Braun Bay Rafting Bill

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

Nor did you do any research for yourself!

It's not fair to make statements about a group of people and then not have the data to back it up.

This post is talking about one certain rep and you lump the rest of them in with her. That is just not fair!

I do not need to justify myself to you nor will I.

However I said Many not "all". It was refreshing to see that Rep. Christensen is willing to listen to the people.

There are many issues being discussed at the state house. And I don't know if you are involved or not. However I am and from first hand experience it is unfortunate how many Reps. do not understand the legislation "not only this one" before they cast their votes. Many simply vote along party lines.

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

I do not need to justify myself to you nor will I.

However I said Many not "all". It was refreshing to see that Rep. Christensen is willing to listen to the people.

There are many issues being discussed at the state house. And I don't know if you are involved or not. However I am and from first hand experience it is unfortunate how many Reps. do not understand the legislation "not only this one" before they cast their votes. Many simply vote along party lines.

What seems to be unfortunate here is that if a lawmaker votes for something that you don't like, then they didn't do their research properly and therefore they are ignorant.

I firmly believe that we need to give our legislative body more credit for what they do even if they don't vote our way each time.

[DEJ]

[QUOTE=Yosemite Sam;116886]What seems to be unfortunate here is that if a lawmaker votes for something that you don't like, then they didn't do their research properly and therefore they are ignorant.

That is not what OCDACTIVE said YS, I suggest you go back, read and comprehend what he posted.

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by DEJ

That is not what OCDACTIVE said YS, I suggest you go back, read and comprehend what he posted.

Please explain to me what he said that I didn't comprehend?

[DEJ]

Post #26 should explain it for you. Glad I could help you.

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by DEJ

Post #26 should explain it for you. Glad I could help you.

Thank you. Now it is clear as mud!

[DEJ]

Comprehension - the act or action of grasping with the intellect.

Not all of us have those skills evidently.

[NoRegrets]

Yo-Sam. All you have to do is listen to any of the debates from the Mass race for senator and you can see how accurate OCD's observations were. Look at the change and transparancy we got. The people serving on the national level used to be the cream of the crop and the locals were not bad but not the same caliberr. I think he was being polite and thank the powers to be that there are still reps. like Mr Christensento deal with. It is impossible to get any of my reps to even talk to the little people!

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

What seems to be unfortunate here is that if a lawmaker votes for something that you don't like, then they didn't do their research properly and therefore they are ignorant.

I firmly believe that we need to give our legislative body more credit for what they do even if they don't vote our way each time.

First I have utmost respect for those who are willing to serve "the people".

Also, there have been many votes against my thoughts such as the gaming bill. The data from a social perspective did not recommend it, financially it did. Although what I wanted did not happen the data was there and the current legislative body did what it thought was in the best interests of "the people".

This bill clearly is not in the best interest of the majority of the people and the sponsor themself by her own admission is not clear on the current laws yet she is presenting this bill.

Back on topic, what are your thoughts on this bill? Or are you just trying to find an argument on a topic because we haven't seen eye to eye on past issues? I noticed this thread has been up for quite awhile and you hadn't responded before... Be careful there are names for people who do that. Not saying that is the case here.....

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Be careful there are names for people who do that. Not saying that is the case here.....

This proves my point that if someone disagrees with you or ask you to explain something that they don't understand, then they are either ignorant or a troll.

Does asking for clarification about something make me a troll?

From what I have read here about the Braun Bay proposed bill, Ms Patten hasn't done the proper research needed to convince me that this bill is needed.

[DEJ]

You pretty much nailed it OCD.

[SIKSUKR]

Sounds like somebody might be a state represenitive or an elected official.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

This proves my point that if someone disagrees with you or ask you to explain something that they don't understand, then they are either ignorant or a troll.

Does asking for clarification about something make me a troll?

From what I have read here about the Braun Bay proposed bill, Ms Patten hasn't done the proper research needed to convince me that this bill is needed.

