# Utah Stream Access bills



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

Rep. McKiff has put the text to his bill.
It amounts to a total reversal to the unanimus decision by the Supreme Court.

Please read the bill and contact your Represenative about it.

http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbillhtm/hb0141.htm


----------



## ACHY (Oct 18, 2007)

I contacted my representative. We both agree that this one has some good ideas. It protects private property while allowing a mechanism for establishing public access. Granted, that process could be a bit confusing....


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

ACHY said:


> I contacted my representative. We both agree that this one has some good ideas. It protects private property while allowing a mechanism for establishing public access. Granted, that process could be a bit confusing....


 *You think this bill is good ????*


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

ACHY said:


> I contacted my representative. We both agree that this one has some good ideas. It protects private property while allowing a mechanism for establishing public access. Granted, that process could be a bit confusing....


Really?
Hows that?


----------



## ACHY (Oct 18, 2007)

I said I thought it had _some _good _ideas_.

For example, this:


> The Legislature declares that:
> (1) the Utah Constitution's specific private property protections, including recognition of the inalienable right to acquire, possess, and protect property and the prohibition on taking or damaging private property for public use without just compensation, protect against government's indiscriminate recognition or granting of a public recreation easement to access or use public water on private property;
> (2) general constitutional and statutory provisions declaring public ownership of water and recognizing existing rights of use are insufficient to overcome the specific constitutional
> protections for private property


I happen to think that protecting private property rights is a good thing. Don't you? You should if you own any property.

Here's another part I think is a good idea:


> (4) in recognition of historical public recreational uses of some private property, whether by permission or prescription, the Legislature encourages continued permissive use while officially recognizing prescriptive use, similar to that required to establish a public highway under Section 72-5-104 , as a constitutionally sound and manageable basis for establishing a limited right of public recreational access on private property under the provisions of this chapter;


This makes sense to me. If I own a large piece of property with a dirt road running through it, and if I want to maintain that road as private I must close that road once a year or it becomes a public easement. Churches have to do the same thing by closing their parking lots once a year, or it becomes a public easement. In a similar way, this bill will allow a public easement over private beds if there has been established public use for a specified period of time. Some of the details on this and the process to establish the easement could probably be improved, but I like the _idea_.

This one is also intriguing to me:


> When a public water is a lake, pond, or reservoir located on a natural stream and on private property, any portion that has been developed or protected for private hunting is not subject to public recreational access even though the remainder of the public water qualifies for public recreational access under this section.


Again, this goes back to private property. I happen to think protecting private property is a good idea.

I also like this:


> "Public water" does not include water flowing or collecting:
> (i) on impounded wetland;
> (ii) a migratory bird production area, as defined in Section 23-28-102 ; or
> (iii) on private property in a manmade:
> ...


I know manmade canals/ditches aren't actually allowed under the Conatser decision, but it's not unlikely that it could happen with a future court case. In my opinion it's better to keep that can of worms closed. This will do that.

I also like that it limits the allowed recreational activities to floating, fishing, and waterfowl hunting. This would eliminate people wading through property just because they can. It solves a problem (or potential problems) that resulted (or could result) from Conatser. That's a good idea.

Like I said, I think this bill has some good ideas. There are things that I think need to be looked at more closely and probably reworked. Among them:
(1) The process by which a public easement is obtained. I think the current language is confusing and will result in more confusion. It needs to be simplified. 
(2) The length of time the public has been using the water. Currently, it is 10 consecutive years since 1972. It also requires continuous use during the season conducive to the activity and without interruption. I think a shorter time frame would be more reasonable, and I'm sure the phrases "continuous use" and "without interruption" would be the center of a court dispute. 
(3) The definition of "public access area" is limited to the area beneath or within three feet of the water or the most direct, least invasive, and closest means of portage around an obstruction. I think I prefer the ordinary high water mark as the area of access, but I think I can understand what they're trying to do here. I could possibly go either way on this.

I'm sure I'm in the minority on this, at least in this forum, but those are my ideas. I don't really care if I have access to every fish in the state. I don't really have much of a desire to fish every stream. I'm okay with the public access that was available before Conatser. I do care about property rights and think they ought to be protected. What's wrong with that?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

In spite of the various declarations that fluffed McIffs bill, this is the bottom line.

78 (3) The public has no right to the recreational use of public waters on private property
79 to which access is restricted, as defined in Section 73-29-102 , without permission of the
80 property owner or as provided in Chapter 29, Public Waters Access Act.


It overturns Conatser, plain and simple. Perhaps this is what you want to happen. It would seem that the Utah Supreme Court would differ from your opinion however. 

If you want a bill that DOES protect landowners, while at the same time insure the public's right to use public waters, and defines boundaries for which Conatser was vague, then HB 80 is the bill to support.


----------



## ACHY (Oct 18, 2007)

Catherder said:


> In spite of the various declarations that fluffed McIffs bill, this is the bottom line.
> 
> 78 (3) The public has no right to the recreational use of public waters on private property
> 79 to which access is restricted, as defined in Section 73-29-102 , without permission of the
> ...


Just what does HB80 do that actually protects landowners?


----------



## Lonnie (Feb 2, 2010)

The problem with McKiff's bill is that it views Conaster under Article one section 22 of the state constitution as a "taking". However, the court stated in Conaster, that under JJNP and other rulings that simply providing access thru the easement does not constitute a taking. So therefore, the very premise of HB141 is flawed. JNP stood for over 20 years, and in that time, there were NO, NONE, ZERO takings claims filed under it. All the Conaster decision said was that the public has the right to touch the bed of the stream in order to access the easement. 

HB141 is all about taking PUBLIC water and cutting off access and putting it in the hands of Private landowners. It's a land grab, plain and simple.


----------



## Lonnie (Feb 2, 2010)

ACHY said:


> Just what does HB80 do that actually protects landowners?


Well, I would suggest that you _*READ*_ HB80 and find out.

HB80 identifies what is trespassing with regards to the easement and establishes that those who violate them are guilty of a class B misdemeanor. It states that the public may not damage private property (including littering and damaging fences) or harass landowners or livestock. It also states that access to public waters must be obtained from public property, ie anglers are not allowed to otherwise trespass across private land to access public waters. Finally it absolves landowners from liability from injuries that recreationist might incur while recreating.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

ACHY said:


> For example, this:
> 
> 
> > The Legislature declares that:
> ...


There are some major separation of powers issues with these statements, especially the bolded portions. It is not the legislature's job to determine what the constitution says or means, or what provisions take precedent over the others. That is a duty, role, and power reserved ONLY for the judicial branch. You don't think that the unanimous Utah Supreme Court understood the constitutional impacts of clearly stating this easement existed? We're not talking about the liberal-left 9th Circuit here. We're talking about one of the most conservative courts in the country, unanimously stating this easement exists. Representative McIff is a former judge, he knows that his bill is laced with constitutional challenges that will only result in lengthy, costly, and ultimately wasteful litigation. Good luck asking the supreme court to overturn itself and say it got Conatser all wrong.

I agree that private property rights are very important. But what exactly are private property rights? Privacy gets thrown around a lot. That is a complete misconception. You don't have a right to privacy that you purchase with property. If we want to discuss private property rights, I'm all for that. But let's focus on what property rights actually legally exist. And we can determine how those rights are limited and how we can protect them.


----------



## ACHY (Oct 18, 2007)

Lonnie said:


> ACHY said:
> 
> 
> > Just what does HB80 do that actually protects landowners?
> ...


I have read HB80, but since you were the one insisting it protected landowners, I wanted your views on how. So, thanks for providing them. However, I'm not convinced that the items you stated are actual protections.

There are already laws about trespassing. All HB80 really does is define where the easement lies so that current trespassing laws can be enforced. (For the record, I think that's good. A solid definition of the stream bed is one of the things that is really needed.) It's just not much of a protection for private landowners or their property rights.

I believe there are also already laws about damaging private property and harassing livestock. Nothing really new there either.

The issue about trespassing across private land to access public water is also not much of a protection. Trespassing laws are already in force, and the Conatser decision (if I remember correctly) specifically forbade this anyway, so again, not much of a protection.

Yes HB80 absolves landowners from liability. That's good. But I believe all the others do the same thing. HB80 doesn't specifically provide protections here that the others don't, so from that perspective it is no better than any of others.

HB80 also expands on the Conatser decision and gives more liberties to fishermen. The Conatser decision limited access to where the water actually is. HB80 expands that to the OHWM. Note, I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, as a stream bed definition is needed, but it is an expansion nonetheless. And I can understand how that can be looked at by property owners as an _erosion_ of their rights, despite any other "protections" there may be. In addition, HB80 allows for portage, something that was not allowed under Conatser. Again, an expansion. My point here, is that this supposed "compromise" bill, seems a little lopsided. It doesn't really give landowners anything they didn't already have (except liability protection, which any bill will do), while giving _more _rights to fishermen.



Lonnie said:


> The problem with McKiff's bill is that it views Conaster under Article one section 22 of the state constitution as a "taking". However, the court stated in Conaster, that under JJNP and other rulings that simply providing access thru the easement does not constitute a taking. So therefore, the very premise of HB141 is flawed. JNP stood for over 20 years, and in that time, there were NO, NONE, ZERO takings claims filed under it. All the Conaster decision said was that the public has the right to touch the bed of the stream in order to access the easement.
> 
> HB141 is all about taking PUBLIC water and cutting off access and putting it in the hands of Private landowners. It's a land grab, plain and simple.


I never said McKiff's bill was perfect. In fact, I said there were several thing that ought to be looked at more closely and reworked. All I said is that it had some ideas I liked. I'll agree that it is biased. I'll agree that it will largely overturn Conatser. But it does provide a mechanism to allow for public easements over private waters. That mechanism, while needing to be refined, makes sense to me.

As for it being a land grab, that is plain ridiculous. The landowners already own the land. What they don't have is the right to keep them off that land when a stream runs through it. They are not putting public water in the hands of private landowners. The landowners won't have any more right to divert or use the water that they currently have. This is not about water rights, it is about using the waterway as an easement. And changing the rules regarding an easement is not in any way a land grab.

The Conatser decision was based on a state law. McKiff's bill basically states that, in his opinion, the interpretation of that law violates the constitutional protections of private property, and therefore the law needs to be changed. His bill would change the way the easement is established so that it is more in-line with other public easements (such as a roadway). I think the idea is a good one. Is it perfect? No. Does it need some changes? Yes.

I want to make it clear that I'm not saying HB80 is bad. Just that it doesn't provide the private property protection that HB141 does. And from a private property perspective, HB141 is better. From a fishing perspective HB80 is better, and it does provide some needed definitions. I think it is unfair, however, to say it is a good compromise when it doesn't, in any meaningful way, protect the rights of private property.

One of the problems with the drafting of HB80 is that it began with the assumption that the supreme court couldn't have made a wrong decision. McKiff's bill begins with the assumption that private property rights are more important than public easements. And I still think that is a good idea.


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

ACHY said:


> I have read HB80, but since you were the one insisting it protected landowners, I wanted your views on how. So, thanks for providing them. However, I'm not convinced that the items you stated are actual protections.
> 
> HB80 also expands on the Conatser decision and gives more liberties to fishermen. The Conatser decision limited access to where the water actually is. HB80 expands that to the OHWM. Note, I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, as a stream bed definition is needed, but it is an expansion nonetheless. And I can understand how that can be looked at by property owners as an _erosion_ of their rights, despite any other "protections" there may be. In addition, HB80 allows for portage, something that was not allowed under Conatser. Again, an expansion. My point here, is that this supposed "compromise" bill, seems a little lopsided. It doesn't really give landowners anything they didn't already have (except liability protection, which any bill will do), while giving _more _rights to fishermen.


Absolutly FALSE...This is NOT TRUE.... HB-80 narrows the scope of the easement that Conatser recognized.

Please read the Conatser case... Conatser actually allowed any water user to walk on the bank above the OHWM.


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

ACHY said:


> The Conatser decision was based on a state law. McKiff's bill basically states that, in his opinion, the interpretation of that law violates the constitutional protections of private property, and therefore the law needs to be changed. His bill would change the way the easement is established so that it is more in-line with other public easements (such as a roadway). I think the idea is a good one. Is it perfect? No. Does it need some changes? Yes.


McIff is writing judicial review, IN SECRET, from the HOUSE. Totally wrong any way you slice it.

If this was just a Private Property rights issue we would not be here, and we all know it.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

ACHY said:


> All HB80 really does is define where the easement lies so that current trespassing laws can be enforced. (For the record, I think that's good. A solid definition of the stream bed is one of the things that is really needed.) It's just not much of a protection for private landowners or their property rights.


Isn't it? It tells law enforcement what is trespassing and what isn't and allows cops and DWR to cite violators without the grey area that currently exists with the Conatser decision. Improved trespassing enforcement is pretty good protection for landowners IMO.



ACHY said:


> HB80 also expands on the Conatser decision and gives more liberties to fishermen. The Conatser decision limited access to where the water actually is.


HB80 does NOT expand fishermens "liberties" from what was granted in Conatser. I don't know how many times this needs to be explained! The Conatser decision did NOT say that "where the water actually is" or "wet boot" (as is used in most of these discussions) is the standard. It was undefined by Conatser. If the OHWM is selected, it would be the first standard applied to Conaster. Likewise for "wet boot". But right now, the law doesn't specify and that is why law enforcement is confused.

As for portage language being a big grab for the anglers, the most complaining I have heard from anglers about HB80 is that the portage provisions are too strict and too heavily slanted to landowners. I humbly disagree that it is a big win for us and I do feel it is an area where WE have compromised to get a fair deal for all.

It is no secret that I am a supporter of HB 80. I also DO happen to be a landowner. I don't see anything as a landowner that I would need to protect me more.

What specific protections would you suggest be made that would help landowners WITHOUT destroying the publics right to access public water over a private bed?


----------



## ACHY (Oct 18, 2007)

F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> ACHY said:
> 
> 
> > I have read HB80, but since you were the one insisting it protected landowners, I wanted your views on how. So, thanks for providing them. However, I'm not convinced that the items you stated are actual protections.
> ...


Okay, I've just gone back and read the Conatser decision for the fourth time. The only reference I see to the bank is a quote from the district court ruling: 


> Thus, the district
> court held that the Conatsers "may walk along the banks of the
> river . . . in order to continue floating . . . so long as
> [their] actions are as minimally intrusive as possible of the
> private owners' land.


The supreme court then goes on to say that: 


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


It is unclear whether the supreme court intended to keep the district court's language regarding the bank, as they say nothing of the bank. They say you can touch the "beds of state waters in ways incidental" to fishing, but they don't specifically include the bank in that statement. Over and over they refer to the "beds of state waters" or the "water's bed" or "privately owned beds below [state] waters" but they are silent in regards to the bank. If you are saying the bank is actually part of the water's bed, that is your interpretation. Mine (and I think most other people's) is that the bed is what is underneath the water. And this has been, for the most part, the accepted definition. But this confusion is why a better definition is needed, and I've acknowledged that the OHWM is a pretty good one. But if the OHWM is above the current level of the water, from a landowner's perspective, it is an expansion of the easement.



F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> ACHY said:
> 
> 
> > The Conatser decision was based on a state law. McKiff's bill basically states that, in his opinion, the interpretation of that law violates the constitutional protections of private property, and therefore the law needs to be changed. His bill would change the way the easement is established so that it is more in-line with other public easements (such as a roadway). I think the idea is a good one. Is it perfect? No. Does it need some changes? Yes.
> ...


He may be critical of the court's decision and think it was wrong, but since the decision was based on state law he has every right as a legislator to introduce a bill to change that law. It still needs to be presented to committees and the house where it will undoubtedly be debated and amended and then, if passed, it will go on to the senate where it will certainly be debated and amended more. The drafting of the bill may have been done without much public input, but that doesn't mean it's secret. Most bills are drafted without any public input.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I'm with you ACHY!


----------



## ACHY (Oct 18, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I'm with you ACHY!


Thanks!

Check out this article about fishing access in Montana. It raises some other issues we haven't dealt with here (to my knowledge) but is something that we should be thinking about.
http://www.perc.org/articles/article1126.php


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ACHY said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I'm with you ACHY!
> ...


Even before this thread was posted, I read and even have posted links to information from PERC's website. Since that time, however, I have done some more research and, although I do agree with some of their ideas, have found that PERC to be mostly a "self-serving" organization that is NOT out for the best interest of sportsmen or wildlife. "Their mantra is that private property owners, if left alone to themselves, will accomplish great feats of conservation." While I do agree that allowing unlimited access to private land may eliminate incentive for some landowners to improve wildlife habitat, I do NOT in any way believe that private property landowners will do anything great for wildlife without the incentive to do something. Most private landowners have little or not incentive to improve their land for the sake of wildlife. Also, "PERC realizes it is good business for them, as they depend on wealthy benefactors for funding their research center, to continually and loudly cry against the public trust and the public use of research we hold in common." Interestingly, supreme courts have continually ruled against the views of PERC and upheld the rights of the public to use surface water for recreational purposes regardless of who owns the streambed under the public trust doctrine. These court cases and rulings have happened both in Montana where PERC is based and now in Utah...
http://www.montanariveraction.org/media ... ate-08.pdf

It kills me that some people think it is ok for private landowners to keep the public from fishing on public water for public fish stocked by public dollars...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I'm glad you bring up Montana. Montana has the type of law I am personally hoping to become the clear definition of the easement recognized in Conatser. Aside from a select few VERY wealthy landowners who are still upset about the law, there are no issues with this in Montana. In fact, the reports I've heard is that the Montana Farm Bureau has stated their law works well. Aside from a few rogue landowners, that is the general sentiment in each state in the west where this type of law is recognized. It works for just about everyone. 

That's because it's fair and balanced, recognizing there are competing rights involved, and works to balance those rights. That is just what HB 80 does.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Folks like wy2ut trusts the government and special interest groups more than individuals, folks like me and ACHY put more trust in the individual. To very different views of what works and what is the 'best' direction to pursue. To say landowners won't do conservation on their own is to deny reality. Look at Deseret Land and Livestock, look at the progressive Ted Turner and his land. The more government intrusion you place on private entities, the less productive they will be. Telling the government to force private entities to enforce your wishes is unwise and at some point will take away from those advocating taking away from others. If stream fishers feel so strongly about access on private land, they should have got together and tried to work with the landowners instead of running to Big Brother demanding the 'evil' land owner comply to your wishes/demands. You kick a guy in the marbles, then wonder why he fights back. :?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> If stream fishers feel so strongly about access on private land


You see, this is what you don't get Pro. Fishermen are NOT asking for access on private land they are asking for access on PUBLIC water!

