# HB 187 Fails



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

WOOT! It's a dead duck, the bill was just defeated.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Congratulations folks.... now this question. Do they have to wait until next year to bring up the bill again or can a different version be tacked onto an existing bill or reintroduced in this session?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

YAHOOOOOOOOOOOO! The radicals did it! Power to the people!             


A special thank you also goes out to F/V for his extra work on this.




Where do you guys get those dancing emoticons?


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

*(())* -()/- -/|\-


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Now, lets go out and prove what good outdoorsmen(women) we can be. Lets continue to be respectful and report the ones who are causing property damage or livestock harrassment.

If landowners need a helping hand, can we lend it?


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

This is a great day for fishermen in Utah. Also on this day we realized Don Peay doesn't have nearly as much influence or clout as he thinks he does. Today proved unless Peay is getting DWR handouts and subsidies he is powerless.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

I can't believe I missed this. HOORAY!!!! Thanks to everyone who worked so hard.

Ditto to the "respect the private landowners" I am going to do some garbage clean up on some private land.


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

Riverrat77 said:


> Congratulations folks.... now this question. Do they have to wait until next year to bring up the bill again or can a different version be tacked onto an existing bill or reintroduced in this session?


This bill is D-E-A-D!

No more bills can be introduced this year, period. Any new bill will have to wait til next year and if there is one, it will be done from scratch, no hint of this bill at all, and will be balanced, reasoned and clear.

The vote was 34 Yes 41 NO!

That said,

YEHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH MANNNNNNNNN!

LET'S GO FISHHHHIIIINNNNNNNNN'!!!


----------



## KAFO (Oct 17, 2007)

Can I get a HHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL YEA!

Thanks again to any and all who lobbied to kill this POS bill!

Now the ball is in our (anglers) court so to speak.
-contact the reps who voted this down and give them a HUGE THANKS!
-Take extreme care to follow the letter of the law regarding stream access. Stay in the stream bed; access waterways only at public easements, and immediately report those who break the law! In my mind those who abuse the easement or access rules are no better than poachers and should probably be treated as such. Also just carrying a grocery sack with you on the river to remove trash could potentially be a huge sign to a landowner that we do more than just bitch and moan about steam access on internet forums. (ie. put up or shut up!)

In all seriousness I am excited as ever about today's vote because it means more time out fishing!


----------



## RnF (Sep 25, 2007)

threshershark said:


> WOOT! It's a dead duck, the bill was just defeated.


 -/O\-

What a relief! Goes to show how a grassroots effort can really be affective. Some faith has been restored in the government process for me. What a great day!

Now I hope we can take the next step and suggest a bill of our own that is in line with Idaho access laws, or something similar, otherwise this sort of bill will come up again. We still need more clarification on the supreme court ruling.


----------



## Theekillerbee (Jan 8, 2009)

If we all take out a bag of trash when we go in, I think many landowners will have a change of heart towards us useless fishermen and women. Please report any law breaking to the local authorities, as there will be people out there abusing the system.


----------



## Nueces (Jul 22, 2008)

Theekillerbee said:


> If we all take out a bag of trash when we go in, I think many landowners will have a change of heart towards us useless fishermen and women. Please report any law breaking to the local authorities, as there will be people out there abusing the system.


Great idea! Make sure nothing falls out of your packs or if you see something else, pick it up. Regardless of a HB 187, it's the right thing to do.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> Now, lets go out and prove what good outdoorsmen(women) we can be. Lets continue to be respectful and report the ones who are causing property damage or livestock harrassment.
> 
> If landowners need a helping hand, can we lend it?


YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!     
I chalked this one up yesterday as a NO-WAY for us. I am glad to see we were heard. Just goes to show that even the underdog can win a battle if he speaks loud enough. Thanks to everybody who helped with this and rallied at the capital!!!!

As for keeping up the respect, here is a list of phone numbers everybody should carry witht hem when you are out and about.

