Swim Raft Permits

[ishoot308]

L.P.;

You keep mentioning that there is no standard but there is...Swim rafts must be no more than 150' from shore and must stay within your waterfront shore boundaries. And if you own waterfront in a channel or heavily navigated area you can't put one out. You can't just put a swim raft anywhere you want like you keep alluding to.

Dan

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

L.P.;

You keep mentioning that there is no standard but there is...Swim rafts must be no more than 150' from shore and must stay within your waterfront shore boundaries. And if you own waterfront in a channel or heavily navigated area you can't put one out. You can't just put a swim raft anywhere you want like you keep alluding to.

Dan

I understand there's a "standard". I'm talking about within the 150 ft. With rocks, docks, etc I'm sure there are places where placing a raft can create conflicts.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

I understand there's a "standard". I'm talking about within the 150 ft. With rocks, docks, etc I'm sure there are places where placing a raft can create conflicts.

So why not "publish" the standard and skip the permits ? Should someone complain and if the raft is found to be in violation then a remedy can be found. If no one complains ... no harm, no foul. What's with all the make work to prevent the few legit cases where someone will complain ?

BTW I like this part ...

(i) No permit for a swim raft shall be approved which :

(5) Diminishes the residential, recreational or scenic value of the public water in light of the competing uses for enjoyment of the public water.

So is a purple raft allowed ... or not ?

And if I had 41' of frontage ... would I apply for a swim tube permit ??

[Skip]

Just a few clarifications for the readers of this thread.

The proposal on the table is an Administrative Rule being proposed by the Department of Safety, specifically the New Hampshire Marine Patrol. It is not a bill or law bering proposed or introduced in the Legislature.

Administrative Rules have the effect of law if they are adopted.

Currently there are no rules or standards governing swim rafts. The Administrative Rule that covered swim rafts, Saf-C 404.09, was rescinded on April 25 of 2006, leaving no rules in place since then. As a sidenote, the current swim raft proposal mirrors in many respects the current Administrative Rule (Saf-C 404.08) that governs swim lines.

The process for adopting an Administrative Rule is lengthy and can be quite complicated. Depending on it's path it can or cannot include action by the State Legislature.

If you click HERE you can go to a page that gives you further explanations and a nifty flow chart (.pdf file) of how a rule is formulated.

The time is now to contact the Department of Safety, using the links already provided by other posters, to let your opinions, suggestions and ideas be considered by the Department of Safety. You are also free to contact your local State Legislator if you have concerns.

hope this helps clear this up a bit....

Skip

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Skip

Just a few clarifications for the readers of this thread.

The proposal on the table is an Administrative Rule being proposed by the Department of Safety, specifically the New Hampshire Marine Patrol. It is not a bill or law bering proposed or introduced in the Legislature.

Administrative Rules have the effect of law if they are adopted.

Currently there are no rules or standards governing swim rafts. The Administrative Rule that covered swim rafts, Saf-C 404.09, was rescinded on April 25 of 2006, leaving no rules in place since then. As a sidenote, the current swim raft proposal mirrors in many respects the current Administrative Rule (Saf-C 404.08) that governs swim lines.

The process for adopting an Administrative Rule is lengthy and can be quite complicated. Depending on it's path it can or cannot include action by the State Legislature.

If you click HERE you can go to a page that gives you further explanations and a nifty flow chart (.pdf file) of how a rule is formulated.

The time is now to contact the Department of Safety, using the links already provided by other posters, to let your opinions, suggestions and ideas be considered by the Department of Safety. You are also free to contact your local State Legislator if you have concerns.

hope this helps clear this up a bit....

Skip

Skip;

I'm confused now... I just put out a swim raft last year and contacted Marine Patrol for the current regulations. I was told by them about the 150' rule and to stay within my waterfront boundaries. They also asked if i was on a channnel or highly navigable waterway and if I was I could not put out a raft. Were they just making this up??

