Are you for or against rafting?

Rattlesnake Gal · 02-07-2005, 07:45 AM

KTO, you forgot the – it doesn’t affect me/I don’t care about this issue option.

I suspect there are quite a few here on the forum that would fall into this category.

ApS · 02-07-2005, 09:23 AM

KTO:

Your poll lists two choices that are essentially the same (the last two).

RG:

I don't think a "It doesn't affect me/I don't care" is necessary.

However, I think a Designated Rafting Zone (DRZ) should be established off Rattlesnake Island.

Rattlesnake Gal · 02-07-2005, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

RG:
I don't think a "It doesn't affect me/I don't care" is necessary.

I suppose you are correct, those people just wouldn't vote.
On the other hand you could argue that it is good to know how many people it doesn’t affect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

However, I think a Designated Rafting Zone (DRZ) should be established off Rattlesnake Island.

Acres, you are such a hoot!

Good luck to anyone trying to raft on The Broads! If smashing into the rocks doesn't get you, the big waves will.
Though we don’t get rafters, we get hordes of fisherman, which doesn’t bother me in the least.
It's a right of passage and means that spring has arrived. Besides, it is more likely that I would annoy them!

It can be a bit of a challenge getting into the dock at times, but so far everyone has been more than respectful.
Well, except for that incident last summer when someone left that lure on our dock. I seriously doubt it was an experienced person who left it behind.

GWC... · 02-07-2005, 11:22 AM

RadioButtons are not appropriate for this poll - limit choice to one.

Dave R · 02-07-2005, 02:20 PM

I don't raft up with anyone but I think it's absurd that it's illegal to do so in certain areas. Whose business is it if If I wish to tie my boat to another boat? I mean, really

upthesaukee · 02-07-2005, 05:18 PM

I must say that we will go out to the broads side of Rattlesnake to have a picnic supper and watch the world go by, and are surprised by the number of fishing boats and others doing the same thing we are doing. If someone wanted to tie to us and join us, all the more power to them. but RG is right, can't always sit out there.

KTO · 02-07-2005, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Your poll lists two choices that are essentially the same (the last two).

I noticed that! I was actually originally intending to have them be flip flop (Certain areas of the lake ARE off limits, and for the other MOST of the lake is off limits)

I think also that rafting can get to carried away sometimes, when people (Now I am not blaming anyone or saying I hate rafters) throw their trash out the side, bother wildlife in a cruel way (even if it's technically legal), or if they were to get into the way of another boater, such as rafting in a fairly "tight" zone, and sometimes and blasting music to the extreme (especially innaproppriate music!). I believe that those people are mainly the cause for rafting problems. Rafting should be stopped because of those people mentioned. I'm not saying I hate rafters in General, but mainly that I dislike rafters who over abuse their power, and I think it is they who ruin it for the rest of the rafters out there who want a fairly peaceful rafting experience.

If I have said anything that others think perfectly fine, please let me know!

Cal · 02-07-2005, 07:39 PM

KTO,
So what you're saying is the few should ruin it for the many??? Those few who pay loud obnoxious music and toss trash over the side can still do that if they are anchored alone , they don't need to raft to do that. Next step ban anchoring???? Just curious.
I do find listening to others music hard to swallow sometimes myself. Particularly if I can't here my own radio

KTO · 02-07-2005, 09:01 PM

Ya Cal, I suppose what you are saying is true. . . that's quite tough. . .

Perhaps if rafting wasn't allowed, there would be less reason to play music so loud (there wouldn't be any body to play it to) or show off in front of your friends by tossin' the beer back over your shoulder. I don't know.

I did say that those select few ruin it for everyone else, and I did mean that. Marine Patrol can't watch every spot on the lake at one time, therefore, to stop all of these problems, maybe rafting should be discontinued, or maybe in certain select areas. . . just a thought. . .

Mee-n-Mac · 02-08-2005, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KTO

I noticed that! I was actually originally intending to have them be flip flop (Certain areas of the lake ARE off limits, and for the other MOST of the lake is off limits)

I think also that rafting can get to carried away sometimes, when people (Now I am not blaming anyone or saying I hate rafters) throw their trash out the side, bother wildlife in a cruel way (even if it's technically legal), or if they were to get into the way of another boater, such as rafting in a fairly "tight" zone, and sometimes and blasting music to the extreme (especially innaproppriate music!). I believe that those people are mainly the cause for rafting problems. Rafting should be stopped because of those people mentioned. I'm not saying I hate rafters in General, but mainly that I dislike rafters who over abuse their power, and I think it is they who ruin it for the rest of the rafters out there who want a fairly peaceful rafting experience.

If I have said anything that others think perfectly fine, please let me know!

Can I let you know if I think you've said something un-fine ?

(I've bolded the above) It appears that while I was off-line formulating a response Cal addressed the point that I take exception to. I hope it doesn't appear that I'm piling on.

While I agree there are the few who who "abuse their power" I don't agree that the solution is a lake-wide ban on rafting. If your neighbor has loud party, or even a long history of loud parties, I wouldn't petition the town to ban all gatherings of more than X people. If the local town basketball court was attracting a "bad" crowd I wouldn't ask the town to close it. I would ask the town to better police the activity in question when the abuse occurs. This does take more effort and patience but we adopt the approach of always letting the few ruin it for the many, pretty soon we'll be left with the ability to do nothing. Moreover there's a moral aspect to this ... punishing the good guys along with the bad guys ... just doesn't seem right to me, at least not until all other options have been exhausted.

I believe the bill has stalled but I'm sure it'll come back. What I don't quite understand is why it's necessary. It would appear the present system has a good set of checks and balances in it. If there's enough abuse in a spot then the property owners can petition for a NRZ and achieve the same result as the bill. This should incentivize the rafters to curb the excesses yet it sets up a barrier, though surmountable, to stop a single "ornery" property owner from a hair trigger response. Have the granting authorities effectively rejected all NRZ petitions causing people to seek another redress ? Or is it a case of someone "important" petitioning for a NRZ and getting rejected ?? One of the sponsoring reps cited the usual concerns and was quoted as saying he didn't want to "move the problem from 1 spot to another", hence the need for lake-wide ban. He seemed to think that eventually all the shore would be developed and become NRZs anyway so why not make it happen now. I think his reasoning and the bill is just too encompassing and discriminating against those who aren't part of the problem.

I'm not part of the big rafting group, when I anchor it's usually alone and looking for a quite, empty (! ha !) spot on the lake. We might tie up with another boat or 2 and break out the Magma. I can understand both the property owner and boater POVs but I think there just isn't enough need for this bill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KTO

I did say that those select few ruin it for everyone else, and I did mean that. Marine Patrol can't watch every spot on the lake at one time, therefore, to stop all of these problems, maybe rafting should be discontinued, or maybe in certain select areas. . . just a thought. . .

I would say that there are times when I cruise past the sandbar in W. Alton, already a NRZ, and see boats clogging the channel to WAM. If the MP can't keep up with the existing NRZs, then I don't think making the whole lake a NRZ is going to help. I wonder if more enforcement when and where it's needed would help.

PROPELLER · 02-08-2005, 10:01 AM

I agree with what you posted. However, I am not happy with the present law chapter 270:44 (not the new LSR although I am against that too) because it allows any one to petition for a NRZ & could lead to the whole lake becoming a NRZ. Each time a new area becomes a NRZ the rafters will move to another area where it is not banned & that stresses that new area even more & makes property owners in that area more angry & then they petition for a NRZ, it just keeps snowballing.

I think it would be better to make the entire lake rafting friendly except in those areas where for instance Loons nest (and even that is not the whole summer, Loons are done nesting by the end of June I think) or any other area where its clear it presents a hazard like Weirs channel or it can be shown its not environmentally sound etc. That way they are spread out more & property owners in the areas where rafting is allowed do not bear the full burden of all the rafters while others do not where they were able to get a NRZ passed.

Although many of the undeveloped areas on the lake are slowly disappearing, many of the rafters do use those areas that are left for rafting so they are not blocking access

KTO · 02-08-2005, 02:44 PM

Propeller, you bring up a great point. If many areas were accesible to rafters, it may be less crowded. I just have a bit of an irrelavent thought though, that maybe people just like the location (is it enclosed, is there a sandbar or beach?) and would stick to their original spots. I suppose overcrowdedness could be a small problem too. The cove next to Farrar point is commonly filled with 20-60 boats on a regular summer day. And of course there are many others, like Blackey Cove, that just get taken over. I could see the toughness in the decisions!

Silver Duck · 02-08-2005, 07:47 PM

I have two thoughts to contribute to this discussion. The first is that I didn't like it the first time I encountered a teacher who was so dog lazy that he punished an entire class rather than be bothered to find and punish the specific guilty parties, and I like it even less now that I'm old enough to recognize it for the injustice it is!

There are already laws against public drunkenness, disturbing the peace, littering, public lewdness, and tresspass. The MP or even local town police need to put the effort into catching and penalizing the guilty parties. Punishing the entire boating community for the misconduct of a few members is the lazy way out and is utterly unacceptable!

The excuse that offenders will see an MP boat coming and clean up their act is also unacceptable; the concept of un-marked police cars has been around for a very long time and would work just as well on the lake as it does on land!

My second thought is that people who build or buy lakefront homes in areas that are heavily used as anchorages should have used due diligence and been aware of that use before building or buying! If they didn't,

and don't like boats anchored or rafted in front of their property, tough luck! If they were aware, and figured to roust the boaters once they moved in, even tougher luck!

End of Rant!

