# More DWR Lies



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=29...n-ever-with-fisheries-resources&s_cid=queue-4


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

I'm missing the lies. I don't get it?


----------



## polarbear (Aug 1, 2011)

Huh?


----------



## sknabnoj (Nov 29, 2012)

Also confused, seems like a pretty cool article to me.>>O


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Get off the community ponds and try fishing the 2,700 miles of rivers and streams the Utah legislature and governor locked us out of in 2010. Then you might get it, but if your happy eating those pellet fed planters out of the pond your kids pee in, you probably won't get it.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The lie is that there is more fishing opportunities. There are less.
The upside is that the urban fisheries are keeping some of the riff-raff off the good waters.

Joking aside, the community ponds really are a great opportunity when a guy only has an hour or two in the evening to take his kids out fishing. After growing up within a mile of the Salmon River in Idaho, where my Dad and I would go fishing a few times a week, if only for an hour before it got dark, the community ponds aren't that kind of resource, but they do provide a quick trip option.


----------



## sknabnoj (Nov 29, 2012)

What opportunities were there that we no longer have? I'm a Utah transplant so, I don't know the huge history but overall I've been happy with the fishing available. I also agree that the community fisheries, while not my first choice, make a decent lunch break activity/ childhood fishing trip.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

It's a long story. In a nutshell, the Utah supreme court ruled that the waters in the rivers and streams in Utah belong to the public as set forth in historical governmental writings. And as such, the public should have the right to access these waters for recreational purposes as long as there is no damage or harm to the property that said waters flow through (some of which flow through private property). The ruling also stated that the person had to access the water through public easements and stay in the river corridor. You cannot access them through the private property. 

In 2010 the Utah legislature and governor passed a law prohibiting access on 2, 700 miles or river and stream water. This law is a taking from the public. Most people are unaware that some of the legislatures have interest in duck hunting club waters on the Sevier River and Bear River and are protecting those interest with the passage of the bill. It is also a fact, that the governor has a brother-in-law who owns river property in Provo Canyon and by passing the bill has favored his bro-in-law over the public.

There are many misconceptions with the law and with what landowners are claiming. 

Anyway, I get a kick out of how the DWR claims that fishing is better now and there are more opportunities (which may be the case for the everyday Joe angler who wants to sit on a lawn chair next to the subdivision and catch fish), but for anglers who want to fish in wild places and on river and streams, the opportunities have dwindled significantly.


----------



## sknabnoj (Nov 29, 2012)

Can you float to these restricted areas or do they own the water too?


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

I'm with you 100% on the access but I think it's not fair to say the DWR is lying. If anything, it is ksl saying fishing is more accessible, not DWR. And I think they just mean that the community ponds are there. 

I'd put it on KSL, not DWR. If they wrote an accurate article, they'd mention the stream access issues.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Yeah, the headline "Utah fishing more accessible than ever with fisheries, resources" is quite laughable in light of what has happened here in the state. The article itself is just a standard boilerplate "lets go fishing" piece of no particular interest to most regular anglers. 

While the DWR's record on stream access has had it's ups and downs since Conatser, I can't blame them for touting their product like any other entity would. KSL could have just made a less ludicrous headline however.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> It's a long story. In a nutshell, the Utah supreme court ruled that the waters in the rivers and streams in Utah belong to the public as set forth in historical governmental writings. And as such, the public should have the right to access these waters for recreational purposes as long as there is no damage or harm to the property that said waters flow through (some of which flow through private property). The ruling also stated that the person had to access the water through public easements and stay in the river corridor. You cannot access them through the private property.
> 
> In 2010 the Utah legislature and governor passed a law prohibiting access on 2, 700 miles or river and stream water. This law is a taking from the public. Most people are unaware that some of the legislatures have interest in duck hunting club waters on the Sevier River and Bear River and are protecting those interest with the passage of the bill. It is also a fact, that the governor has a brother-in-law who owns river property in Provo Canyon and by passing the bill has favored his bro-in-law over the public.
> 
> ...


 :frusty: Yea, and a fork made Rosie O'Donnell fat. Your transference of guilt for the foul-up on Utah streams and rivers from the Legislature and the Governor to the DWR is Bovine Excrement and you know it. I'm as ticked off at the screwing our Legislature gave us as anybody on here. But it sure as HELL wasn't DWR's fault. Give me a break! The Legislature is STILL screwing us by tying this issue up in committee and refusing to take it up in the 2014 session just past. If you want to take out your frustration on somebody, how about bombarding your representatives with letters and phone calls instead of wasting your time and ours with misguided and childish rants on a website against the DWR. The DWR hasn't had, doesn't have, and will not have in the future any impact on the stream access issue.


----------



## stevo1 (Sep 13, 2007)

Dubob, Plenty of blame to go around. I blame Herbert and the legislature, if the state gains control of the public land we will lose it all.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

stevo1 said:


> Dubob, Plenty of blame to go around. I blame Herbert and the legislature, if the state gains control of the public land we will lose it all.


Look - HnD started this thread by posting a link to a KSL article about fishing opportunities in Utah. Based on the article he calls the DWR a bunch of liars. Then when asked to clarify, he tells us about the stream access debacle and uses that as his proof that the DWR is lying to us all about better fishing in the state.

Let's get one thing straight from the git go. I think the stream access situation sucks - big time. We got screwed royally by the Legislature and the Governor. Just about every fisherman and woman in the state knows that to be true. That isn't the point here.

The point here is that the DWR had absolutely NOTHING to do with that. It ain't their fault.

I don't have any actual figures to base this on, but I have to assume that the biggest majority of Utahans that buy fishing licenses never fish a river or stream. They fish the community ponds and the reservoirs throughout the state. Again, I don't have any figures to go on but I'll guess the ratio of lake to river fisher persons is somewhere between 5:1 and 10:1 in favor of the lakes. And from that point of view, fishing for the vast majority is better overall just as the article stated. The DWR is in fact providing more and better opportunties to the MAJORITY of Utah's fishing license holders.

Just because the dipsticks running the Legislature and the Governor's office right now screwed us big time, doesn't mean the DWR is not doing a good job or are lying through their teeth to the rest of us. Let's put the blame where it belongs; and that ain't on the DWR.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Since Conatser, how many miles of stream has the DWR opened through land purchases and walk-in-access programs?

In reality, the DWR has actually improved our access, especially if you consider what our legislature has done in taking our access away!!


----------

