Originally Posted by 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...)?
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?
, amend to exclude the word "fishing", as an exclusionary term, from the bill.