# Court Decision



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

While a ruling today from the Utah Supreme Court was on a case dealing with fishing, the court decision will also affect the rights of duck hunters. You can read the 10 page decision at this link: http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopi ... 071808.pdf. Or you can read what the Trib had to say at this link: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9923629.

The decision is good one for all Utah sportsmen and sportswomen.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

It is the most important ruling for fisherman EVER! However, you can't leave the stream, so if you were to duck hunt on a river, you can't legally retrieve any birds that don't fall in the river. But this ruling shows a rare progressive win for sportsmen.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

8) 8) i thought id NEVER SEE THE DAY this happened in THIS good ole boy state!

with this ruling i wonder if any of the sportsmans access points along some of our streams and rivers will be "removed"?


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Longgun said:


> 8) 8) i thought id NEVER SEE THE DAY this happened in THIS good ole boy state!
> 
> with this ruling i wonder if any of the sportsmans access points along some of our streams and rivers will be "removed"?


I first of all must ask for an example of how this is a "good ole boy state!" Please don't talk about how the landowners who have generally paid millions of dollars to own land and thousands in property taxes and legally did not allow some loser fishermen to come leave his cigarette butts and worm containers on a lure only stream how that results in UT being a "good ole boy state!" I am not a landowner, but I can not even begin to defend fishermen and how poorly they leave some fishing areas in such a garbage pit, can't speak to waterfowling areas with any experience there.
And then how access points could possibly be removed? If you are talking about recorded state easements such as bridges or DWR owned land as occurs along the Bear at points, definitely not, but if you are talking about areas where landowners have granted access that is a possibility; what are you specifically referring to that you are thinking of?


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

ok ok, sorry. maybe that good ol boy statement was somewhat harsh...

_really?_ i was unaware the access points were easements. tell me then, exactly how much realestate (before this ruling) is someone able to fish when at desired location without getting rocksalt peppered at ya? and am i hearing from you thats is fine to punish the majority for the action of a few?


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Longgun said:


> ok ok, sorry. maybe that good ol boy statement was somewhat harsh...
> 
> _really?_ i was unaware the access points were easements. tell me then, exactly how much realestate (before this ruling) is someone able to fish when at desired location without getting rocksalt peppered at ya? and am i hearing from you thats is fine to punish the majority for the action of a few?


You totally lost me; to say the actions of a few who litter, don't have statistics, nor did I claim to, right? I have no idea as to what you are referring to here:


> i was unaware the access points were easements. tell me then, exactly how much realestate (before this ruling) is someone able to fish when at desired location without getting rocksalt peppered at ya?


I had a very sincere question to understand what you are referring to and you tried to answer a question with another question, help me out! I will try and decipher your meaning, a bridge crossing a river is indeed an easement. Please spell out better what you are meaning and we can discuss it in a more meaningful way. Thanks brother!


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

sorry...i knew what i was thinking :roll: _(O)_ i think... :lol: 

i meant the little wooden ladders over fences and sutch, that have no trails to the water afterward. (like up around coalville) then while at the waters edge how much land was a person able to lawfully fish. it has been quite awhile since i read the proc reguarding this particular subject and or fished a stream/river around here for fear of getting a ticket. seriously it has been at least 13 years. i used to fish alot of areas from morgan to echo but since it seems everybody has to have their own little private piece of the river around there for the past years, i gave up...i never littered, i always respected a landowners livestock and property but got the axe because of others ineptitude to be responsible . sorry, i have been very bitter about this for along time...its about time something changed but i can TOTALLY respect the concearn of landowners. i cant wait to get an earful while trying to enjoy a sweet little caddis hatch with my three weight. :|


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Longgun said:


> i meant the little wooden ladders over fences


I believe they are called 'fence steps', and I think they're an excellent idea !!


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

thats exactly what i meant. thanks .45!

are these specific rights of way/easement for anglers?


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Longgun said:


> thats exactly what i meant. thanks .45!
> 
> are these specific rights of way/easement for anglers?


Good question; I am not certain, but unless there is a no trespassing sign, painted posts or it is a cultivated area permission is not needed, correct? At least that is my understanding for hunting. I would not expect these types to be changed unless the owners do just revolt and revoke access by land, I guess.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Stream access has been brought up a few times in the legislature...it always gets shot down immediatley. There are many people, including me that look at this state as a "good ol boy" state. I'm referring mostly to the state lawmakers here. If you want to see "good ol boy " networks in full glory, watch the legislature in session. It's kind of a hobby of mine and I must say, it's embarrassing to watch sometimes.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

rjefre, sheesh where were you a short time ago? by merely mentioning good ol'e boy state and utah legislature in the same sentence, this thread wouldnt have went 4-5 posts tops :wink:


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> Good question; I am not certain, but unless there is a no trespassing sign, painted posts or it is a cultivated area permission is not needed, correct? At least that is my understanding for hunting. I would not expect these types to be changed unless the owners do just revolt and revoke access by land, I guess.


as would be my understanding, but...when youre out and about enjoying your local caddis hatch just make sure you listen CLOSE for the racking sound of a pump shotgun! some landowners (SOME folks, I SAID SOME!!!) will no doubt be slow to the fact (or putting up a decent bluff) that this law has changed and will raise "hadies flames" to get you out of that river.

c-ya in the water... 8)


----------



## ram2h2o (Sep 11, 2007)

I am hoping that DNR will have one of their legal eagles post something for both fishermen and hunters so that we will be informed in laymen's terms what the law is and what our rights are regarding this recent court decision.


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

I'm glad that everyone is excited to see your government usurping the rights of property owners, just one step closer to a socialized property system where no one owns anything.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

buggsz24 said:


> I'm glad that everyone is excited to see your government usurping the rights of property owners, just one step closer to a socialized property system where no one owns anything.


That's how I see it as well. When does the 'good of the public' usurp the RIGHTS of the private property owners? Is this really the path we want to go down? What's next, where do we draw the line?


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> buggsz24 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm glad that everyone is excited to see your government usurping the rights of property owners, just one step closer to a socialized property system where no one owns anything.
> ...


Give me a break. I am all for a persons right to allow or deny access to whomever they please on THEIR own property. However PUBLIC land ought to be accessable to all public who wish to use it. I am 100% for opening PUBLIC roadways through private property, allowing acces to PUBLIC waterways, etc. If it is PUBLIC the public should have free access to it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

So, it's not just about PUBLIC 'access' then is it? It sounds like it about 'access' where YOU want it to be. What good is it to have PRIVATE land if I HAVE let YOU through it whenever YOU wish to come through MY property? Why not just take MY land and give to the PUBLIC so YOU have 'access'? :? :roll:


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

> That's how I see it as well. When does the 'good of the public' usurp the RIGHTS of the private property owners? Is this really the path we want to go down? What's next, where do we draw the line?


The water belongs to the public. For a landowner to lock up access, is to steal it from the public, or in other words, usurp the RIGHTS of the public over private property owners.

Private landowners locking out access to public water creates a scenario that favors the criminal activity of a private land owner over the public's access to a public resource? It is all how you frame the discussion.


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> So, it's not just about PUBLIC 'access' then is it? It sounds like it about 'access' where YOU want it to be. What good is it to have PRIVATE land if I HAVE let YOU through it whenever YOU wish to come through MY property? Why not just take MY land and give to the PUBLIC so YOU have 'access'? :? :roll:


As soon as I read my post I knew you would respond with that. I guess I should have said things differently, for the "pro's" out there to understand. I think a person should be able to drive a PUBLIC road, fish a PUBLIC stream, or hunt PUBLIC ground whenever they want, as long as it can be accessed through PUBLIC ground. I am respectfull of others private property, don't tresspass, and am very greatfull when I gain access to private ground. But it ticks me off when land owners think they have a right to keep the public off PUBLIC property.

My family ownes PRIVATE property in Logan canyon that the river flows through. If someone decides to jump our fence and cross OUR property, they will get an escourt off OUR property. HOWEVER I think it is great that they, you, or me can go fish a PUBLIC stream through private property. After all the waterway is PUBLIC.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

donttreadonme said:


> My family ownes PRIVATE property in Logan canyon that the river flows through. If someone decides to jump our fence and cross OUR property, they will get an escourt off OUR property. HOWEVER I think it is great that they, you, or me can go fish a PUBLIC stream through private property. After all the waterway is PUBLIC.


Can you clarify this for me? Are you saying YOU won't give 'access' through YOUR property, but others should? :?


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> donttreadonme said:
> 
> 
> > My family ownes PRIVATE property in Logan canyon that the river flows through. If someone decides to jump our fence and cross OUR property, they will get an escourt off OUR property. HOWEVER I think it is great that they, you, or me can go fish a PUBLIC stream through private property. After all the waterway is PUBLIC.
> ...


*Pro....*I think...( _(O)_ ) donttreadonme is saying it is okay to fish the river through his property as long as you _stay in the river._ But, do not attempt to cross his property to get to the river.....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I thought this was all about 'access', if so, why not give 'access' through HIS property?


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I thought this was all about 'access', if so, why not give 'access' through HIS property?


Ya gotta read the fine print....the landowner is not required to give us access. Only, now, we have an easement along all waterway's. Stream's and river's, as long as we stay on our easement.

btw.....your yard looks good.


----------



## wingmanck (Sep 7, 2007)

I won't speak for DTOM but I read his post to mean that if you come onto his family's property without permission, that would be a problem and rightly so, but with the new law they would be happy to allow anglers walking the river (accessed via public land/access point) to fish/pass through the portion of river that bisects their property. :?:

I can empathize with both sides of the debate. _SOME_ outdoorsmen/sprotmen are pigs and I don't blame property owners for not wanting them on/near their property, leaving a mess or damaging thier property. On the other hand, more and more good hunting/fishing area has become unaccessible to responsible outdoorsmen/sportsmen.

If this holds up, I'm sure that for the first year or two, fishing will be great but after awhile, all of this new area will be no better than what's already accessible to the masses.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

.45 said:


> btw.....your yard looks good.


WTH? Are you spying on me, or were you visiting you son FB, or did you go after jacks w/o me AGAIN?


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> donttreadonme said:
> 
> 
> > My family ownes PRIVATE property in Logan canyon that the river flows through. If someone decides to jump our fence and cross OUR property, they will get an escourt off OUR property. HOWEVER I think it is great that they, you, or me can go fish a PUBLIC stream through private property. After all the waterway is PUBLIC.
> ...


You couldn't understand what I was saying? Go get your mother to read and explain it to you.

OK OK I'll give this one last attempt for you. I will give you 3 examples in story form that my 4 year old could comprehend. I am even willing to dumb it down to my 2 year old's level, just for you.

EXAMPLE 1: Jimmy access' the Logan river on public ground and proceeds to fish the river through Donttreadonme's property. Donttreadonme looks out the window of his cabin and see's Jimmy fishing a PUBLIC waterway through his PRIVATE property. Donttreadonme thinks; "I hope he catches some good fish and has a fun time." Everything is ok and both Jimmy and Donttread are happy.

EXAMPLE 2: Donttreadonme feels like going for a hike with his dogs, he is hoping to find a nice deer to shoot this year. He gets the dogs loaded into his Jeep and heads off. Donttread decides to drive up a canyon, utilizing a public road through private property, to access the National Forest. Donttreadonme has a great hike with his dogs, sees the deer he will shoot this season, without the help of a guide, and just enjoys the afternoon out. Donttread and the general public are happy to have access to their public property and the land owner comes to realize that he doesn't have the right to restrict access to a public resource.

EXAMPLE 3: Professional Outdoors, decides he is in the mood for some fresh fish. He drives up the canyon to his favorite fishing spot. When he gets there he isn't feeling so energetic so he decides to drive on up the road, hoping for an area with a shorter walk to the river. A couple miles up the road Pro sees a great stretch of river just 100 yds off the road! He sees there is a fence he will have to jump but figures; "the river is public ground so it is ok if I run across this private property to access it." Donttreadonme is again sitting in his cabin, and sees the Outdoors Professional making preparations to fish. Donttread starts walking out to see if he can be of help. As he is walking out to the gate, much to his surprise, Professional Outdoors has jumped the fence and is trudging across Donttread's PRIVATE property. Donttreadonme approaches Professional Outdoors and asks him to get off his private property. Professional explains that the river is public and so he has the right to access it. Donttread explains to Pro that he is welcome to fish the stream, that is public property, but he needs to access the river from a public access. Professional Outdoors, not wanting to tarnish his high profile name, politely leaves Donttread's property and access' the river from a public access. Both Donttread and Pro live happily every after. THE END.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> .45 said:
> 
> 
> > btw.....your yard looks good.
> ...


I was dinking around out there to-day....I think I may have found fixed blade's home...he wasn't home either...

But, I guess he was fishing or at McD's.... :lol:


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

See Pro, Wingmanck and .45 got it. I didn't realize it was so hard to understand.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

donttreadonme said:


> See Pro, Wingmanck and .45 got it. I didn't realize it was so hard to understand.


Not really......who Jimmy?


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

Jimmy is a fictional character. As are Donttreadonme and Professional Outdoors. :lol: :lol:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Even though YOU seem intent on making this personal between YOU and ME, I won't!

Since I am a HUGE advocate of private property rights, I would NEVER cross anyone's PRIVATE property to get to PUBLIC w/o permission. That is where I stand on the issue.

FYI, the 'PRO' does NOT stand for 'professional' anything, it stands for Porcupine Ridge Outdoors, one of my LLC's. Not that YOU care since you seem to have issue with people guiding. :?

My point is that when we start minimizing private property rights, we are minimizing ALL our freedoms, and we MUST be careful that any 'new' laws/rulings are warranted/needed, and that we foresee the future affects the 'new' laws/rulings WILL have. If YOU are comfortable with it, GREAT, have fun. I am saying that *I* get nervous when stuff like this gets pushed through. That is based on history. Now go have fun on YOUR property that is 100% guide free, I'm heading out in the morning to cut some fences down. :twisted: :wink:

Should have gave me a heads up *.45*, I would have bought you lunch. 8)


----------



## Nueces (Jul 22, 2008)

How can people live in all that garbage?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Nueces said:


> How can people live in all that garbage?


Fixed is completely content there. He doesn't give access through his paradise though! :shock:


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> My point is that when we start minimizing private property rights, we are minimizing ALL our freedoms, and we MUST be careful that any 'new' laws/rulings are warranted/needed, and that we foresee the future affects the 'new' laws/rulings WILL have. If YOU are comfortable with it, GREAT, have fun. I am saying that *I* get nervous when stuff like this gets pushed through. That is based on history. Now go have fun on YOUR property that is 100% guide free, I'm heading out in the morning to cut some fences down. :twisted: :wink:
> 
> Should have gave me a heads up *.45*, I would have bought you lunch. 8)


I don't see how allowing the public to use PUBLIC property is in any way minimizing private property rights. Easments are put in place to allow access to those who have the RIGHT to be there. Your home may sit on a piece of ground with utility easments. This easment gives the utility company the RIGHT to use that easment whenever needed. Why should a PUBLIC easement be any different?


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

*Pro.....*I guess the 'easements' have alway's been there. According to my arguement's in the fishing forum with Mr. GaryFish....The Supreme Court now has just clarified that we now can walk in the riverbed of 'almost' any Utah water's....since all water's belong to the public, meaning the State.

And I had stated earlier 'along riverbeds', I mean, *in* the riverbed. Not sure if this mean's high water mark, high tide or the water in the riverbed. We'll find out, I'm sure.

It also is not just about fishing, the court decision mean's to recreate. I don't know if they're trying to spell re-create or rec-reate. All I want to do is fish.... 

Next time.....heads up !!!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Since, for a VERY short time, employed by one of the utilities, I can speak from some FIRSTHAND experience on the easement of PRIVATE property. Although we have easements, we can NOT just get in someone's backyard and start digging/working. We must FIRST attempt to notify the PRIVATE property owner and give them as much notice as possible. There have been incidents where workers felt 'entitled' to just walk into someone's backyard to work on OUR equipment. Just something to think about when you are 'easing' along. 8)


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

So how does a public easement through private property infringe on the property owners rights? 

Company policy may have dictated that you HAD to knock first but even if the land owner doesn't want to give you access, you can use the easement as needed. 

If a person buys a parcel of land with an easement in place, they do so willingly. They have to realize that with that easement in place certain people have the right to use it as needed.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

donttreadonme said:


> So how does a public easement through private property infringe on the property owners rights?
> 
> Company policy may have dictated that you HAD to knock first but even if the land owner doesn't want to give you access, you can use the easement as needed.
> 
> If a person buys a parcel of land with an easement in place, they do so willingly. They have to realize that with that easement in place certain people have the right to use it as needed.


Here's an example for you:
Out here in Tooele County growth is crazy. The County is looking for ways to get from one point of the valley to another. In Erda it was recently 'discovered' that there is an easement from a railroad from back in the *1800's*, that even the County was unaware of until recently. Now the County is going to use this easement to TAKE property from landowners and build a 4 lane highway through farms, backyards, front yards, side yards, etc. Does this easement affect the landowners property rights? If it was YOUR property how would YOU feel about this easement? I guess it depends on which side of the fence you are looking from, and what County YOU live in. The farmers have been farming this land for YEARS, now it may very well devalue ALL their farm land as ag land because the highway as planned will go right through pivot sections. But what the hay, it's an easement, so it MUST be good. :roll:


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

Good point. There are two sides to every coin. In that instance I would likely side with the land owners. Mostly because I don't like to see all our ag land eaten up with development. IMO that land will only increase in value though. Developers will see the easy access to the new highway as big $$ in subdivisions and commercial opportunities. 

But to keep this on the topic at hand, let me re-phrase my question. How will sportsmen using the rivers to fish, hunt, and recreate affect the landowners rights?


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

It was a unamimous decision, there was no ambiguity within the court, water belongs to the public and recreating in waterways is a public right. The fact that folks have been enjoying public resources in a private setting for a long time doesn't mean that it was right. Although I feel bad for folks who bought land with the assumption that they would always have a private fishery on public waters, somehow I feel like I will get over the sadness.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Nueces said:
> 
> 
> > How can people live in all that garbage?
> ...


A fancy spread like that one is a pretty good indication, like Jeff Foxworthy said, that that is a house where a gun lives. Gotta protect all of that stuff somehow.


----------



## hamernhonkers (Sep 28, 2007)

> If a person buys a parcel of land with an easement in place, they do so willingly. They have to realize that with that easement in place certain people have the right to use it as needed.





> It was a unamimous decision, there was no ambiguity within the court, water belongs to the public and recreating in waterways is a public right. The fact that folks have been enjoying public resources in a private setting for a long time doesn't mean that it was right. Although I feel bad for folks who bought land with the assumption that they would always have a private fishery on public waters, somehow I feel like I will get over the sadness.


You guys keep saying buy land. What about those of us who have had the land and water long before this was a state? When our land was homesteaded there were no easements in place.


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

All i can say is thank god for appellate courts and the federal supreme courts. I really wish I knew where everyone that supported this decision lived, once it snows I would come hike through your back yard because after all the snow is water and as some of you so eloquently put it "water is a public"

Is this really supported by anyone that owns more than the dirt their house sits on ?


----------



## kingfish (Sep 10, 2007)

i think what the greater concern for private landowners is the use of Eminent Domain and not necessarily easements. the use and abuse of eminent domain is what any land owner should fear. the governments now have the ability to take your property and turn it into condos or strip mall to increase their tax base. just allowing the public to use waterways really is an easement issue. the big fear is greater than easements! 

good example of eminent domain use was the building of the interstate freeways. i had a grand father that his land was taken for the freeway through willard. he was paid fair market value. it served a greater good. bad example is how private land owners are having land taken for building of commercial and private industry. it lines the pockets of someone else who "legally stole" the property and the county/state/fed gets a tax revenue. sad to see.

by the way proutdoors, i think im headed out fishing to your place on that little stream that runs through it! :lol:


----------



## kingfish (Sep 10, 2007)

hamernhonkers said:


> > You guys keep saying buy land. What about those of us who have had the land and water long before this was a state? When our land was homesteaded there were no easements in place.


length of ownership doesnt constitute anything, other than you own the property. the laws change and adapt to the situations of the land. but must remain constitutional. however liberal or conservative the interpretation of the constitutions(state and federal). also water rights can change to adapt to available water. also the government can take water rights or have you surrender yours. how do they fill reservoirs and such?? the state owns it, you just have a right to your share as long as they see fit. at least that is how it was explained to me. please correct me if i have been told wrong.


----------



## kingfish (Sep 10, 2007)

buggsz24 said:


> All i can say is thank god for appellate courts and the federal supreme courts. I really wish I knew where everyone that supported this decision lived, once it snows I would come hike through your back yard because after all the snow is water and as some of you so eloquently put it "water is a public"
> 
> Is this really supported by anyone that owns more than the dirt their house sits on ?


the federal decisions on waterways is much more broad than those defined by the state. taking this matter to the federal supreme court most likely will not yield the decision you seek. in most states this has been the ruling for a very long time. except they go by high water mark and not river beds/bottoms. if the state followed high water mark i would walk on the side of the river and not the bed. this law applies to mainly waterbeds.

no snow, as im sure you are aware, and just trying to be funny. its obvious that alot of land owners are upset as you are...but the general public is more or less happy with this decision...as i am!!! i wont come hike through your backyard on the snow...but i will fish that river/stream that runs through it!!! about time the state views it more like the federal government views this!!! by the way, i have relatives that own plenty of land here and there. they are not upset with this ruling.


----------



## scott_rn (Sep 11, 2007)

donttreadonme said:


> EXAMPLE 2: Donttreadonme feels like going for a hike with his dogs, he is hoping to find a nice deer to shoot this year. He gets the dogs loaded into his Jeep and heads off. Donttread decides to drive up a canyon, utilizing a public road through private property, to access the National Forest. Donttreadonme has a great hike with his dogs, sees the deer he will shoot this season, without the help of a guide, and just enjoys the afternoon out. Donttread and the general public are happy to have access to their public property and the land owner comes to realize that he doesn't have the right to restrict access to a public resource.


So I chased turkeys (or tried to anyway) east of smithfield and accessed national forest through public property a couple of months ago. We hunted a few hours and decided to take off when it got hot. Driving down the road - which had several signs stating that it is public access to national forest through private property with instructions not to leave the road - we ran into the landowner who said he was locking the gate. I had driven about a mile through his land on the posted easement and was hunting national forest. Had I not left when I did my vehicle would have been locked in, needless to say I would have been livid. He stated that it was tied up in court and was upset because they expected him to put in the cattle guards and fencing to provide the easement.

donttreadonme did you try to lock me in? :evil: :wink:


----------



## scott_rn (Sep 11, 2007)

I question how applicable this is to waterfowl hunting. Private ponds are not supposed to be part of the deal, right? Rivers that I have personally hunted, like the Logan and the Weber, are narrow enough that I would not feel right trying to shoot and retreive birds without leaving the high water mark. 

Then again I am running on far too little sleep right now, maybe someone can help me out.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

scott_rn said:


> donttreadonme said:
> 
> 
> > EXAMPLE 2: Donttreadonme feels like going for a hike with his dogs, he is hoping to find a nice deer to shoot this year. He gets the dogs loaded into his Jeep and heads off. Donttread decides to drive up a canyon, utilizing a public road through private property, to access the National Forest. Donttreadonme has a great hike with his dogs, sees the deer he will shoot this season, without the help of a guide, and just enjoys the afternoon out. Donttread and the general public are happy to have access to their public property and the land owner comes to realize that he doesn't have the right to restrict access to a public resource.
> ...


It couldn't have been donttreadonme.....as he is a fictional charactor !! 

And........so was the 'easement' you were on, and the turkey's you was chasing !!!

The gate was real though....it locks every night to keep those 'fictional turkey's' from leaving the premise's at night !! :|


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

I don't own any property with a river through it, in fact I often hunt ducks in areas that this decision will make getting to possible.

*BUT* lets make it clear who owns the land, its not the public its the government. All this does is reinforce the fact that you dont really own anything, its just on loan at interest from the government.

One other recent court ruling you should also be excited about is the clarification to the ED laws that now allow a city, town or state to condemn a property and posses it to develop commercial properties that will generate more tax revenue than your property taxes would have.

Just one step closer.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Quote - "You guys keep saying buy land. What about those of us who have had the land and water long before this was a state? When our land was homesteaded there were no easements in place."

My parents own 1 section with a creek running through it. My aunts/uncles each own a section (5 sections). This land has been in our family since the early 1900's. I still feel the same about stream access. What's right is right.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

buggsz24 said:


> I'm glad that everyone is excited to see your government usurping the rights of property owners, just one step closer to a socialized property system where no one owns anything.


whoa buggs layoff the green colored carrots for a sec...this is not an emminent(sp) domain conspiracy case. now theres a law to end all.

physically speaking, the snow you mention is technically ice, a _solid_, and therefor not a _liquid_ as is water, therefore eroding your eloquent thought of walking in someones back yard. :mrgreen:


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

...so do the rocks im going to be standing on fairly soon need to be in the water fully or just away from the main shoreline?


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I would think that there will be no argument that a rock in the stream is part of the streambed. I wish I was out today working through my list of streams. Maybe tomorrow!


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

Longgun said:


> whoa buggs layoff the green colored carrots for a sec...this is not an emminent(sp) domain conspiracy case.


I didn't ever suggest this is a conspiracy, so far its been a blatant abuse of private property owners rights. The ED issues cited was just one of the OTHER issues effecting property owners rights.



Longgun said:


> now theres a law to end all.


Yipee, we didn't have enough of those already/



Longgun said:


> the snow you mention is technically ice, a _solid_, and therefor not a _liquid_ as is water,


Well TECHNICALLY water is still water when its a vapor or a solid, the state of the matter doesn't change the fact that it started as water. And the way the law is written, if the water melts and flows along a established path I could walk through your yard courtesy of this new law.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

> And the way the law is written, if the water melts and flows along a established path I could walk through your yard courtesy of this new law.


No, you could not! And FYI, this is not a 'new law.' It is a clarification of existing law.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

buggsz24 said:


> .... if the water melts and flows along a established path I could walk through your yard courtesy of this new law.


fair enough...but tell me where this established path in any of our back yards as a result of melt is documented as a waterway?


----------



## Crazyhuntinman (Sep 11, 2007)

I do not think this ruling has done anything for the hunter but more for the fishermen. Sure the hunter can now walk the rivers but when he shots at something like ducks or geese if he were to get close enough, wouldnt his B.B's fall upon the private property if he were not shooting in a downward angle? I am getting a kick out of all this B.S. I think if one were to us this new ruling to fish through someone "river" why not take a bag with you and pick up the trash you see to try and make the sportsman look like he cares. I think alot of so called sportsman look at the trash others leave behind and bitch about it but do nothing to help out. Most trash I see out hunting is lighter to carry out than it was to carry in so way some much trash? I hunt mainly public lands and always take out more trash than game killed. I almost got a littering ticket last year when some stuff from inside my hunting boat fell out going down the road. When the cop seen the inside of my boat he was totally cool and let me go cause he know there was no way in hell i made all that trash in one day out hunting. Everyone out there needs to be better than the other and start doing something about the ones we see out there making making a mess of evertthing.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

> Sure the hunter can now walk the rivers but when he shots at something like ducks or geese if he were to get close enough, wouldnt his B.B's fall upon the private property if he were not shooting in a downward angle?


And your point is . . . ?

There are laws governing how close you can be to an occupied building when discharging a firearm, but in 50 plus years of hunting all over the United States, I'm not aware of any laws governing the actual shot fall on private property.

Here is what the 2008-2009 Upland Game Proclamation has to say about it:

_Areas where you can't discharge a firearm
(Utah Code § 76-10-508 and Utah Admin. Code R657-12)
You may not discharge a firearm:
• from a vehicle;
• from, upon or across any highway;
• at power lines;
• within Utah state park camp or picnic sites, overlooks, golf courses, boat ramps or developed beaches; or
• without written permission to discharge the firearm from the owner or person in charge of the property within 600 feet of:
• a house, dwelling or any other building;
• any structure in which a domestic animal is kept or fed, including a barn, poultry yard, corral, feeding pen or stockyard._

Sorry, but there's nothing in there about shot falling on private property.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I may have missed this but, Is the Utah law a 'navigable' waterway law or is it any old crick or stream? Obviously it would change one trudging their muck-lucks through runoff in an others backyard.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I may have missed this but, Is the Utah law a 'navigable' waterway law or is it any old crick or stream? Obviously it would change one trudging their muck-lucks through runoff in an others backyard.


No !! It state's 'any water's above and below the ground are State water's'...Meaning, to me, all irrigation ditch's, slough's, river's, streams, creeks, canal's, any surface water, as it stands does belong to the public.

The law or ruling has taken the word 'private' and made it 'public'. It does not define the use of private, industrial, public or commerercial waters... Now it is _all _public.

According to the 'ruling' , any run-off water, wells, springs, etc. is fair game and now belong's to the public, therefore, the 'easement' is created.


----------



## shotgunwill (May 16, 2008)

This is the best news I've heard all year! I thought the old rule was stupid to begin with. You guys have no idea, maybe you do, how happy I am! My honey hole is sandwiched by private property. I guess I better make sure my ducks land in the water though!!


----------

