iDRY Vacuum Kilns

Sponsors:

Beaches belong to EVERYBODY! So says the supreme court...

Started by Paschale, February 22, 2006, 02:55:39 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Paschale

In Michigan, a lot of people have been watching a case that's gone through the Michigan Supreme Court, and which was being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, essentially stating that the Michigan Supreme Court ruling should hold.  At issue was the right of everyday Americans to walk every foot of beach in the Great Lakes.  A group of landowners, calling itself, like wolf in sheeps clothing,  "S.O.S.," or Save Our Shorelines were in support of "saving the shorelines" only for those fortunate enough to have the means and money to buy land on the Great Lakes.  The tradition had always been that the land up to the historic high water mark was public domain, thus every person could walk on the beach.  They wanted to limit any traverse of beach property beyond public beaches to people only being able to walk in the water.  It started as a squabble between two individuals, and the rulings were a back and forth dance.  The public won in the Michigan Supreme Court battle, and these losers (in my opinion) appealed it to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Just yesterday, they refused to hear the appeal, meaning that the traditional interpretation of public domain on the beaches is upheld.  I'm ecstatic, and when the weather warms up this summer, I plan to take full advantage of my rights and walk a LONG way on the beach!   8)

You can read about it in the Detroit News.
Y'all can pronounce it "puh-SKOLLY"

thedeeredude

 :D

We all know JeffB has a lucrative contract and is sole owner of all shorefront in Michigan.  Next time you're at a Michigan beach, you might see a fellow sawing up driftwood with a woodmizer. ;D  On a serious note, it's good to hear the common sense that anyone can walk on a beach.

Jeff

I hear by relinquish any current private rights I have to Michigan beaches to anyone that wants them. :)
Just call me the midget doctor.
Forestry Forum Founder and Chief Cook and Bottle Washer.

Commercial circle sawmill sawyer in a past life for 25yrs.
Ezekiel 22:30

crtreedude

Down here a lot of these same people are wanting to buy the beaches and prevent the Ticos from being on them.  >:( The Ticos, being kind people, are willing to sell the beaches to them.  ::)

The only thing is, the there is a Maritime law here that prevents ANYONE from owning beachfront (except for some grandfathered in) so what happens is about the time they finish building their fancy place they get a visitor.

A very large bulldozer.  :o

You should hear the whinning...  ::)
So, how did I end up here anyway?

Tom

We have the same greedy bunch here in Florida.   The Ocean beaches are actually a federal highway.  The way these people try to have their own private beach is to buy up all the access land.   If you can't get to it, you can't use it.  So far Duval County has mandated that there must be public access to the beach and many of these multi million dollar homes have paths beside them to allow the general public to get through.  Most of the big dollar land-owners don't like it, but that's how it is.   Now and again someone rises up and tries to stop it.  West Palm and Miami were the main ones.  Hopefully the rights to the ocean will never be taken from the public.

It is also a rule that navigable waterways can't be blocked.  If there is a stream/creek that goes into a piece of property,  the property owner may own both sides, but not the stream itself.  Because of this, he might find someone legally fishing on "his" lake, if the stream passes through it.  As far as I know, the only exception to this is if the waterway enters a military reservation.

Stand your ground, Michigan.

Murf

I've had a similar sort of problem up here.

I have a small plane on floats. I like to fly into small lakes and try my hand at luring lonely fish into my plane, to be followed by my frying pan.  ;D

I have on several occasions been confronted by angry people who claim to 'own' the lake because they, or they and others, own all around the lake, thus making what they believe to be a "private" lake.

Problem is, in Canada, or at least this part of it, all of the original grants where worded such that they specifically did not grant navigable waters, timber, mineral deposits, nor the airspace above the land itself.

In other words, a lake surrounded by private land is still public, even if you have to fly to get to it.

I had one occasion a fellow actually padlocked his boat to my plane and told me he was placing me under citizens arrest and holding the airplane & I until the police, who had been called, arrived to arrest me, because he had told me before to stay off "his" lake and I had returned.

The police did in fact come, and they gave the man a crash course on property law......   ;D

I then told all my friends what great spot it is for fishing. Now on a good weekend there might be 5 or 6 planes bobbing around on "his" lake.  :D

If you're going to break a law..... make sure it's Murphy's Law.

crtreedude

Here, you don't own the stream or river AND 15 meters on both sides. You aren't allowed to cut trees or anything near a creak or river, if the land is steep - it is 50 meters - both sides.

