# Taylor River - Texas Developer Trying to Close River to Public



## Chief Niwot

Please read this article. Curry bill would keep river rights-of-way in public hands

Another Tex-A$$ developer to try to close down the Taylor River.

"The issue was sparked anew this summer when a Texas developer, Lewis Shaw, purchased thousands of acres of land on the Taylor River in Gunnison County with the intent of reselling it as exclusive 35-acre ranches."

I wonder if this is the totally obscene mansion that was being built on the upper section of the Taylor last summer. I also saw tractors working the riverbed.

Rep. Kathleen Curry's is trying to introduce a bill would keep river rights-of-way in public hands. I need to read this bill.


----------



## okieboater

yup, I saw that construction last fall on a Taylor Run. Thought it looked more like a expensive resort than a person's home.

Sure hope we can have access to running the entire Taylor River and this developer's plan to shut down the river to boaters is stopped.


----------



## FrankC

What an @ hole. In the Lewis and Clark day anybody who tried to block river navigation was fired upon with a canon. This state has got to get it's shit together over this. Even in Pennsylvania or New Jersey nobody tries to block floatable rivers.


----------



## cadster

These threads need to be combined:

http://www.mountainbuzz.com/forums/f11/who-owns-a-river-river-access-bill-in-legislature-28475.html

http://www.mountainbuzz.com/forums/...-access-bill-before-co-legislature-28469.html


----------



## Chief Niwot

Thanks Bruce - I did not see the other thread.


----------



## cadster

As far as what stretch is being closed, I thought all the commercial traffic is from below Todd’s Slot to South Bank.

It also been reported the run below South Bank is already closed to boating due to Harmel’s having it posted.


----------



## Chief Niwot

If I remember correctly he is on the upper stretch above Todd's slot. If he closes it down to rafting companies, he will surely close it down to private boaters. We boat that upper stretch a couple times a year, there are some fun rapids up there and some flat water. But there is more then that stretch that is on the line and this guy has BIG bucks.

I hope AW is on this.


----------



## lmyers

cadster said:


> As far as what stretch is being closed, I thought all the commercial traffic is from below Todd’s Slot to South Bank.
> 
> It also been reported the run below South Bank is already closed to boating due to Harmel’s having it posted.


I have never seen comercial traffic above the Slot, but I have seen a cat float it at high water...
I floated down through Harmel's once last year and didn't see any signage baring our passage. We waved and smiled and got lots of waves and smiles back (plus a few glares).
I would prefer that the entire river be opened to boater traffic, but at least let us preserve what we have available, the Taylor Canyon is one of the most beautiful class III runs in the state.


----------



## GoodTimes

Sounds kinda shitty.....however, he may own the river banks and the river bottom, but he doesn't own the water that flows through it.

Sure, he can make it a pain in the ass (ala Cheeseman), but he can't restrict passage....

If some Texass developer tries to shut down access to one of our rivers....he may have a fight a-comin'.....O.K. corral style. 

I know the Taylor has some "bad blood" amongst the fish people and boaters already (which is beyond me.....I still for the life of me can't understand why fishermen get upset with boaters.....I'm a fisherman too, kayakers/rafters are pretty unintrusive for the most part). That little river doesn't need MORE drama.......


----------



## Randaddy

I say we all go run it as soon as it thaws! F#*k that Texan.


----------



## mania

Randaddy said:


> I say we all go run it as soon as it thaws! F#*k that Texan.


critical mass. pick a day I'll be there.


----------



## yetigonecrazy

taylor canyon breaks down like this-

LONG VERSION STARTS HERE

SHORT VERSION SKIP DOWN
the first section is the gold medal water right below the dam. dont boat here. just below this (right in the middle of some fun lookin class II+) it enters private property owned by someone famous (i dont remember who) but the next five or six miles are private and not allowed, but its completely flat anyway. there are several bridges RIGHT over the water that force portaging, and thus, trespassing. this ends at the lottis creek confluence. 

from here down to the lodgepole campground is public, this is the "upper upper taylor" run, fun class III+.

