# Fee Increase



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=12653535

Now they want to charge you more money to fish the places you have a right to anyway.
Fishing license is still a good deal, but the political BS is about to push me over the border.


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

I would pay at least $50-$100 a year to have the ability to fish ALL of the rivers and streams in the state each year.

I dont really mind an extra fee or license, but what streams would be open exactly? Will there be any close to where I live, or where you live? 

50 miles for the whole state isnt much.


----------



## huntnbum (Nov 8, 2007)

I just hope it doesn't get as bad as Big game hunting trespass permits.
Not worth paying 100's of dollars to get on private water.

Hopefully the State can make most landowners happy and allow people to enjoy what should be available to everyone in the first place.

I used to love walking streams back in my youth and not worry about someone getting all bent out of shape.
I also believe that back then, most people respected others properties and never left a sign that they were even there, like leaving garbage, fences torn down, and other types of damage.

I miss those day's


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

Didn't buy a UT license this year because of this law, won't buy one next year, or the year after. 
Didn't register my boat, didn't buy an annual pass or go to any state parks, didn't spend my normal $400 on fishing tackle this year. 

The increase will be needed to offset the number of people like me who don't fish in UT anymore. 

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Kuputicks. 

I did buy a new raft and now have 3 kayaks to float the streams with.


----------



## browntrout (Apr 27, 2008)

My Rep.--- Craig Frank of Cedar Hills voted for HB 141. He won't get my vote in Nov.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

If I may ask you, Browntrout, not only to not vote for represenative Frank, but to let him know why.
In the end all a politician knows is how many voted for and how many voted against them, it is important that they know why people voted against them. If they lose, this may cause them to reflect on their poor choice, if they win it may cause them to listen more to the wishes of sportspeople during next years legislative session.
An E-mail of letter stateing your intensions and a short explanation is all that is needed.


----------



## riptheirlips (Jun 30, 2008)

Could someone post a list of who voted for HB 141 and who voted against 141. It is getting that time of year that we need to remember who voted for 141 at election time and vote them out of office.


----------



## browntrout (Apr 27, 2008)

Troll said:


> If I may ask you, Browntrout, not only to not vote for represenative Frank, but to let him know why.
> In the end all a politician knows is how many voted for and how many voted against them, it is important that they know why people voted against them. If they lose, this may cause them to reflect on their poor choice, if they win it may cause them to listen more to the wishes of sportspeople during next years legislative session.
> An E-mail of letter stateing your intensions and a short explanation is all that is needed.


Excellent point. I had previously emailed Rep. Frank and clearly explained my position
on this issue.


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

Senate:

http://le.utah.gov/~2010/status/hbillst ... 2.001s.txt

House:

http://le.utah.gov/~2010/status/hbillst ... 2.002h.txt

it is up to us to make the change this coming november!


----------



## 71nova (Jan 9, 2008)

Ya this is dumb, thats all I hear from landowners is crying about people who want to use "their" water. "They" cant' even use it unless they have water rights. My buddy from Washington says that all water is public out there and noone is alowed to even own land within 5 feet of water. That means you can fish it you just have to stay in the water or five feet up the bank, Awesome! I don't think they get any subsidies for this.


----------



## Yonni (Sep 7, 2007)

this is so retarded to add another fee when the majority of fishermen in Utah don't fish these streams, so why make all of us pay? Another example of tax all for the select few who will benefit!


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Yonni said:


> this is so retarded to add another fee when the majority of fishermen in Utah don't fish these streams, so why make all of us pay? Another example of tax all for the select few who will benefit!


Agree this will only benefit a very, very, very small percentage of Anglers who fish these private streams/rivers...there are enough Trout in this state for Trout Anglers...to raise the license fee on everyone to benefit a very, very, very few Trout Anglers is wrong...

The state should not even be involved in this...this would be something for the landowner and the Angler to negotiate a fee or compromise

Now to compare and contrast...Question as I don't know: Is this done to hunt on someones Private Land (hunting license fees go up for all for the few???)...Hunters do you all pay the fee for someone who wants to hunt on private property when you don't hunt on private property????

Okay...we fish for TM so lets raise the license on all to benefit...ME and a very, very, very few TM anglers...sounds good to me...is there any difference...NO!!!!

Next how will one know if an Angler even fish's a landowners private property river/stream????...So potentially this private property owner will get $$$ even if no-one 'EVER' fishes their private stream/river????...who benfits???...surely not the 'majority' of Utah Anglers that will not even come close to fish'n these private waters including have absoultely no desire to fish a privately owned river/stream...

If someone wants to fish private property then *raise their license fee* (OMG a rationale approach)...but don't raise the fee on everyone else who will 'NEVER' fish private property...

Give these Anglers who want to fish on the Smith, Jones, Hatfields or McCoys private land a different color license and/or special stamp on their license. Now, to me that would be fair...raising the fee for the rest who don't fish private land waters for Trout is anything but fair...totally unbeliveable is all I can really say unless I missed something in the reading of the story via the link... :roll: :roll:


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

So what about the ramps YOU use to fish your presious lakes? Why should stream angler have any money from their licenses go twords that? What about your TigerMuskies that are being raised out at Lee Kay? Not one of them will be going into any streams.
How much would you like it if the land owners off Browns point suddenly decide that they still own the land beneath the water and you drilling a hole and dropping your jig to the bottom is tresspassing?
I never expected to hear this kind of selfish response from you, so much for friend and denied equal rights.
I say require all fishing boats and snowmobiles used to fish a special license that costs a couple of hundred dollars, what to heck they can afford all that fancy equipment, they can afford to pay their way. May as well make them pay for all dam repairs too, stream fishers don't need no stinkin dams.
See what I'm saying, same thing you are saying.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Fee increases will always bring debate with them. Please keep it civil and respectful.
There is 2 sides to this and both have merit.
I'm not in favor of the increase myself but only because we had the Courts rule that we have the right to fish the rivers, only to have the politicians who listen to special interest groups that pay for their political campaigns, overturn the law.
This is a very sad thing for Utah and I for one will be voting for a new Governor this year.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Troll said:


> So what about the ramps YOU use to fish your presious lakes? Why should stream angler have any money from their licenses go twords that? What about your TigerMuskies that are being raised out at Lee Kay? Not one of them will be going into any streams.
> How much would you like it if the land owners off Browns point suddenly decide that they still own the land beneath the water and you drilling a hole and dropping your jig to the bottom is tresspassing?
> I never expected to hear this kind of selfish response from you, so much for friend and denied equal rights.
> I say require all fishing boats and snowmobiles used to fish a special license that costs a couple of hundred dollars, what to heck they can afford all that fancy equipment, they can afford to pay their way. May as well make them pay for all dam repairs too, stream fishers don't need no stinkin dams.
> See what I'm saying, same thing you are saying.


Troll why do you care anyways...for someone who hasn't bought a license including has stated you haven't registered any boating items plus you don't have a license (unless I misunderstood) including don't plan on buying a Utah license IMHO you don't have a dog in the fight as I see it...but you can change your mind as that is your right...

Hmmmm friend, equal rights...come-on last time I believe we met you was roughly 2 or 3 years ago a few PMs way back then...so friend don't really think so...acquaintance well yea...equal rights...WTH are you talking about...think'n your comparing apples and oranges Troll and this has nothing to do about the 'equal' rights debate and this forum isn't for that...

So answer the question about 'hunting' Troll...so do hunters have to pay extra for others who want to hunt on private land they'll never hunt on. o-||

Ohhhh and by the way as far as PV goes I do believe the feds own/manage that waterway...but again I could be wrong...and yes I pay a season pass to use PV as it saves us $$$ based on the amount we fish there.

Like Grandpa D stated keep it civil and if I put something in you Wheaties...oh well I'm sure you'll get over it if not try to F-O-C-U-S...and some day I'll break down what that acroynm means for you...


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

k2muskie

I do have plenty of "dogs in this fight." I do register a watercraft every year, buy a fishing license every year, and buy a state parks pass every year. 

I thought your comments were a lot selfish. It is the type of comments that you made which fracture all of us as sportsmen and sportswomen when working against special interests like the farm bureau and the realtors.

You may want to rethink your stance, because maybe the next time you will need those who only fish streams to have your back.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Pez Gallo said:


> I would pay at least $50-$100 a year to have the ability to fish ALL of the rivers and streams in the state each year.
> 
> I dont really mind an extra fee or license, but what streams would be open exactly? Will there be any close to where I live, or where you live?
> 
> 50 miles for the whole state isnt much.


I agree with you but it now appears that this program will only open up small parts of the disputed areas. It is entirely voluntary on the landowners part. Apparently, the DWR will only be bringing a few miles per year on line for public access. I have a feeling that owners of the majority of prime disputed waters will tell the DWR to pound sand, and we will largely just get access to marginal areas held by owners who want some extra cash. As such it seems to me to be a money grab for the legislature, the DWR, and some landowners.



Yonni said:


> this is so retarded to add another fee when the majority of fishermen in Utah don't fish these streams, so why make all of us pay? Another example of tax all for the select few who will benefit!





k2muskie said:


> Agree this will only benefit a very, very, very small percentage of Anglers who fish these private streams/rivers...there are enough Trout in this state for Trout Anglers...to raise the license fee on everyone to benefit a very, very, very few Trout Anglers is wrong...


I agree with what you are saying. It isn't fair. I don't think you two were doing this, but don't blame the stream angler, (or even the DWR). Blame your legislator! :evil: Perhaps you previously could have cared less when HB141 was in the legislature and the issue was lighting up the message boards. Maybe you figured that because you only fish lakes that it didn't affect you. Well, it looks like that wasn't the case now was it?

While you are at it, any support you may want to give to defeating HB141 in court and then getting a more fair law passed will be greatly appreciated. Help in the ballot box next month could also be beneficial.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

0


k2muskie said:


> Troll said:
> 
> 
> > So what about the ramps YOU use to fish your presious lakes? Why should stream angler have any money from their licenses go twords that? What about your TigerMuskies that are being raised out at Lee Kay? Not one of them will be going into any streams.
> ...


----------



## orvis1 (Sep 7, 2007)

Wow.. It sucks for fee's to go up and new fee's added to do the activity that I love. But truth be told they could charge $400 a year for a license and I would pay it. Frankly it is the best $40 I spend all year.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

Truth be told, $400 is about what I spent on licenses this year.
Non Res Idaho annual, non res Wyoming annual and conservation stamp, Non res Florida annual salt water, Non Res Florida fresh water, Non Res New York annual, Non res Arizona week, Non res Ontario week, Non res Vemont day, Non res Nebraska day.
This is not about the money to me, I'm addicted to fishing and like any other addict I will do what ever I have to do to fish. It's a matter of principle to me.


----------



## browntrout (Apr 27, 2008)

Troll is correct---The few accessible rivers are very crowded, especially during the summer. Until the stream laws are changed, I will throw streamers in the spring and late fall when very few are on the river. I love to walk a river.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

708 topics in fly fishing and 144 in warm water, but Kim thinks this affects only a very, very, very few fishers.

I wish there were a way to have a poll.
Do you boat fish only
Do you non boat fish only
Do you boat and non boat fish


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

I have to laugh, many of the Wyoming streams and rivers that Utahns like to fish are on private ground. Some of these are available under the "Access Yes" program. The Hamm's Fork, and LaBarge Creek are good examples. License fees were raised awhile back to help support the access program in the Private Lands, Public Wildlife (PLPW) among other Game and Fish Dept needs. Landowners get money from license sales interest, conservation stamp sales, restitution funds, and donations from individuals and organizations according to the miles of stream or acres of access provided to the public.

There are 917,000 acres of Wyoming private land available to the public under PLPW. The Walk-in Fishing Areas (WIFA) part of PLPW has about 90 miles of stream access and is growing.

Not without it's problems, i.e. some landowners have bailed out because of bad behavior from fisherman, the WIFA is a success. It was made possible by outdoorsman sitting down with private landowners and using respect and compromise instead of disdain and confrontation to iron out a program allowing access to lakes, streams and rivers on private land. 

Some of you support the things you hate while fishing Wyoming. Kinda odd, but hey, thanks.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

The Wyoming Supreme Court has never ruled that the public has access to the streambed of the waters of the state only to have the legislature enact a law negating that ruling. In fact it was that the appellate courts in UT that had relied on the Wyoming law that the UT Supreme Court found fault with in the Conanster v Johnson ruling.
The disdain comes from the false efforts of the land owners to hammer out a law with UT Represenative Lorie Fowlke and several represenatives of the fishing community and legislature in the writing of HB 81 over the course of a full year only to have Represenative Kay McKiff end run the legislation by submitting a back door brokered bill that was not even written on the final day of legislative bills having to be submitted. It was only numbered and then withheld until the final possible moments before the text being exposed.

Thanks for playing. Try to keep up or stand back and learn.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Troll said:


> ..............................
> 
> Thanks for playing. Try to keep up or stand back and learn.


Again: Some of you support the things you hate while fishing Wyoming. Kinda odd, but hey, thanks.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

What is hated? Wyoming has never had the right to incidentally touch streambeds while fishing. Utah has had those rights from the time of statehood until this year. What is hated is having rights denied and taken away.
Are you for having rights taken away or illegally denied?
If I buy in knowing the rules then I bought with full knowledge of those rules, If I buy and then the rules are changed with no recourse for a refund, that's called stealing/cheating in my book.
I hate theives and cheats, do you?


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

Wyoming's laws suck. Utah's laws suck.

Idaho got it right. Seems to have worked for them.

It's kind of odd that the state nestled against utah and wyoming has such a different approach.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Pez Gallo said:


> Wyoming's laws suck. Utah's laws suck.
> 
> Idaho got it right. Seems to have worked for them.


+1, (Montana got it right as well.)

As Utah continues to struggle through these access battles, lets just hope that they can take the best from ALL of the surrounding states laws and form a solution that works fairly for both sides.

Seeing some of our legislators in action has me question if they can pull it off though. :?


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Utah won't get it right.
Not as long as we have polititions running the state.
Some day, we the citizens will get fed up with politics as usual and then perhaps things will change.
Did someone say tea party?


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

LOVE YOU ALL!!! Troll didn't mean to irk you at all...you're a very nice guy. Again not pointing fingers at anyone but yep we'll pay whatever even if it is WRONG...i'm in Georgia fighting the dogs per the 'W' word...again didn't mean to offend and Troll I sincerely apologize to you...but haven't really chatted...maybe we'll meet again and BS...have a great week all...Georgia is well interesting to say the least...


----------



## Size Matters (Dec 22, 2007)

I think it is great what you are doing Troll you have a lot of knowledge on this we need someone like you to lead the fight . 8)


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

I guess I've upset one of the powers that be around here.
I'm getting PM's accusing me of being a hypocrit.


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

Grandpa D said:


> Utah won't get it right.
> Not as long as we have polititions running the state.
> Some day, we the citizens will get fed up with politics as usual and then perhaps things will change.
> Did someone say tea party?


Are you saying we should dress up as Real Estate agents and pour tea into the Provo or Weber River?


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Works for me.


----------

