Politics & Fishermen

[mcfly 0]

I'm not much on politics but I have been following the court case about the private club on the public Little Juniata River. The club has roped off the stream to prevent people from floating downthrough "their (Spring Ridge Club)" waters. While I was looking up information about the case I found this little clip.

 

QUOTE

The Colorado-based Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) has been soliciting disgruntled Montana landowners wishing to sue the state in Federal Takings Court to dismantle the Stream Access Law. The MSLF was created by the Coors Brewing Company with James Watt (ReaganÍs Secretary of Interior) as the founding president. The MSLF Board of Directors consists of owners of extractive corporations, mining, oil and gas, cattle, construction and Farm Bureaus. A listing of MSLF donors includes Amoco, Chevron, Texaco, Coors, El Pomar Foundation, Ford and Phillips Petroleum.

 

Link to the rest of the article http://www.montanariveraction.org/navigable-rivers.html

 

Another - http://www.missoulanews.com/News/News.asp?no=1288

 

This has been going on for some time. Fortunatly I'm not a Coors drinker and for those of you that are keep in mind what Coors intentions are.

[Guest]

Sounds like a double edged sword. A group that woos fishermen into believing they are going to win them access to more waters with the use of corporation dollars and attorney's that fishermen can't afford. After access is gained these corporations then rape the resource for personal gain.

[mcfly 0]

They want to take away public access to streams is what I got out of it.

[Guest]

This sounds like Sylvester swallowing Tweety Bird without Granny knowing about it-

 

Does the Huntingdon County Court of Common Pleas know this has happened - as they are instrumental in ruling in favor of public access as are the state agencies which oversee the "sovereignty" issue?

 

Seems to me the concerned 'access' proponents should bring this to the attention of the courts and stateys; from what I can gather from the ongoing pissing match the landowner is in violation of the state's recognition of the access.

[mcfly 0]

Yeah there hasn't been a ruling on it yet but, I figured everyone would be interested in the case and the one in Montana since they will no doubt set precedents for future cases.

 

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/outdoor...berg0622ap4.asp

 

There was a favorable hearing in January but the final trial date hasn't been set.

[Guest]

Sorry, I read it the first time as the group wanted to help gain access not take it away.

[lanvaettir 0]

This is just the tip of the iceberg unfortunately. Like it or not, these interests have direct, anonymous access to the White House right now and they are drafting our energy policy. Here's a link to Trout Unlimited that mentions a couple other endangered areas.

 

http://publiclands.tu.org/topic.asp?index=3&topic=24&id=2

 

 

[Guest]

I've been watching that case on the Fly Fishers Paradise board, but there are many more. I'm sorry I'd probably be in jail cause the first time I went down that river in a float tube or canoe fishing and came across the cable I'd have to cut it.

 

Fatman

 

[dabalone 0]

Seems the landowners are taking a big risk, if someone gets hurt or even drowned they would get their arse's sued big time and rightly so.

[Steeldrifter 0]

I heard about a simuliar case awhile back and the fact that anyone can "close" moving water and not just the land(river banks) just blows my mind

[Guest]

There have been a couple of cases here in FL where a landowner blocked access and they lost in court. The courts here have ruled that if a river is navigable, access cannot be denied. Even the richest family in this state (Lykes family) tried to block a river and lost. The decisions were based in maritime law, I don't know if that would apply in Montana or the middle of PA.

[Steeldrifter 0]

Thats the same way the laws are here in MI TB,if the river is navigable then you can stop access to the land but the river is public waters and open to anyone.

 

SD

[Lance Kekel 0]

These laws are frustating to say the least and a real quagmire. setup differently state to state. Even navigable water way doesn't give you permission to wade the stream in some places like here in Ohio. If someone owns both banks they own the river bottom. You can float it but you better not get out.

[Guest]

QUOTE (steeldrifter @ May 6 2004, 07:52 PM)

Thats the same way the laws are here in MI TB,if the river is navigable then you can stop access to the land but the river is public waters and open to anyone. SD

You're right SD. I've been reading up on the Michigan laws because I believe a creek near my northern trailer has been blocked and shouldn't be. Under Michigan law any thing navigible is open access, including the bottom of the water, but defining navigable is difficult. The Michigan Supreme Court has change directions a couple of times but the jist of the law says that if a stream has ever carried a log or is capable of carrying a log it is navigable. The problem is finding out if the stream ever carried a log. The stream I'm concerned with is smack dab in the middle of some of the biggest logging land in Michigan's history. I'm sure it carried wood at some time or another but finding proof of that is difficult.

[Steeldrifter 0]

Pat thats very true the coutrt systems are honestly as murky in this "gray area" of ripatrian rights as we are but heres a link that might help you out.

 

http://www.mlswa.org/Legal/legal7.htm