Lower Yuba wading options?

[tallguy]

I actually participate in research projects on the UCD property, and have a quite different perspective about the effects of unlimited public access there. How would you feel if you had $100K+ of research equipment running out in the field for 6 months a year and Bubba and his buddies had free rein to roll up to your sites, representing years of work, and do as they please? Think any equipment or projects would last long? That entire site is covered in a multitude of ongoing research projects, some of which have been running since the '50s, and I don't think that level of site integrity would last long if there wasn't a gate with carefully controlled access.

Actually, if you want to fish the UCD property, join one of the local fly fishing clubs. Clubs fish the UCD property 2-4 times a month for most of the year on a rotating basis, it is far more than 4X a year, though only 15 people are allowed at a time.

[tallguy]

Also, it is not the UC property where you first trespass by walking upstream, it is the first big cliff band downstream of the UC property where the upstream walking angler first trespasses. No access below high water, and that section stays posted for as long as it takes for walking fishermen to rip down the signs..

[amoeba]

I actually participate in research projects on the UCD property, and have a quite different perspective about the effects of unlimited public access there. How would you feel if you had $100K+ of research equipment running out in the field for 6 months a year and Bubba and his buddies had free rein to roll up to your sites, representing years of work, and do as they please? Think any equipment or projects would last long? That entire site is covered in a multitude of ongoing research projects, some of which have been running since the '50s, and I don't think that level of site integrity would last long if there wasn't a gate with carefully controlled access.

Actually, if you want to fish the UCD property, join one of the local fly fishing clubs. Clubs fish the UCD property 2-4 times a month for most of the year on a rotating basis, it is far more than 4X a year, though only 15 people are allowed at a time.

Frankly - I have heard all that before too, and guess what? I haven't seen a lick of anybody's research equipment, so I'm guessing it is no-where near where fishermen would go. So I think it wouldn't do jack to your $100K watchamacallit sensors and data loggers and so forth. This is not a "do as they please?" or "free rein") situation. There are lots of ways to protect areas and equipment, and livestock; while still providing public access - heck, I don't need a vehicle - I can walk.

Besides - UC agreed to provide public access, and this is not that. Club use is not public access; 15 people at a time is not public access; I have little doubt that type of access is NOT what DFG originally had in mind when UC got the Tahoe hatchery building and property in exchange for public access to the Yuba river through UC's property.

It's an obvious example of bait and switch on an interagency property transfer, a free lunch, or worse.

Neat pictures of the drop above the Narrows, though; I had seen these in aerials and actually yes - have (rarely) seen people floating in from the top in float tubes. Not quite sure how they made it!

Those fishermen tearing down signs must be efficient (I'm not one of them); since I haven't seen any. Also - "posting" - has certain requirements (who posts, what it says, distance between, where, etc.) which are often not met.

[Mike O]

Also, it is not the UC property where you first trespass by walking upstream, it is the first big cliff band downstream of the UC property where the upstream walking angler first trespasses. No access below high water, and that section stays posted for as long as it takes for walking fishermen to rip down the signs..

you are allowed to cross private land to cross from one fishable spot across the impassable spot, to another fishing spot, as long as you don't deviate.

[Ralph]

Not a fair deal to the public, or to DFG, who gave up $5 million + in property for close to nothing - property that was obtained for and maintained by license-holders. UCD.

The hatchery was built in 1880 and run by the Glenbrook Mill. The property with hatchery was purchased by Bliss in 1887 and turned over to the state in exchange for timber rights. The hatchery was reconstructed three times - each time with private funding. I'm not sure about the rest of your conspiracy theory - it may be true - I don't know. But I do know you are talking gibberish when you say the Tahoe property was obtained and maintained by license holders.

[tallguy]

Equipment is frequently within 100 yards, and sometimes within 100 feet, of the fishing access road. Not always obvious, but there if you know what to look for. Flagged sites often extend to the very edge of the floodplain, and should not be walked across or disturbed, or the data is potentially ruined.

As for signs, I agree that legally very few properties are posted to the legal definition of posted. But to me, if you knowingly walk by a no trespassing sign, you are trespassing, even if the next sign down the fenceline is a bit too far. It's one of those arguments that you wouldn't reasonably expect to win with the rancher and his shotgun, and I think we all have a good idea when we push those boundaries.

As for the cliff band sign, if you walk the trail up and over the cliff band, there are two places where you step over barbed wire or past a fence. Once going up, and once coming down. More than once, there has been a sign directly on that trail, on a fencepost hammered into the groud. Generally the fence post ends up tossed into the woods or the river.

[JasonB]

Wow, I had no idea what kind of can of worms I was opening. I'm glad I asked though, as I was unaware of any private property issues on the river. I can see why it is such a plus to have a boat for that river now. Thanks to all for the suggestions and advice, I'll likely find my way up there in the coming weeks to poke around a tad bit. I'm not too worried about whether or not I have some 30+ fish days there (I'm not THAT optimistic), with my limited fishing experience any day that I catch 1 decent fish is a big day, and any day that I get to work on my fishing strategy and enjoy some sunshine on the river is a great day.

And thanks again for the heads up on the private property issues there, I have no desire to start my initial forays there with any hassles over trespassing. Is the only access then to that particular stretch of river via boating downstream from Englebright? That would be doable (I am quite competent in the ways of whitewater), but does complicate the logistics a bit more than just being able to drive/hike/wade.

[thekid]

Id be scared to go after all this.

[Don Powell]

Wow!
How can we live in a state where politely asking if this would be a good place to hone our skills developing our fly fishing technique turns into a political debate regarding God knows what UCB research equipment present since the 1950's is endangered? I thought native species were endangered, not obsolete, rusty "equipment".

I'm about ready to move back to West Virginia and leave you scholastics to your heady debates...either that or take a graduate course at UCD so I can become one of you!
Tongue in cheek, but this is getting out of control!

[amoeba]

Wow, I had no idea what kind of can of worms I was opening. I'm glad I asked though, as I was unaware of any private property issues on the river. I can see why it is such a plus to have a boat for that river now. Thanks to all for the suggestions and advice, I'll likely find my way up there in the coming weeks to poke around a tad bit. I'm not too worried about whether or not I have some 30+ fish days there (I'm not THAT optimistic), with my limited fishing experience any day that I catch 1 decent fish is a big day, and any day that I get to work on my fishing strategy and enjoy some sunshine on the river is a great day.

And thanks again for the heads up on the private property issues there, I have no desire to start my initial forays there with any hassles over trespassing. Is the only access then to that particular stretch of river via boating downstream from Englebright? That would be doable (I am quite competent in the ways of whitewater), but does complicate the logistics a bit more than just being able to drive/hike/wade.

JasonB - just go up there and fish:

And you're not opening cans of worms; you asked where to go - I said bushwhack up the north side. Do stay out of the quarry, and try to be close to the river. There isn't anyone there. I've been up there hundreds of times, and never have encountered a soul. Doesn't mean people from UC don't do their work there - I'm sure they do - but this ain't no bustling Oak Ridge Nat. Lab. The most complex piece of equipment visible is a single outhouse.

There ain't no sheriff out there, UC-Sierra doesn't have anything visible near the river; and there ain't no "fisherman's access road" - or much of anything else - or even any people, on that side of the river. It ain't posted, yet UC treats it like some private fishing club; even though it's supposed to be public access; the whole situation - especially with UC and their attitude - is sickening. Management involves information, education, trail establishment/maintenance, boundary marking, and passive (signage) and not so passive (fencing) barriers. It doesn't begin and end with whining about fishermen. The only saving grace in this is that, contrary to whatever else is posted here, there aren't a bunch of nazi's with shotguns roaming around the other side ready to slap cuffs on you.

If UC didn't want to give access to fishermen, they shouldn't have made a with deal with DFG to allow it and reneg. UC can just give back the hatchery property on tahoe and make it a public fishing pier and boat launch. Or just remove it - there's too much crap around tahoe as it is. Aside from that, owning property (i.e. "private") does not mean you (UC, or anyone else) can keep fishermen off of it. Fishermen can "navigate" on foot anywhere water flows (or could flow), anywhere that could be floated on a watercraft of any kind, including tidelands and tiny streams (there's a common misperception that a river has to be declared navigable by the Corps of Engineers for you to be able to walk along or in it - that's irrelevant). "Access" involving entry to that site can be through easements, or public property, or areas where it is allowed. This is why you see people walking downstream of 20 (either side), in at Hallwood, and elsewhere. Did you think any of that is public? It's not.

Yuba County sheriff has alot more pressing issues with crackheads than sicking it's staff to the river to hassle fishermen at UC's bequest, and create another major access case on the Yuba river that they'll lose in Court (again). It just won't happen. Could be - and is - MUCH worse in MANY other systems; portions of the upper american, butte creek, clear creek, to name a few. Comparatively speaking - the Yuba has MORE access, not less.

Thank you JasonB, for stirring up the pot! I'll keep my musings on the web, and leave the access battles for DFG to wage, since that's who I pay with my license. Wait-a-minute, they already did that.....oh well.......