# "Who Owns the River?"



## buckeyebrewer (Sep 4, 2008)

http://www.flyfishohio.com/who_owns_the_river.htm

This is an interesting read. What do you think it would take to challenge Ohio's current laws regarding who actually owns the riverbeds? The Supreme Court in Utah ruled, 

"_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."_

This could provide some precedent to challenge Ohio's law.

Any thoughts?


----------



## ngski (Aug 16, 2005)

I wish we could take that approach to all water ways, but it's up to the individuals to respect the propriety, pick up after them selves so much prime fishing areas are locked up with the land owners. Look at PA all public areas are soo crowded because of land owners shutting down access to their propriety.

Funny I see a similar sign strung across the river at Elks creek Folleys down.

Also I think it's unfair we pay money to stock these rivers and we can't take part in catching fish in areas that are on private areas.

But I tend to lean towards the land owners side soo many people don't respect the areas, people being rude, and trash being left behind. Until we can respect the land the areas will be kept off limits and we can only ask for permission and hopefully we can help out the land owners police the areas.


----------



## Patricio (Feb 2, 2007)

when I was taking classes to get my captains license, one of the teachers told us that all water is federally owned, from the water in the lake to the water pouring out of your faucet. 

all the western states are starting to challenge these laws. the donny beavers of the world are starting to lose. 

as far as I'm concerned, water and rivers are a natural resource and should be valued as such and not owned my any one particular entity or person.


----------



## steelheader007 (Apr 8, 2004)

I'm working on some things with a few friends who will go nameless that have the power to get something on the ballot! Montana also had a great ruling in the lower court system, and they are awaiting for the supreme court to rule on it! Keep your finger crossed, and I'm glad you like the article that is posted on our webpage! The waters are held in a public trust in Ohio!


----------



## ryosapien (Jul 5, 2008)

great website. Plenty of good articles on there. more fly tying videos and fly box porn please.


----------



## THEsportsMAN (Oct 18, 2005)

Real Estate Law specifies that the landowner's riparian rights extend to the middle of the stream/lake that the land borders, unless they own land on both sides of the stream/lake, then they own the entire area. This has always been a touchy subject because there are so many variables, for example erosion. The way I have always seen it is that if I'm in the water, I have no concern about who owns the surrounding land(although maybe I should). I clean up after myself and as far as I'm concerned, no one would ever know that I was there. I was fishing in Western Maryland earlier this year and came across barbed wire strung across the stream, which actually punctured my waders. Maybe I should take a pair of wire cutters with me next time, as if I need to carry anymore gear in my fishing vest.


----------



## Flyfish Dog (Nov 6, 2007)

THEsportsMAN said:


> Real Estate Law specifies that the landowner's riparian rights extend to the middle of the stream/lake that the land borders, unless they own land on both sides of the stream/lake, then they own the entire area. This has always been a touchy subject because there are so many variables, for example erosion. The way I have always seen it is that if I'm in the water, I have no concern about who owns the surrounding land(although maybe I should). I clean up after myself and as far as I'm concerned, no one would ever know that I was there. I was fishing in Western Maryland earlier this year and came across barbed wire strung across the stream, which actually punctured my waders. Maybe I should take a pair of wire cutters with me next time, as if I need to carry anymore gear in my fishing vest.


Although the urge to cut the wires down after damaging your waders may actually make things worse! I know your feelings but I wouldn't do it. Just be a little more careful and be discreet to get around the barb wire may be better cause this kind of act is usually the case of losing stream rights.


