CTFishTalk.com: Bantam Lake Access - Be Careful - Connecticut Lake Reports ( CT Lake Reports ) - A Community Built for Connecticut Fisherman.

SeaDog1 · Joined: 21 Dec 2009 Posts: 2629

Hi SJ!

BAIT? -> No! No! No!

We'll have the EPA come down on us for throwing something Toxic in the water, also known as Politician -> Oh! I meant Pollution Exclamation

SeaDog1

Fishface · Joined: 02 Jan 2008 Posts: 308 Location: New Britain

That's a lot of good posts, Are there enough residents who pay there taxes and use the water to justify the cost of the police on the water and any other cost involved, imean we as sportman have to pay for just about everything we do. Are they looking for revenue? I used to fish there a lot years ago with a friend on his boat, since his passing some years ago i have not fished the lake since. I would launch the Kayak there without having to worry about a ticket or towing. Would I pay to park or launch my kayak probably not. Good stuff guys. On another note I guessing there is no sun in Alaska, and is that a can of Schulitz (excuse the spelling) I did not know they still made that crap.

Tim

thevinman · Joined: 06 Sep 2010 Posts: 9

I don’t want to drag this debate out, but I do want to comment on some things you mentioned which I differ in opinion.

I do not think that the wishes of the donor can be extended to override Constitution rights. Even if the intent was for Morris residents only, if it receives public funds, it’s public. If it’s public, it falls under the same guidelines for public access as interpreted by the 1st amendment and the Leydon v. Greenwich case.

In addition, I have confirmation from another Connecticut town official (not from Morris), that all CT waters are the property of the State of Connecticut. For example, if you have “private” water, you need a DEP permit to use chemicals or alter the body of water, even if it’s in your backyard. If you can legally get into a body of water in CT, no private party can “evict” you from that water claiming water ownership rights. That is why you can float down any river legally, even if the bottom is owned by a private party, as long as you don’t wade or touch the bottom and of course, you entered the water from a public area (or had private permission to access the water) The DEP and the state are very protective of this position and law.

That being said, the bottom of natural lakes, on the other hand, such as Bantam, have no title. So it would take a ruling to determine lake bottom rights, but the water itself is owned and controlled by the DEP and the State.

I can understand the frustration of the town with the failed negotiations, but I do not believe that this is relevant to the Constitutional issue at hand. The maintenance responsibility of the ramp should not change the fact that it’s still public land, for public use. In other words, just because the town could not arrive at a deal with the DEP for ramp maintenance, thus the municipality now takes responsibility for ramp maintenance simply does not give the municipality the right to then restrict access it to municipality residents only, for all the reasons I (and the Supreme Court) have outlined.

...and thanks for keeping this debate civil and gentlemanly!

SkeeterJim · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 2219 Location: Newington, CT

Gents, for what it's worth this post has been very informative. I and probably almost everyone here would like to see the lake access open up to the general public because Bantam is a great fishery.

Jim
_________________
Eat, Sleep, Fish......I Love my SKEETER ZX225!!!
If I didn't have to work for a living....I'd be fishing.
If I'm not in my Skeeter then I'm in my Hobie!

PECo · Joined: 06 Oct 2009 Posts: 5203 Location: Avon, CT

There's no reason from what I've seen to believe that the original grant of the land to the town was restricted to anything other than recreational use by the general public. However, even if the original grant did contain a "residents only" restriction, I agree with thevinman that federal and state constitutional principles would trump the restriction. If a municipality were to use municipal land for a purpose that falls within our courts' definition of a "public forum" (e.g., public parks and sidewalks), then the public's rights to freedom of expression and association would trump a "residents only" restriction. I loved the Court's example in Leydon v. Greenwich of a candidate campaigning for public office. A non-resident candidate must have the same right of access to a public forum as a resident candidate. In other words, if a resident were allowed to campaign at the municipal Bantam Lake boat launch ramp, then Blumenthal must also be allowed to do so. Very Happy

_________________
Don't forget to wear sunscreen and don't litter!

SeaDog1 · Joined: 21 Dec 2009 Posts: 2629

Hi Vinman!

Well, you make some good points, but concerning the use of public money?
Explain to me how public money is used to stock trout in waters that have NO Public Access such as Lake Quassapaug and per the town of Middlebury -> Restricted to Residents ONLY!

I paid for my Lic. and the Trout so why can't I fish for them there Question

Also, as you pointed out -> waters here in Ct. are state owned, if so then why is there no public access to waters such as Indian Lake which is listed in the Ct. Angler's Guide as fishing waters and you did point out.

I'm sure many Ct. anglers would love the opportunity to fish it including myself!
Phil would probably the 1st one to do so!!! Very Happy

So? Why? Even list waters in the CtAG if you can't fish it Exclamation

Even better -> If All waters are owned by Ct. then I should be able to get to any of them and fish them by being dropped in by Hellicopter!!!! Laughing

Hmmmm? Now that's an idea! Rolling Eyes

SeaDog1

PECo · Joined: 06 Oct 2009 Posts: 5203 Location: Avon, CT

SeaDog1

Are there any municipal owned and operated access points on Lake Quassapaug and Indian Lake? That's the sticking point here. If none of the land on the shores of those lakes is publicly owned and used in a manner that would make it a "public forum", then the lakes become, in effect, "residents only" lakes.

And, not to be flip, does government ever need a good reason for anything it does?

Phil
_________________
Don't forget to wear sunscreen and don't litter!

PECo · Joined: 06 Oct 2009 Posts: 5203 Location: Avon, CT

I just read my last post and realized that I am "flip", whether I intend to be or not. Shocked

My mother is filipino! Very Happy

_________________
Don't forget to wear sunscreen and don't litter!

SeaDog1 · Joined: 21 Dec 2009 Posts: 2629

Hi Phil!

Como Sta! -> Spent 2 years in the Phillipines -> Love the islands, people and food!!!

Well, in the CtAG -> It states that there are speed restrictions on Lake Quassapaug -> So there must be an access there!

Your point about Govt. though is SO TRUE!!!!!!!!

SeaDog1

Phish · Joined: 22 Aug 2008 Posts: 454 Location: West Hartford

I was making a joke. I didn't write "Strategy." I wrote "Strategery." I wasn't really making a comment...which I guess makes me a bit of a troll in this particular case. So...I guess I will make a comment.

I will continue to fish at Bantam.

SeaDog1 · Joined: 21 Dec 2009 Posts: 2629

Hi!

OK! I called Middlebury.
Seems there is a boat ramp on Lake Quassapaug owned by Ct., But the state closed it down in the late 70's.
Only the local fishing club has an access and it is for members only!

SeaDog1

SeaDog1 · Joined: 21 Dec 2009 Posts: 2629

Phish · Joined: 22 Aug 2008 Posts: 454 Location: West Hartford

Nope. But that's ok.

Good luck at Otis. I fished a foul weather tourney there last year and don't have fond memories. I wish you much better luck!

SkeeterJim · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 2219 Location: Newington, CT

Good luck with the slabs Seadog. By the way, how do you cook up your crappies? Never had'em but heard they are good eating.

Jim
_________________
Eat, Sleep, Fish......I Love my SKEETER ZX225!!!
If I didn't have to work for a living....I'd be fishing.
If I'm not in my Skeeter then I'm in my Hobie!