Private land

Flyborg

Active Member
#31
So if an angler is legally open carrying, and legally fishing within the OHWM of a riverbed that is owned by a legally open carrying landowner, and they shoot each other, who is at fault?
 
#34
So if an angler is legally open carrying, and legally fishing within the OHWM of a riverbed that is owned by a legally open carrying landowner, and they shoot each other, who is at fault?


I think that if they are both dead that is for God to decide. I want nothing to do with that.
 
#35
Man that is such bs. It is people like that that give good responsible firearm owners bad names. I am sorry you went through that.
I'm a full on supporter of unfettered constitutional rights. That idiot did nothing of the kind in my mind. In my opinion crazy f's like him are why there should more good, responsible and reasonable people packing heat, not less.
 

David Dalan

69°19'15.35" N 18°44'22.74" E
#36
There was a landowner on the little spokane river near where I lived when I was a teenager that would throw a fit when she saw me wade through her backyard. I argued about highwater marks, but soon learned she was correct(one of the few navigable rivers owners can own the streambed), but this brand new tool was available, the internet, that allowed me to look up the property lines and print them out. The next outing I stood well back of her property line and cast my flies into the sweet spot well on her property. She came out and threatened to call the cops. I said go ahead. The sheriff deputy showed up hot, ready to bust some punk kid trespassing, but I calmly pulled the property lines out, showing I legally accessed the river from a public bridge and was standing where I was allowed too. He had no choice but to reluctantly concede I was correct, and even chewed out the homeowner for wasting his time. She hollered about me catching her "pet trout she feeds every day". I wondered why the fish were so big in that stretch. I made it a point to fish there almost daily just to piss her off. The funny thing is, if she wasn't so rude to begin with, and had explained the "pet trout", I would've just said"sorry ma'am" and moved along. She must've been a coastal transplant.
Ownership of the river bottom does not change your legal right to use the river below the MHWM. Not in WA or Oregon. And your story cracked me up.
 

David Dalan

69°19'15.35" N 18°44'22.74" E
#37
So if an angler is legally open carrying, and legally fishing within the OHWM of a riverbed that is owned by a legally open carrying landowner, and they shoot each other, who is at fault?

Here's hoping nobody here ever has to find out.

I'm confident in the law, but I'm not getting shot for my right to fish. It's not fun. If it's not fun, I have other places to fish.

FYI...back on the original topic...WDFW maintains a series of maps regarding lands they own. The "GoHunt" tool is twitchy, but reveals a lot of access. BLM has maps, National Parks, National forests, City Parks, County Parks, etc. Keep in mind some public owned land does have access restrictions. But FW and state parks covers a LOT of territory.
 
#38
I'm mostly with you there, but honestly. Sometimes it's all I can do not to say, "listen, fucker. I know where you live and I like fire." I try to preach a calm approach, but some people are just beyond rationality.

Passion runs deep with regards to natural resources. It could be argued that it's a physiological instinct; many species, but especially humans, war for eternity over the use of available resources.
I don't understand your post. Are threatening to firebomb my house because of my feeble attempt at humor? Damn!!(that was another feeble attempt at humor)
 

10incher

Active Member
#39
Here's hoping nobody here ever has to find out.

I'm confident in the law, but I'm not getting shot for my right to fish. It's not fun. If it's not fun, I have other places to fish.

FYI...back on the original topic...WDFW maintains a series of maps regarding lands they own. The "GoHunt" tool is twitchy, but reveals a lot of access. BLM has maps, National Parks, National forests, City Parks, County Parks, etc. Keep in mind some public owned land does have access restrictions. But FW and state parks covers a LOT of territory.
And to keep veering back toward the OP... In Ca. if a stream is fishable, but not accessible because of private land ownership, you can petition to force easement. Which works surprisingly often. I've made that threat a few times too. As in: "I can go through this stream or I can petition the court and walk across your yard next time."
 

Jim Wallace

Smells like low tide.
#42
Very informative thread! I learned here that, with few exceptions, in the state of WA, I have the legal right to wade up or down a streambed over private property as long as I stay within the MHWM.

I didn't know that until I read it here. I'd always believed that if the landowner owned property on both sides of the stream and the streambed, then they could legally prevent anyone from wading the stream thru their property. Huh! Glad I was set straight. I know some places where I can go wade and fish now, that I thought were completely private before.
Does this apply to creeks that are too small to float?
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
#43
Jim,

The unadjudicated rule of law is that if a stream is navigable in fact, it's navigable at law. Navigable in fact is found in federal case law to have meant the ability to float a saw log 8" diameter by 48" long, so that implies that the smallest of waterways are not navigable. Since LE often defers to landowners rather than public citizens perceived as trespassers, you could find yourself having to defend your case in court. Since few want the expense, and most, including the state, fear the uncertain outcome, hardly anyone ever presses the case. Don't expect any help from the State of WA.

Sg