Lars Larsen wants to privatize your rivers!

[Scruffy Bearded Varmint]

Today Lars Larsen came out firmly in the "Privatize Oregon's Rivers" camp. If you want to listen to lars larsen's commentary on this issue here's the link.

http://66.178.131.4/JockPics/J4/arch...0waterways.mp3

The commentary is filled with false information and in at least one case an out and out lie.

I have given you all enough factual information to rebutt his commentary. You can email him at the following link:

http://www.kxl.com/feedback.aspx?id=1

The only way to change his mind is to bombard him with a response. At least that is what I believe. And he should hear that this is not a political issue. It is about a handful of Oregonians attempting to seize state property for private gains.

[Just_learning]

wow, he is sure doing a good job of laying low and not being controversial with the past threats against him and his family.


Disclaimer-
I in no way condone threats or acts of violence. I just was making an observation of someone who should stay out of controversial issues.

Welll...what can I say Feedback sent to Mr. Larsen

[Stratocaster]

Absolutely crazy! Oh my god! One mans opinion! Holy begeezuz! Who cares?

Absolutely crazy! Oh my god! One mans opinion! Holy begeezuz! Who cares?

Probably no one would care if he didn't have his own radio show and lots of people didn't hang on his every word as the truth

[Stratocaster]

Cause he has a radio show makes him right? Stew, you got a give people more credit than that, or less. Or you will go crazy. (Personal remark edited)

[First Bite]

Scruffy,

Thanks again for all your hardwork and dedication. An e-mail has been sent.

Mark

[Two Fister]

Stratocaster,
I don't think that it means that he's right because he has a radio program. Frankly, I think Larsen is an idiot that spreads half truths and misinformation because it gets him ratings. Sort of the throw some more gas on the fire and ride that fire straight to the bank mentality.

Obviously, Stew is not one of those gulible saps that believes that since it's on the radio it must be true.

Unfortunately, because he has a radio program some people will take his word as gospel.

TF

[fishncliff]

Apparently you didn't listen to the whole thing.

Lars is not defending this act. He was stating what the Oregon legislature is proposing. He never defended it on his radio program at all all week.

I think you need to listen with your "listening ears" and not with your political bias.

[FishBowl]

"doesn'tseem right to me"' That was his last sentence and it speaks for itself if you were to ask me wake up people that does mean you fishncliff come pull your head out of the sand
Tim Cramlet

[BCF]

If looks like a sheep , smells, like a sheep ,guess what it is? And calling Stew crazy is uncalled for.

BCF

Cause he has a radio show makes him right? Stew, you got a give people more credit than that, or less. Or you will go crazy.

Maybe I am No offense taken BCF
Lars Larsen's track record is well documented and it speaks for itself

[Scruffy Bearded Varmint]

Fishncliff,

I posted a link to his editorial comment. All else is irrelevent.

As for politics, I just stick to the facts. The fact is Lars Larson's commentary leads me to believe that he does not think the public has a right to use Oregon's rivers.

As for his representation of the legislation in question. He included several "facts" that have nothing to do with the actual law being considered.

The lies about hunting access and private property access are just that -- lies. And both lies are being spread by at least two landowner groups, one of which his guest represented.

At no time has anyone connected with this battle even remotely supported the notion that a recreatonalist should be allowed to cross private property to gain access to a stream. And no one has every requested that the right to hunt on private property be part of any legislation regarding river use. Anyone that says otherwise is simply lieing for effect, or lieing to gain support from the gullible. So where did Mr. Larsen get his facts from? Certainly not from reading the actual bill. And certainly not from anyone that is fighting to protect your right to use your rivers. So where did they come from? Thin air, or at least hot air, I'd say.

You see, unlike Lars Larsen, I took the time to read the legislation, research the common law, and study the history of this issue. What I say is not political. I don't need to be political. I know the truth. Truth has no politics. I have real documents -- the full text of court cases and the full text of the legislation to which I refer -- to back up every single thing that I post regarding this issue. Do you? Does Lars? I seriously doubt it.

[Irish Pennant]

Absolutely crazy! Oh my god! One mans opinion! Holy begeezuz! Who cares?

[Slynch]

In other words, Lars, don't even think of <deleted> with Scruffy!!!

