Fishbaithohaha, I'm betting that was directed at me.
fishbaithohaha wrote:
In OH, landowners do not own deer crossing their property. Neither do they own the fish swimming or the water flowing in a stream.
Of course not. But unless you have permission (OH), you will need to go around that private property and get them on the other side. Written permission for hunting.
That is a strawman argument if there ever was one, and frankly it's been used so much that the staw has mostly been beaten out of it.
Do I own the deer on my farm? Of course not. That is why I must follow ODNR rules just like everyone else, but as land owner, I don't need permission to hunt them on my own land.
Lets keep it real.
No one want the state to take people's property.
I've been on here long enough to realize that isn't true. Maybe most don't, but you said no one.
However, gaining control of public property by artifice is as abhorrent.
Of course it is.
Further, it is an AG's responsibility to ensure public goods are not taken.
Not really. The Attorney General is the top cop in charge of enforcing laws and various court rulings. He is not a dictator. It is not his responsibility to seek these things out or pass judgement.
Utah politicians attempting to transfer public resources to private ownership is a recent example. VA's supreme court's ruling is another example of chicanery to gain control of public property.
I can't comment much on that, other than it is apples to oranges. But have you ever wondered why many states out west have large percentages of Federal land? Here is why. The Federal Government made the "Territory" turn it over to the Feds as part of the process for statehood. Many could argue that once statehood was granted, it should have been turned over to the newly formed state, but it wasn't. Only those parts privately owned were turned back over to the state and who then deeded it to the owner. Some might see this as the Federal Government stole it in the first place. Most didn't care back then when the land was considered worthless, but it doesn't change the fact that it is questionable.
Now, back to the subject at hand. If you think I am siding with Donny Beaver or the DSR or whatever it is called, you would be mistaken. I just presented fact as I understand them.
Bottom line, it is within there right to post PRIVATE land regardless of what critters are on it, or pass through it.
In the case of the LJ case, The Espy family thought they did own the land under the stream and had fairly strong historical documentation to support that. Donny Beaver must have felt the Espys owned the land as well, or he wouldn't have leased it for club purposes. I can't and won't speak for the Beav, but it is not inconceivable that he had no intention to "steal" public land. Fortunately for those that fish there, laws created about a century after the land grant said that Espy did not own the land under the stream.
I speculate that under older British law which applied at the time of the land grant, Espy likely did own the land under the stream. Although PA law is very similar, British law applied to tidal water, up to high tied was public. It's an island. The original 18 colonies extended that to rivers as well because of the vastness, and rivers were a major course of commerce. So, on one hand, Espy was not wrong, and the Government may have stolen his land. But it was stolen more than 200 years ago and nobody noticed until recently.
Ironically, if the landowner had simply posted the land and only let people fish there by permission, it likely would have never been settled to court. It wasn't up to the AG to make that decision.
Look, you might not like what I said, but I try to write based on facts available instead of emotion.
Look, if you wish to hunt or fish on my land, I won't charge you. I could charge, but won't. But you will need permission. It's the law. I don't own the deer or even the baitfish in the small crick. I may not even own the fish in my privately stocked ponds (I'm still scratching my head on that one). But as long as they are on or suspended above my property, nobody can hunt or fish them legally except me, my wife, and those I grant written permission to. End of story.
If I decided to charge money, that might make me a dirtbag, but not a thief.
a
