# Those who voted for HB 141 - Lets remember



## De Jager (Sep 27, 2007)

I have an excel file with all of those who voted for HB 141 attached. Lets remember these individuals and get the word out to everyone. From what I could tell, all the highlighted yellow names are those who did vote yes and the green highlighted names are not sure because of multiple same last names. 

I have email addresses, phone numbers, addresses, everything. The excel sheet came from Utahs election website, so not my doing in collecting information.

This system would not allow me to put an excel or pef file up. If anyone wants the excel file, please message me with email address to send to.

If anyone can tell me how to add this file or change it into a file that will work, then let me know.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

HB 141 vote in Senate

3/09/2010 4:58:06 PM
2nd Reading 

Recreational Use of Public Water on Private 
Property 
McIff 


19 YEAS 10 NAYS 0 ABSENT PASSED


YEAS 19

Adams
Hillyard
Liljenquist
Stevenson, J. 
Buttars 
Hinkins 
Madsen 
Stowell 
Christensen 
Jenkins 
Morgan 
Van Tassell 
Dayton 
Jones 
Okerlund 
Waddoups 
Greiner 
Knudson
Stephenson, H. 


NAYS 10

Bramble
Mayne 
Robles 
Valentine 
Davis 
McAdams 
Romero 
Goodfellow 
Niederhauser 
Urquhart 


ABSENT 0

House vote, final with Senate amendment approved

MARCH 10, 2010 Clark, D. 
8:50:19 AM SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE

Concurred 


YEAS - 43

Aagard 
Gowans
Mascaro
Sandstrom 
Barrus
Greenwood 
Mathis
Sumsion 
Brown 
Grover 
McIff 
Vickers 
Dee 
Hansen
Menlove
Wallis 
Draxler 
Hendrickson 
Moss 
Watkins 
Duckworth, S 
Herrod 
Newbold 
Webb 
Ferry 
Hunsaker 
Noel 
Wheatley 
Fisher, Julie 
Hutchings 
Oda 
Wilcox 
Frank 
Ipson 
Painter 
Wimmer 
Froerer 
Kiser 
Powell 
Clark, D. 
Gibson, K 
Last 
Ray 


NAYS - 28

Allen 
Chavez-Houck 
Fowlke 
Litvack 
Anderson 
Clark, S. 
Garn 
Lockhart 
Beck 
Cosgrove 
Harper 
Poulson 
Bigelow 
Daw 
Hemingway 
Riesen 
Bird 
Dunnigan 
Hughes 
Seegmiller 
Biskupski 
Edwards 
Johnson 
Seelig 
Black 
Fisher, Janice 
King 
Wiley 



ABSENT OR NOT VOTING - 4

Dougall
Gibson, F
Morley 
Wright


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Oh, I remember. I think what I remember the most is their arrogance.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Thanks! I will be sure to vote for each one that I can. I think I prefer what you call arrogance over what I call the entitlement bug. Those who have worked their butt off to have their own assets--is that a bad thing? Whereas, those who envy what others have and seek to take away their rights, I don't agree with it. I don't know that 141 is the answer, but property rights are very important. Everyone seems to like the idea of taking away from the rich, but what happens when you are considered rich and your property now has a public right of way created over it? Just a thought. Good luck in your efforts!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Huge29 said:


> Thanks! I will be sure to vote for each one that I can. I think I prefer what you call arrogance over what I call the entitlement bug. Those who have worked their butt off to have their own assets--is that a bad thing? Whereas, those who envy what others have and seek to take away their rights, I don't agree with it. I don't know that 141 is the answer, but property rights are very important. Everyone seems to like the idea of taking away from the rich, but what happens when you are considered rich and your property now has an public right of way created over it? Just a thought. Good luck in your efforts!


+1


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

Well, Huge, you can only vote for 2 at the most, unless you've become one of those Chicago community organiser types.
One Senator, if there is a Senatorial election in your district this year and one Represenative. Some on that list, from both sides will not be running at all. Some by choice and some by the choosing of the voters in their district.

I posted this list for informational porposes only and encourage all to vote for the cantidate of their choice for the reasons they choose, as long as they vote. Early voting has begun so if you think you may not be able to get to your poling place on election day for any reason, early voting by mail is a viable alternative.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

:lol: I got you Troll; just a figure of speech. I actually don't ever vote...just kidding! :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> Thanks! I will be sure to vote for each one that I can. I think I prefer what you call arrogance over what I call the entitlement bug. Those who have worked their butt off to have their own assets--is that a bad thing? Whereas, those who envy what others have and seek to take away their rights, I don't agree with it. I don't know that 141 is the answer, but property rights are very important. Everyone seems to like the idea of taking away from the rich, but what happens when you are considered rich and your property now has a public right of way created over it? Just a thought. Good luck in your efforts!


A-FREAKING-MEN!


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Utah's water belongs to the public. They did not work their butt off to steal the public right to the water. We are not out to take away property rights. The court's ruling never gave anyone the right to trespass. It reaffirmed the right that we already had to use our waters for recreation. Are there issues with using water that runs through private property? Yes. Those are the things that need to be worked out but to just shut down all the rivers and streams is detrimental to the economy, the DWR, our youth who can't hunt or fish anymore, and to YOU. I think you are reading many of us wrong. I'm not sure we envy the rich or those who have property with water running through it. We just want to recreate (which is more important to most of us than the money or the land). We love rivers, streams, and creeks and usually only envy those who catch more trout than we do. Having resources and land to hunt and fish on adds to All our lives. When the majority of it becomes locked up for our use, WE all lose something. There needs to be some things held in COMMON. Maybe the answer is what the environmentalist groups are asking for BAN ALL ANGLING and HUNTING, then the issue is mute. I for one, want to have places where I can participate in simple pleasures like hunting and fishing. When it is all locked up and becomes a sport for the wealthy, I think our society as a whole suffers.

Wealthy property owners and politicians crap the same as a plumber and they should be aware of that fact.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

You are wrong on the pooping! Plumber gets more air down there from showing off all the crack and a politician usually has someone up there a ways, so they get constipation and their's doesn't stink. LOL
I think we agree on a lot of things, but the SC decision did remove rights that landowners had at the time of acquiring the land. I am sure that this is not the end of the debate, but I do agree with those who decided for the bill for now.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

The supreme court did no such thing. It afirmed that the right of the public had always existed, the only right taken away was by the land owners who had illegally prevented the public from using the land beneath the water in an incidental way before the supreme court ruling.
If the right had always been the land owners then there would have been no need for HB 141.

One of the real chappers for me was all the work that went into HB 80. remember HB 80? That was the bill that had been worked on by sitting represenatives, farmers, ranchers and fishers to get a fair and equitable bill passed after the defeat of the bill introduced in 2009 that was simular to HB 141.
I myself can see where the land owners now want just compensation for the use of their land under HB 141. I agree so much with that, I want just compensation for the years it was illegally taken from the public before HB 141.


----------



## Troutsman (Aug 13, 2010)

HB 141 makes about as much sense as it would to put screens up on private property waters so the publics fish could not enter onto the private property. After all, the land owner should not be able to use this resource on private land because it is a public resource. With that said, I do not feel that this bill is a deal breaker for me on some candidates. It would have to take other items as well. If I was to never vote for a candidate because they pissed me off, I would never vote. All candidates will piss us off at one time or another. Thats politics! 

I am just going to get me a little rubber raft now and place it in the creeks I like to fish. I fish Current Creek and will just float through the 6" of water (in some areas) that is only 3 feet wide (in some areas) so I can still get to my fishing holes. I guess I will be involved in a lot of portaging though =) That there is called working within the law, lmao...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Troutsman said:


> With that said, I do not feel that this bill is a deal breaker for me on some candidates. It would have to take other items as well. If I was to never vote for a candidate because they **** me off, I would never vote. All candidates will **** us off at one time or another. Thats politics!


Well stated! Voting on one issue often results in bad outcomes. I have yet to find a politician I agree with on all issues, and if I ever do I will be very scared of such a politician. :shock:


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

You must never run for office Pro.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

EmptyNet said:


> You must never run for office Pro.


No worries, it won't happen. 8)


----------

