I can see not wanting boaters and fisherpeople coming ashore on your private land but, disallowing the use of an anchor or wading in the middle of the river is rediculous to me. The fact that somebody, other than the public, owns the land beneath a moving body of water just makes me shake my head. That peice of the property is ever changing, so are the more visible parts surrounding the stream or river, but the land beneath it changes almost on a daily basis and can't even be properly assessed. The land owner does not own the water or the fish and boaters and fisherpeople should be able to stop, at least in the current, and use the river without fear of lawsuit.

If we let the rich buy up river property and privatize it, we all lose eventually, in my opinion.

it makes sense... i mean as a landowner i wouldn't want people coming ashore without my permission, but if your on a float raft trip, sometimes it is necessary to push off the bank, or to hit the bottom... it sounds like some landowners are getting too picky, and trying to pick a fight that doesn't need to be fought.

I am a firm believer that if a river system or fishery is managed by the state, or benefits from public funds then access to those rivers should be available to the public.

An example from Ohio would be the rivers in the Northeast part of the state which hold steelhead. Current Ohio law allows access by boat for navigable waters only without touching bank or bottom. Much like Colorado.

IMO this law restricts fishing to less than 1/2 the stocked population of steelhead paid for by public dollars. To make matters worse, many landowners are charging fees or selling leases for access to the fish we fisherman have already paid for.

I like Montanas access law which gives you access from high water line to high water line.

I do believe in give and take so land owners along a stream where the water is managed or stock should be allowed to qualify for CAUV (current agricultural use valuation) and therefore a break in their property tax.

If I was a citizen I'd have to say I'd balk at the commercial part. Why isn't the right of individuals included here?

Be careful of what you wish for.

I am just like the next guy who wants to cast to that 36” plus Rainbow just on the other side of the fence.
But is that fish there because of the fence?

Some of the best public fishing in the state is adjacent to private property.
Most of these areas are stocked and managed by property owners who want to provide a high quality fishing experience.
This is not a cheap proposition.
If the public at large gets full access to float and fish their property then what is their incentive?
Why would they continue to manage their property at a high level only to have a yahoo run his float tube and Powerbait through pulling out fish as he goes.

Colorado has over 6,000 mile of streams, and more than 2,000 lakes and reservoirs and less than 5% is private.
Is 5,700 miles (95%) of stream not enough?

Now let me be the first to say I would be one of the first to run my pontoon on the North Fork of the South Platte though all the private land around Pine. Or drop my boat below Green Mountain Reservoir and run the Lower Blue. Why? Because in a few years that water will be turned into just average fishing.

Everyone that has ever dreamed of catching that 36” plus Rainbow on the other side of fence has never taken the thought to realize that it is only there because of the fence!
Whirling Disease is a very low threat to fish compared to a skilled fisherman.

This is really just an old story of the haves and the have not’s.

anglerscovey, can a person stock a public water in Colorado? Even if it is on private land? Every state I have lived in, it is only allowed to stock fish in private ponds where the fish cannot escape. Even if you protect the trout from other fishermen, nobody can own a wild fish in my opinion.

Colorado's stream access laws appear to be more restrictive than most states. I think most places put the public domain of navigable waterways up to the high water mark, and include the river bed as well (the so-called "Montana laws").

How many other states are as exclusive as Colorado? Wyoming, I think, is similar. What others?

As a outdoorsman of modest means, I'm certainly glad the exclusive laws, which obviously favor the wealthy, are the exception, rather than the rule.

anglerscovey,

so if I put you in front of a cape buffalo behind a big fence - smack dab in the middle of Texas would you think you're in Africa?

This is the fly shop in Colorado Springs and yes I do support most public access issues, but I also understand the value of private access and the value it offers the public. Personally if I could get my dream I would want more fishing access and more catch and release regulations on most of the streams and lakes I fish. But this will never happen because we all SHARE the resource as the public. With any position you have to step back and think of ALL the parties involved and the impacts of poorly thought out decisions.

The same arguments you use are the same arguments that bait fisherman are using. They have rights. Why should there “method” of fishing not be allow in some of the most productive areas in Colorado? Why is only the “Elitist” “Catch and Release” crowd allowed to fish the best water in Colorado? If you really want full public access then why put any restriction on any property in the state?

I help manage a section of stream for the Boy Scouts. We stock the property (with the proper permits) to help give kids a better chance to catch fish and hopefully catch a passion for the outdoors and fishing. You would be shocked at how many bait jars we pick up each year from “the public” sneaking onto the property at night. To be fair we have had several “fly guys” lie to us about getting permission from the Scouts to fish the property. This property only has ¾ of a mile of stream access, but because it is “private” people think it has to be “special” and selfishly scheme to find a way to exploit it for their own selfish gain. SHAME ON YOU! Promoting the right to take fish from kids!!!

We also have set up several days for our local Project Healing Waters organization to take disabled active military service personnel on this private property. Seeing these heroes catch fishing with their disability is simply amazing. But you feel that your rights are violated because you cannot walk below the waterline and take these fishing spots. SHAME ON YOU!

Often these issues get started because some stupid person pulled his boat out of the water and had lunch leaving all his trash behind. The landowner gets frustrated with picking up trash and finally says enough is enough and then the signs go up. I am not familiar with this particular issue and I hope that the best result is considered. I just get tired of hearing winey users complain about something that they have only their own personal selfish interests in mind.

Before you throw stones consider the glass house you live in.

I have to say that there are parts to angler's covey's comments that make sense. It is not coincidence that some great fishing opportunities exist on private land where low fishing pressures exist - it just make sense that they will develop into great fisheries when they are handled with care! Another point is that (assuming I do win the lottery) when someone buys river front or river containing land in Colorado they pay a huge premium in real estate cost for the private access that comes with Colorado Law. Lots of money comes into our state through real estate sales, home building and direct recreation that happens on private land, and that money will disappear if private rights in land ownership are compromised. Also, nobody is saying that the landowner owns the water or the river or the fish for that matter. They own the LAND(including the land that happens to have water flowing on top of it). Saying that we have the right to chase down fish where ever they choose to swim is silly when you consider other hunting practices. As an example, say you have a rancher(or you and you own back yard!) that owns some land where elk, deer, birds, and other wildlife roam or pass through. If the state game & wildlife divisions invest money in maintaining populations does it give a hunter the right to step onto private property to hunt? Of course not, you have to hunt on public land or where you have permission to hunt on private lands. Not only would granting access to private land(riverbeds) be unwise for the overall health of Colorado fisheries, it would be bad for the economy since income from real estate, building and "private" recreational opportunities vastly outweighs the increases in recreational floating traffic that might come to the state.

I live in a state where public lands and private lands are covered by water ways. I love to fish and and can only do so in the water. I am pleased that a property owner can not stop me from doing what I like to do. I would hope that people who use the water ways will respect all the land. In doing do the water ways will remain open.

Tom
Gunsellers.com
8520 S 1300 E
Sandy Ut 84094
801.486.2727

I'm of the opinion that all waterways should be free public access. There should be a reasonable easement that allows the public to get to them from roads or other public thoroughfares. You should be allowed to walk along the bank of a river and fish or launch or portage a canoe or kayak.

Here is a very interesting video on this issue.

http://vimeo.com/14867210