Attention

[Jennie@ifish]

For inquiring minds that want to know and act:

Oregon Outdoors Legislative Report
(May 21, 2001)

Please call your State Representative Today about the following two bills!

Opposition Calls and Letters Needed against House Bill 3014
House Bill 3014 passed out of House SR2 committee for a floor vote. HB 3014 as amended:
· Hatchery fish that "are raised in hatcheries under conditions that mimic natural conditions" shall be treated as wild fish.
· Requires hatchery propagation to be from "the closest suitable
broodstock of wild fish practicable."
· Would exempt hatcheries in the Columbia basin above Bonneville Dam in Oregon "from the practice of clipping fins"
This bill would seriously limit the number of hatchery salmon and steelhead that could be raised by requiring broodstock for all hatchery programs (a requirement already being phased in to existence), increase the cost of running hatcheries by requiring costly improvements for "mimicked natural conditions" and return sport angling to the dark ages of quota fisheries.

Please call your State Representative and urge their "NO" vote on House Bill 3014. Call your legislator toll-free at 1-800-332-2313 to express your opinion.

Below is a detailed explanation by NSIA of the problems with House Bill 3014.

Vote on Navigability Bill Set For Tuesday
A vote on House Bill 3558, providing compensation for land claims to Oregon's river beds and banks, is set for the House floor on Tuesday, May 22nd.

Please call your State Representative and urge their "NO" vote on House Bill 3558. Call your legislator toll-free at 1-800-332-2313 to express your opposition and remind them property owners have no business receiving money for state-owned lands and let the Division of State Lands do their job and quickly bring resolution to the issue of who owns Oregon's rivers.

Below is a detailed explanation of the problems with House Bill 3558.

Streamlining Fill & Removal Process Clears House Committee
Senate Bill 172, a proposal to streamline the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands govern fill and removal regulations, moved out of the House SR2 committee. This dual regulating process has proven to be a problem for salmon recovery efforts in rivers and streams. In response, Senate Bill 172 was proposed to provide the Division of State Lands with a single permitting process. This bill maintains all environmental baselines including the federal Clean Water Act.

Hatchery Chemicals Questioned
This past week, Representative Tom Butler (R-Ontario) questioned ODFW about chemicals utilized in their hatchery facilities following a tour. Specifically he called into question the use of formalin that is used to control disease and fungus. In response, ODFW is working with DEQ (the agency which handles permitting of formalin) to bring about corrective actions and ensure ODFW is properly using this chemical. Four problem areas have been identified including fish waste disposal, sediment removal, data collection and formalin use. Not surprisingly, many of these issues stem from the antiquity of Oregon's hatchery system and the need for modernization to keep up with new regulations and expectations.

ODFW currently operates 34 fish hatcheries and 15 rearing facilities throughout the state. Annually, they release about 43 million juvenile salmon, 5.7 million juvenile steelhead and 8.3 million juvenile and "catchable" trout for sport and commercial harvest and to mitigate for the loss of habitat. In the last decade, about 80 percent of all trout and 70 percent of all steelhead and coho harvested in Oregon originated from these hatcheries.

ODFW Commission Receives Reports on Native Fish Conservation Policy, US v. Oregon
The Fish & Wildlife Commission met last Friday and received a couple of important updates. First, ODFW is finishing their information gathering on the Native Fish Conservation Policy (NFCP) following a series of meetings with the tribes, Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) and National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS). Next step is moving concepts to implementation and actually applying the policy to on the ground fish management. A companion hatchery policy will join the NFCP. This policy will help define and describe the use of hatcheries and addresses the IMST's recommendation that all hatchery practices are brought under one roof. A working draft of that policy will be out at the end of the month.

US v. Oregon, the on-going court case utilized to negotiate tribal and non-tribal fisheries, is close to agreement on the Columbia Fall Chinook fisheries. The early news is that is looks similar to last year's fall fishery with non-Indian fisherman getting about 8.25% impacts.

Staff is currently compiling recommendations to the Commission on 2001 pronghorn, bighorn sheep, and deer and elk tags. Staff is anticipating tag numbers that are approximately 4% below 2000 levels. This is due to low fawn and calf recruitment in some areas and other units approaching management objectives.

No Hearing Set for ODFW Budget
A week of hearings on the ODFW budget with an opportunity for public testimony draws near, but is still not set. A notice will be sent out as soon as a date is certain.

NSIA Action Alert on House Bill 3014
House Bill 3014 was passed out of House SR2 committee for a floor vote. HB 3014 as amended with the dash 2 amendments requires:

-Would exempt hatcheries in the Columbia basin above Bonneville Dam in Oregon "from the practice of clipping fins"
-Hatchery fish that "are raised in hatcheries under conditions that mimic natural conditions" shall be treated as wild fish.
-Requires hatchery propagation to be from "the closest suitable broodstock of wild fish practicable."

Through this bill, CRITFC continues to erode at the progress NSIA has made on behalf of mass marking and selective fisheries. This bill is a step backwards, both for data gathering AND selective fisheries. Some see it as a thinly veiled attempt to harvest more fish to the exclusion of non-tribal anglers.

This bill would seriously limit the number of hatchery salmon and steelhead that could be raised by requiring native broodstock, increase the cost of running hatcheries by requiring prohibitively expensive improvements for questionable benefits of "mimicked natural conditions" and return sport angling to the dark ages of quota fisheries.

It is time to call your State Representative and urge their "NO" vote on House Bill 3014. Call your legislator toll-free at 1-800-332-2313 to express your opposition to this poorly thought out bill. If you don't know who your legislators are, call NSIA, 503 631 8859, and have your districts handy. A letter is always best, and be sure to cc: NSIA.

As to the first bullet, there is no need to articulate to YOU and YOUR business, the importance of mass marking.

On counting hatchery fish reared fish as "wild fish" and allowing them to spawn NMFS strongly stated in testimony given to a similar bill in Washington that using hatchery fish to replace wild fish is scientifically unproven and should be decided on case by case by fish managers, not a state-wide mandate. NMFS went so far as to state that such practices would put Washington State in violation of the ESA, and would "force a repetition of some of the most egregious hatchery practices of the past."

Finally, NSIA supports using "native broodstock" wherever feasible as one of the tools in the fish management toolbox. There are instances that suggest using native broodstock may not always be the best choice:

1) Sometimes there are not enough natives to mine-requiring native broodstock would dramatically reduce the number of smolt releases in many basins.
2) NMFS stated, at a conference on hatchery genetics in Portland, that separation in run timing was an acceptable way to avoid risk to wild fish in hatchery management. The Clackamas River Coho fishery is an example of a fishery that could go away under this legislation.
3) Raising native broodstock will in some areas require expensive changes in the hatcheries. If we legislate native broodstock, we could be closing hatcheries for lack of funds to upgrade. Let's update as quickly as we can afford to do so!

REMEMBER, ONE SIZE NEVER FITS ALL!!!

House Bill 3558 Would Pay Landowners
For Land They Never Owned!

Should the State of Oregon declare the beds and banks of an Oregon river belongs to the public, House Bill 3558 will require the citizens of Oregon to pay landowners for any property lying below the ordinary high water mark. In other words, your tax dollars will pay someone for land they never had ownership in the first place.

Make no mistake; this is not a "takings" issue. Remember, Oregon's navigable rivers have been held in the public's trust since statehood in 1859. A basic tenet of property law is that an owner may not sell ownership rights to land they never owned... title of navigable waterways was granted at the time of statehood.

It is unfortunate that many people have bought property believing they owned to the middle of a river. Take for example someone who purchases 20 acres of riverfront property on the John Day River. Yet five of those acres lie below the ordinary high water mark. That individual may have paid $100,000 for the property believing they bought 20 acres, but the fine print of most every title states "The rights of the public and of governmental bodies in and to that portion of the described lands lying below the high mark of the John Day River."

The State of Oregon has also erred in its failure to identify what waterways are navigable. By doing so, the state has allowed this problem to fester. Please urge lawmakers to allow the Division of State Lands to conduct "Navigability Study Determinations" in a timely manner and get resolution to this issue once and for all.

It is time to call your State Representative and urge their "NO" vote on House Bill 3558. Call your legislator toll-free at 1-800-332-2313 to express your opposition to this poorly thought out bill.

Remind them property owners have no business receiving money for state-owned lands and let the Division of State Lands do their job and quickly bring resolution to the issue of who owns Oregon's rivers.

[Bait O' Eggs]

Jen
That looks like NW Steelheaders propoganda you have posted. images/icons/mad.gif I am all for hatcheries to clip the fish they raise. You and myself will part ways on our opinons of the high water mark issue.

I agree it is a grey area with lack of definition by the state on navitable waterways. Yet the state issues property titles stating "X" amount of acres are owned by the landowner. The landowner is paying taxes on "X" amount of acres. Descriptions of property very from deed to deed, but the ones that specifically state the landowners own a certain number of feet from a well defined point, own to where ever that footage goes to. If that mark is to the middle of the river it is to the middle of the river, period. It isnt like the landowner wrote the property description for the piece of land, the state did. As I understand it the fuzzyness comes from the catch all that says on navitable rivers property owners only own to the high water mark. What a navitable river is has never been very well defined. I am sure we would all come up with a different list of what we call navitable rivers. Some of the smaller rivers could never be defined as navitable in my opinion. Just because a kayak or rubber raft or possibly a driftboat could go down the river does not make it navitable in my definition. Legal definitions of navitable are surrounded by verbage that describes use of commerce on the river. I go back to the state of technology when the law was written to understand the intent. With todays technology we could run almost any waterway (creek) with a hovercraft, does this mean all waterways are navitable because we have a machine that can navigate the river nowdays, I dont think so.

I am sure since there are more people that do not own river frontage than those that do own river frontage, the nonlandowner will win a numbers vote and take the landowners property away. images/icons/frown.gif images/icons/frown.gif images/icons/frown.gif

The NW Steelheaders do a lot of good things, but their battle on this front keeps me from joining them. They are much like the NRA in my opinion. The NRA does a lot of good things to keep the individuals guns in there hands. Yet the NRA's extreme stance that people need automatic weapons etc.. keeps me from joining them also. Most of the people are in the middle, argueing to one extreme does not sit well with me. I will not join the NRA and I will not join NW Steelheaders because of their position on lobbying to take landowners property away. It is nothing but a self serving issue to try to get the sheriff to stand on there side when they want to trespass to fish. Plain and simple.

This was very hard to write and not flame somebody to the point of getting it deleted. First because their are more fisherman than landowners they are going to vote to take the landowners property away and probably win because of of shear numbers. And to rub salt in the wound, now they dont want to pay the property owner for the land they are taking away. images/icons/confused.gif You would think they would at least allow the property owner the back taxes he has paid on HIS property.

I guess democracy doesnt work for you when you are are in a minority.

Flame me all you want, In my opinion this whole issue is about a bunch of fisherman who want to open up property to fish by taking it away from those that own it. They dont want to pay for the land in there own name, and they dont want to reimburse those that paid for it out of there own pocket.

Again 2 sides to a situation shown on this board. images/icons/smile.gif

[ 05-23-2001: Message edited by: Bait O' Eggs ]

[BillH]

This is a tough subject. Jen recieved this information from hustlerrjim (also a riverfront landowner) who received it from a lobbyist for all of us in Salem. The navigability issue is one which stirs the emotions of many. Jen did not read it before posting it on my recommendation. As a riverfront owner - 1100 feet --, I have a lot of mixed emotions on this issue myself. Frankly, I feel HB3558 is a flawed bill in that none of us know the eventual outcome of measure 7. The issue of navigability is going to be decided by the Division of State Lands and -- the courts. I'm going to be really unhappy if summer partygoers strew "my" two acres of gravel bar with beer cans, disposable diapers, and candy wrappers. They WILL be prosecuted for littering as well as trespassing if they so much as go up the riverbank. During fall/winter seasons, there is no access available below the mean high water mark. The drift boaters have not been a problem. Sure, I'd like to be compensated if I lose two acres of land, but then again, I really don't want state government to go broke or stick me with radically increased income or property taxes for the rest of my life.

[OneLastCast]

I just reviewed the BB and came back to this post only to find BOE had already posted.
Now my intent is to flame BOE. Actually, just keep the flame burning under him. BOE your comments regarding the NWS and NRA are my thoughts exactly. So, no further comment except....

Jen you said "Remind them property owners have no business receiving money for state-owned lands..."
However the state/county had no business receiving money through taxation for the said lands. And now you say we should just say Thanks for the contribution? This issue is so much more complicated then what the NWS organization wants to admit. It is just easier to wrap it up into one general package and make sure it only costs the riverfront landowners.

And one other misconception, when you say "but the fine print of most every title states "The rights of the public and of governmental bodies in and to that portion of the described lands lying below the high mark of the John Day River."" (this is a common statement from the Northwest Steelheaders)

That "fine" print is usually on the Title report, not the actual deed or land conveyance. This means that the Title company is not going to insure that portion of the property (because of all this legislation and the organizations trying to take it?). It doesn't necessarily mean that the grantee on the deed doesn't own it.

This should take peoples mind off the Racism post.

OneLastCast

[Bait O' Eggs]

BillH - I am aware Hustlerjim is a property owner on the Nehalem. What confuses me is why he did not post it? images/icons/confused.gif He has posted several things in the past, it isnt like he doesnt know how to post. I know he is very tight with the NW Steelheaders chapter in his area. To send it to Jen and have her post it only creates questions for me. Why would he do that??????

I know if he asked me I would not post it for him.

I can only assume since Jen posted this propoganda she agrees with it. Jen posting this without reading it???? I have a hard time choking that one down.

I am not sure but think Jen said in the past she did some work for NWS on there web pages. She agrees with them enough to use her signature as a link for the NWS webpage. We all take up arms on certain issues that strike a cord with us. I see Jen working for the other side on this issue.

