# Water laws



## BugBuilder (Oct 17, 2007)

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8809153


----------



## Poo Pie (Nov 23, 2007)

Weird that this would come out now... weren't we just talking about this?? Remember the guided flyfishing for 150 bucks a day or whatever it was? I think it is a law that should be rethought. We should be able to wade rivers on private land, and until our conversations about it last week I did.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

I agree with the landowners on this one; I think everyone would from the landowner's perspective when you see the blatant vandalism and white trash nature of some fishermen leaving garbage all over, my favorite is to see worm containers on lure only streams. However, how they itemize the lure touching the bottom and the paddles touching the stream bed, WTF??? That is not the intent of the law, that seems to be a biased POV to me how such detail is provided to say the law is crazy--they were wading that is illegal. I do agree that access is okay; but not to stop and throw your crap all over the place and wander through people's farms, which is their livelihood. Obviously those causing the problems likely consist of only a minute % of people, they ruin it for everyone. If everyone respected property, I would guess that 90% of those landowners would not care about people fishing there IMHO. I think it is fairly similar to having all of the kids walking through your yard to get to the bus or whatever, right through your yard making a trail, not cool. You are welcome to fly over it at 11,000 ft, but not on my grass.


----------



## BugBuilder (Oct 17, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> I agree with the landowners on this one; I think everyone would from the landowner's perspective when you see the blatant vandalism and white trash nature of some fishermen leaving garbage all over, my favorite is to see worm containers on lure only streams. However, how they itemize the lure touching the bottom and the paddles touching the stream bed, WTF??? That is not the intent of the law, that seems to be a biased POV to me how such detail is provided to say the law is crazy--they were wading that is illegal. I do agree that access is okay; but not to stop and throw your crap all over the place and wander through people's farms, which is their livelihood. Obviously those causing the problems likely consist of only a minute % of people, they ruin it for everyone. If everyone respected property, I would guess that 90% of those landowners would not care about people fishing there IMHO. I think it is fairly similar to having all of the kids walking through your yard to get to the bus or whatever, right through your yard making a trail, not cool. You are welcome to fly over it at 11,000 ft, but not on my grass.


+1


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

I would like to see the high water mark ruled as legal to access. This is what I was taking about, someone needs to challenge the issue and take it to court, I hope that it can get changed so we can access the public waters. I wonder if we could call a representative on this issue or something.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

It's a difficult situation. It's impossible to please everyone on this subject, but I'd like to see some changes to allow angler access to public waters, no matter who's land it cuts through.

The landowners feel violated if they have to allow people to use the river, but the People feel violated because they can't access their water.

Nobody wins, but unless the water originates and ends on the landowners property, the Public must have access to the water and rights to use it. Anything else is just greedy. 

I understand that litter and misuse is a concern, but the landowners will have to take those incidents up with the offenders and the local authorities as they come. They may have to be a little more proactive about protecting their land, but they were probably used to calling the cops on people anyway.

If people get caught abusing their access by littering, the landowner can turn them in and they can pay a harsh fine and serve some cleanup time. Sooner or later, people will come around and start showing a little more respect.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

In Utah, getting this kind of access will take an act of the legislature. The law will have to be changed. Montana has the law that allows public access within the highwater marks and clear as their law is, it has been challenged numerous times. 

My thought is that if the land between highwater lines is available as a public right of way for recreation, then the "land owner" should not pay property taxes on those lands. Fair enough. 

On the issue of people trashing public access lands, Utah is the absolute worst place I've lived for this. I grew up in Idaho and since have lived in Utah, Nebraska, and Montana. Public fishing access points have far more litter, more resource damage and less regard for taking care of our resources than any place I've seen. I don't know why but that is the way it is. And that makes me sad.


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

That sounds like a pretty good idea Gary- let the acreage that is actually within the high water mark be tax free as long as there is access available for the public. If that worked out, maybe Utah should start an "Adopt a Waterway" program similar to the highways. That would cut down on the trash. Of course, then you have funding issues with that, and less tax money to fund it with because the landowners aren't paying taxes on that land anymore. Maybe the landowners would go for it if their tax rate was cut by a percentage big enough to fund such a program? :idea:


----------



## Poo Pie (Nov 23, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> I agree with the landowners on this one; I think everyone would from the landowner's perspective when you see the blatant vandalism and white trash nature of some fishermen leaving garbage all over, my favorite is to see worm containers on lure only streams. However, how they itemize the lure touching the bottom and the paddles touching the stream bed, WTF??? That is not the intent of the law, that seems to be a biased POV to me how such detail is provided to say the law is crazy--they were wading that is illegal. I do agree that access is okay; but not to stop and throw your crap all over the place and wander through people's farms, which is their livelihood. Obviously those causing the problems likely consist of only a minute % of people, they ruin it for everyone. If everyone respected property, I would guess that 90% of those landowners would not care about people fishing there IMHO. I think it is fairly similar to having all of the kids walking through your yard to get to the bus or whatever, right through your yard making a trail, not cool. You are welcome to fly over it at 11,000 ft, but not on my grass.


Good points, however neighborhood kids do not own the grass which is on top of my ground. Collectively as a state we do own state waters.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

At the very least those who get profits for state water should allow public access to some percentage. The best would be to get access to all public water under the water mark, at worse, 10% of tags charged should go to public, like CWMU's. Like on the upper Weber River, a Sportsman's group charges for access, if you are getting profit from public water shouldn't a certain percentage of the tags go to the public? I hope this law gets changed! You might see me at the government building with a picket sign :wink:


----------



## grousehunter (Sep 11, 2007)

I am all for private property rights and there can be balance. You should be able to stand on the river bottom, however you should only be able to gain access through public areas. Could you imagine if landowners blocking public roads on their property (half of I-15 would be shut down) or charged a fee just because it runs through their property? What if you broke down, should you get a criminal trespass charge? The littering problem could be taken care of with a $1000.00 fine or a year suspension of your hunting/fishing license. Just make it a zero tolerance policy.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

grousehunter said:


> I am all for private property rights and there can be balance. You should be able to stand on the river bottom, however you should only be able to gain access through public areas.


Thank you! That's pretty much what I meant.


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

I completely agree with the Public Access points. There is no way that landowners would go for people trapsing across their land just to access the public waters. There would need to be access points for anglers to get to the water. 

Guns and Flies- you mentioned one specific area, the Upper Weber, that I would certainly be most fervent about getting the laws changed. My family owns a cabin up that way, past the area that is limited to permits. A few years ago, (to my understanding) someone threatened lawsuit because the passes were only being sold to Jans. So they allowed for some, I think half, to be sold to anyone who had property up there. Unfortunately, the permits were an ungodly price, so Jans ended up buying up most of them anyway. It really chaps my arse when a large entity like Jans, or any other outfitter with money for that matter, is the only group to have access to such pristine waters. Stupid thing is, no land with cabins on it would even need to be crossed in this case.


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

It is my understanding that the question before the Utah Supreme Court does not even apply to trespass over private land getting to and from "state owned" streams. It only involves the part of the streams under the state owned water and perhaps within the high water mark for streams as is the case in Montana and Idaho. In order to fish streams through provate land you still would have to either float through on state owned water from public access point to public access point or access the stream in public access points and stay in the stream bed all the way through private land.


----------



## STEVO (Sep 13, 2007)

Im all for somebody having private property, and if they want to keep people out, then thats good for them. The problem I have is spending public money(dwr money) to be able to improve their private property. Why should the public have to pay for the stocking of their private streams. I think if it is a public water, then the public should have access to it.


----------

