02-15-2013, 04:39 AM
One more, not that it will do much good.
1. RE"In years past the high water mark has been 150 yards past the river banks, does this mean that you have a right to tresspas that far onto private land?"
No, it does not, and all compromise bills have addressed that. Even what was called the "ordinary high water mark" is not what you describe here. We have never asked for that and to say so otherwise is 100% fear mongering on your part.
2. RE" I also said year round as far as navigability goes, get on your boat and navigate 90% of the rivers in this state and see how far you get without touching bottom during normal water conditions."
It really isn't very important what you said about navigability. What IS important is what Federal courts have said in their precedent setting judgements. That is where the law will be written and legal judgements passed. And that is where the "log" standard came from.
3. RE"Land owners feel they have the right because they bought and paid for the land, maintain and care for it, your group feels they have the right to it because you were born, big difference."
Yeah, I feel the same way about my sidewalk, but easement codes dictate otherwise. And yes, we feel the public has a right to access and use that dates back to the 1700's. You also act like stream access is about traipsing all over private property. To suitably settle this issue, trespassing laws will have to be strong to protect the landowner and you will find we favor that. It's the only way a compromise will work.
4. RE"there is such a thing as water rights, so in fact a person can own the water or share as its called, how are you going to stop that?"
Nothing regarding stream access affects water rights. But, if you care to look objectively to HB68, you may find that Mciff's proposed abrogation of the public trust doctrine regarding water regulation possibly could.
5. RE" Your side keeps bringing up Idaho as the poster child for this argument which is ridiculous, not even the same as far as population density goes, especially near coveted bodies of water."
Why does it matter what the population density is? It works pretty well for Idaho, it can work well for here. Besides, Boise is pretty population dense and they don't have problems. Silly argument, as usual.
6. RE" if a person gets injured on "legal" river access through private ground, who gets the blame?,"
We tried to resolve this last time to remove liability to landowners, and it will need to be remedied in any compromise. Which is probably still not good enough for you.
[signature]
1. RE"In years past the high water mark has been 150 yards past the river banks, does this mean that you have a right to tresspas that far onto private land?"
No, it does not, and all compromise bills have addressed that. Even what was called the "ordinary high water mark" is not what you describe here. We have never asked for that and to say so otherwise is 100% fear mongering on your part.
2. RE" I also said year round as far as navigability goes, get on your boat and navigate 90% of the rivers in this state and see how far you get without touching bottom during normal water conditions."
It really isn't very important what you said about navigability. What IS important is what Federal courts have said in their precedent setting judgements. That is where the law will be written and legal judgements passed. And that is where the "log" standard came from.
3. RE"Land owners feel they have the right because they bought and paid for the land, maintain and care for it, your group feels they have the right to it because you were born, big difference."
Yeah, I feel the same way about my sidewalk, but easement codes dictate otherwise. And yes, we feel the public has a right to access and use that dates back to the 1700's. You also act like stream access is about traipsing all over private property. To suitably settle this issue, trespassing laws will have to be strong to protect the landowner and you will find we favor that. It's the only way a compromise will work.
4. RE"there is such a thing as water rights, so in fact a person can own the water or share as its called, how are you going to stop that?"
Nothing regarding stream access affects water rights. But, if you care to look objectively to HB68, you may find that Mciff's proposed abrogation of the public trust doctrine regarding water regulation possibly could.
5. RE" Your side keeps bringing up Idaho as the poster child for this argument which is ridiculous, not even the same as far as population density goes, especially near coveted bodies of water."
Why does it matter what the population density is? It works pretty well for Idaho, it can work well for here. Besides, Boise is pretty population dense and they don't have problems. Silly argument, as usual.
6. RE" if a person gets injured on "legal" river access through private ground, who gets the blame?,"
We tried to resolve this last time to remove liability to landowners, and it will need to be remedied in any compromise. Which is probably still not good enough for you.
[signature]