Does Oregon Really Have 100% Public Beaches? (Depoe Bay, Cove: live in, lawsuit, to move)

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

Actually the lighthouse is owned by Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw, not the Coquille. But that is not the point. They don't own the beach, and neither do the homeowners on the mainland. The beach is essentially a private beach for the home owners in a state that prides itself on public beaches.

This isn't true. In 2013, the tribe got the island back. It is sacred ground and is where their tribal chief lived for a thousand years. It is a historical site for the tribe and is considered an important archeological site. It is tribal land and there is no requirement that they let you visit.

[texasdiver]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

In Washington there are public beach approaches all over the place that allow you to drive your car onto the beach anywhere. About the only places you can't drive your car on the beaches in Washington are in environmentally sensitive areas, and people seem to pretty much ignore those bans anyway.

I've lived many years in both Oregon and Washington. And the notion that Washington has better beach access than Oregon is completely ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous.

Take a 150 mile drive from Olympia in the South to Bellingham in the north and tell me how many public beaches and public beach access points exist along that stretch of Puget Sound. And how many total miles of public beaches exist in that 150 mile stretch.

Drive the same approximate distance from Florence OR to Astoria OR and tell me how many public beaches exist and how many public access points exist along that stretch.

Washington has better beach access? Sheesh. Beaches aren't even public in Washington even if you can reach them. In Oregon, all beaches are public up to the vegetation line. So basically all the sand. In Washington, property owners own the beaches down to the low tide line. In other words, not one INCH of beach is public in Washington unless it is an actual public park.

Public Beach Access in Washington, Oregon, and California: https://smea.uw.edu/currents/public-beach-access/

WASHINGTON: Washington has perhaps the most unusual public beach access rules of any Western state. Where most states define the boundary of lands available for private ownership at the high tideline, Washington allows for private ownership of lands down to the low water mark. This is a holdover from the early days of the state, when loggers and shellfish farmers were allowed to purchase tidelands from the government. While the state no longer permits people to purchase tidelands, many areas of the beach have been passed down through generations and remain private property. Additionally, beachfront property owners are allowed to build private piers and other structures on public beaches. Be aware of property boundaries as you visit Washington beaches this summer, and look up a beach before you visit to ensure you won’t be encroaching on private property.

OREGON: Oregon has public beach-access laws which are more typical of the U.S. in general. Oregon upholds the Public Trust Doctrine, which is a common law principle that dictates the responsibility of the state to protect and manage public lands. Private property on Oregon beaches begins at the high water mark, and “dry sand” is generally considered to be within private property boundaries. However, Oregon’s law allows for a perpetual easement, or public path, across dry sand between the high water mark and the vegetation line. Be respectful of beachfront property owners, but know your rights to passage across beaches.

CALIFORNIA: California, with its lengthy and iconic coastline, has a long and contentious history of public beach access. While California law explicitly allows for the public’s right to access beaches, private property owners have used their considerable monetary resources to legally exclude the public from accessing beaches near their properties. Several notorious lawsuits have come through the courts in recent years, including Vinod Khosla closing off a private road which had long been used by the public to access Martin’s Beach, and David Geffen’s efforts in the early 2000’s to block the public from accessing the beach in front of his former Malibu home. Although many beaches are difficult or impossible to access, know that all beaches, from the high water mark down, are public property in California. Contact the California Coastal Commission if you suspect a homeowner is illegally blocking public access to the coast.

If you are talking about Long Beach then yeah, they are more redneck down there. But that is maybe 1% of the entire Washington coastline. And driving on the beach makes it less pleasant than more so. Visit South Padre Island or Port Aransas Texas if you want to see how pleasant beaches are that allow cars and what it leads to.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

This isn't true. In 2013, the tribe got the island back. It is sacred ground and is where their tribal chief lived for a thousand years. It is a historical site for the tribe and is considered an important archeological site. It is tribal land and there is no requirement that they let you visit.

What isn't true? Again the tribes do not own the beach, and neither do the homeowners, but that is not stopping them from using it as their own and cutting off public access.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by texasdiver

I've lived many years in both Oregon and Washington. And the notion that Washington has better beach access than Oregon is completely ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous.

Take a 150 mile drive from Olympia in the South to Bellingham in the north and tell me how many public beaches and public beach access points exist along that stretch of Puget Sound. And how many total miles of public beaches exist in that 150 mile stretch.

Drive the same approximate distance from Florence OR to Astoria OR and tell me how many public beaches exist and how many public access points exist along that stretch.

Washington has better beach access? Sheesh. Beaches aren't even public in Washington even if you can reach them. In Oregon, all beaches are public up to the vegetation line. So basically all the sand. In Washington, property owners own the beaches down to the low tide line. In other words, not one INCH of beach is public in Washington unless it is an actual public park.

Public Beach Access in Washington, Oregon, and California: https://smea.uw.edu/currents/public-beach-access/



If you are talking about Long Beach then yeah, they are more redneck down there. But that is maybe 1% of the entire Washington coastline. And driving on the beach makes it less pleasant than more so. Visit South Padre Island or Port Aransas Texas if you want to see how pleasant beaches are that allow cars and what it leads to.

You are asking a lot of questions. Why don't you do some research? I will answer one. From Florence to Astoria there are 97 beach access points. That's about one every 2 miles. Which is about the average for the entire Oregon Coast. Does one access point every 2 miles sound adequate to you?

[FrankNSense]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

You are asking a lot of questions. Why don't you do some research? I will answer one. From Florence to Astoria there are 97 beach access points. That's about one every 2 miles. Which is about the average for the entire Oregon Coast. Does one access point every 2 miles sound adequate to you?

The premise of your OP was that there was more access in WA than OR. So how about showing how those 97 access points in OR compare to WA?

Then one other item is how much of that 180 or so miles along the Oregon Coast is actually (reasonably) accessible? There are several areas that do not have any sort of beach that can extend for several miles.

So one every couple of miles on average seems reasonable. What are you looking for?

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

What isn't true? Again the tribes do not own the beach, and neither do the homeowners, but that is not stopping them from using it as their own and cutting off public access.

Yes, the tribe owns the island with the lighthouse and part of the peninsula. It is tribal land. They don't have to follow Oregon land laws so they don't. Not sure why you think you are entitled to trespass on tribal land. Why do you have so much angst that they got back their sacred land?

[steiconi]

I'm glad I live in Arizona, where there is free and easy public access to 100% of the ocean shoreline.

[Silent1Unknown15]

I know that Whale Cove south of Depoe Bay has a technical private beach in that there's no public access without trespassing through the homeowners there, but nothing stops you from kayaking in from the ocean and hanging out there. If it wasn't for a few rocks sticking up near the southern mouth of the bay it'd be a good surfing spot it often gets tall waves.

[ejisme]

I guess I'm not seeing a whole lot of actual beach land in the photos you provided. Is there some special reason you need to get to that little bit of beach? You could use a sea kayak and paddle into that beach, and then you could do what you want there, as that little bit of beach is public, just the easy access from the land is not.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

Yes, the tribe owns the island with the lighthouse and part of the peninsula. It is tribal land. They don't have to follow Oregon land laws so they don't. Not sure why you think you are entitled to trespass on tribal land. Why do you have so much angst that they got back their sacred land?

I very specifically said that the lighthouse is owned by Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw. Nobody is disputing that, except you, when you said it was not true. Now you are lecturing me that it is true. Which is it? It sounds like you are having an argument with yourself. Your posts make no sense.