# by Don Peay



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

"I might remind the “we are radical fly fisherman only” fisherman, that their 300 member groups pale in comparison to the SFW membership statewide, and 95% of SFW members fish."

Hopefully, they spend a lot of fishing time on stillwaters.

I like the radical statement. And the legislature gives this guy an award today? 

Lets see Buttars calls Gays radical threats and now Don Peay calls fly fishermen radicals. Strange bedfellows those politicians.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> Lets see Buttars calls Gays radical threats and now Don Peay calls fly fishermen radicals. Strange bedfellows those politicians.


Calling a spade a spade maybe? Just a thought....... 8)


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> HighNDry said:
> 
> 
> > Lets see Buttars calls Gays radical threats and now Don Peay calls fly fishermen radicals. Strange bedfellows those politicians.
> ...


 :shock:


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> HighNDry said:
> 
> 
> > Lets see Buttars calls Gays radical threats and now Don Peay calls fly fishermen radicals. Strange bedfellows those politicians.
> ...


 Hate to see anybody be on the same side


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Packfish said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > HighNDry said:
> ...


To clarify, Don NEVER called fly fishermen "radicals", he called those who want access to ALL water regardless of where it is "radical". There are many fly fishermen, myself included, who agree with this bill. I would assert I am as radical as the next guy on certain issues. Anytime one takes a all or nothing stance I consider that "radical", and I find myself often in that category. Take offense if you choose, but I seriously doubt it was directed at most fly fishermen. In fact, Don was very clear whom he was calling "radical".


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> HighNDry said:
> 
> 
> > Lets see Buttars calls Gays radical threats and now Don Peay calls fly fishermen radicals. Strange bedfellows those politicians.
> ...


ZINGGGGG!!!! Man, back when I was fully enflamed with my "all fly fishermen are jerks" phase, I might have agreed with you but there are some that Mr. Peay is wrong about.... including some anti - HB187 guys. Like I said in another post, the "radicals" on both sides are going to wind up costing the folks who just would like some nice middle ground to meet on before all the dust settles over this issue. :?


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

That's BS.
Both sides have been trying to get the other to give some ground.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> That's BS.
> Both sides have been trying to get the other to give some ground.


Yes, I have read all the willingness of you guys to find common ground. :roll:


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

This is spilling into all kinds of different posts, I'm having a hard time keeping up with all of them.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

I know I'm scrambling around to see if I can find the actual position of SFW on this bill now so I know how to vote in the latest poll. :?


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> HighNDry said:
> 
> 
> > That's BS.
> ...


Just holding a stiff upper lip until the other side was willing to negotiate.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

No offense. But Don Peay is essentially powerless. Sure he can strong arm the DWR and try to exert influence on the wildlife board but he is a little chub in a pool of big fish on Capitol Hill. Having Don Peay come out in favor of this bill actually did us a huge favor in getting it killed. A number of legislators thought he was strictly big game and couldn't figure out why he was weighing in on an angling issue.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Well 95% of his group are anglers and they spent a whopping $0.00 of their monies on fishing in 2008.

I'd say the 300 radicals were strong today!


----------



## RnF (Sep 25, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> HighNDry said:
> 
> 
> > That's BS.
> ...


Pro, the problem with this bill, is that it was so poorly written that no matter how many amendments it had, it was just plain too vague and one sided and flawed. Compromise wasn't an option with it. It had to go down so it can be re-written and done right.

I am all about more clarification on the supreme court ruling and finding a middle ground. This bill was made with out input from all parties, and hidden as long as it could be. Ferry was as far on the right as the "radical" fly fisherman was on the left. Honestly, he blew it by not willing to come up with a better plan.

Let's hope that a better, more balanced bill can come out of all of this so both sides can win.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

I wonder how many of the SFW that fish know how much of their money was spent on fish last year.


----------



## KAFO (Oct 17, 2007)

bugchuker said:


> I wonder how many of the SFW that fish know how much of their money was spent on fish last year.


From the looks of things I really don't think they care. SFW members and their mouth piece Donny, have a very clear agenda that, at least lately, does not involve fish or those who pursue them. However, at least from the SFW cheerleaders on this site, I understand that they have done some good for fisheries in the past and for that I applaud and thank them if it is true.


----------



## cacherinthewry (Dec 20, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Anytime one takes a all or nothing stance I consider that "radical", and I find myself often in that category.


I don't take offense to your comment, but I will tell you my opinion.

If someone comes out of the gate with an all or nothing stance, that's radical. I truly believe that compromise and cooperation is the best thing in most cases. That's where equality comes from.

But when a time comes that cooperation fails, or when bully tactics threaten the beliefs or rights of a person, an all or nothing stance is appropriate and respected. That's where integrity comes from. An overwhelming number of individuals did just that with HB187. They deserve a law and representatives with equal integrity.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

Pro, so in another thread you said you wish all land was private, do you consider yourself a "radical"?


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

Did Idaho and Montana go thru this ?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bugchuker said:


> Pro, so in another thread you said you wish all land was private, do you consider yourself a "radical"?


I NEVER said any such thing! I said I would like to see MORE land in the hands of private ownership, not ALL land in the hands of private ownership. :roll:


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

So we can have a system like england where anglers all have to pay leases that costs several thousands of dollars a year in leases to enjoy fishing? Pro, your ideas are so far to the right they completely fall off the map. Just look at the eastern US. Most of the land is private and trout populations have been absolutely decimated. In most trout streams back east you can fish all day for a couple of Brook trout that are in the 6-8 range. How can you consider yourself a sportsman with views like this? Thousands and thousands of miles of native brook trout waters have been destroyed thanks to lands leased to strip mining for coal in the smokies. Is this really what you want to see here in the west? Complete devastation to watersheds (and hunting areas) due to oil and gas development as well as commercial and private development in riparian areas? Sad. Very very sad.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Lets get into the 21st century flyguy7. We will NEVER be Europe, so why even use the absurd comparison? The eastern states were damaged in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. We as a people have changed many of the practices of yesteryear. We darn near wiped out elk/bison in the 1800's by poor hunting practices, that doesn't mean we do away with hunting forever. Also, in the eastern states there is this thing called POPULATION. Comparing the wide open spaces of the west to the densely populated east is nonsensical at best. 

One last time, I have NEVER said I want to do away with ALL public lands! Pay attention, I am saying I think MORE private land and LESS (notice what words I am using!) public land would be good for the environment, the economy, wildlife, personal freedom. Yes I know, believing MORE in the individual and LESS in the government makes me a 'radical', but I can live with that. 8)


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

> Lets get into the 21st century flyguy7. We will NEVER be Europe, so why even use the absurd comparison? The eastern states were damaged in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. We as a people have changed many of the practices of yesteryear.


 What are you smoking? There are towns throughout the east coast TODAY that have to bring in water from other areas because groundwater sources are still being polluted this very minute.

Since you are so Adamanty concerned about the devastation to our economy take a minute to ponder what the #1 money maker is for our economy here in Utah - Tourism. You privatize our public lands and people will go other places where that can recreat wherever the want. This isn't an opinion, its a fact. Many of my client have written me saying that if Utah is to go through with HB 187, they will take their business somewhere else that wants it. Privatization of our public lands will have an effect on our economy like closing the auto plants in Michigan, which, by the way, has the worst economy of any state in the country right now.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> What are you smoking? There are towns throughout the east coast TODAY that have to bring in water from other areas because groundwater sources are still being polluted this very minute. That has more to do with population and landownership. The landowners are still regulated just as the public lands are for pollutants.
> 
> Since you are so Adamanty concerned about the devastation to our economy take a minute to ponder what the #1 money maker is for our economy here in Utah - Tourism. You privatize our public lands and people will go other places where that can recreat wherever the want. This isn't an opinion, its a fact. Many of my client have written me saying that if Utah is to go through with HB 187, they will take their business somewhere else that wants it. Privatization of our public lands will have an effect on our economy like closing the auto plants in Michigan, which, by the way, has the worst economy of any state in the country right now. Your doom and gloom doesn't cut it with this cowboy on private land hurting the OVERALL economy. Public ownership is PC way of describing government ownership. And since the government owns the land, they have say over what/how it is used. You then are trusting pinheads at the state/federal levels to use the land wisely and in ways that you/I approve. I for one have more faith in the individual using the land and the resources on it more than I do the idiots making laws. Radical isn't it?


