# BREAKING NEWS - 2 aditional water Bills!!



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

*This just in from Chris (at the Capitol)...2 additional bills are being submitted! *

*We need YOU to email all representative and tell them HB80 has gone though the right process. ALL sides were at the table with the intent of producing a win-win draft. *

*Here are the Bills*
*Kurt Webb *- introducing a "wet boot" bill
**This is a bill will make it "wet boot". It was drafted in secret and without any public input.. the process is wrong

Representative R. Curt Webb
District 5
Party R
Email: [email:1rg2ve5f][email protected][/email:1rg2ve5f] 
Home Phone: 435-753-0215 
Work Phone: 435-753-2467
http://www.le.state.ut.us/asp/billsintro/RepResults.asp?Listbox3=WEBBRC

*Kay McIFF* - introducing a hostile bill
**This bill will over turn Conatser. This is another bill drafted in secret. It has zero public input, and again, the process is wrong.

Representative
Kay L. McIff
District 70
Party R
Email: [email:1rg2ve5f][email protected][/email:1rg2ve5f]
Work Phone: 435-896-4461 
Cell Phone: 801-608-4331
http://www.le.state.ut.us/asp/billsintro/RepResults.asp?Listbox3=MCIFFKL

Representative roster -->http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/members/membertable1add.asp 
Quick and easy step by step instructions --> http://utahwaterguardians.org/?page_id=19


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

I clicked on the links provided for the 2 reps but saw nothing concerning this issue. Do you have a link directly to the text of waht was introduced?

A few weeks ago I was not in full support of HB80, but have since come to see that this is by far the best option. I am currently not employed and would like to help with getting it passed if I can. I don't have money to donate, but I have time. I will be at the Capitol on friday and could be there tomorrow and thursday as well.
Let me know.

Please also post again the link on how to find out who your Represenative is by address.

*MODS, PLEASE STICK THIS TO THE TOP AS IT IS OF TOP PRIORITY!*


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Just spent the last hour making phone calls and writing emails. I hope it helps. :shock:


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

Just got of the phone with Kay Mciff, it was a plesent conversation in which I simply encouraged him to get behind the bill Rep Fowlke has subbmitted and expressed that that bill was the only one that had been worked on for a long time with most interested parties perticipating. He expressed to me that his concerns were for the access being given to private property and that he had sat in on several of the meetings this summer.
I left a message at Rep Webb's work number, asking him to also withdraw his bill and stand behind rep Fowlkes. I also indicated to him that I if he would consider this that I would encourage my Rep to support his changes to the Utah Construction Registery law that he is subbitmitting this session.
I ended both the conversation and message by thanking the Rep for all of the hard work they do on behalf of of the people in the state of Utah while they are at the capitol.

Lets all get some white shoe polish and write "Vote Yes HB 80" on the windows of our cars and trucks to raise awareness.


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

They have not hit the line-up yet.. but keep your eye out, they will be showing up.

*Right on guys!* Encourage your family, fiends and co-workers to write!

step by step "how to" --> http://utahwaterguardians.org/?page_id=19
finder --> http://www.le.state.ut.us/maps/amap.html
Representative roster -->http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/members/membertable1add.asp

Troll contact Chris Barkey - he will be at the Capitol tomorrow with others. We really need fresh faces!! [email protected]

More info on the latest news here --> http://utahwaterguardians.org/


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

*PLEASE ACT NOW!u]*

1). We don't know what the other bills say yet.
2). All three bills will be voted out of the rules committee at the same time (sounds like a deal has been struck. It sucks, but that's politics).
3). When the bills come out of the rules committee, they will then move to Natural resources committee.
4). Assuming the bills come out of Natural resources, they will then get voted on in the House.

So, time to do a pre-emptive strike on the Natural Resources Committee. Again, our message is PROCESS. All sides were present at the table for the drafting of HB80. It was done in the open, and all sides had an opportunity to provide input. It's a good bill, and it's a compromise. It would also not hurt to state the things the land owners get from this process. HB80 should be give a chance to be heard on the floor of the house.

Rep. Roger E. Barrus, Chair [email protected]
Rep. John G. Mathis, Vice Chair [email protected]
Rep. Melvin R. Brown [email protected]
Rep. Brad L. Dee [email protected]
Rep. Jack R. Draxler [email protected]
Rep. Kerry W. Gibson [email protected]
Rep. James R. [email protected]
Rep. Neal B. Hendrickson [email protected]
Rep. Michael E. Noel [email protected]
Rep. Patrick Painter [email protected]
Rep. Phil Riesen [email protected]
Rep. Christine F. Watkins [email protected]
Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox [email protected]
Rep. Bill Wright [email protected]

Light 'em up! Respectfully! (remember we lost votes last year when certain people were attacked on forums and it got back to the representatives!)

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Reply With Quote


----------



## americanforkdude (Sep 13, 2007)

I must admit, I haven't followed this at all. But I do know I hate seeing private property signs in fishing spots and it's really annoying. A few members of my family also own ground where it's private property and I've seen both sides of the issue. I do see how it affects both of them. I really don't see the harm of people fishing on private property as long as they respect the groud and in most cases they don't. It sucks for those that aren't trashy to pay the price but that's how it works. I also seen landowners place solid fences to keep out fisherman and their excuse they don't like people in there fishing is because they climb over the fences and ruin them. I think everyone needs to compromise. it shouldn't be the landowners job to pick up after you slobs. I would write a letter to someone voiceing my concern to keep private waters open but there are a million email address's kicking around. I don't know where to start but I would hate to have prestige fishing holes shut down because I never voiced my opinion.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

The work number posted for Kurt Webb is his son, not the Represenative, please do not call that number.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Troll said:


> Just got of the phone with Kay Mciff, it was a plesent conversation in which I simply encouraged him to get behind the bill Rep Fowlke has subbmitted and expressed that that bill was the only one that had been worked on for a long time with most interested parties perticipating. *He expressed to me that his concerns were for the access being given to private property* and that he had sat in on several of the meetings this summer.
> I left a message at Rep Webb's work number, asking him to also withdraw his bill and stand behind rep Fowlkes. I also indicated to him that I if he would consider this that I would encourage my Rep to support his changes to the Utah Construction Registery law that he is subbitmitting this session.


I highlighted and underlined my biggest concern. I'm glad at least a few Reps are looking out for the private property owners, and not just the fishermen and their PRIVILEGES.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> Troll said:
> 
> 
> > Just got of the phone with Kay Mciff, it was a plesent conversation in which I simply encouraged him to get behind the bill Rep Fowlke has subbmitted and expressed that that bill was the only one that had been worked on for a long time with most interested parties perticipating. *He expressed to me that his concerns were for the access being given to private property* and that he had sat in on several of the meetings this summer.
> ...


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> .......................................
> 
> I highlighted and underlined my biggest concern. I'm glad at least a few Reps are looking out for the private property owners, and not just the fishermen and their PRIVILEGES.


+1


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

PRO
It might not hurt for you to go back over to the hunting side of the forum. This isn't about a privilege, it is about an easement. A recreational easement at that. My guess is you have a sidewalk in front of your house, maybe some power poles on your property, or power lines going across your land? Those are easements. This is a recreational easement. Read HB 80, read the Conatser decision, maybe even read the Utah constitution. 

With your line of reasoning can I start running people off my land because they are walking on the sidewalk in front of my house?? That sidewalk is maintained by me, I pay taxes on the land underneath it. It is my property, but I can't do a **** thing about it, because an easement exists. In Utah a recreational easement has existed on waters since 1982. Again do research, don't come on here with a bumped scope and just start shooting for the sake of shooting. Come back and enlighten us on the JJNP decision, the Conatser decision and the Utah constitution.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

280Remington said:


> PRO
> It might not hurt for you to go back over to the hunting side of the forum.


WOW. I guess you're the new moderator who gets to decide who can comments on what. :?

Fishing IS a privilege NOT a right. Private property is a RIGHT not a privilege. Muddying the waters, pun intended, by saying it is no different than having a sidewalk on my property is a weak argument. This is NOT about easements, but about how far onto private property the easements extend. If someone suddenly knocked on my door and told me my easement now extends to my front door I would be a little upset, how about you? Even if the easement was just increased by a foot I would take issue, as I am sure you would to, especially if the guy knocking on your door has been leaving trash on the lawn, letting his dog leave growlers, and so on.


----------



## Lonnie (Feb 2, 2010)

americanforkdude said:


> I really don't see the harm of people fishing on private property as long as they respect the groud and in most cases they don't. It sucks for those that aren't trashy to pay the price but that's how it works. I also seen landowners place solid fences to keep out fisherman and their excuse they don't like people in there fishing is because they climb over the fences and ruin them.


Well AFD, you should read the text of the bill.

http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbillint/hb0080.htm

Some of the thing you bring up are specifically addressed in the bill. The bill provides protection to land owners from among other things, trespass, and littering.



> A person may not engage in recreational activity on a public water if the
> 182 recreational activity:
> 183 (a) destroys, materially damages, removes, or alters real or personal property,
> 184 including:
> ...


To do so is a class B misdemeanor.

The bill also absolves property owners of fault and fear of being sued by recreationists who injures themselves while utilizing the easement.

So to say that the bill does nothing for landowners in untrue. It clearly defines when people can and cannot go (they can stay within the OHWM), anything else is trespass. It says that people cannot destroy your property, including tearing down fences and littering. People canno harass livestock. It's a fair bill for both sides.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

PRO
Seriously please research what you are talking about. Come up with a legal argument, not an emotional argument. 

The Utah Code clearly states "all waters in this state, whether above or under the ground, are hereby declared to be the property of the public, subject to all existing rights to the use thereof". 

Maybe you need to understand the "doctrine of public ownership", it has been around a bit longer than you have. This doctrine states "the public owns state waters and has an easement over the water regardless of who owns the water bed beneath". 

I own private property, and as I type this I am watching people walk across my private property on an easement. But by law I can't do anything about it. Because an easement exists over my private property. 

Like it or not in Utah there is a recreational easement. An easement is defined as a "privilege in which one person has a right to enjoy over the land of another".


----------



## Lonnie (Feb 2, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> Fishing IS a privilege NOT a right. Private property is a RIGHT not a privilege.


Fishing itself might not be a "right" but 5-0 the utah supreme court, the most conservative court in the nation BTW, stated that the public HAS the right to access *PUBLIC* water on private lands *AND* that right includes the *RIGHT* to be able to touch the bottom of the stream bed. All HB80 does is clarify how far those rights extend.

If this bill is not passed, then we will still be left with an undefined easement and recreationists will still be able to access PUBLIC water on private beds as they can do today. And all of the other provisions that actually protect landowners will not be in place.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

280Remington said:


> PRO
> It might not hurt for you to go back over to the hunting side of the forum. .................................................quote]
> 
> No sir, we don't send Forum members to other sections if they don't agree with your point of view.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Hey, PRO, good to see you here. I don't mind a little debate. Which leads me to what I want to talk about. You expressed a concern (this year and last) about the rights of landowners being infringed upon by these court determined easements. While a justified concern, I do not see how Conatser infringes on the right of any landowner to OWN the property. However, any property ownership has limits set to it by Government, like it or not. I have a right to own a car but I don't have the right to drive any way I like. I own a home and business but I don't have the right to violate zoning ordinances where there buildings reside. (and my business is in the peoples republic of Provo, which has some pretty screwy restrictions!) I fail to see how what was elucidated in Conatser represents a significant difference. This has been posted before but it is worth putting up again what Fedaeral access laws are based on.

http://www.adventuresports.com/river/no ... public.htm

Next, it appears Rep. Webb wants to introduce a "wet boot" bill. Can any of you against HB80 tell me what is so great about "Wet Boot"? It doesn't keep anyone off the "public water over private beds", it concentrates foot traffic into a much smaller zone, potentially damaging the resource, and I don't see how it is easier to enforce. The OHWM is almost always very clear. It also is not a very large amount of property either. One fear I have heard from landowners is that during high/floodwaters, that Conatser would allow trespassers to run free on posted property. OHWM does not allow this, but "wet boot" sure does! Enlighten me if possible.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Hey, PRO, good to see you here. I don't mind a little debate. Which leads me to what I want to talk about. You expressed a concern (this year and last) about the rights of landowners being infringed upon by these court determined easements. While a justified concern, I do not see how Conatser infringes on the right of any landowner to OWN the property. However, any property ownership has limits set to it by Government, like it or not. This is where I have great concerns. The Government is NOT supposed to set limits on the people, the people are supposed to set limits on themselves and the Government is supposed to enforce those limits. The Government, not even the "most conservative court in America" has the ability to grant/create rights, only to protect rights given to us by our Creator. I deem private property rights as the most important right a free person/people possesses. ALL other 'rights'/privileges take a back seat to this most important right that MUST be maintained in order to have any semblance of freedom. I have a right to own a car but I don't have the right to drive any way I like. Why do you have a 'right' to own a car? If you have a right to own a car, granted by the government then the government should supply every American with a car. You do NOT have a right to own a car, let alone drive one on PUBLIC roads. I own a home and business but I don't have the right to violate zoning ordinances where there buildings reside. (and my business is in the peoples republic of Provo, which has some pretty screwy restrictions!) The people in the Republic of Prove set those ordinances/restrictions NOT the government or a state court. I fail to see how what was elucidated in Conatser represents a significant difference. This has been posted before but it is worth putting up again what Fedaeral access laws are based on.
> 
> http://www.adventuresports.com/river/no ... public.htm
> 
> Next, it appears Rep. Webb wants to introduce a "wet boot" bill. Can any of you against HB80 tell me what is so great about "Wet Boot"? It doesn't keep anyone off the "public water over private beds", it concentrates foot traffic into a much smaller zone, potentially damaging the resource, and I don't see how it is easier to enforce. The OHWM is almost always very clear. It also is not a very large amount of property either. One fear I have heard from landowners is that during high/floodwaters, that Conatser would allow trespassers to run free on posted property. OHWM does not allow this, but "wet boot" sure does! Enlighten me if possible. I haven't endorsed/condemned any of the proposed bills, I have only expressed concern over private property rights being squashed for government created 'rights'.


And, thanks for letting me in on the debate instead of banishing me. :wink: :mrgreen:


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

PRO
Your response was so bizarre I actually had to read it twice to make sure I was reading it correctly. So let me get this right, you are saying "the Creator", which I'm guessing you mean God, wrote the Constitution of the United States? 

Are these rights that the "Creator" has granted us written anywhere? Do they say "I am the Creator and I am granting you the right to own private property"? 

