# HB80 Failed



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

Just saw the vote on HB80. It failed 23 yea to 50 nay. They're debating HB 141. Hopefully it will meet the same fate. It is going to be years before anything is decided by the legislative body on this issue which is probably a good thing.


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

Rep Powell caught a new amendment in HB141 that would close all private property (whether posted or not) to all forms of recreation. This bill is not only seeking to make things like they were before, but to close all access even if the land is not posted or cultivated etc... This a bad bad bill. Perhaps we now need emails that request to vote no on HB141.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

So--who is willing to put their money where their mouth is? I'm seriously thinking of not buying a Utah license when mine is outdated. Idaho is not that far away. I think I will take most of my recreation dollars to that state and maybe Montana and Wyoming (even though Wyoming's laws are bad too). I think it would be sweet to send copies of all the receipts to the legislatures who voted against HB80. Lets see Gas receipts, food, lodging, gear, license fees and entertainment costs for each trip will add up. If we could get a bunch of us doing this--it may send a message.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

My UT license is currently expired and I have been waiting for the results of this situation before buying another one. I will be buying my Idaho license on line and will forward a letter explaining my actions and a copy of the transaction to the UT DWR director if HB 141 passes.

Who else will join me?


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> So--who is willing to put their money where their mouth is? I'm seriously thinking of not buying a Utah license when mine is outdated. Idaho is not that far away. I think I will take most of my recreation dollars to that state and maybe Montana and Wyoming (even though Wyoming's laws are bad too). I think it would be sweet to send copies of all the receipts to the legislatures who voted against HB80. Lets see Gas receipts, food, lodging, gear, license fees and entertainment costs for each trip will add up. If we could get a bunch of us doing this--it may send a message.


I doubt it, they are hell bent on their ways. We have sent thousands of e-mails and phone calls their way and they still voted the way they did. They could give a shi# less about money we pump into the market. Seems like a lot of wasted energy to me at this point. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide again. :evil:


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Troll said:


> My UT license is currently expired and I have been waiting for the results of this situation before buying another one. I will be buying my Idaho license on line and will forward a letter explaining my actions and a copy of the transaction to the UT DWR director if HB 141 passes.
> 
> Who else will join me?


I would except for the fact that ID has an enormous amount of stamp, license , and other fees and they keep raising their prices. Neither state is worth the money anymore.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> HighNDry said:
> 
> 
> > So--who is willing to put their money where their mouth is? I'm seriously thinking of not buying a Utah license when mine is outdated. Idaho is not that far away. I think I will take most of my recreation dollars to that state and maybe Montana and Wyoming (even though Wyoming's laws are bad too). I think it would be sweet to send copies of all the receipts to the legislatures who voted against HB80. Lets see Gas receipts, food, lodging, gear, license fees and entertainment costs for each trip will add up. If we could get a bunch of us doing this--it may send a message.
> ...


In fairness, so did the 'other' side. 8)


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> lunkerhunter2 said:
> 
> 
> > HighNDry said:
> ...


touche


----------



## sinergy (Mar 6, 2008)

So does this mean the current bill 187 or what ever number it was is still in effect or ???


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> In fairness, so did the 'other' side. 8)


You turkey! You beat me to it. I can certainly see why some folks feel bitter about this, but like Pro said, it is not as if this was a money for orphans bill; this is a pretty complex issue with strong feelings on both sides.


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

sinergy said:


> So does this mean the current bill 187 or what ever number it was is still in effect or ???


Doesn't mean anything. Conatser decision is still in effect. What is means is that we now have to make sure HB141 gets defeated and then we are in the same situation as we were for the last couple years. We had hopes this bill would settle the debate, but after listening to the anti argument, there is no way we are even close to settling this debate and we are probably many years away. It was hopeful that this bill would have put some protection in place for sportman, but even if it had passed, I think it would have offered little protection in the future as the anti HB80 are hell bent on overturning Conatser.

I'm still going to buy a Utah license, but you can bet I will be spending some time and money educating the voters in my area how my representative voted in hopes he does not get re-elected. I just hope there is a candidate running that supports my position.

We haven't wasted our time or energy. We have put into the minds of our representatives that there is a big group of their constituents that care how they vote. Hopefully this will reflect in the defeat of HB141.

Those in the know, keep us posted on when HB141 gets put back on the floor for debate. I'd like to listen.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

toasty said:


> Those in the know, keep us posted on when HB141 gets put back on the floor for debate. I'd like to listen.


Probably tomorrow morning. It was circled tonight because they ran out of time for the evening.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Can someone please post who coted for and against the bill?
I would like to know if Scott Jenkins is still on the side of the sportsman.
He was last year.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

Here's a link to the vote Grampa D.

http://le.utah.gov/~2010/status/hbillst ... 0.001h.txt

Scott Jenkins is a Senator, this vote was in the House of Represenatives.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Troll said:


> I will be buying my Idaho license on line and will forward a letter explaining my actions and a copy of the transaction to the UT DWR director if HB 141 passes.


Why? This isn't something that the DWR did. It's an issue that started out in the courts and ended up in the legislature. On this one, the DWR just implements what the legislature decides. Send it to someone who actually matters: your state senator or representative.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

Looks like Paul Ray flipped.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> Seems like a lot of wasted energy to me at this point. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide again. :evil:


I have to dissent and concur. No effort to preserve your rights is wasted effort. But yes, the Supreme Court is going to end up deciding this issue when it's all said and done. The good bill didn't pass. We can't go crying over spilt milk. We'll plug away and oppose HB 141.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

HunterGeek said:


> Troll said:
> 
> 
> > I will be buying my Idaho license on line and will forward a letter explaining my actions and a copy of the transaction to the UT DWR director if HB 141 passes.
> ...


Because the DWR should know how the sportsman of his state feel and why. Not buying licenses also affects the DWR's revenue.
My Rep voted for HB80. Supported it whole heartedly from the beginning. The Senate has not taken the issue up yet, But I've spoken to him and he supported HB80.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Troll said:


> Because the DWR should know how the sportsman of his state feel and why. Not buying licenses also affects the DWR's revenue.


Again, this hurts the DWR for sure, but the DWR had zero votes, that would not do any good in creating a boycott.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

This is not a boycott, it is a "cause and effect" message.
Loosing hundreds of miles of streams to fish, will cause me to fish else where. Most likely someplace where OHWM is the law. Like Idaho.

I am willing to wager that the DWR director has more votes than I do. The DWR director can stop stocking affected steams. The DWR director can step up enforcement of environmental laws on private stream sections. The DWR is in charge of both depredation permits and land owner permits.
Think about it. Do you really think the DWR has no vote?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A couple of comments are probably in order I suppose. I probably will "pontificate" more on what I think will happen in the future once this issue is over for the legislative session.

1.


TS30 said:


> The good bill didn't pass. We can't go crying over spilt milk. We'll plug away and oppose HB 141.


+100

2. If you were for HB 80, please write a note of thanks to Rep. Fowlke. She really worked her tail off for us with minimal return for her politically.

3. There has been some talk about boycotts and the like. I would suppose that once everything has shaken out, that there may be a place for that in some instances. However, in most cases, most small farmers and small time landowners had little to do with any of this or our political setback, besides we are talking about our friends and neighbors in some cases. I like what I read on another forum, "the Golden rule still applies".

4. I suppose that boycotting the DWR is one way to show our displeasure with this that does have an economic impact on the State, but to me, if you enjoy fishing and hunting in this state, it is a bit of "cutting off ones nose to spite your face". Additionally, last year with HB187, there was evidence that the DWR initially stabbed us in the back. This year all accounts indicate that the DWR was firmly in OUR corner, thus for this reason, a boycott seems inappropriate to me.

5. The sun will rise in the morning.


----------



## orvis1 (Sep 7, 2007)

Once again big money wins over the little guy. What a shock...