below this to just above the New Gen put in is Crystal Creek, which is mostly run by the gandys and their cohorts. they used to be small time but this last summer they erected a HUGE castle in the heart of the canyon thats just an eyesore. it changed the feel of the canyon forever. this is private, and also the site of where the guy (mr gandy) discharged his firearm near some private boaters. the river through here is ugly, lots and lots of purposefully shallow ledges and fish dams, and a few low bridges. ive heard people claim theyve floated through here before and done so without portaging, im not quite sure because ive never been in there, but i would imagine portaging would be not only likely but mandatory. this ends just above Tod's Slot.

from here down to harmels is the "Upper Taylor" we all know and love.

from south bank (really granite campground, although thats a shitty takeout when youve got SB just upstream) down to five mile is the stretch is question. the first part of this runs through the "Harmels" resort, and while they frown upon and discourage private boating, they know there is nothing they can do to stop them. matt at scenic river tours (one of the canyon's guiding outfits) has permission with matt and amy to run commercially through there, which they do, and i believe schumacher of three rivers (the other company) has it as well, but does not use it. at any rate, it is a shitty piece of river. there are over twenty notable fish ledges, all of which have sneaks but are generally very trashy, and one large fish dam which doesnt have a sneak so much as a "drop over the smallest point" kinda line.

SHORT VERSION RESUME HERE
the stretch below harmels is the stretch thats been in question for a long time, where it flows past the homeowner corridor on river left, and what was the ranch but is now The Wilder on the Taylor on river right. the new owners of the property, the Shaws, have come in and transformed what was originally a beautiful ranch and surrounding fields into a sprawling development that will soon be host to a number of second homes, likely in the "larger" to "larger" size. in the process he spent around a million bucks to build himself a fake babbling brook that runs across the meadow, and to feed that brrok he installed two large pumps that directly siphon water out of the taylor river. in doing so he altered two existing fish drops, creating two mildly exciting to dangerous features, one of which i refuse to run now. its the only drop on the entire taylor that i will walk. i dont know how he acquired the rights to the water, and everyone i have talked to (including employees) say theyre pretty sure the guy never got his USACE permits to do the river work, but who knows. 

unless he intends to install fences or automatic machine gun nests around the river, hes not going to stop us. i intend to keep running this piece of shit stretch of river just to prove a point, and i suggest everyone else do the same. the guy is a pompous ass and just hasnt realized his place in life yet. but he will in time. hell the construction workers were cheering us on this summer as we were blue angel-ing farmers bridge. i really dont think this is much of a point, we can either fight a long legal battle or just quietly give him the finger and keep doing what were doing. i prefer the latter.


----------



## BackCountry

Chief Niwot said:


> Please read this article. Curry bill would keep river rights-of-way in public hands
> 
> Another Tex-A$$ developer to try to close down the Taylor River.
> 
> "The issue was sparked anew this summer when a Texas developer, Lewis Shaw, purchased thousands of acres of land on the Taylor River in Gunnison County with the intent of reselling it as exclusive 35-acre ranches."
> 
> I wonder if this is the totally obscene mansion that was being built on the upper section of the Taylor last summer. I also saw tractors working the riverbed.
> 
> Rep. Kathleen Curry's is trying to introduce a bill would keep river rights-of-way in public hands. I need to read this bill.



The land in question is not in the upper section of the Taylor above Todd's Slot. The development that Shaw is doing is below Harmel's (where Spring Creek flows into the Taylor) and directly above the 5 Mile put in. This would effectively block continuous floating from the upper Taylor to the Lower Taylor. They constructed new bridges last year that are raft unfriendly - lots of concrete not in line with the current and very low at good water flows. My friend got his oar frame stuck in there for a bit last year. He is also pumping a lot of water out of the Taylor and through the property to make artificial streams. This water does eventually flow back to the Taylor. It is my understanding that he does own the water rights but it leaves a section of the river with less flow than above and below the pump/return.

The mansion being built up the river above Todd's Slot is owned by the Becktel's. Big defense contractor for the US government similar to Black Water.

Trespassing on the property directly below the dam was (is?) considered a violation of Nation Security years ago. Presidents and dignitaries from foreign nations used to come there to fish on that private water. When that was the case there were Secret Service agents all over the property. I had a friend try and kayak it 20 years ago - he was "arrested" by the secret service and held for a week without charges being filed until they drug up some prior warrants to charge him with. He went to jail for a while and never did get his kayak back. While I believe the property has changed hands since then, long time locals still avoid trespassing there with memories from the old days. That section also has a number of very low walking bridges that would require portaging around which would undeniably be considered trespassing.


----------



## Canada

*Chrystal creek section*

I've floated this section. It has been 10years since I did so. 

Any white water would be eddy lines created by chaneling water through fish dams. Lot's of private guides paying for access who were respectful but pissed I was there. I would float through without putting a paddle in the water. It was very pretty water, but of no real value from a whitewater perspective. Excellent fishing water, but I hve not been brash enough to float through it and fish.

There was no portaging necessary at that time. I don't think you ever had to touch river bottom either. It was worth doing once to see it, but after that time I always put on down at the historic put in.


----------



## yetigonecrazy

thanks for filling in what i missed, i knew that upper piece was owned by somebody worth some money but i couldnt remember who. other than the short bit of whitewater at the top, right below the gold medal section, its really flat and boring. surprised youre buddy even thought it was worth doing..

And thats interesting that it was the Becktel's- we did some early surveying for that castle but we always dealt with a guy named Gandy, who was the same one who was shootin' at the boaters. Guy was a total asshole, but Ive never met the Becktel's. There is also a state senator from texas who weve done work for that lives in the trees on river left through there. 

what bridges are you talking about on the middle? other than the pre-existing old FS bridge and the new bridge just above the diversion drop i cant recall any new bridges on there. that new one is an eyesore, its new but it was designed to look "old and rustic" and its just tacky. the Farmers Bridge downstream is and always has been an obstacle, especially since the right side has a tendency to get clogged, yet you need to be right after the bridge. but that bridge has been around for a while, and other than that i didnt see any new bridges, so which ones are you talking about?

again, thanks for filling in the gaps. we'll get em yet.


----------



## Chief Niwot

I know the upper upper section is not big with the IV-V boaters, but us IV- /III+ boaters like it to make a longer run/day. We (canoe crew) like running that Upper Upper section. We put in at Lodgepole campground and float to South Bank. The upper upper has one class IV- and some III+ at the beginning, then some flatish water with fish drops, then III+ to Todd's. There is one low bridge and some tree dodging in spots. We have never had trouble up there, but have had some looks.

You also need to be aware of the guy at the bottem of Initiation rapid. This guy is wacked. He pulled a gun on my buddy a couplke years ago for getting out of his boat for a sec due to a neck/spine injury, when trying to roll. A report was filed and the cops came and dealt with him. He is not playing with a full deck.

I have never floated the lower section, but I agree that we all need to support our right to float the whole river from Upper Upper down. Fuck that Texan and his money.


----------



## Canada

Was this guy arrested for shooting at people?


----------



## Chief Niwot

He did not shoot at my buddy, but shakily pointed his gun at them and told them to get off his property. My buddy and friends were very nervous as he pointed the gun at them. They got in their boats ASAP and moved on and filed a police report after. This guy is not mentally right, be careful.


----------



## nathanfey

Chief Niwot said:


> If I remember correctly he is on the upper stretch above Todd's slot. If he closes it down to rafting companies, he will surely close it down to private boaters. We boat that upper stretch a couple times a year, there are some fun rapids up there and some flat water. But there is more then that stretch that is on the line and this guy has BIG bucks.
> 
> I hope AW is on this.


American Whitewater - House Bill Proposes Right of River Navigation in Colorado


----------



## Andy H.

Nathan,

Thanks for posting the link to the synopsis. Reading the AW write up it seems like it only applies to commercial outfitters.

Does the bill have any provisions to help protect private boaters?

Thanks,

-AH


----------



## cadster

If we get a law saying historical commercial use is a right that still leaves private boating in limbo.

Do commercials have a greater right to access? That’s an issue that’s been argued over forever on publicly managed rivers and lots of private boaters think they are being treated unfairly.

What if commercial use starts to limit private boaters access? There are boaters that feel strongly that commercial use on the Ark needs to be reduced. Would this bill stop any hope of that happening?

Will private boaters have to start showing economic benefits to guarantee access? I guess that’s been done for play parks.


----------



## nathanfey

Andy H. said:


> Nathan,
> 
> Thanks for posting the link to the synopsis. Reading the AW write up it seems like it only applies to commercial outfitters.
> 
> Does the bill have any provisions to help protect private boaters?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -AH


That's correct Andy, 
Earlier conceptual versions of the navigability bill included more protections for all paddlers by specifically designating a list of river reaches as Navigable under law. The bill became so complex that lawmakers felt it would not pass, and therefore didn't want to carry to committee. 
I know the Outfitters would like sweeping reforms to state navigability, but for the purposes of protecting their operations this year, this bill targets only the rights of guides to operate on historically permitted rivers. 

There are specific references in the bill to English Common Law and the State's adoption of the Rights of Navigability that may help private boaters in the future, but this bill DOES NOT intend to resolve private rights.
There is concern over this bill that by explicitly allowing commercial outfitters to float and have incidental contact with private lands, that it implies private paddlers are not afforded the same rights...

We're spending a lot of time on this, and working with CROA reps to craft something that we can support, or at least be neutral on.
The bill is scheduled to be introduced to the legislature on the 18th.
Stay tuned.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

From what I read this will have little impact on private boating, and for that matter does little more than confirm the current status quo. 

I, for one was hoping for more


----------



## Andy H.

slavetotheflyrod said:


> From what I read this will have little impact on private boating, and for that matter does little more than confirm the current status quo.
> 
> I, for one was hoping for more


While I would like to see a more expansive bill that helps private boaters more explicitly, I do see a significant benefit in that by maintaining access to same reaches commercial outfitters run, landowners will not be able to close off sections of river. 

My impression is that at least we don't LOSE access (unless landowners put up a gate they only open for the commercial outfitters) even though we still are subject to trespassing charges for accidentally touching the riverbed or crawling ashore after a swim. The references to English Common Law are good as groundwork for future improvement, but private boaters currently don't have a right to have incidental contact with private lands so we can't lose something we don't have. So the bill at least maintains the status quo in practical terms. 

Is this correct Nathan?

Thanks for the work AW has put into this,

-AH


----------



## yetigonecrazy

Chief Niwot said:


> He did not shoot at my buddy, but shakily pointed his gun at them and told them to get off his property. My buddy and friends were very nervous as he pointed the gun at them. They got in their boats ASAP and moved on and filed a police report after. This guy is not mentally right, be careful.


The original shooter was Mr Gandy, who fired at some folks floating the Lodgepole to Tod's Slot section, he was given a warning, lots of probation, and he wasnt allowed to own a gun for five years (HA).

its my understanding the cranky old gentleman at the bottom of initiation owned and operated the whitewater resort; it is also my understanding the resort is now closed and is up for sale, and i heard he wasnt doing so well in the health department. i know the resort staff has usually been pretty amicable towards the commercial companies, we evaced a guide with a broken knee a few years back through the resort itself. but i know theyre not too keen on the private boaters, so be heads up. 

i dont think this is too much of an issue here. any of the sections that are private in the canyon are really not very worth while, but other than the very top section, everything else is still runnable and as long as you mind your manners (stay in your boat and dont touch anything) we should all be able to continue running these.


----------



## riverrat

yetigonecrazy said:


> its the only drop on the entire taylor that i will walk.


 haha....yeah......about that.....anyways, the upper upper section is okay at high water. I'm talking from Lotus staircase down to Todd's. Last time I did it, there were no major obstacles, including bridges in that section. The only thing was a big friggin nasty tree across the whole river that you either had to go over (super sketch) or trespass. I heard the owners weren't too stoked on trespassing, but...I met them one time. They were waiting for us at the tree. I popped out of my boat, put it on my shoulder, smiled at them and said, "Hi! how are you folks doing today?" Before they could reply, I was around the tree getting back into my boat and there were no cops at the take out. It's amazing what a friendly smile can do. but yeah, I agree with everyone, texas sucks and keep your stupid money and I'm still going to boat it and do some cartwheels in your oh so precious fishing spot and when you come rafting I will smile at you and act like you're my best friend because it's my job.


----------



## southbound

I was checking out the developer's web site advertising this property - looks like he's trying to create the anti-Salida.........


----------



## flipover

SB, what is his web site?

thanks


----------



## ricoswagga

riverrat said:


> texas sucks and keep your stupid money and I'm still going to boat it and do some cartwheels in your oh so precious fishing spot


Given, this Shaw guy is an egotistical asshole of a money whore as with other big timing schmucks that own land along the Taylor, and trying to take away our privileges to paddling is complete bullshit, *BUT there shouldn't be any unnecessary disrespect shown that can aid in contradicting our rights as paddlers*. Let AW and Kathleen Curry handle these issues in the courtroom and in the meantime on the homefront show a greater character and respect to others on the water. I've paddled the Taylor more than any other river in Colorado and racked almost 30 runs on it this past season, so seeing access rights jeopardized is extremely worrisome to me, but there are many others that enjoy this river other than paddlers so we need to learn to coexist for the benefit of all. 

the website for the ranch is *Wilder on the Taylor*


----------



## wild bill

cadster said:


> "As far as what stretch is being closed, I thought all the commercial traffic is from below Todd’s Slot to South Bank."
> 
> Most commercial traffic puts in below Todd's Slot, I have however guided the section between Clear Cut and Todd's Slot commercially. The Lotus Creak down section has occasionally been run commercially.
> 
> The major section in question is the Middle Taylor from South Bank to the Five Mile Bridge. This section flows through private property except for the last 200 yards. Shaw's property is the Wilder On The Taylor, at the lower section of the Middle.
> 
> The big issue that I see about the right to float is that failure to pass this bill could cause a domino effect. The Taylor and Gunnison (both local rivers for me) are dotted with private sections on all standard runs. I would hate to see land owners start to close off large chunks of the river.


----------



## cadster

News story with landowner's attorney stating: "There isn't any right to float in Colorado, that's folklore." 

See http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/138947


----------



## lmyers

Reading that really makes me want to put my foot up that lawyer's ass...

I hope the bill passes.


----------



## Canada

*John Hill*

Looks like John Hill will likely need to leave the state if he is successful with this client. Everyone in Gunison will be so forgiving.


----------



## Kendo

so the developer claims river rafters are damaging the riverbed?(how does a floating raft on water damage the riverbed?) after they have made improvements.....Oh my, really??? I hope it doesnt fly...this could set a very damaging precedence..
I hope our representatives can see past this whohaw....


----------



## yetigonecrazy

so WE damage the riverbed by floating across the water quietly, and despite the two giant pumps that suck water out, and the two check dams he built to provide water for those pumps, hes actually helping? uhh......


----------



## riojedi

*More info*

A few more links on the topic.

Letter from Jackson Shaw to a local Taylor outfitter (not me).
http://www.croa.org/viabilityAct/jackson_ShawProperty.pdf

The actual bill.
http://www.croa.org/viabilityAct/1188_RiverOutfittersViabilityAct.pdf

Fact Sheet from Colorado River Outfitters Assoc. (Pretty much the same as AW's) 
http://www.croa.org/viabilityAct/viabilityAct_FactSheet.pdf


----------



## CBrown

I learned to kayak on the Taylor in college many moons ago. I have paddled all sections from Lotis down. This is everyones river to enjoy. We can not allow these assholes to take control over the waterways in order to line thier pockets. It is unacceptable. I must agree with lmyers comment above. A foot in the ass would be most appropriate.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

I had a nice sit down with my legal team this weekend, and I'm assured by some brilliant legal minds that neither this developer, nor his attorney has a leg to stand on or a pot to piss in on this one. We're drafting a petition that's going to be circulated to every member of the Colorado Bar Association, that will read something like this: We, the undersigned members of the CO bar stand in support of HB, 1188, and further support the rights of all people to float, fish and enjoy Colorado's free flowing rivers. Furthermore, we will oppose any legislation or judicial action that attempts to privatize any part of Colorado's free flowing rivers. We, the undersigned are of the steadfast belief that the rivers of this state are the property of the citizens of the state, and will oppose any effort to undermine that ownership.

That's my summary, I'm not the one drafting the petition, but that'll be the gist of it. Once the signatures are gathered we're going to present it to each and every elected representative in state gov't, as well as each and every county sheriff and DA.

We, the boating/fishing public just "lawyered up"


----------



## Kendo

slavetotheflyrod said:


> I had a nice sit down with my legal team this weekend, and I'm assured by some brilliant legal minds that neither this developer, nor his attorney has a leg to stand on or a pot to piss in on this one. We're drafting a petition that's going to be circulated to every member of the Colorado Bar Association, that will read something like this: We, the undersigned members of the CO bar stand in support of HB, 1188, and further support the rights of all people to float, fish and enjoy Colorado's free flowing rivers. Furthermore, we will oppose any legislation or judicial action that attempts to privatize any part of Colorado's free flowing rivers. We, the undersigned are of the steadfast belief that the rivers of this state are the property of the citizens of the state, and will oppose any effort to undermine that ownership.
> 
> That's my summary, I'm not the one drafting the petition, but that'll be the gist of it. Once the signatures are gathered we're going to present it to each and every elected representative in state gov't, as well as each and every county sheriff and DA.
> 
> We, the boating/fishing public just "lawyered up"


 
NICE! And we the boating community Thank You for all of the efforts! Glad we have folks like you on our side! Lets bring this developer and his lawyer back to Rocky mountain reality...not their private stash!


----------



## CBrown

*Good work.*



slavetotheflyrod said:


> I had a nice sit down with my legal team this weekend, and I'm assured by some brilliant legal minds that neither this developer, nor his attorney has a leg to stand on or a pot to piss in on this one. We're drafting a petition that's going to be circulated to every member of the Colorado Bar Association, that will read something like this: We, the undersigned members of the CO bar stand in support of HB, 1188, and further support the rights of all people to float, fish and enjoy Colorado's free flowing rivers. Furthermore, we will oppose any legislation or judicial action that attempts to privatize any part of Colorado's free flowing rivers. We, the undersigned are of the steadfast belief that the rivers of this state are the property of the citizens of the state, and will oppose any effort to undermine that ownership.
> 
> That's my summary, I'm not the one drafting the petition, but that'll be the gist of it. Once the signatures are gathered we're going to present it to each and every elected representative in state gov't, as well as each and every county sheriff and DA.
> 
> We, the boating/fishing public just "lawyered up"


 
This is good news. This issue makes my blood boil. I need some good news.


----------



## -k-

I think it is becoming time that a movement needs to be made to get recreational use of Colorado water ways on the public ballot (I think we still have the right to petition for this?). Screw these bills written for one side or the other. 

There is no way that the citizens of this state, presented with a public vote, would deny themselves the right to use what should be public water ways. Although attempts would be made to have it determined unconstitutional, if written properly, it would also create a very major hurdle for agressive land overs to over come because the public will have spoken.


----------



## Ture

So maybe the legal team could look into the legality of the riverbed alterations that this landowner did?

In a past thread someone mentioned seeing a bulldozer doing some work. 

In the most recent Denver Post article someone from the land developer's team talked about how much money they spent altering the riverbed to improve their fishing experience and using that as some kind of justification for them owning the river and not wanting boaters to scare the fish.

It seems to me that bulldozing a river in Colorado would take a mountain of permits, at least I hope that it would. I wonder if they told the state they were going to do so much terraforming?


----------



## Badazws6

cadster said:


> News story with landowner's attorney stating: "There isn't any right to float in Colorado, that's folklore."
> 
> See http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/138947


"

Hill further argues that the right to navigate across rivers running through private property — commonly called the “right to float” — is a fallacy. He cites a 31-year-old criminal case decided by the Colorado Supreme Court in which a man was convicted of trespassing for tubing through private land on the Colorado River. The highest court in the state ruled “the public has no right to the use of waters overlying private lands for recreational purposes without the consent of the owner.”

