# Stream access



## sparky00045 (Apr 1, 2008)

There is a great part in the flyfishing mag april may that talks about are battle here in utah to get are access back to are public waterways, 

There was a good note in there, that said brigham young made it clear in the starting of this state that all waterways and wildlife belonged to the pubilc, and the people.

Lets keep this battle going, and get a fishing rights back.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

“It is all good, the air, the water, the gold and silver; the wheat, the fine flour, and the cattle upon a thousand hills are all good. . . . But that moment that men seek to build up themselves . . . and seek to hoard up riches, . . . it proves that their hearts are weaned from their God; and their riches will perish in their fingers, and they with them.”

---Brigham Young


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Brethren, we are gathering to this buitiful land, to build up ‘Zion.’ . . . But since I have been here I perseive the spirit of selfishness. Covetousness exists in the hearts of the Saints. . . . Here are those who begin to spread out buying up all the land they are able to do, to the exclusion of the poorer ones who are not so much blessed with this worlds goods, thinking to ley foundations for themselves only, looking to their own individual familys, and those who are to follow them.105

----Joseph Smith


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

“We want to go where we can have plenty of range for our stock, . . . mount our horses, and ride over the prairies, and say, I am Lord of all I survey, . . . that we can get the whole world in a string after us, and have it all in our own possession, by and bye. . . . This is the object many have. . . . Elders of Israel are greedy after the things of this world.”110 “Some want to be separated far from their neighbors, and own all the land around them, saying ‘all is right, all is peace.’ “111 They simply are following the example of the adversary, who glories in his kingdom and his greatness where none dared molest or make afraid. But that illusion is not for the Saints: “Let all learn that the earth is not ours.”

--Brigham Young


Is there any way to get rid of Herbert and bring back Brigham Young?


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

“The riches of the world are natural, and common to the human family, but who governs and controls them?”114 “The earth is here, and the fullness thereof is here. It was made for man; and one man was not made to trample his fellowman under his feet” through the possession of it.115 


--Brigham Young


----------



## hamernhonkers (Sep 28, 2007)

A question for any of you guys who believe that the water belongs to all the people........If this battle is won and it is decided that no one can own water what will be next and why stop there? Why not challenge that the land belongs to everyone therefore no one should be able to own land.....We all know the state owns all wildlife even when a deer an elk or a bird in some places may never step foot onto public land.......well really if you look at though and read some of the previous posts and threads on this subject........the land can belong to no one man so I guess the people should own all the animals.....Now why not with that logic should we not see that since no man can own water, land, or the animals of the earth.....should not everything on this planet from houses, to cars, to food, guns, clothes etc, etc, etc belong to everyone......after all everything on this planet comes from the land so why should it not all belong to everyone and therefore to no one????

Seems like a real slippery slope you folks want to go down -O|o-


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

hamernhonkers said:


> A question for any of you guys who believe that the water belongs to all the people........If this battle is won and it is decided that no one can own water what will be next and why stop there?


ummmm.....

dude.....currently, under Utah state constitution, people do NOT own water. They only own the RIGHTS to use the water. That's why they are called "Water Rights".' Running water (streams, rivers, etc.) are OWNED by the PUBLIC.

the issue has nothing to do with water ownership. The issue has everything to do with the right to access PUBLIC water over private ground.

Before you go off on and get all worked up about something, get your facts straight. Otherwise, you look like an ignorant buffoon.

http://www.nationalrivers.org/us-law-public.htm


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

Tell that to the guys that sell bottled water. :lol:


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

the battle that is in court as of now is for the weber river. the challenge is that the weber was used as a means of comerce for shipping making it and the river bottom public property, not private. that commerce was the shipping of railroad ties to market. will be interesting to see the ruling on that. has no application to other streams outside of possibly the provo which was also used but to a lesser extent. the blacks fork was diverted into a flume and the water used to transport ties but not the river.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

hamernhonkers said:


> A question for any of you guys who believe that the water belongs to all the people........If this battle is won and it is decided that no one can own water what will be next and why stop there? Why not challenge that the land belongs to everyone therefore no one should be able to own land.....We all know the state owns all wildlife even when a deer an elk or a bird in some places may never step foot onto public land.......well really if you look at though and read some of the previous posts and threads on this subject........the land can belong to no one man so I guess the people should own all the animals.....Now why not with that logic should we not see that since no man can own water, land, or the animals of the earth.....should not everything on this planet from houses, to cars, to food, guns, clothes etc, etc, etc belong to everyone......after all everything on this planet comes from the land so why should it not all belong to everyone and therefore to no one????
> 
> Seems like a real slippery slope you folks want to go down -O|o-


So, who owns the air? The wind? The sunshine? If nobody else can prove that they do, I'll stake my claim and say that all of you must relinquish all use of said elements unless you agree to pay me the amount that I deem to be prudent.

-O|o-

Fishrmn


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

kingfisher -- the challenge is not necessarily just the Weber, but ALL streams and rivers in Utah. http://utahstreamaccess.org/news/

from the National Rivers site:



National Rivers said:


> To this day, state constitutions affirm public ownership of all running waters. They typically say that "every natural stream" or "all surface waters" are owned by the state, for use by the public. Various state courts have upheld public access to running waters, calling it an "easement," and saying, for example, "The capability of use of the waters for recreational purposes determines their availability for recreational use by the public. Streambed ownership by a private party is irrelevant. If the waters are owned by the State and held in trust for the people by the State, no private party may bar the use of those waters by the people." Public access to streams, and trails along streams, is further supported by the legal doctrines of custom and prescription. Willow River Club v. Wade, 100 Wis. 86, 76 N.W. 273 (1898). Taylor v. Commonwealth, 102 Va. 759, 47 S.E. 875, 102 Am.St.Rep. 865 (1904). Day v. Armstrong, 362 P.2d 187 (Wyo. 1961). People v. Mack, 97 Cal. Rptr. 448, 19 Cal. App. 3d 1040 (1971). Montana Coalition for Stream Access v. Curran, 210 Mont. 38 (1984).


From the Utahstreamaccess.org site:



Utah Stream Access Coaltion said:


> Ever since the pioneers first entered the Salt Lake Valley, the waters in Utah's rivers and streams have been owned by the people and managed by the territorial and state governments in trust for the benefit of the people. Brigham Young confirmed this principle his second day in the Valley when he proclaimed that there would be no private ownership of water.
> 
> The Coalition filed suit because the Act, contrary to its title, abandons this fundamental principle of Utah law,,,


*All streams and rivers in Utah ARE PUBLIC. That is fact. That is current Utah law. What is in question is the ACCESS to these streams and rivers which flow over and across private land.*


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Just another quick FYI:


According to Utah Supreme Court, Conatser vs. Johnson 2008: The Court noted that because the waters of the state belong to the public, the public has an easement to utilize the waters for recreational purposes.


----------



## hamernhonkers (Sep 28, 2007)

PBH said:


> hamernhonkers said:
> 
> 
> > A question for any of you guys who believe that the water belongs to all the people........If this battle is won and it is decided that no one can own water what will be next and why stop there?
> ...


PBH if I was all worked up over this I would not have used the -O|o- I would of used :evil:

Not sure name calling is really needed........now is it :shock:


----------



## hamernhonkers (Sep 28, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> hamernhonkers said:
> 
> 
> > A question for any of you guys who believe that the water belongs to all the people........If this battle is won and it is decided that no one can own water what will be next and why stop there? Why not challenge that the land belongs to everyone therefore no one should be able to own land.....We all know the state owns all wildlife even when a deer an elk or a bird in some places may never step foot onto public land.......well really if you look at though and read some of the previous posts and threads on this subject........the land can belong to no one man so I guess the people should own all the animals.....Now why not with that logic should we not see that since no man can own water, land, or the animals of the earth.....should not everything on this planet from houses, to cars, to food, guns, clothes etc, etc, etc belong to everyone......after all everything on this planet comes from the land so why should it not all belong to everyone and therefore to no one????
> ...


Isn't that just it&#8230;.how silly all this is to keep battling over access to a little bit of water here and there?

I think that since I (as in a people of the state) own all the animals here in this state, I should be given access to all private land so I can hunt and kill the animals I own and have a right to since I am a people of this state shouldn't I???

I also think that I (as a people of this state) should be able to just walk into any home on any street here in the state and get a drink of water from the tap. It is after all my water right? The people do own the water and according to what I keep reading I should be able to access it right?

*According to Utah Supreme Court, Conatser vs. Johnson 2008: The Court noted that because the waters of the state belong to the public, the public has an easement to utilize the waters for recreational purposes.*

According to this I should also be able to access the water in someone's swimming pool in their back yard, the tub in their bathroom, the jacuzzi in their master bedroom, etc. Not just the stream running into in their back yard :shock:

It is all the public's water and we should all have access to it no matter where it is right? -O|o-

Its all just seems real silly :lol:


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Nobody is asking for access to private land. We are demanding access to public water. You've also got a very skewed concept of what is being argued. If someone owns a pond, or creates a pond that is entirely on their property then it is theirs to control as they see fit. The streams do not begin and end on their property.



hamernhonkers said:


> Isn't that just it&#8230;.how silly all this is to keep battling over access to a little bit of water here and there?


It ain't just a little bit of water we're talking about. It is several hundred miles of streams.

Fishrmn


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Kingfisher said:


> the battle that is in court as of now is for the weber river. the challenge is that the weber was used as a means of comerce for shipping making it and the river bottom public property, not private.


Not so. The CURRENT battle in court involves the legality of HB141, passed last year. From the Utah Stream Access Coalition news release regarding the lawsuit.

"The suit, filed in state court in Wasatch County, challenges the constitutionality of Utah's Public Waters Access Act, which was passed by the 2010 Utah legislature. The Coalition's complaint names as defendants the owners of Victory Ranch, a Wasatch County development selling luxury home sites offering exclusive access to more than four miles of the Provo River, one of Utah's premier, publicly-funded blue ribbon trout fisheries. The suit also names as defendants the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and Wasatch County Sheriff Todd Bonner, two agencies charged with enforcement of the Act."

www.utahstreamaccess.org

HB141 was passed in response to the Conatser case, which was settled by the Utah Supreme court a couple of years ago, and did originate with an incident on the Weber river, but the USC decision affected the status of access to streams statewide.


----------



## hamernhonkers (Sep 28, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> Nobody is asking for access to private land. We are demanding access to public water. You've also got a very skewed concept of what is being argued. If someone owns a pond, or creates a pond that is entirely on their property then it is theirs to control as they see fit. The streams do not begin and end on their property.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You say


> we are demanding access to public water


 Now how can you say you are not asking for access to private land when it is private land the public water is flowing over?

Next you say I have a very skewed concept of what is being argued..Now if I were a land owner with a stream flowing across my land and a group of people who believed they were entitled to access my private land so they could utilize the water&#8230;&#8230;.how would that be any different then another group of people arguing that since the water belongs to the people and even though it is in a private swimming pool on private land, the water belongs to the people so therefore they should have access to it.

How is it different when water that starts in the mountains and then flows across public and private land into a treatment center or a pipe that then runs through your house and out again any different then a stream that you want access to. This water didn't start on you property and it dose not end there so why dose the argument that you use, stand up for water that flows over someone else's land but not on yours? It still is public water.

You did say "We are demanding access to public water"

What is really the difference??

Can you see how the arguments "we" are using may seem skewed to those who own the land the water is flowing over?

Maybe everyone should take a step back and look at both sides of this issue. I for one would not believe for a second that more then 95% of the people backing the "we are demanding access to public water" would have the same attitude if the shoe was on the other foot. o-|| -O\__- -|\O- :O•-: :lol:


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

It's my water! What right does anyone have to keep me from it? I don't want access to anyone's land. Just the streams that are water that I have shared ownership of. If you bought every piece of property around my home, would you have the right to keep me from MY house? Why do landowners think they have the right to keep me out of my stream?

Fishrmn


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

hamernhonkers said:


> Now if I were a land owner with a stream flowing across my land and a group of people who believed they were entitled to access my private land so they could utilize the water&#8230;&#8230;.how would that be any different then another group of people arguing that since the water belongs to the people and even though it is in a private swimming pool on private land, the water belongs to the people so therefore they should have access to it.
> 
> How is it different when water that starts in the mountains and then flows across public and private land into a treatment center or a pipe that then runs through your house and out again any different then a stream that you want access to. This water didn't start on you property and it dose not end there so why dose the argument that you use, stand up for water that flows over someone else's land but not on yours? It still is public water.


No one is demanding access to private property! No one has said that the public ownership of streams allows anyone to cross private property to gain access to said streams. In the Utah Supreme Court ruling it was made abundantly clear that the access had to be obtained at a public easement. If you wanna enter the municipal water supply that comes in to my house and travel through the pipes without leaving the pipe until it is back at a public easement, go right ahead.

Fishrmn


----------



## Daisy (Jan 4, 2010)

The Utah Supreme Court re-affirmed that a public easement existed on all the streams and rivers within the State... since statehood. The public can only access that easement if it accesses the stream/river in question from a public access point. Further, any user of this easement must stay within the boundary of the easement. It does not give the right to tresspass on private property outside of the easement.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

hamernhonkers said:


> What is really the difference??


Stir the pot all you want. You are still ignorant. By definition, that is NOT name calling. Ignorant simply means: lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified. If you feel that I am calling you names, I apologize. I was just stating that you lacked knowledge or comprehension in the topic of this thread. sorry that hurt your feelings.

What is the difference?

others (see above) have already noted public access points. You don't have a public access point to your bathroom in your home. Nor do you have a public access point attached to your swimming pool -- unless I"m mistaken and you have a bridge from a public highway crossing your swimming pool.

Rivers meander through and across both public and private land. If an angler is on a river on public land, and it then crosses into private land, that angler doesn't have to cross any private land to get to the river. There's your difference. Unless your swimming pool crosses your private land boundary into public land, then no one has the right to your pool without your consent. That would be trespassing, something that should be fully enforced by the law. Access to streams NEVER has been an excuse to trespass.

further, public dollars are not used to stock public fish in the hose that is used to fill your swimming pool, thus allowing those public fish to live in your private swimming pool. Those same fish only rarely show up in your bathtub. But, I don't think anyone truly wants to fish in your bathtub or swimming pool.

Anglers don't want access to your land. We don't want to cross your field, trample your crops, herd your cows, scare the horses, or ride off on the women. We don't want to crap in your tulips. We want access to a PUBLIC resource. A PUBLIC resource that our State Constitution guaruntees. A PUBLIC resource that has been sold under the assumption that it is private, when in fact it never was. A PUBLIC resource currently being used for private gain at the PUBLIC's expense.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

This thread is a sobering reminder as to why anglers should NEVER align themselves with an organization such as SFW or the newly created UWC. It doesn't take long for hunters to show their true colors in regards to stream access and so-called private property rights.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Huh? I hunt quite a bit and though recently I have fished much less, there was a time I spent 4 to 5 days a week on the water. Anyhow, I am personally a proponent of high water mark laws for navigable waterways, as long as when the property was purchased it didn't specifically state that the river bottom was part of the deal and that if it did, it was within state law at the time.

Don't ya think that lumping hunters all into the same boat on this issue is a little silly? We're all outdoorsmen aren't we? Is it written somewhere that one has to choose to be either a hunter or fisher? If we are going to compartmentalize the masses, I'm going to go ahead and jump into a compartment for you. You can look for me in the compartment labeled "people".


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

Treehugnhunter
Yeah you would think "We're all outdoorsmen...", using your words. But unfortunately nothing can be further from the truth. Don Peay and SFW came out and publicly went against anglers on both HB 187 and HB 80, saying we were radicals... 
Also how come UWC hasn't come out with a statement on whether or not they support stream access? Or why no statement on limiting ATV use (abuse) on the Boulder Mountain? UWC is a facade. It is a group of disgruntled big game hunters that suddenly woke up and realized they have no clout, no money and no bonus points. So now they are for opportunity, opportunity, opportunity. Ironically these same UWC folks just a few years ago were Don Peay disciples and followers.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

280Remington said:


> Treehugnhunter
> Yeah you would think "We're all outdoorsmen...", using your words. But unfortunately nothing can be further from the truth. Don Peay and SFW came out and publicly went against anglers on both HB 187 and HB 80, saying we were radicals...
> Also how come UWC hasn't come out with a statement on whether or not they support stream access? Or why no statement on limiting ATV use (abuse) on the Boulder Mountain? UWC is a facade. It is a group of disgruntled big game hunters that suddenly woke up and realized they have no clout, no money and no bonus points. So now they are for opportunity, opportunity, opportunity. Ironically these same UWC folks just a few years ago were Don Peay disciples and followers.


We are in the process of asking members questions on such topics. I don't mean to be rude, but you couldn't be farther from the truth on nearly everyone of your statements. Please take some time, research us, I hope you will see that we are not what you have mentioned. Become a member, have a voice. Not sure what your heartburn is, but I would gladly talk to you any time you would like and answer as many question as I can for you.

Jeremy 
[email protected]


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

280Remington said:


> This thread is a sobering reminder as to why anglers should NEVER align themselves with an organization such as SFW or the newly created UWC. It doesn't take long for hunters to show their true colors in regards to stream access and so-called private property rights.


Okay. I'll bite. What's wrong with the UWC as it pertains to "so called" private property rights? Do they advocate compliance with the law? Or do they advocate lawlessness? The Utah State Supreme Court affirmed that the public has an easement to the streams in the state of Utah. If "so called" land owners have been denying access to that easement they have been breaking the law. I've seen nothing that says that the "so called" private property rights included the purchase of that easement. Our distinguished (insert your favorite phrase here) legislature (the same bunch that wants to do their dirty work behind closed doors, and passed HB477) has seen fit to craft a law that they think will negate that easement. It will all wind up in court again, costing the taxpayers millions, and will probably end up having to be decided at the ballot box as an amendment to the Utah Constitution.

Fishrmn


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

The leader of the SFW is exactly the type of person Brigham and Joseph warned us about. I would encourage all of you to cast him out.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

I have been around a little while. Anyone remember United Sportsmen? It was essentially a grass roots hunting club, not a lot of wealthy members. It started out as being a club/organization for the common guy to pay some dues and get access to some private land. The whale swallowed the minnow on that one and along with the CWMU program that club was dead. Then along came SFW, again espousing the views of the lowly common man. Look where SFW headed.... Now we have UWC, same crap just a different decade. 

Ultimately I get a little annoyed about the use of "Wildlife" in any of these organization's names. Why not call UWC for what it is; a hunting club? Has UWC donated to USAC? Has UWC helped with Trout Unlimited? Again I don't trust UWC any further than I can throw them. I still hold firm in my beliefs that once the organizers and founders of UWC suddenly realized they have very little juice, have burned up their bonus points and have no clout politically they came to Jesus and decided to be all about the common man.

It is ironic the same principle players and personnel behind UWC were very adamant supporters of limiting opportunity back when they were sitting on a bunch of bonus points and waiting their turn for a LE hunt. Now that those points are gone and the realized they won't be hunting a LE unit until they are 83 years old they are suddenly for all kinds of opportunity. Hmmm, this sounds a little hypocritical to me.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Who are these "principle players and personnel" you are referring to? I think you're quite confused. Have you looked on our site and seen the board of directors and officers?

TU, yep, we've talked with them recently and plan on assisting them and using them to form stances on issues.

I have 11 elk points.

You coming to our service project Saturday?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

280Remington said:


> I have been around a little while. Anyone remember United Sportsmen? It was essentially a grass roots hunting club, not a lot of wealthy members. It started out as being a club/organization for the common guy to pay some dues and get access to some private land. The whale swallowed the minnow on that one and along with the CWMU program that club was dead. Then along came SFW, again espousing the views of the lowly common man. Look where SFW headed.... Now we have UWC, same crap just a different decade.
> 
> Ultimately I get a little annoyed about the use of "Wildlife" in any of these organization's names. Why not call UWC for what it is; a hunting club? Has UWC donated to USAC? Has UWC helped with Trout Unlimited? Again I don't trust UWC any further than I can throw them. I still hold firm in my beliefs that once the organizers and founders of UWC suddenly realized they have very little juice, have burned up their bonus points and have no clout politically they came to Jesus and decided to be all about the common man.
> 
> It is ironic the same principle players and personnel behind UWC were very adamant supporters of limiting opportunity back when they were sitting on a bunch of bonus points and waiting their turn for a LE hunt. Now that those points are gone and the realized they won't be hunting a LE unit until they are 83 years old they are suddenly for all kinds of opportunity. Hmmm, this sounds a little hypocritical to me.


So do you even know who the board members are of UWC? I will just say that you are more than way off base, but you are entitled to your opinion. Like I said drop me a line, hell PM and I will give you my phone number and you can call me, you will quickly find out that we are not what you are labeling us as.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Looks like Tree beat me to the punch. :mrgreen:


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A couple of comments FWIW



280Remington said:


> Also how come UWC hasn't come out with a statement on whether or not they support stream access?


Give them a chance, they just got organized. And to my surprise, they are actively considering it. Since I signed up, the only questions they have been taking input for have been fishing related. Hopefully, they will indeed decide to help the USAC and TU. At the same time, we already have USAC taking the lead in the stream access fight. UWC does not have to duplicate what USAC is already doing, but (hopefully) provide a supportive position. (Full disclosure, I am a member of both USAC and as of 2 days ago UWC)



280Remington said:


> Treehugnhunter
> Yeah you would think "We're all outdoorsmen...", using your words. But unfortunately nothing can be further from the truth. Don Peay and SFW came out and publicly went against anglers on both HB 187 and HB 80, saying we were radicals...


Yes, this indeed happened. (a political quid-pro-quo with some rural legislators?) These types of actions are what has triggered the outrage that has lead to the formation of UWC.



280Remington said:


> It is a group of disgruntled big game hunters that suddenly woke up and realized they have no clout, no money and no bonus points.


Time will tell. But yes, I only have 1 elk point.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

here is a good synopsis from the attorney generals office.[attachment=1:3qqwr7t6]stream access-s.jpg[/attachment:3qqwr7t6][attachment=0:3qqwr7t6]stream access 2-s.jpg[/attachment:3qqwr7t6]


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Catherder said:


> A couple of comments FWIW
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree.....I'm willing to wait and/or help if I can. I'd like to see what new 'blood' can do with _our_ stream access issues.....if it's beneficial and agreeable to all parties involved, I'm all for it.


----------



## hamernhonkers (Sep 28, 2007)

PBH said:


> hamernhonkers said:
> 
> 
> > What is really the difference??
> ...


PBH,

First you did not hurt my feelings. I don't feel however name calling was necessary.

Now as far as being ignorant that I am not. I am very well versed in what is happening in the fight from both sides.

As you, I, and everyone else on here knows this forum is for fisherman and hunters. Since this is the case anytime a land owner or individual comes on here with a different belief on this issue they are attacked. I am fortunate to be able to hunt and fish more then I should and during all my time in the field and on the water I have made some great friendships and have gained a lot of respect for land owners and the hard work they have to do to keep what they have.

I see this fight as an attack on personal property rights here in this state. While the water may be owned by the public the land under that water is not. I feel this land as it is private should be respected. One of the foundations of this country was that we the people could own land and as such I chose to follow that foundation and side with land owners on this one.

You state that fisherman don't want access to private land yet the land under the water that every one wants to walk on so they can fish or hunt is private. Now of course with it being private who do you think pays taxes on it each year. Not the public.

You say we don't want to cross the land, chase the cows, crap in the tulips etc. This is where I have to ask if you are ignorant? Have you looked around the areas where the general public dose have access to the waters? Everything you just said is exactly what dose happen when "we" are allowed to use an area. I know you get around and fish a lot of water. You see what happens day in and day out with public lakes and streams. Do you really believe it would be different on private land once everyone could access it?


----------



## hamernhonkers (Sep 28, 2007)

Kingfisher said:


> here is a good synopsis from the attorney generals office.[attachment=1:1gjqvrhz]stream access-s.jpg[/attachment:1gjqvrhz][attachment=0:1gjqvrhz]stream access 2-s.jpg[/attachment:1gjqvrhz]


Kingfisher do you have a link to this? It is hard to read.

Thanks


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

hamernhonkers said:


> .
> 
> You state that fisherman don't want access to private land yet the land under the water that every one wants to walk on so they can fish or hunt is private. Now of course with it being private who do you think pays taxes on it each year. Not the public.


You're right it is their land. They cannot, however, plow it, raise crops on it, or divert the stream without approval. They don't have the right to take away the public easement. The status quo for years has been that landowners thought that they had the right to restrict people from the streams that run through their property. The Utah Supreme Court has made a ruling that says different.

Who is paying me for the use of my easement? The landowners who have been illegally denying access should be held accountable for the loss of my rights.

Here's a link to the lawsuit.
http://utahstreamaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/RY8657.pdf

Fishrmn


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

280Remington said:


> It is ironic the same principle players and personnel behind UWC were very adamant supporters of limiting opportunity back when they were sitting on a bunch of bonus points and waiting their turn for a LE hunt. Now that those points are gone and the realized they won't be hunting a LE unit until they are 83 years old they are suddenly for all kinds of opportunity. Hmmm, this sounds a little hypocritical to me.


For the record I have 10 points for elk, points for moose, and a few for deer. I've never drawn and LE tag of any sort but very much look forward to doing so one day. I have never supported limiting opportunity.

I have no agenda other than I just want to do something positive for widlife and hunters in our state. I'm nobody special...I just work hard and I care. I hope to gain nothing other than making things better for all sportsmen and wildlife for generations to come by being a part of UWC.


----------



## sparky00045 (Apr 1, 2008)

There is one point we are over looking here, that really bothers me, last year i took some classes on the constitution, and one thing we talked about, is that it is supposed to be a tough to change our constitution, not like what happened here, this was pushed through with very little talk and voted on, and signed into law.
so if we let are reps and sens change or constitution at will this easy, then i would say none of our rights under the constitution, both state and national are safe???


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Hamernhonkers,

It goes both ways. Some of the most degradated areas around streams are from landowners who think they have a right to place old cars along the stream banks, plow, plant, and spray chemicals and fertilizer right to the waters edge, divert water without rights, throw grass clippings and other yard care and farm debri into the rivers, and alow livestock droppings to leach into the water. Plus, over half the trash I have picked up on streams come from the landowners own overstuffed garbage cans; not many fisherman carrying cereal boxes, Mrs Stuffer's stuffing boxes, and diapers up the river with them. The trash around the canyon streams comes from mostly picnicers and passing motorist who throw their trash out the car window. Yes, ALL of us trash including fisherpeople, but I get so sick of the finger pointing at the fishermen for this--At least the fisherman oraganize and clean up periodically. I spend about three straight years cleaning a local canyon water and at the time documented the trash, I can guarantee you that over 80 percent of the trash was not from fishermen.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

hamerhonk -- it sounds as if your issues are more with trash, littering, and trespassing. If that is the case, then I am on your side. Stream access shouldn't be a problem -- anglers must keep to the stream easement, and should be cited if they leave the high-water mark. We certainly need to pass some kind of legislation along with some money for law enforcement specifically dedicated to private property protection. Enforce the trespass laws, enforce littering laws. Would that solve the landowner issue with stream access?


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

sparky00045 said:


> There is one point we are over looking here, that really bothers me, last year i took some classes on the constitution, and one thing we talked about, is that it is supposed to be a tough to change our constitution, not like what happened here, this was pushed through with very little talk and voted on, and signed into law.
> so if we let are reps and sens change or constitution at will this easy, then i would say none of our rights under the constitution, both state and national are safe???


This goes to show how wrong this is on so many levels.
Not only was HB 141 an onerous slap in the face of the people of the state, it was an outright turn about of a unanimus supreme court ruling. A clear branch directly against another branch assault on government process as meant to be by the US Constitution.
To say that this was pushed through with very little talk and voted on is not quite the whole story. Not so long ago there was a push for a law, HB 187 that sought to tighten the access to the recreational and commercial use of the public water, it was crushed when the might sportsmen raised their collective ugly heads in protest. (fishers and boaters anyway)
Then came a truce, and negoations, a reasonable comprimise was worked on by Represenatives, landowners and recreationalists. There was much support for this new law. Little did the minions know that in the background while negoations were ongoing big money real estate was building their weapon of mass destruction.
HB 80 was a comprimise worked out for over a year before when it came time to vote, many would emerge from the back room shaking their heads no and clutching a new even more punishing bill than the the first that would be so onerous that it would have no text until just before it's vote. HB 141.

Now, this will issue will return the the Supreme Court, the war rages on, this time there is a difference. The SC will not be deciding on the bassis of statue law as it was written at the time of the arrest of Conanster, it will be decided on the basis of Constitutional law. If they rule as they did in the past, it will mean a severe blow to the ability of the legislature to restrict access and 100 years of illegal tradition will tumble forever.

I have lived in several states and fished in many. There are different variations of the access in many of them. Some unrestricted access below high water mark if accessed at a public point like Idaho's, some strictly wet foot, some 5' above existing water. Not until I moved to Utah did I encounter such severe access restrictions.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

Hamerhonk, once water is diverted and captured by headgates into private ditches, canals, hoses, pipes it becomes off limits. Get educated. USAC only supports access to streambeds from public right o ways or permission to access from private property. We don't support littering and trespass or any damage to private property.
Like PBH mentions, ENFORCEMENT is the issue. If CO's, Sheriffs, DNR, DWR, etc. showed up to cite violators and District Attorney's prosecuted violators this issue would be much less combative.
I won't even discuss the politics of the issue, let me just say that HB80 would have settled the issue much better than 141 but here we are back in court.


----------



## sparky00045 (Apr 1, 2008)

One other thing i don't hear talked about much is, of all the water ways in utah, and i have drove by most of them, there really are very few public places one can access the water, i am sure there are alot of fishing on here that have drove by the miles and miles and miles of waters you have no way to access.

So this SC ruling that gave us are access back, only affect a few land owners, who land happens to boarder pubic lands.

They made it out that we would have free run over there lands anywhere we want to access the water, and thats not true.
I live a year in montana, and not only is it high water marks, but every 4 miles the land owners have to provide a right oy way to the water, thats why montana get more tourist that are fishermen, then utah get skiers.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

mr. honker - dont have a link, had to copy it as a jpeg, but if you click on it, it will expand and its easy to read. sometimes i have to click it twice.


----------



## hamernhonkers (Sep 28, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> Hamernhonkers,
> 
> It goes both ways. Some of the most degradated areas around streams are from landowners who think they have a right to place old cars along the stream banks, plow, plant, and spray chemicals and fertilizer right to the waters edge, divert water without rights, throw grass clippings and other yard care and farm debri into the rivers, and alow livestock droppings to leach into the water. Plus, over half the trash I have picked up on streams come from the landowners own overstuffed garbage cans; not many fisherman carrying cereal boxes, Mrs Stuffer's stuffing boxes, and diapers up the river with them. The trash around the canyon streams comes from mostly picnicers and passing motorist who throw their trash out the car window. Yes, ALL of us trash including fisherpeople, but I get so sick of the finger pointing at the fishermen for this--At least the fisherman oraganize and clean up periodically. I spend about three straight years cleaning a local canyon water and at the time documented the trash, I can guarantee you that over 80 percent of the trash was not from fishermen.


HighNDry,

You are right it dose work both ways. I would guess you see it much more on the other side of things because if I am correct and you are located in the major urban area of the state. I can only guess that though as I figure most of the users on this forum seem to be from the Wasatch front.

On this end of the state though were I am what I see is not land owners trashing and not taking care of the streams and their land it is the public and anglers. I will give you three specific examples.

The first is a piece of water that runs through about 6000 acres of private land. There is one bridge that crosses the stream and cuts the private land in two. The owners of this land have always been good stewards of their land. They have always allowed fisherman to fish the stream from this bridge. What has happened has been fences cut, diapers left, people crap in the tulle's, running of wheelers along the steam because guys were to lazy to walk, fences cut so people could pull their camp trailers next to the water to camp, and the list goes on and on. There have been many people asked to leave and a few tickets wrote for trespassing and littering&#8230;..just deserved. The most impressive part of all this to this day after a 100 years the bad crowed causing problems the family still allows people to park at the bridge and fish the stream.

The second place is similar to the first. The family homesteaded the land before this was even a state. They have dealt with all the same crap as I described in the first place. This family has even gone so far as to fence off a section of ground next to the bridge to allow people to camp and has also installed walk over for fisherman so they could get over the fence. Guess what even after all this they still let the public fish their land.

Third place, this family has keep very tight control on access to there land. Hell they half to . The stream runs with in 50' of a garage that has a couple of million dollars worth of equipment in it. Their house is less then 20' from the water. They have had more then on a couple of occasions come back from some where and had stuff broke into and trashed. Because that water is there people feel it is an open invitation to come on down and do what ever they want and they aren't walking up and down the river bed to do it. He always finds empty worm containers, power bait bottles, crap and tp in the bushes, etc. and this place is posted to the hilt. Its bad enough with the people who trespass on here with the crap they leave but you want to guess what it looks like where the water leaves the land and the public has at it????

At all three of these places the owners take good care of their land and do not trash things. They take pride in how clean and pristine their lands are. All the trash you find is from the fisherman and "public" who legally and illegally use their land, not them.

I will tell you this after watching and using the first water for the last 35 years, bait fishing use to be allowed and during that time was when the trash and things were the worst. It has been changed to artificial only now and the area is in general much cleaner now because of it. Draw you own conclusion as to why this is but I have my own guess. Now I am not saying it is great as I always still find packages from lures and worm containers, power bait bottles, water bottles, cans, etc. but it is still better then it was.

I know as well as you and many others on here that there are a lot of good people who are fisherman and treat the land and the land owners with respect but you know as well as I do what it is that always accompanies the good!

By the way the old cars are used by the land owners to control erosion around here. Not sure what you are seeing? Heck I have caught some of my biggest fish from streams under cars.


----------



## hamernhonkers (Sep 28, 2007)

PBH said:


> hamerhonk -- it sounds as if your issues are more with trash, littering, and trespassing. If that is the case, then I am on your side. Stream access shouldn't be a problem -- anglers must keep to the stream easement, and should be cited if they leave the high-water mark. We certainly need to pass some kind of legislation along with some money for law enforcement specifically dedicated to private property protection. Enforce the trespass laws, enforce littering laws. Would that solve the landowner issue with stream access?


PBH,

As was stated in an earlier post there are thousands of miles of streams and rivers in this state. We already have trespassing laws and littering laws on the books. How would passing stricter laws affect things really? If people do it now with the existing laws what would it take to stop them? You are right we can throw more money at enforcement but just how much would it take and who is going to pay for it? Land owners already have to watch there land like a hawk and then if you let people access any stream they want when they want then what do landowners do? Hire a security guard to watch their ground 24 hours a day to protect their assets and keep the not so respectable public at bay?

I think it would be great if there was a way that it could be guaranteed that once a person entered the river bed from a public access point they would stay there and not litter or cause any problems. If that could happen then how could any land owner argue that it was a problem other then they want to fish hog or what ever. Lets face it though that will just never happen and the ones who will pay for it will be the land owners.


----------



## hamernhonkers (Sep 28, 2007)

fishsnoop said:


> Hamerhonk, once water is diverted and captured by headgates into private ditches, canals, hoses, pipes it becomes off limits. Get educated.


I am sure we can get the law changed -O|o-

Here fishy fishy -|\O-


----------



## hamernhonkers (Sep 28, 2007)

Kingfisher said:


> mr. honker - dont have a link, had to copy it as a jpeg, but if you click on it, it will expand and its easy to read. sometimes i have to click it twice.


Darn. On my laptop screen it only increases size by a little bit. Thank you though for the idea.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

hamernhonkers said:


> HighNDry said:
> 
> 
> > HighNDry,
> ...


These are all still enforcement issues. We haven't stopped lot's of crimes even though we have laws calling them illegal.
The cars as erosion control sure don't make for a responcible engineering design.


----------



## sparky00045 (Apr 1, 2008)

What does everyone think, should we try and push for laws that give us access to all of are waterways like montana, that land owners have to provide a rite of way to the river , for every so many miles kinda i think there would be a lot less problems, if we had places where we could access the water, where you don't have to jump fences, could even have trash cans.

I know it would be a big jump to try for this, but who knows if we don't try??


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

All I ask is that we retain the rights to access the waters that was given to us by the ruling from Utah State Supreme Court.
I know that land owners will not like it but if we had these rights all along and was mislead about our rights then it's time to make things right.
I don't want a fight from land owners but I do want what is rightfully mine, bu law.


----------



## cacherinthewry (Dec 20, 2007)

hamernhonkers said:


> PBH said:
> 
> 
> > hamerhonk -- it sounds as if your issues are more with trash, littering, and trespassing. If that is the case, then I am on your side. Stream access shouldn't be a problem -- anglers must keep to the stream easement, and should be cited if they leave the high-water mark. We certainly need to pass some kind of legislation along with some money for law enforcement specifically dedicated to private property protection. Enforce the trespass laws, enforce littering laws. Would that solve the landowner issue with stream access?
> ...


There are laws that make it illegal to steal a car, or beat a child or kill a person. Unfortunately, all those things still happen. A law isn't a force field, it authorizes enforcement of a penalty. Trash will still get thrown, people will still trespass, and theft and vandalism will still occur. And all those things will happen in places where no stream touches the property. A waterway doesn't give a landowner more rights than a landowner that is living in a subdivision. The way things are at this time, we can't say that is true. With the current law, there was created a lesser class of citizen...the one that doesn't own a streambed.

Which end of the state are your 3 examples from? What city? I'd bet that a call to the nearest TU chapter or similar organization requesting help with a cleanup would be well received. It would also raise awareness in that community of a problem, and more eyes would be looking out for that landowner and that area.


----------

