# HB 1188 Outfitter Bill Committee Hearing



## Ikedub

*Who owns a river? River Access Bill in Legislature*

It looks like the question will be answered soon. If there was ever a time to write or call your representative...It's Now! Think of all the rivers that could be blocked. I think another issue to address with this is the ability of a landowner to force a tresspass with an unrunnable low head or irrigation dam. 

Durango Herald News, Lawmakers to consider river rights


----------



## BackCountry

I hope Kathleen has success getting this bill through. I know the property that is causing the problem. As more and more rich people from out of county buy up property they try and close down access that has always been allowed by the previous property owners. This attitude has resulted in river access issues. Other problems such as an unhealthy Elk/Deer population that has been trained to go to large private parcels that do not allow hunting creating over population, disease and poor hunting success rates. Dirt Bike/Mountain Bike trails have also suffered from this issue. All these restrictions of access affect tourism and employment in our county. While Curry's legislation only addresses river access this is a step in the right direction. 

I understand and am all for property owners rights. I also believe that if they do not "own" all the water flowing down the river and it is navigable then they should have no ability to block others from using this water way. Rafters/Kayakers are typically a respectful group and do their best not to trespass on private land. 

I have noticed over the years that it is the "fishermen" that get upset at other uses of the river or even other fishermen being on a public stretch of water. This property bringing the river access issue forward is being offered as a fishing property and they don't want other people fishing "their" waters which are state stocked or disturbing "their" fish and fishing by floating by.


----------



## Randaddy

And they are from Texas. Anyone want Texans to block navigable waterways? Write your representative today!


----------



## kayakfreakus

Another article with some more info:

Curry bill would keep river rights-of-way in public hands

Love this section:

Hamel said the courts have long held that the water flowing down the state’s streams are publicly owned and that the right to float on it shouldn’t be an issue.

“We’re not trying to take away the landowner’s rights, but rafting is a $142 million business in Colorado, and it employs hundreds of people. We’re just trying to protect jobs and people’s livelihoods,” Hamel said.


“The new landowner on the Taylor, he flew into Gunnison on his Lear jet and said that he was no longer going to allow either of these rafting companies to float through,” said Curry of Shaw, the Texas developer.


“They’ve had permits for 20 years to run the stretch. They employ a lot of people, and one guy comes in and shuts it down. He has the wherewithal to bring it to a head legally.”


----------



## Ole Rivers

So who's going to attend, or even testify, at the House of Representatives Judiciary committee hearing for HB 1188 on February 8, 2010 at 1:30pm in Room 0107 at the Capitol to let the committee know what you want to amend, support, oppose, remain neutral, etc?

All the major players' lawyers, lobbyists, organization advocates, commercial boat guides, you name it, they'll be there. It'll be a Battle of the Titans! Monday! Monday! at Capitol Hill! This'll be better than a cage match of UF!

I'm definitely attending and may testify for the fishermen's interest. I'll be wearing a fishing shirt or some gear to express my interests. I understand the commercial boaters are putting their boats on the lawn outside.

Seating's limited, free to attend and I hear someone in the audience gets the winning Power Ball Lottery ticket. heh, heh

Game on!


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

BackCountry said:


> I hope Kathleen has success getting this bill through. I know the property that is causing the problem. As more and more rich people from out of county buy up property they try and close down access that has always been allowed by the previous property owners. This attitude has resulted in river access issues. Other problems such as an unhealthy Elk/Deer population that has been trained to go to large private parcels that do not allow hunting creating over population, disease and poor hunting success rates. Dirt Bike/Mountain Bike trails have also suffered from this issue. All these restrictions of access affect tourism and employment in our county. While Curry's legislation only addresses river access this is a step in the right direction.
> 
> I understand and am all for property owners rights. I also believe that if they do not "own" all the water flowing down the river and it is navigable then they should have no ability to block others from using this water way. Rafters/Kayakers are typically a respectful group and do their best not to trespass on private land.
> 
> I have noticed over the years that it is the "fishermen" that get upset at other uses of the river or even other fishermen being on a public stretch of water. This property bringing the river access issue forward is being offered as a fishing property and they don't want other people fishing "their" waters which are state stocked or disturbing "their" fish and fishing by floating by.


While you're 100% correct about this having to do with disruptions to the fishing, please don't make the mistake of lumping all fishermen into this category. The fishermen we're talking about here are not the Joe and Jane sixpack that wants to go out and catch a few fish on their day off, and are generally easy going, friendly folks. The type of fishermen we're dealing with here are the one's that want to land their gulfstream at the airstrip, have the porter ready their waders and rod while they have brandy and cigars at the clubhouse, then head out to the river and catch the biggest possible fish with the least possible effort, afterwhich they'll again retire to the clubhouse to congratulate themselves, again over brandy and cigars. I know the type all too well, I spent 2 years guiding for one such outfit before I couldn't handle the douchbaggery any longer. Trust me, you'll never see these people on public water - the fish aren't big enough or easy enough for the uber-rich types that have become so accustomed having everything they want whenever they want it, and having it all to themselves.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

Let's cover the capitol lawn in Hypalon!

-Honestly, how cool would that be to see 300+ rafts all over the capitol lawn?


----------



## wild bill

That would be cool to see. 

Even if you cannot be present please e-mail or call your representative and let them know that you are for hb 1188. 

You can find your representatives and their contact information @ COMaps: Find Your Districts in Colorado


----------



## CBrown

Any user of rivers should be making thier voice count. We should all converge on the capital with kayakers, fisherman, tubers, private rafters, anyone who uses the river and is for SHARING. This is a big deal.


----------



## Colorado Ice

*HB 1188*

This has probably been address in other posts. This bill, as it currently stands, specifically represents only commercial rafters.

At this point I would oppose the bill and submit a request to modify it to include all users of our watre ways.

Write your State rep and senator requesting that this bill not be passed unless it is revised.

CI


----------



## TakemetotheRiver

I understand your concern, but commercial rafters can act on behalf of private boaters. The immediate issue on the Taylor river suggests that if this bill doesn't pass, the land owner could set precedent for future rulings against public access to water ways. In the future, would you rather potentially go up against a commercial boating outfit for access or a private landowner?



Colorado Ice said:


> This has probably been address in other posts. This bill, as it currently stands, specifically represents only commercial rafters.
> 
> At this point I would oppose the bill and submit a request to modify it to include all users of our watre ways.
> 
> Write your State rep and senator requesting that this bill not be passed unless it is revised.
> 
> CI


----------



## Ole Rivers

*Clarify Terms*



TakemetotheRiver said:


> I understand your concern, but commercial rafters can act on behalf of private boaters.


For the purposes of boating community talk, rules, regs within its community, the terms "commercial" and "private" boating interests may apply.

However, the terms "private commercial" and "public" boating interests may, more clearly, apply for the purposes of legislation in describing the two interests.

Specifically, there are 4 subinterests of the general *water user* interest.

1 Private commercial boater user
2 Private commercial fisher user
3 Public boater user
4 Public fisher user

Also, there is one general and specific *land owner* title interest.
1 Private land owner title interest

That is, there is the private land owner title interest and the private commercial boater user interest. Therefore, this bill involves a totally private interest issue and should be read as such.

Just sayin'...


----------



## Meng

Colorado Ice said:


> This has probably been address in other posts. This bill, as it currently stands, specifically represents only commercial rafters.
> 
> At this point I would oppose the bill and submit a request to modify it to include all users of our watre ways.
> 
> Write your State rep and senator requesting that this bill not be passed unless it is revised.
> 
> CI


BAD IDEA! Please dont follow this advice. While you are right in an idealistic sense - the Bill would ideally apply to all users on all sections, that would currently be totally un-passible in the legislature. Therefore, the bill as it stands is a good foot in the door and will set precedent in the right direction. If it goes the other way, it will set precedent in the wrong direction, which would be disastrous. Support it.


----------



## wild bill

I think it would be best to stand together as a boating community and get this bill passed. It will be easier to keep the right to float movement going if we can get this victory.


----------



## Colorado Ice

Meng said:


> BAD IDEA! Please dont follow this advice. While you are right in an idealistic sense - the Bill would ideally apply to all users on all sections, that would currently be totally un-passible in the legislature. Therefore, the bill as it stands is a good foot in the door and will set precedent in the right direction. If it goes the other way, it will set precedent in the wrong direction, which would be disastrous. Support it.


 
I have contacted my reps regarding the scope of this bill and hope they will address this. I remain uneasy about the commercial focus only and await a response from the politicans. I'll remain opposed to this until I have an unbiased opinion that represents public interest.

CI


----------



## Ole Rivers

Meng said:


> BAD IDEA! Please dont follow this advice. While you are right in an idealistic sense - the Bill would ideally apply to all users on all sections, that would currently be totally un-passible in the legislature. Therefore, the bill as it stands is a good foot in the door and will set precedent in the right direction. If it goes the other way, it will set precedent in the wrong direction, which would be disastrous. Support it.


No introduced bill is black and white. It is often amended to benefit all interests involved. For HB 1188, all interests are best served by amending the bill to bring a compromise resolution.

Rather than idealistic sense, here's some practical reasons...

As written, HB 1188:
1 *Includes* only *private* interests
2 *Excludes* all other *public* interests such as boating and fishing
3 Allows incidental *limited* use of, passage through and portage around the bed to *some* ("safety") purposes
4 Violates the Public Trust Doctrine (google it)
5 Provides only for *floatation over/on* waters and beds

If amended, HB 1188:
1 Includes *all* public interests, including boating, fishing and all other lawful recreational purposes and activities
2 Allows *broad* use of waters and beds *incidental to all lawful purposes*
3 Provides for *broad* use of waters and beds

The commercial boater companies are selfishly thinking of only their interests in begging for these crumbs to *float on, pass through and portage around* privately(?) owned beds for *limited* safety purposes to the detriment of the private commercial boat/wade fishing guide companies, public fishing and public boaters. 
Amendments to include the rights of all water users can be made without harming the substance of the bill rather than forcing the public boater and fishermen water users to come back after the fact and grovel for our rights. Simply replace "commercial river guides" or somesuch, with "public water users" or somesuch and replace "incidental to safety purposes" with "incidental to all lawful recreational activities that utilize the publicly owned state water and beds" throughout the bill.

To make the bill better for every interest, amend it and ask your legislators to do so. *Then* support and vote for its passage and enactment.

Even better than emailing the legislators to amend, go to the Judiciary committee hearing next Monday and tell them in person.

Meng, or anyone, the following question has gnawed at me ever since first reading the bill...

*Why, specifically, would HB 1188 be "totally un-passible in the legislature" if amended to include all users and use incidental to all lawful purposes?*


----------



## Meng

Ole Rivers said:


> Meng, or anyone, the following question has gnawed at me ever since first reading the bill...
> 
> Why, specifically, would HB 1188 be "totally un-passible in the legislature" if amended to include all users and use incidental to all lawful purposes?


I don't know, man - that just what I've heard from legislative proponents of the bill as well as water policy analysts I trust, as well as outfitters working close to the bill/legislative reps.. My statement was based on my trust of people I know who work in the field and understand the realities and limitations of advancing legislation. Perhaps I am being too much of a pushover and just taking this as given. OF COURSE I would rather see private boaters and all navigable sections of river included. Often, moving things like this forward is better accomplished in strategic steps; in this particular case, I'm seeing the bill passed as being the appropriate strategic step. Once we have a foot in the door, the issue can be re-adressed and strengthened to include more users, ie US. HOWEVER, I don't discourage anyone from expressing specific interests - the state legislature should and must know that private boaters deserve protection of their rights as well. However, I simply wouldn't urge them to squash the bill if those amendments cant be included. I don't think that would serve the public well in the long run.


----------



## lmyers

Meng said:


> OF COURSE I would rather see private boaters and all navigable sections of river included. Often, moving things like this forward is better accomplished in strategic steps; in this particular case, I'm seeing the bill passed as being the appropriate strategic step. Once we have a foot in the door, the issue can be re-adressed and strengthened to include more users, ie US. HOWEVER, I don't discourage anyone from expressing specific interests - the state legislature should and must know that private boaters deserve protection of their rights as well. However, I simply wouldn't urge them to squash the bill if those amendments cant be included. I don't think that would serve the public well in the long run.


 
I agree totally with this. I would definitely like to see an amendment to the bill to include private boaters, but I feel that we must support it as it is. We cannot allow the next boating season to start without legislation on the issue. The land owner on the Taylor will block passage to the commercial outfitters and this will set a very negative and difficult to overcome precedent.


----------



## lmyers

I find it interesting that although they are promoting the property as a "unique conservation retreat", "situated near the ski area", and "on the pristine Taylor River", they make no mention of the whitewater opportunities the area provides...guess it shows who they are catering to.

Here's their website:
Portfolio


----------



## Jahve

I agree with meng, bill, logan, Take, and cbrown. We all should support this bill.. 

I will be the first to say that this bill is not perfect but will set precident and and get colorado one step closer to a comprehensive right to float access bill.. I also feel that if passed it will be a shot over the bow of men like mr john hill who are on the other side of this...

*Why, specifically, would HB 1188 be "totally un-passible in the legislature" if amended to include all users and use incidental to all lawful purposes?*


To pass a bill there has to be a sponsor and for this bill it is Rep Curry. Rep Curry felt that bill such as you have asked for would be totally un-passible so she did not feel comfortable as a sponsor of such a bill... I guess political types dont like to carry a bill that will have no chance and I will trust Rep Curry's judgement on this one... So Rep Curry is the one who felt such a bill was totally unpassible in the legislature. 

Rivers for what it is worth I would support your version of this bill!! But many of our peers would not and for what you want a ballot amendment would be needed (as no rep will sponsor such a bill) and the cost of one will cost us river users 1.5 - 2 million... This may be the next step for colorado and will only be helped by the passage of Curry's bill..

I feel that while this bill is not perfect it is a great step in the right direction and if passed will no doubt put all of us one step closer to a comprehensive right to float law in colorado...


----------



## jeffsssmith

To show support, e-mail Kathleen Curry at [email protected]. Also Senator Gail Schwartz at [email protected].


----------



## FatmanZ

Interesting what those on the Fisherman's Buzz think about the bill:
HB 1188 "Clarify River Outfitter Navigation Right" Bill Introduced


----------



## Porkchop

So here's what I did. E-mailed My Reps and joined American Whitewater. Never done anything like that before. Damn it feels good to be an American! Find the link above in this thread and get your reps email addresses. Search for El Flaco's thread regarding this issue, then copy and paste. If my self taught dumb ass can make a difference than so can you!


----------



## lmyers

Porkchop said:


> So here's what I did. E-mailed My Reps and joined American Whitewater. Never done anything like that before. Damn it feels good to be an American! Find the link above in this thread and get your reps email addresses. Search for El Flaco's thread regarding this issue, then copy and paste. If my self taught dumb ass can make a difference than so can you!


Well, done. Now if every buzzard on here does the same - maybe - with any luck our politicians will listen...


----------



## -k-

I do not have the knowledge, but wouldn't it be possible to petition for an amendment to the state Constitution by a direct amendment (a direct amendment would mean the state legislator does not rule on it and the Governor does not have veto power). A petitioned amendment goes direct to public vote on the ballot (say 2010). We get these on the State ballot all the time (such as 2008's right to work bill). The end result is usually a compromise removing the bill/amendment because about the only way to stop them is to get them voted down and it becomes very risky for special interest. One would assume most Colorado residents are outdoor oriented and would want to protect/have access to the water ways.

The best part is that non-resident property owner's would not even be able to vote or sign a petition for an opposing bill. This would likely scare the crap out of them and also get them to back off or offer an alternative bill through the legislator (compromise to our benefit). They would spend advertising dollars to confuse it as a loss of personal property rights, but this should be fairly easy to counter at a local level. Not to mention at this point and time, on an economic level, the public would probably enjoy taking their shot at a few wealthy land owner's.


----------



## kentv

Thanks for all the info and dialogue regarding this important piece of legislation. The question regarding who is attending and supporting this has yet to be detailed. Please advise if there is anyway to help beyond emailing Curry/Schwartz or local rep/sen.

For those who won't support or are talking trash about not supporting it due to the lack of private boater representation, get real! One step at a time and anymore detail to the transparent rules regarding CO river access and trespass will help all of us in Colorado, be it a boater or fisherman, private or commercial.

Colorado will never be a Montana/Utah where high water line is open game. Think about it. The economics of private property along our river ways for private fishing clubs/outfitting/lodges and such far outweighs what boaters are contributing. There is a reason why Colorado is home to the most exclusive destination fishing resorts in North America. 

I'm in full support of river access and opening up rivers for boating but somehow to still provide those who own along our river banks the privacy that CO allows. This bill seems like a logical first step and should provide the commercial outfitter in CO the will to carry on, especially those on the rivers that are lined with private property.

Even if this gets passed, our right to float on CO rivers won't be solidified. This is a life long issue that breaches generations and divides communities. 

One step at a time...


----------



## class 3 felon

Everyone here makes great points, and while it is definately a step in the right direction, how can we want to pass a Bill that states that commercial companies can float but doesn't state that private boaters can also. Perhaps that's the cynic in me but if we are going to pass a bill lets have it back the entire public. 

As a fisherman who has lived/fished/floated across this county in my day I can discern that this Bill as it applies to Mr. Hill and Jackson/Shaw is a result of fishing interests. This state allows you to own the streambed therefore not allowing the public to wade in the river in adjacent to your property. Therefore we have land owners creating fishing properties/clubs and altering the streambed (how good is this) and stocking the river with non-native fish (how healthy is that) to make a buck. 

Problem comes when all us fisherman 10 years ago get rid of our drift boats for rubber and realize that we can float through these waters that were previously un navigable to us. Now the landowners'/club members' fish that they paid so much and so dearly for are being poached by the non-paying public, "why should they get to reap the benefits of what we paid for," says they. 

So personally I think this all stems from fishing side of this. Montana is still fighting this too but their laws were written better originally and we may never get there, but we sure can try. I don't believe in owning the river, altering the streambeds, private stocking of fish. Don't forget that commercial companies are buying outfitters licenses ($325/year, I think) thereby paying the government to back their cause. Wouldn't it be great for them if only They and the Private Landowners could float the river! Well I pay this government my taxes too: sales/property/income(not much!) and I want to be able to float also, and see it in writing in this Bill. 

This really interests and effects me greatly and I will write Rep. Curry with my views, but I would love to hear all sides of this discussion before I completely make up my mind where exactly I stand. 

Peace Out
3


Funny Side Note: I used to be a fishing guide that worked a lot on a private stretch of water that no rafts went down (maybe 3-5 of you fools have). When kayakers went by we never gave it a thought because they weren't catching fish infront of our paying clients. But, if you could float down that ditch in a new Saturn ($799 BUY NOW) I bet we woulda' done been pissed.


----------



## Ole Rivers

*HB 1188: "All Can" Rather Than "Some Can" Bill*

Opposing the bill as written OR amended to include ALL public interest water users are the private interest Texas developer land owner and, I believe, some water providers. John Hill, the lawyer for the private interest Texas developer, is, I believe, its lead attorney. He wrote a law review article, found in lexisnexis, titled "The 'Right' to Float Through Private Property in Colorado: Dispelling the Myth".

Representing, I believe, the private interest commercial boaters is Lori Potter, who represented the Cannibal outfitters in the Cannibal v Gateview case down on the Lake Fork of the Gunnison back in 2001. She also wrote a law review rebuttal titled "Legal Underpinnings of the Right to Float Through Private Property in Colorado: A Reply to John Hill".

Both articles (possibly get them via a law library or directly from lexisnexis) are, imo, the foundation of the opposing arguments for the bill. Both pretty long and not exactly a comic book read. Well, maybe Hill's article is... 

Here's HB 1188 (sponsors are listed at the top of the bill):

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cl...7E6422B872576AA00693103?Open&file=1188_01.pdf

HB 1188 "Clarify Outfitter River Navigation Right" bill, AS WRITTEN, is a narrow private interest commercial outfitter boater right bill to float on/over, passage through and portage around publicly owned state waters and beds incidental to contact with and portage around beds for some safety purposes

and should be AMENDED towards a 

broad public interest water user (boaters and fishermen) right bill for the use of, passage through and portage around publicly owned state waters and beds incidental to all lawful activities

with the same intent as the July, 2008 Utah Supreme Court Conatser v Johnson unanimous ruling found at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Conatser071808.pdf with Conatser's Conclusion stating:

¶29 The district court incorrectly interpreted the scope of the public’s easement in state waters so as to limit the Conatsers’ rights to being upon the water and to touching the privately owned bed of the Weber River only in ways incidental to the right of floatation.

¶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.

Amend the bill's interest from the narrow private outfitter water user to the broad public water user, keep the substance similar (change to an existing or create an applicable statute) and you have a clear, enforceable and sensible bill that can be supported by all public and private interests.

HB 1188 Clarify Outfitter Navigation Right should be an "All Can" rather than a "Some Can" bill.


----------



## wild bill

Look, the commercial outfitters are not trying to take anything away form the private boater/kayaker/angler. The bill does protect the outfitters right to float but it does not limit or effect anyone's individual rights. 

By supporting this bill you are moving in the right direction (like kenty said). Hopefully we as boaters can continue in the right direction in the future.

The main apposition to this bill are the people who would like to see boaters entirely banned from "private" sections of the river. I believe that the risk of loosing sections of river as well as historical use of those sections hurts us as boaters. 

All of the commercial guides and owners that I know boat on their free time and would love to see the right to float issue settled once and for all, but it is not in the cards right now. HB 1188 would not have been backed by a representative in the form that many of you nay-sayers are talking about. 

Lets really get the fight for boaters rights started by getting HB 1188 passed rather than killing the movement before it can really start.


----------



## lmyers

I can't believe so many people keep argueing agaisn't this bill. Just because only commercial parties are listed doesn't mean that it will reduce or limit the rights of private boaters to float. If it doesn't pass it will reduce/limit the rights of all river users (private, commercial, recreational, and fishermen). If we force our legislators to ammend the bill immediately it will not pass before this boating season (if at all). Allowing Jackson Shaw to essentially "close" a section of the Taylor, setting a dangerous precident for the rest of the state.
I am in no way involved with any commercial outfitter, and kayak the Taylor River privately with friends between 10-20 times a year. So I am not making any money off this section of river, but can still clearly see the advantages of allowing commercial traffic.
Why can't the rest of you?


----------



## raymo

Porkchop said:


> So here's what I did. E-mailed My Reps and joined American Whitewater. Never done anything like that before. Damn it feels good to be an American! Find the link above in this thread and get your reps email addresses. Search for El Flaco's thread regarding this issue, then copy and paste. If my self taught dumb ass can make a difference than so can you!


Thanks Porkchop, got it done, thanks to your help here.


----------



## Porkchop

HB 1188 is not a bill trying to expand private boater rights. It is an emergency piece of legislation trying to stop some very, very, well funded and connected people from setting a precedent that could close many rivers to any public use. This is an urgent situation!! If Hill defeats this bill wealthy land owners (I think there's a few of them in Colorado) will be lining up at his door to shut down other rivers. I would love think common sense would prevail, that Mr Hill and Mr. Shaw wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But, all these politicians making this decision need money to campaign, and I'm sure Mr. Hill and Mr. Shaw will be writing alot of checks to people who see their way. Thats what really scares me. 


This is not the time to come up w/ the perfect solution. Its time unite as a state that values recreation, and let people know that these opportunities are not for sale.


----------



## AVACORafting

*How to help get HB 1188 passed*

Hi all, 

I will try to post this on all relevant threads since there seem to be a few still active. Here's an easy way to get info on the issue. Go to:

Adventure Office 

There is a link to finding your representatives, a sample letter to copy and paste if you wish and more general info.

This bill will be heard this Monday, Feb 8th by the House Judiciary Committee. If it does not pass this committee it DIES right then and there. So besides writing your own reps, it is important that you contact the members of the Judiciary Committee. They will make the first decision on this. 

A sample email to the committee members might be: 

Dear Honorable Member of the Colorado House Judiciary Committee:

I am writing to you to state my support for House Bill 1188 that Rep. Kathleen Curry will be presenting to you on Monday February 8, 2010. I ask for your support on this most important issue. Please help keep Colorado's rivers open for both business and pleasure. This bill is vital to Colorado's economy. A defeat of HB 1188 would have a negative effect on the people of Colorado, Americans, and visitors to our fine state. Please consider my support for HB 1188 when you make your decision on this important issue. Thank you for your time.

Kathleen Curry, 303-866-2945, [email protected]
Claire Levy, 303-866-2578, [email protected] 
Beth McCann 303-866-2959 [email protected] 
Lois Court 303-866-2967 [email protected] 
Bob Gardner 303-866-2191 [email protected] 
Daniel Kagan 303-866-2921 [email protected] 
Steve King 303-866-3068 [email protected] 
Joe Miklosi 303-866-2910 [email protected] 
BJ Nikkel 303-866-2907 [email protected] 
Sal Pace 303-866-2968 [email protected] 
Su Ryden 303-866-2942 [email protected] 
Mark Waller 303-866-5525 [email protected]

It'll just take a few minutes! Please help keep landowners from being able to "close" our rivers.


----------



## AVACORafting

*RALLY for ROVA this Monday the 8th!*

Also, please join our group on Facebook in support of this issue: Welcome to Facebook | Facebook

There will be a rally at the state capitol this Monday, Feb 8th to support the River Outfitters Viability Act. The first committee hearing is the afternoon of the 8th. IT HAS TO PASS THIS COMMITTEE FIRST OR ELSE THE BILL DIES RIGHT THERE. 

*WHAT:* RALLY! Raft in/news conference to support HB 1188, River Outfitters Viability Act.

*WHEN:* Monday FEB 8, 12:00 PM 

*WHERE:* East Steps of the Colorado State Capitol . 200 E Colfax, Denver, Co 80203 

*WHO: *Owners of Colorado’s rafting companies will hold a press event at the state capitol to show support for a HB1188, a bill being run by Representative Kathleen Curry and State Senator Mary Hodge to protect their right to run Colorado rivers. We would like as many supporters as possible!

VISUALS: 30+ inflated river rafts on the East lawn of the state capitol. Please bring any other river-related props or signs you can.

SPEAKERS: (Unconfirmed) 

- Bob Hamel, Chair of the Colorado River Outfitters Association
- Representative Kathleen Curry, Bill Sponsor, Gunnison Representative
- Mark Schumacher, Owner of Three Rivers Resort, a Gunnison Area Rafting Co. 

SEE YA THERE!


----------



## AVACORafting

*Private boater questions*

In reference to private boater issues, I posted something similar to this on the other thread too but wanted to make sure it was read on all threads. 

Please read and consider that if HB1188 passes, private boaters will be in a better position to enjoy Colorado’s historically run rivers, period. If it does not pass, it potentially means real trouble for boaters as a whole. 

If a landowner wants to keep people from boating through his/her "private" river but the state decides that commercial outfitters have the right to be there, it is highly unlikely that the landowner would go after private boaters on the same stretch. 

The legal tact that the private landowners’ attorneys used on the Lake Fork in 2000 (which put a commercial rafting company out of business) are the same that the landowners on the Taylor River are using. They will file civil trespass charges against the licensed commercial outfitters. They don’t go after private boaters because private boaters don’t have permits, state licenses or businesses to lose. Damages are usually rewarded to the winner of civil lawsuits. 

It’s difficult for private landowners to target private boaters because they don’t do permitted, licensed regulated trips. The private landowner would also have difficulty in getting compensation/damages from the private boater. If commercial outfitters lose the lawsuit, the precedent will be set and the private boaters will be next. The private landowner on the Taylor has stated that is his plan. There would be a domino effect throughout the state where all boaters could be barred from floating over private land.

Outfitters are licensed and regulated by the State of Colorado through the River Outfitting License. This bill is attached to the River Outfitting License. Private boaters are not licensed by the state of Colorado nor are they regulated by either federal or state agencies. All commercial river outfitters are licensed, and fishing outfitters also need to be licensed as wildlife outfitters. 

This difference was important in getting the bill introduced because river outfitters were able to clearly define which sections they run/have run. 
Among river outfitters, there is an agreement on what has been run commercially in the past. Floatable/navigable rivers and what has been historically run is an ongoing debate in the private boating community. 

Please consider that if this bill does not pass; civil trespass charges can be upheld in court and could be equally as detrimental to private boaters. Sections of river that have been historically boated for decades could be “closed” by private landowners. The landowner on the Taylor River will think he has won. He will prohibit the two commercial river outfitters from rafting through his land (and you can bet he'll try to prohibit every private boater as well) and how many other landowners will jump on his bandwagon? 

I hope we can count on support from everyone to make this happen. There is a new website up today with general info on the issue, a link to find your representatives, and a sample letter to send to your reps. It can just be a quick, few-line email to let them know you support the River Outfitters Viability Act, or HB 1188. 

Go to Adventure Office for the links.

Also, join the group on Facebook in support of ROVA, HB 1188 Welcome to Facebook | Facebook

Will post a little more info shortly.


----------



## AVACORafting

*HOW TO HELP*

A couple more things that can be done to help: 

1) RALLY!

There will be a rally at the state capitol this Monday, Feb 8th to support the River Outfitters Viability Act. The first committee hearing is the afternoon of the 8th. IT HAS TO PASS THIS COMMITTEE FIRST OR ELSE THE BILL DIES RIGHT THERE. 

*WHAT:* RALLY! Raft in/news conference to support HB 1188, River Outfitters Viability Act.

*WHEN:* Monday FEB 8, 12:00 PM 

*WHERE:* East Steps of the Colorado State Capitol . 200 E Colfax, Denver, Co 80203 

*WHO: *Owners of Colorado’s rafting companies will hold a press event at the state capitol to show support for a HB1188, a bill being run by Representative Kathleen Curry and State Senator Mary Hodge to protect their right to run Colorado rivers. We would like as many supporters as possible!

VISUALS: 30+ inflated river rafts on the East lawn of the state capitol. Please bring any other river-related props or signs you can.

SPEAKERS: (Unconfirmed) 

- Bob Hamel, Chair of the Colorado River Outfitters Association
- Representative Kathleen Curry, Bill Sponsor, Gunnison Representative
- Mark Schumacher, Owner of Three Rivers Resort, a Gunnison Area Rafting Co. 

2) Besides writing your own representatives (find out how here Adventure Office) please write to the members of the House Judiciary Committee. They are the ones that will hear the bill first this Monday. If it doesn't make it out of committee, it is done. So please copy these representatives on your email as well: 

Kathleen Curry, 303-866-2945, [email protected]
Claire Levy, 303-866-2578, [email protected] 
Beth McCann 303-866-2959 [email protected] 
Lois Court 303-866-2967 [email protected] 
Bob Gardner 303-866-2191 [email protected] 
Daniel Kagan 303-866-2921 [email protected] 
Steve King 303-866-3068 [email protected] 
Joe Miklosi 303-866-2910 [email protected] 
BJ Nikkel 303-866-2907 [email protected] 
Sal Pace 303-866-2968 [email protected] 
Su Ryden 303-866-2942 [email protected] 
Mark Waller 303-866-5525 [email protected]

OR to make it easy, here it one list you can copy into your email: 
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

This bill is good for all boaters. Thanks everyone!


----------



## 1whitewattafoo

Thanks for the info, I will, and hope everyone that reads this thread will email their rep... See y'all on Monday, rafts and all


----------



## nathanfey

The bill as currently written does nothing to establish a "right to float" or protect commercial or private paddlers ability to float across private property. What it does is establish protections for Commerical Outfitters (permitted by the State) from Civil and Criminal Tresspass when they portage around obstacles on Private property.
The bill as currently written is very narrow in scope, and could easily be interpreted as expresly allowing ONLY commercial outfitters the right to portage, and by expression of one - exclude any private paddlers from the same rights. So if you are paddling the Taylor (or any CO river) on your own, and portage around bridges or Barbed wire, you are not protected by this legislation.

AW has your back though, and we've been working on friendly amendments to the legislation so as to protect public safety (not just paying customers). We continue to work with leadership in both chambers of the legislature to get the trespass issue resolved.


----------



## BullSCit

I wrote all the reps that you guys have above and wrote them a story about what the rivers mean to me, and what the consequences could be if the guy on Taylor is allowed to continue. I so far have been written back by three people, maybe we can all add to this list to find out who really needs to be written, and who needs to be thanked for their support:

Kathleen Curry, 303-866-2945, [email protected] Of course she supports it
Claire Levy, 303-866-2578, [email protected] 
Beth McCann 303-866-2959 [email protected] 
Lois Court 303-866-2967 [email protected] 
Bob Gardner 303-866-2191 [email protected] 
Daniel Kagan 303-866-2921 [email protected] 
Steve King 303-866-3068 [email protected] 
Joe Miklosi 303-866-2910 [email protected] Said that he will vote yes for the bill
BJ Nikkel 303-866-2907 [email protected] Says he hasn't made up his mind, so he really needs to be written by as many of us as possible.
Sal Pace 303-866-2968 [email protected] 
Su Ryden 303-866-2942 [email protected] 
Mark Waller 303-866-5525 [email protected]



I will update this list when I hopefully hear back from other reps.


----------



## wild bill

It is great to see so much support. Lets keep it going!


----------



## zboda

Boaters,

I can understand the frustrations and questions surrounding this bill as it relates to private boaters. There is no doubt this bill benefits the outfitters more than private boaters, but that does not mean it does not benefit private boaters. The bottom line is private boaters will absolutely LOSE if the land owner comes out on top and private boaters will absolutely WIN if the outfitters come out on top on this. 

What is going on now is politics and I do not pretend to have a full grasp on the situation, but I will tell you how I see things. 

The Colorado Rivers Outfitters Association (CROA) is looking out for their members. CROA is a group of outfitters that pay dues to their organization. CROA is run 100% by its members and they promote the interests of Colorado’s commercial rafting industry. CROA is going to have to spend a lot of money to protect its interests (this is the real deal and it is amazing and disheartening to hear how much money this process will cost). 

As I understand it, this is how HB 10-1188 has come to be worded the way it is.

Two of CROA’s most active and respected outfitters have had their business threatened by an out of state private land owner. CROA began thinking about how to respond to this threat. I do not know to what extent CROA engaged AW or other private groups, but I know attempts were made to involve private boaters. As you can imagine getting a consensus from private boaters is a lot more difficult than getting a consensus from the commercial outfitters. CROA contacted a lobbying firm and began working towards a legislative solution. An initial draft was drawn up. It is my understanding that the Congress people that viewed this draft said it would not get the support needed to pass. Why would the bill not got the support? My uneducated opinion is that Colorado has extremely strong landowner interests (The Cattleman’s Association, various agricultural associations, wealthy ranch owners, oil and gas companies, etc.) and these parties want to have complete control over the water and land. It is pretty easy to imagine the sort of power and influence these groups yield in our political process. If the bill was written to include all boaters and all navigable waters the opposing interests would be able to prevent it. With a narrower scope and a focus on how much money commercial companies contribute to Colorado’s economy, it seems there is a good chance to pass this bill. Now, if a congress member opposes the bill, they are opposing tourism, business, a viable job creating industry, blah blah blah. You get the picture 

Nathan (or anyone else for that matter), if you are able to get some friendly amendments attached to this bill that would be great. You and AW are experienced in these matters and hopefully you will be able to get more benefits for private boaters now and in the future. 

The bottom line though is CROA is going to spend a lot of money and they want to make sure to get something for the investment. I think that is understandable. Many of you have worked for commercial companies and know a lot of the people that own these commercial companies. These are all strong willed individuals. They do not tend to back down. They will try and get the best results attainable. I do believe the outfitters will be more supportive of private boater interests in the future. I hope everyone is able to make it on Monday and I am sure we will gain more insight into what is going on.

Please write the your State Congressmen and please SUPPORT THIS BILL!

Sincerely,
Zach Svoboda


----------



## smurf

Just sent my letter of support. Keep it going!


----------



## TakemetotheRiver

Letters of support sent. Wish I could attend the rally- good luck with that!


----------



## wild bill

I have heard from one of the folks working with CROA on HB-1188, and she said that some of the representatives are still on the fence about the bill. Please get fellow supporters involved and lets flood their voice mail and e-mail with requests to support The Colorado River Outfitter's Act. 

CALL RIGHT NOW !

You will most likely get their voice mail's which is fine --- leave them a quick message - sample script below. We need to flood their voice mails and email accounts this weekend... 

Sample Phone script (and email) to legislator/s:

HI this is ____________ . (identify your business, that you're employed by ____ business, or that you boat) 

I wanted to ask you to Vote Yes on House Bill 1188 the Colorado River Outfitters Viability Act.

As you may know already river rafting contributes over 140 million a year to Colorado’s tourism economy and employs many people locally. (including myself - if true) 

We need your help to stay in business and keep Colorado’s Rivers open!

(Add a personal note here- about your business, your local paddle shop, why this matters, the local economy counts on you , i need a job etc.. )

(If you get a live person) ASK how is Rep._________(name) planning on voting on this issues? (Wait for answer)

(If you get voice mail) Leave a message - please Vote Yes on House Bill 1188 the Colorado River Outfitters Viability Act, it’s about jobs and our tourism economy. (personal note) 

Thank you _________(your name & #)


LEGISLATORS TO CALL THIS WEEKEND: (phone calls into legislators is the #1 priority) [ if you have additional time send them a quick followup email ]

Rep. Bob Gardner 303-866-2191 [email protected], 
Rep. Steve King 303-866-3068 [email protected],
Rep. BJ Nikkel 303-866-2907 [email protected],
Rep. Beth McCann 303-866-2959, [email protected],
Rep. Claire Levy 303-866-2578, [email protected],


----------



## AVAColoradoRafting

*Reminder: RALLY TODAY!*

Please come if you can. It's going to be quite a boater party! Get down there on your lunch hour. 

Also, call your reps! (See the posts above for info on who to call--the members of the House Judiciary Committee are most important--today!)

*WHAT:* Raft in / news conference to support HB 1188, River Outfitters Viability Act.


* WHEN:* Monday FEB 8, 12:00 PM
*WHERE: *East Steps of the Colorado State Capitol . 200 E Colfax, Denver, Co 80203


*WHO: *Owners of Colorado’s rafting companies will hold a press event at the state capitol to show support for a HB1188, a bill being run by Representative Kathleen Curry and State Senator Mary Hodge to protect their right to run Colorado rivers.


*VISUALS*: 30+ inflatated river rafts on the East lawn of the state capitol. Please bring any river-related props as well as signs.


*SPEAKERS & TALKING POINTS*
*Bob Hame*l, Chair of the Colorado River Outfitters Association
Welcome, Brief overview of CROA and the River Outfitters Industry, Revenues & Number of Employees, Introduction of Mark Schumacher
* Mark Schumacher, *Owner of Three Rivers Resort, a Gunnison Area Rafting Co.
History of working and rafting on the Taylor River
Brief overview of Lewis Shaw’s activity, Asking Rep. Curry for help, Introduction of Kathleen Curry
* Representative Kathleen Curry,* D-Gunnison, Bill Sponsor
Overview of the bill, Discussion of the issue as a Gunnison Resident and a friend of Mark Schumacher


* Legislative Info:*
The Committee hearing is with the State House of Representatives Judiciary Committee at 1:30pm , we encourage you stick around for the hearing on our Legislation. Please know that our bill may not be first up on the agenda and may not be heard to a little later in the afternoon..


----------



## AVAColoradoRafting

Hey, you can also follow the issue by joining the Facebook group Supporters of the Commercial Rafting Viability Act at Supporters of the Commercial Rafting Viability Act | Facebook .


----------



## Turner2

Sorry, but unless private boaters are included in the bill, I cannot support it. Creating two classes of users on Colorado rivers - those who can pay for commercial access and those who cannot - is not the solution for addressing the issue. This is a quick fix for the rafting industry and I believe it will set back private boaters for years. It would give landowners some incentive and legal justification to prosecute private boaters for civil trespass, and it will certainly discourage the state legislature from taking up any other bill addressing private rights to float on our water. The real solution is a ballot initiative to amend our Constitution and define our rivers as navigable. We have the most backward and conservative laws and precedent on river access and navigability of any western state, and this bill really does nothing to change that. This is not a step towards a private right to float for all of us, just a quick fix that will satisfy the industry and exclude the rest of us. 

Unless it is amended to embrace the right to float for all of us, I will be opposing this bill and writing my rep to oppose it as well.


----------



## Meng

Turner2 said:


> Sorry, but unless private boaters are included in the bill, I cannot support it. Creating two classes of users on Colorado rivers - those who can pay for commercial access and those who cannot - is not the solution for addressing the issue. This is a quick fix for the rafting industry and I believe it will set back private boaters for years. It would give landowners some incentive and legal justification to prosecute private boaters for civil trespass, and it will certainly discourage the state legislature from taking up any other bill addressing private rights to float on our water. The real solution is a ballot initiative to amend our Constitution and define our rivers as navigable. We have the most backward and conservative laws and precedent on river access and navigability of any western state, and this bill really does nothing to change that. This is not a step towards a private right to float for all of us, just a quick fix that will satisfy the industry and exclude the rest of us.
> 
> Unless it is amended to embrace the right to float for all of us, I will be opposing this bill and writing my rep to oppose it as well.


You make excellent points and I fully agree with you in principle. In practice, however, as I've mentioned before, defeat of this bill would set boaters back even further. You must understand - if the bill is defeated, it essentially sets a precedent for landowners to obstruct and forbid paddlers floating public waters through private property. Once set, this precedent would be difficult to overcome. Passing the bill is at least a step in a better direction that will likely set a precedent to move in the directions you suggest. But a defeat of the bill would make that much more difficult and less likely. I believe however that one can write in support of passing the bill while still expressing disappointment that it does not go far enough to cover private boaters, which will get them 'geared up' for the next steps.

Of interest, a recent article in the Crested Butte News: The Crested Butte News - Crested Butte Town Council not ready to jump in the raft


----------



## Turner2

Further, private boaters will not "lose" if this bill fails, because we will have the same rights as before. We may lose if this bill is passed, because landowners could be alert to the possibilty that there is a class of boaters (those without a commercial permit) that they MAY be able to sue for civil trespass (but good luck proving any 'damages' when i touch a rock with my foot or paddle!) And we will lose if this passes (as-is) because the rafting industry will have no incentive or need to support wider access and float rights for the rest of us. In fact, the industry would probably prefer if private boaters are excluded from floating over public land, because they would hold exclusive floatation rights to many rivers in the state.


----------



## Turner2

A failed bill would not create any legal precedent that a judge would find in the least persuasive in a civil suit for trespass. With the makeup of the CO supreme court now, I think Justice Hobbs (a regular private floater and fisherman) would support navigability and access for private citizens and could perhaps set a precedent not unlike that in Conatser v. Johnsoon, 194 P.3d 897 (Utah 2008 ) (holding that the scope of public's easement in state waters provides the public with right to engage in all recreational activities that utilize the water and does not limit the public to activities that can be performed upon the water, and also allows the public the right to touch the privately owned beds below those waters, in ways incidental to all recreational rights). Justice Hobbs regularly uses sweeping language in his water opinions suggesting that all of Colorado's water is publicly owned and held by the state in trust for use by citizens.


----------



## Meng

Those are certainly valid concerns - I had many of the same questions in fact. However, speaking with a co-worker who has worked full time on water policy, quality and quantity issues in Colorado for 30 years led me to my position (above). You do make an excellent point about outfitters loosing motivation to help private boaters with more encompassing legislation though. I hadn't considered that. I would like to hear from outfitters there...but am assuming you're right on with that point.

At any rate, having read over your past two posts, its clear that you have a much more concise grasp of water law, the relationship of legislation to legal findings and the makeup of the court than I do....so thanks for the well informed insights and opinions.


----------



## Badazws6

nathanfey said:


> The bill as currently written does nothing to establish a "right to float" or protect commercial or private paddlers ability to float across private property. What it does is establish protections for Commerical Outfitters (permitted by the State) from Civil and Criminal Tresspass when they portage around obstacles on Private property.
> The bill as currently written is very narrow in scope, and could easily be interpreted as expresly allowing ONLY commercial outfitters the right to portage, and by expression of one - exclude any private paddlers from the same rights. So if you are paddling the Taylor (or any CO river) on your own, and portage around bridges or Barbed wire, you are not protected by this legislation.
> 
> AW has your back though, and we've been working on friendly amendments to the legislation so as to protect public safety (not just paying customers). We continue to work with leadership in both chambers of the legislature to get the trespass issue resolved.


This is a complex issue and as always the more monied the interest group they more they look out only for themselves. Not that this isn't the right thing to do for themselves but is it the right thing to do for the community as a whole?

I just wanted to repost Nathen and AW's latest position (as far as I can find) on this subject. Is there a location that has more detail and is up to the minute on what AW is trying to do in our interest?

They optimist in me hopes that everyones reassurance that this bill WILL make it easier for the more general public.

The cynic in me suspects that a "compromise" will be proposed in the direction of everyone needing to fall under the umbrella of a commercial permit (read pay to play) on the river and the death of the "public" boater. I am also concerned about the focus on "historically" commercially run rivers. Does this mean if it hasn't been run commercially it isn't navigable nor will it ever be in the future?

Just my thoughts...

I for one could really use a hard stance from AW on if we the "public" boater and AW member should be supporting this bill.


----------



## watermonkey

National Rivers: Colorado River Law, on river conservation, river access, paddling, canoeing, kayaking, rafting, fly-fishing, and Colorado river ownership. - Follow this link - it took me to the most comprehensive overview of "right to float" issues is CO that I've found, both from a state and federal level. I've heard that some state agencies are not in favor of this bill specifically because it only addresses the commercial rafting sector and not other recreational uses (eg. fishing, private boating), that the bill is poorly constructed and could set some deleterious precedents for other users. FYI


----------



## Badazws6

watermonkey said:


> National Rivers: Colorado River Law, on river conservation, river access, paddling, canoeing, kayaking, rafting, fly-fishing, and Colorado river ownership. - Follow this link - it took me to the most comprehensive overview of "right to float" issues is CO that I've found, both from a state and federal level. I've heard that some state agencies are not in favor of this bill specifically because it only addresses the commercial rafting sector and not other recreational uses (eg. fishing, private boating), that the bill is poorly constructed and could set some deleterious precedents for other users. FYI


I read this overview and I get the feeling that it is correct on the criminal side of things. However, as I understand this conversation the current issue is on the civil side of things. Not having a firm grasp on what exactly the difference is I did a bit of googling and found the following:

"Civil cases usually involve private disputes between persons or organizations. Criminal cases involve an action that is considered to be harmful to society as a whole. Below is a comparison of the key differences between civil and criminal cases.

Civil Cases

A civil case begins when a person or entity (such as a corporation or the government), called the plaintiff, claims that another person or entity (the defendant) has failed to carry out a legal duty owed to the plaintiff. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are also referred to as "parties" or "litigants." The plaintiff may ask the court to tell the defendant to fulfill the duty, or make compensation for the harm done, or both." Civil Cases vs. Criminal Cases - Key Differences - Learn About the Law

So in my inexpert opinion and thought process in this particular case I drew the following conclusions. This means that the criminal question on if this hurts the public in general has already been decided and it does not hurt the public. What is being called into question is in the Civil law is someone being deprived of something he is entitled to. What I believe the land owner is saying is that anyone floating down the river adjacent to the private property is depriving the owner of value that he has a right to. Basically not having some scaring the fish, making noise and being an eye sore. Therefor the person depriving the owner of that value should compensate the owner for the damage. I believe the land owner would also be saying that anyone regardless of how careful they are would be depriving him of these rights and that everyone that does it should pay up.

I hope someone with more of a background in this can steer me in the right direction if I am off base...


----------



## brandon_blomquist

*Synopsis...please!*

Can anyone/someone post the outcome and general commentary of the hearing this afternoon, please. I gave up at 2:30 since they were not even done presenting the first bill, so I figured it would be hours given 1188 was moved to the last (7th) presentation. Thanks!!!


----------



## Ole Rivers

*News From the HB 1188*

Well, HB 1188 passed the Judicial Committee hearing.

This hit parade of water world stars lasted from around 5:15pm or so til around 10:30pm. A fun time was had by one and all, except maybe for John Hill, Steve Roberts and some guy named Lewis Shaw.

But not before intensive testimony and questions of those giving testimony. Takings, whether it should be expanded to include all users, whether the Shively ruling should be amended out of the language, whether it was Constitutional to have just one class of users, testimony by Eric Leaper of Nationalrivers.org, Turner2, Jeff Candian, Matt Sura and their CU Law Professor all made excellent, reasonable and lucid testimonies.

Eddie Kochman, former main guy at DOW, Lori Potter, John Hill, Cattleman's, Mark Schumaker/outfitter, Dave Costlow/outfitter, etc. it was a veritable Who's Who up there testifying.

Tim Glomb of Cazador Media was behind the camera reporting for World Fishing Network. Thanks Tim, we'll look for your report on, I think it's channel 394 of Dish or DirectTV, not sure which, around Feb 16 and then on the web on the 17th. Tim, please correct my inaccuracies...

John Hill testified, Steve Roberts of Harmel Ranch on the Taylor and your favorite guy of all time, the one, the only Lewis Shaw testified.

I mean, no kidding, just imagine what you'd expect to hear from this guy and... ok, keep imagining.... are you still imagining the attitude, the .... the... close your eyes now.... 

Yep, whatever you're imagining, that's how the guy came across. To hear it from him, this guy is friends with the world. He's just tryin' to be such a good guy by telling the outfitters to get off "his" land, it stanks.

Incredible.

No kidding, watching and listening to him in action was entirely worth the admission... which was free, but I'd a paid $2.47 cash money to watch him.

Anyways, my take on the hearing is that, ok, they passed it to the floor, but they seemed to want expansion and they obviously, by their something like 7-3 vote, didn't buy what Hill was selling.

Anyone else who was there want to chime in with your observations?


----------



## 1whitewattafoo

I can't believe how many times an old english law from 1607 was brought up in testimonies! And how Hill basically rambled on and on about the same thing over and over. That 5.5 hrs of sitting was tough, worth it, and I now know why I am not a politician! A step in what I think is the right direction for Colorado boaters


----------



## DurangoSteve

Good to see that this bill will now make it to the floor. While flawed, it's better than what we have right now.


----------



## zboda

Wow, is the first word that comes to mind after sitting through that entire thing last night. This process was amazing, boring, enlightening, disheartening, and interesting all rolled into one. HB-1188 passed the Judiciary Committee at 10:30pm by a vote of 7-3. 

Now the bill will go through the exact same process in a Senate Committee. I do not believe it has been assigned a committee in the State Senate yet. If it passes that Committee it will go to the State House of Representatives as a whole. If it passes there it will go to the State Senate as a whole. Crazy stuff. I have learned a lot about our political process with this brief interaction. Everyone should get up close and personal with our political process, although you may come away feeling dirty. 

Here were some of the highlights that I came away with:


One of the oppositions main arguments is they do not believe there is a “Right to Float” in Colorado. They do not believe there is any navigable water in Colorado. Their definition of the word navigable is obviously different than the common definition. I don’t think I can adequately explain it, but they are certainly looking to deny everyone’s right to float rivers in Colorado.
There is a lot of passion on each side. Steve Roberts who owns Harmel Ranch on the Taylor started crying during his testimony. He was so upset he was shaking. He believes he owns the river and if he is not allowed to control it, then the State is taking away his property that has been in his family for over 100 years. He went on to say how passing of this bill would put him out of business. What he doesn’t realize (and I do not believe he stayed for any of the proponents testimony) is that what he and other land developers are trying to do would put people out of business as well. There are two sides to every story, and I firmly believe that if you are a rational person, a rational compromise can be implemented. I also realize that not everyone we are dealing with is rational.
I thought the reception to the inclusion of all boaters into the bill was met with more sympathy than I expected. I do not know how this will go over in the Senate sub-committee or in the two bodies general assembly, but PRIVATE BOATERS CAN MAKE THEIR VOICE HEARD IF THEY SO CHOOSE. I am telling you right now find out what the position is of your state Congressmen and let them know what your position is. If you were at the hearing, it was apparent that even if all boaters are not included on this go around, it will be a huge hurdle for us to overcome. I came away with an even stronger belief that this bill, even as is, is still good for private boaters.
Representative Gardner from Colorado Springs is adamantly against this bill. At the end he said he loves the rafting community (he obviously has a lot of rafters in his district), but he does not believe we have a right to float Colorado’s rivers. In fact, he was pushing for the inclusion of all boaters in the bill because he thought that would make it harder to pass in the future. Everyone in the Springs should have extensive communication with him.
Representative King from the Grand Junction area is also adamantly opposed to this bill. He is staunchly against “big” government, or government getting involved in anything. At some point there is a need for government though. You have an issue that the people are not able to resolve on their own; it is unfortunately government’s responsibility to help solve the problem.
I am not sure what AW was doing behind the scenes, but I do not believe anyone attended the hearing and I am 100% certain no one representing AW testified.

Sincerely,
Zach Svoboda.


----------



## merritrd

A couple of clarifications on Zach's comments. 

The bill has to go to the House floor for 2 more readings. Amendments can still be proposed at these readings. After the bill passes the 3rd reading it goes to the Senate. At that time the bill will be assigned to a Senate committee and the process will repeat itself. It is possible that the bill could be assigned to another House committee but as of this morning I did not see it assigned to another committee which is a good sign.

These elected officials are not state Congressmen, they are state Legislators.

If you feel that the rights of private boaters should be included there is still time to email, or call your House Representative and ask them to include private boaters rights. Call Rep Gardner's bluff and ask for the right of private boaters to be included.

It appeared that Shaw was being lead around to the media outlets who cover the capitol by a high powered lobbyist.


----------



## zboda

merritrd,

Thanks for the corrections and clarifications.


----------



## xena13

Thanks, you guys, for sitting through that whole thing and posting this information.


----------



## brandon_blomquist

So, the Representatives from Grand Junction and Colorado Springs voted against the bill. Does anybody know who the third Representative was? Thanks in advance for the help!


Brandon


----------



## merritrd

brandon_blomquist said:


> So, the Representatives from Grand Junction and Colorado Springs voted against the bill. Does anybody know who the third Representative was? Thanks in advance for the help!
> 
> 
> Brandon


 
Rep. Mark Waller (R) District 15 El Paso County


----------



## -k-

Hope things continue to move along as well as it sounds. Thanks for the update. A bit scary that they take Shaw around to the media... his chance to try and legitimize/spin his argument to the general public (Hope someone from our side got some press).


----------



## Turner2

I really believe that if this bill passes as written, it will do harm to the public's right to float and fish in our water. One amendment added to the bill last night basically disclaims the public trust in the state's water (although the amend remains neutral and doesn't claim to affect any public trust). 48 states have public access to navigable waterways in their state, and declare that the water in these navigable rivers are held in by the state as a public trust for use by the people. The two states that don't: Colorado and North Dakota. 

This is an opportunity to clarify navigability once and for all. Please write your Reps and urge them to give us ALL the right to float, not just commercial outfitters. If the rafting companies get immunity, they will be off the table and probably won't be interested in spending any more money to push for access for the rest of us. This is one case where a step forward will not lead to other positive steps forward, and may even foreclose the legislature from raising the issue again.


----------



## Marco

Regarding AW participation: While Nathan was not there last night, both he and folks from Colorado Whitewater worked extensively prior to the bill's introduction to get the wording changed to be more inclusive of private boaters. Unfortunately Rep. Curry would not support more inclusive wording than the current bill has. I came away from the hearing last night encouraged that such wording has a possibility of being included in amendments or future bills. Please write your state senator and legislator to encourage them to include such wording.


----------



## skifatskis

brandon_blomquist said:


> Can anyone/someone post the outcome and general commentary of the hearing this afternoon, please. I gave up at 2:30 since they were not even done presenting the first bill, so I figured it would be hours given 1188 was moved to the last (7th) presentation. Thanks!!!


 
I was there until the end and the committee voted. The bill was passed through the committee by a vote of 7-3. The testimony lasted for several hours and was not voted on until around 10:15. I think Rep Curry who was the sponsor of the bill was clear that her intent by drafting a narrow bill that only protected commercial rafting was result of the conflict on the Taylor which is her district and was intended to make the bill easier to move through legislature. She was also clear that the bill does not exclude private boaters it just doesn’t include them as written. There were a few private boaters who testified in opposition to the bill as it stands, but would support it if it were amended to include all boaters. The commercial rafting community also testified that if the bill were amended to include private boaters they would be more than happy to support it....they just need a solution immediately, and were advised that the narrower bill would be easier to pass. 

The opposition testimony included of course the land owner(Shaw) on the Taylor and all his lawyers as well as the Cattleman’s Association, The Water Congress(which was interesting as this is not a water right issue, but a property right issue), and a few land owners from the area near the Taylor River. They argued that the bill conducted a taking of property rights and that the state could not take the property rights of the land owner and redistribute them to which proponents reply that the right to use the waterways is already the right of the public and this bill will be protecting it. There was also some discussion as to what was considered a navigable waterway. The opposition testified that there were no navigable waterways in Colorado according to the definition outlined in British Common Law, which is the law that public access is allowed under in almost every other state. 

I would like to be clear that I am an employee of a rafting company and I am in support of the bill as it is written or amended to include all boaters. I think that passing this bill will be a small step forward, but letting it fail would be a significant regression to boating rights in the state. I am in no way an expert and in no way do I claim this to be anything other than my humble opinion.


----------



## Turner2

I guess that is where many of us differ. I believe that if this bill fails, the rafting industry may have to join forces with us private boaters for a better solution, perhaps including a ballot initiative to amend the state Consitution and define rights of navigability for all the public (undoubtedly the best and most solid legal solution for private and commercial boaters). 

The bill has already succeeded in getting significant attention to the issue. If it fails, I don't think it will collapse the rafting industry and would not be a significant regression for boating rights. One could make a very strong argument that the rafters would win in a court challenge to the Taylor situation (and the community would certainly need to help raise money for any legal battles for that dispute).


----------



## skifatskis

Turner2 said:


> If it fails, I don't think it will collapse the rafting industry and would not be a significant regression for boating rights. One could make a very strong argument that the rafters would win in a court challenge to the Taylor situation (and the community would certainly need to help raise money for any legal battles for that dispute).


I respectfully dissagree. I don't think there will be a sudden fallout and failure of the industry but I can think of a few spots immediatly where there are relationships between land owners and boaters that are hanging by a thread. If these landowners learn of this case I can only imagine that within the next few years there will be at the least "tollbooths" for certain sections of river if they are not shut down completely. I also think that the public has a misconception that rafting companies are wealthy and can afford whatever littigation is needed....while in fact most are owned by familys or proprietors who work extremly hard to make 3 - 6 months of income last for and entire year. I don't think that a rafting company could afford to pay for a long drawn out court battle and while there may be public suport and donations to begin with I think that a court battle would last longer than public sympathy. Then in the end it would be a small business owner against a wealthy development company. Once again Just my opinion.

Additionally I do think that if private boaters are vocal with there legislators and attend hearings and speak out the bill can be ammended and include all boaters and I would love ot see this!


----------



## Ole Rivers

*Clarification of Terms for HB 1188 Legislative Purposes*

from another thread:



merritrd said:


> A couple of *clarifications* on Zach's comments.
> 
> The bill has to go to the House floor for 2 more readings. Amendments can still be proposed at these readings. After the bill passes the 3rd reading it goes to the Senate. At that time the bill will be assigned to a Senate committee and the process will repeat itself. It is possible that the bill could be assigned to another House committee but as of this morning I did not see it assigned to another committee which is a good sign.
> 
> These elected officials are not state Congressmen, they are state Legislators.
> 
> If you feel that the rights of private boaters should be included there is still time to email, or call your House Representative and ask them to include private boaters rights. Call Rep Gardner's bluff and ask for the right of private boaters to be included.
> 
> It appeared that Shaw was being lead around to the media outlets who cover the capitol by a high powered lobbyist.


Another important clarification...

Although I'm a wading fisherman, I understand that boaters differentiate themselves within the boating community as either "commercial" or "private" boaters. However, we're not dealing with only the boating community in regards to HB 1188.

For legislative purposes, it may be more clear to label the commercial boaters as "private boaters" or even better, as "private interest". After all, they are a private concern, private business, privately owned and, therefore, a private interest.

For Legislative purposes, it may also be more clear to label private boaters as "public boaters", "public water users" or as part of the "public interest". After all, they are a public body, public user, and, therefore, a public interest.

I empathize with changing a habit, it is tough to do so, however, in this case, for more clarity, it may be a habit worth changing for your, and all of our, best interests.

As for fishermen, it may be more clear to term the commercial boatfishermen as "private boatfishermen", "private water users" or "private interest". For public fishermen, well, "public fishermen", "public water users" or as part of the "public interest".

As in... there are 5 main subgroup interests involved in this bill:

1 Private interest land owner title

2 Private interest boating water user
3 Private interest boating/wading fishing water user
4 Public interest boating water user and
5 Public interest boat/wade fishing water user

Clarity says "Yes" while Confusion says "No".

The more clarity we have for our interests, the closer we are to "Yes" for our point of view.

This message is meant to clarify rather than to offend. Please take it as such.

For these legislative purposes, will boaters please bite the bullet and use the more clear terminology?

Thanks

Richard


----------



## Ole Rivers

*Both Fishing AND Boating Are Public Lawful Activities*



skifatskis said:


> ...
> 
> Additionally I do think that if private boaters are vocal with there legislators and attend hearings and speak out the bill can be ammended and include all boaters and I would love ot see this!


Why just "all boaters"? If there's an amendment to include other groups than only the private (commercial) boater interest, shouldn't fishermen interests be also included?

How about the term "all water users", or, better yet, as found in Utah's *Conatser* Supreme Court ruling http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Conatser071808.pdf , *"public"* and *"all lawful activities"*, which covers all the bases?

CONCLUSION

¶29 The district court incorrectly interpreted the scope of
the public’s easement in state waters so as to limit the
Conatsers’ rights to being upon the water and to touching the
privately owned bed of the Weber River only in ways incidental to
the right of floatation.

¶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.


----------



## Ole Rivers

xena13 said:


> Thanks, you guys, for sitting through that whole thing and posting this information.


It was drama, excitement, the whole spring runoff. The only thing missing for me was Megan Fox.


----------



## skifatskis

Ole Rivers said:


> Why just "all boaters"? If there's an amendment to include other groups than only the private (commercial) boater interest, shouldn't fishermen interests be also included?
> 
> How about the term "all water users", or, better yet, as found in Utah's *Conatser* Supreme Court ruling http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Conatser071808.pdf , *"public"* and *"all lawful activities"*, which covers all the bases?


I agree with you that idealistically all user groups would be included...and I like the Utah ruling, but I am concerned about such broad bill passing legislation. Once again...my opinion....I have no legal precident and I didn't mean to enter into a legal debate, but I apreciate your view and think you should definately make yourself a part of the discusion when the oportunity presents its self.


----------



## Ole Rivers

skifatskis said:


> I agree with you that idealistically all user groups would be included...and I like the Utah ruling, but I am concerned about such broad bill passing legislation. Once again...my opinion....I have no legal precident and I didn't mean to enter into a legal debate, but I apreciate your view and think you should definately make yourself a part of the discusion when the oportunity presents its self.


I may have already made myself part of the discussion. During the 11 hours or so that I was at the Capitol for the hearing, I talked with about 19 different people, including both public and private interests.

I am advocating for the water user public interest, generally, and, since there is no fishermen representation because Colorado Trout Unlimited is "aggressively neutral" and boaters have CROA and AW, I, as a longtime Colorado fisherman, advocate for the fishermen interest, specifically.


----------



## skifatskis

Ole Rivers said:


> I may have already made myself part of the discussion. During the 11 hours or so that I was at the Capitol for the hearing, I talked with about 19 different people, including both public and private interests.
> 
> I am advocating for the water user public interest, generally, and, since there is no fishermen representation because Colorado Trout Unlimited is "aggressively neutral" and boaters have CROA and AW, I, as a longtime Colorado fisherman, advocate for the fishermen interest, specifically.


I was there as well. I am glad to hear you have taken part and I hope you continue to do so.


----------



## 1whitewattafoo

Hey skifatskis and olerivers, I too was there pfd and all, I kinda feel like I'm jumpin in
on this thread but have a question. 
What rout are you looking for for fisherman? Is this for floating fisherman in rafts that want to float and fish? Is it for fisherman that would possibly want to float in and be able to access the shoreline to Wade or fish from shore? Or do we need a voice just from fishermen in general to help amend the bill to include all? I just understood the bill as to include The fisherman in the "private boater" category. 
Also, I forget the guys name, Steve something the fishing resort owner who cryed and apperently checked his dignity at the door, yeah him. I was under belief that this gentlmans property is on a historically non commercially rafted section of river. So in it's current state hb 10-1188 would not affect his business at all. I sat directly behind him and After his testimony he asked his partner, "how'd I Do"?. I guess I kinda respect these business owners because they have been doing something right to get where they are, but this dude is I believe looking for a reality show gig... The political process is indeed amazing, interesting, boring, and being there enforces why I am a raft guide and ski bastard , and not a politician! Thanks OleRivers and skifatskis


----------



## jeffsssmith

1whitewattafoo said:


> Hey skifatskis and olerivers, I too was there pfd and all, I kinda feel like I'm jumpin in
> on this thread but have a question.
> What rout are you looking for for fisherman? Is this for floating fisherman in rafts that want to float and fish? Is it for fisherman that would possibly want to float in and be able to access the shoreline to Wade or fish from shore? Or do we need a voice just from fishermen in general to help amend the bill to include all? I just understood the bill as to include The fisherman in the "private boater" category.
> Also, I forget the guys name, Steve something the fishing resort owner who cryed and apperently checked his dignity at the door, yeah him. I was under belief that this gentlmans property is on a historically non commercially rafted section of river. So in it's current state hb 10-1188 would not affect his business at all. I sat directly behind him and After his testimony he asked his partner, "how'd I Do"?. I guess I kinda respect these business owners because they have been doing something right to get where they are, but this dude is I believe looking for a reality show gig... The political process is indeed amazing, interesting, boring, and being there enforces why I am a raft guide and ski bastard , and not a politician! Thanks OleRivers and skifatskis


 
This is not an historically non commercially rafted section of the Taylor River. I was a guide in the late 80's through the 90's and the company that I worked for ran commercial trips on this section, known as the Middle Taylor. I don't know when the first commercial rafting occurred on the stretch of river but I do know that it was before I started, maybe early to mid 80's.


----------



## stinginrivers

Hey everybody, 

I was not able to attend last night but have been speaking with a few people that are involved in this issue, that were there last night and did speak.

This is my take on it all; 
First my disclaimer, I am a private boater, former guide and paddle sports sales rep. So this is going to affect me in multiple ways. If this fails I will be limited on where I can paddle and with more limitations on this sport less people will purchase gear limiting my ability to make a living.

The outfitter’s association (CROA) would love to have everybody involved and supporting this bill so that we all can have some basis in law for a right to float. We have never had that confirmed at this point. The outfitter’s worked to develop a bill that they think they can get passed. They can’t get it all in one lump. They are spending quite a bit of money on this and it is all coming out of their own pockets, last night has already cost them thousands. If you want a future bite at the apple you should support this bill. It doesn’t matter if you fish, kayak, raft or innertube, support this bill. Get at least one bill on the books that supports a right to float

So they had to make a decision, include everybody into this with a financial cost they could not bear themselves as well as find someone else willing to sponsor the bill written as such, or use the limited funds they have and take the advice from their lawyers and the bill’s sponsor to limit the users in the language of the bill that they think can pass in the legislature. Once passed then it is much easier down the road to include all users.

The repercussions of this bill not passing will be huge, let me spell this out for you all. If this DOES NOT PASS the private landowner on the Taylor is going to block passage to all water users or charge to float through, then word is going to get out to other landowners. Then the Elk in Steamboat, Cheeseman, the Silver Bullet on the Arkansas, Lake Fork and any other river that has a private landowner that does not want boaters floating by will be blocked to us all.

So you say “So what”, then we will get a ballot initiative to make this happen. Well good luck on that because my understanding from people that have been involved in ballot initiatives is that they cost at least $5million. You can figure just $3 million on effective TV advertising alone, who is going to pay for that, are you? Plus, can you guarantee it will pass even if you could raise the money? Can you do it without the Outfitter’s help!

If the fishermen and private boaters want to get involved, then do it and do it now. Do not just sit back saying I am not going to support this bill this round because they are excluding me as a private boater or fisherman. They are not purposefully excluding you. They just need to get a right to float to pass to provide a future basis in law for all kinds of floating. The outfitters testified last night before the Judiciary Committee of the Legislature that they would like all boaters to be included! If this does not pass, it will then be too late to get involved. Get AW, CW, Trout Unlimited and whoever else motivated to step up and get in this fight. It has been said that AW and CW have been working behind the scenes; well I for one would love to hear what they are working on and why we have not heard from them on this. From where I am sitting the only ones that are doing anything is CROA and the only way the message is getting out is MTN Buzz. 

These landowners that CROA is going up against have much deeper pockets than us boaters, so we need to band together and support this bill and get it passed.
What needs to happen right now is an e-mail campaign to your local representatives and senators stating that you support this bill how it is written, but you would much rather prefer it to be written as too include all water users. Get your families, co-workers and anybody else that can write an e-mail involved. The vote could be as early as Friday so you have to react today or tomorrow.

I can guarantee you that the opposition is doing just that right now as I type this; the Cattleman’s Association is a large and organized group, as well as the developers.

Thanks 
Danny Andres


----------



## brian a

*Important Read for Boaters - House Bill 10-1188 on River Access*

Hello All,

I didn't see this out there yet, so I thought I would post the links pertaining to House Bill 10-1188 regarding commercial river access. This news fired me up for a Tuesday evening. For private boaters and rafters I encourage you to give it a good read and possibly write your representative.

Can you buy a river? | SummitDaily.com
House committee passes commercial rafting bill | Aspen Daily News Online

Rafters Vs. Landowners in Colorado House

From what I have been able to gather, the house bill was written in response to a developer from Texas by the name of Lewis W. Shaw. Mr. Shaw has made efforts to forbid commercial rafting companies from floating the Taylor River canyon that flows through his private property (he owns both sides of the river). The Taylor has to be one of the best little class III runs in the state. It runs consistently throughout the summer, providing good fun for intermediates and a great place for newbies (like me at the time) to cut their teeth on some more technical water.

From what I can gather, the house bill in it's current state makes *little or no* mention to the same protections for private boaters or rafters which may poise a problem without the proper language inserted. I have lost some faith in common sense by folks of late, and logic says that those folks who "own the rivers" will be able to consider non-commercial boaters to be trespassing even if simply floating on by.

Colorado needs a common sense "right to float" law. I applaud the effort by Reps Kathline Curry and Christine Scanlan to create a bill that will put the most glaring of issues to bed. Now, we should encourage our elected officials to create a high water mark law which would put us in line with most other western states.

Thank You,

Brian A.


----------



## brian a

Hey folks. Disregard my post from earlier. I've apparently been living in a cave and didn't see the incredibly good conversation that was already occurring. Well done friends.

Brian A


----------



## riojedi

Thanks Danny! You nailed it. We really can't afford to lose this bill. Think about it, Colorado doesn't have a Middle Fork of the Salmon. Almost all the most popular rivers in Colorado go through privately owned property. Do you really think private boaters are going to have a snowballs chance in hell getting access if this doesn't pass. The last time this happened on a river one of the best people in the business had to close his doors. Not because he lost in court, he just couldn't afford to keep fighting the legal battle. Every section of river I try to make a living on goes through private property at some point. The rafting industry can't compete with the kind of money these guys have, we need your support. You may not be a raft guide but I bet you know a couple. Now if only Trout Unlimited would man up and realize what's good for us all, best fishing I ever do is from a raft.


----------



## Ole Rivers

*Committee Hearing Passed Amendments*

Here are the amendments passed at the House Judiciary Committee hearing for HB10-1188, http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cl...7E6422B872576AA00693103?Open&file=1188_01.pdf on Monday, Feb 8, 2010 found at:

http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/clics2010a/csl.nsf/Journals?OpenFrameSet

on page 277:

4 HB10-1188 be amended as follows, and as so amended, be referred to
5 the Committee of the Whole with favorable
recommendation: 67
Amend printed bill, page 4, after line 8 insert: 89
10 "(a) "HAZARD" MEANS A THREAT TO SAFETY OR OF DAMAGE TO
11 EQUIPMENT.".
12
13 Reletter succeeding paragraphs accordingly.
14
15 Page 4, line 12, after "MEANS" insert "A SEGMENT OF".
16
17 Page 4, line 13, strike everything after "RUN" and substitute "DURING 2008
18 OR 2009.".
19
20 Page 4, strike line 14.
21
22 Page 4, line 24, strike "EATING; OR" and substitute "EATING. FOR
23 PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "INCIDENTAL CONTACT" DOES NOT INCLUDE
24 DROPPING OR DRAGGING ANY TYPE OF ANCHOR OR INTENTIONALLY
25 BROACHING A VESSEL; OR".
26
27 Page 5, line 8, strike "THOSE TERMS" and substitute ""LANDOWNER",
28 "INVITEE", AND "LICENSEE"" and add a comma after "13-21-115".
29
30 Page 5, line 9, strike "(5),".
31
32 Page 5, line 15, strike "OR".
33
34 Page 5, line 17, change the period to a semicolon.
35
36 Page 5, after line 17 insert:
37
38 "(c) CREATE A PUBLIC TRUST IN ANY RIVER OR OTHER WATERS OF
39 THE STATE; OR
40
41 (d) AFFECT IN ANY WAY OWNERSHIP OF THE BED OR BANKS OF ANY
42 RIVER OR OTHER WATERS OF THE STATE.".


----------



## Ole Rivers

*HB 1188 Second Reading This Friday With Amendments?*

The Second Reading of HB 1188 is scheduled for this coming Friday, Feb 12, 2010 as found at the House Calendar:

http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/cl...10a/csljournals.nsf/GetLatestHseCal?OpenAgent

which means, if you're going to contact Representative Curry about *amendments*, now'd be a good time to send 'em her way.

For those who want to amend so all water users are included, "all lawful activities", "all lawful recreational activities" or some such, rather than "all boaters" or "commercial and private boaters" or "all water users" or some such may be a good way to describe inclusion of all water users. That terminology may preclude setting up a policy of two classes, one for boaters and one for nonboaters, such as fishermen, in much the same way as setting up two classes, one for private interest commercial boaters and one for non-private interest commercial boaters.

If you do, choose your language carefully.

Just sayin'...

My guess is that the opposing interests to the bill will offer amendments favorable to their interest so fair's fair... now's the time to offer whatever you believe is favorable for the bill proponent's interest, if, that is, you figure amendment(s) should be made.

You've got the amended HB 1188 links posted in the above post.

Nothin' to it but to do it.
If you don't you won't and
If you do, you're through...


----------



## Ole Rivers

*Now For the Really Exciting Part!*

For all of you who have been incurably interested in How a Bill Beomes a Law, here it is in full, well, almost full, color! :

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellit...goBlobs&blobwhere=1224913761903&ssbinary=true


----------



## wild bill

I agree with riojedi and stinginrivers. 

I am a commercial guide on the Taylor, I boat privately, and now and again I fish. I doubt that I am unique on this forum. I am guessing that most of you who have never guided have at least been on a commercial trip. I know that my first white water experience was on a commercial trip in West Virginia. 

My point is that without the commercial guys many of us would not have had the opportunity to become boaters. Without this bill, commercial rafting will take a huge hit. It may not be this year or the next, but it will happen as one land owner after another shuts down sections of river. This argument is not just about weather or not commercial boaters will have a job this summer, it is about boating's future. It is about being able to continue to introduce people to the river sports that we all love. 

Lets support this bill with or without amendments. 

When it passes we as a river users can continue the fight started by CROA and Rep. Curry. There will be time later to open the rivers to whatever we want, but right now the commercial outfits need everyone's support.

PS : I was at the capitol on Monday and it was awesome to see so many people turn out and support the bill.


----------



## Ole Rivers

*HB 1188 Second Reading On House Floor Today, Thursday*

Just learned a few minutes ago that HB1188 Second Reading is scheduled to be on the House floor now, today, Thursday, 2/11, instead of Friday 2/12/10. It's 10:50 am and should be up any moment right after HB1001 on Colorado Channel 165 on Comcast.

Or go to http://www.coloradochannel.net/ then --> Upcoming Events --> View Event


----------



## zboda

Have they had the first reading yet?


----------



## AVAColoradoRafting

*1188 will be heard tomorrow (Friday)--CALL/EMAIL YOUR REPS!*

This just in--1188 has been pushed to tomorrow, Friday!

That means you have time to call your reps! Find your reps here and their contact info here COMaps: Find Your Elected District . 

Also see a little more about the bill here Adventure Office 

Please remember, this bill is good for *all boaters*. 

THIS CAME IN YESTERDAY: 
Dear Outfitters & Friends: (2/10/10)

Quick Update and request for action: House Bill 1188 the River Outfitters Viability Act, to keep Colorado's rivers open for business NOW heads to the full Colorado State House of Representatives for a Vote. 

Besides contacting your own representatives, please take a moment and make some quick phone calls to the key Legislators who will be voting on the House Floor later this week.

Ask them to vote YES on HB 1188. 

Please distribute this request for action to your *lists* - staff, customers, friends and family.

Consider adding your own personal message to them... about your involvement, why you care and your need for their help and action right now. 

All our futures to run Colorado rivers hangs in a balance.

Who to Call right now to Ask for their YES vote on HB 1188 is listed below! 
Please contact me for additional information, Monica 970-417-8007, [email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HELP KEEP COLORADO RIVER'S OPEN FOR BUSINESS & FUN, YES on House Bill 1188, River Outfitters Viability Act

Please Call/contact these key Legislators below in support of HB 1188 Right Now!
( even if you are not in their district it's OK to contact them... we need to leave them lots of messages! )
Please ASK them to vote YES on HB 1188 : (phone calls into legislators is the #1 priority) [ if you have additional time send them a quick followup email ]

Key Legislators still on the fence:

Rep. Ellen Roberts, 303-866-2914, [email protected] ( Archuleta, La Plata, Montezuma, San Juan counties) 

Rep. BJ Nikkel 303-866-2907 [email protected], (Ft Collins. Larimer)

Rep. Jim Riesberg 303-866-2929 [email protected] ( Weld county)

Rep. Cheri Gerou 303-866-2582 [email protected] (jeffco)

Rep. Frank McNulty 303-866-2936 [email protected] (Douglas county)

Rep. Scott Tipton 303-866-2955 [email protected] (Delta,Dolores,Montezuma,Montrose,Ouray,San Miguel counties)

Sample Phone script (and email) to legislator/s:

HI this is ____________ . (identify yourself, private boater, river enthusiast, business owner, or that you're employed by ____ business) 

I would like to ask you to vote Yes on House Bill 1188 the Colorado River Outfitters Viability Act on the House Floor.

THIS legislation is crucial to keeping Colorado’s Rivers open for business and fun. I hope we can count on your vote for the future of river recreation in Colorado. This river running is an important sector of the tourism and outdoor recreation industry.

(Add a personal note about your perspective, business and why this is good for Colorado's economic future and or you local community)

Thank you _____ (leave ur name and #)

------
Background: Commercial river running contributed $142 million to Colorado’s economy last year and more than 500,000 people enjoyed our scenic rivers. Yet, the ability to provide commercial river running is under threat because out-of-state developers want to prohibit licensed river outfitters from providing trips on historically rafted rivers. The 2010 River Outfitters Viability Act protects Colorado’s tourism industry by clarifying the rights of commercial guides to operate on Colorado’s historically run rivers. 

HB 1188 passed 7-3 out of the House Judiciary Committee on Monday 2/8/10 now it heads to the full Colorado House of Representatives for a vote. Call today!

We need your help to keep Colorado's river's open for business and fun

for more information and background please visit: 
Colorado River Outfitters Association under membership


Additional action info at 
Adventure Office


-- 
Monica Piergrossi
Western Voices Public Affairs & Media
[email protected]
970-417-8007


----------



## TakemetotheRiver

Several of the voice mailboxes are full... hopefully that's a good sign?


----------



## AVAColoradoRafting

UPDATE: 1888 WILL BE HEARD BY THE ENTIRE HOUSE TOMORROW, FRIDAY the 11th! 

Please contact your reps today. Call and email. Find your rep here COMaps: Find Your Elected District . Tell them you support 1188 for Colorado's economy and because no private landowner should be able to "close" Colorado's rivers. Tell them why you personally support 1188. C'mon boaters, get it done!


----------



## Ole Rivers

First Reading was the Introduction of HB 1188. Then the House hearing before the House Judiciary Committee and now the Second Reading.

btw, I have heard that it has been rescheduled for tomorrow and I have also heard that HB 1188 wiil be first in line TODAY, Thursday, when the House returns at 1:30pm.

Probably best to check back today, Thursday, at 1:30pm online Coloradochannel.net or on Comcast channel 165 or whatever it is on Dish, etc.


----------



## AVAColoradoRafting

Yeah, one would think....although the opposition can be doing the same thing. Email too to make sure you're heard!


----------



## Brotorboat

*HB10-1188*

A lot of VMail boxes are full....

Please email as many representatives as you can. I know for a fact that at least a handfull have already checked their email today at least once as I have recieved a few replies.


----------



## Ikedub

Ellen Roberts voicemail isn't full now. Fill it up!


----------



## TakemetotheRiver

Ikedub said:


> Ellen Roberts voicemail isn't full now. Fill it up!


Just spoke to her assistant. She said the second reading has been pushed to tomorrow and if (when) it passes the House, the third reading should be Monday in the Senate. She sounded like Roberts favors the bill, though she didn't say that for sure. Keep calling!!!


----------



## nathanfey

*HB - 1188 Second reading has been laid over until Friday 2/12*

American Whitewater asks that you *Contact Colorado's State Legislators* and *Urge them to Add Private Boaters* to the "River Outfitter Bill".
The Colorado Legislature is considering a bill (House Bill 1188 or the "River Outfitters Bill"), which helps protect the rights of commercial boaters to float on commercial sections of river, and also increases the safety of boaters by decriminalizing incidental contact with land to portage obstacles.

HB-1188 is a good bill, but doesn't go far enough! Navigation and safety should include ALL boaters on EVERY river.

Whether you are a Colorado Resident, or someone who travels to Colorado to hit the peak paddling season each year, we need your help to ensure all boaters have safe access on all Colorado rivers. The state House of Representatives is going to debate and vote on HB-1188 Thursday February 11th and likely Friday, February 12th.

*We need your calls TODAY!*

American Whitewater is asking our members to help protect our right to float. Here are three things you can do:



Call or email your state legislators today and urge them to add private boaters to HB-1188. River access should be for all of the public on all rivers. (Info about how to do this below)
Pass this information along to other boaters - send to other lists, post on boating forums, talk to your friends. Help keep the boating community informed.
Stay tuned! American Whitewater and Colorado Whitewater are working to amend the bill to include private boaters as it works its way through the legislative process.
For more information, you can go to www.americanwhitewater.org

You can follow the progress of the bill AND listen to debate through the Colorado General Assembly website.

How to contact your state Senator and Representative:

Find out who your elected officials are at www.votesmart.org.
Reach the Senate offices at 866-2316, and the House offices at 866-2904; ask for your elected official.
You can find email, direct phone number, and mailing address for your elected officials at the Colorado General Assembly website: www.leg.state.co.us.


Here is a sample letter/email that you can edit or use as a script for your call.

PLEASE CALL or EMAIL TODAY!!



Representative or Senator __________:

I write this letter as an individual who recreates on rivers and streams in Colorado. These waters provide a diverse array of recreational opportunities that are enjoyed by millions of Americans and local families like mine who enjoy rafting, kayaking, and canoeing. In the U.S., 24 Million Americans enjoy paddling. Here at home, 11% of Colorado residents over 18 years old - nearly 400,000 individuals - enjoy these activities

Our state's rivers and streams play a vital role in the everyday lives of our communities. In many parts of Colorado they are the centerpieces of our cities and towns, and safe public access to our waterways is critical to maintaining our recreation-based economy and quality of life.

House Bill 10-1188 is now before the Colorado Legislature. This legislation clarifies that a river guide employed by a licensed river outfitter and the guide's passengers may float on waterways that have historically been used for commercial float trips without committing civil trespass, and may make incidental contact with the bed or banks of a river solely to portage around dangerous hazards and proceed downstream without fear of criminal prosecution. Thus, the bill promotes recreational activities on the one hand and prevents paddlers from having to face life and death hazards on the other.

But House Bill 10-1188 fails to provide these same protections to private boaters on these commercially rafted stretches of river. Private boaters, too, must be able to portage around such dangerous hazards. They, too, should be able to float downstream and enjoy Colorado's recreational resources without fear of civil litigation or criminal charges should incidental contact with the beds or banks of a river be necessary to safely navigate a waterway. The bill explicitly states that it is designed to safeguard the public's health, safety, and welfare, but its limited scope fails to safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of private boaters.

As a constituent, I respectfully but strongly urge you to include all boaters within the scope of HB-1188 and enact it into law.

Thank you for considering the comments of recreation enthusiasts like myself as you consider this important legislation.


----------



## Andy H.

Admin's Note: the currently active threads on this topic have been merged and some duplicate or irrelevant posts deleted. 

...and *CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND STATE SENATORS!!!*

Please do this even if you think your legislators are already a lock to support the bill, or are adamantly opposed to it

*If you're not sure who to call*, use this website: COMaps: Find Your Elected District


----------



## mjpowhound

Just called my reps as well as the ones listed above. The only one whose mailbox was full was Gerou.

Rep. Riesberg actually answered the phone at 9:15 and stated he is supporting the bill.


