Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Island Lover
...If you are wadding across a 400' wide river are you violating this law? By a broad definition of swimming you would be...maybe Skip can tell us what the state means by "swimming".
|
The standard definintion of swimming is to propel yourself (or remain)through the water without walking along the bottom.
I believe the State would not consider wading (as in the flyfishing example) as swimming.
I can find no direct reference to swimming in our current RSAs, researching both the boating statutes and statutes relating to water supply & pollution. As you may recall, there are separate "no swimmimng" provisions when it comes to some public water supplies, and in these cases they really mean "no bodily contact" as wading in a public water supply is just as hazardous as swimming in it.
Yep, it needs work...that is why the process will carry it from the House to the Senate and eventually (if it makes it) to the Governor's desk, open for ammendment and clarification along the way, just as HB162 has evolved.
In the end though it will be up to the Court to decide what swimming is. It will probably be treated like pornography is now....to paraphrase a late & great Supreme Court justice: we may not be able to easily define what it is, but we'll know what it is when we see it!
All joking aside, expect healthy ammendments to the be applied to this bill as it weaves its way through Concord. And remember, hyperbole breeds hyperbole. Folks on both sides of the HB 162 issue by greatly puffing some of the perceived dangers on Lake Winnipesaukee have now awoken the Government. Most times that is not a very good thing!
I am awaiting some information from the sponsors on some of the intents in this legislation....but I am soon departing to go snowmobiling for the weekend, but I'll post back any responses I get on this issue when I get back.
Everyone be safe & have a fun weekend!
Skip