For those who don't know about them, more information can be found here . Basically for $400 a year you can have access to "members only" waters that they have leased from the property owners. They have some prime stretches of water available for their members only.

I was talking to my uncle last night about how a stretch of Eagle Creek that he used to love to fish was now OFC members only. The owner of the property used to let anglers in as long as they kept it clean, but that was no more. He (my uncle) was furious that one of the best stretches of the stream was now unavailable to him.

Oregon Fishing Club does require that their members clean up after themselves, as the club takes responsibility for the cleanliness of the banks. Their leases tend to be long ones (4 to 7 years) and from what I understand after talking to a representative non-members are not allowed to fish the property.

So, here's the debate. Is Oregon Fishing Club a good thing or not? $400 is a lot of money, but for the money you get prime stream access. There's often discussions about the legality of fishing within the high water mark, so can they legally keep non-members from fishing there?

If you cannot debate without personal attacks, then please move along.

Edit: Dave, please allow me to edit into your topic title so as to show all it now encompases. Thanks. - RT

[ 12-27-2001: Message edited by: RT ]

On many or most of the OFC fishing access properties leased from private owners in Oregon, what those members have actually purchased is the right to cross the designated private property and stand on the river bank and fish from above the mean high water mark. What many or most of those paying members are not aware of is that they have not purchased exclusive rights to fish that water; which they may have been led to think. Non-members can wade in from a legally accessed point and fish the same water if they stay below the 'mean high water mark'. And boaters can legally set their anchor on the river bottom to fish that same water, or certainly pull plugs or cast drift rigs while the oarsman holds them there - ethically so if they get there first. Of course this infuriates the OFC members, who most often try to misinform to intimidate non-members from fishing those holes they think they bought. ...

As for whether that's worth $400 dollars a year to someone is likely dependant on whether the easier access is worth that - and also if the particular holes they get to fish are getting non-member fishing activity there or not.

In past debates on this subject it has been credibly argued and correctly presented that any river deemed to be legally navigable, or that fits the lawful description pertaining to river navigability, can be legally fished standing below the MHWM or from a boat. Court challenges to this by some river front property owners have brought forth rulings that the river they live on now becomes a registered navigable river; to their dismay and disdain. More aware property owners now are thus more apprehensive to have guys fishing below the MHWM arrested by the local sheriff, and wind up in court having 'their' river deemed navigable - which most NW rivers with salmon and steelhead runs in them qualify for. This is just unfortunate for the greedy people that believe God and nature's rivers and fish can be bought and kept away from all other's.

On the other side of the coin, I believe in having much harsher penalties for those that abuse private property by damaging or litering it! This slob disrespect of private property is likely the bigger of the two main reasons we have lost so many river access points to 'No Trespassing' postings. The other reason is due to selfish greed.

That's my informed and slightly left of center opinion.

RT

RT
I must take exception with your comment that anglers may access the water from a legal access point if they entered it at a legal access point.This is the law in Montana not Oregon.
This is only true if the stream is "navagable".Very few streams in Oregon are navigable.Good example is the Clackamas.Surely this River meets all the criteria to be navigable but it is only "declared" navigable up to the Hwy 99 bridge.1,000 meters up from the mouth.Droping anchor on a non-navigable is a dubious action.In Multnomah County the sheriff will ticket you if the landowner/landowners can show a deed to the middle of the river or a meander line.This does not mean you will be found guilty but it means you will waste a day in court unless you can pursuade the DA to not prosecute.In other counties some Shefiffs have decided to look the other way and then some just write you up regardless of the DA's instrucitons.This is done to make the landowner happy and as an immediate remedy for the landowner as most people will leave when they receive a ticket.Not me if I have done my homework.A trip to the County Court house will sometimes save your bacon.Often times landowners will bluff both the sheriff and the angler into believeing they own deed to both sides of a stream that may or may not meet the navagability criteria.
The property in questiion is EAGLE CREEK a tributary of the Clackamas.Not a navigable water by any strech of imagination.The property owner owns both sides of the Creek.This is in the area known as the 2nd ladder.Snagging and fishing closed water has been a problem for decades.OSP needed a full time Cop there when the Creek was the major supplier for Spring Kings for the Clack & Sandy Rivers.This area was responsable for the most felony & misdemeanor tickets per hour in Oregon.The property is a PIG Pen for thoughtless slob anglers.Trash of all kinds surrounds the area and that is a major reason it is now CLOSED to the public.Once again a few ruin something for the masses.Paid full - time Police oficers are patroling the area.Parking at the yellow gate and tresspasssing in is a thing of the past.I used to do it and I will bet RT did too.We all knew we were tresspassing as the property was well marked and the NEW trail avoided the dwelling.I have fished this property for over 30 years.Too bad it is gone.Maybe $400 a year to fish clean properties where your car won't get bashed and you have access to lakes, ponds and rivers is a good deal.I've been known to sit in the bushes at Marmot and other places waiting for car bashers who will be lucky to survive my wrath.But that's another issue.

O.K., I'll admit I was there this morning to clean the place in question up. Man, what a mess!!!!! This particular landowner had no choice but to close this area down. It was costing him an arm and a leg to have this area patrolled by the fuzz. The litter and tresspassers were just too much for him, and I guess the costs were just too great for him to continue any longer.

What most people don't realize is that for many years he looked the other way, only to have them trash his land. His property is bordered by a fence that is surrounded by some timber land closer to the hatchery. The public still has access to this area, just don't go beyond the fence line, and you won't be asked to leave. If you are an OFC member, then have your proper ID and you won't be asked to leave either. The landowner is supplying his guests with passes also. This area is just a prime example of how a few can ruin it for many others.

As far as Eagle Creek or any other river that is or is not "navigable", that varies from stream to stream, Federal law or not. If you think that Federal law overrides State law then consider Oregon and California's Medical Marijuana laws, heck I think Washington even tried to pass that too. My point is, regardless of what the feds say, old Carl on the Kilchis might have a word or two with you for anchoring in his hole. Crazy stuff.

I joined the OFC almost three years ago,and will renew again when the time comes up. I make an average wage, so by no means is this something that the average guy can't afford if he put's his mind to it. We do have some great access.

I'm sorry to Dave and his dad for their loss to a place they thought they could go into before. There was always a NO TRESSPASS sign or two we all used to walk by, it's just enforced now. The owner decided enough was enough. If you saw the snagfest I'm sure you would understand.
I just hope this doesn't turn ugly....

Chris

[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: SeaMeantGuy ]

Bilge and others,

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

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

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

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

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

RT

Sorry guys, I don't think that buying up and closing off land is the goal of the OFC. To provide some great river, pond and lake action to it's members might be another story.
I find it humorous that so many people like to blame or get pissed off at the OFC, when this is the same as 'Redneck Bob' not letting you cross his dairy field to fish the river so many feel they have a 'right' to. I've never had a problem with a boat working a slot or run, or even if they anchor in the area where I want to fish. I simply move. I do have a problem with guys hopping out and cleaning their fish, or disrupting fishing for others, when I'm fishing from club locations. I feel that I nor any other members think we have 'exclusive' rights to certain waters or holes( unless they are ponds).
As far as fishing below the MHWM, and walking up and down the stream, go for it. I do it all the time, just don't go wandering around someone else's land. Stay below the MHWM. This is common sense, so I can't see why people get upset at the OFC or any other landowner/ property leasee for wanting to protectt whatis theirs. I once had a gun pointed at me for exiting UP the side of a one way cliff on the Sandy. Scary stuff. Needless to say, we don't fish the "gun in your face" hole anymore!
Basically fishing is a poor excuse for Tresspassing. My father in law,during his days as an OSP LT. in F&W, wrote plenty of tickets for those who could not read or chose to ignore very blatant signs. Whether they were upheld in court is another story, but he delivered many tickets to the doors of many fisherman, and hunters alike.
Like I said before, the land in question had been abused for many years, and the landowner had enough. He approached the OFC as a way to identify who was to be on his land. Don't you want to know who's sitting on your couch , or do you leave your door open for anyone who feels that the earth is for all, and we can go anywhere we damn well please ?

I'm off to wait for my fishing buddy... Tight lines

Chris

Seameantguy:
As I read your post you seem to be saying it is OK to go where you want as long as you are below the high water mark.This is perhaps true on many properties along streams holding anadromous fish but not the Case anywhere on EAGLE CREEK.
The " gray " area RT speaks of is becoming more gray as we speak because the people who started the process to determine navigability are the landowners.Now the ignorant ***** have realized that the law was always clear but the enforcement was not. It is the landowners who are trying to stop the lengthy and costly process which will give us back our access to most large waterways.They thought that by making the determanation so costly the State would not fund the studies.Agencies involved tried desperately to get the legislature to avoid this process.We will soon see what happens as the land board will make a decision on the Sandy this year.Notice I said Land Board not the courts.The land board is made up of realestate crooks and others who are only interested in devlopment.Not conservation or public rights.They could overturn the Sandy "findings" and try to fight back using state's rights issues which plays well into the republican way of thinking.That will cost the state a lot of $ in what most educated persons believe would be a losing battle.
My earlier post mentions how Multnomah Co. Sheriff's should conduct themselves.This advice came from the State Attorney General.
Good Luck

Bilgerat,

You are correct. The landowner does own to the middle on E.C. Sorry if that was unlcear from me before.

Chris

Hunting clubs, fishing clubs, etc are the biggest bunch of Bull$hit I have ever heard of..... Ever! This is a simple case of the "Haves" trying to keep the "Have nots" out of areas that would otherwise be made available to them. My God! Dont we already pay enough for licenses, tags, etc? Now we have to join some club if we want to fish!? The whole idea of having to join a club just frys me! the whole thing just doesn't seem right to me...It seems as though it's nothing more than a bunch of rich elitists who have gotten together and thought of some way to reduce the competition.

LittleZoZo-

No rich elitist here . My friends and I are just ordinary guys, that work ordinary jobs ( I'm a cement flatworker, ), with ordinary pay. The reason I joined the OFC, is to access these private roads, properties etc, along with my favorite streams. A great alternative to buying, and a whole lot less expensive.

As far as having to join a club to fish or hunt, how else are you going to drive down someone else's driveway, park on their lawn, and walk thru their yard to get there ? These landowners are very generous to share their beautiful surroundings with us. Not everyone who owns a home on a stream is like this. Denied access to everyone exists on every river I know. Restricted access to a few is just as common. It's up to the property owner to decide who they want on their land, and how they choose to id these same people is also their choice. If it involves the OFC, great bonus for me, if not I'll slip on downriver(or drive), and continue my journey in search of that 20 # steelie. Respecting landowner rights all the way.

Tight lines,

Chris

If a landowner chooses to lease his property to a club, then that's his right..... I'm just saying that I dont like it. I used to live in a part of the country where you literally couldn't go hunting or fishing unless you went to a private ranch and payed somebody some ungodly amount of $$$ to access their property. As far as the elitist thing goes..... It isn't like you have to be Bill Gates to be able to afford the $400.00 to buy into OFC, but there are other clubs in other parts of the country where a membership can cost thousands. A lot of my disdain stems from the thought that we might not be in this situation of having to buy memberships if it weren't for all the idiots out there who cut fence lines, litter, leave all of their $hit on the bank, etc. It's just not right that we should have to shell out even more of our hard earned dollars just because a few @ssholes cant respect the property of others.

Understood and point well taken. Yes, a few can ruin it for the many

Chris

I am not into the laws hole lot to be able to debate high water marks but they sound self explainitory.
However if a property owner can get 400$ from someone let them (I would never pay someone to fish I already pay the MAN a fee every year to fish now), but i do see one problem that we must all face and stand up to is liter that is why property owners get so mad ( I don't own property next to a river but even I get pissed when people leave stuff behind
)