Also, you think DL&L has done any wildlife improvements without compensation? Don't they have quite the CWMU program up there...


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Catherder said:


> What specific protections would you suggest be made that would help landowners WITHOUT destroying the publics right to access public water over a private bed?


I'm still waiting. :O•-:

Of course, I'm also waiting for an explanation from you antis why "wet boot" is the best standard to adopt. :O•-:

Why not just come out and say it. You want Conatser overturned. Forget about all of this talk about compromise. The only "compromise" that is acceptable to you is the public "compromise" away Conatser rights altogether.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > If stream fishers feel so strongly about access on private land
> ...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > What specific protections would you suggest be made that would help landowners WITHOUT destroying the publics right to access public water over a private bed?
> ...


Fine, I would rather overturn Conatser than continue to see private property owners be marginalized and restricted on what they can control on THEIR land. Happy now?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> Fine, I would rather overturn Conatser than continue to see private property owners be marginalized and restricted on what they can control on THEIR land. Happy now?


Thank you. and yes I am. I wish more of your crowd would have the stones to do so. It would cut through a lot of doo-doo around here.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Catherder said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Fine, I would rather overturn Conatser than continue to see private property owners be marginalized and restricted on what they can control on THEIR land. Happy now?
> ...


I have only seen 1 or 2 others be on 'my' side on this forum, not sure what doo-doo you are referring to. :?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> As well they should be compensated, the critters live 24/7 on PRIVATE land. If they weren't compensated they would not tolerate wildlife being parasites on THEIR land. What part of that don't you get? :?


So, you agree that the only reason these private landowners have to improve wildlife habitat is to gain some sort of compensation...it has nothing to do with being good wildlife stewards, right?

I'm glad you have finally figured that out...it's too bad that private landowners have done so much harm to riparian habitat. I guess we need to come up with a program to compensate them all to fix the messes they have created... :roll:


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Catherder (ouch)....where does this thing stand with most landowner's? Any "Welcome" signs going up or are they all fighting this Bill ? What are they offering? 

Not trying to be a 'doo-doo' here, I've lost track about 2 Bills ago.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> So, you agree that the only reason these private landowners have to improve wildlife habitat is to gain some sort of compensation...it has nothing to do with being good wildlife stewards, right? WRONG! It is one of the reasons, not the ONLY reason. And, why do you think the government is more compassionate and cares more about the environment than individuals? You give your progressive position away, you think profit in any sense is bad. It must be rough living in a mostly capitalist society. :roll:
> 
> I'm glad you have finally figured that out...it's too bad that private landowners have done so much harm to riparian habitat. I guess we need to come up with a program to compensate them all to fix the messes they have created... :roll: Did you know it is 2010, not 1885? Landowners have come a long way from the days you refer to. A large portion of habitat improvement comes form landowners, and livestock owners who use public land, as you well know but won't admit. You see private landowners as the enemy, I do NOT. We are universes apart on this, so I see no common ground to work toward with you or others like you. So, I say follow, this will tick you off wy2ut, the US Constitution which puts private property rights at the top, certainly above access to fish on moving water.


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> the US Constitution which puts private property rights at the top, certainly above access to fish on moving water.[/color]


Wrong.. it put the interests of the PUBLIC at the top. It also puts the ownership of water by the public at the top.

The "taking" and "private property" statement is played, it doesn't stand-up, not even to the most conservative State Supreme Court in the country. Got anything that actually holds water (pun intended)?

If by chance McIff passed his bill, I assure you the USC will unanimously rule the same way again, and this time, I'm certain they will add in language to make sure this situation does not happen again.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

This issue applies to other types of outdoor enthusiast's other than fisherman. There's birdwatchers, kayakers, float tubers, waterfowl hunters, rafters, to name a few. 

IMHO many of the fishermen are taking a narrow, it's "all about me" attitude. 

Beating a dead horse is the norm here so again let me say this: The argument has become bigger than the issue. And the longer you argue the point and not find compromise the further you will draw all the parties apart.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Gulf,
I contend there is no such thing as a 'conservative' state court. Utah's may be _less_ progressive than others, but that isn't saying much. I suppose you are a fan of eminent domain, you know, all for the "interests of the PUBLIC." :?

How can you assert that the USC is 'conservative' in one paragraph, then in the next say you are "certain" they would ADD in language? The judicial branch is NOT supposed to legislate, but if they ADD in language that is exactly what they would be doing. WTF? :roll:


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

First, 


proutdoors said:


> I have only seen 1 or 2 others be on 'my' side on this forum, not sure what doo-doo you are referring to. :?


I guess "here" referred to not only this forum, (c'mon Pro, there are more than 1 or 2 that have expressed your sentiments), but moreso up on the Hill, where entities like the Utah Farm Bureau, seem to be couching their words and talking about compromise, but their actions would suggest to me that their real goal is to pass McIff's 141 and repeal Conatser.



.45 said:


> Catherder (ouch)....where does this thing stand with most landowner's? Any "Welcome" signs going up or are they all fighting this Bill ? What are they offering?
> 
> Not trying to be a 'doo-doo' here, I've lost track about 2 Bills ago.


Ok guys, sorry about the doo-doo reference :wink: . I honestly don't know how the "average" landowner is reacting to this. I was up on the hill yesterday morning and only saw the Farm Bureau there. I do know Victory ranch is trying to get some addendum slapped onto 141 so I would assume they are firmly in the "anti" camp. I also know a few other large landowners have been vocal in their support for repeal of Conatser and are big supporters of 141. Chris (fishsnoop) or Bryan (F/V) probably could answer that better than I.


----------



## ACHY (Oct 18, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > What specific protections would you suggest be made that would help landowners WITHOUT destroying the publics right to access public water over a private bed?
> ...


Let's start by saying I never said "wet boot" was the best standard. In fact, if you read through all my posts on here you'll see I said several times that the OHWM seems like a pretty good definition of the stream bed.

Let's make it clear that I never said that landowners were wanting a compromise. The only compromise I mentioned was in reference to HB80, and I've only heard it from the fishermen that there has been any compromise. Most landowners I've talked to think they're getting run over on this one, and yes, they do want Conatser overturned.

As for myself, I don't own any property that would be affected by this, nor have I ever fished on such property. I haven't yet decided whether or not I want Conatser overturned, as it hasn't been something that has affected me. I do think it needs some clarification to avoid confusion, so I've been following this now and then and I'm interested in the various bills being presented. I do believe that private property is a pretty important thing, and that protecting the rights of people to own and use their own property, and protect from misuse by others, is a good thing. I also enjoy the opportunities presented by public property. Because of that, I haven't fully made up my mind.

I think HB80 is a pretty good bill. I think HB141 has the potential to be a pretty good bill, but needs some work. There are elements in it I like, such as the mechanism it establishes for providing an easement. I think it's a really interesting idea that I'd like to see developed further before I fully support any of the bills.

Now, about those specific protections for landowners. I'll give you one if you'll give me one. And keep in mind that I'm not convinced the "protections" in HB80 really count.

Why not have some form of compensation to the landowners who experience negative effects from public access? We all know that despite being specifically forbidden, there will be people who litter or who otherwise damage or destroy private property and/or riparian habitat. And we all know they won't always be caught. In addition, if you get enough people taking the shortest, most direct route to portage around obstacles there will be cumulative effects that have a negative impact.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Why not have some form of compensation to the landowners who experience negative effects from public access? We all know that despite being specifically forbidden, there will be people who litter or who otherwise damage or destroy private property and/or riparian habitat. And we all know they won't always be caught. In addition, if you get enough people taking the shortest, most direct route to portage around obstacles there will be cumulative effects that have a negative impact.

But this is already going on. A different bill won't do anything to change dirtbags from being dirtbags!


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

If landowners want compensated they have the DWR walk in access programand also DWR lease programs. They can donate the land to get tax breaks. They can out right sell it to the state. They have all sorts of ways to get compensated. The funny thing is that those that are involved in such programs or have cooperation with users are typically the properties that have the least amount of litter due to programs that have volunteers come in and do the clean ups but those are mostly angler groups. It was clearly visible on the tour the legislators went on.
The protections of HB 80 far out weigh the ambiguity of Conatser but if all the landowners want to do is try to overturn a 5-0 SC decision than I can only wish them luck. Go look at 5-0 decisions about property rights specifically and go turn them over while you are at it. May as well find one about water rights that was 5-0 and turn it over and then go find one about easements and do the same. Sounds absurd huh?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

ACHY said:


> Why not have some form of compensation to the landowners who experience negative effects from public access? We all know that despite being specifically forbidden, there will be people who litter or who otherwise damage or destroy private property and/or riparian habitat. And we all know they won't always be caught. In addition, if you get enough people taking the shortest, most direct route to portage around obstacles there will be cumulative effects that have a negative impact.


Not bad, I don't have any trouble with what you proposed. Here is something I wrote last year during the HB187 debate. It isn't exactly the same as what you proposed and circumstances have changed but here it is, unedited;

"I realize that my rhetoric regarding HB 187 has been as stern as anyone and quite honestly, I meant every word I said :lol: . Nevertheless, I do see that landowners have legitimate concerns and to achieve a lasting legislative solution that avoids more litigation afterwards, we need to come to a solution that is close to agreeable to all parties. Additionally, in some committee work I have done, it is recognized that many angling projects are in need of volunteer work, but the State lacks a "carrot" to get angler assistance that the successful Dedicated Hunter program provides hunters.

What would happen if a stipulation for fishing a "public water on a private bed" stream (to use Ferry's terminology) would be to complete a specified amount of service, particularly stream clean up on these rivers in question along with others? While the public has the right currently to recreate on the water, the State has the right to regulate it. Each private stretch would be scheduled for periodic clean-ups as well as habitat and repair work as needed and permitted by the landowner. In return, the angler would receive a "license stamp" permitting fishing on these areas. Since the fisherman would be put in charge of keeping the habitat clean, we would be particularly attentive to keeping the river immaculate. The landowner would no longer be able to whine about litter and such. We anglers would be especially attentive for scuzzbags littering or committing vandalism or trespassing violations, since we would be the ones dealing with it. It may even keep some of the "riff raff" types out of these sensitive areas because, to be honest, most of the jerks that cause us fishermen problems are not going to care enough to work on a clean up project. Mainly, it would unite both us and landowners as co-stewards of the resource."

From this thread:http://utahwildlife.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14479

Here could be a few more for you. 
1. A DWR funded program to install stiles and walkovers at recognized public access points to minimize the chances of damage to landowners fencing. (this was considered this summer)

2. A compensation fund where landowners that suffer a loss can draw from that is funded by trespassing and game law violator fines.

3. A cleanup program run by the DWR that removes junk autobodies and other large trash items from riverbeds that the landowner him/herself cannot afford to remove.

Now, what would be the point for ANY of this if 141 passes and Conatser is overturned? I just don't see the anti crowd seriously asking for anything short of the repeal of Conatser.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> Gulf,
> I suppose you are a fan of eminent domain, you know, all for the "interests of the PUBLIC." :?


This is really splitting hairs, and not real fruitful, but I just can't resist for some reason. Forgive me, but I'm feeling a little chippy after reading all this junk. You realize that you put the property rights granted by the constitution up on a pedestal, and then in this post cut down a principle that is based upon the same document from the foundation of our great nation? Read the 5th amendment recently? Eminent domain is not judge made law.

But back to the discussion at hand. People keep talking about these constitutionally granted property rights. What exactly are those? I've asked that before and couldn't get an answer. I think that is a very fruitful discussion. What are the constitutionally guaranteed property rights that people keep talking about. Specifically, what rights does the constitution guarantee for me as an individual? Like the 1st amendment grants me freedom of speech, and the right to peaceably assemble, among other things. What specific private property rights are guaranteed by the constitution? So, let's hear it. Start naming them off with a portion of the constitution that grants that protection and guarantee.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Catherder said:


> I just don't see the anti crowd seriously asking for anything short of the repeal of Conatser.


You're exactly right. And therein lies the problem. As conceded in this very discussion. Most landowners don't want a compromise. That's why they don't feel that HB 80 is one. Because the only thing acceptable to them is a complete negating of Conatser, which quite frankly isn't going to happen.

So that is the problem. One side wants something that they almost certainly can't have, and that is the only solution they will accept. Doesn't leave much room for working it out, does it?


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Gulf,
> I contend there is no such thing as a 'conservative' state court. Utah's may be _less_ progressive than others, but that isn't saying much. I suppose you are a fan of eminent domain, you know, all for the "interests of the PUBLIC." :?
> 
> How can you assert that the USC is 'conservative' in one paragraph, then in the next say you are "certain" they would ADD in language? The judicial branch is NOT supposed to legislate, but if they ADD in language that is exactly what they would be doing. WTF? :roll:


Hi PRO...

That is up for debate, I guess. You live or travel outside of Utah much? I do, and I'd suggest Utah is pretty gosh darn conservative ; )

I think TS summed up the last question quite well.

I still am really trying to figure out what the heck it is your saying... that the USC legislated from the bench? If so, please try to come up with some concrete facts. That is subject to debate. What is a fact is that the USC just said " we agree with the previous rulings", that's is, that all.

McIff's bill is unconstitutional, plain and simple. Even last year he tried to fight the USC with some sorta water issue, and lost. Perhaps water law just isn't his strong point?

FWIW - The Attorney Generals office to the DNR weighted in HEAVILY on the language of this Bill. The DWR backs it. 32 organizations were involved in the process regardless of what they say. I was there, we bent over backwards... BUT not because we had to, we still have Conatser/JJNP/etc, what did the other side do for us??? NOTHING! humm... interesting to see who was reaching out to who.

Well PRO, we are not going to change each others minds here. Thanks for the debate.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

Where is the "PRO-it-all" when the questions get a little tougher? My feeling is a guy that posts around 9,274 times on the internet spends a heck of a lot more time behind a keyboard than actually in the outdoors. Serious PRO make a difference in the world, make a difference in the environment, donate the time that you have spent on 9,274 posts to a worthy charity. Do you want your legacy to be a guy that sat around and played the devil's advocate and argued for the sake of arguing on the internet during the prime of his life???


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

deleted double post.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

280Remington said:


> Where is the "PRO-it-all" when the questions get a little tougher? My feeling is a guy that posts around 9,274 times on the internet spends a heck of a lot more time behind a keyboard than actually in the outdoors. Serious PRO make a difference in the world, make a difference in the environment, donate the time that you have spent on 9,274 posts to a worthy charity. Do you want your legacy to be a guy that sat around and played the devil's advocate and argued for the sake of arguing on the internet during the prime of his life???


Now I know I am getting somewhere. When those who disagree with me revert to personal attacks I know I am on the right/correct path. I haven't made it personal with you, so why the hate? Do you know me, or know what I do in the real world? Do you really want to compare resumes on who has done what with someone you know NOTHING about? You go ahead and keep your high opinion of yourself and a low one of me, I am fine with that. Will doing so help you in ANY way? I seriously doubt it.

Gulf, it was YOU that asserted the USC is willing to legislate from the bench, not me. YOU said, "I assure you the USC will unanimously rule the same way again, and this time, I'm certain they will add in language to make sure this situation does not happen again." That is an EXACT quote from an earlier post YOU made. If the USC were to do such a thing it WOULD be legislating from the bench. Like I said, in comparison to other states/courts the USC may be conservative, but if I compare myself to certain folks I am liberal. :shock: It's all relative, I don't care if they are neo-libs or neo-cons, or somewhere in between, as long as they follow the Constitution and DO NOT legislate from the bench.

As for eminent domain, yes it is legit, but it has been abused repeatedly for gain for certain folks at the expense of others. The ultimate private property one can possess is his thoughts. I could, and would enjoy, discuss Constitutional laws/precedents for hours on end, but those who dismiss the purpose/intent of them would dismiss anything I say on the matter, so I won't.

I have made my stance on this clear, I have let my State Rep and my State Sen know where I stand on this issue, as have many of you. Strange how me exercising the SAME rights as you as drawn anger from some on the 'other' side, yet I am the close-minded one. -Ov-


----------



## cacherinthewry (Dec 20, 2007)

ACHY said:


> I have read HB80, but since you were the one insisting it protected landowners, I wanted your views on how. So, thanks for providing them. However, I'm not convinced that the items you stated are actual protections.
> 
> There are already laws about trespassing. All HB80 really does is define where the easement lies so that current trespassing laws can be enforced. (For the record, I think that's good. A solid definition of the stream bed is one of the things that is really needed.) It's just not much of a protection for private landowners or their property rights.
> 
> ...


ACHY, thanks for your civil and logical contribution to this discussion. You are, by far, the most eloquent and rational voice I've read in support of McIff's bill/opposing Fowlke's bill. I hope my reply to you will reflect that. I removed where you quoted Lonnie in this, and I hope I didn't damage the context of any of your comments by doing so. I'm not too handy with these quote things, so I also hope I didn't bung anything up in the process.

You're right. The laws affecting trespass, damaging private property and liability protection are already in place. But including them in HB80 actually is a concession by the proponents of HB80. Let me explain. The supporters of HB80, let's call them the Rec's (recreational users&#8230;not just anglers), wanted a bill that simply defined the easement, because the UTSC did not do so within the Conatser ruling. Rec's wanted something simple, like Idaho's law, which is only 3 paragraphs in length.

Opponents voiced a concern about trespassing. Even though there are existing laws covering that issue, the language was added to the bill to reinforce that protection. Opponents voiced concern about damage to private property. Again, even though there are already laws on the books, that language was added to the bill to reinforce that protection. Opponents voiced a concern about the possibility of increased liability from injury to the Rec's while using the easement. Yet again, that language was added to the bill, even though law exists providing that protection.

But here's a new protection that was added in Fowlke's open process&#8230;if the OHWM is not clearly visible and the streambed is not passable, the recreational user has to turn around and exit the way they came (except for floaters, who would have the ability to portage because they cannot exit the easement from their point of origin). That is definitely a concession, and I must reinforce my opinion that the redundancy of citing existing law is a concession made by the Rec's.

HB80 also includes a requirement that the Rec's must take a certification course in order to use the easement, and must carry proof of that certification while using that easement. This is a concession for anglers and hunters, but it is a greater concession for the non angling Rec's. Paddlers, birders, photographers, and any other recreational users that do not have a required licence also have to certify and carry the proof, and they will essentially have to go further out of their way to do so. This certification benefits landowners because the Rec's will have a better understanding of the ethics and restraints expected of them, and of the penalties placed upon them should they violate the easement. Landowners will have a quicker and stronger basis with which to enforce their rights. Perhaps a further concession by the Rec's would be to require that certificate be worn in an exposed place on their upper body. Several states require anglers and hunters to do so. This would help landowners more quickly discern the law abiding easement users from the violators.

I disagree with you in your statement that HB80 gives more liberties than Conatser outlined. The UTSC simply stated that the streambed was the easement, but there was never a definition of what the streambed is exactly. OHWM strictly defines that bed, while a wet foot boundary is a constantly fluctuating boundary.

I personally feel that portage is a concession on both sides. With allowed and well defined portage, the Rec's safety is protected, while at the same time the landowners liability is reduced when an impassable barrier is on their property. If someone died because of a fence across a streamcourse, and because the user couldn't legally avoid it, ordinary liability is a moot issue and criminal liability puts the landowner at serious risk. The Rec isn't allowed to portage for any other reason that to avoid a barrier, so they can't leave the streambed in any other instance&#8230;to picnic, for example.

"This is not about water rights, it is about using the waterway as an easement. And changing the rules regarding an easement is not in any way a land grab."

Your words ring true for both sides here. The Rec's use of the easement is also not in any way a land grab, as opponents of Conatser have strongly cried.

"One of the problems with the drafting of HB80 is that it began with the assumption that the supreme court couldn't have made a wrong decision"

It is fair to state that, but it is also a very large assumption to state that a unanimous decision was flawed. A vote of no confidence against the UTSC on a single issue, especially by the legislature, is opening the door to a breakdown of our Democratic process.


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

280Remington said:


> Where is the "PRO-it-all" when the questions get a little tougher? My feeling is a guy that posts around 9,274 times on the internet spends a heck of a lot more time behind a keyboard than actually in the outdoors. Serious PRO make a difference in the world, make a difference in the environment, donate the time that you have spent on 9,274 posts to a worthy charity. Do you want your legacy to be a guy that sat around and played the devil's advocate and argued for the sake of arguing on the internet during the prime of his life???


I don't know Pro personally and don't agree with his stance on this, however, as far as I know Pro gets out more than 99% of the people on this site and does do and has done a lot for wildlife in Utah. I think he has 9000+ posts because he is so passionate about this state's wildlife and hunting. Pro is making a difference so get off his back because you don't see eye to eye with him on this issue. IMO Pro understands the constitution and I agree with his stance on eminent domain, but he is wrong about HB 80. Recreating on public waters has nothing to do with land ownership. Just because land owners kept the public off it for 150 years doesn't mean it was right. If you don't want to deal with, don't own land with a public easement running through it. There is a lot of land without water in utah that is for sale and you will have it all to yourself.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> The ultimate private property one can possess is his thoughts. I could, and would enjoy, discuss Constitutional laws/precedents for hours on end, but those who dismiss the purpose/intent of them would dismiss anything I say on the matter, so I won't.
> 
> I have made my stance on this clear, I have let my State Rep and my State Sen know where I stand on this issue, as have many of you. Strange how me exercising the SAME rights as you as drawn anger from some on the 'other' side, yet I am the close-minded one. -Ov-


I don't think you're closed minded. But I think that was a cop-out answer. The last week I have had "inalienable private property rights" kind of shoved down my throat by a few people, including representatives. But nobody seems to be able to tell me what those specific rights are, and where the constitution guarantees them. I firmly believe in protecting all our rights, including the rights of property owners. But until I know what they are, it is tough to work towards making those protections. It seems like a lot of red herrings being floated around to confuse the issues. That isn't productive. I want to discuss the real issues. Not issues that raise emotional responses, but really don't have anything to do with the task at hand.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Unalienable rights are also called "natural law", and the U.S. Constitution was written based on the philosophy of natural law. One of the biggest influences on the writers of the Constitution was John Locke. One of his many quotes on the subject:


> "The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property."





> "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." Frédéric Bastiat


Traditional principles of property rights include:
1. Control of the use of the property
2. The right to any benefit from the property (examples: mining rights and rent)
3. A right to transfer or sell the property
4. A right to exclude others from the property.

Socialist and communist countries do not allow the citizens much, if any, in the way of private property. The more private property rights a citizen has, the freer he is.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Now I know I am getting somewhere. When those who disagree with me revert to personal attacks I know I am on the right/correct path. I haven't made it personal with you, so why the hate?
> .....
> I have made my stance on this clear, I have let my State Rep and my State Sen know where I stand on this issue, as have many of you. Strange how me exercising the SAME rights as you as drawn anger from some on the 'other' side, yet I am the close-minded one. -Ov-


Well said!


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Gulf, it was YOU that asserted the USC is willing to legislate from the bench, not me. YOU said, "I assure you the USC will unanimously rule the same way again, and this time, I'm certain they will add in language to make sure this situation does not happen again." That is an EXACT quote from an earlier post YOU made. If the USC were to do such a thing it WOULD be legislating from the bench. Like I said, in comparison to other states/courts the USC may be conservative, but if I compare myself to certain folks I am liberal. :shock: It's all relative, I don't care if they are neo-libs or neo-cons, or somewhere in between, as long as they follow the Constitution and DO NOT legislate from the bench.


Oh, shoot.. sorry. Let me clarify here.... the USC is ruling on the facts. IF it goes back, I'm certain it will not please a unanimous vote to have one representative say that 5 UTAH SUPREME COURT JUDGES were ALL wrong and that he is right. How many years was this under litigation? 8 years. IF it happens to go back to the USC, they will vote again, on the facts, again, which are clear as day, hence the 5-0 vote. My GUESS is that they wont want this to happen every year so they will somehow [_guess_] make certain the public remains protected by further defining the language.

Listen to the arguments on the house floor of the Conatser case, for sh!ts and giggles. Well, anyway... for what its worth I guess ; )



proutdoors said:


> I have made my stance on this clear, I have let my State Rep and my State Sen know where I stand on this issue, as have many of you.-Ov-


Roger that and thank you for doing so! Please, exercise your rights every **** day! After all, this is all about a fair and open process.

See you tomorrow at the hearings.


----------



## cacherinthewry (Dec 20, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Gulf,
> I contend there is no such thing as a 'conservative' state court. Utah's may be _less_ progressive than others, but that isn't saying much. I suppose you are a fan of eminent domain, you know, all for the "interests of the PUBLIC." :?
> 
> How can you assert that the USC is 'conservative' in one paragraph, then in the next say you are "certain" they would ADD in language? The judicial branch is NOT supposed to legislate, but if they ADD in language that is exactly what they would be doing. WTF? :roll:


I think Gulf is saying that if the Conatser issue was sent back to the Supreme Court, they would simply further define the easement in a manner supporting their original ruling. They would likely define the exact parameters of the easement, ie OHWM or wet foot. That is not legislating, it is simply further clarifying the existing law.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

280Remington said:


> deleted double post.


Praise the Lord!


----------



## cacherinthewry (Dec 20, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Unalienable rights are also called "natural law", and the U.S. Constitution was written based on the philosophy of natural law. One of the biggest influences on the writers of the Constitution was John Locke. One of his many quotes on the subject:
> 
> 
> > "The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property."
> ...


Traditional principles of property rights include:
1. Control of the use of the property
2. The right to any benefit from the property (examples: mining rights and rent)
3. A right to transfer or sell the property
4. A right to exclude others from the property.

Socialist and communist countries do not allow the citizens much, if any, in the way of private property. The more private property rights a citizen has, the freer he is.[/quote:3myiwrcx]

Pro, I do respect the rights of private property owners. But ours is a representative government. In a representative govenment, private property owners are not afforded more or fewer rights than those who don't own land. You don't get extra votes if you own three properties or a hundred acres. The public rights, as they relate to Conatser are equal to the rights of private interests. The easement defined by Conatser protects the interests of all the people of the state.

Webster on easement: "an interest in land owned by another that entitles its holder to a specific limited use or enjoyment"

Specific, limited use is exactly what Conatser is based on. The easement is for recreational use only, the ruling states that the recreational use must be activity that requires the use of the water, and does not invalidate the right to hold or protect private property.

There are many theories within Natural Law. One major document in world history, the Magna Charta, used the theories of natural law to hold that the waters, and the right to use the waters, belong to the public. This was done in the context of the Crown usurping the rights of the people to use the waters.

From Wikipedia - "New Natural Law" as it is sometimes called, originated with Grisez. It focuses on "basic human goods," such as human life, knowledge, and aesthetic experience, which are self-evidently and intrinsically worthwhile, and states that these goods reveal themselves as being incommensurable with one another.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

I support SB 267/HB-80, I was at the rally last Friday. I hope we can push this through. I want to fish those waters, I want my kids and grandkids to fish those waters, I want my friends and neighbor to fish those waters, I want PRO to fish those waters.... 

:evil: :evil: THAT'S MY RIVER AND YOU CAN'T FISH HERE!! :evil: :evil:


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Guns and Flies said:


> I support SB 267/HB-80, I was at the rally last Friday. I hope we can push this through. *I want to fish those waters, I want my kids and grandkids to fish those waters, I want my friends and neighbor to fish those waters, I want PRO to fish those waters.... *
> 
> :evil: :evil: THAT'S MY RIVER AND YOU CAN'T FISH HERE!! :evil: :evil:


I too, would like to fish those waters. But, not because of a law or a court order, but because of a friendly invitation from a land owner.


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

.45 said:


> [quote="Guns and Flies":12zab0vj]I support SB 267/HB-80, I was at the rally last Friday. I hope we can push this through. *I want to fish those waters, I want my kids and grandkids to fish those waters, I want my friends and neighbor to fish those waters, I want PRO to fish those waters.... *
> 
> :evil: :evil: THAT'S MY RIVER AND YOU CAN'T FISH HERE!! :evil: :evil:


I too, would like to fish those waters. But, not because of a law or a court order, but because of a friendly invitation from a land owner.[/quote:12zab0vj]

And I like stopping at stop lights.. I just wish the car in-front of me would kindly ask me to stop, rather than some silly law telling me I have to abide, or get a ticket..... and those dang kids waiting for the bus, I so wish they'd ask if they can wait on the public easement that I pay for and have to maintain... silly laws :mrgreen:


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

I am in favor of HB80------ that won't stop me from asking the land owner first. I just grew up waving at every farmer I pass- dropping off a bird on the door step of those that let me hunt- asking if they would like me to keep a fish for them- though I would not for myself , helping out on a farm I hunted in the mid west as a kid-------------- Dad was a very good teacher.
This bill /Conaster decision changes nada for me-------- but it is right.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

It took over 150 years to get this sign posted....

[attachment=0:ktw75yxx]050.JPG[/attachment:ktw75yxx]

For about 150 years this area 'used' to be open to the public. The PUBLIC took care of it by slaughtering cattle, chopping down trees for fires, junking their old cars, making new roads across alfalfa fields, cutting fence's, ripping barns and gates apart, burning haystacks and poaching.

Now you're trying to tell me that this area would be better kept if we open this up again for public abuse ???? HA !!!!!

I think a lot of you guy's have a very one sided and selfish approach to this issue. Again and still....I see NO compromise, only greedy people who want what somebody else has taken care of.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

And the Bastages that did that will do that no matter what the law or sign says.


----------



## cacherinthewry (Dec 20, 2007)

Packfish said:


> And the Bastages that did that will do that no matter what the law or sign says.


Agreed. No law puts a bubble over a property or guarantees any safety.

What's sad though, is that in trying to defend his property in that manner, posting no hunting or fishing alongside the no trespassing, he took away his own rights to hunt and fish on his property too.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

I don't see a stream in this photo. HB 80 defines an easement on a STREAM or RIVER that has been in existence since 1933. It states a person can pursue a lawful recreational activity within the ordinary high water mark of a stream. This is the law in Idaho and Montana. A person still cannot walk across private property to gain access to the stream bed.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

cacherinthewry said:


> Packfish said:
> 
> 
> > And the Bastages that did that will do that no matter what the law or sign says.
> ...


Very telling that the landowners are called "Bastages" because they don't allow THEIR land to be abused and their possessions taken/ruined. :?

It may not put a bubble over their property, but it WILL cut down the abuses to it, and give the landowner legal recourse if abuse takes place.

There is a bunch of private property in Settlement Canyon east of Southeast of Tooele. Years ago the landowners got tired of picking up trash, repairing damage to cabins, and harassment of livestock. They wrote a Letter to the Editor in the local paper asking people to haul out their trash, stop damaging property, and to leave the livestock alone or else they would shut access off to the public. What happened? People felt they were 'entitled' to do what they wanted up there, even writing letter of their own in the paper calling the landowners greedy/selfish (kind of like call them Bastages). So, now the land is blocked off for ALL who aren't personally invited by the landowners. This is why landowners are the way they are. But, go ahead and blame the landowners. :? :roll:


----------



## UtahSprig (Sep 11, 2007)

Pro, I think the "bastages" comment was aimed at the people who had caused all that damage not the land owner. At least that's how I read the comment.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

UtahSprig said:


> Pro, I think the "bastages" comment was aimed at the people who had caused all that damage not the land owner. At least that's how I read the comment.


You are correct. My bad, and my apologies to all who I may have offended.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> and those dang kids waiting for the bus, I so wish they'd ask if they can wait on the public easement that* I pay for and have to maintain*... silly laws :mrgreen:


Good point......who's going to pay for and maintain these _other_ 'Public Easements' you seek ?


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> UtahSprig said:
> 
> 
> > Pro, I think the "bastages" comment was aimed at the people who had caused all that damage not the land owner. At least that's how I read the comment.
> ...


 never been offended by something on the net- well except that naked picture of Pelosi -------------


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Packfish said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > UtahSprig said:
> ...


Yikes.. pre or post botox?


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

.45 said:


> [quote="F/V Gulf Ventur":1vgg3cs1] and those dang kids waiting for the bus, I so wish they'd ask if they can wait on the public easement that* I pay for and have to maintain*... silly laws :mrgreen:


Good point......who's going to pay for and maintain these _other_ 'Public Easements' you seek ?[/quote:1vgg3cs1]

To maintain exactly what?... maintain the fish? taxpayers do already or did you mean the wildlife division that maintains the fishery? again, the tax payers already do this too. maybe you meant the water, again tax payers do... remember even if the taxpayer doesn't utilize the water or the fish they still pay... how unfair.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

I spend a good amount of time on rivers and streams and rarely see any trash and if I do I pick it up. Most of the people I run across are nice people. I think the idea that public abuse the land is more of an excuse to be selfish. I would be willing to do some habitat work like the dedicated hunter to keep the land accessible, like a dedicated fisherman program. Let discuss how the public and do whatever they need to do to keep this right rather than just decide that everyone has to stay out. I’m willing to compromise.

I don’t believe that the landowners have done some honorable deed by keeping their rivers and streams so well taken care of .45, they would have been just fine without the extra pampering. And I believe it is the landowners that are being selfish, they have their piece of pie and don’t want to share. I don't buy the “public abuses the land” of the hundreds of times I’ve been out I rarely see any type of trash let alone any vandalism or such.

This is how I see it so: 
:^8^:


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

.45 said:


> It took over 150 years to get this sign posted....
> 
> [attachment=0:2abpirdc]050.JPG[/attachment:2abpirdc]
> 
> ...


There were a lot of speakers for the private property interests that used stuff like this today. Fact of the matter is, the easement doesn't apply to areas outside the stream bed...PERIOD! And HB 80 defines it even more clearly....PERIOD! A lot of hyperbole, like this, about people pitching tents, making fires, riding snowmobiles and cutting fences...and because of the Court there is nothing the landowner can do. Not true. Very false actually. Very false. With or without HB 80. I wish people would just stick to the real issues instead of trying to confuse with inaccurate allegations of what the easement has done.

Pro, you are exactly right about what rights real property generally carry with it. There are 3 rights associated with property ownership. The right to use, transfer, and exclude. (Although one could argue they are not constitutional guarantees, but common law guarantees. I'd be interested to see them argued as constitutional guarantees though.) None of these rights are absolute, each can be limited by many factors. One of those factors that can limit the right to use, or exclude is an easement. Easements are just as legally recognized property interests as the ownership itself. In fact, an owner of an easement is considered the 'dominate estate' while the landowner is considered the 'servient estate'. You know all this, but other may not.

The question here is very simple. Does a recreational easement exist on all waters of the State? If so, then absolutely no constitutionally or common law protected property right is violated. We can fight all day and night about the easement and its scope, but I will simply refer anyone to the High Court of our state. As it's their word that is the final say on all constitutional issues. You can disagree with the Court, but that doesn't mean it makes the easement go away.

I perfectly understand the frustrations of landowners here. I also understand the legal aspects of this issue well enough. And I think ultimately, regardless of how this legislative session turns out, this issue will be decided by the Courts. And once again, private property interests will be asking a unanimous Supreme Court to overturn itself. Not only once, but twice in JJNP and Conatser. It's a lofty order, and I would wish them luck in that endeavor. I personally would just like to get it right the first time the way it will end up a few years down the line anyway and save us all a lot of time, resources, and effort. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

TS30 said:


> I wish people would just stick to the real issues instead of trying to confuse with inaccurate allegations of *what the easement has done.*


I wasn't talking about what the easement had _done_....I'm talking about the reason for the 'No Trespassing' signs...years and years of abuse, Yes, by the PUBLIC !!



F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> To maintain exactly what?... maintain the fish? taxpayers do already or did you mean the wildlife division that maintains the fishery? again, the tax payers already do this too. maybe you meant the water, again tax payers do... remember even if the taxpayer doesn't utilize the water or the fish they still pay... how unfair.


Wow!! No maintenance issue's??
No fence, no gate, no fence ladder, no litter, no pull-over areas, no garbage cans, no signage, no law enforcement ?? And then of course, down the road, we'll see restrooms, ADA parking, sign-in sheets and larger parking area's.

These are the types of maintenance issue's I'm referring to F/V.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

.45 said:


> I wasn't talking about what the easement had _done_....I'm talking about the reason for the 'No Trespassing' signs...years and years of abuse, Yes, by the PUBLIC !!


