Rattlesnake conservation trust dock

[barsully]

Rattlesnake conservation trust dock closed. Any one know why?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[cowislander]

https://lrct.org/a-message-from-lrct-president

[Garcia]

So frustrating that people choose to ruin things for the majority.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by Garcia

So frustrating that people choose to ruin things for the majority.

Yup. A waterfront park in my town was shut after police confrontations with outsiders during the pandemic. So frustrating.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[ishoot308]

Ragged island will be next…

Very unfortunate….

Dan

[Cobaltdeadhead]

There is still access, but only on specific days when an attendant is working. Unfortunately it's necessary due to bad behavior. Hopefully at least this limited access arrangement remains into the future

https://lrct.org/property/rattlesnak...saukee-alton-2

[Lake Fan]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Ragged island will be next…

Very unfortunate….

Dan

Ragged has been pretty much overrun this summer with wall to wall flotillas and the behaviors that come with that amount of humanity.I understand there is a petition to establish a no rafting zone over there. This lake is being loved to death.

[tis]

I am pretty sure it had an open sign yesterday when we went by.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by tis

I am pretty sure it had an open sign yesterday when we went by.

Yes it did as we went by as well and saw the open sign….

Dan

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Ragged island will be next…

Very unfortunate….

Dan

I used to love to go to Ragged and pick blueberries. Over the years it has become such a destination for others I have no interest (and no blueberries!)

[BroadHopper]

I was told the docks are reserved for LRCT members only on Fridays by an attendant. As I was leaving the attendant allowed a veteran to dock and he was not a member. Double standard?????

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Ragged island will be next…

Very unfortunate….

Dan

You called it, Dan.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

You called it, Dan.

Yup, it saddens me to see this happen but I honestly understand why…

Dan

[Descant]

Years ago LRCT focused a lot more on fundraising to buy and protect certain properties. They did a great job. Now, there is more focus on management. I'm surprised that they felt a need to tighten control on Rattlesnake, but never had similar issues with Stonedam. Stonedam is relatively undeveloped, and there is a lot of development on Rattlesnake. Does that make a difference? Maybe some Rattlesnake residents can give us more background? Similar trash problems on Mount Major? Elsewhere?

[hemlock]

If you review the petition for Ragged Island and the signatures it is clear that these were pulled together by an interested party or parties (read a local landowner). I doubt the trust sent staff out to these island waterfront properties chasing signatures.
They are clearly being influenced by the proverbial squeaky wheels.
These "conservation" organizations wield the money and power of their donors. Like all landowners they have certain rights as shown by their limitation on access to the Rattlesnake property. If you want to access the property and docks just pay the 35 dollars for LRCT membership just be prepared for the deluge of requests for more money.
The limitations around Ragged and their rights are less clear. The waters of the lake are in the public trust and should remain so. Just because neighboring landowners don't like the activities of a few bad apples doesn't mean access to the lake should be limited to responsible users. With that said the petition seems to just to benefit the trust and the landowner of Little Pine Tree island to the detriment of the responsible public.

[Descant]

Perhaps it is time to modify the NRZ, NWZ by petition procedure?
Actually, this should be in the Ragged Island thread, not Rattlesnake. Sorry.

[GenericG]

Greetings forum! Long time first time.

Does anybody know the procedure to speak/vote/petition AGAINST this proposed NRZ at ragged? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if this NRZ as outlined (which would prohibit any anchoring within 150 ft of shore) would render the entire sandbar on the east side of ragged Island almost unusable for most people.

I oppose this nrz (and most NRZs) as ragged island Sandbar is a great spot for many people to enjoy the lake. also, as we all know, lake Winnipesaukee (and most bodies of water in nh) are owned by the people...not a select group of abutting landowners.

We all understand the challenges that come with having many people at ragged... Especially with the recent exponential growth of boat ownership and lake traffic. But if laws are being broken and individuals are behaving in an unsafe manner those issues need to be addressed directly, not by prohibiting use of a public resource. Creating a NRZ is not curbing illicit activity, it's merely "kicking the can down the road" for the next homeowner along the shoreline to deal with.

I think if any of us enjoy using the sandbar at ragged Island we need to act now before this petition is set in stone.

[DickR]

See post #2 in this prior thread on meaning of "no rafting zone" on this forum: https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...ad.php?t=20320

That clarifies the meaning of NRZ; anchoring within 150 ft is not prohibited. The law's intent is to limit boating congestion in heavily used and sensitive areas.

[GenericG]

it seems like with the rafting issue there is always a large amount of confusion. i respectfully disagree with you Mr.r. see 3a below (source at bottom of page)

in addition...even if i concede the "150 ft from shore" point to you...i oppose the type of restrictions NRZs impose on the people of this state to access a public resource...150' or not...no ragged nrz!

PART Saf-C 407 RAFTING RULES

Saf-C 407.01 Rafting Rules.

(a) In addition to and in conjunction with the requirements of RSA 270:44, no person, except as otherwise provided herein, shall, in a prohibited location or at a prohibited time:

(1) Form or allow a boat which he or she is operating or in charge of to be a member of a raft consisting of 3 or more boats;

(2) Form or allow the boat which he or she is operating or in charge of to be a member of a raft if any part of such raft is:

a. Less than 150 feet from shore;

b. Less than 50 feet from any other raft; or

c. Less than 50 feet from any occupied single boat which is stationary upon the waters of the same lake or pond; and

(3) Anchor a single boat and cause it to remain stationary upon the waters of a lake or pond, other than momentarily, if any part of such boat is:

a. Less than 150 feet from shore;

b. Less than 50 feet away from any raft; or

c. Less than 25 feet away from any other single boat which is stationary upon the waters of such lake or pond.

source:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rule.../saf-c400.html

[DickR]

I stand corrected. The 150' from shore (rafting or not) in a NRZ was not mentioned in post @2 in the referenced thread. Later, in post #5, Marine Patrol provided more complete detail.

[BroadHopper]

Seems like, in a heavily regulated lake, there are all sorts of mayhem going on. Seems like it's a combat zone between lake abutters, between boaters as well as between residents and tourists. Yet in a lake that is little regulation, there is peace and harmony. Is this a coincidence that there is a correlation?

Winnisquam and Newfound are peaceful on weekends, in part the boaters have a place to go. Whereas in Winnipesaukee, boaters have fewer and fewer places to go. Outside of the Lakes Region, I notice the same on Sebago Lake, Lake Champlain, and Webster Lake.

Perhaps everyone should be thinking outside of the box!

[Descant]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Seems like, in a heavily regulated lake, there are all sorts of mayhem going on. Seems like it's a combat zone between lake abutters, between boaters as well as between residents and tourists. Yet in a lake that is little regulation, there is peace and harmony. Is this a coincidence that there is a correlation?

Winnisquam and Newfound are peaceful on weekends, in part the boaters have a place to go. Whereas in Winnipesaukee, boaters have fewer and fewer places to go. Outside of the Lakes Region, I notice the same on Sebago Lake, Lake Champlain, and Webster Lake.

Perhaps everyone should be thinking outside of the box!

I have only limited exposure to other NH lakes, Bow, Sunapee, Ossipee, Newfound and Winnisquam, and always on weekdays. I don't know what the "place to go" might be on those lakes. Seems like no destinations like town public docks or a few crowded sandbars, except the sandbar by the bridge on Winnisquam. Imagine putting a couple of 200 slot valet boat racks on any of these lakes or 50-100 slip marinas, and I bet the neighbors start screaming. I note that Sunapee and Squam have citizen groups that vigorously oppose public access. Winnipesaukee is unique and perhaps should have its own set of rules, beyond the reach of a handful of local landowners.
Just a guess, but I bet if the folks in the (proposed) NRZ's turned off their music systems they'd find the neighbors to be more friendly.

Next Tuesday is the NH primary election. Ask your (Lakes Region) candidates where they stand on NWZ and NRZ issues, or better, tell them where you stand and ask for help. There's a filing period for new legislation shortly after that and again after the November elections. Those are the times to influence your reps. It's a small window of time, so don't delay. For best influence, go hold a sign at the polls.

[GenericG]

Originally Posted by Descant

I have only limited exposure to other NH lakes, Bow, Sunapee, Ossipee, Newfound and Winnisquam, and always on weekdays. I don't know what the "place to go" might be on those lakes. Seems like no destinations like town public docks or a few crowded sandbars, except the sandbar by the bridge on Winnisquam. Imagine putting a couple of 200 slot valet boat racks on any of these lakes or 50-100 slip marinas, and I bet the neighbors start screaming. I note that Sunapee and Squam have citizen groups that vigorously oppose public access. Winnipesaukee is unique and perhaps should have its own set of rules, beyond the reach of a handful of local landowners.
Just a guess, but I bet if the folks in the (proposed) NRZ's turned off their music systems they'd find the neighbors to be more friendly.

Next Tuesday is the NH primary election. Ask your (Lakes Region) candidates where they stand on NWZ and NRZ issues, or better, tell them where you stand and ask for help. There's a filing period for new legislation shortly after that and again after the November elections. Those are the times to influence your reps. It's a small window of time, so don't delay. For best influence, go hold a sign at the polls.

descant - so do i understand you correctly that the only way to oppose this proposed nrz is to contact elected officials and hold a sign at the polls? it seems as though there could be a more direct approach to speak against this proposal specifically? if so, does anyone happen to know how that works?

sorry, new to forum, not certain this will post correctly. but this is a screenshot of the approximate area that will be affected by this proposed nrz. 150 ' from shore via google maps is the entire sandbar on the east side of the island. if you ever want to anchor and enjoy this area again, this petition cannot pass.

I apologize for beating the proverbial dead horse - it just seems absurd to me that a group of landowners (upon further review of the signatures and corresponding addresses - many of whom are not even direct abutters to proposed nrz) can completely restrict access to this sandbar.

edit: totally agree with you in regards to the loud music aspect of your comment. i would be much more amenable to restrictions on music volume (or any of the other negative behaviors listed in this thread) than just completely shutting down access to ragged island sandbar. address the real issues - don't just kick the can down the road

[Descant]

GenericG: You're combining two issues. First, in an earlier post there is a link to the petition with all their arguments, diagrams, etc. The Department of Safety will announce a public hearing date. You can appear and speak, or submit written testimony. This may come in September. There is a requirement that hearings be held when affected people are likely to be in the area, but to me, it is loosely interpreted.

Second, if you don't like the ease with which a local group can petition to restrict lake activity, e.g. NWZ, NRZ, the procedure needs to be changed, That happens through legislation. If you wait until 2023 when the legislatures starts the new session, it is too late. It needs to be done in September or November when the bill filing period is open. If you find a rep who likes your idea, s/he needs time to draft and find co-sponsors. This all happens in the fall.

Hope that helps.

[hemlock]

Here is a link to the hearing.

It has been scheduled on Thursday September 29th at 11 am. The location is at the Tuftonboro Free Library. By law these hearings cannot be held after the end of September.

This has been orchestrated to try to reduce attendance at the hearing.

Numbers matter. If more people object than approve it is considered.
Evidence matters. The petition makes accusations. People must attend to refute them.

It will be an uphill battle to protect the rights of the public versus the powerful private interests in this area of our lake.(which is supposed to be held in the public trust)

https://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/...and-notice.pdf

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by hemlock

It will be an uphill battle to protect the rights of the public versus the powerful private interests in this area of our lake.(which is supposed to be held in the public trust)

https://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/...and-notice.pdf

I think you put your finger on it with "public trust", but LRCT and others disagree with you on public trust. It looks to me like LRCT believes they have created a monster by enticing people to Ragged in a way that causes the Trust's conservation values to be threatened

[Poor Richard]

Originally Posted by Descant

Years ago LRCT focused a lot more on fundraising to buy and protect certain properties. They did a great job. Now, there is more focus on management. I'm surprised that they felt a need to tighten control on Rattlesnake, but never had similar issues with Stonedam. Stonedam is relatively undeveloped, and there is a lot of development on Rattlesnake. Does that make a difference? Maybe some Rattlesnake residents can give us more background? Similar trash problems on Mount Major? Elsewhere?

Just spoke with a family member who lives on Rattlesnake.

Some examples:

People camping at the summit

People camping at the summit and making fires

People camping at the summit, making fires and leaving their trash strewn about.

People tying up to resident docks

People tying up to resident docks and hanging out

People tying up to resident docks and leaving their boat tied up for the duration of their hike (or possibly the boat tied up overnight for their camping stay on the island)



Generally it's a total lack of respect and consideration for the island as well as the residents.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Poor Richard

Just spoke with a family member who lives on Rattlesnake.

Some examples:

People camping at the summit

People camping at the summit and making fires

People camping at the summit, making fires and leaving their trash strewn about.

People tying up to resident docks

People tying up to resident docks and hanging out

People tying up to resident docks and leaving their boat tied up for the duration of their hike (or possibly the boat tied up overnight for their camping stay on the island)



Generally it's a total lack of respect and consideration for the island as well as the residents.

Yup and have heard a LOT worse than this such as near violent confrontations with island residents. The LRCT has tried to do a good thing but as usual the public few F’d it up… what choice did they honestly have?? The same thing is going on at Ragged… sorry but it just isn’t right…

Dan

[hemlock]

Tieing off to docks and using property for camping on Rattlesnake sound like trespassing. If this is happening it should be reported to the Alton PD with bow numbers etc. I assume that Poor Richards family member has seen this activity.
Usually it takes 2 for a confrontation. Its usually better to avoid those. A good way to do that would be just to contact the Alton PD. If people are camping there and leaving their boats at private docks there would be time for them to get out there.

With regards to the Ragged Island no rafting zone petition, respectfully I would disagree that it is the same thing. No allegations of illegal camping or trespassing have been made. Ragged Island is open to the public per the LRCT website as are their docks. In addition we are talking about use of the lake which is public not private property.

I have a family member who for many years has anchored at Ragged practically every summer weekend. He said that in recent years there has been an increase in the number of anchored boats especially on Holiday weekends. He also said that many of the allegations are either overblown or just untrue. A good example is trash. He was surprised that there were complaints about LRCT staff constantly having to pick up trash on the beach. He would have seen that especially given the amount of time he spends there.

[tis]

Well i can tell you, many years ago we owned a small island on the lake and every time we went out there, we had to bring a trash bag to pick up all the trash. People even left their underwear. When we came in one time, another boat was tying up at the dock and told us they had permission from the owners to use it. Oh, ok. And they weren't intending to leave!!! I told them to please leave.

[hemlock]

Tis
That kind of thing is so sad. I believe that +98% of the people using the lake are not like that. I own a 1.3 acre private Winnipesaukee island and its amazing how those people think they can dock there and walk up to and even go in the camp! Would those same people drive in someones driveway and walk in the peoples house?

People always like to anchor in front of my camp to enjoy the view and the sunset etc. That is their right. I don't own the lake. I feel privileged to have worked hard to buy and build my place but why should I begrudge others to enjoy the lake?

The rafting issue on Winni is an example or poor public policy/law. To allow the lake in the public trust to be closed off to the public via a petition by interested parties, a few signatures and a ruling by the commissioner of Safety seems inappropriate. 13 of the desirable sites for wading/swimming via boat on Winni have been closed off via no rafting. This causes all the boats that otherwise would be distributed to those 13 desirable areas to be concentrated in places like Ragged. Make no mistake the rafting rules are so open to interpretation by Marine Patrol they prevent rafting they don't just regulate it.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Yup and have heard a LOT worse than this such as near violent confrontations with island residents. The LRCT has tried to do a good thing but as usual the public few F’d it up… what choice did they honestly have?? The same thing is going on at Ragged… sorry but it just isn’t right…

Dan

Sad but true.

[tis]

Originally Posted by hemlock

Tis
That kind of thing is so sad. I believe that +98% of the people using the lake are not like that. I own a 1.3 acre private Winnipesaukee island and its amazing how those people think they can dock there and walk up to and even go in the camp! Would those same people drive in someones driveway and walk in the peoples house?

People always like to anchor in front of my camp to enjoy the view and the sunset etc. That is their right. I don't own the lake. I feel privileged to have worked hard to buy and build my place but why should I begrudge others to enjoy the lake?

The rafting issue on Winni is an example or poor public policy/law. To allow the lake in the public trust to be closed off to the public via a petition by interested parties, a few signatures and a ruling by the commissioner of Safety seems inappropriate. 13 of the desirable sites for wading/swimming via boat on Winni have been closed off via no rafting. This causes all the boats that otherwise would be distributed to those 13 desirable areas to be concentrated in places like Ragged. Make no mistake the rafting rules are so open to interpretation by Marine Patrol they prevent rafting they don't just regulate it.

Well, just because it is a no rafting zone doesn't mean people can't anchor there. They just can't tie more than two boats together, must be 25 feet apart, 50 if two are tied together, and must be 150 feet from shore. I think this distributes the boats more over the lake than concentrated in one place. I think it's a good idea. Even in the rafting zones (look at Braun Bay) it gets very crowded and noisy.

Again, no rafting does NOT close an area off. It just limits overcrowding to a certain extent.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by hemlock

Tis
That kind of thing is so sad. I believe that +98% of the people using the lake are not like that. I own a 1.3 acre private Winnipesaukee island and its amazing how those people think they can dock there and walk up to and even go in the camp! Would those same people drive in someones driveway and walk in the peoples house?

People always like to anchor in front of my camp to enjoy the view and the sunset etc. That is their right. I don't own the lake. I feel privileged to have worked hard to buy and build my place but why should I begrudge others to enjoy the lake?

The rafting issue on Winni is an example or poor public policy/law. To allow the lake in the public trust to be closed off to the public via a petition by interested parties, a few signatures and a ruling by the commissioner of Safety seems inappropriate. 13 of the desirable sites for wading/swimming via boat on Winni have been closed off via no rafting. This causes all the boats that otherwise would be distributed to those 13 desirable areas to be concentrated in places like Ragged. Make no mistake the rafting rules are so open to interpretation by Marine Patrol they prevent rafting they don't just regulate it.

I have a waterfront place. I don't get people docking, but I regularly get people anchoring and/or fishing. That's completely cool with me, I'm happy to see others enjoy the lake.

But I have to admit that dozens of boats rafting would drive me bonkers. I'm surprised you don't quite see that it's not the use, it's the overuse/abuse that LRCT needs to stop. At some point, the number of people/boats destroys the thing that people are pursuing.

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by tis

Well, just because it is a no rafting zone doesn't mean people can't anchor there. They just can't tie more than two boats together, must be 25 feet apart, 50 if two are tied together, and must be 150 feet from shore. I think this distributes the boats more over the lake than concentrated in one place. I think it's a good idea. Even in the rafting zones (look at Braun Bay) it gets very crowded and noisy.

