# DWR angler access survey



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

How many of you guys got an email today from the DWR about angler access? It was apparently sent out to random anglers. It would appear that they are taking a very long look at some sort of fee or "stamp", as we have previously discussed. For those of you that didn't, here was the body of the text;


"In July 2008, the Utah Supreme Court issued a decision recognizing the public’s right to walk through state-owned rivers and streams that flow over private land, as long as the individuals are recreating lawfully (fishing or kayaking, for example). The court’s ruling, however, left many details undefined.

The Utah State Legislature is considering a bill to specify those details and possibly create a new program that manages fishing and other recreational activities in rivers/streams that flow over private land. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) volunteered to survey Utah anglers to determine if there is support for this type of program, who anglers think should pay for it and how much it should cost. The DWR also will use the survey to determine the types of waters people fish in (lakes or streams, for example).


The DWR randomly selected you to participate in this survey because you purchased a Utah fishing license this year. The survey should take 3–5 minutes to complete, and will remain open until November 9, 2009. Your individual answers will remain strictly confidential.

To participate in the survey, follow the link below:" (quote)


----------



## Leaky (Sep 11, 2007)

So where is the link? Didn't get an e-mail and would like to participate!!!


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

I doubt there was anything random about it. I'll bet cash money it was only sent to anglers that also own streams or land on rivers.

We need to really organize this year and let every legislator who even hints they will vote for any bill clarifying or atempting to modify the Supreme Court decision that we will work in their district to have them defeated.
We have this right, always have, it was denied for years, we should be suing for all the years we were denied our rights.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

> The Utah State Legislature is considering a bill to specify those details and possibly create a new program that manages fishing and other recreational activities in rivers/streams that flow over private land.


So _now _they want to specify details ?? I'm curious why this wasn't done before they boasted that we now have a legal right to trespass ??

I didn't get a letter like that Catherder (ouch) and if I had I would have told the DWR to shove it. The DWR was no where around nor made any comments when the decision was initially decided.


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

> I doubt there was anything random about it. I'll bet cash money it was only sent to anglers that also own streams or land on rivers.


I received the e-mail today. I dont own any land or streams, but I wish I did. I'll take the survey tomorrow...Link wont work on the blackberry :?


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

I didnt get one either. Post the link or email them asking them to post it here where fisherman actually talk about fishing.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I dont own ground but got invited to the survey. Link doesnt work as of yet for me though... people will hate me but I side with landowners on this issue. My dream is to buy some ground with my own private fishing spots.


-DallanC


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

DallanC said:


> I dont own ground but got invited to the survey. Link doesnt work as of yet for me though... people will hate me but I side with landowners on this issue. My dream is to buy some ground with my own private fishing spots.
> 
> -DallanC


I hate you. Haha JK, dude you can still do that. Just not a river. Buy some land, dig a pond in it. Fish get HUGE and you know they are there. And its all yours.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Nor-tah said:


> I hate you. Haha JK, dude you can still do that. Just not a river. Buy some land, dig a pond in it. Fish get HUGE and you know they are there. And its all yours.


 8)

-DallanC


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

DallanC said:


> I dont own ground but got invited to the survey. Link doesnt work as of yet for me though... people will hate me but I side with landowners on this issue. My dream is to buy some ground with my own private fishing spots.
> 
> -DallanC


There are miles of streams and rivers where you can do just that, still.
Did any one wade all the way up the Weber to Thousand Peaks ranch this year? I think not.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Leaky said:


> So where is the link? Didn't get an e-mail and would like to participate!!!


and



fatbass said:


> I got one and took the survey. The last paragraph of the email is this:
> 
> "If clicking on the web address above does not link you to the survey, then try copying and pasting the entire web address into your web browser, or simply type the entire web address as you see it above into the address bar of your web browser. *Please submit only one survey per person, and do not forward this email, as we will be unable to include duplicate responses or responses from people not on our original list*.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I was catching the football game. (was a good game!) I didn't want to post the actual link for the above reason that Fatbass noted. It also appeared from the content of some of the questions that the questions varied with different participants. Posting the link on an open forum might mess up the statistical nature of the survey design.

