Kelly and Jim address a very good point that really is separate from the intentions of my comments - which were intended to be applicable to private individual landowners in farming or vacation property country. The large tracts of governmentally or corporately owned land are a different animal. There, the large amount of habitat available makes it worthwhile to investigate what the specific rules are (e.g. Weyerhauser Tree Farm land on which - for the most part - vehicular travel and recreational use is allowed with the purchase of an access permit displayed on the windshield: a corporate version of the WDFW parking permit.)

As to Kelly's comment, "The law isn't...necessarily relevant when facing someone who thinks they control the land you're on." there was an amazing example of that in northcentral Oregon years ago. The Deschutes River, unlike so many large river systems anywhere, was/is unique in that the middle and lower stretches of the river border on much public land (mostly BLM-owned). Those stretches of the river had been traditionally used by the public for whitewater rafting and fishing for decades, and the river was really viewed as a public resource by much of the state. Along came developers and other private interests who began buying up riverfront land, threatening to change the entire character of the river. A major and emotional public effort to 'Save Our Deschutes' was mounted and a largely successful campaign to purchase property and otherwise protect riverfront land for future public use ensued. There was, however, one major incident that occurred during this process. !
A large
ranch owner on the lower Deschutes negotiated to sell his ranch - for a hefty chunk of change of course - to the state. The state bought it, whereupon the theoretically former landowner proceeded to fence off the property down to the waterline, post huge NO TRESPASSING signs and patrol the fenceline periodically with armed guards to make it clear he meant business. When the flabbergasted state asked him what the hell he thought he was doing with their newly-purchased land, he informed the state that his "grazing rights" preceded and superceded their land ownership and he was simply protecting what was rightfully his for his cattle herd - and suggested that they should have had better legal advice when they bought his ranch. I do not know what the eventual outcome of that situation was from a legal point of view (unfortunately, the rancher probably made off with additional taxpayer money to sell his "grazing rights.") What I do know is that any kayaker or fisherman in th!
eir rig
ht mind wasn't about to climb the newly-installed fence and wind up staring down the barrel of a 30-06, no matter how public the land was from a legal viewpoint.


John Tubbs
Snoqualmie, WA
johntubbs at comcast.net
www.tubbsphoto.com


-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Kelly McAllister" <mcallisters4 at comcast.net>

> I'm glad Roger Leed posted his perspective on entry on private land. What I
> was reading here didn't ring true to me. I know of plenty of private land
> where pedestrian traffic, for a variety of purposes, is not discouraged.
> This includes the Weyerhaeuser Vail Tree Farm here in Thurston County. Then
> there are land trust lands like those of the Nisqually Land Trust and, as
> far as I know, Capitol Land Trust. The checkerboard situation that Jim Flynn
> describes isn't unique to areas with Forest Service ownership. Consider the
> land grant that gave Washington State sections 16 and 36 in most townships
> of the state to provide revenue for schools. I think every county in
> Washington has some of these square mile blocks of State DNR land and you
> can bet you won't find signs along the imaginary lines that form their
> borders.
>
> On the other hand, consider the legal ball of jute involved with determining
> who owns or controls the substrate or even surface water of almost any small
> stream in the state. Is it O.K. if you are floating on the surface in a
> raft? What about if you are wading with your feet firmly planted on the
> bottom? What if it's navigable? What if it's not navigable? Do birders
> believe they are legal when they're afloat, no matter where they are (a
> purposeful effort to make this post seem like it applies to birds and
> birding)?
>
> To some extent, you use your best judgement and take your chances. The law
> isn't always entirely clear or necessarily relevant when facing someone who
> thinks they control the land you're on.
>
> Kelly McAllister
> Olympia, Washington
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tweeters mailing list
> Tweeters at u.washington.edu
> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters