I have been reading this string for a while. Sadly, it is evident that you are lambs to the slaughter. This was always going to end up like this if you leave it to the politicians. In addition talk of a plebiscite is also a waste of time and money. The real estate industry will join with the landowners raise $10m and kill any effort. Trout Unlimited tried this years ago and were run into the ground. Most of their big donors now are landowners so they have bought their silence. You need to stop talking among yourselves and playing games. You want to be serious this is what you have to do:
1. On the Taylor Ranch, get really familiar with 18-9-107 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
2. Learn about implied consent, necessity, prescriptive rights and equitable arguments. Given that it has been possible to portage around the bridge for years a court might find that you have a right to continue to do so. Given Shaw's withdrawal of consent coupled with the fact that the bridge obstructs a waterway contrary to the above statute, a court might apply the equitable principle that those who seek equity must do equity. In addition one can only get equitable relief if one approaches the court with "clean hands". If a rafter conducts himself appropriately a court might throw out Shaw's argument on a number of these grounds. The main thing you would need to do is prevent injunctive relief. The actual damages for floating through once would be minimal and if a number of rafters floated through his legal costs would trouble him. Further, he just wants to make money by selling to unsuspecting landowners. He would want this problem to go away.
3. Given that there has been commercial rafting on Shaws river for years [as I understand it] there is a strong argument that it is a navigable water. If that is the case and you can show an interstate visitor that gives sufficient Federal nexus to commence an action in Federal Court. The consequence of a finding of navigability for Federal purposes is that the public trust doctrine would apply and shaw's land to the highwater mark would become public property. He would not want to run this risk. There is nothing that the state legislature could do to overturn such a decision because Federal Law always trumps state law.
4. At the same time as starting a Federal Case, you start a state case arguing the state Constitutional right to float and enjoy the natural incidents of floating. Read and familiarize yourselves with Curran's case and the Conatser decisions. That will indicate what a state court will do with the right case.
Do all of this and the landowners will desperately try and work out a deal. You need to organize, stop playing politics and get serious. It will take a lot of money but if you get pro bono lawyers involved you will be able to get a long way.
Finally, you rafters need to understand that there are a lot of other people who would be interested in getting involved if you would just spread your invitation. The original bill got a lot of people offside because it was just plain dumb to seek to apply it to commercial rafters. Have a look how much has been spent so far on lobbyists and lawyers. And for what? You need to understand that you could get a lot more support if you appealed to a broader interest. Longer term the floaters will win. It is the natural flow of things. So plan for the longer term, garner a groundswell support and build a strong base.
Just my humble opinion.
Anything else is a WASTE OF TIME.