|
previous topic :: next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Occupied Columbia
Since 12 Nov 2011
376 Posts
Columbia City
Obsessed
|
 Thu Oct 06, 16 8:44 pm |
 |
|
| So... If the people with true authority say don't come in my mouth of the river. Kiters should just say I won't... I promise I won't. Then everything should be fine.
|
|
|
SalmonSlayer
Since 27 Nov 2005
648 Posts
Addicted
CGKA Member
|
| Thu Oct 06, 16 11:48 pm |
|
|
| bigjohn wrote: |
But there are always ways to stop bad behavior. There are always governing authorities with the ability to issue rulings to do so.
Any kiteboarder that feels they can poke the hornets nest with the powerhouses involved in discussions at Lyle will potentially cause fallout that negatively affects kiteboarding for all of us at locations far beyond Lyle.
*** End of Edit *** |
I am not quite sure I understand your statement. Once again in different words. If there is no law that says kiters cant kite in the river mouth, then there is no legal authority that can enforce this "rule".
I suppose there are "ways to stop BAD behavior" but "bad" in this case is a subjective interpretation of a kiter exercising their right to kite in the channel. Anyone trying to stop said kiter would be violating that kiters rights. Is that what you are suggesting?
As it stands now, kiteboarders do not have the legal right to cross the tracks to access the sand bar. If a kiter decides to ride his jet ski to the bar to launch, that is perfectly legal. That kiter access the bar legally and decides to kite in the channel. AFAIK there is not way to legally stop this kiteboarder from kiting in the channel. Any attempt to force to intimidate this kiter would be a violation of his rights.
Fast forward to a year down the road when government worked miraculously fast and Kite boarders have the right to use an under pass, overpass or walk across the tracks. There is an agreement in place made by kiteboarding representatives and some other user groups that kiters cannot kite in the channel. Now another kiter decides to access the bar with his jet ski. He does not utilize the new freedom to access the sandbar via the permitted walk in access method. Does the jetski kiter need to abide by a nonbinding unenforceable agreement based on his access method? can he kite the channel?
Any sort of intimidating a kiter in violation of their rights should be discouraged rather than inmplied IMHO.
|
|
|
MCD
Since 24 Feb 2014
42 Posts
|
| Fri Oct 07, 16 6:23 am creating legal access |
|
|
Access is not being created for a single group. If there appears to be infighting among potential users the cooperation necessary to create the access will be seen as creating rather than solving problems and we can forget about legal rights to access the area apart from using watercraft to arrive at the delta.
On Cape Cod, kiting is severely restricted because it is believed to disturb nesting migratory birds. This is not really fair either but it is enforced and is a fact that has not been successfully challenged.
Big John's concerns and comments are the result of attending the meeting and listening to the concerns of all. There was an impasse that was preventing cooperation and moving the County efforts to the next steps. Let's be adults here.
|
|
|
wylieflyote
Since 30 Jun 2006
1634 Posts
Puget Sound & Wa. Coast
XTreme Poster
|
| Fri Oct 07, 16 6:26 am |
|
|
Salmon... You keep referring to our "rights" to kite where we want. How does this position of yours persist when, as BigJon states above, the land belongs to someone else?
Can we all come by an play in your back yard too?
And... Google and study our 1990's efforts to allow windsurfing at Cline Spit/Dungeness (Washington State). At several points in the negotiations the default was "Absolutely no Windsurfing"... but we all agreed to not ever step onto the actual sand of the Dungeness Spit, and frighten the snowy plovers, or whatever they were. Now Cline is a happy kite and windsurf launch.
Oh, and one more thing. Agreeing to never step onto the Dungeness Spit blocked off some prime wave action in the main channel of the Straights of Juan de Fuca.
_________________
CGKA Member
-------
Kip Wylie |
|
|
SalmonSlayer
Since 27 Nov 2005
648 Posts
Addicted
CGKA Member
|
| Fri Oct 07, 16 6:56 am Re: creating legal access |
|
|
| MCD wrote: | Access is not being created for a single group. If there appears to be infighting among potential users the cooperation necessary to create the access will be seen as creating rather than solving problems and we can forget about legal rights to access the area apart from using watercraft to arrive at the delta.
On Cape Cod, kiting is severely restricted because it is believed to disturb nesting migratory birds. This is not really fair either but it is enforced and is a fact that has not been successfully challenged.
Big John's concerns and comments are the result of attending the meeting and listening to the concerns of all. There was an impasse that was preventing cooperation and moving the County efforts to the next steps. Let's be adults here. |
Lets be adults here? 
I am asking a legitimate question. Still no answer. I will start with your words, so maybe someone can actually answer the question.
"Access is not being created for a single group. " OK, then what happens after access is granted to multiple user groups and a kiter or kiters do not abide by a promise? I am assuming this promise will not be legally binding or made into a law enforced by a legal authority.
Here is the question that remains unanswered. It is a simple question on how the proposed access would work?
If kiteboarders are granted pedestrain access to the sand bar, who has the right to take it away?
As it stands now, to the best of my knowledge, if the bar is legally accessed via watercraft, kiteboarders have the right to kite in the channel. That will not change with pedestrian access to the sand bar as I understand what is being proposed. Common consideration for other users works well enough at Rufus, but the layout at Lyle is different. Distances fisherman perceive as adequate at Rufus will not work for fisherman at Lyle.Even if you are riding just outside the mouth where the current runs east to west, you will hear fisherman grumbling about scaring/stressing the fish.
I apologize for any typos. I cant find my glasses
|
|
|
SalmonSlayer
Since 27 Nov 2005
648 Posts
Addicted
CGKA Member
|
| Fri Oct 07, 16 7:22 am |
|
|
| wylieflyote wrote: | | Salmon... You keep referring to our "rights" to kite where we want. How does this position of yours persist when, as BigJon states above, the land belongs to someone else? |
Who? I thought the "Land" could not be owned by anyone because it covered by water at times and not considered land with a title
I also thought the only reason why pedestrian access is not permitted except for subsistence use (fisherman) is because pedestrians must cross a railroad right of way. The hurdle is getting passage across this right of way and not the right to stand on the "land". That right exist now if the bar is accessed by watercraft.
|
|
|
bigjohn
Since 13 Mar 2012
663 Posts
Addicted
|
| Fri Oct 07, 16 8:04 am |
|
|
| SalmonSlayer wrote: | | wylieflyote wrote: | | Salmon... You keep referring to our "rights" to kite where we want. How does this position of yours persist when, as BigJon states above, the land belongs to someone else? |
Who? I thought the "Land" could not be owned by anyone because it covered by water at times and not considered land with a title
I also thought the only reason why pedestrian access is not permitted except for subsistence use (fisherman) is because pedestrians must cross a railroad right of way. The hurdle is getting passage across this right of way and not the right to stand on the "land". That right exist now if the bar is accessed by watercraft. |
SalmonSlayer:
Given that concerns have been raised regarding the potential impact kitesurfing in the Klickitat mouth may have upon fish traveling up the river, as a descent human being you should be sensitive to the impact your activities might be affecting upon fish, the environment, and fishermen.
But, in the event you are not descent enough to be sensitive to these other factors you should at least be smart enough to recognize that these issues are important enough that laws can be enacted to force "good behavior".
The questions you ask will likely be answered someday by people with the authority to make rulings. Asking these questions in an online forum does not solve anything and has the potential to negatively affect recreational decisions gorge wide.
I am not sure if you bring up these questions because you just don't understand how the world runs or because you think it is fun to create turmoil.
Given the name salmonslayer one might assume you are a fisherman. Do you fish year around? Are you allowed to fish where ever you want? NO. Laws have been enacted that control these activities and governmental bodies have been given the authority to enforce these laws.
Dams have been removed because of their perceived impact to fish runs... What makes you think that kitesurfing is immune?
_________________
Kiting starts at 40MPH |
|
|
SalmonSlayer
Since 27 Nov 2005
648 Posts
Addicted
CGKA Member
|
| Fri Oct 07, 16 8:31 am |
|
|
| bigjohn wrote: |
But, in the event you are not descent enough to be sensitive to these other factors you should at least be smart enough to recognize that these issues are important enough that laws can be enacted to force "good behavior".
The questions you ask will likely be answered someday by people with the authority to make rulings. Asking these questions in an online forum does not solve anything and has the potential to negatively affect recreational decisions gorge wide.
I am not sure if you bring up these questions because you just don't understand how the world runs or because you think it is fun to create turmoil.
|
Big John,
You seem to be reading more into my question than is intended. My question is simple. If you or anyone else can't answer it, no problem. Why not just say you don't have the answer?
I believe my question reflects a decent understanding of how the world runs. You have not been able to answer the question and seem more intent on shutting down open discussion. That won't happen unless y'all prefer to wallow in group think and ban me. I did not think my simple question would be so challenging to answer. Perhaps that points to a bigger problem.
|
|
|
ldhr
Since 21 Jul 2009
1472 Posts
Hood River
XTreme Poster
|
| Fri Oct 07, 16 9:09 am |
|
|
Typically land ownership adjacent to a river stops at the high water mark.
At the meeting it was explained that the rules for the Lyle Sandbar are different. Not sure why - perhaps due to the determination of the high water mark before or after the dams?
1. Anyway - the National Forrest Service owns the Sandbar - even the parts that are underwater during certain times of the year.
2. It was my opinion that local fishermen are upset at kiters for disturbing their fishing spot under the bridge and extending out into the mouth.
(not talking about fishermen in boats out in the main channel).
It was my opinion that they would lobby to prevent access to the Sandbar because they would in effect lose their fishing spot.
3. My suggestion was that kiters promote a compromise whereby kiters voluntarily stay to the westside and fishermen support access to the sandbar for EVERYONE.
4. I understand this is prejudiced against the kiters who want to kite at the mouth, but I'm suggesting that full legal access to the westside is better than the situation we have now. The crossing is not safe, the locals are frustrated by the crowded parking and think it's a matter of when, not if someone gets hurt at the crossing.
5. If kiters get legal access based on the promise to self police kiting at the mouth - and certain individuals decide to kite in the mouth anyway.... I'm guessing the National Forrest Service would have the authority to ban the launching of kites from the Sandbar.
Nobody can stop you from launching somewhere else and kiting at the mouth.
It's similar to the situation at the Event Site - certain zones have been designated as no fly zones. Not sure if a person could get arrested or a ticket issued for kiting in the no fly zones at Event Site - but we spread the word and self police.
I don't know this for sure - we would learn the details as the process moves forward.
Last edited by ldhr on Fri Oct 07, 16 9:53 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
ldhr
Since 21 Jul 2009
1472 Posts
Hood River
XTreme Poster
|
| Fri Oct 07, 16 9:20 am |
|
|
On this map you can see how much land is owned by the National Forrest Service - on both sides of the highway - highlighted in purple.
Also note how large the Railroad right of way is - everything within the red dash lines.
 |
| |
Lyle Sandbar.jpg |
Last edited by ldhr on Fri Oct 07, 16 9:55 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
Talbot1
Since 22 Apr 2011
27 Posts
USA
|
| Fri Oct 07, 16 9:28 am Event site, White Salmon access?? |
|
|
"It was expressed that as a community we would attempt to inform our fellow kiters that kiting in the mouth of the Klickitat is believed to have a negative impact upon the number of fish that travel from the Columbia up the Klicikitat river. This positive response to the concerns on the table changed the feeling in the room. In the end everybody seemed to be on board with working together to strive towards a solution that worked for all"
"Fishermen are upset about kiters at the mouth of the Klickitat river - they think it stresses and disturbs the Salmon and Steelhead that migrate up the Klickitat river. They've been fishing at the mouth for 70 years and they are adamant that kiters ruin the fishing at the mouth.
Fishermen seemed to be agreeable to a compromise - kiters and other users stay on the west side of the sandbar and stay away from the east side. . "
As a kite community a few admit that kiting is bad for fish. Maybe it is, maybe it is not.
If this path is taken, how long until no kiting in the Event Site flats? This is a salmon/steelhead river.
White Salmon Launch?
|
|
|
ldhr
Since 21 Jul 2009
1472 Posts
Hood River
XTreme Poster
|
| Fri Oct 07, 16 9:39 am |
|
|
| Talbot1 wrote: | "If this path is taken, how long until no kiting in the Event Site flats? This is a salmon/steelhead river.
White Salmon Launch?
|
I think Lyle is unique and here's why.
The Hood is a salmon/steelhead river but it's a mediocre run at best. It pales in comparison to the Lyle. It's a winter spring run, not summertime like Lyle.
The fishermen don't fish outside of the mouth where people kite - mostly they fish around the pedestrian bride and above. And nobody is fishing there from June - November.
That's why the Hood fishermen have not complained.
Regarding the White Salmon - even if launching was prohibited from the Wunderbar - people would still kite there via launching from the Event Site.
Also - nobody is breaking any rules at WS - if the fishermen want to complain - there's no authority to complain to.
Technically kiters are probably breaking a no trespass rule vis a vis the railroad right of way..... but so are the fishermen that fish from the bank so I don't think they're gonna complain.
That being said - as a fellow fishermen I stay at least 100 yards from the boats fishing around the mouth of the WS.
|
|
|
Sella
Since 21 Apr 2007
1794 Posts
Doin' The Dalles
FLY'IN HIGH PIE GUY
|
| Fri Oct 07, 16 10:09 am |
|
|
| ldhr wrote: | | 4. I understand this is prejudiced against the kiters who want to kite at the mouth, but I'm suggesting that full legal access to the westside is better than the situation we have now. The crossing is not safe, the locals are frustrated by the crowded parking and think it's a matter of when, not if someone gets hurt at the crossing. |
Salmon, this point from LDHR is the real world as there will be concessions requested to keep ALL involved landowners content, which was highlighted by Commissioner Sauter as the biggest challenge ahead.
Every kite launch has some sort of concession so before we get into a "answer my question" about having your rights violated and who is going to enforce where you can, or can't, kite take a step back and wait for the bigger picture to evolve. Lyle is a unique location and if our community is lucky enough to gain legal access, a long shot at this point, because we stop eating the butter and respectfully ride Westward as a good neighbor playing fair in the sandbox is a compromise we should welcome all day long.
|
|
|
bigjohn
Since 13 Mar 2012
663 Posts
Addicted
|
| Fri Oct 07, 16 10:12 am |
|
|
| SalmonSlayer wrote: |
Big John,
You seem to be reading more into my question than is intended. |
SalmonSlayer, I believe you may be correct.
I read into your questions a person who currently kites at Lyle and enjoys kiting in the mouth of the Klickitat river. I read into your questions a person who looks at the Lyle access proposition as something that will remove something you currently enjoy.
I also read into your questions an individual who is looking for ways to attempt to stop legal Lyle access at any cost. If the ramifications of your actions might lead to gorge wide limitations on recreation... Well, you don't appear to care. These potential future limitations could have widespread economic ramifications upon the entire gorge region. But, you don't really seem to care. All because you are upset that you might lose access to kiting in the mouth of the Klickitat river.
Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you are not this shallow. I will apologize up front if I am. But I do not see how your current postings could have any other purpose than such stated.
_________________
Kiting starts at 40MPH |
|
|
SalmonSlayer
Since 27 Nov 2005
648 Posts
Addicted
CGKA Member
|
| Fri Oct 07, 16 10:19 am |
|
|
| bigjohn wrote: |
SalmonSlayer, I believe you may be correct.
I read into your questions a person who currently kites at Lyle and enjoys kiting in the mouth of the Klickitat river. I read into your questions a person who looks at the Lyle access proposition as something that will remove something you currently enjoy.
I also read into your questions an individual who is looking for ways to attempt to stop legal Lyle access at any cost. If the ramifications of your actions might lead to gorge wide limitations on recreation... Well, you don't appear to care. These potential future limitations could have widespread economic ramifications upon the entire gorge region. But, you don't really seem to care. All because you are upset that you might lose access to kiting in the mouth of the Klickitat river.
Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you are not this shallow. I will apologize up front if I am. But I do not see how your current postings could have any other purpose than such stated. |
Where do you get any idea that I am asking about me or my desire to kite in the channel? My question is simply a "what if" question based on a likely event.
Are you going to answer the question or are you just going to continue to dance around it and read between the lines and make up your own interpretation?
|
|
|
MCD
Since 24 Feb 2014
42 Posts
|
| Fri Oct 07, 16 10:23 am Who has the right |
|
|
Salmon Slayer seems to be asking for an answer to satisfy his important question.
Who has the right to take my right to kite in the mouth of the Klickitat away? There may be some information that can help him come to his own understanding since none of us are legal authorities. I apologize for saying "let's be adults here" . I do respect other opinions and questions and I regret that remark and especially the tone it implied. I have some remarks that might help.
Lands above water (even occasionally) including before the building of The Dalles Dam, are called Second Class Shore Lands. There are ownership rights for these lands and when they are owned by private citizens not exempt from taxes, they are taxed. I own some and am taxed. I currently do not have the right to exclude people from my Second Class Shorelines while they are under water. At the Lyle Delta Second Class Shore Lands and other lands are owned by The US Forest Service who bought those lands from Jim Starr and the remainder are owned By the Tribes (Mostly Yakima Nation). Both of these owners are concerned with protection of Habitat and have their own policing agencies that have authority to enforce laws. There are currently no laws prohibiting the public from trespassing on Second Class Shore Lands as they are mostly underwater at least for portions of the year. However if activities like theft of artifacts, disturbance of habitat, building docks without permit, harassing protected species or other already illegal activities are observed, then there are enforceable consequences. As we know, activities that have previously been legal can become illegal. Kiters who attended the Lyle meeting do not want kiting to become prohibited so we are attempting to be good citizens and want people to see that we are respectful of other's concerns.
|
|
|
SalmonSlayer
Since 27 Nov 2005
648 Posts
Addicted
CGKA Member
|
| Fri Oct 07, 16 10:52 am |
|
|
| Sella wrote: | | ldhr wrote: | | 4. I understand this is prejudiced against the kiters who want to kite at the mouth, but I'm suggesting that full legal access to the westside is better than the situation we have now. The crossing is not safe, the locals are frustrated by the crowded parking and think it's a matter of when, not if someone gets hurt at the crossing. |
Salmon, this point from LDHR is the real world as there will be concessions requested to keep ALL involved landowners content, which was highlighted by Commissioner Sauter as the biggest challenge ahead.
Every kite launch has some sort of concession so before we get into a "answer my question" about having your rights violated and who is going to enforce where you can, or can't, kite take a step back and wait for the bigger picture to evolve. Lyle is a unique location and if our community is lucky enough to gain legal access, a long shot at this point, because we stop eating the butter and respectfully ride Westward as a good neighbor playing fair in the sandbox is a compromise we should welcome all day long. |
I missed these and other responses with reasonable attempts at discussion.
I give sport fisherman a wide berth. I have have a bit of knowledge on how salmon behave. Kiteboarders will change salmon behavior to the extent that they may get stressed and and not bite the hook. If kite boarders are on one side of the channel and the fisherman are on the other side, we would actually be assisting in getting the salmon to run up the fishermans side of the channel. With the added stress you would assist net fishing, but salmon would be less likely to bite on a hook. Kiteboarders will not keep salmon from running up the river. We simply will not be present enough to have any effect on migration. They want to get laid and only have one shot at it. They are getting up that river.
My point, question and concern is that no matter what promises are made, someone will violate the promise on purpose or by accident. I understand that 'concessions" need to be made to gain the support needed. However, if a kiter enters the channel on purpose and has the right to do so, no one has the right to stop him or intimidate him into not kiting in the channel. My question revolves around this scenario. If you have people that dont care about promise, can access be taken away from all kite boarders? It does not appear so based on the responses.
thx
Last edited by SalmonSlayer on Fri Oct 07, 16 11:40 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
