A Usenet persona calling itself Melissa wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Hi Wilf,

On 11 Mar 2005 07:16:42 -0800, you wrote:

Wilko:

Wilf, please do yourself and all of us a favour, and don't go
there... Weiser's views on that issue have been known to RBP for
about a decade, and while he's probably more than happy to repeat
them ad infinitum, you won't gain anything from getting a
monologue like that from him.

Wilf:

OK. Fair enough. Perhaps I'll check the archives and have that
discussion with Scott vicariously.

Indeed, that particular issue seems to be Scott's number one "pet
issue", and it's truly pointless to engage him in any sort of
discussion concerning it, as his ideas on the matter are absolutely
set in stone; even for the sake of discussion.

Well, when you're right, you're right. Why would I change my mind when I
have the weight of both Constitutions, the law, and the Colorado Supreme
Court on my side?

Only those who
actually enjoy endlessly banging their heads against a brick wall
will find anything interesting about discussing "private property"
issues with Scott.

Unless they want to learn something.


Once Scott "owns" a piece of the earth, you'd best not even try to
breathe the air anywhere near that bit of real estate. If Scott were
to "own" a bit of oceanfront real estate, any boat passing by better
be sure to be out of range of Scott's firepower, and beach combers
best take the inland detour before reaching the "No Tresspassing"
signs on the beach, then only return to the beach after the last "No
Tresspassing" sign is safely behind them.

Absolutely not true. The ocean is a "navigable water of the United States,"
and boats have a perfect right to use it. Beachcombers also have a right to
use the beach below the "ordinary high water mark," because that too is in
the public domain. In fact, I stand with the beach access people in
California who are challenging the rich movie stars and other beachfront
property owners who are trying to exclude the public from the beaches below
the ordinary high water mark.

The issue here is what waters in Colorado are defined as "navigable" under
federal tests, and what rights the public has to navigate over waters that
are not, in fact, navigable under the requisite federal tests.

I simply maintain that Boulder Creek, through my property, is not a
"navigable waterway" and that as such, the public has no right to float
through my property. The Colorado Supreme Court has stated unequivocally
that the public has no right of recreational access upon non-navigable
rivers and streams in Colorado. That's the law. I choose to exercise my
rights under that law to exclude boaters from the creek, which is my private
property, just as you might choose to exclude me from your backyard barbecue
because your back yard is private property.

But where a waterway, such as the Mississippi or the Ohio or any other
waterway which has been adjudicated to be navigable by the proper federal
court, then I fully support the right of the public to navigate upon it.

I simply demand that everyone, including kayakers, obey the law and respect
the distinction between navigable and non-navigable waterways in Colorado.

The essence of the dispute is that most kayakers feel that there is no such
thing as a non-navigable waterway, and that anything they can float a kayak
on is automatically classified as public. Unfortunately, that is not what
the law says, and never has. It's much more complex than that.


I think most people, myself included, hold more nuanced views of
"private, personal property", especially when it comes to "owning" a
piece of the earth itself; which is a concept worthy of nuanced
consideration and discussion, but Scott's views on this are anything
but nuanced. I almost wouldn't be surprised if when he dies, he'll
want to have every speck of dirt, rock, and drop of water stuffed
into his coffin with him, because after all, he paid "good ole US
Cash Money" for it! :-)

Typical hypocritical leftist-socialist claptrap. I'm quite certain that if I
came to your house, walked in unannounced and uninvited and picked up your
kayak and walked out the door with it, you'd object. I'm certain you'd
object just as loudly if I walked in, sat down on your couch and started
drinking your beer without your permission.

I also imagine that if the state came along, said it needed your land to
build a freeway and tossed you out of your house summarily, without so much
as a by-your-leave, much less paying you just compensation, you've be
screaming like a stuck pig.

Why is my right to exclude people from my property any less sacrosanct than
your right to exclude people from your property?

Your hypocrisy is immense. Unsurprising, but immense.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser