# WE HAVE A CRISIS BREWING!



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

And that crisis would be the fair and balanced access to public waters in accordance with the 2008 Utah Supreme Court ruling in the Conatser vs. Johnson case. As you all know by now, a very heavily debated bill was introduced into the 2009 Legislative calendar to address the issue. There were rewrites, amendments, and two votes on it and it was defeated both times. But it is not going to go away.

One of the main points of contention from my representative was the fact that the recreationists do not have an organized entity that can honestly represent all recreational interests on this issue. There are literally dozens of organizations out there that have a personal interest in this issue to include fishers, kayakers, hunters, bird watchers, hikers, etc. And rightly so; but there is not one umbrella organization that can bring all of these groups together as one voice. And this is not good. The two groups that were contacted for input on this issue are considered by many to be not very representative at all. So where do we go from here? Who is going to represent all of our interests in the future? Well, I have a recommendation - the Izaak Walton of America (IWLA).

From their web site (http://www.iwla.org/) they are one of the earliest conservation organizations in the United States. The IWLA was formed in 1922 to save outdoor America for future generations. The League's founders, who were avid anglers, chose to name the organization after Izaak Walton, the 17th century author of The Compleat (sic) Angler, one of the most famous books on fishing. They are one of the earliest conservation organizations to set an aggressive course to defend wild America by changing public policy. Almost every major, successful conservation program that America has in place today can be traced directly to a League activity or initiative. The environment is everyone's issue. America deserves a better, stronger commitment to finding smart solutions that are good for the environment and economy at the same time. They are proud that their unique blend of community conservation and advocacy for common-sense conservation policy has positioned them as a voice of reason in the various debates over access, habitat and species protection, clean air and water, wetlands, renewable energy, public lands, and many other issues.

Throughout more than three hundred communities, IWLA chapters advance the mission of the Izaak Walton League - restoring watersheds, reducing air pollution, fighting litter, protecting wildlife habitat and open spaces, and instilling conservation ethics in outdoor recreationists. Their commitment to communities has allowed them to endure for more than eight decades. Their optimism, their spirit, and their vision for a better outdoor America guides their work.

Developed by members in a democratic process, their Conservation Policies guide their work. The newest copy of those policies can be seen here: http://www.iwla.org/publications/genera ... es_Web.pdf

Here is their Mission Statement: To conserve, maintain, protect, and restore the soil, forest, water, and other natural resources of the United States and other lands; to promote means and opportunities for the education of the public with respect to such resources and their enjoyment and wholesome utilization.

There is one small problem - out of over 300 chapters in the League, there isn't one in Utah. And that my friends, is a true shame.

So that begs the question 'Is there any of you that would be interested in starting a chapter in Utah?' I've talked with the Executive Director of the IWLA about our current issue of water access and the lack of a single organization to represent our interests. He said they can not help without first establishing a chapter in Utah. That would involve a body of ten or more people coming together as a unit and applying for a chapter. He is going to turn this over to the Director of Chapter Relations who will in turn contact me about getting this started.

In the mean time, I'd ask any of you that also think this would be a worthwhile venture for Utah to please do a little research on the IWLA and volunteer to help me get this started. It would only take 10 committed people to start a chapter.

Will you help?


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I'd have to do some checking. Do you have any specific examples where they preserved "use access" in any other states?

I don't think there is a crisis brewing as long as everyone remains level headed and can come to the table with clear and concise ideas. If each side of this issue would be willing to listen and share ideas and concerns. If people from both sides would treat each other with respect and dignity. If each side would be willing to compromise in areas they feel they can. If people on each side would act as adults, instead of selfish little children. If....

Heck, your right, we have a crisis brewing...


----------



## KAFO (Oct 17, 2007)

HighNDry is absolutely right. From my perspective, the crises are in the "eyes of both extremes". On one side is the belief that the public is going to destroy anything and everything they can get their hands/feet on and there are going to be deaths and fights related to access (see Ferry et al.) On the other extreme are those who believe that any amount of water, even a trickle, means "open for business/recreation" without regard to the landowner and their rights or opinion. I believe that neither extreme is right and there is a lot of room for level-headed compromise. BOTH sides have to give some concession. HB 187 provided very little of this IMHO. 

In regards to a representative organization, it is correct that there really is none. Although the Issac Walton League may be a possible start, I would personally rather see a home-grown organization be in the lead. The Utah Rivers Counsel seems like a logical choice, BUT most people, myself included, don't really know all that much about them outside of their advocacy for access. Rather they are too extreme to allow compromise remains to be seen. Utah Water Guardians isn't a true organization, but merely an internet clearinghouse of information (obviously slanted to the access side of things) that may morph into more of an advocacy group. 

Regardless of what happens in the interim, what is important for logical and sensible compromise that the majority of stakeholders can get behind. Does anyone really want something to pass that will result in 20+ years of litigation similar to what happened in Montana?


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

Did you see the website that was formed by F/C Gulf Venture, mentioned in the thread by Grandpa D, the "Utah Water Guardians"? That seems like the most logical way of bringing everyone in UTAH from the different organizations together under one all-around representation. Right now the UWG is just a website to educate the citizenry regarding the issues at hand, and now that the bill was defeated, it doesn't have much use, or anything to do. Seems like a perfect blank canvas to bring all of these different public water-use interests together. IMO, bringing in an outside (of Utah) national group in would only offend the other side, and prompt them to do the same. Although these issues affect tourists, as well as native Utahns, this is a Utah issue, and I believe it should be handled by us, the people of Utah, rather than a national group of lobbyists. Maybe these other groups could be looked to for perspective, but I think the battle should stay a "Utah" battle, with other states' histories on the matter being used as examples.


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

Agree. Let's keep it Utah-based and glean any info from outside sources. My understanding is several out-of-staters had an influence on HB187. I'm grateful for them and their input. I think a recrationist/tourist/angler voice is a voice that can have influence. I know I get a little huffy-puffy on here now and again, but reason, logic, common sense, and compromise can go along way to building better relationships for all of us.

If both sides continue to claim the sky is falling and that someone is going to get killed, then it's hard to come together with openess. It's foing to take a lot of egos staying in check, biting of lips and tongues once in a while and level-headedness (none of which I'm that good at). So, I'll be counting on some checks and balance and a little poke in the ribs to keep me in line.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> Heck, your right, we have a crisis brewing...


 :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

I think that the true essence of this thread is that we as anglers were disappointed in many of the groups we count on

including

Trout Unlimited
Utah DWR
Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, SFW

Remember this weekend, if you go to the ISE show, ask those groups respectfully if we can count on them in the future, because as we saw it, they weren't for us this past two months.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Chaser said:


> IMO, bringing in an outside (of Utah) national group in would only offend the other side, and prompt them to do the same. Although these issues affect tourists, as well as native Utahns, this is a Utah issue, and I believe it should be handled by us, the people of Utah, rather than a national group of lobbyists.


While I'm using a quote from Chaser, I'm addressing Chaser, KAFO, and Dead Drifter. And I am not trying to be argumentative on your point of keeping it local. But I would like to try to get you to view this from a different perspective. The IWLA is in fact a national organization. It is also an organization that is made up of over 300 local chapters. Here, let me say it again; it is also an organization that is made up of over 300 local chapters. And each and every one of those local chapters is made up of 100% local folks. They decide which issues are important to their local situations and act on them according to their local resources and abilities. The national level helps with policy and legal issues that are beyond the local chapter's abilities to handle. The national level is a warehouse of and clearing house for research help and guidance.

Please, you must understand that an IWLA Utah Chapter would be made up of 100% Utah folks with nothing but 100% Utah goals guided by a national organization that can provide a plethora of information suited to help us meet those goals. There would be absolutely no bringing in anybody from out of state to accomplish our goals. The legislature and the big money boys would still be dealing with nothing but home grown folks. Is there a down side to this? If there is, I'm afraid I don't see it.

And from what little research I've done so far, it sure seems to me that the IWLA is in fact a broad enough conservation organization that it will cover a little, some, or most, if not all, of the recreations already mentioned. Will it cover every aspect of every recreational group? Absolutely not. But I happen to think its one hell of a good start.

Also, let me clarify something that I apparently didn't get across to begin with. While the IWLA could be a major player in negotiating a new bill, I certainly did not mean to imply it would be the ONLY player. There certainly will be other major Utah groups involved. But some of the smaller groups would fit very nicely under the IWLA umbrella and would have a stronger voice because of it.

Let me ask you one more time to please do some research on your own to really see what the IWLA is all about. It really is a great conservation organization that does most of its work at the local community level.


----------



## KAFO (Oct 17, 2007)

Well, I've finally had time to read though a lot of the IWLA materials. Very good stuff and a good history of conservation no doubt. Just for clarification, unless I am mistaken, no one said that such a national organization could not be of great benefit to those of us here in Utah. There would certainly be room for such a chapter of the IWLA here. However, just from my experience in dealing with our predominantly republican legislature I have found that unless an organization has direct ties to groups like the NRA, they are very suspect of groups with outside ties (or any other group they have major disagreements with for that matter; aka. NEA/UEA, SUWA)

Just for the sake of comparison here are the mission statements from the IWLA and URC. (my emphasis added)
_IWLA mission statement_: "To conserve, maintain, protect, and restore the soil, forest, water, and other natural resources of the *United States and other lands*; to promote means and opportunities for the education of the public with respect to such resources and their enjoyment and wholesome utilization."

_Utah Rivers Counsel mission statement_: "The Utah Rivers Council protects *Utah's rivers* and clean water sources for today's citizens, future generations, and wildlife. We implement this mission through grassroots organizing, direct advocacy, research, education, community leadership, and - when absolutely necessary - litigation on the behalf of rivers and people."

Again IWLA is a FANTASTIC organization that does cover a wide range of outdoor pursuits and issues, but is it too broad? Read through their conservation handbook to see just how much they are actually involved in http://www.iwla.org/publications/genera ... es_Web.pdf

Granted this involvement may predominantly be though their local chapters but I have found that a more local based organization *CAN BE* better able to effectuate change. Like them or not, just look at our own home-grown organization SWF. They basically started with a few guys dedicated to the outdoors and have steadily grown into a regional force that can get a lot done politically in the states where it has a presence. IMHO, this is the ideal type of organization I would be most likely to support with both time and money. Could a local IWLA chapter or the UWC eventually achieve something like this? Who knows? Perhaps ideally, I would like to see the URC work closely with or perhaps fall under the umbrella of the IWLA. Better yet, they can work together as to maintain their independence and perhaps part ways when needed. This way a *regional* water recreation and conservation with a similar scope of influence to SWF could emerge. (Perhaps "High Desert Rivers Association" or something). Personally, one thing that is keeping me from immediately joining URC is the whole litigation part of their mission statement. Seems a bit to SUWA-like for my tastes, but that remains to be seen.

Finally, Dubob I think we are all on the same page (or at least close to it) when it comes to access and conservation. Where I *very respectfully* disagree with you is the whole "crisis" part. It was this mentality on the part of Ferry et al. that caused such a hasty piece of legislation to be written due only to a "perceived threat" on the part of property owners. Let's not take the same mentality to the table when it comes time to draft or contribute to legislation centering on the Conatser ruling.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

Some good ideas being put out, I would like to be involved in an organization that would fight for public access and for the public good. I think there is a crisis in the fact that there are organized organizations out working for their interest, and there doesn't seem to be a strong organization, with money and members, working for the public interest (thought it was the DWR but, NOT!!). If such an organization were established it could hold the DWR responsible when the sell out the public, it could send out some type of mailer updating all activities and how to get involved to help the public interest in general. I have some dollars and time to give, but to where?


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Pez Gallo said:


> I think that the true essence of this thread is that we as anglers were disappointed in many of the groups we count on
> 
> including
> 
> ...


Trout Unlimited got out of the access controversy in 2007. Here's a statement, in part, from TU's Chris Woods as found in New West Travel and Outdoors, March 2007:

Trout Unlimited's Chris Wood says that the issue of public access to rivers and streams has become an energy sink for his organization, and one that alienates the very landowners that are critical to the efforts to protect and restore fisheries.

"We are at the point of deciding who we are as an organization," Wood says. "We've only had two real access issues come up over the years, and they were extremely contentious. We cannot afford to let this one issue define us. To be effective on any kind of large scale we work with landowners to remove barriers to fish, to restore and maintain instream flows. It is all about habitat, and most of that habitat is on private land. Advocating for public access divides us from those landowners, and if we let that single issue dominate our work, we are not going to be able to accomplish our work."

"The question over fighting for stream access, by conservation groups or anyone else, has become more complex as economic disparity in America has become more intense." 
See the story, and good pro and con comments here:

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/ ... e/C41/L41/


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> Trout Unlimited got out of the access controversy in 2007.


This is exactly why I had cancelled my membership with TU after 2007. I figured they didn't need my dollars because they weren't serving my interests. I really dont care about improving trout stocks, native or otherwise, in areas where only the few and not the ordinary person have the chance to enjoy them. These may not be any one else's opinions, but these are my opinions, and I choose to express those opinions in dollars and votes.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Pez Gallo said:


> wyogoob said:
> 
> 
> > Trout Unlimited got out of the access controversy in 2007.
> ...


Too bad your TU chapter lost focus. Back in the early 80s Evanston had a TU chapter that did the same thing. The chapter got into a access battle with those that controlled the water on the Woodruff Narrows Reservoir. It got ugly, went legal. Many of the sportsman grew weary of the TU snobs and started their own club. They (I was one of them) didn't know how to get things done and just drove a bigger wedge between landowners and the fishing public. The ranchers, almost all from Utah, won, and the fishing at the Narrows and the Bear River out there has never recovered.

Evanston has a new chapter, a different breed of elitist snobs. We are not taking on projects that we can't win. We respect landowners rights and their valuable "islands" of great habitat. We are improving trout brood stocks, doing it on public ground, the Bear River through town and the Bear River State Park on the city's outskirts. We got the Army Corps of Engineers, the State of Wyoming, the county, the city, and many local businesses to help out. We lobbied the Game & Fish Dept to set special regs on Uinta county's stretch of river. The club members, with the help of the Wyoming Game and Fish, have set fish egg boxes out in the river, all of this on public ground. All of this for me, and you, a non-resident. To be honest with you, one of our biggest fears is how the Utah "sportsman" will negatively impact the meager fishery the local volunteers are building.

We have taken over the annual Kid's Fishing Day and last year had over 600 kids from Uinta and Sweetwater counties in Wyoming, and Rich county in Utah, come and fish the Bear River ponds. There was free food, free use of tackle, and prizes. All labor and $s to support the event were donated.

We get things done. Things that help the community. We do it with sugar, not with vinegar.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

That's some sweet sugar there: "breed of elitist snobs", "our biggest fear is how the Utah "sportsman" will negatively effect the meager fishery the local volunteers are building.

You sure you know the difference between sugar and vinegar?

And when all the public land is bought up or locked-up by the diffferent agancies, then what?


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> That's some sweet sugar there: "breed of elitist snobs", "our biggest fear is how the Utah "sportsman" will negatively effect the meager fishery the local volunteers are building.
> 
> You sure you know the difference between sugar and vinegar?
> 
> And when all the public land is bought up or locked-up by the diffferent agancies, then what?


Thanks for the feedback.

> "breed of elitist snobs" is sarcasm, I was poking fun at myself and my close friends in the local TU. Levity is one of the best forms of sugar.

> "our biggest fear is how the Utah "sportsman" will negatively effect the meager fishery the local volunteers are building. Please don't shoot the messenger. That is the consensus of many, whether warranted or not. IMHO the negative reputation Utah (and Soutwest Wyoming for that matter) has, effects the way landowners deal with granting permission on their property in Utah.

> I hope know the difference between sugar and vinegar.

> And when all the public land is bought up or locked-up by the diffferent agancies, then what? If we stay calm and find common ground and make compromises with landowners, that won't happen. If it does, a bunch of us fisherman, or myself, will buy up some river property. What ever it takes.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> And when all the public land is bought up or locked-up by the diffferent agancies, then what?


And I have been accused of crying, "the sky is falling". :? There is a better chance of all private land becoming public land than for all public land becoming private land. _(O)_


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Good answers. Thank you.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> HighNDry said:
> 
> 
> > And when all the public land is bought up or locked-up by the diffferent agancies, then what?
> ...


Hey Pro, how 'bout that red text of mine? I'm a Lib, should I use blue?


----------

