# Time to Unite? Stream Acess!



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

http://www.utahonthefly.com/forums/show ... hp?t=20098


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

I like to see this kind of post on this website, but as this issue effects all fishermen, it shouldn't just be in the flyfishing section.

How about the general fishing section?


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

I have moved this to the general section.
It was also posted there anyway.
We have a policy about double posting.


----------



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

Get up stand up!!!!!


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I thought it important enough to be posted in both spots. Sorry for breaking the rules. That seems to be one of the reasons we can never really unite; too much fault finding and moaning (including myself).


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

This is difinitely a big issue. It is currently being discussed and the finished bill will be held as a protected bill and no one can take a look at it. The legislators will gather support for it and spring it at the last minute. It will be billed as a private property issue and will be played as slobs leaving gates open, destroying farm equipment and generally abusing private property. This will play well with a legislature that is heavliy weighted with landowners and rural legislators. Although the bill is hidden right now, our best defense (IMHO) is to proactively contact our representatives and make them aware of the bill before it is sold to them by it's sponsors. A *legislative compromise* on this supreme court ruling will basically remove our newly gained rights to fish any stream in Utah as long as we stay in the river. It will be a step backwards.
R


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Can we get a link on how to find our representatives? I live in orem and i have emaild a lady about this before but I forgot how I found her info.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

rjefre said:



> This is difinitely a big issue. It is currently being discussed and the finished bill will be held as a protected bill and no one can take a look at it. The legislators will gather support for it and spring it at the last minute. It will be billed as a private property issue and will be played as slobs leaving gates open, destroying farm equipment and generally abusing private property. This will play well with a legislature that is heavliy weighted with landowners and rural legislators. Although the bill is hidden right now, our best defense (IMHO) is to proactively contact our representatives and make them aware of the bill before it is sold to them by it's sponsors. A *legislative compromise* on this supreme court ruling will basically remove our newly gained rights to fish any stream in Utah as long as we stay in the river. It will be a step backwards.
> R


I feel about the same as you do about this but do have to ask a question regarding what to do? (See my post on the "other" thread about this.) Since the position we favor is currently the accepted law, as I see it, we do not need to pass any "new" legislation. What we do have to do is manage to DEFEAT the other attempts to curb our rights by new legislative initiatives. Politically, to do this could be difficult. Please correct me if I am wrong. The one way I could see that could insure our rights over the long haul would be to amend the State constitution with wording to lock in the current access rights (like Montana). Are any groups looking into what it would take to do that?


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Absolutely right...we will need to *defeat *any attempt to remove the existing law. This will need to be done at the grassroots level by calling, emailing or writing legislators in *every district* in order for them to be aware of the pending assault on the stream access ruling. This can only be achieved by contacting all of our friends and asking if they will make the small effort it takes to email their legislator. That is what we elected them to do...listen to their constituents (not just the rich ones) and act accordingly.
R


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

RE "Can we get a link on how to find our representatives? I live in orem and i have emaild a lady about this before but I forgot how I found her info."

Try this link.

http://le.utah.gov/maps/amap.html


----------



## RnF (Sep 25, 2007)

Here's another link

http://www.utahsenate.org/perl/roster2009.pl

Everyone please contact your representative.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

This is an e-mail I received from someone invovled:

"Do you plan on going to the meeting they are having from that post? I know quite a few who do plan on it. 
This could be a case similar to the Aquaculture bill last year where angler response before the bill even showed up stopped it from even being presented. "

It would be nice to get organized and get this non sense of taking away our rights shot down before it even got off the ground.


----------



## Nueces (Jul 22, 2008)

RnF said:


> Here's another link
> 
> http://www.utahsenate.org/perl/roster2009.pl
> 
> Everyone please contact your representative.


RnF - That's a great link, thanks for posting. I hope everyone speaks up.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Today I stopped in on my friendly neighborhood fly shop to get their position on this issue (and to determine if I will still shop there). There were very aware of the situation and had heard that Rep Ferry is going to try to define the streams according to their navigability and annual debris flow, whatever that means. Maybe it is just more nonsense, but that is what I heard this afternoon. And...I will keep spending my money at their shop!
R


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Just to give you guys an update on some communication I had with my Representative. I sent the following letter to my House of representatives member and a similar, but slightly different one to my state senator.

It has come to my attention that certain elements of the legislature are considering changes to the law, recently clarified by our State Supreme Court, concerning the publics right to access the States streams for legal recreational purposes. I would just like to let you know that a substantial percentage of your constituency is counting on YOU to maintain those rights for themselves and for their children. Access of open waterways will insure our economy sustainable recreational income far longer than the opiate of short term and short sighted development and excessively restrictive water laws. Thank you for your efforts as our representative. 



Here is his response in part; 

"Thanks for your thoughts I want to talk to you about this I am unaware of the issue to which you refer. I need to know more details to properly fight for you." 

He then gave me his phone number with a request for a phone conversation, which I will follow up on.


It would appear that many of our congressmen might be willing to listen to us, and maybe help! This fight may be tough, but I do think we might have a chance, if we keep it respectful with our legislators, don't bicker amongst ourselves, and be persistent. Also, remember to contact not just the State senators, but your House (of Representatives) members as well.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

My Senator Griener from Ogden sent me an auto-reply saying "thanks for your thoughts". I am underwhelmed by his interest. If a thousand fishermen sent him a message, maybe his reply would be different. Either way, he is now aware of the situation.
R


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

rjefre said:


> My Senator Griener from Ogden sent me an auto-reply saying "thanks for your thoughts". I am underwhelmed by his interest. If a thousand fishermen sent him a message, maybe his reply would be different. Either way, he is now aware of the situation.
> R


I haven't heard yet from my state senator, just the representative. It underscores the need for us not to just contact your state senator but your representative as well. If one does not know who that is, type in your address to the link I posted here and find out. Since the House is not as weighted toward the rural/agricultural population, and is more local, your rep might be more willing to listen, and we may gain more traction there. Keep up the good work.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

I just e mailed my senator, and rep.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

I emailed mine!!!


----------



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

Passing this along....

----------------------------
http://utahwaterguardians.wordpress.com/current-events/
Call to Arms..... Come One, Come All!

If you use water, you need to be here! Gurus, greenhorns, sportsman, kayakers , fish heads, waterfowl folk, all hunters, airboaters, photographers, streamside ramblers, pleasurably creek side observers, riverside dog walkers, everyone and anyone who uses water for recreation in the State of Utah. Come with ideas, thoughts and suggests on how to reach the general public, business owners, lobbyists, etc.

First Informational Public Meeting-

Being held to inform the public on how to communicate with legislature and to set a course of action for the already established facts.

@ Alta Glass & Window
Saturday January 31st @ 1:00 PM
720 East 10600 South
Sandy

White cinder block building on SE corner behind Tesoro.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

I won't be able to make it, but please update us and let us know how it goes and give us the info on how to contact our reps. THANKS!


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

It is easy to gripe about losing our stream access, but without taking 2 minutes out of your day to email your legislator, you are giving your tacit approval to these legislative yahoos that only care about their big money buddies. *Please* take a moment to contact your rep and senator...it's really easy...and it is very important for them to hear from their constituents. Click here - 
www.le.state.ut.us/maps/amap.html


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

rjefre said:


> It is easy to gripe about losing our stream access, but without taking 2 minutes out of your day to email your legislator, you are giving your tacit approval to these legislative yahoos that only care about their big money buddies. *Please* take a moment to contact your rep and senator...it's really easy...and it is very important for them to hear from their constituents. Click here -
> http://www.le.state.ut.us/maps/amap.html


Thanks for the link.
I have emailed both Officials in my district and asked them to support our cause.