Silver Duck

upthesaukee · 02-08-2005, 10:47 PM

M-n-M -- Interesting you mention West Alton sand bar. We keep our boat at West Alton Marina, and while it can be very crowded on the Sand bar, east or south side of channel, and can be just as crowded on the other side, the one thing I have not seen in the two years we have had our boat at WAM are rafters blocking the channel. Are a few loud???? are a few inconsiderate by nearly running over your anchor line to get to "their" spot???? Do I enjoy being in the middle of all that???? That's a yes, yes, and a no. So, like you, I go elsewhere (the beauty of a four step ladder - swim up, climb in, life is good) and it doesn't have to be shallow.

Silver Duck --- We have called the type mentality you refer to as elementary school mentality...one kid is bad so let's all put our heads down. It has become a management style with companies as well, so it's no wonder that it is making its way into government thinking.

Education, Education, Courtesy, and Enforcement!!! sure could go a long way towards happier boating and enjoyment of the lake.

PROPELLER · 02-09-2005, 09:38 AM

Excellent posts by Silver Duck & Upthesaukee. However, as I mentioned before, the problem is that in theory the entire lake could become no rafting (except big open bays & the broads) under current law.

Maybe boaters that believe this is wrong should try to get together & find our own sponsors to write a bill that will repeal the current law that allows someone to petition for a NRZ & even take back current NRZ'S. Personally, I would even be willing to support a limit on how many boats can raft (say 5 or 6) if the current NRZ'S are repealed & the power of the safety commissioner to designate new NRZ'S by petition is eliminated. Something is better than nothing & it spreads the rafting around more evenly. As they say, a good compromise is when no one is entirely happy.

Commodore · 02-09-2005, 11:12 AM

Rafting is fine as long as it's Not In My Back Yard or waterfront. We have heard that before. Restricted rafting will not reduce boat and anchoring congestion in those areas.

I like to anchor and I also enjoy rafting up with friends. The NRZs (No Rafting Zones) are still crowded anchorages with or without rafts. Boaters are still allowed to raft no more than 2 boats in NRZs and some ignore or are unaware of those rules.

My attention is drawn to loud illegal rafting in NRZs. Most always one or more offshore style boats are involved with the raft. That's the obnoxious group with the loudest music and people. Again it is a small percent of the offshore boats that become highly visible and that adds to the perceived bad reputation of such boats on the lake .

As a boater I wish that the MP would enforce the no rafting rules more diligently. They should also make the specific anchoring and rafting rules for those NRZs more available to the boating public. How far can you anchor from the shore and other boats and rafts? The rules are different for different areas of Winnipesaukee.

The Poll questions are slightly confusing. I am in favor of rafting. I can live with the current situation with a few specified NRZs that allow 2 boats to raft. I am not in favor of designated rafting areas. Right now, with the exception of channels, bridges, and a few obvious places, the whole lake is a designated rafting area.

The bottom line is respect and courtesy. How do we get that accomplished?

PROPELLER · 02-09-2005, 11:46 AM

Yes, you are correct about the NRZ'S still being crowded such as Braun Bay & the West Alton Sand Bar. Those places will always be crowded because they are shallow & sandy. However, in other areas where boaters raft, I think these areas would thin out some if boaters had more options.

You have also hit on another theme I believe & that is that banning rafting from the entire lake will not solve any of the problems that rafting ban supporters are complaining about. Like noise, partying, littering etc. (which I believe is very over exaggerated based on my rafting experience) And as you said, it will not eliminate boaters from anchoring. Boaters will still anchor in front of peoples property only they will be ancored separately, not tied together.

ApS · 02-09-2005, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commodore

Rafting is fine as long as it's Not In My Back Yard or waterfront. We have heard that before. Restricted rafting will not reduce boat and anchoring congestion in those areas. >>SNIP<<

It's not NIMBY.

It's in our front yard.

Mee-n-Mac · 02-09-2005, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by upthesaukee

M-n-M -- Interesting you mention West Alton sand bar. We keep our boat at West Alton Marina, and while it can be very crowded on the Sand bar, east or south side of channel, and can be just as crowded on the other side, the one thing I have not seen in the two years we have had our boat at WAM are rafters blocking the channel. Are a few loud???? are a few inconsiderate by nearly running over your anchor line to get to "their" spot???? Do I enjoy being in the middle of all that???? That's a yes, yes, and a no. So, like you, I go elsewhere (the beauty of a four step ladder - swim up, climb in, life is good) and it doesn't have to be shallow.

I should have been more specific when I said "clogging" I guess. To be fair I don't recall a time where I've seen a boat in the channel but I have seen them, on a couple of occasions, right next to the channel markers with anchor lines trailing into the channel. I wouldn't have pushed the limit quite so far myself.

PROPELLER · 02-10-2005, 12:09 PM

Konachick, how would you limit the number of boats allowed on the lake? Would you close public & private (pay) launches? Would you eliminate already existing slips at the various marinas? Would you somehow take away some property owners privilege of having a boat on the lake? I'm not sure how this would all work.

