good luck OAF, everyone else can suck it.. Eh?

[Trout Addict]

8 hours ago, Al Agnew said:

 It's the same with what you cited above...it exists but is ignored.

Like I said, I'm not a legal expert and it may be Ignored in the county court for recreational Ingress and egress, but is very much in affect in Federal Court when it comes to discharging pollution into the environment.

https://www.epa.gov/wotus-rule/appendix-d-legal-definition-traditional-navigable-waters

On 12/6/2017 at 7:59 PM, Al Agnew said:

 In the past, most landowners didn't care if you waded their creek.  But more and more, those landowners are being replaced by those who either want the creek to themselves, or are tired of the problems associated with idiots using their creek.  Any time you wade a small creek on private land, you are probably in jeopardy of running afoul with both the landowner and the law.

I agree. As a small land owner, I'm tired of the trash left behind, total disrespect of land and wildlife, theft and the liability incurred if a trespasser get injured. After 24+ years of ownership, I finally posted my land.

I really enjoyed your painting that I saw online the other night. It would be really hard for me to pick a favorite. Anyways, you are a very talented artist and I think we need a thread/topic of your artwork.

[Al Agnew]

Yeah, I think it's only considered to be valid for EPA purposes, not for recreational purposes.  At any rate, the reality is that you'll be laughed out of court if you try to use it as a justification for wading a creek in every state.  That's just the way it is.

I'm a river landowner, and I fully understand the frustration with the slobs and idiots who seem to be the majority these days.  But when you buy river frontage, you should buy it with the understanding that you'll have to put up with the public to some extent.  Creek land, like I said, is different, and you can post it to your heart's content and I wouldn't blame you for it.  But it's still sad.  I still have a few creeks that I've never had a problem fishing, but I fear that will have changed the next time I visit them.

Thanks for the kind words about my artwork.

[tjm]

There is always that SCOTUS decision way back in the 18xxs that is quoted in Elder and says that navigability of each  stream  has to be determined in a court. That case was about that Federal law that says all streams that can float a canoe are navigable. I'm guessing that EPA rule is in violation of the SCOTUS rule; but til some one fights it and takes it all the way EPA will go on collecting the fines. Does a Federal agency have the authority to over ride a US Supreme Court ruling?

It appears to me that in our court system a fact can be known by all but only becomes a fact legally when a court rules it a fact. Even if the case law would apply to a particular stream, it doesn't until a court rules that it does. Common knowledge that your 90 year old relative is daffy doesn't make her/him daffy, only a court can decide that. Common knowledge that steam boats pulled barges up the local spring branch doesn't make that spring branch navigable unless a court rules it so. Every case I have read and some other legal opinions all say the same thing. I don't think the laws are ignored, I just think no one has had the gumption to get court rulings on all these small streams.

[Old plug]

On December 8, 2017 at 5:01 PM, tjm said:

. Does a Federal agency have the authority to over ride a US Supreme Court ruling?

A solutly not of any  court much less the US suspreme court.