# Governor's Press Release



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

*What he said:*

For Immediate Release
March 31, 2010

Contact: Angie Welling
801.538.1503
801.647.0702
[email protected]
Governor Herbert Takes Action on Outstanding Bills
SALT LAKE CITY - Governor Gary R. Herbert acted on the remaining outstanding bills from the 2010 legislative session today, including:

· HB141, McIff - "Recreational Use of Public Water on Private Property"
· SB281, Stowell - "Public Access to Stream Beds - Utah Waterways Task Force"

"I am signing HB141 because we need to begin the process of addressing the unfortunate
gulf between outdoor recreationalists and private property owners. I recognize the potential conflict between private property rights and the right of public access to Utah's waterways. Today, I pledge my commitment to work with both sides over the coming year to improve opportunities and arrive at a workable solution."

"My hope is that this bill puts both sides of the equation on equal footing and allows the
conversation to continue in a productive fashion. While this bill largely puts the state in the position it was in prior to a 2008 Utah Supreme Court ruling on the matter, I realize that this issue is not resolved. I have tasked Ted Wilson, as head of Governor's Council on Balanced Resources, to represent my administration and interact with the legislative task force established through SB281. As Governor, I will also engage personally to find a common-sense solution."

*What I heard:*

"I don't take away 5,000 miles of public rivers often, but when I do I prefer to give them to private interests that include my brother-in-law. Stay wealthy my friends."

- The Most Mysterious Governor in the World


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

I hope he isn't Governor long enough to come up with any "common sense" solutions. Common sense would tell you the USC ruling should stand. Family interest's should be over looked.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

When they tried to get all sides together to discuss the issues, the landowners, Rep. Ferry, and Rep. McIff didn't want to talk. They knew they had the money to make it work out in their favor. What makes anyone believe Gov. Herbert will work towards anything that would displease his rich friends?

Fishrmn


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I am glad the Governor signed HB141. And anyone who votes based on ONE issue is not using their noggin.


----------



## hamernhonkers (Sep 28, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I am glad the Governor signed HB141. And anyone who votes based on ONE issue is not using their noggin.


+1 he got it right.

Good to see our system work and my rights as a private land owner protected. It will be nice not to worry about any one wondering through my ground when they want. The people who always have and that continue to come and ask for permission will still be allowed to fish my ground just like we have always done it.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

I have to agree with this decision. I know it's a very unpopular one. But try to put yourself in the shoes of a landowner. If I had private land I also wouldn't want folks just walking/driving through at all times of the day and night. If they asked permission I'm sure I'd allow them access including I'd provide them with a note dated for that day indicating they had permission.

I see the trash folks leave behind after fish'n all the time on the shorelines/parking lots and including on the ice. Truly amazing and sad. I know it's not a vast majority of anglers leaving the mess but it's those folks who ruin it for the others. 

My grandparents had lakeside property back in Illinois and it just amazed me at the mess folks would leave behind. They bust off branches of the trees and make fires, beer cans, garbage along the shore along with dead fish remains. The folks who asked permission to fish were always granted access but those who didn't were politely asked to leave. However, on occassion as you'll always have the few, Grandpa had to force the issue and call the authorities. Try and place oneself into the shoes of another and how would you feel to see trash on your land and possible destruction of fences, buildings, and trees. It's these few that will always ruin it for others.