----------



## Boots

Here is my problem with HB 1188---

Current Colorado law greatly limits stream access to the public in favor of landowners who own property adjacent to streams or lakes. Right now, private boaters or commercial rafters floating down a Colorado waterway, adjacent to private property, are liable for a civil trespass violation. If they portage around an obstacle or “touch down” on that same waterway, they could be prosecuted for a criminal trespass. The status quo denies the public’s right to stream access and threatens the state’s rafting and fishing industries.


If passed, HB 1188 would create two classes of water users. Commercial rafters would enjoy access to all streams where they currently operate and be able to avoid trespass charges. But those who cannot afford to pay, or who choose not to pay for stream access, such as recreational anglers or private boaters, would remain subject to trespass violations. Moreover, the language in the bill that protects commercial rafters clearly implies that others are not entitled to protection, and thus could embolden private landowners to bring actions against
private users of Colorado waterways. 


The reason that private boaters are excluded from the bill is because priavte boaters have not been involved in the discussion. There is currently no reason for legislators to include
private boaters if we are not willing to engage in this bill. 


Here are the reasons I think we need to amend the bill this year...

1) the time, effort, and money it takes to pass a bill through the state legislature.

2) the political climate in Colorado to revisit this issue might not be this favorable next year
3) commercial and private boaters are natural allies and should be working together to pass meaningful reform
4) adding private boaters would not bring additional opposition to the bill
5) the bill, as written, may actually hurt access for private boaters if it passes in its current form.


*Resources*
If we are not involved in this bill, how are private boaters going to raise the money it takes to get our own legislation passed? By my count, the commercial boaters had at least four professional lobbyists working on this bill at the first hearing, as well as one of the best water attorneys in the state. Some of those lobbyists have been posting to this site. They have been working on this legislation since last summer. 

*Political climate*
The legislature and Governor's office is in the hands of the Democrats this year. It is clear that
Democrats are more receptive to a public right of river access than the Republicans... Given the uncertainty of the political landscape in Colorado, and the difficulty and expense of running legislation, doesn't it make sense to try and pass real reform now? 

*Commercial and private boaters are natural allies*

The lobbyists, and the commercial outfitters, would all like to see private boaters added to the bill. They are all private boaters themselves! They know that it could be a long time before this issue is revisited by the legislature. 


*Adding private boaters would not bring additional opposition to the bill*


Rep. Curry thought that by excluding the private boaters the bill would get less opposition from the ranching community. It did not work. The Colorado Cattlemen, Club 20, the Realtors, and the Farm Bureau (to name a few) are all opposed. Even with all that opposition, the bill still easily passed out of committee (7-3) with some Republican support. 


*The current version may hurt privateboaters*


At the hearing, the Eagle County District Attorney, who was speaking on behalf of the other DAs in the state, said in the legislative hearing, *"this bill will finally draw a bright line of when landowners can call the police (for trespassing) and when they cannot."* The DAs are in favor of clarifying the right of public access. Guess what side of the new "bright line" private boaters will be on if this bill passes? 


At the hearing, attorneys on both sides of the issue were in agreement. There is currently no legally-recognized right to float in Colorado, and this bill only gives that right to commercial outfitters. 
Most landowners don't know about their right to exclude boaters from floating through their property. This bill has raised public awareness and we may see more private boaters targeted by landowners in the future. Certainly the developer on the Taylor, who started the current controversy, would not hesitate to call the sheriff if he saw a private group floating
through his property. Heck, even a landowner on the Colorado River could exclude private boaters from floating through his property if he wanted to. It only would take one landowner and a willing sheriff and access would be closed. 
Given that every other state allows the right to float, (including the ultra-liberal Utah, Montana, and Wyoming!) why should we settle for any less? 
OF COURSE the outfitters should have the right to float on the Taylor... and every other river that can float a boat. I would like to support the bill. But right now, as it is written, it is unfair and may harm the rights of private boaters.
It looks like this thing has the traction it will need to get through the House. If we have any chance of amending it at all, we probably need to focus on the State Senate. 
PLEASE CALL YOUR STATE SENATORS AND ASK THEM TO AMEND 1188!!


----------



## riojedi

Boots not bad points, but keep in mind a loss here means less access for everyone. I wish there were some changes as well but you're drawing the wrong line in the sand.


----------



## Boots

Why would we lose if the bill was amended and the right to float was extended to everyone -- as it is in Utah, Montana and Wyoming? Do you really think there are any property rights groups who are not already against this bill? 

Why not pass a bill that addresses the problem for all Coloradoans? 

I lived on the western slope for the past decade and the majority of boaters on the rivers out there are not commercial boaters... they are private boaters. People with families who enjoy spending time with friends "messing about in boats".

Throw a line to the private boaters and bring us into this bill!


----------



## Marco

Boots-

I thoroughly understand and agree with many of your points. Both CW and AW are working to amend the bill with language that includes all boaters. Our best shot at amending it is in senate committee, which means that it _*has to pass the house first*_. PLEASE e-mail your state house representative and ask them to support BOTH HB10-1188 AND any amendments supporting private boaters in the house tomorrow. If amendments are not added in the house do not despair- we may be able to get them added in the senate.

Mark Robbins
CW Conservation Director


----------



## merritrd

Boots, best piece I have read here as to why we need to fight for privates.

To many rafters are afraid of the ag and water interest. They already were opposed to this bill from Day 1 whether privates were included or not We have to get privates included now or I don't think the window will open up for privates again.

I asked a lawyer what I would do as a private boater who was charged with trespassing under this bill. His initial reaction was that the bill might be unconstitutional because it violates equal protection. If that happens the new law gets thrown out, nobady gets covered.


----------



## Ole Rivers

*"Public Easement Rights to Navigate, Utilize and Portage"*



1whitewattafoo said:


> Hey skifatskis and olerivers, I too was there pfd and all, I kinda feel like I'm jumpin in
> on this thread but have a question.
> What rout are you looking for for fisherman? Is this for floating fisherman in rafts that want to float and fish? Is it for fisherman that would possibly want to float in and be able to access the shoreline to Wade or fish from shore? Or do we need a voice just from fishermen in general to help amend the bill to include all? I just understood the bill as to include The fisherman in the "private boater" category.


Since AW/CW is now calling for a broader amendment to include all boaters, my route, so to speak, is to call for a most broad amendment to include "the public". By including everyone, boater and fisherman alike, no one, no group or no class is excluded. The substance of the bill, if it remains the same or is further amended, is not affected by the narrowness or broadness of the group size. It is still the right to float, or, as my route advocates, the right to navigate, utilize and portage that is primarily at issue.

Further, the basis for the HB 1188 is the assertion of the Common Law right of navigation. It's in the very beginning of the bill. Because the Common Law of navigation only dealt with tidal waters, the United States extended navigation and navigability to include inland fresh waters along with subsequent related United States provisions of law such as the Navigability for Commerce Clause, Navigability for Title, Navigability for public recreation, state Constitutions (See Colorado's), state admission acts, Legal Doctrine of Custom, adverse possession prescription and prescriptive easement, spanish, native american and treaties law and custom as recognized by U.S. law, the Laws of Nature and the Public Trust Doctrine.

In other words, if the private interest land owner opposes the bill, it is opposing it primarily because of the substance rather than the group. However, if you really think about it, the private interest land owner is really going head to head with the public interest water user as a whole, wouldn't you agree?

Going even further with my route, the public interest water user is better off uniting with *ALL* its subgroups. You know, that ole "United We Stand, Divided We Fall" kinda thing. Selfless rather than Selfish...

As for the rights involved, my route includes navigation, utilization and portage incidental to all lawful activities of state waters. Floating on the water surface or over the bed? Or, navigation of, utilization of and portage around the bed? Which rights cover all the public and which rights cover only the boating subgroup?

To be concise, my route is to amend and build the bill around the foundational:

*"public easement to navigate, utilize and portage state waters in ways incidental to all lawful activities and in a manner that safeguards the health, safety, welfare and freedom from injury or danger of the public that coexists with the private land owner estate to hold title, manage property and control livestock."*

I hope you will consider this route and ask the your legislators to do the same in the interest of all the public interest and, for that matter, all the private interest, so that *ALL WIN*.

Richard Strauss


----------



## 1whitewattafoo

Ok great, so you are calling and emailing all asking them to vote yes I hope! No matter what we all say, ramble on about, or argue about this needs to pass amended or not, I pasionately care about all water recreation and just hope for the best.


----------



## 1whitewattafoo

Ok then


----------



## zboda

It's streaming now:

Colorado House 2010 Legislative Day 31


----------



## Junk Show Tours

It passed the House! No amendment for private boaters though.


----------



## raymo

Paddle Iraq said:


> It passed the House! No amendment for private boaters though.


 It's like eating an elephant, one bite at a time. At least it's a step in the right direction.


----------



## klund

So the next step is the senate? I sent my state senator (Brandon Shaffer, district 17) an e-mail and got this response. It looks like a standard, boilerplate response - but if he really hasn't decided how to vote, now is the time to push him our way.
_
Thanks for your email.

I appreciate hearing your perspective on this issue. I have not decided how to vote on this bill yet, so the timing of your email is very good. I will listen to arguments made on both sides before casting my vote. I will keep your points in mind as I consider this issue. 

Again, thanks for taking the time to write.

Sincerely,

Brandon

Brandon C. Shaffer
Senate President
The Capitol Building
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303) 866-5291
Fax: (303) 866-4543_


----------



## Geoff773

Here is what I got from Senator Steadman

"Hello Geoff and thanks for contacting me about HB 1188. I’m generally aware of the bill, but haven’t read it yet. I believe it was heard in a House committee yesterday and was passed and sent to the House floor for debate. I’ll take a closer look at it once it passes the House and comes over to the Senate. Hopefully it will have been changed to include private boaters, although there may be some reasons why that may not be possible. I just glanced at the bill and the title seems to be limited to licensed river outfitters. That may prevent expansion to private boaters due to constitutional restrictions on amendments to bills based on the scope of their titles. If that’s the case it’s a shame, because my off-the-cuff reaction is that private boaters should enjoy the same rights to navigate Colorado’s rivers and streams as those guided by licensed outfitters. This isn’t an issue that I have much background or experience with, and I know the hearing drew a big crowd to the Capitol, so I’m sure I’ll be learning more about it in the weeks to come. I’ll keep your comments in mind and look into the possibility of amendments. 

I’m glad you contacted me about this bill. Your input is always welcome and I hope you'll continue to contact me with concerns. In turn, I will add your name and email address to the list of constituents that receive email updates from me. If you would prefer not to receive these emails please let me know and we'll remove you from the list, or there is an "unsubscribe" option in the emails that you'll receive. Thanks again for contacting me, and I hope to hear from you again in the future."

I really want to see private boaters added but i'm glad to see any progress on this issue for now.


----------



## mjpowhound

I have no background in law, but it doesn't seem right to grant access to a commercial organization and deny private citizens and I can't think of a case where that's happened. Can anyone think of an example?

If not, it would seem that the courts could probably rule on the first trepassing case involving this new law to set positive precedent for privates?


----------



## Junk Show Tours

mjpowhound said:


> it would seem that the courts could probably rule on the first trepassing case involving this new law to set positive precedent for privates?


Actually, the opposite would probably happen. The commercial floating law would be struck down and neither private or commercial boaters would have floating rights. I support this bill but adding private boaters to it would be a very smart thing to do.


----------



## mjpowhound

Why would it be struck down and why would having private boaters included prevent it from being struck down?


----------



## merritrd

It might be struck down due to the equal protection clause of the constitution. 

Sen Steadman is most likely correct about the bill title. Legislators draft bills with tight titles so other interests can not muddy up the bill with amendments that the sponser doesn't want. 

Kill the bill and get a new bill introduced with a wider bill title.


----------



## Junk Show Tours

Equal protection. The law would be favoring people that pay to go down the river vs. private boaters.


----------



## El Flaco

Sent Brandon Shaffer a note, with a request to amend to include private boaters.


----------



## cuzin

Paddle Iraq said:


> Equal protection. The law would be favoring people that pay to go down the river vs. private boaters.


It's been a while since my Constitutional Law class, but I don't think that this law would be struck down based on a challenge under the Equal Protection clause. In order for a law to violate the Equal Protection clause, it would have to violate a "fundamental right" or discriminate against a "protected class" of citizens. Supreme Court precedent only recognizes a limited number of protected classes (race, national origin, religion, etc.). I don't see how the law as drafted discriminates against any protected class of people. 

State legislatures are generally granted broad power to pass laws where there is a rational basis for the law, and the law is not facially discriminatory against a protected class. Here, there is a rational basis for the state to permit companies to continue historical use of rivers for economically benefical uses. I don't see any viable challenge to this law based on the Equal Protection clause. 

I think that the current land owners may have a better argument for a constitutional challenge in that this law may have the effect of taking private property rights without providing for just compensation. States have the (recently expanded) right to take private property rights and allocate those rights for the benefit of public use only if the state provides "just compensation" for the property taken. There could be an argument that under current Colorado law, the right to float these rivers belongs to the property owner, not to the public. If this law changes the current law, and grants the right to float to the public or to private outfitters, the state has essentially "taken" a private property right without compensating the land owner.


----------



## brandon_blomquist

*Loss of what?*



cuzin said:


> I think that the current land owners may have a better argument for a constitutional challenge in that this law may have the effect of taking private property rights without providing for just compensation. States have the (recently expanded) right to take private property rights and allocate those rights for the benefit of public use only if the state provides "just compensation" for the property taken. There could be an argument that under current Colorado law, the right to float these rivers belongs to the property owner, not to the public. If this law changes the current law, and grants the right to float to the public or to private outfitters, the state has essentially "taken" a private property right without compensating the land owner.


I think you make a good point here, and it was one that was brought up several times in the hearing. However, given Colorado's current laws relating to property and water rights, the landowners do not actually own the water. So, in my opinion (FWIW) the state would not have taken anything from the landowners, and just compensation would not be due given that no loss would occur. This may be a pretty simple view on a rather complex situation, but seems to fit my needs well


----------



## Ole Rivers

*Amendments to HB 1188 Second Reading*

From the House Journal, 2/12/10 at http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/clics2010a/csl.nsf/Journals?OpenFrameSet amending HB 1188 as introduced at:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cl...7E6422B872576AA00693103?Open&file=1188_01.pdf

16 HB10-1188 by Representative(s) Curry, Fischer, Labuda, Massey,
17 Scanlan; also Senator(s) Hodge, Gibbs, Heath, Tochtrop--
18 Concerning clarification of the scope of the existing right
19 of navigation of guides employed by river outfitters.
20
21 Amendment No. 1, Judiciary Report, dated February 8, 2010, and placed
22 in member’s bill file; Report also printed in House Journal, February 9,
23 page 277.
24
25 Amendment No. 2, by Representative(s) Levy.
26
27 Amend printed bill, page 3, line 2, strike everything after "OF" and
28 substitute "NAVIGATION;".
29
30 Page 3, strike lines 3 and 4.
31
32 Amendment No. 3, by Representative(s) Waller.
33
34 Amend printed bill, page 5, after line 17 insert:
35
36 "SECTION 3. 33-32-106 (1), Colorado Revised Statutes, is
37 amended to read:
38
39 33-32-106. Equipment required - employees required to meet
40 minimum qualifications. (1) All licensed river outfitters shall provide
41 the river-outfitting equipment required by regulations RULES promulgated
42 by the board. and said THE equipment shall be in a serviceable condition
43 for its operation as required by the regulations promulgated by the board
44 BOARD'S RULES. EVERY VESSEL SHALL BE CLEARLY MARKED WITH THE
45 RIVER OUTFITTER'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER.".
46
47 Renumber succeeding sections accordingly.
48
49 As amended, ordered engrossed and placed on the Calendar for Third
50 Reading and Final Passage.


----------



## Ole Rivers

*Monday! Monday! at Raceway Park!*

My, but the House is moving HB 1188 right along...

Third Reading is scheduled for Monday morning, February 16, 2010. From what I understand, amendments may be made at Third Reading, but it is not done very often. Looks like Senate Judicial (?) Committee hearing is the next likely place to amend, if any.

At this rate, Senate Committee hearing would be Tuesday, Senate Second Reading Wednesday, Third Reading Thursday and Governor Ritter signs it Friday!

That leaves next weekend open for boating, weather permitting, and Monday for Shaw's legal legions to do their thing...


----------



## Boots

Friends - it looks like private boaters have been abandoned by the commercial outfitters. The recent ammendments are intended to make it easier to exclude private boaters from rivers...

"44 ....EVERY VESSEL SHALL BE CLEARLY MARKED WITH THE
45 RIVER OUTFITTER'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER.".

Private property owners will be told that if a boater floats through private property, and there is not an outfitter name and number on the side of the boat, that property owner can call the sheriff. Private boaters cannot float through private property without being subject to a possible civil trespass penalty. If you touch the riverbed or banks, they can charge you with criminal trespass.

I expect that the commercial outfitters, and their lobbyists, are trying to get this bill through the Senate this week. They want to get it passed, and to the Governor's desk, before private boaters wake up and realize they have been duped into supporting a bill that potentially excludes them from any river in our state that goes through private property. 

--Matt Sura


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

Thanks for posting that Matt,

I've done a little research on the legislative rules here in Colorado, and as I suspected, there's a rule that prohibits any amendment of a bill that is contradictory to the bill's title. In order to ammend this bill to include all boaters, the sponsor would need to re-name the bill, which in this case doesn't seem likely. At any rate, it looks like this bill has the necessary support to pass both the house and senate. Now more than ever it is important to start calling your state reps, especially rep Curry. If you choose to call your reps, urge them to re-name this bill and amend it to include all boaters, not just commercial rafting outfits. We need to act now or we run the risk of being left high and dry.


----------



## TakemetotheRiver

Boots said:


> Friends - it looks like private boaters have been abandoned by the commercial outfitters. The recent ammendments are intended to make it easier to exclude private boaters from rivers...
> 
> "44 ....EVERY VESSEL SHALL BE CLEARLY MARKED WITH THE
> 45 RIVER OUTFITTER'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER.".
> 
> Private property owners will be told that if a boater floats through private property, and there is not an outfitter name and number on the side of the boat, that property owner can call the sheriff. Private boaters cannot float through private property without being subject to a possible civil trespass penalty. If you touch the riverbed or banks, they can charge you with criminal trespass.
> 
> I expect that the commercial outfitters, and their lobbyists, are trying to get this bill through the Senate this week. They want to get it passed, and to the Governor's desk, before private boaters wake up and realize they have been duped into supporting a bill that potentially excludes them from any river in our state that goes through private property.
> 
> --Matt Sura


I noticed the emphasis on this clause in an earlier post and I wonder how much of your response is actually in the bill. Do we know for certain that the intent of this clause is to exclude private boaters? Just for clarification, commercial boating regulations in Colorado have always stipulated that commercial boats be clearly marked with the name and number of the outfitter. This bill is intended to cover commercial boating for the state, not just for the instance in question. It will likely take precedence over former regulations, so it makes sense to include some of those regs in the bill.

All I'm saying is we shouldn't jump to conclusions based on that clause. The commercial boating industry is not out to get private boaters.


----------



## Marco

The third reading & vote was laid over today, not sure when it was rescheduled, but I hear they are pretty busy up on the hill.

Matt- That amendment is discouraging, but I do not know where it came from- my guess would be the landowners rather than outfitters. It can be changed to read "every commercial vessel" which would mean that private boaters would not need such registration.

FlyRod- The 'Title' issue is a sticky wicket, but I have been told that it has been worked around before. Folks who have been around the legislative process for a while believe that this bill can be amended to include private boaters.


----------



## Badazws6

I don't think it is so much that the commercial boating industry is "out to get private boaters". I do however, find it incredibly hypocritical that they are so willing to lobby other river users to support "their bill" while leaving other river users out in the cold; especially when it seems there is support for including everyone (at least as reported on the Buzz).

If the commercial boaters want the whole river community as a whole to stand together, well, here we are. However, it would be a lot easier to stand with the commercial boaters if it didn't seem like they kept shuffling to the side like everyone else where the red-headed-step-children and they are nervous about if we are going to make it harder for them or embarrass them.


----------



## Turner2

The commercial boating industry certainly isn't out to get us private boaters and fisherman, they are out there pushing this through as fast as possible to get their bill passed and signed quickly. I think an unintended consequence is that they may be legislating the navigability issue once and for all rather than making a 'small step' towards public access for all, and setting bad precedent for us private boaters (despite all the language in the bill saying that it does nothing to denigrate the right of the public to float). 

The part about clear markings on vessels is concerning to me. Seems like it would give landowners clear direction in who can be excluded and charged for trespassing under the previously unclear Colorado law on the issue. Without the bill, there is really no hard law that entitles a landowner to exclude a floater (save the sketchy Emmert opinion which didn't even litigate the issue of navigability), and floaters have strong Colorado Constitution language supporting our right to float on the water ('The water of every natural stream . . . is hereby declared to be the _property of the public_ . . . dedicated to the use of the _people of the state_, subject to appropriation.) If the bill passes, a landowner (and a court) would find a clear answer from the state legislature about who is allowed to float on our rivers through private property: boats with a name and license number. 

Derek
http://streamaccessforall.blogspot.com


----------



## Andy H.

Turner2 said:


> If the bill passes, a landowner (and a court) would find a clear answer from the state legislature about who is allowed to float on our rivers through private property: boats with a name and license number.


I don't see it like this. For one thing, outfitters are already required to have their identity clearly marked, though the license number requirement seems new. 

To me, this bill is mainly about preventing outfitters from being charged with trespassing for incidental touching of the bed and banks and portaging safety hazards. Private boaters aren't given that protection in the bill, but we don't have it now and won't lose the ability to float because of the bill. That said, I'd love to see the bill amended (and have petitioned my legislators) to include private boaters.

-AH


----------



## Turner2

Andy H. said:


> To me, this bill is mainly about preventing outfitters from being charged with trespassing for incidental touching of the bed and banks and portaging safety hazards. Private boaters aren't given that protection in the bill, but we don't have it now and won't lose the ability to float because of the bill.
> 
> -AH


I understand and support the main objectives of the bill, and i (like everyone on here) do not want to see the rafting industry at risk of lawsuits (although i think they could win them if they had good legal help). I am more concerned with the incidental side-effects of legislatively drawing distinctions and carving out this exception for outfitters. Arguably, private boaters DO have the right to float and incidentally touch right now. It would take a (tough) win in court, but, when the "navigability" issue has been litigated in other states without legislation on the issue, most every state court has found a public right to access and float on (and incidentally touch and portage) rivers that are "navigable in-fact", based on the water being owned by the public through the state constitution and the adoption of English common law when we entered the union. 

Proclaiming the need to protect outfitters basically admits that they (and we) have no right to navigate right now. A court faced with a suit by a landowner against a private boater could infer just that if this bill becomes law, and we would thus be losing that right which, right now, we don't really know if we have.


----------



## watermonkey

Colorado House 2010 Legislative Day 38 
If you haven't followed this linked and watched the entrie floor discussion last Friday when these troubling ammendments were introduced...Do It! You will understand how heavily this bill can impact private boaters - Curry herself asked for a no vote on a proposed ammendment put for by another member of the house to include private boaters. Other state agencies have been opposed to this bill from the beginning specifically because it does not address the private boaters. Curry also asked for a no vote on an ammendment that would not limit "commercial use" consideration to more than the last few years - this way the only companies that can EVER run a section if this passes are those that have run it in the last 2 years. What if I want to start up my own guide business - does this mean that I can never ever run these waters? Will the current commerical companies now "own" the rafting rights to given stretches? This bill needs to go down. I


----------



## Marco

The outfitters aren't the ones who limited the HB1188 language to not include private boaters. Before the bill was introduced into the house AW and CW were working with the bill sponsor (Rep. Curry) and author to make it more inclusive of private boaters. Representative Curry did not believe the bill had any chance of passing if the language of the bill was not very narrowly restricted to outfitters, and she would not sponsor the bill if it had broader language. So let's not get upset at the outfitters, let's work to get the bill changed so that we are all included.

The house vote has not taken place yet, there is still time to call & e-mail your representative and senator. Let them know that you want the bill amended to include all boaters, not just commercial outfitters.

If you do not know who your representative and senator are, click here and enter your zip code to find them (look in the State Legislative section): Project Vote Smart - American Government, Elections, Candidates and Voting


----------



## Ole Rivers

*IT'S TIME TO FOCUS.*



Marco said:


> The third reading & vote was laid over today, not sure when it was rescheduled, but I hear they are pretty busy up on the hill.
> 
> Matt- That amendment is discouraging, but I do not know where it came from- my guess would be the landowners rather than outfitters. It can be changed to read "every commercial vessel" which would mean that private boaters would not need such registration.
> 
> FlyRod- The 'Title' issue is a sticky wicket, but I have been told that it has been worked around before. Folks who have been around the legislative process for a while believe that this bill can be amended to include private boaters.


Last Monday, my attendance at the Capitol went for 11 hours. Of those 11 hours, 5 of them were in attendance at the House Judiciary Committee meeting. While there, I talked to about 19 people, both private and public interests. During the hearing, there were several testimonies and committee member questions concerning additional interest inclusion.

Last Friday, my attendance at the Capitol heard and saw the Second Reading House vote and and also resulted in talking to about 5 people.

Today, my attendance at the Capitol for the Third Reading vote learned that it was laid off until tomorrow. I am going to the Capitol tomorrow to watch the vote in person and maybe talk to some more people to advocate for the public (*ALL* water users such as boaters AND fishermen), generally, and fishermen, specifically.

I have been posting to and starting threads here and elsewhere.
My online forum posts and threads' participation and originations have been made on this forum and elsewhere. This thread and post is one of them.

Here's my present take on HB 1188:

*IT'S TIME TO FOCUS.*

Focus on:

1 The Senate Judiciary Committee members
2 The Substance
3 The Procedure
4 The Time Frame


The Senate Judiciary Committee members. The House Third Reading will likely pass tomorrow morning without amendments about which we have been discussing. Therefore, the next stop is, likely, the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

Therefore, our efforts need to focus on the Senate committee.

Substantively, the bill should be re-titled and amended to include the public interest.

Procedurally as to the bill itself, as mentioned by Marco (Mark Robbins, Conservation Director of Colorado Whitewater), the title and bill amendments would need to be re-titled and amended, which is tough but possible.

Advocating for the public/fishermen interest, I have directly and previously asked Representive Curry and others, just as Mark and Nathan of CW/AW have, for the private boater interest, to more broadly re-title and amend the bill.

We, as ALL water users, should do so again... united, directly and in person... together. There is strength in numbers.

Time Frame.... 

Water users, fishermen and boaters alike and together, should meet with Senate Judiciary committee members NOW, well prior to their Senate Judiciary committee hearing, to slow the pace of the procedural time frame and to get to a bill substance that serves ALL water user interests.

Anyone who'd like to attend such a meeting, speak up. I will attend *together* with Mark of CW and/or Nathan of AW and all other water users who would also like to participate.

Anyone who'd like to email and/or call the Senate committee members to support this meeting and/or the premise for the meeting, do your thing.

Richard Strauss


----------



## Marco

Ole Rivers said:


> I am going to the Capitol tomorrow to watch the vote in person and maybe talk to some more people to advocate for the public (*ALL* water users such as boaters AND fishermen), generally, and fishermen, specifically.
> 
> ...
> 
> Focus on:
> 
> 1 The Senate Judiciary Committee members
> 2 The Substance
> 3 The Procedure
> 4 The Time Frame
> 
> 
> The Senate Judiciary Committee members. The House Third Reading will likely pass tomorrow morning without amendments about which we have been discussing. Therefore, the next stop is, likely, the Senate Judiciary Committee.
> 
> ...
> 
> Anyone who'd like to attend such a meeting, speak up. I will attend *together* with Mark of CW and/or Nathan of AW and all other water users who would also like to participate.
> 
> Anyone who'd like to email and/or call the Senate committee members to support this meeting and/or the premise for the meeting, do your thing.
> 
> Richard Strauss


Thank you for your time and effort on this issue, Richard. I would indeed be glad to meet with you to discuss this issue. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the house vote tomorrow, but I could meet with you in the evening. Send me a PM; I live in Ft. Collins.

If HB1188 passes the house it will then be assigned to committee in the senate at the first hearing. That is most likely the senate judiciary committee, but we won't know until it is assigned.

With regards to advocating for language which includes all 'water users', I would say this:

1) As a representative of CW I am specifically advocating for our membership, which consists primarily of private (non-commercial) kayakers, rafters and canoeists.

2) Given Colorado's history of supporting land owner rights, I _*personally*_ believe that it would be very difficult to get a bill passed which would include language allowing walk/wade fishing- below the high water mark or otherwise. Such access would not merely be 'incidental contact', and the opponents of the bill would have a stronger 'takings' argument. Float fishing (from a boat, not float tube), would fall more under the category of boater access, however note that the bill has already been amended to specifically dis-allow anchorage and 'intentional grounding'- wording specifically aimed at anglers.

Thanks again for your efforts and all of the information you have provided here.

Mark


----------



## Boots

Here is a way to have your voice heard...

Please come to the Capitol THIS THURSDAY AT NOON and tell these Senators that the bill should be expanded to private boaters. This meeting is a regularly scheduled event for pro-sportsmen representatives to listen to the concerns of sportsmen. Please attend and bring a friend!

--Matt 

*Sportsmen’s Caucus*​*at the **Colorado State Capitol*​​*Thursday *​*February 18th - 12 to 1:15 PM*

*Senate Committee Room 356*

​*Hosted by:*​*Senator Lois Tochtrop*​*Senator Dan Gibbs*​*Representative John Soper*​​*Agenda:*​· *Lloyd Liebetrau presenting on sportsmen using off-road vehicles to access hunting and fishing*
· *Discussion of HB 10-1188 (river rafting)*
· *Proposed Habitat Stamp bill*


----------



## melted_ice

*Response From Senator Al White*

Thanks for the letter informing me of your position on the river bill. This is a very difficult issue for me, because it puts into conflict constituencies that I care very deeply about. As you are aware, I have always been a great supporter of recreation and tourism in our state. On the other hand, I have always held private property rights to be very dear to me. In this situation I have to come down on the side of property rights, and will therefore be a no vote on HB 1188 and will not support an amendment that broadens the definition to include private rafters. I just can't support the degradation of property rights that this bill will accomplish if passed. Allowing for just a little bit of illegal trespass is like being just a little bit pregnant. Al White


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

I just read through the engrossed (amended) version of the bill, and there's some language that was added that is quite troubling. 

Here's what's got me up in arms - 

(5) Other rights unaffected. NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO:

(c) CREATE A PUBLIC TRUST IN ANY RIVER OR OTHER WATERS OF THE STATE 

It sounds like whoever sponsored this P.O.S. amendment is trying to deny the application of the Public Trust Doctrine, not that they could legally do so.

I, too have had several discussions with rep Curry, and cannot for the life of me understand her reluctance to include private boaters in this bill. The very same organizations that always oppose any effort to clarify or expand public access are opposed to this bill, as written. By adding language to protect private boaters as well, it would stand to reason that the number of people in support of this thing would increase tenfold, while the level of opposition would remain essentially the same. Something stinks, and it ain't me, I just showered.


----------



## AVAColoradoRafting

1188 just officially passed the House with 40 votes! (The vote was 40 to 25; 35 Dems, 1 Ind, 4 Rep.) Now it's on to the Senate. Please do not let this first victory make you passive--getting through the Senate will be an enormous challenge. And the Jackson-Hill contingent is pulling out big guns and even bigger money. 

As soon as we have it we will post a list of key Senators to contact besides your own. 

Don't forget, you can find up to date info on the issue at the Facebook group at Welcome to Facebook | Facebook . If you use twitter, we're also updating at AVA Colorado Rafting (avarafting) on Twitter .


----------



## merritrd

Richard
Sorry I missed you Fri at the Capitol. A couple of points I would like to clarify.

1. Bill titles may not be expanded, they may be contracted. So the bill as drafted can not include private boaters.

2 What I think needs to happen is there needs to be a 2nd bill introduced with late bill status that addresses commercial and private interest and 1188 needs to be P.I. (killed)

I found it interesting that during 2nd reading, Rep Curry said that private boaters had not contacted her about needing to be included in the bill. I would have to assume that CW & AW contacted her after the bill was introduced because the private boaters didn't know about the proposed bill before introduction.


----------



## Badazws6

Just trying to do a little reading on the subject, here are a couple links I found particularly interesting:

From the stand point of Colorado Farm Bureau
ALERT: Vote NO on HB 1188! « The Pulse- of Colorado Farm Bureau

From the stand point of the Colorado Cattlemans Assoc.
Colorado Cattlemen - News

Directly from Kathleen Curry
Letter to constituents about the float bill » kathleencurry.org

I don't remember seeing a link to the actual bill so:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cl...E6422B872576AA00693103?open&file=1188_ren.pdf


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

It ain't over yet dude. I'll bet ya anything Jackson Shaw and their lawyers have some tricks up their sleeves.


----------



## Andy H.

Admin note - "Who Owns a River" thread merged with HB 1188 thread.


----------



## skifatskis

watermonkey said:


> What if I want to start up my own guide business - does this mean that I can never ever run these waters? Will the current commerical companies now "own" the rafting rights to given stretches? This bill needs to go down. I


This part of the bill does not limit the number of companies, or new companies starting on rivers that have been run in the last two years. What it does say is that if a river has had no commercial rafting in the last 2 years it will not be proteced under this bill. You would be welcome to start a company on any river in the state that has been run comercialy in the last 2 years...of course if the specific river's management plan alows for that...which is not disputed by this bill.


----------



## Mike Harvey

I can see that I am late to this debate, but I have been trying to understand the implications of this Bill. I am now wondering why private boaters are supporting 1188? I am certainly in favor of my friends in the outfitting business being able to float rivers without harassment, but not at the expense of being able to float them privately. It does not seem like it would take a genius attorney to charge me with Civil Trespass and then say "If the legislature had intended to cover private use of rivers they would have done so when they passed 1188." In other words if outfitters are explicitly covered then privates are implicitly excluded. Where are AW and CWWA on this one? Isn't this why we contribute?


----------



## DurangoSteve

I opine that this is an "imperfect" bill... BUT one that gives private boaters a "foot in the door." Personally, I would prefer a more upfront (and less ambiguous) "scouting and portaging are legal for ALL boaters" piece of legislation. 

_BUT... WTF do I know about the delicate legislative dance?_

Not so much.


----------



## Mike Harvey

DurangoSteve said:


> I opine that this is an "imperfect" bill... BUT one that gives private boaters a "foot in the door." Personally, I would prefer a more upfront (and less ambiguous) "scouting and portaging are legal for ALL boaters" piece of legislation.
> 
> _BUT... WTF do I know about the delicate legislative dance?_
> 
> Not so much.


I am probably not smart enough to see the "foot in the door" it gives private boaters so I would love for someone to explain that to me in detail. 

I hear you on the politics and the outfitters have every right to organize and go get a Bill that helps them, but why should private boaters support it? and where are the organizations that we pay to represent us in these situations so that we don't need to be hyper vigilante? Just questions....


----------



## Mike Harvey

Mike Harvey said:


> and where are the organizations that we pay to represent us in these situations so that we don't need to be hyper vigilante? Just questions....


OK I overstepped on that comment. I am stuck in the Milwaukee airport right now so you'll have to excuse my quick posting finger.

American Whitewater - Colorado Legislature Tackles River Access Bill

it sounds like AW is working to get the Bill amended so I'll have to apologize to Nathan and the rest of the crew....


----------



## scagrotto

Mike Harvey said:


> I can see that I am late to this debate, but I have been trying to understand the implications of this Bill. I am now wondering why private boaters are supporting 1188?


The better question is why all boaters wouldn't support the bill. In a perfect world the bill would be completely unnecessary (my reading of federal law regarding navigability and public trust doctrine tells me it should be unnecessary, but this would be a simple straightforward bill that clarifies part of the issue), but in an imperfect world we should start with what's being offered.

The bill is very simple. It makes it clear that the property owner has no cause of action against some of the people who might boat through their property. It does absolutely nothing to change any other rights. Private boaters will neither gain nor lose anything. The only people who lose if the bill passes are the landowners who want to keep boaters out.

A good strategy to defeat an opponent is to divide and conquer. I don't know if that's already part of the strategy of Jackson Shaw or any other opponents of boating, but you and others are voluntarily dividing the proponents of boating access into smaller and weaker groups. Another way to defeat an opponent is to gain allies to increase your power. The opponents are portraying this as a violation of their private property rights, but it will only affect a few property owners and any effect will be from only a few commercial boaters. The reasons to oppose the bill are if you're among those few property owners directly affected, or on general principle about property rights. Make this bill apply to all of the waters of the state, and all of the boaters (which will include all of the drunken tubers), and you should expect far more people to jump on the general principle bus.

So who loses if the bill fails? Obviously Jackson Shaw will claim a victory, and pursue the commercial rafters who won't have a clear and obvious "get out of jail free" card, but they'll also be at least as able to pursue private boaters. It's a pretty safe bet that they'll argue that the bill's failure shows that the legislature believes that your passage across their property constitutes trespass. If they can get you arrested for criminal trespass they won't even have to pay to prosecute you. Potentially you'll lose just as much as the commercial boaters.

You may think the bill doesn't offer you any immediate and obvious personal benefit, but as a boater you've at least gotten your foot in the door.


----------



## scagrotto

Oops. Meant to preview, not post that last one yet.



Mike Harvey said:


> I am probably not smart enough to see the "foot in the door" it gives private boaters so I would love for someone to explain that to me in detail.


It gets your foot in the door by making it clear that it isn't automatically trespassing (either as a criminal act or a civil case) just because a boater floats through your property. As I see it (and I'll point out that IANAL) this is very different than something like issuing medical licenses that make it legal for some people to perform surgery, but a crime if you or I do it. The state isn't giving commercial boaters a right to trespass, they're clearly saying that what they're doing isn't trespassing. If it's not trespassing when a commercial boater does it why would it be trespassing when you do it?

In addition to that, once they've passed a bill clarifying the law for the commercial boaters, it should be at least as easy to pass another bill clarifying that the same applies to other users.


----------



## ccwalbridge

One thing that's been lost in the Colorado access discussions is that river river navigation rights in the United States and Canada are a long-standing tradition, widely protected by law since colonial times. Its less about English common law and more about hundreds of years of precedent in North America. Rivers were the interstate highways of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries and founding documents like the Treaty of Lancaster (Pa, 1744) and the Northwest Ordinance (1784) made free passage the law of the land. What was once vital for commerce is now important for recreation and the many businesses which benefit from it. Legal access to rivers have always been good for the people of this country, which is why this right is still recognized hundreds of years later.

Navigation rights do not damage to property rights, since U.S. floaters typically cannot leave their boat and walk on the surrounding land. In most states a person can no more block passage down a river than block any other important public highway. Through a quirk of Colorado law this right has not been clarified. HR 1188 looks like a good first step.

Charlie Walbridge
Bruceton Mills, WV
[email protected]


----------



## markinsteamboat

I just saw this 'opinion article'. Just a little bit skewed in their 'opinion', with some dubious claims on how HB1188 affects landowners. Anybody care to respond to the Grand Junction Sentinel with their own opinion?

Impractical rafting bill threatens Colorado's property rights | GJSentinel.com


----------



## brandon_blomquist

*Statutory vs. Case Law?!?*



scagrotto said:


> So who loses if the bill fails? Obviously Jackson Shaw will claim a victory, and pursue the commercial rafters who won't have a clear and obvious "get out of jail free" card, but they'll also be at least as able to pursue private boaters. It's a pretty safe bet that they'll argue that the bill's failure shows that the legislature believes that your passage across their property constitutes trespass. If they can get you arrested for criminal trespass they won't even have to pay to prosecute you. Potentially you'll lose just as much as the commercial boaters.
> 
> You may think the bill doesn't offer you any immediate and obvious personal benefit, but as a boater you've at least gotten your foot in the door.


I have been on the fence regarding this issue for awhile, but now (after the above comment) I think I see that many of us are confused about what really happens if this bill is passed or defeated. Don't get me wrong, I would rather see ANYBODY come out ahead of this A-hole from Texas, but if private boaters feel they gain anything from this bill, I believe we are sadly mistaken.

First of all, there is a big difference between case law and statutory law. This bill is an attempt at creating statutory law, which can only be done by through legislative process. If this bill passes, it means that the commercials have the right to float through private land, but private boaters are on their own from here on out. However, if this bill were to fail, it would not mean that floating through private land is illegal – we would be right back where we started. That is to say that the failure of this bill does not create statutory law stating that landowners have the right to restrict the waterways. Shaw and company would have no more persuasion of the courts than they currently do, as a court has decide a case on actual statutory and case law – a failed bill is neither. 

However, if this were an issue in front of the courts, and the court were to side with Shaw, then the comment above would be accurate. Then, there would be legal precedent (i.e., case law) for courts to follow in the future.

In short, if the commercial industry wins here, we lose their support in the right to float. Do you really think the industry is going to waste their time and money to help us get on rivers that they have to themselves, which they in turn use as a selling point to their clients?

It is my opinion that the right to float for private boaters will have to be decided by the courts, and I do believe that we have precedent throughout the U.S. to support us. Our representatives will not carry a bill that includes us no matter what happens to 1188. The difficult part will be organizing in an *effective* manner, which we have failed to do up to this point….


----------



## raymo

Why should hundreds of American boater be prey or governed by a hand few of privileged (fly fishing land owners) who make their own rules, for their selfish lifestyle for a couple weeks out of the year and then go back home somewhere else, and to be able to lock down a whole river forever?


----------



## scagrotto

brandon_blomquist said:


> However, if this bill were to fail, it would not mean that floating through private land is illegal – we would be right back where we started. That is to say that the failure of this bill does not create statutory law stating that landowners have the right to restrict the waterways. Shaw and company would have no more persuasion of the courts than they currently do, as a court has decide a case on actual statutory and case law – a failed bill is neither.


What the court relies on is precedent. That certainly comes from statutory and case law, but the courts also look to legislative intent. Mostly that means they look at the intent behind the existing statutory law, but that's not a limitation. In Emmert (the main case cited by the opposition in claiming boating is illegal) the court specifically noted the legislature's ability to change the law. There is, AFAIK, nothing to stop the court in using the legislature's decision not to change the law as evidence of their intended meaning (or limitation) of existing law. Failure to make an effort to change the law would be fairly meaningless. Failure to approve a change that has been brought through committee and placed before the full legislature may be another matter. I think that failure of the bill gives the opposition a better argument. Future expansion of the law would benefit from the same help the commercial interests are now asking of private boaters: write a few letters and maybe show up for some hearings. These are not expensive or difficult things to do, and many (most?) commercial boaters have an interest in private boating, too. 

I'll also note that precedent matter to public opinion and the legislature's inclination to act. If the bill fails when it is limited to commercial boaters, is there any rational reason to think a more expansive bill will have a better chance, especially if it has more opposition? I think a chance to get our foot in the door now is a lot better than hoping we can knock the whole door down in one shot somewhere down the road.


