# SFW deciphered



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

I think I figured it out. I know what the Fish in their name stands for.
Sportsmen for FISH (Furthering Interests in Sport Hunting) and wildlife


----------



## TOgden (Sep 10, 2007)

Bugchukar I think you have a good point there. The SFW has not done enough for the anglers to warrant having the word fish in their title. They just use it to fool people into believing they support fishing.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

http://wildlife.utah.gov/fishing/hb187-position.php

This Chicken Little Sky is Falling stuff is nonsensical.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> http://wildlife.utah.gov/fishing/hb187-position.php
> 
> This Chicken Little Sky is Falling stuff is nonsensical.


This is the same crap the DWR has released already. They "worked closely with the Ferry" to keep it out of public view until a few weeks ago. WE were never involved with any of it until then. Yeah, it will open up previously off limits waters but it will shut down several miles of waters we have always fished legally. The whole bill is a joke. It is a win/lose situation with the landowners winning the battle. Too much money and special interests involved for us to even stand a fighting chance. :x


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

If you don't like the DWR Position on HB 187, write the DWR and voice your opinion. I don't like it and I plan on telling them so. It will be civil of course. I'm sending my displeasure to Mr. Karpowitz at [email protected]. Before anybody jumps my case for posting Mr. Karpowitz's email address, it's available for anybody that cares to look it up on the DWR public web site.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

I sent 2 e-mails to him without a response. :wink:


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

I wish I could get some toilet paper to run through the printer, I d print out the dwrs position and put it to good use. I think the reason the big game guys arent concerned is the DWR is working with landowners to secure more CWMU's, some of the very landowners that would be affected by this bill. Might be wrong, but analyze away.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

bugchuker said:


> I wish I could get some toilet paper to run through the printer, I d print out the dwrs position and put it to good use. I think the reason the big game guys arent concerned is the DWR is working with landowners to secure more CWMU's, some of the very landowners that would be affected by this bill. Might be wrong, but analyze away.


What about the guys who are both... yet still aren't terrified of this bill? 8) Analyze away. For what its worth, I also have had trouble getting responses from Mr. Karpowitz but I know the email was received so the ball is in his court now.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

bugchuker said:


> I wish I could get some toilet paper to run through the printer, I d print out the dwrs position and put it to good use. I think the reason the big game guys arent concerned is the DWR is working with landowners to secure more CWMU's, some of the very landowners that would be affected by this bill. Might be wrong, but analyze away.


 -_O-

I am laughing but am also disappointed because I feel the same way.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> http://wildlife.utah.gov/fishing/hb187-position.php
> 
> This Chicken Little Sky is Falling stuff is nonsensical.


+1


----------



## cacherinthewry (Dec 20, 2007)

EmptyNet said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > http://wildlife.utah.gov/fishing/hb187-position.php
> ...


What the hell are you giving a +1 to? A link to the DWR as a reply to a conversation of SFW? The linked statement doesn't even mention SFW!

...unless you're suggesting that SFW owns the DWR?


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

What is nonsensical is the fact that people will stand by or support their rights being taken away by special interest groups. I'm a hunter as well as a fisherman, I use public land for both, what if the next bill was to prohibit public access to public roads across private property? would worrying or opposing that be nonsensical as well, I guess it depends on which side you are on or how much money you have.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

Very good point, Bigchucker.

What if this blossoms into a public roads crossing private lands issue? It's the next logical step for land owners.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Troll said:


> Very good point, Bigchucker.
> 
> What if this blossoms into a public roads crossing private lands issue? It's the next logical step for land owners.


Absolutely! They get an inch, they take a mile. Sounds familiar huh?? Wasn't it someone on this forum?? I can see many other bad things coming from this 1 idiotic, one-sided bill. Only time will tell if it gets that far. :evil:


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Troll said:


> Very good point, Bigchucker.
> 
> What if this blossoms into a public roads crossing private lands issue? It's the next logical step for land owners.


It was me that said give an inch and they'll take a mile, making reference to anglers and their push for access. I don't think its even a realistic suggestion for landowners to push shutting down public roads across private ground. Not only does the public use roadways but they are also access routes for government/emergency usage. Explain how the stream running through somebody's private ground/backyard is necessary for function by emergency services or even for daily use by government or public entities and then I might accept that you have a point about landowners chasing down the closing of public roads through private ground. When was the last time a fire department had to row or wade down Ogden canyon to fight a house fire? I'd imagine in the case of roads, there have been signed public easement agreements or something of that nature that had to be squared away before the roads were even constructed. The two are really totally different situations. You really think once landowners get a bill to go through restricting angler access to the streams on their property that they're going to start asking to shut down roads into running through public farm/ranch ground into the Uintas, or out by Charleston/DC? What about frontage roads out by the Weber? Doesn't seem like they're interested in anything but a little bit of privacy and/or respect for their right to privacy which doesn't appear to be something anglers are willing to compromise on unfortunately. I think the suggestion about shutting down public roads reeks of desperation to find a leg to stand on or justify "the sky is falling" sentiment that seems to be running rampant through the ranks of anglers these days. :?


----------



## nightfish (Apr 29, 2008)

HB187 is not a privacy issue, it's an access issue.

HB187 is not about taking private property. As it is written, it is about taking public access by denying an easement.

RR, while I get what you are saying, there is some similarity to roads, as it relates to the right of the public to travel within an easement. And there is also an irony in that many private landowners are fighting to open SR2477 roads on public land, while at the same time fighting to close a public access easement on private land.

I don't see any public users trying to take an inch to a mile. The Supreme Court simply reinforced the public's right to use their resource, and explained that in doing that an easement was neccesary, even vital. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that the rights to protect private property still exist. If anything, the lawmakers pushing this bill are the ones taking a mile, as they take liberties by wording a bill that attempts to reverse the Supreme Court ruling rather than refining the language of the Supreme Court ruling to clarify and support their decision.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

Lets address the issue of granting an easement to private land owners across public property, so they can access their land, should that access be denied too?


----------



## utahtu (Apr 2, 2008)

Here is the text of an e-mail I got from SFW/SFH on HB-187:

"HB-187 returns private property rights to taxpayer/landowners.Protects many critical watersheds/ streams/fisheries helps to define streambed and high water mark. Creates woking board to represent all stakeholders.It is a WIN/WIN for both sides.

If you value your freedom/ personal property rights You should urge everyone to vote for HB-187."


----------



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

SFW (sportsmen for Fish? and Wildlife) Is now backing HB 187 because the 150 foot rule is out.
http://www.sfwsfh.org/

Representatives are (somehow) under the impression that ALL fisherman/women and sportsmen/women are now OK with HB 187.

PLEASE CALL, CALL, CALL your Representative right now and tell them that you are not apart of, represented by, or agree with SWF!!!!

http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/memb...rtable1add.asp

Landowners and Private Property owners need to realize that HB 187 is a TAKING OF THEIR PROPERTY! The State does not have the right to take 5 feet of their land!!


----------



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

*The new language that supports the 4 housed, 150 yards is much worse than the 150' clause that was removed.

*


----------



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

I find it interesting that not a dime went to fish in their 2008 conservation


[url="http://www.sfwsfh.org/docume...ww.sfwsfh.org/documents/2008...n_Projects.pdf


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> SFW (sportsmen for Fish? and Wildlife) Is now backing HB 187 because the 150 foot rule is out.
> http://www.sfwsfh.org/
> 
> Representatives are (somehow) under the impression that ALL fisherman/women and sportsmen/women are now OK with HB 187.
> ...


Is any of this a surprise? here is a quote from another thread.



proutdoors said:


> *I know SFW has been involved in this bill from the early stages. *Good or bad, they are united and fight for what the members push for. FWIW, I support SFW's stance of being IN favor of HB 187.


SFW has their own agenda. They do NOT represent the stream fisherman fighting HB187. This is all the more reason that WE fishermen need our own organized voice in the legislature. An individual grassroots effort is good but can only go so far. How the H*%#@ is some legislator that doesn't know powerbait from powerball going to know that SFW is primarily a hunting organization with close ties to private landowners to achieve their main goals and NOT an organization keenly interested in fishing issues?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*95% of SFW members fish.*


Catherder said:


> SFW has their own agenda. They do NOT represent the stream fisherman fighting HB187.


You're right, they don't represent EVERY fisherman, just more than YOU do. :shock:


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Catherder said:


> SFW has their own agenda. They do NOT represent the stream fisherman fighting HB187.


You're right, they don't represent EVERY fisherman, just more than YOU do. :shock:[/quote]

That remains to be seen. I see a fair bit of outrage among fishermen right now.

BTW, I like the other John Wayne better. :wink:


----------



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

No group ever out weight the power of the people.

Don Peay is gunning for 10 million bucks from the legislature this year.... wonder where his true integrity lies.... cold hard cash perhaps?


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

Riverrat77 said:


> Troll said:
> 
> 
> > Very good point, Bigchucker.
> ...


So you don't think it's realistic. Fine. I do. You ask what public good the steams are in comparison to the roads, "They transport the water". The water you drink, the water you bath in and the water used to fight those fires you mention. So that stream running through pvt property is a vital public transportation route that is used every day by water departments everywhere.
I think they might try to shut access to places in the Uinta's, like 1000 peaks ranch where you must drive through to et to the trail head. I think they might, if the streams bill goes well for them. You mention frontage roads by the Weber, then owners wanting privacy. If they want this privacy, why wouldn't they try to get a road that invades their privacy closed?

Now as ffar as what you think about anglers on this matter, that's an opinion, and, well, we all know what opinions are like, that's why they all stink.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Good answer.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Why SFW is successful and the anglers are not: SFW makes a stand. They go out and say what they want and then put into action the plan to obtain it.

Look at how pansy the anglers groups have been. TU "We take no position on access." This has been the message sent by the angling groups. Blue-ribbon Advisory said the same thing.

As individuals we made our position know, but our angling groups including Ed Kent and the UAC sold us out!!!!!!


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> Look at how pansy the anglers groups have been. *TU "We take no position on access." This has been the message sent by the angling groups. Blue-ribbon Advisory said the same thing.*


WTF? Where is the unity against this bill that so many have said exists? Aren't those guys the real die hard go gettum kinda groups that were supposed to go to bat for anglers? And now they have no stance? Hmmmm man, there is a rising aroma of BS from both sides of this deal.... I don't fear the bill because honestly, it doesn't appear to be affecting me directly (I could be and probably am very wrong about that), but for those of you who are against it, this lack of support from your angling groups would p i s s me right the hell off.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> *95% of SFW members fish.*
> 
> 
> Catherder said:
> ...


What % of fishers are members of SFW?
What % of hunters are members of SFW?
How many current members does SFW have?


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Yupe. Pretty mad. When they stood up in committee meeting and said those words and Mr. Kent didn't stick around after talking about ducks. I blurted out, (which was against committee hearing rules), "Why won't they take a position on this!"

They have slowly come around to say, "Individaul members of TU have always been against this bill." It saves face some.

I'll be called names for this, but it's the truth.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Catherder said:


> BTW, I like the other John Wayne better. :wink:


Me too, I just can't find it now.  :evil:


Troll said:


> What % of fishers are members of SFW? No idea, how about you?
> What % of hunters are members of SFW? No idea, how about you?
> How many current members does SFW have? I believe it is somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 statewide. How about your group?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Riverrat77 said:


> HighNDry said:
> 
> 
> > Look at how pansy the anglers groups have been. *TU "We take no position on access." This has been the message sent by the angling groups. Blue-ribbon Advisory said the same thing.*
> ...





HighNDry said:


> Yupe. Pretty mad. When they stood up in committee meeting and said those words and Mr. Kent didn't stick around after talking about ducks. I blurted out, (which was against committee hearing rules), "Why won't they take a position on this!"
> 
> They have slowly come around to say, "Individaul members of TU have always been against this bill." It saves face some.
> 
> I'll be called names for this, but it's the truth.


The point is that there ISN'T a Utah fishing group in existence that is able to be a "voice" for us (whether it is HB187 or other things) The UAC is a one man show, (Ed Kent) it has few if any "members", TU by their own bylaws can't as an organization be that voice. You can be mad about that if you want but it doesn't change anything. The Blue ribbon council? Give me a break.

We can be mad and pout about this or we can organize and learn. We actually have an excellent template for this in SFW. And there are a lot more anglers in the state than hunters. Keep in mind, this year it is access and HB187, next year it could be something that affects lake, warm water fishermen. You never know.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, I like the other John Wayne better. :wink:
> ...


Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. 
Really shows how much you know.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Troll said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Catherder said:
> ...


Back at ya!


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Keep in mind, this year it is access and HB187, next year it could be something that affects lake, warm water fishermen. You never know.


Like I said in another post... they'll never restrict Utah Lake enough to keep me from catfishing there, its just not worth fighting over to most folks, and I like it that way. 8) Plus.... I don't see anyone wanting to build homes where I do most of my bass fishing and its all BLM/other agency land anyway, so for the warmwater guys, this actually might not be much of an issue.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Riverrat77 said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > Keep in mind, this year it is access and HB187, next year it could be something that affects lake, warm water fishermen. You never know.
> ...


Like I said before, you never know. Here is an example.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=5747161

Maybe an organized fishing group could wield enough clout to stop these State park budget cuts?


----------



## nightfish (Apr 29, 2008)

Riverrat, you're able to catfish at Utah lake for exactly the same reason behind the Conatser ruling. Research the JJNP case. If that was good for you, and someone else fought that battle for you, why can't you support the interests of someone in the future that the Conatser ruling would benefit?


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Like I said before, you never know. Here is an example.
> 
> http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=5747161
> 
> Maybe an organized fishing group could wield enough clout to stop these State park budget cuts?


Like I said... I'm not a user of the affected areas/facilities (I tube, therefor I am... or something like that). I'm also a sneaky little ******* and would probably fish where I wanted anyway. Gosh... did I really just type that?  Honestly, I don't see anyone trying to take away fishing access in the Utah Lake cesspool area.... ever.

Nightfish.... I'm not a fan of the Conaster ruling.... I don't agree with it, or the way it infringes on landowner rights as I see them. Dubob and I have already agreed to disagree on what a landowner owns and/or their rights regarding that property.... it appears you and I would have to come to the same agreement. I hope that folks get what they want out of this bill but I don't see it being damaging enough at this point anyway to really throw myself into the fray against the bill. I think there are some things on both sides that are BS and that I think should be either entirely discarded or at least put in the spotlight for rewording/more compromising but I am not about to get all worked up over far fetched what if's folks throw out to try and convince more anglers that this bill is out to get all we've ever had to enjoy in the first place. Please explain yourself.... what is this ruling? Was all of Utah Lake private at one time??? I know people who have been fishing that place since before I was born, so I'm not sure how the ruling you bring up has any bearing on the public's access to catfish or anything else at Utah Lake.


----------



## nightfish (Apr 29, 2008)

Utah Lake (the water) has always been recognized as public water. But the shoreline below high water, and even where the historical high water mark lay, had been disputed. If you angle for kitties from a boat that was launched from a public boat ramp, you never had a problem. But if you hucked from the shore, you could've been cited for trespass, depending on the location on the shore and the attitude of the adjacent landowner. For a brief background, and a reference to wade deeper if you choose, read the minutes from this 2004 meeting of the Utah Lake Commission: http://www.utahlakecommission.org/minutes042204.pdf

Now I personally don't see how a landowner would've ever lost anything with the Conatser ruling, and the re-affirmation of the public's right to an easement. A landowner isn't allowed to farm the streambed, can't build in it, can't keep livestock in it, and can't even do most of that in the adjacent riparian zone. What has been lost?


----------

