# Ten Million Dollars



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Here's my email to Representative Ferry:

Representative Ferry,

The price of a Utah fishing license is $26. Not a lot of money by itself, but multiply it by roughly 400,000 anglers, and it becomes a $10,400,000 war chest. I'm going to donate 26 dollars in my name, 26 dollars in my son's name, 26 dollars in my wife's name (she doesn't buy a license), and 26 dollars in my youngest son's name (he's not old enough to require a license yet) to anyone who will run against you in House District 2 in the next election. I live in House District 65, but will contribute to your ouster. If I can get the other anglers to join with me we will have ten million dollars to get your house seat taken away from you. Your sponsorship of HB187 is unconscionable. You are willing to sell the rights of millions to the whims of a few wealthy landowners. Shame on you!



Whaddya say guys? Can we all get together on this one and vote the rascal out?

Fishrmn


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

I will wait for the outcome, but I do like your thinking!

There will be others that need to be voted out along with Ferry if they get their way.

Please bring this back up come election time and see if there is any fight left in our Utah anglers.

I remember some years ago when there was a heated topic that my City Counsel voted for, against the will of the citizens.
All of them were voted out in the following elections.

We do have a strong voice, if we are united!!!


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I would help.

On a side note: (This is for me too.)

We need to remain as professional on this issue as we can. If this bill is sent to interim or stopped, I would encourage us not to rub it in faces. We need to prove to these people that we are respectful of private property by policing ourselves. Report trespassers, pick up litter, report vandalism and poor attitudes. We need to convince everyone that we are not a menace to them or their land.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> I would help.
> 
> On a side note: (This is for me too.)
> 
> We need to remain as professional on this issue as we can. If this bill is sent to interim or stopped, I would encourage us not to rub it in faces. We need to prove to these people that we are respectful of private property by policing ourselves. Report trespassers, pick up litter, report vandalism and poor attitudes. We need to convince everyone that we are not a menace to them or their land.


Agreed!

Fishrmn


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Good idea, but Ferry and some of these rural politicians are relatively safe and will be tough to beat. One is fighting against a mentality with the voters in these districts that "outsiders" are trying to tell them how to vote and will likely support the incumbent. Also, many are landowners that want Ferry doing what he is doing.

What would be just as effective will be to campaign HARD against and beat some of his suburban allies that he persuades to vote with him on 187. Make it clear and publicize why we are campaigning against these guys. If these reps. know that it is political suicide to go against the wishes of their constituents and support Ferry and his pals, then Ferry will not be able to put much pressure on to get his way and /or build coalitions. Watch closely how your local guy votes as much as what Ferry and Brown do. 

I have the feeling that win or lose on HB187, the general issue will continue to be fought in the legislature for several years.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

Good ideas, we need to be respectful but also we need to be united. If our money, time, efforts etc. are put together we should have as much or more power than the minority with the money. Our leader need to know that we are here, watching, noticing, and ready to take action as a united whole. It is a shame that we can't be throwing in all together with the one agency that should be our #1 ally, the DWR.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

It would be nice to have the support of the DWR but I think that they are like my local government in Roy City.
As employees, we are not allowed to get involved politically.
As individual employees, on our own time, we do as we like.
I think that the Division may fall into the "Conflict Of Interest" category.

Anyone know the answer for sure?


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I would think their objective is to maintain the quality and numbers of fish and wildlife in the state. Another objective would be to provide for the sportsmen(women) who utilize the resource. Another would be to enforce the laws that are in place to ensure the first two objectives are met.

I could be all wrong though. They may just be puppets to the wims of the legislature and special intrest groups which appropriate and donate money to them.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> I would think their objective is to maintain the quality and numbers of fish and wildlife in the state. Another objective would be to provide for the sportsmen(women) who utilize the resource. Another would be to enforce the laws that are in place to ensure the first two objectives are met.
> 
> I could be all wrong though. They may just be puppets to the wims of the legislature and special intrest groups which appropriate and donate money to them.


I think that the hands of the DWR employees are tied so if that makes them puppets, I guess that's what they are.

Unfortunately, I do think that their hands are legally tied on issues like this.

If so, just imagine how frustrated many of these employees are.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Grandpa-  The UDWR has already been part of a committee formed to look at the issue this past summer/fall. You can find the UDWR info here:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_11751118

Looks like the UDWR agreed that the court ruling was vague and over reaching. Thus they took part in the process and Ferry agreed to sponsor a bill dealing with this issue. So we had better get ready to vote out Huntsman, who appointed the Director, who supports the bill.

You see, while we all look at an issue from our side of the fence, we tend to forget that there are other ramifications. Life has 2 dials. Turn one and the other moves also. The access dial was turned all the way to one side and now some are trying to turn it back.

I have stated I don't like HB 187, but there should be something done rather than permit uncontrolled, unlimited recreational access.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Yes, I am aware that One or Two of the Division's Top Dogs were invited to sit in on the discussions.
What I am saying is that the rank and file employees can't campain for, or against the bill.
They can't make a public statement as an employee of the Division.

I have talked to several Division Employees that are very frustrated that they can't make public statements or be quoted in the press on this issue.

I guess my point is that the DWR isn't our enemy on this.
I don't like to see them taking the hits that they are, for something beyond their control.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

Rep. Ben Ferry needs to be defeated in the next election.
Rep. Mike Noel from Kanab needs to be defeated in the next election. 
Both Ferry and Noel are cozy with big bucks and campaign donors and have no problem trampling on the little guy. They are learning the hard way the powerful voice of the people.


----------



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

Packout said:


> Looks like the UDWR agreed that the court ruling was vague and over reaching. Thus they took part in the process and Ferry agreed to sponsor a bill dealing with this issue. So we had better get ready to vote out Huntsman, who appointed the Director, who supports the bill.


Interesting thoughts....

Over ruled? humm....I'm not certain that anyone should believe that with out doing some homework. And the DWR has been notorious for rolling on anglers, anyone remember the Green river issue, where did our DWR stand then? Yep, that's right, they didn't stick up for us AND its happening again. Pretty sad.

The Utah Supreme Court ruling was pretty easy, hence the short (2) month long 5-0 unanimous vote. They ruled on one simple thing, the _easement_. Which was already in place and backed up with a few cases (1982 JJNP & GSL easement issue). If people are referring to "statue" please remember the statue is as old as the state itself, 100+ years.

What conatser did was define the easement and re-affirmed out rights that we already had, it did not allow the public any new rights or take anything away from property owners.

HB 187 is an utter gutting of a Supreme Court ruling and a slap in the face for all citizens of Utah. For shame to keep this bill under so much secrecy, the bottom line is the entire process is flawed. Nobody trusts anyone at this point. We need to start over. AND this issue is too important for ALL to rush a flop bill through.

The Legislature only needs to firm up and define _the easement_. Yes, its that simple.

Laws are already in place for trespassing, vandalism and harassment. The landowners, fishermen, bird hunters, people need to call the police if these issues arise. The thing legislature needs to protect landowners and water users, they can do this by tightening up the _easement_ and educate the public with ethics.

When every other recreational group has to take a class on ethics before they can purchase a license, why don't fisherman need to?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> The Utah Supreme Court ruling was pretty easy, hence the short (2) month long 5-0 unanimous vote. They ruled on one simple thing, the _easement_. Which was already in place and backed up with a few cases (1982 JJNP & GSL easement issue). If people are referring to "statue" please remember the statue is as old as the state itself, 100+ years.


Yep. The right to use the waters has existed for decades. And for decades the landowners have been violating *our* rights. When the supreme court ruled against them, they run to a representative who will take their side and rewrite the statutes to fit their misguided interpretation of the old statutes. There is no need for a compromise. The law already prohibits vandalism, littering, trespassing, destruction of property, even voyeurism for those who insist on peeking on the homeowners who've built too close to the streams. They aren't entitled to what they've been taking for all these years.

Fishrmn


----------



## LawMan (Sep 25, 2007)

I like the sentiment, but Ferry would probably take it and use it to his advantage.

Hold it in check for the time being. We are working on putting together a PAC with a mission and purpose to identify and support those legislators and legislation that is friendly to recreationists as well as work to defeat those legislators, directors and legislation that is contrary to the interests of recreationists.

I'm not sure how it would work out, but if it can be done we will work to put it together.

Stay tuned.


----------

