BHA Stream Access Pledge

[BigGoonTuna]

Part of this is awareness of the sportsmen to know the rules, and their rights.  I know and area along a river where timber companies are selling off lots between a highway and the riverbed with no real uplands.  The new landowner then posts the highway right of way and the shoreline to keep the river all to themselves--a river and shore owned by everyone.  If nobody stands up to this, the rights to use beds and shores of state waters will erode for everyone.

you talking about those little "recreational" lots between SR 504 and the NF toutle?

[SCRUBS]

I`ve been told conflicting things on this issue, Some folks have told me it`s the high water mark, and that as long as you stayed below that, or if need be, wade through the stream to stay below the hm. Others have said if it flows through someones property you could float through but not get in the water because the property owner owned the land under the stream/river.
I`ve never been able to find a law that definitively states either way. It would be nice if they made a law that clearl defined it.

[fireweed]

Part of this is awareness of the sportsmen to know the rules, and their rights.  I know and area along a river where timber companies are selling off lots between a highway and the riverbed with no real uplands.  The new landowner then posts the highway right of way and the shoreline to keep the river all to themselves--a river and shore owned by everyone.  If nobody stands up to this, the rights to use beds and shores of state waters will erode for everyone.

you talking about those little "recreational" lots between SR 504 and the NF toutle?

yes, that is one place.   One lot sold as "13 acres" has nearly no unencumbered land--it's all either old or new highway Right of way, and bed/shore of a navigable public river.  But the keep out signs are up and possession is 9/10th of the law. 

[fireweed]

I`ve been told conflicting things on this issue, Some folks have told me it`s the high water mark, and that as long as you stayed below that, or if need be, wade through the stream to stay below the hm. Others have said if it flows through someones property you could float through but not get in the water because the property owner owned the land under the stream/river.
I`ve never been able to find a law that definitively states either way. It would be nice if they made a law that clearl defined it.

I've looked into this some and its confusing but in a nutshell: each river or stream is different depending on whether it was our could have been used for commerce and whether the upland was patented before or after statehood.  A key court case ruled that shake bolts being floated down a stream was a commercial use, so most streams that ever had shake bolts or logs floated down them could be ruled navigable and the beds and shores are owned by the state. This means people can walk below the high water mark (if the land was patented after statehood).  If there is a dispute, it ultimately is decided by the courts.
 
 here's  info from the DNR website:  http://file.dnr.wa.gov/publications/aqr_aquatic_land_boundaries.pdf