# STATE SUPREME COURT DECISION



## HuntingCrazy (Sep 8, 2007)

Did you hear about this Utah state supreme court decision on rivers and private ownership?

Very cool!!!

July 18,2008 the state determined that all public activities, specifically hunting and fishing are public rights when it comes to waterways. That means you can hunt, fish, float any river and you can get out of the boat and touch the riverbed and still be considered on public land. Before the law stated that you could not touch the bottom [the public owned the water and the landowner owned the dirt beneath the water].

This makes it a bit more fair to those of us who did not inherit thousands of acres of wildland.

Summary

In this case, we must determine the scope of the
public's easement in state waters. More specifically, we must
determine whether the easement, which allows the public to engage
in recreational activities in state waters, also allows the
public the right to touch the privately owned beds below those
waters.

Conclusion

We hold that the scope of the easement provides the
public the right to float, hunt, fish, and participate in all
lawful activities that utilize the water. We further hold that
the public has the right to touch privately owned beds of state
waters [all rivers, waterways] in ways incidental to all recreational 
rights provided forin the easement, so long as they do so reasonably and cause no
unnecessary injury to the landowner.

Chief Justice Durham, Justice Wilkins, Justice Parrish,
and Justice Nehring concur in Associate Chief Justice Durrant's
opinion.

http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopi ... 071808.pdf


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Yep and we have all taken advantage of it. Here is the original thread from the day of...
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8378


----------



## HuntingCrazy (Sep 8, 2007)

That's sweet. I was moving during mid-july and missed all the news!


----------



## XxFIREBOYxX (Jan 9, 2008)

FINALLY something the courts did right


----------



## takemefishin (Sep 13, 2007)

it wont be long before utahns mess up a good thing. -O|o-


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

takemefishin said:


> it wont be long before utahns mess up a good thing. -O|o-


 :roll: I think you are wrong. This was an apeall so it would be very hard to reverse. Good luck if you are trying... :twisted:


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> takemefishin said:
> 
> 
> > it wont be long before utahns mess up a good thing. -O|o-
> ...


 I highly doubt this thing ruling is final. Something is going to come about to change this or make new regulations. Many fisherman are already taking this too far. I know of farmers and ranchers, some being family members to me, that have already had people cut their fences and end up releasing their livestock. These actions are causing peoples cattle to get mixed up, and many cows are going to end up getting bred to the wrong bull. THere is also plenty of littering happening on the banks of peoples ranches. No fisherman has the right to just destroy others property especially when these ranchers have put more time and money into the land than the fisherman who are causing it harm. This kind of crap needs to stop and though I don't like seeing good fishing waters blocked from the public, I also would never harm anyones livelyhood over some feeling of entitlement that I may have.


----------



## Christopher30 (Nov 9, 2007)

I had no problem when private property meant private property, i hope i don't have any problems with this "ruling" in the next few years. That's just what a landowner needs is to have every idiot with a fishing pole and a six pack walking around on his property. Like nibblenuts said, leaving gates open, littering, poaching whatever, it will happen sooner or later and start a ruccus. Sounds like a dumb idea to me, only because i'm not what you would call the "general public" i guess. I can see a few ways that this is a good thing, but i can see alot more ways it will go bad.


----------



## Leaky (Sep 11, 2007)

+1000 It's really sad some few folks can't be more responsible for their own actions and end up screwing it up for responsible sportsmen. :evil:


----------



## nightfish (Apr 29, 2008)

Leaky said:


> +1000 It's really sad some few folks can't be more responsible for their own actions and end up screwing it up for responsible sportsmen. :evil:


You're right, and now a responsible sportsman has extra responsibilities. Pick up & pack out trash. Know for yourself that you are entering private land properly. Be respectful of the landowners privacy when fishing near a residence, camp or picnic site. REPORT VIOLATORS...if you carry a cell phone, program numbers for local law enforcement as well as the state poaching hotline (1-800-662-DEER , it's on the back of your licence). Reporting tresspassers not only protects landowner rights, it protects sportsmans rights.


----------



## HuntingCrazy (Sep 8, 2007)

Nibble Nuts said:


> Many fisherman are already taking this too far. I know of farmers and ranchers, some being _family members to me_, that have already had people cut their fences and end up releasing their livestock.No fisherman has the right to just _destroy others property_ especially when these ranchers have put more time and money into the land than the fisherman who are causing it harm. This kind of crap needs to stop and though I don't like seeing good fishing waters blocked from the public, I also would never harm anyones livelyhood over some feeling of entitlement that I may have.


From the sound of the ruling, your "family members" are putting private items (fences) over public property (waterways), which is also illegal. 
With this new ruling, it gives everyone the right to use the public waterways. This means float down the rivers in a boat, or whatever. 
My question is, how is a law-abiding person supposed to float the PUBLIC waterways if there are barbwire fences across them? Hmm...think about it for a while!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

HuntingCrazy said:


> From the sound of the ruling, your "family members" are putting private items (fences) over public property (waterways), which is also illegal.
> With this new ruling, it gives everyone the right to use the public waterways. This means float down the rivers in a boat, or whatever.
> My question is, how is a law-abiding person supposed to float the PUBLIC waterways if there are barbwire fences across them? Hmm...think about it for a while!


The ruling says NOTHING of anyone having a 'right' to float down the river in a boat. Access is one thing, being able to access it however you wish w/o regard for fences to keep in livestock is another. Justifying destruction of property is a slippery slope to be on.