I'm think'n those of you who access waters via private property if you ask the landowner I would think you'd still have permission. But some may not give permission and you should respect their rights. I don't believe fish just find a landowners private property and hunker down only in that part of the river. But that's just me them fish are all over just may need to find new spots.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

My reply above isn't necessarily because I don't agree with the new law, but because I think he's corrupt. I would be a hypocrite to say if I had property I would be o.k. allowing anyone and everyone to pass through if they stayed in the water. This whole issue is about greed, not only the greedy landowners, but the greedy outdoors men as well. It reminds me of an armored car that spilled thousands of dollars on the freeway, everyone taking something that isn't theirs. My take on the "easement" that has been present, but neglected for 100 years is, in my lifetime private property has been private property. If I bought land under the pretense that I owned it and everything on it, but the water, then was told I don't actually own the stream bed, I would be pissed.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

k2muskie said:


> I have to agree with this decision. I know it's a very unpopular one. But try to put yourself in the shoes of a landowner. If I had private land I also wouldn't want folks just walking/driving through at all times of the day and night. If they asked permission I'm sure I'd allow them access including I'd provide them with a note dated for that day indicating they had permission.
> 
> I see the trash folks leave behind after fish'n all the time on the shorelines/parking lots and including on the ice. Truly amazing and sad. I know it's not a vast majority of anglers leaving the mess but it's those folks who ruin it for the others.
> 
> ...


I'm not super sure where I heard this before, but, 
"The answer lies somewhere in the middle"


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Troll said:


> I'm not super sure where I heard this before, but,
> "The answer lies somewhere in the middle"


Almost got it right...it goes this way...

"The '*truth*' lies somewhere in the middle"

:wink:  :wink:


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

The answer is in Idaho and Montana. This is just the start of what PETA and other such organizations want. If they can lock up the land and convince landowners to stop outdoor related hunting and fishing activities, then this will continue to roll. Eventually, more and more land will be purchsed and locked up. Maybe that is their right. The available waters will become more crowded and more trashed. Businesses will be hurt. Tourism dollars will be less. It will have an impact but maybe not enough to affect you and me.

On another note--you guys make issue with all the trash and destruction left behind by fishermen yet forget to look at the damage being done by the ranchers and farmers. I see major damage on both private ground and public ground from cattle and sheep. I also see farmers without buffer zones near rivers and streams that leach fertilizer and pesticides into the waters. I wish you guys could see both sides of the issue. I have never seen a farmer or rancher organize a river clean-up. I have participated in numerous ones by fishing groups. The majority of the trash we pick up does not come from fishermen (some does) but a lot of it comes from cars that use the canyons, picknickers, campers, and the trash cans of the property owners themselves. It's amazing how far trash travels in the wind.


I never did use the Conatser ruling. I would never wade up a stream if I thought I was invading someones privacy. I do not trash. I pick it up. I do not block gates. I do not shoot holes through no trespassing signs. I don't pack a gun while fishing. 


I think this whole issue of all this invasion of privacy and trashing anglers and destruction by anglers is blown out of proportion. The only ones invading privacy are the fly fishing schools who show up on the water with all their students and make it look like a convention just stopped in. Most anglers are looking for a quiet stretch of water, a few minutes of serenity from the world, and a little fun. To lessen those opportunities for us and our kids really says something about the sad state Utah has become. The world is watching--if you think the liquor laws are weird and the mormons ruin the state, this will make us look very weird. Thank you !


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

I heard.....


> I recognize the potential conflict between private property rights and the right of public access to Utah's waterways. Today, I pledge my commitment to work with both sides over the coming year to improve opportunities and arrive at a workable solution."


Then this.....


> "My hope is that this bill puts both sides of the equation on equal footing and allows the
> conversation to continue in a productive fashion.


 And this.... 


> I realize that this issue is not resolved.


 And then this....


> I will also engage personally to find a common-sense solution.


I really appreciate what Gov. Herbert is saying here, I wish the Supreme Court would have used the same common sense before they so proudly proclaimed " IT IS NOW LEGAL TO TREPASS."


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Mayor Peter may have this one right. But ya better see what he has in store as far as tax increases. Like the money grubbers in this state need more money! OH! YA! Education. where has all that money gone? Maybe if there was more money in this, we could get a special intrest group to hold a 3000 dollar a plate to benefit something. maybe a tag to fish tho Guvs sisters RIVER.


----------



## Daisy (Jan 4, 2010)

.45 said:


> I really appreciate what Gov. Herbert is saying here, I wish the Supreme Court would have used the same common sense before they so proudly proclaimed " IT IS NOW LEGAL TO TREPASS."


This is what gets me about this whole debate. The UTSC did not rule that it was legal to trespass. The UTSC re-affirmed a lower court ruling from 1982 that angenerated on both sides of the debate is unfortunate. The truth did not see the light of day easement exists that allows the public to touch privately owned beds of State waters.

This easment had been on the books for over 20+ years.

The mis-information and fear surrounding this issue is unfortunate, the truth could not be stomached.


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

.45 said:


> I really appreciate what Gov. Herbert is saying here, I wish the Supreme Court would have used the same common sense before they so proudly proclaimed " IT IS NOW LEGAL TO TREPASS."


The Conatser ruling did not proclaim "It is now legal to trespass". It proclaimed that the *public* has a right to use *public waterways* for legal recreational activities as long as they do not enter or leave the waterway by trespassing across private land, and do not cause any injury to land owner. How is this trespassing? Land owners do not own the waterway! The public owns them and have a right to use them under Article XVII, Section 1 of the Utah State Constitution, and Title 73 of the Utah State Code. HB 141 goes against state laws and against the state Supreme Court. But land owners couldn't stomach the law so they threw their weight around and came up with HB 141 to attempt to change the law.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

A quote from a local newspaper dated July of 2008...


> Private property owners were shocked when *The Supreme Court ruled that* *the public can trespass* *on posted private lands* by traveling up any natural stream within the state regardless of property ownership


I understand the ruling, I just wish the media did when they write this stuff.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

mm73 said:


> The Conatser ruling did not proclaim "It is now legal to trespass". It proclaimed that the public has a right to use public waterways for legal recreational activities as long as they do not enter or leave the waterway by trespassing across private land, and do not cause any injury to land owner.


+1

That is the biggest piece of misinformation that has flowed through the whole debate. Utah's laws since the drafting of the constitution have held that all water in the State belongs to the public for any reasonable use thereof. Conatser did nothing new, and anyone who says otherwise does not understand the law or the issue.

Conatser interpreted current, acutal Utah law. Previously a lower court had made a ruling based on Wyoming's case law, and Conatser did overturn that error.



k2muskie said:


> I have to agree with this decision. I know it's a very unpopular one. But try to put yourself in the shoes of a landowner. If I had private land I also wouldn't want folks just walking/driving through at all times of the day and night.


K2: I dislike all disrespectful people, and have been saddened to see abuses too. The truth is that every segment of society contains a few slobs. However, that comes with the territory when owning property that contains an easement. Sidewalks are public easements that cross private property. Is it OK to require written permission to access a sidewalk? Why not? I have had people litter my property and disturb my "quiet enjoyment" at all hours of the night from the sidewalk that crosses my yard. I knew the sidewalk was there when I bought the home, and all riverfront property owners knew about Utah's water laws when they purchased their land. Slobs or the disrespectful few are no justificaiton for restriction of access to a resource the public owns.

What makes waterfront property owners better and more entitled than sidewalk owners?

Anyway these arguments have all come and gone. If you stand to profit from public resources, you're thrilled with the ruling. If you didn't educate yourself and get involved, that's water under the bridge. The next steps are primarily legal and ultimately this will need to be decided by the Supreme Court.


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

.45 said:


> A quote from a local newspaper dated July of 2008...
> 
> 
> > Private property owners were shocked when *The Supreme Court ruled that* *the public can trespass* *on posted private lands* by traveling up any natural stream within the state regardless of property ownership
> ...


Agreed. There is a lot of misinformation out there on this issue, and sadly, a lot of it was intentionally put out by HB 141 supporters.

The Conatser ruling *never* gave the public the right to trespass. It merely affirmed state law that the public has an easement on public waterways and that incidental contact with the bed of these public waterways does not constitute trespassing as long as the person does not enter or leave the waterway by crossing private land. Of course, land owners don't like this because they want to be entitled to control something they never owned in the first place, and the Utah Realtors Assoc. wants to continue to sell something that belongs to the public!


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

The Governor got it wrong! If I was a land owner I would be disappointed too, as there would be more traffic coming through, but right is right. I believe that since Brigham Young, heck since the Native Americans, the streams and rivers have always been, and should always be, a public resource and no one should be able to buy it and keep others from enjoying it. IMHO it is selfish and wrong.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

.45 said:


> I heard.....
> 
> 
> > I recognize the potential conflict between private property rights and the right of public access to Utah's waterways. Today, I pledge my commitment to work with both sides over the coming year to improve opportunities and arrive at a workable solution."
> ...


 And this.... 


> I realize that this issue is not resolved.


 And then this....


> I will also engage personally to find a common-sense solution.


[/quote:2sqfwitt]

I really appreciate what Gov. Herbert is saying here, I wish the Supreme Court would have used the same common sense before they so proudly proclaimed " IT IS NOW LEGAL TO *TREPASS."[/*quote]

To someone who always gives me crap about my spelling, exactly what is a TREPASS?   *(u)*


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Dang you Guns and Flies !!! -oOo- 

I even used spell check on it !!!


----------



## Theekillerbee (Jan 8, 2009)

Silly that the guv even thinks this goes against what the supremes say. The bill will have it's day in court, and will likely be struck down as unconstitutional. The bill did not change the constitution of our state, thus the new law by default is still unconstitutional. The water, and the right to use it, belong to the people. Plain and simple.


----------



## Improv (Sep 8, 2007)

hamernhonkers said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad the Governor signed HB141. And anyone who votes based on ONE issue is not using their noggin.
> ...


In case you're wondering if your post makes you sound portentous - yeah it did, just a tad. Besides - not sure your guys are asking permission to fish your "ground" - They want to fish the water.
My 11-year-old son knows the lyrics to your theme song - it sung to the tune 'This Land is Your Land" and It goes like this: 
"This land is my land, it isn't your land. I have a shot-gun and you ant' got one. If you don't get off, I'll blow your head clear off. THIS LAND IS PRIVATE PROPERTY!! :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Improv said:


> "This land is my land, it isn't your land. I have a shot-gun and you ant' got one. If you don't get off, I'll blow your head clear off. THIS LAND IS PRIVATE PROPERTY!! :wink:


That sounds good to me.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Improv said:
> 
> 
> > "This land is my land, it isn't your land. I have a shot-gun and you ant' got one. If you don't get off, I'll blow your head clear off. THIS LAND IS PRIVATE PROPERTY!! :wink:
> ...


Big surprise coming from the biggest ***hole on the forum.....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Improv said:
> ...


Atta boy, showing your true colors. 8)

Tell me, is it really wrong to want to protect what you own?

This reminds of a great Bob and Tom Show clip, I'll see if I can find it on you-tube.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Tell me, is it really wrong to want to protect what you own?


That's exactly the point Bart. Who owns the rivers? The public. 141 eliminates access to PUBLIC property, which has been a keystone principal in Utah beginning well before statehood. This held true through the drafting of the constitution and has been the case in the 100+ years since.

Of course no one is surprised at your stance. Those who profit from the selling of public wildlife to the highest bidder are obviously thrilled with the opportunity to do so with fishing also. I'm sure you and Peay spooned till the sun came up the night of the signing.

Also to be fair, Pro is not the biggest @hole on the forum. He tones things down on here :mrgreen:


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

Come on guys, let's not resort to personal insults. This forum is a great place to engage in discussions where reasonable people can have reasonable differences of opinion. Please help to keep it that way.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

threshershark said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me, is it really wrong to want to protect what you own?
> ...


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> threshershark said:
> 
> 
> > proutdoors said:
> ...


 Here is the deal, the WATER is owned by the public, not the ground under it, so HB141 complies with that.

Not for long. Faulty language in HB141 will be it's un-doing. If in fact then in title.

If you were to pay attention you would see we are not too cheeky and I have been blasting the conservation permit program for several weeks now. 8)

"Do you think this is the first time someone has thought of a CWMU for fishing in the last 25 years?" That is a quote from the DWR when this issue was brought up last summer when negotiating about HB80. "It just doesn't work." another goody from the DWR.

If all landowners want is compensation, like they eluded to all of last year and this years session, then by all means the legislature should appropriate funds accordingly to buy back the state from money grubers. But let's just wait until it's out of the courts before we make such a foolish decision.

Maybe the task force will be meaningful rather than just a way to compensate "private property owners". I wonder how big of a check I will get for owning "private property" in Draper. Maybe they will find a middle ground if "ranchers" or the yuppies of the Weber decide the constitution is a valid document in whole rather in parts that solely benefit them.
Maybe


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

I just finished reading through HB 141. In the following section of the bill, the legislature appears to be naively lecturing the Utah Supreme Court on the supposed errors in its legal judgment. My gut feeling is that this lecture might not go over well with the court.

[blockquote:uyo8p0vs]*73-29-103. Declarations.*

The Legislature declares:

(1) the Utah Constitution's specific private property protections, including recognition of the inalienable right to acquire, possess, and protect property and the prohibition on taking or damaging private property for public use without just compensation, protect against government's broad recognition or grant of a public recreation easement to access or use public water on private property;

(2) general constitutional and statutory provisions declaring public ownership of water and recognizing existing rights of use are insufficient to overcome the specific constitutional protections for private property and do not justify inviting widespread unauthorized invasion of private property for recreation purposes where public access has never existed or has not existed for a sufficient period and under the conditions required to support recognition under this chapter;

(3) whether, or to what extent, a public easement exists for recreational use of public waters on private property is uncertain after judicial decisions in the cases of J.J.N.P. Co. v. State, 655 P.2d 1133 (Utah 1982) and Conatser v. Johnson, 194 P.3d 897 (Utah 2008), which decisions did not address the constitutional prohibition on taking or damaging private property without just compensation;

(4) legislative failure to provide guidance before, coupled with legislative inaction after the 1982 decision in J.J.N.P. Co. v. State form a compelling foundation for the Legislature to affirm a limited right to float on the water without violating the constitutional protections of the underlying private property;

(5) the real and substantial invasion of private property rights did not occur with recognition of the right to float on water that passes over the land, but with the right, first recognized in Conatser v. Johnson, to physically occupy the land for an indeterminate time and for a wide range of activities by the public against the owner's will and without just compensation;

(6) its intent to foster restoration of the accommodation existing between recreational users and private property owners before the decision in Conatser v. Johnson, affirm a floating right recognized by the court in J.J.N.P. Co. v. State, and recognize adverse use as a constitutionally sound and manageable basis for establishing a limited right of public recreational access on private property in accordance with this chapter.[/blockquote:uyo8p0vs]

Reading through the entire bill, the legislature seems to have passed a law that does little more than take a stand against the court's ruling without addressing the reasons why the court ruled as it did. Between this failure and the legal lecturing in the bill, my decidedly amateurishly, arm chair legal opinion is that the court will rule against it, and will likely be in a hurry to do so. I wouldn't even be surprised if the courts issue a temporary injunction preventing the new law's enforcement while it's being debated in the courts.

Then again, I'm no attorney. :|


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Has anyone received a reply from him or his office? Just wondering if he had the balls to reply to any fisherman. We need to make friends with the freedom fighters or whatever they are called. :lol:


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

I haven't and I have sent him a lot of e-mails. There is an option to leave a comment or write message under Case Work: where you expect a reply, I have written the majoirty of my letters under the Case Work tab with no response.


----------

