Hammer,

I think the Starbucks analogy supports my point exactly. Zoning laws don't allow private property from being developed in a way that creates landlocked parcels. As a result, Starbucks (obvious commercial considerations notwithstanding) cannot build a store that is inaccessible to the public. Indeed, the law prevents such an occurrence.

I am happy to hike to find a fishing spot, and there would be no issue if access were spread reasonably between private plots of land on local rivers. This, however, is not the case. Posted and fenced land can stretch for miles leaving little or no place for an angler to access the water legally! This is the sad, new reality on most rivers around Seattle.

Of course, you are correct that a boat can help anglers gain access to the water. So, now I must use a boat to fish? That sounds about as reasonable to me as my position apparently sounds to you.

Garbage, as salmo pointed out, is not the driving force behind most decisions to post and fence land. City dwellers and suburbanites routinely buy waterfront property and block access to the shore in the absence of a littering problem. What motivates them? Maybe you can enlighten us, Hammer. Personally, I think it's fear.

Several riverside landowners (or landowner wannabes) on this thread have asked why they should incur the burden and cost of cleaning after people who litter. Well, because that is (or should be) part of the cost of owning and maintaining land on a public waterway. If you can't afford or accept it, then buy land elsewhere.

My suggestions are not far-fetched. On the Snoqualmie River, just upstream of North Bend, there is a lovely area lined with private residences. The landowners there provide anglers access to the river on a path that runs above the shore and along the edge of their properties. The path is for fishermen only and posted as such. Anglers show their appreciation by keeping things clean and quiet. It seems to work well.

And that's my point. I have to believe that most respectful anglers on this board would love to see more situations like the one on the Snoqualmie described above.

Now, what was your point again, Mr. Hammer? Ah, yes: 'it's my land and I will do what I bloody well want with it - don't even think about setting foot on my precious property to reach the public shore. Get yourself a boat or go rot.' How quaint! It's certainly not this kind of attitude that will make our world a better place in which to live or fish.

Gerard W.
Seattle, WA