----------



## HuntingCrazy (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> The ruling says NOTHING of anyone having a 'right' to float down the river in a boat.


 :roll: You had better read the entire court ruling. :roll: 
The people floating down the river had to move a fence to float down! The judges sided with the people floating!


----------



## Christopher30 (Nov 9, 2007)

Suppose hypothetically, a stream cannot be accessed from above or below, but only accessed by using a gate or jumping the fence and walking to the stream. What then? If it is the way Huntingcrazy describes it then it doesnt bother me, as long as they're only utilizing the water and not tromping all through the property to access it, then maybe it's okay. Fill me in here, i'm clueless about this thing. If they're telling people to tear down their fences and what not, i don't see how that is consitutional at all. I have no idea, i'm not picking sides i just need to know more...


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

The ruling states that entry to the river MUST be via a public access point. That would be a public bridge, public property or public roadside. Some bozo marching through a pasture to get to the stream is trespassing as before. Someone "jumping the fence" is also trespassing as before. Anglers cannot even leave the stream bed according to the ruling. If a stream cannot be accessed by a "public access point" then you are just out of luck to fish it. 

While I am certainly sympathetic to ranchers who have suffered loss due to trespassing, I don't see how anglers obeying the law would be the cause of losses. Any losses and damages would be from people trespassing and breaking the law, same as is was before the ruling. These hilljacks should be reported by landowners AND reported by us to the appropriate law enforcement agency when seen. Failure to do so and blatant violations by fishermen will cause the legislature to act in a way unfavorable to sportsmen. And yes, that legislative fight IS coming.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

HuntingCrazy said:


> Nibble Nuts said:
> 
> 
> > Many fisherman are already taking this too far. I know of farmers and ranchers, some being _family members to me_, that have already had people cut their fences and end up releasing their livestock.No fisherman has the right to just _destroy others property_ especially when these ranchers have put more time and money into the land than the fisherman who are causing it harm. This kind of crap needs to stop and though I don't like seeing good fishing waters blocked from the public, I also would never harm anyones livelyhood over some feeling of entitlement that I may have.
> ...


If you feel they are violating the law why don't you call the cops on them. I bet you'll find nobody would consider fencing in your cattle on your own land a crime. As for your question, it just proves this is a bullcrap ruling right now and something must change. I am pretty sure it is those with this entitlement mentailty such as yourself who will be the undoing of this law, the way it is now.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Nibble Nuts said:


> If you feel they are violating the law why don't you call the cops on them. I bet you'll find nobody would consider fencing in your cattle on your own land a crime. As for your question, it just proves this is a bullcrap ruling right now and something must change. I am pretty sure it is those with this entitlement mentailty such as yourself who will be the undoing of this law, the way it is now.


+1


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Nibble Nuts said:


> [quote="Nor-tah":2bll2vsd]
> 
> 
> takemefishin said:
> ...


 I highly doubt this thing ruling is final. Something is going to come about to change this or make new regulations. Many fisherman are already taking this too far. I know of farmers and ranchers, some being family members to me, that have already had people cut their fences and end up releasing their livestock. These actions are causing peoples cattle to get mixed up, and many cows are going to end up getting bred to the wrong bull. THere is also plenty of littering happening on the banks of peoples ranches. No fisherman has the right to just destroy others property especially when these ranchers have put more time and money into the land than the fisherman who are causing it harm. This kind of crap needs to stop and though I don't like seeing good fishing waters blocked from the public, I also would never harm anyones livelyhood over some feeling of entitlement that I may have.[/quote:2bll2vsd]
I know places where the cows have just destroyed the streambanks, ruined the streamside vegatation, crapped all over the place, trampled the only grassy areas around the stream until it is nothing but a hoof-pot-marked moon landscape. There are bad cattlemen just as there are bad fishermen. We need to work together on these issues. Cows can ruin trout habitat. It's a proven fact. That is why fishermen, Forest Service and DWR groups are fencing some of the habitats that have historically been ruined by cows. Don't pull the old "cattlemen and ranchers have put more time and money into the land than the fisherman" hogwash. Keep them cows from ruining the streams and rivers.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> I know places where the cows have just destroyed the streambanks, ruined the streamside vegatation, crapped all over the place, trampled the only grassy areas around the stream until it is nothing but a hoof-pot-marked moon landscape.


 If you want to talk about an issue that is more relevent to open range be my guest, but make no mistake I am talking about private property in which your personal sentiments about trampled grass are of no concern.


HighNDry said:


> Cows can ruin trout habitat. It's a proven fact. That is why fishermen, Forest Service and DWR groups are fencing some of the habitats that have historically been ruined by cows.


 Once again, what are you getting at? Are you trying to use your concern for trout as a reason to override private property rights? If not, find a more relevant place for your concerns.


HighNDry said:


> Don't pull the old "cattlemen and ranchers have put more time and money into the land than the fisherman" hogwash. Keep them cows from ruining the streams and rivers.


These ranchers and farmers have put more time and money into working their land than some bone headed fisherman who comes along with a feeling of entitlement over a new misguided ruling and there are no ands, ifs, or buts about it.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

The landowners don't own the water or the fish. This ruling was long overdue. While there is no need to cut someone's fence and the jerk offs should be turned in. I agree with the ruling and hope it stays in place regardless of some people being slobs. Landowners included.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

I tried to stay out, but I can't.

Nibble, there's nothing "new" about this ruling. It's a clarification of the fact that the PUBLIC owns the water. People seem to have forgotten that.

Granted, landowners have rights...to their LAND, not to block us from continuing our path up our waterways. If they don't want us to tromp through their land to get to the water, that's their right (as it should be). If they obstruct the waterway, they're violating the rest of the population's rights.

I'm talking about a fence across the river that would keep people from accessing the water upstream from that point. You're correct, they are entitled to keep their animals on their property, but they will have to find a way to do it without restricting upstream access.

The right for fishermen to use the waterways already exists. The Supreme Court decision in July only shed light on that little-known legal right we all share. They didn't create it. They didn't pass any "new" laws. They only upheld the previously existing laws and recognized the rights of the public in regards to those laws.

If your fam wants to keep their livestock on their property, they should build a fence to keep them there...Not one that denies upstream access for the rest of us that are willing to wade from a public access point.

An easy solution would be to include a gate of some sort or perhaps a ladder structure (like the ones along the Weber). If they are not willing to provide a path upstream of any kind, then they have no grounds to complain when someone creates one, as long as that person stays in the stream bed.

Yes, there are some real crumbs out there that won't respect the landowner or the land. There's nothing new about that. Prosecute them.

If they don't want people in the water that cuts through their land, that's just too bad since they don't own the water and the easement provides to the public a legal right to be there. End of story.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

LOAH said:


> I tried to stay out, but I can't.
> 
> Nibble, there's nothing "new" about this ruling. It's a clarification of the fact that the PUBLIC owns the water. People seem to have forgotten that.
> 
> ...


+1 good post LOAH.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Very good post LOAH. I might also add a couple of items.

1. The ruling allows for and gave guidelines for the lawful movement around a "navigation" obstruction. (read; a fence for livestock) If a farmer really needs to place a structure into the riverbed to keep stock in, anglers are allowed to walk around it and return directly to the riverbed. The ruling doesn't interfere with the stockman and his operations at all but allows "We the people" to enjoy the water that always belonged to us.

2. As I said before, I am very sympathetic to a small time farmer and his operation, but I sense the people most angered by this are people who lost their "exclusive" fishing privileges to prime streams they previously controlled. Many of these folks do not engage in agriculture at all. Places like Victory Ranch and their multimillion dollar subdivided estates. Not too many cows running around there anymore.

3. Montana has a similar law to what we have now and agriculture is alive and well up there. The courts may need to clarify things a bit, but peaceful coexistence can be achieved for both landowners and sportsmen.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

LOAH said:


> I tried to stay out, but I can't.
> 
> Nibble, there's nothing "new" about this ruling.


 Did this new ruling not create a new provision allowing fishermen to touch the ground in the stream? That is a new part of this ruling and it has caused people to feel they are entitled to cut through peoples fences, along with throwing their trash on the land. Some even goes as far as to shoot peoples cattle and horses as well. Alot of this seems to have arised with this new apect of the ruling, because now the traffic through the waterways is increasing. THis can be prevented with establishing adequate laws to protect private property rights. You know it is one of the fundamentals this country was founded on.


LOAH said:


> Granted, landowners have rights...to their LAND, not to block us from continuing our path up our waterways. If they don't want us to tromp through their land to get to the water, that's their right (as it should be). If they obstruct the waterway, they're violating the rest of the population's rights.


 THat is where the thinking differs from those who own the land and bought it under good faith that they didn't have to allow the public through the waterways that pass through their land. Is that not a major assumption that was in use when many people bought their land? I think you will find that it is. You are not paying the taxes on these waterways that these land owners are. You are also not bearing the liabilities that arise when people cut your fences and your cattle gets loose and people then sue when something happens. 


LOAH said:


> I'm talking about a fence across the river that would keep people from accessing the water upstream from that point. You're correct, they are entitled to keep their animals on their property, but they will have to find a way to do it without restricting upstream access.


 Then start paying your share of the taxes on these waterways. Why should the landowners have to subsidize your fishing on these waterways?



LOAH said:


> If they don't want people in the water that cuts through their land, that's just too bad since they don't own the water


 Actually they pay plenty for 1/2 the water rights to the rivers water and plenty in taxes. Now what have you done to entitle you to feel that this is your waterway?


LOAH said:


> End of story.


 Far from it. In fact there are many landowners fighting this now. I wouldn't expect you to realize things like this though. In fact, I can tell you are of a more socialist leaning and have that entitlement mentality.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

Catherder said:


> 1. The ruling allows for and gave guidelines for the lawful movement around a "navigation" obstruction. (read; a fence for livestock) If a farmer really needs to place a structure into the riverbed to keep stock in, anglers are allowed to walk around it and return directly to the riverbed. The ruling doesn't interfere with the stockman and his operations at all but allows "We the people" to enjoy the water that always belonged to us.


 That would be great if all fisherman could keep their actions to just that, but in actual practice there are many who are not, and they will ruin this for others.


Catherder said:


> 2. As I said before, I am very sympathetic to a small time farmer and his operation, but I sense the people most angered by this are people who lost their "exclusive" fishing privileges to prime streams they previously controlled.


That is a very faulty assumption,as many farmers and ranchers are angered because they need the rivers to irrigate and would like others to not tamper with their setups. Many of these people could care less about fishing. It is not about the "evil landowners" wanting to keep you from fishing so they can feel like they have some exclusive access that you don't. It is about wanting assurance of their investments and operations without others coming in to tamper with the resources like water that they need to run their operations.[/quote]


Catherder said:


> 3. The courts may need to clarify things a bit, but peaceful coexistence can be achieved for both landowners and sportsmen.


You bet there is clarification needed, and "sportsmen" are going to have to start using more ethics if this peaceful coexistence is going to happen.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

LOAH said:


> An easy solution would be to include a gate of some sort or perhaps a ladder structure (like the ones along the Weber). If they are not willing to provide a path upstream of any kind, then they have no grounds to complain when someone creates one, as long as that person stays in the stream bed.


 Once again, why should they provide that to you as well as pay the taxes and the for the water rights. How much do you believe you are entitled to? Don't you think you are just as capable to bring yourself a ladder or something that you could use to get around these obstacles?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Seems like some landowners have considered themselves "entitled" to something for a long time that wasn't theirs to begin with.

Why bring a ladder to get over an obstacle that can't legally obstruct the waterway?

Fishrmn


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

> THat is where the thinking differs from those who own the land and bought it under good faith that they didn't have to allow the public through the waterways that pass through their land. Is that not a major assumption that was in use when many people bought their land?


That thinking was wrong. It was the assumption of many that they didn't have to allow the public through the waterway. Guess what? The Utah Supreme Court says that's not right. The landowner does have to allow the public to use the waterway.

Fishrmn


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> Seems like some landowners have considered themselves "entitled" to something for a long time that wasn't theirs to begin with.
> 
> Why bring a ladder to get over an obstacle that can't legally obstruct the waterway?
> 
> Fishrmn


Why don't you pay for your own land if you feel that these people are going to make fishing obsolete? There are still plenty of places to you can fish and they are not stopping you from doing so. I guess it is the hard work that people like you and LOAH are afraid of. It requires alot of hard work and long hours to be able to afford the land, and the water rights. It requires rising with the sun and breaking your back long after the sun has set. You don't just work mere full time at some warehouse and then fish your weekends away to get to where you can afford that land, the water rights, and then be able to set it up to run cattle, irrigate and so on. And no, many of these people were not wealthy to begin with, it was hard work that enabled many of these landowners to have their land. Yet people like you think you should be able to just come up and fish the land without having to pay the taxes, work the land, pay for your water rights. You tell me who is feeling entitled? The underachievers is who.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> > THat is where the thinking differs from those who own the land and bought it under good faith that they didn't have to allow the public through the waterways that pass through their land. Is that not a major assumption that was in use when many people bought their land?
> 
> 
> That thinking was wrong. It was the assumption of many that they didn't have to allow the public through the waterway. Guess what? The Utah Supreme Court says that's not right. The landowner does have to allow the public to use the waterway.
> ...


We will see about that. This is being fought as we speak. When is it also going to be established that the public should have access to all the land? Where does it stop? This is once again a fine example of the socialist mentality that pervades our nation today.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

Good night. I'm done agruing this madness for the night.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Nibble Nuts said:


> Why don't you pay for your own land if you feel that these people are going to make fishing obsolete? There are still plenty of places to you can fish and they are not stopping you from doing so. I guess it is the hard work that people like you and LOAH are afraid of. It requires alot of hard work and long hours to be able to afford the land, and the water rights. It requires rising with the sun and breaking your back long after the sun has set. You don't just work mere full time at some warehouse and then fish your weekends away to get to where you can afford that land, the water rights, and then be able to set it up to run cattle, irrigate and so on. And no, many of these people were not wealthy to begin with, it was hard work that enabled many of these landowners to have their land. Yet people like you think you should be able to just come up and fish the land without having to pay the taxes, work the land, pay for your water rights. You tell me who is feeling entitled? The underachievers is who.


Why should I pay for my own land? If I bought my own land with a stream running through it, I would have to allow the public access. The landowner has no right to keep the public out of the waterway! It doesn't matter whether you have the water rights or not. As long as the water flows through to public access, the public can access the waterway. I couldn't care less whether they plant crops, work 18 hour days, raise sheep, cattle or horses. I don't care if the land is paid for, inherited, mortgaged or stolen, they cannot restrict public access to public waterways. It doesn't matter whether they like to fish, or can't stand to see the little fishes suffer with a hook in their mouth. The attitude that they can deny access is wrong. So says the Utah Supreme Court.

And who said anything about fishing the land? I want to fish the stream. The landowner doesn't own the stream or the fish in it.

Fishrmn


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> Seems like some landowners have considered themselves "entitled" to something for a long time that wasn't theirs to begin with.
> 
> Why bring a ladder to get over an obstacle that can't legally obstruct the waterway?
> 
> Fishrmn


Dead on, Fishrmn.

Nibble, there's not much to your argument.

The negative activities happening on private land that you're describing are illegal. Why would anyone assume that killing someone's cattle is okay all of a sudden? Littering is still illegal. TRESPASSING is still illegal.

Get a grip. Nobody is challenging this. Prosecute offenders and protect your land like always.

If someone bought their land under the assumption that the stream bed and water was private, then they obviously made a naive assumption. Do your homework.

I won't pretend that I knew all of this before the recent ruling...I didn't. Most people didn't and plenty felt violated that they couldn't access OUR water. I thank the Utah Supreme Court for enlightening the public of the extent of our rights in this matter. Though I haven't personally utilized this previously unknown right, I certainly intend to in the future.

Entitlement? Yes. We all have the same rights to our natural resources. Ranchers pay extra to use extra water to soak their crops (and deplete our resource). It's well warranted. They grown more corn, we have less water. Pretty simple math there.

Imply that I'm a socialist? You don't know me, bro. You're way off the charts on that one.

Looks like I struck a nerve and the only thing left for you to do was to vomit a weak argument that is irrelevant to this discussion (people breaking EXISTING laws while utilizing our resource).

Look, I'm sorry you're butt-hurt about whomever you know or are related to that can't monopolize the water they thought they owned.

As I stated earlier, the ruling didn't create anything new. The stream beds were always within our right to travel on. A judge in Ogden didn't realize that and the Utah Supreme Court corrected him, as they're supposed to...Unanimously was it?

I'm all for peoples' rights, NN. That doesn't mean that the guy in the canyon has more rights than I do.

*THAT'S* what this country was founded on.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Nibble Nuts said:


> Good night. I'm done agruing this madness for the night.


Quitting already? We all just got here. :lol:

Your responses seem more emotional than rational. Maybe you _should_ get some rest. That way you think before you click "submit".

Unfortunately, tomorrow during the day, I won't be able to continue this drivel since I'll be at that place you seem to think I fear: *WORK*.

Perhaps you'll find someone else to play the socialist card with.

:roll:


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> The landowner has no right to keep the public out of the waterway!


 As long as that public is not treating the owners land and property with respect, than the public should not be allowed any access to the bank whatsoever. It happens more than you would realize.


Fishrmn said:


> The attitude that they can deny access is wrong. So says the Utah Supreme Court.


 The attitude that you should be able to have the same access for waterways that your not paying the taxes over is wrong. 


Fishrmn said:


> And who said anything about fishing the land? I want to fish the stream. The landowner doesn't own the stream or the fish in it.


 :roll: It is those going through the stream to fish who are also accessing the land whther they are supposed to or not is irrelevent.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

LOAH said:


> Nibble Nuts said:
> 
> 
> > Good night. I'm done agruing this madness for the night.
> ...


You are one to talk about lacking substance. How is it an emotional response? This is based on real observation and just because you don't agree with it, does not mean you are validated in throwing around the emotional response card. When one has plenty of premises to base their conclusions off, it is not an emotional response. 
I don't think you fear work at, but I know you don't have it in you to go through the type of work that was required for many of the landowners that I know to get to where they are. 
Now I find it ironic that you are trying to pull the emotional response card when this post I quoted is nothing but an emotional retort over the anger your feeling to some of the comments I made. 
I'm staying here now since you think you are calling me out. I was going to go to bed to ready myself for work, but you felt it would make you look good to act as if I was ducking you. Bring it little man.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Nibble Nuts said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > Catherder said:
> ...


The Supreme Court ruling already addressed that concern regarding irrigation and gave that protection to the landowners. Anglers legally accessing the main river are NOT allowed to access any irrigation diversion streams or tamper with any fixtures. Access is limited ONLY to the main streambed. Anyone going anywhere else is guilty of trespassing.

I have absolutely no doubt that your relatives you have described are as sincere as you have described. However, a majority of the streams near the Wasatch Front I have some familiarity with, that have been locked up by no trespassing signs, have ZERO agriculture occurring on them. Victory Ranch by Jordanelle is a prime example. A subdivided property for the ultra-wealthy that locked up a large stretch of the upper Provo river. It's sales brochure advertised the "exclusive blue ribbon trout stream" as part of its sales pitch. The courts have established previously that WE THE PEOPLE own those trout in that blue ribbon stream. I would submit that assuming that only small time farming operators are mad about this is a faulty supposition and that at the end of the day, we will see the very wealthy, who do have a stake in "exclusive" fishing rights, will be the ones fighting to have the legislature change the laws.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Nibble Nuts said:


> As long as that public is not treating the owners land and property with respect, than the public should not be allowed any access to the bank whatsoever. It happens more than you would realize.


Of course it happens. It always happened. It's still illegal to trespass, blah, blah, blah.

Nobody has the right to commit these acts without prosecution, regardless.



Nibble Nuts said:


> The attitude that you should be able to have the same access for waterways that your not paying the taxes over is wrong.


We're not paying taxes for it? Gee, I pay for the water I use, as do landowners. I'm part of society too. We all pay to have that water treated (from all of the pollutants that came from upstream) so we can use it. We pay in the form of taxes and utility bills.

Like I said, use more water, pay more money. It's perfectly fair. They take water from the people who are downstream and they must pay for the resource that they are depleting.



Nibble Nuts said:


> It is those going through the stream to fish who are also accessing the land whther they are supposed to or not is irrelevent.


What don't you understand? Trespassing is still illegal. This ruling doens't give anyone the right to use anyone's land.



Nibble Nuts said:


> This is based on real observation and just because you don't agree with it, does not mean you are validated in throwing around the emotional response card.


Your real observations are of litter and trespassing...and even poaching, yes? *See above*

Your emotional response(s) come into play when describing how hard the poor farmer has to toil all day and into the night. Are you trying to make someone feel bad for them?

Honestly, I have nothing against the noble life of a farmer. They started this nation. I'm not saying anything bad about them, yet you react as if I'm slapping their heritage. It just so happens that in the state of Utah, they have to share the waterway with the public.



Nibble Nuts said:


> I don't think you fear work at, but *I know you don't have it in you to go through the type of work* that was required for many of the landowners that I know to get to where they are.


Really? You _know_ that? Again, you don't know me. Whether or not I have the willpower and foresight to raise crops and livestock has nothing to do with my rights to wade a river.

Yet again, another emotional tangent. If you can't see that, it's not worth explaining to you.



Nibble Nuts said:


> I was going to go to bed to ready myself for work, but you felt it would make you look good to act as if I was ducking you. Bring it little man.


It's not about me. I noticed you were online and only had time to get 1 response in before you called it quits to hit the sack. Bring it? Bring what? I don't need "it". You're kicking your own butt here.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

In part 27 it states that if the public uses the easement in a way that causes injury to the landowner, than that use is beyond the scope of the easement. 
Part 28 furthers this position. 
No where did I find it mentioned that a fisherman has the right to cut down fences. In fact I see that could be interpreted as a cause of injury to the landowner. I do not see the validity in the claim that the fisherman has the right to remove those barriers because it is blocking their access. There are many undefined variables in this ruling that will require further clarification. This is not the final word because there are too many variables at play here that are not being addressed. 
My original point was that cutting fences and the frequent misuse of the easement is increasing since this ruling. It is not going to stay this way forever. To claim that the landowner is oppressing your rights is not cutting it. That is an emotional argument by those who feel entitled to more than they deserve and is being used to justify things that are not explicitly granted to the fisher. 
I have highlighted many of the reasons why I myself see the landowners as having more of a right to erect what they need to be able to run cattle, irrigate, etc. than the recreationalist who thinks he has the right to mess with these things because that is what they are doing.
http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopi ... 071808.pdf


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Nibble Nuts said:


> In part 27 it states that *IF* the public uses the easement in a way that causes injury to the landowner, than that use is beyond the scope of the easement.
> Part 28 furthers this position.
> No where did I find it mentioned that a fisherman has the right to cut down fences. In fact I see that could be interpreted as a cause of injury to the landowner. I do not see the validity in the claim that the fisherman has the right to remove those barriers because it is blocking their access. There are many undefined variables in this ruling that will require further clarification. This is not the final word because there are too many variables at play here that are not being addressed.
> My original point was that cutting fences and the frequent misuse of the easement is increasing since this ruling. It is not going to stay this way forever. To claim that the landowner is oppressing your rights is not cutting it. That is an emotional argument by those who feel entitled to more than they deserve and is being used to justify things that are not explicitly granted to the fisher.
> ...


They've got the right to run cattle, irrigate, etc. They don't have the right to restrict access to a waterway. That may mean that the fence across the river will have to be built to stop cows from going over it, while allowing reasonable access to the public. The right to access the waterway does not give anyone the right to "mess with" the landowners property, or infrastructure. Anyone who is "messing with" property, or irrigation, or cattle, or whatever is breaking the law and deserves to be dealt with accordingly. Anyone restricting access to a waterway is also breaking the law, and deserves to be dealt with accordingly as well.

A landowner who makes it impossible for someone to travel a waterway is as wrong as someone blocking off a public highway. It doesn't matter why. It doesn't make illegal activities legal.

Fishrmn


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> They've got the right to run cattle, irrigate, etc. They don't have the right to restrict access to a waterway. That may mean that the fence across the river will have to be built to stop cows from going over it, while allowing reasonable access to the public. The right to access the waterway does not give anyone the right to "mess with" the landowners property, or infrastructure. Anyone who is "messing with" property, or irrigation, or cattle, or whatever is breaking the law and deserves to be dealt with accordingly. Anyone restricting access to a waterway is also breaking the law, and deserves to be dealt with accordingly as well.
> 
> A landowner who makes it impossible for someone to travel a waterway is as wrong as someone blocking off a public highway. It doesn't matter why. It doesn't make illegal activities legal.
> 
> Fishrmn


In the ruling, I read that the debate was basically over being able touch the stream bed and it was ruled in favor of that end. I did not see anywhere that dealt with subject matter beyond that. I see nowhere that it mentioned that it was illegal to have fencing runing across the waterway. I do see where it was stated that it is beyond the scope of the easement to use it in a fasion that causes injury to the landowner though. I will need to see the proof behind your claims so that I can verify them myself. If there is a better source of info that you have I would like to see the link please.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

The ruling was issued concerning a group of rafters rafting down a river. If there isn't enough room under a fence to get a raft down the river, what difference does it make if their feet touch the stream bed? The Supreme Court was aware that the Conasters had touched, and moved fencing in order to access the stream.

From the second page of the Supreme Courts decision on case number 20060558 dated July 18, 2008.


> and (4) Kevin Conatser
> intentionally got out of the raft and touched the river bottom by
> walking along it to fish and move fencing that the Johnsons had
> strung across the river.


Apparently that wasn't considered as injurious to the landowner.

Fishrmn


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> The ruling was issued concerning a group of rafters rafting down a river. If there isn't enough room under a fence to get a raft down the river, what difference does it make if their feet touch the stream bed? The Supreme Court was aware that the Conasters had touched, and moved fencing in order to access the stream.
> 
> From the second page of the Supreme Courts decision on case number 20060558 dated July 18, 2008.
> 
> ...


Moving the fence vs. cutting it(removing it) are not the same thing. In this particular instance maybe they maoved the fence out of the way enought to get through it, then put it back. That is not injurious in that instance. I guarantee you that cutting fences under the assumption that it is illegal for them to be there and then leaving so that cattle can escape is very injurious. As you can see, too many people are assuming things out of this ruling that are just not true.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

LOAH said:


> Nibble Nuts said:
> 
> 
> > The attitude that you should be able to have the same access for waterways that your not paying the taxes over is wrong.
> ...


Loah, Loah, Loah, it is not the same tax structure as your water bill. They landowner is still charged for the water they use that passes through their meters, but they are also assesed a property tax on the land that runs under the stream and are therefore subsidizing your easement for you. I think you should stick to fishing reports, they are more your thing.


Nibble Nuts said:


> It is those going through the stream to fish who are also accessing the land whther they are supposed to or not is irrelevent.





LOAH said:


> What don't you understand? Trespassing is still illegal. This ruling doens't give anyone the right to use anyone's land.


 I know that, but since this ruling, the frequency of people tresspassing is also rising. Though the ruling doesn't permit them to do this, this is what they are doing under false assumptions and feelings of entitlement(have I thrown that word around enough yet 8) )



Nibble Nuts said:


> This is based on real observation and just because you don't agree with it, does not mean you are validated in throwing around the emotional response card.





LOAH said:


> Your real observations are of litter and trespassing...and even poaching, yes?


 Yes and the littering, the fence cutting, the killing of livestock, the increased liabilities of escaped livestock are all issues that need to be weighed out in this issue.


LOAH said:


> Your emotional response(s) come into play when describing how hard the poor farmer has to toil all day and into the night. Are you trying to make someone feel bad for them?


 The poor farmers I am refering to are now millionaires due to their ceaseless laboring, you should admire them if anything. How was I trying to make anyone feel bad for them? You may just be the one lacking rest.



Nibble Nuts said:


> I don't think you fear work at, but *I know you don't have it in you to go through the type of work* that was required for many of the landowners that I know to get to where they are.





LOAH said:


> Really? You _know_ that? Again, you don't know me.


 I'd be willing to bet money on that actually.


LOAH said:


> Whether or not I have the willpower and foresight to raise crops and livestock has nothing to do with my rights to wade a river.


 No it doesn't.


LOAH said:


> Yet again, another emotional tangent. If you can't see that, it's not worth explaining to you


 I think if you reread your last fewe posts, you will see you are using more emotion than I. 


LOAH said:


> You're kicking your own butt here.


Is that so?


----------



## deadicatedweim (Dec 18, 2007)

Nibble Nuts said:


> LOAH said:
> 
> 
> > Your emotional response(s) come into play when describing how hard the poor farmer has to toil all day and into the night. Are you trying to make someone feel bad for them?
> ...


Is that so?[/quote]

I am confused on who is tired and ponder the question are they poor farmers or rich farmers? Because usually if you are a millionaire most people would consider you wealthy or rich. 

I sure wish I could sleep right now.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

A few of the landowners are just a bunch of whiners. I have as much of a right to access the water and the fish in it as they do. Regardless of where it is. If I access it through a public access point and obey the law they are SOL. They need to deal with it. They had it their way for way too long. Like I said before, it's my water and my fish. Just because it runs through their property doesn't give them exclusive rights to a public natural resource. 

Most of the landowners owners I've dealt with since the decision don't have anything to do with cattle. They just want the water to themselves and that's just not right. There are just as many slob landowners out there as fisherman. The ones who think that since they own some land they can throw a fence up wherever they want. Whether it's theirs or not. SO don't make them all look like victims because they are far from it.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

I gotta go with NN's on this one...

The ruling is a POS !! According to their own ruling....'All waters in the State belong to the public' . Again, opening all doors to private owner's, farmer's, rancher's, land owner's, private fish farms, resorts, Federal waters, restricted water's, and, even all streams that could possibly run through Military bases. This 'Law' does *not* define, nor protect the privacy of owners who may be lucky enough to have a stream through their property. Whether it's used for commercial, industrial, recreational, farming, ranching or nothing at all.

It was a 'Great Day in the Utah Supreme Court' !! :roll: :roll: ......Where the hell is the fine print ?? Where is the protection for the owner's who may taken care of these water way's and property's for years ? Where are the landowner's agreements with the DWR, DNR, State of Utah, NFS, and the Utah Supreme Court ??

There are quite a few river's I would like to fish that are on 'Private Land' , but, I refuse to insult the rancher's and farmer's with this ruling from the Utah Supreme Court that is void of any agreement's with the landowner's. I would rather wave to a landowner in friendly manner than have to argue with him about what rights I have and what rights he doesn't have anymore.

Oh....and sorry 'Farmer Jones', I had to shoot three of your Longhorns and two horse's, they looked threatening to me...while I was wading in my newly clarified public water's...and that pea**** and that goat !!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Good post *.45* NibbleNuts is correct as well. The lack of respect for PRIVATE property here and in the field is sad, to say the least!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Simply said, this is a good ruling in my opinion for one reason: it is too often that state money/resources are used on private land. How often does the state stock streams on public land and those fish then swim into private land and the public is left out of the fishing rights?


----------



## orvis1 (Sep 7, 2007)

Wow some heavy hitters in the forum going at it! This could be a LONG thread...

First let me say I have fished with nibble & Loah and they are bolth good guys, I have met .45 a couple of times and he seem to be a good person and pro well lets just say pro is pro I agree with him on some stuff others I shake my head at but I sense he has a good heart.

