NW Steelheaders

[Bait O' Eggs]

I have to admit I know little about the NW Steelheaders. I am sure they do some great things I wouldnt get mind getting involved in. I am sure they lobby for things I wouldnt agree with. No organization can meet the ideal needs and wants of all members. Kind of like a presidential candiate, You take the good with the bad, and hope for a lot more good.

I would like to find out more about them. Is there a web address or a mission statement or something that describes what all they do. Dont have time for the meeting tonight with the TV chapter.

It sounds like we have several members here. Can somebody enlighten me on their goals etc...

[Spoons]

Go to the main page of www.ifish.net. (http://www.ifish.net.) On the left hand side there is a link towards the bottom.

[Deleted User]

They do a lot of stream habitat restoration projects. They are getting involved with helping with the broodstock programs. They also lobby for fishermen's rights. That includes fighting for fishing access, which in some instances puts them at odds with river front property owners.

[Artwo]

I am also interested in joining, I went the link provide in ifish and I noticed there was only two chapters. Is there a Clackamas chapter or does the Sandy chapter cover the area for us east siders.

JK

[fishbait]

BOE & JK,

If the above mentioned link does not work for you, you can pick up a copy of the associations quarterly newsletter at most Bi-Marts and GI Joes. IF not, call the association and have one sent to you. It has a monthly update of all the chapter activities and contact names. JK, Both the Sandy and the Milwaukee chapters are very active. The Tom Mc Call chapter meets in the Johns Landing area and is a Lunch meeting. There are many chapters in the state, sorry I don't know how many. And yes, sometime the politicts of the State Association do conflict with some members, but most just look past that and focus on the restoriation and fun issues, something about all the people all the time.

[Bait O' Eggs]

Artwo - I saw at least a dozen chapters.

RT - Sorry to hear I would be at odds with the property access issues.

It looks like they attempt to do some good thing. The link on the front page was kind of what I was looking for.

[Artwo]

Fishbait/BOE,
Thanks, sorry I didn't look in the right place in the link. I was looking for a chapter close to my home in Canby and I see that there is one in OC. I will call them for a meeting schedule, thanks again.

JK

[Jennie@ifish]

Although the page is not very current, I did there web page at http://www.nwsteelheaders.org
Seeya!

[Osprey]

Is there a link to a branch up this way???
.......Os

------------------
Row quietly and fish a Cataraft
Release all Wild Fish!!-----<'))>><

"Just Say No To Sovereign Nations!"

Ban All Nets!!!

[THE REEL HEY_YALL]

Hey O's, I browsed that site and I couldn't find any information about any Washington chapters, but I'm still surfing. I know that guide-friend of mine is a member of the association, but I am sure he doesn't go to Oregon to participate. Unless he just wants the 10% discount at G.I. Joes.

[THE REEL HEY_YALL]

Hey O's I've stumbled across some info on other Organizations.

The Recreational Fishing Alliance is underway on setting up a Washington chapter. RFA Does anyone have any info on these guys?

Trout Unlimited has an Olympia chapter and call the Deschutes their home river. They do all kinds of projects on it. Anyone a member of this chapter, or this organization?
I'll join TU at the Sportsman's show this year because I know they'll have a booth like they did last year.

Also, there is the organization "Friends of the Cowlitz". Anyone a member of it?

I'll keep browsing around folks.

[Gone Fishin]

Just stay away from "OREGON TROUT" unless you don't want to fish in the future or in your kids future or your kids, kids future!

[BUGLEMAN]

I agree we should rally around the the issues that binds us together. As far as I can tell the Asc. of NW Steelheaders is the most effective organization for the fisherman. It has gotten some good legislation passed. It was instramental in getting the steelhead defined as a sport fish and getting the commercial fisherman nets away from steelhead.

But I think some clarification is in order. The Steelheaders are working on river access issues but only to protect rights already established by the federal government. For example they helped to defend a fisherman on the John Day river arrested for trespassing who was below the highwater mark. And are now suing the State Land Board to declare the John Day River Navigable. "you are a citizen and the federal government gave you these rivers in your state constitution. From the ordinary highwater mark to the middle of the river belongs to Oregonians." If it didn't we could not float our drift boats down any of the most common rivers we enjoy including the Descutes and the Wilson. Imagine not being able to put in at the guide shop on the Wilson, or any other river we enjoy, because some selfish land owner was tring to "hog" the whole thing for himself. I forget which river but last year there was a picture in The Northwest Steelheader of a sign posting no ancoring at a popular fishing hole. I am sure some of you know where it is. They are out there, Cattlemen, the Anti's and even other fisherman.

I find that the steelheaders are on the right side of an issue every time. They don't want to let people walk accross your land. The Steelheaders position is just to protect our existing rights to fish and float OUR rivers. They need our help and we can do it one membership at a time. Plus the meetings are cool and are filled with lots of ordinary working guys like you and me who just want to go out on Sat morning and catch one or two Steelhead, Crab or Salmon. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Bait O' Eggs]

Bugleman
I can respect your position on where land owners and the publics right to property lines exist. I just dont agree with it. I doubt if I can change your mind and I doubt if you can change my mind.

High water mark and navitable rivers may be the law (I am by no means an expert on it). "Navitable" is just a loosely defined term. If you define the river as navitable if commerce can be done on it, then a guy with a kayak can guide some client down a river and we can get every river navitable. I dont see the commerce arguement as a good way to define it. If I was to make a guess at what rivers are navitable in Oregon it would be probably the Columbia and the Willamette in my opinion. I dont think I would include the John Day in my opinion as navitable (maybe the reservour up to the falls, about 10 miles or so). I am sure this is just one of many rivers people will try to get listed as navitable. I am sure if and when, the John Day is listed as navitable, the NW Steelheaders will start on another river.

Lots of water can be floated in a drift boat or Cataraft and fished. I dont think a land owner has any right to stop anyone from fishing, floating or anchoring. Get out of the boat and stand in somebodys front yard, and the issue changes for me. Public access to the river is thru the public boat ramps in my opinion.

I just know that some peoples deed to their property states they own a certain number of feet from a point. Now if that puts them in the middle of the river, that is where the property line is. The deed makes no mention to high water marks etc etc...

I guess this is why the initiative went thru this fall for reimbursing land owners when the value of there property is decreased, by new laws and such.

I guess I just have a different perspective because I was raised on a small river. When somebody is in your yard fishing it isnt usually to long and something bad is about to happen. From cut fences to litter, the few will ruin it for the many. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif You talked about selfish land owners hogging the river. I guess that cannot be reversed to selfish citizens who want something for nothing. Citizens can work hard save there money and buy a piece of river like current land owners have.

I read quite a bit on the NW Steelheaders last night. I think they look like a great organization. I just dont agree with their position on property lines and fishing access. I rarely agree with anybody on everything.

[fishbait]

Hey Bait o eggs,

You got to be crazy.........because I cannot grasp how you can feel that way. I absolutely feel that you have the right to your opinion and the right to so eliquently state it. Arn't we all lucky to have this ability and to have a forum such as this to use. Anyway, as stated before your feelings are so foreign to me that I would like to have a discussion with you to understand how /why you feel this way. I dont want to change you mind, and doubt that you can change mine, I just want to understand your side/perspective of the issue. If you are willing and its convieant, lets try to get together sometime, understanding that the ground rules are conversation and not persuasion. How about lunch, a beer or soda, or mabey a fishing trip?

Fishbait

[THE REEL HEY_YALL]

BOE made a great point. I have about 3,000 acres of land back in Alabama, and we have 2 rivers, and several creeks running through our land. I'll be damned if someone is going to walk on my property without permission to fish from the bank. I've whooped on a several people trying to cross our land to get over to public land to hunt. Now I've seen boaters and tubers alike floating and fishing. I have no problem with them because I don't own the river, but I own the land that's "dry". They can anchor up all day long if they want to as long as that anchor isn't on my land. I'm a bankie fisherman and I know what limited access to fishing there is, but I am not about to cross someone's property to fish below a high watermark. Now if I got to it by boat, or by some other means with permission and walked below the high water mark the entire way to that spot I'm bank fishing, then that's a different story. I do not believe in taking something away from the landowners because they are the ones who spend that extra money to have waterfront property, but I do not believe they can own the riverbed to prevent someone from dropping anchor or fishing below a high water mark.

I want an organization that will give back to the fish, structure, and remove those damned gillnets from rivers, and have dam removal alternatives. It will be a stern organization that does not believe in hypocrasy, but believes in a median. It will look down upon those who support getting rid of gillnets, but yet those same people buy their fish from indian Joe. If said organization does not exist, then it looks like I will just have to create my own. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif The motto will be "Are you damn tired of hearing how good the fishing used to be like we are?"

I hear wonderful things about the NW steelies assoc. but some things are very "iffy" still. Why fight over the access to what little fish there are, when a group can keep the access (or improve it) and up the number of said fish? I think that would be a more effective battle. Longer, yes, but the best goal for all recreational fishermen alike.

[Bait O' Eggs]

Sounds good fishbait (tabs on me) sled or drift boat trip, let me know what you fancy. I love to fish with new people.

I guess I look at the river like the highways we all drive on. The highways are public much like the rivers. I cannot get on and off Interstate 5 any where I want. I have to use the on/off ramps. Just like people have to use the boat ramps to access the river. If I-5 cuts thru some public property, I cannot just turn the hubs in and jump on the freeway. I have to go to the on/off ramp to get on the highway.

Some river land owners are generous and let fisherman walk on there property. Others have been bent over so many times they are to the point of being fed up. It really depends on road access at the property and river how bad it will be for a land owner.

I picked up (2) 5 gallons buckets of garbage every day for an entire fall chinook season when I was in HS out of our front yard (river bank). I chased cows up and down the road trying to get them back in the field after the fence was cut by some doughball so he wouldnt cut his waders. All in all, the public wanting to fish will drive a land owner crazy. It took a couple years before dad posted the property, but it was long over due. And life got a lot better very quick. Just speaking from experience.

[BUGLEMAN]

Let's not mix subjects as far as the Steelheaders lawsuit is concerned. Once again the objective isn't to let the public walk across private land or onto small creeks in your front yard but to uphold the existing law as far as navigability. That means not to let the superior rights given to the people of Oregon established long before most subdivisions in Oregon, be eroded by new state laws or common law precident. I believe this is the true objective of the ANS on this issue.

[THE REEL HEY_YALL]

Works for me, but then again, how does this benefit Washingtonians? How come no one has a chapter in Washington? Can I get rich quick if I start one? Scratch that. Can I get rich period if I start one? http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[fishbait]

Hey-yall-
I can't believe that WA does not have ANWS chapters. Why don't you call the main office of the Oregon chapter. And if you do get rich, you will spend all your free time counting your money instead of counting fish, yuk yuk..

BOE I will e-mail you

As far as the ANWS access issue, I Believe (vs. know for sure) the the issue is only access below the high water mark. Nowhere is their mention of crossing private property. The (i believe again) issue is that a fisherman gained access at a public area road or ramp, walked down stream at the waters edge and some distance(?) downstream was below the high water on someone's property. Unfortunately this landowner was sick and tired of ******** leaving their trash, damageing his property and all the other ill effects that landowners suffer that he decided to make a stand. Therefor the issue is the public's rights to legally tresspass (my words) across someones property as long as they remain below the high water line on navigatable rivers. The public already has these rights they are just being challenged by select landowners.

[kingofbacklash]

The high water mark as told to me by a co-worker. Is the average high water mark in 18 1/2 years. What deems them navigable, is any river that you can float a log down.
Now if this were true almost every river in this state is navigable. I havn't as yet taken the time personally to research this information as far as state law goes.


fearsnofish

[Bait O' Eggs]

Fishbait
I do not disagree the public has the right to the land below the high water mark on a navitable rivers. It gets real fuzzy real fast on what is a navitable river. I believe only the Columbia and Willmette is defined as Navitable by the state now.

I know a ditch that has water that runs down it on a rainy day. It runs from the middle of a field to the road. The logic that water runs here I have access below the high water mark makes no sense. Thinking a person can walk from the road to the middle of the field in the water just because water is there is flawed logic.

If you are a reasonable person you will agree the ditch is not navitable. We will both probably agree the Colombia is navitable. Now we just need to decide what between the ditch and columbia is navitable. A very difficult thing to do. People a lot smarter than me have wrestled with this in court.

I dont know what the correct size river or stream is for the cut off for naviatable status. I have an idea what I would use, and it doesnt probably meet your definition.

Isnt it great to diagree in a civil manner. I shot you an email with an option for a drift trip on the coast if you are interested. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Looking forward to fishing with you.

[Hoosier Daddy]

The guy above who says Navigable=you can float a log down is on the right track. I think it's a log of a certain size and diameter, though, not just any log. Could be wrong on this.

[THE REEL HEY_YALL]

Man, why would I want to charge myself a long-distance call to find out whether or not they have a Washington organization? To me that's just an added headache and it's supposed to be offering a service to fishermen. Either the Oregon one is lacking, the Washington one is lacking, or it is a chimeric club up here. Now if I get rich from it, I would pay someone to count my money for me while I'm busy counting all the more fish I will catch. See, when you're rich, you don't have to work http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif which equals more time on the water.

[BUGLEMAN]

Now here is where I am not as sure of the definitions and the heart of the matter is. The owner on the John Day didn't have much of a case as far as my lay knowledge can take me. But I think from what I have read Navigable and commerce means putting a canoe in the water being able to paddle/portage your furs ect. to market. Remember these are old definitions. So is the gift of Nav rivers to the people of the state of Oregon. There didn't used to be roads. You are correct about the state recognizing the COl and Wil as nav. Unless some of the Nav studies have come to a conclusion and added to the list.

[Gone Fishin]

Hey Guys,

Go to: http://www.plso.org/oregonmisc/agopinions.htm

Then scroll down to opinion #7286.

This is the definition of navigability as determined by the State Attorney General.

Accordingly, I can't throw Roy in a canoe and go down the creek, charge him $$$ then say it's a navigable stream.

Pretty interesting.

[OneLastCast]

Definitions:

Mean High Water: “The mean height of tidal high waters at a particular point or station over a period of time........... For Tidal waters the cycle of change covers a period of (+/-) 19 years.”
DEFINITION OF SURVEYING AND ASSOCIATED TERMS 1978, ACSM and ASCE

Ordinary High Water Mark: “The test for OHWM location is that the character of the bed is distinct from the uplands. As to vegetation, it is the primary indicator for OHWM.........”RIVER AND LAKE BOUNDARIES, James A. Simpson.
Basically saying that the OHWM is the line of demarcation between aquatic vegetation and upland vegetation. Or an equal elevation if that line is not apparent. This rule can also vary from state to state.

The definition of navigability is far more complex than the floating of a log. The Supreme Court varies in its decisions form 1900 to today. But basically it amounts to a Federal decision. And in some cases what the actual deed reads and when the deed was written. Experts in this area are few.

I had more to say but I have other obligations.

OneLastCast

GoneFishin I haven't had a chance to read your site for attorney generals opinions on the PLSO site but that should be interesting.
Just Curious...how did you come to look there.

[Gone Fishin]

OLC,

Very strong issue...good points on both sides, I was just doing research using search engines and came accross that info.

-Marty

[V. Green]

If you have never vistied the National Rivers website then you should. It has some very good information regarding this very topic, with a large amount apparently coming from their staff attorneys and all regarding stream access rights.

go to: http://www.nors.org/

and to: http://www.nors.org/us-law-menu.htm
to see info directly relsted to who owns the rivers.

Here is a section form one page of theirs:

Common misconceptions about river law: What the U.S. Supreme Court has actually said the law is:

Misconception: A court, or government agency, designates rivers as legally navigable. If a river isn't officially designated, it isn't legally navigable.

Fact: The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that "rivers that are anvigable in fact are navigable in law." If a river is physically navigable, it is legally navigable. No court or agency has to designate it as such.

Misconception: Only certain large rivers, capable of navigation by motorized ships carrying commercial freight, are legally navigable. Other rivers, where they flow through private land, belong to the surrounding landowners. The public may be allowed to run such rivers in some cases, but may not touch the banks.

Fact: Even rivers that are physically navigable only by canoe, kayak, and raft are still legally navigable. (The courts have also ruled that commercial recreational river trips qualify as commerce). Because they are legally navigable, such rivers are held in trust for the public by the states, for navigation, recreation, and fisheries. The land along them is public land up to the ordinary high water mark (which can be quite a distance from the water--it's the land where the vegetation and soil show the effects of water.) The public can use this land for walking, fishing, resting, camping, and other non-destructive visits.

Misconception: If a landowner's property deed includes the land around a river, and makes no mention of the river being public, then the river is private.

Fact: Public ownership of physically navigable rivers, including the land up to the ordinary high water mark, pre-dates property deeds. What the property deed says or doesn't say about the river is irrelevant.

Misconception: Rivers that flow through federal land (National Parks, National Forests, etc.) belong to federal agencies, whose "river management plans" can determine when, and if, navigation and recreation will be allowed.

Fact: Physically navigable rivers that flow through federal lands are still held in trust for the public by the states. River management plans must preserve the public's paramount rights to navigate and recreate on these rivers.

Misconception: Since the state "owns" the river and the land up to the ordinary high water mark, the state can sell or give away the river to private owners for various projects or private uses.

Fact: The state does not actually own the river, it holds it in trust for the public for navigation, recreation, and fisheries. The state is obligated to preserve the river for these public benefits.

Misconception: Public ownership of physically navigable rivers varies from state to state, as do the public's rights to canoe, kayak, raft, walk along, and otherwise visit such rivers.

Fact: Public ownership of physically navigable rivers is the same in all states. It's a U.S. Supreme Court standard, and it includes those rivers that are physically navigabale by canoe, kayak, and raft. The public's right to visit additional non-navigable streams (those too small for even canoes, kayaks, and rafts) does vary from state to state, but this variation only applies to those small streams.


Sorry to be so long on this post but this is valuable information for everyone to see.

Thanks,

[Bait O' Eggs]

V green
Interesting sites you point us to. I need to spend some more time looking over the info they have. I dont think it is as black and white as your miconception/fact table makes it out to be. If it was as you say, the law officer that arrested the guy on the John Day I read about here, would not have arrested the fisherman. I was doing some research tonight on the web, and see where house bill 2850 in 1997 was trying to make the first 102 miles of the Deschutes navitable. I never did find if that house bill was approved or not. If your facts are all correct I dont think the legislature would waste there time writing a bill and trying to get it passed, if it was just a fact. The lower Descutes is a pretty big river. I might even with my conservative approach to navitgable, call it navitable. Yet the state of oregon cannot deem it navitable without trying to pass a bill. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif

What it boils down to as I understand it, the state hasnt stepped up to the plate and made these determinations. It would take time and money, both of which it doesnt have a surplus of. So as it stands, the river owners think they own the land, because they have to pay tax on it. (and they do have to pay tax on it) And the recreationalist think they own it because they want to go play on weekends. Everybody is both right and wrong at the same time.

[Deleted User]

Thanks for posting that info V.Green. It is consistent with what I've read in the past. And it helps uphold my 2 cent opinion on both sides of this important issue. First, the smarter land owners will not try to run off or report properly accesing and behaving fishermen standing below the OHWM in front of their river front property because they will lose in court and also have it publisized that their 'private river hole' is open to all who boat or walk in below the OHWM. On the other hand, my opinion is that the state has not been tough enough on those that abuse private property; i.e.- litering and fence damaging, etc. I understand why your opinions differ here Roy, but quite apparently they fly in the face of the actual laws. ... Because a majority of time I fish rivers from boats and someday wish to purcahse and retire on river front property, it doesn't personally help my fishing opportunity to agree with the findings in V. Green's post because I will have to bypass more holes when floating rivers and someday have fishers standing out in front of my river property, but I do agree. I've said before that I believe nature/God's gifts of oceans, rivers, and mountains are for all; not just for the minority of those fortunate to afford riverside property. And I will still feel that way when I buy my riverfront property and act accordingly. An important key will always be no crossing of private property above the OHWM w/o owner's permission and no litering or property damage. Those that break those rules are the ones that have messed up the landscape and also have given the land owners an excuse, many times legit and other times not, to attempt to keep everyone out so as to greedily 'own' rivers for themselves. And those lawbreakers should have their fishing license rights taken away for a long long time! ....

I went to the T.V. chapter of the ANWS this evening. I got to meet some nice guys; including our members Bigstew (Shane) and Fishbait (Steve). I listened to plans to get involved in kids classroom projects to raise trout from fertilized eggs and then plant them in ODFW desinated ponds to fish for. This chapter is also doing a similar frozen fish carcuss distribution on tributary spawning creeks on the Wilson River; as some of us Ifishers did on the S. F. of the Trask River. They are also going to plant streamside trees and do other habitat restoration projects; and fundraisers for fishery enhancements. They are a fine organization. I mentioned in the meeting tonight for their members who are also Ifish members to post anytime they need volunteer help with some of these worthy projects. Thanks for endeavors well done ANWS. - RT

[V. Green]

BOE,

Here is some more info that might be of interst to you about River Access Rights.

You can read the entire page by going to; http://www.adventuresports.com/river/nors/us-law-public.htm


After the American Revolution, state and federal courts upheld public fishing rights, as well as state authority to regulate fishing to conserve fisheries.

In Arnold v. Mundy, the owner of land next to a river claimed private ownership of the fishing rights, but the court said this amounted to claiming that “Magna Charta was a farce.” The court relied on “the law of nature, which is the only true foundation of all the social rights,” and said Magna Charta was “nothing but a restoration of common rights,” then held that the state “cannot make a direct and absolute grant of the waters of the state, divesting all the citizens of their common right,” adding that such a grant “never could be long borne by a free people.” In Martin v. Waddell, the U.S. Supreme Court held that in America, as in England, the public has a “liberty of fishing in the sea, or creeks, or arms thereof, as a public common of piscary.” (Fishing place.) In subsequent cases, the U.S. Supreme Court held that states hold surface waters “in trust” for the people, so that the people will have “liberty of fishing therein freed from the obstruction or interferences of private parties.” It held that a state cannot “abdicate its trust over property in which the whole people are interested,” and that rivers “shall not be disposed of piecemeal to individuals as private property.” These principles are now known as the Public Trust Doctrine. Arnold v. Mundy, 6 N.J.L. 1 (1821). Martin v. Waddell, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 367, 10 L.ed 997 (1842). Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387, 36 L.ed 1018 (1892). Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 38 L.ed 331 (1894).

What if a property owner’s deed says he owns the river?

First, it’s important to examine the deed and other local documents. A landowner may believe that he owns the river, but public rights to rivers are “prior existing rights” and are frequently mentioned as such on deeds. Even if they aren’t mentioned, by law a deed can only convey things that were actually owned by the seller. In some cases early property surveyors mentioned public rights to rivers, and in other cases they neglected to do so, but either way their actions are not the deciding factor. Public rights to rivers are a matter of law, dating back to the founding of our nation and earlier. They are not decided by local deeds.



