Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hard to imagine what that will look like. Still, the word has to get out to beachfront owners that they don't own the ocean and a bit of the shore.
It will give much better guidance on what is privately “owned” & what belongs to the public at any given time & place. Even if that may change with time.
Note: Archery hunting, within 200 feet of an occupied dwelling without written permission is prohibited (RIGL 20-15-1
Being so close to the water (estuary) this will basically allow people to almost sit on our benches, but certainly be walking through the phragmites...
Whatever the decision, it's a hundred times better than in Massachusetts where - bizarrely - owners have their property line go into the water. It dates from the earliest days of Mass Bay Colony and it s$%ks!
Massachusetts public beach access is the absolute definition of unwarranted privilege!
Whatever the decision, it's a hundred times better than in Massachusetts where - bizarrely - owners have their property line go into the water. It dates from the earliest days of Mass Bay Colony and it s$%ks!
Massachusetts public beach access is the absolute definition of unwarranted privilege!
Of course it is; I would expect nothing else from you. Please let us know what law school you attended and then you can correct the real estate blog I linked to.
Of course it is; I would expect nothing else from you. Please let us know what law school you attended and then you can correct the real estate blog I linked to.
I did read it TOUGH GUY, maybe you should too?
Limited Public Beach Access Between Low and High Tide Area for “Fishing, Fowling and Navigation” The Colonial Ordinance reserved three specific and important rights of public use within the private tidelands for “fishing, fowling and navigation.” Those permissible uses have been broadly interpreted by Massachusetts courts to include: (1) the right to fish or to collect shellfish on foot or from a vessel; (2) the right to navigate, including the right to float on a raft, windsurf, or sail; and (3) the right to hunt birds for sport or sustenance, on a boat or on foot. (Though there is no court decision on point, the Attorney General maintains that this right also covers bird-watching.)
Limited Public Beach Access Between Low and High Tide Area for “Fishing, Fowling and Navigation” The Colonial Ordinance reserved three specific and important rights of public use within the private tidelands for “fishing, fowling and navigation.” Those permissible uses have been broadly interpreted by Massachusetts courts to include: (1) the right to fish or to collect shellfish on foot or from a vessel; (2) the right to navigate, including the right to float on a raft, windsurf, or sail; and (3) the right to hunt birds for sport or sustenance, on a boat or on foot. (Though there is no court decision on point, the Attorney General maintains that this right also covers bird-watching.)
Honestly, I don't know why I bother … I really don't care what William Bradford, et. al., felt 400 years ago … the point, which is apparently totally lost on you "weak brain" is that this law should have been changed HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO. The fact that this is even a legal issue in 2020 is atrocious. I'm sure you'll have some snarky comment for me, but I really don't have the energy to pointlessly argue with someone who has demonstrated time and again that he (an assumption there) clearly has a BS in Contrarian Studies.
Honestly, I don't know why I bother … I really don't care what William Bradford, et. al., felt 400 years ago … the point, which is apparently totally lost on you "weak brain" is that this law should have been changed HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO. The fact that this is even a legal issue in 2020 is atrocious. I'm sure you'll have some snarky comment for me, but I really don't have the energy to pointlessly argue with someone who has demonstrated time and again that he (an assumption there) clearly has a BS in Contrarian Studies.
The point is I will walk down along the beach with my surf rod in EITHER state, and nobody is going to do a darn thing to stop me. Is the new RI proposal a welcome improvement? Sure. Would I yet prefer it to be like down south where the public has a "right of access" to all beaches? Absolutely. Not going to happen in RI or MA, EVER (for a myriad of reasons). But don't you have better things to worry about, like maybe alerting us all to the soul crushing atrocity that is the city of Warwick?
And by the way, your personal attacks don't enhance your credibility much.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
? 
