# HB 37 - Public Water Access



## Dukes_Daddy

Contact your state representative and senator to support this bill by representative Dixon Pitch. Craft something like this email.



> I would like to ask your support for HB 37 sponsored by representative Dixon Pitcher. Bill would restore public access to use public waterways for boating, fishing, wading and swimming. Two key points in favor.
> 
> 1) Natural waterways (rivers, streams) cross from public access to private property and public needs access to use these waterways for recreation.
> 
> 2) Natural waterways are historic pathways in use before property property was established. Same logic used to support Utah's claims for public access in federal areas closed by wilderness study areas.
> 
> I appreciate your consideration.


Part 2. Access to Public Water

161 73-29-201. General access provisions.
162 (1) A public access water at or below the ordinary high water mark is open to public
163 use year round for a lawful activity that utilizes the public access water, including:
164 (a) boating;
165 (b) fishing;
166 (c) swimming; or
167 (d) wading.
168 (2) A public water is not open to public use if the public water:
169 (a) is located on private property to which access is restricted; and
170 (b) is not a public access water.
171 Section 5. Section 73-29-202 is repealed and reenacted to read:
172 73-29-202. Limitation -- Obstructions.
173 (1) Except as provided in Subsection (2), nothing in this chapter authorizes a member
174 of the public to enter, cross, or use private property to which access is restricted other than at or
175 below the high water mark of a public access water.
176 (2) If a manmade or natural obstruction interferes with the use of a public access water,
177 a member of the public may, along with a watercraft, reasonably portage around the obstruction
 178 staying close to the water and reentering the water immediately upon reaching a safe place to
179 reenter.
180 Section 6. Section 73-29-203 is repealed and reenacted to read:
181 73-29-203. Effect of chapter on other uses and restrictions -- Required acts.
182 (1) A person who uses a public access water is subject to any other restriction lawfully
183 placed on the use of the public access water by a governmental entity with authority to restrict
184 the use of the public access water.
185 (2) Nothing in this chapter limits or enlarges any right granted by express easement.
186 (3) When leaving a public access water, a person shall remove any refuse or tangible
187 personal property the person brought to the public access water.
188 Section 7. Section 73-29-204 is repealed and reenacted to read:
189 73-29-204. Fences across public water.
190 (1) An owner of the bed of a public access water may place a fence or similar barrier
191 across the public access water for an agricultural, livestock, or other lawful purpose.
192 (2) A fence or similar barrier across a public access water shall:
193 (a) comply with an applicable federal, state, or local law; and
194 (b) be constructed in a manner that does not create an unreasonably dangerous
195 condition to the public lawfully using the public access water.
196 (3) An owner described in Subsection (1) who places a fence or similar barrier across a
197 public access water shall allow a member of the public to use a ladder, gate, or other
198 mechanism to portage around or over the fence or similar barrier.
199 Section 8. Section 73-29-205 is repealed and reenacted to read:
200 73-29-205. Severability.
201 If a provision of this chapter, or the application of a provision of this chapter, is held to
202 be unconstitutional, the provision is severable and this chapter's other provisions and
203 applications remain effective.


----------



## smoothie

I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I'm not sure who my state Reps are...do you have a quick link to the state's website, so I can look it up?

I will for sure be contacting my Rep's about this and plan to encourage many others to do the same. Thanks for sharing!!


----------



## fishsnoop

smoothie said:


> I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I'm not sure who my state Reps are...do you have a quick link to the state's website, so I can look it up?
> 
> I will for sure be contacting my Rep's about this and plan to encourage many others to do the same. Thanks for sharing!!


http://le.utah.gov/

go all the way to bottom left of page and put in your zipcode and then call your rep and senator to set up a face to face.
Let them know you are a constituent and you support HB37


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Hello!!!! Apathy is unacceptable. 

Has anyone else contacted their state representatives or will everyone wait until it dies in committee and the bitch and moan in 2am web posts about not having access to wade a stream?


----------



## ridgetop

is there a rally at the state capital about this coming up soon.


----------



## Catherder

ridgetop said:


> is there a rally at the state capital about this coming up soon.


Yes, 9:30-9:45 AM on Tuesday the 11th.

We had a separate thread on the subject in the fly fishing section.

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/9-fly-fishing/72762-rally-capitol.html


----------



## cattlerancher

As a sportsman I can see why many of you would support HB37. As a landowner and rancher I simply think the liability risk far outweighs the benefits. And in state with over 62% public land, private property rights should count for something. I can't support this bill. Sorry.


----------



## fishsnoop

cattlerancher said:


> As a sportsman I can see why many of you would support HB37. As a landowner and rancher I simply think the liability risk far outweighs the benefits. And in state with over 62% public land, private property rights should count for something. I can't support this bill. Sorry.


Hb347 by Rep. Brad Wilson in 2013 session passed. It added all the liability from recreational users. Look it up.
littering, trespass, damaging property is all against the law already. You have an enforcement issue to complain about.
Property values have not dropped because of access.


----------



## cattlerancher

fishsnoop said:


> Hb347 by Rep. Brad Wilson in 2013 session passed. It added all the liability from recreational users. Look it up.
> littering, trespass, damaging property is all against the law already. You have an enforcement issue to complain about.
> Property values have not dropped because of access.


I have looked at the law passed in 2013 and HB37 as well. I still feel there are valid issues when the public enters private land without the permission or knowledge of the landowner. I could care less about property values. My ranch is sacred ground. Built through 5 generations of sweat, blood and tears. It will always be a cattle ranch if I have my way. And I usually allow access when people ask. But what happens when you bring your kids out fishing along the creek that runs through part of our place and a cow with a new born calf knocks one down? Or worse? If you come ask me for access, I can explain about the cattle. If you just go fishing up the creek, you won't know what may happen til a 2000 pound angus bull comes busting through the sage and cedars.

Utah has almost 2/3rds of it's mass under public domain. How much is enough? I understand that it is frustrating when you feel you just want to fish a creek. I understand that for the most part, sportsmen are courteous and respectful towards private land. But, sadly, many landowners feel the way I do. Because it only takes a few to leave a very bad taste in your mouth. Some landowners and "sportsmen" are knuckleheads. We have all dealt with them. I hope the rest of us can find ways to see each others views and find common ground. I just don't think this legislation will answer enough of my questions. But I respect your opinion and thanks for allowing me a chance to voice mine.


----------



## fishsnoop

Ever need riparian repair? Erosion protection? Water rights exist because the public owns the water in Utah.


----------



## cattlerancher

So assume I take awesome care of riparian zones and have no erosion issues. How about you answer my question about my cow stomping on you or your child? Please. The State of Utah owns the water by the way. The public doesn't. I work with the state water engineer when i drill a well. Not the nearest sportsmen's warehouse. Just sayin'....


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Bed below natural waterways should be 100% public access. You don't own the water, fish and should have no right to restrict the public floating or water the waterway. 

Liability is laughable. What if I visited your house and a tree branch fell on me?


----------



## martymcfly73

Emailed the rules committee and called both of my reps today.

Big surprise. Another landowner with a sense of entitlement.


----------



## fishsnoop

cattlerancher said:


> So assume I take awesome care of riparian zones and have no erosion issues. How about you answer my question about my cow stomping on you or your child? Please. The State of Utah owns the water by the way. The public doesn't. I work with the state water engineer when i drill a well. Not the nearest sportsmen's warehouse. Just sayin'....


How many cases can you produce on the record of your cow stomping anything other than your own?


----------



## Pink Panther

Hey, cattlerancher - You said "I don't think this legislation will answer enough of my questions."

What questions do you have?


----------



## cattlerancher

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Bed below natural waterways should be 100% public access. You don't own the water, fish and should have no right to restrict the public floating or water the waterway.
> 
> Liability is laughable. What if I visited your house and a tree branch fell on me?


 You would sue me and everything I have worked for would be risked being taken away by some liberal judge. For you to laugh at my serious concerns shows your true colors and is exactly why guys like me get fed up and stop trying to get along. Thanks for being civil and respectful or not.


----------



## cattlerancher

martymcfly73 said:


> Emailed the rules committee and called both of my reps today.
> 
> Big surprise. Another landowner with a sense of entitlement.


 Big surprise. Another loudmouth without a clue how much damage his lips cause when they flap. And another slap in the face when I try to understand a differing opinion and have a civil and fair-minded debate. Thanks for letting the world know how silly you are.


----------



## martymcfly73

You're welcome.


----------



## cattlerancher

fishsnoop said:


> How many cases can you produce on the record of your cow stomping anything other than your own?


 How many times do you have to be asked the same question? We live in a world where people win big lawsuits for spilling hot coffee that they bought on themselves and you all think I shouldn't be concerned about somebody getting hurt when they enter my private land where i have livestock?????:shock:


----------



## fishsnoop

cattlerancher said:


> How many times do you have to be asked the same question? We live in a world where people win big lawsuits for spilling hot coffee that they bought on themselves and you all think I shouldn't be concerned about somebody getting hurt when they enter my private land where i have livestock?????:shock:


No one is doing anything to your livestock. Eat another fig newton of your imagination. Truth is the only one getting hurt by your livestock is the one twisting tails into the chute and your fences from a hard rub.


----------



## cattlerancher

Pink Panther said:


> Hey, cattlerancher - You said "I don't think this legislation will answer enough of my questions."
> 
> What questions do you have?


 My posts indicate my questions pink panther. I am concerned about liability when the public enters my private land. Has no one on this site ever had to sign a liability waiver? Even a scout trip requires more paperwork than the Louisiana purchase! And private property rights are being diluted more everyday. Privacy in general, i.e. the NSA baloney going on. I am not saying this about you in particular pink panther, but the attitudes shown here tonight are EXACTLY why ranchers lock gates on private land. There is no courtesy or respect being shown. Just a combative attitude of, to quote *martymcfly73, entitlement!*

I would no more make entry onto private land without permission than I would enter your home without being invited. It is private property in both cases. Just because a stream happens to cross my land (Which is why my family homesteaded our ranch in the 1800's) doesn't not give folks the right to fish it. I am kind of embarrassed to call myself a hunter and sportsman tonight. I thought people had respect for other people and their land. I thought it was only a tiny percentage who ruined it for all of us. I was wrong. Sorry I gave my opinion and it didn't match in lock step with your views. Pink Panther can PM me if I didn't make myself clear enough about my concerns. But I am done with the rest of ya. Have your rally and pat each other on the back about how much you hate ranchers and farmers and land owners. Hope it make's ya feel great.:neutral: Good night and god bless


----------



## hamernhonkers

Cattleman I hate to tell you but you are wasting your breath on here. 

Not one of these guys on here will ever understand what's it like to be on your side of the fence and they never will until their are in your shoes. They will never appreciate the blessing in this country of being able to OWN property until they have someone trying to tell them its not theirs and the PEOPLE can do with it as they please.

Until they get a taste of what's it like having the PEOPLE walk through their home when they please and do as they please then they'll understand.

The good news for you is with the ever growing sense of entitlement to everything in this country by the PEOPLE of this country it won't be long till they get a taste of it themselves. 

Good luck in your fight for your rights as a private property owner and I hope everyone else never has to be in your shoes.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

hamernhonkers said:


> Cattleman I hate to tell you but you are wasting your breath on here.
> 
> Not one of these guys on here will ever understand what's it like to be on your side of the fence and they never will until their are in your shoes. They will never appreciate the blessing in this country of being able to OWN property until they have someone trying to tell them its not theirs and the PEOPLE can do with it as they please.
> 
> Until they get a taste of what's it like having the PEOPLE walk through their home when they please and do as they please then they'll understand.
> 
> The good news for you is with the ever growing sense of entitlement to everything in this country by the PEOPLE of this country it won't be long till they get a taste of it themselves.
> 
> Good luck in your fight for your rights as a private property owner and I hope everyone else never has to be in your shoes.


Can you explain the difference between floating and wading around Bear Lake and walking along a stream through someones cow pasture?

I understand private property above the natural water level but below has always been public right of way.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

cattlerancher said:


> My posts indicate my questions pink panther. I am concerned about liability when the public enters my private land. Has no one on this site ever had to sign a liability waiver? Even a scout trip requires more paperwork than the Louisiana purchase! And private property rights are being diluted more everyday. Privacy in general, i.e. the NSA baloney going on. I am not saying this about you in particular pink panther, but the attitudes shown here tonight are EXACTLY why ranchers lock gates on private land. There is no courtesy or respect being shown. Just a combative attitude of, to quote *martymcfly73, entitlement!*
> 
> I would no more make entry onto private land without permission than I would enter your home without being invited. It is private property in both cases. Just because a stream happens to cross my land (Which is why my family homesteaded our ranch in the 1800's) doesn't not give folks the right to fish it. I am kind of embarrassed to call myself a hunter and sportsman tonight. I thought people had respect for other people and their land. I thought it was only a tiny percentage who ruined it for all of us. I was wrong. Sorry I gave my opinion and it didn't match in lock step with your views. Pink Panther can PM me if I didn't make myself clear enough about my concerns. But I am done with the rest of ya. Have your rally and pat each other on the back about how much you hate ranchers and farmers and land owners. Hope it make's ya feel great.:neutral: Good night and god bless


Homesteaded 1880s good for great grandpa. So would you allow native americans who's ancestors waded that stream before grandpa to wade across the pasture?


----------



## martymcfly73

Do you guys keep cows in your homes? You're acting like fisherman are walking through your living room. You don't own the water or the wildlife. It's a public resource. You just happened to purchase then land in runs over. I've never trespassed and have gone out of my way to thank or help any landowner I've come in contact with. 