I hope that everyone else here will do the same.
It would be a pitty to loose what we have just gained for angling access in Utah.
Together, we will make a difference.
Thanks,
Grandpa d.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Grandpa D said:


> Thanks for the link.
> I have emailed both Officials in my district and asked them to support our cause.
> 
> *I hope that everyone else here will do the same.*
> ...


Don't count on me for any help......at least, until an agreement is made, between sportsmen, the State, and especially the landowners who this ruling does and will affect.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

.45 said:


> [quote="Grandpa D":lsz9vs73]
> Thanks for the link.
> I have emailed both Officials in my district and asked them to support our cause.
> 
> ...


Don't count on me for any help......at least, until an agreement is made, between sportsmen, the State, and especially the landowners who this ruling does and will affect.[/quote:lsz9vs73]

Not sure what you mean.
My email just asked that the Court Ruling not be overturned.

Yes there are a lot of unanswered questions and I would like to see the ruling left in place until the questions have all been answered.

Any change that might come out of this session will hurt the sportsman imho.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Grandpa D said:


> Not sure what you mean.
> *My email just asked that the Court Ruling not be overturned.*
> 
> Yes there are a lot of unanswered questions and I would like to see the ruling left in place until the questions have all been answered.
> ...


My point exactly....I would like to see the ruling overturned, until at least there is a *reasonable* agreement between all parties.....Landowners, the State, the DWR, the DNR, etc. and all sportsmen !!


----------



## LawMan (Sep 25, 2007)

The ruling in the Conaster case was a clarification of existing law in the State of Utah. It did not make law. It simply confirmed that all water is owned by the people and that those people have a right to utilize those waters along with the easements over which those waters lay for recreational purposes such as fishing, boating, tubing, swimming, hunting, etc. Those purposes include the right/need to sometimes touch the river/stream bed which the ruling said was permitted.

The legislature cannot overturn a Supreme Court Decision. The Legislature can ONLY make new/different laws for the courts to interpret. The legislation we are opposing is intended to change the law so that when waterways run through private property the easement still exists, but simply cannot be used by the public for any purpose. Such a law may or may not be constitutional, but if we permit such a law to be passed you can kiss your right to utilize many rivers and streams in the state goodbye.

It really comes down to the question of whether you want people to be able to access and utilize the easements over private property that lie beneath the water that flows over it. If I, or my family, owned a big parcel of property along a river I would totally want to limit who could be in the river, when they could be there and what they could do on it. Unfortunately, neither I, nor my family own any such property, and I am, therefore, against any limiting legislation or re-interpretation of the law.

.45, why are you so in favor of legislation "overturning" the decision that gave citizens access to the rivers and stream beds?


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

> .45, why are you so in favor of legislation "overturning" the decision that gave citizens access to the rivers and stream beds?


I am not in favor of forcefully taking landowners rights, privacy and privileges they 'thought' they have owned for years. Family's or businesses that may have bought or inherited this property, with waterfront or a stream in their property, yesterday or 150 years ago.

I myself have about 150 miles of private river I would like to fish, but I refuse to enter these water's without the consent of the property owner, public access or not. Of course, I'm not getting permission, but to me, that is the landowner's choice. So called 'Public Access' still means I have to cross a fence or two that may be protecting his livestock. I won't do it.

I would prefer, instead of using the law, we coordinate with landowners and leasor's, make an agreement of sorts. New fence's, crossings, garbage can's and facilities that can guarantee to the owner that we as sportsmen will not damage his properties or animals.

Even a voluntary 'pay-back' of sorts..

Now question's for you......Why and what would the DWR or the DNR say about all of this ?
Why are they so silent? How good is a ruling with no guidelines ? Approach each problem as it arises and how they see fit ? It doesn't make sense.

Soooo........until the landowner's are appeased with *any *ruling, I say it should stay the way it has been..

btw.......Welcome to the 'Forum' LawMan !!


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

Dear Senator and Representative,

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. It is rumored that a bill sponsored by Ben C. Ferry, State Representative from Box Elder County will try to reverse or revise the Utah Supreme Court ruling dated July 18, 2008 in which the court ruled 5-0 that the public can use and recreate on water the public owns (see Conatser -vs- Johnson) http://wwwutcourts.gov/opinions/supopin ... 071808.pdf

I encourage you to vote against the proposed bill which would reverse the Conatser ruling if it comes up this session. I believe the right of the public to utilize waters for recreation, as long as they stay within the stream and river banks, is beneficial to the state for many reasons. Much of Utah's recreation properties and waterways are being purchased and locked up. This will result in loss of sportsmen dollars not only from license sales and outdoor retailers, but from lodging and restaurant revenues, to mention just a few. Reversing this ruling will send a message to Utahns, as well as tourists, that Utah really isn't an outdoor recreation destination.

Many private landowners with streams and rivers running through their property are claiming that fishermen are harassing livestock and damaging property. I don't believe this claim has much merit. I have fished with numerous individuals over the past 35 years and I find most anglers to be very respectful of others' property and have never witnessed acts of vandalism. If these acts do occur, I would think it comes from a very small minority. Landowners have also expressed concern of outdoorsmen camping on their property. The ruling expressly states that persons using the water must stay in the stream or river bottom, therefore making camping an act of trespass. The Conatser ruling still allows landowners to pursue and prosecute any one found in unlawful activities on their property.

Many sportmen in the state as well as surrounding states will be watching how the Senators and Representatives vote on this bill. Again, I ask you to vote against this bill and allow the great state of Utah to continue to be a sportman and outdoor recreationist destination.

Sincerely,


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

.45. I think I own your car and house, I have for years. Now hand them over.

The land owners were mistaken. We own the water. We the people, we the state.

The way it has been *forever* is that the public has the right to use their water for recreation. The ruling made that known, but it has always been that way.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

.45
Ever thought of moving to England or Europe? Your line of thinking fits right in with theirs. The Utah Supreme Court gave sportsmen the RIGHT, not the privilege to recreate on state owned waters. You seem to have a hard time accepting a decison that was arrived at through a democratic process.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Troll said:


> .45. I think I own your car and house, I have for years. Now hand them over.


I'm sure some landowners are feeling that way right now..... :?



280Remington said:


> .45
> Ever thought of moving to England or Europe? Your line of thinking fits right in with theirs. The Utah Supreme Court gave sportsmen the RIGHT, not the privilege to recreate on state owned waters. You seem to have a hard time accepting a decison that was arrived at through a democratic process.


 Good 280, so because it was a Democratic process, I must abide by it..?!?! You play it out however you like, I still don't buy it.... :|


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

.45, you already know how I feel about this, but I do actually agree with you that some definitions DO need to be provided/enhanced to help both landowners, anglers and other users, and law enforcement. The main one is the extent of the easement (is it high water mark or the actual water level?) I hope to see these things refined through this process and a law that best serves all parties enacted, while maintaining the basic right clarified by the courts. And I will fight like *&@#* to see that this right does indeed survive.


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

What I find very ironic about this whole ordeal is that if one landowner would have been polite, helped the Conatsers to get their raft around the fence strung across the river and not pushed the issue by calling the sheriff...we probably wouldn't be discussing this issue right now. It kind of reminds me of the movie "First Blood." If the sheriff just would have treated Rambo with respect and not "pushed" him like he did. Rambo would have moved on. 

Most anglers were obeying the law before the ruling...yes, occassional trespassing took place, but most of the anglers were asking for permission, getting written permission, or just not fishing the waters that were believed private. If I was the landowners, I would have the landowner who strated this whole thing named in a suit. 

To me it just goes to show when you are so selfish to not allow a few fishermen access to some water every now and then, that bad Karma will come back and bite you. Lesson: everyone stop being such jerks and selfish. Both sides!

My casa is your casa...unless of course, I get weatlthy and buy some property with a river running through it, then my attitude changes and you all better stay out!


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Catherder said:


> .45, you already know how I feel about this, but I do actually agree with you that *some definitions DO need to be provided/enhanced to help both landowners, anglers and other users, and law enforcement*. The main one is the extent of the easement (is it high water mark or the actual water level?) * I hope to see these things refined through this process and a law that best serves all parties enacted, while maintaining the basic right clarified by the courts.* And I will fight like *&@#* to see that this right does indeed survive.





> serves *all *parties...


That's all I'm asking.....


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

.45,
I also agree with your thinking.
What I don't want to see though, is a change before all parties have a chance to understand the ruling better and put some guidlines in place.

There will be a need for cooperation between land owners, sportsmen and the state.

Installation of crossings, defined sportsman access and other issues will have to be implemented for this to work.

The worst thing that could happen now would be for people to think that they can go anywhere they please without permission or consequence.

I can see where land owners would worry about this kind of mentality.

Even if the ruling is left intact, there is a need for clarification.

As .45 has said, how can the DWR or other enforcement agencies enforce such a vague law?

This will all take time to play out, but I do believe that making a rushed law is not the answer.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

I do feel for the private land owners who were wrongfully led to believe that the land was theirs. I for one love the ruling and have contacted my reps more than twice on this issue. It is VERY refreshing for me to see the public get a break instead of the rich/land owners getting all the breaks behind closed doors. +1 public +99999999999 land owners


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

The thing that needs to be kept in mind is that while we all DO agree that clarification is needed, what we are apparently getting as proposed legislation from the politicians is as follows:

1. Mel Browns bill: Eliminate the rights defined by the courts and return to pre Conatser.
2. Ben Ferry bill: Maintain the right in a few of the largest rivers and eliminate the right everywhere else. (while apparently not dealing with any of the definition issues we are talking about in the last couple of posts) 

Both of these proposals are ONLY about taking away rights, not clarifying and refining anything!


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

If waiting for landowners to magically decide to allow fishermen on their property was a viable solution, there never would have been a Conaster Decision in the first place. This isn't a property damage issue (you have to stay in the streambed), it's not an access issue (you have to enter at public crossings)...it is a matter of having a public resource being withheld from us by some private landowners and developers all these years and now we have an easment to enjoy what has always been ours. I'm thankful that the Supreme Court ruled for the public and not for big money interests.
R


----------



## LawMan (Sep 25, 2007)

RJefre brings up a good point. 

The situation is analogous to an individual buying and paying for an empty lot. They own the property, but I want it, so I appropriate it for myself. I then convince the rightful owner that it's mine and he does not have a right to use it or step foot on it. I have even got the local sheriff on my side to help keep the rightful owner off of the property.

Then along comes the owner's big brother and says BS on my claims. He doesn't buy into my self proclaimed ownership and pushes it to the point that the courts get involved and declare that the purchaser is the rightful owner and that I do not have the right to keep him off of his own property. If you think that is the right outcome you should be opposed to the legislation that is supposed to be proposed, which would give me the right to keep the rightful owner off of his own property.


----------



## Nich (Nov 17, 2008)

Bump and check out the site with the up to date info.

http://utahwaterguardians.wordpress.com/action/


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

The thing that makes me most nervous about this situation, is how quiet the guide services are. Is it becasue they want to have sections of rivers shut down just for them and their clients? The "keep the public out and we'll give you a percentage of our business" is a stategy that some would try to employ. I'm sure that several guide services are upset at having to share the water with Joe Blow. Where do you guides stand on this issue?


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Any one know how to contact the NRA? I would imagine this would fall under their "protect a right, preserve a heritage" type slogan. What rights are we willing to let someone have, first our water, then our guns? I know It's a bit of a stretch, but rights are rights...right?

If we lose this battle, someone will try to go for our public lands next. Before you know it we will have to pay rod fees and wear tweed jackets to get on any water.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> The thing that makes me most nervous about this situation, is how quiet the guide services are. Is it becasue they want to have sections of rivers shut down just for them and their clients? The "keep the public out and we'll give you a percentage of our business" is a stategy that some would try to employ. I'm sure that several guide services are upset at having to share the water with Joe Blow.* Where do you guides stand on this issue*?


Good point, I've been wondering that myself. Maybe they had it figured out for years.. :wink:

How about *flyguy7* or *McFly *????


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

I don't mind sharing with "Joe blow". It's not my land. So i have no problem with it. They have as much right to it as i do. For the most part the outfitter I guide for doesn't use a lot of private property. We mainly stay on the lower Provo or the middle. I like the law the way it was interpreted this past year.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> The thing that needs to be kept in mind is that while we all DO agree that clarification is needed, what we are apparently getting as proposed legislation from the politicians is as follows:
> 
> 1. Mel Browns bill: Eliminate the rights defined by the courts and return to pre Conatser.
> 2. Ben Ferry bill: Maintain the right in a few of the largest rivers and eliminate the right everywhere else. (while apparently not dealing with any of the definition issues we are talking about in the last couple of posts)
> ...


Excellent post, what do we need clarified? It is clarified, public can access the water through public land. There it has been clarified; now don't change a **** thing about it. If someone is trespassing or destroying property, we can all keep an eye out for such and private land owner and public dude can have each other backs keeping an eye out for idiots.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

G&F wrote "what do we need clarified? "

1. The main clarification needed IMO is whether the easement extends to the high water mark or just the riverbed with water going through it at that time. (wet boot) It has been assumed by some that it does, (as it does in Montana) but it wasn't defined by the courts OR in earlier legislation, so it could go either way.

2. I have heard that what constitutes a "public access point" requires some defining as well. Does any public road that crosses or bestrides a river constitute a "public access point"?

3. Finally, I have heard there may be some difference of opinion on getting around a navigation obstruction. The court did discuss this matter, but I understand some parties feel the issue may be a point of modification.

There may be others that I am not aware of. It seems to me that all of these above issues can easily be dealt with by setting sensible legislative guidelines, WITHOUT REMOVING THE RIGHTS ELUCIDATED IN THE CONATSER DECISION, and without screwing the landowner.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

It was always allowed that a waterway could be floated, but Conaster clarified that in doing so that it was also legal to touch the bottom of the streambed and to use dry land to get around obsticles.
It was the UT Supreme Court that expanded that to include hunting, fishing and wading. 

I have contacted my reps. and am waiting for my responses.

What the legislature should be doing is to work within the ruling to clarify it. Like passing a law that specificly says "To the high water mark for that year" or "being allowed to leave the water to get around obsticles and must be done in the shortest manner possible" or "only state and federal roads crossing waterways shall be considered as public access points"
Work to clarify the ruling, not overturn it.
If it is overturned we will have to lawyer up to get this back to the supremes, they will overturn, but it will involve time and $.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

I contacted my reps about 3 hours ago and got responses from both already!! One said they had heard about the bill, the other had not but asked me to email her a copy of the ruling that stands now so she can compare both. I sent them both a picture of a big brown from a river and I think that helped them see my email faster and be more interested in it!!

Here is a great link for those looking to contact their reps. Just type in your address and it says who to email!!
http://www.le.state.ut.us/maps/amap.html


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

I've sent a couple of letter's and e-mails to some Legislator's....I highly doubt that I'll get a response... :| :mrgreen:


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

RE: First Informational Public Meeting-

Being held to inform the public on how to communicate with legislature and to set a course of action for the already established facts.

@ Alta Glass & Window
Saturday January 31st @ 1:00 PM
720 East 10600 South
Sandy


Hey, did anyone on here make this meeting? I had to work/still working  .
Anything come of it that we need to know?


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

I heard about 20 people attended. They were given packets on how to best approach senators and representatives. A grassroots effort was organized to have each individual (which should include all of us) reach out to family, friends, neighbors and anyone who uses the outdoors of Utah. Make them aware of the 5-0 supreme court decision this past July to allow access through public easement to the waters of this state for all recreational pursuits which include wildlife viewing, fishing, kayaking, canoeing, hunting, wading and photography just to mention a few. Encourage everyone to write their repective reps and let them know how you stand on the issue. If we wait for someone to voice our concern and don't take the appropriate action, this right could easily be taken from us. Please get involved.


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

You may not think this affects your fishing because you fish your little public stretches on Forest Service property or wherever, but this supreme court ruling helps insure that even those places will be protected form being bought up and locked up. Look waht's happening in Montana! Wealthy people are coming in and buying properties with streams and rivers and then trying to keep others from having access to it. Utah is the 2nd driest state, we cannot afford to have waters locked up.


----------



## Crash (Mar 20, 2008)

I remember posting something like this when we were granted the access. I said we need to ensure that our legislators stick to what they passed. Unfortunately I was told that once a bill is passed it can't be undone. Well, now I hope that we will stand united.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I wanted to give an update on a conversation that I had with my State rep. First off, I was impressed that he called me on a Saturday evening. We had a 20 minute conversation about the issue. He said that he has received other emails about the issue, and was likely to be supportive of our position. We also discussed the easement issues as well. I felt it went well. He did mention that Rep. Ferry is the chairman of the House rules committee, so he wields considerable power. 

Keep up the good work all.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

One of my reps e-mailed me and wanted to know what bill it was that was trying to be pushed, anyone have info on the specific bill coming down the pipe? I was thinking about the info that was given in that meeting, if someone could post any fliers or whatever on here, I for one would print them off and hand them out at work, around the neighborhood etc., anyone have access to that info and can post it? Or if someone has a creative touch and knows a design program and can put a flier together that includes the basic s of what were are trying to do and basic info on the Utah supreme court decision etc., and maybe a little spot at the bottom about how to contact rep. easily, I would print it out and disseminate it like crazy!!!!


----------



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

Hey all.... could you please let me know if any of you receive a response from your representatives.... These are not to paste publicly but to catalog our charts so we know who needs to hear from us and who we don't need to overwhelm.

If any of you find a spare moment, CALL your local representative on the phone, let them know you are concerned about this issue and ask a few questions. Be polite and don't forget to say thank you.

Great job everyone! I'm working on a flier right now. I'll post it shortly.

The "bill" has yet to be seen by the public.

Remember --> this issue is not about "_access_" its about "right, use and utilize"...... As it was previously mentioned before, "access" was only used (1) time in ConaTSer vs Johnson.The key words are "_right, use and utilize_".


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> Hey all.... could you please let me know if any of you receive a response from your representatives.... These are not to paste publicly but to catalog our charts so we know who needs to hear from us and who we don't need to overwhelm.
> 
> If any of you find a spare moment, CALL your local representative on the phone, let them know you are concerned about this issue and ask a few questions. Be polite and don't forget to say thank you.
> 
> ...


I emailed Representative Richard Green and also
State Senater Scott Jenkins.

Both replied and said that they were on our side on this.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Senator Valentine e mailed me back and said he'd side w/us as well. Haven't heard back from rep. C. frank.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

Grandpa D said:


> [quote="F/V Gulf Ventur":3n9t1r2s]Hey all.... could you please let me know if any of you receive a response from your representatives.... These are not to paste publicly but to catalog our charts so we know who needs to hear from us and who we don't need to overwhelm.
> 
> If any of you find a spare moment, CALL your local representative on the phone, let them know you are concerned about this issue and ask a few questions. Be polite and don't forget to say thank you.
> 
> ...


I emailed Representative Richard Green and also
State Senater Scott Jenkins.

Both replied and said that they were on our side on this.[/quote:3n9t1r2s]

Granda pa, I'm in Roy and e-mailed the same two, Richard Greenwood (I have Greenwood???) said he wanted to know what the bill was that was being sponsored........


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Correct, It's Greenwood.

Here is his reply.

Mr. Searcy,
Thank you for your email. I not do not fish but I do support those who do. If there is a bill that is introduced to the House that will hurt Utah sportsman to access our waters, I will not support it.
Once again thank you for your email.
Richard


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

Representative Christine Johnson is on our side and would like to know more about the proposed bill. Does anyone have an informational statement I could send her?


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Trooper said:


> Representative Christine Johnson is on our side and would like to know more about the proposed bill. Does anyone have an informational statement I could send her?


Try this link. I sent it to my reps. http://utahwaterguardians.wordpress.com/action/


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Representative Gage Froerer from Huntsville is difinitely NOT on board. He said that he opposes the Supreme court decision and thinks it violates private property rights. Of coarse, he is also a landowner by the river up there. FYI
R


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

rjefre said:


> Representative Gage Froerer from Huntsville is difinitely NOT on board. He said that he opposes the Supreme court decision and thinks it violates private property rights. Of coarse, he is also a landowner by the river up there. FYI
> R


Hi folks, longtime Colorado flyfisher here...

How about sending Froerer http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopi ... 071808.pdf , pointing out the several sections that clearly state that the private landowner is not injured by this ruling finding for the Right to Use the waters of Utah? (around pages 7-8 or so)


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

He should also be reminded that he was voted in and it's his responsibility to listen to and support the voters.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

Grandpa D said:


> He should also be reminded that he was voted in and it's his responsibility to listen to and support the voters.


Post up his e-mail so we can all let him know how we feel as a fishing community  . I am anxiously awaiting F/V Gulf Ventur's flyer, I think it would be great to add some info from the link Martymcfly posted http://utahwaterguardians.wordpress.com/action/ 
Thanks.


----------



## KAFO (Oct 17, 2007)

The bottom of the Utah Water Guardian's web site has a downloadable flier
It's right before the "comments" section near the bottom of the page.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

KAFO said:


> The bottom of the Utah Water Guardian's web site has a downloadable flier
> It's right before the "comments" section near the bottom of the page.


Thanks KAFO, I have it here in my hand ready to copy and disseminate.


----------



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

You guys are awesome! keep it up!!

A flier has been created for all of you to download in your efforts to help spread the word. Paste it, stick it, plaster it, pin it, tape it everywhere, make this public! (Universities, hotels, workplace, forums, websites, etc)

This will help encourage others to exercise the right to speak out against issues that effect s us. Only together we may be able to accomplish this task at hand. *Time is short, ACT NOW!*

*Free Download ->* http://utahwaterguardians.wordpress.com/download/


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I met with my representative this morning. He gave me a surprising length of time to discuss this. His name is Rep Dee. I mentioned that a "compromise" is a slap in the face and there is no gray area here. Either the public has an easement to Utah water or it doesn't. You can't be just a little bit pregnant so to speak. He agreed that the public should have the easement and I feel a lot better about my representation on this issue. It feels very empowering to walk in the capitol and speak directly to your representative...I highly recommend doing it! You might find out, as I did, that your rep is a pretty good guy and you share a lot of common ground.
R


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

I'll be having a chat with Ms Biskupski after the rally.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

I have contacted my two reps Senator Scott K. Jenkins and Representative Richard A. Greenwood. Are they on board with us, maybe they need a phone call from me as well? I have sent a couple of e-mail to the DWR, I would like to send them a couple of punches in the face. What else can I do? Would it be helpful to write the Governor, what it his address, I would like to send him a letter in the mail. Anything else I can do let me know (unfortunately I can not make it to the rally). I’ve been giving out that flyer and e-mailing people like mad. I would like to do more but not sure what to do? I see myself standing somewhere with a sign yelling obscenities (especially directed at representatives not representing the public and the DWR for nor representing public interest :evil: ).


----------

