# HB 141



## stupiddog (Jan 15, 2008)

Just FYI we lost HB 141 today. This is bad news for fisherman. Contact the governers office and tell him not to sign this quick. [email protected]


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

What a tragedy! Who are those people representing?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A sad day indeed. It will now be on to the courts. 


In spite of the outcome, thanks to all of you that helped fight this misguided legislation in whatever way you could.


----------



## cane2477 (Oct 24, 2007)

Are you sure? According to utah.gov, this bill is being substituted and has not been voted on. Can anyone else confirm a vote has indeed been taken?

http://le.utah.gov/~2010/status/hbillsta/hb0141s01.htm


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

cane2477 said:


> Are you sure? According to utah.gov, this bill is being substituted and has not been voted on. Can anyone else confirm a vote has indeed been taken?
> 
> http://le.utah.gov/~2010/status/hbillsta/hb0141s01.htm


http://www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_14641999

Don't believe the government, or their website.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

What a joke. I guess we will find out if the UT Supreme Court is bought out too huh? I hope they are not and they get royally pissed and throw this back in the legislatures and governors face and hold them all in contempt and sentence them to death!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :evil: F*%^$)# IDIOTS!


----------



## pkred (Jul 9, 2009)

+1


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

I just sent Gov. Herbert an e-mail. I encourage everyone to send him one and tell him not to sign the bill into law!
http://governor.utah.gov/goca/form_comment.html
Here is his feedback page.


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

I already sent an e mail to my senator, kinda bitched him out for voting for it. Told him I would do all I can to make sure people wouldn't vote for him come election time. :twisted: 

Ill give Mr. Herbert a try too.


----------



## loveswildlife (Mar 11, 2010)

Fellas,

I love the outdoors as much as anyone, but I think the landowners have significant number of legitimate reasons for pushing for this. When each of you can, let me know how you would argue against these:

1. If the water is public, then what would stop my neighbor from coming into my backyard uninvited and swiming in my pool, or using my toilet in my house? I spent the money on my home and yard, and I don't want anyone to be there that I don't choose to be. I see where they are coming from on this.

2. If the water is public owned, then isn't the dirt and every other natural resource, so how do we protect our homes and property from others, including the government deciding who can and cannot be on there.

3. Do we pay property taxes on the property we wish to fish on? Landowners do.

4. I have worked my whole life to buy my small chunk of land, very small, but someone else that hasn't worked at it like have shouldn't have a natural right to be on it and to use it. The bottom line is that if each of us owned a lot of land and had sweet fishing on it, we wouldn't want others on it, period.

What I have found is that I have to work hard to have relationships with those who own property and I have been lucky to fish in places like that from time to time.

Thanks.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

So in the end when all you have is that little chunk of land to fish that borders the water owned by the public be grateful. The one with the biggest chunk gets to have the most fun, hmm cool idea.

Comparing water and dirt, another good one.

When your property floods, make sure you do not accept one penny of flood mitigation to help you out ok.

Most important, make sure you put up a barrier to keep all of those public fish out of your water or just divert the water shares you own and be done with you.

Un-educated at best.


----------



## STEVO (Sep 13, 2007)

loveswildlife said:


> Fellas,
> 
> I love the outdoors as much as anyone, but I think the landowners have significant number of legitimate reasons for pushing for this. When each of you can, let me know how you would argue against these:
> 
> ...


*Are you serious?????*


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

loveswildlife said:


> Fellas,
> 
> I love the outdoors as much as anyone, but I think the landowners have significant number of legitimate reasons for pushing for this. When each of you can, let me know how you would argue against these:
> 
> ...


The problem, Mr. Landowner, is the Utah Supreme court ruling just confirmed that THE LAND HAS ALWAYS BEEN PUBLIC ACCESS. No one is going to come into your house and use your toilet, that is a silly argument. Montana and Idaho have had this law for many years and guess what, no one has broken into anyone's house and used their toilet. There are no current laws that indicated that every piece of dirt is a natural resource, although there was one that indicated that rivers and streams are. The landowners receive a lot of benefit from state money by having the streams public, including fish stocking, habitat restoration money, etc. If landowners are paying for that land, the solution is not to take rights away, don't make them pay it! So what you're assuming is that everyone has the attitude, IT'S MY RIVER SO STAY OUT!!! IMHO


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

loveswildlife said:


> Fellas,
> 
> I love the outdoors as much as anyone, but I think the landowners have significant number of legitimate reasons for pushing for this. When each of you can, let me know how you would argue against these:
> 
> ...


1. thats blatantly obvious thats part of your house, come into my garage un-invited youll get shot, im sure the same go's for you too

2.the water AND the river bed it flows on are public property... landowners would get a stipend to cover incidentals (garbage, wouldent be responsible if someone gets hurt, etc.)

3.do some of your taxes pay for fish stocking into a stream that would run through your property? sure... mine do to, why dont i have a right to go after the same said stocked fish in a legal manner?

4. congrats on owning land, to answer your question.... if i were fortunate enough to own some land with river access, and someone was considerate enough to ask permission and not be a dick about it and leave litter behind, i would be more then willing to allow them access, but alas, im only enlisted i dont make what alot others make in the private sector and unfortunately that will never be a dream i can fulfill

i think it was mentioned before.... lets say your land gets so flooded it damages your house, and you apply for and receive flood reperations (not the word im looking for at the moment) from the government and you indeed recieve it.... congrats, i hope my and several other peoples tax dollars not only repair your house and property to what it was before, but actually make it better! if i ask for permission and then told no, can i take my portion of tax dollars back and have it spent some where better?


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

Welcome to the forum loveswildlife. Here are my thoughts on your post...



loveswildlife said:


> Fellas,
> 
> I love the outdoors as much as anyone, but I think the landowners have significant number of legitimate reasons for pushing for this. When each of you can, let me know how you would argue against these:
> 
> ...


I can certainly understand where land owners are coming from. My family owns property on the Bear River so I have heard both sides of this issue, and I am very sympathetic to land owner rights. But the bottom line is that unlike a lake or pond a river or stream is a natural resource that is transient, and therefore not the property of one particular land owner because it does not reside wholly on said land. That is why I believe the Utah SC will eventually strike down HB 141.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

loveswildlife said:


> Fellas,
> What I have found is that I have to work hard to have relationships with those who own property and I have been lucky to fish in places like that from time to time.
> 
> Thanks.


Nothing wrong with that theory !!!

Welcome to the forum loveswildlife !!!


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

loveswildlife said:


> Fellas,
> 
> I love the outdoors as much as anyone, but I think the landowners have significant number of legitimate reasons for pushing for this. When each of you can, let me know how you would argue against these:
> 
> ...


Welcome to the Forum.

You took on a hot, and very important, topic for your first post. You will find much argument on this issue in the UWN. You bring out some valid points, all of which have been hashed over here many times. Most everything you need to know concerning the Utah water rights issue can be found here.

I recommend using UWN's search engine to get "knowed up". Ah....ya may want to wear a hard hat too.

Again, welcome and enjoy the Forum.


----------



## loveswildlife (Mar 11, 2010)

This is good feedback. I will say that coming from someone that works in public relations and closely with legal teams of all sorts, many of the posts below don't make much more sense the the comments I added (which come directly from landowners and have been brought up as you know in court and in this legislation process). For example, the toilet is man made, but the water that fills it comes from the ground and certainly is public water. Same with the pool. If I can jump from my fence and land in the water, which one could argue, is publicly owned, can I be there? These arguments cannot be so easily dismissed but rather need legal and substantive basis for adequate discussion. For those that looked at it that way, I appreciate it and they make a lot of sense. For those that just said screw them, blah, blah, blah, that isn't going to help our case much at all.

Also, when we talk about reparations and relief funds, etc. that landowners get when issues arise, that is the case for business owners, homeowners, etc. in times of disaster, and we don't think about taking our tax money back from them if it doesn't impact us. Right?


----------



## loveswildlife (Mar 11, 2010)

I meant to also say that I was glad to join the forum and appreciate all the thoughts so far.


----------



## browntrout (Apr 27, 2008)

loveswildlife said:


> I meant to also say that I was glad to join the forum and appreciate all the thoughts so far.


 Welcome to the forum and be sure to express the same opinions on Utahonthefly.com


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

browntrout said:


> loveswildlife said:
> 
> 
> > I meant to also say that I was glad to join the forum and appreciate all the thoughts so far.
> ...


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Against my better judgment, I am going to try and answer these questions based on current law related to Conatser. (pre HB141) Maybe it will be cathartic for my post 141 malaise.

1. Re


STEVO said:


> 1. If the water is public, then what would stop my neighbor from coming into my backyard uninvited and swiming in my pool, or using my toilet in my house? I spent the money on my home and yard, and I don't want anyone to be there that I don't choose to be. I see where they are coming from on this


Your backyard swimming pool does not have a public access point into it, therefore no trespassing is allowed into your backyard and into the pool. It is also unlikely that your backyard pool has a direct NATURAL connection to a natural free flowing stream as well. Conatser did NOT grant access to the public to canals, pipes and man made flowing watercourses, thus your entire house and water fixtures are exempt from any Conatser easement. Finally, the use of the water and streambed has to be associated with a recognized recreational activity, thus until/unless wading through human excrement in a sewer becomes a recognized recreational activity, access through a sewer system to your indoor toilet is not covered in Conatser.

2.


STEVO said:


> 2. If the water is public owned, then isn't the dirt and every other natural resource,


Private property dirt is not publicly owned. Sorry. Neither Conatser or any other water law makes such a claim.

3.


STEVO said:


> 3. Do we pay property taxes on the property we wish to fish on? Landowners do.


Do I pay property taxes for the sidewalk and utility fixtures on both my home and business properties while people walk all over it? Yep

4.


STEVO said:


> The bottom line is that if each of us owned a lot of land and had sweet fishing on it, we wouldn't want others on it, period.


Yup, that does appear to be the bottom line with some, even if it goes against long standing legal precedent. And that was the bottom line with the special interests that got their way in the Legislature this round. Any talk of compromise on their part was pure BS. The next round will now move back to the courts. But rest assured now, because no one will be using Conatser as an excuse to invade your private dirt reserve or to crawl into/through your toilet to violate your private property.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I have relatives that own a house along the Ogden River in the canyon. They don't like to see people walking up the stream fishing all the time and will now immediatly re-post their small parcel of riverfront property. They refuse to accept the notion that the *public *owns the water. HB141 just closed up huge chunks of publicly-owned water to fishing. HB141 just *privatized public water* and resources for the exclusive benefit of a small number of riverfront landowners without fair compensation to the taxpayer for the "taking" of this publicly-owned resource. It is even worse if the landowner charges to fish the stream running over his property because it takes away from the public and financially rewards a landowner for locking the public out of what we legally own (the stream). It is a sad world we live in.
R


----------



## stupiddog (Jan 15, 2008)

Im copying this from the utah on the fly site because I feel it will help.

I am very disappointing that the hard work everyone has put in has not paid off. Our response at Round Rocks will be that for the remainder of the month of March all profit from internet sales in the state of Utah will be donated to the fund to help us fight this. So we will donate every dollar of profit from orders that you place to help fight this. I wish we could donate every dollar that comes in the door but we are a small shop in Logan and its hard enough to pay the rent as it is. I'm sure many of you know that we were going to close or doors several months ago but managed to get a little funding to stay open. We don't do the amount of sales the big shops do in salt lake so this is the best we can do to help. We will also continue to send letters and emails but I hope the funds will help. I am a fisherman myself and want to enjoy the same fishing opportunities as everyone else wants, our constitutional rights. So from now till April 1st when you place an order you are helping the cause. Please spread this to all the other forums and your friends. Some people have a hard time donating so this makes it so you may get your fishing gear and help at the same time.
Thank you.


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

stupiddog said:


> Im copying this from the utah on the fly site because I feel it will help.
> 
> I am very disappointing that the hard work everyone has put in has not paid off. Our response at Round Rocks will be that for the remainder of the month of March all profit from internet sales in the state of Utah will be donated to the fund to help us fight this. So we will donate every dollar of profit from orders that you place to help fight this. I wish we could donate every dollar that comes in the door but we are a small shop in Logan and its hard enough to pay the rent as it is. I'm sure many of you know that we were going to close or doors several months ago but managed to get a little funding to stay open. We don't do the amount of sales the big shops do in salt lake so this is the best we can do to help. We will also continue to send letters and emails but I hope the funds will help. I am a fisherman myself and want to enjoy the same fishing opportunities as everyone else wants, our constitutional rights. So from now till April 1st when you place an order you are helping the cause. Please spread this to all the other forums and your friends. Some people have a hard time donating so this makes it so you may get your fishing gear and help at the same time.
> Thank you.


just because of this, i will make a trip to round rocks on Sunday, whats their web site... i was planning on ordering a bunch of stuff from cabelas this week, ill pay the extra to order from them.


----------



## stupiddog (Jan 15, 2008)

kochanut said:


> stupiddog said:
> 
> 
> > Im copying this from the utah on the fly site because I feel it will help.
> ...


www.roundrocks.com
The shop is closed sundays. Everyone has to have at least one day to fish.
Thank you very much.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

I will be there saturday with a crisp $20 bill. Probably buy an indicator or something and give them the rest. That is all the cash i have right now. Better than nothing i guess.


----------



## stupiddog (Jan 15, 2008)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> I will be there saturday with a crisp $20 bill. Probably buy an indicator or something and give them the rest. That is all the cash i have right now. Better than nothing i guess.


Thank you for the support, there is a donation jar right next to the cash register that has been ignored for 3 months. If everyone just put the few cents in change from there purchase in the jar it would add up so fast.


----------



## deadicatedweim (Dec 18, 2007)

Your toilet and swimming pool are connected to your water meter and you actually pay for that specific water.


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

stupiddog said:


> lunkerhunter2 said:
> 
> 
> > I will be there saturday with a crisp $20 bill. Probably buy an indicator or something and give them the rest. That is all the cash i have right now. Better than nothing i guess.
> ...


cant make it on saturday do to fishing plans, so ill take one day of leave next week and make the trip and also do the same.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

Free shipping on orders of over $30!

Spend the $ on gear instead of gas. That's what I'm going to do. Plus a little exra for the jar.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

kochanut said:


> i think it was mentioned before.... lets say your land gets so flooded it damages your house, and you apply for and receive flood reperations (not the word im looking for at the moment) from the government and you indeed recieve it.... congrats, i hope my and several other peoples tax dollars not only repair your house and property to what it was before, but actually make it better! if i ask for permission and then told no, can i take my portion of tax dollars back and have it spent some where better?


This is precisely why the government should NOT be using tax dollars to help out in times of natural disasters! That is what insurance and local charities are for, it is NOT a proper role of the federal government, and when the federal government steps in it causes all kinds of issues that usurp rights from some to give to others.

I also find it ironic folks say it is their Constitutional right to fish 'public' waters, when there is NOTHING in the Constitution that says public water/land is a 'right' to begin with. :?


----------



## mjschijf (Oct 1, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I also find it ironic folks say it is their Constitutional right to fish 'public' waters, when there is NOTHING in the Constitution that says public water/land is a 'right' to begin with. :?


So does this mean that you believe there should be more restrictions on where people are allowed to fish?


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

This is just so frustrating! I can't believe a majority of Utahns want this bill, but it seems unstoppable. Even the Tribune is on board with it! So you can float and fish..bfd. You can't anchor, you can't get out and wade for a bit, no stopping to pee. How many rivers in Utah are large enough to run a drift-boat through? And what is this 10 years of use since 1982 thing? Before Conaster the Sheriff would roust you... so how are you supposed to show 10 years of use? I HATE THE UTAH LEGISLATIVE SEASON!


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

It says that the public owns the water Prout. Look it up if you want. We are talking about the UT Constitution on this. The public owns all of the water in and above the ground, until they sell it to someone or something and when that occurs is well defined by statue.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

mjschijf said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I also find it ironic folks say it is their Constitutional right to fish 'public' waters, when there is NOTHING in the Constitution that says public water/land is a 'right' to begin with. :?
> ...


I said no such thing, I simply pointed out public land/water are not 'rights'.


Troll said:


> It says that the public owns the water Prout. Look it up if you want. We are talking about the UT Constitution on this. The public owns all of the water in and above the ground, until they sell it to someone or something and when that occurs is well defined by statue.


Again, ownership by the public is reality, but it is not a 'right'.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

If ownership is a reality, but not a right, would that apply to land as well?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Troll said:


> If ownership is a reality, but not a right, would that apply to land as well?


Public land yes, private property NO.


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

stupiddog said:


> kochanut said:
> 
> 
> > stupiddog said:
> ...


ordered the 100 mixed fly thing from you guys, hope my little bit helps!


----------



## stupiddog (Jan 15, 2008)

Thanks, every dollar helps, I saw your order and called the shop an told them to pick ya some great flies. So we got about 5 orders yesterday and today but I will personally throw another couple hundred bucks out of my pocket into to pool if we have lets say 25 orders Monday when I get up there. I really wana get this going. Please tell all your friends and buddies. There will not be a dime of profit kept from these so keep them coming. Lets raise some funds here.


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

stupiddog said:


> Thanks, every dollar helps, I saw your order and called the shop an told them to pick ya some great flies. So we got about 5 orders yesterday and today but I will personally throw another couple hundred bucks out of my pocket into to pool if we have lets say 25 orders Monday when I get up there. I really wana get this going. Please tell all your friends and buddies. There will not be a dime of profit kept from these so keep them coming. Lets raise some funds here.


ill tell my brother to order something tonight and talk the GF into ordering something


----------



## caddisguy (Sep 10, 2007)

These are our Representatives who voted to restrict fishing access by voting for HB 141: 

Aagard, Garn , Mascaro , Seelig, 
Anderson, Gibson, K , Mathis ,  Sumsion , 
Barrus , Gowans , McIff , Vickers , 
Bird , Greenwood, Menlove, Wallis, 
Brown, Grover, Morley, Webb , 
Dee, Hansen , Moss, Wheatley, 
Draxler, Hendrickson , Newbold , Wilcox, 
Duckworth, S , Herrod , Noel, Wiley, 
Dunnigan , Hunsaker, Oda , Wimmer, 
Ferry, Hutchings, Painter, Wright, 
Fisher, Julie , Ipson , Powell , Clark, D. , 
Frank, Kiser , Ray, 
Froerer , Last, Sandstrom , 




Here are the Senators who voted for HB 141 to restrict your fishing access to 7,000 miles of public water:

Adams , Hillyard, Liljenquist , Stevenson, J. , 
Buttars , Hinkins , Madsen , Stowell , 
Christensen, Jenkins, Morgan Van Tassell , 
Dayton , Jones , Okerlund , Waddoups , 
Greiner , Knudson , Stephenson, H., 


You may want to note if your elected official voted in your best interest this past legislature when you enter the voting booth this November. Many of these men and women ignored emails and refused phone calls from concerned citizens. If you are an angler, the above listed officials did nothing to help you this past legislature and deserve the same from you during their bid for re-election. Each member of the House of Representatives is up for election this year. Many more angles contacted them than landowners but the votes followed the dollars. It is time our electoral listened to their constituents and stop listening to big money. Get out and vote!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Glad to see my Rep ans Sen both voted in favor of HB 141. I may have to vote for them this November. 8)


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> Glad to see my Rep ans Sen both voted in favor of HB 141. I may have to vote for them this November. 8)


C'mon, Pro, you have repeatedly been on record here that you have wanted Gowans unseated since I have started hanging out on this board. Remain consistent and help us out to do that. :wink:



kochanut said:


> stupiddog wrote:Im copying this from the utah on the fly site because I feel it will help.
> 
> I am very disappointing that the hard work everyone has put in has not paid off. Our response at Round Rocks will be that for the remainder of the month of March all profit from internet sales in the state of Utah will be donated to the fund to help us fight this. So we will donate every dollar of profit from orders that you place to help fight this. I wish we could donate every dollar that comes in the door but we are a small shop in Logan and its hard enough to pay the rent as it is. I'm sure many of you know that we were going to close or doors several months ago but managed to get a little funding to stay open. We don't do the amount of sales the big shops do in salt lake so this is the best we can do to help. We will also continue to send letters and emails but I hope the funds will help. I am a fisherman myself and want to enjoy the same fishing opportunities as everyone else wants, our constitutional rights. So from now till April 1st when you place an order you are helping the cause. Please spread this to all the other forums and your friends. Some people have a hard time donating so this makes it so you may get your fishing gear and help at the same time.
> Thank you.


Dang, it looks like my erratic backcasting has depleted my limited supply of favorite nymphs. Looks like I will be placing an order. Do you have any bassin tackle too?  :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Catherder said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Glad to see my Rep ans Sen both voted in favor of HB 141. I may have to vote for them this November. 8)
> ...


You are correct, I have been openly trying to get the old guy out of office, but I may have to rethink my options now. :shock: :wink:


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

proutdoors said:


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


You are such a selfish sell out, as long as it works for you then all is good eh. wink wink


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

Hmm.. Your stance on this PRO has me questioning the mission of the Utah Wildlife Cooperative, I went to the meeting this week and have been recruting for the group as I have been very excited about the it. However, as an administrator of the group that supports the "Public Voice," how in the hell are you for 141. Also another concern I have is your past remarks about wishing there was MORE private land. Feel free to PM me.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Guns and Flies said:


> Hmm.. Your stance on this PRO has me questioning the mission of the Utah Wildlife Cooperative, I went to the meeting this week and have been recruting for the group as I have been very excited about the it. However, as an administrator of the group that supports the "Public Voice," how in the hell are you for 141. Also another concern I have is your past remarks about wishing there was MORE private land. Feel free to PM me.


No need, I have nothing to hide on why I stand where I do on ANY issue. I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but those who supported HB 141 are people. :shock: And guess what, there were more that supported HB 141 than that opposed it, so their Representatives represented the wishes of their constituents.  Also, the Utah Wildlife Cooperative is just that, a cooperative, with no president, no board of directors, no 'leader', just a place where people can go to get educated on the public process in regards to wildlife in Utah, a place to have a voice, a place to get involved and try and rally folks around whatever ANY member of the coop are passionate about. If someone, such as yourself, were to take up the cause to undo HB 141, and you were to garner support from other UWC folks I would commend you and even support you in your efforts.

I am confused when people act offended that I would rather land ownership in Utah be owned by Utah, or individuals that call Utah home, than it be owned by the federal government. :? Right now, around *70%* of Utah is owned and *CONTROLLED* by the federal government. Is that really what is in the best interests of Utah, Utah wildlife, and Utah citizens? Not in my view.


----------



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

> Representatives represented the wishes of their constituents.


I must say this absolutely false ^^^^^.

Some say the Representatives gladly accept payoffs with one-hand from their constitutions, while extending the other hand draped in the American flag while chanting Private Property!! takings!! money!! just compensation!! and down with the federal government!! Going on to cherry pick Constitutional values and installing after market "side boards" while quoting the founding fathers who owned slave plantations.

Riddle me this..... why did Moss and Jones vote for HB-141 when the majority of their constituents are opposed?

Folks who are touting Private Property rights have not been educated on these issues. They've bought into the propaganda into the "takings" jargon. They have been "taken" and used to benefit the few.

A sad day for Utah indeed...... truth, justice and the American way goes right out the window in the "Life Elevated State". BUT, in the end, the people will regain the water. Once again, the Utah legislature will be slapped my the might hand of the judicial system, and once again, shame will fill the offices of the "McFictions" on the hill.... the Gov will leave a lasting legacy of the person who shut down River access....on the flip side, if he goes back into real estate he could very well be a hero.

*LONG LIVE CONATSER!*


----------



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

*Here is a quick line by line of McFisctions HB-141....*

*CONCERNS WITH 2S HB141 STREAM ACCESS*

*•Process. *The Second Substitute was published after 11:00 a.m. and the bill was debated and voted on that afternoon, only three hours later.

•*Lines 51-53/69.* Changes Landowner Liability Act to apply to only trespassers, as opposed to guests, invitees, and others. Deletes language that encourages landowners to allow public use of public lands and public water.

*•Lines 74-75. *Contradicts the Supreme Court's ruling in Conatser v. Johnson. (3) Is confusing because it compares duty to govern "public water for beneficial purposes" with "constitutional protections" for private property owners. Use of public water for beneficial purposes is what is required for the appropriation of water, and is also protected by the Utah Constitution. Recreational use has no relationship with beneficial purposes.

*•Lines 145-175.* Usurps the role of the judiciary in making declarations of constitutional interpretation regarding private property.

•*Line 158 -* States there is a question "whether" a public easement exists when in fact the 1982 J.J.N.P. case specifically stated that a public easement exists on all natural waters in the State. This is consistent with the public trust doctrine of water adopted in most if not all States.

*•Line 162 - *States the Utah Supreme Court in Conatser did not address whether their decision was a constitutional takings without compensation. This is accurate; however it is unlikely the Court would have taken that action if they believed it was unconstitutional. Only the U.S. Supreme Court can determine if a State Supreme Court action is unconstitutional and the US Supreme Court has never done so in any case in the past.

*•Line 168 - *Says that J.J.N.P. case found "a right to float on public water" when in fact the J.J.N.P. case found that the public had an easement over all natural water in the State. The Court specifically did not address whether or not the public could touch the water's bed, incidental to the easement.

*•Line 174 - *Compares the adverse use similar to that used to establish a public highway; however, a public highway was originally private; the water has always belonged to the public. The issue is defining the extent and parameters of the public's use of the easement.

*•Lines 194-196 -* changes the 10-year prescriptive easement period from 1S HB 141 to be within the last 14 years instead of commencing in 1982 (10 years use plus 4 year statute of limitations). This has the effect of excluding public recreational access for areas that have been recently been purchased and developed and now exclude the public, like Victory Ranch and Carrus properties. For example, prior to 1985 many individuals report fishing the upper Provo River with their children and grandchildren, but it is now blocked by Victory Ranch.
*
•Lines 194-201 - *Requires a prescriptive easement to be proven for 10 years for public recreational access. This will have the effect of litigation over most sections of river that flow over private property.
*
•Lines 202-204 -* Permissive use does not qualify for the prescriptive easement that must be proven by the public to obtain access. This means that a property owner who has allowed access historically can now decide to block access and be successful because prior use was not adverse. The different effective dates on this bill make that a likely result. [see, lines 291+].
*
•Line 207-210 (4) -* Precludes future lawsuits for prescriptive easement once one area of streambed has been litigated. This could present "standing" issues for access to courts. A prescriptive for one type of use may not be conclusive for another type of use. (also in lines 241 (7)).

*•Line 216 - *Contains an exception from access for "private hunting" developments but no other type of recreational development, like fishing.

*•Lines 223-263 - *Provides for quiet title actions and injunctive relief lawsuits. This will provide for perpetual employment for attorneys.
*
•Line 291 Section 73-29-208 -* is a standard "severability" clause which is new and states that if any part of the legislation is found to be unconstitutional, the remaining parts of still in effect. This is because there are parts of the bill that many believe are unconstitutional.
*
•Line 291 Section 73-29-209 -* Contains two different effective dates, May 1, 2010 for the landowners' protections and May 1, 2011 for the public's right to claim prescriptive use. This means the landowners can immediately preclude access to the public but the public cannot go to court to claim there has been the 10 year use for an extra year. This is unbalanced and allows all private landowners and developers to learn about the bill, block access, and then claim no more permissive use, by the time the public can file their claims.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Looks like one HB141 proponent made it easy for us. :shock: :roll: :? 

