# My Response to Anti-Recreation/Anti-Fishing H.B. 187



## LawMan (Sep 25, 2007)

Here is what I have sent, or will be sending to every legislator on the Natural Resources and Water & Irrigation Committees. I'm not sure why it's not in Land Use, but I will probably send it to them too.

This represents my personal take on this proposed legislation. It is a terrible bill with potentially tremendous impact. Please voice your concerns to your representative and senator and to anyone else you can think of and get them to do the same. My kids are writing and so is my scout troop. Now is not the time to wait.



> Dear Representative X:
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to review my concerns about a bill recently introduced during this legislative session. H.B. 187 "RECREATIONAL USE OF PUBLIC WATERS" is a dangerous bill which, if passed, will harm the people of this state and have a major negative impact upon the economic interests of this State and its people. I apologize in advance for the length of this letter, but I am compelled to make sure you understand at least some of the negative consequences to your constituents if this bill is passed.
> 
> ...


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

*Re: My Response to Anti-Recreation H.B. 187*

Well done, LAWMAN.


----------



## Theekillerbee (Jan 8, 2009)

*Re: My Response to Anti-Recreation H.B. 187*

I've already contacted my Representative and Senator and let them know I don't like anything about that bill.

If any of you care about fishing, or outdoor water use, you really need to contact your local Rep/Senator and let them know...do it NOW!


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

*Re: My Response to Anti-Recreation H.B. 187*

Hey Lawman, maybe you should consider changing the name of this thread to include *ANTI-FISHING* too. The DWR has thrown anglers under the bus. They are beholden to the legislature, not the fishermen, so they have no concerns about closing every stream in the state (except the list of 17 streams). I really love the part that says you can't fish within *150 yards, yes yards. *of a dwelling if they hang out a sign. I also like the way they made any stream that was posted before last summer to be exempt from any future use (this is in the historical use clause). Also, keep in mind that Rep Ben Ferry is having his strings pulled by the Utah Farm Bureau and the Utah Realtors Association on this crapola. They are the power and money behind this. *Now get out there and hug a realtor!*
R


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: My Response to Anti-Recreation H.B. 187*

I just wrote my rep on this one. Jim Bird. Good guy.

I don't think Buttars will listen to me on anything so I'll leave that one alone. If I let him know I oppossed it, he vote for it just to spite me.

Great letter though Lawman.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: My Response to Anti-Recreation H.B. 187*

Ok, here's a wrinkle in all this.... so if a waterway is not navigable (which could be applied to any number of small streams I currently fish) it becomes private. However, that being said... if the "private owner" is the government, like on National Forest or BLM land.... are they the private owner who can set their own access rules for that particular stream? So... if this bill passes, it will only wind up affecting a few waters that flow through private property right? Its basically the 180 degree turnaround from the YAHOO, WE WON bill that just went through right? I guess I just don't get how bad this really is unless folks are just upset about losing access to private, previously unfishable water that they've just recently been granted access to. Enlighten me.... 8)


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: My Response to Anti-Recreation H.B. 187*

The problems on this thing are far and wide. This basically will turn any water law completely on its ear, in taking the water from being held by the people of Utah, to being held by who ever's land it is running on. For fishing alone, that means that maintaining in-stream flows for habitat reasons is in jeopardy. (which will result in HUGE violation of the Endangered Species Act and a multi-million dollar legal defense will ensue but that is another story.) That said, if the water that runs across private lands becomes private water, then any water used downstream by a municipality is in jeopardy.

The issue is this bill is not about access to water we couldn't access before the Conastar decision. This is about access to water - period. And this bill will change that definition and trickle down into all water rights and law in the State. It is a BAD bill.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

*Re: My Response to Anti-Recreation H.B. 187*

It is a jab at our rights, as anglers. This is just the tip of the iceberg of what the future could bring. The water itself has always been public, but how can it really be defined as public water if the public cannot utilize it? The fly fisherman have caused the biggest stir in this issue but this is a matter that involves all sportsmen, not just anglers. If politicians have the power to reverse supreme court decisions, whats next? Hunters, do you want land owners policing CWMU's? Making up there own laws because it is "their land?" This is what is possibly in the very near future.

Many landowners have expressed concerns about fencing wildlife. Cattle and sheep eroding streambanks are more damaging than any unlawful angler out there. And the thing that pisses me off the most about this entire thing is that those p***ies at the DWR are too chicken @&$# to stand up for the anglers, whom pay their salaries with license dollars. The DWR doesn't think that anglers are going to quit buying licenses so the only loss in revenue will be by anglers disconnecting ties to the DWR by shutting down walk in acces programs and CWMU units. They don't want to lose that revenue so they are going to remain neutral in the issue that has anglers outraged statewide. So much for looking out for the majority, huh? If HB187 passes, its going to be a slippery slope that we will likely to never overcome and downslide from there.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

*Re: My Response to Anti-Recreation H.B. 187*

http://www.eastcanyoncreek.org/mamb...sessment_of_east_canyon_creek_tributaries.pdf

anyone remember when this stream was completely dried up in 2005? Garyfish hit the nail right on the head. Many of these landowners throw the ESA in the trash. The fines many companies pay are well under their profit for taking the water. We need to get these waterways in the hands of the public, to whom the belong to avoid this being common practice in the future.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

FlyGuy hit on something that is very odd about Utah DWR. As I've lived in other states, the wildlife agencies are VERY overt in their promotion of the cause of fishermen and hunters. UDWR seems to take a very neutral position of only regulating hunting and fishing, with limited promotion of their cause. I know those within the agency would take offense at this. But if they've ever looked beyond Utah's borders and seen how other wildlife/fish and game agencies take a very aggressive fight for and in behalf of hunters/fishermen, they would realize how weak the approach is here.

On the Conastar case and this bill - DWR ought to be fighting this thing in the presses and screaming from the tops of buildings to fight for their cause. Instead of waiting and seeing what they are told to say by the AG. Montana has its access laws because Montana GFP has invested time and resources to actively fight for them. And the only real word we've gotten from UDWR since the case came down is a "wait and see how things go." That approach doesn't work in business and it certainly doesn't work in representing their own cause. Agencies CAN BE ADVOCATES!


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

I revieved emails from my reps. Lorie Fowlke was super suportive and took the time to read the old bill. I plan on emailing her tonight and sending her some updated info. The other rep responded but wanted to see the bill. I will send her the same info. One thing I did was a attach a big picture of me holding a beautiful brown with a big smile on my face. I think that helped to get my email noticed as both reps responded quickly and congratulated me on the fish. Just another idea.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

The DWR has shown its true colors. Anti-fishing and pro big-game CMU's. It's all about the dinero and the big landowners/developers have it. So much for recruitment of youngsters to hunting and fishing. The message to the public from the DWR is that the rich folks rule the world of wildlife and it would be better if the little people would just be quiet and accept it (Trust us, we're from the government and we're here to help you).
R


----------



## Greenguy88 (Sep 7, 2007)

So I decided I need to take action in this, how do i find my representatives and can I just use Lawmans writing? Im not very savvy with this law stuff, but I wanna help out as much as I can!


----------



## RnF (Sep 25, 2007)

Greenguy88 said:


> So I decided I need to take action in this, how do i find my representatives and can I just use Lawmans writing? Im not very savvy with this law stuff, but I wanna help out as much as I can!


Thank you greenguy88, it's not to late to have your voice heard. Go to the following links for more info

http://utahwaterguardians.wordpress.com/

Link to find your representative
http://www.le.state.ut.us/maps/amap.html


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Greenguy88, Thanks for becoming involved! I would be happy to help you (or anyone else) craft a short pointed letter to your legislators. Send me an email if you would like some help on this. [email protected] 
R


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I heard from my rep (Jim Bird - West Jordan) today. He will be voting against this bill.


----------



## utahtu (Apr 2, 2008)

Here is the official response from DWR that I received from a DWR staff member:

“We’ll continue to work with Rep. Ferry to balance the interests of anglers
and private landowners. We recognize that anglers contribute significantly
to wildlife management in the state and that private land provides valuable
wildlife habitat.”


Key Points


1. This is a very complicated issue.

2. The recent ruling by the Utah Supreme Court—commonly known as the
Conatser ruling—left several questions unanswered.

3. We support legislation that will help answer those questions. 

4. We appreciate the time Rep. Ferry took to listen to the DWR, anglers
and private landowners as he drafted this bill. This bill is a first
attempt to address the concerns both anglers and private landowners have about
this issue.

5. More information about the Conatser ruling is available on the Web at
wildlife.utah.gov/fishing/waters_access.php.

It seems to me that Walt Donaldson and Jim Carpowitz are in the pockets of Ben Ferry and the Relators.


----------



## utahtu (Apr 2, 2008)

In my opinion this is a very weak, politically correct response from DWR. The fish and game agencies of the surroundings states of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana are advocates of their constituents - the anglers and hunters. Here in Utah the DWR only responds to the legislature and private land owners.



Why doesn't the DWR advocate for the angler? They bend over backwards for the hunters in Utah giving them special hunting regulations and limited entry hunts. Why can't the anglers have limited entry fishing areas? DWR has a Dedicated Hunter Program, why don't they have a Dedicated Angler Program?


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

utahtu said:


> Here is the official response from DWR that I received from a DWR staff member:
> 
> "We'll continue to work with Rep. Ferry to balance the interests of anglers
> and private landowners. We recognize that anglers contribute significantly
> ...


I have a hat that says "Utah fFsh and Game SUCKS! I will be wearing it from now on when taking part in any fishing or hunting related activity. :wink: 
This whole issue is a joke and the DNR could care less what us sportsmen think. I will be VERY leary of giving any money to them in the future!


----------



## cane2477 (Oct 24, 2007)

This is a copy of the letter I just emailed to the great Mr. Perry:

Representative Ferry, 

I just wanted to pass on my thanks from all Utah fisherman. This bill you have introduced, if passed, will severely limit our rights as fisherman to enjoy our right to fish many of the beautiful rivers/waterways of our great state. This bill is nothing more than a disguise to appease land owners that lost the right (that they never had in the first place according to the state supreme court) to keep lawful fishermen out of streams that flow through their property. This bill does nothing but further put restrictions on where tax and license paying fisherman can and can't fish. Enough is enough, please respect our rights as fisherman and taxpayers of this great state by withdrawing this bill. Instead, focus your efforts on stiffening penalties for illegal trespassers and people that willfully damage private property. 99% of fisherman want nothing more than to protect our rivers and streams. The state doesn't need to be protecting these waters from us.

Sincerely,
John Stinnett


----------



## LawMan (Sep 25, 2007)

*Here is my letter to Rep. Ferry:*



> Dear Representative Ferry,
> 
> While there is a lot of controversy surrounding your HB187, I would like to give you my deepest thanks for proposing this bill. I, as a landowner like you and your family, value my privacy and ability to fish in what I consider to be the private trout stream that runs through my property, without being bothered by members of the public. I am looking very forward to being able to arrest and sue all those people that are not as wealthy as I am and cannot afford to purchase their own stretch of public waters, and try to use mine. I have already hired a fence company to surround my sections of the river.
> 
> ...


----------



## troutscout (Feb 12, 2009)

Absolutely beautiful!! Maybe Ferry will understand this better. He's good at the twisted, backhanded approach.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

Rep Ferry doesn't get it no matter what.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

What is his contact info, I would like to write him. 
I am so mad a the DWR, why are they concerned about land owner rights :evil: :evil: They shouldn't be balancing the rights of the public with the landowners, they should be righting for the rights of the public exclusively. :evil:


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

It's my hope that while we are at the State Capitol, someone will give us the information in a way that we will know what is really going on.

I know that there is 2 sides to this battle and there won't be a decision that will make everyone happy.

I just hope to see that the DWR has not sold out the Sportsmen in Utah.

I will hold judgement until I have heard the facts.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

Grandpa D said:


> It's my hope that while we are at the State Capitol, someone will give us the information in a way that we will know what is really going on.
> 
> I know that there is 2 sides to this battle and there won't be a decision that will make everyone happy.
> 
> ...


Words of Wisdom. Hopefully things are not as bad as I think they seem to be :wink:


----------



## 357bob (Sep 30, 2007)

I just received an E-mail from Ben Ferry and if I could figure out how to post the atatchment I would put it up here. Here the text of the e-mail, I'll try to post the atatchment later. Any wanting a copy, P.M. me and I'll forward it to you. Not sure it will make more sense of things but it may help.



> Dear Robert,
> 
> Thank you for your email regarding HB 187 Recreational Use of Public Waters. The title of the bill is a misnomer in that it addresses access to private land over which public waters flow. The bill does not impact public waters flowing over public lands (i.e. federal, state, local or SITLA lands).
> Private property owners were shocked when The Supreme Court ruled that the public can trespass on posted private lands by traveling up any natural stream within the state regardless of property ownership. The ruling was based on case law - not statutory or constitutional law.
> ...


----------



## FLYFSHR (Apr 16, 2008)

Lawman- your letter to Ferry was awesome...lol props 8)


----------



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

*UPDATE: RALLY TOMORROW!! *
Where: South Steps @ 10:30am - Thursday Feb. 19

Many of us are arriving early and organizing on the east steps @10am. *The rally will be held at 10:30 sharp on the SOUTH STEPS!!* After, we will all enter the capitol together. We will be sending in a request ("note") to speak with our representatives. There will be volunteers standing by to help with the process&#8230;&#8230;We all need to participate!!

_We also need volunteers to assist with the "note" process. For those interested please arrive early and we'll go over the details._


----------

