IFish Fishing Forum banner
  • Are you passionate about fishing? Would you like to write about topics that interest you and get paid for it? Read all about it here!
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A compromise with various groups such as the Cattlemens Association, Farm Bureau and Realtors Association failed.
So nothing has changed and things are still as they were before concerning river access. The NW Steelehaders did win their suit concerning access on sections of the Sandy river but the John Day case remains unsettled. We have not given up but it is clear that this is not going to be easy.
I suggest asking landowners permission before accessing any streambanks by foot. Do not litter and maybe pick up a little garbage along the way.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,726 Posts
Stew,

Good advice.

I would add one thing. Write your elected officals and tell them they need to face up to the navigability issue in Oregon once and for all and settle the issue once and for all.

The compromise was not the answer for the long term anyway, in my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,227 Posts
Frankly, I view the failure of a compromise as a success for our river rights in the longterm.

In my opinion, way too much was being bargained away in the 'compromise' proposal touted Oregon Treasurer, Randall Edwards.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
garyk, I agree but the opposing factions were not going to budge an inch it seemed like. The ANWS at least put an effort in for solving this issue. The other side did not and maybe the best way to solve this is to go back and try to get a definition of what the law says. This looks like it may be headed for legislation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
Originally posted by Stew:
This looks like it may be headed for legislation.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Jeez, I hope not! If you didn't like the failed compromise, just imagine what might come out of the legislature.

This seems like a natural issue for an initiative petition to force the state to recognize the public rights that have existed since statehood. There may be a lot of riparian landowners and they may have influence in the legislature...but they are far outnumbered by anglers. What is needed is someone or some group to get the riparian access initiative campaign rolling. It would be a shoo-in! :wink:
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
GSA said:
There may be a lot of riparian landowners and they may have influence in the legislature
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">BINGO!

What really needs to happen is some sports fishing group with alot of money to spend on lawsuits needs to step forward and fight this out in court. The NW Steelheaders have been at the forefront on this issue and spent alot of money on it but alas they do not have deep pockets.

[ 04-11-2003, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Stew ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
I went to the river access meeting in tillamook on March 25. The riverfront property owners agreed to unlimited floatage and anchoring rights on the Trask River.

I don't understand what ANWS wants. Do they want unlimited bank access? This would only lead to "combat" fishing conditions like the Salmon River on 101, where the banks are lined with corky & yarn "Salmon snaggers".

The Trask River is small and cannot stand that much fishing pressure or environmental damage. This would probably lead to closure like they had to do at the "Dam Hole".
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Originally posted by F F Jack:
I went to the river access meeting in tillamook on March 25. The riverfront property owners agreed to unlimited floatage and anchoring rights on the Trask River.

I don't understand what ANWS wants. Do they want unlimited bank access? This would only lead to "combat" fishing conditions like the Salmon River on 101, where the banks are lined with corky & yarn "Salmon snaggers".

The Trask River is small and cannot stand that much fishing pressure or environmental damage. This would probably lead to closure like they had to do at the "Dam Hole".
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Unlimited floatage rights? Sorry but the water of a river never belonged to landowners in the first place so thanks for nothing. Landowners would be very hard pressed to deny anchoring to passing drift boats and undoubtably would never get a case prosecuted.
The NW Steelheaders want a clear definition of the law! Simple as that.
What has been done in Montana would be a good guide for Oregon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Stew,

Before you spend too much time and money, perhaps you should start with the State Lands & Conservation Dept. Have them recend Goal 5 that applies a 75 ft. "No Touch" riparian setback to the Trask River on 1/01/04.

When you get them straightened out, then you can start working on NOAA.

[ 04-12-2003, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: F F Jack ]
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top