Cross your fingers!!! Fishermans Land Access Article!!)

[Ty]

Officials want more access to waterways
By Hasso Hering
Albany Democrat-Herald

Article
Excerpt -

Oregon’s top three elected officials want people to be able to use the state’s waterways without having to worry that they are trespassing.

[OregonSportsman]

This sounds great! I've had trouble with home owners on the Sandy the past couple years.

Where can I find this brochure, that the article talks about, that lines out established public ownership?

[SandyRiverFisher]

Originally Posted by OregonSportsman

This sounds great! I've had trouble with home owners on the Sandy the past couple years.

Where can I find this brochure, that the article talks about, that lines out established public ownership?

It does sound great but you will still have trouble with homeowners on the Sandy, its just a fact of life on that river Im afraid. Landowners will always interpret the rules one way, fishermen another.

[slave4chrome]

maybe i missed it, but say this is passed what are we looking at for a time line? this coming year? or much longer with all the hoops needed to jump through?

is this stating that only water ways considered navagable, would be under the high mark acessable? or all water ways used for recreation? such as the newly posted NF alsea? just seeing how it would work. i figured some of you lawyer types could fill me in. thanks...

[Gun Rod Bow]

Too bad the same Gov that wants access to rivers and lakes is eager to lock up access to nearshore waters without identifying any biological need or benefit.

A bit of a contradiction.

[where's your bobber dude]

People already trash my parents place on the Clackamas. The boaters aren't as much of a problem as people using the bank as a trail. If you make it legal to be on their property they will set up camp and destroy the place. Every year people try to trespass through their property to get to the river to swim. They leave beer cans and trash all over the place. Taking away someone's private property for public use it not fair to the land owners that worked hard to purchase that land.

[MsOutdrs]

Originally Posted by where's your bobber dude

People already trash my parents place on the Clackamas. The boaters aren't as much of a problem as people using the bank as a trail. If you make it legal to be on their property they will set up camp and destroy the place. Every year people try to trespass through their property to get to the river to swim. The leave beer cans and trash all over the place. Taking away someone's private property for public use it not fair to the land owners that worked hard to purchase that land.

My husband and I both lament the vast restrictions on riverbank access but I surely can understand the property owners' feelings. I know what you deal with on the Clackamas but is that the fishermen or the summertime tweakers that use that river and river property for a dump, toilet, etc.? The question I have is that if fishermen are given the right to cross or access private property, what's the property owners' liability? Also...it would seem that it should be incumbant upon fishermen to monitor the areas and make sure the property owners aren't left with messes to clean up. That we can do!
With the many undesireables that have started to frequent those areas, I, as a property owner, would be very worried. This doesn't seem to be a very well thought out proposal. A solution is there, I'm sure, but should be one that satisfies both the fishermen and protects the property owners. Just my

[GoneFission]

Originally Posted by where's your bobber dude

People already trash my parents place on the Clackamas. The boaters aren't as much of a problem as people using the bank as a trail. If you make it legal to be on their property they will set up camp and destroy the place. Every year people try to trespass through their property to get to the river to swim. They leave beer cans and trash all over the place. Taking away someone's private property for public use it not fair to the land owners that worked hard to purchase that land.

It shouldn't be that hard to write language that permits use of the waterway, to include the riverbank, but not permit tresspass on private property for access. This is the way I have always treated my bank fishing. Most streams have public access points to launch a driftboat or Pontoon or to use as a hike-in point. From there, you stick to the river and its banks and be respectful where public dwellings front the river. How hard is that? There's no need to open up people's property to permit access, yet on the other hand, if folks are simply fishing/floating/hiking through along the river bank--what's the problem? The laws can be written consistent with that idea. I hope Washington gets on-board too.

-GF

[garyk]

Originally Posted by SandyRiverFisher

It does sound great but you will still have trouble with homeowners on the Sandy, ... Landowners will always interpret the rules one way, fishermen another.

Exactly. Here is the key point:

"The opinion said recreation includes the use of small boats for “pleasure and fishing, as well as swimming.” It further states, “The public may use the land adjacent to a waterway that is navigable for public use as long as the use of the adjacent land is necessary to the lawful use of the waterway.”

As long as people are able to challenge whether it's 'necessary' for you to be standing, walking, resting, etc, on that part of the riverbank - there will always be conflicts.

Better to continue with the precedent already established in favor of public ownership and use and upheld by court decisions.

BTW, we already have a 'floating easement' - the right to float on the water - that is not in question at all.

[spinnerslinger]

If we could use the land adjacent to the water I would love to see the look on the owners face at Bonnie lure when everybody starts fishing from his
side of the river!:app lause:

[Milt]

Originally Posted by OregonSportsman

This sounds great! I've had trouble with home owners on the Sandy the past couple years.

Where can I find this brochure, that the article talks about, that lines out established public ownership?

Here's the only brochure I know about on the issue.

http://www.oregon.gov/DSL/NAV/docs/nav_brochure.pdf