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.