# Much to my regret-another view to HB187



## Leaky (Sep 11, 2007)

I was fishing in a small club area (obviously private land). I reported on the trip in the fishing forum, was one of my best. But I diverge! While there, I met up with the ranch manager and he told me about since opening up our waters to us fisherman, he is spending a lot of time chasing folks out. He is fully aware that we have a right to access thru public access ares, but here's the rub. The nearest public access is over 2 miles away, so what folks are doing is simply using the private access with disregard to private, posted property by vehicle and foot (the gate is left open for cow feeding and the owner who drives in and out from her home regularly). They all insist they have a right to access in this maner now. :x Sure hope this doesn't become prevalent. Are we fishermen going to once again misuse our fishing rights and cause us to go back to where we were? Man I'm so looking forward to a reasonable access right to our rivers and streams. Are we going to screw it up? :roll:


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Two things that will help remedy the situation:

The landowner should write down the license plate number of the offenders and take a picture of their vehicles in the private property, then call law enforcement.

Don't post on an open forum about the great fishing you had in the area. I'm a big believer that the internet has ruined it for us in some places. No need to go blabbing about an area unless you want company.


----------



## Ryfly (Sep 13, 2007)

There's always the inconsiderate morons that have to ruin it for everyone. That's the exact reason most private lands are posted in this state. I'd sure hate to be a land owner having to deal with this issue.


----------



## 357bob (Sep 30, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> Don't post on an open forum about the great fishing you had in the area. I'm a big believer that the internet has ruined it for us in some places. No need to go blabbing about an area unless you want company.


So your saying that a fishing report is the cause of trespassing? Duh.
He was talking to the ranch owner while he was fishing and the ranch owner was relating about events that had already transpired. Sorry, no way the two are related.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

Way!

I'll bet cash money, if I post up about a part of the Weber that is private and it clearly has no public access point close to it, you'll see people fishing there tomorrow.
Cash money!


----------



## 357bob (Sep 30, 2007)

Possibly, but if you post it today would they be there last week because of your report ( which is what was insinuated)


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

I agree Leaky and thats one of my biggest problems with the fight against the bill as well. If people aren't going to respect the land or the landowners, then I can't say I see a real problem with them wanting to keep folks out of the area, stream or no stream. The fact that they're leaving gates open and actually trespassing on open road instead of accessing the river by wading upstream is what bugs me. Just because the stream is open now doesn't grant folks access to the property around it but I can guarantee you that folks take advantage of the situation. All the anglers that are griping about loss of access through private ground need to stop and think about that for two seconds. Whats to say the landowners don't feel the same way? We want access to private stretches of water, but they want their ground to remain private. We (anglers) all say, well if this bill passes, what are they going to come after next? Landowners have to be thinking, if this bill doesn't pass and I have to let people come tromping through my property, whats next? Access through my yard to the rivers? Not allowing landowners to post their property because it takes away something some fisherman feels he should be granted access to just because he feels like its his right? BS.... Honestly, my position is that if a stream divides an owners private ground, he should have every **** right in the world to keep your butt out of there, unless you can find a way to float down the river and fish as you go... otherwise... well, too **** bad. I've seen enough evidence of slobs both on public and private ground that I'd probably be a real jerk about it too unless folks were willing to put in the time and effort to look me up and get my written permission.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

More punishment and fines to the idiots who ruin it for the rest of us.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> Landowners have to be thinking, if this bill doesn't pass and I have to let people come tromping through my property, what's next? Access through my yard to the rivers? Not allowing landowners to post their property because it takes away something some fisherman feels he should be granted access to just because he feels like its his right?


Show me any law now on the books that says a landowner does not have the right to post his land and keep trespassers out. The USC decision DID NOT take away those rights from land owners. Utah law STILL requires access to public waters through public access points or WITH PERMISSION through private lands. Private property owners have not been asked to, or ordered to, give up their rights to control their privately owned property. They have, however, been told that according to Utah law they DO NOT own the water that flows through their property. They have also been told that they DO NOT have the right to keep people from lawful use of the water to include setting foot on the ground under the water. Your reasoning on this bill is flawed. The ONLY thing the land owners are giving up is something they never legally had to begin with - a belief that the publicly owned water flowing through their property was owned by them. It is NOT!


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

But if they can play the victim, they may be able to get some kind of benefit out of it.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I've been at the capitol for the last few days talking to legislators about this bill. The story about fishermen driving through private property keeps getting brought up. One numbnut actualy beleives that if HB 187 isn't passed, then folks can cross his property on the SNOW, because it is technicaly water. The rational argument that private property rights to stop tresspassing are not affected by the Supreme Court ruling OR HB 187 is lost on closed minds. Neither one allows tresspassing...it's already illegal.
R


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Rjefre, 
Will the Bill reach the floor today?
Please keep us posted.
Thanks for the time and effort that you are putting into this.

We all appreciate what you are doing.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> But if they can play the victim, they may be able to get some kind of benefit out of it.


The same could be said for the anglers that are complaining now.... 8)


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

dubob said:


> The ONLY thing the land owners are giving up is something they never legally had to begin with - a belief that the publicly owned water flowing through their property was owned by them. It is NOT.


And thats fine... so if you can float it... have at it. You'll be through the private stretch shortly and away you go. The problem with landowners allowing folks to wade through their property is that nobody is content with that... and I see their side of the argument on that. You give an inch, the anglers are going to want a mile and anyone who says otherwise is taking a very unrealistic or extremely angler biased view of the situation. Yes I fish, but I don't see it as my right to infringe on the rights of the landowner. If the government wanted the public to have access to that water, they wouldn't have sold the surrounding property off to a private owner.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Another disturbing bit of information I've been hearing from various legislators:
Some are getting threatening and/or nasty emails from outraged fishermen concerning HB 187. One legislator, Kerry Gibson, actually said he recognized my name as one of the nasty emails! Obviously this was a mistake on his part, but it shows that legislators are people too and nasty emails can do no good. Inside chambers, there are all kinds of horror stories going around about property destruction...that is their leverage on this bill and that is what will bring fence-sitters to the side of Rep Ferry. Accuracy doesn't enter into the equation. 
Now Ferry wants to have a day (Friday)to rallly the troops and also speak with some anglers to try to put some lipstick on this pig. I don't know when it will actually be voted on now.
R


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

Stories are stories from both sides. That's the problem. Ferry has lied according to good sources on at least two documented occassions. They will do anything to ptotect their interest and the interest of those who put the money in their pockets. Maybe fishermen will do the same.

I think regardless of the outcome of the bill, you will always have the jerks who are going to trespass and vandalize. We just had a group up on Logan break into a place and steal fishing related items. I don't think this bill is going to stop the dirtbags from doing what they do. All this bill will do is keep good, law abiding fishermen from enjoying some of the resourse. That's all. It will probably sour a lot of fishermens' attitudes about helping the DWR on stream restoration projects. It will probably sour a lot of fishermen who would come to the rescue of someone who built in a floodplain near a river when they ask for people to help sandbag. It will sour a lot of fishermen who will not fish in Utah any more.

I have always contended and still do, that if they just left the ruling alone, the fishermen would eventually find that the public water in private stretches are not all that better than the public stretches. I think eventually, the big deal about access would fizzle out to nothing big. 

I think if this bill passes two things will happen. The united fishermen will stop buying Utah licenses and going to local fishing retailers to show that the money from angling does make an impact, or most likely, will fish the places they have always fished and Ferry will be a hero to the private interest group he is catering to. That's all.

I for one still fell like the DWR, UCA, TU, Blue-Ribbon, and URA screwed everone of us by trying to hold the secret meetings and let this thing get as far as it has without the proper public input. They don't want public input because they think we're just a bunch of dumb fishermen who throw a worm out on a propped up stick while the world goes by. maybe they're right?


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Dead Drifter said:


> they think we're just a bunch of dumb fishermen who throw a worm out on a propped up stick while the world goes by. maybe they're right?


I don't use a stick... anymore. 8)


----------



## GSPS ROCK (Sep 14, 2007)

People speed all the time, so maybe they need to lower the speed limit down to 45 MPH on the interstate, yeah that will stop everyone from speeding......

If this lame HB187 passes as is, the same people that tresspass will continue to tresspass......


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Leaky... replied to the posts on BFT, whether you wanted me to or not. Those two guys were way out of line.... and they're the reason landowners are fed up with dealing with fishermen. Honestly, the more I read about how arrogant fishermen are getting over this, stuff like rjefre posted about nasty letters to legislators and how much we all think we deserve something from these landowners, its pushing me further and further away from support of this fight... its really getting ridiculous. :? 

The only reason I say "we" in the above post is that I'm a fisherman.... Honestly, after reading some of the "pro angler" posts or seeing how furiously one sided anglers are trying to make this whole issue.... I'm willing to wash my hands of this fight against the landowners. If these disrespectful tactics are what anglers are willing to resort to just to get to a piece of water or try to sway public opinion in favor of anglers vs landowner rights to restrict access, then I want nothing to do with the angler side of the fight. :| Every post on here has been all pro angler and we're getting screwed by the landowners.... and nobody stops for one second to take into consideration why they might feel that way about anglers in general. We're too busy tripping over ourselves to get to unfished water to stop and think about how that makes us look to anyone else. Truly... we're missing the forest for the trees.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Good post RR77! And I rarely say that.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

This whole thread has been an interesting read.
As Leaky said in the beginning, we should look at both sides of this issue.

As in so many cases, the few people that disrespect the property of others, will be the biggest battle that anglers will be fighting.

This will never change, so we will need to do our part to respect the property that we travel through as we fish.

Yes, I'm preaching to the Choir here but if we all go the extra mile to show the landowners that we are not there to cause damage and that we appreciate the opportunity to fish through their property, it will help our cause a great deal.

We will also have to continue to clean up after the trash heads and show that we are not the bad people that we have been made out to be.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> Leaky... replied to the posts on BFT, whether you wanted me to or not. Those two guys were way out of line.... and they're the reason landowners are fed up with dealing with fishermen. Honestly, the more I read about how arrogant fishermen are getting over this, stuff like rjefre posted about nasty letters to legislators and how much we all think we deserve something from these landowners, its pushing me further and further away from support of this fight... its really getting ridiculous. :?
> 
> The only reason I say "we" in the above post is that I'm a fisherman.... Honestly, after reading some of the "pro angler" posts or seeing how furiously one sided anglers are trying to make this whole issue.... I'm willing to wash my hands of this fight against the landowners. If these disrespectful tactics are what anglers are willing to resort to just to get to a piece of water or try to sway public opinion in favor of anglers vs landowner rights to restrict access, then I want nothing to do with the angler side of the fight. :| Every post on here has been all pro angler and we're getting screwed by the landowners.... and nobody stops for one second to take into consideration why they might feel that way about anglers in general. We're too busy tripping over ourselves to get to unfished water to stop and think about how that makes us look to anyone else. Truly... we're missing the forest for the trees.


There will always be bad personalities and jerks on both sides of this issue.
What I have seen is some neat, caring, concerned and polite people taking time from work, shaving, wearing suits and spending time with legislatures giving them their position on this issue. I have never seen fishermen come together like this before. The Stonefly Society has tried, Trout Unlimited has tried, and others have tried and frankly failed. This has been neat to watch. Has there been bad emails sent? Yes. But again it is from the select few who are jerks anyway. Just as there are reps and senators who say and do dumb stuff, we sometimes do the same, but I'm PROUD of the anglers in this state and what they have trying to do. I have met some neat people in this process.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Good post RR77! And I rarely say that.


You sure you're feeling ok? :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Good post RR77! And I rarely say that.
> ...


NO! I'm now sick to my stomach. -)O(- :wink:


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> The problem with landowners allowing folks to wade through their property is that nobody is content with that...


IT IS NOT THIER (LAND OWNERS) PROPERTY!!! THE LAND OWNER ISN'T "ALLOWING" ANYTHING!!! IT IS THE PUBLICS "RIGHT" TO BE IN OR ON THAT RIVER!!! WHAT PART OF THE UTAH SUPREME COURT DECISION DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND???


Riverrat77 said:


> If the government wanted the public to have access to that water, they wouldn't have sold the surrounding property off to a private owner.


THE GOVERNMENT "DID WANT" THE PUBLIC TO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT WATER. THEY PASSED LAWS THAT SAID AS MUCH. AND LAST YEAR THE UTAH SUPREME COURT CLARIFIED THAT POINT.

Look; there are good people and bad people on both sides of this issue. It has always been so and I believe it will always be so. I'm all for private property rights and the protection of same. I'm a property owner my self. Granted, I do not have a river running through my property, but I've had to deal with tresspassing on it in the past. So I understand a little of what property owners with rivers are putting up with. I also fish and I know what my rights are in that regard.

I would never knowingly tresspass on private property to gain access to a river without first securing permission to do so from the land owner. I would never knowingly leave trash on private OR public land. I will always respect a land owners property and his right to allow or not allow tresspass. But I will NOT allow him or her to prevent me from using that which is legally mine to use according to state law. And Utah state law gives me the right to use rivers for recreation; and that includes wading if I so desire.

HB 187 is a very bad attempt to restrict my rights and the rights of the entire population of Utah (that would be over 2 million citizens) to the advantage of maybe a couple thousand land owners. Where is the justice in that? This bill MUST be defeated. It is ill concieved and poorly written. It is a knee jerk reaction that will create a lot more damage to an already tense situation.

Anglers need to respect land owners rights. Land owners need to respect anglers rights. This bill will NOT make either of those things happen. It will only widen the gap between the two groups.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

There isn't another right more important than individual property rights. We lose them, we lose EVERYTHING.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> There isn't another right more important than individual property rights. We lose them, we lose EVERYTHING.


Very true, but in this case who is the property owner of the land under the water? [right of way]

How does the court ruling effect the ownership?
This still needs to be interpreted.

Still many more questions than answers.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Well, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree because the way I see it, the landowners are getting hosed and they ARE being forced against their will to allow access to private ground, including the streambed that should not be considered public domain. Last I checked ground is anything from the surface to the center of the earth, non moving and stationary. If the landowner owns the private ground, that would include the streambed, since it is not a flowing or movable entity... only the water which is considered public would fit that description. That being said, it would seem to be to only be common sense that if a landowner wants to restrict anything that qualifies as property or ground within his legal boundaries it would also be his right as the sole legal owner of that property to restrict access to any and all property that he sees fit. Anglers shouldn't feel entitled to access, rather they should feel like they got away with one thanks to the supreme court finding because in my mind it was slap in the face to those that have paid for their entitlements as land owners. The extremely adverse opinion anglers have shown to the landowners point of view as well as the glaring lack of visible support from other "water users" who the anglers have consistently claimed also have rights at stake here, tells me that those leading the charge against the landowner's rights probably do realize this knife edge of public opinion they're walking on as well as how fragile a base they have to stand on and also further reinforces my belief that the judgement totally in favor of allowing anglers access to streambeds was wrong and should be at least modified if not rewritten entirely.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> Well, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. . .


Agreed!


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> There isn't another right more important than individual property rights. We lose them, we lose EVERYTHING.


You'd be wrong on that count. There are several rights that are way more important than property rights. Freedom of speech and religion and the right to keep and bear arms are a couple that come to mind. There are others, but I'm sure you get the idea.

It really surprises me that some of you can't seem to grasp the concept of established law. The highest law authority in the State of Utah has clarified for all citizens of the state that the laws dealing with water rights that have existed since the 1800s give us citizens the right to use that water regardless of where it flows. Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that point of law? We have the lawful right to use the water to include the stream bed for our lawful recreational pursuits. This is not a new law. It is an old law that has been clarified for all to see. Property owners are not being asked to, can not, give up something they didn't have to begin with. You can agree with the decision or not - but it is the law.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

dubob said:


> It really surprises me that some of you can't seem to grasp the concept of established law. The highest law authority in the State of Utah has clarified for all citizens of the state that the laws dealing with water rights that have existed since the 1800s give us citizens the right to use that water regardless of where it flows. Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that point of law?


No one here is arguing with the court's ruling, but it did leave some vague details hanging in the air. Right now, this new interpretation is the law, and I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't understand that. But it's a different interpretation of the law from what most everyone thought was the law prior to the ruling. Now, lawmakers are writing a new law that clarifies the rights of property owners and those accessing the stream beds. When, and if, that passes, that will be the law. The question here isn't regarding what the law is now; the question is what it will be when the legislature gets done with it.

By the way, what's the deal with the big, red text that you like to use?


----------



## ByteMe (Feb 12, 2009)

Riverrat77 said:


> ...the landowners are getting hosed and they ARE being forced against their will to allow access to private ground, including the streambed that should not be considered public domain...


Then I shouldn't have to allow people to walk on the sidewalk in front of my house because I own that property. The sidewalk is an easement and the steambed is an easement.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

What about the fish, public or private domain? What about the ducks landing on the river, public or private domain? What about high water flooding their property and all the helping hands in 1983 sandbagging to protect their property, was the sandbags public or private domain? _(O)_


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

dubob said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > There isn't another right more important than individual property rights. We lose them, we lose EVERYTHING.
> ...


Funny, I never thought that Jefferson felt ANY ONE of these rights were more important than another when he penned the Bill of Rights.

It all comes down to mutual respect given to landowners by anglers and vice versa.

Oh, and Kill Bill 187


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

HunterGeek said:


> No one here is arguing with the court's ruling, . . .


Oh, really? Here's one that indicates the court gave anybody the right to tromp through property and took away the right to post ones own property.


> Landowners have to be thinking, if this bill doesn't pass and I have to let people come tromping through my property, what's next? Access through my yard to the rivers? Not allowing landowners to post their property because it takes away something some fisherman feels he should be granted access to just because he feels like its his right? BS....


Here's another one that says the court decision is infringing on the rights of the land owner by allowing lawful pursuit of recreation on public waters (not private).


> The problem with landowners allowing folks to wade through their property is that nobody is content with that... and I see their side of the argument on that. You give an inch, the anglers are going to want a mile and anyone who says otherwise is taking a very unrealistic or extremely angler biased view of the situation. Yes I fish, but I don't see it as my right to infringe on the rights of the landowner.


If you care to look at the dozen or so other threads talking about HB 187, you will find more examples of people arguing with the courts ruling. As I said, I'm surprised with the number of folks that really can't grasp the concept of what the court said. There are, of course, some unanswered issues with the courts ruling. And there should be a strong effort to address those issues. But HB 187 is NOT the answer. There are no villains here except maybe one or two House members.

Both sides have valid concerns and there will be a solution found but HB 187 ain't it. I can not speak for the jerks and lowlifes on both sides of this issue, but reasonable people are looking for a solution that will work for BOTH sides. I hope you are one of those reasonable people.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

dubob said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > There isn't another right more important than individual property rights. We lose them, we lose EVERYTHING.
> ...


What good is freedom of speech w/o 'property'? A gun IS 'property', if you take away or ignore property rights you have essentially taken away the most basic and most vital right of all. Your intellect is, or should be, your most prized owned property. A free people MUST have property rights, guns are essential to protect the property, not the other way around. How would one have freedom of speech w/o property rights? Think about it! The one thing regimes desire to take away from the masses is PROPERTY!


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Compromise with PETA then!

Some things are held as COMMON rights?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

HunterGeek said:


> But it's a different interpretation of the law from what most everyone thought was the law prior to the ruling. Now, lawmakers are writing a new law that clarifies the rights of property owners and those accessing the stream beds. When, and if, that passes, that will be the law. The question here isn't regarding what the law is now; the question is what it will be when the legislature gets done with it.


Almost everyone thought the landowners had the right to keep people out of the streams. That interpretation was wrong. They didn't have the right. Now lawmakers are drafting laws that takes the rights of the stream owners (all of us) away! They aren't looking out for the majority here, they're looking out for the big money.

Fishrmn


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> Compromise with PETA then!
> 
> Some things are held as COMMON rights?


Do tell. :?


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Something to keep in mind when considering the argument that anglers with a copy of the Supreme Court ruling in their pockets are running roughshod all over the landowners private property. Mr. Ferry has said that they started on this legislation 2 days after the SC ruling was announced. I doubt they had tresspassing problems in those first 2 days. We have repeatedly asked for verification of altercations or complaints and have come up blank. I asked Mr. Karpowitz today about any records of complaints or altercations to the DWR from landowners...*none*. So I must emphasize again that these are stories that are more like urban legends than fact, they keep getting more scary each time they get told in the legislative chambers.
R


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

dubob said:


> HunterGeek said:
> 
> 
> > No one here is arguing with the court's ruling, . . .
> ...


Sorry for removing your big red type Dubob, but I find it nearly as obnoxious as your inability to see both sides of the argument or to comprehend what people are saying when they don't agree with you.

I don't know who posted that message you quoted since you failed to use the name, but this person is right about the land beneath the stream being private property. When people wade up the public stream, they are wading on a stream bed that is private property. The court interpreted the law to say that under the current law, the public may incidentally touch the private stream bed. And yes, the court took away the property owner's ability to post his property (the stream bed) because the court essentially acknowledged an easement for people to incidentally touch that private property while wading up the public stream.



Fishrmn said:


> Almost everyone thought the landowners had the right to keep people out of the streams. That interpretation was wrong. They didn't have the right. Now lawmakers are drafting laws that takes the rights of the stream owners (all of us) away! They aren't looking out for the majority here, they're looking out for the big money.


I agree with most everything you've said except the last sentence. Property owners aren't necessarily "big money," and assigning the legislature's actions to a bias based upon big money is, well, mistaken. In my opinion, they're trying to balance the rights of property owners with those wanting to wade up the streams. I don't like the current bill, but I do see that some sort of compromise is appropriate - HB 187 just isn't it.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Bob, your quotes of my posts are misleading. The posts were in effect asking, if landowners don't get some sort of protection, whats next? Access through their property to water they consider public domain? Doesn't seem real far fetched with as far as anglers have shown they are willing to push this water access fight. I'm questioning the courts decision because I think it was a poor one for them to make. I'm not questioning the fact that it is now law because I realize that unless HB187 actually goes through, nothing will change and even if it does go into effect, it'll be tied up in court hearings and appeals for years from now. Unfortunately, I see that dragging out of the issue just leading to escalating clashes between landowners and fishermen... and I don't think any of that is worth just having access to water that honestly, isn't the best water out there to fish anyway. I do question the public ownership of the stream bed because there is no definition of that term anywhere spelled out in legal terms that a court can actually stand behind and also just because my personal feeling is that the streambed is part of the property owned by the landowner, whether there is water in the stream or not.

Rjefre, it could be situations like the one Leaky was told about by his "landowner" friend on the fishing club property who came upon open gates and tire tracks after the fact... in fact, I'm sure that is the case much of the time. I personally have shut gates numerous times (even in front of signs saying "cattle in pasture, keep gate closed" that visitors, either legal or illegal have left open when they pass through. That lack of respect for even the simplest of requests is what fosters the negative attitude ranchers, farmers or other property owners have toward recreation users who think access is their right. That or landowners confront folks who then argue and eventually leave, without law enforcement being involved. I'm guessing that law enforcement taking an hour or more to respond to this sort of confrontation doesn't really help with the prosecution of trespassing violations either. Until the situation escalates when somebody pulls a gun or something along those lines, I don't see a simple trespassing violation being a real priority on local law enforcements list of things to do, which will only foster more resentment and resolve on the part of landowners to be able to enforce their own property boundaries, Supreme Court judgement be damned. Not a good day if it goes that far.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

"Life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness."

When does your right, end my right?

Are somethings held for the common good of all people? Air quality, clean water, Yellowstone Park?

I read a story years ago titled, "The Tragedy of the Commons." I think. Anyway, it contends that the tragedy of things held in common for the good of the people are in jeopardy because some people think the little things they do don't make a difference. Some people will catch just one fish over the limit, or throw their garbage out the car window, or pour some toxin down the sink, or dump something in the woods, because, it's just them doing it, and it won't make that big of impact. The tragedy is, that everyone does it thinking they are the only one. In the longrun the impact is huge when considered as a whole.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

RR wrote:
I'm guessing that law enforcement taking an hour or more to respond to this sort of confrontation doesn't really help with the prosecution of trespassing violations either. Until the situation escalates when somebody pulls a gun or something along those lines, I don't see a simple trespassing violation being a real priority on local law enforcements list of things to do

I beg to differ. Morgan County will be on-site in a matter of minutes to respond to an alleged tresspassing violation. I have seen it several times on the weber.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> I beg to differ. Morgan County will be on-site in a matter of minutes to respond to an alleged tresspassing violation. I have seen it several times on the weber.


I'm glad they're on it at least.... that'll help sort some of this "no proof" nonsense out.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I just want to know where it stops? Do we just let people buy up and lock out outdoorsmen until we have the pay-to-play system that other good 'ol England has? Will there always be enough public waters and lands to keep enough happy?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

HunterGeek said:


> I agree with most everything you've said except the last sentence. Property owners aren't necessarily "big money," and assigning the legislature's actions to a bias based upon big money is, well, mistaken.


If it were a few families who had called Re. Ferry about this issue, it wouldn't have gotten this far. It is big ranches, big fishing and hunting clubs, and BIG money.

Fishrmn


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Fishrmn said:


> HunterGeek said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with most everything you've said except the last sentence. Property owners aren't necessarily "big money," and assigning the legislature's actions to a bias based upon big money is, well, mistaken.
> ...


And not to forget Big Developers like Victory Ranch, the Farm Bureau's political action arm, and real estate/realtor groups and their generous political contributions. Like you said, BIG Money.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

Fishrmn said:


> Almost everyone thought the landowners had the right to keep people out of the streams. That interpretation was wrong. They didn't have the right. Now lawmakers are drafting laws that takes the rights of the stream owners (all of us) away! They aren't looking out for the majority here, they're looking out for the big money.
> 
> Fishrmn


 Do you read what you type before you hit submit :lol: you said "Almost everyone thought the landowners had the right to keep people out of the streams." that would make the landowners the majority!


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

> dubob wrote:
> It really surprises me that some of you can't seem to grasp the concept of established law. The highest law authority in the State of Utah has clarified for all citizens of the state that the laws dealing with water rights that have existed since the 1800s give us citizens the *right to use that water regardless of where it flows*. Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that point of law?


dubob, that statement is wrong and you should know it. No way will we have access or an easement to Military Base's, Kennecott property's, Tribal Lands, or Federal and State facilities, private fish farms, private resorts. That statement is totally false or worthless or both !!

One of my many reasons why the Utah State Supreme Court ruling is a P.O.S !!

Do I need to post this in red, bold letters?


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

There were people that knew there was an easement but it took a while to get the right case. Then some landowner jack on the Weber River provided the opportunity to clarify the law. The result is this can-o-worms we are dealing with now. The lawyer that took the case to the Supreme Court said he waited many years for the right opportunity to fight the mistaken idea that the public has no right to utilize public waterways. Some more clarification of the ruling is in order, but not wholesale closing of public waters flowing over private land.
R


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

EmptyNet said:


> Do you read what you type before you hit submit :lol: you said "Almost everyone thought the landowners had the right to keep people out of the streams." that would make the landowners the majority!


By my statement of "Almost everyone thought the landowners had the right to keep people out of the streams", doesn't mean that everyone thought that it was okay, just that most people thought that the law was on their side. It isn't.

The lower courts, many landowners, most county sheriffs, and most people using the streams thought that the landowners were within their rights to block people from using the stream. Turns out that they weren't within their rights to block people from using it. Just because it was the way people were used to seeing it, doesn't make it right. 100 years of doing it wrong doesn't make it right either.

Fishrmn


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> HunterGeek said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with most everything you've said except the last sentence. Property owners aren't necessarily "big money," and assigning the legislature's actions to a bias based upon big money is, well, mistaken.
> ...


If you're right about that, I'd have a real problem with it too. I don't know Rep. Ferry, but until conclusively shown otherwise, I'll continue to assume that he's an honorable man. I know there were other bills waiting in the wings written by others that would have blocked stream access altogether. As poor of a compromise as it might be, HB 187 still allows limited access to certain streams and is better, in my opinion, than a complete block.

Even if "big business" had bought Rep. Ferry's loyalty, he's just one representative. This bill seems to have a good deal of support in the legislature, and could easily pass and be signed into law. Does this mean that the pro-stream closing, "big business" lobby has bought the majority of senators and representatives and, I suppose, the governor, if he signs it?

Maybe the reason for all the support in the legislature has more to do with those people doing what they think is right than it does with being in the pocket of big business. Again, I think there are two very legitimate sides to this argument, and blaming "big business" for legislators' votes on this ignores the fact that property owners really do have a legitimate grievance over this.

To me, this isn't just about 2,000 or so landowners trying to control access to their stream beds, it's about a bedrock right that dates back to the founding of the country: the right to own property. I can't just sweep this under the rug, even though it would be nice to have permanent access to those streams. Like I said, there are two sides to this thing.


----------



## cacherinthewry (Dec 20, 2007)

"Almost everyone thought the landowners had the right to keep people out of the streams." 

Almost everyone was mistaken. They NEVER had that right.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

HunterGeek said:


> To me, this isn't just about 2,000 or so landowners trying to control access to their stream beds, it's about a bedrock right that dates back to the founding of the country: the right to own property. I can't just sweep this under the rug, even though it would be nice to have permanent access to those streams. Like I said, there are two sides to this thing.


 Let's go back just a little bit further. I would wager that streams have been a major travel route since the beginning of time, and should be open to public access regardless. A bedrock right of an easement shouldn't be up for sale.

Fishrmn


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

HunterGeek said:


> Fishrmn said:
> 
> 
> > HunterGeek said:
> ...


"If you're right about that, I'd have a real problem with it too. "

In all things, follow the money.
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/ ... ml?c=85352

Realtors are his #1 contributor.

I don't know that his actions are unusual in politics. He is just protecting what he perceives as his own and his supporters, same as most other politicians. Nevertheless, his powerful group is who we have to fight against to defeat HB187 and it takes a lot of work and voiced opinion from a lot of non political types to effectively oppose. We have done OK, but the rhetoric has been sharp at times. It does not mean that we don't see the other side of the coin.


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

Leaky said:


> I was fishing in a small club area (obviously private land). I reported on the trip in the fishing forum, was one of my best. But I diverge! While there, I met up with the ranch manager and he told me about since opening up our waters to us fisherman, he is spending a lot of time chasing folks out. He is fully aware that we have a right to access thru public access ares, but here's the rub. The nearest public access is over 2 miles away, so what folks are doing is simply using the private access with disregard to private, posted property by vehicle and foot (the gate is left open for cow feeding and the owner who drives in and out from her home regularly). They all insist they have a right to access in this maner now. :x Sure hope this doesn't become prevalent. Are we fishermen going to once again misuse our fishing rights and cause us to go back to where we were? Man I'm so looking forward to a reasonable access right to our rivers and streams. Are we going to screw it up? :roll:


There are rights to fish, rights to access to/from and rights to use of public waters.

There are navigational rights to use public waters as well as recreational rights to use public waters.

There are coexisting rights that landowners share with waterowners.

Of these coexisting rights, there are dominant rights and servient rights.

In the case of the ConaTSer USCt unanimous ruling, the court found that the waterowners' recreational rights to use of the public waters' is dominant over the servient rights of the landowners' rights of privacy to own the bed.

There was zero in the ruling that had to do with access to/from public waters. Zero.

HB 187 is named "Recreational Use of Public Waters". By writing access to/from issues and definitions into the bill, Ferry, imo, is trying, poorly I might add, to curry favor with the land related rights interests. This lack of understanding by Ferry as to what the real issues are by attempting to define by using access to/from rather than use of in clarifying the ruling serves noones interests and results in a confusing, ambiguous and unenforceable bill that is doomed to failure.

Avoid allowing false issues to define what the bill should be all about.... clarifying the ruling concerning recreational use of public waters.

My view on HB 187 is to:

*Kill it*
*Chill it* and
*New bill it!*


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

.45 said:


> No way will we have access or an easement to Military Base's, Kennecott property's, Tribal Lands, or Federal and State facilities, private fish farms, private resorts.


I stand corrected and your point is well taken. I indeed should have given that a little more thought and worded it such that my intent was clear. What I should have written is something like this: The highest law authority in the State of Utah has clarified for all citizens of the state that the laws dealing with water rights that have existed since the 1800s give us citizens the right to use that water regardless of where it flows as long as that use is not prohibited by some other state or federal law. Military and Indian reservations would be examples of prohibited areas.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> HunterGeek said:
> 
> 
> > To me, this isn't just about 2,000 or so landowners trying to control access to their stream beds, it's about a bedrock right that dates back to the founding of the country: the right to own property. I can't just sweep this under the rug, even though it would be nice to have permanent access to those streams. Like I said, there are two sides to this thing.
> ...


Just after the beginning of time or somewhere between then and now, a Neanderthal walked along one of these stream travel routes you mention and had his head clubbed by a second Neanderthal who claimed that section of the stream as his. Since around that time, we've had private property.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

dubob said:


> Thank you for bringing that to my attention.


dubob.....From the Utah State Supreme Court ruling in the Conaster case...


> I. STATE WATERS ARE OWNED BY THE PUBLIC, WHICH HAS AN EASEMENT
> TO USE THOSE WATERS, WHILE THE BEDS OF STATE WATERS MAY BE
> PRIVATELY OWNED
> ¶8 By statute, "[a]ll waters in this state, whether above
> ...


This part of the ruling has allowed us citizens to believe that we can go anyplace in the State of Utah where there is water. Protected by the Supreme Court of Utah. This, I believe should have been worded differently, or not at all. Under the ground water... :roll: So...the Zions bank in Taylorsville has a stream under it, which means I have legal access to that stream? Also, subject to existing rights ? What the heck does that mean ?

Nothing against you dubob, you read the same as I do, but I think this ruling will cause more problems than it will ever solve.....


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

We will never know if the Supreme Court ruling will create more problems than it will solve because no one will give it a chance. I surmise that it should be left alone for a year or two and see what type of problems arise from it and then try to address those concerns. I doubt that vandalism and trash will go up. In fact, I could see where it might go down. Fishermen in the area may discourage the vandals from going near the houses and homes because the vandals would think someone will see them. There are good groups of anglers who spend time cleaning up the trash left by others. These anglers have yearly clean-up activities on some waters.

Speculating that all these evil things are going to happen because of the Supreme Court ruling is just that...speculation. This ruling was made in July 2008 about 7 months ago. It hasn't even had time to be tested. I wonder what would have happened if the landowners with the concerns had waited to see just what type of traffic came into their area. See if vandalism, trash and livestock harrassment increased. Or heaven forbid make a friend with a fisherman and try to explain to them what you expect from them for using the resource. Maybe things would mellow out and both groups would find that it's not that big of a deal. Fishermen might find that the fishing isn't all that spectacular in some of these areas and the pressure would decrease. Maybe they would find that when they are using their property with their family and friends that fishermen would go back downstream so not to interupt them. I don't know, maybe I live in a dream world, maybe people really are more selfish than I think?


----------



## cacherinthewry (Dec 20, 2007)

HunterGeek said:


> Fishrmn said:
> 
> 
> > HunterGeek said:
> ...


I was right then. HB187 IS based on Neanderthal thinking!


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

I think the solution to this problem is an easy one, far fetched, but easy. Re-route all public water around private land. A streambed is of little value with no water flowing over it.

This should be a give-give situation, which it has not been for a long time. The public should give of its water and the landowner should give easement to the streambed.

later,
Griff


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

cacherinthewry said:


> I was right then. HB187 IS based on Neanderthal thinking!


 -_O-

You might be on to something !!!


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

HunterGeek said:


> Fishrmn said:
> 
> 
> > HunterGeek said:
> ...


Ahhh, those Normans!...

"The Angles and Saxons, who, in the company with the Jutes, invaded and conquered England in the latter part of the fifth and earlier portion of the sixth centuries, were an energetic, freedom-loving people, expressly fond of outdoor sports, hunting, and fishing. These characteristics were accentuated and emphasized by the Norsemen occasionally making war upon the Anglo-Saxons, and in their raids leaving a portion of their people, who remained and mingled with the Britons. Until the advent of the Normans, such a thing as regulations concerning the right of fishery was unknown. The waters and streams, and the fish within the waters, were common property. They were as free as the air was free and as the birds which flew in the air were free. The Normans were a different class of people. they strove for individual power and domination. The great barons demanded, and William and his sucessors conceded to them, great landed estates. Then it was, for the first time, that the right of fishery was vested in individuals, instead of the common people. The King, however, reserved the sea, and arms thereof, and the rivers entering therein so far as the tide ebbed and flowed, because it was necessary to have access to the bays and rivers for navigation purposes. These were called public waters, and the rights of the public to fish therein was conceded because they were public waters. There then grew up a series of distinctions of the right of fishery. These were divided into the "several right of fishery", the "free right of fishery", and the "public" or "common right of fishery". The "public right of fishery" was the common right to take fish from the waters over which the King held dominion. There arose in england much litigation over these rights and the allegded violations."
--excerpt from "HARTMAN v TRESISE, 84 P. 685 (Colo. 1906)
BAILEY, J. (dissenting)" / (refer to HB 187 definition of "private water")


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

We kicked Enlish rule out of here years ago. Look what they did with their own fisheries. Twead jacket, a tie, a dry fly only, and pay someone to play. I wonder if Ferry's roots are from the selfish British Isles?


----------

