# Right to Float Rally on the Taylor



## wild bill (Jun 1, 2008)

Just heard about a right to float rally that some folks are planning for July 17th. Their plan is to lap the Middle Taylor all day and show everyone that Colorado's rivers are still free.

Lets see if we can make this big.

I know that I will go.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod (Sep 2, 2009)

I'm there


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

your cute little flyers have already been handed off to the local sherriffs, forest service reps, harmels, and the wilder. so expect a warm welcome. and when they start ticketing people left and right im going to be there beer in hand to laugh at all you dumbshits.

the folks on the wilder are bad, but you guys are worse. if you guys just let it be and dont make an issue then the landowners wont either. make an issue and you can expect them to raise the bar right behind you. if you think they are cracking down now, do your little "protest float", because after wards there will be a crackdown bigger than anything weve seen before.

this is just the perfect fuel the folks on the wilder need to further attempt to shut down access............................................................

But hey, its not your backyard, so who cares if it gets fucked, right? If its not out backyard then we dont care!!!


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

From what I know there's no involvement by either AW of CW in this. If these groups are not involved, this is a really BAD idea to do without the organizations that have been working on Colorado access for years and have been successful in the past. Holding this rally could seriously undermine the effort these groups have put into the fight to date, or will put into it later. There's a lot going on behind the scenes that we don't know about and that if it were made public would be counterproductive for the cause. Please don't do this without involvement of AW and CW.


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

^ well said Andy, VERY well said. the smart young lad who was representing AW at the Gunnison WW Fest and I talked about this issue for a little while, and he thinks its a terrible idea. Mass floats have happened in response to a number of conflicts, and in most cases, the mass float ends up causing more problems and making the landowners more angry. There is room to manuever here with these landowners, even if it isn't readily apparent to people out of the valley. but there is, believe me. there are lots of folks on the inside that are furiously trying to work out back door deals for both parties to be happy. but time is what we need now.

The thing that makes me laugh out loud about all of this is timing: theres no one around to protest to on the property right now except construction workers and cowhands! and they could care less if we're there or not. if you really want to make an issue of it, wait three years until there is actually houses built and rich people fishing, and then come down and make a point of it. at this point, all thats gonna see you is the construction boss or the ranch boss, and they will dutifully report to their higher ups, and will pass down a decree that further closes off access. a mass float is a lose lose all the way around right now!!


----------



## KUpolo (May 24, 2005)

Are you guys trying to upset the truce? 

The last update I received from CW:



> *FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE*
> Tuesday, June 15, 2010
> 
> *CONTACT*
> ...


Now what's to gain by going in there and rubbing this in their faces?


----------



## Theophilus (Mar 11, 2008)

I agree with Andy. Bad idea.

We floated through a few weeks ago from the upper to meet some beginners we were teaching on the lower because it was easier to float through than run a shuttle.

We saw several folks along the way both at Harmel's and the Wilder and we did the right thing and gave them plenty of room, stayed close together, and took very few paddle strokes going by. We exchanged simple waves and smiles with folks along the way.

Learn how to coexist.


----------



## CB Rob (Feb 13, 2010)

I'll float with you! Waiting three years sounds like a bad idea. I'll be there laughing when Yeti gets busted for drinking in public.


----------



## nathanfey (Jun 7, 2006)

Yep, this is a bad idea, in my view.
One of the major concerns that landowners and legislators expressed in opposition to HB 1188, was that there are hoards of paddlers waiting in the wings to float on Colorado rivers, and that by granting a "right to float" there would be large groups floating thru private property regularly. This is simply not the case, as AW and CW communicated in Senate testimony, landowner meetings, etc. This demonstration will do only harm!

A demonstration float could:
1) prove the landowners concerns have standing
2) threaten a delicate truce on the Taylor, and
3) further complicate paddler-landowner relations on other rivers in the state ( Blue, Elk, Willow Creek, Uncompahgre, Arkansas, etc...) where access issues are burning.

I think a demonstration float would also undermine the efforts of paddling advocates like AW and CW to represent the general publics interests in ongoing access negotiations. If we, as paddlers, can't get on the same page, how will our efforts have any traction in the future?
A demonstration float at this time will only make things worse on so many levels. And for what - what's the point? 
Call it off!


----------



## KUpolo (May 24, 2005)

nathanfey said:


> Yep, this is a bad idea, in my view.
> One of the major concerns that landowners and legislators expressed in opposition to HB 1188, was that there are hoards of paddlers waiting in the wings to float on Colorado rivers, and that by granting a "right to float" there would be large groups floating thru private property regularly. This is simply not the case, as AW and CW communicated in Senate testimony, landowner meetings, etc. This demonstration will do only harm!
> 
> A demonstration float could:
> ...


 
Everyone who is thinking about going needs to listen to Nathan. AW does not want this to happen. It is going to hurt our cause. 

CALL IT OFF!


----------



## gyrogyrl (Jul 9, 2004)

I've nothing much to add to the cogent arguments about why a "right to float" rally would probably do more harm than good to boating on the Taylor in particular and boating in general throughout Colorado, except that Andy H. is correct - Colorado Whitewater is not involved in this in any way. 

Our next board meeting is on 7/14; I can't imagine that CW would endorse this type of action as a strategy to achieve better policies on boating rights in Colorado, when all available information is that it will have exactly the opposite effect.


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

Seems like a bad idea:
-very end of the season
-truce in place
Let's let everyone cool off for the winter and see what spring brings.

Problem with these "protest floats" is everyone (both sides) show up with an "attitude", some will even be looking for a fight (again, both sides) add a little alcohol....again, just seems like a bad idea....why fuel the fires?

Let CW and AW do their thing, let the property owners realize they had nothing to gain by picking this fight.

Also: is the Taylor even at a boatable level???

Anybody up for Cross Mtn or Gore?

PS: Yeti, do you really think calling people that hold a different opinion than you do, "dumbshits", helps your cause?


----------



## CB Rob (Feb 13, 2010)

Whats the problem with floating this> we have "permission" now, right? or was that just for the outfitters....
My county has a history of letting boaters float as long as they don't touch the shore or the bottom. That's what I plan to do on the 17th.


----------



## mr. compassionate (Jan 13, 2006)

Andy H. said:


> From what I know there's no involvement by either AW of CW in this. If these groups are not involved, this is a really BAD idea to do without the organizations that have been working on Colorado access for years and have been successful in the past. Holding this rally could seriously undermine the effort these groups have put into the fight to date, or will put into it later. There's a lot going on behind the scenes that we don't know about and that if it were made public would be counterproductive for the cause. Please don't do this without involvement of AW and CW.


Yeah, I'm sure Rosa Parks didn't have permission from any groups either.


----------



## Theophilus (Mar 11, 2008)

mr. compassionate said:


> Yeah, I'm sure Rosa Parks didn't have permission from any groups either.


Seems like faulty logic. You have the right to float the Taylor now and people are floating it now. You don't need anyones permission so what's to protest? Why make an issue where none currently exists? Seems kinda odd.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

Theophilus said:


> Seems like faulty logic. You have the right to float the Taylor now and people are floating it now. You don't need anyones permission so what's to protest? Why make an issue where none currently exists? Seems kinda odd.


Don't make me go and *agree* with you! Oops, too late. I agree.


----------



## KUpolo (May 24, 2005)

CB Rob said:


> Whats the problem with floating this> we have "permission" now, right? or was that just for the outfitters....
> My county has a history of letting boaters float as long as they don't touch the shore or the bottom. That's what I plan to do on the 17th.


 
Floating a river is one thing. Looking for a fight is completely different.

I'm not sure if you are aware of all the behind the scenes work it took this year to get to the point we are at now where the landowners backed off of their position that we were not allowed on the river at all. CW and AW put in countless hours on YOUR behalf meeting with everyone involved including Governor Ritter. Now you want to go out there and make them look like they were defending the rights of a bunch of clowns instead of responsible people who are going to respect the surrounding land owners and the river. 

Everytime someone in our camp does something foolish like this it makes it that much harder for us to win the battles we need win to in the legislature next time an access issue comes up.

Float the Taylor all you want, but my advice would be to stay off it on the 17th because it makes life worse for everyone involved.


