"Stop Fishing Or I'll Call the Sheriff"-Private Property Mt Trout Stream?

[carpanglerdude]

A few months back, I came across a nice mountain trout stream in the San Bernardio National Forest. I've since fished it several times, once with another FNN member, and had plenty of success. I've put together a few short videos from these trips with the wild rainbow trout that we caught:

Video 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ex0kXNnnBk)
Video 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8PXJcYKwQ0)

The stream is pretty small but it has water year-round and some of the fish we've caught are pushing 15'' (only smaller fish in video)

To the best of our knowledge, the stream is on public property-National Park land, with public parking access. However, this last weekend, my FNN friend and a few other anglers were hiking along the stream and encountered an upset individual who owns a house near the stream. He demanded that the anglers leaves the creek and stated that he would call the sheriff if they did not. When the anglers inquired as to what portion of the stream he owned and where his property began and ended, he refused to tell them.

The anglers then asked to please call the sheriff so that the situation could be sorted out-they had entered on public land, followed the creek upstream and never crossed any obviously private property. The landowner continued to insist they leave and when the sheriff never arrived, the anglers finished up fishing and left. I'm not aware of all the details of the verbal exchange but it was obviously a rather uncomfortable change to the weekend's fishing trip. I don't know if the sheriff was ever actually called or how long they waited.

I realize that there are private homes in the National Forest, but I thought you cannot "own" a portion of a creek. Plus, these guys were basically wading and rock-hopping up the creek I think, not cutting across someone's land to fish. Am I correct? What would you all have done in this situation? There isn't any No Trespassing signs and the portion where we usually park to hike in is obviously public land (the house owner even admitted such).

Interested in your feedback!

[ScottyP]

The creeks on National Forest land are open to fishing as long as you have a valid license. As you said, they can't own the creek.
Luckily I've never encountered an angry landowner, and it sounds like this guy was a little nutty in thinking they can't fish there.
All I can say is be respectful of other people's property, don't leave trash, don't be noisy, and all of that common sense stuff.
But in this situation, I would of fished on if the fishing was good!

[bscruz]

i have run into the same issue when it comes to whitewater rafting/kayaking. Nobody owns the river itself, so they can't stop us from paddling by their private property. But they can own the land all the way up to the waterline so they do have a right to say "you can't land your boat here" - as long as you stay in the water, you are OK. That's a pretty well known fact amongst whitewater enthusiasts and has been brought up with law enforcement agencies in California and in other states by many paddlers and that's always the response.

By the same token, IF they own the land up to the waterline, they can tell you not to fish there, if you started up stream and floated down on a tube or waded the stream all the way down and you never stepped onto their property, they can't say anything.

In this case IF and only IF their property line includes the riverbank, they do have a legal right to tell you that you can't fish there...they'd be jerks for doing that, but they can. If their property line doesn't include the banks, then you can fish there all you want - if there is a forest service trail where you are fishing from, they can't say anything to you which is why the sheriff never showed up - probably told them over the phone that they can't do anything to you. It's public land from the trail to the river (including the river).

If you ever go down the upper Kern River, you'll see many examples where people own property right up to the water line where you can't fish or land your boat (except in an emergency of course)

[Viejo]

The area you speak of is more then likely Forest Service Land (Not National Park land) chock full of "in holdings" and Forest Service lease cabins. In holdings are private land that was there before the Forest was created and the leases go back to the 30's. You did not mention if the land was posted or not along the creek.

To get the straight scoop and not speculate, I would make two calls. One to the San Bernardino National Forest HQ in San Bernardino and ask to talk with the person who deals with the Forest Service lease cabins. Tell them where you were....what you were doing and whether it falls under their jurisdiction. Call the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Sub-station in Twin Peaks and ask the same questions.

Frankly, trespass calls like this one would be a pretty low priority for the SBSD deputies who are already running from call to call over vast distances.

[GhettoBasster]

The area you speak of is more then likely Forest Service Land (Not National Park land) chock full of "in holdings" and Forest Service lease cabins. In holdings are private land that was there before the Forest was created and the leases go back to the 30's. You did not mention if the land was posted or not along the creek.

To get the straight scoop and not speculate, I would make two calls. One to the San Bernardino National Forest HQ in San Bernardino and ask to talk with the person who deals with the Forest Service lease cabins. Tell them where you were....what you were doing and whether it falls under their jurisdiction. Call the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Sub-station in Twin Peaks and ask the same questions.

Frankly, trespass calls like this one would be a pretty low priority for the SBSD deputies who are already running from call to call over vast distances.

In this case, there were absolutely no postings. The stream was below his back yard and the pool was very productive. My guess is that he probably posted Keep Out or Private Property signs in the past and has been told by authorities to remove them. I also think he has called SBSD on people in the past and has been told to pound sand. We were actually hoping that a deputy would show up so we could get some answers, but I think he actually never called anyone. Incidentally, the exchanges between both sides were cordial.

[Viejo]

If it was a forest service lease cabin, they are not supposed to make it their primary residence but many do. Some tend to get a bit over zealous in protecting something that really isn't theirs. That being said....the crap that people leave behind....mark up and break would motivate me to try to keep folks out. The only way to get the real scoop would be to call. Glad you kept it cordial....helps the next time through.

[RTG]

The answer is actually pretty simple...if it is National Forest land then you may fish it, as Viejo explained. As far as private property here's how it works; Private property can extend to the land under the water. Meaning that a stream could flow over someone's property. In that case if you could "float" on the water's surface, without touching the land on the bottom, you would be within your legal rights. You could be inches from private property shoreline and as long as you don't touch the underwater channel, you're good. It is navigable waters.
There is a spot near Seven Oaks where this little "battle" takes place all the time. I don't if this is where the OP is talking about, but in this instance the landowner is in the right. It private property within the National Forest. You can't avoid the land since the water is not navigable. Fish and Game and the SBSO are usually called when the "battle" get's a bit heated.
Bottom line; just remember the navigable waters stuff. Even if water flows over PP you can't trespass on it-but you can float over it! Hope this helps.

