I believe this subject, which developed in another thread, merits its own topic on this board. The issue is whether private landowners should be allowed to block access to the shores of rivers and lakes. Below is my opinion - I am interested in what others think.

----------

I have become increasingly dismayed at the difficulty of reaching the shores of Washington State rivers and lakes. The story is the same over and over - on the Sauk, the Stilly, the Sky, the Green, the Skagit. Private landowners, stretched one next to the other, systematically block what should be my right to access the water based on their right to own land. No trespassing signs and barbed wire are standard – for the more fashionable farmers and weekend residents, shotguns and attack dogs save the day. Now, that’s what I call civilized!

I believe that landowners should be required to make the shores of rivers and lakes accessible to the responsible public. I understand that these landowners have problems with trespassers littering their land and damaging their property. Unfortunately, it is the respectful anglers who are deterred by the fences and no trespassing signs. People with malicious intent and lack of manners won’t be deterred. The result: trespassers fish where they want – law abiding citizens are corralled into a few crowded places where they can reach the water legally.

Although it's sometimes hard to tell, we no longer live in Wild West. The rules and attitudes that reigned 100 years ago are no longer appropriate. We should look to other rich, developed countries for possible solutions.

For example, in Switzerland, where most of the non-alpine land has been developed, private property owners cannot block public access to the shores of rivers and lakes. These areas are considered to be public resources for all to enjoy.

In theory, it is possible to walk the entire length of the populated shores of Lake Geneva on the Swiss side. True, some large private estates outside Geneva do not provide this access, but they do ensure a way around. I often used to walk, bike and swim along the 20 mile boardwalk that stretches from Lausanne to Montreux . This is something wonderful for the whole world to enjoy, including gun-toting farmers from Washington and Bill Gates, whose residence there provides public shore access just like everybody else fortunate enough to own property on this enormous and beautiful alpine lake.

Some might label me as an idealist. Well, I don't think that is the case. As a Seattle native having lived and worked in Asia, Europe and North America for the past 12 years, I have an inkling of what can and cannot be achieved realistically. Certainly, we are sufficiently wealthy, populous and educated here to understand that the wholesale privatization of river and lake shores cannot continue without depriving most people from enjoying some of our most precious natural resources. Where will we teach our children to fish and respect nature? This will become something available only to the rich – left unchecked, the consequences will affect us all.

Using another Swiss example, farmers there are required to provide access to hikers over their fields in the mountains. Thank goodness for that - humanity would be worse off with the Swiss Alps were blocked off for public enjoyment by private landowners and their lazily grazing cows. Yet, in Washington, a similarly rich area, this is exactly what is happening. Private landowners are allowed, even encouraged, to make our natural treasures inaccessible.

Some hard-working people on this board have argued on other threads that walking over farmland to reach the water’s edge is equivalent to walking across somebody’s fenced backyard in the suburbs. That is simply not the case – my backyard does not block access to what should be a publicly accessible natural resource. Others have complained about their cows being shot by trespassers. For this I am sorry, but this problem is not unique or isolated to rural areas. Dogs in the suburbs are regularly shot or poisoned. Worse yet, children and innocent people are shot on a daily basis in our cities.

So, if you are a landowner, I ask you to consider taking the first step by providing controlled (even paid) access to the rivers and lakes that border your land. I am certain that appreciative and responsible anglers will help keep your property clean and protect it from vandals.

To wrap it up and at the sake of repeating myself - private landowners who block access to lake and river shores (whether they like it or not) are preventing the general public from demonstrating that they can enjoy responsibly something that they should have the right to enjoy responsibly. I believe this is wrong and I would be delighted to see a change in the attitude of all involved. Mutual respect and courtesy would go a long way to solving the problem, but I won’t hold my breath.

Gerard W.
Seattle, WA

I understand where you are comming from but my Aunt has land in eastern wash. She use to let people have a right a way to get to the river and always cleaning up after them. They work hard for there land and should not be the ones to clean it up. Three years ago she had someone go to the river and fell on her land busting there leg. Do you know who got stuck with the bill. Yes it was her. The say she had farm equip where people could get hurt. Come on it is her land. If the State could come up with a way of covering the land owner then fine but till then if you want land go buy it.

sorry to repeat myself from the other thread but hear goes anyway

There are public lands set aside for use by all individuals. the federal government has set aside the National Parks, the state has set aside the State Parks. the forest service also has set aside public land in some of the national forests. this is the land the the public can access and enjoy. However, We are guaranteed in the amendments to the constitution the right to own our own land for our own private use.

http://encarta.msn.com/find/concise.asp?mod=1&ti=04491000&page=7


Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Comment: The Fifth Amendment provides five important protections against arbitrary government actions. First, no one may be prosecuted for a federal crime without first being indicted (formally accused) by a grand jury. Second, a criminal suspect may be prosecuted only once for each crime. If a jury acquits the accused person, there can be no retrial. Third, a person cannot be forced to testify against himself or herself in any criminal case. This is the right against self-incrimination. Fourth, the due process Clause bars the government from arbitrarily depriving anyone of life, liberty, or property. Fifth, the government may not take anyone's private property unless it is necessary for a public purpose and unless the government pays a fair price for it.

as private property owners we are guaranteed not to have to open it up for public use unless the government is willing to pay a fair price for it. I am glad that I live in the United State and am able to own my own piece of property. I am also thankful for the land owners that allow public access for fishing and hunting even though they don't have to.



If I was to open my property up to the public, I would definitely charge admission to help pay the property taxes


The access that you are looking for is there in most lakes and rivers. It is at the public boat launches and public access areas. property owners paid for the land that they own as well as the taxes for that property and have the right to limit access.

I understand that liability is a problem.

On the other hand, you are telling me that if I want access to the shore of a river that I should go buy land on it - that's ridiculous. I don't want to have to stand on the same 100 ft. stretch of river every time I go fishing.

I think that the shore of rivers and lakes should not be privatized and blocked off in a developed and civilized society... access should be ensured to the responsible public.

Gerard W.
Seattle, WA

Bremalo,

Perhaps you are a lawyer and can, therefore, clarify something for me. I was under the impression that the water's edge of a river is public property. Am I wrong that standing in a foot of water off the edge of your private land is not trespassing?

If this is so, then it there is a contradiction in the law - the river is public, but private landowners are blocking my access to it.

Also, you cite the Constitution. Perhaps you can remind me whether the pursuit of happiness (which I consider fishing to be) is enshrined in our Consitution or in the Declaration of Independence.

Gerard W.
Seattle, WA

I am by no means a lawyer!!! but I am a waterfront land owner. I have no problem with people fishing from the beach in front of our house. I do however have a problem with people parking in my driveway and using my land as a trail to get to the beach. I do own the shellfish rights to the property and will stop anyone from gathering them. except during red tide

The local government I believe, is the one that has blocked the access by not allowing an easement between each parcel of land for access to the shoreline. the private property owners are just exercising there right of owning the land.