------------------
V. Green
orfish@hotbot.com
http://pages.hotbot.com/sports/orfish/V.GreenMain.html

[BUGLEMAN]

Wow Green!

That is some powerful stuff. It is obvious of the quoted case law from the website and your post that the Officer who arrested the person on the John Day for trespassing was very wrong. The supreme court would have blown their case to bits. I see what you mean about a land owner caving in to ease publicity. Thanks for the info and I will now follow the rivers website. I am currious about how you got into these river access issues. You are definatly up to speed.

Thanks,

Kevin

[This message has been edited by BUGLEMAN2U (edited 01-19-2001).]

[V. Green]

BUGLEMAN2U,

I really am not that involved, I am a member of the Sandy River Chapter of the Association of Northwest Steelheaders. I am lucky to know a couple of guys in the chapter who are very active on this, and I pay attention. Plus, I got lucky a while back and found the NORS website.

Here is somehting else of interset from the Oregon Consitution:

from: http://bluebook.state.or.us/state/constitution/constitution01.htm

Article I
Bill of Rights

Section 18. Private property or services taken for public use. Private property shall not be taken for public use, nor the particular services of any man be demanded, without just compensation; nor except in the case of the state, without such compensation first assessed and tendered; provided, that the use of all roads, ways and waterways necessary to promote the transportation of the raw products of mine or farm or forest or water for beneficial use or drainage is necessary to the development and welfare of the state and is declared a public use. [Constitution of 1859; Amendment proposed by S.J.R. 17, 1919, and adopted by the people May 21, 1920; Amendment proposed by S.J.R. 8, 1923, and adopted by the people Nov. 4, 1924]


Note the line "....or water for beneficial use or drainage is necessary to the development and welfare of the state and is declared a public use."

I would feel that the beneficial use could be anything that could be done on the water such as canoeing, driftboating or swimming. These would all be examples of beneficail use to the public.

If only we could get our State Reps in Salem and in local law enforcement to regognise the peoples right to be on the water.



------------------
V. Green
orfish@hotbot.com
http://pages.hotbot.com/sports/orfish/V.GreenMain.html

[fishbait]

Hey-yall
I think you got the service club part right, but its backwords, The club is not there to service you, you service the club and as a group you accomplish more than the indivudal. Just my .02 worth.

other items. for those of you following this thread, Bait-O-eggs and I are meeting at high noon next wensday to settle the matter. Pistols at 40 paces......no seriously, we are meeting for lunch and discussion, will probably plan a fishing or crabbing trip for more discussion and I have hopes that I will make a new friend and enjoy some lively discussion/debate. It actually sounds like we are not that far apart in our opinions. One more advantage or participating in this board. RT: if we go fishing and catch, we will send you your percentage as the modorator of this board. Kind of a finders fee. Your choice, would you like the front 10% of the fish or would you prefer the back 10%. Just to be fair, if we end up crabbing we will give you the middle 10%. Just us know and we will promptly mail your commission to you http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Bait O' Eggs]

Fishbait
Looking forward to lunch. After our conversation this morning, I was amazed at how small the world is. We knew several of the same people, and haunt the same stretches of water.

You seemed like a h*ll of a nice guy on the phone, I will try to only shoot you in the leg. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif That way you can still bobber fish from the boat in tidewater. I cannot count to 40 so I might turn and shoot a little early. Thought I would give you fair warning. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif



[This message has been edited by Bait O' Eggs (edited 01-19-2001).]

[OneLastCast]

V.Green:

