Mountain Buzz banner

Need a Permit if you never touch the bank?

5K views 28 replies 18 participants last post by  basil 
#1 ·
According to state water law could you run a permitted section of river without a permit as long as you never toughed the banks of the river?

The state owns the water not the parks or land management agency's.

Westwater would be a good example of this concept as you could make the run with out touching the permitted land.
 
#3 ·
Stupid

This has to be the dumbest idea I have ever seen on the Buzz. Forcing an agency that is largely on the side of managed acess for the public to fight the very law that allows us access. I like your intellectual energy, but focus it on how to solve unemployment and not on tearing down the right of access for the public through the state.

Sorry for the rant, but holy crap, you want to turn the water regulators and the purveyors of access against the boating public. Come on man!
 
#8 ·
Makes me think of the time a guy used a hovercraft on a road and got pulled over for speeding. He argues he "wasn't on the roadway" and was immune. :) The judge didn't agree with his theory.

When I ran WW a few weeks ago there was a ranger in the start of the canyon checking permits. They were picky enough to have an issue with the fact that I was in a canoe and the permit listed all kayaks.
 
#9 ·
Not according to state water law but according to state criminal trespass law, you may be in violation of the trespass statute, as it is presently written, if you touched the beds or banks of the natural stream. In the Colorado trespass statute, the definition of "premises" includes "beds and banks". HOWEVER, under the Law of Supremacy, Federal law prevails. Such being the case, and if you or anyone are willing to either get cited for trespass or file your own complaint to challenge the state statute all the way up to the Colorado State Supremes, you'd win, imho, to confirm your right to use the publicly owned water and the touching or contact with the submerged bedlands incidental to that use of the water.

Further, as already confirmed in local, state and Federal laws and rulings, you can access to/from natural streams via publicly owned land or a public right of way such as a public county bridge ROW. Remember, most county bridge ROW's are 60' wide. The bridge itself is usually 30' wide, leaving 15' of public travel right of way of any type on either side of the bridge. Even tho there's a fence attached to the bridge, you still have the confirmed right, under law, to travel by foot, bike, whatever, within that public bridge right of way.

Separate the two rights in your mindset... there's USE of and there's ACCESS to/from a natural stream. Understand the difference.

Lastly, if, under state REGULATIONS, you need a permit to make use of or access to/from a particular natural stream, such as WW section, that is different than whether you can avoid touching bottom to obviate the need for the permit. Whole different ball game. Touch or don't touch the bottom but get the permit to use the natural stream or section that requires, under state regulation, a permit.
 
#10 ·
I agree with Canada...you don't want to be pitting the blm/access guys up against the state water owner guys...river users will end up with the shaft.

On another note: don't F with the westwater rangers...we picked up a pretty hefty fine for camping two groups together a week or so ago (total numbers were only 27 between the two permits, so not like we had 50 at a campsite). I'd never seen them sweep the canyon before, but they came through with a motor rig in the evening, then came through the next AM complete with law enforcement officer to fine us.
 
#13 ·
I always wondered if you could run Westwater twice on the same permit; you can camp one night and be on the river two days[ more?],so what if you ran the whole thing the first day or finished it early the second could you re run it ? I know a way you could put in below the ranger station and above the rapids. You could likely get away with it and had a permit to be there that second day[ no large rafts or much gear,kayaks/duckies no problem.] I won't get into the details or recommend abusing the process.My guess is they don't want you running it twice ,just wonder if maybe it's ok...is your permit for one run or two days and one night ?
 
#14 ·
Email the BLM area office to ask for the specific documentation that specifically answers your questions. Don't take an individual's word for it. It's the language of the applicable doc that matters. If there's nothing in the doc that answers your questions, then, it cited, take a copy of the regs to the hearing and show the deciders point blank what it does or doesn't say.

It would also help to make a waterproof copy of the doc (if it helps your position) with you on your boating trip.

Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power...
 
#15 ·
Ole Rivers,
It may well specify what is allowed on the permit or permit application.I have run it several times but someone else always dealt with the permit. I figure you could just be honest and ask the ranger if it's okay.If you're upfront and complying with all the rules they might let you if they can't get in trouble for it. I think one of their main issues is reserving campsites,which would not be an issue,especially in the off/shoulder seasons.If they say no you just run it normally.If you did poach it the only way you'd get caught is if they came to the takeout and noticed you had a lot less gear than when you checked in.
 
#17 ·
Yep, you could simply ask the ranger and rely on his interpretation. However, the rules or regulations' language as written may actually be different than or misconstrued by the ranger's pov. If so, and the ranger's interpretation (or guess) is contrary to what you want to do and, by the written docs is actually permitted, then a simple showing of the docs, maybe after discussing the situation with the ranger, may clarify everything to the point that you can do it rather than not do it because of faulty or subjective decision by the ranger.

Simple as make a waterproof print out of the applicable reg/rule language and have it with you to clarify on the spot if necessary...
 
#18 ·
yeah i get what you're saying....i'm not looking to get into a beef with the ranger or get him/her in trouble ...just want to lap ww if permissible.... User, who is an outfitter? i would assume they know rules [ you know what they say about assuming] and as you said would risk harming/losing their business
 
#19 ·
Hi,

Point number 11 in the Westwater stipulations River Use Stipulations - Westwater Canyon says you can't launch more than once a day.

Seems to me it would be hard to argue that a launch the next day somehow was a continuation of the permit for the launch the day before. Depending on how it was done, this likely also would breach the portion of the regs requiring all parties in a group to stay together.

My bet is that the rangers have seen it all in one form or another over the years, and can explain it to you quite well when they write the ticket.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips
 
#20 ·
Some Documentation

Check out this link: Federal Register | Notice of Implementation of Special Area Permit Fees in Utah

This is the Federal Register notice regarding Westater Canyon and several other permitted areas in Utah. The BLM has authorization under several laws to establish "special areas" and charge fees for recreational uses. From what I read here as well as in 43 CFR, Subpart 8372 cited on the page, the permit requirement applies, even if the individual isn't "trespassing" under Utah water laws.

In short, an individual's presence on, in or adjacent to the Colorado River between the Westwater Ranger Station and Cisco Landing requires a permit. The above notice also shows the fine for ignoring this regulation. $100 for failure to obtain a permit and up to $1,000 for non-compliance with the regs.

If it were that easy to bypass the BLM permit system, or the NPS for that matter, all of these popular river stretches would essentially be unregulated and over used.
 
#21 ·
You used to be able to drive and mountainbike on the rim ,maybe you still can,and you could hike down Little Hole to the river.There were no signs posted prohibiting it.We talked to the ranger about camping at Little Hole; it was not allowed at river level ,but not prohibited to hike to the rim or overhang below the rim.The overhang contained a minor archaeological site[ no structures] that was badly combed over long ago.We were asked not to do any digging for artifacts .We left boats[ duckies] a hundred yds. inland and hiked to the overhang to camp with access to car /coolers /camp gear on rim.We were still required to carry groover ,firepan ,extra paddles, etc .that are mandatory on both days,camping or not.It must have been before 2001.Under the scenario presented the person would have a permit to be there those days anyway.Rich's post definitively answers that you cannot run twice.
 
#22 ·
Hi,

From time to time I used to camp at the Little Hole location mentioned in the previous post. It was a nice quiet spot you could drive to and easily take a stroll down the canyon to the river.

However, several years ago BLM erected a fence to delineate the Wilderness Study Area. While it does have several pedestrian gates, it imposes a restriction on mechanized traffic into Little Hole, as well as further down at Hades Overlook and Big Hole. There's a great ledge right above Hades, which hangs out over the rim and looks right down on Hades and Little D. It makes a wonderful spot to spend the night. Likewise, Big Hole (beyond the fence as well) is a great spot to camp and hike to the river if you like. If you're law-abiding, these locations are essentially backpacking destinations now.

I never did hear the official reason for the fence. But I do know that there were persistent problems with motorcycles and other motorized vehicles violating the WSA "no off-trail" restriction. And there also were people carrying in at Little Hole to sneak Westwater. So it may be that they felt the fence solved both those problems at once. If so, it's an illustration of how a relatively small number of folks ignoring regulations can bring about even more burdensome restrictions.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips
 
#24 ·
I have to say that I love the extensive comparison of Colorado Law and Federal law and Federal Regulations.

Does anybody remember that Westwater is in Utah?

While a private property owner of the streambed and banks may only have a right to the "beneficial use" of the water, the State and the Federal governments absolutely have a claim that they own the water. They can also regulate use and access to the waterway.
 
#25 ·
Its good to see people fired up.

For the record, I do believe that westwater needs protected. And should be permitted to protect from over use.

I do not have Law, UT under my screen name. Your post are cute.

Am not about to go run it permit less under the full moon with all the high school paddlers from Grand Junction that can not get a permit anyway.

We are talking about a 16 mile section of river here.

Could the users benefit from a day use option without impeding on others wilderness experience?

Your allowed to bring your dog down the canyon on an overnight trip.
But under current regulation a single day trip is out of the question.
 
#26 ·
I believe the public ownership rights of the waterway trump others. At least I know that for sure on the Salmon, they've even adopted it into their regs, even though they don't state it overtly. You can run the SF Salmon which includes 21 miles of the permitted section of the Main Salmon. You can do this without a permit as long as you enter and leave the permitted corridor in the same day (paraphrase of their regs). So while you use the river you don't use the permitted resource (the land/camps). There's been many a conversation amongst Idaho lawyers/boaters about this topic, and the fireside consensus is that they can't limit the use of the water, just the land. FWIW, although other agencies probably have different interpretations. And really, who wants to go to court to test this? Not me, not anyone I know.
 
#27 ·
Buckman

I now better understand your argument. Going over a section of water without a permit does not hurt the banks in any way. It is why the argument against boating in Yellowstone does not make sense. As with the origins of most laws, the actions of a few hurt us all. Speaking of how to circumvent the rules and regulations of access will only entrench the regulator against the users in general.

If you have problems at Westwater, talk with the rangers. They are not inflexible jerks. (As an example, I have been permitted to lap the canyon. This was over a decade ago, but they were cool with it). If you attempted to run any river without a permit and tried a clever access argument, they probably would be inflexible. The fact that you were prepared with the argument would show that you were purposefully trying to circumvent the system put in place to protect the place. That would probably make them mad.

My comment above was not pointed at you. It was at Alberto who responded to my initial comment telling me to suck it. I certainly am Childish, but not cute. It is in reference to my childish responses here in past decades where someone would come at me with profanity and I rose to their troll bate.

As far as what it says under my name, over years I lost my password at times and changed screen names. I think the system prompted you for what is your profession and where do you live. I live in Park City and am a lawyer. I'll change it now, as you are right that it probably presents me as something I am not. I am an expert in nothing. I am passionate about access. Admittedly childishly passionate.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top