Husterjim - Why would you use Jen to post this for you? We have never met, but have common friends and I have heard good things about you images/icons/rolleyes.gif images/icons/rolleyes.gif It just doesnt make sense to me. It might be frivelous but I am perplexed on this.

OLC - No need to try and keep the fire burning under my skin on this issue. Are you sure you dont want to flame me. images/icons/wink.gif

[ 05-23-2001: Message edited by: Bait O' Eggs ]

[WaterDog]

Bait,

http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/contrib/edoom/flamethrowingsmiley.gif

Someone had to flame you! images/icons/wink.gif

Actually.I couldn't agree with you more.

[TheRogue]

I posted on this once, in the old days of the BB

In some respects, this is a very simple issue. "Upon the admission of a State into the Union title to the beds of navigable bodies of water inures to the State as an incident of sovereignty." The State owns the beds of navigable rivers, period. That is set in law and upheld countless times.

A person selling land can ONLY sell what that person OWNS. This may seem pretty obvious, but, that's the reason for title insurance. Just because the deed, even a warranty deed, says 20 acres, that doesn't mean that you're going to get 20 acres, in Oregon especially, with the unresolved navigability issues.

Washington and California handled it differently, and, in my opinion, correctly. Since the beginning of statehood, both states have claimed the beds of most all flowing streams and lakes. It was the responsibility of the States to determine navigability, and they did it. It was up to the other parties (private) to take it to court.

However, in Oregon, that would be impossible to do. It's been screwed up for quite a while. There are many streams which fit the definition of navigability, but have never been declared so by the State. The State has this right....once declared, the stream is held to have been navigable since statehood....there are no ownership issues, because any upland owners never owned it to begin with. The other party has the onus to prove the State wrong.

So what to do with the person who wades down the lower Wilson River, staying in the water, but gets accosted with a gun by the landowner, and thrown in jail for trespassing??? How is it possible to be trespassing on land that is likely, by definition, state(public) land?

No answers from me, I know, but I hope people will think a little on these issues. I personally would like to see this resolved one way or another. The last case in Oregon went in the State's favor (John Day River), but that was on $100/acre grazing ground. What happens on $100,000/acre view property on the lower Clackamas or Sandy??

T.R.

[Bait O' Eggs]

Jen - I did not want to hurt yours of Bills feelings or call either of you a liar. It just seemed to me that somebody who reads the board and has deleted past post you would read what you posted to see if it met your criteria. I know I wont sign a letter with my name on it until I am sure of what is says. I still hold you and Bill in the highest regard. I just dont think the NWS have my best interest in whole in mind.

I thought we were friends also. If I had to agree with everything my friends thought I wouldnt have any friends but myself. images/icons/wink.gif It looks like there are some I have offended and some I have made happy with my post. I have had correspondance with some that think I am an idiot for my views and some correspondance thanking me for standing up for my thoughts and it represented theirs also.

I have considered joining the NWS in the past but I did not want my $25 padding the pocket of some lobbyist who was fighting for things I did not agree with. I know there are a lot of people on this board who own guns and wont join the NRA because of some of the NRA's positions. All the while firmly believing without the NRA they would not be allowed to own a handgun today if not for the NRA. I am willing to accept the positive they provide and not join them because of some of there postions. Does that make me a hipocit? maybe. Does the NWS do things that benefit me, yes, will I join them, No, not until they come to there senses on this one issue. If I was to join them I would be saying I agree with what they do. At this time I cannot do that. Do I hold it against the members personally, no.

I wont join the NWS and if I dont speak out against what they do, they will think they are on the right track. I have never seen anybody take a stance against them on this board. I am out here in left field all alone right now. If somebody agrees or disagrees speak up, join me, or try to change my opinion. images/icons/cool.gif

I tired to email hustlerjim but he has his email blocked.

Anyhoo, Jen and Bill my apoligies for offending you. I am sorry for doing that, it was not my intention.

And Stew I hope the other suits you. I still think your a pinko images/icons/tongue.gif images/icons/wink.gif

[Jennie@ifish]

Notice the lack of signature on the named post.
I often pass along e mail, (regardless of my own stand of things), that are newsworthy and fishy.
I just don't sign my name.
Apology accepted, I just don't like to see people choke on the truth.
I don't know the heimlich maneuver. (sp)
Jennie (Note signature... thus my stand)
images/icons/wink.gif

[MasterCaster]

Well not to stir things up or anything but if I read all that right the land has never actually belonged to the "landowner" but has always belonged to the state as far back as the state goes. If that is the case then I do not believe anyone should recieve money for land they dont own. Although I do not think people should be able to sell someone land that they didnt own in the first place. Say if I sell you 20 acres and you are only getting 15 then it would seem as though I should be liable for selling what isnt mine to sell? images/icons/confused.gif

Just my 2 cents worth.

[TheRogue]

Jon....

Hence the reason for the huge problems in trying to get things cleaned up. Say the property has change hands 5, 6, 10+ times. You can bet, each time, somewhere in the title insurance (if used) there is a small blurp concerning the exception of ownership of navigable stream beds.

There is no easy way out of this one....either way, things will be in court forever, and cost exorbitant amounts of money. NWS could force the issue, and force the State into taking a stand, either by court action or legislation.

T.R.

[hustlerrjim]

expletive--- all i am trying to do is make you people aware of whats going on in salem ,as far as jen posting this up i asked her to do it as i dont type- b.f.d. if you guys would put as much effort in to defeating this bill as you have ******** at jen, you bunch of barstool politicions could elect me as gov.
this was a memorandum sent out by the lobbyist for the steelheaders it was posted for your imformation and was not endoresed by bill, jen,or jim you have to make up your own mind.
this is the type of thing that breaks down our only comunication link with salem it is very sad that you people would attack jen and not the memo
but then why dont the sponcers of this bill worry about you people ,it's very simple, i havent seen a one of you bitchers at any of the hearings concerning this matter or any others,
the next two weeks in salem are going to be cruicial for us--- do you want to be informed about whats coming down on your heads???????so you can have a voice????????or are you going to sit on your dead hiney and attack everybody that is trying to do something
now then every body that took the time attack jen sit down and write your legislator and tell them what you think -you have already proven you can write and have the time.
the only person i have blocked on my email is my religious fanatic sister in law so email me ,i love the controversey

[ 05-23-2001: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]

[OneLastCast]

Hustlerjim

There isn'nt enough beer near my barstool to make me put your name on any ballot. Wait a minute I can think of a couple things to nominate you for. images/icons/grin.gif images/icons/shocked.gif
As usual it is nice to see you are responding with all the tact and subtlety I expect.

OneLastCast

[Bait O' Eggs]

Hustlerjim - I told you I heard good things about you images/icons/rolleyes.gif images/icons/rolleyes.gif I see they are all true. images/icons/wink.gif You are OK in my book.

The honorable Governor Jim Erickson images/icons/rolleyes.gif Reminds me of saying the honorable Mayor Bud Clark. images/icons/wink.gif or maybe the honarable Senator Bob Packwood. images/icons/wink.gif When does Kitzhabers term expire anyway? You got my write in vote.

[HOGTIDE]

Class Act - Hustler Jim

[Deleted User]

Hey Roy just bring that boat over here and we'll be fine images/icons/grin.gif
Fishbait and I are going to sign you up for NWS anyway images/icons/tongue.gif

[Joe Schwab]

Hoooowheeh, the threads heating up! This one has been around a while. Actually all those who think they should be compensated for loss ought to sit back and take a long hard look. A friend of mine on the Sandy river admitted his property value never went down a bit in fact has been increasing each year and he probably wasn't getting taxed on the true value anyway. This is the argument isn't it? Loss of value? You pay taxes on the property value whether it is twenty acres or nineteen. What if the river decides to move? Do you still own to the middle? What about the guy on the other side? Trespass is a whole different issue. I feel for the owners who have to deal with it.

[Nanook]

Dang all, even "flatlanders" don't fight or question friendships in public! Yes, this issue has sufaced many times on the Trask. I don't know one authority, game cop or sheriff
in the State over 25 years that has made someone pull up their anchor from the middle of the river.

Think about the jerk on the South Side of the Sandbar and Two Bit hole and his signs.

Was anyone other than me there the day he romped his boat out of the hole and ripped the entire underside out of it, high and dry on the huge stumps between the holes? This was almost as good as a dead Seal floating belly up on the ongoing tide through the holes. Both got a standing ovation from all present.

Same goes for the "fishing clubs" harrasment and "my hole" BS on the rivers. What a joke. Can't even drop a driftboat over the cliff put in on the North Fork Nehalem anymore!!

Give the bank guys a dam break too, all concerned. Landowners would not be as crazy if everyone would ask, promise to clean up and do it. Most of them are from somewhere else now anyway, who bought up the land, when the kids didn't want to farm or deal with it anymore and cashed out. Sad deal to watch over the years, for sure. images/icons/frown.gif images/icons/frown.gif


http://www.animfactory.com/animations/people_m_z/miscellaneous/man_stuck_in_traffic_md_wht.gif

[ 05-23-2001: Message edited by: ****** ]

[Get Bit]

Ok folks here's my take on the subject of river access :The rivers of Oregon should be available for all to enjoy.That doesn't mean that it should be at the expense of trashing landowners property or trespassing across to get access to a waterway. However, those folks gaining access through public land via a boatramp etc.should have every right to walk along the bank to fish, portage, etc.
but damage, littering or ? should not be tolerated. As for the state reimbursing landowners for property already on their deed because of the highwater mark, I think this is a given and the only right thing to do if land is taken away by the state. How many years have landowners been paying property taxes on the land as well as the current market value. This last statement may not be a NWS point of view but it certainly is mine.I'm willing
to overlook this small difference and still pay my $25 a year. Sportfishing groups need to unite, and this type of issue is why we haven't been able to make the kinds political change we've really needed. The NWS are just a bunch of guys working to preserve the resource and be able to take a fish to eat once in while. With the amount of boatramps, stream enhancement and education the NWS do $25 is a deal! Thank God for the Steelheaders because these to groups really speak for the average person in the fishing community.

[Jennie@ifish]

Boe, you are entitled to your opinion.
You are, however not entitled to call me a liar.
I got up this morning, in a hurry to get to my sons play at school.
Jim had sent me this article. He didn't even ask me to print it. I just thought it might be good to pass on. Hey, it looked fishy and like something that should be known. I printed it out, handed it to Bill and asked him to read it and should I post it.
He said yes.
As I got in the shower, I asked him what it was all about and would anyone be upset with what it contained. He said no.

Off I went.

Thanks alot, BOE, I thought we were friends....
You are entitled to your suspicions about me, glad that not everyone follows that belief.
I am a member of the steelheaders for what good they do, and they do alot of good. I am not, however, close to some of the issues in the current legislature.
I am feeling quite hurt by this.

J

[ 05-23-2001: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]

[fishbait]

Hey BOE, Your my friend, but your logic doesnt make sence.

As far as the "taking" of land, if you never owned it (read deed restrictions regarding high water mard) it cant be taken. As far as the misguided thought process of paying taxes, everyone of us that lives on a street has the same issue. read your property description and then go measure your yard.

Our great state has a history of preserving public land and public rights for the public and that is good. This issue should have been resolved long ago but no one had the balls to deal with this issue. Finally the Association of Northwest Steelheaders took up the challenge to get a final ruling on stream bank access where the rights had been in place for many years. I say good job. Lets get this resolved one way or another.. As far as the public trashing or tresspassing over peoples private property where they have no right, shoot the basterds with rocksalt or turn the dog loose. Those slobs who leave ther trash on private property should be given a trash enema. There is no excuse for this behavior, but the two issues are not necessarly interrelated so lets understand that.

[Get Bit]

Fishbait,
I agree with the whole nine yards. I think that what actually appears on someones deed is exactly where the controversy lies. I understand that I've been paying property taxes on the first few feet of my property that I don't essentially own but I also think my ditch and waterfront property are two different things entirely. There are folks on the Sandy if I remember correctly that their deed does read to the middle of the river. I know this thing will probably come to pass that the public owns all of the land to the high water mark as it should be. However, if I bought land because of waterfront property I think I'd be pretty upset if someone suddenly said what I thought was mine isn't and the state actually owned it. The question lies in how to answer this question ??? Any takers ?? I still just want to drift and jump out on the bank once in while to have lunch or lob a few casts. I think you are right on Buddy.

[DanS]

It all lies in the assessed value of the parcel. You're not paying property taxes based on the square footage of the property, but ratther the property's assessed value. The only question is, WILL your assessed value decrease due to this legislation? If it does, then I would say a property owner would have a legitimate gripe. That would mean they have been paying taxes on land that didn't really belong to them. If the assessed value remains the same, then the point of taxes is moot.

I'm sure if I was a riverfront or lakefront owner, I would be concerned. If the equity in my property was decreased by legislative action, and I wasn't compensated, I would be ticked and rightly so. But if the value remains the same, then the property owner really has no gripe, except for the way some idiots treat other people's property.

I suppoese a call to your local assessor's office could possibly shed some light on the subject. If they feel the "value" of the property would not be jeopardized, them I'm all for it. If the property value is decreased, then some measure of tax relief should be afforded to these property owners.

JMHO images/icons/smile.gif

[bob b]

Stop giving opinions,the law is clear. The people have the right to reasonable access to the beds of navigable rivers in Oregon.This clearly forbids trespasss but there has been no court ruling against anchoring. There are 10 navigable rivers,source boat oregon,OSMB. I believe this does apply also to non-navigable rivers.

[Bait O' Eggs]

Bob - it is not quite as clear as you state, or it would not be a debated topic in the current legislature.

Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but the State of Oregon has an official list of navitable rivers. It includes rivers such as Columbia, Willamette, Sandy, etc.. I am not sure how many are on it but somewhere around 10 rivers, maybe a few more. The public owning to the high water mark is only on navitable rivers as I understand it. What is hotly debated is now the state is reviewing additional rivers and making a ruling if these other rivers are now navitable. If these other rivers are determined to be navitable then the law will be clear. The property owners on the list of rivers under review are the ones that will take it in the shorts if these rivers are ruled navitable when they were not before.

If you buy a piece of river frontage on a river that is not determined to be navitable at the time of buying it. Then the state comes along and changes the status of the river and determines the river is navitable, does the land owner not lose something. I think it is a clear yes.

Does anybody have a link to the actual law which describes this high water mark on rivers belonging to the public, navitable or otherwise. I would be very interested in reading it. I have not been able to find it using search engines.

[BUGLEMAN]

Navigable is not defined by the state in a list of 10 rivers. It is defined by the federal government in terms of historic usage only. The list is a shame and a around about way to defraud the state's citizens right to the rivers by cattlemen, corporations, and self serving landowners.

It is all here-
National Rivers: River navigability law, river access, river rights, etc. http://www.nors.org/us-law-menu.htm

[DanS]

Well, gee, bob b. Let me clue you into a little something. OPINIONS are what LAW is all about. Here, let me explain.

A judge gives his OPINION about what a law says, and different judges may have different OPINIONS about what the SAME legal language says. You know when the Supreme Court has a "split opinion"? That means that different justices have differnt OPINIONS about the SAME LEGAL QUESTION.

So, I guess if you really look at it, it's about as clear as mud. I guess you'll just have to hope that the judges who will ultimately decide this issue share your OPINION about it, rather than the property owner's opinion.

[bob b]

DanS the supreme court never has a split opinion only a split decision. If you have the time and money to fight for my right to step from my drift boat to shore please do,until then I will anchor anywhere,and not tolerate threats. I will let the courts or legislature settle the remaining issue.

Dan

[Deleted User]

Okay Roy here's a question for you. You own land along a river that is questionable as to whether it's a navitable river or not, let's say it's the Kilchis river,I'm using this river for example purposes only. I come along in a driftboat and anchor in the middle of the river. Am I tresspasing? Do you as the landowner of this river front where my boat is anchored able to press charges against me for tresspassing? Do you believe this is right? No need to go into a complex answer just a simple yes or no as to whether your land ownership runs to the middle of the river.
As trespassing and vandalism go it's a no brainer and unfortunately there are some real slobs out there. Just look at the amount of bait containers,discarded mono,cigarette butts and yes even disposable diapers you can find along a river bank it's shameful and disgusting and landowners are completely in the right on this type of stuff. The other issue is definately grey.
Stew


JOIN NORTHWEST STEELHEADERS

[Jennie@ifish]

I recieved this last night from Norm Ritchie:

Hi Jennie, Thinks for bring this to my attention. Tom Vanderplaat also
suggested I generate a response. Here are the facts in a way that responds
to the issues on the board.

Please feel free to post it. Thanks for your support & keep up the good work.

Wow, so much opinion and much of it based on misunderstanding! I will try to
set the record strait by explaining the facts in the order that they are
misstated or misunderstood.
There is no lack of definition of "Navigable water ways" it is defined by
Federal law so the state does not need to do this. What is in question is
what part of what rivers meet the federal test of navigability. The basis
for navigability is the nature of the waterway at the time of statehood and
the use of the river (or the use it was subject to) at that time, with the
technology of that time. A land owner coalition pushed legislation that
established the current methodology for the Division of State Lands to
determine navigability. The Steelheaders are attempting to have navigability
determinations made on several rivers per these procedures now in effect.
The state does not issue title. The seller or the seller's representatives
create title descriptions. These are subject to title insurance and filed
with counties. The state does not get involved in titles. In fact titles
that describe ownership to the center of a navigable river are equivalent to
a fraudulent bill of sale for a used car. If a person's stolen car is found,
does he need to buy it back from the person who has it because he has such a
bill of sale? No! The owner gets his car back. We can pity the person who
bought the stolen car because they are out the money they paid for it. That
buyer can attempt to get it back from the seller, but we don't make the
rightful owner pay him for it!
The Steelheaders are not attempting to take away anyone's property. We are
protecting the public's property and public rights to river access. There
have been documented cases of conflict between adjacent landowners and
someone in the river (usually fishermen) on every river the Steelheaders have
requested navigability determinations. In many cases river users have been
wrongfully forced off of the river or even sighted for trespass. We all need
to get this issue resolved!
As to taxation. The Steelheaders agree that people should not be taxed for
property they don't own. In fact the Steelheaders supported legislation that
landowners should be compensated for taxes they paid on land they did not
own. This would come from the counties as the taxing body, and not the state.
As to trespass above the mean high water line or littering anywhere. The
Steelheaders are not only adamantly opposed it; we are doing something about
it. We conduct river cleanups and other volunteer work on the river. We
helped privately fund additional state police for fish and game who also
protect property along the river. We stand at the side of that same lobbyist
(who wrote about the navigability issue) at the capital in support of funding
the state police fish & game division. Steelheaders work to change public
attitude toward respecting and protecting the rivers and adjacent habitat and
we are successful at it.
Those are the facts. Now for my personal opinion. There are a lot of people
who make excuses for not getting involved beyond lip service. The nearly
2000 people who are members of the Steelheaders are not amongst them. Not
every Steelheader agrees with everything we do as an organization but I am
thankful that they still support and volunteer for the efforts that speak to
their own personal values. I am also very thankful for people like Jim
Erickson and Bill Hedlund who own land along the rivers and still know right
from wrong. They stick up for their own rights as land owners (as do the
Steelheaders) but support the Steelheaders in our efforts to protect the
rights of all of us.

