quote:
BG was the one who went to ranch foreman mentioned above last time.
Don't forget that.
Huh?
quote:
BG was the one who went to ranch foreman mentioned above last time.
Don't forget that.
quote:Youve misconstrued my post. I was referring to the fence being there, long before the first kayak was ever thought of. Back before these "old rich men" we're even born. You seem to lack any sense of context. I neither condoned nor condemned the sign.
Here's the part where you are condoning the landowner hanging a no trespassing sign over a public waterway:
Quote:
and generally disrespected the landowners right to continue doing what has likely been done for more than a century.
You even claimed he had a right to do so.
quote:If the fence has been in place for many decades, as the GW suggested, it seems the issue is one of ignorance or confusion about applicable law. I'm not informed enough to even know whether your premise is true or not. I'd assume the fence pre-exists the controversy. If it was only done recently, it may prove to be problematic.
Assuming that the river is navigable you think the owner is right to fence off a public right of way?
quote:Took it upon myself? Wtf does that mean? I met the guy in the barber shop, not knowing him from Adam! It was mere coincidence and the issue came up when he revealed where he was headed. I asked pertinent questions and reported "the other side of the story" to the thread.
Last time we had one of these water threads, BG took it upon himself to speak to the fireman of the disputed ranch, leading to the OP getting some BS heat.
quote:quote:Youve misconstrued my post. I was referring to the fence being there, long before the first kayak was ever thought of. Back before these "old rich men" we're even born. You seem to lack any sense of context. I neither condoned nor condemned the sign.
Here's the part where you are condoning the landowner hanging a no trespassing sign over a public waterway:
Quote:
and generally disrespected the landowners right to continue doing what has likely been done for more than a century.
You even claimed he had a right to do so.
quote:
Yes sir! I will be more careful in the future. Sorry again!!
quote:
No sir, building a dam would be wrong for a number of reasons. The only point I was trying to make here and have miserably failed was that he had fenced the river because his cows walked across and he did not want them to wander off or out on the road.
I would have also guessed that since the fence had been cut and dropped several several time he hung the sign hoping it would make it look kinda official and not get it cut as much. You can not run many cows in that area because they don't do well trying to eat rocks. Having land on both sides of the river, and having the river fenced off down the sides of the river would cause him to have 2 of everything and 2 places to check his animals. But to some on here that is just the "rich" ranchers problem. Nothing should prevent 5 extra seconds to get access.
I don' know because I am "old" and us old folks don't know nothing!!
BTW anytime you want to come back just call. I could not even tell y'all were there, just as the way it should be.
quote:
Nothing should prevent 5 extra seconds to get access.
quote:
Having seen some of the floods on those rivers, there is no way that fence has been there more than a couple decades, at best.
One fallen tree in the floodwaters getting pushed past and it is rent all to hell.
The local LEO is going to side with locals and land owners, generally, and because of the vagueness of our law and that so much is based in court verdicts, even most LEO are under informed on the topic.
Quite a few streams and rivers in Texas meet the 30 foot average width of the cut bank from the mouth definition. Many also pass the navigable in fact test due to the large numbers of paddle craft able to negotiate them.
I am entirely sympathetic to ranchers watering their cattle and keeping them contained, but they need to keep their fences on their land and not unduly obstruct access to navigable waters. It is not difficult to place a short section of fence minus the bottom strand and with no barbs.
quote:quote:
Nothing should prevent 5 extra seconds to get access.
I hope you don't think that's my stance. I am fine with the fence being there as it would be a hell of alot more inconvenient to nail a cow at 55 mph out on the highway. I just want to know if I can push my boat under it without getting cited or shot.
Even the secretary at the GLO joked when I told her I was calling to discuss a navigability issue. She said I quote, "Well in Texas, if you get shot at it, it's not navigable."
quote:Looks like you're right. Here's the original photo from google's cache:
Well, it looks like the photo in the OP is now gone, but I remember the fence posts to be cedar of less than 4" diameter. This is how folks around here make "water gaps".
quote:One of these days when I grow up, I am going to learn how you did that.quote:Looks like you're right. Here's the original photo from google's cache:
Well, it looks like the photo in the OP is now gone, but I remember the fence posts to be cedar of less than 4" diameter. This is how folks around here make "water gaps".
quote:I don't disagree with the bolded text, but some fences (and apparently this fence is one of those) are allowed, by law, to extend across rivers. Granted, property owners have an obligation to the public to follow the law. It's far from clear to me that any law is being broken in this example. There have been some excellent posts detailing the extreme difficulty in both constructing and maintaining fences along and across rivers. Simply being able to build a fence across a river is a huge benefit to the strength and integrity of the fence simply because there is no termination point. Thus, no way (or more precisely, less likely) for livestock to walk around the end of a fence when the water level drops.
Having seen some of the floods on those rivers, there is no way that fence has been there more than a couple decades, at best.
One fallen tree in the floodwaters getting pushed past and it is rent all to hell.
The local LEO is going to side with locals and land owners, generally, and because of the vagueness of our law and that so much is based in court verdicts, even most LEO are under informed on the topic.
Quite a few streams and rivers in Texas meet the 30 foot average width of the cut bank from the mouth definition. Many also pass the navigable in fact test due to the large numbers of paddle craft able to negotiate them.
I am entirely sympathetic to ranchers watering their cattle and keeping them contained, but they need to keep their fences on their land and not unduly obstruct access to navigable waters. It is not difficult to place a short section of fence minus the bottom strand and with no barbs.