Dam Restriction update From Doug Markham

It looks to me like fishing above and below the dams are going to be a thing of the past. right or wrong it is going to happen. I read dougs post this morning and it looks like a steel cable will be placed across the restricted area. No enforcement will be necessary. you will tear you boat up trying to cross the cable. Perhaps we can get the TWRA and Army Corp to dump rock piles downstream of the cables in the fast water. That would create an artificial reef to break the current and hold some fish. I haven't fished below a dam in a long time. Looks like a good fishery is being taken away for our own good. But my gut says this is going to happen. I wonder how long before TVA does the same thing?

[white95v6]

they can tell you to wear a life jacket near the dam. they make kids wear one on all rivers. and you are in YOUR boat on OUR river. but they tell you what to do. oh wait the tell you to wear a seat belt in YOUR car. get my drift.

heck some states tell you what you can and can't do with the Natural resource called rain. even though it falls on the roof of YOUR house. but you can't store and use it.

Originally Posted by Pookie

Waterways are a natural resource belonging to the taxpayers. Unless this is a harvest management issue similar to sanctuaries for migrating waterfowl, I'm not too certain they have the authority that they are assuming. This matter is similar to fishing around a private boat dock: as long as you stay in the boat, the landowner can't run you off. In a similar manner, as long as you don't tie off to their dam, I am not convinced they have the authority to run you off.

[TroutFiend]

Originally Posted by ALANRAYG2

It looks to me like fishing above and below the dams are going to be a thing of the past. right or wrong it is going to happen. I read dougs post this morning and it looks like a steel cable will be placed across the restricted area. No enforcement will be necessary. you will tear you boat up trying to cross the cable. Perhaps we can get the TWRA and Army Corp to dump rock piles downstream of the cables in the fast water. That would create an artificial reef to break the current and hold some fish. I haven't fished below a dam in a long time. Looks like a good fishery is being taken away for our own good. But my gut says this is going to happen. I wonder how long before TVA does the same thing?

You mentioned Doug's post. Where can I read this?

Originally Posted by TroutFiend

You mentioned Doug's post. Where can I read this?

Troutfiend, Let me know if this worked for you.

https://www.facebook.com/dougmarkhamoutdoors?fref=ts

[bd-]

I resisted getting on Facebook for a long time, but I have found that it is a very valuable organizing tool when you need to keep up to date on something like this situation with the Corps restricting tailwater access.

bd

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by white95v6

they can tell you to wear a life jacket near the dam. they make kids wear one on all rivers. and you are in YOUR boat on OUR river. but they tell you what to do. oh wait the tell you to wear a seat belt in YOUR car. get my drift.

heck some states tell you what you can and can't do with the Natural resource called rain. even though it falls on the roof of YOUR house. but you can't store and use it.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Wearing a seatbelt, or not, doesn't restrict access to roadways.

Wearing a life jacket, or not, doesn't restrict access to waterways.

Failure to use safety equipment merely makes you in violation.

My position remains. Unless and until this matter goes before a judge, it won't be a final issue.

[Andy M]

Originally Posted by Pookie

Waterways are a natural resource belonging to the taxpayers. Unless this is a harvest management issue similar to sanctuaries for migrating waterfowl, I'm not too certain they have the authority that they are assuming. This matter is similar to fishing around a private boat dock: as long as you stay in the boat, the landowner can't run you off. In a similar manner, as long as you don't tie off to their dam, I am not convinced they have the authority to run you off.

The problem with your thought is you are viewing the land being owned by us as citizens (I agree that it should be) but the corp would tell you they own the propery surrounding the water and could completely restrict access tomorrow if they wanted to. Riparian rights mean little to them in this situation being that even those people who have docks don't "own" the land they sit on or connect to.
The fact that one man has the power to do this is what is most frustrating in the whole ordeal.
Big Government equals Big Problems

[bd-]

Originally Posted by Pookie

You mean "federal" as in - We the taxpayers??

Google "Riparian Right" and get back with me.

Pookie, no offense, but I know more about riparian law right now than you could tell me if I gave you 24 hours with Google.

bd

[bd-]

Originally Posted by Pookie

I am a die-hard conservative, and it pains me to suggest this, but remember Lamar Alexander on election day. His dog & pony show is fairly transparent to most.

I feel obligated to stand up in Senator Alexander's defense on this issue.

Senator Alexander doesn't have much direct authority over the Corps of Engineers, but he did look into the issue and pushed the Corps to take public input before implementing their new policy. At a minimum, he delayed what probably would have been implemented with NO public communication at all if Lt. Col. DeLapp had his way.

To be clear, I wish Senator Alexander had done more. Maybe he still will. At least he's shown some active involvement and interest in the issue.

Compare that to the rest of Tennessee's Congressional delegation. Senator Corker passed the buck and did not do ANYTHING. Rep. Diane Black sent a nice e-mail response to people but refused to say a word to the Corps. I couldn't even get a reply from the rest of our elected reps.

THOSE are the people we need to remember on election day. At least Senator Alexander made some effort on behalf of his constituents. Nobody else did.

Oh, and by the way, saying Senator Alexander could immediately "cut off funding" from the Corps for this policy is a bit uninformed. The Senate doesn't individually approve every single line item in the United States Army's budget. We're talking about general operational funds to the Corps of Engineers that's already been appropriated, and no single Senator is going to have enough pull to do anything about that.

bd

[bd-]

Originally Posted by Andy M

The problem with your thought is you are viewing the land being owned by us as citizens (I agree that it should be) but the corp would tell you they own the propery surrounding the water and could completely restrict access tomorrow if they wanted to.

The tailwater area is going to be considered federal property in the same way any other U.S. Army property is considered federal property. Yes, in a sense it's owned by the taxpayers, since we are a government of the people. But there's nothing in riparian law or admiralty law that will stop the Corps' power to restrict access in the manner they're discussing.

If the Corps barriers impeded navigability, there might be an issue. But some the dams at issue (Center Hill for example) don't allow upstream navigability anyway, and at the rest (like Old Hickory) the barriers are planned to restrict access to the discharge areas while leaving navigation through the locks unaffected.

bd

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by bd-

Oh, and by the way, saying Senator Alexander could immediately "cut off funding" from the Corps for this policy is a bit uninformed.

Alexander chairs the committee that funds USACE. While he wouldn't be involved in line item requests, that budget has to get past the committee before it hits the floor.

I'm not here to offer lessons on making laws and passing governmental budgets, I'm here to talk about fishing. But, since the two have become intertwined, I will assume my original posture. Diane Black nor Bob Corker have any involvement in the budgetary process for USACE. Understanding that politicians usual and ordinary modus operandi is to pass the buck, which they did, it fell squarely on Lamar's shoulders. In the very same way that you yield to the man who writes your check, Lamar has the power, if he will use it. He was spineless as a governor, and it seems nothing has changed.

[Doc Marshall]

Wow. I never thought I'd see a reference to the Riparian doctrine on this site.

[agelesssone]

I think Riparian was my Dr when I was little.....

[Alphahawk]

Originally Posted by Doc Marshall

Wow. I never thought I'd see a reference to the Riparian doctrine on this site.

I can discuss the "Rip Rap" but that's about it.


Regards

[j19bill]

Originally Posted by agelesssone

I think Riparian was my Dr when I was little.....

LOL

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2