In today's Seattle Times front page is a picture of a salmon angler on the Quilcene river. And the caption talks about a landowner stretching a rope with "no trepassing" signs on it from one side to the other. My question is, can a landowner do this?? I know they can own the shoreline but can they prohibit anglers from wading in the river itself? The landowner is charging $10 for access. I don't fish that river or live near it but it sure seemed not right. I do fish on the Sky and there is private land that I walk by as I walk in the river. Am I trepassing?

Bob needs to add spellcheck, you guys are killing me

if i heard right, he owns up to the high water mark...only.......

It hsa been porven taht evne if teh words are all scrwed up yuo cna stlil understnad evrey thnig I wriet....

Spellchcek... I don't nede it...

The way I understand it is that if a river is navigitable (sp?), you can wade it to the high water mark. Some of the smaller rivers and creeks, the land owners owns the bottom of the river. Something about it being grandfathered into the deed. Ran into this on the Carbon years ago with a syco land owner that claimed he owned the river bottom.
The judge did not agree with this guys idea.

don't quote me, but i believe all rivers default to navigable unless otherwise specified

if they try to get you on it, i'd take a cataraft through it and then challenge it

Chum Man, I do believe you are correct. They cannot stop you from using the water for transportation.

If it was legal to walk in the river, I don't know if i would. Seeing some of the landowners around the state I would be afraid of being shot or worse.
Paul

It came down to asking a simple question...."do you really have the thousands of dollars to pay a lawyer to prove you are right?" As far as I know no one recieved a citation for trespass....but if pressed the landowner could have a sheriffs deputy issue one and no matter how much you scream about what you believe the law to be your alternatives would be to pay a $275 fine or hire a lawyer. I paid the $50 for a season pass and had a very nice season. The Department of Natural Resources website has a map showing all of the waters in this state that are legally navigable due to precedents of use for commerce and transportation or due to court cases that specifically determined a rivers navigability. They also show rivers that might be assumed to fit the navigable criteria if taken to court. There's also some RCW's that refer to what is naviagable and what is not....sorry I don't have them here at home.
Sadly the Quilcene River is not listed as navigable.

It does not fricking matter if the river is navigable or not , it also does not matter that he owns both sides of the river. Except for some places in the south east we have a right to all natural waters. What does matter is that according to washington state law that con man can be held liable for any injuries recieved on his property intentional or not! This is due to the fact he is charging people to walk on his property. He cannot legally stop you from walking in the water. I have also checked out the law books on this.

Signed Micropterus101

P.s I am sure that he made more than 200 dollars on this scam so I am sure he has a business license too, and of course he has been writting receipts. riiiiiight.

Ah well....sounds like your ready to represent yourself in court? I wish you luck.

The permits were sold thru his business and yes I got a receipt. I also signed a waiver of liability. From my estimation he likely sold around 25 season permits @ $50 and easily a 100 day permits @$10. It was down right peaceful down there for once.

I would have to do some diggen thru my files but I do believe state law says that a river is assumed to be navigable in lieu of other precendent such as documented use for commerce or navigation if it was "meandered' during the original government lot surveys. In that case the word "meander" is used to describe ownership in a deed. I found no use of the word "meandered" in the deeds for his property and those adjoiing his. FYI "meandered" is usually assumed to be the line of vegetation along a shoreline.

Oh btw I do believe the Cascade is designated navigable....no wonder the judge threw out that case.

In Washington State a waiver of liability for purposes of being sued against medical expenses is only a technicality. It is null and void in a court of law. In other words Washington does not allow you to sign away your right to sue in the event you are injured.

Signing the waiver also voids any insurance you may have that would apply if something happened.

TheKing

From how I understand the law on this issue that is not true. Your medical would still be valid.

I don't know if it's the same as the clearwater in Alaska? the tribe own's the land even under the water, but the state own's the water, you can fish the creek but don't get out of your boat or anchor or touch the land and it is legal

Lead,

Most policies state that if you waive or settle the insurer's or insured's right to subrogate or sue you have voided the policy. You have stopped them from recovering any losses they may have paid.

The only way they would pay is if you were 100% in the wrong and covered and the waiver never became known or was a factor.

hmmm

Interesting....that I did not know

Guess it pays to read every line in those policies

Who said anything about the Cascade???

Who said anything about the Cascade???

i remember reading in the local paper about some ongoing battle on the kettle river where fisherman and rafters have been chased away and even shot at by some old scumbag that lives on the river. supposedly he's in his 70s, and the walls of his house are plastered with nazi and anti-immigration propaganda.

just one of those people that can't possibly leave this world too soon

Here is the bottom line on the quil: The river has been deemed non-navagatible at this point. The piece of land and the river in question in not navagatible (sp). 13th Dist Coast guard is the proponent that governs navagatability for the state. I have talked to the director personally. Believe me when I say that this river has been deemed non-navagatilbe as far as the state is concerend. Easy fix; fish up above.

Dustoff,
Do you know if there a list of what rivers are and are not navigable, or is this a call the local authority everytime you want bank it...

Just curious

Dustoff,
Do you know if there a list of what rivers are and are not navigable, or is this a call the local authority everytime you want bank it...

Just curious

For what it's worth Doug Kelly has it right for many of the rivers, the owner just does not feel like enforcing the law for his land,

We ran into the very same thing on the Yakima River, we used to hunt a spot for years and this guy finally was fed up and posted the land and ran us off one morning,

the short is, just like Doug says, float on by but dont touch bottom or the bank Period!! and no it is not on Tribal Land, Dad says he has run into other areas just like this all over the state over the years, old rights that have been grandfathered in.

Bud.

So the government runs the hatchery to plant fish. Now this guy profits off of selling the right to walk across the river to fish. I'm glad I haven't fished the Quilcene this year. They can close the hatchery for all I care. Hope this jerk gets audited by the IRS.

Piper the Washington Dept of Natural Resources has a map on their website that shows what rivers or portions of them are considered navigable. Go to their site and use their search to look for navigable waters....it'll take you right to it. You'll find that very few waters are shown as not navigable but on the other hand you'll also find many rivers are not shown as their navigability is undetermined....such as the Quilcene.

If anyone is really interested in what state laws say about this issue alls you have to do is go to the the state legislatures website. There you will find the current RCW's, WAC's and even the state attorney generals written opinions. Simple search of all 3 on that page will provide you with a lot of info. Be sure to read the definitions of what "navigable waters" are under Titles 79, 88, and 90 of the RCW's. THe attorney generals opinions will also speak to the jurisdiction of the Federal government. You'll also see an AG opinion on the the issue of undetermined navigability...specifically North River....very interesting opinion.

Sorry I meant the Carbon ...not the Cascade.

Where's TODD????
He need's to answer this one

Up here in Whatcom county we have Green Lake, it's surrounded by private property, but it does have a creek flowing from it. The property owner under no terms will let anyone fish it!!
So I called the Sherriff's office and the Game Dept and both told be If I want to wade up the creek pulling my boat to access the lake there is not a thing he can do about it. He owns the land around the lake, not the water.

You should call both dept's down there and ask???

Nothen more from me til I lawyer up! Todd?

Piper, if you read goose's feeds he is correct concerning the natural resources page. Most small river's have not been designated one way or the other. I just happened to call to get some info on the Quil and was told by the 13th Dist. that it is not navagatible. In my opinion no one should own the water navagatible or not. We did fish that place on the Quil this year. We payed the money due to the fact that we had 4 little ones with us that did not have waders and were not into walking a long ways. It was ok for that purpose. I actually gave away a couple of fish and talked, for quite a while, to the guy who owns the land on the north side of that roped off area. Everyone here should know that this guy is all for people catching fish and told me he doesn't mind anyone fishing his land. The only problem is that I don't exactly know how to get to his land without crossing the pay area. But he did tell me that we were welcome to fish his property (about 2 miles worth or good water) any time. We always ended up fishing his land anyway. In my opinion, he has the better holes on his property. The guy actually lives up around Port Angeles somewhere. He says that he doesn't do much with the land other than take some logs every now and then. Its a great place to fish if I could only figure out how to get down to it without crossing the pay area. Hope that helps.

Hmmmm, how about floating through with a big ass knife under your drift boat.

at high water it might be possible.

This topic has been covered in the past on this board and others. I remember posts by knowledgable people,dan s, todd,cowlitzfisherman and others.

Here's my information.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that rivers that are navigable ,for title purposes, are owned by the states,"held in trust" for the public. This applies in all fifty states.

The federal test of navigability is not a technical test but simply whether the river is usable as a route by the public.

The states own these rivers up to the "ordinary high water mark." This is the mark that people can actually see on the ground where the high water has left debris, sand,and gravel during its ordinary annual cycle.

State governments cannot reduce public rights to navigate and visit navigable rivers within their borders,but they can expand those rights. They can create a floatage easement, a public right to navigate even on rivers that are non-navigable, when the water is there, people have a right to be there on it , when it dries up people have no right to be there. But rivers that are navigable for title purposes are public land up to the high water mark,so even when the river runs dry, people still have the right to walk along the bed of the river.

Only federal courts can designate a river or section of a river navigable, the situation gets confusing when a state agency or commission holds hearings about public use of rivers.

It's been my experience that law enforcement officers have no clue on laws concerning rivers and usually side with property owners when a conflict occurs.

A good rule is that when fishing a non-navigable river is do not cross private property[ this applies to all fishing] or step out of a boat,anchoring can be a problem but I only know of one serious problem, it took place on the Trask in Or.

There's lot of info on various sites, makes for interesting reading.

I kinda of get a kick out of this thread..... No such anger though at the ridiculous $10.00 mukiliteo fee, but people angry at this guys trespass fee (to fish in peaceful area)?
I would happily pay a guy $10.00 if it meant having a positive experience. Even after paying the $10 mukilteo fee, it still sucks (the launch that is)....

MC