I was fishing up by B&W Marina off of Highway 12 at Perry’s Boat Harbor with a friend of my this weekend. We started on the West end and were working our way through up to the East end. At the bridge a man was leaning on the railing and asked how we were doing and when into that the marina was off limits and we should not be fishing there. He told us to go ahead and fish through but we were not welcome back.
He said it in such a nice way we did not argue with him because no matter what we said, it was not going to change the fact of what he believes. As we continued to fish down by his office he once again came out to take a picture of us (my boat register number) so the best I could do was just wave to him, which he in return did the same.
Before I go on to list some of the laws that I found, the fishing in that marina was off the wall – I hooked on frog fish that took my hart away and miss a few beats - LOL
“The public trust doctrine is the principle that certain resources are preserved for public use, and that the government is required to maintain them for the public's reasonable use.”
2. California Civil Code Section 830
“Section Eight Hundred and Thirty. Except where the grant
under which the land is held indicates a different intent, the owner
of the upland, when it borders on tide water, takes to ordinary
high-water mark; when it borders upon a navigable lake or stream,
where there is no tide, the owner takes to the edge of the lake or
stream, at low-water mark; when it borders upon any other water, the
owner takes to the middle of the lake or stream.”
If you do go into Perry’s Harbor you should know your rights! The fish in there is off the wall - LOL
I've experienced this same scenario at my home lake MANY times. Bottom line, I've never once been cited. If you are fishing a public body of water and are below the high waterline, you are ok as long as you didn't access that area across someones private property (without permission) above the high waterline to get below it (shore fishing/wading). As for a marina, at least in my home lake, I've had numerous run in's with a former marina owner over the years and I always would tell him the same thing which has been told to me numerous times by the lake manager as well as the sheriffs (a couple of the sheriffs drop in the local tackle store from time to time), " It's a public body of water and your agreement with the MWD allows you to place your docks and such within the boundaries of the marina but does not allow you to exlude me from using the water (in a boat) in the marina for my recreation." I've told him to "go ahead and call the sheriff because I've talked to them and the lake manager about you harrasing me about fishing in here and you will be the one with the problem, not me" numerous times. He never once in more than a dozen altercations called them. He just thought he could intimidate me for whatever reason. He sold the marina to friendly folks a few years ago and I haven't had a problem since.
Last edited by Scott E. on Tue May 31, 2011 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My experience applies to more traditional river systems, but riparian law basically says if you stay in the water you are ok, if you get out on thier land short of an emergency your tresspassing. Keep it civil....keep fishing, ignore them unless they have a gun.
2009 Bass tracker 175 TXW 60 hp
Lowrance HD7 with Lss-1.
Power Drive V2 70lb 24v Minnkota trolling Motor.
Look up the term "navigable waterways"... and read the sportfishing regulations. They are wrong, plain and simple, and are to be politely ignored. If they get offensive or threatening, call the police. They have no rights as long as you're on the water.
Roger
Tight lines forever!
http://www.tunaman.org
*DISCLAIMER* - This post is in no way meant to be offensive. If you feel it is, please re-read then PM me for an explanation if it still offends?
I always thought the same thing but here at lake Pleasant the main marina can kick you out and it is legal. Some kind of a deal between the county and Corps and the marina but they can get you for fishing inside the bouys and it is definitely in the low water area. Might want to ask a G&F officer or lake sherrif to make sure.
Ringer wrote:I always thought the same thing but here at lake Pleasant the main marina can kick you out and it is legal. Some kind of a deal between the county and Corps and the marina but they can get you for fishing inside the bouys and it is definitely in the low water area. Might want to ask a G&F officer or lake sherrif to make sure.
There certainly are some marinas which are designated as such - we have one over in Antioch if I recall correctly. It is posted with the appropriate municipal codes or whatever special authority allows for the exception, but they are few and far between.
Yeah I had the same thing happen to me at Perry's last year, but the guy didn't take any pictures. He just said that I was not allowed to fish there, that it was private. I just ignored him and kept fishing. He was presistent about no fishing and than asked us not to throw our baits up into the berths because of the floats under the water to lift the boats. We said not a problem and he left us alone.
The reason that the Inland Waterways Act does not apply to some marinas is that the water company owns the water and the land under it. That is the case on Lake Pleasant here. I always thought that any public water was open but I guess some lakes that are manmade impoundments on county or state land are different. I know the same does not apply to our lakes that were built on Forest Service land but those marinas still try to bluff you out of their area. Might check on the ownership status of the land and water in question. Once you know for sure you can let everyone know their rights. The local sherrif should have the info. Good luck.
I have had this happen several times while duck hunting. As long as you are in your boat and not on the land as mentioned before you are good, according to the local game warden. Last year a guy tried to run me out and I told him to call the warden and asked if he wanted his number, I told him I wasn't leaving and if he wanted to swim over to me we could talk about it. He stood there awhile then left.
As was mentioned it has been posted here several times and there was a link so that you could print out the laws.
if it is natural no they can't keep you out (except by ordince like ladd's and the one in antioch) if they made their own water way and dredged it out, then it would be private and yes they can keep you out. i think that is what they did from the little bridge back towards b&w. on the west side,opposite of the little bridge, that was natural, so no they can't.
Last edited by blkdog812 on Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Never argue with an idiot; He'll beat you to death with stupidity.
I AM NOT SAYING THERE SHOULD BE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR STUPIDITY,
BUT, WHY DON'T WE JUST TAKE THE SAFETY LABELS OFF OF EVERYTHING
AND LET THE PROBLEM SOLVE ITSELF?"
Let me add a few things about Perry's. They did in fact dredge out a marina cut after moving from the Sacramento River Perry's location.
This means they could be exempt from State Lands fees which usually charges marinas for the space they occupy underneath the water which is considered "State Lands". Hidden Harbor is a good example, they went to court with State Lands and the Court said it was a dredger cut, and not subject to rent. It was, is private property meaning the real estate under the water.
This has nothing to do with inletting the river, and creating a public access.
When the marina owner dredged, and created a navigable waterway for the biz, they created a public access. Of course they may not feel that way, and may dislike fishermen that don't bring any money in, it is now a public access. Same for other waterways created like Disco etc. (You need to note this blkdog, because there are few natural things in the Delta, and natural or not where the river flows a public access exists. The water IS the access, even across private property.)
I would add that marinas like Owl Harbor for example do pay State Lands, and to build a marina must apply for encroachment permits because it was a public waterway BEFORE the marina was built. The developers had to ask permission to build that stuff out there. They do not own the river, or the water behind the docks. You do.
This comes up frequently as ownership often changes hands, or Harbormasters who don't really know what is what. Often, law enforcement won't know either. So when they don't pay State Lands, because the mud is private, doesn't mean they control everybody who floats on that access (The river). It would be like firing at planes overhead because you feel like they are violating your airspace.
This is different, than tresspassing across dry land to get to that public waterway. Different topic, and it is not legal to so.
Seldon Perry's Daughter came out one time and said, "This is not a thoroughfare!"
I replied, "It became one when your family inletted the MOKE river!" and waved.
New ownership, BTW.
A.G.
Last edited by Andy Giannini on Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:31 pm, edited 3 times in total.
SEC. 4. No individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or
possessing the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet,
estuary, or other navigable water in this State, shall be permitted
to exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is required for
any public purpose, nor to destroy or obstruct the free navigation
of such water; and the Legislature shall enact such laws as will give
the most liberal construction to this provision, so that access to
the navigable waters of this State shall be always attainable for the
people thereof.
Its important to note the part about "right of way to such water" means right of way that exists ON the water not across dry land as it is often missinterpreted by bank angling proponents.
One time an angry Harbormaster was telling me this is a private marina, and he was going to have me charged with obstructing a navigable waterway which cracked me up because I replied,
"Then you are saying this is a navigable waterway,... I am navigating!"
Ringer wrote:I always thought the same thing but here at lake Pleasant the main marina can kick you out and it is legal. Some kind of a deal between the county and Corps and the marina but they can get you for fishing inside the bouys and it is definitely in the low water area. Might want to ask a G&F officer or lake sherrif to make sure.
When California became a state, the state became owner of all natural waterways, and jurisdiction is administered under the Public Trust Doctrine.
In general, man made bodies of water fall under the jurisdiction of the owner, e.g., such as reservoirs owned by water companies, city, county, etc.
This happebed to a friend and I fishing for Crappi in one of Lakeports harbors. A very abusive woman told us to get out as we were trespassing and her Grandchildren were coming to fish for the Crappi. Now if she had been nice about it we would have gone but her language was such that we just ignored her. She threatened to cal lthe police on us. I told her she was harrassing a fishermen which is against the law and I would call the Game Warden and have her sited. She left in a huff. You can also use this law while hunting.
Been following this thread closely since I have a club event out of B&W this weekend and have been known to slip into Perry's on occasion. I hate to get yelled at, and would avoid it, unless I felt the urge to flip the boat docks.
Do we have an authorative answer? I'm aware of the opinions and the best guesses, but what do the guys with the guns say? Sherrif or DFG should have an answer.
You may get yelled at, it doesn't mean that you are wrong by fishing there.
As a challange, I would like to hear from anyone who has been cited/convicted while floating through or fishing at Perry's.
I would print my quote, from the Ca. Constitution, make about three copies. One for Perry's, one for law enforcement, and one for your attorney which I am not.
Managers of Marinas like to control their little area, sometimes egos get out of hand. And they may harrass anglers who are doing nothing wrong. And if you really believe that the shore owner controls the waterway and all access or river traffic don't fish the Delta at all. Somebody owns every square inch of every mile of the waterway. Yet, you don't see farmers yelling at you or throwing rocks. Just people suffering from cognitive distortions about their "ownership" or control of some little piece of water.
Marty wrote:The authoritative answer to me is go fish Perry’s Boat Harbor – I know I will and If confronted again, I will smile and say thank you!
Why don't we hold a tourney inside Perry's?! I'm sure that will make them happy!
Chris
=========================
2004 Ranger 521VX, ETEC250HO
8" Atlas Hydro Plate, 25p Tempest+
Hotfoot/ProTrim/4-bank Dual Pro
2x Blade Series Power Poles
Minn Kota Fortrex 112
Lowrance HDS12 Carbon & Gen3
=========================
Andy as I understand the laws regarding this matter it only applies to navigable waterway (meaning has tidal movement). which means this would apply to the delta but may or may not to clear lake. What is your opinion.
Here is a excerpt I found: The vast body of federal regulation concerning navigable waters frequently gives rise to litigation, and in many cases the courts have the difficult job of determining whether particular bodies of water are navigable (and thus subject to the law or regulation in question). Lakes and rivers are generally considered navigable waters, but smaller bodies of water may also be navigable. Attempting to address years of problematic litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1979 created four tests for determining what constitutes navigable waters. Established in Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 100 S. Ct. 383, 62 L. Ed. 2d 332, the tests ask whether the body of water (1) is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, (2) connects with a continuous interstate waterway, (3) has navigable capacity, and (4) is actually navigable. Using these tests, courts have held that bodies of water much smaller than lakes and rivers also constitute navigable waters. Even shallow streams that are traversable only by canoe have met the test.
Thank You Leon Pugh
leon.pugh@comcast.net
http://www.dobynsrods.com/
I am not sure what you are asking about Clear Lake, must be a certain area. But I would refer back to my excerpt from the Ca. Constitution. It does not matter, who owns the land if you are on the water, (and entered that body of water legally) you have right of way, and your right is paramount to the underlying property owner.
There are some areas where codes have been enacted like at the marina in Antioch, and here is the deal. A guy would have to get cited, hire an expert attorney in Water Code and challange it before a judge which is gonna cost money to find out if it is a violation of your rights. (Keep in mind a judge may not agree with you.)
I am not an attorney. At my work I have access to the best Water Code attorneys in this state. These ownership/access issues come up frequently at work, and that is where my info or case history comes from.
On Clearlake, I can remember one set of docks just to the north side of Henderson that has a floating rope around his dock and the next that cut off access between the docks. Also on the Delta, inside Disco (Lido Bay?) ... there are more and more of the docks being roped off as well. I fished inside there a couple of months ago and overheard one owner said something about roping off his dock as well to prevent us from fishing in front of his house.
I know what the law is ... but the problem is these owners don't and maybe don't care. This is becoming more and more of an issue and someone should point out to the sheriff or other law enforcement to get these ropes untied ...
Chris
=========================
2004 Ranger 521VX, ETEC250HO
8" Atlas Hydro Plate, 25p Tempest+
Hotfoot/ProTrim/4-bank Dual Pro
2x Blade Series Power Poles
Minn Kota Fortrex 112
Lowrance HDS12 Carbon & Gen3
=========================
Cooch is quick to point out that many dock owners do this to prevent floating weeds from ganging up behind a dock.
But the message, as you heard is often clear.
I am not sure who would even be intrested in those floating lines? Dept of Boating and Waterways? Local law enforcement? What I have noticed about local law enforcement is they usually side with the property owners in their service area or constituents. Thinking it would be hugely unpopular for a Deputy to go around telling people that the lines were unlawful obstructions, he might end up getting fired or something.
But I agree with you, rope bouys and such are a purposeful hinderance to navigation.
I would wager the lines are not on the existing or previous permit for encroachment, maybe that would be the more effective approach. Have an inspector point out to the owner that the line must taken down. (Inspectors are hugely unpopular anyway, just ask me.) Report it as a dock addition, hindering navigation without a permit.
Maybe Law Enforcement is a better idea, Harbors and Navigation Code 131 Obstuction of Navigable Waterway, misdemeanor offense, 1000 bucks/six months or both.
And if you cruise around the Navigation code, Clear Lake and all other navigable waters are listed.
On Clearlake, I can remember one set of docks just to the north side of Henderson that has a floating rope around his dock and the next that cut off access between the docks. Also on the Delta, inside Disco (Lido Bay?) ... there are more and more of the docks being roped off as well. I fished inside there a couple of months ago and overheard one owner said something about roping off his dock as well to prevent us from fishing in front of his house.
I know what the law is ... but the problem is these owners don't and maybe don't care. This is becoming more and more of an issue and someone should point out to the sheriff or other law enforcement to get these ropes untied ...
There is no issue at all. If the ropes block my fishing then the ropes get cut. Very easy and legal solution.
Its a tough thing with ethics, You know that the other person is way out of line yet the "Self -validating Virtue" kicks in. In that way the act is judged by the percieved goodness of the person doing it, rather than the other way around. This can also be applied by the doer, who reasons, "I am a good and ethical person. I have decided to do this; therefore it must be an ethical thing to do." Effective, seductive, and dangerous, these rationalizations short-circut ethical decision making, and are among the reasons people do bad things.
I agree the lines are wrong, but I would not encourage anyone to cut them.
You could be charged with vandalism, or who knows what else, be sued in small claims for damages, get into a confrontation that may escalate.
There is another factor, if you show up to fish and tell some shoreline owner its your right, it is much more likely to escalate than when a guy uniform shows up with gun and a badge and tells the owner what the law is.
.02 A.G.
Last edited by Andy Giannini on Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
From: GERALD W. HOKSTAD (Lawman)
750 B St #3200
SD CA 92101
619-212-1985
Date: 2-24-2011
Here are some relevant codes, case law and points regarding the rights to access to all the waters of San Diego Bay and Mission Bay.
[i]Here in SD we have been having problems with entities that believe they control waterways adjacent to their properties. I believe the following goes for all public waters in the state of California. Even if a river or lake overflows on to privite property, you can go by boat on that waterway even though it is on top of flooded private land. JJCJR[/i]
CALIFORNIA CODES
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 66478.1-66478.14
66478.1. It is the intent of the Legislature, by the provisions of
Sections 66478.1 through 66478.10 of this article to implement
Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution insofar as
Sections 66478.1 through 66478.10 are applicable to navigable waters.
66478.2. The Legislature finds and declares that the public natural
resources of this state are limited in quantity and that the
population of this state has grown at a rapid rate and will continue
to do so, thus increasing the need for utilization of public natural
resources. The increase in population has also increased demand for
private property adjacent to public natural resources through real
estate subdivision developments which resulted in diminishing public
access to public natural resources.
66478.3. The Legislature further finds and declares that it is
essential to the health and well-being of all citizens of this state
that public access to public natural resources be increased. It is
the intent of the Legislature to increase public access to public
natural resources.
66478.4. (a) No local agency shall approve either a tentative or a
final map of any proposed subdivision to be fronted upon a public
waterway, river, or stream which does not provide, or have available,
reasonable public access by fee or easement from a public highway to
that portion of the bank of the river or stream bordering or lying
within the proposed subdivision.
(b) Reasonable public access shall be determined by the local
agency in which the proposed subdivision is to be located. In making
the determination of what shall be reasonable access, the local
agency shall consider all of the following:
(1) That access may be by highway, foot trail, bike trail, horse
trail, or any other means of travel.
(2) The size of the subdivision.
(3) The type of riverbank and the various appropriate
recreational, educational, and scientific uses, including, but not
limited to, swimming, diving, boating, fishing, water skiing,
scientific collection, and teaching.
(4) The likelihood of trespass on private property and reasonable
means of avoiding these trespasses.
(c) A public waterway, river, or stream for the purposes of
Sections 66477.2, 66478.4, 66478.5 and 66478.6 means those waterways,
rivers and streams defined in Sections 100 through 106 of the
Harbors and Navigation Code, any stream declared to be a public
highway for fishing pursuant to Sections 25660 through 25662 of the
Government Code, the rivers listed in Section 1505 of the Fish and
Game Code as spawning areas, all waterways, rivers and streams
downstream from any state or federal salmon or steelhead fish
hatcheries.
66478.5. (a) No local agency shall approve either a tentative or a
final map of any proposed subdivision to be fronted upon a public
waterway, river, or stream which does not provide for a dedication of
a public easement along a portion of the bank of the river or stream
bordering or lying within the proposed subdivision.
(b) The extent, width and character of the public easement shall
be reasonably defined to achieve reasonable public use of the public
waterway, river, or stream consistent with public safety. The
reasonableness and extent of the easement shall be determined by the
local agency in which the proposed subdivision is to be located. In making the determination for reasonably defining the extent, width,
and character of the public easement, the local agency shall consider
all of the following:
(1) That the easement may be for a foot trail, bicycle trail, or
horse trail.
(2) The size of the subdivision.
(3) The type of riverbank and the various appropriate
recreational, educational and scientific uses including, but not
limited to, swimming, diving, boating, fishing, water skiing,
scientific collection and teaching.
(4) The likelihood of trespass on private property and reasonable
means of avoiding these trespasses.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 10 WATER
SEC. 4. No individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or
possessing the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet,
estuary, or other navigable water in this State, shall be permitted
to exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is required for
any public purpose, nor to destroy or obstruct the free navigation
of such water; and the Legislature shall enact such laws as will give
the most liberal construction to this provision, so that access to
the navigable waters of this State shall be always attainable for the
people thereof.
The above Article 10/4 makes access to all navigable water a constitutional right.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, and no land owned by the State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water
containing fish.
The above California Constitutional Clauses are right on point. You can’t restrict the use of navigable waters unless you meet constitutional strict scrutiny requirements. There must be a compelling state interest. Con Law 101
Government Code Section 39933 states: “All navigable waters shall remain open to the free and unobstructed navigation of the public”. In the case of Lane V City of Redondo beach 49 Cal.App.3d 251 the court opined that the city can’t close a street or sell it or vacate it when its used for access to tidelands. The public must have access.
Here is an early interesting case of People V Truckee Lumber Co 116 Cal. 397, 401. The exact holding of this case is if a fish is there, even on waters of private ownership, they are deemed for such purposes public waters. The reason is a fish is a public asset and there is a right to get that public asset even in waters on private land. The extrapolation is, even if a marina is private, because a public asset swam under the marina dock, I get to target that fish.
Lets look at some codes and statutes: Its illegal to obstruct navigation on any river, lake, bay stream, canal or basin. See CA Civil Code 3479, Penal Code Section 370 and Harbors & Navigation Code Section 131.
The holding in Forestier v Johnson 164 Cal. 24 (1912) states that water on private land adjacent to the public Napa River is navigable and the private land owner can’t exclude the public. This type of case law exists in all 50 states with the same holding.
One of my favorite examples and this type of case exists in all 50 states. A farmer owns private lands. The lake floods and doubles in size covering the farmers private lands. The farmer has no right to exclude the public. Bohn v Albertson 107 Cal.2nd 738 (1951). The public was allowed to fish there. This is also backed up by Landmark case of City of Berkley v. Superior Court (1980) 26 Cal.3d 515, 546. Case law also establishes some rights of the public to cross private land by necessity to gain access to public water ways. see State v Superior Court (Lyon) (1981) 29 Cal.3d 210, 226-233.
You likely have thought a marina is not a navigable water way. It’s not blocking interstate commerce or shipping. Sorry, The Mack case 19 Cal.App.3d at 1044 & 1045 (1971) holds that recreation & leisure, such as fishing, is also an extremely important right and the public access can not be denied on outdated narrow theories of the commerce clause. If its water that will float a boat, the public has an easement. The court stated, boating for mere pleasure is a sufficient test of navigability. Also of importance the court stated title of the land is not relevant. The test is whether the public has the right of fishing & navigation. Id at 1050. The case contains other good stuff.
We know the government has reasonable police powers for the safety of the general public. The marina will advance this theory. Sorry, it was rejected in Hitchings v Del Rio Woods Recreation and Parks 55 Cal.App.3d 560 (1976). There is zero evidence to suggest an angler fishing near or directly in a marina is a safety hazard. Its been going on in SD Bay by hundreds of anglers forever and in every harbor and bay in CA. The speed of boats in a marina is below a wakeless speed. Fishing anglers have shown themselves very adept of moving out of the way and being courteous. There is no history of any safety problems. Courts are especially sensitive to infringements upon constitutional rights under the guise of the exercise of the police power. See Scrutton v County of Sacramento (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 412, 421.
I would add just one thing, the Legislature did pass a law, where you could not discharge a firearm on flooded lands, even though you may access those areas by boat. Yep, you can fish there but the guys who went duck hunting on a flooded island that was a freak flood pissed off too many landowners. It was like adding insult to injury.
So duck hunters keep that in mind if it is a odd event that floods some private property.
Well, I guess that answers my question Richard.
Thanks for all the great information. You guys did all the heavy lifting for the rest of us, and I think I can safely say we all appreciate it.
It's a shame that it seems like you need to be a lawyer nowadays just to be able to fish.
What about fishing around bridges pilings and farm water discharge outlets? I've been told to leave by the bridge operator while fishing around the bridge pilings near cruiser heaven marina and around the outlet pipes near holland riverside marina shown here http://goo.gl/maps/vclMR. I was told to stay 100 yards away from the pipes. But then a friend of mine was told to stay away 100 feet at another time. Note there are no signs anywhere but they said it's some federal law. I dint' want to argue and went on my way. What about that?
Often adjacent to bridges a public right of way is purchased through the private property owner. There may or may not be a public access down to mean high tide right next to the bridge. If there is a legal parking area is another question.
Even though I operate discharge pipes from Reclamation Districts, I have not heard anything about some federal law. That is interesting, and worth a look on my part. It could be just baloney. But I do know, that easement is not a public right of way or access. It is usually an easement through private property, for the purpose of drainage, and does not include a recreational easement. (By the same example, you cannot hunt or fish the canals that run through private property. It is not a park district, but rather a reclamation district its purpose being draining the swamplands for agriculture.) To grant others recreational access would be beyond the right of the district, and the underlying property owner could not grant access even if they wanted to without consent of the district. The district right to maintain the flood control project works is paramount to the underlying property owner.
Even if a law were passed to make all levees a public access, (It was tried before.) it would have been an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation. You (the state) would have to pay each underlying property owner for that access. (And how broke is the State right now? Can you imagine negotiating with every shoreline property owner in the Delta?)
.02
After giving it some thought, probably they told you to stay away from the discharge pipes to avoid liability. But, they created another liability by telling you to fish 100 yards away or whatever. They did not have that right to tell you you could fish on someone else's property. And if they implied that it was "OK" and something went wrong, the district would have been back on the hook for telling you to fish over there.
Wow, all this legal stuff makes my brain tired. Consult with a water code attorney.
Marty,
I was fishing in there some time back and and got about half way in when a teenager came out and said started yelling at us to get the hell out of there..I pretty much ignored him at first and then he started talking fullish about getting his gun and putting a hole in my boat... His dad then came out and said we better get going... I fished my way back out.. With all the idiots in the world today... Was not worth a possible bad situation... I have not been back...
~ Thanks for the support ~
Walkers Brittanys
RBBASS
www.optimabatteries.com
www.outdoorproshops.com
www.lock-n-haul.com/
www.purefishing.com
Berkley Fishing
Abu Garcia
imalures.com
optimumbaits.com
The Rod Glove http://vrxfishing.com/
I've been told to leave an area both on Clear Lake and in the Delta. I've been threatened, cussed at, and had rocks thrown. I found that when confronted by some "uninformed" person that wants me gone I just pick up my Cell phone and inform the other party that I'm calling the DFG or Sheriff and we will get it clarified ASAP. Each time I've done this the other person has retreated, usually grumbling, but leaving. So far, I've never had to push "SEND", but have the Number pre-programed. Works for me................................
Homeowners along the Clear Lake shoreline are always trying to pull some type of trick to keep anglers from fishing near their docks, but it backfired on several homeowners roughly a few years back. They were leaving unattended fishing poles out on their docks with line in the water during a tournament to prevent boat anglers from fishing in the area. Several anglers called the DFG, who sent out wardens to investigate. Not only did the wardens cite every homeowner for unattended fishing poles, but several were cited for not having a valid fishing license, and all were given written warnings about impeding the ability of boaters to maneuver through navigable water.
I see that Perry's has actually put up a "No Trespassing" sign at the north entrance. Totally illegal and B.S.
They should be cited for impeding our rights. I'm all for cutting the sign down.
I've taken a picture of it, but not sure how to upload it here.
I say we have a get together at Perry's. Let's see how many boats we can fit in there.
So when I got off the water today, there were two Sacramento Sheriffs BS'n. So I asked them what is the real deal about the off limits sign going into Perry's and if they can do it since some say it is navigable water. They called their 'boat' guy and confirmed that Perry's can keep fisherman out and that if called, would write a ticket for trespassing.
Marvin, from our Bass Club, said he talked to Perry's and it was put up after some fisherman ripped a sail by an errant cast and Perry's had to pay $600 for the damage.
Morgan
Attachments
Sign at entrances to Perry's
Perrys no Fishing sign.jpg (21.64 KiB) Viewed 7303 times
Well the story of the guy ripping a sail, he was in the wrong if it is true. Doesn't mean you can't float there any more than some guy keying my car on my sidewalk. The sidewalk is still a public access maintained by me.
I will make some phone calls in the morrow to the right guys at Sac. enforcement.
If Perry's can enforce no tresspass in the cut, they can across Moke, and none of you guys can launch at B&W and head past Perry's at all.
Which is baloney, The Moke is a navigable waterway.
When the Perry family decided to inlet the Moke, for their biz, they created a public access.
I will call the "Boat Guy" and find out where in California Constitution he is screwing up.
The issue is not Perry's it is the fact that you guys have the RIGHT to navigate regardless who the shoreline property owner is. Think about it. Every single inch of shoreline property is owned. The only reason you can fart around in Bassboats and go fishing is because it is in our Ca. Constitution. Otherwise any person that owned a piece of shoreline property on the Delta, could tell you "You may not pass."
.02
Last edited by Andy Giannini on Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Thanks Andy, I also will anxiously await your reply.
And if possible, some documentation that we can read, so it's not just word of mouth.
Thanks,
Dave T.
Advertising