Be aware - LSR for Prohibiting Rafting

[Coastal Laker]

I'm sorry to admit I've not had much of an opportunity to visit winni.com recently (never mind post). I refrained from participating on the speed limit issue but did make my opinions known to the appropriate House committee members.

You may want to be aware of an LSR sponsored by Carl Johnson. It hasn't gone very far yet: on the topic of prohibiting rafting of boats on lakes and ponds.

(A raft is three or more boats tied together - not two)

No need to wait for this to become a house bill before expressing your opinions on the matter, at least to the sponsors. Just thought I'd make you folks aware of what is in the works.

[Bear Islander]

I wonder what the reasoning is for this LSR.

Is there a problem beyond the obvious reason that people don't want boats rafting in front of their homes? If boats raft along an undeveloped stretch of shore is there some kind of harm?

[PROPELLER]

Audiofn, I agree with you that there are those incidents that you reference & that could be part of the motivation. However, in all the summer weekends I have rafted with friends & my experience with rafting on Winni is extensive, I have never witnessed trash, loud music(in fact the people I raft with do not even play the stereo at all) or any other undesirable antics to be a problem.

I have witnessed a couple incidents, I was part of one, where a property owner simply was not happy that WE WERE IN HIS COVE. We are never disrespectful, play loud music, throw trash in the lake, etc. And where ever we go there are usually other groups rafting separate from my group & I have never witnessed that behavior from the other groups either.

I will qualify this by saying I never go to the 2 most popular spots to raft on the weekend, Braun Bay & the West Alton Sandbar, so maybe it goes on there but these 2 areas are not in front of any houses either.

At least based on my own experience any complaints about rafting & the problems that come with it are grossly exaggerated.

[PROPELLER]

Coastal Laker: Could this come up this 2005 session? I have reviewed all the LSR's on the NH General Court website & did not see this LSR. It was my understanding that the LSR's have to be submitted by a certain date in the fall for the upcoming session & after that the list is closed until the following year.

[Belmont Resident]

More and more of the lake shore are being developed. Along with this is the ever increasing number of boaters on the lake. There really isn't a solution as we see this complaint each summer. The lake is for everyone to enjoy not just the ones who own the homes along it's shore. Although I agree with landowners being upset with loud music, trash and disrespect I also feel that we all have a right to use the lake.

[Just Sold]

You think the waterfront is being developed? Just go to West Alton and you can find many non water front lots (on the lake side of Rt 11) on the market today. And it appears from the many pink survey ribbons on other undeveloped land that they too may soon be available as buildable lots.

[Bear Islander]

I can understand property owners not liking rafting if it's a regular thing in front of their property. I don't have this problem, if you want to raft near my place you will need really big bumpers and Dramamine.

But isn't there another way to address the problem than banning rafting on the entire lake. Something like no rafting within 300 feet of a dock.

[upthesaukee]

Bear Islander, great idea, 300 ft from a dock... of course what that really means is about 75 feet, which is about twice the distance normally seen with the 150 foot rule...which is a whole 'nother thread...couldn't resist it...the snow is getting to me...

[upthesaukee]

Here's the reference and the sponsoring individuals.

2005-S-0907-Rprohibiting rafting of boats on lakes and ponds.Sponsors: (Prime) Carl R Johnson
Michael D Whalley
Howard C Dickinson
Betsey L Patten

I tried to find some text on this but kept getting error messages. Time for bed.

[Mee-n-Mac]

I wonder why this is being introduced. The are ways to enact NRZs already. It would seem to me that if these were effective then a remedy exists now that isn't any different from what is being proposed. The existing method looks better to me in that it allows rafting in those areas where nobody minds. If enforcement of existing NRZs is the issue, then I don't see how a lake-wide NRZ will make a difference.

ps - could the existing NRZ regs be changed (more distance) to allow more relief for home owners ??? Perhaps and maybe this would be a better answer (if one is needed) than a lake-wide NRZ.

[upthesaukee]

In case anyone is wondering, Prime sponsor is Senator Johnson of Merideth, and the co-sponsors are rep. Whalley from Alton, rep. Patten from Moultonboro, and rep. Dickinson from Center Conway. Still can't find the text on this proposal.

[b8tcaster]

The text is now available on this bill. My guess is he will have more support for this bill than his speed limit bill. His hometown has discussed no rafting zones on the lake and ill bet he has the Loon Preservation Society and others willing to show up in force to get this bill passed. I dont raft so I dont have a dog in this hunt but I would be willing to support opposition to this bill simply because I believe it is designed to benefit a few lakefront property owners at the expense of most lake users

[upthesaukee]

Note that they are repealing other RSA sections that deal with rafting. Also note that 270:42 defines a raft as "2 or more boats", not 3.

Here's the text:

SB 155-FN – AS INTRODUCED

2005 SESSION

05-0907

03/01

SENATE BILL 155-FN

AN ACT prohibiting rafting of boats on lakes and ponds.

SPONSORS: Sen. Johnson, Dist 2; Rep. Whalley, Belk 5; Rep. Dickinson, Carr 1; Rep. Patten, Carr 4


COMMITTEE: Transportation and Interstate Cooperation

ANALYSIS

This bill prohibits rafting of boats on lakes and ponds.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

05-0907

03/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Five

AN ACT prohibiting rafting of boats on lakes and ponds.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Rafting; Prohibition, Enforcement. Amend RSA 270:43 to read as follows:

270:43 [Rules] Rafting Prohibited; Enforcement.

I. [The commissioner of safety, pursuant to RSA 541-A, shall adopt rules which shall be binding on all persons owning, leasing or operating boats and which:

(a) Further define and regulate the practice of rafting of boats; and

(b) Designate prohibited locations or times, in or during which the size of rafts is limited and a minimum distance is required between boats and rafts in accordance with the provisions of RSA 270:44. Such prohibited locations and times shall include:

(1) The following locations on Lake Winnipesaukee, which shall be more specifically defined in such rules:

(i) The Kona mansion area, so-called, in the town of Moultonborough;

(ii) Small's cove, in the town of Alton; and

(iii) Wentworth cove, southwest of Governor's island bridge in the town of Gilford; and

(2) Such other locations and times as the commissioner of safety shall prescribe.] Rafting is prohibited.

II. The provisions of this subdivision [and the rules adopted under this section] shall be enforced by any law enforcement officer having jurisdiction in the area in which any violation of such provisions [or rules] occurs or by the commissioner of safety and his or her duly authorized agents, who shall have all the powers of a peace officer in any county of the state regarding such enforcement.

2 Rafting; Penalty. Amend RSA 270:46 to read as follows:

270:46 Penalty. A person shall be guilty of a violation if he or she:

I. Fails to comply with the provisions of this subdivision [or any rule adopted thereunder];

II. Refuses to cooperate with a law enforcement officer in the determination of compliance with the provisions of this subdivision [or any rule adopted thereunder]; or

III. Refuses to move the boat which he or she is operating or in charge of in order to comply with the provisions of this subdivision [or any rule adopted thereunder].

3 Repeal. The following are repealed:

I. RSA 21-P:14, II(l), relative to regulation of rafting of boats.

II. RSA 270:42, VI, relative to definition of single boat.

III. RSA 270:44, relative to size of rafts, separation of rafts, and single boats.

IV. RSA 270:45, relative to exceptions to time and location prohibitions.

4 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2006.



And here's the docket info:

SB155 Docket

Bill Title:prohibiting rafting of boats on lakes and ponds.
DateBodyDescription1/6/2005SIntroduced and Referred to Transportation and Interstate Cooperation1/27/2005SHearing: February 2, 2005, Room 101, LOB, 9:20 a.m.

[Belmont Resident]

No mention of why someone would go to such lengths.
To me and many whom I've talked with it is just another selfish gesture by those who own property on the lake and believe they also own the lake.
It really is sad to see the amount of arrogance that some people with money have brought to the lake. This isn’t always true but I tend to see it more and more as the years go buy.
The truth is that our state is getting more and more populated, so is the lake.
We can never go back to that peaceful lake of yesteryear. These same people who complain are the worst offenders. They build these huge houses in place of the peaceful camps that used to be along the lake then they want their piece and quiet.
Almost as bad as Mr. Fay backing a bill limiting speeds, all the while selling boats capable of easily exceeding that same speed limit.

[FormulaOutlaw]

Just wanted to express my respect for the views taken in this Thread.

Per usual, it is a few trying to ruin a good time for many.

It sounds as though the "bad incidents" are much too rare to call for this extreme measure to be considered, much less acted upon. Please keep this thread up to date as to any information available. Thank you.

[b8tcaster]

I am going to try and attend but not quite sure what approach should be taken in opposition to this bill. Anybody have some suggestions as to how to make an intelleigent argument against this bill. I dont raft but once again I feel this is not right.

[Bear Islander]

I would be interested in reading why some people think this legislation is necessary. I'm trying to keep an open mind.

[upthesaukee]

I also tend not to "raft" but certainly would have no problem meeting someone out in the middle of the broads, tying up together and having a picnic or just some nice conversation. Maybe meeting in and around "the sand bar" in an area that is not prohibited for a dip. What about tying up together to watch the fireworks at Center Harbor, Merideth, the Weirs, Alton Bay, Wolfeboro, etc.

I also understand the feeling of a landowner (Sorry B.R.) wanting to have some semblence of privacy, especially the ones who don't have the McMansions. I have seen boats that I would estimate are not more than 30-50 feet from shore and within easy talking distance of a house on shore. Perhaps a "150 ' " rule would work here...

I do agree that this is certainly "over legislation" and urge it be defeated.

[PROPELLER]

Just got a summary of the hearing. There was no one there in support of the bill except for the sponsor & cosponsors. There were 3 who testified against the bill. Many of the committee members did not even know what rafting is. The main points made by the ones against the bill were that boaters will still anchor & the problems that are alleged by supporters will not go away. If anything it will spread them out even more. There are already laws in place to adress the alleged problems. The present rafting laws are sufficient. A couple of the sponsors tried to say that it promotes partying & that all rafters are noisy partiers. The response from one of the ones against the bill said that was offensive & stereotyping & that the majority of boaters who raft are not noisy, not drinking, have young children with them & out for a picnic & a fun day on the water like any shore front property owner. Some of the committee members were very receptive to the non-supporters & were asking questions to become more informed. Some were asking what a good compromise would be & the response from non-supporters was you can not put a number on many boats should be tied together, every situation & location is different & the present rafting laws are more than adequate.

[winnilaker]

Since the problem appears to be isolated to certain areas. I would compare this bill to one that would make the road speed limit to all of NH be 30mph, since that's the safe speed in which to drive through Wolfeboro.

Obviously not needed.

[Belmont Resident]

That this bill did not fair well. Why infringe on us boaters when the lake is in fact public property.
Homeowners in most cases will have better luck communicating with boaters rather than enact a law that would only further serve to hinder boater/homeowner relations.
This subject was brought up on the news this morning. I heard it while listening to 101.5. Had me worried.

[mcdude]

The Derry, NH station, WNDS, a local station that broadcasts into southern NH and eastern MA, often doesn't have their act together and makes some comical mistakes. As they covered the hearing last night they showed footage of two inflatable rafts floating down a river! Of course the footage had nothing to do with the narrative!

[PROPELLER]

I am computer challenged so forgive me. I do not know how to provide links to other websites in a post. However, if you go to NH Public Radio & Fosters Online websites there are articles regarding rafting & the hearing that took place yesterday.

[mcdude]

The New Hampshire Public Radio link is pretty cool. It has an audio option!
New Hampshire Public Radio Article
and the
FOSTER'S LINK

thanks again!

[Will]

I dont know if you alton people know, but your very own representative is sponsoring it. I believe his name is Michael Whalley maybe, i may be wrong. Anyways I truly believe this is a totally rediculous bill, first my boat cant make noise, now im not allowed to even tie up to my friends, come on people. This is a serious case of BS. I dont know if anyone else sees it but this is heading down a bad road. Soon enough Winni will be run like a catholic school. I mean come on the lake is about fun and enjoyment. If people dont like boats rafting off their property from the legal distance than they shouldnt have waterfront property. Oh yah and just to let all you alton people know, I emailed your rep about this, he never responded. American Polotics at work once again. Pretty sad when a rep cant even email me back about a question, its ok I'll continue to pay my taxes so he can get paid.

Great System

Cheers, while you still can,

Will

[chunt]

Stupid thought, but is'nt it one of constitutional rights to assemble freely. If so, wouldn't this be an unconstitional bill? Food for thought.

[Will]

Since my previous post was not posted, ahem ahem. Anyways, I just wanted to update you all that the Alton rep still has not contacted me after receiving now two of my emails. Evidently this is how government works.

Will

[upthesaukee]

Will, I concur...Mr. Whalley has not responded to me on either of the boating issues brought up in this forum. I look forward to next year's elections for him and other Alton Reps who have not responded. Reps Pilliod & Millham and Senator Boyce (who may have been expressing Mrs. Boyce's sentiments without expressly saying so) did respond to my emails, so my hat's off to them for responding. Shame on the others!!!!!

[Will]

I would just like to let everyone know that we have help. I have contacted Boating magazine, offshore magazine, the boat us foundation, the NMMA, the APBA, and also Soundings. I have also made posts on Offshore only about this problem and all the offshore boaters back us. We do not want this to go through, and we will do everything we can to stop it Mr. Whalley.

Cheers,

Will

[upthesaukee]

I had a response from Rep Whalley today in the form of a quick private message. In it he states that he is probably the world's slowest hunt and peck typist, that the legislative email is probably the worst in the world, and asked that if a constituent wanted to contact him, to please do so by phone (875-7266 which is also listed in the Main Street). If he is not there, please leave a message and he will return the call as soon as possible.

I appreciate his quick response to my other posting today, and consider my end of this thread closed for now.

[JDeere]

Same old crowd with the same old arguments. I do not care about rafting one way or the other but if I were inclined to take a position I would at least do my homework and find out the real reason for the new legislation. I very much doubt the state is trying to protect homeowners. What is the reason to ban rafting, noise, drinking, inability to MP to pull up alongside a boat………………….I do not know. Does anyone of the folks opposed to the ban know the reason or do you just enjoy bashing anything that involves change?

[Will]

Jdeere, the reason for the law is an alledged problem last year with two groups of rafters. This is the reason they are putting it through. They also claim that a couple of alton landowners have petitoned them to do this. Aside from these reasons, it is still completely rediculous. AND I WILL FIGHT IT TO THE END!!! Like I said before we have much support in this battle.

Will

[Misty Blue]

I live in Braun Bay. Large rafts used to anchor in the Kona shallows. Now they spread out and take up more room.

First: I have never, ever found trash in the water in the "you can raft here but not there" zone. The boat people police themselves naturally. When hunting in Kona I have found human waste in the woods twice. That's in 20 years!

Second: Why do people raft/anchor in Braun Bay, Timber Island, etc? I expect that they do not want to do so in front of some one's cottage. That would be discourtious and really not as much fun. So as I see it rafting may be a local, very local in my opinion, problem but not a Lake wide, state wide problem.

Have the crowds in Braun Bay affected me? Yes, of course. So on Sat. and Sun. we ski before 9AM (best time any way) and after 6PM.

The crowds only happen for two days a week, 10 weeks a year. We are blessed to have this beautiful inland sea. Shurely there is room to share.

PS. I need to have a chat with my state Rep!

Don't call me Shirley....
Call me Misty

[JDeere]

the reason for the law is an alledged problem last year with two groups of rafters.

Will, what exactly was the problem? If was drinking, noise etc, weren’t there existing laws to deal with it.

[PROPELLER]

Just to clarify a couple of things, it is not illegal to drink alcoholic beverages on a boat in NH. There probably are noise ordinance laws but that may be different in every town. Having said that, the supporters of the ban seem to think that if they can ban rafting that all of these problems will go away. Some shorefront property owners also complain about having to look at a raft of boats tied together & some also say that their path to & from their dock is impeded by rafters.

Most of the time when I raft its in front of undeveloped shore & that is true of alot of boaters rafting on Winni. When I am rafting off the shore of someones property, my friends and I leave more than enough room to access any dock or swim raft & we are far enough away that the owners should not be complaining unless they just don't like rafters which in my opinion is the case most of the time. I say this because I have never witnessed rafters littering, playing loud music, going ashore to relieve themselves or doing any of the things that supporters of the ban claim. In my opinion these kind of incidents are few & far between & greatly exaggerated.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Will

I would just like to let everyone know that we have help. I have contacted Boating magazine, offshore magazine, the boatus foundation, the NMMA, the APBA, and also Soundings. I have also made posts on Offshore only about this problem and all the offshore boaters back us. We do not want this to go through, and we will do everything we can to stop it Mr. Whalley. Cheers, Will

Since the thread at "Unsafe Boating" started here, I've reviewed all 58 pages at BoaterEd, and all the pages at BoatUS looking for relevent data to improve safety on Lake Winnipesaukee.

(A little tough on Massachusetts boaters, weren't ya, Will?)

Neither site seems to be oriented towards rafting, but oriented towards the enjoyment of the moving boat itself.

But one poster asked "Looking for a bunch of boaters of either sex to go rafting, nude sunbathing, partying, and fun". (Paraphrased from memory).

I was pleasantly surprised at the responses, which were overwhelmingly to "Stay Away".

And this was from other Boaters!

[JDeere]

Propeller: Thus far I have not offered an opinion on rafting one way or the other on rafting. I have simply asked (this would be 3X) what reason the sponsors of the bill have used to ban rafting. I have asked if it was drinking, noise etc…………….. Everyone seems to be indicating that this is the issue but no one has offered any facts to support that this is indeed the reason.



Seems to me that many folks bash the idea without bothering to find out where the idea came from. I am assuming there has been “incidents” that preclude the bill. What are they?



I have not opined on whether legal or not drinking and boating are a bright idea regardless of the legality.

[Rattlesnake Gal]

JDeere, were you around for these threads? I think they might have some relevance to the rafting issue.
Dilemma Over Boats Anchoring Off Our Beach
Timber Island Residents Just Rude

[PROPELLER]

No one has answered you because no one knows for sure unless you ask the sponsors themselves. The sponsors are legislators & have no personal experience with these issues that I am aware of. Just that some one or more than one came to them requesting that a bill be written to ban rafting. The LSR does not tell why they have proposed it.

There was an article linked to a previous thread (I can not remember what thread but it was about banning rafting in a cove, look under threads frank m responded to). One of the reasons given for not wanting rafting according to the newspaper article was that the property owners view was impaired by the rafting boats. This also was a reason given by someone who e-mailed one of the sponsors of this new bill as this e-mail was read at the hearing by one of the sponsors.

Based on threads I have followed here, what I hear from people around the lake & connecting the dots it seems to me that the supporters of the ban use reasons like partying, noise, no access to their dock as reasons but reading between the lines I think the real reason is many supporters of the ban just don't like rafting or they don't like boats in front of their property. Its also possible they are lashing out at the owners of bigger cruisers that they don't like as that is a very common boat you see rafting on the lake.

If you are interested in specific details, you can call the sponsors & ask them.

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

If you are interested in specific details, you can call the sponsors & ask them.

I will email the question and see what I receive for a response. I will share the reply.

[Rattlesnake Gal]

Originally Posted by JDeere

I will email the question and see what I receive for a response. I will share the reply.

Thanks JDeere! Hopefully you can get to the bottom of this or at least shed some light on the issue.

[Jan]

I'm also interested in finding out the reasons for this new regulation.

Whenever there is a ballot question here in Mass. I get a booklet with the text of the proposed law and statements from each side why they think it is or is not necessary. It is really helpful to me.

I wonder if these same kind of pro and con statements are available for proposed laws like this and others like the speed limit. It would sure make it easier for people like me to decide which side I should support.

J

[upthesaukee]

JDeere if you intend to contact Mr. Whalley, I suggest that you call him at 603-875-7266. by my earlier thread in this post, he is the world's slowest typist, and would prefer to discuss the issue with you over the phone. I have talked with his wife and she assures me that it is NOT a bother to him to have someone call him, but rather his preferred method of communication.

Just so you know...

[JDeere]

I sent an email to 3 of the 4 sponsors (1 did not have an email address) thus far no reply. In the email I stated that I would like to copy the reply to the Forum for all to see. I suspect (hope) to get some info today.

I could call but prefer a written reply.

[frank m.]

Originally Posted by Will

I have contacted Boating magazine, offshore magazine, the boat us foundation, the NMMA, the APBA, and also Soundings. I have also made posts on Offshore only about this problem and all the offshore boaters back us.

Will,
Good to see you are working with these "local" organizations. Surely, the members of "Offshore" know what is best for Winnipesaukee, and their views are representative of the common NH'er. Wouldn't it be great if the opinions and interests of the citizens of the state were used to decide how our laws should be tailored instead of bringing in these big money out-of-state organizations and lobbyists, whose opinions are driven soley by greed and profit, to influence the legislators that WE elected?
Are you even from NH?

[Belmont Resident]

Frank what you say might hold some truth but most of the attempts at pushing these bills through are the end result of the "I have money so I can change the world" landowners. Many are from out of state with second homes on the lake.
While I'm glad their tax dollars goes to providing NH kids with good school, I'm also glad they do not have a say in NH politics. Pretty soon this area will be as unappealing as Massachusetts is.
Now many will criticize me for putting Mass. down but if the state is so great then why does everybody flock to NH for just about all of their outdoor activities?
And why when the flocking starts so do the posts concerning the poor driving habits and arrogant attitudes towards others.

[Will]

Frank,

First of all I am sad to say you are sadly misguided, any person which has bought a boat has fed these " greedy and moneyhungry organizations". They are infact organizations set up to better the welfare of the boating community. While I am not going to sit here and argue with you about these organizations since they have obviously done good. I am infact a NH property owner and have been for the last 15 years. I do infact own lake property but I am not against rafting, dont see a problem with it and probably never will. However this has set off a red flag with me, it is unfair and is runing the boating experience. Sooo, we are trying to remedy that. While I know you are going to disagree with me here, we have but a small say of what goes on in the NH legislature, these organizations simply strengthen the pull we as citizens have in the NH legislative body.

If you are concerned about this maybe you can email Mr Whalley, I'm sure he will send you a personal email as any politician would, NOT! Pretty sad when the rep who is sponsoring doesn't even have the decency to send personal emails to those who email him, rather a form letter.But hey who am I to judge, it was like I wrote to a rockstar!

Cheers,

Will

[JDeere]

It is amazing that none of the Legislators replied to my email asking for an explanation why they wanted to ban rafting. If they provided a good reason I was prepared to support the ban. Maybe a form letter will show up in my mail as well but a 2 sentence email reply was not much to ask for.

I suspect they did not want the reply posted on the forum.........but why???

[PROPELLER]

Mr. Whalley did e-mail me & said he is working on ammending the LSR to allow 3 boats to raft. None of my own legislators have responded to my original e-mail asking them not to support the ban.

[Will]

I got the same email, he sent it to all of us, didnt answer any of my questions but he still sent it. Its kinda like this:
Me: "How many calories are in a Big Mac?"
NH Rep: "I like grapes."

Thats the kind of thing im working with.......see my point now? Three boats is not enough, we routinely raft up with 5 to 7 boats, so what they are not able to come with us now? AHH no.

Cheers

Will

[Pine Island Guy]

Just a quick note to those that may not be familiar with NH State Representatives … Unlike other states where being a Rep is a full-time job and pays better than most, NH has a very part-time Legislature that get paid a grand total of $400 per year plus mileage…

Most of them do not have a personal agenda, do not have PACs that wine and dine them, and actually put forth bills that are requested by the citizens they represent…

That being said, folks might want to cut them a little slack in their responsiveness…

[Will]

Your right. I like grapes too.

Will

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Pine Island Guy

"...to those that may not be familiar with NH State Representatives … Unlike other states where being a Rep is a full-time job and pays better than most, NH has a very part-time Legislature that get paid a grand total of $400 per year plus mileage…"

The Citizen is reporting this morning that:

"Rep. Gene Chandler aborted his candidacy for re-election as speaker of the House of Representatives following a disclosure that he had received $64,000 from friends and lobbyists."

You don't wonder about "friends and lobbyists"

http://www.citizen.com/February_2005...l_02.23_05.asp

[Alton Bay]

Originally Posted by upthesaukee

Here's the reference and the sponsoring individuals.

2005-S-0907-Rprohibiting rafting of boats on lakes and ponds.Sponsors: (Prime) Carl R Johnson
Michael D Whalley
Howard C Dickinson
Betsey L Patten

I tried to find some text on this but kept getting error messages. Time for bed.

Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Alton Bay

Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Not sure where you're going with this. Sen Carl Johnson is deceased. The legislature named a Meredith cove after him (2016?) for outstanding representation of lake interests. Rep. Whalley (r-Alton) is also deceased, another great supporter of lake issues and an environmentalist. Rep Betsy Patton retired from the General Court many years ago. All were well known to me as supporters of lake issues.

[thinkxingu]

Talk about "thread from the grave" award. 17 years?!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk