Montana stream access under attack.

#2
It is ridicules to say he owns the stream bed and the water above it. Montana's supreme court needs to knock this down.

What a can of worms this could open......
 

GAT

Dumbfounded
#5
Here we go again. It is a constant battle in all the States. Truth is, there is something called a public trust that has been upheld in FEDERAL COURT since the beginning of the country. It doesn't mean a damned thing what your deed indicates if it indicates you bought something you can't own.

I'm sure the State Constitution of Montana is similar to that of Oregon and Washington and supports the Federal River Rights. It vastly helped our river rights in Oregon when a number of years ago, the State Attorney General wrote an opinion indicating that the river rights, Federal and Oregon State, were valid and legal.

A Judge in Wallowa County, rejected a land owners claim of trespass when the river users were below the high water mark. He used the AG official opinion in regards to the rights as the reason for deciding against the land owner and for the river users.

Hopefully, someone in Montana mentions the fact that there are national river rights in addition to State rights.

http://www.nationalrivers.org/us-law-rights.htm
 
#8
Yes same in WA, out AG went a step further and explained that it applies to all coastal areas as well, as in below OMHW in the salt. Land use Attorney for Clallam County went so far as to advise the Sheriffs Office that they ran the considerable risk of false arrest civil suites and possibly civil rights issues if the SO decided to issue a citation, or physically arrest in the specific incident of lawful recreation activity below OMHW. The opinion was published in 94 , the AG warned that private property advocates risked loosing and establishing more restrictive case law if they forced the issue.
 
#9
Yes same in WA, out AG went a step further and explained that it applies to all coastal areas as well, as in below OMHW in the salt. Land use Attorney for Clallam County went so far as to advise the Sheriffs Office that they ran the considerable risk of false arrest civil suites and possibly civil rights issues if the SO decided to issue a citation, or physically arrest in the specific incident of lawful recreation activity below OMHW. The opinion was published in 94 , the AG warned that private property advocates risked loosing and establishing more restrictive case law if they forced the issue.

Tony, what does OMHW mean? *somethin*-median-high-water ?

Does this mean that in WA state saltwater beaches are publicly accessible, if by boat, below the median high water mark despite being below someone's property?
 
#10
Ordinary Mean High Water Mark defined in the WAC , I'm not qualified to issue a competent legal opinion, but if you didn't trespass to get there and your engaged on a lawful recreational activity, then you probably aren't committing a crime. S example kaycker pulling up on a beach to empty his/her boat the AG used the specific example of walking a beach with a fishing pole, I'm sure a fly rod would suffice
 
#12
I did not mean to imply that OMHWM only applies to salt, all navigable rivers and many that you wouldn't think of as navigable are subject to the same legal principals.