----------



## zboda

scagrotto said:


> I'll also note that precedent matter to public opinion and the legislature's inclination to act. If the bill fails when it is limited to commercial boaters, is there any rational reason to think a more expansive bill will have a better chance, especially if it has more opposition? I think a chance to get our foot in the door now is a lot better than hoping we can knock the whole door down in one shot somewhere down the road.


In my mind, what scagrotto wrote above is what this boils down to. To me, that line of thinking makes the most sense.

Sincerely,
Zach


----------



## basil

If you want to write a letter to the editor that may get published in the Denver Post, the e-mail address is: [email protected]


----------



## gyrogyrl

*Pro-Landowner column on rafting bill in Sunday Denver Post*

"Why Favor Rafters" in 2/28 Sunday Denver Post by Steve Roberts - who owns and operates Harmel Ranch Resort in Almont. 

Good time to weigh in with Comments on the Denver Post website and with Letters-to-the-Editor to the Denver Post.

Read the article here: Why favor rafters? - The Denver Post

Letters to the editor: [email protected] (no attachments, straight text only)


----------



## gyrogyrl

Oh, and by the way . . . this guy pays a commercial outfitter to run trips for his guests through this property….


----------



## basil

If this guy pays a commercial outfitter to run trips through his property, that blows his own arguments out of the water. Can someone substantiate that?


----------



## gyrogyrl

heard it from one of the lobbyists working on the bill - he runs trips every afternoon....best ammo would be to know which commercial outfitter carries his peeps.


----------



## gyrogyrl

Colorado Whitewater Rafting


----------



## gyrogyrl

I'm told that the outfit that carries Harmel Ranch Resort's guests on raft trips is Three Rivers Resort. Colorado rafting, Crested Butte Colorado, Three Rivers Resort


----------



## Theophilus

gyrogyrl said:


> Colorado Whitewater Rafting


 Hypo-O-crites.


----------



## Eric Peterson

There are two main outfitters on the Taylor River, Scenic River Tours and 3 Rivers. Harmels sends guests to 3 Rivers in exchange for them not running through the Harmels fishing section. Scenic River Tours is the company that runs through the Harmels section, and therefore catches flack from them.

-Eric Peterson
Scenic River Tours Guide


----------



## gyrogyrl

Thanks for the clarification, Eric. Looks like 1188 wil be up week of March 15th...


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

Eric Peterson said:


> There are two main outfitters on the Taylor River, Scenic River Tours and 3 Rivers. Harmels sends guests to 3 Rivers in exchange for them not running through the Harmels fishing section. Scenic River Tours is the company that runs through the Harmels section, and therefore catches flack from them.
> 
> -Eric Peterson
> Scenic River Tours Guide


Tell us more about this flak, if you don't mind.


----------



## gyrogyrl

slavetotheflyrod: I haven't had trouble kayaking on the Taylor, but the trouble between resort/land owners and other users of the waterway has been going on for a while The incident that led to this bill started when a resort/landowner "improve" a bridge so that rafts couldn't to under it - which led to them portaging around it on private land.

In committee, land/ranch/resort owners complained of "rowdy" rafters who urinated, used "universal" hand gestures, and "whacked the bridges with their paddles" among other transgressions.


----------



## Eric Peterson

The arguments between SRT and Harmels are relatively minor compared to the current issue, before I started guiding there were apparently some incidents involving trees being felled across the river, but nowadays it's just a general air of dislike. The general theory is that when Harmels complains about rafters they are specifically talking about SRT and private boaters that float through the section they've claimed as opposed to their friends at 3 Rivers.

All things considered Harmels is just a minor annoyance, they complain but haven't done anything for years, the attempts to officially close the Middle Taylor or simply dump rocks in it until it becomes impassable have been much more pressing for us.

-Eric Peterson
Scenic River Tours Guide


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

Have you guys attempted to prosecute under the obstruction statute (C.R.S. 18-9-107)?

The other option would be to call the corps of engineers and make a complaint that their man-made structures don't allow safe boat passage. The corps is responsible for the permitting and inspection of man made structures in the river channel, and requires that any structure allows for safe boat passage or portage. If they've constructed any of these obstructions without a permit from the corps, they'll be in a world of trouble. 

I have had some success with the corps concerning the "irrigation diversions" on the lower Blue.


----------



## Eric Peterson

All the legal stuff is being handled by the fancy hat boss people at the rafting companies, but if I recall correctly all attempts to get the Corp of Engineers involved have ended in failure. I believe it's been some kind of infinite loop of "We don't want to deal with that, ask THEM" that sends everyone from one agency to another to another to the first again until they give up hope.

-Eric Peterson
Scenic River Tours Guide


----------



## gyrogyrl

*HB1188 Calendared for March 17 1:30 pm*

The River Outfitter Bill, HB10-1188, is scheduled for hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, January 17th at 1:30 pm.

The calendars change all the time - even the day of the hearing, so this date may change You can check the daily calendar for the Senate, as well as listen to the committee hearing online, by going to Colorado General Assembly Home Page.


----------



## taylorriver

*Clarifying 3Rivers and Harmels*



Eric Peterson said:


> There are two main outfitters on the Taylor River, Scenic River Tours and 3 Rivers. Harmels sends guests to 3 Rivers in exchange for them not running through the Harmels fishing section. Scenic River Tours is the company that runs through the Harmels section, and therefore catches flack from them.
> 
> -Eric Peterson
> Scenic River Tours Guide


Harmels does book raft trips for Three Rivers Resort and profits from them (marks them up) but they do not send their guests to us in exchange for us not floating their property. In fact we do a handful of Middle Taylor trips each year; it's just not our "bread and butter" trip. We have just been able to find some middle ground with Steve Roberts at Harmels. In light of everything going on now, we're not sure how our relationship with them will progress. It seems a double standard that it's ok for him to profit from our trips that go through OTHER peoples' private water yet he is very vocal about ending rafting through all private property. 

-Jen Stevens
General Mgr, Three Rivers Resort and Outfitting


----------



## taylorriver

Eric Peterson said:


> All the legal stuff is being handled by the fancy hat boss people at the rafting companies, but if I recall correctly all attempts to get the Corp of Engineers involved have ended in failure. I believe it's been some kind of infinite loop of "We don't want to deal with that, ask THEM" that sends everyone from one agency to another to another to the first again until they give up hope.
> 
> -Eric Peterson
> Scenic River Tours Guide


Actually, a friend of mine used to be the D.A. for Gunnison County and is now working in the attorney general's office. He told me last weekend that when he dealt with Harmels in the past, he did contact the Corps and the Corps came right out and made him remove anything he was not permitted for. I think we need to keep watching for changes and notify the Corps immediately if something looks amiss. This is true for Shaw's development too.


----------



## cracksmeup

*Texas flags a flying*

Would they let me float through if I hoisted a Texas flag? or should I just float through topless?


----------



## Eric Peterson

taylorriver said:


> Harmels does book raft trips for Three Rivers Resort and profits from them (marks them up) but they do not send their guests to us in exchange for us not floating their property. In fact we do a handful of Middle Taylor trips each year; it's just not our "bread and butter" trip. We have just been able to find some middle ground with Steve Roberts at Harmels. In light of everything going on now, we're not sure how our relationship with them will progress. It seems a double standard that it's ok for him to profit from our trips that go through OTHER peoples' private water yet he is very vocal about ending rafting through all private property.
> 
> -Jen Stevens
> General Mgr, Three Rivers Resort and Outfitting


Nice to see a local on here Jen, sorry about the confusion I spend most of my time on the Gunnison and wasn't familiar with your arrangements with Harmels. Look forward to seeing you folks when the season starts.

-Eric Peterson
Scenic River Tours Guide


----------



## robanna

I guess if this bill passes in it current form, I'll charge my friends $1 to 'guide' them and then next time it'll be someone else's turn to 'guide.' That way we'll be protected as commercial and not private.


----------



## gyrogyrl

Robanna, while I think you are being sarcastic, charging your friends won't move you into commercial status.


----------



## robanna

Yes, I was being sarcastic... I just hope the bill we be amended, at some point, to include everyone.


----------



## gyrogyrl

Article in Sunday Denver Post on 1188:

Bill pitting river enthusiasts, landowners runs into rough waters in Senate - The Denver Post


----------



## Badazws6

gyrogyrl said:


> Article in Sunday Denver Post on 1188:
> 
> Bill pitting river enthusiasts, landowners runs into rough waters in Senate - The Denver Post


I found the comments after the main article more informative then the actual article and a great conversation by people that I suspect actually have a legal background. The following is my favorite but I highly suggest people read not only the article but ALL of the comments: 

From posted by "marinoxx" here: Bill pitting river enthusiasts, landowners runs into rough waters in Senate - Article Comments - View topic - General Discussion - Article Talk : Denver Colorado Neighbors


cattlekate wrote:
Aren't all of these rafting rivers considered navigable? And if so, didn't the bed and banks up to the high water mark become property of the state at statehood pursuant to the Equal Footing Doctrine? How does Colorado define navigable? Will someone in law please answer my questions?

marinoxx responded:

No court in Colorado has ever made a determination of navigability.

Emmerts Case is the case that some nefarious lawyers rely upon to argue that there are no floating rights in Colorado. It is not true. The parties in Emmerts case stipulated to the fact that the waterway in question was not navigable therefore this question was taken off the table.

There are two ways that the public has the right to float in Colorado.

1. Under the Colorado constitution - Article XVI, section 5: 
“[t]he 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.”

In other words, the property in the water prior to appropriation is vested in the public and the "people", read that singular or plural, have the right to use it. This right to use is a usufruct.

2. Under the public trust doctrine, a Federal jurisdiction which is enforced under the commerce clause as a navigable servitude is a mechanism for determining title. It is a very dangerous doctrine for landowners to risk. Essentially the water in question needs to be "navigable". In this context the text for navigability is essentially whether it has been used for transportation or commerce. It is relatively complex but in short, if a stretch of water has been used for some time for commercial rafting and supports an industry, it will be navigable. The conseqence is that the bed of the river to the higher water mark becomes public property. The state courts cannot overrule such a finding nor can the state legislate to overturn such a decision because it will be unconstitutional. 

Unfortunately in Colorado the debate has been hijacked by landowner lawyers who do not truthfully explain the law. The rafters and fishermen are too slack to realize they have to raise funds and bring court cases to attack this farce. The rafters think that politicians who can be easily bought will help them out. They are juvenile and naive in their thinking and that fact is going to come home to them soon. On the other hand, the landowners who keep sticking to this idiotic line that there is no right to float are equally dumb. 

In time, someone will get a court case going in the Federal Court and then the landowners who finally get some good advice will be petrified that something like the Curran decision in 1984 in Montana will happen to them. Then we might get some sense. Until then it is a mess.


----------



## buckmanriver

I believe their are only three companies that are currently permitted to run the Taylor River outside of Gunnison. Scenic River Tours owned by Ches Russell, Three Rivers rafting owned by Mark Schumacher and Wilderness Pursuits owned by Western State College. Despite Steve Roberts agreement with Schumacher not to run the Middle Taylor he still went to Kathleen Curry to get this bill started. 

"Last summer, Ches Russell and Mark Schumacher asked me to run legislation to address the fact that a landowner on the Taylor River had exercised his right to deny passage through his property."

Thus, it is interesting that according to Curry, Three Rivers which is run by Schumacher does not even operate trips on the section of the Taylor that sparked this issue. He found a way to work with Steve a land owner that is adamant about blocking the middle Taylor. 

The next layer lies in the Upper Section of the Taylor River which is the most popular white water run for all the companies. It to is laced by private land owners who have not yet attempted to block passage to the river. However, there have been problems when their trees that line the bank blow down and often create river wide strainers (its a small river). At which point company owners haft to obtain access to their property to remove the tree. 

Furthermore, the Taylor river is not like Browns Canyon. While guiding on Taylor you must slow time to make what could be a 30-45 minute river trip a 2 hour river trip. In Browns your never really killing time unless it is high water. This issue was sparked from a region that provides unique river trips on a section of river that is much different in terms of volume that others throughout the state. High water is usually around 1000cfs in the upper section. Base line flows during the season are between 300 and 400cfs. The Taylor's unusually structure is part of the reason HB 1188 stems from this area. 

From there we have expand the argument to all floatable sections of river in the state where the similar blockages have happen or will continue to happen depending on whether this bill passes.

Curry Kathleen, “Letter to constituents about the float bill.” Rep. Kathleen Curry. Letter to constituents about the float bill » kathleencurry.org (accessed March 9, 2010). 

B. Roberts Steve, “Why favor rafters?.” denverpost. Why favor rafters? - The Denver Post (accessed March 10, 2010).


----------



## gyrogyrl

*Vincent Carroll column on 1188 in 3.10 Denver Post*

Carroll: Treat all floaters the same - The Denver Post


----------



## mulex

Pro'ly been posted several times, but I'm lazy and figure others are as well... There's a facebook group in favor of the prop:

Welcome to Facebook | Facebook


----------



## gyrogyrl

*HB 1188 - Committee Hearing Now MONDAY March 15th*

We just heard from the Capitol ... House Bill 1188, the 2010 River Outfitters Viability Act is NOW scheduled to be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee THIS Mon. March 15th 1:30pm. (we swear - okay, we think. the calendar is always changing.)


----------



## gyrogyrl

*CW Board Position on HB1188 - Update*

The CW board met last night and has decided to help get 1188 out of committee in order to be able to amend it. CW has developed amendments that we intend to offer on the floor of the Senate when and if HB1188 passes out of Judiciary Committee. 

CW’s final position on the bill will depend on the success of our amendments. In the end, if we feel that the final bill is harmful to private boater interests, we will move to kill the bill.

Right now, we are requesting help from CW members and the private boating community to contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee before the hearing on March15th. The bill is currently scheduled to be heard second on the calendar when the Committee meets at 1:30 pm. Monday. You can find a list of Senate Judiciary members here:

CGA-LegislativeCouncil:Senate Judiciary


----------



## Theophilus

What are your amendments?


----------



## gyrogyrl

Theophilus said:


> What are your amendments?


Still in development and will depend partly on amendments in committee Monday. Will let folks know when they are ready for primetime.


----------



## taylorriver

Yes, the bill is set to go into committee on Monday, 3/15. We are loading vans to head over from Gunnison and invite anyone to join us. We'll be leaving about 7:30am and back late that night. Transportation, lunch and dinner are all provided. Please call me or Vito at Three Rivers by Saturday if you want to join us. 970-641-1303

Jen Stevens
Mgr, Three Rivers Resort


----------



## TakemetotheRiver

Just received this email if anyone wants to follow the hearing:

Hello everyone! 

Thank you for your interest in HB 1188, we wanted to share an update and some info with you about its upcoming Senate hearing. It will be heard in Senate Judiciary Committee this Monday the 15th of March at 1:30PM (BTW, this is accurate and up to date, it has been moved from the 17th to the 15th). The hearing will be in the Old Supreme Court Chambers. 

If you are interested in listening to know ASAP if it passes go to our website leg.state.co.us, “Audio/video Broadcasts”, then “Old Supreme Court Chambers”. The hearing will start at 1:30 but 1188 may be later, so be sure to check in at 1:30 and then about every half hour until it is heard. 

Please call me in the office with any questions, comments, or concerns. 

Thanks again, 
Representative Kathleen Curry
o. 303-866-2945


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

It's currently shaping up to look like Sen. Evie Hudak will be the deciding vote in the Senate Judiciary committee. Lets all be sure to call or email to let her know where we stand. I have had a couple of conversations with Sen Hudak, and she seems to think that the concerns of citizens residing outside her district don't seem to matter, so if she asks, you're from Lakewood.


----------



## gyrogyrl

Not a great idea to misrepresent where you live; it will backfire.


----------



## Theophilus

I guess we should expect the Colorado water attorneys bought and paid for by outsiders to inundate the newspapers op-ed pages this weekend.


----------



## Andy H.

slavetotheflyrod said:


> I have had a couple of conversations with Sen Hudak, and she seems to think that the concerns of citizens residing outside her district don't seem to matter, so if she asks, you're from Lakewood.


For better or worse, representative democracy is all about answering to one's constituency and not catering to outsiders any more than we would want our legislators catering to someone from another state. 

And like Dede (Gyrogirl) says, misrepresenting yourself as a one of Hudak's constituents will likely backfire, and could also give opponents another bullet against the boating community in the form of "...they used deception to get legislators to vote for their cause..."

Call your legislators, be courteous but firm, and don't try to BS them. Mentioning that Colorado is an anomaly on this issue may be helpful.



> I guess we should expect the Colorado water attorneys bought and paid for by outsiders to inundate the newspapers op-ed pages this weekend.


Has anyone submitted an editorial stating the boating community's side?


----------



## gyrogyrl

No editorials to my knowledge - they are pretty hard to get placed and wouldn't get in before Monday. LTEs (Letters to the Editor) would have more luck in the short timeframe.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

I understand the concerns about mis-representing one's county of residence, but I feel rather strongly that it's innapropriate for a STATE SENATOR, soon to be voting on an issue of STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE, to take the position that only the opinions of their districts constituents mattered. Do you suppose Sen. Hudak only deals with lobbyists from her district? I doubt she turns down campaign contributions from outside her district either.


----------



## gyrogyrl

I feel rather strongly, based on my experience at the legislature during the past 11 years, that your approach will be counter productive to private boater interests. Most, if not all, legislators value calls from their district over random calls from across the state, some will not take calls at all from outside their district. 

Sen. Hudak is elected by her district, not by the whole state, and while she does have a responsibility to good public policy for the whole state, lying to her will jeapordize any possibility of getting her to support the legislation, much less carry amendments that will improve the bill.


----------



## gyrogyrl

*1188 up in committe today @ 1:30 pm*

HB1188 will be heard SECOND today on the calendar of the Senate Judiciary Commitee, which convenes at 1:30 pm. Board members Patrick Tooley and Mark Robbins are planning on testifying on behalf of Coloardo Whitewater, in addition to Nathan Fey from AW. CW has hired a lobby firm, Mendez Consulting, Inc., to help us protect and further private boater interests. If you want to listen online, to to Colorado General Assembly Home Page under "listen and watch" and click "Old Supreme Court Chambers"


----------



## outbackjack

Some very good friends of mine may loose everything if this bill does not go through. I realize that it does not speak to the public boater, however the cat is out of the bag on how backwards CO is on this issue. I would not be suprised to see a ballot initiative soon, to settle this matter once and for all. This bill will help keep our outfitters alive until such a time. Hopefully it will make it to the full Senate, then the work begins. Good luck guys!!!


----------



## gyrogyrl

Outbackjack - the amendment that will be moved today in committee - L-024, actually does address some private boater concerns, and opens the door for private boaters, which is one reason why CW is supporting it. We'll keep you posted.


----------



## Badazws6

gyrogyrl said:


> Outbackjack - the amendment that will be moved today in committee - L-024, actually does address some private boater concerns, and opens the door for private boaters, which is one reason why CW is supporting it. We'll keep you posted.


Thanks Dede,

I am sure many here would be curious about the content of L-024. Could you point us to or post the actual verbiage of L-024?

Matt


----------



## gyrogyrl

Matt - I have a copy of L-024 that I got this morning - it may still be changing - but don't have it linked anywhere; don't think the buzz will take attachments........let me figure something out. Maybe yousendit will work.


----------



## gyrogyrl

Her's the link to the Senate's pre-amended bill for today: Colorado General Assembly

Still looking for a link to the amendment. It might not be up yet b/c Senate amendments don't need advanced introduction.


----------



## outbackjack

I heard a rumor about an amendment, where can I find it??


----------



## gyrogyrl

I'm in committee now; we're up to L-031 (7 version beyond L-024, which is what there was this morning . . . I haven't seen a copy yet.


----------



## robanna

Hammel's claims:
Private, guided fly fishing tours of our manicured 11 surface acres of "Fishing Heaven".
Colorado Dude Ranch Guest Ranch CO Family Vacations Ranch Vacations

I wonder how many of those manicuring projects were approved by the Army Corp of Engineers?


----------



## outbackjack

Not very many, I remember when there were none. I hope he keeps talking, he thinks he even owns the fish!!!


----------



## Theophilus

Harmel's

I use Trip Advisor often when planning travel in the hopes the information is without bias. Check out the last review of Harmel's. Anybody here think it wasn't written by the staff themselves? Nice avatar huh? 

Our Home Away From Home - Review of Harmel's Ranch Resort, Almont, CO - TripAdvisor


----------



## watermonkey

I couldn't listen to the whole thing today - does anyone know where/if you can find the recorded proceedings? I only got to listen to the opposing side of it for a few minutes, so it left me pissed - want to hear the whole story.


----------



## gyrogyrl

@watermonkey you can get an audio recording or a transcript from the archive folks, I think. we've just moved to testimony FOR 1188. uploading picts from the hearing to Colorado Whitewater's FaceBook page - mobile uploads.


----------



## gyrogyrl

Here ya go watermonkey: Four of the lab computers at the Legislative Council Libraray have software that allow users to listen to and create audio CDs of floor and committee testimony from the 2002 session to the current year.
CGA-LegislativeCouncil:Library Services & Policies


----------



## mjpowhound

Thank you all so much for volunteering your time for this!

If you're not a member of CW and AW, now would be a great time to join!!!


----------



## Canada

*Did it get out of committee? Status?*

?????


----------



## watermonkey

bueno - thank you gyrogirl.


----------



## gyrogyrl

we are still in committee; cw and aw just testified, but we're not done. have to finish testimony and move to amendment phase. looks like L-031 will stick. @robanna CW facebook page is "Colorado Whitewater Association"


----------



## gyrogyrl

okay folks; testimony closed, they are considering amendment L-031 and conceptual amendments


----------



## robanna

They are replacing 'Portage' with 'incidental contact' when encountering a hazard.
Is that vague enough for you? You can push off. that's incidental. Can you get out and walk around? Is that incidental?


----------



## gyrogyrl

Its not as strong but open to interpretation and I think still removed the criminal trespass piece .. . . . which is a gain. voting now.


----------



## gyrogyrl

1188 PASSES out of committee.


----------



## lmaciag

Thanks for the play-by-play Dede! And everything else... Top hand!


----------



## robanna

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did they take out any mention of Private Boater?


----------



## outbackjack

AWESOME!!!! How do we find out what the bill looks like now?? I am dying to find out about the amendments.


----------



## Ikedub

Yes, That is good news. I'm also curious about the private/commercial boater aspect. Was anything changed with that. I personally like the new language "incidental contact".


----------



## outbackjack

I just talked to my buddy at the capitol, all is good, now we go to the full senate. I still would like to see just what the language is, but in reality, this bill is just the beginning, it will be amended, tweeked, and tested in court. We still have the right to float, as public boaters, any river we want. This bill stops very wealthy land owners from running our river outfitters out of business with civil lawsuits all because they have enough money to do it. I guess if they sue me they can have my boat!! Ill find another one, no worries!! Good Night.


----------



## gyrogyrl

Gak. I'm home at last drinking and doing my census form. EVERYONE DO THE CENUS. Cenus = $$. That's the reason. 

The final bill with amendments should be up at the Capital General Assembly website by, hum, tomorrow. Then everyone can parse what it means. 

There were some trade offs; we anticipated it would be likely we would lose the full right to portage, but think we have some other language that helps there anyhow.

We will need a full court press on the Senate floor, but not right away. 

BTW; CW and AW *were* top hands. Agree with @mjpowhound. Excellent time to become a member - because I know there was nothing in CW's budget for this. Thanks.


----------



## gyrogyrl

@outbackjack. general strategy will be to hold the committee version on the senate floor and then get the house to agree to senate version.


----------



## Andy H.

Thanks Dede for all the work you've put into this. It was good to see you, Mark, Nathan, and Jeff down there, along with all the other folks from CW & CROA. I wish I could've stayed for all the "Pro-HB1188" testimony. It was still really interesting listening to the opponents' arguments. My personal highlight was hearing the Cattlemen's Association representative earnestly testify about how great their environmental stewardship is for riparian areas and that boaters would wreck the environment - I got woozy and thought I'd been magically transported into some weird, upside-down alternate universe.

I've been hounding both my legislators to support HB1188 for the last few weeks. Please let us know when the optimum time is to continue our full-court press with them.

-AH


----------



## gyrogyrl

AH we'll keep everyone in the loop. But for a few days - my crazy day job - healthcare reform - might need some attention.


----------



## gyrogyrl

River users gain ground as Senate advances bill on access

Read more: River users gain ground as Senate advances bill on access - The Denver Post


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

Good news - the bill passed through committee, 4-3. As predicted, Sen Hudak cast the deciding vote, only after a few minutes of personal deliberation that had everyone on the edge of their seat. 

As mentioned, the bill was amended to include private boaters as well. It was kind of funny to hear the opposition testifying about being blindsided by the amendment after they testified in the House Judiciary Hearing that the bill was unconstitutional because it excluded private boaters. The testimony from the opposition was more of the same dis-connected logic and fear mongering of which they've become so fond. 

I wanna thank all who worked to get the bill amended, and thank Greg Felt from Ark Anglers for his excellent testimony.

On the other hand, I have to wonder who's bright idea it was to have Lori Potter testify. She knows the issues and the law, but is definetly lacking in the public speaking skills. It was painful to watch her yammer and stammer through her testimony and respond to questions from the panel. We're going to need a better mouthpiece in the future.


----------



## Chief Niwot

Thanks to all that helped yesterday. It was long, but very interesting to listen to. I listened to the opposing side, but my internet connection was having problems when listening to the proponents information. 

Many of the speakers opposed to HB1188 suggested working on hand shake solutions versus approving this bill. However, with guys like Shaw and the Harmel operation, the hand shake solution seems impossible.

It seems to me that many of the ranchers are just as scared as boaters to push the issue to a ballot vote or supreme court ruling. As much as land owners want to kill this bill, I can see why some of the land owners are worried about this escalating beyond this bill. Many of the supporting decision points are not on the land owners side:


Common Law Navigability rights
Colorado Constitution stating the public owns our water, rivers, streams, and water ways
Other states with high water mark law as the standard or more liberal ruling on floating rights through private property
Land owners are way out numbered by the shear number of people wanting access
Tourism revenue
and the weak Emmert case that they want to use as the precedent
I found this web page a pretty comprehensive overview of the issue: www.fryingpananglers.com/archive-essays/articles/Legal comments on Floating Colorado rivers/The-legalities-of-Floating-on-Colorado-waters.htm

Who knows what would happen if this escalates beyond this bill? It could be bad for either side, but I would think the right to float would win, I hope. Maybe, it is time to fight this out for once and for all, if this bill does not go through, as this is only going to escalate, if left undecided.


----------



## Badazws6

slavetotheflyrod said:


> On the other hand, I have to wonder who's bright idea it was to have Lori Potter testify. She knows the issues and the law, but is definetly lacking in the public speaking skills. It was painful to watch her yammer and stammer through her testimony and respond to questions from the panel. We're going to need a better mouthpiece in the future.


Slave,

Unfortunately I was not able to attend or listen in on the broadcast but I want to thank EVERYONE especially Lori who took the time, effort and stress to come and especially testify. I don't know Lori Potter or even know which side of the debate she was on but it doesn't matter. IF she had as hard of a time as you imply she was probably overcoming some jitters and I commend her for it.

While I applaud your interest and participation in this subject, you do not set the best example or project the type of attitude I would like to see our whitewater community present. Everything from you tacky photo, to your suggestion that we lie to officials to the attitude I read in your posts that says F-them, I am right and I don't need to listen to anyone else is contrary to the image of honest, classy, respectable and responsible subset of people that we NEED to be seen as.

Next time you open your mouth or sit down at a keyboard THINK about what people on the other side of the argument as well as those who are judging the argument, the state legislators and senators, may think about what and how you say something. This is a public forum and they all CAN and and in some cases I strongly suspect they do read it.

Matt


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

I was a bit taken by the whole difference in tone from the opposition in the House JD vs the Senate JD. 

There was little mention in the house of wanting handshake deals, and now all of a sudden that's become the common theme. Greg Felt gave excellent testimony regarding his involvement in the "Blue ribbon Panel" in '02 (was it?) He specifically called out each and everyone of the players in the room that had been a part of the panel and put the wood to em pretty good. He gave several excellent accounts of how the same people calling for handshake compromises, 8 years ago refused to do just that. 

If you're near Salida, be sure to drop off a six pack for Greg - He really earned it last night.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

Badazws6 said:


> Slave,
> 
> Unfortunately I was not able to attend or listen in on the broadcast but I want to thank EVERYONE especially Lori who took the time, effort and stress to come and especially testify. I don't know Lori Potter or even know which side of the debate she was on but it doesn't matter. IF she had as hard of a time as you imply she was probably overcoming some jitters and I commend her for it.
> 
> While I applaud your interest and participation in this subject, you do not set the best example or project the type of attitude I would like to see our whitewater community present. Everything from you tacky photo, to your suggestion that we lie to officials to the attitude I read in your posts that says F-them, I am right and I don't need to listen to anyone else is contrary to the image of honest, classy, respectable and responsible subset of people that we NEED to be seen as.
> 
> Next time you open your mouth or sit down at a keyboard THINK about what people on the other side of the argument as well as those who are judging the argument, the state legislators and senators, may think about what and how you say something. This is a public forum and they all CAN and and in some cases I strongly suspect they do read it.
> 
> Matt


First, don't attack my avatar - Willie has nothing to do with this.

Second, I'll admit the suggestion to mis-represent your residency if contacting Sen Hudak was a poor response. It is my opinion that the Senators of this state answer to all of the residents of the state, not just the people in their district. I also feel I'm entitled to that opinion, and entitled to voice it, weather anyone agrees or not.

I admit I've got a bit of a short fuse at times. It's gotten that way based upon my experiences on the river over the years. Ever have an armed landowner point a rifle at you? I have. Ever been ticketed for trespassing, just because someone said you did, when you know you didn't? I have, more than once. Ever call the sheriff to report an obstruction, only to have them basically hang up on you? I have, a couple times. 

You made comment about my attitude and class, without much to base that upon, in my opinion. If you knew me at all you'd realize how incorrect some of your assumptions about me might have been. 

I'll leave it at that.


----------



## -k-

Good post and good points Chief Niwot. I think public opinion would be for public rights too. Most of us residents live in apartments or on typical residential lots. If you punish public access you begin to take away the reasons why many of us live in Colorado or why people (besides the wealthy who can pay additional fees) come to visit.

Many of the land owners fighting over this are not even state residents and therfore should have a difficult time winning a public vote. One would think it would take massive lobby efforts that would need to get pretty crafty at twisting the truth to overcome public opinion. Right now though, I hope this bill is a success and holds up for a long time.

"First, don't attack my avatar - Willie has nothing to do with this". Willie? I thought it looked like Jesus.


----------



## Badazws6

slavetotheflyrod said:


> First, don't attack my avatar - Willie has nothing to do with this.


I wasn't sure if it was supposed to be Willie or Jesus. Either way I find it kind of funny, just hard to take someone seriously who has that next to their name.



slavetotheflyrod said:


> Second, I'll admit the suggestion to mis-represent your residency if contacting Sen Hudak was a poor response. It is my opinion that the Senators of this state answer to all of the residents of the state, not just the people in their district. I also feel I'm entitled to that opinion, and entitled to voice it, weather anyone agrees or not.


I feel the same way that they should listen to us, not arguing that.



slavetotheflyrod said:


> I admit I've got a bit of a short fuse at times. It's gotten that way based upon my experiences on the river over the years. Ever have an armed landowner point a rifle at you? I have. Ever been ticketed for trespassing, just because someone said you did, when you know you didn't? I have, more than once. Ever call the sheriff to report an obstruction, only to have them basically hang up on you? I have, a couple times.


That sucks, I feel for you, but doesn't have anything to do with what I'm calling you out for. 



slavetotheflyrod said:


> You made comment about my attitude and class, without much to base that upon, in my opinion. If you knew me at all you'd realize how incorrect some of your assumptions about me might have been.
> 
> I'll leave it at that.


Your right, I don't have a lot to go on and I wish I did know you personally and knew I am wrong, but I sited the cases that you are NOT creating the best impression. When you post stuff in public forums, especially the Denver Post forums, on this subject realize that in this case and this subject you are coloring the non-whitewater runners perception of not just you, but the entire whitewater community. I would like to request that you act like a responsible "mouth piece" for this community and remain positive, understanding and project the best possible impression of not only yourself, but of our community.


----------



## zboda

Alright, last night was another positive step in the legislative process. In fact it was a huge step with the adding of private boaters to the bill. Major kudos to all those that were able to be in attendance and to all of you that have been following and helping along the way. There is still a long road ahead but I am breathing a little easier now. We are now all in this together and everyone owes a big shout out to the representatives from AW and CWA. 

Last night seemed a lot more dramatic than the House Judiciary hearing. The committee hearing was literally overflowing. There were at least 250 people at the start of the hearing. There were a lot more ranchers and land owners there this time. In the end, I think all of their repetitive and misguided testimony hurt their cause more than it helped. These folks just could not stop themselves from putting their feet in their mouths. As others have said, their testimony was not based on the facts of the bill. None of them could give a good clear answer on how they thought this legislation would negatively impact them. 

Each side was able to present a panel of experts that had about a 1/2 hour of testimony and then took questions for another 45 minutes or so. Each side’s other witnesses were each given 3 minutes of testimony followed by questions from the Senators if there were any. 

Without a doubt, our side’s testimony was much more polished and concise. Greg Felt from Ark Anglers did an amazing job. The background he provided on the history of rafting and land owners was very beneficial. A lot of the opponents were asking for a “Blue Ribbon Panel” to be established so that we can all “work together” on this. Greg provided some amazing insight as to how this was already tried in 2002. In fact a lot of the opponent’s big guns were on this panel. 

Patrick Tooley, with AW, was also a superstar. I believe his sound and extremely reasonable testimony concerning private boaters eased some of the lawmaker’s fears about adding them onto the bill. 

I know I am biased, but our sides testimony was so much more professional and reasonable then the opponents. It is hard to reach comprises with people that say things like “my river” as the guy from Harmels repeatedly did. And “I control the river” as a gentleman from the Cattleman’s Association said. Then you have our side saying things like “incidental contact” and decreasing property owner’s liability. BTW, I just became a member of AW. I was super impressed last night.

Sincerely,
Zach Svoboda


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

I hear ya. 

If we do ever cross paths, and I hope we do one of these days, you'll find out what I'm really about. Rivers and fisheries are and have always been my main passions, and I've taken it upon myself to get involved in issues effecting them. I do try to be mindful of what I say and do and how that might be percieved, but I refuse to ever "sell out" my principals and beliefs in the name of image. 

I've written quite a lot on this issue and have tried to provide accurate information to support our cause. My main motivation is to inform and involve others. I sometimes color my comments with my own brand of humor and sarcasm, and some take issue with that, others see it for what it is. In other instances, I've been known to get a little aggressive with persons making baseless arguments or un-founded assertions. It has been my belief that sometimes such action is warranted. In the course of this debate I've heard several assertions from the opposition that amount to outright lies, and I feel the need to respond forcefully. 

That's it, in a nutshell

Beers on me if you ever wanna meet up sometime.


----------



## Badazws6

slavetotheflyrod said:


> Beers on me if you ever wanna meet up sometime.


Thanks,

I'll try to take you up on that, we will have to do it next to the river. Can's of course.

Matt


----------



## stinginrivers

-k- said:


> Many of the land owners fighting over this are not even state residents and therfore should have a difficult time winning a public vote. One would think it would take massive lobby efforts that would need to get pretty crafty at twisting the truth to overcome public opinion. Right now though, I hope this bill is a success and holds up for a long time.


Their lobbying effort is quite substantial, if my understanding is correct as of last night they employ 19 lobbyist and 12 lawyers paying one lobbyist $20k just to try to sway Sen Hudak's vote (which didn't work yea for the good guys).

After last night I am sure they are buying more lobbyists as their pockets are much deeper than ours.

The oppositions total right now is approaching $1million, where as CROA has spent approximately $200k, their funds are limited and now with AW and CWWA stepping up to the plate they should put their funds and lobbyists to work for and with CROA so we stand as a united front instead of going at this with slightly different points, if both groups go in slightly different directions it might cause us to loose ground instead of make up.

I am having some info fact checked right now but will post some more info from last night soon.


----------



## Canada

*?'s*

The representative in the post article speaks to flaws within the bill. What flaws came out in the meeting? I agree the guy will go down swingining, but I don't see anything wrong with the bill outside of it's absence of protection of privates.

Honestly, the oposition could not have picked a worse champion than an out of state develpor from Texas. I sure am glad his ego allowed us the opportunity to force this issue.


----------



## Ikedub

The bill now protects private boaters right to float.

They also changed the wording to include rivers that have been floated back to 2000. I think they need to drop all of that time period crap...what's the point? It complicates the bill and I don't see how they will document this.


----------



## Canada

*Where?*



Ikedub said:


> The bill now protects private boaters right to float..


Where?

I just scanned the document on the link to the house bill and didn't see any wording outside that which forced the issue for commercials in operation for X years.

Not challenging, just want to read the wording!! I hope your right!


----------



## Ikedub

I haven't read the bill today. I'm going off of the Durango Herald article I read this morning...which could be wrong. It says that these amendments were made:

Removing the right to portage around obstacles. 

Expanding the scope of the bill to any river that has been floated by a commercial company at any time since 2000. 

Including private boaters among the people with a right to float.


Here is a link to the article:

Durango Herald News, Rafting bill for Colorado waters reflated

Is it really in the bill...anyone?


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

The lobbyists were all over the place. There were a lot of notes on business cards delivered by the sergeant-at-arms. It's not always so clear who is lobbying for what, but I'd guess in this case the lobbying was mostly for opposition groups. 

Sen Steve King brought up some opposition to the amendments, and offered that he had some amendments of his own. He also asked some of the more disturbing questions of the evening, at one point asking "Why can I fish in his private fishery?" and "If I can stay in the boat and fish, but can't get out and fish from the bank, why should I be allowed to fish from the boat?" 

By the sound of some of the questions we might very well see some amendment to try to limit float fishing.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

Ikedub said:


> I haven't read the bill today. I'm going off of the Durango Herald article I read this morning...which could be wrong. It says that these amendments were made:
> 
> Removing the right to portage around obstacles.
> 
> Expanding the scope of the bill to any river that has been floated by a commercial company at any time since 2000.
> 
> Including private boaters among the people with a right to float.
> 
> 
> Here is a link to the article:
> 
> Durango Herald News, Rafting bill for Colorado waters reflated
> 
> Is it really in the bill...anyone?


It's real - you're not dreaming


----------



## stinginrivers

If I understand correctly the private boaters are including by a change in the definition of what a river guide is in the bill's language.

This is not exactly how it is written but the jist is this.

Originally a river guide was defined as a person operating boat and it's guest under the employment of an outfitter now the language states basically any user guide, passenger of a commercial boat solo or group floating the water.

With this language change the private boaters are now covered.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

Here's the specific language:

13 (a) "River Guide" Means:

14 (I) A RIVER OUTFITTER AND THE RIVER OUTFITTERS EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, AND PASSENGERS ON THE RIVER OUTFITTER'S VESSEL; AND

(II) ANY OTHER PERSON NOT OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THIS ARTICLE WHO IS NAVIGATING A VESSEL ON A WATERWAY AND ANY PASSENGERS OF THAT PERSON"

The amendment basically expands the definition of River Guide to include private boaters.


----------



## stinginrivers

nice thanks Slave,


----------



## Badazws6

Slave, Dede,

Would someone post a link to the current version of the bill?

Thanks,

Matt


----------



## Canada

*Great news on the private right!!*



Ikedub said:


> The bill now protects private boaters right to float.
> 
> They also changed the wording to include rivers that have been floated back to 2000. I think they need to drop all of that time period crap...what's the point? It complicates the bill and I don't see how they will document this.


The issue here is that we boaters could imediately organize and have ever river and stream in the state commercially run. This prevents that and maintains status quo. Not ideal for us boaters, but fair.


----------



## robanna

No, it actually read from 2000-2009, so that won't work.

it may be a hard time proving that a commercial outfit didn't, in fact, take a group down a certain river but not sure on that though.


----------



## Ikedub

But if all private boaters are now included, than every river and stream (nearly) in the state will be covered anyway. 


It is clear we need someone with strong negotiating and lobbying skills full time and on the ground in Denver addressing this and likely future issues.


----------



## gyrogyrl

@badazws6 its not posted yet on the colorado general assembly home page; waiting, waiting, waiting....i'll post as soon as i see it go up.


----------



## gyrogyrl

@slave the divide and conquer didn't get far, and not sure all the details - but its done at least for now. as i said, CW hopes to pull in the same direction as CROA, we just have our own horse.

@ikedub private boaters on commercial sections of river, not all boaters all rivers; sorry. CW does have a lobbyest on this bill, at any rate, who is at the capital full time keeping an eye on things.


----------



## KSC

If I understand correctly, you're saying the law only applies to sections of river that have been run commercially (meaning by a company charging money to take customers down the river) from 2000-2009? It's still worthwhile, but that's really disappointing that it's so limited in scope. 

The logic is lost on me why people should have rights on historically run commercial sections but not others. I guess it still a law about preserving the viability of commercial companies and granting them rights that they built their business assuming they had and not about granting people rights to use the rivers.


----------



## Ikedub

Thanks gyro...I wasn't fleshing out the language enough. Do you (or anyone else)have a comprehensive list of those rivers?


----------



## Ikedub

This bill is more likable than it's original form...but it still has it's share of problems. I still think it's a big bite off of the elephant and it should be supported.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

Now that the definition of River Guide is changed to include private boaters, wouldn't that in turn mean that the bill would apply to all rivers run by a River Guide in 2000-2009, if that's the case it will apply to a few more areas of recent conflict - Lake fork, and lower Blue? Hopefully the language isn't crafted in such a way to include only commercially run stretches. That leaves a few too many rivers in limbo.

There's a lot to be changed as of last night, it'll be interesting to see what the bill looks like now. 

I'm glad CROA didn't decide to abandon the private boaters and cut a deal with the landowners. I won't forget that when they need support.


----------



## TakemetotheRiver

KSC said:


> The logic is lost on me why people should have rights on historically run commercial sections but not others. I guess it still a law about preserving the viability of commercial companies and granting them rights that they built their business assuming they had and not about granting people rights to use the rivers.


It seems that by limiting the bill to historically commercially run rivers, it assuaged the concerns of those who were opposed to the idea that the right to float comes from language of English Common Law dictating what constitutes a "navigable waterway." 

They are saying, you can have the right to float, but it's on our terms, not those old terms- which is still better than nothing.


----------



## Ikedub

"any guided river" rather than "any commercially guided river"....the power of one word.


----------



## DurangoSteve

It's flawed, but getting better... although the "no portage" clause is crazy and has potentially fatal consequences. Thanks to all who have worked to improve this important bill.


----------



## Ikedub

Yes, 

Thanks to all of you doing far more than me to make sure we have the right to float rivers in Colorado. It's crazy that this is even up in the air. 

You don't get charged for trespassing when you make an evasive action and drive off of the road into someones land...would you be prosecuted for the equivalent on a river? If an obstruction of the path is a danger to your life and you avoid it...would you be prosecuted for it? On the other hand, If someone creates obstructions with the intent of creating danger for unknowing people...aren't there laws to punish those people? I think there are other hurdles for them as well. It is still grey, but I think there are options for the "no portage" scenario.


----------



## Canada

*Civil and criminal consequence*




DurangoSteve said:


> It's flawed, but getting better... although the "no portage" clause is crazy and has potentially fatal consequences. Thanks to all who have worked to improve this important bill.


If a land owner creates a hazard and a person drowns as a result, then they will be liable in civil court and potentially criminally. I can't think of a man made hazard outside of the bridge on the Taylor and the bridge that used to be below the race course section on the rio grande in NM. Lots of wires and fences on creeks, but not commercially run stuff. We worry about this alot, but I just can't see a judge coming down on us if we say I had to get out and go around this thing to keep from being killed. I'll take my chances on a portage as long as the sheriff can't ticket me for just floating through!!


----------



## Badazws6

Ikedub said:


> "any guided river" rather than "any commercially guided river"....the power of one word.


Now that the definition of guide is changed; may I second this motion?


----------



## stinginrivers

Here is my take on this from last night and what is in the future.

The bill was amended to bring in private boaters, which is how it should have been written originally but Rep. Curry did not want to stir the cattleman's association which was done anyway. It was stated early on that the cattleman's association has never lost a battle well chalk one up for the good guys.

While changing the bill to add private boaters is a good thing and is what everybody including CROA wanted, it did have negative consequences.

We are worried that a few Senators will oppose this bill if it includes private boaters and there will be repercussions throughout the house as well now that it will have to be amended there as well.

It is imperative to get the word out to your senators and representatives that we need their votes on this.

Two key people that need to be contacted are-
Senator Scott Renfroe of Weld County- we lost his handshake vote
Office-303.866.4451
[email protected]


Senator Keith King of El Paso County
Office 303.866.4880
Email- [email protected]

Inquire to them why they voted against this bill and decided to support privatization of Colorado rivers for the sole purpose of the wealthy out of state fisherman on private ranches that think stream bed modification is environmentally sound, compared to keeping the rivers of the state of Colorado free for Coloradans.

We all need to band together and work with CROA to make sure we get the votes for this to pass, CWWA and AW joined in on this at the last minute and although that is very much appreciated they need to continue to work with CROA as they are the ones flipping the bill on this thing. If it was not for CROA working on this bill it would not be were it is today and we need to keep in mind that we are all working for the same goal.

This bill is going to help all boaters in the state once it is passed, if it does not pass the repercussions are going to be significant as land owners throughout the state are aware of this, they had a landowner from the Ark valley testify as a witness on the oppositions side.

Thanks 
Danny Andres
former raft guide, private boater, AW member, industry professional


----------



## Badazws6

*Colorado Whitewater needs your help*

Mountain Buzz,

Speaking as a former Colorado Whitewater board member, and without speaking to the board about this post I want to inform you of something.

COLORADO WHITEWATER HAS YOUR BACK, as demonstrated by their recent actions on HB 1188. I KNOW last year that Colorado Whitewater was not in a financial position to be hiring lobbyists and I suspect that very little has changed since then. However, they have bit the bullet and hired them anyway, kudos to them.

I am asking you now to have Colorado Whitewater's back like they have yours and support them. If you are not a member, please join. If your a former member that has let their membership laps, please renew. If your a current member, please remember to renew on time. Chipping in a extra few dollars isn't a bad idea also. Lets share the expense of their defense of your rights.

Thank you,

Matthew Rensel


----------



## gyrogyrl

*HB1188 - Latest amended version now available*

The Colorado General Assembly webpage has finally uploaded the amended version of HB10-1188 - actual language for you to review.

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cl...22B872576AA00693103?open&file=1188sjud_01.pdf


----------



## BrianK

you won't get prosecuted criminally for portaging to avoid a hazard, or if you do you will win. In colorado there is a choice of evils affirmative defense. If you have to choose between the two crimes or bad situations and you chose the lesser of the two evils it isn't a crime. In this case you are allowed to trespass over dying.


----------



## Badazws6

Seems better to me. I guess my biggest question is what happens if you have an out of boat experience? Do they expect people to float down stream to the next public access risking hypothermia among other things?

Matt


----------



## Ikedub

I just read the new version and I like it. It is a careful compromise. The only critical thing that is missing now is "all guided rivers"...not just commercially guided. The portage law can come down the road when it is obvious that it is necessary for some runs. Pass this thing.


----------



## robanna

The one thing I don't like about it as it stands is that it's limited to commercially run sections of rivers from 2000-2009.
I feel it should be any river, when and if, it will float a boat without touching bottom.


----------



## Turner2

robanna said:


> The one thing I don't like about it as it stands is that it's limited to commercially run sections of rivers from 2000-2009.
> I feel it should be any river, when and if, it will float a boat without touching bottom.


I agree. Colorado's Constitution grants the water flowing in ALL natural streams to the public, for use by the public. Not just those limited segments used for the last 10 years. This bill would exclude Boulder Creek, the St. Vrain forks, probably portions of Clear Creek, and hundreds of other streams...

Also, removing the right to portage basically defeats the original purpose of the bill - to resolve the dispute on the Taylor. Without portage, and limiting the definition of 'waterway', this bill would grant us the most limited stream access laws in the west, even though we have the strongest Constitutional protections for our use rights! 

I don't think it goes far enough, and as Chief Niwot so nicely and succintly described before, the landowners are on their heels because they realize the weight of the public opinion, the law, and the Constitution is not on their side:



Chief Niwot said:


> Common Law Navigability rights
> Colorado Constitution stating the public owns our water, rivers, streams, and water ways
> Other states with high water mark law as the standard or more liberal ruling on floating rights through private property
> Land owners are way out numbered by the shear number of people wanting access
> Tourism revenue
> and the weak Emmert case that they want to use as the precedent
> .


I think we need a broader bill or a referendum.


----------



## Ikedub

Turner2 and Robana, 

They changed the definition of guide to mean basically anyone in control of a boat. If the rivers include all that have been guided in the last 10 years that will effectively mean all rivers. It does currently say commercially guided (or something to the effect).

As a few have said above...I'll take my chances on the portages as my life is in danger to run them. I don't think it would be pursued criminally.


----------



## Turner2

That's the thing - a "waterway" is defined as JUST commercial guided segments of rivers. Guide was redefined to basically include anyone guiding a craft (public or private) on "waterways". Doesn't cover any segments not guided commercially. 

I would love to have a list of oft-used and well-know segments of rivers that are not covered by this definition. Suggestions (Boulder Creek, the St. Vrains, Big Thompson...)?

I agree, criminal charges aren't likely for deadly portages. But in a civil trespass case, an injunction is a possible remedy (because no 'damages' can really be found to the landowner for the brief foray onto their land). Shaw and others may still be able to get an injunction in civil trespass against a commercial outfitter's permit, if the outfitter must regularly portage around obstacles (such as the low bridge).


----------



## Turner2

Heres the provision: (b) "WATERWAY" MEANS A SEGMENT OF A RIVER IN COLORADO ON WHICH ONE OR MORE REGULATED TRIPS HAVE BEEN RUN IN ANY YEAR FROM 2000 THROUGH 2009.

Operative words being "regulated trips". Not sure how a court would interpret that.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

I haven't studied all the amendments, but from what I'm told, portage is still covered, they just ditched portage and expanded the definition of incidental contact to include all activity necessary to continue down river, which implies portage. It seems there were some major hangups surrounding the term portage, so they opted to ditch it. I believe Sen Hodge clarified that point last night.


----------



## robanna

Ikedub: from the new version:


> "WATERWAY" MEANS ASEGMENTOF A RIVER IN COLORADO ON WHICH ONE OR MORE REGULATED TRIPS HAVE BEEN RUN IN ANY YEAR FROM 2000 THROUGH 2009."


You taking your friends down a river is not REGULATED. And even if it were, it would only by from put-in to take-out; not the whole river.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

Turner2 said:


> Heres the provision: (b) "WATERWAY" MEANS A SEGMENT OF A RIVER IN COLORADO ON WHICH ONE OR MORE REGULATED TRIPS HAVE BEEN RUN IN ANY YEAR FROM 2000 THROUGH 2009.
> 
> Operative words being "regulated trips". Not sure how a court would interpret that.


Sounds kind of broad to me, without a specific definition it could be taken to mean any trip on any river where a boater might be subject to any boating regs. State law says you've got to wear a lifejacket while boating any river in the state. Sounds like regulation to me.


----------



## Ole Rivers

*Amendments to HB 1188 Senate Judiciary Committee 3/16/10*

Here are the amendments from the 3/16/10 Senate Journal, found on pgs 559-561 then 11-13 of 16 of the pdf at: http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2010a/csl.nsf/Journals?OpenFrameSet -->Senate Journal-->March 16, 2010 for the Reengrossed (latest) HB10-1188 updated version found at: http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2010a/csl.nsf/Calendars?OpenFrameSet . 

Compare them, until probably tomorrow or so when 1188 is reengrossed again to include these latest Senate amendments.


----------



## watermonkey

Quote from Slave - 
"Sen Steve King brought up some opposition to the amendments, and offered that he had some amendments of his own. He also asked some of the more disturbing questions of the evening, at one point asking "Why can I fish in his private fishery?" and "If I can stay in the boat and fish, but can't get out and fish from the bank, why should I be allowed to fish from the boat?" "

Slave, as I understand it, once a private landowner stocks fish into a river, regardless of whether or not "habitat improvements" have been made on that stretch, that landowner loses all rights to those fish and they then fall under the management jurisdiction of whatever agency oversees that water. These fish actually become wildlife of the state available to all, same as deer and elk that wander onto private property, they are not the property of that land owner. Lori Potter's statement that people could not fish "private" stocked river sections they were floating through was incorrect, uniformed, and she should have said "I don't know" rather than making something up on the spot that could come back to haunt the float fishing industry. Her comments stating that rafters could not and would not "stop" in a private section under 1188 were also disturbing - anybody ever eddy out? These may have seemed like minor replies, but the devil is in the details.


----------



## Ikedub

I understand that all rivers are not included currently. I was saying that is the last critical thing lacking and it can be changed with simple and logical wording. I agree that a "regulated trip" is pretty vague too. 

That is great if the incidental contact verbage (which it should be termed) includes portaging in a dangerous situation.


----------



## Ole Rivers

*Did I mention "boatFISHING"?*



Turner2 said:


> That's the thing - a "waterway" is defined as JUST commercial guided segments of rivers. Guide was redefined to basically include anyone guiding a craft (public or private) on "waterways". Doesn't cover any segments not guided commercially.
> 
> I would love to have a list of oft-used and well-know segments of rivers that are not covered by this definition. Suggestions (Boulder Creek, the St. Vrains, Big Thompson...)?


Lower Blue, read: Blue Valley Ranch.

Gee, I wonder if they know about this bill? Oh, wait. An associate of Ryley, Carlock and Applewhite, BVR's law firm, I believe, representing Cattleman's, testified as the second opposition expert at the hearing last night.

The law firm is also listed, I believe, as a lobbyist.

Anyone think they'd proceed with civil trespass?

Oh. Another flash of blinding light... Hey, all you boatfishermen, since it is written that boat fishermen can't, in any way, have fishing incidental contact, does anyone think they'll charge a boat fisherman, fishing from the boat, for fishing with a Slumpbuster that has fishing incidental contact?

Did I mention boatFISHING using actual hooks and weights that incidentally touch bottom? But, wait. Noone would be that crass to pursue charging boatfishermen with committing civil trespass simply because you're using Hare's Ears that touch bottom so that they could keep boatfishermen out of their ranch area, would they? Naaaahhhhhh...

Suppose maybe amend Page 4 lines 21 and 22 of Reengrossed HB 1188:
"AND SUCH CONTACT IS INCIDENTAL TO CONTINUED NAVIGATION AND IS 
NOT FOR RECREATIONAL OR PERSONAL PURPOSES SUCH AS FISHING...".

That one word, "fishing", exposes boat fishermen, a reasonable portion of private boaters, to civil trespass.

How many boaters are going to float through that river segment or similarly undefined segments, toss a Woolly Bugger into The Deep and risk civil trespass because of how the bill (or law) is currently written?

For *starters*, amend to exclude the word "fishing", as an exclusionary term, from the bill.


----------



## Theophilus

Seems the Cattlemen make as much or more money from Colorado's fish as they do from cows. That's what this is really all about for the Cattleman's Association. Profiteering from Colorado's fish paid for by the rest of us license purchasers across the state.


----------



## outbackjack

I just got the chance to catch up on everything that has been posted to date, I have not had a chance to read the bill. I think everyone should understand, no matter what the language in the bill, this is only the beginning. I hope this bill passes, but even if it does it is not the end. The opposition has promised to sue the State of Colorado should this bill pass. If it doesnt pass, the boating community is not going to just step down and say "O.K. the rivers belong to you, we will go somewhere else" At least, I WON'T!! This will not end until we have a ballot initiative put to the people of Colorado to decide if the rivers belong to the people or individuals. When this happens, the landowners who oppose this bill will wish that they supported it and kept their mouths shut!! Im done for now, good nite. JB


----------



## gyrogyrl

*Pro private boater editorial in Denver Post*

From today's (3.17) Denver Post.

Smoother sailing for Colorado rafting bill - The Denver Post


----------



## -k-

What always gets me regarding the opponents stance on this is the "causing damage" comments. They make us sound like vandals carrying a can of spray paint. Most of us have an environmental code well beyond what they will own up to. About the only damage I can think that typically gets caused is a foot path, which if they are fishing they likely already have.

I can't think of a time where I have damaged anything besides myself or my craft. Anyone else?


----------



## Canada

I have seen lots of damage by fishermen and boaters. 99% of us probably clean things up more than we damage, but it's the 1%. See the thread about the numbers and the guy who lives by #5. I know that if I lived along a river, I wouldn't want people deficating on my property and cutting down my trees. We need to actively police each other.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

I think we all know that responsible rafting does little to no damage to the ecosystem.


----------



## double-H

the landowners suck


----------



## TakemetotheRiver

double-H said:


> the landowners suck


"Out of the mouths of babes"... most of us agree, Henry, we just can't say it that way.


----------



## gyrogyrl

I'm a landowner.


----------



## Badazws6

double-H said:


> the landowners suck


Landowners don't suck, there are tons of awesome landowners, it's just that some people don't play nicely with others. The lesson here is to always strive to play nice with others. Are you?


----------



## robanna

Gee, Henry, don't sugar coat it just for us.


----------



## patrickt

*CW Update and Open Letter on HB1188 and How to Help*

Attached is a letter I wrote on behalf of the CW Board to our members concerning House Bill 1188. The opposition will be working harder than ever now to defeat this bill. The last time a river access bill was before the General Assembly was in 1996, and the bill never even made it to the House floor. We need to keep the pressure on to finally get some clarity on the right to float in Colorado. 
Thanks to all. 
Patrick Tooley
CW Board Member, Legal
CW and AW member and volunteer


----------



## double-H

I said it and I mean it. No one owns the rivers. It belongs to all of us and we have to take care of them. The landowners leave junk laying around like old cars and stuff. It's gross. Then they want to blame us


----------



## SBlue

Thanks PatrickT. I just read your letter. I contacted Rep. Curry some time ago via her website to express support for the bill and for adding all boaters. I will do so again and will dedicate some time to contact the politicos you suggest. I'm on it.


----------



## jen84

I wrote one of the legal briefs for the Senate on this bill. This seems like we are going to get one shot at this.... previous attempts have been shot down and this is going to be the best (and possibly the only) way to get closer to a right to float - CALL YOUR SENATOR/EMAIL YOUR SENATOR


----------



## robanna

From CWA Facebook page:


> HB 1188 will go to the floor of the Senate TOMORROW, March 18!
> Colorado Residents: Call or Email your Senator and ask them to vote YES on 1188!


*Find you Senator here:*

*Map at:* http://192.70.175.79/State/

*All Legislators: *http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/Clics2010A/csl.nsf/Directory?openFrameset

*HB 1188 as it stands now: [corrected] http://theannas.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/1188sjud_01.pdf
*


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

robanna - the last link you provided is the version of the bill prior to the latest round of amendments, it does not include the amendments made by the Senate.


----------



## robanna

I'll fix that. Thanks.

Correct version is here (I hope):

*HB 1188 as it stands now: 1188sjud_01*


----------



## mjpowhound

Senators called again.

One of them was listed as being a manager of a whitewater raft company. I assume he'll vote for it, but it doesn't hurt to ask again!


----------



## gyrogyrl

Thanks everyone for taking action! Whew! I know most of us have other daytime jobs - but doesn't feel like it lately!


----------



## Theophilus

These events should be a great reminder to everyone why it is so important to be a member of American Whitewater. 

American Whitewater - Welcome


----------



## patrickt

Theophilus, I agree that AW is a great organization. We are very pleased we are able to work with Nathan. But CW is also a great organization and our members are as actively involved in access and conservation efforts as any affiliate club in the country. I don't want to minimize AW's contributions, but CW is a great group to be a member of as well.


----------



## gyrogyrl

*Senate floor debate on 1188 re-calendared for FRIDAY*

Best available information from CROA this evening looks like the Senate floor debate on "2nds" for HB1188 has been moved from tomorrow to FRIDAY 3/19. Still time to call your Senator if you haven't yet.


----------



## SBlue

Despite a lengthy dialogue I am unable to budge Senator Al White. He remains a no vote. He represents Silverthorne to Rifle, Steamboat to Rangely. [email protected]

Let him know what you think.


----------



## gyrogyrl

Thanks for your effort @SBlue. Senator White is usually reasonable, but independent minded. Lobbyists are keeping a vote count so its helpful to know where he stands.


----------



## zboda

Hey boaters,

It's getting late in the day, but there are a couple of key Senators we need to contact. One is Chafee County and the other is Golden, Wheat Ridge, and Arvada. Don't delay. The vote on the Senate floor is still scheduled for tomorrow.

Dear Outfitters and Friends: 3/18/10  

12 noon update from the Capitol ... 

HB 1188 should be heard and debated on the Senate Floor tomorrow 3/19 Friday morning.. it's unclear what exact time but sometime after 9:20am - link below to listen and/or watch. 

 2 new Senators that need our attention: 

1. Senator Gail Schwartz has some new concerns on HB 1188 
 If you, friends, family, staff and customers live and operate a business in her district - We need your calls and emails into her TODAY. 
Look and see if you're in Schwartz's district which includes Chaffee, Pitkin, Gunnison, Delta and the San Luis Valley- http://www.comaps.org/distsd05.html


Ask Senator Schwartz to support HB 1188 and _*support the narrow amendment to allow private boaters on historically run commercial stretches.*_ 
*Senator Gail Schwartz:* Phone303-866-4871 *Email:* [email protected]

2. Senator Moe Keller is also having some concerns.... She Needs to hear from only GOLDEN, west ARVADA and WHEATRIDGE residents in her district. 
*Do you live or know someone whom lives in Golden, Arvada or Wheatridge?* 
 We need help ! Please ask them to place a quick phone call to her TODAY. 

Ask Senator Moe Keller to Support HB 1188 and keep rivers open for business and fun. 
*Senator Moe Keller Phone:* 303-866-2585 *Email:* [email protected] 


Look and see if you and or friends in live and or work in Keller's district which includes Golden,west Arvada, and Wheatridge http://www.comaps.org/distsd20.html

--------------------------------------------------------
The Future of River Running Heads to Senate Floor for Debate on Friday, March 19th! 
YES ON HB 1188 - the 2010 River Outfitters Viability Act
Let’s keep Colorado rivers open for business and fun! 

*You can listen to the debate on Friday... at http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2010a/cslFrontPages.nsf/Audio?OpenForm click on Senate Chamber to watch or listen

Your calls and letters and emails to Senators are making difference! 

Please take a moment and contact the KEY Colorado State Senators - listed below and ask them to support House Bill 1188. Contact information below - Pls ask your friends, family, staff, customers and everyone to do the same over the next couple days.

HB 1188 was amended in Committee Monday evening... It's not everything everyone wanted But it is a good first step, please consider the difficulty and scale of this issue we're working. 

An amendment went on the bill yesterday that did five major things:
1. Rewrote the legislative declaration to declare that the right to float was based in existing law broadly rather than narrowly on English common law. 
2. Removed all references to “navigation” and replaced them with the term “right to float”
3. Included private boaters in the definition of people who can exercise their right to float on runs historically floated by commercial rafting companies
4. Struck the ability to portage
5. Included language protecting landowners from liability for water diversions, agricultural practices, etc. and allowed the use of “incidental contact” to avoid them

 Read the amended legislation online at: http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2010a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/4FD1374D97E6422B872576AA00693103?open&file=1188sjud_01.pdf

 -------------ACTION ALERT --------------
The Future of River Running Heads to Senate Floor on Friday, March 19th!
Take Action BEFORE Friday 9am 
YES ON HB 1188 - the 2010 River Outfitters Viability Act
Let’s keep Colorado rivers open for business and fun

Look up your own state senator at: http://www.comaps.org or Project Votesmart: www.votesmart.org 

Key State Senators to contact:

Senator Gail Schwartz: 303-866-4871 Email: [email protected] (western Co, chaffee, and SLV) 
Senator Rollie Heath 303-866-4872 E-mail: [email protected] Boulder County 
ONLY RESIDENTS of GOLDEN, Arvada, and Wheatridge - CALL Senator Moe Keller Phone: 303-866-2585 Email: [email protected] 
 Senator Paula Sandoval, 303-866-4862, E-mail: [email protected] ( Denver) 
Senator Mark Scheffel 303-866-4869 E-mail: [email protected] (Douglas, El Paso, Lake, Park, Teller counties 
Senator Abel Tapia 303-866-2581 E-mail: [email protected] (Pueblo) 
Senator Michael Johnston 303-866-486 E-mail: [email protected] (Denver) 
Senator Ted Harvey 303-866-4881 E-mail: [email protected] (Douglas)
 
Sample script for phone/email/letter:  
Dear Senator _______:


(Identify yourself: river enthusiast, Coloradan, business owner, outfitter whom employs many ppl. etc. Tell them if you live in their district. )


Please Vote Yes on HB 1188, the Colorado River Outfitters Viability Act. 


We need Senator _______’s help to keep Colorado rivers open for business and fun! River running is a vital part of recreation, tourism, and business in the state. 


Landowners, boaters, and fishers have been sharing the rivers for a long time in Colorado with few problems. Don’t let a few resort landowners close down the rivers for everyone in our state.

I hope I can count on your vote for the future of river recreation in Colorado.


(Add a personal note: why do you and your family enjoy boating?)


Sincerely,


Name


----------



## zboda

Hello again,

It sounds like we have made some progress with Senators Keller and Schwartz. Three more Senators have made the "need to contact" list:

*Key State Senators to contact:* *Updated 4pm 3/18/10*

 Senator Paula Sandoval, 303-866-4862, E-mail: [email protected] ( Denver)

Senator Mark Scheffel 303-866-4869 E-mail: [email protected] (Douglas, El Paso, Lake, Park, Teller counties

Senator Abel Tapia 303-866-2581 E-mail: [email protected] (Pueblo)


----------



## gyrogyrl

*2 LTE in the Denver Post today*

both pro- boater

Blogs: eLetters | The Denver Post


----------



## zboda

Don’t forget to stream the bill’s second reading today on the Senate floor:

HB 1188 should be heard and debated on the Senate Floor tomorrow 3/19 Friday morning.. it's unclear what exact time but sometime after 9:20am

*You can listen to the debate on Friday... at http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2010a/cslFrontPages.nsf/Audio?OpenForm click on Senate Chamber to watch or listen


----------



## gyrogyrl

*Ken Ransford in the Aspen Times on 1188*

A right to float | AspenTimes.com


----------



## lmaciag

What is amendment L045 that they are speaking of?


----------



## robanna

I think L045 is to the send it to the water board.


----------



## outbackjack

Does anyone know what this means, I hear it is going to The Water Congress?? for further study?? Any ideas??


----------



## doughboy

Is the debate going on right now?


----------



## patrickt

The amendment was passed and if the bill is enacted into law it would send the issue to a group that is hostile to boaters. There would be a meaningless report and nothing would happen. Practically speaking, this kills the bill. It is also a strategy to carve out non-commercial boaters, because the only thing the commercials can really do ow is to to send the original house version of the bill to the senate for approval. CW will keep you posted, but there aren't great options.


----------



## Ikedub

This sounds deveastating! SO, they basically said this is a water rights issue and sent it to the water board?


----------



## Ikedub

So our legislators are saying (with their actions) that every river and stream in the state is closed to boaters!? Wow!


----------



## Theophilus

Board Members at a Glance - Colorado Water Conservation Board


----------



## Ikedub

That board looks pretty mixed to me...what decisions have they been hostile towards boaters?


----------



## patrickt

I haven't seen the amendment, but I was told the bill would be sent to the Colorado Water Congress, which officially opposed the bill.


----------



## -k-

"I think L045 is to the send it to the water board"

I hate how crafty these jerks can be. Who proposed or managed to slide that amendment in? 

This is basically saying "we don't want to vote" because we are too scared to make a real decision. We will send it to a board where the public does not get to choose the members and effectively vote no, but we can say we supported it. What good are Senators that cant make hard choices?


----------



## gyrogyrl

The Colorado Water Congress is pay-to-play. You have to buy your way on; nothing good for boaters has ever come from them. 

However, there might be other strategies to pursue - lobbyists are congregating and strategizing now; we'll see what the options are.


----------



## d.e.

I would be interested to hear John Suthers take on the issue. There are so many at-odd issues in the bill that it begs for judicial review. This current Colorado Supreme Court bench is a lot different than in 1979 with much more expertise in current water law issues. The water user community opened the door, will they now be able to close it?


----------



## -k-

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cl...E6422B872576AA00693103?open&file=1188_rev.pdf

Looks like the Colorado Water Boards Study is not due until November 30th, 2010. So safe boating this summer (even though in my opinion a non decision really changes nothing).


----------



## Ikedub

Well...there are going to be some lawsuits in Gunnison right away.


----------



## Theophilus

My bad..I thought it was the Colorado Water Conservation Board, but it is the Colorado Water Congress. 

Colorado Water Congress


----------



## Theophilus

Check this out! The Member Directory of the Colorado Water Congress contains;


Bratton Hill, LLC of Gunnison

None other than the same Attorney John Hill who represents Jackson-Shaw. The same John Hill who represented the landowners in the case on the Lake Fork, and has argued that there is no right to float in Colorado.

This is like letting the rats guard the cheese.


----------



## riojedi

This sounds worse then the bill not passing. Ballot initiative time?


----------



## lmaciag

So... $50 a vote.


----------



## Riparian

lmaciag said:


> So... $50 a vote.





riojedi said:


> This sounds worse then the bill not passing. Ballot initiative time?


Maybe, but there's pretty huge risk with that approach.


----------



## lmaciag

If it wasn't clear what I meant, it is $50 to become a member and have one vote with the Colorado Water Congress. Looks like anyone can become a member and vote.

Here is the dues structure: Colorado Water Congress

Just quantifying the 'pay to play' stated above.


----------



## outbackjack

I have always felt that this issue was going to have to come to a Ballet Initiative. It will then have to be tested in the Supreme Court. The amount of money that is being directed at this from the opposition is staggaring. Where are a bunch of boaters going to get enough money to even get it on the Ballet let alone counter the advertising campaign that the opposition will put on?? Who can manage the fundraising effort? CW? AW? CROA? How deep of pockets do these organizations have? I would imagine that CROA has spent quite alot on this fight so far. I am willing to donate to the cause, as I am sure a lot of public boaters will from around the country. How do we do this? Who takes the lead? I will be floating through Jackson Shaws private paradise quite often this spring, I as a public boater, cannot afford to be sued but I dont feel I can afford to NOT float a river I have been floating for 23 years. Any ideas??


----------



## BackCountry

Keep floating it. He can call the Sheriff about you "trespassing" while floating down the river. The Sheriffs department has said they will not bother responding as long as you do not portage the low bridge. The problem will be law suits against the local commercial companies.


----------



## outbackjack

Oh I have enery intention of floating it, however Shaw has promised to take the Public boaters to civil court as well. It is really going to get interesting around here!


----------



## d.e.

Get arrested for trespassing as a private boater. Then see if they'll push hard enough that you could work it all the way up to the Supreme Court. Get someone to help with your legal fees  which will be substantial but far less than a ballot issue. Its' been used before, but I believe the cases were dismissed, and there went the appeals process.


----------



## outbackjack

I would love to, know any Pro Bono lawyers that want to get famous??


----------



## doughboy

Sounds like the Lake Fork.


----------



## sbratt

Just saw this
Colo. Senate delays plan to protect river rafters - The Denver Post


----------



## Riparian

sbratt said:


> Just saw this
> Colo. Senate delays plan to protect river rafters - The Denver Post


Chickenshit pols...


----------



## BackCountry

Don't know how they will get you in civil court. The sheriff will not respond to arrest you. Are you going to give the people working on Shaw's property your ID so they can have their lawyer contact you? Good luck in proving you were the one floating through that stretch of river.


----------



## outbackjack

The sheriff wont respond to Harmels, I think Jackson Shaw or Bratton, or Hill will get them there.


----------



## CBrown

Where does that leave us this upcoming season on the Taylor? Are these folks gonna jump in the river and chain our boats up if we float through? Where do we stand?


----------



## outbackjack

Shaw will sue any commercial rafting company that floats through the middle Taylor. We will find out what his plans are for public boaters as soon as the ice comes off. The Bill has still not passed out of the Senate. Let your Senators know how discusted you are with their in-action. Below is a response I got from Our Senator here in Gunnison. 
Mr. Barker,

Senator Schwartz was excused from the Senate today for travel to Portland, Oregon, on state business at the request of Senate President Brandon Shaffer, where she is representing Colorado at the Council of State Governments – WEST Executive Committee meetings. This travel has been on Gail’s calendar for weeks.

It was Senator Schwartz’s understanding, as of late yesterday afternoon, that H.B. 10-1188 would not be heard on Friday due to unresolved concerns about the bill as amended by the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier in the week. As it happened, these concerns were dealt with by an amendment that was introduced this morning and garnered a bipartisan majority of support. Senator Schwartz had no advance knowledge of the amendment, or even that one would be introduced.

Senator Schwartz regrets that her schedule made it impossible to be present for the debate and vote, and the opportunity to advocate on behalf of the bill and the rafting industry, but as it happened, her vote would not have altered the outcome. Senator Schwartz will be present for the third and final reading of the bill, currently scheduled for next week, and will continue to do everything she can to protect the interests of the rafting community going forward, including ensuring a fair and balanced stakeholder process if that is what is ultimately called for by the legislation.

Sincerely,

Scott Wozencraft
Aide



From the office of:
Gail Schwartz, Colorado State Senator
Senate District 5
office: 303-866-4871
State Capitol Building, Room 338
Denver, CO 80203

fax: 303-866-4543
www.gailschwartz.org


----------



## BackCountry

I have been toll by several Sheriffs deputies that they are not going to get in the middle of this. I believe them.


----------



## jen84

Someone should get their grandma to float through that stretch of the Taylor every day... that way there will be a really sympathetic Defendant if they eventually sue. 

Those Outfitters on the Taylor are probably screwed unless they have a decent amount of money and a good cheap lawyer. 

If these people want to sue everyone that floats through their property they will go bankrupt.... So everyone should go float that stretch in mass protest. That would be fun!


----------



## outbackjack

Dont worry, I personally will be inviting everyone who can to come and float the middle Taylor as soon as we can. May even plan a float around the 4th of July to maximize the attention. Money doesnt always wil!!!


----------



## Theophilus

outbackjack said:


> Dont worry, I personally will be inviting everyone who can to come and float the middle Taylor as soon as we can. May even plan a float around the 4th of July to maximize the attention. Money doesnt always wil!!!


I intend to do it during Paddlefest. Seems like as good a time as any.


----------



## jen84

Just don't trespass or prove that boaters are a bunch of ass clowns...


----------



## brokenpaddlejon

If the bill ultimately gets killed it would be great to follow the lead of MLK and the SCLC during the civil right movement back in the 60's. Many young people of color sat at lunch counters in Albany, GA, after they were arrested another group sat down right after them until the jails were full. If we got together in mass to float that stretch the sheriff would hard pressed to do much and it would be difficult for this landowner to do a whole lot about it, unless he barricaded the whole river. Passive Resistance. We might even get some good attention from the whole matter.


----------



## doughboy

It is all crap. If you do a protest fl'oat on the 4th they will wait and go after you on the 5th and then what? The protest float didn't prove anything on the Lake Fork. If you are going to make a statement hike in at night and poision the fish.


----------



## patrickt

After having read the article, I hope folks keep track of how their senators handled this issue. The Senators who voted for the amendment fall into two camps: those who openly opposed the bill and those would didn't have the courage to say they did.
I do think, however, that Senators Romer and Brophy should be applauded not only for supporting the bill but also for asking their colleagues for an up or down vote. That is what honest politicians do.


----------



## Theophilus

jen84 said:


> Just don't trespass or prove that boaters are a bunch of ass clowns...


Thanks Mom.


----------



## Theophilus

patrickt said:


> After having read the article, I hope folks keep track of how their senators handled this issue. The Senators who voted for the amendment fall into two camps: those who openly opposed the bill and those would didn't have the courage to say they did.
> I do think, however, that Senators Romer and Brophy should be applauded not only for supporting the bill but also for asking their colleagues for an up or down vote. That is what honest politicians do.


Do you know of an easily accessible record of the vote? 

I intend to follow up with my state representatives. I'm appalled that the matter would be handed over to a body that the opposition is directly a member of.


----------



## Riparian

Theophilus said:


> Do you know of an easily accessible record of the vote?
> 
> I intend to follow up with my state representatives. I'm appalled that the matter would be handed over to a body that the opposition is directly a member of.


Agreed 100%. Don't think that's ever happened before, Theo! It's time to hold these folks accountable.


----------



## brokenpaddlejon

I would definitely like to see how my representatives voted. If they didn't stand up I will happily throw them off my lawn the next time they come through asking to place signs in my yard to help them get elected again. When will there position be made public.


----------



## Badazws6

BackCountry said:


> Keep floating it. He can call the Sheriff about you "trespassing" while floating down the river. The Sheriffs department has said they will not bother responding as long as you do not portage the low bridge. The problem will be law suits against the local commercial companies.


Help me out here, I don't have a good understanding of this run and where the low bridge and how low it is. Don't you HAVE to portage the low bridge if you run the middle Taylor? 

Sounds to me like if this is the position of of the sheriff's department it isn't going to take very long before someone figures out if there are still people getting through below the bridge, just lower the bridge...

Thanks,

Matt


----------



## robanna

I think the vote should be here but it's not up yet:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS\CLICS2010A\commsumm.nsf/IndSumm?OpenView&StartKey=HB10-1188&Count=3


----------



## marino

I have been reading this string for a while. Sadly, it is evident that you are lambs to the slaughter. This was always going to end up like this if you leave it to the politicians. In addition talk of a plebiscite is also a waste of time and money. The real estate industry will join with the landowners raise $10m and kill any effort. Trout Unlimited tried this years ago and were run into the ground. Most of their big donors now are landowners so they have bought their silence. You need to stop talking among yourselves and playing games. You want to be serious this is what you have to do:

1. On the Taylor Ranch, get really familiar with 18-9-107 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. 

2. Learn about implied consent, necessity, prescriptive rights and equitable arguments. Given that it has been possible to portage around the bridge for years a court might find that you have a right to continue to do so. Given Shaw's withdrawal of consent coupled with the fact that the bridge obstructs a waterway contrary to the above statute, a court might apply the equitable principle that those who seek equity must do equity. In addition one can only get equitable relief if one approaches the court with "clean hands". If a rafter conducts himself appropriately a court might throw out Shaw's argument on a number of these grounds. The main thing you would need to do is prevent injunctive relief. The actual damages for floating through once would be minimal and if a number of rafters floated through his legal costs would trouble him. Further, he just wants to make money by selling to unsuspecting landowners. He would want this problem to go away.

3. Given that there has been commercial rafting on Shaws river for years [as I understand it] there is a strong argument that it is a navigable water. If that is the case and you can show an interstate visitor that gives sufficient Federal nexus to commence an action in Federal Court. The consequence of a finding of navigability for Federal purposes is that the public trust doctrine would apply and shaw's land to the highwater mark would become public property. He would not want to run this risk. There is nothing that the state legislature could do to overturn such a decision because Federal Law always trumps state law.

4. At the same time as starting a Federal Case, you start a state case arguing the state Constitutional right to float and enjoy the natural incidents of floating. Read and familiarize yourselves with Curran's case and the Conatser decisions. That will indicate what a state court will do with the right case. 

Do all of this and the landowners will desperately try and work out a deal. You need to organize, stop playing politics and get serious. It will take a lot of money but if you get pro bono lawyers involved you will be able to get a long way. 

Finally, you rafters need to understand that there are a lot of other people who would be interested in getting involved if you would just spread your invitation. The original bill got a lot of people offside because it was just plain dumb to seek to apply it to commercial rafters. Have a look how much has been spent so far on lobbyists and lawyers. And for what? You need to understand that you could get a lot more support if you appealed to a broader interest. Longer term the floaters will win. It is the natural flow of things. So plan for the longer term, garner a groundswell support and build a strong base.

Just my humble opinion.

Anything else is a WASTE OF TIME.


----------



## Theophilus

robanna said:


> I think the vote should be here but it's not up yet:
> http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS\CLICS2010A\commsumm.nsf/IndSumm?OpenView&StartKey=HB10-1188&Count=3


Thank you.


----------



## BackCountry

Badazws6 said:


> Help me out here, I don't have a good understanding of this run and where the low bridge and how low it is. Don't you HAVE to portage the low bridge if you run the middle Taylor?
> 
> Sounds to me like if this is the position of of the sheriff's department it isn't going to take very long before someone figures out if there are still people getting through below the bridge, just lower the bridge...
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Matt


The bridge is an old ranch bridge built in the 50's I believe - long before rafting became popular. It is only semi impassably at high water. Most of the time a raft with rowing frame fits under without hitting the bridge.


----------



## Badazws6

marino said:


> I have been reading this string for a while. Sadly, it is evident that you are lambs to the slaughter. This was always going to end up like this if you leave it to the politicians. In addition talk of a plebiscite is also a waste of time and money. The real estate industry will join with the landowners raise $10m and kill any effort. Trout Unlimited tried this years ago and were run into the ground. Most of their big donors now are landowners so they have bought their silence. You need to stop talking among yourselves and playing games. You want to be serious this is what you have to do:
> 
> 1. On the Taylor Ranch, get really familiar with 18-9-107 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
> 
> 2. Learn about implied consent, necessity, prescriptive rights and equitable arguments. Given that it has been possible to portage around the bridge for years a court might find that you have a right to continue to do so. Given Shaw's withdrawal of consent coupled with the fact that the bridge obstructs a waterway contrary to the above statute, a court might apply the equitable principle that those who seek equity must do equity. In addition one can only get equitable relief if one approaches the court with "clean hands". If a rafter conducts himself appropriately a court might throw out Shaw's argument on a number of these grounds. The main thing you would need to do is prevent injunctive relief. The actual damages for floating through once would be minimal and if a number of rafters floated through his legal costs would trouble him. Further, he just wants to make money by selling to unsuspecting landowners. He would want this problem to go away.
> 
> 3. Given that there has been commercial rafting on Shaws river for years [as I understand it] there is a strong argument that it is a navigable water. If that is the case and you can show an interstate visitor that gives sufficient Federal nexus to commence an action in Federal Court. The consequence of a finding of navigability for Federal purposes is that the public trust doctrine would apply and shaw's land to the highwater mark would become public property. He would not want to run this risk. There is nothing that the state legislature could do to overturn such a decision because Federal Law always trumps state law.
> 
> 4. At the same time as starting a Federal Case, you start a state case arguing the state Constitutional right to float and enjoy the natural incidents of floating. Read and familiarize yourselves with Curran's case and the Conatser decisions. That will indicate what a state court will do with the right case.
> 
> Do all of this and the landowners will desperately try and work out a deal. You need to organize, stop playing politics and get serious. It will take a lot of money but if you get pro bono lawyers involved you will be able to get a long way.
> 
> Finally, you rafters need to understand that there are a lot of other people who would be interested in getting involved if you would just spread your invitation. The original bill got a lot of people offside because it was just plain dumb to seek to apply it to commercial rafters. Have a look how much has been spent so far on lobbyists and lawyers. And for what? You need to understand that you could get a lot more support if you appealed to a broader interest. Longer term the floaters will win. It is the natural flow of things. So plan for the longer term, garner a groundswell support and build a strong base.
> 
> Just my humble opinion.
> 
> Anything else is a WASTE OF TIME.


Very good points Mario,

One thing to realize about this forum is it is mostly private boaters so most of us where left out in the original version of the bill. CROA is now working with AW and CW so they have been at least moving in the direction of working with other groups, hopefully that trend continues. As you noted the fishing organizations do really well on these fishing ranches and that basically negates their involvement. Out of curiosity who else would you suggest we try to involve? The Sierra Club, gear manufacturers, the tourism board come to my mind but I'm sure there are more.

There are some very good minds, including lawyers, working with CROA, AW and CW but for the most part they do seem to not be sharing their strategy to more or less what is the peanut gallery here, just keeping us up to date on results and news. I can completely understand that, seeing how it is a public forum.

It seems like no matter what the result of this bill, this issues will head to court...

Again, I just want to through a big shout out and thank everyone that is involved.

Matt


----------



## robanna

Damn Marino,
Are you a lawyer, activist, politician or what. A very smart and different way to look at this. i like.


----------



## outbackjack

Here is the amendment that has viturally killed the bill along with who voted for and against. http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2010a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/4FD1374D97E6422B872576AA00693103?open&file=1188_rev.pdfhttp://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2010a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/4FD1374D97E6422B872576AA00693103?open&file=1188_rev.pdf 

CONTACT these 6 senators and give them a very *RESPECTFUL SPANK *for hoodwinking the river community. (suggested phone / email script below) 


Senate President Brandon Shaffer 303-866-5291 E-mail: [email protected] (Boulder)
Senator Abel Tapia 303-866-2581 E-mail: [email protected] (Pueblo)
Senator John Morse 303-866-6364 E-mail: [email protected] (El Paso)
Senator Moe Keller 303-866-2585 E-mail: [email protected] (Golden, w. Arvada, Wheatridge)
Senator Evie Hudak 303-866-4840 E-mail: [email protected] ( Arvada, Westminster)
Senator Linda Newell 303-866-4846 E-mail: [email protected] ( Arap, Jeffco)
 
CONTACT these 5 Senators And T*HANK* them for standing up for the river community and being our Champions! These five really went to bat for us today.
(suggested phone / email script below)


 Our sponsor! Senator Mary Hodge: 303-866-4855 E-mail: [email protected] (Adams)
Senator Greg Brophy: 303-866-6360 E-mail: [email protected] (Eastern Plains)
Senator Chris Romer: 303-656-9532 E-mail: [email protected] (Denver)
Senator Dan Gibbs: 303-866-4873 E-mail: [email protected] ( I-70 corridor/ jeffco)
Senator Lois Tochtrop: 303-866-4863 E-mail: [email protected] ( Adams)


----------



## robanna

I can't believe the pueblo, boulder and golden senators voted no.
What would stop a developer from coming in and buying both sides of those creeks at the WW park and close it down for a private WW park (you know, besides the fact that the City owns the land currently)?


----------



## zboda

The passing of HB-1188 seemed like such a no brainer to me. 

Marino, I think you have some reasonable suggestions, but I think the final bill was extremely sound and reasonable as well. I do strongly agree with your statement about presenting the right case: 

"In addition one can only get equitable relief if one approaches the court with "clean hands". If a rafter conducts himself appropriately a court might throw out Shaw's argument on a number of these grounds."

As private boaters, if we do what the bill said we could do:
“make only incidental contact withcthe beds and banks of the waterway while floating and portaging;” I can't imagine that we will have any problems in court.

Again, as long as we are doing the right things on the river, I can’t believe any court would punish a boater with either civil or criminal charges. But, what do I know? Commercial companies may have a little more exposure though. I am interested to see what options and answers the next few days bring. 

I wonder if there can be am injunction against any lawsuits until the CWC presents it’s report?

Another thing I wonder about is, why send it to the Colorado Water Congress? You would think if the had the votes to "effectively" kill the bill, why not just kill the bill?

Another question I have is about the funding of the study:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CL...E6422B872576AA00693103?Open&file=1188_rev.pdf
(3) Funding. THE STUDY SHALL BE FUNDED SOLELY BY PRIVATE
GRANTS AND DONATIONS.

How is that going to be handled and reported?

Zach Svoboda


----------



## outbackjack

dont get me wrong, these are the Senators who voted to put the bill into limbo and those who spoke out against that. noone voted against the bill, that is what is bullshit.


----------



## outbackjack

Take a look at the water congress, damn near everyone who was against the bill is a voting member and financial contributer!!!!


----------



## marino

Badazws6 said:


> Very good points Mario,
> 
> One thing to realize about this forum is it is mostly private boaters so most of us where left out in the original version of the bill. CROA is now working with AW and CW so they have been at least moving in the direction of working with other groups, hopefully that trend continues. As you noted the fishing organizations do really well on these fishing ranches and that basically negates their involvement. Out of curiosity who else would you suggest we try to involve? The Sierra Club, gear manufacturers, the tourism board come to my mind but I'm sure there are more.


Point taken. I would not accept your assumption concerning fishing organizations. First there really isn't any fishing organization in Colorado. Trout Unlimited is a fence sitter and just takes donations from anyone and strokes egos. It might clean up a creek bank or two but really is pathetic when it comes to access. But there are a lot of fishing guides who would be very open to being able to confirm their rights to float. Commercial guides would have been covered by the first draft bill. But there are a lot of fishermen who float so I would not discount them. There are boating organizations who recognize the value of fishermen as a market and they would certainly support anything which expands floating. It is a "build it and they will come" approach. A clever PR push overtime would be the best way to go to start with. Look at the NRA and hunting organizations in Colorado. That's the model for a start.



> There are some very good minds, including lawyers, working with CROA, AW and CW but for the most part they do seem to not be sharing their strategy to more or less what is the peanut gallery here.


"Good". That's debatable. I can see this being a debacle if it is not addressed properly. If the shaw situation is not handled well, I can see the uneasy truce which has existed since the AG opinion of 1983 being thrown out. It would only take one landowner owning both sides of a river where there is a lot of float traffic to create a real problem. And there are just enough hardheads out there to do it. There is no evidence of any anticipation of the downside to this at all. And in that respect I think it has been handled badly.

And the problem now is that a lot of money has been spent and for what? How will those organizations go back to their supporters now and say, OK, get ready for the next round we need more money. A slapdash approach doesn't inspire confidence. 



> It seems like no matter what the result of this bill, this issues will head to court..


True. But the preferable approach is to be prepared and have a team of smart people who actually have a tactic and take into account various possibilities so that opposition moves can be anticipated and countered.

JMHO.


----------



## Theophilus

I used to go to the Pueblo Whitewater Park with friends on a regular basis and have dinner afterward. That won't be happening. We'll spend our money in Canon City this year.


----------



## Theophilus

zboda said:


> Another thing I wonder about is, why send it to the Colorado Water Congress? You would think if the had the votes to "effectively" kill the bill, why not just kill the bill?


Because they are cowards?


----------



## Theophilus

Interesting.

Colorado's River Rights | Facebook


----------



## Badazws6

marino said:


> A slapdash approach doesn't inspire confidence.
> 
> True. But the preferable approach is to be prepared and have a team of smart people who actually have a tactic and take into account various possibilities so that opposition moves can be anticipated and countered.
> 
> JMHO.


Like I said, hopefully everyone continues to work together and a comprehensive approach is taken.


----------



## Porkchop

slavetotheflyrod said:


> It ain't over yet dude. I'll bet ya anything Jackson Shaw and their lawyers have some tricks up their sleeves.


No Shit! You don't need to be a lawyer to realize that these douche bags shutting down our rivers wouldn't be doing so if they didn't think they could do it, or at least gain something. This America and you are naive if you think "the good guys" will simply prevail. These cock suckers got a lot of money and unfortunately just about everything is for sale these days. What would Hayduke do? mmm


----------



## d.e.

Okay Marino, so my interpretation of Emmert is that the court gave private property owners the exclusive use of public domain for commercial or whatever uses, to the exclusion of the public ( i.e you have to get permission ) without appropropriating, diverting and putting to beneficial use, the water. One of the arguments landowners use is that the right to float is a taking of private property rights which Emmert affirms. Is this not a taking from public ownership, an exclusive unappropriated water right. The Constitution states that unappropriated water can be put to use, but seemingly this exclusive use doesn't meet the criteria for beneficial, consumptive use. Secondly does adverse possession apply to the surface area ( which is protected as a private property right according to Emmert) of waterways also. As of now you can't condemn water, but is ongoing hostile use meeting the new criteria for adverse posssession a valid argument for rivers and streams. The Constitution also states that there are no navigable streams in Colorado. Clearly, modern commercial and private uses challenge that assumption. 

Chime in, please


----------



## marino

> Okay Marino, so my interpretation of Emmert is that the court gave private property owners the exclusive use of public domain for commercial or whatever uses, to the exclusion of the public ( i.e you have to get permission ) without appropropriating, diverting and putting to beneficial use, the water. One of the arguments landowners use is that the right to float is a taking of private property rights which Emmert affirms. Is this not a taking from public ownership, an exclusive unappropriated water right. The Constitution states that unappropriated water can be put to use, but seemingly this exclusive use doesn't meet the criteria for beneficial, consumptive use.


 First, in Emmert the parties stipulated to the fact that the waters were not navigable. Therefore they took that whole line of argument off the table.

Second. There are 2 dissents in Emmert which address the absurdity of the interpretation of "use" in the constitution. In fact the "use" is a usufruct. It you want a more detailed discussion read this The right to float in Colorado - Ownership of Colorado water

Third. Emmert was decided 40 years ago before there was any meaningful commercial rafting or float fishing industry in Colorado. Have a look at Loving v Alexander as the end result of a series of cases in which the same area was litigated and re-litigated. Over time the court became more amenable to the navigability argument as the circumstances evolved. 

Fourth: Look at the evolution of the public trust arguments in an number of states. McIlroy is a great example and discusses earlier evolutions. Courts will respond to changing community interests as standards and practices evolve. Colorado is in a time warp. It just needs a little incentive to get out. The incentive is a case like the Taylor river case where obviously the needs of the community and an industry can easily be balanced against a "foreigner" with a lot of money and no real interest in anything except adding to his coffers. It is not a hard case to argue.




> Secondly does adverse possession apply to the surface area ( which is protected as a private property right according to Emmert) of waterways also. As of now you can't condemn water, but is ongoing hostile use meeting the new criteria for adverse posssession a valid argument for rivers and streams.


 No. Article XVI, section 5 of the Colorado Constitution provides,

“[t]he 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.”
Read the above article for a more detailed analysis of the difference between "public" and "people".




> The Constitution also states that there are no navigable streams in Colorado.


 Not True. This has only been discussed in 2 Colorado case 100 years ago and the comments were dicta [meaning they were not binding].[In Re German Ditch & Reservoir Co., 139 P. 2, 9 (Colo. 1913) (en banc); Stockman v. Leddy, 129 P. 220, 222 (Colo. 1912)] 

Have a look at the development of the various public trust documents in different states and over time you will see an evolution to accommodate changes in commerce as well as the inclusion of recreation which is not present in the Federal doctrine.


----------



## Andy H.

Marino,

Welcome to MountainBuzz. We're glad you signed up today and that you're joining the discussion with some very thoughtful contributions to what's going on. You seem to be experienced with boating access issues, history, and strategy for navigating the political minefields that we're dealing with. You obviously know the history of river access law in Colorado; I appreciate your input and hope that you'll continue to provide your insights to the community here. However I'd like to make a few points: 

First, I must take issue with your opinion expressed below:



> Badazws6: There are some very good minds, including lawyers, working with CROA, AW and CW but for the most part they do seem to not be sharing their strategy to more or less what is the peanut gallery here.
> 
> 
> 
> Marino: "Good". That's debatable. I can see this being a debacle if it is not addressed properly....There is no evidence of any anticipation of the downside to this at all. And in that respect I think it has been handled badly.
Click to expand...

Right now Pat Tooley, Nathan Fey, Lori Potter, and others have been working on the issue frantically since HB 1188 was introduced in the House. The team that was sitting at the Judiciary Committee witness table has years of experience and has been successful working for river access for private boaters in statewide and national arenas. This bill blindsided the private boating community and we were lucky to be able to hitch a ride with CROA thanks to a recent amendment brought about by CW/AW lobbying. 

Second, you make the statement:



> There are boating organizations who recognize the value of fishermen as a market and they would certainly support anything which expands floating. It is a "build it and they will come" approach. A clever PR push overtime [sic] would be the best way to go to start with. Look at the NRA and hunting organizations in Colorado. That's the model for a start.


The CW/AW/CROA team would be grateful if you would help them connect with, enlist, and combine resources with any organizations that could be allied to our cause. The CW/AW/CROA team may not be familiar with the approach the NRA and hunting groups took but I bet they would be open to learning relevant facts about how those groups' successful campaigns have been waged. 

Third, you state:



> And the problem now is that a lot of money has been spent and for what? How will those organizations go back to their supporters now and say, OK, get ready for the next round we need more money. A slapdash approach doesn't inspire confidence.


We started this adventure on our heels and with poorly funded advocacy groups run by volunteers. Your implications about the folks working on this, and that they've wasted their members' money, are insulting to people who are are working hard out of a passion for boating and the lower end of five figures (if anything). Until today they were successfully going toe to toe with people working for wealthy landowners who don't flinch at consultants' and attorneys' billing rates. 

If you know of "smart people who actually have a tactic and take into account various possibilities so that opposition moves can be anticipated and countered" I'm sure the CW/AW leadership would welcome them to this effort. Otherwise these kind of comments are only using hindsight to take potshots at people who have been local and national leaders of the private boating community for years.

The people working on this for the private boaters are veterans of river access efforts. They are currently working on behalf of the main organizations private boaters have to represent us. The CW/AW team needs our support, not someone throwing spears at them from behind while they face down Goliath.

-AH


----------



## d.e.

Thanks for your response. I fished you a little bit with a slant from other side, your points are well made and taken. Now that the legislature has effectively put the bill on ice, does the Judicial continue to defer this issue to the General Assembly or at what point might they choose to take it up. A case like the Taylor River( Like you said)? The current bench might be considered more activist, more interpretive, or maybe not? We'll see, maybe.

Thanks again. Really, no more pro bono questions from me.


----------



## scagrotto

marino said:


> First, in Emmert the parties stipulated to the fact that the waters were not navigable. Therefore they took
> that whole line of argument off the table.
> <snip for brevity>


Marino has it exactly right. The opposition spouts off about Emmert and uses it in their PR, but Emmert is an extremely weak case for the reasons cited.

There are two ways that paddlers can establish their right to use the rivers. One is through the political process, and we've now seen how far that can take you after spending a lot of time and money. The other possibility is the judicial process. Even much of the opposition concedes a right to navigation on navigable waterways, but then falls back on the pathetically weak claim that the waterways of Colorado aren't navigable.

I think that sooner or later the issue will be resolved through the judicial process when a landowner takes a boater to court, and I see three important questions about that landowner. Who will it be, how good will their case be, and how deep will their pockets be? Questions 2 and 3 are related, because deep pockets will pay for more and better lawyers, who will make better arguments based on a thorough search of statutory and case law that can be argued as precedent. The big problem with Emmert was that he represented himself against good lawyers and relied on the single argument that the Colorado Constitution gave the public a right to use the water. There was no argument that the river was navigable or that there was any other law to oppose or overrule the trespassing law as written at the time. With no other argument he lost when the court sank his only argument with the logically tortured interpretation cited by Marino.

Suppose the case had been the other way around, with a good defense against a prosecution that wasn't as well funded and organized? It might have still been a somewhat weak case, but whatever precedent it set could have been in favor of boaters. Well, it's not too late to try that approach. Instead of waiting for boaters to argue against the deep pockets of Jackson Shaw or some other well funded landowner who's willing to spend a lot of money there could be a test case pitting a boater against a landowner who is friendly to boating interests and doesn't work as hard to present the strongest case possible. Establishing any precedent in favor of boating is obviously a good thing, and is a step in the right direction. It's possible that the issue won't be resolved until it works it's way up the ladder to federal courts, which could be a long and expensive process. It's also possible that getting a case or two as precedent would make it that much harder for landowners to press the issue in the first place, and would put the ball in their court to spend the money to appeal. I'm confident that the law is on our side, and given the resources we should prevail. It's also possible that before spending that much money the landowners might get wise and choose to accept reasonable access before the courts get the chance to give the public very wide access to waterways as has happened in other states.


----------



## zboda

Andy, I woke up at 4am and couldn't fall back to sleep because I wanted to say what you already said. Thanks for posting that.. Maybe I can get back to sleep now.

Marino, I would like say one more thing. I don't mind people saying I told you so, but it tends to have better results if you at least do the "telling" before the event happens.

Sincerely,
Zach


----------



## marino

Andy H. said:


> Marino,
> 
> The people working on this for the private boaters are veterans of river access efforts. They are currently working on behalf of the main organizations private boaters have to represent us. The CW/AW team needs our support, not someone throwing spears at them from behind while they face down Goliath.
> 
> -AH


 Andy

Let me respond to your post by making a number of points. I trust I will cover the points you have raised.

1. I understand the frustration I detect in your comments. I also note that many were blindsided by the seeming sudden emergence of this issue. In addition I am also cognizant of the notion that it may seem unfair for me or anyone else to make negative comments in the fashion I did at this juncture of the proceedings. However:

1. This is serious stuff. There are a lot of other people who have a stake in the ability to float who will be negatively affected if this doesn't turn out well. The "law of unintended consequences" better known as Murphy's law will kick in at some point.

2. It is fine to point out that the people promoting this bill are well-intentioned and are working hard at this. That's not good enough. For a lot of people failure is not an option, and second place doesn't cut it. Results are what count.

3. If one looks at 3 proximate neighbors, Utah, Wyoming and Montana and note the manner in which their right to float has been established it was via court cases. Not seeking the assistance of politicians. In Colorado the attempt to promote a political solution via a plebiscite or a ballot initiative in the past ended in failure. Why would anyone think that landowners have changed and that a political solution would work this time?

4. The opponents to this bill are well monied, organized and know what they are doing. They know how to buy political influence and as demonstrated they know how to tie up an issue for years. Shunting this off to a committee is lobbying 101. So long as you play in their bailiwick you play by their rules. 

5. If you actually look at the history of the development of the public trust doctrine in America it has been observed that the judiciary developed the doctrine so that it was legislatively incapable of being reversed because of fears of political corruption and influence buying. It has been the judiciary which has developed these protections for the public not the legislatures. Take Conatser in Utah. The Legislature has just passed legislation winding back the effect of that decision in a mad scramble because the view was that it went too far in relation to the recreational use of Utah water. You would be perfectly happy with the resulting legislation which is about to become law. But it took a court case to get there.

6. In my view and the view of others, most of the points addressed in the draft bill are in fact existing rights anyway. As many have indicated, even if the bill is passed, there will be plenty of litigation on the part of the landowners. So why bother fiddling around the edges? The answer to this question is that some proponents think it is a clever tactic to get something on the table so that the state will spend its money defending it rather than the floaters. Well, rolling the dice on that has got the bill where it is.

7. So a reasonable question is how could this have been addressed in the alternative? Here is one view for what it is worth.

a. The smartest tactic is to try and use the law as a shield and not a sword.


b. There is already a provision on the Colorado Statutes which is directed at landowners blocking a water way. I have noted it above. From that provision it is relatively easy to develop the theory that it is the intention of the legislature to stop landowners from preventing floating on waters in natural streams as implied by the constitution and hence any landowner that does so is acting contrary to the spirit and intent of the Legislature.


c. There is also a long history now of use of the Taylor for floating. There is ample evidence of commercial use of the waterway and there should be plenty of evidence of interstate travelers being paying customers of rafting companies floating through there. This lands it squarely in the Federal jurisdiction under the trade and commerce power and the Federal public trust doctrine.


d. There are also plenty of other legal theories one could reasonably apply in the present circumstances to test the issue. There are possible prescriptive rights, the Colorado Constitution and certainly good arguments in equity that a willing court could fashion to prevent the landowner from complaining in this instance. There is also enough development in the law since Emmert's case to enable judges to fashion a remedy which would suit most parties. Have a look at the legislative solution adopted by Utah. They have recognized the Federal public trust test as well as the notion of a provable recreational use for the public and a right to float by floaters. 


So a reasonable course could have been for the rafting community to prepare for a fight in a test case and let the landowner bring the matter to court and let him defend his actions and the rights he claims. If a rafter took the journey as a test case and the industry indicated that it was prepared to back it, landowners would have been forced to think about how they handled this very seriously and would not want to run the risk of getting a decision like Conatser.

And as I suggested earlier, if a concerted approach was taken in both the Federal and State courts, fears that opponents might not get a fair hearing in a State court would be dissipated. Frankly, given the history of water rights and public recreational use I would have a lot more faith in the judiciary at the end of the day than some. 

So that's my view. The only reason I posted yesterday is that obviously many of those reading this string and posting are frustrated with the whole process and were blind sided by the move. Some were obviously more aware. But now some note that they are going to spend their time berating their local politicians. Fine. But it won't get a result. It’s a money game. In addition it is obvious that too few people understand the law in this area and make decisions and comments based on rumor. So I just thought I would throw in another line of thinking for some to consider if they are frustrated by the present situation.

Finally you ask me to put you in touch with other people I might know who could jump in. For what? The answer is no for a simple reason. As I said I am not convinced that the present direction will work and until I see something that makes sense to me, there is no good reason. A camel is a horse designed by a committee. And that is what you have now. 

This is a matter of tactics. Not the law. Informed opponents know that their position is untenable in the longer term. But so long as they can string this out they will win. You are looking at an end result. They aren't. They are just looking at screwing up the process as long as they can. There were many comments made about Felt's observation concerning a committee formed in 2002 which supposedly was going to "explore" this issue. What happened? Nothing. Just understand their game and you will get a handle on what to do. Get it into the courts where it can't be postponed forever and that will force their hand. Have a look at Emmerts case. What happened immediately after the majority found for the landowner? The legislation was amended. Why wasn't that done before then? Because they didn't have to.

So I am sorry that you take my input as an insult. But it is obvious in many comments in various forums that what I have said is not a topic of discussion. It ought to be because it is a viable course given the history of the development of this body of law over the past 200 years. I might be wrong. Fine. But it ought to be a discussion.

JMHO.


----------



## marino

zboda said:


> Marino, I would like say one more thing. I don't mind people saying I told you so, but it tends to have better results if you at least do the "telling" before the event happens.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Zach


You are making an unfounded assumption.


----------



## marino

scagrotto said:


> Instead of waiting for boaters to argue against the deep pockets of Jackson Shaw or some other well funded landowner who's willing to spend a lot of money there could be a test case pitting a boater against a landowner who is friendly to boating interests and doesn't work as hard to present the strongest case possible..


Good points. The only reason I respond is in relation to the above. Once has to be careful with this approach because Shaw and others could easily seek permission to intervene and that would get them involved in the case. In addition, if there was any hint that the case was a setup, there could be a line of argument that bringing the action was an abuse of process and it would be struck out. 

Frankly, it is better to face the beast head on. The facts of the Taylor case from what I understand are pretty compelling and certainly bring a David and Goliath flavor to the whole thing. It seems that everyone runs from the money issue and that is how the landowners bluff in this game. My point was that a concerted effort to establish a fighting fund in anticipation of battles and spend a lot of time doing it would force the opposition to think seriously about how they address it. The time will come. Its just a question of whether it is now or later. That's all.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

It would appear we've hit a snag!!!

Senate sets adrift a decision on rafters' whitewater access - The Denver Post

Anyone got the lo-down on what happened here?


----------



## zboda

marino said:


> You are making an unfounded assumption.


Sorry about that. The only information I have to go on are your recent posts here on mountainbuzz. Would you like give a little information about your experiances and background?


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

Here's the current membership list of the Colorado Water Congress. It's basically a who's who of groups in opposition to this bill. Anyone care to guess what the findings of the study are come october. 

http://www.cowatercongress.org/aboutcwc/Current Members of the Colorado Water Congress.pdf

As for the funding for this amendment (study) - I'm researching the legality of mandating a study, then assuming it will get funding from grants and private donors. I read that to mean that several opposition groups proposed this amendment, offered up the Water Congress to complete the study, then offered to pay for it (Bratton Hill?)

Make no mistake about it - We're getting screwed. IMO, the new developments dictate a new course of action - Time to kill the bill. The study is bought and paid for by the opposition, if it never sees the light of day, we're better off. It's time to re-group and get to work on a couple of things: A test case, and a ballot initiative. Rest assured this bill is going nowhere.


----------



## marino

zboda said:


> Sorry about that. The only information I have to go on are your recent posts here on mountainbuzz. Would you like give a little information about your experiances and background?


Who or what I am is irrelevant. Judge me by the content of my posts. If you think I talk nonsense, you would not be alone. So just ignore me. Have you read the amending clause in the Bill?

Here is it - 

"*SECTION 1. *Article 32 of title 33, Colorado Revised Statutes, 
is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SUBSECTION to read: 

*33-32-106.5. Boating through private property - study - repeal. *

(1) *Legislative declaration. *THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DECLARES THAT THERE IS A NEED TO STUDY AND POTENTIALLY CLARIFY THE EXISTING LAW CONCERNING CIVIL AND CRIMINAL TRESPASS BY BOATERS ON THE RIVERS AND STREAMS FLOWING THROUGH PRIVATE PROPERTY IN COLORADO. 

(2) *Study. *THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HEREBY REFERS THIS MATTER TO THE COLORADO WATER CONGRESS TO STUDY THE LEGAL, ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES RELATED TO BOATING THROUGH PRIVATE PROPERTY. THE PARTICIPANTS IN AND PROCEDURE FOR THE STUDY SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COLORADO WATER CONGRESS. 

(3) *Funding. *THE STUDY SHALL BE FUNDED SOLELY BY PRIVATE GRANTS AND DONATIONS. 

(4) *Report. *THE COLORADO WATER CONGRESS SHALL COMPLETE ITS STUDY BY OCTOBER 31, 2010, AND SHALL SUBMIT A REPORT, WHICH MAY INCLUDE RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE CHANGES, TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY NO LATER THAN NOVEMBER 30, 2010. 

(5) THIS SECTION IS REPEALED, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011.


This is classic. Straight out of 'Yes Minister'. Who is funding the report? Who controls it? Have a look at the issues to be addressed. Its a bad joke.


You think that the legislature really is going to get a "clarification of the existing law" from Shaw and his supporters? Because he will be funding this, either openly or via other conduits. 



And look who is going to determine who will participate in this process. Here are the members of the water congress 

http://www.cowatercongress.org/aboutcwc/Current%20Members%20of%20the%20Colorado%20Water%20Congress.pdf

How many rafting companies are funding this organization. As I said earlier - like lambs to the slaughter. 

But that's OK. Wait for the report next year. Then there will be a further clarifying report, then the matter will be submitted to a committee and then there will be budgetary considerations and then and then . . . .

I have simply suggested that there might be another way to at least discuss.


----------



## marino

slavetotheflyrod said:


> Here's the current membership list of the Colorado Water Congress. It's basically a who's who of groups in opposition to this bill. Anyone care to guess what the findings of the study are come october.
> 
> http://www.cowatercongress.org/aboutcwc/Current Members of the Colorado Water Congress.pdf
> 
> As for the funding for this amendment (study) - I'm researching the legality of mandating a study, then assuming it will get funding from grants and private donors. I read that to mean that several opposition groups proposed this amendment, offered up the Water Congress to complete the study, then offered to pay for it (Bratton Hill?)
> 
> Make no mistake about it - We're getting screwed. IMO, the new developments dictate a new course of action - Time to kill the bill. The study is bought and paid for by the opposition, if it never sees the light of day, we're better off. It's time to re-group and get to work on a couple of things: A test case, and a ballot initiative. Rest assured this bill is going nowhere.


Sorry slave I should have read your post before I did. I did not add anything useful to your comments. But at least we have the same view. 

Some say "great minds think alike". A rejoinder is "small minds seldom differ".


----------



## outbackjack

slavetotheflyrod said:


> It would appear we've hit a snag!!!
> 
> Senate sets adrift a decision on rafters' whitewater access - The Denver Post
> 
> Anyone got the lo-down on what happened here?


 
It seams that POLITICS happened. Someone got to someone, they sent our senator from Gunnison away to some meaningless meeting and gave everyone a way out. Why Whitehead is talking about splitting the boating community up is beyond me. Oh Yeah, POLITICS. I agree with Marino, sooner or later this will be settled in the courts. We should stop jabbing each other and start thinking about this summer, it will all go down soon. Down River that is!!!!


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

I won't say which category I fall into ; )

I will however happily volunteer to be the guinea pig for the test case. I've already got a P.O.S. raft that I wouldn't mind at all parting ways with, and a couple of talented litigators in my corner. All I need to do now is learn how to keester my contraband and make a decent shank.


----------



## Badazws6

marino said:


> Finally you ask me to put you in touch with other people I might know who could jump in. For what? The answer is no for a simple reason. As I said I am not convinced that the present direction will work and until I see something that makes sense to me, there is no good reason.


Mario,

You can justify it however you want but when the rubber hits the road, our cause with be stronger if we ALL stand together. Standing from the wings and criticizing does not help where it would be most effective. United we stand, divided we fall works well here. 

CROA, AW and CW now seem to be working better together. You seem to have the skill sets, training and drive in this subject. I challenging you to stand with us and not divided. To join and influence those that are setting this coalitions strategy. THAT is the way to improve your lot along with everyone else's. Frankly, anything other then that I find hypocritical and counter productive in the long run.

Thanks,

Matt


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

Badazws6 said:


> Mario,
> 
> You can justify it however you want but when the rubber hits the road, our cause with be stronger if we ALL stand together. Standing from the wings and criticizing does not help where it would be most effective. United we stand, divided we fall works well here.
> 
> CROA, AW and CW now seem to be working better together. You seem to have the skill sets, training and drive in this subject. I challenging you to stand with us and not divided. To join and influence those that are setting this coalitions strategy. THAT is the way to improve your lot along with everyone else's. Frankly, anything other then that I find hypocritical and counter productive in the long run.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Matt


I think what Marino is trying to say is that he sees the way forward going through the courts. The truth is one person and a talented lawyer could decide this thing. We all stand together in principle, though opinions tend to diverge as to the approach. If this bill had gone forward without this study, had been voted for and signed into law, you can be sure the opposition would have gone straight to court. The long and short of the matter is that this issue ends up in the courts one way or another, and that if we're going to get behind an approach, it better be that one.


----------



## Badazws6

slavetotheflyrod said:


> I think what Marino is trying to say is that he sees the way forward going through the courts. The truth is one person and a talented lawyer could decide this thing. We all stand together in principle, though opinions tend to diverge as to the approach. If this bill had gone forward without this study, had been voted for and signed into law, you can be sure the opposition would have gone straight to court. The long and short of the matter is that this issue ends up in the courts one way or another, and that if we're going to get behind an approach, it better be that one.


I hear you, but standing as a community now builds trust and strength for the future and goes back to United we Stand...


----------



## JHimick

Are the lambs not standing together as they march to slaughter?


----------



## JHimick

I don't mean any disrespect. It's just obvious that this will not be an effective approach. I agree we should stand together but facing the right direction.


----------



## scagrotto

marino said:


> Who or what I am is irrelevant. Judge me by the content of my posts. If you think I talk nonsense, you would not be alone. So just ignore me. Have you read the amending clause in the Bill?
> 
> Here is it -
> 
> "*SECTION 1. *Article 32 of title 33, Colorado Revised Statutes,
> is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SUBSECTION to read:
> 
> *33-32-106.5. Boating through private property - study - repeal. *
> 
> (1) *Legislative declaration. *THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DECLARES THAT THERE IS A NEED TO STUDY AND POTENTIALLY CLARIFY THE EXISTING LAW CONCERNING CIVIL AND CRIMINAL TRESPASS BY BOATERS ON THE RIVERS AND STREAMS FLOWING THROUGH PRIVATE PROPERTY IN COLORADO.
> 
> (2) *Study. *THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HEREBY REFERS THIS MATTER TO THE COLORADO WATER CONGRESS TO STUDY THE LEGAL, ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES RELATED TO BOATING THROUGH PRIVATE PROPERTY. THE PARTICIPANTS IN AND PROCEDURE FOR THE STUDY SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COLORADO WATER CONGRESS.
> 
> (3) *Funding. *THE STUDY SHALL BE FUNDED SOLELY BY PRIVATE GRANTS AND DONATIONS.


I'm not sure if I should attribute this to actions speaking louder than words or incompetence. The basic concept of studying the issue is all well and good, but this plan is deeply flawed. 
1. As has been pointed out, one "blue ribbon panel" has already done that. 
2. By refusing funding for a state mandated study they are asking, if not deliberately seeking, to have the study bought and paid for by special interest groups, and/or done poorly. 
3. Worst of all, they're missing or ignoring the most obvious method for studying the legal and law enforcement aspects, which is the Attorney General's office. Instead, they have turned that process over to (for anyone who isn't clear on it) a *private* organization whose mission appears to largely be to advocate for methodologies for the *consumptive* uses of the state's water resources, and has already gone on record as being opposed to provisions in the bill:
http://www.colowc.com/stateaffairs/2010 Bill Status.pdf

I think it's clear that the political / legislative process isn't the effective way to get what we want, especially since we believe the law already says we have it.



slavetotheflyrod said:


> The truth is one person and a talented lawyer could decide this thing.


That's potentially true, but depending on how quickly the opposition learns and how hard they want to fight for a right they don't actually have, we may see a series of cases, and/or we may see a single case escalate from a local court to a much higher court. Individuals shouldn't have to pay the cost of establishing legal rights we already have, but I think that's how it will work out. A single person may be the defendant, but past history shows that a single person can too easily fall before a well-funded opponent. The entire community needs to stand behind any individual involved in important cases, so that if we fail we fail under the law and not under the foot of the opposition's machine.


----------



## marino

Badazws6 said:


> Mario,
> 
> You can justify it however you want but when the rubber hits the road, our cause with be stronger if we ALL stand together. Standing from the wings and criticizing does not help where it would be most effective. United we stand, divided we fall works well here.


Slave has it absolutely correct. One person, a good litigation lawyer and the ability to access good pro bono research is all that this needs. You cannot run this thing by a committee. Why do you all get sensitive when I offer an alternative approach? The law here is not hard to understand. All this united we stand stuff is great but it won't get you anywhere if you are not serious about getting involved in litigation. I have set out my views. I know you have seen my posts elsewhere because you have commented on them. I just don't think that the people running this are serious about litigating that's all. We can agree to have different opinions that's fine. That's why I don't see the point in trying to convince you that litigation is preferable. If you want to wait for a committee report, then wait. What else are you going to do? 

What happens if other landowners read this as weakness from the rafting community and then start ringing up saying if you want to float over my land pay me money or else I will prevent you? Maybe landowners might not be fussed about single fishermen but they may stop rafting companies. I don't know. But the big problem is that the approach todate has alienated a lot of wade fishermen and only just included the private boaters. 

Have you read the Conatser decision? Have you read Utah HB 141. Do yourself a favor and read them both. Then we can talk. Until people get their minds around this, it is merely water treading time. And I have too much to do than sit around having a conversation with like minded people about what SOB's the opponents of the Bill are. Its just preaching to the converted. Its unproductive and its a waste of time. You guys aren't serious yet. The opponents know you are not serious. So why should they take any notice? 

I simply post my comments in the vain hope that someone out there might start to get their minds around the big picture here.


----------



## outbackjack

The approach that has been taken may not have been the best move, however it was the only chance of securing the right to float through Shaws property THIS summer. Some very good people have invested 10s of thousands of dollars out of their own pockets to try to get this done. I was upset that the public boater was not included in the bill but this bill was always just a foot in the door approach. Should it have made it, the courts would have had to decide all these issues, it just would not have been one company, or individual trying to foot the bill. The state of Colorado would have had to fight Shaw, that is what was made clear to them and why they bowed out of making a decision. I really dont think people dont see the big pitcure, How to get their without loosing another rafting company in the process was at stake. The courts are going to take time, and our local rafting companies need to make a living this year. Other landowners are going to get wind of this and start trying to shut down rivers to boaters. GOOD! The more the marrier. We want to force this into the courts, why not have multible casses running at the same time showing unity for the right to float. The Navagatability evolves with technology. There was a time when the ocean was not navagatable. The Judiciary system will recognize this, it will just take time. Dont get down on the people who put everything they had into this just because it failed. They have and will continue to do the best they can with what they got. Later Jack


----------



## brokenpaddlejon

The transcripts for the actual vote yesterday isn't showing up either from the link posted here or on the Colorado Legislature's home page. What role did the 6 senators have in torpedoing the bill. One of the senators is mine, we have been having some cordial dialogue, but I would like to know what each senators stance on the bill was/is.


----------



## outbackjack

Those 6 Senators were some of the people pushing the ammendment and forcing the bill into study, as I understand it. The bill passed, with the amendment to go to the water congress. It has one more reading, on Mon I think, but that is just a formality.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

Guys - the writing is on the wall - the legislative process is a dead end. The sooner we all get our minds around the idea of pursuing this through the courts, the better off we all are. You guys are making statements like "We need to stand together", but let's be sure we're standing in the right line. I've had conversations with Marino before he joined this board, and I can tell you so far he's been 100% right in his predictions about this bill. He's said all along that the legislative effort was a waste of time and resources, and that weather or not a bill passes ultimately the issue goes before the court to decide. It's time to abandon the legislature, IMHO it would be best to kill the bill and kill the study before it even happens. If Shaw sues, we step up and support the rafting company in their defense. Several talented litigators have stepped forward to help, pro-bono, but so far they've been brushed off by the some of the groups supporting the bill. Mark my words people - this thing goes to court, no matter what. We don't need lobbyists, we don't need politicians, we don't even need attorney's - WE NEED LITIGATORS, good one's, think Atticus Finch.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

I forgot to add: The next obvious move is for the rafting co that got the letter (was it Scenic River Tours) to take that letter to federal court and request a federal protective order. If they're able to get a protective order granted they'll at least be able to run their trips this season.


----------



## scagrotto

outbackjack said:


> We want to force this into the courts, why not have multiple cases running at the same time showing unity for the right to float.


We don't want multiple cases because each one will cost somebody money (FTM, each case will cost all taxpayers money, since they pay the actual court costs), and we probably don't gain anything extra with multiple cases, unless they resolve different issues. In theory the entire issue could be resolved with one case, but more likely it will take multiple cases to solve all the issues. What we really don't want is multiple cases that all tackle the same issue multiple times.

Ideally the first case will be fairly simple, happen in a local court, and be inexpensive. It would presumably establish that there's definitely a right to float through private property (hopefully including incidental contact) on navigable rivers, and probably establish at least one section of river as being navigable. It's also possible that the navigability could be stipulated. That would establish some precedent, but happening in a local court would mean the precedent isn't binding on other jurisdictions. OTOH, other courts are free to use that precedent, and it could therefore help any (unwanted) cases in other local jurisdiction, and perhaps reduce their costs by reducing the numbers of issues being tried. Future cases could then expand on the initial rights that are ascertained, and or extend the precedent to other jurisdictions. In reality I'm sure we can count on appeals moving the issue to higher courts with wider jurisdiction. Eventually we'll probably see a case in the Colorado Supreme Court or a federal court that will issue a ruling that applies to the entire state. Expect that to be a long and expensive process. That's one of the reasons we don't want a bunch of redundant cases. We're not looking for a groundswell of popular support (though it wouldn't hurt) - we're looking for a court ruling in our favor, whether it's popular with the majority of the public or not. Make no mistake, it's likely to cost a lot of money to get that ruling, so we can't waste limited resources. That's also why we should be supporting commercial rafters even if the specific action doesn't seem to offer immediate benefit. Each foot in the door gives us a chance to bootstrap our next foothold.



outbackjack said:


> The Navagatability evolves with technology.


As a matter of law, that's not really true. The courts may recognize and extend broader rights to the public, but as is, navigability is already defined by established law. Technology may allow you to paddle down ever smaller and more difficult rivers, but it doesn't make those stream navigable for purposes of ownership of riverbeds, which is what really matters to the public right of navigation. Unless Colorado courts decide to broaden the public right we'll have to expect that many smaller streams will remain legally non-navigable and public access will be with the cooperation of adjoining landowners.


----------



## patrickt

It's always nice to see a lively discussion on the buzz. I debated whether to respond to Marino's critique and decided to only because, as well intentioned as you may be Marino, your assumptions are not necessarily correct. This is my personal response, not a response by CW.

There are a number of things we can agree on. First, there is no Colorado statute or case that recognizes a right to float. Second, Emmert is bad law, but a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court has more sway than what you or I have to say about it. Third, Colorado's law on the right to float is contrary to the law in virtually every other state in the Union. Fourth, we want it changed. And fifth, the potential ways to change the law include legislation, litigation, or voter participation.

Let's talk about litigation first. I agree with you that a number of approaches could be pursued to tee up a challenge to Emmert. We can talk all day long about what the state or federal test of navigability is or should be and what rivers may or may not be navigable. And we can talk about the public trust doctrine, even though Colorado's courts have not been particularly receptive to it. But litigation is expensive, uncertain, and generally slow. The last case that put Emmert in play in the context of the right to float was the Cannibal Outfitter case down on the Lake Fork. The district court followed Emmert, frankly as it was required to do. AW intervened in the case but the case went away before it ran its course through the appellate courts. The outfitter didn't have the money. Even if he could have funded the fight, there is no guarantee the Supreme Court would have even elected to review the case. 

To say "one person, one good litigation lawyer, and the ability to access good pro bono research is all this needs" reminds me of John McCain's statement in the presidential debates (I paraphrase) that "I know how to get Bin Ladin, everyone knows where he is, I can get Bin Ladin." If the problem were this easy, it would have been solved this way long ago. Am I saying that the interested stakeholders shouldn't think about a test case? Absolutely not. I would love a well-designed test case. There are lots of ways to frame up the case. Now, who is going to pay for it? The stakes of such a case would be huge, and the opposition would include stakeholders worth hundreds of millions of dollars. If you think you could do this case from start to finish on the cheap you're dreaming. Is there a way to fund it? I would welcome that discussion. I know you are reluctant to tell us who you are in this public forum, and I don't fault you for this, but you have an open invitation to attend a CW's board meeting to talk about this approach. 

Let's switch to legislation. First of all, House Bill 1188 didn't take anyone at CW or AW by surprise. We learned about the bill before it was introduced. CW and AW made repeated efforts to have the bill expanded to include all waterways and all users before the bill was introduced. Jay Kenney and Ken Ransford, both former CW and AW Board Members and Officers were also actively involved in that effort. Both have decades of experience in access law. If you don't know their background, please find out before you run them down. 

For the record, CROA wanted us in the bill from the get-go. The sponsor refused. I personally spoke to the sponsor about expanding the bill to include everyone. House Bill 1188 was not our bill. CROA was committed to the bill and spent real dollars on very good lobbyists and very good legal counsel. In my opinion they are smart, experienced, and thoughtful.

So, what was CW's approach supposed to be on House Bill 1188? We didn't initiate it. We could have said the bill doesn't include us so let's not get involved. We could have said kill the bill, it doesn't include us. Or we can do what we did, which was to try and expand the bill to include all boaters. I would rather CW positively contribute rather than negatively critique--even if we fail. 

Our position and strategy on the bill was hardly a secret. We wanted to expand the bill to include everyone. We sent out repeated alerts to our members and posts on Mountainbuzz. Everything on this website is public. Would it really make sense to tell the world, including our opposition, the specifics of who we intended to lobby and when? One of the reasons there was a cry from some House committee members to expand the bill was because CW Board Members (not lobbyists) worked hard on the house side personally lobbying them. We worked closely with CROA to see when the best time would be to expand the bill to include all boaters. Vincent Carroll's article was very helpful and a bit of good luck. When it came to vote time, Dede was a star getting the word out about who to contact and how. 

By the way, any suggestion that CW has wasted its member's resources on this effort is simply wrong. The only expense CW incurred was when we hired a lobbyist, after we got our changes into L-24 and were told we would likely be able to get the bill out of the Senate Judiciary Comittee, which happened. We were able to hire a lobbyist because a benefactor volunteered, and not in response to our request, to make a donation to specifically cover this expense. The reality is that other than the hired lobbyist, virtually all the work done on this was by CW Board Members and volunteers and AW's Nathan Fey. Many of CW's board members are self employed, and if they are not doing billable work they don't get paid. My statement that CW's board members spent hundreds of hours on this effort is no exaggeration. Pick whatever hourly rate multiplier you want to use, the number is not small We hired a lobbyist once we were able to get our amendments into L-24 and it looked like this thing might happen. In anticipation of additional expense, one of our board members committed personally to making a $1000 donation. If it's not used on House Bill 1188 it will be used for something else.

I also don't know what is slapdash about this at all. We weren't included in the bill despite our efforts before the bill was introduced, we kept after it and made progress in the house, we drafted three different sets of amendments to the bill, attended committee hearings, and strategically lobbied senators and the governor himself. Five CW board members spent a very long day at the state house urging the senate judiciary committee to pass the bill. We then got commitments from a number of Senators (including rising star Chris Romer) to insist that all boaters be included . My understanding is that the vote on amendment L-45 was 18-17. We were closer than you know to getting this thing passed. You can walk onto the battle field and kick the bodies, but at least we showed up for the fight. 

