# Guide Arrested on Taylor River, Colorado



## gunnisonriver

I started to reply to this thread by Slave and Yeti., but it is over 90 days old so I had to start a new thread. 


It is just as well, since the issue needs to be kept alive. We have a problem in Colorado where landowners are trying to prevent boaters from traveling on public waterways. 

I live in Gunnison, we need to be rafting the middle section of the Taylor ROUTINELY this summer to perserve our legal rights to raft. It is a tragedy that the beautiful section of the river downstream from Harmels has now been carved up into trophy homes, and the new occupants are trying to stop rafters. I rafted the section through Harmels many years ago, despite all the shouting and protests from the A-holes on the banks. Keeping public waterways open to the public will demand vigilance.

And by the way, I own property on the Gunnison River, and it makes my day when fishermen or boaters go by and they give me a friendly wave.


----------



## JCKeck1

As a Colorado native, living in Texas for a year, I can't emphasize fighting this enough. Here in Texas, the second biggest State, there is almost zero public land. No BLM, no Forrest Service, just little tiny "state parks" which are closed for public safety during any reasonable high water event. Hence, even though the waterway rights are the same in Texas as they are in Colorado, the attitude of landowners is that it is illegal. The Barny Fife law enforcement will write tickets and enforce the landowner point-of-view. The prosecuters then refuse to dismiss the tickets and refuse to bring them to court because they will likely lose. This leaves the issue in limbo with landowners dictating river access through intimidation. Paddlers have been held at gunpoint until law enforcement arrives. These are the people moving into Colorado. Fight this shit to the death and give no ground.
Joe


----------



## Meng

gunnisonriver said:


> Keeping public waterways open to the public will demand vigilance.


Amen. All worthy endeavors in the public policy realm do. Thanks for your good intentions. Given your status as a riverside landowner, you might consider devising a messaging strategy that rebukes the anti-access contingent's false assertion that boaters threaten private property rights. It is absolutely pathetic that with so much conflict going on in the world, individuals that have so much are so hellbent on restricting low-impact recreational use of a public and living resource.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

Thanks for bringing this up again. There's been some scuttlebnut going around lately that the Roberts brothers (owners of Harmel's) intend to press the issue this summer. I've tried to find out the disposition of the tresspassing case against the guide on the Gunny, but haven't been able to find any record in the Sheriff's database. I would suspect that the charge was dropped, but again, I'm not entirely sure. 

The Taylor should be coming up into floating range here pretty quick. By all means get out and enjoy it and be sure to contact law enforcement if you're harassed or threatened while doing so. Sheriff Murdy has made clear that he will not tolerate any attempts to harass or intimidate (this goes both ways). If you're confronted, be sure to get a description of the person, the location, and the time and file a report after you take out. Cell phone reception sucks in Taylor Canyon so you may have to drive down to the Almont or 3 rivers to make the call.


----------



## RiverCowboy

Will someone please provide further details so that I, as well as other river runners, might know more about the issue and what we're getting into?

I live in Grand County, but would make a special trip to float the Taylor just to be a part of exercising boaters' rights, and would think that others might do the same.

But, it would be good to know some backstory and what I'm getting into...

Why don't we buzzards organize one hell of a law-abiding-freedom-and-rights-exercising flotilla down there?


----------



## Andy H.

RiverCowboy said:


> I live in Grand County, but would make a special trip to float the Taylor just to be a part of exercising boaters' rights, and would think that others might do the same.
> 
> But, it would be good to know some backstory and what I'm getting into...
> 
> Why don't we buzzards organize one hell of a law-abiding-freedom-and-rights-exercising flotilla down there?


The backstory is that it's a delicate situation down there and both major boating advocacy groups working in Colorado with long track records of obtaining boater access highly discourage a right to float rally. There was someone that tried to organize a right to float flotilla last year and the sentiment among folks that were working on the situation was that there's a lot more to lose than to gain by getting in the landowners' faces right now.

If you think about it you can see that there's a lot of risk involved for the right to float camp. Say someone decides to organize a rally on the internet and Channel 9's there because whitewater boating's always a good lede when the news is coming on and maybe there'll even be some action to boost ratings a little more. A bunch of boaters show up who've never met, someone (maybe even a plant working as a troublemaker for the landowners?) gets way out of hand; drunk and rowdy and makes a scene committing trespass. Chanel 9 gets the shot from the landowner's property or maybe they're at the takeout where the sheriff puts a drunk, combative dirtbag boater in the car while a nicely dressed elderly landowner says politely, "we just want people to respect our private property."

So there's the story that suburban Joe and Jill watch and they get to imagine what it'd be like to have drunks shouting insults & come up on their lawn and moon them as they're playing catch in the kids. Oh yeah, Suburan Joe and Jill may even get to vote on a right to float initiative in 2012 with this in mind. 

Sure, out of 100 boaters, we know 99 will probably be civil and represent well but if only one' gets pissed off and lets the world know it, who do you think will make the news?

Its an issue we all feel passionately about but need to proceed carefully with. If AW or CW wants to do a mass protest float, I'll be there and following their directions. In the meantime, please don't make a special trip down there when there's much better whitewater to float that doesn't have a controversy waiting to happen.

Thanks,

-AH


----------



## wildh2onriver

JCKeck1 said:


> As a Colorado native, living in Texas for a year, I can't emphasize fighting this enough. Here in Texas, the second biggest State, there is almost zero public land. No BLM, no Forrest Service, just little tiny "state parks" which are closed for public safety during any reasonable high water event. Hence, even though the waterway rights are the same in Texas as they are in Colorado, the attitude of landowners is that it is illegal. The Barny Fife law enforcement will write tickets and enforce the landowner point-of-view. The prosecuters then refuse to dismiss the tickets and refuse to bring them to court because they will likely lose. This leaves the issue in limbo with landowners dictating river access through intimidation. Paddlers have been held at gunpoint until law enforcement arrives. These are the people moving into Colorado. Fight this shit to the death and give no ground.
> Joe


What about Big Bend and the Lower Canyons, to name a few? Big Bend is a National Park, but there are several other floats that aren't.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

Andy left a bit of detail out, well, most of the pertinent facts really. 

This situation came to a head last summer when a Texan land developer announced to two rafting outfits that he'd no longer "allow" them to float through his development. A legislative effort ensued, the spineless legislature punted and the rafting co's reached a temporary agreement with the developer. In the interim a few other landowners on the Taylor and elsewhere have begun making some statements to the effect that they intend to carry the torch, as it were. The trespass citation of a local guide last fall, while unrelated to the Taylor issue did stir the pot a bit. At any rate, with floating season upon us it remains unclear what, if anything, the landowners in Taylor Canyon, or elsewhere intend to do. 

While the issue has moved to the back burner for the time being, the pot is still boiling and at any moment could boil over again. If you attended any of the legislative hearings having to do with HB-10-1188 last spring and heard some of the testimony from those opposed to the right to float our navigable waterways, you'd no doubt have a much better idea what we're up against. 

The point here is - Don't be intimidated, float if you want to float. Be respectful, be safe, and be smart. Learn the laws and regulations, understand your rights and let no one trample them. 

Here's a bit of info, I'd suggest reading it in it's entirety, printing off a copy or two and keep it handy when boating. 

National Rivers: Colorado River Law, on river conservation, river access, paddling, canoeing, kayaking, rafting, fly-fishing, and Colorado river ownership.

Have a fun and safe season,

-Slave


----------



## C-dub

Just sucks. Taylor has always been our post gnar cool down run coming from Utah. Sucks. One way or the other, I don't see a "win". Just a battle over who owns the stream bed. Ironically, one party is arguing for the ownership of it's freedom.


----------



## JCKeck1

wildh2onriver said:


> What about Big Bend and the Lower Canyons, to name a few? Big Bend is a National Park, but there are several other floats that aren't.


