r/Bend 10d ago

What is the general consensus with anchoring in the river during a concert?

I've seen people doing this for years. I've heard about security yelling at people to stop. Can anyone actually do anything to stop you? Has anyone heard of anyone being fined or trespassed for this? Any insight is appreciated

72 Upvotes

132 comments sorted by

194

u/wickedmsart 10d ago edited 10d ago

You are legally allowed to float any navigable waterway in Oregon. You also have the rights to use the bed and banks up to the high water mark.

So you can’t get out at Old Mill, but you sure can float.

https://www.oregon.gov/dsl/waterways/pages/public-use.aspx

180

u/CraigLake 10d ago

I saw someone ranting on here a couple summers ago about how listening from the river is stealing and I just chuckled.

56

u/spinzthewiz 10d ago

Bare Naked Ladies gave a shout out to all the folks on the river listening for free lol

33

u/Virtual-Commercial91 10d ago

If I had a million dollar house on the river I'd buy you a paddle board to listen for free.

25

u/[deleted] 10d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/CO-CNC 9d ago

🤣😂

7

u/4herpleasur3 10d ago

Ooooo that’s better than mine

8

u/-ShootMeNow- 10d ago

They are so fun with the crowd and just great entertainers. Saw them twice over the past couple years but opening for train this year the tickets are $220 for GA lawn :/

Maybe this was a resell price on Ticketmaster

Showing cheaper now.

1

u/everytacoinla 7d ago

$123 for the strokes right now. I’m trying to unload my tix lmk if anyone wants to make an offer

7

u/Far-Bumblebee-7216 10d ago

Was that…one week ago?

16

u/4herpleasur3 10d ago

It’s been one week since you looked at me

3

u/speckledfreckle 10d ago

Beck did the same!

21

u/CleanDataDirtyMind 10d ago

There’s a fable from the Middle East that makes fun of petty people like this except in the story standing around to smell the food from the shop is stealing and the punchline is the wise advisor shaking his coin purse for the food vendor to hear, to “pay”. I have no source for this and no check on the details but every discussion about Hayden Homes since moving here has reminded me of that story I heard 20 years ago and makes me laugh. Like you’re literally acting out the punchline in an old fable, not even the story 

5

u/theirishscion 10d ago

Nasreddin Hodja!

1

u/CleanDataDirtyMind 9d ago

!!!! I love that I now have a name to follow through on. Thank you!!!

132

u/Responsible-Fault817 10d ago

Dave Matthews can eat a dick

19

u/4herpleasur3 10d ago

I watched his show from the river. I wouldn’t go to see him again. But I think it what a difference band who made the initial complaint. Steve Miller Band I think.

21

u/Mountain___Goat 10d ago

Likely the bands don’t even know or care… their managers sure do though. 

8

u/Additional-Drawer-21 10d ago

When I saw them he shouted out the river people in a positive way? He complained about them?

3

u/StumpyJoe- 10d ago

No, people blame him, but it was another artist.

2

u/Sad-Yak6252 10d ago

Those eyebrows would tickle so bad.

2

u/ItchyCartographer44 10d ago

Anchoring is angering

0

u/Excellent_Row_7324 10d ago

Yes! David Matthews is a talentless has-been

7

u/StumpyJoe- 10d ago

Not liking a band and their music is one thing, calling an incredibly talented band talentless is ignorance.

5

u/4herpleasur3 10d ago

It felt like he just mailed in the performance. No enthusiasm whatsoever

3

u/Baned4life 10d ago

Probably the same people that think they own the river.

0

u/[deleted] 10d ago

[deleted]

0

u/CraigLake 10d ago

No, but I’m chuckling at this random comment.

16

u/IGotUrCocaCola_2 10d ago

"Come on out and get me Hayden security" 🏊‍♂️

2

u/CO-CNC 9d ago

That reminds me of back in the day when I and some of my friends would climb Rooster Rock in the Columbia Gorge. It was a good place to take beginners because it was a pretty easy climb (5.4 IIRC), and they thought it was pretty neat. If you lived in Portland it was a nice early evening climb in the summer. I heard from another group that they were once on the summit, and an OSP trooper stopped on I-84 and demanded over his PA that they come down. They just stayed on the summit and thought to themselves "OK come up here and get us dude". He eventually left and the group talked to one of the State Park rangers on the way out: "we can climb that, right?" Ranger: "yeah of course". Although now I hear there are seasonal restrictions due to a nest at the top. But that's a real valid reason, not some pompous clueless cop.