UTIP(Utah poaching Hotline) 1-800-662-deer(3337) or *DEER from your cell
Weber County Dispatch 1-801-629-8221
DWR Ogden office 1-801-476-2740
Box Elder County sheriffs office 1(435) 734-3818
Morgan County Sheriffs office 1(801)829-0590
Cache County Sheriffs office 1(435) 755-1000
If you see someone, anyone, breaking the laws while fishing please call the authorities. 8)


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> As for keeping up the respect, here is a list of phone numbers everybody should carry with them when you are out and about.
> 
> UTIP(Utah poaching Hotline) 1-800-662-deer(3337) or *DEER from your cell
> Weber County Dispatch 1-801-629-8221
> ...


Good info to have, and very good point! Thanks for putting that up.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Congrats to you guys. Even though I disagree with your stances/opinions on the matter I applaud your efforts and results. Kudos!


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Wow it did work!!! My Rep voted no on it!! I think i'll celebrate on Thursday with a trip up SF canyon!!! Cant wait... Good work and THANK YOU BRYAN (Gulf Venture). You probably did more than anyone of us.


----------



## troutwhisperer (Jan 1, 2009)

YIPEE KI AYYYY !!!!   ( I too would like to know how you get those dancing emoticons? )


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

Thanks Pro

I'm not speaking for everyone in the angling community, just myself. I don't think having a more simplified clarification of the Supreme Court ruling is a bad thing. What I wanted to see happen is for the legislature to realize that Utah is claiming to be an outdoor recreation state. We have received national press on it. Somewhat similar to how Montana and Idaho are viewed as outdoor recreation states. Tourist dollars fund a big part of our economy. To send a message that Utah is not outdoor recreation friendly by shutting down our rivers and streams to angling is a bad message. My fear is the fear of what is happening in Montana and Idaho to a degree. Big money is coming in and buying up family held ranches. Places where people have had access to fish for decades or longer. The first thing the new owners want to do is throw up no trespass signs and stop angler access locking out residents and nonresidents. 
An easy to understand law similar to Idaho or Montana would be good. Ranchers, farmers and landowners can all get along. As hard as they want to paint us anglers as bad people, for the most part we're not. Yes, bad apples can be found, but I really think they are the exception. Anglers in general are pretty harmless. I would be willing to bet that once the dust settles only a few places and landowners will notice an increase in fishing traffic.

I know that I will not be found standing in someone's back yard nymphing a hole for hours on end. I would even turn back downstream of an area if I saw a family enjoying their property. I just wouldn't want to bother them. At worst, I would quickly wade through to another area. I'm not into spectator fishing. 

I hope the private property owners realize we are not their to take their land or abuse it or harrass them or their livestock...just trying to catch a few fish and move on.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

We might have won this battle, but the war is far from over. Rest assured, it will be back again next year. I think there is definately a need to clarify the supreme court ruling. I also believe it can be done with solid regard to the land owners and anglers alike. I hope that Director Karpowitz takes note and includes the fishing interests a bit more in the off season now as he works with the politicals to get a GOOD bill that we could fall behind. This thing is far from over. But lets enjoy this one while we can.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

To get the smiling emoticons just click under the ones you see where it says View more smilies Just dont overuse them or we will start calling you .45 haha

Gary do you think they will get a bill to pass now that there has been a supreme court ruling and now an overruling?


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

We won a hard-fought battle today! However, there is a very strong chance that Ferry will do some back-door dealings and get 6 legislators to change their minds. If he does this, he can bring it back up for another vote and get this bill to pass. To avoid this, can you please send a short "Thank You" note to these legislators that voted NAY on HB 187? Hopefully, this will instill a sense of pride and ownership in their vote and they won't flip over on us! Please pass this on to all you know!

These are the legislators that voted with us!
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected].gov;
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]


----------



## GSPS ROCK (Sep 14, 2007)

you missed one....

