Public rights on rivers in EVERY state

[Mike Carey]

I don't think it's necessary to take the name out of the post, I'd like an explanation from the admin why the edited it out. If we all sent this poster and the book to him, we would be able to take back our rights. Also, it's helpful so that folks know which property it is that should be avoided if they wish to avoid confrontation. The names and places are all a matter of public record.

You can post that information on your website and facebook. It's our decision and I'm not going to debate it.

[natetreat]

Whatever.

[Idstud]

Thanks for the info. I had a problem floating a river in Idaho. A land owner owned property on the other side of a river and ran a chain link fence across it. It was a little stress full since the current wasnt slow. After a run in with the land owner while moving my boat from one side to the other(still in the legal water area). I got the Sheriff and fish and game involved with cutters the next day. As the warden and I cut down the fence nicely the Sheriff wrote the land owner some tickets. 2 guns were pulled that day and I dont think the land owner saw the sheriff right off.

[Amx]

'saw' the sheriff?

[mitch184]

I'm not saying this is the case every time, but it seems like most of these situations become problems if you don't approach the landowners right. This is of course if they're aren't drunk or just crazy. If possible, and its tough if you're trying to get a spot before light, just go talk with the landowner first. I've never had a single landowner not let me fish or cross thier property if I asked before hand and brought a bag to pickup garbage. Doesn't matter if there's a No Trespassing sign or if its not even 'technically' their property. In fact, most of the time they're very nice and will even give you a tip or hint on how the fishing has been. The only time this doesn't work is if there's already a bunch of people there who didn't ask first. Then you just get lumped in with them. Although I have had a few times where the landowner has kicked everyone out then let me come in behind them. Snoho above 522 back in the day, mainly.

On the other hand, if they meet you already out on the river, it rarely goes smooth. I've had this happen on the Icicle, Cascade, Samish, Nooksack,etc. I think landowners just want to know whose out there or crossing they're property. Match a face to a body crawling around their property.

If you or anyone is having constant problems with landowners, maybe try changing up your approach. Be friendly, don't carry openly if you really feel like you have to carry at all, bring a bag for trash, clean up the way you look and the property and maybe even a cup of coffee for the owner. Trying to battle with them over legal issues of what is 'navigable' and high water marks is never easy. Not many people offer up correct information regarding what is navigable, what isn't or whose jurisdiction it really is. Everyone should look it up themselves so they aren't mislead, as many posts here have done.

[Idstud]

'saw' the sheriff?

Yes. thanks. stupid auto correct.

[toxicavengr]

On the other side of the coin....

Unfortunately there a lot of people that try to use the navigability argument to trespass where I live and they assume that a fishing pole gives them the right to trespass..

We have a "working easement" with pierce county to maintain the dykes on our property which actually spans across the river and includes both dykes on each side of the river but the property is private... Yet fishermen will have to pass Pierce county flood control sign that reads No Parking No trespassing No dumping Violaters will be prosecuted! They will park then jump a gate cross 2 of my neighbors' property to get to mine and then try to tell me my rights in my own back yard .

We (My Neighbors and I) don't stop people from fishing the river and don't have a problem allowing people to pass on our land, but when they become aggressive, leave trash, or flat out disrespectful... we have no problem calling the police!

My point is that, when using this law as a shield, do your homework and know where you are, and make sure you didn't break the law in the first place to get where you are or you may be the one dealing with the law.

Remember that you ARE most likely in someones backyard if they are taking time to say something to you and showing a little courtesy and respect go a long way towards a friendly encounter with land owners instead of starting off arguing property lines and rights and getting the police involved. Think how you would feel if someone is crossing through your back yard and they want to argue with you.
Just my $.02 worth

[Bodofish]

Both missing the point. This is not about walking the bank, it's about drifting the river. I believe most acknowledge the land owners rights. It everyone's right to the water being discussed, not the banks.

[toxicavengr]

After doing some looking I found a couple interesting things including this article that supports the navigability law.......

http://www.fishjournal.org/fishing_access.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


However.... as I said before, do your home work and always know where you are. I found this PDF that helps you know where the navigability law applies

http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Portals/2 ... _State.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you look at the Puyallup river on the PDF, from the mouth, only 3 miles upstream is legally "Navigable", beyond that it falls back under what the deed of the land owners property determines.. which in my case, my property includes the ground under the river and therefore you "could" be considered trespassing if you are not in a boat.
As I said before we don't stop people from accessing the river, we are fishermen too and don't mind sharing the fishery with those that find their way here....
but people come through all the time and think they can quote laws and pick and choose what laws they want to follow and tell me what my rights are on my land and it gets very frustrating dealing with the attitudes...

I hope the above link helps answer any questions on the areas you want fish and helps you avoid future confrontations and misunderstandings. (As a land owner and fisherman it definitely answered my question)
Unfortunately there will always be someone who does not want you in their back yard and will resort to any means (even criminal) to keep you out.... to that I say just move on and be as respectful as possible.

[toxicavengr]

Both missing the point. This is not about walking the bank, it's about drifting the river. I believe most acknowledge the land owners rights. It everyone's right to the water being discussed, not the banks.

Not sure if you were responding to me Bodo,
I don't think I missed the point, it is also about setting anchor too, imo, if we are going to discuss what rights we have, we should also look at what rights landowners have to concerning "navigability" too .

If a bunch of drunk guys in a boat anchor up in my back yard on my land and start creating problems,peeing and exposing themselves, in front of my family and/or friends,, I feel I have the right to ask them to move along or call the police if it gets to that, (I certainly wouldn't pull a gun)
If your just floating by, I have no problem with that, that is what I signed up for owning waterfront property. There is a certain amount of stuff that we who live on the river just have to accept, I get that. I do.

The thing is, that I have just about seen it all go floating by... being the "respectful guy" in the boat fishing, you don't see all the crap the land owner has to deal with..I can actually see someone's nerves getting frazzled and doing something stupid like a "crazy landowner with a gun".
It's going to happen unfortunately..

We need to educate ourselves on our rights as fishermen and landowners both so we have a full understanding, not just the side that benefits us.

[gfakkema]

Both missing the point. This is not about walking the bank, it's about drifting the river. I believe most acknowledge the land owners rights. It everyone's right to the water being discussed, not the banks.

+1 Bodo. I think that the poster that Nate referenced is very misleading. It states that waters are navigable, but is missing some pertinent information. The navigable waters are just that… WATERS. Just because a piece of water is navigable, does not mean that you are allowed to tromp anywhere you please. It means that you are able to navigate a boat or other floating vessel in the water, and may use the land under the high water mark to assess portage etc. Your rights to use the WATER are guaranteed, not necessarily the land around or under it. The poster also makes no reference to the high water mark, which is the reference for where you are usually (but not always) allowed. It should also be noted that you are allowed to navigate the waters as long as you access them through public property. Just because a river or body of water is navigable, does not mean that you can access it through private property. Also, the poster doesn’t explain “navigable” very well. Just because you can float a raft down the river does not make it “navigable” in the eyes of the state. There are different definitions regarding how a river or body of water is deemed navigable, and here in Washington they are somewhat vague.
On a side note, the links that Toxic supplied are very useful. I know that I’m probably about to start an S storm, but here goes. As much as I hate to say it, it would appear that Mr. *** is actually in the right (about trespassing, not about using weapons). If you look at the definition of what is navigable (link that Toxic supplied), it says that the Samish is navigable from the mouth to 4 miles upstream. Well, looking at Google Maps, Mr. ***’s place is over 4 miles upstream from the mouth. What this means is that the property/water in front of his place is NOT considered navigable, and thus no bank privileges are given or implied. What this means is that if you are in a boat and not touching land, you are okay. If you are banking it, then you are trespassing on private property.
Needless to say, please do a bunch of research and scouting before heading out to the river armed with your “navigable waters” poster. I'd hate to see the outcome of an angry gun wielding land owner vs. an angler armed with some vague poster. Can't imagine that the angler is going to fare so well.

[geljockey]

So this may be a lame question...how do we print it? I tried looking on line briefly for the same flyer, but no luck.....Is there a way to open the attachment as a PDF or something?

save to your computer

then print it

Or go to the NOR website - http://www.nationalrivers.org/river-law-handouts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and scroll down the page to River law handouts and posters. Then click on DOWNLOAD THE COLORADO HANDOUT(8.5x11 size paper).

[natetreat]

I'm sorry guys, but you are directly illustrating the points that I am making. These are assumptions based on the common misconceptions that I am trying to illustrate and remedy. I will address each in succession, and it is very simple.

Mitch, we're not talking about crossing landowners property. I have asked, and received access through property as you have described, but this is an entirely different subject, and does not have any relevance to our discussion.

Toxic - It is trespassing to cross someone's private property. That is not okay. This is not what we're talking about. We are talking about accessing the river from public areas, either wading down or drifting down. It is NOT okay to cross private property, even to get to public lands, unless you have permission from the property owner.

gfakkema - you are basing your comments on the false assupmtion that navigable waters have to be designated as such by a federal, state or county agency. This is simply NOPT the case. The links to the coast guard or any other website are irrelevant. These "navigable waters" are simply how the government has asigned jurisdiction to the various agencies over policing, managing or developing the water.

The question is navigability for title purposes. This is seperate and an important distinction. The puyallup river is navigable all the way to the headwaters.

The federal law determines navigability for title purposes based on a simple test: is it possible to float a kayak down it. It does not matter if there are waterfalls, obstructions that must be portaged, shallow areas. If it is possible to float it, it is navigable. This means that there is a public easement to use the river for any recreational purpose.

It does not matter what the landowners deed says. If he "owns" the river bottom or not, there is a federally and constitutionally mandated easement for the public to wade, float anchor up fish, stand or otherwise use the river, waters and bank to the mark of ordinary high water. The courts have many times over held that this is the case, no local state or federal law can take this right away. Ever. If the river is navigable FOR TITLE PURPOSES, we have the right to be on that river. NO MATTER WHAT.

I can't emphasize this enough. If you can float a small whitewater kayak on the river it is NAVIGABLE, and therefore open to public use NO MATTER WHAT ANY JURISDICTION SAYS OTHERWISE. No matter what. End of story. No matter what any lawyer, judge, sheriff, prosecutor, landowner, website, coastguard, county assessor says, it is OPEN FOR YOUR USE WHETHER YOU ARE TOUCHING THE BOTTOM OF THE RIVER OR NOT. See my original flyer for the sources that explain this.

This issue was raised to me because of the folks that are getting guns pulled on them on the Samish. This land owner is violating the law and closing access to the river illegally. The campground on the Nisqually is doing the same. There are many places in the state that have landowners doing the exact same thing, and I am educating everyone and asking all of us to do our part to keep our rivers open to the public and protect the safety of anglers statewide.

The way to deal with these situations is not to force confrontations on the river. You do not need a "test case" or to take it to court. Local law enforcement and government is more often than not unaware of the law. They side with landowners in these disputes because they have a vested interest in appeasing their constituents. We need to avoid these illegal closures while we educate enforcement to the actual law.

This poster, and other materials from the National Organization for Rivers needs to be distributed to all of these agencies. I am imploring all of us who know of a "hot spot", if you will, to find out who is responsible in the local area for dealing with these issues. The sheriff and all his deputies need to have a copy of this poster in hand, emailed, faxed, snail mailed and dropped off in person until they get it through their heads that they need to stop ticketing people for trespassing on PUBLIC LAND. We need to sit down with these folks and respectfully explain to them the laws.

If you have a situation where you have been bullied by a landowner on a specific river, please list it. We will find the people responsible for managing that area and get this information into their hands.

It doesn't matter how inconvenient or upsetting it is to have guys standing in your backyard catching fish, when you buy riverfront property, this is the situation that you paid for. You have bought land that inherently has a public easement to access the river, so long as you have accessed it through public areas.

Public access areas include, but are not limited to, boat ramps, bridges, parks, access areas, national forest land, federal land, state land that allows public access. From there you can walk, wade, fish, boat to your hearts content.

You should be able to exercise your rights free from harassment and threats of physical violence. Unfortunately this is not the case in some areas. My goal, which coincides with the goals of the NOR, which is to educate everyone involved of our rights.

[natetreat]

Both missing the point. This is not about walking the bank, it's about drifting the river. I believe most acknowledge the land owners rights. It everyone's right to the water being discussed, not the banks.

It is ESPECIALLY about walking the bank Bodo, and this is where the misconceptions come in. We're not talking about crossing their back yard, we're talking about using the river from the mark of ordinary high water for any reason. They do not, under any circumstances, have the right to stop us from walking the river. So long as you step onto the river from a public area, you can walk it from the headwaters to the mouth and at no time are you trespassing. Ever.

[natetreat]

To further clarify I will post these FAQ's from NOR:

Which rivers are owned by the public?

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the bed and banks under all rivers, lakes, and streams that are navigable, for title purposes, are owned by the states, held in trust for the public. Title in this context means ownership. This public-trust ownership extends up to the ordinary high water line, (or ordinary high water mark,) encompassing what is commonly referred to as the submerged and submersible land, as opposed to the upland. This type of navigability is called title navigability.
- See more at: http://www.nationalrivers.org/frequentl ... JjZ2T.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What size of watercraft must be able to navigate a river to make it navigable for title purposes?

Federal courts have held that even those rivers that are navigable only by small, non-motorized watercraft are still navigable for title purposes. (Remember that other requirements may apply to navigability for other legal matters, such as cases involving the "commerce clause" of the U.S. Constitution.)
- See more at: http://www.nationalrivers.org/frequentl ... JjZ2T.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[natetreat]

What if the current property owner's deed reads to the middle of a river, or seems to surround and include the river?

If the physical characteristics of the river are such that it meets the federal test of title navigability, it is public land up to the ordinary high water line. Since a deed can only convey interests actually owned by the seller, and since the bed and banks of all navigable rivers passed to the states at the time of statehood, it is likely that the state is the true owner. The state's ownership is a "prior existing right" and is frequently mentioned as such on deeds. Somewhere along the chain of property transactions, a deed may have been changed to include the riverbed. Unfortunately, if this happened it was likely done incorrectly.
- See more at: http://www.nationalrivers.org/frequentl ... JjZ2T.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jd39]

"Mr. Sammish" belongs in jail and his property confiscated for being used in the commission of a crime. Never thought i'd consider getting a concealed permit and carrying but may revisit the idea. Didn't know confrontation with criminal land owners assaulting others with firearms was a concern. Freakin unreal.

[Bodofish]

Both missing the point. This is not about walking the bank, it's about drifting the river. I believe most acknowledge the land owners rights. It everyone's right to the water being discussed, not the banks.

Not sure if you were responding to me Bodo,
I don't think I missed the point, it is also about setting anchor too, imo, if we are going to discuss what rights we have, we should also look at what rights landowners have to concerning "navigability" too .

If a bunch of drunk guys in a boat anchor up in my back yard on my land and start creating problems,peeing and exposing themselves, in front of my family and/or friends,, I feel I have the right to ask them to move along or call the police if it gets to that, (I certainly wouldn't pull a gun)
If your just floating by, I have no problem with that, that is what I signed up for owning waterfront property. There is a certain amount of stuff that we who live on the river just have to accept, I get that. I do.

The thing is, that I have just about seen it all go floating by... being the "respectful guy" in the boat fishing, you don't see all the crap the land owner has to deal with..I can actually see someone's nerves getting frazzled and doing something stupid like a "crazy landowner with a gun".
It's going to happen unfortunately..

We need to educate ourselves on our rights as fishermen and landowners both so we have a full understanding, not just the side that benefits us.

Toxic, I do think you're missing the point. The point is you as land owner have no special rights to the water. Land on either side, yes. It's just like with salt water beaches. Below mean high tide mark belongs to everyone. In this instance the term navigable applies to just about any body of water that is running that could float a log or a boat with an undetermined amount of ore or supplies. It is not navigable in terms of Coast Guard Navigable waters. It's a very old Federal Statute that was set to protect miners and loggers et al. getting product to market. It is a rather high level Statute that pretty much supersedes any State or local agreements. So do you as a land owner have the right to tell the guys peeing from the boat to knock it off or move? Sure just like everybody else does. Do they have to do as you request or say? Hardly. Can you call the police? Absolutely and I hope you do as exposing ones self and urinating in public is certainly against the law. Can you tell them not anchor in front of your property, all you want to. Can you force them not to? I doubt it.
Here is the bit, we pretty much have the right to tell anyone the way we feel:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Does that sound familiar? It should. The devil is in the details. You can say what you want but can you compel Can you compel anyone to do as you please in regard to the water running by or through your land. I seriously doubt it.
As long as we're on the subject and talking land owner smack, there are about a bazillion laws governing just about anything you may want to do to that bit of land that contacts the water. The one biggie is the Shoreline Management Act. It basically says you have no right to do anything to the shoreline with out permission from many government agencies. So in the end being lad owner does not make you king of your domain, none of us are truly free to do as we please with any property we own.
So, do I feel your pain as a land owner that has property that butts up against a public trust? You bet I do. Can I compel anyone to do as I please on that public trust? Sure wish I could. Well guess I can but then I'm bound to have the police talking to me about what I can and can't do and probably with the cuffs on.

Rambling but I hope you get the gist.

[natetreat]

"Mr. Sammish" belongs in jail and his property confiscated for being used in the commission of a crime. Never thought i'd consider getting a concealed permit and carrying but may revisit the idea. Didn't know confrontation with criminal land owners assaulting others with firearms was a concern. Freakin unreal.

Exactly.

[jonb]

I agree with nate treat as far as legalaties go, and this is common knowledge in other parts of the country, and ill take it a step further and say that i think it is wrong to try to keep people off the rivers or lakes because you own property there...the idea of a private lake or river is disgusting to me. I dont get why people think its ok to hoard such a precious resource all for themselves, how greedy....i understand wanting a view of the river at your house, no problem there. but to own it, and close access to it is an awful selfish thing to do..