# Freedom To Use Rivers



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

How much money do you have saved up to litigate that test case up to the SCOTUS, Eric?

I wish what you say was true, but the situation isn't as clear cut as you make it sound. If it was, Colorado Whitewater and American Whitewater and other river use advocacy groups would've had a slam dunk in the courts and we wouldn't have the restrictions on floating through private land we have here.

Maybe one day, what you say will be true, but right now you're filling people full of half baked legalese that'll get them arrested for trespassing.

-AH


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzW2ybYFboQ

Yep. Freedom boofs all weekend.

If you don't get caught your free to do anything in this country


----------



## NationalRivers (Oct 3, 2013)

*Reply to Andy H.*

There is no need to litigate a new test case up to the Supreme Court, because the Court has already confirmed public rights to navigate, and walk along the beds and banks, of physically navigable rivers nationwide. In Colorado, there is the _Emmert _decision, and the 1983 attorney general opinion, denying public rights to use _non-navigable_ rivers, but there is no court decision or state law denying public rights to use physically navigable rivers. In other words, there are no "restrictions on floating through private land" on physically navigable rivers in Colorado.

Neither Colorado Whitewater nor American Whitewater have engaged in litigation that resulted in a decision denying public rights to navigate through private land on physically navigable rivers in Colorado.

Certain landowners and their lawyers deny public rights to navigate through private land on physically navigable rivers in Colorado, but they have no valid basis for doing so, and their claims directly conflict with numerous federal court decisions. That's why we published_ Public Rights on Rivers in Colorado_--to show that there is no lawful basis for denying public rights on physically navigable rivers in Colorado. People can use this short, low-cost book to educate sheriffs, district attorneys, and landowners about public rights on physically navigable rivers statewide. The book won't result in people getting arrested if they follow what it says. Similar books for Utah, Kansas, Georgia, and Virginia are now nearing completion.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

Please come to yellowstone and practice what you preach. It should be easy to get it opened up right?


----------



## NationalRivers (Oct 3, 2013)

*Reply regarding Yellowstone.*

In Yellowstone it is the National Park Service denying public rights to navigate those rivers (rather than private landowners.) So there are actual government restrictions in effect (unlike the Colorado situation, where there are no government restrictions in effect, only false claims being made by private landowners.) Consequently, we are also preparing to publish another short, low-cost book titled _Public Rights on Rivers through Federal Lands,_ explaining how river users can work to change the present restrictions in Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, and other federal preserves. The situation in those preserves is not as easy as the situation in Colorado, where there are no actual restrictions to change--it's only a matter of educating landowners, sheriffs, and district attorneys about public rights under existing law.


----------



## dirtbagkayaker (Oct 29, 2008)

I hate to say it but if this ever gets pushed to the supreme court again that whole earlier ruling would be over turned asap. The government does not give a rip about the rights of free people any more. It only cares about the rights of people with money and by that I mean people with a whole lot of money. More money than I'll ever be able to imagine. even if every man, woman, and child that loved river access gave every penny they ever had to protect free water ways for free people, one wealthy land owner would reach in his pocket and match that lump sum and then out right buy every so-called public servant in the court system. Just saying


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

NationalRivers said:


> ...The situation in [National Parks] is not as easy as the situation in Colorado, where there are no actual restrictions to change--it's only a matter of educating landowners, sheriffs, and district attorneys about public rights under existing law.


I rest my case that you're not only unaware of the CO Supreme Court Emmert decision but that you're pumping folks full of wishful thinking here. Continuing to spout the BS you're putting out is like someone who assumes the role of a commander, and tells the troops that the enemy is armed with corkguns and nerfballs, when they're really about to charge into a hail of machine gun fire and heavy artillery.

I'd love it if what you say were true and as easy as you think it is, but it's just a flat-out lie dressed up with some legalese and optimistic cheerleading. Just because we WANT it to be true doesn't make it so. When you come back from wading the Lake Fork of the Gunnison where the landowners are hostile, and educate the sheriff not to arrest people for trespassing there, I'll be all ears. 

Until then, I beg you to please abandon your misinformation campaign - you're not doing boaters any favors.

-AH


----------



## NationalRivers (Oct 3, 2013)

*Reply to dirtbag.*

Yes, a higher court decision against public rights on physically navigable rivers is possible in today's world, which is part of the reason why it is an unwise strategy to re-litigate the matter--the existing U.S. Supreme Court decisions firmly support public rights to navigate, fish, and walk along the beds and banks of physically navigable rivers, so the best strategy is simply to educate river users, landowners, and law enforcement agencies about those existing decisions. This is why it is best for river users to use the free handouts, and/or the low-cost short books, available at nationalrivers.org, to educate all parties about public rights confirmed by existing decisions, rather than claiming that new litigation or legislation are needed, which is not true.


----------



## NationalRivers (Oct 3, 2013)

*Reply to Andy H.*

Yes, it may seem like wishful thinking to people who have heard the baseless landowner claims for decades, but the truth of the matter is that Colorado decisions (including the Emmert decision) only deny public rights on non-navigable rivers, not on physically navigable rivers. However, we are certainly agreeing that certain landowners do have money to hire lawyers, and that an educational process does need to take place--river users do need to take the time to educate landowners, sheriffs, and district attorneys about public rights under existing law on physically navigable rivers. On the Lake Fork of the Gunnison, river users do need to meet with the sheriff and district attorney to show that the river was historically used for log and lumber drives, and commercial raft trips more recently, and is therefore legally navigable under federal law. Consequently there is a public easement under federal law to navigate and wade in the river through private land, an easement not affected by the Emmert decision (as discussed in detail in _Public Rights on Rivers in Colorado_.) We are not suggesting that river users can act as if that process had already taken place. In most places in Colorado, it hasn't.


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

Trivia:



> "As a result, parties disputing the navigability of a particular stream or river may have to go to court, which can be an expensive and time-consuming process."


Lehigh River Court Case Tests "Navigability"

Other interesting statements:


> "Rivers are not determined to be navigable on a piecemeal basis. It is clear that once a river is held to be navigable, its entire length is encompassed."


==========

Dark side:


> The high court said Thursday that the state, (North Dakota), owns minerals up to the ordinary *high water mark on both sides of navigable rivers*. Unless appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, this ends a years’ long dispute while oil revenue that would normally have been paid out was withheld in special accounts.


http://bismarcktribune.com/bakken/s...cle_b40e0c30-6f39-11e3-97a8-001a4bcf887a.html

States are interested in this Navigable designation because they get river ownership, if you will. That sounds great for the fisherman and boater but it also often carries mineral rights.


----------



## doughboy (Mar 23, 2009)

Andy H. said:


> I rest my case that you're not only unaware of the CO Supreme Court Emmert decision but that you're pumping folks full of wishful thinking here. Continuing to spout the BS you're putting out is like someone who assumes the role of a commander, and tells the troops that the enemy is armed with corkguns and nerfballs, when they're really about to charge into a hail of machine gun fire and heavy artillery.
> 
> I'd love it if what you say were true and as easy as you think it is, but it's just a flat-out lie dressed up with some legalese and optimistic cheerleading. Just because we WANT it to be true doesn't make it so. When you come back from wading the Lake Fork of the Gunnison where the landowners are hostile, and educate the sheriff not to arrest people for trespassing there, I'll be all ears.
> 
> ...


Who are the hostile landowners on the Lake Fork? Who has ever been arrested? It needs boated more and that is it and with making false statements like this you are hurting the cause. Come float it with me anytime. The wading on private land may be an issue on the LF but no problems if your in your boat. I would even have a problem if you were wading on my private land


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

i think e wishful,thinking is the thinking that this guy will some day stop posting his prropogamda here trying to get folks to buy his book and BS...


----------



## outwash (Oct 21, 2011)

doughboy said:


> Who are the hostile landowners on the Lake Fork? Who has ever been arrested? It needs boated more and that is it and with making false statements like this you are hurting the cause. Come float it with me anytime. The wading on private land may be an issue on the LF but no problems if your in your boat. I would even have a problem if you were wading on my private land


I have been seriously harassed on the lake fork, about 10 to 15 miles below lake city.


----------

