# Utah rivers closed?



## SR-1

Is it true that all Utah rivers are closed? I live in brigham city and Fish the bear river alot does this mean I can no longer fish it?


----------



## Catherder

I just got this from the USAC.

We just received word that the Utah Supreme Court has granted Victory Ranch and the State of Utah's motions to stay Judge Pullan's November Ruling. In short, this means 2,700 miles of rivers and streams are once again closed to public use, effective immediately.

Although we are disappointed in the court's order, it is of the utmost importance that we follow it. Respect private property and obey all "No Trespassing" signs. Our actions must continue to be above board. We'll repeat this very important point:

DO NOT TRESPASS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT PERMISSION.

We also should note that there tends to be a presumption in favor of preserving the status quo during the appeal period in cases like this, so while we are disappointed that this happened, we are not necessarily surprised.

We got through 5 years of restricted access to our rivers, and we can get through however many more it takes before the Utah Supreme Court rules on this issue. We remain confident in our legal arguments before the court, and we will continue to pursue all means possible to restore and preserve access to Utah's public rivers and streams.

Finally, if you are unsettled by this news, and believe in your rights to use the public's resource, make a donation or come to one of our many fundraising events this spring (see sidebar).

Stand strong. Obey the law. This, too, shall pass.

Board of Directors
Utah Steam Access Coalition
[email protected] 
www.utahstreamaccess.org

To answer your question, only those rivers that course over private property are again closed. I don't know where you fish, but a lot of that river has public access and you may be OK.

I suppose this is a good place to point out that it only represents a stay of enacting the ruling,* NOT * an overturning and the Utah Supreme Court will now hear the case.

On goes the battle.


----------



## Hoopermat

Sad news. I guess we need to ramp up the fight


----------



## Gee LeDouche

That really sucks


----------



## Jedidiah

Why isn't any of this on their site or in the news anywhere? The only source I can find is literally just your post here on UWN.


----------



## Catherder

Jedidiah said:


> Why isn't any of this on their site or in the news anywhere? The only source I can find is literally just your post here on UWN.


It is there on their website.

http://utahstreamaccess.org/rivers-closed-utah-supreme-court-grants-stay/

USAC members get automatic email updates on stuff like this when they occur. Good reason to join up!


----------



## Jedidiah

Thanks, good point about joining. It seems like a bad idea to make a ruling and not release it to news outlets though, there's good odds that a serious misunderstanding could occur.


----------



## sknabnoj

Sorry for the dumb question here but... Is there somewhere I can find what rivets and strands are closed or am I supposed to know by looking for no trespass signs? 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Critter

Just figure if the river flows through private property it is closed. Also if it has private on one side it may be closed depending on where the property line is.


----------



## BPturkeys

You can still float down the waterway as long as you don't touch bottom or banks, is that correct??


----------



## Vanilla

sknabnoj said:


> Sorry for the dumb question here but... Is there somewhere I can find what rivets and strands are closed or am I supposed to know by looking for no trespass signs?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


This is exactly how you're supposed to know...which is one of the problems, especially considering that they changed the trespass law along with closing stream access, and private property is technically not required to even be posted anymore.


----------



## HighNDry

I think a message needs to be sent. This is my proposal and it will only work if everyone gets on board: I say everyone who buys a fishing license does not buy one when theirs expires. Take your old license and mail it into your representative with a note saying you are protesting the legislation (legislatures), and the decision by the Utah Supreme Court in closing down the 2, 700 miles of public water. In the letter we state that it is a one year protest but could be longer unless they change the rule back or make significant compromise.

I know this hurts a lot of people that have nothing to do with it, like sporting goods stores, the DWR, and guide services, but we've got to make a stand. 

The Idaho border is not that far away and I would be willing to buy a season non-resident license there and make the trips. I'm really getting tired of this fiasco.


----------



## HighNDry

*17,000,000.00 to stream access.*

I think there are around 500,000 fishing licenses sold each year. If we take one year off and donate that money to stream access that would be 17,000,000.00.

I would also think that since Ducks Unlimited has come out against stream access that all the yearly dues paid to have a sticker on your truck could also go to stream access.

Trout Unlimited in a (legislative) committee meeting in Utah 5 or 6 years ago said that they have to remain neutral and that their only purpose is to help restore habitat and increase native trout populations. Well, if we can't fish for those populations maybe those yearly dues could go to stream access too.

This will only work if we ALL participate.


----------



## wyoming2utah

HighNDry said:


> I think a message needs to be sent. This is my proposal and it will only work if everyone gets on board: I say everyone who buys a fishing license does not buy one when theirs expires. Take your old license and mail it into your representative with a note saying you are protesting the legislation (legislatures), and the decision by the Utah Supreme Court in closing down the 2, 700 miles of public water. In the letter we state that it is a one year protest but could be longer unless they change the rule back or make significant compromise.
> 
> I know this hurts a lot of people that have nothing to do with it, like sporting goods stores, the DWR, and guide services, but we've got to make a stand.
> 
> The Idaho border is not that far away and I would be willing to buy a season non-resident license there and make the trips. I'm really getting tired of this fiasco.


Are you serious? You are asking us to go on a one-year hiatus from fishing in Utah? Sorry, but I say hell no! Idaho is a long ways for me to travel and Nevada and Arizona just don't offer much of what I am interested in (also long drives to find fish).

So, regardless of what stupid moves the state legislature make, I am going to continue fishing in Utah and I am sure not going to stop buying licenses.

I agree that losing so much stream access sucks, BUT I will take what I can get and happily fish what I do have. I suggest we continue fighting this stream access problem by continuing to have our voices heard by state legislators, the DWR, sportsmen groups, and whoever else will listen. But, I am not going to stop fishing in Utah.


----------



## HighNDry

So, I am serious, but I also wanted to see where others would be on the selfish meter. I knew there would be some who would not be willing for one year to sacrifice for the good of all. The world is full of these types of people, thus many of the problems we suffer.

If this worked and we are able to get 2, 700 miles of access back for all to use, isn't that worth letting go of your attitude of, "I will take what I can get and happily fish what I do have," for just one year? Surely, you are not that selfish?

Isn't that the attitude that is so prevalent in the world today? "I' will take what I can."

I've lived long enough to see this attitude change. I remember fishing pretty much wherever I wanted. I remember farmers, ranchers, property owners seeing me in the stream and asking how the fishing is and with a smile and a nod wish me luck. I have watched some of these places slowly become posted, big stone fences go up, and new owners or the kids now taking over ownership treat me like a criminal and thug. 

You go out and "take what you can." (Sounds so familiar.)


----------



## Kingfisher

You can still float down the waterway as long as you don't touch bottom or banks, is that correct

that is affirmative. floating will always be legal as the state owns the water.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Let's ask ourselves what would really happen IF enough people did what you recommend...what other consequences could come of such an action? We may get back some of that stream access that you so desire, BUT couldn't we also lose in other areas? What about those awesome new solar powered aerators being put on Boulder top...could the loss of revenue cost us a couple more of those aerators? Couldn't losing something such as those aerators also cost us more waters to fish? What about a place like Navajo Lake where the dike just broke a few years ago and money is badly needed for a permanent fix...could losing the revenue cost us fixes like the one done? What about fewer fish being stocked or no fish being stocked in some of our streams? Could we lose some brown trout in the Fremont? The Sevier? Otter Creek? Because of lost revenue?

Sorry, selfish or not...your idea isn't all that good! And, selfish or not, I am not sacrificing a year of fishing in Utah in hopes of getting back something that I have never really lost because I always assumed stream beds that flowed through private property were private.

What I do know is this: with or without those 2,700 miles of access to streams that flow through private property, we have miles upon miles of streams that we do have access to and many reservoirs and lakes that we are allowed to fish. What is selfish is this idea that I should sacrifice for you because you feel the loss more than I do...even more selfish is that you are asking me to possibly sacrifice some of my favorite fishing spots so that you can get some of yours back!


----------



## Catherder

The thing to keep in mind about this most recent action is that, in looking at the big picture, very little has changed from it.

1. It is just a stay in the enacting of Judge Pullan's ruling. It was in no way overturned. The legal guys on our forum can feel free to correct me, but my understanding is that this action was routine and expected. 

2. We knew going in that the case would go to the Utah Supreme Court and that the State would fight us. It has now arrived and will be decided in due course. It would seem we are right on schedule. 

3. There has been no new action by the legislature or court decisions that represents a setback or is a new source for outrage. The enemy is still HB 141. 


My point in bringing this up is that IMO the best course of action we can take in fighting for stream access is to continue to support the USAC both monetarily and otherwise in the court cases and in legislative issues as they come up. There may possibly be a time for more extreme action like boycotting Utah fishing, but right now (IMO) is not that time and I don't see that it would accomplish a whole lot. More effective action would be to skip a lunch or say no to SFW's (anti stream access)expo tag drawings and send the proceeds to the USAC.


----------



## HighNDry

wyoming2utah said:


> Let's ask ourselves what would really happen IF enough people did what you recommend...what other consequences could come of such an action? We may get back some of that stream access that you so desire, BUT couldn't we also lose in other areas? What about those awesome new solar powered aerators being put on Boulder top...could the loss of revenue cost us a couple more of those aerators? Couldn't losing something such as those aerators also cost us more waters to fish? What about a place like Navajo Lake where the dike just broke a few years ago and money is badly needed for a permanent fix...could losing the revenue cost us fixes like the one done? What about fewer fish being stocked or no fish being stocked in some of our streams? Could we lose some brown trout in the Fremont? The Sevier? Otter Creek? Because of lost revenue?
> 
> Sorry, selfish or not...your idea isn't all that good! And, selfish or not, I am not sacrificing a year of fishing in Utah in hopes of getting back something that I have never really lost because I always assumed stream beds that flowed through private property were private.
> 
> What I do know is this: with or without those 2,700 miles of access to streams that flow through private property, we have miles upon miles of streams that we do have access to and many reservoirs and lakes that we are allowed to fish. What is selfish is this idea that I should sacrifice for you because you feel the loss more than I do...even more selfish is that you are asking me to possibly sacrifice some of my favorite fishing spots so that you can get some of yours back!


I can live with your attitude.

My main point is this: I'm not asking this for just me. I'm not worried about any water that was closed off to me--in fact--I never did go through property that was opened up with the original supreme court ruling, or with the latest Judges ruling. So don't tell me I'm crying about water that I had closed off. I'm not as selfish as you think. I really want water opened up for all anglers. That is where you and I differ. Yes, I could go off and fish my forest service water and be just as happy as can be. But you see, that is where you and I differ. I am concerned about others getting a chance to fish where they want. I am concerned with kids having water to fish. I'm concerned that if this trend of closing off water continues that future generations will not enjoy the things I did. Yes--you and I differ a lot. I'm not selfish. This isn't about me.

If it was about me, then I would do just like you--go happily fish want I can. I decided I wanted to help others so I've been down to the capitol visiting with my representative face-to-face. I've written letters to the governor, the senators, the representatives--not because of what I want, but because of what I feel is right.

You sir, have read me wrong. I'm not worried about any water that I've missed, but water that others have missed, or suddenly lost. You call that selfish?

Maybe what I proposed wouldn't work. Maybe it would do more harm, but at least I'm thinking about it, and asking about it, and trying to do my part.


----------



## PBH

This discussion is exactly why I support the DWR making more, and more land purchases whenever available. It is exactly why I was so thrilled with the Kingston Canyon land purchase when many others were upset about it. It's also why I get upset when I hear counties like Wayne saying "we won't sell to the State" because so much of the land in that county is already under government ownership. Land that belongs to the State and the Feds isn't a bad thing -- it's land that typically is accessible to all of us. Private land is what hurts.

I don't know what the solution is. Giving up my fishing license for a year probably isn't an option for me. I guess I'll just have to continue to not vote for these creeps that want to take away all of my access to public land.


----------



## Iron Bear

Correct me if I'm wrong 


It's not as if you always had access to private land but recently lost it. But rather you never had access to private land but recently got it for a few months and now may not get to keep it. 

Also it's my understanding that Utah's recent interpretation of navigable water is the most liberal in the country. And if the public was to have access to the high water mark on streams a stick could float in. Utah will have the most liberal stream access in the country. 

How do duck clubs fit into this? Navigable water? 
Marinas? 

I'm a moderate and weary of anything on either end of the spectrum. And have plenty of places to fish with or without this stream access public and private.


----------



## HighNDry

Pretty much all wrong.

1) We have never had access to private land and we still don't. You can never trespass without written permission. The only access we have recently had is to public water that flows through private land. The supreme court of Utah found through the Conaster versus Johnson case that Utahn's had misinterpreted the law and that we should have always had access to our public waters as long as they are accessed through public easements. (It's a lot more complicated than that, but I don't have time to go into the details and document everything.)

2) Utah's navigable water interpretation is much like most states. If the public was to have access to the high water mark it would be same as Idaho and I believe Montana so again not anymore liberal.

3) It was a past representative who wanted to shut down the supreme court ruling to protect his interest in a duck club on the Bear River in Box Elder County. Another legislature in I believe Sevier County had the same interest. They did not want the general public wading through or even floating through their club water.

You are lucky to have both private and public places to fish.

I think all the USAC is trying to do is allow anglers the opportunity to access public water through public easements. To me the whole thing is blown out of proportion by people thinking that it is fishermen who are trashing their property, harassing livestock, leaving gates open, and damaging buildings. I'm of the opinion that if the stream access was granted nothing would really happen. Most fisher people are not as scary as what the landowners think. They might even find a friend.

Some think the DWR is the answer to all of this by buying up property, but as we have seen with the SFW group and the expo, the DWR can be as corrupt when it comes to money and backdoor deals as most government agencies.


----------



## Iron Bear

Well prior to Utah's recent access ruling Montana had the most liberal river access laws in the country. Again navigable being key here. Only a handful of Utah's rivers are really navigable like the rivers in Montana. Never mind the rest of the rivers in the country.


----------



## Iron Bear

I would say Idaho was number 2 with the standard for navigable being can you float a 6" log during high water. Montana says you got access navigable or not.


----------



## Iron Bear

I found this website that can offer more perspective.

http://www.perc.org/articles/stream-access-across-west


----------



## Catherder

Iron Bear said:


> I would say Idaho was number 2 with the standard for navigable being can you float a 6" log during high water. Montana says you got access navigable or not.


The truth is, the original court decision that really started things did not fully define the details of what is allowed and not. Therefore, it is not really possible to say that "we" are more or less permissive than other nearby states. I can tell you that a coalition of users, along with reps from the DWR, and interested politicians tried to pass a law that made our regulation similar to Idaho and defined the limits of the easement in question. (hb 80) Instead, the legislature, landowners, and the Farm Bureau decided to slap the anglers down and pushed through HB 141 and we now are where we are.

The perc site comes up occasionally on these discussions. Some applicable stuff there, some items also are slanted towards the landowners. It is what it is.

Here is another one to gnaw on.

http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Wiki/stewardship:navigability


----------



## Iron Bear

Using the float a log standard to navigable is a pretty loose interpretation of navigable. 

Regardless the kind of stream access were talking about is on the permissive or liberal end of the spectrum. 

That tells me something.


----------



## Catherder

Iron Bear said:


> Using the float a log standard to navigable is a pretty loose interpretation of navigable.


I suppose you could call it liberal, conservative, or whatever you want, but it is used because of legal precedent in deciding these cases. And whether one likes a given precedent or not, that is how our legal system is supposed to work.


----------



## fishsnoop

Let's be clear, the USAC does not support trespass, littering, damaging private property or any other made up crime about using a stream or waterway. The USAC supports ENFORCEMENT of existing laws like trespass, littering, etc. rather than enacting new laws to take away constitutional rights to use a natural resource (Article XVII Utah constitution).
Folks try to say we never had use of a stream that crosses private property, FALSE, we always had use we just let a culture change the rules a half a century ago. Using the DWR hand book to tell the public to ask permission before using a natural resource is not law, legislation, or legal. People claim the constitution was crafted only about irrigation and farming, FALSE, why did they not use those words in the constitution then? Why does it say for "any useful and beneficial purpose" in our state's constitution rather than only those who capture and irrigate? Is fishing useful and beneficial? I say yes. Is bird watching useful? Again, I say yes.
The claim of navigability is about the "susceptibility for usefulness for commerce" not do we use it for strictly travel. Are guides commerce? Are people allowed to enjoy the outdoors the way they would choose to without committing crimes? I again say yes. 
The USAC is protecting the rights of every user, not some users. Private property rights matter, so do public property rights. There is a balance to be had. Some how a small number of people decided it was only for them and used their "power" or money to get their way, we can't let the few take away from the many.
2700 miles of infrastructure was handed over to private interest without payment with HB141, we can't allow that to happen.
Have a great time fishing and kayaking, bird watching and swimming on your phone apps and support taking away the public's right to be anything but a robot doing what it is programmed to do.


----------



## PBH

HighNDry said:


> Some think the DWR is the answer to all of this by buying up property, but as we have seen with the SFW group and the expo, the DWR can be as corrupt when it comes to money and backdoor deals as most government agencies.


I appreciate your previous comments correct IB's comments.

As far as the DWR purchasing land goes, we have more accessible water today in the State of Utah thanks to land purchases by them. I'm thankful for this. These land purchases are done with full disclosure to the public, not through back-room deals with SFW like the expo is done.

I understand people's mistrust with government entities, especially in light of recent issues concerning the expo. But the DWR purchasing land using angler's dollars, for outdoor recreational use is a good thing!

aren't you glad the DWR purchased the SITLA land near Little Hole instead of a private interest that wanted to develop it??

Obviously, this isn't a 100% solution, but I'll support the DWR with land purchases when available.

Same goes for water rights. If a water right comes available on any of our reservoirs, I'd fully support the DWR purchasing it.


----------



## Iron Bear

I'm not sure what was corrected. 

We are indeed on one end of the spectrum. And for all intents and purposes prior to this stream access stuff. You didn't fish private ground then you could for a while and now you may not get to. 

It's not like you just lost grandpas fishing hole you've been visiting since you were a kid. 

The irony is stream access keeps saying its for everyone. But only a tiny tiny fraction of the public took advantage of the access they had while it lasted. 

I think this about landowners and activist. Not everyone.


----------



## Jedidiah

Anyone actually been through VR's property on the Provo? They've cut big pools and created eddies by dumping rocks that are not locally sourced (which looks stupid, by the way.) Right directly above their improvements the river slows to a trickle and in the WIA they manage below their propery and above the Rock Cliff campground the water supports fish but is obviously lower than it was just a few years ago, judging by the riverbank. They divert a LOT of water to create their stretch of the Upper Provo, keeping fish in the area that would normally move up and down stream (fish that we pay for) and they cause the fishing both up and downstream to be worse by destroying eddies and riffles that we used to be able to fish.

This isn't just an access issue, VR is an actual environmental threat.


----------



## Iron Bear

I wondered what landowners possibly could or would do to get around navigable and what not. 

Is this an example of that?


----------



## Catherder

Iron Bear said:


> It's not like you just lost grandpas fishing hole you've been visiting since you were a kid.


Heh, heh. You shouldn't generalize your experience living in the 435 with how things are up North. That is *exactly* what I'm fighting for in involving myself in the stream access battle. 2 separate fishing holes to be precise.

Don't worry though. If your local and state politicians get their way with the land grab, you too can experience the access issues that us schmucks up North have to deal with all the time.


----------



## Iron Bear

You're right. I never looked at it this way. 

I use to fish the weber as a kid anywhere I wanted public or private. Then landowners didn't care now they do.

I'm not really for or against. Like mentioned Utah's are already blessed with an abundance of public fishing opportunities. Folks in other states don't and if it wasn't for river access they couldn't fish hardly at all. I think a common sense compromise can be struck. 

I don't want us to settle on policy that is to extreme in either direction.


----------



## HighNDry

"The irony is stream access keeps saying its for everyone. But only a tiny tiny fraction of the public took advantage of the access they had while it lasted." 

This is one of the points I have tried to make because the landowners feel that masses of fishermen are going to show up around their property trashing it and causing damage. While a few select places may see an initial increase, I think for the most part, things would eventually mellow out and it would not be that big of a deal.

Part of the issue for me is that I saw how quick a law could be passed by the Utah legislature to close things up and how long it takes to get it opened back up. I saw a representative look in my eyes and lie to me about how he would vote. The second time I talked to him I saw a representative that looked beyond me while I spoke, that I could tell was bothered by me being there and that let my words bounce of his ears and into the rotunda. The third time I waited 3 hours and he didn't even come out to talk. I have seen how money is the ruling factor in this case and that common people, kids, and grand-kids don't stand a chance of having what most of us had when it comes to outdoor recreation. The real scary part is the attitude that we have plenty of water to recreate in even after losing 2, 700 miles and overlooking the fact that if it is that easy to pass HB141, when do they decide to pass more laws restricting more access.


----------



## PBH

IB -- what bothers me is where the fish come from.

Look at the Fremont on Red River Ranch. That stretch of river very easily could have been open to the public through a DWR purchase. Wayne county blocked the sale, and other private interests ended up with it. It is now closed to the public. Whatever. I can live with that.

What bugs me, however, is the photos and advertisements you see for their river and services -- and the fantastic fish swimming in those waters. Where do those fish come from? They are NOT wild fish. They are hatchery fish that migrate either up or down stream from public stretches of that river. Those are MY fish. Those are YOUR fish. Those are OUR fish. And we have no right to fish for them. That's sad.


Nobody on here is arguing for trespass rights.


----------



## swayed

Seems you need to be a big boy and quit wanting or expecting the government to hand out whatever u want. If you can't catch fish where you fish, try somewhere new. Personally I've never had a problem finding fish. You sound like Bernie sanders!


----------



## HighNDry

swayed said:


> Seems you need to be a big boy and quit wanting or expecting the government to hand out whatever u want. If you can't catch fish where you fish, try somewhere new. Personally I've never had a problem finding fish. You sound like Bernie sanders!


I'm not sure who your comment is directed at, but it doesn't make sense on this issue. We are not asking the "government" to hand us anything. We are fighting for the rights of the public to use public resources. We are fighting against an oppressive government that is passing laws to take away our public water and public lands.

So many people are against what the federal government is doing but blinded by what the Utah State government is doing. In my opinion the state government on issues such as stream access and BLM land is more restrictive to multi-use than the federal government is right now.


----------



## Packfish

Hey- Bernie wrote some quality literature.


----------



## Iron Bear

I wonder do any of you guys feel like you should be able to access private lands to hunt your upland game and big game? 

Honest question. Shouldn't the public be allowed to for the purpose of hunting access all private lands? 

Should the government be able to restrict me from public land to access a public resource? 

Its mine its yours its ours.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wyoming2utah

You are talking apples and oranges, IB....accessing public waters via public access points and crossing and hunting private land are two totally different topics.

A better question would be: "Do any of you feel like it is ok to put up a fence to block people from walking down the sidewalk in front of your home?"

Because, in essence, that is what private landowners are trying to do to fishermen.


----------



## Airborne

Some European countries have laws that give all peoples access to most lands, it's called the Freedom to roam--interesting stuff-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam


----------



## Iron Bear

I never said it was the same. Never thought it was an apples to apples conversation.

As if it was impossible to make comparisons between apples and oranges.

Really a sidewalk and a river are apples though.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Finnegan

Iron Bear said:


> I wonder do any of you guys feel like you should be able to access private lands to hunt your upland game and big game?
> 
> Honest question. Shouldn't the public be allowed to for the purpose of hunting access all private lands?
> 
> Should the government be able to restrict me from public land to access a public resource?
> 
> Its mine its yours its ours.


Ya, I should be allowed; but I'm not. But there was a day, not so long ago, when I was.

What's changed? Well, first of all, land owners aren't my neighbors anymore. Second, hunters and anglers apparently lost respect for private lands. Third, folks in Utah have lost all sense of community. In community trust, there's no reason to prohibit unless there's a reason to prohibit, i.e., rancher wants fewer elk on his property and I'm an elk hunter = welcome.


----------



## Iron Bear

I'm sure 50 years ago a conversation about stream access would be have seemed far fetched. So 50!years from now it's conceivable we may be having a conversation about public access to our elk and deer on Deseret. 

PBH wants to fish the whole Fremont because his fish swim up and down it. He's not alone. I want to hunt Deseret and Alton because my deer and elk are there. Maybe someday I'll get it. 

Worse still the government restricts me from watching wildlife on public land in many places more than half the year. I'd say watching wildlife was a beneficial use. Stream access argues for access for everyone not just fisherman. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wyoming2utah

Iron Bear said:


> PBH wants to fish the whole Fremont because his fish swim up and down it. He's not alone. I want to hunt Deseret and Alton because my deer and elk are there. Maybe someday I'll get it.


The difference is that PBH wants to fish on his water for his fish. You want to hunt on someone else's land....there is a difference. A big difference.

Stream access asks for access for everyone because it is everyone's water...why shouldn't they have access?


----------



## PBH

IB -- I don't want to cross private land for fish or for game. I have never asked to access any private land. I'm not into private land anything.

There is a big difference in private land and public water that enters private land.

When a public road crosses a river, that point is public. That provides an "access point" for the public to enter the river without crossing private land. I should have the ability to enter that river at that public access point and stay in the river until I come to the next public access point.

This is the whole issue that most (including IB) are having a hard time understanding. These rivers are public. They are not owned by private interests.

Should I be allowed to enter the Sevier River directly below Yuba Reservoir?
NO! That is private land and I have no right to enter that stretch of river without trespassing.

Should I be allowed to enter the Sevier River where I-15 crosses?
YES! At that point I should be able to enter the river and fish, as long as I do not leave the "river" (the definition needs to be clarified). I can only leave that river at the same, or another, public access point.

None of us are asking for access to private land.

That pond sitting in the middle of that ranch that is 1/2 mile away from the river I'm fishing, which I accessed from a public access point....

....nope. I can't fish that pond. It's on private land. I have no desire or right to cross that private land to go fish that pond. Never wanted it and shouldn't have it.


----------



## Finnegan

Iron Bear said:


> I'm sure 50 years ago a conversation about stream access would be have seemed far fetched. So 50!years from now it's conceivable we may be having a conversation about public access to our elk and deer on Deseret.


You're my favorite forum member. I like the way you stir the pot.

But no, it isn't about the animals (fish). It's about the water...a public resource.

Meanwhile, I sincerely hope we have deer and elk in this state to argue about 50 years from now.


----------



## Iron Bear

Water? Like snow? 

Should we be able to go on private land so long as we don't touch the ground? Many landowners still permit that. 

I commend you Finn for stating your opinion. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dubob

Iron Bear said:


> Water? Like snow?


No, water - as in flowing in a stream/river. What part, exactly, don't you understand about the Utah Supreme Court saying that the water in ALL Utah streams/rivers belongs to ALL citizens of Utah, regardless of the property it flows through/over - public OR private? It really isn't that hard to understand. So why is it you can't seem to grasp the concept?


----------



## fishsnoop

IB's claim that public access or more importantly the public's USE of a natural waterway wasn't discussed or thought of 50 years ago is absurd.
1920 R.H Siddoway, State Fish & Game Commissioner 
"Let me state further that fishermen have rights also. The waters of the state belong to the state. The fish contained therein are also the property of the state. Fisherman may wade any of the streams of the state. If ordered off of the property of any owner thereof, they cannot be ordered out of the streams." 
Look it up...

IB is a contrarian and antagonist.


----------



## PBH

we know he won't look it up, so here:

http://utahstreamaccess.org/usac-wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/20140829-VRA-MIS-of-MSJ.pdf


----------



## dubob

Hey guys; come on now. Don't be confusing IB's mind with facts - it's already made up. There's just no way you can reason with that state of mind. :mrgreen:


----------



## Iron Bear

I'm not sure that water has to be liquid and flowing in a stream to be public. 
That's why I can't build a dam and keep runoff to myself. 

And I beg to differ conversations about anybody who wanted to fish east canyon creek 50 years ago was indeed far fetched. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Iron Bear

dubob said:


> Hey guys; come on now. Don't be confusing IB's mind with facts - it's already made up. There's just no way you can reason with that state of mind. :mrgreen:


Because I ask some hard questions?

Maybe you're mind is made up and no further debate is necessary.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wyoming2utah

Iron Bear said:


> I'm not sure that water has to be liquid and flowing in a stream to be public.
> That's why I can't build a dam and keep runoff to myself.


So, runoff holds back...snow? Aren't dams built to hold back flowing water from streams, creeks, or rivers? And, here all this time I thought runoff was flowing water...huh, I guess you do learn something new every day!


----------



## Iron Bear

Why you being such jerks? 

You know what I mean. 

Water largely come to us here un utah in form of snow. 

It illegal or at least is was illegal to collect rain or snow with out proper permits because the water is considered a public resource and isn't anyone's to keep. 

So I'm just vetting the notion that as the water in a stream is public so may be the snow. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Iron Bear

I'm not aware of a frozen provision that changed the H20's classification as a public resource. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wyoming2utah

Iron Bear said:


> Why you being such jerks?
> 
> You know what I mean.


yeah, I knew what you meant! I just couldn't help myself...you left that door wide open!


----------



## Iron Bear

My understanding is this is also about right of way. As in navigable water. 

The only opposition I have to this stream access is its loose interpretation of navigable. 

Like I have always said about this issue if anyone cared to know it rather than spit bs back at me is Utahs access is very very liberal. Like about the most liberal in the country. That in itself gives be concern. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Iron Bear

wyoming2utah said:


> yeah, I knew what you meant! I just couldn't help myself...you left that door wide open!


It's hard to do this and drive at the same time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PBH

Iron Bear said:


> M
> 
> Like I have always said about this issue if anyone cared to know it rather than spit bs back at me is Utahs access is very very liberal. Like about the most liberal in the country. That in itself gives be concern.


What access? We have no access! That is NOT liberal. To he contrary, Utah currently is VERY restrictive! That in itself is a concern!


----------



## Iron Bear

Agreed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dubob

Iron Bear said:


> Because I ask some hard questions? No; it's because you resolutely refuse to accept the FACT that the stream/river *water* belongs to ALL citizens of Utah. And when water changes its shape and structure it is no longer called *water*, its name changes as well, such that we then refer to it as snow, ice, steam, etc. Treading on snow on private property without permission will get you a trespass citation every time its tried. Floating down a stream through private property in a vessel of some kind will not. Huge difference that you don't seem to be able to grasp.
> 
> Maybe you're mind is made up and no further debate is necessary. Almost everybody on this forum and similar ones that I frequent can tell you without question that I have stated many times over that I am always willing to admit when I am wrong and have done so several times. But you need to show me FACTS that prove that I am, in fact, wrong. Opinions will not cut it. My mind is ALWAYS open to the presentation of FACTS on almost any subject. Can you say the same? Because as it stands right now, judging by your comments thus far on this specific thread, it doesn't appear to be so.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Opinions are ALWAYS open to debate; facts are not.


----------



## Iron Bear

Du who! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Iron Bear

fishsnoop said:


> IB is a contrarian and antagonist.


Fishnoop is an activist and likely making money on the issue.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fishsnoop

fishsnoop has made ZERO fighting for public rights. It is called volunteering for something you believe passionately in. Natural resources will not be stripped from my boys for the benefit of the few.
IB just doesn't understand


----------



## Elkaholic2

SR-1 said:


> Is it true that all Utah rivers are closed? I live in brigham city and Fish the bear river alot does this mean I can no longer fish it?


It is not closed to fishing.

As far as the land you are on. Make sure you have permission from the landowner or are on public easements or public land.

Good luck


----------



## redleg

When Utah became a state, all rivers and lakes were declared public property. That is not hard to understand for those who are not trying to usurp public property.


----------



## Jedidiah

fishsnoop said:


> IB is a contrarian and antagonist.


It's hard for me to discount IB's views regarding public waters on private land because in some circumstances I think he's right. We all pay for the management of water in the state and we all pay for management of wildlife including fish in that water. On the other hand, landowners pay not only a purchase price but also a property tax to the state which is in effect a larger contribution toward management of their land and surrounding land.

I like to fish the Weber and the Provo, but I also like to fish smaller streams and creeks. The size of the rivers is key I think, there's more of the resources we all pay for in larger rivers, but in a stream like Bennie Creek there isn't some huge chunk of public money invested and the potential for conflict between landowners and even ethical anglers is multiplied by the close proximity and restricted travel corridor down that stream. Nevermind having to deal with less ethical and conscientious fisherman.

That said, Victory Ranch trying to say that we can't fish the Provo at any point on the river let alone on any of the private land it flows through is a fully garbage statement and could only be entertained by someone who is being paid a large, illegal sum of money to advocate for them. But maybe there should be a consideration for restricting public access to smaller streams after weighing and comparing the benefits for the landowners and the benefits for the anglers.


----------



## PBH

Jedidiah said:


> ... there should be a consideration for restricting public access to smaller streams after weighing and comparing the benefits for the landowners and the benefits for the anglers.


there is. It is called "navigable". 
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that "rivers that are navigable in fact are navigable in law." If a river is physically navigable, it is legally navigable. No court or agency has to designate it as such.

Even rivers that are physically navigable only by canoe, kayak, and raft are still legally navigable. (The courts have also ruled that commercial recreational river trips qualify as commerce). Because they are legally navigable, such rivers are held in trust for the public by the states, for navigation, recreation, and fisheries.

Public ownership of physically navigable rivers, including the land up to the ordinary high water mark, pre-dates property deeds. What the property deed says or doesn't say about the river is irrelevant. This is something the Real Estate groups do NOT want you to know!

The state does not actually own the river, but holds it in trust for the public for navigation, recreation, and fisheries.

Public ownership of physically navigable rivers is the same in all states. It's a U.S. Supreme Court standard, and it includes those rivers that are physically navigable by canoe, kayak, and raft. The public's right to visit additional non-navigable streams (those too small for even canoes, kayaks, and rafts) does vary from state to state, but this variation only applies to those small streams.

I hope that helps. Those "small" streams, such as Bennie Creek and numerous other small streams across Utah, would not be included in the "navigable" definition, and thus would not be included in Utah's fight for public access to public waters.
http://www.nationalrivers.org/river-fact-or-fiction.html#sthash.6JLlQata.dpuf


----------



## fishsnoop

Jedidiah said:


> It's hard for me to discount IB's views regarding public waters on private land because in some circumstances I think he's right. We all pay for the management of water in the state and we all pay for management of wildlife including fish in that water. On the other hand, landowners pay not only a purchase price but also a property tax to the state which is in effect a larger contribution toward management of their land and surrounding land.
> 
> I like to fish the Weber and the Provo, but I also like to fish smaller streams and creeks. The size of the rivers is key I think, there's more of the resources we all pay for in larger rivers, but in a stream like Bennie Creek there isn't some huge chunk of public money invested and the potential for conflict between landowners and even ethical anglers is multiplied by the close proximity and restricted travel corridor down that stream. Nevermind having to deal with less ethical and conscientious fisherman.
> 
> That said, Victory Ranch trying to say that we can't fish the Provo at any point on the river let alone on any of the private land it flows through is a fully garbage statement and could only be entertained by someone who is being paid a large, illegal sum of money to advocate for them. But maybe there should be a consideration for restricting public access to smaller streams after weighing and comparing the benefits for the landowners and the benefits for the anglers.


All of this is of sound mind. I can discount IB's comments because of a few things; he puts them out there not to resolve but to play the other side of the fence in a hyperbolic fashion and these are complaints that were resolved in 2009 with the negotiations of HB80 with Lorie Fowlke before the backdoor opened with HB141.
We have been negotiating with several legislators and property owners about those small waters for the past year and are looking for a good resolution, as unlikely as that may sound. I think we may have found the solution for which I will be presenting to several legislators and property owners over the summer interim months. There will also be a field trip to show them how difficult the use of the easement actually is.
There was a really strong push from the legislature this past session to try and do something this year but it just never came to pass.
Regarding Bennie Creek specifically, it would be one that is not useful where it passes through private property to the public through this avenue of resolution. We will see how it goes.
The Supreme Court will have it's say again come next year so we will see how it all shakes out.


----------



## Vanilla

Iron Bear said:


> Because I ask some hard questions?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hard questions? Not really. These same circular argument questions that ignore the true issues surrounding public use vs private property rights have been hucked about all along. You are hardly the first person to throw out this worthless drivel to try and distract from the discussion.

You said yourself that your only issue with stream access is the liberal use of navigability. This is not a navigability issue.


----------



## HighNDry

I still hold that Idaho has the best solution. I love small creeks that are capable of floating a 6" diameter log. If the fight for smaller stream access is not an option, then I really don't know what I'm fighting for. Maybe, I really don't have a dog in the fight other than I like a lot of you and want you to be able to fish where you want.


----------



## fishsnoop

HighNDry said:


> I still hold that Idaho has the best solution. I love small creeks that are capable of floating a 6" diameter log. If the fight for smaller stream access is not an option, then I really don't know what I'm fighting for. Maybe, I really don't have a dog in the fight other than I like a lot of you and want you to be able to fish where you want.


The smallest of waters is all the proposal would affect and that is only if and where it is crossing private property. The smaller waters are on mostly public land with a few exceptions. There has to be a balance or a give and take for compromise to work or else we will be fighting this issue in perpetuity.


----------



## Vanilla

What do I want? I want what the constitution and Utah law has said from day one..."All waters of the state." 

I understand with various stakeholders involved, sometimes we don't get what we want. But if the Supreme Court rules in USAC's favor on the constitutionality of HB 141 (which I think they will) then it will, in fact, be all waters of the state. Now how that trickles down in legislative policy is yet to be determined. 

We had a very good compromise worked out with HB 80 and the work that was put in to that. I was at just about every meeting where landowners, Farm Bureau, the DWR, state legislators, anglers, hunters, and various other stakeholders attended, and worked out a compromise. Nobody was getting everything they wanted, but each side was getting some of what they wanted, while still recognizing the public's ownership of and right to use the water. As fishsnoop alluded to, then the landowner contingency walked away at the 11th hour and swung for the fences on HB 141 to get everything they wanted. They won the battle, but the war will be determined by the Utah Supreme Court. 

HighNDry, I agree with you on your assessment. I'm still personally willing to compromise, but not to the extent that HB 80 went. That ship sailed many years ago when the landowners walked away in bad faith, as far as I'm concerned. But if the Court rules in USAC's favor, what is the need to compromise at that point? I've been telling landowers from day 1---work with us, or you might lose it all. They rolled the dice, and now we'll see.

Hey snoop...you must be getting rich off this issue with how much you get paid by USAC, huh?  For the record, fishsnoop is the man. He's an ornery old fart, but he has led this issue from day one and I'm lucky to call him a friend.


----------



## HighNDry

I'm willing to compromise on some of the smallest waters and have stated my position that most of those itty bitties are just not of interest to most anglers and so masses of anglers heading to them would never be an issue with landowners anyway. 

Some of the places I do have issue with are nice small streams that I know the DWR, TU, and others have helped develop, made better to protect native trout, and even had trash clean-up efforts, and yet we do not have access for fishing. They are places that are in rural settings with minimum impact to anyone's view, backyard, or livestock disturbance. In fact, several of these waters, if accessed from public easements, and anglers stayed below the ordinary high water mark, no one would even know someone was in them fishing. 

I want to be like fishsnoop when I grow up.


----------



## Catherder

HighNDry said:


> I want to be like fishsnoop when I grow up.


A lot of us do. Hope all is going well, Snoop.

As for what I "want" in a compromise, I always felt that HB80 had the right amount of balance between the needs of the public and the needs of the landowners. However, in discussing the issue here and elsewhere, I see no evidence that the landowners and Farm Bureau are willing to compromise at all. Has anything changed now that will keep Randy Parker (FB), McIff and the boys from stabbing us in the back again if we try to advance a compromise bill?


----------



## fishsnoop

Catherder said:


> A lot of us do. Hope all is going well, Snoop.
> 
> As for what I "want" in a compromise, I always felt that HB80 had the right amount of balance between the needs of the public and the needs of the landowners. However, in discussing the issue here and elsewhere, I see no evidence that the landowners and Farm Bureau are willing to compromise at all. Has anything changed now that will keep Randy Parker (FB), McIff and the boys from stabbing us in the back again if we try to advance a compromise bill?


LOL, no one wants to be me, too salty..

McIff will no longer be an elected official, he is not running again. Parker, Brown, etc with FB are not in the room with the dialogue but a FB former executive now Representative is. There were 3 Reps assigned the duty of solving this issue by the Speaker this last year, those are the folks we are working with. Realtors have once again said they would stay out of the issue while folks like Floyd H. and others want to be in the room but are not being allowed. 
The main thing that changed is the USAC won 2 lawsuits forcing the dialogue after 4 years of offering compromise yet being told lets wait for the courts. there have been very solid discussions this past year and hopefully they will get even better as the courts slog along.
The USAC board was assured there would be no games but we will see.


----------



## Kwalk3

A very sincere thanks for all your efforts on this one fishsnoop.


----------



## fishsnoop

You bet. Thanks


----------



## Iron Bear

I’m happy with how this issue got worked out in the end.


----------



## Vanilla

Iron Bear said:


> I'm happy with how this issue got worked out in the end.


That's odd. It's not over.


----------



## Iron Bear

I’m pretty confident you won’t be able to trample up any “navigable” water you want anytime soon.


----------



## Vanilla

Actually, if it’s “navigable,” then I already could! 

Next...


----------



## Iron Bear

Nope 

The hope was if a stick floated on it it was navigable. Just like always if you can float it you can access it. 

Like I said no more trampling up rivers. The riverbed is private property an not yours to access if posted properly. The water is ours sure but not the land under it.


----------



## Vanilla

What are you even talking about? Did you get a medical marijuana recommendation and you’re now stoned?


----------



## Catherder

Iron Bear said:


> Nope


??? Tell that to the Weber river folks.

And it's not even close to being over. Next.


----------



## Iron Bear

You guys still have a lot of passion for other people’s property. 😁


----------



## Iron Bear

Vanilla said:


> What are you even talking about? Did you get a medical marijuana recommendation and you're now stoned?


Good one &#128077;


----------



## Vanilla

The only passion I have is for what is rightfully mine. I’m happy to give everyone else what is rightfully theirs. 

I’m still very confused why this one was resurrected? Especially with some statement of finality that isn’t accurate. Oh well.


----------



## dubob

Vanilla said:


> I'm still very confused why this one was resurrected?


That makes (at least) two of us. Why was a 4-year old post bumped?

IB, you made this statement yesterday:


Iron Bear said:


> I'm happy with how this issue got worked out in the end.


What has changed since 2017 that makes you think this issue has been decided for all time?


----------

