Colorado Fisherman Forum banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,144 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Everybody,

In thinking about the idea of getting organized so that we can suggest and make improvements as a large group, I was wondering what ideas related to fishing we would have in common. This would be the basis of a charter, for example. TU, CWA and MI all target specific species, so what would we say about ourselves? Here are some thoughts that have come from posts I've read on this board, please add to them as you see fit. I thought it would be useful to make a poll on these issues after everybody has had a chance to add to them to see where the support is or isn't...

BTW, I think a big part of this is really Ken and Don's call. Do they even want their board to be used in this way? How formal of an organization would they support? Does their vision of coloradofisherman.com include any sort of organization that tries to change and hopefully improve policies? Can we or should we even try to come up with areas of common interest, or should this forum be a place to facilitate discussion from all sides of the issue? So, with those caveats, here is a first cut list.

1) We value variety in Colorado's fishing waters. In the same weekend, we could go to the warmwater plains and fish for bass, catfish, walleye or wipers and then the next day head up to coldwater streams or lakes in the mountains to fish for kokanees, trout or makinaw. It is important to treat these waters equally with regard to resources, stocking efforts, etc.

2) We feel that it is important to take care of our parks and wildlife areas. Being outdoors in a non-polluted environment is a key part of the experience. The stewardship of our lakes and streams is something we take very seriously. Extra money and time spent on cleanup by our DOW personnel means that they are taking away resources from the improvement of our fisheries.

3) We value trophy fishing and the selective harvest of fish within legal limits as much as catch-and-release on certain waters. We look to our fishing regulations to balance these outcomes and not cater to one or the other. We encourage individuals who help enforce our regulations by reporting those who are in violation of them.

4) We believe that sources of research used to make fishery decisions should be published and exposed to the public well before changes to regulations are made. We believe that sportsmen and sportswomen should be given the opportunity to provide their input on issues well before the decisions are final.

5) We believe that taking actions that encourage young people to fish is a key to ensuring the future of the sport in our state. We believe in the bond that occurs between families and friends when fishing is a part of their recreation activities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,797 Posts
i think that as a group we dont need to take any particular stand but as an active group we can be prepared when issue rise up and those that are will will be able to work to gether in a professional manner to express thier views we may end up with different groups kinda like commites on the different issues some may choose to work with several commities or none depending on how they feel on the issue the trick is to get some organization going and be prepared one good issue to takle at this time is turning back the scented plastic being reclassified as bait not to styop it from happening but to work toward showing the problems with this such as the difficulty of enforcement also we could work to gether and review any "studies" that had been used to make the choice also to research and look for legitiment "studies" that may support other views and find a way to get these other studies submitted to the governing board in order to change things when possible on this issue alone we have many views here on the board like my self im not too worryed about the impact on my fishing but can see the problems this may bring and we have others that are verry offended buy the new rule and we can work to gether on this
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
487 Posts
Don't forget we should stand to also protect pike and diversify our waters, so they aren't just trout fisheries. And we should also fight to open up all public lakes and to allow for wading and anchoring on ALL navigable streams.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,797 Posts
allow for wading and anchoring on ALL navigable streams.
just currious ice what would you use as a definition of "navagible"?

i would like to see it legal to float any river or stream that passes thru privet land even if it takes a canoe to float it but i disagree with wading and would only support anchoring in truly navigable waterways as was the original deffinition being that navigable water ways were sufficent for the transport of cargo those laws were never intended for recreational purposes and if i owned land on a stream i wouldnt mind folks just floating thru but to stop and get out and wade in my front yard would bother me although the laws of other states indicate that property lines end at the high water mark and here in CO land rights laws show the property bounderies to continue under streams and such there for the land under the water is privet and thus wadeing is tresspassing this is not any rules of the dow or any other orginization it is property rights from before co was even a state and would be very hard to change
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,229 Posts
Colorado is not the only state that says property ownership and the rights associated with it extend to the riverbed.  South Dakota also has this law.  The law in South Dakota is you can float over the property.  The moment you touch the bottom either with a vessel, paddle or part of your body you are trespassing. 

Additionally, landowners/lessees have the right to construct fences across the waterway effectively blocking navigation.

Ownership of the riverbed comes from the fact that flowing water is prone and known to change its course.  What is the riverbed today might not be the riverbed next year.  So where do you draw the line in that situation?  The current riverbed, a historical riverbed or any land on your property whether dry or wet is your property.

Water law, one of the most complicated and convoluted branches of law known to America!

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,678 Posts
Oh my, the whole "who owns the river" subject...a touchy one. Not many people know the actual law, as they vary from state to state. as far as all public waters being accessable, its a bad idea. i dont want people polluting the watersheds that we get drinking water out of...which would happen, i see it every time i go fishing. Also some places, such as power production facilities, are dangerous and dont need people getting killed in them because they were fishing or boating..so they are better off being off limits to recreation. I also thought some public waters are used to raise brood stocks of fish... yet another reason to keep people off them. Or toxic chemicals in the water? ive seen areas closed down for that too. so sometimes things being labeled "off limits" is for your own protection, not just because someone wants to keep you off it for no reason. just because some things are labeled as being owned by the "Public" doesnt mean we should have privey to everything.

I think Roadkill stated it well..as a group, since opinions here at this site are so diverse, there is no need to try to outline any certain particular causes for everyone. This idea might alienate a few people, and this is not what this site is about. Diversity and tolerance---sounds hokey like the same "goody two-shoes" garbage i hear too many people talk about (and not practice, sometimes) but in this case i think i would much rather participate in this website if it didnt try to take one particular lean or another....other than just fishing, that is. if a group of folks want to get together and push a certain law or regulation...im all for it. however be careful making the assumption that the entire population of members that fruequent this site stand for the particular law you are pushing for. im not shooting you down work2fish, i see that you have very good intentions and i agree with the stuff you propose as far as items to support...but i just would not like to see groups of people out there lobbying for certain proposals or regulations stating that "These are the goals of ColoradoFisherman.com" when they actually arent what everybody wants. Im not trying to sound like some uptight a$$, i just want to make sure there arent people out there pushing laws or policies that i dont agree with while saying the organizations i participate in support them.

Of course, unless Ken and Don say the organization does, since its thiers, then ill shut up.
;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,144 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Rottal,

I hear you and I do not feel shot down at all and you are right, I was just trying to help move folks toward a next step if it was appropriate. It was difficult to try and summarize what I was reading and it also made the statements too far toward center when I think there are people who feel strongly about one side or the other (for example, catch-and-release vs. harvesting of fish, scented plastics vs. flies and lures only, warmwater fishing vs. coldwater fishing, etc.).

So, in the end, maybe the best thing to do is using the board to facilitate groups of people who feel the same way by being able to get together and participate in DOW/wildlife commission discussions -- in that case, coloradofisherman.com would not represent too many things as a whole group.

I think I'm paraphrasing what you both (roadkill and you) are saying and I get this point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,813 Posts
I think many states are the same as Colorado, whether you can float or not is dependant on whether or not it is considered navigable, even then floating may be at gun point. Maybe things have change since I was there but, I for one like what Montana did with public access to the high water mark. I am not a "land owner" maybe my opinion would be different if I were.

In my opinion this is not a website for political statements and activisium. So I will shut up!

Terre
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
*ducks*

are people say that it should be legal for people to float/wade (by whatever means) through private land?
or are we just talking land that is owned by the state/gov that is not "open" to the public?
I am confused.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,590 Posts
Boner...

Primarily property owner's private land...not govt...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,797 Posts
in some states as long as you can get to the river/stream legally then you can float down it or wade up/down stream even if the land bordering the stream is private and posted but not here in CO land owners own the land under the stream there for if you touch bottom you are tresspassing and for floating down a waterway that waterway must be navigable and the definition of navigable is vauge so just because you could float down it without touching bottom doesnt mean that waterway is open for float trips lots of gray area on that one
 
F

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
there is so many things i feel strongly about .......I think any group of people that want to get something done have to be open minded ....rottal is right there is so many people with so many different opinions ...iceintheveins wants bait fishing everywhere ...for me I dont agree with that although I bait fish alot ....just an example ...we as a group of people would all have to agree to do whats best for the fisherys not always whats best for the fisherman .....that being said here are some things In my opinion would be beneficial(i cant spell) to our state ....in no particular order ...

1. conservation...obviously we need to conserve what we already have and try to get back some of the fisherys we used to have . I think this is one of the reasons baitfishing is outlawed in places....the mortality rate is higher with bait and litering is higher with baitfisherman....its true !!!! for some reason everytime I see a empty worm container there is a few budlights around it ...maybe outlawing budlight would work ...hahaha...
2. education ...you have to take a class to hunt why not to fish? there are certain things fisherman just shouldnt do, and honestly to many of them were never taught these things . giving other fisherman distance, littering, over harvest, trampling over spawning beds, and so many other things . Not everyone has had someone show them the ropes so these people may not be bad ...just uneducated in whats right in the outdoors .
3. The future .....You see so many different people making money off colorado outdoors but how many target kids ....they are the future fisherman of colorado and we need them . They will be the ones passing new laws in the future they will also be right next to us on lakes so lets take time to show them how great fishing in colorado can be ....WHY doesnt the division of wildlife start a bluegill stocking program in local lakes and ponds..sure stocker trout are easy to catch but bluegill are easy to catch and can be close to the house and provide hours of nonstop action middle of the day heat or in the rain ..it seems they never turn down the chance to make a little kids day a blast !!!!
4. get involved with government agencies .....instead of fighting the division of wildlife on laws lets talk to them and see what we can do to help them out ....they are understaffed and honestly they are the division of wildlife no division of kick a$$ colorado fishing ....so why not get on the inside and see if they need help with anything even if it means picking up trash or putting up signs lets let them know we are in this for the long haul and aren't just looking after our own favorite species but all and not just pretty trout streams but bluegill ponds also .

just some of my idea's
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,797 Posts
maybe outlawing budlight would work ...hahaha...
yep they tried that once it didnt go over so well...hahaha...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
487 Posts
roadkill said:
allow for wading and anchoring on ALL navigable streams.
just currious ice what would you use as a definition of "navagible"?

i would like to see it legal to float any river or stream that passes thru privet land even if it takes a canoe to float it but i disagree with wading and would only support anchoring in truly navigable waterways as was the original deffinition being that navigable water ways were sufficent for the transport of cargo those laws were never intended for recreational purposes and if i owned land on a stream i wouldnt mind folks just floating thru but to stop and get out and wade in my front yard would bother me although the laws of other states indicate that property lines end at the high water mark and here in CO land rights laws show the property bounderies to continue under streams and such there for the land under the water is privet and thus wadeing is tresspassing this is not any rules of the dow or any other orginization it is property rights from before co was even a state and would be very hard to change
This law would not be that hard to change because the landowners are vastly outnumbered. It will take only a referrendum, not an act of congress.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
487 Posts
Rottal said:
Oh my, the whole "who owns the river" subject...a touchy one.  Not many people know the actual law, as they vary from state to state.  as far as all public waters being accessable, its a bad idea.  i dont want people polluting the watersheds that we get drinking water out of...which would happen, i see it every time i go fishing.  Also some places, such as power production facilities, are dangerous and dont need people getting killed in them because they were fishing or boating..so they are better off being off limits to recreation.  I also thought some public waters are used to raise brood stocks of fish... yet another reason to keep people off them.  Or toxic chemicals in the water?  ive seen areas closed down for that too.  so sometimes things being labeled "off limits" is for your own protection, not just because someone wants to keep you off it for no reason.  just because some things are labeled as being owned by the "Public" doesnt mean we should have privey to everything.

I think Roadkill stated it well..as a group, since opinions here at this site are so diverse, there is no need to try to outline any certain particular causes for everyone.  This idea might alienate a few people, and this is not what this site is about.  Diversity and tolerance---sounds hokey like the same "goody two-shoes" garbage i hear too many people talk about (and not practice, sometimes) but in this case i think i would much rather participate in this website if it didnt try to take one particular lean or another....other than just fishing, that is.  if a group of folks want to get together and push a certain law or regulation...im all for it.  however be careful making the assumption that the entire population of members that fruequent this site stand for the particular law you are pushing for.  im not shooting you down work2fish, i see that you have very good intentions and i agree with the stuff you propose as far as items to support...but i just would not like to see groups of people out there lobbying for certain proposals or regulations stating that "These are the goals of ColoradoFisherman.com" when they actually arent what everybody wants.   Im not trying to sound like some uptight a$$, i just want to make sure there arent people out there pushing laws or policies that i dont agree with while saying the organizations i participate in support them.

Of course, unless Ken and Don say the organization does, since its thiers, then ill shut up.
;)
I have to say again, human contact with municipal watersheds, unless it involves dumping VERY large quantities of raw sewage and garbage by VERY large numbers of people, there is NO WAY that water quality will be harmed.

Please, just think about it. Thousands of animals, both land and aquatic, live in these watersheds and bathe in it, urinate and defecate in it, and bring in lord knows what. Precipitation and runoff brings in HUGE amounts of contaminants. And guess what? The treatment plant takes care of it. Period.

Only under communism does the government own land and not the public.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,014 Posts
ok now i have heard it all

iceintheveins well now i know that you think you know whats best for all of us but untill you grow up and do own your own land       you will never under stand what it feels like to have some one come and trash your land  no not all fishermen do it but just look at any fishing hole look at the trash you might not do it but some one does          

i think you need to do a little or a whole lot more thinking before you type                  
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,678 Posts
I have to say again, human contact with municipal watersheds, unless it involves dumping VERY large quantities of raw sewage and garbage by VERY large numbers of people, there is NO WAY that water quality will be harmed.

Please, just think about it. Thousands of animals, both land and aquatic, live in these watersheds and bathe in it, urinate and defecate in it, and bring in lord knows what. Precipitation and runoff brings in HUGE amounts of contaminants. And guess what? The treatment plant takes care of it. Period.

Only under communism does the government own land and not the public.

Sorry, im still not of the opinion that all public water sources should be open to the public. im not even a landowner--- i just know that sometimes there are other forces involved in the decision making process that is utilized to establish such restrictions. Can i name all of these reasons? nope...but im certain the reasons vary from case to case, and im confident they are most likely reasonable ones---other than someone just doesnt want me to go fishing there. and people do cause pollution...i see it every day.

There is government owned land in the United States. Military bases, for example. Its a fact, yup. Im also here to tell you this is far from being a COMMUNIST country, or even close. while im not old, i was still in the service at the time of the Cold War and seem to recall there were great differences in our goverment and a communist goiverment. Tyranny? this aint even close my friend. Im not going to sit here and tell "i was over there" stories, i dont really care to share that crap with you, but at least in this country the government wont have you drug out of your bed at night and shot in front of your family because you made an bad comment about one of thier policies.

so, botton line is i can handle a bit of government dictated "off limits to fishing"...its not the end of the world, and it aint communism. Im not trying to be a jerk Iceintheveins, im just saying sometimes laws are made for a reason....and this is not even close to being a communist country.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,797 Posts
IceInTheVeins said:
roadkill said:
allow for wading and anchoring on ALL navigable streams.
just currious ice what would you use as a definition of "navagible"?

i would like to see it legal to float any river or stream that passes thru privet land even if it takes a canoe to float it but i disagree with wading and would only support anchoring in truly navigable waterways as was the original deffinition being that navigable water ways were sufficent for the transport of cargo those laws were never intended for recreational purposes and if i owned land on a stream i wouldnt mind folks just floating thru but to stop and get out and wade in my front yard would bother me although the laws of other states indicate that property lines end at the high water mark and here in CO land rights laws show the property bounderies to continue under streams and such there for the land under the water is privet and thus wadeing is tresspassing this is not any rules of the dow or any other orginization it is property rights from before co was even a state and would be very hard to change
This law would not be that hard to change because the landowners are vastly outnumbered. It will take only a referrendum, not an act of congress.
ice you do a good job of not answering questions and skirting the issues i asked for your deffinition of "navigable waters" and you did an excelent job of skirting that and i have asked for documentable evidence to support any of your claims and yet i see nothing in your posts just more complaning cause you dont get your way

if you want change and respect i wish you would go about this in a more honorable way and before you say something to the effect that "they" arnt playing fair remind your self that you dont want to stoop to their level if it isnt too late
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top