Also you somehow tie in owning property with being free... Well Native Americans were here long before you and your ancestors, they were very much free, but they firmly believed humans belong to the land but do not "own" it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

280, let me help you out. The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:


> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator* with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


 This bold Declaration was signed by 56 of the smartest and bravest men to every walk the earth. Many of whom helped write the US Constitution, which up until recently was the law of the land. The Creator gave us our rights, the Constitution outlines the limits on the Federal Government which was created by the states through the consent of the People. What is taking place more and more is bassackwords to what this nation was founded on. And our public education system is doing a horrible job of educating Americans on where we get our rights, and who answers to who. The government is suppose to answer to the people, not the People answering to the government, and if the government can give rights, it can also take them away whenever it sees fit to do so.

As for your dismissing property rights and using 'natives' as proof, how can anyone be free w/o the right to private property? Were the 'natives' really more free than Americans were once the Constitution became the law of the land? If so, how so? No people have been more free than Americans thanks to the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution since the beginning of mankind. A people who have no claim to private property are not a free people, but are dependent on the 'goodness' of those in power, whether they be a Chief, a President, a King, or a Tyrant.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> 280Remington said:
> 
> 
> > PRO
> ...


+2! Are you (280) that insecure that you have to resort to personal attacks rather than logic. :roll: I agree with Pro on this one. My biggest eye roller on this issue is how it is presented as a bill representing all sides and how it is a compromise. Yet, the very definition of a compromise is "a middle way between two extremes." One extreme being overturn Conatser, the other extreme that we can go anywhere the water ever once touched at one point known as the OVHM (??). So, where is the compromise? It appears to me that this is nothing but pushing through one extreme in my humble understanding. The example of a sidewalk may be a good one, but what is your reaction when YOUR front yard is now over run by beer drinking, slobby strangers who can now walk within 15' of your sidewalk? Just a thought in trying to truly understand the concerns of the antichrist aka the landowners. BTW-I own nothing more than my humble house as does my fam, this is in no way directly affects me, but the principle of it affects us all.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A couple of points before I call it an evening.



proutdoors said:


> I have a right to own a car but I don't have the right to drive any way I like. Why do you have a 'right' to own a car? If you have a right to own a car, granted by the government then the government should supply every American with a car. You do NOT have a right to own a car, let alone drive one on PUBLIC roads.


I have just as much of a right to purchase an item of transportation as the Victory Ranch Corp. has to buy and develop a tract of Provo river land as a retreat for Tiger Woods to take his mistresses. However, both can be regulated by government. There is no difference.



proutdoors said:


> The people in the Republic of Prove set those ordinances/restrictions NOT the government or a state court.


Whether it is the City council, the legislature or the courts, what is the difference? None, IMO. Our City council can be more intractable than the legislature in many cases.



proutdoors said:


> I haven't endorsed/condemned any of the proposed bills, I have only expressed concern over private property rights being squashed for government created 'rights'.


My comment about "wet boot" was not directed at you, but is a key question. It seems that the opposition to HB80 (esp the Farm bureau) is lining up to claim that "wet boot" is a requirement for landowners or else they cannot support the process. WHY is it so important to them?? Or is it a ready EXCUSE to not support HB80, all the while hoping that eventually they can get Conatser repealed altogether?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Catherder said:


> A couple of points before I call it an evening.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thomas Jefferson based our U.S. Constitution on unalienable rights and called it the People's Law. People are first protected by unalienable rights. Secondly they hold all power. The people then allocate a part of that power first to local government, then to state government, and finally to the federal government, with the latter having the least power of all.

Unalienable property rights were to be limited only by the 1) right of imminent domain for the public good -- but only with "just compensation" as defined by the Fifth Amendment, or 2) common law concept of harm and nuisance. The latter was intended to be invoked only at the local level where zoning was under direct control of the people affected. It could only be used where definable harm to another person's health or property value could be demonstrated. Further loss of property rights leads to abuse.


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> This is where I have great concerns. The Government is NOT supposed to set limits on the people, the people are supposed to set limits on themselves and the Government is supposed to enforce those limits.


Your absolutely right. I agree. HB80 is the best faith effort for a common ground compromise with a OPEN process. The people working with the Government for a common sense. I know, its amazing the process actually works. Just to be clear, EVERYONE was at the table and knew in the beginning we were all here to make it work. At the very end, the FarmB took their ball and went home. Wet boot or nothing. Wet boot is ridicules, it actually broadens the scope.... Oh that field with 2 inches of water, well, with wet boot, I can make it a lot more places that I can with OHWM. Sometimes I do wonder who the "other guy" is actually working for, ha ha ; )

OHWH is a known parameter. Google them both, see what you find... nothing on wet boot.

I know this is going to sound crazy, but you obviously have not been reading up on the water laws. HB80 actually narrows the scope of the easement that the current law allows us today. That's right, narrows. It also, restricts access for natural barriers for foot traffic. Requires an access certificate/card/stamp that is free AND wanted by the DWR, for anglers access into public water over private beds. This is clearly a compromise. Its also a much needed tool for the DWR enforcement, it protects private property rights and it places accountability for all public water users who uses these areas.

Perhaps you should re-read over the recent water laws. But here is brief snip --> 1982 JJNP reaffirmed the easement as always existing. 2008 Conatser stated that you could touch the ground intentionally while recreating, and 2010 HB80 puts parameters on that use, and to protect property owners.

Off hand.... How much PUBLIC property is allowed for PRIVATE grazing rights?....that's right, over 70%. Having access to much less, for much less impact, is a pretty dang fair thing to the private property owners and public.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> My biggest eye roller on this issue is how it is presented as a bill representing all sides and how it is a compromise. Yet, the very definition of a compromise is "a middle way between two extremes." One extreme being overturn Conatser, the other extreme that we can go anywhere the water ever once touched at one point known as the OVHM (??). So, where is the compromise? It appears to me that this is nothing but pushing through one extreme in my humble understanding. The example of a sidewalk may be a good one, but what is your reaction when YOUR front yard is now over run by beer drinking, slobby strangers who can now walk within 15' of your sidewalk? Just a thought in trying to truly understand the concerns of the antichrist aka the landowners. BTW-I own nothing more than my humble house as does my fam, this is in no way directly affects me, but the principle of it affects us all.


Not sure why/how I missed your post Huge, but i like it, I like it a loooot.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> Off hand.... How much PUBLIC property is allowed for PRIVATE grazing rights?....that's right, over 70%. Having access to much less, for much less impact, is a pretty dang fair thing to the private property owners and public.


Apples and oranges. :?

Again, I have not condemned/endorsed ANY bill on the issue, my concerns are/were/will be private property rights being diminished, that's it. Truthfully, from what I have read on ALL the proposals, I don't like any of them much. :shock:


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

"wet boot" gives zero parameters...... anywhere there is water, anyone can go, at anytime OHWM narrows the scope. To an extremest, "wet boot" _migh_t also imply that I could walk through snow, slush, rain water, etc.

[*]HB-80narrows the scope.... compromise. 
[*]OHWM makes this compromise enforceable. 
[*]The DWR stamp makes the public accountable (how many people are really going to get this?) and the private property rights are still secure.

The Montana and Idaho FarmB have not had issues with OHWM. Utah's FarmB is mad because they didn't get everything they wanted. The water users DID NOT get everything they wanted either.. compromise.

The other bills are laughable at best...

HB80 has gone through the right process. The others, in secret. HB80 has had months of massive public input from all sides. The others, well, they were done in secret. Its like you said about the Government thingy ; ) --> _The Government is NOT supposed to set limits on the people_ Yet, they are making these draft bills in secret... why hide? Shouldn't the public have a say?


----------



## cacherinthewry (Dec 20, 2007)

WHAT HAPPENED:
The UTSC ruled, as the result of a criminal case, that the public, as recreational users, have the right to an easement in order to utilize the water which belongs to them (in a non-consumptive manner). They stated that this easement has always existed. The easement was defined simply as the "stream bed".

WHAT RECREATIONAL USERS WANTED WITH LEGISLATION FOLLOWING THE UTSC RULING:
A simple bill that defines the easement and portage.
-Define the streambed. Everybody else (neighboring states, international standard) uses OHWM. It's easy to understand. 
-Define portage, because portage is a safety issue for the users of the resource, and because fences do exist that interrupt the easement.


WHERE RECREATIONAL USERS COMPROMISED IN THE CRAFTING OF HB80:
-Landowners expressed concern over trespass, vandalism, litter. Those laws already exist, but language reinforcing those protections was included in HB80, including elevated penalties. Conatser already defined legal access, but that language was included in the bill as well.
-Landowners expressed concern over being held liable for injury to a user of the easement. Those laws also already existed, but that language was included in the bill as well.
-Landowners expressed concern that users of the easement would harrass them. Language was created to penalize such action. As a fair balance, language protecting the easement user from harrassment was also created.
-Landowners expressed concern that they could not protect their livestock without being allowed to place fences. HB80 allows for fences so long as passage (portage) is allowed.
-Landowners expressed concern that just anybody would be traipsing through the easement. Language was included that requires easement users to take an online education certification, and would be required to carry proof of that certification when utilizing the easement. Also, only people utilizing the easement in a manner very closely defined by the UTSC Conatser ruling would be allowed to use the easement in the first place.
-Supporters of HB80 conceded to a restriction on portage of natural barriers to downstream users who can't return in the direction they entered. If you can't travel by foot within the OHWM, you can't get out to move further.

I see lots of concessions by the HB80 supporters who wanted just two simple things.


----------



## cacherinthewry (Dec 20, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Again, I have not condemned/endorsed ANY bill on the issue, my concerns are/were/will be private property rights being diminished, that's it. Truthfully, from what I have read on ALL the proposals, I don't like any of them much. :shock:


Truthfully, you've read all three proposals? Really?? How is that possible when the only language published is that of HB80? McIff's and Webb's bills are not yet published, and they have not involved the public in the crafting of their bills. Are you involved behind the scenes?


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

PRO
I am glad to hear you have read ALL of the proposed bills. As catherinthewry pointed out, only one has been released, the other two are in "protected" status. Not even others in the Utah House can read them! I guess we sort of caught you in a lie on that one...

Your private property rights seem to be all about buying a piece of land then put up a barbed wire fence, put up a vinyl fence, put up a wall, nail a "no trespassing" sign to everything and call it good. That sounds more like a prison than it does a freedom...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

cacherinthewry said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Again, I have not condemned/endorsed ANY bill on the issue, my concerns are/were/will be private property rights being diminished, that's it. Truthfully, from what I have read on ALL the proposals, I don't like any of them much. :shock:
> ...





280Remington said:


> PRO
> I am glad to hear you have read ALL of the proposed bills. As catherinthewry pointed out, only one has been released, the other two are in "protected" status. Not even others in the Utah House can read them! I guess we sort of caught you in a lie on that one...
> 
> Your private property rights seem to be all about buying a piece of land then put up a barbed wire fence, put up a vinyl fence, put up a wall, nail a "no trespassing" sign to everything and call it good. That sounds more like a prison than it does a freedom...


I underlined and highlighted the word you two either ignored or missed. :? Gulf Ventur and others here and on other sites have commented on SOME of the pros/cons of ALL 3 proposals. Nice try though.

I hate fences, except to keep livestock in/out. I'm the only house in my subdivision without one of those UGLY vinyl fences, so that theory is wrong as well. :roll:


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I hate fences, except to keep livestock in/out. I'm the only house in my subdivision without one of those UGLY vinyl fences, so that theory is wrong as well. :roll:


You're trying to paddle upstream on this Pro because you support the landowner's point of view so I'm surprised you didn't realize that makes you automatically wrong on this side of the forums.... c'mon dude, get with the program. :wink: Just kidding Pro, I actually support what you, Huge and Goob have had to say as well and for the record, I don't own any private ground. I think anglers should have access to fishable waters as long as the landowner approves trespass. If they don't want you there, well, too bad I say. They bought the land, they should have control of recreational activities on any water flowing over that land, period. Go fish somewhere else.... with as much public land as we have in this state, its not like angling opportunities are lacking but then.... what do I know, I do 99% of my recreating on public ground. 8)


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

> They bought the land, they should have control of recreational activities on any water flowing over that land, period. Go fish somewhere else.... with as much public land as we have in this state, its not like angling opportunities are lacking but then.... what do I know, I do 99% of my recreating


 You might need to educate yourself, there, Riverrat! So what if they bought the land?! This issue is not about land, its about water. Water is NOT privately owned. So if they own the land its a mute point because this has to with the waterway, which is property of the citizens of the state of Utah. This is not since Conatser, this is written under the constitution of the state of Utah. Always has been since the 1800's...



> *Huge29 wrote:
> *The example of a sidewalk may be a good one, but what is your reaction when YOUR front yard is now over run by beer drinking, slobby strangers who can now walk within 15' of your sidewalk? Just a thought in trying to truly understand the concerns of the antichrist aka the landowners.


Lets keep your religious views out of it, Huge Because someone drinks beer, doesn't make them a bad person....


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

Separate law from emotion.. get well versed in the laws.

Read up on public trust doctrine, the idea that certain resources belong to ALL the people not just a few to dictate control over.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Well, I see you guys have been busy this morning. And I must say that, besides opinions about what Jefferson meant that are HIGHLY DEBATABLE, the anti HB 80 crowd has brought nothing persuasive to the table in this debate. Sorry, but the "they bought it, they can do what they want with it" argument doesn't hold water (pun intended) for my house and business property, and doesn't when related to properties affected by Conatser either.

I still have not heard ANY of you antis answer my question about "wet Boot". Huge, you keep griping that the recreationalists have not compromised anything in crafting HB80, (an assertion that is patently false) and legislatively, the opponents of 80 keep saying wet boot is a must. OK, why! and say the recreationalists compromise yet again and agree to have wet boot as the standard. Will we get a deal? I would submit that the answer is probably NO, because the landowners are the ones that are truly unwilling to compromise, as I think you will see when the McIff bill comes out..


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Please let us know what [wet boot] is compared to high water mark. Also why wet boot is bad for anglers.
Thanks,
Grandpa D.


----------



## Lonnie (Feb 2, 2010)

Grandpa D said:


> Please let us know what [wet boot] is compared to high water mark. Also why wet boot is bad for anglers.


*AND *why it is *GOOD *for landowners...

The simple fact is there are too many gray areas with a "wet boot" rule.

