Taking the battle to the people

[Scruffy Bearded Varmint]

A couple of sessions ago our Legislature considered a bill that would have made it a felony to anchor a boat or wade in front of private property along a public river in Oregon. That's just one example of the kind of nonsense a few of us are trying to stop.

Last weekend we took our education battle to the people of Oregon. I was amazed at how few people were aware of what some legislators keep trying to pull. I met a lot of older anglers that had a perfect understanding of the high water mark rule on navigable rivers. I also met a lot of younger anglers that were unaware of it. Thirty years of legislative tinkering with your right to use your rivers has made a real mess of it.

We managed to get brochures out to around 4,500 folks at the Sportsman's Show. We had a few run ins with landowners, but most of them were at least willing to hear us out and a couple even walked away thinking we sounded far more reasonable than anyone else on the issue.

A special thank you to the guys that volunteered to help shag passerbys and get a brochure into their hands. And on the list of Thank Yous, add Country Sport. They donated a tiny corner of their booth to make our participation possible.

Also Big Thank You to all the Ifish members that came by, introduced themselves, and agreed to take a few brochures to hand out. That is the way we will spread this message. One person at a time. No mass media, just people talking to people, at least for now. If anyone wants brochures, send me an email through this board or through the CORR website. Include your name and address and how many you want. I will send them to you.

We made a few new industry contacts. We refined our message. But best of all, we heard a whole ton of thank yous from folks that were not aware of what was going on. We look forward to many of them signing up for the email alert list. If you're not on it go to www.riverrights.org and sign up. You will recieve updates as we find more information and hear about more trespass confrontations. We also let you know some of the past court rulings that protect our right to use our rivers. And we'll alert you when the Senate and House are up to more no good.

The move to privatize Oregon's rivers seems to be gathering steam, especially along the coast and East of the Cascades. We average five bills per session that if passed could have serious impact on our ability to enjoy our rivers and streams.

The bottom line is the special interest groups behind this are well funded and have expensive lobbyists to buttonhole Senators and Representative. We have your emails, telephone calls, letters, faxes and willingness to fight to keep our rivers free and open to all Oregonians.

Once again, thank you to all the Ifisher folks that came by, said hi, a grabbed a couple of extra brochures. It will take all of us to stop this nonsense.

Scruffy

[garyk]

Good to have met y'all. Thanks for being there - and organizing the counterpunch to protect our rights.

[Fishfeet]

Good post Scruffy! I got one of those brochures at the show, but haven`t read it through yet. I used to own land that went to the middle of the little N. Santiam. The property was in my family`s hands for 4 decades, so have ran into those issues many times. Very interesting. You have my support against privatization. Fishft.

[TillamookChinook]

SBV,

Thanks for being there and keeping us informed. This is so very important.

TC

[lovetofish]

[Bait O' Eggs]

Scruffy,
Your post are usually so long I skip over them

But you seem to be against the navitability studies that are going on, which would seem to me to help your side of the arguement not hinder it? am I wrong or are you for the studies?

We can make guesses at what rivers are navitable that are not classified by the state yet, But take the Wilson for example: I am pretty sure it has some navitable water above tide water, but at some point up the river the river probably doesnt become navitable any more. Agree or disagree? If we dont know what mile marker that point is, fishermen dont know where they may be trespassing up to the high water mark.

Do you know if when the studies are done they factor in summer flow as well as winter flows. Several rivers that are navitable in the winter are nothing but a trickle in the summer If we only factored in winter flows, I am sure there are gullies in dry canyons that only see water when it rains torrentially that I could float a boat down a couple days a year, does that make the gully navitable since I could float it 2 days a year?

Not agreeing or disagreeing with you, [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img] just curious on your position on my questions(cliff note version ) and how the studies are being done.

[Scruffy Bearded Varmint]

Bait O’ Eggs,
You asked a complicated set of questions so I will try to address each issue carefully. Please forgive the length of the post.

Your post are usually so long I skip over them

No offense taken and I am sure none meant, however, had you read the post “Oregon Law Sez… “ I suspect you may not have asked about the following points. You may want to find that thread on Ifish and read it in its entirety. This is, a complex issue, and it will take longer than usual posts to try to help others understand it.

Before folks buy into what we are trying to accomplish we want everyone to understand what we believe a few legislators are trying to do, what our rights are, and what we can do to solve this problem. The way I look at it, everyone has three choices: 1.) Take my/our word for it. 2.) Take the landowner’s word for it. 3.) Take the time to educate themselves. Of all of those, I believe #3 is the best approach. I try to be thorough in my posts and will offer links to the documents I refer to when I can.

But you seem to be against the navitability studies that are going on, which would seem to me to help your side of the arguement not hinder it? am I wrong or are you for the studies?

In 1995, the legislature created a cumbersome 18-step process to determine navigability. They added 3 more steps in 1997. I believe the legislature created the bill under the misguided assumption that no one would ever bother to ask for an official navigability study. I personally believe the state navigability studies are a waste of taxpayer’s money and time. According to the many legal cases I have read on this issue (I repeat, I ain’t no lawyer.) the question of navigability is a federal one, and not for individual states to decide.

One other point regarding current navigability studies; The Oregon Legislature ordered the Division of State Lands to start a statewide navigability study in 1973, which was completed in 1983. The Sandy River Navigability Study, for the most part just repeated that research.

We can make guesses at what rivers are navitable that are not classified by the state yet, But take the Wilson for example: I am pretty sure it has some navitable water above tide water, but at some point up the river the river probably doesnt become navitable any more. Agree or disagree? If we dont know what mile marker that point is, fishermen dont know where they may be trespassing up to the high water mark.

No, we may not make a guess and therein lies much of the problem. According to the 1995-97 law, only the State Land Board can declare a stream navigable in the state of Oregon. The Federal government provided all states with a test for navigability. States can make less stringent tests, but never more stringent. Again, I refer you to the thread “Oregon Law Sez…” The legislature chose to throw common sense out the window in 1995 when they passed the navigability study law. They also attempted to skirt the federal law regarding this issue.

As to agree or disagree, since I became involved with this, I have read several federal and state cases. They all seem to point in the same direction. If a stream susceptible to use in commerce, and/or use as a highway, it most likely qualifies as navigable by Federal guidelines. I will not venture to guess on any stream. One of the things we are driving for is clarification for all parties: landowners, recreational river users, and law enforcement. As I said, the legislature has made such a mess of this that no one really knows what is right or wrong.

Do you know if when the studies are done they factor in summer flow as well as winter flows. Several rivers that are navitable in the winter are nothing but a trickle in the summer If we only factored in winter flows, I am sure there are gullies in dry canyons that only see water when it rains torrentially that I could float a boat down a couple days a year, does that make the gully navitable since I could float it 2 days a year?

The state looks primarily to historical use. This includes such activities as driving logs, railroad ties, and shingle bolts to market. They also look to use in commerce as defined by the state supreme court. By what I have read in some of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions, seasonal fluctuations may or may not impact final outcomes in litigation. Remember, in The Daniel Ball case, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that, “Those rivers must be regarded as public navigable rivers in law which are navigable in fact…”. That pretty much means that if it floats a boat it is navigable. This includes trade by canoe, the operation of guide services, and even the teaching of kayak paddling. Still having dozens of court cases to wade through, I will not venture a gully guess by golly. I will tell you that the Federal Courts have ruled that there is no scientific or engineering test for navigability.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with you, just curious on your position on my questions(cliff note version) and how the studies are being done.

Sorry, but the Cliff Note version is what got us all into the mess we are in. Instead of looking at federal law, past Federal and State Supreme Court Cases, and then applying a little common sense, the Oregon Legislature repeatedly tries to pass the buck with a complicated, long, drawn out study approach, or they attempt to give in to the demands of a small special interest group with deep pockets. At some point, "we the people" need to go beyond the abbreviated version and get to the real meat of the matter. At least that is my opinion and that is why I tend to make longer posts.

I really believe you should go to the original sources and read them, at least those in the Oregon Law Sez… thread. If I recall, I include five links in that thread to the actual state laws regarding this issue. I also included a link to the federal test for navigability.

You can find a clear and brief, step by step description of the State navigability study process, on the Division of State Lands web site.

If your interested, the link to the Oregon Law Sez thread follows:

http://www.ifish.net/cgi-local/ultim...c;f=1;t=033126

Scruffy

P.S. I can make short posts. See the one about March Browns on the Ifish Flyfish board :smile: