# New Bill for Next Year (BS-141)



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I would like to know how I can get a bill introduced in next year’s session. As you are aware through sponsoring HB141, there is a lot of complaint against fishermen for trashing, vandalizing, and invading privacy on our rivers. Since this is enough to create legislation to keep these vandals out, I would like to draw your attention to an even bigger threat. I have been watching the riparian areas on many of Utah’s rivers, streams, and creeks. I am appalled at the damage being done to these areas by livestock; mostly cattle, but some horses, sheep and hogs. I will be documenting this with photographs this summer. I have areas that have the banks trampled and eroded, the grasses trampled, the willows and dogwood and birch along the rivers rubbed down to nothing, barren dirt wallows below the once overhanging brush, and wallows right in the rivers themselves. Most of this devastation is on public lands (BLM and Forest Service property). I have also witnessed this carelessness on many of the so-called ranchers and farmers private property near rivers. Last year, while I was enjoying a little solitude on one of Utah’s public streams, I had several head of cattle come down into the water right where I was fishing. They stood in the stream and stared at me. They would not move. It was an invasion of privacy. As I was getting out of the stream to go around these bovine intruders, I watched in disgust as two of them defecated stomachs full of cow manure right in the water. I understand that these free-grazers have purchased grazing leases on this public property, but they should be made responsible for the damage they are doing. Even better would be to pass legislation that keeps these animals off the public’s land. Please advise me in the best way to proceed with this future legislation.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

I would support said bill, get the dumb cows off public land.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

It's a valid point. The only problem is that particular battle would need to be fought in Federal court and at a National level. 

Also, the legislature in their infinite wisdom passed a law stating that they can claim Federal property by "eminent domain" and thus return the land to Randy Parker and his Farm Bureau pals in the event of an favorable decision by us. _(O)_ *\-\* 
(yes, that law will get overturned in court even faster than 141. For all the talk of loving the constitution by some of these nitwit legislators, why do they sometimes act like they want to secede from the union?)


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

The fight is only on a national level for Forest Service and BLM lands. The private ranchers and farmers who own the stretches of water and are so concerned about the fishermen doing damage have let their animals ruin the raparian areas and they themselves have used backhoes to change and dredge the streams to keep the water from flooding. They use these running waters to wash their crap downstream. They are highly abusive and pollutive!

I just hope these a$$e$ don't call for the general public to come help sandbag when we have a good snowpack and run-off one of these years. 

And I was raised to believe that these ranchers and farmers are some of the best stewards of the land and make the best neighbors. Maybe when you was growing up pops. Their kids suck!


----------



## ping89w (Mar 20, 2009)

Also Green Belt wheras farmers and ranchers pay little taxes,subsidized for crops, fences put in and on and on.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I am as disappointed as anyone about 141, and the issue of public land destruction by grazing is definitely a valid one, but we shouldn't throw ALL farmers under the bus because of 141. The overwhelming majority of them do not have fishable streams on their land or even gave a crap one way or another about the entire issue. Big money ranches that make a lot of money from non agricultural pursuits, along with the realtors, and developers were more our enemy than Joe small time farmer.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Agreed, but they sure are quick to throw all fishermen and hunters under the bus when it's a small percentage of us that cause problems.


----------



## ACHY (Oct 18, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> I will be documenting this with photographs this summer. I have areas that have the banks trampled and eroded, the grasses trampled, the willows and dogwood and birch along the rivers rubbed down to nothing, barren dirt wallows below the once overhanging brush, and wallows right in the rivers themselves. Most of this devastation is on public lands (BLM and Forest Service property).


If you have photo documentation of real abuse on public lands, then take that to the land management agency directly. I'm pretty sure they would be interested in stopping it. Be cautioned, though; they may not always agree with you on what is and is not abuse.

As for the private land owners, there are several government programs through the NRCS that have been set up to work with land owners to improve their management practices and wildlife habitat. A lot of good has been done through those programs but there are still some disgusting examples of poor management out there. The idea of creating a law to deal with it is... interesting. I can understand, and agree with, the need to protect public resources. There are already several laws (mostly federal, I think) that deal with protecting public resources, but there are usually some exceptions made when it comes to private property. I'm not really sure how far something like this would go. As a general rule, I think voluntary programs work out better on both sides. There are exceptions, but I think you might make more enemies trying to push for a mandate, especially with this timing. It seems too much like retaliation (which it may be?).

Anyway, if you want to get something started, talk to your representative or senator. If they aren't interested, try to find one that is. Most of the bills that are presented are in response to requests from constituents. In that sense, almost every bill out there is a "special interest bill." Just like last years HB376 - Monkeys as Pets. http://www.standard.net/topics/utah...unpromising-except-training-tool-constituents


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

I don't understand how attacking farmers out of spite is going to get river and stream access.

Keep your eye on the prize.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Not attacking farmers. They sold McIff, the senate and the Governor a bill that was based on flawed reason. They claim fishermen are invading privacy, trashing and destroying waterways, and therfore need to be restricted and removed. I am pointing out that their livestock do more damage, so using their reasoning, their own animals should be restricted and locked out. 

Yes, there will be a few landowners who will allow access out of the kindness of their hearts; there will be a few who will make money off of the "new" law; there will be those who will just plain tell you to go create your own wealth and buy your own property with a river running through it.


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

HighNDry said:


> there will be a few who will make money off of the "new" law.


its already happening.... drive up to the upper provo, and take a look at the 27,000 new (more) No Trespassing signs, and than about 4 miles up the road, look for the sign for "the finiest blue ribbon flyfishing river club" in Utah


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

kochanut said:


> HighNDry said:
> 
> 
> > there will be a few who will make money off of the "new" law.
> ...


I'm going to grab my buddies and float through this section and if we see a client we're going to scream obscenities, splash in the water, and raise holy cain  . Probably not but, want to.


----------



## Wilford (Mar 31, 2009)

My opinion: Don't generalize that "all farmers and all ranchers" are doing negative things. Those who are doing things right don't want to be classified with the "Abusers" anymore than any of us want to be classified with those who leave trash, break down fences, scatter livestock or leave gates open to the land owners property. When you generalize you may alienate those who understand our cause and even care. On this thread, most of us are looking at the issue totally from the sportsmans point of view, which is natural. I honestly think that besides court cases and legislative mandates, we need to explore other possibilities. Some states have spent money on rights of way, some have spent money to buy access points to rivers and streams. Some individuals have tried to establish personal relationships with a given farmer or rancher. One could volunteer to help build a fence, clean a ditch or something else to build good will. All of things things that we see as abuse, such as stock watering in streams, caving banks of etc. may not be as noticable to the owner, because "they have always done it that way.'" It is also an education process. A wise person once told me that "you will always catch more flies with honey than vinegar." I am not trying to over simplify a difficult issue. But, there may be some grass roots work that can be done with some receptive individuals. Also, all private land with a stream running through it is not posted yet.. Maybe we can help so that it won't be. Attitudes on both sides may make a difference. Just my two bits worth late in the afternoon.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I've been spreading honey for years. Don't want to get into a "this is what I've done" match here, but I will mention that I helped plant willows and trees along a river only to have UDOT or Highway Patrol (not sure which one ) decide it was a hazard to park in the dirt turnouts near the freeway and closed off access to the river. I spent one summer twice a week pulling garbage out of the Ogden River and Ogden Canyon, massive amounts of trash only to have a landowner come out on his deck and tell me I can't fish through his property. Then I find out on a Platt map that he didn't own the roadside part of the river I was standing on. Oh, I obeyed his wishes and I have never been back even though I found out I was okay and wasn't trespassing. Just didn't want to be confrontational--you know--spread the honey. Then I was told to get out of the Blacksmith Fork by gunpoint. I didn't think I did anything to warrant a gun, I just asked if I could finish fishing up to the road maybe 50 yards instead of walking back down river to my vehicle about 500 yards. I walked back down, didn't want to be confrontational--you know--spread the honey.


----------

