HB 1188 Outfitter Bill Committee Hearing - Mountain Buzz
 



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 01-02-2010   #1
 
Stoner, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2007
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 93
Who owns a river? River Access Bill in Legislature

It looks like the question will be answered soon. If there was ever a time to write or call your representative...It's Now! Think of all the rivers that could be blocked. I think another issue to address with this is the ability of a landowner to force a tresspass with an unrunnable low head or irrigation dam.

Durango Herald News, Lawmakers to consider river rights

Ikedub is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-02-2010   #2
 
BackCountry's Avatar
 
Gunnison, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1970
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 99
I hope Kathleen has success getting this bill through. I know the property that is causing the problem. As more and more rich people from out of county buy up property they try and close down access that has always been allowed by the previous property owners. This attitude has resulted in river access issues. Other problems such as an unhealthy Elk/Deer population that has been trained to go to large private parcels that do not allow hunting creating over population, disease and poor hunting success rates. Dirt Bike/Mountain Bike trails have also suffered from this issue. All these restrictions of access affect tourism and employment in our county. While Curry's legislation only addresses river access this is a step in the right direction.

I understand and am all for property owners rights. I also believe that if they do not "own" all the water flowing down the river and it is navigable then they should have no ability to block others from using this water way. Rafters/Kayakers are typically a respectful group and do their best not to trespass on private land.

I have noticed over the years that it is the "fishermen" that get upset at other uses of the river or even other fishermen being on a public stretch of water. This property bringing the river access issue forward is being offered as a fishing property and they don't want other people fishing "their" waters which are state stocked or disturbing "their" fish and fishing by floating by.
BackCountry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010   #3
Beginner
 
Randaddy's Avatar
 
Eastern Slope, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1980
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,466
And they are from Texas. Anyone want Texans to block navigable waterways? Write your representative today!
Randaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-02-2010   #4
 
kayakfreakus's Avatar
 
Steamboat, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1999
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,028
Another article with some more info:

Curry bill would keep river rights-of-way in public hands

Love this section:

Hamel said the courts have long held that the water flowing down the state’s streams are publicly owned and that the right to float on it shouldn’t be an issue.

“We’re not trying to take away the landowner’s rights, but rafting is a $142 million business in Colorado, and it employs hundreds of people. We’re just trying to protect jobs and people’s livelihoods,” Hamel said.


“The new landowner on the Taylor, he flew into Gunnison on his Lear jet and said that he was no longer going to allow either of these rafting companies to float through,” said Curry of Shaw, the Texas developer.


“They’ve had permits for 20 years to run the stretch. They employ a lot of people, and one guy comes in and shuts it down. He has the wherewithal to bring it to a head legally.”
kayakfreakus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2010   #5
 
Arvada (Denver), Colorado
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 260
HB 1188 Outfitter Bill Committee Hearing

So who's going to attend, or even testify, at the House of Representatives Judiciary committee hearing for HB 1188 on February 8, 2010 at 1:30pm in Room 0107 at the Capitol to let the committee know what you want to amend, support, oppose, remain neutral, etc?

All the major players' lawyers, lobbyists, organization advocates, commercial boat guides, you name it, they'll be there. It'll be a Battle of the Titans! Monday! Monday! at Capitol Hill! This'll be better than a cage match of UF!

I'm definitely attending and may testify for the fishermen's interest. I'll be wearing a fishing shirt or some gear to express my interests. I understand the commercial boaters are putting their boats on the lawn outside.

Seating's limited, free to attend and I hear someone in the audience gets the winning Power Ball Lottery ticket. heh, heh

Game on!
Ole Rivers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2010   #6
 
slavetotheflyrod's Avatar
 
Littleton, Colorado
Paddling Since: 98
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by BackCountry View Post
I hope Kathleen has success getting this bill through. I know the property that is causing the problem. As more and more rich people from out of county buy up property they try and close down access that has always been allowed by the previous property owners. This attitude has resulted in river access issues. Other problems such as an unhealthy Elk/Deer population that has been trained to go to large private parcels that do not allow hunting creating over population, disease and poor hunting success rates. Dirt Bike/Mountain Bike trails have also suffered from this issue. All these restrictions of access affect tourism and employment in our county. While Curry's legislation only addresses river access this is a step in the right direction.

I understand and am all for property owners rights. I also believe that if they do not "own" all the water flowing down the river and it is navigable then they should have no ability to block others from using this water way. Rafters/Kayakers are typically a respectful group and do their best not to trespass on private land.

I have noticed over the years that it is the "fishermen" that get upset at other uses of the river or even other fishermen being on a public stretch of water. This property bringing the river access issue forward is being offered as a fishing property and they don't want other people fishing "their" waters which are state stocked or disturbing "their" fish and fishing by floating by.
While you're 100% correct about this having to do with disruptions to the fishing, please don't make the mistake of lumping all fishermen into this category. The fishermen we're talking about here are not the Joe and Jane sixpack that wants to go out and catch a few fish on their day off, and are generally easy going, friendly folks. The type of fishermen we're dealing with here are the one's that want to land their gulfstream at the airstrip, have the porter ready their waders and rod while they have brandy and cigars at the clubhouse, then head out to the river and catch the biggest possible fish with the least possible effort, afterwhich they'll again retire to the clubhouse to congratulate themselves, again over brandy and cigars. I know the type all too well, I spent 2 years guiding for one such outfit before I couldn't handle the douchbaggery any longer. Trust me, you'll never see these people on public water - the fish aren't big enough or easy enough for the uber-rich types that have become so accustomed having everything they want whenever they want it, and having it all to themselves.
slavetotheflyrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2010   #7
 
slavetotheflyrod's Avatar
 
Littleton, Colorado
Paddling Since: 98
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 387
Let's cover the capitol lawn in Hypalon!

-Honestly, how cool would that be to see 300+ rafts all over the capitol lawn?
slavetotheflyrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2010   #8
 
Gunnison, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2006
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 31
That would be cool to see.

Even if you cannot be present please e-mail or call your representative and let them know that you are for hb 1188.

You can find your representatives and their contact information @ COMaps: Find Your Districts in Colorado
wild bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2010   #9
 
CBrown's Avatar
 
Evergreen, Colorado
Paddling Since: '92
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 350
Any user of rivers should be making thier voice count. We should all converge on the capital with kayakers, fisherman, tubers, private rafters, anyone who uses the river and is for SHARING. This is a big deal.
CBrown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2010   #10
 
Grand Junction, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2004
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 52
HB 1188

This has probably been address in other posts. This bill, as it currently stands, specifically represents only commercial rafters.

At this point I would oppose the bill and submit a request to modify it to include all users of our watre ways.

Write your State rep and senator requesting that this bill not be passed unless it is revised.

CI
Colorado Ice is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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 02:00 PM
Glenwood Springs WW Park Funding Hearing peterB Whitewater Kayaking 1 09-19-2006 05:43 PM
Interview with STEVE BOWENS - Chairman of BCU Surf Committee kayaksurf Whitewater Kayaking 0 05-29-2006 01:11 PM

» Classified Ads
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.