I was watching FOX news yesterday and they were doing a story on public fishing access in the United States. They were saying how it was coming to a head (Land owners against fishermen) , and that there were several cases in the courts right now which may determine what a persons public access and fishing rights on public waterways will be in the future . One case involved a group of fly fishers who claimed that they had exclusive fishing rights on a river because it was on located on private lands. It was being challenged (I believe) by a guy that did not belong to the same "group" that had "bought" the access rights to fish on that river.

Did anyone else see or hear the story? If so, what is your thoughts on it, and did anyone catch what rivers were involved? My understanding was that the out come of these cases would set a new legal standard for all public access rights on public waters in the US. Did anyone else make the same assumption?

(Edit) here is one of the stories;
http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/newsreleases/2003/nwlittlej.htm

Cowlitzfisherman

I have mixed feelings on this issue.

If I had private riverfront property I wouldnt want just anybody fishing on my land.

My Uncle has a lake on his farm that is next to a county road. This lake has been in my family since before the 1920's. It has an outlet. The state has tried to convince him to allow them to stock it and make it public in the past. Asscess would be within the right of way accept for the fact that back in the 1920's my great grandfather built a house between the lake and the road which is the only thing that has kept it private I believe.

Since it has the outlet we have to abide by state fishing rules. It is very nice having a lake that is only open to our family and I wouldnt want it any other way.

An old guy that lives up the road next to my parrents in the same area also has a private lake which is not near the road. back in the 60's he aloud the state to stock it and make it public for fishing and duck hunting. He even put some row boats out to be a nice guy. Anyways he had nothing but problems with people abusing his land and leaving trash. He ended up trying to stop people from being able to use the lake and had to fight in court to get the rights back to his own lake which had been in his family since the 1880's

i would like to see all rivers/streams be public up to the high water mark. i wouldn't want it any other way. however, if they put one foot above it, you could get them for trespassing. i can't stand land owners that think they own the river

i believe that a lot of the trash that is in public places is put there by locals, not people who come from out of town(for the most part). kind of like the satsop. all the people from out of town typically take care of the resource, while the local hicks(there's some guys who drive their truck across the river near decker creek) typically don't give a damn at all

Rich

I can certainly see your point on this issue, but what do you feel about rivers and streams that run through numerous private properties? Should those streams be open for public use? Does the state own all the water rights on every river, stream and creek? If the people who have property that the stream or river runs through do not own or hold the "water rights", is it then the states?

If' it's the states, then it means it's "ours". Did your uncle hold the "water rights" on the pond? I really don't know how that one works, but one would think that if you did not have the "water rights" you could not control what happens with or to the usage of that water. I guess they could keep people off the water by not allowing access over there land, but if someone else owns the land that was adjacent to the pond, you would think that it would be hard to keep people off of the pond.

Is it only lakes that have outlets that the state can hold water rights on, or are you talking about man made lakes on private land?

If you don't own the water, how can you control its use?

If you own the land that water runs on, do you believe you can keep people off the bottom of the river or below it's normal high water mark? I believe that you said that you were an ocfficer of the law, if that is true, have you ever had to deal with enforcing this kind of laws?


Cowlitzfisherman

To me it's like living on a road and complaining about traffic. I should be able to walk the bank of any river in this country just as I can walk any road. There should be no fence or obstructions to the 100 year high water mark.
My Sister and Bro in law live on Lake Wa. They complain all the time about bass boats in front of their house early in the AM and try to chase them off. To me it's like facing your house at a freeway and you should expect it. Access to lakes fully enclosed by private land is another issue. You own the lake and have the right to determine access.

Theking

I like your comparison to roadways. I think that it would be excellent point to make in a legal argument in the courts. I never have quite heard it put that way before, but it makes sense because a river or stream can and have been used for public use and traffic. A road does not have to mean that it is covered with asphalt, stone, or concrete! A road could be covered with water too! Road; A place made to travel between places; A protected place near shore, not so enclosed as a harbor, where ships can ride at anchor"

How many "roads" run through private property?

Interesting point thatc you have made.

Cowlitzfisherman

Most people do not even understand that the road easments of a road of any real size is 80ft wide to accomodate the road and sidewalks. They landsacpe, fence etc. I can stand in most peoples front yards and not be tresspassing due to the legal easement. I think all rivers should have the equivelent of sidewalk easments for public use. That would mean a sidewalks width above the high water mark.

Cowlitz,

I have never delt with this issue before.

With my experience I could say that in general Law enforcement would be inclinded to side with the land owner inititially with this issue due to politics, and let the court make the decision who is in the right. Thats what I would do to make sure the liability is out of my hands anyways.

Im talking about bank anglers. For boats in navagatable rivers the land owner shouldnt and in my opinion wouldnt have a leg to stand on.

The lakes I was talking about are natural. My uncles is about 20 accres or so and the other is 80 or so. I dont know for sure but I would believe in both cases they would own the water rights for the lakes as the lakes are exclusuivly on their lands and they own the water rights for their properties.

Both lakes have outlets and have coho, sea run cutts and steelhead that spawn below the lakes. I assume this is why they have to abide by wa state fishing seasons due to the impact on those stocks.

Ill say it again I respect posted land and stay off and would expect the same if I owned the land unless I granted permission or was granted.

Un-doing laws that have been in place for decades is tricky business. I personally think that the State made a huge mistake in allowing private ownership to any natural body of water. Beaches, for instance, are particularly a rip off of public right. Another is private ownership that "charges" others to fish for a product that the land owner has no involvement in enhancing.

If "a river runs through it", the people should be able to enjoy it. (at least to the high water mark). And yes, I do own creek front (clear to the middle of the creek). It is, unfortunately closed year round now. WDFW closed it 30 years ago for "study" of the natural wild run of steelhead and salmon. Since that time, the "wild" fish have been spawned by man, the creek mouth dredged for no less than 500 yards, and a headwaters lake poisoned. Rarely do I see an adult fish in the creek. However, if it were open to fish, I would gladly allow fisherman to pass through, provided they take care of my property.

Theking

Government,utility,railroad right of ways or easements extending on to private property,unless designated for a certain use such as a pathway,are not intended for public use. You could be removed and cited for trespassing.

Owners of property on both sides of a river in some cases own the river bed but not the standing or flowing water. Now we get into navigable and non-navigable rivers.


I'll let that go unless there's a question I can answer.

In all reading I've done on this subject, we cannot cross private property,without permission,to reach a public recreation area.

If a lake surrounded by private property has an outlet with public access,the residents should know what to expect.

If I owned property with a lake or stream without public access,given what I see today hunting and fishing, I could not open it to the public.

theking,

Road right of ways vary in width and county records would have to be researched to determine the width of a specific right of way.

I believe the law allows anyone to use navigable waters as long as the individual is standing in or floating on the water. The rub comes with access across private property to get to the water. Navigable waters can be almost any above puddle size

here is the thing just because property is behind your house doesn't mean it belongs to you.
According to the federal navigability laws , which the states have no right to supercede, all water ways that can be floated in a boat are navigable and therefore public property held in trust by the states expressly for public use.. up to the normal high water mark.

That is the federal law that the states have no right to supercede. However they supercede it all the time..

This whole thing just makes me wish the public wasn't so loaded with property-abusing pigs that make landowners want to keep us out in the first place.

I've always believed in the public's right to access the banks of our waterways.........but at the same time, everything Rich said is right. If the public has access to it, it's gonna get abused.

Shoot, the WDFW can't even put garbage receptacles at public launches without them being being set on fire, smashed, or stolen.

It will be interesting to see what the high courts rule on these cases. The legal uncertainty certainly needs to be resolved.

Some landowners on some rivers, like the Klickitat, own the ground the water flows over to the centerline of the river. Some friends of mine own property there and that is the case. Drift boats etc are free to ply the river at will but the landowners have a say who can wade it and when.

Was a real surprise to me as I thought the public could access any waterway, navigable or not, to the high water mark as long as they didnt cross private property to get there.

Bob B,

They have to be specifically noted as closed otherwise they are open to use. We have to remember government property is our property. Some one may try to write you a ticket but they would lose in court. There was a case years ago where DNR had sections in the Green river watershed. Some smart guys helicoptered in to hunt them as they were legal hunting areas. They have since closed the sections to all use.

pasco,
As long as a person is standing in water it makes no difference that their feet are on private property, they have a legal right to be there.

Years ago the fellow who owned the property at the confluence of the Queets and Clearwater rivers allowed the public to launch. It was a nightmare for him with trash and rude insulting behavior by some of the people using his land. Of course it is now posted NO TRESPASSING and he will SHOOT. Most access restrictions are created by a few slobs. Sadly, I don't foresee that changing.

People think liability issues are also the reason some deny access. For insurance purposes the liability does not change from tresspasser to invited guest. It does however change if you charge for access or use.