# DWR on Our Side



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Okay. Any ideas on how to get the DWR on the side of the anglers in this state? I think they would be a big help if a new "Recreational Use of Public Waters" bill show up again.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> Okay. Any ideas on how to get the DWR on the side of the anglers in this state? I think they would be a big help if a new "Recreational Use of Public Waters" bill show up again.


To clarify, you mean on the side of SOME anglers.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> HighNDry said:
> 
> 
> > Okay. Any ideas on how to get the DWR on the side of the anglers in this state? I think they would be a big help if a new "Recreational Use of Public Waters" bill show up again.
> ...


Most


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I'm just a regular guy, mostly a waterfowler, but I have not talked to ONE person that fishes who supported this bill. I have literally talked to hundereds. The DWR will need to decide whether they are for sportsmen or for towing the line of the legislature. The DWR really should be disconnected from the leash they are on by the legislature as far as appropriations and such. I don't know how to do it, but it doesn't serve sportsmen to have a DWR that is beholden to a few powerful legislators. If they can make that break, I think we will see a different attitude toward, and from, the DWR. Maybe I'm just wishin again.
R


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

rjefre said:


> I'm just a regular guy, mostly a waterfowler, but I have not talked to ONE person that fishes who supported this bill. I have literally talked to hundereds. The DWR will need to decide whether they are for sportsmen or for towing the line of the legislature. The DWR really should be disconnected from the leash they are on by the legislature as far as appropriations and such. I don't know how to do it, but it doesn't serve sportsmen to have a DWR that is beholden to a few powerful legislators. If they can make that break, I think we will see a different attitude toward, and from, the DWR. Maybe I'm just wishin again.
> R


I'm one who supported it, and I have talked with numerous other fishermen who support it as well. To expect the DWR to be inline with your group and to ignore the rest is nonsensical.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

After watching things go in circles it has been educational at least. Just a few items in review from my humble opinion. I have re-thought my opinion of what the position of the DWR should have been on this issue. They are the stewards of the wildlife. This was an access issue which is really not in their relm. The fish would not be adversely affect whether this went through or not. Where they failed, I believe is that they should have let the outdoor people know that an issue with access was on the table. They were aware of it from the beginning and it gives, if nothing else, the appearance of back door dealings. Reading some reactions has left me with some caution. While I believe this bill was bad, I believe the issue is still not balanced. This issue is not dead. We as outdoor people need to be more respectful. We must not be arrogant and we should be doing all that we can to police ourselves and not be afraid to get involved. We all have to remember that their are people that are just down right pigs on either side of this issue. It is up to us to make this group as small as possible. This is done by how each of us conducts ourselves in the field.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> HighNDry said:
> 
> 
> > Okay. Any ideas on how to get the DWR on the side of the anglers in this state? I think they would be a big help if a new "Recreational Use of Public Waters" bill show up again.
> ...


No, I mean all anglers.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > HighNDry said:
> ...


No, because I am an angler that is on the opposite side of this issue than you.  :?


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

How do you know you are on the opposite side? Do you think that all of us that wanted this bill killed are not wanting to make sure that private property rights are upheld? Do you think all the anglers that wanted this bill killed do not want to work with landowners to come up with a BETTER bill, one that is formed in cooperation and compromise, other than HB187 that was formed in haste becasue of some preconceived idea that all anglers are going to go out and trash and break down fenses and harass livestock etc.? This bill would have been a nightmare. Now, we can start over with input from all interested parties. If you are aginst that, then I guess, there is not much I can say.

You cannot punish a whole set of people for the actions of a few. We have laws that protect that from happening.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> rjefre said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just a regular guy, mostly a waterfowler, but I have not talked to ONE person that fishes who supported this bill. I have literally talked to hundereds. The DWR will need to decide whether they are for sportsmen or for towing the line of the legislature. The DWR really should be disconnected from the leash they are on by the legislature as far as appropriations and such. I don't know how to do it, but it doesn't serve sportsmen to have a DWR that is beholden to a few powerful legislators. If they can make that break, I think we will see a different attitude toward, and from, the DWR. Maybe I'm just wishin again.
> ...


"Our group" is far more numerical than "yours" IMHO. Are they(lawmakers and appointed officials) not supposed to be upholding the wishes of the majority? I have a feeling that the "people" you have talked to are landowners themselves or have large tracts of river to fish that are private. Your sampling is not from a broad spectrum i believe. I am 100% against this entire bill. I am also aware there are 2 sides to every story and i understand "your" side as i have seen what some drunk, ignorant, un-respectable "anglers" have done to private and public property. People need to police themselves and others and get involved like previously stated. I hope this bill is dead and no more pictures of horse beatings arise. There needs to be clarification on several aspects of this entire thing. There IS a compromise that can be reached but i feel that it is not going to be reached from either side of this.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I read enough posts on this forum to KNOW that not all fisherman were concerned with the landowners in the least! So, to use "all" is inaccurate and mis-leading. The current court ruling is a "nightmare" for many landowners, yet you seem unconcerned about that, so how are you proposing getting people you do NOT care about to see things 'your' way? :?


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

Some thoughts: First, the great majority of funding for the DWR comes from sportsmen so if the DWR is beholding to anyone on the strength of funding it should be to those who buy licenses. I really don't think that was much of a factor in the DWRs position or lack there of on HB178. Second, the DWRs fence sitting on HB178 might just be a blessing in disguise. HB178 failed at least for now and now there is great need for constructive, well represented and thoughtful dialog to come up with legislation that makes sense and is equitable for all for next year. We still need to address the questions left undefined by the supreme court dicission. The DWR is now in a postion to oganize, supervise and participate is such dialog without the apparence of bias. This could make the DWR a very powerful player in all of this, capturing the ear if not the respect of all parties. I encourage the DWR to do just that.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> "Our group" is far more numerical than "yours" IMHO. Are they(lawmakers and appointed officials) not supposed to be upholding the wishes of the majority? I have a feeling that the "people" you have talked to are landowners themselves or have large tracts of river to fish that are private. Your sampling is not from a broad spectrum i believe. I am 100% against this entire bill. I am also aware there are 2 sides to every story and i understand "your" side as i have seen what some drunk, ignorant, un-respectable "anglers" have done to private and public property. People need to police themselves and others and get involved like previously stated. I hope this bill is dead and no more pictures of horse beatings arise. There needs to be clarification on several aspects of this entire thing. There IS a compromise that can be reached but i feel that it is not going to be reached from either side of this.


Whoever/whatever "your group" is. :? I am neither a landowner nor someone with access to large tracts of river that are private to fish. I am just someone who stands almost every time on the side of the landowner. You assume a lot to believe you are in the majority, just because there are more vocal folks from "your group" does NOT mean that is what the majority wants, nor does that make "your group" or "my group" right/wrong.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> HighNDry said:
> 
> 
> > Okay. Any ideas on how to get the DWR on the side of the anglers in this state? I think they would be a big help if a new "Recreational Use of Public Waters" bill show up again.
> ...


I'll agree with this, with one little exception. Whether the folks on here think the bill was good, bad or somewhere in between, it would have benefitted ALL anglers to have the chance to contact their reps to discuss their opinion one way or another. Pro would have supported the bill, I would have been ok with some sort of clarification bill protecting landowners rights and doing away with the "access to anything we want" ruling, and some were vehemently against their access being restricted in any form. I think a good point was made that the DWR's concern is supposed to be for the welfare of the wildlife but that public access to the wildlife would go hand in hand with their primary responsibility. Going forward, if there is an issue that affects the public or the wildlife we all enjoy, I'd hope the DWR steps up and if nothing else, puts something on their website to make interested parties aware of the ongoing discussion. I also don't want all or even most anglers lumped into the "we should have it all" category, because I don't really believe all or most of us think that way. I would think MOST of us feel there needs to be some sort of compromise and it'll take meeting in the middle (also publicly) by landowner interests, angler groups, anglers themselves and the government agencies affected to draw up a compromise that is at least agreeable to all, since something totally in favor of one group or another doesn't appear to be the right answer.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Pro wrote:
"Whoever/whatever "your group" is. :? I am neither a landowner nor someone with access to large tracts of river that are private to fish. I am just someone who stands almost every time on the side of the landowner. You assume a lot to believe you are in the majority, just because there are more vocal folks from "your group" does NOT mean that is what the majority wants, nor does that make "your group" or "my group" right/wrong."

I really think you are in the minority. The lack of people on "my side" that have even heard about this bill is overwhelming. I am sure all in "your" group have heard of it and are fighting it tooth and nail. The general fishing public is unaware of this whole thing or have any idea of what it means. If every angler in UT was to hear about it and have it explained in laymans terms, it would be a landslide in "our" favor. We have clearly seen that it doesn't matter though. They will do what they want up on the hill. Thank goodness enough people are smart enough to see this bill was a mistake in its first or 15th form. Hopefully the next go-round will have a better outcome we can atleast live with. 8)


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

Ok then, how about the VAST MAJORITY of anglers. Is that OK with you Pro? :shock:  

People have been able to access these streams ever since the Supreme Court ruling came down. Pro, do you have any examples of any so called "nightmares" that have taken place since then? Or is this just another case of "The sky is falling" on your part? -/|\- 

This law is now much like Idaho's law. My best friend owns 1200 acres in Idaho, the Bear River runs right through his property. There is a hwy. access close to his property, over the past 20 years not a single "Nightmare" has taken place by people accessing the river. Now there have been "Nightmares" on his CRP miles away from any river access by trespassing Utards, but thats another subject.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

blackdog said:


> Now there have been "Nightmares" on his CRP miles away from any river access by trespassing Utards, but thats another subject.


That may explain why changes to the current ruling are warranted. :shock: :wink:


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I read enough posts on this forum to KNOW that not all fisherman were concerned with the landowners in the least! So, to use "all" is inaccurate and mis-leading. The current court ruling is a "nightmare" for many landowners, yet you seem unconcerned about that, so how are you proposing getting people you do NOT care about to see things 'your' way? :?


If it is such a nightmare then why have there not been any recorded incidents where an angler has trashed a river or done harm to the land? I know you are going to come back and say there have been but that is part of the reason this didnt pass. There have not been any or this would have passed easily. Landowners say they are SO worried the _evil angler_ is going to kill cattle, litter the whole system and steal their children at night when in reality, they are just mad that _their_ private river is no longer so private.

My Grandfather has owned a two mile stretch of the sevier for years. Even before the ruling he would watch anglers trespass all year. They werent doing him any harm and he didnt care. They stayed in or by the river. In all my time fishing that stretch, which has been a lot, I have never seen any trash or any adverse effects of the fisherman.

What I have seen fishing rivers are LOADS of barbed wire, pallets, and other fencing laid right in the river. A bit overkill to keep a few or NO cows in? My grandpa just lays one wire above the water and has no trouble with his 150 head heard.

I think the reason you side with land owners is that you mostly hunt. When people trespass while hunting, they rip up roads and leave trash. Fisherman walk in felt bottom boots and dont travel far. So show me the negative effects of allowing a couple fisherman a day to walk up stream enjoying wildlife and the fish that, for the most part, were planted by license holders money. That is the side I see, I am respectful and will continue picking up trash and talking respectfully to all landowners I run into.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> I think the reason you side with land owners is that you mostly hunt. When people trespass while hunting, they rip up roads and leave trash. Fisherman walk in felt bottom boots and dont travel far. So show me the negative effects of allowing a couple fisherman a day to walk up stream enjoying wildlife and the fish that, for the most part, were planted by license holders money. That is the side I see, I am respectful and will continue picking up trash and talking respectfully to all landowners I run into.


No, I side with the land owners because I believe landowner rights should trump fisherman PRIVILEGES in most cases. It has NOTHING to do with me being a hunter, remember I do 99% of my hunting/guiding on PUBLIC land not private land. Fishermen still leave trash, leave gates open, damage fencing, as much as hunters in general do. This is NOT a hunter vs fisherman issue, don't try and make it one. For me it is a Constitutional issue, and little else. And, I see nowhere in the state or national Constitutions that afford a fisherman who has NO fishing rights, priority over a landowner who DOES have property rights. Fishing is a privilege, landownership is a right!


----------



## rapalahunter (Oct 13, 2007)

yeah... except the Conaster ruling clarified what the LAW really meant. The public has rights on public waterways. Pretty simple. It's about rights, not about privileges.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

rapalahunter said:


> yeah... except the Conaster ruling clarified what the LAW really meant. The public has rights on public waterways. Pretty simple. It's about rights, not about privileges.


You have NO fishing rights! NONE!


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Nor-tah said:
> 
> 
> > I think the reason you side with land owners is that you mostly hunt. When people trespass while hunting, they rip up roads and leave trash. Fisherman walk in felt bottom boots and dont travel far. So show me the negative effects of allowing a couple fisherman a day to walk up stream enjoying wildlife and the fish that, for the most part, were planted by license holders money. That is the side I see, I am respectful and will continue picking up trash and talking respectfully to all landowners I run into.
> ...


See I knew you you would say that. Where is this info coming from? I have seen roads ripped up on private land and seen trash along road ways. I have not seen the same along rivers. I am not making this a Hunter vs Fisherman thing at all. Just drawing a parallel. Show me the damage of fisheman on a river thats all I am asking. My representative, Lorie Fowlke who is a conservative republican, fought for the majority today. She explained exactally what rapalahunter explained. This is about an easement


> easement
> the right one landowner has been granted over the land of another, as the right of access to water, right of way, etc., at no charge.


 I would expect you to put up a no trespassing sign in your yard. Its your property, you can do it. How silly would it be though for you to put up a no trespassing sign on your sidewalk? Sidewalks are public easements over private lands. So are rivers. Whats different is that anglers are willing to pick up trash on rivers, we are willing to help landowners build fence crossings. They for the most part are not.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> See I knew you you would say that. Where is this info coming from? I have seen roads ripped up on private land and seen trash along road ways. I have not seen the same along rivers. I am not making this a Hunter vs Fisherman thing at all. Just drawing a parallel. Show me the damage of fisheman on a river thats all I am asking. My representative, Lorie Fowlke who is a conservative republican, fought for the majority today. She explained exactally what rapalahunter explained. This is about an easement. So, you're saying *NO* fishermen leave trash or leave gates open? Are you serious?  :?
> 
> I would expect you to put up a no trespassing sign in your yard. Its your property, you can do it. How silly would it be though for you to put up a no trespassing sign on your sidewalk? Sidewalks are public easements over private lands. So are rivers. Whats different is that anglers are willing to pick up trash on rivers, we are willing to help landowners build fence crossings. They for the most part are not. I do NOT have a No Trespass sign in my yard, common sense should be sufficient to keep people out of my backyard. Some/most anglers are willing to be good stewards, as are MOST landowners willing to allow access, but what recourse is there when a landowner has had fishermen abusing his land?
> 
> FWIW, in MOST cases you do NOT own the land the sidewalk is on, you merely have to maintain it.


----------



## rapalahunter (Oct 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> rapalahunter said:
> 
> 
> > yeah... except the Conaster ruling clarified what the LAW really meant. The public has rights on public waterways. Pretty simple. It's about rights, not about privileges.
> ...


The Supreme Court of Utah disagrees with you noviceoutdoors... I mean prooutdoors.

Here is the Conclusion of the July 18, 2008 Conatser vs. Johnson Utah Supreme Court ruling:

"29 The district court incorrectly interpreted the scope of the public's easement in state waters so as to limit the Conatsers' rights to being upon the water and to touching the privately owned bed of the Weber River only in ways incidental to the right of floatation."

"30 We hold that the scope of the easement *provides the public the right to float, hunt, fish and participate in all lawful activities that utilize the water*. We further hold that the *public has the right* to touch privately owned beds of state waters in ways incidental to all *recreational rights* provided for in the easement, so long as they do so reasonably and cause no unnecessary injury to the landowner."


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The US supreme court also disagrees with Pro....for a really good explanation of the PUBLIC's rights regarding streams that cross private land, read this:
http://www.nationalrivers.org/states/ut-law.htm


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> but what recourse is there when a landowner has had fishermen abusing his land?
> 
> FWIW, in MOST cases you do NOT own the land the sidewalk is on, you merely have to maintain it.


The same recourse when a homeowner has a citizen abusing his/her land. And, FWIW, in most cases homeowners pay property taxes on the land that sidewalks traverse....so, who owns that land? I know that I pay property taxes on the land that the sidewalk in front of my home crosses....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > but what recourse is there when a landowner has had fishermen abusing his land?
> ...


Technically, the government owns all your/my land. To test who 'owns' it, don't pay taxes on it and see what happens. We only 'lease' it from the government in today's world.


rapalahunter said:


> The Supreme Court of Utah disagrees with you noviceoutdoors... I mean prooutdoors.


The name calling and cheap shots already? WOW! :roll:

The ruling you posted is why there are MANY in Utah who feel the law needs to be changed/clarified. I am of the opinion the court over stepped it's bounds and issued 'rights' that do NOT exist.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Nor-tah said:
> 
> 
> > See I knew you you would say that. Where is this info coming from? I have seen roads ripped up on private land and seen trash along road ways. I have not seen the same along rivers. I am not making this a Hunter vs Fisherman thing at all. Just drawing a parallel. Show me the damage of fisheman on a river thats all I am asking. My representative, Lorie Fowlke who is a conservative republican, fought for the majority today. She explained exactally what rapalahunter explained. This is about an easement. So, you're saying *NO* fishermen leave trash or leave gates open? Are you serious?  :?
> ...


Pro, I am not trying to attack you. I like and respect you and would hire you on an elk hunt in a second if I had the money. The sky is NOT falling. Anglers are not evil daemons who look to recklessly tear up all they come in contact with. Were just not that way.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> *I am of the opinion* the court over stepped it's bounds and issued 'rights' that do NOT exist.


Well the Utah Supreme Court has a different opinion.

Fishrmn


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I will agree with Prooutdoors on one thing for sure, the govt owns all of our land. Try not paying your taxes...they will take your house and your land and you will have nothing but the memory of all your payments to the bank.
R


----------



## orvis1 (Sep 7, 2007)

o-|| o-|| O*-- o-|| o-|| _O\ _O\ **O** **O** -|\O- -|\O- -8/- -8/- o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| 



This is just getting good! Joe six pack vrs Joe Millionaire....


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> The ruling you posted is why there are MANY in Utah who feel the law needs to be changed/clarified. I am of the opinion the court over stepped it's bounds and issued 'rights' that do NOT exist.


Agreed... including one of our main advocates or activists, if you will, F/V Gulf Venture. Talking with Bryan (correct me if I'm wrong Bryan) I got the feeling that he also agrees there needs to be a compromise and that giving anglers whatever they want is not the answer. I don't know of many other fishermen either who believe unchecked access is the answer. Its not fair to landowners and just as fishermen think they have rights, landowners also need to be afforded certain rights. In all the fervor to "get to the water" fishermen are overlooking the fact that they are using the land as a privilege, not a right and I also agree with Pro that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds when they made their ruling in the Conaster decision. Thats one reason why I supported the bill until I'd talked to Bryan about the way things were done and kinda became disenchanted with this particular bill itself. The idea behind it is solid I think, but there were better ways to have it written and introduce it as a legal clarification. I will also state that everywhere I've fished, I've seen fisherman trash, whether it was lures, fly lines left hanging in bushes/trees, food and other junk that would've only been left by an angler taking a break on a riverbank, lure wrappers, bait cannisters/bags, broken rods,... really all manner of trash that folks figured wasn't worth packing back to their vehicle. I've also seen, on my folks property and others, gates left open in spite of signs asking folks using the roads to close the gates, fences stretched out or torn down to allow access, graffiti, just general vandalism.... its really quite sad and is why I honestly don't get too much heartache over a landowner wanting to limit my access as a fisherman to their private property. Given what they have to put up with, why shouldn't they request some sort of legal rebuttal on their behalf? :?

Just so some don't think I'm riding Pro's coattails on this, here are some of the places I frequent that I've seen mess left on..... the whole length of the Provo, Fish Creek, Thistle (just yesterday), Diamond Fork, 6th Water, the Uintas, the Weeb, gates left open all over the place in the desert, even after I closed some of them a couple hours before and I'm sure its even worse in out of the way spots that I don't dare mention. Where people can be slobs and figure nobody will know the difference, they'll take advantage of that and do, which is why the other folks frequenting these areas, coincidentally... the landowners, are the ones who get bent about the mess they find after fishermen come through.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I am of the opinion the court over stepped it's bounds and issued 'rights' that do NOT exist.


So are you admitting you were wrong? :shock: :lol: You first said that fisherman have NO rights. Now you are saying you disagree with the issued rights?

If we all lease the land from the government, then why do I have less rights as an angler than a landowner?

Also the majority of trash I have seen on rivers has been on public rivers. Riverrat, how much trash have you seen on the private sections of thistle? The only trash I have seen is the mess of wire/pallets/and signage all over the river. Oh and some erosion from cow tracks and cow s$!# in the river. :?


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Pro,

Would you honestly answer this question: What would you do if the places you want to fish and hunt are bought up by land developers and then locked-up?

What if the Forest Service decided to go pro PETA and decide that they are there to not only maintain the forest but protect the wildlife and fish from being persued and lock out fishing and hunting?

If we do nothing to protect the "previledge or the right" to recreate as hunters and fishers, then slowly these things can be taken from us. It has happened in other areas of the country and in other nations. 

Do we compromise with PETA? They have their rights too!

All "I" (can't speak for everyone, I'm finding out) want to do is protect a right or priveledge and an heritage.

I would think landowners and recreationists could work together to make Utah a recration friendly state.

I don't carry a gun while fishing, I don't carry wire cutters, I don't bring in a fast food lunch or a 6-pack of drink, I don't carry spray paint. I believe in the adage: pack-in-pack-out and no trace. I'm sure I'm not perfect, but I'm no vandal!


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> Pro,
> 
> Would you honestly answer this question: What would you do if the places you want to fish and hunt are bought up by land developers and then locked-up?
> 
> ...


+100


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> I don't carry a gun while fishing, I don't carry wire cutters, I don't bring in a fast food lunch or a 6-pack of drink, I don't carry spray paint. I believe in the adage: pack-in-pack-out and no trace. I'm sure I'm not perfect, but I'm no vandal!


Those of us that feel this way or at least act it out are in the minority that Pro is referring to I think. Most are lazy, wanting somebody else to do it for them, clean up after them, close the gates they leave open, repair the damage they do to landowner faith in the public to do the right thing, etc.

Nortah, I've fished Thistle twice... even with snow this last time, there was noticeable trash in the section I fished.... fishing related trash, and I was on a public section. The private sections I've fished have been on Fish Creek and the Weber... plenty of trash there for all to see and it was all fishing related. No pallets, no wire, none of that. Just bait containers, lure wrappers, fishing line, and other random junk that wouldn't have come from random Joe Schmoe sitting down to take a break. It was way too far from any roads for that to be the case. Like somebody else said earlier, the time it takes to follow up on all this crap that landowners have to deal with is, in their mind I'm guessing, not worth the time and effort it takes them.... since I'm guessing they didn't buy up private ground and run cattle or other livestock on it with the intention of picking up after sloppy fishermen being part of the deal. Unfortunately for them, and those of us who take care to leave little impact, it is part of their equation, whether they want it or not. Thats why I can totally understand their desire to have some privacy and limit or lock out others from their property. Why wouldn't they want to do that? Why should they want to allow anglers access to the water flowing over and through their property? We certainly haven't proven that we deserve it. :?


----------



## cane2477 (Oct 24, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> Also the majority of trash I have seen on rivers has been on public rivers.


Nor-tah, I'm on the side that wanted this bill defeated and studied to make improvements and come back next year with a bunch of clarification (navigability, high water mark instead of 5 foot, etc...)

The reason you haven't seen much trash on private property is for the obvious reason...it's always been private property! Who trashes their own land? If you make these private waters all of a sudden public, which means anyone can go there, doesn't it make sense that "the public" will bring their trash with them? Of course public rivers are trashed, and they are trashed by people who just don't give a ****. Those same people are not going to suddenly start caring about the land because the water they are fishing happens to be flowing over PRIVATE property. Trash will eventually be an issue. It may not be an issue now, it's only been 6 or so months since everything has been open, and a lot of fisherman, including myself, have not tested the private waters yet. When the legislator finally brings some needed clarification and people know with 100% certainty where they can and can't go while in the bed of a river flowing over private land, more people will be fishing these waters and believe me, they will bring their trash and bad habits with them.

This thing needs to be studied by ALL affected parties and the middle ground needs to be found. I think we as the angling community need to start finding solutions instead of arguing about where we do and don't see trash... just my 2 cents


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

I have fished the private sections and I havent seen trash, thats all I'm saying. They have been public now for almost 8 months. I have also been proactive in fighting this and in seeing eye to eye with land owners. I have personalty talked to people on the victory ranch for example and offered assistance with cleanup and access points that dont involve cutting fences. Thats what I have done. I feel that gives me the right to say I see both sides of this. I am not going at this with recklessness trying to piss off as many land owners as I can. This is not about arguing about trash, its about river rights set forth by our nations leaders and the Utah supreme court. If you guys still dont see that, then so be it. I will continue fishing private sections and public sections and cleaning up after myself and others till the law states otherwise. I'm done with this thread.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > *I am of the opinion the court over stepped it's bounds and issued 'rights' that do NOT exist.*
> ...





HighNDry said:


> Pro,
> 
> Would you honestly answer this question: What would you do if the places you want to fish and hunt are bought up by land developers and then locked-up? I won't lose any sleep over the 'fear' of such results occurring in my lifetime. :?
> 
> ...


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

Pro, The CRP I was talking about is no where near the river or any other waterway, it's formally a dry farm, the trespassers do not access the CRP via any waterway. They simply park, ignore the "No Trespassing" signs and jump the fence. My point being no "Nightmares" have happened from anyone accessing the river. I fully sympathizes with landowners because my friend is one, but they don't own the water or the fish, the public does. If anyone is caught above the high water make they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

If you have so many people on your side, where are they? And CS don't count because he just follows you around like a lost puppy. I'd even be willing to bet that the vast majority of SFW members were against the bill too, unlike what Peay's been saying.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

blackdog said:


> Pro, If you have so many people on your side, where are they? And CS don't count because he just follows you around like a lost puppy. I'd even be willing to bet that the vast majority of SFW members were against the bill too, unlike what Peay's been saying.


How much do you want to bet? :shock: Just because the majority of fishermen on this site are like-minded, in no way implies that is the case statewide.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> I have fished the private sections and I havent seen trash, thats all I'm saying. They have been public now for almost 8 months. I have also been proactive in fighting this and in seeing eye to eye with land owners. I have personalty talked to people on the victory ranch for example and offered assistance with cleanup and access points that dont involve cutting fences. Thats what I have done. I feel that gives me the right to say I see both sides of this. I am not going at this with recklessness trying to **** off as many land owners as I can. This is not about arguing about trash, its about river rights set forth by our nations leaders and the Utah supreme court. If you guys still dont see that, then so be it. I will continue fishing private sections and public sections and cleaning up after myself and others till the law states otherwise. I'm done with this thread.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Pro,

You ask what PETA has to do with this?

It's all a matter of protecting rights and priveledges. Just as landowners do not want us to hunt and fish on their streambeds, PETA doesn't want us to hunt and fish period.
Both have been involved with legislation to keep us from enjoying hunting and fishing. So since we need to compromise with landowners, do we compromise with PETA? Maybe hunters can compromise with PETA and only hunt certain animals? Lets do away with elk hunting so the cougars can have more to eat (PETA will like that). Humans will only be able to hunt deer. I mean if we're going to compromise, lets do it with all interested parties, right?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Fine, no compromise, which means NO TRESPASSING! :roll: :? 

See how well such a mentality would work for you. Comparing landowners wanting to have their land protected to PETA is a serious reach, even for a 'radical' such as yourself. :wink:


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

I know I don't have the answers to this one, just opinions. I have been asking myself, if I had property with a stream running through it, would I mind if people fished there?

I decided that it would irritate me if they stayed in one place the whole day. If they fished through at a leisurely pass, then it wouldn't be as irritating.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

Pro, the House of representatives doesn't agree with you, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you (ironic for someone who hold the national constitution in such high standard and quotes it every other post.), the outdoor recreation public does not agree with you, and almost nobody on this forum agrees with you. Do you notice a trend? Just out of curiosity, since you portray yourself an "angler", how ofter do you "angle"? You are much more of a right wing extremist than you are a fisherman, anyday.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> Just out of curiosity, since you portray yourself an "angler", how ofter do you "angle"? You are much more of a right wing extremist than you are a fisherman, anyday.


Not sure I need/want to report my everyday activities. :? I do value my fundamental freedoms more than I value the ability to cross a fence, you got me there. If we base everything off of popular views on here on a given subject on who is 'right' and who is wrong, you're SOL 9 out of 10 days! :wink:


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

if we based what you know about fishing and fishing industy and hb 187 we couldn't come close to filling a thumble. Thanks for playing


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> if we based what you know about fishing and fishing industy and hb 187 we couldn't come close to filling a thumble. Thanks for playing


I love the insults from you guys while you're trying to convince me you are open to hearing all sides. Classic. -Ov-

WTH is a "thumble" anyhow? :?


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

I don't know what sides there are, but after reading numerous threads on this topic and hearing sides from landowners I think I mostly agree with Pro on this from what I understand. I don't think 187 is the answer, but I do think that there needs to be clarification of some sort. I wrote reps also to have them vote against HB 187. As a very simple superficial idea on the matter, landowner rights are very important. For anyone to say that they have not seen huge gobs of fishing line and worm containers (particularly on lure only rivers like Fish Creek), I don't question that you have not seen this, but I can show you many places where you can see this garbage. I think I have stated this a few times elsewhere as has Pro, a few of you guys seem to be more set on name calling than discussing, so I don't know that I need to comment on this again, like Nortah did in saying that he was done. Before any conclusions are drawn, I own a total of 0.17 acre in Davis County, my family lives on a very small farm with no water anywhere around it, so I have no ties to RICH people as many have insinuated. I simply wanted to post to let you know that Pro is not the only one, many others have posted a similar sentiment, but I think they get sick of the name calling and bi&&^^ing and moaning that goes. I simply think that private property rights are very important and while public access is also important; landowner rights trump IMHO.


----------

