Dale's boat ramp closes over littering issue

Kudos to Dale for putting his foot down.

Ms Manners wrote:

Kudos to Dale for putting his foot down.

If this is true. Ill bet a dollar against a donut that he opens it up for a fee. Nothing is free anymore. Greedy people have to survive too.

I don't blame him. I would get tired of picking up after nasty people too. People just don't care anymore.

Tyrone Shoelaces wrote:

<quoted text> If this is true. Ill bet a dollar against a donut that he opens it up for a fee. Nothing is free anymore. Greedy people have to survive too.

That would be his right and it doesn't make him greedy!

Free river access is no one's God given right.

lucidity wrote:

Free river access is no one's God given right.

Wrong answer. Access to water is a "God" given right, or a natural rights within the confines of the US Constitution.

Read the law.

Sorry, but I disagree. Access to the river via my property is not your privilege. I would also charge if I were him. And anybody that would trash another's property is trash themselves.

No one has the right to litter on anyone else's property.

belmontboy wrote:

Sorry, but I disagree. Access to the river via my property is not your privilege. I would also charge if I were him. And anybody that would trash another's property is trash themselves.

It really isn't a debatable point unless in a court of law.

Water rights are very well-defined in our rule of laws, we were after all an agrarian society before we were a consumer culture.

Private property abutting public water ways have unique considerations.

I agree with his intent and I would think it is enforceable but a blanket assertion of property rights being supreme to other considerations is a stretch with the State having public ways rights regardless of ownership.

While Dale may have the right to limit access across his land, does he really have the right to charge or profit for "letting" the public use public land? Yes, if the boat landing were his land, it would be no question he does. But, the boat landing is not his land; it belongs to no one, which should by default make it public domain, not his personal property.

Then what is he really charging for? The right to cross his land? Does this not make him little more than a troll with a toll bridge?

The land where the boat landing is located is not his and consequently not his responsibility to clean it up. If it's not his land, he should not be allowed to "sell" access to that land. Case closed!

Dang, I should have been an attorney, lol!

Dale is absolutely right.

Again, if he wants to block access to the boat ramp that is his right. I disagree that he has the right to charge others to use land that he admittedly does not own. I think that would make him only half right, lol!

Pirates Bounty wrote:

Again, if he wants to block access to the boat ramp that is his right. I disagree that he has the right to charge others to use land that he admittedly does not own. I think that would make him only half right, lol!

But he built the ramp, so that gets a little murky.

There are laws about land around water - both deposited and that lost to erosion. I feel like if he were to pursue it, he could probably get the land in his name. The whole situation about the twilight zone land is just odd!

I guess he could charge for access across his land to get to the entry and still be within his rights.

Prescriptive Easement
A prescriptive easement is a right-of-way over another person’s land that is established
through adverse possession. The easement can be in favor of an individual or the public
generally. In order to establish the existence of a prescriptive easement, the claimant must
demonstrate his or her adverse use of the property for an uninterrupted period of 20 years.
During that period the use must have been open and notorious and relatively unchanged over
time. The claimant bears the burden of proving each of these elements.
What constitutes evidence of a prescriptive easement? In Moody v. White, a Texas
case, the open and notorious use of a private portion of the beach was established by testimony
of, among others, fishermen, ferryboat operators, law enforcement officials, and residents.
These witnesses established that the public had used the beach for fishing, boating, and
swimming throughout the statutory period. The court concluded that “[t]he public’s use of the
beach for many years was so open, visible and notorious that the appellants must have
recognized the people’s right to the beach.”

PreBoomer wrote:

Prescriptive Easement
A prescriptive easement is a right-of-way over another person’s land that is established
through adverse possession. The easement can be in favor of an individual or the public
generally. In order to establish the existence of a prescriptive easement, the claimant must
demonstrate his or her adverse use of the property for an uninterrupted period of 20 years.
During that period the use must have been open and notorious and relatively unchanged over
time. The claimant bears the burden of proving each of these elements.
What constitutes evidence of a prescriptive easement? In Moody v. White, a Texas
case, the open and notorious use of a private portion of the beach was established by testimony
of, among others, fishermen, ferryboat operators, law enforcement officials, and residents.
These witnesses established that the public had used the beach for fishing, boating, and
swimming throughout the statutory period. The court concluded that “[t]he public’s use of the
beach for many years was so open, visible and notorious that the appellants must have
recognized the people’s right to the beach.”

Thy Pig Path Law.

This reminds me of the situation with the guy who blocked the road to the Whitewater Center. It was his land and he blocked the road. He didn't try to charge people to pass by, but maybe he could have? What if someone falls on the boat ramp that Dale built and dies? Does he not bear the liability if he has charged them to use it? Are they not all then his customers? If a customer falls in the grocery store and dies, guess who gets sued?

I sure wouldn't want that liability!

The whole thing is a big mess if you ask me.

Overall, it's pretty sad that some people are so ignorant and irresponsible that they can't cart their own garbage...
The fact that he did build the ramp is an interesting twist, even though no one "owns" the actual land it's on...reminiscent of that old adage: possession is 9/10ths of the law! And he certainly possesses the land surrounding the access.
The question about liability is interesting...I could see his property owners insurance balking since the land isn't titled to anyone...perhaps it would fall to whatever municipality the overall area does fall into? The story notes the area isn't actually in Belmont's borders...

If the land is deemed as Dale's, then he should be required to pay county tax on it.

He does have a right to stop thru traffic on his property til a court says differently.

It sounds as if he has taken his own "right of use" on land that DOESN"T BELONG TO HIM, if he did build a boat dock on it.

In essence, he has done the same trespassing and building on property that is not his.

The kettle calling the pot black.

Maybe you tards should do your homework before coming on here making asses of ones self..Dale owns all that land the boat landings on..

Happy Father's Day. The access is open today. Go git yer litter on.