| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 32.1 | No Bozos! | TOMCAT::SUTER | Water is meant to ski on! | Tue Jun 07 1988 11:04 | 41 |
|
Kevin,
You certainly have room to complain. (I assume you live *on*
the lake?) I have been on Mascuppic during the weekend and the
boat traffic is pretty brutal. If I were a resident, I'd
probably be a little upset that I couldn't ski because of 4 foot
seas.
I too find myself on both sides of this issue. On one hand
I'd like to keep Province Lake just the way it is... Next to no boat
traffic, nice and quiet. But on the other hand, when I do trailer
to other lakes it seems as if I have to give blood to get my boat
in the water.
There are many lakes that are restricting boat access. If we
are not careful, anyone that owns a boat but not waterfront property
will be sitting in the boat in the DRIVEWAY! I certainly DO NOT
believe this is the answer.
But what is the answer, short of legislation? Ask all boaters
to be responsible? That would work for the majority of us, as a
matter of fact we don't even need to be asked. But there are a
handful that would spoil it... Isn't there still a 45 MPH speed
limit in Mass? Mascuppic has a couple that continually travel above
45.
If anyone doesn't believe that closings can occur, simply ask
a water ski club from Western Mass (from Water Ski Magazine) that found
themselves banned from their favorite ski lake. And we all know
how considerate serious waterskiers are! The reasons were noise
and water pollution from "those big ski boats" and various others.
Enough longwinded noting....
I say fight for two things!
1) Keep the lakes open.
2) Keep the Bozos out!
Rick
|
| 32.2 | | STAR::KMCDONOUGH | | Tue Jun 07 1988 12:45 | 26 |
| It's tough to keep the bozos out without keeping everyone out.
The only solution that we have found so far is increased enforcement.
We have the local police depts. involved, and that has helped.
One Saturday afternoon last July there was line of boats waiting
to get off the lake. All had been tossed out by the environmental
police officer who patrols the lake. No registration, no life jackets,
towing a skier with only 1 person in the boat, etc.
More than one person who lives on the lake also got fined. The
violations were minor, but the Association realizes that we too must
adhere to the rules and we have stressed this with our members.
What we may do for holiday weekends is to hire a police officer to
check registrations and equipment at the ramp before the boats get in
the water. I personally hate heavy enforcement, but the options are
few.
P.S.
I don't want to generalize, but some of the people on jet skis are
class A clowns. They are like big gnats that won't go away.
Kevin
|
| 32.3 | Ban the Bombers! | AD::GIBSON | | Tue Jun 07 1988 13:43 | 14 |
| I also boat on lakeview; but perfer using the old ash breeze whenever
I'm on such a small body of water. There are some power boats on
the lake with 200 hp engines?? Where do they think they are???
Massicupic takes about 15 min. to paddle around from start to finish
and is typical of a lot of small ponds in the area. There is no
way to instill courtesy into the obnoxious types and the only
solution is to BAN anything over 10 Hp. as many lakes have done
allready. There are plenty of rivers and larger lakes that will
support "Speed Boats" without destroying the enviorment.
Thats My 2 cent's worth!
Walt
|
| 32.4 | | STAR::KMCDONOUGH | | Tue Jun 07 1988 14:08 | 18 |
| Re .3
There are many people in the association who share your opinion.
Personally, I feel that the lake is large enough to support power
boats and water skiing, etc. To me, it's not the size of the engine
that gets to be the problem, it's the speed. There is no size or
horsepower limit on the lake today; if you can get it in the water,
you can use it.
There is supposed to be a 40 or 45 mph speed limit on all Mass lakes
and ponds. I've seen racing boats on Mascuppic that went much faster
than that. By the time they got it opened up, it was time to turn
around.
It's madness.
Kevin
|
| 32.5 | I'd like one for the lake please! | DIXIE1::WILKINSON | Melted Snow Skier | Tue Jun 07 1988 16:08 | 21 |
| Overcrowding of lakes is a problem likly to increase as more of
the population become boaters and as areas get more populated.
Atlanta two large lakes that are very heavily used. Lake Lanier
has about 400 miles of shore line a is about 30 miles from end to
end. It is man made and as such accessable to all. It is also
very popular to go up there and cruise around in your 25ft. plus
boat at 50 MPH + on the weekends. I was up there on Memorial Day
and was blown away by the amount of traffic, this being my first
trip. I'm used to salt water rivers around the coast where people
were courtious and would look out for one another. This remined
me of rush hour in Mass. :^)
Anyhow, back to solutions. It seems to me that either lake space
must rise to meet demand or we must limit the number of people allowed
on the lake at one time(or boats at one time). This would preserve
out natural resources while allowing use. How do you limit use?
How about low cost/no cost tickets available by phone in advance?
What do you think? Too radical?
Nelson
|
| 32.6 | Big Motors? | TOMCAT::SUTER | Water is meant to ski on! | Tue Jun 07 1988 16:46 | 21 |
|
RE: .5
Fees have already started taking place for the main
reason of overcrowding. Lake Sunapee in NH, for instance hits
you for 10 bucks to launch. I'll agree that it is one solution
although it doesn't seem that it would be too effective.
About horsepower restrictions.... What really burns my butt
is that when a horsepower restriction is created, other than
pollution, it is aimed at the 16 footers with a 200 Black Max
or a picklefork with a 440ci in it but unfortunately it also
gets the tournament ski boats. It's the same story when you talk
to a lot of insurance companies... "It's a 19 foot boat, with
a 250 Hp motor... that will be 1000.00 bucks, please!~"..
They don't seem to realize that a tournament ski boat won't
break 50 mph...
Rick
|
| 32.7 | | STAR::KMCDONOUGH | | Tue Jun 07 1988 17:07 | 17 |
| One answer we came up with is to limit parking at the ramp. When
the lot fills there would be no place to leave the trailer. Anyone
who parks in a no-trailer zone gets a ticket.
Access would then be on a first-come-first-serve basis. Everyone
has the same chance to get there at 7:00 in the morning to get a
spot. Overnight parkers would get fined for cheating. 8-)
It doesn't insure that the boats that get on the lake are driven
responsibly, but it would cut down on the numbers.
I like the idea.
Kevin
|
| 32.8 | Enter a title for your reply: | DIXIE1::WILKINSON | Melted Snow Skier | Tue Jun 07 1988 17:37 | 8 |
| I suggested the ticket idea as a means to keep track of the number
of boats on the lake, not limit to the people who can afford it.
The order ahead idea so you could plan your weekend, not arrive
at 7:00am just to get in the lake. Low cost just to off set the
administative cost, take ticket at ramp. Sort of like getting tickets
for a concert but the concert is free, just want to reserve a space.
Nelson
|
| 32.10 | | PSYCHE::DECAROLIS | | Wed Jun 08 1988 09:32 | 6 |
|
I think in the future what they'll have to do is issue some type
of pass to non-resident boaters. And have a quota on the amount
of passes sold for that particular lake.
|
| 32.11 | Not a solution but...... | VICKI::DODIER | | Wed Jun 08 1988 09:39 | 30 |
| Part of the problem is there are a specific group of people
that just want to go 50+ mph in there boat. If they didn't, they
wouldn't spend big $$$ buying a boat with a motor that big.
Before the advent of drag strips, a similar problem existed
on the roads. The correlation between the people that do this on
the road and the ones that do it on the water is in my "opinion"
very close. In other words, this group of people just want to go
FAST in whatever they drive. The difference is that the people in
cars or on motorcycles do have a specific time and place to do this.
Unless you accommodate the boater that fits into this "want to go fast"
category, you will always have this type of problem. If you set
up an organized event (i.e. boat drag races), you now have some
level of control. You can mark a course and limit this activity
to one area of the lake, you can set up the time where the noise
pollution will have the least impact, you can insure that certain
basic boating safety is being instituted, you can invoke some friendly
competition, you can get to know the fellow boaters in a friendly
common interest environment, you create (to some degree) a spectator
sport aspect, you can exchange performance/handling tips, discuss
the merits of new equipment, etc., etc.. I could go on and on but I'm
sure you get the idea.
Just like drag strips, this will not cure the problem but it
should help. Also, when you see/approach someone that's being unsafe
you can give them an alternative by saying that there is a time and a
place to go wide open down the lake rather than engage in a useless
shouting match or worse.
RAYJ
|
| 32.12 | restrict by time slots | HPSCAD::WHITMAN | Acid rain burns my BASS | Wed Jun 08 1988 09:49 | 22 |
| The dilemma of residents vs public access is everywhere. I have the
perhaps the best of both worlds. The lake I live on has three lobes divided
by bridges (i.e. you can cross over the lake in your car in two places). The
middle section has a public ramp, but the bridge separating my section of the
lake from the middle section is too low for 95% of the boats large enough to
cause trouble, but is not so low as to prevent the little guy from coming in
to go fishing or just to get away from the BOZOs. We have our resident trouble
makers, but their number is small enough to be more of an nuisance than much
of a danger. Those of us who live on this section of the lake launch over our
neighbor's lawn in the spring and retrieve over the same lawn in the fall (i.e.
no routine launch and retrieve every weekend).
One alternative I've heard they run on Lake Boone in Stow is that
Sunday afternoon is a "No Power Boats" time from noon to 5pm. This lets the
row boats, canoes, and sailors have a fair chance without all the noise and
wakes. Something like this could be set up where residents have their shot at
the lake during the week with low traffic, everybody takes his chances in the
ZOO on Saturday, but it gets quiet for a while on Sunday.
FWIW,
Al
|
| 32.13 | A time and a place. | AD::GIBSON | | Wed Jun 08 1988 09:58 | 18 |
| Just to make one point clear. I do own a boat with a 270 hp Engine,
But I also own a couple of canoes. I would not even consider running
my power boat on a lake in New england. They are just too small.
Thats what I have a Canoe for. If my primary intrest were small
Lakes I would Buy a boat suitable for the water. Granted "Water
Ski" boats are made for that purpose. ie: control and handleing
not Speed. If some one wants to race there are clubs that sanction
events and races are held every year on the Merrimack river. At
the time the river is closed to other boat traffic, if you have
ever seen a hull explode from speed stress or from hitting somthing
like a coke can you can see the reason for keeping other boats out
of the way. Yes I have drivin over 70 and its scary in a 16 footer.
As far as Insurance co.s go I belive that most have a cutoff at
45 mph. anything faster than that is charged a higher premium.
Ya gota pay if ya want ta play. Walt
|
| 32.14 | More .02 | STAR::KMCDONOUGH | | Wed Jun 08 1988 11:46 | 28 |
| Some good points made so far. If all boaters shared the views
expressed here, there might not be a problem.
If lakes used a permit/sticker approach, how would tournaments (fish or
ski) be handled? People come from all over and probably wouldn't want
to get a permit for one day. Maybe the tournament sponser could get a
tournament pass that let entries on for that day? Permits/stickers
would probably affect fishermen more than most people because they
don't always fish the same spots. This is too bad because the
fishermen usually aren't the problem.
BTW, in Mass, the state is hesitant to impose access regulations unless
the local residents demand some. Many lakes, such as Mascuppic, are
considered Great Ponds, and are regulated by the state. What usually
happens is that the residents get real mad and force local action. The
state goes along with it because of the local support.
Non-resident boaters may not know that anything is happening until they
pull into the ramp and find out that they can't launch anymore. This
is especially true because the residents wait until the fall or
winter to hold public meetings to discuss the problem. That way, it's
a good bet that only residents show up at the meeting. This is
standard operating procedure from what I've seen.
Kevin
|
| 32.16 | | SALEM::PAPPALARDO | | Wed Jun 08 1988 14:03 | 26 |
| All of these opinions have value. For what i'm about to say could
cause a lot of "Flaming", but this is my 2 cents worth. We all love
Lakes & Ponds, the beauty, peacefulness. But who gives anyone the
right to stop others from enjoying it. I agree with speed limits
on some of these smaller lakes. The people who own property on water
seem to think they own the lake, I have a clue for you "YOUR WRONG".
In N.H. there is a big problem of access, all property around the
water is bought up. Any body of water that does not have public
access WILL NOT be stocked by the Fish & Game dept. which inturn
would bring down one of the values of the lake. The idea of limited
space for ramps is probably the best way, first come first served.
With the only reservation being sanctioned tournaments (Fishing
or Sking). If you do shut down access how do you stop a guy who
owns property on the lake from buying a +HP boat other than having
the state restrict HP or Speed on it. Well back to my main concern
it the state wants to they can take any piece of land by "Eminent
Domain" and build ramps, but they usually won't due to that they
don't want to cause problems with the "LAKERS". N.H. has tried time
& time again to go through and do this and get nothing but "CRAP"
from the residents. They spend a lot of money planning ramps out
just to have the residents hire a lawyer to shut them down because
" ITS OUR LAKE ". NO BODY OF WATER SHOULD BE UNACCESSABLE!
Guy
Sorry for being longwinded.
|
| 32.17 | Ya'hoo it floats!! | AD::GIBSON | | Wed Jun 08 1988 14:26 | 16 |
| Yes Iv'e been on winni. It's still only a lake and with all the
Ya'hoos on it it's not worth the trouble. As someone aptly put it
in a past note " There are people up there who say, look at all
the pretty red and black bouys. Why are they all in a row????""
I used to like to dive in winni back in the days of wooden ships
and Iron men , but have had far to many close calls with Ya'hoos
trying to see how close they can come to my red and white flag.
I was on a friends boat last summer up there and say over 10 accidents
in only ONE DAY. How many actually happened on the lake I'll never
know.
I think most of those people wouldn't know a Chapman's if you hit
them with it. Which a lot certainlly deserve !
Get my point??
|
| 32.18 | Ideas from another state | MJOVAX::OWENS | Oh sure...ABUSE THE ALIEN | Wed Jun 08 1988 14:47 | 18 |
| Blue Marsh Lake in Reading Pa. is an 1150 acre impoundment which
has rules and regs designed to keep everyone happy. The main body
of the lake is subdivide into a boating area, an area set aside
strictly for skiing, a bathing beach area, and a windsurfer area.
The "arms" of the lake are set aside as a no-wake area for canoers
and fisherman. Granted the dimensions of the lake allow that the
no wake areas are unaffected by the boat traffic on the main portion
of the lake but we seem to have very little conflict. Also once
the launch areas fill with empty trailers, the access road is closed,
if a boat leaves then one is allowed in. There are no restrictions
as to the number of "cartoppers" that are allowed other than what
parking areas will hold. It is certainly one place where I have
seen fisherman/boaters/bathers/skiers all enjoying their sport in
harmony. It IS well patrolled.
BTW there are three launch ramps. Two are in the main body of
the lake and one in the no-wake area. Each ramp has it's assigned
number of parking slots.
|
| 32.19 | Personal opinion follows: | STAR::KMCDONOUGH | | Wed Jun 08 1988 15:17 | 31 |
| re .16
I guess I fall in the "Lakers" category because I do live on a lake and
I am the president of a lake association. However, I really don't
want to stop public access to this lake or any other lake. I want to
manage the access and use. I want to make sure that it's safe to take
my kids, or your kids, out in a small boat without getting run over or
swamped by some bozo, or just endangered by the sheer number of boats.
I would like to think a family could come to the lake to water ski and
not have to worry about a jet ski playing cat and mouse with the water
skier. Yes, I have seen this happen.
I personally don't feel that I own the lake any more than the next guy,
but I spend a tremendous amount of time trying to improve it. Chasing
state cleanup grants, beach cleanup days, development/conservation
issues, etc. How many boaters think twice about a lake when they don't
have their boat in the water? Anybody call a lake/river association
lately and offer your support or see if you can do anything to help?
We recently had a bass fishing group "adopt" our lake. They realized
that if they wanted to have a say in the future of the lake and its
access, they had better jump in and do their share of the work. They
are now the first group to help and some of the lake's biggest
supporters. Most of them don't live within 15 miles of the lake.
Sorry for the flames. This gets to be a sore point with me.
Kevin
|
| 32.20 | | SALEM::PAPPALARDO | | Wed Jun 08 1988 16:09 | 13 |
| Its not that I don't agree with you, my sore point is the people
who live there and don't do anything for the lake but always "BITCH".
I know the lake your on but I myself have never been on it. I also
hear where your coming from about the Jet Ski's its seems that a
large percentage of the population of owners or their kids do not
follow the rules and because of this have lost the privelages to
many lakes in N.H. and more restrictions will be coming down on
them in 10/88. Has anyone ever posted a clean up/lake meeting sign
in the area of the boat launch? If I were frequently using it helping
out wouldn't bother me. If there were more people who thought of
others feelings and boating enjoyment we wouldn't have a problem.
Guy
|
| 32.22 | A UNIVERSAL PROBLEM | USRCV1::FRASCH | | Tue Jun 14 1988 17:29 | 28 |
| Sounds like you have all been talking about UpState NY !!! We have
all the same problems. Some of the "Cures";
Lake George (North of Albany) has set up a usage fee of $50.00 per
year. So far, no limit on the number of permits, but its 50 bucks
or nothing. They also have a speed limit of 45 in the day and 25
at night. There is also a noise limit of XX Db (don't rember what),
but the "Miami Vice" boys won't pass. No idea of how its working
out yet, time will tell.
Canandaigua Lake (South of Rochester) has speed limits within 200
yds of shore and VERY WELL patrolled. There is a HUGE state launch
facility on a very narrow channel. I'd guess you could get at least
500 boats and trailers in th parking lot. What a zoo!!!
Irondequoit Bay (off Ontario at Rochester) has just had an inlet
cut into the lake and is suffering from real trouble---no constraints
at all. Its downright dangerous on any weekend to be on the bay.
The state is selectivly charging for use of launch ramps. $3 to
$5 on the busy ones and nothing on those with low usage. Sort of
spreads the usage out a bit.
I wish I knew the answers. It might be mandatory safe boating education
or even Boat Drivers Lisence. One judge in Canandaigua makes first
time offenders take a C.G. AUX Boating course. This doesn't solve
the access problem, but it might cut down the "Yaahoo" problem.
(I saw one guy try to solve it by firing a flare pistol at a boat
comming too close to his dock---he missed). I think the "Pirate
Water Cannon" (the BIG slingshot for water baloons) would be a lot
more fun.
|
| 32.23 | + Teach your children well + | HPSTEK::BHOVEY | | Thu Jun 16 1988 10:05 | 39 |
|
Kevin:
I was up to Lake View this past Tuesday for the first time with
a boat and the parking lot was full of trailers at 5:30. I grew
up in Lowell and spent every Sunday at the old amusement park and
we would swim over at Willowdale. My son and I went out to the middle
and swam and had a good time. I did how ever see a couple of idiots
even on a not so busy day. There were two kids in seperate boats
(small ones with outboards) playing cat and mouse with each other
between the larger boats. They nearly collided several times. One
of these same kids was later pulling a skier with no spotter so
most of the time he was looking over his shoulder and watching.
I couldnt believe how close he came to hitting a boat that was sitting
still. These kids were obviously from the local area for they were
to young to drive there. I hate to be a finger pointer but parents
of kids who go out on a lake in a boat have an obligation to teach
these kids the rights and wrongs. My son is 10 and he loves the
boating. I took him to the safe boating course, gave him rule books
to read and generally try to help him understand his responsibility
to other peoples and his own safety. The same thing happens with
jet skis as what happened with ATV's. Parents buy the kids a toy
thats dangerous and give them no guideance. The few who cause trouble
make it difficult on the ones who are considerate and carefull.
It's a shame but it will go on like this with all the things people
use for recreation because a few cant maintain. I guess we allways
will see the guys at the ramps sucking down the beers while waiting
and cant even get there boat in when they get on the ramp. And the
speedsters will also be there. Hopefully the good boaters who have
children will teach them well and the great lake associations that
are trying to preserve the lakes yet keep them open to the public
will make the boating more pleasureable as time goes on.
There is a great bunch in this notes file. It is encouraging to
see so many considerate, caring people.
Have a safe summer
Bill Hovey
|
| 32.24 | | STAR::KMCDONOUGH | | Fri Jun 17 1988 10:26 | 16 |
| Re .23
If all boaters were as considerate as the those in this notes file,
boating would be a lot more fun.
Sunday there must have been 75 boats on the lake. It looked like
a western movie where the Indians circle the wagons. Why anyone
would venture out into that mess I'll never know. It was too crowded
to go real fast, which did help. The boat ramp was grim.
If the weed problem in the lake gets worse with the warmer
weather, the boats won't be able to get through it anyway. But
that's another story 8-).
Kevin
|
| 32.25 | Thanks all! | TOMCAT::SUTER | Water is meant to ski on! | Fri Jun 17 1988 12:51 | 14 |
|
RE: .24
I second the motion for a couple of cheers for the great people
in this file. "Hip Hip ......"
And I'd like to take a minute to thank everyone for putting
up with powerboats while it searched for a reliable node.... And
hanging in there until we managed to get it running again....
Maybe we should start a "Safe and Courteous" boating campaign???
Rick
|
| 32.26 | High on SAFE BOATING | USRCV1::FRASCH | | Tue Jun 21 1988 14:23 | 18 |
| Rick,
I sure agree with the "safe boating campaign" 100%. There are several
of us "DECies" who are members of the U.S.C.G. Auxiliary. One of
our main activities is teaching safe boating courses (even for kids).
We also do "Courtesy Marine Examinations" (boat inspections) for
safety.
I'll bet there are enough DEC folks in the Mass area interested
in boating to run a few DEC sponsored courses for employees. Some
one shot "Rules of the Road" sessions might also help. Who knows,
we might be able to prevent some DEC employee from a terrible fate!
You might want to get a few of these guys to the local boat ramps
to do inspections. Its a great way to "teach" safety as well.
Open for ideas and willing to spend the time!
Don
|
| 32.27 | Interested in Boating Course | MYVAX::ONEILL | | Tue Jun 21 1988 14:35 | 7 |
|
Don
I would be interested in a course in Boat Safety...
Mike
|
| 32.28 | | TOMCAT::SUTER | Water is meant to ski on! | Tue Jun 21 1988 15:52 | 8 |
|
Don,
I think it would be a great idea.. By "DEC sponsored"
did you mean *real* DEC sponsored as in held at a Dec facility?
If so does anyone know where I'd start with this? Personnel?
Rick
|
| 32.29 | using DEC facilities | EAGLE1::EGGERS | Tom, 293-5358, Soaring ever higher | Tue Jun 21 1988 17:54 | 23 |
| I've never had much trouble getting a facilities manager to OK the use
of conference rooms, etc., for teaching things like Red Cross courses.
The facilities manager is going to be concerned about:
1. Security -- How are you going to keep the people where they belong?
If the building has 24 hour guard coverage, that helps. Otherwise he
will probably charge you for a rent-a-guard.
2. Are you a legitimate activity? The USCGAux clearly is. I've arranged
for facilities for CAP, the USAF auxiliary. Be prepared to explain very
politely what you do and why it is a public service.
3. Clean-up. Figure out how you intend to do this so it doesn't become
any burden on the facilities manager's resources.
4. You can go "explore the possibilities" with the facilities manager
long before (two months?) you know scheduling and resource details.
Advance notice is very helpful.
5. When I did similar arrangements for CAP, I went in my uniform
to see the facilities manager. And everything was pressed and shined.
That helped, too. It lends an extra aura of authenticity.
|
| 32.30 | The DEC Yacht Club? | 3D::GINGER | | Thu Jun 23 1988 09:21 | 8 |
| The RC (Radio Control Modeling) notes file just spwaned a DEC RC
club. They got Employee Activities sanction, get to use DEC facilities
for meetings and events, and can use internal mail for club info.
Any interest in a DEC Yacht Club? Maybe we could have the Mill pond
designated as our official club harbor :-)
Seriously, is there any interest in an 'official' DEC activity?
|
| 32.31 | Where is it? | BPOV06::BURBINE | | Wed Jun 29 1988 11:01 | 7 |
| re -< The DEC Yacht Club? >-
re The RC (Radio Control Modeling) notes file
club. They got Employee Activities sanction,
Where is the notes file located??
|
| 32.32 | HARWICH AREA.. | BUDWSR::CUNNINGHAM | | Thu Jun 30 1988 09:56 | 12 |
|
I am looking for a good place to launch my 17 ft/ 88 hp boat
in the Harwich area. I will be vacationing there for a week and
would like to do a little fresh/salt water boating.
Any information you could give me I would greatly appreciate it.
thanks,
/jim
|
| 32.34 | too close for comfort | STAR::KMCDONOUGH | | Tue Jul 05 1988 16:03 | 13 |
| We've already had one fight at Mascuppic. It seems that a couple of
guys in one boat cut between another boat and THE SKIER THE BOAT WAS
TOWING. The offenders were drinking and either never saw the skier or
just did it for kicks. I'd like to think that they didn't see him.
The skier bailed out and was not hurt. Once they got the skier back in
the boat they followed the offenders back to the boat ramp and
inflicted some bruises. Beat up on the offender's boat, too.
Sigh
Kevin
|
| 32.35 | Even on the quiet Lakes! | TOMCAT::SUTER | Water is meant to ski on! | Tue Jul 05 1988 16:13 | 16 |
|
RE: .34
Even if you do assume that the offenders didn't see the skier,
it's still damn scary! Even on Province Lake this weekend we had
quite a few Class A Bozos. Stunts like a driver approaching
headon a little to my left, I figure we'll pass his left and
my left until he decides to cut right across in front of me
at the last minute! Another one is pulling out from shore
more concerned about watching his 2 skiers than the fact that
I was right in front of him with a skier!
This all happened on a lake that is 2 miles by 3-4 miles with
a total of 15-20 boats out!
Rick
|
| 32.36 | Inspections and Licensing Needed | JETSAM::CATALDO | | Tue Jul 05 1988 17:07 | 36 |
|
I've been paying the non-resident registration fee for inland waterway
use to New Hampshire for years now, mainly to get away from the
small lakes in Massachusetts and fish for trout/salmon in the deep
big waters such as winni. Each year I've seen the traffic get worse
as the economy got better. This year when I stayed at winni for
the memorial weekend, the amount of boats over the 23 ft length
seemed greater than normal at the place I stay at (the Meadows)
in Center Harbor. Consequently, the only real successful fishing
day we had there was the day it rained that weekend. And we were
trolling for three days!
I can't blame any of the towns which border any bodies of waters
for imposing fines, fees, or hp limitations. Will all those boaters
who trailer to those bodies of water contribute to solutions necessary
when a specific body of water experiences environmental problems?
For years the effects of increased exhaust into the waters of winni
has been a concern of residents there. Maybe an answer will be
to inspect boats and motors much as a car must pass an inspection.
Each year I find myself looking for larger water in a more northerly
location. Maybe next year I'll be looking towards places like the
Connecticut lakes, or go totally salt water. I have noticed salters
are more considerate to fellow boaters than the freshers, but my
preference will always be with the fresh water lakes of Maine, New
Hampshire, and Vermont. Even though my motor is too large to go
on Quabbin, I firmly believe in the 20hp limits there. People actually
drink that water. I'm surprised the limit is even that high! My
friends who live on Spec and Fort Ponds around Lancaster are very
upset about the volume of boating traffic on their once quiet ponds.
They're beginning to voice that concern in a negative way by suggesting
that the planned Dec facility in Lanacaster will also add to the
deterioration of those bodies of water. Spec has no public access
any longer, other than a gateway at Fort Devens. Fort Pond is so
busy on weekends its a wonder towing of unathorized parking does
not occur.
|
| 32.37 | Some pointers for .32 | CASV05::GUNNERSON | | Wed Jul 06 1988 12:59 | 27 |
| Re. .32
I am pretty new to Harwich, so take these as suggestions rather
than definitive answers:
1. There is a paved ramp at Allen Harbor Marine on Lower County
road in Harwich. There isn't a lot of parking, so get there early.
Don't know about fees.
2. On Rt. 28 in West Harwich there is a ramp into the Herring River
(which leads to the sound). This appeats to be pretty rustic and
free. Looks like a place to launch a small boat and avoid fees.
This ramp is on the other side of the River from the "Irish Club"
3. Further up on Rt 28 (going toward Chatham) there is a large launch
facility right off the road, I think that it's entrance is beside
a restuarant called Brax Landing. It is behind a boat dealer that
is right on Rt 28. It has a large paved parking lot and ramps.
There is a fee.
4. For fresh water people seem to go to Long Pond, one of the largest
ponds (lakes) on the cape. If you take Rt 124 to Long Pond Road (turn
right there) and proceed for 1/2 - 1 mile there is a dirt entrance on
your right, that is the town beach at Long Pond. There is a ramp
there. I don't know what kind of stickers or permits you need there.
john
|
| 32.38 | Don't look North for relief ! | CSSE32::APRIL | Winter Wanderer | Mon Jul 11 1988 13:54 | 33 |
| > big waters such as winni. Each year I've seen the traffic get worse
> as the economy got better. This year when I stayed at winni for
to inspect boats and motors much as a car must pass an inspection.
> Each year I find myself looking for larger water in a more northerly
> location. Maybe next year I'll be looking towards places like the
> Connecticut lakes, or go totally salt water. I have noticed salters
You hit the nail-on-the-head with your first statement that with
the economy in great shape the recreational market (including boating)
has just absolutely EXPLODED ! Actually, I'ld prefer the economy to
go a little bit bad right now (as long as it doesn't effect me).
As far as looking farther and farther north ..... well you and about
10,000 other people are doing that exact thing now ! I used to be on
a nice quiet beautiful lake 25 miles from the Canadien border in
Vermont. NOT ANY MORE ! Last weekend there were more power boats out
on the lake than you could shake a fist at and nobody knew who the
hell they were or where they came from. There are 200 +- camps on this
lake and everyonmne knows everyone elses boats but I saw alot of boats
I didn't recognise including a 22 foot Centurian and a 24 foot Check-
mate with a cuddy cabin for gosh sake ! What the hell boats of that
size were doing on the lake I have no idea but there they were ! By
the way BOTh boats had titles on the transom and BOTH were from
Connecticutt. I only saw them for one day so I'm assuming that they
trailered up for the day. We're talkin' at least 4-5 hours from
Conn. !!!! As the larger lakes (Winny, Newfound, Sebago) etc. get
more and more crowded people tend to go farther north. Why the hell
don't they go south ! or over to Western Mass. or Eastern New York.
Chuck
|
| 32.39 | I'm gonna put a Cigarette in there next year :-^) | MENTOR::REG | Pointing fingers often backfire | Mon Jul 11 1988 14:19 | 14 |
| re .38 25 miles from Canada, you say. Hmmm, sounds familiar,
N.E. Kingdom, eh ? Best time I've ever done to THAT lake (don't
mention it by name, or it will fill up with boater_noters) is 3:51
from Hudson Mass, so 4 -5 hours from CT sounds about right. Anyway,
we used to swim across it, then we'd only swim with a row boat
alongside for cover, now I don't feel safe out there in a row boat,
let alone the laser.
R
{Oh, we're going back for the first 3 weeks in August, wave at the
little SeaRay if you're there at the same time}
|
| 32.40 | | CSSE32::APRIL | Winter Wanderer | Mon Jul 11 1988 15:17 | 20 |
|
> re .38 25 miles from Canada, you say. Hmmm, sounds familiar,
> N.E. Kingdom, eh ? Best time I've ever done to THAT lake (don't
> mention it by name, or it will fill up with boater_noters) is 3:51
> from Hudson Mass, so 4 -5 hours from CT sounds about right. Anyway,
> we used to swim across it, then we'd only swim with a row boat
> alongside for cover, now I don't feel safe out there in a row boat,
> let alone the laser.
>
> R
>
> {Oh, we're going back for the first 3 weeks in August, wave at the
> little SeaRay if you're there at the same time}
Well, as long as your there .... I've got the camp with the 20 ft
slide off the end of the dock. Stop in and have a beer.
Chuck
|
| 32.41 | I'm in favor of more and better access... | ATEAM::MERCURIO | SON, were talkin' about A MONSTER | Tue Jul 12 1988 10:31 | 20 |
|
I would like to make a suggestion at this point. I think everyone
is in agreement that we have an access problem throughout the New
England region. I live in N.H. and this state has, since last year,
assigned one lone person (Richard Tichko of F & G) to head a commitee
of one to work the access problem in this great state. I have spoken
with him on a number of occacions and wouldn't take his job for
all the tea in China. In his words "we are at least 30 years behind
on the issue of access in N.H., and it's going to take a long to
time to remedy the situation". My suggestion is that the marine
dealers should be getting together and offering support to the
states to gain more and better access to our water resources. They're
selling boats in great numbers to first time buyers who have no
idea what they're about to run into when they try to use it. These
dealers have to start to take some responsibility for some of this
access problem and I think it's up to all of us who own boats to
make them more conscious of this fact. I'm just not sure how to
do it, do we maybe do a class action to suit or what? Let's hear
from others here.....Jim (who's saw this problem coming some years ago)
|
| 32.42 | Something to think about | VICKI::DODIER | | Wed Jul 13 1988 10:32 | 26 |
| re:41
Your suggestion may seem fair when your talking about boats,
but that's like saying car dealers should feel some responsibility
when selling more cars in an area where there happens to be a
significant population/traffic increase. When 93 north bound jams
up on a friday afternoon, I have an access problem of sorts except
I'm just trying to get home, not the other side of the lake.
re: conversation in general
There's no denying that it's human nature to want to keep a
good thing to yourself (i.e. limited access if you own waterfront
property). I really don't expect human nature to dramatically change,
not in my lifetime anyway :-)
In my case, it is more important for me to be able to get on
any water I want, when I want, then it is to be there in a specific
craft. As a result, my only boat (if you can call it that) is a 15'
canoe with an electric trolling motor. This means that I don't pollute,
don't make any noise, and can get on virtually any water I can
walk to. Not a solution for everyone I'm afraid but it works for
me.
RAYJ
|
| 32.43 | I thought about it, alot... | ATEAM::MERCURIO | SON, were talkin' about A MONSTER | Wed Jul 13 1988 13:49 | 19 |
| RAYJ,
I'm not making fun of your equipment when I talk about your mode
of water travel (I also have a 15ft canoe and can go just about
anywhere I see water), I do have a problem with the way you write
off this problem so quickly. I have a bass boat and am very sensitive
to this issue because I've seen access to lakes lost because of
that same additude. In N.H. we probably have access to less
than 1/4 of the lakes and rivers. This is ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE!
The problem now is that with the increase in the number of boaters
and the little amount of access available the places that are
accessable are dangerously over crowded.
At this point I just think we should expect that the boat
dealerships should be recognizing the problem and offer some help
and support so that they're future new boat sales will continue.
What do you think?
Jim
|
| 32.44 | raise the rates | CADSE::SANCLEMENTE | | Fri Jul 15 1988 16:58 | 15 |
|
Just one point. I don't live on the water but I can see the
people who do live there's point of view. Have you checked out
the prices for waterfront property lately? My solution is not to
limit access. I think jacking the rates at the ramps and then using
this money to pay for increased patrols is the way to go. When I
say jacking the rates I mean make them signigicant enough to make
it a consideration when someone is thinking about going down to the
lake. this will cut down on traffic. Sure the people living on the water
will only have to pay once. The are also living in a 2 bedroom
cottage they payed 150K for.
just my thoughts A.J.
|
| 32.45 | Still don't see the logic | VICKI::DODIER | | Fri Jul 15 1988 17:29 | 35 |
| Re:43
I guess I just don't see it as much of a problem in my neck
of the woods. I've been to Massabesic, Stumpfield, Pawtuckaway,
Genesis, Kingston, Great Pond, Ballad Pond, Northwood, Bow, Winni,
Beaver, and Onway lakes and the Merrimack River in various places.
This is most of the water I can think of off the top of my head that
I've fished and don't see any access problems with anything reasonably
sized, including bass boats. Granted, there may be limited parking
but this keeps lake from getting to crowded. The ones that I have
fished with access problems have been so small that anything over a 12'
aluminum with a 5 hp is over kill.
Supposedly in N.H., any body of water that does not have public
access is not eligable for Fish and Game management (i.e. fish
stocking). From what I understand, this can decrease the value of
lakefront property to some degree. If your into fishing (which I
know you are) and cannot get access to certain waters, it may be
worth your while to at least make sure F+G is aware of that so our
fishing license money that goes into resource management is not
wasted.
If you can convince boat dealers that IF they can somehow do
something about the access problem that it MAY increase boat sales,
then you may get some action. Not meaning to be a wise guy but,
if you think a boat dealer is going to highlight potential access
problems when someone wants to slap a down payment on a $20K+ boat,
I just don't think it will happen. Also, if you don't like say
Bayliners for whatever reason, and the only dealer you know of taking
any kind of active roll in this only deals in Bayliners, then you
most likely still will not buy a boat from that dealer. The point
being is it has to be close to an all or nothing venture for ALL
dealers in a given area.
RAYJ
|
| 32.46 | Good thing wealth can't buy air | CASV05::GUNNERSON | JLG | Mon Jul 18 1988 14:25 | 78 |
| I've been following this note for a long time and have avoided
expressing my feelings in hopes that others would say what I have
to say in a less emotional way. And they have, but I've still some
left over feelings that I need to express; some of those are built
on assumptions that may be incorrect, please set me right.
1. When I was in school in NH I learned that any body of water in NH
over 10 acres could not be owned privately and that no group of people,
or authority, could deny access to it, and further, public access must
be available. Though no mention of the quality of that access is mentioned.
I believe that this law confirmed that water is a public resource and
all have a right to its use as allowed by state statutes. So I get
pretty irritated when I hear of NH residents, who happen to live on a
lake, think that they can turn it into their own private play ground to
the exclusion of others, or to make it so inconvenient of so costly for
them that they'll take their undesirable flesh and fiberglass elsewhere.
If you wanted to swim in my town's lake and you lived there, no
charge, if you didn't it cost $1 to park. No big deal. Never a
charge to anyone to lunch a boat.
2. I expected the same kind of rule in Massachusetts, which is a
"Commonwealth" right? A more liberal, charitable, and less Republican
place. Doesn't seem to be the case though. In this Commonwealth
groups, towns, and authorities can control any body of water to exclude
whoever they want for any reason they want to. If your town doesn't
have a lake to swim in during these unbearable days and the next town
over doesn't depend on the tourist trade, then you can forget trying to
get a relief from the heat, if you don't live there you can't swim
there, not for any price. Since the boat launching facilities are in
the same facility you can forget that too.
3. The price someone paid for waterfront property bears not a wit on
rights or fees. It is to their good fortune of living there that they
would only have to pay a fee twice a year, not on what they paid since
the amount was paid to the previous owner not to the town or the state
or to whoever assigns the rights of the water and collects the fees.
Because someone paid $400,000 for their house on the water gives them
more rights than you to the water?
Sorry, I don't agree with that. There many reasons that people do not
live on a lake, a lot has to do with money, but that's not the only
ones. The same logic says that people who buy expensive cars have more
rights to the roadways than I do, it must be true because BMW and
Cadillac owners do seem to drive as if they owned the road. The same
logic says that I own the rights to the road my property abuts. I paid
a lot of money for that property too. I have as many complaints about
the jerks who drive by too fast or like idiots, noise levels, litter
and garbage, and the traffic levels as the for my road as the
waterfront owners have for the lakes they are on. The lakes are too
busy on the weekends? *You* should try what I have to do every
morning, turn left onto a busy road to bring my 2 year old to day care.
I have to pray that I get a break in traffic or that one of *you* will
let me out. Yep, I live on Parker Street in Maynard, I live right next
to the Digital Parker Street facility. Would I like to control access
to Parker Street?, would I like to collect a usage fee?, would I like
to keep those people who aren't fortunate to live on Parker Street the
hell off?, you betcha. Roads are a public resource so I can't. I made
my choice and I've got to live with it.
I might be a bit left-winged in this belief, but I believe that water
should be a public resource and that no one deserves to right to
control it to the exclusion others, unless all are excluded from its
use, and the access to the water should not be denied or made
unreasonable. I also believe that if a town receives any state money
the town cannot deny access to other residents of the state.
Where there are problems, a first come, first served basis for limited
parking is fair. Where local taxes are used to maintain a body of
water non-residents can expect to pay a reasonable fee for using the
water. The yearly fee shouldn't be greater than the cost to maintain
the water for the year divided by the number of tax bills sent out by
the town (this simple calculation doesn't account for the fact that
maintenance costs aren't a flat rate for each tax bill, but are a
percentage.)
john
|
| 32.48 | | BTO::JPETERS | John Peters, DTN 266-4391 | Mon Jul 18 1988 15:02 | 2 |
| re .46 Bravo
J
|
| 32.49 | you have to draw a line somewhere | CADSE::SANCLEMENTE | | Mon Jul 18 1988 17:14 | 18 |
|
reg the last 3.
If the lake is large enough to support an unlimited number of
people using it than fine, everyone should have access for free.
As the lake gets crowded (sometimes to the point of being dangerous)
you have to draw a line somewhere as to the number of people you
are going to let out there. Raising the rates to launch is one method.
Only alowing so many boats to launch is another, only you don't
get the revenue to pay for the patrols.
You can't just put great launching facilites that have 2000
parking spaces on every lake and let everyone out there. The reality
of overcrowding prohibits that.
- A.J.
|
| 32.50 | Reasonable and fair, that's all | CASV05::GUNNERSON | JLG | Mon Jul 18 1988 17:38 | 21 |
| Re. .49,
I never said unlimited access was desireable, what I said was that
making it impossible to ever get access is undesireable.
I never said that you have to create enough parking for everyone who
wants access, I said that where safety and meant to say environemtal
concerns are critical, limiting visiters to 1st come (like almost
everything else in life) to available spaces is reasonable because
it doesn't exclude based on class.
Wouldn't it be nice if the "close the lake as soon as I get on it"
mindset was applied to our roadways. If we were as concerned about the
roads we travel on every day, and the over crowding there as we are
with our lakes, we wouldn't allow people to create the ever increasing
lines of traffic at everyu intersection and light and the overcrowded
conditions on out highways. As a property owner on the Cape I'd love
to restrict traffic over the bridges to property owners only! I don't
think that you'd (unless you own property too) would like that though.
john
|
| 32.51 | Go show John, Here's one for you RayJ!!! | ATEAM::MERCURIO | SON, were talkin' about A MONSTER | Mon Jul 18 1988 17:49 | 69 |
|
John, "right on", I was really moved by your insight into this problem.
I've been in close contact with F&G about this issue and have
been informed about the policies and practices of N.H..
First off, your right about the 10+acres having public access available
to all. The problem lies in finding this access and realizing that
it may not have been developed as such and therefore has got "things"
built on it by the abutters or it's overgrown to the point it's not
recognizable or marginally usable by a canoe or cartop boat.
The State has established these sites or even (by some fluke chance)
has built a boat ramp, it's the policy of the State to turn the
juristiction and maintenance over to the local town authorities.
Of course the town does maintain it for a while, but the first time
the lake owners get together and ask the town to close it down because
of overcrowding of the lake (of course by non-residents), or the
kids are using the facilities as a hangout, the town caves in and
restricts the ramp for "town residents only" or stops its maintenance,
allowing it to go to hell, or better yet closes it for everyone.
The lake residents don't have a problem with this because they have
a ramp in their or their neighbors yards for launching.
Thanks again John
(Flame on!)
Now RayJ, I need to respond to you. I live in your "neck of the
woods" and don't quite have the some picture as you. What I see is
incredible overcrowding of just a few, poorly maintained launch
areas, to lakes and rivers which have been beat on recently by many
(myself included) bass and trout fisherpersons who deserve the right
to go elsewhere in the immediate area to do what they like to do
best ****fish*****. The fishing has deteriorated almost to the point
where I won't go to some of those lakes you've mentioned because
of undue preasure they have received. Let me put a list against
your list of lakes and ponds I would like to fish that I know have
some great bass populations and have no or very limited access.
By the way they're all within 1/2 hours drive of NIO Salem N.H..
Long Pond (Danville)
Cub Pond
Angle Pond
Phillips Pond
Sunset Lake (Wash Pond)
Big Island Pond
Arlington Res.
Canobie Lake
Corbetts Pond
Shadow Lake
Gumpus Pond
Harris Pond
Rocky Pond (Pelham)
Little Island Pond
Baboosic Lake
Pleasent Pond
Medums Pond
Harvey Lake
Ayers Lake
Baxter Lake
I know of others but this is enough to prove my point.
Any Questions?
Jim
(Flame Off)
|
| 32.52 | Baboosic Access | TOMCAT::SUTER | Water is meant to ski on! | Mon Jul 18 1988 18:29 | 13 |
|
RE: .51
Jim,
One of the lakes you mentioned is accessable, although
you are right in classifying it as "no public access". This is
just a resident that let's you launch for 2 bucks each way. The
guy's name is Leo Daigle, he's located at the turn in Broadway
about .5 miles after the town beach on the Amherst side.
Rick
|
| 32.53 | I can live with 4 bucks a day. | ATEAM::MERCURIO | SON, were talkin' about A MONSTER | Tue Jul 19 1988 13:00 | 10 |
| Thanks Rick, I do appreciate that information. I wonder what kind
of dings this guy is getting from his fellow lake owners because
he is letting "outsiders" onto "their" lake.... I think it's a
reasonable price to pay for the use of a lake for the day, this
certainly is a viable alternative to no access at all.
Jim
|
| 32.54 | No answers, just mumbling rhetoric again. | MENTOR::REG | Just browsing; HONEST, I'm BROKE ! | Tue Jul 19 1988 13:30 | 11 |
|
I can't help thinking that "No one ownes the sea and sky".
Its too bad we have to squabble over access to "Natural resources".
Its too bad that, just because someone lives on the other side of
an administrative boundary (town or state line) they can't have
access to something, or have to pay more to get access it. Its also
too bad that they have less say in matters if they don't own waterfront
property, though I can see the property owners' points of view too.
Reg
|
| 32.55 | Try and help someone and get burned, geez... | VICKI::DODIER | | Wed Jul 20 1988 08:18 | 31 |
| re:51
Please calm down, you'll live longer :-)
My previous reply was meant as a helpful suggestion not a
fire starter. After doing some checking, I found out that it's
the F+G's policy (not law as previously implied) to not spend
any management resources at any lake/pond/stream/river that does
not have public access.
I have neither the time nor inclination to do an elaborate
rebuttal to your reply nor do I intend to get emotional (i.e. flame
off/flame on) about this. I do intend to restate one of the points of
my previous reply which is, if you do not have access to a body of water
it is to every fisherpersons advantage to insure that the F+G is
aware of this so that they do not waste OUR money doing any management
at these bodies of water.
After quickly scanning your list and checking it against this
years F+G guide, Big Island Pond is labeled with a code of "A" which
means "Accessible by conventional vehicles". If you know for a fact
this is not true, it will be to every N.H. fisherpersons advantage to let
F+G know about it. That is the significant point of my previous reply.
The elimination of F+G management on a given body of water may
or may not decrease the value and or desirability of water front
property. This is similar to having a pool. If the person buying
the property wants one, then it increases the desirability, otherwise
it may decrease it.
RAYJ
|
| 32.56 | Good job John | VICKI::DODIER | | Wed Jul 20 1988 09:06 | 26 |
| Re:46
Due to the earlier heat and lack of time I did not get a chance
to comment on this. Nice reply and very well worded. I tried to
associate the road vs. water access analogy in an earlier reply
but it didn't come across as good as this. This looks like good
newspaper (i.e. editorial column) material. You should consider it.
Just one point that may or may not be worth mention. According
to N.H. F+G, if a given body of water happens to be a towns drinking
supply, they (meaning the town) do not have to allow public access.
This seems reasonable to me and the person I spoke with at F+G agrees
also. After all it is the towns drinking water and they should have
some say over whether or not it gets polluted. F+G will not expend
any management resources on these bodies of water as it still falls
under their no public access policy. This may account for some of the
no or limited access lakes/ponds mentioned by Jim earlier.
Jim, I am reasonably sure your already aware of this but just
in case your not, you may want to try Clarks Fishing Guide. It appears
to have in it every fishable water in N.H.. It also indicates where
and how good the ramp/access is on each body of water. I know that
some of the info may be out dated but for the times I have used
it it has generally been pretty accurate.
RAYJ
|
| 32.57 | Nothing if not sincere | CASV05::GUNNERSON | JLG | Wed Jul 20 1988 17:41 | 8 |
| Well I am glad that I am not alone in my feelings, and I guess I was
able to get them across despite the awkward sentences and numerous
typos. Thank you reading through them. I can't type as fast as my
thoughts flow so I stumble at the keyboard when trying to keep up.
And I can't seem to see the mistakes until *after* the note is
committed to public view. Oh well, thanks.
john
|
| 32.58 | Another vote for .46 | NETMAN::BAER | Garry Baer | Wed Jul 20 1988 17:42 | 4 |
|
RE: .46
Another noter that hit the nail on the head!! Well stated!
|
| 32.59 | I resemble that remark | RANGLY::OKERHOLM_PAU | | Thu Jul 21 1988 14:13 | 14 |
| Re .46 and several others>
<Flame On>
Since when is this a right wing - left wing issue? I am suprised
that people think that free access is a left wing sentiment. I happen
to be a hard core, right wing, conservative. I feel that free access
is a constitutional right and that is a very "conservative" view.
<Flame Off>
I support the sentiments of Reply .46 as far as access goes.