Sweet areas for sure. I did 7 days solo on the lower canyons this Christmas (The Journey explores the Lower Canyons of the Rio Grande Jackson Kayak – Whitewater, Recreational, Touring and Fishing kayaks). But the fact remains that these are the least desirable areas to live for most people in Texas. They are on the border of Mexico and the area is completely uninhabited. Try getting on crabapple creek, onion creek, or the perdenales at high water. These rivers are near cities and nearly inaccessible to paddlers due to private landowners or government regulations. 

Also, the land area in Big Bend and the lower canyons is a joke compared to the land area that Texas encompasses. Yet this is the largest area accessible to paddlers without harassment? Make no doubt about it, the Taylor canyon is more beautiful than anything in the entire state of Texas and Texans are moving there to own it. There is simply a culture difference that is irreconcilable. 

I appreciate that these are sweeping generalizations and there will inevitably be exceptions to the rule, but I'm hoping to help other Coloradans understand a perspective that I did not until now. 
Joe


----------



## raymo

Greed and money are tools used to restrict access to the Taylor River so a few can claim it for their own personal enjoyment. That is third world thinking. The same tools were used to prey on the American home owners to put them in the streets and drain their bank accounts by makeing them pay unrealistic house payments after a few years into their morgage and than taking their house on top of it. There is more at stake here than just the right to float. It's is the right to be free from a few narrow minded individuals to limit our rights from us and our children and our children's children. It's called pride and backbone.


----------



## Andy H.

Thanks to Slave for providing the Taylor backstory on the local landowners and the legislative process. 

Those legislative hearings were amazing - Listening to the landowner groups was when I realized that giving Colorado boaters the same access to rivers as in the vast majority of other states will lead to the downfall of Western Civilization, deflowering of the girl next door, and that kayakers would be allowed, no wait,_ required_, to raid riparian landowners' refrigerators and clean out all their Schlitz and turkey legs. 

But seriously though...



> The point here is - Don't be intimidated, float if you want to float. Be respectful, be safe, and be smart. Learn the laws and regulations, understand your rights and let no one trample them.


I agree wholeheartedly with this. We have rights and should exercise them. My point is that we should check our attitudes at the put in and encourage other boaters not to seek out confrontations.

The National Rivers article appears to present a slam dunk case for Colorado access. Unfortunately, my understanding is that the NR position is overly optimistic for us to rely on for Colorado. Neither I, nor to my knowledge, Slave, are attorneys and I'm confident there are better legal and strategic minds than ours who have been working on Colorado boater access for decades. If it were a matter of laying out the case presented by NR, I think this issue would've been settled a long time ago.

-AH


----------



## gunnisonriver

Use it or loose it. The more people that float the Taylor River in Gunnison County, Colorado, the better. It a flotilla is organized I will be there.


----------



## lmyers

gunnisonriver said:


> Use it or loose it. The more people that float the Taylor River in Gunnison County, Colorado, the better. It a flotilla is organized I will be there.


I agree, use it or lose it. Get out there and float it, but do it as you normally would, with your normal crew. No need for a large organized protest float...it will only aggrivate the situation. It was planned last summer and didn't happen for good reason. Read here:

http://www.mountainbuzz.com/forums/f11/right-to-float-rally-on-the-taylor-32033.html


----------



## doughboy

Sounds like the problem on the Lake Fork of the Gunnison. A few years ago boaters sat around drinking coffee and a making comments about how they were going to come down and float to get more boats on the river. I offered a free shuttle to anyone driving down. I saw two boats all summer. Great work. Keep talking about it but doing nothing.


----------



## Phil U.

doughboy said:


> Sounds like the problem on the Lake Fork of the Gunnison. A few years ago boaters sat around drinking coffee and a making comments about how they were going to come down and float to get more boats on the river. I offered a free shuttle to anyone driving down. I saw two boats all summer. Great work. Keep talking about it but doing nothing.


I believe the Taylor gets paddled/floated daily.


----------



## doughboy

You are right and what is your point.


----------



## Phil U.

People were discussing "use it or lose it" and you compared the Taylor to a sitch where you saw 2 boaters in a whole season. It is getting used.


----------



## doughboy

All I'm saying is We have a "use it or lose it" situation here on the Lake Fork. It needs boaters. The LF is only about an hour south of the Taylor. Boaters talk about supporting the Lf but it doesn't happen. Instead of playing bumper boats on the Taylor and Gunny come down and support the LF. The big talk just pisses me off because it seems like that is all it is. Float remote. If their are fiffty boats a day on a stretch and commerical trips it is getting support. Free shuttle is still available.


----------



## ecarlson972

What section of the Lake Fork? I will come down as soon as its flowing and take you up on the free shuttle!


----------



## lmyers

doughboy said:


> All I'm saying is We have a "use it or lose it" situation here on the Lake Fork. It needs boaters. The LF is only about an hour south of the Taylor. Boaters talk about supporting the Lf but it doesn't happen. Instead of playing bumper boats on the Taylor and Gunny come down and support the LF. The big talk just pisses me off because it seems like that is all it is. Float remote. If their are fiffty boats a day on a stretch and commerical trips it is getting support. Free shuttle is still available.


Lake Fork has some sweet stretches on it, but a much more limited season than the Taylor...especially with the current snowpack in the San Juans. I would like to boat it more, but it simply isn't as convienant.

I agree that we need more boater support for the LF...but how about working to get it organized instead of talking down to people who are concerned about the Taylor. It's in your backyard, talk with CW and get something going.


----------



## doughboy

Town to Red Bridge needs boaters but while here red bridge down is a must.


----------



## lmyers

I'm thinking something like "Lake Fork awareness weekend BBQ, Kayaking and Camping". Clear it with CW, plan it during medium flow, and promote it on the Buzz. I bet that would attract a whole new group of paddlers to your valley...


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

It's funny you mentioned the Lake Fork. The fine folks at the Gateview homeowners association pretty much started the trend towards privatizing rivers when they sued Cannibal Outdoors out of business. Many of the major players in the Cannibal case are the same folks trying to shut down access to the Taylor.


----------



## Andy H.

doughboy said:


> All I'm saying is We have a "use it or lose it" situation here on the Lake Fork. It needs boaters. Boaters talk about supporting the Lf but it doesn't happen. Instead of playing bumper boats on the Taylor and Gunny come down and support the LF. If their are fiffty boats a day on a stretch and commerical trips it is getting support.


Its not a "use it or lose it" situation and a large number of boaters who want to make a stand doesn't "support" a given stretch of river, it just inflames the situation. 

No one't going to take away our existing rights if there are fewer boats on any given reach of river. Getting a bunch of confrontational boaters on a protest float on some section of river they never would have run anyway could be counterproductive to the whole cause.

-AH


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

Andy - Why is it that you assume that a protest float will end in disaster? I'd tend to assume that the type of folks cared enough to show up to such an event would be the type to project a more positive image of boaters in general. My experience has been that the dirtbags and morons don't care enough to get involved. 

To think that no one will take away our existing rights if there are fewer boats on the river is a bit naive and ignores history. Gateview HOA was able to put Cannibal out of business in part due to a lack of action on the part of the boating community as a whole. I'd bet a weeks wages that if the Lake Fork situation had recieved the kind of attention and support that the Taylor dispute did last year it would have ended differently. 

I'm not saying protest floats are the answer, but in certain situations a display of solidarity might be just the thing to cause the "it's MY river" crowd to think twice before stringing up that wire across the river.


----------



## glenn

slavetotheflyrod said:


> Andy - Why is it that you assume that a protest float will end in disaster? I'd tend to assume that the type of folks cared enough to show up to such an event would be the type to project a more positive image of boaters in general. My experience has been that the dirtbags and morons don't care enough to get involved.
> 
> To think that no one will take away our existing rights if there are fewer boats on the river is a bit naive and ignores history. Gateview HOA was able to put Cannibal out of business in part due to a lack of action on the part of the boating community as a whole. I'd bet a weeks wages that if the Lake Fork situation had recieved the kind of attention and support that the Taylor dispute did last year it would have ended differently.
> 
> I'm not saying protest floats are the answer, but in certain situations a display of solidarity might be just the thing to cause the "it's MY river" crowd to think twice before stringing up that wire across the river.


An argument made last year which lead directly to the agreement we currently have noted that currently the number of floaters is small and inconsequential to privacy and disruption of the peace, quiet and fishing. A flotilla on the other hand bats down the argument made for the floaters case.


----------



## CBrown

*Fight this shit to the death and give no ground.*



JCKeck1 said:


> As a Colorado native, living in Texas for a year, I can't emphasize fighting this enough. Here in Texas, the second biggest State, there is almost zero public land. No BLM, no Forrest Service, just little tiny "state parks" which are closed for public safety during any reasonable high water event. Hence, even though the waterway rights are the same in Texas as they are in Colorado, the attitude of landowners is that it is illegal. The Barny Fife law enforcement will write tickets and enforce the landowner point-of-view. The prosecuters then refuse to dismiss the tickets and refuse to bring them to court because they will likely lose. This leaves the issue in limbo with landowners dictating river access through intimidation. Paddlers have been held at gunpoint until law enforcement arrives. These are the people moving into Colorado. Fight this shit to the death and give no ground.
> Joe


 
Well said.


----------



## Paddle_like_Hell

First, I live in Austin, TX. I ardently support any paddler in any state fighting to protect their rights to river access. This is a current issue in nearly every U.S. state with navigable rivers. 

I also agree that what we (the few, the proud, the Texas Kayaking Community) have here in TX is not a desirable situation by any means. I have been on the receiving end of threats of violence and arrest for putting on to a run at flood and Joe’s description of how this sort of intimidation is used is accurate. However, to imply that the situation in Texas and in Colorado is even slightly comparable is ridiculous at best. You are at the headwaters of the West, you have reliable creeks and streams, and a successful industry built around river recreation that attracts 1,000’s of tourist a year. I can guarantee, if we had just two of above listed features river access in the State of Texas would be no different that it is in Colorado. However, when the 2nd largest State in the nation has only got a half dozen Class III or above runs (most of which are on public lands) that run less than once a year on avg., and when they do their sought out by a tiny minority of the state’s populace, you can imagine that protecting that minorities right to access is far from a priority in the eyes of the law. 

The assertion made by Joe that Texas culture is irreconcilable with those of Coloradans and that your currently being invaded by this Army of Nazi Texan developers that come from a culture that commonly privatize navigable waterways sounds a little far flung from this side of the State Line. If they’re from Texas, they probably don’t know what a kayak looks like, except for the sit on top their daughter bought in college that they thought was sure sign she was becoming a lesbian. 

My point being a greedy douche bag is a greedy douche bag, don’t go tying their greed to some sort of culture perception you’ve picked up on in your short time living in a state where few people share your favorite past time.

If you ever want to know what it’s like to sneak through a mile of dense mesquite brush to slip into a Class III drainage full of chocolate milk, ducking beneath barbwire mid rapid, and constantly looking over your shoulder to see if the Rancher is standing on the cliff with shotgun in hand, look me up on your next Texas vacation. But in the meantime, go out there and protect what is yours, so I can come borrow it each spring.


----------



## Kendrick

I'd say possibly getting arrested is a class 6 feature, if there ever was one. I'm still a solid class 2 boater, at best. Probably more like Class I. 

If greater numbers bring down the difficulty level, than I'll gladly join, though.


----------



## lmyers

Andy H. said:


> No one't going to take away our existing rights if there are fewer boats on any given reach of river. Getting a bunch of confrontational boaters on a protest float on some section of river they never would have run anyway could be counterproductive to the whole cause.
> 
> -AH


If anyone was taking it as such I apologize, but I was not suggesting a "flotilla", or protest float. All I was saying is that the LF has great whitewater when it flows, and if Doughboy wants to see more people enjoying the goods his turf has to offer, an organized boating and camping trip is definitely a possibility with the Buzz as a resource to get the info out there...be responsible and kind and everything will be fine.


----------



## gunnisonriver

Nothing wrong with a flotilla. The more people that float this section of the Taylor the better, singly, in a flotilla, or dressed up like Blinky the Clown strapped to a pink inner-tube. Exercise your legal rights, or loose them.


----------



## Andy H.

Once again, its not a "use it or lose it" situation. No one's going to take away the rights we have if we don't show up in numbers, no one's going to increase our rights if we do. Sure, the flotilla thing has a great sound to it that appeals to our anger and makes us feel like we're doing something, making a statement that'll really show them, and so forth. We're all pissed off and want to do something about it but getting confrontational is not the answer in this situation.

If AW and CW want to do this, then they'll put out a call and get folks for it. Until that happens, organizing a flotilla should be off the table. The risks don't match the potential rewards.

-AH


----------



## gunnisonriver

We all want to keep on good terms with landowners, and it does not matter if you are a rock climber, rafter, or hunter. If anyone out there is a lawyer feel free to correct me, but I believe that when you exercise your right of access and other parties with an interest such as a landowner allow you to travel on the river, a precedent has been set. By rafting a river you are establishing that in fact it is a public right of way and you are exercising your legal right to keep the river open. If we stay away from a river because we fear we may upset a landowner, or we might get arrested, then we are letting the pinheads win the argument, and we are also giving them an argument to use against us in court. We should all be prepared to do what is right, despite the consequences. In essence, it is very much "Use it or loose it".

Another venue is for us to put pressure on local officials, particularly elected officials who have to face the voters, to keep the rivers open.

I encourage people to raft the section of the river below Harmels, and will be doing so this summer. If a friendly flotilla is organized, count me in.


----------



## lmyers

gunnisonriver said:


> I encourage people to raft the section of the river below Harmels, and will be doing so this summer. If a friendly flotilla is organized, count me in.


I agree gunni, if people want to organize groups of friends to float the Taylor or the Lake Fork...get out there and get it done, you have the right to do it, and we all should exercise that right. However, I don't think anyone should plan to float either of these rivers with a "group civil disobedience" plan. No protest is necessary, in fact it's not even necessary to make your opinion known to local property owners...just use the river respectfully and show them through this that we all have the right to float our waterways.

Beyond this you should speak to your Colorado Whitewater or American Whitewater representative...they work hard to secure boater water rights, and we don't want to do anything to compromise their work...


----------



## Ole Rivers

*Don't Mean a Thang If It Ain't Got That Swang*

There are 3 procedures to gain the right to *"Use and Access Natural Streams"*:
1 Legislative
2 Ballot Initiative and
3 Judicial

This thread is dealing with the judicial way to git er done.

Judicially, it don't mean a thang if it ain't got that swang.

What is meant is that, unless an individual or a group of water users, whether boaters, boat fishermen, wade fishermen, bathers, tubers, waterfowlers, scientific benthic macroinverterbrate studiers, aesthetic beauty of river lovers or whoever, commits to follow through a citation up to the Colorado Supremes, the water use just plain has no judicially legal effect or importance.

The activity is nothing more than a use and enjoyment of water, which is fine, but that's all it is.

Alternatively to,related to and/or in conjunction with, such a water use as proposed in this thread, any, some or all of you can organize an informal, real-time, in-process *"Water Use Conflict"*, or somesuch, tracking database, rather than an after-the-fact database, to track any citations, tickets, warnings, etc., prior to disposition that occur in each watershed throughout Colorado. Knowledge is power, so, along with raising awareness of real time citations through this database, the public water user community is now alerted to a bunch of cases, such as trespassing, and picks and chooses one, several, all or no cases to support in court. Volunteers in each watershed simply maintain periodic contact with the County Sheriff office, court, watershed area DOW, etc., find out about new cases, *while respecting (and appropriately overcoming) any existing privacy laws*, and report them to the online database for all interested.

An "after the fact" tracking database is found at http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/0F0DA2F3-0142-4589-A1F9-1EB2DB2D770E/0/2009AnnualReport.pdf

See Table 12 on page A-7 for starters...

Organizers? Volunteers? Scientific benthic macroinverterbrate studiers?


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

While the annual report is a bit helpful, it's also only a small piece of the puzzle. The data include only citations issued by DOW. To get a more accurate picture the data would need to include arrests and citations by county sheriff's and local police. 

As far as DOW goes, they're not likely to get involved with floating trespass issues unless the trespasser happens to be holding a rod or a gun. Rafters and kayakers get to deal with the Sheriff, for the most part.


----------



## Ole Rivers

*O Canada!*

Found Truth Prevailed « For The Fly today via Alberta access battles - Fly Fishing Utah - The Utah Fly Fishing Resource and figure it applies to this thread.

These circumstances could make for a great Colorado Supremes case to test our rights to use our natural streams and touch the bed incidental to that use.

Gain access via public right of way, say, any public county bridge, put in the boat or wade then touch the bed incidental to the use of the water and, if cited, assert the right to do so under the right to use and enjoy waters for navigability, recreation, commerce, fisheries, aesthetic beauty, and/or etc, under the *Public Trust Doctrine* (view the 30 minute video *"Champions of the Public Trust"* at Champions of the Public Trust, Water Use in Wisconsin Video )

Brendan navigated (by foot) within (*below*) the ordinary high water mark, touching only the bed lands rather than touching the up lands *above* the ordinary high water mark to use the publicly owned water.

The difference between Alberta and Colorado (see Alberta SRD - Water Boundaries ) is that the rights are clear in Alberta and confusing in Colorado. Our rights to use the water and touch the beds of navigable waters (*"Navigable in fact is navigable in law."*) can be clarified by testing those rights in a judicial court setting and, to most clarify, pursue the case up to the Colorado Supremes.

Notice that Brendan touched bottom. That is a critical aspect and must be included in any Colorado court case test that results from any activity contemplated in this thread or underlying any citation of somebody else's activity. If, for example, a vessel merely floats through, on top of or over the water, the only test would be using only one area of the water (the surface) and would only serve to further solidify the Emmert ruling, which opposes the water users' interests big time. The aim of any court case is to test use of *all* areas of the water and show that *Emmert is bad law* and overturn it.

Oh, and while I'm at it, if you want to test this thing, take your own camera with you, hopefully one that has *GPS* capabilities so the *exact location* can be geotagged and evidenced in court and, further, map the dealio on Google Earth or Flickr or some such.

*"Common highways and forever free!"*


----------



## Meng

FYI to anyone thinking of a float. This announcement in today's CB News effectively closes the Middle Taylor section temporarily:

*Taylor River bridge repairs mean some restrictions*
All commercial and private rafters and floaters
should note that the bridge spanning the Taylor
River on Harmel’s Ranch will be under repair commencing
April 27, 2011.
Cliggett & Associates, P.C. on behalf of The
Brother’s Estate, LLC and the Taylor River Acre
Homeowners, Cowboy Steel, Gunnison Valley Construction,
and Williams Engineering request people
observe some travel restrictions in the area.
—Due to extreme safety concerns, horse, foot
and vehicular traffic is prohibited across the bridge.
—Additionally, no river users should direct any
vessel or flotation device under or near the bridge
during the construction period.
—All users of the Taylor River should depart
the river at the One Mile Campground and re-enter
the river at the Five Mile Bridge down river, as portage
opportunities are unavailable.
The completion of the necessary repairs will
be concluded on or about May 17, 2011. Engineers
will publish notice upon actual completion of the
repairs.


----------



## scooby450

Is this a public bridge?


----------



## lmyers

scooby450 said:


> Is this a public bridge?


No. It is not.

Thanks for the heads up Meng.


----------



## gunnisonriver

Thanks for the heads up on the bridge, it sounds like this is the bridge on private land at Harmels. The public should watch this situation, since with some creative "bridge work" the landowners could attempt to restrict river traffic onto the Taylor river at this bridge. If anyone has a digital camera they should go record what is going on with the bridge..I am out of town and can't do it. Are there any Taylor River boaters that can watch this situation on the bridge? I don't want to be alarmist, but we cant give any ground on the river access situation, and the landowners have already shown that they view the river as their private retreat, and not a public waterway.


----------



## live2paddle

What is the current status of the boat ability of the Taylor river? Is it somewhat safe to run with regard to land owners? Thanks


----------



## lmyers

live2paddle said:


> What is the current status of the boat ability of the Taylor river? Is it somewhat safe to run with regard to land owners? Thanks


You can boat the Taylor safely, and without issue...especially the Canyon and the Lower stretch. The middle section is where the most issues are. Right now it sounds like the contractor crew working on the bridge at Harmels is asking people not to float that stretch until they finish constuction (not an unreasonable request).

There is private property all over along the Taylor though, so make sure you are on public land before getting out of your boat. Otherwise you won't have any problems.


----------



## breslau05

I just got back from my first float trip to the Gunny and was shocked to see all the "No Trespassing, No Anchoring, etc..." signs posted EVERYWHERE. The funny thing is that most of the people yelling from the banks are the Texans that move to Colorado in search of their own "private" water. Next thing you know they will be running barbed wire across OUR rivers!!


----------



## chepora

breslau05 said:


> I just got back from my first float trip to the Gunny and was shocked to see all the "No Trespassing, No Anchoring, etc..." signs posted EVERYWHERE. The funny thing is that most of the people yelling from the banks are the Texans that move to Colorado in search of their own "private" water. Next thing you know they will be running barbed wire across OUR rivers!!



Which stretch of the Gunnison? Escalante to Whitewater?


----------



## lmyers

chepora said:


> Which stretch of the Gunnison? Escalante to Whitewater?


That's what I was thinking....pretty sure I've never seen a "No Anchoring" sign on the Taylor...and it's already got plenty of fences across the river (just above Lottis Creek).


----------



## breslau05

chepora said:


> Which stretch of the Gunnison? Escalante to Whitewater?


We did a couple of floats... First day we did Almont to Garlic Mike's and the next two days we did Garlic Mike's down to the kayak course (Whitewater??). Landed a bunch of smaller rainbows and browns on a two streamer rig. White, yellow, and natural were working best. I also landed a 22" bow on one of my Shadowfax (bright and white) streamers. 

I also got on some private water on the Lake Fork of the Gunny. WOW. That is some amazing water. Big bows and cutbows all over the place. Wish I lived down in that area!


----------



## Osgood

I paddle rafted the Upper Middle and Lower Taylor Sunday, May 22. Its a fun 3 hour float at current levels (600cfs out of the damn, 800 @ Almont). Everything was very passable including the low bridge after Harmels on the Wilder property. Wilder's first bridge has a big yellow sign that says "no recreational access." Their second bridge is very low and would not be passable with an oar-framed raft. This bridge is recognizable by the small rustic cabins on the right bank. Passengers in a paddle raft must get below the tubes to fit under the bridge. Immediately head far right for a clear channel. The good news is all three channels under the bridge are free of wood. In the past, just the far left was passable which made the immediate right a difficult move to see after popping out from under the bridge. Please respectfully float this section.


----------



## gunnisonriver

How can you respectuflly float this section of the river when the damn bridge is so low that you cant bring a raft with a frame under it? Sounds like we need some civil dis-respect here!


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

Osgood said:


> I paddle rafted the Upper Middle and Lower Taylor Sunday, May 22. Its a fun 3 hour float at current levels (600cfs out of the damn, 800 @ Almont). Everything was very passable including the low bridge after Harmels on the Wilder property. Wilder's first bridge has a big yellow sign that says "no recreational access." Their second bridge is very low and would not be passable with an oar-framed raft. This bridge is recognizable by the small rustic cabins on the right bank. Passengers in a paddle raft must get below the tubes to fit under the bridge. Immediately head far right for a clear channel. The good news is all three channels under the bridge are free of wood. In the past, just the far left was passable which made the immediate right a difficult move to see after popping out from under the bridge. Please respectfully float this section.


I've heard through the grapevine that the bridge will have to be replaced soon as it's too weak to support the weight of the construction equipment/trucks needed to develop the properties on the river left side.


----------



## schoolpants

im on it!


----------



## gunnisonriver

Iam


----------

