The Future of Fly Fishing in America ?

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:40:38 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


All true, I think. But there is more to the picture. At least in some
places......like here in Wisconsin......the access limitations currently
being imposed in the west simply cannot happen without a major change not
only in current law, but also in the very philosophy upon which that law is
founded.


Isn't there a challenge to that going on right now ?

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:37:02 -0500, GregP
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:40:38 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


All true, I think. But there is more to the picture. At least in some
places......like here in Wisconsin......the access limitations currently
being imposed in the west simply cannot happen without a major change not
only in current law, but also in the very philosophy upon which that law is
founded.


Isn't there a challenge to that going on right now ?


There was an attempt by the Wisconsin Home Builders Ass. lackeys in
the Statehouse to drastically change the navigability rules. This
would have eliminated a good chunk of the small streams here from
being considered public water. There was such a hue and cry about it
that they pulled it before it even came to a vote. But unfortunately
we didn't suceed in getting rid of said lackeys during the last
election. Its a pretty sure thing that our Dem. governor would veto
any such effort. But as a conservative Democrat he has suceeded in
alienating parts of the traditional Democratic Party while making no
inroads into the Republican base. So he may very well be gone in 2
years and one of the top contenders for his position in the GOP is one
of the sponsors of the navigability change. 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.

g.c.

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.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:31:57 GMT, 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,
b) feel that the Republican party is somehow involved with interfering
with "a)," above.

Oh brother,
R
....where art thou...

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. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

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

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. ;-)

FWIW, that's basically the definition of navigable in GA - the water must be
able to handle heavy barge traffic to be deemed navigable.
--
Charlie...
http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/c/cchoc/

Charlie Choc wrote:

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

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. ;-)

FWIW, that's basically the definition of navigable in GA - the water must be
able to handle heavy barge traffic to be deemed navigable.

This is good background:

http://www.nationalrivers.org/us-law-public.htm

and an interpretation (with a decided point of view):

http://www.nationalrivers.org/us-law-who-owns.htm

Many states, where access based on public ownership of the streambed had
been long established by tradition/custom or a collection of state rulings
over the years, are in the process of being forced to review what is
considered navigable. Sometimes the pressure is from "the public"
(fishermen, kayakers, etc.) asserting their right to access. More often,
the pressure is from landowners (in Oregon now, this means timber
companies, ranchers, real estate developers) insisting that the public's
ownership of the streambed is dependent upon an assessment and declaration
of navigability.

JR

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

wrote:

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 know you're not in favor of entitlements but that land belongs to us
peons as much as it belongs to you. It's too bad you don't like that.


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.

And I wish that all corporations refrain from doing things that are
destructive to the environment, harmful to individuals, or engaging in
illegal/unethical business practices, profits be damned, "But that
simply isn't going to happen and I've experienced it firsthand."

You're right, there are assholes out there in ANY group of people.

ALL will never treat ANYTHING with respect and dignity whether it is
publicly or privately owned. Any place that is highly used by people
whether it be a store, a forest, a park, a street or a factory is going
to feel the impact of the people using it. And there is that small
percentage of people that are going to do illegal or "disrespectful"
things that result in damage or destruction.

I think you're wrong about people not being able to take care of their
public lands. There are always going to be assholes that do destructive,
stupid or illegal things, but my experience is that the majority of
people treat our public lands pretty well. I think our National Parks
are a good example. Many of the most popular ones during peak times have
as many daily visitors as live in a sizable city and with a much lower
crime rate. During my trips to RMNP and Yellowstone, I've seen few
signs of litter, vandalism, misuse etc. Especially considering the
number of people using them, IMO, they are remarkably pristine.

Willi

wrote:

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."

Why not? Who should decide who is "entitled" to what and to how much?
(Talking only about clearly public lands: state and national parks,
forests, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, BLM land, etc. Not
talking--as you seem in some places to be--about private land that has
allowed free access so long and liberally that people are beginning to
treat it as "public".)

JR