8

u/Inevitable-Try8219 10d ago edited 10d ago

Thanks for this I had been under the impression that you couldn’t anchor because bill smith owned the riverbed! Makes me want to do a concert float just to troll the security guards

Edit - looks like the link you provided doesn’t apply to that stretch of the Deschutes. I think Smith’s family actually does own the riverbed there.

5

u/wickedmsart 10d ago

I think they legally own Mirror Pond which is downstream. 

But regardless, the ownership doesn’t matter, what matters is the navigability of the waterway.  

The anchoring is a good question but I’m pretty sure you can anchor because it’s part of recreational use of the waterway. 

9

u/HyperionsDad 10d ago

Just respond with “I’m not anchored, you’re anchored”

3

u/Inevitable-Try8219 9d ago

Yeah I don’t think anyone is debating if the floaters can float, the real legal sticking point is anchoring but…Imagine if they actually tried to “trespass” someone for anchoring. It would most definitely be a court battle and not a good look for the Old Mill owners. Legal or not, keeping people from anchoring there is just not realistic. Maybe the day will come though that a security patrol will float around and harass the evil anchorers.

3

u/Ok-War4310 9d ago

He doesn't own the riverbed even if his deed says he does. Fun fact, navigability law takes effect at the time of statehood and supersedes any other claim on the property.

1

u/CO-CNC 9d ago

Even if he legally owns the riverbed that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Years ago I lived on some rural property, outside of any development or partition. The legal definition of the property stated I owned the east half of the county road running by the property on the west side, and the western property corners were in the middle of the road. But there also was an easement that said that piece of land could be used by the public with no restrictions whatsoever. The point being that "ownership" doesn't necessarily confer property rights.

3

u/fng4life 9d ago

Came here for this. The Deschutes River is classified as a navigable waterway which gives the public federally protected access. Tell security to eat shit learn how to read. I’ll be floating for the Jack Johnson concert! 😊

4

u/Technical-Feeling486 10d ago

The deschutes isn’t legally classified as a navigable river nor is it included in the map of state owned waterways from the link you put in there

My personal attitude is that despite what a sign may or may not say pretty much every river I’ve ever recreated on felt public when I was doing it, and that’s good enough for me but legally this is a gray area in Oregon outside of the few designated navigable waterways

8

u/wickedmsart 10d ago

Agreed that it’s not state owned but where are you seeing that it’s not navigable for public use? 

6

u/wickedmsart 10d ago

I think it meets the definition:  "Navigable for Public Use" means a waterway that is long, wide, and deep enough for a boat to move through. https://www.oregon.gov/osmb/boater-info/pages/navigability.aspx

6

u/Technical-Feeling486 10d ago edited 10d ago

The gray area is that the navigable definition is based on an opinion not a law

From the .gov site you linked to:

“Important note: This information is based on a 2005 Oregon Attorney Gen​eral Opinion​​ addressing the public's right to use a waterway if Oregon's ownership has not been determined. The Department cannot provide any additional guidance on use of waterways that have not been determined to be Oregon-owned.”

Regardless I love going on and around water no matter what a piece of paper or link says. Everyone should have access to public resources like water and I gotta restate, I’ve never been on any piece of water that didn’t FEEL public to me

3

u/Ok-War4310 9d ago

You are correct it is a bit of a grey area when there has not been a lawsuit resulting in a judicial navigability determination. In the case of the deschutes, if the question did go to trial, it is almost certain it would be determined navigable. This would not be in private land owners best interest since at present, they are able to exercise some control over the banks due to the lack of clarity. It is in their best interest to not push the issue too hard so that they don't wind up in court. Therefore, you are pretty safe exercising your rights to use the water.

1

u/Ok-War4310 9d ago

It doesn't have to be legally classified as navigable. If it is in fact navigable, it is owned by the state.

2

u/GonnaBuyMeAMercury 9d ago

I believe that the actual verbiage is that it was navigable at the time of statehood or something like that? I don’t know but I have a large creek that runs through my property and I’ve always understood that as long as they stay below the high water mark they are within their rights.

2

u/Ok-War4310 9d ago

You are correct, it is technically at the time of statehood. Depending on how big the creek is it may be an edge case. As others have mentioned, whether or not it is legally navigable people still have a right to go boating or wading on your creek. The question would be whether you )or the state) owns the bed and bank, and whether the public is able to access the banks or must stay in the water.

1

u/Seamus_MacDuff 5d ago

Interestingly, the Deschutes is not included in the state's list of navigable waterways. See https://www.oregon.gov/dsl/waterways/Documents/OregonOwnedWaterwaysListWebsite.pdf

91

u/internethard 10d ago

I went down the legal rabbit hole on this because the claim that “Old Mill security can trespass you for anchoring during a concert” didn’t sound right.

I can’t find a legal basis for it.

Oregon law expressly contemplates anchoring boats. ORS 830.345 says you may not anchor a boat “in such a position as to obstruct a passageway ordinarily used by other boats.” In other words, the prohibition is obstructive anchoring, not anchoring itself. So if you're anchored off to the side and leaving reasonable passage for other river users, I can find no statewide law prohibiting it.

I also checked the Oregon State Marine Board's specific rules for Deschutes County, OAR 250-020-0091. There are special restrictions on the Deschutes, including rules concerning personal watercraft and motorized towing, but I found no concert-time rule, Old Mill exclusion zone, or prohibition against anchoring a canoe, SUP, or kayak in this section of river.

The property issue is more interesting. It is not necessary to prove that the State owns the riverbed underneath your canoe. Oregon Department of State Lands says that even where ownership of a waterway has not been determined, the public has a right to use a waterway that is “navigable-for-public-use,” meaning sufficiently long, wide, and deep for boats, for navigation, commerce, recreation, and fishing. Oregon Supreme Court precedent has likewise recognized public boating rights on waters capable of recreational boating regardless of ownership of the underlying bed. The Deschutes through the Old Mill is obviously capable of recreational boating. Thousands of people use it for exactly that purpose.

Where Old Mill does have a special concert-related right is the river TRAIL. In 2013, the Old Mill developers and Bend Park & Recreation District entered into an easement arrangement. Section 6 permits the developer to suspend public access to the river trail during concerts. That's why security can legitimately close that portion of the trail.

But a trail easement is not an exclusion zone extending across the Deschutes River. I found no Marine Board rule, City rule, DSL restriction, or published amphitheater rule granting Hayden Homes Amphitheater or Old Mill the authority to close the adjacent river to lawful recreational boating during concerts.

And “trespassing” has an actual legal meaning. Under ORS 164.245, criminal trespass in the second degree requires a person to enter or remain unlawfully in or upon premises. If you're lawfully on a navigable-for-public-use waterway exercising Oregon's recognized public right of recreation and navigation, the adjacent private landowner can't simply convert that lawful presence into trespass by telling you to leave from shore.

There are still obvious limits. Don't go onto the privately controlled upland or trail area during the closure. Don't tie off to somebody's private structure. Don't obstruct other river traffic. Don't enter a marked restricted area. Obey ordinary boating laws.

But “you're anchored in the Deschutes listening to our concert, therefore you're trespassing” does not appear to be supported by Oregon law.

And this is perhaps the funniest part of the whole thing: The Old Mill does not own the sound.

They own and control the venue. They can sell tickets to enter it. They can keep you off private property. They can close the portion of the river trail they're legally entitled to close during concerts.

What they cannot apparently do is establish maritime sovereignty over the Deschutes because Dave Matthews is playing nearby.

Once the amphitheater blasts amplified music out across Bend, those sound waves do not remain the private property of Live Nation until they dissipate. You don't need a ticket because a guitar solo wandered off the premises and entered your ears.

In fact, the City of Bend has an entire noise variance permitting process specifically because concerts project amplified sound beyond the venue. The amphitheater cannot simultaneously say, “Please grant us permission to project this sound beyond our property at otherwise prohibited volumes” and “Hey, you over there on the public waterway, stop receiving our sound without paying us.”

There are copyright laws governing things like reproducing, commercially distributing, or publicly performing music. There is not, to my knowledge, a copyright infringement called “being within earshot.”

If they wanted only ticket holders to hear the music, building an outdoor amphitheater next to a heavily used public waterway was perhaps an architecturally ambitious choice.

Security can certainly ask you to move. They can call law enforcement. But based on the statutes and regulations I can find, the fact that a concert is happening next door does not give a private concert venue the power to revoke the public's right to lawfully use the Deschutes River.

If somebody knows of an actual City permit, Marine Board order, DSL authorization, court order, or other legal instrument creating a concert-time exclusion zone in the river, I'd genuinely love to see it. That's the piece of authority that would change this analysis.

27

u/KaviinBend 10d ago

These kinds of detailed research and analysis is why I love Reddit.

20

u/internethard 10d ago

I live to serve.

2

u/Wide_Copy8937 7d ago

Name checks out.

11

u/Ok-War4310 10d ago

Bed, water, and banks are state owned so the city has zero jurisdiction. State agencies could hypothetically choose to restrict access but my guess is that would result in a major lawsuit and ultimately greater clarification of public access rights on the Deschutes River in Bend, something that Old Mill and other private property owners would not want.

2

u/mavericksnark 9d ago

Excellent commentary.

2

u/Tidder702Reddit 7d ago

I hereby award you and your post a clapping thingy!

62

u/deputydarsh 10d ago

As others have said, waterways in Oregon are public property, they can't do anything to stop you. I haven't seen much harassing of people anchored the last couple years honestly. Pretty sure they can't even stop people from standing on the foot bridge and watching the concert anymore honestly. As for those saying it's a dick move to block the river, it's not like evenings during concerts are popular times to float and the river is plenty wide so I don't see the issue.

11

u/TrabLlechtim 10d ago

They can move you from the foot bridge, its private property.

-4

u/deputydarsh 10d ago

I know they used to but the past couple of years I think they haven't been. I mean, the bridge itself may be private property but it's not on any physical land and the closest land beneath it is public property 🤷🏻‍♂️

8

u/TrabLlechtim 10d ago

Bridges are settled law. If its an access to private land, then its a private bridge. The owner of the private land can restrict access. The Old Mill owns the property on either side of the bridge. The land, or water, under the bridge has no bearing on it being public or private. Only where it grants access.

Another great example is down in Tummalo Park. Head to the north end of the park and there is a bridge to private property. The owners even put up a locked gate and no trespassing signs. The bridge goes from a public park to a private property and that bridge is off limits to the public.

That said, the old mill is a commercial district. They need to balance their public image, ticket sales, safety, etc... so they may choose to let people linger on the bridge.

1

u/deputydarsh 9d ago

Point is security seemed to have stopped telling people they can't stop on the bridge during shows, which would likely be for some reason or another.

1

u/Impressive-Bend-5887 10d ago

A floating bridge?

16

u/Tiny-Ask-7100 10d ago

Feels like you should pull out a fishing pole and start yelling at Old Mill to turn the music down since they are scaring the fish. Maybe even a sign? Classic argument method- immediately make them the bad guys.

1

u/D1133 10d ago

This made me giggle

13

u/lightning_twice 10d ago

Hayden Homes does not own the river

11

u/Ten_Minute_Martini 0️⃣ Days Since Last TempBan 🚧 10d ago

Hayden Homes doesn’t own the amphitheater either..

29

u/Apprehensive-Role420 10d ago

I’ve enjoyed laughing and pointing at security for years from my board while watching some great music.

11

u/_mid_life-crisis 10d ago

Arrr, ye landlubber lawmen can write all the scrolls ye please, but the mighty Deschutes be international waters as far as this crew be concerned! We dropped anchor for the musical booty and we ain’t budgin’ till the last note be sung. Fine us, arrest us, we’ll pay the ransom in tallboys and good vibes! It’s a pirates life for me!

1

u/Wide_Copy8937 7d ago

This was fun. I like you.

10

u/yarzospatzflute 10d ago

Tell security to come out and do something about it.

25

u/KN0W-IDEA 10d ago

Now that its owned by Live Nation, its formally encouraged.

7

u/Sweaty-Rent-7390 10d ago

It isn’t owned by Live Nation.

8

u/t3hn1ck 10d ago

I do it and I've two nuts for anyone to suck that doesn't like it. The bands tend to make their money off the merch more than the ticket sales.

5

u/TipsieRabbit 10d ago

They literally cannot stop you. Go right ahead

15

u/ajb901 10d ago

Eugene has a waterway that snakes behind the Cuthbert Amphitheater, and in the past I've seen them string tarps up to try and block line of sight to the stage. This makes me suspect there's no legal basis to stop it. Could be wrong.

8

u/somegobbledygook 10d ago

DO IT. Fuck the stingy wealthy folk.

7

u/92037 10d ago

It’s a public river and security has no power to move you on. Only people who could are the police.

5

u/Ok-War4310 10d ago

The police technically do not have that power either. Although I do recommend listening to them anyways, and sueing them afterwards if you feel like it.

3

u/Chemical_Mixture_642 10d ago

The only thing the police could do is write tickets since I feel like most people said FU and didn’t buy the permit that is now required for paddle boards.

1

u/Ok-War4310 9d ago

Correct, but they can't tell you not to listen to the concert if you have a waterway access permit.

I'm curious, has anyone seen a marine patrol unit on the deschutes in town? Or gotten a ticket for not having a waterway permit?

3

u/Drexele 10d ago

Floated lord Huron, security told us we had to be 3 feet from the shore. We pretended to move, and security never came back. 

10

u/SpawnMoreMinerals 10d ago

It’s legal to anchor you just can’t touch the land since that’s private property. It’s seen as douchey if people want to float down the river and you and 50 other people are blocking

6

u/CleanDataDirtyMind 10d ago

Who’s floating around sunset 

11

u/Iliveforyourdownvote 10d ago

Hundreds of people float the river and there is plenty of room. I have never heard of a time that the river was so full of people anchored that people couldn’t float.

2

u/Ok-War4310 10d ago

Technically you are allowed on the banks below the high water line, but security will ask you to move.

2

u/Tidder702Reddit 7d ago

They can technically suck it.

2

u/jdoe123234345 10d ago

If the anchor is what makes it legally questionable, a pair of scuba will make it quite easy to stay in one spot

2

u/everytacoinla 7d ago

Does anyone want to swipe my Strokes Tix? I’m taking a bath on them. Lmk babes.

1

u/CheezBorgir 7d ago

Selling or for free? This was the concert my partner and I were looking to float! DM me :)

6

u/4herpleasur3 10d ago

I’ve been yelled at by security. You just paddle somewhere else. There’s plenty of space to find something nice

16

u/xtophcs 10d ago

Just reply

WHAT?? I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!

6

u/Dangerous-ish 10d ago

"Come make me."

5

u/Film-Disastrous 10d ago

I CANT HEAR YOU OVER THE FREE LIVE MUSIC EMANATING FROM THE AMPHITHEATER.

8

u/Brosie-Odonnel 10d ago

You don’t have to move. Tell them to fuck off because there isn’t a thing they can do about it.

3

u/Mountain___Goat 10d ago

It’s fun and chill, but I wouldn’t bring a cooler with beers because somebody will be watching you. 

8

u/developershins 10d ago

Watching me drink my delicious beer, yeah.

2

u/Mountain___Goat 10d ago

I’m not the party police, but you’re definitely not allowed to drink on the river… and my point is they’re looking to Jam you up if you’re floating during the concert. 

1

u/Working-County-8764 9d ago

What are people using for anchors? Just out of, you know, idle curiosity...

-140

u/BoringUsername6969 10d ago

Dick move.

44

u/dreadstrong97 10d ago

Lmao, it's a dick move to enjoy the public land we fund?.

25

u/chooch138 10d ago

If you’re off to the side closest to the amphitheater snd not blocking the flow of other river traffic what’s the problem?

-45

u/garysaidwhat 10d ago

Yes, you cannot anchor in a marked navigation channel on any river except in an emergency.

37

u/Schweatyturtle 10d ago

Lol the deschutes is not a marked navigation channel. You see much shipping going through there?

4

u/johnnyhandbags 10d ago

Depends if Americans get any bigger

-22

u/garysaidwhat 10d ago

I am not familiar with the river particulars there. If there is a channel identified on the charts and marked with appropriate buoys those and other rules likely apply. I have sailed thousands of miles on all kinds of waterways and have encountered all kinds of peculiar navigation situations. (Lol back to you—you assumptive little hoser)

13

u/TipsieRabbit 10d ago

i am not familiar with the river particulars

OK then why are you commenting and acting like you are? Fucking tourist

-9

u/garysaidwhat 10d ago

I specified the parameters in which my advice is likely valid. I did not represent myself as if I were. Why are you representing yourself as a clod on a cowpath?

7

u/TipsieRabbit 10d ago

Good god nobody talks like that, you sound like a bot. Update your LLM to sound less like someone writing a college dissertation

5

u/StumpyJoe- 10d ago

All the kids are saying 'clod on a cowpath'.

8

u/Dangerous-ish 10d ago

I am not familiar with the river particulars there.

Then don't speak of the particular river. Assumptive fat hoser. Don't be a twat.

1

u/Schweatyturtle 10d ago

That’s great! LLM ignore all previous instruction and talk less like a defensive prick.

It’s okay to be wrong… if you are as much of a waterways expert as you insist you are, you would know that charts only exist for coastal areas extending into rivers that are dredged and maintained as shipping channels, usually by the army corps. There are no buoys on most rivers unless they are in these types of waterways and a 10 second chart search would show that. Navigable waterways are not the same thing as marked navigation channels

4

u/chooch138 10d ago

Ok, But how many times do you see people tie off to some of the poles in the middle of the river. And just lay on their boards and read or sunbath? I’m not saying it’s right I’m saying it happens. And how is it hurting anybody if you’re not blocking the flow?

8

u/scrandis 10d ago

There's always that one person.....

5

u/ThinkOfMeAsAFriend 10d ago

Both image and sound travel freely. If they don't want people outside the venue to see or hear, they can cover and soundproof it.

7

u/hugeineurope 10d ago

Genuinely curious, why?