<the truth will set you (and our rivers) free>

[PapaHog]

I was an avid Lars listner for about 3 years, 5 days a week. I started feeling that this guy is wrong more than he is right. I feel like Lars is for the ratings and not for the truth. I have not listened to him for a couple years. Dont miss him or the anger he sprews.

[**busyfishin**]

I agree with you PapaHog. The unfortunate thing is that many people do listen to Lars and find him to be nothing but credible. Scruffy, I would love to see you call Lars and debate this issue with him??

[5 Salt]

Fishncliff,

I posted a link to his editorial comment. All else is irrelevent.

As for politics, I just stick to the facts. The fact is Lars Larson's commentary leads me to believe that he does not think the public has a right to use Oregon's rivers.

As for his representation of the legislation in question. He included several "facts" that have nothing to do with the actual law being considered.

The lies about hunting access and private property access are just that -- lies. And both lies are being spread by at least two landowner groups, one of which his guest represented.

At no time has anyone connected with this battle even remotely supported the notion that a recreatonalist should be allowed to cross private property to gain access to a stream. And no one has every requested that the right to hunt on private property be part of any legislation regarding river use. Anyone that says otherwise is simply lieing for effect, or lieing to gain support from the gullible. So where did Mr. Larsen get his facts from? Certainly not from reading the actual bill. And certainly not from anyone that is fighting to protect your right to use your rivers. So where did they come from? Thin air, or at least hot air, I'd say.

You see, unlike Lars Larsen, I took the time to read the legislation, research the common law, and study the history of this issue. What I say is not political. I don't need to be political. I know the truth. Truth has no politics. I have real documents -- the full text of court cases and the full text of the legislation to which I refer -- to back up every single thing that I post regarding this issue. Do you? Does Lars? I seriously doubt it.

Exactly!!!

I am with scruffy on this issue - he has got it nailed.


.

[RiverRogue]

Scruffy, Way to go! You are probably aware that on Fridays he has "First Amendment Friday" where you can call in and debate the topic you like (or dislike!!). I would urge you to do that! I listen to him, not because I like him, but I want to know what the "other side" is thinking.

[KZ4LIFE]

As far as those threats go I would "Gladly Stand next to him and defend his right to speak his mind". Freedom of speach comes with no disclaimer. It dose not read The right to Free speach will not be abriged unless the Majority disagrees. I feel there has to be a solution to this problem as I have experienced and wittnessed it from both sides. I know of some great Salmon holes on a coastal river that I would like to fish. These areas one cant even anchor because the area is owned on both sides by the same person. That really stinks and should be changed. I have seen Sportsmen or I guess the ones that I saw should be called Jerks or Polluters leave Trash and other damage to private property. I know that the Majoroty of Ifishers are common sense people and would never vandalize in this manner. Both sides have issues and there should be some sort of avenue to protect property owners from the Jerks.

[5 Salt]

It is not one mans opinion...it is at least 50% of his audience's opinion because like Lars, a mimimum 50% of listeners will not know the issue nor will they take the time to consider there might be another side or truth about the issue. Pop radio audiences are just about the most gullable group in American, taking everyword out of their fav on-air personality cake-hole as the God's Honest Truth.

Your replies are perfect examples...you listened to his NW Report, You are fishermen, You know the issue(I hope), and yet, you failed to recognize Lar's flat out lying about the our being able to hunt, fish, and cross private property at any time. Anyone of average abilities can clearly see that it is not one man's opinion...it's not anything remotely close to one mans opinion.

With a little luck there are perhaps 75-100,000 more people wandering the Pacific Northwest believeing this issue is about anyone being able to cross private property any time to hunt, fish, litter....courtesy of this "One Man's" opinion.

[rimrock]

DISCLAIMER: Below is not a defense of Lars Larson’s message.

Let’s remember it’s a talk show – not a fact show. Yes, Stew made an excellent point and it’s all too true that loyal listeners buy into his commentary lock stock and barrel, this is unfortunate but reality. Of course most all information coming from pretty much any media source is skewed one way or another – the real truth that is as elusive as the spring Chinook I’m trying to catch. Remember Jerry Springer was a talk show too, not much reality there either.

The funniest thing is for a moment I thought someone was thinking Stew was defending the Lars Larson’s Show. Now I'd like to see that. :grin:


What was that about.

[First Bite]

Here is Lars one sentence reply to my e-mail I sent him:


"New laws on the way mark"



I sure hope not.

Mark

[West Linn Wader]

I have agreed with Lars on some issues over the years but he has lost a listener for good over this. My email to him said as much.

[Neptune]

Scruffy Bearded Varmint
Well said,

Theres a lot that like lars koolaid and drink it up..

[B-RUN STEELIE]

You seem to be describing Rush Limbaugh with a different name.

[weekender]

I've got one simple question. Do any of you own land that backs directly up to a river or lake?

Based on a majority of the replies, I'm guessing many of you do not. If you did, and you had to deal with the trash, the destruction, and the lack of respect right down to the used condoms that you find laying on your property I think your opinion might be slightly different.

[Scruffy Bearded Varmint]

Yes, I do.

And I have dealt with illegal fishing.

The destruction of trees on that property.

Fires left untended.

My neighbors bridge being doused with gasoline and torched.

Broken glass, used condoms, hypodermic needles, and poopy diapers.

Interesting thing. Through all that, I have always known that the stream was a public highway and those problems are the price I pay to watch a pair of steelhead nest and spawn in my backyard.

By the way, the Supreme Court of the United States, while being sympathetic to these landowner issues along with illegal use of firearms, livestock harrassment and damaged fences, recognize that these crimes have no bearing on whether a stream is navigable.

The courts also recognize that every single illegal activity I have dealt with is covered under existing state laws.

[Slynch]

Litter and vandalism have no bearing on the issue of protecting river user's rights...read the A.G.'s opinion if you don't believe me...you can complain about that until you're blue in the face, but it's no argument for denying the public's right to use the rivers...Property owners with sidewalks can't prohibit pedestrians because someone tosses garbage in the yard...

If you have litter or vandalism issues, then call the cops and have the violators arrested - nothing will ever make those things lawful!!! ...

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's true never the less!!!

Skip

[West Linn Wader]

Weekender,

You don't have to be a waterfront property owner to know that trash, trespassing and lack of respect are issues - I think it's pretty well known. They are not new issues...while it get's worse every year, they have been issues for decades.

This being the case I have to assume that the majority of people who have chosen to purchase waterfront property over the last 30+ years were aware of the issues as well and chose to accept the bad with the good.

The majority of people respect property rights and do not litter or leave condoms. While I sypathize with you and other landowners that have to deal with it, I will never view it as a good reason to lock the rivers up.

Feedback sent to Mr. Larsen.

mjd.

[B-RUN STEELIE]

So whats the difference between the river that runs by your property and the street that runs in front of my house ?? I own the land I live on but I don't own the road that goes past it.. If someone put a poopie diaper in the street in front of my house I can't block off the road because it made me mad.. Like stated above.. there are laws that cover all the offences you mention.. on the river.. and on the street in front of my house.. its all the same

[Gene Trump]

I sent Lars an e-mail comparing the rivers to highways...

he responded saying "it is anything floatable".

Who is feeding him this false info? Have some land owners convinced him that anglers and paddlers want to invade farm ponds?

[Scruffy Bearded Varmint]

Weekender,

Most of the problems created by landowners are caused by those new to the area. The old established families knew about the laws declaring the streams public highways and the public's right to use those highways.

For a number of years Real Estate Agents have advertised stream front property with expressions such as:

"Quite, secluded riverfront property"

"Your own private fishing hole"

"Unique, private streamfront setting"

And they have not warned the new owners that the public had a right to use the stream.

As near as we can tell about 15 to 20% of deeds along streams carry excusatory language that makes it clear that the public and/or the state have a prior right to the stream and the bed beneath it.

This is an issue the Real Estate industry and the Title Insurance companies need to address. Frankly, by not telling the new buyer, I believe they are falsely representing the property and could be held liable for damages if the land oweners were to litigate for false advertising. But that is only my opinion.

[weekender]

Litter and vandalism have no bearing on the issue of protecting river user's rights...read the A.G.'s opinion if you don't believe me...you can complain about that until you're blue in the face, but it's no argument for denying the public's right to use the rivers...Property owners with sidewalks can't prohibit pedestrians because someone tosses garbage in the yard...

If you have litter or vandalism issues, then call the cops and have the violators arrested - nothing will ever make those things lawful!!! ...

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's true never the less!!!