Dan

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Skip;

I'm confused now... I just put out a swim raft last year and contacted Marine Patrol for the current regulations. I was told by them about the 150' rule and to stay within my waterfront boundaries. They also asked if i was on a channnel or highly navigable waterway and if I was I could not put out a raft. Were they just making this up??

Dan

On the latter question ... I'd say no. I believe there's an RSA that prohibits any obstructing of channels and waterways and so would include swimrafts by default.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

On the latter question ... I'd say no. I believe there's an RSA that prohibits any obstructing of channels and waterways and so would include swimrafts by default.

And by keeping it within your boundaries would prevent any dispute issues raised by neighbors.

Any closer than 150' and a boat needs to come of plane so it keeps your swimmers from the danger of boats on plane.

It sounds to me that all the things they requested are just the sense things to do to keep you and everyone around you happy, thus they are not chasing down calls for these types of issues.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Skip;

I'm confused now... I just put out a swim raft last year and contacted Marine Patrol for the current regulations. I was told by them about the 150' rule and to stay within my waterfront boundaries. They also asked if i was on a channnel or highly navigable waterway and if I was I could not put out a raft. Were they just making this up??

Dan

Hi Dan,

There is a general RSA (270:26) that covers obstructions to navigation. However, there are no specific regulations governing swim rafts since the Administrative Rule lapsed four years ago.

Unfortunately the lapsing of Administrative Rules with no fall back regulation is an all too common occurence within the State.

Not being privy to the call I will assume that they have taken the stance that any raft further than 150 feet from the shore, or not in line with your property boundaries or in a channel will be removed utilizing this RSA.

HERE is the general RSA on Navigation obstructions.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Skip

Hi Dan,

There is a general RSA (270:26) that covers obstructions to navigation. However, there are no specific regulations governing swim rafts since the Administrative Rule lapsed four years ago.

Unfortunately the lapsing of Administrative Rules with no fall back regulation is an all too common occurence within the State.

Not being privy to the call I will assume that they have taken the stance that any raft further than 150 feet from the shore, or not in line with your property boundaries or in a channel will be removed utilizing this RSA.

HERE is the general RSA on Navigation obstructions.

Thanks for the clarification Skip! I thought for sure the 150' was an official rule directly relating to swim rafts.

Dan

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

(i) No permit for a swim raft shall be approved which :

(5) Diminishes the residential, recreational or scenic value of the public water in light of the competing uses for enjoyment of the public water.

Now this is where legislators are dumb. Writing a 'rule' that is nearly impossible to enforce simply because of the way it was written. Does anyone do idiot checks on these before they go up for a vote.... wait, don't answer that.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Now this is where legislators are dumb. Writing a 'rule' that is nearly impossible to enforce simply because of the way it was written. Does anyone do idiot checks on these before they go up for a vote.... wait, don't answer that.

Once again, this is an Administrative Rules proposal being made by the Department of Safety, the Executive Branch of the State government. This proposal is not before the Legislature or up for a vote by that, the Legislative body.

Also, while one can easily argue the verbiage of the portion of the rule in question, the burden would be on the State to prove the diminishment of "residential, recreational or scenic value ", a very tough threshold to cross in Court.

In short, there is no shortage of things to criticize the NH State Legislature about. But this proposal is not of their doing....

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Skip

Once again, this is an Administrative Rules proposal being made by the Department of Safety, the Executive Branch of the State government. This proposal is not before the Legislature or up for a vote by that, the Legislative body.

Also, while one can easily argue the verbiage of the portion of the rule in question, the burden would be on the State to prove the diminishment of "residential, recreational or scenic value ", a very tough threshold to cross in Court.

In short, there is no shortage of things to criticize the NH State Legislature about. But this proposal is not of their doing....

So who sat down and wrote the rule?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

So who sat down and wrote the rule?

The proposal was drafted by Staff Counsel at the Department of Safety at the request and with input of the NHMP.

This rule change was is part of a package of several changes being recommended this year by the Marine Patrol. I have attached the entire package below.

Again, this is purely an executive branch proposal.

[Misty Blue]

Skip, LP:

Thanks for a good debate! Your inputs are useful.

Misty Blue.

[lawn psycho]

skip, what's driving the rule proposal? Is the MP having to deal with complaints and issues with rafts?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

skip, what's driving the rule proposal? Is the MP having to deal with complaints and issues with rafts?

I think you have hit the proverbial nail right on the head.

This issue you would not be coming forward if there was not substantial complaint going on behind the scene.

Everyone has better things to do but chase raft complaints.

But the complaints have obviously risen to the level to require extraordinary action.

And that's a shame...

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Question:
A raft is 100 feet from shore. How close can a boat come from the swim platform while on plane?

A) 50 Feet
B) 150 Feet
C) What swim raft? (I thought it was a pressure treated Kayak)

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Skip

I think you have hit the proverbial nail right on the head.

This issue you would not be coming forward if there was not substantial complaint going on behind the scene.

Everyone has better things to do but chase raft complaints.

But the complaints have obviously risen to the level to require extraordinary action.

And that's a shame...

I asked as there were people who seemed to imply that things were going along without issues. There had to be a reason for something like this to come along.

That fact that people are placing things on something that is not a physical piece of their property. I can only imagine how shore front owners can get wound up if a raft is blocking this or that, blocking this view, too tall, too wide, too bright, too dark, etc would lead to conflicts. Hence you need a permit.

Now, if you do write something at least make sure it's clear and objective as to what the standard is.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

skip, what's driving the rule proposal? Is the MP having to deal with complaints and issues with rafts?

I am going to back Skip up here... Not that Skip needs back up.... BTW Skip good to see you back on the Forum....

Anyways where was I, oh yes.... I do indeed believe the MP have been dealing with more complaints on Swim Rafts. Over the last several years at least in my area of the lake I have seen the number of swim raft multiply exponentially. Whats been worse is not everyone goes for the nice 8X8 platform that used to be the standard. We now have inflatable trampolines, complete with slides and logs sticking out from them. I have seen a couple of these that cover a good 40' in length... now I know personally I can't put something like that in front of my place with out imposing on my neighbors or completely obstructing my dock access.

To top that off we have moorings which are permitted.... So what happens when someones raft starts interfering with the a boat on a already permitted mooring next door. The guy with the mooring calls the MP... who has to mediate. The guy who has placed a mooring has an approved documented permit. the guy with the raft has a stated right to have a raft.... If you are the Marine Patrol your stuck in the middle.

Example two... Property owner puts a god awful green pitching green out as a swim raft... MP comes, owner says it is a swim raft... The Marine Patrol is stuck unless they can prove otherwise....Mean while property own pitches balls in the direction of the green at passing boaters.... And when he hits one, claims innocence.....

They are trying to fix a problem that was created when mooring permits where required. As I remember there was a lot of fuss over that too... But now that it is instituted everyone just deals with it. They are also trying to give some definition and regulation to what is a swim raft and what isn't, so that they can deal with problem B.............

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

. I do indeed believe the MP have been dealing with more complaints on Swim Rafts. Over the last several years at least in my area of the lake I have seen the number of swim raft multiply exponentially. Whats been worse is not everyone goes for the nice 8X8 platform that used to be the standard. We now have inflatable trampolines, complete with slides and logs sticking out from them. I have seen a couple of these that cover a good 40' in length

Pretty sure it's all those "flatlanders" causing all the problems

[trfour]

[Quote] "So who sat down and wrote the rule?

It fur'shore wasn't U_ _ _ I_ Alton.

[Quote] "Now this is where legislators are dumb. Writing a 'rule' that is nearly impossible to enforce simply because of the way it was written. Does anyone do idiot checks on these before they go up for a vote.... wait, don't answer that. "

OKay.



Terry
_____________________