----------



## Liquid Assets (Jul 6, 2008)

First off just let me say I would love more water to fish, BUT, if this is passed what happens to the property value if the owner wants to sell. It will go down. The vast majority of us (fisherman) and the landowners would have no problem coexisisting but as we have seen on other rivers the bad eggs will mess things up for the rest of us. Which is the whole reason we are interested in opening up more river in the first place. I guess I am thinking like I own the land, ask yourself, would you want people on your land, that you paid for, that you worked for, and some of these people are leaving trash, gutted fish, other matter? Just my 2c, not trying to start anything, just bringing up other points.
-Liquid Assets


----------



## buckeyebrewer (Sep 4, 2008)

Liquid Assets said:


> First off just let me say I would love more water to fish, BUT, if this is passed what happens to the property value if the owner wants to sell. It will go down. The vast majority of us (fisherman) and the landowners would have no problem coexisisting but as we have seen on other rivers the bad eggs will mess things up for the rest of us. Which is the whole reason we are interested in opening up more river in the first place. I guess I am thinking like I own the land, ask yourself, would you want people on your land, that you paid for, that you worked for, and some of these people are leaving trash, gutted fish, other matter? Just my 2c, not trying to start anything, just bringing up other points.
> -Liquid Assets



You make some excellent points; however, it really does bring up the question as to who really owns the land underneath the river. I'm not even talking about the banks of river. I just think it's ridiculous to think that anyone can own a river, especially a navigable one. The reality is that you can technically float through private property, but not wade. To me, it just doesnt make sense. People in states like Michigan seem to understand this. I also dont know if the ability to limit access to the stream adjacent to your land would actually affect property value. Are houses on Lake erie, or the ohio river for instance less valuable than a house on the Ashtabula? I'm not sure, but I imagine they are not.


----------



## Patricio (Feb 2, 2007)

for those who think closing off a river has something to do with landowner rights, look at what has happened out west. miles and miles of stream have been shut down as a result of the wealthy moving in(and yes, this is a class issue) and buying up large quantities of land. which is why people are suing, which is why people are angry at TU because they will not take up this issue on a national level. closer to home, this is also happening up in Michigan and its a huge problem.

can they also own land under the lake and deny me sailing on the lake with my boat? at what point does this stop? 

you think people fishing a stream out back will lower the value of your home? that ridiculous.


----------



## buckeyebrewer (Sep 4, 2008)

Patricio said:


> for those who think closing off a river has something to do with landowner rights, look at what has happened out west. miles and miles of stream have been shut down as a result of the wealthy moving in(and yes, this is a class issue) and buying up large quantities of land. which is why people are suing, which is why people are angry at TU because they will not take up this issue on a national level. closer to home, this is also happening up in Michigan and its a huge problem.
> 
> can they also own land under the lake and deny me sailing on the lake with my boat? at what point does this stop?
> 
> you think people fishing a stream out back will lower the value of your home? that ridiculous.


My understanding [from the article] is that Michigan does not allow anyone to "own the river." At any rate Patricio, I totally agree. I wonder what it would take to sue in Ohio? As other states challenge [in the supreme court] these ridiculous laws it should create a precedent for us to do the same.


----------



## fishinfool21 (Jan 8, 2008)

I believe it is the landowners right to determine who has access and who does not. I own land with water and deal with this problem frequently. The reason i think that land should be private is quite simple. Say stranger joe wants to fish i say ok and when hes done who has to pick up after him? ME every year i pick up enough trash, tires, and other junk to fill one of the large roll off dumpsters. I don't see anyone coming up to me and asking if they could help. The laws are fine except that trespassing needs to be a higher fine. Unfortunately there are too many bad people ruining it for the good people which are few and far between 
I am not trying to make anyone mad but if you do not own land like this you just wont understand. The decision must stay with the landowner

On navigable waterways as long as your floating no problem


----------



## ryosapien (Jul 5, 2008)

Is that even legal to put up wire crossing a stream?


----------



## buckeyebrewer (Sep 4, 2008)

fishinfool21 said:


> I believe it is the landowners right to determine who has access and who does not. I own land with water and deal with this problem frequently. The reason i think that land should be private is quite simple. Say stranger joe wants to fish i say ok and when hes done who has to pick up after him? ME every year i pick up enough trash, tires, and other junk to fill one of the large roll off dumpsters. I don't see anyone coming up to me and asking if they could help. The laws are fine except that trespassing needs to be a higher fine. Unfortunately there are too many bad people ruining it for the good people which are few and far between
> I am not trying to make anyone mad but if you do not own land like this you just wont understand. The decision must stay with the landowner
> 
> On navigable waterways as long as your floating no problem


Thanks for sharing your opinion. This is a discussion board and no one should get mad, but I'm sure that many respectfully will disagree. Could you explain the real difference between wading and floating? 

