Department of Safety Watercraft Decisions by Year

[lawn psycho]

As some information sharing, I found a link showing the watercraft laws/rule changes from the DOS website. Of note is how many no-rafting petitions get filed each year. I think the hodge-podge rules for rafting need closer scrutiny.

https://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/...aft/index.html

[Belmont Resident]

No rafting petition = bonehead who thinks THEY own the water.
Bottom line is if you don’t like boats on a public lake in front of your house take your money and go somewhere else.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Belmont Resident

No rafting petition = bonehead who thinks THEY own the water.
Bottom line is if you don’t like boats on a public lake in front of your house take your money and go somewhere else.

Well I am personally on a crusade to stop the abuse of no rafting petitions. Stay tuned

I'm waiting for NHMP to send me the invoice as I have to pay $1 per page to get copies of all the past no rafting petitions which inlcude those on the books and those that were denied. I want to summarize and validate the names on them. I'll post them here once I have them.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Belmont Resident

No rafting petition = bonehead who thinks THEY own the water.
Bottom line is if you don’t like boats on a public lake in front of your house take your money and go somewhere else.

If you own waterfront property you ARE the literal owner of the lake in front of your property. So in a sense they do own the lake.

If a homeowner believes that the boats in front of their property are creating a problem then they have every right to petition the state for a remedy.

If you don't like No Rafting petitions then change the law. Step one would probably be contacting state legislators. If you don't do that, then don't complain when things don't change.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If you own waterfront property you ARE the literal owner of the lake in front of your property. So in a sense they do own the lake.

If a homeowner believes that the boats in front of their property are creating a problem then they have every right to petition the state for a remedy.

If you don't like No Rafting petitions then change the law. Step one would probably be contacting state legislators. If you don't do that, then don't complain when things don't change.

BI, you don't possess the lake. You have a right to the accessories such as dock and swim areas. THAT'S IT. As you know, there is a big difference between littoral and literal owner as you typed You seem to push this every time it comes up over the years, even Skip has beat you up on this topic in the past. You don't have ownership. Don't believe me, talk to a municipal attorney. And don't try and bring up law about "rights" as that does not imply ownership. Example: Can you post the lake waters in front of your property with no tresspassing signs and ask the NHMP to enforce them? Oops, can't do that if you don't own that area can you?

The issue with the "problems" you elude too that owners report are in fact the mere presence of ANY boats. We all know this so try and spin that as you may, it won't work. Owners hype the amount of problems in their efforts to get these petitions to pass. Example: I posted the complaints from Braun Bay as given by the NHMP and it was a very, very small number. Yet the area is restricted for rafting.

You also forget there is a thing called called freedom of assembly. Are homeowners in subdivisions allowed to petition to have groups of people "restricted" from public roads? Answer: They can't

Rafting restrictions as a safety item? Hogwash. If rafting poses a safety issue then why is it not banned lake wide but only in areas specific to indivdual needs. If anything, I think rafting restrictions actually create potential safety issues. I'll explain below.

My primary issue with the rafting restrictions is that they do more than limit boats being tied together. When a no rafting area is approved, that area then restricts even a single boat from anchoring within 150 ft of the shore. So even with the raftingrestrictions "thinning the ranks", the restricted area actually creates an exclusion zone. I don't think single boats should be part of the rafting rules as they are mutually exclusive items.

Take the West Alton Sandbar for example. They now have markers 150 ft out. So between the shore and the markers is a 150 ft no mans land as people tend to stay close to their boats. This means that people with kids are now in deeper water, people inherently squeeze their boats closer together, and then anchor close the the main travel lanes of passing boat traffic. That doesn't serve the public very well now does it. All this to appease one homeowner near the sandbar who recently built that home despite the fact the sandbar has been used for people using the pristine area for YEARS.

There are a limited number of prime anchoring areas that accomodate larger numbers of boats. These areas are out of primary boat travel areas, sandy bottoms, and shallow to fascilitate swimming and recreation.

