Thanks for the input. It sounds like your interpretation of the law is considerably different than the Forest Service's.Originally Posted by RTG
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.
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:
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.
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/co...Wiki/access:ca
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.
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote