# What does HB 141 passage mean for me?



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I suppose this is a cathartic exercise, but since I have helped in fighting this sucka for 2 years, a few post mortem thoughts seem OK. I would like to hear yours as well. So here is what I see happening.

1. For me. Back to bassin. Feel free to say hi at Jordanelle if you see me in a green Fat Cat float tube ringing up some nice smallies. It now looks like I will be there more than ever, and I suppose that isn't too bad of a consolation.

2. For the access war, back to court. I like our chances here and envision a multipronged attack that should be successful in a couple of areas to strengthen the recreationalist position. Then, I foresee being back in the legislature in a couple of years. I will refrain from intimate detail pedictions, as I am not a lawyer.

3. For the economy. It won't be mass unemployment, but some people will be hurt, particularly smaller fly shops, since river fly angling will likely decline in popularity. Offset that with a few property values that may increase (not proven) and maybe it will just be a case of the rich getting richer and the little guy getting stepped on. Farmers weren't hurt economically by Conatser and won't financially gain from it now unless they are selling out their land or are into private fishing lodges or clubs.

4. For politics. I would hope that we are able to channel our disappointment in recent events to foster some meaningful change. We won't be able to "take out" rural pols like Mc Iff or Ferry, but we may have an impact on suburban reps that tended to be the most two faced sorts in this entire process. We need to support the good ones and fight those that lied or mislead you. It looks like we now see what kind of Governor we have too. I will not vote for this man, even though I am a registered "R".

5. For my son. He is 1 1/2 yrs old now. I can only pray that this issue gets resolved by the time he is 8-10 yrs old. You see, my late father took me to two stretches of water that are very special to me (and to him). These places are where I learned to fish and later fly fish. They are now off limits. I hope that I can get the chance to take my boy to these unique spots to do likewise, and tell him about his Grandfather that he never got to know and show him where dad and I had incredible days. 

This was the reason I got into this battle as much as I did in the first place!


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

until this current liscense ends, time to carry 45,000 of these:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/law/permissioncard.html

edit*

no need to punish DoW. ill just pester the ever live sh%^ out of the ranch owners every weekend on this one little area i like to fish that crosses public land..... with tact and good behaviour and all.


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

Catherder,

Great post! I feel the same way except my son is already 9. I have been a staunch conservative all my life and almost always vote Republican, with the exception of the odd independent or 3rd party candidate, but I think our local politicians have sold us out on this issue. They went against the public and they went against the courts and sided with the minority who had more money and political connections. I don't look forward to it, but I may be voting for a few Democrats this November, for the first time in my life.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

For me it means no more fishing on one of my favorite dry fly creeks in central utah. I means I will worry when i fish LFC knowing that if the sheep farmer doesnt let me go down to the good section, it will be off limits till something changes. It means that Asay Creek will be shut down from 89 West and maybe the entire creek. It means that there will once more be NO TRESSPASSING signs along my favorite local river.

I will continue fishing many of my favorite waters on Forest and BLM land and hope the DWR continues using my money on walk in access points. Today is truley a gloomy day, not just this late March snow and clouds but for adventurous spirits throughout the state. God Bless Idaho....


----------



## orvis1 (Sep 7, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> For me it means no more fishing on one of my favorite dry fly creeks in central utah. I means I will worry when i fish LFC knowing that if the sheep farmer doesnt let me go down to the good section, it will be off limits till something changes. It means that Asay Creek will be shut down from 89 West and maybe the entire creek. It means that there will once more be NO TRESSPASSING signs along my favorite local river.
> 
> I will continue fishing many of my favorite waters on Forest and BLM land and hope the DWR continues using my money on walk in access points. Today is truley a gloomy day, not just this late March snow and clouds but for adventurous spirits throughout the state. God Bless Idaho....


+ 1 don't forget Montana....


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

+1 I just spent the cash on a non-res ID license and told the lady at the desk that UT doesn't get my money any more. It will spent in her great state that gives a **** about hunters and fisherman and our rights. 8)


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Catherder said:


> 3. For the economy. It won't be mass unemployment, but some people will be hurt, particularly smaller fly shops, since river fly angling will likely decline in popularity.


Is the opposite true? Were these fly shops just hopping busy for the last two years due to all of the increased demand?


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

Huge29 said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > 3. For the economy. It won't be mass unemployment, but some people will be hurt, particularly smaller fly shops, since river fly angling will likely decline in popularity.
> ...


Here is a link to the DWR's 2007 Economic Impact study: http://utahwaterguardians.org/wp-conten ... _16_07.pdf

Here is a brief summary of what it states:


> "In 2006, 1.1 million residents and non-residents participated in some form of fish and wildlife -related recreation in Utah. These anglers, hunters and wildlife viewers spent $1.24 billion in retail sales creating $651.9 million in salaries and wages, and supporting more than 24,000 jobs. The total economic effect (multiplier effect) from fish and wildlife-related recreation was estimated at $2.3 billion."


It's not _just_ fly shops we are talking about here. Tourism and outdoor recreation contribute a *significant* amount to the state economy. A big portion of those dollars come from river and stream access, for fishing, rafting, etc. And HB 141 undermines much of that.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Huge29 said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > 3. For the economy. It won't be mass unemployment, but some people will be hurt, particularly smaller fly shops, since river fly angling will likely decline in popularity.
> ...


I can only speak for myself, but Conatser DID increase my flyfishing purchases and interest, since I could return to a few areas that held special meaning to me. (as I mused about on this thread) I have never been accused of being normal however, so maybe the effect is less statewide. The small shops however, had been getting squeezed by on-line sales and "big box" retailers for several years, and I would say that Conatser probably allowed them to maintain a stable bottom line in the face of this competition for the last 2 yrs. With it gone, and with so many hardcore FF enthusiasts now threatening to not buy Utah licenses and only fish in Idaho and Montana, I would expect to see a definite negative effect. Hopefully, Stupiddog will respond and shed more light on your question.

With a possible increased interest in warmwater fishing, and broader income streams, I don't expect that the "big box" retailers like Cabelas or Sportsmens will lose too much, unless reduced numbers of out of staters coming here and a higher that expected backlash of instate fishers going elsewhere to fish (and buy supplies) occurs.


----------



## nightfish (Apr 29, 2008)

According to Steve Schmidt, owner of Western Rivers Flyfisher, sales of nonresident licences at his fly shop alone totaled $3,000,000.00. I would imagine that a fair amount of that was directly due to the access granted by Conatser. 

And that was just one fly shop. I don't have any idea how many non-resident licences were sold at gear only or gear/fly shops or the walmart type licence outlets.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

nightfish said:


> According to Steve Schmidt, owner of Western Rivers Flyfisher, sales of *nonresident licences at his fly shop alone totaled $3,000,000.00*. I would imagine that a fair amount of that was directly due to the access granted by Conatser.
> 
> And that was just one fly shop. I don't have any idea how many non-resident licences were sold at gear only or gear/fly shops or the walmart type licence outlets.


Horse crap !!


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

i could believe 3 mil, but it would have to be a cumulative total over many many many years


----------

