# Helping the Water Guardians (Stream Access)



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

As everyone is aware the fight for stream access is still out there. Rumor is there's a possibility of two Bills being presented in the upcoming session. One bill from Rep Fowlkes, which has been worked on with anglers and outdoor recreationists. Another bill rumored to come from Rep Ferry again. 

You are all aware of hard economic times too. I would love to donate some $ to this effort but can't seem to find it without some type of creativity. Here is my proposal: I work in the lighting industry and have a dining room chandelier I have created that has 3-60 watt candle bulbs in it suited for a smaller dining area. It is a metal ring with 3 hand-painted cutthroat trout aound it and three shades with hand-painted Royal Coachman flies. The finish is a rusted look. It sells for $265.00. I will donate $100.00 of that to the Guardians if someone wants a new "fisherman's" dining light. Contact me through PM if interested.

What other creative ways can we gather some dough for the big show?


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

After I posted the above I wondered if I broke a site rule---if so let me know and I'll delete. Thank you.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

I just need to move this to the trading Post and it will be fine.
Good luck and I hope that you sell it,
Grandpa D.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

I love how everyone bitches and moans about the current socialist administration, YET they support the land grab efforts like this that deprive private property owners of even the most basic rights.


----------



## KAFO (Oct 17, 2007)

hyperduc said:


> I love how everyone bitches and moans about the current socialist administration, YET they support the land grab efforts like this that deprive private property owners of even the most basic rights.


Do private property owners "own" the water?
Get the laws changed so that they do and you would have a point!


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

They own the property the water crosses, they are not legally allowed divert or stop the water from flowing across it. Let the water go across it to wherever its going, but keep the people who don't own any property on public land, next thing you know any property containing wildlife will require public access.


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

hyperduc said:


> They own the property the water crosses, they are not legally allowed divert or stop the water from flowing across it. Let the water go across it to wherever its going, but keep the people who don't own any property on public land, next thing you know any property containing wildlife will require public access.


Your theory is akin to someone saying "if we let gays marry, what's next? People will start wanting to marry their livestock." The argument doesn't hold any water. All sportsmen want is access to a PUBLIC resource. We're not asking for a paved path to be built across private land so we can drive right to the water. We're asking that the laws be clarified to allow anglers to walk in the existing stream beds to access a resource that belongs to the public. As a landowner, you will still be protected by trespass laws, and anglers will still be subject to those laws. I, for one, would just like to see things be FAIR. No more, no less.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

Chaser said:


> Your theory is akin to someone saying "if we let gays marry, what's next? People will start wanting to marry their livestock." The argument doesn't hold any water. All sportsmen want is access to a PUBLIC resource. We're not asking for a paved path to be built across private land so we can drive right to the water. We're asking that the laws be clarified to allow anglers to walk in the existing stream beds to access a resource that belongs to the public. As a landowner, you will still be protected by trespass laws, and anglers will still be subject to those laws. I, for one, would just like to see things be FAIR. No more, no less.


Until last year, only the water in the stream belonged to the public, the land beneath it did not. I would also like to see the laws clarified, but I would hope that the clarification protected the rights of tax paying property owners. Anything short of that would be yet another loss to personal property rights.

Why don't you look at the property issue around Scofield reservoir, then tell me that this isn't just another land grab.


----------



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

[quote="hyperduc
Until last year, only the water in the stream belonged to the public, the land beneath it did not. .[/quote]

The Utah Supreeme Cout *clarifed* (5-0) the public has *always * had an eassment to recreate on publically owned waters, regardless of bed ownership.


----------



## nightfish (Apr 29, 2008)

There is absolutely nothing in the proposed legislation that takes away ownership of the streambed. In fact, that type of action IS NOT SUPPORTED by the State Supreme Court ruling. 

Existing water laws that prevent landowners from using water/altering watercourses are about consumptive use and preventing erosion, not utilizing the resource for recreation. 

I'm not sure what you mean by landowners property rights being taken away. Do you have an example?

I'm also not sure what you mean about what is going on at Scofield. Can you provide some links to what you're talking about, or summarize it here?


