Here's the big picture, and it connects the dots with this problem of access. Folks get upset at me for making it political, but the political side of it creates a clear picture of what is going on. Folks with decent values, many of them are successful folks, and own properties that provide access don't want anything to do with the public in general. They know all the crap that is going on from gun control to legalizing drugs. They will shut the general public out every chance they get. They aren't boisterous about it, they just quietly go about doing it. We have become a very polorized nation. Folks live in gated communities to avoid contact with the general public. I've seen the river access problem everywhere I've lived, and been fishing. Where folks welcomed in the general public they now put up no-tresspassing signs. For one thing there is a good chance they would get named in a lawsuit if something happened to someone on their property. And this problem will continue to grow.

Support? Difine that one. You watch, and what is, is. I watched thousands, upon thousands of acres of public pheasant hunting land vanish in Eastern, WA...whoosh, gone. Either posted, or private clubs leased the land. Same deal with water access. And now, because states are broke, and back to my connecting the dots to economic woas that didn't have to happen, states are selling public lands to gain revenue. More access gone.

By the lack of posts it is easy to see most on this thread don't get it. In the highest population of fish section on the famed North Fork near where I live, 10 years ago you could walk up and down the bank virtually the entire length of that section of the North Fork. Ten years later, all access was lost...all of it. Land posted, barriers put up at the bridges, articles written in the paper regarding the negative effect fishermen have had... Orvis, along with some very wealthy members of a North Fork Group, raised lots of money, and had to BUY ACCESS to the river. Connect the dots.

Here in South Dakota we don't have much for trout streams outside the Black Hills but an issue in the state legislature is they are attempting to restrict access on our lakes. What is at stake is if a lake rises due to snow melt or heavy rain, you can not float your boat over the land that the lake rose over. It would be viewed as trespassing.

Depends on the waterway, and water qualifying as navigatable. In WA St. a land owner that owns on both sides of the river owns the bottom of the river as well on some rivers and you can not put an anchor down. I emailed my brother on this, and he said in UTAH if you put your anchor down you just may find the MAN waiting for you at the takeout. Other rivers it is to the high water mark that you can walk on. But even here that is causing a problem. There have been guns drawn as to where the highwater mark was.

It isn't just in Utah .

Montana Stream Access Goes to Supreme Court Again

Hearing scheduled for April 29th

The Montana Public Land / Water access association (PLWA) has appealed a lower court ruing that limits stream access from bridges on roads with historic prescriptive easements. (A prescriptive easement is one created by continuous public use.) In that ruling , the lower court said that the public does not have the right of recreational access to the Ruby River from the Seyler Lane bridge - a bridge on an agreed upon prescriptive road . (The Ruby is a classic trout stream flowing north near Twin Bridges, Montana.) Essentially, he ruled that the public prescriptive right-of-way for most uses was just for the roadway surface - not the borrow pits or bridge abutments, and that prescriptive use did not include recreational use. PLWA believes that the right-of-way is the full 45 feet and that fishing access is allowed just like any other legal use. Based on legal counsel PLWA is optimistic about chances on appeal.

However, that same case has also prompted a challenge to two existing Montana statutes – the 2009 bridge access law and the Montana stream access law which has been around since 1985. A portion of the challenge is in the form of a “cross appeal” by the associated landowner, James Cox Kennedy, a billionaire media mogul from Atlanta. In that appeal he argues that the stream access law and the law allowing recreational stream access at county road bridges are an unconstitutional “taking” of his property. He further argues that recreational use is not included in public prescriptive road easements. It is clear he will not be happy until Montana stream access laws are gone for good.

Montana is lucky to enjoy the best stream access in the U.S. We cannot stand by and see it eroded by this case or any other case. This is turning out to be a high profile case. Montana Trout Unlimited recognizes this and they have filed a friend-of-the-court amicus brief on the side of PLWA.

A lot is at stake here in the "last best place"