Cadron

[RomanLA]

The weather forecast looks promising for paddling next weekend. With the access changes, will people still be paddling it a lot this winter?

[gannon311]

yes you have to put in at the pinnacle bridge

[Trismegistus]

Another stumbling block-

We need to revisit Cadron Creek access issues -- NOW! For the gate at Pinnacle Springs is now posted and painted purple. This easement has been in use for decades -- and an adverse or prescriptive easement could probably be attained in court. Otherwise if this restriction stands, gaining access to the creek above Pinnacle Gap is going to be at the whim of private landowners -- read: "sorry Charlie, you best move on". CCO is already restricting use and now with the loss of the access at Pinnacle Springs bridge the public's use of some of the best scenery and water on the Cadron is going to be significantly impaired.

Public access at Pinnacle Springs bridge will likely bring forth more people to come enjoy the Cadron -- both a pro and con -- as it ties in so well with the downstream access at Highway 65. A nice boat ramp at Pinnacle Springs could have a big impact on the way Cadron Creek is viewed -- and used -- by the public.

[Crane]

Perhaps the ACC Board would consider initiating litigation or supporting litigation on Cadron access... or initiating negotiations to purchase the access at Pinnacle Springs or somewhere up-stream... ??

[El Dino]

Soooo.... Can we or can we not put in at Pin springs bridge? Cause I've been accessing the creek there and haven't gotten a note on or a brick through my windshield yet..

[marklar1]

So is the outfitters closed for good? Can we not leave money in the box and still use the access? There are ways to open the gate if the owner is acceptable to us leaving the $6 for access.

[Trismegistus]

Crane -- I'll step out myself into the fire as long as I know the ACC (and the paddling community) is behind me.

El Dino -- I really think we need to continue to use this access launch -- more so than ever before to assert our rights to a public prescriptive easement that will allow passage -- at the very least the right-of-way for the adjoining Highway 310. In order to assert our rights we have to accomplish three important things: (1) possession and/or usage must be continuous and uninterrupted (keep on using this access site); (2) the possessor must have acted as if he were the owner and not merely one acting with the permission of the owner; and (3) the possession must have been reasonably visible to the owner (or community at large). Note: I am not a lawyer and nothing I state here may be construed as legally valid.

Marklar -- CCO is undergoing "reorganization" and although I anticipate access will still be available in the future via donations, access cards, etc. we still need open public access site to complement CCO's generosity. This is a really important reach to paddlers in central Arkansas -- in fact, aside from Rockport it's probably one of the most popular runs in the area -- and if we don't watch it we're apt to find ourselves shut out or faced with longer shuttles and lengthy and tiring adventures.

[Clif]

back in the 1900s... ok 96 and 7, I remember putting in there and almost being scared of what was in the edge of the water cuz of what was on the bank. Trash everywhere. Once some gracious person left the whole trailer full of trash. Point? Maybe not a road down and parking area but at least a path to go down and launch. Kinda like we do at Hartwick or 124 or Morganton Quitman rd. These places too, sad to say, collect way to much refuse.

[HomeGrown]

Hey John I was planing on going up to cadron this weekend to do some clean up and fix the road b/c i know it needs it. If you like I can open the gate for acc members an any others that are wanting to float.
You know how to get a hold of me. BLAKE YOUR SON IN LAW

[Cowper]

Perhaps the ACC Board would consider initiating litigation or supporting litigation on Cadron access... or initiating negotiations to purchase the access at Pinnacle Springs or somewhere up-stream... ??

While there is a part of me that wants to thump my chest and talk about public right of access to a waterway that has a long history of recreational navigation, especiallly where it crosses a public road right-of-way, as an ACC member I would have to speak out strongly against ACC going the litigation route on this one. The potential backlash in relations with other landowners around the state far exceeds the benefit of one access point on Cadron Creek.

I also wouldn't feel comfortable leaving my vehicle parked at either access if we had gained access via this method; too easy for it to get "and nobody saw nothing".

On the other hand, I fully support the second option you suggested; I'm truly hoping some ACC member has time to take on the project of pushing in that direction.

[Cowper]

El Dino -- I really think we need to continue to use this access launch -- more so than ever before to assert our rights to a public prescriptive easement that will allow passage -- at the very least the right-of-way for the adjoining Highway 310.

I understand your recommendation. But folks need to understand that until it goes to court and the easement is granted, you are making a decision to violate the law if you go this route. Landowners have a right to post their property, and trepassing on posted property is a misdemeanor.
http://www.forestry.state.ar.us/manage/ ... perty.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Richard]

I would think this would be a prime site for the AG&F to consider for access. After all they are probably the best funded agency in the state at this time. Initially, there would be trash but with proper education and example that may change.
Secondly, this entire stretch, so far as I am concerned, is a very special area. I think it would be worth pursuing an effort to make this a state natural scenic area with an environmental easement corridor allowing public access. First step would be to escort the Governor from CCO to Hwy 65. Same with the AG&F powers that be. Perhaps a state supreme court justice or two. And Chuck Dovish plus Arkansas Times staff.

[Trismegistus]

And I hear what you are saying Cowper but the law also clearly states -- and I repeat with emphasis: that in order to assert our rights we have to accomplish three important things: (1) possession and/or usage must be continuous and uninterrupted (keep on using this access site); (2) the possessor must have acted as if he were the owner and not merely one acting with the permission of the owner; and (3) the possession must have been reasonably visible to the owner (or community at large). Hard to do if we simply just walk away.... Moreover once the landowner demonstrates that any of the above no longer exist access is forever lost. Again -- I'm not a lawyer but that's how I read the law.

What has to be done is that the landowner has to file charges of trespassing and once it happens we support the "trespassee" in taking the issue all the way to its rightful conclusion. Let it be known: I will personally pay the fine for the first person issued a citation for trespassing at Pinnacle Springs bridge with the hope that others will also contribute their time, money and energy to procurement of a public easement at Pinnacle Springs bridge.

I also have to support Richard suggestion -- nothing better that legislative, judicial and executive representation.

[Crane]

Actually, the paddling community has established an easement for access at Pinnacle Springs by our continued use over a long period of years... even after the owner of the rest of the interests in the land put up a gate. Clearly, our use was open and adverse to the interests of the land-owner... and is to this day. What paddlers would be asking of a court would be to recognize our long-existing right of use and passage to and from the stream.

[Trismegistus]

Thanks Larry!

Amen: The court needs to "recognize our long-existing right of use and passage to and from the stream".

P.S. As I have a tendency to range across the countryside I have been approached by the landowner several times in the past -- the exchange is always cordial and neighborly -- and he has never threatened me with citation or told me "get off my property". In fact, I cannot really foresee that he would ever accost, threaten or file charges against any paddler accessing the creek as long as we follow "best management practices" so I really don't know how this will play out....

P.S.S. Thanks Blake. Everything is fine.