# Contact Reps and Senators Who Voted for HB141



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Right now would be a good time to contact your Utah Government officials, including the Governor about the flooding issues. As they rushed HB141 into law, several of the landowners, representatives, and senators indicated that the rights of the landowners supercede that of the publics' right to recreate. They were adamant about the fact that THEY PAY for all the upkeep, taxes, improvements, and repairs for their property so they should have the right to say who uses the public water running through the property.

Looks like Mother Nature is in the teaching mode this year, (and this issue was brought up to many of the representatives, senators and landowners), that who would pay for all the sandbagging, dredging, habitat restoration, in years of flooding. Most of the aforementioned people said the landowners will. Well, they seem to be singing a different tune. 

Before I get branded as a non-caring, heartless SOB, let me make it clear that I'm willing to pay taxes, help sandbag, clean trash, fix fence, chase down stray animals, paint, pull weeds, or any other service that a landowner might need. My only question is WAS I RAISED DIFFERENT THAN THE SELFISH LANDOWNER? Can they not allow a little recreation on the public water that runs through their private land as a little gesture of gratitude for neighbors, tax payers, and volunteers who stand ready to help?

I think it time we start writing some letters to the editor and to our elected officials. Let them know the lesson Mother Nature is teaching about selfishness and greed!


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

HighNDry, I did not have any input on this issue, but I did follow it while the battle went on. I don't fish a lot of streams and none that cross private properties, so I really didn't give much of a dang either way. I can see where a lot of fishermen did and still do care about not being able to access some places they really loved to fish and HB141 put the nail in the coffin on that. So, I just sent the following to my Northern Utah representative and I hope she shares it with her cronies.

Dear........
There was quite a controversial debate over access (or not) to Utah streams crossing private properties (HB141, I believe). Many meetings were held at which people from all interest groups and individuals spoke about their desires to either allow access to Utah's waters, protect private property rights against trespassers and to try and understand "who does the water belong to" that travels in that stream. I read where the House and Senate discussed the fact that the land owners paid out of their own pockets for fencing, upkeep etc. around the streams that crossed through their places. Of course they do. They want their places to look nice and be protected from intrusion and to keep their animals on the property and not wandering onto adjacent land owners places. There was also some discussion about tax payers paying for flood damage and flood control. And still the bill passed and we fishermen can not access fishing across these properties.
Now, with flooding beginning in some parts of the state and will certainly be hitting all of the streams soon, we are beginning to hear the cries from those same landowners. Do you think there will be droves of Utah fishermen filling sand bags to help protect these private land owners properties? Absolutely! Do you think these same Utah fishermen will continue to pay taxes to the state of Utah? Absolutely! Do you think these same Utah fishermen will be thanked by the landowners by allowing them to fish the sections of streams they helped protect? Probably not!
Maybe we should make them sign a waiver to HB141 before any state or local help is afforded them. A waiver that allows anyone desiring to fish that section of stream can do so, forever!
Think about it!

Thanks!
my name and address


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Sweet. I hear of landowners who want the river channels dredged right now before the floods start. This happened back in 1983 and habitat was destroyed. Some of these places have been reconstructured and rebuilt by tax payer money. The claim that landowners with public water running through private peoperty pay the bill for ALL upkeep is a lie. The Utah legislature did nothing more than rush through a bill to appease those who have money and influence. Then they try to pass a law that prohibits the public from knkowing what they do behind closed doors. This has got to stop. The legislature should be representing the public.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> My only question is WAS I RAISED DIFFERENT THAN THE SELFISH LANDOWNER?


What an ironic statement! Reminds me of this one:


> "No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong." --Walter Williams


 Who is the more selfish one? 
Out of curiosity, let's say HB141 did not happen, would you believe that it was the government's duty to prevent and help repair flood damage?


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> HighNDry said:
> 
> 
> > My only question is WAS I RAISED DIFFERENT THAN THE SELFISH LANDOWNER?
> ...


If the fact that they pay for all of the upkeep and maintenance from their own pockets wasn't shoved down our throats time and time again it probably wouldn't have even crossed our minds. As for your quote of Walter Williams, I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court of Utah decided the waterways of Utah belong to the people of Utah, not private individuals. So I think an injustice has been done to the citizens of Utah. Not to worry though the governor and his cronies are in the pockets of the wealthy, so everything will be paid for by our (yours and mine) tax dollars that could be used for something more important, and something that would benefit the majority.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

bugchuker said:


> If the fact that they pay for all of the upkeep and maintenance from their own pockets wasn't shoved down our throats time and time again it probably wouldn't have even crossed our minds.


+1. I am not the type that is going to decline to personally help a flooded neighbor because he/she may lock up the stream access to fishing, *but* when we were at the legislature 2 years ago fighting 141, this line of reasoning *was* indeed shoved down our throats by 141 supporters. Now that these same folks are in a position of need, they don't take care of their own property but come whimpering to their pals in the legislature to let them get bailed out by feeding at the public trough. You cannot have it both ways.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

bugchuker said:


> I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court of Utah decided the waterways of Utah belong to the people of Utah, not private individuals. So I think an injustice has been done to the citizens of Utah.


I love how you spin how it all happened in dark rooms and you had no say in what happened even though it passed by a majority vote with tons of input from both sides. In reality, the SC did nothing more than interpret the constitution in a manner to contrary to the previous long standing interpretation/enforcement. The new bill simply returned things back to the way they were in respecting private property rights, which I fully support. In being consistent, these landowners do have their own **** problem and should have to deal with it themselves. What many don't realize is that any structure that falls in the 100-year flood plain that has any loan from any FDIC insured institution is required by federal law to have flood insurance. Anyone with more than half of a brain with a property with the flood zone would have insurance regardless of having a loan or not.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

No spinning, just facts. My understanding is the Constitution was written this way in 1849 and over the years people made their own unwritten laws that were convenient for themselves. Either way the argument in this thread has to do with whether or not State money should be used to bail out and protect the property of a few individuals who already stated they pay their own way.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

Huge29 said:


> bugchuker said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court of Utah decided the waterways of Utah belong to the people of Utah, not private individuals. So I think an injustice has been done to the citizens of Utah.
> ...


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Troll said:


> Wrong. You are thinking of the bill Lowrie Faulk worked on, not HB 141, which was done without input from both sides.


Well, that is news to me! I had the understanding that this was actually voted on and debated and the socialists who don't believe in private property rights were actually at the capital and protested and there was news coverage and everything. I thought there were even evil lobbyists involved such as the Farm Bureau and less evil lobbyists such as the stream whatchamacallit group?? Maybe I am confusing 141 with another bill.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

That was HB 187, it was thrown out, only to have HB141 back doored in 2010.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

I guess I need to throw more green smiley guys in there to show that I am half kidding. It was debated, it was protested, it was discussed and most importantly it was voted on and passed. Call it what you want about how you want to spin terms such as "back doored"..., but the facts remain in that it met all of the requirements and IMHO common sense prevailed.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

It was introduced, numbered without text. Is that what you call worked out by both sides?

Only after a delay beyond the lawful limit for introducing bills was the text added and not one bit of that text was discussed between the sides.
I can understand how you could be confused between the bill that was worked out by all parties involved and the one that was backdoored, that was the intent of the switch.


----------



## sinergy (Mar 6, 2008)

Private Landowners wanted the land all to themselves... so be it, let them be by themselves. 

