|
|
Post by greghopper on Jun 11, 2014 19:09:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jun 11, 2014 19:56:37 GMT -5
Hmmmm... Sounds like some rich shoreline folks pulled a few strings..
Sounds one can still fish, just not anchor
|
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jun 11, 2014 20:26:02 GMT -5
Hmmmm... Sounds like some rich shoreline folks pulled a few strings.. Sounds one can still fish, just not anchor It says trolling is fine within 200 feet of the shoreline ......not sure that would include all types of FISHING!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jun 12, 2014 6:51:55 GMT -5
Hmmmm... Sounds like some rich shoreline folks pulled a few strings.. Sounds one can still fish, just not anchor It says trolling is fine within 200 feet of the shoreline ......not sure that would include all types of FISHING!!! What is the definition of "trolling"? That is the question. The COs are going to be busy. |
|
|
|
Post by featherduster on Jun 13, 2014 5:20:30 GMT -5
(a) A person operating a motorboat may not approach or pass within two hundred (200) feet of the shore line of a lake or channel of the lake at a place or point where the lake or channel is at least five hundred (500) feet in width, except for the purpose of trolling or for the purpose of approaching or leaving a dock, pier, or wharf or the shore of the lake or channel. (b) Except as provided in subsection (c), a person operating a motorboat may not approach or pass within two hundred (200) feet of the shore line of a lake or channel of the lake at a speed greater than idle speed. (c) This subsection applies to lakes formed by hydroelectric dams in a county having a population of: (1) more than twenty-five thousand (25,000) but less than twenty-five thousand five hundred (25,500); or (2) more than twenty thousand (20,000) but less than twenty thousand three hundred (20,300). A person operating a motorboat may not approach or pass within fifty (50) feet of the shore line at a speed greater than idle speed. However, on tributaries of lakes described in this subsection that are formed by hydroelectric dams, a person operating a motor boat may not approach or pass within two hundred (200) feet of the shore line of the tributary at a speed greater than idle speed. For the purposes of this chapter, tributaries on lakes formed by hydroelectric dams do not include the principal body of water flowing into the lakes. As added by P.L.1-1995, SEC.8. Amended by P.L.38-2000, SEC.3; P.L.170-2002, SEC.93. - See more at: codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/14/15/3/14-15-3-17#sthash.m6tr36m2.dpufSo is the state going to post a yearly list of the names of the lakes and counties that meet this criteria. It sounds to me that this law will effect mostly reservoir lakes. |
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jun 13, 2014 15:40:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jun 17, 2014 17:38:31 GMT -5
From the Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife
All,
Please refer to the letter below about fishing within 200 ft. of shore from our legal council at Indiana DNR.
Thank you,
Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife
June 17, 2014
Wawasee Property Owners Association
PO Box 427 Syracuse, IN 46567-0427
Dear Sir or Madam,
I write to you in response to recent discussions that have taken place regarding the Agreed Order entered into by the Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”) and property owners Anchor LLC and Randall J. Tobias and Sargent H P LLC (“property owners”). A copy of the Agreed Order is enclosed for your reference.
In November 2013, the property owners applied for a permit from the DNR to place posts offshore of their properties. The posts were intended to support signs with language regarding the mooring or anchoring of boats within 200 feet of the shoreline. The DNR denied the permit request on grounds that the posts would create a navigational hazard for the boating public. The property owners appealed the DNR’s denial to the Natural Resources Commission (NRC), an autonomous board that addresses issues pertaining to the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. The NRC assigned an administrative law judge to hear the appeal. In May 2014, the parties reached a settlement agreement approved by the administrative law judge that allows for the placement of temporary buoys 175 feet from the respective shorelines. The buoys are required to be of a material that, if struck by a watercraft, would cause little or no damage. The agreement further provides that the landowners may place signs on the buoys; the DNR is without authority to regulate what language the property owners post on signage in his or her respective riparian zone. The Agreed Order applies solely to the parties named in the order.
The Indiana Lakes Preservation Act, IC 14-26-2, provides that the natural resources and the natural scenic beauty of Indiana are a “public right” and that the public has a “vested right” in the preservation, protection, and enjoyment of all freshwater lakes in Indiana. As part of the Agreed Order, the parties agreed that while the public has a vested right in all freshwater lakes, there are certain restrictions to that right. Specifically, IC 14-15-3-17 limits the operation of a motorboat within 200 feet of the shoreline of a public freshwater lake to those activities stated in the statute.
As it has consistently enforced in the past, it is the DNR’s position that a motorboat that is moored or anchored is not in operation for the purposes of IC 14-15-3-17. As a result, the Department will continue to not take action against any individual who has moored or anchored his or her boat within 200 feet of shoreline, provided the individuals onboard have abided by all other applicable operating laws in arriving at that point. At the same time, the DNR will promptly and diligently respond to any call that advises that anchored or moored boats are preventing egress or ingress from a citizen’s property or where occupants of the moored or anchored boats are coming upon the shoreline and trespassing on private property. The DNR will also respond to complaints that the occupants of the
watercraft are littering and/or violating any other applicable infraction or law. We have received
communication from the Kosciusko County Sheriff’s Department, who has advised that after
reviewing the Agreed Order and applicable statutes, their interpretation of IC 14-15-3-17 will remain
unchanged and consistent with the DNR; that an individual is not prohibited from anchoring within
200 feet of the shoreline of any public freshwater lake.
As noted, the Agreed Order applies solely to the parties named in the order. Pursuant to 312 IAC 11-
3-1, property owners may place a buoy out to 150 feet of their property without first seeking a permit
from the DNR. Any buoys placed that do not comply with the general license requirements of 312
IAC 11-3-1 would be required to first seek a permit from the DNR.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Joe Hoage
General Counsel
Enclosure
cc: Steve Snyder
Indiana Lakes Management Society
Kosciusko County Sheriff’s Department
Deb Patterson
Stacey Page
|
|
|
|
Post by featherduster on Jun 18, 2014 5:12:47 GMT -5
That's what I thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jun 18, 2014 7:44:20 GMT -5
The DNR should have put limitations on how big a dock these individuals could install on pubic lakes. They have enclosed and made for themselves a portion of the lake.
This 200 foot thing is just another water grab. Money talks and talks very loudly...
Pity, but true..
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jun 23, 2014 13:22:51 GMT -5
It surprised me several years ago when a question arose concerning legal trespass by the public for recreational purposes along the shorelines of various waters.
I had heard it rumored many years before that there was federal law recognizing the standards that applied all the way back to the Magna Carta in old England, that the shoreline of publicly held waters was open to the public up the "normal high water mark", which was defined by differing legal decrees and was sometimes difficult to pinpoint, but generally included even standing on the shore of rivers and creeks and larger lakes.
This principle pre-dated the constitution and was was never legally defined otherwise, but has been ignored by judges in some local cases, increasingly over the years, as private ownership and recreational use has increased.
There are actually lots of such rulings made in lower courts that ignore existing higher court rulings or existing laws and they stand unless challenged on the basis of the conflict.
The legal system doesn't automatically flush itself of such contradictions. They must be decided on in court. They often are not, because the cost of a legal challenge is more than one or two fishermen or hunters would care to bear in order to retain their rights to fish or hunt an area that would then be known to be open to anyone. So the tendency is for "money", in the person of wealthy property owners, to "talk" and the rights of the public to "walk".
In the same ways that our rights, as in 2nd Amendment rights, are "infringed" unconstitutionally and often, we also have lost other rights and will continue to do so whenever such rulings remain unchallenged.
|
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Jun 27, 2014 19:03:10 GMT -5
I would like to know if those property owners had motorboats, and if they used motors to go from shore to 175' past the shoreline.
I'd also like to know how long their piers were.
Isn't there anything on the books about blocking a navigatible waterway?
|
|
