesy and cut the owners some slack; there is no need to be in someone's face when there are many other places around the island/lake to go.
Belmont Resident is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2004, 07:15 AM   #2
samcracker
Junior Member
 
samcracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 14
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Witness

I was also at Timber Island this weekend and witnessed some very negative behavior. Perhaps you were one of the boats in the same cove I was in. People were shocked at the foul language used and NO ONE was even on the beach or near it. I don't know if they were land owners or not.

Regardless, I can understand how dealing with a number of ignorant boaters would make owners feel angry and bitter, but treating all boaters as ignorant just creates more animosity. Perhaps the hope was that we boaters would just go away or think twice about even getting close to shore.
samcracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2004, 12:13 PM   #3
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,052
Thanks: 215
Thanked 892 Times in 504 Posts
Default

I,m curious where on Timber were you rafting?I'd like to stay away from that area! SS
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2004, 03:58 PM   #4
Sschaar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 40
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Stay away.
I think you should do just the opposite. I think you should get every friend you have that has a boat and have them bring other friends that have a boat and all meet at Timber Island for a great big giant floating block party. These people are trying to bully you out of what you are legally entitled to do.
Except for the people on the tire swing, it sounds like the rest of you were just enjoying the day. If you have young children just explain to them that the people on the shore are unhappy and their using bad words. The kids won't think anything of it.
If you all meet up you'll have a blast. Maybe it could be the "First Annual Timber Island Floating Block Party". A kinda end of the summer party.
Besides it will give the shore residents something to think about all winter.
Give it some thought
Sschaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2004, 04:50 PM   #5
Bear Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 96
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Anchoring just of the beach may be within your rights. But don't the owners of the island have a right to be rude if you do.

Any children on shore using a rope swing are trespassing. Trespassing is VERY rude.

If your child was injured using that swing, you wouldn't sue, would you?
Bear Lover is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 09-07-2004, 07:39 PM   #6
Belmont Resident
Senior Member
 
Belmont Resident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belmont NH but prefer Jackman Maine
Posts: 1,857
Thanks: 491
Thanked 409 Times in 251 Posts
Default

No one within the group of people hanging out on Saturday was rude in any way, heck none of the boats was even within 30' of the shore line.
One person said hi to the people from the water and their remark was very rude.
A rafting party is a bad idea. None of us is looking to cause any problems.
The area we are in is away from any homes and faces Round Island so none of the boaters is infringing on anyone’s views.
I've never seen anyone littering, in fact we pick up any trash we see in any area we anchor in. Maybe these people have had problems with other boaters but that is no reason for them to assume all of us are bad and treat us as such. Leads me to believe the comments I made earlier about the whole Timber island thing are turning out to be all to true.
Hope they don't try to make it a no rafting area. That just attracts more boats.
When new boaters are asking about good places to hang the first thing that boaters say is look on the chart for the no rafting areas. They are usually the best spots to hang out and swim.
Belmont Resident is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2004, 09:52 PM   #7
Gilligan
Senior Member
 
Gilligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Bay State
Posts: 119
Thanks: 8
Thanked 11 Times in 4 Posts
Thumbs down Belmont Resident speak with forked tongue?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belmont Resident
This weekend we witnessed first hand how the new owners handle boaters.
We witnessed rude and foul language toward those trying to be friendly. We also heard from others that small children using the rope swing were reprimanded after promises that it would remain open. ...[snip]... there is no need to be in someone's face when there are many other places around the island/lake to go.
BR, do I detect some kind of bias from you toward new Timber Island owners? Do you know it was "owners" that you witnessed first hand? Could it have been anyone, possibly even those wanting to give the owners a bad reputation. I do not know, how do you know? Do you know anything about what has led up to the discussion or alleged rudeness you witnessed? Not just that day but for weeks and months?

I heard that nice people were going to allow people to use the rope swing and see how considerate the guests were going to be. Could it be that people abused the courtesy and the owners changed their mind about the swing? Can they do that without sending out a mailing to all registered boat owners in NH? Since you heard about the swing "from others" could it be that you got a one-sided or even slanted version of the true story?

You subtly slam those you believe to be Timber Island landowners for wanting some space and in another sentence you agree that there is no reason to be in someone's face. That's forked tongue to me. You even chose to revive the issue and make a new thread (this one). I've followed the situation and believe that the new Timber Island owners have been dignified and justified in their presentations here in the forum. They have taken way too much abuse and, if it was really them that you observed on their land, they probably have been driven over the edge trying to be too nice and getting no cooperation.

I do not want to debate the Timber Island issue further and I do not think it would be productive. There already is a big thread on the subject just rehashing the same opinions.

Good luck and good boating to everyone.
__________________
Gilligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2004, 10:01 AM   #8
Sschaar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 40
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

It's amazing how this issue doesn't seem to want to go away.
People all over the world are rude. Not just residents of Timber Island or people walking along the shore of Timber Island. When somebody cuts you off in traffic, their being rude. When somebody who looks fit and is dressed in a jogging suit sticks his temp handicap tag on his rearview and parks in a handicap right next to the store is being rude, also inconsiderate. Unfortunately it's the way of the world. So when somebody has a different point of view then you why should you be surprised about.
These indivduals on the shore are trying to intimate you to leave. Now whether you do or don't is your choice. But if it were me I'd be even more determined to stay. I will not reward uncivilized people. When they made their investment they knew the deal. Now they want to change it. Like a previous post said, " if your feet are wet your ok.
Don't let anyone or anybody take away your right to enjoy a public lake. It's worth fighting for. You might even think about getting out your ice skates and snowmobiles. Hey maybe even have Timber Island 500 in Febuary. Acouple hundred snowmobiles, first one around Timber Island 500 times wins.
Sschaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2004, 03:12 PM   #9
Belmont Resident
Senior Member
 
Belmont Resident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belmont NH but prefer Jackman Maine
Posts: 1,857
Thanks: 491
Thanked 409 Times in 251 Posts
Default Gilligan

I witnessed the act first hand at the beach. I cannot go into details because I was asked not to by some of those who were there.
They were wearing shirts that said Timber island home owners association.

Yes you are right it could have been someone who walked all the way over from another part of the island.
Just because the person who posted originally said they wanted to be nice doesn't mean they had any intentions of doing so.
Just something to think about.
Guess we will have to wait and see just how this pan's out!!!
I hope I'm wrong and they turn out to be nice people.
Belmont Resident is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2004, 03:39 PM   #10
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 33
Thanked 437 Times in 247 Posts
Default

If I remember correctly from the previous Timber Island thread, the bulk of Timber Island is controlled by the LRCT and their easement prohibits public use of the island. So aside from the whole rudeness thing, the owner and the LRCT must keep you off the island, otherwise they are violating the easement. The people you saw may have been the owners or LRCT volunteers acting as policemen and enforcing the easement. Now of course, if you're in the public's water and not on the island they can complain but have no jurisdiction. This is the downside of conservation easements, someone has to enforce them and they usually cannot be changed.
jrc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2004, 09:50 PM   #11
cabinfever
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 35
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Give Me A Break, Belmont - Nice Try

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belmont Resident
I witnessed the act first hand at the beach. I cannot go into details because I was asked not to by some of those who were there.
They were wearing shirts that said Timber island home owners association.

Yes you are right it could have been someone who walked all the way over from another part of the island.
Just because the person who posted originally said they wanted to be nice doesn't mean they had any intentions of doing so.
Just something to think about.
Guess we will have to wait and see just how this pan's out!!!
I hope I'm wrong and they turn out to be nice people.
BELMONT - I'm disgusted. I was completely blown away when I saw your posting and read your accusations. If you remember correctly, I was the original message poster, and no member of my family has done or said ANYTHING that even remotely resembles your accusations. How dare you imply it was us. Do you have any idea what kind of issues you could raise with a posting and comments like these simple-minded assumptions or maliciousness??!! I'm sitting here totally bewildered and know in my gut that you are indeed making this up to stir trouble. It's sick. You give ludicrous details and then are completely ambiguous. I was thinking you were just passionate for your "cause" in the first posting we had weeks back, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt! Now, I really, truly wonder. WHY would you ever make assumptions like this and post them for the world to see?? Shame on you for starting something that could be so potentially detrimental to my family and our property. You seem(ed) like a bright individual -- you knew you could message me about the so-called "incidents" to see if I knew anything about them, especially before you threw senseless blame??? You could have verified it wasn't us IF you had taken a few minutes to check. I would like to personally find out more details IF you speak the truth. However, I honestly cannot imagine what you note to be true. Either way, I cannot understand your thinking and your course of action. What are you trying to do here???? PLEASE, STOP!! Email me offline if you're really concerned with getting to the bottom of this issue. OR, you can just keep spewing this crap if your goal is purely to create trouble and breed resentment where there should be none. I thought that I made it pretty clear that I was looking for a good solution for everyone, but here we go again.

I could spend the next few hours outlining the details of what we've experienced on the flip side of this issue. Like the three kids drinking in the smaller cove at sunset with their jetskis pulled up into the woods, a radio blaring, and Pringles tins and beer cans-a-plenty left behind the next morning (an anchoring boater actually called marine patrol on them b/c they disrupted their peaceful anchoring spot)... or the dog that launched off one of the many boats (within feet of the sand) and lunged through the treeline after us and our dog on our way to use the beach... or the gentleman who inadvertently exposed himself to my nieces when he came on shore with swim trunks already unzipped for what he thought would be a private toilet retreat... or the family with chairs, cooler, and radio set up for the day directly under the new No Trespassing signs!! DOES ALL OF THIS MAKE YOU HAPPY??? Put yourself in my shoes and you'd never think that any of this was anything less than inappropriate, illegal, or simply frustrating. We have stayed cordial through all of these situations and many more like them because we met SO MANY amazing, polite and understanding boaters through the first posting who made us want to work with them.

Your generalizations about the boats being 40 feet from shore are nonsense. Try 10 feet, even 5 -- big difference when one wants to swim. Your stories about the rope swing are nothing but BS. It's been in full use day in and day out, 8AM to 7PM. Nobody has said anything to the users, who, let me remind you, are trespassing on conservation-protected land. I think it's GREAT that these kids have something fun like this to enjoy. KEEP IT UP: The more attention YOU bring to all of this, the more YOU'LL spur someone like the LRCT to take more severe action to protect the property. THEY have the right to close down the swing in particular. YOU will be the one to ruin the fun for everyone, buddy. Pat yourself on the back. Job well done. Unbelievable what lengths you would go to just to support "your cause". You may want to find another, because you're doing anything but to help your fellow boaters! You need a lesson in tact and a dose of truth serum.

FINAL SUMMARY: MY FAMILY WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ANY BIT OF YOUR FOOLISH ACCUSATIONS. If you want anything productive to come of this, you'll end this ridiculous string and pursue your issues offline.

Last edited by cabinfever; 09-09-2004 at 12:04 AM.
cabinfever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 07:03 AM   #12
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,052
Thanks: 215
Thanked 892 Times in 504 Posts
Default

I believe when you give people a forum for spouting their views,their true colors are pretty evident.It's hard to hide behind a few statements without exposing the real feelings. SS
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 07:35 AM   #13
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,341
Thanks: 133
Thanked 925 Times in 338 Posts
Default

Cabinfever,don't take it to heart.Belmont and Siksukr sound like jealous,angry people who think the world owes them a living.They think that you owe them because you worked hard and bought a piece of waterfront for your family and it should be their right to use it as well.Shame on you for not providing toilet paper.I've notoced that many posts from these two are always carping about their "rights".....let's throw a big bash in THEIR front yards.
SAMIAM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 07:57 AM   #14
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 834
Thanks: 287
Thanked 454 Times in 170 Posts
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM
Cabinfever,don't take it to heart.Belmont and Siksukr sound like jealous,angry people who think the world owes them a living.
SAMIAM: I can't speak for Belmont, but SIKSUKR is a personal friend of mine. What, in his post(s) caused you to accuse him of being a "jealous, angry person who thinks the world owes him a living"? Nothing could be further from the truth, so I think you should apologize for this baseless attack.

Last edited by webmaster; 09-09-2004 at 08:32 AM. Reason: fixed quote tag
Seaplane Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 08:21 AM   #15
Sschaar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 40
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Cabin Fever I think you and your family are getting exactly what you paid for. A piece of land surrounded by public property. Now you have to live with it.
I understand Minnesota is the "Land Of a Thousand Lakes", maybe you could find a quiet island there.
Hope you enjoy the rest of your summer. I know I'm enjoying reading about it.
Sschaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 08:40 AM   #16
KonaChick
Senior Member
 
KonaChick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 518
Thanks: 19
Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts
Default

From reading Belmont Resident's posts on this subject and the posts about Rafting it's becoming clear to me that he/she isn't all that thrilled about others owning a house on the lake when he does not...just my take!
KonaChick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 08:46 AM   #17
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,341
Thanks: 133
Thanked 925 Times in 338 Posts
Default

You might even think about getting out your ice skates and snowmobiles. Hey maybe even have Timber Island 500 in Febuary. Acouple hundred snowmobiles, first one around Timber Island 500 times wins.

Seaplane,if you go back and check his posts on this subject,Siksukr's comments have ,indeed, been confrontational,angry and rude.he may be a fine person but he doesn't come accross that way on this forum.
SAMIAM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 09:11 AM   #18
Sschaar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 40
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Samiam don't confuse me with Siksukr's or Belmont Resident or anybody else.
The world owes me nothing. As a matter of fact I think I owe the world for the chance to be part of it. I really don't care if you or anybody else own an island or a piece of property on the lake. No pun intended, if that's what floats your boat your entitled. In my view I could think of better ways of spending my money. But then again that's my choice. All I know is that I can take my boat, launch it, and park it right in front of your window and legally there is nothing you can do about it. Just by the simple fact that it gets you aggravated makes me happy because you still don't get it. It's been explained over and over. NOBODY CARES THAT YOU OWN PROPERTY.
As far as I'm concerned your house and your dock, and your beach chair are ruining my view from my boat.
I will always anchor my boat anywhere I legally can and I'm never going to change. If you try to intimadate me into leaving, I'll stay longer. If you use rude language, I'll laugh at you and show up the next day with my buddy and his boat. Get used to it. Maybe one day you'll get smart and chill, na that makes to much sense.
Sschaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 10:10 AM   #19
cabinfever
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 35
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

SamIam was referring to and quoted sschaar versus siksur.
cabinfever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 10:27 AM   #20
Belmont Resident
Senior Member
 
Belmont Resident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belmont NH but prefer Jackman Maine
Posts: 1,857
Thanks: 491
Thanked 409 Times in 251 Posts
Default Kona Chick/Cabin fever

I would never want to own lake front property. I'm perfectly happy living within short distance of the lake and racking my boat. But I thank all those who do and contibute to the NH school system.
Cabin Fever next time we will take pictures. Your calling me wrong?
Either you were not there in which case the people involved must have been other residents of the island or it was you and you do not want others to know of what happened.
The woman had long brown hair wearing shorts and a white tee shirt, the guy had very short hair also brown looked under 6' tall from where I was also wearing a matching tee shirt they were accompanied by a black lab.
So maybe it wasn't you folks that were involved but someone else, my post never said it was you folks but someone who claimed to be residents of the island you took it as being directed at you.
As for the boats anchored on Saturday, none were close to the beach.
If they were 30 feet off then I'd be surprised but I think it was more like 40'.
And if you read my earlier post I also said that if those were boaters anchoring in front of the dock facing Welch island then they should not be there. I would never anchor in front of someones dock or right in front of their house, that is rude. I'm assuming that is where you own? If not then the people who walked around the island could very well have been one of the other property owners.
Belmont Resident is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 10:42 AM   #21
Belmont Resident
Senior Member
 
Belmont Resident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belmont NH but prefer Jackman Maine
Posts: 1,857
Thanks: 491
Thanked 409 Times in 251 Posts
Default Samiam

Never once (check past post) have I defended the rights of anyone to trespass on someone else property. All I've ever defended is our right as boaters to use the lake. I would not consider parking my boat right in front of anyone’s home unless invited to do so.
I originally ask about getting permission to go on the island but was greeted with jumping through flaming hoops when all they could have said was no we do not want you on the island.
Yes I am a little negative when it comes to home owners, a lot of us that live up here but do not own on the lake have gotten nothing but arrogant attitude from many of them, most being from out of state. What it all boils down to is they believe when they buy the property they own the water that borders it.
Look what happened down in Alton with the homeowners chipping golf balls and water balloons at boats anchored at the sand bar down there.
That leave a great impression on boaters about land owners attitude right there.
Belmont Resident is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 10:43 AM   #22
cabinfever
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 35
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I guess I'll be the bigger person here and take the first step at contacting you offline as I suggested. I could blast the merits of your story right out of the water in public for everyone to read. Enough is enough.
cabinfever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 10:54 AM   #23
madrasahs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 381
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Question Let's see...use arrogant? or crappy? Hmm. Hmmmm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belmont Resident
"I would never want to own lake front property".
Hoo-boy! Is that ever a mouthful.

Look at the arrogant boaters you'd have to put up with -- then!
.

Last edited by madrasahs; 09-09-2004 at 05:38 PM.
madrasahs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 11:01 AM   #24
Sschaar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 40
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Give it up cabin fever. You have no arguement. You should be happy and hopeful that all boaters are as kind and considerate as Belmont. He and any boater can anchor his/her boat just about anywhere they want, but he/she doesn't. Any neither would I. But I keep on getting the impression here that you want more. It's only due to the kindness of boaters that you'll get the space that you want. You need to come to terms with that. I get the feeling you can't. It's a shame.
Sschaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 11:36 AM   #25
cabinfever
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 35
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Sschaar, it's obvious this Forum is pure sport for you to create trouble, so it's easy not to give credence to your comments. Glad all of this jazzes you.
cabinfever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 11:40 AM   #26
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,341
Thanks: 133
Thanked 925 Times in 338 Posts
Default

Sschaar.......When you say that it makes you happy to aggravate property owners,I guess that says it all.I've never suggested that it was ok to intimadate or be rude to people who are rafting.I'm just having trouble understanding why you would not try to respect peoples privacy when they are trying to enjoy themselves in their own yard.As far as I'm concerned this rafting subject has never been about who owns what,but about showing courtesy to others just as you would in your own yard.Imagine having a quiet cookout with your family and a large group of people are partying,drinking getting rowdy, and playing loud music right next to you.
SAMIAM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 01:05 PM   #27
Sschaar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 40
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I can't contol what happens off my property. Only that it is within the confines of the law. When I decided to purchase my house I took into consideration schools, access to stores, taxes, and yes my neighbors. I figured that if I have to invest my money, I'd want to hedge my bet as much as possible that I could live in relative peace and quiet. Yes my neigbors have a party from time to time. It's never a problem. But I never have any guarantees. I guess if it got out of hand I could call the cops, but I have never had to. Also there are laws as to how loud you can be and how late you can go just like there is on on the lake.
Now that is something you obviously didn't do. You bought land attached to a very public lake. I guess maybe you didn't consider what that would mean.
Look, I'm not unreasonable about anything, but to think I'm not going to go close Timber Island or any Island for that matter just cause it's privately held you got another thing coming. I'm really not interested in hanging out near anybody's dock or anybody's window, but don't come off like it's your god given right to have that space for yourself. Cause your not. If I or anybody chose to do it, although it may be rude in your opinion, it might not be in someone else's. And there is nothing in the law that says they can't.
So really it comes down to the kindness of boaters like Belmont and myself to give you the space you so desire. So it's in your best interest to be nice to us. Maybe offer cold drinks and feed us grapes in the hot sun.
Sschaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 01:12 PM   #28
Rattlesnake Gal
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Gal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Southern NH
Posts: 5,228
Thanks: 1,393
Thanked 1,320 Times in 464 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sschaar
So it's in your best interest to be nice to us. Maybe offer cold drinks and feed us grapes in the hot sun.
Do you want those grapes with or without black widow spiders? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Rattlesnake Gal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 01:51 PM   #29
cabinfever
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 35
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Sschaar, in all seriousness, I'm really interested in your answers to two questions. 1) Is it okay that people are trespassing on land, especially with new, obvious signs posted? 2) For argument's sake, what would you think about a boater who went online and posted a public message with blatant lies in an attempt to discredit waterfront property owners and build resentment?
cabinfever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 02:06 PM   #30
Outlaw
Senior Member
 
Outlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Gilford, NH
Posts: 338
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Gal
Do you want those grapes with or without black widow spiders? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
I'm on this one. That was good -- kinda like a rattler, quick, fast and before you know.
Outlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 02:12 PM   #31
Sschaar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 40
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I have already admitted to using the tire swing , so for me to say I would never trespass is a bit of a stretch. But as a rule I do believe that when a persons owns something their within there rights to limit access. I suppose if a sign had been posted I probably would have not have done so.
And as far as your second issue, I have no idea if an indivdual is speaking/writing the truth or not. That's true of many situations in life. I usually accept people at their word until I have enough background to form an opinion other then what I'm hearing or reading.
Look whether somebody is spreading false accusations or not, I still am of the opinion the indivduals who own lake front, or islands, feel they are entitled to more then they really are. You have the right to limit access to your property. Nothing more. Those are the same rights that we all have.
Anything over and above that is out of the kindness of other people.
Don't expect anything more, and who know you might be pleasantly surprised.
Sschaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 02:29 PM   #32
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,052
Thanks: 215
Thanked 892 Times in 504 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM
Cabinfever,don't take it to heart.Belmont and Siksukr sound like jealous,angry people who think the world owes them a living.They think that you owe them because you worked hard and bought a piece of waterfront for your family and it should be their right to use it as well.Shame on you for not providing toilet paper.I've notoced that many posts from these two are always carping about their "rights".....let's throw a big bash in THEIR front yards.
Samiam,You have it totally wrong.I'm sorry if you thought my post in this thread agreed with Belmont Resident.In fact it was exactly the opposite.I think I have an open mind with this thread but if you had been reading my previous posts reguarding the use of Timber Island,you would find quite the opposite position of BR.When Cabinfever first started the thread asking what could be done to help his/her issue with boaters rafting in front of their beach,I was concerned and asked where this area was so I could stay away and let them enjoy their waterfront.You are so wrong on what you think my opinion on this subject is it's laughable.Maybe I don't explain myself clear enough sometimes but since your casting stones at me,why don't you show me my posts that negative towards this issue. If anything I'm on Cabinfevers side of this issue and that's coming from someone who uses Timber for 90% of my rafting. SS
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 05:41 PM   #33
JDeere
Senior Member
 
JDeere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 295
Thanks: 74
Thanked 52 Times in 25 Posts
Default Wow!!!!

It never fails to amaze me that people justify rude and obnoxious behavior because it is legal. The reality is that more and more of the spots that boater like to hang out at are having houses built. There are still plenty of places boater can go and let the people who own property enjoy it. They earned it!! Being 30 or 40 feet off the shore is just ignorant. 200 hundred feet from someone’s beach or house is equally as ignorant.



Homeowners do not contend that they own the lake but just because you can legally come right to the shoreline does not make it the polite thing to do.



Some of the comments are just too rude AND might not be based on fact. Seems like the only intent is to cause harm. As far Schaar’s comments go I think they are irrelevant since he clearly just wants to stir the pot. Get a life and let these people enjoy their property.
JDeere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 07:04 PM   #34
Silver Duck
Senior Member
 
Silver Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Billerica, MA
Posts: 364
Thanks: 40
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Angry WOW, Yourself

JDeere

Read your own post carefully, and you'll see why boaters are so adamant about resisting any attempt by shorefront owners to restrict where we can anchor. (You're absolutely correct. The pace of construction of new homes is quickly eroding the amount of "wild" shoreline available to us!)

I would never anchor so as to impinge on access to someone's dock or beach; that interferes with their right to access the lake. Having a small cruiser, I bring my own sanitary facilities with me (necessary at my age.) I would never anchor super close to shore for safety reasons; if the hook came loose there might not be time to run the blowers and get underway before grounding! I respect the lake, and have never dumped trash or garbage into the water. I never even play my radio while anchored, let alone blast it.

And, unless there was a serious safety issue (like my boat sinking out from under me) that made it imperative to do so, I would never, ever, set foot ashore without being invited to do so. That shoreline belongs to somebody else and it's just plain wrong to trespass!

However, I find your attitude that anchoring even 200 feet or more from your beach is rude and obnoxious behavior on my part to be rude and obnoxious in and of itself. You own land, I own a boat, and neither of us owns the lake. Why do you feel that your right to enjoy your property supercedes my right to enjoy my property? Relative cost, perhaps? If so, then should I have the right to shoo somebody with a small runabout out of a cove that I want to myself? I don't think so!

You get a life yourself, and stop trying to interfere with boaters enjoying our property (i.e., our boats) and public property (i.e., the lake)!

Silver Duck
Silver Duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 08:04 PM   #35
Bear Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 96
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Waterfront owners DO own the lake adjacent to their property.

You guys keep saying the lake is yours, but it aint. Read it and weep!

"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"


******************************
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.
Bear Lover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 08:50 PM   #36
Commodore
Member
 
Commodore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 45
Thanks: 8
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
Angry Just because it is legal does NOT make it right.

My goodness. There are a few people with very passionate ideas about where they can anchor and why they should be allowed to do so. Just because something is legal does not mean it is the right thing to do. I empathize with Cabinfever. I do not hear Cabinfever asking for anything improper. I think they have been very upstanding and open.

Cabinfever could easily apply for permits and put up swim lines and maybe a swim raft. You can not anchor inside that area delineated by the swim line. You must anchor a minimum distance from the swim line (is it 25' or more?). You can, of course, swim inside the swim line in the public lake. You can NOT anchor or navigate your boat on the public water inside that swim line. You can not trespass on the private raft or the land.

Would you rather force the residents to go that route and shut off anchoring near the beach or other areas around Timber with swim lines? Or would you like to cooperate with them so that everyone can enjoy the lake, their own boats and their private property? Why would that cooperation concept cause such a stir or resentment toward the Cabinfever family?

More than once Cabinfever has asked for help and expressed desire to be a considerate waterfront property owner. More than once they (or the generic, Timber Residents) have been bashed for all kinds of allegations. And referring to generic Timber Island residents makes me laugh. There are only 3 private owners and only one (Cabinfever) openly posts here as a new Timber owner.

Petty (evidently not petty to a few of you) bickering, no matter how justified one feels they are, just adds to aggravation and bad feelings. Who needs or wants that ? Again, just because it is legal does not make it right. Cabinfever has asked for nothing special. To politely ask for advice on getting respect for their property and their ability to access their property is not unreasonable and should not invite criticism.

Good luck Cabinfever.
__________________
The Commodore
Commodore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 09:32 PM   #37
Sschaar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 40
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

"Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is the right thing to do."

I guess you being a commodore and all it's up to you to determine if something is right or wrong. Maybe if we don't like your answer we could appeal to the Admiral.

This is all a big waste of time. No matter what, the boats will always be there and there is really nothing you can do about it.

You can complain and get aggravated, or just resign yourself to the reality of the situation.

As always, it's your choice.
Sschaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 09:44 PM   #38
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,597
Thanks: 244
Thanked 498 Times in 171 Posts
Wink Sorry Bear Lover.....

You take the case you quote completely out of context to support your claims that waterfront owners also own the Lake in front of their homes. This item was discussed ad nauseum in the thread about swim lines/platforms. I'll attach only a portion of my reply:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
...and common law and State Statute will not allow you to "claim" a portion of a public body of water for your own by doing same.

Now comes a small portion of a 1979 case. The case cited (although you wouldn't know it by the handful of paragraphs excerpted from a number of pages of text) was not in reference to any of the above. Rather it was a case arising out of eminent domain issues due to the accusations that the outflow from a creek receiving treated sewage denied property owners their rightful usage of waters adjacent to their properties.

The basic common law philosophy stated in the few cited paragraphs are not in dispute here. A lakefront owner has the ability to construct docks or piers, a boathouse, float a raft, obtain a mooring permit or build a swim line...opportunites that a non-landowner does not have. That opportunity is not available to a non-property owner, hence a literal reading of the RSA stated would leave one to believe that a non-propery owner could do & build the same as a property owner. We all know that is not the case and the Court was stating the obvious.