Have you attended any of the legislation planning meetings?


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

Here's a brief explanation, although the story's "facts" have been reported from the governments side of the argument. As with all water related discussion property lines are defined by high water marks, and who do you think controls where the high water ends up.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13286288

There are a million stories out there just like this and with the supreme court creating legislation from the bench you can expect to see many more in the future. If they can take your house to build a strip mall or a KFC, what makes you think they'd think twice before taking anything else they want at the time.

I love to fish and I think this issue isn't really that sinister, but giving the government a single ounce more leverage over it's subjects is a BAD BAD idea.


----------



## nightfish (Apr 29, 2008)

The Scofield issue sucks for those involved, but there is no correlation between the issues there and the issues around the Conatser decision. That story also doesn't apply to your concern for private property rights as it relates to Conatser. I think your concern is misdirected. You should educate yourself about the Conatser ruling and the issues being worked on as a new bill is being written.

Eminent Domain does not take private property to build KFC's and Strip Malls. The Government does not build KFC's and strip malls.

Conatser is not a land grab.


----------



## nightfish (Apr 29, 2008)

And to return this thread from the hijack:

Highndry, good on ya! If I needed an item like that I'd jump on the offer. Great idea though!


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

Hyperduc, I would love to discuss your concerns and be able to bring you to a level of comfort on this issue. I know that beliefs can be engrained but this is one I think I can help you with. Please feel free to contact me by email @ [email protected]
I have not missed a meeting on this subject and have the latest information regarding where this is headed from an anglers/landowners perspective if you would like to read/hear about it.
Thanks for your thoughts on this and High N Dry thanks for your efforts to help.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

nightfish said:


> Eminent Domain does not take private property to build KFC's and Strip Malls. The Government does not build KFC's and strip malls.


Ahh, but you haven't been paying attention, the supreme court ruled that eminent domain can be used to size property that will be turned into a revenue generating commercial property. The government doesn't build KFC's, they just wield the power to make it happen.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

fishsnoop said:


> Hyperduc, I would love to discuss your concerns and be able to bring you to a level of comfort on this issue. I know that beliefs can be engrained but this is one I think I can help you with. Please feel free to contact me by email @ [email protected]
> I have not missed a meeting on this subject and have the latest information regarding where this is headed from an anglers/landowners perspective if you would like to read/hear about it.
> Thanks for your thoughts on this and High N Dry thanks for your efforts to help.


Thanks, I think I'll take you up on that.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

hyperduc,

I appreciate the passion, but I feel you have missed the mark here a bit. I think it's important to realize that as F/V Gulf Ventur said, nothing was created by the Court here. That's a popular term that was thrown around by a few legislators last year as well..."legislate from the bench". Nothing was legislated, as the relevant law has been on the books for decades. Your statement that "until last year only the water in the stream belonged to the public the land below it did not" is not correct. That is still true today. The land still only belongs to the rightful owner. The public does not own that land. All the court did was state clearly that an easement has *ALWAYS* existed in Utah on the waterways. Easements exist on private property everywhere and are certainly nothing new. Roads, sidewalks, pathways, trails, and even on Main Street in SLC where the LDS Church now owns the land, but the public has an easement as part of that ownership. All are very similar to what the Court explained in the Conatser decision. Not a transfer of ownership.

This issue also does not have anything to do with eminent domain or a taking. Although the stories like the one posted about Scofield are very unfortunate, tug on your heart strings a bit, and seem very unfair, they don't have much to do with this issue. They are more red herrings to get people emotionally charged over an issue they don't relate to in any way, shape, or form. Red herrings only confuse the real issues at hand and don't lead to any positive solution.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

TS30 said:


> Your statement that "until last year only the water in the stream belonged to the public the land below it did not" is not correct. That is still true today. The land still only belongs to the rightful owner.


Wow, first post FAIL.

The whole reason that this issue even went to court is because people were being cited for wading through streams (rather than floating over them) and had been for quite some time, but only after someone appealed their ruling did the court gave their interpretation of the law. The law had not ALWAYS existed in it's current form, otherwise people wouldn't have been cited it.

A judge's interpretation of the law is very much legislation from the bench. If the court finds any law unclear they should send it back to legislators to make the clarification instead of taking upon themselves to do so, I'm fully aware that this isn't how the system works right now and that is a problem.

This area of the forum isn't the appropriate location for this discussion, so lets just let this issue die.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

After your PM to me, I'd want to let it die too.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

Hyperduc, I haven't seen an email from you regarding educating yourself a bit better about this issue. Name calling and telling someone to f themselves isn't very appropriate when you are the one who is not up to speed about this issue.
If you still have a valid interest in finding out where we are at and where we are going I would still love to help.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

I went and read through the judicial opinion, I also researched the the aims of groups seeking access to private private property with water ways across it.

I have come to the conclusion that this really is what I initially thought it was, a bunch of conservative hypocrisy. You are quick to support measures like this because it benefits you, but your benefit comes at the expense of the private property owner and although your too sort sighted to see it your rights have been compromised as well.

You don't typically go to the source of the problem to find a resolution.

And what I say in a *PRIVATE * message is just that, none of your business.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

Well you are apparantly an uneducated waste of breath then. PM's become not so private when there is name calling involved so maybe you should take your own advice to TS30.
Reading a decision is not educated. Go listen to the oral arguments by both sides in front of the SC. Go read the state constitution and the 73-1-1 legislation. Go read the decision in JJNP and then do some follow up on all of the meetings that have taken place this year with ALL sides at the table with Representative Fowlke.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

fishsnoop said:


> Reading a decision is not educated. Go listen to the oral arguments by both sides in front of the SC. Go read the state constitution and the 73-1-1 legislation. Go read the decision in JJNP and then do some follow up on all of the meetings that have taken place this year with ALL sides at the table with Representative Fowlke.


Really, WTF makes YOU the supreme lord and commander of what educated is?

If your reading and comprehension skills were as well developed as your sense of self righteousness you would have already noticed that I never said it contradicted state law.

I said it was unjust and property owners (you know, the people who support the government) are the ones who end up getting the shaft. If you don't know the difference then you should go "educate" yourself.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Ad hominem attacks are only evidence that you are either unprepared or unwilling to discuss the real issues for whatever reason. I've yet to see hyperduc address a real issue that is relevant to Conatser and any follow-up legislation, let alone stick with one issue at all. You are only taking personal shots at people. 

Eminent domain has nothing to do with Conatser. Health, safety and welfare police powers (your Scofield situation) have nothing to do with Conatser. If you want to discuss relevant issues, there are people who are willing and able to do that. If you only want to be upset just to be upset, well, there's not much that is going to change that state of mind. And it's really not worth fighting over. 

As far as your PM to me...what does "GFY" mean again? I'm not well-versed in the kiddies text message lingo these days.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

Here's a simple question for you:

The property owner has purchased the property (sometimes at great expense) so he can enjoy his own piece of heaven in privacy, he pays taxes on that property and maintains the land, the water crossing the land goes uncollected and undisturbed, the public can still enjoy it's benefits somewhere down the line. 

So what exactly gives the fisherman the right to enter this piece of private property and most importantly exactly what is it that the fisherman contributes to this scenario?


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

[quote="hyperduc Really, WTF makes YOU the supreme lord and commander of what educated is?

If your reading and comprehension skills were as well developed as your sense of self righteousness you would have already noticed that I never said it contradicted state law.

I said it was unjust and property owners (you know, the people who support the government) are the ones who end up getting the shaft. If you don't know the difference then you should go "educate" yourself.[/quote]

This answers everything. You can't even give an educated reply, oh well, I tried to help.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

TS30 said:


> Eminent domain has nothing to do with Conatser. Health, safety and welfare police powers (your Scofield situation) have nothing to do with Conatser.


Never really said they did, I just said this is ONE MORE example of private property owners rights being trampled and I offered a few other examples to support that opinion. The fact that you were unable to grasp such a complex situation is hardly a reflection of my intelligence.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

Before we go any further why don't you (TS30 and fishsnoop) tell me how much property you actually own, are you contributing to this situation or are you just a consumer in this equation?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

hyperduc said:


> Here's a simple question for you:
> 
> The property owner has purchased the property (sometimes at great expense) so he can enjoy his own piece of heaven in privacy, he pays taxes on that property and maintains the land, the water crossing the land goes uncollected and undisturbed, the public can still enjoy it's benefits somewhere down the line.
> 
> So what exactly gives the fisherman the right to enter this piece of private property and most importantly exactly what is it that the fisherman contributes to this scenario?


That is a simple question. The answer is just as simple. Simply stated, the answer is an easement. That's what gives the Utah pubic (not just fishermen...this is about much more than fishing) the right to incidentally touch a privately owned bed while using the water for a recreational activity. No ownership interests are exchanged, no rights of private property owners are violated. The easement always existed in Utah, whether it was commonly known or not is irrelevant. Like I said before, easements exist all over the place. In fact, I have a sidewalk that runs through my property, that I purchased (at a great expense to me) so I could enjoy, I pay taxes on that property, I am REQUIRED to maintain the walk by law, so the public can freely come and go on that sidewalk as they choose as long as they follow the rules that govern that easement. Exact same situation here. There really is no difference between the two.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

hyperduc said:


> Before we go any further why don't you (TS30 and fishsnoop) tell me how much property you actually own, are you contributing to this situation or are you just a consumer in this equation?


I'll be happy to answer that, but before I do, what does that have to do with anything? Are you advocating that only those who own land have a valid voice here? Clarification would be helpful.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

Just as I thought, you own the property your house sits on, yet you want to use other people property at no expense to yourself. As with most of these cases, the people pushing for things like this aren't contributing anything to the equation except an opinion.

And yes your right, Utah law allows you to do that, and legally you could have do it at any time, but I'm still not going to concede that its right.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

TS30 said:


> hyperduc said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a simple question for you:
> ...


It is not an easement that keeps the sidewalk public, it is a Right of Way which is different. Easement are an agreement between two parties to allow the other party to trespass on their land to fix or install or access whatever it is that is needed. Example most properties have rear and side easements of 10' for utilities. This is so if a utility company some day needs to run a line/pipe/ect. they have the ability to access that line, but that does not give them the right to trespass anytime they want.

Most people with river frontage property own to the middle of the river. Most if not all rivers here in Utah are non navigable so what reason would people need access for?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

hyperduc said:


> Just as I thought, you own the property your house sits on, yet you want to use other people property at no expense to yourself.


Actually, all I care about using is the water. As a Utah resident, I own the water. I'm not asking to use anything that doesn't belong to me. Again, are you sayin that the only people with a valid opinion on this is people who own land?


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

TS30 said:


> I'll be happy to answer that, but before I do, what does that have to do with anything? Are you advocating that only those who own land have a valid voice here? Clarification would be helpful.


That's the way the constitution was originally written. Property owners were the only people allowed to vote and the reason was quite simple: People who aren't financially vested in the situation often vote for the solution that will benefit them without considering the cost of their decision.

But that has all changed, we no longer require property ownership to vote and as it turns out the founding fathers WERE WRONG. After all we haven't seen any of the things they predicted: government welfare, entitlement programs, pork barrel spending to sway constituents, corrupt union leaders selling votes, corrupt politicians selling political appointments, etc., etc. :roll:

If you think that any of this isn't connected you just haven't been paying attention.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I guess we should bring back slavery as well. Our founding fathers couldn't have been wrong about ANYTHING!!! 

Luckily for me, if you ever become king I'll still have a voice since I own land. Luckily for all of us, this type of radical view is not the norm.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

TS30 said:


> I guess we should bring back slavery as well. Our founding fathers couldn't have been wrong about ANYTHING!!!


Yeah... that was what I was talking about. Your right, i think entitlement programs to buy votes is wrong, I must support slavery as well :roll:


----------



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

jahan said:


> Most people with river frontage property own to the middle of the river. Most if not all rivers here in Utah are non navigable so what reason would people need access for?


One small reason is the river bed holds the public waters, another is, publicly funded fish and one more, publicly funded government wildlife program to manage public fish ; )

Now you go of the deep end and and say something about the bed being purchased and owned, then I say something extreme and say then divert the public water away to a public bed and you'd say you can't do taht, and I say.....

Guys...
Unless all parties actually sit down at the table and ask a simple question "what do you need?" it will always be a never ending battle, nothing solved.... Guessing that's not really what our Founding Fathers would have done, but oh well, its 2009, right?!...

Yeah, I know, that is asking for a miracle. I foolishly have faith in peoples integrity to do the right thing, for once.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > Most people with river frontage property own to the middle of the river. Most if not all rivers here in Utah are non navigable so what reason would people need access for?
> ...


Thanks for taking the time to answer my question and I think those are all valid concerns and valid points. I agree with you that all parties just need to sit down and try to come to an agreement, but that doesn't ever seem to happen.


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

I'll tell you what right I have to access public waters- I BUY A FISHING LICENSE every year. The funds from this license go towards conservation of fish and wildlife on lands both public AND private. The wildlife benefits seen by private property owners are a direct result of my paying into the system. From this perspective, PP owners should be thanking all those who pay license fees each year for helping keep fish and habitat viable, even on their land. Everyone has heard the quip "We all live downstream." Hypothetically, while efforts may not be made by the owners of Thousand Peaks Ranch to protect fish and habitat on the Weber River within that property, you can bet that efforts to protect the water from contaminants are being made in the National Forest areas that feed the Weber. This is not to say that TPR does not make these efforts, just using it as an example. 

I agree with F/V Gulf Venture. This is sticky, and until both sides can come to an understanding of what each other wants, recreationalists will be at odds with landowners.


----------



## nightfish (Apr 29, 2008)

hyperduc said:


> Here's a simple question for you:
> 
> The property owner has purchased the property (sometimes at great expense) so he can enjoy his own piece of heaven in privacy, he pays taxes on that property and maintains the land, the water crossing the land goes uncollected and undisturbed, the public can still enjoy it's benefits somewhere down the line.


You need to research the State Code and Federal code about privacy rights. Privacy is not a right of property ownership in context with Conatser.

It must really suck having all those black helicopters above you all the time. I suggest a double layer of tinfoil for you.


----------



## Packbasket (Oct 29, 2009)

I support the rights of the public to use navigable waters to pass over them, but do not support the public's right to take part in consumptive activity while crossing private lands on public waters, ie, canoe, tube, float, boat down the creek fine go ahead, but once you start taking fish, setting traps and shooting ducks, shooting at deer along the creeks, which in and around torrey is what happens, that's a bit much.

saying I have the right to disregard private land simply because there is public water crossing it is simply rude, that's a result of bad upbringing and bad manners never corrected by one's parents AND a great way to ensure flat tires, spiked parking areas and a general hostility all fishermen will be met with when ASKING to cross private land, fish it or hunt it.

I have never found too many jackholes in life, most folks will happily give you something if asked or share if they can not give, you will find you've made many friends through life like this, as I have, but when you DEMAND something you not only lose a friend but make an enemy.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I hope the people setting traps and shooting at deer along creeks are cited and punished. I also hope that those who disregard private property are punished as well. As none of those things are a part of the easement IMO. 

I have a general question for anyone who is concerned about property rights. Speaking generally, is an easement recognized as a viable property interest?


----------



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

Packbasket said:


> I support the rights of the public to use navigable waters to pass over them, but do not support the public's right to take part in consumptive activity while crossing private lands on public waters, ie, canoe, tube, float, boat down the creek fine go ahead, but once you start taking fish, setting traps and shooting ducks, shooting at deer along the creeks, which in and around torrey is what happens, that's a bit much.


You the same guy that showed up at the Capitol meetings? If so.....The same points you brought.... are still nothing to stand on.

Wouldn't the Freemont be a "navigable" water?... you know, the whole prior to commerce in the 1896 thing ; )

Taking fish? .....Oh boy, not this again... lets take a step _way_ back here. If your the same guy (if not, just an fyi for future arguments)....Remember in the beginning what, the DWR, all the representatives and pretty much everyone thought about this?... But just for fun.... who owns the Fish again? ; ) Just kidding, I'm sure you know, the PUBLIC.

But because your still stuck on this... do tell us. why should a private lodge make money off the public water, the public fish, the public funding that goes into the public fish, the public's tax dollars and the public's rights for 'self" interest and demand its "yours/theirs"?.... where I come from we'd called it steeling.



Packbasket said:


> saying I have the right to disregard private land simply because there is public water crossing it is simply rude, that's a result of bad upbringing and bad manners never corrected by one's parents AND a great way to ensure flat tires, spiked parking areas and a general hostility all fishermen will be met with when ASKING to cross private land, fish it or hunt it.


Disregard?? Bad upbringing??? We can't trespass across private land. Nobody wants to trespass across anyone's land. *It's illegal, and against the law*.

So tell us who owned the land before your ancestors "acquired" it?....My guess is some _native_ Americans, those "other" landowners who were here before all of us. AND, well, since you brought it up, I am really curious how you acquired your property.

Spiking parking areas? Ensure flat tires? Not sure bout you, but where I come from, we call that malicious harassment....I think its even against the law. 

_Please make a note I have taken a screen shot of your post for record. Your above statement is clearly a premeditated motive for malicious harassment. All fun aside, this is not cool_



Packbasket said:


> I have never found too many jackholes in life, most folks will happily give you something if asked or share if they can not give, you will find you've made many friends through life like this, as I have, but when you DEMAND something you not only lose a friend but make an enemy.


DEMAND? you sir are the only only "DEMANDING" anything.

I really hope you can come meet us at common ground here. Nobody wants to take anything or do anything to you or your property. Most folks just want to fish and most folks have good manners when doing such activity.

Common sense for common ground. IS that really too much to ask? Its not "me against you" or "us against them". This is "our" problem, the peoples problem, yours & mine and the next guys. Its up to "us", to come to an agreement for the better and good of the whole.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

Packbasket said:


> I have never found too many jackholes in life, most folks will happily give you something if asked or share if they can not give, you will find you've made many friends through life like this, as I have, but when you DEMAND something you not only lose a friend but make an enemy.


Save your breath. They've already decided that they own everything that water crosses, and thanks to a few elected idiots who don't understand the term "private property" they're
probably right.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> _Please make a note I have taken a screen shot of your post for record. Your above statement is clearly a premeditated motive for malicious harassment. All fun aside, this is not cool_


Premeditated motive for malicious harassment?! :rotfl: Screen shot?! -_O- 
All that about this very general and broad statement?? Not exactly meeting the requirements for assault, but maybe with motive you are after a much bigger catch?


Packbasket said:


> saying I have the right to disregard private land simply because there is public water crossing it is simply rude, that's a result of bad upbringing and bad manners never corrected by one's parents AND a great way to ensure flat tires, spiked parking areas and a general hostility all fishermen will be met with when ASKING to cross private land, fish it or hunt it.


packbasket was clearly stating his opinion and a generally known practice of what happens to "trespassers" or people in general who do not *ASK*. Arguing who is trespassing is what can still be discussed, but let's take a deep breath before we start collecting evidence, please!


----------



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

Ooops...Didn't man to come off as if I was freaking out, he he he... BUT after this past summers "multiple firearm discharges", from a landowner, everything is being taken very seriously, by all parties. There are a few 'hot spots' and packbasket's location is one of them. 

There is a difference between opinion and a threat.. 

I'm always open for discussion, I actually breathe in a very calm manner too ; )


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> Ooops...Didn't man to come off as if I was freaking out, he he he... BUT after this past summers "multiple firearm discharges", from a landowner, everything is being taken very seriously, by all parties. There are a few 'hot spots' and packbasket's location is one of them.


Are you serious Clark? I am now intrigued....do tell! That is news to me, I remember several people asking if there had been any incidents, but never heard of any, so...I await the story.


----------



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

Huge29 said:


> F/V Gulf Ventur said:
> 
> 
> > Ooops...Didn't man to come off as if I was freaking out, he he he... BUT after this past summers "multiple firearm discharges", from a landowner, everything is being taken very seriously, by all parties. There are a few 'hot spots' and packbasket's location is one of them.
> ...


Yeah Wally, I'm serious. [3] separate firearm discharges, in [3] seperate areas.

News to you? as if your well informed on this entire issue??? :rotfl: ha, good one!
I'm sure you could search for it if you really wanted to find out the info.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

hyperduc said:


> Save your breath. They've already decided that they own everything that water crosses, and thanks to a few elected idiots who don't understand the term "private property" they're
> probably right.


Once again, I ask....is an easement a viable property interest?


----------



## Jeremy28 (Dec 1, 2007)

Im just an outsider looking in with regards to this thread and i haven't even read all of the posts, but i would like to know how "Hyperduc", who is obviously a land owner acquired his land? Even if he acquired it with his own hard earned money (which is what he would say even if he didn't), i would say that the majority of landowners inherited their land or inherited money that they used to buy it. Like was mentioned earlier, the fish and game keep the streams going through private land stocked with fish that was paid for by fishing license fees and other means not paid for by the private land owner. There is always exceptions but im just talking majority here. There is no reason other than selfishness that a landowner with with a huge amount of land with a stream running through it can't let a fisherman coming through every now and then fish the stream every once in a while. Its not like the fishermen is walking right next to your house 99.9% of the time. 

Growing up, my dad and i used to fish this stream all the time and then someone bought all the land and put a "no tresspassing" sign on it. Seems like all the really good (or alot of them anways) fishing streams in S.U. are private property now. Just remember all you selfish "hand me down" property owners out there that our fishing license fees and other state funded appropriations are the reason fish are even in "our" streams in the first place. I could tell just by reading "hyperduc's" excerpts that he is (or will be) one of those grumpy old people sitting in his rocking chair on the porch saying "hey kids get off my G..D... lawn" as the kids walk by.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

hyperduc said:


> Packbasket said:
> 
> 
> > I have never found too many jackholes in life, most folks will happily give you something if asked or share if they can not give, you will find you've made many friends through life like this, as I have, but when you DEMAND something you not only lose a friend but make an enemy.
> ...


As it always should have been.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

Executive Branch

Utah Constitution article 17 section 1
"All existing rights to the use of any of the waters in this State for any useful or beneficial purpose, are hereby recognized and confirmed." 

Legislative branch

Utah Code Annotated 1953, that, "All waters of this state, whether above or under the ground are hereby declared to be the property of the public, subject to all existing rights to the use thereof"; and further, by Section 73-1-3, Utah Code Annotated 1953, that "Beneficial use shall be the basis, the measures and the limit of all rights to the use of water in this state"; 

Judicial branch

CONCLUSION
¶29 The district court incorrectly interpreted the scope of
the public’s easement in state waters so as to limit the
Conatsers’ rights to being upon the water and to touching the
privately owned bed of the Weber River only in ways incidental to
the right of floatation.
¶30 We hold that the scope of the easement provides the
public the right to float, hunt, fish, and participate in all
lawful activities that utilize the water. We further hold that
the public has the right to touch privately owned beds of state
waters in ways incidental to all recreational rights provided for
in the easement, so long as they do so reasonably and cause no
unnecessary injury to the landowner.
---
¶


So with that, what is left besides defining the easement? How could private property rights advocates not be happy with an actual boundary being layed down in Rep. Fowlke's draft attempts? Law enforcement would have an actual definition to enforce. You know it was a 5-0 SC decision right? You know Utah has a pretty conservative court right?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Snoop, all that is way too obvious and clear. It's probably better to come up with something that is unclear and makes no sense....like keeping the public from being able to use what they have *ALWAYS* owned and had the right to use.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

http://www.adventuresports.com/river/no ... public.htm

More education.


----------



## scott_rn (Sep 11, 2007)

HighnDry,
You gonna post a picture of the aforementioned lighting fixture or what?
I wonder how much shipping would be? :shock: 

Bryan,
Since a big part of the issue is about the money I wonder if the access could be modeled after CWMU's the DNR uses for hunting?


----------

