View Single Post
Old 02-21-2015, 03:04 AM   #63
DSettahr's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,564
Originally Posted by Glenn MacGrady View Post
My main argument and policy point of view is this:

Do we really want a system of property rights law that divests private landowners of their exclusive rights to a two mile shallow stream, even though there is virtually no evidence that anyone ever used the shallow stream as a "highway" for practical commerce, travel or even recreation:

-- when the US conveyed the surrounding lands to the state 227 years ago; or

-- when the state conveyed the surrounding lands into private ownership 164 years ago; or even

-- at any time prior to the State's acquisition of adjacent private lands about 17 years ago; and

-- where there is a publicly-maintained portage trail around the shallow stream,

just because, now that there are adjacent public lands with seasonal public access roads, a very small percentage of the recreational paddling community, who, by the very fact that they are on the Lila Traverse, evidence a liking for multiple portage canoe trips, want a perpetual legal right to paddle the short shallow stream instead of taking one other available public portage around it?
My understanding is that the private property owners used the waterway in question to facilitate the transportation of equipment necessary for the construction of camps on their property, and that such use falls under the definition of "commercial use." I have no idea if this is correct or not. Perhaps someone could clarify this for me?
DSettahr is offline   Reply With Quote