I have been interested in this issue off and on for some time and you need to be careful in implying that the state can not sell its rights, in Astoria , Oregon, SHIVELY V. BOWLBY, 152 U.S. 1 (1894) the US Supreme Court found that the state acquired all the rights to the area below the High tide line and they could sell it if they wished.
In fact there are numerous such deeds from the state. So it IS important to analyze the existing deed prior to standing on the bank and fingering the supposed “land owner”. I have seen some of those deeds and talked with the state. They have not argued with them.
Another case for researching the existing deeds is avulsion where in some cases the actual current bed of the river is owned by the deeded land owner. OREGON V. CORVALLIS SAND AND GRAVEL, 429 U.S. 363 (1977).
What about early land patents from the federal government? "Where one has acquired title to the center of a nonnavigable river from the United States, a state cannot later declare it to be navigable by statute so as to gain title to the riverbed where the riverbed had been nonnavigable in fact" UNITED STATES VS CHAMPLAIN, Ref. Co. 1946. In that case navigability of a particular stream may have to be determined at the time of the original patent.
I am not disputing potential navigability of rivers, I am sure that many portions will be determined as such. However, after reading the interesting website (and it was quite interesting and informative) that you posted my thought was “if it is that easy to label a river navigable than why do we only have approximately six rivers in this state determined as such?”. (I forget the names but I think they are Chetco, Umpqua, Rogue, Willamette, McKenzie and ?????, I am not sure but will do some more research) also why is not the Northwest Steelheaders trying to gain navigability status for all the rivers in Oregon. It is my impression that they are concentrating on the Sandy..
The reason is probably that the decision of the Courts haven’t been all encompassing and the actual navigability question is so involved and complex it has to be taken on a case by case basis.
Finally, the job of land surveyors is to interpret and delineate the legal description (deed) provided by the land owner. The surveyor does not make the decision on what is legally owned by the deed holder. His job is show to show the boundary of the deed as written, and any discrepancies, overlaps, gaps, encroachments, occupation, etc.

Also the web site provided by GoneFishin
Go to: http://www.plso.org/oregonmisc/agopinions.htmand check out number 8015 at the bottom of the page. It indicates that the Division of State Lands can declare a river as Navigable but the land owners don't necessarily have to accept it. Only if they want a refund on their taxes.


Tight Lines
OneLastCast

[SandySteel]

One last cast
I just had to chime in here on the navigability issue. (again)

You wrote <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> “if it is that easy to label a river navigable than why do we only have approximately six rivers in this state determined as such?”. (I forget the names but I think they are Chetco, Umpqua, Rogue, Willamette, McKenzie and ?????, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, the state could simply do what you are saying but several forces in the legislature have forced the issue to go the other way. In fact our friend Ted Feriolli of John Day and the realtors association attempted to deed and allow total control of the beds and banks to go to anyone who lived adjacent to a river. We (the Northwest Steelheaders) were able to kill this bill in that legislative session. Just because the state has chosen to take a long and arduous route to determining navigability, which was created by different political forces, doesn't mean it can't simply declare rivers navigable. The intent of the state declaring streams as navigable is not to secure the title of the land for the state. It would simply be to allow the public to gain access to the rivers up to the mean high water mark.

Your wrote <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I am not sure but will do some more research) also why is not the Northwest Steelheaders trying to gain navigability status for all the rivers in Oregon. It is my impression that they are concentrating on the Sandy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[b] Actually, in the 1999 legislative session we sponsored a bill (Senate bill 832 (http://www.leg.state.or.us/99reg/measures/sb0800.dir/sb0832.int.html)) that would have solved this issue. It would have allowed the public to gain access to "navigable streams by essentially making them easements through which people could pass, stop, and recreate much like the beaches bill.
This was batted around like a beach ball with different amendments being added. Eventually, the cattleman's association and others were able to prevent a Senate floor vote on the bill and the legislature avoided taking a leadership role on this issue.

As a member of the steelheaders our basic position is this. We respect the right of land owners to continue to own the land that they posses even if it passes under the rivers and encompases beds and banks. (walking across someone's property is wrong any way you look at it.) What we take issue with is the denial of the public the right to access the beds and banks of navigable rivers when they have done so either by boat or by walking the banks below the mean high water mark.

Eric
P.S. One last cast. I would appreciate it if you would put up a little more information on yourself so that I could possibly communicate with you one on one. (it would be great if you could supply an email address.) I have no alterior motive here other than getting to know you better.

[This message has been edited by SandySteel (edited 01-20-2001).]