Well since we agree on this that the information provided does not warrent this new law no need to argue the point. Thanks for your support.

[Mink Islander]

Back on topic, what are your thoughts on this bill? Or are you just trying to find an argument on a topic because we haven't seen eye to eye on past issues? I noticed this thread has been up for quite awhile and you hadn't responded before... Be careful there are names for people who do that. Not saying that is the case here..... [/QUOTE]


In my experience on this forum, when people start questioning the motives of other forum members instead of staying "on topic", the discussion too often turns nasty and non-constructive.

Not saying that's the case here

I wrote all of the reps and got back numerous friendly replies. Sometimes it is better to just write to their personal addresses.
I think ten boats anchored all day in a cove that size is plenty...probably as much abuse as any cove can stand. Remember, we are not just talking about boats sitting inertly atop the water here. People are peeing and littering. Bilge pumps are kicking on and off. Like any place else that people frequent, lots of "stuff" is being left behind. Like any other rafting cove on the lake, the bottom is covered with sunk Budweiser empties, and worse. And therein lies the problem. Too many partiers have taken too much of a toll for too long on what used to be such a nice spot, or this bill would not have ever gotten filed. Blame them...blame yourselves.
Ten boats might not be the right number, but at least it is a start. Now the reps can argue about whether it should be ten boats or eight or sixteen, but at least we have a proposal with a fixed number, and that number can be debated and tweeked. That is how the legislative process is supposed to work.
What is your suggestion? "No limits"? "Let people decide for themselves"? Sounds familiar.
Meanwhile, a much better rafting spot continues to be roped off to all boats...right off Ellacoya State Beach in Gilford. The cleanest water in the lake. The nicest bottom. Acres and acres of 3-ft deep sandy bottom off shore of state-owned land with nobody using it. A natural flushing system (Ellacoya Brook) to wash the pee away. Ropes say "Keep out". Why? Where's the outrage?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by elchase

I wrote all of the reps and got back numerous friendly replies. Sometimes it is better to just write to their personal addresses.
I think ten boats anchored all day in a cove that size is plenty...probably as much abuse as any cove can stand. Remember, we are not just talking about boats sitting inertly atop the water here. People are peeing and littering. Bilge pumps are kicking on and off. Like any place else that people frequent, lots of "stuff" is being left behind. Like any other rafting cove on the lake, the bottom is covered with sunk Budweiser empties, and worse. And therein lies the problem. Too many partiers have taken too much of a toll for too long on what used to be such a nice spot, or this bill would not have ever gotten filed. Blame them...blame yourselves.
Ten boats might not be the right number, but at least it is a start. Now the reps can argue about whether it should be ten boats or eight or sixteen, but at least we have a proposal with a fixed number, and that number can be debated and tweeked. That is how the legislative process is supposed to work.
What is your suggestion? "No limits"? "Let people decide for themselves"? Sounds familiar.
Meanwhile, a much better rafting spot continues to be roped off to all boats...right off Ellacoya State Beach in Gilford. The cleanest water in the lake. The nicest bottom. Acres and acres of 3-ft deep sandy bottom off shore of state-owned land with nobody using it. A natural flushing system (Ellacoya Brook) to wash the pee away. Ropes say "Keep out". Why? Where's the outrage?

In my opinion, NO areas of the lake should be roped off to keep people out (unless for a legit reason such as milfoil abatement). The lake is for ALL people to use.

[DEJ]

What is next, a bill limiting the number of boats on the lake? This mentality of limiting everything simply because a few complain is getting ridiculous.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by DEJ

What is next, a bill limiting the number of boats on the lake? This mentality of limiting everything simply because a few complain is getting ridiculous.

Agreed,but we may have turned the corner after the event in Massachusetts yesterday.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Agreed,but we may have turned the corner after the event in Massachusetts yesterday.

Agreed, as long as the supporters of the losing team don't flock here!

