| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
"bowgus" wrote in message . cable.rogers.com... Hmmm ... on the Rideau, I see RCMP and OntarioPP (OPP) boats. On the St Lawrence (cdn side) and the Ottawa I see OPP (and Coastguard on the St Lawence) boats ??? "Jim Carter" wrote in message Larry: In Canada, the "Navigable Waterways" are under Federal Jurisdiction. I don't know about NY State, but , why don't you write to your State Attorney General Office, and find out the full story? It may be that the Town has the rights to the park land but not the water. That's the way it is here. Jim Carter Hello Mr. Bowgus: A simple way to explain the different official watercraft is that the Federal Government of Canada has the task of setting out the laws under several statutes. Rules of the road are set by the Federal Goverment under the Collision Regulations. They have the right to designate who will enforce these laws. In Navigatable Waterways, the enforcement could be City, Provincial or Federal Police. The other statues and/or Provincial statues and/or municipal statues can be enforced by whomever has the local jurisdiction. Jim Carter "The Boat" Bayfield |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:07:21 -0500, "Leanne" wrote:
Larry, Do you remember the case on Bay Point last year where a man was assaulted on the beach? It might have been provoked, but it ended up with the Sheriff, DNR, and the Port Royal cops out there and no one wanted to claim jurisdiction. This happened supposedly below the high water mark which the owner's rep claimed was theirs too. The problem then came up that 'IF' this property was originally a 'KING'S' Grant from the 18th century, and if it was still conveyed to them, then they did have the right to claim all land to the water. One man went to the hospital and then it was all sort of hushed up. I wonder just how many King's Grants that are actually still valid within South Carolina. This new owner developer has ruined a beautiful place to go surf fishing and spend a weekend on the beach. For years people have gone out there which is only reachable by boat. Leanne Don't remember it. Interesting, though. What's REALLY scary is this nonsense where each little waterfront fiefdom has domain over the water 1 mile from shore. Larry W4CSC No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH! Kirk Out..... |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
In order to try to spoil boating around HHI, the entire area was
declaired a no-wake zone. No wake zones are being used to spoil boating across the country in the same manner. There is also a law against anchoring out off of the billionaires at HHI and shrimp trawlers are forbidden from even being in the waterways around it. Money talks in Columbia. FBI proved you can buy a SC politician for around $2200. Remember "Operation Lost Trust"? On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:14:20 -0500, "Leanne" wrote: "Larry W4CSC" wrote in message ... I just remembered what one lady down in Beaufort, SC, said to the newspaper when they were discussing a new marina going into a creek near her home. She was opposed to them installing "a floating trailer park" in the creek to spoil her view. That's what property owners think of your boats......"floating trailer parks". There was also a case on Hilton Head where someone was fishing in a creek off someone's land and the lady disliked them spoiling the view that her state rep. daughter tried to get a law passed about restricting the waters to a distance (I can't remember the exact amount, something like 300 yards)of private property. Then we have the problem that there are very few creeks that are wider than that. It didn't pass because it ended up being a federal jurisdiction. Btw, the daughter is no longer in public office. Leanne s/v Fundy Larry W4CSC No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH! Kirk Out..... |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:53:03 -0500, Glenn Ashmore
wrote: Can you imagine a WalMart in the middle of Hampton Park? Walmart wouldn't last 24 hours in the middle of Hampton Park. It would simply be shoplifted clean! I have a friend who owns a liqour store not far from Hampton Park. You gotta see it to believe it....(c; Larry W4CSC No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH! Kirk Out..... |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
EVANS ET AL. v. ABNEY ET AL.
Basically, because the covenants of the bequest were not enforcable the city had to return the property to the heirs. John Wentworth wrote: "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:rG8Ub.19221 They can't really do that. The major park in Macon was donated to the city by a Senator Bacon for the use of the "white women and children of the city". When the city could no longer inforce that covenant, the heirs of the estate sued to get title back. Went all the way to the USSC. The city couldn't possibly afford to buy it back so now our only real park is a shopping center. Just out of curiosity, what is the Supreme Court case that decided this? In Shelley vs. Kramer the court ruled that restrictive covenants are unenforceable, how does this play into the heirs getting the property back? -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
The boat is comming along fairly well with a wet bottom expected
sometime in the Fall. THe web site OTOH is sucking hind tit right now. I did get some stuff about the watermaker and the rudder posted recently though. Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:03:57 -0500, Glenn Ashmore wrote: I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com ================================= Glenn, how's that boat coming along? As the proud owner of a Spade anchor, I believe I'm entitled to periodic project updates :-) -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
Larry W4CSC wrote:
In order to try to spoil boating around HHI, the entire area was declaired a no-wake zone. No wake zones are being used to spoil boating across the country in the same manner. I dunno, Larry. You're an unusual sight. Perhaps the folks on Hilton Head enjoy looking at you as you creep by in your jetski boat. Cheers. ------------ Was this a great country or what? Bush-The Great Divider. -- Email sent to is never read. |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
... On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:48:56 GMT, Larry Weiss wrote: Basically we are talking about a local town public park and marina on the waterfront. The park is supposed to be for use by town residents only (the park land was donated to the town in 1942 by descendants of Teddy Roosevelt and that strict covenant is in the deed). Over the last few years, the town has stopped enforcing this restriction. Officials claim it is because of a law, which they are unable to cite, which states that they can not restrict access to the water. I believe they may be misinterpreting a law meant to prohibit restricting a boat's access to waterways from the water (which I recall hearing about somewhere), rather than a person's access to the water from land. Nobody on either side seems to be able to cite any law from either perspective. I'm just looking for something official to cite, one way or the other. =========================================== Larry, why would the good people of Oyster Bay want to block access to their dock by alien infidels like me (from NY, CT, FL and where ever)? Is the dock getting over crowded or is this just a territorial thing? You're reminding me of why I've always had issues with Long Island towns. :-) I believe the answer is obvious: Oyster Bay. (Equivalent answers: Port Washington, Old Brookville, and others). Don't want none of that riffraff hanging around. |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 14:01:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: I believe the answer is obvious: Oyster Bay. (Equivalent answers: Port Washington, Old Brookville, and others). Don't want none of that riffraff hanging around. ============================= Ahh yes, probably right. I guess you can discriminate as long as you do it fairly. :-) |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
|
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
(snip) Basically we are talking about a local town public park and marina on the waterfront. The park is supposed to be for use by town residents only (the park land was donated to the town in 1942 by descendants of Teddy Roosevelt and that strict covenant is in the deed). Over the last few years, the town has stopped enforcing this restriction. Officials claim it is because of a law, which they are unable to cite, which states that they can not restrict access to the water. I believe they may be misinterpreting a law meant to prohibit restricting a boat's access to waterways from the water (which I recall hearing about somewhere), rather than a person's access to the water from land. Nobody on either side seems to be able to cite any law from either perspective. I'm just looking for something official to cite, one way or the other. Larry Weiss "...Ever After!" "a little after..." Try going to city hall and asking about any local ordinances on the issue. Is this area of water isolated (I'm assuming that it's not if there's a marina)? Does the marina need to utilize the waterway for vessels to access a larger body of water? I found a website for you to check. Since a lot of the laws are waterway specific, you'll have to browse through them and see which applies to your area. Check www.nyss.com/NYS.html. Good luck. -- swatcop "If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed." |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:00:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:50:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:FQ8Ub.19239$u_6.9131@lakeread04... Here is an alternative, though risky alternative. The covenants of the will/bequest are very powerful. (See my reply to Larry.) Form a non-profit community organization. Find some heirs to the estate and feel them out about contesting the city's right of posession and donating the land to the organization. I believe that when they donate the land they get a tax deduction equal to the current value of the land less the value of the original bequest. He may also want to contact the Nature Conservancy, which acquires land that's about to be made ugly in various ways. They often find ways to lock it up legally so it REALLY can't be used for disgusting purposes, like tree-less housing developments. www.nature.org They may already have their eye on the specific land anyway - it's worth making inquiries. Good advice, but be very carefull with these folks - they can be a real handfull to deal with. You mean the Nature Conservancy? Yep - it's a long story - basically, I wanted to put my forest and meadow property in a long term trust agreement, but the language in the agreement was such that I would have lost access to my own land while I was still alive and kicking. I'm not saying they don't do good work and maybe it was just the folks I was dealing with, but I never went back to them after that. I worked an open land deal with the state instead. I worked with an organization that was a lot like the nature conservancy (only smaller) on a project to remediate a telecom site we had in a state park. During the project, they were talking about trying to work a deal with a local archery club that owned some adjacent property. The club wouldn't sell the land, but the conservation group talked about getting a "conservation easement" ( I think that was the term ). The organization would not buy the land, but pay the archery club to agree not to do anything else to the land for the term of easement. They could still use the land, but the easement meant the club couldn't do ANYTHING to it - it even put limits on the future maintenance of some improvements the club had already made. This was several years ago and it didn't look like such a deal was even close - I don't know what has happened since. |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
"Wayne.B" wrote:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:48:56 GMT, Larry Weiss wrote: Basically we are talking about a local town public park and marina on the waterfront. The park is supposed to be for use by town residents only (the park land was donated to the town in 1942 by descendants of Teddy Roosevelt and that strict covenant is in the deed). Over the last few years, the town has stopped enforcing this restriction. Officials claim it is because of a law, which they are unable to cite, which states that they can not restrict access to the water. I believe they may be misinterpreting a law meant to prohibit restricting a boat's access to waterways from the water (which I recall hearing about somewhere), rather than a person's access to the water from land. Nobody on either side seems to be able to cite any law from either perspective. I'm just looking for something official to cite, one way or the other. =========================================== Larry, why would the good people of Oyster Bay want to block access to their dock by alien infidels like me (from NY, CT, FL and where ever)? Is the dock getting over crowded or is this just a territorial thing? You're reminding me of why I've always had issues with Long Island towns. :-) Sorry Wayne, its not about the water or the dock. Please come on over and enjoy Oyster Bay anytime. We love alien infidels like you. :-) Its the other infidels that are the problem ... As far as the issue at hand goes, I didn't clearly explain it because I was merely looking for a possible legal citation. But if you must know, the locals are concerned about the Town Park being over used - and trashed - by people from New York City who are coming out by train (the station is conveniently next to the park). Since it is a local park maintained by local taxes, and since the covenant specifically states it is to be used by locals, and since the out-of-towners (a.k.a. "the other infidels") are not treating the park or the park rules with any respect, the locals are getting upset. The Town says they can not enforce the residents-only rule because the law says they must allow access to the water. I think they are misinterpreting the law; that if there is such a law, it applies to boaters on their boats, not people on the land. I'm looking for something to back that up. Larry Weiss "...Ever After!" "a little after..." |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
This reminds me of the situation in Boston with the Harborwalk - a 43 mile
walking path that circles the entire harbor, except for the airport. It was possible because access to the water was guaranteed by old laws. It means that the fancy waterfront condos, marinas, and hotels have to provide a walking path along the docks. "Larry Weiss" wrote in message ... "Wayne.B" wrote: On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:48:56 GMT, Larry Weiss wrote: Basically we are talking about a local town public park and marina on the waterfront. The park is supposed to be for use by town residents only (the park land was donated to the town in 1942 by descendants of Teddy Roosevelt and that strict covenant is in the deed). Over the last few years, the town has stopped enforcing this restriction. Officials claim it is because of a law, which they are unable to cite, which states that they can not restrict access to the water. I believe they may be misinterpreting a law meant to prohibit restricting a boat's access to waterways from the water (which I recall hearing about somewhere), rather than a person's access to the water from land. Nobody on either side seems to be able to cite any law from either perspective. I'm just looking for something official to cite, one way or the other. =========================================== Larry, why would the good people of Oyster Bay want to block access to their dock by alien infidels like me (from NY, CT, FL and where ever)? Is the dock getting over crowded or is this just a territorial thing? You're reminding me of why I've always had issues with Long Island towns. :-) Sorry Wayne, its not about the water or the dock. Please come on over and enjoy Oyster Bay anytime. We love alien infidels like you. :-) Its the other infidels that are the problem ... As far as the issue at hand goes, I didn't clearly explain it because I was merely looking for a possible legal citation. But if you must know, the locals are concerned about the Town Park being over used - and trashed - by people from New York City who are coming out by train (the station is conveniently next to the park). Since it is a local park maintained by local taxes, and since the covenant specifically states it is to be used by locals, and since the out-of-towners (a.k.a. "the other infidels") are not treating the park or the park rules with any respect, the locals are getting upset. The Town says they can not enforce the residents-only rule because the law says they must allow access to the water. I think they are misinterpreting the law; that if there is such a law, it applies to boaters on their boats, not people on the land. I'm looking for something to back that up. Larry Weiss "...Ever After!" "a little after..." |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On 5 Feb 2004 10:53:30 -0800, (Curtis CCR) wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in message . .. On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:00:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:50:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:FQ8Ub.19239$u_6.9131@lakeread04... Here is an alternative, though risky alternative. The covenants of the will/bequest are very powerful. (See my reply to Larry.) Form a non-profit community organization. Find some heirs to the estate and feel them out about contesting the city's right of posession and donating the land to the organization. I believe that when they donate the land they get a tax deduction equal to the current value of the land less the value of the original bequest. He may also want to contact the Nature Conservancy, which acquires land that's about to be made ugly in various ways. They often find ways to lock it up legally so it REALLY can't be used for disgusting purposes, like tree-less housing developments. www.nature.org They may already have their eye on the specific land anyway - it's worth making inquiries. Good advice, but be very carefull with these folks - they can be a real handfull to deal with. You mean the Nature Conservancy? Yep - it's a long story - basically, I wanted to put my forest and meadow property in a long term trust agreement, but the language in the agreement was such that I would have lost access to my own land while I was still alive and kicking. I'm not saying they don't do good work and maybe it was just the folks I was dealing with, but I never went back to them after that. I worked an open land deal with the state instead. I worked with an organization that was a lot like the nature conservancy (only smaller) on a project to remediate a telecom site we had in a state park. During the project, they were talking about trying to work a deal with a local archery club that owned some adjacent property. The club wouldn't sell the land, but the conservation group talked about getting a "conservation easement" ( I think that was the term ). The organization would not buy the land, but pay the archery club to agree not to do anything else to the land for the term of easement. They could still use the land, but the easement meant the club couldn't do ANYTHING to it - it even put limits on the future maintenance of some improvements the club had already made. This was several years ago and it didn't look like such a deal was even close - I don't know what has happened since. That's pretty much what happened to me with the caveat that the land was to have "restricted access" - I asked what "restricted" meant and it was pretty drastic even to the point of I couldn't hunt on my own land or fish in my own pond. Sorry - that dog won't howl. Later, Tom S. Woodstock, CT ---------- "To the fisherman born there is nothing so provoking of curiosity as a fishing rod in a case." Roland Pertwee, "The River God" (1928) |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... That's pretty much what happened to me with the caveat that the land was to have "restricted access" - I asked what "restricted" meant and it was pretty drastic even to the point of I couldn't hunt on my own land or fish in my own pond. Sorry - that dog won't howl. Who would enforce that? :-) Do they send spies? |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
"Larry Weiss" wrote in message
... Sorry Wayne, its not about the water or the dock. Please come on over and enjoy Oyster Bay anytime. We love alien infidels like you. :-) Its the other infidels that are the problem ... As far as the issue at hand goes, I didn't clearly explain it because I was merely looking for a possible legal citation. But if you must know, the locals are concerned about the Town Park being over used - and trashed - by people from New York City who are coming out by train (the station is conveniently next to the park). Since it is a local park maintained by local taxes, and since the covenant specifically states it is to be used by locals, and since the out-of-towners (a.k.a. "the other infidels") are not treating the park or the park rules with any respect, the locals are getting upset. The Town says they can not enforce the residents-only rule because the law says they must allow access to the water. I think they are misinterpreting the law; that if there is such a law, it applies to boaters on their boats, not people on the land. I'm looking for something to back that up. Larry Weiss "...Ever After!" "a little after..." It's a good cause they're fighting, then, if visitors trash the place. That happens upstate at some of the state parks, with one major exception which I won't divulge because it's spotless. :-) Rather than waste a few billion dollars on a legal battle, wouldn't it make more sense to jack up the littering fines to an absurd level, hire plainclothes cops on the weekends, and tell them to raise holy hell until visitors either toe the line or go elsewhere? Let the park police handle that nonsense at Jones Beach or Robert Moses. I was at RM once on a chilly October day. There must've been all of 20 people, mostly fishermen. But, there was one asshole who tossed down a blanket in the sand 10 feet from a sign that said "No Radios". A park cop went over and asked him to shut it off. The wind was whistling in my ears, so I didn't hear the conversation - just saw the body language. There was some finger pointing for maybe 30 seconds, at which point the cop used his foot to put the guy face down on the blanket, cuffed him, and literally dragged him into the building by the wrists. That's what I'm talkin' about. It's beyond me why anyone would leave a noisy place or a dirty place, presumably where they live, so they can make noise and more litter. |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:13:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . That's pretty much what happened to me with the caveat that the land was to have "restricted access" - I asked what "restricted" meant and it was pretty drastic even to the point of I couldn't hunt on my own land or fish in my own pond. Sorry - that dog won't howl. Who would enforce that? :-) Do they send spies? I live in a small rural town - that should give you an idea. :) Later, Tom S. Woodstock, CT ---------- "To the fisherman born there is nothing so provoking of curiosity as a fishing rod in a case." Roland Pertwee, "The River God" (1928) |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:13:31 GMT, Larry Weiss
wrote: Since it is a local park maintained by local taxes, and since the covenant specifically states it is to be used by locals, and since the out-of-towners (a.k.a. "the other infidels") are not treating the park or the park rules with any respect, the locals are getting upset. ============================================ I think the answer is strong enforcement of the existing laws or maybe a few new ones if needed. If necessary, form a community association and hire a private guard to remind people of the rules and call the village constable if the hint is not taken. The real problem is offensive behavior, not people from NYC. Larchmont Manor Park had a similar issue years ago in Westchester and solved it. The guard is always there during daylight hours. He's about 80 years old but has good eyes and keeps a firm grip on things without being offensive about it. It is probably one of the most pristine and enjoyable parks on Long Island Sound, and has been for a long time. If anyone fired up a boom box or dropped a candy wrapper, the guard would be on the radio to the village police in about a microsecond. |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
In article ,
Larry Weiss wrote: As far as the issue at hand goes, I didn't clearly explain it because I was merely looking for a possible legal citation. But if you must know, the locals are concerned about the Town Park being over used - and trashed - by people from New York City who are coming out by train (the station is conveniently next to the park). Since it is a local park maintained by local taxes, and since the covenant specifically states it is to be used by locals, and since the out-of-towners (a.k.a. "the other infidels") are not treating the park or the park rules with any respect, the locals are getting upset. The Town says they can not enforce the residents-only rule because the law says they must allow access to the water. I think they are misinterpreting the law; that if there is such a law, it applies to boaters on their boats, not people on the land. I'm looking for something to back that up. Ahhh! That's very different! First, I believe the marina can and should be physically secure against all but "residents, boat owners and their guests". Anyone else on the docks is trespassing. That's common sense. Since the covenant includes the park as part of the marina (note the shift in viewpoint), the physical restriction should be extended to include it. Access to the water is maintained. The physical barrier need not be a fence, expensive, or even high; just a definite demarcation. The town may have to patrol it for a while, but that should pass. -- Jere Lull Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD) Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
Grew up in that town. Manor Park is probably one of the most quietly
scenic and thoroughly enjoyable places I have ever experienced. On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 19:59:06 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:13:31 GMT, Larry Weiss wrote: Since it is a local park maintained by local taxes, and since the covenant specifically states it is to be used by locals, and since the out-of-towners (a.k.a. "the other infidels") are not treating the park or the park rules with any respect, the locals are getting upset. ============================================ I think the answer is strong enforcement of the existing laws or maybe a few new ones if needed. If necessary, form a community association and hire a private guard to remind people of the rules and call the village constable if the hint is not taken. The real problem is offensive behavior, not people from NYC. Larchmont Manor Park had a similar issue years ago in Westchester and solved it. The guard is always there during daylight hours. He's about 80 years old but has good eyes and keeps a firm grip on things without being offensive about it. It is probably one of the most pristine and enjoyable parks on Long Island Sound, and has been for a long time. If anyone fired up a boom box or dropped a candy wrapper, the guard would be on the radio to the village police in about a microsecond. |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:13:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . That's pretty much what happened to me with the caveat that the land was to have "restricted access" - I asked what "restricted" meant and it was pretty drastic even to the point of I couldn't hunt on my own land or fish in my own pond. Sorry - that dog won't howl. Who would enforce that? :-) Do they send spies? I live in a small rural town - that should give you an idea. :) Great. Sounds like your neighbors would turn you in for ****ing on one of your own trees. :-) A friend of mine has 200 acres outside of Rochester. Sometimes we shoot guns there. He's personally acquainted with two cops who sometimes pull over in their patrol cars to shoot the breeze for a few minutes. Because he and his wife like to hike & XC-ski on the land, they don't want hunters using it. When neighbors asked about the visits from the cops, he told them it had something to do with him not being careful of the direction in which he was shooting his guns. He asked the cops to back up the story in case anyone asked. Word got around. No more hunters. What a coincidence. In fact, he's obsessive about gun safety, but his neighbors don't know that. :-) |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:19:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:13:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . That's pretty much what happened to me with the caveat that the land was to have "restricted access" - I asked what "restricted" meant and it was pretty drastic even to the point of I couldn't hunt on my own land or fish in my own pond. Sorry - that dog won't howl. Who would enforce that? :-) Do they send spies? I live in a small rural town - that should give you an idea. :) Great. Sounds like your neighbors would turn you in for ****ing on one of your own trees. :-) A friend of mine has 200 acres outside of Rochester. Sometimes we shoot guns there. He's personally acquainted with two cops who sometimes pull over in their patrol cars to shoot the breeze for a few minutes. Because he and his wife like to hike & XC-ski on the land, they don't want hunters using it. When neighbors asked about the visits from the cops, he told them it had something to do with him not being careful of the direction in which he was shooting his guns. He asked the cops to back up the story in case anyone asked. Word got around. No more hunters. What a coincidence. In fact, he's obsessive about gun safety, but his neighbors don't know that. :-) Heh, heh, heh....man, I could tell you stories. My pond is way back off the road and hidden by woods - I had the USACE come in and dredge the entrance and exit to the pond and did some bottom contouring for me to improve the habitat - it was a neat deal. They were just using a small excavator that they drove in from the other side of the woods. I don't know how anybody found out, but the evening of the day they started, I must have had fifteen phone calls from real estate agents and developers wanting to know what I was building, how many houses, offered "exclusive" deals, etc. They were extremely disappointed. :) We also had a period of time where every day some church group sent their parishioners out on evangelical "harvests". I finally got sick of it, so I made up a pentagram in my woodshop and a friend of mine machined a pentagram lead mold - I sacrificed some old lead jigs and black powder bullets (get it - sacrificied?) and made up a pendant. The next time callers were announced by the dogs, I grabbed the pendant, put up the pentagram in the garage and even before they started in, I asked if they could come back because I needed to celebrate a black mass for Satan - would they like to attend? It's been three years now - nary a one. :) Later, Tom S. Woodstock, CT ---------- "To the fisherman born there is nothing so provoking of curiosity as a fishing rod in a case." Roland Pertwee, "The River God" (1928)Word must have gotten around. |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... We also had a period of time where every day some church group sent their parishioners out on evangelical "harvests". I finally got sick of it, so I made up a pentagram in my woodshop and a friend of mine machined a pentagram lead mold - I sacrificed some old lead jigs and black powder bullets (get it - sacrificied?) and made up a pendant. The next time callers were announced by the dogs, I grabbed the pendant, put up the pentagram in the garage and even before they started in, I asked if they could come back because I needed to celebrate a black mass for Satan - would they like to attend? It's been three years now - nary a one. :) I like it! :-) You should've kept some loose black tea in the garage to throw on them. They would've run away screaming. |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:06:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . We also had a period of time where every day some church group sent their parishioners out on evangelical "harvests". I finally got sick of it, so I made up a pentagram in my woodshop and a friend of mine machined a pentagram lead mold - I sacrificed some old lead jigs and black powder bullets (get it - sacrificied?) and made up a pendant. The next time callers were announced by the dogs, I grabbed the pendant, put up the pentagram in the garage and even before they started in, I asked if they could come back because I needed to celebrate a black mass for Satan - would they like to attend? It's been three years now - nary a one. :) I like it! :-) You should've kept some loose black tea in the garage to throw on them. They would've run away screaming. That's for next time. Later, Tom S. Woodstock, CT ---------- "To the fisherman born there is nothing so provoking of curiosity as a fishing rod in a case." Roland Pertwee, "The River God" (1928) |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
I have been trying to watch a similar issue in PA. Apparently someone waded
downstream fishing and was chased off. Kayakers and canoe owners have been trying to fight it. Link at: http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Go...ccghissue.html Apparently it is a state law issue. I also recall Michael Moore and his group protesting this issue out in Malibu or somewhere in CA where all beaches were represented as Private. Kathy M "Larry W4CSC" wrote in message ... In order to try to spoil boating around HHI, the entire area was declaired a no-wake zone. No wake zones are being used to spoil boating across the country in the same manner. There is also a law against anchoring out off of the billionaires at HHI and shrimp trawlers are forbidden from even being in the waterways around it. Money talks in Columbia. FBI proved you can buy a SC politician for around $2200. Remember "Operation Lost Trust"? On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:14:20 -0500, "Leanne" wrote: "Larry W4CSC" wrote in message ... I just remembered what one lady down in Beaufort, SC, said to the newspaper when they were discussing a new marina going into a creek near her home. She was opposed to them installing "a floating trailer park" in the creek to spoil her view. That's what property owners think of your boats......"floating trailer parks". There was also a case on Hilton Head where someone was fishing in a creek off someone's land and the lady disliked them spoiling the view that her state rep. daughter tried to get a law passed about restricting the waters to a distance (I can't remember the exact amount, something like 300 yards)of private property. Then we have the problem that there are very few creeks that are wider than that. It didn't pass because it ended up being a federal jurisdiction. Btw, the daughter is no longer in public office. Leanne s/v Fundy Larry W4CSC No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH! Kirk Out..... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:08 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com