+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Access Issues

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Currently land-locked in South-Central Indiana, USA
    Posts
    61

    Default Access Issues

    In the thread: Anyone else prefer stillwater over moving water flyfishing? Fly Goddess wrote:
    i prefer stillwater. But a lot of that is because of our messed up law here in Utah that land owners own the river that runs through their property. No tresspassing.
    First let me say I am not picking on Fly Goddess here. She just happened to post the comment that spurred my thought.

    While I understand the frustration of not having access, I also understand not wanting just anyone on my property. Especially when I consider the amount of trash, etc. that can be found left by anglers at most any location frequented by "the public". As such, I disagree that the Utah Law is "messed up". (And no, I don't currently own land with a trout stream running through it.)

    Not long ago I was "kicked off" a piece of water that I thought was fair game. When I inquired who and where to obtain permission from to fish the area, I was directed to the owner. I then approached the owner and was told in no uncertain terms that I was not permitted to fish there. When I posted this experience on another Board, Ohiotuber replied with some sage advice on etiquette and approaching land owners for permission. I have since been quite active in "asking" property owners for permission to fish their property, without a rod in hand, and prior to ever setting foot anywhere near their "water". I generally do not even have a rod in the car. My approach is more of: "Can I schedule an appointment, that you don't even need to be here for?" Of the twenty or so owners I have approached in this manner, only three have declined to allow me some sort of access. Granted, I'm not in Utah right now, and most of these waters are "farm ponds". But I'll bet my experience here would prove to be similar in Utah, California, Montana, or anywhere else an individual can restrict access to the water on their land. The exception being if they were using the water as a money producing attraction already. Then you simply have to pay to play.

    The point here is really just to consider the feelings and attitude of the land owner(s) as though it was your land. Speaking for myself... If I had a "Blue Ribbon" trout stream running through my property, I would restrict access to it as well. But if someone showed me the courtesy of asking permission, and followed up with real expressions of gratitude for allowing them access. They'd likely be welcome anytime.

    ---David

  2. #2

    Default

    But here's the catch. The water that runs thru the creeks, streams and rivers in Utah, belong to the people of Utah. A few years back there was a decision by the Utah Supreme Court that ruled the stream beds were fair game and we could wade and fish if we stayed below the high water mark. Some land owners (related to some politicians) didn't like it and they along with real estate agents and the Farm Bureau got with the Utah Legislature to turn over the ruling. Sad thing is, they said to hell with the USC, we're the lawmakers. Curiously enough, through searching records and laws dating back to the 1800's the streambed never did belong to the land owners. They just assumed they owned it. The biggest loudmouth and whiner that has the Lower Provo running along side his land is the brother- in-law of our governor. No influence there.
    But there is 2 lawsuits filed right now to overturn the new law. Just have to wait and see what happens.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Sedro Woolley, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Default

    The section on National River Law discusses river ownership, use, and conservation law throughout the United States. Following is a review of what individual states can and cannot lawfully do with the rivers within their borders.
    1. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that rivers that are navigable, for title purposes, are owned by the states, "held in trust" for the public. This applies in all fifty states, under the "Equal Footing Doctrine."
    2. Rivers that do meet the federal test are automatically navigable, and therefore owned by the state. No court or government agency has to designate them as such.
    3. The federal test of navigability is not a technical test. There are no measurements of river width, depth, flow, or steepness involved. The test is simply whether the river is usable as a route by the public, even in small craft such as canoes, kayaks, and rafts. Such a river is legally navigable even if it contains big rapids, waterfalls, and other obstructions at which boaters get out, walk around, then re-enter the water.
    4. The states own these rivers up to the "ordinary high water mark." This is the mark that people can actually see on the ground, where the high water has left debris, sand, and gravel during its ordinary annual cycle. (Not during unusual flooding.) It is not a theoretical line requiring engineering calculations. Where the river banks are fairly flat, this mark can be quite a distance from the edge of the water during medium water flows. There is often plenty of room for standing, fishing, camping, and other visits.
    5. States cannot sell or give away these rivers and lands up to the ordinary high water mark. Under the "Public Trust Doctrine," they must hold them in perpetuity for public use.
    6. The three public uses that the courts have traditionally mentioned are navigation, fishing, and commerce. But the courts have ruled that any and all non-destructive activities on these land are legally protected, including picnics, camping, walking, and other activities. The public can fish, from the river or from the shore below the "ordinary high water mark." (Note that the fish and wildlife are owned by the state in any case.) The public can walk, roll a baby carriage, and other activities, according to court decisions.
    7. States do have authority and latitude in the way they manage rivers, but their management must protect the public uses mentioned above. They can (and must) prohibit or restrict activities that conflict with the Public Trust Doctrine. "Responsible recreation" must be allowed, but activities that could be harmful, such as building fires, leaving trash, and making noise, can legally be limited, or prohibited, in various areas. Motorized trips and commercial trips can legally be limited or prohibited by state governments.
    8. State and local restrictions on use of navigable rivers have to be legitimately related to enhancing public trust value, not reducing it. Rivers cannot be closed or partially closed to appease adjacent landowners, or to appease people who want to dedicate the river to fishing only, or to make life easier for local law enforcement agencies.
    9. State governments (through state courts and legislatures) cannot reduce public rights to navigate and visit navigable rivers within their borders, but they can expand those rights, and some states have done so. They can create a floatage easement, a public right to navigate even on rivers that might not qualify for state ownership for some reason, even if it is assumed that the bed and banks of the river are private land. Note that this floatage easement is a matter of state law that varies from state to state, but the question of whether a river is navigable, for title purposes, and therefore owned by the state, is a matter of federal law, and does not vary from state to state. Note that a state floatage easement is something that comes and goes with the water: When the water is there, people have a right to be there on it, and when it dries up, people have no right to be there. But rivers that are navigable for title purposes are public land up to the ordinary high water mark, so that even when the river runs dry, people still have the right to walk along the bed of the river.
    10. Only federal courts can modify the test of standards that make a river navigable for title purposes. States cannot create their own standards, either narrower or wider in scope. They can?t make definitive rulings about which rivers are navigable for title purposes, only a federal court can.
    11. The situation gets confusing when a state agency or commission holds hearings about navigability and public use of rivers. Landowners, sheriffs, and other people tend to think that such an agency or commission can create state standards that determine which rivers are public and which are private. But these are matters of federal law which state agencies cannot change.
    12. State agencies should make provisional determinations that various rivers meet the federal test of navigability for title purposes. These provisional determinations should be based simply on the rivers' usability by canoes, kayaks, and rafts. They should then proceed to the question of how to manage navigation and other public uses of the river. In these days of government cut-backs, the agency should look for solutions that use existing enforcement agencies rather than setting up new ones. Littering, illegal fires, offensive behavior, trespassing on private land, and numerous other offenses are all covered by existing laws, and offenders can be cited by the local police, sheriff's office or state police.
    Last edited by Kerry Stratton; 12-31-2011 at 03:28 PM.
    "The reason you have a good vision is you're standing on the shoulders of giants." ~ Andy Batcho

  4. #4

    Default

    Kerry, we can still fish those waters if we float them, but as soon as you get out and wade, the sheriff can bust you.

    Check out http://utahstreamaccess.org/
    Last edited by Mojo; 12-31-2011 at 03:45 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    46

    Default

    If the fish and water resources are managed with funds that are acquired through the State by taxation or fee collection from the public, then the public should have access to those resources. The fish themselves are "owned" by the State, not the adjacent landowner. Why should the adjacent landowner derive additional benefit of that resource by either restricting the enjoyment of others or profiting by charging folks to gain access to a resource that they already own? If discarding trash is the issue, then fine the individual for littering. Different issue in my opinion, why penalize everyone for the obnoxious behaviors of a few. I am a landowner that has a trout stream running through it. Never had a trash issue, but I did get pissed when I witnessed a father-son team that brought a 5 gallon bucket to take wild brookies home in so they could stock their private pond with State owned fish. Most trout angler's I know are respectful and responsible stewards.


    Quote Originally Posted by Utah David View Post
    In the thread: Anyone else prefer stillwater over moving water flyfishing? Fly Goddess wrote:

    First let me say I am not picking on Fly Goddess here. She just happened to post the comment that spurred my thought.

    While I understand the frustration of not having access, I also understand not wanting just anyone on my property. Especially when I consider the amount of trash, etc. that can be found left by anglers at most any location frequented by "the public". As such, I disagree that the Utah Law is "messed up". (And no, I don't currently own land with a trout stream running through it.)

    Not long ago I was "kicked off" a piece of water that I thought was fair game. When I inquired who and where to obtain permission from to fish the area, I was directed to the owner. I then approached the owner and was told in no uncertain terms that I was not permitted to fish there. When I posted this experience on another Board, Ohiotuber replied with some sage advice on etiquette and approaching land owners for permission. I have since been quite active in "asking" property owners for permission to fish their property, without a rod in hand, and prior to ever setting foot anywhere near their "water". I generally do not even have a rod in the car. My approach is more of: "Can I schedule an appointment, that you don't even need to be here for?" Of the twenty or so owners I have approached in this manner, only three have declined to allow me some sort of access. Granted, I'm not in Utah right now, and most of these waters are "farm ponds". But I'll bet my experience here would prove to be similar in Utah, California, Montana, or anywhere else an individual can restrict access to the water on their land. The exception being if they were using the water as a money producing attraction already. Then you simply have to pay to play.

    The point here is really just to consider the feelings and attitude of the land owner(s) as though it was your land. Speaking for myself... If I had a "Blue Ribbon" trout stream running through my property, I would restrict access to it as well. But if someone showed me the courtesy of asking permission, and followed up with real expressions of gratitude for allowing them access. They'd likely be welcome anytime.

    ---David

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    southwest Virginia
    Posts
    565

    Default Another river rights case; but, now in civil court in Virginia

    For those not aware of the issue on the Jackson River in Virginia there are a few property owners that have "Crown Grants" dating back to King Georges time and the VA Supreme Court upheld that issue starting back about 1990 if I remember correctly. The latest case concerns trepassing issues overturned in a lower court but now refiled in a civil court. You can access many writings on the subject if you do a search using wording such as: Crown Grants on the Jackson River in Virginia or any variation thereof. There's been a defense fund set up for the remaining two defendants of the original three that were charged. As I understand the various articles on this current subject, the landowners/developers claim to have a King's Grant to the river bottom etc.; but, so far nobody seems to be able to find any for this particular piece of property and the landowner refuses to show anyone the proof. This is a very contentious case that hasn't been yet set for a court hearing and could set a precedent for this type of action. The below listed site is one of many referring to the case.


    Murky waters on the Jackson River - Roanoke.com





    www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/294660Cached
    You +1'd this publicly. Undo
    Jul 31, 2011 ? The Jackson River is again the center of an access fight between ... lead to the privatization of vast sections of the Jackson and other Virginia rivers? ... pay taxes on the river bottom, and whether they have crown grants or not, ...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Mountain Home Ar
    Posts
    258

    Default

    The North Platte river bottom in Wy is one that i'm told is owned by the land owner.
    I wonder if that is really true?

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krauseb View Post
    The North Platte river bottom in Wy is one that i'm told is owned by the land owner.
    I wonder if that is really true?
    That is correct. In Wyoming, the landowner "owns" the stream bottom and banks. Can't anchor, can't wade, can't touch it. More BS.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeadDrifting View Post
    That is correct. In Wyoming, the landowner "owns" the stream bottom and banks. Can't anchor, can't wade, can't touch it. More BS.
    Same holds true in New York State, for example the Douglaston Salmon Run area of the Salmon River in Pulaski NY

    Dick

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    2,041
    Blog Entries
    27

    Default

    There different colored markers along the shoreline, one color means you can anchor or wade fish the other color means no touching, no anchor, no wading, can't even grab the brush along the side of the river. I would only fish that river from a boat if I had a guide, otherwise you run a serious risk if violating a law and getting run into the local jail. Great fishing by they way, the trout were shaped like footballs and all either made great runs or danced across the top of the water. I really had fun floating the North Platte. The wind can be a serious problem, it blew us off the river the second day we were there, 50+ MPH winds.

    Larry ---sagefisher---

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. American Sportsman -- All Issues
    By eastprong in forum Things For Sale
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-27-2009, 09:05 PM
  2. Issues
    By halomidge in forum Sound Off
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-03-2009, 09:10 PM
  3. Issues
    By rtidd in forum Sound Off
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-16-2009, 11:12 AM
  4. Material Issues
    By coltranem in forum Fly Tying
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-29-2009, 12:33 PM
  5. Ferrule Issues
    By rvr_lvr in forum Fly Anglers Online
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-24-2005, 01:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts