[AK Skim]

Up until the end of the 2008 fishing season up on the Salmon River I use to own a season pass to the Douglaston Salmon Run which is privately owned for the first 2.5 miles of the river in from the lake.

The pass allowed the holder to come and go as he pleases. Sometimes early in the season, which by the way is the only really good time, you can get into the fresh fish from the lake as the enter the river. Strong hard fighting Chinook, Coho, Brown Trout, and the Steelhead.

Then in February 2009 I got a call from the DSR manager about renewing my season pass, of course I am! What a silly question! I believed at the time there was a 2-4 years waiting list and here I have one and going to give it up are you crazy or something???!!! However, at the end of the conversation I just happened to ask if there was going to be a rate increase of the annual $300 fee?

Three hundred dollars... the daily fee to fish the DSR was $30, so if I fished it 31 times I always figured I was a head of the game. To me it was a very good deal.

Then I heard the shocking news.. yes there was an increase in the seasonal pass for 2009, they raised it to $450.00.

My eyes popped out of my head so I couldn't see where they went, but I did manage to get out... "For what?"

I was told they improved the trails, front row parking for season pass holders ( I always parked in the last row anyway) and a couple of porta-pottys.

I was shocked to say the lease.

Needless to say with two kids in college, it wasn't worth it for me to spend $450. I generally average between 30 to 38 nights up at my place a year in the fall. DSR isn't very good during the winter because of the amount of ice it has down there. Spring during fall back I may get up there for 20 days and I don't normally fish the DSR.

Now I hear the season pass has gone up to $500 and the daily fee to fish there is now $45.

Last year when I passed by I saw a dramatic drop off in the number of cars in the lot, also heard that the number of River Keeper's was reduced also.

Economic times are still tough, so when the Salmon first start to run I expect they will still get a number of people, but I assume that number will be lower than before the rate increases. November on... I see they may have fewer people fish there than ever.

Sometimes you can just price yourself out.

This year I will keep an eye on the place and report back.

[BRK TRT]

AK,

Good to see you posting again.

I sent you a PM.


Brk Trt

[neangler]

Good info. I forwarded it to one of the editors of a national magazine. It'll be interesting to see if they report on it.

This whole pay-to-play thing is interesting. Fortunately, we haven't seen much of this in Maine. (Yet!)

[putemback]

that sucks...can you say total boycott = no $

[RAW]

I heard that in May,the state wants to raise fees to $90 also,we'll see

[Steve D]

Lot's of people feel that way, But unfortunately many other's don't, The State of Ny should never let that section of river to be privatized
Some of the better runs on the river can be found there, The glide can be killer in Nov But I still wont go YMMV

[K. I. JOE]

neangler, on 27 July 2010 - 08:29 PM, said:

Good info. I forwarded it to one of the editors of a national magazine. It'll be interesting to see if they report on it.

This whole pay-to-play thing is interesting. Fortunately, we haven't seen much of this in Maine. (Yet!)

The problem is that some people want this to come to Maine. Most are upper class on the financial scale but they are encouraging this on other forums

[bpfohler]

K. I. JOE, on 28 July 2010 - 08:04 PM, said:

The problem is that some people want this to come to Maine. Most are upper class on the financial scale but they are encouraging this on other forums

I've always wondered what the property laws have to say about access to the river. How can you be stopped from wading into the DSR if you enter on public property below the bridge?

[Steve D]

Im not exactly sure, It is very hard to get a anwser out there, What I have been told is if a person owns lad on both sides they own that section, If only on one side you can acesss the stream, river to the high water mark . others may know something differnt if so I would like to hear

[mikeg]

In NY the landowner owns the land under the water so they can post it. Look up on some of the forums the BS going on with Dawn Rucando and the Yankee Fly shop in downtown Pulaski. She has closed a section behind her shop to "pay-to-fish" fishing. As far as the fee goes I am not a season pass holder and will typically fish it 3-4x's per year so even at the current daily fee I don't think it is unreasonable but if I was a season pass holder or one that spent a lot more time on that section I'd be upset. I'll look at it like going to play golf for a weekend only it will be much less expensive than the golf would be. The first trip of the year is scheduled for 10/15.

MG

[AK Skim]

The Battle for River Access Rights


Douglaston Manor, Inc. v. George Bahrakis, et al.

Douglaston Manor, Inc. owns around 20,000 feet of shoreline on the Salmon River, including both sides of the waterway and the riverbed itself. The Salmon, an incredibly popular waterway for various types of fishing, is located to the west of the Adirondacks, and flows in a westerly direction into Lake Ontario. The Lodges at Douglaston Manor offer luxury accomodations on the property, complete with access to the Douglaston Salmon Run, the stretch of the Salmon River owned by the estate. After a group of fishermen, none of whom were guests at the Manor, anchored their boats in the Salmon Run and proceeded to fish without permission, the owners of Douglaston Manor moved to reserve fishing rights on this section of the river exclusively for their paying guests.

In the past, Douglaston Manor had no issue when the public fished from their boats on their way through the Manor's private property. However, in 1994, a group of guides "entered upon the river at a point upstream of Douglaston's property, navigated into and within the Salmon Run, and anchored, waded and fished within Douglaston's protected enclave." Douglaston Manor proceeded to sue the group of guides for trespassing and attempted to gain an injunction against future fishing and anchoring within the Douglaston Salmon Run. In response, the defendants counter-sued for nuisance and interference with business relations, due to the disruption of their guided fishing practices. At issue in either suit was not the right of the guides to merely be on the river. The Salmon River is navigable-in-fact, and by virtue of this, the State holds a public easement on the waterway, on which the public may pass. Douglaston Manor held that this right to navigate does not carry with it the right to fish, anchor, or do anything but navigate. The defendants disagreed. The New York Supreme Court (ironically not the highest court in the State) agreed with Douglaston Manor, and granted the injunction against future fishing in the DSR. Upon appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the lower court's decision, and granted the defendants' request for an injunction against any future interference with their right to fish on the Salmon.

In a February 11, 1997 decision, the Court of Appeals, the State's highest court, unanimously reversed the Appellate Court's decision and reinstated the injunction against the guides. The major point in the case was the distinction between waterways classified navigable as a matter of law ("navigable-in-law") versus those classified navigable as a mater of fact ("navigable-in-fact"). According to the New York Supreme Court case Hooker v. Cummings (1822), a navigable-in-law waterway is defined as one "in which the tide ebbs and flows." Such a waterway is "devoted to the public use, for all purposes, as well for navigation as for fishing." Further, "other rivers, in which the tide does not ebb and flow, [are classified] as navigable [in fact], but not so far belonging to the public as to divest the owners of the adjacent banks of their exclusive rights to the fisheries therein." The Salmon River is not affected by tides, and therefore fishing rights are not expressly granted to the public; they are in fact expressly reserved for the landowner. This opinion was upheld a century later in Smith v. Odell (1922):
"The public right ... must be held limited in such a situation to the right to use the waters for the purposes of a public highway. ... [T]he easement of passage over navigable waters does not involve a surrender of other privileges which are capable of enjoyment without interference with the navigator."
Not wishing to reverse centuries of precedent, the Court of Appeals concurred in their 1997 decision:
"A first premise for the analysis of this case is that this Court has long held that ... land under navigable-in-fact rivers remain[s] subject to an implied, reserved public easement of navigation. Douglaston acknowledges as much, but adds, correctly in our view, that this limited easement extends only to the fulfillment of the proposition's underlying purposes."

The defendants countered by claiming that in the modern era, there is little remaining distinction between waterways classified as navigable-in-law versus those classified as navigable-in-fact. Therefore, they claimed, the public's right to fish extends to all navigable waters. The Court rejected this claim, stating that "This ... is too simplistic an approach, which would precipitate serious destabilizing effects on property ownership principles and precedents." The guides then drew on Smith v. City of Rochester (1883), which held that public rights to "fishing, ferrying and transportation, are preserved in all navigable waters." This also was rejected by the Court, which stated that the context of Smith v. Rochester "does not support the destabilizing conclusion [the] defendants promote from the dictum."

The Court further stated that New York State's practice of purchasing fishing rights from private landholders on navigable-in-fact rivers was evidence that the landholders did in fact hold exclusive fishing rights on these rivers. The Court saw no reason to uphold the view that "the State has been expending public monies unnecessarily on rights, according to defendants' theory, the State already irrevocably holds in public trust."

Finally, the defendants claimed that Douglaston Manor's title to the lands in question "neither expressly granted exclusive fishing rights nor relinquished the public right of fishery." Again, the Court rejected this claim, stating that:
"This Court has previously held that when land under rivers is included within the boundaries of a grant, the general language of conveyance is sufficient to transfer to the grantee the bed of the river and associated exclusive right of fishery. ... Moreover, the State's reservation of ... specific public rights of way, without reserving to the public a right of fishery, additionally supports our analysis and conclusion that Douglaston enjoys a duly conveyed exclusive right of fishery."

This decision has far-reaching effects on the general public of New York. Fishermen must now be even more keenly aware of the ownership of the land they fish on. The State may now be pushed to purchase fishing access rights on more and more rivers. The Douglaston case establishes that public access to a waterway for the purposes of navigation does not extend beyond navigation, a position reiterated a year later in Adirondack League Club v. Sierra Club

[fishn_guy]

Yet another reason to keep me away. I stopped going there a few years ago after being crowded by some inconsiderate Jerk that put me over the edge.

[AK Skim]

fishn_guy, on 30 July 2010 - 12:35 PM, said:

... after being crowded by some inconsiderate Jerk that put be over the edge.

Like everything else, it all depends on when and where you fish.



Great fishery, hate to see people stay away because of just one person or incident.

[AK Skim]

Should have used this photo from the DSR.

[fishn_guy]

I have fished there since the 70ies when I was a teenager. I think I have seen it all or at least most of it. Over the years, my trips became fewer and further between. I can remember some great times. Today, my fishing dollars are limited and I am much wiser on how I spend them.

[mikeg]

If you ever go to the place don't fish the seam near that log in the last AK pic
MG

[AK Skim]

mikeg, on 30 July 2010 - 07:22 AM, said:

Dawn Rucando and the Yankee Fly shop in downtown Pulaski. She has closed a section behind her shop to "pay-to-fish" fishing.

You mean "The Crazy Woman"



Spend five bucks in her shop and get to fish her back yard for a half hour...

Such a deal... such a deal... L.O.L.

HUMmmmm.. didn't the state make her close her doors for a month during the
height of Salmon season last year because if you went in there to get a NYS
fishing license you had to buy something ...???

From what I understand that is against the law.

[AK Skim]

mikeg, on 30 July 2010 - 06:33 PM, said:

If you ever go to the place don't fish the seam near that log in the last AK pic
MG

I have no clue to what you are talking about Mike.

MFF member's pay no attention to that guy behind the monitor...

There is no log in that photo...

It is nothing more than Tom Trickery by Mike.

[fishn_guy]

I remember fishing there the year before they started posting the access in from the road. That is one heck of a place to fish. But a few thousand other people know that too. Can't blame the land owners for doing so. Keeps out the riff raff and why not let the primary users pay the taxes.

[Gribble]

I also heard with the increase they will give the season pass holders a secret sqiurrel pass word to the gate with an asphalt trail with their choice of electric carts to the entire stretch of the DSR! In all good jest I fished the DSR several years ago, and found better waters and less ppl else where! I hope they keep rasing it!..lol.. "stirring the pot" Maybe Donnie Beaver will see just how profitable it could be and start to look into purchasing it! The DSR used to have less ppl in it and back then it was a whole different place to fish!