I don't get the diesel analogy, so I'll take your word for it.

The argument that landowners should not be required to spend money to provide access to the public's shores doesn't hold water (excuse the pun). A landowner who surrounds his property with barbed wire would incur no incremental cost by including a gate. In fact, would it not be cheaper to forgo the fence altogether?

Concerning the garbage cans, people here seem to be saying that the litter problem exists in the absence of garbage barrels. So, would placing a few garbage cans near the waterside really cause landowners extra work? Please try it and report back on what happens.

The fact that a minority of people visiting a public shore is responsible for most of the litter supports my point perfectly. After all, it is a few landowners (the minority) who choose to block access to entire stretches of river. So, a priveleged few prevent the public (a majority) from exercising their right to enjoy responsibly the river shores, which either belong to all of us or none of us.

Of course, you may do what you wish with your land, but no matter what you think (or what your deed says), you will never actually own a river. The river will continue to exist long after you and your children. During your short time on this earth, you can only control access to your land (how frustrating). If preventing as many people as possible from enjoying some of this state's most precious natural resources brings you happiness and satisfaction, then by all means... knock yourself out.

Lastly, I doubt the argument that mass privatization of river and lake shores enhances our fisheries. Instead, I think this results in uneven fishing pressure along rivers and more crowded conditions for us poor sods who don't "own" land there. So, I'm calling you on that one... show me proof.

Gerard W.
Seattle, WA