Deschutes river now deemed navigable

#31
He isn’t the only one illegally guiding the D.

To quote Aesop Rock, “Maybe to sentimentalize is to be truly naive,
I know some shit about your heroes that you wouldn't believe”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Hollywood Hickman has quite a few clinging onto his over inflated nut sack. My dealings with him indicate he's never been hit in the face even when he's deserved it. Probably shown no boundaries as a child as well. Bigly sad.
 
#32
Is the coast guard now going to patrol the river? Or do they just want more authority to tell people what they can and can't do?
The federal government makes pretty much everything worse.

I hope they do. In the saltwater world dealings with the Coast Guard are extremely common. It is not an easy process to get a captains license, so those who don't have one and guide illegally should absolutely be caught and punished. If it takes the CG to accomplish this then what is the big deal? The requirement for operating a power boat with paying customers is nothing new. It should definitely be enforced.
 

JS

Active Member
#34
I hope they do. In the saltwater world dealings with the Coast Guard are extremely common. It is not an easy process to get a captains license, so those who don't have one and guide illegally should absolutely be caught and punished. If it takes the CG to accomplish this then what is the big deal? The requirement for operating a power boat with paying customers is nothing new. It should definitely be enforced.
The irony with the 6-Pack is that it is relatively easy to obtain. It took me all of two months to get mine. Never should have let that shit lapse. Maybe its harder now, but for me it was just records of time on the water, random piss screen, two day CG class, and background check.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
#36
Call Hickman and thank him. Generally people end up policed because some individuals screw it up for the rest.
No government overreaches when individuals screw up.
Their jobs are to punish crime not prevent it.
Until a law is broken government needs to butt the hell out. Then only punish that one person.
A 6-pack license is required to operate a vessel for hire on federally designated navigable waters. Pretty much all rivers are navigable in fact, which is legally different than being "designated" as navigable. So any guide can operate on a non-designated river, but only guides who have the additional 6-pack license can operate on designated rivers, like the Columbia.

But it is against federal law for the states to use anything other than if you can float it it's navigable criteria. They had to agree to this to even become a state.
 

PhilR

In the time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey
#39
Was wondering how you rack up 30k in trespassing fines. Be something to see a CG RIB roaring upstream.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

BaldBob

Active Member
#40
But it is against federal law for the states to use anything other than if you can float it it's navigable criteria. They had to agree to this to even become a state.
As legal matter I believe that you are absolutely right. BUT as a practical matter, until someone or some group has the dedication and deep pockets to fight it in court, likely all the way up to the Supreme Court, states such as Oregon and Colorado will continue to violate the terms they accepted upon becoming a state.
 

golfman44

5-Time Puget Sound Steelhead Guide of the Year
#41
The irony with the 6-Pack is that it is relatively easy to obtain. It took me all of two months to get mine. Never should have let that shit lapse. Maybe its harder now, but for me it was just records of time on the water, random piss screen, two day CG class, and background check.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Now it's starting to make sense.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
#42
I hope they do. In the saltwater world dealings with the Coast Guard are extremely common. It is not an easy process to get a captains license, so those who don't have one and guide illegally should absolutely be caught and punished. If it takes the CG to accomplish this then what is the big deal? The requirement for operating a power boat with paying customers is nothing new. It should definitely be enforced.
I hope they don't because the government already does too much.
The Deschutes has been just fine without the coast guard for decades. They are not needed and not wanted.

This is just heavy handed government.
 

Freestone

Not to be confused with freestoneangler
#43
But it is against federal law for the states to use anything other than if you can float it it's navigable criteria. They had to agree to this to even become a state.
Rob, go back and re-read Sg's post. He explains it well. They were not deciding if it was "navigable" (as it clearly is), they were deciding if it would be classified as a "Federally Navigable Waterway", which is a whole other legal classification and has nothing to do with if logs or small watercraft can float it it. Basically, it is about if US Coast Guard rules apply to a big boat/ship waterway or section thereof.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
#44
Rob, go back and re-read Sg's post. He explains it well. They were not deciding if it was "navigable" (as it clearly is), they were deciding if it would be classified as a "Federally Navigable Waterway", which is a whole other legal classification and has nothing to do with if logs or small watercraft can float it it. Basically, it is about if US Coast Guard rules apply to a big boat/ship waterway or section thereof.
Then the answer should be no as i said their presence is unneeded and unwanted.
 

Freestone

Not to be confused with freestoneangler
#45
Then the answer should be no as i said their presence is unneeded and unwanted.
On the Federally Navigable sections of the Columbia, I believe the lower sections of tributaries that can be easily accessed from the Columbia by powerboats are already included in the designation, like for instance the bottom ~1 mile of the Klickitat. I believe they were correcting an oversight in not already having included the lower Deschutes. This rule will not impact anyone but powerboaters and operators of commercial vessels. In a nutshell, these designations are meant to ensure safe and sane motor boating and ensure that anyone taking passengers for hire in motor boats on large bodies of water have the minimum knowledge and skills to do so safely. I know I would not want to find myself in the middle of the Columbia, Mississippi or the Great Lakes and discover my 'captain' has never operated a boat before and knows nothing about the rules of navigation.

This designation is about big non-marine waterways and ports that see commercial boat traffic (and the motor accessible sections of their tribs).

Here's a chart:

IMG_3746.JPG


Here's a list of WA inland and coastal waters where USCG rules apply (vs. state or county law) remembering that all marine areas are already under USCG rule.

http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Portals/27/docs/regulatory/permit guidebook/Navigable_Waters_of_the_US_in_WA_State.pdf
 
Last edited:

Latest posts