|
Post by barryl on Sept 10, 2009 21:51:49 GMT -5
As I have been reminded many times in the past' the laws of right of way are gray at best and costly to pursue. (be careful in picking your battles). The best approach is "More flies are attracted to honey than to vinegar" in other words let's first try to make the land owner our friend and partner in this venture, no land owner wants to think he has no control over his own land. One other thing to consider is the increased fishing presser on that stretch of the river.
|
|
|
Post by reelteacher on Sept 10, 2009 21:57:27 GMT -5
Good Attitude Pilot! That's the spirit! Trent, Thank you for posting that information for all of us to see and be aware of. Many people are unsure of that law. Anywhere a public road crosses a navigatable stream or river, anglers and canoeists have a legal right to access the water. It may be a good idea to print that information and keep it in your car, to show landowners who are confrontational.
|
|
|
Post by reelteacher on Sept 10, 2009 22:00:09 GMT -5
I agree Barry, we need to contact the landowner and see what he wants, before we force our will on his.
|
|
|
Post by barryl on Sept 10, 2009 22:08:31 GMT -5
Be aware that not all law enforcement will abide by right of way laws over the land owner (you may be in the right but at the wrong time) I know of one bridge crossing on the Wildcat near Cutler where the land owner will have you arrested first and ask questions later. It's hard to get your gear back after the fact.
|
|
|
Post by trent on Sept 11, 2009 7:55:14 GMT -5
I'm certainly not advocating forcing our will on anyone and have no interest in confrontation (just ask my wife!).
Another blurb from that site that I didn't post pertained to what to do if there is a confrontation with a land owner. Basically it said you should peacefully leave the stream and then pursue some kind of compromise with the land owner through education at a later time. A last resort would be legal action.
I like Barry's quote about being right at the wrong time.
Let's see what the board suggests as far as a nice "honey filled" approach.
|
|
|
Post by reelteacher on Sept 11, 2009 15:36:22 GMT -5
Honey filled is a sweet way of putting it. I'm definitely not in favor of confrontation, I would be the first to leave peacefully, if someone approached me. Barry, you are right, there are places that are completely private. The Wildcat Creek is designated a non-navigable river, and therefore the landowner owns the stream bottom as well. It is entirely illegal to wade that stream anywhere, unless you have landowner permission, or you are within the boundaries of a public park. The landowner of whom you are speaking has every right to have you arrested for trespassing. You can find a list of all navigable streams in Indiana by waterway and by county by going to this website: www.in.gov/nrc/2390.htmIf the waterway is non-navigable, you are trespassing in the state of Indiana, despite a national waterway rights law. And you can be arrested. The Tippecanoe River is designated as navigable in Carroll, White and Tippecanoe Counties. Any waterway designated as a Navigable stream or river, you may access from a public road bridge crossing such waterway, and wade as long as you stay between the high water mark. Keep your feet wet and you are fine. But again, a letter is a good idea and I think it will help our P.R. as well.
|
|
|
Post by rstaight on Sept 11, 2009 20:22:57 GMT -5
Here is something to stir the pot on the Wildcat. Everyone says it is non-navigable, but yet we have public access for canoeing (navigable). We can't wade to fish it (non-navigable). You can not have a stream navigable for one purpose and non-navigable for another because of the inherient contradiction of the statement. I believe the Supreme Court has upheld this though I may be confusing it with another ruling.
This whole mess comes down to education. Not just of the land owners but of government officals as well.
If we want to pursue an access at Bicycle Bridge, it is good to talk to the land owners if for no other reason than to stop any possible problems.
|
|
|
Post by barryl on Oct 3, 2009 7:26:55 GMT -5
This tread has been cooling off for a while but we need to keep it going as a good winter project. Sorry to respond so late but Trent I'd be willing to draft a letter for the boards approval. I would like to see this develop for use by next season.
|
|
|
Post by trent on Oct 4, 2009 9:23:14 GMT -5
I was kind of under the impression that the board needed to or was going to throw this around. I don't know that they have, but it should probably get on the next agenda if we wanted to do something with it. I don't want to usurp the appropriate protocol or anything. I'm not on the board, but would be happy to help with a letter as well.
|
|
|
Post by barryl on Oct 4, 2009 19:06:16 GMT -5
On Tuesday I am going to be working in Delphi I'll stop by the court house and verify our information as well as check on the easement.
|
|
|
Post by barryl on Oct 7, 2009 6:52:46 GMT -5
It's always a good idea to do a little leg work. Here is a case of land owner, as apposed to land user.
My research at the Carroll County court house has brought to light new information in our quest.
The land owner is F. (Francis) Shullbritton 11950W 725N Monticello In 47960 574-965-2710
There is an easement that was granted by title revision in 2000 (the year the new bridge was built) however it is a county easement not a state. And its questionable as to it's designated use. Jay is going to try to get more information from the offices of Barry Emerson Att. who wrote the revision. The easement may be for drainage only, or may not be wide enough to include the access point we are looking at. In either case we now have the correct land owner.
|
|
|
Post by krebsie on Oct 7, 2009 8:18:14 GMT -5
Good work Barry Lawson PI
|
|
|
Post by trent on Oct 7, 2009 14:58:24 GMT -5
The plot thickens...
So, is the name you had originally a lessee? In the case of property rights as pertains to posting land or granting access, etc., who has those rights when the land is leased. Do they transfer to the lessee or remain with the land owner?
|
|
|
Post by barryl on Oct 8, 2009 10:26:40 GMT -5
That is a very good question. I'm under the impression the first name is probably a cash renter for agricultural use of the land. Some contracts include full use of the land some don't. In either case the title owner should have the final say.
|
|