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

We need to let them know that we are going to be involved this coming October. Weather it is a flyer, a sign, or whatever, make sure they know we will not tolerate them voting the way they did. I will be setting aside about about $100 this fall to print flyers and posters designed to oust my rep who has continued to vote against public use of public water. I already have a couple guys that will help deliver the flyers to the entire area that is under my rep. Maybe they'll listen to that message.


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

orvis1 said:


> Once again big money wins over the little guy. What a shock...


Here is the thing, there are 350,000+ fisherman in this state. Why are we considered the little guy? We're a huge contingent and raise a lot a money for the state. There is more too it than money.


----------



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

Maybe because the fisherman are not making any noise?.... we're out numbered 100 to 10, at least. (info came from many Reps)

Thanks to those of you that have stood up and are continuing to do so!!!


----------



## ACHY (Oct 18, 2007)

Here are my comments, and them I'm going to try really hard to stay out of this. Nothing good happens when I get worked up over these things.

1. I'm really surprised about the vote on HB80. I honestly expected it to go the other way.

2. I think refusing to buy another fishing license would be completely ineffective. Why? Well, probably >90% of the people who buy licenses never fish streams on private property, and this will not affect them in the least. Losing the other <10% won't hurt the DWR or the state that much. (Not to mention the DWR didn't have anything to do with this and in my mind doesn't deserve to be punished for it.) I also really doubt that any of you will stop fishing in Utah if HB141 passes anyway. You all like fishing too much. Oh sure, for a while you might travel out of state, but before long you'll get tired of traveling so far or you'll want to get a quick trip in after work and you'll give in. You'll just go somewhere that is open to access the way you did before the Conatser ruling. Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect the only person impacted by your refusal to buy a license will be you.

3. The best idea I've heard so far is this one:


Catherder said:


> If you were for HB 80, please write a note of thanks to Rep. Fowlke. She really worked her tail off for us with minimal return for her politically.


 It would be a really good idea to call or write a note of appreciation to any of the legislators who supported whatever position you have. That goes for both sides. Those folks on the hill sacrifice a lot of personal time, money, and energy to do the things they think are right for the people in the state, and more often than not they are vilified for doing so.

4. As I've said numerous times, and to people on both sides of the debate, PLEASE try to understand the opposing side. By all means make up your mind on the issue and support what you think is right, but please try to understand. You'll be better off in the end, no matter what the outcome.


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

i called Rep Fowlke's office and left a message with her secratary saying thanks, here is her work number:

801-375-5600 

got it from the UT.gov website place


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

orvis1 said:


> Once again big money wins over the little guy. What a shock...





F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> Maybe because the fisherman are not making any noise?.... we're out numbered 100 to 10, at least. (info came from many Reps)


Both are correct. We were up against the organized political might of the realtors (one of the biggest campaign contributors in the state) and the Farm Bureau (ditto). Both loaded with campaign cash and inside organization. In our corner we had a few incredibly dedicated but politically new workers, one lobbyist, and little campaign cash to offer.

We also DID get outworked. Last year, it seemed that the influx of emails on our part took many reps by surprise. This year, the opposition learned from us and matched our intensity. We also didn't have many people at the rally and we had only a few come up to the Capitol to talk directly to the reps. When I was up there, it seemed to me that some of the reps were "desensitized" by the mass of emails and that face-to-face contact was much more effective. Lastly, our side has been slow to recognize the political battle at hand and prepare financially by contributing to the lobbyist fund to at least have one lobbyist on our side. (as opposed to 4-5 for the Farm Bureau alone and 2 very powerful ones for the realtors). The dedicated flyfishermen in particular should be ashamed of themselves in this regard.



toasty said:


> Here is the thing, there are 350,000+ fisherman in this state. Why are we considered the little guy?


Because the overwhelming majority of the fishermen in this state really don't give a crap about any of this and are happy simply if there are plenty of 9 inch planters to harvest at the local community pond.

All that said, all is not lost and this war has a few more battles to fight.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Case in point on my last post.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7053 ... group.html


----------

