"Steve" wrote in message
...


I think it is all very complicated and verys from region to region..


It also varies from judge to judge and from year to year. There's a creek
here (Rochester NY) where lots of guys like to go trout fishing, including
the pigs who can't seem to carry their garbage out with them. So, almost
100% of the land along the creek is now posted. A buddy of mine got around
the problem by wading the entire length of the creek to get to where he
wanted to be. One of the landowners made a stink about it, so they both
ended up in front of the town justice about 12 times so far. The 200 year
old law says landowners can't restrict the waterway if the creek is
navigable. This landowner says he's never seen anyone try to navigate the
creek, but there are canoes present all through the warm weather. His lawyer
pointed out that the law was written for logging barges, not canoes. The
judge has basically told the landowner to get a life, and camp along the
creek to find out who's REALLY trashing the woods, because it's clearly not
my friend.

What a mess.

"Larry Weiss" wrote in message
...

We are talking about the US of A, New York State in particular, and
maritime law only because that's where my poor memory recalls it may have
existed.

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..."

You may have a bitch of a case on your hands, and a very interesting one,
too. As I mentioned in another message within your thread, a friend of mine
has already been through this regarding creek access. What he's finding out
is that the laws in NY (and most other places where waterways were
important) were written a LONG time ago, and may need to be overhauled. Many
of the precedents relate to hunters crossing lumber company lands in the
Adirondacks, or loggers floating trees down rivers and annoying landowners.
This stuff is hard to interpret for situations like yours.

If I were you, I'd talk to some business owners in town and find out who's
cozy with whom. There's usually a good reason why a business is permitted to
skirt the law. The reason is almost always the good 'ol boy network, and
cash.

"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.

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
om...


Some of the cases referenced in this memo may be a start.
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/cnsl/waterway.html


That's a really good article.

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:21:45 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
wrote:

Larry W4CSC wrote:

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".


At too many small marinas, there are boats apparently abandoned by their
owners, and these boats are deteriorating and in some cases, starting to
sink. There are several marinas on Rockhold Creek in Deale, Maryland,
where this is the case. If I were a property owner on that waterway, I'd
probably oppose construction of a new, small marina in my eyesight for
that reason.

My Contender is at a marina where abandoned boats are hoisted out, put
on a back lot and auctioned after the obligatory 6 months, certified
letter and all that other legal stuff. A lot of the other marinas in
the area do much the same thing and more of less to the same degree.

What amazes me is that some of these boats are pretty nice even if
they are a little older.

It seems to be far less a problem at the larger marinas in our area.
Perhaps the managers of those facilities actually manage them.

I'm also not a fan of "liveaboards" at marinas, unless there are strict
rules against eyesore boats and trash and effluent dumping that are
actually enforced.

We have some liveaboards on the bigger vessels, but no overwinter
liveaboards - all boats out by the 15th of December or gone by then.
I actually don't mind the liveaboards - I haven't had anything clipped
from my boat yet.

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
----------

"I thought I'd just go fishin', but the fish
were not amused. And I caught myself just
wishin' that I was in the fishes shoes. Just
swimmin' in some deep blue water not a care
in my head, watchin' some fool with a line
and a pole hidin' by the riverbed."

Joe Ely, "Back To My Old Molehill" - "Flatlanders,
Wheels of Fortune - 2004"

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 need to spell out exactly how you want it done before any
agreement and have an attorney check it out to be sure they have to
comply to the terms of the agreement.

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
----------

"I thought I'd just go fishin', but the fish
were not amused. And I caught myself just
wishin' that I was in the fishes shoes. Just
swimmin' in some deep blue water not a care
in my head, watchin' some fool with a line
and a pole hidin' by the riverbed."

Joe Ely, "Back To My Old Molehill" - "Flatlanders,
Wheels of Fortune - 2004"

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:21:45 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
wrote:

Larry W4CSC wrote:

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".


At too many small marinas, there are boats apparently abandoned by their
owners, and these boats are deteriorating and in some cases, starting to
sink. There are several marinas on Rockhold Creek in Deale, Maryland,
where this is the case. If I were a property owner on that waterway, I'd
probably oppose construction of a new, small marina in my eyesight for
that reason.

My Contender is at a marina where abandoned boats are hoisted out, put
on a back lot and auctioned after the obligatory 6 months, certified
letter and all that other legal stuff. A lot of the other marinas in
the area do much the same thing and more of less to the same degree.

What amazes me is that some of these boats are pretty nice even if
they are a little older.

It seems to be far less a problem at the larger marinas in our area.
Perhaps the managers of those facilities actually manage them.

I'm also not a fan of "liveaboards" at marinas, unless there are strict
rules against eyesore boats and trash and effluent dumping that are
actually enforced.

We have some liveaboards on the bigger vessels, but no overwinter
liveaboards - all boats out by the 15th of December or gone by then.
I actually don't mind the liveaboards - I haven't had anything clipped
from my boat yet.

Huh? Do liveaboards have a reputation for being thieves??? Or do people just
object to them hanging their laundry over the rails to dry?

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:52:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
. com...


Some of the cases referenced in this memo may be a start.
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/cnsl/waterway.html

That's a really good article.

Agreed.

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
----------

"I thought I'd just go fishin', but the fish
were not amused. And I caught myself just
wishin' that I was in the fishes shoes. Just
swimmin' in some deep blue water not a care
in my head, watchin' some fool with a line
and a pole hidin' by the riverbed."

Joe Ely, "Back To My Old Molehill" - "Flatlanders,
Wheels of Fortune - 2004"

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:33:21 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"Rosalie B." wrote in message
.. .
x-no-archive:yes


Larry Weiss wrote:

I understand that it is against maritime law to restrict or prohibit
waterway access. Anyone know if this is true and/or what the law
actually says, and where it may be found?

Larry Weiss
"...Ever After!"
"a little after..."

I think this depends a lot on where it is you are talking about. For
one thing, what country? And why would you think maritime law had
jurisdiction? I would have thought that ordinary laws applied in most
inland or near coastal waters.

I don't think maritime law applies to an ordinary creek or lake or
something like that. No one has to allow someone else to cross their
property to launch a boat for instance, or to allow people to come
ashore by dinghy and party on the beach that they own. But there is
some law in Annapolis (Maryland) that says something to the effect
that any street that ends in the water has to allow dinghies to land.
I think that is far from usual though.

I think in many cases, beaches are public from the high tide mark
seaward. And in some cases, all of the beach part is public.

In some cases, the Coast Guard has jurisdiction, like in the ICW. I
walked up on the Boot Key Harbor bridge today, and the bridge tender
came out and talked a bit. He said the Coast Guard had jurisdiction -
that the channel was part of the ICW (I'm not sure that he's right
about that) and that they said the bridge had to be manned 24 hours a
day 7 days a week so that access could be maintained. I asked him why
not leave the bridge open at night, and he said that if they did that
the emergency people couldn't get to the radio tower on Boot Key.

USCG also patrols lots of inland waters. Great Lakes, Lake Tahoe, and most
of the large river systems. At least in California, if the waterway is
navigable then you can not block it. This does not mean someone has to let
you across their property to get to the water. About 30 years ago, Butte
Creek in Central Calif was blocked by the farmers running fences across the
small river. Was a great fishing and duck hunting venue. Local judge
floated down the river in a canoe, cutting the fences. He ruled it was a
navigable waterway, and could not be blocked. Seems as if local area do
list some areas as enviromentallay special areas and block boat access.
Latest is the City of Berkeley and the waterfront commission has ruled
(couple of weeks ago) out boat and people access to some coves on San
Francisco Bay. These coves have been fished and even hunted for as long as
I have known them. I fished them 50 years ago from the shore. May be court
dates in the future for this. But may not be anybody with enough money to
fight the city, so they win anyway.

Berkeley - figures. ;)

Anyway, there is precidence and "prior practice" here for somebody
with half a mind to take the city to court.

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
----------

"I thought I'd just go fishin', but the fish
were not amused. And I caught myself just
wishin' that I was in the fishes shoes. Just
swimmin' in some deep blue water not a care
in my head, watchin' some fool with a line
and a pole hidin' by the riverbed."

Joe Ely, "Back To My Old Molehill" - "Flatlanders,
Wheels of Fortune - 2004"

"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?