Opposition to no rafting zone
This is just a first draft, but feel free to add or make corrections....
Attorney Christopher Casko
Department of Safety
Bureau of Hearings
33 Hazen Drive
Concord NH, 03305
We, the undersigned, are writing in opposition to a petition to prohibit and / or restrict rafting of boats on Lake Winnipesaukee in Springfield Cove.
The petitioners state that they are requesting the creation of a “no rafting zone” based on a “claim that rafting poses a pollution risk and safety hazard,” yet the petitioners have dedicated a total of two sentences in their petition to these issues. In regards to the pollution risk, the petitioners have made claim that “warm water and fertile sediment provide ideal conditions for milfoil” and that “repeated dropping and hauling of anchors” enhances the spread of milfoil. The petitioners have failed to provide any evidence to support this claim. They have not provided any data to indicate that the water in “Springfield Cove” is any warmer, more fertile, or in any way more susceptible to milfoil contamination than any other part of the lake. The petitioners have also failed to provide any evidence that the use of anchors increases this contamination. In fact, their request for the creation of a “no rafting zone” would increase the use of anchors. The act of rafting involves multiple boats being tied to each other with one pair of anchor points. The creation of a “no rafting zone” would require each boat to drop its’ own pair of anchors. The petitioners have implied that the creation of a “no rafting zone” would stop the spread of milfoil on the lake, yet the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) investigated the issue of milfoil contamination on the lake and made no recommendations for the creation of a “no rafting zone”. The NHDES states that milfoil is spread to an area by wind and currents. The petitioners have provided no evidence of milfoil contamination in “Springfield Cove,” and have not shown enough concern to implement any of the recommendations of the NHDES, including hand removal and the appointing of a neighborhood weed watcher. It seems clear that the petitioners are less concerned about this pollution as they are about their personal complaints, which should be addressed with law enforcement and not by petitioning for the creation of this “no rafting zone”.
In support of their claim of “safety concerns,” the petitioners have stated, “children from the boats swim and dive.” They indicate that “markers” are needed to indicate “where the swimmers are located.” Perhaps the petitioners would like all swimmers on the lake to where strobe lights, but this has nothing to do with the creation of a “no rafting zone.” Whether or not there is a “no rafting zone,” swimmers will continue to be able to swim and dive in the lake. The only change would be allowing boats to tie off to each other, or to anchor separately.
In stark contrast to the two sentences provided as evidence in support of the petitioners’ claim of “a pollution risk and safety hazard,” they have dedicated considerable time to their personal opinions, which have no bearing on a “no rafting zone” petition. They refer to area boaters as “rafters,” but have not directly claimed or provided evidence that anyone is actually rafting in the area. The petitioners have dedicated four sentences to littering. They provide great specifics, counting the exact number of cans, bottles, and bags of chips they picked up on July 5th of an unspecified year. The petitioners have not provided evidence of, or even claimed that this is related to boating. Irrelevant of this, the creation of a “no rafting zone” has no impact on laws prohibiting littering. We stand firmly with the petitioners that littering on the lake is illegal, and should be dealt with by the Police, both on and off the water.
The petitioners have referenced a problem with “noise” of the lake, which again has no connection to whether or not boaters are tied to each other or anchored separately. We believe that if a boaters is creating such a noise as to disturb the peace that it should also be reported to the police. The petitioners have stopped short of this, instead complaining about “conversation.” The petitioners have also made claims about a swimmer in the area being on a neighbors raft, yet no report was made to the police department, nor did the owner engage the swimmer to let him or her know that they may be on private property. The petitioners also complain about “rafters repeatedly looking through house windows with binoculars and cameras,” yet they have again made no complaint to the Police Department. They also take this complaint one step further, saying that they are “subject to being filmed.” We would again argue that none of this has anything to do with the creation of a “no rafting zone.” Finally, the petitioners claim that “The Wolfeboro Police Department has documented nude sexual acts in the cove…” yet the petitioners have not attached a copy of such documentation. The claims of one person versus incidents being witnessed by a police officer are two very different things, but neither has anything to do with the creation of a “no rafting zone”. An incident such as this would have to be addressed by a court as to whether there was an expectation of privacy, and whether any such incident had actually occurred.
In conclusion, the petitioners state, “Some modicum of respect and distance to protect the property owners and minimize pollution is all we ask” yet it is in fact not all they ask. They are specifically asking for the creation of a “no rafting zone” for issues that have nothing to do with rafting.
|