Tangle of Stream Access Laws Confuse Anglers & Landowners (via MidCurrent)
By Tom Chandler on Feb 19, 2007 in News
Stream access issues have occupied a growing share of the fly fishing spotlight as of late, and the hard-working adults at MidCurrent have sussed out an excellent article on the subject.
From MidCurrent:
The U.S. has 50 different states with 50 potentially different interpretations of who owns access to fishable water. As Dave Wolf points out in his excellent analysis of the state of the dis-union, where you live may determine whether you can float or wade a particular stream, but one thing every place has in common: private enterprise wanting to lock up waters so they can charge a fee.
You can read the entirety of Dave Wolf’s excellent article from the Lebanon, PA newspaper Web site:
While the Little J ruling brought a sigh of relief to many recreational water users, Austen’s statement brought the problems we continue to face to the forefront. On an average, well over half of our trout streams flow through private lands. In some western states, where courts have ruled the water belongs to the people, the real curve ball comes in access to those public waters, where reluctant to allow public access landowners have strung barb wire on the outer fringes of streams flowing through their property.
Trust me. This is one issue we’ll be reading (and talking, and yelling) about in the years to come.
Technorati Tags: stream access, midcurrent, little juniata, fly fishing
ice9 | Feb 19, 2007 | Reply
I’d say you have at least 51 different interpretations, since my native state of Virginia has defaulted to pre-Constitutional law to find cover for its particular brand of weird law: the King’s Grant, which rely on English law to determine the relationship between public use and private ownership. Navigability isn’t the standard there; the key case involved a guide floating a stretch and fishing–not touching nothing, man!–while passing through the bounds of a landowner who owns both banks of the river. Let us hope they don’t revert to enshrining in law other British customs–don’t the royals always club their catch, or at least hire someone to do it? Makes me regret all the trout I returned unharmed to the Jackson River (one of the contested streams).
By the way, this issue is hot in Minnesota, where I now live, but liberal laws seem to be ironclad (if unknown). One of them: if you place a dock in a lake, any lake, it’s immediately a state easement, so it’s no longer purely private property. This shields landowners from liability if someone in a bass boat ties up at your dock at 40 mph one dark evening. It also means that your dock becomes public property, and the state can fine you if you leave it too long or if it falls into the water.
ice
isaac | Feb 19, 2007 | Reply
so what about taking a stroll, oh say, along the banks of the lower McCloud, below high water mark, up through bolliboka and and keep on traveling and camping all the way to ahdinah. hmmmmmmmmm, probably get shot or arrested, but what is the true law?
Tom Chandler | Feb 20, 2007 | Reply
California law seems unclear. Here is an excellent summary of applicable laws. As for accuracy, I can’t say for sure.
pat munday aka ecorover | Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
in montana the legal situation is very clear: the public can travel freely within the highwater mark, and access streams at all public bridge crossings.
despite the law, some private landowners are trying to block the public out. it’ll be a big court battle: grassroots guys vs. rich elitists like james cox kennedy.
national trout unlimited tried to back montana trout unlimited off the issue, but there is tremendous resistance.
see the entries at http://ecorover.blogspot.com for more info.
- pat munday, aka ecorover
Tom Chandler | Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
Pat: It’s clear that many landowners are using fences to keep anglers out of bridge access points. Many aren’t rich elitists, but I can see that’s fueling the problem.
Let’s hope for a satisfactory resolution.