|
|
Post by trent on Sept 7, 2009 20:10:04 GMT -5
So, what's the deal with access at Bicycle Bridge?
It is really easy to get in the water right there and it is not posted, but I'm not sure if it is private land or not.
I would assume there may be some kind of easement by the state there, but I don't know that for sure. Since this is in Carroll County, I couldn't find a nice web site to show me property ownership.
I did fish there today for an hour or two. Caught a couple of smallies, nothing spectacular. Caught one on a swimming nymph patterned loosely off the muncher, but I tied it on a size 4 nymph hook and added a tail and some rubber legs.
Caught another on a clouser minnow. I wasn't getting any action on top.
If you can get in and out there and not be trespassing, it looks like a great spot. I fished downstream, but there are some islands upstream that look like they would provide some good fishing.
Saw a couple of kayakers, a couple of guys spin fishing off pontoons, a canoer and a guy in a john boat over the course of a couple of hours. Not bad for a holiday.
|
|
|
|
Post by barryl on Sept 8, 2009 11:36:16 GMT -5
Trent the access at Bicycle Bridge is Private. It's on the south east side of the bridge. The unofficial word from the land owner is no, but if you are going to do any thing don't block my field access. Does that make it clear as mud? The islands upstream are good fishing Jay S. and I fished them 2 weekends ago and caught several fish off them and 2 nice ones. Some of the home owners on the north west side road have let me cross their property to wade to the islands in the past. Don't block the drive on the north east side of the bridge.
|
|
|
|
Post by trent on Sept 8, 2009 12:52:19 GMT -5
Does the land owner (w/ the cornfield) live near the access? I'd be interested in talking with him to see if anything could be worked out.
I don't know if he would have any interest, but maybe there is a way we could work something out as a club. We might be able to trade access for doing some kind of drainage/environmental project or something of that nature.
I can certainly understand the issues that come with having your land used as an access. People seem to be pigs and leave their garbage everywhere. I suppose there may be some liability issues as well, but I'm not an attorney so don't know about that.
It is just a LONG way from SR18 to Pretty Prairie Rd without another public access option to consider.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slartybardfast on Sept 8, 2009 13:32:02 GMT -5
SR 18 to Pretty prairie rd is 6.11 miles. I'm guessing that would take 8 hours if you kept moving along.
|
|
|
|
Post by trent on Sept 8, 2009 14:24:52 GMT -5
Not exactly something to try to fit into a half day float.
|
|
|
|
Post by barryl on Sept 8, 2009 19:38:15 GMT -5
Trent my info is second hand from someone who knows the land owner. I will contact him and see if the owner would be willing to work something out. When Jay and I floated SR 18 to Bicycle Bridge it took about 3 hours with a good hour working the islands upstream from the bridge.
|
|
|
|
Post by reelteacher on Sept 8, 2009 20:43:38 GMT -5
I have fished from the bicycle bridge many times. I usually parked my car off the road and not in front of any access to the adjacent field. Most of the people I have talked to while I was there did not mind at all, as long as I didn't block field access. I didn't get any names of the individuals, but they were generally friendly. I always walked upstream from the bridge to fish the islands. There are some nice boulders and drop offs around there that hold quite a few fish. Always had some success when I fished there in the past. I haven't fished there in about 3 years though.
|
|
|
|
Post by barryl on Sept 10, 2009 18:26:25 GMT -5
Trent here is the scoop. I didn't get this from my original source but from someone else that lives in the same area. According to this person the land owner is Gary Lynch at 1748 N. 1200W. I have a phone # but I would like some input from some of the club officers as to how we want to approach this. (I got the # from a service I subscribe to for qualifying new tenants, the # is unlisted)
I think maybe a letter stating our intension's to start, that way if the land owner has any interest in what we are purposing the ball is in his court. We may want to see if he would be interested in the NICHES program or just keep it a private agreement between him and the club. Of course we should promote responsible use.
|
|
|
|
Post by trent on Sept 10, 2009 19:03:25 GMT -5
I had a whole long post going, stepped away from the computer in mid-post and my machine decided it needed to restart to install some update! I'm not pleased. Anyway, the gist of it was that this sounds like something that needs to get bounced around the board first and then possibly brought to the whole club if they think that is necessary. I'm not sure of the process for getting the conversation going, but I'd be happy to throw together a proposal to send to the board for consideration. Maybe Barry could be my co-sponsor.  A letter of introduction certainly sounds reasonable with some suggested ways for the individual to follow up with us, e.g. come to a board meeting or another event to get to know us, etc. I think we would want to be prepared to specify how we intended to use the access and have some general rules in mind to keep the site kept up and then also offer some possible benefits to him. What are anyone else's thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by rstaight on Sept 10, 2009 19:31:12 GMT -5
This is getting intersting. It is my understanding that where you have a county, state, or federal bridge there is an easment that is paid for buy your tax dollars. Since this is paid for by tax dollars you have the right to use that easment for any legal recreational purpose.
Check out nationalrivers.org
|
|
|
|
Post by reelteacher on Sept 10, 2009 19:45:28 GMT -5
Yes, we do have the right to use the easement, but it would be nice to have access and permission from the land owner. A letter of introduction and intent would be a great idea. We could propose an adopt a river section along his property and periodically take a group of us to pick up trash around the area and access point. That might be a noble service project for us to consider... I'm all for it!
|
|
|
|
Post by reelteacher on Sept 10, 2009 19:46:52 GMT -5
Who would like to write the letter?? Not it!
|
|
|
|
Post by trent on Sept 10, 2009 20:03:54 GMT -5
Here's a blurb from the site Rick mentioned:
"What about public access to and from rivers? As explained earlier, the law is that the rivers and the carrying places between them shall be forever free. The public does not have a general right to cross private land to get to and from rivers, but such a right exists at traditional access routes, under the above law and the legal doctrines of custom and prescription. States have an affirmative duty to maintain traditional access routes to rivers, and acquire additional access where needed and available. Where public roads cross over rivers, the public has the right to get from the bridge down to the river itself, so landowners cannot connect fences to bridge abutments in a way that blocks public access to the river. 39 Am.Jur. 2d (1968) Highways, Streets & Bridges, section 256, p. 644. State ex rel. Thornton v. Hay, 254 Or. 584, 462 P.2d 671 (1969). Gion v. City of Santa Cruz, 2 Cal. 3d 29, 465 P.2d 50 (1970). People v. Sweetser, 72 Cal. App. 3d 278 (1977)."
Same site, different page:
"22. What about getting to and from the river?
Normally there is no right to cross private land to get to or from a river (except perhaps in extreme cases as mentioned above.) For example, there is no right to walk across a farmer's field to get from a public highway to a river.
However, the state has a duty to maintain public access routes to rivers under certain conditions, as part of its public trust duties. Courts have found it unlawful for a state to close off an existing public access route when there are not other public access routes nearby.
A common problem involves highway bridges over rivers. The river, if navigable for title purposes, is public land up to the ordinary high water mark, and the highway is public out to the edge of its right-of-way. Usually there is enough space to legally park next to the highway near the bridge. But the adjacent landowner may build an impassable fence up to the bridge abutments and post "No Trespassing" signs on the fence, so people can't get from the highway down to the river. This is unlawful; there is a right of passage from the highway to the river. Courts have ruled that when one public route meets or crosses another, there is a right to proceed between the two."
So, it sounds like we legally have the right to use the right of way associated with the bridge to access the Tippy at the bridge. The question is whether the land we would be using falls within the right of way. Presumably, the easiest access is not always the same thing as the right of way.
I think, regardless, even if we are within our rights to use that sight without repercussion, it would certainly be a courtesy for us to get in touch with the landowner.
I definitely like the idea of an adopt a river spot for us there.
I would be happy to take a stab at a letter or work with someone else. I don't know if Jay would be into lending a hand since he might have some suggestions on wording from a legal perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by rstaight on Sept 10, 2009 20:47:29 GMT -5
Trent,
That pretty much sums it up. We will bring it up at the board meeting to see how we want to proceed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slartybardfast on Sept 10, 2009 21:30:55 GMT -5
I'll pick up trash
|
|
