IFish Fishing Forum banner

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
STREAMSIDE TRESPASS ARREST

I understand that over the weekend four fishermen were arrested for trespass on the Trask River. I heard they entered the stream at a point where they had entered before. They fished upstream, never leaving the streambed. They were confronted by a property owner. Later a sheriff's deputy showed up and arrested them. The fine is $299 per person. Can anyone verify this?

Has anyone ever drifted the Trask? If you did, would you say it is navigable? The State is sitting on the Trask River Navigability Study request, just as they are sitting on the John Day request. Had the state moved on the navigability study and determined the Trask navigable, this would never have happened.

Add to this a statement made in Bend regarding the justification for keeping boats of a section of the Deschutes River:

"The river is public but we own the land on the sides of it and underneath. We're charged with taking care of it. We're the guardians of the river and we don't want to see somebody get hurt," said ShanRae Hawkins, spokeswoman for the Old Mill District."

This is your future. Either accept it or fight it. Don't complain about it after the fact.

HB 3657 LIVES BUT JUST BARELY

HB 3657 the bill to create a Sandy River Mangement Plan, remains a factor and will further muddy the water. As a long shot, I would not be surprised to see it get past the House and even the Senate. Regardless, I venture to guess that in the next session, we will see similar bills for the Trask, the N. & S. Santiam and other rivers, too.

SB 928 HEARING RESCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW

If we do not force this issue now, we will loose our rights forever. Property owners will just keep chipping away at them until we have nothing left. Is that what you want?

The first Public Hearing on SB 928 will take place Wednesday, August 13, 2:30 p.m. in Hearing Room B at the State Capitol.

If anyone can come and testify against this bill please do so.

I understand that the Legislative Counsel drafted amendments that pretty much reflect the Administrative Summary posted earlier. It is unlikely we will see those amendments before tomorrow at the hearing.

My position remains unchanged. SB 928, like SB 293 lets landowners do an end run around state and federal laws regarding navigable rivers.

If the amendments follow the summary, the bill becomes very similar to the Montana Law. It will only apply to one river. It will be up for review in four years. It resolves nothing. It only prolongs the discussion and gives the landowners more time.

I suspect that in four years (or perhaps even the next session) we will fight this exact same battle with the exact same people over the exact same issue. I do not believe the John Day River Property Owners intend to ever give up as long as the issue remains locked in limbo. SB 928 will keep it there for another four years.

Remember, the John Day River Property Owners have vowed to fight navigability at all cost and they have indicated by their actions, they intend to do everything possible to keep the public off "their river." A state navigability declaration is absolutely the only way to put this issue to rest on the John Day River once and for all. Without it, our rights will never be clarified. Come next session expect another piece of legislation from Ferrioli.

I believe that if the State Land Board mandates the navigability study on the John Day, property owners along all the other navigable rivers and streams will look upon a Montana type solution in a lot more favorable light. Navigability triggers title transfer. The Montana Law does not. Which would you rather have?

With no mandated Navigability Study on the John Day and no likelihood of a mandated study on any other river, Ferrioli wins. The John Day River Property Owners win. Riverfront propertyowners will negotiate from a position of strength. The public looses.

Scruffy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,396 Posts
$299 sounds very much like a F & G violation. Criminal Tresspassing is a misdemeanor and usually requires a person to appear before a judge.

--spud-- :smile:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,034 Posts
Well the talk around town is, after the Willey Nelson concert, some home owners or Condo owners, said they picked up 200 beer cans and bottles floting down the river, well there was alot of people in rafts and boats, but at 37.50 and a sell out there was no other place to enjoy the music, and the water was warm, and yes there was beer drinking, pot smoken going on, but that was not a proublem,
Some people just draged up there rafts over vegetation, flowers, ect.
We were on the river and hade a blast, just watching the people on the bank and in boats.
Less shaub area, is small and to put 4000 people well and the cost, not just for the show and you cant bring anything into the area, water,beer,NOTHING, and the permoter, what a RIP OFF.I would' give the place the time of day.
There was no Fights, everyone hade a good time and the permoter, and the Old Mill owners want to band the river to people who dont want to put up with 4000 people on shore, This is not right, the only time the river is closed is when they have a concert, this is B/S. River-Rat.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top