River Access on Wilson

[Dakotan]

Does anyone know what the river access laws are for the Wilson and Trask? I fish both rivers weekly but was wondering about stretches where homes are present. Does mean high water mark apply to them? Am I trespassing on property if I anchor my boat and then stand in the river and fish? Has anyone had problems/encounters with this?

[SalmonJeff]

I dont know about the wilson or the trask but I have fished allot of other rivers and it is not the high water mark at all for shore access. as far as I know If the land owner owns both sides of the river he also owns the dirt under the water and it was told to me by o.s.p that you can anchor and fish from the boat but if you get out you are trespassing.

dont know how much it helps but that is how it was expressed to me.

[BUGLEMAN]

Jeff that OSP officer you were talking too doesn't know what he is talking about. See the thread by skruffybeardedvarment. The Wilson in fact is navigable but due to politics it hasn't been declared by the state yet. At this point, untill a river undergoes a nav study, it is subject to interperatation as to what a judge would say. I wish I had a barrel full of cash and then I could shove land owners back.

[LazerFisher]

Buggleman is right, the Wilson is still in limbo until the State has a nav study done. I have seen it go both ways with land owners there, some don't mind and some think they own the river. I would say it is safe to anchor anywhere on the Wilson but watch out where you get out.

[Grip It-N-Rip It]

I am not trying to start nothing here but I have a question I just have to ask.
Why would you want to shove the land owners back? They have been paying taxes on that land for a long time. The problem most people don't see is the littering and abuse of the banks. That is usually enough to get anyone mad and shut the door. While I don't own any land on the Trask or Wilson I due know people that do and have heard many of there beefs.
First you have littering that know one ever seems to due it just magically shows up there and since know one brought it or done it know one takes it with them.
Then you have a few that get cold so they start warming fires which seem to take a few limbs and small trees although they are wet and won't burn.
There is always the person that has to take a dump on someones property and that is just a mess. Think about it how would you like someone to come do that in your yard and leave it for you to walk around and find.
While your taking everyones land are you gonna give them back the tax money they have paid for that land for the past 20, 30, 40, 50 years. Think about it the state can't afford to let kids go to school, how are they going to repay these people for hijacking there land? I'm sure you wouldn't want them to take any of yours.
To the best of my Knowledge neither the Trask or Wilson is listed as Navigable and the landowners still own the banks and the bottom of the river. I don't fight with the land owners I ask for permission and respect there decision. It has worked for me for quite a while.
This is just my Opinion on the matter

[ 01-21-2004, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: Grip It-N-Rip It ]

Let me clarify things a bit here because I would hate to see someone get misinformed and end up getting cited.
While the law should be obvious it's not and you would be best served by not challenging the landowner! You are better off just moving on and leaving it at that because you could get cited for tresspassing and it would be up to the county DA whether he wants to pursue it.
The point is until this is settled, and it will be someday, we should not deliberately antagonize landowners! If he asks you to leave then just do it and be polite about it.
Groups like CORR and ANWS are working on this situation so please do not do anything to undermine the hard work they are doing. We are trying real hard to work with property owners on this matter so don't take bad advice and screw it up for everyone else.

[rookie]

I agree with the high water mark, because it is in the Oregon constitution, thats why nobody owns the beach. The case on the john Day is still being battled as far as I know. But I agree that if a land owner says something just get in your boat and move on. If you are banking fishing same thing. I once had a dairy farmer on the Trask stand on his homemade bridge crossing the river yelling at us to move on. I was like who does he think he is, I was standing knee deep in the water and the drift boat was not even beached, just anchored in the soft water. About that time a OSP drives up and walks down and ask to move on because this guy gets a little nuts and could we make the OSP day a little better. We said sure and moved on. If they have been paying taxes on the bottom of the river I feel bad for them because they don't own the bottom of navigateable river. To me if you can get commercial boats thru, it is navigateable. And to me a guides drift boat is commerce.

[lilnorthfork]

I for one do not litter on any land I fish, or any land at all for that matter. In fact, I try to make it a habit to pick up other's trash along the way. I have never stopped fishing to start a fire nor do I know anyone who has. And, rest assured, I have never relieved myself on anyone's property... excluding my neighbor's garage when I was about 6 (number two).
Despite this glowing record of achievement, I have in fact been shot at by a landowner who claimed to own the lake water in front of his camp. It put a damper on my bass fishing; fortunately, none of the children playing nearby were mistakenly shot. It was a pleasure identifying him for the State Police and seeing him in handcuffs.
My points:
1. We all must get along... give and take required.
2. Broad-sweeping generalizations do little in the pursuit of the #1.
3. Curbing litter and issues such as disregard for other's property is a process of education and law enforcement. I has nothing, I REPEAT NOTHING (imho), to do with river access rights... which I believe was the topic of this post.
lnf

[ampersat]

Actually, trash and the abuse of private property has a lot to do with river access rights. If all of the land along the river is owned by individuals, then how would an errant fisher have the opportunity to defoul someone else's property? Yes, access to water above these private individuals does lead to some amount of offal at the waterline but it does not lead to some of the things that these people have had to deal with over time.

Please be courteous on the water and do your best to make the experience a good one for all involved. Let the groups who are working on this do their work and some day we will have a firm legal footing to stand on while we cast.

[BUGLEMAN]

Stew - "They" have been working on this issue for decades. Negotiation with landowners will only lead to compromise. And - compromise on any Nav. stream is illegal and most likely would be overturned in the US Supreme Court. So what are they working on? What is it about the special interests in Salem that have the pull of votes has changed - Has ranchers and farmers changed thier mind and don't want to keep fisherman and boaters off the water? Time will tell but this issue is in a stale mate as far as I can see. Maybe I need some Rose colored glasses (Joke) Seriously Stew - what kind of a path are these people working on? What kind of a result are they trying to achieve?

I do agree that antagonizing landowners isn't a good thing. Pick up your trash etc.

[rebell]

rookie, where was this home made bridge on the Trask? I know of 5 bridges on the Trask, and none of them are home made.

As it stands right now, you all have access to the high water mark above tidewater on the Trask and Wilson rivers. If you run in to a so called land owner that disputes that claim, they are wrong! If you cross private property to get to the river, you are in the wrong.

It's not that hard to understand.

Originally posted by rebell:
rookie, where was this home made bridge on the Trask? I know of 5 bridges on the Trask, and none of them are home made.

As it stands right now, you all have access to the high water mark above tidewater on the Trask and Wilson rivers. If you run in to a so called land owner that disputes that claim, they are wrong! If you cross private property to get to the river, you are in the wrong.

It's not that hard to understand.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">When was this access granted on these two rivers? I'm pretty sure there are a few landowners especially on the Trask who would disagree with with you.
Kevin how about joining NW Steelehaders! We could sure use you :grin: We have guys that are working on this very issue and your enthusiasm would be helpful.
It's really easy to play armchair QB and have lofty opinions about how things should be done! It's another matter to put your money were your mouth is.
NW Steelheaders fought hard and spent a lot of money to win the Sandy river nav study and we are fighting hard for the one on the John Day. To fight this battle it takes money and we are by no means a wealthy organization...not even close!
So can we expect your membership application in the ANWS office soon Kevin

[cutt plug]

Stew summed it up well.

We're out there for the enjoyment of the outdoors. It's not worth the aggravation to get in a tussle with a landowner. Move on and fish somewhere else.

[rookie]

The homemade bridge is on the Kilchis now that some has called me on the carpet and i think about it. But the rest remains the same.

[BUGLEMAN]

Stew, I am a member - dues are due though.

So what position or plan of attack of the ANWS are you advocating? We don't need cute one liners when information is required. My opinion and position on this issue is very relavent and has a solid basis. What is your position other than to give a few bucks to an organization and turn away every time someone says, "your trespassing". How is being confrontational on the bank and in the courts hurting the work that the organizations that you advocate going to be hurt by that.

[ 01-23-2004, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: BUGLEMAN ]

[ssteelheadsteve]

Like a Westslope Cutthroat to a size 8 Royal Coachman on a early July day at the end of runnoff I rise to this post. There is no room left for negotiation when it comes to fish habitat or angler access.The Big loss is just around the corner.When the Gov.cutts ODF&W budget while he listens only to Oregon Trout's anti fishing ranting from former Oregon Trout conservation director and now the gov's fishery policy advisor Jim Myron.
If I would have "just moved along " for the last
40 years on the Wilson you would have very few miles of total river access.If you believe you are within your rights then tell the landowner to call the cops.When I am hasseled I just call the cops and offer the phone to the landowner.New phones let me take a picture of my opponet so the cops can see who they are talking to.It also helps make identification easier at a later date. I have never had to offer a phone to a landowner twice. Then I take a few steps back and inform the landowner that if he persues me I will take his intention as assualt on my person and react in a manner which may be injurious to the menacing parties well being. I can't believe that anyone who has served their country would just " move along " .The sate and the legislature are trying to codify a law that will prohibit what the Oregon Admission Act guarantees.These laws are being pushed by the realestate and title industries.Financed by the calttle and timber companies. By the lack of lawsuits I can only surmise that the title companies that confirmed deeds that read past the " mean high water " are not bound to produce the protection that they claim.Realestate Attorneys please jump in hear for clarity at any time. Sort of like those home inspections you pay for when you get a home mortgage. You pay your $750 move in and the house falls over because it is infested with termites and you have no recourse in Oregon against the home inspector.You sign it away on all contracts I have seen.seefineprintonbackofinspectionagreementAnd while I am here....Neil Goldschmidt will do for our schools what he did for transportation and SAIF.Standby Oregonians Ignorance is Bliss."If YOU are stupid enough to send attorneys to make your laws then you deserve whatever you get." Raining hard in Troutdale....there goes the weekend fishing...GB and sleep well

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Grip It-N-Rip It:
......Why would you want to shove the land owners back? They have been paying taxes on that land for a long time.......While your taking everyones land are you gonna give them back the tax money they have paid for that land for the past 20, 30, 40, 50 years......how are they going to repay these people for hijacking there land?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well, first of all, it isn't really "their" land. If the stream's navigable then the State owns the bed & banks to OHW line...and has owned it since 1859. If a landowner has a title insurance policy, and can prove a financial loss, there may be basis for legal action against the title co.

Second, the assessed valuation of riparian properties below the OHW line normally isn't very much, if anything. Just last week I pointed out a tax map error to the county assessor's office...a recent property line survey showed the assessor's map included about .75 acre, mostly river bottom & gravel bar below OHW, that actually belonged to the adjacent landowner (the river has never had a navigability study so is officially "non-navigable"). The assessor's office will correct the tax map...but their opinion is that the assessed valuation won't change for either tax lot.

Third, the riparian landowners aren't being shoved back...they will still have access to the riparian area...along with all the rest of us owners.

[Scruffy Bearded Varmint]

Last Fall a land owner along the Trask River had three men arrested for trespassing. They were bank fishing on the river behind his house. They contacted the Association of Northwest Steelheaders for some advice. A member of ANWS went over to the Tillamook County Courthouse and looked up the property deed. This is what he discovered:

1. The legal description of the property reads "...West 177.25 feet; thence South 38° 07' 47" East to the Trask River; Thence Northeasterly,..." The property owner claimed that his deed gave him title to the middle of the river. In other words, the upland property owner had people arrested for trespassing on property he did not own -- property that was not included in the legal description of the land he purchased.

2. The deed contains and exclusion that reads; "(5) Rights of the public and governmental bodies in and to any portion of the premises herein described lying below high water mark of the Trask River, including any ownership rights which may be claimed by the State of Oregon below high water mark." That's right. The guys deed recognizes both the public's right to use the Trask River up to the high water mark and the states right to exercise a claim of ownership to the river bed and banks up to the high water mark.

Hundreds if not thousands of Oregon Deeds along Oregon waterways have the same or similar excusatory language. The landowner was fully aware of his property boundaries and of the exclusions regarding the river, yet he still had the people arrested. This is what we are up against folks. The worst part about this case was that the arrest was made and that the DA was going to prosecute!

The person from ANWS contacted the Tillamook County DA and related these tidbits to him. The DA asked the ANWS person to have the accused call him. He did, and they did. The ANWS person again spoke to the DA and learned that the case had been postponed indefinitely. That means it is out there in legal limbo land.

Interesting thing happened. The DA does not have to take any heat from locals for dropping the trespass case. The victims remain under the cloud of a pending trespass case. And the landowner, well he probably still thinks he can have people arrested for fishing on "his river."

I supsect that if one were to look at deeds along the Wilson River, they may find the same or similar excusatory clauses regarding the ownership of the riverbed.

I believe that much of the problem we have with this issue stems from the Overzealous Realtors that advertise streamside property using such terms as "exclusive," "own private fishing hole," "secluded," etc. The fact remains, according to the Oregon State Admissions Act, all navigable waterways are public highways and the public has an easement to use them regardless of who owns the land beneath. And according to a state law, if it is a navigable stream, the state owns the land beneath them... always has and always will.

You have two choices: work to put a set of laws in place that protect your rights as an Oregonian, or roll over and play dead for the big money land grabbers.

ANWS fought this battle for you alone for well on twenty years. Their action has been a reargaurd struggle; defending those unlawfully accused of trespass, fighting to kill the many bills that would steal away public land and with it your right to fish and boat on public waters. It has cost them tens of thousands of dollars.

A group of concerned citizens recently organized to form Coalition for River Rights (CORR). CORR chooses to look to the future, not the past. It is their goal to protect both parties with a law that secures your right to use your rivers, while at the same time, putting real teeth into the trespass laws so the right of the upland property owners are equally well protected. You're welcome to join us in the fight.

[lilnorthfork]

Actually, trash and the abuse of private property has a lot to do with river access rights. If all of the land along the river is owned by individuals, then how would an errant fisher have the opportunity to defoul someone else's property?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">How does someone driving down the road have the opportunity to defoul someone else's property? As a believer in the laws they way they were written (and, of course, as I like to see them ) I see no difference.
Two years ago I started fishing for steelhead. The second time out my partner and I entered the NF Nehalem at a public access area and waded downstream. With a stroke of good fortune, I c&r'd a beautiful native buck on my flyrod. Unfortunately, before the fish was to hand, a rafter identifying himself as a guide "informed" me I was trespassing - even though I was in the water. He "informed" he would notify the landowner next time. Talk about a downer in the middle of the ultimate high.
lnf
btw - sssteve - now that is how you open a post.

[ 01-23-2004, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: lilnorthfork ]

Thank you SBV! You are certainly right about the costs incurred by ANWS and are still paying for.

[West Linn Wader]

SBV your last post just prompted me to join my local chapter of the NW Steelheaders Assoc for the first time.

GS/WLW

[hustlerrjim]

we have for thirty years had our place open to the public to launch drift boats.
the key to our success is ---stay in your boat and respect the land owner.
over the 30 years we have only asked 2 people not to come back.
garbage is a lot of b.s. i dont see it below our place, it stays in the boat.
why would you want to get out on the bank and leave the heater in the 1 st place??????????

[F F Jack]

I have several questions on this river access issue, if the ANSW would please reply.

What is this river access all about? Does ANWS want floating rights, anchoring rights, bank access from a boat, walk in bank access, does ANWS want access up just up to the high water line or unlimited access?

Please explain this to the viewers of "I Fish" so we know what the issues are.

Floating rights? What are those? Please don't tell me some landowners actually think they own the water too?
Okay I'll see if I can help your confusion. The ANWS wants public access to the states streams.
Simple as that! Not asking the landowners to allow people to trample across their private land to get to the river. ANWS is not asking for landowners to tolerate littering, vanddalism or other unlawful acts by those along the streambank.
All the ANWS wants is what legally already belongs to the citizens of the state of Oregon.
Hope this helps
Try this link
ANWS and stream access

[ 01-24-2004, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: Stew ]

[ssteelheadsteve]

Scruffy
If you can tell me who the victims are in this false arrest in Tillamook County I and my attorney would be very happy to meet with them.
Arrested means cuffed and booked.
Cited is another matter. You have the right to a speedy trial. You must inform the court that you demand to have that right satisfied.From that time forward the Court must act in a reasonable amount of time . This is not Years in a tresspass case.
BTW- Any peace officer trying to violate my rights then becomes a private citizen and will stand on even ground with me in my quest to defend myself in any way I deem sufficent to defend my self. Including the use of deadly force. I have been to that point on more than one occasion in Tillamook County.TCS officers have always gone back to the patrol cars and called the DA and the County Sheriff before returning to ask that I please pull my anchor and leave. I don't. They leave. The cats that "lease" the Rock Hole can KMA.If they get there first they always get to fish it the way they want despite the fact that there may be more people who don't appreciate their style ( or lack of ) fishing.First come.First served.Off the subject does anyone think the jet boat manufacturers could be liable for an accident that involves a boat traveling in the dark and using white lights that shine beyond your own deck ? Or is it the owners obligation to know you may not navagate a jet boat at night on our rivers casting a light beyond your own deck ? If youv'e read this much perhaps you have an opinion you would be willing to share :smile:

[GutshotApe]

There is an on-going case in Klamath County that may prove interesting. In November a duck hunter checked with an OSP trooper to see if it was OK to hunt in a particular drainage canal...reportedly, the OSP guy told him he could float but not anchor there. So the guy went hunting there in a free-drifting boat but set out a few decoys that had anchors. The riparian property owner (a private duck club) complained to OSP...and subsequently the same OSP officer who told the hunter he could hunt came along and gave the hunter a criminal (armed) trespass citation.

Details/questions:

The defendant has chosen not to admit guilt or to quietly pay the fine...he will fight.

Thru ANWS, he has obtained an experienced lawyer to defend him, pro bono.

Even if the canal's bed & banks were deemed private land, how can someone be charged with criminal (armed) trespass when it was his duck decoy that was touching bottom?

The Bureau of Reclaimation (a public agency)allegedly built the canal and owns the bottom & banks...

The state Marine Board allegedly previously ordered the private duck club to remove a barbed wire fence they had put in the canal to block it.

Will the Klamath County DA drop the charges or will this become a "test case" with statewide implications?

[F F Jack]

Stew,

I read the ANWS link about River Access. You seem to want all the streams in Oregon open to any and all persons in the Universe.

This sounds great when spun to the ANWS point of view. "We fish wherever we want, for a short while, leave and go home."

In reality, the land owner is stuck with these people 24/7. This may include fifty or more people fishing, all night beer parties, camping & cookouts, and &lt;so on&gt;!

Stew, would you like this happening in your
in your back yard? I doubt it, neither would any other sane person!

[ 01-26-2004, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

[surebite77]

This reminds me of an interesting incident that occured on a long small stream in southwest washington 4 years ago, a longtime resident that believed he owned the water, air, vegetation, and everything in between ( we'll call him the Dr.) happened to live along the most productive stretch of steelhead water I have ever seen or heard about. As the not so good Dr. grew older and his arrogance crossed with his senility ( I think thats a word) he began to fire warning shots with a large caliber pistol for those who dared to enjoy this tremendous stretch of water. Until one day his shots were intended for a couple local police detectives/steelhead enthusiasts. Needless to say this water can be enjoyed by all now (if you know how to get your boat in) come to think of it this stretch of holy water will be loaded with both nates and clippies on monday and my wiggle warts will be tuned accordingly.

[24 on/ 48 off]

EDIT:

It's just FISHING.....

[ 01-26-2004, 06:42 AM: Message edited by: 24 on/ 48 off ]

[Dakotan]

FF Jack,
I understand your point but what you are talking about (the parties, the trash), these are all problems that every land owner faces no matter where they live. I pick up garbage around my apartment complex that people "forgot" to clean up all the time. One thing to realize is that it is the minority that creates many of these problems. If land owners and respectable fishermen/women can work together in fighting these problems, we can all enjoy Oregon streams in harmony. And for everyone reading this post, please clean up your garbage on the river..... including beer/pop cans & bottles, fishing line, lure wrappers, and bait containers.

Originally posted by F F Jack:
Stew,

I read the ANWS link about River Access. You seem to want all the streams in Oregon open to any and all persons in the Universe.

This sounds great when spun to the ANWS point of view. "We fish wherever we want, for a short while, leave and go home."

In reality, the land owner is stuck with these people 24/7. This may include fifty or more people fishing, all night beer parties, camping & cookouts, and &lt;so on&gt;!

Stew, would you like this happening in your
in your back yard? I doubt it, neither would any other sane person!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">FF Jack it looks like your intent is to read something that simply isn't there so I suggest you email me or the ANWS office if you have any further questions. ANWS DOES NOT advocate unlawful behavior by anyone and we agree that the landowner has the right to press charges against anyone caught doing unlawful things on private land.
The camping out,beer parties etc. would not be allowed if we gain the river access rights we are seeking.

[ 01-26-2004, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Stew ]

[tailchaser]

I too am a member of the local chapter of NW Steelheaders and this issue is very very large here on the S.Coast. However, one thing can detour landowners almost everywhere and that's knowledge of where you're fishing and your rights to be there. A river is just like the street in front of your house. You might not like the random guys parking in front of your house, but you really can't do anything about it but ask them to leave. If they don't, well they have the right not to and it's that simple. You don't like them to leave a beer/pop can either, but you can't put a sign out there saying you can't park. This is merely the same thing on a river. Lots and lots of landowners try the scare tactic to get a guy to move on, if you know the law and can state it, he eats crow.

I personally took a state cop down the elk river this year and we stopped to fish a hole in front of someones house. The lady in the house came out screaming and hollering at us and called every enforcement officer in the region to get a reason why we shouldn't be there. Unknowing to her he was sitting in the seat next to me fully understading our right to be there. She cussed our names and accused us of badmouthing people on the river the day before (in which I floated it with "lepper" a local pastor) so I'm sure that didn't happen. Anyhow the cop floated it two days later and obviously she heard of the busts by us lower in the river and the fact he WAS a cop and stopped to fish the hole again and she didn't even come out of her house.

It just shows it's nothing more than a smokescreen by the landowner if you know the laws completely in the area you're fishing. Also, deeds on certain lands are public info. so you can find out exactly who owns what at the local title company. One thing to remember FYI, a lot of properties are tied with property pins and not to the edge of water. The river constantly changes and thus can change property ownership also. This can be good or bad, but make sure to know which one it is.

Also, one last thing is one of the entities that can order a Navagability study is the courts. I guarantee the owner on the Jon Day didn't expect what he got in having them issue a ticket for trespass. Several landowners have threatened to call the cops and I say that's fine, I intend to fight it and mandate this river gets a study done. Do you realize what that means?? You loose officially all ownership of the bank to the high water mark because virtually every river that allows salmon or steelhead fishing in Oregon will classify under some sort of commerce. Then you can be responsible for it. I haven't had a single one say another word yet.

tc

[ 01-26-2004, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: tailchaser ]

[Scruffy Bearded Varmint]

Steelheadsteve,

In regard to your question about the arrest on the Trask River. ANWS has the details and have been working with the defendant to get it resolved. I used the word “arrest” when it may have been a “citation issued.” My apology for the confusion I may have caused. I always thought they were about the same thing. Thank you for pointing out the difference.
----------

To all following this issue,

THIS IS NOT ABOUT ACCESS! I, and many others do not believe this is an access issue. Under relative few circumstances, has the Supreme Court of the United States said that a landowner must provide access to a waterway held in Public Trust. Nor can the State force them to. We are fighting to preserve our right to continue using our Public Trust Lands, not gain additional access to them. We already have legal access to that land through public lands that periodically touch the streams, or by permission from accommodating landowners.
----------

AVOID STREAMSIDE CONFRONTATIONSCORR does not advocate streamside altercations and do not advise any angler to try and set an example by arguing with a law enforcement officer. If you get cited or arrested for trespass, you will need to use your own money to defend yourself. Please avoid streamside confrontation. It can only hurt our cause. It will not help it.
----------

THIS IS ABOUT HONORING CURRENT LAW In spite of what many people choose to believe, all Oregonians, not just anglers, have certain rights to use navigable waters – waters that may or may not flow across private land. The landowner, as ruled by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions, may not deny the public those rights. Currently, the laws of Oregon recognize those rights. This is about making sure the State of Oregon protect them as well.

"...SB 293 has received 3 or 4 hearings in my committee on Water and Land Use. I generally agree with your assessment that the bill is designed to exclude the public from our waterways."
Comment from Senator Ringo
Email dated 4/28/2003

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The above quote from Senator Ringo pretty much sums up what is going on in Oregon, whether you choose to accept it or not. A small, but powerful group wants to privatize Oregon’s waterways and in the past five legislative sessions, sponsored bills to bring about that end. CORR is a grassroots backlash to those efforts. The group formed to protect the rights of all Oregonians, landowners, and recreational water users alike.

I would like everyone to give some thought to the following question. Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that one person’s right is more or less important than another’s right?

At this time, a handful of elitist landowners appear to think that their rights are more important than the rights of the public. They are not. Some recreational river users believe their rights are more important than landowner’s rights. They are not. Because of the vagueness of current laws and confusion over the rights of both parties, law enforcement agencies often times simply do not know how to respond. That too, is not right.

CORR’s goal is to put into place a single set of rules that everyone can understand – a single set of rules that apply to all waterways in the same way. Many of those that founded CORR own streamside property, myself included. We understand the owner’s point of view. We also use rivers for recreation so we also see the other side. We’re tired of all the wrong assumptions, sweeping generalizations, and attempts to take away the right of one just to enhance the right of another.

As citizens, you and I have two choices. We can let things go on as they have; following the ever-growing trail of restrictions place on recreational river users and the inherent increasing privatization of our waterways as a result. Or we can resolve this in a way that favors all Oregonians. The choice is yours.

CORR will continue to educate the public about their right to use our waterways. We will also strive to resolve this issue one way or another. We can do it through the legislature with a law that recognizes the legal rights of the public to use the water and the land beneath it as protect by both state and Federal law. We can do it with litigation that forces the State of Oregon to follow existing laws and win our case in the Supreme Court. We can pass a ballot initiative that forces the Oregon State Legislature to recognize the public right under existing law. One way or another we will get this job done.

Landowners have choices as well. They can join CORR in working toward an equitable solution for all Oregonians. Or they can look forward to further navigability studies such as the one on the Sandy River. As a result of that study the Sandy River Property Owners lost land by default when the State declared the Sandy a “legally navigable river.” Had those same landowners recognized the public’s right as protected by Federal Law, the navigability study would never of happened and they would still hold title to the land.

As I said in another thread, over 1/3 of all public trust land is in private ownership. Owning Public Trust Land is a privilege not a right. There is a string attached to that privilege. The titled owner (jus privatum) of Public Trust Land has no legal authority to deny the public’s prior claim (jus publicum) to the use of the Public Trust Land beneath a navigable waterway. That land and the water over it was set aside for the use of all citizens for transportation, commerce, angling, and other water related activities regardless of ownership. That is the law, regardless of whether people believe it or not.

CORR did not make these laws up. ANWS did not make these laws up. The Continental Congress of the United States of America did. The Supreme Court of the United States upholds these laws. The State of Oregon recognizes these laws exist and includes them in our State Statutes. Special interest groups with deep pockets keep trying to get the Oregon State Legislature to pass more laws that give everything to upland property owners and take everything away from the Citizens of Oregon. This is a land grab. Is that what you want?

As a group of individuals, Coalition for Oregon River Rights finally got sick and tired of big money land lobbyists and people moving in from out of state trying to strip away our rights. We believe this issue is to important and to big to trust to our legislature. After all, they are the ones that screwed things up, and created this mess we have today.

I would like everyone reading this to do two things:

First go back and read the Ifish thread titled, “Oregon Law Sez…” and take the time to review the links to the specific laws referred to. http://www.ifish.net/cgi-local/ultim...c;f=1;t=033126

Second, contact CORR at www.riverrigts.org and help us in working toward a solution that is equitable to all.

CORR will continue to educate all Oregonians about the laws that protect their Public Trust Doctrine rights. We will also work to educate law enforcement agencies and landowners about the laws that protect those rights. And we will continue working toward a solution that is equitable to all Oregonians.

Scruffy

[ 01-26-2004, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Scruffy Bearded Varmint ]

[F F Jack]

Stew,

You are still trying to spin this river access issue. You know as well as I, if a navigability study is done and a river is declared navigable, the landowner will have no control of his property, up to the high water mark. The landowners will not be able to ask people to leave no matter how many there are, or what they are doing day or night.

Steelhead Steve,

After reading your post on thes river access issue, it would seem to me that people with your attitude is what is causing most of the problems between guides, bank fishermen and landowners.

[tailchaser]

"if a navigability study is done and a river is declared navigable, the landowner will have no control of his property, up to the high water mark. The landowners will not be able to ask people to leave no matter how many there are, or what they are doing day or night." [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]

Let me explain, if it was navigable it's public property, NOT THE LANDOWNERS! Let's make that perfectly clear. He can still have control over what's his, this doesn't mean anyone can cross it, it just means they can fish there freely without being badgered as long as it was accessed legally. I get the feeling you are one of the landowners and want to protect the attitude everyone faces out there. And no, you won't be able to ask them to leave no matter how many are fishing in front of your house or what time of day it is. That's the whole point if deemed navigable. I don't have the right to move someone in the street in front of my house playing baseball do I? I may not like them there doing that, but as long as they don't impeed on my property they can be there. The landowner made that choice when he bought the property. Get over the greed, you can't own something that's deemed public property from day one no matter what the real estate guy told you.

tc

[ssteelheadsteve]

FF Jack
Thank you for the kind and thoughtful compliment.It has been long battle. I have fought the evil forces of ignorant landowners since the early seventies.Most think this issue is relatively new.It is not. It was settled on Feb.14 1859. For several years the State told me that I could not have a copy of the original " Blue Book " which outlined the public's rights and gave Courts specific case law concerning navagability.It was not available because the people that forced it to be written were the "priveleged landowners ". After they saw the court rulings in the offocial blue book from the DSL the privleged few took every opportunity to make it's contents unavailable to the public or Oregon State Agencies.Thanks to my constant attack and legal threats the state finally printed a few more copies " for sale".I even sent copies to the State Police and the AG's office.For 20 years I never had a real problem with the State Police or County Sheriff concerning river access.Yes there were some heated conversations between myself,landowners and rookie cops who after calling the station house always left me alone.After 20 years the cats in power at the State and County level had retired and the new guys were not aware of the law.Things started getting a little strange and here we are revisiting this old issue again. If you really want to know what your talking about you must get a copy of the "blue book on navagability" from the DSL or whatever ageny claims ownership. It's all there in black and white. No DA in the state will take a case after reading the " blue book ".When this legislation (Navagability Study) was passed the proponets were sure they had won the battle and the war because surely no one would offer to navigate a set of lengthy rules as time consuming and costly as a " Navagability Study ". The land grabbers win is their Waterloo.Thusly they now fight to stop the very process they sent into motion. KARMA. If the name State Senator Ted Ferrioli is known to you and you fish,boat or hunt, know well that a vote for him is vote against river access. MR. Ferrioli is a well financed puppet of the timber,mining and cattle industries.He was raised in the Willamette Valley and for several years in my youth I called him friend.I am very dissapointed with his adult performance.Knowing what a great gentleman and outdoor enthusiast his father was I am dismayed by his actions.However I am not in his shoes.WE all have bills to pay.But at what price our souls ?

[BUGLEMAN]

ssteelheadsteve - Do you have a copy of the "blue book"? It would be interesting to see what you are talking about.

[Dakotan]

Steelhead Steve,
Maybe you could provide a link to the "blue book." It sounds like it just may end a few arguments.

[ssteelheadsteve]

When I closed the Sandy River Watershed Council I gave a huge number of documents and books to the new organization.The new organization is the Sandy basin something or other and when I last had contact with them they were mostly Sandy landowners,dreamers and folks who wanted to be "somebody ".The landowners want only wild fish because they know that with the very limited number of wild fish "only " in "their" river the fishing hordes will leave the Sandy alone. The " dreamers " have no idea what the total possible biomass of the Sandy is but they believe with proper management the river can provide fishing and a harvest of wild fish.It can't and it will not. They are ignorant of the real carrying capacity of the Sandy but will fight for "wild " fish at all costs.Their voice is being heard as the loudest in Salem and that is why you see your fishing outside the Columbia declining.When they quit using hatch boxes and planting fish you realize there are no fish.The Sandy is a perfect example.Low gradient south coast streams with lots of spawning tribs have seen some good short term results with Broodstock programs.These systems are much more complex (larger biomass) than the Wilson, Nestucca,Sandy and Clack.Broodstock are nothing more than hatchery fish from within that particular basin.When the ocean once again fails to "turn over" and it will, then watch the panic set in.Closed hatcheries,bad ocean,reliance on limited numbers of broodstock and efforts to stop natural straying will result in the Public finally figuring out that the FEDS ARE running the show.Sports anglers have no " standing " with the FEDS.That's right sportsmen are lower than gillnetters in the eye's of our government.One Nation under God with Salmon for only the Natives.This is why gillnetting must end if sports are to stay in the game.Natives, gillnetter,Sportsman in that order.We send Rover to Mars yet we are the only nation that still allows freshwater gillnetting.Any nation that is stupid enough to send lawyers to make it's laws deserve's what it gets.
The " Blue Book " was one of the documents I gave away. In the early 70's I paid about $24 per copy.Contact DSL ( Division of State Lands ) for a copy.Search oregon.gov.Don't be misled. Get the Blue book that deals with navagability.The "official" Blue Book known as the " Oregon Blue Book " is not what you want. At the fist sign of resitance ask for the director.ANWS must have a copy. I sent them 1 in 1976-77.They didn't think it was important at the time.Boy were they wrong !They didn't like me much then and I doubt they like me much more these days.They have not had good leadership for decades. On the other hand and in all fairness try hearding cats and getting fishermen to open their wallets.Now anglers are grossly misrepresented by NISA which truly is only interested in NISA's economic well being. I don't really want to shake hands with the Govenor or any other big shots. I just want them to do the job they are being overpaid for !This is no doubt more info than you asked for. Sorry.... hope this helps... back to my fly vise

[ 01-28-2004, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: ssteelheadsteve ]

[Oregon Beaver]

I'd like to go back to the question that started this discussion. All tidally influenced waterwasys in the State of Oregon are owned by the state, per Oregon State Law. The Trask river is tidally influenced from the mouth to River Mile 4.3 @ T2S-R9W Sec.6 and the Wilson River from the mouth to RM 3.1 @T1S-R9W Sec. 20 according to a "Stete Ownership of Navigable Waterways" dated March 15, 2002. This means access of the normally submersible lands up to the Normal High Water Mark. State ownership of the rest of these two rivers is a constitutional issue and is still pending resolution in accordance with a restrictive state law put on the books in 1995. As a result of that law a Navigability Study Request for the Trask River was submitted by the Beaverton Chapter of the Association of Northwest Steelheaders to DSL years ago and is still pendin. Another similar study request for the Sandy River was submitted by the Sandy River Chapter of the Steelheaders in 1996 and just a year ago it was approved and the state has asserted it's ownership of the Sandy River normally submersible lands up to River Mile 37.5. A study is currently in process for the John Day River submitted by the John Day River Steelheaders.The Association of Northwest Steelheaders have been and continues to be one of the driving forces behind this issue. It's greatful to see so many other groups and individuals involved. Keep up these discussions gang and rember education is better than confrontation.

[ssteelheadsteve]

Hey Larry ?
" Education is better than confrontation "
Tell that to the boys who died at Concord and Bunker Hill. This issue was burried for nearly 20 years by the legislature because they knew the outcome and did not want to deal with the
landowners.Confrontation is the only thing that brought this to the forefront.I wonder where Montana would be today if I had not cut barbed wire fences strung across The Big Hole River from my Drift Boat in 1980 while giving the local Sherfiff the California Howdy. NO MORE NEGOTIATIONS ON RIVER ACCESS.THE COURTS HAVE SPOKEN ON THIS WITH GREAT CLARITY.Any other negotiations on this issue will just further the cause of the landowners and fog the facts. Please reread the " Oregon Blue Book on the Navagability of of Oregon Waterways.

[ 01-28-2004, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: ssteelheadsteve ]

[ssteelheadsteve]

" Now you want to see something really scary ?"
Some agency/landowner has put a rule on the books that says you can not be on the banks of the Sandy River between roughly dusk & dawn. No Camping.I was told by a sheriff that if my eyes were closed I was "camping".
Now then all they have to do is shut down a access point here and there around the state so that you can't float between two points in one day and they hae effectivly closed the river to float and possibly foot traffic. This ruling needs to be challenged NOW ! Mult. & Clack. counties have adopted the same approach.Wher ever there is trash dumping,kids swimming or Anglers fishing they just go and put No Parking signs up. In the case of the Stark St. Bridge the County even paid to fence and gate a piece of private property to keep you from geting to the river.

[BUGLEMAN]

OH yeh! I am burt by all the singage the county has put up along the Sandy. They even put up guard rail along a nice parking area to close it.

[Oregon Beaver]

Steve; The education I'm talking about making people aware of what the public's right are on Oregon's rivers but also what thier responsibilities are, i.e. picking up after themselves and showing respect for the rights of others. I appreciate the awareness you had, as you say, back in 1973 and it's too bad there wasnt anyone in the ANWS, or any other fishing organization for that matter, that would take up the river navigability issue at that time. The ANWS did take part in toning down the 1995 legislation which created the Navigability Study Process. The ANWS got into this issue in a big way in 1996 when the DSL called a series of Stakeholders meeting in Salem to try to resolve the navigability issue without doing a study river by river. There were a number of fishing organizations that were attending these meetings. Many of these joined together in a Coalition of River Users which held their meeting in the ANWS office. We operated as a group and still have ties. The ANWS went out on their own when it came to challenging the system in court, i.e. the John Day River trespass case, which we won. We have spent over $50,000 so far on this issue with only about five percent coming from others. We have put our money where we have put our voices and actions. We don't have to take a back seat to anyone or need to apoligize for what we haven't done. We have a huge inventory of documents including studies, court cases, hearings, minutes, and other data which is more than enough to deal with this matter. As for the last seven years we have directly particaped in virtually every activity dealing with this issue and will continue to do so. We thrive on these discussions because what we are doing here is educating folks about this issue and hopefully motivating more and more people to get involved. We can't agree on everything or every approach but let's keep heading in the same direction. We all want the same thing, public rights that were granted to us at statehood. PEACE.. Larry Beaver, Former Director of River access, ANWS P.S. Art Israelson, present Director of River Access is doing a hell of a great job on this issue and is working with a number of trespass cases, with very good success. He can be reached through the ANWS at 503-653-4176.

[F F Jack]

In 1859, there were no "elite" sportsmen, life was more basic. The rivers were needed for transportation and commerce.You could go anywhere and shoot all the game and catch all the fish you wanted. Times have changed and the population has exploded.We all had a lot of "rights" we don't have today.

In 1859, the farmer had the right to water his stock from the river. The timber owner had the right to cut every tree to the waters edge. The homesteader had the right to build his house or outhouse on the waters edge.

The farmers now have to put their fences 20 feet from the high water mark of the river and find another source of water for their stock. The timber owner may not cut any trees within 50 feet of the river. The riverfront home owner may not build any structures within at least 50 feet of the high water mark. He must also maintain riparian vegitation and not cause any disturbance that will cause erosion.

All this has an economic impact on the property owners. It is done in the hope of maintaining and restoring the fish runs for all. I think the finger of "greed" is being pointed in the wrong direction. Perhaps it is really just "jealousy" by a few.

[Scruffy Bearded Varmint]

F F Jack;

One right the propety owners did not recieve on February 14, 1859 was a right to own a navigable waterway below the high-water mark. They could not buy it. They could not sell it. They did not have that right before February 14, 1859, and the hand of providence didn't somehow grant them that right today.

You know why they didn't have those rights Jack? I'll tell you why. Because that land was held in trust by the Federal Government until such time Oregon became a State. When that happened, all the submerged and submersible land along those streams was given over to the State with the provision that the state must make sure it remained forever free for the public to use. That's why.

Don't believe me? Read the Oregon Admissions Act. The Equal Footings Doctrine, and the current laws of Oregon. Come to think of it, I'll bump the thread, "Oregon Law Sez..." so you can find those laws. Heck, I'll even post about a dozen Oregon Supreme Court decisions that back back up those laws if you want me to.

Make no mistake about it Jack, the move to privatize Oregon's waterways represents a very real threat to our way of life. You may be perfectly content to give up your right to fish along Oregon's streams. I'm not.

The move to privatize Oregon's waterways represents a taking of land. The out and out theft of public land by an elite group of landowners that think their rights are way more important than your right, my right and everyone else's rights. They're not.

Remember, those of us fighting the move to privatize your rivers and deny your right to use public waterways for recreation do not believe this is about access. It is about keeping what is legally ours. Jack, you may be willing to throw it away. We're not.

Now if your concerned bout keeping Oregon's rivers and streams open to all, join in. We need all the help we can get. You can find us at www.riverrights.org on the net.

And for those of you against keeping Oregon's waterways free and open to all, just remember one thing; the minute you step off your own little piece of heaven, you're just like the rest of us. And you will be excluded, just like the rest of us.

Once that tiny handful of elite property owners privatize your rivers, where do you think you will fish? You think bank angling is to crowded now? You think there are to many boats on the Willamette? You think the confrontations between boat and bank anglers happen to frequently? Well, you ain't seen nothing yet Jack! Wait until you can't anchor your boat anywhere along a stream except in those few, tiny areas that adjoin public land.

Ask yourself this, do you want to keep Oregon's Rivers free and open to all? Or do you want to go to a limited entry fishery with assigned water on select days? That is what the move to privatize Oregon's rivers will lead to once the special interest lobbyists have their way with us. And every time someone thinks we should accept any compormise offered by the landed gentry, they're wrong! I can guarantee you a compromise can only mean one thing, and one thing only -- you the public looses and the landowners gain.

Also remember for a fact that a huge percentage of those deeds landowners say give them ownership of our rivers and streams also make it perfectly clear the the landowner does not have clear title to the bed and banks to the high water mark. Just because a landowner finds it convenient to forget that clause, it does not mean that clause just disappears, now does it?

You want to talk about economics? Okay Jack, lets talk about economics

First off, the property values along a navigable waterway do not go down if the public continues to use the river. A lot of Sandy River property owners tried to use the "land value" argument to get people to buy into their "poor landowner" economic B.S. It was and is a cheap trick with no merit. Property values along the Sandy River continued to increase after the State declared the river navigable and took title to the river bottom. Economic impact on property owners is an absolute bogus argument -- a bogus argument only a fool would buy into.

You want real economic impact, think about this. In 2002 over 6000 boaters used the John Day River. 6000 people bought food, gas, and gear in small towns in Central Oregon. 6,000 people bought boats, equipment, and supplies from small businesses all over the state. Now you explain to me Jack, just exactly why the economic interest of 110 landowners along the John Day River are more important than the economic interests of thousands of small business owners all over Oregon. Sorry Jack. Your economics argument does not hold water!

We have a few sporting good shop owners and a lot of guides that participate in the Ifish community. Lets here from you folks. How will it impact your business when private property owners keep you from floating, fishing, or anchoring in front of their land? Will that help your business? Will it add to your family's economic well being?

After working on this issue and seeing these people in action, I can tell you that is exactly the type of control a handful of riverfront property owener are driving for. They are demanding the power to close "their rivers" to any and all public use. Signs that read "No Boating, No Fishing," That is what they want. That is what you will get... unless you make the right choice now.

You talk about jealousy, Jack. Okay. Let's talk jealousy. Two people at the very vanguard of the fight to keep Oregon's waterways -- your waterways -- free and open to all, own riverfront property Jack. Our deeds say we own to the middle of the river. We also believe that in a true democratic society, one person's right is not more or less important than another person's right. Sorry Jack. Your simplistic and naive argument of jealously just doesn't cut bait!

You talk about "the fingers of greed." Well Jack, I can tell you exactly who's hands those fingers of greed are attached to becasue I saw those hands at work down in Salem -- in Salem and at work trying to steal your rivers Jack. Those fingers of greed you talk about are firmly attached to the hands of fat-cat developers, realtors, and big landowners. Wealthy, influence buying, landgrabbers that know land adjoining any stream is valuable land but land adjoining a stream with absolute privacy would be obscenely valuable. Why do you think they want to privatize your streams and kick you and everyone esle off them. Greed's the only reason I can come up with.

Yes Jack, I can tell you what those fingers of greed are grasping for because I've seen it. Privatized rivers, fatter commission checks, and rampant unchecked development along our streams. Is that what you want?

Now let me ask you to explain something to us Jack. Would you explain to all of us exactly where in the Oregon State Constitution, or the Constitution of the United States does it say that you and I have to give up our rights just so a handful of landowners can fatten their wallets? I read those documents and I sure didn't see it in their, did you?

[ChuckDog]

(I couldn't find an 'AMEN' instant gremlin...)

[F F Jack]

Scruffy,

You are full of more BS than the air in Tillamook.

Your tirade was full of half truths, misstatements and lies. You are trying to scare folks int supporting your cause.

If they were correct, we would not be having this discussion.

Nobody is trying to take away anyone's right to fish.It has been agreed that the public has the right to float down the river unharassed, anchor and fish and get out of their boat, if needed, to land fish or make repairs. So, what is your problem?

Do you want the "right" to tromp up and down the banks and cause erosion?
Do you want the "right" to tromp up and down in the stream and ruin the spawning beds?
Do you want the "right" to anchor in front of the bank fisherman and block his fishing?
Do you want the "right" to pull up to the bank with a roll of toilet paper and relieve yourself?
Do you want the "right" to run a shuttle service and drop people off on the banks?

I'm afraid we are heading toward "limited entry". The fishery and the environment can not stand the pressure or our NW salmon will be gone like the Atlantic salmon. We may be able to thank ANWS for this happening "sooner" rather than "later".

If we act responsiblily toward the environment, our fellow fisherman, and the landowners, it will be "later".

[ 02-01-2004, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Pete ]

[Oregon Beaver]

I'd like to respond to Jack's comments in particular. Having been in this issue since 1996 in a big way I have heard about every horror story that can be told from both sides of the issue. This issue is about public rights, which do not include the rights to break the laws and rules already on the books or the rules of common decency. There have been some instances of barb wire was being strung across navigable rivers to keep people off the river and people were being arrested because they were there. This was illegal because the public, all of us, owns the water. The floatage easement issue has not been fully established in Oregon which defines the public rights up to the normal high water mark. Therefore some property owners are still trying to have people arrested for dropping anchor, getting out of their boats, and walking on the bank below the high water mark. All this because their deed showed ownership incuded the normally submersible lands. There will continue be some owners that feel this way until this issue is finally resolved. Jack talks about protecting the habitat, etc and suggests that the public should be kept off the banks and bottom. That's a fish and wildlife issue for one thing and not an ownership/public rights issue. There are already laws on the books against trespass, littering, and other offensive acts. Disposal of human wastes is a problem but not an ownership/public rights issue. I personally feel that every floating device should carry some sort of porta pottie. Living on a river is not going to make a person immune from the bad mannors or offensive actions any more than living where there are highways, streets, sidewalks, parks, and all the other places that people use, and some abuse. We need clarification of the law and especially more enforcement and let's don't leave out self enforcement. This issue can only go one way in the long road and that's what the constitution, and especially the U.S. Supreme Court has been saying all along about navigable waterways being common highways to be kept forever free.

[Scruffy Bearded Varmint]

Your tirade was full of half truths, misstatements and lies. You are trying to scare folks int supporting your cause.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">F F Jack,

Please be specific in your rebuttal. I tried to be in mine.

When you accuse a person of lieing, you have an obligation to state what the specific lie was and provide irrefutable documentation to prove it was a lie, don't you? When you accuse a person of a mistatement, you have an obligation to say what that mistatement was and offer a correction to that statement based on facts, don't you? And when you accuse a person of telling half-truths, you have an obligation to offer the other half of that truth, don't you?

Jack, I want you to know that I have done my homework on this issue.

I read the Oregon Admissions Act. Did you?

I have read the laws regarding both water and streambed owenrship in Oregon. Have you?

I carefully studied Seante Bill 293 in its original form. Did you?

I went to Salem and attended every hearing regarding the issue of navigability during the last legislative session. Did you?

I have researched and read sixteen Oregon State Supreme Court Decisions (and have many more to read) dating clear back to 1860, regarding the public's right to use our rivers and streams. Have you?

I have read the ten-year statewide study of navigable waterways in the State of Oregon. Have you?

I have researched to some extent the economic impact excluding the public from our waterways will have on small businesses such as guide services, and tackle suppliers. Did you?

Jack, I suggest that before you accuse me of half truths, misstatements and lies, you demonstrate a clear understanding of exactly what we are facing in Oregon regarding the drive to privatize our rivers and the absolute mess previous Oregon Legislatures have made of this issue. Then we'll talk.

Speaking of scare tactics, you asked some specific questions. While you failed to address a single one of the questions you were asked, I will answer those you posed as a matter of courtesy.

"Do you want the "right" to tromp up and down the banks and cause erosion?"

No Jack, I don't. The court has affirmed my right to walk below the high water mark which by its very definition is below the bank. I intend to keep that right. I do not advocate nor will I support any law change that allows anglers or anyone else, to have unchecked access above the high water mark on the stream behind my home or anyone else's home for that matter.

Cattle are the number one cause of bank erosion in Oregon. The Oregon Cattlemen's Association were the driving force behind the origianl Senate Bill 293.

"...SB 293 has received 3 or 4 hearings in my committee on Water and Land Use. I generally agree with your assessment that the bill is designed to exclude the public from our waterways."
Comment from Senator Ringo
Email dated 4/28/2003

Draw your own conclusions.


Do you want the "right" to tromp up and down in the stream and ruin the spawning beds?

Technically, I already have that right so your question is moot. The only way to keep people from destroying spawning beds would be to completely close the waterway to angling during the entire spawning and inccubation period. Perhaps Jack, if you're concern is for natural fish reproduction, you would advocate for such closures on a statewide basis, wouldn't you?


Do you want the "right" to anchor in front of the bank fisherman and block his fishing?

Again, technically I do have this right, however, common courtesy would prevent me from doing so. The drive by those that want to privatize our streams has a twofold purpose. Stop all anchoring, and prevent all pedestrian activity. They not only don't want you to anchor, but they don't want the bank anglers on "their river" either.

Do you want the "right" to pull up to the bank with a roll of toilet paper and relieve yourself?

Jack, surely you know that this is an illegal activity under current law. If you or anyone you know, does this on a regular basis, please photograph them in the act and report them to the authorities. If possible, include the OR Marine Board number of the craft in your report.


Do you want the "right" to run a shuttle service and drop people off on the banks?

Wow! Where did this one come from? I admit it sounds like a good business model for some an entrepreneur with a van. One would need proper licensing from the PUC I suppose, but I bet it would break even. If nothing else, the driver would get his day of fishing paid for, wouldn't he? I suspect that under current Oregon Law, this is already a legal business activity. Again, existing statutes make your question moot.

One final point, Jack. You closed with the following:

"I'm afraid we are heading toward "limited entry". The fishery and the environment can not stand the pressure or our NW salmon will be gone like the Atlantic salmon. We may be able to thank ANWS for this happening "sooner" rather than "later".

The Original version and first amendments to Senate Bill 293 contained a clause that would allow private landowners to establish "organizatonal camps." It then gave "organizational camps" the authority to prevent anyone from anchoring or angling in the water in front of the camp. It was a license to allow private fishing clubs to put a lock on miles of Oregon streams. While not a limited entry system such as you describe it would nevertheless, be a limited entry system.

I was able to get this clause struck from SB293 only after I explained my concerns to the author of the first amendments to SB 293. She went back, researched the clause, determined I was correct, and took the clause out of the bill. Ted Ferrioli put this clause in the bill for a reason, don't you think? He also tried to expand the clause to cover lease state lands. This maneuver would have let the lease holder sign over stream rights on leased state land right along with the private land. Cute trick, don't you think?

[F F Jack]

Scruffy & Fish Bait

Perhaps if we can get this river access issue approved, we can have the banks of the Wilson lined with people such as below Mills Bridge or the Salmon River at Highway 101.

You city folk could feel right at home with the combat fishing conditions.

[Pete]

Guys, if there is any more foul language or disrespectful personal attacks, this thread will disappear. There is plenty of content for a civil discussion about this subject ... Please keep focused on the issue.

[BuKuBass]

F F Jack...Actually if the river access issue is resolved the way that most of us want, there'll be less congestion since more rivers will be opened up for all of us to enjoy.

[Scruffy Bearded Varmint]

F F Jack,

Please leave my name out of any discussion regarding as you say "this river access issue." I have no interest in fighting for access to our rivers. As far as I'm concerned, access is irelevant.

If you read my posts carefully, you will note that I do not use the word access in them for the most part. You will find three exceptions in which I used the word "access" a total of just seven times. In my first post I used access five times in one paragraph -- one paragraph in which I explained this is not a river access issue, it is a right to continue using our rivers issue. Big difference Jack.

I used the word access one time in my third post, only to remind readers that I do not believe this is about access. Recreational users have all the access they need without infringing on upland property owners, don't they?

I used access one more time in my last post. I did so in response to a specific question you asked Jack. In that response I clearly stated I was opposed to any rule change that would grant river users additional access above the high water mark.

We will never resolve this issue as long as property owners insist on talking about access. No one in CORR wants more access to our rivers. Furthermore, we do not necessarily want further navigability studies, either. We have been and will continue to work toward a river use solution that protects the right of all Oregonians to use our waterways, while at the same time, providing greater protection to upland property owners. For me, the high water mark is a line recreational river users have no right to cross with two exceptions: portage and emergencies. That is current law. We want nothing more.

I am only interested in debating the merits of the rules and regulations that involve the bed of our waterways between the high water marks. Anything beyond that is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. As long as landowners keep in sisting this is about access, I doubt we will ever see satisfactory resolution.

If landowners keep insisting that access is the issue, then recreationalists will have no choice but to pursue further navigablity studies under current state law. If you paid attention to what happened on the Sandy River, you know this is not the best solution, especially for landowners.

I believe that Montana, of all the states, did the best job addressing this issue. They developed a set of rules that are simple, easy to understand, and apply to everyone. They did not get into the ownership issue, although they could have, and if they did they would have created the same nightmare we have now. Instead, they just said look, according to federal law, the public has certain rights on our streams and according to federal law so do landowners. With that, they created a solution that works. Since Montana took a common sense approach to the river use issue, conflicts between landowners and recreationalist have tapered off to darn near slam shut.

[fishbait]

http://statelands.dsl.state.or.us/navlaw.pdf


http://statelands.dsl.state.or.us/navigintro.htm


http://statelands.dsl.state.or.us/navig_history.htm


http://www.db-x.com/dd/corr_brochure.pdf

[ 02-01-2004, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: fishbait ]

[Oregon Beaver]

Well said Scruffy. The Association of Northwest Steelheaders has been saying this for years. There is an old saying in the legal profession. When you have the law on your side you argue the law. When you have the facts on your side you argue the facts. When you have neither the law or facts on your side you just argue. The latter is what the gentleman from the Wilson is doing. This mornings Oregonian has quite an article about a multi millionier from Michigan who has been buying up hords of acres in Eastern Oregon and is shutting off access; even to historical sites and a 911 communications site. It reminds me of an oldtimer fisherman from Tillamook who told me how all the Californians coming into the area and buying up riverfront property and he no longer had the ability to get to many of his favorite fishing holes. Closing access across one's property is legal. Trying to close off public use of the normally submersible lands of navigable waterways is another thing. That's what this issue is about.

[fishbait]

Originally posted by F F Jack:
Scruffy & Fish Bait

Perhaps if we can get this river access issue approved, we can have the banks of the Wilson lined with people such as below Mills Bridge or the Salmon River at Highway 101.

You city folk could feel right at home with the combat fishing conditions.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">FF Jack, Personal attacks only muddy the waters, besides you have no idea of where I live or how I fish. So lets raise the bar and debate the merits and the issues, and hopefully help inform more people along the way. Lets try working towards a solution of part of this States natural resources that will make the late great govenor Tom McCall as proud of this solution as we are of his solution to dealing with our beaches. Have a nice day............

[skrimmy]

Fishbait - [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[OneLastCast]

Fishbaits reference to Gov. McCall is a good subject to relate to. In essence he did the very thing that is being discussed here. Asserted the publics claim to all beaches below the Mean High Water. That decision has held up in the Supreme Court. This sneaking around in the legislature is disgusting. The process is there, let DSL do its job and accept the findings.
Although being a “greedy” riverfront landowner myself (who owns to the Mean High Water) I find some of this talk of confrontation a little disturbing.

[BUGLEMAN]

I think we all have a little bit different definition of what a confrontation is. To me the confrontation begins when 1) the land owner says to leave you are trespassing and 2) I the user - below mean high water line - begin to explain to the landowner who actually owns the land befor I begin to leave. I can't afford to prove it in court so hence I will leave before the police show up or the shotgun is pulled out of his/her trench coat. :smile: