mdunc8
Well-known member
and don't have to deal with this crap (http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/294660) anymore. I wish someone would kick those landowners in the teeth.
I'm glad I live in Montana
- Thread starter mdunc8
- Start date
bdidaho
New member
We have a few places here like that, mostly around Silver Creek, but I'm with you, glad I live in the west.
smarandr
Well-known member
We must have had some issues with that in the past. Nowdays in the fishing regs there's actually a diagram showing what the public right of way is in navigable streams.
BuzzH
Well-known member
It wasnt that long ago that Montana had to fight the same fight regarding stream access, in some cases the fight is still being fought in Montana (Mitchell Slough).
mtlion
Well-known member
Screw Huey Lewis!
mdunc8
Well-known member
Even if it's navigable? Do the landowners also "own" the fish? I thought this was an isolated circumstance, but maybe it's not.
tarheel
Well-known member
I would think no, nor do the citizens of a state own the game resident to that state, unless they bought breeders and raised them in captivity on their own property.
This will be an interesting case to watch. The foundation of all this is the US Supreme Court case of Martin v. Wadell in 1842, In that case, a landowner made his claim that the rights to the fish and clams on his tide flat were his by virtue of the grant from the King. In those days, the King could grant you land, rights in wildlife, etc.
In that case, the USSC ruled that when we declared our independence from said King, that all rights previously held by the King were now a right of the colonies, unless the colonies granted such right to landowners or to the Feds.
In the Martin case, the issue was wildlife. The court stated that wildlife rights previously granted by the King were now held by the states, by design. That the colonists did not want to grant such rights to the Feds or to landowners, as they had escaped the tyranny of Europe where feeding your family with one of the King's deer was grounds for serious punishment.
From that case, it has been ruled ever since, that landowners do not own wildlife, regardless of previous grants of such from the King. The state holds the wildlife in trust for the citizens, having acquired such in the War of Independence and not having transferred wildlife rights to any other entity, neither the Feds or private landowners.
So, wildlife is held by the states, completely disconnected from land ownership. And thus the reason why Federal land has nothing to do with how states are required to allocate hunting opportunity to non-residents. Our standing as a US citizens and quasi interest in Federal land grants us the same right to wildlife as does ownership of private land - NONE.
Since the states had retained rights such as wildlife, property grants based on transfers from the King were invalid, unless the states allowed such rights to remain.
It will probably come down to whether or not that state law recognizes grants of property from the King.
I tend to agree with the courts in the Martin case. A grant from old King George III isn't worth a fiddlers fart in my neck of the woods.
Thanks for the note on that one. Will definitely be one to keep an eye on.
In that case, the USSC ruled that when we declared our independence from said King, that all rights previously held by the King were now a right of the colonies, unless the colonies granted such right to landowners or to the Feds.
In the Martin case, the issue was wildlife. The court stated that wildlife rights previously granted by the King were now held by the states, by design. That the colonists did not want to grant such rights to the Feds or to landowners, as they had escaped the tyranny of Europe where feeding your family with one of the King's deer was grounds for serious punishment.
From that case, it has been ruled ever since, that landowners do not own wildlife, regardless of previous grants of such from the King. The state holds the wildlife in trust for the citizens, having acquired such in the War of Independence and not having transferred wildlife rights to any other entity, neither the Feds or private landowners.
So, wildlife is held by the states, completely disconnected from land ownership. And thus the reason why Federal land has nothing to do with how states are required to allocate hunting opportunity to non-residents. Our standing as a US citizens and quasi interest in Federal land grants us the same right to wildlife as does ownership of private land - NONE.
Since the states had retained rights such as wildlife, property grants based on transfers from the King were invalid, unless the states allowed such rights to remain.
It will probably come down to whether or not that state law recognizes grants of property from the King.
I tend to agree with the courts in the Martin case. A grant from old King George III isn't worth a fiddlers fart in my neck of the woods.
Thanks for the note on that one. Will definitely be one to keep an eye on.
If the river runs through private, you can float it, but you can't touch the bottom. That includes an anchor. You are welcome to fish as you float. If it's shallow and your boat is scraping the bottom...trespass. No OHWM law or anything like that.
mdunc8
Well-known member
That's timely as I'll be down in Breckenridge for a wedding in two weeks. I'm responsible for the fishing the day before. Thanks for clarifying.
This one is close to home for me. The Jackson is one of my favorite places to fish and one of the very few trout rivers in the area that is floatable. This started years ago when the Virginia supreme court upheld some of these kings grants on a separate, legally navigable, section of the Jackson, I'm surprised that there haven't been more of these bs lawsuits since that one.
The fishermen in this case were following direction from the state that this is a publicly accessible section of stream, it's literally 100yards downstream from a Forest Service access point. The landowner and developer pressed charges for trespassing when these guys got out of their kayaks to fish, those charges were thrown out or they weren't prosecuted. Then the owner/developers sued the fishermen in civil court for $10k, somehow putting the burden of proof on the fishermen and to beat all the state has refused to step in on the fishermen's behalf.
All evidence to this point indicates that the landowner and developer are pulling a bluff here, hoping that the fishermen will just give up and pay the fine, thus setting the precedent that they can exclude the public from our resource.
The fishermen set up a website to keep folks updated on the case and raise money for their defense: http://www.virginiariversdefensefund.org/
The fishermen in this case were following direction from the state that this is a publicly accessible section of stream, it's literally 100yards downstream from a Forest Service access point. The landowner and developer pressed charges for trespassing when these guys got out of their kayaks to fish, those charges were thrown out or they weren't prosecuted. Then the owner/developers sued the fishermen in civil court for $10k, somehow putting the burden of proof on the fishermen and to beat all the state has refused to step in on the fishermen's behalf.
All evidence to this point indicates that the landowner and developer are pulling a bluff here, hoping that the fishermen will just give up and pay the fine, thus setting the precedent that they can exclude the public from our resource.
The fishermen set up a website to keep folks updated on the case and raise money for their defense: http://www.virginiariversdefensefund.org/
montanadogs
New member
This is going to get very interesting. Big Fin said what I was going to. Should have know he'd beet me to the punch.
TakeTheFly
New member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 1
Big Fin, and others, thanks for your posts. I am the defendant in Jackson River case. I hope the readers of this board will understand the gravity of this case, no matter where they live. I am being sued for using what the state has promoted as a public resource, and the state is doing nothing about it. I could have been a duck hunter anchoring my decoys, or a boy scout getting out of his canoe to eat lunch on a rock. We are fighting a well-funded developer and need all the financial help we can get from those around the country who believe Virginia's public rivers should remain open for use by anglers, hunters and paddlers. We've set up a site to get the word out and take donations. www.virginiariversdefensefund.org/donate
For those who want to read more about the case, check out a recent piece on Orvis News at http://www.orvisnews.com/en/FlyFishing/Public-Access-for-Anglers-in-Jeopardy-in-Virginia.aspx
For those who want to read more about the case, check out a recent piece on Orvis News at http://www.orvisnews.com/en/FlyFishing/Public-Access-for-Anglers-in-Jeopardy-in-Virginia.aspx
devon deer
Well-known member
Have you seen this http://www.yukongoesfishing.com/2012/05/watering-water-angler-harassment-on.html
The world has gone mad!
Whats wrong with these people?
Cheers
Richard
Similar threads
- Locked
