# Who is our Fishing Voice?



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

Who the Crap is Ed Kent??? 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Did someone elect Ed Kent to be the fishing voice?? I missed it then... But from what I have gathered he is the poster child for those who want to pose the bills for getting our rights kicked out of this state again. We have always had the right, the Supreme Court only clarified it. The bill will surface and be stealthy so that people will not realize they just lost their rights to fish water that is not technically owned by landowners and people who heard sheep. 

The current access laws we have mirror those of Idaho and Montana and it has worked for years. Don't mess with it.. Don't compromise... Don't give in, we have the teeth with a Supreme Court ruling and we need to hold on to it for our kids, and our kids' kids'!!! 

To the devil with self proclaimed "fishing voice" Ed Kent... What is he getting for his efforts?? Free passes??? Money??? What??? There has to be something, cause he is not talking for me.."

This was posted on another site. A really good question. Who did appoint this guy as our voice?


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

He isn't my voice!


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

This is the rebuttal comment to the first post.

"DSW. Dumb comment. Although you may disagree with Ed Kent personally or professionally, there's no call to throw rocks at Ed other angler and the divisiveness doesn't help the cause but only hurts it. Ed's spent years of his free time--time he could've spent fishing (and he's a fine stick, by the way)--volunteering for the Utah Angler's Coalition and working to give sportsmen a voice on any number of issues. A lot of it's been tough, thankless work, and he shouldn't be catching crap from anyone who, to my knowledge, has never lifted a finger in a similar capacity. You can disagree with Ed, and by all means, get involved yourself, but don't impugn Ed or his motives. Have you ever met him, talked to him, even bothered to send him an email? I suspect not, and yet you have the nerve to publicly accuse him of selling out other anglers for some narrow self interest. Poor show."

I don't care if this guy is a "good stick" if he's pushing for a compromise to the Supreme Court ruling then he isn't my voice either. How do you volunteer to give sportmen a voice when they never voted you in to be their voice? This here is funny politics. Sit with that worthless RAC bull and then annoint yourself the voice of anglers? BS.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I think you misunderstand and I'm sure you don't have the same information Ed has. I've worked with the guy on the ATV committee and he seems like a good man and he definitely isn't full of himself. He's very experienced with legislative politics - more than the bunch of us put together and he's pressing flesh with the movers and shakers on this deal. Approve or not, if no other reps for fishermen are on the hill right now, he's the de facto fishermen's voice.

When it comes to politics, money talks. Obviously, landowners talk louder than fishermen, especially since there are a lot of landowners who can argue that their property has been devalued by the recent ruling. I don't know, but I really doubt that its realistic for us to expect unregulated access to any private property that has a stream bed. So doesn't it stand to reason that some diplomacy and compromise is inevitable? Just asking.


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

Isn't that the whole point? If he is "our" voice as you claim, and he has information that you are sure we don't have, then as our voice, shouldn't he be telling us what we're talking about? :shock:

Further more...if he is our voice, when has he asked any of us what our views are?

Like I said: Funny politics. :?

I don't think it is unregulated access. The Supreme Court ruling says access by public easement; stay in the streambed. As has been mentioned Idaho and Montana have this tyoe of ruling. If Utah is going to keep claining to be the recreation center of the world, we better not lock the place up.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I asked this once before, but I will ask it again. What has Ed Kent said? Nowhere have I seen any pronouncements from him begging us to take some as of yet undefined compromise. It is entirely possible that I would vehemently disagree with him IF I actually knew what he had to say, but actual statements have been nonexistent. I get the feeling that this guy has been unfairly singled out because he was part of that first group that went in to see Rep. Ferry. Even if all that we have heard as innuendo is true, so what? I still have heard no statements from this so called "voice" of the fisherman.


It is absolutely critical we never lose sight that our enemies in this issue are BIG MONEY landowners, DEVELOPERS like Victory ranch, the FARM BUREAU'S political apparatus and the politicians that do all of their bidding. It sure as heck isn't Ed Kent.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> I don't know, but I really doubt that its realistic for us to expect unregulated access to any private property that has a stream bed. So doesn't it stand to reason that some diplomacy and compromise is inevitable? Just asking.


I don't expect unregulated access to private property! I *demand* unfettered access to streams, including their beds, the water in which belongs to the state. The public has been wrongfully denied said access for decades. So says the Utah Supreme Court! Rather than a compromise that would allow landowners to return to their illegal ways of denying access, I believe their should be some compensation *from* the landowners *to* the sportsmen for denying said access for as long as I can remember.

The ruling by the Utah Supreme Court did not take anything away from the landowners of the state of Utah. It proved that they were illegally denying access. Why would we offer a compromise to allow them to return to their criminal past?

Fishrmn


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> The ruling by the Utah Supreme Court did not take anything away from the landowners of the state of Utah. It proved that they were illegally denying access.* Why would we offer a compromise to allow them to return to their criminal past?*
> Fishrmn


That's a hell of way to classify some good honest, hardworking landowner's !! :roll: :roll: ..... The so called criminal past is and has been the problem of the State of Utah for ignoring the problems for 150+ years. The State has allowed the 'statute of limitations' to expire years ago. How about we back off the Ranchers, Landowners, etc. and beat up on the State instead ?!?!?!

The POS ruling is one hundred and fifty years too late !! Compensation and compromise by *all* parties is the only way I see out of it.


----------



## Al Hansen (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm just asking a question, so don't shoot me on this. :shock: Here goes. Should the access to public water also be granted to Reservation Land ?? Just askin. -O|o- o-||


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Al Hansen said:


> I'm just asking a question, so don't shoot me on this. :shock: Here goes. Should the access to public water also be granted to Reservation Land ?? Just askin. -O|o- o-||


No.........Tribal Lands are Federally protected against issue's such as this, they are actually sovereign land...


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Just because it's been done that way in the past, doesn't make it right. Nor does it change the *fact* that denying access is a criminal misuse of public waters. Do I really think that there should be reimbursement or compensation for denied access of the past? No. Do I think that there is anything wrong with the Supreme Court decision? *Hell No!!* I don't care what you used to do with your property. If there is a stream or river running through it, I have the legal right to fish it. So says the Utah Supreme Court. I'm not trying to beat up on landowners or ranchers. But they don't have the right to keep us out of the streams of the State of Utah.

Fishrmn


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> Just because it's been done that way in the past, doesn't make it right. Nor does it change the *fact* that denying access is a criminal misuse of public waters. Do I really think that there should be reimbursement or compensation for denied access of the past? No. Do I think that there is anything wrong with the Supreme Court decision? *Hell No!!* I don't care what you used to do with your property. If there is a stream or river running through it, I have the legal right to fish it. So says the Utah Supreme Court. I'm not trying to beat up on landowners or ranchers. But they don't have the right to keep us out of the streams of the State of Utah.
> 
> Fishrmn


With attitudes like this no wonder some landowners are leary about giving access.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

martymcfly73 said:


> With attitudes like this no wonder some landowners are leary about giving access.


Give access??? Give access??? WTH are you talking about. It was never theirs to give, or deny. They've been denying it without proper authority. So says the Utah Supreme Court.

Fishrmn


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Access?

This is a different topic.
If I understand it correct,
you can access the water by public access or with landowners permission, through the landowners property.

The ruling doesn't give anglers the right to trespass through a landowners property.

We will still need permission to access the water, if we go through the landowners property.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Grandpa D,
You're absolutely right. The ruling does not give anyone the right to trespass to access the streams of the state of Utah. It does allow anyone that has legally gained access to said stream to continue to travel in that stream regardless of whether or not it crosses private property. If you can get to the river or stream without trespassing on someone's property you can fish it's entire length, not just where you accessed it. A "No Trespassing", or "No Fishing" sign on a fence across a river is an attempt to deny access.

Fishrmn


----------



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

Guys.. lets get one thing straight here...

Turn to your copy of Conatser vs Johnson. Now tell me how many times the word "access" is used..... That's right, only (1) time. This USC ruling was and is not about access! The key words used in this case are "USE, UTILIZE, AND RIGHT"

carry on......


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

Who is our fishing voice?
You.
Jerry Nielson, the lawyer who successfully argued and ultimately won the ConaTSer ruling in the Utah Supreme Court.
and any Utah Rep or Senator who is actively interested in advocating and voting for a bill that advances your interests or against any bill that retreats on your interests.

Utah Rivers Council? Probably. Steve Schmidt. Probably. Utahwaterguardians? Probably. Others? Likely. However, those listed above are probably your best bets.

In preparation for the bill's introduction, you can find out and then list any legislator who represents your interest on this and other public forums, blogs, media, etc. You can also initiate or continue to start and maintain a dialogue with the legislators who will actually be voting and, thus, having the fishing voice that decides the bill's fate.

Also in preparation for the bill's introduction and in order for you to have a more knowledgeable waterway("waterway" includes both the water and the underlying land, or "bed") USE rights voice (FISHING rights and ACCESS rights are a completely different issue and set of rights), read, learn and understand the underlying issues, rulings and terminology so that when you voice your interests, they will be taken seriously.

For starters, read, learn and understand the USCt ruling, http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopi ... 071808.pdf .

In the USCt ruling, read the Conclusion and then ask yourself, "Which Right is this ruling addressing? Is it addressing the Right to Access, the Right to Fish or the Right to Use? Then report your findings to this thread.

For those of you who answer this question correctly, you are on your way to better voicing the relevant rights, the rights that matter in this particular case, when the bill comes up and as equipped to voice your rights as any of the others that you have, so far, granted implied permission to voice your rights for you.

You can be ignorant or knowledgable of the facts, issues, rights, etc.

Your choice.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

It doesn't matter what language is used. Call it whatever you like, but it amounts to the same thing. The ruling grants the general public access to places where we were previously unable to go and amounts to the instant creation of an open trail system. And we know just how well the public stays on trails. I'm not a landowner, but I don't think telling them "So sad, too bad." is right. If there are fair and sensible compromises that can be made, why not?

There was a day, not long ago, when private property was not a real issue for Utah sportsmen. Somewhere along the way, things got really screwed up. But landowners are not our enemies. More bad blood between landowners and sportsmen does no good for anybody.


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

And some landowner named Johnson was willing to compromise with the Conatsers when he called the sheriff on them for floating down "his" river (the Weber). I've had enough interactions with landowners with streams on their property to tell you that almost everyone of them I asked permission to "access" their water, told me "NO, and don't ask again. I'm sick of fishermen asking me for permission to fish." I asked nicely, but was treared rudely.

Now, the tables are turned and they want to compromise. How convienent for them. They want us to talk and discuss and come to an agreement. Most of them have been very rude and I have the names of the ones who have treated me like a piece of crap when I asked to fish a little section of their water. I'm just short of posting their names on a public forum so all you fishermen can see how willing they are to compromise. I wouldn't doubt if this is just their first step to see how far they can really go to keep us out.

I had verbal pernission to fish a stretch of the Weber and happened to start below a bridge, not realizing that the person who gave me permission property started above the bridge. Next thing I heard was someone calling me every name in the book including the F word! I told him I had verbal permission and who gave it to me and he said, "Then take five steps forward to get off my property."

I don't think it's the fishermen who are out there starting the confrontations. All we want to do is fish. We're actually harmless. It's a pretty harmless activity (unless you are a fish), I think the landowners are the ones who are treating us anglers poorly. Don't turn it around and make then saints. Not all, but most of them are rude!! Johnson was rude to Conatsers! The landowners started this crap by treating someone like crap.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

I get it......  .

*All* landowner's are rude......

*All* fishermen are polite and harmless....


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

Finnegan said:


> It doesn't matter what language is used. Call it whatever you like, but it amounts to the same thing. The ruling grants the general public access to places where we were previously unable to go and amounts to the instant creation of an open trail system. And we know just how well the public stays on trails. I'm not a landowner, but I don't think telling them "So sad, too bad." is right. If there are fair and sensible compromises that can be made, why not?
> 
> There was a day, not long ago, when private property was not a real issue for Utah sportsmen. Somewhere along the way, things got really screwed up. But landowners are not our enemies. More bad blood between landowners and sportsmen does no good for anybody.


The ruling never grants "access" to the general public. It does, however, find for the dominant easement of the public to "use" the waters. Forget about using the term "access" if you're going to communicate to legislators voting on this bill. "Use" is the term that matters.

As for injuries to the landowner, the ruling contains several sections that clearly and unequivocably find that there are no injuries to the landowner. Read pages 6-8 of the 10 page ruling. http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopi ... 071808.pdf

Yes, landowners are not our enemies. There are simply different and COEXISTING rights that landowners and waterowners have. This bill may likely be attempting to usurp the right to use waters that the USCt ConaTSer ruling found for. The basis for any court ruling is to clarify those rights so there is no "bad blood". Maybe the bill will serve to clarify by passing and ultimately upheld in another court test or failing on its face.

I prefer the latter alternative.


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> Guys.. lets get one thing straight here...
> 
> Turn to your copy of Conatser vs Johnson. Now tell me how many times the word "access" is used..... That's right, only (1) time. This USC ruling was and is not about access! The key words used in this case are "USE, UTILIZE, AND RIGHT"
> 
> carry on......


One time is enough for me. Did you make your parents repeat things often?


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

Dead Drifter said:


> And some landowner named Johnson was willing to compromise with the Conatsers when he called the sheriff on them for floating down "his" river (the Weber). I've had enough interactions with landowners with streams on their property to tell you that almost everyone of them I asked permission to "access" their water, told me "NO, and don't ask again. I'm sick of fishermen asking me for permission to fish." I asked nicely, but was treared rudely.
> 
> Now, the tables are turned and they want to compromise. How convienent for them. They want us to talk and discuss and come to an agreement. Most of them have been very rude and I have the names of the ones who have treated me like a piece of crap when I asked to fish a little section of their water. I'm just short of posting their names on a public forum so all you fishermen can see how willing they are to compromise. I wouldn't doubt if this is just their first step to see how far they can really go to keep us out.
> 
> ...


If there is compromise on this bill (it may turn out that compromise will be favorable to your interests), it will be made by the legislators rather than landowners, so you should direct your communications at or to them.

As for confrontations over trespassing, keep in mind that there's another side to that story. It's called "harassment" and there are laws on the Utah books that protect your rights to freedom from harassment. If you are on waterways (water and bed) legally and an adjacent landowner harasses you, whip out your hard copy of the Utah statute concerning harassment, then whip out your video camera, record the harassment and have a sheriff deputy come and arrest the ole boy. if you are on a landowner's property, however, well, que sera sera...

The law is your voice to protect your rights.


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

Pez Gallo said:


> [quote="F/V Gulf Ventur":398g7l99]Guys.. lets get one thing straight here...
> 
> Turn to your copy of Conatser vs Johnson. Now tell me how many times the word "access" is used..... That's right, only (1) time. This USC ruling was and is not about access! The key words used in this case are "USE, UTILIZE, AND RIGHT"
> 
> carry on......


One time is enough for me. Did you make your parents repeat things often? [/quote:398g7l99]

The point is that "USE" rather than "access" is the issue so there is no reason for the use of the term "access" in any discussion of either the ruling or the bill.


----------



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

Pez Gallo said:


> [quote="F/V Gulf Ventur":3uo49zmq]Guys.. lets get one thing straight here...
> 
> Turn to your copy of Conatser vs Johnson. Now tell me how many times the word "access" is used..... That's right, only (1) time. This USC ruling was and is not about access! The key words used in this case are "USE, UTILIZE, AND RIGHT"
> 
> carry on......


One time is enough for me. Did you make your parents repeat things often? [/quote:3uo49zmq]

Awesome to see that you got it the first time!! way to go Pez!... Yep, they sure did ; )


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> The key words used in this case are "USE, UTILIZE, AND RIGHT"


access: (n.) freedom or ability to obtain or make use of something [Merriam-Webster's]



rstrouts said:


> The ruling never grants "access" to the general public. It does, however, find for the dominant easement of the public to "use" the waters.


 -_O- 
What a pile of partially digested alfalfa excreted from a bovine!
:rotfl: 
"Honey, your butt isn't fat. It's substantial and impressive and full in tone and quality!"
-/O_- 
"Officer, I wasn't speeding. I was maneuvering my vehicle in an expeditious manner."


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

Finnegan, do you know that by statute the "public" owns all of the water in this state? Do you also know the public owns the wildlife? The Court ruling simply gives the public a narrow easement to use the water for recreational activities. Ever heard of a utility easement? Ever see a utility pole on private property? A utility company has been granted an easement in regards to placing and maintaining the utility poles. The utility company doesn't have access to that property, they can't roam around everywhere on that property. They have a narrow easement to conduct a specific lawful activity. It is the same with anglers, kayakers, duck hunters, etc. They have been given an easement to utilize the water. The water that they own as spelled out in the Utah code.


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

Finnegan said:


> F/V Gulf Ventur said:
> 
> 
> > The key words used in this case are "USE, UTILIZE, AND RIGHT"
> ...


Finnegan,
The ruling is about the Right to USE. The bill is titled "Recreational USE of Public Waters". --\O

If you'd like to discuss access, start a new thread, with "access" in its Subject Header, about a different bill, say, the newly introduced Utah House Bill 388, titled "Highway ACCESS to Public Land". *OOO*


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Have you seen the released content of the bill? Looks like our voice was "out to lunch" during the process. I cannot imagine having the weight of the whole fishing community on my shoulders and then allow for a piece of legislation like this to even be considered. I knew this guy was not my voice!


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

Not mine either. My voice will be heard tomorrow.


----------