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

If all state/federal land held the same economic value, I could see your argument. But it does not. We live in a very arrid state. Private landownership is not evenly dispersed like it is in other parts of the country. If private landownership is allowed to grow exponentially, the vast majority of ownership will take place along our rivers and streams. Currently 75% of the land in Utah is public land. (leaving 25% to the private sector). Outside of the Wasatch front, a majority of that takes place along rivers and streams where the water is. If that 25% is allowed to grow, IT will take place along the rivers and streams. Before long every square inch of land along rivers becomes private property. There needs to be a balance. Every square inch of land along every river in the state is not a balance.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I'm 100% in agreement with the need for balance. But, 75/25 doesn't seem balanced to me. I used to work in the west desert taking care of cell sites and microwave towers. It surprises me how resourceful private landowners are at getting the most out of seemingly 'worthless' land in the middle of nowhere. If the government owned the same land it would likely be just sitting there contributing very little/nothing to the economy. We as a society benefit more from the private sector than we could ever benefit from the public sector. The private sector is more imaginative, more frugal with their resources/capital, more efficient, more willing to change and are more able to allow change than the public sector. We need more landowners not fewer landowners, we need more farmers not fewer farmers. We need more small business owners not fewer small business owners. All of these demand private property ownership/control. The problems facing America, or at least 95%+ of them are a result of too much government intrusion, and that includes governments using 'public domain' clauses to usurp land/property from one/many and give to one or to give to the government itself.


----------



## orvis1 (Sep 7, 2007)

Sounds like this one needs to get moved to the news and polictics section.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Guys, guys, guys, settle down. Really you are arguing the inevitable in which you have no control. In the end, it's in the hands of the almighty. The answer is to have lawmakers find someone who converses with him on a regular basis and have them ask what he wants them to do. Problem solved.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Pro -- are you related to Cliff (bassrods)? Just curious....




On a serious note, since I believe you would be a person to know: Why does SFW have the "F" in SFW? Honestly. What does SFW do for fish, or fishermen?

Personally, I wish SFW would drop the "F", and quit trying to claim that they give a "F" about "F".


----------



## livdawg (Mar 10, 2008)

It sounds to me that Rush Limbaugh was in charge of this bill from the get go and he runs this state :roll: 

Sorry Rush bill got DENIED
+50000000 for fisherman
- a few prooutdoors


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> bugchuker said:
> 
> 
> > Pro, so in another thread you said you wish all land was private, do you consider yourself a "radical"?
> ...


 My bad.

"Why? I would rather see MORE private land and LESS public land. Just the way the Founders planned it."


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bugchuker said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > bugchuker said:
> ...


Big difference, yes? :idea:


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Dear Pro,
Please go back to the politics and Big game forums!! haha you dont give a rats about fish so stay out. :twisted: :lol: :lol: 8)


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

Pro

Help me understand something. This is a honest question. This country was set up over 200 years ago. is it not possible that the way things where then are not such a good idea now? Is it such a bad thing to change? Take elk calling for example. For years the idea of the mouth reed diaphragm was the greatest thing ever. It was the standard to which all things should be made to. But then some one had a radical idea and the Hoocihe momma came about and now we have the best call there is but it does not follow the idea of the other. :lol:


----------



## livdawg (Mar 10, 2008)

Dear Pro thanks for being a follower
Signed Rush Limbaugh

You are so far out of reality its ridiculous


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

"Why? I would rather see MORE private land and LESS public land. Just the way the Founders planned it."[/quote]Big difference, yes? :idea:

That's what I said "my bad". So if the "fly fishing radicals" just want more access, not all, does that still make them radicals? lakes on private property can still be private. :idea:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> Dear Pro,
> Please go back to the politics and Big game forums!! haha you dont give a rats about fish so stay out. :twisted: :lol: :lol: 8)


I guess it's a good thing *.45* postponed our planned fishing trip we were going to take Friday. I would hate to waste his time having him be with someone who "don't give a rats about fish". :wink: 


weatherby25 said:


> Help me understand something. This is a honest question. This country was set up over 200 years ago. is it not possible that the way things where then are not such a good idea now? Is it such a bad thing to change? Take elk calling for example. For years the idea of the mouth reed diaphragm was the greatest thing ever. It was the standard to which all things should be made to. But then some one had a radical idea and the Hoocihe momma came about and now we have the best call there is but it does not follow the idea of the other. :lol:


Now why do you have to go there and say such a thing. Here I was thinking you were seeing the light and you throw the Hoochie in my face! *\-\* And yes, I believe we were a better country "back in the day" than we are now.


bugchuker said:


> So if the "fly fishing radicals" just want more access, not all, does that still make them radicals? lakes on private property can still be private. :idea:


**** straight, just as I am an admitted radical on the other end of the spectrum. FWIW, I don't view being 'radical' as a bad thing. It was Mr Peay who used it as a negative trait. I think it is the 'radicals' who get things done. I see it as another term for being passionate about what you love/believe. Hell, my own mother calls me a 'radical', and not in a nice way, yet I still take it as a compliment. Petey has called me one as well. So, as far as I'm concerned, if I call you a 'radical' it is meant as a good thing. 8) 


livdawg said:


> Dear Pro thanks for being a follower
> Signed Rush Limbaugh
> 
> You are so far out of reality its ridiculous


I'm guessing you listen to Rush more than I do, thanks for outing yourself.


----------



## livdawg (Mar 10, 2008)

Along with your mother calling you radical did she also call you a bit slow??????


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Here I was thinking you were seeing the light and you throw the Hoochie in my face!


I just know how much you love how they have changed the calling world. 8) Honstly though why would you feel that things are not better then they used to be? Do you feel that progression is bad?



> Along with your mother calling you radical did she also call you a bit slow??????


Now was that really called for???


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

livdawg said:


> Along with your mother calling you radical did she also call you a bit slow??????


I think you're barking up the wrong tree..... go focus on fighting the bill because those who know better with regard to Pro are starting to get a less than positive opinion of you. :roll: He's certainly not slow, just because his point of view differs from yours. Perhaps that line of thinking is whats letting this bill stick around.... instead of trying to create unity among sportsmen and not just fishermen, folks like you are busy belittling people you should be trying to convince to join you in the fight. :?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

livdawg said:


> Along with your mother calling you radical did she also call you a bit slow??????


That's what I was waiting for/expecting. When you make it personal and attack me it shows your stance is weak and holds little/no merit. Good job! :?


weatherby25 said:


> I just know how much you love how they have changed the calling world. 8) Honstly though why would you feel that things are not better then they used to be? Do you feel that progression is bad?


I don't think progression is always bad, but I also don't think progression is always good. I do NOT like the direction we as a nation is headed at the moment, and most of it is in the name of progression. The Founding fathers based the Constitution and their beliefs on human traits, not on the 'latest' fad/craze. The principles they believed in and fought for are just as applicable today as they were in the late 1700's.

The Hoochie is a perfect example of progression, or so called progression, being a bad thing. Make that a HORRIBLE thing! :wink:


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> I don't think progression is always bad, but I also don't think progression is always good. AgreedI do NOT like the direction we as a nation is headed at the moment, and most of it is in the name of progression.What do you not like? The Founding fathers based the Constitution and their beliefs on human traits, not on the 'latest' fad/craze. The principles they believed in and fought for are just as applicable today as they were in the late 1700's.Such as?


This is very intersting.



> The Hoochie is a perfect example of progression, or so called progression, being a bad thing. Make that a HORRIBLE thing!


I thought that it was standered issue for PRO guides :?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Lets keep the discussion civil here folks. Peay and SFW certainly have a point of view and are working within their sphere of influence to get that view across - just like everyone is. We may not agree, but we can certainly respect it. And like SFW or not, like Peay or not, SFW is an organization with an agenda and this is something they wish to represent. And it is well within their charge and RIGHTS to do so - just as it is within everyone's. So lets keep the discussion civil.

Thanks!

GaryFish


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Peay and SFW certainly have a point of view and are working within their sphere of influence to get that view across - just like everyone is. We may not agree, but we can certainly respect it.


I absolutely do not agree with their point of view and I absolutely respect their right to have that view and present it on their behalf. But it can be shown with little or no effort at all that Don Peay and SFW DO NOT represent the general fishing public in Utah. They are first and foremost a big game organization - and that is a very good thing. We need that in Utah. I respect that and wish them well in that endeavor. But their goals as big game hunters are very definitely at odds with the goals of the general fishing public when it comes to the easement (access) rights to stream and rivers for the sole purpose of fishing.

All of the petty name calling and urination contests taking place above are not helping our cause in the least. Don Peay and SFW ARE NOT going to get it done for us as fishing people. We need to admit this to ourselves and move on. We need to come together on some front if we are ever going to get a fair and balanced bill on this issue. When are y'all going to wake up to this fact and start making it happen? I've been told by my representative (who is FOR the current bill) that our biggest hurdle as fishing people is that we do not speak with a unified voice. That one fact is going to be our undoing. Like it or not, that is the truth and it will kill us if we can't change it.


----------

