Eagle cr

[River Ranger]

Anyone see the water today,how did it look?
R.R.

[straightweave]

Great color. 39 degrees at Eagle Fern. Didn't see any fish caught.

[bob'r down]

Great color. Height should be perfect tomorrow. I lucked into a nice 9# hen first thing this AM on a pink/wht 1st cast jig but did not see or hear of any others. Worth a shot but get to the hole early...lot's of people.

Good luck,

Bob

[River Ranger]

Thanks guys!
R.R.

[Ryan Pultz]

was out there today from eagle fern down to the mouth and the water was a bit clear but it has some color but i would have like to see it a bit more green but still a very nice day no fish but a wonderful day on one of the most awsome creeks

[uspolymer]

Fished under the bridge at Bonnie Lure to stay dry from the rain. Used Blue Fox #4 (blue), Cleo Spoon, corkie/yarn and still no fish. Water looked great. It's getting clearer and clearer.

The owner of the house came out and politely asked me not to fish under the bridge because that was his property. I didn't know that the property line went all the way to the bridge and to the middle of the creek.

I tried at the Carver boat launch but no luck there either. But it was still being out there on the water.

Tight Lines!!

Alan

[River Ranger]

I was there for a bit today also,no fish.That landowner has to be one of the biggest jerks I have ever met.I don't think he will be happy until there is no one fishing anywhere around his place .Great day to be on the water anyhow.
R.R.

[ORoutdoorsman]

The land owner does not own the land under the bridge. That is why his no trespassing signs are a few feet past the other side of the bridge. You can fish up to those no trespassing signs. That is also why there is a piece of re-bar sticking up in the water is he had a sign in the water he isnt suppose to have. He may tell you he owns the property, but he does not. The city owns the property for a few feet around the bridge. he may not like it, but you can fish on his side of the bridge and all he can do is whine.

[West Linn Wader]

This is one question I think more than a few people would like to "officially" know the answer to. I haven't ever had a run in myself but have heard of many many others who have been run off (at times nicely at times otherwise) from under the bridge there at Bonnie. I was told that this guy owns river and both sides of bank to the center line of the road.

I remember lots of people used to fish there shoulder-to-shoulder until this last year or so when I heard they wore out their welcome. Can't blame someone who is fed up with trash and all but I would really like to know "officially" what the boundary is. Can we get the official word from the city?

Thx!

GS/WLW

[ 01-19-2004, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: West Linn Wader ]

[River Ranger]

I would love to know !!
R.R.

[letsfish]

You can always go to the county(Clackamas) tax office and ask to see a tax lot map of the Eagle Creek area or whichever map pertains, then cross reference the lot number with the available tax rolls.This should show you property lines and ownership(though may be indicated as a bank holding).
I would think the bridge is county property and therefore they have a slab of land or right-of-way in that area.

[skunkedagain]

The homeowner isn't against fishing. He is against the snagging and littering that has gone on for to long at the bridge. Now he has became tired of the threats and dorks who think they are tough by holding their guns up as they drive by and threaten him. As is normally a few jerks have ruined it for alot of people. He does own property on both sides of the creek. I have had long talks with the owner and the Deputy that patrols that area.

[River Ranger]

this is the same guy who cut down trees and let them fall in the river and threw a beachball in the water .
R.R.

[West Linn Wader]

So we have established that this guy owns both sides of the bank and probably has good reason to be bitter towards fisherman :smile:

Does anyone know where that line ends (to middle middle of the bridge or just to the edge)?

GS/WLW

[ORoutdoorsman]

Really, if he owns the land under and on the other side of the bridge, it was awfully nice of him to let the city put there bridge on his property, and very strange that he puts his no trespassing signs on the other side, several feet past the bridge.

[fast catchin]

My friend owns the land near the 211 or 212 brigde I dont know what the hwy # is. Were you turn to go up the creek. If you guys have a problem with the guy at Bonnie Luhr you need to go to the county office and ask for the property lines in that area.

There is no need to be bitter towards them. Would you like someone in your backyard leaving a mess? It is a good place to fish but you do need to respect them. Most of the time if you ask before you go on there land they will either say yes, or no. But they will do it politly.

FC

[ 01-19-2004, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: fast catchin ]

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

If I lived anywhere near bonnie luhr I would have a problem. All the garbage, etc... I have had my worst experiences with other fisherman there. And all I was doing was trying to park and hike up to the clack. I had some fool utter obsenities at me. I never figured out why. And the attitude of some of the fisherman when you get down to the clack. Good grief. I'll be buying wild salmon at whole foods before I go back there under those conditions. Not my kind of fishing.

Last year I was shocked to see at least a dozen people under that bridge all trying to snag. It was obvious that they were snagging. All I could see in the water were a few rotten, no biting, half dead fish. What's the point? No I did not say anything. The odds were stacked against me and T-Mobile was not giving me any reception to call the sheriff. Besides, they must have known what was going on. I would rather they focus thier time on another fishery than worry about some idiots trying to snag some dark hatchery coho.

I will fish Eagle Creek but I will either hike in by the hatchery or get to some of those holes in the canyon that require either wading or mountain climbing skills. At least I will be away from the stop and park snagger gang.

[foxer]

I was fishing there when he started throwing things in right where we were casting. The guy's a jerk, plain and simple. No way he owns the property UNDER the bridge. As long as you dont cross the signs you are good to go.

[fish stalker]

I put in a few hours today below the hatchery. Got rained on for most of my efforts and burned through a nice skeen of eggs . No bites, bumbs, head shakes, nada... :whazzup: Did see one fish hooked and landed on corkey and yarn and another native hooked on single egg (orange) fly released. That was out of 7 anglers. Water was running clear and fast slightly on the high side. I checked out the trap at the hatchery and I think the count will double from 80 to 160 with the fish now in the trap and all the fish sitting in the creek waiting to go in. It was cool to see them all stacked up :grin: but it bummed me out to think they snuck on by without giving me a bite!! [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

[fast catchin]

A friend of mine owns some property on Eagle creek with 2 awsome holes on it. He owns both sides of the creek aswell, and unlike rivers such as the Sandy. You DO NOT have the right of way to walk on the bank. He has problems with people breaking in to his truck and a huge amount of litter on the bank. If you walk on his property without permission.....BEWARE [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img] :blush:

[ 01-19-2004, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: fast catchin ]

[ORoutdoorsman]

I removed my post because I am not going to deal with people trying to tell me otherwise. Anyone who wants can go and view the actual boundary at the tax assessors office.

[ 01-22-2004, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: ORoutdoorsman ]

[NWRedside]

Eagle creek is a long creek with lots of holes that are just as good as the one under the bridge, IMHO. Why fish with the crowds, or with an angry land owner?

[gottafish]

Because this property owner needs to be put in his place!!!!!

[foxer]

I have been told by several different people that he does own the lot across the creek. Are you sure he doesnt own the stream bed as well?

[ORoutdoorsman]

[ 01-22-2004, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: ORoutdoorsman ]

[ORoutdoorsman]

[ 01-22-2004, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: ORoutdoorsman ]

[drhall99]

Will the Tax Assessors office let you have a copy of the plot maps? Maybe someone could get copies and scan/post them here. It would be very hard for the county sheriff to hand out a ticket if he is faced with a map proving the landowner is wrong. If enough people who fish there carry the plot maps, the landowner will eventually give up harrassing people. I understand why he is PO'd but his tactics suck.

[ORoutdoorsman]

[ 01-22-2004, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: ORoutdoorsman ]

[R Jackson]

Did you write down the tax lot #'s by chance? There are maps on the county web site. Those #'s would be helpful to find the right map.

[drhall99]

I pulled up the tax map of the property and if this map is correct, he owns to the midpoint of the river and to the edge of the road property. The person across from there also owns to the midpoint. Anybody else see what I do?

D.

[ORoutdoorsman]

[ 01-22-2004, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: ORoutdoorsman ]

[LuckySteelhead]

If you make the land owners life a living hell, maybe they will eventually have a heart attack and die. I hate it when a Califormian comes here and tries to take over. People have been fishing this creek for more then 150 years.

[West Linn Wader]

While I don't fish Bonnie that regularly, I still think it's worth it to know for sure what my boundaries are when going down there so it's worth a trip to the tax office in OC. I am willing to make that trip but it wouldn't be until next week at the earliest. If anyone else has plans to go please let us know so efforts aren't doubled, otherwise I will try and get out there next week and will post follow up w/map if I can get it.

WLW/GS

[MightyMo]

Well DrHall99 is correct, both property owners own to the middle of the creek at high water. If you also looking into the county's easement agreement with that property onwer when they redid Dowty Rd you will also see that the County has access to maitain and repair the road but has no water access or rights. Which means there is no public acces underneath the bridge or along the side of it. How did I know all this, I chatted with the property owner who was more then welcome to share all his records, letters and documents he has from the County and the State. Also, Eagle Creek has been deemed non-nagivable by the State so the average public acces to the high water mark doesn't apply here. The propert owner also has a letter from the absent property owner across from him to keep all people off his property by any legal means.
So why is this the property owners fault? Last spring the property owner had no problems with people fishing over there except for fishing from the bridge. Well the the property owner would spend each day picking trash and fish guts off his property, the neighbors and in the state park filling hefty bag after hefty bag. So he told a few of us to police our own. Some tired, others failed. Then the threats came of poisoning his dogs and burning down his house came or beating up his wife, can you blame him for kciking everyone out.
Well all know that is a snaggers whole out there, but it also used to be a nice little family fishing and swimming hole. I have heard the property owner say he will open back up if we keep the bad element out and practice "Leave No Trace" and be respectful to private property.
All it takes is us to do the right thing when we are out on the water regardless where it is. Or we can keep on the path we are on and the County and State will close down the park which it has already talked about doing.

Just my 2 cents, if you wanna chat further shoot me an email. And if you don't believe me check it out for yourself but be respectfull when you do it.

[MightyMo]

ORoutdoorsman, I give you credit for actually looking into and not just listening to the rumors.
On the other hand LuckySteelie, go ahead and keep comments like that up. And you wonder why this property owner did what he did. Enjoy the karma when it catches up to you.

[ 01-22-2004, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: MightyMo ]

[Paddlefish]

To all:

Please go back and read MightyMo's last two posts. Slowly. As many times as necessary.

Remember the old 50's (but still accurate) mantra: "We have met the enemy . . . and he is us."

[skunkedagain]

MightyMo
As per our convesation this morning. Great job. We will have to hook up and fish soon :grin:

[LuckySteelhead]

Thanks for investigating this, I now understand what is happening up there. I don't fish there, Since its mostly a snagfest ( but not always) I was previously under the impression the land owners were only greedy people only concerned about their lands values and nothing else, "now I can see" as the blindman said.

[Scruffy Bearded Varmint]

Don't be so quick to believe what any streamside landowner tells you about navigability. The State of Oregon never conducted an official Navigability Study on Eagle Creek. Consequently the State Land Board has made no declaration of navigability one way or another. The official position of the Division of State Lands regarding Eagle Creek in the Clackamas drainage is that the ownership of the streambed to the highwater mark remains uncertain. You are welcome to call them and ask them to verify that.

I started a thread regarding ownership of the streams in Oregon a couple of days ago. You may find the information valuable regarding this issue. The thread is titled, "Oregon Law Sez..."

If you can launch a canoe or kayak in Eagle Creek and float down it, it would qualify as a Navigable Stream according to the guidelines put forth by the United States Supreme Court. If Eagle Creek was ever used to float, or could have been used to float railraod ties, cedar bolts, fence posts, or logs to a mill, it qualifies as a navigable waterway based on the rules put down by the Oregon State Legislature and the Oregon Supreme Court.

As to the ownership of the bed of a navigable stream, the Oregon State Supreme Court ruled in the case of State v. Portland General Electric Co., (1908) "The upland owener bordering upon a navigable stream owns only to the high-water line. The river, and its banks and bed belong to the State." The Court raffirmed this postition in 1936 in the case of Winton Brothers v. State Tax Commission when it declared, "It is well settled that, upon admission of this state to the Union, the state acquired title in its proprietary capacit to ... all lands lying under navigable watres of the state."

In addition to checking on the ownership of the property at the county courthouse, you should also ask for a copy of the deed. Many deeds issued for streamside property in Oregon contain excusatory language that reaffirms the public's right to use the bed and banks of streams in Oregon.

Again, I refer you back to the thread titled "Oregon Law Sez..." The link below will take you there.

http://www.ifish.net/ubb/ultimatebb....c;f=1;t=033126

[Bi]

To all that read these lines of wit do you really think that the Homeowner give a sh.. to those that show him and his family disrespect. The issue of fishing on Eagle Creek next to Bonnie Lure state Park is a very old issue, and has been discussed for over 30 years and yet it is still talked about and frustrating to all, the current Homeowners on the three sides and the ones up and down the creek and of coarse all the fishermen over the years. The truth of the matter is, it is private property and it has been since before Oregon became a State, we can't change that. This favorite fishing spot has been open and closed over the years because of the disrespect to the Homeowners property and threats and actual killing of the prior owners dog. The questions is whose fault is it? i say its our fault the fishermen for not honoring the Homeowners wishes. We need to get beyound the issue of the private property and ownership and the rights of the Homeowners. There are a lot of other places that are legal to fish, fishing is supposed to be fun and relaxing and a sport, we all know that the property on Eagle Creek is a snaging hole.
With the last round of problems that the Homeowners have faced, they are going to start taking legal action and the laws under which protects them (ORS 105.700) based on their latest signage, the fines are up to $1000.00. I think we all have pushed this issue to far and need to backoff for awhile and let the Homeowners cool down and see if we all can live together. I know that I don't have the money to waste and I'm not going to find out either. Lets show the Homeowners that we are better than the ones who are making all the threats and trouble and abide by their rules and the State Laws. I can tell you for a fact they have the rights to enforce these laws.

Think of Fish on my dish and how it taste!!!

[Boatdog]

Welcome aboard, Bi! [img]graemlins/program.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/program.gif[/img]

Jumpin' in with both feet, I see! :shocked: Post number one, as well! .

How about sharing a fishing story?

[ 01-22-2004, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Boatdog ]

[Bi]

Boatdog,

Where are all the fish?? I hear many stories of people catching them but I have never seen one caught yet this year or even late last fall. Is it the luck of the Irish and only the Leprechauns can catch them???

[ 01-22-2004, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Bi ]

[Boatdog]

Bi,
I haven't seen one fish caught this year. I don't know what's up, but I think it has to do with El-Nino or something. It really makes a great place like Ifish worthless, ya know what I mean? :tongue:
Now, how 'bout one of those good ol' boy stories you have up your sleeve? :grin: We're all ears! :smile:

[BUGLEMAN]

Looks like Scruffy already said it and well I might add so I will pull my post down and bow out to his eloquent wisdom.

I believe Eagle creek is Navigable. Does anyone have evidence of such usage that Scruffy has suggested either photographic, written or anecdotal. It really doesn't matter just the fact that the river could be used in such a manner is reassuring that the state ownes the bed and banks.

[ 01-23-2004, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: BUGLEMAN ]

[Scruffy Bearded Varmint]

Bi wrote the following:

The truth of the matter is, it is private property and it has been since before Oregon became a State, we can't change that.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">While many landowners want to believe this, it is not quite correct. The land under our navigable waterways were never for sale. Consequently, the upland landowner cannot prove legitimate title. That is why most Title Insurance Policies in Oregon that cover property along streams, exclude the streambed from coverage.

As new lands became territories of the United States the Federal Government, under the Equal Footings Doctrine and the U.S. Constitution, held the land beneath navigable waterways in trust for future states. The only exceptions to this included some tracts of land in Florida, and California that were transferred by Spainish Land Grants prior to the land becoming U.S. Territory. The Federal Govenment never had the authority to tranfer the title of trust land to any party other than to the respective states as they entered the Union. There is no way that the bed of a navigable stream could have been in private ownership prior to Oregon becoming a state.

Once States entered the Union, the state legislature could sell public trust land, however, beyond a few tide water exceptions, the State of Oregon never did. The title remains with the State. According to the Supreme Court, only the Oregon State Legislature has the authority to sell public trust land. If a Landowner can produce documentation of the specific piece of legislation passed by the Oregon Legislature and duly signed by the Governor of Oregon, then they can prove ownership of the land beneath navigable waters. No such documentation means thay have no proof of ownership involving the bed of a navigable waterway. And remember, the definition of navigable comes from the U.S. Supreme Court, not the state.

We must also remember that public trust land can be owned by private individuals. In fact, over one third of all public trust land in the United States is indeed in private ownership (jus privatum) for title purposes. But ownership of Public Trust Land is a privalege, not a right. As such it comes with a huge string attached to it. Even though a state can sell public trust land, (They can also lease it which is the path Oregon has followed since the 1800's.) the state can never sign away the public's interest (jus publicum) in that land, nor can the state or the private property owner holding title deny the public's right to use the public trust land beneath the waterway up to the hight water mark.

The folks that started CORR realize that ownership does not matter. We do not care who owns our Public Trust Land beneath our Water. All we care about is that our Legislature recognizes that we have a right to use our waterways for boating, transportation, commerce, and angling among other water related activities. We also know that anglers, boaters, and picnickers can be real jerks. Consequently, we are also striving for a change in laws that put real teeth into the trespass laws that protect the upland property owner's rights. Montana did it. So can Oreognians.

The issue with the drinking, litter, threats, and vandalism has nothing to do with our right to be on the river. Everyone of those activities are already illegal under existing Oregon statutes. The problem is enforcement. One key factor is that our law officers simply do not have a clear understanding of the laws that cover Public Trust Lands. They either over react, under react, or don't react at all. Many now refuse to respond to trespass calls on navigable waterways. Others just ask the accused to politely move on which almost all do. In some cases, they will cite the accused, however, they require the landowner to sign the citation, thus making it a citizens arrest. And in some cases they do effect an arrest, then the problem gets dumped into the DA's lap. Most DA's don't have a deep knowledge of the law surrounding Public Trust Land. Consequently, they over react, under react, or don't react at all... notice a pattern here?

Like I said in another thread, the Coalition for Oregon River Rights CORR intends to change the playing field. We want absolute protection of the public's right, clarification and stringent protection of the property rights of the upland owner, and a clear set of rules everyone can understand and law enforcement officers can enforce.

Under any circumstance, I ask that everyone Avoid streamside conflict, please. CORR is working to clarify the law for everyone. Streamside conflicts inject a tremendous amount of emotion into what should be a logical decision. I have taken on a big responsibility for CORR. I have an obligation to provide information to all Oregonians about this issue.

CORR does not practice law, and does not give legal advice. If you get arrested you will have to prove your case. CORR intends to make sure every elected law officer from sheriffs, to DA, to judges gains a better understanding of your rights. That will take time and money. CORR also intends to make sure 80% of all Oregonians become aware of their right to use navigable waters. That too, will take time and money. Frankly, we cannot afford the dose of emotion confrontations provide.

Once we raise the level of awareness, we believe that all future attempts to steal away your rights and your public trust lands, will come to a stop. We also believe we can get the rules and laws in place that will clarify this for landowners, recreational water users, and law enforcement officials. As I have said in earlier posts, you are welcome to join us in our efforts.

www.riverrights.org

[ 01-23-2004, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Scruffy Bearded Varmint ]

[fast catchin]

:smile:

[MightyMo]

Scruffy,
It appears you have done your homework for the most part. I am not going off what the property owner says but what documents he has. I saw a letter from the County, on county letterhead saying that the State of Oregon has deemed the creek non-navigable. I am not sure but I think the property owner also has a letter from the state saying the same thing. I know you have done your homework and have said many times that the Supreme Court would challenge that. Do you have the case law that shows that? Also until someone has the time and money to challenge either the County ot the State, I think we are stuck playing by their rules. Also is it correct to understand if no water navigability study has been done then the water is defaulted to being non-navigable?
Thanks again for spending the time to share your hard work.

[BUGLEMAN]

I have the letter and it is bogus. It is mearly a man's opinion stated as fact. The DSL has advised law enforcement to split up the parties.

[Bi]

Scruffy Bearded Varmint and Bugleman:

I'm confused with what you're trying to say?? Eagle Creek is not navigable and everybody knows that. Have you been up and down the creek, I have and I would like you to meet me there and we will walk the creek and I want you to explain to me how a boat can float this creek. Have either one of you gone to the county and reviewed the property owners deeds and see if they say anything about the high water mark and that it's OK for the public to walk the creek line? If the property owners say that they own to the center of Eagle Creek, don't you think they know what their deeds say. What right do we have as fisherman to call them liars or show them disrespect because we are unhappy because we can't fish there. This is their property and they live there 24 hours a day. Why should they put up with all the garbage, damage and threats to their personal property. I would like to see how you would react if they came to your homes and sat in the front yard and left garbage, took dumps (and yes left the toliet paper laying on the ground)and treated you and your family bad. I have heard all the bad stuff about the property owners over the years, but I don't always believe everything I hear because I know there is always two sides to every story. We as fishermen need to respect the fact that the man upstairs provide the fish that we catch and give us the ability to outsmart the fish and enjoy the sport as it should be. I don't believe your information that you keep preaching on this website what rights we have and what we have to stand up for to protect those rights, give me a break, life isn't fair, look what taxes are doing to this state. If I really believed what you are saying, then Eagle Creek and all the other rivers, creeks and streams really belong to the Indians in this State, yes we took their lands and waterways from them and yes we did it with the same type of laws that we have in place today, and I do believe those same laws give the rivers, creeks and streams that are not navigable to the propery owners to own. Maybe we should check with these property owners on Eagle Creek and see if any of them are Indians??? There is far too much effort and BS being put into these issues of who owns what, I'm very thankful that I can go fishing anytime I want and in most cases where I want. There are far more places to fish then not. So why don't we guite wasting our time and frustration on trying to change something that none of us have the time and money to change. What is sooooooo important about fishing on Eagle Creek, I've caught 10 times more fish in the Clackamas than in Eagle Creek. I would like to ask the both of you one question? Where do you fish and how does it compare to Eagle Creek? Lets change the subject and live with what is going on with Eagle Creek and leave those homeowners alone. i rather spend my time and money on fishing and buying new fishing toys and enjoy life. Please No more preaching about the waterways of this State, I think that the Government owes everyone in Oregon a $1,000,000.00 now that worth talking about. Bugleman, can you please explain your comment,as it doesn't make sense??? Never mind it isn't worth talking about because you probably don't have anything to support your statments anyway.

Lets enjoy life and fish until we die and go to that great fishing hole in the sky.....

[ 01-23-2004, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: Bi ]

[letsfish]

Remember this "navigatable creek" has a waterfall that is 25-30ft straight drop, a couple of fishladders also.I have seen kayakers wisely portage the falls, even in high water it is suicide thinking you can plop over it. I don't care how badly the urge to fish is: I can't honestly say the creek is navigatable and it would be a wild interpetation of that term to say that it is.

[drhall99]

First off, the property in question is in the lower section of Eagle creek and is CERTAINLY navigatable by kayak or canoe. I am VERY familiar with Eagle creek. The Falls and fish ladders are a long way upstream from there. A river or stream can be considered navigatable in one section but not in others (The Sandy River is a great example). As far as Eagle Creek goes, there has been NO official study done, nor has it been requested. One thing to remember is that public ire is what triggers navigitability study requests, which may or may not change the status of lower Eagle Creek. I have fished at Bonnie Lure many times and I've also stopped to watch and then decided to fish elsewhere because of the jerks that were fishing there. When I have fished there, I always took at least ten minutes to help pick up trash in the area.

It's unfortunate that both sides can't work together. If the people fishing at Bonnie Lure would self police and prevent the illegal fishing, littering and even the bad manners(Very bad in alot of cases) then the previous owner would likely still live there and we wouldn't be having this discussion. In fact, the current owner used to allow fishing and didn't harrass anybody until he was provoked.
On the other hand, the property owner in question HAD to know about the problems at Bonnie Lure before he bought the property. While there is no official easement for fishing access, there may be a case for an implied easement - "An easement may be prescriptive, implied, or explicitly agreed upon. Foster Auto Parts, Inc. v. City of Portland, 171 Or.App. 278, 15 P.3d 573 (2000) (prescriptive easement created by a 10 year period of certain use)". It's safe to say that people have been fishing there a lot longer than ten years so this law might apply (Any Lawyers in the house?).

To the people who screwed this up by being idiots, thanks. We all owe you!!! People like UglyGreen and others are showing us how to deal with people like you!

To the property owner, I hope you give the fishing community another chance. Not all of us are jerks.


To Bi, I have to admit that I am curious about your identity. It seems that you only joined ifish to post in this discussion. What is your stake in this matter?

[BUGLEMAN]

Scruffy Bearded Varmit,

You have big job and are doing it well. Corr seems to have it's act together and has a good website. I'll do what I can. I look forward to completion of the website. Will that happen soon?

[fast catchin]

Eagle Creek in NOT a navigable river. There are no launchs or bank slides on it there for there is no such thing as an easement for Eagle creek sorry buddy.


Right on the money LETSFISH

[ 01-24-2004, 05:41 AM: Message edited by: fast catchin ]

[TAILOUT]

In my opinion I think its ludicrus to allow anybody to own a waterway, I dont fish that hole and probobly never will, it is to bad about all the doughballs that ruin areas for other people. It is also to bad to hear the people on here that are just willing to roll over and take it where the sun dont shine, if you guys just allow this type of thing there wont be any water left to fish one day. God made the mountains, streams and rivers for mankind to enjoy not for one man to enjoy. If he owns to the middle of the river than that should allow him to do what ever he wants to that point like dredge it, fill it in, build a fence out to it, plant water loving plants there are waterever, does that sound right to give someone that kind of power on something that flows miles and miles and can effect other people. I feel the same way about people who own thousands of acres of land and fence it off so know one else can enjoy what god has created for all of mankind to enjoy I truly beleive these people will pay in the longrun when its time for them to meet there maker. just my .o2

[Martin85]

These are the same arguements from last years silver run, If your not sure about private property find the home owners ask permission or trade some work for fishing rights. It worked for me by the falls.

Just wish the run would of come in last year

[West Linn Wader]

Fast Catchin,

I'm not saying that I think Eagle is navigable but slides and ramps don't appear to have any bearing on the state's navigability studies. Neither do impediments like seasonal low water and falls. This DSL link to the ongoing Trask and Kilchis reviews has very good info.

GS/WLW

[DanS]

Eagle Creek in NOT a navigable river

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Read some of this info, and then see what you think.

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

[Scruffy Bearded Varmint]

Letsfish,

You added an interesting eyewitness account to this discussion when you posted the following:

Remember this "navigatable creek" has a waterfall that is 25-30ft straight drop, a couple of fishladders also.I have seen kayakers wisely portage the falls, even in high water it is suicide thinking you can plop over it. I don't care how badly the urge to fish is: I can't honestly say the creek is navigatable and it would be a wild interpetation of that term to say that it is.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The United States Supreme Court recognizes that the use of a kayak on a stream constitutes navigation. And the courts recognize that canoes of all types have played a key role in water transportation for purposes of commerce.

The United States Supreme Court ruled that natural and manmade barriers on streams do not alter the fact of navigation. Such barriers, while they may encumber navigation, do not prevent it. Furthermore, the courts recognize that the right of portage around such obstructions falls under the umbrella of protection provided by the Public Trust Doctrine.

Bi wrote the following:

I'm confused with what you're trying to say?? Eagle Creek is not navigable and everybody knows that.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Blanket generalizations are very much a big part of the reason Oregon has the mess it has today. Certainly, the Kayak paddlers letsfish saw on Eagle Creek would beg to differ with Bi’s opinion. Wouldn’t they?

Bi went on to say,

I don't believe your information that you keep preaching on this website what rights we have and what we have to stand up for to protect those rights, give me a break, life isn't fair, look what taxes are doing to this state.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I suggest that those in doubt do the research. When I posted the information in the thread ‘Oregon Law Sez…, I included links to websites maintained by the State of Oregon, with the exception of The Daniel Ball Supreme Court decision. That was referenced to another website. Those links allow you to read the law for yourself. I’m not sure providing information qualifies as preaching, does it?

If folks choose not to believe, I have no problem with that. It is their choice, however, I’m not sure deciding not to believe a law makes it any less a law. Does not believing the law against snagging make it legal to snag fish? Does not believing the law against defecating in public, make it okay to do it? Does not believing the law against harassment make it okay to threaten landowners with guns? Or threaten fishermen with guns, as was the case on the South Santiam and John Day? Does not believing the law against cruelty to animals make it okay to poison someone’s family pet?

We are a nation of laws. When we choose to stop believing in those laws we disagree with on a selective basis, we move toward anarchy.

As for standing up for our rights; I became involved in this issue after I read the original version Senate bill 293, a bill written to take away your right to use the John Day River. One clause in that bill would have made it possible for landowners to form private fishing clubs, then close off the river under the guise of operating an “organizational camp.” Had the bill passed in that form, you and I could have been completely shut out of much of the 184 miles of river by a handful of landowners. It even appeared to give them the authority to deny the right of boaters to float through "organizational camp" land to reach public land beyond. Some may find that acceptable. I don’t.

I am not sure about the transition to taxes in the above quote or the part about "life isn’t fair?" I did not see the relevance. I do know that recreational river users often want a "fair law" that will open the floodgates of abuse and landowners often want a "fair law" that will allow them to claim public trust land as their own private paradise. Fair is another way of saying I get more and you get less. I find fair unacceptable.

One final thought from Bi;

What is sooooooo important about fishing on Eagle Creek, I've caught 10 times more fish in the Clackamas than in Eagle Creek.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Someone in another thread noted that the Clackamas River is not a Navigable Waterway under current Oregon Law. Following Bi’s reasoning, landowners fronting the Clackamas should have the authority to prevent Bi and everyone else from anchoring and fishing on their river. While conflicts on the Clackamas seem infrequent now, there is a contingent that would like to limit your right to fish on that river, too. We have to draw our own line in the sand at some point, don’t we?

[drhall99]

Fast Catching,
I wasn't saying there is an easement. What i was trying to say is that there is likely legal ground to say that there is an implied easement since people were allowed to fish there for over ten years. As to the question of navigatiblity, you answered that question when you said "I have seen kayakers wisely portage the falls". Would you be willing to be a witness when the study is done? Scruffy Bearded Varmint could probably tell you who to call.
One thing I definately agree with you about is the right way to treat private land owners. If you treat people with respest and courtesy, they will usually treat you the same. I am NOT avocating treating any land or landowner with disrespect.

D.

[ 01-24-2004, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: drhall99 ]

[BUGLEMAN]

Scruffy,

What is a good way to garner evidence of past commercial us of a river. I would bet it takes a vast amount of research on many fronts. I would like to try to see if there is any out there befor it is lost forever.