test
 |
|

12-26-2006, 08:29 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: mountains of East TN
Posts: 9,776
|
|
Who owns the rivers
Traditionally under American law the ownership of navigable rivers was "the people" As long as a log could float down the river anyone could use that river. If a land owner owned both sides of a river then he also owned the bottom of the river but not the river itself or the fish in the water. Most farmers and ranchers did not have a problem with fisherman fishing the rivers as long as they did not leave the river beyond the high water mark except to move around rocks or obstructions.
Oregon has begun a campaign to claim ownership of not only the bottom of the river but also the waters running through the river and all the fish or other items that may be found in the river. If someone is moving downstream (or upstream as the case may be) some yuppie land owners are claiming you are trespassing on their property and will not let fishermen pass through. Several people have been arrested for trespass and there has been one case of a shooting over this issue (so much for the peace and love of the Maharishi Yogi in Oregon)
The ultimate end of all this will be fly fishing in Oregon rivers (and we all know this will eventually spill over to other states as well) will be returned to the elite who can buy large expanses of river property. The "poor man's sport" of fishing will be no more.
Anyone from Oregon wish to comment????
|

12-26-2006, 01:54 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: mountains of East TN
Posts: 9,776
|
|
Nobody interested in this?
|

12-26-2006, 02:48 PM
|
|
Political Guru
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Fla.
Posts: 986
|
|
Would you make it more clear regarding whether the state of Oragoni s stopping passage down the rivers, or the owners of the property on either side.
Nationally the water of a river is supposed to be the property of all of the states the river passes through. There have been ongoing law suites regarding the illegal control by upland states of the waters of rivers
In some other states the property owners have control of the botton for x number of feet, sometimes as far as the center of the river botton.
There has been a problem for many years on most waters regarding denieing the public access to the public waters. What is new about this?
__________________
 Archimedes
Because they can't wait use Rescue 8
self closing flotation rescue device.
|

12-26-2006, 02:59 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: mountains of East TN
Posts: 9,776
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by r8dmarshall
Would you make it more clear regarding whether the state of Oragoni s stopping passage down the rivers, or the owners of the property on either side.
Nationally the water of a river is supposed to be the property of all of the states the river passes through. There have been ongoing law suites regarding the illegal control by upland states of the waters of rivers
In some other states the property owners have control of the botton for x number of feet, sometimes as far as the center of the river botton.
There has been a problem for many years on most waters regarding denieing the public access to the public waters. What is new about this?
|
In Oregon the courts have sided with the land owners. See Jan issue of Fly Fisherman magazine in both the editorial and several articles
|

12-26-2006, 03:37 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Outside OKC
Posts: 4,346
|
|
I'd take 'em to court and ask one question. "If there's a spill on that river whose responsibility will it be to clean it up, the land owner or the taxpayers they're denying access to?" Then, if the landowner still wants to own it all, and court sides with the landowner I'd make darn sure they were held to it.
|

12-26-2006, 03:57 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,085
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kix
I'd take 'em to court and ask one question. "If there's a spill on that river whose responsibility will it be to clean it up, the land owner or the taxpayers they're denying access to?" Then, if the landowner still wants to own it all, and court sides with the landowner I'd make darn sure they were held to it.
|
Good point.
__________________
I respect your right to have your own opinion,but I do not necessarily respect your opinion.
|

12-26-2006, 03:59 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: mountains of East TN
Posts: 9,776
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kix
I'd take 'em to court and ask one question. "If there's a spill on that river whose responsibility will it be to clean it up, the land owner or the taxpayers they're denying access to?" Then, if the landowner still wants to own it all, and court sides with the landowner I'd make darn sure they were held to it.
|
Kix, the problem is the rivers we are talking about here are small rivers, rivers that one might wade, its doubtful an oil spill would ever occur on such a river. The issue is that for the history of this country anyone was able to move down a river and fish the river. Now these people are claiming, as under British law, they own the river from bank to bank and everything in it. Also, in the past even when the river was privately owned the owners never stopped sports fisherman from using the river (the law has always been if I own both sides you can float down the river, you can fish in it but you can't walk on the river bottom on my section of the river). The new owners don't want to farm or ranch, they want to own the land and in some cases will not allow fishermen to even float down their portion of the river, much less wade the river.
Here in East Tennessee we don't have that problem yet. Most of the fly fishing streams are in the National Forest and the ones that are not have owners that don't care if you walk down the middle of the stream fishing. As these farmers and ranchers retire and their farms are sold off as Yankee vacation developments if Oregon is allowed to implement this the same will occur here I am sure.
|

12-26-2006, 04:09 PM
|
|
Political Guru
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Fla.
Posts: 986
|
|
How would that fit into the departmant of public waterways? Is it being applied to navigable waters also?
__________________
 Archimedes
Because they can't wait use Rescue 8
self closing flotation rescue device.
|

12-26-2006, 04:42 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Outside OKC
Posts: 4,346
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45
Kix, the problem is the rivers we are talking about here are small rivers, rivers that one might wade, its doubtful an oil spill would ever occur on such a river. The issue is that for the history of this country anyone was able to move down a river and fish the river. Now these people are claiming, as under British law, they own the river from bank to bank and everything in it. Also, in the past even when the river was privately owned the owners never stopped sports fisherman from using the river (the law has always been if I own both sides you can float down the river, you can fish in it but you can't walk on the river bottom on my section of the river). The new owners don't want to farm or ranch, they want to own the land and in some cases will not allow fishermen to even float down their portion of the river, much less wade the river.
Here in East Tennessee we don't have that problem yet. Most of the fly fishing streams are in the National Forest and the ones that are not have owners that don't care if you walk down the middle of the stream fishing. As these farmers and ranchers retire and their farms are sold off as Yankee vacation developments if Oregon is allowed to implement this the same will occur here I am sure.
|
One of the worst inland spills in this country occurred right here in Oklahoma on and around a small waterway known as " Tar Creek". A spill does not need to be oil related in order to be severly hazardous to the environment and the waterway does not need to be an ocean, sea or major river for it to experience an environmental disaster such as a spill. If it's deep enough for float a toy boat down stream it's deep enough for some unidentifiable company to dump barrels of some form of toxin in it. In fact it doesn't even have to be the result of anything man did. It could be something as simple as some chemical or other natural resource seeping into it from some tiny fissure in the earth beneath the creak/stream/river and damaging everything down stream. These are the kinds of spills I was referring to so I think I'd still take that approach.
|

12-26-2006, 06:37 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 6,646
|
|
Hi Nathan :
Can you site the specific case and river? I live close to one of the countries best salmon and steelhead rivers.I am rarely on the river but a 4-5 times per year for whitewater rafting or fishing but I do not think this case involves the river I receate on becaue it would be covered in my local news. I have a friend who fly fishes like an artist. It is beautiful to watch. As much as I love the great salmon fishing 10 minutes from my house I most enjoy preparing it and eating it! LOL
I am not sure of the individual home owner but I think you would find that within any state there are individuals who are extremists for one cause or another. I am not speaking of this case because I do not know anything about it or the circumstance. The details of this are essential before critisizing Oregon Law or the circumstances.
Could you site some research and a source so we could all discuss this intelligently? I want to give you credit for a great discussion topic. I hope this of sincere interest to you and not just a bait and bash Oregon and Sam thread  . Thank you Nathan for all your interst in Oregon. I think the last few threads on Oregon were started by you!
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|