Truckee River at Hirschdale - Beware

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

Hey Billy - Opening Day 49 years ago you, Don Rotsma, and I did just that! Best, Bob

Yes, Bob, we were just so darn fortunate to be born right after World War II, in the 1940s.



Yes, Hirschdale was a standard place to fish and nobody cared back then.

Top Sacramento fly fisher, Mike Murphy, told me about fishing down there, years ago.


Back then we were much younger and would close the shop and drive to the Truckee River for the evening hatches.

The old timers told us that around the 4th of July was a good time to fish the Truckee River.


It is very hard to describe how good fly fishing was in Northern California in the 1960s and 1970s.

The 'Gezzer Patrol', born in the 1920s, told us stories about fly fishing in Nor Cal before World War II.

[lee s.]

IF I am standing IN the river and am suddenly taking fire there IS going to be RETURN fire!!!
....lee s.

[amoeba]

I am really concerned with the sheriff inaction described in the OP, that they didn't think they could build a case. How's that? Can't search, seize, and test weapons, or hands/clothing for gun residue? That nonresponse is going to result in worse, next time.

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

Today, you could get hurt in situations like this.




I ran across a "road rage" video where two cars were having a problem with each other on the freeway.

When they pulled off and got stopped by congestion on the off-ramp, two younger guys jumped out and ran back to the other car

and one younger guy punched that driver through the window. The driver that was punched, shot the younger guy 5 times.

It was shocking........



Personally, I stay far away from any signs of trouble like that.

[mogaru]

. Implied Dedication
Under the doctrine of implied dedication, continued public use of private land for more than five years with full knowledge of the owner, without asking or receiving permission, and without objection, gives rise to an easement to navigable waters.115 The California Supreme Court found that an informal or implied dedication of land may occur by “simply setting it apart or devoting it to that use.”116 Furthermore, “[t]o constitute a dedication at common law no particular formality of either word or act is required.”117 Thus, the California Supreme Court in 1982 ruled that the use of a street by the public for a “reasonable length of time, where the intention of the owner to dedicate is clearly shown, is sufficient, without any specific action by the municipal authorities, either by resolution or by repairs or improvements.”118
Subsequent decisions held that in dedication by acquiescence of the owner, for a less than five year period, actual intent of the owner must be shown. 119 However, for periods in excess of
111 Id. at 282-83
112 Id. at 283, 286.
113 Id. at 283.
114 Id. at 283-84. See infra Part III. C. 3 (“Reasonable Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions”). 115 Gion v. City of Santa Cruz, 2 Cal. 3d 29, 38 (1970).
116 Smith v. City of San Luis Obispo, 95 Cal. 463, 466 (1892).
117 Id.
118 Id. at 470; see also Brumbaugh v. Cnty. of Imperial, 134 Cal. App. 3d 556, 563 (1982).
119 Union Transp. Co. v. Sacramento Cnty., 42 Cal. 2d 235, 240-241(1954),
23
five years, if the public has engaged in “long-continued adverse use,” the question of intent shifts from the owner to that of the public.120 Parties seeking to establish that a tract of land has been impliedly dedicated must show that “persons used the property believing the public had a right to such use.”121 The public use need not be “adverse” to the interest of the owner in the same way as the word is used in adverse possession cases.122 In fact, the landowner's intention is not necessarily relevant as to whether there has been an implied dedication.123 Litigants need to show only that the land was used as if it were public land.124

[Woodman]

Spite of being a private property the people may have a right to access due to the fact that access was granted previously and for a time of over five years. There was even a parking space right after the bridge. It is true that California is all about to protect access rights to rivers and coasts. https://www.slc.ca.gov/wp-content/up...ccessGuide.pdf. All of this is clearly stated and explained on page 27 and yes. Caltrout, trout unlimited and American whitewater should take to this property owner.

This is likely one reason the new owner is being so stringent about limiting access.

[mogaru]

This piece of land although private has been open to the public for a long time which legally falls into the "implied dedication" definition of the law. If taken to court, there is a great chance he will have to provide some kind of access. Having some guys discharging weapons might also get this property owner in legal troubles if somebody is shot or killed.

[Darian]

Two guys shooting it out over access to a small segment of the Truckee River. What could go wrong with that??

You've done your research. Why not find an organization to advocate/litigate and establish the right to access?? Once that's done, you could count on law enforcement to stop the argument.

[amoeba]

Today, you could get hurt in situations like this.




I ran across a "road rage" video where two cars were having a problem with each other on the freeway.

When they pulled off and got stopped by congestion on the off-ramp, two younger guys jumped out and ran back to the other car

and one younger guy punched that driver through the window. The driver that was punched, shot the younger guy 5 times.

It was shocking........



Personally, I stay far away from any signs of trouble like that.

This is not Road Rage, it's discharging a firearm in a residential community. You can't shoot there, not at people, paper targets, trees, animals, or straight up in the air...at all. Sheriff inaction is shocking.

[amoeba]

Self defense exceptions, of course.