Are you implying that the *fisherman *are bringing tires with them while fishing and leaving them on your land? Is it possible much of the trash comes from upstream dumping and disrespectful people that _are not _fisherman? Most of the trash I see on rivers could never be brought in by wading fisherman. I'm not saying that some yahoos are'nt being disrespectful and leaving some trash, but I'm not sure I believe the resepectful people are "few and far between." I totally agree that limiting access _from _your land is ok, but actually owning the river is another story. If you dont want them to fish from the shoreline fine, but limiting wading through the area is ridiculous. 

Leaving the decision with the landowner will ultimately lead to less access for the rest of us. A navigable river is a *natural resource* that should be owned, shared, and respected by all, but not left in the hands of a small minority to hoard to themselves. And I think your totally right, most of us will not understand because most of us will never and can never afford to own property on a river. I guess we'll eventually just have to fish shoulder to shoulder while the fortunate few enjoy what should be everyone's. Just my 2 cents. 

Good discussion, let's keep it going, and keep it civil.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

ryosapien said:


> Is that even legal to put up wire crossing a stream?


If you're a farmer, you got to do something to keep the cows in.............


----------



## Salmonid (Apr 14, 2004)

Yup, farmer who own both sides of a stream or even a small river are allowed to fence across streams. Until the river is Deeemed of defined as Navigable by Ohio Law, they can do that and its against the law to cut them. 

Right now Ohio law only deems the Ohio River, Lower Muskingum, Lake erie channels and the Little Miami below Loveland I think as "Navigable" this is where the law is really sticky and many folks (several on this board as a matter of fact) are trying to get the "navigable term better defined to hopefully add more public water without hurting the landowners.

Salmonid


----------



## reo (May 22, 2004)

fishinfool21 said:


> Say stranger joe wants to fish i say ok and when hes done who has to pick up after him? ME every year i pick up enough trash, tires, and other junk to fill one of the large roll off dumpsters. I don't see anyone coming up to me and asking if they could help. The laws are fine except that trespassing needs to be a higher fine. Unfortunately there are too many bad people ruining it for the good people which are few and far between
> 
> On navigable waterways as long as your floating no problem


I am in NO way defending slob fishermen who leave their garbage behind, BUT i do not think that "stranger joe" is leaving his old radials behind after fishing. A huge portion of river trash is dumped over the side of the hill or thrown off the bridge by local 'trash'. I have been on river clean up projects and the vast majority of the stuff in the dumpsters, (stoves, car parts, fridges, shopping carts, tires old bikes, ETC) are not stuff left behind by the slobbiest of fishermen. (is 'slobbiest' a word?)

ffool21, I would urge you to contact OCBS and I would bet that they would be there to help you clean up.


----------



## Flyfish Dog (Nov 6, 2007)

Reo you are correct on that I have seen this after coming back the next day to fish. But the problem that irks landowners is the trash left behind like empty discarded bait containers, power bait jars, Lot of fishing lines, pop bottle, beer bottle/cans and stuff they had fed their mouths laying around on their property! Most landowners realizes that those tires, furniture and applainces are dumped off in middle of the night! I usually take a bag with me and pick up what I can if I am on private porperty and let the owner know what I found and this usually will give you future use to fish said property. These trash whores need to be educated for sure but they really don't care so it will always be a big problem! I know who to blame!! So I will continue to look down on them!


----------



## fishinfool21 (Jan 8, 2008)

I understand that most fisherman are not bringing the tires in its just everything else they do bring in. I agree with everyone that it would be nice to be able to fish on any river but liability is just to great especially with todays society where every one just wants to sue sue sue. I think that small clubs getting together and buying portions of rivers and streams would be a great idea and allow for members to have access. just to clear up a point the land we own does not have a river/stream it is a gravel pit. i am just providing my experiences and opinion so people can see the other side of things. Just a couple of weeks ago i found a dead body floating in or lake and could not sleep until they figured out what happened was just so scared of getting a lawsuit. ended up being an accident where he lost control and drove in.

The difference between wading and floating is that when wading you spend more time in one spot. longer your there more likely to leave some kind of trash there. I also believe that float only would help weed out joe the plumber fisherman that leaves his bait container. I think people that float the rivers have more respect for them. 

If i had a quarter for every bait container i picked up i would be a multi millionaire

Thanks for keeping it civil


----------



## rweis (Dec 20, 2005)

I have to disagree with boaters littering less. I can't tell you how many times I have been at Alum, Hoover, Erie, etc. and watched boaters toss crap overboard like the lake was their trash bucket. I have also canoed the Hocking and the LMR and seen day trippers not only toss stuff out of their canoes, but also have seen them trash the places where they stop to picnic.
As much as I want to wade wherever I want, I do understand the owners position. I do wade where I shouldn't sometimes, but I make sure I leave NOTHING behind. So far, so good.


----------



## ngski (Aug 16, 2005)

fishinfool21 said:


> I think that small clubs getting together and buying portions of rivers and streams would be a great idea and allow for members to have access.


That would be a bad idea, we as tax payers donate part of our hard earn money to stock the rivers, and it's a shame we have bad apples leaving trash behind, but once the clubs start buying up propriety we put the cost of fishing waaaay tooo high for the average Joe to teach our kids the proper etiquette of fishing.

Need to find common ground where we can relieve the property owner of any liability and keep the area clean.


----------



## buckeyebrewer (Sep 4, 2008)

ngski said:


> Need to find common ground where we can relieve the property owner of any liability and keep the area clean.


Agreed! Great point.

Here's another question. Does the real reason a lot of property gets posted have to do with trash and such. Or are many of these property owners like the neighbors everyone had growing up who freaked out if you stepped on their grass. I'm not implying anything; I'm just wondering what you guys think.


----------



## fishinfool21 (Jan 8, 2008)

ngski said:


> Need to find common ground where we can relieve the property owner of any liability and keep the area clean.



I agree totally but to get the landowners on board would take alot of convincing. most landowners have been burned at one time or another. I for one have seen people with permission that said one thing do exact opposite when they don't think they are being watched. How would you suggest this be organized and enforced. 

And yes one of my main reasons to not allow anyone is trash no matter how put it there fisherman or not. This year has been a bad year for trash 2 pickup full of bottles bait containers line, birth control  and anything else you can think of. O and 7 empty gas tanks that were next to impossible to get rid of. I know its not just fisherman but the easiest way is to say no to anyone for anything.


----------



## WhoolyBugger (Aug 25, 2008)

Perhaps it could be attacked from the source- LITTERBUGS. There are a lot of good sportsmen out there who pick up trash left by slobs. I would be willing to bet there are more good guys then bad guys on the river. While being impossible to literally prevent or remove all litter , we can report said slobs to the ODNR, who in turn should stiffen up on fines and patrols. I realize that it would take an army to watch all places at once, but I say hammer anyone caught dumping or littering. It's sad that in this day and age of environmental sensitivity, there are still those who don't care.


----------



## 1badmthrfisher (Apr 4, 2005)

I for sure would love to see more water accessible to fisherman. HOWEVER, Think about the people who invested in this land knowing that they were purchasing right to the water. Is it fair , after the purchase, to take away rights that the landowner paid for regardless of the controversy?
I seriously doubt that many people would willingly support all of this free water for all idea if they, themselves, were the land owner of an amazing peice of property.

Real property is viewed considerably differently than personal property and I can see this being a lasting debate.

Also, even if other states rule in favor of no private river ownership, that does not necessarily mean that the case will become common law for other states.


Just food for thought....


----------



## steelheader007 (Apr 8, 2004)

"I think that small clubs getting together and buying portions of rivers and streams would be a great idea and allow for members to have access."

Donnie Beaver is already doing that and you can become a member of his small club for $90,000. He and his guides will allow you to fish for fish that are stocked by the state, and paid for by all!


----------



## buckeyebrewer (Sep 4, 2008)

Touche. Well said.


----------



## ohiotuber (Apr 15, 2004)

steelheader007 said:


> "I think that small clubs getting together and buying portions of rivers and streams would be a great idea and allow for members to have access."
> 
> Donnie Beaver is already doing that and you can become a member of his small club for $90,000. He and his guides will allow you to fish for fish that are stocked by the state, and paid for by all!


THANK YOU!! This is my main gripe with Trout Unlimited & other organizatiions. With so much river property being purchased, WHY aren't these organizations buying land so they can guarantee public access without exorbitant fees? If they are good neighbors, perhaps "sharing" access with another waterfront owner can be negotiated.
As far as littering, we can only "control" ourselves & "communicate" & "set examples" for others. I can't control what the "next guy" DOES, but I sure can set qa positive example & tell them what impact (positive OR negative) their "on water" cleanliness has.
Mike


----------



## Flyfish Dog (Nov 6, 2007)

That is outrageous to use public funds to support they zealots! No way people can get involved with that but some do though. 
Let say if 1 in 2 people would take a plastic bag with you it can be kept cleaned to a point with the exception of large trash which will take more than a few people to clean up. I think this would make an impact and if you see others to asks them that we are trying to keep it clean otherwise we may not be able fish there anymore. I have done this and I think I had change a few people mind that someone really gives a hoot! Eventhough there still will be the ones that has no respect but tell them that they are watching and most likely wont ever be back. I have seen this and it works.
Liability of landowners shouldn't have to be against for the facts that they didn't cause it for others stupidity. Sounds like to me if someone see the hole in front of them and they don't stop but go in the hole. Well, they belong in the hole in the beginwith! Not the landowners that is for sure!
We can all go on and on about this but it really not going to help unless we can get many fisherpersons together and make impact!


----------



## Salmonid (Apr 14, 2004)

OhioTuber, actually TU has bought land and access all over the country, one of the few groups doing so on quality rivers. I might add that in Ohio, the Clear fork chapter hasnt bought any property but does provide the funding for Apple Creek and also maintains a good stewart program along the Clear Fork. Down here on the Mad river, TU is the reason a lot of the access is as good as it is, Over the years TU has paid for at least 8 large treejam removals on 8 different stretches in exchange for continued fishing access and has worked with the farmers Market to allow free access to over 1/2 a mile of stream that was otherwise strictly posted, We also were instrumental in getting a Lifetime fishing easement on 1900 feet of stream downstream from Rt 36 and lastly, trust me, we have been in contact with every landowner along the Mad and in the 18 years I have been involved, only 1 riverfront property has changed hands and we were able to get it ( Watsons/Farmers Market beat) opened up so I feel while we have not purchased any property, we have done our part to help open up as much water as possible to as many folks as possible using all angling methods. 

I think a lot of folks would have a problem with the conservation based rules that any TU properties would contain such as barbless, no live bait, slot limits, and possibly CNR in some instances. Bottom line is when you open up access, every Tom, Dick and arsehole wants to exploit it and strict rules must be enforced and that is where folks have a view that TU is an elitists group when in reality, "doing what is best for the fish and watershed rarely is best for what the majority of anglers want" , we all tend to forget what TU is really about and while gaining access is a priority here in Ohio, that really has nothing to do with conservation views.....Touche'...

Salmonid


----------



## Fishaholic69 (Apr 6, 2007)

steelheader007 said:


> "I think that small clubs getting together and buying portions of rivers and streams would be a great idea and allow for members to have access."
> 
> Donnie Beaver is already doing that and you can become a member of his small club for $90,000. He and his guides will allow you to fish for fish that are stocked by the state, and paid for by all!


HAHA! dude where the heck are we suppose to come up with $90,000 dollars at? it might be chump change to you but I don't think I could make that even in 20 years of working! haha! if you can afford that can you please get me a job where you work?