Cattle rancher, are you the governors brother in law? Just curious.


----------



## browntrout

*Weber River*

Cattlerancher and *hamernhonkers* 

I do understand your concerns pertaining to lawsuits. But, much of the middle Weber is accessible to fisherman through the walk-in access program. I believe the program is working and certainly appreciate the landowners allowing access. Why is this program able to work? What type of screening program would you like to see in place to allow the respectful
fisherman on the streambed?


----------



## hamernhonkers

martymcfly73 said:


> You just happened to purchase then land in runs over.


I didn't purchase my land. It was homesteaded long before Utah became a state and it sounds like cattle ranchers was also.

Now as you said we don't own the water or the "wildlife" so why stop with access to the water for recreation/fishing? The wildlife belong to the "PEOPLE" so why should hunters and wildlife watchers not have access to them as well?

Sounds to me like they should have access to them just as fisherman should have access to the fish and water. Don't you agree?


----------



## martymcfly73

Hunting creates a whole new set of issues and would increase the footprint on the land. I don't have an answer the hunting issue.


----------



## hamernhonkers

browntrout said:


> Cattlerancher and *hamernhonkers*
> What type of screening program would you like to see in place to allow the respectful
> fisherman on the streambed?


For me I have always respected the people who just take the time to ask for permission. When they do that I know who they are and where they are. Its just not a free for all.



browntrout said:


> I do understand your concerns pertaining to lawsuits.


Here are a couple of questions for all of you not just browntrout. My land is totally fenced in and posted, my dogs are free to run and always have been able to do so. Someone one comes fishing up the stream and for whatever reason one of my dogs bite an individual who got out of the stream bed and wandered up on the rest of my private property, who is liable?

The law is changed and people come and go as they please but some of those wonderful individuals decided they have more rights then the law provides and leave the steam bed (my private property still) and trash fences/structures(now remember my land is not the middle weber and the next house is a long way's a way), these people access through a legal access and get deep into my property and do the damage and then back out that way. Is the state going to pay for the damages because they gave people a legal means in which to enter my property?


----------



## hamernhonkers

martymcfly73 said:


> Hunting creates a whole new set of issues and would increase the footprint on the land. I don't have an answer the hunting issue.


Ya where should we draw the line. Lots of things to think about with all this


----------



## martymcfly73

HH, the question with your dog is mute. You are liable since you own the dog. No different if that dog ran into the road and bit someone on a public street or gets hit by a car and damages the car. It won't matter if the person is on private property or not. It's your dog and you are responsible for any damage it may cause. 

Second question. The person who damages your fence or whatever would be cited for trespassing and criminal mischief and would be responsible for restitution if they are convicted the court would order it. The govt wouldn't be liable. Just like now. Example, you wreck your car on a state road. Is the state liable for you crashing on their road? No they aren't. It's up to the individual.


----------



## hamernhonkers

martymcfly73 said:


> HH, the question with your dog is mute. You are liable since you own the dog. No different if that dog ran into the road and bit someone on a public street or gets hit by a car and damages the car. It won't matter if the person is on private property or not. It's your dog and you are responsible for any damage it may cause.


So this is the same answer for cattleranchers question as for who is liable when one of his cows trample and injure or kill someone on his private property after they accessed it via public access? He can be sued and risk losing everything?


----------



## martymcfly73

I'm not an attorney but possibly. Unless he can train his cows to run the other way.


----------



## Catherder

hamernhonkers said:


> Until they get a taste of what's it like having the PEOPLE walk through their home when they please and do as they please then they'll understand.


It always cracks me up in stream access debates when landowners pull the "walk through your house" line when referring to stream access. An actual apples-to-apples comparison is someone walking on the sidewalk that traverses my property. I am required to keep the snow shoveled off it. If my attack Shih Tzu bites a sidewalk walker, I'm in trouble. It is really no different than Conatser type stream access, but we are just ordinary suburban folk.

In regards to cattlemans original question, I do not know all the answers for every legal contingency, but I *do* favor the maximum liability protection for landowners from anglers and recreationalists accessing public water over private land, and also favor stiff penalties for trespassing violators fishing or recreating on such waters. However, if these steps were taken, I would still suspect that many landowners will still fight Conatser type stream access tooth and nail.


----------



## Pink Panther

Just so y'all know. Idaho dealt with all of this in 1976. Same concerns. Same 'What If's." Look at where they're at now. Prospering angling industry. Good balanced restrictions on hunting, and where you can (and cant) unload your firearm. They had the same worries about liability, with the same protections we have now. Point is - it works there, and it has for nearly 40 years. Respect for the landowner, and the landowner's respect for the publics use of its resource. 

You don't have to believe me. You can cite how there's xyz more people in Utah than in Idaho, and how this is such a unique to Utah situation, etc. The fact of the matter is, for every water you say is "different" there's a water in Idaho that matches that category. It works there, and it has for nearly 40 years.

I was born n raised playing on the riverbank in Idaho. My inlaws own a good stretch of river in a very busy area. They share the same concerns you do - but in fact - those concerns (fortunately) have never born fruit. I'll knock on wood that they never do.

Now that said, I just want to make sure, you know nobody can enter your land to get to a river, right? They would have to access from a bridge, or from a public access point, or get signed written permission from you to access the river, and once in they have to stay below the ordinary high water mark. And when the day is done, they better be darn sure they got out where they got in, unless of course they're floating through to the next bridge.

If someone were walking across my property, cutting my fences, etc…I'd be pissed too. But the reality is that there's laws for that, and the laws exist for the bad apples. That's a tragedy of the commons. And yes, hamernhonkers I'm telling you that you maybe you should set up a game camera, or request that the State do something to protect your property. Maybe you should request that your Sheriff actually do their job and protect your property. Maybe think twice about re-electing the Sheriff that doesn't protect your property rights. I would. And I think that you should look into the liability issues of the random angus stomping a child, cattlerancher. That sounds like a really terrible, and unfortunate circumstance. 

These are the issues we're dealing with. Some are very real, and very relevant. Some of them seem much larger than they really are.

The point is that with these discussions we can make effective changes to law. Only when we come together and hear all sides can we find a suitable balance. There is no reason that the defense of property rights cannot be balanced with reasonable, sensible, and limited protections for the public to use their resource. They're not mutually exclusive ideals. We need respect, and education.

I don't want this to degrade any further in the thread. I appreciate hearing the points on all sides. Hamernhonkers, cattlerancher, fishsnoop, and martymcfly, if you guys want to PM me your thoughts I'd be happy to hear them.

That's all for tonight. Hope you folks have a great weekend.


----------



## Jrdnmoore3

This bill is abosolute garbage and saying there are laws against littering and trespassing which fixes it is like saying because drugs are illegal they aren't in our country. I hunt private property owned by a rancher I know very well we are the only ones that are allowed to even set foot out there other than him because we respect the property and help him in any aspect he needs. If people didn't trash property farmers and ranchers allowing you access would happen all the time. The bill won't go anywhere there is to much money in the ag business in Utah thus it being overturned a few years back. The bad part is he used to let anyone go out there until a man fishing decided it was a good idea to shoot one of his horses people like that ruin things for others. Not to mention go drive down the weber there are plenty of access points to fish all along the river. Commercializing fishing in Utah won't do anything but hurt agricultural business in the state there is no benefit.


----------



## 30-06-hunter

As someone who grew up in Maine being taught to ask permission and never leave trash behind I'm a bit torn on the issue, but leaning more toward supporting the Bill because I also know that most anglers who go through the money and effort spent to properly fish a river are only there to fish and nothing else. There are written laws as mentioned that protect your property, and "common sense laws" should protect you from a lawsuit in the event that someone is dumb enough to get in the way of a cow/bull. The "dumb and/or destructive" type of folks typically will not be found driving to the middle of nowhere to get drunk and fish a small stream, they are usually closer to town at a city pond or lake.


----------



## Fishrmn

Jrdnmoore3 said:


> This bill is abosolute garbage and saying there are laws against littering and trespassing which fixes it is like saying because drugs are illegal they aren't in our country. I hunt private property owned by a rancher I know very well we are the only ones that are allowed to even set foot out there other than him because we respect the property and help him in any aspect he needs. If people didn't trash property farmers and ranchers allowing you access would happen all the time. The bill won't go anywhere there is to much money in the ag business in Utah thus it being overturned a few years back. The bad part is he used to let anyone go out there until a man fishing decided it was a good idea to shoot one of his horses people like that ruin things for others. Not to mention go drive down the weber there are plenty of access points to fish all along the river. Commercializing fishing in Utah won't do anything but hurt agricultural business in the state there is no benefit.


???????? Have you read any of the bill? Commercialize fishing? Nowhere in the bill. Access all along the Weber? If you want to fish under the bridges, maybe. The overturning has been just the opposite. The Conaster ruling proved that the public has the right to use their waters. The private land owners DON'T have the right to keep the public out.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## GBell

One other thing on the liability argument. 
Please correct this thought if I'm wrong, but
To be held liable, negligence must be proven

If a burglar breaks in to my neighbors house,
And makes an attempt to stay unseen by cutting
Through my back yard and my dog rips his face
Off am I liable?? Am I negligent?? 

Answer, I'm not liable or negligent. 

If this Same dog was running loose out front
And bites someone, then I'm both negligent
And liable. 

If a person enters your private property without
Your knowledge, they would have a hard time
Winning in court. 

Times have changed. When I was growing up
Posted land was a disgrace, hunting or fishing
It just wasn't done. Pancake breakfasts the morning
Of the pheasant hunt hosted by towns and neighbors. 

Also water is heavily subsidized by the public
As well as grazing rights. 

Peace


----------



## cattlerancher

martymcfly73 said:


> I'm not an attorney but possibly. Unless he can train his cows to run the other way.


 AND I SHOULDNT BE NERVOUS?????? If your livelihood, property and way-of-life was threatened, would you be for this kind of legislation?


----------



## cattlerancher

Utah was granted statehood on January 4th, 1896. Our ranched was granted it's homestead final signing in 1861. The division of wildlife came into existence when? 1920? 1940? But I shouldn't have any rights to keep folks off of my property even though my family has been, at a minimum of 35 years, on this land before any state level government existed? Our deed goes from section corner to section corner. It doesn't say to the edge of a creek! Therefore, I own the dirt under the water. The water is owned by the state of Utah. I have certain rights to use the water depending on when and why the right was filed. Those rights on our ranch also pre-date most other water rights by merely 40 years. But I shouldn't even have a say in things according to some of ya'll? Not even a differing opinion? I believe the word I feel is INCREDULOUS!! I very respectfully will get back to work and leave you all to your forum and your opinions. I did not intend to come here and hurt feelings or stir the pot. I like looking at wildlife pictures, reading about successful hunts and fishing trips and associating with my fellow sportsmen. I felt compelled to share another side of the story on this topic. Should of kept my mouth shut. I did learn 1 thing here though and thanks to those of you who so graciously taught it........ There is a gigantic disconnect between ranchers and the public. I will really have to think hard the next time someone asks for permission to access my ranch. Because I might have the whole 10% bad 90% good ratio completely backwards!

I believe life is too short to spend it arguing, so hasta la vista to you all. If I don't answer a pm it is because I think I may have had my fill of Utah wildlife.net


----------



## Fishrmn

Cattlerancher.

Regardless of when your land was homesteaded, you're within the State of Utah. Therefore you're subject to the laws of the State. Same as the rest of us. You don't own the riverbed. Nobody in Utah does. At least not individually. We all do collectively. If the needs of the state, or nation require that a road be built right through your property, or even through your home, it will happen. It's called eminent domain. Gotta be tough to swallow, but it has, and does, happen. You should have your right to private property. You should not have the right to keep anyone from their property. The riverbed belongs to everyone.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## martymcfly73

cattlerancher said:


> Utah was granted statehood on January 4th, 1896. Our ranched was granted it's homestead final signing in 1861. The division of wildlife came into existence when? 1920? 1940? But I shouldn't have any rights to keep folks off of my property even though my family has been, at a minimum of 35 years, on this land before any state level government existed? Our deed goes from section corner to section corner. It doesn't say to the edge of a creek! Therefore, I own the dirt under the water. The water is owned by the state of Utah. I have certain rights to use the water depending on when and why the right was filed. Those rights on our ranch also pre-date most other water rights by merely 40 years. But I shouldn't even have a say in things according to some of ya'll? Not even a differing opinion? I believe the word I feel is INCREDULOUS!! I very respectfully will get back to work and leave you all to your forum and your opinions. I did not intend to come here and hurt feelings or stir the pot. I like looking at wildlife pictures, reading about successful hunts and fishing trips and associating with my fellow sportsmen. I felt compelled to share another side of the story on this topic. Should of kept my mouth shut. I did learn 1 thing here though and thanks to those of you who so graciously taught it........ There is a gigantic disconnect between ranchers and the public. I will really have to think hard the next time someone asks for permission to access my ranch. Because I might have the whole 10% bad 90% good ratio completely backwards!
> 
> I believe life is too short to spend it arguing, so hasta la vista to you all. If I don't answer a pm it is because I think I may have had my fill of Utah wildlife.net


We were having a good discussion. No need to take your ball and go home. We can have differing opinions. We don't have to agree. No need to get all butt hurt and leave.


----------



## Packout

I hate to wade into these discussions because the emotions run so high and few people really step back to look at the other side's opinion. But here goes.....

You guys let me know what you think of this--

A good friend has a ranch in Northern Utah. It is about 8,000 acres and has been in their family for generations. They run livestock on their place and enjoy hunting it. When asked, they have been accommodating to public fishermen on multiple streams within the property. After the SC decision opened streams, that Fall the family went hunting elk on their ranch in the evening. One particular draw always holds elk, yet there is a stream and beaver ponds in bottom. When they got there, 3+ miles into the ranch, they found no elk. Interestingly enough there were 4 fishermen along the stream. When asked what they were doing, the fishermen said they were enjoying their freedom to access the streams. The fishermen talked about how neat the place was and how a herd of elk was there when they started up the river into the draw. 

How can we balance the general public showing up and disturbing the area outside the "water way"? It is a valid concern. A guy walking up a stream surrounded by private property can move livestock and other wildlife out of the area. A hidden canyon away from people becomes accessible anytime- 24/7. The same rancher I mentioned before had fishermen access his place in the dark. How about trappers? Is it ok to trap those waterways on private lands? Is it ok for 30 people to access the waterway each day? 100 people? 1,000 people? Have you seen where fishermen crap alongside the streams, even under the "high-water mark"? 

As far as liability goes, that is an interesting question. If I have a cow or bull which has a temper and I place that cow or bull in an area which has accessible waterways, will I be held liable? Am I responsible to fence said waterway, on both sides? Even if my livestock does not degrade the waterway? 

I love to fish and am very pro-fishermen. But I worry the desires of the public will trample private property owner's enjoyment of their lands. I can see where access to the Provo, Green, Colorado, Jordan, Weber, etc. would be a valid discussion. But some of the smaller rivers/streams just don't seem appropriate for unlimited public access.


----------



## martymcfly73

Packout,

Those are valid concerns. Hunting and trapping open up a whole new bag of worms and I for one have no idea how to solve them. To me hunting wouldn't work if you shot something. You would have to trespass to claim your kill. If I'm not mistaken the compromise for HB37 is you have to be able to float a 6' log down the stream for it to be legal. That would eliminate a lot of small streams. Granted there will always be people who push the limits of the law and break it at times. 
As far as liability goes, I don't think of it as an issue. But I'm not going to sue someone for me getting hurt on their property. But that's just me.


----------



## fishsnoop

The concerns are addressed by the test and the ohwm, anything like you describe is trespass.


----------



## Packout

marty- I am wondering who gets to float the log and when? At highwater? During a flood year or a drought year? Or is the log floated after the a landowner complains and at the time of the complaint? A 6' 4x4 isn't that big when floated in water. While you or I may not sue someone, there are so many out there who do. I'm not too concerned about the hunting portion, because the proposal doesn't specify hunting as an allowed use-- the story I cited was how the fishermen disturbed the environment outside of the waterway. 

These are of concern to me-- How can we balance the general public showing up and disturbing the area outside the "water way"? It is a valid concern. A guy walking up a stream surrounded by private property can move livestock and other wildlife out of the area. A hidden canyon away from people becomes accessible anytime- 24/7. The same rancher I mentioned before had fishermen access his place in the dark. Is it ok for 30 people to access the waterway each day? 100 people? 1,000 people? Have you seen where fishermen crap alongside the streams, even under the "high-water mark"?


----------



## hamernhonkers

Fishrmn said:


> Cattlerancher.
> Regardless of when your land was homesteaded, you're within the State of Utah. Therefore you're subject to the laws of the State. Same as the rest of us. You don't own the riverbed. Nobody in Utah does. At least not individually. We all do collectively. If the needs of the state, or nation require that a road be built right through your property, or even through your home, it will happen. It's called eminent domain. Gotta be tough to swallow, but it has, and does, happen. You should have your right to private property. You should not have the right to keep anyone from their property. The riverbed belongs to everyone.
> 
> ⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


So here are two questions? Fishrmn do you agree with and support eminent domain? Everyone else do you support and agree with eminent domain?

So if the stream moves and cuts a new channel, dose the property that was under water still belong to the state and if it forks then all the new land on which the water flows then becomes the states land? And dose the land owner have to pay taxes on that property under the stream bed or is it figured out of the of total land area when taxes are accessed?


----------



## hamernhonkers

Catherder said:


> It always cracks me up in stream access debates when landowners pull the "walk through your house" line when referring to stream access. An actual apples-to-apples comparison is someone walking on the sidewalk that traverses my property. I am required to keep the snow shoveled off it. If my attack Shih Tzu bites a sidewalk walker, I'm in trouble. It is really no different than Conatser type stream access, but we are just ordinary suburban folk.


I guess when you weren't bourn on a piece of land, had to make your living off that piece of land, and really don't know anything else but that that land, we will never understand why it feels like someone's walking through your home as these land owners do.


----------



## hamernhonkers

GBell said:


> Also water is heavily subsidized by the public
> As well as grazing rights.
> 
> Peace


Could you please explain how water is subsidized by the public?


----------



## martymcfly73

Packout said:


> marty- I am wondering who gets to float the log and when? At highwater? During a flood year or a drought year? Or is the log floated after the a landowner complains and at the time of the complaint? A 6' 4x4 isn't that big when floated in water. While you or I may not sue someone, there are so many out there who do. I'm not too concerned about the hunting portion, because the proposal doesn't specify hunting as an allowed use-- the story I cited was how the fishermen disturbed the environment outside of the waterway.
> 
> These are of concern to me-- How can we balance the general public showing up and disturbing the area outside the "water way"? It is a valid concern. A guy walking up a stream surrounded by private property can move livestock and other wildlife out of the area. A hidden canyon away from people becomes accessible anytime- 24/7. The same rancher I mentioned before had fishermen access his place in the dark. Is it ok for 30 people to access the waterway each day? 100 people? 1,000 people? Have you seen where fishermen crap alongside the streams, even under the "high-water mark"?


Packout,
You raise some good questions. I don't have the answers. I do agree that the small waterways can be affected more than say the Provo River through Aults property. There will always be slob fisherman/hunters and landowners. I have seen where people have deficated by the streams and it's a bunch of BS.

As far as the log test I don't know. I just think HB37 is a good compromise to HB 141 where it's all or nothing for both parties. As far as disturbing things outside the waterway we will have to police ourselves and each other. If someone is breaking the law they should be turned in. Plain and simple. We as fisherman and hunters need to take that initiative and not just look the other way.


----------



## Fishrmn

hamernhonkers said:


> So here are two questions? Fishrmn do you agree with and support eminent domain? Everyone else do you support and agree with eminent domain?
> 
> So if the stream moves and cuts a new channel, dose the property that was under water still belong to the state and if it forks then all the new land on which the water flows then becomes the states land? And dose the land owner have to pay taxes on that property under the stream bed or is it figured out of the of total land area when taxes are accessed?


First. Yes. I do believe in eminent domain. You do too. Whether you think you do or not. Do you drive on the interstate? Do you buy goods that are shipped on the interstate highways? If you answer yes, then you have eminent domain to thank for it.

Second. You can't legally reroute a stream that runs through your property without the proper permits. If the stream floods, and creates a new channel, then that's where it now goes. As far as taxes? I don't know.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## GBell

HammerinHonkers, have you constructed 
Many dam's or reservoirs?? Any dams or reservoirs
On your property capable of sustaining a 
Full years worth of water for your holdings ??

Could you afford to construct and maintain
A deer creek or strawberry reservoir??

Subsidized


----------



## GBell

Mike if you know that bull is a killer
And you have reason to believe that
Fishermen will be endangered in a legal
Activity while legally accessing public waters
You'd be negligent.


----------



## RichardClarke

So after reading six pages of posts on this topic, we have an alleged "rancher" claim he might get sued because one of his cows could attack a fisherman...Really? And we have another example of some fishermen legally fishing a stream and scaring some elk...Two words come to mind here; Montana and Idaho....It works in those states. They have more cattle, more fishermen and more ranches and it works there.


----------



## Catherder

Sorry I couldn't join the fun today. I went fishing. --\\O

A couple of small points.

1. The landowner does own the bed underneath the river. That is why the language often used for Conatser waters is "Public water over private bed". However, this is hardly unusual for *any* landowner. Using the sidewalk analogy again, I own the land under the sidewalk, but not the sidewalk or the power pole in the corner.

2. Who decides when to "float the log"? The log "test" has been recognized as a test for navigability and commerce. If logs were floated down rivers historically to be cut up or used for buliding then the river passes the test. If historical precedent is not known, then I have read that it can be floated at high water if there is significant variation. Also, if there are other commercial activities like river rafting present, then the river also passes.

3. Cattlerancher; Really? Don't be "that guy". I thought your questions and concerns were legitimate. Just because some of us see things differently doesn't mean that dialogue isn't good. This problem ultimately will only be solved definitively by working together.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

RichardClarke said:


> So after reading six pages of posts on this topic, we have an alleged "rancher" claim he might get sued because one of his cows could attack a fisherman...Really? And we have another example of some fishermen legally fishing a stream and scaring some elk...Two words come to mind here; Montana and Idaho....It works in those states. They have more cattle, more fishermen and more ranches and it works there.


John Wayne always let people on his ranches!


----------



## RichardClarke

Geez in addition to worrying about matching the hatch and getting a drag free float, now I have to worry about a crazed bovine busting through the willows and trampling me to death while fishing. "Cattle rancher" googled the Homestead Act. More than likely he moved to the Heber Valley about 10 years ago and owns a cabin on the middle Provo. There is a ton of his type of hyperbole every time a stream acess bill is introduced....


----------



## Utmuddguy

Idaho, and some other states, are “fence out” states where livestock owners have complete immunity to damage claims from the acts of their livestock. This includes not only damage from trampling and consumption of gardens, shrubbery, trees, but also bodily injury to people. It is the cow that has the rights, actually the cattle owner. If you harm the cow (livestock) in a collusion with your vehicle, you pay all the damage including injury or death of the cow or cattle. You cannot sue for bodily harm or unlawful death of a person.

Utah is one of these states so there is no liability argument.


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

I know I am way late on commenting on this, but I have to..
This law is crap.. Being a land owner with prime waterways, I have to constantly clean up litter, fix vandalism.. 
Historical pathways.. Gag me!! It's going to be so sad this summer when my family and I have to sit on our property that we pay taxes on and watch this section of river get trashed. Doesn't matter what anyone says. Problems happen everyday of the year from trespassers.. And now it's just going to get 110% worse! And I have to share! Unbelievable!! 
And my family has to reap the consequences.. State land is cleaned up and maintained by state workers, and volunteers.. Our private land is maintained by us! Hypocrite socialist sportsman support this!


----------



## hamernhonkers

Fishrmn said:


> First. Yes. I do believe in eminent domain. You do too. Whether you think you do or not. Do you drive on the interstate? Do you buy goods that are shipped on the interstate highways? If you answer yes, then you have eminent domain to thank for it.
> 
> Second. You can't legally reroute a stream that runs through your property without the proper permits. If the stream floods, and creates a new channel, then that's where it now goes. As far as taxes? I don't know.
> 
> ⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


Surprised to see this thread still going:shock:

First believe it or not I do not believe in eminent domain I think it is a joke when the rights of the one are trampled for the so called "good" of the many.

Second I should of worded that better I guess, if a spring flood or summer thunderstorm flood cut a new channel along a river then this new channel instantly becomes a right of way and the land owner looses that land to the people?


----------



## hamernhonkers

GBell said:


> HammerinHonkers, have you constructed
> Many dam's or reservoirs?? Any dams or reservoirs
> On your property capable of sustaining a
> Full years worth of water for your holdings ??
> 
> Could you afford to construct and maintain
> A deer creek or strawberry reservoir??
> 
> Subsidized


Nope never constructed a dam, 2 of the 3 streams on my land originate on my land the 3rd less then a mile from my property line. So nope never been a concern or issue for my family.


----------



## hamernhonkers

utaharcheryhunter said:


> I know I am way late on commenting on this, but I have to..
> This law is crap.. Being a land owner with prime waterways, I have to constantly clean up litter, fix vandalism..
> Historical pathways.. Gag me!! It's going to be so sad this summer when my family and I have to sit on our property that we pay taxes on and watch this section of river get trashed. Doesn't matter what anyone says. Problems happen everyday of the year from trespassers.. And now it's just going to get 110% worse! And I have to share! Unbelievable!!
> And my family has to reap the consequences.. State land is cleaned up and maintained by state workers, and volunteers.. Our private land is maintained by us! Hypocrite socialist sportsman support this!


Just remember its for the good of the many|-O-|


----------



## GBell

Socialist sportsmen??

So when God forbid, fire hits your land, you
Won't be calling on any socialist firemen to 
Help right?? When trespassers access your 
Land you won't be calling any socialist police either. 

Look this is a good compromise. If people stray
From the letter of the law, they become criminals
If you've got people that are supposed to be within
The legally mandated boundaries up in your
Fields or elsewhere on your property call law
Enforcement. 

You'd have us all believe that EVERY fisherman
That enters your property is a littering destructive
Vandal. Conversely EVERY person I hunt or fish with
Is no where near this. Not saying these people
Don't exist but I guess I've been blessed in never
Being around anyone like that. 

HH, property tax that you pay and I pay 
Supports low water rates, wether you are 
Watering 10,000 acres of clover or have a 1/4
Rock garden yard.


----------



## martymcfly73

utaharcheryhunter said:


> I know I am way late on commenting on this, but I have to..
> This law is crap.. Being a land owner with prime waterways, I have to constantly clean up litter, fix vandalism..
> Historical pathways.. Gag me!! It's going to be so sad this summer when my family and I have to sit on our property that we pay taxes on and watch this section of river get trashed. Doesn't matter what anyone says. Problems happen everyday of the year from trespassers.. And now it's just going to get 110% worse! And I have to share! Unbelievable!!
> And my family has to reap the consequences.. State land is cleaned up and maintained by state workers, and volunteers.. Our private land is maintained by us! Hypocrite socialist sportsman support this!


Thanks for doing that. I'll be sure to wave as I walk by. I hope there are no wildfires or floods that may damage your paradise here on earth.


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

martymcfly73 said:


> Thanks for doing that. I'll be sure to wave as I walk by. I hope there are no wildfires or floods that may damage your paradise here on earth.


I will bet I have kicked you off my property at least once.. 
Paradise huh.. We'll yes I have been blessed that my great grandfather worked his ass off, saved money, and bought with his own money land that was for sale. Yes I am blessed that he was able to work hard to pay off his loan he took out to pay for this piece of paradise so he could pass it down to his kids so I may pass it down to mine. I can't wrap my head around the thought process that sportsman want to manipulate the state law to access what isn't theirs.. 
I love to hunt big game, but I don't envy the land owners that have government owned and managed elk and deer on their property.. So pathetic.. 
But trust me if this law passes.. The tubers, fisherman, campers, kayakers won't like to be on my families property.. We won't stand by while you skip by and waive..


----------



## Fishrmn

The water is ours. Keep your land. Give us our streams.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

Fishrmn said:


> The water is ours. Keep your land. Give us our streams.
> 
> ⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


What gives you the right?


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

Fishrmn said:


> The water is ours. Keep your land. Give us our streams.
> 
> ⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


The last time I checked water that flows threw my land flows over the actual ground that is my land.. The last time I checked.. I will have to go back to school or read a book to double check..


----------



## Fishrmn

Either way, the water is ours.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

Fishrmn said:


> Either way, the water is ours.
> 
> ⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


Again.. What gives you the right?

I have trees that are natural.. Do you want my trees? I have coal on my property, do you want that? I have dirt, grass, birds, springs, moss, rocks.. Why not take it all.. It all comes from nature right? 
Hell, let me just give you the deed to the property.. It's part of the earth, and you should own it too.. Everybody as a collective should own it..
Envy is pure evil..

Give me.. Give me.. Give me.. Pathetic..


----------



## Fishrmn

The law.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## fishsnoop

utaharcheryhunter said:


> Again.. What gives you the right?
> 
> I have trees that are natural.. Do you want my trees? I have coal on my property, do you want that? I have dirt, grass, birds, springs, moss, rocks.. Why not take it all.. It all comes from nature right?
> Hell, let me just give you the deed to the property.. It's part of the earth, and you should own it too.. Everybody as a collective should own it..
> Envy is pure evil..
> 
> Give me.. Give me.. Give me.. Pathetic..


There is no article in the constitution of our state that says the people own your land or trees.
Article xvii in Utah's constitution does exist and you can't change that with rhetoric and lies.
Easements exist for the welfare of all.
What river or stream are you on? do you even know if it will pass the test? I hope you don't flood and need riparian repair and erosion protection.
Have you read the bill? It does not grant trespass or littering or damaging property. It narrows the scope of the easement and it sets a clear boundary, anything above the ordinary high water mark is trespass so call the authorities and have them enforce the existing laws of the state and if they don't then make a complaint to your sheriffs office.
Don't spew venom because you are selfish, help fix the problem because once you step past your fence line or the meander line in the river, if someone owns on the other side of the water, you and yours are trespassers as well by the existing law.
Thank goodness your daddy worked hard for you. It is likely your children will sell the property and have it subdivided.


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

fishsnoop said:


> There is no article in the constitution of our state that says the people own your land or trees.
> 
> Article xvii in Utah's constitution does exist and you can't change that with rhetoric and lies.
> 
> Easements exist for the welfare of all.
> 
> What river or stream are you on? do you even know if it will pass the test? I hope you don't flood and need riparian repair and erosion protection.
> 
> Have you read the bill? It does not grant trespass or littering or damaging property. It narrows the scope of the easement and it sets a clear boundary, anything above the ordinary high water mark is trespass so call the authorities and have them enforce the existing laws of the state and if they don't then make a complaint to your sheriffs office.
> 
> Don't spew venom because you are selfish, help fix the problem because once you step past your fence line or the meander line in the river, if someone owns on the other side of the water, you and yours are trespassers as well by the existing law.
> 
> Thank goodness your daddy worked hard for you. It is likely your children will sell the property and have it subdivided.


Wow.. Seriously? You don't think I haven't read the law? You don't think that I don't know about the high water table? You don't think I don't know? Jackass! You tell me not to spew venom.. When you come at me and call me selfish because I own land.. You come at me and tell me that I don't know.. I am in this more than you know.. 
And trust me, the river we are on will pass the test with flying colors.. I think this last weekend I measured to high water table.. It gives 25 feet on either side when the river is low.. Can't wait for camping season.. Just come on down onto my river banks and fish, camp, BBQ, do whatever you want.. It's yours..


----------



## martymcfly73

Who's being a selfish jackass? Is your last name McIff? Or Ault?


----------



## fishsnoop

utaharcheryhunter said:


> Wow.. Seriously? You don't think I haven't read the law? You don't think that I don't know about the high water table? You don't think I don't know? Jackass! You tell me not to spew venom.. When you come at me and call me selfish because I own land.. You come at me and tell me that I don't know.. I am in this more than you know..
> And trust me, the river we are on will pass the test with flying colors.. I think this last weekend I measured to high water table.. It gives 25 feet on either side when the river is low.. Can't wait for camping season.. Just come on down onto my river banks and fish, camp, BBQ, do whatever you want.. It's yours..


So you don't want to help fix the problem then? Just more bs coming from your finger tips.
I hope that when you pass on you still have the river with you on your new planet.


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

fishsnoop said:


> So you don't want to help fix the problem then? Just more bs coming from your finger tips.
> I hope that when you pass on you still have the river with you on your new planet.


That's all you got? Is guilt? Our property is doing great.. So thank you for the concern.. And I hope it will be passed down.. And it stays the same as the present..
And no I don't want to fix the made up problem you have made up to get your way on to private lands.. So no thanks..


----------



## fishsnoop

utaharcheryhunter said:


> That's all you got? Is guilt? Our property is doing great.. So thank you for the concern.. And I hope it will be passed down.. And it stays the same as the present..
> And no I don't want to fix the made up problem you have made up to get your way on to private lands.. So no thanks..


Look stud, what is made up is your belief that you can have exclusive use of our waterways. If you want exclusivity move to Europe, it is there waiting for you. You live in a state called Utah in the boundaries of the United States of America at the present and the property is yours, the water and it's inhabitants are everyone's. Don't get pissed at the messenger just because it doesn't sit in your head. NO ONE wants to get on your land except a criminal, it is called TRESPASSING and it is up to you to enforce it. Now put my fish back in the water or eat it, either way you benefit with exclusivity to the water from any where on your land. The public could only get there legally from a public right of way. Simmer down and have a more thoughtful conversation. I have not made up anything, the constitution predates me.


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

fishsnoop said:


> Look stud, what is made up is your belief that you can have exclusive use of our waterways. If you want exclusivity move to Europe, it is there waiting for you. You live in a state called Utah in the boundaries of the United States of America at the present and the property is yours, the water and it's inhabitants are everyone's. Don't get pissed at the messenger just because it doesn't sit in your head. NO ONE wants to get on your land except a criminal, it is called TRESPASSING and it is up to you to enforce it. Now put my fish back in the water or eat it, either way you benefit with exclusivity to the water from any where on your land. The public could only get there legally from a public right of way. Simmer down and have a more thoughtful conversation. I have not made up anything, the constitution predates me.


Ok so you want a more thoughtful conversation.. Answer me this please..
Where does the constitution give you the right to access from a public access point and wonder into private property? 
Do you realize that as a private property owner I don't own the water with the laws right now? I can't dam it and store it just because it runs threw my property? The section of river that runs through our property leaves a dam(govt owned), and runs into another dam(govt owned). And from there it is divided into the public water system, Or it flows out to the great salt lake.. So I don't own any water rights.. I don't own the fish.. But I do own the property the river runs through. 
And what about land inhabitants? Don't we own them? Why can't I go on to private property and shoot a deer? The state owns the deer?

I take care of issues that arise from water levels such as flooding.. The state doesn't do that. 
You know that saying "one person ruins it for everyone else"? That's why private property owners don't want this.. If I could trust everyone that trespasses onto our property to do no harm, and make things better than they were before they got there.. I would have no issues.. But it is crazy what people do when there is no cell phone service and nobody is watching.. Like pulling a gun on you when you ask them to leave.

But I don't see anywhere in the constitution where you can share what others have purchased.. And to make up laws to make water public? Why are you not going after state parks that make you pay to access water? It's the publics water right? Why should I have to pay to access them?


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

Oh and nice touch on the Europe thing.. Talk about thoughtful conversations..


----------



## fishsnoop

utaharcheryhunter said:


> Ok so you want a more thoughtful conversation.. Answer me this please..
> Where does the constitution give you the right to access from a public access point and wonder into private property?
> Do you realize that as a private property owner I don't own the water with the laws right now? I can't dam it and store it just because it runs threw my property? The section of river that runs through our property leaves a dam(govt owned), and runs into another dam(govt owned). And from there it is divided into the public water system, Or it flows out to the great salt lake.. So I don't own any water rights.. I don't own the fish.. But I do own the property the river runs through.
> And what about land inhabitants? Don't we own them? Why can't I go on to private property and shoot a deer? The state owns the deer?
> 
> I take care of issues that arise from water levels such as flooding.. The state doesn't do that.
> You know that saying "one person ruins it for everyone else"? That's why private property owners don't want this.. If I could trust everyone that trespasses onto our property to do no harm, and make things better than they were before they got there.. I would have no issues.. But it is crazy what people do when there is no cell phone service and nobody is watching.. Like pulling a gun on you when you ask them to leave.
> 
> But I don't see anywhere in the constitution where you can share what others have purchased.. And to make up laws to make water public? Why are you not going after state parks that make you pay to access water? It's the publics water right? Why should I have to pay to access them?


The bill being ran by Rep. Dixon Pitcher (HB37) is trying to settle a contentious issue with a well balanced and thoughtful proposal. It is impossible to answer absurd questions about hunting, especially when you frame it with trespassing as your way to do it.
So you are on the Weber then? have you studied the lawsuit on the Weber?

Article XVII, Section 1. [Existing rights confirmed.]
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.

You can't do anything to the waterway without contacting the state engineer because it is not yours. You are in between two dams and you think you should enjoy exclusivity, LOL. I am sorry you do not have any water rights with your property but the existing water laws do not exist without the public owning the water. Water quality and erosion protections for all you know?

State park facilities is what you pay for regarding those fees. Docks, restrooms, picnic tables, covered areas, etc..


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

First off no my property is not on the weber. 
Second- I know the lawsuit that pertains to the landowner and the weber river, friends of the family. 
Third- why can't you answer the hunting question? It's the same concept. Call it what ever you want..
Fourth- thank you for making my point.. You are spot on when you mention that I can't do anything with the water.. BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY PUBLIC!! So what is this really about? 

And you bring up that article.. So what are useful or beneficial purposes? I don't see recreational purposes? So are you interpreting the way you want?


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

And I don't read public access to inhabitants in the water? Where is that written?


----------



## fishsnoop

The bubble is strong with this one.
interpret the bold words in article 17 of our constitution that I provided. Our forefathers understood things change with time
Recreation is not there and neither is irrigation so move on.
I will not argue with you any further you have your view and I have mine.


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

Hey now.. You wanted to have a reasonable conversation..
But I am pretty sure our forefathers did not leave room in the state constitution for interpretation of the water laws to add recreation. You people are trying to add it in..
Which is bogus in my opinion..


----------



## fishsnoop

You missed the reasonable part in your boohooing.
Sorry if I offend without hyperbole.


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

fishsnoop said:


> You missed the reasonable part in your boohooing.
> Sorry if I offend without hyperbole.


Oh fishpoop.. Another jab-then pull out- jab-pull out.. Come on.. 
And who is offended? Weird..


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

But an honest to god reasonable question for this topic-

What other honest truthful benefits does this state bill serve besides recreating on private property threw waterways? 
No answers that have to do with recreation of any kind please-


----------



## fishsnoop

It provides an easy to understand law resembling our neighbors to north that has worked for nearly 4 decades without taking title to anyone's land. It protects property rights and public rights and hopefully puts so many eyes on the issue that criminals will think twice before violating the law. It ends two money wasting court cases that will only keep this issue bouncing back and forth between two branches of government. It can hopefully allow for some trust to be built among all of the users. Maybe all the tubing kids will have heard so much about this issue they will think twice about throwing their trash on the banks. Fisherman will not leave water bottles and fishing line strewn along the banks. They will retrieve others trash and try and make friends with those that live on our waterways. Pipe dreams are ok


----------



## Jsw

Normally I don't respond to these going no place type threads, but in my opinion coming on here and bashing guys with different views, all the smart a$$ comments, and getting into a pissing match isn't helping anything.

I can't say how I think it should be without a doubt as I see both sides of the fence, yes it would be nice to fish any stretch of river, however I can see the side of the land owner being told the land they own can be accessed by anybody(what's the purpose of buying land). Meaning what else can the government do if they feel so inclined to do so.

Now I know what the stream access is about and I support it for the most part but I can't say what I would feel if I owned 10,000 acres of land that the government says anybody can walk through it. Now my other issue I don't understand is that what rivers are just totally getting trashed with tons of garbage and human excrimate lining the banks?
I fish the Ogden, south fork, and lower weber about 3 or 4 times a month all year long and have for 15 years. And with those being used by what I would think is many more careless people I might see the occasional flip flop, peice of clothing or the occasional beer cans and bottles but no where near the filth that I hear some saying they have to deal with. And no these areas don't get cleaned by the city on a regular basis.

If these rivers are the Provo or the middle and upper weber rivers than I would not want to open them up to the public either being that these get used by fly fishers, guides and more seriouse fisherman in general more than the once a year "worm throwing, beer drinking a-holes" and yes I'm strictly a fly fisherman.

So I guess what I'm getting at is I don't see anything like this on the places I fish and to me they get used by way more "white trashy" types of people and just in general people that don't give a ****. So if the so called elite groups are doing this to our rivers in the far outreach places than I would want them there either. 
I'm not trying to start another argument just another way to look at things and that being polite and respectful to each other would go much farther in winning any law change than acting like young kids who don't get there way. 

I hope you all plan to go catch some fish soon and remember we all enjoy the outdoors as much as the next guy, just live different life's.


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

fishsnoop said:


> It provides an easy to understand law resembling our neighbors to north that has worked for nearly 4 decades without taking title to anyone's land. It protects property rights and public rights and hopefully puts so many eyes on the issue that criminals will think twice before violating the law. It ends two money wasting court cases that will only keep this issue bouncing back and forth between two branches of government. It can hopefully allow for some trust to be built among all of the users. Maybe all the tubing kids will have heard so much about this issue they will think twice about throwing their trash on the banks. Fisherman will not leave water bottles and fishing line strewn along the banks. They will retrieve others trash and try and make friends with those that live on our waterways. Pipe dreams are ok


Fish, you are killing me.. My question is for benefits that have nothing to do with recreation.. 
The only thing I can pick out in your response would be the lawsuits, and using state money.. But everything else has to do with recreation..

And I just about spit out my lunch when I read your claim that no fisherman won't litter their garbage and leave fishing line!! You have to be joking me right? All of the garbage (water bottles, fishing line, worm containers, etc) is from fisherman.. All of it! The tubers don't have anything to throw away.. They just get out of the water and wonder, but so do the fisherman.. Holy smokes you need to get real!


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

And JSW, you are right.. Enough stink.. Can't win.. I have left my stink on here like I always do.. And I do see a dark side of people that trespass on my property.. We will have to see how this goes..


----------



## hamernhonkers

I still have to wonder just how many of you on the "for access" side of this have truly looked down deep and asked yourself "how would I feel if it was my land and rights as a private property owner being threatened?"

It must simply be a function of upbringing but I still to this day have never felt "entitled" to go onto someone's land to fish or recreate (and yes it is someone's land you will be walking on). Yes I do have a small piece of land with 3 streams flowing across it and two of them have fish in them. I like "everyone one on here" have seen stretches of water I have desired/lusted to fish but I have never believed I had a right to fish that water without the land owners permission. Maybe I believe this way because I grew up with both farm and ranch land and was taught what it takes to take care of this land and I know what my father and grandfather had to go through to live from this land. 

Ultimately I can tell you guys you will never change my point of view and I believe I will most likely will not change yours, but I do believe I understand why so many of you have such a strong desire to access it as I just like you desire to fish places I will never be allowed.

In the end though I will support the rights of the property owner not matter what even if its the land your home sits on that is threatened by emanate domain to build that new super-duper high way to get all that product on down here to me.


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

hamernhonkers said:


> I still have to wonder just how many of you on the "for access" side of this have truly looked down deep and asked yourself "how would I feel if it was my land and rights as a private property owner being threatened?"
> 
> It must simply be a function of upbringing but I still to this day have never felt "entitled" to go onto someone's land to fish or recreate (and yes it is someone's land you will be walking on). Yes I do have a small piece of land with 3 streams flowing across it and two of them have fish in them. I like "everyone one on here" have seen stretches of water I have desired/lusted to fish but I have never believed I had a right to fish that water without the land owners permission. Maybe I believe this way because I grew up with both farm and ranch land and was taught what it takes to take care of this land and I know what my father and grandfather had to go through to live from this land.
> 
> Ultimately I can tell you guys you will never change my point of view and I believe I will most likely will not change yours, but I do believe I understand why so many of you have such a strong desire to access it as I just like you desire to fish places I will never be allowed.
> 
> In the end though I will support the rights of the property owner not matter what even if its the land your home sits on that is threatened by emanate domain to build that new super-duper high way to get all that product on down here to me.


...


----------



## fishsnoop

utaharcheryhunter said:


> Fish, you are killing me.. My question is for benefits that have nothing to do with recreation..
> The only thing I can pick out in your response would be the lawsuits, and using state money.. But everything else has to do with recreation..
> 
> And I just about spit out my lunch when I read your claim that no fisherman won't litter their garbage and leave fishing line!! You have to be joking me right? All of the garbage (water bottles, fishing line, worm containers, etc) is from fisherman.. All of it! The tubers don't have anything to throw away.. They just get out of the water and wonder, but so do the fisherman.. Holy smokes you need to get real!


You missed "hopefully" , so much for hope and faith.
if you think tubers take nothing with them then I obviously can't continue this dialogue.
good luck and best wishes on this valentines day


----------



## martymcfly73

utaharcheryhunter said:


> And JSW, you are right.. Enough stink.. Can't win.. I have left my stink on here like I always do.. And I do see a dark side of people that trespass on my property.. We will have to see how this goes..


You just lost credibility with your comment about tubers. They don't leave beer cans, flip flops, food containers, or human **** do they? I've seen dozens of tubers take dumps next to the river over the years. Guess how many fly fisherman I've seen poop next to the river? 1. And he walked a few hundred yards up into the bushes. Too bad it wasn't on your property.


----------



## PBH

hamernhonkers said:


> I still have to wonder just how many of you on the "for access" side of this have truly looked down deep and asked yourself "how would I feel if it was my land and rights as a private property owner being threatened?"


The landowners in Hatch that have property with the Sevier River running through it obviously feel differently than you. Thank goodness not all landowners think that keeping people out is the answer.

good can come from public access. Just go look at the Sevier in Hatch and see how good situations can come from private working together with public and State.


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

martymcfly73 said:


> You just lost credibility with your comment about tubers. They don't leave beer cans, flip flops, food containers, or human **** do they? I've seen dozens of tubers take dumps next to the river over the years. Guess how many fly fisherman I've seen poop next to the river? 1. And he walked a few hundred yards up into the bushes. Too bad it wasn't on your property.


Oh man Marty, I thought we buried the hatchet a long time ago.. 
Your experience with tubers is much different than mine. The tubers cruise through.. It's not like the weber tubing experience.. Where they bring everything under the sun.. The only issue I have is the vandalism.
My biggest problem are the fisherman.. The spin casters and workers leave the litter, and vandalize (trail cam pics). 
And the fly fishers piss me off the worst. They mouth off when you tell them to leave, and one guy pull a gun on me 2 summers ago, and they refuse to leave. So I call on my dogs and follow them out ruining the fishing for everyone.. My dogs love the water though!


----------



## fishsnoop

utaharcheryhunter said:


> Oh man Marty, I thought we buried the hatchet a long time ago..
> Your experience with tubers is much different than mine. The tubers cruise through.. It's not like the weber tubing experience.. Where they bring everything under the sun.. The only issue I have is the vandalism.
> My biggest problem are the fisherman.. The spin casters and workers leave the litter, and vandalize (trail cam pics).
> And the fly fishers piss me off the worst. They mouth off when you tell them to leave, and one guy pull a gun on me 2 summers ago, and they refuse to leave. So I call on my dogs and follow them out ruining the fishing for everyone.. My dogs love the water though!


So you did not call the sheriff?
Did you think you could handle things differently and get a different response?
Never mind my questions, you perpetuate problems rather than fix em.
Kinda like I am doing with writing this, sorry.


----------



## martymcfly73

utaharcheryhunter said:


> Oh man Marty, I thought we buried the hatchet a long time ago..
> Your experience with tubers is much different than mine. The tubers cruise through.. It's not like the weber tubing experience.. Where they bring everything under the sun.. The only issue I have is the vandalism.
> My biggest problem are the fisherman.. The spin casters and workers leave the litter, and vandalize (trail cam pics).
> And the fly fishers piss me off the worst. They mouth off when you tell them to leave, and one guy pull a gun on me 2 summers ago, and they refuse to leave. So I call on my dogs and follow them out ruining the fishing for everyone.. My dogs love the water though!


We did. We just disagree. Just curious UBH, how many river cleanup projects have you seen your typical tuber organize or even be part of? There are slob fisherman. But where I fish tubers are 99% of the problem. I've even called landowners and told them their horses were out or helped catch them. I clean up the section i fish and walk through. When was then last time you saw a tuber with a sack of trash he picked up?


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

fishsnoop said:


> So you did not call the sheriff?
> 
> Did you think you could handle things differently and get a different response?
> 
> Never mind my questions, you perpetuate problems rather than fix em.
> 
> Kinda like I am doing with writing this, sorry.


Fish if you didn't throw little jabs I wouldn't get pissed.


----------



## hamernhonkers

PBH said:


> The landowners in Hatch that have property with the Sevier River running through it obviously feel differently than you. Thank goodness not all landowners think that keeping people out is the answer.
> 
> good can come from public access. Just go look at the Sevier in Hatch and see how good situations can come from private working together with public and State.


The greatest part of that and the reason I support that situation is because it was their choice!

They seen the benefit to their land/the stream/and the public it was a win/win.

As I said before when asked for permission to fish my ground I almost always give it and I will continue to do so because I then know who is on it and don't have to wonder or worry what their doing or what's going on because they have shown enough respect to ask. .


----------



## fishsnoop

Okay, no more jabs. 
I really do understand your complaint, I just don't agree with it.
My steppops mom has a large ranch out in Promontory and hunters are constantly trespassing. Calling the Box Elder county sheriffs is futile in most cases. The airboats that think they can sneek in are fascinating to witness. Enforcement of existing laws is the bigger problem. A legislature should not pass laws such as trespass and littering if they will not or can not enforce them.
Fishing is more than recreation, it is life and sustenance for some while therapeutic for others. I hope we can at least try hb37 and see if it can be a start to better days ahead. Too many ranches have been sold and turned into pay to plays by some out of state hedge fund for my liking.
peace


----------



## PBH

hamernhonkers said:


> The greatest part of that and the reason I support that situation is because it was their choice!
> 
> As I said before when asked for permission to fish my ground I almost always give it and I will continue to do so because I then know who is on it and don't have to wonder or worry what their doing or what's going on because they have shown enough respect to ask. .


You also have a choice. Right now. Pick up the phone and call the local DWR office and ask to speak to the habitat, or blue ribbon biologist. You could also work with the State and the public, just like those in Hatch, to make some improvements to your land that would address the specific issues you've mentioned throughout this thread. You too could reap the benefits and create a win/win solution.

like fishnoop mentioned, some people would rather cause problems than solve them. Which are you?

As for your question a few minutes ago about how many "for access" people have thought how they would feel.....well, I can tell you right now that if I had a river running through my own personal property, their would be a parking area and fence style granting the public access to it!


----------



## hamernhonkers

PBH said:


> You also have a choice. Right now. Pick up the phone and call the local DWR office and ask to speak to the habitat, or blue ribbon biologist. You could also work with the State and the public, just like those in Hatch, to make some improvements to your land that would address the specific issues you've mentioned throughout this thread. You too could reap the benefits and create a win/win solution.
> 
> like fishnoop mentioned, some people would rather cause problems than solve them. Which are you?
> 
> As for your question a few minutes ago about how many "for access" people have thought how they would feel.....well, I can tell you right now that if I had a river running through my own personal property, their would be a parking area and fence style granting the public access to it!


First I don't have the erosion and other issues they do and people get access just fine when asked so I am good.

Next I am glad you have looked with-in and I hope one day you get a chunk of land and water you can do that on.

Last speaking of the sevier how's your dad doing. I miss those days when he would shock that river and float up those giant old browns. Had lots of good BS sessions with him about fishery management back when.


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

martymcfly73 said:


> We did. We just disagree. Just curious UBH, how many river cleanup projects have you seen your typical tuber organize or even be part of? There are slob fisherman. But where I fish tubers are 99% of the problem. I've even called landowners and told them their horses were out or helped catch them. I clean up the section i fish and walk through. When was then last time you saw a tuber with a sack of trash he picked up?


To be totally honest never had one tuber do anything to improve or pick up anything.. 
And I totally get that I screwed my self by mentioning tubers and fisherman in the same post.. But you are right Marty.. Smart and polite fisherman do deserve to be taken out of that comparison! So I do apologize! And asking for permission is key.. I don't recall ever denying guys that ask first.. But that is like 1 in 100 guys.. Plus my dogs enjoy splashing and licking the trespassing ones!!


----------



## Utmuddguy

I own the the land the sidewalk in front of my house is poured on. I pay taxes on it and a portion of the road as well. Unfortunately we have a right to free travel granted in the constitution. Hence the navigatable water way rules. No different than roads and sidewalks doesn't matter if I drive or walk it's a public right of way.


----------



## Catherder

A couple of comments.

1. This fall, I spent most of my fishing time on either the middle or the lower Provo river, working on some new (to me) nymphing techniques. The contrast between the two is notable. On the middle, where I was fishing, the majority of people using the area were mostly fly fishermen, with an occasional hiker or birdwatcher from time to time. No river rafters at all to speak of. Prior to this year, I hadn't previously fished there much for several years. I was astonished by how clean the river and trails were. I found one tiny piece of litter in 2 trips there to pick up. It was pretty much immaculate once you got away from the parking lot. I also spent lots of time on the lower. Of course, there are a great many flyflingers there too, but you have a fleet of tubers going down the river all summer. There *is *a lot of garbage there. Close examination of it is interesting. Flip flops, articles of clothing, broken sunglasses and straps, and water bottles predominate. Not too many of these things would likely be found on flyflingers. I invite any of you to walk down the trail on each river and see for yourself.

Yet, even though the flyfishers "river" is immaculate and the "rafters" river is a mess, it is always the flyfishermen that are the slobs in stream access debates. :roll:

2. RE" And the fly fishers piss me off the worst. They mouth off when you tell them to leave, and one guy pull a gun on me 2 summers ago, and they  refuse to leave. "

Dude, did you call law enforcement? If that really happened and was successfully prosecuted publicly, you would have set the stream access movement back years. -Ov-


----------



## martymcfly73

Catherder said:


> A couple of comments.
> 
> 1. This fall, I spent most of my fishing time on either the middle or the lower Provo river, working on some new (to me) nymphing techniques. The contrast between the two is notable. On the middle, where I was fishing, the majority of people using the area were mostly fly fishermen, with an occasional hiker or birdwatcher from time to time. No river rafters at all to speak of. Prior to this year, I hadn't previously fished there much for several years. I was astonished by how clean the river and trails were. I found one tiny piece of litter in 2 trips there to pick up. It was pretty much immaculate once you got away from the parking lot. I also spent lots of time on the lower. Of course, there are a great many flyflingers there too, but you have a fleet of tubers going down the river all summer. There *is *a lot of garbage there. Close examination of it is interesting. Flip flops, articles of clothing, broken sunglasses and straps, and water bottles predominate. Not too many of these things would likely be found on flyflingers. I invite any of you to walk down the trail on each river and see for yourself.
> 
> Yet, even though the flyfishers "river" is immaculate and the "rafters" river is a mess, it is always the flyfishermen that are the slobs in stream access debates. :roll:
> 
> 2. RE" And the fly fishers piss me off the worst. They mouth off when you tell them to leave, and one guy pull a gun on me 2 summers ago, and they refuse to leave. "
> 
> Dude, did you call law enforcement? If that really happened and was successfully prosecuted publicly, you would have set back the stream access movement back years. -Ov-


Great post! The Lower is night and day from the middle as far as trash. Yuppie fly flingers are pretty good stewards for the most part. Of course their are exceptions. Every year my brother and I hit up all the landowners in the campground and ask for permission. Some give it some don't. I avoid the land of those that don't. But the tubers don't seem to care.


----------



## browntrout

To those *against *HB 37:
I will restate my question from earlier in this thread. Why has the DWR walk in access program worked so well with private landowners? I have access to livestock gates, walking through pastures - walking among sheep and cows etc. 
HB 37 does not allow anything like that as expressed in the walk in access program. The WIA works.


----------



## hamernhonkers

browntrout said:


> To those *against *HB 37:
> I will restate my question from earlier in this thread. Why has the DWR walk in access program worked so well with private landowners? I have access to livestock gates, walking through pastures - walking among sheep and cows etc.
> HB 37 does not allow anything like that as expressed in the walk in access program. The WIA works.


Because it is a "partnership" agreed upon by landowner and the state not the state telling the landowner what is to be. These guys can back out at anytime if things get out of control or their land is abused.

Of course these are also large tracks of land with limited traffic and use only at specific times and not small stretches of river like what you see along the Provo, Weber etc where people are literally walking in peoples back yards day in and day out. Its not really (as was used earlier in the thread) and apples to apples comparison.

Its funny how much more open to things like this people are when it is a choice and not forced, ain't it;-)


----------



## brookieguy1

hamernhonkers said:


> Because it is a "partnership" agreed upon by landowner and the state not the state telling the landowner what is to be. These guys can back out at anytime if things get out of control or their land is abused.
> 
> Of course these are also large tracks of land with limited traffic and use only at specific times and not small stretches of river like what you see along the Provo, Weber etc where people are literally walking in peoples back yards day in and day out. Its not really (as was used earlier in the thread) and apples to apples comparison.
> 
> Its funny how much more open to things like this people are when it is a choice and not forced, ain't it;-)


Agreed. But when I ask permission, I must always hear "yes, go ahead!" A no is unacceptable.;-)


----------



## hatuquack

The walk in access program is great,however, I've talked to a landowner several times about what he thinks about his. He said that as soon as his agreement was over that he would close access. He said that his land has been trashed, and that he has collected a bag or more of cans, water bottles,and fast food items etc.etc. He has also encountered duck hunters that think because his property is open to fishing that hunting is allowed too. Wrong. I don't know how we can change his mind with all of this going on. He doesn't need money granted from allowing access. The only idea I have is to organize a trash patrol who visits each WIA to solve the trash problem. I love duck hunting, however, I don't trespass on other peoples property just to shoot a duck. Maybe the WIA could print a sign attached to the box that explains what activities are allowed on each property owners land.


----------



## browntrout

The WIA areas I access have a sign-in box and specifically state 'Fishing Only". I cannot speak for all areas - but the areas I access are usually clean. If I do see trash I just pick it up. I do know that there is a organized clean up and fix up on the Weber each year.


----------



## Riverrat77

utaharcheryhunter said:


> Give me.. Give me.. Give me.. Pathetic..


This.... I don't own private ground but the whole "its ours and we DESERVE it" attitude is disgusting. Its because of that kind of attitude that I won't support that bill. Instead of a "lets find common ground and work together to create access for the public" mentality, all I'm reading is "its ours because the law says so, who cares about you and your liability issues? Who cares that you have had that land in your family for decades and your family works to keep it presentable and enjoyable for you and yours?"

Somebody brought up land owner entitlement... I call BS. The entitlement is not coming from the landowners. If this thread is any indication, the entitlement issue lies with the anglers, not the folks who have been able to have their private ground stay private until some angler got told they didn't have free rein over any piece of water they wanted to fish. I fish a lot of small streams, some on private property, and I wouldn't care if this piece of legislation got shot full of holes, crashing and burning in the process. The whole attitude of taking your privilege to fish for granted needs a good swift kick in the nuts. Its a perfect example of giving a group of people an inch and them trying to take a mile while trampling the rights of anyone who they see as standing in their way.


----------



## pelican

After reading through this....is it any wonder why landowners have locked their gates and say no?


----------



## PBH

I'm certainly a proponent of public access to public water. I appreciate much of the hard work that many have put in to this fight. Chris has been awesome, and deserves a ton of credit for the good he has done. I think he has led this fight in an honorable way, and has shown class in discussing the issues with lawmakers, landowners, and internet forum participants. He is awesome.

Like in any fight, people will see things differently and view things differently. Some people are more tactical than others -- on both sides of the issue.

personally, I feel that the "carrot and the stick" approach plays well in this scenario. I feel that the general public would be much better off working with landowners and providing them some kind of incentive (pay for fencing!!) vs. beating them into submission with a stick.

I want access. I believe that is right we all deserve: access to public water via public right of ways (ie: bridge crossings, etc.). I DO NOT WANT access to anyone's private property. Further, I'd love to help you fence that river bank to keep those angler-stomping cows safe. I'd love to help you install styles and crossings to prevent damage to your fences. I'd love to help you construct water access and crossings for your livestock. I'd love to help you improve the riparian zone on your land without using those famous eye-sores of "Detroit rip-rap", and thus increasing the value of your land while at the same time stabilizing stream banks protecting your land from future flood damage. I can help do all of these things by either physical work or monetarily. I don't care either way. Heck, I'd do both if you wanted.

You can call me selfish all you want. I'll accept it.


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

PBH said:


> I want access. I believe that is right we all deserve.


Sad statement.. The deserve mentality has taken over..


----------



## martymcfly73

UAH, my internet non friend, please re read your posts about the deserve mentality. That is what you have been preaching. Landowner "rights" are the same.


----------



## Catherder

utaharcheryhunter said:


> Sad statement.. The deserve mentality has taken over..


Yep, and your statement cuts both ways. Some landowners feel they "deserve" what they understood their status to be prior to the Conatser ruling and some access advocates have certain ideas about what is "deserved" post Conatser. Both groups come across as jerks to the other side. It's also why I expect the only way the issue will be settled will be in the courts at significant expense.

Kind of sad indeed.


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

martymcfly73 said:


> UAH, my internet non friend, please re read your posts about the deserve mentality. That is what you have been preaching. Landowner "rights" are the same.


Haha.. Marty.. Thank you for pointing out that! I guess I needed to follow up my last post with a long explanation..

But CATHERDER summed up my thought on the statement. But thank you inte-non-friend.(I kinda like that)


----------



## brookieguy1

All this is why I gave up stream fishing. Kind of sad, but I like stillwater better anyway.
If I loved streams the way I love mountain lakes, and someone tried to keep me off, I'm afraid I would end up in jail because I WOULD be fishing that stream. 
With that being said I do feel that private property owners hold certain protection rights for streams running through their property. BUT...if the stream benefits in any way from State fish stocking the property owner needs to reimburse the public for the fish or give us the right to persue them. Also, if the stream holds native populations, the property owner either needs to allow the public to persue said fish, or if the public cannot persue the native population then neither can the property owner. In other words, if you lock me out, you lock yourself out.
I'm sure glad some greedy bastad can't buy the Boulder.


----------



## Catherder

brookieguy1 said:


> I'm sure glad some greedy bastad can't buy the Boulder.


Have you been following some of the rhetoric produced by our politicians in regards to what is called the Utah State "Land Grab"?


----------



## swayed

*Hb37*

There's so much more here that the regular home owner, apt renter, condo buyer... cant begin to c. I'ts not just a matter of being able to fish the stream you've always had your eye on. If you can't catch fish on public property, what makes you think you can on private property? Is it easier, less people, more fish....? You can float any stream and fish, is that not good enough? Maybe the state can force me to supply you all with bathroom facilities, a place to get out of the weather, out of the sun... Why do people always want what they dont have? I don't blame any of you for wanting to trespass after fishing at public fisheries my whole life. It's a disgrace! I promise that not a one of you would want that in your own backyard. By the time I get to the problem, broken fence, animals out, trash... the fisherman is home sitting on the couch watching tv. Law enforcement cant and wont drop whatever because you have a trespasser on your property. I realize i'ts only a few who do do this sort of thing but it happens daily. You guys don't have to deal with the aftermath. theres many other issues. example-we shoot guns alot on our property, both for hunting and simply sport shooting. Without knowing if theres someone on the river than something bad is bound to happen. I happen to know landowners both in idaho and montana. The majority wish theyd never allowed the trespass law to pass for reasons only a landowner has to deal with. I believe if you cant catch fish on public land then you should go to a state that will let you trespass. problem solved.Personally i've never recieved a dime from the government to help me with the banks on the stream, picking up trash... Let alone having ever seen a fish stocked within miles from my property. Just another angle to look at this except the one sided folks who think the grass is greener up or downstream.


----------



## cattlerancher

swayed said:


> There's so much more here that the regular home owner, apt renter, condo buyer... cant begin to c. I'ts not just a matter of being able to fish the stream you've always had your eye on. If you can't catch fish on public property, what makes you think you can on private property? Is it easier, less people, more fish....? You can float any stream and fish, is that not good enough? Maybe the state can force me to supply you all with bathroom facilities, a place to get out of the weather, out of the sun... Why do people always want what they dont have? I don't blame any of you for wanting to trespass after fishing at public fisheries my whole life. It's a disgrace! I promise that not a one of you would want that in your own backyard. By the time I get to the problem, broken fence, animals out, trash... the fisherman is home sitting on the couch watching tv. Law enforcement cant and wont drop whatever because you have a trespasser on your property. I realize i'ts only a few who do do this sort of thing but it happens daily. You guys don't have to deal with the aftermath. theres many other issues. example-we shoot guns alot on our property, both for hunting and simply sport shooting. Without knowing if theres someone on the river than something bad is bound to happen. I happen to know landowners both in idaho and montana. The majority wish theyd never allowed the trespass law to pass for reasons only a landowner has to deal with. I believe if you cant catch fish on public land then you should go to a state that will let you trespass. problem solved.Personally i've never recieved a dime from the government to help me with the banks on the stream, picking up trash... Let alone having ever seen a fish stocked within miles from my property. Just another angle to look at this except the one sided folks who think the grass is greener up or downstream.


 You are wasting your time here swayed. While a few can see our concerns, most think of us as greedy, scumbags who only care about dollar bills and screwing over the public. After reading the comments on this thread I have lost all my faith in "sportsmen". The vast majority on this site make it easy to lock gates and say no to requests to hunt or fish my ranch. Something has sure changed in this state and this country. It's tragic to see how little people think of landowners. We aren't stewards of the land, with generations spent building our operations. We aren't invested with our blood and sweat and tears and dollars. We aren't lovers of wild things of all kinds, huntable or not. We aren't even people with rights to our land. We are greedy basta*ds who ought to be exterminated. Brookieguy even brags about going to jail over trespassing. I am totally disgusted and amazed at the attitudes and lack of respect. Good luck swayed, but I am done here. Will the moderator or site owner please delete my membership.


----------



## PBH

cattlerancher said:


> You are wasting your time here fishnoop. While a few can see our concerns, most think of us as greedy, scumbags who only care about dollar bills and screwing over the private sector. After reading the comments on this thread I have lost all my faith in "land owners". The vast majority on this site make it easy to collect litter, restore habitat, and protect our future. Something has sure changed in this state and this country. It's tragic to see how little people think of anglers. We aren't stewards of the land, with generations spent conservign wildife for future generations. We aren't invested with our blood and sweat and tears and dollars. We aren't lovers of wild things of all kinds, huntable or not. We aren't even people with rights to our public water. We are greedy basta*ds who ought to be exterminated. cattlerancher even brags about kicking anglers off public water crossing his land. I am totally disgusted and amazed at the attitudes and lack of respect. Good luck fishnoop, but I am done here. Will the moderator or site owner please delete my membership.


two can play that game.


----------



## Catherder

First, awesome post, PBH.



cattlerancher said:


> We are greedy basta*ds who ought to be exterminated.


It sure is easy to not even consider listening to the other side if you vilify those with a different opinion to the extent you have tried. :roll:

One thing seems clear to me this legislative session. There will be no compromise. There is a lot of name calling and character assassination going on and a bill like Hb37 has little chance. Also, quite frankly, I see most of this kind of labeling coming from landowners and not the access proponents.

See you in court.


----------



## fishsnoop

Your comments hit home catherder.
yesterday at the big show on the hill the Johnsons (yes the ones in Conatser v Johnson) spent no less than 15 minutes being rude to me rather than letting me be. To be fair Mr. J walked away but his wife would just not stop running her mouth about trespass and littering which I nicely explained are against the law. She then decided it was ok to interrupt my discussion with a legislator several times. Being the nice guy I am I let her ramble and then reminded her by pointing down the big hall towards the supreme court chamber how badly they lost last time.
ignorance is strong from many but I wont say all property owners on waterways believe in the BS a few throw around.
like the posters in this thread that only know rhetoric and hyperbole they soon run out of real arguments.
I am quite sure the supremes will repeat the previous ruling with more details to the easement but we wont be compromising any more.


----------



## martymcfly73

Well said snoop! Tried to meet half way and got the finger. See you in court cattlerancher!


----------



## rjefre

Although I sent emails to my legislator and to the rules committee, I still feel that the bill will not be seen or passed. Frankly, I have felt all along that a compromise like HB-37 was unnecessary. The Utah Supreme Court already ruled in favor of the public once, the legislators ignored the law and passed another unconstitutional law to do an end-run around the Supreme Court. If I were on the Supreme Court, I would relish the chance to throw it in the clueless legislators face...again. I will continue to send moeny to USAC...with glee.
P.S. Yes my family owns land, same family since the 1890's.
R


----------



## chukarflusher

I don't own land probably never will but I see where the landowners are coming from 100 percent it's not yours you can't fish it and you aren't entitled to it I don't care if my taxes pay for any of it they own they are responsible for it it's not yours in any way shape or form it is theirs don't fish it if you owned the property you would be the same way I guarantee it just quit coveting your neighbors ass


----------



## martymcfly73

chukarflusher said:


> I don't own land probably never will but I see where the landowners are coming from 100 percent it's not yours you can't fish it and you aren't entitled to it I don't care if my taxes pay for any of it they own they are responsible for it it's not yours in any way shape or form it is theirs don't fish it if you owned the property you would be the same way I guarantee it just quit coveting your neighbors ass


You sound like the king. Yes sire!


----------



## hamernhonkers

Still going I see. Its sad that you guys on the access side of things can't see why it is the landowners are as upset and emotional about this as they are. In their perception what you are demanding is no different then Obama and the Federal Government taking your hard earned money and giving it to the masses who just sit on their fat asses and do nothing to earn it for themselves. If you were them and felt this way would you not fight tooth and nail too for the land that is rightfully yours?

The water may be the publics but that land that it flows over is not and it is their right to protect what is theirs! If you can float over it then have at it and have fun but the public has no right to set foot on that land that is not theirs!


----------



## pelican

Just curious.....when you come to a place that you can not float or walk...do you believe you then have the "RIGHT" to leave the water and walk along the landowners property until you can find a spot to drop back in? Or at that point how will you feel when the sheriff shows up....when you are hit with a bill for trespassing, damaging the landowners trees by breaking limbs and twigs so you could walk easier. Where do your rights to land you don't own end?


----------



## fishsnoop

Pelican, it is called portage and it is usually allowed for safety when you are dealing with obstacles. It is a long standing part of the law.


----------



## harlin

If it were as simple as "well, it's my land, so you can't walk on it," then we wouldn't be having this argument..Prior to that bill being implemented it was legal to walk up or down a river and not be trespassing. Everybody knows that trespassing is illegal..there is nothing profound about that, and nobody has said trespassing is okay. The argument is whether or not a waterway is a public right of way or not. We'll see the outcome in court!


----------



## Fishrmn

chukarflusher said:


> I don't own land probably never will but I see where the landowners are coming from 100 percent it's not yours you can't fish it and you aren't entitled to it I don't care if my taxes pay for any of it they own they are responsible for it it's not yours in any way shape or form it is theirs don't fish it if you owned the property you would be the same way I guarantee it just quit coveting your neighbors ass


By the same token; WE own the rivers, they don't. It's not theirs. It's ours. There is no reason for us to not be able to fish the rivers and streams. It's not about coveting what isn't ours. It's about them coveting what's ours.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## Riverrat77

Fishrmn said:


> By the same token; WE own the rivers, they don't. It's not theirs. It's ours. There is no reason for us to not be able to fish the rivers and streams. It's not about coveting what isn't ours. It's about them coveting what's ours.


They don't have a problem with you owning the water.... just fish YOUR water when it hits public ground again. There is NO reason for them to have to allow you inside their property boundaries based on your explanation. All the water that YOU own will get to you eventually and you can just fish it when it does.


----------



## brookieguy1

Riverrat77 said:


> They don't have a problem with you owning the water.... just fish YOUR water when it hits public ground again. There is NO reason for them to have to allow you inside their property boundaries based on your explanation. All the water that YOU own will get to you eventually and you can just fish it when it does.


Neh. We would rather fish our water where we want.
That's where I wish the laws would change. Flowing water AND the riverbed and highwater mark should be public from the surface down to the center of the Earth.


----------



## harlin

All I can say is public water IS becoming overcrowded. Now a days it's like chess trying to dodge anglers to find areas that haven't been pressured for a day. Having access up and down the river would help tremendously..Just like on the White River in Arkansas, you can fish that river anywhere you want as long as you are below the high water mark. Why can't the same be true in Utah?


----------



## martymcfly73

harlin said:


> All I can say is public water IS becoming overcrowded. Now a days it's like chess trying to dodge anglers to find areas that haven't been pressured for a day. Having access up and down the river would help tremendously..Just like on the White River in Arkansas, you can fish that river anywhere you want as long as you are below the high water mark. Why can't the same be true in Utah?


Entitled landowners who think it's their god given right to fence off whatever they want. To dam up a public resource.


----------



## T-Bone

I can see where the problem is. Folks are not using common sense.

Walking on the sidewalk is one thing. Walking through my back yard or even ½ mile from my home through a field to go fishing...both are very different than a sidewalk. A sidewalk is a public easement. My field ain't. If my Rottie makes a snack out of your Shih Tzu, that's not my problem. You're trespassing, and your dog, if interpreted by MY Rottie to be a threat, is a goner.

Now here is my confession- I am not up to speed on the laws governing high water boundaries. A couple years ago I worked on a ranch and the rule of thumb there, and was backed up by Wildlife Resources and county sheriff, is if it's below the high water/seasonal flood line, it's state and you can walk anywhere along that you want. If you want to float in and access it, and then hop out in your skivvies if you want, and walk and fish IN the river withing the boundaries made by flooding, have at it. No one saying that you can't. Yes there will be tough stretches to access. So bad so sad. If you don't have the intelligence required to find who to ask for permission, you shouldn't be fishing. If you do have the intelligence and ability to find out who the owner is and seek permission, yet you do not, my rottie can make dinner out of you because you, being a person I do not know, is trespassing and posing as a threat to me, my family, my livestock, AND the water supply for my ranch. (of course I only worked there and I know how the owner felt about it)

And there are, believe it or not, federal guidelines for security practices for agricultural facilities, set forth by DHS. Call it what you want, but if you're trespassing you just may have opened a gallon can of worms. Let's see you put them all back in.

As for floatable access, by United States Army Corps of Engineers standards, if the water is deep enough that you can engage in a commercial enterprise on the said watercourse, then it's considered a public waterway. And since state law rarely wins in a fight with federal law....just stay below the flood line and you should be legal. But check to make sure.

BTW, I have a nice canoe that draws about 6"-8" average, and 8"-14" when loaded.

Now with that said....
Let's try some common sense? I'm serious as a heart attack on that.

*Whatcha do is...WRITE the rancher/farmer and ASK for permission. Wow...can't get any simpler than that!* Scares me that the state actually allows some of you *walking freely out in public*, not to mention they allow you to fish.

On the property owner's side, you have several options-

1. Put up a few signs saying access by written permission only, giving contact info so they can WRITE you and ask.
* or*
2. Get some t-posts, paint them red or orange, and put a sign up saying access is granted, but they must stay within 5 or 10 feet of the t-posts (except between the posts) and no pets allowed.
* or*
3. Strike a deal with DNR, Trout Unlimited and a few other fishing groups for a trail access. Those guys will work WITH YOU to make sure everybody is happy.
*or*
4. No matter what, have your property insured. Gets expensive, I know. But if that is a problem, you can either start a corporation or LLC and put the property ownership under that. Or you can start a trust, and put the property under that as well.
*or*
5. If all else fails, razor wire and claymores. After the first two or three trespassers, trespassing will drop like a rock. (tic)

And in all of the above, make sure you have signs saying "watch out for livestock" and make sure those using the access are aware they are there at their own risk (which is why the trail agreement with DNR and written consent is ideal because you can word it in the agreements giving you immunity under tort law).



harlin said:


> All I can say is public water IS becoming overcrowded. Now a days it's like chess trying to dodge anglers to find areas that haven't been pressured for a day. Having access up and down the river would help tremendously..Just like on the White River in Arkansas, you can fish that river anywhere you want as long as you are below the high water mark. Why can't the same be true in Utah?


FINALLY! Now SOMEONE knows how I feel when I just wanna go canoeing or gold panning! I think I just might faint.



martymcfly73 said:


> Entitled landowners who think it's their god given right to fence off whatever they want. To dam up a public resource.


Compared to people that feel they have the right to unlawfully trespass on private property...? That water is EVERYONES (including the ranchers and farmers). The land, however, is not. The water is transient and constantly moves. The land does not. So you bet the landowners are entitled. They paid for their land, they pay the taxes on it. They manage it. They are entitled to say who can or cannot be n their land. And that includes being entitled enough to install rows of razor wire to keep the schmucks out, if need be. (claymores are optional)



martymcfly73 said:


> "Can I punch you in the face?"


If you don't object to me taking your wife out camping for a few weeks....
Smart alec remarks aside, that signature file has got to be *THE* stupidest signature file I have ever seen yet. You don't have many friends, do you? I can see why.


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

martymcfly73 said:


> Entitled landowners who think it's their god given right to fence off whatever they want. To dam up a public resource.


MARTY.. Curious to know what landowner/s are damming up the public water? 
Stupid statement..

Plus the last time I checked MARTY, private property owners fence their property.. Not just wherever the want.. 
(Again another one of your stupid statements.. )


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

The have-not crowd over dramatizing reality! Nice..


----------



## martymcfly73

utaharcheryhunter said:


> MARTY.. Curious to know what landowner/s are damming up the public water?
> Stupid statement..
> 
> Plus the last time I checked MARTY, private property owners fence their property.. Not just wherever the want..
> (Again another one of your stupid statements.. )


Actually if you are familiar with Conaster which by the lack of knowledge on this subject I'm guessing not, the farmer/rancher/land baron put his fence over/ across the river. The tubers had to get out of the river and touched bottom and were cited causing all this. This will get over turned as it has once by the supreme Court.


----------



## martymcfly73

Tbone, my signature is a joke from the early DWR and UWN days. Sorry you don't have a sense of humor. I would also love to meet you Rotty on the river. Since I pack and Rotties are notoriously aggressive I would love to feed him or her some lead. After all I feared for my life.


----------



## utaharcheryhunter

martymcfly73 said:


> Actually if you are familiar with Conaster which by the lack of knowledge on this subject I'm guessing not, the farmer/rancher/land baron put his fence over/ across the river. The tubers had to get out of the river and touched bottom and were cited causing all this. This will get over turned as it has once by the supreme Court.


Nice jab MARTY.. Good thing I don't know anything about this topic.. I just like to spew out things I don't know anything about.. 
Glad to know the knowledge police like you MARTY are out in force to keep things.. Uh.. Over dramatized past reality? 
And you are right I don't know of that one isolated incident.. 
But in reality it's all about 1 isolated incident.. Right?


----------



## martymcfly73

utaharcheryhunter said:


> Nice jab MARTY.. Good thing I don't know anything about this topic.. I just like to spew out things I don't know anything about..
> Glad to know the knowledge police like you MARTY are out in force to keep things.. Uh.. Over dramatized past reality?
> And you are right I don't know of that one isolated incident..
> But in reality it's all about 1 isolated incident.. Right?


Calm down. Calm down. The whole supreme court decision, HB 141, HB 37 and the lawsuits now came from the conaster incident. Yes one incident that snowballed. I really don't want to own any land. You land barons are way too uptight and stressed. If you guys shoved coal up your asses, you'd have a diamond in a day. Relax, go fishing, or better yet educate yourselves in the issue. You make yourselves look like idiots. You guys get so worked up over a DEBATE.


----------



## Catherder

This will be my last contribution to this thread. I suppose you all will continue till the angler stomping cows come home, but after this I'm calling it good.

1. First off, I received word yesterday that HB 37 and a potential alternative/response bill by McIff will *not *be considered for this years legislative session. So those of you that disliked HB 37 have won this round. All I have to say on that is be careful what you wish for. As had been said a number of times on this thread, HB37 was a compromise bill. The lawsuits proceeding through the courts are not. If the Utah Supreme Court rules as I expect, access advocates will get far more than what Hb37 would have offered.

2. This is in response to some comments to a post I specifically wrote, so I'll comment on them specifically.



T-Bone said:


> Now here is my confession- I am not up to speed on the laws governing high water boundaries.


This is apparent.

RE"Walking on the sidewalk is one thing. Walking through my back yard or even ½ mile from my home through a field to go fishing...both are very different than a sidewalk. A sidewalk is a public easement. My field ain't."

If you educated yourself on the Conatser decision before holding forth, you would know that the Utah Supreme Court declared in the Conatser decision, that started so much of this, that there *is a public easement *along the riverbed of streams. It also stated that access was allowed *only *from what is designated as public access points. So yes, your field does not have a public easement, but your riverbed sure does. Just like my sidewalk. Even HB 141 does't challenge that the public easement exists along the waterway. Walking through your field to fish has *never *been allowed at any time and has never been the goal of any stream access proponents I've met. "Strutting through the field" has been, is, and always will be trespassing and illegal and I hope your rott nails every violator he can.

As for the rotty, if I'm floating down the river in a canoe, serenading my Shih Tzu, and your rotty swims out and munches us, then yes, that is your problem. Just like if my shih tzu nips your ankle while walking on my sidewalk. However, most rotts I encounter are too obese to catch us in the canoe so I might be OK. ;-)

3. Lastly, Hammerinhonkers said this

" Its sad that you guys on the access side of things can't see why it is the landowners are as upset and emotional about this as they are...... If you were them and felt this way would you not fight tooth and nail too for the land that is rightfully yours?"

I think I can see where they are coming from. Many of us on the access side do have some landholdings. I fear that some landowner reaction has some basis on misinformation such as "the fishermen will be allowed to strut through the pasture/field to fish" and other such exaggerations and falsehoods that would prompt a vigorous reaction. When Conatser first came out and during earlier discussions, I even proposed some ideas to help Conatser be more palatable to landowners. This is also why our side is the one floating compromises. We *are *trying to "see it". However, what I also see is an absolute lack from the representative landowners to recognize that we the public have *any *rights or claims whatsoever based on the court decisions this all stems from. In their eyes it seems what the USC has declared didn't happen and the access proponents are pulling their claims out of thin air. Hence, compromises have failed, court cases are proceeding and will continue, and the chips will fall where they may, likely on our side, based on precedent.

It also means we will have UWN stream access debate threads for years to come. Till next year. o-|| Regards


----------



## T-Bone

Cathearder, I see you have difficulty in reading and comprehending english. Oh well. Learn it, you might find living in Utah more enjoyable. You took everything I said and twisted it around. Do you really think I will work with you or your wanna-be-thugs to allow access for fishing, now? Provided you actually fish.

Just what the eco-terrorists want- separate the community by building division between property owners and recreationalists. Eco-terrorists *or* communists? Utah, America, even, doesn't need that right now.


----------



## martymcfly73

T-Bone said:


> Cathearder, I see you have difficulty in reading and comprehending english. Oh well. Learn it, you might find living in Utah more enjoyable. You took everything I said and twisted it around. Do you really think I will work with you or your wanna-be-thugs to allow access for fishing, now? Provided you actually fish.
> 
> Just what the eco-terrorists want- separate the community by building division between property owners and recreationalists. Eco-terrorists *or* communists? Utah, America, even, doesn't need that right now.


Just when you thought people couldn't be dumber. He's saying when the supreme court decides this issue AGAIN you won't have a choice. Maybe it's you who needs to be educated. This bill was the compromise. Now the courts sort it out. AGAIN, and supreme courts usually don't overrule themselves. But a smart guy like you would know that. Right??


----------



## PBH

Here is what I find sad in all of this:

1. Catherder comes out with a very well thought out commentary. He used sound logic and referred to actual cases. He is using reason and trying to come to a compromise with his opponent. It is very apparent that he has studied the issue and is very knowledgeable concerning the subject of controversy.

2. T-Bone responds to that above with an "eco terrorist", communist, conspiracy theory that makes no sense and has no backing. It is very obvious that he does not understand the issue, yet he has a very strong opinion concerning it (quick, someone look up the definition of "ignorant").

What truly hurts is that compromise was attempted by anglers. Land owners, through what I believe is ignorance, fought this compromise and as a result the issue will be determined in court where there will be no compromise.

Oh well. Such is the way the ball bounces.


----------



## T-Bone

I will say that everything the anglers here have said only justifies why landowners refuse them access. Because they are not bright enough to ask the owner for permission to access through private property, they persist in shoving forced access down the throats of the landowners. Then to justify their own inadequacy, they twist what people say around to the point that it shadows over ALL anglers. Oh well, not my loss.


----------



## Fishrmn

What's being shoved is that the landowners have been proven wrong by the Utah Supreme Court. We don't need to cross private property to access the streams. There are places where there are public access points. After that, the Supreme Court ruled that we can be in the river to utilize OUR water.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## The Naturalist

I'm always amazed by human nature. I've taught school for 20+ years and find it very interesting at how many students will leave trash behind in the room ie; little scraps of paper, broken pencils, candy wrappers, gum (can't catch them all), etc.
Basically, if it falls on the ground they don't pick it up. I believe most of them don't behave that way at home, so what is it about a public place that they don't care as much as their own property? Could it be a bit of the "Tragedy of the Commons" going on?
I feel there is a right for public access to waters, but at the same time I know human nature in public and would hope that all would be respectful and courteous when in someones backyard.


----------



## Packfish

The Naturalist said:


> I'm always amazed by human nature. I've taught school for 20+ years and find it very interesting at how many students will leave trash behind in the room ie; little scraps of paper, broken pencils, candy wrappers, gum (can't catch them all), etc.
> Basically, if it falls on the ground they don't pick it up. I believe most of them don't behave that way at home, so what is it about a public place that they don't care as much as their own property? Could it be a bit of the "Tragedy of the Commons" going on?
> I feel there is a right for public access to waters, but at the same time I know human nature in public and would hope that all would be respectful and courteous when in someones backyard.


I understand but I think many of them do act like that at home. I can vividly remember the first time I tossed trash or crossed a fence incorrectly holding a shotgun in front of my dad. That smack in the back of the head stuck with me- Only did it once.


----------



## Riverrat77

brookieguy1 said:


> Neh. We would rather fish our water where we want.
> That's where I wish the laws would change. Flowing water AND the riverbed and highwater mark should be public from the surface down to the center of the Earth.


That's my point... its not that the water is any different or the ownership of the water changes from one place to another. It's that anglers want access to somebody else's bought and paid for private ground without asking, without permission... just because they want what is inside the fence instead of having to fish public water on public ground, which is a terrible and unjustifiable reason to grant anglers access as far as I'm concerned.

I do agree with T Bones lengthy post in that landowners could work with the DWR or one of the conservation groups to provide some limited access if they chose to do so. Having access shoved down their throat is ridiculous and is likely to result in a tooth and nail fight where it was really not necessary. I also agree with some of Catherder's last post and see him as a voice of reason (and there are very few) presenting the angler's point of view. Guys like Fshrmn are the type that cause resentment among landowners, contributing nothing and showing no interest in doing anything to EARN access but exemplifying the very sense of entitlement everyone keeps bitching about. :-?


----------



## madonafly

*Like we make a difference!*

By Randy N. Parker

Published March 1, 2014 1:01 am
This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2014, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted. 
Here we go again. We're hearing about "common sense" and "compromise." Rep. Dixon Pitcher's HB37 is neither. 
The Public Waters Access Act provides pieces of the Supreme Court's Conatser decision and 2010's HB80 that Rep. Lorie Fowlke offered as a compromise. What both the Conatser decision and HB80 had in common was they took or devalued a right in property ownership protected under the Utah Constitution without "just compensation."
The court and anglers continue to ignore the fact that for generations, property owners have paid and continue to pay taxes on private property these streams cross. These rights are long established within legal deeds and property descriptions. Article I Section 22 of the Utah Constitution says, "Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation." 
HB37 under the Utah Constitution is nothing less than a taking.
The Utah Legislature in 2010 discussed and debated the issue, asking the question "Is there any level of intrusion into property rights justifiable for recreation interests?" The answer came back that any intrusion is a diminishment or damage to the fundamental right to property.
Members of the Utah Farm Bureau join with the nation's Founders in a strong belief that protecting property rights is fundamental. John Adams, second president of the United States and signatory to the Declaration of Independence, warned, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God and there is no force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."
HB37 would simply unwind what the Utah Legislature did after days, weeks and months of deliberation and in essence through public policy invite an invasion of privately held properties, while simply disregarding constitutional protections.
This is not a compromise. For there to be a compromise, the parties have to come together and, through a process of give and take, come to an understanding. The property owners of Utah were not invited into a discussion on HB37. Our concerns were - and continue to be - ignored. 
In 2010, there were two competing bills that offered diverse views and legislative recommendations. The Utah Legislature addressed an invitation from the Utah Supreme Court where they did not offer legal underpinnings for "establishing their own rule," which resulted in a recreation expansion onto private property. In 2010 HB80 offered an "Idaho compromise" that our elected representatives and senators didn't agree with. 
So how is it somehow different a few short years later? It seems both the court and HB80 looked at some kind of public entitlement when the water runs across private property.
The Utah Supreme Court in the Conatser case focused on a single word, "utilizing," then elevated recreational entitlement above property rights for "wading, hunting, fishing, and any legal activity" related to the state's waters. The court in Conatser effectively assaulted private ownership and Constitutional protections. Whose property is safe from future public encroachment or entitlement if constitutional protections are ignored? 
The United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found in Parm vs Shumate (Louisiana 2008) that "although an owner must permit running waters to pass through his estate, state law does not mandate that the landowner allow public access to the waterway." As in Louisiana, there is nothing in Utah state law that mandates recreational access to privately held streambeds. To the contrary. 
Property owners including farmers, ranchers and some of your neighbors purchased property with streams passing through. Current Utah law recognizes these Utahns have been paying taxes on those properties and have a right to determine their use. As for the water, current law continues to authorize the citizens' right to float on the state's waters, even across privately-owned streambeds.
Utah already has more open, public land than 47 of our sister states - with more than three-fourths of Utah government owned. In this open access environment, when is enough open public access enough? How and when do we protect private property rights? Do we ignore basic property rights when it belongs to someone of wealth? Of course not!
Adam Smith, author of "The Wealth of Nations," tells us property as a right is a belief central to capitalism.
Randy N. Parker is the chief executive officer of the Utah Farm Bureau Federation.


----------



## fishsnoop

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57667183-219/streams-public-access-bureau.html.csp


----------



## HighNDry

My great great grand father and his brothers homesteaded a place in Idaho because of the fish in the stream and the game in the mountains. That is how they lived. When they homesteaded there were no game and fish laws. They were finally told that they could only have so many fish and one or two game animals a year. They couldn't understand it. It was their property and they specifically lived there to live off the land. They didn't have regular jobs, they seriously lived off the land. They ended up poaching because they didn't understand someone else telling them that they had to utilize the resources so that everyone could enjoy them. They are all dead and gone now. Their offspring has had to learn that what grandpa saw as a right--that because it was his land he could kill as much game and catch as many fish as he wanted was wrong. They are natural resources to be used wisely by all of us. The same is true with fish in the rivers. They are managed for all to enjoy. All the "fears" that are being expressed are just that. When the supreme court ruled 5-0 that the public has a right to recreate in their waters if accessed from a public easement, I didn't see a bunch of people causing trouble on private land. There was hardly any impact. 

I'm beginning to realize the real reason the legislature wanted the supreme court ruling overturned has to do with two legislatures investments in duck hunting clubs as either property owners or investors. They just don't want the public to access the designated hunting clubs by floating down the Sevier River or the Bear River.


----------



## savehentag

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Hello!!!! Apathy is unacceptable.
> 
> Has anyone else contacted their state representatives or will everyone wait until it dies in committee and the bitch and moan in 2am web posts about not having access to wade a stream?


----------



## savehentag

What do I do when my representatives Ann Millner and Kera Birkeland won't respond?


----------



## Critter

This is a 8 year old thread. 

If your representatives won't respond to however you have tried to contact them try a different way. Call them on the phone, I have had good and bad luck with emails.


----------



## Catherder

Holy zombie thread resurrection batman. This was a golden oldie.

I vividly remember this one in particular. This was the one where I got called a wannabe eco terrorist thug that doesn't fish for having the temerity to disagree with someone. Mods, are you going to do something? 

Too bad the issue is still ongoing 8 years later.


----------



## Critter

OK, since this was originally a discussion on a House Bill way way back in 2014 I'll lock this thread down. 

Catherder if you would like to let me know about what post offended you I'll look at them but I'm not going to go through 8 pages trying to find it.


----------

