A Usenet persona calling itself Melissa wrote:

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

Hi Scott,

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

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

Be careful about what you wish for, as someone might just learn
something beyond what you wish for them to learn...

I don't care what they learn. All learning is good. I thrive on disagreement
and debate, so why would I object? Heck, the entire reason I post here is so
people will engage their intellects and learn things. If I wanted you to
remain ignorant, I wouldn't challenge your assertions, I'd just let you
cling to your ignorance and then use it to defeat you in court.


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

Be careful about making snap judgments based on the proclamations of clearly
biased websites. I suggest you go read the actual SCOTUS navigability cases
first. It's rather different than what NR suggests.

--
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 BCITORGB wrote:

Scotts finds:
=============
I couldn't find one either. Evidently Canada is radically different. Oh
well, it is Canada after all.
==============

But, Canada's (British Columbia's, anyway) approach makes everything so
much simpler: no requirement to determine navigable or not... although
it does beg the question as to when a trickle actually becomes a creek
or a stream...

It seems to stem from the Monarchy approach of government, as the lands are
defined as "Crown Lands," which don't belong to the people, they belong to
the sovereign. This simple expedient says that "everything belongs to the
King except what the King chooses to grant to an individual." Thus, it
seems, the King, to whom all lands belong as his private property, has
chosen not to grant title to lands underlying waters. I suppose that's why
it's good to be the King.

The US situation is different in that we don't have a King, and the lands
belong to the people, to be disposed of by the Congress. And Congress
clearly recognizes a distinction between navigable and non navigable waters,
and uses that distinction to determine in whom the bed title rests.

The intent of the reservation of navigational rights, and indeed bed title
in navigable waterways was to preserve public access to the "important water
highway" of the nation. Congress recognized that at some point a stream was
no longer an important highway for commerce and thus could become private by
grant of Congress. That's the case in Colorado, as applied to *every*
natural river or stream under a line of cases explicitly recognizing the non
navigability of Colorado's waterways.

The "navigable in law because a kayak can float on it" "test" would entirely
erase the distinction between truly navigable "public highways" of useful,
substantial and permanent commerce (think Mississippi) and creeks like
Boulder Creek which have no actual potential for "interstate commerce of a
substantial and permanent nature, useful to some purpose of trade or
agriculture." You can factually "navigate" a kayak across a flooded parking
lot after a heavy rain. That doesn't make the parking lot a "navigable water
of the United States."

I don't see the erasing of the distinction between navigable public highways
on water and commercially useless, though recreationally attractive streams
as being something the Congress intended or intends. Certainly Congress and
the Court were aware of this distinction, which is why in one early case
(Cress, as I recall) the Justices made specific reference to "gunning canoes
or fishing skiffs" and declined to hold that the fact that one could
physically float such a craft down a stream during times of high water
constituted federal commerce clause navigability.


--
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 BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
===========
If I want to sunbathe nude
beside the babbling brook, I should be able to do so without having to
worry
about a bunch of boaters interrupting my ruminations and my tan.
==========

You'll hear nary a peep from me. In fact, I promise, I'll avert my
eyes. No! Correction! I will definitely NOT look!

A naked Weiser with a concealed weapon. WOW! Of course, if it's cold
out, I can see the concealed bit. Or is this always an issue with you,
Scott? GRIN

Well, on my own property, I have no need to conceal anything...


--
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

Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
If I want to sunbathe nude
beside the babbling brook, I should be able to do so without having
to
worry
about a bunch of boaters interrupting my ruminations and my tan.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

You'll hear nary a peep from me. In fact, I promise, I'll avert my
eyes. No! Correction! I will definitely NOT look!

A naked Weiser with a concealed weapon. WOW! Of course, if it's
cold
out, I can see the concealed bit. Or is this always an issue with
you,
Scott? GRIN

Well, on my own property, I have no need to conceal anything...


--
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

=A9 2005 Scott Weiser

Hey Scott, all this talk about CCW, reminds me of a alarm installer
here in Denver, who walked around with a 44 mag in a very visible
holster. The PD tried to take it away from him, and even the DA took
him to court. The judge aquitted him of all charges of carrying a
weapon in general in the public sector. There were certain places such
as Gov bldg, especially courts, and Schools where he could not carry
it, but as long as it was not concealed, he could carry it pretty much
anywhere else, and did not require a CCW permit. This had the Denver PD
in a tissy for awhile, and I don't know how they finally settle the
situation.

So for those of you who have a problem with CCW's, that could be just
the tip of the iceberg if we were really so uncivilized down here in
the redneck states. I don't find most folks want to mess with the
inconvienence of a 44 mag. Besides, it messes up my figure! TnT

A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:


There are plenty of places in Colorado where people can kayak perfectly
legally, over public lands, and even over private lands with permission. My
ranch is not included in that list. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

But thanks for asking so politely, it's pretty unusual.


I'll assume you pay substantially less property tax on land designated
"wildlife preserve?"

Nope. I pay standard agricultural land taxes, even on the parts I can't use
for crops/livestock, including the parts I'm excluded from six months a year
because of the nesting eagles.

I'd love it if there were an "open space/wildlife preserve" tax bracket, but
there's not. In fact, unless I'm actually producing crops, the land could be
reclassified as "vacant land," in which case the property taxes would be
enormously higher. Our property tax system is antidiluvian and maintains
that vacant land is undesirable and ought to be developed, so that the
government can collect more taxes from it (think eminent domain condemnation
of perfectly good houses to give the land to Wal-Mart, which pays more in
sales taxes). They stimulate development by taxing vacant land at a
relatively high rate. Only because I'm a rancher am I able to qualify for
the agricultural rating.

Bald Eagles are indeed among nature's most
majestic birds. I see them often, almost every time I canoe on the
North Fork of the Shenandoah River. I was surprised how resilient and
accommodating they are to human intrusiveness. I've seen them very
near busy public highways and residential development, not to mention
the intensive recreational use by humans (fishing, boating, swimming)
of the river where they live.

Interestingly, in discussions with some experts, it also seems that they can
be negatively impacted by the LACK of use. Evidently, change in patterns
seems to have a lot to do with it. I've actually seen one of the eagles
sitting on top of a dump truck in my equipment yard, about 20 yards from my
house. He was sitting on the truck, and about 20 bunny rabbits were hiding
under the truck waiting for him to go away.

Still, I've been told quite clearly that "flushing" the eagles is a crime,
and because it's one of only two or three eagle's nests in Boulder County,
the open space people have a program that uses volunteers to monitor the
nests on a regular basis, which means that the area is potentially under
surveillance at all times. This was brought to my attention when the ranger
called to ask about some vehicle tracks observers saw around the tree, which
evidently were from rounding up cattle for sale by my lessee.

And the fact of the matter is that kayakers DO flush these eagles. It
happened last year. Had I known of the federal law, I would have demanded
prosecution.

What ****es me off is that I've been going about my business of managing my
property for much longer than the eagles have been here. They appeared and
started nesting about 10 years ago or so, and evidently my perambulations
didn't "disturb" them enough to keep them from nesting, and I gladly
welcomed them to the property. I love having them here and I love seeing
them fly. However, prior to a couple of weeks ago, they were an asset to the
property that I was glad to have here. Now, they're a liability, and I face
prison for so much as walking around on my own property as I've been doing
for more than 40 years, if some volunteer spy claims that I "disturbed" the
eagles. This is simply not right. Unfortunately, now I'd like nothing better
than for the eagles to go somewhere else so I can use my land again. What a
mixed-up way of encouraging people to provide habitat for endangered and
protected species.

If I'm going to be excluded from my land because federally-protected
wildlife is using it, then I ought to be getting rent payments from the
government for the land I'm not allowed to use.

The first I ever saw Bald Eagles was at
Great Falls National Park (Virginia side) on the Potomac River. They
were just upriver from the falls. This area is also a wildlife
sanctuary, but also an area of intense recreational use. I understand
the reluctance to sunbathe nude while fleets of paddlers float by.

And then there's the problem of me getting arrested for "indecent exposure"
if one of the participants happens to be a child...

Wouldn't want to get a reputation as the crazy, naked guy who shouts
and throws rocks at canoeists.

I don't throw rocks, that's illegal. A lasso perhaps, but only as a last
resort to effect an arrest.

--
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 riverman wrote:


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.

Well, I thought nobody wanted to get into this again. Evidently not...


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

Well, the classic (but not the only) definition is: "Navigable waters of the
United States are usually defined as waters, which, at the time of the entry
of the state into the Union, were, in their natural state or ordinary
condition, or by reasonable improvements thereto, used, or are susceptible
to being used as highways for useful interstate or foreign commerce of
substantial and permanent character, over which trade and travel are or may
be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water, and such
waters are navigable in law if they are navigable in fact."

Then there's this, which tells us that the navigability of any particular
waterway requires an "ad hoc factual query" into the nature and use of the
waterway in question:

"Navigability, in the sense of actual usability for navigation, or
navigability in fact, as a legal concept embracing both public and private
interests, is not susceptible of definition or determination by a precise
formula which fits every type of stream or body of water under all
circumstances and at all times." Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164
(1979)

--
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

Weiser, in misunderstanding the concept of "Crown land":
===================
It seems to stem from the Monarchy approach of government, as the lands
are
defined as "Crown Lands," which don't belong to the people, they belong
to
the sovereign. This simple expedient says that "everything belongs to
the
King except what the King chooses to grant to an individual." Thus, it
seems, the King, to whom all lands belong as his private property, has
chosen not to grant title to lands underlying waters. I suppose that's
why
it's good to be the King.
===============

Whereas "Crown lands" are just that "lands belonging to the Crown" as
you state, they are in actual fact "public lands" belonging to the
"people". In Canada, when you see the appellation "Crown", just
substitute "Public" if you're looking for an American equivalent. Crown
prosecutor = Public prosecutor. Crown land = Public land. Crown
corporation = Public corporation. etc etc... No need to get hung up on
notions of Kings or Queens. The "crown" in Canada is purely ceremonial.
Personally, I find the notion of a monarchy, in 2005, insulting.
However, I calm myself by knowing that it is entirely meaningless.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself Tinkerntom wrote:


Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
===========
If I want to sunbathe nude
beside the babbling brook, I should be able to do so without having
to
worry
about a bunch of boaters interrupting my ruminations and my tan.
==========

You'll hear nary a peep from me. In fact, I promise, I'll avert my
eyes. No! Correction! I will definitely NOT look!

A naked Weiser with a concealed weapon. WOW! Of course, if it's
cold
out, I can see the concealed bit. Or is this always an issue with
you,
Scott? GRIN

Well, on my own property, I have no need to conceal anything...


--
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

Hey Scott, all this talk about CCW, reminds me of a alarm installer
here in Denver, who walked around with a 44 mag in a very visible
holster. The PD tried to take it away from him, and even the DA took
him to court. The judge aquitted him of all charges of carrying a
weapon in general in the public sector. There were certain places such
as Gov bldg, especially courts, and Schools where he could not carry
it, but as long as it was not concealed, he could carry it pretty much
anywhere else, and did not require a CCW permit. This had the Denver PD
in a tissy for awhile, and I don't know how they finally settle the
situation.

Actually, I don't know about this guy, but I do know about another guy who
did essentially the same thing, and he was convicted because Denver is a
home-rule city, and had an ordinance prohibiting the open carry of firearms
without a permit.

Colorado passed a law a year or so ago that was supposed to "preempt" all
local gun control laws stricter than state statutes. Denver, and some other
jurisdictions are currently challenging the law as an infringement on their
home rule authority. The matter is still in court.

--
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

Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself Tinkerntom wrote:


Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
If I want to sunbathe nude
beside the babbling brook, I should be able to do so without
having
to
worry
about a bunch of boaters interrupting my ruminations and my tan.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

You'll hear nary a peep from me. In fact, I promise, I'll avert
my
eyes. No! Correction! I will definitely NOT look!

A naked Weiser with a concealed weapon. WOW! Of course, if it's
cold
out, I can see the concealed bit. Or is this always an issue with
you,
Scott? GRIN

Well, on my own property, I have no need to conceal anything...


--
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

=A9 2005 Scott Weiser

Hey Scott, all this talk about CCW, reminds me of a alarm installer
here in Denver, who walked around with a 44 mag in a very visible
holster. The PD tried to take it away from him, and even the DA
took
him to court. The judge aquitted him of all charges of carrying a
weapon in general in the public sector. There were certain places
such
as Gov bldg, especially courts, and Schools where he could not
carry
it, but as long as it was not concealed, he could carry it pretty
much
anywhere else, and did not require a CCW permit. This had the
Denver PD
in a tissy for awhile, and I don't know how they finally settle the
situation.

Actually, I don't know about this guy, but I do know about another
guy who
did essentially the same thing, and he was convicted because Denver
is a
home-rule city, and had an ordinance prohibiting the open carry of
firearms
without a permit.

Colorado passed a law a year or so ago that was supposed to "preempt"
all
local gun control laws stricter than state statutes. Denver, and some
other
jurisdictions are currently challenging the law as an infringement on
their
home rule authority. The matter is still in court.

--
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

=A9 2005 Scott Weiser

This alarm installer situation was a while back, so I am sure there are
those who have been trying to change things, with all the hubbub that
goes on about the topic. I was a little disappointed when Gov Owens
backed out of some of his commitments after Columbine. So much for
commitments I guess! Whichever way the wind blows, politicians can
always sail downwind! TnT

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...

I don't care what they learn.

And we don't care what you think. sounds equitable to me.

All learning is good.

The Nazis learned what hydrogen cyanide is good for back in the early 40s.

I thrive on disagreement
and debate,

No you don't. It makes you look as silly as you are.

so why would I object?

Who knows? Who cares?

Heck, the entire reason I post here is so
people will engage their intellects and learn things.

And God would love you for it (as would we) if there was a word of truth to
it. In fact, the entire reason you post here......as is also true of so
many others....is that, in true fourteen year old fashion, it allows you to
pretend to be an adult......all you have to do is continue to insist.....and
insist.....and insist.....and insist.......

If I wanted you to remain ignorant,

Not to put too fine a point on it, Festus, but as you have amply
demonstrated, you don't seem to have any choice in the matter.

I wouldn't challenge your assertions, I'd just let you
cling to your ignorance and then use it to defeat you in court.

Ooooh! A trial! What's the date?

Wolfgang