I just couldn't sit by and let the comments inferring that
conservatives and Republicans on a whole advocate closed access go by
without a challenge. I always thought it was the liberal Democrats :^)
Paul
|
| 32.60 | To "liberal" use of terms? | CASV01::GUNNERSON | JLG | Thu Jul 21 1988 15:36 | 16 |
| I was using the terms too losely. I guess I associate property
(especially those with waterfront) owners with conservative wealth,
hence right-wing/Republican, and since many feel it is their right to
restrict access then the political label becomes guilty be association.
Whether access is associated with Libertarians or right-wingers it
doesn't matter. I was, and not too well I see, trying to guess at the
reason that Mass and NH are different in this (and, I suppose many)
respects. But let's not turn this into a Mass VS NH fight, and
keep to the issue of public acceess where ever the problem lies.
BTW - don't let my aquiescense on the misuse of the political terms
lead you to beleive that I am not impassioned about the issue.
john
|
| 32.62 | Too broad a brush.. | STAR::KMCDONOUGH | | Fri Jul 22 1988 13:01 | 14 |
| Let's face it. Not everyone who has waterfront property has big
$$$. My house is right on a lake. It also sits on a postage stamp
sized lot. As I've said before, I don't belive that I have any
special rights to the lake just because I live there.
But, I do believe that I should have some say in how it is managed
because I spend a good portion of my home life trying to clean the
lake. Painting all waterfront owners as snobs trying to secure
their own playground isn't really fair.
Kevin
|
| 32.64 | You are getting worked up over something I didn't say | CASV05::GUNNERSON | JLG | Fri Jul 22 1988 14:11 | 57 |
| I can't respond to the tone set by "My heart really bleeds for you......"
It wouldn't be constructive. I also don't understand certain parts
of your reply, so I have to ask some questions first:
> we're the ones who have to repair the roads, clean the beaches, weed
> the lake, ect
Is that because it is a private lake?
> we pay for it in annual fees.
To whom? For what? Is that because it is a private lake?
If it is a private lake the whole issue of access and rights to the
water are moot. You have total control, you have what you are paying
for. Why the tone of the response. If it is private than you can
decide who uses it and who doesn't as you think you should. My words
were aimed at those who live on public water and think that they can
close it off. Now as to whether I think that any group of people
should be allowed to close off a body of water as private, well that's
another story.
> we pay extra for our lots in property taxes
Is there a seperate surcharge on your tax bill? Or is the tax bill
higher because the property value (which is what is being taxed)
is higher because of the waterfront?
Are you saying that no other tax money (above the extra you pay
for your lots in property taxes) is used to maintain the lake?
> and don't give me the crap that *YOU* don't leave the mess....i say
> 'you' in general just like *YOU* generalizing about waterfront owners.
Well, *I* don't. I don't own a boat, when I do it will be in the
ocean, where I am glad you have me stay.
And I didn't generalize. Back in .46 I said I objected to those
who could close a lake to the public. I said that I thought that
Mass would be more open and less conservative than NH. Someone
corrected my political labels. I tried to explain my use.
> i paid $100,000 2 years ago
For a lot only? Wealth is relative. My home *AND* Cape Cod
condominium cost me less than $100,000, and togther are currently worth
less than any waterfront (short of a run down shack) that I have
seen in Massachusettes within commuting distance of Maynard. This
is a silly game, it doesn't prove anything.
The fact that any water can be made private is sad. Water is a limited
resource that should be in the public domain. The fact that we can
set up classes of haves (access) and have nots (access) goes against
the ideals of this country. Rights are what you are born with, not
what you buy. Use is what you buy.
john
|
| 32.65 | Another wrinkle | STAR::KMCDONOUGH | | Fri Jul 22 1988 14:54 | 23 |
|
There is another wrinkle to the public access issue. Several towns in
Mass have recently closed off public beaches to non-residents because
of the liability involved if someone gets hurt. The reasoning is that
the town cannot afford to pay higher insurance premiums so that
non-residents can go swimming. One drowning law suit could cost a town
a million bucks. If the state steps in to try and force the town into
keeping the beach open to everyone, the state is asked to cough up some
$$$ or dummy up.
All it will take is a couple of boat accidents to have launch
facilities included in the restriction.
Probably in 99% of the cases where this has happened, the first step
was taken because the lake residents complained to the town about the
crowds. It's a pretty easy case to make that a town cannot afford the
increased insurance costs. I know of one lake where the town would
love a lake association to assume legal responsibility for a beach
because the town doesn't want the liability of being in the beach
business.
Kevin
|
| 32.66 | Fuel for the fire | VIDEO::LEVESQUE | I fish, therefore I am. | Mon Jul 25 1988 14:42 | 43 |
| I think it is extremely important to realize that residents should
have some control over the lake that their property abuts. It is
very easy to say 'no control over access. Free access to all' because
it sounds like a campaign promise. First of all, there should be
some method to limit access to any given body of water due to the fact
that the residents must live there and therefore are directly impacted
by pollution etc. This is not to say that access should be denied
to all non-residents, nor is it to say that access should be elitist;
moreover, access is NOT a right under the current system of government.
Just the facts, not my opinion about rights of access.
The problem with non-residents using resources is that they tend
to take poorer care of the resource, on average, than do the residents.
This is because a depleted or eradicated resource has little or
no effect to the non-residents whereas it has a far reaching effect
on the residents. It's kind of like having W.R. Grace dumping poisonous
chemicals on the property adjacent to yours- it affects the property
value of your home without even touching it! Due to the way that
real estate works, the value of your house is affected by its
surroundings. This is why people wish to 'protect their investment'
by denying access.
There has to be a happy medium. Residents should not be held hostage
to the fact that they live on a lake. Non-residents should not be
entirely closed out of a waterway. Increased fees answers part of
the problem. It discourages overcrowding, but at the expense of
access to those who cannot afford it. Perhaps it would be better
to have a federal tax that was used entirely to support and uphold
the cleanliness and usability of water resources. This would eliminate
the very annoying tendency to use administrative boundaries to deny
access to bodies of water.
I think that it is outrageous that I have to pay for a fishing
license to every state (or commonwealth) that I want to fish or
launch a boat at. Wouldn't you rather pay once and have access to
all? Sure, restrict total resource usage. It's fair and reasonable.
But don't not let me fish that side of the river because it lies
beyond an imaginary line! (double negative intentional)
Mark
|
| 32.67 | From an outta stater who seems to care more than the locals | MENTOR::REG | Just browsing; HONEST, I'm BROKE ! | Mon Jul 25 1988 16:25 | 27 |
| re .66 OK, I'm playing with a small sample size, but I still
want to challenge your assertion that lake front property owners
take greater care of/are more concerned about the pollution of the
lake. (though its probably GENERALLY more true than not).
This incident reflects directly on ONLY ONE property owner on
ONLY ONE lake, but its the lake that I visit (from out of state)
and thats why I get upset about it. Over the 4th July weekend
this year we spent a total of ~5 hours trolling around grabbing
bits of floating pressure treated lumber from the water. I say
bits because they were about an inch long, 5 1/2 inches wide 5/4
stock, i.e. they were the offcuts from a lakefront property owners
new deck. There was SO MUCH handywork going on that weekend that we
couldn't have identified the source if we had tried, skil saws and
hammers going everywhere, but from the current and wind direction
we have a pretty good idea who was dumping debris. What if we HAD
identified the source and challenged them ?, "Your boat's from
outta state, you're not welcome here, take a hike" (or worse).
OK, it's POSSIBLE that this was done by a contractor, though unlikely
given that it was a holiday week-end. If it WAS a contractor he
was probably a lot closer to being a local than we are (200 miles).
Reg
{Oh, we DO all know what pressure treated lumber is treated with,
don't we ?}
|
| 32.68 | "ONE MAN BAND" | TPVAX2::DESROSIERS | | Tue Jul 26 1988 08:57 | 14 |
| i have been fishing for a very very long time and i also duck hunt.
i pay for the right to fish and the right to hunt in this state
of n.h.. i can not afford lake front home so i live in the city.
why should i be punished by people who live on a lake by closing
the lake off to me. i do admit we have some idiots on some of the
lakes. i have lived in n.h. all my life and i feel no one in this
state has the right to close off any lake to the plubic. one lake
has been closed to the public and they said it was pullotion (sp)
from outsiders that caused it. after alot of research they found
out that it was the homes on the lake that was causing it. i will
be fighting this in house in concord this year because i feel it
has gotten out of hand. i will not let people that come from outside
of n.h. take away my rights to fish and hunt on any lake in this
state.
|
| 32.69 | Help yourselves | VICKI::DODIER | | Mon Aug 08 1988 09:00 | 57 |
| Did anyone catch the front page of the N.H. Wildlife Federation
newspaper ? The main topic was public access with the front page
being a sign that said:
Reserved
for
Madison Residents
Taxpayers & Their Guests
ONLY !
$25 FINE
EXCEPTION
All Licensed Fisherman are
welcome and authorized to
use boat ramp for fishing
purposes.
Even though I almost NEVER go out on any body of water without
a rod/reel and tackle, there is something I find quite annoying with
the above sign.
There was a lot of other verbiage about public access but this
was the most infuriating tidbit. The following is reprinted without
permission from the above mentioned paper:
Did you know that the Lake Wentworth Association has opposed the
building of a public boat ramp on Lake Wentworth? Did you know that
of the Lake Wentworth Association's 850 members, only 45 are New
Hampshire residents? Are we locking up our lakes for non residents?
Now that is a very hard pill to swallow. Lake Wentworth, by the
way, is located in Wolfboro which happens to be an area which has
been active in creating time share condo's.
I don't know how or why I got this paper as it says it cost
$.50 but if anyone is interested it is Volume 8 Number 4.
Now the good part. The N.H. Wildlife Federation has requested
info from us users. I figure the very least we could do is provide
them with it. I will type in the form that they provided and you
can either print it out and send it yourselves, or do the following:
While reading the note with the form, type this at the Notes>
prompt:
EXTRACT/NOHEADER ACCESS.FRM
Exit notes and edit the file ACCESS.FRM that you just created with
the above command. Fill in the form and mail it to VICKI::DODIER.
If you are not familiar with using an editor, let my know by mail
and I will walk you through it. I will print them all out and mail
them for you if you wish. I can't make it any easier for you to help
yourself DO SOMETHING in regards to this issue.
RAYJ
BTW - The issue of N.H. Wildlife is at my desk at NIO pole O17.
If your in the area and want to borrow it, feel free to stop by.
|
| 32.70 | Access Information Request form | VICKI::DODIER | | Mon Aug 08 1988 09:13 | 38 |
| Access Information Request
Many of our readers are helping us gather information on lake access
problems. Please let us hear from you - share your experiences by
filling out this form and sending it to:NHWF,P.O.Box 239,Concord,N.H.
03302
Lake:________________________________________________________________
Ramp Used:___________________________________________________________
Fee Charged:__________________Resident Restriction?__________________
Parking Available?____________Parking Fee Amount_____________________
Comments/Ownership of Ramp___________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___YES ! I think the New Hampshire Wildlife Federation ought to
continue its research into access problems and that the Federation
should take a leadership role in advocating solutions. Enclosed is my
check to help make that work possible.
BTW - Please do not mail this to me with a check. I don't mind helping
out but do not wish to handle any money. If you wish to send a check
please send it directly to the address given at the top of the form.
Also, Mr. Moderator, if this breaks any rules/reg's of the conference
feel free to delete it.
RAYJ
|
| 32.71 | Lake Wentworth | CSSE32::BLAISDELL | | Sat Aug 13 1988 14:29 | 18 |
| re .69
Regarding the Lake Wentworth boat ramp:
Before anyone adds their name to a petition for this boat ramp, it may help to
understand that the the Town of Wolfeboro has bought the land immediately
adjacent to the proposed ramp for use as a new town beach. The Town's purchase
has changed many opinions on the ramp. Prior to the purchase only the Lake
Wentworth Association seemed to oppose the ramp; but now there is now general
opposition to the ramp based on safety and other concerns. Granite State News
(Wolfeboro newspaper) reports and letters bear this out.
Originally I was in favor or the ramp because presently there is no access to
Lake Wentworth for small sailboats (powerboats have access via Mast Landing).
Now that the beach has been purchased, I oppose the ramp.
- Bob
Wolfeboro homeowner.
|
| 32.72 | Pieces still missing | VICKI::DODIER | | Tue Aug 16 1988 14:54 | 34 |
|
re:71
For clarification purposes, the entry in .69 was not a request
for names for a petition of any kid. The bit on Wentworth was only one
little piece of a much large article about access to N.H. waters that
had particularly caught my eye. It appears that there are missing
pieces in the story (from both sides of the fence). One you have
provided. One other piece may still be missing that you may be able to
answer is what was the sequence of events. It sounds as if this may be
the scenario,
1. Public ramp proposed 2. Ramp opposed only by association
3. Town proposes public beach 4. All residents now oppose ramp.
The obvious question is, what came first, the ramp or the
beach proposal ?
If the beach proposal came soon after the ramp proposal, it
sounds like something fishy happened between step 2 and 3 of the
above scenario or it's one heck of a coincidence. If the beach came
before the ramp, it sounds like a little sensationalism on the part
of NHWF which tends to reflect negatively on their credibility.
As an aside, a bill (SB 312-FN) was killed in the Senate. This bill,
if passed, would PROHIBIT the state from stocking the waters that
were inaccessible to the public. This is currently F+G policy anyway
but I would have liked to have seen that law pass. I'd even like
them to have gone one step further and remove previously stocked fish
from any body of water that closes itself to public access. These fish
could then be put into publicly accessible waters. This would be
desireable only if it was cheaper to do than raising them from fry.
RAYJ
|
| 32.73 | At the same time | CSSE32::BLAISDELL | | Tue Aug 16 1988 18:38 | 12 |
| re .72
In this case, it is fair to say that the state ramp proposal and the town
beach proposal developed at the same time. The beach proposal grew out of
zoning/planning board decisions against and general unhappiness with certain
intense development proposals for the Allen-A property. These controversies
pre-dated the ramp proposal.
It is also true that Wolfeboro needed a new beach. Carry Beach, Brewster
Beach, and the Wentworth State Beach are all very crowded.
- Bob
|
| 32.74 | Can anyone shed some light on this? | 17696::MERCURIO | $set hook/fish_on | Tue Nov 01 1988 09:30 | 7 |
| Does anyone have any info on what's happening at the Mascuppic Lake
ramp? It was recently all torn up and a 2' X 10' piece of cement
was put across it for no apparent reason, also it was close to use.
Jim
|
| 32.75 | reconstruction of ramp | HAZEL::DELISLE | | Thu Nov 03 1988 13:26 | 9 |
|
I was down there the other day and saw what looks like a
reconstruction job on the waters edge portion of the ramp. It
certainly isn't unwelcomed. The "ramp" down the road by the Bell
Ringer" is open.
Steve
|
| 32.76 | ramp rap | STAR::KMCDONOUGH | neatness counts | Thu Nov 10 1988 12:53 | 12 |
| Re the ramp at Lake Mascuppic:
The Greater Lowell Fly Fisherman club has worked out a deal with
the state to repair the ramp. I think that the club provides the
labor and the state provides the materials or vice versa. It's
been torn out for a month. I don't know what's holding it up.
The "ramp" by the Bell Ringer will be closed off soon. It was never
meant to be a ramp and the town conservation commission is making
sure that it doesn't become one.
Kevin
|
| 32.77 | THANKS FOR THE INPUT! | ATEAM::MERCURIO | $set hook/fish_on | Thu Nov 10 1988 13:57 | 1 |
| Thanks Kevin, I knew you'd have the inside poop....Jim
|
| 32.78 | Just weekends | TRACTR::KOLADISH | | Tue Jun 27 1989 18:01 | 10 |
| On Beaver Lake(a small lake) there is a 10 mph speed limit on weekends
only. This wasn't too bad if you lived on the lake, since you could
water ski all week. Lets face it the crunch time is weekends. People
who live on lake have use of it all the time and should not deny
use by others. maybe they should stay off the lake on weekends.
We use to rent a slip on winnie back in 1970-72 for a 17' cost was
$200.00 for the season. Week days were great for water sking and
fishing
no point just something to think about
John
|
| 32.79 | Talk to your State Reps... | SALEM::MERCURIO_J | $set hook/fish_on | Mon Jul 10 1989 13:35 | 14 |
|
Nothing to think about, the State put up the signs and enforce the
speed limit. The lake is only 130 acres which can get mighty small
when there's 1/2 dozen or so boats plus jet skis (my favorite!)
out doing everything from fishing, waterskiing, to just boat riding.
I was there a few weeks back and the noise level was so bad that I
couldn't speak to someone on the shore (just 20 feet away). I vote
for more speed limits on some of the smaller lakes in order to
encourage SAFETY...
Jim
|