Bilge and others,

The opposing points we've brought up in our posts are some of the ones brought up in court cases in various juristictions. It has enough grey area factors that judges likely don't want cases brought into their court, and may be why I've heard that some trespass cases just get dismissed on the navigability issues for guys that were arrested while fishing below the MHWM. And I did read somewhere that some rivers were legally set as a navigable river due to such cases.

I also read (in other debate threads and in newsletters) that Oregon does have the navigable river ordinances allowing people to fish by private river front property by staying below the MHWM. In these readings it was said that only a few of Oregon's rivers have been legally designated as navigable, but the majority of rivers that have salmon or steelhead runs would qualify for that status if litigated. That many of them haven't been legally declared is where the grey area is.

I think the legal criteria was said to be if a river was ever historically used to float commercial logs down to pick up points, were ever used as or can be used as a means of river boat transportation (historically including Indian canoes and white men's trapper boats - and currently including fishing guide boats) the river can legally be declared 'navigable'. Thus eligible for the fishing opportunity below the MHWM; even if the landowners deed is out to the middle of the river. I will try to get Eric Neiwert of the Assoc. of NW Steelheaders to read and reply to this thread. He is among the committee that is dealing with this exact issue currently in Oregon.

One thing I am pretty sure of - nobody owns the water and fish in the rivers. Thus if a driftboater arrives at a disputed OFC fishing hole first, doesn't drop his anchor, and the oarsman holds the boat in that hole via rowing while his passengers fish the hole, it must be legal. Ethically right or wrong, the more fishing holes that are bought up and closed off, the more this type of scenario will take place. And, I think, the more rivers that will be litigated into navigable status. ... >

As for my last paragraph about litering/snagging fines in my above post, I will put that suggestion into stronger words - and be interested in any responses. I really want the states to grow a proper set of balls and dramatically raise the fines and penalties for litering or purposely physically damaging private property to very high amount! Same with keeping snagged fish! I would love to see the law become something like this - first offense fines for those things to be $500 dollars and loss of fishing license for 3 months - MANDATORY MINIMUN (not maximum). For a second offense, raise the mandatory minimum to $1000 and loss of state fishing privilages for 2 years. Third strike and you're out! For a third offense, have a $2500 fine and loss of fishing equipment and a lifetime ban from fishing in that state, mandatory minimum! Anyone banned that is caught fishing should then be given minimum prison sentences. Publicize this and that WILL put an end to these problems. Those in political power WAKE UP to this. Guys can take their trash back out with them without problems! And they can release snagged fish easily! DON'T just wrist slap the lowlifes anymore! It would remove these problems for landowners, and remove any ethical reason to keep properly behaving fishermen from fishing below the Mean High Water Mark of navigable rivers. Since there is no shortage of utterly dumb law breaking slobs, there would be a few of them caught and fined - which would provide more revenue for more enforcement. How about all of you that agree with this write these suggestions to the state fisheries officials and our state reps? I really believe this to be a viable solution.

RT