A range war on the Ausable River?
Ausable Chasm, Source: Wikipedia
After lengthy legal wrangles, paddlers won access to the rapids, which include some class five drops.
Last weekend, they ran the route successfully for the first time, but immediately ran into legal entanglements with the Chasm’s operators. This from Phil’s blog post:
Ausable Chasm Co. called the state police on Friday—the first day the run was open—to complain that kayakers were trespassing.
State Police Captain Brent Gillam said troopers filed criminal summonses against three paddlers, but the decision on whether to bring charges is in the hands of the town court.
Kevin Colburn, national stewardship with a group called American Whitewater, told the Explorer that company is still trying to restrict access to the river.
He said employees were yelling at kayakers who paddled down the river Friday and over the weekend.
“They don’t like the public floating through their river,” he said.
Tim Bresett, manager of the Ausable Chasm Co, disputed that account. In his interview with Brown, he accused paddlers of leaving the shore and trespassing on private land.
“It’s not our position to play hardball with these guys,” he said, “but you got to play by the rules.” He went on to add that the river is dangerous and some paddlers appeared unprepared. “I guarantee somebody will die on the river this year,” Bresett said.
This conflict arises as part of a wider discussion — provoked largely by Brown’s reporting — of public access to posted rivers and streams in the Adirondacks.
Many traditional paddling routes, used for generations, are now described as private property by landowners, despite the fact that common law in New York state requires that “navigable” rivers be unrestricted.
So what do you think? Should paddlers have access to the Park’s waterways? Or is this an intrusion on private property rights?
And when someone gets hurt or dies the adjacent landowners will be sued. More infringement on private property rights.
So it’s a “navigable waterway”? Lets see them navigate UPSTREAM!
In the post you linked to, Ausable Chasm admitted that paddlers have the right to get out on their land and scout rapids. They have to show some hard evidence that paddlers are doing more than that. To me, it sounds like they have a serious case of sour grapes, and are taking it out on kayakers.
Bret, just because someone might sue doesn’t mean that the public loses the rights to its property. Everyone owns rivers and lakes; private property ends at water’s edge. We don’t legislate based on the possibility that someone may sue.
In the West all water is public if it flows through and there is no problems with lawsuites, you can’t own a river anymore than you can own the sky. What is the point of the Adirondack Park if you have private rivers?
The rivers should be open to canoers and kayakers.
The question of lawsuits is a separate issue. We need to address the problem of people being able to sue others over the results of their own actions. White water canoeing is a risky activity. If you decide to engage in it and get hurt, the guy who owns the shoreline is not to blame. If you do something risky and get hurt the courts should recognize that it was your own fault.
Bret, I understand that the landowner is not liable if someone gets hurt or dies while paddling through private property. And a river does not have to be navigable in both directions for it to be deemed “navigable-in-fact,” the legal term for rivers that open to the public under the common law.
The law does currently state that the Ausable is open to kayakers, however at some point doesnt common sense play a role. The Chasm Company does not have sour grapes, and while I am sure they are concerned about lawsuits, the reall issue is that they are trying to protect their livelyhoods. If/when some one dies or is seriously injured in on that stretch of river there is an excellent chance it will mean the end of Ausable Chasm (140 years in operation). Forget the terrible publicity, being shut down for any length of time willhave a tremendous impact on it’s ability to stay open. Think of the economic impact of the Chasm closing. Dozens work there, dozens more local and regional businesses supply them. They bring 100,000 people to the area to eat, buy gas, etc. Thousands come up from Lake George every year. Will they come up without the Chasm?? Of course not.
Further, every local rescue squad has vehimently opposed this as they don’t want to risk their lives. So, while these people have the right to navigate the river, do they have the right to jeopardize people livelyhoods?!?! What does common sense say?
No whitewater boater is going to sue over an injury or death. It is clear that many of the posts on this page are coming from people who don’t paddle whitewater.
Can a paddler carry a fishpole when they get out of their boat to”scout” the rapids on private land?
” Adironschwack says:
June 24, 2010 at 2:08 pm
No whitewater boater is going to sue over an injury or death.”
Yeah, right. And the Easter Bunny is bringing me a big basket of goodies too.