Again, no rafting does NOT close an area off. It just limits overcrowding to a certain extent.

Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[GenericG]

Originally Posted by tis

Well, just because it is a no rafting zone doesn't mean people can't anchor there. They just can't tie more than two boats together, must be 25 feet apart, 50 if two are tied together, and must be 150 feet from shore. I think this distributes the boats more over the lake than concentrated in one place. I think it's a good idea. Even in the rafting zones (look at Braun Bay) it gets very crowded and noisy.

Again, no rafting does NOT close an area off. It just limits overcrowding to a certain extent.

tis...i believe this post of yours is inaccurate. any anchoring within 150' of shore is NOT allowed in an nrz. therefore the proposed nrz at ragged would eliminate any anchoring at the sandbar on east side of the island as this entire sandbar is within 150' or shoreline (see screenshot of google maps for 150' reference.)

PART Saf-C 407 RAFTING RULES

Saf-C 407.01 Rafting Rules.

(a) In addition to and in conjunction with the requirements of RSA 270:44, no person, except as otherwise provided herein, shall, in a prohibited location or at a prohibited time:

(1) Form or allow a boat which he or she is operating or in charge of to be a member of a raft consisting of 3 or more boats;

(2) Form or allow the boat which he or she is operating or in charge of to be a member of a raft if any part of such raft is:

a. Less than 150 feet from shore;

b. Less than 50 feet from any other raft; or

c. Less than 50 feet from any occupied single boat which is stationary upon the waters of the same lake or pond; and

(3) Anchor a single boat and cause it to remain stationary upon the waters of a lake or pond, other than momentarily, if any part of such boat is:

a. Less than 150 feet from shore;

b. Less than 50 feet away from any raft; or

c. Less than 25 feet away from any other single boat which is stationary upon the waters of such lake or pond.

source:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rule.../saf-c400.html

additionally, no anchoring within 150' of shore in an nrz is confirmed by the marine parole in post #5 from this link:
https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...ad.php?t=20320

that being said...anyone who enjoys anchoring their boat at the ragged island sandbar should speak out against this proposed nrz at the hearing on Thursday September 29th at 11 am. The location is at the Tuftonboro Free Library. if this proposed nrz passed we will no longer be able to anchor there

furthermore...anyone should attend this hearing and speak out against this proposed nrz even if you've never been to ragged island but are opposed to allowing the lake in the public trust to be closed off to the public via a petition by interested parties, a few signatures and a ruling by the commissioner of Safety.

[tis]

GenericG. Welcome to the forum.

Read my post again. It's not inaccurate. That is what I said, you must be 150 ' from shore in a no rafting zone. " and must be 150 feet from shore. "

[GenericG]

Originally Posted by tis

GenericG. Welcome to the forum.

Read my post again. It's not inaccurate. That is what I said, you must be 150 ' from shore in a no rafting zone. " and must be 150 feet from shore. "

Tis...pardon me, I did misread your post. You are correct, in general an nrz does not prohibit all anchoring.

However, in the area proposed for this nrz at ragged it looks as though the entire nrz lies within 150' of some shoreline... effectively eliminating any and all anchoring on the east side/sandbar.

So while in general an nrz does not prohibit all anchoring...this newly proposed NRZ at ragged does prohibit all anchoring

[DickR]

Perhaps a reasonable compromise to propose at a hearing would be to eliminate or drastically shorten the general 150' part, much as there is a 75' substitution for Braun Bay.

[GenericG]

Mr.r- not a bad idea... I suppose 75' would be better than 150'!

Just wish any regulation would address the issues (or alleged issues) outlined in the nrz proposal (ie littering, loud music, etc.). Something about regulating access to the lake doesn't sit right with me...be it here at ragged or at any other part of the lake.

[Island-Ho]

Where is that NRZ petition; I need to sign it. The problem is too many boats/people concentrated in one area. Why not spread out; there are so many places on this lake to anchor and swim. Try one of the shoals; you won’t disturb anyone there. As always, it’s a few inconsiderate folks that F*** it up for everyone else!

[Cobaltdeadhead]

How about enforcing the rules before creating new ones?

I'm out on the lake almost every Saturday and Sunday and visit a sandbar almost every hot day; typically Alton due to convenience.

You are lucky to see Marine Patrol once every five hours and every weekend there are tons of boats too close together or within 150' of shore.

Whatever changes they make over on Ragged will be enforced even less.

Most of the complaints on the lake could be addressed if the rules were properly enforced

[John Mercier]

So how much should we increase boating registration to get more Marine Patrol?

[tis]

MP is part of the state police. I don't understand why MP is so underfunded since I haven't heard SP are underfunded. Or are they?

I think we have seen MP in our area maybe 10 times all summer. No wonder it's so crazy.

[fatlazyless]

Posted August 20 and tomorrow, Friday September 9 is the application deadline to apply to become a ...... http://www.twitter.com/NH_StatePolic...86301704196096 .....full time Marine Patrol officer ...... salary about $5000/month ..... every month ..... 12-months/year ..... wear a happening uniform ..... work independently out there, somewhere on the water ..... no scraping, sanding and re-painting required!

[ishoot308]

Marine Patrol cannot enforce what occurs on land at the Rattlesnake LRCT dock / trail. I believe that would fall under local police jurisdiction.

The problem is, the LRCT has tried to do something good by allowing the public to enjoy the land it has preserved in its trust. Unfortunately it is NOT a select few (as mentioned above) that are / have ruined it for everyone else, it is more like quite a few that have caused the severe issues that have taken place on rattlesnake.

Severe littering, destruction of property, parking at the dock for excessive periods of time with loud music, excessive drinking, overnight camping and fires, drug use and lewd behavior as well as violent confrontations with area land owners have left the LRCT with no choice but to now limit public access to its members and only under supervised guided tours. What the heck else did anyone expect them to do??...turn a blind eye and pretend none of this is occurring?? Wait for a island fire to occur so they can be sued?? This has been going on for quite sometime and something needed to be done!

As far as Ragged Island goes, I have been a supporter both financially and physically for many years to help conserve this beautiful spot on the lake. I am extremely saddened at what I have personally seen occurring at Ragged in recent years and it is pretty much the exact same issues that occurred at Rattlesnake. It sickens me to no end to see such a beautiful place be slowly destroyed and it will eventually be shut down as they will have no choice, just like rattlesnake....I feel really bad for Muriel Robinette (island Steward) who has dedicated much of her life to the protection and conservation of Ragged. She has a thankless / pay less job yet continues to do it because of her love of the island. It must be heart wrenching for her to watch its demise...

Dan

[GenericG]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Marine Patrol cannot enforce what occurs on land at the Rattlesnake LRCT dock / trail. I believe that would fall under local police jurisdiction.

The problem is, the LRCT has tried to do something good buy allowing the public to enjoy the land it has preserved in its trust. Unfortunately it is NOT a select few (as mentioned above) that are / have ruined it for everyone else, it is more like quite a few that have caused the severe issues that have taken place on rattlesnake.

Severe littering, destruction of property, parking at the dock for excessive periods of time with loud music, excessive drinking, overnight camping and fires, drug use and lewd behavior as well as violent confrontations with area land owners have left the LRCT with no choice but to now limit public access to its members and only under supervised guided tours. What the heck else did anyone expect them to do??...turn a blind eye and pretend none of this is occurring?? Wait for a island fire to occur so they can be sued?? This has been going on for quite sometime and something needed to be done!

As far as Ragged Island goes, I have been a supporter both financially and physically for many years to help conserve this beautiful spot on the lake. I am extremely saddened at what I have personally seen occurring at Ragged in recent years and it is pretty much the exact same issues that occurred at Rattlesnake. It sickens me to no end to see such a beautiful place be slowly destroyed and it will eventually be shut down as they will have no choice, just like rattlesnake....I feel really bad for Muriel Robinette (island Steward) who has dedicated much of her life to the protection and conservation of Ragged. She has a thankless / pay less job yet continues to do it because of her love of the island. It must be heart wrenching for her to watch its demise...

Dan

dan - i do not think anyone on this forum is supporting the behavior seen (alleged or otherwise) on ragged or rattlesnake. if lrct believes their only option is to limit or prohibit public access to these islands - that is their decision. what is not their decision is to limit or restrict the public's access to the lake.

furthermore, to piggyback off deadhead's comment above, the real solution is to address this unruly behavior (alleged or otherwise)...not just kick the can down the road and make it someone else's problem.

winnipesaukee belongs to the people of the state...not a select group of landowners or a trust that gets to limit access as they see fit. this proposed nrz, which would severely limit public use of the sandbar on the eastside of ragged island, is in direct contradiction to NHs public trust doctrine.

The State of New Hampshire holds in trust all the public waters, including all natural lakes and ponds of ten acres or more in size, navigable rivers, and tidal waters for the use and benefit of the people of the state.

[John Mercier]

Because we use a fee schedule for boating...
If the MP ledger was to go negative, the Legislature would need to adjust the fee schedule.

The new NRZ would not be on the land... nor would it stop a boater from trespass.

If it was sent to local PD... then the town budget for policing would need to go up so that an officer could always be there to prevent the trespass.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by GenericG

the real solution is to address this unruly behavior (alleged or otherwise).

Putting the NRZ petition aside for a minute, if you were in charge of the LRCT what would YOU do regarding the on land issues at rattlesnake and Ragged?? Try to remember the LRCT is NOT a policing organization. The majority of the people (island stewards) are all volunteers...

Dan

[GenericG]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Putting the NRZ petition aside for a minute, if you were in charge of the LRCT what would YOU do regarding the on land issues at rattlesnake and Ragged?? Try to remember the LRCT is NOT a policing organization. The majority of the people (island stewards) are all volunteers...

Dan

Dan...in regards to the on land issues there are a number of solutions that could work, but the most direct option does seem to be as simple as limiting land access to the general public. While many people would be upset by this, i believe it would be well within lrct's rights to do so (correct me if I'm wrong). Hopefully a restriction to land access on one (or multiple) properties (possibly short term) would be enough curb any negative behavior lrct has been experiencing on ragged or rattlesnake.

Now the flip side of that coin...do you think the negative behavior lrct has seen on land should give them the right to blatantly contradict NHs public trust doctrine and attempt to restrict the public's access to lake Winnipesaukee?

[John Mercier]

The restrictions won't do it without policing.

My guess is the taxpayers at one level or another are going to have to cover the cost of the extra policing to protect the property right on the land.

[GenericG]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The restrictions won't do it without policing.

My guess is the taxpayers at one level or another are going to have to cover the cost of the extra policing to protect the property right on the land.

Mr.mercier...what would you propose as a solution?

[The Real BigGuy]

I see people writing “it’s the few” that are messing it up for “the many” an awful lot. If having the unfettered use is so important, How about injured “many” take responsibility for holding “the few” responsible for the issues they create? Take bow numbers & pictures and report them to MP if it’s on the water & LRCT or the local police if on land. Or, is it just easier to blame it on lack of enforcement and turn your back and complain?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by GenericG

Dan...in regards to the on land issues there are a number of solutions that could work, but the most direct option does seem to be as simple as limiting land access to the general public. While many people would be upset by this, i believe it would be well within lrct's rights to do so (correct me if I'm wrong). Hopefully a restriction to land access on one (or multiple) properties (possibly short term) would be enough curb any negative behavior lrct has been experiencing on ragged or rattlesnake.

Now the flip side of that coin...do you think the negative behavior lrct has seen on land should give them the right to blatantly contradict NHs public trust doctrine and attempt to restrict the public's access to lake Winnipesaukee?

If their property is being negatively impacted (jet skis and boats beaching on shore,…boats tying off to trees on shore, broken bottles, trash and dirty diapers left on shore, etc,etc) and all other avenues of enforcement have failed, then yes I believe they have right to agree with and sign the petition to protect the property they hold in trust …It is very unfortunate however….

Dan

[GenericG]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

I see people writing “it’s the few” that are messing it up for “the many” an awful lot. If having the unfettered use is so important, How about injured “many” take responsibility for holding “the few” responsible for the issues they create? Take bow numbers & pictures and report them to MP if it’s on the water & LRCT or the local police if on land. Or, is it just easier to blame it on lack of enforcement and turn your back and complain?

Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Rbg... totally agree with you. However, many of the actions outlined in lrct's petition I have never witnessed. I've been at ragged during holiday weekends with many many boats and people enjoying the lake and never witnessed ANY illegal drug use, never witnessed ANY littering, and never witnessed ANY aggressive behavior of boaters towards lrct staff/volunteers.

What I have seen is loud stereos and drinking.

Which leads me to believe some of the ascertations in lrct's proposed NRZ zone are fabricated and/or overblown. I would guess the people who signed probably don't like loud music. I would almost venture as far as to guess they may not like beer drinking. But both of these behaviors are legal. I would be more amenable to other regulations (especially for the stereos) so long as access to state owned lake waters is not limited by "a few".

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by GenericG

Rbg... totally agree with you. However, many of the actions outlined in lrct's petition I have never witnessed. I've been at ragged during holiday weekends with many many boats and people enjoying the lake and never witnessed ANY illegal drug use, never witnessed ANY littering, and never witnessed ANY aggressive behavior of boaters towards lrct staff/volunteers.

What I have seen is loud stereos and drinking.

Which leads me to believe some of the ascertations in lrct's proposed NRZ zone are fabricated and/or overblown. I would guess the people who signed probably don't like loud music. I would almost venture as far as to guess they may not like beer drinking. But both of these behaviors are legal. I would be more amenable to other regulations (especially for the stereos) so long as access to state owned lake waters is not limited by "a few".

LRCT has a history of 'blowing things out of proportion'. That is why I decided to put our land under the Belnap Conservatory Trust umbrella. When approached LRCT wants to limit recreational use of the land including banning the snowmobile corridor. They also wanted to ban farming! We told them no. They said we are making a huge mistake! A decade later, we are glad we made the decision. No mistake at all!

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by GenericG

Rbg... totally agree with you. However, many of the actions outlined in lrct's petition I have never witnessed. I've been at ragged during holiday weekends with many many boats and people enjoying the lake and never witnessed ANY illegal drug use, never witnessed ANY littering, and never witnessed ANY aggressive behavior of boaters towards lrct staff/volunteers.

What I have seen is loud stereos and drinking.

Which leads me to believe some of the ascertations in lrct's proposed NRZ zone are fabricated and/or overblown. I would guess the people who signed probably don't like loud music. I would almost venture as far as to guess they may not like beer drinking. But both of these behaviors are legal. I would be more amenable to other regulations (especially for the stereos) so long as access to state owned lake waters is not limited by "a few".

Just because you have not personally seen it doesn’t mean it’s fabricated or not happening. It may very well happen when you are not around.

Personally I don’t like a lot of the NRZs on the lake or the way they go about (or used to go about) the hearings. However, I can understand why people petition for them. If everyone was a little more considerate the prob would go away.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

LRCT has a history of 'blowing things out of proportion'. That is why I decided to put our land under the Belnap Conservatory Trust umbrella. When approached LRCT wants to limit recreational use of the land including banning the snowmobile corridor. They also wanted to ban farming! We told them no. They said we are making a huge mistake! A decade later, we are glad we made the decision. No mistake at all!

Broadhopper,

Just curious which land, location wise, you put in the hands of the Belknap Conservatory. I assume they kept it open to the public? I may wish to do something similar and would like to research it more fully.

Thanks!

Dan

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by GenericG

Mr.mercier...what would you propose as a solution?

There is only one solution.
They will need more law enforcement for the issues of concern.

They would need to file complaints and request that enforcement.

If it is a town responsibility... the town would need to supply that.
If it is a state responsibility... the state would need to supply that.

In the end, the town or state would need to cover any costs of the extra enforcement.

[sawyerpoint]

I spent 12 years as a volunteer at the LRCT. I served as a trail volunteer, trail adopter, property adopter and trustee. The goal was always safe maximum public use of its preserved properties

[GenericG]

Originally Posted by sawyerpoint

I spent 12 years as a volunteer at the LRCT. I served as a trail volunteer, trail adopter, property adopter and trustee. The goal was always safe maximum public use of its preserved properties

Sawyerpoint...thank you very much for your service to this community. I think, at face value, lrct mission is in good intent. However, their proposed NRZ on east side of ragged does not support max public use of their preserved properties. Furthermore lrct's proposed nrz is attempting to limit public use of lake Winnipesaukee, property which lrct has no (or rather SHOULD have no) governance/management/authority etc. Lake Winnipesaukee itself is not owned or safeguarded by lrct

[tis]

Originally Posted by GenericG

Sawyerpoint...thank you very much for your service to this community. I think, at face value, lrct mission is in good intent. However, their proposed NRZ on east side of ragged does not support max public use of their preserved properties. Furthermore lrct's proposed nrz is attempting to limit public use of lake Winnipesaukee, property which lrct has no (or rather SHOULD have no) governance/management/authority etc. Lake Winnipesaukee itself is not owned or safeguarded by lrct

I remember when the snowmobile clubs supported the purchase of land at the Castle In the Clouds because they were told it would all remain open.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by GenericG

Sawyerpoint...thank you very much for your service to this community. I think, at face value, lrct mission is in good intent. However, their proposed NRZ on east side of ragged does not support max public use of their preserved properties. Furthermore lrct's proposed nrz is attempting to limit public use of lake Winnipesaukee, property which lrct has no (or rather SHOULD have no) governance/management/authority etc. Lake Winnipesaukee itself is not owned or safeguarded by lrct

If you were having problems with trespass from an abutting property... you wouldn't ask the neighbors to restrict the problem?

LRCT didn't seek to govern... they sought the ''management'' team of the lake to govern.

That team/process is their choice... but they will need to weigh it with the additional costs of policing that their ''guests'' do not infringe on the property rights managed by LRCT.

It is a pretty straight forward process much as it would be with any other two abutting ''neighbors''.

[GenericG]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

If you were having problems with trespass from an abutting property... you wouldn't ask the neighbors to restrict the problem?

LRCT didn't seek to govern... they sought the ''management'' team of the lake to govern.

That team/process is their choice... but they will need to weigh it with the additional costs of policing that their ''guests'' do not infringe on the property rights managed by LRCT.

It is a pretty straight forward process much as it would be with any other two abutting ''neighbors''.

false analogy.

[John Mercier]

Not really.

If I was on your neighbor's land and creating a situation, you wouldn't ask your neighbor for relief?

If the neighbor was not the sole owner, you don't think the neighbor would need to ask the other owners for their input?

If your neighbor ignored your pleading, you wouldn't contact the police?