Snorkeling, swimming, scuba diving

[snowbird]

Will wonders never cease. MP just stopped my wife, giving her a verbal warning for swimming [off our property] with a snorkel without having a diver down flag along. She was within 50' of a dock, not boating. But, a quick read of the law says the MP officer was correct and we can no longer swim [this, after more than 50 years doing it] with snorkel unless diver down flag is attached. She asked the officer, in that case, would MP please do something about the big wake boats coming within 50-100' of our dock at speed, while sending 3-4' waves over it. I join those who think maybe MP is hyperactive in some areas while overlooking much worse situations.

Is swimming with a snorkel more dangerous than having no snorkel at all? No flag is required for the latter, apparently.

I think we've just been given one more reason to consider getting outta here.

[LIforrelaxin]

Well snowbird you aren't the only one that has appearently not be displaying the diver down flag I snorkle in front of my place often and will admit I never gave it much thought. Guess I will have to look into this..........

[Weirs guy]

Wow, our tax dollars hard at work? I am glad I haven't had to deal with them as I don't own a boat, but this is just sad.

[Dave R]

On the brighter side, that harmless warning and the subsequent post here (thank you for that) have probably educated a whole bunch of folks about this law (silly or not).

I think I'll be hitting the dive shop soon, cause I snorkel all the time and I'd just as soon be ignored by MP, unless I need help.

[NightWing]

Get a dive flag and properly display it on a raft in front of your property. Then stay within 75 feet of it.

[snowbird]

My "quick read" of the law as it appears in the The Boater's Guide has been amended by going on line and finding the actual wording of the law under Section 270:31---Scuba Diving and Snorkeling---
1. Any person engaged in scuba diving on any of the public waters of the state and any person engaged in snorkeling IN NORMALLY TRAVELED NAVIGABLE [caps mine] public waters shall have a diver's flag, ----etc

I do not consider swimming within 150' of my property's shoreline, clearly marked on navigation charts along with a marker placed by MP, to be "in normally traveled" waters. Furthermore, having removed her snorkel,
my wife, who swims for her health, is less visible now. Does anyone suppose this is what the law intended?

I think the MP officer was wrong.

[secondcurve]

Snowbird:

The MP was just watching out for your wife. The lake has changed and now it is quite crowded. What if you wife was hit by an irresponsible boater while snorkling? A simple reminder is a good thing in my opinion. The other thing to think about is that when snorkling it is easy to lose track of where one is, perhaps straying further out from your property.

[Coolbreeze]

I have to agree with secondcurve, the Mp officer although seemingly invading your privacy on the lake, was doing his/her job. He rather warn her than pick up her body after being run over. Things have changed on the lake.

[SkiDad]

I'm all for safety but these "professionals" need to be allocating their already scarce resources better and that is a management issue. They should be bagging the violators of safe passage - 150 ft no wake. I have seen some new recruits practicing / learning how to drive in Glendale bay. It would have been much safer if the MP kept his boat 150' away from the swimmer. I am for hands off. Hands off my tax dollars, hands off this snorklers privacy.

And kudo's to the dive flag Idea, it shows creative intent.

[Winni]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

Snowbird:

The MP was just watching out for your wife. The lake has changed and now it is quite crowded. What if you wife was hit by an irresponsible boater while snorkeling? A simple reminder is a good thing in my opinion. The other thing to think about is that when snorkeling it is easy to lose track of where one is, perhaps straying further out from your property.

I snorkel often, and I have to say I at least understand this. It is easy to lose track of where you are. On the other hand, I have to agree with Snowbird on the fact that if the MPs were attending to bagging the boaters and jet skis that were within 150' of my property and/or boat, I and all of us would have a lot less to worry about. I still believe the speed bill would help; no question of being 149' or 151' feet there. But, be that as it may, it does seem pretty ridiculous that they noticed her swimming but never EVER seem to notice the 150' violators, of which we have at least 10 - 20 every weekend day and between 5 - 10 every weekday near us.

Yes, it was nice that they were protecting her, but were they nice about the way they did it? I.e. was it, "We just want you to be safe," or were they official and cranky about it? If it was the later, then I would be ticked off too.

[Airwaves]

Skidad wrote:

I'm all for safety but these "professionals" need to be allocating their already scarce resources better and that is a management issue.

I agree with Skidad.

First, the seasonal MP officiers are paid less than $15 an hour according to their website, so who are they going to get? Professionals or rent-a-cops and high school grads out of work? Sure, they may be "trained" but to what extent?

Second, Snowbird points out that his wife was snorkling within 50 feet of his/her dock! Where on the lake is a private dock considered a "normally traveled navigable area?

Again I cry out for media in the Lakes Region to begin publishing the Marine Patrol Log. I find it harder and harder to call for increased funding for these folks when it appears they spend their time at No Rafting Zones and bothering people within 50 feet of their property.

Is that an anomoly or is it routine? We won't know unless Media keeps track of what they are doing and reports it!

[SkiDad]

Would it be possible to have a forum topic that would be an MP log? This is a heavily used forum. If there was a log that "published" the already public information, it might strengthen the accountability with regard to management. I would be willing to contribute. I am referring to an objective log of activities. Though I am critical of their use of resources, I advocate for a completely non-editorialized log of what they are doing. I might learn something. Is this information already available? If so where? I suppose we would need to appeal to winni.com to see if they would be willing to add the section. If nothing else, it would be interesting, educational and informative! I am in.

Feel free to pm, email whatever.


Good idea.

[SkiDad]

A couple of weeks ago, 2 MP's went into Smith cove at MWP (maximum wake potential) not planned off, not headway speed, with a 2 foot wake behind their boat. Lights and horns flashing. 5 minutes later they both were walking down Varney Point Road (with their life jackets still on) looking for a neighbor of mine as if there was an emergency. I bumped into them when taking out my trash.

I later found out that not only was there no emergency at all, they were responding to a call that was inaccurate. They did end up talking with my freind and taking a statement, after 20 minutes of discussion, they left.

A public log of this information would be a good thing.

[Coolbreeze]

I snorkle often and always tote a Dive down flag with me, why? Because it keeps the moron boaters who aren't paying attention to what is in front of them on the lake from running me over. Plus, a snorkler or diver can hear the screws underwater from approaching boats, the louder the noise the closer the boat. My point is the lake isn't like it was back in the seventies or eighties or even the nineties. If, that lady who was snorkleing, was accidentally hit by a boat, even a neighbor pulling out from their dock, it would be tradgic. If the Mp officer saw something wrong he did his job to correct it. That is the bottom line, that is his job. The comments of that they should be picking on more important violations comes to timing, he saw your violation first. So, stop feeling that you are being picked on by these guys. With all the bad press they have been getting over the years, about not doing anything to enforce the laws of the lakes, they are now nailing everything they can, even snorklers. What other options are there? The coast gaurd?

[HomeWood]

Being a police officer myself, I feel I should step in and defend the MP's. I do not know about bad press they may have gotten, but if that's true, then what you are seeing is probably a result of that. The "department" (if that's what they call it) probably got tired of so many complaints about what you might consider petty issues that they said fine, if they want more enforcement then they will get it. I'm sure these guys/gals would much rather get drunk boaters and enforce more serious laws, but if they are told to find these small violations, well then thats what they'll do. We as "land police" deal with the same stuff. If we get enough complaints about speeding or whatever in a neighborhood, then our department will aggressivley enforce that area. You may or may not be surprised that we have caughten the same people who complained initially doing the exact infraction they called to report.

Then there is all the enforcement you don't see. That day at the sand bar was not their only and last enforcement campaign. I can't second guess why an officer cites or doesn't, because that is their discretion. I will say ATTITUDE and first impression have a lot of pull in both directions. Although there are times where everybody is going to hold one regardless. The officer that told your wife she needed a diving flag was most certainly not trying to be a jerk, but to just inform her of the law and it was for her safety. He was just cruising by and thought "hey, I think I'll let her know so she will be safe".

It is not fair at all to say that there are better things to enforce and better things to spend time and money on. Officers are supposed to enforce all laws no matter how petty they may seem, because we took an oath. A lot of stupid and avoidable accidents happen on the water and they are going to be strict. So, next time you are warned or even given a ticket, thank the dummy that crashed his boat yesterday or ran over the little kid swimming because he was not aware of the distance rule for boats. Sorry for the long post, but I have strong feelings on these issues. Just because MP's are mostly part time summer help does not mean they don't know what they are doing. I agree though ,full time, well trained officers would likely be more efficient, but it's a state agency and they will save $ where they can justify it. This reply was not to correct or say anybody was wrong for sharing their opinion, so don't flame me.

Have a safe summer and happy boating.

[Airwaves]

Homewood, I understand where you are coming from and you're probably right in your assessment of why there was a small armada of MP vessels at the West Alton Sandbar.

My problem is that while they were are the sandbar, what was slipping through the cracks? We don't know because no one publishes the Marine Patrol Logbook, you know the one, it's where the dispatcher logs in calls they get for help, complaints etc. and assign MP vessels to investigate.

So we don't know if tying up several vessels and crew at the sandbar on a given weekend meant the officers were out of position to handle emergencies because, like is the case with all depts, manpower is limited so to beef up enforcement in one area you have to move an officier from another location.

As far as the MP informing a snorkler 50' off her property that she was violating the law, as you said attitude and first impressions are everything, but that is a 2-way street! Was he rude or was he the friendly policeman helping out? I wasn't there, I don't know but just based on the reaction it prompted from the woman's husband I would guess that he was closer to the rude end of the spectrum than not.

If we (the public) had even the limited information contained in the Marine Patrol logbook it would go a long way toward allowing us a greater understanding of what is going on at MPHQ and whether they are utilizing manpower effectively or not.

So I again call on local media to publish the MP Log in the same column with the police and fire dept logs they already publish.

[HomeWood]

I agree with you on having a lot of MP's there, but then again who knows how many were on duty. If that was all the MP's on that day and they were all together, I would say that would be wasted resources, because it's a huge lake. A log would be great, but who knows why they don't publish one. Maybe if enough signatures on a petition could do something or tell the local paper to investigate it. The lakes region community does deserve to be informed on their activity, I couldn't agree more. I'd love to read up on it myself. Going back to the MP and the diving flag, who knows what he said or how he said it. I just don't see any reason he'd be rude over something like that, but like you said Airwaves we weren't there and we only have one side of the story, so I have to be neutral on that. I am usually friendly, because that normally works the best. (unless you run a red light and nearly hit my police horse and I, I do regret using colorful language that day, but anyways ) The MP may be short staffed and the people they have are being over worked and asked to do more than one officer can do, so they may have short fuses although that is not an excuse for unecessary rudeness. If I lived up there or should I say WHEN I live up there, I'd love to be on the MP.

[snowbird]

The officer was not rude. He was polite and proper in the correction of what he thought was a violation. That was never the issue, although we think it strange to be asked to swim another 25 feet out to the MP boat and to have to hang onto it in deeper water while signing acknowledgement of the so-called verbal warning and being required to provide name and birthdate. The issue is interpretation of the law, which obviously will not be settled here. We will contunue to use snorkels while swimming, not diving, in the privacy of our own cove/shorefront since that, we believe, is perfectly legal behavior. End of story.

[Airwaves]

HomeWood wrote:

If I lived up there or should I say WHEN I live up there, I'd love to be on the MP.

Get a permanent appointment or you won't be able to afford to live up here

[HomeWood]

That's rather strange that the MP officer would not give the courtesy of coming in 25', but hey you are now informed and I would absolutely continue to snorkel. I'm willing to bet he won't come back to check for a flag. I love snorkeling in our cove up there too, but I do take a look around quite often for boat traffic. I know MP is really just seasonal, I would love to do it after I retire or something to stay busy.

[lifeonthefarm]

I just had to chime in on this one. There has been a lot of talk about the MP misusing their resources (NRZ). Consider Officer safety for a minute... MP is a law enforcement agency (trained by the same police academy as every other cop in nh) they are not going to send one officer in to control a crowd of a couple hundred people. Ive been in braun bay when the MP come in and they receive quite the ear-full from people thinking they are being "harrassed". Cut them a break they are providing a service to everyone on the lake (property owners included) and are just looking out for your safety. And the reason that many of them seem so young is because the younger officers (aka college kids) are the ones who are going to be around for a couple of seasons, rather than getting picked up by another agency /full time job once they complete the police academy. There was an article a few months ago in Fosters that chronicled the MP and it seems that a lot of people just dont realize what these men/women do... all for less than $15/ hr mind you.

my two cents

[RamJet]

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...73251471109169

Here's a link to the story in Foster.

I’m glad they are on the lake … read the story and draw your own conclusions as to what they are on the lake to do and their competency level.

[Airwaves]

lifeonthefarm:
I actually had written a very long and detailed response to your post, and then as I was wrapping it up I hit the wrong button and it went away.

Perhaps it is just as well.

I will briefly recap the thoughts.

If the state is paying for "seasonal" MP officiers to go to the academy that is good, but it is counter productive that they give them a salary of less than $15. That ensures that they will be lured away by other departments, in state and out, that will be willing to pay much more. A patrolman in my community can make 6 figures a year with overtime and details! So how are you going to keep these folks "down on the farm?"

Regarding sending these "trained" folks into a situation that could best be discribed as a near riot (look at how you discribed the incident on Braun Bay) then I would say the state needs to request help from White Hulls! NO ONE wants that!

So, train them, pay them and keep them.

Less than $600 a week or more than $2000 a week, which would you do for you and your family?

[Airwaves]

RamJet:
Much of the article you linked supports exactly my concerns re: the posting of "lifeonthefarm"

So, here is the first problem, New Hampshire does not take this seriously!

Barrett said the Marine Patrol doesn't receive any money from the state's general fund.

I'm guessing that Barrett's statement makes long time NH residents proud, but it scares the Hell out of me!

The second issue, the great pay! Like I said, less than $600 a week or more than $2,000 a week? HMM that's a tough one! And gee, no bennies!

Seasonal officers are paid $14.60 per hour and do not receive health benefits or a retirement pension.

Opps, I guess I'm not the only one who noticed that good seasonal MP officers want to feed their families!

Oftentimes, Barrett said the Marine Patrol has a difficult time retaining good officers because they receive the same law enforcement certification as police officers upon completion, and often leave the state agency for full-time jobs with other departments...."A good candidate for us is also a good candidate for another law enforcement agency," Barrett said.

HMM..so what does that leave us for next season? Oh yeah, those Rent-a-cop and High School grads out of work.

So the 65 to 70 officers left are statewide, not just on Winni! How's that for 24/7 coverage? Just look back on the "they get NO state funding" for your answer!

Between Memorial Day and Labor Day, Dunleavy said 65 to 70 Marine Patrol officers will work full-time during the day on the state's water bodies. They will also work some night shifts on larger bodies of water like Lake Winnipesaukee.

New Hampshire is apparently good at considering laws, passing laws but fall flat when it comes to follow through. Not surprising.

BTW, In the Foster's article it stated the seasonal "officers" went through classroom and on the water training, and that is excellent. It did not mention that they went to a police academy as "lifeonthefarm" stated.

Do I sound annoyed? You bet your ASS I am! I have to cut a substantial check twice a year to NH for our place at the lake! That check is unbelievable for what is there! Yep, I'm taxed because I have a good "view" as well, but apparently the state is more concerned that I pay for what is outside of my window, and they are not concerned about my well being on the water?????!!!!!

New Hampshire does not fund the MP! The FEDS do! (read that USCG) They also get some FEDERAL gasoline tax revenue....but NO STATE FUNDING! Yeah I'm PISSED!!!

$3-point-5 million a year for the entire state operation! My community's police department's budget is more than that and my community is about 10 square miles, not the entire state of NH!

BTW this is much longer than the post I was writing to "lifeonthefarm" that I lost, good job RamJet!

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by snowbird

She asked the officer, in that case, would MP please do something about the big wake boats coming within 50-100' of our dock at speed, while sending 3-4' waves over it. I join those who think maybe MP is hyperactive in some areas while overlooking much worse situations.

Excellent topic - inconsiderate captains of huge cruisers. These people have absolutely no clue as to the size of their wakes. 2 weeks ago one of the biggest Carvers I have seen came plowing by and left an enourmous wake in its path. The waves came over my docks and totally trashed my docks, equipment I had on the docks and also destroyed the shorefront and beach. I chased the captain down and confronted him about his actions. The first thing out of his mouth was that he did nothing wrong, since he was 150' from shore. I told him first of all that he was not 150' from my swim raft (which the vast majority of boaters violate), but more important that he is responsible for his wake and any damage it does. He actually seemed surprised at this. Why can't people think about what they are doing? Had anyone been in the water (including my dogs) they would have been seriously injured or possibly killed by these waves slamming them against the rocks. I'll take fast boats any day instead of these bonehead captains driving these monsterous Carver cruisers throwing out waves that one could actually surf on. Where is the outrage from the Wetlands Bureau? These boats are doing more shoreline damage than nature could ever think of doing? Wetlands won't let a property owner even move a pebble on their own shorefront, but one cruiser going by can trash the shorefront that Wetlands is commissioned to protect. Something has to be done. I can never remember the lake being at normal level and having cruiser waves come up over the docks! Marine Patrol should be focusing on more important issues than bothering a woman snorkeling in front of her house. Gimme a break!

[kjbathe]

I get a kick out of reading the constant complaints about MP, usually before I keep reading and find myself annoyed with the folks doing the complaining. MP is in a no-win job. They cannot be everywhere at once and are much like referees on the field among 80,000 other spectators -- they will not see everything, and regardless of the call someone will always be unhappy.

When they enforce the rafting laws and encroachment on personal property, people complain they should be stopping speeding boats. If they are present along the shoreline and boaters are keeping their distance, speeds down or not throwing dangerous wakes, people complain because they took the time to make sure a snorkeler was aware of the rules and otherwise safe. MP's job is not make life convenient for the rest of us, it is to ensure our safety while enforcing the laws. We may not always agree with the laws, or agree with the timing, but that's our issue, not MP's.

For all those complaining, the Foster's article makes it appear that there are still 15 vacancies left to be filled on the summer roster. Perhaps you'd like to take one of those $15/Hr. positions, give up your weekends, and head out to a future MP job. Or perhaps you'd like to contribute some excess wealth and starting funding full-time MP positions to attract and retain the level of safety and enforcement professional that $15 can't get. If it's not a job we'd want to take, we need to think twice about how critical we want to be of the folks that, thank God, are willing to do it.

A Marine Patrol officer made a stop on a presumably quiet Friday morning, a woman and now readers of this forum were better educated on the rules, an inconvenient but otherwise meaningless warning was issued, and hopefully an unknown number of future swimmers, snorkelers or other folks just enjoying the water won't be chewed up by the screws of Captain Bonehead on an increasingly busy -- and some say unacceptably risky -- lake. To me, this is all a net positive by an MP officer that can't win regardless what he or she does.

[secondcurve]

KjBathe:

Well said.

[Grant]

Second that emotion. Give the MPs a break.

And in an era when boat traffic is off the charts, I'd say a dive flag is common sense safety. Then again, so are motorcycle helmets. So live free or die. Your choice.

[wildwoodfam]

Originally Posted by Little Bear

Excellent topic - inconsiderate captains of huge cruisers. These people have absolutely no clue as to the size of their wakes. 2 weeks ago one of the biggest Carvers I have seen came plowing by and left an enourmous wake in its path. The waves came over my docks and totally trashed my docks, equipment I had on the docks and also destroyed the shorefront and beach. I chased the captain down and confronted him about his actions.

Ahhh - but did you take down his reg numbers and report him to the MP so that they could do one of their many jobs and follow-up with this skipper who indeed would be and could be and should be held responsible for any real damage to your property his boat caused.

Where is the outrage from the Wetlands Bureau?

Did you contact the Wetlands Bureau to notify them of the destruction and who caused it? How can there be outrage unless they are notified.

These boats are doing more shoreline damage than nature could ever think of doing? Wetlands won't let a property owner even move a pebble on their own shorefront, but one cruiser going by can trash the shorefront that Wetlands is commissioned to protect. Something has to be done. I can never remember the lake being at normal level and having cruiser waves come up over the docks! Marine Patrol should be focusing on more important issues than bothering a woman snorkeling in front of her house. Gimme a break!

Well the Marine Patrol was certainly correct in speaking to the snorkler - and agreed they should also handle your situation - both are in their jurisdiction and both deserve to be addressed by the MP as the lake safety agents. My questions are written under the assumption that you never contacted any of the appropriate agencies to notify them of what this Carver and its skipper did to you. If you did notify them - please let us know their response....if you didn't notify them - well - then you know my next point.

[Airwaves]

kjbathe wrote:

Or perhaps you'd like to contribute some excess wealth and starting funding full-time MP positions to attract and retain the level of safety and enforcement professional that $15 can't get.

Or perhaps the STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE could actually fund the department!
As my post on the Foster's article points out, MP has a $3.5 Million budget, all of it comes from boater registration and a portion of the FEDERAL (not state) gas tax. The state is not stepping up to the plate on this one!

[SAUGUS BOATER]

They should just call this the "winnipesaukee gripe forum". It seems like most of the forum comments here are by people griping about how the can enforce the laws better than the m.p., how they can control the dam better than the dam keeper, etc. Everybody seems to know everything, except those public officials hired to do those jobs that they do.

It seems to me, the m.p. was doing the wife a favor by explaining the law and warning of the danger rather than just writing a citation. I am a diver, I always use a dive flag when diving OR snorkling, not just because it's the law, but because it's the safe way to do things.

It's just ridiculous to say that the m.p. should be off somewhere else yelling at someone else for a "more important infraction". When police see a law being broken, it's their job to do something about it.

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by wildwoodfam

Well the Marine Patrol was certainly correct in speaking to the snorkler - and agreed they should also handle your situation - both are in their jurisdiction and both deserve to be addressed by the MP as the lake safety agents. My questions are written under the assumption that you never contacted any of the appropriate agencies to notify them of what this Carver and its skipper did to you. If you did notify them - please let us know their response....if you didn't notify them - well - then you know my next point.

Yes & yes. Have also started a video journal of these incidents for future action. Nobody has a right to cause damage to another's property - period.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by snowbird

I think we've just been given one more reason to consider getting outta here.

Have a nice trip...

[Winni]

kjbathe and Grant:

I do agree with you, but I have a problem with a lake where it isn't safe to just swim off my dock. I don't ever go more than about 20 - 25' from shore, but I'm not even sure that's safe now. That is a very, very sad statement about what this lake has become.

That's not the MP's fault; it's everyone's fault who doesn't use courtesy and care in their water activities. I'm scared to death I'm going to get smacked by one of those idiot jet skiers in our neighborhood someday. But, you can't enforce courtesy and thoughtfulness. All you can do is ask that each and every one of you think about what you are doing as you use the lake and pass that request on to everyone you know.

Airwaves:
Whatever makes you think NH is going to fund MPs when they won't even fund Education??? Just ask any teacher you know why they work in NH; the answer will NOT be because they pay well (and don't give me any of that business about their hours 'cause I will be all over you!) Worst case: substitute teachers: lucky to get $60 gross pay per day; do work 8 hour days whether you want to believe it or not; must have current certification which means at least a B.S., more often an additional M.S. or M.Ed., plus pay for their own 75 hours of recertification every 3 years.

MPs, teachers, police, firemen/women, EMTs, etc. do not do what they do for the dollars. We all know they should all be paid a lot more, but you know what that would do to your property taxes. Many of you in this forum have lake property, so if we tried to be fair about paying these folks, who, in my opinion should be paid more than all the CEO/Enron-types and movie stars in Hollywood, would you actually be willing to put out the enormous amount of cash it would take?

Then, this brings us to the subject of broad based taxes. Anyone want to open that can of worms?

WildWoodFarm: Clearly you aren't familiar with how things work on the Big Lake. Here's how it goes: Violator zips by at 80 mph, or jet ski does a wheelie at the end of your dock, or big boat makes big wakes and does damage. Whatever...the point is you call the MP and they say, "Did you get the hull id?" Now, in all these cases, and I would say in about 99% of violations similar to these, including the ridiculous 150' rule, this is totally impossible. Even if you do, you must then be able to describe not only the boat but also the driver! Who is anyone kidding? "Reporting" a problem is a task in futility. The only time the violators are ever caught are when the MPs are actually there to see it happen AND the violators do not know the MPs are there. This IS the reality of the situation.

Saugus Boater: If you don't like the forum, then why do you bother reading it? As I see it, the forum is a good wholesome medium for the exchange of ideas. Some really great things happen on these forums (see for example the one on Pepper losing her hair!). As they say, "If you don't like the show, change the channel!" It's just that easy on a computer too.

The bottom line is: The only people whose behavior you are ever going to change is your own. We can try to influence others by our words and deeds, but the changing must be done by oneself.

[wildwoodfam]

WildWoodFarm: Clearly you aren't familiar with how things work on the Big Lake.

Actually very familiar - and have owned lake front property as well as access properties...so yeah I do know how things "work" on the lake.

Here's how it goes: Violator zips by at 80 mph, At 80 MPH there would be little wake - because the boat would be on planeor jet ski does a wheelie at the end of your dock, Actually happened to my family at the Meredith Town Docks - two jerks did "wheelies" and soaked my wife and daughter. I call MP who arrived within about 10 minutes - gave the hull numbers and the zipped off into the bay - AND - got the guys on their jet ski's! or big boat makes big wakes and does damage. Whatever...the point is you call the MP and they say, "Did you get the hull id?"

And clearly in this case the poster DID!!

Now, in all these cases, and I would say in about 99% of violations similar to these, including the ridiculous 150' rule, this is totally impossible. Even if you do, you must then be able to describe not only the boat but also the driver! Who is anyone kidding? "Reporting" a problem is a task in futility. Sorry to hear you have had bad luck in this category - not so for me.The only time the violators are ever caught are when the MPs are actually there to see it happen AND the violators do not know the MPs are there. This IS the reality of the situation.

Not sure which reality you live in - I have reported situations similar to this - phone call to Glendale - and there has been appropriate response by the MP. How do I know the MP followed up? Well on one occassion the disgruntled boater who had violated the 150' rule and washed my dock and all the stuff on it - off - returned the followoing day to apologize and offer to pay for any damages. THATS HOW I KNOW IT WORKS!

[Winnipesaukee Divers]

Snowbird, here's a thought for you from a professional diver...

If by some chance your wife dose get stuck by a passing boat while engaging in a diving or snorkeling activity, that flag could mean the difference between whether it's her fault or the operator's. Especially since she has been warned and you have complained to the world about it. If I were you I'd beat a path on down to the dive shop and get me one of those flags... And I'd make sure it complies with the state code on dive flags, most do not. All my flags exceed the state code and I have several of them.

Do I think that little rag hanging on a stick floating nearby is going to save my life??? Not by any stretch of the imagination... But it's the law... and it works both ways... I never put myself in harms way thinking that I have the right to be here and therefore I'm somehow protected by that thought...

I'm a firm believer in that old saying: There are old divers and there are bold divers, but there are no old, bold divers...

[wildwoodfam]

Originally Posted by Little Bear

Yes & yes. Have also started a video journal of these incidents for future action. Nobody has a right to cause damage to another's property - period.

Let us know how this turns out - how the MP handled the situation, etc...

[Winni]

WildWoodFarm:

"At 80 MPH there would be little wake - because the boat would be on plane"

My point exactly...who can read a hull ID at that speed, much less tell if it's 149' or 151', or id the driver who you can't see in those monsters anyway!

"Actually happened to AND - got the guys on their jet ski's!"
Apparantly our neighborhood isn't as important as your neighborhood, because this happens so often I've given up trying and no one comes no matter how many calls are made. When they do, the jerks deny what they've done and it becomes a "he says, she says" that goes nowhere. I stand by my statements.

"Reporting" a problem is a task in futility. Sorry to hear you have had bad luck in this category - not so for me.The only time the violators are ever caught are when the MPs are actually there to see it happen AND the violators do not know the MPs are there. This IS the reality of the situation."

"Not sure which reality you live in - I have reported situations similar to this - phone call to Glendale - and there has been appropriate response by the MP."

As I said, I stand by my statements. Perhaps Alton Bay isn't as valued as Meredith. My reality is certainly NOT your reality. Your experiences sound like single incidents. Ours are repeated over and over and over and over....well, you get it, but it still does no good to try to get an MP here to do anything about any of it.

And, as I said, I think it has little to do with the paycheck they're given. It's a long hall from Glendale to Alton Bay, and by then the jerks already have the offending boat on their trailers and are on their way home to...no, I won't say it....MMMMM....no, I' won't say it....

[Weirs guy]

Maybe if the mp spent its limited resources addressing the root of the problem (reckless boat operators) they wouldn't need to worry about people swimming/snorkeling near their docks.
I understand why the mp did what he did, and I understand the law is there for our saftey (although I don't support the law, just like seatbelt and helmet laws), but I have seen the mp's ignore to many other saftey violations to support them on this one.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Weirs guy

Maybe if the mp spent its limited resources addressing the root of the problem (reckless boat operators) they wouldn't need to worry about people swimming/snorkeling near their docks.
I understand why the mp did what he did, and I understand the law is there for our saftey (although I don't support the law, just like seatbelt and helmet laws), but I have seen the mp's ignore to many other saftey violations to support them on this one.

Your assessment is right on target, however:

Without having a a reckless boater in sight, the MP should be expected to enforce ALL of the laws: They should not be expected to pick and choose which laws to enforce.

Sighting a snorkeler without a flag, they cannot be expected to determine "which wife" belongs to "which dock", either!

[Seaplane Pilot]

In my search for other unrelated boating rules, I came across the rule for the use of a dive flag when snorkeling. The flag is only required if snorkeling in "normally traveled, navigable waters". I interpret this as a case where if one were snorkeling around the Witches, no dive flag should be required since the Witches is certainly not a "navigable" area.

Section 270:31
270:31 Scuba Diving and Snorkeling. –
I. Any person engaged in scuba diving on any of the public waters of the state and any person engaged in snorkeling in normally traveled navigable public waters shall have a diver's flag, consisting of a red flag with a diagonal white stripe, displayed indicating that diving activities are in progress. The bottom of said flag shall extend at least 3 feet above the surface of the water, the view of which shall be unobstructed for 360 degrees.
II. Any person engaged in scuba diving or snorkeling shall remain within 75 feet of their dive flag. Boaters shall remain a minimum of 150 feet away from any posted dive flag, unless there are circumstances which prevent the operator from maintaining a minimum of 150 feet, in which case the operator shall maintain headway speed.
III. The commissioner of safety may adopt rules pursuant to RSA 541-A relative to restricting scuba diving between sunset and sunrise.
Source. 1973, 574:1. 1981, 353:13. 1987, 124:6, I(c). 1995, 54:1, eff. July 8, 1995.

[Rattlesnake Gal]

If I were to swim near my boat or dock with goggles and swim fins only, would I be required to use a dive flag?