Originally posted by fisher39
View Post
I guess it's all in perspective. Just as an example, those who were considered "Patriots" by Colonial Americans would by todays standards be called "Terrorists". I'm sure that there was a similar label applied in Revolutionary times.
It's clear that I am on the side that sees Shanty Brook as a public waterway, and I have made clear why i think it is so.
The AG's office had done the same as have the owners of the property. Each has stated their opinion and a preliminary explanation of what they feels back it.
Unfortunately today people seem to be uunable to accept any facts pertaining to opinions other then there own as fact. So they have to stoop to villifying the opposite party rather then being able to state their side of the case with some kind of proof to back them up.
Perhaps that is why there is such a need for the courts today. It seems to me that this has all been brought about because the owners are unwilling to accept any decision other then the one that is self serving.
One look at the history of this particular case makes that evident to anyone usig common sense and trying to be unobjective.
They sought an opinion from the DEC and got one. It was contrary to the result they wanted.
They were asked to try something on a trial basis to see if was viable, and possibly compromise. They chose not to.
In spite of being told that the DEC offered the opinion that the waters met the criteria for navigable-in-fact and that public access was illegal, they called the state police and tried to get the paddler arrested for trespassing.
In spite of a request by the DEC to remove the cable, posted signs and cameras to allow public access they refused to.
In spite of the fact that the DEC, the agency charged with classifying the streams and enforcing the rules, stating that paddlers could legally paddle the stream, they brought a suit against the paddler.
So, at every turn, the owners have resisted and had contempt for the decisions and the requests of the DEC.
The camera and the lawsuit are intimidation tactics.
The posted signs and the cable indicate contempt for the rulings of a state agency and an indication that they are somehow exempt from the laws.
Because of the apparent contempt of the rulings by the DEC the AG's office really has all the reason in the world to get involved in the case.
So, I don't see how the stating of the facts is all of the things you accuse the AG's office of doing.
Finally I'm also curious. Since the DEC is responsible for enforcement of whatever rules, regulations or laws relating to the Adirondacks, and since their testimony as to whether the streams meet the navigable-in-fact criteria (Which is really what is at the root of all this), what "expert" witness could the owners bring in with the qualifications to dispute the decision of the DEC?
Hawk
Comment