Posts: 85
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2013
Reputation:
0
Petition. Here is a link to a site that allows you to start a petition. You can then Link it back to this forum. I have seen this site work and it does a good job.
http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/5620
I still think a late Fri nite get together on the water with plenty of good stereo bass or an early Sat morning doing the same thing would work to.
[  ][fishon][angelic]
[signature]
Posts: 151
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation:
0
years back before all the houses and what not were built in that area I called Beck construction and they readily gave me permission to hunt the ponds that were there. I didn't have any issues until they started building all the houses. I understand everybody's concerns and agree with them. But to play devils advocate for a min....I wonder if all the traffic at gem lake rec area where all the kids swim have trespassed onto his property to the point that he is being a hard ass about everything?
[signature]
Posts: 19
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation:
0
If you knew him like I do, you wouldn't think so. Its about power and him throwing his weight around. He sues people all the time. Par for the course with him
[signature]
Posts: 15
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation:
0
Agreed! Beck is all about power and manipulation. He wants people to cower to him, makes him feel good. Best word I heard to describe him is bully. This is what Corey Taule wrote in paper. Sorry to hear about the family problems with him. I am the guy he sued for fishing this pond and when offered a settlement agreement he threatened to sue the rest of my family because he believes they may have fished there in the past! This is what really forced me to fight this bogus lawsuit(not that I didn't want to anyway). I was going to sign his stupid agreement in the better interest of my family and our financial situation, until he threatened my family. That is one thing I will not stand for. Threaten me all you want but threaten my family for no reason and we have a serious problem! There is just no room for people like him in the world. Thriving on making everybodies life a living hell. I have lokked him up on the repository and he pretty well owns it.Baffles me a guy could even has enough time to sue all these people. Justice was most definitely done here. I believe in karma though and sooner or later this will come back around to bite him.Can't wait till that day
[signature]
Posts: 15
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation:
0
I couldn't agree more! the more the merrier and the earlier the better. Loud stereos would be good
[signature]
Posts: 10
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
0
I would be careful about blaring the music in the mornings. It could be seen as some sort of illegal disturbance and may get an unwanted visit from law enforcement. However, if one were to build a permanent ice shanty to leave on the ice at the mouth of the "harbor" on the public side for the duration of the ice fishing season it would be difficult to find that illegal. (You have to put name and address on the shack)
If word got out that this was a good fishing spot I could imagine a hundred shacks in such an area. I am thinking of painting mine neon green with big pink polka dots.
[signature]
Posts: 85
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2013
Reputation:
0
Let's set up a date and we will provide him music to go to sleep by or music to wake up by.
he is one of those if it doesn't go his way he is mad. Well I don't think music on the river will be anything it would bother but him.
Lets do it . It would be nice to put him to sleep and wake him up the next morning.
[fishon][cool][  ][bob ][mad]
[signature]
Posts: 15
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation:
0
As much as I would like to I am in deep enough as it is. fishidaho has a valid point. I am most certain it would become a problem with law enforcement and I cannot afford any more problems with this guy.
However I would like to ask for help in finding a good attorney who might help fight this on a contingency basis(I have no money to keep up the fight) or even help from the public to appeal this decision made by judge Tingey. I have racked up a hefty attorney bill which I am having difficulty paying and therefor cannot go on with this fight though I am confident we will win if appealed to a higher court. I am running out of time to appeal and Beck has just asked for damages in the amount of 500 dollars and for his attorneys fees on top of that which would easily put my bill over 15 thousand dollars! If anyone is in a position to help in any way it would be greatly appreciated. I think if we got enough people to come together and help fund this "fight for our rights," we could get this done with minimal damage to our pocket books. To settle on this case now would mean losing a lot of money for nothing. I have already taken it this far on my dime and I would like to see something come of it if any way possible.This is my last resort to ask for help or suggestions and would greatly appreciate any input, help, or thoughts on what to do next. I think if we allow this to end here it will go away forever and he will win a lifetime of using our water and fish at the expense of us all.If anyone wants to help in any way please respond. Now is the time to act if anyone wants to see something done and put Beck in his place.Damages and attorney fees will be addressed on June 27th and after that it is pretty well over simply because I do not have the finances to go any further without help. As of right now I can still appeal if I can find a way to do so. Is there an attorney out there willing to help with this? Any input or advice would not go unnoticed. Thanks for listening and hope to hear from you all!
[signature]
Posts: 817
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation:
0
Posts: 15
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation:
0
Who said it was bogus. This website says exactly what I have been saying and supports my views on the issue
[signature]
Posts: 339
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Does anybody have the coordinates or can describe how to get there from a landmark so I can take a look at the layout on Google Earth?
[signature]
Posts: 256
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation:
0
I think if you google search gem lake road, Idaho falls.....i think you will find it.
If the entrance is posted private property, then you shouldn't accidently navigate into the private ponds right? Is this why he can sue you as a trespasser? it is posted private and people are disregarding the posting?
If I am looking at the harbor correctly on google maps....I can see why they want to keep it private...not saying it's right just pointing out what I see.....
[signature]
Posts: 563
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation:
0
People with so called money, dirty or not.
Just upset peoples like me.
Idaho still holds alot of good peoples. I look for locals that have not sold out to the all mighty buck.
My guess, Mr. Beck goes to bed wishing he married Jane Fonda.
Ted Turner Montana
[signature]
Posts: 131
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2011
Reputation:
0
[quote MatchT]I think if you google search gem lake road, Idaho falls.....i think you will find it.
If the entrance is posted private property, then you shouldn't accidently navigate into the private ponds right? Is this why he can sue you as a trespasser? it is posted private and people are disregarding the posting?
If I am looking at the harbor correctly on google maps....I can see why they want to keep it private...not saying it's right just pointing out what I see.....[/quote]
I looked it up on google earth. looks to me that it does not matter where the signs go. Idaho law states that you can gu through private property up to the high water mark.
Here is the law. ( sorry its kinda long)
Review of the relationship of federal and state law regarding rivers:
The section on National River Law discusses river ownership, use, and conservation law throughout the United States. Following is a review of what individual states can and cannot lawfully do with the rivers within their borders.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that rivers that are navigable, for title purposes, are owned by the states, "held in trust" for the public. This applies in all fifty states, under the "Equal Footing Doctrine."
Rivers that do meet the federal test are automatically navigable, and therefore owned by the state. No court or government agency has to designate them as such.
The federal test of navigability is not a technical test. There are no measurements of river width, depth, flow, or steepness involved. The test is simply whether the river is usable as a route by the public, even in small craft such as canoes, kayaks, and rafts. Such a river is legally navigable even if it contains big rapids, waterfalls, and other obstructions at which boaters get out, walk around, then re-enter the water.
The states own these rivers up to the "ordinary high water mark." This is the mark that people can actually see on the ground, where the high water has left debris, sand, and gravel during its ordinary annual cycle. (Not during unusual flooding.) It is not a theoretical line requiring engineering calculations. Where the river banks are fairly flat, this mark can be quite a distance from the edge of the water during medium water flows. There is often plenty of room for standing, fishing, camping, and other visits.
States cannot sell or give away these rivers and lands up to the ordinary high water mark. Under the "Public Trust Doctrine," they must hold them in perpetuity for public use.
The three public uses that the courts have traditionally mentioned are navigation, fishing, and commerce. But the courts have ruled that any and all non-destructive activities on these land are legally protected, including picnics, camping, walking, and other activities. The public can fish, from the river or from the shore below the "ordinary high water mark." (Note that the fish and wildlife are owned by the state in any case.) The public can walk, roll a baby carriage, and other activities, according to court decisions.
States do have authority and latitude in the way they manage rivers, but their management must protect the public uses mentioned above. They can (and must) prohibit or restrict activities that conflict with the Public Trust Doctrine. "Responsible recreation" must be allowed, but activities that could be harmful, such as building fires, leaving trash, and making noise, can legally be limited, or prohibited, in various areas. Motorized trips and commercial trips can legally be limited or prohibited by state governments.
State and local restrictions on use of navigable rivers have to be legitimately related to enhancing public trust value, not reducing it. Rivers cannot be closed or partially closed to appease adjacent landowners, or to appease people who want to dedicate the river to fishing only, or to make life easier for local law enforcement agencies.
State governments (through state courts and legislatures) cannot reduce public rights to navigate and visit navigable rivers within their borders, but they can expand those rights, and some states have done so. They can create a floatage easement, a public right to navigate even on rivers that might not qualify for state ownership for some reason, even if it is assumed that the bed and banks of the river are private land. Note that this floatage easement is a matter of state law that varies from state to state, but the question of whether a river is navigable, for title purposes, and therefore owned by the state, is a matter of federal law, and does not vary from state to state. Note that a state floatage easement is something that comes and goes with the water: When the water is there, people have a right to be there on it, and when it dries up, people have no right to be there. But rivers that are navigable for title purposes are public land up to the ordinary high water mark, so that even when the river runs dry, people still have the right to walk along the bed of the river.
Only federal courts can modify the test of standards that make a river navigable for title purposes. States cannot create their own standards, either narrower or wider in scope. They can’t make definitive rulings about which rivers are navigable for title purposes, only a federal court can.
The situation gets confusing when a state agency or commission holds hearings about navigability and public use of rivers. Landowners, sheriffs, and other people tend to think that such an agency or commission can create state standards that determine which rivers are public and which are private. But these are matters of federal law which state agencies cannot change.
State agencies should make provisional determinations that various rivers meet the federal test of navigability for title purposes. These provisional determinations should be based simply on the rivers' usability by canoes, kayaks, and rafts. They should then proceed to the question of how to manage navigation and other public uses of the river. In these days of government cut-backs, the agency should look for solutions that use existing enforcement agencies rather than setting up new ones. Littering, illegal fires, offensive behavior, trespassing on private land, and numerous other offenses are all covered by existing laws, and offenders can be cited by the local police, sheriff's office or state police.
[signature]
Posts: 1,386
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation:
0
For the reasonings put forth in that long explanation, the ruling is simply wrong. I found that several other websites on this kind of issue support this and they all say this kind of issue comes up from time to time, and if people actually have the money and desire to push it to higher courts then it gets overturned. It's just a matter of someone having the nerve and resources to pull it off.
[signature]
Posts: 563
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation:
0
Really, what is this fight about?
My Native American friends used to own most of the water coming in and going.
Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt
Idaho
[signature]
Posts: 1,386
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation:
0
it's about access to the resources.
[signature]
Posts: 85
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2013
Reputation:
0
I would find out where you can contact the ACLU and see if they will help. Also check the web for atty's in Boise that can help.
Also contact the Idaho attty general and see if they will file an injunction to stop the proceedings until the issue is settled by the Idaho State courts.
[signature]
Posts: 85
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2013
Reputation:
0
Here is the link to the Idaho ACLU
http://acluidaho.org/
[signature]
Posts: 15
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation:
0
Thanks for the suggestion VNCowboy! I will give it a shot.
[signature]
|
