07-23-2008, 02:08 PM
The key to the entire ruling is that "incidental" use of the banks, access points and "streambed" is so connected to the "right" to recreate on the stream that it cannot be prevented by the proper posting of the land.
This would indeed allow the access from any public road or bridge.
No mention of any "watermark" was written in the ruling. Constant reference to the "streambed" is in the ruling. "I" would reason this to mean any part of the land that at any time was covered by water is a part of the "streambed"
Lets all also be aware that if you are confronted by any LEO for tresspassing, that a complaint is filed against the land owner for "Harrasment" of a person legally engaged in hunting or fishing. While this will set up some animosity amung land owners it will very quickly establish what is allowed and what is not in the courts.
When I am confronted by a land owner, and I'm sure I will be, I will dial the DWR hotline instantly and get a DWR officer on the scene as soon as possible, hopefully before the landowner gets a sherriff there. Then the DWR and Sherriff can decide who gets what.
[signature]
This would indeed allow the access from any public road or bridge.
No mention of any "watermark" was written in the ruling. Constant reference to the "streambed" is in the ruling. "I" would reason this to mean any part of the land that at any time was covered by water is a part of the "streambed"
Lets all also be aware that if you are confronted by any LEO for tresspassing, that a complaint is filed against the land owner for "Harrasment" of a person legally engaged in hunting or fishing. While this will set up some animosity amung land owners it will very quickly establish what is allowed and what is not in the courts.
When I am confronted by a land owner, and I'm sure I will be, I will dial the DWR hotline instantly and get a DWR officer on the scene as soon as possible, hopefully before the landowner gets a sherriff there. Then the DWR and Sherriff can decide who gets what.
[signature]