Norm Ritchie, President
Association of Northwest Steelheaders
2834 SE 166th Ave.
Portland, OR 97236-1861
Days: (503) 745-6388, Fax: (503) 745-8819
Evenings: (503) 760-5551
email: neritch@email.sae.org

[Bait O' Eggs]

Stew- I will try to keep it simple. I do not think any land owner should be able to stop a boat from anchoring in any river no matter what the status of navitability is. As I understand it (not 100% positive but fairly sure) the law is different if you own one side or both sides of the river. If a person owns one side of a non navitable river you own basically to the edge of the water. If a person owns both sides of a non - navitable river you own the bottom also. I know there is a location where ****** frequents that the land owner has attempted to stop people from anchoring. I do not think this is acceptable and why he would do that is beyond me. It is the only place I know where a person has attempted to prevent anchoring in the river. The funny thing is he is a lawyer and I assume understands the law. Several people know who this is, and I dont understand this man or where he is coming from or why. If I understand the law correctly, a person that owns both sides of the river could maybe technically attempt to stop an anchoring, but they would have to be a real A-hole to try for no reason.

Bugelaman that is an interesting website you sent us to. I believe I have been to that site trying to gather information in the past. I was hoping to read the law. I get suspicious when I am reading information from a private organization that has interpreted the law for me and allows me to pay $20 to join them. I am sure PETA would tell me there version of animal rights as they interpret them also. images/icons/rolleyes.gif

Norm Ritchie writes a nice letter. It is hard not to respect a man that can cut thru the crap and present his point clear and concise. images/icons/smile.gif

[fishbait]

DAMM........What are we going to argue about now........Thanks Norm for setting us straight with the facts. This is a important subject for everyone in this great state.

Hey ******, I have a letter from the state that I gor from Art Israelson at the state NWS office concerning the .25 hole on the trask, copy available if you want it. Says the land owner doesn't have the right to make you pull anchor.

[hustlerrjim]

thanks jen i have never been one to toot my own horn but these are some of the things that can be done with the help of others.
back to the river access bill--- it seeems the most intrest was in how much am i going to get paid for this peice of land that i can't use as it is under water.
I look at this as a control issue of people wanting to control somebody else.
the best example I can show you is go to three rivers and put your boat in at the bridge at the hatchery,go down stream apx 300 yds and drop your anchor,in 15 min the sherrif will be there threatning you with a ticket this is what the steelheaders are trying to get changed so we can fish all the rivers.
this area has been turned into a private fishing club and to hell with the people that pay the taxes to run the hatchery.do you want this to spread???????it will .
The solution to this is very simple-- the boat people stay in your boat and dont get out on the banks ,loretta and I own the boat launch on the north fork nehalem and we have this rule at our place ,and we have had only one person violate this policey,he was asked not to return,and he has't.
Is this controll?yes, but it controls the rights of others to enjoy fishing and the pleasure of being on the river.
Other kinds of control???
several years ago i was fishing on the trask river in one of the better holes and this guy caught 4 chinnok by late afternoon as he was getting ready to leave he rowed over to the bank and cleaned his fish leaving the guts next to the bank, the landowner saw this and promptly ran down the bank and grabbed the guts and threw them in the guys face and told him if he got out of the boat he would shove them up his --- now that is control and one of my most memorable moments on the trash river.

[DanS]

bob b.,

The Supreme Court doesn't have split opinions?? Then WHAT is the "dissenting opinion" on any given ruling? When there is an 8-1 split, what does that mean? It means one justice had a different opinion about what the language says.

Legal issues are SELDOM black and white. Want to read some "dissenting opinions"? Here, read for yourself.
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html

[Nanook]

Thanks Fishbait! Too bad we can't paste
a copy all over his Mercedes and thoughout
his Casino in Reno. images/icons/grin.gif images/icons/grin.gif