What appears to be happening is more and more shore front owners are attempting to abuse the no rafting regulations for personal benefit. That is not consistent with equitable use of the lake. There are loose guidelines for what would deem an area as worthy of rafting restrictions. Just because a shore front owner wants personal space is not on the list and is why some of the areas get denied. So yes, just having 25 people hope that one of these petitions sticks is not sufficient reason.

Don't misread what I am saying. Shore front owners should have their equitable use of the lake as well but 150' buffer is ridiculus. If you put in a 150' ring lake-wide, image how many areas would be truly desireable to anchor. Once you get more than 5-6 feet, swimming, etc is out the window for anyone with smaller kids. I think a 50 ft requirement is more than sufficient and the rafting rules should change. Makes no sense that Bruan Bay allows 75 feet but all others require 150 ft. That kind of haphazard rules shows that safety is not the primary reason or things would be uniform across the lake. Other than safety, privacy from a public body of water should be trumped handily. I think there is civil law to support my assertion as well.

This is a battle I have found worth fighting for.....

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

...
You also forget there is a thing called called freedom of assembly. Are homeowners in subdivisions allowed to petition to have groups of people "restricted" from public roads? Answer: They can't

.....

You picked a bad example. Homeowners in subdivisions can request block party permits that allow them to close down public roads. I work in the events business and we set up equipment, tables, chairs, tents etc. on public roads every week.

I can see your point about rafting. But I can also see the homeowners view (or lack of view). I don't think there are any easy answers on this one. The lake is a limited resource and disagreements like this will probably go on for centuries. However I think you have every right to your opinion and to fight for what you believe is right.

Every now and then someone on this forum will post to the effect that waterfront land owners don't have more right to the lake than everyone else. I then post to explain why they are wrong. I am not saying we own the lake. I'm saying we have rights to the lake that others do not.

I don't remember Skip "beating me up" on this subject. However I am willing to bet he has posted clarifications on the limited rights of "Littoral Owners".

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I can see your point about rafting. But I can also see the homeowners view (or lack of view). I don't think there are any easy answers on this one. I don't remember Skip "beating me up" on this subject. However I am willing to bet he has posted clarifications on the limited rights of "Littoral Owners".

My question to any shore front owner is what is equitable?

I primarily want to remove the single vessel language from the rafitng rules and reduce the 150' as I think it's excessive.

[jrc]

Let's not drag up littoral rights to address this, the shore front landowners are not restricting the access, the state is. The state has a right to control "parking" in a public park. State and city governments routinely restrict parking on land as well.

Police in general have an aversion to crowds, if you watch the news about any public gathering that went sour or the TV shows about spring break on Lake Havasu and you see why. For them it's safer to restrict our right to peacefully assemble early, rather than deal with a riot later. So they are usually going to side with anti-assembly rules. It make their job easier and them safer.

You can see this in the rafting laws and rules. The state law (RSA 270:44) does not have the language about 150' from shore. The Safety rule Saf-C 407 adds the 150' language. So the state legislature adopted a rafting law and the Deparment of Safety implemented an even stricter rule in their rulemaking process.

I think these rules are overused and capriciously applied but they are legal.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by jrc

So they are usually going to side with anti-assembly rules. It make their job easier and them safer.

You can see this in the rafting laws and rules. The state law (RSA 270:44) does not have the language about 150' from shore. The Safety rule Saf-C 407 adds the 150' language. So the state legislature adopted a rafting law and the Deparment of Safety implemented an even stricter rule in their rulemaking process.

I think these rules are overused and capriciously applied but they legal.

As far as safety, I believe the fact that rafting restrictions are only applied in select areas shows that rafting is not a safety concern. I could organize a large raft on the day of ice-out anywhere outside the rafting restricted areas.

The RSA and Saf-C 407 do exist on the books but doesn't mean they can't be challenged. It wasn't that long ago that women and blacks couldn't vote and at one time was considered legal. Semantics aside, I think we agree that the rule is overused in it's application. From a legal standpoint, the restrictions on assembly would have to be compelling for a court to side with the state and given that rafting is only in specific areas, with a heavy emphasis in Moultonborough would make it hard for them to use a safety argument.

[jrc]

Obviously any law can be challenged and the rule could be challenged as well, saying it has no underlying law to support it. But wouldn't it be cleaner to change the law using the normal legislative process? Boaters seem to have voice in Concord.

It would be great if some sort of grand compromise could be hashed out that addresses the rights of shore front landowners and boaters. Something addressing rafting, and overnight anchoring, with the restrictions based on the actual safety and nuisance issues, rather than painting everybody with a broad brush.

This was rafting a Braun Bay before the law, it doesn't look all that scary...

[lawn psycho]

jrc, nice image!

I agree that a compromise is needed. What is currently on the books just adds to the angst between shorefront owners and boaters IMO.

So what would you propose above what I am recommending?

[BroadHopper]

does not seem to be a problem on other lakes. Look at the huge rafting party on Lake Winnisquam off of Mosquito Bridge. Seems like no one is 'killing' each other to warrant a rafting restriction. Newfound Lake has its rafting parties and so do Sunapee and Squam. How about the 'famous' Lake George? They have huge rafting parties. I don't see major complaints.

Seems to me the property owners are overreacting and causing more problems than what it is worth. By initiating no rafting zones, boaters will go elsewhere. Then other property owners will follow suit. Pretty soon the whole lake is a no raft zone. Then a case of boater's rights, property owner's rights and who owns the lake will be taken up in superior court? Don't like to see that happen but I can foresee it in the future.

if there is trouble to be had from a rafting party, the property owner can call the marine patrol. I know they get there pretty quick and break up the party. I know of a number of cases that other parties in a rafting zone call marine patrol on a few rowdies and the MP does a good job of fighting the fire.

Since 1892, my folks realize that boat rafting is a fact of living on the lake. Many folks enjoy rafting in front of the property and rarely do we have a problem with it. It's when these mcMansion owners from the southern states that comes up and think they own the lake. I'm at war mostly with these fat cats than I am with boaters. They think my folks are pee-ons as we don't care for the 'status quo'.
It is funny how they think driving around in their Escalades and using phosphate fertilizers makes them King of the Lake. I beg to differ.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

My question to any shore front owner is what is equitable?

I primarily want to remove the single vessel language from the rafitng rules and reduce the 150' as I think it's excessive.

I don't think a 150' restriction is excessive. I have moorings at approximately 50' and 150' plus a swim raft at 100'. Obviously kayaks, canoes swimmers etc. travel through his area all the time. Fishermen are in this area daily.

All that is reasonable. However a boat dropping anchor, possibly on my drinking water intake, in this area to party or hang out or play music is unnecessary and rude. If it happened a lot I would be looking for a no rafting zone myself.

You may look at that rafting picture above and think it looks like fun. When I look at it I wonder how many of those boats have a head! People will take the family rafting for the day, many with little children. Where do they go to the bathroom? I boated on Winni many years before I bought my place so I already know the answer to that question.

Take another look at that picture and imagine your drinking water intake is a few feet under one of those boats.

[jrc]

That's what wrong with the current laws. It makes some areas and some peoples waterfront special at the expense of the rest. We need a rule that makes it more likely that boaters will gather away from people's houses. Today's rules have the opposite effect.

Now unless people really believe that they can limit the total number of boats on the lake. We should work to find a reasonable compromise. As more and more of the lake becomes NRZ, I'm going to anchor in other places. Eventually it will be in front of someone's house.

I'm not giving up my boat, I'm not going to anchor in the middle of the Broads, so let me anchor where I don't bother someone.

Put in or reinforce lakewide restrictions for noise, drunkeness, water intakes, mooring, swimlines, overcrowding and real safety issues. Do away with arbitrary spacing rules for special people who game the system. Does it really matter if 50 boats are in Braun Bay as 25 rafts of 2 or five rafts of ten?


As to toilets, that picture is from the late 80's and at least half of the boats had porta-potties. My parents took that picture after leaving the raft and know most of those people. Today, most boats sold for day use on the lake have some type of head. Ask any Winnipesaukee marina if he wants to sell a bow rider without a head.

But surprise people pee in the lake, BI I guarantee that some of your friends and family swimming from your shorefront have peed in the lake.