I sounds like you have a great deal of respect for the property of others and if you were to come and ask for permission to access the beach on my land I would without hesitation give you access.

G-Spot:

This should help, http://www.adventuresports.com/river/nors/states/wa-law.htm

I pulled this link off the board a while back, it well help answer some of your access questions when it comes to Lakes and Rivers. Doesn't discuss access to saltwater beaches though.

I have researched the problems with access to our inner Puget Sound beaches and have concluded that as long as you use a public access point to reach the beach and only walk or fish on sand/water below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) or driftwood line, your on public property.

Beach property owners will strongly disagree. Who's right?, niether party, because to my knowledge there has never been a trespass case taken to the Washington State Shorelines Hearings Board that has issued a decision on the access issue.

Some of the worst anti-fishermen property owners are the one's at Bush Pt. out on Whidbey Is. Last summer I got into it with a lady who lived just south of the public access. I was coho fishing with my boots in the water and at least 20 feet waterward of the OHWM. She came out and told me to get off her beach and I politely said "no". I said that lands waterward of the OHWM were held in trust by the State of Washington for the enjoyement and use of its citizens, and furthermore, asked her to show me where in the language on her property title that says that the use of tidelands waterward the OHWM belonged exclusively to her family. This serious of statements left her flabergasted, and she continued to asked me to leave. I just turned a deaf ear on her and continued to fish and expressed my rights to be there. Fishing was slow so I left about a half hour later to try for another spot, and while driving back up the hill I passed a speeding Island Co. Sherriff's car, it didn't take me long to figure out who called the sherriff. If that sherriff would of wrote me a ticket, I would of appealled it all the way to the state shorelines board.

Anyway, I'm not encouraging everyone to get in the face of beach home owners, god knows I'm sure there are some real fishing slobs that they must contend with, but the beach homeowners are not always right on the access issue.

Bobber Down

Keep your hooks sharp!

I don't have much input on this subject,but I know a spot on the nooch which has been in this guys family for several generations,he has it posted and owns both sides of the river and the river too.I know what you're thinking "how can he own the river...he does just asked the people he has escorted off by the Sheriff,including those anchored in "His Drift" .
If I owned property on a River I would not allow pubic access either....people just don't respect other people's property.my.02....Os

The "Public Trust Doctrine" essentially states that the State of Washinton holds title to its waterways in trust for the benefit of the people.

While there are some instances of riverbeds being sold, the vast majority of rivers and riverbeds are public property, at least the areas below the normal high water mark.

This applies to river and to beaches. As long as you hit the beach or river at a legal access, via permission or via public access, you should be able to walk up and down the river all you want, so long as you stay on the river bank near the water.

Adjacent landowners may own the rights to the shellfish in the tidelands adjacent to their property, and they may have water rights in the river adjacent to their property.

You are not trespassing if you are in the river. I've actually heard landowners claim that you can boat the river, but if your anchor or feet touch the river bottom then you are trespassing. Pure hogwash.

The Public Trust Doctrine should be an easily researched topic. I just did a quick search of "Public Trust Doctrine Washington" on google.com and came up with over 59,000 responses. I'm sure a few of them would be worthwhile. There are also books and treatises available, but you'd probably have to go to a county law library to find them.

I think that there are people at DNR or DFW who could tell you if a certain river or beach has been sold en toto to the landowner, if you want specifics about a certain spot.

All that said, it is always wise to keep the land as clean as possible to avoid conflicts with landowners, or other fishermen who would prefer to see you pick up your trash.

If you own waterfront or riverfront property, I'd recommend finding out how far your property goes.

Fish on...

Todd.

Here is a quote from the case regarding jet skis in the San Juans, and a few links to more info. about the PTD.

John Weden et al. vs. San Juan County
SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON
135 Wn.2d 678; 958 P.2d 273; 1998 Wash.
July 9, 1998, Filed

…

Since as early as 1821, the public trust doctrine has been applied throughout the
United States "as a flexible method for judicial protection of public interests in coastal lands and waters." Ralph W. Johnson et al., The Public Trust Doctrine and Coastal Zone Management in Washington State, 67 Wash. L. Rev. 521, 524 (1992). The doctrine protects "public ownership interests in certain uses of navigable waters and underlying lands, including [*27] navigation, commerce, fisheries, recreation, and environmental quality." Johnson, supra, at 524. The doctrine reserves a public property interest, the jus publicum, in tidelands and the waters flowing over them, despite the sale of these lands into private ownership. Johnson, supra, at 524. "The state can no more convey or give away this jus publicum interest than it can 'abdicate its police powers in the administration of government and the preservation of the peace.'" Caminiti v. Boyle, 107 Wash. 2d 662, 669, 732 P.2d 989 (1987) (quoting Illinois Cent. R.R. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387, 453, 13 S. Ct. 110, 36 L. Ed. 1018 (1892), aff'd, 154 U.S. 225, 14 S. Ct. 1015, 38 L. Ed. 971 (1894)). Due to the "universally recognized need to protect public access to and use of such unique resources as navigable waters, beds, and adjacent lands," courts review legislation under the public trust doctrine with a heightened degree of judicial scrutiny, "as if they were measuring that legislation against constitutional protections." Johnson, supra, at 525, 526-27.
This court did not expressly adopt the public trust doctrine until 1987, but indicated then that the doctrine has always existed [*28] in Washington law. See Caminiti, 107 Wash. 2d at 669-70. The doctrine in Washington "prohibits the State from disposing of its interest in the waters of the state in such a way that the public's right of access is substantially impaired, unless the action promotes the overall interests of the public." Rettkowski v. Department of Ecology, 122 Wash. 2d 219, 232, 858 P.2d 232 (1993).
The test of whether or not an exercise of legislative power with respect to tidelands and shorelands violates the 'public trust doctrine' is found in the following language of the United States Supreme Court:
The control of the State for the purposes of the trust can never be lost, except as to such parcels as are used in promoting the interests of the public therein, or can be disposed of without any substantial impairment of the public interest in the lands and waters remaining.

...
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/93054.pdf
http://hometown.aol.com/rnwhiteley/trust2.htm http://law.utoledo.edu/LIGL/public_trust_doctrine.htm

A few years back I ran into a problem on the Methow river with a local land owner who chased me down after he spotted me crossing above a rapid from fishing on HIS SIDE of the river. He is Indian, this was non treaty land, I was parked in and fishing a public fishing area and, I was below high water mark on HIS SIDE at all times in fact I never was out of the water, yet he insisted I was on his property and his deed went to the middle of the river, and he was calling tribal cops, by the way he had a large buck knife on his side and a rifle in his hands that he kept pointing at me. No cops showed, and after an hour of his crap he left. I went to town and talked to the State Patrol, who called the OLY office. The responce was that there were only TWO NON-TREATY DEEDS in the state on Navigable waters. and his was not one of them. And by the way I was told I had the right to defend myself if this happened again, and I will do just that. I pose no threat to people or thier property, only fish. So don't go pointing guns at fisherman, it's not worth it. In some land owners minds they might think they own to the middle of a Navigable river, in fact only two in the State of Washington really do, Is that you? you better find out before you get yourselves in trouble.

when I own river front property (and I will)I will not allow strangers to park or cross on my land, but those who drift by will be welcom to anchor up, or walk the bank. If there observed littering they will be turned in. Its their right to do so.

On the upper Tolt River in Carnation, there is a public parking area near the river and a trail that runs up and downstream. However, you can only go about 50feet upstream because some guy who owns property built a chainlink fence across the trail. The river is too deep and fast to wade around it, so that one person basically cuts off all access to upstream fishing.

Wow yet another touchy subject on this board. I won't get into the heavy legal quotes, but it just doesnt seem right that private property owners should "fess up" access rights simply because their property borders a river, beach, etc. I never have and probably never will be fortunate enough to own such a piece of land, and have experienced the frustration of finding a nice spot to get a line wet only to be confronted with no tresspassing signs. Yeah it sucks but not much you can do about it. I totally sympathize with the landowners, as there is no way I would want my backyard to resemble many of the public access sites, and you know its just a matter of time before it does if every Joe is allowed access.
Most of the property in question here doesnt exactly come dirt cheap, and if the owner pays the price to own it, then its their right to deny the access. However I dont see how they can legally run off a boat that is anchored in the river off there property (did that really happen?).
On the other hand, I also believe if you do the leg work, there are still plenty of spots on many rivers that are off the beaten path and dont interfer with others rights of ownership
Just my opinion
Chris

To all of you who would like to have access to someone else's river property - where were you when the state was essentially taking our land without compensating us for it. The new rules imposed by the Dept. of Ecology seriously restrict what landowners can do or where they can build on their own property, with no thought of any compensation for the loss of use. Maybe if the fishing public would stand up against this unreasonable seizure, landowners would be more likely to be friendly to the fisherman. Comments?

hey Long, I usually do not put my .o2 into these type of conversations( I am being polite). Those laws you are talking about are for the best. People have been destroying streem banks and leveling trees and habitat to look at the water. The fact is they are destroying more then they can think of. I not going to preach here. Lets just leave something for our kids. I am sure there will be some debate on this comment, oh well, thats why this is a forum.

Fish On!

Here we go again!!
G-Spot lots of good thoughts here and very well thought out. I can agree with much of what you said but unfortunately its the few that ruin it for the many. Respect for private land has gone to hell. Case and Point; I live up on the Sauk and Skagit and my neigbor owns over a hundred acres on the Sauk. It is an old homestead property passed on to him by his father. Years ago he never had a problem with anglers crossing his land to fish the river, in fact he enjoyed getting fish from them and talkin with them. Over the years though more and more people started disrespecting his land and even the homestead he grew up in, even stealing things from the house that were there since he was a kid. Anglers started leaving garbage out all over the gravel bar and worse yet cutting his fences to access the river. Fences put up to keep his cattle in and off the river bank. Last year was the straw that broke the camels back for him. Some Angler went in cut one fence and left a gate wide open and also left garbage all over the bank. Some of his cattle were out on the river bar and a few wandered out on to HWY 530 resulting in a $200.00 dollar fine per cow out on the road. If someone were to hit one of the cows on the road he would have been not only liable for the driver but would have also been out the $ for the cow. After this incedent he posted his entire property and has recently even had trespassers vehicles towed away and called the State Patrol on them. "All it takes is the few to ruin it for the many." So before passing judgment on the land owners,...put yourself in their shoes for a minute.

I feel the real "takings" is not just the fact that development was allowed in the first place but also the fact that people are not only given low cost loans, ala the tax payer, when they are flooded out but are also allowed to re-build right on the same flood plain piece of land.
Another "takings" is rip rap banks and bulk heads designed to channel water away from properties that just cause problems else where.
The "it's my property and I'll do what I want" just doesn't wash. Each of us are only here for a very short period of time but some of us feel that they can leave a lasting nasty legacy for many generations to come under the guise of private property rights.
In my opinion a new law is necessary. No shoring up banks or shore lines of any kind. If the water takes your home you will be compensated assessed value and you will move.

For the property owners who are complaining about the damage and litter from trespassers, here are a few ideas to consider.

Why not place in your fences a gate that can be opened and closed by responsible anglers? Long stretches of closed barbed wire only keep out respectful fisherman not trespassers with wire cutters! The presence of responsible anglers can even dissuade no-gooders.

Concerning no trespassing signs, why not instead place a sign that lays out the rules you expect anglers to follow while crossing your land? As seen from the posts above, we are not talking about inviting people to hang out on your land, but rather allowing them to cross your property in order to reach the public shore that lays below the ordinary high water mark.

There is a farmer on the Sky who provides paid access to the public shore adjacent to his property. This access is only available during the fishing season because anglers respect his land. During the closed season, he restricts access because the teenagers like to go out there to party and wreck things (do you remember being a teenager?). I think this is an excellent example that responsible anglers and landowners make natural allies.

Concerning garbage, I almost always come back from fishing with at least some plastic or old fishing line that I picked up. Would it not be sensible for property owners to place 1 or 2 barrels for trash around the places where littering is a problem. I realize this entails some work, but property owners must accept that (whether they like it or not) their land borders a public area that will attract anglers as long as fishing is legal there.

Property owners would do well to understand that they are the only ones who can make the first step at reconciliation by taking steps along the lines described above. If the private lands continue to block access (and fishing stays legal), then the inevitable outcome will be a loss of public support for the landowners and changes in the law concerning shore access. It may take a long time, but it will happen.

Steelhead, it sounds like you and I are on the same page here. I am surprised not more anglers have expressed their frustrations at having access to their fishing waters systematically blocked off by private landowners who act as if they own the river and its shores.

Gerard W.
Seattle, WA

I'm glad someone finally brought up two bit. Things seem to work pretty good up there but I could understand that closing up if what happened to Koenig's friend up on the Sauk ever happened to the friendly Skykomish farmer.

I grew up fishing small rural rivers for smallmouth in southern Indiana and Kentucky. Most of the land around these rivers was farmed for corn, soybeans and tobacco. Very few of the landowners where we fished had any problem with fishermen crossing their fields to get to the river as long as you kept your vehicle out of the field and didn't block access for them to work the land.

This is a little like comparing apples to oranges because the places we fished were never crowded and it was rare to run into other fishermen. Most folks would rather take the johnboat out to the lake for largemouth or catfish.

Anyway, I think two-bit is a good example of how granting some public access can work. Having said that, if I owned some riverfront property that bordered a good steelhead run I'd have a hard time opening it up to general walk-in access for purely selfish reasons that have nothing to do with liability or trash pickup.

Bruce

btw - those farmers back in Indiana and Kentucky didn't have many laws that I know of regarding cutting close to rivers but most left big borders of hardwoods buffering their fields from the water.

As far as takings go, it obviously depends on whose ox is being gored. How would you like it if the govt. restricted and took away your use of 1/2 of your yard, that you had paid for, because they believed you used fertilizer and that it was washing into the drains. They don't ask you to stop using fertilizer, they just assume you do. The worst part is they don't expect to pay you anything for this taking. Why is this fair? When somebody's house is taken to make way for a road, the land owner is compensated for fair market value. If the govt. wants to restrict my use of the land I own for the greater good of the environment, then pay me for my loss of value. I might not like it, but at least I would be made whole. That's only fair. Always look at both sides of an issue before you make rash statements - or someday it will be your ox being gored.

G-spot, Everything you say sounds logical but from my experience as a river front property owner, when you give public access, your property gets trashed. A guy can only pick up so much trash and deal with so many disrespectful jerks before the land gets posted. Like someone said before, take a look at most public access fishing areas. Would you like that on your property?

Longreleaser, I don't know what "takings" you have in mind, but if an activity or use of property is found to have a detrimental effect on the publics resources,why should the public pay the property owner to stop the use or activity? It's not the same as "taking" property for a freeway, those properties are not engaged in activity that is harming others. The way I see it property owners that are using land to the detriment of salmon runs have been "taking " from the public for years. If a value could be put on the number of salmon and steelhead that runs have been reduced due to this "taking" maybe the property owners should pay that amount to the public. A better solution is for the property owners to quit complaining about mitigation such as stream buffers ,keeping cattle away from streams,bad logging practices, ect.,ect.

G-Spot sounds to me like you should move to Switzerland since its your perfect world. Why is my property any different than yours just because you live in the city? I don't see anything in my deed that says so. The real world is fisherman have ruined it for themselves. On a river near me a farmer put a walk through his barb wire fence. Now get this. Because the fishermen cut his fence. Let me say it again. He put a walk through because the fishermen cut his fence. Instead of closing down his property he took the time and money to put a walk through in. About 2 weeks later the no tresspassing signs went up because someone cut the wires in the walk through. Stop and ask any land owner on a river why there are no tresspassing signs up and I bet their answers will all be the same. We the land owner don't deny acess just to be A****** you have done it too yourselves.
Fishhead5

Fishhead,

I did not say that Switzerland was perfect, only that we could learn from how another country manages public access to river and lake shores.

I think that the littering problem is overblown. It's starting to sound like a convenient excuse for landowners who simply don't want to see anybody crossing their property or spoiling 'their' precious view.

Are anglers really are the littering vandals that property owners on this board claim? I would like to think not - certainly, neither me nor my friends fall into this category. Take the Yakima River as an example. Its shores are very accessible to the public, yet they remain generally clean and unlittered.

If fishermen are really as disrespectful and polluting as some have claimed here, then they should be ashamed to be associated with such a group of pigs. Instead, they are active participants on this board... so which is it?

Gerard W.
Seattle, WA

Next time you drive along the river stop and ask. See what the answers are. This doesn't just apply to fishing. I hunt over in Montana and its the same over there.99% of the land is posted there also. All because it has been abused. So unless there is a world wide conspirasy as you seem to think, people have ruined it for them selves. Its not just the little land owner either. Look at Wheyrhouser (don't know the correct spelling) and Simpson Timber. Most all there property is gated off, all because of abuse. The put in at Schufer bridge, blocked off because of garbage. If you came to me and told me who you were, I would let you fish. Not because of the way you feel about access, but because you sound like someone who would respect others property. But sad to say I think you are in the minorty.

[This message has been edited by fishhead5 (edited 02-15-2001).]

Being a landowner on a river in SW Washington it would seem funny to look out the window and see a fisherman walking by to fish, maybe it would take some getting used to, I could see kids going fishing off the bank, all landowners should support this and maybe promote it they are the future of the sport.
I know that it costs more for a person to live by a river higher land prices and higher taxes and higher insurance.
It is hard for me to understand people who decide when they want to fish they can hop in a car and drive to a river and fish somones private land without ever considering the financial impications of the land owner.
I can understand the need to find a place to fish on a favorite river.
I lived in Dayton Wa for a year and a microsoft millionare and a tellecomuncations millionare bought up half of the fishing land on the Tuccannon a spectacular river but access is now hard to come by becouse of the attitude of the new owners Its Mine!.
One of the land owners even installed several video cameras so he could watch his land kind of paranoid. A totally diferent attite from the farmers who sold the land.
It is also becming a club thing where a person will lease the land form a club and charge money to hunt and fish in Columbia County.
Here is another scenario this happened this hunting season I go back evey fall to hunt in Dayton on a farmers wheat land that allows us to use it. One of his farmhands father went around and posted all of the farmers land during hunting season becouse he likes to hunt for himself. His idea of hunting is driving through the stubble with a beer between his legs looking for a bedded buck. while we park at the gate and hike the several hundred acres on foot. While the farmer spends his winter at his cabin in the Blue Mts.
Thank You
I wish fishing was better then we would have somthing more positive to write about.
our river is the lowest it has ever been in modern times. after talking to the oldtimers it has been really hard on them.

G-Spot,

Let me know if I have this straight.

You want the landowner who pays all of the land tax on a waterway to spend his money to build you a gate so you can have free access to his land.
You would also like that landowner to install some garbage cans on his dime so the freeloaders will have a place to dump their garbage.
You would also like this same landowner to maintain the garbage cans since they are on his land, and no one else is going to, in other words spend his time and money to remove the refuse you dump in the can he provided.

Wow.

I don't see how you can even begin to justify this. Using this same philosophy, anyone that borders public land must provide you access and garbage service.

You have access to the water through public locations on most all waterways/lakes. You can boat to the majority of the fishing areas. The ones you can't, thats good. Fisherman shouldn't have access to very single inch of water, the fish need a place to live, breed, and rest.

Thank god for private ownership. I strongly believe it makes our rivers a better place with more fish in them.

Steve

G-spot, It's not that all sportfishermen are littering vandals, it's the few that do the damage. I would even say a good percentage of the bad apples don't even fish. There is no reasonable way to sort out the abusers from the respectful majority. People that walk the river or come in boats are very, very seldom a problem and I respect their right to the river. It was a few of the people that park on the road and want to cross my property that leave trash and do things like bark trees with knives or hatchets. I have just had it with picking up broken bottles, fishing line ,piles of cigarette butts, condom wrappers, condoms, lure packaging and so on. Sorry my property will always be posted.

One more word on "takings" and then we can let this fun go. I propose the following. To all of the outdoorsman who own 4 wheel drive diesel pickups and to all of the urbanites who own their diesel Mercedes, we know that diesel smoke is one of the most foul, polluting filthy things we can do to our air. So, lets make a rule that you cannot start up a diesel engine. You can still own one if you want, you just can't run it. Of course if you already own one you could try and sell it, but who would buy it if you couldn't use it. Sorry about you losing all of your investment in your diesel. But, after all, It's for the good of the environment so you should be more than willing to make that sacrifice. How many diesel owners want to be first in line to save our air. Next in line can be all of the old polluting 2 cycle outboards. Anybody out there have a boat that smokes more than George Burns? More than a few of us I think. Shall we ban them too? The point is, all of us contribute to environmental pollution. To pick on one group is not fair. We all need to do our part equally and we all need to sacrifice a little for the good of the whole. But, no one group should have to bear the brunt of the rules, without compensation, while other equally polluting individuals get off free. Excuse me while I go dump my used car oil in the storm drain.

Long,

While I agree with your premise (and really enjoy the oil humor ), I want to comment on your analogy.

Diesels may visibly blow smoke and smell, but they are much, much cleaner burners than the normal gas burning vehicle you drive. Its not what you see, but what you don't with gas! Combine that with the fact that pound for pound, a deisel will get far superior fuel mileage, and the engine runs three times as long, they become so much of the lessor evil to the environment its ridiculous.

2 cycles, now thats a whole different ballgame. They are good for leaving a nice oil path so you know where you've been....

Steve

One more note on "takings". It's easy to say that if "the government" restricts your land use, "they" should pay you for it. It's more difficult to admit that "the government" is you and I, not some unseen entity with its own bank account. These payments would be more tax money. Either that, or have no land-use restrictions or zoning? It's quite a double-edged sword.

Fish on...........

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

Gerard, to your last point.

Not sure if your a hunter but you probably are still aware the state and the feds set aside land as a refuge to allow game, be it birds or whatever, a place to rest and exist in safety. Theres a reason for that, just like theres a reason they shut down parts of rivers to cut fishing pressure on the resource. Private access does the same thing in many areas. Having fishermen 'concentrated' in areas is not a bad thing. The resource may be more tapped there but you are assured there are areas where it is prospering as well. If we let anyone who wanted to (which is how it would have to be to be fair to all in your world) fish anywhere they want, you would lose these safe havens that privatization has created.

Since so many people in the state exercise their 'right' to harvest fish, you would now have an entire river pressured versus just pockets where access is allowed.

Besides, your arguement is based off of some tough-to-swallow basis. If you owned a piece of land that had a rather spectacular view of something, I could use your premise that that view was there for ALL to enjoy, therefor, I should be able to trespass so I can enjoy as well.

You have to draw the line somewhere and in todays world, the only people on my land are ones I know. Riverbanks above the high water mark are land. Our Constitution allows us to hold that privately. Don't take this as a mean statement but for those that don't agree, there are other countries out there that don't allow for the same privileges and may better suit what your looking for.

G-spot never said I owned the river. Trouts Unlimited put trash cans down on the river I fish. There is as much trash in them as there is laying all over. Some people use them some don't.

The reason there is a need for refuges is a direct result of over development and bad stewardship by private land owners.
Your arguement seems to be leaning towards private land owners, once again, setting evironmental policy which we all know would be devasting.
I know of one farmer on a local river that absolutely loves fisherman and fishing season. During the off season he finds bottles and even drug needles on his land. I guess the junkies prefer privacy.
Someone brought up timber companies gating off roads. Those roads were paid for by us...the tax payer...what right should they have to gate them? The same with those properties with banks shored up years ago by the Army Corps of Engineers. The laws are heavily in favor of private land owners and I think they always will be which has led us to the environmental mess we are paying for today.

Wait a minute....what the...hey! Get that d*** snow off my land!!!!!!!

My .02 first of all peoples private property should be just that private until they do something that infringes on other peoples lives. Now for an observation, some people on this board have stated how they feel about article 5 of the bill of rights and then these same people will trash and try to silence others for exercising the same rights under article 1 of the same document. Human nature I guess.

Stlhead, You did not pay for the roads that the timber co put gates on. Again private property being abused so it is shut down. I develope the pictures of the piles of garbage, old fridges, freezers and ovens. You people don't seem to get it, most all the property was open to the public until it was abused. Simpson Timber opens their gates for hunting season, but that too is comeing real close to ending because of garbage. Say what you want but the garbage and abuse is the reason, every land owner that has commented on this thread has told you so. I can't understand why you won't belive it.

Hi guys. Although this certainly seems like a no-win kind of topic, it’s just too good not to chime in. The private property rights issue seems composed of two components: harm and access.

If I own a piece of property, our private property rights understanding, whether it is legally correct or not, seems to be that I can do whatever I want to or with my property. I should be able to clear cut all the trees off it and turn it into cash if I wish. I should be able to plow and cultivate the land right up to the river banks and grow crops or whatever activity I wish. I should be able to cut all the vegetation along the riparian zone so that I have a nice clear view of the river or lake that I bought this property on. Oh, and while I’m at it, I should be able to riprap the bank because now it’s eroding due to my land clearing action. And I should be able to plant grass and apply pesticides and fertilizer to my waterfront yard so it will look like a golf course, and my friends and I can practice our putting. And of course I should be able to graze my livestock to and into the riverbanks and water’s edge for stock watering. I should be able to do all this in the name of private property rights. And to the extent I cannot do any of these things, I should be compensated for unlawful takings.

Uh, let’s see here. A well regarded president, name of Honest Abe, said something like, “your right to extend your arm and fist ends where my nose begins.” If there’s truth to such a statement, and who could deny it, one person may not exercise his rights (property or otherwise) to the detriment of another man’s rights. So let’s say you own the river or lake in question. If the Abe analogy is correct, then I may only perform the actions of the above paragraph on my property to the extent that they do not harm your property. The difference in this case is that the river and lake are public, rather than private, property, known as the commons. However, is there any real difference? If I damage my neighbor’s property, I am liable for damages. If by grazing my livestock, clearing the riparian zone, or clearcutting my trees, would I not likewise be liable for damages to public property? Why should it matter whether my neighbor is public or private?

There is an interesting aspect of private property in timber rights in our state. If while I am cutting some trees on my land, I notice that there are some fine and valuable trees on my neighbor’s adjacent land, and I cut and sell them also, when my neighbor catches me, he is entitled to triple damages! This is an old law that has been around for many decades to discourage timber poaching from public and private land. And it is highly effective. Imagine now, how much better a land steward I would be if I were to be assessed triple damages for all the adverse effects of my private actions on my private land that damaged water quantity and quality and reduced fish runs by damaging habitat from careless timber harvesting, poor streambank management, a yard and putting green in the wrong place, and unsound livestock and agriculture practices. (Never mind for the moment that it's exceedingly difficult to quantify that damage.) People yowl about their private property rights, as though that doesn’t or should not also include the inherent responsibility to avoid damaging other property, both public and private.

If my land management action causes the creek to sluice out and dump tons of sediment and gravel on your downstream land, degrading habitat and killing public fish in the process, wouldn’t you like to be able to tell me to bring my truck on down, pick up my sediment and gravel, and haul it back up to my land where it came from. Now we all know that erosion is a natural process that no one can stop. However, should I be allowed to permit sediment to run off my land onto yours, or the public’s, at accelerated rates that greatly exceed that which would occur with only natural processes at work? This seems to me to be the salient private property rights question. Do my private property rights include the right to exceed the rate of natural processes and damage other property, public and or private, in the process?

Now, what about access? Do I have to allow you on my property? Maybe that’s not a yes or no question. I’m sure I don’t have to allow you on my property for the purpose of accessing my property. But let’s look at a “for instance.” There are private land inholdings in national forests, national parks, and state forests. In all these cases, the public owner must provide reasonable access to those inholdings to the private landowner. I don’t know if that’s logical, but it seems reasonable to me. That’s not the same as building and maintaining a road, or even a trail, but reasonable access. So if there is a road, they may drive; if a trail, they may walk; if neither, they may bushwhack. But access is not denied.

So what about when the inholding is public property surrounded by private land? That’s what seems to be happening more and more these days. I’m familiar with a small lake, wherein a small group of people purchased roughly the entire 200' perimeter around the lake plus an access road. This is all posted. There are homes and cabins on part of the lakeshore, but by no means all of it, as much of it is not suitable for any development. Tell me that the purpose of such an arrangement is anything other than to make a private lake out of what is by law a public lake bed and public water. The public owners of the lake are denied access to it. If what these owners are doing is legal and just under the banner of private property rights, it must follow that it would be equally legal and just to deny access to private inholdings that are surrounded by public land. I mean, come on, life is a two way street. The private property advocate should not be able to have it both ways. Either you can purchase access and deny others their property rights, and they can do so to you, or not. Restated, it should not be, “I can deny the public, but the public cannot deny me.” I find that twisted logic, yet it seems to be the battle cry of many of the private property rights advocates. Sort of a heads I win, tails you lose, kind of proposition. Cool, huh?

I can’t afford waterfront property on every river I want to fish. And I want to fish more than one or two spots on any water body that I may own property on. I acknowledge your right to exclude me from your property for the purpose of using your property. However, I am having a problem with a perceived right to deny me access to the public waterway that you, I, and everyone else owns. It’s true that there are public access points on many rivers, but there are many, perhaps more, that do not. Lacking some sort of reasonable access policy, citizens may be denied access to the public property of which they are part owner. Since the private inholder would not tolerate denial of access to his inholding, why must the public tolerate denial of access to the property they own in common with everyone?

I don’t think there are any easy answers to this situation. Tolerance and respect are words that come to mind. As access becomes more limited as people purchase what was once farm or timberland and post their personal 50 or 100' of aquatic paradise, we see increasing traffic on public waterways: jet boats on small rivers that can accommodate driftboats, driftboats on rivers that barely accommodate canoes and innertubes, and pontoon and other small craft of tiny streams where anglers formerly gained access by wading. With an ever growing population and demand for recreation, and ever diminishing public access to waterfront, how shall we manage peoples’ private and public property rights?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

The law says that rivers and their shores are public property, which we all have a legal right to enjoy responsibly. No trespassing signs and fences on adjacent lands, however, are making this an increasingly theoretical right.

As demonstrated by the comments of many landowners on this board, the situation will only get worse. Does anybody really believe that access to our rivers will get easier over the next 20 years? Such a scenario is unimaginable - the landgrab is far from over.

The trend is unmistakable and, for the foreseeable future, irreversible. Private development of riverside property will continue and constitution waving landowners will 'protect' their precious property with increasing vigor.

The writing is on the wall and the story is sad. As recently as 1980, North Bend, Auburn, Mount Vernon and Darrington were relatively remote areas with plenty of access to local waters. Look at those places now...

A couple of fellows on this thread kindly suggested that I move to another country if I don't like things here. I guess they must be happy about where we are headed and the dark future that their attitudes portend. While I am fortunate to live freely in the US or in Europe, their children may not be so lucky.

So, there you have it. I think I will write to my legislators and find out what they think about this issue... they normally answer my letters promptly, which is why I make generous political contributions every year irrespective of their party affiliation.

Stay tuned.

Gerard W.
Seattle, WA

Thank you, salmo, for your analysis - that's very enlightening and even-headed. I agree with you about mutual respect, courtesy and tolerance. I am enormously grateful to any landowner who allows contrrolled (even paid) access. I don't wish to hang out on their land, pollute or vandalize... only to reach the water's edge.

Gerard W.
Seattle, WA

Salmo G, Heck of a post, but you missed the point. Most of the land owners post their property because of abuse, pure and simple. Garbage, cut fences and theft. Your post says nothing about why we should let people on to trash the place. This is what this post is all about. Not what we can and can't do with our property. I haven't gotten one good soulition from anyone. Just a lot of talk on how I'm suppose to let anyone and everyone on my property just because a river runs through it. Not going to happen, not because I don't want to, because of abuse...

Fishhead, so you claim that one bad fisherman ruins it for everyone? So shouldn't one bad land owner ruin it for all land owners? Which should mean very strict land use laws.
And yes, many logging roads the tax payer does pay for.

Salmo, What do you see as a solution to this public access through private property problem? Legislative action? I can't see owners voluntarily opening their property, but passing laws would be a political nightmare.

Consider this, you live in kirkland and have a small yard say 1000sq/ft. Pedestrians walk through your yard to get to park place starbucks faster.....after all its there right to coffee. Its the same concept. Personally if I owned land on the river NOBODY unauthorized may be trespassing. It does suck when access is denied but by pulling your own wait plus, we can keep the access we have available. Litter and early morning wake up calls from drift boat trailers top the list in reasons for land owner to shun us. A couple unresposible anglers can ruin it for everybody, thats what really sucks!

Fishead5,

Perhaps you posted your property due to abuse, pure and simple, but disagree that is universally the case. I've personally witnessed many parcels of private forest and farm land, where access to the river was tacitly allowed, sold, sub-divided, and the new owners of river front, as their first action of ownership was to post their property. There was little evidence of litter before they bought it, and there was no chance for any litter to accumulate before they posted it. So what do you suppose their reason was? They knew that anglers were waiting in the shadows to cross their property and discard their bait containers in the process? Some folks just don't want anyone else on their property, and presently, that is their right. In a couple cases I've observed, it was pretty clear that the new owner intended to create a private fishing hole on public water by denying the only, or most viable, access. Given that the river and lakes are by law public, I think that motive stinks.

Now, I don't deny that litter happens. I see it in too many places. But the empty bait containers and beer cans are along the river bank. I think it's a bit of a stretch to attribute all the disposable baby diapers near the parking area near the road to steelhead and salmon anglers, however. I don't dispute that fishermen are slobs, tho, given the amount of fishing related trash I pick up.

I don't know the answers, Fishead5, but let me propose an experiment. You and I can not stop people from littering, but maybe there is an alternative. Are you willing to open your property to river access under the condition that some angler, or group of anglers, polices that access bi-weekly or monthly to remove all litter, for the express exchange of access for litter removal? This is one way that comes to mind of addressing what you insist is the sole cause of denying access across your private property to public water, and preferable to some kind of legislation.

Keta,

I wish I knew. Hell, the way the population is exploding, I don't even know where we're going to put everyone, let alone how we'll solve the innumerable interpersonal conflicts that are bound to arise. The key of course, is tolerance and respect, human qualities that are about as rare as common sense, I'm afraid. Lacking the logical key, I think society will seek to impose a variety of unhappy solutions that leave both the public and landowners less than satisfied.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I really am having a hard time swallowing a lot of what is being proposed here. Because a person owns a piece of river/stream front property he is now obligated to allow the public free and unfettered access across his land and at the same time supplying trash service...to what end? Only because you as a non-property owner wish to get to the river through his land...that's absurd! If the river is navigatable then navigate your butt down or upstream and fish where you are legally allowed below the MHW level. You have not been denied access you are only prohibited from using the easy access you desire..you are only inconvienence and it seems that is what you object to.

If we go back to the starbucks example. Here you are trying to get to the coffee shop...but a housing development has come up and there are now houses with yards in fences in your way. Since it is a pain in the butt for you to walk around the block you decide that you should be able to go through the yards on the path like you always did. So you go ahead and cut fences in your way or just hop them but on your way back from the coffee shop you always seem to finish your coffee. Rather than be burdened with carrying the cup you chuck it. Now the property owner whose yard you are cutting through and trashing protests and you reply "why don't you put in some gates and trash cans so you can better accommadate us?' Who would you want to be? and would you tolerate such behavior and demands on your time and property for no other reward than to allow the public a "way around the block, i.e. the short cut". I would post my property every time!

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by G-spot:
[B]Hammer,


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.

Where oh where do you get your logic for this one??? That is simply ridiculous.

I see where you like the idea of the path 'for anglers only'. Sounds like private access to me since the rest of the public is not welcome. That must mean you aren't for public access on private property, just access that allows you to use it.

Steve

G-spot, I think you are trying to impose extraodinary regulations on the owners of waterfront property...and unfairly so I think. In our housing developments the streets and sidewalks are public domain. Some places you may want to go are beyond your reach to walk...so you buy a car and drive there...same thing with a boat! In other cases do you think home owners should allow you to walk through their property to get to the next street because it is easier? It's access to public domain much the same as your postion on river front access. You seem to be focused on water front owners because you have an agenda...you want to fish that stretch of water. I think it is a issue of basic property rights. I would no more allow people to use my yard as a shortcut to the next block than I would be willing to open my property to the public for fishing access. I would grant permission if someone approached me for fishing access. If they abuse that privledge they would be out on their ear never to return!

To me your statement that cleaning up trash is, or should be, the price of owning prime property is absurd. I would like you to approach any property owner and run that by them and see what reactions you get. Do you own property? If you do what if you woke up every morning to find a pile of trash dumped in your yard...do you gladly clean it up day after day and assume it's the price of owning property? Do you call the authorities? What would you do? I would take every step possible to eliminate the problem.

I think it is sad to see an increasing amount of access lost each year but I don't blame the property owners at all. They incur the liability of allowing people to use their land if they wish if they don't want to deal with the public so be it.

I don't understand why you think water front property owners should be held to a different standard than every other property owner in this country.

The logic, Steve, is simple. If you buy a building on a piece of property in downtown Seattle, then you are required by law (and your insurance company) to provide and pay for ensuring safe access to that building. That's why urban property owners and managers make sure that their garages are well lit and that the sidewalks in front of their buildings are clear of snow or other potentially dangerous obstacles. This is the responsibility they accepted, along with the associated costs, when they acquired the property.

Similalry, anybody who buys a piece of property bordering a public waterway should understand that there are people who will want to reach the adjacent shore. Since the law is clear that the river and its shore is public property, they should be prepared to accept that keeping that area clean may become their problem and their expense.

As our rivers become increasingly urbanized, I believe access needs to be ensured. If that burden has to fall on the property owners, then so be it. Consider it a cost of ownership and decide accordingly whether you can accept and afford it.

As for the Snoqualmie example, I am a fisherman, so that is my primary motivation for wanting to get to the river. Presumably, because this is a site about fishing, others will have the same concern.

Gerard W.
Seattle, WA

Ok, I have seen both sides of the coin here. I know the guy Os is talking about on the Nooch. I've seen waterways cut off to fishermen because of lack of respect. Here's what I feel....

Some people in this state have owned property for quite a long time (some have had property on rivers passed on from previous generations). Though currently it states that you can't block access or own the streambeds, in some instances of homeowners being grandfathered under old laws own the bottom of the river. Though they have no ownership of waterway (water you float in) they can stop you from anchoring up. You can floatfish through, but that's it. I have seen on two rivers (the Nooch being one) where the police have been called in because of an anchored driftboat that wouldn't move. The homeowner showed the deed and the officer instructed the boat to either pull anchor or be cited. Do I believe this is fair or right??? Well, I don't have to pay the taxes on that riverbed so I can't say. I do know in parts of Montana and in alot of the east coast states the streambed is owned by the homeowners and in states like Vermont they own even the waterway (they have to allow you to driftthrough, but you can't even fish it as you float by due to age old rules that still apply). In fact from reading an article from Fly Fisherman (I do believe that was the one, I'll try to go back through old mags to find which one) a group of guides in Vermont took the access to the supreme court and was ruled against for right to fish these "exclusive" waters.

With the garbage aspect. Yes, it is a big problem on alot of rivers. Bringing up the Yakima is a bad rationalization if I remember my regs (I haven't fished it for along time so don't qoute me on this). It used to be a primarily fly fishing only river. You won't see the bait containers and such. Usually only garbage you'll see is flies stuck in trees on other rivers edge. As with the Nooch, rivers access was given by gates leading to the rivers edge. I personally have seen way too much excess line, sandshrimp containers, and misc. garbage strewn all over the place. He finally locked off his property because he was tired of seeing his property being defaced this way. I do believe there are alot of owners who are doing it for the "exclusivity" of their property, but some are just tired of their good deeds being abused. Also there is the problem of insurance issues. Once someone enters your property, you are legally responsible for anything that happens to them. I'm sure that with some, if these rules where lifted (for circumstances of access to public land/waterways) maybe and I say maybe there may be more likelihood of properties being opened. I even have places I am not allowed to deliver to because of this fear (they have a lockbox at driveway entrance I must leave their packages at).

This is a debate I doubt you can ever really solve. The richey riches won't let up unless the law makes them. I've read about people buying up big parcels of Montana rivers just to lock them up (or provide only a fee access to their banks). Anyone not abiding to their rules are quickly dealt with by the law (funny how having alot of money makes the law jump your way faster). This is a big roundabout. I would like to see access to public waterways, but I guess we can't really judge someone unless we've walked in their shoes can we?

------------------
you haven't lived til you've rowed a cataraft. Friends don't let friends run Outcasts.

A building in Seattle, if its being accessed by anyone other than the owner, is not comparing apples for apples. The landowner is not allowing access for anyone but himself. On top of that, the codes you refer to are city codes and have nothing to do with rural country where the City of Seattle doesn't reign.

If it makes you feel any better, there is a stretch on the Yakima in which the landowners own the stream bed. You can't even anchor there. Yeah, I wish I could fish it and if I would ever listen to steelheader69 and buy a cataraft, thats the first place I'm heading.

This has been interesting, time to move on for me. Regards Gerard.

Steve

I agree, Steve. This has been interesting.

The truth be told, I understand property owners who restrict access due to abuse and liability. As a respectful bank fisherman, however, I am disturbed that local fish waters are being systematically blocked off.

Perhaps a workable public policy solution would be to provide tax breaks to landowners who provide access. Another solution might be to make more waters fly fishing only. In light of what I have learned on this thread, I would support either.

In the meantime, my selfish solution is to make as much money as possible - this way I can afford to fish in remote and/or private, fee-only areas. It's sad, but realistic.

See you on the river.

Gerard W.
Seattle, WA

G-Spot: I think the solution is not to throw the entire U.S. body of property rights law and tradition away because you or I want access. Let's keep private property private. (I certainly agree with requirements not to degrade the "commons" thu action on private property.) Furthermore, my rights don't depent on what reason I cite when I close my land to access. That is, people don't have to be littering my land for me to post it, and I shouldn't have to let them in if they do everything right. I consider the highest value of my property to be its solitude. I simply don't want to meet anyone there--I have to interact enough with people at the airport, the office etc. etc. My land is more like a living room to me than is most people's living room. I searched long and hard for land that would provide that. I have stream front, but it's too small to really fish (it has fish). I didn't buy land where there would be tresspassing hassels, like a fishable river, because I don't want those hassels in the too-little time I have to enjoy the solitude. But the guy who did buy such land has the same rights I do.

So what of access? We need to get access on the free market, without diminishing anyone's rights. There are many organizations that do that, and I am on the board of one of them (a local land trust). Land aquisition is one way, but a conservation easement is a lot less expensive. We have found that people want to conserve land and they want other people in the future to enjoy and respect that land. They give away land to trusted organizations to achieve those goals. Not enough access? Well, then we need more people to get active in the organizations that do the work--and it is a lot of work.

Concerning ownership and resource conservation: the very best and ther very worst conserved land is in private hands. We are very lucky to live in a part of the contry that has significant public lands and waters. Texas, by contrast, is about 95 percent private. If you want to hunt you pay at least a hundred a day, and $10,000 or more for a season of deer hunting on good land. Washington is a lot more like Switzerland than Texas is like Washington. In Texas you have to be rich to hunt, there is little public land to get access to, and the ultimate is to own a ranch. The resource? The state is crawling with game.

So, access yes. But we need to achieve it through ownership and easment in the open market. Property rights? Yes, without a doubt. But any owner who degrades a riparian corridor or loads a river with nutrients or sediment gets no sympathy from me.

G-spot, This is my last reply on this thread. You have not come up with one construstive idea. We are to let anyone on our land, but we can't come onto yours. Yours for some reason is different. There are 2 other threads on this board about garbage clean up on two different rivers. Funny how it isn't a problem. Read how many bags Yarf'em picked up. He said he got a pat on the back from a lot of people, but he didn't say one person stopped to help him. Sorry to say, your property is no different than mine. If and when the government decides that you can have access through my property, I will come camping in yours. You never answered my question wether or not you stopped and asked people that have their property posted if you could park and walk through to go fishing. I think you might be surprized at how many of them say "sure". Some people just want to know who is on their property. Wouldn't you?

After all that has been said, it baffles me that its taken till fishhead5 to consider the obvious. Guess I haven't had the access problem seem as insurmountable as some posts here lead me to believe it is for them. I don't go sauntering across private land without having talked to the owner first because it is common courtesy. Being raised on a farm with several hundred acres to roam ingrained the bond between neighboring farms and land holders that was strong and simple. Do unto others as you'd wish others do unto you. Courtesy, trust and a persons word carries with it responsibility of honoring what is not yours and respecting others property as if it was. Times are changing, lawyers and judges laid out ground rules inadvertently removing distracting resources such as common sense and good judgement. Their reasoning, if everything was defined in law adnauseam, the results of reasoning would be balanced and more equitable for all. Though powers at be still wonder at the legal definition of "THE", yet set in play means for anyone to frivolously sue you, me or the poor land owner that politely granted permission for people to cross their land to fish or launch a boat. Incredible what greed can destroy. I don't think we need a long dissertation on the legislative ramifications of forcing easements on land owners and don't embrace an US and THEM issue. When I see trash at the boat ramps, along the paths to fishing holes, it makes me wonder why folks would leave such a mess. I had that very thought many times when picking up trash thrown out on our farm. I set out a trash barrel. Some put trash in it, but many just threw it in the vicinity. After a few months the barrel was stolen. Be that as it may. If someone wanted to hunt or camp on our property and asked permission it was granted. Those I caught that didn't had a rough row to hoe. Puts your character in question if you aren't up front with most land owners. If you are, your now part of the solution, not the problem. Volunteer time to mend fence, pick up trash etc, You may find out that crotchety old man has a soft spot for fishing.
That said. I am very interested in the boundaries of land owners around waterways. Any light shed on the subject would be most appreciated.
Tight lines.