With that being said I am going to throw my 2 cents in without attacking anyone personally. I think this ruling was long overdue because land owners were monopolizing a *Public* resource the water and wildlife living in that water. Congratulations to you Mr landowner wether you inherited this from momy and daddy, worked 3 jobs to buy it, or won a slot jackpot in wendover is irrelevant. You have a right to protect your private property that you purchased and pay taxes on and you should take every lawfull action to do so. You should not as the courts have stated impede my access to the public resource that flows through your property. For once the little guy won and the courts did what was right, I cannot cut accross your property because it is yours, but you cannot impede me from using a public resource the river. If you need to put up a fence to keep cattle in that is fine but you need to accomodate me using the public river that could be a gate, steps, or ladder whatever works for you. But yes if you need to restrict my access to the river you need to provide an alternate route to get to the river seems fair enough. Sometimes the big dollar crowd doesn't always win and the right thing is done for the average joe who works all week to support his family and would like a little time on the water do recharge the batteries. Nibble sorry that your family has run into some a-holes there are a lot of them in the world but the ruling is the right thing. I personally have not used it yet but it is good to know it is there.


----------



## deadicatedweim (Dec 18, 2007)

Orvis made some good points. When I noticed that a lot was on the market with a stream running through it people usually tried to ask for more for the property versus something across the street so I feel that the land owner definitly paid his way to have the stream on his property. I also feel that since there are no devices inplace to keep the public stocked fish out of there property it kinda seems fair for the anglers to be able to wade down the river to use the great resource. But I think that there needs to be public funding for laddersteps so that people can cross the fences with out damaging them. I know from personal experience if your not a tall guy that can just step over a barb wire fence you probably are damaging it a little bit by standing on it or spreading it. The last thing I think needs to be done is that if a landowner catches someone littering or trespassing the cops need to make it a big priorty and issue huge fines and prosecute to the fullest extent so the land owners feel that the general public has there back. 

I think most guys that are the idiots that damage and litter probably dont care what the supreme court said they are going to fish where they want no matter what so its up to us to get the bad apples caught.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

As a landowner, Why not discontinue agreements with the state and division for access points?


----------



## orvis1 (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> As a landowner, Why not discontinue agreements with the state and division for access points?


Because they are being paid for the trespass rights and anglers can access thier part of the river anyway if they are willing to wade.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

The compensation is miniscule and there are some access points where one would have to wade for miles just to get there.


----------



## HuntingCrazy (Sep 8, 2007)

> Fishrmn:
> We will see about that. This is being fought as we speak. When is it also going to be established that the public should have access to all the land? Where does it stop? This is once again a fine example of the socialist mentality that pervades our nation today.


Now I don't think that public should be allowed to hunt, or do whatever on private land, but what really pisses me off is when somebody obtains a small piece of frontage property that blocks access to an entire mountain of PUBLIC land. That really is an annoyance to not only me, but most of the sportsmen who can only recreate on public land. 
This ruling about the water just made if fair for the public to be able to utilize the public's water resources.

Now, one thing that I really wish would happen is mandatory corridors to public land if the public land access is blocked by private owners. This is not to say that the public can use the private land for recreation, just only as a thoroughfare to get to the public land. Just like the Nebo Creek area. The private owners can use their private land for whatever they wish, while the public land is kept public.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I don't like the notion that a private property owner can use the property anyway they like. We all live downstream. I don't want them flushing crap, cow pies, grass clippings, pruned branches, car oil, fertilizers and all the other crap I have seen float by me downstream from private property. Just because you own the property doesn't give you the right to flush your toilet past my face.


----------



## eightstrings (Sep 4, 2008)

I was overjoyed when I first heard about this. Within a day, I was fishing waters I have not fished in years, and they were surprisingly crowded...

I have had a lot of time to think about this, and I definitely have mixed feelings. One one hand, I do believe the public should have access to waters that could be considered "major" or "navigable." Examples would include every major section of the Provo, Weber, Ogden, and Logan rivers (excluding tributaries), as well as several others. Rivers like these are simply too valuable of a resource to completely block the public from using.

On the other hand, the private ownership of property is a fundamental principle that makes the United States a great place to be. I have a friend that was fishing a rather obscure tributary earlier this year - through private property of course. The owner saw my friend, and a debate started that did not end well, and could have ended up very badly. While my buddy was legally in the right, I did not agree with what he did. There were public sections of the same water nearby, and this was just a tiny creek through some guy's land.

Here are a few things to consider:

- Do you think this ruling would provide a public easement on land posted by state or federal governments? I would guess not. Why should the government be allowed to post a waterway and not a landowner?

- Should landowners be required to provide access to hunters wishing to hunt on private lands? After all, state wildlife is a public resource. Of course, this would never happen. There are too many landowners who generate revenue by allowing hunters access to private hunts for trophy animals. Though not identical in every respect, I do think the situations are similar.

Like I stated, I think the courts should define specific rivers included and/or excluded by this ruling. I just don't see how an irrigation ditch should be a passport for any old Joe to walk where he pleases, and I also don't see how a farmer or rich guy can completely control a large stretch of a river like the Weber.

Though it's just me, I have decided to stick with the good old waters that I have fished for years without controversy. Many years ago, I got in my only streamside argument, and though I had a day to fish, I was really done at that point.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

eightstrings said:


> Do you think this ruling would provide a public easement on land posted by state or federal governments? I would guess not. Why should the government be allowed to post a waterway and not a landowner?


Disclaimer - I am NOT a lawyer.

However, it is my understanding that ANY land owned and controled by the Federal Government is automatically removed from ANY control or management by the state. Indian lands are a similar case. Neither is subject to any state laws and the recent USC ruling does not apply to them. That's why the Feds can prevent access to a stream but a private property owner can not. Different set of laws.


----------