----------



## ohiotuber (Apr 15, 2004)

Salmonid said:


> OhioTuber, actually TU has bought land and access all over the country, one of the few groups doing so on quality rivers. I might add that in Ohio, the Clear fork chapter hasnt bought any property but does provide the funding for Apple Creek and also maintains a good stewart program along the Clear Fork. Down here on the Mad river, TU is the reason a lot of the access is as good as it is, Over the years TU has paid for at least 8 large treejam removals on 8 different stretches in exchange for continued fishing access and has worked with the farmers Market to allow free access to over 1/2 a mile of stream that was otherwise strictly posted, We also were instrumental in getting a Lifetime fishing easement on 1900 feet of stream downstream from Rt 36 and lastly, trust me, we have been in contact with every landowner along the Mad and in the 18 years I have been involved, only 1 riverfront property has changed hands and we were able to get it ( Watsons/Farmers Market beat) opened up so I feel while we have not purchased any property, we have done our part to help open up as much water as possible to as many folks as possible using all angling methods.
> 
> I think a lot of folks would have a problem with the conservation based rules that any TU properties would contain such as barbless, no live bait, slot limits, and possibly CNR in some instances. Bottom line is when you open up access, every Tom, Dick and arsehole wants to exploit it and strict rules must be enforced and that is where folks have a view that TU is an elitists group when in reality, "doing what is best for the fish and watershed rarely is best for what the majority of anglers want" , we all tend to forget what TU is really about and while gaining access is a priority here in Ohio, that really has nothing to do with conservation views.....Touche'...
> 
> Salmonid


I stand corrected & I know the efforts of TU on Apple Creek as I have helped with stocking & cleanup there. Kudos to them!
I feel very strongly that we need more local groups to attempt to secure access to public waters & to maintain those waters.
Mike


----------



## ryosapien (Jul 5, 2008)

I mountain bike as well a group called camba gets together and helps improve the condition of the trails in ohio. I know there is a group called friends of the crooked river that does like deeds for the hoga. i plan to become part of this group soon. I think working with legislation can help get funding for private projects too.


----------



## ngski (Aug 16, 2005)

I think the main push to open up private water is to continue to have the state approach the land owners, help the land owner manage his properity, provide a way to enforce abuse and provide easement to the properity owner against liability, and provide public parking access points.

We can finance this effort by raising the out of state license to match PA (worse case we can cut down on the PA guys invading our waters because PA rivers are over crowded), and add a steelhead stamp to our license.


----------



## steelheader007 (Apr 8, 2004)

Fishaholic69 said:


> HAHA! dude where the heck are we suppose to come up with $90,000 dollars at? it might be chump change to you but I don't think I could make that even in 20 years of working! haha! if you can afford that can you please get me a job where you work?


Well this is the same guy that has leased lands on conneaut for his guides who make well over 100,000 a year. The lands he has leased to gain access to the creek has cut off fishing to the public in those areas. Allegedly he does not have access in some spots but fishes it any how aka 
willfull-tresspass!


----------



## Fishaholic69 (Apr 6, 2007)

I wanna be a guide now... I want to make money by putting people on fish. just gotta learn how to catch the fish better before I give them my application! lol


----------



## Flyfish Dog (Nov 6, 2007)

I know I can! but I wont since I am having to much catching them myself! 
I also will not let money dictate greed like they are doing now!


----------



## ryosapien (Jul 5, 2008)

yeah i just can't see how being a guide works in ohio the streams are wide open and most spots are well known. Not to mention every time you take someone to one of your spots you are basically saying hey heres where to fish. You would think those spots would be getting more and more crowded unless they just guide out of towners. Do you have to sign a contract not to show people spots when you go out with a guide?


----------



## ngski (Aug 16, 2005)

My dream job, think it's not showing spots, it's about the introduction to the addition, techniques, rigging, how to read water, and about good times.


----------



## buckeye6 (Jun 17, 2005)

ngski said:


> I think the main push to open up private water is to continue to have the state approach the land owners, help the land owner manage his properity, provide a way to enforce abuse and provide easement to the properity owner against liability, and provide public parking access points.
> 
> We can finance this effort by raising the out of state license to match PA (worse case we can cut down on the PA guys invading our waters because PA rivers are over crowded), and add a steelhead stamp to our license.


the odnr will not raise the out of state license,and they are totally against the steelhead stamp.even if they would get the stamp,the state would probably use it for other uses. start sendingthe odnr,and congressmen about the steelhead stamp. its the power of the people.


----------



## Fishaholic69 (Apr 6, 2007)

whats a steelhead stamp on your lisence? at 1st I thought u meant a stamp you put on some mail and then some proceeds from them go to stocking the steelies! lol


----------



## ngski (Aug 16, 2005)

If you ever purchased a PA license they have a trout stamp, a erie trib stamp or a combo stamp they charge extra on top of the out of state license. The proceeds from the stamp goes toward the stocking program in PA. Must have these stamps if you want to chase trout and steelhead. Out of state people spend around $70 bucks to fish the over crowed waters of PA. At least PA uses the proceeds to open some waters this past year.


----------



## steelheader007 (Apr 8, 2004)

fishinfool21 said:


> I believe it is the landowners right to determine who has access and who does not. I own land with water and deal with this problem frequently. The reason i think that land should be private is quite simple. Say stranger joe wants to fish i say ok and when hes done who has to pick up after him? ME every year i pick up enough trash, tires, and other junk to fill one of the large roll off dumpsters. I don't see anyone coming up to me and asking if they could help. The laws are fine except that trespassing needs to be a higher fine. Unfortunately there are too many bad people ruining it for the good people which are few and far between
> I am not trying to make anyone mad but if you do not own land like this you just wont understand. The decision must stay with the landowner
> 
> On navigable waterways as long as your floating no problem


I agree and disagree "imagine that" the navigable water ways will never change. Ohio has not deemed a stream or river navigable since the 1850's and there is no reel hurry to do it again. The waters in ohio are held in a public trust, and therefore the waters should be open to the ppl. Now I'm not saying during a high water moment that Mr., and Mrs Slobberoni have the right to cross your property to get to the ditch in your back yard. Now the trash problem is a mess, but how much of that was washed down from another area? What I'm saying is the fisherman, paddler, photographer, and hicker should have the ability for recreation be able to access the creek from a public access point like in MI and Utah "and soon Montana" as long as they remain in the creek or river! Since our biggest problems from getting anything passed will be from the farmers. For the most part the farmers will keep there live stock out of the larger rivers, and will basically effect the smaller creeks. I would like to see this law written in such wherein the angler cant have access to the headwaters of the body of water he or she would like to fish. This would help ease the relationships between the recreational users, and the farmers.


----------



## Flyfish Dog (Nov 6, 2007)

WV has a Trout Stamp also if you pursue trouts but usually funds generated from certain things get misused for other s that it was intended for in the beginwith.


----------



## ryosapien (Jul 5, 2008)

ummm i'm all about charging out of staters more $ (steelhead greed) but as far as myself having to pay more for a license doesn't sound like that great of an idea. lol perhaps a differential for catch and release fisherman like myself? As far as political action goes i say us flyguys get together and get a petition to start stocking the cuyahoga. After all in the massive natl park in the valley with tons of access....

"You may not possess or use as bait live or dead minnows or other bait fish, amphibians, nonpreserved fish eggs, or fish roe.

You may not use preserved or fresh fish eggs, fish roe, food, fish parts, chemicals, or other foreign substance in water for the purpose of leading or attracting fish intended to be taken.

Introducing fish or fish eggs into any federally owned waters is prohibited."

pretty much leaves it to us and the spin fisherman


----------



## buckeyebrewer (Sep 4, 2008)

I think those are excellent points steelheader. I think that, that would be the best solution for everyone.


----------



## gulfvet (Apr 14, 2004)

fishinfool21 said:


> I understand that most fisherman are not bringing the tires in its just everything else they do bring in. I agree with everyone that it would be nice to be able to fish on any river but liability is just to great especially with todays society where every one just wants to sue sue sue. _* I think that small clubs getting together and buying portions of rivers and streams would be a great idea and allow for members to have access. *_


FF, all you have done by doing this is change the ownership. The water would still be off limits to the public, at large, and very few are in a financial position to buy water just to fish in. This is more like the Bad Golden Rule, i.e. he who has the gold makes the rules. There is supposed to be public access to water stocked by our license fees and taxes. That's enough of a "membership" for public fish, no matter where they swim. 

I agree about the trash that goofballs leave behind when they fish, but what is needed there is better enforcement and stiffer fines for littering. Also, those tires, washing machines and such are not being put there by people out fishing. I very seldom have a spare washing machine in my vest when I hit the river, although those of you who know me know that I always have a spare tire.


----------



## steelheader007 (Apr 8, 2004)

ryosapien said:


> ummm i'm all about charging out of staters more $ (steelhead greed) but as far as myself having to pay more for a license doesn't sound like that great of an idea. lol perhaps a differential for catch and release fisherman like myself? As far as political action goes i say us flyguys get together and get a petition to start stocking the cuyahoga. After all in the massive natl park in the valley with tons of access....
> 
> "You may not possess or use as bait live or dead minnows or other bait fish, amphibians, nonpreserved fish eggs, or fish roe.
> 
> ...



I wish they would nail the out of state guides a fee of 1,000 a year and I dont care who it hurts!


----------



## Steel Cranium (Aug 22, 2005)

I don't believe that the trash would be much worse if folks have the ability to go wherever they want within the streambed or to the typical highwater mark. Those who wish to enter the stream at a public access point and make the effort to go up/downstream are typically not the ones who litter.

I fish in western Wisconsin for stream trout. Hundreds of trout streams with the ability to wade and/or walk the streamside below the highwater mark. The only exception is a business (working dairy) where permission is requested before entering. Like in Ohio's public spots near parking/access, the litter is present, but away from those places the litter is greatly reduced.

The situation with increased posting seems to be getting worse within the last 20 years. I lived in the Cincinnati area and posted areas didn't seem to be an issue back in the 1980s, with a few notable exceptions on rocky fork creek. The shorelines on the little miami, todd's fork, etc were rarely posted, and we didn't think about having access issues when parking at a public spot and hiking/wading the river from there. The steelhead fishery has gone the same way, but even worse since greed entered the picture. One of my favorite 3-mile wades between two access points in no longer possible due to the postings through the stretch. I must be getting old - when a youngster, my dad told me about how good the fishing was back when he was a kid - now I can be the one talking about the days of wading for miles not worrying about straying onto posted land. At least we can go to the states with more sportsman-friendly laws, like Michigan and Wisconsin.

I would love to see the law changed to allow those who are just getting into the sport now have the freedom to fish where they want. I would love to take the youngsters out east to the conneaut and creeks that start with an "A", but the game is much more difficult now - it's not about finding fish, it's about finding fish in a public spot.


----------



## Flyfish Dog (Nov 6, 2007)

Good point again for SC. The good ole days long gone. I was fortunate to bew able to enjoy it then before everywhere its get so crowded lately. Now I am starting to remember why I moved down WV. I fish every day that I can weather permitting . I rarely ever seen the crowds if you know where to avoid them but the trashs are there that you know someone was there. It's get tiresome looking at it for sure. The state can do just fine by charging a trout/steelhead Stamp to generate extra money to make the fisheries better. We piss away more money on alcohol, tobacco and junk food, than we can easily afford to help by buying a stamp! Or did the State forgot how to conduct business growth? As long as the money stays where it suppose to be I am fine with it. Guides make good money and they can also afford these kind of fees since they will pass it on the clients. They usually take the fun of it with their holy than thou snobbish attitudes anyway! If they are Makiing a huge profit on the fisheries paid by tax payers is just wrong so they need to contribute and not take it all for granted!! But then again I hardly think this is the problem we are really facing as its only part of the problem that is looming larger with property takeovers and more No Tresspassing signs being posted.It's a changing World where we as common people are getting shutted out what should be our RIGHTS to fish the waters done in the proper manner!


----------



## ngski (Aug 16, 2005)

Unfortunately I see a future downsize and up size. With limited access we can no longer show our younger generation how fishing used to be, and who wants to bring their child to a over crowed area and expose our children to trash talk. With that said I imagine the kids will keep to their video games so in 15 to 20 years us old folks will have the rivers to our selves again because the younger generation has no interest in fishing with us old codgers.


----------

