# HB141 passed



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Sadly, HB141 passed 50-25. While is was no surprise to me, it is still disappointing. It still has to pass the Senate and get signed by the Governor. On to the Senate.


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

ok, so what does this mean right this second?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

kochanut said:


> ok, so what does this mean right this second?


It means that it will be voted on in the Senate at some point in the near future (I don't know when) and if it passes there be either signed by the Governor or vetoed.


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

what i was asking was, does the supreme court ruling still stand as of right now?

sorry im not politically savy one bit


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

kochanut said:


> what i was asking was, does the supreme court ruling still stand as of right now?
> 
> sorry im not politically savy one bit


Yes. The court ruling still stands.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Yes.

But, if it passes, then it will be the law of the land at the point of time it takes effect. (probably around May 1st.) There will then probably be a court challenge of it's constitutionality that will likely be initiated right away, but will probably take years!


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

We were doomed from the start. All the emails and visits did little or nothing to change the outcome of the vote as all parties all ready had their mind made up. It is now our responsibility to make sure that those who voted for this bill are not elected again.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

This past year gave the agricultural and real estate lobbies enough time to really ramp up their behind-the-scenes, good ole boy connections to call in favors and seal deals. Anglers, on the other hand, seemed not as organized or geared up to do battle this year as last. Certainly some worked their tails off, but on the whole, unlike last year, lots of us mostly shrugged our shoulders when we should have been up on Capitol Hill making noise and carrying signs. 

The one thing that gets the attention of legislators more than their good ole boy network and campaign donations is having television cameras shoved in their faces and reporters wandering the halls at the capitol asking them pointed questions. On the stream bill issue, we just didn't make that happen this year as much as we probably should have done.


----------



## ACHY (Oct 18, 2007)

HunterGeek said:


> This past year gave the agricultural and real estate lobbies enough time to really ramp up their behind-the-scenes, good ole boy connections to call in favors and seal deals. Anglers, on the other hand, seemed not as organized or geared up to do battle this year as last. Certainly some worked their tails off, but on the whole, unlike last year, lots of us mostly shrugged our shoulders when we should have been up on Capitol Hill making noise and carrying signs.
> 
> The one thing that gets the attention of legislators more than their good ole boy network and campaign donations is having television cameras shoved in their faces and reporters wandering the halls at the capitol asking them pointed questions. On the stream bill issue, we just didn't make that happen this year as much as we probably should have done.


Why do we automatically assume that there were special favors and deals going on behind the scenes here? Why do we automatically assume that those who voted for HB141 were somehow "bought" by special interest groups? I happen to know my representative fairly well and I know that he voted the way he did because he honestly believes it was the right thing to do. I am certain that campaign contributions had nothing to do with it. Yes, he has friends and associates who are ranchers and farmers and who were opposed to HB80, but those relationships were developed long before he became a legislator. He was elected because of who he is and people knew he would stand by certain principles. And I suspect it is similar for most of our legislators. To suggest otherwise without evidence is incredibly insulting.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

ACHY said:


> HunterGeek said:
> 
> 
> > This past year gave the agricultural and real estate lobbies enough time to really ramp up their behind-the-scenes, good ole boy connections to call in favors and seal deals. Anglers, on the other hand, seemed not as organized or geared up to do battle this year as last. Certainly some worked their tails off, but on the whole, unlike last year, lots of us mostly shrugged our shoulders when we should have been up on Capitol Hill making noise and carrying signs.
> ...


I have to buy into his thought wave at least 1/2 way because I know one of them that did vote for it. It wasn't the first time- it won't be his last but I will do my best to make it tougher for him.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

ACHY said:


> Why do we automatically assume that there were special favors and deals going on behind the scenes here? Why do we automatically assume that those who voted for HB141 were somehow "bought" by special interest groups?


Why are you assuming that we're assuming that it's that black and white. I don't think that legislators were, "bought," as you put it. I doubt that under-the-table money is involved in hardly any legislative actions, and I'm not questioning the integrity of our legislators - most of whom are good, honorable people who are doing their best.

What I alluded to in my post were the persuasive abilities of organized lobbyists who have the already existing connections, the right phone numbers to the key players and the resources to build and maintain long-term relationships and who know how work those relationships and who do so for a living. I'm talking also about the behind-the-scenes committee meetings, and office get-togethers and casual in-the-hall conversations. I'm also referring to the insidious consequences of campaign contributions, like those outlined in this Deseret News article: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7053 ... group.html.

I'm not suggesting anything unethical or criminal went on or that anyone was bought or blackmailed or anything like that. Instead, I'm just pointing to the way things work in politics - both in Utah and in Washington.

Politics is all about the art of persuasion, and some groups and causes have organizations, connections, PR people, lobbyists, contributors, old friends, etc., that are more persuasive than others. It's not so black and white, ACHY; it's a mixed bag of convictions, ideals, hard work, listening, plus a good deal of wheeling, dealing, coaxing, partnering, befriending, compromising, hobnobbing and networking that can make things happen in politics. Those who play the game best, tend to win. The agriculture and real estate lobby in this state is highly organized and they've played the legitimate game of political influence with great success for many, many years, and this year, their experience at that game has paid off.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

ACHY said:


> Why do we automatically assume that there were special favors and deals going on behind the scenes here? Why do we automatically assume that those who voted for HB141 were somehow "bought" by special interest groups? I am certain that campaign contributions had nothing to do with it. To suggest otherwise without evidence is incredibly insulting.


It is just like SFW, they are not the ones who ultimately make the decisions on our big game but they just as well be for all their force. SFW intimidates everyone all the way down the line and they get what they want. How is the Farm Bureau and ranchers any different? It is the exact same thing here. If you believe politics are fair and truthful, you have much to learn. I dare say there were hundreds of thousands of dollars thrown around and special favors given that influenced their decisions. I sent 294 e-mails to people who needed to get them to see what their voters think of their actions(or future actions). I have received 8 replies all from people who opposed HB 141. What does that tell you? The others are bought and sold by lobbies. There is no way around it. Wake up and look around. You have been in the dark for far too long.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

What I dont get is how Reps Folkes bill was voted down by such a margin when Rep Ferrys bill was beat last year. She is my rep and every peice of legistlation she puts through is well thought out and worked over. She has to carry some kind of respect by now?? What gives?? I think we should all blitz the govenors office and make sure he vetos it. I see it passing in the senate. Bry, is this the right course??


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

Sorry i'm not up on the whole thing with this bill. So if someone that know could just give a quick rundown. Is this limiting public from entering private property to fish?


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

You been in a cave!!?? We could have used you before this all went south. There is another thread with a copy of the bill. Its pretty resrtictive and has only been in the works a short while...


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

everybody needs to relax. This will end up back in front of the supreme court and those folks will shoot this ridiculous legislation down. I would also think those justices will give the legislators a public tongue lashing to boot.


----------



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

Nor-tah said:


> What I dont get is how Reps Folkes bill was voted down by such a margin when Rep Ferrys bill was beat last year. She is my rep and every peice of legistlation she puts through is well thought out and worked over. She has to carry some kind of respect by now?? What gives?? I think we should all blitz the govenors office and make sure he vetos it. I see it passing in the senate. Bry, is this the right course??


My best guess.. The Gov will not veto, its an election year.

Hit the Senate!!!

1) Bad process -- the this represents the a greater threat than last years HB-187. It's a bill drafted in secret with less public input than 187 and no public process, and it sets up the same kind of highly political and highly controversial process for determining which streams the public can access and which they can't. All the arguments used against 187 apply here, and, given the alternatives, with even greater force.

(2) Expense -- HB-141 guarantees expensive and time consuming litigation over the legality of the bill itself and over individual stream reaches and whether the public has been allowed access in the past.


----------



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

luv2fsh&hnt said:


> everybody needs to relax. This will end up back in front of the supreme court and those folks will shoot this ridiculous legislation down. I would also think those justices will give the legislators a public tongue lashing to boot.


Your probably right..... so exactly who is going to get arrested?

Conatser took 8 years... this isn't going to fly through this time either.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

I aint sceered. Been there done that. I also think it would very likely be somewhat easy to get an expedited review by the UTSC as I believe they would be very anxious to address this issue and spank the legislators for being so retarded.


----------



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

luv2fsh&hnt said:


> I aint sceered. Been there done that.


Inquiring minds want to know what this means? ^^^^^^
Use email through site if you prefer


----------



## Crash (Mar 20, 2008)

It doesn't seem to matter what the general public deems legally right or fair anymore. I have talked to my reps. I get the same ol crap. We want to do right by the majority. Well the majority thinks your wrong. I was hoping this year there would be a better explanation of the stream access. Not restrictions to our access. I'm sorry but a stream bed is constantly changing. You cannot own something that isn't there. If I have to rappel again this year to fish some of the rivers I will. Just don't take them away.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

ACHY said:


> Why do we automatically assume that there were special favors and deals going on behind the scenes here? Why do we automatically assume that those who voted for HB141 were somehow "bought" by special interest groups? I happen to know my representative fairly well and I know that he voted the way he did because he honestly believes it was the right thing to do. I am certain that campaign contributions had nothing to do with it. Yes, he has friends and associates who are ranchers and farmers and who were opposed to HB80, but those relationships were developed long before he became a legislator. He was elected because of who he is and people knew he would stand by certain principles. And I suspect it is similar for most of our legislators. To suggest otherwise without evidence is incredibly insulting.


Well said Achy! If 80 had passed yesterday, those who opposed could have made just as crazy of unreasonable claims against those who passed it. A few people throw around on this topic that "the majority" want this or that, well the majority of reps did not and they do by an overwhelming margin vote for what the majority of their constituents want. So, while I feel for those of you who put in a lot of time to oppose this bill and this type of bill, congrats and props for putting in the time and doing something that you believe in. However, I don't believe it to be an accurate assessment to throw accusations about those who oppose you as unethical or whatever other accusation may be thought of.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> ACHY said:
> 
> 
> > Why do we automatically assume that there were special favors and deals going on behind the scenes here? Why do we automatically assume that those who voted for HB141 were somehow "bought" by special interest groups? I happen to know my representative fairly well and I know that he voted the way he did because he honestly believes it was the right thing to do. I am certain that campaign contributions had nothing to do with it. Yes, he has friends and associates who are ranchers and farmers and who were opposed to HB80, but those relationships were developed long before he became a legislator. He was elected because of who he is and people knew he would stand by certain principles. And I suspect it is similar for most of our legislators. To suggest otherwise without evidence is incredibly insulting.
> ...


Well said......Both of you !!


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

When HB 187 was going around I emailed many reps and asked them the feedback they were getting. ALL of them said that they were getting 10 to 1 emails from fisherman and outdoorsman asking to oppose. So yes... the MAJORITY wants access. 10 to 1... I still have the emails if you wanna call me a liar...


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> [quote="luv2fsh&hnt":3nbik1no]I aint sceered. Been there done that.


Inquiring minds want to know what this means? ^^^^^^
Use email through site if you prefer[/quote:3nbik1no]

It means I have been arrested before. It's been a little over fifteen years ago but I am no stranger to law enforcement. I even have a place in mind almost sure to have the authorities get called.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> When HB 187 was going around I emailed many reps and asked them the feedback they were getting. ALL of them said that they were getting 10 to 1 emails from fisherman and outdoorsman asking to oppose. So yes... the MAJORITY wants access. 10 to 1... I still have the emails if you wanna call me a liar...


You LIAR!!! :mrgreen: 
That fact certainly may be true, however that figure is quite distinct from the majority of citizens wanting it passed, that was my inference.


----------



## troutgass (May 5, 2009)

Huge29 said:


> Nor-tah said:
> 
> 
> > When HB 187 was going around I emailed many reps and asked them the feedback they were getting. ALL of them said that they were getting 10 to 1 emails from fisherman and outdoorsman asking to oppose. So yes... the MAJORITY wants access. 10 to 1... I still have the emails if you wanna call me a liar...
> ...


Do we really know how many citizens wanted HB141 to pass? We know how many politicians voted for it, but that does not mean how many average people like me had a say in it. Regardless of which side your on you have to admit that the reps get their information from somewhere and most of the time it is lobbyist or those who have the the most money to get heard.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

troutgass said:


> Do we really know how many citizens wanted HB141 to pass? We know how many politicians voted for it, but that does not mean how many average people like me had a say in it. Regardless of which side your on you have to admit that the reps get their information from somewhere and most of the time it is lobbyist or those who have the the most money to get heard.


Well said, that was exactly my point that I did not state very clearly, the term that the "majority wanted it" was being thrown around quite loosely IMHO and I don't know that anyone has any idea what "the majority" truly wants. Sadly enough, "the majority" of Utahns likely have no idea what is even going on on this issue.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> Sadly enough, "the majority" of Utahans likely have no idea what is even going on on this issue.


Sadly, you are correct. And sadly, that is the case for most issues related to wildlife.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

http://www.sltrib.com/outdoors/ci_14450751


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> http://www.sltrib.com/outdoors/ci_14450751


Thanks for that, that reminds me of my primary issue. Conatser specified that incidental contact with the river bottom during otherwise legal use (correct me if I am mistaken) is legal. This bill that some people call necessary to make enforcement clear as a compromise....*expands* the ruling to include use up to the high water mark. This expansion clearly goes beyond the public's use of the water since there is no water there. Said expansion clearly encroaches on the rights of the real property owner, period! So, all of us fisherman can continue to use the water with any incidental contact with the river bed as far as HB 80 not passing. I know that all of the ranchers are liars and exaggerate and regularly shoot people who are exercising their rights granted to them by Buddha himself.... :roll: Now on to the next issue of bill HB141...


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Here is a personal story. I fish Thistle Creek. When I do, I wade through some private land. I bother no one and I dont cut the baracade he has place to keep me out. I have fished it a lot and I NEVER see the rancher while wading. I wade through and exit his property and then walk back on the highway. Everytime I do this he comes out screaming. I calmly explain that I was just fishing and that as per the law, I stayed in the water. THis is dificult to do, there are many deep pools and I have been up to my armpits at times. This rancher has told me everytime that I have no right to be there and that if I step out at any time he will have the sheriff there and I will be paying a tresspass ticket of 1100 dollars. HB 80 allowed me to respectfully walk around these unsafe areas to wade. This is my problem with how the law currently stands....


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Since I am home sick and have little to do *besides write emails to my Senator* and read UWN and UOTF, I will reply to a couple of items, although I feel this has been beaten to death.



Nor-tah said:


> This is my problem with how the law currently stands....


I would gently remind everyone that none of this was originally clarified with Conatser. Sadly, one of the reasons the opponents of HB80 may have gained traction was that this *myth *that Hb80 expanded the easement significantly. If HB141 somehow loses in the Senate, the next go round probably should be written to use wet boot as the standard, so the opponents cannot use this issue as a scare tactic. As I have written before, it isn't the best, but it is good enough for the recreationalists.



Huge29 said:


> So, all of us fisherman can continue to use the water with any incidental contact with the river bed


Not if HB141 passes.

From the bill

(3) A person may not access or use a public water on private property for recreational
189 purposes if the private property is property to which access is restricted, unless public
190 recreational access is established under Section 73-29-202.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

So they throw up a sign and its off limits to fish. Pretty sad that the supreme courts decision will soon mean nothing. :?