If I'm standing on a sandbar in the middle of a stream, am I trespassing? 
What about a boulder?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Grandpa D said:


> Please let us know what [wet boot] is compared to high water mark. Also why wet boot is bad for anglers.
> Thanks,
> Grandpa D.


Wet boot- some part of anatomy in the water.
OHWM-ordinary high water mark.

As Lonnie said, enforcibility is a concern, and I feel that concentrating the foot traffic into a smaller area could be harder on the river resource, and also, I am aware that wet boot is more prone to legal challenges. All that said, if wet boot was the decided standard, it would NOT BE BAD for anglers. We could live with it, even though it is not the BEST IMO.

But if such a compromise is needed, I would love to at least hear one good reason why.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Then wet boot world be bad for spawning.
It would force anglers to walk on the Redds.
Has this beed addressed?


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

I thought HB80 was a good bill. It was fabricated by different sides of the issue sitting down together, making compromises. 

IMHO the more we argue all these "technicalities" the further the sides will be wedged apart. Laws are bad when they justify only one adgenda; they should be a compromise.

I respect the views of both sides, though tend to favor the landowners here. But I would like to add if the outdoorsman want to get together on the steps of a state capitol buiding and peacefully present their views that's good, pure Americana.


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

*wet boot" gives zero parameters......* anywhere there is water, anyone can go, at anytime OHWM narrows the scope. To an extremest, "wet boot" might also imply that I could walk through snow, slush, rain water, etc..... FYI - FarmB is taking an extremest stance.


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

Grandpa D said:


> Please let us know what [wet boot] is compared to high water mark. Also why wet boot is bad for anglers.
> Thanks,
> Grandpa D.


Just to clarify for ya...

OHWM is much different that HWM... BIG difference in scope.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> You might need to educate yourself, there, Riverrat! So what if they bought the land?! This issue is not about land, its about water. Water is NOT privately owned. So if they own the land its a mute point because this has to with the waterway, which is property of the citizens of the state of Utah.


And I disagree.... the waterway itself is NOT the property of the public but the water passing through is. So... if you can float it, great. If not, take your fishing elsewhere. Lots easier to find another section to fish than to tell a landowner he has to move his property lines or allow whoever wants to be on his land to be there just because somebody wants to fish through his property. Landowners have brought nothing persuasive to the table? What have the anglers brought that is so persuasive to the landowners, other than we claim we have a right to cross your ground because our water just happens to run through your land. I can totally see landowners turning the fishing of their property into such an inconvenience that its not worth the hassle to fish there, especially given this attitude of entitlement that the proponents of the bill seem to bring out whenever anyone questions their motives. If I was a landowner, my mindset would be that I didn't pay thousands of dollars for stream or river front ground so that anybody and their dog could come walking through whenever they want. I could even go with stay in the stream and that'd be fine but other than that, no, you have no business being there. The water is public, fine, fish it on public land when your public water gets done flowing through my private ground. :?


----------



## Lonnie (Feb 2, 2010)

Catherder said:


> All that said, if wet boot was the decided standard, it would NOT BE BAD for anglers. We could live with it, even though it is not the BEST IMO.
> 
> But if such a compromise is needed, I would love to at least hear one good reason why.


It depends on what the rest of the bill says.....

http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbillint/hb0290.htm

I don't like the "pay to play" provisions of lines 89 and 90. What good is a public rescource if we have to pay to use it???


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> I thought HB80 was a good bill. It was fabricated by different sides of the issue sitting down together, making compromises.
> 
> IMHO the more we argue all these "technicalities" the further the sides will be wedged apart. Laws are bad when they justify only one adgenda; they should be a compromise.
> 
> I respect the views of both sides, though tend to favor the landowners here. But I would like to add if the outdoorsman want to get together on the steps of a state capitol buiding and peacefully present their views that's good, pure Americana.


Agreed, the problem lies when those requesting a compromise aren't happy with compromise, instead they decide, well, we got this much, lets push further and see just how much we can make the other side buckle to our demands.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Lonnie said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > All that said, if wet boot was the decided standard, it would NOT BE BAD for anglers. We could live with it, even though it is not the BEST IMO.
> ...


Yeah, I saw that. It looks like Webb is sneaking in an entirely new provision and issue into his so called "wet foot" bill. Some compromise. How fast do you think the Utah Supreme Court would toss that law?


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> ...................................................
> 
> Agreed, the problem lies when those requesting a compromise aren't happy with compromise, instead they decide, well, we got this much, lets push further and see just how much we can make the other side buckle to our demands.


That thought has crossed my mind also. This could be an example of how the argument becomes bigger than the issue.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

Riverrat
Again please read HB 80, anglers CAN'T cross private ground. That is the point you are missing. Anglers still have to access the stream at a public access point. Anglers can't just start walking across a farmer's field or across a lawn or private property and start fishing. That is called trespassing. HB 80 defines the boundaries in which an angler must stay within to fish. But the fisherman still has to access the stream at a public access point. 

If somebody walks across your backyard, walks across your garden and accessed your front sidewalk they are trespassing. But if they are just walking up the sidewalk and staying on the sidewalk the entire time, they aren't trespassing even though your land is beneath. It is really that simple.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> flyguy7 said:
> 
> 
> > You might need to educate yourself, there, Riverrat! So what if they bought the land?! This issue is not about land, its about water. Water is NOT privately owned. So if they own the land its a mute point because this has to with the waterway, which is property of the citizens of the state of Utah.
> ...


Good job RR. How about I take my water and divert it around your land. Sound fair?


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Here's something else that crossed my mind while I was shooting on my lunchbreak.... how many anglers actually even use waters crossing private ground on a regular basis, or have taken advantage of the ruling in their favor, to the point that they'd rather fish those areas than the open public waters anyway? It makes me wonder if this is a few anglers trying to stir the majority to support an idea without the majority really understanding what they're supporting. The few times I've fished over public ground or even encountered landowners while fishing, I'd have to admit, the fishing wasn't any better than what I'd found on other publically accessible waterways anyway. :?


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

martymcfly73 said:


> Good job RR. How about I take my water and divert it around your land. Sound fair?


Fantastic idea.... get the anglers together to tear up the ground and divert natural streamflows from their usual course when it wasn't the water hurting anything in the first place. Lets just leave a bunch of trash around while we're out doing it as well. Throw in some backhoe tracks, maybe leave some spare culverts and torn up road grade material laying in piles everywhere... thats the spirit. Maybe tear up protected plants, ruin habitat for protected animal species or just wildlife in general, that'll garner tons of support for fishermen from non angling folks I'm sure.... all in the name of getting to fish a place that is posted private because somebody told us no. :?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Here is another nugget from Webb's bill.

126 (b) Notwithstanding Subsection (7)(a), the public has no right to an easement for
127 recreational activity on a private bed solely on the basis of the public's ownership of the public
128 waters.


This language would seem to overturn Conatser altogether. So much for compromise. I would love to think that it is just an effect of the bill being hastily thrown together, but I doubt it.


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

Catherder said:


> Here is another nugget from Webb's bill.
> 
> 126 (b) Notwithstanding Subsection (7)(a), the public has no right to an easement for
> 127 recreational activity on a private bed solely on the basis of the public's ownership of the public
> ...


Those are the exact lines I picked up in the bill from reading it. I could live with a wet foot bill, but this opens it up to start adding streams to a list that do or don't qualify for public use. What the farm bureau really wants is for the public to no longer have an easement. This bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The other bill will have the same theme.

On a side note, I spoke with my rep who is on both committees to decide the fate of these bills and he indicated that he thinks none of them will pass this year because there is too much divide. I would also be fine if nothing passed, there will be more clarification as other trespassing lawsuits are brought before the court.


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> how many anglers actually even use waters crossing private ground on a regular basis, or have taken advantage of the ruling in their favor, to the point that they'd rather fish those areas than the open public waters anyway? It makes me wonder if this is a few anglers trying to stir the majority to support an idea without the majority really understanding what they're supporting. The few times I've fished over public ground or even encountered landowners while fishing, I'd have to admit, the fishing wasn't any better than what I'd found on other publically accessible waterways anyway. :?


Hey Riley...

To answer your questions - very little.. BUT it is the current law. The DWR stamp will make this number even less. (stamp came from our conversation last year, it creates accountability)

Just a reminder - wet boot broadens the current laws - HB80 narrows the scope. If anglers/water users wanted their/own way, we'd keep the current law.

AND.. to your last question - we really need to get out on the water ; )

Hope your well buddy.

See you at the rally? ; )


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

What you "wet boot" wishers don't realize is that the wet boot designation will effectively keep the public out of many miles of river that are ours for the using. One place i fish(now that we can do it without worrying) would not be accessible with this wording. There are several places that are not possible to get around without going around an obstacle(12' deep pools or huge cut banks). I would be fine with "wet boot" if there was wording to allow us to navigate around these particular areas. Otherwise, we will be right back where we started. Getting the shaft.
As for the comment about who would rather fish areas once deemed no access- I would much rather fish the newly acquired areas. The fishing is 10 times better on some of these stretches. I hope utah follows the rest of the country in OHWM wording. It is ludicrous to keep sucking hind tit to the surrounding states. You wonder why so many people do not recreate in this state. I might have to take get an early flight home to be on the steps of the capitol building to fight for what is ours!


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

Lonnie said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > All that said, if wet boot was the decided standard, it would NOT BE BAD for anglers. We could live with it, even though it is not the BEST IMO.
> ...


 As I read and understand it these lines mean, may not touch the bed of a public or private aquaculture facility Can't touch bottom in a public or private hatchery 
private fish pond or fee fishing facility. We all know private fish pond and fee fishing facility is open to interpertation and could be anything but I believe it to mean public waters flowing over private land for which a fee is charged to access


----------

