Eagle Creek fishin hole closed

[CATCH AND EAT]

Took a quick drive to check on fish last night. The east side of the bridge at Bonnalure is now closed. Seems the new property owner found out that he owned land on the other side of the creek too. It is now posted no tresspassing. :depressed:

One less hole for everyone to fish. Not a huge loss since a lot of snagging does go on there but still a bummer. He closed it because of all the trash. Way to go "piggy" fisherman. Just lost one more place to go out there. :hoboy:

BTW, did not see many fish there yet. :depressed:

Just be ware if you like to fish this spot. I use it only as a barometer for the migration. I like to look down and seem them babies movin up stream..

[foxer]

I fished there sunday. I saw the sign, and it was for the property east of the sign. If you go down the bank and look up river, you will see another sign. You can still fish (err snag) down there, you just can't walk up into the wooded area

[CATCH AND EAT]

Sorry, that is not correct. You can fish on the west side of the bridge only now (the park). The east side of the bridge is now posted on both sides of the river. The dude was calling the sheriff as I was standing on the bridge near him. Quite a heated discussion between the guys fishing and the land owner.

So, just beware when you go down there. I arrived at 6pm last night to check the water. Owner just came home when I arrived. Seems like kind of a jerk. But, if it is his property, he does have the right to ask folks to leave and post it. Just kind of a bummer cause it makes other spots just that much more crowded.

Check it out for yourself.

[foxer]

Interesting, however, I believe that you can still fish up to the high water mark. You could also wade in the river I believe. He does'nt own the water. Did this guy have glasses? I rememeber seeing this guy come home and close his gate. He walked down to the bank and watched everybody for a while.....

[Tanner]

Are you talking about the side of the creek where all the "sportsmen" stand on the ledge right under the bridge and "legally hook :rolleyes: fish?

[CATCH AND EAT]

Sorry, the high water mark thing does not apply on eagle Creek. not a navigable river. Sorry.

[Miss B Haven]

Foxer - That rule (high water) only applies to "Navigable" rivers in this State. What that means has been the subject of much debate, but I'm pretty sure EC doesn't fit the definition any way you cut it. :rolleyes:
The Sandy is an example of where the State has decided it does apply. Did you see the flap over that? Although access is important, understand that you have to draw the line somewhere. If not then every creek would be open game and private property would a meaningless term. :whazzup:

[GutshotApe]

If its a legally determined "navigable" stream the public has the right to use the bed & banks for fishing & hunting access up to ordinary high water line (on the Willamette, the US Army Corps of Engineers defines OHW line as the average highest level over a 2-year period) and, in the case of obstructions like log jams, to use the immediately adjacent uplands to get around the obstacle. However, there are very few legally navigable streams in Oregon - maybe 10 or 11. In "non-navigable" streams, the bed & banks are usually private property. You can legally fish these waters if you're in a boat and not touching the bottom or banks (can't anchor).

If the stream is "non-navigable" but boats customarily use it, that would seem like a good basis for a not guilty plea leading to a dismissed case on trespassing charges. Depends on county prosecuting atty. Most DAs would rather avoid a long, expensive precedent-setting case on their watch.

NW Steelheaders graemlins/1zhelp.gif is leading the fight for angler's rights in the riparian access issue.

[24 on/ 48 off]

EC is definately NOT a navigatable stream. property owners own the bed 1/2 way from either side.

--spud-- :smile:

[foxer]

Ok, that clears that up I guess. While I agree there are some people that are a holes who throw their **** everywhere, I still think a person should be allowed to wade the river as long as he does not step on land. I just cannot comprehend how somebody can own a river/creek.

[Bankbound]

If everyone tried to make it a point to pack out MORE than you brought in 9cigarteet butts line pieces soda cans)we would have fewer of these problems and prettier rivers

[Bankbound]

graemlins/stupid.gif Like the spelling?!

[choppers]

i have to agree with foxer. expecially when state funded $$$$$$$$$ salmon and steelhead go right up their drive way. in this case right behind the house.

now of coarse i would feel different if this was my property and i benefited from all you fisherman putting some type of benefit in my pocket. then it's OK. my property value goes up if it's a disirable piece of land. hmm what else. hmm what else can i get for nothing.

couldn't help that, the land owner has never in my 14 years of fishing that stream ever come out to pick up trash or put a garbage can over their so what's up. smack gone. but i've seen the trash leave trash in that slot too so everyone's to blame.

have a nice day :smile:

[Miss B Haven]

Foxer - Let's take it to an extreme. Lets say you own and live on property. Let's say that the sole water source for that property is a small spring on an adjacent property, but you have deeded water rights to that spring (along with access rights).
Would you want anyone who had the urge to be able to wade up the middle of that creek clear to the source (your spring) and dump some fish bait (or dump something else :shocked: ) in your families drinking water?
This is not a hypothetical situation, I do have a spring water source. It may be an extreme but as I said, you have to draw the line between public access and private property somewhere. I personally enjoy both. :smile:

[lost_sailor]

I want to learn to wade without standing on land!

[Miss B Haven]

lost sailor - I think you'll have to talk to a much higher entity than hangs out on this board :grin: . There are a lot of folks who can help you get in touch with him, but I wouldn't hold much hope in that particular request being fullfilled. It's only happened once in that last few thousand years. :wink:

[CATCH AND EAT]

Just kind of frustrating how the law works in these cases. However, I can put myself in the landowners shoes to a point and say, man those guy sure leave a lot of trash around. Do I put a can out there for the whole world to fill to over flowing or do I hover over that hole during the prime fishing time and police it.

With this particular hole, the old lady that use to live there was always very cordial to me the few times I tried it. Always good to volunteer information about the run and what she saw. Never saw her bad side at all. This new landowner though, from what I saw last night he is a real "knee jerK reaction" kind of guy. I never heard him curse like the fisherman in the water and he kept his cool and appologized for doing what he had to do. The fisherman. Well, one guy could not help but have the "f" in every terse sentence. Like that really helps.

The lesson: Pick up your crap and keep the site clean or you will loose more opportunities like this. Also, a little courtesy from fisherman goes a long ways. Respect the rights of landowners.

[Artwo]

A little while back some of us ifishers did a clean-up on EC, remember that. Well, myself and two other individuals chose the area around this bridge to clean up. You would not believe the amount of trash we picked up on the east side of the bridge (what would be this guys private property). It absolutely disgusted me some of what we found, from used diapers to old tires, you name it we found it. If I owned that land I would have closed it down years ago because of the misuse from littering to snagging of fish. We can't blame the guy for protecting his investment, but what we can do is police our own recreation. Bring out more than you took in, tell people to pick up after themselves and by all means report snaggers. Remember, it's the ten percent that ruin it for the rest of us...............we all need to do our part if we want to have the PRIVLEDGE of private property access.

JK

[garyk]

Artwo, I suggest an even bigger change. We should be investing our license monies in streamside easement acquisition, (and outright purchase where feasible).

What use is all the hatchery funding when you can't access the fish, (and in some places create a private fishery for landowners and the fishing clubs that pop up to exploit it)?

It's a win-win situation with an initial financial windfall for property owners, quaranteed access in perpetuity for anglers, and easement properties remain on the tax rolls.

[happybrew]

I'm with you GaryK! I certainly wouldn't want somebody trashing my property if I were a landowner, but at the same time, I hate to see a fishery paid for by tax dollars having limited access by the public. It would amount to maximizing the return on the investment already made in fish runs.

Doug

[GutshotApe]

GaryK - The way I see it, we shouldn't have to pay for what is already ours by right. Oregonians are being excluded from what is ours because only a handful of navigable streams have been declared "navigable" by the legislature or by courts.

Many, many Oregon rivers & streams are actually navigable in their natural condition (at least part of the year) and are used for navigation on a regular basis. If it can float a kayak, its navigable. The public has a right (set forth in the Oregon statehood bill, I think) to use the beds & banks of navigable streams for recreational purposes no matter who has title to the property.

What we need is a legislature & governor with the guts to pass a bill declaring those streams and stream sections that are actually navigable to be considered legally "navigable".

We had the Oregon beach bill, the Oregon bottle bill, etc. Why not the Oregon river access bill?

Any politicians lurking out there looking for a winning issue?

[foxer]

Miss B, I see your point except that you dont have a state funded hatchery on your creek (that i know of) I'm thinking that this property's value is enhanced greatly because of the hatchery, the park etc. It's just frustrating that people have been allowed to fish here for a long, long, time. Personally, I have other places on the creek i would rather fish. And yes I said fish, not snag.

[lost_sailor]

Well, EC is the last place you can catch those coho, but "access" can be had in the ocean, Columbia, Willamette and Clackamas.

How much do you think that property sold for?

[Slayer]

I have been a bank angler for many years, and have had many a fights with landowner. Matter of fact I was one of the catalist to get the Sandy river high water mark in to law. However I dont blame land owner as most of the bank anglers are pigs and rude! If i was a land owner i would not want these people on my property, even if a few of them were respectful. Until people start to change their attitudes and behaviors, salmon fishing is only going to get worse! That's why i bought a boat

[CATCH AND EAT]

That's why I have boats to Slayer. Got tired of the near hand to hand combat of bank access. Plus, I found that everytime I got to a nice little spot someone would step in a "RIP" at the water and burn the hole. Usually for a Silver you get one or two chances at a particular fish and then they move on to become a non biter. Much rather fish from the boat except it is much more expensive.

I love to fish from the bank when there are not many crowds around. Just something special about fishing from the shore and chasing a fish down.

What MOFISH sponcered last year was way cool. The clean up of EC was much needed and appreciated. All that helped are to be commended and recognized. KUDOs to all of ya!

Just wish we as fisherman were more responsible.

[garyk]

GSA -- Philosophically, I'm in total agreement with you.

The easement program would/could give a little more room above the highwater mark (as opposed to state ownership below high water mark). It might also include a conservation clause to maintain the riparian area in a natural state or at least prevent its degradation.

It's not an either/or situation. We should assert our rights to navigable rivers while pursuing permanent access to private lands from willing landowners.

Today, we enjoy the investment that those before us made in public infrastructure whether it's boat ramps or hatcheries (something that all outdoor recreationists should stop and seriously think about). With an increasing population coupled with the trend of closing private property we need a robust easement/acquisition investment strategy to ensure future access.

[skunkedagain]

i fished Eagle creek again today. Lots of people. The rumor is that the new property owner there is trying to get the game dept. to not let anyone fish 150 feet either direction from the bridge.

Back to the pigs who cant pick thier trash up. :hoboy: We had to yell at some high school age kids who made a huge mess and where just going to leave it. graemlins/icon_argue.gif I think they finally got the point.

As far as a report, some nice fish moving up the creek now. they twend to be pretty tight lipped. best luck is when they are moving through the faster waters they seem to be stricking out well. :smile:

[OneLastCast]

Oh Boy!

We are on to something now. I think that is a great idea Gary. Lets get those easements through eminent domain, make sure they are easements so the landowner keeps paying taxes, lets go beyond what the State has a right to claim and take more so we can have the landowner maintain the property in its natural state or at least prevent the degradation. Make that landowner cut trails, pick up garbage, put up garbage cans and even provide toilets and parking. Why haven't I thought of this.
While we are at it we should also require all landowners that have ODFW managed or transplanted game animals or game birds cross their property provide unlimited access for hunting.

Hey wait! People are getting our money for student loans, welfare, unemployment, tax breaks etc. We can have them cutting the trails and building the roads.

Wait I have a better idea. Why don't we require everyone to send their paychecks to the State of Oregon who can then dispense out money equitably to everyone so there is no more strata of classes. We will all be equal regardless of what we want or who we are.

Wait, why don't we all put on our birkenstocks and hold hands and sing "We Shall Gather at the River"

I am with you

OneLastCast

[crabbait]

Onelastcast - Good thinking! Now go with the nice men in the white coats........they just want to talk to you about your medication. Take deep breaths......everything is going to be alright :grin:

[garyk]

For folks unfamiliar with property easements such as what I'm proposing, fishing easements are entirely at the landowners discretion. There is no condemnation through eminent domain.

Easement payments can be structured as lump-sum or a period of years.

Willing landowners could receive substantial income while retaining full ownership. (This can be a real boon for retired folks who are 'land rich' but have limited income. ) River users would be assured of access in the same way that we have access to boat ramps now.

From personal experience, my property has a waterfowl hunting easement, placed on it in the 1890's, for the benefit of a particular individual and his heirs. I assume the owner back then gave the easement in return for payment or as a thankyou for some favor.

Anyway, if hunting easements worked in the 1890's, why not invest our license dollars in maintainng and ensuring public access today, so we can avoid situations like the one beginning this thread?

[ssteelheadsteve]

Lost Sailor--
Talk to FM2 about your wading situation.
I believe he may be expert in the process :smile:

[OneLastCast]

Okay, the medication has kicked in, they removed that white jacket with the straps so I don't have to type with my nose.

Volunteer, cooperative easements for access are a good idea.

Just where are we going to get the funding.

OneLastCast

[CATCH AND EAT]

Easements, public right aways....I don't know guys. It is so easy for these government folks to say "yeah ,we need 10 feet of your land. Here's $900 for your trouble." :shocked: This happened to me when I built my house. Tried to get a final inspection from the county and they said "Sir you will have to come down and sign some papers giving the county a 10' set back on your property. Until you do so we will not do the final inspection". Black mail with no compensation.

One other situation with county easements came when the sewers in east county went in. They went down the side of my property and only wanted to give me$900 bucks. I fought with them on this and ended up getting about $3200.

So, I can feel for the land owner in this case. I can also feel for the reel fisherman too. But this spot has been abused too long. To much trash, to much snagging and no respect for the property.

Maybe the property owner could put up a pay box but that is doubtful. There has been a movement for sometime to close this area off to fishing. This guy might just succeed.

[GutshotApe]

C&E - I followed a controversey involving the public's right to navigate and to use streambeds & banks a few years ago. I remember reading something to the effect that in 1859, when Oregon was admitted as a state, the federal govt. granted to Oregon (the public) the right to use the navigable waters of the state without restriction, etc. Subsequent case law has firmly established that incidental use of the bed, banks (up to ordinary high water line) & adjacent upland areas (where necessary to get around obstructions) along navigable streams for fishing & hunting is part & parcel of "navigation".

Where the system broke down is that only 4 rivers were named in 1859 as being "navigable" and Oregon's courts have added only 6 or 7 to the list since then.

If you own property fronting a navigable stream then the public already has the right to use the bed & banks up to the ordinary high water line. If the state hasn't yet officially ruled that your river is "navigable", that doesn't mean it won't eventually happen. The property deed may say you own to the middle of the stream, or both sides and all of the bottom, but if the stream is susceptible to navigation, the intent of congress when Oregon became a state was that the public's rights to navigation be maintained (and trumps your deed).

Obviously, this issue is a huge can of worms and many property owners are going to be outraged when they find out "their" river actually is navigable and they can't keep the public out of it.

Sooner or later the state is going to have to deal with this issue directly.

My 2 cents worth. GSA

[foxer]

Anybody have any membership info on this fishing club?

[Brine]

Foxer,
I can send you some stuff at ofc@ofc.org. Interesting that you came to our solution to the issue. What many of you have proposed as remedy for this dilemna, is exactly what the Oregon Fishing Club is all about. Bank anglers are only going to see worsening relations between themselves and landowners as long as destructive attitudes are allowed to continue. Or they can join the Club.

[Sublime]

Where's a good spot to fish on eagle creek, or is it pretty well used up by most portland anglers...would it be worth the drive from salem? :whazzup:

[V. Green]

Here is some useful info from the Oregon State Constitution regarding who owns waterways.

Oregon Constitution
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]

[GutshotApe]

V.Green - Do you know what happened in the John Day River navigation determination case? I heard the case against the "trespassing" fisherman was dismissed and DSL was going to look into the river's classification, or something?

[foxer]

That could be interpreted as any body of water if you think about it. Especially if there is a hatchery. Hope this isnt getting to be the proverbial "dead horse"

[garyk]

I wish I had more time to write extensively on the concept of easements, however, I think it important to address the question raised earlier - 'Where will the funding come from'.

The short answer is people put their money where their interests lie. Examples abound, a local arts group (I believe its the Oregon Ballet) has just launched a $20-million capital campaign. OHSU is in contant capital campaign mode. It is not unusal for college capital campaigns to exceed $100-million. Several years ago the Nature Conservancy launched the largest conservation campaign ever - $1-BILLION (yes billion). Several months ago I heard they were very near that total. Ducks Unlimited has invested millions into wetlands acquistion -- possibly saving abundant duck hunting in America.

It's time to apply this capital investment model to Oregon's fishing and fish habitat.

What I'm suggesting points to a huge void in the activities of the current fish/fishing advocacy groups.

It also offers a new direction and strategy for these groups or a new organization to take.

[BUGLEMAN]

Here is everything you guys ever wanted to know about Nav. issues.

http://www.nors.org/us-law-menu.htm

Click and read. You all have a piece of the puzzle but I do know that the state has no say as to what is Nav. They could make it all easy by conduting Nav studies based on the intent of the Federal gift. But to do what is right the govenor, reps etc. would have to step on all those cattle rancher, farmers and private land owner, constituent zealot's feet. It isn't about what is right but what can I get right now. It has to be done in court. The land owner on the J.D. settled because he didn't want the word out. He was going to lose IMO.

Nav isn't about barges, power boats etc. That is all modern commerce. It is about trappers, log drives etc. More rivers and even creeks are Nav than anyone wants to admitt. These rights superceed any title you own. Example : You can record anything you want with the county and subdivide your land up. That doesn't make it legal. You couldn't build a house unless it is done right.

To settle this issue it is going to take someone with time and money. It has to be done in the courts. Get some backwoods cop to arrest someone for "tresspassing" and then win.

[ 10-02-2002, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: BUGLEMAN ]

[Uncle Bob]

So we've determined that Eagle Creek is not a nav. water - OK
But how about this?
If you put your float tube in the creek below the bridge, and was able to paddle/kick fast enough to go up stream (without touching his precious creek bed) You could run a diver and bait down that little slot, right above the bridge. Hey, it's a thought. :grin:

UB

[ 10-03-2002, 01:33 AM: Message edited by: Uncle Bob ]

[GutshotApe]

UB - Eagle Creek may not be the best test case, but I don't think any navigability determination has been made there yet. If the creek EVER has enough water to float a drift boat, canoe, kayak, cedar shake bolt, or any other item of commerce, it is, in fact, navigable. Someone up in that area needs to get arrested there for trespassing, then go to court and win! Except the local DA would likely refuse to prosecute because of the ramifications of losing the case.

[CATCH AND EAT]

That would be one heck of a fast and scary drift. Maybe we could get Warren Miller to film that adventure. :shocked: :shocked:

Just thought I would update a little. The area is now diffenitly posted. The fisherman are diffenitly still fishing it. :whazzup: Rumor has it that as long as they pick up they can fish. Wonder how long that will last.

Fished the creek yesterday. Dead is the word. Saw about 2000 fish at the hatchery. Tons of Jacks!!!!! Nothing in the upper or lower ladders. Not much going on at the mouth or down on the islands. Hopefully there are still more fish to come. We'll see with this rain today.

UB, you crack me up. Float tube???? Hey, electric trolling motor would work graemlins/idea.gif :hoboy:

[Brine]

Uncle Bob - You are correct.
Garyk - You talk of forming a new organization to funnel funds into the hands of private landowners to provide habitat restoration, property maintenance, and access for fishers; when the organization already exists and has been promoting the philosophy for the last three years. Only we don't tax you into submission; our members give up their money voluntarily. A Socialized answer is not the solution; vive Capitalism.

[Brine]

Oops. I meant thirteen years. Haven't had enough coffee yet. Garyk - I don't mean to come down hard on you. I am just a little frustrated with the same old arguments being beaten around. Private enterprise will beat State run programs every time, and maybe I should go talk to this guy at BonnyLure.

[garyk]

Umm, sorry there Brine but my proposal is as politically conservative as it gets. And there's not a word of taxes anywheres.

And the key difference is that the conservation/recreation easement model perpetuates access for the entire public while fishing clubs promote the European, specifically English model, of fishing for only those who can afford.

There's certainly room for both, and clubs are there for those who want them, however the fishing club model with private reserves excludes the majority and runs contrary to Oregon's outdoor recreation culture.

Easements are about sharing, clubs are about exclusivity.

[snowball]

Some food for thought
has anyone considered ASKING the landowners permission to fish from thier land? I know of river systems back home that are surrounded by private property, but a quick trip to the owners house, a smile and some conversation usually provided the comfort level needed for him to say yes, go ahead and fish. And if you are so lucky as to get permission, how about rewardind the landowner with money, and or fish?

[CATCH AND EAT]

Alright Snowball, your first post and you did not make a proper introduction. You are required to post a favorite fish story and tell us a little about yourself.

Now, as for asking landowners permission. Well, at some creeks and rivers that is done. For some reason fisherman have really burned landowners in the Eagle Creek are. Most are not receptive to this because of past idiotic behavior and the trash left behind. I hate going to my favorite spots and finding crap everywhere.

Compromise????? Not likely. Simplest solution for landowners is a "NO TRESPASSING SIGN". :depressed: