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

[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!!!



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!!!



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.