# Your Last Fish



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Where do you think your last fish will be caught? With the new legislation, what are your plans to fish your last water before it is closed up? Maybe you don't care and can idle away your new free time by taking pictures of birds in the marshes...providing they don't lock up the marshes too.


----------



## JAT83 (Sep 9, 2007)

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

What did I miss?


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Yeah, I don't get it, can you still own poles but they are going to outlaw fishing line


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Utah Lake... carp and catfish are above the law governing slime rockets so they'll always be available.


----------



## JAT83 (Sep 9, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> Utah Lake... carp and catfish are above the law governing slime rockets so they'll always be available.


That's funny right there! :lol:


----------



## mjschijf (Oct 1, 2007)

:lol: 

As long as Quail Creek and Sand Hollow are available to fishing, I will continue to buy my yearly Utah fishing license. 

I'm still a bit confused about the new legislation. I've read a bunch of stuff on here but I guess it's still not very clear. Can someone sum it up for me in a paragraph or two?


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Landowners win, Sportsmen loose! 

[The above statement is the sole opinion of the poster and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of this forum or any member of said forum.]


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

If this does pass and the DWR backs it as it stands I will not purchase another combo license. Personally that will hurt me- though I do quite a bit of stillwater fishing and have recently purchased boat, motor, trailer (2) and this should not affect my right to do that- I still won't do it here it Utah-Somewhere you have to make a stand whether it directly effects you or not.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

So basically, if it goes through, any stream that runs through private property is off limits to the walking fisherman? It will undo what we were just all excited to get passed right? If you fish public streams anyway, that are all on NF or BLM ground, then it doesn't affect that at all right?


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

It's a little more complicated than that. I wish I had the time to spell it out to you, but I don't right now. One point in a nutshell, is that your tax dollars, license fees and money generated for fishing are going to a DWR that wants to use it to enhance public waters running through private ground. You do not have access to use that resource if the bill is passed so why support the DWR in funding a private landowners own section of stream or river. It doen't make sense to lock out the very people who help fund these waters.


----------



## troutscout (Feb 12, 2009)

The new bill will do a few things. There will be a list of rivers and streams that people will be granted use, 17 of them i believe. These are mainly rivers running through people's private property. All over rivers running through PP will be out. The big kicker is even on those 17 rivers people living within 500 feet of the river can post no trespassing signs to keep us off the river, even if they don't own the adjacent property. This will take out huge chunks of rivers like the weber, lower/middle provo, odgen, any where there are houses by the river. The worst part is the the DWR, who we pay our fees too, is supporting this bill. Everyone needs to write, call, go visit their reps and get the word out that this isn't acceptable at all! 

^^ike


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Who can we contact at the DWR. This in unexusable and makes me livid. :evil: I am so dissapointed with out DWR. It is all politics with them and we are ALWAYS put last when we are why they have jobs. 

FV Gulf, I think it would be good to have us email reps in the more rural locations of Utah where they will most likely not know much about this bill. Could you send me a list of some of the ones you think could use letters? 

Keep up the good work on this and keep posting new info as it comes avaliable.

WE CAN DO THIS!!!


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Good idea about the rural areas. How much money is spent in the small town businesses by anglers traveling through or there. Ever stop at a store in a small town to buy lunch, gas, motel or eat at a small diner? They stand to lose some revenues too.

I think when travelling through Corinne, Brigham City and other small Box Elder County towns, I will leave my flyer saying I would have stopped to buy something, but Ben Ferry haunts these parts and I don't want one dime to go to his county. Economic hard time are going to get harder.


----------



## troutscout (Feb 12, 2009)

Here's the two to write at the DWR

Jim Karpowitz
[email protected]

Walt Donaldson
[email protected]

Here's a quick way to find a rep - http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/Distric ... /State.htm

Here's the Utah senate rosters - http://www.utahsenate.org/perl/roster2009.pl

This page has been put together for this purpose - check it out and spread it!
http://utahwaterguardians.wordpress.com/action/


----------



## holman927 (Sep 28, 2007)

Great, I already fill like fishing the lower Provo is shoulder to shoulder fishing as it is. Shut down a bunch of sections and we can all stand there trying to catch each other. I bet RiverRat puts up a good fight.
Freaking land owners. What a bunch of liberals anyways. :twisted:


----------



## nightfish (Apr 29, 2008)

Utahwaterguardians official stance on HB 187

YOUR RIGHTS ARE AT RISK!

House Bill 187
Use of Public Waters

• CREATES CRIMINAL CONSEQUENCES FOR THE LEGAL ACTIVITIES YOU ENJOY ON PUBLIC WATERS

• TAKES AWAY WATERS YOU'VE ALWAYS HAD ACCESS TO

• ALLOWS PRIVATE LANDOWNERS TO KEEP YOU OUT OF PUBLIC PROPERTY

• SEVERELY DAMAGES THE ECONOMY OF UTAH'S OUTDOOR INDUSTRY

• PUTS PRIVATE INTERESTS OVER THE INTERESTS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC

• WASTES DOLLARS AND EFFORTS ALREADY SPENT ON IMPROVING FISHERIES AND HABITAT

• CREATES CONFUSING AND CONFLICTING RULES THAT COULD RESULT IN YOU GETTING CITED FOR PARTICIPATING IN A LEGAL ACTIVITY

• CREATES A COMMITTEE THAT CAN FURTHER REMOVE WATERS FROM PUBLIC ACCESS

As hard as we have tried to distill the extreme complexities, contradictions and vagaries of HB 187, we could do no better than the following letter submitted by a concerned citizen. It is a lengthy letter, but it touches very well on all the issues we are concerned with. And since we are doing our best to represent the citizens who have been left out of the creation of this bill, we hereby acknowledge this letter as our official position on HB 187 - Use Of Public Waters.

http://utahwaterguardians.wordpress.com ... on-hb-187/


----------



## GSPS ROCK (Sep 14, 2007)

I sent my letter to a few and this is my reply! I will tell you one thing if you sit back and do nothing we will lose our rights to fish the water we all enjoy know. It really does not take much time to send an email. PLEASE write a RESPECTFUL letter to the ones in control and stay in control when writting!


February 12, 2009

Dear Noel:

Thank you for sending your comments and concerns about the proposed H.B. 187. - Recreational Use of Public Waters. Due to the large numbers of e-mails we have been receiving on both sides of this important issue, we are not able to respond to each e-mail individually. Your comments are being noted and are being shared with Governor Huntsman and members of his senior staff. At this point our office continues to work towards a compromise that balances the rights of private property owners and the rights of fishermen and other river/stream bed recreation enthusiasts. 

Thanks again for your valued input.

Regards,

Amanda Smith Mike Mower
Legislative Affairs Director State Planning Coordinator
Office of Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. Office of Gover nor Jon Huntsman, Jr.


----------



## troutscout (Feb 12, 2009)

I received that same e-mail back. At least the message is being heard. Keep it up! Our rights are at stake!

^^ike


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

oK, somebody mentioned the lower provo. If the areas in the lower Provo are owned by the city, can't they govern the use of the water that flows through their ground? I doubt the city is going to be ok with a landowner damming the river and creating a private impoundment to hold back water flow to Utah Lake... so if Mr. Ferry's bill passes... how does that exclude anglers from fishing the Provo? I guess I could see on the Weber, the Ogden, places like that.... but its water we just recently gained access to anyway. To me, one step back is all the effect this would seem to have. I don't see how its going to take away access to rivers we fished in the first place before the new law granting access went through. That being said, like I posted on another forum, there are so many special interest groups and other reasons besides "these rich folks won't let me fish through their yard" that are going to be negatively impacted (even if its only in their minds) by this bill that it'll be tied up in court or legislative hearings for probably months, if not killed outright that I don't get the whole "the sky is falling" fear mongering that is going on. Didn't somebody already say that once the Supreme Court has passed their ruling that it can't be undone by the legislature without passing a reversal back through the Supreme Court? Won't that take a really long time to happen? I don't see it being as easy as passing a bill through the state legislature and having that lock people off of water they want to fish. People keep saying its complicated.... well, then I don't see direct changes happening overnight. :? Secondly.... and this will probably draw fire from all directions but my thought on it is this.... folks quit buying licenses and start pressuring their reps.... landowners close their fence lines.... is it really going to stop you from fishing that property if you want to get in there after unpressured trout? DWR wants their money and I'm guessing thats what at stake here is trout correct? Most folks won't admit it... but I will. Fenced, not fenced, whatever.... if I really wanted to fish a piece of water.... I'd find a way. Read that how you will but I'm just saying.... folks are going to keep on fishing regardless of what 17 waters we're "supposed" to be on. I think you cut off some revenue and the DWR will cave. Third, warm water guys are wanting more money directed to their side of the sport.... well, here you go fellas. If they can't spend as much money on rivers because the landowners have locked them out through the legislature.... where do you imagine that money will wind up now? Last point.... folks are all worried that landowners are going to be out posting every square inch of their property now.... I am going to throw out the opinion that I don't think all landowners are that bad. Trash their place, sure, they'll lock us out. Treat them and their property with respect and I don't know why you couldn't work out some sort of access with the right attitude. Perhaps its not as much the landowners being jerks as it is some of our own taking their "right to trespass" and rubbing it in a landowners face, being disrespectful by leaving trash, or otherwise conducting themselves in a less than actually grateful for access manner that is causing the backlash created by the new access judgement. 

Ok, fire away....


----------



## troutscout (Feb 12, 2009)

Read the bill closely. People can post no trespassing signs if they live within 500 feet of the river, regardless of if they own property directly on the river. Go to google earth and start drawing 500' lines from houses to the river and you'll see the problem.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

I will say that I just read the bill.... have any of you read the guidelines for what is considered a dwelling? Its pretty specific.... and doesn't include mobile homes, duplexes, apartment, commercial buildings etc. I'm not sure where you all fish.... but I'm usually not fishing right through somebody's backyard. It also says that some of the major fishable rivers like the Provo, are open from Utah Lake to the Soapstone Basin area.... maybe in the middle Provo you'd be hosed but the lower, some sections of the middle and especially the upper.... still lots of water to fish. The one question that I had after reading all of that was they've listed 17 waters right? Is this 17 that run through private ground that they're still going to allow recreational use of? What about the other waters that aren't listed but don't come close to private ground? How are those trout streams now classified? If there are no dwellings and no private ground that they cross (somebody brought up Diamond Fork) then what are the regulations going to be on a place like this? What about the Uinta streams that are not on NF ground.... are they now off limits as well? I did notice that Fish Creek wasn't listed as one of the 17 other than in a short stretch from the the White River/Price river merge down to the Hwy 10 bridge. Does that mean now that all of Lower Fish Creek beyond that merging point is off limits without trespass authority from the landowner? Anyone got a Calvin sticker for what I think of that? That being said, I've met the landowner for that CWMU and he's a good guy... just doesn't want to be pushed around by the government and anglers is the feeling I got from talking to him. In fact, I had an invite to swing by his place in Scofield and get a written note for access. I never did because it never came to that.... but I think a reasonable person could conceivably avoid losing access to certain sections of previously fishable water if this Ben Ferry idiot is cut out of the loop and landowners are contacted instead.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I will only comment on one point. Landowners in the past have allowed access through their property. They were civil. You could enter by asking. Then, due to a change in attitude (from landowners and anglers?), we have been required to have signed written permission. Over the last several years we have seen a shift to being told just plain NO, you can not fish here. I have always respected a property owners right to tell me NO. I have never in the last 10 years knowingly trespassed. I think a couple things have been happening:

1) The old landowners are dying and their land is being inherited by offspring or bought by someone. These new owners and offspring have been raised in a society that is selfish. Just look at what is happening around the country by the wealthy, moviestars etc. who are buying up lands and locking them up. It's just an attitude. I own it, you don't have a right to it.

2) In the only comfrontations I have had with landowners, they have approached me with aggressiveness in tone of voice and language. 

3) A few jerks, have made us all look bad. I've never seen a no trepassing sign without bullet holes in it. I know most fishermen do not carry guns, but the hunters and shooters are lumped together with us as outdoorsmen. I have watched fishermen block gates with their vehicles. Those few jerks can make it bad for all of us.

Remember how careful we were warned to respect the "new" found ruling? Still there was the rub it in your face group.

I think as a whole stream and river anglers are pretty harmless. I think we would be willing to help a landowner out at anytime. I don't think we as a whole are destructive.

I belonged to a group that spent 4 years cleaning up a particular river, that is bordered from end to end with houses. We cleaned two times a year and took out tons of trash. 

We are not criminals, we are not looking to damage private property, we are just trying to enjoy a pastime.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Well said and I agree with everything you just posted. Its the few that didn't show respect because of the newly granted access that may have stirred up the firestorm we're seeing now over the landowners fighting back. I have complained about gates left open in some of the areas I fish or hunt and I'm not even a landowner but I know how bad it ticks them off. My family owns land that they run cattle and sheep on down south (New Mexico) and I know they would be furious if somebody let their livestock out. They'd also probably be pretty upset about trash, tearing down fences or anything else that general public does, that I've seen, just because they think they deserve to be somewhere surrounded by private land. I'm not saying ban anglers from any stretch of river but I can definitely see where some of the landowners might be coming from. 

No answers on what happens to the rest of the waters not listed as one of the 17? Or why those 17 are the particular ones listed?


----------



## troutscout (Feb 12, 2009)

The bill only applies to waters running over private land. If a streams is on private land and is not on the list then it is out. I believe places like diamond fork are on BLM or federal or FS land. Such streams are exempt from "the bill." The 17 rivers we decided on my a committee. In the future the committee will have the chance to either add or remove(heaven forbid!) streams. The committee though it pretty heavy on guess which side. 

I feared the very same things last year after the Supreme Court ruling. I knew we had to be so so so careful or this would happen. Of course, like everything else, it's ruined by that small percentage who trespass, are rude, who litter, etc. I'm fairly young but even in my lifetime I remember being able to approach someone and getting permission to fish. It was acceptable on both sides. Recently though I've experienced nothing but contention on both sides. People want all or nothing and attacking the other side. I fear even approaching someone on their property to ask for permission. I see landowners watching and waiting for a slip up so they can report us. It's gotten all way out of hand. We are loosing more and more access points. Who cares about walking on the river bottom if we can't even access the river. It's too bad it's gotten to this point. We could have worked together, landowners and fishermen.

I'm one of those anglers that carries a trash bag with me. That's how I was raised. If everyone did that we could show the landowners that we are capable of taking care of the river too. 

I would have been so easy to make some of the clarifications needed for the original ruling. This bill has the potential to not only reverse the ruling but take away more than we had before.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

A family friend we have is in the legislature told us that 90-95% of people contacting him are against the bill; it’s hard to imagine numbers across the state being much different. Thus to my recognizing if the bill is passed the Utah legislator ignored 90-95% of the state. Thank you REPRESENTATIVES!!! If you don’t vote it down who are you representing??????

Question of clarification, if a stream or river is not on the list (17 indicated) does that mean they are not part of the bill thus are accessible and you are able to walk through it touching the stream bed legally?


----------



## troutscout (Feb 12, 2009)

hey Guns, that depends on whether the river is running through private property or not. If it runs through private property and isn't on the list - NO GO! You can see the problem everyone has with this list. Rivers on Forest services, federal or BLM land are fine and the bill doesn't touch because they aren't private. There are tons and tons of awesome small streams in Utah that we won't be able to fish anymore. Ferry thinks that because most people do fish these streams that people won't care if they're gone. I haven't fished every stream in Utah, yet, but I sure want the chance to do so someday. The pressure that the listed rivers will receive is another matter all together. They consequences for this bill passing are far reaching. 

^^ike


----------

