E.B.ScrippsLa Jolla Tidelands Grant ? - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

-scallywag- · 11-04-2009, 10:55 AM

This is probably old but there is a interesting references to fishing. Can anybody that understands mumbojumbo translate what this grant actually means, and how big a chunk of land are they talking about here?
http://www.childrenspool.org/legal/1...ands-grant.pdf

tylerdurden · 11-04-2009, 11:00 AM

Hat is just the childrens pool charter as it was given to the city wAy back when. The terms on which it was donated.

T-Rex · 11-04-2009, 02:10 PM

Yep, it was donated for the express purposes of:

a) That said lands shall be devoted exclusively to public park, bathing pool for children, parkway, highway and recreational purposes..."

b) The absolute right to fish in the Pacific over the waters of the tideland or submerged lands, with the right of convenient access...reserved to the people of the State of California."

You would think that is pretty clear cut, but I guess that doesn't matter when we're dealing with the Green Taliban. Just like the California Constitution doesn't matter either:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water containing fish that have been planted therein by the State; provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season when and the conditions under which the different species of fish may be taken.

I'm sick of dealing with these people who are hell bent on eliminating fishing from our waters.

forefrazier · 11-04-2009, 05:04 PM

"the legislature may by statute, provide for the season when and the conditions under which the different species of fish may be taken."

This last piece is the problem...I guess they are creating their own "conditions" in which fish can be taken.

robmandel · 11-04-2009, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forefrazier

"the legislature may by statute, provide for the season when and the conditions under which the different species of fish may be taken."

This last piece is the problem...I guess they are creating their own "conditions" in which fish can be taken.

well, we'll still be able to dip net for

that's the problem with legalese. but it does seem to me, that the "conditions under which fish may be taken", implies that fish may be, and are allowed to be, taken. this appears to contradict the no take at all blanket of the smr's since it doesn't specify conditions but instead universally bans fishing. i'm not a lawyer, but it does seem to me that the "absolute right" part does supercede. (iI'm sure there's some latin phrase for it.) of course, the problem we're gonna face is that there are already closures up north and whether we like it or not, current practice will go alot further than arcane legal argumentation.

and while this would be a perfect case for a federal appellate decision, the libertarian/federalist/anti-judiciary sentiment in me would very much dislike such involvement. however, what it will take, and someone will have to be the sacrificial lamb, is they will have to fish, get cited/arrested/gear confiscated, go through hell, fund the legal fight (which will be met 10-1 in dollars by the green nazis), then hope a court throws the case out on appeal. but since most of us guys aren't independently wealthy, nor do we have a multi-million foundation fronting for us, our best bet, and a losing one in california at that, is to take the fight to the public and make it an election issue. what we'd need to do is get city councils elected, maybe county sups, who are fishing friendly and will lobby the state to amend or repeal the mlpa.

in other words, we're f***ed

the thing we have going for us is that the dfg will have to enforce the bans and they are undermanned and underfunded. and, unless they're on the water and actually "catch us in the act" it's going to be a tough legal case. it's a hard call to say you weren't pulled into the smr by that big YT

j mo · 11-05-2009, 06:34 AM

I am still amazed how few people realize what is going on. When I explain to friends and family that they are in the process of losing the right to fish from some of the most accessible parts of our coastline, they look at me with disbelief.

Indeed our rights are being killed softly, I hope that the pendulmn someday will swing back toward reason and balanced thought.

11-04-2009, 10:55 AM	#1
-scallywag- Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: on the road... Posts: 598	E.B.ScrippsLa Jolla Tidelands Grant ? This is probably old but there is a interesting references to fishing. Can anybody that understands mumbojumbo translate what this grant actually means, and how big a chunk of land are they talking about here? http://www.childrenspool.org/legal/1...ands-grant.pdf

11-04-2009, 11:00 AM	#2
tylerdurden Bad Clone Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 874	Hat is just the childrens pool charter as it was given to the city wAy back when. The terms on which it was donated. __________________ MLPA, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem Let the Fish and Game Commission know what you think about the proposed maps. Be ready for December 9th and 10th.

11-04-2009, 02:10 PM	#3
T-Rex Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Rancho Santa Margarita Posts: 770	Yep, it was donated for the express purposes of: a) That said lands shall be devoted exclusively to public park, bathing pool for children, parkway, highway and recreational purposes..." b) The absolute right to fish in the Pacific over the waters of the tideland or submerged lands, with the right of convenient access...reserved to the people of the State of California." You would think that is pretty clear cut, but I guess that doesn't matter when we're dealing with the Green Taliban. Just like the California Constitution doesn't matter either: CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water containing fish that have been planted therein by the State; provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season when and the conditions under which the different species of fish may be taken. I'm sick of dealing with these people who are hell bent on eliminating fishing from our waters. __________________

11-04-2009, 05:04 PM	#4
forefrazier Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: OC Posts: 397	"the legislature may by statute, provide for the season when and the conditions under which the different species of fish may be taken." This last piece is the problem...I guess they are creating their own "conditions" in which fish can be taken.

11-05-2009, 06:34 AM	#6
j mo Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Encinitas Posts: 600	I am still amazed how few people realize what is going on. When I explain to friends and family that they are in the process of losing the right to fish from some of the most accessible parts of our coastline, they look at me with disbelief. Indeed our rights are being killed softly, I hope that the pendulmn someday will swing back toward reason and balanced thought.