|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jul 27, 2013 9:44:04 GMT -5
Tough break. Can't help with the decision on surgery or trying the slower healing approach, that would be a personal decision based on many factors. Good luck either way.
Of course hindsight is always 20/20, so you have probably already considered this, but when I changed the blades on my rider a couple weeks ago for the first time (always walking behind smaller mowers until last year) I found the LONG breaker bar to be very useful in keeping my parts away from the sharp parts. That job can present the need for a good bit of torque being applied in uncomfortably close and somewhat clumsy quarters, and it's better to avoid the proximity to sharp edges when torque is applied, if at all possible.
We all have a tendency to learn some lessons the hard way. I learned the importance of keeping both hands on the chainsaw a few years ago, after many years of occasional trimming using one hand. Missed the important stuff like major blood vessels and tendons and ended up home doctoring the cut, but it was enough to reinforce some ignored safety advice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jul 26, 2013 11:07:02 GMT -5
Hey, they can call it a moose if they want, a bug that big with eight legs, I'm calling it a spider. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.....8^)
BTW, have you ever waded some really small streams here in IN and flyfished them? Some of the most fun I had with my flyrod, especially in midsummer, was wading little streams and tossing a tiny sinking black ant pattern to the shady potholes. Lots of smallmouth, a little small for keeping, but they are scrappy tailwalkers.
36 fan, when I was riding, I used to carry a half dozen bungee cords in the daypack attached to my passenger seatback. Went many archery shoots with the compound strapped to one side and the quiver usually sticking up out of the pack with a bungee securing things. A few times I came home after some unexpected shopping with stuff hanging here and there everywhere secured by bungees. Looked like an Okie heading for CA, but I was having fun on two wheels instead of being in a cage. 8^)
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jul 26, 2013 10:40:40 GMT -5
I agree, of course, that we should pullover and slow down whenever possible to give comfortable clearance to the stopped vehicles.
However, I have also encountered those occasions similar to the ones mentioned by swilk in which the positioning of the stopped vehicles definitely invites the emergency.
I noticed an increase in those positionings that seemed to correspond to the implementation of the stepped up enforcement and higher penalties for the regulation a few years ago. Might have to do with the training iinvolved in that positioning mentioned above. Seems to me that the former method employed was to try to ensure that both the stopped vehicle and the patrol car were a safer distance off the trafficked road surface, even if it meant driving a little ways to achieve that.
I know I remarked to the wife several times in our travels since then that the newer policy seemed likely to get someone killed.
Regulations and laws with the best of intentions are sometimes, and not all that rarely, found to have resulted in the opposite result of their intent. Can't help but wonder if this is one of them.
Best of luck to all LEO's out there doing their jobs, but I hope if you have the option, you'll practice the old method of getting out of the road....the newer "in your face" prcatice doesn't appear to be working as intended.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jul 23, 2013 11:42:02 GMT -5
I did that on a couple of my Browning compounds several years back. Helped me to get used to the feel of settling the grip in the right place on my bow hand, as I could feel the exact location of it better. After shooting without the grip for a season or two, I went back to it for the comfort, and didn't have the torque problems return, so it was a helpful experience for me.
A lot depends on your bow and your hand size, as well as your personal form issues.
Quite a few guys seem to benefit from going to thinner aftermarket grips for their Mathews bows, and one Mathews I owned had the grip reworked for a slimmer and less torque-sensitive feel. I'm 5' 9" with about average sized hands for my height. A friend who also shoots Mathews is slightly shorter and has some torque issues, although he overcomes them well with good form when he's practiced up. My relatives who are 6' plus seem to not have the issues, so hand size seems to be a factor.
I would have to disagree with what trapperdave said above in one respect. Even with an open hand, the friction between the skin and the grip surface can impart a lot of torque into the bow. It can be difficult to find by feel and can be done in so consistent a manner that your groups will be good, until something happens to change that friction. One of the best ways to discover whether you are imparting torque due to such skin friction is to use a thin cotton glove or a lubricant such as WD-40 on the grip and try a couple shots normally. If the POI moves laterally to different point it's a good indication that you have been unknowingly torquing the riser.
Been there, done that....a couple of times. It can be sneaky because if you're making that form error very consistently in practice, nothing feels amiss and your results will be fine until that chilly day when you wear a glove or that rainy day when you try a shot with a wet grip. Better to find the form problem and fix it, then you will have the same POI under any circumstances. Sounds like from your own experiment with removing the grip, you probably have very little problem if any in that department. That's good. A few shots with some lube on the hand from time to time is a good way to be sure, though.
Like a lot of other shooting problems, some guys will encounter it, some won't, and some may occasionally. Good to be aware of the possibility so that it may be easier to detect and fix if ever needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jul 23, 2013 11:01:31 GMT -5
I'll play:
Does look similar to my memory of the big lake at A'bury, so I'll concur with freedomhunter on the location.
Looks to be the right shape for a dual-sport style bike. I'd have to guess Honda just because they are well represented in that field.
I'll go with a 5 weight, that's about what I like for my home-tied rubber spiders about that size, and they seem to go well with take-down of about six or six and half feet, which would probably work with the bike.
Obvously a spider, I'm guessing rubber. Not familiar with the commercially available ones. I used mostly black w/gray legs, especially in evenings, but found the green color w/white legs to be better in daytime shadows or gray days.
I'll guess a dozen as the catch. Bluegills should be hitting the spiders pretty well in the evenings and the lighting in the shot suggests an evening trip.
Nice shot. Makes me want to abandon the yardwork this evening, toss the canoe on the Jeep, and dust off the flyrod in the garage. Been a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jul 22, 2013 10:55:54 GMT -5
My favorite way to fix venison now is to thaw the backstrap roast overnight in the fridge, then slice several "medallions" from it about 3/4" thick and grill them. Sometimes I rub the roast with salt and fresh ground black pepper before slicing, have also rubbed it with McCormick's meat flavoring, but for my tastes, I like it every bit as well without any additional flavoring.
The most important factor is the avoidance of excessive heat and overcooking. I like the George Foreman grille preheated to about 400 degrees and just toss the medallions on there for a brief stay. The time depends on the thickness. I use a meat thermometer and pull them off when they reach about 140 degrees internal temp, which only takes a very few minutes, usually about three, IIRC. I let them sit a couple more while I fix the rest of the plate, and they are juicy and tender and taste very much the way venison should, IMO. They are barely medium rare at that point...not pink or bloody, but not even starting to get dry. Can't get the wife to cook them briefly enough, so I always do these myself 8^).
I usually get two to three meals from one smallish backstrap, depending on my hunger at the time. These are good enough that I look forward to having the same thing another day or two, and the leftover unsliced portion keeps very nicely in the fridge covered with clear plastic wrap or foil.
Great for breakfast with a couple of eggs, too.
Admittedly, most of my deer have been sort of young and tender to start with, and those medallions aren't real big, but the guys I've talked with who have used the same method on much larger and older deer seem to have reached the same conclusion, with the exception that some of them prefer to add various seasonings as a matter of personal tastes.
And it's hard to beat for convenience and quick cleanup as well. If the George Foreman grille and the microwave had been around fifty years ago I might still be a bachelor....
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jul 12, 2013 9:20:39 GMT -5
I agree that it's much better to process your own meat, including the grinding. There is a considerable satisfaction to the process, as well as a savings in cost, and the assurance that the meat you have in your freezer is actually that which you killed.
There will probably be suggestions to buy a quality grinder that will last a lifetime, and that may be suitable IF you're certain you'll stay in the hunting sport and enjoy lots of success in bringing home game over the years.
I ground all the venison from my first several deer on a grinding attachment to an older KitchenAid mixer and it did just fine, but was slow, and I eventually bought a bargain priced one on sale for $50 at Dick's Sporting Goods several years ago. It's speed is less then the high-dollar pro grinders, but for the average hunter who will be grinding a deer or two year if really lucky, a two-pounds-a-minute grinding rate will only make few minutes difference in the whole process. Considerably faster than the attachment, and cheaper to replace if it should die while grinding venison. The wife would probably want a replacement for the for the whole mixer and those things cost an arm and a leg!
If you don't have a grinder attachment already, the single-purpose grinder is a worthwhile purchase on it's own merits even if you never bring home a deer, just for kitchen use in making ham/chicken salad, etc.
The biggest factor in getting really good burger from your venison is in handling the carcass before processing, and trimming the meat before grinding.
