A loss for the PTD

[Treeshark]

i should have said has became a gray area. Stream rights and Montana have a complicated history - so im watching with a touch of fear.

I get it- wasn’t trying to be a “well…actually” about it.

But one of the virtues of our existing law is that it is fairly clear, which is why I wanted to point that out.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I think it's intentionally being grayed for peoples benefit. OHWM is very easy to tell on most bodies of waters I've ever been on. Even on OnX, that river is very clearly outlined ... probably by the OHWM. Anyone stating otherwise is full of it.

The hypocrisy lies in getting irritated for someone standing up for their perceived rights (peace and quiet from airboats) on their own private land, while also demanding that certain perceived rights (peace and quiet from airplanes) be upheld on their own land.

I GUARANTEE if I were to go float and ground swat ducks in the ditch that he'd be posting about how it's BS that I'm allowed to do that and ruined his morning in the blind.

Again, having hunted a great deal of sheet water and seeing the big business it is becoming, there's no way that this law stays "two feet wet"/as vague as it is.

I dont think you really understand the issue. There isnt a real relevant historical OWHM if a storm surge is regularly exceeding it. Plant life will begin to grow and what was easily identifiable with obvious ecology simply isnt anymore. ONX river and island boundaries arent great - probably because they arent actually surveying it.

Its hard to imagine for a lot of western folks, i think, because our rivers are much different.

 

[seeth07]

I think it's intentionally being grayed for peoples benefit. OHWM is very easy to tell on most bodies of waters I've ever been on. Even on OnX, that river is very clearly outlined ... probably by the OHWM. Anyone stating otherwise is full of it.

The hypocrisy lies in getting irritated for someone standing up for their perceived rights (peace and quiet from airboats) on their own private land, while also demanding that certain perceived rights (peace and quiet from airplanes) be upheld on their own land.

I GUARANTEE if I were to go float and ground swat ducks in the ditch that he'd be posting about how it's BS that I'm allowed to do that and ruined his morning in the blind.

Again, having hunted a great deal of sheet water and seeing the big business it is becoming, there's no way that this law stays "two feet wet"/as vague as it is.

Do you think Fred in the corner crossing case was actually upset and pursuing this because it was "devaluing" his property value or do you think it was about the public being able to access the land around his property and thus hindering is ability to hunt and sell elk hunts?

This is the exact same thing except replace elk with ducks.

 

[thomas89]

I dont think you really understand the issue. There isnt a real relevant historical OWHM if a storm surge is regularly exceeding it.

Its hard to imagine for a lot of western folks, i think, because our rivers are much different.

I understand. I grew up in SE Wisconsin. River floods were/are very common. I get it.

To take advantage of someone’s private property because the river is flooded is wrong.

 

[Buffs35]

 

[thomas89]

Do you think Fred in the corner crossing case was actually upset and pursuing this because it was "devaluing" his property value or do you think it was about the public being able to access the land around his property and thus hindering is ability to hunt and sell elk hunts?

This is the exact same thing except replace elk with ducks.

It’s the difference of PUBLIC sections vs PRIVATE land. Which you’re on.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I understand. I grew up in SE Wisconsin. River floods were/are very common. I get it.

To take advantage of someone’s private property because the river is flooded is wrong.

Please define flood for me - if it's flooded 100 days of the year, is that considered "flooded" to you? How do you know where your access begins and ends in a situation like that - especially not having been there previously?

Respectfully, you are making this very simple. And it isnt. I feel for the landowner and public user here - the landowner is losing his land and its access and the public has poorly defined access.

 

[seeth07]

It’s the difference of PUBLIC sections vs PRIVATE land. Which you’re on.

Not per the WI constitution. Only the land under the water is owned by the private party. The water itself is "forever free".

 

[seeth07]

Please define flood for me - if it's flooded 100 days of the year, is that considered "flooded" to you? How do you know where your access begins and ends in a situation like that - especially not having been there previously?

Respectfully, you are making this very simple. And it isnt. I feel for the landowner and public user here - the landowner is losing his land and its access and the public has poorly defined access.

How about on this particular river where there are numerous dams to help control water levels and handle sudden bursts of rain like we received last week?

 

[thomas89]

Not per the WI constitution. Only the land under the water is owned by the private party. The water itself is "forever free".

Correct…which the judge is saying they need to fix.

Please define flood for me - if it's flooded 100 days of the year, is that considered "flooded" to you? How do you know where your access begins and ends in a situation like that - especially not having been there previously?

Respectfully, you are making this very simple. And it isnt. I feel for the landowner and public user here - the landowner is losing his land and its access and the public has poorly defined access.

Is it not the users burden to know where they are at all times? I think you’re over-complicating this issue.

Remember this probably wouldn’t have been an issue if people had some decency to not run an airboat across someone’s property.

 

[seeth07]

Correct…which the judge is saying they need to fix.



Is it not the users burden to know where they are at all times? I think you’re over-complicating this issue.

Remember this probably wouldn’t have been an issue if people had some decency to not run an airboat across someone’s property.

an example of what it looks like right near this spot:


The boats aren't running across his front lawn. They are cruising past in the cattail marsh behind the island (like the group of trees you see in the island here).

 

[Treeshark]

Remember this probably wouldn’t have been an issue if people had some decency to not run an airboat across someone’s property.

Just my personal opinion, but there is almost 0% that is what this is actually about. Someone wants to protect/build a duck spot.

Speaking of, and totally off topic I’m sure… but it looks like the judge is quite the avid hunter (in the area).

 

[seeth07]

to not run an airboat across someone’s property.

This is a total red herring by the way in this case. You all saw past the BS of Fred Eshelman. I don't understand why its so hard to see past this BS.

Flooding on these small rivers/streams recedes very quickly. Just on Saturday we received a crazy amount of rain and due to some blockage on the rock river in Waupun, the entire city went underwater.

Waupun Mayor declares disaster due to flooding throughout the city - KFIZ News-Talk 1450 AM

At 7:50 p.m. on June 22, 2024, Mayor Rohn Bishop issued a Disaster Declaration due to significant rainfall and flooding across the city. Most streets within the City of Waupun […]

kfiz.com

Streets were flooded as the river was up over 8' from where it was prior to the event. The very next day, it was only 2'-3' high and most of the flooding in the city was gone.

This case is the result of normal fall conditions on the river and a guy not wanting people to be able to use the marsh behind his place. 20 years ago, My dad an I couldn't access a lot of the marshes along the river and this owner very likely had sole access to it due to lower water levels on the river. Now due to more water flow on the Rock and higher typical water levels along the river, its very accessible on an annual basis.

 

[VikingsGuy]

read here regarding that:

Stream access laws | Fishing Wisconsin | Wisconsin DNR

dnr.wisconsin.gov

None of that defines the constitutional term which I had been asked about.

 

[thomas89]

an example of what it looks like right near this spot:
View attachment 330793

The boats aren't running across his front lawn. They are cruising past in the cattail marsh behind the island (like the group of trees you see in the island here)

Looks like a good duck spot.

I still think if I purchased a piece of property, and I pay taxes on that property, and that property holds something that I enjoy, I will absolutely fight for my right to use that thing. Perhaps that includes a lawsuit questioning a law that I think is unfair.

This is 100% different than corner-crossing. If you think this is the same fight, you are completely mistaken. Free and clear public land vs public land only if/when flooded.

To think something becomes public just because it's flooded is WILD.

I'm glad they are revisiting this.

Just my personal opinion, but there is almost 0% that is what this is actually about. Someone wants to protect/build a duck spot.

Speaking of, and totally off topic I’m sure… but it looks like the judge is quite the avid hunter (in the area).

If I bought a good duck spot, I'm protecting that good duck spot.

 

[Treeshark]

If I bought a good duck spot, I'm protecting that good duck spot.

I hear you dude, wouldn’t blame you for it either.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Not per the WI constitution. Only the land under the water is owned by the private party. The water itself is "forever free".

No, your constitution says “navigable and boundary waters remain free. A flood is not typically considered “navigable”.

 

[Treeshark]

No, your constitution says “navigable and boundary waters remain free. A flood is not typically considered “navigable”.

This is the type of thing I tagged you for. Words matter, and this is where it will get interesting.

The flood water being navigable isn’t relevant (or wasn’t, prior to this ruling) as far as I can tell- so long as it is connected to a navigable waterway. Just have to keep your boat afloat or feet in the water.

 

[seeth07]

None of that defines the constitutional term which I had been asked about.

I think this spells out the evolution of "navigable" pretty well.

 

[Gellar]

Speaking of, and totally off topic I’m sure… but it looks like the judge is quite the avid hunter (in the area).

I think the judge being an avid hunter could have huge implications.