Area between mark and timber islands

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by winnienox

Has anyone ever been anchored near mark island between mark and timber and had a guy rather aggressively approach you and tell you to leave...? I assume he's lying when he says it's illegal to anchor there at all - even at least 200 feet from the shoreline... is there some special rule I'm not familiar with...?


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

I know there were problems there a while back with the people that owned the property on Timber Is where people would just sort of help themselves to getting on shore and doing whatever even though there were signs that very clearly state that is private property no trespassing. I believe on several occasions some of the offenders were confronted not sure if by the actual property owners or not. Regardless it amazes me how little respect there is for no trespassing signs, unless there is some sort of emergency where it were necessary to do so. I guess everyone seems to think they don't apply to them and somehow the people that put them up are doing so merely as a suggestion. Same thing was going on with the rope swing that was on the other side of the island that eventually ended up being taken down.

That said if you're on the water and over 150' from shore anchored over there you should be good and whoever that guy was is wrong to be out there telling people to leave.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

That said if you're on the water and over 150' from shore anchored over there you should be good and whoever that guy was is wrong to be out there telling people to leave.

Legally, you're good even if you are anchored one foot from shore. The lake is owned by the state, and shore front property owners have no exclusive legal right to any water in front of their property. Mind you, I am talking about what is allowed under the law, not what good manners or your own conscience may dictate.

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by TMI Guy

Legally, you're good even if you are anchored one foot from shore. The lake is owned by the state, and shore front property owners have no exclusive legal right to any water in front of their property. Mind you, I am talking about what is allowed under the law, not what good manners or your own conscience may dictate.

Technically, you are not correct. Property owners do have "exclusive" rights to the water in front of their properties that the general public does not have. For instance, a property owner has the exclusive right to "wharf out" in front of their property, whereas the public has no right whatsoever to "wharf out" in front of privately owned land. Here's a good document that describes these Riparian Rights.

https://www4.des.state.nh.us/blogs/l...Hampshire3.pdf

[fatlazyless]

So, if someone is paddling along on a standup paddle board, and paddles along the shoreline, lined with private homes, with a different house for every 100' of shoreline, each with its own dock and a motorboat....there really isn't any presumed protocol for how close one can paddle?

Like, one can paddle within 10' of the dock, or 10' of the shoreline, or in between the shoreline and a moored boat ..... different people probably have different thoughts on what's the protocol .... but probably one has the legal right to paddle within 12" of the shoreline, or 12" of a dock, or boat, or moored boat.

Paddle boards are a little different than kayaks because they can be wobbly and it is considered to be a vessel that requires a pfd with a whistle except when being used as a swimmer's float .....so it gets a little confusing.....and different people have different thoughts about what their water rights include....and what's open to outside users?

Everyone just needs to get along ...... or something ...... maybe spend 10-minutes doing the downward dog yoga pose, just inches from a foreign home owner's dock, balancing on a sup and contemplate the meaning of littoral water rights and Lake Winnipesaukee?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsdA_9B-zlE: sup paddle boarding, May 21, 2013, water temp 60-degrees, Wolfeboro, 1:34 .....as a waterfront home owner....would it bother you if she paddled past your dock by within ten feet distance?

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Like, one can paddle within 10' of the dock, or 10' of the shoreline, or in between the shoreline and a moored boat ..... different people probably have different thoughts on what's the protocol .... but probably one has the legal right to paddle within 12" of the shoreline, or 12" of a dock, or boat, or moored boat.

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT !

Kayak / Paddleboard / or motorboat (at headway speed) can pass as close at they want -- as well as inside of moorings.

With that said, it is not courteous for a motorboat to do it -- but all others - common practice !


.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Phantom

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT !

Kayak / Paddleboard / or motorboat (at headway speed) can pass as close at they want -- as well as inside of moorings.

With that said, it is not courteous for a motorboat to do it -- but all others - common practice !


.

Agreed--FLL's post also fits with BroadHopper's basic notion that common sense and courtesy should prevail. Motorboats, which have a much larger "footprint", should stay further out, not anchor in direct sight, etc. Kayaks and SUPs weaving between docks, rafts, etc aren't bothering anyone.

[MDoug]

Originally Posted by Phantom

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT !

Kayak / Paddleboard / or motorboat (at headway speed) can pass as close at they want -- as well as inside of moorings.

With that said, it is not courteous for a motorboat to do it -- but all others - common practice !


.

There's a lady on the point near Y Landing who has been yelling at my boat for over 15 years, saying I pass too close to her dock when I am entering the cove from Bear. Also complains that my headway speed is too fast. When I pointed out that she doesn't own the lake, she replied, "Oh, yes I do."
When I mentioned her to other boaters and the workers at the gas dock, they all recognized her. "She yells at everybody," said one worker.

[8gv]

Maybe toss her a couple more cats?

[tis]

Are you making a wake when you go close to her dock? Here we go again.

[MDoug]

Originally Posted by tis

Are you making a wake when you go close to her dock? Here we go again.

Nope. I have a flat bottom boat and gps shows 5 knots. She has a big boat house, no dock.

[tis]

Then if you truly are not making a wake, even a small one, she has no reason to yell at you when you go close to her dock.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by MDoug

Nope. I have a flat bottom boat and gps shows 5 knots. She has a big boat house, no dock.

Then it's especially ironic that she scolds you. She's only allowed the boathouse because it's grandfathered. Today the authorities would say a boathouse is too intrusive on the water.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by MDoug

There's a lady on the point near Y Landing who has been yelling at my boat for over 15 years, saying I pass too close to her dock when I am entering the cove from Bear. Also complains that my headway speed is too fast. When I pointed out that she doesn't own the lake, she replied, "Oh, yes I do."
When I mentioned her to other boaters and the workers at the gas dock, they all recognized her. "She yells at everybody," said one worker.

If there's room, next time pull inside the boathouse, without touching anything. That'll flip her out...

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Dave R

If there's room, next time pull inside the boathouse, without touching anything. That'll flip her out...

Be careful...she might be armed with a flare gun!

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Dave R

If there's room, next time pull inside the boathouse, without touching anything. That'll flip her out...

Dave --- YOUR My Kind of Guy !!!


.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by MDoug

There's a lady on the point near Y Landing who has been yelling at my boat for over 15 years, saying I pass too close to her dock when I am entering the cove from Bear. Also complains that my headway speed is too fast. When I pointed out that she doesn't own the lake, she replied, "Oh, yes I do."
When I mentioned her to other boaters and the workers at the gas dock, they all recognized her. "She yells at everybody," said one worker.

Pick some blueberries on Bear and bring them to her. Explain that it's always nice to be greeted by her, but you've never been able to understand what she's saying, perhaps because you don't always have your glasses on.

Choice #2: When she yells, take the boat out of gear, smile, wave and yell back "Thank you. Thank you. My dog has one blue eye." Put it in gear and off you go, everybody confused and happy.

OH, BTW, if she's a resident, she does own the lake. So do I, along with 1.3 million close friends. And, we also own a chain of liquor stores. What a great place.

[Phantom]

Phantom hops in the boat & picks up Descant & Dave r ................ I am sure we will get along !!


any others ??



.

[MDoug]

Thanks, Guys!
Here's her latest: Yesterday she yelled from the bushes, "Why don't you go around Pine Island and enter from that side of the cove?"

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by MDoug

Thanks, Guys!
Here's her latest: Yesterday she yelled from the bushes, "Why don't you go around Pine Island and enter from that side of the cove?"

Wow she must go mental when the big green YMCA camp boat pulls in there.

[RTTOOL]

Can someone put it on a map so i can go paddle board by her

[Barney Bear]

When paddle boarding by, watch your wake, or cover your ears. 🙀

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by MDoug

Thanks, Guys!
Here's her latest: Yesterday she yelled from the bushes, "Why don't you go around Pine Island and enter from that side of the cove?"

Was Sean Spicer in the bushes with her?

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Little Bear

Technically, you are not correct. Property owners do have "exclusive" rights to the water in front of their properties that the general public does not have. For instance, a property owner has the exclusive right to "wharf out" in front of their property, whereas the public has no right whatsoever to "wharf out" in front of privately owned land. Here's a good document that describes these Riparian Rights.

As water front owners, they have the privilege to apply for a permit to "wharf out" from their property, within specific state regulations and with state approval. Non-owners do not have this same privilege, for obvious reasons. But "wharfing out," or placing other personal property in a public space for the owner's personal use, is certainly not a "right."

Here's an old thread from the forum on the same topic that has an interesting discussion:

https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...read.php?t=941

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by TMI Guy

As water front owners, they have the privilege to apply for a permit to "wharf out" from their property, within specific state regulations and with state approval. Non-owners do not have this same privilege, for obvious reasons. But "wharfing out," or placing other personal property in a public space for the owner's personal use, is certainly not a "right."