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

HUGE,
I want you to visualize waters in Utah and think about OHWM vs. wet boot and after you have thought about all waters in this state tell me which one limits more. Because wet boot +3 feet like HB 141 grants has no boundary as long as water is present, even in high water I could walk as long as I was within 3 feet of the water and that could very well be way above the OHWM. We have tried to convey this to the opposition and legislature but they just don't get it because they are not listening. You tell me what is a more thoughtful bill HB 80 with many groups and people involved in it's formation or HB 141, one judge in his study with the constitution and himself present?
Just some thoughts.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> So they throw up a sign and its off limits to fish. Pretty sad that the supreme courts decision will soon mean nothing. :?


Feel free to call me on my cell phone if you need bail money Kyle.


----------



## Crash (Mar 20, 2008)

I saw this happening. I wrote about it for the last two years. Someone on here even told me to not worry about it since the Supreme Court made a ruling. I have been talking to my step-dad who is a lawyer and he said it was a matter of time. Money seems to be the biggest thing here. My biggest problem is that this issue is not being put to a vote by the people. What can we do? It sounds like the majority of us on here have tried doing our part. As said before the majority of Utahns probably don't realize what is happening. Can we get one of the fishing or hunting clubs to help put some weight on these guys? Or maybe talk to them about buying more land and allowing the public to use it?


----------



## Leaky (Sep 11, 2007)

Problem is I would guess that 80-90% of the general public just ain't interested in the bil land would take the ultra conservative view of private property rights, no matter what, sad to say.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Leaky said:


> Petersen,
> +1 and more.  Problem is I would guess that 80-90% of the general public just ain't interested in the bil land would take the ultra conservative view of private property rights, no matter what, sad to say.


What exactly is "ultra conservative"? :?


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

The fact that HB 187 didn't pass and HB 141 did seems to indicate that there is more behind the scense going on. I don't think the reps all of sudden had a change of heart, I don't know how you can say that the wealth landowners money didn't have some significant influence on this issue. My representative voted for and supported HB 80, told me he felt it was a fair compromise, but then turned around and voted for HB 141, he encouraged me to keep fighting this issue. He more or less told me he voted for 141 because he felt it would be best for him to. I hate politics so much it makes me almost want to become one :twisted: (a politician I mean)


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

Petersen said:


> Crash said:
> 
> 
> > As said before the majority of Utahns probably don't realize what is happening.
> ...


I have had an opportunity to talk to a lot of people (as I am passionate about this issue) including co workers, family members, people who have nothing invested either way, maybe it's the way I explain it is biased  but more of them agree that recreational uses should have access to river and stream beds as long as they respect the land. But if I deserve to lose my rights to access the land because there are some public people who cut fences, vandalize etc. shouldn't you give up your right to own a gun because others use guns to kill people.

I don't think our representatives are representing the majority of the people and I think this is sad. One day PETA or the ACLU is going to come with a lot of power and money and in that situation I hope our reps choose differently and support the majority of the public and let us keep our guns and hunting privileges.
I like the idea of putting it up to a vote by the people, then we'll get everyone's view on the issue.
IMHO!!!

I think this has been a good discussion by the way, although PRO I think your on the wrong side of the fence on this one, and I've usually found you to be the on the same side of the fence as me 99% of the time. Hey, if Montana can do it can't we?


----------



## Leaky (Sep 11, 2007)

The opposite of ultra liberal. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Bhilly81 (Oct 18, 2009)

While out fishing today I got a sheet of paper with alot of senate names and emails and cell as well as home phone numbers I sent an email to each and every one of them but if anyone else needs a list of email addresses pm me and I will get them to you and if you want phone numbers also I can do that I just don't have the time to post it all up right now I havnt been following this to close in the past but let's get it shut down now


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Leaky said:


> The opposite of ultra liberal. :lol: :lol: :lol:


What is ultra liberal? To me that would be libertarian.  :wink:


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Who needs Wiki when ya got UWN. :lol: :wink:


----------

