quote:Then what's the sign for? To keep other cattle out? What other purpose would the sign serve other than keeping out a kayaker?
Did it ever occur to those of you complaining about a fence (that likely has existed since before your fathers, if not grandfathers, were even born) that the original purpose of said fence was to turn/keep cattle on a ranch and keep them from straying? It's not there simply to frustrate ambitious fly fishermen who enjoy exploring the great out of doors.
quote:I did indeed. It should have been obvious my post was NOT directed at you since you did not complain about the existence of the fence. You merely questioned the legality of the sign.
Did you ever read the OP because that was stated from the get go. I believe the issue we take is with it being posted the same as the rest of the fenceline. Everywhere you look, the state owns the water, but this is apparently "private" water
quote:
To alter or remove a fence used to confine livestock is a state jail felony. Specifically, it is
criminal mischief if,
a person commits an offense if, without the
consent of the owner;
(a) he intentionally or knowingly damages
or destroys the tangible property of the
owner;
(b) he intentionally or knowingly tampers
with the tangible property of the owner
and causes pecuniary loss or
substantial inconvenience to the owner
or a third person45
If the pecuniary loss to the owner of the property isless than $1,500.00, but the property damaged was afence used for the production or containment of"cattle, bison, horses, sheep, swine, goats, exotic
poultry," then the offense is a state jail felony...........
TEX. PENAL CODE 28.03 (Vernon 2010)
quote:
OP should contact the GLO and let them know where this fence is and see if they have a survey on file regarding the legal status of that stretch of river
quote:quote:I did indeed. It should have been obvious my post was NOT directed at you since you did not complain about the existence of the fence. You merely questioned the legality of the sign.
Did you ever read the OP because that was stated from the get go. I believe the issue we take is with it being posted the same as the rest of the fenceline. Everywhere you look, the state owns the water, but this is apparently "private" water
My post was prompted by a couple of posts on page Juan (that got blue starred 8-9 times) that suggested cutting the fence in several places, and generally disrespected the landowners right to continue doing what has likely been done for more than a century. That is the attitude I take issue with, and it is that same attitude that perpetuates the adversarial relationship existing between landowners and the "public". One of mutual contempt, and it's easy to see why.
I have no problem with your posts, nor the thread in general, which serves to educate the public.
quote:There aren't any cattle ranchers making a living on the north fork. It's a bunch of old rich guys either retired there or their vacation home. If they have cows its for fun and/or Ag Exemption.
I sometimes wonder if any of the genius's like Rocco think about the rancher trying to make a living vs a nature lover out to see the sights and catch fish.
quote:
I sometimes wonder if any of the genius's like Rocco think about the rancher trying to make a living vs a nature lover out to see the sights and catch fish.
quote:"Making a living" is immaterial and irellavant to the law and/or the discussion at hand. Or am I mistaken? Sounds like you may have a problem with "old rich guys". If you live long enough, you'll be an old guy yourself some day, but maybe not "rich". Amiright?quote:There aren't any cattle ranchers making a living on the north fork. It's a bunch of old rich guys either retired there or their vacation home. If they have cows its for fun and/or Ag Exemption.
I sometimes wonder if any of the genius's like Rocco think about the rancher trying to make a living vs a nature lover out to see the sights and catch fish.
quote:And in the centuries before fenced agriculture the country was open range. I'm not saying we should cut all fences, but if the use of the land and the need of a fence for for a cattle industry that doesn't have the same needs and restraints it had a hundred years ago has changed, then maybe its time to consider that more people should be able to enjoy public resources (like "navigable" waterways).
My post was prompted by a couple of posts on page Juan (that got blue starred 8-9 times) that suggested cutting the fence in several places, and generally disrespected the landowners right to continue doing what has likely been done for more than a century. ...
quote:I normally agree with you, but the cattle rancher needs to make his living within the confines of the law. Granted, there appears to be a pretty hefty gray area in this instance, but simply because one is attempting to make a living does not give them the right or authority to deny or illegally use a public resource.
I sometimes wonder if any of the genius's like Rocco think about the rancher trying to make a living vs a nature lover out to see the sights and catch fish.
quote:I know many of the people that have ranches on the north fork and my Dad knows almost all of them. Most are pretty cool but some are huge dbags. Given the location, it's not a high traffic area, and the sign I think he's one of the dbags. My parents have a decent amount of land there with livestock (goats) as well. No cattle as his place is not very conductive to raising them, but he does have cattle leases in other locations.
"Making a living" is immaterial and irellavant to the law and/or the discussion at hand. Or am I mistaken? Sounds like you may have a problem with "old rich guys". If you live long enough, you'll be an old guy yourself some day, but maybe not "rich". Amiright?
quote:quote:"Making a living" is immaterial and irellavant to the law and/or the discussion at hand. Or am I mistaken? Sounds like you may have a problem with "old rich guys". If you live long enough, you'll be an old guy yourself some day, but maybe not "rich". Amiright?quote:There aren't any cattle ranchers making a living on the north fork. It's a bunch of old rich guys either retired there or their vacation home. If they have cows its for fun and/or Ag Exemption.
I sometimes wonder if any of the genius's like Rocco think about the rancher trying to make a living vs a nature lover out to see the sights and catch fish.
quote:Cows for fun?quote:There aren't any cattle ranchers making a living on the north fork. It's a bunch of old rich guys either retired there or their vacation home. If they have cows its for fun and/or Ag Exemption.
I sometimes wonder if any of the genius's like Rocco think about the rancher trying to make a living vs a nature lover out to see the sights and catch fish.
quote:
Are you trolling? What law breaking have I condoned? What law are you claiming has been broken?
Perhaps raider can count on you to "test" the determination of the rancher for him?
quote:
and generally disrespected the landowners right to continue doing what has likely been done for more than a century.
quote:quote:
You didn't answer my question. What law breaking am I condoning? What law was broken?
I doubt anyone witnessed whomever hung that sign doing so. I doubt hanging that, or any other sign on one's fence is illegal. But even if it were, you'll never see a citation issued, much less a conviction. Who would be cited? Spend your time on something worthwhile. This ain't it. (But it makes interesting internet squabbling)
Assuming that the river is navigable you think the owner is right to fence off a public right of way?
