Boating Classes

[Onshore]

This side track could be a whole other thread... I'm sorry that I can't make Forum fest yet again this year (working Timberman) because it really wouldn't be a bad to be able to sit down and bat the issues around a bit.

Does the riparian owner have a reasonable right to maintain a dock within the public trust during the winter, after ice-in? If during the boating season the site conditions are such that only permanent structures would safely secure watercraft, then yes. There are certain boating needs and the owner can't reasonably be expected to remove and re-install pilings annually if a piling pier is what the owner needs during the boating season. If a seasonal pier would suffice to hold their boat during the boating season, then it would seem unreasonable to impact the public use of the area by maintaining a structure in the public trust after ice-in.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by shore things

"...Does the riparian owner have a reasonable right to maintain a dock within the public trust during the winter, after ice-in? If during the boating season the site conditions are such that only permanent structures would safely secure watercraft, then yes. There are certain boating needs and the owner can't reasonably be expected to remove and re-install pilings annually if a piling pier is what the owner needs during the boating season. If a seasonal pier would suffice to hold their boat during the boating season, then it would seem unreasonable to impact the public use of the area by maintaining a structure in the public trust after ice-in.

Piling docks still expose a boater to Hazard: I found large pieces of somebody's docking light at the end of my dock one morning. This is a docking light:


Starting at dawn, I probably spend more time on the dock than in boats, so I appreciate the "sturdiness" of a piling dock; however, a piling dock is subject to winter-ice damage.

Replacement pilings aren't the answer: driving a replacement piling into a "disturbed" lake bed allows ice to "lift-out" pilings and cause them to sink or float away.

1) Today, two "replacement pilings" lie in sight on the bottom. (One is mine, another is a neighbor's).
2) The top half (6-feet) of one of my "tie-off pilings" disappeared in Spring two years ago.
3) Through a new thread, I reported a "tie-off piling" adrift on strong Winnipesaukee winds this Spring. Oops—I see that thread disappeared between Space and Time.

Anyway, it turned out to be a neighbor's which had become a dreaded deadhead——a hazard to navigation...hence, my prior emphasis of "Rule 5".

Though I've managed to personally repair every piling that ice has damaged, ice damage needing repairs has happened nearly every other winter.

Circulators are necessary, expensive to operate, pose a electrical shock hazard, create an open-water/thin-ice hazard to all persons using the shoreline, enable ducks around all winter, allow muddy runoff directly to the shore's edge, require an unsightly sign, and disturb the immediate underwater environment.

(Possibly reducing lake-water temperatures all year ).

If I had it to do over again, I'd request a minimum number of pilings driven above the reach of winter ice. (Only four pilings need driving for a 40-foot dock).

At that point—perhaps 20-feet out—I'd hinge an aluminum dock which could be raised before "Ice-In". Fewer decking sections would need moving each season. (The raised portion of a "Hybrid Dock" could be folded back on the dock, or kept in a raised position, which would expose much less surface to winter winds.)

A "Hybrid Dock", as described, would be unaffected by ice damage, pose less hazard to snowmobiles, "accidental skimming", and not require any circulators—or the hazards and expenses associated with them.

As an alternative to aluminum, one could attach a large plastic floating dock, similar to this docking system I posted as a new thread this past winter:



If complainants can damage that dock, we definitely have a problem!