----------



## troutslayer (Sep 14, 2009)

CALL IT OFF!!! Why protest something that doesn't need to be protested? I fished the taylor last week with out a problem and had a great time. We even waved to the ranch boss and smiled and he smiled back. Just don't be a dumbass and touch bottom or the shore follow the rules. Stay away from the fisherman and try to move through there as fast as possible with out causing a seen. As of now we can float Don't F*CK it up.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod (Sep 2, 2009)

What a bunch of pussies... You claim to have the right to float but refuse to stand up for it? The attitudes displayed by some of you are the very same attitudes that have aided and abetted each and every thug, bully and dictator the world has ever known. When will it be enough? What will we have to loose before you put your big boy pants on? 

To those that think there's no reason to protest, or nothing to be gained - You haven't been paying attention - this isn't over, not by a long shot. Lewis Shaw and his ilk have shifted the target to the public's back. They made peace with the commercial rafters and took a lot of the money and influence out of the game just to make the public an easier target. 

Oh well, this is how these things usually go - a brave few charge in while the rest stand around like sheep at the slaughter. If you believe you have the right to float you'd better be willing to fight for it. I do, and I am.


----------



## KUpolo (May 24, 2005)

slavetotheflyrod said:


> What a bunch of pussies... You claim to have the right to float but refuse to stand up for it? The attitudes displayed by some of you are the very same attitudes that have aided and abetted each and every thug, bully and dictator the world has ever known. When will it be enough? What will we have to loose before you put your big boy pants on?
> 
> To those that think there's no reason to protest, or nothing to be gained - You haven't been paying attention - this isn't over, not by a long shot. Lewis Shaw and his ilk have shifted the target to the public's back. They made peace with the commercial rafters and took a lot of the money and influence out of the game just to make the public an easier target.
> 
> Oh well, this is how these things usually go - a brave few charge in while the rest stand around like sheep at the slaughter. If you believe you have the right to float you'd better be willing to fight for it. I do, and I am.


 
I still fail to see what you are hoping to do on the 17th. 

Are you trying to show solidarity? Are you looking for a fight? Are you just going to piss off some land owners? What makes what you are doing "brave"?

Maybe if I understood what exactly you were hoping to accomplish I wouldn't think you so foolish. Maybe....


----------



## riojedi (May 23, 2005)

I've always felt bad for the fisherman who can't cross a field to the river he want's to fish but I can fish the same river because I do have the right to float the rivers of Colorado. If your going to protests at this point at least do it for real change. (Once again, TU, step up.)


----------



## GameOn (May 14, 2009)

Politics is an interesting game. I'll never pretend to understand it and I'll never be good at it. Sitting through the Senate hearings that day, I thought I had heard everything. Then I heard some landowners say things that I just couldn't believe as true. It's pretty amazing what "facts" get thrown out there for the sake of debating a bill, true or not. The "facts" that stick are what concern me. I was surprised at what sticks.

As I've been told, there was a point in the whole process where the legislation (governor mostly) felt that the private boating community was the problem and not the commercial boaters. The commercial boaters defended us. Successfully? Who knows. That remains to be seen. Actions by our legislature are far more telling than words.

So my point is, what is your strategy with this "Right to Float"....what happens the next time when those of us who stand before the Senators and/or Representatives have to defend these actions (and I'm not saying that persons who are planning this float are doing it with malice). It is a hard pill to swallow when the land owners can point to an event and say, "See, we told you so." Never mind your intent. Issues get twisted into things you never intended by people who don't know you and have their own interests at heart...and they have money and a politician's ear.

My suggestion? Let's get organized instead of poking at people. As a group, we do have power. Now's the time before the next go around. We'd be ready next time. Join CW and AW. As a CW member, you are always invited to our Board Meetings every month. Send CW an email...we always welcome feedback. 

The boating community could be a formidable front on this or any issue if we chose to be. Remember the big picture.


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

GameOn said:


> As I've been told, there was a point in the whole process where the legislation (governor mostly) felt that the private boating community was the problem and not the commercial boaters.


I couldnt agree more, and it because of moves like this protest float. They gave us an inch, we demanded a foot. They gave us the foot, and now we're demanding a meter. 

slave- why do you have to keep going on like this? why do you have to make an issue out of nothing? theres ten people on here telling you your actions are only going to hurt any progress we've made, but you don't listen to that. why? why do you have to be so overzealous in your cause? you just dont care one bit if access gets fucked up because of this, because you dont live here. ill bet if you were lucky enough to have a middle taylor in your backyard, and we all went in like a bunch of dumbasses and ruined the access for you, you would probably be pretty pissed off too!


----------



## slavetotheflyrod (Sep 2, 2009)

yetigonecrazy said:


> I couldnt agree more, and it because of moves like this protest float. They gave us an inch, we demanded a foot. They gave us the foot, and now we're demanding a meter.
> 
> slave- why do you have to keep going on like this? why do you have to make an issue out of nothing? theres ten people on here telling you your actions are only going to hurt any progress we've made, but you don't listen to that. why? why do you have to be so overzealous in your cause? you just dont care one bit if access gets fucked up because of this, because you dont live here. ill bet if you were lucky enough to have a middle taylor in your backyard, and we all went in like a bunch of dumbasses and ruined the access for you, you would probably be pretty pissed off too!


You just don't get it do you? Some Texan developer comes to town and starts threatening to close the river and sue anyone who dares to float through and your proposed solution to the problem seems to be "just give him what he wants and he'll leave us all alone!" You seem think that by placating this dictator we can win an easy truce. I'm not at all surprised be this reaction - most folks in this world will choose the path of least resistance 9 times out of 10. 

Here's the real problem - this guy didn't buy the Wapiti ranch up for his own enjoyment, he intends to develop 12 luxury homesites, starting at 2.9 million and up. The fact is, at some point the lots will sell and Lewis Shaw will become a distant memory. He'll soon be replaced by 12 or more new dictators some of whom will no doubt share his convoluted views on river access issues. They'll no doubt form an HOA, just like Crystal Creek, and take up the fight where Shaw left off. Shaw and his crew did the smart thing by making a deal with the commercial co's. They've taken the money and influence of CROA out of the game, and made the public boaters a much easier target. This has been the tactic all along - divide and conquer - first they tried to make this out to be an issue between fishermen and boaters in an attempt to do just that. Lately, they've seemed to target only those fishing while floating through, again, in an attempt (I think) to divide fishermen and boaters. Some of you are playing right into their plan, by making suggestions to the effect that we should float through, but not fish. My point is: if you're willing to give up one right, you'd better be willing to give em all up. 

Now, as far as the protest float goes - Yes, it is a show of solidarity. If a thousand people show up and float through it shows them that we can't be intimidated. I can just about guarantee you that marcus Locke and Barney White are reading some of your responses and laughing their asses off. Their plan to deter private boaters through a campaign of intimidation and harassment must be working, based upon some of your responses. 

What do I intend to accomplish? I intend to call their bluff. I'll bet a months wages that their next move is to try to make an example of someone in order to further deter and intimidate. They're looking for someone to sue, and I hope it's me. If and when they do you can rest assured I won't be running to AW or CW for help. The last I checked, neither organization has prevailed in any court battles. I think we can all agree that we haven't seen the final resolution to this issue yet. I would suspect that most would agree that there needs to be a final resolution. We already know the legislature is incapable. The ballot initiatives are dead. That leaves the courts. 

To those that think it best to wait and see, I would ask "what are you waiting for?" We have the perfect opportunity right here, right now, to settle this larger issue once and for all. If you're waiting for a more perfect set of circumstances to present themselves, don't hold your breath. We've got the perfect villain in Lewis Shaw - a wealthy, arrogant, land developer from Texas. I can only envision a more perfect scenario if Bin Laden himself took Shaw's place. 

I, for one have no intention of sitting back and watching things play out. It's probably true that if we all sit on our hands the issue will die down for awhile, but it won't go away. Shaw, or someone like him will resume the fight one of these days and we'll be back to square one again. The duke thinks he can bluff his way to what he wants - he's got a great big stack of chips and some pretty weak cards in the hole. It's time to call his bluff and play our cards for a change.


----------



## coloradopaddler (Jun 16, 2005)

if you are going to float, just remember that you are unofficially representing all boaters. i don't see the need for this either but you can float through there now so, be respectful! don't be a bunch of assholes because what you do indirectly affects all of us, and i want to be able to float up there some day.