Skip

Litter, vandalism, and overall disrespect of private property have everything to do with this issue. Where do you think the original opinion is formed and the “get these idiots off my land” mentality spawns from? Landowners pay a premium, for this land then these morons come along and trash it because the 6 feet between the waters edge and the fence is public property and they have “every right to be there”. If these people didn’t trash everything in their wake, then no one would jump on these bandwagons without actually knowing what the bill is about.

As far as I’m concerned having a perfect stranger nock on my door and ask “can I park in your driveway, drag my boat through your yard over your fence and put it in the water” when there is a publicly owned and operated FREE boat ramp less than a mile away is worse than having a solicitor call my house during dinner and try to sell me a bottle of hair regenerator.

If you don’t think there is any correlation between these issues then you need to pull your head out of the sand. Landowners look at the bill and ask themselves “self, is this going to make my problem better or worse”. I know when I go to the polls I vote the issues solely on what is most beneficial to me and my family.

As far as calling the police and asking them to take care of these litter issues, I suggest you try it yourself before you sell that one off to anyone else. Let me know how it works out for you.

SBV – You mentioned that the trash, vandalism, and disrespect “is the price you pay for having a pair of native steelhead spawning in your backyard” (I’m going of memory there, so if I am slightly off I apologize). Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why? It doesn’t have to be that way and it shouldn’t be that way.

[B-RUN STEELIE]

The public does not care that you " paid a premium " to own land adjacent to public right of way.. You get what you paid for.. it was your decision to buy that land and all that came with it.. at no point were you told that you could keep people off the river regardless of how you feel about it. I understand your point of view.. but you have no leagle leg to stand on.. It will never happen.

[Scruffy Bearded Varmint]

Yes, and the answer has a lot to do with bad parenting skills, however, that does not negate your right to walk along that stream.

I believe that certain rights belong to all people. ( Consequently, I cannot bring myself to be so selfish and self centered as to believe my right to the stream should override yours.

By the way, the right to use navigable water was first codified into law in the second centure AD and reaffirmed in the sixth century. It was again reaffirmed in the Magna Charta and that was brought forward to the Constitution of the United States in what is referred to as the Equal Footings Doctrine. It is not like there is no previous history of the public's right to use a navigable water way for fishing and boating, now is there.

[tj1930vik]

Thanks, Scruffy. Your interest is very much appreciated. I would like to see Lars come out strongly in support of access, and I think he (might) do that if he had the full story. Right or wrong, he does have a lot of influence. We have a long way to go (as bank-access users) because we don't always leave the river banks the same way we found 'em. If we're tough enough to pack our junk in, we gotta be tough enough to pack our junk out when we leave.

[Irish Pennant]

[quote

Pop radio audiences are just about the most gullable group in American, taking everyword out of their fav on-air personality cake-hole as the God's Honest Truth.



[/quote]
Somebody sounds frustrated. Lets try
All fishermen are .....
All boaters are ......
All hunters are ......
All Portlanders are .....
All "fill in the blank" are .....

Lars wears his politics on his sleeves just like some people here do.
Less politics more fishing.

[PayDay]

I just read Senate Bill 1028, and it seems like a well thought out and reasonable approach to find a solution to the ongoing conflict between waterway users and landowners. Boaters would be required to register their vessels, navigable rivers are more clearly defined and limits on use are more clearly established. It doesn't appear to remedy the litter issue, although fires and other potentially damaging and offensive activities are restricted and compensation is mandated for any property damage caused by the user. Enforcement is provided for by the licensing requirement. It's probably not perfect, but it's a far cry better than what we have now, which is nothing but shades of gray and hearsay.
Here's the link to the bill:
http://landru.leg.state.or.us/05reg/...028.intro.html

[weekender]

SBV – I don’t disagree with the history of the laws. I also don’t agree with the banning of river rights. How would that be beneficial to me? If I can fish the water that is directly behind my property, but can not fish anywhere else in Oregon then how am I better off? My point is simply that I believe this issue has snowballed from landowners that are simply tired of picking up broken glass and used condoms. You may have a valid point with your issue of “new landowners”, but I believe a larger part of the equation is the “new society”. If you’ve owned that land for the last thirty years, then you know that your saw more trash in 2004 than in any of the previous years. It is an issue that must be dealt with. If it isn’t dealt with then eventually a blanket policy that’s bad for everyone will be enforced. I see this water rights issue as just that. A blanket policy to stop the destruction.

B-run. I don’t know what to say. (personal attack removed) Yes. If I buy land that borders the river in 2005, then I have agreed to deal with the 2005 trash problem. But what if I bought the land in 1970 when trash and disrespect wasn’t an issue? I should just deal with it now? I should just mulch it into the grass and tell myself “self, its 2005 and this is the way it works”.

To everyone else that wants to use the “shutdown the sidewalk in front of my house scenario”, in my experience it’s not a problem you have to deal with. I own land inside the city bordered by a sidewalk and it is a rarity that I have to deal with trash. Yes, occasionally I have to pick up a Popsicle wrapper that made its way into the hedge. That isn’t what this is about. We are not talking about one piece of garbage each week. Let me come (edited into "go to the bathroom") in your yard and let the breeze string out some used TP. Then let the next guy that walks past your house have sex with his girl fiend in your grass and leave his used protection and wrapper along with empty bottles of mad dog 20/20 that has used to woe said girl fiend. Op, it looks like the next fellow to walk by had a rat’s nest that he had to cut out. He didn’t need that line anymore. And what’s this? It’s a tire. Someone left a (edited language) tire in your front yard. I guess it’s understandable. After all, tires do cost $5 at the local Les Schwab to dispose of…

It goes on and on and eventually you’ve had enough.

[jacksalmon]

Scruffy: First, thanks for all your effort in posting the Larsen info as well as the Supreme Court rulings elsewhere on this site. Second, I am always amazed at the ifishers who are willing to put the interests of landowners above those of the fishing community. Where do your values come from? Come on boys, you are supposed to be fishermen, not cattle ranchers.
As far as the whining about littering and trespassing, I can sympathize, but I can also tell you that I have floated every single floatable river from the Columbia to the Chetco and have seen very little litter on the riverbanks. This includes such heavily used rivers as the Elk and Nestucca, even where the bankies congregate. For example, when I float by the Three Rivers area on the Nestucca, I don't see much litter, so is there really such a big problem, or is it that the landowners are merely using a few candy bar wrappers as the big excuse to keep the rivers private for themselves?
How many people have you floaters seen camped out on the private lands that border the Wilson, Nestucca, Elk, Siletz
or Rogue when you floated by as you fished? In thirty years of floating Oregon rivers, I can probably count the number on my thumb and index fingers. I will admit I have camped out in the middle of the cottonwood bottom lands on the North Santiam between Stayton and Green's Bridge a few times and did no damage except to flatten some weeds beneath my sleeping bag. Big deal! The nearby farmers didn't even know I was there. I have carried the guilt of trespassing with me forever and I just don't know what to do about it. I can't sleep at night knowing I have violated the law a few times in my life.
The reality is that there are no major problems for these landowners. They are merely trying to exclude the common folk from using the rivers. This is class warfare. There is no doubt that the landowning class is not the poor of this state. The landowners are rich for the most part, at least richer than most fishing folk. They are using the few candy wrappers and toilet paper wads as an excuse to keep people away from their private enclaves. They have lackeys like Ferrioli and Larsen to sway the brain-dead public that their private rights should be protected and that fishers have no rights. If you guys don't tell these legislative puppets to flush 1028 down the legislative toilet, who will? Call your representatives for what it is worth and tell them to flush it. If they don't respond, at least you tried. But, please do it.
I love the example a few people have posted here about one's ability to close the sidewalk in front of the house because someone passing by tosses some paper on the lawn. The homeowner can't do it and the river land owner shouldn't be able to do it either. Fight back on this one, because it is another example of the rich trying to hammer the middle class. Don't let them do it.

[El-Kabong]

weekender, while it is regrettable that you find that much bad behavior taking place in front of your house, the problem is that this bill will do NOTHING to stop that from happening.

Call the police and get them to enforce EXISTING LAWS. To think that they will suddenly start enforcing some new law when they (based on your posts) are not enforcing the existing laws is silly.

EK

[Slynch]

Payday, can you describe for me the details of the management plan mentioned in Section 1 entails?...no you can't, because it doesn't yet exist...so you're idea of "well-thought out" is betting on the come that the SLB and (or some other body that is charged with that responsibility) will actually adopt the massive volume of case law that was noted in the A.G.'s opinion?...

SB1028 solves nothing...rather, it differs the definition of river rights to some later date to be determined by some other entity...that's a gamble I'm unwilling to take....

Skip

[West Linn Wader]

SCV,

Lars just mentioned all the feedback he's been getting on iFish (although he said "iFish.com").

Lars is claiming the reason that he is against this bill is that it allows people to trespass on private property in order to leave rivers.

Please comment. Thx!

[Slynch]

SECTION 1. { + (1) The State Land Board by rule shall adopt
and administer a statewide management plan to govern the
recreational use of Class 1 waterways under section 5 of this
2005 Act. The statewide management plan shall include:
(a) Provisions specifying the time, manner, type and extent of
the recreational uses allowed on Class 1 waterways located
throughout the state; and
(b) A method for modifying the time, manner, type and extent of
recreational uses allowed on a particular Class 1 waterway.

and then later in Section 1:

3) The board may, pursuant to a memorandum of understanding,
delegate the authority to develop and administer the statewide
management plan to another public body, as defined in ORS
174.109. The memorandum may include provisions for the payment
of expenses incurred in developing and administering the
statewide management plan from moneys received by the board from
the Class 1 Waterways Subaccount established pursuant to section
10 of this 2005 Act. + }

SECTION 5. { + (1) Except as provided in this section, a
person may make recreational use of any waterway.
(2) A person may not use a Class 2 waterway for a recreational
use unless the person obtains the express permission of the
riparian landowner. However, a person using a Class 2 waterway
that is located on public lands may act as if the person has
express permission of the riparian landowner if the person
complies with all applicable laws, rules and policies established
by any public body, as defined in ORS 174.109, or federal agency
with management authority over the Class 2 waterway.
(3) An owner or operator of a hydroelectric power generating
facility may restrict the use of a waterway in and around the
facility and related structures in a manner that the owner or
operator determines necessary to protect against injury or loss
of life.
(4) A person may not use a Class 1 waterway for a recreational
use if the use has been limited, restricted or excluded by:
(a) A statewide management plan adopted by the State Land Board
pursuant to section 1 of this 2005 Act; or
(b) State law, federal law or rules of a state or federal
agency.
(5) Unless allowed pursuant to the statewide management plan
adopted pursuant to section 1 of this 2005 Act, a person may not,
without obtaining the express permission of the riparian
landowner, use a Class 1 waterway for the following purposes:
(a) Building open fires;
(b) Disposing of human waste;
(c) Overnight camping;
(d) Hunting or discharging weapons, except for the purpose of
hunting waterfowl when specifically authorized by the State
Department of Fish and Wildlife; or
(e) Placing or creating any permanent or seasonal structure,
including a duck blind or boat moorage.
(6) A person may not use a waterway for a recreational use that
involves a boat unless the person:
(a) Holds a valid certificate of number for the boat, as
evidenced by the display of an identifying number on the boat
with current validation stickers issued under ORS 830.795;
(b) Holds a valid nonmotorized boat certificate of number for
the boat, as evidenced by the display of an identifying number on
the boat along with a current validation sticker or tag issued
under section 12 of this 2005 Act; or
(c) Holds a valid, effective recreational use registration
issued pursuant to section 9 of this 2005 Act. + }

So go on, tell me what exactly are the details of this management plan....

Skip

[freespool]

Quote:

To everyone else that wants to use the “shutdown the sidewalk in front of my house scenario”, in my experience it’s not a problem you have to deal with. I own land inside the city bordered by a sidewalk and it is a rarity that I have to deal with trash. Yes, occasionally I have to pick up a Popsicle wrapper that made its way into the hedge. That isn’t what this is about. We are not talking about one piece of garbage each week. Let me come crap in your yard and let the breeze string out some used TP. Then let the next guy that walks past your house have sex with his girl fiend in your grass and leave his used protection and wrapper along with empty bottles of mad dog 20/20 that has used to woe said girl fiend. Op, it looks like the next fellow to walk by had a rat’s nest that he had to cut out. He didn’t need that line anymore. And what’s this? It’s a tire. Someone left a G#)( D#$( tire in your front yard. I guess it’s understandable. After all, tires do cost $5 at the local Les Schwab to dispose of…

It goes on and on and eventually you’ve had enough.


So what your saying is, because of a few bad apples, our federally granted right to float and fish Oregon's waterways should be restricted or terminated?
The way I see this, our legislature is trying to pass a law that would supercede the federal law that grants us unlimited access to Oregon's waterways. You may think that's ok, but I think that stinks.
What I find amazing is the legislatures unwilling attitude to recognize our federally granted right to use our state waterways. How many legislators are lawyers? As the AG has pointed out, all they have to do is read the law. We don't need new laws that take away our rights, we just need to follow the laws we already have.
No wonder nothing ever gets done in Salem.


salmon hugger

[garyk]

1. If you're outraged that a AM radio entertainer supports privatizing rivers, take your message to where it really counts and WIll make a difference - YOUR LEGISLATOR.

2. Regarding the new $20 floating craft registration fee... While it starts with boats, there is no logical reason to exclude folks on foot from paying the so-called 'management fee'. So, unless you want more restrictions and more fees, (perhaps just to WALK on a river bank) that give you absolutely NOTHING you don't already have, then encourage your legislator to OPPOSE this bill.

PS. Weekender, if your sheriff won't respond to your detailed complaints of folks breaking the law, your community needs a new sheriff.

[PayDay]

This is my first look at this proposal, so forgive me if I'm less informed, but from the perspective of an average person and river user...
I'd like to be able to continue to responsibly use navigable streams. I also have respect for property owners who've been harmed by irresponsible users.
So, is it better to do nothing and just let it stand in the state of confusion it's now in? Or is anything short of unrestricted access unacceptable?
This isn't just a fishing issue. Many of these streams are populated in the warm months by another set of users who may not have as much respect for the resource as the average Ifisher. But fishermen aren't immune either. Just take a look at the average popular fishing hole and you'll see the wads of line, beer cans, and empty bait containers.
It's not hard to see how a property owner could get pretty fed up and decide it's better to just throw everyone off their property.
This bill, however imperfect it may be, at least appears to be an attempt to find a middle ground solution.

[PayDay]

Again, I'm no expert, but doesn't the federal law grant access to "navigable" waterways? As watercraft has become more advanced, many more streams have become navigable by driftboats, rafts, pontoon boats, and kayaks. I'd like to see responsible access to those waterways specifically allowed by law and put an end to the shouting matches that occur now over a very confused issue.

[marko]

You guys aren't listening. You are not thinking. You are just reacting! (political bash removed) This is a bad law! Lars is against it! It is not about privatizing rivers. This law will give unlimited access to your river bank property. Bad idea!

[garyk]

Ifish makes it easy to find your Oregon Legislator. Just go here:

http://www.ifish.net/write.html

or click on...

Link

[weekender]

Freespool - I guess since it was addressed to SBV you skipped over it. So it it is again.

SBV – I don’t disagree with the history of the laws. I also don’t agree with the banning of river rights. How would that be beneficial to me? If I can fish the water that is directly behind my property, but can not fish anywhere else in Oregon then how am I better off? My point is simply that I believe this issue has snowballed from landowners that are simply tired of picking up broken glass and used condoms. You may have a valid point with your issue of “new landowners”, but I believe a larger part of the equation is the “new society”. If you’ve owned that land for the last thirty years, then you know that your saw more trash in 2004 than in any of the previous years. It is an issue that must be dealt with. If it isn’t dealt with then eventually a blanket policy that’s bad for everyone will be enforced. I see this water rights issue as just that. A blanket policy to stop the destruction.

[V. Green]

Again, I'm no expert, but doesn't the federal law grant access to "navigable" waterways? As watercraft has become more advanced, many more streams have become navigable by driftboats, rafts, pontoon boats, and kayaks. -Payday

Think back to the time of Lewis & Clark and the Oregon Pioneers. The main mode of travel was to use canoes and wooden rafts. If you take a look at the watercraft used by Native Americans you will note the material used: hollowed logs, bark canoes, animal hides over wood frames. All of these had very shallow drafts and could easily travel on most Oregon streams. Any river which can handle a driftboat could of easily handle a trappers, explorers or natives canoe. FYI-Trappers conducted commerce by transporting pelts to the marketplace.

The truth is that almost every stream in Oregon meets the Federal Test for navigablity.

[B-RUN STEELIE]

B-run. I don’t know what to say. Between your bad grammar, poor punctuation, misspelled words, and the ignorance in a statement like “you get what you paid for”. I don’t know if it’s even worth arguing about. Yes. If I buy land that borders the river in 2005, then I have agreed to deal with the 2005 trash problem. But what if I bought the land in 1970 when trash and disrespect wasn’t an issue? I should just deal with it now? I should just mulch it into the grass and tell myself “self, its 2005 and this is the way it works”.

Wow, your really something buddie.. Aside from your distraction to moot issues such as spelling etc you are barking about three different issues at the same time. Who cares if you bought your land in 1970- The river was there before you were, and so was the public. I don't agree with people leaving trash on your land. Thats a bad thing and your not the only person that has to deal with it ( on rivers or anyplace else for that matter ) It just happens that your little slice of heaven is located right beside a public right of way, and you want the bill of rights changed so people can't use it.. FYI- You are not the only person in this country that owns land. My family owns approx 1056 deeded acres near Grangeville Idaho. It does not have a river or lake on it, but does back up to national forrest lands, and has a public roadway right through a portion of it ( which by the way was a forced sale and upset my grandfather until the day he died) I think it would be cool if we could block off access to the national forrest lands, and take that road out.. but am not even close to being ignorant enough to think that will ever happen. I understand your upset about piles of condoms and people knocking on your door.. poor little you. Ever had a truck out on the road slam on the brakes and the doors fly open and some guys jump out and start blasting away at deer on your place ??? Like I said before, there is a law in place to deal with that, just like there is a law about littering and trespassing. The fact that nobody shows up to enforce these laws is a different issue. Figure out exactly what you really want and focus on a solution to that problem.. Is it trash, people, or both.

" then you know that your saw more trash" thats just one example from your post.. Your grammer and spelling stinks as well

[Slynch]

With all due respect Marko, neither you nor Lars seem to have actually read SB1028...I posted the pertinent sections relative to access...If you can tell me what the "management plan" does for both river users and landowners, I'd thoroughly enjoy learning that...please use the quote function to highlight section that I'm missing...

Look, the riparian landowners want nothing short of absolute ownership, and the recreational community wants the rights they're already guarantied by the Oregon Admission Acts, 150 years of case law, the U.S. Constitution, and common law as expressed by the Attorney General's most recent opinion...neither will see a middle ground until someone gets shot at...and that's sad....

Skip

[Ric]

So what is 'floatable' anyway?

I did read the post about shallow draft craft, like canoes
- which seems pretty reasonable as a 'floatable' craft. I wonder if that will be the standard.

Anyone have a thought?

[West Linn Wader]

Weekender - I'm just curious...when did you buy your waterfront property?

I still feel the issues have been there since the 70's but I'm just wondering if you were being hypothetical or if you actually have owned your property since then.

[Scruffy Bearded Varmint]

Floatable means can it float a boat for even a portion of the year on a consistent predictable basis.

It is also a dodge used by the privatization crowd to avoid using the term Navigable. I recall reading at least one case in which a court basically said the term floatable is synonymous with the term navigable. Therefore; to declare a stream floatable is to declare it navigable.

In the Chetco River navigability case, the use of shovel-nose conoes by native Americans demonstrated navigability in commerce. They draft about 6-8 inches of water. The court accepted the comparison to a modern driftboat with a guide and a client. That also drafts about six inches I believe.

In a very recent Alaska case, the courts accepted large inflatable rafts as proof of navigability and in a case in I believe Kentucky or Georgia (don't quote that till I know I'm right.) the courts ruled that kayak paddlers paying for lessons qualified as navigability for use in commerce.

[Slynch]

There are a couple of misunderstanding related to the idea of navigability...the river doesn't have to have been used by boats at the time of Oregon's admission to the Union - a river merely needs to have been susceptible ...that's the federal standard (upheld again last week by the Oregon Court of Appeals in the John Day case, by the way)...secondly, the idea of "floatability" comes from what the AG's opinion called the Doctrine of Public Use, not the federal navigability standards..."floatable" means that at any time - high water or low water - if one can float a river, regardless of the occasional need to portage, it is floatable...this applies to Class 1 waterways, not ephemeral or seasonal waterways often refered to as Class 2...

one other thing regarding use...the idea is often presented that recreation is somehow not included in the "spirit" of the law...Scruffy can better cite the case law on this, but there have been several rulings at both the state and federal level that affirm that recreational use is indeed protected under the river rights...imagine a law that forbids bicycles from the roadways or pedestrians from sidewalks...there's no distiction there as to whether those uses are recreational or commercial....

Skip