riverman wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...
Scott you are hearing this aren't you, I am going out on the limb
for
you, so may I come visit you, to set the record straight about what
kind of guy you really are? Sort of like I did with K&r!

Like YOU did between K&r???? If I'm the 'r', then you gotta get off
your
high horse and rent a clue! From where I sit, Tom, you haven't set
any
record straight... I just got too tired of trying to help you fit in
around
here and quit trying. I've been posting for almost a decade, have met
and
paddled with many rbpers on two continents, and have not needed any
help
from you in learning how to get along with folks, thank you very
much!
People know me...both online and IRL. You, however, don't know squat.

However, I would love to hear how you believe you have 'set the
record
straight' with me. Its always amazing to look at the world from a
different
point of view than, well, reality.

--riverman

Now who is on their high horse? You missed on the reference to "r". I
was referring to the recent spat between KMAN & rick, where they were
calling each other names on the other thread, and it went on and on.

Now in consideration, I am able again to let go of your little tirade
of passion for the RBP, and understand that I don't know squat, but I'm
learning, like you also indicated, even in an earlier post in this
thread.

I appreciate you being my Nanny, and getting after me to fit in! Sorry
I wore you out so quickly, but it was not all wasted effort. See how
quickly I overlook your recent missteps. I should be allowed a few
myself! BTW I still owe you a cup of coffee! TnT

KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself Tinkerntom wrote:



Scott, I must not have made myself clear, and riverman missed my
point.
I would like to meet the real Scott Weiser. Will the real Scott
Weiser
please stand up?

That would be me.

I have trouble believing all the bad things they say
about you as being true.

They aren't.

I have not had opportunity to go back and read
all the archives, and would really appreciate the opportunity to
form
my own opinion. So is it possible to meet? TnT

I imagine that is possible, though I'm a bit busy with business
right now.
We could meet for lunch one of these days if you like.

Give me a call and leave your number, I'm in the book.

I think it's the birth of a new political party. Scotty will seize
control
of the armed forces and Tinkerntom will wow the masses as god's
representative on earth ;-)

KMAN, It seems that we already have your attention! Our plan is
working! TnT

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

riverman wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...
Scott you are hearing this aren't you, I am going out on the limb
for
you, so may I come visit you, to set the record straight about what
kind of guy you really are? Sort of like I did with K&r!

Like YOU did between K&r???? If I'm the 'r', then you gotta get off
your
high horse and rent a clue! From where I sit, Tom, you haven't set
any
record straight... I just got too tired of trying to help you fit in
around
here and quit trying. I've been posting for almost a decade, have met
and
paddled with many rbpers on two continents, and have not needed any
help
from you in learning how to get along with folks, thank you very
much!
People know me...both online and IRL. You, however, don't know squat.

However, I would love to hear how you believe you have 'set the
record
straight' with me. Its always amazing to look at the world from a
different
point of view than, well, reality.

--riverman

Now who is on their high horse? You missed on the reference to "r". I
was referring to the recent spat between KMAN & rick, where they were
calling each other names on the other thread, and it went on and on.


Ahhh.. Well then.......(ahem)....uh, carry on, then. Jolly good.

Righto. Yep.
..
..
Uh, Cheerio....

--riverman

(oh, and you might want to disregard a post from me to KMAN elsewhere this
morning....)

riverman wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

riverman wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...
Scott you are hearing this aren't you, I am going out on the
limb
for
you, so may I come visit you, to set the record straight about
what
kind of guy you really are? Sort of like I did with K&r!

Like YOU did between K&r???? If I'm the 'r', then you gotta get
off
your
high horse and rent a clue! From where I sit, Tom, you haven't set
any
record straight... I just got too tired of trying to help you fit
in
around
here and quit trying. I've been posting for almost a decade, have
met
and
paddled with many rbpers on two continents, and have not needed
any
help
from you in learning how to get along with folks, thank you very
much!
People know me...both online and IRL. You, however, don't know
squat.

However, I would love to hear how you believe you have 'set the
record
straight' with me. Its always amazing to look at the world from a
different
point of view than, well, reality.

--riverman

Now who is on their high horse? You missed on the reference to "r".
I
was referring to the recent spat between KMAN & rick, where they
were
calling each other names on the other thread, and it went on and
on.


Ahhh.. Well then.......(ahem)....uh, carry on, then. Jolly good.

Righto. Yep.
.
.
Uh, Cheerio....

--riverman

(oh, and you might want to disregard a post from me to KMAN elsewhere
this
morning....)

Already done, though I did respond directly to his post. I am being
accused of some sort of unholy alliance, and all I was going to do is
get together with Scott for lunch. We haven't even met yet, and KMAN
has it figured out that we are going to take over the world! Sometimes
you all just take things too serious.

But what do you mean morning, it's late here and I was just getting
ready to pull the plug. Talk to you more later. TnT

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself Melissa wrote:

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

Hi Wilf,

On 11 Mar 2005 16:02:48 -0800, you quoted:

"Owners of shoreline property in British Columbia should be aware
that most aquatic land is owned by the province and managed by Land
and Water British Columbia Inc."

Here's something interesting to ponder with regards to US federal
rights of access:

http://www.nationalrivers.org/states...nu.htm#law.htm

The first five or six paragraphs seem to recognize a pretty liberal
definition of public access (specifically with regards to "rivers",
regardless of size).




This is very instructive as well (I think Scott might really dislike
this one):

http://www.nationalrivers.org/us-law-facts.htm

Yah, I've seen them all. Problem is, they don't know what they are talking
about. They have their political agenda and they post information that
suits
that agenda. Unfortunately for them, the law is rather different,
particularly here in Colorado.

Even the mention of access laws and practice in Colorado is
interesting in the American Whitewater writeup, though there seem to
be some pretty stark contrasts/conflicts with the federal law as
stated in the National Rivers links above:

http://www.americanwhitewater.org/ac...reports/CO.htm

Yup, quite a contrast indeed. Fact is however that I've got a Colorado
Supreme Court ruling that says there is no public right to float through
private property on non navigable streams that hasn't been overturned by
the
SCOTUS. So, for now, that's the ruling law in Colorado. All the debate is
about what the legislature tried to do and whether in so doing they
violated
my property rights and the property rights of ever stream owner in
Colorado
and how much money the state owes landowners for illegally appropriating a
right of way through their property.

The only question that remains is whether Boulder Creek through my
property
is a "navigable water of the United States." Trust me, it's not.


I'd rather not trust you on this, if you don't mind, because I already know
your point of view. Just what is the applicable legal definition of
'navigable', is the point that its the applicable defintion NOT in debate,
and forgive my asking, but is this truly the lynchpin of the entire debate?
Your summary to the SCOTSOC ruling is only that, a summary. We don't know
what the actual ruling states, or what its boundaries are, or even how the
precedent applied.

Its all this paraphrasing, with insistence that it is the non-debatable law,
that makes me uncomfortable.

--riverman

riverman wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself Melissa wrote:

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

Hi Wilf,

On 11 Mar 2005 16:02:48 -0800, you quoted:

"Owners of shoreline property in British Columbia should be aware
that most aquatic land is owned by the province and managed by
Land
and Water British Columbia Inc."

Here's something interesting to ponder with regards to US federal
rights of access:

http://www.nationalrivers.org/states...nu.htm#law.htm

The first five or six paragraphs seem to recognize a pretty
liberal
definition of public access (specifically with regards to
"rivers",
regardless of size).




This is very instructive as well (I think Scott might really
dislike
this one):

http://www.nationalrivers.org/us-law-facts.htm

Yah, I've seen them all. Problem is, they don't know what they are
talking
about. They have their political agenda and they post information
that
suits
that agenda. Unfortunately for them, the law is rather different,
particularly here in Colorado.

Even the mention of access laws and practice in Colorado is
interesting in the American Whitewater writeup, though there seem
to
be some pretty stark contrasts/conflicts with the federal law as
stated in the National Rivers links above:


http://www.americanwhitewater.org/ac...reports/CO.htm

Yup, quite a contrast indeed. Fact is however that I've got a
Colorado
Supreme Court ruling that says there is no public right to float
through
private property on non navigable streams that hasn't been
overturned by
the
SCOTUS. So, for now, that's the ruling law in Colorado. All the
debate is
about what the legislature tried to do and whether in so doing they

violated
my property rights and the property rights of ever stream owner in
Colorado
and how much money the state owes landowners for illegally
appropriating a
right of way through their property.

The only question that remains is whether Boulder Creek through my
property
is a "navigable water of the United States." Trust me, it's not.


I'd rather not trust you on this, if you don't mind, because I
already know
your point of view. Just what is the applicable legal definition of
'navigable', is the point that its the applicable defintion NOT in
debate,
and forgive my asking, but is this truly the lynchpin of the entire
debate?
Your summary to the SCOTSOC ruling is only that, a summary. We don't
know
what the actual ruling states, or what its boundaries are, or even
how the
precedent applied.

Its all this paraphrasing, with insistence that it is the
non-debatable law,
that makes me uncomfortable.

--riverman

riverman, I watch the local news here, and I haven't heard of any 4
masted schooners, or even a river steamboat paddlewheeler arrive at the
riverside wharf in Boulder recently! So what's your problem, with
understanding what Scott is saying? :-) TnT

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Melissa, I particulary like "The federal test of navigability is not a
technical test. There are no measurements of river width, depth, flow,
or steepness involved. The test is simply whether the river is usable
as a route by the public, even in small craft such as canoes, KAYAKS,
and rafts. Such a river is legally navigable even if it contains big
rapids, waterfalls, and other obstructions at which boaters get out,
walk around, then re-enter the water." (my emphasis) from
http://www.nationalrivers.org/states...nu.htm#law.htm

Unfortunately, it's not true. Considerations such as grade, depth and
obstructions do factor in to the federal tests for navigability, as do
issues of commerce.



Also very useful: "State and local restrictions on use of navigable
rivers have to be legitimately related to ENHANCING public trust value,
not reducing it. Rivers cannot be closed or partially closed to appease
adjacent landowners...." (my emphasis)

This is true, but again, the benchmark is that the river be federally
navigable or navigable under some state definition of navigability.


Also nice to know: "Fact: The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled
that "rivers that are anvigable in fact are navigable in law." If a
river is physically navigable, it is legally navigable. No court or
agency has to designate it as such."
http://www.nationalrivers.org/us-law-facts.htm

Not quite correct. While it is true that a river navigable in fact is
navigable in law, it must be navigable in law to be navigable in fact.
That's the purpose of the various tests for navigability. And the burden
lies on the person who is asserting navigability to prove the navigability
in fact. Thus, it is perfectly possible for a state, or the federal
government to deem a particular waterway to be non-navigable and close it to
public use. An objector must then go to court to prove navigability.


WOW! "Fact: Even rivers that are physically navigable only by canoe,
kayak, and raft are still legally navigable. (The courts have also
ruled that commercial recreational river trips qualify as commerce).

The question is "which courts?" Some state courts have so held. Others have
not, and the federal courts are divided. The SCOTUS has not yet ruled on
recreational use as "commerce." Moreover, that a river may be physically
navigable by kayak TODAY does not mean that it was so navigable when the
particular state entered the union, which is the date applicable to the
navigation test. There is also a divide in the courts as to what types of
craft are used in the test, with most federal courts coming down on the side
of limiting the examination to the types of watercraft commonly used at the
time of statehood. Another question is whether, at that time, the river was
"susceptible" to commerce.

And then there's the general federal requirement that some proof of commerce
actually occurred or was at least possible, at the time of determination.

It's a very complex issue, and while American Rivers and AWA have their own
agenda, the fact is that rivers are not navigable for federal bed title
purposes just because kayakers can physically float on them. The test is
much more stringent than that.

Because they are legally navigable, such rivers are held in trust for
the public by the states, for navigation, recreation, and fisheries.

This only applies to "navigable waters of the United States" that qualify
under the Brewer-Holt-Utah cases where the in-fact navigability of the
waterway vests the title of the bed of the stream in the state. The "Public
Trust Doctrine" argument does not apply where the bed of the stream was
federally owned and was disposed of by land grant to private persons. While
a state has a public trust doctrine responsibility, Congress has full
authority to alienate and sever federal lands from the public domain,
including the beds of federally non-navigable streams.

The land along them is public land up to the ordinary high water mark
(which can be quite a distance from the water--it's the land where the
vegetation and soil show the effects of water.) The public can use this
land for walking, fishing, resting, camping, and other non-destructive
visits."

Hmmmm.... see you on Scott's creek soon, eh? GRIN

Not just yet. It has long been held, and upheld by a number of Colorado
cases that there are no navigable waterways in Colorado. A recent
adjudicated exception is the Navajo Reservoir. These cases preclude blanket
"declarations" of navigability in Colorado, and therefore each river, or
reach of river for which federal navigability is claimed must therefore be
adjudicated individually, because the current presumption in law is that
none are navigable. This is not to say that some rivers in Colorado might
not be declared navigable, but it's both unlikely and would be severely
limited in scope.

I've said all along that if boaters can prove that Boulder Creek meets the
federal tests for bed title navigability, then I'll just wave at people
floating by. But they haven't, and I doubt they can, and I'm quite certain
that if it comes to court, there will be a massive intervention by every
water-owner in Colorado in objection, because if a river is navigable under
the federal tests, then it is unlawful to do anything which impairs the
navigable capacity of the river, which includes removing water from the
stream. If Boulder Creek is a "navigable water of the United States," then
there is virtually no creek in Colorado which is not, and such a
determination would utterly destroy our state system of water appropriation,
along with the entire state economy, which depends upon the ability to
divert water from our streams and rivers to put it to beneficial use.

I find it highly unlikely that even the SCOTUS would choose to destroy
Colorado's economy simply to accommodate some kayakers. Congress recognized
the nature of Colorado and its climate, and recognized that the riparian
doctrines used in water-rich states back east could not be applied to the
arid western states, so both Congress and the courts have recognized, by
long tradition, the Appropriations Doctrine which allows Colorado, among
other states, to completely dewater rivers as necessary to serve
agriculture, industry and residential uses. It's not likely that the SCOTUS
will disturb this system in response to the arguments made by American
Rivers and AWA.

I guarantee you that it'll be an epic legal battle when it comes to a head,
which may be soon.


--
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

A Usenet persona calling itself Charlie Choc wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:38:15 -0700, Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Charlie Choc wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:40:19 -0700, Scott Weiser
wrote:

Incorrect. The determination of what is a navigable waterway is a federal
one,

Not in Georgia:
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/ac...reports/GA.htm

See, I've already got people learning something...

I already knew what Georgia law was.

But the lurkers might not have...

--
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

A Usenet persona calling itself Melissa wrote:

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

Hi BCITORGB,

On 11 Mar 2005 16:38:41 -0800, you wrote:

Hmmmm.... see you on Scott's creek soon, eh? GRIN

We'll see what Scott has to say about this, eh? :-)

Scott's mantra is "private property", yet he consistently fails to
recognize federal law (well, at least where it might disrupt his
bliss with regards to what he feels are his "absolute rights" as a
"private property" owner).

Incorrect. I merely maintain that YOUR interpretation of federal law is
incorrect. You choose to believe that the only test for federal navigability
is whether you can float a kayak, canoe or raft on it. But that's not the
test, and never has been. Rather a lot more is required, which you would
know if you'd ever actually read the SCOTUS cases on navigability.


He likes to claim that all the laws are on his side, but the Supremes
seem to hold a different opinion on various issues of law. Who's
opinion should I respect? :-)

No, they don't. The SCOTUS has never ratified the "pleasure boat" test of
navigability. The Colorado SC has explicitly denied a right of navigation on
non navigable rivers.


--
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

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:21:03 -0700, Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Charlie Choc wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:38:15 -0700, Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Charlie Choc wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:40:19 -0700, Scott Weiser
wrote:

Incorrect. The determination of what is a navigable waterway is a federal
one,

Not in Georgia:
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/ac...reports/GA.htm

See, I've already got people learning something...

I already knew what Georgia law was.

But the lurkers might not have...

Maybe the lurkers would like this, then:
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/ac...reports/CO.htm
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com/ - photo galleries
http://www.chocphoto.com/roff