----------



## troutslayer (Sep 14, 2009)

slavetotheflyrod said:


> This has been the tactic all along - divide and conquer - first they tried to make this out to be an issue between fishermen and boaters in an attempt to do just that. Lately, they've seemed to target only those fishing while floating through, again, in an attempt (I think) to divide fishermen and boaters.



I've floated this section 3 times this year EVERY TIME fly fishing. I have had not one problem with anyone on the ranch. Just don't be the douche bag casting over wade fisherman and making a ton of noise. Show some repect stay on the opposite side of the river as the waders and don't Cast. How hard is it for you to wait 30 seconds before casting again? I personally enjoy that 30 second break to slam a beer and take in the beauty of the river or check my rig. Also take some time to put your fish back alive, respect the resource so other people can enjoy! Float the middle taylor all you want but if your going to do a mass float Follow the rules and show them privates arn't a bunch of drunk burnt out boaters! All Shaw is looking for is mutual respect so respect this shit especially if you want to float it again.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod (Sep 2, 2009)

troutslayer said:


> I've floated this section 3 times this year EVERY TIME fly fishing. I have had not one problem with anyone on the ranch. Just don't be the douche bag casting over wade fisherman and making a ton of noise. Show some repect stay on the opposite side of the river as the waders and don't Cast. How hard is it for you to wait 30 seconds before casting again? I personally enjoy that 30 second break to slam a beer and take in the beauty of the river or check my rig. Also take some time to put your fish back alive, respect the resource so other people can enjoy! Float the middle taylor all you want but if your going to do a mass float Follow the rules and show them privates arn't a bunch of drunk burnt out boaters! All Shaw is looking for is mutual respect so respect this shit especially if you want to float it again.


Again, someone's not really paying attention. Mutual respect? That's not at all what he's after. I'd settle for it though.


----------



## troutslayer (Sep 14, 2009)

slavetotheflyrod said:


> Again, someone's not really paying attention. Mutual respect? That's not at all what he's after. I'd settle for it though.


What I am saying is I've never been hassled on the Taylor. When I float through the ranch I respect the people on the ranch and it seems to work. I wave, smile, and ask how the fishing is and stay out of there way. I don't stop on the ranch or drag my anchor through there and it has seemed to work in my advantage. Respect is all people are after, if people were respecting his guests there would have never been a issue. Some people don't get respect. If you were being disrespectful to my ranch or my guest (who pay GOOD money) i would do the same thing wether I was from Texas or not. Treat others as you would like to be treated one of the first things your parents should teach you. IT GOES ALONG WAY!

When you say "thats not at all what he's after" have you ever talked to him and found out some the crazy shit boaters have done? Have you ever talked to Mr. Jones on the blue? All he talks about is mutual respect, I think we have done a good job of respecting that and thats why he keeps that fishery amazing. Ranch owners wouldn't be complaining if there weren't dumb boaters out there doing dumb shit!!! Maybe its people like yourself that are making this an issue. Do you show respect? Because it sure doesn't sound like it.


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

No, it is YOU who doesnt get it. "IT" is extremely simple, and you are trying to turn NOTHING into SOMETHING!!!

Yes, the guy came to town and thought he was going to have his way. However, after seeing the fight he was in for, and realizing the major politics that have been played out for years and years over this topic are such a flashpoint in this state, he has relented and allowed people to float through, provided you shut up and mind your manners.

Yes, it is as simple as that: shut up and mind your manners. Dont get out, be courteous with your time through there, and just dont be an ass. Thats it! If you can do that, then the ranch has no problem with us! So for you to try and make an issue of it only proves that you have zero respect for anyone or anything! People have been floating through DAILY since the water came on in May. And there hasnt been any issues because people have been respectful.

There is no issue. There is no need to protest. I cannot believe how stupid you are making yourself look. The folks at the Wilder are ready for you. They have no problem dealing with a few bad apples like yourself on ONE day, because they know after that one day it will only be the courteous, smart folks (who float the river everyday) that will be left. So come down and make your little issue out of nothing. Because in the end its only you who will look like a fool!


----------



## Theophilus (Mar 11, 2008)

Who has told you DON'T have the right to float? Nobody Who's stopping you? Nobody 

Who’s the private boater specifically targeted? Nobody.

I've seen the cameras on the trees while floating through and if all they have after a peaceful season is a hand full of pictures of ones and twos floating through smiling and waving at the camera I doubt that will play well in the court of public opinion. 

They know the fish aren't theirs so that's a nonstarter and all the Bait Bucket Bob's across Colorado would stand behind you on that. They know they can't interfere/harass with you while fishing so what's left for them? I suppose restricting access by blocking the river in some manner and they know that is illegal as well or they would have already done so.


Of course you can "what if" this for pages more, but like my old pappy used to say "Son, "what if" flies carried .45s? nobody would swat them"


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

*As an alternative*

If you want to demonstrate the power of boating boaters, why not orchastrate something on the Colorado at the end of the season, and donate proceeds to AW. Why not get the commercials and privates organized to attend and participate. By organizing and seeking support of the players in this space, you may achieve more?

This passing flyers seems a bit like the highschool kid who wants to play hippie protestor for a day and hands out flyers in the lunch room. 

Anyway, don't provoke a confrontation that will hurt all of us. Enjoy your float, or floats through a beatiful river.


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

yetigonecrazy said:


> No, it is YOU who doesnt get it. "IT" is extremely simple, and you are trying to turn NOTHING into SOMETHING!!!
> 
> Yes, the guy came to town and thought he was going to have his way. However, after seeing the fight he was in for, and realizing the major politics that have been played out for years and years over this topic are such a flashpoint in this state, he has relented and allowed people to float through, provided you shut up and mind your manners.
> 
> ...



Yeti - not going to be participating in any protests. On the Taylor or anywhere else - not my style. I got to the river to get away from people not join them.

It still seems like this guy is dictating how things happen down there.
The whole "don't piss him off, or we'll lose access" thing just rubs my flank the wrong way and makes me want to buck.

While I try to be courteous I didn't know that "smart" was one of the qualities needed to float an open river. Not sure that I would qualify on that one. 

Colorado is seriously in need of water law reform, not saying that this is the appropriate battle to choose over it. 
If the law were different I might have chosen to stay there. I used to live in Almont so know a little about the area. Never did get to boat there. 

Sorry you ( the whole boating community of the state of CO) even have to deal with shit like this. Once enough land and rivers get closed off to public use, maybe then will be the time to step up with some civil disobedience. 

At least here in Idaho, high water mark to high water mark is ours. All of us.

CO gets the finger from me for being such douche bags about kowtowing to the private land owners.


----------



## Ikedub (May 30, 2008)

I fall somewhere between Carvedog and Slave. It isn't about getting in someone's face...which is why I won't be protesting on the Taylor. It IS about standing up for your "rights", or lack thereof. This whole "don't do anything to piss him off" attitude is bullshit, and that is obviously how many of you feel. The right to float needs to be defined for good and as Slave said, the court is where it will be defined. Nobody likes court and nobody likes F'in lawyers but unfortunately this is how things get decided in our society.


----------



## raymo (Aug 10, 2008)

I think what slavetotheflyrod is saying, is before sticking your hand into a rabbit hole thinking about a nice dinner, you might want to stick a stick into the hole and stir things up a bit first, because you may flush out a rat.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod (Sep 2, 2009)

yetigonecrazy said:


> No, it is YOU who doesnt get it. "IT" is extremely simple, and you are trying to turn NOTHING into SOMETHING!!!
> 
> Yes, the guy came to town and thought he was going to have his way. However, after seeing the fight he was in for, and realizing the major politics that have been played out for years and years over this topic are such a flashpoint in this state, he has relented and allowed people to float through, provided you shut up and mind your manners.
> 
> ...


You seem to think you know me, and let me assure you, you don't. You seem to think I'm creating a problem where there wasn't one, and that's laughable. It only proves what I've been saying all along - you haven't been paying attention, you aren't getting it yet. 

Shut up and mind my manners? Who died and made you Duke? I'm a little busy either fishing or rowing to shut up and mind my manners. 

I'll spell it out for you - This isn't about right to float, it's about right to fish. They want to draw the line at floating through and shut it down to fishing. Well, shut it down to anyone that can't afford it, that is. When they're done with that they'll slowly erode away at the right to float to the point where everyone has the right to float provided they can afford the tolls. 

We all agree something needs to be done once and for all. Most of us realize that that happens through the courts. 

It'll be a few folks with a ton of brass that get this done.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

*Who's organzing this thing anyway?*

Its understandable that a lot of folks are passionate about this, angry that the private boaters still have to be wary of touching the bottom or banks when they pass through the Shaw property, and how it seems like a lot of time has passed since HB-1188 went down with very little happening on the issue. 

However if you think that opposition to a protest float is out of fear of the landowners, or letting the summer pass without a protest float is going to strengthen the landowners' position, you're not only wrong but you're missing the point.

If there's going to be a well-publicized rally, then its a pretty sure bet that the news folks will be there. Do you think the news is going to put much effort into portraying the issues in a way that educates the public about how bizarre Colorado's riparian trespass laws are? If you do, then you haven't been paying attention. The cameras will be rolling to capture and emphasize any kind of conflict that occurs - that's where their ratings come from and its the only thing they care about showing. 

If only one person sticks their fist in the air, while a hundred boats have passed by peacefully, that's what will be on the broadcast. If one person flips off a landowner, shouts an insult or angry comment, that's what will make the news. If one person touches the bed or banks, the sheriff will probably be on hand and will have to cite them, as he's bound by law to do. And the cameras will be rolling at the takeout showing a private boater having a run-in with the law. And if things really get out of hand, with shouts, insults, moonings, and intentional trespass fueled by the kind of defiant attitude passionate people bring to any kind of protest, the news crews are going to have a field day. So now ask yourself, how's this kind of thing going to play to the public who isn't nearly as well informed as we are but whose support we need? Do you think the landowners are going to be there shouting insults at boaters or showing their bad side to the media?

So who's going to be making sure nothing like this happens? Who's going to make sure there aren't any idiots in the crowd, or worse, plants sent by the landowners intent on stirring the pot and creating a rowdy free-for-all?

I've been to a few protests and other events that made the news - and I have NEVER watched or read the reporting and said, "yep, that's exactly how it happened." Invariably, as soon as the news crew shows up they go straight to the whackiest person there, or find some yahoo ready to get out of hand and cause a scene. And that's what makes the "news."

Now lets consider another thing - I don't know the Taylor River but I bet its not going to have much water in it by mid July. What's the chance a bunch of rafts will be able to pass without bumping into rocks, or dragging on the bottom somewhere that the boaters will be cited for trespass? 

The more I think about it, I can't think of a better set-up to make private boaters look bad, no matter how well intentioned the organizers may be.

So please take the bravado and brass and go float some other river on the 17th. You're not going to help move the ball forward with a protest float. 

There are some good reasons AW's Colorado Stewardship Director (NathanFey) and the President of CW ("GameOn") have both gone on record opposing this. 

-AH


----------



## Mut (Dec 2, 2004)

*Andy H. nailed it*

Andy H., I think you nailed it. A protest float, however well organized, has too much potential for a negative outcome.

Slave, I understand your irritation with the situation. I don't think you want to attend a protest just to make trouble. I interpret your posts to indicate that you want to be, or are willing to be, a "test case". A test case is a legal term for a court case that tests the validity of a law or to establish a legal principal. If you are looking to get arrested in order to go to court in the hope of reinforcing your belief that you have the right to float, you want to make damn sure that the facts are on your side. I am not saying you wouldn't make sure of that, but you need to. When I say facts I don't just mean the legal arguments, I mean the entire scenario. It is much, much, much easier to achieve your desired outcome in a test case if you are a likeable party. Take getting arrested under Andy H's worst case scenario and compare that to getting arrested with your friend while floating in one raft while you are quietly fishing. Given the same legal arguments, the second case has a better outcome every time!

I agree with Andy H. in the idea that no matter how good your intentions, there are simply too many ways this could go wrong and end up doing more damage.

I also believe that if there is communication between the land owner and interested party's we should let those continue a while longer and see if they yield a good result.


----------



## dgosn (Sep 8, 2006)

Good words Andy.


----------



## wild bill (Jun 1, 2008)

Not sure who is organizing it, and do not really care. If you believe we have a right to float, come on out and enjoy a Saturday. If you think it is wrong to exercising our right then you are the problem. 

As long as we float/fish in a legal and respectful manner they really do not have anything on us. I intend to act responsibly and obey the laws. Basically, we should act as I am sure most of us act anyway.

I was there in Denver when the politicians were doing their thing and, as a private boater, didn't see anything come of it. Instead of a solution, Ritter told us that this is an isolated incident and that we should all play nice. The result was that the raft companies lost between 10 and 26 boats per day (depending on the date) and now have to obey launch windows that the Forest Service never required. Private boaters got nothing. I do not call this a victory. I am glad that SRT/3RO will not get sued, but in the grand scheme of things we as boaters got the short end of the stick.

The situation has not been resolved, it is messed up as ever. Shaw has his property wired with cameras just waiting to catch a criminal trespass on one of the many rocks that he moved. He has intensionally made it difficult to run "his river," but it is doable. 

If Shaw and other landowners want a fight I would rather it be in the open not some back room political deal.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod (Sep 2, 2009)

It should also be noted that Scenic and 3 rivers are not quite in the clear just yet. Harmel's has threatened to sue and rumor has it they're trying to sell off a parcel of land to finance a lawsuit. 

Mut understands where I'm coming from, but I can't help but wonder why some of you have so little faith in your fellow boaters. During the course of the legislative effort, many of the same folks that see a negative outcome as the product of this proposed protest were quick to chime up and defend the conduct of themselves and their fellow boaters. What's changed?

Lastly, I kind of doubt this will turn into a media circus. I'm sure the local papers will run a column or two, but I doubt the network news will pay it much attention. As has been mentioned, there is a perception that the issue has been resolved, and I would bet that the media has been duped into believing that. 

If you're of the belief that this thing can or will turn into a disaster, then that's all the reason you need to show up in order to keep the peace and put forward a positive image of boaters in general.


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

slavetotheflyrod said:


> Mut understands where I'm coming from, but I can't help but wonder why some of you have so little faith in your fellow boaters. During the course of the legislative effort, many of the same folks that _*see a negative outcome as the product of this proposed protest *_were quick to chime up and defend the conduct of themselves and their fellow boaters. What's changed?.


Which brings up a good question: What* positive* outcome do you see coming from this protest?


----------



## Theophilus (Mar 11, 2008)

wild bill said:


> Private boaters got nothing. I do not call this a victory.


 What did we lose Bill? Aren't we still free and doing our own thing like we always have?  Grand proclamations by landowners about what we can and can't do are equal to the crazy guy living down the road ranting at cars driving past his house. If you want to lap the block where he lives to prove something to him...well, drive on with your bad self.


----------



## Badazws6 (Mar 4, 2007)

AW and CW have been leading this thing from "our" perspective. Unless you think you can do a more effective job on your own, fall in line, because they are going to bat for you, don't bean them with a wild pitch. If you want to help or influence the course CW/AW are taking, get involved with the situation through AW/CW. Even if you think you can do a more effective job then CW/AW it would be in everyones best interest if you worked with them instead of against everyone.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

*I still want to know: who's organizing this thing, anyway?*



Rich said:


> Which brings up a good question: What* positive* outcome do you see coming from this protest?


That's a very good question indeed, Rich. 

I'll admit that when I heard about what happened on the Lake Fork a few years ago, and what's happening on the Taylor with the landowner now, I thought a protest float would be a great thing to do. You know, "send 'em a message!" and all that.... After putting some thought into it and reflecting on what I've seen of the media's coverage of protests I've been to, I've changed my mind. I ask anyone considering a protest float to think long and hard about about what we'd really gain if its successful, and what the consequences could be if it gets out of hand. 

There's really nothing to gain, but there's a lot to lose in terms of bad PR from just one person getting rowdy and making a scene. 



> *slavetotheflyrod*: I kind of doubt this will turn into a media circus. I'm sure the local papers will run a column or two, but I doubt the network news will pay it much attention.


If you think a "Rafting Protest Float" is going to be under the media's radar, just remember that despite a lot of very significant bills in the Colorado legislature, HB-1188 got tons of coverage even though its only relevant to a small part of the population. Whitewater boating is a photogenic topic and newsroom editors will be salivating at the chance to show footage of rafters and kayakers - especially if there's a whiff of conflict in the air. 



> *wild bill: *Not sure who is organizing it, and do not really care.


What if Shaw's flunkies are the ones handing out the fliers because they know if the "Protest Float" is a circus it'll be on Page 1 and make us all look bad, and if its calm, quiet and peaceful, it'll be buried on page 22D or won't make the news at all?



> *wild bill*: If you think it is wrong to [be] exercising our right then you are the problem. .... I intend to act responsibly and obey the laws. Basically, we should act as I am sure most of us act anyway.


I'm pretty certain no one in AW or CW thinks its wrong to exercise our right to float. We do that every time we head to the river. And I'll seriously say I'm also sure you and Slave will be very courteous and well behaved. Unfortunately there are other folks out there who think being confrontational with the landowners will be a great way to publicize the issue. There's also the very real possibility an agitator from the landowners side will slip into the flotilla and provoke a confrontation. Regardless of the cause, any confrontation will get splashed all over the news. The fact that 99% of the other floaters disagreed with rowdy tactics won't be mentioned. That's how the "news" works. 



> *slavetotheflyrod*: If you're of the belief that this thing can or will turn into a disaster, then that's all the reason you need to show up in order to keep the peace


Even if responsible people come and chaperone the event, how are they supposed to subdue rowdy yahoos if they're not together in the same raft? And if responsible people come along and muzzle someone who's rowdy, that will just be more great footage for the news cameras. The impression folks watching TV in the suburbs will get is that not only do boaters yell obscenities at calm landowners who only want to enjoy their private property in peace, but recreational boaters are combative against each other as well. We've all seen local news stories when the camera caught three seconds of sensational footage, and that three-second clip got replayed multiple times in segment. All it takes is one bad apple and the media can turn it into a circus.

There's nothing be gained and there's too much to lose in terms of how the general public, whose support we will need if there's another legislative effort or a future ballot initiative, sees the boating community.

As I've said, regardless of the intentions of whoever is organizing this thing, its a perfect setup to make recreational boaters look bad. 

-AH


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

I can understand the passion people have for this issue. However I think the "protest float" has the potential to do more harm than good. Its not because I want to bow down to land owners, or not be as tough about it as others, its simply that not much improvement in the situation can directly come out of it, but there could be significant negative consequences. I think the main thing a protest float would do would make the protesters feel good to be able to publicly show their anger and defiance, but that won't better the cause. 

What good can come out of it? You can already paddle the Taylor right now, and Colorado boaters enjoy access as they have for many years. Shaw realized it wasn't going to be as easy as he thought to keep paddlers out, and he backed off.

What bad could come of it... First off, it perpetuates the conflict with the landowners and does nothing to resolve it. It just pisses the other side off so they will want to fight you more. A number of landowner vs. boater disputes have been resolved after both sides worked together to find a mutually acceptable solution. Cheeseman Canyon on the South Platte is an example of a place that used to be the prime example of hostile fisherman attempting to block access. After some hard work, an access compromise has been arranged that seems to be working well for both boaters and the fisherman. You don't achieve breakthroughs by pissing people off, you do it by working with them.

Also, it seems that people feel this should be decided by the court and they are ready to get arrested or charged to be a test case. I think this is a risky proposition. The major risk with the courts is that if you lose, not only do you lose access to the river that you currently have, you set the precendent that could be used to stop lots of boaters from accessing lots of places. Boaters seem to think that we should intrinsicly have the right to float, but there is no gaurantee a judge will agree with you. Just because other states have high water mark to high water mark type laws doesn't mean thats what you will get in colorado. There are all sorts of rivers, lakes, canals, and various waterways that are closed to boating for whatever reason some government agency can think up. What if a judge decided to shut down boating until the case was settled? What if you lose and every river and creek in colorado that goes through private property has the potential to get shut down too? Think very carefully about the potential ramifications of losing. 

Another thing about the courts is that that justice and the right thing are not always the outcome in court. The courts can be used to financially drain the opposition until they have to give up the fight due to lack of funds. I'm pretty sure that multimillionare land development interests have a lot more money than all the commercial rafting and kayaking organizations have to fight this. So whats at stake... maybe spending hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars to fight the case to keep what we already have now? The expenditures to fully fight this would drain funds that could be used more positively. Also, if a person tries to fight it and doesn't have cash for a good lawyer, a crappy lawyer might lose the farm. You definitley want your legal A-team working on it, and thats gonna end up getting funded by the paddling organizations because you sparked a case that could put them out of business. You standing up and saying you are gonna fight it in court means you drag other groups into the fray who have ideas how to do this calmly, cooly, and strategically, and maybe even less costly. 

Many have noted that most other laws protect up to the high water mark. The problem is that lots of portaging and scouting and put ins and takeouts that are above the high water mark. If you are paddling through private property, its a good relationship with landowners that allows you to continute to scout and portage. Intentionally piss off the landowners and you can kiss the incidental access to their land goodbye, and I doubt the law will help you there. While this might not be a big deal on class III rivers for rafting where you can boat scout almost everything, this could be a huge deal and a showstopper on Class IV/V creeks that require portaging and scouting to safely navigate them.

So a protest float can piss people off, inspire conflict, and still not get anything changed. Real change will come when the paddling community works with the opposing groups to find the right solution for all. If you aren't going to work towards a solution, step back, and let the folks that are working for a positive solution do their thing (AW & CW).

I don't seen any good coming from a protest float. I'd personally advise against it.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod (Sep 2, 2009)

Rich said:


> Which brings up a good question: What* positive* outcome do you see coming from this protest?


And that's a very good question. 

First - for me personally, it's a day on the river. I always have a good time on the river and love being there. 

If that's not enough, this presents an opportunity to meet and network with a few more stand up guys and gals. 

As this thread has already shown, the Duke's tactics are working - most of the people on this board and in the valley are pissing themselves scared of this guy. Each and every time I've been down there I've seen people taking out at south bank and putting in at 5 mile, yet none doing the opposite. Hardly anyone is floating through Harmel's and Wilder. On both fronts The Duke is winning. He's got the commercial co's whipped into shape and the public scarred off. This alone oughta be enough.


----------



## buckmanriver (Apr 2, 2008)

*High Profile Trespassing*

Below is a section of my Environmental capstone. It was written in April 2010 before HB-1188 crashed. However, my stance on the direction we should take to overcome these issues remains the same. In short go boating down the middle taylor my July 17, 2010. And be positive respectful boaters like you always are. 


Rivers in Colorado and the laws underlying what the public’s private property rights and the boating community's non-right to float have always been the same since the states constitution was written. No citizen has legitimately had the right to float. However, the law has not stopped the public from floating. Private boaters trespass quite frequently during the boating season. Most of the time they keep a low profile and move quickly on and off the river when no one is looking. That is one reason there has not been a case like Emert in the last thirty years. Over that time, there has only been large increase in private boating and thus, and increase in low profile trespassing. It took a commercial rafting companie’s business rights for this issue to resurface in the state legislative system. We have seen the legislative system fail to meet both private, and commercial boaters needs. In other states, it has been the judicial system where the timeliest and most effective policies are made. That is why we need more Emert cases. The boating community's largest goal should be overcoming this issue. From the ground up, we must push for cultural change in regards to private land values that conflict with the public’s water that moves down our rivers. Even if doing so damages the relationships between individual ranch owners and the community as a whole. Doing this in a timely manner will require a predominant change to high profile trespassing. 
High profile trespassing will show the world how critical this issue is to the citizens of Colorado. The best case out come of high profile trespassing demonstrations would come from boating festivals. The FIBARK (Finest in Boating on the Arkansas River) festival should include a community protest float in which all participants intentionally break private property laws. It should include multiple incidents of stream bed contact, rock contact, and portage contact. Both the media and police should be informed of the event. The best outcome would be multiple state court cases fighting agents’ unjust trespassing violations. Having multiple cases would ensure a timely positive outcome giving boaters both commercial and private the right to float. High profile trespassing will require strong ground up motivation from the boating community. The effect will be a positive solution to a prolonged environmental problem. 

Buck


----------



## wild bill (Jun 1, 2008)

The major reason to protest is that by not floating the Duke and his cronies have already won. If the boating public is too scared to float then what is the point.

Theophilus: I agree that we did not loose any rights, but we did not win anything either. The laws are still murky and confusing. The important thing to consider is that the commercial companies up Taylor already had to sign an agreement to be allowed to float through Shaw's property (which the Forest Service has historically and currently permitted). Land owners could take the hint and hundreds of individual agreements could be needed to commercially float. On the private end this is not a step backwards but should be viewed as a warning shot. Soon you may need to ask permission to float your favorite section. The idea of that makes me sick.

Andy: If Shaw wants to invite me to float I am happy to oblige him. I intend to be respectful as already mentioned, and I hope that all boaters in attendance will be as well. Regarding the media, anyone who believes everything they read or see on the tv is an idiot. This last winter the politicians screwed us and the media wasn't terribly helpful either. I hope that the media will be positive and fair if they do show, but I have little faith in them anyhow. 

The point is that the Taylor was, is, and should always be floatable. If we do nothing then we have already lost. I am not giving up and neither should you.


----------



## rippnskier (Jun 4, 2006)

hey Buck, what does FIBARK stand for? I think "protest" is the wrong word. If everyone goes boating and the powers that be see that there is definite interest in using that section of river, as a great float, then the politicians/bureacrats will take notice. Don't go raising a shit storm, just float thru, have a great time, and be counted. The powers are in the numbers, not the loudest. What if AW or CW had a number saying 10,000 boaters floated that section this summer. That is what politicains look for... boaters who are voters... Think about it.


----------



## randomnature (Jun 10, 2007)

Has anyone thought about just asking this guy to come drink a beer and fish with you. Maybe the common ground would bring people together.


----------



## wild bill (Jun 1, 2008)

What you nay sayers seem to forget is that we are talking about people who do not want boaters going through their property. We are not talking about a frustrated neighbor who had a bad experience or a rancher who simply wants to keep livestock in. The two land owners on the Taylor (Shaw and the Robberts brothers) want exclusivity. They would like nothing more than boating on their section to stop completely. They do not want to be interrupted form their fishing by boaters floating by quickly. They have altered the river to improve fish habitat and to make it hard for boats to fit through. We were told "we're fine with rafting, just not through our property." Well guess what there are thousands of private land owners all over Colorado (most of whom are good, reasonable people who have no problem with boaters) but these are the bad apples. The reasonable man argument (just have a beer and talk it out) goes out the window when dealing with unreasonable people. They want to stop boating completely by relegating it to the short sections between private sections. I do not know about you, but I for one want to be able to float more than a few hundred yards on public lands before having to get out and drive around private land.

Yes we should use the political machine to our favor. We should vote out the politicians who are not helping us and replace them with individuals who will. We should keep the folks who have helped us out in the past. I float and I vote, but the political system failed us all this winter and succumbed to the power of money. Lets look for other peaceful, legal ways to fight for our rights as well. Lets get 10,000 voters floating the Middle Taylor this year rippnskier. If you have not gotten over here, come over and see what we are all talking about. Maybe a freedom float is the motivation boaters need to go to the Taylor and experience it.

The water in this state should be free for all.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

Go float the taylor guys. No one wants to stop you from doing that. Do it like you would normally with your crew and have a good time. You can float it, have floated it, and will float it in the future. The issue is that if you publicize a "protest" and attempt to get an uncharacteristically large group of boaters on the river that will increase the level of conflict, then you are doing more harm than good. You floating the taylor is cool. You trying to egg on lots of boaters to float the taylor at the same time to try and thumb your nose at the landowners is not cool. Pretty simple.

Whats the point of jamming a bunch of boaters on the river at the same time? Do you want to show how bad river traffic can get? Do you want to emphasize how much disturbance we can make? Do you want to give Shaw the opportunity to take pictures with loads of boats on his property? That's probably exactly what he wants to add fuel to his fire. Few reasonable people would object to a raft or a kayak floating through now and then. I could see how a judge might find 20 boats jamming up the river "too much" and force a permit system.

The main point is... float the river... you can do that now. You don't need some law, court case, or sign from heaven to go boating, you can do that NOW. Go float the taylor every week until its done. Just don't try and make a big fuss about it, because that won't do any good. I haven't heard of one good reason to do a protest float from the proponents on here... because there really isn't one. Think about it.


----------



## onefatdog (Oct 25, 2003)

unreal! what kinda river boater/enthusiast gets upset at a planned rally to support the right to float a river?
everybody that's available should run the taylor and run it multiple times. this issue needs to go to court and needs to be addressed. it's impossible to legally close a river and deny the ability to float a river that runs through private land. imagine if people on the mississippi or ohio stopped letting traffic through. there is a federal precedent.
let it be heard and decided once and for all.
really get over all the preaching, holier than thou shit and go paddle where you want.


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

slavetotheflyrod said:


> As this thread has already shown, the Duke's tactics are working - most of the people on this board and in the valley are pissing themselves scared of this guy. Each and every time I've been down there I've seen people taking out at south bank and putting in at 5 mile, yet none doing the opposite. Hardly anyone is floating through Harmel's and Wilder. On both fronts The Duke is winning. He's got the commercial co's whipped into shape and the public scarred off. This alone oughta be enough.


Ha ha ha if you only knew......

You don't see people putting on that stretch because overall the quality sucks. If you want better whitewater there is a classic stretch of III just upstream and the fishing is world class way above (just below the dam) and the whole Lower stretch. 

And for the record, I don't know a single person who is scared of this guy. We all down here have realized that he has backed off, so the river is there to float, we don't need to protest shit now. Like Theophilius said, if you want to go and "lap the block" a few times to feel like a bigger man, then go for it. But you're not making a point or an issue anymore, because there is no point to be made. Just shut up and go boating, because the permission to do it is already there!


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble!


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

*Navigable in Fact is Navigable in Law*



deepsouthpaddler said:


> Go float the taylor guys. No one wants to stop you from doing that. Do it like you would normally with your crew and have a good time. You can float it, have floated it, and will float it in the future. The issue is that if you publicize a "protest" and attempt to get an uncharacteristically large group of boaters on the river that will increase the level of conflict, then you are doing more harm than good. You floating the taylor is cool. You trying to egg on lots of boaters to float the taylor at the same time to try and thumb your nose at the landowners is not cool. Pretty simple.
> 
> Whats the point of jamming a bunch of boaters on the river at the same time? Do you want to show how bad river traffic can get? Do you want to emphasize how much disturbance we can make? Do you want to give Shaw the opportunity to take pictures with loads of boats on his property? That's probably exactly what he wants to add fuel to his fire. Few reasonable people would object to a raft or a kayak floating through now and then. I could see how a judge might find 20 boats jamming up the river "too much" and force a permit system.
> 
> The main point is... float the river... you can do that now. You don't need some law, court case, or sign from heaven to go boating, you can do that NOW. Go float the taylor every week until its done. Just don't try and make a big fuss about it, because that won't do any good. I haven't heard of one good reason to do a protest float from the proponents on here... because there really isn't one. Think about it.


The "main point" in this whole thing is more than the right to float or the right to fish or protest floating on one river to show one person that you're not "scared".


The "main point" is the *"Public Trust Doctrine"*.


Google, learn and understand the *Public Trust Doctrine*. Then assert the *Public Trust Doctrine* in the legislature as the expressed or implied basis for *separate* access and use bills, in court as a declarative judgment complaint action or trespass suit defense reaction (e.g., in a float fishing touch bottom floatilla thingy kinda deal) or DOW programs or in the upcoming Governor's Task Force for dispute resolution and/or in an election as a ballot initiative.

Yes, I know what Emmert, the AG opinion, etc. says. However, navigability remains untested here in Colorado. Google "The Daniel Ball".

As for good (or bad) that may come from "protest floats", consider YouTube - Heather and Goliath which was produced in 2008 as a reaction to the Rapanos SCOTUS decision that changed the Clean Water Act and paved the way for the upcoming Federal "Clean Water Restoration Act". The provision of this link in no way advocates my support or opposition of any protest exercise anywhere anytime.

Just sayin'...

PS When watching "Heather and Goliath", remember, all you heathen savage miscreants, Heather is some Dad's daughter...


----------



## Full Of Hate (Apr 22, 2010)

I have to say that this discussion is SOOOOOO Colorado. I don;t care if you are a native or have moved here. The Colorado reputation is all conservative, but everyone is a money grubbing socialist. Coloradans want rights, but rarely are willing to even take small steps to resist it. It is a police state, with low crime but cops absolutely everywhere. The general attitude here is that every boater represents boaters, but I paid 10,000's so all you fuckers could go to school and learn how to be individuals and do math and somehow very few of you can do math and almost none of you are willing to stand up for anything exept paying more taxes. You are not individuals, you are followers.

Eat it, the new way of doing everything through unsucessful groups and wasting effort is BS and you now live in your BS CO world where people take pride in not working and not standing up for anything.

Get back to basics, the point is that we should have the right to float the river or the rules should be clear and enforced everywhere and MOST IMPORTANT, if you don't want to be busted by this guy for doing something illegal, all you have to do is start identifing and making it public the illegal things that folks on this ranch or the one back in TX or his relatives are likely doing (not saying they are, but if they are like the average American, they commit 4 felonies a day, if they are rich the number is likely much higher).

The issue has not even come close to being resolved if a bunch of pansy ass CO boaters are afraid to boat this river. Fuck it, bring one tradeable good down river and then sell it in Gunnison and you are now in the business of commerce. Perhaps a firewood cutting permit, cut one round and bring it down river. 

BTW to the naysayers, NH did a group float protest to protest those stupid boater registration stickers, like ID has. They floated right down the Merrimack to the capitol and the measure was defeated. Sometimes the world is not here just for the legislature and the rich folks, we can have some world too, but not if you back down and wait for AW or CW for everything. Colorado has only been around a little over 100 years, waiting 1 month is a long time. These groups have done great work, but just because it is 2010, the days of group forming and different opinions ARE NOT OVER, except for a bunch of people on the buzz. 

But really folks your new organized solution for everything has made this fucked up world so fucked, especially lately. If this does not make sense to you, I bet you have lived in Colorado more than 5 years and don't look at the bottom of your receipts to see how much your neighbors are screwing you. 

I know the hippies failed miserably and then jumped in the rat race more than anyone before them they were protesting, but this does not mean that the protests were useless, just the hippies. 

I say float it and bring this to a head if that is what it takes. All the environmentalists have been trying to save the environment via regulation for years. I have often argued that polluted oceans may have more of an effect than 100's of years of regulation. People might actually react with passion rather than with socialism. One person with passion is more powerful than an organization of 10,000 of the timid. Making a bigger messy issue out of this may have a better outcome than sitting around and screaming how you will make the situation worse if you exercise your rights.

If that Rosa Parks comment didn't touch you and make you realize that conformity is not the answer, it is likely too late for you already. Conformists get what is coming to them.

The new ways of doing all charity via your taxes and protests via the internet have not worked. Folks are no longer charitable and your government wastes your mandated charity and your internet protests get lost among all the others, some old real world protesters, WHOSE GOAL IS TO PISS FOLKS OFF, GET ON THE NEWS AND GET PEOPLE TALKING, are exactly what this situation needs. Your new ways will fail and your new attitude will allow you to move on and take the next piece of the world up your ass and like it. It is not always up to "them"


----------



## Full Of Hate (Apr 22, 2010)

I also want to point out, as I have to these parties, that every census worker and every property tax assessor trespasses every time they leave the public roadway. They are told by their bosses that they can come and knock on your door, but they cannot. This is not a fuzzy area like the Taylor, they have no right to come on your land. 

To come on your land these parties need permission. Seems to me that if members of the CO and FED govt' tresspassed on my land 10 times this year (including 7 visits from the census team), that floating a river, where ownership is disputed, would not be tough or nearly as big of a deal. 

I say that if anyone lives in the same county, if there is someone arrested, please charge the local assessor next time he comes on your land and make it clear that you are just doing your duty, as you thought this is how the county worked and what they wanted.


----------



## Theophilus (Mar 11, 2008)

Tilting at windmills - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them.


----------



## Full Of Hate (Apr 22, 2010)

Who is tilitin'?

Those that want to secure their rights on the Taylor, without using a pre-established group.

or

Those that want this group to not do anything outside of the control of said group.

This guy wants to get a bunch of people to float the river, which is apparently allowed and move on. Just the word protest does not make it so. Now stopping, waving signs, actually trespassing on the banks, that would be a protest, and perhaps I did not read closely, but I do not think that was part of the plan.

So I guess you are saying that all those posting frantically trying to stop him from floating with a larger group are with ones tilting at windmills because this is not actually violating any rules?

Those afraid to do something because it will be characterized in the media as something that it is not have already lost. What have they lost, not a protest, but their individual backbone. 

This thread really has very little to do with the Taylor and more to do with how people interact and try to move things forward in the world and why things often go the other way.


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

Full of Hate...

Calling yourself "Full of hate" is probably the most accurate factoid in your rant. 

Reasoning with someone reveling in their hatred is impossible but... 

As someone who lived through and participated in the Civil Rights Movement, your referencing Rosa Parks in the midst of your rant would be laughable were it not so ill informed and ironic. Above all else, she had class and dignity. This thread and this issue would be well served if all would follow her lead in that regard. 

And if you want historical perspective, the Civil Rights Movement was successful not because of hot heads and rants but because of organization and strategy and because the Movement was on the right side of history. For me its a bit of an indulgence to compare our "right to play" to Human Rights Movements but if you must then following AW's strategic lead seems the most apt parallel.

I respect your passion. I invite you to respect others.

Phil


----------



## wild bill (Jun 1, 2008)

After reading the continued posts here again and talking with several folks directly involved, I have decided to not support the "protest Float" on 7/17. Sadly all it would take is one bad apple to upset the delicate balance we are currently enjoying.

We should protect our Right to Float by doing just that. Float your favorite river, and be kind and considerate to all you encounter on and off the river.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

wild bill said:


> After reading the continued posts here again and talking with several folks directly involved, I have decided to not support the "protest Float" on 7/17. Sadly all it would take is one bad apple to upset the delicate balance we are currently enjoying.
> 
> We should protect our Right to Float by doing just that. Float your favorite river, and be kind and considerate to all you encounter on and off the river.


That is the most sane thing I have read in this entire thread. I respect the reasons you and Slave have for wanting to participate in this protest float, and agree with everything you want to accomplish. Unfortunately the protest float would most likely do more harm than good...The whitewater value for this stretch may be low, but the princepals behind our right to float it are important, and need to be continualy exercised.


----------



## super.lucky.wonderboy (Dec 22, 2006)

I think I'd agree with Bill on this one. Come the morning of 7/17 I will NOT be going on a protest float. Although if I wasn't in a hellacious round of engineering summer school and in Gunni, I'd totally be down to float The M. Taylor but not Protest on it.

You all can protest all you want but rivers are for drinking beer, casting a friendly waves at the folks simply trying to bag a trout and enjoying the view. Let the political stage remain in Denver. I don't go on the river to make a statement I go on the river to boat. 

'slavetotheflyrod' is overthinking this waaaay too much. I'm not going to ruin a perfectly good day of boating by using it to push ANY political agenda for good or bad.


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

*If and when*

access is denied, I will be there, with my wife kids for the photo op. Until then, life rolls on.


----------



## outbackjack (Feb 10, 2010)

Hello, I just got wind of this about a week ago and have found the dialog quite interesting. There are many boaters around the state that are frustrated with the right to float situation. Many angry boaters that want to strike back at the people that have created this situation. Actually, this situation has existed in Colorado forever. The laws are so unclear that its anybodys guess what is what. Noone in this state is more angry than I am about what is going on in Taylor Canyon. I have been boating the Taylor for 23 seasons, I learned how to raft and kayak on the Taylor. This is my back yard. What I wonder about is what people think is a "Protest"? Protest can mean anything from a peaceful gathering to a riot, (no offense Riot). What I believe is needed is leadership. I feel that what the public boater needs is education and direction. We dont need to do a mass float down the Middle Taylor, we need to learn what we can do to secure the right to go down the Middle Taylor. As many have said, we already have the right float through private property, how we secure that right in the future is what we need to learn. My suggestion is for any who want to float the Taylor to do so, enjoy a beautiful summer day on the river. To claim to be "protesting" is ludicrus, the best form of protest in this situation is to exersize your rights as they exist today and float down the river. Im not going to talk of respect, you either have that or you dont, however I would encourage each and every boater in Colorado to learn all you can about the Laws pertaining to this subject and be ready to help out once the Shit Hits The Fan!!!! Please dont be the "Shit" that misses the fan and slows down the inevitable; There will be a chance for everyone to participate in securing our Right To Float down all rivers in the state. I for one will probably float the Taylor this weekend, not in protest but because it is summer and that is what I do. Late


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

*The Public Trust Doctrine*



outbackjack said:


> What I believe is needed is leadership. I feel that what the public boater needs is education and direction. We dont need to do a mass float down the Middle Taylor, we need to learn what we can do to secure the right to go down the Middle Taylor. As many have said, we already have the right float through private property, how we secure that right in the future is what we need to learn. I would encourage each and every boater in Colorado to learn all you can about the Laws pertaining to this subject There will be a chance for everyone to participate in securing our Right To Float down all rivers in the state. Late


"Right to Float" is an erroneous term. 

Rather, "Right to Navigate" is its closest relative term for the rights involved in the overall *"Public Trust Doctrine"* ("Commerce", "Fisheries", "Use and Enjoyment", "Protection of the Environment", etc, are other relevant terms). Do yourselves and the overall Public a favor and avoid the term "Right to Float". Thanks for doing so.

That said... 

again....

Focus on, learn and understand the *Public Trust Doctrine*, then assert it as the expressed or implied basis for any legal or advisory action, whether a court proceeding, task force, legislative bill or ballot initiative. It will lead you to the solution.

For starters, check out "A Comparative Guide to the Western States’ *Public Trust Doctrines*: Public Values, Private Rights, and the Evolution Toward an Ecological *Public Trust*" by Robin Kundis Craig at http://www.boalt.org/elq/documents/elq37_1_02_craig_2010_0322.pdf

*"This Article observes that, in the West, four factors have been most important in the evolution of state public trust doctrines: (1) the severing of water rights from real property ownership and the riparian rights doctrine; (2) subsequent state declarations of public ownership of fresh water; (3) clear and explicit perceptions of the scarcity of water and the importance of submerged lands and environmental amenities; and (4) a willingness to consider water and other environmental issues to be of constitutional importance and/or to incorporate broad public trust mandates into statutes. 

From these factors, two important trends in western states’ public trust doctrines have emerged: (1) the extension of public rights based on states’ ownership of the water itself; and (2) an increasing, and still cutting-edge, expansion of public trust concepts into ecological public trust doctrines that are increasingly protecting species, ecosystems, and the public values that they provide."*

Then go to page 64 and read about the *"Test for Navigability"

"Under the classic test of navigability from The Daniel Ball, waters are navigable in fact when they are used, or are susceptible of being used, in their ordinary condition, as highways for commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water. And they constitute navigable waters of the United States within the meaning of the acts of Congress, in contradistinction from the navigable waters of the States, when they form in their ordinary condition by themselves, or by uniting with other waters, a continued highway over which commerce is or may be carried on with other States or foreign countries in the customary modes in which such commerce is conducted by water."*

Remember, *"Navigable in fact is navigable in law."*

Although "protests" of a positive nature are useful and integral within an overall process, the *Public Trust Doctrine*, implied or expressed, is foundational to any solution for Colorado.

Lastly, because I've been active both here in Colorado with HB 1188 and in Utah with bills 187 (2009), 80 and 141 (2010) regarding the 2008 Utah Supreme Court Conatser ruling since January 2009 with the respective legislative bills, my internet bookmark favorites data base is pretty extensive, so if any of you get into the *Public Trust Doctrine*, etc, and have questions or further discussion, I'll refer to those links.


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

wild bill said:


> After reading the continued posts here again and talking with several folks directly involved, I have decided to not support the "protest Float" on 7/17. Sadly all it would take is one bad apple to upset the delicate balance we are currently enjoying.
> 
> We should protect our Right to Float by doing just that. Float your favorite river, and be kind and considerate to all you encounter on and off the river.


bill, im glad you finally came to your senses. we currently do have a delicate balance, so at this point there is no need to protest something that isnt an issue anymore. and theres no need to risk being that bad apple.......ill be up taylor canyon way sometime this week and this weekend if you want to boat, let me know


----------



## cadster (May 1, 2005)

An update to the Goliath story here:
L.A.'s River clears hurdle - Los Angeles Times




Ole Rivers said:


> As for good (or bad) that may come from "protest floats", consider YouTube - Heather and Goliath which was produced in 2008 as a reaction to the Rapanos SCOTUS decision that changed the Clean Water Act and paved the way for the upcoming Federal "Clean Water Restoration Act".


----------



## gyrogyrl (Jul 9, 2004)

Posting this communication from Colorado Whitewater after our board meeting Wednesday night:

The current situation for private boaters in Colorado is exactly the same as it was before House Bill 1188 failed in the legislature. CW will continue to work constructively on this issue with commercial outfitters, AW, other Colorado paddling clubs, and those who are committed to pursuing effective, strategic, thoughtful actions to ensure boating rights in the state.

Colorado law clearly provides that boaters do not commit criminal trespass when they float on a river or stream that floats through private property, so long as they do not trespass on a landowner’s private property. We acknowledge that certain landowners on the Taylor (and elsewhere) maintain that boaters cannot float on public waters flowing through private lands without permission because, in their view, doing so constitutes civil trespass. While we strongly disagree with this view, we do not believe this disagreement is a sufficient reason for a protest float.

CW does not endorse the action on the Taylor River this Saturday, although in the past we have endorsed “protest floats” as an important advocacy tactic that is part of a coordinated strategy with a specific outcome in mind.

A very different situation would be presented if a landowner created physical obstructions specifically designed to prevent boaters from being able to enjoy a river or stream. We encourage all boaters to enjoy Colorado’s rivers and streams, whether you choose the Taylor, the Arkansas, or the Yampa. Should a protest float on the Taylor take place, CW hopes boaters will be courteous to landowners and respect their property rights, just as CW hopes landowners will be courteous to boaters and respect our right to enjoy Colorado’s rivers and streams.

To stay in touch with what we are doing, you can join CW’s facebook page, or look for a new CW forum on MountainBuzz – better yet, become a member and help support the time and effort CW volunteers put into 1188 and other policy and legislative efforts on boating rights.


- CW Board


----------



## outbackjack (Feb 10, 2010)

Well, the caretaker of shaws river has hired a half dozen "security" personell to watch over his river today. They are armed with cameras and waiting to prove that all boaters are idiots and are ruining the value of his property. To all who plan on floating the river today, please be on your best behavior. What will hurt them the most is KINDNESS!!


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

first off, theyre not extra people, they work for the ranch, and have from the get go. and they're watching the property to make sure that no one commits an act of criminal tresspass by getting out of the water where they aren't supposed to. they wont be telling you you're idiots, and they aren't worried about a loss in land value. If you be nice to them, they'll be nice to you. And if you play by the rules, then there should be no issue. So just follow the rules.


......which is basically what everyone has been saying to just go and do, but don't worry, you can put a title and a cute little package on it and make it a big deal today if you want. Lap the block a few times and rev your engine, look a little tougher.....


----------



## outbackjack (Feb 10, 2010)

And if you play by the rules, then there should be no issue. So just follow the rules.


Whos rules you idiot??


----------



## loot87 (Jun 30, 2008)

So what happened?


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

it was a non-event. there was four or five boats taking a few laps and that was about it. drove by 5 mile several times and never saw the alleged barbecue. big thanks to everyone who used their brains and decided to not make a shitshow out of nothing. the middle taylor is still here, if anyone wants to come down and float, give a shout and lets get on it, because the access is still here. just as its been for a couple of months now.......


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

yetigonecrazy said:


> the access is still here. just as its been for a couple of million years.......


fixed if for ya.


----------



## gyrogyrl (Jul 9, 2004)

*NPR Segment on the Taylor this am (7/22/10)*

Each year, around a half a million people go whitewater rafting in Colorado, and the industry is a key economic driver in many rural towns. But in recent months, the issue of rafting and who can float through stretches of private property has divided the state. 

Rafters Push For 'Right To Float' In Colorado : NPR


----------

