Stream Access.. Could be huge

[jamaro]

This could be a huge win for public land hunters and fisherman...

----
AG: Landowners Must Allow Fishing on Public Streams

Legal Opinion Finds Public Access on Private Land is Limited

(SANTA FE)?Attorney General Gary King says a private landowner can not exclude others from fishing in a public stream that flows across the landowner?s property.

An official legal opinion on the matter was requested by State Representative Luciano ?Lucky? Varela, who asked, ?May a private landowner exclude others from fishing in a public stream that flows across the landowner?s property??

The answer is..No. A private landowner cannot prevent persons from fishing in a public stream that flows across the landowner?s property, provided the public stream is accessible without trespass across privately owned adjacent lands, according the Attorney General?s Office.

The AG?s Opinion states: ?In 1907, when the Territorial Legislature enacted the Water Code, it declared:

All the natural waters flowing in streams and watercourses, whether such be perennial or torrential within the limits of the state of New Mexico, belong to the public and are subject to appropriation for beneficial use?While it may be well established that all the waters in a stream or watercourse are public and subject to the beneficial use of the public, the scope of the public?s easement to use public waters on private land is less clear. An ?easement,? as used here, refers to the public?s lawful use of water in a stream that runs across private land and any incidental use of private property, such as the stream bed, that is necessary to use the water.?

The Opinion goes on to state: ?The owner of property upon which a public stream is located ?has no right of recreation or fishery distinct from the right of the general public,? Red River, 1945-NMSC-034, ? 59, 51 N.M. at 228, and cannot exclude others from fishing in the stream.

The public?s right to use public waters for fishing includes activities that are incidental and necessary for the effective use of the waters. This includes walking, wading and standing in a stream in order to fish. Although, as Red River (precedent case) makes clear, a person may not trespass on private property in order to gain access to public waters, a person using public waters to fish, including incidental activities such as walking, wading or standing in a stream bed, is not trespassing.?

 

[NMPaul]

Now if we only had streams.

 

[Gator]

so if it's "dry" can you walk in the streambed to the public land that is landlocked up stream or downstream even if you are not fishing.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]

 

[coryb]

This is awful. No landowner should be required to let others on his or her property.

Jamaro, you claim this is good for "public land" hunters and fisherman. How would you like it if you owned a piece of property that others had the "right" to access without your permission? There are already plenty of places to fish without forcing people to allow their property to be accessed.

I have had the opportunity to fish many places and the very best of the best has always been private land. People have spent a lot of time and money developing their properties and it is communistic to now let any non-working Joe go keep their fish and leave Bud Light cans all over. The liberal mentality embraced and promoted by Jamaro and the NMWF is getting out of control. If the average "public land" hunter or fisherman wants access to prime ground to hunt or fish than they have the same right as the rest of us to make and save enough money to buy property or access to property. They should not be given the right to use my stuff without my consent.

Our country is great because it is founded on freedoms that allow each and every one of us the ability to create what we want. Intelligent and driven individuals have strived in this country and created wealth and opportunity for themselves and others. Sadly, many others are lazy and spend their lives taking what others have earned instead of creating enough to have and give. Others pioneer policies to take from the hardworking and successful to give to the lazy and selfish, thus encouraging slothfulness and punishing motivation. This socialist mentality is threatening to destroy our great society from the top to the bottom. The conservative values prevalent in the outdoor lifestyle have always given me a sense of pride to be part of this demographic. We should all be proud to be part of a group that remains true in a world increasingly filled with victims and poor me's. Therefore, I encourage all outdoorsmen to stand for freedom and ownership and against redistribution purveyors and socialism. The land that someone has worked hard to gain or keep should remain under his or her exclusive control. Groups that fight against this American right should be shut down. I stopped supporting the NMWF years ago after figuring out where they stand on many issues and realizing it was quite different than where I stand. I encourage others to do the same.

Cory

 

[jamaro]

Gator- great question, this opinion caught us by surprise, we asked that same questions and we are waiting for feedback.

 

[jamaro]

Cory
We had nothing to do with this. Varela is the one that asked for the opinion based on what happened in MT and UT recently. The law been like this for a 100 years. This isn't new but nobody challenged it. We were surprised that this even came up. From what I can gather and I need to do more research is that a waterway is considered a path of travel and those should be public. It is common misconception that a private individual can own a river, in other states they use the high-water mark as the guide.

I guided fly fisherman for a ton of years on private lands, and I also have my reservations on this.

There will be a ton of litigation on this and legislation but because of what recently happened in other states, this was brought up.

J-

 

[coryb]

Jason,

I understand that this is an old law. My comments about you and your organization are based on your support of this. Calling it a "huge win" sure doesn't suggest you have any reservations about it. Different states have different laws regarding public use of areas below the high water line. I am not against public travel on major rivers through private holdings. I am against people helping themselves to things that do not belong to them. Oregon has public easements on the banks of the largest rivers and that makes sense to me. However, allowing anyone that wants to the right to wade up a three foot wide creek in someones 1/2 acre back yard is wrong. People are going to take advantage of this recent legal opinion and abuse peoples property. I do not believe you should be touting this as a good thing and bringing it to peoples attention. When I read this I immediately thought of Cow Creek Ranch. I love to fish the public stretch below it but have always wanted to fish the ranch. These people make there living partly by allowing people to access their property for activities such as fishing. Now people can read this legal opinion and walk right under the fence free of charge (with the blessing of NMWF). Does that sound like a "huge win" for them?

That being said, I do appreciate some of the things you do and trust that you have good intentions. In this matter, however, I believe you are wrong.

Cory

 

[hunt1]

I've been in a boat on the pecos river and come across barbed wire fence crossing the river marking private property. As far as I'm concerned this sounds like a fair ruling to me.

 

[greatwestern]

Always been the law...shoot I remember it being a point of contention a few times even back in the 70's and 80's.

Pretty sure recreational boaters fall within rights to use "public" waterways that flow through private lands as well, as long as they can be LEGALLY accessed. Legal access is what limits public users in general.

Not sure how this is a "huge win" for sportsmen...especially Hunters? Though I suppose some waterfowlers might find advantage in it.

 

[wyflyguy]

This same fight has been going on for years in Utah. All of the land owners who have a dog in the fight (like coryb seems to) have the mentality that their lands are going to be overrun by fishermen who will just trash the place (beer cans, bait containers, etc.). This is probably a valid concern to some degree. On the other hand you have the "non-working" Joe that is being kept away from a public resource just because he hasn't got the cash to buy the land or access to the land.
It will be interesting to see what the impact of this is in the end.

 

[coryb]

For the record, I do not own any property that has water or fishing access. I am a regular working class guy and I am not wealthy. This law (or the knowledge of it) opens up fishing opportunities for me like everyone else. The private land I have been fortunate enough to fish was always either accessible because I knew the owners and had permission or because I saved money to buy access or use a guide with access. This law is wrong because it hurts people who have worked hard to gain or keep property, not because it affects my bottom line.

Cory

 

[WapitiBob]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-14-14 AT 11:10AM (MST)[p]

Gator, based on what I have seen written, that answer would be NO.
As written, the water is the easement thru that private land.

A pdf of NM water law if interested ...
http://tinyurl.com/qbjqvya

Another :
http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/SPD/BoatingWeb/RiverRunsLawsOfUse.html

 

[nmhntr]

Btw... Ted Turner has spent millions of dollars in Montana to get them to revoke public fishing access across his ranches. In Montana, public fishing access has "always" been the rule. Too bad New Mexico doesn't have nearly the amount of water!!

 

[hunting1]

Most states are the way as being proposed or as long as you are in the water LO's cannot restrict passage, fishing, or boating. If you get on their land then this is another story and I agree there should be pennalties.

 

[BuzzH]

Btw... Ted Turner has spent millions of dollars in Montana to get them to revoke public fishing access across his ranches. In Montana, public fishing access has "always" been the rule. Too bad New Mexico doesn't have nearly the amount of water!!

You're absolutely full of crap on every level in that post.

For starters, Ted Turner has not spent a penny fighting MT's stream access law.

Secondly, Montana has not "always" had a stream access law. It was passed in 1984 by a bunch of MT Sportsmen who had the sack to ante up and take it to court.

There have been a couple challenges to MT's stream access law, but none by Turner. It was challenged by James Cox Kennedy, CEO of Cox Enterprises.

There was also a challenge by Huey Lewis and Charles Schwab over Mitchell Slough.

Both lost their cases, and the stream access law was upheld.

Facts matter...your BS doesnt.

 

[Ropinfool]

do arroyo's count?

 

[cosmic_cowboy]

Arroyos only count after a big rain so you can walk on the water... across private property... LOL

 

[BeDawg]

This would be a huge win for the public. I am in total favor of the public being granted access to public resources. I have family property on a very impressive fly-fishing stream that is not fly-fishing only. Make it illegal to liter and not to fish! I would gladly trade my private ownership as a means to fish and enjoy other places.

 

[NMWapiti33]

If Im not mistaken, NM already has laws regarding access to public waters on private lands. I did a bit of research on this topic several years ago when I was researching rod fees for certain rivers. From what I found, any freeflowing water system, that has a current year round and not originating from a private water source, is deemed open for public use regardless of private land. Access to the river can ONLY be by the river itself, and one cannot walk or venture above the natural "high water mark" of the river. What it comes down to are the actual land owners not shooting your arse when they catch you fishing their "private" waters!!!! Im glad this issue is re-surfacing, in one hand I feel we should all have equal access to the "public" waters.....but it is NM after all......and all these waters will be trashed and over fished in no time. In a way, its a lose/lose situation!!!!

 

[BeDawg]

Cory needs to move to Utah and join Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife. I mean "Rich Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife".

 

[NMWapiti33]

>This would be a huge win
>for the public. I am
>in total favor of the
>public being granted access to
>public resources. I have family
>property on a very impressive
>fly-fishing stream that is not
>fly-fishing only. Make it illegal
>to liter and not to
>fish! I would gladly trade
>my private ownership as a
>means to fish and enjoy
>other places.


I fly fish AND don't litter.....you should give me directions to your waters!!! LOL

 

[NMPaul]

Couple questions.

We got streams in NM??

Is that the same Huey Lewis as "the heart of Rock and Roll is still beating"

 

[hank4elk]

>Couple questions.
>
>We got streams in NM??
>
>Is that the same Huey Lewis
>as "the heart of Rock
>and Roll is still beating"
>

Too funny Paul!!!
Too true.

 

[BuzzH]

Yes...that huey lewis.

 

[jamaro]

Paul
Have you ever heard of the Mulcoch(spelling?) in Ruidoso? I have stuck some MONSTER browns in there....

J

 

[abqbw]

What is wrong with you guys that think you should be able to traipse across someone's private propety to fish just because you can't afford your own property?

You guys really think it is good and right if it is found that you can walk along the bank onto private property? Floating thru without stepping foot on the stream bed like in Colorado, fine. But walking around between the high water marks? You gotta be kidding me.

If there is anything special about our country it is private property rights. Anyone that thinks that we should be able to enter private property, either wading or along the bank, has lost their mind.

In some of our battles over landowner permits in New Mexcico I have been told many times by landowners and landowner advocates that we wanted unfettered access to private land to hunt the state's game. I always told them no way. No one wants that. Based on some of the posts here and on bowsite that is exactly what some of you want. I am embarrassed to be associated with any of you.

 

[NMaddict]

>What is wrong with you guys
>that think you should be
>able to traipse across someone's
>private propety to fish just
>because you can't afford your
>own property?
>
>You guys really think it is
>good and right if it
>is found that you can
>walk along the bank onto
>private property? Floating thru
>without stepping foot on the
>stream bed like in Colorado,
>fine. But walking around
>between the high water marks?
> You gotta be kidding
>me.
>
>If there is anything special about
>our country it is private
>property rights. Anyone that
>thinks that we should be
>able to enter private property,
>either wading or along the
>bank, has lost their mind.
>
>
>In some of our battles over
>landowner permits in New Mexcico
>I have been told many
>times by landowners and landowner
>advocates that we wanted unfettered
>access to private land to
>hunt the state's game.
>I always told them no
>way. No one wants that.
> Based on some of
>the posts here and on
>bowsite that is exactly what
>some of you want.
>I am embarrassed to be
>associated with any of you.
>

Havent you heard? America is the land of Entitlement. The "Haves" owe the "Have Nots"!

 

[BuzzH]

abqbw,

You need to brush up on the law...case law that has been part of stream access for a very long time.

The Federal Supreme Court said that states held ownership of navigable river beds and that all new states would enter the Union under equal footing and would own the lands beneath the navigable streams, lakes, islands and accumulations of land formed in the beds of navigable streams up to the average water flow line.

This is exactly why stream access laws have been passed in any state that pushes the issue at all (see MT, UT, ID, etc.)

There is nothing wrong with anyone who wants to legally use public waterways up to the ordinary high water mark.

What I do believe is that the public should have to gain ACCESS to the navigable water via either a PUBLIC ACCESS, or with LANDOWNER PERMISSION. However, once legal access is gained, you should be able to walk the riverbed and ordinary high water mark as far as you want across any ownership of surrounding property.

Thats what the Supreme court said is legal use of waterways.

What I grow tired of, is the public being bullied from using their public lands, public waterways, wildlife resources, etc.

What makes our country great is that we dont live in feudal Europe where game and fish...and legal access to public resources, waterways, and property, is reserved for the king.

Anyone that believes the public should not have legal access to the ordinary high water mark on public waterways...has clearly lost their mind.

The Supreme Court agrees...

 

[coryb]

What is legal and what SHOULD BE legal are vastly different things. Just because the supreme court has ruled does not make that ruling ethical, moral, our just. Using the law as a compass is wrong. Although many laws need to be followed, just because abortion has been ruled as legal does not mean it is right or just. I will not be killing any babies and I will not be helping myself to others property. I don't care what the supreme court says I can do.

Cory

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-15-14 AT 11:53AM (MST)[p]Nothing wrong, unethical, or immoral about the public legally utilizing their public land and waterways.

If you want to deprive yourself of using public waterways...I wont get in your way or even tell you you're wrong.

Just dont get in the way of anyone elses legal right to access their streams.

Win-Win...and more fish for me.

Exactly the same with your straw man arguement about abortion.

If you dont agree with abortion...good, dont have one.

Just dont get in the way of anyone elses legal right to have one.

Win-Win...

 

[RabidRattleSnake1]

I feel that this is kinda along the lines of land locked BLM and State land. The law says I cannot trespass to get to it so landowners get the benefit. I don't cry about it, I just suck it up and deal with it. Landowners with water going through their land just need to suck it up and live with it. That said everyone needs to be respectful. No trash, don't be loud and keep your kids and/or dogs in check.

 

[BuzzH]

^^^^Common sense...all too uncommon.

Good post RRS1.

 

[NMPaul]

>Paul
>Have you ever heard of the
>Mulcoch(spelling?) in Ruidoso? I have
>stuck some MONSTER browns in
>there....
>
>J

That would be the Mulcock ranch below Mayhill. That is private land and big bucks to fish it.
He visited our fine forum many years back and got in an argument with Stinky. Somehow I got dragged into the middle of it. Have not got any invitations to soak worms in his creek.

 

[NMPaul]

Who wants to bet we wont be arguing about sneaking onto private land to fish once the draw results come out?

 

[abqbw]

So next we are going to be able to follow a game trail onto private land ?

 

[BuzzH]

abqbw,

WOW! Nothing like beating a straw man with a red herring.

Try to comprehend the need for navigable water as it relates to commerce in colonial America...for a good place to start at the start on the roots of stream access.

From there, if you can read sign, its a direct path to the Supreme Court Decision that I already pointed out.

Can you find me similar case law regarding game trails?

The answer would be NO!

Stream access and game trails is akin to comparing apples and aardvarks...

 

[abqbw]

NMaddict

Boy do know what you are talking about....

The term "Haves" vs "Have Nots" always bugged me because it implies that what people have or don't have just fell out of the sky and some get lucky.

The term should be "suffered and earned" and "didn't suffer and didn't earn".

I bet every single person on this forum calling for free access and crying about colonial waterway transportation needs equaling their recreational fly fishing needs and "rights" has worked a 40 hr work week their entire lives. Mostly government and union jobs (or both) with defined benefit retirements and paid health insurance, and young retirement. Guess what? Work half as many hours for half as many years you are going to have 1/4 as much wealth.

There is nothing wrong with that and I am absolutely not knocking it. The extra time you end up with to do what you want to do or be with your family are choices you made. I don't begrudge you for that and see the value in your choices. But like all choices there costs. You aren't going to be buying any land with fishing streams running through them.

But when you work 60 to 80 hours for 50 years or more and take financial risks that could blow you up, watch your defined contribution retirement plan go sideways or down for 10 years straight adding 10 years extra years to your retirement date, pay every penny of your health insurance out of your pocket, and in the process create a bunch of 40 hour a week jobs, you just might survive to have a little more than the average joe. When I see my friends that chose the 40 hour route retiring 20 years earlier than me with a guaranteed pension and health insurance for life I'm not so sure that I chose the the correct route. But stay the F off my stream and don't ##### that you don't have your own

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-14 AT 09:32AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-14 AT 09:22?AM (MST)

Nice rant...completely filled with nothing.

Stream Access has been upheld by the Supreme Court for a very good reason. Its not "free" access, its legal access.

You can whine, cry, and snivel all you want...maybe even stomp your feet, hold your breath, and throw your sucker in the dirt for an encore.

Doesnt change the fact, via law, that streams and stream beds up to the ordinary high water mark are public according to the USSC.

Thankfully, the Founders of this country were wayyy ahead of the curve on public lands, waterways, game management etc. ensuring that the U.S. would not be a mirror image of the feudalism they left behind.

You're wanting Sportsmen to take a step backward because you feel "entitled" to something that legally, doesnt belong to you, it belongs to the Public.

Owning a patch of dirt next to a stream gives you title to the patch of dirt...not the publics waterway.

If you want to live in a place where nothing is public, move to Texas or Europe, I'm sure you'd fit right in.

 

[abqbw]

If you consider facts to be a rant, so be it. You must just be a bitter have not.

Oh, you mean Texas where 2/3 of the all new jobs that have been created in the entire country since the Great Recession have been created. That's pretty a pretty good idea. Europe with 35 hour work weeks and no growth. Pass. Have enough European mentality right here at home.

 

[wramos]

If I'm interpreting this law correctly, I definitely think it isn't a good thing for fishing in New Mexico. If I can float down a river that is one thing, but if my only access to a stream is walking the length of it that is definitely not good. It will severely damage fishing habitat if numerous people walk up and down a river. Wading in large rivers is one thing, but many New Mexico waters are not big enough to need to wade and that will concentrate all the traffic in a small area, increasing erosion and damage to the habitat. I understand that ?the law is the law?, but when laws or rules do a disservice to the resources we enjoy, they should be changed.

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-14 AT 10:56AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-14 AT 10:52?AM (MST)

When you bring one fact to your rants...it will be your first.

What does the law say about stream access again?

I forget.

I'm not bitter at all, I enjoy my public lands and waterways with unfettered access all the time.

If only because its my legal right...

Plenty more pictures where those came from...

 

[RabidRattleSnake1]

For those that that feel that public access should not be allowed to streams/rivers how do you feel about public road ways that cut through private lands? By the logic that the public should not have access to streams when an individual or entity owns the land on both sides of the stream the same public should be denied access to public roadways that pass through private lands. Not exactly the same thing, but it is along the same lines. No one gives a second thought to the roads the public travels on a daily basis that cut through private lands. I don't see how this is any different. If I was to walk down the road that runs parallel to the Rio Penasco the landowner probably wouldn't give it a second thought. If I get in the actual Rio Penasco and walk down it from a legal access point (National Forest, BLM, State Land) the landowner loses his mind.

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-14 AT 11:25AM (MST)[p]wramos,

Heard the same thing about Montana as well, none of which were true. Even heard arguments that stream access would "devalue" private lands near rivers/streams. That didnt happen, go try to purchase a "devalued" piece of land along Rock Creek, Blackfoot, Madison, Jefferson, Ruby, Red Rock, etc. in Montana. When you find that devalued property, give me a shout.

There were studies done on stretches of Rivers/Streams to identify the impacts of the stream access law.

No impacts...you're walking either in the stream/river or within the ordinary high water mark. The alluvial nature of rivers erases all signs of any use within the ordinary high water line, at least a couple times a year.

Pretty damn difficult to cause erosion in a system that is constantly eroding, cutting/filling, and meandering across its flood plain.

There are lots of things that DO negatively impact rivers/streams, but walking up a river bed up to the ordinary high water mark isnt one of them.

 

[BeDawg]

Walking up and down a stream does not hurt it. If that were the case, every stream that currently holds trout next to any people would be lifeless. I live in a suburbs of a metropolitan area that has 2 million people. The streams and rivers close to town get used by the public and the trout and invertebrates are thriving. The invertebrates and trout are both indicator species (first to die upon pollution or ecological strain). Some of the waterways are closed at times of the year when the cuthrout are spawning to protect people from stepping on the redds.

As for land access, I would rather own thousands of miles of streams for enjoyment than just a 10 acre stretch to myself. That is giving up a little for a whole lot! There are some rivers that I would someday like to take my daughters fishing to without getting a trespass ticket. If someone is littering and abusing it, they should definitely be punished. I propose that punishment to be community service of picking up garbage along the stream bank! Most of the people I know and go fishing with pick of the garbage anyways. That garbage in mostly every case is always coming form a senseless city, or property owner upstream and not a fisherman. I do however see a lot of bait canisters and powerbait bottles on rivers. That is one of the reasons a lot of fisheries are turned to artificial flies and lures only.

 

[gleninaz]

Really? This has been settled law forever in this country and has been verified by many court rulings. This is nothing new and NM should have always allowed access. Ever fish in a marina that runs you out with a rent-a-cop? They have lost every single challenge in court because no one but the public can own a navigable waterway. If you build a lake on your private property then that is private. If a boat has ever gone from point A to point B on the stream or lake feeder in the last thousand years you are SOL.

 

[nmwapiti]

Here is a question for anyone willing to answer.
So what if a landowner has the river blocked with wire and poles at the property line? If we the public have legal access to the water way and someone were to cut the wire and remove the poles to gain access, could you be arrested for criminal damage to property? How would you gain access in a scenario like this?

 

[BuzzH]

There are pass through, boat/raft friendly "gates" on some rivers in Montana.

The stream access law there also reads that you are allowed to take the shortest, safe, route around obstacles like log jams, fences, etc.

I would highly recommend not cutting fences. There were a few landowners that strung wire clear across rivers when the stream access law first passed in Montana. Just ignorant aholes that were soon put in their place via the law and healthy fines.

For these things to work, there needs to be cooperation. When cooperation doesnt happen or breaks down, you get the law involved.

The law is on the side of the public in regard to stream access. The unruley on both sides of this issue get slapped with tickets/fines and its smooth sailing from there for everyone else.

 

[coryb]

Buzz,

That's a good looking stack of fish pictures. All the rivers shown would be considered huge rivers in NM. The people on here arguing against this law are talking about small streams, ones that you could easily step over or cross WITHOUT getting wet.

You like facts so you should check yours. Arguably the best public land small stream fishing in NM (everything in the VC) forbids wading or stepping in the water at all. Studies have shown that the streams can not take this abuse and the quality of the fishery would be destroyed. This is the case on many small streams (under 10 cfs or so) which make up a huge portion of the "waterways" on NM public land. I have thrown a fly at landlocked trout over 30" on only two occasions, one of which was in a stream flowing less than 5 cfs on average. The quality of the fishing would be destroyed if just a few guys a week waded up and down inside the water.

Again, I am not against travel through private holdings on navigable rivers. The rivers and streams that I believe should not be accessed by the public are far too small too float a kayak, drift boat, or canoe.

Cory

 

[mozey]

So,per this law, I ought to be able to wade up the East Fork of the Jemez River (creek) onto the Valle Caldera as far as I'd like to go, assuming I don't step past the high water mark?

Someone please try this and let me know how it works out... ;-)

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-17-14 AT 09:16AM (MST)[p]Cory,

I understand what you're saying and if there are valid reasons for not allowing people to wade on small streams, thats fine.

However, they should be looked at on a case-by-case basis by BIOLOGISTS, not cranky landowners who are hell bent on keeping the public from their rightful use of streams/rivers.

Another thing I'll point out in one of your earlier posts:

I love to fish the public stretch below it but have always wanted to fish the ranch. These people make there living partly by allowing people to access their property for activities such as fishing. Now people can read this legal opinion and walk right under the fence free of charge (with the blessing of NMWF). Does that sound like a "huge win" for them?

I find this statement interesting.

In your arguement that this law is "immoral"...just a quick question.

How is it "morally" acceptable to you that the property owners you bring up, have been charging the public, for many years, for at least (3) resources that they dont actually own? They dont own the streambed, they dont own the water, and they dont own the fish. They've also been illegally posting a public waterway.

How do you reconcile your two opposing arguements based on morality?

You think the Public excersing a legal right is immoral, but dont believe that a landowner illegally posting a public waterway, and profitting from a public resource is immoral?

I have no problem with the landowner in question (assuming properly permitted from the State) making a profit from the publics resources. But, I find it very unethical, immoral, and ILLEGAL for them to be posting a public waterway. The public should not be denied legal access.

 

[Gator]

Questions. If said a Fisherman gets hurt on the bank of your land on a stream that he has a right to travel on WHO does he sue.
State or the landowner?
Who cleans up any mess left behind by the public, State or Landowner?




"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]

 

[Deerlove]

Who cleans up AFTER the landowner, state or public?

 

[NMWapiti33]

>Questions. If said a Fisherman gets
>hurt on the bank of
>your land on a stream
>that he has a right
>to travel on WHO does
>he sue.
>State or the landowner?
>Who cleans up any mess left
>behind by the public, State
>or Landowner?
>
>
>
>
>"I have found if you go
>the extra mile it's Never
>crowded".
>>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>>the MM green signature club.[font/]

Why does somebody have to get sued?!?! If you hurt yourself fishing on state land, are you going to try to sue the state?!!?

 

[coryb]

Buzz,

Illegal posting is immoral if it is done knowingly. As is selling something that does not belong to you. However, selling access to the State's fish through your property is fine.
Again, what is legal and what are moral aren't always the same.

33,

This is basic liberal mentality: The "poor" always deserve what others have worked hard for (like access to private hunting and fishing) and any injury is an opportunity to sue someone or something that has more than you.

Cory

 

[BuzzH]

Cory,

Funny you bring up "private" hunting and fishing.

Nobody on this thread has advocated for public access to private land to hunt or fish.

Streambeds are owned by the public.

Do you also feel it would be right for a private landowner to post legally accessible NF/BLM lands that border his private, based on the fact his property touches/borders public lands?

If not, then legally accessing a public waterway is no different.

Just because their private land touches a public waterway, it doesnt make them owners of that public waterway.

Your logic is flawed.

 

[Gator]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-19-14 AT 08:20AM (MST)[p]"Why does somebody have to get sued?!?! If you hurt yourself fishing on state land, are you going to try to sue the state?!!?"

Because that is what people do to people. That is why there are so many frigging lawyers.
The fisherman walk up a streambed and the ranchers bull decide to play the knockdown and drag with You. YOU can bet some-one is going to sue.
My question WHO is going to foot this bill The STATE or the rancher who can't stop this guy from coming up the streambed so his bull can have a day with the fisherman.
I'm thinking the State should be one that foots the bill because they passed the law to allow the fisherman to have access to that area on the ranch, And by doing so put the fisherman in peril with the bull.
Seem like a cut and dry deal?


"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]

 

[coryb]

Buzz,

Wrong. Read the AG release above. The WATER is the public resource. Accessing the water allows "incidental" use of the private property including the stream bed. YOU ARE advocating public access to private land.

Again, I understand the public has a right to use this water. It would be wrong for a landowner to illegally deny access to this legal public resource. I will not be taking advantage of this by helping myself to "incidental use" of someones backyard stream bed. I do not believe that it is right to do something just because it is legal. I will not be cheating on my wife, abandoning my sons, or living my life as a jerk even though all of these things are legal. I believe yours is the flawed logic that says if the law says so then all is fair and right.

Cory

 

[BeDawg]

Cory said:

"Again, I understand the public has a right to use this water. It would be wrong for a landowner to illegally deny access to this legal public resource. I will not be taking advantage of this by helping myself to "incidental use" of someones backyard stream bed. I do not believe that it is right to do something just because it is legal. I will not be cheating on my wife, abandoning my sons, or living my life as a jerk even though all of these things are legal. I believe yours is the flawed logic that says if the law says so then all is fair and right."

You are taking this thing a little far when you compare fishing water that is and should be public to cheating on your wife and abandoning your children. In reality, I feel people should not be building homes so their backyards are almost touching the streambeds. This is offensive to some people who feel it is unethical to tarnish the landscape around riparian areas.

If people are building their homes next to the streambed, they can learn to see the public utilizing the river or creeks exactly like they have learned to deal with roads; because that is what they have always been, a right of passage.

 

[BuzzH]

Cory,

We are country of laws...jump into reality.

 

[greatwestern]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-19-14 AT 11:42PM (MST)[p]Again, not sure how this is suddenly a "huge win" for the public Jason, as such has always been the case? Perhaps your highlighting for the ignorant the (totally unnecessary) AG's finding would make it so for you and you subscribers...heh, well, keep up the good fight I guess

"There were a few landowners that strung wire clear across rivers when the stream access law first passed in Montana. Just ignorant aholes that were soon put in their place via the law and healthy fines." ---Buzz

Well, my family and our neighbors string up wire (4 strands actually) across our "navigable, public land sourced" waterway, for the explicit purpose of keeping cattle allotments separated. Should we all be "put in our places and face hefty fines" for exercising our rights as private grazers? Or should we be mandated to provide "easy" access (boater/fisher friendly waterway gates) to facilitate public use of the the river that flows through our private lands? Tell me, what do you say? You certainly seem to imagine yourself as the "expert" in this New Mexico matter.

I myself have exercised and enjoyed the "right" to walk up or down fishable waterways through private lands from starting points for which I had LEGAL access...though I generally also had the courtesy to notify the owners that I would be doing so whenever possible.

I have also provided legal access to "our" river to several groups of responsible, elite kayakers to be able to run the Class VI box section that starts a couple miles down river from the rancho.

And yes, I'm happy to report that they've all run it successfully, despite the lack of "boater friendly" gates through the many cattle fences they encountered on their journey, both before and after the whitewater section.

So, what do you guys have to say in consideration of these points, eh?

**edit---Have also always avoided accessing public waterways through private grounds at times when it would represent a direct conflict to the owner's interests...but then, I'm sure common courtesy is a foreign concept to one or a few here