Homeowner: Keep 150 ft away from my dock!
 

Yesterday while on a friends boat we found a nice quiet (no wakes) spot to anchor. This area was deep into the dog leg of Winter Harbor north to north east of the entrance to The Basin. We were not in a 'no rafting zone'.

As we were setting our anchor a woman comes running down her dock waving her arms yelling 150 feet! 150 feet!

Note we came in at idle, headway only speed as we just came through a field of other boats at anchor.

I just smiled and told the boat owner to just say thank you. I guess they decided that we were not within their zone and stopped waving us off.

Another boat then came in closer to them and set their anchor. This time a man jumped into the water and swam up to the boat to tell them to move because they can't be anchored within 150 ft of their dock!

Wow, really?!?

Edited to add a photo. You can see the home owner in the water. He claims his dock is 75 feet long, so he knows when someone is within 150 feet by double his dock length.

I stood on the bow and after that boat moved I let them know that they were well within their rights to anchor within 150 ft because there is no law that says they can't be so close.

Note that all boaters were being quiet and courteous. There was no loud music nor voices involved.

People need to know that the 150 ft rule is headway speed only, it doesn't mean you have to anchor any certain distance away from a dock. If you like, you can anchor within an inch of someone's dock. Not that I would do this, but you could legally do it if you wanted to prove a point! Just always be courteous and polite.

You got it right. 150 feet of shore, docks, floats, swim lines, bridges and bathers (and a few more things) are just 'No-Wake' zones.

Too bad you didn't record those folks. I bet it would be humorous.

I tried to video them but they were too far away from me at the time to hear them and be picked up by my phone.

I did snap a photo with the owner swimming back to his dock after confronting the second boat. I'll try to post the picture when I get the time.

as beautiful as Winni is its been tainted over the years with actions like this. give me a house with a view any day. :)

As long as you are not in a no rafting zone, in general, you can anchor anywhere you want. You cannot obstruct navigation, so give them room to get to their dock, and obviously don't cross a swim line.

But just because you can doesn't mean you should. If boaters antagonize shore front owners, especially repeatedly in the same area, they will petition for a no rafting zone and they may win.

Why incite the harassement?
 

It's a big lake. Do you have to anchor in a place that causes problems for others?

It may be legal, but so is my freedom of speech, and your children are going to learn a new vocabulary of very short four letter words. Find another place.

This makes me laugh...not that people were anchored off our dock or anything but try living in the Hole in the Wall...people would be 2 ft off our dock just passing through..sometimes we'd hand them a beer! Live on folks!:coolsm:

It is already a no rafting zone.

Might be other reasons...
 

Periodically boaters drop anchor off our shoreline, a little too close. With a dock, young swimmers, a handy float near our partially submerged water line that serves as our water supply (not drinking obviously)- for those reasons, sometimes we have to get boaters' attention, and request they anchor a little farther off. All I ask is visitors scope out the area before settling in!

We get fishers early every morning under our dining and sleeping areas. Ice houses in front of our property in winter. Shell casings among our blueberry bushes.

I firmly believe the lake belongs to everyone, where ever the water touches. A little bit of consideration sharing this heavenly space is all that's needed.

Enjoy your time at the lake!

- Long Time visitor / resident

Hmmmmm, maybe the lady is right.


PART Saf-C 407 RAFTING RULES

Saf-C 407.01 Rafting Rules.

(a) In addition to and in conjunction with the requirements of RSA 270:44, no person, except as otherwise provided herein, shall, in a prohibited location or at a prohibited time:

(1) Form or allow a boat which he or she is operating or in charge of to be a member of a raft consisting of 3 or more boats;

(2) Form or allow the boat which he or she is operating or in charge of to be a member of a raft if any part of such raft is:

a. Less than 150 feet from shore;

b. Less than 50 feet from any other raft; or

c. Less than 50 feet from any occupied single boat which is stationary upon the waters of the same lake or pond; and

(3) Anchor a single boat and cause it to remain stationary upon the waters of a lake or pond, other than momentarily, if any part of such boat is:

a. Less than 150 feet from shore;

b. Less than 50 feet away from any raft; or

c. Less than 25 feet away from any other single boat which is stationary upon the waters of such lake or pond.

Source. #2573, eff 12-30-83; ss by #3010, eff 5-2-85; ss by #4070, eff 06-30-86; ss by #4562, eff 1-3-89; amd by #5862, eff 7-1-94; amd by #5936, INTERIM, eff 1-3-95, EXPIRES, 5-3-95; ss by #6005, eff 3-24-95, EXPIRED: 3-24-03

New. #7904, INTERIM, eff 6-24-03, EXPIRED: 12-21-03

New. #8107, EMERGENCY, eff 6-22-04, EXPIRES: 12-19-04; ss by #8172, eff 9-21-04; ss by #10293, eff 3-20-13

I am not questioning, just asking. The single boat anchorage applies in a no rafting zone only....is this correct?

I didn't think anyone was trying to antagonize anyone, at least none of the boaters were. It was a small cove, and no one was trying to get close on purpose. It just was the geometry of the area.

No one was trying to raft. There were other boats in the area too. My chart doesn't show this as a no rafting zone (we did check it).

I'm also not promoting starting problems with the land owners. Did you you see my ;)?

If the landowner said he had pipes in the water, or there were kids in the water it would have been a different story. But the landowner was the rude antagonist end of this story. There was nothing pleasant about the way they handled this. This was what surprised me, it was the first time I witnessed this sort of behavior first hand on the lake.

I try to be polite and courteous to everyone.

John, good to see you here again! Been on the water lately?

Looks like a no rafting zone...

https://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/...estricted.html

7) Winter Harbor from the southern boundary of the Tuftonboro tax map 63, lot No. 14 to the southern boundary of tax map 51, lot No. 20.

You may not see it as a no rafting area but it is.

Sorry if I missed it, but I didn't see where the OP mentioned boats rafting? Sounds like they were doing the right thing (not loud or obnoxious), and they just came across an aggressive homeowner.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

OK, so the boats are within their rights but why anchor basically in someone's yard (even though legal)? There are many spots to anchor and swim that don't come in front of someone's waterfront property. Would I park my car in the street in front of someone's house and then have a tail gate party? I live near a spot where a few boats anchor and swim and stay far enough out from land to be courteous.

Why buy a "yard" some place where you are going to be frustrated by people enjoying a nearby natural resource peacefully?

These things go both ways, and I agree that people shouldn't purposefully try to antagonize each other. However if you establish a trend of allowing landowners to push boaters out beyond acceptable and legal limits it will only lead to the erosion of enjoyable locations overall.

That is the point. The lakes, ALL of them, belong the the public...period!
Just because you decide to own lakefront, you need to remember that fact.
You don't own the lake. The State and people do.
150' rule should be known for what the law reads, not for someone who wants it to be what they want it to be. If they have dock, they should have a boat or at least know the rules of owning one

There are places on Winnisquam I anchor, and don't bother people, close to shore. Parts where the is no 150 feet, and never had a problem, and some really nice homes along the shore.

As for someone "swimming" up to me and telling to move off of what is really public domain , I'll tell him to talk to the MPs first, then I'll call them, and whatever Local cops it may be.
No sense getting into trouble with some wannabe.

I don't go near places that look like it would cause issues with land owners.
But I won't be put upon from some self important ass either.

We all wish other people to treat us with courtesy.

However I expect, and in fact demand, that people obey the law. I am not familiar with the exact location of that No Rafting Zone. If the area in question is within that zone, then it was illegal for even a single boat to drop anchor within 150 feet of shore. The fact they were not rafting does not apply.

It would appear that the homeowners were within their rights.

It is the responsibility of every operator to both know and obey the law. That includes knowing where you may, and may not, drop your anchor.

The law may say that but do you really have to anchor off someone's dock? There are plenty of places around the lake where you can exercise your right.

We don't get many people anchoring off our property and if they do its usually just to jump in to cool off for a few minutes. The last time it happened one of the people on the boat knelt on the transom and wizzed into the lake. I should have gotten the bow number and called the Marine Patrol. So please understand and appreciate a property owner's perspective.

The next time you decide to anchor have some consideration and find a spot where you are away from someone's property. They don't need to see you and you don't need to see them.

I added the photo to the original post.

Again, no boat was in the 'no rafting zone' (NRZ), we were not even near the NRZ which was to our south.

We were at the North end, North or North East of the entrance to 'The Basin'.

Considering that this was not a 'no rafting zone' do you really think that legally one needs to be 150 feet off of someone's dock or property?

I didn't think anyone deserved to have the homeowner to do the arm waving and shouting '150 feet, 150 feet', nor to jump into the water and swim up to the boat to tell them they had to move.

No boater was being obnoxious, nor loud, there was no offensive language, there was no loud music playing (actually, there was no music playing at all), there were no children shouting, nor dogs barking.

Mostly people were sitting in their boats enjoying the lake. Some were dangling their legs in the water, or swimming from the boats, or floating on inflatable toys from the back of the boat and staying close to the boats, and not approaching anyone's private property.

If I'm wrong, please educate me.

Sorry, I won't allow identifying information or pictures. Keep it general.

Poor description...
 

I do wish they would describe this area a little better. How the heck can you tell where a tax property is on shore. Far better to say from: ie: From the black top buoy off such and such point to the entrance of the basin, on the north east side.

Sure would be a lot easier.

I must agree that it is a nice area, but it is very weedy, and can get crowded, especially on the weekends. If it gets crowded while we are there, we just move on and find a place that is less crowded. One or two boats, not bad. 8-10 or more, not so nice in front of someone's house, in my humble opinion.

Rich, you are wrong, it IS a no rafting area. I have seen MP ticket people for 3 together.

I agree with you up, it is hard to tell where an area is.

You sure? Look at a map...
 

Lets see...where I believe Rich was does not look like a NRZ. This is based on a rough location of where he indicated the boats were (that appears to have been deleted).

References:
1.) http://www.tuftonboro.org/pages/Tuft...s/map%2051.PDF
2.) http://www.tuftonboro.org/pages/Tuft...s/map%2063.PDF

Approximate location:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.6.../data=!3m1!1e3

Big lake
 

It is a big lake so, why anchor so close to anyone's home? Life is way too short to get into a hassle especially a hassle that is 100% avoidable by finding someplace else to anchor. The guy that owns the house cannot move so cut him some slack and move away.

BTW...I was happy to see Don removed the post that showed the location of the property owner as it was totally inappropriate to do so.

This logic is ultimately flawed. As time progresses there will be more and more development. If every time I come up and get forced to use less and less of 'our' natural resource you are out of your mind.

Lots are on either side of Winter Harbor...
 

One lot reference is on the rte 109 side of Winter Harbor, and the other is on the opposite shore. It would appear that the line crosses Winter Harbor, and that from that line to the Basin is a NRZ. Just how I read it, and seems to go along with what Tis has said.

As I said earlier, I sure wish that they made the delineation a lot simpler. It would make it a lot easier on all concerned. :rolleye1:

OK thanks... no problem. :)

If I'm wrong, then the two charts I used (the Bizer and also the Navionics up to date 'freshest data' are both wrong).

I'm happy to admit if I'm wrong. If this is a NRZ, then it is very poorly documented, even with online data that is supposed to be up to date.

Even if I'm wrong in that it was a NRZ, the home owner could be a bit more polite about it. Saying something more like "did you know this is a NRZ and you need to keep 150 feet from the shore and docks, etc?" (I like helpful people and often try to help others when I can) would have been accepted as a helpful home owner, vs someone that was trying to be a lake bully.

OK, I see it now. So please delete this whole thread, or half of it! LOL.

So I'll stick by my opinion that this is only a case of a home owner not knowing how to be tactful and helpful and they weren't polite about it. There is no saying that people must be polite (it sure would have gone a long way if they were), so I'll leave it at that.

Checking all reasonable resources we could find, both at the time and after the fact, the two charts were checked and there was no hint of it being a NRZ.

I humbly apologize to all involved for not having all my facts, and for trusting what I thought was two good resources. I even double checked an online map that is supposed to be up to date, so that it's not subject to the problems of having an old printed chart on the boat.

I'll also let the owner of the boat I was on know that we narrowly missed getting a ticket (maybe not actually, as we ended up outside of the 150 ft from the dock in question, it was another boat that had the more active confrontation).

To those that say 'why bother, just go somewhere else', I don't think a bully should be able to continue their cause. It just lets them continue to push people away. So if a lake bully is pushing people away without cause, how do you suggest it is stopped? Boaters shouldn't have to put up with this any more than land owners should have to put up with unruly boaters.

In this case *I* was wrong, and I admit it now that I have learned the truth. But it sure was hard to know, I tried to do my homework, while at the site and also afterwards when at home. No, I didn't pull the tax maps and cross check the written laws with the tax maps. I used the resources available to most boaters on the lake. I even tried to do extra work and checked an online resource that promotes that they have up to date chart data online. I was wrong again!

Feel free to ignore me in the future.

I believe yes, but I'll let those that know more than me to correct us if we are wrong.

I sent an email to Bizer and Navionics asking them to update their charts. ;)

Law or not, I can't believe (well maybe I can) that someone would be so dis-courteous and anchor so close to a dock or someone's beach! Please respect the lake and the privacy of the landowners. There are plenty of places where you can anchor, swim, etc. and not be in front of someone's house.

Well, this get's more interesting, the more research that is done.

Bizer replied to me and I'll just say that details are not as clear as it would seem from posts here. It seems they are working on a reply, I'll let Bizer speak for himself. He said a post may be coming within 24 hours.

But the truth is somewhere between the NH State rules and the NHMP website. Which takes precedence, which may have a typo? Which will write tickets? ;)

It's not hard to tell, it's impossible to tell. First, a quote from NH regulations at http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rule.../saf-c400.html

Saf-C 407.03 (a) (7) The area of Winter Harbor from the southern boundary of the town of Tuftonboro tax map 63, lot number 14 to the southern boundary of tax map 15, lot number 20;

I believe NH regulations take precedence to the NHMP website, which has ...

(7) Winter Harbor from the southern boundary of the Tuftonboro tax map 63, lot No. 14 to the southern boundary of tax map 51, lot No. 20.

Problem #1: They look the same, but they are not. Aside from the trivial omission of five words and the use of abbreviations, there is one glaring difference: The NH regulations quote tax map 15, not 51. The first thing I noticed back in 1998 was that there is no Winnipesaukee frontage on tax map 15. I assumed the regulation would be corrected, but it has not. So unless the regulation is re-written, it should not be enforced. So Bizer did the best it could. I found map 51 lot 20 and map 63, lot 14 and drew a line between them as depicted on Bizer's charts since 2000. If this were an error, why didn't anyone, including the NHMP, bring this to Bizer's attention until last fall?

Last fall, I received a disappointing letter from a boater who received a rafting ticket. So Bizer did further digging.

Problem #2: Unlike most towns, Tuftonboro tax maps are not just divided into lots. Their maps are divided into blocks (with a number inside a hexagon) then lot numbers. I don't know any other town that does this. There are three lots numbered "20" on tax map 51 and two lots numbered "14" on tax map 63. Which one do I pick? Bizer failed to notice multiple lots in 1998, so I connected the first "20" that I found on map 51 to the first "14" that I found on map 63. [Google "Tuftonboro tax maps"]

Problem #3: The shoreline of lot Map#51, Block#1, Lot#20 runs east-west. If that is the lot to which the regulations refer, which end is the southern boundary? There is no room for ambiguity.

Problem #4: No direction is specified. The regulation should say something like, "The area west of a line ... " but it does not. Regulations can not be ambiguous. Without a direction, someone might claim that the no-rafting area only applies to boats sitting on the line itself.

Incidentally, from my limited legal knowledge, "innocent until proven guilty" usually means innocent because guilt can not be proven in cases of ambiguous laws.

I wrote the NHMP two months ago asking for a clarification before Bizer's next edition (2016), but they have yet to respond.

Thanks a lot for this information!

As a boater that wants to follow the laws and to be a polite courteous boater, we need clear laws so as not to have any confusion.

So it seems, as it is now, if someone was ticketed in this area, they should contest the ticket. Sometimes this is a difficult choice as it can cost more to go to court in lost wages than to just pay the ticket.

An average boater with a current chart shouldn't be held liable for poorly written/indecipherable regulations.

I guess I'd better start researching all the No Wake and no Rafting Zone regulations on the lake and cross-referencing them with NHMP and State of NH regulations, as well as confirming the locations with town tax maps before heading out on the lake.:confused:

And all that being said, the more courtesy the better on the water from both boaters and shoreline owners alike.

I agree with you! Everyone should be courteous!

Trying to decipher this area from the written law is confusing. Sort of 'it depends on the definition of what "is" is'! LOL

Here are all the tax maps:
http://www.tuftonboro.org/Pages/Tuft...ap%20Index.PDF

Here is map 63:
http://www.tuftonboro.org/pages/Tuft...s/map%2063.PDF
Here is map 51:
http://www.tuftonboro.org/pages/Tuft...s/map%2051.PDF

The text of the law says "Southern Boundary of tax map" when referring to both lots that are supposed to mark the NRZ. So I'm not sure if it is describing the location on the map (southern boundary) as to where to find the lot in question (which seems most likely), or to describe the southern boundary of the lot as the point where the NRZ starts and ends.

I would say that the state law has a typo as Bizer mentioned tax map 15 doesn't even touch the lake, and lot 20 on it is no where near the area in question (not to mention there are more than one lot 20 on that map also).

Does anyone care to show how they can interpret this rule in any way other than what Bizer has documented?

Time to get rid of this regulation
 

All it does is take rights to a public resource away from boaters and give it to a small subset of landowners. It doesn't even effectively address the purported reasons for it's existence--all it does is shuffle the activity around to someone else's dock.

We'd be better off directly addressing the issues involved rather than applying rules in a ham-fisted manner.