# Latest PERC Reports on Stream Access



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

Just received my latest copy of PERC Reports. It is all about Stream access across the West. It has a nice article comparing Utah with other Western States. It makes some interesting points. http://www.perc.org 
Look on the right side and follow the leads for articles on Stream Access. Enjoy.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed reading several of the articles. I admit my first impulse was to dismiss it as 'liberal' nonsense, but i am trying to keep an open mind more than I have shown in the past, so I actually read several articles. Better than I expected, in fact I hope many who are passionate about the success/failure of HB187 read a few of the articles written by ANGLERS, who seem to not be in complete compliance with those who seem offended by my opinions on the matter. I warned about some of the very things the article on page 16 talks about last summer when the court ruling was applauded by 'most' fishermen on here. I was attacked then and now for daring to have a differing view. :?


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

Are you insinuating that my posts are likely to be liberal nonsense? :shock: :lol: 
Glad you liked them PRO. I thought they provided some interesting points that are a bit different from a lot of views on here.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

The Naturalist said:


> Are you insinuating that my posts are likely to be liberal nonsense? :shock: :lol:


Not just that, the site looked way left to me when I first glanced at it. 8) It is now bookmarked for future reading.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Pro, in the article about Mitchell Slough in Montana, folks who are all about unchecked angler access need to read the very last section under increasing risk and they'll see that your opinion regarding private ground and why it appears to be better than areas with unlimited access was spot on yesterday. Reading that whole article, I become even more firmly convinced that the Supreme Court's judgement was far too accomodating in favor of public access and definitely needs some modification, if for no other reason than potential risk to preservation of the resource, as the author so nicely put it. 8) We've all seen on either lakes or rivers how things look after just a couple years of getting pounded by the public in the most popular spots and I'm sure thats not what anyone has in mind when they think about accessing private ground.... but public access also means YOU aren't going to be the only one there... and whether its two years or ten, the land will wind up looking like the rest of the land the public has access to unfortunately. 

Thanks for that link.... perhaps the ideas expressed there are something proponents of landowner rights should bring to the table over the summer and the following months until the next legislative session to moderate some of this "we should have access to everything" sentiment that seems to run wild through the ranks of anglers who should know better, having seen how well unlimited public access works in other places. 8)


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Maybe this should extend into the public areas as well. Maybe lock-up the Uintahs to hiking and such for most of the summer. Those lakes and streams up there get pounded year after year and just look horrible. Maybe just open them for one month a year would be good. Look at the areas around the road-side lakes on Mirror Highway. Pathetic looking areas. Public access to these places is just not good. These wilderness areas are too sensitive for any type of hunting or fishing in my opinion. I would love to see them closed so the wildlife and vegetation can live in peace. Maybe that is something we can consider for a bill next year.

Thanks for the link. Good ideas.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> Maybe this should extend into the public areas as well. Maybe lock-up the Uintahs to hiking and such for most of the summer. Those lakes and streams up there get pounded year after year and just look horrible. Maybe just open them for one month a year would be good. Look at the areas around the road-side lakes on Mirror Highway. Pathetic looking areas. Public access to these places is just not good. These wilderness areas are too sensitive for any type of hunting or fishing in my opinion. I would love to see them closed so the wildlife and vegetation can live in peace. Maybe that is something we can consider for a bill next year.
> 
> Thanks for the link. Good ideas.


Like most of the gung ho access advocates, you're entirely missing the point of that site and the article in question. Yes, the waters and areas you mentioned do look bad because they get pounded so hard by the public, but they're government owned so thankfully most folks have somewhere to go to experience the outdoors but why further that trashed appearance on waters that look good now because they are privately managed? I don't see that as the "right" of anglers or the Supreme Court even to bring all the negative impacts that come with public access to waters that have previously been restricted from the public access you folks all seem to want. :?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Even before this thread was posted, I read and even have posted links to information from PERC's website. Since that time, however, I have done some more research and, although I do agree with some of their ideas, have found that PERC to be mostly a "self-serving" organization that is NOT out for the best interest of sportsmen or wildlife. "Their mantra is that private property owners, if left alone to themselves, will accomplish great feats of conservation." While I do agree that allowing unlimited access to private land may eliminate incentive for some landowners to improve wildlife habitat, I do NOT in any way believe that private property landowners will do anything great for wildlife without the incentive to do something. Most private landowners have little or not incentive to improve their land for the sake of wildlife. Also, "PERC realizes it is good business for them, as they depend on wealthy benefactors for funding their research center, to continually and loudly cry against the public trust and the public use of research we hold in common." Interestingly, supreme courts have continually ruled against the views of PERC and upheld the rights of the public to use surface water for recreational purposes regardless of who owns the streambed under the public trust doctrine. These court cases and rulings have happened both in Montana where PERC is based and now in Utah...
http://www.montanariveraction.org/media ... ate-08.pdf


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> Yes, the waters and areas you mentioned do look bad because they get pounded so hard by the public, but they're government owned so thankfully most folks have somewhere to go to experience the outdoors but why further that trashed appearance on waters that look good now because they are privately managed? I don't see that as the "right" of anglers or the Supreme Court even to bring all the negative impacts that come with public access to waters that have previously been restricted from the public access you folks all seem to want. :?


This thought has a complete flip-side as well....many of the private waters throughout our state and throughout the country are trashed as well. By opening them up to the public, the public becomes a stakeholder in sorts and then has incentive to clean them up. In my opinion, private landowners have done more to trash rivers in Utah and across the West than any other group. By opening the streams that cross private property to the public, the public gains incentive to clean up those streams and rehabilitate the habitat.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Even before this thread was posted, I read and even have posted links to information from PERC's website. Since that time, however, I have done some more research and, although I do agree with some of their ideas, have found that PERC to be mostly a "self-serving" organization that is NOT out for the best interest of sportsmen or wildlife. "Their mantra is that private property owners, if left alone to themselves, will accomplish great feats of conservation." While I do agree that allowing unlimited access to private land may eliminate incentive for some landowners to improve wildlife habitat, I do NOT in any way believe that private property landowners will do anything great for wildlife without the incentive to do something. Most private landowners have little or not incentive to improve their land for the sake of wildlife. Also, "PERC realizes it is good business for them, as they depend on wealthy benefactors for funding their research center, to continually and loudly cry against the public trust and the public use of research we hold in common." Interestingly, supreme courts have continually ruled against the views of PERC and upheld the rights of the public to use surface water for recreational purposes regardless of who owns the streambed under the public trust doctrine. These court cases and rulings have happened both in Montana where PERC is based and now in Utah...
> http://www.montanariveraction.org/media ... ate-08.pdf


Your disdain for landowners is astounding. To assert that landowners will only improve their land if they have 'incentives' to do so is 100% pure BS! Their incentives are just as 'pure' as yours are in wanting to improve land for wildlife. How arrogant can one be to assume they care more about wildlife than another. Landowners are essential for healthy wildlife and quality habitat. You are way wrong on your judgment of MOST landowners, and it is ignorance/arrogance like yours that is the cause of many of the conflicts between landowners and public access to private land. I realize PERC isn't a flaming anti-landowner/wealthy org so they are looked down upon by you and other 'elitists', but really these guys are indeed fellow sportsmen and anglers. i was told just yesterday that I was the only one with my point of view. I do NOT consider The Naturalist to be a hard core conservative public access hater, yet he gave the link. You guys need to step back and look at how you are acting before condemning the lawmakers who "only want to hear their own side", since it is clear many of you are guilty of the same mentality. :?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> ....many of the private waters throughout our state and throughout the country are trashed as well. By opening them up to the public, the public becomes a stakeholder in sorts and then has incentive to clean them up. In my opinion, private landowners have done more to trash rivers in Utah and across the West than any other group. By opening the streams that cross private property to the public, the public gains incentive to clean up those streams and rehabilitate the habitat.


You amaze me on your contempt for landowners. :roll: :? :roll:


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

W2U, do you think though that by making landowners allow the public access to formerly private waters that this is going to make them want to do anything to further improve or protect the resource? I think unlimited access is going to wind up having the opposite effect than was probably intended with the court ruling in favor of unlimited access with in the streambed region of any water, regardless of where it flows. 

I guess I better get this right out of the way.... I go by RiverRat because thats mostly where I fish... flowing waters and I'll say it right now.... I have absolutely not one shred of faith in the public angling communitys integrity or desire to do anything other than fish water they thought they couldn't get to before or catch fish for personal gratification. I don't believe for one second that most anglers give a second thought to their impact on the areas they're fishing, I don't think that unless forced in order to qualify for a fishing license or something along those lines that most would participate in conservation activities, habitat improvement scenarios or go out of their way to aid landowners in property upgrades or anything like that, no matter how romantically enticing or otherwise self serving those ideas might be. True, there is a small percentage that will do all these things like pick up trash, help landowners mend fences, enlist in habitat improvement programs and actually get their hands dirty, willingly, but the majority have no desire other than to fish where they feel nobody has been before or to feel a fish tugging at the end of their line... and having seen all types on the rivers and lakes (that I fish infrequently), I will honestly say I don't think it goes one inch beyond that for most folks. The only compromise most anglers would agree to is the one the government forces them into.... and I say as well that its being laid at our feet right in front of us. It won't be a huge majority decision to compromise with landowners over this year and next... it'll be a small group of people who truly have the best interest of all at heart that are willing to meet, discuss and create a new standard for access and angler responsibilities that the rest of us will have to try and live up to.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Their incentives are just as 'pure' as yours are in wanting to improve land for wildlife. How arrogant can one be to assume they care more about wildlife than another.
> Starting with the name calling already, tisk tisk
> Landowners are essential for healthy wildlife and quality habitat. You are way wrong on your judgment of MOST landowners, and it is ignorance/arrogance like yours that is the cause of many of the conflicts between landowners and public access to private land. I realize PERC isn't a flaming anti-landowner/wealthy org so they are looked down upon by you and other 'elitists',
> More of the same :roll:
> ...


You must be having a bad week Pro. :? All I have seen from you is negativity these past few days. I tried to be civil with you yesterday and even complimentary of your outdoor skills. I do see both sides of this, I am actively making a difference out on the streams and with landowners. When you start doing the same please come back and tell us about it. Until then it just seems like you are too one sided to help.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I eat venison year round. My cows have little impact on the streams and rivers they roam in. Your boots make a lot more mess than my 300 head.

Can we compromise on getting at least a small pack of wolves in Utah. I love them and would like to see them in their natural habitat chasing down elk and killing them. Thank you for your consideration.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> W2U, do you think though that by making landowners allow the public access to formerly private waters that this is going to make them want to do anything to further improve or protect the resource? I think unlimited access is going to wind up having the opposite effect than was probably intended with the court ruling in favor of unlimited access with in the streambed region of any water, regardless of where it flows.


No, this is exactly why I favor compromise. It is also why I really like the DWR's walk-in access program....
http://dwr.smugmug.com/gallery/6709454_ ... 9139_6muwG


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> You amaze me on your contempt for landowners. :roll: :? :roll:


Perhaps you shouldn't be so amazed...I have to look no further than the streams that I love in this state for ammunition. Historically, the entire length of the Sevier River was pristine trout habitat...Now, though, after years of neglect from private landowners, only small stretches of this stream have quality fish habitat most of which is on public ground. Look, for example of the Sevier River from Panguitch to Circleville Canyon...how much of that has quality trout habitat? How much of it has been destroyed by overgrazing from private landowners? How much of it is on public ground?

Also, when I do look at stream restoration projects and stream habitat improvement projects, I notice that almost all of them are on public land. Very few of these projects are occurring on private land...and, the only cases that I can find where such projects are being conducted on private land is in cases where outfitters own the land and are in the business of guiding sportsmen.

http://www.kutv.com/content/outdoors/st ... dpLNg.cspx


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

I agree with ya on this 100%, Wyo. The walk in access programm is one of the best programs IMHO that has even been implemented by the DWR. I have never heard or seen of a case where the landowner went to great lengths to improve habitat out of their own pocket for the benefit of wildlife. The few landowners that do it go right to the DWR to get the money to improve habitat, which will bolster property values. If im wrong, show me incident where a landowner spent THEIR OWN MONEY improving habitat for the good of the wildlife.... I think you wil find most cases where this happens is the rare occasions where landowners build private ponds for their own enjoyment (or to have people pay to come fish them).


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Their incentives are just as 'pure' as yours are in wanting to improve land for wildlife. How arrogant can one be to assume they care more about wildlife than another.
> ...


Taking offense at comments directed NOT at you? Why? When/how have I been "uncivil" to you? :?

I am NOT anti-angler, and if you seriously can't recall when I was called out SEVERAL times over the last few days for my position on this subject then you have selective memory loss. How do you know what I do behind the scenes for fish habitat, and for improved landowner relations?

I am NOT the enemy here, and neither is the landowner, regardless of how much W2U hates/despises them. I seem to recall a few months back a LANDOWNER working WITH the DWR and the PUBLIC to make major improvements on a stretch of the Sevier River that W2U's brother was involved with. Is that landowner still a dirt bag in your eyes? :? :roll:

We all must work together, I applaud the efforts of people like nortah, and I have gone out of my way to congratulate you guys on your 'victory' on the hill. Yet, I am still treated with contempt, and I hope that isn't how landowners not overly excited right now to have people on their property are treated. All I am saying is there are indeed MANY anglers with a different opinion than what some here are saying is the universal view across the angler spectrum. And also, to get people to see some of the side effects/ripples caused by the court ruling and defeat of HB187. Why does that cause so much anger and resentment toward a fellow sportsman? :?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I am NOT the enemy here, and neither is the landowner, regardless of how much W2U hates/despises them. I seem to recall a few months back a LANDOWNER working WITH the DWR and the PUBLIC to make major improvements on a stretch of the Sevier River that W2U's brother was involved with. Is that landowner still a dirt bag in your eyes? :? :roll:


Pro, thanks for putting words in my mouth. I am glad that you are so able to have a civil discussion.... When did I ever claim or say that private landowners are the enemy? or dirtbags? or that I hated them? I have always espoused the idea of working with landowners.

Interestingly, I posted a link to this story even before you posted...why? Because it documents several things--private landowners abusing river corridors, the poor quality of the habitat on the Sevier River, and the incentive private landowners need to improve the habitat on their property!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Pro, thanks for putting words in my mouth. I am glad that you are so able to have a civil discussion.... When did I ever claim or say that private landowners are the enemy? or dirtbags? or that I hated them? I have always espoused the idea of working with landowners.


How about:


wyoming2utah said:


> Perhaps you shouldn't be so amazed...I have to look no further than the streams that I love in this state for ammunition. Historically, the entire length of the Sevier River was pristine trout habitat...Now, though, after years of neglect from private landowners, only small stretches of this stream have quality fish habitat most of which is on public ground. Look, for example of the Sevier River from Panguitch to Circleville Canyon...how much of that has quality trout habitat? How much of it has been destroyed by overgrazing from private landowners? How much of it is on public ground?


 or


wyoming2utah said:


> I do NOT in any way believe that private property landowners will do anything great for wildlife without the incentive to do something. Most private landowners have little or not incentive to improve their land for the sake of wildlife.


 :shock:


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

I think the section in the PERC article that shows what is legal in the western US is wrong- at least with the state of Idaho- I could be interpeting it incorrectly but at the present time I don't think so. I do think W2 isn't too far off base---------- no matter what I will do as I have always done and ask first.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Misquotes abound. Deaddrifter said the words "wealthy landowner" and Huge29 said he said, "rich snobs" so take it for what it's worth.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Packfish said:


> I think the section in the PERC article that shows what is legal in the western US is wrong- at least with the state of Idaho- I could be interpeting it incorrectly but at the present time I don't think so. I do think W2 isn't too far off base---------- no matter what I will do as I have always done and ask first.


 So if they say NO and you know as of right now, you can, do you not?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > Pro, thanks for putting words in my mouth. I am glad that you are so able to have a civil discussion.... When did I ever claim or say that private landowners are the enemy? or dirtbags? or that I hated them? I have always espoused the idea of working with landowners.
> ...


Ok...what in there is NOT factual? What in there says that private landowners are "dirtbags", the "enemy", or that I hated them?

Again, the FACT is that private landowners have abused fisheries habitat and river corridors along the Sevier River for years...that isn't in any way calling private landowners "dirtbags" or the "enemy". But, thanks again for putting words in my mouth!

Yet, time and again I have asked for compromise. By working with landowners and by providing them incentive, we can work out a win-win situation for both sides.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Your disdain/contempt for landowners is clear. Why rip them to shreds and then say you hold no ill will toward them? Your attitude toward landowners is the attitudes that have driven some to seek for a clarification of landowner rights, and your attitude toward landowners is NOT beneficial to the fish you love, nor the wildlife you love. Landowners are a vital part of the equation, and painting them with a broad brush as being poor stewards of wildlife will leave you holding a much shorter stick than if you treat them as fellow stewards/sportsmen.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> Packfish said:
> 
> 
> > I do think W2 isn't too far off base---------- no matter what I will do as I have always done and ask first.
> ...


I still would, even though I've been told I can do whatever I want as long as I'm on the streambed. I fished Thistle Creek Sunday.... even though I can now legally fish every inch of that creek, I chose to find an unfenced portion. I still caught lots of fish and there was no reason for me to invade anyone's privacy. Its a respect thing, and a court ruling doesn't mean *I should *show a lack of respect for the landowner whose property I'd be passing through, even though legally I could.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Your disdain/contempt for landowners is clear. Why rip them to shreds and then say you hold no ill will toward them? Your attitude toward landowners is the attitudes that have driven some to seek for a clarification of landowner rights, and your attitude toward landowners is NOT beneficial to the fish you love, nor the wildlife you love. Landowners are a vital part of the equation, and painting them with a broad brush as being poor stewards of wildlife will leave you holding a much shorter stick than if you treat them as fellow stewards/sportsmen.


Do you feel it okay for the landowners to paint with such a broad stroke? All we have heard from landowners is about all the vanadlisn, the gate openings, the trash, blah, blah...

I've never done any of that yet they want to lump me in with that group. I'm just saying it goes both ways.

I have not been on anyones public water running through a private property yet. I don't think thousands of anglers are going to do it. I think the landowners' fears are just that, fears. And I hope I'm right for everones sake.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> Packfish said:
> 
> 
> > I think the section in the PERC article that shows what is legal in the western US is wrong- at least with the state of Idaho- I could be interpeting it incorrectly but at the present time I don't think so. I do think W2 isn't too far off base---------- no matter what I will do as I have always done and ask first.
> ...


I 'm going to ask and if the answer is no I'll ask for an explanation and go from there. I was certainly for the way the decision went and I am very displeased on how some of the waters have been posted- especially on the Blacksmith ,which I think the signs are not factual about fishing. That part really bothers me. I have always lived by the rule don't screw with me . I in turn won't be an a## to someone else if they don't deserve it. Don't get me wrong I'm not avoiding confrontations but being humanoid certainly makes a lot of things go smoother.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Your disdain/contempt for landowners is clear. Why rip them to shreds and then say you hold no ill will toward them? Your attitude toward landowners is the attitudes that have driven some to seek for a clarification of landowner rights, and your attitude toward landowners is NOT beneficial to the fish you love, nor the wildlife you love. Landowners are a vital part of the equation, and painting them with a broad brush as being poor stewards of wildlife will leave you holding a much shorter stick than if you treat them as fellow stewards/sportsmen.


My disdain is for their past actions...in no way do I hold the people personally in ill regards. I have no contempt for the people themselves; I don't even know most of them. I am a coach...often I get angered by the actions of my player, but in no way do I hate the players themselves. My job is to improve their actions on the field or on the court. As a fishermen, I can certainly hold the actions of these landowners in contempt without hating the people. Should I praise them for overgrazing the Sevier River, removing cottonwood trees that helped stabilize stream banks, dumping old cars and refrigerators into the streams, and degrading the streams to such a pitiful state? Also, the same disdain you are condemning with me goes both ways as Highndry pointed out...

Landowners are a vital part of the equation...that is why I want compromise; it is also why I praised the walk-in access program.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I worked for several different ranchers over the years it took me to get through college (I was in no hurry). They were all great guys, but I can tell you that they showed no concern for the streams running through their properties. We also ran cattle on Forest Service allotments that had some nice little creeks on them. Although I remain friends with them and can still access their properties, I came away with a healthy load of disgust with the way streams are abused. I'm talking track hoes down the stream beds, cattle denuding whole stretches of tributaties, and removal of anything that may be an obstruction in the river. These were only four different ranches, but it made a lasting impression on me, for better or worse.
R


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Taking offense at comments directed NOT at you? Why? When/how have I been "uncivil" to you? :?
> *I was just pointing out the same thing you did yesterday. I find it hypicritical of you to say people were busting out insults on you yesterday, then you turn around and do it today.
> I guess you have not been uncivil to me so sorry about that. (Look, I admitted i was wrong! :wink: )*
> 
> ...


*Thanks for the props, there is definetly MUCH more I could be doing and I plan on it. I think the reason we all got so fired up is that this has been a tense, stressful couple of weeks for many of us as we see back door politics and agendas trying to be pushed through. Then on the day the bill fails and we are all elated, you come in and rain on the parade. Its like getting punched in the face at your own birthday party. :lol: kinda.

Sorry for the harsh words if I said any to you. I respect you a great deal and would be happy to share a camp with you any day. I will continue trying to help out more. I am a young guy and this whole process has taught me a lot about government and helped me to get involved in a way like never before. It has also made me more sympathetic towards land owners. I will not leave trash on the banks when I see it. I hope all others involved will do the same.*


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Nor-tah, FWIW I did NOT jump in any thread just to stir up controversy. On subjects of this nature I ALWAYS state my true opinion(s).

Like I have stated many times, I applaud your/others efforts in this matter, even though we see things differently I hold no ill will toward anyone, even those who do hold ill will toward me. 8) I like your attitude and your passion, keep it channeled and you will accomplish great things.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

Wow! I definitely don't agree with all PERC reports, but I do like to read them. Since my thoughts generally are of the more liberal persuasion PERC allows me an opportunity to see the other points of view. Which I think is good for everyone. 
I thought this particular issue had some interesting points. Normally I am all gung ho for public access, but there must also be some caution when accessing along or near private property. 
While growing up on 150 acres of prime pheasant habitat in Layton we had problems with the general public, mainly cutting combination fence lines to get their dogs through. I guess they believed the pheasants on our land belonged to the general public, and they do, but the landowner also has the right to protect their property.
Perhaps the DWR could (like they do with picking up sheds) could issue a permit for public access after a sportsman has passed an on-line courtesy trespass course? If caught using the public access without a permit there would be some penalty?
There can and should be some compromise here.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

That is a GREAT idea.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Pro -- you need to take a step back, calm down, and try reading some things again. Your issues with W2U cloud your thinking. You can't look at anything logically that W2U has commented on. I guess you could say that W2U has you PWNED!

Without the financial aid of the DWR \ Blue Ribbon Council, how many streams on private land would be rehabilitated? Would private land owners be willing to spend their own private $$ to do the same that has been done on stretches of the Sevier River? I doubt it. I think they would rather take a backhoe and straighten a meandering channel, remove cotton wood trees (they might remove hundreds of gallons of water from the stream!), and allow unrestricted access to the stream by cattle instead. That doesn't sound like improvement to me. They need an incentive, like W2U said.


Highndry -- If a land owner told me "no. you cannot fish across my private land" I would respect that regardless of the current legal ruling by the Utah Supreme Court. Sure, I might have a legal right to that stream, but I think anglers will benefit far more in the future by working with land owners than working against them.


----------

