# New Threat of Lawsuit on The Lake Fork



## doughboy (Mar 23, 2009)

It sounds like a lawsuit is going to be underway on the Lake Fork the first time it gets floated and fished this year. Now it needs boaters more than ever. It especially needs super pumas or similar size boats with fishermen. Their claim is that the property is losing value because of the water being fished. Does anyone know who to get in contact with for a little help in a situation like this? 
FLOAT AND FISH THE LAKE FORK!!!!


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

the dude that runs the Gunnison Paddle Club could probably be a good resource. im not a member but i imagine that would be a good group of local boaters to try and tap to get to rally down for some mass floats.

i have already got my friends stoked, theyre ready to go and do it a bunch, as am i.

who specifically is filing the lawsuit? and whom are they filing against? and what does the lawsuit aim to do?


----------



## doughboy (Mar 23, 2009)

Thanks for the info. I didn't know Gunny had a paddle club. The owner of the ranch is a felon so I think his son would be filing the lawsuit. I think his son is a co-owner of the ranch and has a clean criminal record. The threat of the lawsuit is against me personally. Their intent is to financilly break me. The talk is that they want to make an example of me. They have pulled something every year to try to keep traffic off the river. When I first moved here from Gunny they were against all river traffic. We put on the river every chance we had and delt with many heated issues and they finally folded and left us alone for a while. After this river use picked up just a bit. A few years ago the ranch had the sherifs department and the division of wildlife stop me as I floated through. They apologized for bothering me and stated that everything was good and they would have a talk with the landowner. I think they must of watched last year while we were landing some of the huge fish in there. This year could be a bluff on the lawsuit, but if I could find someone to get behind me in case something does happen I will be able to relax a little more while on the river.


----------



## stinginrivers (Oct 18, 2003)

By the sounds of this you should get in contact with Nathan Fey he is the local representative for AW, and since they are also looking to ban fishing, trout unlimited is a very large and powerful lobby group that I would guess get behind you on this.

If you are not a member yet of AW please join up.


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

its not the lutwaks again is it?

i'll stand by you and by our right to float 100%. i cant be there every day but i will try to come down and float with you as often as i can, im sick and tired of these assholes and their arrogance in thinking they own the river. makes me sick! and i will do whatever it takes to stand by you and make a point. the sherriffs (and the law) will likely be on our side, so its ultimately just a matter of standing up to these dongbags and making them realize were not doing anything illegal. i always pack my camera when i go so if they wanna videotape us going through, or harass us as we go through, i will shoot it all for posterity and good laughs down the road.

is it worth talking to an attorney beforehand, just to get his general thoughts on the subject? i am friends with several here in town and it would be nothing to pop a squat for a few minutes with one of em and lay it out and get their opinions.

edit: im not sure if he still is or not, but homeboy osgood is the guy to talk to about the gunny paddle club, as he was the head of it for a while, and might still be, i dont know. i wish i could be of more help, but i have personal issues with certain members and am not a member as such!


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

Trout unlimited (TU) has not taken a position in landowner / fishing issues in the past couple of years... Half of them want to keep fishermen off their private property and half want acess to fish....... :roll::roll::roll:

So I dont know if TU will be your best help..


----------



## doughboy (Mar 23, 2009)

No it's not the Lutwaks. It is the valley view ranch owned by Ed cox. THe ranch is about two miles out of town. It is the one with the big hay meadow that is usually full of elk. They had river improvements done several years ago to improve fish habitat. When on the river it is the ranch with the cable stretched across on both ends of the ranch with no trepassing signs. I think this guy helped out on the money end of things for Yose while going after cannibal outdoors.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

Float it. don't even worry, seriously what kind of lawsuit can he file against you? AW has their own can of woop ass get them involved. i would get as big a group as you can put together and run the shit out of it.


----------



## Fuzzy (May 25, 2005)

Not sure but is this the ranch??

http://amountainhome.net/index2207.html?p=3


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

This is an issue that I have mixed feelings about, and have caught some serious crap about in the past. Background: I own a little chunk of Florida River frontage (and streambed) outside of Durango. It's an awesome flyfishing stream, and in early May it has enough water to be kayakable. I have had problems in the past with wading flyfishers trespassing and killing trout, which really pisses me off as a catch-and-release person. On the other hand, it makes me happy to see kayakers paddling thru during the brief window when its floatable. And if kayakers needed to portage around an obstruction or even put in/take out on my property, I'm completely cool with that. Afterall, I'm a river person in addition to being fortunate enough to own a little piece of river. I'm only an asshole when wading fisherpeople kill trout and then argue with me when I point out their trespassing. On the other hand, if a person is a catch-and-release flyfisher and they ask if they can fish my section, I always say "yes." Hell, I've even given some folks flies that I tie specifically for the Florida, and will direct them to the killer holes.

While my piece of river isn't really suitable for floating and fishing (steep gradient, rocky and shallow), if someone were to do that, I absolutely acknowledge their right to do it. I may not like it, especially if they're bait slingers killing fish, but I know that they are allowed to do it, despite my misgivings.

The position of this Lake City ranch owner in my estimation is craziness. Colorado law allows floating and fishing, as does Wyoming law. You just can't anchor or wade on private property. For this landowner to threaten lawsuits against people floating and/or fishing is just nuts to me. As I understand the law, these potential lawsuits would be tossed out anyhow, so what's the point?

I cherish my little piece of trout heaven, and try really hard to allow them to flourish in an awesome habitat. For instance, I never fish during low water or during spawning. And I haven't killed a trout in the Florida (intentionally) for 17 years. But I also realize that if someone could manage to float my piece of river and successfully eddy out and fish, they have every right to do that.

I think the idea of forcing the ranch owner to face legal reality is a good one, and I will try to make time this summer to float (and fish) the Lake Fork and "enlighten" them. If it gets weird, so be it.


----------



## Snowhere (Feb 21, 2008)

Why don't we organise a mass float through there? I would be game to come over with either my raft of kayak if I get a little notice.


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

*Confrontation*

If you are going to orchestrate a confrontation, involve AW up front. 

As I point out on everyone of these access issues, do it right. The precedent set could re-write the access law for the state, and the funding from the land owners will greatly surpass that of the rafting companies, guides and kayakers. We are a bunch of gypsies getting by in life. They are land owners with their trophy properties and millions in the bank. (See Durango Steve) I personally don't like the idea of provoking the fight. I also want to look like the good guy if I ever have to go to court on an access issue.


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

Well, when I decided to post, I knew I'd get flamed. Canada, just to set the record straight, I own a 1200 square foot, extremely modest home on a mere 300 ft. of river. I wish I had millions in the bank, but I'm a broke working stiff. I'm guessing that as an attorney, your net worth stomps all over mine...


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

*Rights to "Use of" and "Access to/from"*



doughboy said:


> It sounds like a lawsuit is going to be underway on the Lake Fork the first time it gets floated and fished this year. Now it needs boaters more than ever. It especially needs super pumas or similar size boats with fishermen. Their claim is that the property is losing value because of the water being fished. Does anyone know who to get in contact with for a little help in a situation like this?
> FLOAT AND FISH THE LAKE FORK!!!!


The main challenge for private and public interests is to understand and learn their legal rights. In my learning and understanding, there are *coexisting* rights that are *dominant* and *servient* to the other.

*Water owners/users have the coexisting and dominant right to the USE of public waters incidental to recreational activities over the coexisting and servient private streambed property owner's rights of OWNERSHIP. There are Federal, Common and ancient laws that protect these coexisting rights.*

Additionally, understand that this situation is about the *Use of* rather than *Access to/from* public waters incidental to recreational activity. The other issues and laws are harassment/trespassing/portage and takings (devaluing the real property and thus, his right of ownership)/exclusive capture. As for takings, many, and probably all, court cases have ruled that there is no taking, because the coexisting right to the use of the private property is dominant and causes no unnecessary injury to the private property landowner. Takings is the many taking from the few while exclusive capture is the few exclusively capturing from the many.