PROPELLER · 02-10-2005, 12:19 PM

Rafting friendly means rafting would be allowed all over the lake, no restricted areas so it would not be concentrated in a few areas. However, a restriction of say 5 boats would be allowed. As far as how this will help with the problems that some have complained about, it will spread boaters who raft around so there is not so much congestion in a few areas. As far as other problems like noise, litter etc. First, I do not believe these problems exist especially to the extent that some claim. I believe its very over exaggerated because they don't like rafting & are looking for any excuse to ban or at least control it. Secondly, if there are people who are noisy, litter or commit any of the other things rafting ban supporters claim, banning rafting will not stop it. Boaters anchored separately will commit these same offences. Thats another reason why I think the supporters of the ban just don't like rafting, they are justing using these alleged problems to support their cause.

Fargo · 02-11-2005, 02:48 PM

Do you remember in the early 70's when you could only get gas for your car on even or odd days depending what your registration number was? I think the day will come when you will only be able to use your boat on even or odd days depending on the registration number. We do some casual boating in Florida, depending on the day, month and time of day can determine how fast you can drive, anchor and how large your wake can be. Gets confusing real fast. You need a calendar on board. Could happen on Winni. Hope not.

Rattlesnake Gal · 02-11-2005, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fargo

I think the day will come when you will only be able to use your boat on even or odd days depending on the registration number. We do some casual boating in Florida, depending on the day, month and time of day can determine how fast you can drive, anchor and how large your wake can be. Gets confusing real fast. You need a calendar on board. Could happen on Winni. Hope not.

I hope us island folk would be exempt!

Mee-n-Mac · 02-09-2005, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

I agree with what you posted. However, I am not happy with the present law chapter 270:44 (not the new LSR although I am against that too) because it allows any one to petition for a NRZ & could lead to the whole lake becoming a NRZ. Each time a new area becomes a NRZ the rafters will move to another area where it is not banned & that stresses that new area even more & makes property owners in that area more angry & then they petition for a NRZ, it just keeps snowballing.

This is what one of the sponsoring reps believe and uses to justify a lakewide NRZ. I'm less convinced that that'll happen. Not every place on the lake is desirable, or even suitable, for anchoring let alone a "big" raft up. Also I thought it took a min of 25 signatures for a petition to get considered. Short of some real aggrevation I don't think it's automatic to get the people to sign up. Your point below is really a good one and something to further explore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

I think it would be better to make the entire lake rafting friendly except in those areas where for instance Loons nest (and even that is not the whole summer, Loons are done nesting by the end of June I think) or any other area where its clear it presents a hazard like Weirs channel or it can be shown its not environmentally sound etc. That way they are spread out more & property owners in the areas where rafting is allowed do not bear the full burden of all the rafters while others do not where they were able to get a NRZ passed.

I'm not sure that people would spread out enough if more places were rafting friendly though I like the idea because more space and less boats is what I usually am looking for while on the hook. But people who want to raft-up are looking for others to join with. I'm guessing a single raft of 5-10 noisy boaters will be reason enough for some to complain. More or larger rafts become immaterial to the question because at some size and/or noise level it's already hit the trip point. What do you have in mind when you say "rafting friendly" and how would it mitigate the problems that that concern people ?

But what can be done ? Could we find a place to have large rafts, perhaps even loud and bauchus parties w/o bothering the neighbors ? Silver Duck had some fun filling in the Witches but I wonder if something, someplace(s) less daunting could be found*. (any suggestions anyone) Would the more boisterous rafters voluntarily segregate themselves to these DRZs if they would be left alone to do their thing ? In retrospect we boaters should have learned from the various conservation groups. We should have organized and bought islands or shoreline and preserved them for rafting.

*lets have some more fun with this idea. Would you really need to fill in the Witches ? What if you had mooring balls for boats to tie to, along with some floating docks to make an atoll near the rocks ? I think the wave action would likely be too much most of the time but could this idea (or some derivative) be done in some other "remote" location. How about the quadrangle off Patrician Shores, Sands of Brookhurst & Farrar Pt. ?

Mee-n-Mac · 02-11-2005, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Could we find a place to have large rafts, perhaps even loud and bauchus parties w/o bothering the neighbors ? Silver Duck had some fun filling in the Witches but I wonder if something, someplace(s) less daunting could be found*. (any suggestions anyone) Would the more boisterous rafters voluntarily segregate themselves to these DRZs if they would be left alone to do their thing ? In retrospect we boaters should have learned from the various conservation groups. We should have organized and bought islands or shoreline and preserved them for rafting.

*lets have some more fun with this idea. Would you really need to fill in the Witches ? What if you had mooring balls for boats to tie to, along with some floating docks to make an atoll near the rocks ? I think the wave action would likely be too much most of the time but could this idea (or some derivative) be done in some other "remote" location. How about the quadrangle off Patrician Shores, Sands of Brookhurst & Farrar Pt. ?

I suggest we form a rafters political action committee, ROAR.

It'll push to get the state to install mooring balls in places on the lake now labelled un-navigatable. Detailed charts of all the rocks in each DRZ along with a few new key buoys would be installed and few key rock demolished. Members of ROAR would get preferential treatment for mooring positions and pay a small yearly fee to maintain the facilities. Rafts of any size would be permitted, stereo's allowed to, ... well ..., roar. We start with the above "quad" and also push for the area west & north of the Graveyard (Bizer Buoy anyone?).

R.O.A.R. = Rafting Over A lot of Rocks (hmmm, how about Rafting Over Anonymous Rocks ?)

upthesaukee · 02-12-2005, 10:10 AM

I don't know M-n-M... I think that will just generate a PAC or two from another side of the this whole situation. There would be a group that would call themselves RATS (Rafters Against These Statutes). And the third group that comes to mind is the group that wants to ban rafting altogether (they may be out there already under a different name) and they would call themselves BRAT (Ban Rafting All Together).

KTO · 02-12-2005, 06:13 PM

Maybe some common sense would destroy the whole issue. . .

Mee-n-Mac · 02-15-2005, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KTO

Maybe some common sense would destroy the whole issue. . .

Egads man what are trying to do, upset the whole apple cart ?

Actually I don't ever see much resolution to the larger issue as you've got 2 competing legitimate interests here and the lake doesn't lend itself to a 1 rule fits all situations. The extreme positions on either side (no boats off my shoreline and party harder dude) won't ever see eye to eye so I guess the existing regs (because they represent a form of compromise) will stay in place, perhaps with some additional noise enforement. The proposed reg (lakewide NRZ) will fail, and continue to fail in the near term, because there will be enough places and times where it isn't applicable and because it doesn't do anything more than the existing, status quo, RSA.

ApS · 02-14-2005, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KTO

<> "...I believe that those people are mainly the cause for rafting problems. Rafting should be stopped because of those people mentioned. I'm not saying I hate rafters in General, but mainly that I dislike rafters who over abuse their power, and I think it is they who ruin it for the rest of the rafters out there who want a fairly peaceful rafting experience.

Speaking about abusing Power, here's what the GFBL Marine Mafia is saying about Winnipesaukee's rafting problems.

Quote:

"What are they doing to stop the PR ..are they organized ?"

AND...

Quote:

"Unless it was about the [lake]water at the Naswa, that is kinda gnarly down that way, but with 200 people cocked and too lazy to walk to the can, what do you expect?"

(You can't make this stuff up. PM me, and I'll give you the URL -- direct).
ApS

PROPELLER · 02-14-2005, 10:11 AM

Its not a stretch of my imagination Konachick. I was simply trying to determine how your idea could be implemented. There are 3 ways to gain access to the lake: Launching a boat for the day at a ramp, obtaining a slip or dry dock or owning water front property.

You presented the idea without explaining HOW to cut down the number of boats using the lake. Actually, if this idea was ever used, Fargo's system probably is the most fair & would work best. It would create some problems for island owners though.

frank m. · 02-14-2005, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

the GFBL Marine Mafia

what is the GFBL Marine Mafia?

glennsteely · 02-15-2005, 06:31 AM

Just so I know I am on the same page......RAFTING = tying anchored boats together to form sort of an island, on which to picnic, party ect.?

We used to do that at every fireworks show.

and.....what is this mafia?????

KonaChick · 02-16-2005, 07:14 AM

If Tony Soprano tries to raft The Stugots off my dock with some of his "made" friends I suppose the only thing I could do would be to whip up some of my best gravy and climb aboard and join the party. YOU try telling Tony he has to move it along and raft somewhere else!!

ApS · 02-16-2005, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frank m.

what is the GFBL Marine Mafia?

"GFBL" is BoatUS' name for Go Fast Be Loud.

The "Marine Mafia" is the premiere (you should pardon the expression) GFBL Forum. A nickname. Nasty place...makes you want to take a shower after.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eminem :)

Actually I don't ever see much resolution to the larger issue as you've got 2 competing legitimate interests here and the lake doesn't lend itself to a 1 rule fits all situations.

A few sandy islands would be acceptable -- say, at Middle Ground Shoals.

But I see something behind the scenes -- much bigger and sinister -- than a few lakefront dwellers "driving" this initiative.

...and I think some others see it too.

windham17 · 11-25-2009, 02:54 PM

I am not sure why this is such a complex issue. I boat and love the lake. I also raft from time to time. Just one persons view, but why not let rafting be allowed up to 3 boats and then perhaps a few more in designated areas. Rafting with a few boats makes for a great time. When you get 10+ boats together it becomes a nuisance. Not to say you cant have clusters of rafters, but do it in designated areas that doesnt impeed others on the lake. This shouldnt be that complicated...

CL 240 LS · 11-25-2009, 09:33 PM

Betsey Patten of Moultonborough BOS is planning to file bill to ban rafting in Braun Bay.

http://www.moultonborough.org/Pages/...11-19-2009.pdf

BroadHopper · 11-25-2009, 10:38 PM

It's been going on for quite a while.

View Poll Results: Are you for or against rafting?
Should be allowed anywhere	378	36.49%
Should NOT be allowed anywhere	116	11.20%
Only in designated areas	542	52.32%
Voters: 1036. You may not vote on this poll

02-07-2005, 11:22 AM	#4
GWC... Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,325 Thanks: 5 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Poll complaint... RadioButtons are not appropriate for this poll - limit choice to one.

02-07-2005, 05:18 PM	#6
upthesaukee Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Alton Bay Posts: 5,614 Blog Entries: 2 Thanks: 2,483 Thanked 1,987 Times in 1,087 Posts	I must say that we will go out to the broads side of Rattlesnake to have a picnic supper and watch the world go by, and are surprised by the number of fishing boats and others doing the same thing we are doing. If someone wanted to tie to us and join us, all the more power to them. but RG is right, can't always sit out there. __________________ I Live Here... I am always UPTHESAUKEE !!!!

02-07-2005, 07:39 PM	#8
Cal Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Pitman , NJ Posts: 627 Thanks: 40 Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts	KTO, So what you're saying is the few should ruin it for the many??? Those few who pay loud obnoxious music and toss trash over the side can still do that if they are anchored alone , they don't need to raft to do that. Next step ban anchoring???? Just curious. I do find listening to others music hard to swallow sometimes myself. Particularly if I can't here my own radio __________________ Paddle faster , I think I here banjos

02-08-2005, 10:01 AM	#11
PROPELLER Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 340 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Mee-n-Mac I agree with what you posted. However, I am not happy with the present law chapter 270:44 (not the new LSR although I am against that too) because it allows any one to petition for a NRZ & could lead to the whole lake becoming a NRZ. Each time a new area becomes a NRZ the rafters will move to another area where it is not banned & that stresses that new area even more & makes property owners in that area more angry & then they petition for a NRZ, it just keeps snowballing. I think it would be better to make the entire lake rafting friendly except in those areas where for instance Loons nest (and even that is not the whole summer, Loons are done nesting by the end of June I think) or any other area where its clear it presents a hazard like Weirs channel or it can be shown its not environmentally sound etc. That way they are spread out more & property owners in the areas where rafting is allowed do not bear the full burden of all the rafters while others do not where they were able to get a NRZ passed. Although many of the undeveloped areas on the lake are slowly disappearing, many of the rafters do use those areas that are left for rafting so they are not blocking access

02-07-2005, 07:45 AM	#1
Rattlesnake Gal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Central NH Posts: 5,253 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 1,455 Thanked 1,357 Times in 476 Posts	KTO, you forgot the – it doesn’t affect me/I don’t care about this issue option. I suspect there are quite a few here on the forum that would fall into this category.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Rattlesnake Gal For This Useful Post:
AC2717 (07-14-2011), Jonas Pilot (04-19-2012)

02-07-2005, 09:23 AM	#2
ApS Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro Posts: 6,038 Thanks: 2,281 Thanked 787 Times in 563 Posts	KTO: Your poll lists two choices that are essentially the same (the last two). RG: I don't think a "It doesn't affect me/I don't care" is necessary. However, I think a Designated Rafting Zone (DRZ) should be established off Rattlesnake Island.

02-07-2005, 02:20 PM	#5
Dave R Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 2,985 Thanks: 246 Thanked 744 Times in 444 Posts	I don't raft up with anyone but I think it's absurd that it's illegal to do so in certain areas. Whose business is it if If I wish to tie my boat to another boat? I mean, really

02-07-2005, 09:01 PM	#9
KTO Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Meredith, NH Posts: 391 Thanks: 30 Thanked 117 Times in 26 Posts	Ya Cal, I suppose what you are saying is true. . . that's quite tough. . . Perhaps if rafting wasn't allowed, there would be less reason to play music so loud (there wouldn't be any body to play it to) or show off in front of your friends by tossin' the beer back over your shoulder. I don't know. I did say that those select few ruin it for everyone else, and I did mean that. Marine Patrol can't watch every spot on the lake at one time, therefore, to stop all of these problems, maybe rafting should be discontinued, or maybe in certain select areas. . . just a thought. . .

02-08-2005, 02:44 PM	#12
KTO Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Meredith, NH Posts: 391 Thanks: 30 Thanked 117 Times in 26 Posts	Propeller, you bring up a great point. If many areas were accesible to rafters, it may be less crowded. I just have a bit of an irrelavent thought though, that maybe people just like the location (is it enclosed, is there a sandbar or beach?) and would stick to their original spots. I suppose overcrowdedness could be a small problem too. The cove next to Farrar point is commonly filled with 20-60 boats on a regular summer day. And of course there are many others, like Blackey Cove, that just get taken over. I could see the toughness in the decisions!

02-08-2005, 07:47 PM	#13
Silver Duck Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Billerica, MA Posts: 364 Thanks: 40 Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts	I have two thoughts to contribute to this discussion. The first is that I didn't like it the first time I encountered a teacher who was so dog lazy that he punished an entire class rather than be bothered to find and punish the specific guilty parties, and I like it even less now that I'm old enough to recognize it for the injustice it is! There are already laws against public drunkenness, disturbing the peace, littering, public lewdness, and tresspass. The MP or even local town police need to put the effort into catching and penalizing the guilty parties. Punishing the entire boating community for the misconduct of a few members is the lazy way out and is utterly unacceptable! The excuse that offenders will see an MP boat coming and clean up their act is also unacceptable; the concept of un-marked police cars has been around for a very long time and would work just as well on the lake as it does on land! My second thought is that people who build or buy lakefront homes in areas that are heavily used as anchorages should have used due diligence and been aware of that use before building or buying! If they didn't, and don't like boats anchored or rafted in front of their property, tough luck! If they were aware, and figured to roust the boaters once they moved in, even tougher luck! End of Rant! Silver Duck

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Silver Duck For This Useful Post:
Belmont Resident (04-10-2011), Winni P (11-27-2009)

02-08-2005, 10:47 PM	#14
upthesaukee Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Alton Bay Posts: 5,614 Blog Entries: 2 Thanks: 2,483 Thanked 1,987 Times in 1,087 Posts	M-n-M -- Interesting you mention West Alton sand bar. We keep our boat at West Alton Marina, and while it can be very crowded on the Sand bar, east or south side of channel, and can be just as crowded on the other side, the one thing I have not seen in the two years we have had our boat at WAM are rafters blocking the channel. Are a few loud???? are a few inconsiderate by nearly running over your anchor line to get to "their" spot???? Do I enjoy being in the middle of all that???? That's a yes, yes, and a no. So, like you, I go elsewhere (the beauty of a four step ladder - swim up, climb in, life is good) and it doesn't have to be shallow. Silver Duck --- We have called the type mentality you refer to as elementary school mentality...one kid is bad so let's all put our heads down. It has become a management style with companies as well, so it's no wonder that it is making its way into government thinking. Education, Education, Courtesy, and Enforcement!!! sure could go a long way towards happier boating and enjoyment of the lake. __________________ I Live Here... I am always UPTHESAUKEE !!!!

02-09-2005, 09:38 AM	#15
PROPELLER Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 340 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Rafting Excellent posts by Silver Duck & Upthesaukee. However, as I mentioned before, the problem is that in theory the entire lake could become no rafting (except big open bays & the broads) under current law. Maybe boaters that believe this is wrong should try to get together & find our own sponsors to write a bill that will repeal the current law that allows someone to petition for a NRZ & even take back current NRZ'S. Personally, I would even be willing to support a limit on how many boats can raft (say 5 or 6) if the current NRZ'S are repealed & the power of the safety commissioner to designate new NRZ'S by petition is eliminated. Something is better than nothing & it spreads the rafting around more evenly. As they say, a good compromise is when no one is entirely happy.

02-09-2005, 11:12 AM	#16
Commodore Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 45 Thanks: 8 Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post	Rafting, NIMBY Rafting is fine as long as it's Not In My Back Yard or waterfront. We have heard that before. Restricted rafting will not reduce boat and anchoring congestion in those areas. I like to anchor and I also enjoy rafting up with friends. The NRZs (No Rafting Zones) are still crowded anchorages with or without rafts. Boaters are still allowed to raft no more than 2 boats in NRZs and some ignore or are unaware of those rules. My attention is drawn to loud illegal rafting in NRZs. Most always one or more *offshore* style boats are involved with the raft. That's the obnoxious group with the loudest music and people. Again it is a small percent of the offshore boats that become highly visible and that adds to the perceived bad reputation of such boats on the lake . As a boater I wish that the MP would enforce the no rafting rules more diligently. They should also make the specific anchoring and rafting rules for those NRZs more available to the boating public. How far can you anchor from the shore and other boats and rafts? The rules are different for different areas of Winnipesaukee. The Poll questions are slightly confusing. I am in favor of rafting. I can live with the current situation with a few specified NRZs that allow 2 boats to raft. I am not in favor of designated rafting areas. Right now, with the exception of channels, bridges, and a few obvious places, the whole lake is a designated rafting area. The bottom line is respect and courtesy. How do we get that accomplished? __________________ The Commodore

02-09-2005, 11:46 AM	#17
PROPELLER Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 340 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Commodore Yes, you are correct about the NRZ'S still being crowded such as Braun Bay & the West Alton Sand Bar. Those places will always be crowded because they are shallow & sandy. However, in other areas where boaters raft, I think these areas would thin out some if boaters had more options. You have also hit on another theme I believe & that is that banning rafting from the entire lake will not solve any of the problems that rafting ban supporters are complaining about. Like noise, partying, littering etc. (which I believe is very over exaggerated based on my rafting experience) And as you said, it will not eliminate boaters from anchoring. Boaters will still anchor in front of peoples property only they will be ancored separately, not tied together.

02-10-2005, 12:09 PM	#20
PROPELLER Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 340 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Limiting boats? Konachick, how would you limit the number of boats allowed on the lake? Would you close public & private (pay) launches? Would you eliminate already existing slips at the various marinas? Would you somehow take away some property owners privilege of having a boat on the lake? I'm not sure how this would all work.

02-10-2005, 12:19 PM	#21
PROPELLER Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 340 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Mee n Mac Rafting friendly means rafting would be allowed all over the lake, no restricted areas so it would not be concentrated in a few areas. However, a restriction of say 5 boats would be allowed. As far as how this will help with the problems that some have complained about, it will spread boaters who raft around so there is not so much congestion in a few areas. As far as other problems like noise, litter etc. First, I do not believe these problems exist especially to the extent that some claim. I believe its very over exaggerated because they don't like rafting & are looking for any excuse to ban or at least control it. Secondly, if there are people who are noisy, litter or commit any of the other things rafting ban supporters claim, banning rafting will not stop it. Boaters anchored separately will commit these same offences. Thats another reason why I think the supporters of the ban just don't like rafting, they are justing using these alleged problems to support their cause.

02-11-2005, 02:48 PM	#22
Fargo Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Lake Winni Posts: 215 Thanks: 36 Thanked 130 Times in 38 Posts	Boat traffic Do you remember in the early 70's when you could only get gas for your car on even or odd days depending what your registration number was? I think the day will come when you will only be able to use your boat on even or odd days depending on the registration number. We do some casual boating in Florida, depending on the day, month and time of day can determine how fast you can drive, anchor and how large your wake can be. Gets confusing real fast. You need a calendar on board. Could happen on Winni. Hope not.

02-12-2005, 10:10 AM	#26
upthesaukee Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Alton Bay Posts: 5,614 Blog Entries: 2 Thanks: 2,483 Thanked 1,987 Times in 1,087 Posts	PAC's I don't know M-n-M... I think that will just generate a PAC or two from another side of the this whole situation. There would be a group that would call themselves RATS (Rafters Against These Statutes). And the third group that comes to mind is the group that wants to ban rafting altogether (they may be out there already under a different name) and they would call themselves BRAT (Ban Rafting All Together). __________________ I Live Here... I am always UPTHESAUKEE !!!!

02-12-2005, 06:13 PM	#27
KTO Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Meredith, NH Posts: 391 Thanks: 30 Thanked 117 Times in 26 Posts	Maybe some common sense would destroy the whole issue. . .

02-14-2005, 10:11 AM	#30
PROPELLER Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 340 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Its not a stretch of my imagination Konachick. I was simply trying to determine how your idea could be implemented. There are 3 ways to gain access to the lake: Launching a boat for the day at a ramp, obtaining a slip or dry dock or owning water front property. You presented the idea without explaining HOW to cut down the number of boats using the lake. Actually, if this idea was ever used, Fargo's system probably is the most fair & would work best. It would create some problems for island owners though.

02-15-2005, 06:31 AM	#32
glennsteely Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Mantua, N.J. Posts: 472 Thanks: 90 Thanked 111 Times in 38 Posts	That one got me too.... Just so I know I am on the same page......RAFTING = tying anchored boats together to form sort of an island, on which to picnic, party ect.? We used to do that at every fireworks show. and.....what is this mafia????? __________________ You have to go out on a limb sometimes, cause that is where the fruit is. You can't get to the fruit from that nice safe spot, clinging to the trunk of the tree......

02-16-2005, 07:14 AM	#33
KonaChick Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 518 Thanks: 19 Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts	If Tony Soprano tries to raft The Stugots off my dock with some of his "made" friends I suppose the only thing I could do would be to whip up some of my best gravy and climb aboard and join the party. YOU try telling Tony he has to move it along and raft somewhere else!!

11-25-2009, 02:54 PM	#35
windham17 Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 12 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post	I am not sure why this is such a complex issue. I boat and love the lake. I also raft from time to time. Just one persons view, but why not let rafting be allowed up to 3 boats and then perhaps a few more in designated areas. Rafting with a few boats makes for a great time. When you get 10+ boats together it becomes a nuisance. Not to say you cant have clusters of rafters, but do it in designated areas that doesnt impeed others on the lake. This shouldnt be that complicated...

11-25-2009, 09:33 PM	#36
CL 240 LS Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 98 Thanks: 25 Thanked 16 Times in 12 Posts	Braun Bay Rafting Betsey Patten of Moultonborough BOS is planning to file bill to ban rafting in Braun Bay. http://www.moultonborough.org/Pages/...11-19-2009.pdf

11-25-2009, 10:38 PM	#37
BroadHopper Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Laconia NH Posts: 5,615 Thanks: 3,245 Thanked 1,115 Times in 801 Posts	Not surprise It's been going on for quite a while. __________________ Someday may never be an actual day.