Posted on 12/07/2001 4:01:27 PM PST by sweetliberty
Landowners pursue court action to stop access through property
By Robert Weller The Associated Press
Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - Colorado and national rafting groups have joined in a court fight to preserve the right to float on rivers that flow through private land.
The owners of the Gateview and Timber Bridge ranches in southwestern Colorado are trying to block Cannibal Outdoors Network Inc., a tiny company based in Lake City, from rafting on the Lake Fork of the Gunnison River as it passes through their property.
American Whitewater, which has 8,000 members, and the Colorado White Water Association, the nation's oldest paddling club, filed with the court to become co-defendants with Cannibal Outdoors, arguing that a victory for the landowners could destroy an industry worth $122 million a year in the nation's most popular white-water rafting state.
"If we do not get a favorable ruling, it would be a major blow for rafting operations in Colorado, and could set a precedent for other states," Kevin Schneider, chairman of the Colorado River Outfitters Association, said Monday.
Jack Nichols, co-owner of Cannibal Outdoors, said his company runs only about 80 boats a year and has little impact on land lining the rivers.
"The amount of time we spend floating past the plaintiff's property is less than 10 minutes. The amount of noise we make is minimal," said Nichols, whose company is named for Alferd Packer, who is believed to have killed and eaten five gold miners on Slumgullion Pass above Lake City in 1874.
Schneider's organization, which represents 55 rafting companies, and America Outdoors, a national association of 600 outfitters, are waiting for a decision on their request to be granted friend-of-the-court status to support the right to raft on every river in the state.
John R. Hill, the lawyer representing the Gateview and Timber Bridge ranches, said courts have not held that Colorado rivers are navigable, which would open them to rafters.
"It is clearly trespass if you have to get out of the boat. At certain times of the year you cannot float without getting out of the boat," said Hill.
A District Court in Gunnison is to decide soon whether a 1977 state law created a right for the public to float rivers.
Over the past two years, rafting companies, private boaters and private land owners, including the plaintiff and defendants, have participated in a River Surface Recreation Forum sponsored by the Department of Natural Resources seeking ways to accommodate landowners and floaters.
A "River Runner's Etiquette and Responsibilities" guide, urging river users to leave no trace, was created to promote respect for private property.
Although I am totally on the side of the outdoors people on this, I do have to tell you that the people on the rivers these days are not necessarily there for the beauty. We saw trash all over the place, where 12 years before, there was none. We also saw a bunch of drunken rafters out for a day of getting drunk and sunburned.
Even though the calibre of people on the rivers has changed since I first started enjoying them, I believe that most states own the land up to the high water mark. That leaves plenty of room to portage on impassable rapids without infringing on a private property owner's rights. They just want the river all to themselves, and use the excuse of the few drunken people who wander onto their land to try to keep all away.
I am definitely on the side of the rafters on this!
No comment, just an amused "been there-done that" pinging!
I sure as hell wouldn't want to be forced to open my property up to whatever idiot held the price of a raft rental. Of course if it was me, there would be several large signs along the riverbank warning that trespassors would be shot on sight.
If that didn't work, I might try hanging the skulls of the first few who didn't think I was serious on the signs I put up.
If it continued after that, I might get really angry.
L
The rafting groups could always sweettalk the property owners with some of that $122 million to give them permission. Or the rafting groups could spend some of that $122 million and buy the property owners out.
Only issue is see here is if the rafting groups win, the erosion of property rights continues unabated.
Yeah, and the first time you make good on that promise, the gonadless sheriff will arrest you.
If that didn't work, I might try hanging the skulls of the first few who didn't think I was serious on the signs I put up.
If it continued after that, I might get really angry.
Me, I think I'll just string along a bunch of razor wire, roughly at neck level, all within my property of course. ;)
Just a thought.
L
Nowhere in the article is it stated that the rafters were there before the property owners.
L
What if some homeowners value their privacy more than a 'small fee' they have to accept from a bunch of trespassors?
Geez, what does it take to get people to realize that there are some things that aren't up for a vote or a Court decision someplace.
Nowhere does this article or any of the people quoted in it say that the property owners don't indeed own the property in question. What these 'business people' want is unrestricted access to property that doesn't belong to them in order to make money.
While I am completely in favor of making money, I am not in favor of allowing any Court or Commission telling me that I have to allow people to trespass on private land so someone else can collect a fee for renting the trespassors boats.
If these 'rafting companies' want to sell people a nice boat trip, then they need to buy some river property and use their own damn property. The fact that they are trying to use the courts and government to force property owners to their will makes them thieves and bad guys.
L
Buying a house on the river and demanding the right to stop watercraft traffic on the river is as ridiculous as buying a house on a street and trying to stop automobile traffic. Some things are just common sense.
The Supreme Court ruling in the case of the People vs. Emmert found that floating through private property is indeed criminal trespass. There have not been any judicial decisions since then.
Woodard confirmed the 1977 statute, saying there is no trespass if a boater does not touch the banks or bottom of a river. With the lack of any court cases setting precedence on the issue, his opinion has essentially become de facto law.
"Colorado happens to have the worst case law in the country in terms of navigability of rivers," said Jason Robertson, who handles access issues for American Whitewater, citing the 1979 Supreme Court decision. "The river is a resource that society owns. Federal law has already decided that. It's held in the public trust."
From the Denver Post June 14, 2001
That's good to know.
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.