So the landowner isn’t responsible eh. Go to Long Lake and talk to John Hosley about this. Find out about people who have been sued. I forget just who was involved, but I believe it was a drowning. Turns out the adjacent landowner CAN be sued. So can the Town, the County, the State.
All of you who believe no one ever gets sued should start looking through the records and see just how far Dewy, Cheatum and Howe will go in their quest for money. And remember, they don’t have to win to ruin you.
Calling Ausable Chasm a “navigable waterway” is about like saying Niagra Falls is navigable. This is just another violation of common sense property rights. Let the boaters out on land to scout” and it’ll be a pig sty in no time.
Bret,
Did you read this part of the Explorer article?
Bresett, however, said the company acknowledges that the public has the right to paddle through the chasm and scout rapids. “It’s not our position to play hardball with these guys,” he said, “but you got to play by the rules.”
This isn’t the thread to ramble on about how our country is heading into the dumps because of our sue-happy culture. AC admits that the public has a right to use the river AND scout rapids. End of story. Any employee harassing paddlers are in the wrong.
“Can a paddler carry a fishpole when they get out of their boat to”scout” the rapids on private land?”
you guys are killin’ me.
mine, mine, mine, not yours, fees, fees, fees, sue,sue,sue
christ on a crutch, get on with your lives, you think everyone is taking the food off your plates.
fisshing off private land without permission is first of all tresspassing no?
what if you stood in ankle deep water? are you tresspassing?
There is plenty of room, fish, air, mountain for all of us. get down of the cross i can use the wood
I don’t have the information at my fingertips at the moment but the Adirondack League Club had a lot to do with the laws pertaining to posting property against trespass hunting and fishing. I believe it was to keep Indians and others out of their private hunting preserve.
Maybe it would warrant a little research and a story…
Oh, I’m all for free travel by the serfs through the lord’s domains.
Mervel, In the American west, Colorado more specifically, people own ‘water’ and can keep or sell their water rights.
It’s crazy out there.
People feel they can do what they want, not only with water, but with the land and the air.
Overpopulation on the east coast has taught us how to be careful (hopefully) with natural resources.
The wide open spaces out west gives the impression that there is plenty of room to do whatever folks want to do.
Pretty cavalier attitudes prevail.
knuckle- LOL!
ever read “oliver’s war” ?
Verplanck, I don’t care what they say, that’s their opinion. I’m giving mine on the larger issue of private property rights. Which brings us to-
Sunshine- Do you mean to tell me people own property and pay taxes on it and insurance premiums and the mortgage and actually think they have some right to control same? Why…why…that’s just crazy talk!
Just say no: I was actually speaking of NY state trespass law and posting of property. Yes, I understand the history goes much further back, into Europe and that the Indians had very different ideas about land ownership.
knuckle –
oliver’s war is about new york state and rockafeller and a local civil war vet, who was basically screwed. worth a glance. all about tresspassing.
Well if we are going to let people fence rivers I think we see just another reason for the State to buy as much land as possible in the Park, what is the point of having something called the “Adirondack Park” if you have fenced rivers?
Mervel, what’s the point of having property and paying taxes and insurance on it if the State is going to allow anyone that wants to to trespass at will? Why would anyone even bother to plant an orchard or a field of corn, much less landscape, build a home or a business if private property has no meaning? I’m betting the guys that own Ausable Chasm pay taxes for “waterfront”. Why do we tax them at a higher rate if their property is “public”?
The concept of personal property and private property were major changes in the way our western society developed. This isn’t something to just toss aside. This idea of “the State” being able to circumvent private property is very similar to the idea of “eminent domain”. Why doesn’t the State just seize all private property and
assign people to live where the State deems it best? That’s what you’re headed for if you keep on this course.
I still have yet to hear form anyone who is willing to say the Chasm is navigable both downstream and up!
The term “navigable” historically in the Adirondacks refers to allowing logs to be floated down the rivers at certain times of year (and the ability to float them back UP the river did not impact whether or not a river was navigable) The right to float your logs on a river through someone’s private land was obviously economics based. Technology has changed things such that we don’t float logs down rivers any more, we send them out by truck (seems just letting them float down the river would be cheaper and cleaner than hauling them all out by truck, but that’s another discussion) Allowing paddlers to go down a river that passes through someone’s private land also possesses an element of economics. We all know that paddling visitors to the Adirondacks brings in tourism dollars. Opening up more waterways for paddlers could attract more of those dollar-spending paddlers. That could be a justification along the same lines as the original idea behind allowing privately owned logs to float down a river, through another property owners land.
Although some paddlers show disrespect, most are respectful of privately owned land (can I carry a fishing rod while “scouting” a river?) Same can be said for most snowmobilers, and car tourists (not many drivers pull off the road and set up a picnic in someone’s yard because it happens to be alongside a road)
Brett – I don’t know any details about your reference to the law suits in Long Lake but I wonder if they somehow involved somebody walking over someone’s land to a water body, not by a publicly accessible waterway.
Just say no: thanks, that was on my list of books I wanted to pick up but forgot the name of. I’ll have to order a copy. Still, the ALC pre-dates that.
I guess I’ll have to do the research.
Okay, I’m back from my studies.
“The Privately Owned Adirondacks” by Barbara McMartin (the late, great)
has a wealth of information on the more general background of private lands and the right to pass on them, to hunt, fish etc., the 1871 Act of Private Parks and Game Preserves along with an 1876 amendment (p29). She also briefly touches on the 1990 case of paddlers challenge to the ALC blocking access to the South Branch of the Moose River. (p257)
Bret I am a strong believer in private property rights. But property rights are not limitless. You don’t necessarily own the minerals under your land, you don’t own the air above your land and you don’t own the water that runs through your land on rivers. This is not a new concept.
I would also probably feel differently about this if it were not in the Adirondack Park, as far as I am concerned you should give up a good portion of your property rights if you choose to buy property in a state park, what is the point of the Adirondack Park if people can own rivers? If people can own rivers in the Adirondack Park and fence them off or not allow people to paddle through; then we should disband the whole Park, just admit that it is a meaningless concept.
It used to be, long ago in England, that everything was owned by some royal figure. Serfs were prevented form traveling the roads freely as a means to control the labor pool. The Magna Carta changed that.
When this continent was settled there were no roads. Transport was by waterways. The right to move freely is probably more important (at least until the internet) than the rights of freedom os speech, religion, bear arms, etc because if you are confined to your own home all those other rights are meaningless.
Brian in SL, I would have to take exception to the idea that logging defined a “navigable waterway”. I’m fairly certain the term has it’s roots in the NYS Navigation Law and the specifics, which I’m only passingly familiar with, would be found there.
Mervel, Park or not the concept of private property should be defensible. If we follow your logic then why can’t I drive a bulldozer though to Duck Pond so we can build a road and travel in by car? The State has more rights to “private property” control than a private citizen? Why can’t I start mining in the High Peaks if private property (the State being the owner) means nothing?
Extreme examples yes, but the concept carries.
Private property is defensible, but the state indeed has ultimate control over all land and resources within its borders.
One of the rights that people do not have in NYS is the right to stop people from being on a river or body of water that runs through their property, just like they do not have the right to stop plans from using the air above their property or in some cases taking the minerals below their property.
Mark, IIRC it was a snowmobiler on the ice.
Mervel, there are limits to everything. The issue here appears to center around the term “navigable”. Navigation implies upstream and down.
For decades, Ausable Chasm Co. upper mgmt have taken every measure to ensure that riparian public rights to navigate that stretch of river were quelled. It boils down to nothing more than an “I Me Mine” mentality that flies in the face of water rights laws this side of the Mississippi. Their position is likely reinforced by the several tons of twisted iron and steel that lies in the river bed-metal from railings that have been periodically washed out from decades of floods and ice jams-metal that they should be responsible for removing, as it is indeed a PUBLIC nuisance that their tourism operation is directly responsible for.
Ausable Chasm mgmt-get over yourselves. You are not above the public’s right to safely kayak a navigable river. Also, the General Manager going on record to say he guaranteed someone will die in the Chasm this year as a result of the open access is nothing short of staggering. The whole issue lies with kayakers being able to safely scout downriver, which is what apparently he is trying to prevent. Hope he doesn’t eat his words…