Nevertheless, I do think that it is noteworthy to all that follow this issue. Also, if you have an opinion on the issue, the DWR would likely still be interested in hearing from you via the general email contact.

I too don't own any streamside land.


----------



## Rodz&Riflez (Feb 16, 2009)

Both my wife and I received that e-mail, neither of the links worked. Anybody else having this problem?


----------



## caddisguy (Sep 10, 2007)

I email back when the link wouldn’t work and they emailed right back giving me the correct link which worked fine.


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

I didn't get the survey and I do own land with a stream running through it.


----------



## wayner33 (Dec 11, 2007)

I never received it and I also own land with a stream. I don't mind fisherman if they pick up there trash.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

wayner33 said:


> I never received it and I also own land with a stream. I don't mind fisherman if they pick up there trash.


wayner33, Thanks for that reply. Contact Stone Fly Society and arrange to have a cleanup on your stretch if you own land on a water way. Build relationships.

I received this reply from the DWR about the link.
Chris,

There has been an issue with some e-mail servers changing the link to the survey.
Go ahead and let your friends know that if people reply to the email they received that they'll be sent a new survey link. If you'd do that it would be a big help.

Thank you,
Robin


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

fishsnoop said:


> wayner33 said:
> 
> 
> > I never received it and I also own land with a stream. I don't mind fisherman if they pick up there trash.
> ...


Can you add email contacts to that list if we PM you our email address?


----------



## BerryNut (Dec 29, 2008)

I just recieved the e mail. I must say I I like the idea of surveying the people who this law will affect. I am also currently taking an advanced survey research course from UVU, and from what I have learned about surveys and questions you should ask that dont sway the respondents answers, I felt like some of the questions didnt do that. I cant remmeber the uestion off hand, but there was one that made me choose between two answers and I think the respondant should be able to mark more than one answer. Also as mentioned above it seems that how you answer one of the first questions, it brings on a set of questions for the respondant to answer. Seemed kinda weird the way it was conducted and this was my thining before reading this thread. JMO


----------



## rukus (Apr 11, 2008)

I got the survey too. For everybody that didn't, I would strongly urge you to still write the DWR about this issue. Here are the two items I felt like the DWR was wanting input on from the questions they posed me.

1) Does the current stream access law need to be clarified in order to create a unified understanding of the law.

2) Will you as a sportsman support a fee based government program that allows you fish on streams flowing through private property. (i.e. Will you be willing to pay $50 in order to fish on streams on private land) 

Personally, I am adamatly opposed at them creating another stupid program to "help resolve problems". Eventhough I don't own any prime fishing property, I can see many ways how this "program" will be a headache for everyone involved, landowner and fisherman alike.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I got one and responded. the links all worked for me.

Professionally, I've developed dozens of these kinds of surveys. And after taking it, I'm not sure it will answer the questions they are hoping to answer. The questions, if I can remember them:
-County of residence.
- Rate your awareness of the Supreme Court decision regarding stream access.
-This year, did you hunt/fish/boat?
-Did you hunt/fish/boat on private waters?
-Would you support a fee to provide access enhancements/habitat improvements/active management on private waters?

Not much else. And mind you, these are paraphrases on what was asked. But with so few questions, and such hallow questions, there is nothing they can actually measure with this thing. Which worries me when they try to apply/use the results in the legislative process this coming winter - the results will be meaningless and hallow.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> Professionally, I've developed dozens of these kinds of surveys. And after taking it, I'm not sure it will answer the questions they are hoping to answer. The questions, if I can remember them:
> -County of residence.
> - Rate your awareness of the Supreme Court decision regarding stream access.
> -This year, did you hunt/fish/boat?
> ...