Once again, if it isn't about what the easement has done, then it isn't relevant to the discussion. Trespassing is already against the law. If people are trespassing on your land and doing damage or abuse, then it has nothing to do with Conatser or HB 80, and there is nothing HB 141 will do to change that. Trespassing is illegal now, what makes you think passing another bill will stop the same people from breaking that new law?

I understand the frustration. I don't like when my neighbor kids kick their soccer ball in my wife's flower beds, then trample her flowers to go and get it. And that's pretty small potatoes. But just as Conatser and HB 80 didn't and wouldn't allow that, they didn't and won't allow the damage or abuse you are referring to either. Hence, why I said I would really like to see the private property interests stick to the real subject at hand here. Red herrings get old, quickly!


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

.45 said:


> [quote="F/V Gulf Ventur":mn4ywshn]
> 
> To maintain exactly what?... maintain the fish? taxpayers do already or did you mean the wildlife division that maintains the fishery? again, the tax payers already do this too. maybe you meant the water, again tax payers do... remember even if the taxpayer doesn't utilize the water or the fish they still pay... how unfair.


Wow!! No maintenance issue's??
No fence, no gate, no fence ladder, no litter, no pull-over areas, no garbage cans, no signage, no law enforcement ?? And then of course, down the road, we'll see restrooms, ADA parking, sign-in sheets and larger parking area's.

These are the types of maintenance issue's I'm referring to F/V.[/quote:mn4ywshn]

HUh?....Fence, gate, ladder, enforcement....These are already paid for/will be implemented... the DWR has an access program--> paid. Blue Ribbon has allowed a huge sum of cash -->paid... Taxes for enforcement--> paid. Taxes for fish--> paid

As far as the Restrooms? large parking areas?.. exactly what are you talking about? Are you really paying attention to whats going on? IF so, what was your take on the DWR's response at the hearing?


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> As far as the Restrooms? large parking areas?.. exactly what are you talking about? *Are you really paying attention to whats going on?* IF so, what was your take on the DWR's response at the hearing?


No....I haven't been paying attention, been kinda busy this last week. I'll study up before I pester you, catherder (ouch) and TS anymore.. :wink:


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Post all you want. But it would be a much more fruitful discussion if we focused on the real issues. That's all I'm saying. 

After sitting in the hearings and listening to one landowner get up and complain about how HB 80 would all for any type of hunting as long as they were in the river (did he even read the bill?), and then the same guy saying that all anglers carry pliers and they cut his fence, his prized black angus beef cows get out, get hit on the highway, and they get sued, all because of Conatser (did he even read the decision?)...and many other things like saying the bill would allow for campfires up on the bank, people pitching tents, cutting fences to go snowmobiling, and a myriad of other completely asinine allegations about this bill....I'm tired of explaining that all of that is already illegal, and would remain illegal under HB 80, only with stronger penalties and less landowner liability. 

I mean, seriously.....did the people the farm bureau paraded in wearing cowboy hats even read the bill they were there to oppose? Or are they just opposing because they were told to? I know where my money is on that one.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

TS30 said:


> I mean, seriously.....did the people the farm bureau paraded in wearing cowboy hats even read the bill they were there to oppose? Or are they just opposing because they were told to? I know where my money is on that one.


IMHO, this paragraph reeks of arrogance. Let me get this straight, all those who agree with you who showed up did so on their own accord and because they feel passionate about this bill, but all those who were on the other side where "paraded" in and were idiots. This is from someone who recently was preaching to ME about how we need all sides to 'compromise' and work 'together'. Shallow words with no substance is what I get from this type of rhetoric. :? You can do better than that. :roll:


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> TS30 said:
> 
> 
> > Let me get this straight...


Nope, once again you didn't get it straight. Just like you read into who was being called "bastages" and got it so completely wrong. It was funny, a couple pages ago you talked about how people had to revert to personal attacks. This is nothing more than just that, ad-hominem attacks, not willing to stick to the argument at hand.

No, not everyone who was there supporting HB 80 is deeply passionate about this issue. Some probably showed up just because a friend asked them. But I assure you that everyone who spoke in favor, was educated on the issue. That can not be said for those there to oppose. Were you there? If not, go back and listen to the audio, you'll get what I'm talking about. The insane (yes, absolutely insane) allegations of what the Conatser decision did, and then what HB 80 would further do have become the regular. Read the bill. Understand what it says before you formulate an opinion. And stick to the real issues. I don't think that is too much to ask, especially for someone who is going to show up and speak for or against a bill before our state's legislature.

One last time, Conatser does not allow for people to walk across anyone corn or alfalfa field to get to the river. It doesn't allow people to litter or vandalize your property. It doesn't allow someone to cut down your fence and ride their snowmobile up the mountain. It doesn't allow me to build a campfire on your property and pitch my tent for the night. It doesn't allow me to cut your fence, letting out your prized angus beef cows out on the highway. And it surely doesn't require you to put up parking areas and port-a-potties for your trespassers. I think that covers most of the rhetoric spoken against HB 80 on Friday.

And on top of that, HB 80 strengthens all those "it doesn't allow" statements and lessens landowner liability. It also clearly defines the easement and restricts it from where Conatser and JJNP stand right now. It also requires anyone who uses this easement to be educated on its limits. Which from this conversation, requiring a few landowners to take that education would be just as important as the rogue recreational users out there as well. With the complete refusal of one side to budge on any topic, and their constant confusing of the issues, it only tells me that this is bound to be decided by the high Court once again anyway. That's fine with me, I know where they are going to land on this. They've already spoken....twice! Three times is a charm. Too bad all the protections that HB 80 would give landowners that recreational users acquiesced will not be in place when the Court speaks for a third time. Nobody can say that the effort to balance these competing interests was not there for HB 80. Everyone have a very happy President's Day!


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

http://utfb.fb.org/Website/Stream%20Acc ... ooklet.pdf

Interesting reading here from the Farm Bureau, it's good to understand the 'other side' of the story.....takes awhile to download, but it does shed a different light.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

Article I, Section 1. [Inherent and inalienable rights.]
All men have the inherent and *inalienable right to enjoy and defend their lives and liberties;* to acquire, possess and protect property; to worship according to the dictates of their consciences; to assemble peaceably, protest against wrongs, and petition for redress of grievances; to communicate freely their thoughts and opinions, being responsible for the abuse of that right.

Note the bold/underlined bit that comes before acquisition of property of our constitution. My life and my liberties are as important as the next person. If the legislature wants to put the question to the floor of each house of what is more important, water rights or private property rights, I really wouldn't mind seeing that bloody mess.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

fishsnoop, ones rights only hold water (pun intended) if those rights don't infringe on another persons rights.

What is going on is NOT a fight between water rights and property rights, but rather water ACCESS and property rights, big difference! As someone who grew up farming/ranching I know the importance of water rights. But muddling the water (another intentional pun) by mixing water rights with water access is a mistake. As is dismissing the other side and their views/opinions/logic as TS30 seems wont to do.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

So Prooutdoors are you trying to say that my constitutional right to enjoy life and liberties is just not as important as your property or mine, even though it is the first sentence of our state constitution? I am not saying water rights and property rights are even on the same playing field, water will always win. I am saying my life and my liberties are higher than the simple comparables that have been thrown out there in hearings last week. 
You should have come to hear the opposition, like yourself, speak with such a higher authority.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

When or where did I say such a thing? Stop reading things in that aren't there. I simply stated that ones' rights, yours OR mine, only apply where they do not infringe on another persons rights, yours OR mine. If my rights infringe on your rights, then my rights in that specific case cease to exist, that is all I am saying. I realize you've been on the hill fighting the good fight, but there is no need to start one with me on this. :? 

But, I still disagree that water rights will always win over property rights. at least not by my definition of property rights, which often entails a lot more than a piece of dirt.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> As is dismissing the other side and their views/opinions/logic as TS30 seems wont to do.


Another ad hominem attack? I'd probably stick to that instead of the actual argument. You've been really good at not answering the questions I've posed. I understand why.

This is all about use. Not access, but use. The Supreme Court never mentioned access as a right of the easement, only the ability to use (utilize) the easement that we own. Just as ranchers or landowners can obtain the right to use water in various ways (never own, just use), the public has a *CONSTITUTIONAL* right to all beneficial uses of the water. Yes, constitutional, not statutory or common law, but CONSTITUTIONAL. Search the history and administrative rules on water allocation, and tell me if recreation is a beneficial use.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Can you use water you can't access? Since you say this is NOT about access, please explain how you can use something you can't access? :?


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> Can you use water you can't access? Since you say this is NOT about access, please explain how you can use something you can't access? :?


You can only access from PUBLIC right of ways , easements and other public waters on public land unless permission is granted or it is not posted. Access already exists. It was the use that was being illegally prohibited by landowners since 1982. Prior to that it was culture not law that dictated the DWR handbook/regs. and the belief of asking permission (which I followed).


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> When or where did I say such a thing? Stop reading things in that aren't there. I simply stated that ones' rights, yours OR mine, only apply where they do not infringe on another persons rights, yours OR mine. If my rights infringe on your rights, then my rights in that specific case cease to exist, that is all I am saying. I realize you've been on the hill fighting the good fight, but there is no need to start one with me on this. :?
> 
> But, I still disagree that water rights will always win over property rights. at least not by my definition of property rights, which often entails a lot more than a piece of dirt.


The easement doesn't infringe on anyones rights, they co-exist. One is subserviant while the other is dominant. Who carries the grester burden is the question. I am not asking you a question with that either, I know the answer.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Easements can, and often do, infringe on others rights. How can one seriously deny that? They can/should co-exist, but that is not assured in all cases.

Here's the bottom line one more time for me. I do NOT support/oppose any specific bill being debated at the capital at this time. My concern is, always has been, always will be the rights of private property being upheld and respected by ALL regardless of which side, if any, you/I stand on this. To me, no other right is as vital to a free society as private property, easements are waaaaaay down the list of rights I fell essential to personal liberty and sustained freedom.

I am NOT the enemy, and truth be told, neither are those who have stood and voiced their differing views at the capital. Best of luck, keep the passion.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

I am having a hard time following your line of thinking on this issue Pro. Alot of these type discussions I don't even post on as I would just be saying the same things you do with different words. I see it like this according to the UTSC[my opinion here] in the Conatser decision landowners and law enforcement have for years denied the general public access to public waterways. Citizens have been denied their inalienable right to life,liberty,and pursuit of happiness ie fines for tresspassing because a person incidental to using the waterway touched the riverbed due to an erroneous interpretation of the law. The interpretetion used prior to Conatser was assinine and ridiculous IMO. I was adamantly opposed to HB187 last year. I think HB 80 is a good bill that balances the competing interests and is in compliance with the constitution only thing it really does is clarify what "streambed" means. Besides that what is the difference between this easement and the easement that several entities have on my property? I mean they can come in with heavy equipment destroy my landscaping and infringe on my privacy and the ability to use my yard for months at a time. It is an inconvenience for sure but in the end it is a win-win in the end.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> Easements can, and often do, infringe on others rights. How can one seriously deny that? They can/should co-exist, but that is not assured in all cases.
> 
> Here's the bottom line one more time for me. I do NOT support/oppose any specific bill being debated at the capital at this time. My concern is, always has been, always will be the rights of private property being upheld and respected by ALL regardless of which side, if any, you/I stand on this. To me, no other right is as vital to a free society as private property, easements are waaaaaay down the list of rights I fell essential to personal liberty and sustained freedom.
> 
> I am NOT the enemy, and truth be told, neither are those who have stood and voiced their differing views at the capital. Best of luck, keep the passion.


So, do you consider a persons body private property? Isn't the right of a person to do what they want to ones self more important than anything else? A persons right to think as they want? 
Way more important than some piece of dirt stolen from Native Americans less than a couple of hundred years ago.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Troll said:


> So, do you consider a persons body private property? Isn't the right of a person to do what they want to ones self more important than anything else? A persons right to think as they want?
> Way more important than some piece of dirt stolen from Native Americans less than a couple of hundred years ago.


I sure do consider ones body and mind essential private property, and like I have said, repeatedly, those rights only apply as long as they don't infringe on others rights.

As for the nonsensical comment about "stealing" dirt from 'Native Americans, it's sad people actually believe such garbage.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> Troll said:
> 
> 
> > So, do you consider a persons body private property? Isn't the right of a person to do what they want to ones self more important than anything else? A persons right to think as they want?
> ...


So, your pro abortion?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

No I am not "pro abortion", since the rights of the unborn child should be considered, and I would never support someone close to me having one. However, I do think each state should decide the abortion issue, and NOT the federal government as it now stands with Roe v Wade. Why anyone would be "pro abortion" is beyond me. I can see why some can support having abortions legal, but not being "pro abortion".


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Troll said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Troll said:
> ...


I'm not so sure we need to argue abortion on the Utah stream access issue topic, and on a wildlife and outdoors discussion forum.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

wyogoob said:


> Troll said:
> 
> 
> > proutdoors said:
> ...


ditto....


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

fishsnoop said:


> ditto....


 I can finally agree with you !!

Now can we get back to the House Bill arguments...we now have a Senate Bill that isn't too popular ?


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

wyogoob said:


> Troll said:
> 
> 
> > proutdoors said:
> ...


I'm not so sure we need to argue abortion on the Utah stream access issue topic, and on a wildlife and outdoors discussion forum.[/]

There is probably no stronger personal rights argument in the US than my example, maybe right to die, that is why I chose it.

I place personal rights above all else. That's the way it's written in Article 1 of the Utah Canstitution. "All men have the inherent and inalienable right to enjoy and defend their lives and liberties; to acquire, possess and protect property; to worship according to the dictates of their consciences; to assemble peaceably, protest against wrongs, and petition for redress of grievances; to communicate freely their thoughts and opinions, being responsible for the abuse of that right." 
They put the right to enjoy as the very 1st right, then following a semicolon, property rights. This was done very carefully and clearly to state that enjoyment of life trumps all other rights.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

I understand, and am sensitive to, the correlation between abortion rights and personal water rights. But we could apply that correlation to many issues on the Forum. Historically, abortion arguments have gone poorly on the UWN. That being said I ask to discontinue the abortion rhetoric, or the post will be locked.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

fishsnoop said:


> wyogoob wrote:
> 
> Troll wrote:
> 
> ...


Wow, I leave the state for a few days and the HB 80 discussion gets pretty far afield. :roll: :wink:


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

I also have been watching this thread and would like to see it kept on track.
This is a passionate, heated debate with people on both sides making their points.
This is what the forum is here for.

Please stay on topic, be respective of others and state your feelings.
We don't want to see this locked up but it'd up to you.

So go to your corners and wait for the bell and then come out fighting. :O||:


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

One thing I really have to admire is the _Utah Water Guardians_....right or wrong, these guy's really stick to their guns. 
Their devotion and dedication to this issue is unbelievably overwhelming. They do their homework, talk to legislators, recruit business's and shops, collect funds, hit the email and cel phones to push for their cause. If I ever needed help, these are the type of guys I would want on my side. 
I still have a hard time with the issue in general, I hate to see any of us disrupt any farmer's cattle, sheep, animals or privacy. And I would just as soon have a farmers blessing than feel like I was unwelcome visitor. But, if it has to be done, I would say that HB-80 would be a good thing. I hope all parties involved can come to a _fair and just_ agreement.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_14435758

Scary when I agree with the SL Tribune Editors. :shock:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Of course, there's always been a way for the public to gain access to private stream beds. Ask the owner's permission. That still should be the standard.


Best sentence in the Tribune article, and is ALL that is really needed to solve this 'issue'. :shock:


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> > Of course, there's always been a way for the public to gain access to private stream beds. Ask the owner's permission. That still should be the standard.
> 
> 
> Best sentence in the Tribune article, and is ALL that is really needed to solve this 'issue'. :shock:


And then there is the answer that I have gotten from many land owners when I have asked for hunting access.
Not only no but hell no!
HB141 is not the friend of Sportsmen.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Well, Pro and I finally agree about something regarding this issue.



proutdoors said:


> Scary when I agree with the SL Tribune Editors.


I can confidently say that I STILL disagree with the Tribs editors about every time. :wink:

As for the content, I have my doubts about how much these guys really studied this issue when I read stuff like this;

"This expansive ruling gave the public recreational access to any stream, lake, pond or puddle in the state, regardless of who owns the land around or beneath them, so long as folks use a public access point to enter the stream"

Sorry, but Conatser does not allow very much, if any opportunity for the public to access "lakes, ponds, or puddles".

And this;

"HB80, by contrast, would open the floodgates to recreationists on any stream, no matter the size."

HB 80 will do nothing of the sort. It merely defines the limits to the Conatser decision. It could be said that Conatser "opened the floodgates", but it is highly erroneous to say that HB80 will "open" anything. It simply defines the rules of the court decision. Of course all of you already knew this since we have talked about this a dozen times in the various threads on here :wink:.


----------



## cacherinthewry (Dec 20, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> > Of course, there's always been a way for the public to gain access to private stream beds. Ask the owner's permission. That still should be the standard.
> 
> 
> Best sentence in the Tribune article, and is ALL that is really needed to solve this 'issue'. :shock:


Had Mr. Johnson said yes to Mr. Conatser, none of this would be going on right now.

Pro, I'm surprised that you are in favor of a tax increase for private landowners.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

cacherinthewry said:


> Pro, I'm surprised that you are in favor of *a tax increase for private landowners*.


Brother, that will sweeten the pot !!! :roll:


----------



## caddisguy (Sep 10, 2007)

The current bill reads;

73-1-1. Waters declared property of public.
72 (1) All waters in this state, whether above or under the ground are hereby declared to
73 be the property of the public, subject to all existing rights to the use thereof.
74 (2) The public may use a public water for recreational activity if the public water:
75 (a) (i) is a navigable waterway, as defined by federal law; or
76 (ii) is on public property; and
77 (b) the recreational activity is not otherwise prohibited by law.
78 (3) The public has no right to the recreational use of public waters on private property
79 to which access is restricted, as defined in Section 73-29-102 , without permission of the
80 property owner or as provided in Chapter 29, Public Waters Access Act.

Doesn't this put public access right back to the pre Conatser ruling and put it right back before the Supreme Court?


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

caddisguy said:


> Doesn't this put public access right back to the pre Conatser ruling and put it right back before the Supreme Court?


Yes! :evil:


----------