[email protected]


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Fowlke is my rep. *(())*


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> Wow it did work!!! My Rep voted no on it!! I think i'll celebrate on Thursday with a trip up SF canyon!!! Cant wait... Good work and THANK YOU BRYAN (Gulf Venture). You probably did more than anyone of us.


What are you doing Saturday? I have the morning free (too cold for softball) so I'd be down with investigating "the spot" if you want to go.... if not, I might sneak up anyway.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I don't think you need to sneak now...or do you? :lol:


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> I don't think you need to sneak now...or do you? :lol:


Maybe not sneak, but try to be unintrusive and respectful of my use of the Supreme Courts decision to get to some unfished areas. Yes, it'll be the first time I've attempted to do so and I honestly would promptly vacate the area if asked to do so by the landowner. 8)


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

My bad. Fowlke was a great voice for our cause. She showed a real knowlege of the intricacies of this bill...very impressive!
R


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

> Gary do you think they will get a bill to pass now that there has been a supreme court ruling and now an overruling?


I don't think they'll get another bill through this session. The only thing would be if it gets tagged onto the budget bill at the last second, but I doubt that will happen. This vote only represents this individual bill - not the idea. This defeat is not a blanket overruling of the issue - is is just one bill that was defeated.

The State Supreme court ruling applied to an interpretation of state law, not the state constitutuion. As such, the Legislature may change the law to clarify, and change what the State Surpreme Court ruled.

I think this is a hot enough topic, as it addresses a couple of very passionate issues in Utah - First are private property rights which impact land use, development, agriculture, taxes, real estate, and more importantly - people who own property (translate to influence with money).

Second is water law - which is probably one of the most important issues in Utah and always has been. Water for agricultural use. Water for industrial use. Water for human consumption. Water for municipalities - all HUGE, and again, with many people with considerable influence being VERY interested in it.

Third is the recreation associated with access to water - fishermen, hunters, water recreationists. Much as I hate to say it, but our interest in this is third in the pecking order, if not lower.

Now we consider that while the Surpreme Court ruling was a good step forward for the recreationist, it is not for the private land owner. And while it addressed some issues, it left much un-defined. More clarification is needed. So this *will *come up again. Rest assured, it will come up again. Hopefully in a way that protects property owners as well as providing opportunity for recreation, without turning state water law on its ear. This bill didn't do that.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> Nor-tah said:
> 
> 
> > Wow it did work!!! My Rep voted no on it!! I think i'll celebrate on Thursday with a trip up SF canyon!!! Cant wait... Good work and THANK YOU BRYAN (Gulf Venture). You probably did more than anyone of us.
> ...


Hey I will hoefully be reeling in BIG bows at Otter and Piute on Sat. You should go check it out if you have time. Lets plan on next sat if you want.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Congrats to you guys. Even though I disagree with your stances/opinions on the matter I applaud your efforts and results. Kudos!


Wow Pro I am impressed that speaks volumes about you. Many people would get upset and start the trash talk.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I think there is a misrepresentation being spread on this issue. Water is a hot topic in Utah but to hint that recreationists are going to be deverting it, polluting it, and claiming ownership over it, is not right. Yes, if we don't clean-up after ourselves, the pollution factor can come into play, but not taking anything but a couple fish...and maybe not even that.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

My issue on the water law portion is not about recreationists taking the water. That isn't an issue of any kind. My issue is with the privatization of water as it runs over private property. Essentially, that could open the door for the upstream property owner to hold the water or secure it in some way. In order to overturn what the surpreme court ruled - that is - that the water belongs to the people of the state and therefore serves as a right-of-way, then this bill needed to change that. This bill had the potential to change the water, that when it flows over private land, becomes the property of the private land owner. Great if you are up stream, and sucks if you are down stream. That issue was BY FAR my biggest concern. The bill really muddled water ownership and subsequent management, saying nothing of public/private ownership/management of the fish.


----------