Anyone with more law background then me know which case this is and exactly how they are using it as precedence? Not that I am super up on this subject but if there was a valid precedence on this I would have thought I would have seen it referenced on the buzz before.


----------



## hotchkiss

If one were to present an argument to a governing body, I believe an appropriate analogy would be, "A river is a public highway." There are several benefits to such an argument:

1) such an argument removes the "recreation" aspect out of the argument. Unfortunately, no judicial decision is going to choose recreation over commerce. Private boaters need to stand behind commercial companies on this issue. Treated as a road, this Texan is essentially saying, "I want my commercial fishing business to thrive at the expense of other competing businesses."

2) By considering a river a highway, easy to understand is how a floater can expect to go through someone's property. Just as a public highway that travels across land owned privately on both sides of said interstate does not intuitively seem to be allowing people to trespass, then neither would right to float legislation seem to be allowing people to do so. 

Just my two cents. Not sure if it makes sense, but my brother isn't a boater and he seemed to understand what I was implying.


----------



## Riparian

Ture said:


> So maybe the legal team could look into the legality of the riverbed alterations that this landowner did?
> 
> In a past thread someone mentioned seeing a bulldozer doing some work.
> 
> In the most recent Denver Post article someone from the land developer's team talked about how much money they spent altering the riverbed to improve their fishing experience and using that as some kind of justification for them owning the river and not wanting boaters to scare the fish.
> 
> It seems to me that bulldozing a river in Colorado would take a mountain of permits, at least I hope that it would. I wonder if they told the state they were going to do so much terraforming?


The Army Corps of Engineers issues permits for in-stream fish habitat work. The state, as I understand it, isn't involved.


----------



## KSC

Pretty interesting stuff. With regards to the current law (or lack there of):
I think the Denver Post article sums it properly:

The courts and the legislature decades ago decided and re-decided the right-to-float issue on the criminal side, and it's not a crime to pass through private property on a river.

But in the past three decades, there has been no such definitive answer for whether floaters can be sued for civil trespass if they float through private land.

There was a discussion about this a while back. Take a look at Caspian's response on page 2 - it offers a pretty good explanation of the current lack of clarity in Colorado law. 

http://www.mountainbuzz.com/forums/...e-heating-up-in-steamboat-springs-4125-2.html

It's very frustrating and I agree it would be nice if we would just pass a law that grants river users passage and clearly defines the terms. 

It's times like this that it helps me to remember how many great landowners there are out there even though it only takes one to ruin things. I think of the property owner on Bailey who owns the property by Four Falls. Despite a fairly large amount of traffic on that land there are been minimal issues with people portaging 4 falls. Whenever I've seen people there, people have always been friendly and frequently want to stop and watch the boaters run the drops. Then there were some landowners on the Big T. that helped retrieve a boat and offered to stash it in their yard until it could be picked up. Sorry for the diversion, just trying to convince myself that humanity is not necessarily doomed.


----------



## Jahve

Canada said:


> Looks like John Hill will likely need to leave the state if he is successful with this client. Everyone in Gunison will be so forgiving.


No he will be treated as a hero in the circles that he hangs out with and I am not jokin.. 

He believes and will tell you that he alone killed the last right to float bill and still has no problem walkin the streets of the gunny valley.... If sucessfull this will just be another feather to put in his hat... 

I have had other dealings with this man in the past or to put it another way - to any of you looking into this I would not underestimate mr john hill... He is very connected, has been in the colorado water biz for over 20 years, and is very very well financed... 

Here is a bit more info for you that dont know about mr john hill... 

John Hill, Partner, Bratton & Hill, Gunnison, Co | Spoke

I will be the first to say that this bill is not perfect but it is a step in the right direction.. Do not doubt that the hill camp is doing everything it can right now behind the scenes in the legislature - to make sure that you and I will not have the "right" to float any river in Colorado!!


----------



## lmyers

"In private practice, John represented a family-owned ranch in a successful lawsuit against a commercial rafter for trespass for floating through private property."

I hope they aren't calling the "Wilder on the Taylor" a family-owned ranch.


----------



## wild bill

John Hill and his friends may have the money, but we have the numbers.

Lets not let a few bad land owners ruin river running for everyone.


----------

