Swim Raft Permits

[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
_____________________