"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