Middle Fork American

[hookedupanglers]

The water flow is now on the summer time weekend outflow. This means that from 7:00 to 9:00 they will raise it to around 1000 cfs. The will hold it for atleast 3 hrs and then back it off as needed for the power use. It sounds to me like you ran ito the new guy at horeshoe bar. the whole deal with him is kind of touchy right now. If i hear of anything getting resolved, i will post it for you guys.

[dtp916]

Thanks for the replies, guys. I knew that Walt Stevens was wrong and I told him so and it really pissed him off. His friend/caretaker didn't say anything when I called him out, but Stevens insisted that he owns every damn stone, bug and speck of dirt for 7 miles.

My buddy and I walked down from Oxbow, mainly on river left until I saw a "No Trespassing" sign and then I switched sides right before a nice run that produced several willing rainbows to deeply-drifted nymphs.

Bill, you are right about them having no life and patrolling the area. The whole time I was thinking, "How the hell did this guy find us in the middle of the forest and have the time and energy to come down here and give us his speech about HIS land..."

The main thing that bugged me was that we were in the water, far from the high water mark and he's bitching about trespassing. We even picked up trash we found on the way down and didn't even get a thank you for cleaning up HIS land.

I could've easily walked below the high water mark all the way down there.

[bonish]

What side of the river were you on? Because I think on one side, one cannot "legally" access the Horseshoe Bar property, even with a navigable designation. Of course, that's the same situation as the Yuba above Hwy 20. It's virtually vertical and the water is deep. Generally, courts have ruled the "median high water" mark is where permanent vegetation begins/ends, but of course, all cases are different.

In any instance, watch those flows, they can rise rapidly at any time during the day. I got caught a couple of years ago in the middle of the river, made a wading mistake, went for a long ride and swim, and almost ended up a statistic. Quite a scary experience, though Joe Shirshac tells me it was nothing compared to some of his crazy adventures.

I'm sure you've read Bill's article on the MFA in Nor Cal Fly Fisher. If not, check it out as it explores the river and issues surrounding access.

[mr. 3 wt.]

This may be an issue for the higher courts. The best thing to do is just stay out of the horseshoe bar area. It's only 7 miles of a river that is, at least 50 miles long or better. . I, for one, don't like it when somebody tresspasses onto my land or land that I have been given permission to be on and will let them know that there can and will be reprecussions. Until the courts say otherwise, save yourself the headache and the landowners a headache and don't tresspass. Period.

[BenFishin]

James,

I am sorry you had a bad experience, unfortunately you were trespassing onto Walt's property and he does own several miles of river on both sides. I can supply you with APN numbers and you can look it up if you're still not sure. If Walt was rude, it's because there are many folks coming down there without total disregard of private land ownership. Quite a few folks have been cited for refusing to leave and there has even been an a couple arrest.

Although it's possible to enter this property while wading during low flows, its virtually impossible to continue without trespassing because of the deep channels and steep banks. It's easy to get stuck on the property because of the way the flows are spike. People who continue to do this knowingly are doing so without regard of property ownership. It's too bad that industry professionals are setting this precedent and encouraging folks to do the same.

Furthermore, it is an incorporated patented mining claim as it's been for well over a hundred years. The property has many dangerous tunnels and other obstacles, historical artifacts and items of value. It's in the best interest of the owners not to allow people to trespass considering all the liability issues as well.

For you to say these folks don't have a life is not fair and immature, the're just down there protecting their land. I'm sure you would do the same

If you have any questions, please feel free to PM me

Thanks

Ben

[dtp916]

For you to say these folks don't have a life is not fair and immature, the're just down there protecting their land. I'm sure you would do the same

Life is NOT fair, Ben, and I could not disagree with you more. If someone is patrolling their land non-stop I would absolutely say he has no life and that he is overly paranoid. If someone was fly fishing on my property i would say: 1. Have you caught anything? If so, on what fly and 2. Well guys this is actually private property and unfortunately you are trespassing and need to leave....Not demanding an immediate evacuation of the area and threatening arrest and prosecution which is exactly what i got from Walt Stevens. I think people freak out over land ownership - if I'm not damaging or degrading their property or endangering their or my life, there is no reason to be rude unless you got a stick up your ass.

He patrols the property, or has his caretaker do, all the time--apparently no life outside that.

I wasn't the first one to say it, and I completely agree with what Bill said. I could give a shit if he wants to "protect" his land - thats BS, he was being a horse's ass, unlike his caretaker/paparazzi taking pictures of my buddy and I. I was very understanding and apologetic, as I have mentioned before, and had NO problem leaving whatsoever. If I HAD saw a sign - like I did on the other side of the river - I wouldn't be fishing there.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of other places I can fish in California so I really don't give a damn about Stevens and his land - The fishing wasn't THAT great and its definitely not worth getting arrested or cited. I will go somewhere else, no sweat

[mr. 3 wt.]

Like always, there is more to the story than what meets the eye. From my understanding, there have been others down there that were not as friendly as you and actually threatened the caretaker with bodily harm. That shouldn't be taken lightly. How would you like to be threatened on your own land? Perhaps he shouldn't have been so abrasive but everyone has a bad day. Now that the word is getting out that it is a private area, responsible folk can oblige by the law and stay off of their land.

[midger]

Now that the word is getting out that it is a private area, responsible folk can oblige by the law and stay off of their land.

If he was attempting to enforce something he had no "legal" right to enforce, who was being irresponsible? If as Mr Carnazzo said California law stated:

The river is classified as a "navigable" river under Calif. law. Once that classification attaches to a river, the consequences that flow from it are:
1. The water is owned by the state (i.e., the people of the State of California);
2. The state has an access easement for recreational purposes (including fishing) across the rocks on the bottom of the river, and to a point on the shore where the "mean historical high water mark" is located--which is not always easy to determine but we know for sure that it is definitely somewhere out side of the water line; and
3. The adjacent landowner does own the land to the middle of the river, but the title is subject to the easement mentioned above.



I'd say the landowner was being irresponsible in this case if the above is true. And yes, a court case is probably what it will take to resolve the issue, and yes, there will probably eventually be one on this water as well as other waters all over the Western States. Many access issues are brewing already over these same concerns. It isn't just about his 7 miles, but all the others with the same access issues trying to enforce their interpretations of what the law allows.

I don't know him, have no dog in this fight, but have "dogs" in fights in other states now.

[mr. 3 wt.]

You step out of the water, your on land, private land. Bill is not the law or a law abider as I see it. Re-read Ben's post, he has it right. People have been, are and will be arrested for trespassing on private land, period. Why can't folks see it for what it is and OBEY the law. I do know the area and there are many areas that are impossible to wade through and you must hike overland onto private property to get anywhere. I am not arguing that the river is the state's or not, but the land isn't. Until things change, that is the way it is going to be.

[midger]

Guess they'll just have to float it then. Is that okay?