# Utah Water Guardians Who Are They?



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

One of the groups that had a big influence on the defeat of HB-187 was Utah Water Guardians.
I had never even heard of them before the introduction of the bill.
Who can tell us more about who they are and what they stand for?

Thanks, 
Grandpa D.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Utah Water Guardians was created to act as a clearinghouse for information concerning HB 187. They don't represent any particular group or people. Maybe it will morph into that in the future though.
R


----------



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

Hey Gramps,

The UWG was formed by a few dirt bag Trout bums ; ) I am the founder. We received a ton of help from many sources to get where we are today; public, government, darkhorse individuals.

There is no (1) spokes person for the UWG, its just an informational site, listing the facts. Its purpose is to make it easy for the average person to contact their elected officials. The UWG cannot speak for the public, represent the public, nor make any compromises for the public. We are not a group, organization or company. Just a bunch of guys/gals with determination to make our voices heard.

Reason - no (1) group was taking a "hard line" stance. Most organized groups were asking all anglers/water users to concede BEFORE seeing the actual Bill OR taking a "neutral" approach. Thoughts... what good are the organizations if they won't speak up for the public's/members rights? I was discouraged. Instead of complaining, we went in to action. If a compromised is to be reached, it needs to have a public process, with the public involved; landowners and water users. That said, we believe that this was a bad Bill for all parties.

We believe that common sense solution is the best way to move forward towards common ground.

Let me know if there are any questions, I am happy to answer them.

Bryan


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

How do I join you in your group? I'd be all for making UWG a voice for public opinion.... what do you say Bryan?


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> How do I join you in your group? I'd be all for making UWG a voice for public opinion.... what do you say Bryan?


why so you can help out the famremer ? Just woundering because I thought you didnt like the bill 187 or did i understan your post wrong. I hope that the case.


----------



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

Riverrat77 said:


> How do I join you in your group? I'd be all for making UWG a voice for public opinion.... what do you say Bryan?


Well, I'm not sure what to do with the UWG now.

I feel that there is a need for a political action group. UWG has been involved from day (1).... because nobody took a stand for anglers/water users....BUT I'm not sure if UWG is that group.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

dkhntrdstn said:


> Riverrat77 said:
> 
> 
> > How do I join you in your group? I'd be all for making UWG a voice for public opinion.... what do you say Bryan?
> ...


I am not for total angler access but was not real happy with HB187 or the whole bill creation process as it was explained to me. There are some things I'd have changed either way and I've talked to Bryan about them on the phone... I think level headed folks with an ability to see somebody else's point of view are the ones who will wind up hashing out something that as Bryan put it is "a common sense agreement" where some on the far ends of the spectrum who claim to be representing one side or another are just going to wind up spinning their wheels, creating in-fighting between all of the folks they supposedly side with or represent (see the forums and what some of that escalated into) and getting all of us nowhere. From talking several times to F/V Gulf Venture about this issue, I'd be more than willing to be part of a partisan group of anglers who along with F/V Gulf Venture help brainstorm and/or present ideas to get a new version of this bill introduced and passed so we don't keep seeing these deeply restricting or open floodgate type of bills being introduced without really doing anyone any good. 8)


----------



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

What do you all think..... Is there a need for a political action group? would you want something like UWG to be a group? Would a separate group be better? and keep UWG as it currently is, just a web site?

please share your thoughts.

Thanks,
Bryan


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

OK thanks.What dont you like about the bill ?Is it that we can go fish the river that go throu the privitland ?


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> What do you all think..... Is there a need for a political action group? would you want something like UWG to be a group? Would a separate group be better? and keep UWG as it currently is, just a web site?
> 
> please share your thoughts.
> 
> ...


After some of the talks we've had Bryan, I think there definitely is a need for some group to be a public voice. The fact that the various groups like BRC, TU and others aren't stepping up to go to bat for anglers is pretty disheartening and even if your group and BASS (George) work together to represent the best ideas for angling legislation, thats better than a bunch of splinter groups all trying to make an impact on their own. Like we talked about, I'm not a fan of the meeting in secret instead of requesting public input, I'm not a fan of restricting waters based on bogus or extremely vague qualifications like navigability, but I'm not a fan of unrelenting pressure to just give anglers whatever they want either because the ruling that resulted in this knee jerk bill definitely needs some clarification so that neither landowners who have concerns about public access or anglers who feel they're getting locked out of what they consider theirs are getting hosed. Both sides have valid views and concerns and they should be represented equally. This group might be a fine way to bring the angling side to the table without having to resort to last minute protests to get a point across. If this group or any of the groups had caught wind of this bill ahead of time, there would have been time to possibly change wording or adjust the details to make this bill a little more agreeable to everyone and not just the private land interests.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> What do you all think..... Is there a need for a political action group? would you want something like UWG to be a group? Would a separate group be better? and keep UWG as it currently is, just a web site?
> 
> please share your thoughts.
> 
> ...


My thoughts only (not speaking for anyone but me).

I think there needs to be a "voice for the angler/water recreationist". We found out that the groups out there are not good for that purpose. I think there needs to be a "group" that can put forth a strong voice when necessary and not the weak "we don't take a position" voice. How that voice or group or whatever it is comes together, I'm not sure. Anytime you are dealing with people, you are going to get a bunch of differing views. How to get those views narrowed down to a "voice" is the hard part.

I was amazed at how the angler/recreationists came together for the purpose of defeating HB187. That is a start. How it continues would take strong leadership, time, talent, and commitment. I've seen TU groups start up and fizzle in Northern Utah because they lack, leadership and vision and commitment. Most anglers want to spend their time on the water, so it's hard to find people who want to attend consistent meetings which would be necessary to keep the information flowing as a unified voice. The internet is good for spreading the information so I think utahwaterguardians has a place. But how do we keep unified with one voice, when even those who claim to be anglers cannot find common ground?


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I like the idea of having a unified voice in water related matters. I like the name UWG because it seems inclusive. The UWG could have a future if enough people are willing to participate in the building of an organization and enough stakeholders are willing to participate in order to validate the voice as being broad-based. 
R


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> What do you all think..... Is there a need for a political action group?


1. As we had previously discussed, I really do feel there is that need for it. We need a mechanism to "take care" of the legislators that helped us so much, by means of campaign contributions. TU can't do that, maybe Utah rivers council can, but a separate entity would help us do that as well as be able to serve as an means for politicians to know where we as anglers and water users stand. You can bet the realtors and the Farm Bureau will be there for Ferry, Brown, and McIff. We need to be there for our people, especially some of the conservative Republicans that might get some party backlash from the conservative caucus.



F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> would you want something like UWG to be a group? Would a separate group be better? and keep UWG as it currently is, just a web site?


2. UWG is now a known entity on the hill, and the name was synonymous with what we are trying to represent. I think it would be a perfect name for a PAC. Another name would probably work too. That would be entirely up to you as the creator of the UWG name. The website served us well and will no doubt be needed in the future, especially as a source of information as we we proceed with working out new legislation.

3. A couple more thoughts;

A) What about a possible merger as a PAC with Utah Rivers? I must admit I don't know about their entire body of work as to what they represent, but Ted Wilson is as capable of a advocate as we could ask for.

B) Also, as we had talked about on the phone, I do think that a PAC that includes the interests of Warmwater anglers could be a real force in the legislature. (again the model of SFW holds appeal to me)


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

I feel that there is a need for such a group for at least the next year.
It would be good to get representation from a lot of diverse interests.

Tackle Shops and other fishing related stores
Bass Clubs
Trout Clubs
Rafting/kayak Clubs
State Representitives and DWR[ if they fit]
Others?

This committee could be the voice that is invited to help to write the new bill that's sure to come up during next years Legislation.

If not, it will be a place where people can go to be updated on the issues.

I really believe that had it not been for people like F/V Gulf Ventur, HB187 would have slipped past all of us and now be law.

Thank you F/V Gulf Ventur and the others that I don't even know, for your time, effort and ethics that helped us to defeat this bill.

Grandpa D


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Grandpa D said:


> I feel that there is a need for such a group for at least the next year.
> It would be good to get representation from a lot of diverse interests.
> 
> Tackle Shops and other fishing related stores
> ...


You bring up another very important aspect of this issue and that is interactions with the DWR. As a government agency, they could not participate in the PAC, but the PAC could and should serve as a voice in dialogue WITH the DWR and the Wildlife Board on important fishing issues. (Similar to how SFW interacts with these entities) Not to say at this point that is was right or wrong, but I consider it no accident that SFW was involved in discussions with Rep. Ferry and Mr. Karpowitz (DWR) on HB187 before any real fishing representation was involved, even though they are primarily involved in hunting issues.


----------

