A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:

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?

I already have a conservation easement with the City of Boulder, which in
part precludes such use, and the answer is "no."

The reasons for not allowing access are several, not that I have to justify
my decision at all.

Chief among them is that the area through which the creek flows is a
wildlife preserve and is a state designated Natural Area, and human
intrusion disturbs the wildlife.

Most importantly, there is an active bald eagle nest within 50 yards of the
creek, and any human intrusion may cause a "take" of bald eagles under 16
USC 668, which is a felony with a one year jail sentence and a $5000 fine.

16 USC 668c says that "take" includes "molest or disturb." I have recently
been told that "disturb" includes any activity that causes the eagles to
flush from the nest. This means, for example, that right now even I cannot
go within 250 yards of the nesting tree even to fix my fences, fight a grass
fire or tend to a sick cow. If I can't even enjoy my own property because
the eagles have chosen to nest there, why should a bunch of trespassing
kayakers get to?

And then there's the New Zealand mudsnail, which has recently been
discovered on Boulder Creek just upstream a mile or two of my property, and
which may be in the creek on my property as well. The state is facing a
genuine ecological disaster if the snails get transported to other
waterways, and I'm part of an ad hoc working group with the state division
of wildlife seeking ways to stem the infestation. One of the primary
vectors for transmission is watercraft, including kayaks and innertubes, and
I've proposed that the state should enact legislation to empower the board
of parks and outdoor recreation to ban the use of watercraft on Boulder
Creek between 55th and 95th streets, just as they have banned fishing in
that reach to control one of the other important vectors: fishermen.

And, of course, I simply don't want people trespassing through my property.
It's mine, and I have a right to keep people out. 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. I have
spent my whole adult life protecting and preserving the property and the
wildlife and I don¹t intend to sacrifice that work for the mere selfish
pleasure of some kayakers.

In fact, the only reason anyone wants to boat through is BECAUSE my late
mother and I spent our lives protecting the area and creating a beautiful
natural area. When we bought the place, it was barren, overgrazed ground
with no trees along the creek that was quite unattractive. We changed all
that with a lifetime of work, and I don¹t see why I should be compelled to
share it with johnny-come-lately's who have neither put their labor nor
their money into protecting the property.

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.

--
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 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


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

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

--
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 16:02:48 -0800, you quoted:

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
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

"Charlie Choc" wrote in message
...
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.

Well, ya gotta admit, anybody what can learn ya retroactively is some kind'a
teacher.

Wolfgang
and "interesting" is a very sly euphemism.

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...

frtzw906

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

frtzw906

Whoops:
=========
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
============

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

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:


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?


I already have a conservation easement with the City of Boulder, which in
part precludes such use, and the answer is "no."

The reasons for not allowing access are several, not that I have to justify
my decision at all.

Chief among them is that the area through which the creek flows is a
wildlife preserve and is a state designated Natural Area, and human
intrusion disturbs the wildlife.

Most importantly, there is an active bald eagle nest within 50 yards of the
creek, and any human intrusion may cause a "take" of bald eagles under 16
USC 668, which is a felony with a one year jail sentence and a $5000 fine.

16 USC 668c says that "take" includes "molest or disturb." I have recently
been told that "disturb" includes any activity that causes the eagles to
flush from the nest. This means, for example, that right now even I cannot
go within 250 yards of the nesting tree even to fix my fences, fight a grass
fire or tend to a sick cow. If I can't even enjoy my own property because
the eagles have chosen to nest there, why should a bunch of trespassing
kayakers get to?

And then there's the New Zealand mudsnail, which has recently been
discovered on Boulder Creek just upstream a mile or two of my property, and
which may be in the creek on my property as well. The state is facing a
genuine ecological disaster if the snails get transported to other
waterways, and I'm part of an ad hoc working group with the state division
of wildlife seeking ways to stem the infestation. One of the primary
vectors for transmission is watercraft, including kayaks and innertubes, and
I've proposed that the state should enact legislation to empower the board
of parks and outdoor recreation to ban the use of watercraft on Boulder
Creek between 55th and 95th streets, just as they have banned fishing in
that reach to control one of the other important vectors: fishermen.

And, of course, I simply don't want people trespassing through my property.
It's mine, and I have a right to keep people out. 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. I have
spent my whole adult life protecting and preserving the property and the
wildlife and I don¹t intend to sacrifice that work for the mere selfish
pleasure of some kayakers.

In fact, the only reason anyone wants to boat through is BECAUSE my late
mother and I spent our lives protecting the area and creating a beautiful
natural area. When we bought the place, it was barren, overgrazed ground
with no trees along the creek that was quite unattractive. We changed all
that with a lifetime of work, and I don¹t see why I should be compelled to
share it with johnny-come-lately's who have neither put their labor nor
their money into protecting the property.

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



--
"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.

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

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

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

--riverman

"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"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 ;-)



According to his repeated refrences to how he has reformed 'K&r', he's
already begun.

-riverman