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