Here's an old thread from the forum on the same topic that has an interesting discussion:

https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...read.php?t=941

It's clear to me that the State of NH refers to the subject matter as "Riparian Rights", not Riparian privileges. But you are free to call them what you want wish.

[BroadHopper]

It's all depends on MP interpretation. A number of times, even though I am the land owner, I was directed by various LEOs that I can't 'wharf out'. As stated in the various regulations. Even if I am the owner! In one situation I had a boat moored on my registered mooring ball, folks camping out on the boat, an LEO telling me there will be no sleepover on any boats on Winnipesaukee, regardless of where it is.
Sounds like he should check out the marinas and he will have a night of warnings and arrest!

[winni83]

Little Bear is correct.

I believe that the correct term with respect to lakes and ponds is “littoral rights”. The NH Supreme Court has correctly stated that these are in fact rights and not privileges. There is no ambiguity whatsoever.
“While the title of the State to the bed of the lake extends to the natural high water mark, the defendant and other littoral owners have rights which are more extensive than those of the public generally. Littoral owners may use the lakes and public waters in front of the property for recreational and other similar purposes in a more extensive manner than those who enjoy the rights to use the lake and public waters only as members of the public. “ 105 A.2d 569, 99 N.H. 92, State v. George C. Stafford & Sons, Inc., (N.H. 1954)

“It is clear, therefore, that although waters of great ponds are public waters, littoral owners nevertheless have private property rights which are separate from, independent of, and more extensive than the public's right. Because these littoral rights are an incident of ownership of shore property, their value is reflected in the fact that shorefront property commonly is substantially more valuable than property otherwise situated.” 409 A.2d 1315, 119 N.H. 839, Sundell v. Town of New London, (N.H. 1979)”

[Onshore]

Originally Posted by Little Bear

It's clear to me that the State of NH refers to the subject matter as "Riparian Rights", not Riparian privileges. But you are free to call them what you want wish.

I would agree that the within the State we refer to riparian or littoral "rights." However I feel it important to note that the statement "Property owners do have "exclusive" rights to the water in front of their properties..." is not technically correct. The problem is the use of the term "exclusive" when referring to rights on public waters. (I would point out that the word "exclusive" does not appear in the document you previously cited.) To say that a property owner has "exclusive" rights to the water implies that the owner has a right to "exclude" the public from that portion of the public trust which lies adjacent to his property. This would not be true. Someone could anchor off your frontage and swim under your dock to see if you have been dropping loose change and other things and while we would probably all think they were a bit rude and a bit odd, it wouldn't be illegal for them to do so.

The reason shorefront owners have a right to install a dock that non-owners do not have is because they have "exclusive" rights to the land they own and to which the dock is attached. The state can't permit a dock if it requires trespass to get there.

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by shore things

I would agree that the within the State we refer to riparian or littoral "rights." However I feel it important to note that the statement "Property owners do have "exclusive" rights to the water in front of their properties..." is not technically correct. The problem is the use of the term "exclusive" when referring to rights on public waters. (I would point out that the word "exclusive" does not appear in the document you previously cited.) To say that a property owner has "exclusive" rights to the water implies that the owner has a right to "exclude" the public from that portion of the public trust which lies adjacent to his property. This would not be true. Someone could anchor off your frontage and swim under your dock to see if you have been dropping loose change and other things and while we would probably all think they were a bit rude and a bit odd, it wouldn't be illegal for them to do so.

The reason shorefront owners have a right to install a dock that non-owners do not have is because they have "exclusive" rights to the land they own and to which the dock is attached. The state can't permit a dock if it requires trespass to get there.

Thanks for your input and opinion, Shore Things. I don't disagree that the public can utilize the water in front of a private home. However, in the context of the discussion, I was using the word "exclusive" in terms of the property owner having "rights" that are not available to, or afforded to the public. A property owner has the "right" to install a dock in front of their property as long as they meet the requirements set forth by the State. The public has no right, (and cannot) install a dock in front of a private landowner's property. We may be splitting hairs, but I stand by my position that the word "exclusive" applies in this context.

PS: While I have you on the phone...will the State issue a permit to place rocks along the shoreline to stop substantial erosion?

[Onshore]

Originally Posted by Little Bear

Thanks for your input and opinion, Shore Things. I don't disagree that the public can utilize the water in front of a private home. However, in the context of the discussion, I was using the word "exclusive" in terms of the property owner having "rights" that are not available to, or afforded to the public. A property owner has the "right" to install a dock in front of their property as long as they meet the requirements set forth by the State. The public has no right, (and cannot) install a dock in front of a private landowner's property. We may be splitting hairs, but I stand by my position that the word "exclusive" applies in this context.

PS: While I have you on the phone...will the State issue a permit to place rocks along the shoreline to stop substantial erosion?

I never had the impression that you thought you could exclude the public from public waters. And I would agree there is an exclusive right involved. I was simply pointing out that the exclusive part applies to the privately held land, not the water, that's all. There is a reason that the author of the decision cited by Winni83 talks about having "rights which are more extensive..." rather than exclusive. And yes we are splitting hairs.

In answer to your question, yes, the state will permit shoreline stabilization where erosion and loss is occurring. If you, or anyone else reading this, are thinking about requesting a permit for shoreline stabilization I would suggest that you start taking photographs of the at risk areas to document the damage that is occurring. They will come in very handy in the future.

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by shore things

I never had the impression that you thought you could exclude the public from public waters. And I would agree there is an exclusive right involved. I was simply pointing out that the exclusive part applies to the privately held land, not the water, that's all. There is a reason that the author of the decision cited by Winni83 talks about having "rights which are more extensive..." rather than exclusive. And yes we are splitting hairs.

In answer to your question, yes, the state will permit shoreline stabilization where erosion and loss is occurring. If you, or anyone else reading this, are thinking about requesting a permit for shoreline stabilization I would suggest that you start taking photographs of the at risk areas to document the damage that is occurring. They will come in very handy in the future.

Thank you again for your input on both subjects - very informative & helpful.

[winni83]

Actually, as I understand it, riparian refers to a flowing body of water, such as a river or stream and littoral refers to a lake, ocean or pond. In common practice, I agree that the terms are used interchangeably to mean the rights of an owner whose property borders on a body of water.

[ishoot308]

"littoral Rights" = The right to apply for a permit!

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

"littoral Rights" = The right to apply for a permit!

You hit the nail on the head! (and also the "right" to pay taxes, for which, the amount is based (in part) on the "privilege" of owning property on the water). Yikes, this is getting complicated!

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Little Bear

Technically, you are not correct. Property owners do have "exclusive" rights to the water in front of their properties that the general public does not have. For instance, a property owner has the exclusive right to "wharf out" in front of their property, whereas the public has no right whatsoever to "wharf out" in front of privately owned land. Here's a good document that describes these Riparian Rights.

https://www4.des.state.nh.us/blogs/l...Hampshire3.pdf

"Riparian Rights" is a general category of many legal ideas, in some of which it may be more appropriate than others to use the term "right." The water front land owner has the right to make a request to put a dock in because of his ownership of property that is on the water, but there is no right to install a dock (a piece of personal property) in an area (the lake) that is not owed by the property owner. There is a privilege that is granted by the state, subject to rules and restrictions that the state has put in place and enforces. Not every water front owner will be allowed to install a dock, and those that will be allowed to do so must comply with all applicable rules.

The above is in contrast to the right of any person to navigate the public waters, and to anchor anywhere on the public waters, without first being required to obtain a permit in order to do so, unless there is a specific prohibition against doing so.

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by TMI Guy

"Riparian Rights" is a general category of many legal ideas, in some of which it may be more appropriate than others to use the term "right." The water front land owner has the right to make a request to put a dock in because of his ownership of property that is on the water, but there is no right to install a dock (a piece of personal property) in an area (the lake) that is not owed by the property owner. There is a privilege that is granted by the state, subject to rules and restrictions that the state has put in place and enforces. Not every water front owner will be allowed to install a dock, and those that will be allowed to do so must comply with all applicable rules.

The above is in contrast to the right of any person to navigate the public waters, and to anchor anywhere on the public waters, without first being required to obtain a permit in order to do so, unless there is a specific prohibition against doing so.

Not sure what your point is - but I really don't care anyway.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Little Bear

Not sure what your point is - but I really don't care anyway.

Well, I guess you can either work on your reading comprehension skills or simply choose to ignore my posts. Whatever floats your boat!

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by TMI Guy

Well, I guess you can either work on your reading comprehension skills or simply choose to ignore my posts. Whatever floats your boat!

Best I go back to school then.