I agree it got a lot more accomplished than other methods did. We still got defeated, although i think it might have left some doors open. Now its time to prove some, if not all of the defense against it was B.SOriginally Posted by Kelly Jessop
Patience, Grasshopper. But keep aiming high.
When I left the meeting, I would have bet money we would have gotten some form of access, limited yes. The majority were for it, but there were a couple of key people and at least one organization that were dead set against it. The local politico's I spoke with (only a couple) saw the economic potentials.
We all saw what happened, I'm not so sure we "private diver" will ever be allowed.
EDIT: Let's not go there, as it would quickly turn uncivil.
Last edited by FW; 11-05-2012 at 07:31 AM. Reason: Would cause an uncivil discussion
Oh I have patience
The real approach was ok but lacking. Remember the parks are equal access. In speaking to many about it, the approach was viewed as a small group of "cave divers" wanting access. This is allowed if you want to file paperwork and put yourself on a throne. The approach needs to be equal access for all. This means full out recreational access. Who are we to say recreational divers do not have a right to dive there? To do so puts everyone in the same position the state is in. (denying a select group). The voice is bigger with all divers. Fact is there was only one relevant fact issue raised. Environmental impact. Given the impact swimming has on the site not to mention the structures built there that alter water flow and natural erosion patterns, this is not even a good argument. In a recent study on swimmers, there is 6 times more damage done by one swimmer then 4 cave divers. Of course the study did not actually study divers in the environment as they are not allowed there. So data from other sites had to be used for comparison.
I'm just waiting on the answers to the questions posed. I'm sure I'd likely pull an hour long dive at Jackson on a breathe hold as to ever get the facts from those who so openly suggest they would give it up. Those that oppose it don't live here but the money they make feeds those in their county well.
I've followed this discussion a little and don't have much input regarding diver access.
I am, however, perplexed by the mention of the fence across the spring run. How is it that this fence has been allowed to stay? All the history I have is stories I have read here or heard from others.
While researching some other stuff I came across this:
“Under the Equal Footing Doctrine, the title to the beds and banks of navigable streams passed to newly-formed states at statehood” says Clemons. “States may, with some restrictions, pass title to these lands to private landowners, but the public retains the right to use the navigable waters for commerce, fishing, and boating under the Public Trust Doctrine. The Ryals court observed that this public right cannot be withdrawn ‘by legislative enactment or judicial decree.’
How is it this fence has not been challanged or removed? Now I realize this doesn't directly effect diving but you eat a bear one bite at a time.
Mostly because it belongs to the state, and a run isn't always considered a navigable waterway.
navigable waters
According to the Code of Federal Regulations section dealing with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (www.usace.army.mil/), which is given jurisdiction over them, navigable waters are “those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past,or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. A determination of navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the water body, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy navigable capacity.
SO... pick up a load of fireworks from S. Carolina, and take them up river in your kayak to sell at Walkulla for Fourth of July. Notify the Army Corps of Engineers that you plan on doing this annually.
That should make Wakulla a "navigable waterway".
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
This is not completely accurate as it describes the definition of 'national' navigable waterways. Each state has a seperate definition of what it considers navigable and therefore open for public use.
As applied in Florida, the Public Trust Doctrine protects water bodies that were navigable in fact at the time of statehood in 1845. In 1909, the Florida Supreme Court defined the term "navigable in fact" as meaning "navigable for useful purposes common to the public in the locality where the waterbody is located."
In some states "navigable for useful purposes common to the public in the locality where the waterbody is located" covers fishing.
Last edited by graepaep; 11-06-2012 at 04:28 PM.
Fed trumps state?
If Corps says it's navigable, Florida salutes and says "Sir, Yes Sir".
Fire dept down the street from me has a thorn in their side. Ellicott Creek.
Elllicott Creek is a tributary of Tonawanda Creek, and the Erie Canal.
Ellicott Creek is considered a "navigable waterway" by the Corps because during prohibition it was used by rum runners to smuggle whiskey in from Canada. The creek is ankle deep in spots except during spring floods.
But the Corps said it was used for "foreign commerce" in the past. So State/County/Town/Village do not get a vote. You can't spit into the creek without permission from Army Corps of Engineers.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks