Devils River Trespass

[puddler]

I can't debate the law as it pertains to Val Verde county, or where the gradient boundary lies at any one particular sweet spot. The public has always had access to Devils and always will.
One thing I do know is that love them or hate them, it has been the riverside landowners that have protected the jewel that is the Devils. Fragmentation such as Blue Sage is possibly an exception to that and another challenge to address preserving the long term pristine character of the river.
But throwing open the gates on the principle of public rights, freedom loving Americans need to just look at the your fellow man on the streets, in your Walmart, and ask yourself if all these individuals shared your same values.
I haven't been called for jury duty in awhile, but was recently and hoped I would be used because the others in the pool made me scared for our country. What a bunch of ignorant yahoos!
So think long and hard if you want to give them the keys to the Smithsonian to go in unsupervised to do as they please.
Too much of the great wildness of Texas has been exploited in the name of free-spirited independence and progress. Go party on the Frio or Guad, but nobody wants to see dozens of devils bucket listers when we're trying to get away from it all and get a dose of pure, ancient Texas water and country.

[hook-line&sinker]

There are several treaties governing water and land the state of Texas operates under. Under one type of treaty (mostly out west) all the land is owned by the landowner including the river bed and only the water is public. Most of the populated parts of the state (east) are under the rules where the river bed and the water are public as long as they are designated navigable. The Texas Supreme court has ruled that even the ground water belongs to the landowner above it and is to be treated no different then other mineral rights. How a particular landowner got their land is of little consequence to the rules governing it. The Devils river is a pristine environment and if it is to stay that way it will have to be protected by limiting access to those who can afford it and prove they care enough to leave no trace and do no damage. Most of us can only dream about trips to remote places but it is those dreams that give us hope for tomorrow and the promise of another cast...

I believe you are reciting a myth. Please cite the Supreme Court ruling you are referring to.

"The title of owners of beds of streams by the State or landowners does not determine property rights in the water. Assuming that the property owners here involved owned the stream beds, this does not deprive the State from reasonable regulations and control of navigable streams. A property owner, including holders of riparian rights, cannot unreasonably impair the public’s rights of navigation and access to and enjoyment of a navigable water course.
Adjudication of Upper Guadalupe Segment of Guadalupe River Basin, 625 S.W.2d 353, 362 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1981), aff’d, 642 S.W.2d 438 (1982)."

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publication ... beds.phtml

I was trying to shed light on the different treaties affecting ownership and trespass but thank you for digging deeper into the issue. We all need to know exactly what the rules are if we are to play by them..

The ground water ruling is part of the current water wars and really not part of the trespass discussion above but does show how the laws have to be reviewed and updated to fit the times.. see: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 360220.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[FishinClint]

Regarding Diversion Lake/Medina River...

I accessed it numerous times last year and years past with my dad, brother, and friends. A year ago, after years of missing out, I got online as well as called the County Commissioner's Court and Sheriffs office to find out what was legal and not. As a result, I have been parking (where it's allowed) and launching under bridges that cross the river without issue. Of course there's the grumpy locals who don't want me there, but they aren't the law. Even had a ...very nice... LEO make me and my dad walk our two kayaks and gear to the truck, rather than let us park it nearby but out of the way to load up, for "safety reasons". As if us walking partly in the road, with blind curves for a tiring distance was safer. But, he didn't tell us we were breaking any laws parking where we did or using the river or it's banks and we went on our merry way.

I've brought quite a few nice hybrids, couple catfish, and a real nice largemouth out of the river. Can't wait to get out there this year with my fly rod and some new flies I've tied. Saw some real good bass, about a 3 ft catfish, and a carp/buffalo/?? that was at least 4 foot or more on my last trip from the past fall.

[MudDuck]

One thing I do know is that love them or hate them, it has been the riverside landowners that have protected the jewel that is the Devils. Fragmentation such as Blue Sage is possibly an exception to that and another challenge to address preserving the long term pristine character of the river.
But throwing open the gates on the principle of public rights, freedom loving Americans need to just look at the your fellow man on the streets, in your Walmart, and ask yourself if all these individuals shared your same values.
I haven't been called for jury duty in awhile, but was recently and hoped I would be used because the others in the pool made me scared for our country. What a bunch of ignorant yahoos!
So think long and hard if you want to give them the keys to the Smithsonian to go in unsupervised to do as they please.
Too much of the great wildness of Texas has been exploited in the name of free-spirited independence and progress. Go party on the Frio or Guad, but nobody wants to see dozens of devils bucket listers when we're trying to get away from it all and get a dose of pure, ancient Texas water and country.

I can understand those concerns, hopefully since the State has a handle on how many folks can access the river with permits then overcrowding has partially been addressed through that avenue. However overcrowding is not addressed with the landowners and they can charge $$$ for access or let as many folks on the river as they want. There are Ranches that are doing this now.

That being said I find it offending that folks are willing to be deceitful with Trespass laws because they are concerned what their fellow man might do. I am of the opinion the State needs to tell the landowners to back off of legal access to the riverbanks below the gradient boundary. The riverbed does not belong to the landowners but to the people of this State. As I said earlier in this thread the folks who wander out of the gradient boundary deserve to be ticketed.

In my book being deceitful about what constitutes trespassing is just as bad if not worse than pre-judging our fellow man’s intelligence and moral integrity.