# Problems scouting #5 on the Ark



## caspermike

zipbak... are the signs and fences within the high water line? if so cut them out.


----------



## UserName

trespassing may be interperated to be rocks in the river, ankle deep water, etc, etc. Don't exactly know what the letter of the law is here, but land owners can be really nasty about it. However there is a public road and bridge right there. 

Good to know about the temper of these new owners, thanks for the heads up. That land used to be my favorite camping spot on the ark, sigh...


----------



## caseybailey

caspermike said:


> zipbak... are the signs and fences within the high water line? if so cut them out.


Yeah...that should help promote a positive image of boaters.


----------



## caspermike

think about it if there is a fence within the highwater line. this would be equivilant to a strainer, when the water rises. how wouldn't it promote a positive image of safety? or somebody could say fake swiminto super low water and sue them for gross neglect.


----------



## kclowe

*land owners*

Unfortunately, it is my understanding that the river bed belongs to the private land owners in CO. If you step out of your boat, even in knee deep water, you are technically tresspassing. So....., cutting out a fence, even if it is below the high water line, is illegal and you can be sited.

This is a real bummer.

Kim


----------



## caspermike

if it is a possible hazard wink wink to your life or rafters custies... than it should be removved. or its starting to sound like you all would rather have the fence close to the river on damn near the most commercially ran stretch in the us. fences in the water on commercial strectch= no bueno. so say if you are paddling don't touch the river bed and get stuck in the fence... i would sue for gross neglect.


----------



## Justin S.

Unfortunately I doubt the land owner will care. I had a run in with him last year when I was running down stream chasing a swimmer, trying to get him a rope. The ever so polite land own didn't care about the safety and health of my friend that was swimminig solo with no help other than me in freezing water. I got the impression he'd charge a dead body with trespassing right along with a live one. Which is unfortunate that he's that much of a prick, but oh well.


----------



## zipbak

Clarification:
the fence is high and dry--in no way a hazard or impediment to boating


----------



## paddlebizzle

Private land is private land. Even if the owner is a jerk, you still can't walk on his land - period. That means river center up to dry land and beyond. 

Hopefully the commercial rafters or American Whitewater can/will get involved and find an amicable arrangement. 
If their attitude or lack of cooperation bugs you, donate some money to AW. The last thing anyone should do is fan the flames or provoke them and make the issue even worse.


----------



## marko

I had an unfortunate feeling about this guy last year. The first thing he did before he even built the house was post about 10 no trespassing signs all over his property. 

Unfortunately, I think the river left scout is finished. However, there are a few small river right eddies before the main drop and after the bridge and you might be able to get out of your boat and check it out from there -- keep in mind that this is also private property. You can also boat scout the majority of the rapid (or at least scout enough to find the next eddy) at the absolute last river right eddy (fits about 2, maybe 3 boats) before the main drop. These options may be a touch more difficult for less experienced class 4 boaters, but it's an option that the new douche-bag owner can't do anything about.


----------



## Badazws6

I had a conversation with the guy that was installing the fence last summer and he was saying that the landowners where not going to be to understanding about this type of thing and that from now on we needed to "scout" from the bridge. I think I saw them inspecting during construction at one point last year, look like your typical 60 something ex-NY lawyer type in their new Jeep "roughing it in Co". I imagine over time with such a large commercial interest that a lot of (in)direct pressure will be applied and they will become a bit more relaxed about it.

How about scouting from river right where the photo people are during season? Not as nice but better view then from the bridge...


----------



## UserName

Think all is said and done. This guy owns the land and dosen't want a bunch of kayakers on his property. As far as I can see, thanks for the heads up, but that's it. It really is up to us to know what land is public / private; ie where we can / can't get out of our boats. It seems to me this guy is in for a lot of yelling and perhaps picked a bad spot for his temperment. Se la vie


----------



## GoodTimes

This guy is gonna blow a fuse. Does he understand the amount of traffic around that rapid??? Even if we all (and we definitely SHOULD BE) are respectful of his property, the amount of traffic over the bridge, in the little parking lot, along the road in front of his house, etc....is gonna drive this guy nuts.

I haven't seen where he positioned his house....can you still get a decent look at the rapid from the dirt road?? I know there was a small window between some large trees that you could see most of the drop. Albeit from a distance, but you could at least see the whole thing.

Even if he doesn't deserve it.....we probably should all be as nice as we possibly can or this'll just get worse. I see there being issues like Justin stated above......rescue situations (and there's bound to be MANY) could become tricky and almost force trespass. What are we to do when a boat and/or person in need of rescue washes up into "his eddy"?????


----------



## Justin S.

Don't worry Jeb, if you or any of my other friends get into trouble on the river I'll take a trespassing ticket to help you out. Wouldn't be my first, probably wont be my last. Small price to pay to potentially save someone's life.

I can understand not portaging on his property, or scouting, but rescue situations....all bets are off. Think the police or firefighters care about someone's private property when someone's life is in jeopardy? Nope. Even though many don't think #5 is that bad (like me), ask gh about his little mishap there. Shit can happen.


----------



## iliketohike

I hate to say it, but the guy who purchased this house was nuts if he doesn't want boaters on his property. It's like buying a house next to a music venue or bar and then calling the cops for a noise complaint. It just doesn't make sense why someone would pick such a popular spot to build a house and then make a big deal over what was already there. I understand the law supports him, but this guy should have known the situation ahead of time as an informed buyer, and if he did, then he is looking for conflict. Which, I'm sure he'll get. Of course I'll respect his property as I've never scouted that stretch besides when I drive over the bridge, but for those who swim out of there and the commercial traffic there is going to be much conflict. Maybe he should sell the house to a boater, if any of us could afford such a place.


----------



## caseybailey

This guy should get together with caspermike and they could play a one-up each other on irrational behavior.


----------



## DanOrion

iliketohike said:


> I hate to say it, but the guy who purchased this house was nuts if he doesn't want boaters on his property. It's like buying a house next to a music venue or bar and then calling the cops for a noise complaint.


Yeah, seriously. What the hell did he expect. Maybe his next place will be on that rock overlooking Seidel's or next to Hecla International River Port.

On a side note, the surficial geology indicates that the guy's house sits pretty much on top of a recent debris flow (like the ones that crossed the road near Mt. Princeton).

Lol, site planning fails for "cultural and geologic hazards."


----------



## Badazws6

GoodTimes said:


> I haven't seen where he positioned his house....can you still get a decent look at the rapid from the dirt road??


From memory (6 months ago) it isn't completely in the way but obstructs some angles. More or less it is directly downstream from the little wash that goes into the eddy. It isn't a huge house, but it is a very small patch of land.


----------



## yetigonecrazy

i agree with iliketohike, the guy decided on the WRONG spot to build a house if he doesnt like boaters.

whats going to happen is hes going to start lawsuits and start fighting with everyone he can, companies, private parties, etc, to try and get a reduction in the traffic, the classic, "why cant you boat somewhere else besides MY river?" hopefully he will realize just how big of a beast he is fighting here......


----------



## ryguy

What ever happened to the artist dude that wanted to cover the river with a giant sheet?


----------



## COUNT

No one has mentioned the fact that while the law supports his ownership of even the bed of the river, if a boater is forced to exit the river onto his property for safety reasons, the law will support our right to do so. While it's not as cut and dry as the fence across the river scenario, I believe that scouting still falls into this category. While the potential run-ins and tickets are unpleasant, if there is an issue and it goes to court, I believe we would win for this reason.

COUNT


----------



## cjising

Let's not forget about someone who may not be blameless in all this. The realtor that brought him to this spot, told him how "private and secluded" this part of CO is and how no one will bother him. Then he buys it, shows up, sees what is going on, and reacts against all of us. Again, caveat emptur, buyer beware. He should have checked for himself. But now we are paying the price for someone not giving full disclosure so they can make a sale. THIS IS ONLY A THEORY...


----------



## Tiggy

paddlebizzle said:


> Private land is private land. Even if the owner is a jerk, you still can't walk on his land - period. That means river center up to dry land and beyond.
> 
> Hopefully the commercial rafters or American Whitewater can/will get involved and find an amicable arrangement.
> If their attitude or lack of cooperation bugs you, donate some money to AW. The last thing anyone should do is fan the flames or provoke them and make the issue even worse.


Actually, if there is a portagable obstacle, then you may go around it ON the owners land. This is called Sportsmans Rights. I am not a lawyer but know one who has been active in the attempt to make colorado rivers navigable (he told me this and you could sue them for thier land for interference, please research further).
In this fucked up state, the public does not automatically get use up to the highwater mark like every other state has adopted. I will not get into the trespass issues


----------



## Jahve

Come on boys I would slow down just a bit here. 

I was up there last night, eddied out just above the drop, and saw no new signs or fence in the river.... I even think that I talked with the new landowners and they seemed like reasonable folks.. I doubt that he built that house to fire off lawsuits at boaters but who knows.:roll::roll: From reading this thread and paddlin up there the past few weeks I would say that yes there is a new house and that is about it... 

Zip what did you run into? I was just wondering what happened or if you were able to talk with the land owner?? Or has anyone been able to talk with anyone other than a random salty construction worker... Has anyone had a problem with the landowner on a rescue here?? There are none I know of..... 

Also you can walk the road and the bridge so you can take out above the bridge and walk the road to scout... You can see all you need to see. Or scout on the way up. 

River right is not a good option trust me... I parked on the side of the road one night a few years back when the bridge was out... Car ended up gettin towed and I had a formal conversation with the landowner and sheriff..

Now I agree with Justin and if it is a rescue well you gotta do what you gotta do.. 

And come on casper and yeti the sky is not fallin.. I would bet the only change at #5 will be you have to scout from the road.


----------



## caspermike

rdnek i heard fence and thought the worst... i hate fences.


----------



## the_dude

how did this trainwreck of a thread get started? has anyone even approached the new landowners and explained the situation to them? 

and what kind of boater that wants to foster good will with property owners in hopes of opening up more private property for access purposes goes around cutting fences?

if you touch even a paddle blade to a rock in a private streambed, you're trespassing. granted it would probably be hard to prove, but still it's considered trespassing. but you do have the right to safe passage if a hazard clearly obstructs the waterway. and colorado isn't the only state in the country to have a law like this. our neighbors to the north have the same law, and they're even more aggressive about it, especially if you have green plates.


----------



## freexbiker

Yup...Careful with those greenie plates round here. But we also don't have stretches of river that hundreds of boaters scout and stretch a section a day...


----------



## GoodTimes

ryguy said:


> What ever happened to the artist dude that wanted to cover the river with a giant sheet?


Not to change the subject...but from what I understand Cristo's project is a "go"....meaning he's procured the appropriate permits to display his "art". Not for a couple more years though...I think. Pinnacle to Parkdale area.

As for the dude with the house at 5....be respectful....maybe he'll like us....maybe he already does....maybe the realtor shared all the traffic info with him...maybe he likes watching boaters just doesn't want crazy trails through his prop. Lots of assumptions made (and sounds like some legitimate run-ins), best bet would be to be nice, paddle 5, scout with permission from left if need be....from road or right if not granted. It's all good.


----------



## brmidjones

My good friend was cited for trespassing on river right at #5 a couple years ago went to court in Salida paid a $200 fine. in Colorado landowners have all the rights and authority, land doesn't even have to be posted. Don't put your foot down or you are guilty of trespassing. Very unfortunate but true.


----------



## paddlebizzle

Tiggy said:


> Actually, if there is a portagable obstacle, then you may go around it ON the owners land. This is called Sportsmans Rights. I am not a lawyer but know one who has been active in the attempt to make colorado rivers navigable (he told me this and you could sue them for thier land for interference, please research further).
> In this fucked up state, the public does not automatically get use up to the highwater mark like every other state has adopted. I will not get into the trespass issues


True - just don't take what I said out of context. There were threads above mine inferring that they would walk up and remove signs/fencing. I know about the Sportsmans' Rights issue - it has been raised in Sportsman's Paradise in Cheesman canyon (no relation on the "Sportsman" name). 

I think this is where it is misunderstood: If there is a strainer or other feature that makes the section unnavigable, then you can take the risk of portaging on private property to be sued for it or exercise your right under the Sportsmans Rights Defense. Derk - are you sure that scouting falls under this defense? I'm not going to dig my heels in on this, but I think the test is whether a river obstacle forces the user to exit onto private property because there is no other option, and scouting is not included in this (sadly). I.e. Portaging versus scouting.

Then again - everyone seems to have an opinion on this type of issue. Then again, scouting #5 has never helped me avoid the traditional swim....


----------



## COUNT

paddlebizzle said:


> Derk - are you sure that scouting falls under this defense? I'm not going to dig my heels in on this, but I think the test is whether a river obstacle forces the user to exit onto private property because there is no other option, and scouting is not included in this (sadly). I.e. Portaging versus scouting.
> 
> Then again - everyone seems to have an opinion on this type of issue. Then again, scouting #5 has never helped me avoid the traditional swim....


No, I'm not sure. I just think (my personal opinion, take it for what it's worth) that if it went to court it would be a fight but I believe that scouting would be defensible under the act. After all, how would you know something necessitated a portage, which the law protects us for, if you did not see the rapid?


----------



## Badazws6

brmidjones said:


> My good friend was cited for trespassing on river right at #5 a couple years ago went to court in Salida paid a $200 fine. in Colorado landowners have all the rights and authority, land doesn't even have to be posted. Don't put your foot down or you are guilty of trespassing. Very unfortunate but true.


WOW, I assume they "rent" out the land to the photographers during commercial season but they don't let people scout? Or are there multiple owners on that side? I guess it isn't hypocritical but it seems wrong on a number of levels...


----------



## GPP33

I'm sure if you pay em enough they will let you scout from their yard. How is that hypocritical?


----------



## Badazws6

GPP33 said:


> I'm sure if you pay em enough they will let you scout from their yard. How is that hypocritical?


"I guess it isn't hypocritical but it seems wrong on a number of levels..."

Read that more closely...


----------



## paddlebizzle

COUNT said:


> scouting would be defensible under the act. After all, how would you know something necessitated a portage, which the law protects us for, if you did not see the rapid?


Sounds circular to me too: you need to scout to ensure that you can safely run the rapid, so you step on private property. Or . . . you run it blind, realize there is an obstacle, eddy out and step on private property. Better yet, you run it, said obstacle forces you to swim (to shore), and you still step on private property.

I think we're in a circular reference... I'm confused. We need a lawyer...


----------



## catfishjon

what do you need to scout # 5 for?


----------



## cjising

good times, good point. A little good will goes a long way. I think Dalton said it best...
DALTON: Rule #3, Be NICE. 
Bouncer: What if someone calls my Momma a whore?
DALTON: Is she?
ROADHOUSE
:-D


----------



## zipbak

Holy Moly you guys, I just wanted to give a heads up. I'm not trying to start lawsuits. I've been boatin here a long time and some people like to scout 5. Now ya can't. (at least not from the river.) As far as the history of the piece of land goes, a few years ago somebody pushed a bunch of dirt around--I think to build a septic and maybe expanded the bench a little bit. A couple from CrestedButte bought it with intentions to build on it but never did. They were fine with access and scouting etc. They sold it. The new guys built the log home last year and changed the rules. I have no idea if the guy is a jerk or the Dahli Lama or from New York or Timbuctu or whatever. All I know is that he is enforcing his property right. His property right is in conflict with longstanding and traditional practice. Maybe someone should ask him his position and rationale.--that's be my suggestion. I am just trying to give out information. Good Luck. P.S. I've always found that you can go either left or right in five, just don't wait too long to decide which.


----------



## Tiggy

Its read and run anyway eh'?


----------



## Jahve

zipbak said:


> Holy Moly you guys, I just wanted to give a heads up. I'm not trying to start lawsuits. I've been boatin here a long time and some people like to scout 5. Now ya can't. (at least not from the river.) As far as the history of the piece of land goes, a few years ago somebody pushed a bunch of dirt around--I think to build a septic and maybe expanded the bench a little bit. A couple from CrestedButte bought it with intentions to build on it but never did. They were fine with access and scouting etc. They sold it. The new guys built the log home last year and changed the rules. I have no idea if the guy is a jerk or the Dahli Lama or from New York or Timbuctu or whatever. All I know is that he is enforcing his property right. His property right is in conflict with longstanding and traditional practice. Maybe someone should ask him his position and rationale.--that's be my suggestion. I am just trying to give out information. Good Luck. P.S. I've always found that you can go either left or right in five, just don't wait too long to decide which.


 
Thanks for the update zip.. This trainwreck buzz thread started where a bunch of people got carried away with ZERO info other than a few signs up on the road......

I actually went up to the house and knocked on the door last night to talk with these folks... I know it is amazing I pry just should went down the road of crusifying all river landowners but I decided to get the real information before making that cross...............

Guess what they are not even home!!!! So a bunch of hot air and BS is what has been blowin through this thread.. The only truths in this thread are that you will now have to scout on the road and this is where you scout from anyway. And there are a few new signs up on his fence... That is it..

So maybe it is time for some of you to play this game....










Honestly I feel shitty about how most of you jumped on this trainwreck of a thread, with few real facts, less real info, and in the process are makin all boaters look like dumb asses....


----------



## heliodorus04

Why don't we get a few young, well-spoken dudes (or especially a hot chica) to stop by there every once in a while to ask what their policy is, and if it's 'no-scouting' then we try to have a discussion about the interests of safety and see if some give can't be achieved with some accommodations to their needs?

I'll volunteer to knock on the door.

And once we have a dialogue, post the results to the Buzz (and if it's a negative result to scouting, don't characterize the people as jerks).

I portaged 5 river left about 2 weeks ago (was having a "tippy" kind of day). There was certainly no fence.


----------



## Ken Vanatta

*Scout from the road and eddies.*

It seems some are over reacting here. The main guts of 5 are easily viewable from the road. Take a glance while placing your shuttle. Otherwise, as always, boat scout it as you eddy hop or read it as you run. The combination of road and boat scout seems entirely sufficient for this rapid. There should be no need to be out on his land to scout. As likely as it is that some building, Army Corp, and EPA codes are violated by this guys septic system, those are separate issues from anyone feeling a need to enjoy the use of his property. Scout from the road and eddies.


----------



## zipbak

Good for you RDNEK. I appreciate your efforts. I'm boating # today and I'll see if anyone's home too. Happy May, we're over 500 cfs and from the sound of things on this bizarre thread, there are a lot of boaters who need something to do. See ya out there.


----------



## gh

When I took somebody through for the first time (low water) we always stopped on river left and ate a snack and got a drink while discussing thier options on where to run. Sure its read and run but a first timer likes the option to have a look.


----------



## acetomato

*I THINK WE SHOULD HANG 'EM!!!! *Get the lynchin' rope!!!!


----------



## Theophilus

acetomato said:


> *I THINK WE SHOULD HANG 'EM!!!! *Get the lynchin' rope!!!!


YouTube - Pee Wee Herman - Tequila


----------



## tboe101

That's always been considered private land as far as I know. Cut the signs out, grow up, it's their land. You can scout from the road easily.


----------



## lmaciag

We ran Numbers yesterday (Sunday 5/3/09). I didn't see any signs at river level on the left. All seemed the same as in prior seasons except the portage path at river level has wood and stones to discourage portaging there. We had a larger group and most just ran it. I stopped with the two first timers on the left and the three of us took a quick look at the whole drop from river level as it is hard to connect the pieces scouting from behind the fence. The house is barely visible from the scouting points at river level.

There was a truck in the driveway, but the gate was closed. We didn't stop to chat.


----------



## Paul the Kayaker

Land owners own the land to the center of the river, unless of course they own the land on both sides then they own it all. However they do not have any water rights, so as long as you are floating you are not trespassing. So my opinion on the matter is just stay in your boat, it's numbers, why scout, it's not that exciting so make it more so by not knowing what is around the corner. If you need to be scouting maybe head down stream to browns.


----------



## Andy H.

> they do not have any water rights, so as long as you are floating you are not trespassing


Whether the landowner has water rights is totally irrelevant to the issue of trespassing or floating over/through their property.


----------



## tango

as someone who paddles piney & numbers after work all summer long, let me say this: please don't go trespassing in this guy's yard when you can easily scout from the bridge or the road. if you want to portage, well, maybe go hone your skills on another section of the river.


----------



## lmaciag

The point I was trying to make is that a panic was started last week, but perhaps this was just jumping to conclusions (as stated earlier). It appears that nothing has changed on the river (vs the road) as there are no signs on the river. 

I can understand not wanting a bunch of people parking in front of my house and crossing my land to get to the river, but perhaps a little more understanding about boaters having a smaller impact by getting out of their boats for a few minutes and not having a significant impact. There were fences and signs installed on the road, not on the river. If they were as concerned about river scouting, I'd guess there would be similar signage near the water as there is on other sections of the Ark.

I'm not arguing who owns what nor what trespassing is, but some owners allow for scouting/portaging. This has been standard practice for a long time at this spot. If there was a 'no trespassing' sign on the bank, we would not have done it. Just wanted to pass along my observations.




Paul the Kayaker said:


> ...it's numbers, why scout, it's not that exciting so make it more so by not knowing what is around the corner. If you need to be scouting maybe head down stream to browns.


You've never scouted a rapid you were running for the first time? I was assisting two of my capable friends on their first run down this section. They cleaned the rapid after taking a look. Yes, I'm sure it increased their chance for success, but isn't that what scouting is all about? Thanks for assuming they should be on an easier run.


----------



## gh

Scouting is a skill like any other. If you dont teach people how to scout as they progress, how are they going to learn?


----------



## kentv

same thoughts with paddlebizzle, but cannot stress enough that landowner has every right to give you hell if you step foot on their property. It would be nice if you were chasing a floater that they wouldn't harass you in full, but they do have the right. In CO we can float by as they do not own the water, or most of it in some cases, but they can let the hammer down if you get out on their property. 

Having AW or boating community work out an arrangement would be great, but first, all boaters need to respect private property and not give this owner any grief as this will only limit what can happen in the future. 

I haven't paddled the numbers in some time...is their any way to scout from river left?


----------



## zipbak

Update. According to reliable sources, the whole vigorous defense of property rights in this case may have to do with a neighbor to neighbor dispute and really had nothing to do with boaters. Discussions may already be underway with AHRA with the goal of alleviating any safety concerns arising from the change in longstanding practice of scouting directly above #5. Also, I saw the surveyor out this week. I heard a rumor that is not clear that the big eddy on river left belongs to the new landowners. It is private, nonetheless, and you still might not have permission to scout at this point in time. I think I'll practice patience and politeness. Viva Pee Wee!


----------



## yourrealdad

Completely irrelevant, but anytime there is some #'s talk I got to chime in. Yes there is a need to scout and to hone that skill, but not on numbers. You have to get through that run as quick as possible so as not to waste any more of your life on it. Besides I agree with P the K, what is there to scout? I still have yet to find these rapids people talk about on the run.
Follow DD's advice cause you only get to run a drop blind once.


----------



## DamonB

*Just discovered this issue*

I was up there last weekend for the first time in a couple of years. Decided to check out number 5 on the drive in. I walked past the him and his house and his roadside fence. Then scrambled down bank to the river for a quick look. This is well below where I would normally direct the wife to a good viewing point and I didn't think it was his land, however he did. 

He politely approached me on the road in front of his house. I was nice, told him his house looked beautiful and some other small talk. I directly asked if there was any river access to #5 and he said no, but you can see it from the public road. He asked me to tell people to not cut though his property, siting liability concerns. He stated that all of the land on the east side from the bridge to the power lines south is private. 

Now his lot is not the first one south of the bridge from what it looked like to me. It seems like his north boundary is that buried cable line and there is another lot with barbed wire fencing and no trespassing signs. That lot is adjacent to the river left eddy above the drop where people get out to scout.
I don't think that is his property as well. I didn't ask. He also pointed out all the cars parked east of the bridge as being parked on private property as well, not his but private none the less. 

It is what it is. His, and he doesn't want people cutting across his land. I know many people used to takeout after 5 and cut across his land to watch etc. That isn't a option anymore. Take out either before the bridge or at the Trestle Bridge Campground. 

Also of note: The normal photo guy was not there, he was downstream on the bank of number 6. 

And: downstream of #5 there are some new no trespassing signs painted on river left boulders. There is also a barbed wire fence that was protruding maybe 6 feet into the water in the same area. The flow was 1700cfs. It's avoidable.


d
out


----------



## carvedog

All I can say is fuck Colorado water laws. Someone being able to "own" the river bed is so wrong. On so many levels.


----------



## Elephant rock

*where cr371 is going*

Heads up to all boaters who think that a little eco-terrorrism will change the way things are becoming on river access.The people who live in these homes are well heeled,have lawyers and some would like to close down the road to the public.Speed limit is 25 but hardly obeyed,cut fences and ripped up signs only add to the problem,gives all boaters a bad name.Remember to pay your bucks to the Upper Ark when you boat so that sites like Railroad Bridge can exsit or wake up one day to find that the upper Ark is now like the Taylor river below the res.


----------



## Elephant rock

Elephant rock said:


> Heads up to all boaters who think that a little eco-terrorrism will change the way things are becoming on river access.The people who live in these homes are well heeled,have lawyers and some would like to close down the road to the public.Speed limit is 25 but hardly obeyed,cut fences and ripped up signs only add to the problem,gives all boaters a bad name.Remember to pay your bucks to the Upper Ark when you boat so that sites like Railroad Bridge can exsit or wake up one day to find that the upper Ark is now like the Taylor river below the res.


----------



## iamyourhuckleberry

I am new to all this and I'm trying to understand. If I step from my boat and set foot on private property, and while I'm doing so, I break my leg, can I sue the owner of said property? Seems to me, if I were the owner of that property, I would be a little concerned about losing the proverbial farm-especially if I were the owner well before boating became so popular. If I were the owner, I would also be concerned with the piles of trash/beer bottles/broken glass, etc, etc constantly being left on the property by so called "respectful sportsmen"-not to mention the enormous amounts of human feces being deposited behind every boulder. Talk about your safety issues! Just curious, how many of you would enjoy people dumping trash and pooping in your yard? Cut down the fences, you say? Destroy the signs? Worse yet, call the owner a Douche Bag? Amazing......

Does anyone know about the three trees which were cut down there? I heard it was done by one of the commercial operations so they could get better photos of rafters passing by. If I were the owner, I'd be pissed!

I would even be willing to bet the owner loves being on the water, but cannot tolerate disrespectful people anymore.


----------



## Badazws6

iamyourhuckleberry said:


> I am new to all this and I'm trying to understand. If I step from my boat and set foot on private property, and while I'm doing so, I break my leg, can I sue the owner of said property? Seems to me, if I were the owner of that property, I would be a little concerned about losing the proverbial farm-especially if I were the owner well before boating became so popular. If I were the owner, I would also be concerned with the piles of trash/beer bottles/broken glass, etc, etc constantly being left on the property by so called "respectful sportsmen"-not to mention the enormous amounts of human feces being deposited behind every boulder. Talk about your safety issues! Just curious, how many of you would enjoy people dumping trash and pooping in your yard? Cut down the fences, you say? Destroy the signs? Worse yet, call the owner a Douche Bag? Amazing......
> 
> Does anyone know about the three trees which were cut down there? I heard it was done by one of the commercial operations so they could get better photos of rafters passing by. If I were the owner, I'd be pissed!
> 
> I would even be willing to bet the owner loves being on the water, but cannot tolerate disrespectful people anymore.


I have never seen "trash/beer bottles/broken glass, etc" or any poop around this stretch of river... As you said, you are new, help US understand where you are having this experience and where you are coming from.

Thanks,

Matt


----------



## iamyourhuckleberry

Bad,

Seriously, just pass by the parking lot to the left of the bridge, on the east side of the river, any Monday. Take a walk from the bridge upward...check behind the boulders, if you darn.

When I come across situations like this, I try to put myself in the other person's shoes. For example, "How would I feel if people were disrespectful of my property". 

I actaully met the owner this last weekend and was given a tour. I assured him, not all of us are "like that". Sadly, he replied, "I understand, but it only takes one bad apple to spoil the barrel". It is additionally sad that we call this guy a "Douche Bag" (I actually found him to be quite pleasant and a real down to earth guy) for protecting what is rightfully his. If he were to read this forum, what would he think? Put yourself in his shoes and answer my question. 

I teach hunter education courses. Within the hunting side of things, if you trespass, you can potentially lose your hunting priviledges for a period of five years to life. It is the hunter's responsibility to know exactly where they are at all times. They're/we're sportsman. Why should it be any different for those using our waterways?

I look forward to your reply.


----------



## Badazws6

Thank you for the response. From the railroad bridge? What makes you deduce that the said mess is from kayakers with all the campers, hikers, fisherman, gold prospectors etc up there? Maybe it is just because I am aware and responsible but I don't see kayakers as the issue here. Just as an example, glass around the water is a HUGE no no with everyone I know, especially beer bottles which compounds the unlikeliness of this being kayakers responsibility. 

To me it sounds like you are suggesting the equivalent of saying that 100% of the trash on the side of the road is the responsibility of motorcyclests. While it might be a small part of the problem due to a few small bad apples I think it is unfair to target that population.

You mentioned trying to shut the road down... What is that going to do? People will go around and there might be a small reduction in overall traffic, you CAN NOT shut down the river. Even if it where legally possible to shut the river down, if you did you would shut down a huge part of the local economy. I don't think it would be pleasant around town after that for the people responsible...

Matt


----------



## Junk Show Tours

Your analogy with hunting is intriguing but the difference is that its a matter of safety with whitewater boating.


----------



## Andy H.

Huckleberry,

Please consider that you're reading remarks from contributors among a fairly large group of people. In any large group there will be a range of voices you'll hear if you ask a question, not all will be reasoned. If you examine the record above and you'll see that while a couple of folks were unfriendly toward the property owners, these voices were quickly overshadowed by a more mature stance of the many others who want to create a dialog and work with the landowners, and to make sure that conflict was avoided. Initial erroneous reports were clarified and the real situation was made public knowledge to help fellow boaters avoid conflict with the landowners. 

One of the issues that contributes to conflicts between landowners and boaters is that Colorado has some very unusual property rights issues in riparian corridors compared to the rest of the country. In most other states, and in the common law our legal system is based on, fishing and travel easements often exist below the high water line, whereas in Colorado, a boater can considered a trespasser for simply making contact with the riverbed. 

Imagine if you were accustomed to a laws that allows access across private property such as the established footpaths in England, and then came to a land where an a centuries-old and unquestioned right was denied to you. Even with this unusual system in Colorado, boaters are working to educate ourselves and adapt and work with riverside landowners to the unconventional property rights situation here to avoid conflicts.

As for the issue of litter and feces, my experience has been that boaters are among the more environmentally-conscious of any group of outdoor recreationists. Many boaters practice "Leave-no-Trace" camping ethics, using firepans and a tarp under the kitchen area to contain "microtrash" that attracts ants and rodents, and packing out trash, feces, and ashes. If you've ever been on a river trip stopping at a campsites that can be reached only by boat, you'll see what I mean. Generally the campsites that can be driven to are trashed out while the ones that can be reached only by the river are very clean. Its rare to find more than a gum wrapper or small piece of trash, if anything, at sites that are used by boaters only. As an example in your neighborhood, I suggest you float Brown's Canyon and check out campsites on river L about a mile below Ruby Mountain. Then compare these with some of the roadside campsites you've seen.

There are "bad apples" in every bunch, however in terms of environmental stewardship boaters tend to surpass most otheruser groups.

I hope this helps clear up some of the misunderstandings you've had.

Thanks,

-Andy


----------



## Badazws6

Right on Andy, I don't think I have seen you in over a year. Where have you been hiding man?

Matt R.


----------



## lmyers

iamyourhuckleberry said:


> -not to mention the enormous amounts of human feces being deposited behind every boulder. Talk about your safety issues! Just curious, how many of you would enjoy people dumping trash and pooping in your yard? Cut down the fences, you say?


I've never pooped behind a rock on the Arkansas or seen anyone, and I am out there pretty often, was this nasty attitude created from just one bad experience? Did you try and camp at Elephant Rock or Fat Texan July 4th weekend? Most of the people who litter are tourists/partyers/and unfortunately fishermen...

oh and by the way Casper Mike was the one who made the comment about cutting the fence and he lives in Wyoming...a long way from #5.


----------



## jennifer

Sorry if this is redundant or misinformed, but I didn't read all 5 pages of comments, and I am not a lawyer by any means. I really wish the property owner would allow us to scout or portage for safety reasons. I think 99.99% of boaters would be quick and respectful of his property. 

BUT, my understanding is that if someone trespasses and gets hurt while trespassing, they have the right to sue the land owner. This is scary and rediculous. If I am trespassing and I get hurt, it would never occur to me to sue the land owner, but this is America, the frivilous lawsuit capitol of the world. 

Also, if a property owner decides to allow people to access their land, and for any reason in the future he/she or even the future owners of the property wants to end that access, they CAN'T because it has become a puplic right-of-way. You don't get to use that land, change that land, pay less property tax on that land, and it my devalue your resale value. Esssentially, it no longer is your land. 

With these 2 stupid laws on the books, I understand where the land owners are comming from. Don't like it one bit, but I understand.


----------



## iamyourhuckleberry

> To me it sounds like you are suggesting the equivalent of saying that 100% of the trash on the side of the road is the responsibility of motorcyclests. While it might be a small part of the problem due to a few small bad apples I think it is unfair to target that population.


Thanks for the reply Matt. I need to clarify, when you say the "railroad bridge", are you referring to the train trestle bridge that crosses the Arkansas below #6 or the bridge at the top of County road 371? I met the owner at the latter. It was at this location where he had pointed out three fallen tree -well stumps actually. It was sort of hard for me to believe hikers or fisherman would have had anything to do with this property damage. Sure, one can only spectulate which group or individual was involved, but again, put yourself in the owner's shoes. Wouldn't it be easier to stop all apples? Would you agree? And sorry, I didn't say anything about shutting down the road. I'm sure there is a roadway easement there somewhere. The 25 mile an hour comment posted earlier was spot on though...

Andy, 

You're a smart guy. If I had the authority, I would give you a use permit for this stretch of the river. You make a lot of sense. However, it's human nature to remember the bad things first. This man had fences and signs removed, trees chopped down, and many more gross violations recently. My understanding is that he owns the land for 100 yards above the bridge and the land for 100 yards below the bridge. In my book that a huge chunk of liability to have trashed by the few disrespectful. Sorry, I cannot blame him for his actions. I will float on by...



> BUT, my understanding is that if someone trespasses and gets hurt while trespassing, they have the right to sue the land owner. This is scary and rediculous. If I am trespassing and I get hurt, it would never occur to me to sue the land owner, but this is America, the frivilous lawsuit capitol of the world.


Spot on Jennifer! I'm not so sure about your second law though. A person/ group would have to use the land continuously in an open and notoriuos manner over a period of time-essentially treat the property as their own to gain possesion of said land.



> Your analogy with hunting is intriguing but the difference is that its a matter of safety with whitewater boating.


Who's safety, the landowner's or your's? You have options. What are his if you decide to sue him for something stupid you caused while on his property? Just playing the Devil's advocate...


----------



## iamyourhuckleberry

Iraq,

That was not an attack on you personally. But, can you imagine if some moran went onto this guy's property and had a tree fall on his head? He sues the owner for...well "whatever". The whole event stems from the moran wanting better whitewater boating photographs.

Sadly, this garbage happens!


----------



## sbratt

I think Jen is wrong on the law suit stuff. Canada will have to jump in. It's my impression that an individual has to be invited onto the property and then hurt to be held responsible. That said, you can try and sue for anything. Boaters don't sue, we boat.

The big item is malicious intent. When someone places objects in a river with the direct intention of harming individuals. Pretty hard to prove.

I really don't think the stuff of a tree falling on someone happens or similar. Most legal matters occur when someone obstructs a river and a boater passes around it. Lots of different events of this kind of stuff.

Now Huckleberry, you don't strike me as a boater. If you have a beef with the community, you're out gunned on this site. Get to know us before you assume anything.


----------



## Badazws6

iamyourhuckleberry said:


> Thanks for the reply Matt. I need to clarify, when you say the "railroad bridge", are you referring to the train trestle bridge that crosses the Arkansas below #6 or the bridge at the top of County road 371? I met the owner at the latter. It was at this location where he had pointed out three fallen tree -well stumps actually. It was sort of hard for me to believe hikers or fisherman would have had anything to do with this property damage. Sure, one can only spectulate which group or individual was involved, but again, put yourself in the owner's shoes. Wouldn't it be easier to stop all apples? Would you agree? And sorry, I didn't say anything about shutting down the road. I'm sure there is a roadway easement there somewhere. The 25 mile an hour comment posted earlier was spot on though...


Huckleberry,

I was referring to the trestle bridge, but the one above 5 would make more sense in this converstation wouldn't it?:mrgreen: My bad.

I would have to say that over all you're kinda preaching to the choir here. Reading this entire post I would say that 90% of the people on here, including me, support your friends legal rights. All the things you already listed are illegal, I would think enforcing the existing laws would satisfy your friends issues. Would you agree? I would support that even though I may be caught red handed on the speeding through portions of that section (might teach me a lesson). 

It would not be easier to stop "all apples" simply because of the traffic that has the legal right to be on the river. As I said before, if you could you would destroy the local economy.

While I share your disbelieve that hikers or fisherman would be responsible for the damage, again I ask you: What makes you or your friend believe that the community on this web site or the larger boating community as a whole has anything to do with the trash or property damage that is going on?

Looking at it from our perspective, we have lost a very valuable ability that historically we have taken for granted. That being said I can understand the grumbling from the community but I'm glad that over all they have been supportive. Aren't you?

Matt


----------



## iamyourhuckleberry

> Now Huckleberry, you don't strike me as a boater. If you have a beef with the community, you're out gunned on this site. Get to know us before you assume anything.


Hmmm... good advice. What do you know about me , exactly? And yes, you are right. I do have a beef with the community. I have seen first hand the disrespect, and I'm doing my very best to curb it. There are always two sides to a story. I do my best to expose both sides. What's so terrible about that?

A good friend of mine has an 880 acre track of farmland near Lafeyette, Colorado. Four teenage boys Google Earthed the land and noticed the four acre lake smack dab in the center (unseeable from the ground or anywhere near the property's border-a great bass lake by the way). They decided to take thier jet skis to said lake despite the fence and the numerous "no trespassing" signs around the property's boundry. One of the idiots decided to run his jet ski under a low laying branch of an old cottonwood tree. The idea, he was going to jump the branch while the craft was moving and land on it once it emerged from the other side. Long story short, he broke both his legs and is suing the property owner for this stupidity. I 'll let you know how the pending suit turns out....

Don't tell me this garbage doesn't happen. There's always some dumbass that screws everything up for all of us.

And for the record, you are right. I haven't boated for a number of years. I do, however, chase my daughter, my sister, and my brother nearly every weekend. I support them in their endeavors. I love my state and I wish people would learn to take care of it.

I spent several hours with a man this last weekend. Yeah, it was an eye opener...I guarantee his beef is bigger than mine.


----------



## iamyourhuckleberry

> Looking at it from our perspective, we have lost a very valuable ability that historically we have taken for granted. That being said I can understand the grumbling from the community but I'm glad that over all they have been supportive. Aren't you?


Absolutely!


----------



## Badazws6

iamyourhuckleberry said:


> I do have a beef with the community. I have seen first hand the disrespect, and I'm doing my very best to curb it.


Please help us understand by detailing what you have directly seen happen, or have proof of something that happened by private kayakers, rafters, etc.




iamyourhuckleberry said:


> A good friend of mine has an 880 acre track of farmland near Lafeyette, Colorado. Four teenage boys Google Earthed the land and noticed the four acre lake smack dab in the center (unseeable from the ground or anywhere near the property's border-a great bass lake by the way). They decided to take thier jet skis to said lake despite the fence and the numerous "no trespassing" signs around the property's boundry. One of the idiots decided to run his jet ski under a low laying branch of an old cottonwood tree. The idea, he was going to jump the branch while the craft was moving and land on it once it emerged from the other side. Long story short, he broke both his legs and is suing the property owner for this stupidity. I 'll let you know how the pending suit turns out....


Completely dumb should be thrown out and I think the community will support you in this. Over all we have no love for people like this.



iamyourhuckleberry said:


> Don't tell me this garbage doesn't happen. There's always some dumbass that screws everything up for all of us.


You said it yourself, there will ALWAYS be some dumbass that screws things up, go after THEM, not an entire community.


----------



## Badazws6

iamyourhuckleberry said:


> Absolutely!


Ok, so I'm completely confused. What is your beef with this community as a whole?


----------



## iamyourhuckleberry

> Please help us understand by detailing what you have directly seen happen, or have proof of something that happened by private kayakers, rafters, etc.


Matt,

This past weekend while waiting to get this photograph:
http://www.camospace.com/file/pic/gallery/248854.jpg (that's my daughter right next to the captain-top right). I watched four kayakers remove their boats from the river. They obviously parked at the bridge and ferried another vehicle upriver. When they began stowing their gear, one of the boaters opened his car door and a bunch of trash fell out. They then popped beers while they were in the process of removing their wet suits. One lady grabbed a roll of TP and marched off under the bridge. When they left, their trash didn't go with them and a beer can rolled from the top of the car and onto the ground. They simply drove away. I was bagging their trash when I was greeted by the owner.

Keep in mind, I have travel to this location since I was a wee lad. I have watched this area develop over the years. Small sections of the road where people once parked single vehicles are now large parking lots for multi vehicles. Moreover, these areas are becoming larger-a gross invasion from the road easements onto private property. The vehicles belong to rafters and kayakers-apparent by the roof racks and trailers. Seems they feel they have the right to park wherever in pursuit of their interest. Such disrespect comes at the expense of the land owner. That a look at past aerial photographs of the region if you do not believe me.



> You said it yourself, there will ALWAYS be some dumbass that screws things up, go after THEM, not an entire community.


Easier said than done...

I am a sportsman within a community of sportsman (kayakers included) My first love is hunting. What has been given to us is not a "right" but rather a "priviledge"-something that can be voted away. Have you noticed all the gates going up into BLM and National Forest lands? These two entities are becoming feed up with bad apples as well. I love riding my AtVs on designated trails. It's becoming harder and harder these days to even do that...Why? I will tell you. 10% of the communtiy doesn't give a rat's arse. They break the rules and all of us pay the price. I know from what I reading that I'm singing to the choir. What I do not understand, if it is so near and dear to us, then why is this stuff still happening? Why is it the landowner's responsibility to go after the "them"? Isn't it our job to police ourselves? Maybe, just maybe, if we do so at every level and within every aspect of the sportsman's community, then the gates will start dropping. Just saying....


----------



## jennifer

Sean - I remember as a child (not in this state), some childeren were trespassing to access a neighbor's pool when the neighbor was not around. One drowned and the property owner lost a big lawsuit. Everyone in my neighborhood was draining their pools, demolishing their pools, or constructing super tall (unclimbable) gates with beefy locks so people couldn't get to their pools. If in this state one has to be invited on the property to be held responsible, like you said, it still stands that the property owner would try to minimize his chance of being sued by trying to keep folks off his land, because even an unsuccessful lawsuit can be costly and inconvenient. Once again, I don't like it, I'm just trying to see it from their perspective.

2 other thoughts - has anyone seen the plat map for this property? Some of the private land along the Ark has a small strip of BLM land along the river's edge. I own land on Fractions and this is the case with my land, and the adjacent neighbor's. If this is the case with this guy, then boaters can walk up and down the river's edge, but obviously not through his land to get to the river. Or he may own right up to the river??? Won't know without seing a plat map or asking him.

Also, I get the feeling this guy isn't a total ass, and if the boating community really respects his wishes and rights as a property owner, he is a lot more likely to be kind and helpful in the case that someone does get hurt on the river or needs access across his land in the case of an emergency. I've known instances when a land owner with NO TRESPASSING signs helped out a swimmer who lost his boat, and even gave him a ride back to his car. Anyhow, since we can't do anything about the no trespassing issue, lets just be nice and respectful to the guy, and he's less likely to come running after us with a gun if our boat bumps into a rock on his land like on so many other stretches of river with crazy land owners.


----------



## Badazws6

I think I might even know one of the ladies in that photo. How many kayakers did you see go through doing just as they should?

Anyway, please lay out your proposal on how to fix this issue. Here is what it seems you are proposing: Shut down the road, stop everyone from boating any section of the river anywhere, retroactively tax everyone that has been down the river to pay for the 8 foot electrified fences and cameras that go to the center of the river and down along property lines. If the electric fences don't get anyone that dares enter the river at that point arrest them and throw away the key.

I know that isn't what you are actually proposing but you didn't like the idea of enforcing the current laws...

BTW, thank you for cleaning up after those bad apples and practicing what you preach.


----------



## lmaciag

It's interesting that it took huckleberry's 7th post to include this specific example.


----------



## alanbol

I'm no lawyer, but I recall that Colorado has a law that indemnifies landowners if someone gets hurt while trespassing for purposes of recreation.

However, that said, anybody can sue you for anything, and even if they lose (even in a summary judgement), you're out at least $10k for a lawyer, and usually much more.


----------



## cooljerk

iamyourhuckleberry said:


> Matt,
> 
> This past weekend while waiting to get this photograph:
> http://www.camospace.com/file/pic/gallery/248854.jpg (that's my daughter right next to the captain-top right). I watched four kayakers remove their boats from the river. They obviously parked at the bridge and ferried another vehicle upriver. When they began stowing their gear, one of the boaters opened his car door and a bunch of trash fell out. They then popped beers while they were in the process of removing their wet suits. One lady grabbed a roll of TP and marched off under the bridge. When they left, their trash didn't go with them and a beer can rolled from the top of the car and onto the ground. They simply drove away. I was bagging their trash when I was greeted by the owner.
> 
> Keep in mind, I have travel to this location since I was a wee lad. I have watched this area develop over the years. Small sections of the road where people once parked single vehicles are now large parking lots for multi vehicles. Moreover, these areas are becoming larger-a gross invasion from the road easements onto private property. The vehicles belong to rafters and kayakers-apparent by the roof racks and trailers. Seems they feel they have the right to park wherever in pursuit of their interest. Such disrespect comes at the expense of the land owner. That a look at past aerial photographs of the region if you do not believe me.
> 
> 
> 
> Easier said than done...
> 
> I am a sportsman within a community of sportsman (kayakers included) My first love is hunting. What has been given to us is not a "right" but rather a "priviledge"-something that can be voted away. Have you noticed all the gates going up into BLM and National Forest lands? These two entities are becoming feed up with bad apples as well. I love riding my AtVs on designated trails. It's becoming harder and harder these days to even do that...Why? I will tell you. 10% of the communtiy doesn't give a rat's arse. They break the rules and all of us pay the price. I know from what I reading that I'm singing to the choir. What I do not understand, if it is so near and dear to us, then why is this stuff still happening? Why is it the landowner's responsibility to go after the "them"? Isn't it our job to police ourselves? Maybe, just maybe, if we do so at every level and within every aspect of the sportsman's community, then the gates will start dropping. Just saying....


I'm a little confused by this story and how it relates to the issues at #5. The photo that you claim you were waiting to take is of a Wilderness Aware Rafting commerical raft that is not anywhere near the Numbers section of the Arkansas. Notice, no helmets (a company requirement for a Numbers trip), kids obviously under 16 (another requirement for the Numbers), a lunch cooler (WA drops coolers at Railroad Bridge for lunch on Numbers trips).

I can't quite pin it down but it looks more like Zoom Flume shot from river left but I'm not sure. Maybe someone else can peg the location.

If this is your photo, it's obviously not of a boat in the Numbers (or anyhwhere near the bridge) so I don't understand how it substantiates your claim of having seen folks littering and sneaking under the CR371 bridge at Otero to drop a deuce while you were waiting to take it.


----------



## Badazws6

I looked at that photo and story a little cross eyed as well but in the spirit of a good converstation and a good debate I'm taking his word on the story. I think it is besides the point and counter productive to question it at this point after I asked him for specifics four times.

Obviously the guy has an ax to grind and a personal stake in something, lets focus on the real issues here and be constructive...


----------



## lmaciag

Good detective work! I hadn't clicked on the photo before posting my hesitation as to the validity of the story. Definitely NOT #5.


----------



## jmack

*This whole thread is completely ridiculous*

Have you people ever visited a river with real access issues? The Arkansas has literally hundreds of places to legally access the river. Similarly, there are several legal places where you can view #5. I cannot believe that people are complaining because they can't get their most preferred view of a Class III rapid. This landowner owns the land, so he is entitled to not invite you onto it. He hasn't come out weilding a gun or anything, he just asked you not to trespass, which is well within his rights. Let this thread die and find some real problem to complain about.


----------



## lmaciag

Hummm... This really pissed me off, so I did some of my own detective work.

If you go to AVDI: Colorado whitewater river rafting photos and videography and do a search for July 6, 2009 and indicate BROWNS CANYON and Wilderness Aware, leave the time of trip blank, search, go to page 6 and look at photo #504482... it's almost an exact replica of the link in the above post. The difference being that the watermark for 'whitewaterphotography.com' is missing in the one linked above.

Nice photo of Zoom Flume taken by a professional photographer. That's two confirmed lies.


----------



## cooljerk

Strong work! I do think credibility is an issue here!


----------



## Badazws6

lmaciag said:


> Hummm... This really pissed me off, so I did some of my own detective work.
> 
> If you go to AVDI: Colorado whitewater river rafting photos and videography and do a search for July 6, 2009 and indicate BROWNS CANYON and Wilderness Aware, leave the time of trip blank, search, go to page 6 and look at photo #504482... it's almost an exact replica of the link in the above post. The difference being that the watermark for 'whitewaterphotography.com' is missing in the one linked above.
> 
> Nice photo of Zoom Flume taken by a professional photographer. That's two confirmed lies.


504477 IS the exact photo... Sketchy...


----------



## iamyourhuckleberry

Boy you guys got me good. I misrepresented one of many photos collected over a long five day holiday. The incident remains...


----------



## UserName

Hey Huckleberry... It kinda appears you joined the Buzz to chime in on this issue specifically. Just curious if you happen to be the land owner in question here? Whether you are or not this has certainly brought some thought (and rant) to topics our community does need to be aware of. Our forum certainly brings out the best and worst and all in between, but does lend to information and education as well. Just curious though, either way welcome to mountainbuzz.


----------



## Badazws6

Giving you the benefit of the doubt here mainly because you are playing the role of the devil (advocate) but could you answer the questions I posted previously and have posted again below?

How many kayakers did you see go through doing just as they should?

Anyway, would you please lay out your proposal on how to fix this issue?

Here is what it seems you are proposing: Shut down the road, stop everyone from boating or accessing any section of the river anywhere, retroactively tax everyone that has been down the river to pay for the 8 foot electrified fences and cameras that go to the center of the river and down along property lines. If the electric fences don't get anyone that dares enter the river at that point arrest them and throw away the key.

I know that isn't what you are actually proposing but you didn't like the idea of enforcing the current laws...


----------



## iamyourhuckleberry

> Hey Huckleberry... It kinda appears you joined the Buzz to chime in on this issue specifically. Just curious if you happen to be the land owner in question here? Whether you are or not this has certainly brought some thought (and rant) to topics our community does need to be aware of. Our forum certainly brings out the best and worst and all in between, but does lend to information and education as well. Just curious though, either way welcome to mountainbuzz.


Thanks for the warm welcome. As far as me being the landowner, well, not entirely. But you can say I have a dog in this fight.



> How many kayakers did you see go through doing just as they should?


Why is this pertinent Matt? If everyone did exactly as they were suppose to-legally, then none of this would have ever become an issue, right? Do you think this guy all of a sudden just started hating rafters and kayakers because they were going up and down the river? I think there's more to it!

Here is what it seems you are proposing: Shut down the road, No. stop everyone from boating or accessing any section of the river anywhere, Again No. You can boat and access the river on the many public and legal points along the river. There is no need to violate someone's right of ownership or privacy/quiet enjoyment. There are sections of BLM above and below the numbers for ingresss and egress. # 5 can be viewed from the bridge or the public roadway. retroactively tax everyone that has been down the river to pay for the 8 foot electrified fences and cameras that go to the center of the river and down along property lines. If the electric fences don't get anyone that dares enter the river at that point arrest them and throw away the key. I ignored this in the past-it's totally stupid.

How would I fix it, easy. I would sugggest everyone respect the river, the law, landowner's rights, etc, etc. Too many people too often feel thay can do as they damn well please. What would you do to fix it Matt?


----------



## Badazws6

To finish the quote that you very conveniently left out:


Badazws6 said:


> I know that isn't what you are actually proposing but you didn't like the idea of enforcing the current laws...





iamyourhuckleberry said:


> How would I fix it, easy. I would sugggest everyone respect the river, the law, landowner's rights, etc, etc. Too many people too often feel thay can do as they damn well please. What would you do to fix it Matt?


While I can't say everyone here has always advocated this it is certainly in a majority and that I fail to see what you beef is with this particular community. Perhaps you should take it up with ARHA, the commercial boaters assoc. or someone else that is actually responsible for what is taking place.

I do hope you have a pleasant time and everyone respects everyones rights and sensibilities.

At this point it is obvious to me that you are just looking for a fight (yeah, I know, I'm slow sometimes), have questionable "facts" and don't really have any new or useful ideas. I will leave it at that and exit this conversation before my train of thought goes down hill further.

Matt


----------



## brendodendo

iamyourhuckleberry, 
To start with, you have a limited number of posts, all on this thread. It's slight spooky that you have injected yourself into this conversation with out a full disclosure of who you really are and what your stake is in this section of the Arkansas River.

Aside from not fully disclosing yourself, you have LIED to the community in so much as you posted a picture that did not belong to you, claiming that it was not only a picture you took, but that it was at a specific location and of specific family. Your credibility ended here. Then you extrapolated by saying you witnessed things happen at said specific location, while we now know that you were not at said location. Thus leading our community to believe that you have fabricated said story and have thus lied to us again. You also post that you do not boat, but used to, while your profile indicates that you would be a IV boater. 

SO- 
1: Please give us a full disclosure of who you are.

2: What is your stake in the river corridor? please expand on your comment "As far as me being the landowner, well, not entirely. But you can say I have a dog in this fight."

3: Why are you posting on this forum/thread?

4: What do you hope to gain from our community?

Please answer these question. You could also get in touch with AHRA (Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area - Rob White - 307 W. Sackett Ave. - Salida, CO 81201 (719)539-7289 - [email protected]) Colorado White Water > LINK or American White Water > LINK

I hope that you will take the appropriate measure to rectify the situation as it stands in your mind. Please know that most people on this board would be pissed off to see the river corridor violated and that we try to respect property and life. We do these pursuits because we love them, and would hate to see our use curtailed due to a few bad apples. That said, if your are here to create a fight and have no idea what resolution you are looking for, please crawl back into the whole from which you emerged.


----------



## iamyourhuckleberry

Brendo,

That would be the "hole" from which I emerged. And why should I disclose anything to you? Who are you? Dude, I have been to that specific location more times than you will ever know, and it seems I'm there and have more problems during the high water/summer time of the year. Now, you tell me why that seems to always be the case? I have *zero* issues during the cold winter and low water season. 


SO- 
1: Please give us a full disclosure of who you are.
I could be either your best friend of your worst nightmare. I'd like to say I sleep with the owner's wife...
2: What is your stake in the river corridor? please expand on your comment "As far as me being the landowner, well, not entirely. But you can say I have a dog in this fight."
My stake should be the same as yours. I want this section of the river to be used properly with respect to individual ownership and the law. Moreover, I will crawl out of my hole to make sure this happens! I'm not looking for a fight! I'm trying my best to give you a heads up on what has evolved into a nasty situation over the last three years. I would hate to see you cited for trespassing.
3: Why are you posting on this forum/thread?
I bring to the attention of the "community" another view point-one from the landowner's side. I suggest you listen.
4: What do you hope to gain from our community?
Honestly, nothing. I would like the "community" to gain from me. Maybe this situation will not happen to the "community" down the road if you heed my advice. Remember, it only takes one bad apple!

Any more questions? Oh by the way, I'm sorry for selecting the wrong photo. I'll do better next time....maybe.


----------



## Theophilus

Will,

I know who you are. I could post your picture here for all to see, however I won't do that. Yes you have a vested interest and it appears that you swung by here to give already law abiding boaters what for. 

Why not come clean now and have an honest conversation?


----------



## iamyourhuckleberry

Ok, fire away, what do you want to discuss? My family and I are feed up with the 'nobodies" that continue to lay waste to our property. It's not the fisherman! It's not the rafting companies. And it's not the kayakers (wrong)! It is nobody; we have had enough! We have had OUR property removed, destroyed, encroached upon, and trampled over. We have even been threatened with force for simply asking someone to leave when we felt they were suspicious or disrespectful. We have had our access blocked. My children have endured sex fests in the so called parking lot. You name it, I/we have dealt with it! 

This piece of property has been owned by my family for nearly twenty years now (public records will attest to this fact). We're not a bunch of buttheads looking for a fight-we have been tolerant, check your history. But now, it seems the fight is looking for us. People are cutting down our trees, ripping out our fence...on and on and on! Nobody, not one of you has ever come to me for my permission to trespass, and yet I'm the douche bag... WTF! Seriously, start at the beginning of the thread. You will see every assumption under the sky (I love the fact that ya'll blamed the kind neighbor to the south of us. He owns such a small portion of the river). People claim they will do this or that-take a trespass ticket, etc. In reality, if you were informed, respectful, did your homework, were non-assumptive, and asked my family's permission, then there wouldn't be a single issue. We would tell you to treat it like your own. Pretty simple, eh? So where did we go wrong people?

I am sorry for being so reticent. I was trying to do a little detective work of my own-flushing out the bad guys.

Theo, do I know you?


----------



## DanOrion

If you buy a house across from a land fill, it's going to smell like garbage. If you buy a house near a freeway, there's gonna be traffic noise. If you buy a house in Morrison, they'll be drunken concert-goers in your front yard. If you buy a house on one of the most most boated rivers in the nation, there will be river rats, good and bad. 

Not trying to defend anyone's actions...trash should be picked up, feces should be pooped in sanitary receptacles and intercourse (while definitely not discouraged) should be away from innocent eyes.

Just callin' you out man. You're bitchin about paddlers on the busiest fucking river in the nation. Get over it. It's like living in a Lodo loft and bitching about baseball fans.

Here's a tip: sell your overcroweded arky riverfront (I'm sure you could get a pretty penny for it) buy something in Montucky or Wyoming where there's less traffic.


----------



## UserName

.. so installing a viewing deck and a few recycling bins is out?..


----------



## iamyourhuckleberry

> If you buy a house across from a land fill, it's going to smell like garbage. If you buy a house near a freeway, there's gonna be traffic noise. If you buy a house in Morrison, they'll be drunken concert-goers in your front yard. If you buy a house on one of the most most boated rivers in the nation, there will be river rats, good and bad.
> 
> Not trying to defend anyone's actions...trash should be picked up, feces should be pooped in sanitary receptacles and intercourse (while definitely not discouraged) should be away from innocent eyes.
> 
> Just callin' you out man. You're bitchin about paddlers on the busiest fucking river in the nation. Get over it. It's like living in a Lodo loft and bitching about baseball fans.
> 
> Here's a tip: sell your overcroweded arky riverfront (I'm sure you could get a pretty penny for it) buy something in Montucky or Wyoming where there's less traffic.


Brilliant Dan, and sensitive too. I think I'll keep my property and opt for plan "B". I"ll have the Sheriff cite your dumb ass and enjoy the economic benefit you provide to the county. You all question my credibility? Now you know what I'm talking about!


----------



## Porkchop

*common ground*

this post sure got me thinkn which is rare. so this is what i hear. more people movin to colorado more people kayakn more people buying land more people going fishin more people building houses more people rafting more people livin in colorado right.... we all want the same thing. just a little slice of that colorado summertime paradise. we have to realize that our colorado experience is not static. its going to change. its going to get more crowded and we are all gonna have to compromise if we all want to keep enjoyn gods creation together. we all have to listen be respectful and open minded because we all enjoy a common precious and limited resource. !!!!COLORFUL COLORADO!!!! (amen)


----------



## Badazws6

iamyourhuckleberry said:


> I"ll have the Sheriff cite your dumb ass and enjoy the economic benefit you provide to the county.


Glad to see we are back to:



Badazws6 said:


> All the things you already listed are illegal, I would think enforcing the existing laws would satisfy your "friends" issues.


It is the correct action to take. 

I hope to be able to wave to you (sorry casper, all my fingers) as I float by and not get out of my boat 100 yrds above or below the bridge this weekend.

Peace,

MR


----------



## DurangoSteve

Dear Mr. Dingleberry,

Like you, I own a little chunk of river. Unlike you, I took a monumental dump this morning and feel pretty darned good.

Believe me, I understand pricks who have no grasp of private property. I also understand pricks who have no grasp of _where_ their private property is located. I live on a little-bitty river that is kayakable about one week a year. I actually _love_ seeing them paddle by. If they wanted to stop for a beer, I'd be completely cool with that. If they needed to portage or scout, I'm absolutely fine with that as well. If they wanted to put-in or take-out on my dirt... again, cool. Rafts? Forget it, unless they're one of those Saturn "puncture proof" jobs. As a result, I don't have to endure people crapping in my yard, fornicating in my yard, or other unsavory acts of self-absorbed cluelessness. (_Note: Once I did see a coupla mule deer doing the nasty in the wetlands west of my dirt. Made me smile._) Mostly, every once and awhile, I have to chase away fisherpeople who are killing my little fishy-buddies.

My wife and I chose a little-bitty river for many wonderful reasons, one of which is the reality that we don't have to endure the _nonstop summer traffic _that rivers like the Ark have. While I don't condone the acts of buttholishness that you have endured (and will likely continue to endure until you check out for good), for you to act surprised that a bunch of Front Rangers might confuse your private property for public property (or not give a rat's ass) is a little perplexing. _Dude, you live on one of the most heavily used rivers in the United States, within a short drive of a gigantic population._ Seriously! Surely this isn't a newsflash...

I honestly hope you can reach some understanding with your nemeses. But try not to be too surprised that hordes of Front Rangers, yearning to be free of their vile urban bonds, might find your conveniently located private property a bit _too_ convenient for your personal comfort.


----------



## lmyers

*settle down*



iamyourhuckleberry said:


> Brilliant Dan, and sensitive too. I think I'll keep my property and opt for plan "B". I"ll have the Sheriff cite your dumb ass and enjoy the economic benefit you provide to the county. You all question my credibility? Now you know what I'm talking about!


Whatever man, there is no way Chaffee counties finest are going to post up at your property and wait for the one dumbass who can't see the rapid from the road or the bridge...no matter how big a fit you through, believe it or not, they have better stuff to do.

I agree totally that some people are disrespectful, and may not live up to your expectations of what a kayaker should be...but seriously, the people posting on this thread are probably not the ones doing these things "near" your property (I have a hard time believing someone was having sex in your yard).

If I see anyone littering, etc. I usually try and say something or at least clean up after them...It may literally be your yard, but figuratively speaking many of us look at it as our back yard as well.


----------



## CORiverRat

FYI everyone, I think iamyourhuckleberry is a real troll who has been hitting boater forums for years and who got into it with several of us years ago. Erie CO is a big hint here. If he is the guy I think he is he hates boaters and loves to stir up trouble for boaters. Ignore him and he will eventually go away.

An old boater...


----------



## thoth

It seems to me that the guy has had valid issues. People talked a lot about dialogue well, here's your chance. 

If any of you guys are climbers you know that everyone looses when you start conflicts with the property owner. I don't know the guy from Adam but it seems like getting the word out to the community to tone the shit down, swinging by and saying hi from time to time, and not throwing gas on the situation would be more helpful than banging him because he wants a bit more respect on his land. 

It seems like there is an opportunity here. Telling him to expect bad behavior or move is probably not the way to go.

Just my two cents.


----------



## whip5

Dudes, I have known Huck for years. He is probably the most knowledgeable and understanding person I know when it comes to the outdoors sports. We have hunted together all over North America. If you asked his permission, he would undoubtedly let you on his property. I assure you, he does not have it out for all kayakers...or any outdoorsman for that matter. I spent the 4th of July weekend with him and can attest to his concerns....there are some people who simply do not respect private property and think that they own the river. Well, Huck owns the property that many people abuse. Either obey the laws, or suffer the consequences. In what world do you live where you think because you want to float down a river it is ok to trample on other peoples property? Where I come from, you wouldn't have the opportunity to get a citation for tresspassing, you would be shot. I assure you, it could.....at a whim....be a lot worse for people who wanted access. I wouldn't push my luck.


----------



## iamyourhuckleberry

Some incredible logic coming from a law abiding, respectful community. I am dumbfound!

Subject myself to name calling...insane
Compromise....nah, I don't think so.
Evolve with the increasing populace...not necessary
Sell out and move...not likely
Become a troll...probable
Wave back with a full hand of fingers...possible

May the community always have plenty of water and a strong current. Paddle well my friends, paddle well. 

Thanks for the Advice Andy. I'll watch for you my friend-you have the number.


----------



## Badazws6

iamyourhuckleberry said:


> Wave back with a full hand of fingers...possible


I am afraid you misinterpreted what I was trying to say there, and perhaps a lot of the rest of what I was trying to say. I was trying to say that I hoped to see you on the numbers to wave to you. I was not, nor was I ever, trying to attack you.


----------



## Jahve

Man if you boys did not see a fight commin when the name illbeyouruckleberry came across you need to watch tombstone again.. 

I love that movie.

Huck as a fellow property owner (and hunter) on the Ark I cannot say that I see the same things on my land as you do. If you are that pissed about what you say is goin on there is a arena for you to voice your concerns.....

It is called the Citizens Task Force (CTF). This is a advisory group set up of LANDOWNERS, commercial rafters, fishermen, county commissiners, water stake holders, local law enforcement, private boaters, and Env interests. They advise the AHRA on policy and problem spots here on the Ark. Your land owner reps are Jack and Don (two great level headed gentlemen). Here is their contact info as well as all reps on the CTF 

http://parks.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/C705D67F-A15A-44E4-82D6-7948C2336E71/13725/CTFADDPH08New.pdf


Or you could come in and speak to the people face to face who make the decisions... The next meeting is usually in the fall it will be the first or second week of Oct.. Call the AHRA they will have the date..

You boys can go round and round on this but huck if you feel you have to see change up there the CTF will get way better results that arguin here on the buzz..

Hope it helps you..


----------



## Theophilus

Do all hunters represent Will and you? How would you like it if I visit your forums, come in and crap on the carpet, and then accuse you of unethical behavior? Of course you don't represent all hunters and neither do the boaters and rafters here at the buzz represent the entire outdoor boating community. 

I have no need nor desire to step a dry foot on Will's property. If I see others trespassing I'll advise them. I abide by the law as a free man, and as long as there is public land and water still owned by we the people, I will be floating the Ark.

Huck...no you don't know me but unlike your namesake Doc Holliday, you're no card player. 

Have a nice weekend.


----------



## Theophilus

whip5 said:


> Where I come from, you wouldn't have the opportunity to get a citation for tresspassing, you would be shot. I assure you, it could.....at a whim....be a lot worse for people who wanted access. I wouldn't push my luck.


Check your PMs.


----------



## Cheyenne

I had a quick phone chat with iamyourhuckleberry following a PM to him. I am sympathetic/concerned about access issues from a past experience that my folks had with some fishermen trashing up their land (back in Pa), as well as having to deal with some climbing access issues when I lived back in Pa, so I was courious to see what the story was here... Anyway here is what I got from the conversation (and iamyourhuckleberry please correct me where I am wrong -- it was a pleasure to talk with you.).

I don't think the issue is hopping out of the boat doing a quick shore line scout #5 and hopping back in, just realize that the property is private and respect it, stay close to the shore line. Nor do I think the issue is helping out a swimmer etc. Again just respect the fact that it's private property.

What I got from the conversation is that the issue is more then just this.

Accessing the river around #5 from the road. The little parking area on the north east side of the bridge is "public", but the land heading down to the water is not and is not meant to be a public access to the river. It sounds like if you ask permission, he is willing to grant access.

The guy has had problems with trash, people using the area as a public restroom, tearing down fences (that were above the high water line) and cutting trees. 

He (or his family) have had a couple of nasty encounters with folks in that area.

In addition it sounds like there have been some issues with some of the commercial boating groups and how they are parking their busses, blocking access, etc. 

Anyway... just wanted to relate that it appears that he does have a legit gribe, there appears to be several different types of groups involved (commerical, campers?, rafters, boaters, etc.)

I think that it would be helpful if the boating community could come up with some suggestions on how to help the situation. It appears that you have a long term landowner that has become frustrated with the disrespect of his property and his family.


----------



## Powderpinhead

Sounds like the owners are just asking for a little respect. And respect gets respect. This doesnt seem too much to ask for and to expect in return.


----------



## Cheyenne

I think what has happened is that you are now dealing with a frustrated landowner.


----------



## jennifer

Ok, it seems that this guy is obviously not a troll, but is a real person with a legit reason to be irritated (*iamyourhuckleberry, a troll on mtnbuzz is just someone trying to get a raise out of people, often for fun, he was not calling you a name here).* 

Anyhow, I now realize that you are the owner upstream of the bridge, not directly adjacent to number 5, right? 

I knew the parking lot was public, and I also thought the land between the parking lot and river was as well. I think a lot of folks think this is a public access because there are no "no trespassing" signs. I have seen folks panning for gold and fishing here as well as kayakers. You have been kind to allow acces to the river here, and I understand why you are fed up with people using your land like a public park. I do think it is odd that there is a "public" parking lot right at a spot on the river with no legal access to the river. Is there a public strip of land somewhere from the parking lot to the river? I know upstream there is a public road that continues along the river, with campsites and all. I just figured that public land continued down to the bridge..... This is incorrect?

If so, I guess I have been trespassing on your land for years, albiet only once a year or so, since I usually prefer to take-out downstream anyhow. I don't leave trash etc.

My idea is: I will stop using this as river access, and let everyone I boat with know this is not a legal access. If you put up a sign that says "private property" on your land going to the river, people will certaintly be less likely to treat it like a public park, and more likely to steer folks to a different access point. I'll be sad to see such a sign though, as this is a very convenient access point and I do think the majority of boaters treat the land along the river with respect. Don't need to get into the bad apple thing again. I think you have been one of the more generous land owners along the river since you do NOT have NO TRESPASSING signs posted on every tree on your land along the river. If you do continue to allow brief shoreline scouts along your land, that would be great, since some people can get a little nervous at number 5.


----------



## Andy H.

One thing I'd like to suggest is for folks to go back and read the first 30 or so posts in this thread. Read it from the point of someone who's not used to the shit talking, bluntness, and flaming that goes on in internet forums and think about what kind of reaction you'd have if you were already pissed off about people (boaters vs. non-boaters isn't the point) shitting on and trashing your land over the years. 

Right off the bat we've got Caspermike, who can't spell, punctuate or count to 20 when he's barefoot, much less have a clue about Colorado riparian trespass laws, advocating cutting fences. Then our token socialist, Marko, calls him a douche-bag because he's got the audacity to own property in the first place. Then folks start chiming in with all kinds of talk about lawsuits; that'll send anyone's blood pressure into the red - even if you win, you've still spent a chunk of your life savings defending yourself. Yeti starts talking about how stupid he is for building there in the first place. And add to that all kinds of possible misidentification with exactly where the property is, and characterizations of him as being all kinds of things that he may or may not be. Rdnek nailed it with his "Jump to Conclusions" photo. Then there's Ace trying to use the internet for sarcasm making a joke about inciting a lynch mob to "Hang em!" To top it all off there's a sprinkling of wise-assed peanut gallery comments at Huck's expense and some outright antagonism to boot.

To me its no wonder that Huckleberry's pissed off as hell despite the fact that the majority of posts urge restraint and respect for his private property. He's had trees cut and shit & trash left on his land. I'll grant most of it was probably done out of carelessness and ignorance of the fact its private property. Except for whoever cut trees - that's inexcusable and should be prosecuted. Yeah, I've seen gold panners (using motorized dredging equipment) and fishermen in that area too, but every weekend boaters are probably 90% of the folks there and by sheer numbers that makes us, right or wrong, the easiest group to blame for the problems he's been having. The phrase "adding insult to injury" comes to mind pretty easily for the treatment he's had here. 

Hopefully Huck'll continue to show understanding and tolerance to folks that need to scout or who come crawling to shore and corral their yard sale after getting chundered. From what I see it's a tribute to his patience and curiosity that he even attempted to join the dialog here. 

-AH


----------



## marko

Thanks for that clever little recap, Andy!

I did call the new homeowner a d-bag... and I actually feel bad because, ironically, I briefly met the new homeowner a few weeks after I had already written my post, and found out that he is a nice guy. I felt like a total prick as I was talking with him. I do understand his concerns. If I could go back to the time of writing my post I would most definitely agree with ******* that I jumped to conclusions about the new owner. My mistake... and I apologize.

As for huckleberry's position... I completely understand his concerns too. I don't have anything to add to the discussion that already hasn't been discussed --which is why I haven't written in this post since *APRIL 30TH!!* But, since Andy unkindly dragged me back into it, I felt it was a good opportunity to publicly apologize for using the d-word to describe a person I had never met.

Oh, and Andy... you went a little too far with your assumptive characterization of me. At the time of my original post I chose to call the new homeowner a d-bag because I had just read JustinS's post about his run-in with the new owner when he was trying to rescue a friend at #5, and *NOT* because of your little bullshit presupposition about what I think about private property.


----------



## whip5

The guy that has just built the log home owns maybe 1 acre, and has been misunderstood as far as his position in all this. I think he has been the brunt of a lot of speculation and course words despite having no part in any of this. Apologies to him are in order. Huck has been the owner of said property for over 20 years. Just to clarify, he owns 100 yards both above and below the bridge on both sides of the river. As far as the rescue situation is concerned, I assure you Huck would have jumped in himself to save someone...so whoever was encountered, it was not Huck. We have been in some bad situations together and I trust the man with my life. Again, I am sure if permission is asked and land is respected, he would gladly give permission to anyone who approached him about it. However, he has said that not one person has ever even attempted to ask permission in all his years of ownership. I too understand his frustration. As a landowner myself, it is hard to allow everyone access knowing that there are always going to be those "few bad apples". But, if someone is polite and asks permission, it goes a long way to speak for their character as an outdoorsman and steward of their sport. This is universal to all outdoor sports, be it boating, fishing, hunting, etc. If there are signs and fences up, they were probably put there due to previous bad experiences...this is the case on my own property. They may not stop someone who has no regard for the law or personal property, but it lets people know they should ask first. We all enjoy the outdoors, and all of us want it to be around for future generations. The way we treat other people and represent our respective sports is the only way to ensure that it happens.


----------



## iamyourhuckleberry

Sorry for the delay replying everyone. I have a little girl on Summer break (yeah, the youngster in that rafting photo). She desperately wanted to see Mt Rushmore...I obliged.



> Anyhow, I now realize that you are the owner upstream of the bridge, not directly adjacent to number 5, right?


Jennifer, first of all, thank you! My sister, my mother, and I own roughly 25 acres both north and south of the bridge (we have somewhere around 630 feet of river frontage -the centerline of the river is a portion of our western boundry. The man with the new log home is directly south of us ( I do hope the boating community makes formal apologizes and takes every effort to make this man "whole" after all the erroneous assumptions). The "parking lot" is on a one acre piece of ground owned by the Cities of Aurora and Colorado Springs. Their land stops shy of the river's high water line. Thus, access to the river is via my family's property-there is no legal public access. The road going up to #4 is part of a 100' wide easement which is for "roadway purposes"-dynamic flow of course. Mass static "parking" within this specifies area violates this agreement. Parking is allowed, currently, on the two city's land outside the easement. Yes, there is public access above and below our property. Yes, as I've stated, scout, save, and respect-more importantly, have fun! If the boating community would keep their endeavors below the high water line, we would be greatly appreciative. My family (boaters among us) is not trying to be a horde of buttheads-things have gotten out of hand which need to be rectified. Again, we appreciate the community's support.

Thanks Cheyenne and Andy for being the voice of reason. Page five had me keeping my neck tucked tightly against my shoulders. I felt it necessary to test the water...hope everyone understands. 

Marko,

I think we all grew from this and that's important. Apology accepted! Can you do me a favor though? Do what you can to prevent retaliation on the kind man to the south of me. It may be an unintend consquence of this discussion. I would have to see a brick with "D-bag" written on it come through his new window. 

Whip, you are a good friend and wise beyond your years- Thank you.

My family and I wish everyone the best! Feel free to PM me your questions and concerns.

Sincerely,

Will Nelson


----------



## iamyourhuckleberry

That should have been *hate* instead of *" have"* in the sentence above.* I would hate to see a brick.......*

sorry, I have fat fingers and it was late.


----------



## Canada

Why would someone cut down trees there? That's just weird. It's not like there is camping there. That would really upset me.


----------



## iamyourhuckleberry

Canada,

Pure spectulation...the trees blocked the photography opportunities heading into #5. Essentially they were in the way, and someone felt they should be removed. 

Thank you everyone for your assistance in policing this matter.


----------



## Theophilus

Will,

I apologize for being a horses ass towards you. If I'm ever in your AO I will watch out for your land and ensure all my boating friends know that "The owner of that land is a salt of the earth stand up guy".

Thanks for addressing this issue and please accept my apology for being an ass.

Scott


----------



## carvedog

Sounds like you Colorado boaters have an opportunity to work on private property and boater co-operation here. Some work on education, policing (as in litter patrol ) of some of the use areas and maybe even a couple of work parties for streambank rehab?? could go a long ways to mitigate boater impacts. 

Perhaps trespass permit $$$ to go towards replanting some of the trees cut down or.....

In other news I was flipping through the channels and caught the end of Tombstone with the line from Kilmer that is the prop owners namesake. 

Such a good scene. Made me smile thinking of this thread.

Good luck.


----------



## Don

*Insted of trash talking...*

Maybe insted of trash talking the Buzz could set-up a little trash clean-up for Number 5. We didn't make the mess, but we may not have done anything to stop it either. We can however help clean it up and put our money where our mouth is. It's time to grab some plastic gloves and start picking up some TP.


----------



## UserName

"instead of trash talk"? Bite your tongue


----------



## SummitAP

DanOrion said:


> If you buy a house across from a land fill, it's going to smell like garbage. If you buy a house near a freeway, there's gonna be traffic noise. If you buy a house in Morrison, they'll be drunken concert-goers in your front yard. If you buy a house on one of the most most boated rivers in the nation, there will be river rats, good and bad.
> 
> Not trying to defend anyone's actions...trash should be picked up, feces should be pooped in sanitary receptacles and intercourse (while definitely not discouraged) should be away from innocent eyes.
> 
> Just callin' you out man. You're bitchin about paddlers on the busiest fucking river in the nation. Get over it. It's like living in a Lodo loft and bitching about baseball fans.
> 
> Here's a tip: sell your overcroweded arky riverfront (I'm sure you could get a pretty penny for it) buy something in Montucky or Wyoming where there's less traffic.


You are a dumbass and he is not powerless.

And he's had the land for 20 years? Think it was like this when they bought it???

He came into this house with guns blazing, but don't forget it's because people came into his house with asses shitting.

OK, it seems to me that it's unlikely the landowners are going to care about a quick, quiet, and respectful eddy->bank scout->keep boating. Match that up with a road scout and you should be good to go, right?

If you have to walk across their property to get a view from the road, ask em. Is that so hard? It's the legal AND the right thing to do.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

Well after reading 13 pages of this thread, I'm dumbfounded by the lack of knowledge on both sides of the issue. First - there is and has never been any state law dealing with the ownership of stream beds. The popular misconception that the water is public, but the streambed is private goes back to an Attorney General's written opinion from 1984 which deals with access to the beds of NON-Navigable rivers. The opinion was written to clarify the 1977 Emmert decision, in which two wading fishermen were citited for tresspassing in a NON-Navigable river, while wearing inner tubes around their waists. At trial, the hapless fishermen chose to represent themselves and tried to make the case that they were not tresspassing due to the fact they were "boating", hence the inner tubes. They lost. That decision and the AG's opinion are the entire basis for our states convoluted water "laws". In fact, neither the Emmert decision or the subsequent AG's opinion have any bearing upon the states navigable rivers. What does apply are the countless federal laws and U.S. Supreme Court Decisions written between 1879 and the present. Here's a link that should help clarify things for both sideshttp://www.adventuresports.com/river/nors/states/co-law-boat-rights.htm
If you read it carefully, you'll see very clearly that you do have every right to scout, portage, make rescues or repairs as needed, regardless of land ownership. For that matter you have every RIGHT to get out, wade, touch rocks and do what you will, between the high water marks as in other states. Hope this helps


----------



## DurangoSteve

River access in Colorado is a messy, unresolved issue. I think you offer bad advice by saying that public access to the high water line is certain. I'm no attorney, but I suggest that there is no certainty. Right now we're operating under the 1983 AG's _opinion_ that floating access is OK, but touching the streambed is not. While I personally believe that the state legislature needs to clarify Colorado river access issues, they haven't yet and we're in a pretty weird limbo state right now. The good news is that boaters have used the AG's opinion successfully to defend against trespassing claims. Nevertheless, I think it's a very bad idea for you to advise folks that they have absolute access rights.



> There is a great deal of dispute between boaters and private property owners about the right to float through private property. The issue is most intense on smaller, lower volume streams and creeks throughout the state. CW interprets criminal law forbidding trespass, and an Attorney General's Opinion from 1983, as permitting downstream passage on the waters of the state as long as no contact is made with the beds or banks of the stream (where the beds or banks are privately owned). Almost without exception, sheriffs, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers agree with CW's position. CW has defended and is committed to defending club members who are floating on rivers through private property and are cited for trespassing as a result of floating on rivers through private property, as well as boaters charged with trespassing because they scouted or portaged a section of river or unavoidable obstacles. *Colorado does not* *recognize either a statutory or common law right to walk up to the high-water mark of rivers.* In practice, on most rivers in Colorado, you are free to travel downstream as long as you do not get out of your boat.
> Source:
> River Access





slavetotheflyrod said:


> Well after reading 13 pages of this thread, I'm dumbfounded by the lack of knowledge on both sides of the issue. First - there is and has never been any state law dealing with the ownership of stream beds. The popular misconception that the water is public, but the streambed is private goes back to an Attorney General's written opinion from 1984 which deals with access to the beds of NON-Navigable rivers. The opinion was written to clarify the 1977 Emmert decision, in which two wading fishermen were citited for tresspassing in a NON-Navigable river, while wearing inner tubes around their waists. At trial, the hapless fishermen chose to represent themselves and tried to make the case that they were not tresspassing due to the fact they were "boating", hence the inner tubes. They lost. That decision and the AG's opinion are the entire basis for our states convoluted water "laws". In fact, neither the Emmert decision or the subsequent AG's opinion have any bearing upon the states navigable rivers. What does apply are the countless federal laws and U.S. Supreme Court Decisions written between 1879 and the present. Here's a link that should help clarify things for both sideshttp://www.adventuresports.com/river/nors/states/co-law-boat-rights.htm
> If you read it carefully, you'll see very clearly that you do have every right to scout, portage, make rescues or repairs as needed, regardless of land ownership. For that matter you have every RIGHT to get out, wade, touch rocks and do what you will, between the high water marks as in other states. Hope this helps


----------



## UserName

What's in a name? that which we call a trespassing citation
by any other name would smell as sweet....

splitting hairs on what rock is okay to get out of your boat and stand on seems ridiculous to me. There may be no where on earth that land ownership and property rights weigh as heavily as in these Litigious States of America. Bottom line for me is that it is your responsibility as a boater and an individual to know what land is public and what land is private before you go trespassing. Unless it is a true emergency (like CPR) I should have no reason to test the boundaries of trespassing.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

DurangoSteve said:


> River access in Colorado is a messy, unresolved issue. I think you offer bad advice by saying that public access to the high water line is certain. I'm no attorney, but I suggest that there is no certainty. Right now we're operating under the 1983 AG's _opinion_ that floating access is OK, but touching the streambed is not. While I personally believe that the state legislature needs to clarify Colorado river access issues, they haven't yet and we're in a pretty weird limbo state right now. The good news is that boaters have used the AG's opinion successfully to defend against trespassing claims. Nevertheless, I think it's a very bad idea for you to advise folks that they have absolute access rights.


I've got a pile of supreme court decisions and federal law going back to 1774 on my side, they've got a poorly written AG's opinion from 1983 which cites no case law whatsoever, and uses logic that is flawed at best. That and a team of talented attorney's that never charge me a dime. Charmed life I lead.


----------



## BoilermakerU

slavetotheflyrod said:


> I've got a pile of supreme court decisions and federal law going back to 1774 on my side, they've got a poorly written AG's opinion from 1983 which cites no case law whatsoever, and uses logic that is flawed at best. That and a team of talented attorney's that never charge me a dime. Charmed life I lead.


So I take it you are an attorney?

If not, I have to agree with DurangoSteve - thanks for the pile of info, but a good attorney will rip the average boater a new one if you test him. Best advice is to what UserName said - know what is public and what is private and stay off private land as much as possible. I wouldn't let a true emergency get in the way of that advice, I'd rather face the attorney than let someone die, but otherwise, stay on the water unless you know for sure it's public access or the private land owner doesn't mind.


----------



## jennifer

Very interesting new insights into the law. If this is correct, then most if not all the folks I know are confused on the matter. 

Regardless, I believe this post has been wrapped up. The guy we have been "yelling" at is not a hostile kayak-hating land owner. He just would rather we not deficate on is land, use his land as a public access, strip down naked and change in front of his family, etc. There is a public access just a few hundred yards down-stream, use it. Scout from the road. Let's all try to get along and be happy.


----------



## Ole Rivers

*And I'll go with slaveoftheflyrod*



BoilermakerU said:


> So I take it you are an attorney?
> 
> If not, I have to agree with DurangoSteve - thanks for the pile of info, but a good attorney will rip the average boater a new one if you test him. Best advice is to what UserName said - know what is public and what is private and stay off private land as much as possible. I wouldn't let a true emergency get in the way of that advice, I'd rather face the attorney than let someone die, but otherwise, stay on the water unless you know for sure it's public access or the private land owner doesn't mind.


The average boater, no offense intended, has little, if any, clue as to what the settled ancient, common and federal laws are, let alone that state level law in many areas surrounding recreational use of or access to/from waters and their beds are unclear or untested here in Colorado. Hence, the mythology of secondhand gossip is, in blind faith, followed about doomsday for trespassers. The best advice is to know the law, get it changed if necessary and/or cooperate towards mutual understanding and agreement. Simply put, Slaveoftheflyrod apparently knows the law well enough to have applied that knowledge successfully 9 out of 9 times when tested. That's a record many "good" attorneys would like to have... but don't.

As for portage/scouting on #5 or elsewhere, google something like "Texas portage" or "Texas fishing guide" and read the stuff about portage/scouting in TX for a broad overview of laws historically pertaining to portage/scouting. Basically, ancient, common and Federal settled law already provides for portage/scouting in emergencies, or "necessity", when the "lesser of the evils", that is, portaging (as opposed to trespassing) or negotiating manmade or natural obstructions or hazards are the two choices. As long as it causes no unnecessary injury to the land above the water mark, usually the ordinary high water mark, and a reasonable route is taken around the obstruction, portage/scouting is allowable under the law.

As for "good" attorneys, they are only as good as the specific sets of laws they know. Of course, there are many water law attorneys. However, from my experience, for the most part, these water law attorneys know about consumptive water law rather than recreational use water law, so "good" is an inoperative term concerning the latter type of law. Sure, procedurally, attorneys know a good bit. However, slavefortheflyrod apparently knows and has experienced a good bit of procedure, enough to know how to win his point of view under the law when faced with a real life situation. Many, in fact.

This also goes for the landowner as well as the scouting/portaging boaters in the original basis for this thread. Common sense has a lot to do with which rights dominate over servient among the many coexisting rights we all have. When it's the turn, or right of way, for the pedestrian to cross the street, he goes. When the light changes for the oncoming car traffic, then it's the car driver's turn. Generally speaking, people know when they're trespassing and when they're portaging/scouting. They also know when they're harassing and when shooting the breeze. Where there are laws that are clear and broken, they should be enforced whether landowner or water user. Where there are laws, or lack thereof, that are confusing or nonexistent, they should be clarified or created. That's what legislation and judiciary systems are for.

The best way to determine who has the right of way in coexisting rights, however, is cooperation. Slaveoftheflyrod, I am sure, would go for cooperation most of the time. However, I am also sure, that when reason is less than prevailing, he is entitled to the use of and access to any and all legal routes as the last resort to ensure his rights under the law.

And, while you're at it and, of course, interested, stay tuned for upcoming (January 2010) access/use legislation over in Utah (Google Alert "Utah public water access" or similar) as it may affect your access here in Colorado...


----------



## Canada

*Federal versus state*

Slave,

It looks like you are arguing federal law on this? Eventhis isproblematic because most western states want strict control over "their"water, and would hedge at opening that door in a recreational issue. I don't think we should advocate advancing this issue through any individual championship based on loose facts. I would argue that isf you want to set precedent on these issues in any western state, you should attempt to line yourself with AWA if your a boater and one of the many fishing access advocacy groups if you re not.

While I have read some case law on this issue. I can't say I have any expertise, or am an expert. This thread shows how complex the issue is. We boaters want to scout and cross his land. He says, I used to be cool with that until photographers cut down trees for better angles on shots and people were using my land as a toilet. As this played out, I probably side with the land owner in this case. I know how mush I hate cleaning up other peoples dog feces in our front yard. Human waste is taking it to a whole other level!


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

BoilermakerU - What difference does it make what I do for a living? If I flipped burgers at Burger King would it make the information I've provided any less useful? Does it make the U.S. Supreme court decisions I've used to exonerate myself any less valid? 

Let's get one thing straight here, once and for all - There's NOTHING unclear whatsoever about river access laws in this state or any other. What is unclear is why, we, the boating, fishing public allow landowners, Sheriffs, DA's and elected officials to make up the rules as they go along. I for one, refuse to sit idly by and watch the rivers of our state slowly but surely become the exclusive domain of the landed gentry. If you'd like a glimpse of the ultimate end product of your complacency, just fly over to jolly ol England, where every inch of every flowing river is private and the rule is you have to pay to play. And I'm not talking about a few pounds for a days play. Suffice it to say most of us on here (myself included) couldn't afford a day on the river in England without making some serious sacrifices. 

Some responses have mentioned compromise. Why? It's all clearly written in black and white. I've got a better idea - lets all quit being a bunch of lazy pussies and learn our rights, and then protect them at all costs. Or are we too scared of a few "good" attorney's?


----------



## BoilermakerU

slavetotheflyrod said:


> BoilermakerU - What difference does it make what I do for a living? If I flipped burgers at Burger King would it make the information I've provided any less useful? Does it make the U.S. Supreme court decisions I've used to exonerate myself any less valid?
> 
> Let's get one thing straight here, once and for all - There's NOTHING unclear whatsoever about river access laws in this state or any other. What is unclear is why, we, the boating, fishing public allow landowners, Sheriffs, DA's and elected officials to make up the rules as they go along. I for one, refuse to sit idly by and watch the rivers of our state slowly but surely become the exclusive domain of the landed gentry. If you'd like a glimpse of the ultimate end product of your complacency, just fly over to jolly ol England, where every inch of every flowing river is private and the rule is you have to pay to play. And I'm not talking about a few pounds for a days play. Suffice it to say most of us on here (myself included) couldn't afford a day on the river in England without making some serious sacrifices.
> 
> Some responses have mentioned compromise. Why? It's all clearly written in black and white. I've got a better idea - lets all quit being a bunch of lazy pussies and learn our rights, and then protect them at all costs. Or are we too scared of a few "good" attorney's?


Actually, yes it does matter what you do. I don't take legal advice from people that flip burgers at Burger King. If you're not a lawyer, then I don't consider youo an expert, and I don't think you should be spoting off like one. A lot of people claim to know a lot of things just because they read it on the Internet. A lot of people think they know all about the Constitution, the legal system, etc. When push comes to shove, they really don't know anything more than any other amateur, they just think they do and have a very strong opinion. Sorry if I offend you, but if you're not a lawyer, then I don't consider you to know any more than a burger flipper at Burger King - no matter what your profession.


----------

