Dawt Mill Access

[catman70]

We were caught off guard on a recent float to find that the owner (perhaps new?) of Dawt Mill had erected a large gate and would restrict private take-outs on their property.

Now, I don't have a problem with a landowner doing what they want with their land. In this instance Dawt Mill has limited access while maintaining a navigational hazard (the dam). It seems to me that if they want to restrict access to their property they should provide a safe portage opportunity around the dam or breach a section of the dam. What's from stoping me from building a dam on Bryant Creek and charging all floaters/boaters a toll? Is this not essentially what they've done?

Looking forward up your thoughts.

[Justin Spencer]

Me and my wife were talking about this yesterday. A simple breach to allow safe passage should be required I think. There has been a tree blocking the side of the dam that was easiest to pass for over a year and they have done nothing about it. Hopefully yesterday's rise washed it over the dam. McKee bridge is another private structure that the public cannot use that impedes passage down the river. It gets trees stuck on it (which they are somewhat good at clearing off) and is so low as to keep certain watercraft from going under it in normal water conditions. I would like to see these two issues taken on in the courts. I'm afraid it will take a tragedy to get the issue pressed however. I know I for one wouldn't want the liablity of either of these structures on my insurance plan.

As for new construction of a dam or bridge, there are many new permits and regulations to be considered in this day and age that they didn't contend with back in the day. A low bridge was replaced a few years ago between Twin Bridges and Hammond, and they took safe passage into consideration by making a dip in the middle of the bridge for boats to go over. Ended up not being super safe as we had some floaters pull up on the bridge where there are large pipes at the surface, and a few of them got sucked through the culvert. Thankfully they weren't harmed, but were very shaken as they realized it could have ended badly.

[catman70]

And don't get me wrong - I don't want them to breach the dam. I only mentioned it to illustrate a point. I'm happy to pay $2-3 to use their launch or to use it as a portage, but (for those of you that don't know) they have a brand new 12' locked gate that bars access after hours. This situation makes it nearly impossible to float from PP bridge to the 160 bridge without significant struggle and risk.

I think the new policy is that only Dawt customers can use the access, although they may have an agreement with other liveries. We would have been completely stuck had we not recovered one of their canoes from a drunk abandonment.

I wasn't aware of the low water bridge between Twin Bridges and Hammond. Never thought the McKee to be much of an obstacle because it doesn't present itself as one 95% of the time, but I do understand your point.

[Terrierman]

Describing the dam at Dawt Mill as a navigation hazard is very generous on your part Mr. Catman. Yes, it's a problem.

[Riverwhy]

Dawt Mill is a very frustrating situation. I have completely wriiten it off as a place I can take my family to the river. I also would gladly pay a fee to park and load and unload if it was an option.

Twin Bridges has a similiar private ownership situation and I gladly pay to use the access.

Maybe the old Natural Streams Act would have been a good deal.

[Justin Spencer]

Dawt Mill is a very frustrating situation. I have completely wriiten it off as a place I can take my family to the river. I also would gladly pay a fee to park and load and unload if it was an option.

Twin Bridges has a similiar private ownership situation and I gladly pay to use the access.

Maybe the old Natural Streams Act would have been a good deal.

I understand why Dawt is doing what it is, it boils down to a parking situation, and a liability problem. The bad part of Dawt is that there is no safe passage down to the bridge where you can take out, and by them not allowing access it is a safety concern. Before they started restricting access, and when we still took out down there, Saturday evenings were a mess. People fighting, busses waiting to get in to get boats and floaters, individuals waiting to back in to get their canoes, it was not a fun place to be. Once the gates went up and they started locking us out during normal floating times I found a place for sale and bought it to take out my floaters. It has been wonderful. It is a small ramp that can basically only accomodate my business so I do not allow the general public to take out there. No one complains because it hasn't been a takeout in the past, and James Bridge is only a mile upstream of it, but I still have people asking if they can use it. Dawt has made a lot of local people very upset and understandably so, but I can see where they are coming from as a business, they are finding out that a local landmark can be both a good thing, and a bad thing when everyone feels like it is part of the public domain that should be open to everyone. I have heard rumors that MDC was interested in purchasing the land at James Bridge and creating a good public access there (not confirmed however), that would solve a lot of access issues on the lower end of the river.

[bigredbirdfan]

Perhaps you should friend Dawt Mill on Facebook and post your concern for all to see.

[Terrierman]

The problem at Dawt is there is presently no safe way around the dam if they're not open. I totally understand the access restriction.

[sean c]

I can certainly understand why Dawt would want to restrict access and I can also understand why the general public would be upset about it. I guess my question is what would it take to create safe passage around or through the dam and who's responsibility would it be(Dawt mill/MDC)?

[Brian Wise]

I can certainly understand why Dawt would want to restrict access and I can also understand why the general public would be upset about it. I guess my question is what would it take to create safe passage around or through the dam and who's responsibility would it be(Dawt mill/MDC)?

Dawt, MDC, and DNR.........I would venture to say that DNR would probably have the final say if they didn't like the idea, they hold some power.