[Misty Blue]

elchase:

I don't know where you are finding trash, etc. in the Kona area of Braun Bay.

I live on the bay and have a view of the sand bar where those dirty boaters spend so much time. I have an intrest in the bay to say the least.

First the bay, in my opinion, is not overcrowded. Yes I have seen as many as seventy boats up in the bay in the past. There are usually fewer boats than that and they are using the sandbar for six hours a day, two days a week for eight to ten weeks a year. It doesn't seem more busy (traffic wise) than Weirs, Alton, Wolfeboro etc. Boats that are anchored don't scare me. Laws like this one would place "controls" on the bay that are in effect 24/7 from ice out to ice in. What' more, as written, it encompesses the entire bay not just the state land on the north shore.

As for trash. Where are you getting this? We conoe and kayak there all the time and I am shocked at how clean it is! I expect that the people enjoying the area self police themselves well. I have seen people asking others not to wash their boats there because they are playing in the water.

I have hunted in the Kona area my whole life and have only once or twice found human waste (poop) in the area. Same thing goes for cans.

Sorry but I think that this is just a case of a "squeeky wheel" getting the ear of a Rep. who is not up to par on the subject.

Misy Blue

[NoRegrets]

I am not a Braun Bay frequenter but it is amazing to read about the positives and then the horrors of the location. Stories from both property owners and boaters come from 2 extreme perspectives. Is everyone talking about the same place or are there 2 Braun bays?

One of the addicting features of the Winni Forum is allowing these diverse perspectives to be pondered.

One man's treasure is another's trash. There are times I love the quiet and solitude on the lake and other times I enjoy a great party. It is not possible to have both at the same time but you cannot control public resources when used in a legal way. If there is a trash issue I am sure the repeat users of the bay could organize a "clean-up" party on a periodic basis. I have seen many boaters try to pick up trash they find and take care of it later. Most of the positive posters seem reasonable.

I hope this is an effort to get an issue on the table and let the debate begin and address the real issues. I am truly against having the government create laws to manage how or when we can use public resources for enjoyment. Eventually we would end up spending all our discretionary time checking the law books for what we could or could not do before we ventured onto public property.

Thank you Massachusett*E*s voters for the backbone and sending the message across the country to stop the "Bribes for Votes" process!

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by NoRegrets

... Stories from both property owners and boaters come from 2 extreme perspectives. Is everyone talking about the same place or are there 2 Braun bays? ....

How correct NoRegrets!

Not only are there "two Braun Bays" it seems most of the same gang has a radically different view of the whole lake! You cannot go faster than they want and you cannot stop to enjoy public shallow water. I guess if you have personal phone numbers of law-makers, you get special treatment, while the rest of us just get to pay tax and usage bills.

So nice of them to let us use their lake!!!

Watch out for their next restriction! They seem to think they are special and they admit they are politically connected with access the private phone lines of law-makers. At least that is the present case. Elections can and will change things when they get out-of-hand. Just look a bit south for proof!

R2B

[chipj29]

Just another unnecessary (proposed) law, that is already covered by existing laws. What problems does it address?
1. Littering? Laws against littering are on the books.
2. Human poop in the woods? There are laws against indecent exposure on the books.
3. Dumping black/grey water? There are laws against that too.

So what exactly would this accomplish, other than to satisfy a few chronic complainers (a very small minority)?

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

How correct NoRegrets!

Not only are there "two Braun Bays" it seems most of the same gang has a radically different view of the whole lake! You cannot go faster than they want and you cannot stop to enjoy public shallow water. I guess if you have personal phone numbers of law-makers, you get special treatment, while the rest of us just get to pay tax and usage bills.

So nice of them to let us use their lake!!!

Watch out for their next restriction! They seem to think they are special and they admit they are politically connected with access the private phone lines of law-makers. At least that is the present case. Elections can and will change things when they get out-of-hand. Just look a bit south for proof!

R2B

"they" are awful people aren't "they"

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by elchase

I wrote all of the reps and got back numerous friendly replies. Sometimes it is better to just write to their personal addresses.
I think ten boats anchored all day in a cove that size is plenty...probably as much abuse as any cove can stand. Remember, we are not just talking about boats sitting inertly atop the water here. People are peeing and littering. Bilge pumps are kicking on and off. Like any place else that people frequent, lots of "stuff" is being left behind. Like any other rafting cove on the lake, the bottom is covered with sunk Budweiser empties, and worse. And therein lies the problem. Too many partiers have taken too much of a toll for too long on what used to be such a nice spot, or this bill would not have ever gotten filed. Blame them...blame yourselves.
Ten boats might not be the right number, but at least it is a start. Now the reps can argue about whether it should be ten boats or eight or sixteen, but at least we have a proposal with a fixed number, and that number can be debated and tweeked. That is how the legislative process is supposed to work.
What is your suggestion? "No limits"? "Let people decide for themselves"? Sounds familiar.
Meanwhile, a much better rafting spot continues to be roped off to all boats...right off Ellacoya State Beach in Gilford. The cleanest water in the lake. The nicest bottom. Acres and acres of 3-ft deep sandy bottom off shore of state-owned land with nobody using it. A natural flushing system (Ellacoya Brook) to wash the pee away. Ropes say "Keep out". Why? Where's the outrage?

ElChase: Why don't you propose to your cronies on the legislature to swap Braun Bay for Ellacoya State Beach! That is an excellent idea!

[BernerGuy]

"No person shall form or allow the boat which he or she is operating or in charge of to be a member of a raft consisting of 3 or more boats in Braun Bay at any time when there are already 3 rafts consisting of 3 or more boats in Braun Bay. In this section, “raft” shall have the same meaning as in RSA 270:42, IV. "


Hence, if there are 2 rafts consisting of 700 boats each, then a 3rd raft can be made with an infinite number of boats and so long as a 4th raft is not made everything is fine? This bill is not something I favor, but I see this as a HUGE loophole.

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by elchase

What is your suggestion? "No limits"? "Let people decide for themselves"? Sounds familiar.
?

Yup, why let the citizens of this country decide things for themselves? Big Brother is the way to go?! Let's have more government control. I guess that way of thinking worked out well for Martha Coakly didn't it! Thank You Massachusetts! NH, watch out, your next!

[Airwaves]

Here is a rough transcript of Braun Bay bill before Moultonborough Selectmen
1/7/10 by Betsy Patten. According to her testimony there is a hearing on this bill Thursday Jan 21st. I have not doubled checked that information:



Rep Patten “I also put in a bill about the rafting that is happening, how many boats are in Braun Bay and that hearing will be coming up on the 21st which is probably next week?, next week the 28th? No,

Selectman, “I think there’s already a thing on there”

Rep Patten “Well what happens is that you can, I think you can put 3 boats together in a raft, what happens at Braun Bay is that there is multiples of 3 and it just grows and grows and grows and I have gotten complaints, and I have always heard that under the law enforcement on the water, there wasn’t anything that law enforcement on the land can do unless marine patrol was out there, and so I wanted to be able to…what I put in was to limit how many rafting conglomerations can be out there, Say you can put three rafts of three out there, I don’t know where it’s going to go. The hearing is, I’m going to ask people for their input that are down in Braun Bay and we’ll see what happens with that so, every time I get a complaint it’s like lets talk about it and lets see if we can do ..mumbles….”

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Here is a rough transcript of Braun Bay bill before Moultonborough Selectmen
1/7/10 by Betsy Patten. According to her testimony there is a hearing on this bill Thursday Jan 21st. I have not doubled checked that information:



Rep Patten “I also put in a bill about the rafting that is happening, how many boats are in Braun Bay and that hearing will be coming up on the 21st which is probably next week?, next week the 28th? No,

Selectman, “I think there’s already a thing on there”

Rep Patten “Well what happens is that you can, I think you can put 3 boats together in a raft, what happens at Braun Bay is that there is multiples of 3 and it just grows and grows and grows and I have gotten complaints, and I have always heard that under the law enforcement on the water, there wasn’t anything that law enforcement on the land can do unless marine patrol was out there, and so I wanted to be able to…what I put in was to limit how many rafting conglomerations can be out there, Say you can put three rafts of three out there, I don’t know where it’s going to go. The hearing is, I’m going to ask people for their input that are down in Braun Bay and we’ll see what happens with that so, every time I get a complaint it’s like lets talk about it and lets see if we can do ..mumbles….”

Thank you Airwaves!

Information like that is what is needed to carry on a good debate about the Braun Bay Bill.

What Rep Patten stated makes since because she is asking for input and is collecting data. She doesn't claim to be a know it all and is open for suggestions.

Good job Airwaves!

[OCDACTIVE]

I am not a "rules" gureu when it comes to the legislature and committees however can't you hold discussions in committee without proposing a new law???? wouldn't that be the wiser move? and save the citizens less tax money in paperwork and having to hold hearings etc? Especially if you really aren't sure what it is you are proposing?

[robmac]

I was under the impression that you can and should.

[breathe easy]

Here is the link to the bills status:
HB 1466

No hearing date has been scheduled as far as I can tell.

[lawn psycho]

Doing some more background research on rafting areas on Lake Winnipesaukee, here are the NRZs for the lake. I grouped them by Town. It appears those in Moultonborough feel they have exclusive rights to their little areas. That or they want to lead the lake in excluding those nasty boat people.

What I take from this is:
1. Seems like there must be a lot of prime swimming spots I need to check out this summer
2. Many of these are totally non-enforceable as written and would not stand a chance if a violation was written for rafting. Laws have to be precise and there is no “spirit of the law” or “intent of the law” to get a conviction.

Example 1: Buzzell Cove, Green’s Basin, and East Cove are known to whom? There is no officially recognized area of any of these locations nor are they defined. MP could put up markers and it still would not hold up in court. Any of these that use the name of an unofficial bay or cove would get tossed out of court. Said another way, none of the bays or coves are officially recognized by the State of NH.

Example 2: The word “about" which I have bolded would kill this one. It either is or isn’t. Brickyard Cove, encompassing a described area that would run south of an imaginary line running about 2,300 feet from the northern tip of Clay Point to the southern tip of Barndoor Island;
So Officer, did you measure the line? No? Did you locate the precise Northern Tip? No? Where is Brickyard Cove officially recognized by the State of NH? It’s not? Dismissed.

Looks like you better have all the area tax maps available in your boat instead of a map. I don’t think those would hold up either. Imagine if you designated speed limits on city streets based on lots lines rather than signs. Gimme a break.

Saf-C 407.03 Prohibited Areas.

(a) Rafting as defined in RSA 270:42, V, shall be prohibited in the following areas of Lake Winnipesaukee unless covered by one of the exceptions specified in RSA 270:45:

MOULTONBOROUGH (6 areas)
(1) The Kona Mansion, so-called, in Moultonborough, east of an imaginary line running north and south from the red top mark buoy located on the western tip of Avery's Point on the south to the Kona Farm gas docks on the north;
(4) Braun Bay, within 300 feet of both fish and game property lines, to be delineated by marine patrol with orange mooring balls;
(5) Braun Bay, at a distance less than 75 feet from shore, to be delineated by marine patrol with orange mooring balls;
(8) The entire area known as Green’s Basin, in the town of Moultonborough;
(10) The entire area known as Buzzell Cove, in the town of Moultonborough;
(13) The entire area known as East Cove, in the town of Moultonborough;

ALTON (4 areas)
(2) Small's Cove in Alton, southwest of an imaginary line running southeast-northwest from light 75 on the northwestern end to the northernmost point of land marking the entrance to the first cove, south of Small's Cove on the south;
(6) The area known as Cedar Cove, specifically identified as the area opposite Plum Island which borders the town of Alton tax map 18, lot numbers 12 through 20 and 55;
(11) Brickyard Cove, encompassing a described area that would run south of an imaginary line running about 2,300 feet from the northern tip of Clay Point to the southern tip of Barndoor Island;
(15) Roberts Cove, in the town of Alton, encompassing a described area as between the body of water in Roberts Cove, east of a line running north to south from the westerly boundary of lot 41 on tax map 48 to the westerly boundary of lot 1 on tax map 48.

MEREDITH (2 areas)

(12) The entire area known as Black Cove, in the town of Meredith, encompassing an area in Meredith tax map S-7, east from the northern most point of Lot 5-1 to the southeastern most point of Lot 1;
(14) The entire area known as Advent Cove, in the town of Meredith; and

TUFTONBOROUGH (2 areas)
(7) The area of Winter Harbor from the southern boundary of the town of Tuftonboro tax map 63, lot number 14 to the southern boundary of tax map 15, lot number 20.
(9) Orchard Cove, on the east side of Cow Island, in the town of Tuftonboro;

GILFORD (1 area)
(3) Wentworth Cove, southwest of Governor's Island Bridge west of an imaginary north-south line, running from light 43 on the north to the black top buoy, located off Wentworth Cove Estates on the south;

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

1. Seems like there must be a lot of prime swimming spots I need to check out this summer
2. Many of these are totally non-enforceable as written and would not stand a chance if a violation was written for rafting. Laws have to be precise and there is no “spirit of the law” or “intent of the law” to get a conviction.

You tell em psycho, you're going to spend your vacation next summer going from prime swimming spot to prime swimming spot on Lake winni and if anyone says anything to you about it being a restricted area, they had better watch out.

I hope the rest of your family can enjoy what this fantastic Lake has to offer while you are looking for trouble.

Have fun!

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

You tell em psycho, you're going to spend your vacation next summer going from prime swimming spot to prime swimming spot on Lake winni and if anyone says anything to you about it being a restricted area, they had better watch out.

I hope the rest of your family can enjoy what this fantastic Lake has to offer while you are looking for trouble.

Have fun!

You're right Sam, I am going to use those sites as excuse to explore other areas of the lake. That's EXACTLY what I am going to do. They are almost like a an 'X' on a treasure map. Apparently exercising my civil liberities by traveling and swimming on public property is "looking for trouble" to you.

Don't get miffed at me because many of the NRZ locations on the books are poorly written, unenforceable laws. Go speak to your legislator who voted for/against it.

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

You're right Sam, I am going to use those sites as excuse to explore other areas of the lake. That's EXACTLY what I am going to do. They are almost like a an 'X' on a treasure map. Apparently exercising my civil liberities by traveling and swimming on public property is "looking for trouble" to you.

Don't get miffed at me because many of the NRZ locations on the books are poorly written, unenforceable laws. Go speak to your legislator who voted for/against it.

You’re right, my wording was wrong, your civil liberties allow you to swim on public property. I should have said: you will tell them how poorly written, and unenforceable their laws are.

[Resident 2B]

I just hope the casual readers of this forum can see what a small few are attempting to do to pass laws to further restrict the public's use of a public lake. They won round one, a subject that I can not mention because it is closed, and now they are going for another win. They use personal connections to law-makers to spin lies and blow smoke. Very un-American, in my opinion.

YS, sorry I did not put "they" in large font red. Perhaps you can re-size the words and color them in again. Your help is deeply appreciated!

R2B

I can read the headlines now. "ACTIVISTS TRY TO CHANGE RAFTING LAW IN THE DEAD OF WINTER! An activist organization has filed a bill that would limit rafting in Braun Bay without supporting data!..."
There are nuts in every tree who think they are entitled to more than they have earned. Let the people who live on Braun Bay have some peace. Your right to swing your fist ends at their nose. They paid top dollar for their homes and pay a disproportionate amount of tax on it. Their higher than deserved taxes fund your school systems, pay for your police protection, and pave your roads. Don't kill the golden egg laying goose. All they ask is that you don't anchor in front of their houses all day, turn up your radios, pee in their front yard, and leave your trash behind when you go. If one of your neighbors drove up and parked in front of your mobile home, turned up the radio, started opening up Bud's one after the next and peeing on your rhododendrons, then drove away after 8 hours leaving a pile of beer cans behind, you'd be the first to call to the trailer park manager and ask for relief. He might say "but the land in here is all common and the other residents have the same right to use it", but you know that you'd never accept that. So why should they? Treat people with respect and they will return the favor. This rule applies to other things as well (and you know what I mean). If the people of Braun Bay had been treated with respect the way you claim, then this would not have become an issue. Point your blame where it belongs...at the perpetrators, not at the victims. That is the Republican way.

[DEJ]

Here are some facts from people who actually took the time to find out the facts vs. speculation.

From post #7 in this thread
I called and spoke with Ms. Patten. The #1 complaint from residents near Braun Bay is the number of boats.

Not noise, not trash. Boats. The goal of this legislation is to thin out Braun Bay.

From post #9 in this thread
I contacted NHMP. Here are the official complaint numbers from Braun Bay last year.
6 Rafting Violations/Noise Complaints (includes the report of an intoxicated person)
2 reports from boaters
4 complaints from residents. One resident was responsible for three of the calls.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by DEJ

Here are some facts from people who actually took the time to find out the facts vs. speculation.

From post #7 in this thread
I called and spoke with Ms. Patten. The #1 complaint from residents near Braun Bay is the number of boats.

Not noise, not trash. Boats. The goal of this legislation is to thin out Braun Bay.

From post #9 in this thread
I contacted NHMP. Here are the official complaint numbers from Braun Bay last year.
6 Rafting Violations/Noise Complaints (includes the report of an intoxicated person)
2 reports from boaters
4 complaints from residents. One resident was responsible for three of the calls.

Come on DEJ.......... Don't let facts cloud the issue......

I wonder how many of those with opinions for the bill actually visit braun bay?

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by elchase

I can read the headlines now. "ACTIVISTS TRY TO CHANGE RAFTING LAW IN THE DEAD OF WINTER! An activist organization has filed a bill that would limit rafting in Braun Bay without supporting data!..."
There are nuts in every tree who think they are entitled to more than they have earned. Let the people who live on Braun Bay have some peace. Your right to swing your fist ends at their nose. They paid top dollar for their homes and pay a disproportionate amount of tax on it. Their higher than deserved taxes fund your school systems, pay for your police protection, and pave your roads. Don't kill the golden egg laying goose. All they ask is that you don't anchor in front of their houses all day, turn up your radios, pee in their front yard, and leave your trash behind when you go. If one of your neighbors drove up and parked in front of your mobile home, turned up the radio, started opening up Bud's one after the next and peeing on your rhododendrons, then drove away after 8 hours leaving a pile of beer cans behind, you'd be the first to call to the trailer park manager and ask for relief. He might say "but the land in here is all common and the other residents have the same right to use it", but you know that you'd never accept that. So why should they? Treat people with respect and they will return the favor. This rule applies to other things as well (and you know what I mean). If the people of Braun Bay had been treated with respect the way you claim, then this would not have become an issue. Point your blame where it belongs...at the perpetrators, not at the victims. That is the Republican way.

el, I live a few miles/trailer parks over from "W". Ever been on Ocean Ave in Kennebunkport? Those oceanfront homes aren't cheap (because they upgraded to double wides) and they deal with tourist traffic ALL DAY. And you know what, they knew it was a sightseeing/tourist area and they adjust too it. They get a nice view of the ocean without leaving the trailer park. That view has a price though......

Paying higher taxes does not give you any additional entitlements. I would have expected a rational person to understand that. If you bought waterfront property and live near the lake tourist area and that is what you are entitled too. No refunds or rainchecks. Extreme seclusion and privacy are not included.

The Bay has additional boats for fewer than a dozen weekends for maybe 5-6 hours. Your claim of "hardship" doesn't hold water (or ice today).

And here's something that you may find interesting. In 2003 a study was done that shows boating/swimming/fishing in the State of NH provides more revenue and jobs than do waferfront property taxes.
http://www.nhlakes.org/docs/EcoStudyPhaseII.pdf

I'm sure the hotel owners around the lake sure appreciate my business to help them pay their taxes too

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by elchase

I wrote all of the reps and got back numerous friendly replies. Sometimes it is better to just write to their personal addresses.
I think ten boats anchored all day in a cove that size is plenty...probably as much abuse as any cove can stand. Remember, we are not just talking about boats sitting inertly atop the water here. People are peeing and littering. Bilge pumps are kicking on and off. Like any place else that people frequent, lots of "stuff" is being left behind. Like any other rafting cove on the lake, the bottom is covered with sunk Budweiser empties, and worse. And therein lies the problem. Too many partiers have taken too much of a toll for too long on what used to be such a nice spot, or this bill would not have ever gotten filed. Blame them...blame yourselves.
Ten boats might not be the right number, but at least it is a start. Now the reps can argue about whether it should be ten boats or eight or sixteen, but at least we have a proposal with a fixed number, and that number can be debated and tweeked. That is how the legislative process is supposed to work.
What is your suggestion? "No limits"? "Let people decide for themselves"? Sounds familiar.
Meanwhile, a much better rafting spot continues to be roped off to all boats...right off Ellacoya State Beach in Gilford. The cleanest water in the lake. The nicest bottom. Acres and acres of 3-ft deep sandy bottom off shore of state-owned land with nobody using it. A natural flushing system (Ellacoya Brook) to wash the pee away. Ropes say "Keep out". Why? Where's the outrage?

You are trying to give a solution to something where there is no problem.

OMG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Honey, did you see that!!!!, there's boats out there on the water. Quick, call the Marine Patrol!!!

All those "partiers" in Braun Bay are mostly families enjoying the few warm days of summer. Swimming, sun bathing, socializing. Widespread drunken frat party, we all know that's not even close to reality.

If water from bilge pumps are an issue, then the State of NH should require every private dock to be pulled so their bilge pump isn't cycling 24/7 for the entire boating season. Being realistic, that "bilge" water that you want to somehow relate too toxic waste is the very water that came from the lake. Wow what a half-brained fear-mongering attempt to misinform.

If someone is going to put trash in the lake, they will do it whether that are rafting at a sandbar or not. I am among the many who will stop my boat to pluck something out of the water. The problem with you making a statement like this is you are using a generalization with no factual evidence. My experience is that most people are careful to keep trash out of the water.

In fact, I would argue that lakefront or near lake front properties add more to water quality issues than every boat on the lake. Your roof, house, and all impervious surfaces prevent water from penetrating the ground and getting filtered. Your septic system is your indirect yellow and brown contributions to the lake. Your driveway and the salt and sand from nearby roads that makes into the lake are not exactly desirable. The oil that is on your driveway that gets washed into the lake. Sealcoat your driveway, yep, that's harmful too. It's seems like the ban should be those who LIVE near the lake then there is no problem.....

Your post demonstrates to me that all the red herring issues you raise for Braun Bay are not a "problem" as long as it get's moved to another area of the lake so you don't have to see boats in the Bay. The NHMP data also shows your complaints are not backed by facts.

I agree that parts/all of Ellacoya could be opened up to boaters.