Visiting the delta

[trout]

Guess I'll try here...

Hey there everyone. Long time reader with very little post. I will be visiting the area this weekend and was looking for a place to fish. Last time I was there I was lucky enough to bring my boat. This time however it’s a family trip but managed to get a day of fishing on Sunday. I was looking for any info you guys are willing to give up for areas to fish off the bank/shore. Mainly looking to wet a line and get me some bass action. If your willing to give up info please be a little detail I am not familiar with the area what so ever... Also read an old post about 14 Mile Slough which sound like a good place to start, can anyone tell me where this is at? Thanks in advance for any info.... "TIGHT LINES EVERYONE"

Jose

trout

Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:35 pm

Top

[jloo283]

I used to walk the shores along HW 160, south of Rio vista bridge. As you're heading south towards Antioch bridge from Rio Vista bridge, about a mile or so, look on your right after passing the duck club. There are places to park and walk down the rocky bank. You may even see cars parked there and guys fishing. All along HW 160, there are rocky banks, tulle banks, and sandy shores. I always did well with a spinner bait.

Good luck
James

[fishin45]

14 mile slough is off the main river channel in stockton. it is on the north side of the I 5 bridge, the port, ladds. The furthest north part of 14 mile hits whites slough.14 mile slough is really long(14 mile says it all) so you will have to figure out the area you want to fish first because you cant walk it all in a day. not sure the hot spots but this should get you pointed in the right direction to locate it on a map.

good luck

[whazup]

14 mile slough is off the main river channel in stockton. it is on the north side of the I 5 bridge, the port, ladds. The furthest north part of 14 mile hits whites slough.14 mile slough is really long(14 mile says it all) so you will have to figure out the area you want to fish first because you cant walk it all in a day. not sure the hot spots but this should get you pointed in the right direction to locate it on a map.

good luck

Not quite. 14 Mile Slough does not connect directly to Whites Slough. Also, I don't believe there is public road access to 14 Mile Sloughs shoreline. Could be wrong about that.

[Randy Walker]

In case you are fishing Monday and see this post... Go I-5 and get off on 8 mile road west... Drive down to the first bridge and make a right onto dirt road.. This is called Bishop Cut and holds fish... U can walk the bank and catch fish both to North and South of bridge... You can access the levee road to 14 mile, but you really don't need too... Bishop Cut should work out for you...

Good luck ~

[Andy Giannini]

I used to walk the shores along HW 160, south of Rio vista bridge. As you're heading south towards Antioch bridge from Rio Vista bridge, about a mile or so, look on your right after passing the duck club. There are places to park and walk down the rocky bank. You may even see cars parked there and guys fishing. All along HW 160, there are rocky banks, tulle banks, and sandy shores. I always did well with a spinner bait.

Good luck
James

And I would point out James, you were tresspassing. The levee is posted, and either the underlying property owner or the District could have you charged. The Cal Trans ROW or easement does not include a recreational access down to the water. It is not public access, nor a park, (no toliets or trash cans), and the rocky bank was not designed for pedestrian access. Giving others the same advice is where I must follow up on your post.

Regards,

A.G.

[jloo283]

Andy, you are absolutely right about the posted signs, thanks for the follow up. However, there are also many areas with no signs, (nothing visible anyways). I always made sure there were no signs where I was at, plus other people were there as well. In fact, F&G and sherif deputies frequently dropped by to inspect licenses, chat with us, etc... and I've specifically mentioned this to them. There were no problems, as far as they or I could tell.

It's been a while since I've gone there but I doubt that's changed today.

James

[Andy Giannini]

And that is true for the entire levee, there is not a sign every 50 feet or so. The signs state "This Levee is private property..." How ever far this levee may run.

The fact that other people were also tresspassing does not rationalize more tresspassing.

The issue the districts have with fisherman/tresspassers is damage to the Flood Control Project Works.

I have been on several FEMA post flood inspections for damage, and they would like to say and have said,

"This is not flood damage, this is a 'fishing spot' YOU have not been controlling unauthorized access to the Flood Project Works."

This includes pedestrian trails, revetment moved, displaced, made into fire rings, or just tossed into the water to create casting platforms as wingdams.

There is also another issue of liability. Who get sued when someone falls etc.

Often Law enforcement is only familiar with the code they work with most frequently, and may not know water code violations. Also F&G only enforces F&G code, they have a hunter tresspass, but not a fishing tresspass at this point. We are working on that.

I am an adamant angler's advocate, but cannot promote tresspass or vandalisim.

Regards,

Andy Giannini
SU Brannan-Andrus Levee Maintenance District

[jloo283]

Your point is well taken Andy. I'm sure you/county/state would like to round up all these guys through out the state fishing in areas they may not be allowed to because it's "NOT ALLOWED" well, good luck with that. I hope you get your words across.

James

[Andy Giannini]

To be honest, we don't want to "round up" anybody.

Most often anglers are adamant the have a right to be there when in fact they do not.

That is different than being on the water, and entering the waterway from a legal access.

Often anglers misinterpret the State Constitution, or just add new awesome internet "facts" to support arguement.

Truth is, if you are on the water, you may float anywhere, that is your right.

But you may not tresspass across dry land to get there or mean high tide.

A great example might be Discovery Bay, or Sacramento. Just start hopping fences to get to get to that water with your fish pole. That is a tresspass, just like crossing some farmer's property even though it is not fenced.

Not trying to spout of to you personally at this point. The forum is just a great way to speak to many anglers in one shot.

While I am not an attorney, I get to work with the best water code attorneys in this state at my work where these issues often pop up.

Regards,

A.G.

[jloo283]

Andy, your analogy is getting a bit too far comparing some fishermen fishing off a bank next to a levee and public road on which hundreds of cars are passing by daily, who should not be there for the fear of potentially destroying "flood control projects" thereby having signs posted along the levee, to outright trespassing by "hopping fences to get to that water" through farms and residential areas. It's no wonder you guys can't do a thing about people fishing off of HW 160.

At no point was I promoting trespassing as we both are in agreement here.

And sticking to this particular issue, out of curiosity, just who owns the entire levee along HW 160 anyways? The farmers, the county, the state, the feds? There is quite a distinction here between a private farms/resident (fenced or not) vs some state/county/fed owned, publicly accessible land where just a portion of it that is adjecent may be off limits, like is the case with the levee along HW 160.

And speaking of signs being at every 50 ft, when was the last time you were there? Unless new signs have been up in the recent past, the only signs I've seen were scattered throughout, most of which were barely readable if I may add.

Plus, technically, there is nothing specific in the wording of the signs (those that were still readable) that states a range of distance is off limits. Technically, as long as one isn't directly near the sign and is reasonablely away from one, it may be interpreted that no such limits apply and being next to a public road on which anyone can stop/park (breakdown, piss, whatever reason) and get down to do whatever (such as fishing) may be pretty tough to enforce because there is a vague sign some distance away.

I appluad your intentions and in agreement with most of it. I appreciate your job and what you/your department are trying to achieve and I'll leave you at that.

James

[Andy Giannini]

I will try to answer your questions one at a time.

The analogy is 100% accurate. There is no difference between hopping a fence and just wandering out on some farmer's property either landside to go hunting or waterside. The attempts to post the levee and blatant disregard are what we are talking about right now. It may be "too far" in your perspective, but that is how you rationalize doing the wrong thing. We regularly have tresspass issues in front of residences out in the country for the same types of justification. That is right, they pull right up in front of a house and fish, on private property, that the owner owns and pays taxes on.

We can do a "thing" about it, the issue rests with LE doing their job, enforcing the law.

When you advocated just pulling off and going fishing along 160 you were in fact promoting tresspass, and that was the only reason I responded to your post. You may feel that way, but despite the no tresspass signs, you were suggesting people just go out there anyway. How ever you try to rationalize it, being by a highway, people already tresspassing does not make it right. I already explained the Cal-Trans easement or right of way does not include a recreational easement down to the water. It is not a big campground or fishing access. You can drive through it, break down, call for help whatever. But it is not a public access to the river.

Hint, most of the the land in California is owned. If you don't see a big sign saying "Public Fishing Access" it probably isn't.

Most of the land underneath levees is owned by the private property owner, who pays assessments towards maintenance of the levee which is a Flood Control Project that is situated upon his land. Some levees may be Federal Projects, like the Sacramento under the juristiction of the US Army CORPs of Engineers, and also under DWR's including the local district.

A misconception is, "Cal Trans has a highway here so the State must own it, and I have the right to fish here...."

Not true, There is a underlying property owner who really does own it pays taxes on it, insurance, and BTW Caltrans is still refusing to pay any Reclamation Taxes, which is going to be a long drawn out battle.

The last time I was out there? Pretty much every day for the past 20 years.

The signs have been vandalised repeatedly, some may be not in good shape. But even if they are many choose to disregard them and go anyway. Everybody knows what the signs say. Save it for for the judge.

The intent of the signs was not to say "50 ft." it was to say "This Levee". How far does that levee go?

Good question, it goes about thirty miles to encompass the island. It may seem a bit simple to just say this levee, but that is exactly what it means. You need to either cross a bridge or ferry to hop off an island or levee. Just because you pull fifty feet foward past a sign, does not mean you have left the levee that was posted.

Feel free to send me a PM and come out and go for a ride a long.

No kidding, I would enjoy showing you everything.

And I still love fishing!

Regards,

A.G.

[Ceaser]

JLoo! YOU CRIMINAL!!! FISHING ON 160! HORRIBLE! Guess all that tresspassing I did at the watershed reseviors makes me a career criminal! Gosh all you fisherman running amuck are ruining our delta! oh yeah dont walk near train tracks that makes u a criminal too!

Code: Select all

[Andy Giannini]

Like I said Ceaser, tresspass does not justify more tresspass.

(Edit, Also a Prescriptive Right acquired by use, cannot be obtained against a public entity. It may work with the private property owner, but not against the Corps, DWR, State Reclamation Board, or the the local Reclamation District.) .02

[Ceaser]

point taken

[jloo283]

Well I guess they'll have to get in line to "charge" me for my lifetime's worth of trespasses because as a career criminal, I've got a lifetime's worth of "blatant disregard" of the laws of the land that of course no one else dares to violate because the signs say so:

* countless number of home owners whose driveways I may have stepped/driven on across the US
* speeding, car pool and express lanes violations, crossing double solid lines, rolling stop signs, illegal turns, red lights, driving in the wrong lane, ahhhh I'm sure there are more
* the state and feds for not reporting on my tax return my $100 winnings in my club tournament last year
* all the parking violations
* etc...

Andy, it's been educational. Thanks
James

[Terry Smith]

State law say's that there has to be at least 3 posted no trespassing signs within 1 mile for you to be considered trespassing. It does not have to be fenced gated or anything else..... Ignorance of the law doesn't make it right.


Terry

[CN]

Like I said Ceaser, tresspass does not justify more tresspass.

(Edit, Also a Prescriptive Right acquired by use, cannot be obtained against a public entity. It may work with the private property owner, but not against the Corps, DWR, State Reclamation Board, or the the local Reclamation District.) .02

Andy how many people has your District prosocuted and convicted of tresspassing along this stretch of Highway? It would appear not many and it is real hard to prosocute for tresspass. Perhap's if the Government would stop taking these thing's away IE: Government property we would not be tresspassing on what in my mind is OUR'S not your's.

Mike Nance

[jloo283]

Ignorance of the law doesn't make it right.
Terry

Terry, I'd have to disagree, it should read 'ignorance of the law doesn't make it LEGAL' and I'd like to think that's what you meant. Though some appear to be so, laws have no regards for what is "right" or "wrong," just what is legal or not legal.

James

[Andy Giannini]

Like I said Ceaser, tresspass does not justify more tresspass.

(Edit, Also a Prescriptive Right acquired by use, cannot be obtained against a public entity. It may work with the private property owner, but not against the Corps, DWR, State Reclamation Board, or the the local Reclamation District.) .02

Andy how many people has your District prosocuted and convicted of tresspassing along this stretch of Highway? It would appear not many and it is real hard to prosocute for tresspass. Perhap's if the Government would stop taking these thing's away IE: Government property we would not be tresspassing on what in my mind is OUR'S not your's.

Mike Nance

Mike, I do not know. It is easier for LE to cite them for parking, so that is the most frequent citation.

The "Government" isn't trying to take things away in this instance. You are creating a right in your mind that does not exist. The land underneath that levee is in fact for the most part private property. The Districts maintain a levee situated on that private property. The Districts are comprised of the landowners of those properties, and they pay assessments towards its maintenance, and improvements. They also pay to dewater the the tracts of land, via a network of ditches, canals, and pumping plants. These Districts are not some type of recreational parks district, there are no trash cans, toliets, pedestrian access, free boat launch or anything else. They exist to provide some measure of flood protection, we do not assess the locals to provide a park district. Plus to provide a recreational easement though private property would be beyond the District's right. We can go anywhere and do anything in the name of Flood Control but I cannot give you permission to fish on old man Willet's piece of levee. Nor can I say go hunt his section of canal, same difference.

There was a bill introduced by Keene some years ago that would have made any levee a public access, he withdrew it. But if proves the point, that he was trying to create a new access that did not exist.

These may be unhappy answers that people who want access may not want to hear, but they are facts.

Even the State Park on Brannan is at risk for being closed. Now that IS A PARK, and the State doesn't seem to have enough money to keep it open. How do you think districts that are not parks, can keep up?

If you have any more questions feel free to keep this string alive, or send me a PM.

Regards,

A.G.

[CN]

I hear you Andy, if you just let everone out there it would be a mess. I just remember when thing's sure seemed to be differant I guess. I think if people did have easier access to shore fishing you would see more interest from younger people which in my mind would be a good thing. I grew up fishing pond's on Cattle ranches when I was a kid and Trout, yes Trout, fishing at Los Padres and the Carmel River. One little jewel we had before the Marble Cone fire was the Arroyo Seco River which was full of Smallmouth but it killed the fishery as far as I know and you could walk from Sycomore Flat's all the way to the Indian's if you wanted. But not anymore