I have a question about access on robinson creek. when heading back from yellowstone and or rock creek girls camp toward ashton if you take a right on the first paved road after you hit pavement on i believe its cave falls road it snakes down through a canyon and crosses a bridge. after you cross the bridge on the right is a old school wooden fence....this area seems heavily posted.
my question is is this area allowed to be accessed if you get in at the bridge.
[signature]
I haven't fished that area so I don't know from personal experience. But....If it is a navigable stream then, yes, you can access it from the bridge. You have to stay within the highwater area.
Read P 48 in the regs
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/fish...shInfo.pdf
Here is part of it:
P48 of the Fishing Regs
Navigable streams are defined as any stream which, in its
natural high-water condition, will float logs or any other
commercial or floatable commodity, or is capable of being
navigated by oar or motor propelled small craft for pleasure
or commercial purposes. Navigable streams are recognized
as public transportation corridors, thus members of the public
have the right to use the corridor, provided they enter and
exit the corridor at a public right of way, and remain within
the corridor. Many navigable streams flow through private
property, thus it is important that anglers know their rights
and responsibilities when fishing in navigable waters that
flow through private property.
When fishing in navigable streams bordered by private
property:
• You must stay within the normal high-water marks of the
stream, unless you have landowner permission to get out
on the bank, or have no other means of getting around
an obstruction in the stream (such as a fence or diversion
dam).
• When getting outside of the stream to go around an
obstruction, take the shortest, most direct route around the
obstruction to get back in the stream.
• Do not allow pets or children to trespass on adjacent
private property, without landowner permission.
• You may enter and exit navigable streams at other public
rights of way, such as county road bridges.
• ASK FIRST! Always get landowner permission before
crossing private lands outside of a public right of way.
[signature]
I posted on Robison Creek a month ago as well because I drove down to the exact same spot you visited! It looked like a fun spot to get out and wade, but like you said: as you drive down the canyon there was private property signs all over the place. I was tempted to park by that fence and get in the water. Once in the water, you're ok. But what about your car being parked by the fence? I don't know.
Did you give it a shot?
[signature]
Cpeirce pointed out it's legal per Idaho Law not to mention American Precedent (I wish Utah was part of America and followed it's laws[crazy]). I've fished that spot you described several years back without incident. Just respect the laws in regard to access and you should be fine.
[signature]
i did fish that spot back in june before i went on semester break and headed home to PA parked the car by the fence jumped hopped in the water and fished. got about 25 brown brook rainbow trout in around that area...loved the stream and im thinkin om headed that way this weekend so i wanted to just double check.
[signature]
If you are still within the road right of way you should be ok parking as long as you aren't blocking traffic etc.
Road right of ways are a minimum of 25 ft from the center line, but most are 30 ft or more depending on the county.
[signature]
If that is the crossing that is close to where Robinson Cr and Rock Cr. come together, then it is only about a 1/10th of a mile upstream on Robinson and you are in national forest. It also looks like you could continue on Robinson Cr Rd and hike down into the canyon, after it is in national forest. Pretty steep looking though.
Either way good luck and let us know how you do.
[signature]
Good Luck this weekend. I'd forgot I'd fished that spot until you described it. I do recall catching rainbows as well as brooks. Not sure if I got any browns.
[signature]
I am familiar with this area having worked and lived at the lodge at the mouth of the creek. As for the canyon stretch, all the land below the bridge is private. The lower mile belongs to Three Rivers Ranch and they prefer it remain unfished by the public while their guests are around so don't look for access there. You could try Fish Creek Ranch for permission; they built a huge zombie subdivision on the mesa and I don't think a single house got built but the driveways come near the canyon. Some folks walk down from the bridge but, as a practical matter, the canyon is pocket water so it is difficult to obey the access law and stay in the stream. The landowners know this and have posted it heavily because they assume you are going to tresspass to get around in the canyon. The lower half of the canyon has many places where you MUST exit the stream to get around pools and rapids so the navigability issue is moot. Not to mention, walking downstream in small water pretty much kills the fishing, period.There is no trail and it is very rough (lots of thorny thickets concealing leg-breaking talus slopes-might as well just toss your waders into a woodchipper) and has black bears, for certain. There are grizz on the upper creek. Robinson is real bear spray country.
The creek is great fishing on the backside of runoff, but most fish over 12 inches drop back down into the Warm and Henry's as the summer progresses and the creek gets thinner. Large browns enter in october to spawn. Its a rainbow and brown fishery, so unless there is a heavy hatch, nymphs usually outproduce dries 5 to 1. Except for solitude, there isn't much here that one can't get over on the canyon and meadows parts of the Warm river without access hassles. The Warm has much more water and fish (and more 12"-16" fish) in it this late in the season. Same goes for the Fall river. If you want true backcountry, hike into Boone creek. For me, the lower Robinson is a june/july stream and a nice place to hide out when the !#$holes are fighting for prime time space on the Hank. I've caught 60 in half a mile in mid-june and worked hard for a dozen dinks on the same stretch late july.
[signature]
Sorefeet, I'm not trying to give you a hard time but have you read Idaho's law on access ( as posted above) because you're suggesting some things are illegal that are lawful behavior. You clearly misrepresented what is considered what is navigable water as interpreted by the State of Idaho. This is 100% consistent with the U.S. Supreme Courts interpretation on this subject since well before Idaho was even a state. You also imply going around obstacles is illegal which is also incorrect. I don't think any of us are looking for combat fishing on Robeson. When someone inherits or buys land with water they need to understand the laws of the state and our country. A landowner (and employees) can ask you not to fish the river but you have the right to turn him down as long as you access it legally. Just as the person can ask to permission to cross the landowners property to access the water but the landowner has the right to turn the fisherman down. I agree Robeson Creek is far from the best fishing in the area. I doubt I'll ever fish it again in any season. But please don't try to mislead people on what's legal. I'm not just a fisherman but a landowner (including in Idaho). I have a couple properties with water that are impacted by access laws. I respect the laws both as a landowner and a fisherman.
[signature]
Did I say the stream was not navigable? No, I said the point was moot because in the lower canyon you can not stay inside the natural high water mark unless you are a freakin river otter, dig me? Have you traversed the entire canyon from the lodge up to the bridge while the water is still high enough for great fishing? If you have, then you must know you have to repeatedly go above the natural high water mark unless you are good at swimming upstream through neck deep plunge pools. The "natural high water mark" applies to the edge of vegetation, not where the highest piece of drift wood is tossed in flood stage.
I'm 99.9% certain that the right to minimally intrude on private land to bypass obstacles only applies where a man made obstacle hinders navigability. If a stream is choked with natural obstacles, it is probably not navigable under the Silver Creek test. You can't tresspass just because the going gets too tough for ya in the stream! How would a court determine what constitutes a natural obstacle of reasonable difficulty? Can I walk through someone's yard if I'll overtop my waders staying in the stream? I might drown, so I guess that is an obstacle. Would it be reasonable to intrude in a spot at high water but a tresspass later during low water? As a legal expert, you know how much courts hate vague rules. Can you show me a court opinion, statute or info promulgated by IDF&G or ID Bureau of Lands that states otherwise? The code refers to "irrigation dams or other obstacles" which, in statute construction, ties "obstacles" to a man made reference/example. Everything I have seen refers to man made obstructions: bridges, fences, dams and canals. That is the basis for the exception to the rule; a landowner may not create obstacles and then use them to claim a stream is not navigable or force a tresspass.. To construe a concomittant expanded right of tresspass around natural features from that exception is quite a legal backflip. Or, in other words, the exception proves the rule, it does not destroy the rule. In this case, the rule is the fundamental basis of private property: the right to exclude others. Do what you want, I could care less but that's how they teach it for the bar exam.... Under your proposed interpretation, you may tresspass any time you subjectively feel like the stream is too tough for safe wading and, I'm sorry, that is not how the rule of law works. That is no rule at all. So before you go off and accuse someone of intentionally trying to mislead anglers, consider this: you are most likely the one giving away the free and ill-considered legal advice, intentional or no.
[signature]
My points were with your generally interpretation of the law and not specific to any waterway. I don't find the law vague at all. I don't see the words manmade anywhere in it. That is a summary of IF&G's interpretation Cpeirce listed. Since this is in regard to fishing that is what I would rely on for accepted guidance.
• You must stay within the normal high-water marks of the
stream, unless you have landowner permission to get out
on the bank, or have no other means of getting around
an obstruction in the stream (such as a fence or diversion
dam).
• When getting outside of the stream to go around an
obstruction, take the shortest, most direct route around the
obstruction to get back in the stream.
I see nothing that implies you're not allowed to repeatedly go around obstructions that you have no other means of getting around. Waterways will vary with amounts and course of the water flowing. This will affect how you can access a waterway ie float, wade and/or walk below OHWM. I don't see these changes as having no effect on what you "have no other means of getting around an obstruction in the stream". You're not expected to hit a fence or tree across the stream while floating just because you can walk under it at lower water. That's pretty self evident to me. If you want to argue that obstructions that you have no other means of getting around is somehow static go ahead. It's pretty clear to me if you don't want anyone to ever step on your private property in Idaho you'd better sale land on a waterway. Sometimes it won't be trespassing and you'll have no legal recourse. I actually had a friend that told me he sold his property and moved to another because he didn't like the public access ( in this case to National Forest) through his property. He said the title search didn't turn it up but the Nat Forest produced documents showing it existed. I thought he was crazy especially since it was like once a year that he was aware of it happening. However that is a remedy to the situation if landowners don't like the laws.
I'd encourage all to read it and not rely on our interpretations. I read it and take a copy with me ever time I fish public waterways flowing through private land. There are dozens of lawsuits and statements from government agencies that one could read on this subject. Unless you're really interested in the long history of waterways access I wouldn't bother. Instead if for fishing access I'd rely on IF&G's interpretation each time the Idaho Fishing Proclamation comes out.
[signature]
You still have provided no basis for your interpretation that a natural feature counts as an "obstruction" or "obstacle" in regard to the limited right of tresspass.. In fact, you quoted info that specifically refers to man made things as examples of an obstruction. Hey, I want your interpretation to be correct....just show us something concrete to support our desired outcome. I researched all this years ago in relation to a spot on the Fall river and I think you are mistaken. You want to split hairs? Try this. Can you tresspass where an irrigation dam backs up the water till its too deep to wade? Sure, the dam is clearly a man made obstruction but the deep water? Never could find an answer to that one so I just "minimally intrude".
[signature]
Maybe the actual Statute would be helpful here. The wording is " irrigation dams or other obstructions interfere with the navigability of a stream"
Clearly not limiting it.
TITLE 36
FISH AND GAME
CHAPTER 16
RECREATIONAL TRESPASS -- LANDHOLDER LIABILITY LIMITED
36-1601. Public waters -- Highways for recreation. (a) Navigable Streams Defined. Any stream which, in its natural state, during normal high water, will float cut timber having a diameter in excess of six (6) inches or any other commercial or floatable commodity or is capable of being navigated by oar or motor propelled small craft for pleasure or commercial purposes is navigable.
(b) Recreational Use Authorized. Navigable rivers, sloughs or streams within the meander lines or, when not meandered, between the flow lines of ordinary high water thereof, and all rivers, sloughs and streams flowing through any public lands of the state shall be open to public use as a public highway for travel and passage, up or downstream, for business or pleasure, and to exercise the incidents of navigation -- boating, swimming, fishing, hunting and all recreational purposes.
© Access Limited to Navigable Stream. Nothing herein contained shall authorize the entering on or crossing over private land at any point other than within the high water lines of navigable streams except that where irrigation dams or other obstructions interfere with the navigability of a stream, members of the public may remove themselves and their boats, floats, canoes or other floating crafts from the stream and walk or portage such crafts around said obstruction re-entering the stream immediately below such obstruction at the nearest point where it is safe to do so.
[signature]
I would say that it vaguely does not limit it but clearly does not expand the definition to include natural features. Believe me, I tried years ago to find a definition section somewhere in the code or some agency rules like the bureau of lands has to get a definite answer to what could be lumped in as an "obstruction." I don't own land, I like to wade, guess where my sympathies are.
It would be intellectually dishonest to say this vagueness is a free pass to ascend above the natural high water mark whenever you feel it is somehow dangerous to wade past natural stream features. Here is why.
1. You are attempting to substitute a subjective, fact dependent situation for a more workable uniform rule. Courts hate that and when it comes to interpreting vague language in a law are unlikely to go down that road with you.
2. The court will favor the specific examples of an "obstruction" provided in the statute, administrative rules or record of the legislature's debates even. These are all references to man made objects. The general legal philosophy is that the exception proves the rule, it does not expand it or break it. Secondly, the court will specifically note the absence of mention of rapids, deep water, cliffs, log jams etc. It will note that these obvious examples could have been included as evidence of legislative intent but are conspicuously absent.
3. The general intent at the root of our law is already well known to the court. Basically, it is so private land owners may not hinder commerce. If you think you can go before the ID appellate courts and successfully bootstrap an argument for the unlimited right to walk the bank whenever you don't want to get wet or think its not safe to wade through, yeah, good luck with that.
[signature]
When it really comes down to it, what normal person is going to go to court to go fishing? Not me. I will continue to fish where ever I want. If it means that while I am wading and feel uncomfortable doing it I am going to get out and go around. I'm not going to think about if it is private or not. Their private property isn't going to keep me from fishing or protecting my life when wading for 95% of the time I am fishing.
[signature]
And thats why longtime local anglers keep losing informal access points folks, cuz some immature guys like tob04002 think their hobby entitles them to do whatever they want. And then other folks follow them in and throw trash around and leave shell casings everywhere. Then the farmers get sick of it. Thanks, tob, your staggering sense of self entitlement is refrshingly honest, at least. I've seen four or five sweet access points on the henry's closed to parking in the last ten years because of bad apples like you, thanks again, it was really great when we lost parking access at Seely Ranch.
[signature]
sorefeet you should probably change your name to sorea$$. It sounds like you're a troll and just upset with everybody that wants to fish the good spots. Obviously if you're arguing with me on the Internet you are the immature one and the bad apple in this site.
[signature]
[quote tob04002] Not me. I will continue to fish where ever I want. I'm not going to think about if it is private or not. Their private property isn't going to keep me from fishing .[/quote]
See this....you wrote it. This reveals the emotional reasoning of a child, not an adult so I termed your feeble input immature. Your quick and emotional response confirmed what your bio pic reveals....you aren't very old or experienced in much of anything so piss off, I've nothing to learn from the likes of you. I already know how to yank a trophy brown off its redd.
[signature]
You don't know how old I am. That picture was from 8 years ago. Keep talking though. Keep taking your frustrations out on random people online. You're obviously butt hurt. Too many people fishing here in Idaho? If so, then move. I'm sure the state would be better off without an arrogant asshole like you here.
[signature]