For all you private land owners in WA

[timberfaller]

Read this, this morning.  It will probably come to this state too, because of who is in charge.  If link doesn't work, type into a search engine, agweb.com 

https://www.agweb.com/news/business/state-sanctioned-trespass-ranchers-defend-property-and-water-rights

[MeepDog]

The argument against it is ridiculous. "Anyone and everyone suddenly can come onto privately owned, non-navigable streambeds,” Sanchez says. “You can be armed; you can be a thief; you can be on drugs. If the landowner confronts you, all you do is say, ‘I’m fishing.’”

It's no different than complaining about a sidewalk in front of your house. Anyone can walk down it, but if they're doing something malicious that is completely besides the point because they'd be breaking the law. If they're going to shoot your cows, the legality of walking in your stream wont make a difference. This article is fearmongering and trying to play the side of mom and pop farms, but in reality the people who are trying to keep you out are big ranches where stream access would allow you to legally reach public property that they have a monopoly on.

[Mtnwalker]

The language differs quite a bit between the NM state constitution and ours in regards to stream access. The WA state constitution pretty clearly states "the beds and shores of all navigable waters" whereas the NM state constitution designates "the unappropriated water of every natural stream". I doubt we have to worry about this coming to get us in WA. Also agree there is a lot of fear mongering in the article, hopefully those people don't have a county road adjacent to their property or they're really in for it 

[timberfaller]

We all and should know by now, the LAW/Constitution doesn't stop the Dem's in Olympia or the Nation.

[HUNTIN4SIX]

   Sounds like some of the property we own would fit the scenario.  So the public comes on my land and gets hurt or drowns....who’s liable? 
Kinda like when 200 elk ran through my fences, as they did, letting 100 head of cattle out.  Car hits cow injures driver....who’s liable?

[LDennis24]

This goes hand in hand with the UIA and the Wyoming corner crossing case. I said it on that thread and people didn't like it. But don't be surprised when every landowner in the state stops letting people access their land because of stuff like this! 

[boneaddict]

  Sounds like some of the property we own would fit the scenario.  So the public comes on my land and gets hurt or drowns....who’s liable? 
Kinda like when 200 elk ran through my fences, as they did, letting 100 head of cattle out.  Car hits cow injures driver....who’s liable?

If you are in a range area, the cow has more rights than you do.

[Platensek-po]

This goes hand in hand with the UIA and the Wyoming corner crossing case. I said it on that thread and people didn't like it. But don't be surprised when every landowner in the state stops letting people access their land because of stuff like this! 

Stops letting people do what? Float down a river that they have property on? Can’t do that. Just like on the sound. As long as I am floating on the water and not touching the ground I’m not trespassing.

[LDennis24]

  Sounds like some of the property we own would fit the scenario.  So the public comes on my land and gets hurt or drowns....who’s liable? 
Kinda like when 200 elk ran through my fences, as they did, letting 100 head of cattle out.  Car hits cow injures driver....who’s liable?

If you are in a range area, the cow has more rights than you do.

This is true

[LDennis24]

This goes hand in hand with the UIA and the Wyoming corner crossing case. I said it on that thread and people didn't like it. But don't be surprised when every landowner in the state stops letting people access their land because of stuff like this! 

Stops letting people do what? Float down a river that they have property on? Can’t do that. Just like on the sound. As long as I am floating on the water and not touching the ground I’m not trespassing.

Maybe you should read the article. It's non navigable water only accessible by crossing their land. THEIR LAND! It's called trespassing. Remember, reading comprehension! I didn't post anything about floating the river but that's not possible either.

[Platensek-po]

This goes hand in hand with the UIA and the Wyoming corner crossing case. I said it on that thread and people didn't like it. But don't be surprised when every landowner in the state stops letting people access their land because of stuff like this! 

Stops letting people do what? Float down a river that they have property on? Can’t do that. Just like on the sound. As long as I am floating on the water and not touching the ground I’m not trespassing.

Maybe you should read the article. It's non navigable water only accessible by crossing their land. THEIR LAND! It's called trespassing. Remember, reading comprehension! I didn't post anything about floating the river but that's not possible either.

lol. I thought you were referring to Washington my bad. However that’s a problem with the state constitution. So if they have issue with it sounds like they need to amend their constitutions

[LDennis24]

This goes hand in hand with the UIA and the Wyoming corner crossing case. I said it on that thread and people didn't like it. But don't be surprised when every landowner in the state stops letting people access their land because of stuff like this! 

Stops letting people do what? Float down a river that they have property on? Can’t do that. Just like on the sound. As long as I am floating on the water and not touching the ground I’m not trespassing.

Maybe you should read the article. It's non navigable water only accessible by crossing their land. THEIR LAND! It's called trespassing. Remember, reading comprehension! I didn't post anything about floating the river but that's not possible either.

lol. I thought you were referring to Washington my bad. However that’s a problem with the state constitution. So if they have issue with it sounds like they need to amend their constitutions

Yeah sure, you just wanted to attack my post. I don't care. The fact is it's more support for taking landowners rights away. What would their constitution have to do with it? They are blatantly breaking the law for public access.

[Platensek-po]

Wait so you don’t even know what this about? You didn’t see the Supreme Court ruling on article xvi of the New Mexico State constitution? Got it. I’ll leave you to continue carry on yelling about stuff you don’t even bother to learn about.

[jackelope]

This goes hand in hand with the UIA and the Wyoming corner crossing case. I said it on that thread and people didn't like it. But don't be surprised when every landowner in the state stops letting people access their land because of stuff like this! 

Stops letting people do what? Float down a river that they have property on? Can’t do that. Just like on the sound. As long as I am floating on the water and not touching the ground I’m not trespassing.

Maybe you should read the article. It's non navigable water only accessible by crossing their land. THEIR LAND! It's called trespassing. Remember, reading comprehension! I didn't post anything about floating the river but that's not possible either.

Have to cross a fence because they put a fence across the stream.

[EnglishSetter]

My understanding of "navigable waters" is; is/was/can be used for commerce. 

If you can boat/float to/from the ocean to that point it's navigable.  Impediments such as dams not withstanding.

This doesn't sound like a navigable waterway.

There's been a lot of issues in the Sacramento valley where navigable waters, during winter would flood private land and folks figured that gave them access to that flooded land for waterfowling.  IIRC waterfowlers lost (and I tend to agree).

But the arguments presented (people getting hurt, shooting livestock, etc. sounds Henny Penny to me.

If the state is providing access, they can indemnify the landowner.