I see it as a self fulfilling prophecy, I have no sympathy for those land owners who kicked the public off these lands.... Serves them right maybe if they were willing to cooperate and work with the public, the public would work and assist them. Hopefully we dont hit a bunch of 70 to 80 degrees days all in a row  and for the years to come maybe Private land owners will rethink HB141 we wouldnt want another year of snow fall like this now would we....  :lol:


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

sinergy said:


> Private Landowners wanted the land all to themselves... so be it, let them be by themselves.
> 
> I see it as a self fulfilling prophecy, I have no sympathy for those land owners who kicked the public off these *lands*.... Serves them right maybe if they were willing to cooperate and work with the public, the public would work and assist them. Hopefully we dont hit a bunch of 70 to 80 degrees days all in a row  and for the years to come maybe Private land owners will rethink HB141 we wouldnt want another year of snow fall like this now would we....  :lol:


First of all, if you were on their "land(s)", you broke the law, you of all people should know that! 
Secondly, your immature and spiteful attitude is very telling of a person pushing for a socialist society suffering from some major envy and inferiority issues. BTW, many if not most are willing to work with the public and assist them, but let's not let facts get in the way of this topic. Again, the landowners should have to take care of this on their own; the only issues I have seen (as far as complaining, sueing or requesting assistance) are in Spanish Fork (within city limits) and the knucklehead along Cottonwood Creek, not exactly "landowners" in the sense related to this topic. I know a landowner along a major river that certainly will see some major flooding as he indicated that they are already past the normal high with the worst yet to come; not a single complaint, just waiting to get it over with to get on with life and work; hopefully we can all have that same attitude.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> sinergy said:
> 
> 
> > Private Landowners wanted the land all to themselves... so be it, let them be by themselves.
> ...


 Its just too bad that this isn't going to be the majority. Just wait until run off is in full FU mode, they'll all come a crying with their hands out.


----------



## sinergy (Mar 6, 2008)

Huge29 said:


> First of all, if you were on their "land(s)", you broke the law, you of all people should know that!


In my last post when did I state I was ever on Private Land :?: :?: :?:



Huge29 said:


> Secondly, your immature and spiteful attitude is very telling of a person pushing for a socialist society suffering from some major envy and inferiority issues.


If my memory serves me correctly Anglers repeatedly attempted to find a middle ground and work with private land owners. Multiple attempts were made on trying to work on cooperative to allow access to the high water mark with no access to the actual owners land. But Private landowners took a no holes bared stance and kicked Anglers to the curb. So why should the public come running to help ???

Further more if this were a socialist society and I were a socialist I would be asking for part of there land not just access to the river. All Anglers are asking is for our constitutional right to access the river. So if anything if Im a so called socialist then that would make you an extremist. LOL



Huge29 said:


> BTW, many if not most are willing to work with the public and assist them, but let's not let facts get in the way of this topic.


Thats great that the public is willing to assist now shouldn't private landowners return the favor and work out a compromise with the public ??? Again this is Utah we could get hundreds of feet of snow/rain next coming years wouldn't it be in the best interest to the private land owner to work out a cooperative...



Huge29 said:


> Again, the landowners should have to take care of this on their own;


Again you are correct !!! So let me rephrase "landowners should have to take care of this on their own"... "so let them be on there own"


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Huge 29 is twisting the facts again. This is not about "taking" or "accessing" private property. This is about recreating on "public" water. The accessing comes through public easement and then staying below the high water mark. We are not talking about camping out on someone's private land, walking across someone's private land, or staring into someone's window. Much of the water in question is far from any development. This is about sharing something we all have in common--the water's of Utah. Are there places that anglers would be a nuisance or out of place? You bet. But to lock down as many rivers and streams as they did was overkill. What's next--shut down all the community ponds because they are built near subdivisions and 60 anglers are standing around them looking inot the neighborhood backyards? When do we start the legislation to shut these places down? The more opportunities we take away for our youth to have wild places, to hunt and fish, the more chances we have for them to get involved in detrimental activities.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

There is no correct answer to this.
There will always be 2 sides, so it will be up to the Law Makers and Courts to decide.
I would love to see public access to these waters but it must be done through the legal system, whether we like it or not.

Here is an idea.
Let's support political candidates that are in favor of public access to Utah's waters.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

Huge29 said:


> sinergy said:
> 
> 
> > Private Landowners wanted the land all to themselves... so be it, let them be by themselves.
> ...


