BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says:
================
It's not the "rugged individualists" who are
selfish, it is you, who demands unfettered and unobstructed access to
whatever recreational venues you prefer, no matter that they may belong
to
someone else. You're like a two year old coveting your brother's toys.
===================

Which begs the question -- a public policy question: is it morally
right for certain venues to be private? Or, would it be more
appropriate to keep some venues in the public domain, in perpetuity?
[BTW, the answer to that is very clearly "YES"]

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.

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

Wilko begs:
===============
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.
==============

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

Thanks for the ti.

frtzw906

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...

BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says:
================
It's not the "rugged individualists" who are
selfish, it is you, who demands unfettered and unobstructed access to
whatever recreational venues you prefer, no matter that they may
belong
to
someone else. You're like a two year old coveting your brother's
toys.
===================

Which begs the question -- a public policy question: is it morally
right for certain venues to be private? Or, would it be more
appropriate to keep some venues in the public domain, in perpetuity?
[BTW, the answer to that is very clearly "YES"]

Then there is the further question which pertains to "How" these
venues
got into private hands.

And yet another question: Is the public good or public interest being
served by having these venues in private hands?

Private property is private only so long as the state deems it to be
private.

frtzw906

Hey Scott, in light of this post, and preceding, I was wondering if it
would be possible for us to meet sometime. I have always wanted to meet
a fire breathing dragon, though I also always thought they were just a
figment of vivid imaginations. And to hear that there is one so close
up in Boulder. I am up that way every once in awhile, and I have heard
that all kinds of strange things live in Boulder, but a dragon I would
really like to see.

However, I would be sure and contact you first, so I don't stumble into
your line of fire with all those guns you keep strapped on you and
probably mounted on fire platforms with fields of fire all scoped in. I
hate getting shot at, or worse yet shot. Especially when I just wanted
to say hi!

Of course I would also like to check out this mighty river running
through their. Now I am familiar with the area a bit, and for the life
of me I can not figure where this hot kayaking spot known as the Grand
Canyon of Boulder is located. If you could send me a map, and also a
visa to visit the Liberal Republic of Boulder, that would be great, and
much appreciated.

It seems strange to me that with all I hear, that you have been able to
even survive in that Liberal bastion. Probably your CCW that has kept
them at bay. Maybe you have also learned to talk to them to keep them
off balance. Seems that you have been doing alright, whatever you had
to learn to survive.

Would you mind if I brought my camera, I would love to take a few
pictures to show some of my friends. They will not believe unless I
show them pictures that I actually saw a fire-breathing, gun-toting,
right-wing nut, survivalist, that lives in Boulder. :-) TnT


ROFLMAO

Tom, you're getting the hang of it.

--riverman

"Wilko" wrote in message
...
BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says:
================
It's not the "rugged individualists" who are
selfish, it is you, who demands unfettered and unobstructed access to
whatever recreational venues you prefer, no matter that they may belong
to
someone else. You're like a two year old coveting your brother's toys.
===================

Which begs the question -- a public policy question: is it morally
right for certain venues to be private? Or, would it be more
appropriate to keep some venues in the public domain, in perpetuity?
[BTW, the answer to that is very clearly "YES"]

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.



Seconded. You could use this as an object lesson in personal restraint, and
nobody....I repeat NOBODY here will think the less of you for it. You could
be Barbara Walters wrapped up in Oprah and Larry King, and you will not make
any headway against his well-rehearsed position.

--riverman

"John Kuthe" wrote in message
...
Scott Weiser wrote:

As for driving in the left lane, that's true, though the speed was "the
legal speed limit," not necessarily 55 mph. I still do it, though there
are
now some legal hoops to jump through to do it legally in Colorado.

I'm a left lane driver too Scott! Because as I understand it, the left
lane is
for faster traffic, and I *am* faster traffic! If I drive in the right
lane, I
have to keep changing lanes into the left lane to pass the person driving
slower
than I am in the right lane, then changing lanes back again, thereby
increasing
the miles I must drive to go the same linear distance, plus all the
hazards
associated with changing lanes!

