So they are saying that the person who owns the land next to the river owns the river? That is how you piss someone off enough to buy the land up river from you and alter the river away from your land.
Good and bad? I don't like the government having more power but navigable waterways are meaningful and important.
It's not really clear from the language in the article, but I think the fisherman can legally stand or float in a boat in the river to fish if he can get there. He has been denied access to his spot by trespassing across private property. I may be wrong
I was trying to understand the basis of the decision. On its face is unconstitutional. But it lacked the details to know what was really going on.
If it's navigable, it's legal. Period. If he has to cross private property it is by definition non-navigable and therefore the pubic does not have legal access. Period.
But if there is for example, a public access or park upstream, he could wade or boat from there to his favorite fishing hole in a navigable stream and not be trespassing on private property. I live on a small river that is technically navigable. People occasionally pass by in canoes or kayaks, but I would not allow them to trespass to get to the water, in fact I have No Trespassing signs posted. They use public right of way at bridge crossings. We have a place on a lake that has public access. People can't drag their boat or floaties across somebody's yard to get to the lake. I
Agreed. If they are fording, it's not navigable. They must approach and depart through the navigable water ways. If they are doing anything different, it's not legal. But I have seen people attempt to illegally come up shorelines, trespassing, and claiming they have a right to enter. Which isn't the case. There isn't enough details to really understand what's going on in this case. Details matters as we're already cutting hairs to describe possibilities.
(post is archived)