Now, as for a ballot initiative, I'm all for it. Who is going to fund it? Marino, you and I agree that lots of organizations have a stake in this issue. So do lots of very wealthy landowners. Are you willing to work on putting the pieces together? Maybe you already have. If so, and you're looking for pro bono resources, let us know. CW and AW have a very good relationship and lots of smart, experienced volunteers. We may not have a lot of money, but we aren't afraid to fight the good fight, even though we might lose.


----------



## Badazws6

Great post Patrick, thank you! Thank you for all the work you have done!

Matt


----------



## zboda

marino said:


> Why do you all get sensitive when I offer an alternative approach?.


As I said in my first response to you, I think you make good sensible points. I don't think myself or anyone else is being sensitive about an alternative approach. Clearly all avenues need to be explored. What I took issue with is what I perceived to be haymakers thrown at the "good guys."

I look forward to learning more about where we should go from here.

Sincerely,
Zach


----------



## patrickt

I'd like to suggest a change of focus. Marino and others have thrown out some alternative ideas and there is one more I would like to throw out for grins. The discussion may in fact be hypothetical, but even so the discussion itself may be useful.

What if there was a way to jettison the senate's amendment and send the house version of the bill back to the senate. Sure it might fail, but just suppose. The bill specifically recognizes a "right to float." No Colorado statute or case says that now. But the bill would only apply to commercial outfitters on the defined waterways. The house version of the bill says it isn't intended to affect the public's right to float on any river. If such a bill made it out of the Senate and was signed by the Governor (certainly not a sure thing), the Jackson Shaws of the world would have to challenge it (or try to run their own ballot initiative promoting "land owner rights"). In a court challenge, the statute would be presumed constitutional. Emmert would be framed up and would have a decent chance of being reviewed by the Supreme Court. Certainly CROA would want to defend it. What do folks think? Do you think private boaters would win or lose under that scenario? Are we better off with an Act that recognizes a right to float even if the Act doesn't expressly apply to us on the defined waterways? The House version of the bill doesn't change the definition of premises in a way that changes anything, and so floating but not touching would continue not to constitute a violation of criminal law. The Act might even provide a basis for non-commercials to challenge the bill on some basis. Just curious what people think.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

patrickt said:


> I'd like to suggest a change of focus. Marino and others have thrown out some alternative ideas and there is one more I would like to throw out for grins. The discussion may in fact be hypothetical, but even so the discussion itself may be useful.
> 
> What if there was a way to jettison the senate's amendment and send the house version of the bill back to the senate. Sure it might fail, but just suppose. The bill specifically recognizes a "right to float." No Colorado statute or case says that now. But the bill would only apply to commercial outfitters on the defined waterways. The house version of the bill says it isn't intended to affect the public's right to float on any river. If such a bill made it out of the Senate and was signed by the Governor (certainly not a sure thing), the Jackson Shaws of the world would have to challenge it (or try to run their own ballot initiative promoting "land owner rights"). In a court challenge, the statute would be presumed constitutional. Emmert would be framed up and would have a decent chance of being reviewed by the Supreme Court. Certainly CROA would want to defend it. What do folks think? Do you think private boaters would win or lose under that scenario? Are we better off with an Act that recognizes a right to float even if the Act doesn't expressly apply to us on the defined waterways? The House version of the bill doesn't change the definition of premises in a way that changes anything, and so floating but not touching would continue not to constitute a violation of criminal law. The Act might even provide a basis for non-commercials to challenge the bill on some basis. Just curious what people think.



If you think there's a way to shed the study amendment I'm all for it.


----------



## marino

OK. A few responses. I will include responses to several posters in this one note for ease of comment. 

PatrickT. 

You are just repeating what I was objecting to. Keep on with the legislative process. Fine. Your objections to litigation are exactly the reason this is going nowhere. Reread my comments. 

1. You have to stand up for yourself. No-one is going to do it for you.

2. Of course litigation is expensive. That is why I intimated starting now to build a fighting fund. But you have got to be serious. And you have to widen your appeal. If you don't understand what I am talking about in time someone will come along who will. 

3. Slave has already indicated he has people who will get involved from the litigation viewpoint and he has indicated that his offers were rebuffed. I had some early input by my comments were ignored.

4. Your suggestion to proceed with the earlier draft will get the same short end of the stick treatment and is destined to be declared unconstitutional because of the favoritism of commercial over non-commercial. As I said above, you appear wedded to the idea of legislation. Have at it. I'm not interested.

5. Your summary of the law ignores the history of floating and the public trust doctrines. The point is that in the vast majority of cases, it was litigation which brought the issue to a head. Not a legislative change. Tell me one instance where Legislation did not arise from or as a consequence of litigation or threatened litigation. By discounting litigation an opponent reading your posts would most relieved. Courts are scary things. Outcomes are not certain. That affects both sides. Who do you think has more to lose from litigation? Think about it. 


Zboda.

With the greatest respect, there aren't "good guys" and "bad guys" in this. There are just winners and losers.

In terms of "where we should go". If you read my thoughts you should be able to divine my humble opinion. But frankly from the comments here is seems that litigation is not an option and you are waiting for a committee decision.


Sagretto.

Actually you do want multiple cases. At least one in state court and one in Federal Court. Different defendants in each. You then have the opportunity to litigate the public trust issue in Federal Court and that should scare the pants of Shaw because if he loses that his land becomes public to the high-water mark. The State action would note that at the very least the Federal public trust doctrine is the minimum standard. They could not find less than that. And if the Federal Court came to its decision before the State court had a chance it could really create confusion in the minds of landowners. 

If the landowners knew you were serious and had the funds, they would settle this so fast your eyes would pop. And you would get a pretty good legislative model into the bargain.


Outbackjack.

As the law stands you do have the right to float the Taylor. No-one seems to be disputing that. In any case the principal of common usage would be a powerful support as well as the amendments to the definition of "premises" and the AG opinion of 1983. It is the portaging issue which is the concern. So from what I understand there is nothing stopping you floating. And if portaging is necessary because of a hazard, then that is where you could have your test case. However if Shaw is saying you cannot float at all, what affect will that have across the state? 


All in all, it seems that the majority here think it is too expensive to look into litigation. Fine. Thanks at least for taking the time to point out the error of my ways.

All the best.


----------



## outbackjack

Shaw has said that there will be no boating at all through his property. He has altered the river to make it almost impossible to get under the bridge. I would imagine he will be doing even more work to guarentee rafters and other boaters will have to portage. I guess you will get your wish, I will be on that river more this summer than I have been in a long time. I can run evenings after work on my way home pretty easily. It is too expensive to litigate, but I feel it is way more expensive not to. Hopefully there will be enough support to set up a legal defense fund and end this battle once and for all. 2 more months and the river starts running. I appreciate all that AW and CW have done, Im not a big organization guy, more of a hermit, but I will be joining both organizations and donating some money to CROA this week to show my support for all the effort and put my money where my mouth is. I havent commercially run the river in 2 or 3 years, but if I need to I will run for Scenic and do everything I can in the valley to garner support. Thanks Jack


----------



## marino

outbackjack said:


> Shaw has said that there will be no boating at all through his property. He has altered the river to make it almost impossible to get under the bridge.


 18-9-107 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. It provides:

_(1) An individual or corporation commits an offense if without legal privilege such individual or corporation intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly: _

_(a) Obstructs a . . . . waterway, . . . to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access or any other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles, or conveyances, whether the obstruction arises from his acts alone or from his acts and the acts of others; _

_(2) For purposes of this section, "obstruct" means to render impassable or to render passage unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous._

_(3) An offense under this section is a class 3 misdemeanor;_

If he has done anything to bring about this result, I would suggest that this is a breach of this provision. If it has already been done, I would get the corps of engineers to get involved and get their input. As a basic proposition they will get involved in any waterway and if something is hazardous they will get it changed or taken down. 

After that if by his action he has created a hazard, he would have a tough time in a court sustaining any action because as a basic equitable proposition "those who seek equity must do equity". 

In addition, if he has brought about the result that it is impossible to float under the bridge, he could not then seek the courts protection because as a basic proposition those who seek equity must come to the court "with clean hands". By his actions he has precipitated the event. 

These are pretty basic propositions. So if what you say on the facts is accurate, I would get a lawyer who understands these provisions and principles to have a look and give you a view.

I must add, I would be amazed if this is the case and he has done what he has done, and the Corps of Engineers has not been involved.


----------



## outbackjack

Harmels ranch resort is just upstream and pulled a corp of engineer permit to put in 3 or 4 fish damns, they put in over 14. The corp did nothing. I believe his stance is that the public does not nor ever should have had access. I appreciate the advise, Thank You. I will be looking into this further, will keep the Buzz posted. gotta go


----------



## CO_Patrick

*Thanks for all the effort put in by AW & CW, as well as CROA. A shame that's how things went, but honestly it's not surprising. I agree with Slave on getting the bill killed so the study doesn't go through. 

Marino thank you for your input. After reading up on the Utah issues and outcome, I for one think you have the right idea. I can only hope to see the boating community pull together for to accomplish something similar.*


----------



## Ole Rivers

I'll just throw in a coupla curve balls....

Understanding that this may not have the force of law, under Article VI, Section 3 of the state Constitution, how about asking the AG and/or Supremes for an opinion? No cost, right?

Also:

Does C.R.S. 25-8-102(2), see link and text below, mean that it is codified public policy that recreational use is a beneficial purpose of state waters use and, therefore, HB 1188 is moot?

Since there is no definition of "recreational use", wouldn't boating and fishing... wade fishing.... be reasonably assumed as a recreational use?

No civil or criminal trespass because contact of the bed, whether private or public, in ways incidental to recreational use of state waters, is lawful as public policy under this statute?

Does "requirement" mean contact with the bed for fishing and boating recreational uses?

Is it only for this Act's purposes?

Or is this water law and not property law? Isn't water property?

http://www.cherrycreekbasin.org/pdf/CO Water Quality Control Act.pdf

Colorado Water Quality Control Act in Title 25 Health

25-8-102(2) *It is further declared to be the public policy of this state to conserve state waters and to protect, maintain, and improve, where necessary and reasonable, the quality thereof for* public water supplies, for protection and propagation of wildlife and aquatic life, for domestic, agricultural, industrial, and *recreational uses, and for other beneficial uses*, taking into consideration the requirements of such uses; *to provide* that no pollutant be released into any state waters without first receiving the treatment or other corrective action necessary *to reasonably protect the legitimate and beneficial uses of such waters*; to provide for the prevention, abatement, and control of new or existing water pollution; and to cooperate with other states and the federal government in carrying out these objectives.

Also, check out:

25-8-104(2) The following criteria, in addition to those otherwise prescribed by law, shall apply to
any policy, rule-making, adjudicatory, administrative, or executive decision of the water quality
control commission or to any judicial decision related thereto:
(a) *All state waters shall be presumed to be available for beneficial uses under and in accordance with the constitution and laws of the state*; and a water right includes the right to divert as defined in section 37-92-103 (7), C.R.S., the waters of the state for application to
beneficial uses.

and

25-8-203(2)(e) The need to protect the quality of the water for beneficial uses such as domestic, agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses, the protection and propagation of fish and wildlife, recreation, drinking water, *or such beneficial uses as the commission deems consistent with the policies of section 25-8-102* and the need to minimize negative impacts on water rights;

Little, if any, cost, to find out about this, right?


----------



## marino

outbackjack said:


> Harmels ranch resort is just upstream and pulled a corp of engineer permit to put in 3 or 4 fish damns, they put in over 14. The corp did nothing. I believe his stance is that the public does not nor ever should have had access. I appreciate the advise, Thank You. I will be looking into this further, will keep the Buzz posted. gotta go


Did anyone complain to the Corps? In the case of dams it is even clearer because they are in the water. That is why I was more guarded with the bridge because they might say that it is not proximate enough to the water. I know for a fact that someone who posts here complained in relation to dams on another river when obstructions which were hazardous were built. I understand that the Corps got involved in that case. Furthermore, I know of another case where the DOW got involved in relation to too many dams and as a result some dams had to be pulled out. I also know that the Corps never checks up on work after they give the permit. Therefore it is possible that the Corps never knew that the work was done without permit. Ring them up and talk to them. They are approachable and actually will be helpful if you have an open conversation with them.


----------



## Theophilus

I intend to float the Taylor in my kayak this year much more often. I carry small laminated copies of the applicable Colorado Revised Statutes, I wear a waterproof video/audio camera, and I portage any obstruction that is a threat to my life, limb, or eyesight. I am respectful, quiet, and quick when I am forced by a landowner to portage and I look forward to the day when I am charged with trespassing. I'm confident my actions are defensible.


----------



## gyrogyrl

marino bores me.


----------



## Ikedub

gyrogyrl said:


> marino bores me.


What?


----------



## Porkchop

gyrogyrl said:


> marino bores me.


Why?

While Marino's ability to be assertive maybe limited some of his ideas make sense to me. The fact that our neighbors gained the right to float thru litigation shouldn't be ignored. However, I also think Coloradans are a lot more progressive than our neighbors and a ballot inactive or legislation might work some day. Sounds like we were close.

I have enjoyed reading everyone's post here immensely. Because of HB 1088 I became a member of AW and wrote to my representatives for the first time. Hopefully others did as well and movement is growing.

While people have different opinions about how to cook this turkey lets not waste to much energy on each other. Mr. Shaw would take to much satisfaction in that.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

gyrogyrl said:


> marino bores me.


I kind of expected more from you, gyrogyrl. You can be bored by Marino all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the guy knows what he's talking about. He has a much better understanding of the law surrounding this issue than just about anyone. He's also taken the time to research what has worked elsewhere and what hasn't. Boring or not, Marino is a valuable asset to our position, you might try listening to what he has to say, he has some really good ideas.


----------



## Rich

gyrogyrl said:


> marino bores me.


 
Remember, only boring people get bored.


----------



## Marco

Gyrogirl is spot on. While Merino is obviously well versed in the issue, he isn't suggesting anything that hasn't been contemplated by smart people who know at least as much, if not more, about the law for quite some time.

Another thing- this board isn't our own little private coffee klatch. Andy is doing a fantastic job of allowing _*anyone who registers*_ to express their opinions, and I applaud him for doing so. If I were a landowner, I might be tempted to jump right in at the last moment and kick the bees nest around a bit to see if I couldn't get a boater to make a stupid decision and get a case favorable to landowners in the courts.

Just say'n.


----------



## Ikedub

Contemplation and action are two different things. If you are trying to WIN you contemplate and come up with the best strategy. Obviously that legislative effort was just a flop. Look at that effort from start to finish....flop! It jumped all over the place. The "blindside" argument is BS, there was plenty of time. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone and don't wish to. We need to stand as a group (and make that group bigger) and come at this with the strongest strategy to WIN. It's about getting the WIN. Don't get your feelings hurt we are all on the same side.


----------



## Marco

Ikedub said:


> Contemplation and action are two different things. If you are trying to WIN you contemplate and come up with the best strategy...


Precisely. I think we can both agree that it is particularly bad strategy to post information on public internet forums which might lead someone to take action without fully contemplating the consequences for the rest of us.


----------



## Ole Rivers

Marco said:


> Gyrogirl is spot on. While Merino is obviously well versed in the issue, he isn't suggesting anything that hasn't been contemplated by smart people who know at least as much, if not more, about the law for quite some time.
> 
> Another thing- this board isn't our own little private coffee klatch. Andy is doing a fantastic job of allowing _*anyone who registers*_ to express their opinions, and I applaud him for doing so. If I were a landowner, I might be tempted to jump right in at the last moment and kick the bees nest around a bit to see if I couldn't get a boater to make a stupid decision and get a case favorable to landowners in the courts.
> 
> Just say'n.


I know marino personally. He is an ally who, imo, clarifies the substance, procedure, funding and timing realities in order to most effectively and efficiently reach the goal that "provides the public the right to float, hunt, fish, and participate in all lawful activities that utilize the water and 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". 

(from Conatser v Johnson Conclusion http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Conatser071808.pdf )

Further, Conatser says the scope is a broad "public use of" rather than a narrow "boater float on or over" issue, a la JJNP and Emmert.


----------



## buckmanriver

marino

It seems that you have left out the history you reviewed on how other western states have come to insure that the public maintains it right to float. You just ask users to do that them selves. 

Your key argument seems to be that the history of western water policy demonstrates that overall it as been judicial court cases that have been the most successful in creating law that ensures the publics the right to float. 

I believe argument is parallel with Lori Potter's contentions in her presentation at the Colorado Water Workshop in Crested Butte last July. I was there and watched her presentation. After reviewing my notes i found her powerpoint on the net. Again it is almost exactly the same as of your contentions. 

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...any+lawful+activity”&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

or download the ppt. file

www.adventureoffice.com/Bill1188PowerPoint.PPT

I think your ideas are good, however, I am just cruise if are kind enough to demonstrate where they came from. Show us the trail of sources that summarize the state of the field and the history of western water policy regarding right to float that allowed you to make you argument. For me that would greatly help the strength of your contention and you can do so that with out telling us "who and what" you are.


----------



## Marco

Ole Rivers said:


> I know marino personally. He is an ally who, imo, clarifies the substance, procedure,...


Great. Have him contact me, Gyrogirl or PatrickT via pm. All I know is that he joined mountain buzz three days ago and that he has posted 12 times.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

Marco said:


> Great. Have him contact me, Gyrogirl or PatrickT via pm. Flaming on Mtn Buzz isn't doing anyone any good. All I know is that he joined mountain buzz three days ago and that he has posted 12 times.


Who's doing the flaming? I seem to remember a few folks jumping down Marino's throat, but don't remember him being anything but civil. Is 12 posts in 3 days something unusual? That's 4 whole posts a day!!!
Instead of this third party "have him contact me" crap, how's bout you put yer big boy pants on and PM him yourself? Cut the middle man out.


----------



## gyrogyrl

*CW Board Position in 1188*

The Colorado Whitewater board met last evening to discuss its position on 1188 given the Senate floor amendments and the current state of the bill.

We are clearly opposed to the bill in its current form - a study by the Colorado Water Congress.

The bill is almost certain to move out of the Senate. Right now, CW is looking at the possible options (there are a couple different processes) for stripping out the bad Senate amendment and restoring 1188 to its previous House version, or something slightly modified.

Maintaining "right to navigate" in any version of the bill will be key to CW's support or opposition.


----------



## KSC

*Regarding this summer...*

What will happen this summer with no legislation? Will the disputed section of the Taylor be run and promote a lawsuit or will commercial rafters take a hiatus and wait for legislation? 

Though I'm not versed in all the legal issues, my intuition tells me invoking a judicial decision may not be such a bad thing. Even if the court sides in favor in property owners being able to declare trespassing on anyone floating the river, I can't see that legal stance as being politically viable. I think such a decision would force legislation. Imagine when it becomes public that most of the popular river stretches in Colorado can no longer be run because of a small handful of property owners. People will see it for what it is, not a falsely framed argument about the right to property ownership (something so well established in this country it would take a revolution to change), but about the right of an extremely small number of people to control navigation of the state's rivers. People will scoff at that. 

It is a very sad reflection our state legislator that they are unwilling to make a decision on this bill because it is too politically charged. I hope people see that for what it is.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

KSC said:


> What will happen this summer with no legislation? Will the disputed section of the Taylor be run and promote a lawsuit or will commercial rafters take a hiatus and wait for legislation?
> 
> Though I'm not versed in all the legal issues, my intuition tells me invoking a judicial decision may not be such a bad thing. Even if the court sides in favor in property owners being able to declare trespassing on anyone floating the river, I can't see that legal stance as being politically viable. I think such a decision would force legislation. Imagine when it becomes public that most of the popular river stretches in Colorado can no longer be run because of a small handful of property owners. People will see it for what it is, not a falsely framed argument about the right to property ownership (something so well established in this country it would take a revolution to change), but about the right of an extremely small number of people to control navigation of the state's rivers. People will scoff at that.
> 
> It is a very sad reflection our state legislator that they are unwilling to make a decision on this bill because it is too politically charged. I hope people see that for what it is.


That's a good question... Will Jackson Shaw follow through and sue as promised? The bigger question is weather the landowners on the Taylor will pursue only commercial boaters, or will private boaters become targets as well? 

I suppose time will tell...


----------



## outbackjack

slavetotheflyrod said:


> That's a good question... Will Jackson Shaw follow through and sue as promised? The bigger question is weather the landowners on the Taylor will pursue only commercial boaters, or will private boaters become targets as well?
> 
> I suppose time will tell...


Yes, time will tell. You can go to the CROA website to see the letter written to Scenic River Tours and decide for your self if Shaw will Sue. I think he already has close to a million in this fight and dont see him backing down. What other landowners will take up this tactic and stop floating if they can on other rivers in the state? How about homeowners associations with many members banding together to sue raft companies? I worked in the buis for many years both here and back east and dont know alot of companies making the kind of money these people are going to spend. As far as what he does to public boaters, I have stated eariler and will again, I AM NOT GOING TO STOP FLOATING THE RIVER, PERIOD!! As a matter of fact I look forward to being on the river more than I have in a few years. Time will tell. Jack


----------



## gyrogyrl

*Scott Willoughby's column on 1188 in 3.23.10 Denver Post*

Willoughby: Colorado's rafting industry hangs in balance - The Denver Post


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

gyrogyrl said:


> Willoughby: Colorado's rafting industry hangs in balance - The Denver Post


IMHO the best article written to date. Kudos to Scott Willoughby


----------



## robanna

I think Shaw is clear as to who he's going to let float through his property:



> It is my firm opinion any individual or group or company rafting through our private property is committing an act similar to someone walking: across your front lawn on a short cut to the grocery store.
> Our investments in Colorado are considerable and worth all the extraordinary time, effort and money...


----------



## outbackjack

slavetotheflyrod said:


> IMHO the best article written to date. Kudos to Scott Willoughby


 I agree, this at least lets people know what is really going on. I also find it ironis that Senator Whitehead from the Durango area was one of the people who got the bill gutted and added the amendment yet he voted against it to look good down the road. This whole thing is criminal if you ask me.


----------



## gyrogyrl

@outbackjack. It may appear criminal, but this type of stuff is not particularly unusual in politics at any level (state or federal) or by either party. Its just how our system works (or doesn't work).


----------



## outbackjack

Thanks gyrogyrl, that saves me a call to the Attorny Gen. I really love America.


----------



## gyrogyrl

@outbackjack: this is highly personal & professional opinon, but based on my experience with the current AG, he wouldn't be much help anyhow. his actions have been decidedly problematic.


----------



## outbackjack

Thanks again, I guess we will wait and see what comes out of the next few days. Jack


----------



## pdrrwr

Marino,
I agree with you and appreciate the information you have posted. I think the broadest possible communites need to be brought together and money needs raised. I am a boater and fisherman. This effort will need big funding. I don't know how to bring together the pieces. Most of us probably don't.

So that leaves supporting those who can? How do we build a war chest? Do we need to wait for a specific case to be brought and then contribute to a specific defense fund? Can something be set up in advance as it is past time to get started? 
Jim


----------



## buckmanriver

I am no expert on how state politics work. And I am still baffled at the senators amendment to send this bill to the colorado water congress for review. 

Does anyone know the process they took in making such a decision? If so is the record of that process accessible to the public record like the senate floor hearing videos archives are?


----------



## Badazws6

pdrrwr said:


> Marino,
> I agree with you and appreciate the information you have posted. I think the broadest possible communites need to be brought together and money needs raised. I am a boater and fisherman. This effort will need big funding. I don't know how to bring together the pieces. Most of us probably don't.
> 
> So that leaves supporting those who can? How do we build a war chest? Do we need to wait for a specific case to be brought and then contribute to a specific defense fund? Can something be set up in advance as it is past time to get started?
> Jim


Well there is a start of a coalition already with CROA, AW and CW. Major players on the CW side anyway, have flat out said they would like to include other user groups, so if you know of any lets get them hooked up. More or less it sounds like we are at a critical juncture. We have a hand of cards already in the legislation and the final cards are being played and AW, CROA and CW have to decide to fold or play it out to the end. There will be another hand played after this I'm sure, regardless if we win or not.

NOW is the time for people like Marino and other people and users groups that have not agreed or have not been involved so far with the strategy the CROA took to get reinvolved and try to influence what happens after the legislation. It will be a whole new hand of cards and to build and strengthen the coalition with these additional party's helps everyone. At the very least communication between the various party's is critical so the left hand knows what the right hand is thinking.

So I encourage everyone out there to contact CW, AW or CROA and get involved if you have skin in the game and want input. Lets work as a team. These are deep and murky waters, boating alone isn't the best idea.


----------



## gyrogyrl

@buckmanriver: you can get a transcript or make a dvd of the floor debate in the Senate if you want to hear how the amendment was introduced and the discussion on the amendment: 
CGA-LegislativeCouncil:Legislative Research Fundamentals

Legislators can amend a bill on the floor of the Senate, as long as the amendment falls within the scope of the bill title and they have the votes. That's what happened. 

Of course, the person who moved the amendment isn't necessarily the person *behind* the amendment. That's the backstory, and its not recorded or written down anywhere. You simply have to spend lots of time at the capital to figure out what happened and why; most of the time its about politics when a bill is hijacked as this one was.


----------



## gyrogyrl

@buckmanriver: sorry that should have been CD not DVD of the recorded floor debate.


----------



## marino

buckmanriver said:


> I am no expert on how state politics work. And I am still baffled at the senators amendment to send this bill to the colorado water congress for review.
> 
> Does anyone know the process they took in making such a decision? If so is the record of that process accessible to the public record like the senate floor hearing videos archives are?


Buckmanriver.

There is no process. It is politics and money. This will die and the politicians will have received so much grief and so many threats from opponents that they will not touch this for another generation. The only accountability for politicians is at the ballot box. The representative who started this Curry, changed from democrat to independent. I suspect that she will lose most of her backing and will get beaten next time around. She had the courage to try, but the outcome was predictable. 

I predict that the next step will an attempt to get a ballot initiative of some sort. Sadly, it will be another exercise in futility. A waste of resources and a distraction from the main game. 

There is only one game in town. Get it before the judiciary and be prepared to push the matter through to the end. Pick a good strong case and attack the process incrementally. It may take 7 - 10 years, but it has to be started somewhere.

People keep thinking that politics is the answer. Remember what Einstein defined as insanity - repeating the same experiment over and over and expecting a different result.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

Sit tight folks, the filing deadline for a ballot initiative for the 2010 election is upon us, and I wouldn't die of shock if a court case were to pop up long before November. Odds are there's going to be more than a few different efforts to get behind, we will all have to make individual choices as to which efforts to support. Marino brings up the point that the path to resolution leads to the courtroom door, and we all know how costly that path can be. Personally, I'm throwing my resources behind the judicial route.


----------



## pdrrwr

A Ballot initiative is an expensive and uncertain proposition in and of itself. I am born and raised in Colorado. Many people here still have an Old West view of things. That is not a bad thing, I do myself. What I mean is that we may find support on the urban corridor for river access, but in many rural areas it will seem like a bunch of liberals making a land grab. It would be an easy sell for big money to get support from agricultural and mining based communities. 

Does anyone know if there is a realistic chance of enough votes out there. I hate to ask, but has a study been done.


----------



## outbackjack

marino said:


> Buckmanriver.
> 
> There is no process. It is politics and money. This will die and the politicians will have received so much grief and so many threats from opponents that they will not touch this for another generation. The only accountability for politicians is at the ballot box. The representative who started this Curry, changed from democrat to independent. I suspect that she will lose most of her backing and will get beaten next time around. She had the courage to try, but the outcome was predictable.
> 
> I predict that the next step will an attempt to get a ballot initiative of some sort. Sadly, it will be another exercise in futility. A waste of resources and a distraction from the main game.
> 
> There is only one game in town. Get it before the judiciary and be prepared to push the matter through to the end. Pick a good strong case and attack the process incrementally. It may take 7 - 10 years, but it has to be started somewhere.
> 
> People keep thinking that politics is the answer. Remember what Einstein defined as insanity - repeating the same experiment over and over and expecting a different result.


 
Marino, It HAS been started. It may yet work out or it may not, however, the process has started. You may have started it a different way, but the end result will still be the same. You are right, the courts will decide this issue. The ball has started to roll, the public is becoming aware of this issue. The route to the judiciary process has begun and is inevetable. To keep putting down the effort made so far is ludicrous. Hindsight is 20/20. Even if you did express your opinion to the parties involved, get over it and lets move on. Blindly quoting Einstein is rediculous. A lot of resourses have been put into getting the ball rolling, only a fool would walk away from the game now, wether it passes or not, it is still working, it has opened the door for people to get involved. This issue has been around for a long time and only now is something happening . Everyone knows you dont think too much of the effort, but at least someone tried something. Come on down this spring and we will see if we can create a "good strong case". I agree that this fight should be taken straight to the power against it. Ill be more than happy to Shred the middle Taylor with you. Lets Go, Jack


----------



## Theophilus

"It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."~ Teddy Roosevelt


----------



## merritrd

Editorial from todays Denver Post

By punting on rafting bill, lawmakers failed all sides - The Denver Post


----------



## Ikedub

Here are a couple allies that are not yet in the loop. Add the American Fly Fishing Trade Association and Outdoor Industry Association to the list of organizations that need to be contacted and added to the list. Someone is making a list, right? 

I think this brings a new perspective to the issue and is a huge avenue to pursue. They can also bring the cash to the table in a way we can’t.


----------



## Andy H.

Admin Note - At Zboda's request the article on UT HB 141's impact on Utah Riparian Access was moved to its own thread. The thread is now in the "River Access and Alerts" forum.


----------



## kayakfreakus

9NEWS.com | Denver | Colorado's Online News Leader | Rafters, fishermen float alternatives to raft bill


----------



## gyrogyrl

The ballot initiative titles that have been filed for the 2010 ballot (deadline was today) should be listed at the link below. However, their log stops at 1:30 pm today, so the rest of the title filings might not be listed until Monday...these would be the ones referenced in the 9 news article from kayakfreakus. If I find more info I will post.
Proposed Initiatives - Colorado Department of State - Secretary of State


----------



## liquiddescent

Seriously, all we need is Matt Stone and Trey Parker on our side. One episode of South Park could get us all the support we need! Imagine the animated version of Shaw


----------



## outbackjack

Gyrogyrl, check out the proposed ballot iniciatives at this link, it shows what the language is. 
http://www.leg.state.co.us/lcs/Initiative%20Referendum/0910InitRefr.nsf/reviewcomment?openview&count=30


----------



## gyrogyrl

Yup, saw that this morning; was just going to post.

Ballot mania: Initiatives 67 - 86 by John Greg Leede; Initiatives 87 - 90 by Bob Hamel

Hearings by the title board are the 1st & 3rd Wednesdays of the month. I think because of the timing on leg review and public review on all these they will have be heard on the 3rd Wednesday in April. The schedule will be established as they get closer to the date; you can listen online to the title board hearing, which is held at the Secretary of State's office.


----------



## gyrogyrl

The title board schedule will be posted here:

2009-2010 Agendas - Colorado Department of State - Secretary of State

Because 45 ballot titles were filed by the deadline yesterday, they may add extra hearings.


----------



## gyrogyrl

Colorado Public Radio had a brief segment about 1188 this morning as well....


----------



## gyrogyrl

Denver Post article about the boater initiatives:

A record 24 Colorado ballot issues filed on rafting amid lawmaker inaction - The Denver Post


----------



## robanna

Is there plan to confuse voters?


----------



## robanna

John Leede = oil lobby?
Petrole 
Leede  Operating Company Llc


----------



## outbackjack

Well of course he is oil. Louis Shaw is oil. Texas is oil. Texas thinks they can do anything they want in Colorado. You can walk, float, even camp on the sandbars in rivers in Texas, but they dont think we desirve the same freedom they enjoy.


----------



## gyrogyrl

@robanna Many of the titles probably won't go all the way - just hedging their bets. But some are likely too.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

Unbefuckingleavable!!!

First, our friends from the creekside coalition must have slept through highschool civics class. The Colorado constitution can only grant rights, not abolish them, they seem to have a hard time grasping that concept, as each and every one of their proposals in some way shape or form seeks to abolish an existing right. If they'd payed ANY attention in civics, they'd know that the way to legally go about such things would be to seek repeal of the right in question, where granted by the constitution. Of course, I'm willing to bet these two dipshits think they're the smartest guys in the room - let em go on believing that, I find it rather amusing. 

What a friggin circus


----------



## gyrogyrl

*Schedule for ballot initiative title hearings*

The schedule is now out for the title board hearing on April 7th - not surprisingly, the ballot initiative titles just filed on Friday related to rivers/boating/access are NOT on this agenda, which means they will most likely be on the April 21st agenda.


----------



## magfaser

Seems a bad time for a ballot initiative. Off year election equals low voter turnout except for the elderly and the tea baggers. Two groups that probably won't support the govment telling people what they can do with private property. Let them pass their initiatives and then challenge the constitutionality.


----------



## gyrogyrl

Don't agree with your assessment of the 2010 election cycle. There may not be a presidential race, but without an incumbent governor, with a special election for Senator, and some huge social and fiscal issues already on the ballot - probably a relatively high turnout for an "off year".


----------



## BackCountry

I'm sure it will be one of the higher off year turn outs. Colorado needs to throw out the crooked big government liberals that have sold off our state, our country and our children's future to indebtedness to China and others. We conservative patriotic Americans (or tea baggers as fagfaser calls true Americans) who support the constitution and small government also believe in the right to float. I am a private land owner who lives on the water and I support the right to float. Colorado has really deteriorated in my lifetime with the influx of Californians and East Infections that have moved into our state. I think we will see the liberals and progressives go down in flames and not get back into power for at least another generation thank god.


----------



## gyrogyrl

*Utah Governor signs contentious stream access bill*

Well, that's not a good precedent from our next door neighbor . .. 

Governor signs contentious stream access bill - Salt Lake Tribune


----------



## outbackjack

Just what we want to be, Utah


----------



## Porkchop

Was over at my parents house and came across the Colorado Farm Bureau News. On the front page the headline was "Right to Trespass Bill Passes Senate Judiciary Committee." From their quotes to ponder, "There is no right to float contained in Colorado's founding documents or in any case law. If there were, we wouldn't be fighting about HB 1188." 

Clearly a lot of people in rural Colorado are against us and they're the kind of people that are hard to reason with. I think the private boating community needs to be on our best behavior this season. There are many people out there that oppose us and we sure don't want to give them any incidents or stories that they could glorify and use against us.


----------



## jonas_f

*Call in Discussion on Rocky Mountain PBS right now!!*

Live call in on KBDI Public Television, and don't be a douche!


----------



## outbackjack

OK, lets see who is still out there. The Wall Street Journal ran a piss poor column today and are asking for votes. Wall Street Journal: General Forum River rafters vs. private property owners: which side should prevail? Please only vote once, I am sick of hearing how people cheat these things. Here is the article http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303720604575169940537963832.html?mod=WSJ_hp_editorsPicks Here is another bullshit article 
_By Steven K. Paulson, AP Writer_ 
DENVER (AP) ― 
(3/16/2010) 
Talks between a Taylor River landowner and a rafting company won't affect legislation defining the rights of rafting firms to use private Colorado waterways, a lawmaker said Wednesday.

The dispute began when landowners who developed a fishing resort on the banks of the Taylor River near Gunnison tried to bar rafters, claiming their trade interfered with fishing. Lewis Shaw II, president of Jackson-Shaw developers of Dallas, threatened to file a lawsuit.

A proposed settlement between Shaw and Mark Schumacher, owner of Three Rivers Resort, which offers rafting trips, called for Shaw to pay Schumacher $750,000 and give him a lot valued at $2.9 million to compensate Schumacher for lost rafting revenue. It also said any legislation regulating the Taylor would void the agreement.

"Let me be direct and clear. Legislators can and will introduce legislation as they see fit and cannot and will not be part of any outside agreement," House Majority Leader Paul Weissmann, D-Louisville, said in a letter Wednesday to attorneys for both sides.

The Taylor dispute prompted legislation to formally allow rafters to operate on Colorado rivers. That legislation is stalled in the Senate while Gov. Bill Ritter tries to settle the Taylor issue.

Marcus Lock, an attorney for Shaw, said he drew up the contract at Ritter's request and that rafting firms turned it down. But Ritter's chief of staff, Jim Carpenter, said Ritter wasn't aware of any financial offer.

Lock said Schumacher did very little rafting on the Taylor last year and that Shaw was offering cover the cost of lost business, even though Shaw thinks rafters should pay him for using private property.

Supporters of the legislation say North Dakota and Colorado are the only two states west of the Mississippi River that don't have strict protection for commercial rafters.
(© 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

Shaw wants to buy off our rafting outfitters to get them to back down, he just forgot to make the offer to any of them, complete misinformation......Jack


----------



## mjpowhound

60 boats a day on the Taylor? Is that accurate?

Also, we really need to clarify this anglers vs. rafters thing. I would say the vast majority of fishermen are on our side; it's only wealthy people that buy their way into unnatural settings like this place on the Taylor that stand not to benefit from a river access law. We really really need to draw a line in the sand and see who is where. I have a feeling it will look a lot like the results of that poll.


----------



## riojedi

In regard to the BS in the above article. The meeting itself was agreed by both parties to remain confidential and was leaked by Lock to the AP. Lock is the same guy who is pressuring Gov. Bill to support mediation as they have convinced the Gov this is a local matter. Way to come to mediation with clean hands Lock! Mark S. did throw the offer out purely as a joke to counter their offer to buy him out. I believe he even already owns land on the Taylor. Hopefully this tactic will backfire and show the Gov and Senate who these guys really are.

What we can get out of this-
Don't stoop to their level. If you really believe we are right in our cause keep to the high road or you will only hurt what you are trying to help.

If you have had access problems with landowners on any of The People of Colorado's rivers please let the gov and your representatives know. Many of them think this problem is only on the Taylor.

Also, Rep. Curry is planning to move the bill this week so fire up the keyboard and send a river of letters to our legislators to support the House version of 1182.


----------



## klund

Senate pres. Brandon Shaffer is having a townhall this *Tues. April, 13th at 6:30pm at Abbondanza Pizzeria in Longmont.* I received an email from his office saying that this specific topic is up for discussion - if it is brought up. I am going to try to make it to ask why he thought it would be a good idea to have a 3rd party group (water congress) study the bill, when that group has already declared they are against the bill. Unfortunately, I am not sure if I will be able to make it that night - but thought I'd spread the word in case other longmont-area peeps would be interested.


----------



## Ole Rivers

*HB 1188 KBDI discussion on tv or internet again*



jonas_f said:


> Live call in on KBDI Public Television, and don't be a douche!


You can watch the hour long HB 1188 video discussion again on "Studio 12" KBDI channel 12 April 14 at 8pm and again at 11:30pm and again on April 21, 2010 (DVR it).

Or, video on demand at http://video.kbdi.org/program/1326760451

In particular on the tv show (and in his testimony at the HB 1188 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing), listen to what Mark Squillace, Director of CU's Natural Resources Law Center, knowledgeably advocates about having the Colorado Supreme Court give an opinion to set the ground rules rather than Colorado Water Congress doing a study. I believe this suggestion is in reference to Colorado Constitution Article VI, Section 3 as Squillace's basis:

"The supreme court shall give its opinion upon important questions upon solemn occasions when required by the governor, the senate, or the house of representatives; and all such opinions shall be published in connection with the reported decision of said court."

imo, it's a clear, cost effective and timely alternative solution since, as Squillace reasonably and insightfully mentions on the show, there is a fundamental disagreement between the private land title interest and the public water use interest over who has the dominant right of way to enjoy the easement for this issue between recreational use and property title.

Since the Legislature is punting, how about getting the Gov, Senate or House of Reps to require the Supremes to clarify this thing rather than John Hill's Colorado Water Congress cohorts?


----------



## gyrogyrl

*River outfitter's proposed pricey solution draws concern; he says it was in jest*

DENVER AND THE WEST

River outfitter's proposed pricey solution draws concern; he says it was in jest

By Jessica Fender 
The Denver Post

A river outfitter named his price — $750,000 and a piece of prime property — to stay off a disputed stretch of the Taylor River, leading critics last week to question his motives in helping launch a legislative fight over Colorado waterways.

River outfitter's proposed pricey solution draws concern; he says it was in jest - The Denver Post


----------



## outbackjack

klund said:


> Senate pres. Brandon Shaffer is having a townhall this Tues. *April, 13th at 6:30pm at Abbondanza Pizzeria in Longmont. *I received an email from his office saying that this specific topic is up for discussion - if it is brought up. I am going to try to make it to ask why he thought it would be a good idea to have a 3rd party group (water congress) study the bill, when that group has already declared they are against the bill. Unfortunately, I am not sure if I will be able to make it that night - but thought I'd spread the word in case other longmont-area peeps would be interested.


If anyone can go, I recieved a email from Senator Hodge, the Senate sponser of the bill. Here is a direct quote "The president has made it clear that there are
certain things he wants in the bill before he'll allow the conference
committee and has asked his chief of staff to work with one of the
attorneys for Lewis Shaw and one of the lobbyists for the bill to see
what they can come to agreement on. I've asked that Rep. Curry be
part of that work." Ask him why an attorney for lewis shaw is negotiating Colorado Law??????!!!!!


----------



## outbackjack

gyrogyrl said:


> DENVER AND THE WEST
> 
> River outfitter's proposed pricey solution draws concern; he says it was in jest
> 
> By Jessica Fender
> The Denver Post
> 
> A river outfitter named his price — $750,000 and a piece of prime property — to stay off a disputed stretch of the Taylor River, leading critics last week to question his motives in helping launch a legislative fight over Colorado waterways.
> 
> River outfitter's proposed pricey solution draws concern; he says it was in jest - The Denver Post


 
I think the whole negotiation thing is rediculous. shaw is not going to negotiate anything good for boaters. I believe the local rafting companies are realizing this. How can a Texas developer have so much say in Colorado law?? Did you know that his lead lobbiest ran the goveners fianaces in his last election? Someone in our legistlature needs to call bullshit on all of this and make it stick!! When do we know the status of the ballot initiatives?? This is much bigger than the Taylor river, even if a comprimise can be reached locally, the battle for our rivers needs to run its course. Why does the Gov and the Senate pres think it will all just go away?? Very Frustrating!!!!!


----------



## gyrogyrl

Any ballot measures moving forward will have to be heard by the Title Board on Wednesday, April 21 Title Board Hearing – Last meeting for measures that will appear on November 2, 2010 General Election ballot.

This deadline was changed from the 3rd Wednesday in May to the 3rd Wednesday in April as a result of 2009 legislation 1-40-106(1)


----------



## outbackjack

Thanks gyrogyrl, do you know when a ballot initiative can be "canceled" and who does that. All 24 of the proposed ballot initiatives cant make the ballot. Happen to know what the procedure is? Will one from each side make it? Does the Title board look at existing law and disqualify ballot initiatives? Thanks Jack


----------



## gyrogyrl

@outbackjack The Title Board Hearing is *only* to rule on whether the title meets the standards required to proceed to the next step - collecting the necessary certified signatures to place the title on the ballot. around 76,000 are required, but you generally need to gather 15-20% because some are disqualified.

