Re: "Visitor" Invades Quiet Winter Harbor...

News Hawk Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:30 am

WHL wrote:There are two new "invaders" to Winter Harbor". Two baby loons. I put it on this site, but don't want lots of people coming to look until they get a little bigger. So it's a secret for all you guys!!

You're aware that New Hampshire's Loons are migratory, and visit from as far away as Florida (where I've seen them)? They should go back home!

Razz

I was just reading the NHMP's Boaters Handbook. Therein, PWCs aren't allowed to operate within 150 of shore, AND NOT within 1000' in a bay or cove. Are the "new" Loons conversant with that NH requirement?

scratch

obervantone Tue Jul 14, 2015 11:51 am

AGAIN!

It's-Not-News Hawk wrote:
I was just reading the NHMP's Boaters Handbook. Therein, PWCs aren't allowed to operate within 150 of shore, AND NOT within 1000' in a bay or cove.

The law actually is:

270:74 Operation of Ski Craft. –
I. No person shall operate a ski craft on any lake, pond, or river unless the person is 16 years of age or older.
II. No person shall operate a ski craft on any lake, pond, or river between the hours of sunset and sunrise.
III. No person shall operate a ski craft unless he is wearing a personal floatation device which is Coast Guard approved type 1, 2, or 3.
IV. No person shall operate a ski craft on a lake, pond, or river, or area thereof, on which the operation of ski craft is prohibited by law.
V. No person shall operate a ski craft on a lake, pond, or river, or area thereof, on which the operation of ski craft is prohibited as a result of a hearing pursuant to RSA 270:74-a.
VI. No person shall operate a ski craft on a lake, pond, or river, or area thereof, in violation of a restriction imposed pursuant to RSA 270:74-a.
VII. No person shall operate a ski craft within 150 feet of another ski craft or of a boat, raft, float, or swimmer unless the speed of the ski craft is reduced to headway speed. No person shall operate a ski craft in a cove, as designated by the commissioner, or within 300 feet of shore, except as provided in paragraph VIII or pursuant to RSA 270:74-a, V. For the purpose of this paragraph "cove'' is defined as a bay or inlet which at its widest point does not exceed 1,000 linear feet.

VIII. A person may operate a ski craft from the shore to any area where the operation of ski craft is allowed, provided that the ski craft shall not be operated at a speed exceeding headway speed within 300 feet from shore or in a cove as defined in RSA 270:74, VII and provided that the ski craft shall be operated in a direct line between the shore and the area where operation is allowed.
IX. A person may operate a ski craft on the lakes, ponds, and rivers of the state except in areas which are prohibited by the department and those lakes, ponds, and rivers specifically prohibited by RSA 270:75-109 and other legislative acts.
X. A person who violates any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a violation.
Source. 1988, 283:1. 1989, 409:1, eff. June 5, 1989.

**WHL** Tue Jul 14, 2015 12:22 pm

News Hawk wrote:
WHL wrote:There are two new "invaders" to Winter Harbor". Two baby loons. I put it on this site, but don't want lots of people coming to look until they get a little bigger. So it's a secret for all you guys!!

You're aware that New Hampshire's Loons are migratory, and visit from as far away as Florida (where I've seen them)? They should go back home!

I was just reading the NHMP's Boaters Handbook. Therein, PWCs aren't allowed to operate within 150 of shore, AND NOT within 1000' in a bay or cove. Are the "new" Loons conversant with that NH requirement?

The loons don't exceed headway speed so they are ok. Laughing

News Hawk Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:42 pm

obervantone wrote:AGAIN!
It's-Not-News Hawk wrote:
I was just reading the NHMP's Boaters Handbook. Therein, PWCs aren't allowed to operate within 150 of shore, AND NOT within 1000' in a bay or cove.

The law actually is:
270:74 Operation of Ski Craft. –
I. No person shall operate a ski craft on any lake, pond, or river unless the person is 16 years of age or older.
II. No person shall operate a ski craft on any lake, pond, or river between the hours of sunset and sunrise.
III. No person shall operate a ski craft unless he is wearing a personal floatation device which is Coast Guard approved type 1, 2, or 3.
IV. No person shall operate a ski craft on a lake, pond, or river, or area thereof, on which the operation of ski craft is prohibited by law.
V. No person shall operate a ski craft on a lake, pond, or river, or area thereof, on which the operation of ski craft is prohibited as a result of a hearing pursuant to RSA 270:74-a.
VI. No person shall operate a ski craft on a lake, pond, or river, or area thereof, in violation of a restriction imposed pursuant to RSA 270:74-a.
VII. No person shall operate a ski craft within 150 feet of another ski craft or of a boat, raft, float, or swimmer unless the speed of the ski craft is reduced to headway speed. No person shall operate a ski craft in a cove, as designated by the commissioner, or within 300 feet of shore[/b], except as provided in paragraph VIII or pursuant to RSA 270:74-a, V. For the purpose of this paragraph "cove'' is defined as a bay or inlet which at its widest point does not exceed 1,000 linear feet.

[/color] VIII. A person may operate a ski craft from the shore to any area where the operation of ski craft is allowed, provided that the ski craft shall not be operated at a speed exceeding headway speed within 300 feet from shore or in a cove as defined in RSA 270:74, VII and provided that the ski craft shall be operated in a direct line between the shore and the area where operation is allowed.
IX. A person may operate a ski craft on the lakes, ponds, and rivers of the state except in areas which are prohibited by the department and those lakes, ponds, and rivers specifically prohibited by RSA 270:75-109 and other legislative acts.
X. A person who violates any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a violation.
Source. 1988, 283:1. 1989, 409:1, eff. June 5, 1989.

Interesting that they were admonished to add linear feet.

Although I can think of one, how many readers could be that obtuse?

scratch

News Hawk Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:51 pm

WHL wrote:
News Hawk wrote:
WHL wrote:There are two new "invaders" to Winter Harbor". Two baby loons. I put it on this site, but don't want lots of people coming to look until they get a little bigger. So it's a secret for all you guys!!

You're aware that New Hampshire's Loons are migratory, and visit from as far away as Florida (where I've seen them)? They should go back home!

I was just reading the NHMP's Boaters Handbook. Therein, PWCs aren't allowed to operate within 150 of shore, AND NOT within 1000' in a bay or cove. Are the "new" Loons conversant with that NH requirement?

The loons don't exceed headway speed so they are ok.

I'm sure you've seen PWCs racing by those Loonlings. The Jet-Ski "drivers" even have to dodge the "Loon Sanctuary" signs.

pale

red_hill Wed Jul 15, 2015 7:26 am

You realize that most PWCs are considered boats?

obervantone Wed Jul 15, 2015 12:24 pm

It's-Not-News Hawk
Interesting that they were admonished to add linear feet

Really taken to task for differentiating between linear and nautical!

About your contention that the law requires PWCs to stay 1,000 feet offshore in coves and bays, no comment? Because we all know that you are infallible on all things boating... Razz

**WHL** Wed Jul 15, 2015 12:32 pm

You know what. Over the years I have watched the loon babies grow. Occasionally when they get out in the middle, I worry that boats coming won't see there going fast. But it is IMHO the kayak and canoe people that do the most harm to the babies and parents. They can get closer to shore than a bigger boat. The people understandably want to get closer to the babies but the loons don't like it and feel trapped. The loons get very agitated. So they might be in a nice safe place but those people drive them out to where the heavy boat traffic is. If the people could just stay a little ways away it would be much better.

News Hawk Wed Jul 15, 2015 2:30 pm

red_hill wrote:You realize that most PWCs are considered boats?

They are today—gas-hogs among many other gas-hogs: Harleys leaving spray.

Earlier, they were an abomination to hearing, sight, other boats and Loons.

Evil or Very Mad

obervantone wrote:It's-Not-News Hawk
Interesting that they were admonished to add linear feet
Really taken to task for differentiating between linear and nautical!

My copy mentions neither linear nor nautical.

study

obervantone wrote:About your contention that the law requires PWCs to stay 1,000 feet offshore in coves and bays, no comment? Because we all know that you are infallible on all things boating...

That's not how the law reads—not that PWCs would obey such regulations.

pale

WHL wrote:You know what. Over the years I have watched the loon babies grow. Occasionally when they get out in the middle, I worry that boats coming won't see there going fast. But it is IMHO the kayak and canoe people that do the most harm to the babies and parents. They can get closer to shore than a bigger boat. The people understandably want to get closer to the babies but the loons don't like it and feel trapped. The loons get very agitated. So they might be in a nice safe place but those people drive them out to where the heavy boat traffic is. If the people could just stay a little ways away it would be much better.

Loons can't win: If they're out too far, they are subject to a killing by boat propellers. If they are in too close, the babies are subject to Snapping-Turtle depredation; fortunate are the young ones who seek to ride on a parent's back.

study

.

**WHL** Wed Jul 15, 2015 3:55 pm

It is true. It's a miracle that some live.

obervantone Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:43 pm

It's-Not-News Hawk wrote:
My copy mentions neither linear nor nautical.

It's-Not-News Hawk wrote:
obervantone wrote:
About your contention that the law requires PWCs to stay 1,000 feet offshore in coves and bays, no comment? Because we all know that you are infallible on all things boating...
That's not how the law reads—not that PWCs would obey such regulations.

That is absolutely amazing. That was exactly your previous claim and you are wrong on both counts!

It's-Not-News Hawk wrote:
PWCs aren't allowed to operate within 150 of shore, AND NOT within 1000' in a bay or cove.

I posted THE NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE BOATING LAW...there is only one version of the RSA's regarding this topic and that is THE LAW.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXII/270/270-74.htm

I can't wait to see how YOUR OWN VERSION OF THE LAW works out for you in court! tongue

It's-Not-News-Hawk
Loons can't win: If they're out too far, they are subject to a killing by boat propellers. If they are in too close, the babies are subject to Snapping-Turtle depredation; fortunate are the young ones who seek to ride on a parent's back.

The flaw in your theory is that it is just not accurate. From an Associated Press article dated July 1, 2014:

Emily Preston, a wildlife biologist with the state’s Fish and Game Department, said motorboats get a lot of the blame for disturbing the birds, but paddle boats like kayaks and canoes, because they can get closer to the nests, actually can be a greater threat.

News Hawk Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:51 pm

obervantone wrote:I can't wait to see how YOUR OWN VERSION OF THE LAW works out for you in court!

There's no chance you'll see me on a PWC.

Cool

obervantone Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:54 pm

You operate by your own personal set of laws with total disregard to the actual law...can't wait to see how those work for you in court! Laughing

**WHL** Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:35 am

The two newest invaders are still alive and doing well.

News Hawk Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:41 am

obervantone wrote:You operate by your own personal set of laws with total disregard to the actual law...can't wait to see how those work for you in court!

I've never set foot in a New Hampshire court.

What experience do you have with New Hampshire courts—specifically—boating law experiences?

scratch

obervantone Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:00 am

It's-Not-News Hawk wrote:
I've never set foot in a New Hampshire court.

Good thing, since even when you are shown the actual law, you still deny it....I did notice that you specified you'd never been in a NEW HAMPSHIRE court.

News Hawk Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:51 pm

I've got a LOT to say about Florida courts—and one Federal Court in Georgia.

(Nab a airline hijacker on board, and get a free flight to a Federal Georgia Courtroom).

sunny

obervantone Thu Jul 16, 2015 9:52 pm

It's-Not-News Hawk wrote:
I've got a LOT to say about Florida courts—and one Federal Court in Georgia.

Does not surprise me.

red_hill Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:44 am

News Hawk wrote:
red_hill wrote:You realize that most PWCs are considered boats?

They are today—gas-hogs among many other gas-hogs: Harleys leaving spray.

Earlier, they were an abomination to hearing, sight, other boats and Loons.

Do you need a Whhaaaaaambulance... cry me a river. I love my motorcycles!!

obervantone Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:57 am

It's-Not-News Hawk wrote critical of Red_Hill's use of fossil fuel:
gas-hogs among many other gas-hogs

Don't you think that you should start your walk to Florida now? Because we all know with that attitude that you could not possibly be using public or private transportation and burning all of that fossil fuel just for your own personal convenience during your commute home to Florida! clown

News Hawk Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:01 pm

Actually, PWCs are good for jumping wakes...

Cool

**WHL** Mon Jul 20, 2015 12:36 pm

Was WH quiet Sat night, NH? Or did you hear the party?

obervantone Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:35 pm

WHL wrote:
Was WH quiet Sat night, NH? Or did you hear the party?

Correct me if I am wrong. Your question seems to indicate that It's-Not-News Hawk who is the sole arbiter of whether Winter Harbor is quiet or not. You have to ask if he heard a party to determine if it was a quiet weekend? I didn't realize we were all using his lake and needed his permission and blessings.

**WHL** Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:22 am

I was wondering if, from his vantage point, he heard the party. Do I have your permission to ask him that?

News Hawk Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:40 am

obervantone wrote:
WHL wrote:
Was WH quiet Sat night, NH? Or did you hear the party?
Correct me if I am wrong. Your question seems to indicate that It's-Not-News Hawk who is the sole arbiter of whether Winter Harbor is quiet or not. You have to ask if he heard a party to determine if it was a quiet weekend? I didn't realize we were all using his lake and needed his permission and blessings.

Is member obervantone familiar at all with Winter Harbor?

scratch

It's more than 2 miles long. Depending on the hour, party noises are not usually heard. If there's a band, there's a chance I might hear it—but most of us on Winter Harbor keep our noises to ourselves. With the exception of Holiday/weekend fireworks, we're considerate of others; whereas, weekend visitors can be counted on to be inconsiderate risk-takers, if not fully disruptive of our usual "Smile of the Great Spirit" ambience.

As an example, in spite of living at a very noisy location for auto/motorcycle traffic, a WH Cigarette "cigar" boat in "party-colors", passes-by his WH neighbors at headway speed.

I doubt that any Winter Harbor resident looks up as they pass "quietly".

(Except me).

Very Happy

Sponsored content

"Visitor" Invades Quiet Winter Harbor...