Braun Bay ???

chunt · 02-20-2009, 02:37 PM

I have always wondered how, legally, a place can be defined as " No Rafting". Is'nt one of our constitutional rights "fredom to assemble"? Why, because we are in a boat, can we be prevented to assemble?

chipj29 · 02-20-2009, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chunt

I have always wondered how, legally, a place can be defined as " No Rafting". Is'nt one of our constitutional rights "fredom to assemble"? Why, because we are in a boat, can we be prevented to assemble?

It is probably a "safety" issue.

kjbathe · 02-20-2009, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chunt

Is'nt one of our constitutional rights "fredom to assemble"

Oh, here we go... Our rights are being trampled! People are being disenfranchised! The Man is keepin' us down! George Bush shredded the Constitution... Uzi-toting Nazi's dressed as Marine Patrol officers dragged me from Braun Bay in the dark of night... Marine Patrol should enforce only the regulations that other people violate... I only want to follow the rules I find convenient... I need a bailout....

My Winni-loving co-workers couldn't figure out if this thread was really really slow on the uptake, or (with several inches of new snow on the ground) the most proactive start we've seen to the annual MP gripe-fest.

It's a designated "no rafting" zone. It's not rocket science, folks...

Tank151 · 02-21-2009, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjbathe

Oh, here we go... Our rights are being trampled! People are being disenfranchised! The Man is keepin' us down! George Bush shredded the Constitution... Uzi-toting Nazi's dressed as Marine Patrol officers dragged me from Braun Bay in the dark of night... Marine Patrol should enforce only the regulations that other people violate... I only want to follow the rules I find convenient... I need a bailout....

My Winni-loving co-workers couldn't figure out if this thread was really really slow on the uptake, or (with several inches of new snow on the ground) the most proactive start we've seen to the annual MP gripe-fest.

It's a designated "no rafting" zone. It's not rocket science, folks...

Now this guy has some issues?

OCDACTIVE · 02-21-2009, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tank151

Now this guy has some issues?

I think you hit the nail on the head.... LOL.. that is why no one responded directly.

Good conversation good opinions and a valid question since there is some confusion to the situation as to where specifically you can raft and where you can't. I think many of these threads do serve a purpose. I received some clairfication hopefully others did as well.

hazelnut · 02-21-2009, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

I think you hit the nail on the head.... LOL.. that is why no one responded directly.

Good conversation good opinions and a valid question since there is some confusion to the situation as to where specifically you can raft and where you can't. I think many of these threads do serve a purpose. I received some clairfication hopefully others did as well.

Personally I think you raised a VERY valid concern with the demeanor of a certain officer and you also raised a VERY valid concern with allocation of resources. Nobody will EVER convince me that this was a beneficial use of resources. We have hundred of idiots on this lake during a major holiday weekend creating havoc with moving violations. To use THREE units to clear RAFTERS or measure distance between anchored vessels in Braun Bay is, in my opinion, a horrible deployment of resources. This absolutely should be questioned. Of course my opinion only.

Mee-n-Mac · 02-20-2009, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chunt

I have always wondered how, legally, a place can be defined as " No Rafting". Is'nt one of our constitutional rights "fredom to assemble"? Why, because we are in a boat, can we be prevented to assemble?

Strictly speaking you aren't be prevented from "assembling", you're just having to do it over a bigger space and further from shore in a NRZ. The problem comes in that the lake is more developed and more used (by boaters) than it used to be. So there's going to be conflict between the shore dwellers and the rafters. The "compromise" is to split up the big party and move it further off shore. Like OCD said, I suspect it wont get any better as time goes by and population and boater densities increase (if that's even possible). There was even a bill to make the whole lake a NRZ ... which I think is excessive. We boaters should have gotten together and bought Timber I when it was up for sale. LRCT could have preserved the land and boaters could have made the shoreline a DRZ. Or we could fill in the Witches and ring it with mooring buoys ....

jrc · 02-20-2009, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chunt

I have always wondered how, legally, a place can be defined as " No Rafting". Is'nt one of our constitutional rights "fredom to assemble"? Why, because we are in a boat, can we be prevented to assemble?

I look at rafting like a parking restriction. If it's constitutional to have "no parking zones" then its constitutional to have "no rafting zones"

Remember a law can be constitutional and be silly and unfair.

Please use PART Saf-C 407 RAFTING RULES in this link for your guidelines on rafting; http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rules/saf-c400.html

This an adminstrative rule and it is more strict than the statelaw RSA270:42-46

An interesting part of the law is:

A person shall be guilty of a violation if he: ...Refuses to cooperate with a law enforcement officer in the determination of compliance...

02-20-2009, 02:37 PM	#1
chunt Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 20 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I have always wondered how, legally, a place can be defined as " No Rafting". Is'nt one of our constitutional rights "fredom to assemble"? Why, because we are in a boat, can we be prevented to assemble?