Posted on 01/20/2015 8:59:58 PM PST by Theoria
The Adirondack Park in upstate New York, with its 3,000 lakes and ponds and 30,000 miles of rivers and streams, is nothing short of nirvana for paddlers.
But often, rivers that start out on state forest land eventually flow onto private property, given that the six-million-acre park is a patchwork quilt of private and public land. A result is no-trespassing signs that force paddlers to turn around or make frustrating portages — detours on dry land with their canoes or kayaks overhead.
Late last week, a state appellate court ruled in favor of a journalist who set out in 2009 to challenge the claims of private-property owners who have argued that waterways on their lands are off limits to the public.
The journalist, Phil Brown, editor of the newsmagazine Adirondack Explorer, made a two-day canoe trip from Little Tupper Lake to Lake Lila.
Between those two points, the water route bisected a remote 2,000-acre parcel of land, laced with ponds and streams and owned by one extended family since 1851.
The route is also posted with no-trespassing signs. An arduous detour was available in the form of a fourth-fifths of a mile portage across state land, allowing Mr. Brown to avoid the private estate.
But he paddled on for two miles through the private property in the town of Long Lake, spying a deer, a nesting goose and moose scat. He had to carry his canoe for only four minutes to bypass a small rapids.
“Except for the carry, all of the waterways — the pond, the outlet and the brook — were obviously navigable in the everyday sense of the word,” Mr. Brown wrote in 2009. “Indeed, they epitomize what I like best about Adirondack canoeing: closeness to nature, ever-changing scenery, remoteness from roads.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Not very compelling arguments.
Beaches and navigable waterways need to be accessible to the general public.
I disagree when courts generally find that owners must provide unimpeded access to the beach or waterway because that does cut through their property.
If you can’t find a property with those attributes (beach, waterway) where travelers and recreational users aren’t a nuisance, then you haven’t looked hard enough or you’re simply not wealthy enough.
Here... try this link... or maybe a resident can explain better than I.
Sorry, but you cannot deny the use of navigable waterways... at least not in PA. You can own the land around it, but if the waterway is navigable anyone may use it, you cannot prevent someone from utilizing a navigable waterway in PA just because you own the land adjacent to it.
I suspect the law is the same in most other states.
Thank you for the link, Rodamala.
UN Biosphere preserves, Sustainable development governance, Agenda 21, are All against private property rights, and represent a serious persistent threat to property owners.
I’ve attended meetings where a paid facilitator lies and misrepresents their way thru what at first glance appears to be a reasonable presentation proposing protecting land value, community quality of life and of course, the environment.
They use marginalizing tactics for anyone who dares question the implication for property owner rights.
Its yet another threat that a conservative congress should / must address.
This newly elected congress will not.
However, I remember the likes of Tom Delay and Bob Barr, who when elected in 1994, really went to bat to hold of Clinton, and Maurice Strong’s collectivist initiatives.
Other than Cruz, where did strong conservative leadership go?
That is a lovely piece of BS. The property in question has been continuously owned by the same family since 1641.
That doesn't give the madding crowd the 'right' to dump their trash and dirty diapers in what amounts to someone's front yard.
Navigable waterways? so navigate, already. Private beaches should be private. Exceptions have always been made in the event of an emergency.
Maybe those more mobile should select areas where they won't mess up private property (which isn't so mobile). The owners live there, the visitors don't have to be there. That simple.
Arguments like that make me always think about the American Indian and how screwed they got just because a more advanced society decided to immigrate there.
But that’s different right? Because back then, when you had the might you had the right. Today’s might is measured in money.
So like I said. So if people are being bothered because others are enjoying a beach or a navigable waterway, then they’re simply not trying hard enough or are not wealthy enough.
Nothing you have said gives anyone the right to leave a diaper full of shit in what amounts to the front yard, just because there is water over there rather than more land, any more than it gives them the right to leave it in your driveway because it abuts the street.
So save your socialist crap for someone else.
People can route around the private holdings or they can buy their own.
Public land?
Not at all.
It’s government land.
In your state, 84.5% owned by the federal government.
The reason the fed gov wants to own land is to make it inaccessible to citizens via laws. The EPA loves it.
BTW in California if you have a home on the beach, the land is yours but only to the high tide mark.
I’d rather the citizens owned most of the land, not the feds.
I trust American citizens much more than I trust the feds, YMMV.
Just wait until they close off access to THEIR land.
You wanna join this conversation about water and travel/uses/ownership thereof from a western experience?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.