"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
Video 2

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!!!


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.