The title + language (which goes to legislative council and a public comment period) must be approved by the title board - which means a person could try multiple language options with the same title. Title can be pulled by the filer at any time, really - or you can fail to collect enough signatures to make the ballot, or the Colorado Supreme Court can rule it is invalid for a variety of technical reasons.

The time to collect signatures is very short, because April 21st is the last Title Board Hearing for the November election.


----------



## outbackjack

Thanks again. I guess we wait and see.


----------



## robanna

> "Of course I threw out something high," Schumacher said. "I was joking about the lot. I am blown away that this was brought out. For those guys to say we're trying to extort them is off the wall."
> Lawyer Marcus Lock represented Jackson-Shaw at that meeting. "I believed him to be dead serious. I was stunned," Lock said. "I said, 'Mark, that's ridiculous. Let's move on.' "


That comment doesn't sound like something one would say if they believed him...If you believed him, then you would actually think he could be bought and start down that road in a hurry.


----------



## gyrogyrl

*Pueblo Chieftan & State Bill Colorado: 3/12 articles on 1188*

*Pueblo Chieftan: Governor hopes to settle rafting rift
*
Governor hopes to settle rafting rift

By PATRICK MALONE | [email protected] | 0 comments

DENVER — A bill that pits river rafters against private property owners has run aground, but Gov. Bill Ritter said Monday that efforts are afoot to move the controversy downstream before it crowds the November ballot.

Ritter has met with rafting interests and landowners hoping to broker a compromise "so this doesn't become some kind of ballot Armageddon."

(more)

*State Bill Colorado: HB10-1188: Governor Hopes to Settle Rafting Rift*

HB10-1188: Governor Hopes to Settle Rafting Rift | State Bill Colorado

Posted on 13 April 2010
Tags: HB10-1188

A bill that pits river rafters against private property owners has run aground, but Gov. Bill Ritter said Monday that efforts are afoot to move the controversy downstream before it crowds the November ballot, The Pueblo Chieftain reports.

Ritter has met with rafting interests and landowners hoping to broker a compromise “so this doesn’t become some kind of ballot Armageddon.”

Since the Senate amended HB1188 last month, it has been a fixture on the House calendar with no action.


----------



## outbackjack

Well, at least he is speaking publicly about his involvement, since the Gov. was the root cause of the Senate gutting the bill. I dont care if the local outfitters do come to an agreement with shaw, I still hope the public boaters will continue to push this and settle this once and for all. I find it hard to believe that the rest of the outfitters in the state will back off if an agreement is made in Taylor canyon. I also dont feel that shaw will offer anything that will settle the issue. Jack


----------



## Theophilus

It appears that they really do not want this on the ballot and that tends to make me want it put to the people even more. I'd love to see a victory for and by the people of Colorado. Wouldn't it be great if "We the People" spoke loud and clear and this matter finally gets settled in unambiguous language?


----------



## gyrogyrl

Practically, ballot measures are often very expensive, and more complicated with the new signature-gathering rules. Most significantly, they are risky - if we lost the vote on a referendum on right to float, we are left with an unambiguous and permanent restriction on boating in Colorado that doesn't currently exist. Never in the history of Colorado has an amendment been reversed by a subsequent vote.


----------



## outbackjack

gyrolyrl, How would we end up with a permanent restriction on boating, If the ballot initiative fails, dont we remain status-quo? A failed referendum doesnt make the opposite law, does it? Thanks


----------



## gyrogyrl

@outbackjack Philosophically: if we lose an affirmative ballot measure, it will be viewed publicly and politically as a referendum on the issue, regardless of whether it changes statute or constitution. Practically: strategically its very likely there will be two initiatives (one expanding, one restricting) on the ballot or none at all (the issue is resolved off ballot). While it is possible that both ballot measures could pass or both could fail, more often (and most likely) the opposing measures will be seen together as a referenda on boating rights - one up/one down. Not the only outcome, but the most likely.


----------



## gyrogyrl

*Update on Ballot Initiatives - text for titles & title board hearings*

Things have been moving slowly along with respect to the 24 ballot initiative titles filed on water & boating issues for the general election this November. Preliminary comment hearings were held on April 9th (sorry I was gone that week or would have given folks a heads up) on all the titles. 

You can review the original, amended, and final language (text) that has been filed for each title at the link below. Proposed initiatives 67 - 86 are the anti-boater/floater titles, 87 - 90 are pro-boater/floater. 

The title board hearing for the pro-boater initiatives (87-90) has been set for Wednesday, April 21st. I'm not sure what time yet, but will find out. As far as I can see, the title board hearing for the anti-boater/floater initiatives hasn't been set yet.

If interested, you can listen to the title board hearing online through the Secretary of State's website. 

Proposed Initiative #68 - Colorado Department of State - Secretary of State


----------



## gyrogyrl

*DP Guest Column: Water Congress can help find a solution*

Blech. 

Water Congress can help find a solution - The Denver Post

The Colorado Senate made the right decision in referring the contentious proposal to establish a "right to float" on the state's waterways to the Colorado Water Congress. This was not, as suggested by The Post, a "punt" of the issues. Rather, it was a realistic recognition that more work is needed to address the serious flaws in the original bill. Under House Bill 1188:

more)


----------



## zboda

gyrogyrl said:


> Blech.





gyrogyrl said:


> Water Congress can help find a solution - The Denver Post
> 
> The Colorado Senate made the right decision in referring the contentious proposal to establish a "right to float" on the state's waterways to the Colorado Water Congress. This was not, as suggested by The Post, a "punt" of the issues. Rather, it was a realistic recognition that more work is needed to address the serious flaws in the original bill. Under House Bill 1188:
> 
> more)




At least the CWC is not trying to hide the fact that they have a favorable bias towards land owner 

"
_Charles B. White is an attorney with Petros & White in Denver, a member of the Colorado Water Congress. White represents several riparian landowners and holders of water rights who have participated in debate on HB 1188."_


----------



## outbackjack

Barney White, Lawyer who fought tooth and nail against HB-1188, Represented The crystle creek homeowners and the Taylor river ranch( cockrell property) both on the Taylor. Member of water congress, may even sit on board. The Denver post has never printed anything I have written from down here, someone around the Denver area needs to call him out on this in the paper, stop the false propaganda now, before it gets on a roll. Later


----------



## outbackjack

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/us/17colorado.html?scp=1&sq=rafting&st=cse
NYT article, much better than WSJ,


----------



## matobs

For most private boaters there was not much of problem with current status of floating. Unfortunately, I have feeling this whole thing could backfire in a big way. If it goes to the voters, I have no doubt that boaters are too much of fringe group to carry the day in a state-wide election. Most Coloradans will support private property rights over a "right to float." I hope I'm wrong, but making state-wide policy based on a few isolated and overblown incidents is never a good idea. I hope this doesn't end as bad as I think it might and I wish well enough was just left alone.


----------



## Outlaw

Even though it's a better article, the article still fails to mention why someone might need to "trespass" on someone's land. I'm know that I'm preaching to the choir, but entire reason why someone would need to walk through priveate land would be that a potential hazard exists down stream. Even though I'd like to be able to scout, I'm not sure that scouting on someone's land would be approved by Colorado voters. At the least it would be nice if these articles addressed the fact that landowners are placing obsticles like low bridges and fences in the the river to make floating through their land hazardous if not impossible. Seems rather one-sided when people's lives are at stake.


----------



## outbackjack

matobs said:


> For most private boaters there was not much of problem with current status of floating. Unfortunately, I have feeling this whole thing could backfire in a big way. If it goes to the voters, I have no doubt that boaters are too much of fringe group to carry the day in a state-wide election. Most Coloradans will support private property rights over a "right to float." I hope I'm wrong, but making state-wide policy based on a few isolated and overblown incidents is never a good idea. I hope this doesn't end as bad as I think it might and I wish well enough was just left alone.


 
Mabe you should go to the CROA website and look at the letter shaw wrote to a local outfitter. He states that there will be NO boating through his property period. If the local outfitters had backed off it would have set a precident that would affect all boating in the State. Well enough has never been well enough when the potential for one man to shut off access to rivers we have been running for many years exists. Do you really think the average Coloradian will let out of state developers TAKE away their right to go to the mountains and raft and fish?? This state needs a policy, and I for one am glad we are finally going to get one.


----------



## robanna

Yes. I really think the average Coloradian will not be informed enough to make the right decision. The infomation that the average Coloradian will get will be from constant tv advertisements that only a billionary Texas shmuck could produce. Elections are won be mainstream media and boaters could never compete. Once again money will rule.


----------



## outbackjack

robnna, you may be correct, I wonder what the tv adds would be?? The average Coloradian will never be able to afford this private river property, how do you convince them that that is ok, we own it and you stay off?? This matter will have to be tested in the courts, hopefully Federal, but a Ballot initiative, whether won or lost, will push it there that much quicker. Let the money rule, for a little while, we are on the right side and it may take a while but we will win!!!


----------



## Theophilus

We don't NEED to step on land if they'll keep their fences out of the rivers and they know that. The landowners CREATE the problem.


----------



## robanna

I'm sure the ads will hardly touch on the river and only focus on something like "we don't want to make it legal to trespass" and the whole picnicing and trashing of your property that these trespassers will do. They'll spin it to be offensive to anyone who owns property.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

robanna said:


> I'm sure the ads will hardly touch on the river and only focus on something like "we don't want to make it legal to trespass" and the whole picnicing and trashing of your property that these trespassers will do. They'll spin it to be offensive to anyone who owns property.


I agree. So far everything that has been said or written by the opposition groups has focused on abstract arguments dealing mostly with non issues. They seem to always leave out the little details such as the fact that most of the portage situations involve man made obstacles such as irrigation dams and fences.


----------



## matobs

outbackjack said:


> 4This state needs a policy, and I for one am glad we are finally going to get one.


Yes this State is going to get a policy, but I think it will be far worse than the current situation. So what if one developer blocks access to one river? Colorado is a big State . We could at least try to work with him overtime to get a solution. Once a law is on the books, it's not going anywhere and it will affect all river property everywhere. Statewide policy made on isolated incidents is never a good idea, as it will invariably try to cure that one problem, but will apply across the whole State. Colorado has had an unspoken and fragile truce on this issue for many years. A few egos are breaking that truce, and (my prediction) the boating community will be worse off because of it. Again, I hope I'm wrong, but Robanna is 100% right about how this issue will be framed in a state-wide election. Anyone who thinks there will be thoughtful intelligent debate about the real issues forgets that this State helped elect George W Bush .. ... twice.


----------



## outbackjack

matobs, I understand your worry, however one river in a big state is just the beginning. Almost every run in the state goes through private property. What makes you think other landowners wont jump at the chance to keep boaters out or "their" river? Remember, sooner or later the Federal Law will have to come into play, all rivers belong to all the people.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

matobs said:


> Yes this State is going to get a policy, but I think it will be far worse than the current situation. So what if one developer blocks access to one river? Colorado is a big State . We could at least try to work with him overtime to get a solution. Once a law is on the books, it's not going anywhere and it will affect all river property everywhere. Statewide policy made on isolated incidents is never a good idea, as it will invariably try to cure that one problem, but will apply across the whole State. Colorado has had an unspoken and fragile truce on this issue for many years. A few egos are breaking that truce, and (my prediction) the boating community will be worse off because of it. Again, I hope I'm wrong, but Robanna is 100% right about how this issue will be framed in a state-wide election. Anyone who thinks there will be thoughtful intelligent debate about the real issues forgets that this State helped elect George W Bush .. ... twice.


Isolated incidents??? While it's true that the attention of late has to do mostly with one landowner on one river, this is far from isolated. These issues keep popping up every few years, and it's the same scenario each time just a different landowner on a different river. I have a feeling we will see the issue pop up on a few other rivers this summer as other landowners, emboldened by Shaw's actions decide to jump on the bandwagon.


----------



## cracksmeup

*you guy's are f*#cked!*

Your state is more backwards ass then mine. Even Wyoming has got their sh*t together!


----------



## gyrogyrl

*Boater Ballot Titles before Title Board Today 4/21*

The boater bill titles (pro and anti) are on the schedule for today's title board hearing. The agenda is huge - boater titles start at #22 on the agenda. The meeting may go into the evening and /or continue tomorrow at the Secretary of State's offices. You can listen online through their website; link to today's agenda below.

http://www.elections.colorado.gov/C...2009-2010_Filings/Agendas/Agenda 04-21-10.pdf


----------



## robanna

AUDIO BROADCASTS AND RECORDINGS ARE NOW AVAILABLE. PLEASE VISIT WWW.SOS.STATE.CO.US UNDER THE
“GET CONNECTED” HEADING.
Secretary of State’s Blue Spruce Conference Room

They are on #12 right now. Boater stuff starts at #22.


----------



## gyrogyrl

*1188 goes to conference committee*

Today they voted to go to conference committee on 1188, and to go "beyond the scope" of the House & Senate versions of the bill, which means they can add new ideas, amendments, language. This essentially keeps the bill alive and open to finding solutions to move forward.

No schedule yet on the conference commitee, but sine die for the legislative session is May 12th. I'll post an update on conference committee members and schedule when I have it.


----------



## CoRealEstate

from the Colorado Association of Realtors

“Right-to-Float Debate Reemerges
In a surprising move this afternoon, HB 1188 sponsor Rep. Kathleen Curry (I-Gunnison) asked the House to reject a Senate amendment that turned the so-called "right-to-float" bill into a study, and instead refer it to conference committee for further debate. The motion passed with 41 votes. Had the House approved Senate amendments, it would have been sent directly to the Governor's office. There is no word yet on which members will be assigned to the conference committee. 

HB 1188 seeks to clarify the navigation rights of white water rafters when traversing private properties and would have expanded the traditional use of these waterways by commercial rafting companies. The peaceful use and enjoyment of one's own property, and control of access, are fundamental to private property rights. CAR expressed heavy concerns to lawmakers that the bill would infringe upon such rights without just compensation and was pleased that the bill was modified into a study last month. We will continue to keep you apprised of any new developments.”


----------



## Luce

*ok*

so lets stand behind what we want as boaters and create a coherent message to share with non boaters, so when it comes time to vote or communicate with our reps we act with a coherent communal voice. if we give up to much because we're afraid of loosing we will not have any thing to give away in a compromise. we will have lost before any one shows for a fight.


----------



## bldrmorgan

Is there any word on the outcome of this -

_Mark Schumacher, owner of Three Rivers Tours, representatives from Scenic River Tours and the Colorado River Outfitters’ Association, along with attorney Lori Potter, will sit down with developer Lewis Shaw and his lawyers Thursday, April 22 to make another attempt finding that common ground, with the help of the Judicial Arbiter Group Inc., a team of retired trial and appellate court judges who mediate such disputes._

HB 10-1188 (Clarify River Outfitter Navigation Right): Rafting companies and developer agree to try mediation at the behest of Governor Ritter « Coyote Gulch


----------



## riot

I dont think there was any outcome. It is impossible to sit down and come to an agreement when no one understands what rights we all have. Gov. Ritter does not seem to understand this. What we need is clarification on what the law is, If you want to help call the Gov. and tell him this.
Gov. Ritters office- 303-866-2471


----------



## riot

Also call or email Brandon Shaffer and tell him not to bury this bill in a "study", but help solve this issue. The more calls and emails the better. Let the government know how you feel!
Brandon Shaffer Senate president 303-866-5291
[email protected]


----------



## bldrmorgan

Riot- I appreciate your thoughts. I've been fairly active with this (emailing, sitting in 8 hour senate sessions, etc..) And plan to continue. My main reason for the question was for my research paper I'm typing up. Just trying to get 10 pages of material together, every bit helps.


----------



## riot

Ya i have been in the long senate and house sessions as well. Every session with Mr. Shaw goes nowhere, he trys to act like he will meet half way, but will not budge very much. Plus this is far beyond Shaw and us Gunnison outfitters at this point. Hard to sit down with the Gov.s medateor when the law is so gray as it always has been. We feel we have certain rights, the landowners feel they have certain rights. HB 1188 would let us all know what the law and our rights are. Keep the emails and phone calls going!


----------



## zboda

From Kathleen Curry's Legislative e-Newsletter:

"*HB 1188 - Float Bill
*Yesterday the House approved my motion to move HB1188 to conference committee on a vote of 41-21. I greatly appreciate my colleague's support for the motion, because I would like to continue to work on a legislative solution to the conflict that has arisen between the landowner community and the commercial rafting interests. 

Each chamber is required to appoint three members to the conference committee, consisting of two from the majority party and one from the minority party in each chamber. The House conferees are me, Christine Scanlon from Summit County, and Jerry Sonnenberg from Sterling. The Senate has not yet taken action regarding the appointment of conferees.

If the Senate does take action to appoint the conferees, I will schedule a meeting of the conference committee to discuss options for improving the bill as it came out of the House. I believe that the fundamental differences between the proponents and the opponents of the bill can be characterized as follows: The floating community believes that the water belongs to the public and that they have a right to float through private property. The opponents believe that landowner consent is required to pass through their private property.

I frankly don't believe that putting off the debate by studying it will ever truly reconcile these deeply held, contradictory points of view. This is one of those issues that seems to have broken down into a winner takes all conversation. I don't think it has to be that way - some amount of floating with limitations is the path I have been trying to pursue from the beginning. If we find ourselves unable to reach resolution on this issue legislatively, I know the debate will continue as both parties pursue support for their respective ballot initiatives."


----------



## riot

take a look at the fedral law. its black and white. no grey area like our state law.


----------



## gyrogyrl

*Conference Committee Appointments on 1188*

Best available info is that Senate President Brandon Shaffer is probably not going to select Senate conferees for 1188 that are supportive of finding a reasonable solution to moving the bill forward, but are pro-Senate version of sending 1188 to the Water Congress to kill it.

Not sure how effective calls to him would be; it might just piss him off, but at this point it seems like there's little to lose.

Talking points:

- Colorado needs clarification on this issue - its a problem not limited to the Taylor, and its not going to go away.

- HB10-1188, through the conference committee, is the best way to achieve this. Hammering out a good bill in conference committee is more likely to achieve good policy and various competing ballot measures.

- Shaffer needs to commit to conference committee appointments that are willing to work on finding solutions to the issue, and not duck the issue (by sending it to the Water Congress) or kill it outright (forcing use of ballot measures).

Senate President Brandon Shaffer
303.866.5291
[email protected]


----------



## zboda

From Kathleen Curry's Legislative e-Newsletter:

*Commercial Rafting HB1188*
A week ago last Friday, the House voted 41 to 21 to send the bill to conference committee. The Joint Rules of the Colorado General Assembly require the Senate to appoint three conferees. The Senate has chosen not to follow the legislative rules and instead sit on the bill, oh maybe until the legislature adjourns... 

It is pretty obvious who won this battle. There will be no legislative "solution" to this issue this year. And, there are 24 ballot questions sitting in the background that would be winner take all approaches to this issue. And, there are over 150 licensed commercial outfitters operating in the state of Colorado.

So, what next? I am thinking about coordinating a discussion this summer on the issue. I don't want to waste people's time though if we are going to just end up with the same stalemate we have now (see last week's post). There seems to be such a deep-set difference of opinion that I am convinced that all of the options out there would have significant opposition from one or both sides. 

So, for anyone reading this, I would like to know what you think at this point. Should we just fight it out at the ballot box this fall? Should we not do anything and hope that the conflicts between landowners and boaters will go away? Should I get people on both sides of this issue together over the summer and try to identify a better way? I learned this year that when you put the opposing sides on this issue together in one room, there is no agreement on how to move forward. A discussion this summer will require professional mediation in my view.


----------



## Cutch

zboda said:


> From Kathleen Curry's Legislative e-Newsletter:
> 
> *Commercial Rafting HB1188*
> A week ago last Friday, the House voted 41 to 21 to send the bill to conference committee. The Joint Rules of the Colorado General Assembly require the Senate to appoint three conferees. The Senate has chosen not to follow the legislative rules and instead sit on the bill, oh maybe until the legislature adjourns...


Can you explain this a bit more? Like, why/how the Senate can just ignore the rules?


----------



## gyrogyrl

@Kyle. The first rule is . . . there are no rules. Well, actually, there are tons and tons of rules, which pretty much allow folks in power (in this case, the Senate President) to get the outcomes they want. 

One common tactic in the legislature is to postpone indefinitely (votes on bills are "PIed", or schedule a vote for after sine die (last day of session) so that it can't possibly be voted on, essentially killing it. 

Not appointing the Senate conferees is about the same as appointing them at this point, since it is pretty clear the Senate appointments would be hostile to the House version of the bill.

Sometimes bills aren't really, really absolutely dead - bills can be resuscitated, but in this case, there aren't the votes or the momentum to get the bill moving again. 

Sine die is May 12th, and usually the legislature gets out at least a day early; although 1188 has made a big splash locally and nationally, the legislators are also wrestling with some remaining big issues in the last 8 days.


----------



## Theophilus

Sen Gail Schwartz on HB1188 “it’s hard for me to take a position because I don’t know what the outcome will be,” said Schwartz.

WTF?? 

Sen. Schwartz discusses good news, bad news at meeting | Aspen Daily News Online


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

Theophilus said:


> Sen Gail Schwartz on HB1188 “it’s hard for me to take a position because I don’t know what the outcome will be,” said Schwartz.
> 
> WTF??
> 
> Sen. Schwartz discusses good news, bad news at meeting | Aspen Daily News Online



WOW!!! That woman is the epitome of spineless.


----------



## robanna

> Originally Posted by *Theophilus*
> Sen Gail Schwartz on HB1188 “it’s hard for me to take a position because I don’t know what the outcome will be,” said Schwartz.


That's the idea...YOU WERE ELECTED TO DECIDE THE OUTCOME BASED ON YOUR POSITION!

Isn't there a way to get the Governor involved (not sure what that would do). 

A sit-down has proven to be a worthless endeavor (see: Unstoppable V Immovable).


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

robanna said:


> That's the idea...YOU WERE ELECTED TO DECIDE THE OUTCOME BASED ON YOUR POSITION!
> 
> Isn't there a way to get the Governor involved (not sure what that would do).
> 
> A sit-down has proven to be a worthless endeavor (see: Unstoppable V Immovable).


There is a way the governor can get involved - he could refer specific questions of law to the State Supreme Court for a ruling of law as to the scope of the right to float as provided by the State Constitution. There are a lot of educated folks pushing for that, but their requests are falling on deaf ears. 

In the televised roundtable on PBS a few weeks back, Prof. Mark Squillace from CU law school suggested just that, and the folks on the other side of the table bristled at the suggestion. It's doubtful that the governor would refer the question unless both sides agreed to it, and we know that ain't gonna happen in this lifetime.


----------



## gyrogyrl

*Along Came a Texan ... Stealing Rivers in Colorado (opinion piece)*

Posted on CounterPunch by Phillip Doe

Phillip Doe: Stealing Rivers in Colorado


----------



## mvhyde

*The issue isn't about Texans or Texas, it's about rights and the right to float*

The issue is about rights, not where someone is from. So those morons out there using that as the freface for their debate should really stop it. It makes you sound a little backwards and uneducated.

I live in Texas. Am I a Texan, no. I'm from Colorado. There is a mentality across the entire USA by property owners that they own everything in their little defined plot of land, including the waterways that may flow through it.

I am sure some of you remember the moron that lived along the South Fork of the South Platte right before the confluence at the mouth of Waterton Canyon. Remermber his antics with a shotgun and threatening kayakers, because "he owned" that part of the river. How about the folks at the Sportsman's Paradise Club? A big pack of jerks to put it mildly.

On the flipside, I can understand some of their concerns when it comes to commercial operations on the waterways. There are bad apples out there who make all of us, be it commercial or private, look bad. It only takes one incident to ruin an image.

The stalling of this bill by any politician is of great concern. This issues needs to be legislated and dealt with, not stalled and delayed. Vote out the bastards who won't effectively resolve it.

Better yet, make it a ballot initiative, let the people of the state decide it. I think you might be surprised how many people in Colorado will support the right to float, for anyone.

Here in Texas, the same issues exist as in Colorado. But, they have settled most of these issues by codifying through law and rules. There are a couple rivers here where the landowners have riparian rights, meaning they own the land under the water in the river. They don't own the water flowing through it. 

In Texas, you can portage, tresspass if you determine that you must in order to preserve life and limb, and float through it. You will still get irrate landowners with guns and calling the cops, but legally, they have no case. You can let them bully you or not. I prefer not to be bullied.

It all comes back to getting it codified into law. Depending on politicians doing it will get you nowhere fast.

Lastly, the days of Colorado being just for Coloradoans is way over. Get over it, get used to having tourists, they pay the bills in most of the small mountain towns. Many of you would not have jobs if it were not for tourists.


----------



## robanna

But the issue is currently intertwine with *A* Texan. I don't think anyone said it was about *Texans* as a whole, just this one in particular.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

If there is one common thread to these issues it's that the landowner trying to close a river is almost always from somewhere else, this time it happens to be Texas, last time it was Conneticut, time before that, Massachusets.


----------



## mr. compassionate

How many signatures are required to get something on the state ballot? I believe it's high time for this option.


----------



## robanna

Four pro right-to-float ballot initiatives are in the works. 20 on the other side.


----------



## outbackjack

It take 70,000 to get on the ballot. All have to be registered voters in Co. Figure about 100,000 to make sure we have 70,000. Word is it will take abour $3 mil to run a successful ballot initiative. One Texan is running our legistlature right now. HB-1188 is going to conference committee on Mon. at 1:30 pm in HCR 109. Senator Hodge, Rep. Currey, and 4 other hand picked opposers of the bill. Sen Hodge let me know she does not think anything useful will come out of it, the committee is stacked against us. We are keeping the pressure on locally and the entire state needs to crank it up everywhere as we roll into summer. The opposition is hoping that this will all peter out in a few years and they will have won. Later


----------



## brian a

I didn't see this posted and so attached is the link to the PBS round table on river access laws. Worth a watch.

River Access Laws | Studio 12 | PBS Video


----------



## gyrogyrl

Just a reminder that you can listen to the conference committee discussion on 1188 online by going to www.state.leg.co.us. 

Its the very last three days of legislative session, so the schedule may get changed at the last minute.


----------



## bldrmorgan

I have to say that I agree with Mark Squillace and what he states in the KDBI video, that in order for anything to move forward "smoothly" the law of the constitution needs to be defined clearly. There is too much of a grey area with the current language allowing too much speculation from both sides of what the law is stating. Once the law is clearly readable, the foundation will be set for the state and the people to hash this out. 

I feel that if the supreme court did get involved, the public's rights to the water would benefit much more than the land owning opposition. Thats just my .02 though...


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

bldrmorgan said:


> I have to say that I agree with Mark Squillace and what he states in the KDBI video, that in order for anything to move forward "smoothly" the law of the constitution needs to be defined clearly. There is too much of a grey area with the current language allowing too much speculation from both sides of what the law is stating. Once the law is clearly readable, the foundation will be set for the state and the people to hash this out.
> 
> I feel that if the supreme court did get involved, the public's rights to the water would benefit much more than the land owning opposition. Thats just my .02 though...


The problem is getting there - The legislature has the power to pass a resolution asking for an interpretation of law, and we know that's about as likely to happen as a snow day in hell. The governor has that option at his disposal as well, but doing so would likely spell the end of his little guest pass gravy train at the Wigwam Club (where, by the way, he's affectionetly known as the 'charity case' by the members). Last, there's the good ol fashioned route, through district court, appeals court, and then to the supreme court. The last option is the only one currently on the table, and that'll probably take 5 years or more and cost a pile of cash.


----------



## bldrmorgan

Slave- I agree with what you said above as well. I def stand by my statement above, but I don't plan on seeing it happen anytime soon. 

I just don't see a concrete resolution until it gets to the Colorado Supreme Court. And whatever happens to this bill, it will go to the courts sooner or later... (again)


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

My prediction is that someone will bring an action is District court, get a ruling in their favor and the landowners will see the writing on the wall and decide to either back off and let the attention die down, or run to the legislature and try to get a bill of their own passed. I highly doubt that they'd be in favor of a case winding it's way up to the supreme court given the unpredictable nature of the appeals court and the supreme court. 

Just a prediction...


----------



## gyrogyrl

*1188 Conference Committee just moved to 8:30 am Tuesday*

Last minute schedule change - conference committee on HB-1188 now scheduled to meet at 8:30 am on Tuesday, May 11.

Will let you know if I hear if it changes again.


----------



## robanna

Let me guess; it got rescheduled, to, um, Thursday?


----------



## gyrogyrl

@robanna Since tomorrow is sine die they will probably just not bother rescheduling 1188 and let it die on the calender.

For those who didn't hear, the hearing on 1188 was cancelled again this morning.


----------



## Down River Equipment

Dede, thanks for keeping us in the loop. Just out of curiosity, who creates the schedules and decides which Bills get heard? Are other Bills taking longer than they expected or has this Bill just lost some of its luster?


----------



## J Rock

Committee schedules are created and set by the committee chair(s). Leadership (Speaker of the House or the Senate President, depending on the chamber) can greatly influence the committee chair's decision, though. If there is a will to get the bill through (look at SB 191 on Teacher Tenure this year) then leadership ensures it high placement on schedules so as to not die on the calendar when the session ends. If there isn't a will to get the bill through, it will die on the calendar. Dying on the calendar is not necessarily bad. I would rather see a bill die on the calendar (and bring it back in future years) than to see it killed by committee or floor vote (and try and bring it back in the future.)


----------



## robanna

J Rock said:


> I would rather see a bill die on the calendar (and bring it back in future years) than to see it killed by committee or floor vote (and try and bring it back in the future.)


Or see it go to the Colorado Water Congress...


----------



## gyrogyrl

@downriverrequipment:

Generally leadership (Senate Prez, House Speaker) set the calendar on this sort of thing (Committee Chairs also where they have jurisdiction over their committee; Bill sponsors can request certain scheduling - but so can opponents). 

Everything is always a frenetic shitstorm at the end of session - which by law will end Wednesday at midnight, sine die. There are always things that don't get calendared/heard, either because they are not a priority or because someone wants them dead. 

Its not so much that HB 1188 has lost its luster, as that, from all available information, the Senate Prez does not want to force vulnerable Senate Dems to have to vote on this. The "send it to the water congress" strategy seems designed so those vulnerable Dems could vote "for" a "reasonable compromise" on 1188 (and not be targeted as anti-boater or anti-fisher) but not anger wealthy landowners - who have money to contribute to election campaigns.

To be fair, Ds & Rs do this kind of thing all the friggin time in the legislature. Its not all that unusual; its just that most folks in the river community aren't so tuned in to the vicissitudes of lawmaking and the state legislature. Hence, the sausage-making analogy.


----------



## gyrogyrl

*Landowner allows permits on Taylor this summer*

Colorado Public Radio reporting this afternoon that the landowner on the Taylor has agreed to 2 permits for commercial raft companies for this summer.


----------



## outbackjack

Neither of the rafting companies were informed prior to the press release that they would be "allowed" to float through shaws property. This was a very good ploy to gather public support, however , there is no mention of the Public boater. I am pretty sure we will see something to the effect that Public boaters are fine, we have no intention of doing anything to you, we just want to cut down on the masses created by the outfitters. Wait until they get a load of US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

It took me all of about 4 seconds to figure out what he's up to (once I finished laughing)

Any legal avenue available to the rafting co's depends upon the existence of some sort of conflict. If Shaw can offer up the olive branch and get them to take hold, the conflict no longer exists, nor do the legal remedies. As well, legal concepts such as adverse posession, prescriptive easements, and quiet title all depend upon an "open, notorious, and adverse use" over a period of years. If at any point during that period permission were sought and granted, the use no longer qualifies as "open, notorious, and adverse."

If I were any dumber I coulda been a land developer (or his attorney)


----------



## outbackjack

Just spoke to a Rancher buddy of mine, he doesnt agree with the opposition to former bill HB=1188. He told me that there was a private meeting tonight with the local County commissioners and county Sherriffs including all the landowners on the Taylor and interested ranchers to find out what the Law was going to do about the private boaters floating through their property on the Taylor river this summer. shaws laywer lock was there, as well as cockrell and his lawyer barney white, who also represents crystle creek homeowners, aparently barney has been following the Buzz and has informed his clients that they are in trouble. Hi Barney!! The land owners are scared, as well they should be. They are comparing us to the Hells Angels!! The Sherriff informed them that it was not illegal to float the river, and they would not be ticketing anyone who floats through private property, imagine that!!! I wonder why shaw was not at the meeting? He just sent his lawyers in. Cant wait for the river season to kick in...


----------



## Andy H.

*Any protest floats need to be peaceful, polite, and coordinated with CW/AW*

(cross post from other thread on Shaw's announcement)

One thing for us all to be aware of is that anything we say or do that's the least bit offensive may be caught on tape and used in advertisements come referrendum time. This is a good year to be respectful to all we see on the river, and retire the custom of showing the Amtrak the "full moon over the waters." 

We've seen from stuff like Mitchell's commentary that the truth isn't important to some of these folks. We need to remember that alot of landowners who have been sympathetic to floaters in the past have been getting propaganda from the likes of Shaw & Co about how a Right to Float success will be the end of their way of life and that they won't be able to stop rafters from rustling their cattle and kayakers from raiding their refrigerators. We'll be hearing some outrageous stuff and no one needs to inflame the situation with flipping off landowners or giving them an earful. 

Any kind of protest floats need to be peaceful, polite, and coordinated with CW/AW. Being abrasive is not going to persuade landowners or more importantly the general public to support our cause. We need to show them that we're not the heathen rabble Shaw's folks will portray us as.

-AH


----------



## robanna

Can someone post detailed beta on this run?
Put-in at Upper Upper Taylor Take-out and Take-out at Lower Taylor Put-in?

Thinking about a run during FIBArk.


----------



## robanna

Maybe we could get it added to eddyflower (I didn't see it there)?

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&sou...86001&sspn=0.033269,0.055189&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=14


----------



## outbackjack

Any kind of protest floats need to be peaceful, polite, and coordinated with CW/AW. Being abrasive is not going to persuade landowners or more importantly the general public to support our cause. We need to show them that we're not the heathen rabble Shaw's folks will portray us as.



You are 100% right Andy, all floats this summer on the Taylor must be respectful. As far as coordinating with CW and AW, I guess that method needs to be explained. living here in the valley, many of us plan to float after work or whenever we can. I would love for someone to step up and take the lead on a coordinated front....


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

I would think some kind of protest float on independence day would be appropriate. Sir Lewis wants to rule like a king, let's treat him like one.

You getting that, Barney? You've poked the bear and it's too late to run away.


----------



## CoRealEstate

*Colorado Association of Realtors take on HB 1188*

*Right-to-Float Bill fails to emerge from Conference Committee*

The legislative debate on HB 1188 by Rep. Kathleen Curry (I-Gunnison) finally came to an end on Wednesday. As previously reported, the "right-to-float" bill – which sought to expand the traditional use of waterways by commercial rafters – was effectively nullified when the Senate amended it into a study last month. Weeks later, Rep. Curry asked the House to reject the amendment, and the bill was referred to a conference committee for further debate.

The last-minute effort proved to be unsuccessful as the committee was unable to reach a compromise. HB 1188 died on the calendar when the legislature came to a close. CAR opposed the bill over concerns with regard to the imposition of private property rights without just compensation.


----------



## Andy H.

outbackjack said:


> As far as coordinating with CW and AW, I guess that method needs to be explained. living here in the valley, many of us plan to float after work or whenever we can. I would love for someone to step up and take the lead on a coordinated front....


I guess I need to clarify - There's been talk about doing some kind of protest float past the Shaw development. If this happens it should be with backing of CW and/or AW (possibly with CROA?) or not at all. If they say no protest float, then no protest float. If its your home river, do what you normally do and be wary about touching banks or riverbed.

That said, any boating on Colorado rivers this year should be peaceful and polite, respectful to landowners. We need to bear in mind that rude behavior may be caught on tape and used against us in anti- Right to Float referendum campaigns this fall. As well as remembering that when encountering fishermen on the bank the best thing is a nod and wave, and give them a wide berth. They come out for quiet and want to concentrate on fish, not chat with every floater passing by.

-AH


----------



## outbackjack

robanna said:


> Can someone post detailed beta on this run?
> Put-in at Upper Upper Taylor Take-out and Take-out at Lower Taylor Put-in?
> 
> Thinking about a run during FIBArk.


 
Hey robanna, this particular section of the taylor, considered the middle Taylor, is accessed at the Forest Service put-in at South Bank and the take out is at the Forest Service take-out at five mile bridge. basically it is between the two bridges. It is considered a class 2 run, however because of the fish habitat improvements the landowners have made this section contains some of the largest drops on the river. It is also the only section that gets away from the road. adding this section to a upper-Taylor run is a great way to experience everything the Taylor has to offer. Thanks


----------



## robanna

outbackjack
Perfect, Thanks!


----------



## riot

just ran the middle taylor through "shaws river" didnt see anyone on his section but sawseverel people through harmels. little bony in places but plenty of water for kayaks.
also there are a few trees down right above the take-out, they are on public land and easy to get out above them and walk to your car. might be a problem for rafts when the water comes up.


----------



## gyrogyrl

*Gov. Ritter hopes rafting rift can be mended without ballot initiatives*

Creekside Coalition retained SE2 - one of the best campaign strategy, PR, marketing firms in Colorado....

Gov. Ritter hopes rafting rift can be mended without ballot initiatives - The Denver Post


----------



## TakemetotheRiver

"If the rafters pull their ballot initiative, this issue will go away," Anderson said.

Why does that sound like a threat to me? Like if the initiative doesn't get pulled they might start breakin' somebody's legs...

It also sounds like they don't necessarily believe they will win at the ballot box.


----------



## gyrogyrl

@takemetotheriver I think it more means that 1) they will pull theirs if we pull ours, and 2) they don't want to spend the enormous amount of money it would take to run a campaign.


----------



## TakemetotheRiver

gyrogyrl said:


> @takemetotheriver I think it more means that 1) they will pull theirs if we pull ours, and 2) they don't want to spend the enormous amount of money it would take to run a campaign.


I was being a little facetious- I get that they are offering to pull their initiatives if we do- but the way that line comes across it sounds a little like- "pull your ballot initiatives and nobody gets hurt, ya see." (in cheesy 20's mobster voice)

They are willing to spend as much as it takes according to Shaw to win this, but they don't want to throw money at a campaign to win it? I don't know- sounds like they don't like the odds.


----------



## jgrebe

I personally don't want the issue to go away short of a ballot initative. Developers have been encroaching, little by little for years. They do what they think they can get away with without the public raising hell and create their little private fortresses so they have private acess to the Citizens of Colorado's water and fish . Of course they profit handsomly from this private acess to public property. This will continue and grow until we put a stop to it. The issue has been undecided for many years. Time to decide it once and for all. Hopefully we can educate the general public and win at the ballot box


----------



## brian a

I've been reading intently this topic as have many of you since day one. Thanks to all who have committed so much time to make sure we all had a voice. It has just been awesome to watch. 

After having watched the PBS hourly show, I'm convinced this will ultimately go to the courts. I'm not at all afraid of the legal system. It's not perfect, but it aims to be the ultimate level playing field where lobbying has little.... ok less influence.

It is my belief that we couldn't have drawn a better card for what WILL be an election battle, side agreements be damned. Think about it, the poster boy for the landowners isn't some 3rd generation rancher who is respected in the community but rather a wealthy developer from Texas of all places who has effectively kicked down the door and declared a new way of doing business. I swear for Coloradans, this might as well be a ballot measures against the Antichrist. 

This is a debate on who owns a river. It's bigger than boating. The lobbying team for Mr. Shaw has a very, very difficult task of convincing all of the non-priviledged that the rivers and streams are not theirs. I don't see it selling too well, as it's just not the election year to be the "establishment". They know this. 

Education is the best medicine. Let's keep working to make folks outside of the boating community aware of what's at stake.In the meantime, let's go boat with care like we always do. Best not to cause a stir in my opinion.


----------



## outbackjack

Here is a letter the Gunnison County Sheriff put in this weeks Gunnison paper. I hope it will open. HB-1188 is dead, but this issue is not. I realize this forum has been quiet for a while, but please realize that the issue is not over. The Taylor is running good and anyone who would like to check it out get in touch with me. Floated the upper and middle yesterday, good level. Fishing should be real good here in a week or so. Later


----------



## Andy H.

This is great to see. This affirms the Sheriff's adherence to the current status quo in Colorado as we have understood it, and goes on to state that incidental contact with the bed or banks as needed to continue travel will not be prosecuted. In addition the Sheriff lumps intentional obstruction of a waterway which can be legally floated in the same paragraph with cutting fences - a strong statement to landowners considering blocking rivers. Floaters lose nothing with Sheriff Murdie's policy and the clear, concise statement of the law on floating across private property can help set the tone for other law enforcement personnel.

One question I have is related to the "fishing on private property" item. Does this mean that if a float fisherman is fly fishing (without touching the bottom) as he passes through a location where the bed is private property, that's illegal? Or is this a reference to the obvious case of trespassing of a fisherman wade fishing and standing on the bank?

-Andy


----------



## outbackjack

From what the Sheriff has said in the past, and not long ago to all of the landowners concerned in a Private meeting, fishing is not illegal. The owners of harmels even asked about people catching their fish and rowing to slow down or stay in eddies, the Sheriff told Roberts that once the fish hit the river they belong to the people, and as long as boaters dont anchor, or park on a rock, they are not breaking the law. I believe that he speaks of harrassing someone doing a legal activity, ie float fishing , would be considered illegal. Also, someone floating who harrasses a fisherman on private property would also be committing a crime. I intend to ask him these questions on Tuesday,since he stated he was willing to speak to any concerned party, and has spoken with me about other river issues. The Sheriff has taken the status quo stand, not illegal to float, dont get out, move on down stream. I still wonder his position on the obstructions, since he has stated we cant portage, but people cant block the river either. later


----------



## gyrogyrl

*CW letter to Gunnison Sheriff*

FYI, letter sent by Colorado Whitewater to Gunnison County Sheriff Murdie.

YouSendIt: Online File Sharing and collaboration with FTP Replacement - Send Large Files and Email Attachments with Managed File Transfer Solution


----------



## slavetotheflyrod

As I read it, the Sheriff's letter leaves me with more questions than answers. The bigger question is what will the DA do if say a trespass case is brought against a boater who portages around a man made obstruction, like a strand of barbed wire? I have a feeling we'll soon find out.


----------



## outbackjack

Hello all, HB-1188 is dead.... New forum, Right to Float... Lets get it going!!!!!


----------



## outbackjack

Yo, all who are watching, new buzz, cameras on taylor, by the way, Ill be fishing the middle tomorrow!!!!!!


----------

