good advice to heed
Start with the regulatory agency.
Easier 2 ask forgiveness than permission
Up where I come from if you had to ask permission to clear a tree from a waterway or a trail it would never get done in your lifetime. The accepted local practice was to cut just enough to make your way through and keep your mouth shut about what you did. A 30" Bahco bow saw will quietly cut through 8-10" of wood without much fuss.
What rivers are you talking of?
We routinely cut the Ossipee in Western Maine with no hassle. IF we didn’t to make it safe no one would do it.
We also cut when a pine falls into the lake blocking access or making access unsafe, even though the water is State owned.
Generally Maine is a pretty common sense state. Did you know that unless the land is posted it is legal to cross it to get to a body of water?
I think I now understand
the fishing community’s and the preservationist community’s general distrust of the paddling community.
I often think of the fishing community…
as I’m loading up my boat with all the trash they left behind.
Two weeks ago prior to the big snowstorm
the trees were not in the river. Now they are. So we should leave them?
Lets put it a little differently. Two weeks ago trees were not all over the road. Because they can provide good cover for wildlife we should leave them. Now really does that make any sense at all?
Next time you have a hurricane… leave everything where it lies. Big snows have the same effect.
Related to that, …
– Last Updated: Nov-12-14 2:03 PM EST –
... I saw a presentation which referred to the results of a study conducted on certain lakes in northern Wisconsin. They found that the modern style of shoreline "improvement" on cottage properties creates a near-desert environment, compared to what's the case if even a few dead trees are left in the water. Years ago, the owners of weekend cabins would typically install a dock but not make any changes to the shoreline. Modern cabin owners turn the property into a mowed-grass lawn, and they want the shoreline to be absolutely manicured, but that natural shoreline cover is crucial to the health of the lake.
By the way, I'm not speaking out against clearing a path on a river, just reinforcing the notion that large-scale "cleaning" is a bad thing.
gee. did I say that?
– Last Updated: Nov-12-14 2:35 PM EST –
I can't remember. It was such a long post. Let's go back and check:
"I think I now understand the fishing community's and the preservationist community's general distrust of the paddling community."
Nope, I guess I actually didn't. Nor did I before that, when I answered the original question by saying it would be best to check with either the regulatory agency, or to check with the property owner.
So, which of those two messages do you have a problem with?
Look at the first response after I posted my comment about the fishing community. Now tell me this guy has any understanding of what he's doing when he advocates cutting now and asking for forgiveness later. Then, follow the thread upstream to see where someone else said they had never considered the habitat benefits of downed or hanging limbs. So, reading both of those posts, any other user of the river should be assured that all paddlers know the consequences of clearing downfall without permission. Right?
I could give you example after example of how paddler ignorance has damaged fishing habitat. Or how fisherman ignorance has daamaged fish habitat. But if I did, I'd ask you to sign a disclaimer first to not take it as a personal insult. Because all I am saying is that people ought to think about the consequences of their actions beyond the personal benefit to them and their perceived "rights".
Is this about flooding and property damage, or do think you're entitled to trespass and/or ignore regulatory agencies to ensure your recreational use of a publicly owned resource? You didn't say that? then I'm not sure what your objection is.
I'm not familiar with how things are in Maine, but where I live, rivers serve other functions besides paddling or even recreation.
I hate it when
groups that should be aligned with one another start fighting.
As a river fisherman…
I think it all boils down to restraint, which means doing the absolutely least amount of cutting necessary. Here in Missouri, the canoe rental people do most of the cutting so that their renters can make it down the rivers without complaining too much about having to drag over or around trees or almost drowning when they get swept into a tree, but they only cut passageways around the tree if it’s all the way across the river, or occasionally they’ll cut out a particularly dangerous strainer.
Downed trees ARE very important habitat for various fish and other organisms, so definitely most of them should be left in the river. And I have a deep-seated aversion to cutting them all out in the interest of “safety”. A wild river shouldn’t be like a ride at Disneyland, and should have some natural difficulties. But if there are far more downed trees than you’d normally find, due to some kind of storm going through, then cutting out enough of them to make the river barely passable seems to me to be okay.
And by the way, clearing the channel to reduce flooding isn’t necessarily a good idea, either. It only channels the flood water downstream faster and it piles up on some other poor sucker’s property, and in the meantime the much faster current often causes more bank erosion. A moderate amount of downed trees is far better for the river than a completely cleared channel.
I just don’t understand where
the fishermen came in. Honestly I don’t know which stream is being referred to. We have a lot of different sorts of river systems in the US and what applies to one doesn’t to another.
Trees down often here occur because of heavy snow or ice jams in the spring… There are not many flood plains.
I understand that trees form fish habitat but in Maine there is no shortage of trees in the river that don’t impede navigation.
Moreover not knowing what river is involved the stream might not be used for fishing aside from at road crossings which are sometimes few and miles apart.
Anyway I would like to know what IF&W said.
why is that surprising to you?
– Last Updated: Nov-13-14 11:40 AM EST –
I'm being sincere: Unless you're not a habitat expert, how would you know what downfall means for fish habitat? And FWIW I really was getting at fish habitat.
I'm surprised that anyone thinks they should know all of this.
The guy asked a general question about a specific river. He was told to check with property owners before cutting on private property, and with a regulatory agency presuming there is one. What surprises me is that such a reasonable suggestion is met with such disagreement. Perhaps the stream isn't a high quality habitat and you can cut to your heart's content. Who do you think might be able to answer that question? The regulatory agency.
I'm sorry, I know you didn't do this, but flippant responses to questions such as this indicate to me that some people are completely unaware of their impacts. And it's just weird to me that some people are so conflict-averse they'd rather trespass or risk breaking a law, than pick up a phone or ring a doorbell.
My 2 cents worth…
I don’t knowingly trespass on private property.
I don’t take saws, axes, chainsaws, etc with me when I go paddling. Consequently, I don’t do any cutting of trees, either on the river bank or in the river.
I go over, under, or around the obstacles I encounter. Whatever is there is still going to be there after I’ve moved on downstream.
I do try to warn paddlers in my group of what I think may be a hazard to their safety, “before” they encounter the hazard.
One concern I have is some (wanna be Paul Bunyan) who doesn’t know what they’re doing; making the situation worse than it was before they started.
BOB
law library
find your local law library, University, State College, Court House…with a Westlaw computer connection.
Westlaw uses a natural language search process. You can search your location for navigable rivers statutes and legal precedents.
The major canoe club has a legal eagle.
Navigable rivers
This one is simple. Show respect for landowners and clear the trees when you can. No self-respecting LEO or game warden is going to give you a hard time about removing a safety hazard.
problem
is that no LEO or anyone else is going to give an average citizen the power to decide on their own what exactly constitutes a safety hazard…and allow them to just go and cut on any river at their whim…the landowners own the wood…respect. Get permission. don’t end up in court because of the internet and people that wish they controlled that which they don’t. There are laws for a reason…if in fact, this is a safety issue, then I’m sure the authorized people should be made aware and insured people will deal with it…you risk an awful lot by being a solo cutter on others property with no authorization and a saw.
you’re advocating criminal activity
I’m not sure you understand that you don’t actually have the right to make a river more navigable.
Habitat did not need to be added to
immensely. The fishing was probably as good as it gets before.
Not advocating removal of more than is necessary to get the formerly navigable stream navigable again
Yes I majored in biology. Yes I do live in the area of the streams involved though it was a fairly big area of mid and Eastern Maine hit by the snow ( the storm yesterday was nothing in comparison).
The news cast last night thanked those that had cleared debris on their own without waiting for the State or the towns to haul it away; thereby saving money and labour that currently needs to be doing other things.
I’m not being flip. If around here a tree comes down you clear it. There is no they… as in “they clear it”. Of course its prudent to ask the landowner as many heat by wood. This years down pile could be next years fuel for said landowner.
And I am certainly not advocating clearcutting as that is uncalled for.
interesting article that presents both sides of the argument…
http://www.krisweb.com/krissheepscot/krisdb/html/krisweb/watershed/riparian_lwd.htm
Maine fisheries are being decimated by ocean warming… so the potential effect of trees down would seem to be less significant.
ok. ask permission from property owners
– Last Updated: Nov-14-14 4:52 PM EST –
and check with regulatory agencies. So now we agree. And those really aren't tall tasks. But fisheries being decimated by ocean warming should indicate a greater need to protect our fisheries, don't you think?
It just bothers me to see some yahoo say "better to ask for forgiveness than permission" or "I'll give them the branch if they want it". People get protective of their property and will do plenty to manifest that. Not to defend it but it can get dangerous. Also, imagine how you'd feel if you weren't a boater, your mind was elsewhere and some stranger showed up on your property with a chainsaw.
Same yahoo decides for himself what's clearing and what isn't, takes a little more latitude and removes something that can't be instantly replaced.
The reg agencies are relatively easy; around here, unless there's a stakeholder like a watershed organization, they're all too happy to tell you when you can cut.
What I see . . .
What I see are some extreme positions about not touching anything without permission. And what I still see is a lot of grey area, a lot of stuff that depends on context and common sense, and the need for some common sense legislation.
If a tree is blocking a navigable waterway, the landowner should have a very limited time in which to remove the tree. After that, the landowner should forfeit any claim to that tree. Otherwise, few rivers here in Maine would remain navigable.
I could be wrong, but I believe that in Maine that boaters have access to the shoreline of rivers up to the mean high water mark.
I agree that traipsing across someone’s property with a chainsaw without permission would offend just about any resident landowner. On the other hand, using a loppers to clear out downed branches, while never leaving your canoe, and while on a river bordered by a timber company land would, I hope,be viewed by just about anyone as a common sense approach. And then, there is still all that grey area in between.