A loss for the PTD

[TOGIE]

I agree. It is fascinating, however, to observe the normally “strict constructionist” Hunt Talk crowd seem to take such a dynamic view of the Public Trust Doctrine on this particular issue.

i don't see it that way. nor do i think as many of us are as "strict constructionist" as you like to believe or claim. internet disagreements reveal little about peoples true nuanced beliefs.

and maybe it's because i don't care about this issue. maybe it's because navigable water ways is an entirely different beast in the west that the nuance on issues like this are so extensive it's hard to even know where to start to think.

but what basically boils down to a disagreement about an OHWM can't be distilled down into being pro public trust doctrine or not.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I was in the public waters above your land.

The law says you weren't - but keep swinging.

 

[Ben Lamb]

paging @Ben Lamb

No.

 

[Treeshark]

peoples true nuanced beliefs.

Yes- that is exactly what I am saying. People’s support and view of the Public Trust Doctrine is indeed quite nuanced.

That support seems to be in direct correlation with whether or not/how an issue affects them personally for many people- which makes total sense, we are human.

I didn’t say that’s good or bad, just fascinating.

Blindly following any precedent set over 100 years ago for fish, game, land, and water use is honestly pretty foolish if you think about it- so much has changed in that time. I think it is always healthy to reevaluate these things. We should just try our best not to pick and choose those views based upon how a particular issue impacts us personally, as difficult as that may be.

 

[Gellar]

The City of Prairie du Chien and Crawford County, WI just issued a State of Emergency which limits boat traffic on the Mississippi River in Crawford County. The press release doesn't say what the limitations are, but I think it includes no wake within a certain distance of shoreline and limiting boats to below the High water mark, unless for emergency.

 

[Forkyfinder]

We should just try our best not to pick and choose those views based upon how a particular issue impacts us personally, as difficult as that may be.

now do NR hunting tag allocations.

I will say i am suprised that no one wants to raise questions about this - i think its probably related to a lack of understanding about flows in these rivers and how vague the "high water mark" can be, more than not having regard for the PTD in places that dont affect them.

 

[TOGIE]

Yes- that is exactly what I am saying. People’s support and view of the Public Trust Doctrine is indeed quite nuanced.

That support seems to be in direct correlation with whether or not/how an issue affects them personally for many people- which makes total sense, we are human.

I didn’t say that’s good or bad, just fascinating.

Blindly following any precedent set over 100 years ago for fish, game, land, and water use is honestly pretty foolish if you think about it- so much has changed in that time. I think it is always healthy to reevaluate these things. We should just try our best not to pick and choose those views based upon how a particular issue impacts us personally, as difficult as that may be.

you say these things with such an air of "having figured it all out." same with all of your posts regarding state based management of western wildlife.

there are few things I feel i can say with certainty knowing i am not wrong but this is one: i can assure you, even as someone younger and more naive than you, you do not have it all figured out.

 

[Treeshark]

i am suprised that no one wants to raise questions about this

I get why this land/water arrangement seems weird to those living elsewhere- but growing up here, it just seems to work fine and really hasn’t ever been an issue that has become a big deal in my lifetime. Until now, and I am firmly convinced that this is about a duck spot. The few times things pop up, it’s almost always about that.

As @Gellar just illustrated, the “flood victim” angle isn’t really valid because the state has various other levers to pull in those circumstances.

 

[Treeshark]

you say these things with such an air of "having figured it all out."

This is an important issue, it would be best to not get into a personal spat over it- feel free to message me if I can communicate in a way that you find less irritating.

 

[Gellar]

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration monitors levels on hundreds of rivers across the U.S. in real time using guaging stations at key points on the rivers. If you click on a guage you can see the current level, what the level has been and is predicted to be, you can also see historic crests and what the high water affects at certain levels. It also clearly lists flood stage for these rivers. The green indicate rivers in their normal range and the other colors are associated with different degrees of flooding. https://water.noaa.gov/#@=-100.2447...,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,#006EFF,1,#006EFF,1,#006EFF&q=

 

[TOGIE]

This is an important issue, it would be best to not get into a personal spat over it- feel free to message me if I can communicate in a way that you find less irritating.

you turned the thread with the subtle jab at the HT, and typically western, "strict constructionists" as you call them.

it's an interesting twist when the midwesterners get defensive at a bunch of westerners having a different opinion about something going on in their own state. espeically so when it does involve a public trust, then ultimately questioning if they're even pro PTD or not... it doesn't have to boil down to being pro PTD or not.

in any event the differing opinions are good for everyone though - including yours regarding the wildlife in my own state, it's expanded my thinking a fair bit.

 

[seeth07]

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration monitors levels on hundreds of rivers across the U.S. in real time using guaging stations at key points on the rivers. If you click on a guage you can see the current level, what the level has been and is predicted to be, you can also see historic crests and what the high water affects at certain levels. It also clearly lists flood stage for these rivers. The green indicate rivers in their normal range and the other colors are associated with different degrees of flooding. https://water.noaa.gov/#@=-100.2447...,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,#006EFF,1,#006EFF,1,#006EFF&q=
View attachment 330888

My favorite tool on the internet

 

[Treeshark]

it's an interesting twist when the midwesterners get defensive at a bunch of westerners having a different opinion about something going on in their own state.

I don’t recall getting defensive on this thread- I can’t help but feel that you may be projecting that a bit. If explaining this rule to the best of my abilities/sharing my personal view on it is offensive, I’m not sure how I can help you with that.

We agree that these discussions are good, that’s a start.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I don’t recall getting defensive on this thread- I can’t help but feel that you may be projecting that a bit.

We agree that these discussions are good, that’s a start.

Maybe defensive isnt the right word - reread what you wrote?

"VikingsGuy said:
Yup - like most constitutional issues, a winding ever changing definition to fit the facts, policy and time. This ruling was no different.

I agree. It is fascinating, however, to observe the normally “strict constructionist” Hunt Talk crowd seem to take such a dynamic view of the Public Trust Doctrine on this particular issue."

Its not hard to read in between the lines here and see that you are insinuating that the HT crowd doesn't care to apply the PTD to issues that dont concern them or at least redfines their strict intrepretation of it.

Again - i think this is more about changing river hydrology, a lack of clarity of existing law in specific ecological/topographical areas, and a lack of understanding of the issue locally based primarily on the previous two inputs than it is people not caring.

I will concede - people have to care about the PTD that does not affect them in areas they won't ever go if we ever hope to preserve and maintain it.

 

[Treeshark]

people have to care about the PTD that does not affect them in areas they won't ever go if we ever hope to preserve and maintain it.

100% agree. It either always matters, or it never does.

This is my overarching point, you are correct.

 

[Treeshark]

Its not hard to read in between the lines here and see that you are insinuating that the HT crowd doesn't care to apply the PTD to issues that dont concern them or at least redfines their strict intrepretation of it.

I am. Multiple people have observed that, and yet no one has disagreed.

 

[TOGIE]

100% agree. It either always matters, or it never does.

This is my overarching point, you are correct.

I am. Multiple people have observed that, and yet no one has disagreed.

i think part of the issue here is that I don't necessarily view the specific issue in this thread as being simply a pro public trust doctrine or not situation. it's a when and where do you reasonably determine the limits on that public trust are situation. and i really haven't offered much in the way of an opinion on it. it's an interesting situation.

the crux here, for me, and perhaps i'm misreading you entirely, but I feel i could summarize this thread like this: "treeshark and seeth hold viewpoints antagonistic to public trust doctrine out west regarding state based wildlife management but are pro public trust doctrine regarding navigable waters in the midwest all the while accusing everyone else of not being consistent on their views of public trust doctrines"

 

[Forkyfinder]

I am. Multiple people have observed that, and yet no one has disagreed.

hey - im here disargreeing. You are attributing a lack of care/interest/regard where a lack of understanding/knowledge/application of it applies. There is certainly more gray area than what @seeth07 is comparing it to in this thread (corner crossing).

Specifically look at what @Elky Welky said - hes not up on the law and application of it here and the gray in this isn't a black and white violation of it. I imagine @Ben Lamb stayed out of the conversation for the same reason, even though i poked him.

 

[seeth07]

What this really boils down to is for the last 200+ years (1787 is when the Northwest Ordiance was adopted for the Wisconsin territory), Wisconsin beneficiaries have enjoyed the freedom and simple regulations that if you can legally access the water, your travels while remaining in water are generally unrestricted. The state constitution recognized and adopted the Public Trust Doctrine labeling all water in the state as "navigable waters are common highways and forever free".

Unfortunately, the constitution at creation didn't provide a multi-page essay and explanation to go along with it defining every term and application and so over the course of those 200 years, lawsuits have been filed and laws passed by the state legislature to further define this article in the constitution. For the most part, the result of all of these lawsuits/laws has been in favor in keeping with the "spirit of the original intent" by simply determining that the beneficiaries of this state have freedom to use the water as a public resource.

This lawsuit I will admit I now think has very little actual DIRECT impact. The percentage of beneficiaries of this state that have participated in recreational activities on waterbodies in locations above the OHWM is probably extremely small. Springtime backwater canoeing and fishing come to mind along with a few rare occasions of fall waterfowl hunting and wintertime ice fishing.

The reality is that the OHWM does and still should cover a vast amount of locations and traditional use. I just can foresee where this could potentially lead to if this lawsuit isn't challenged and overruled. This particular case involves events that happened in a location where I would have considered the presence of the public on the water to be well below the OHWM. If the case would have occurred 2 or 3 years prior, there would have been water at this location likely the entire year. So will this lead to more challenges of defining the OHWM differently than it is now? The ruling from the 1914 supreme court case still leaves the definition pretty vague.

 

[TOGIE]

What this really boils down to is for the last 200+ years (1787 is when the Northwest Ordiance was adopted for the Wisconsin territory), Wisconsin beneficiaries have enjoyed the freedom and simple regulations that if you can legally access the water, your travels while remaining in water are generally unrestricted. The state constitution recognized and adopted the Public Trust Doctrine labeling all water in the state as "navigable waters are common highways and forever free".

Unfortunately, the constitution at creation didn't provide a multi-page essay and explanation to go along with it defining every term and application and so over the course of those 200 years, lawsuits have been filed and laws passed by the state legislature to further define this article in the constitution. For the most part, the result of all of these lawsuits/laws has been in favor in keeping with the "spirit of the original intent" by simply determining that the beneficiaries of this state have freedom to use the water as a public resource.

This lawsuit I will admit I now think has very little actual DIRECT impact. The percentage of beneficiaries of this state that have participated in recreational activities on waterbodies in locations above the OHWM is probably extremely small. Springtime backwater canoeing and fishing come to mind along with a few rare occasions of fall waterfowl hunting and wintertime ice fishing.

The reality is that the OHWM does and still should cover a vast amount of locations and traditional use. I just can foresee where this could potentially lead to if this lawsuit isn't challenged and overruled. This particular case involves events that happened in a location where I would have considered the presence of the public on the water to be well below the OHWM. If the case would have occurred 2 or 3 years prior, there would have been water at this location likely the entire year. So will this lead to more challenges of defining the OHWM differently than it is now? The ruling from the 1914 supreme court case still leaves the definition pretty vague.

i think as is brutally and painfully obvious, it just comes down to defining navigable. which it seems this court has further defined, for now.

i just can't see how that is an attack on the wisconsin water resources public trust. painting at as such, and questioning how western public lands advocates could possibly see it any other way, is disingenuous and not rational discussion. even worse to use it to suggest individuals are not pro public trust doctrine.

again, in colorado water resources is not a public trust. it is a public resource, but not a public trust, and the that distinction is not subtle, not subtle at all when it comes to the law and our 150 years of title 37 statutes. my first and original comment in this thread was just that, us westerners perspectives are gonna be a little different due to that and we're not anti PTD because of that.