Let's not forget about someone who may not be blameless in all this. The realtor that brought him to this spot, told him how "private and secluded" this part of CO is and how no one will bother him. Then he buys it, shows up, sees what is going on, and reacts against all of us. Again, caveat emptur, buyer beware. He should have checked for himself. But now we are paying the price for someone not giving full disclosure so they can make a sale. THIS IS ONLY A THEORY...
Private land is private land. Even if the owner is a jerk, you still can't walk on his land - period. That means river center up to dry land and beyond.
Hopefully the commercial rafters or American Whitewater can/will get involved and find an amicable arrangement.
If their attitude or lack of cooperation bugs you, donate some money to AW. The last thing anyone should do is fan the flames or provoke them and make the issue even worse.
I had a conversation with the guy that was installing the fence last summer and he was saying that the landowners where not going to be to understanding about this type of thing and that from now on we needed to "scout" from the bridge. I think I saw them inspecting during construction at one point last year, look like your typical 60 something ex-NY lawyer type in their new Jeep "roughing it in Co". I imagine over time with such a large commercial interest that a lot of (in)direct pressure will be applied and they will become a bit more relaxed about it.
How about scouting from river right where the photo people are during season? Not as nice but better view then from the bridge...
Private land is private land. Even if the owner is a jerk, you still can't walk on his land - period. That means river center up to dry land and beyond.
Hopefully the commercial rafters or American Whitewater can/will get involved and find an amicable arrangement.
If their attitude or lack of cooperation bugs you, donate some money to AW. The last thing anyone should do is fan the flames or provoke them and make the issue even worse.
Actually, if there is a portagable obstacle, then you may go around it ON the owners land. This is called Sportsmans Rights. I am not a lawyer but know one who has been active in the attempt to make colorado rivers navigable (he told me this and you could sue them for thier land for interference, please research further).
In this fucked up state, the public does not automatically get use up to the highwater mark like every other state has adopted. I will not get into the trespass issues
Actually, if there is a portagable obstacle, then you may go around it ON the owners land. This is called Sportsmans Rights. I am not a lawyer but know one who has been active in the attempt to make colorado rivers navigable (he told me this and you could sue them for thier land for interference, please research further).
In this fucked up state, the public does not automatically get use up to the highwater mark like every other state has adopted. I will not get into the trespass issues
True - just don't take what I said out of context. There were threads above mine inferring that they would walk up and remove signs/fencing. I know about the Sportsmans' Rights issue - it has been raised in Sportsman's Paradise in Cheesman canyon (no relation on the "Sportsman" name).
I think this is where it is misunderstood: If there is a strainer or other feature that makes the section unnavigable, then you can take the risk of portaging on private property to be sued for it or exercise your right under the Sportsmans Rights Defense. Derk - are you sure that scouting falls under this defense? I'm not going to dig my heels in on this, but I think the test is whether a river obstacle forces the user to exit onto private property because there is no other option, and scouting is not included in this (sadly). I.e. Portaging versus scouting.
Then again - everyone seems to have an opinion on this type of issue. Then again, scouting #5 has never helped me avoid the traditional swim....
Last edited by paddlebizzle; 04-30-2009 at 06:03 PM..
Derk - are you sure that scouting falls under this defense? I'm not going to dig my heels in on this, but I think the test is whether a river obstacle forces the user to exit onto private property because there is no other option, and scouting is not included in this (sadly). I.e. Portaging versus scouting.
Then again - everyone seems to have an opinion on this type of issue. Then again, scouting #5 has never helped me avoid the traditional swim....
No, I'm not sure. I just think (my personal opinion, take it for what it's worth) that if it went to court it would be a fight but I believe that scouting would be defensible under the act. After all, how would you know something necessitated a portage, which the law protects us for, if you did not see the rapid?
__________________
"The world would be a better place if everyone kayaked."-Brad Ludden (Valhalla)
"You only get one chance to run a drop blind."-DD
scouting would be defensible under the act. After all, how would you know something necessitated a portage, which the law protects us for, if you did not see the rapid?
Sounds circular to me too: you need to scout to ensure that you can safely run the rapid, so you step on private property. Or . . . you run it blind, realize there is an obstacle, eddy out and step on private property. Better yet, you run it, said obstacle forces you to swim (to shore), and you still step on private property.
I think we're in a circular reference... I'm confused. We need a lawyer...
Think all is said and done. This guy owns the land and dosen't want a bunch of kayakers on his property. As far as I can see, thanks for the heads up, but that's it. It really is up to us to know what land is public / private; ie where we can / can't get out of our boats. It seems to me this guy is in for a lot of yelling and perhaps picked a bad spot for his temperment. Se la vie
This guy is gonna blow a fuse. Does he understand the amount of traffic around that rapid??? Even if we all (and we definitely SHOULD BE) are respectful of his property, the amount of traffic over the bridge, in the little parking lot, along the road in front of his house, etc....is gonna drive this guy nuts.
I haven't seen where he positioned his house....can you still get a decent look at the rapid from the dirt road?? I know there was a small window between some large trees that you could see most of the drop. Albeit from a distance, but you could at least see the whole thing.
Even if he doesn't deserve it.....we probably should all be as nice as we possibly can or this'll just get worse. I see there being issues like Justin stated above......rescue situations (and there's bound to be MANY) could become tricky and almost force trespass. What are we to do when a boat and/or person in need of rescue washes up into "his eddy"?????
I'm confused. We need a lawyer...
Hybrid Mode