Also, understand that, under the Colorado State Constitution, Article 16, Section 5, http://www.i2i.org/Publications/ColoradoConstitution/iscolocn.htm , Section 5, *"Water of streams public property." The water of every natural stream, not heretofore appropriated, within the state of Colorado, is hereby declared to be the property of the public, and the same is dedicated to the use of the people of the state, subject to appropriation as hereinafter provided.* . The Public also owns the fish in the water and, under the Public Use Doctrine, Public Trust, Equal Footing, etc, the rights of recreational *use of* those waters and fish.

The challenges come in understanding and learning about the various court rulings, state laws and Attorney General opinions. Simply put, either they confuse the issues and, thus, the enforcement, or they don't rule on the issue in the first place. For example, the test for navigability has never been ruled on in Colorado. *Clarity*, through cooperative understanding and learning, revision of existing legislated state statutes and/or judicial (court) rulings, is the solution.

Cooperation is probably the easiest path. Simply go talk to the guy, after reading up on the issues involved and talking with your County Sheriff and District Attorney, to provide him with clear, useful and issue oriented information and to see what can be worked out so that *All Win*. That could solve your situation but may not solve the overall issue for others. However, this way costs zero dollars.

Legislation to clarify and revise existing law or create new law is probably the middle path as far as ease/difficulty. Learn and understand the various issues, then go talk with your local state representative or senator with your idea. They will either move it forward or not. This process costs time and probably money.

State ballot initiatives and Attorney General Opinions are also alternatives.

The judicial process is a real piece of work, though. Here in Colorado, with the Lake Fork Gateview/Cannibal case, and as in the Conatser case in Utah, they both took years and money to process. Conatser was resolved and clarified unanimously by the Utah Supremes while Colorado's Cannibal case didn't get resolved because Cannibal ran out of moolah, even though the defense attorney, in a law review article, inferred that Cannibal may have won on several grounds had the money not run out. C'est la Vie. Such is Life. That's the way the cookie crumbles. This process certainly costs time and money.

That being said, if you want to pursue the judicial path, it may be reasonable to first contact AmericanWhitewater.org 's Nathan Fey [email protected] , coloradowhitewater.org Director of Access Mark Robbins [email protected] , read http://www.coloradowhitewater.org/mc/page.do?sitePageId=34425&orgId=cw and/or consider investing $30 for a CW membership (as a member, they may defend you, legally and financially) before testing things out. Also, as previously mentioned, either contact the Sheriff and DA prior to floating or have CW or AW contact them.

Understand, though, if the rancher is set on doing something, regardless of common sense, then your choice is to either submit or row, row, row your boat and catch, catch, catch some fish.:wink:


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

*Access*

Durango, not flaming on you. Just a poor attempt at humor. 

I think this thread should have stayed on the main board. These issues are some of the most important we face. By moving something like this it is effectively killed. It is boating related and probably a bit more encompassing and relevant than whether Pedro swam or which creek boat is best.

Ole, it is the lack of a Supreme Court ruling that is the crux of the matter. While the argument that a party floating past your house is a taking lacks common law support, it certainly passes the smell test to an uneducated juror. i.e. They spent $1mil upgrading their property and then some guide is coming through and catching and killing all of their fish. While I find this mindset without merit, it exists. That is why we need to be careful that we don't test this idea with a confrontational keg filled in your face mass float.

I thought the new law here in Utah would result in someone getting shot. Maybe communication will work and I am just too jaded.


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

Kinda thought so, but one of those smiley face thingies helps those of us who are slow on the uptake.

Just yesterday I had a run-in with a trespasser. I threatened legal action, but he just pooped on my deck... after he ate "my" trout.


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

One of the things I love about fishing the green are the Osprey. It is so cool to see them swoop down and take a fish. That and the otters. It's the only place I've seen otters hang out with you through a drift.

Good picture


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

My take on it is this:

The guy spent millions of dollars to improve the riverbed for fishing and for the economic prosperity of his resort. This I have no problem with. Now he doesn't want the floaters to come through because he doesn't want people to fish in the improvements he spent so much to build. This is where I make my stand. I don't think we should be fishing in the reaches along his property, IF, he allows us access to just scoot through. I honestly think it's kinda rude to fish in an area like that, and as long as he lets people float through there is no big deal. My big problem is when he restricts access altogether.

There is a situation on the Gunnison that has resolved itself pretty well over the years just below town where it goes through private property owned by these (fortunately very nice) folks from texas. They spent a whole bunch of money a number of years back to re-shape the riverbed into prime fishing country. Now, they are kind enough to let folks float though, but they strongly discourage fishing in that area, and most of the folks that run the river comply with those wishes, because the Moncriefs do allow us to run through without problem.

I know some of you are serious fishermen and will disagree with me on this, but that is how I feel. Let us pass through, and we will do so quietly and quickly, and we'll refrain from fishing until the public areas. Seems a little bit like giving in to him, but its really not.


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

*Never simple*

It is never that simple.

Yours (Yeti) is the courteous response. If you made your living taking people down the river and hauling out fish, you might feel differently. Many anglers feel differently. They see the infrastructure the state has put into sustainable wildlife, and believe we the people own the fish and have a right to fish for them. As a landowner, I am probably somewhere in the middle. Like Durango, I am a fly fisherman and don't have a problem with people accessing to chase with a fly. As evidenced by an earlier thread where Casper attacked us with mortality "facts" of a bait fisher versus a fly catch and release, even these facts can be skewed to support various opinions. 

I've come down on the if you can float it, it should be open camp. I don't think you should be allowed to anchor or walk through private property, but you can float through it and fish or kayak. I actually think the Utah law went too far. I don't think you should be able to walk up an intermittent stream bed on someone’s private property. 

I do chafe every time I come across a fence over a river or stream. I get angry when property owners sting cables over a river and create potential death traps.

Your answer is the best. If only we all could be courteous. As a fisherman I have had kayakers eddy out on my line while I had a fish on in the Colorado. As a boater I have had people intentionally throw lures at me as I quietly floated by. There are unfortunate parties on both sides of this issue that are just itching for a fight. It's this that probably leads to the Sheriffs giving tickets that are later thrown out in court. They are just de escalating the confrontation.


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

Canada said:


> It is never that simple.
> 
> Yours (Yeti) is the courteous response. If you made your living taking people down the river and hauling out fish, you might feel differently. Many anglers feel differently. They see the infrastructure the state has put into sustainable wildlife, and believe we the people own the fish and have a right to fish for them. As a landowner, I am probably somewhere in the middle. Like Durango, I am a fly fisherman and don't have a problem with people accessing to chase with a fly. As evidenced by an earlier thread where Casper attacked us with mortality "facts" of a bait fisher versus a fly catch and release, even these facts can be skewed to support various opinions.
> 
> ...


Really I guess I have no problem with drift fishing and downstream movement, I just think it is wrong to eddy out and sit there and fish for fifteen minutes in full view of the property. Yeah, maybe you're not touching anything but ultimately you're being a douchebag yourself, and it gives boaters in general a black eye. If you keep downstream progress while fishing then I really don't have a problem with it.

And I agree with your statement on the Utah law- there is a limit between being given access, and simply taking access. Hard to explain, but I feel like it is too much access power that could set a dangerous precedent.

I wish all states could adopt a policy similar to that of NM- its criminal trespass if you get out, UNLESS a) theres an obstruction forcing you to portage or b) there is a situation where you need to scout to safely proceed downstream. in both cases a small buffer zone (typically 15 to 25 feet ive heard?) on either side of the river allows you to be legal in that situation.


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

and of course I didnt mean you as in YOU, just speaking in generalities


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

Canada said:


> Durango, not flaming on you. Just a poor attempt at humor.
> 
> I think this thread should have stayed on the main board. These issues are some of the most important we face. By moving something like this it is effectively killed. It is boating related and probably a bit more encompassing and relevant than whether Pedro swam or which creek boat is best.
> 
> ...


Again, rather than a lack of a Supreme Court ruling here in Colorado, the crux of the matter is understanding, learning and clarifying the existing laws and creating new laws, as necessary. The "Takings" mindset of the private land interests is simply a legend in their own minds and, time after time, is unsuccessful as an argument in a court proceeding whether or not "*uneducated* jurors" have a smelling problem. The common public water owners, rather than taking the ownership of the streambed away are, rightfully, using the streambed and causing no unnecessary injury to the ownership interest.

We agree that much consideration should be given to testing the law. However, if it comes to the landowner dead set on *trying* out the law based on this misguided concept, the user will either submit, thus letting the landowner "win" by default, or test out the landowner's resolve by using the water, fish and/or streambed based on rights and law as he, or a floatilla, sees them. Plus, if so, he or they should be prepared to see it through the entire judicial system, up to the Colorado Supreme Court. Otherwise, it is just another Cannibal case, money and time are wasted and nothing gets clarified.


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

DurangoSteve said:


> Kinda thought so, but one of those smiley face thingies helps those of us who are slow on the uptake.
> 
> Just yesterday I had a run-in with a trespasser. I threatened legal action, but he just pooped on my deck... after he ate "my" trout.


Witty example, DurangoSteve!

However, the osprey is not trespassing as it only touched the water and traveled in the air above the water in its use rights, neither of which have anything to do with the streambed property, and, therefore, nothing to do with "taking" any right of or causing unnecessary injury to ownership by the streambed's owner.

The osprey, as does the human floating boater, as does the human water user, has the *coexisting and dominant* right to use the public water to fish (right of "fisheries") for the fish!:wink:


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

LOL. True, it didn't touch the streambed. It did, however, make a hell of a splash when it snatched the fish. While I don't "approve" of its method, the osprey's fishing skills were impressive!


----------



## Demosthenes (Dec 19, 2008)

This is one issue I agree with CasperMike on. Get some of your armed to the teeth Buzz friends to come with you (Casper, TimberTroll, Theo etc.), get AW memberships for all of them and make sure you contact Nathan beforehand.


----------



## freexbiker (Jul 18, 2005)

i don't know if armed to the teeth would be the best route.


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

*A waterway, just as a roadway, is a highway*



yetigonecrazy said:


> My take on it is this:
> 
> The guy spent millions of dollars to improve the riverbed for fishing and for the economic prosperity of his resort. This I have no problem with. Now he doesn't want the floaters to come through because he doesn't want people to fish in the improvements he spent so much to build. This is where I make my stand. I don't think we should be fishing in the reaches along his property, IF, he allows us access to just scoot through. I honestly think it's kinda rude to fish in an area like that, and as long as he lets people float through there is no big deal. My big problem is when he restricts access altogether.
> 
> ...



The public has their rights, easements and estates, as thoroughly settled in ancient, Common, Federal (which has "Supremacy" over state laws) and Colorado Constitutionally created state law to ownership and use of the state's natural waters and its fish. The private streambed property owner has no rights for "letting" the public use these waters and fish. It is just buying into the elite notion begun many years ago by the Normans in Great Britain that landowner is "kind enough" to allow usage of common waters, or, for that matter, that their "discouragement" of fishing the now public improvements should be adhered to. 

It goes both ways. If they spent bucks to improve their streambed, that's great. However, that has nothing to do with *common use of the waters and fish incidental to recreation* as long as the improvements do not obstruct the right of passage. When they do, the public user has the right to portage as necessary and reasonable. Conversely, if the travel above the high water mark is not necessary and reasonable, then there is trespass. Harassment can also come into the picture.

*A waterway, just as a roadway, is a highway.* 

Just as the public user has the coexisting, dominant right of way, and easement, to use the roadway that is on the private landbed in the front of your house as a highway to travel, the same public user has the same rights and easements to use the water rights of way for common travel. As long as they don't obstruct traffic in either situation, the public user can stay in the same spot, whether it's the side of a road or an eddy created by a private landowner, wouldn't you agree?

The problem is this. While the laws are very clear for roadway (sidewalks included) usage, they are not as clear for waterway usage in Colorado and elsewhere. That's why there is a need for clarifying laws here in Colorado either by statute revision or creation or by court ruling, as well as ballot initiatives, Attorney General opinions or, on individual bases, cooperation.

It is not a matter of individual groups disagree, we are all water owners and water users, no matter the type of recreational use and have the same inherent and legal rights and easements for that use.

And, yes, it is very much a large bit of giving up coexisting dominant rights and easements of the water owner/user to the coexisting servient rights of the streambed owner/user when submitting to landowner allowance to use, boat, fish, etc, public waters.


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

Canada said:


> It is never that simple.
> 
> Yours (Yeti) is the courteous response. If you made your living taking people down the river and hauling out fish, you might feel differently. Many anglers feel differently. They see the infrastructure the state has put into sustainable wildlife, and believe we the people own the fish and have a right to fish for them. As a landowner, I am probably somewhere in the middle. Like Durango, I am a fly fisherman and don't have a problem with people accessing to chase with a fly. As evidenced by an earlier thread where Casper attacked us with mortality "facts" of a bait fisher versus a fly catch and release, even these facts can be skewed to support various opinions.
> 
> ...


It is not a matter of belief that the public owns the waters of Colorado, it is factually written as a law in the Colorado state Constitution, Article XVI, Section 5.

Rather than "floating", I am of the "Recreational USE of" camp. Floating is using only the water surface.

As for allowance to "anchor and walk through private property", the 8 year long process July 18, 2008 Conatser v Johnson Utah Supreme Court unanimous ruling http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Conatser071808.pdf found:

¶30 We hold that the scope of the easement provides the
public the right to float, hunt, fish, and participate in all
lawful activities that utilize the water. We further hold that
the public has the right to touch privately owned beds of state
waters in ways incidental to all recreational rights provided for
in the easement, so long as they do so reasonably and cause no
unnecessary injury to the landowner.

You all can decide if you feel this ruling went too far. It's my hope that, if the Doughboy/floatilla case comes to fruition, the Colorado Supremes conclude the same.

As for usage of intermittent or seasonal bodies of water, notice that the Utah SCt ruling, Colorado Constitution and ancient, Common and Federal laws use the term "all natural waters" and/or "navigable" waters. Or check out the term "navigable in fact is navigable in law".

As for fences that obstruct passage on public waters, there is a law, CRS 18-9-107, presently on the Colorado books for "obstruction of highways" that may need clarification at http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp= . As mentioned before in a separate reply, *"a waterway, just as a roadway, is a highway."* Just as the water user can break or adhere to laws, so can the landowner.

As for fences that obstruct recreational access to/from public waters at bridge or county roads rights of way, check out http://www.newwest.net/city/article...tana_legislature_moves_to_governor/C396/L396/ which is fully supported by both private and public interests. This is an access solution waiting to happen here in Colorado and which I advocate for and to Colorado state legislators for clarifying legislation. *All Win.*

And, lastly, yes, as I've mentioned in a previous reply, courteous cooperation is the easiest and best path.:wink:


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

I appreciate OleRivers' informed contribution to the discussion and the most sentiments voiced by most on this thread, however I gotta call this statement out as giving up too much to the landowners:

yetigonecrazy:


> The guy spent millions of dollars to improve the riverbed for fishing and for the economic prosperity of his resort.....*I don't think we should be fishing in the reaches along his property, IF, he allows us access to just scoot through.* I honestly think it's kinda rude to fish in an area like that, and as long as he lets people float through there is no big deal...


I'm not a fisherman but to me this is kind of like making a unilateral decision to spend my money paving and fixing the potholes in the road in front of my house, then expecting the public to limit or forfeit their right to park or drive on the street because I fixed the potholes. I certainly hope before he spent the money on the habitat improvements someone told the landowner that we, the public, will still have a right to *float and fish* our river afterwards. We already lack the right to use the river bed up to the high water mark which is a given in most states. We already have the right to "just scoot through." And now someone advocates giving the fishing part of that up? Giving up our right to fish in such a situation as above is the start down a slippery slope toward giving up our right to float.

That said, I encourage all boaters to show only respect for the landowner and the law when they pass through private property, yet still exercise our right to float *and fish* if desired. Please bear in mind that showing disrespect will only be used against the boating community whenever we need public support of our right to float.

And... Pardon the threadjacking but there's something that bothers me about these folks that modify the riverbed for "habitat improvements." Don't they need a permit from the USACOE to modify the riverbanks and bottom? Why can landowners make these river modifications but whitewater improvements require a substantial permit process?

These riverfront landowners really need to get their legal advice from someone other than their realtors before they buy / improve their property or the riverbeds... :roll:

-AH


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

Andy - "Habitat Improvments" do require a permit from the Corps of Engineers. A few years ago, I called the Corps regional office in Albuquerque about the permitting process. I don't remember specifics, but I do recall that pretty straightforward work that doesn't "significantly" change the nature of the river can be done under a "blanket permit," and it isn't all that difficult to get... unlike whitewater park construction. I never went through with the work I had in mind because of the cost, and concerns about driving a trackhoe up the river during either the brown or rainbow spawning seasons. Instead, I just move rocks by hand during low water. Then the damkeeper above me cranks open the gates and a lot of my work gets peeled off. In the fall, I do it again... kinda like in the "myth of Sisyphus."


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

*For a mere Seven MILLION Five Hundred Thousand Dollars...*



Fuzzy said:


> Not sure but is this the ranch??
> 
> http://amountainhome.net/index2207.html?p=3


For a mere $7,500,000.00, you, too, can own the beauteeful 850 acre, .8 mile of river frontage, Valley View Ranch! :wink:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAAUArzE5yc 
(originally submitted 12/7/*2007*)

This is, imho, the reason they want the public out.


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

And... Pardon the threadjacking but there's something that bothers me about these folks that modify the riverbed for "habitat improvements." Don't they need a permit from the USACOE to modify the riverbanks and bottom? Why can landowners make these river modifications but whitewater improvements require a substantial permit process?

Every piece of habitat improvement that I have encountered has been bringing a river bed that was mined and dregged back to a more natural flow. It is a positive for pretty much everyone, but agree I'd like to have someone giving the green light before every landowner starts up their Cat.


----------



## doughboy (Mar 23, 2009)

no Fuzzy. That ranch on the real estate site is a different ranch.


----------



## doughboy (Mar 23, 2009)

yetigonecrazy said:


> My take on it is this:
> 
> The guy spent millions of dollars to improve the riverbed for fishing and for the economic prosperity of his resort. This I have no problem with. Now he doesn't want the floaters to come through because he doesn't want people to fish in the improvements he spent so much to build. This is where I make my stand. I don't think we should be fishing in the reaches along his property, IF, he allows us access to just scoot through. I honestly think it's kinda rude to fish in an area like that, and as long as he lets people float through there is no big deal. My big problem is when he restricts access altogether.
> 
> ...


 
The Moncriefs have never "let me pass through" but somehow I always have


----------



## JDOUTI (Apr 13, 2009)

*Lake Fork Needs Floated*

To All,

This is my first post and I agree with Doughboy, the Lake Fork needs to be floated in order to preserve our "*Right To Float*". If Colorado law states "all water is public property" then Land Owners need to obey these laws-not just be able to pick and choose the laws to obey cause they have a fat wallet. I have only floated the Lake Fork four or five times and do agree that this is one of the best floats in the San Juans. I am not the expert angler yet have hung into some huge state record fish on this stretch of water-but have practiced catch and release. Sounds like Doughboy knows more about the local area-but any questions or concerns-message me. 

*PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO FLOAT*
Duke


----------



## doughboy (Mar 23, 2009)

The LF is running 370 today so if anyone is looking for a float this weekend let me know and I will join you


----------

