or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Can You Help Me Out? - Page 2

post #31 of 57
TPJ, what you are describing is the traditional euro model where only the landed aristocracy and their cronies get access to the stream. Think the Test and Itchen, at least back in the day. (Not sure what the situation is now.) I was aghast when I first read about this as a fishing kid. That we in this country have mostly implemented a more democratic approach is one of the things that makes me proud to be American. (Many other things don't.) So I am totally with you. Maybe it should be a separate thread, though?.
post #32 of 57
"Nothing to kill it with"? You don't use your teeth like Gollum?
post #33 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

"Nothing to kill it with"? You don't use your teeth like Gollum?

 

I need a few more things in my boat.  A first aid kit would be good because at some point in a full day of streamer fishing I will burn the crease of my finger strip setting the hook and then I have trouble.  Tape would go a long way to solve that problem and I would stop missing strikes later in the day because of not wanting to feel the pain.  Other things I need are a heavy club to quickly kill a fish with, a large bag to put it in so that it doesn't funk out the cooler too bad, and a decent knife to clean it with in the field.  I could have killed the fish if I wanted to badly enough, but didn't want to put it in the cooler to bleed and slime.

 

I haven't kept a fish all season and don't think much about it until the need arises.

post #34 of 57
Oarlock, maybe??? (Rinse and replace.)
post #35 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

TPJ, what you are describing is the traditional euro model where only the landed aristocracy and their cronies get access to the stream. Think the Test and Itchen, at least back in the day. (Not sure what the situation is now.) I was aghast when I first read about this as a fishing kid. That we in this country have mostly implemented a more democratic approach is one of the things that makes me proud to be American. (Many other things don't.) So I am totally with you. Maybe it should be a separate thread, though?.

 

I often think about how "lucky" I am to have so much public water so close to my home.  Soda Lake seems far away at 40 miles including a bit of real 4WD at the end.  I can fish several spots that are less than 15 minutes from my house and have several world class options within 1 hr.  My college roommate loves to fly fish and lives in Indiana.  He has to drive several hours to get to the closest place that is not nearly as good as any of the options that I have within 20 miles.  I am aware that a lot of the rest of the world doesn't have public land available for fishing, hunting, and general recreation.  I was listening to a pod-cast recently which talked about fly fishing in Iceland and Norway? where the cost was astronomical because of the landowners fee.  In Iceland it sounds as if there is almost no public option.

 

I have it really good here even by US standards because of all of the National Parks, National Forest, and BLM land.  I cringe when I see tea bagger propaganda on FB that suggests that the government should sell off this land.  Are you reading this Bud?

post #36 of 57
My late dad, bless him, always had a piece about 14" long sawed off of an old handle from a shovel or pick or something.
post #37 of 57

Don't know how to kill a fish?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQKk99I3wTQ

post #38 of 57
As a property owner (with no flowing water) in Colorado, I have a contrary view. Others purchased their property with legal standing that they owned the rights to the water access and the ground under it. Current Colorado case law, without a more recent definitive legal definition of "navigitable waters", supports this status. Without just compensation, it is unconstitutional to "take" away the rights to their legal property. Yes, there are legal responsibilities to pollutants flowing from their properties, but we cannot just take away their legal access rights and decrease the value of what they have because we want something without paying for it. Take a legal standing to court if you want to turn over current water and property rights.
post #39 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetonpwdrjunkie View Post
 

....  My college roommate loves to fly fish and lives in Indiana.  He has to drive several hours to get to the closest place that is not nearly as good as any of the options that I have within 20 miles.  ...

???   I guess if he lives far away from the steelhead fishing there and is keyed in only on trout/steelhead etc., this makes sense.  But, having played hookie on the drive through numerous times, Indiana is sort of like Idaho is for bird hunting;  great smallmouth, striper, wiper, channel cat, largemouth, carp, etc. fishing, all of which are fun on the fly and all of which can be found in local streams.  He may want to hit the smallmouth up if he hasn't yet, he can even use float-n-fly and pretend he's indicator nymphing.

post #40 of 57
Why do they put barbed wire across? Why do they care if kayaks use the river?
post #41 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatChance View Post

As a property owner (with no flowing water) in Colorado, I have a contrary view. Others purchased their property with legal standing that they owned the rights to the water access and the ground under it. Current Colorado case law, without a more recent definitive legal definition of "navigitable waters", supports this status. Without just compensation, it is unconstitutional to "take" away the rights to their legal property. Yes, there are legal responsibilities to pollutants flowing from their properties, but we cannot just take away their legal access rights and decrease the value of what they have because we want something without paying for it. Take a legal standing to court if you want to turn over current water and property rights.

There's a third option, namely paying landowners in some fashion for express easements in states where they currently own the streambed. 

post #42 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post
 

???   I guess if he lives far away from the steelhead fishing there and is keyed in only on trout/steelhead etc., this makes sense.  But, having played hookie on the drive through numerous times, Indiana is sort of like Idaho is for bird hunting;  great smallmouth, striper, wiper, channel cat, largemouth, carp, etc. fishing, all of which are fun on the fly and all of which can be found in local streams.  He may want to hit the smallmouth up if he hasn't yet, he can even use float-n-fly and pretend he's indicator nymphing.

 

I have no idea where he lives really.  I'm just going by what he told me.  You are right though, there is lots of good non trout fly fishing to be done and a lot of it is in relativly urban areas.  Washington DC for example has great fly fishing right in the city.

 I also know from living in places other than the Tetons that there are nice outdoor escapes all over the place if you know how to look for them.

post #43 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatChance View Post

As a property owner (with no flowing water) in Colorado, I have a contrary view. Others purchased their property with legal standing that they owned the rights to the water access and the ground under it. Current Colorado case law, without a more recent definitive legal definition of "navigitable waters", supports this status. Without just compensation, it is unconstitutional to "take" away the rights to their legal property. Yes, there are legal responsibilities to pollutants flowing from their properties, but we cannot just take away their legal access rights and decrease the value of what they have because we want something without paying for it. Take a legal standing to court if you want to turn over current water and property rights.

 

Just because I think the law was written wrong in WY, CO, and some other states doesn't mean that I want to take anything away from a land owner including access rights.  In the case of the kayakers in CO it comes down to the landowner objecting to seeing people having fun floating by their homes.  If a kayaker gets out on private property and takes a leak in someones yard, they are a douche bag.  If a landowner wants to hassle kayakers for floating past their property by erecting a barrier or claiming that the water isn't navigable, then they are the douche bag.  I happen to believe that MT has it right when it comes to waterways, using the high water mark to define what is river and what is land.  Even in this case you don't, and shouldn't, have the right to cross private property to access a river.  I obey the access laws, I don't see why I should donate time to clean up a stream that I have no access to.

post #44 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

There's a third option, namely paying landowners in some fashion for express easements in states where they currently own the streambed. 

Good point, thanks.
post #45 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by billy94z View Post

Why do they put barbed wire across? Why do they care if kayaks use the river?

 

Visual/noise pollution and sometimes actual litter and trails, and disrupting fishing.  For the second one, if it's a good river, fishing rights by themselves are worth decent money.  Every pleasure boater who goes by disrupts fishing, and someone floating thru fishing who hasn't paid directly takes from those paying for fishing.  For the first, one bearded and stern Sierra Club member a day who makes no sound going by is not a big deal, but 20 people jumping into the river after ice cream scoops and beers and floating by your dinner party at the house you just bought can be a buzz-kill if you thought you were buying seclusion and proximity only to neighbors who had $$ to buy as well.

post #46 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post
 

 

Visual/noise pollution and sometimes actual litter and trails, and disrupting fishing.  For the second one, if it's a good river, fishing rights by themselves are worth decent money.  Every pleasure boater who goes by disrupts fishing, and someone floating thru fishing who hasn't paid directly takes from those paying for fishing.  For the first, one bearded and stern Sierra Club member a day who makes no sound going by is not a big deal, but 20 people jumping into the river after ice cream scoops and beers and floating by your dinner party at the house you just bought can be a buzz-kill if you thought you were buying seclusion and proximity only to neighbors who had $$ to buy as well.

If someone is floating and not getting out, there are no trails being made and no encroachment onto private property.  This is completely legal and a floater has the right to fish as well as long as they don't get out on shore or anchor.  The land owner doesn't own the fishing rights, only the access rights.  A floater takes nothing away because you aren't paying for fishing rights, you have purchased the right to be on the land and the land owner still controls that.  Boaters making a bunch of noise while floating past private property may be disrespectful, but it is not illegal.  As far as the visual pollution goes, that is just tough titties.  I don't believe that boats disrupt fishing nearly as much as some other anglers do.  The fact is that waterways are public and if I can float it, it's navigable.

 

One of the things that I find ludicrous about the landowner owning the land under the river is the idea that if they own only one side, they own the bottom to the middle of the river.  The middle of the river is a very hard point to define and is constantly changing.

post #47 of 57
Just because a kayak can float down a creek, stream or river does not necessarily make it a navigitable waterway, which is in some cases the important legal distinction. I don't know enough about laws in other states (and I am certainly not a lawyer) but the legal definition of navigitable is the crux for legal access (foot or boat) on waterways that flow over private land in Colorado, at least.
post #48 of 57
"Navigable waters, as defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers as codified under 33 CFR 329, are those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, and those inland waters that are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce while the waterway is in its ordinary condition. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), approved 3 March 1899, prohibits the unauthorized obstruction of a navigable water of the U.S. This statute also requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for any construction in or over any navigable water, or the excavation or discharge of material into such water, or the accomplishment of any other work affecting the course, location, condition, or capacity of such waters.

The definition of Navigable waterways reviewed for purposes of title is first based upon Federal laws. If a river was considered navigable at the time of statehood, the land below the navigable water was conveyed to the state as part of the road system. Most states retained title to these navigable rivers (in trust) as highways in order to facilitate transport and commerce. Some states divested themselves of title to the land below navigable rivers, but under federal laws this dose not block the free passage of boats. Title to the lands submerged by smaller streams not navigable at the time of statehood, under ordinary conditions, for purposes of commerce are considered part of the property through which the water flows."

Sounds like generally a kayak wouldn't count.
post #49 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatChance View Post

Just because a kayak can float down a creek, stream or river does not necessarily make it a navigitable waterway, which is in some cases the important legal distinction. I don't know enough about laws in other states (and I am certainly not a lawyer) but the legal definition of navigitable is the crux for legal access (foot or boat) on waterways that flow over private land in Colorado, at least.

 

Whether recreational uses such as rafting and float-fishing represent "commerce" is kind of the crux for a lot of these waters.  Technically, it's also true that better gear these days means outfitters could in theory raft a few loads of timber, vegetables, whatever from point A to point B to show true "commerce" being transacted on a cherry stretch of fishing water, so that they could bootstrap the "commerce" definition.  Clearly a lot of money changes hands when people use outfitters and guides.   A lot of these legal rules got put down well before modern outfitting of that nature was big business, though, so it's not clear that the fact you can rent canoes or rafts from 8 competing businesses for a float is legally enough in a number of states.

 

With the new and fun trend of pfd swims as a way of "navigating" pretty remote streams, you can take this down even a little finer.  I could see dry-bagging a little beef jerky, for instance, and transporting it to a vendor 30 miles downstream, which would be ridiculous but would establish a commercial use even though a much more expensive guided recreational use of the same stream might not.

post #50 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

"Navigable waters, as defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers as codified under 33 CFR 329, are those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, and those inland waters that are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce while the waterway is in its ordinary condition. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), approved 3 March 1899, prohibits the unauthorized obstruction of a navigable water of the U.S. This statute also requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for any construction in or over any navigable water, or the excavation or discharge of material into such water, or the accomplishment of any other work affecting the course, location, condition, or capacity of such waters...

Sounds like generally a kayak wouldn't count.

Freight canoes definitely would count.  That's sort of the rub, way back in the day they did carry freight, but didn't offer nature experiences.

post #51 of 57
post #52 of 57

I am not a lawyer and don't follow the issue super closely.  I read updates from American Whitewater about access and navigability.  I know in WY that some very small creeks were classified as navigable because of the Tie Hacks floating rail road ties down them during run-off.  Most of the land was public then or else they would have ran afoul of the law by needing to use the bottom of the river and the land next to the river to keep the logs moving.  Those guys were tough as nails.  I also don't kayak anymore, but used to love running steep creeks like the ones that are all over CO.

post #53 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

"Title to the lands submerged by smaller streams not navigable at the time of statehood, under ordinary conditions, for purposes of commerce are considered part of the property through which the water flows."

So the commercial use of the river at the time of statehood is what matters, not how it might be used now with regard to changing property and access laws? Thanks for the quoted citation.
post #54 of 57
I'm no lawyer. Read the eye glazer I linked to for some of that garbletygook.
post #55 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatChance View Post


So the commercial use of the river at the time of statehood is what matters, not how it might be used now with regard to changing property and access laws? Thanks for the quoted citation.


 Not necessarily.  You have three or 4 different standards floating around, including state law. States can't overrule federal views of navigability, but can apply standards more favorable to public use if they want.  Part of what they are grappling with is how to deal with different times relative to when the country was founded, just as the federal rules are different from what the Brits use.  I'm not a lawyer but have fished in the relevant states and have stayed at fleabag motels if not a Holiday Inn.

post #56 of 57

Video shared on my FB wall..

post #57 of 57
Thread Starter 

This has nothing to do with navigable waters, although the water in this stream is definitely navigable and definitely used for fishing.

 

I was in Alaska in late September at a place called Painter Creek Lodge.  The lodge owner and I played around with a GoPro while fishing for silver salmon and arctic char.  He came up with what I thought was the BRILLIANT idea of floating a GoPro down the river underneath a little wooden raft.

 

Here's some of the footage:

 

 

I'm working on a video I did on Fish Creek using the same idea.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion