Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-11-2010   #101
riojedi's Avatar
Golden, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1985
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 191
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.

riojedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010   #102
Boulder, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1999
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4
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!

Boots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010   #103
Have paddled a Quest
Fort Collins, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1984
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 102

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
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
Marco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010   #104
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1974
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 140
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.
merritrd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010   #105
Arvada (Denver), Colorado
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 250
"Public Easement Rights to Navigate, Utilize and Portage"

Originally Posted by 1whitewattafoo View Post
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
Ole Rivers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010   #106
Buena Vista/Summit, N/A
Paddling Since: 2002
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 144
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010   #107
Buena Vista/Summit, N/A
Paddling Since: 2002
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 144
Ok then
1whitewattafoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010   #108
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2002
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 93
It's streaming now:

Colorado House 2010 Legislative Day 31
zboda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010   #109
West By God, Wyoming
Paddling Since: 1999
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 289
It passed the House! No amendment for private boaters though.
Paddle Iraq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010   #110
thornton, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1969
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 600
Originally Posted by Paddle Iraq View Post
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.

raymo is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Public Hearing on Moffat Expansion - rescheduled nathanfey Whitewater Kayaking 2 02-11-2010 01:59 AM
HB 1188 Clarify River Outfitter Navigation Right Bill Ole Rivers River Access & Safety Alerts! 1 01-25-2010 10:38 AM
river trip social committee ideas? bula Whitewater Kayaking 12 07-26-2007 01:00 PM
Glenwood Springs WW Park Funding Hearing peterB Whitewater Kayaking 1 09-19-2006 04:43 PM
Interview with STEVE BOWENS - Chairman of BCU Surf Committee kayaksurf Whitewater Kayaking 0 05-29-2006 12:11 PM

» Classified Ads
Demo Jackson Karma L

posted by 4CRS

Used 2016 Jackson Karma LG whitewater kayak - lightly used...

Fluid Flirt (med)

posted by dlanci

Medium Fluid Flirt. Bought brand new in 2007. Great river...

2014 Rockstar Jackson...

posted by Scardenas95

Great shape, excellent boat!

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities

Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.