[carpanglerdude]

The answer is actually pretty simple...if it is National Forest land then you may fish it, as Viejo explained. As far as private property here's how it works; Private property can extend to the land under the water. Meaning that a stream could flow over someone's property. In that case if you could "float" on the water's surface, without touching the land on the bottom, you would be within your legal rights. You could be inches from private property shoreline and as long as you don't touch the underwater channel, you're good. It is navigable waters.
There is a spot near Seven Oaks where this little "battle" takes place all the time. I don't if this is where the OP is talking about, but in this instance the landowner is in the right. It private property within the National Forest. You can't avoid the land since the water is not navigable. Fish and Game and the SBSO are usually called when the "battle" get's a bit heated.
Bottom line; just remember the navigable waters stuff. Even if water flows over PP you can't trespass on it-but you can float over it! Hope this helps.


Thanks for the response. This creek is about 5 ft wide, usually no more than 1 ft depth with a few deeper pools at best. I won't be float tubing it any time soon :)

[Skyler]

RTG, the issue at 7 oaks has been addressed by the game warden, and due to the river containing fish stocked by the state, they cannot stop access due to constitutional law:

"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting
upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the
State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the
people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be
passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public
lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water
containing fish that have been planted therein by the State;
provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season
when and the conditions under which the different species of fish
may be taken."

All streams in California that do not fall on private property in their entirety are considered "waters of the state."

As for owning the riverbed, navigation laws actually state that navigable rivers are public lands below the high water line. This includes the bed. The following site gives a lot of info regarding navigation laws pertaining to river access:
http://southwestpaddler.com/docs/caselaw.html


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capt. Skyler "5 rods" McConahy
Brigadier General
BUCKET BRIGADE REPRESENT!!!
http://s13.postimage.org/h741ezw3n/BUCKET.png

www.bucketbrigadier.com (http://www.bucketbrigadier.com/)
Chasing stocking trux and bustin capz. That's how we roll!

[RTG]

Skyler, I think you just reaffirmed what I said. The issue at Seven Oaks pertains to the stretch of the Santa Ana River just upstream of the bridge, before you hit the Middle Control Road. The land upstream of the bridge belongs to the Weeshaw Club, which is some homes on private property. The area is posted as "No Trespassing", however the landowners (Weeshaw Club) allow fishing just upstream from the bridge as long as anglers don't wander up near the houses. The river is not navigable, so there is no way to fish it in that particular spot without trespassing.
Your info and link regarding navigable waters is pretty much what I explained earlier. I think we're on the same thought process there.

[Skyler]

The whole point of me posting that amendment was to point out that you are NOT trespassing if it contains state fish. Private property or not, the Weesha club has a legal obligation to allow access to that stretch of river, as per Article 1, Section 25. Constitutional law supersedes statutory law.

As for the navigability issue, SAR has been classified as navigable under federal standards. There were some guys awhile back who kayaked it, just for this purpose:

http://www.sierraphotography.com/creeking/santaana01.htm

The criteria for a navigable stream is broader than you may think...

"The federal test of navigability is not a technical test. There are no measurements of river width, depth, flow, or steepness involved. The test is simply whether the river is usable as a route by the public, even in small craft such as canoes, kayaks, and rafts. Such a river is legally navigable even if it contains big rapids, waterfalls, and other obstructions at which boaters get out, walk around, then re-enter the water."



EDIT: RTG, I know the creek where Ghettobasser was confronted. It is not SAR, but a very small drainage. This stream is NOT navigable by any standard (ankle deep in many spots), and does not contain state stocked fish. The houses he speaks of are not lease cabins, but permanent homes that are grandfathered in. But it is still on NF property. Any thoughts?

[RTG]

Skyler, trust me on this one. If you are walking the banks, or standing on the stream channel "bottom" of Weesha's property, you are trespassing. I'd like to see someone navigate the SAR in that general vicinity with any kind of craft. It can't be done. You posted previously that "no law shall ever be passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water containing fish that have been planted therein by the State". The key word there is "public" lands. Not private lands.
The government, at any level, cannot grant "trespass" rights to the public onto private property, whether the state stocks it with fish or not. I am not a member of the Weesha Club, nor do I have any personal interest in it. I was just using them as an example of trespass issues, regarding fishing. I just don't want to see guys get in trouble, because believe me on this; if you trespass there and are contacted by a property owner, he will ask you to move down by the bridge and off of their property. If you don't, he'll call SBSO or DFG, or both.
If you put yourself in their shoes it's not hard to have some compassion. You wouldn't want anybody trespassing on your property, and neither do they.
If you can float over the channel in a boat, canoe, kayak, float tube, or whatever, you're good to go. If you are on the banks or standing in the water with your feet on the bottom of the channel-you're trespassing. It's as simple as that.

[Skyler]

You fail to realize that the Weesha club does not own the stream bed. The river in its entirety is classified as a water of the state, which is a public land. Therefore section 25 does apply. And whether you deem the river navigable or not doesn't change the fact that it has been classified as such. You have free access over private property on a navigable water anywhere below the high water line. This includes the steam bed. This is according to federal law.

[Skyler]

Btw, it is obvious that you aren't reading any of the resources I linked. You stated that the river can't be navigated in that vicinity, AFTER I linked a trip report that gives technical details of exactly such a feat. Please read the following...
http://www.sierraphotography.com/tripreports/weesha.htm

[Skyler]

Here is code to further disprove ownership of said streambed:

California Civil Code, Section 830,


Section Eight Hundred and Thirty. Except where the grant
under which the land is held indicates a different intent, the owner
of the upland, when it borders on tide water, takes to ordinary
high-water mark; when it borders upon a navigable lake or stream,
where there is no tide, the owner takes to the edge of the lake or
stream, at low-water mark; when it borders upon any other water, the
owner takes to the middle of the lake or stream.

And if that wasn't clear enough, this spells it out nicely:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 10 WATER


SEC. 4. No individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or possessing the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or other navigable water in this State, shall be permitted to exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is required for any public purpose, nor to destroy or obstruct the free navigation of such water; and the Legislature shall enact such laws as will give the most liberal construction to this provision, so that access to the navigable waters of this State shall be always attainable for the people thereof.


And of course, no legal argument would be complete without some case law to back it:

In 1897, the California Supreme Court stated: "To the extent that waters are the common
passageway for fish, although flowing over lands entirely subject to private ownership, they are
deemed; for such purposes, public waters..." People v. Truckee Lumber Co., 116 Cal. 397, 401
(1897). -

“Members of the public have the right to navigate and to exercise the incidents of navigation in a lawful manner at any point below high water mark on waters of this state which are capable of being navigated by oar or motor propelled small craft.” (People ex rel. Baker v. Mack (3d Dist.1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 1040, 1050 [97 Cal.Rptr. 448, 454].)

This includes waterways capable of being navigated only by kayak. (People v. Sweetser (5PthP Dist. 1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 278, 283 [140 Cal.Rptr. 82].)

Commercial use of a waterway is not required as “a waterway usable only for pleasure boating is nevertheless a navigable waterway and protected by the public trust.” (National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419, 435 n.17 [189 Cal.Rptr. 346, 658 P.2d 709].)

The State of California holds title to the navigable waterways and the land beneath them within its borders as a trustee for the public. (Gaf v. San Diego Unified Port Dist. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1228 [9 Cal.Rptr2d 530]"


And finally, here it is from the horse's mouth. The California Department of Conservation:

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/watershedportal/InformationResources/Documents/PublicTrustDoctrine.pdf

[DarkShadow]

Skyler,

You seemed well versed in the law.

I have a court appearance to answer to a pesky poaching charge where the authorities claim I kept a Black Sea Bass and made some killer tacos from it. I thought the thing was a big calico, to tell you the truth.

Can you assist in my defense? There's a case of PowerBait™ for ya if you get the charge thrown out.

We can claim "Navigable Waterways" or "Stand Your Ground" or something to the effect.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dark "Keep Everything I Catch" Shadow
Brigadier Sergeant at Arms
BUCKET BRIGADE REPRESENT!!!

http://s13.postimage.org/h741ezw3n/BUCKET.png

www.bucketbrigadeer.com (http://www.bucketbrigadeer.com/)
Chasing stocking trux and bustin capz. That's how we roll!
http://fishingnetwork.net/forum4/group.php?groupid=32

[Skyler]

Skyler,

You seemed well versed in the law.

I have a court appearance to answer to a pesky poaching charge where the authorities claim I kept a Black Sea Bass and made some killer tacos from it. I thought the thing was a big calico, to tell you the truth.

Can you assist in my defense? There's a case of PowerBait™ for ya if you get the charge thrown out.

We can claim "Navigable Waterways" or "Stand Your Ground" or something to the effect.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dark "Keep Everything I Catch" Shadow
Brigadier Sergeant at Arms
BUCKET BRIGADE REPRESENT!!!

http://s13.postimage.org/h741ezw3n/BUCKET.png

www.bucketbrigadeer.com (http://www.bucketbrigadeer.com/)
Chasing stocking trux and bustin capz. That's how we roll!
http://fishingnetwork.net/forum4/group.php?groupid=32

Did they see you land it? If not just them it was caught in international waters and is exempt from bag and size limits, he he he. Now about that Powerbait...

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____
Skyler (5 rods) McConahy
Brigadier General
BUCKET BRIGADE REPRESENT!!!

http://s13.postimage.org/h741ezw3n/BUCKET.png

www.bucketbrigadeer.com (http://www.bucketbrigadeer.com/)
Chasing stocking trux and bustin capz. That's how we roll!
http://fishingnetwork.net/forum4/group.php?groupid=32

[RTG]

Hey, no problem, if that's how you interpret it. Just bring along a copy of all the laws you researched for when you have to explain it to the "S-O". You see, Weesha property extends across the river, so the stream bottom is their's. And again, we all know how deep the SAR is. You can't navigate it.
And I know you were having a little fun with the black sea bass thing, but claiming you caught it in international waters ain't gonna fly. You have to have a written declaration for it if that was the case. You cannot possess something that is illegal to possess, no matter how you got it. DarkShadow would just be best off to tell the court the truth, that he mistook it for another species that is legal to possess.
Good luck out there and good fishin'!

[fishinarteest]

Skyler,

You seemed well versed in the law.

I have a court appearance to answer to a pesky poaching charge where the authorities claim I kept a Black Sea Bass and made some killer tacos from it. I thought the thing was a big calico, to tell you the truth.

Can you assist in my defense? There's a case of PowerBait™ for ya if you get the charge thrown out.

We can claim "Navigable Waterways" or "Stand Your Ground" or something to the effect.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dark "Keep Everything I Catch" Shadow
Brigadier Sergeant at Arms
BUCKET BRIGADE REPRESENT!!!

http://s13.postimage.org/h741ezw3n/BUCKET.png

www.bucketbrigadeer.com (http://www.bucketbrigadeer.com/)
Chasing stocking trux and bustin capz. That's how we roll!
http://fishingnetwork.net/forum4/group.php?groupid=32

Just tell em it was eaten by a (insert name of fish that can be legally kept here) and you found it inside the other fish when you got home, so you did the honorable thing and ate it. Something similar worked for me when i was keeping more than my limit of trout up north. i stuck them in the mouth of a big striper i caught(netted) off the lake. But oddly enough in the end they didn't buy my story(guess they could see the trout heads sticking out) and i went to court and was thrown in jail until I "liberated" myself. Its amazing what you can do with a metal stringer and 12 bottles of powerbait hehehe.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishin"2limits"arteest
Brigadier Private first class
BUCKET BRIGADE REPRESENT!!!

http://s13.postimage.org/h741ezw3n/BUCKET.png

www.bucketbrigadeer.com (http://www.bucketbrigadeer.com/)
Chasing stocking trux and bustin capz. That's how we roll!
http://fishingnetwork.net/forum4/group.php?groupid=32[/QUOTE]

[Skyler]

Hey, no problem, if that's how you interpret it. Just bring along a copy of all the laws you researched for when you have to explain it to the "S-O". You see, Weesha property extends across the river, so the stream bottom is their's. And again, we all know how deep the SAR is. You can't navigate it.
And I know you were having a little fun with the black sea bass thing, but claiming you caught it in international waters ain't gonna fly. You have to have a written declaration for it if that was the case. You cannot possess something that is illegal to possess, no matter how you got it. DarkShadow would just be best off to tell the court the truth, that he mistook it for another species that is legal to possess.
Good luck out there and good fishin'!

I do keep copies of various laws on me at all times when fishing streams, due to people thinking they own the river. And it has always served me well. As for it not being navigable, come on, I actually gave you proof that it has been successfully navigated complete with a trip report, and you still want to argue? Do you kayak at all? I do, and that river is definitely navigable with a shallow draft whitewater kayak.

But for argument's sake, let's say it ISN'T navigable. The following would still apply:

"To the extent that waters are the common passageway for fish, although flowing over lands entirely subject to private ownership, they are deemed; for such purposes, public waters..." People v. Truckee Lumber Co., 116 Cal. 397, 401
(1897).

Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting
upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the
State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the
people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be
passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public
lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water
containing fish that have been planted therein by the State;
provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season
when and the conditions under which the different species of fish
may be taken.

I have cited numerous laws and constitutional rights to back my argument. You continue to simply say "you can't do that." So I am done here.

[DarkShadow]

Did they see you land it? If not just them it was caught in international waters and is exempt from bag and size limits, he he he. Now about that Powerbait...

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____
Skyler (5 rods) McConahy
Brigadier General
BUCKET BRIGADE REPRESENT!!!

http://s13.postimage.org/h741ezw3n/BUCKET.png

www.bucketbrigadeer.com (http://www.bucketbrigadeer.com/)
Chasing stocking trux and bustin capz. That's how we roll!
http://fishingnetwork.net/forum4/group.php?groupid=32

Of course they saw me land it. The entire Redondo Pier did! People took pictures, I stood next to it holding it out with a few tourists, I instagram'ed pictures to everyone, Facebook, you know the deal.

I'm still gonna go with "I thought it was a world record calico so what better way to celebrate than by eating it, your honor" excuse.

But maybe you can help me on that Garibaldi charge.....i SWEAR i didn't know it was the state fish. I just honestly thought it would give my ceviche a good color.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dark "Keep Everything I Catch" Shadow
Brigadier Sergeant at Arms
BUCKET BRIGADE REPRESENT!!!

http://s13.postimage.org/h741ezw3n/BUCKET.png

www.bucketbrigadeer.com (http://www.bucketbrigadeer.com/)
Chasing stocking trux and bustin capz. That's how we roll!
http://fishingnetwork.net/forum4/group.php?groupid=32

[RTG]

And I too am done here, Mr Kayak. Let me know when the party is regarding the private property signs being taken down at Weesha. I look forward to that! By the way-you did notice that the kayak adventure that you continue to cite started below the Weesha property, and ended up on public land. Right? You did see that I'm sure. The whole kayak trip in the article that you used was entirely on national forest lands-no trespass issues there.
I don't disagree with what you state regarding navigable waters. That's the point. If someone can sit on that stretch of water that flows over Weesha property they are good to go. But good luck with that. Again, if you are standing on Weesha property, you are trespassing.
Have fun arguing with the SBSO or DFG.

[Skyler]

An entire water is deemed navigable. Just because a certain stretch hasn't been navigated, makes no difference. Navigation laws allow for portage around obstructed areas. Additionally, at full flow in winter, that stretch is deep enough to float. And navigation code states that the water need not be passable all year to be deemed navigable. This allows you access anywhere below the high water line. There is no room for interpretation. The code states this clearly.

[RTG]

OK, lol! Good luck with that. Nowhere does it allow portage on posted private property. Do you wonder why your kayak buddies started their little voyage below Weesha, on public land? Two reasons-one, it's navigable, two, it was on the public portion of land. But hey, whatever. Like I said before, have great time on Weesha property, or wherever, and I hope you talk to the S-O and/or DFG as well as you talk here, lol! BTW-I'm not angry here, I just hate to see people get in trouble for no good reason.

[Skyler]

I never said you can portage on Weesha property. Portage is allowed below the high water line, which Weesha doesn't own. You are permitted to carry your vessel over log jams and such. As far as SBSD or DFG jamming me up, I have had contact with them before. DFG knows the access laws, and they have always sided with me. SBSD is not as educated. However ignorance of a law does not mean you can break it. This applies to peace officers as much as anybody else. This is why I keep copies of various statutes on me. If it did come down to a citation, I would gladly sign it, then when the court date comes and the case gets dismissed (like EVERY similar case in CA history), Then I'd have free reign to sue the department for wrongful arrest, a violation of my constitutional right of navigation, and for civil code 3479: To obstruct navigation on any navigable lake, river, bay, stream, canal or basin is a public nuisance and is unlawful. This is also stated in Penal code 370. I have a good lawyer, and we have discussed this before. He would have a field day with such an incident. But I digress.

I think the real argument here comes down to the navigability of the river itself. That said, the following applies:

"In Baker v. Mack, the court made clear that a number of contentions ordinarily advanced against
navigability were not applicable.
a. It is not necessary that a stream or river be included in a statutory list of navigable
streams such as that set forth in Harbors and Navigation Code section 131. In fact,
"all waters are deemed navigable which are really so." Churchill Co. v. Kingsburv, 178
Cal. 544 (1918).
b. A water may be navigable even though it is periodically bare or nearly bare. Forestier
v. Johnson, 164 Cal. 24 (1912).
c. Boating for pleasure is a sufficient test of navigability. Bohn v. Albertson, supra.
d. The question of title of the bed of the river was expressly held irrelevant... The fact that
the county and the State Board of Equalization taxes the bed of a river is of no
significance for the question of navigability. 19 Cal. App. 3d at 1049: "The real question
here is not of title but whether the public has the right of fishing and navigation." Id at
1050."

And beyond that, the federal test of navigability is not a technical test. There are no measurements of river width, depth, flow, or steepness involved. The test is simply whether the river is usable as a route by the public, even in small craft such as canoes, kayaks, and rafts. Such a river is legally navigable even if it contains big rapids, waterfalls, and other obstructions at which boaters get out, walk around, then re-enter the water. These laws date back to the founding fathers, and supersede any state statute or local ordinance.

Essentially, if you can float on it, it is navigable. There are chutes, runs, and rapids throughout that river that may be used for recreational kayaking. It has been kayaked before, making it navigable in fact. The river is no different above the bridge than below it. Therefore, it is a navigable water and subject to easement. Case closed.

[carpanglerdude]

Hey guys,

Just thought I would weigh in on this issue. Thanks for all the input so far, it's been very useful.

Today, I called 3-4 different ranger stations, including the main office in San Bern. I wasn't able to speak with anyone with answers until I called the Mill Creek Center. I initially asked the woman (didn't catch her name/title, sorry!) about public access for fishing and hiking on the Santa Ana, then mentioned No Trespassing signs by the previously-mentioned Weesha area and access along that portion of the river.

According to her, as long as you stay within the river, below the high water line, you are allowed to access the entire river. This includes portions that may have been marked as No Trespassing by property owners along the river. Furthermore, after I inquired farther, she told me that this applied to all creeks and rivers within the San Bernardino National Forest. Thus, I believe this should also apply to the creek in question that I initially mentioned in this topic.

If anyone else contacts the SBNF service and receives more info, please post here and let me know!

Thanks!

[GhettoBasster]

Hey guys,

Just thought I would weigh in on this issue. Thanks for all the input so far, it's been very useful.

Today, I called 3-4 different ranger stations, including the main office in San Bern. I wasn't able to speak with anyone with answers until I called the Mill Creek Center. I initially asked the woman (didn't catch her name/title, sorry!) about public access for fishing and hiking on the Santa Ana, then mentioned No Trespassing signs by the previously-mentioned Weesha area and access along that portion of the river.

According to her, as long as you stay within the river, below the high water line, you are allowed to access the entire river. This includes portions that may have been marked as No Trespassing by property owners along the river. Furthermore, after I inquired farther, she told me that this applied to all creeks and rivers within the San Bernardino National Forest. Thus, I believe this should also apply to the creek in question that I initially mentioned in this topic.

If anyone else contacts the SBNF service and receives more info, please post here and let me know!

Thanks!

Thanks Carpangler and to all who replied. This is all very useful info. If we fish that area again, I'll be sure and inform the homeowner about your call. I also really like Skylers advise about carrying a copy of the law with me. I do empathize with the homeowner somewhat as I would hate for doofuses to be trashing my property (or invading my MJ grow); I just wish he wouldn't lie about things. BTW, that particular pool is deep and wide enough "navigable' by at least by kayak. I just don't know if you have to walk through private property to get to it.

[Skyler]

Hey guys,

Just thought I would weigh in on this issue. Thanks for all the input so far, it's been very useful.

Today, I called 3-4 different ranger stations, including the main office in San Bern. I wasn't able to speak with anyone with answers until I called the Mill Creek Center. I initially asked the woman (didn't catch her name/title, sorry!) about public access for fishing and hiking on the Santa Ana, then mentioned No Trespassing signs by the previously-mentioned Weesha area and access along that portion of the river.

According to her, as long as you stay within the river, below the high water line, you are allowed to access the entire river. This includes portions that may have been marked as No Trespassing by property owners along the river. Furthermore, after I inquired farther, she told me that this applied to all creeks and rivers within the San Bernardino National Forest. Thus, I believe this should also apply to the creek in question that I initially mentioned in this topic.

If anyone else contacts the SBNF service and receives more info, please post here and let me know!

Thanks!

Sorry for hijacking your thread. Thank you for taking the time to call. DFG and USFS have both given me similar info. I have had issues on certain stretches of Lytle Creek that played out just like this. I also empathize with the property owners, but unfortunately for them, they do not own the river and never did. The state keeps such waters in trust for the public. Doesn't mean you should go pissing off the locals though. If you guys do end up being confronted, don't go rubbing it in anybody's face or anything. Just be polite and informative and show them the regs and explain that you are just passing through below the high water line, which is your legal right.

[GhettoBasster]

I have had issues on certain stretches of Lytle Creek that played out just like this. I also empathize with the property owners, but unfortunately for them, they do not own the river and never did. The state keeps such waters in trust for the public. Doesn't mean you should go pissing off the locals though. If you guys do end up being confronted, don't go rubbing it in anybody's face or anything. Just be polite and informative and show them the regs and explain that you are just passing through below the high water line, which is your legal right.

I completely agree with you skyler. There is no reason to unnecessarily antagonize the landowners. This is a situation where verbal judo would be useful.

[RTG]

OK. I am honestly done here. Good luck to you all if you do happen to walk onto Weesha, or any other private property. You're reading it wrong, but that's cool with me. I honestly hope no one gets in any trouble. Not one more reply from me on this. Interpret as you choose. Remember this-the water isn't the issue. Those are indeed state waters. It's the property. That belongs to Weesha. You might want to keep that in mind. But hey, as a peace officer for 19 years, what the heck do I know. Later.

[carpanglerdude]

OK. I am honestly done here. Good luck to you all if you do happen to walk onto Weesha, or any other private property. You're reading it wrong, but that's cool with me. I honestly hope no one gets in any trouble. Not one more reply from me on this. Interpret as you choose. Remember this-the water isn't the issue. Those are indeed state waters. It's the property. That belongs to Weesha. You might want to keep that in mind. But hey, as a peace officer for 19 years, what the heck do I know. Later.

Thanks for the input. It sounds like your interpretation of the law is considerably different than the Forest Service's.

[Skyler]

Thanks for the input. It sounds like your interpretation of the law is considerably different than the Forest Service's.

He is correct about the property belonging to Weesha. However he doesn't acknowledge that the river is navigable despite that fact that it has been navigated. In all actuality, everything above the high water line DOES belong to Weesha. Below that, it is public land though, INCLUDING the stream bed. Just read CA Civil Code 830, it gives clear lines of where property begins and ends on a navigable water.

[RTG]

OK. I went back on my word. I'm replying again. The whole question here is "navigable" waters. Skyler, who is very good at "Googling" for information is correct regarding navigable waters. That is the question. You look at that water in front of Weesha and decide if it is navigable. It you feel comfortable that it is, then fish away...below the high water mark. And good luck to you!

[Skyler]

OK. I went back on my word. I'm replying again. The whole question here is "navigable" waters. Skyler, who is very good at "Googling" for information is correct regarding navigable waters. That is the question. You look at that water in front of Weesha and decide if it is navigable. It you feel comfortable that it is, then fish away...below the high water mark. And good luck to you!

Google rocks. Quickest way to find case law info. But I can back it with my legal reference books as well. I have studied these laws for years, due to me originally wanting to be a game warden. Personally, I don't go on Weesha's stretch of river, but that isn't because I can't. It's because there are way better places to fish on that river anyway.

As for the navigability, you've seen that river in the spring at full flow. You and I both know that a small kayak like this could navigate it:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Whitewater_kayaking_Isere.jpg

[teejay]

Carp,
RTG suggested that they do not want to see anyone get in trouble and Skyler suggested that it’s not worth the hassle. It sounds like good advice to me.
My take is that California courts have adopted a “state test” for determining which streams are subject to a public right of navigation. The stream would have to navigable for “most” of the year to qualify under this provision. It is my understanding that this state requirement is acceptable at the federal level.
The streams that we’re talking about here do not satisfy the test and as far as the state is concerned are not navigable and therefore a property owner could justifiably deny access.
I’m not sure who you spoke to at the ranger station but it could have been a volunteer offering only an opinion. I’m not claiming that my opinion is any better but unless you can get something specific in writing by the forest supervisor it may be wise to proceed with caution.

[Skyler]

The kayak trip in the link below was taken in March. The flows are similar for at least half the year, until mid summer, when they slow considerably. I know, because i fish the river A LOT. I have received info from SBNF that the river is classified as navigable. CarpAngler got similar info. I'm more inclined to believe them that the Sheriffs, who are more versed in penal and vehicle codes than natural resource laws.

http://www.sierraphotography.com/tripreports/weesha.htm

If you read the following page, it shows CA guidelines, all of which the SAR meets...
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Wiki/access:ca

[stocker]

A good topo handles this situation beautifully if this hasn't already been mentioned. I've had guys rawjaw at me before for this but I knew that I was on public so rather than say anything at all, I just kept walking and didn't pay them any attention.

[jbcaplette]

Skyler: If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to create laminated flip cards of some of the laws you carry around with you.

I think it'd be awesome for my local fishing club to have handy along with the DFG poaching number.

Would you be willing to post a collection of links or at least the titles of the laws you typically carry? Thanks very much for your consideration.

FYI for everyone else: I called in to the Big Bear Discovery Center as I tend to have better success finding a few folks who can answer these types of questions. I specifically asked them about this stretch of the SA River and they said I was not trespassing if I entered and stuck to below the water line. Though they would not advise that I attempt it as there have been incidents in the past. He would not elaborate beyond that.

[Skyler]

Skyler: If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to create laminated flip cards of some of the laws you carry around with you.

I think it'd be awesome for my local fishing club to have handy along with the DFG poaching number.

Would you be willing to post a collection of links or at least the titles of the laws you typically carry? Thanks very much for your consideration.

FYI for everyone else: I called in to the Big Bear Discovery Center as I tend to have better success finding a few folks who can answer these types of questions. I specifically asked them about this stretch of the SA River and they said I was not trespassing if I entered and stuck to below the water line. Though they would not advise that I attempt it as there have been incidents in the past. He would not elaborate beyond that.

Certainly. I'll put something together tonight.

[jbcaplette]

Thanks very much Skyler

I've fished the Santa Ana River with my mother since I was 3. We have a lot of great memories with this river. Unfortunately, summer sees such an increase in activity that many tempers fray when their "get-away-from-it-all" retreat turns out to be crawling with fisherman, bikers, hikers, waders, kids, church retreats, at-risk youth programs, tour buses, motor-x etc.

Over the years I have seen an increase in confrontation around cabins not within the Weesha compound. Last month my 63 year old mother was forcibly pushed back into the creek by an irate vacationer. As she proceeded to fish near the cabins at the turn-out sign to South Fork.

That incident was dealt with, but there seems to be a growing trend of aggressiveness with the property owners and renters. I realize this all sounds anecdotal, but have found similar incidents with many fishing club members (more anecdotal).

Outside of offering stream alternatives to the Santa Ana (which would probably get me publicly shunned if I mentioned them). Does anyone have any tips with dealing with irate individuals if you intend to "play through"?

For me, even though it's just a creek, I found over-dressing has helped with folks keeping a respectable distance. I wear full-waders, full sun mask, hat, gloves, fly pack, wading belt with bear mace, sun glasses. If nothing less, I tend to get less kids throwing rocks either way.

[Skyler]

Outside of offering stream alternatives to the Santa Ana (which would probably get me publicly shunned if I mentioned them). Does anyone have any tips with dealing with irate individuals if you intend to "play through"?

For me, even though it's just a creek, I found over-dressing has helped with folks keeping a respectable distance. I wear full-waders, full sun mask, hat, gloves, fly pack, wading belt with bear mace, sun glasses. If nothing less, I tend to get less kids throwing rocks either way.

Hmmm. Well, I never get confronting while wearing a sidearm, lol. And according to state law, you are allowed to pack heat while engaged in a legal hunting or fishing activity. (CA. PC 12027).

Seriously though, being calm and explaining yourself is your best bet. Just because you know you have a right to be there, doesn't mean they know too.

[carpanglerdude]

Skyler: If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to create laminated flip cards of some of the laws you carry around with you.

I think it'd be awesome for my local fishing club to have handy along with the DFG poaching number.

Would you be willing to post a collection of links or at least the titles of the laws you typically carry? Thanks very much for your consideration.

FYI for everyone else: I called in to the Big Bear Discovery Center as I tend to have better success finding a few folks who can answer these types of questions. I specifically asked them about this stretch of the SA River and they said I was not trespassing if I entered and stuck to below the water line. Though they would not advise that I attempt it as there have been incidents in the past. He would not elaborate beyond that.

I would love to have a set of cards as well, hoping to see these!

[carpanglerdude]

Another update:

I emailed the Forest Service and received the following response:

"I'm trying to find out about public access to rivers and creeks in the San Bernardino National Forest. Specifically, as an angler, am I allowed to access the entire Santa Ana River in the National Forest, even when it is bordered by private property with No Trespassing signs, as long as I stay below the high water line in the creek? Can a private property owner restrict my access to a public creek within your National Forest? Furthermore, does this also apply to the main other creeks and rivers within the National Forest, as long as I can initially access the creek from public land?"

Response: "You cannot cross private lands, this includes the water."

[carpanglerdude]

One more update/followup to the previous post:

My email:"Just to be clear, are you stating that any creek or river that flows through private land, in the San Bernardino National Forest, is also completely private and thus may not be fished without permission of the owner? Even if the creek is accessed without stepping onto the shoreline (i.e via wading, kayaking, etc)?"

Response: "You are correct, you do need permission.

John Miller
Public Affairs
San Bernardino National Forest
602 South Tippecanoe Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92408
(909) 382-2788
jmiller02@fs.fed.us "

This is directly in contradiction to what several member have heard from the Forest Service, as well as what has been discussed here. If anyone's interested in contacting the above individuals, his email is listed along with his phone number for more information.

[teejay]

Carp, Thanks for your efforts on this issue.

[RTG]

Hate to say I told you so, but....I did.

[Skyler]

Hate to say I told you so, but....I did.

Just because he says it's so doesn't mean it is. He is a public relations guy, not a legal guy. I think bringing the various codes that allow for free travel along a navigable water before the enforcement division or the forest supervisor may produce a different answer. God knows i've had my share of forestry personnel tell me the exact opposite.

[fishinarteest]

Just because he says it's so doesn't mean it is. He is a public relations guy, not a legal guy. I think bringing the various codes that allow for free travel along a navigable water before the enforcement division or the forest supervisor may produce a different answer. God knows i've had my share of forestry personnel tell me the exact opposite.

This is true, I myself do tend to get mixed answers alot. Always a different answer from a different person. Thats when you know the rules are too complicated.

[GhettoBasster]

I appreciate everyone's response on this subject. I've used my research assistant Mr. Google to try and find answers and they seem to be all over the place. I even found a source that said in SB County, these matters are often decided on a case-by-case basis, so fishinarteest, you are correct. I'll probably continue to push things since I have a serious addiction problem. Skyler is correct in that whatever tone the owner takes, it will only benefit us to take the cordial route and probably leave when asked. Thanks for all your work Carp. When are we going again?

[RTG]

Good luck guys. Just remember this...no government entity gives recreationalists the right to trespass on private property. The Santa Ana River is shallow and not navigable. Go look at it for yourself. Highway 38 to Glass Road. Turn left, follow down to Seven Oaks and go through the little town to the last bridge. Stand on the bridge and look upstream. That is Weesha property on BOTH sides of the river. Now if you can float that little "precious" stretch of water-then have it. But if you're standing on their property, well, you'll have some "'splainin'" to do. I think it's a bit easier to just fish on the "public" part of the river, which by the way, is the vast majority.

[RTG]

Just because he says it's so doesn't mean it is. He is a public relations guy, not a legal guy. I think bringing the various codes that allow for free travel along a navigable water before the enforcement division or the forest supervisor may produce a different answer. God knows i've had my share of forestry personnel tell me the exact opposite.

How about you do that and let us know how it goes.

[GhettoBasster]

Good luck guys. Just remember this...no government entity gives recreationalists the right to trespass on private property. The Santa Ana River is shallow and not navigable. Go look at it for yourself. Highway 38 to Glass Road. Turn left, follow down to Seven Oaks and go through the little town to the last bridge. Stand on the bridge and look upstream. That is Weesha property on BOTH sides of the river. Now if you can float that little "precious" stretch of water-then have it. But if you're standing on their property, well, you'll have some "'splainin'" to do. I think it's a bit easier to just fish on the "public" part of the river, which by the way, is the vast majority.

I understand what you're saying, but what irks me is when the property owners won't tell me where their property lines are. I asked this particular person to let me know where his property lines were so I would know not to fish that particular stretch and he would not give me an answer. This leads me to think that his property lines are not enforceable along that stretch of the creek. That's just a guess.

[fishinarteest]

I understand what you're saying, but what irks me is when the property owners won't tell me where their property lines are. I asked this particular person to let me know where his property lines were so I would know not to fish that particular stretch and he would not give me an answer. This leads me to think that his property lines are not enforceable along that stretch of the creek. That's just a guess.

I know exactly what you mean. Its like they just don't want you to fish at all so they give you a hard time about it. I just figure that to mean that they either have a. a very small property line, so they don't want you to know how small by not telling you or b.they claim its there property but they have no legal documentation of it, so it truly isn't there property so to avoid legal trouble they just don't tell you that.

[RTG]

I understand what you're saying, but what irks me is when the property owners won't tell me where their property lines are. I asked this particular person to let me know where his property lines were so I would know not to fish that particular stretch and he would not give me an answer. This leads me to think that his property lines are not enforceable along that stretch of the creek. That's just a guess.

In the case of Weesha, since we keep using it as an example, their property stretches across the river, and even to the other side of Seven Oaks Road. They have a fence, albeit a flimsy one, and have posted the property. It's pretty clear where their property is. Now remember, if that water was navigable none of the property boundaries would matter, if you where on the water. But it's not. Also, if their property only reached one side of the river you could fish the other side. Another thing to remember; if their property was a forest lease (land leased by the owner-the US Forest Service) you could fish upon it as well. But Weesha's is not. It's their real property. Skyler means well, but in this case he's wrong.
To explain it better; take the Sacramento River for example. No doubt that is a navigable water, with private property all over it. You can fish from a boat inches from private property and be perfectly legal. Or inches from a private dock. Same deal. The Santa Ana River is pretty shallow. You can show me any example you want of small vessels attempting to navigate that water, it just ain't gonna happen. I'm tired of arguing with Skyler about it. You can believe who you choose. I deal with these and similar issues all the time, due to my employment. Skyler does not. I will say he is well-educated in a lot of these matters, better than most, but he wrong about one thing. You just can't trespass on private property in the name of recreation.
Again, I say, if you must push it, well, good luck to you. I don't want to see anyone get in trouble when all they want to do is a little fishin'.

[Skyler]

I deal with these and similar issues all the time, due to my employment. Skyler does not.

Just to clarify, I have made multiple arrests for trespassing, and know the related laws well. To presume the above without knowing me is a little out there. And I too am done arguing. Like I said before, you would have a good defense in a court case. But again, I would also advise against pushing your luck. The fishing isn't any better on the Weesha Club than it is directly up or downstream.

[carpanglerdude]

While we are at it, could someone explain whatever this Weesha place is for? The only info I could find online was a very outdated memoir by someone who once was part of Weesha and helped install water pump/electricity up there. Other than that, nothing. Is it a vacation home/country club/get away place in the mountains?

Thanks!

[Skyler]

It's kind of like a homeowner's association/country club. There are a small group of homes adjacent to each other that parallel the river. They banded together and made up this little "club." Not sure why, but I do know they have groundskeepers that maintain/manage it.

Edit: Here is their website. Still not much info, but it is straight from the horse's mouth: http://weesha.com/

[carpanglerdude]

Thanks, Skyler. My Google-fu failed me epicly.

Sure looks nice: http://weesha.com/rivers.html

[RTG]

Just to clarify, I have made multiple arrests for trespassing, and know the related laws well. To presume the above without knowing me is a little out there. And I too am done arguing. Like I said before, you would have a good defense in a court case. But again, I would also advise against pushing your luck. The fishing isn't any better on the Weesha Club than it is directly up or downstream.

Hey, didn't mean to offend you there. Just basing this on what you have posted. You said you have had law-enforcement training, although never been employed as a peace officer. Unless I misunderstood you I gathered you went to some academy, possibly a junior college like SBVC, and received some training. And I know you are capable of researching laws. That's where I'm coming from. I based my statements on the knowledge of the area, and my 19 year experience as a full-time (and current) peace officer. But hey, I'll be the first to admit I'm not perfect, lol!
PS-the further you get down river, the better the fishing anyway!

[Skyler]

PS-the further you get down river, the better the fishing anyway!

Now there's something we agree on, lol!

[Skyler]

Unless I misunderstood you I gathered you went to some academy, possibly a junior college like SBVC, and received some training.

I went to the Glen Helen SBSD academy, finished top of my class. I am currently employed as a patrol sergeant in the private sector. Trespassing and burglary make up the bulk of my arrests (outside of the usual 647 stuff). Knowing this county, I'm sure either of us could be right in any given case. Our courts aren't exactly renowned for their consistency, lol.

[carpanglerdude]

Until a significant court case sets precedence on this issue, I guess all will be fairly unclear and subject to various interpretations. It's too bad there isn't a strong pro-fishing legal eagle group, like many of the environmental and social justice groups have, to fight for change in the courts that benefit anglers.

[Tom]

You are are safe to fish all the way to the high water mark. The police will not show up if you are witin the high water mark.

had the same problem on a stream in San bernardino

and the walker river....they wont call the cops and if they do your still ok

this happened to me even on Forsee creek brown trout fishing a few years ago off hwy 38
The ranger did show and explain to the land owner i was legal

...High water mark is the LAW in California and Montana as i am sure many other states
Many have taken this to court and Anglers win every time...i believe we even have a fedral law allowing us to use a river or water way to the high water mark
Tom

Team Catch and Fillet

[carpanglerdude]

Thank you, Tom, for the info!

This link may prove useful for those interested in this discussion: http://www.norcalwaterfowl.com/forummisc/CANavigableWaterLaws.pdf

A few good quotes from i:

"The presence of rapids, waterfalls and sandbars which may require portaging around does not preclude navigability because the fact that navigation may be difficult and at places interrupted does not render a stream un-navigable. The character of a river as a public highway is not determined by the frequency of its use, but by its capacity for being used. Nor is it essential that the stream should be capable of being navigated at all seasons of the year. (Economy Light & Power Co. v. U.S. (1921) 256 U.S. 113, 122 [65 L.Ed. 847, 850].)"

"“Members of the public have the right to navigate and to exercise the incidents of navigation in a lawful manner at any point below high water mark on waters of this state which are capable of being navigated by oar or motor propelled small craft.”"

"Regardless of the ownership of the bed of a navigable waterway, be it State property or privately owned, the public has the right to use the bed of the waterway up to the mean high water mark for purposes such as navigation, fishing, and recreation."

"In the course of river navigation, if there appears to be no other safe options, it may sometimes be legal to go above the mean high water mark onto private property in order to: portage around extreme dangers, scout drops, or take out of the waterway above a dangerous condition. “Necessity often justifies an action which would otherwise constitute a trespass, as where the act is prompted by the motive of preserving life or property and reasonably appears to the actor to be necessary for that purpose.” (People v. Roberts (1956) 47 Cal.2d. 374, 377 [303 P.2d. 721].)"

"Legal Remedies to Unlawful Obstruction of Navigation
Obstruction or interference with the public’s right of navigation in the navigable waters of California is a public nuisance (Oppen v. Aetna Insurance Co., (9PthP Cir. 1973), 485 F.2d. 252, 259; People ex rel. Baker v. Mack (3d Dist.1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 1040, 1050 [97 Cal.Rptr. 448, 454].) and is a civil offense:
Civil Code Section 3479. Anything which is injurious to health, including, but not limited to, the illegal sale of controlled substances, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a nuisance.
Obstruction of the free passage or use of a navigable waterway is also deemed a criminal offense. Victims of obstruction can contact the local sheriff or police department, make a report, and request that criminal charges be filed for violation of the two following State laws:
Penal Code Section 370. Anything which is injurious to health, or is indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by an entire community or neighborhood, or by any considerable number of persons, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a public nuisance.
Harbors and Navigation Code Section 131. Every person who unlawfully obstructs the navigation of any navigable waters, is guilty of a misdemeanor."

[Fish Cop]

I went to the Glen Helen SBSD academy, finished top of my class. I am currently employed as a patrol sergeant in the private sector.

Extended Academy, huh?

[Skyler]

Extended Academy, huh?

Yeah, though they call it the modular academy now.