http://trib.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_21dddbd1-f63e-54ea-bda9-6eb1326bf46e.html
In case you aren’t familiar… Current land owners are trying to revoke the easement left by the original owners 50 years ago by stating that you can only fish from the high water mark to 100’ away from the river. Lusby access point is a popular access point for hunters, fisherman and boats putting in and taking out.
Paul
Unless they are just plain MEAN, i could possibly , at least half-heartedly, side with the new owners. The designation “PUBLIC ACCESS” conjurs up images of junk all over the place. Not all users of so designated access points are slobs but I have seen a few that led me to that conclusion. I would like to see plaintiffs entire argument regarding this case.
Mark
PS: BUT covenants of this type are meant to survive in perpetuity and any attempt to rescind same is NORTH of ( almost) impossible.
I agree about litter issues, and wish that it would be fixed. Unfortunately, if the plaintiffs win you’re going to need to change your signature as it will invalidate many other great access areas, including closing down some of the best areas on the grey reef for fishing opportunities.
Paul
If you need a good example of what landowners can do to fishermen’s access, take a look at the law Utah just passed, restriciting access to waters that have been accessible to the public for decades. Utah fishermen and recreators ain’t happy.
Wyoming has always had some of the most restrictive laws. As the ground beneath the rivers here is owned by the landowner. So you can’t anchor, wade, etc. on private land.
Shame about Utah’s law though. Just last year they got their new law that opened up all the rivers to them when their state supreme court blew their law out of the water! HAH
Paul