"It is true that several private citizens have asked the County to apply for an emergency permit to clean out East Canyon Creek in an attempt to prevent flooding in the area and they have requested the County to pay for the work. The Council has not approved this action. This item will be on our Tuesday agenda for a discussion/decision. We have asked for input from several offices including that where the Stream Alteration Permit would have to be filed as well as the Army Corps of Engineers. A decision will most likely be made during that meeting. Our agenda is published on the state website as well as in the local paper and on our website. Please feel free to contact me if I can provide you with any other information."

Just one snippet of info for you Huge. That is the reply from the Morgan County Commission. Property owners from East Canyon Creek and the Weber were the most active in supporting 141. One last thing, there was no debate about 141 vs 80 just bad politics.
Keep sensationalizing it though.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

Meeting is at 5pm tomorrow, attend if you want to be heard on this matter.
I'm not sure if you can E-mail the commissioners on this.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

fishsnoop said:


> Keep sensationalizing it though.


When did such a word ever occur in this thread? I already noted two reports of complaints, so you found a request by someone who is speaking out of both sides of their mouth, congratulations! So, good politics would be for the public/govt to take away private citizen's ownership rights? I don't know and I hope that such "politics" will never be accepted in the US of A! I am sure that you could find plenty of sympathizers for such thoughts in many other countries where the government does provide everything to everyone. 


HighNDry said:


> Huge 29 is twisting the facts again. This is not about "taking" or "accessing" private property. This is about recreating on "public" water. The accessing comes through public easement and then staying below the high water mark. We are not talking about camping out on someone's private land, walking across someone's private land, or staring into someone's window. Much of the water in question is far from any development. This is about sharing something we all have in common--the water's of Utah. Are there places that anglers would be a nuisance or out of place? You bet. But to lock down as many rivers and streams as they did was overkill. What's next--shut down all the community ponds because they are built near subdivisions and 60 anglers are standing around them looking inot the neighborhood backyards? When do we start the legislation to shut these places down? The more opportunities we take away for our youth to have wild places, to hunt and fish, the more chances we have for them to get involved in detrimental activities.


I simply can't read any more of your posts and take you seriously! you start by alleging spin and then go on to say that your motivation is for the children, that is funny! I know that you are smarter than you make yourself out to be! What is the difference between community pond and river, stream, creek that crosses PRIVATE land? No more clues! "Locked it down"....funny, so I could just as easily spin like you do to say that the dang SC stripped all of the landowner's rights in legislating from the bench, right? I don't care to spin/twist terms the way you choose to, just a thought.
Do you see any similarity from your attitude and this cartoon?


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

Huge,
Are you against the use of money made by others being distributed to those who did not earn the money? If yopu are, then I will expect you to show up tonight and express that. Tell the Morgan County Commissioners that you are against money contributed by the earners to be used to help those who did not earn it, because the earners will not derive any benifit from the money being used in that way.
IE; Money sent in by taxpayers to be used for the common good of taxpayers being used for things that are not for the common good of the taxpayers.
The use of that cartoon is perfect, because what we have here (on East Canyon Creek) is people asking the government to do for them because they feel they are entitled to it.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

Huge29 said:


> fishsnoop said:
> 
> 
> > Keep sensationalizing it though.
> ...


Now you can not be taken seriously. It is apparent you have been schooled in the way of shut ears open mouth. Not just someone but many from the area have made the request. Come this weekend I'm sure many more will be making the request. 
If you believe in your founding fathers then let me ask you this, do you believe the public should own the navigable waters?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> So, good politics would be for the public/govt to take away private citizen's ownership rights? I don't know and I hope that such "politics" will never be accepted in the US of A! I am sure that you could find plenty of sympathizers for such thoughts in many other countries where the government does provide everything to everyone.


Trying to figure this quote out...are you saying that stream access laws prior to last year's stream access bill somehow took private property rights away from private property owners? If so, how?

I, like many others, feel the exact opposite....the bill took away the public's right to recreate on public water.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Huge, I actually liked your cartoon, however, you do realize that it far more aptly fits the *landowners* discussed in this thread than it does us "access warriors". There is no escaping the hypocrisy of the most ardent 141 proponents demanding the public to "take care of their stream" on the public's dime, yet demanding legislation that cuts out the same public from using the streams with a rationale that the owners are the ones supposedly paying for upkeep.

As I said before, I do not wish ill of anyone with the possible impending floods and hope that no one suffers great harm. I also anxiously await the ultimate decision of the courts regarding HB141 and expect a favorable outcome for my side. At that point, both sides will need to come up with a reasonable solution. While any flooding is unfortunate, the events of this spring will hopefully help strip away some of the BS that we dealt with last time in crafting a good bill.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Huge 29,
Please keep your comments civil and don't start down the road of name calling and questioning intelligence.

Your cartoon is perfect it is exactly what we are saying to you. Why should our "public" tax money be used for selfish landowner entitlements? The landowners want to claim they pay ALL the taxes and ALL the upkeep for what they own and then want ENTITLEMENTS from you and me TAX MONEY to pay for things like flooding or repairs that they can't afford. Thanks you for the cartoon--it fits perfect.

This is about the future for our kids and grandkids. It's about providing places for them to recreate on "public" water. The private property owners do not own the water. It is something that is held in common to all Utahns. It's that simple. I read all of your posts and I agree with some of your points. To say you can't read anymore of mine is disheartening and exactly the way we were treated by the Utah politicians. Do you support the closed door politics too? This is an open forum to discuss these issues. If you cannot tolerate someone elses views then I'm sorry for you. Open debate and looking at other's ideas and opinions should be welcomed. Are you really of the opinion that your opinion is the only one that should be considered?

So answer the question Huge 29---who is really looking for ENTITLEMENTS?


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

HnD-PM sent-I can't even read your posts anymore, the first two lines were enough. 
I am sorry guys, I must have really been unclear creating confusion for everyone by having a consistent stance, which apparently is not common on this topic. Here is my opinion-private ownership rights are very important, violating such rights is a very rarely allowed occurrence. I have a problem with eminent domain in many cases also for the same reason. Along with said belief, I have a major problem with the "entitlement crowd." This is to include a rather large group of folks including those who now believe as landowners that the county/city...is responsible for protecting their land from floods. I agree that it is total crap for these same people wanting help who oppose the public access. It is either private or it is not, can't have the best of both worlds! I think that is quite simple.
I don't believe 141 is the perfect answer, however I do believe that it does error on the correct side of the fence towards the landowners. I think the Conatser in the incidental stopping is not the answer, high water mark is definitely not the answer. I know that the same guys who oppose 141 also opposed the wet boot, so where was the compromise? The cartoon is applicable in that those who oppose 141 wanted the high water mark and wanted to be able to walk around obstacles-those are both more rights than the SC decision granted, that is not a debatable point! Those are simply people feeling entitled to more access, nowhere did the SC decision grant any dry foot access on private land. To say that rights were stripped, I can see where one can make such an allegation, however it was only a temporary right that existed and 141 essentially returned things back to the way they had been. 
I must simplify things too much in my mind, I guess. I see it as simple as a right of way like your own sidewalk. Let's say an SC decision granted that all sidewalks would now be 72" wide instead of 36", but you still pay the taxes on the whole property and everyone can now walk across your grass within this right of way. For many people it probably would not be that big of a deal, but in certain places this could be a very big deal, but more importantly the fee simple rights have been violated and where is the line now drawn? For the guy who already only has 7' of front yard where 7th East has expanded 5 times and another 3' is a major deal. 
I don't know how else to be any more clear, water is public as are the fish, the dirt underneath the water is 100% owned by the landowner who paid for it and pays the taxes every year. I don't have any of the envy issues that some of the 141 opposers have; I don't feel entitled to their land nor am I spiteful about wishing harm to those who do not want me on their land. Thanks guys! Good luck in your quest in wishing harm on the landowners. I believe it was old Abe who said:


> It is easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar.


 I think you may find it more effective to donate your time in helping the landowners who own the land you wish to access in volunteering and often times just in being friendly. As with any group, there are those who are simply unfriendly and nasty, but they are the minority, more commonly they will be receptive to a respectful request or offer (you may want to take your "down with Ben Ferry" stickers off of your cars).


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

Although I dont like the law, I can respect it. I have never had access to any of the places in question before Conatser or did I visit them after. The main issue I have is the "cake and eat it too" crowd, and they are on both sides. It would be nice if there was a compromise that would benefit everyone, but there would still be someone screaming for more, thats the nature of people. I do enjoy a little Karma on occasion, as long as I'm not on the one getting it.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> I must simplify things too much in my mind, I guess. I see it as simple as a right of way like your own sidewalk.


Yeah...me too. I guess that is why I like the sidewalk analogy. So, in your mind, would it be ok then for private landowners to put up a fence across a sidewalk and not allow people to walk down that sidewalk in front of their homes?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> Those are simply people feeling entitled to more access, nowhere did the SC decision grant any dry foot access on private land.


I totally disagree with those quote and feel like it is very debatable...this is what the supreme court said:
"We hold that the scope of the easement provides the public the right to float, hunt, fish, and participate in all lawful activities that utilize the water. We further hold that the public has the right to touch privately owned beds of state waters in ways incidental to all recreational rights provided for in the easement, so long as they do so reasonably and cause no unnecessary injury to the landowner."

To me, that did give the right for people "dry foot access on private land". In my mind, "beds" of public waters would include any "dry land" between the high water marks...

..."Streambed" as defined by Webster is, "The channel occupied or formerly occupied by a stream." This, to me, absolutely gives "dry foot" access along streambeds!


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

That right there was where the SC copped out in their ruling. They did not define streambed.

This is where I will correct Huge, again. There was a compromise worked out in Lowrie Fowlkes bill, (HB80/2010, I think). The compromise was to be difined as where the vegetation substantually changed. When you look at a stream bed in summer you will see some dry rocks, above that you will see vegetation and above that the high water mark.
The vegetation was the compromise between highwater mark and wet foot.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Huge29 said:
> 
> 
> > I must simplify things too much in my mind, I guess. I see it as simple as a right of way like your own sidewalk.
> ...


Let me get back to you on that one...uhhh no?? :mrgreen: It is that simple. If you have a navigable waterway like the Weber where it started knock yourself out! I don't think there should be fences over the water. However, when it comes to the Provo as it goes through Woodland where it is really wide and slow and therefore shallow...and you have 5 knuckleheads walking down the private lane after jumping over a private electric gate nearly breaking it, I have major problem with that. Of course, such action was not ever legal, but they claim ignorance or something...


wyoming2utah said:


> Huge29 said:
> 
> 
> > Those are simply people feeling entitled to more access, nowhere did the SC decision grant any dry foot access on private land.
> ...


Point taken there! However, I think the term "incidental" weakens your argument. To me that means, as the water is shallow occasionally and your raft scrapes bottom so you have to wade for a short distance, but not that you stop to have lunch on the bank.


----------



## cacherinthewry (Dec 20, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> If you have a navigable waterway like the Weber where it started knock yourself out!...I think the term "incidental" weakens your argument.


So how do you define "navigable"? What would your test be? What is the Federal test of "navigable"?

From what you posted, I don't think you understand the legal definition of "incidental" as it relates to an easement.

Also, if anyone walked down a private lane to get to water, it's trespassing. If the landowner didn't do anything about it, shame on them. Private proterty rights also include an obligation to protect those rights. They shouldn't have gotten away with it. Ignorance is never a legal defense. The situation you describe has nothing to do with stream use.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

cacherinthewry said:


> Also, if anyone walked down a private lane to get to water, it's trespassing. If the landowner didn't do anything about it, shame on them. Private proterty rights also include an obligation to protect those rights. They shouldn't have gotten away with it. Ignorance is never a legal defense. The situation you describe has nothing to do with stream use.


Sorry, I should have written something like this to address your point:


Huge29 said:


> when it comes to the Provo as it goes through Woodland where it is really wide and slow and therefore shallow...and you have 5 knuckleheads walking down the private lane after jumping over a private electric gate nearly breaking it, I have major problem with that. *Of course, such action was not ever legal, but they claim ignorance or something...*


So, the fact that all 5 were carrying rods/reels and wearing fly fishing vests walking down the lane 10' from the Provo has nothing to do with stream use? This was an incident that distant relatives had fairly regularly between the time of the SC decision and HB141. This is the kind of experience that makes the landowners more negative and entrenched on the topic. No trespassing signs everywhere not to mention the large gate and fence, such ignorance does not help your cause. While it is not a legal defense it is what the landowners face regularly the same kind of ignorance that makes some leave wrappers all over, leave gates open, etc.


----------



## cacherinthewry (Dec 20, 2007)

Did the landowner press charges? Was anyone cited?

The activity they were intending to participate in has absolutely no correlation to the trespassing they committed. Coulda been 5 guys hopping a fence & cutting through a yard on their way to buy beer at 7-11. It's still trespassing, even if they were of legal age. There is nothing in the state code about "trespass with intent to fish".


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Posted by Huge 29: "So, the fact that all 5 were carrying rods/reels and wearing fly fishing vests"

Do you have issues with fly fishers? Why is it necessary for you to point out the type of gear they have? Why not say a group of 5 anglers, or a group of fishermen? This is very telling. Are you predjudice against fly fishers?

There will always be law breakers. Stream access people do not condone tresspassing, we have made that clear. We respect private property. Let me ask you this Huge 29, just incase you are reading. Do you believe some landowners with public water running through their property believe the water is theirs? Do you think it is right that they divert water for their use and for their animals use? Do you think it okay for them to put pollution and waste and yard clippings into the rivers and streams? Wow, I bet they never do that. Do you think it okay for their cattle and pigs to wallow in the publics' water and degrade streamside banks and denude the vegetation?

I think it telling how quick you are to point out a few law breakers on the angling side without mentioning landowners who will always do more damage to a stream than a hundred wading fishers. I have witnessed what a bunch of wallowing cattle can do to a stream, not to mention the amount of cow shtuff that flushes down the streams. Landowners are perfect however. I bet they don't even climb over their own fenses or let trash blow out of their garbage cans----has to be all those tresspassing fly fishermen doing all the damage.

The best thing private property owners can do is turn in the violators. If they witness the act, get pictures, write down license plate numbers, and then actually turn the trespassers in. I'm all for that.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Ok, one more entry on this thread.



Huge29 said:


> This is the kind of experience that makes the landowners more negative and entrenched on the topic. No trespassing signs everywhere not to mention the large gate and fence, such ignorance does not help your cause.


You are right. It doesn't help. That is why every angler I have met, involved with this issue, wishes that clowns like you have described get busted and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It is also worth noting that trespassing violations were a problem near rivers before Conatser, and are now with 141 in place. It also stands to reason that people inclined to dislike the Conatser decision will have a good memory for episodes that occur during the time that access was more liberalized. Up on the hill 2 years ago, we got a belly full of that, but documentation was sorely lacking. The 141 proponents couldn't even show that trespassing citations went up during the Conatser period.

As for issues of navigability, that is a totally separate issue that may come into play at some point in the future. If it does, the Weber and the Provo will both readily fit the Federal standard of navigability, as will several other streams. The problem there is that each stream is adjudicated individually, and the cost to both sides is significant. Costs I would hope the Government won't have to spend.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

I met with Farm Bureau last month to specifically discuss enforcement of trespass. Instead of throwing 2.2 million dollars at walk in access, I proposed we throw 2.9 million at hiring offcers to enforce trespass and give us our use of the waterways back. Until county attorney's are willing to prosecute, law enforcement shows up to cite the violator and landowners feel comfortable with the fact that if they make the call someone will show up this won't change. 2 years ago when Rep. Fowlke was first bringing folks together I showed up with 10 years of historical evidence from our state courts showing trespass vioplations stayed steady throughout Conatser, there was no increase or decrease of any significance. We want trespassers cited, end of story. We want landowners to be protected, end of story. Murder is against the law but our legislators haven't stopped that from happening yet either.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> Point taken there! However, I think the term "incidental" weakens your argument. To me that means, as the water is shallow occasionally and your raft scrapes bottom so you have to wade for a short distance, but not that you stop to have lunch on the bank.


Again, I don't...in fact, I think it strengthens it. Again, though, it depends on the definition. The first definition by Webster states: "being likely to ensue as a chance or minor consequence". To me, walking on dry land between high watermarks is not only "likely to ensue" through angling recreation but also other recreational activities as well (think hunting...), and I would also contend that such activity is of "minor consequence".

I would also say that "stopping to have lunch on the bank" would not be "incidental".


----------



## sinergy (Mar 6, 2008)

Huge29 said:


> However, when it comes to the Provo as it goes through Woodland where it is really wide and slow and therefore shallow...and you have 5 knuckleheads walking down the private lane after jumping over a private electric gate nearly breaking it, I have major problem with that.


Ok then your argument is anglers trashing area and possibly ruining a fence I understand you being upset over that I too would be furious over something like that but then explain how it is LEGAL to float that area. HB141 says it completely legal for me to drop a innertube in at the public access point and float it. I would be able to access the same area thats considered No Trespass on foot, would be fully legal to float it.

Furthermore I could drop my float tube in the river float over to that area and slowly fish the area according to HB141 it would be completely legal... I tell ya HB141 make absolutely no sense.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

sinergy said:


> Huge29 said:
> 
> 
> > However, when it comes to the Provo as it goes through Woodland where it is really wide and slow and therefore shallow...and you have 5 knuckleheads walking down the private lane after jumping over a private electric gate nearly breaking it, I have major problem with that.
> ...


I think it makes sense, but it certainly is not a really simple issue in which we can find the perfect answer that makes everyone ecstatic. This incident was just a side note. From my understanding, it would be legal to float the river especially right now if you can hold on. :mrgreen: I really don't think the landowner has much of any problem with the guy floating on through, but from my experiences in speaking with two landowners who own along major rivers in the state they do have problems with the guys who pull off and have lunch on the bank. It is not worth the hassle to report that, they simply keep it civil when informing them that they are trespassing and if they get lip they call the sheriff, but I think there is fear of reprisal by the trespassers.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51761 ... m.html.csp

Here's a link to a Tribune piece about access. Representaive Brown is on the Governor's appointed task force to study this issue. He doesn't even understand the historical navagability issues.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

> Ranchers have a right to fence across the river, he said, and they do it to maintain cattle herds - not out of malice toward the public.


Yeah...right! :roll:


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

HighNDry said:


> http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51761365-78/river-access-weber-stream.html.csp
> 
> Here's a link to a Tribune piece about access. Representaive Brown is on the Governor's appointed task force to study this issue. He doesn't even understand the historical navagability issues.


This new lawsuit is big news! Good job, guys at USAC. This is the second prong in the access battle, getting navigability judgments on rivers. A navigability ruling trumps 141 and can regain access even if the 141 suit is bogged down in court. (This is because 141 only affects rivers deemed non-navigable) As I said before, this approach only works one river at a time so it takes time and commitment.
As for Mel Brown, this lack of understanding is par for him. No surprises here and you can expect more dumb comments from him in the future.


----------

