You may be correct
that I don’t understand your point. I suspect that there are people posting things here on this topic that may be using terms of art very loosely and who may not be 100% solid on the law or the definition of the terms they are using. I suspect this is causing confusion. Certainly it is in my mind. Just a thought.
I doubt the term meandering river is defined as you infer from the posts.
Basically - my BS meter is in the red zone on this thread. :-).
Read the article that is provided
– Last Updated: Aug-17-14 6:55 PM EST –
The fact that you "doubt" that my interpretation is as stated shows you are simply guessing about what I was talking about. Why make up your mind that I or the person I replied to must be mistaken about this, just based on a guess? Here's a portion of the text that I was referring to:
"When the surveyors reached the bank of a river or stream, if they were able to cross the stream without walking up and down the shoreline to find a shallow place to cross, these streams were called non-meandering streams. So therefore they did not have to meander up and down the stream bank to cross. In the state of Iowa most of the rivers or streams are classified as non-meandering streams."
You can read plenty more of this same mistaken use of the term "meandering" in the article to which the guy I replied posted the link. Even though the article is pretty poorly written, it looks to be legitimate. This is why I say that if this type of river designation is really part of Iowa law, the terminology is a joke.
Accurate?
That article I linked to was the first time I’d ever heard an explanation of why they use the term meandering and non-meandering in Iowa. I have no idea if that’s really where it came from or not but it does seem a bit silly. It does, however, explain the water use differences between the two. At least for Iowa.
Alan
Sorry Eric
– Last Updated: Aug-17-14 9:25 PM EST –
After working for more than 40 years with legislatures and statutes there is no logic to it. Only power.
A state law can define a term or word to mean anything it wants. All they have to include in the law is a definition. It usually reads something like: for the purpose of this chapter the word meander means anything the hell we want it to mean, and we don't care what the word meander means to the rest of the English speaking world.
Note: this is a general statement regarding how legislatures often define terms in law. I have not done any research to determine the meaning of meandering or non-meandering stream in the Iowa Code, so I don't know if these terms are defined in relevant Iowa statutes.
Colorado law…
is exactly like that. Technically, the landowner owns everything but the water and can get you arrested for trespass if you touch the bottom, and there are plenty of arsehole landowners who will do exactly that. Floaters have very few rights in Colorado or Wyoming.
And that federal law that was talked about above…IF YOU ATTEMPT TO TELL A LANDOWNER OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN COLORADO THAT YOU’RE GOING BY THE FEDERAL LAW, THEY’LL SIMPLY LAUGH WHILE ARRESTING AND PROSECUTING YOU. YOU CANNOT GO BY THAT LAW IN ANY STATE, BECAUSE THE STATE FEELS THAT THEIR LAWS ARE THE ONLY APPLICABLE ONES, AND YOU’D HAVE TO TAKE IT TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT BEFORE YOU HAD A CHANCE OF PREVAILING IN COURT.
I capitalized all that above because every time that federal law is quoted, it does a tremendous disservice to anybody reading it, because is simply doesn’t apply in the real world. Period.
Right!
My reply was in no way meant as criticism of you or your effort to shed some light on the variability of a person’s right to travel by river. I can’t help but think if the early surveyors really did classify rivers in that way, it might have come about when one person had just enough familiarity with the word to misuse it in “official context”, making it the norm for everyone in that government department forever more.
don’t touch bottom
and kill 'em with kindness.
Lawyers, the super rich & politicians
Too much power, too much money = corruption.
if only we could vote
Unfortunately
– Last Updated: Aug-18-14 7:20 PM EST –
Unfortunately, the American voter does NOT have a vote when the time come to vote yea or nay on the passage of a federal law.
You think paddlers voted yea for a law that states they can't touch the bottom of a river? NOT! They didn't vote; they didn't have a vote.
The law was formulated by lawyers, who were paid by the super rich, and corporations. Politicians voted the way they were told to vote, and then they got paid
How did you vote for Obama care? Yea or nay?
Neither; you didn't have a vote.
BOB
You are coorect -
I have no clue what you are trying to say.
I guess I will let you all talk amongst yourselves and stay out of this one. It is clearly way over my head.
So, …
– Last Updated: Aug-18-14 11:50 PM EST –
... what you are telling me is that you didn't know that the rest of the world refers to "meandering" as the crooked path of low-gradient rivers, and the process by which the riverbed changes location over long periods of time? Seriously? I think you are joking, but whatever.
Was Told About This…
– Last Updated: Aug-19-14 10:48 AM EST –
....when we lived in CO for a short amount of time. That was one of a few factors in our decision not to stay and why we have no desire to return to that state. Things may not be perfect on our MO rivers, but I have ample opportunity to paddle without worries.
As for Bob and Vic's thoughts, I concur. I head to the local precinct every time it's open, but feel my vote means little anymore since I don't "Show them the money."
first, it’s a state law
The federal law permits passage of all navigable waterbodies.
Secondly, I’m not a defeatist and I’m old enough to remember what pogo said.
Federal law…
– Last Updated: Aug-19-14 2:42 PM EST –
Federal law permits passage.
State law does not permit touching river bottom.
Who wins, who loses; that's my concern.
I can't remember ever going canoeing when I did not, at some time, touch the river bottom. In Colorado I'd have broken state law thousands of times; I'd be a career criminal.
Obviously the people of Colorado are the defeatists; allowing such a bogus law to be passed. Either they did not vote, or purposefully shot themselves in the foot & voted yes, so they could be arrested if they touched a river bottom.
I'd bet 99% of Colorado residents are NOT riverway land owners.
What I suppose to be a miniscule percentage of riverway land owners(whose purpose the law serves)got what they wanted.
I'm sure it just worked out that way naturally without any manipulation on the part of the lawyers, politicians, or the super rich. NOT!
Much the same way as the outcome of the Sand Creek Massacre in Colorado, the Mountain Meadows Massacre in Utah, and the Johnson County War in Wyoming worked out "naturally". Nothing to do with power or control.........
Show me the money!
BOB
Persuasive
Many times corporations and the wealthy are very good at persuading the lower echelons to take up their cause by convincing them what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and perhaps sometimes it is. The latest example I can think of was the recent 2% debacle when tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans were due to expire. The most vehement arguments I heard for letting the tax cuts stay was from middle income people who would be unaffected by letting the taxes revert back to “normal” levels. Somehow the wealthy were once again able to convince the lower classes to fight their wars for them.
I once heard a comparison about the way Americans and British view wealthy people. In general Americans are more sympathetic to the wealthy because, while the chances of a lower class child becoming filthy rich are about the same in both countries, Americans are more optimistic that it will happen to them. So while they’re poor today they may be rich tomorrow and want those benefits in place when they get there.
Alan
now I’d agree with that
…and I see one person here voted with their feet and no longer pays taxes in the State of CO.
just go
– Last Updated: Aug-19-14 6:15 PM EST –
I say just go and don't worry about being arrested because your paddle touched the bottom of the river. Do police really have time to chase that kind of nonsense?
"The sign had two sides. One side said STAY OUT. The other side didn't say anything and that is the side for me!"
Coming from the side of a landowner
on a river, I can understand ‘some’ of the reasons for not wanting folks on specific bodies of water.
Many “want to be” fishing people and recreational boaters, tend to dump their trash in the river or when something goes overboard just leave it there. At times these same slobs live on the same waterway. Some will become intoxicated, others not, but their language is LOUD, and/or profane (as if they have a limited knowledge of verbs and adjectives among others) ultimately showing they failed English classes. BTW every word is not limited to four letters.
I saw a sign one time that stated, “Profanity is an ignorant mind trying to express itself forcibly.” Hey! Just saying.
Others will walk into bushes, on owners property, to urinate or take a dump. Some tubers/water mattress floaters, when their item deflates, just leave them in the water to hang up in strainers or along the shoreline, then hop on a friends floatie and go on their merry way.
Unfortunately this tends to send a message that all rec water users are irresponsible, which is far from the truth.
That said, one bad apple spoils a trip/water use for the whole bunch.
Another river landowner here…
in fact, I own a house on a river in Montana and a nice piece of land on a river in Missouri. I bought both with my eyes open, KNOWING I’d have to deal with river users, some of which are the bad apples. I don’t use the bad apples’ behavior to call for making my rivers private. It’s simply the price you pay for owning river frontage, or should be.
Having said that, I’ve got to say that the amount of bad behavior varies from state to state and river to river. The river in Montana gets a LOT of use, both by guided and unguided anglers and recreational floaters, yet everybody seems to be pretty well behaved and I’ve had no problems whatsoever in four years, even though on summer weekends I can watch hundreds of boats of various kinds going by the house. My land in Missouri is a little remote on a little floated river (way too low in the summer), but I know that there is far greater percentage of river dorks in Missouri than there seems to be in Montana.
By the way, I bought the place in Montana in part because of their enlightened river access law. That river ain’t the only one I use in Montana and I love the lack of restrictions on normal river use there, compared to Colorado or Wyoming.