[BroadHopper]

I suppose we must ban the wild animals from peeing in the lake. I can see that bad a$$ bass peeing in your water intake!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

I suppose we must ban the wild animals from peeing in the lake. I can see that bad a$$ bass peeing in your water intake!

Bass don't stand on their swim platform and pee into the lake as they pass by. Human "adults" have done that.

After a few experiences like that you start to not care so much about boaters rights.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Bass don't stand on their swim platform and pee into the lake as they pass by. Human "adults" have done that.

After a few experiences like that you start to not care so much about boaters rights.

It's always a slipper slope BI, no pun intended

You are quite a bit different when discussing Your rights as opposed to trampling on others. Some folks may Feel scared when seeing an unattended 8 year old bombing around near their docks, boats, maybe even campers swimming. That's fine with you, you want your kids to have that "right". Maybe it's better if we ban them only when they hit 13?

BH is logical suggesting rafting areas in more isolated areas. I think many of you guys would do well to learn from Hazelnut, who tries to include everyone when discussing these topics, not just himself.

You mention that you used to boat for many years on Winni before you had a place. I guess there weren't many folks around like yourself back then to make your trips more miserable.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I don't think a 150' restriction is excessive. I have moorings at approximately 50' and 150' plus a swim raft at 100'. Obviously kayaks, canoes swimmers etc. travel through his area all the time. Fishermen are in this area daily.

All that is reasonable. However a boat dropping anchor, possibly on my drinking water intake, in this area to party or hang out or play music is unnecessary and rude. If it happened a lot I would be looking for a no rafting zone myself.

You may look at that rafting picture above and think it looks like fun. When I look at it I wonder how many of those boats have a head! People will take the family rafting for the day, many with little children. Where do they go to the bathroom? I boated on Winni many years before I bought my place so I already know the answer to that question.

Take another look at that picture and imagine your drinking water intake is a few feet under one of those boats.

Regarding porta-potties as mentioned, many boats today do infact have head facilites on board. However, I don't see boaters peeing in the lake as a wide-spread health concern. Rather, I see this argument as chafe. If urinating in the lake is a problem, then why not restrict all human contact with the lake, inlcuding swim lines, rafts, docks, etc. In fact in the spring it's debris from shore front properties that create water borne hazards. I will say that if drinking water quality is a concern it is incumbent on you the homeowner to install a filtration system.

Honestly, there are far greater concerns I would have about consuming the lake water than human urine. You ever think lake water can come into contact with dead/decaying animals and where that water goes?

Regarding your swim platform, without taking my time to revisit the requirements I am fairly certain that if you have a swim raft 100' from shore that it's not legal.

I notice you put the words "party" to preface the "hanging out". Again, the verb/adjectices should be chosen carefully as it seems quite often that shorefront owners want to use language to bolster their case. In my experience on the lake, major parties are the exception and not the rule. Additionally, rafting and/or anchoring is primarilly between 9AM until about 3-5PM on good weather weekends only. I find that amount of time to be a very small burden on anyone.

So would you propose 150' exclusion ring all around the lake for anchoring? Would this include a single boat as well or boats with spacing between them? Do you realize that most lakes in this country have nothing as restrictive as Winni does for rafting/anchoring? Why should this lake be an exception?

Again, what would satisfy yourself as a shorefront owner with rewritten rafting rules? I honestly want to hear from people like yourself what do you consider a realistic, logical, and amicable solution?

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Bass don't stand on their swim platform and pee into the lake as they pass by. Human "adults" have done that.

After a few experiences like that you start to not care so much about boaters rights.

Yeah, and nothing like watching old fat men walking around their shorefront properties with their crack hanging out of their pajamas as they are walking the dog (who is peeing and pooping).

[jrc]

It not really worth continuing this discussion. It's going to get nasty and end up in the "issues" section.

If someone peed of a swim platform in front of your place then they were very rude. If we start taking away a group of peoples rights because of the actions of a few of the group then we really don't have any rights.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by jrc

It not really worth continuing this discussion. It's going to get nasty and end up in the "issues" section.