Of couse, one responsibility of any left lane driver is they must always
be
mindful of their rear view, because if someone is driving faster that they
are
and coming up behind them in the left lane, they *must* get over to the
right
lane to allow them to pass, as passing on the right is very unsafe!! ;-)


You, of course, know where this is headed, don't you? If you are driving the
maximum legal speed limit in the left lane, then there is not legal reason
that anyone should be passing you. If someone is approaching at a rate of
speed high enough to force you to move over, then you are within the legal
rights to follow them and identify them so that they can be apprehended. If
someone passes you on the right, they are violating two laws: speed limits
and passing-on-the-left. Basically, driving at the maximum legal speed limit
in the left lane is a perfect 'Weiser' type of thing...legally unassailable,
and discourteous and irritating as hell. But who cares about being
irritating or discourteous, as they are not legally relevant.

Let my quote Weiser on Weiser: this is from an old usenet post on another
group that I found on google. Gotta give him credit for being consistent!

"In most cases, and this thread in
particular, I am debating a point with a statement of the law, and my
opinion about
a particular group of people (speeders) about whom participants here are
speaking.
I *always* assume that a participant here is, like me, taking a particular,
though
unsavory position for the sake of argument, *not* that they are, have, or
will
indulge in unsafe, illegal conduct. I try to be careful to separate the
two, and
if I inadvertently respond to self-professed statements of conduct with a
personal
attribution, I apologize, but it's hard to avoid sometimes, although I try
to, or
at least *intend* to use "you" in the context of the debate, not as a
statement of
the true personality of the debator.

I choose to argue the law and order viewpoint, since, in this case, as in
the
smoking ordinance debate, it is fairly easy to refute baseless arguments
about
"speeders/smokers rights" with statements of fact and law. I inject my
opinions
about speeders partly because I find them to be as I have characterized them
and
partly because it stimulates debate. If a participant wishes to wear a
particular
shoe I have place before them, that is their prerogative, but no *personal*
offense
in intended by me.

You may perceive a common thread of support of law, order and our present
system of
government in my various arguments, but you should not assume, based upon my
participation here, that it is the defining characteristic of my
personality.
Mostly, I argue such viewpoints in opposition to the large number of
liberal-type
arguments made here. I feel that it is useful, educational and entertaining
to
have an equally polar opposite opinion which balances the argument,
stimulates
thought, hones the wit and challenges assumptions, which is the essence of
debate.
Without me, and people like me, this forum would be a bland, boring
peroration (my
new word for the week) and mutual backslapping club.

I also choose to argue, by and large, without anger or emotion, with humor,
including sarcasm and satire, and I don't usually take offense at the
counter
arguments because I choose to give the participants the benefit of the
doubt, and
assume they are, again, like me, simply engaging in a philosophical
argument. The
primary weakness of this group seems to be the inability to engage in a
lively and
even heated debate without rancor and without inappropriately attributing
overall
moral stands or negative character traits to other participants because of
provocative or disagreeable statements made here.

When someone goes too far, as Evan did, and others have done, and attack me
*personally*, I am quite willing and perfectly capable of defending myself
and can
flame at least as well as some people and better than most. If I have a
fault, it
is that I am sometimes too subtle for some of the people here, and they take
offense where none should be taken. I tend to go for the slow-roast,
hoist-on-their-own-petard method of flamage rather than dangerously libelous
emotional outbursts.

Generally, I don't respond to criticisim with personal threats, (except as
humor,
however obscure, obtuse and lame, or in response to a personal threat from
someone
else) and I don't assume that just because someone disagrees with me, or
espouses a
position that I find objectionable, that they are "out to get me", or even
that
they are a "bad" person. I recognize the debate for what it is, just a
debate."

--riverman

Melissa:
===============
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.
=================

Is the concept of "public property up to the 'high water mark'", which
is true in BC, also prevalent in the USA?

Cheers,
Wilf

On 11 Mar 2005 09:01:10 -0800, "BCITORGB" wrote:

Is the concept of "public property up to the 'high water mark'", which
is true in BC, also prevalent in the USA?

It varies by state. In Georgia, for example, it is true only of 'navigable'
waters - defined as capable of carrying commercial barge traffic. A lot of
good boating and fishing water is private.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com/ - photo galleries
http://www.chocphoto.com/roff

BCITORGB wrote:
Melissa:
===============
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.
=================

Is the concept of "public property up to the 'high water mark'",
which
is true in BC, also prevalent in the USA?


In most States, yes. It's actually described as "the mean high-water
mark."


-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--

================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty indicates:
============
In most States, yes. It's actually described as "the mean high-water
mark."
===============

BC Land Act
R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 214 (as amended)

....In British Columbia, all foreshore is vested in the Crown in right
of the Province... The foreshore is the intertidal area defined by the
high water mark which delineates the natural boundary and that of the
low water mark which delineates the seabed....

frtzw906

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

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.

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! :-)

- --
Melissa

PGP Public Keys: http://www.willkayakforfood.tk

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQCVAwUBQjHGADEYqNTZBqoEAQNhtAQAtESt1tG7fGND0RPtQU LxPtXh6VoXX/bX
I80MzRGRaQrvXEZy0J5v7l+RPROAe0Sq3JIs9Eop61dTtRosFe 3H7fbDkrGQYvqx
AeVVMM7/QAxzB5E78cHRkAfubbRoPQGZP/2HOoNt/6T8rAfOB605ZmSpNgERjJtE
GABodg3U2Iw=
=btbA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Is this the Melissa I have heard from in the past, maybe there are two
of you? Are you on the East or West coast? This sound so vitrolic, and
unlike you, what happened to set you off? TnT

On a website providing interpretation of the BC Land Act:
"What is Foreshore?

Foreshore is the land between the high and low watermarks of streams,
rivers, lakes, and the ocean."

So, foreshore (public access) applies not only to intertidal zones, but
also, as you can see, to lakes and rivers.

Quite right, IMHO.

frtzw906

I was just reading further, and this might be of comarative interest:

"Who Owns Foreshore?

In British Columbia, the Province owns nearly all freshwater and
sal****er foreshore. Land adjacent to foreshore maybe privately owned,
but in common law the public retains the privilege or "bare licence" to
access the foreshore."

from: http://www.lwbc.bc.ca/02land/tenuring/privatemoorage/

Note the point about "access to the foreshore". Again, quite proper
IMHO.

frtzw906

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

Weiser says:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
It's not the "rugged individualists" who are
selfish, it is you, who demands unfettered and unobstructed access
to
whatever recreational venues you prefer, no matter that they may
belong
to
someone else. You're like a two year old coveting your brother's
toys.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D

Which begs the question -- a public policy question: is it morally
right for certain venues to be private?

Of course, if they are private. There's nothing at all immoral about
owning
something that someone else, or the general public want or covet.
What's
immoral is when the public decides that it "needs" the thing more
than the
owner and decides to take it away from him without either asking or
paying
for the right to do so.

Or, would it be more
appropriate to keep some venues in the public domain, in
perpetuity?
[BTW, the answer to that is very clearly "YES"]

Indeed, but the key word is "some." Too many paddlers want it all,
and won't
be satisfied with "some."

And, all you have to do to obtain a particular venue that you
treasure and
place it in the public domain in perpetuity is to PAY FOR IT. That is
what
the Constitution requires. You don't get to use it without paying for
it if
somebody else already owns it.


Then there is the further question which pertains to "How" these
venues
got into private hands.

By grants of Congress and devolvement of title according to law.

The only way to interfere with that title is according to law. You
don't get
to use it or take it just because you want it.

And yet another question: Is the public good or public interest
being
served by having these venues in private hands?

When it comes to private property, private rights trump public
interest
unless and until the public comes up with the cumshaw (and the legal
justification of "public use") to purchase that which it wants to put
to
public use.

Private property is private only so long as the state deems it to
be
private.

Maybe in Canada. Down here, private property is private until the
state
lawfully exercises its powers of eminent domain and provides just
compensating for the taking.

If you want to use it, or open it to public use, all you have to do
is pay
for it. Pretty simple, actually. Unfortunately, most
liberal-socialists are
parsimonious in the extreme and think they ought to be given
everything for
free.

Sorry, but that's not the way it works down here.

--
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

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

Tink says:
=============
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? I have trouble believing all the bad things they say
about you as being true. 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?
============

Tink, are going to be the CO president of the Weiser fan club? GRIN

He's a gun-toting, Hummer-driving, ex-Kampus Kop. Are you guys so short
of role models down there? Or maybe I'm just jealous that you don't
want to meet me. GRIN

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
=============
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? I have trouble believing all the bad things they say
about you as being true. 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?
============

Tink, are going to be the CO president of the Weiser fan club? GRIN

He's a gun-toting, Hummer-driving, ex-Kampus Kop. Are you guys so
short
of role models down there? Or maybe I'm just jealous that you don't
want to meet me. GRIN

frtzw906

I would love to meet you, I owe you a big slobbery kiss!

As far as Scott goes, I don't expect that Scott feels the need for a
fan club, that is yet to be proven wrong! Though I would volunteer if
the job comes with the perk of driving a Hummer. They are pretty cool,
and Big, and expecially if they have darkened windows. Think SWAT,
could stand for Scott Weiser Attack Team! He and I do ok against some
of you raging liberals!

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! Things are so
much better now between them. Maybe there is hope between this bunch
and you! Tnt

Tink:
=============
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! Things are so
much better now between them. Maybe there is hope between this bunch
and you!
===============

Think about it Tink. Do you really think there'll be any correlation
between the Usenet persona and reality? I don't.

This meeting will never happen. Do you think the Usenet Scott really
wants anyone to meet the real Scott?

frtzw906

Melissa:
==============
I suppose also that the use of the term "nearly all" above might be in
reference to the possible exceptions of both "Crown" and "First
Nation" lands?
=============

Right. Primarily it refers to Federal lands (and First Nations affairs,
when not self-governing, fall under Federal jurisdiction).which
includes many harbors and, of course, military bases.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:

BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says:
================
It's not the "rugged individualists" who are
selfish, it is you, who demands unfettered and unobstructed access to
whatever recreational venues you prefer, no matter that they may belong
to
someone else. You're like a two year old coveting your brother's toys.
===================

Which begs the question -- a public policy question: is it morally
right for certain venues to be private? Or, would it be more
appropriate to keep some venues in the public domain, in perpetuity?
[BTW, the answer to that is very clearly "YES"]

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.

Well, he might learn something too.

--
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:


"Wilko" wrote in message
...
BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says:
================
It's not the "rugged individualists" who are
selfish, it is you, who demands unfettered and unobstructed access to
whatever recreational venues you prefer, no matter that they may belong
to
someone else. You're like a two year old coveting your brother's toys.
===================

Which begs the question -- a public policy question: is it morally
right for certain venues to be private? Or, would it be more
appropriate to keep some venues in the public domain, in perpetuity?
[BTW, the answer to that is very clearly "YES"]

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.



Seconded. You could use this as an object lesson in personal restraint, and
nobody....I repeat NOBODY here will think the less of you for it. You could
be Barbara Walters wrapped up in Oprah and Larry King, and you will not make
any headway against his well-rehearsed position.

Well, that would be because I'm right and have the law on my side. Still, he
may wish to learn something new on his own.

--
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 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

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Melissa:
===============
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.
=================

Is the concept of "public property up to the 'high water mark'", which
is true in BC, also prevalent in the USA?

As applied to "navigable waters of the United States," yes, the public has
access rights up to the "ordinary high water mark." But the catch is that
for the access rights to apply AT ALL, the waterway must be, in fact AND in
law, "navigable." The test for bed-title navigability is not a state one, it
is a federal one, and it has NEVER been ratified by the Supreme Court as
being the "pleasure boat test" that kayakers like to tout as the be-all and
end-all of navigability tests. It's rather more complex than that.


--
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 Oci-One Kanubi wrote:

BCITORGB wrote:
Melissa:
===============
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.
=================

Is the concept of "public property up to the 'high water mark'",
which
is true in BC, also prevalent in the USA?


In most States, yes. It's actually described as "the mean high-water
mark."

Or "ordinary high water mark." But first, the waterway must be navigable in
law, and the test is not whether you can float a kayak on it.

--
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 Wilf,

On 11 Mar 2005 09:01:10 -0800, you wrote:

Is the concept of "public property up to the 'high water mark'",
which is true in BC, also prevalent in the USA?

I'm not a legal expert in this area, so please take my comments as
only the casual observations of an oceanfront dweller who has some of
her own ideas, and also encounters reports of legal disputes over
ownership versus public access rights now and again.

Yes, the high water mark seems to be a *general* guideline in some
states, but it seems to be a state issue rather than a federal issue
in most cases, and so different states - and their courts - may draw
the lines differently than others.

Except for "National Park" and other such federally "owned/controlled"
land/water rights (military properties, wildlife preserves, etc.), it
seems to be mostly a state issue, governed by state courts.
Oceanfront private property owners will, often enough, challenge
certain boundary and access issues in the state courts (most often in
an attempt to limit public access/usage to as much of the "beach" in
front of their property as possible).

Incorrect. The determination of what is a navigable waterway is a federal
one, and once a waterway has been adjudicated as navigable under the
requisite federal tests, the bed of that waterway belongs to the state, held
in trust for the use and enjoyment of the people, and the state may not
alienate that title if it thereby prevents navigation by the public.

Some states did, however, reserve specific rights in navigable waters under
their constitutions that provide broader navigability right to the public.
However, a state may not *diminish* the federally-protected right of
navigation on navigable waters.


Again, while it does seem that most states do use the "high water
mark" as a general guideline, here in WA state, the line seems to be
drawn at the spot where "dune" and "beach" meet. If the "dune"
erodes, so does the "private property", regardless of the average
high water mark.

This is mostly correct. The doctrines of reliction and accretion determine
title to such lands, and they apply on navigable rivers (and indeed non
navigable streams for the purposes of who holds title to the upland) as well
as on the oceanfront.



Of course, in an area like where I live, even though the "open sand"
beach area can be very wide for long stretches, and the usual "high
water mark" does not, most of the year, reach all the way to the edge
of the "dune" area, winter storms can easily push waves all the way
up to/into the very edge of the dunes (area where vegetation, like
dune grasses and trees grow before giving way to open sandy beach);
so I suppose this may be considered the "high water mark".

The ordinary high water mark can be easily determined through a survey and a
review of tide tables. Extraordinary high water, such as storm surge, does
not move the line.


As I said, I'm no legal expert in any of this, and I currently only
rent a bit of oceanfront property rather than "own" it, so I haven't
paid quite as much attention to all the legal minutiae as I might
have had I "owned" this property. Even so, I still have my own
peculiar views on the "spiritual" aspects of land ownership in
general, and things like "beach/water access" specifically. River
access is also an issue *I* consider to be more "spiritual" than
legal; philosophically speaking anyway. These
"spiritual/philosophical" feelings of mine can push certain opinions
of mine in various directions, even though I appreciate the idea that
beach/water access should be "public". For instance, I have a
"spiritual/philosophical" problem with the idea of driving vehicles
on the beaches for anything other than emergency purposes, yet in my
state, much of the "wide open beach" area along certain stretches is
officially designated as part of the "state highway" system,
inefficient as that may be as any sort of a practical
"transportation" issue. As I see it, it's just a permission for
people to drive on the beaches, which is, in my view, blasphemous at
best.

With regards to river access, it seems that here, even if someone owns
property on both sides of a stretch of river, the water itself,
including up to the high water mark on the banks, is designated as
"public access". So, if a river runs through someone's "property",
the public still has the right to be on the water itself. I see this
as being perfectly reasonable, but Scott seems to have a somewhat
different opinion about this sort of public access issue.

This is simply not within the ambit of our law or our history. Even back in
pre-US England, from which we derived our laws of river access, the law has
always distinguished between navigable and non-navigable waterways, and the
public rights to use a waterway depend on navigability.

It is simply a legal fact that in Colorado, there is not legal right to
float down a non-navigable river or stream. And so far, there is only one
federally-adjudicated navigable waterway in Colorado: The arm of the Navajo
Reservoir that extends into Colorado from New Mexico.


If I keep googling, I'm sure I'll find endless examples in the various
states, but here's something that popped up after just a quick little
google (this one is specifically in North Carolina):

http://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Facts/publicuse.htm

I've seen even more contentious court battles played out in southern
California (specifically in the L.A. area), where many very wealthy
people own "beachfront" properties, and they will often be in court
trying to restrict access to as much of the beach as possible in
front of their homes.

Here's something I just found with regards to California beach access
rights:

http://www.stoel.com/resources/artic...e/real_01.shtm

Public/private access to various bits of this earth is a never ending
discussion, especially if we're willing to discuss these issues in
spiritual/philosophical terms and not just "legal" terms.

Sorry, but whatever you may feel spiritually, the rights of property owners
to exclude others is strictly a legal issue.


--
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 Melissa wrote:

Hi Wilf,

On 11 Mar 2005 09:01:10 -0800, you wrote:

Is the concept of "public property up to the 'high water mark'",
which is true in BC, also prevalent in the USA?

I'm not a legal expert in this area, so please take my comments as
only the casual observations of an oceanfront dweller who has some of
her own ideas, and also encounters reports of legal disputes over
ownership versus public access rights now and again.

Yes, the high water mark seems to be a *general* guideline in some
states, but it seems to be a state issue rather than a federal issue
in most cases, and so different states - and their courts - may draw
the lines differently than others.

Except for "National Park" and other such federally "owned/controlled"
land/water rights (military properties, wildlife preserves, etc.), it
seems to be mostly a state issue, governed by state courts.
Oceanfront private property owners will, often enough, challenge
certain boundary and access issues in the state courts (most often in
an attempt to limit public access/usage to as much of the "beach" in
front of their property as possible).

Incorrect. The determination of what is a navigable waterway is a federal
one, and once a waterway has been adjudicated as navigable under the
requisite federal tests, the bed of that waterway belongs to the state, held
in trust for the use and enjoyment of the people, and the state may not
alienate that title if it thereby prevents navigation by the public.

Some states did, however, reserve specific rights in navigable waters under
their constitutions that provide broader navigability right to the public.
However, a state may not *diminish* the federally-protected right of
navigation on navigable waters.


Virginia is a possible exception to your above statements; see:
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/ac...reports/VA.htm




--
"This president has destroyed the country, the economy,
the relationship with the rest of the world.
He's a monster in the White House. He should resign."

- Hunter S. Thompson, speaking to an antiwar audience in 2003.

"Frederick Burroughs" wrote in message
...
Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Melissa wrote:

Hi Wilf,

On 11 Mar 2005 09:01:10 -0800, you wrote:

Is the concept of "public property up to the 'high water mark'",
which is true in BC, also prevalent in the USA?

I'm not a legal expert in this area, so please take my comments as
only the casual observations of an oceanfront dweller who has some of
her own ideas, and also encounters reports of legal disputes over
ownership versus public access rights now and again.

Yes, the high water mark seems to be a *general* guideline in some
states, but it seems to be a state issue rather than a federal issue
in most cases, and so different states - and their courts - may draw
the lines differently than others.

Except for "National Park" and other such federally "owned/controlled"
land/water rights (military properties, wildlife preserves, etc.), it
seems to be mostly a state issue, governed by state courts.
Oceanfront private property owners will, often enough, challenge
certain boundary and access issues in the state courts (most often in
an attempt to limit public access/usage to as much of the "beach" in
front of their property as possible).

Incorrect. The determination of what is a navigable waterway is a federal
one, and once a waterway has been adjudicated as navigable under the
requisite federal tests, the bed of that waterway belongs to the state,
held
in trust for the use and enjoyment of the people, and the state may not
alienate that title if it thereby prevents navigation by the public.

Some states did, however, reserve specific rights in navigable waters
under
their constitutions that provide broader navigability right to the
public.
However, a state may not *diminish* the federally-protected right of
navigation on navigable waters.


Virginia is a possible exception to your above statements; see:
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/ac...reports/VA.htm

LOL. All you have to do is topple a tree across the creek and it's yours!

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
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com/ - photo galleries
http://www.chocphoto.com/roff

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty indicates:
============
In most States, yes. It's actually described as "the mean high-water
mark."
===============

BC Land Act
R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 214 (as amended)

...In British Columbia, all foreshore is vested in the Crown in right
of the Province... The foreshore is the intertidal area defined by the
high water mark which delineates the natural boundary and that of the
low water mark which delineates the seabed....

Remember, this only applies to the seacoast. Rivers may be different.
--
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:



On a website providing interpretation of the BC Land Act:
"What is Foreshore?

Foreshore is the land between the high and low watermarks of streams,
rivers, lakes, and the ocean."

So, foreshore (public access) applies not only to intertidal zones, but
also, as you can see, to lakes and rivers.

Quite right, IMHO.

I'm not sure if this is precisely true. It would depend on whether the
specific regulation applies to "navigable waters" or all waters. I suspect
that Canada has much the same structure as the US, since English common law
is the genesis for both. Thus, there is probably some distinction drawn
between navigable and non navigable.

The ocean is, of course, always navigable. "Under the influence of the
tides" is the metric from English common law for public 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 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.

--
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:

Tink says:
=============
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? I have trouble believing all the bad things they say
about you as being true. 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?
============

Tink, are going to be the CO president of the Weiser fan club? GRIN

He's a gun-toting, Hummer-driving, ex-Kampus Kop. Are you guys so short
of role models down there? Or maybe I'm just jealous that you don't
want to meet me. GRIN

I think he's just a human being who is wise enough not to form opinions
about people he's never met based on what's written on the Usenet.

--
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 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 ;-)

A Usenet persona calling itself Tinkerntom wrote:


As far as Scott goes, I don't expect that Scott feels the need for a
fan club, that is yet to be proven wrong!

And yet, according to my email, I have one. Well, had one...I dropped out
for awhile after my mother's death and Usenet groupies are notoriously
fickle.

Though I would volunteer if
the job comes with the perk of driving a Hummer. They are pretty cool,
and Big, and expecially if they have darkened windows. Think SWAT,
could stand for Scott Weiser Attack Team! He and I do ok against some
of you raging liberals!

LOL! Now THAT'S funny.


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! Things are so
much better now between them. Maybe there is hope between this bunch
and you! Tnt

I'm no different in real life than most ordinary people. I commend you for
refusing to make value judgments about people based on what's written on the
Usenet. I have a very specific persona on the Usenet that I have carefully
crafted to provide maximum effect for my intended purpose, which is that of
stimulating debate and the exchange of information on a variety of subjects.

--
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:

Tink:
=============
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! Things are so
much better now between them. Maybe there is hope between this bunch
and you!
===============

Think about it Tink. Do you really think there'll be any correlation
between the Usenet persona and reality? I don't.

This meeting will never happen. Do you think the Usenet Scott really
wants anyone to meet the real Scott?

Well, I do have to use some care, because there are some real Netwits out
there and I certainly don't need the annoyance of a net-stalker, but I'm not
adverse to meeting with anyone who is interested in a personal relationship.

--
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:


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.


Would you be willing to allow scenic, recreational use of the section
of Boulder Creek flowing through your property in exchange for the tax
advantages and ecological good-sense of maintaining a conservation
easement?





--
"This president has destroyed the country, the economy,
the relationship with the rest of the world.
He's a monster in the White House. He should resign."

- Hunter S. Thompson, speaking to an antiwar audience in 2003.

Scott surmises:
=================
I suspect that Canada has much the same structure as the US, since
English common law is the genesis for both. Thus, there is probably
some distinction drawn between navigable and non navigable.
==============

From: http://www.lwbc.bc.ca/04community/en.../trespass.html

TREPASS ON WATERFRONT PROPERTY

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.

Aquatic land is defined as follows:

* Aquatic Crown land is land below the high water mark. It extends
offshore to the end of provincial jurisdiction.
* Foreshore is the land between the high and low water marks of
lakes, streams and ocean.

Waterfront property owners do not have an automatic right to develop
the foreshore in front of their privately owned land.

Unauthorized use of this land is trespassing and therefore subject to
trespass provisions under the Land Act, including administrative
penalties and fines.

++++There is no mention of "navigable"

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself Melissa wrote:

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

Hi Scott,

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:23:10 -0700, you wrote:

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.

Though I really don't want to get into this too deeply with you (for
reasons already mentioned by a few of us),
and since I did bother to
add my two cents to the analysis of your "issues", it's probably only
fair that I should at least acknowledge your reply with an additional
comment or two. This once.

I would like to point out here that there can indeed be a difference
between a "nuanced" approach and a "hypocritical" approach. Your
knee jerk reaction above, having little to do with what was actually
said, is, unfortunately, typical of your style. You tend to see this
sort of thing in "black or white" terms, both philosophically and
politically, and I find that both philosophically and politically
limiting, and frankly, tedious in the extreme.

The way you put it above shows that you don't even want to get into a
more nuanced discussion, and would rather spew nonsensical binary
platitudes rather than discuss where/how we might draw the lines when
it comes to discussing "personal property versus public access"; but
of course, I already mentioned how I felt about your oft expressed
views on the subject, and you've only proven once again that my
assessment of your approach is spot on (if slightly
extended/exaggerated for dramatic purposes, which I freely admit to).

What "nuance" do you propose? It seems to me that there are only two
possible outcomes to the conflict of interests between a kayaker wanting to
boat through my property and my wanting to preserve my privacy by keeping
him out. Either the kayaker gets to do so without my permission, or he does
not.

Where is the nuance? If I don't want you in my living room, I have a right
to eject you because it's my private property. What "nuance" do you posit
that would change that in any way other than you using force to deny me my
right to exclude you?

If it sounds binary, it's because it is binary. Either my will prevails or
yours does in re the control of access to my land.

Ever since I first encountered your views on this subject several
years ago, I've thought about how I might approach the access issue
if I were in your position, and indeed, I would deal with it very
differently than you have; even if the *letter of the law* entitled
me to restrict access entirely, no questions asked.

Of course you would. And that would be your right. I wouldn¹t even argue
with you about it. It's your property and you can concoct any sort of system
you wish, using any sort of nuanced justification you choose and allow
anyone you like to be there.

But what you may not do is impose your philosophical ideals on me, even by
proxy. If I choose to absolutely exclude everyone from my property, why,
that is the very core essence of the right to private property. Without that
absolute right, the term "private property" becomes a hollow façade that is
meaningless. This is what our Constitution flatly states: "Nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation." What's
ambiguous about that? If I don't want you there, you may not be there.

My views on this
have nothing whatsoever to do with allowing access to just anyone to
come into my home, drink my beer, or take my kayak out without my
consent. But of course, in spite of your silly drivel, I'm sure you
already understood the difference here. Your flair for the dramatic
is not very subtle, and therefore, not very entertaining.

But it clearly explicates the fundamental issue and puts it in terms that
non-stream-owning people may be able to comprehend.

My right to privacy on my property is as sacrosanct as your right to privacy
in your living room. That's the whole point. You cannot expect me to accept
the infringement of my fundamental right to exclude others if you do not
also accept the infringement of your fundamental right to exclude others.

The venue is different, but the legal, philosophical and moral issues are
identical.

Either we BOTH have an absolute right to exclude people from our private
property, or NEITHER of us does. There is no middle ground here. There is no
"nuance" you can concoct that would somehow justify your invasion of my
property without permission that would not also justify my invasion of your
property.

What you are suggesting is simply that because I happen to own a large plot
of land with a stream running through it, I should somehow be required to
permit the public to recreate on my land. You don't suggest why it is that I
should be required to do so other than some vague spiritual belief that
people cannot "own" the land. But even if you are correct that I cannot
"own" land because it endures beyond me, the very essence of private
property ownership is that I have a right to control who USES that land.
Just as you have a right to control who comes into your living room and who
uses your kayak. Your living room and kayak are private property. So is my
ranch. The difference is merely of degree. You suggest that because I'm a
"have", that this societally obligates me to share what I have with the
"have nots." But at the same time, you object if I wish to share your
property because I don't have a kayak and I like the view from your living
room. This is hypocrisy. It's also a manifestation of a typical
leftist-liberal/collectivist viewpoint that attempts to denigrate private
property ownership, but only when the malefactor has "too much" private
property.

So, it's hardly unfair of me to suggest that your position is not well
thought out and reeks of greed and selfish hypocrisy.
--
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 Frederick Burroughs wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Melissa wrote:

Hi Wilf,

On 11 Mar 2005 09:01:10 -0800, you wrote:

Is the concept of "public property up to the 'high water mark'",
which is true in BC, also prevalent in the USA?

I'm not a legal expert in this area, so please take my comments as
only the casual observations of an oceanfront dweller who has some of
her own ideas, and also encounters reports of legal disputes over
ownership versus public access rights now and again.

Yes, the high water mark seems to be a *general* guideline in some
states, but it seems to be a state issue rather than a federal issue
in most cases, and so different states - and their courts - may draw
the lines differently than others.

Except for "National Park" and other such federally "owned/controlled"
land/water rights (military properties, wildlife preserves, etc.), it
seems to be mostly a state issue, governed by state courts.
Oceanfront private property owners will, often enough, challenge
certain boundary and access issues in the state courts (most often in
an attempt to limit public access/usage to as much of the "beach" in
front of their property as possible).

Incorrect. The determination of what is a navigable waterway is a federal
one, and once a waterway has been adjudicated as navigable under the
requisite federal tests, the bed of that waterway belongs to the state, held
in trust for the use and enjoyment of the people, and the state may not
alienate that title if it thereby prevents navigation by the public.

Some states did, however, reserve specific rights in navigable waters under
their constitutions that provide broader navigability right to the public.
However, a state may not *diminish* the federally-protected right of
navigation on navigable waters.


Virginia is a possible exception to your above statements; see:
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/ac...reports/VA.htm

Interesting. I'll look into this more closely. It may have something to do
with its Colonial history and land grants from the Crown prior to the US
forming.
--
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 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...

--
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

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

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)

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

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

frtzw906

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.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com/ - photo galleries
http://www.chocphoto.com/roff