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