On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:15:47 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
George Cleveland wrote:
nightmare scenario snipped
... So if you want to come to
WI and fish for small stream brookies you might want to make the
effort soon.

May God Damn the Republican Party.

Amen to that brother, Amen to that.

Um, I, for one, would love to hear the theory under which you and your
brother seem to:
a) feel the taxpayers of the US of A should subsidize you or anyone else
with free or essentially-free public fishing,

The laws concerning stream navigation don't have anything to do
with fishing per se but rather are founded on the commerce clause
in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Basically, if a stream is
navigable it has to be open to the public, not necessarily for
fishing but for transporting goods.

In Wisconsin a stream is deemed navigable if you can float a
canoe on it during its highest water. By that standard most
Wisconsin streams are deemed navigable and are therefore public
waters. You can fish on public water so long as you stay in
the water (or below the high water mark, that changes from time
to time) and don't cross private land to get in the water.
This is not hard because every bridge on every public road in
Wisconsin has a public easement, so if you enter the water
at a bridge you're entering on public land.

What the GOP wants to do is change the definition of navigable
from canoe at highest water to six hundred foot tow barge full
of iron ore at lowest water. (Or something like that. ;-)

A reasonable reply. But it is not reasonable that "navigable" be
determined the "commerce clause" by a canoe, high or low water. It
is simply one side using a technical point to get what it wants.
Apparently, the what makes it "reasonable" to you is that you happen to
want that, too.

And for the record, I don't support privatization so commercial
interests can exploit the land, I simply support privatization because
"the public" simply isn't entitled to the amount of land now deemed
"public." I wish all landowners could simply put up a sign that said
"Fishers/hunters/hikers/birdwatchers/whatever welcome" and all would
treat the landowner, their land, and its resources with respect and
dignity. But that simply isn't going to happen and I've experienced it
firsthand. We _never_ denied permission on our land until we got sick
of the bull****, including, in some places, allowing such free access to
make it de facto public land (like Colorado). Now, if asked and I don't
know the person personally and trust them, it's "Do you see the 'No
Trespassing' signs?" and if the DO trespass, we call law enforcement. I
feel regret every time I have to turn a seemingly decent stranger away,
but I consider myself a steward, and doing such unfortunately necessary.

TC,
R