Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > General Discussion
Home Forums Gallery Webcams Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Register FAQDonate Members List Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-08-2022, 12:14 PM   #1
GenericG
Junior Member
 
GenericG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 12
Thanks: 20
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ishoot308 View Post
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?
GenericG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2022, 12:17 PM   #2
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 3,459
Thanks: 3
Thanked 609 Times in 503 Posts
Default

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.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to John Mercier For This Useful Post:
GenericG (09-08-2022)
Old 09-08-2022, 12:19 PM   #3
GenericG
Junior Member
 
GenericG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 12
Thanks: 20
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mercier View Post
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?
GenericG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2022, 10:49 PM   #4
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 3,459
Thanks: 3
Thanked 609 Times in 503 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenericG View Post
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.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to John Mercier For This Useful Post:
GenericG (09-08-2022)
Old 09-08-2022, 12:29 PM   #5
ishoot308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gilford, NH / Welch Island
Posts: 6,294
Thanks: 2,403
Thanked 5,306 Times in 2,067 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenericG View Post
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
__________________
It's Always Sunny On Welch Island!!
ishoot308 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ishoot308 For This Useful Post:
GenericG (09-08-2022)
Sponsored Links
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.28662 seconds