I also bought a dedicated cheap slicer, but found that to be less durable and less useful, and didn't bother to replace the second one when it died. I found that over the years, we gradually ate fewer and fewer steaks, and more roasts and burger. And when I do want to do a few steaks I just thaw a roast and slice it into steaks after thawing, just using a sharp knife and a small cutting board.
Home processing is a very satisfying part of the whole process of putting you own meat on the table. Much can be invested in very good gear to do it with, but it can be accomplished with the same results with a little more time and effort, using very minimal dedicated equipment.
I put a "skyhook" in my garage (just a large eye-bolt properly supported across four rafters), to pull a car engine originally, but it became my favorite way to hang a deer for processing. I can keep the garage at a cooler temperature than the house, which helps in allowing me a more leisurely pace in getting the job done. My cutting table is very generous in size, being a flush interior door across two sawhorses. The sawhorses fold up and the door stands against the wall in an out-of-the-way corner between uses. Plenty of room to lay an entire deer quarter on it to cut and trim the meat, with room for the large bowl for "burger bits" waiting to be ground, and a plastic bucket nearby underneath for inedible scraps/trimmings. Really nice to have it inside with good lighting and no worries about neighborhood dogs, or bad weather disrupting or delaying the effort. If a permanent skyhook is not an option where you live, a temporary one can be assembled with a few 2x4's and some nuts and bolts that can be disassembled and stored away in a few minutes time. Skinning and processing CAN be accomplished without one, but it's a lot handier with it.
Saws are completely unnecessary. I do usually saw off the lower portions of the legs just for convenience in handling, but even that step is optional, and I have never needed one for any of the other processing. it's really best to avoid sawing through bone and meat.
It can be done in a number of other ways, including hanging them from a tree limb or the kids' swing set. One guy I know hung his in an upstairs closet when he was in a rented older house between wives, and processed it on the kitchen table, with a little more difficulty in handling and cleanup, but fine results.
Several others I know who process their own and have for years have come to the same conclusions regarding slicing and even grinding....that some or all of it can be delayed until the meat is thawed. If you're sure you will want so many steaks and so many pounds of burger, it's fine to do it at the initial processing, but there's flexibility in cutting more roasts and then if you run low on burger or steaks, slice or grind what you need from a thawed roast later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jul 9, 2013 23:27:48 GMT -5
Mine's not much to look at after seeing all those commercial varieties, but i'll try to get some pic's and post them. Been trying to learn the tricks of a new camera and have meant for some time to re-learn the procedure for posting pic's, so this would be a good opportunity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jul 8, 2013 10:40:11 GMT -5
Jon Snow, if you are worried about longer land travels with it, you might want to consider a rolling carrier to use with it. I made one that I used several times to wheel my 17' Coleman with winter camp gear in it a mile or so from nearest parking to a low water launch point on a gravel trail closed to motorized traffic. There are commercially made ones available also that fold down flat to ride more easily inside the canoe, but my homemade one does pretty well and I just invert it across the gunnels amidships until I get to the spot where I want to camp. For non-camping outings where it would be needed, a guy could always cable and lock it to a nearby tree, I suppose. I've only used mine when camping out of the canoe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jul 4, 2013 9:59:33 GMT -5
Most of the "must spine match" advice dates back to the days before full centershot bows and release aids. Then, it DID make a lot of difference, and clean flight was much harder to achieve with arrows that were not reasonably well matched to the draw weight.
Not so much now. Underspined arrows are still not a good idea, as they are usually extremely sensitive to any form flaws and may even be dangerous to shoot.
Overspined (too stiff) arrows can almost always be brought to yield very clean flight. The adjustment necessary may be outside the normal setting range, and may sometimes result in some initial variation from the perfecr flight path that shows when paper tuning them,but the actual difference in downrange performance is minimal.
I've always been a fan of stiffer arrows than are recommended by the charts. I find them to be more consistent, and they are normally stiffer because they're stronger and heavier, and that makes them more durable and lets them utilize slightly more of the bow's energy.
As dbd870 said, as long as she's accurate with them and they fly well, no need to worry about it.
Archery has been around for a long time, and some of the established "rules" and procedures that you see are based on old practices and equipment that has changed in the last few decades. Check out the IN hunter ed test for examples. Questions on "fistmele", position of the "cock feather", etc. More appropriate to a course in archery history than anything pertaining to shooting and hunting with equipment used by the majority of current archers.
Possibly also influencing the advice to exactly spine match arrows with today's bows is the fact that the shop would rather sell you a dozen more closely matched arrows 8^)
When she's shooting for first place at the local 3D shoots, you might want to consider arrows more closely matched to her draw weight to minimize drop in her trajectory, but until then, you're good to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jun 28, 2013 13:25:42 GMT -5
Love winter camping while hunting. Brother and I camped in the Deem wilderness several times in the late season. Also hunted late camps with a nephew a few times, and in North Dakota with friends, where it can become winter with a wind shift anytime after the first of September.
As I always say when people hear about it and think we're nuts..."Hey, no bugs, no snakes, no crowds...what's not to like?".
I have come to prefer a jug inside the tent to a bracing midnight stroll away from the tent, when nature calls. Especially in ND rattler country. Get back to sleep much quicker. The quart-sized ones that honey comes in are the ones I prefer.
Second the wool stocking cap. My coldest-weather bag is a good synthetic filled mummy, but we are usually canoe camping and taking the roomy tent and have room to pack more gear, so we like taking two cheaper bags that are more roomy. More flexibility when the expected temps/winds change, and more comfort.
A small sack full of chemical handwarmers has helped a lot a few times. So has using the propane stove inside the tent, not all night, but for a while to take the chill off and maybe again in the morning to heat the breakfast water for instant oats and coffee.
Always kind of wanted to get a small stove for the tent, but never wanted to tie up the money to do that the easy way, for the limited times we'd use it. For practical purposes, the propane two-burner and small electric overhead LED lantern are hard to beat on the nights when being outside around the campfire gets too uncomfortable to be fun anymore.
Current tent is a cheap 10x12 from Wallyworld, the one before that was about the same. Each lasted several years of western truck camping and more local truck and canoe camping in all weather with good durability and comfort. Second one is about worn out now, but so is the owner, not sure if I'll replace it 8^).
We used a more backpackable 7x7 one trip, and slept in it just fine, but the lack of room to stand or sit or fix meals became uncomfortable when the weather turned nastier, so we carried the bigger tent after that with no regrets.
I like to get off the ground more as I get older, so I now take a piece of 3/4 inch plywood my height and just under two feet wide, and place it across a couple of plastic totes that I pack my gear in. Makes a great sub for a cot and takes up less space in the canoe or truck, and I can roll out of it without getting charliehorses after a day of hiking. Good place to sit and makes more floor space in the tent as well by using the space under it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jun 25, 2013 14:56:44 GMT -5
Billy, I think you may have misunderstood the term "vision correction" to mean "corrective surgery".
I was speaking only of the non-surgical options. Kind of leery myself about eye surgery, and it usually doesn't take care of the problem we are speaking of very well anyway. Several in my family have had corrective surgery, and most of them still need reading glasses when they reach middle age. Presbyopia is a separate problem, caused by the normal stiffening of our eyeballs as we age that prevents us from focusing through the entire range of distances that we could when we were younger.
The correction I meant was simply glasses or contacts. For bowhunting, my favorite solution is contacts in two strengths, one for distance vision in the non-aiming eye, and one with reduced correction in the aiming eye. This is known over here as "monovision" (I have no idea why, since it's dealing not only with both eyes but with two differing focal lengths, but you know how strange some of our language is...8^) ).
It's a reasonably normal solution for aging eyes and works quite well for most folks, although occasionally someone has difficulty adapting to it and has to seek another method. The brain automatically and smoothly accepts the image from the eye which provides the better image, so you see the critter sharply focused with the eye with good distance vision and then the pins sharply focused using the eye that is corrected for focusing at 30 inches. It can be used even when leaving both eyes open by most people, but I found that for me, I would occasionally get the message crossed and somehow place the pin on the target using the left (non-aiming) eye, resulting in miss left about a foot and a half at thirty yards. I had formerly shot for years with the left closed at final aim, so it was easy for me to simply go back to that practice and eliminate the problem.
The downrange image of the critter using the eye that's corrected for a thirty-inch focal distance will still be fairly sharp, much better than the image of the pin with the eye corrected for distance vision (or uncorrected, if your distance vision is fine without correction).
The same effect can be achieved with reading glasses with the non-aiming eye lens removed, and that's an easy and inexpensive way to determine whether the monovision solution is right for you.
I just prefer the contacts when hunting as there are no reflective surfaces to alert the game, and nothing to fog up or collect rain and snow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jun 19, 2013 9:27:25 GMT -5
By a vote of 53 to 46, the Senate voted to uphold the Second Amendment and to prevent the US from joining the UN Arms Treaty.
Both IN senators voted with the majority to protect out rights to keep and bear arms.
A note of thanks is due to them both, but IMO especially to Joe Donnelly who bucked the Democratic Party leadership in joining a half dozen or so other Democrat senators, mostly from western or southern states, in doing so.
I understand some folks being disappointed with his earlier vote on universal background checks, I was too. But this vote shows some political courage in our direction. Credit where credit is due.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jun 10, 2013 11:06:32 GMT -5
Thanks Woody.
I agree on the draw-locs. I'm back to something approaching normal with my compound now, but might still appreciate something to help steady the shot and overcome the target panic that has plagued me lately. I expect a draw-loc would be just the ticket for me personally, and I also can't see any logic in denying them while admitting the crossbow. Also agree on the crossbow draw weight restriction being unnecessary and unrealistic. At least two of the reverse-draw crossbows on the market have performance levels well into the accepted normal range when using 90# peak draw weight limbs and the longer power strokes.
I think I'll give them my input online. Either actual meeting would be a minimum of 2 1/2 hours drive and a bit over $25 bucks worth of gas, round trip. Enjoyed attending a few such meetings years ago, but the efficiency of the electronic option available now is too great a lure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jun 7, 2013 15:41:36 GMT -5
Just back from Martinsville Rural King. They had Remington Thunderbolt .22 LR's in, but solid point only. I picked up two boxes, which will probably take care of my practice needs until season, and I have enough of my trusted CCI Minimags hollow points for hunting.
They had several boxes left after I got mine, so I figured I'd post this to let anyone else on here who has been seeking some .22 ammo know about them. Seemed like the price was about normal, $2.99/ box of 50.
I had heard of a afew other guys finding a few boxes too, so I suppose the supplies are starting to catch up again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jun 4, 2013 12:11:22 GMT -5
I had one. Bought it used off Graigslist for $200. Shot it a few dozen times while I wasn't sure if I would ever be able to shoot my compound again. Previous owner said he'd bought it new and hadn't used it much, and I could find no evidence to the contrary.
Liked it OK, easy to shoot and hit with. Heavy to tote and cumbersome, compared to the compound, but I suppose it wouldn't have been bad after getting it to the stand or blind.
Accurate, and plenty fast enough to be a very effective hunting tool. Trigger wasn't what I'd have liked in a rifle, but wasn't bad for x-bows of that period. That's one of the areas where there has been improvement in the higher end models since, I understand. I've had worse triggers in a couple of shotguns, but it had more creep than any rifle I ever owned. Didn't hurt it for my use, as I was planning to only use it with a good steady rest anyway and it didn't hamper accuracy after I got used to it, but it would hamper ever getting great accuracy while shooting offhand.
Mine had the accessory cranking device built into the stock, and had the red dot scope option. Groups were very good with the red dot, but being a single dot without the range adjusting mount meant holding over at longer ranges. I didn't get real serious about it, as it was all kind of a "just in case" adventure and curiosity satisfaction, so I simply picked a spot on the big target box I was using for longer range shots to see what kind of groups I could expect shooting from a good rest. Would have wanted something with better range adjustment for hunting if it had come to that, but could have easily used the single spot scope to about thirty, maybe forty yards with just "KY english" with more practice and using the rangefinder for good yardage readings. Accuracy was there to squirrel hunt with at that range using a good rest.
Sold it after my rehabbing went well enough to get the Mathews in my hands again at hunting weight. Got back what I had in it except for a couple bolts and some spray lube that I had purchased to shoot and maintain it. (Found out the bolts are easier to lose in casual practice than arrows, especially during early long-range practice sessions).
Seemed like a pretty decent machine. Probably a good one for the money, but I had no real basis for comparison except one super-cheap recurve x-bow I had bought earlier and wasn't impressed with at all. Reviews I read at the time were favorable for the most part, as were the personal experiences of the few owners I managed to ask.
I'd recommend checking out the used ones on CL and classifieds. I think they are one of those items like weight training gear, treadmills, and camping gear, that are often found for sale with much less use on them than the original purchaser had envisioned when they bought them. Good percentage of bargains to be had on like-new ones at half original price or less.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on May 23, 2013 11:48:50 GMT -5
OK, this question bugged me and I looked into it further just now.
Apparently established rule in Indiana, which has been cited in suits that got argued all the way to the Indiana Supreme Court, is that on small non-navigable private lakes, the use of the water IS in fact determined by the ownership of the land under it, which DOES follow the property lines just as though it were dry land.
The 1999 decision by the Indiana Supreme Court in the case of Carnahan v. Moriah seems to be the most recent and most definitive ruling.
There were other previous rulings by lower courts in Indiana that differed, including some that supported the principle that I thought still ruled, that recreational use of the surface waters of theentire body was shared by all shoreline owners.
Lots of intertangled legal points involved in the details, and some exceptions under various circumstances such as "adverse" usage, but the gist of it is that the recreational use of each shoreline landowner would be limited to that portion of the lake directly above the portion of the lakebed he has title to.
There still appear to be some exceptions that I couldn't find any legal precedent for. I have seen reference to riparian rights to the use of the surface waters of private lakes being included in the deeds to the property and transferred with those deeds as part of the purchase. This would probably constitute a legal exception, but I couldn't find any example of it being tested in court.
There is also a legal exception in the case of "adversarial easement" which basically means that the use had been previously established over a long period with the "acquiescence" of the majority property owner, but the proofs required for claiming such an exception make it negligible in most cases.
So, it looks like there are still considerably diverse opinions even within legal professionals about the matter, but the prevailing ruling, at least until it gets overturned, sides with the opinion expressed by Morrison on the "ask the CO" forum.
His answers seem to be right pretty often....probably our best source on here for legal answers. I still like to Google up my own sometimes, when the weather's not fit for doing something more fun, and the alternative is to get back to work out in the garage.
My earlier answers do still apply to moving waters and those larger lakes at least partially owned by the public, as near as I could determine.
That's all I'm probably going to dig up on the subject. The Lawnboy in the garage still needs reassembly and I have a dozen new carbons to cut and fletch, and I've about reached my upper tolerance for trying to interpret legalese for awhile.
Sorry to have misled with my previously expressed opinion, which appears to have been wro...., wr...., (still can't say it!)....., "factually incorrect". 8^)
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on May 23, 2013 11:48:13 GMT -5
OK, this question bugged me and I looked into it further just now.
Apparently established rule in Indiana, which has been cited in suits that got argued all the way to the Indiana Supreme Court, is that on small non-navigable private lakes, the use of the water IS in fact determined by the ownership of the land under it, which DOES follow the property lines just as though it were dry land.
The 1999 decision by the Indiana Supreme Court in the case of Carnahan v. Moriah seems to be the most recent and most definitive ruling.
There were other previous rulings by lower courts in Indiana that differed, including some that supported the principle that I thought still ruled, that recreational use of the surface waters of the entire body was shared by all shoreline owners.
Lots of intertangled legal points involved in the details, and some exceptions under various circumstances such as "adverse" usage, but the gist of it is that the recreational use of each shoreline landowner would be limited to that portion of the lake directly above the portion of the lakebed he has title to.
There still appear to be some exceptions that I couldn't find any legal precedent for. I have seen reference to riparian rights to the use of the surface waters of private lakes being included in the deeds to the property and transferred with those deeds as part of the purchase. This would probably constitute a legal exception, but I couldn't find any example of it being tested in court.
There is also a legal exception in the case of "adversarial easement" which basically means that the use had been previously established over a long period with the "acquiescence" of the majority property owner, but the proofs required for claiming such an exception make it negligible in most cases.
So, it looks like there are still considerably diverse opinions even within legal professionals about the matter, but the prevailing ruling, at least until it gets overturned, sides with the opinion expressed by Morrison on the "ask the CO" forum.
His answers seem to be right pretty often....probably our best source on here for legal answers. I still like to Google up my own sometimes, when the weather's not fit for doing something more fun, and the alternative is to get back to work out in the garage.
My earlier answers do still apply to moving waters and those larger lakes at least partially owned by the public, as near as I could determine.
That's all I'm probably going to dig up on the subject. The Lawnboy in the garage still needs reassembly and I have a dozen new carbons to cut and fletch, and I've about reached my upper tolerance for trying to interpret legalese for awhile.
Sorry to have misled with my previously expressed opinion, which appears to have been wro...., wr...., (still can't say it!)....., "factually incorrect". 8^)
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on May 22, 2013 15:30:01 GMT -5
The lawyer was doing his job, representing his client. Sometimes that includes claiming some rights or privileges that don't clearly exist or that are up for discussion, but the attorney isn't required or legally responsible for the accuracy of the claims. His job is to put the most advantageous face on the matter for his client to see if he can get the desired result.
Sometimes the attorney's letterhead is enough to sway an argument. Other times, if the other party feels strongly enough to risk paying court costs and attorney's fees for taking the matter to court, a judge may get involved.
The judges decision does need to follow the law much more closely than the attorneys claims on behalf of either party, but even judges' decisions get overturned with some frequency when appealed.
Sounds like a reasonably amicable decision was reached that was probably best all around. Likely someone made that decision as the most pragmatic way to resolve the dispute....could have been your Grandma's attorney, or your Grandma, in deciding not to pursue the matter.
The letter of the law doesn't always yield the best results. For instance, the letter of the law says that if you hunt within such and such a distance of bait, you are guilty, whether or not you placed the bait or had any knowledge of it's presence. That has resulted in a few people being cited for hunting over bait that had been placed near their stands by an opponent who then called the law. Of course no CO would write the ticket if he knew or thought the person being cited was an innocent victim, but how are they to know?
Many other examples abound.
The personal touch provided by the LEO, the local prosecutor, or a wise attorney, in seeking a peaceable resolution to a situation that harm's neither party, often is the best answer to a situation, even when the letter of the law has to be overlooked to achieve it.
In the case of the jetski, if it kept the youngster from using it in the other owner's backyard, it probably prevented further legal action by the disturbed neighbor claiming injury to his enjoyment of the lake, disturbing the peace, etc.
Our lake association banned any new jetskis several years ago...legally had to grandfather in the ones that existed in the ownership of property owners in the association already, but they could not be replaced when they wore out. They can become pretty bothersome after a while. The association owned the lake so they could do so by a majority vote, but still legally had to protect the current owners from legal injury resulting from the action.
But to get back to the OP, I suspect the riparian rights would have attached to the 10 acre parcel, unless there was some unusual exception.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on May 21, 2013 21:16:06 GMT -5
That reason would be something called "riparian rights".
These rights began at least as far back as English common law dating back to the days of the Magna Carta, and some authorities put their origins even further back in history to the Romans.
They were originally meant to govern the use of moving waters, but were generally expanded to include the use the water surface in standing waters as well going back to the earliest real estate law in this country.
There are some differences between the accepted interpretations in the eastern and western halves of the country, with the eastern half leaning more towards the traditional interpretation that any owner of the shoreline has the right to use the entire surface of the lake.
In Indiana law, there are some listed limits and exceptions, but the main principle remains. Most of the limitations appear to deal with uses of the water that might be injurious to the other owners, such as polluting the water or altering its level.
Maybe the use of a jetski would fall under that definition in the eyes of an officer, and quite possibly it would be upheld in court as being so, but that ruling would be limited to the use of the jetski in the entire lake, not separate "ownership" of various areas of the water's surface. I can easily imagine a CO telling a jetski operator to use the machine only in "his" part of the lake as a means to settle a dispute without either party needing to make a lawyer richer, just as a beat cop might request that partiers turn down their music in response to a complaint rather than making an arrest for disturbing the peace without trying to resolve the situation amicably.
As in most other areas, there may be individual cases where the established legal principles get ignored. And there are often decisions and opinions given by even some law officers or local officials that are in conflict with the law, through lack of knowledge or the desire to take the easy way out and avoid conflict.
As with many of our rights, these riparian rights are not automatically guaranteed, but must be preserved by standing up for them in court.
|
|
