02-15-2013, 03:57 AM
In years past the high water mark has been 150 yards past the river banks, does this mean that you have a right to tresspas that far onto private land? I also said year round as far as navigability goes, get on your boat and navigate 90% of the rivers in this state and see how far you get without touching bottom during normal water conditions. Land owners feel they have the right because they bought and paid for the land, maintain and care for it, your group feels they have the right to it because you were born, big difference. Like is stated earlier, no one is keeping you from utilizing the water, it will get to you eventually, they are just keeping you from waltzing all over what is rightfully theirs, the ground that they own. And lest ye forget, there is such a thing as water rights, so in fact a person can own the water or share as its called, how are you going to stop that? If a person owns water front propery on a lake do you have the right to beach your boat and have a camp out on that land? What's the difference? If you want access to private ground with river access or without for that matter, try asking permission instead of trying to take it. Another question, if a person gets injured on "legal" river access through private ground, who gets the blame?, the land owner that's who. Your side keeps bringing up Idaho as the poster child for this argument which is ridiculous, not even the same as far as population density goes, especially near coveted bodies of water. I was told once by a old farmer when I was a kid that got caught trespassing while fishing he said if I could walk on water I was more than welcome to continue on my way, made sense to me then, still does. If you're looking for solace in the passing of this bill, good luck, the private waters will fill up with the public just as fast as the current access already does.
[signature]
[signature]