There seems to be survey variation about how much of a fee would be supported. Some surveys apparently ask about $1, others $5,$10, and some surveys even say $50! (Mine did.) I think that there was also some language about whether it should be an across the board fee for all anglers or limited to just river users.

If the DWR thinks that they can get $50 more per year out of anglers by using the Conatser decision as an excuse, they better be prepared for a whole new level of criticism from the fishing public. It will be worse than what they got last year with their actions surrounding HB187.

Sadly, a big fee increase by the DWR might turn public opinion of the Joe six pack casual angler against the Conatser decision and what we have tried to accomplish legislatively. :x


----------



## cosmo71 (Aug 12, 2009)

Troll said:


> I doubt there was anything random about it. I'll bet cash money it was only sent to anglers that also own streams or land on rivers.


I got one this morning too and I don't own any land. It only took a couple of minutes to complete and who knows, maybe it will help us with water access.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

I got the survey as well. The link they sent out did not work for me. I replied back and apparently it doesn't work with many of the e-mail programs out there (mine is hotmail). They replied back with a different link and that one did work. FYI i am NOT a landowner along any streams, either.


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

*What Part of *"ALL"* does DWR Misunderstand?*

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=9 ... =S17374986
Dear Utah fishing license holder:

In July 2008, the Utah Supreme Court issued a decision recognizing the public's right to walk through state-owned rivers and streams that flow over private land, as long as the individuals are recreating lawfully (fishing or kayaking, for example). The court's ruling, however, left many details undefined.

The Utah State Legislature is considering a bill to specify those details and possibly create a new program that manages fishing and other recreational activities in rivers/streams that flow over private land. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) volunteered to survey Utah anglers to determine if there is support for this type of program, who anglers think should pay for it and how much it should cost. The DWR also will use the survey to determine the types of waters people fish in (lakes or streams, for example).

The DWR randomly selected you to participate in this survey because you purchased a Utah fishing license this year. The survey should take 3-5 minutes to complete, and will remain open until November 9, 2009. Your individual answers will remain strictly confidential.

Thank you in advance for your participation.
Sincerely,
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Angler Access Survey (B1)

1. Which county do you live in?

2. How familiar are you with the Utah Supreme Court decision recognizing the public's right to walk through state-owned rivers and streams that flow over private land, as long as the individuals are recreating lawfully (fishing or kayaking, for example)?

3. Which outdoor activities have you participated in so far in 2009 in Utah? 
(check all that apply)
Which outdoor activities have you participated in so far in 2009 in Utah? (check all that apply) 
Fishing
Hunting
Rafting or floating on streams and/or rivers
None of the above

4. Which of the following types of water have you fished in Utah so far in 2009?

5. So far in 2009, have you fished on any stretch of river/stream in Utah that flowed over private land?

6. Was the portion(s) of river/stream that you fished, that flowed over private land, closed to angler access before the Utah Supreme Court decision?

7. How likely are you to fish rivers/streams in Utah that flow over private lands that are now open to angler access due to the Utah Supreme Court decision?

8. If a new program was created by the Utah State Legislature to manage fishing in rivers/streams that flow over private land, how important are the following to you?

Not important Important Very important
Maintaining access sites (parking, fence crossings, signs)
Educating the public about access to public waters.
Restoring, enhancing and maintaining rivers/streams
Managing the fisheries (fish stocking, harvest surveys, fish studies)
Enforcing laws

9. Would you support a $10 permit required only of individuals who fish in rivers/streams flowing over private land now open to anglers due to the Utah Supreme Court decision? (The money would fund a program to manage those waters.)

10. Please provide any other comments you have about angler access to rivers/streams that flow over private land.
###############################

*Utah State Constitution:*
Article XVII, Section 1.** [Existing rights confirmed.]
**** All existing rights to the use of any of the waters in this State for any useful or beneficial purpose, are hereby recognized and confirmed. 
************************************
*Utah Code* 
Title 73 Water and Irrigation 
Chapter 1 General Provisions
Section 1 Waters declared property of public. 
73-1-1.** Waters declared property of public.
**** 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.

No Change Since 1953
***********************************
*Utah Supreme Court Conatser ruling:*
I. STATE WATERS ARE OWNED BY THE PUBLIC, WHICH HAS AN EASEMENT
TO USE THOSE WATERS, WHILE THE BEDS OF STATE WATERS MAY BE
PRIVATELY OWNED

II. THE DISTRICT COURT INCORRECTLY INTERPRETED THE SCOPE OF THE
PUBLIC'S EASEMENT IN STATE WATERS

A. The Scope of the Public's Easement Allows the Public to
Engage in All Recreational Activities That Utilize the Water

B. Touching the Beds of State Waters Is Incidental to All
Recreational Rights Provided for in the Easement

CONCLUSION:
¶30 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.

http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/sup...tser071808.pdf Conatser Supreme Court ruling
http://www.utcourts.gov/courts/sup/s....cgi?mon=20084 Conatser Supreme Court Oral Argument of April 3, 2008
********************************

By using terms derived from the narrow scope 187 ("Angler", "walk", "rivers", "streams", "fishing", "flow over", none used by the Constitution, Code or Conatser's Justices) rather than the broad scope terms found in Utah Constitution, Code and Supreme Court Conatser ("all recreational rights", "all recreational activities", "all lawful activities" "all waters in this state, whether above or under the ground" "all existing rights") in a survey sent to thousands of people, DWR will amass data for recommendation on how to fund (or not fund) a bill that is based on incorrect, misleading and biased info gathered from the survey questions and intro message shown above.

Also shown above are Utah Constitution, Code and Supreme Court Conatser's exact words which, when combined, provide for *ALL* rights, activities, water and uses rather than *SOME*. Compare the wording and decide for yourselves if the survey enhances an outcome of *preemption* or *solidification* of Conatser and the rights under law gained from it.

Shouldn't DWR be emailed, asked to trash the present survey and produce a new survey, as well as their explanation paper web page written last year during 187, about a new, revised explanation, funding and funding use based on the Utah Constitution, Code and Conatser rather than 187?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Two things, 


rstrouts said:


> 9. Would you support a $10 permit required only of individuals who fish in rivers/streams flowing over private land now open to anglers due to the Utah Supreme Court decision? (The money would fund a program to manage those waters.)


Be advised that the survey asks respondents different amounts and possibly no specific amount on question 9. I had $50 asked for where your copy says $10. Others have been asked $1 or $5.



rstrouts said:


> By using terms derived from the narrow scope 187 ("Angler", "walk", "rivers", "streams", "fishing", "flow over", none used by the Constitution, Code or Conatser's Justices) rather than the broad scope terms found in Utah Constitution, Code and Supreme Court Conatser ("all recreational rights", "all recreational activities", "all lawful activities" "all waters in this state, whether above or under the ground" "all existing rights") in a survey sent to thousands of people, DWR will amass data for recommendation on how to fund (or not fund) a bill that is based on incorrect, misleading and biased info gathered from the survey questions and intro message shown above.
> 
> Shouldn't DWR be emailed, asked to trash the present survey and produce a new survey, as well as their explanation paper web page written last year during 187, about a new, revised explanation, funding and funding use based on the Utah Constitution, Code and Conatser rather than 187?


I agree with your assessment. The survey also suggests to me that the DWR may be looking at Conatser now as a money making opportunity and are not as "with us" as much as I have read they were supposed to be. As we have discussed previously, the costs to manage and improve the "public water over private beds" fisheries are not high. Multiple funding possibilities may exist. As I have previously stated, I would support a reasonable fee or a user stamp if you will to help with these costs. However, it appears that the costs the DWR is at least considering are significant. I have major concerns about this. I also have concerns about the effects on the opinion (re: Conatser) of the general fishing public if the DWR tries to hit us with a sizable price increase because of Conatser.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

If the DWR was to get some extra money from anglers, they could do more things like they did a few years ago, when they purchased the property below Little Hole, on the Green River.
This stopped a developer from building a private resort on the river.
I would support the fee as long as the money was restricted and could only be used by the DWR for stream projects.


----------



## BerryNut (Dec 29, 2008)

in the comment section at then end of the survey I put the exact thing Grandpa D just wrote. I dont know how much good it will do but if everyone who gets the survey gave thier opinion on if there was a slight increase in fees, maybe the DWR would have to look at it more closely. I also agree the DWR needs to throw this survey out and start new, as has been stated already. It seems this was thrown together very quickly and this issue should NOT be rushed.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

Another FYI

Chris,

Let me clarify that the Division has not asked for an increase in the cost of fishing licenses, or creation of a user permit, to fund a program that manages rivers/streams flowing over private lands that are now open to angler access due to the Utah Supreme Court decision.

The intent of the survey is simply to gage the level of support for such a program and if Utah anglers think it would be appropriative for everyone (all people who purchase fishing licenses) to help pay to manage the areas or just those who utilize them.

I hope that helps,


Robin Thomas
Marketing Coordinator & Legislative Liaison

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

PS 

By the way, I've gotten great response rates on the survey...lots of people have taken it, which will is great.

We will also be able to use the data to learn what types of waters people are fishing in (lakes vs. streams, for example. This will help everyone interested in the issue have a better idea of how many people are actually using the areas now open to angler access due to the Utah Supreme Court decision.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

http://wildlife.utah.gov/blueribbon/budget.php

I think this is where they should start to procure funds for this issue. Thoughts?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

fishsnoop said:


> http://wildlife.utah.gov/blueribbon/budget.php
> 
> I think this is where they should start to procure funds for this issue. Thoughts?


Couldn't agree more. Using Montana as a precedent, the dollar figure needed for "Conatser" water projects should be within the budget range of the Blue ribbon program. Then if more is needed, then maybe a $1 or 5$ "access stamp" could be considered to bridge a possible gap.

When I see them considering $10 and especially $50 annual fee levies, it seems like way more money than what would be used for "Conatser" projects and has the appearance of a money grab to me. I would love to be wrong in this assessment however.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

The latest draft of the bill has the following update on the "access stamp".

23-19-21.1. Public access stamp.
(1) A person purchasing a combination license or fishing license under sections 23-
19-17 or 23-19-21 shall purchase a public access stamp.
(2) A public access stamp shall cost $5.
(3) (a) There is created within the General Fund a restricted account known as the
Public Access Restricted Account.
(b) The Public Access Restricted Account consists of:
(i) monies deposited in the account from the purchase of public access stamps;
and
(ii) interest on account monies.
(4) Upon appropriation by the Legislature, monies from the Public Access Restricted
Account shall be used by the division for protecting and preserving public access to
public waters, including by:
Page 3 of 8
(a) stocking fish;
(b) enforcing wildlife laws on public waters flowing over private beds, as defined in
Section 73-6a-102;
(c) educating the public about access to public waters;
(d) constructing fence ladders to assist the users of public waters, as requested by
property owners;
(e) improving habitats for aquatic species; and
(f) protecting or enhancing public access to public waters.
(5) The division shall report annually until December 1, 2016 to the Legislature's Natural
Resources, Agriculture, and the Environment Interim Committee concerning:
(a) the division's expenditures from the fund; and
(b) other matters concerning public access to public waters of which it is aware. 


On balance, it doesn't sound too bad. It does appear that the DWR would charge everybody though. I do have concerns about that. There apparently is another subcommittee meeting today, so it could change yet again. I do not know if this was added before or after the DWR survey results were tabulated.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

$5.00 is a small amount to pay to have access to places that were off limits for so many years.
One way to look at it is that the $5.00 is our donation to help pay the attorney fees to get our access back.
We would still be paying for it out of general budget dollors anyway.
I won't use the lands/waters that will become open to us very much but that doesn't matter to me.
This is something that we should have had for years and now it may finally come to be.


----------