100 meter radius around springs - no touchy! (but you can draw water for drinking from the spring - thankfully)

So, how did I end up here anyway?

sawguy21

 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) Here it is similar. Private property extends to the high water line. I am not clear about access rights unless there is an easement as a lot of small lakes are surrounded by private property. I like Murf's solution. Good on ya.
old age and treachery will always overcome youth and enthusiasm

badpenny

   The situation in Minnesota, where I live, is just the opposite. Several (20-30 maybe) years ago, all lakefront property ended at the traditional "high water mark." When property was asessed as Waterfront Property, the owners claimed they did not own waterfront,only to the high water mark, so the state changed the rules, amd now property extends to the water itself, so no more "public property" between the shore and the highwater line. Thus, a higher tax rate on waterfront property.
   Most lakes now have a public access with a boat launch ramp and parking lot. It's all driven by the almighty dollar.
Hope and Change, my foot,  It's time for Action and Results!

Sawyerfortyish

Here it's a little differant to. The state ownes the water but the landowner owns the land including that under the water. So if your fishing in a good size stream that is posted you can drift through in a boat but can't get out or drop anchor or tie off to a tree. There is a lake about a mile from me that is private I get permission to enter from a private home on part of it to fish and have to be carful not to get to close to a YMCA camp that ownes a good part of the lake. A lot of lakes here you have to get a vistors pass from a lake resident to get on to fish. Without one you'll get thrown off or cited for trespassing. Three strikes trespassing by a game warden you lose your hunting,fishing and trapping privilages for 5 yrs.

Don_Papenburg

Here we pay tax to the middle of the river .  But can't stop someone from steping on to the shore but they are not suposed to go farther unless an emegency.  Creeks and streems are your property but you can't dam them as the Army corp of engineers clame them as navigatable if a 12wide plank can float down them at any time of the year.
Frick saw mill  '58   820 John Deere power. Diamond T trucks

jrdwyer

Good to hear that common sense is alive and well in Michigan.

I lived one summer in Missouri while working for the Dept. of Conservation. Missouri has some great fishing streams, and I took advantage of it on the weekends. One day I parked at a bridge crossing and started wading downstream in search of smallmouth. I get to a bend in the river and a guy and his girlfriend are on the rocks sunning themselves. He tells me that I can't wade downstream in the creek because he owns the bottom of the river and the only way I can go downstream is in a boat. I was going to argue, but I noticed that he had a rifle near his side. So I went looking for fish elsewhere.

Thankfully, this only happened once.  I think I just came upon a very cranky guy, as most Missouri folks were very nice to me that summer.

Paschale

Quote from: jrdwyer on February 22, 2006, 10:12:20 PM
Good to hear that common sense is alive and well in Michigan.


For now, anyway.  Though these guys have the money, and they'll still be hiring lawyers to get "there's."  There's a particular onerous example from way up near Copper Harbor, the furthest point north in Michigan.  It's a pristine spot.  There's a famous beach up there that was visited for decades upon decades called Agate Beach.  It was a prime place for hunting agates.  I had never been, and one visit, just a few summers ago I decided to finally explore this place.  The trail was accessed at the edge of a parking lot.  There, much to my surprise, stood a chainlink fence, right across the old trail.  A developer had bought that piece of land, and closed it off to everyone.  You could see the trail still hardened from years of footprints.  The bummer about it for me was just the previous summer, late in the day as the sun was going down I found the trail and told myself that next summer, I'd go down that path.  Blocked by a greedy sonuvagun who wants to have that sort of beauty all to himself.  Very few things fry my gourd more than that!   >:(
Y'all can pronounce it "puh-SKOLLY"

UNCLEBUCK

 I walk alot of lake superior shoreline between superior and cornucopia on the wisconsin side and I come across a fence and a sign and a crazy man hollered seriously at me to get off so I did but he looked crazy and was far away from the mouth of the river so he had no reason but it was me and my driftwood stick against him and his arsenal . probably growing something !  I do notice more and more broken glass around old bonfires at the river mouths that look uglier than sin and I would think that the fines for littering should be tripled .  I hope to see Copper Harbor someday . I sent my mom and dad up there for their 50th wedding anniversary a few years ago and they came home with 10 gallons of apples  :D I said but you were suppose to relax and enjoy , they just like pickin !
UNCLEBUCK    bridge burner/bridge mender

Coon

WHOAAAAAA.  I see there's a might big problem here.  Everyone of these previous statements shows some sort of violation to "HUMAN RIGHTS".  What did our forefathers go to war about????  FREEDOM FREEDOM AND MORE FREEDOM.  I don't care what anyone says of who's land is who's.  Lake shores, river or creek shores, and the bodies of waters are part of the publics domain.  Who naturally cares for these lands?????  Provincial, state, or federal governments govern all bodies of water to some extent.  Who is the government there for?  Well I would have to say all of the public, of course. 

Here in Saskatchewan not one person owns any land past the high water mark.  UNLESS the private party owns all the properties within a said distance around the lake or body of water there has to be accessability for public use.  I have personally seen a few different land owners TRY to claim land to the waters edge and to eliminate all access.  One particular Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation club that I am a member of owns over 7,500 feet of lakeshore property up to the high water mark of a particular lake.  One of the other property owners that owns land next to the club placed an 8 foot high chain link fence to about 100 feet past the waters edge to deny access to the public walking along the shore to a popular walleye hole on a point.  When asked to remove the fence, the guy just laughed at many of our members to the club as we tried to gain acess to the point to set up for a local fundraising shoreline fishing derby.  The Conservation officials were called to the scene to verify that the guy was well past the high water mark.  The landowner still refused to remove the fence at once and was later arrested by the police and conservation officials.  After a few phone calls by the police official to the provincial judge there was a court order to allow the wildlife federation club to remove the fence to the high water mark.  The club was then given a $10,000 reward for reporting it in and removing the fence.  The landowner was also given over $22,000 dollars in fines and had 6 months to pay in whole or the land was forfeitted to the crown.  The land owner never did finish paying the fines and lost the land.  Within 3 months of the seizure the crown donated the land to the fish and wildlife development fund in partnership with the local wildlife federation club tobe used for the public with foot access only except for maintenance duties which are done by the club.
Brad. :o ;D 8)
Norwood Lumbermate 2000 w/Kohler,
Husqvarna, Stihl and, Jonsereds Saws

TexasTimbers

Oklahoma doesn't have a saltwater beach but they have some nice fresh water ones on Lake Texoma and the Red River. My understanding is that Oklahoma owns all the land beneath the lake and all the water too, and the river bed of the Red River. It wasn't settled until 2000 and had been in controversy since us Anglos had been moving down here and grabbing land.  On October 10, 2000 President Clinton signed HJ Res. 72 into public law 106-288 which ended a border dispute that dated  back to the Louisiana Purchase.

Texas and Oklahoma nearly went to war over a bridge dispute known as The Red River War of 1931.
We DID in fact have a little mini-war sending our respective militias and Texas Rangers  into actual combat over border disputes as late as the 1920s   :o

The smart aleck quips still go on though. Recently Rep. Tom Ramsey was quoted as saying "As far as Texas is concerned, it's good to have Oklahoma as the 255th county."

Don't kill the messenger joasis I'm just quoting! ;D
The oil is all in Texas, but the dipsticks are in D.C.

TW

Do you mean that you have no right to walk on other peoples land in America?
I have heard about it but I did never imagine that it was that rigid.

Here in Finland anyone is allowed to walk or ski or move in any other way without motor on all land except private yards.
If you damage forest or grain or potatoes or anything you will have to pay for it to the landowner but as long as you do no harm you are allowed to walk.
Wild berrys and mushrooms are free to pick as long as you are far enough from the landowners house.

Do you not have other things to quarrel about than "that one is standing on my land" :o

TexasTimbers

Oh yes TW we have plenty else to quarrel about. Unfortunately.
The problem isn't as wide-spread as these articles make it appear. There are a multitude of other foolish squabbles in which we American capitalists  and leftist libs expend our energy.   Ever hear of the Spotted Owl? ::)
The oil is all in Texas, but the dipsticks are in D.C.

TW

I have never heard of the spotted owl but I assume it is a more or less endangered bird.
It may be either endangered, or a close relative to our "almost extinct" flying squirrel. (Found anywhere except central Helsinki)

Still I find it odd to not be allowed to walk on other people's land if one does no obvious damage.
Our free right of way removes the reason for lots of potential quarrels between neighbours.

thurlow

Hey TW;  can only speak about my little neck of the woods..........as late as the 1950s, what you describe was pretty much common here;  not by law, but by generally accepted common usage.  Slob hunters, poachers, 4-wheelers with no respect, etc.  changed all that.  Doesn't take many torn down fences, left-open gates,  crops rode down, etc. to make a landowner put a stop to all trespassers.   "Here", if your property is properly posted.........some places, doesn't even have to be posted............a trespasser can be charged with a misdemeanor or even a felony.  I live in a quite rural area, but the problems which we had always considered to be big city problems are amongest us.
Here's to us and those like us; DanG few of us left!

Deadwood

Here I go again..going against the grain, but there is more to the issue then just water access.

We own two pieces of water front property. One is on the mainland where a river and the ocean merge. The other is an island far out to sea.

We don't object to people walking anywhere they want on the island, as that is just the lifestyle out there. The property on Muscongus Bay is altogether different. That is a Lobsterpound and a WORKING waterfront.

People have the audacity to bring their boats/ canoes/ kayaks right up to the wharf and then go clamboring along on our wharfs and lobsterpounds. They don't give it a second thought, but they would call the cops on us if we walked onto their property in Mass and other states. What gives these people the right to tread all over our property...just because it's on the water they think they can go anywhere they want? I don't think so.

Our wharfs are not well built. We are lobstermen struggling to catch enough fish/lobster to make a living at diesel fuel at 2.50 a gallon. (you may pay 15 bucks a piece for lobster but we get 3 bucks for one) so we just don't have a lot of cash to spend of wharfs. What if one of these rude trespassers stepped through a rotted board and broke a leg. Who would get sued? Who's insurance rate would go up? Who would have to pay the extra property taxes on a wharf that was "well built" in the first place.

I once told a kayaker that she was going the wrong way through OUR lobsterpound. She flipped me off and then darn near got run over by a lobsterboat. I wish she would have, that would have taught her a lesson, but then she would have called the Marine Patrol and the lobsterman would have gotten in trouble. That's is the problem. No common sense.

By the way we don't mind sharing our property, but at the same time we are a business. We have between 5000-40000 dollars worth of lobster floating from our wharfs every night. We have to protect that investment. If you ask permission, we'll gladly let you walk around, take your pictures and buy a few fresh lobsters even. We do it all the time...just ask. If you don't want to do that, Maine has plenty of State Parks for you to visit.

There is two sides to every story, and a reason why someone is bringing this issue up.

crtreedude

Our second finca (which we just decided this week is going to be our home! - more on that later) has an absolutely wonderful mountain tropical river. Beautiful, prestine, lots of fish.

On a Saturday, there will be a bunch of kids fishing and playing in it. The first time I saw it I was with a worker and he said something like "I'll go tell them to leave"

My response was that they and their families have been using the river for far longer than I and the river is still wonderful. As long as they are respectful of the river - then no problem at all them being there. I am the newbie. Just because I could buy the land doesn't give me the right to change their way of life.

Besides, they might actually be able to teach me how to catch something!

So, how did I end up here anyway?

Paschale

Quote from: Deadwood on February 23, 2006, 04:41:38 PM

There is two sides to every story, and a reason why someone is bringing this issue up.

There's a fundamental difference between your concern over your man-made wharf, and the ability for the common man to take a stroll on an ocean or beachfront.  This decision in Michigan doesn't give anyone the right to climb over a dock or a wharf, simply to put their feet to the sand and walk along the shore that belongs to everyone.  The reason someone is bringing this issue up is nothing more than the arrogant hubris of a few wealthy landowners.  They just happen to not like seeing the footprints of those less fortunate than they in the sand they have the audacity to claim as their own.   >:(
Y'all can pronounce it "puh-SKOLLY"

SPIKER

in Ohio there are a few odd laws, but mainly the water is owned by the public and access to the water can't bedenied, but private docks warfs or breakwalls are owned by the person responceable for them...   there are tons of public breakwalls along lake erie and all wihch are great fiss magnets, but privit docks & such can be fished (say bass under the docks but) you can't set foot on the docks unless emergency...   rivers are similar in that you are aloud acccess to get into the river (fishing or wading canooing ect. and can travers along it's banks out to about 15' but are not aloud to do any damage to any trees, vegitation or the like this is where it can get sticky.  land owners can say that it is a pristene wild flower patch proof not required anylonger so you can't disturb those here it is a large fine for pickign themn  ::)

mark m
I'm looking for help all the shrinks have given up on me :o

Deadwood

Personally I think this whole issue boils down to those that do not have, wanting what those that do have. I realize no one owns the water, but when you are paying exhuberant amounts of money on property tax, you should get a little piece and quiet. Last year our property taxes went up 1400 dollars. That is not what we spent, that is what they went up in 365 days. That is outlandish.

To me this is no different then the hunters out there. I have nothing against hunters, but many are hypicrites. When they are younger and dont have any land, they complain that all the hunting areas are posted. Then after they make some money and go out and buy 50 acres or so, the first thing they do is put up No Hunting signs to keep it all to themselves. Like I said, hypocrites.

We don't hunt, and yet we allow hunting on our property because their owning property means you have certain rights and certain obligations. Allowing those who aren't as fortunate to have access to your property is just part of a civilized world. We of course do a lot of fishing, and we allow others to fish off our wharfs and docks as well. The only thing we ask is that YOU ask. Too bad 75% of the people don't do that.

That's okay too. If you don't want to ask, go ahead and buy some property on the water. My wife will gladly sell you her old house in Tenants Harbor. 250,000 dollars for a house and 3 acres, fair market value. Just don't complain about the price. That is what we have to pay property taxes on and we are not rich either. Why do you think we are being forced to sell it?

Thank You Sponsors!