Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > The Adirondack Forum > Paddling in the Adirondacks
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-21-2018, 01:28 PM   #1
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,405
Judge Rules for Landowners In Paddling Case

Saw this today & just passing it along...

https://www.adirondackexplorer.org/s...-paddling-case
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2018, 03:16 PM   #2
dundee
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,601
It's a shame that this didn't become Forest Preserve years ago when there was a chance. It was bought by the Nature Conservancy, who offered it to NYS, but the state didn't have the money (or so they claim) and it was re-sold to Friends of Thayer Lake.

I've read that only in the ADK Park can a navigable waterway can be closed due to private property. Other properties in NY and the other 12 original colonies can be crossed legally, but the rich landowners in the Park had the law changed just for them. I think I was reading a book/article by Paul Jameson. I will have to find that article and double-check this.

I've also read that there is no title to running water. If one were to cross private property to get to a stream, then that would be considered trespassing, but to start on public water and enter private property w/o touching land may be another matter. I've never been to Shingle Shanty, so I can't say what's there. I wonder if this point was brought up?
dundee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2018, 09:55 PM   #3
Schultzz
Low Impact Skidder
 
Schultzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 830
In PA, a certain private property has no trespassing signs on a wire spanning a famous trout stream near Ligoneer. Of course it's owned by Mellon. A prime example of the Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.
__________________
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Will Drag You Down To Their Level And Beat You With Experience.
Schultzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2018, 08:08 AM   #4
madison
Member
 
madison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 432
The judge reversed his own ruling. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the money and influence of the rich landowners.
madison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2018, 10:06 AM   #5
Bob K
Member
 
Bob K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Saratoga County, NY
Posts: 544
Traverse ruling reasonable after being there

The recent ruling is disappointing but not unreasonable for this specific passage in my opinion. I did the LTL to Lila traverse in August 2017, including the disputed section of Shingle Shanty Brook downstream of Mud pond. There is a section of rapids and a footbridge (visible in Google Earth) over the brook by a building located on the private property. A primitive road approaches the brook from the South (all private property). The “portage trail” is perhaps 50-100 yards long, first crossing the rd and then in the trees where you lose sight of the brook for a bit.

As I passed thru, I did have a sense that I was disturbing someone else’s space – even though I saw no one. I had envisioned lining or carrying along the bank to skirt the rapids. There appears to be no way to remain in your boat to traverse this stretch, so referring to it as a “paddle” is not fully accurate.

I have also walked the .8 mile official portage trail and while it has become a bit overgrown, it is not a bad walk – no worse than other required carries on the traverse.

I originally contributed to Phil’s defense fund and continue to feel good that I did. However, since experiencing the area first hand, I have mixed feelings. Given the available portage trail on public land nearby, I do not think that forcing the landowner to allow passage for this specific section is a right that NY paddlers need to have. Anyone committed to this traverse can handle the .8 mile carry and recreation in that area is not being prevented.
Bob K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2018, 10:27 PM   #6
timberghost
I bear therefore I am
 
timberghost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 275
I could be wrong, but something tells me this isn't the end of it.
So 'the state' (DEC & AG) are now partly responsible for plaintiff's legal costs?
__________________
Feverishly avoiding "a steady stream of humanity, with a view that offers little more than butts, boots, elbows and backsides". (description quote from Joe Hackett)
timberghost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 02:03 PM   #7
WaterRings
Member
 
WaterRings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 62
Wahoo!!

I applaud the recent ruling. The rights of the landowner where finally upheld. It's too bad there wasn't a trial at the Supreme Court in the first place - all the appeals and all the money spent on lawyers might have been avoided. I guess we will wait and see if Brown etal. appeal. This case has been argued and discussed at length in another earlier thread so I will not expound further here.


WaterRings
WaterRings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 04:20 PM   #8
dundee
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberghost View Post
So 'the state' (DEC & AG) are now partly responsible for plaintiff's legal costs?
Yes, that sometimes happens. I remember a case in the 90's where the state had to pay legal fees in the case of a "disabled" man who was using motor vehicles on state land.
dundee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2019, 02:54 PM   #9
snapper
snapper
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: central NYS
Posts: 267
Did anyone notice DEC's take on things. There was a link on an "Adirondack Explorer" page that said DEC is sticking with their thoughts on the legality of passing through the Brandeth property. It will be interesting to see where this leads; although to my way of thinking, regardless of your own personal stance, this should be over and done. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

That's all for now. Take care and until next time....be well.

snapper

PS - Here's the link: https://www.adirondackexplorer.org/e...addling-rights
snapper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2019, 04:44 PM   #10
dundee
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,601
The state could always *BUY* that corner of the property!
dundee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2019, 05:03 PM   #11
timberghost
I bear therefore I am
 
timberghost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by dundee View Post
The state could always *BUY* that corner of the property!
Only if the seller is willing to sell for what the state would consider "fair market value" (otherwise it would be a 'taking' and NYS would have hard time justifying eminent domain)

Wasn't there a 'roadblock' when TNC held the land? IIRC, something to do with Brendreth's exclusive recreational rights (which TNC didn't acquire and the family didn't want to give up)
__________________
Feverishly avoiding "a steady stream of humanity, with a view that offers little more than butts, boots, elbows and backsides". (description quote from Joe Hackett)
timberghost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2019, 08:05 AM   #12
dundee
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,601
Yes, a willing seller. IDK about rec rights, but I do remember NY didn't have the money to buy from TNC. IIRC, TNC bought the property from Brandreth, NY couldn't/wouldn't buy it and TNC then sold to Friends of Thayer Lake.
dundee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2019, 12:31 PM   #13
WaterRings
Member
 
WaterRings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 62
Because the Supreme Court in NYS is the States lowest court rulings at that level carry the lowest weight when cited in other cases. Rulings from the Appellate Division or Court of Appeals are better and that may be the reason the DEC is not changing their policy. We will have to wait to see if it is appealed.
WaterRings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2019, 10:43 PM   #14
timberghost
I bear therefore I am
 
timberghost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 275
Surprise! (not)
It's not over...
https://www.adirondackexplorer.org/s...appeal-process

Quote:
Originally Posted by timberghost View Post
So 'the state' (DEC & AG) are now partly responsible for plaintiff's legal costs?
Curiouser and curiouser:
"He was accused by the landowners of trespassing, though the ruling against him made no such finding"

"...awarded them some legal costs.
Caffry said those total some $2,538."
__________________
Feverishly avoiding "a steady stream of humanity, with a view that offers little more than butts, boots, elbows and backsides". (description quote from Joe Hackett)
timberghost is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.