There is other case law cited in the above reading that concerns abutters blocking other abutters usage and views with piers, docks, boathouses and the like. In each instance, while there is no one clearly defined definition or delineation of the size and scope of the projects in question, the Court stated that the standard to be used in this State is, is the structure or intended use reasonable?

Remember the word "reasonable", as that is the standard the Court hangs it hat on in cases like these.

A shore front property owner has the expectation of reasonable use of the water in front of his/her property. He/she has the additional ability to build accessory structures on or into the water as long as the usage is reasonable. But that person does not own the water adjacent to his/her property. That person cannot use those accessory structures in an unreasonable manner to deny enjoyment of that same body of water to his abutting neighbors, or the public at large. FJ, nor anyone else, can constuct accessory structures or employ swim lines or rafts to deny abutters or the general public common usage of public property.

Again, the bottom line is the Lake is public property, to be enjoyed by the public. And no member of the public, whether lakeside property owner, swimmer or boater, can utilize unreasonable methods to deny any other person reasonable usage of such property...(
Actually, waterfront owners should be secretly greatful that the State/Town cannot claim that acres of waterfront adjacent to their homes are real property of the abutters. Imagine what would happen to their already extremely high property tax bills if that were the case!!!

Actually, I am confused about all the angst displayed on this particular thread. CabinFever has displayed a reasonable and common sense approach to the issues facing her family as owners of a unique and beautiful Winni Island. Belmont has staked his claim to reasonable usage of a public body of water, a tradition as old, valued and cherished as the State itself.

It seems that basically everyone agrees, passionate posts none the less, (with a few misconceptions about case law and the actual intent of the tresspassing statute) that we all should give each other reasonable space and consideration.

Hopefully Belmont Resident & Cabinfever can determine who and what actually happened on the day in question and come to an amicable agreement as to how to prevent a similar misunderstanding in the future.

Good luck in any case.....

Skip

Last edited by Skip; 09-09-2004 at 09:47 PM.
Skip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 11:59 PM   #39
Bear Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 96
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Skip, why sorry?

Skip - I don't see where we disagree.

I never said you could claim or own a piece of the lake.

Owners of waterfront property have rights of use and access that others do not. This argument people have that the lake is public property and they can do anything they want on any part of the lake just is not true.

If I owned on Timber I would apply for a swim line permit. I got one years ago, it was easy. A few pictures of swimmers among boats did the job. Then cut down the swing before somebody is injured and sues. And if anybody exposed themselves near a child, even inadvertently they would be finding out what "registered sex offender" means.
Bear Lover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2004, 12:47 AM   #40
Outlaw
Senior Member
 
Outlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Gilford, NH
Posts: 338
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Lover
Waterfront owners DO own the lake adjacent to their property.

You guys keep saying the lake is yours, but it aint. Read it and weep!
I believe that you and Skip agree, it's just the way the post was worded, (with the capitalized word DO, and continuing on with 'but it ain't') others may read it literally and think that this one example of case law is the law.

It's sometimes very difficult to put in to words exactly what we are thinking in our minds and even more difficult to make it as clear and exact because we do not have the one on one interaction typing things as you do with face to face conversation.

I agree with everyone that Cabinfever has been more than patient, more than accommodating, and more than fair. It is my belief that Belmont Resident probably did not spend enough time writing and properly wording his/her post -- as I feel it was too judgmental, harsh, accusational and was not properly directed to the people they encountered that day. As I and many others have read it, it was directed at the "new owners" as Belmont Resident stated in the original post. It would have been in Belmont Residents best interest to have confirmed the people he/she spoke with were indeed the "new owners" and not made an assumption. When assumptions are made incorrectly they can hurt and offend many people -- as evidenced by the rehash of this topic.

I do hope we get the opportunity to read a post from Cabinfever that things were worked out between Cabinfever and Belmont Resident to both parties satisfaction.
__________________
I fought the Law, and the Law won

Last edited by Outlaw; 09-10-2004 at 01:08 AM.
Outlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2004, 06:34 AM   #41
JDeere
Senior Member
 
JDeere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 295
Thanks: 74
Thanked 52 Times in 25 Posts
Default Skip says it best

Quote:
>>we all should give each other reasonable space and consideration.<<
I think this is the bottom line to this issue. Cabinfever has been more than considerate but it is clear (at least to me) that Cabinfever will put up swims ropes. He (they) have done everything they can to be a good neighbor but the old adage that no good deed goes unpunished seems to apply here.
JDeere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2004, 10:40 AM   #42
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,341
Thanks: 133
Thanked 925 Times in 338 Posts
Default

Siksukr.....I'm still not sure where you stand on this issue,perhaps I confused some of your posts with those of Sschaar.In any case,I'm sorry if I criticized you without all the facts.I've seen a lot of rude behavior on the lake over the years and I guess,sometimes, I react without thinking of all of the nice people as well.As I think back,the incidents of people being helpful,friendly and thoughtful of others far outnumber the rudeness.
SAMIAM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2004, 12:06 PM   #43
Mee-n-Mac
Senior Member
 
Mee-n-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
Unhappy Something might be done but I don't think we'd like it

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sschaar
This is all a big waste of time. No matter what, the boats will always be there and there is really nothing you can do about it.
You can complain and get aggravated, or just resign yourself to the reality of the situation.
As always, it's your choice.
While other have mentioned swimlines and such there is another remedy commonly used on the lake called the No Rafting Zone. Should a NRZ be enacted how are you going to feel about that ? With the boats pushed out to 150' from shore and separated, are you going to complain or be aggravated ? Will you resign yourself to the situation and accept that "it's the law so it must be right" ?? I'm not saying this is what will or should happen but rather it's 1 legal possibility for all those who fall back on the "it's legal so get used to it" mantra to ponder.

As for discussing this topic here on this forum, you're probably right in that this is a waste of time. Whatever happens won't likely hinge on anything said here.
__________________
Mee'n'Mac
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH
Mee-n-Mac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2004, 12:32 PM   #44
Silver Duck
Senior Member
 
Silver Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Billerica, MA
Posts: 364
Thanks: 40
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Default By all means...

if Cabin Fever needs to install a swim line to assure that he and his family can safely swim in front of his property, he should do so (after convincing the authorities that it is necessary and getting the proper permits, of course!) It is his legal right, after all, and I wouldn't dream of criticizing him for exercising that right. I probably would have done so myself, long ago.

I'm content as long as lakefront property owners don't start awarding themselves rights and privileges (ala Bear Lover) to which they are not entitled, to the detriment of the rest of us!

Silver Duck
Silver Duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2004, 02:10 PM   #45
cabinfever
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 35
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Wrapping up....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlaw
I do hope we get the opportunity to read a post from Cabinfever that things were worked out between Cabinfever and Belmont Resident to both parties satisfaction.
I hope so, too. I've been trying my best to determine exactly what's going on. I really don't care to waste more of my time here, since I now have insight into BR's posting thanks to many private messengers. These people believe they may have been in the cove with BR's boat for an incident that sounded similar. I have also been contacted by a Grad student who believes they may have captured video of the activity in the cove that day as they were wrapping up their eco-study on Timber. While the incident in question may not be included in the footage, the boats, setting, and other helpful details like boaters onshore are. The consensus is that the situation was misconstrued -- that perhaps BR's account was clouded by what they describe as "harmless passion for his boating privileges." All made it clear to me that they wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. Their observations included the following: The people onshore were not wearing Timber Island Homeowner's Association T-shirts, and the print colors were not even similar... the use of foul language and negative attitude from these individuals was completely in question... the anchors and closest parts of the boats were within ten feet to shore to restrict swimming or recreation by a homeowner (legal, absolutely - but BR himself made a point to state they were 40 feet out of courtesy)... some of the boaters themselves were admittedly and apologetically on the property or witnessed other boaters onshore with belongings.

I believe BR may have misread or embellished one incident and didn't consider the ramifications of escalating it to a bigger issue for greater impact in his own plight for boater's rights. More excusable, I guess, than the complete fabrication of which I originally accused BR. What's inexcusable though is when someone puts a posting on a public forum that's alarmingly titled with a homeowner's property location, "Timber Island Residents just rude," attacks these individuals, and lists serious accusations from behind a screen name. I find nothing valiant, intelligent, or productive about this at all.

As we wind down another season, I hope (naively, I know) that everyone makes a whole-hearted ATTEMPT at better respecting one another -- boater or landowner. With that said, I'm outta this posting....

Last edited by cabinfever; 09-10-2004 at 02:12 PM.
cabinfever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2004, 02:49 PM   #46
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,052
Thanks: 215
Thanked 892 Times in 504 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM
Siksukr.....I'm still not sure where you stand on this issue,perhaps I confused some of your posts with those of Sschaar.In any case,I'm sorry if I criticized you without all the facts.I've seen a lot of rude behavior on the lake over the years and I guess,sometimes, I react without thinking of all of the nice people as well.As I think back,the incidents of people being helpful,friendly and thoughtful of others far outnumber the rudeness.
Thanks for the reply Samiam.I think you may have confused other's post with being mine.Here's my position:Let me say that I raft off Timber a lot and really enjoy the natural beauty of the Island.I don't disagree with Belmont residents argument that I have the right to raft pretty much anywhere on the water.I do however think that if I was a property owner anywhere on the lake,I would not like a bunch of people rafting in front of my property even if they have the right to.So I asked Cabinfever where on the island was the problem he/she was refering to so I could avoid it.Not a big deal cuz there is a lot island to raft around.BR seems to me to come off a little angry and antaganistic towards Cabinfever.At least that's how it reads to me.I don't know what happened with his encounter last week cuz I wasn't there but some of the posts appeared a little out of line.Just my opinion,I'm not making any judgements on people's character. SS
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2004, 08:42 PM   #47
Bear Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 96
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Take it up with the Supreme Court

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Duck
I'm content as long as lakefront property owners don't start awarding themselves rights and privileges (ala Bear Lover) to which they are not entitled, to the detriment of the rest of us!

Silver Duck
I didn't award myself those rights, it was the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

I can understand you don't like their ruling, but I guess you will just have to deal with it. Docks, moorings, boat lifts, swim lines, rafts and beaching of "house boats" are our common law rights as owners of waterfront property. You're not going to change it so you might as well get used to it.
Bear Lover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2004, 07:07 PM   #48
Sschaar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 40
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Hey Silver Duck let it go.
Let Bear Lover have his/her kingdom.
The next thing you know he'll/she'll be digging foxholes and putting in coastal defenses. Maybe even shore to ship missiles and anti recreational boat mines.
Sschaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2004, 11:41 PM   #49
Bear Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 96
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sschaar
Hey Silver Duck let it go.
Let Bear Lover have his/her kingdom.
The next thing you know he'll/she'll be digging foxholes and putting in coastal defenses. Maybe even shore to ship missiles and anti recreational boat mines.
Island residents are also boaters. I think island people get more use out of their boats more than anybody else.
Bear Lover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2004, 09:11 PM   #50
Silver Duck
Senior Member
 
Silver Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Billerica, MA
Posts: 364
Thanks: 40
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Bear Lover

When did I say that you shouldn't be able to have a dock, mooring, raft, boat lift, or swim line? (I don't know what you mean by beaching a houseboat, but have at it, if you like. Just mind the rocks! )

If you can get the permits, of course you should be able to have those things. (An island property would be kind'o useless without a dock, wouldn't it?)

But, if I drop anchor in a reasonable location to take a break, or a swim, or have a bite of lunch - don't be trying to shoo me away. I willingly concede you your rights, as I said above, but I insist on my rights as well.

(Sorry, Sschaar - I'm very, very stubborn on this subject and silence is the next thing to agreement!)

And, by the way, this is not about Timber Island. I've never even anchored there!

Silver Duck
Silver Duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2004, 09:27 AM   #51
Sschaar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 40
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I agree Silver Duck, It's not about Timber Island.
Sschaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2004, 08:35 PM   #52
Bear Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 96
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Silver Duck

I don't think anybody here is objecting to anchoring "in a reasonable location to take a break, or a swim, or have a bite of lunch". Just be careful what you do around my drinking water intake.

I guess that is another right we have. To use the Lake as our water supply.


Here is the thing about houseboats

CHAPTER 270-A
USE OF HOUSEBOATS
Section 270-A:2
270-A:2 Where Overnight Mooring Permitted. – A houseboat may be beached or grounded, or tied to the shore of any of the inland surface waters of the state for an overnight period, or any part of an overnight period, only when on or at a location owned, leased, or otherwise under the control of the owner or operator of the houseboat or by permission of the owner, lessee, or person otherwise in control of such location.
Bear Lover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 07:28 PM   #53
Silver Duck
Senior Member
 
Silver Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Billerica, MA
Posts: 364
Thanks: 40
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Bear Lover

We're definitely on the same wavelength concerning tdrinking water intakes; my tanks are filled with water right out of the lake! (Though I do use bottled spring water for actual drinking, even at home.) As I said earlier, I bring my own sanitary facilities right along with me!

I wonder if the state classifies cruisers as houseboats?

Silver Duck
Silver Duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2004, 11:27 AM   #54
ghoti
Member
 
ghoti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Yup, they are. Tried to insert the link but it didn't work. Go to the Overnight Docking thread and read Skip's response. It's message #19 of the thread.

Thanks to Skip for always basing your comments on fact!
ghoti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2004, 07:46 AM   #55
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,341
Thanks: 133
Thanked 925 Times in 338 Posts
Default Black Cove

Oh noooooooooooooo....hear we go again. The Dept of Safety held a public hearing on Friday to consider a request to ban rafting in Black Cove.No one objected.....Sschaar.....where were you when they needed you? What about those greedy shorefront owners depriving you of your rights.It's not too late to organize your "floating block party" to teach them all a lesson.
SAMIAM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2004, 06:56 PM   #56
Sschaar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 40
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I'm a beaten poster.
I've had enough.
Sschaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2004, 04:36 PM   #57
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,712
Thanks: 2,227
Thanked 818 Times in 569 Posts
Question Overnight anchoring

I was anchored in the cove on Timber Island South. A friend and I decided to do a little sunset skinny dipping when low and behold a P-boat appeared. I've been dipping all my life on this lake and this is the first encounter with the law. We had to make ourselves decent and fear of a ticket for indecent exposure cross our minds.
The officer is not knowledgeable of maritime law. Or did the State of NH pervail? The officer wrote me a ticket because my bow light (red/green) was not on! I had my stern light on and I argued that it is all you need if you are anchoring. He stated that all I need was the red/green light and it must be on if I want to anchor overnight!
Since he said I can anchor overnight and I have a witness we decided to call his bluff. With just the bow light on we stayed. No one bothered us.
I decided to contest this in court and send in a not guilty plea. It's been 4 months and I am still waiting for the court date!
Anyone in the forum had any experience on incompetent officers???
BroadHopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2004, 08:04 PM   #58
Gilligan
Senior Member
 
Gilligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Bay State
Posts: 119
Thanks: 8
Thanked 11 Times in 4 Posts
Default This should be in a different thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper
I was anchored in the cove on Timber Island South. A friend and I decided to do a little sunset skinny dipping when low and behold a P-boat appeared. I've been dipping all my life on this lake and this is the first encounter with the law. We had to make ourselves decent and fear of a ticket for indecent exposure cross our minds.
The officer is not knowledgeable of maritime law. Or did the State of NH pervail? The officer wrote me a ticket because my bow light (red/green) was not on! I had my stern light on and I argued that it is all you need if you are anchoring. He stated that all I need was the red/green light and it must be on if I want to anchor overnight!
Since he said I can anchor overnight and I have a witness we decided to call his bluff. With just the bow light on we stayed. No one bothered us.
I decided to contest this in court and send in a not guilty plea. It's been 4 months and I am still waiting for the court date!
Anyone in the forum had any experience on incompetent officers???
MP and the rules are a whole different topic from this thread. No reason to keep this thread alive. Your event did not involve Timber Island Residents.
Nothing wrong with skinny dipping as long as you are aware of your surroundings. Indecent exposure should be on your mind particularly if you are doing this close to shore. Natural yes but offensive to some and against the law. If this happened 4 months ago you might want to follow up on your case to be sure that there is no warrant out for your arrest. Paperwork can get lost and if you are a no-show they can issue a bench warrant for your arrest.

Start a thread about the MP. They try very hard but some officers are not as knowledgeable as others are. My 2 cents.
__________________
Gilligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2004, 07:04 AM   #59
Belmont Resident
Senior Member
 
Belmont Resident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belmont NH but prefer Jackman Maine
Posts: 1,857
Thanks: 491
Thanked 409 Times in 251 Posts
Default Broadhopper

It seems from what was posted on the forum this summer and what I heard out on the lake that this was not a good year for the MP. There were more complaints this year concerning bad call's by the MP then ever before. People who normally stood up for the MP were even having problems this year.
You probably got your ticket dismissed as soon as the MP officer brought it in.
The law clearly states that only the stern light is needed when at anchor.
The bow light signals that you are under way.
__________________
"better to have a short life that is full of what you like doing, then a long life spent in a miserable way.."
Belmont Resident is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.48104 seconds