If someone peed of a swim platform in front of your place then they were very rude. If we start taking away a group of peoples rights because of the actions of a few of the group then we really don't have any rights.

jrc, so what would you propose for changes? I would like to see if this forum can offer a solution that is not all or nothing.

I can't wait too have a NH address again...

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Regarding your swim platform, without taking my time to revisit the requirements I am fairly certain that if you have a swim raft 100' from shore that it's not legal.

In the past there have not been any requirements for swim rafts. Last spring and summer they were working on a permit process and I remember there were proposed limits. Have they finalized this? I have not seen the permit application on the MP website yet.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Honestly, there are far greater concerns I would have about consuming the lake water than human urine.

I don't know about that one:

[jrc]

Bang, in the dungeon.

Let's see how this went:

Hey I want to do something about NRZs...
Boneheads thinks they own the lake...
We do own the lake...
Do not...
Don't anchor near my place or I'll get a NRZ...
Stop peeing in my water supply...
Everyone pees in the lake...
Dirty boaters pee in the lake and I don't care about their rights...
Look some guy in St Louis has porta-potty but never used it (obligitory APS non-sequitor)

Moved to issues section...

Lawn psycho I think you are on the right track with your research.

Happy New Year!

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I don't know about that one:

APS, I have a question for you now that you have helped to get this thread moved here. When you are on your long sailing adventures, where do you go to the bathroom? And if you use a container, where do you dump it?

Back to the anchoring buffer zone, I don't know if the buffer zone needs to be at 150' from the shore, but perhaps 150' from the inhabited shore would be OK. By that I mean, being 50' off shore but 150' up the shore from a dock beach, etc would be fine. When I anchor and hang out, I would not be comfortable being close enough to a house where I could carry on a conversation with the homeowners easily.

[Pineedles]

I don't have a problem with boaters coming close to the shore. In fact that's how I met a real nice guy who was fishing, Topwater.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

When you are on your long sailing adventures, where do you go to the bathroom? And if you use a container, where do you dump it?

For your perusal:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ba...&start=10&sa=N

1) While touring Barbers Pole, member hazelnut had the opportunity to see my miniature porta-potty, but failed to require production of it for examination purposes.

2) I always swill a twelve-pack of Busch-Lite before "pointing" in the direction of the nearest GFBL.

3) That said, my small collection of 1-pt porta-potties has been observed by at least three members of this forum.

Originally Posted by VitaBene

APS, I have a question for you now that you have helped to get this thread moved here.

ME???

Where would one expect a thread to end up following these actual mean-spirited phrasings—suggestive of warfare?

battle
Crusade
fighting
Freedom of assembly (Politics)
peoples [sic] rights (Politics)
bonehead (a thread-dooming word, if ever there was one)
hodge-podge
Hogwash
correcting "Literal" (while hypocritically using "eluded too")
non-sequitor [sic]
peed of [sic] a swim platform (twice)
too [sic] have a NH address again... (out-of-state whiner)
Boneheads (again)...
old fat men (Agist comment)
porta-potty
peeing in my water supply...
Everyone pees in the lake...
Dirty boaters pee...
their crack hanging out of their pajamas
dogs peeing and pooping
peeing in the lake
urinating in the lake
consuming the lake water than human urine
owners should purchase filters
decaying animals
bad a$$ bass peeing in your water
people pee in the lake
some of your friends...have peed in the lake
Bruan [sic] Bay
haphazard rules

Now I ask you, just where could such a civil discussion ever go wrong?

Originally Posted by lawnpsycho

Why should this lake be an exception?

Because Winnipesaukee is an exceptional lake?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I don't know about that one:

Perhaps the porta potty in the 10 year old boat was used so often that it had to be replaced?

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by jrc

Lawn psycho I think you are on the right track with your research.

jrc, I have found quite a few nuggets that I am compiling. I can't wait to get the list of names and see if there are any repeats.

It's a shame this issue can't continue to be debated in the main boating section. I'm trying to gather input from both sides to find common ground and a workable solution. IMO what's on the books now just plain stinks for everyone.

Once I have everything put together, I will be sending it to the various agencies.

What I don't like is how the DOS can write safety rules or institute a no rafting zone with only 25 people's signatures and a public hearing at the local town hall. The requirements to obtain a NRZ are subjective which throws more mud into the water.

Vitabene is on to something. Here is a screen shot from the current google maps of the West Alton Sandbar and I have put in a rough line of the 150 ft distance from the shore. The parallax error from the satellite angle throws it off a bit but it's close enough to get the point across.

In the lower right of the image you see the house that was built in the last 4-5 years as I recall (don't remember exactly when it was built). That is the only home adjacent to the area. I will also add that he should have done some diligence if living next to a sandbar was going to be an issue.
With the NRZ that is in place, the entire area including the entrance to Small's Cove which leads to West Alton Marina is restricted from legally anchoring. Look at the amount of area where there is no inhabited area but yet you can't legally anchor even a single boat. The two boats in the image below that are inside the 150 marker could be cited for a rafting violation. I think that's just silly.

I should put a second line that shows approximately where the sandbar gets to about 5-6 feet deep as that's end of the desirable area to anchor and swim. So now that area pushes boats closer together than they would naturally "self-seed". This is the one that burns my butt as now there is a 150 ft no man's land there. Next summer I will get a picture to show how non-functional it is. I believe the DOS pooched it when they drafted their safety rules and allowed this area to be a NRZ.

It's not my style but I really want to get a loud set of speakers and a bass box installed on my boat and point it at that house. Start at about 6:30AM and stay ALL DAY. Maybe even play the same song over and over again

[jrc]

Lawn, please don't even joke about bothering that house with noise.

First, it will not help your cause, as a matter of fact, someone will use it at any proceeding discussing NRZ to discredit you.

Second, that NRZ has been there for at least a dozen years before that house. I have video of the NRZ bouy from the 80's.

I guess you have to look to who owns that beach to find the real drive behind that NRZ. They used to brag about it but now deny it. I know what I believe.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by jrc

Second, that NRZ has been there for at least a dozen years before that house. I have video of the NRZ bouy from the 80's.

The NRZ was there but only recently did MP starting putting 150' markers out in the sandbar. I was there one day this summer when MP trolled through and made about 5-6 boats move farther from shore. The owner of that house was standing at the waters edge.

Ironically, the noise in the sandbar that day was coming from that house

[jrc]

APS

Spelling? That's all you got spelling?


Freedom of assembly is politics? Are you a follower of this guy?

http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=7988

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by jrc

Spelling? That's all you got spelling?
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=7988

It's all good jrc, he can call us out for bad spelling. I don't proof. However APS wouldn't know what a paragraph is if it him over the head.

In fact, the hack and slash style he uses is why I stop reading many of his posts by the second or third line.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by jrc

Freedom of assembly is politics?

I listed "Freedom of assembly" because "Freedom of assembly" doesn't fit into this forum's philosophy—when argued.

Originally Posted by jrc

APS Spelling? That's all you got spelling?

1) ...and grammar...

2) Much of my life's outlook has come from a place where "Excellence is Expected".

3) You don't agree that "Lake Winnipesaukee is exceptional"?

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

It's not my style but I really want to get a loud set of speakers and a bass box installed on my boat and point it at that house. Start at about 6:30AM and stay ALL DAY. Maybe even play the same song over and over again

Wow...and some of you ask why we SL supporters are unwilling to disclose our names and locations. Last year in response to a comment from a SL supporter who said the lake was more peaceful and quiet, the post from a SL opponent was "let me know where you live, I'll take care of that."
And then of course the now infamous post from speedwake: " I can't wait to find out who the Asz is that started this! If they want to live on 'Golden Pond' then they should move a few miles away to "Golden Pond." If this goes through I have a feeling that I may just end up on the front pages of newspapers!!!!"

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Wow...and some of you ask why we SL supporters are unwilling to disclose our names and locations. Last year in response to a comment from a SL supporter who said the lake was more peaceful and quiet, the post from a SL opponent was "let me know where you live, I'll take care of that."
And then of course the now infamous post from speedwake: " I can't wait to find out who the Asz is that started this! If they want to live on 'Golden Pond' then they should move a few miles away to "Golden Pond." If this goes through I have a feeling that I may just end up on the front pages of newspapers!!!!"

Nice try. Won't work.

Maybe you should re-read the first part of that snippet.

[Pepper]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

...
In fact, the hack and slash style he uses is why I stop reading many of his posts by the second or third line.

I often find it extremely difficult to read his posts as well. I usually get to the second or third line and give up. As a result, I have no idea what his stand is on most issues.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

In the past there have not been any requirements for swim rafts. Last spring and summer they were working on a permit process and I remember there were proposed limits. Have they finalized this? I have not seen the permit application on the MP website yet.

I stand corrected. The proposed requirements are not in effect which would be 50 ft or 8ft of depth whichever comes first.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You picked a bad example. Homeowners in subdivisions can request block party permits that allow them to close down public roads. I work in the events business and we set up equipment, tables, chairs, tents etc. on public roads every week.

I can see your point about rafting. But I can also see the homeowners view (or lack of view). I don't think there are any easy answers on this one. The lake is a limited resource and disagreements like this will probably go on for centuries. However I think you have every right to your opinion and to fight for what you believe is right.

BI,

I am going to call you out here.. You yourself have posted a bad example for comparison, How can you compare a rafting law to a permit to close a road for a day or two, temporarily. Temp. Permits are one thing, as they are in effect for a particular period of time, and then the ban is lifted. Something like a no-wake zone, or a no rafting area, however are not temporary permits, they are ordinances, that are permanent, until legally repealed.

Please if you want to draw comparison, compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.... Try to submit and application, to have a road closed permanently... and then draw a comparison.

The bottom line is this, you have to petition for these things for a reason. People both for and against need to be able to put there argument in front of the ruling authority. Hence why SBONH has supported legislation to make sure proper notification is given, to those people most effected by rule changes. Those people with property abutting the lake, in that particular area.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Pepper

I often find it extremely difficult to read his posts as well. I usually get to the second or third line and give up. As a result, I have no idea what his stand is on most issues.

Pepper, I enjoy your contributions to this forum. Did you notice that by contributing to the "Lake Issues" forum that you are being read by triple the numbers at other forums?

Sorry you have difficulty, but I must couch my replies in very careful language. Just now, I come tired and exhausted from a different (and tiny) Lakes Region forum. Just as here, the attacks on my family go unabated.

Your dock hasn't been measured for DEA compliance, your property hasn't been photographed, your living standards weren't spied upon, your IRS returns weren't questioned, no threats were made to report your "aberrant" behavior (while sailing) —nor were your reports of local lake celebrities monitored and criticized.

The opposition to sensible and sober regulations knows no bounds, and they try to silence the voices of peaceable boaters. WinnFABS (a "family alliance") doesn't even attempt to get involved here.

In short, the loud tenor—and the marginalizing efforts—of the opposition is such that I (much like Sarah Palin) must be careful in my choice of words.

It does make for difficult reading.

[jrc]

After this I just had to dig a little and find the "different (and tiny) Lakes Region forum" that caused you to be both tired and exhausted.

Let's just say it's some of the funniest stuff I've read in a long time. It brings back memories of the early days here. I'm not really involved in that town, so I didn't post but I read for over an hour.

With all due respect APS, have you ever shown your posts to a family member, or someone else you respect and trust?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Would you be kind enough to identify this "other" forum or is it too secretive to divulge?

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Would you be kind enough to identify this "other" forum or is it too secretive to divulge?

I think this might be the Secret Forum in question: Nb

http://wolfeboro.forumcab.com/

[jrc]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

I think this might be the Secret Forum in question: Nb

http://wolfeboro.forumcab.com/

that's where he is, a few other familiar names as well...

[ClosetExtrovert]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

As some information sharing, I found a link showing the watercraft laws/rule changes from the DOS website. Of note is how many no-rafting petitions get filed each year. I think the hodge-podge rules for rafting need closer scrutiny.

https://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/...aft/index.html

Really?? I'm so sick of more laws. More and more laws. A few laws are a good idea. But now the congress wants to draft a law against bullying. I'd LOVE to see how that one shakes out. I imagine a line of 3rd graders in handcuffs...