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14670240

It will be an interesting election cycle this fall.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> Folks who are touting Private Property rights have not been educated on these issues. They've bought into the propaganda into the "takings" jargon. They have been "taken" and used to benefit the few.


You need to clarify with , In Your Humble Opinion. IMHO I am fairly educated on private property rights. 8)

From what I have garnered, there were more people at the Capital in favor of HB141 than there were against it, so either 'your' side got out played, or simply more people agreed with HB141 than you care to admit.


----------



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

proutdoors said:


> F/V Gulf Ventur said:
> 
> 
> > Folks who are touting Private Property rights have not been educated on these issues. They've bought into the propaganda into the "takings" jargon. They have been "taken" and used to benefit the few.
> ...


IMHO ; )

I can clearly see how fairly educated on Private Property rights you are :lol: Perhaps you forgot that Water Law trumps PPR. :wink:

Yes, there were more hats than nets at the Capitol. So are you saying that because there were more hats than nets, the overall constituents are pro-hat? I'm sorry, but that answer doesn't justify anything, man, come on...

Again... why did Moss and Jones vote for HB-141 when the majority of their constituents are opposed?


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

IMHO PRO, with all due respect, you sound like the exact people that UWC is working against  You really think that the number of people at the capitol represented who were for and against 141? I have three kids, three jobs, I think I was as passionate about this issue as anyone, but do you think I have time to go up to the capitol and tell the gumbos what they should already be doing? I'm guessing the landowners did have time to go up to the capitol, and I'll bet most of them did. Do you really think the reps weren’t influenced by the wealth/special interest groups (Which again is what I see the UWC is working directly against :x )? In the first hour of the KSL program there was a fisherman from Utah in Colorado that was very much against 141 that indicated that there were about 8 votes swayed due to some retirement issue or something, I can't confirm that but I don't think any of us would be surprised to find out was true. The process was FUBAR and you're cool with it??? IMHO the fisherman of this state got hosed, and I am still scratching my head why your glad that happened, do you hate fisherman, have a private ranch with a river running through it, don’t fish so who cares, some fly fisherman claimed you voted for Obama? As far as the UWC goes, you’re on the administration board; I see that as a leader of the group. If you respond to this with meanness, I'm taking my ball and going home  

And, I want whoever lets me on to hunt and fish to own the land, and resoundingly that is NOT landowners. Again IMHO.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Guns and Flies said:


> IMHO PRO, with all due respect, you sound like the exact people that UWC is working against  You really think that the number of people at the capitol represented who were for and against 141? I didn't say that. :? I am saying that it is NOT cut and dry that there were more against than for the bill just because most of the people you know are against it. To lump me in with special interest groups is your prerogative, but I beg to differ, and if I have to be 100% in-line with you on every subject then we have much bigger issues than HB141. I have three kids, three jobs, I think I was as passionate about this issue as anyone, but do you think I have time to go up to the capitol and tell the gumbos what they should already be doing? I'm guessing the landowners did have time to go up to the capitol, and I'll bet most of them did. Do you really think the reps weren't influenced by the wealth/special interest groups (Which again is what I see the UWC is working directly against :x )? Do you really believe every landowner that supports HB141 is wealthy? In the first hour of the KSL program there was a fisherman from Utah in Colorado that was very much against 141 that indicated that there were about 8 votes swayed due to some retirement issue or something, I can't confirm that but I don't think any of us would be surprised to find out was true. The process was FUBAR and you're cool with it??? It's called politics, and I will almost always side with private property owners on issues like this. IMHO the fisherman of this state got hosed, and I am still scratching my head why your glad that happened, do you hate fisherman, have a private ranch with a river running through it, don't fish so who cares, some fly fisherman claimed you voted for Obama? I do fish, fly fish in streams/rivers only, I do NOT own a private ranch let alone one with water flowing through it, I could not care less who anyone for/against the bill voted for in the last presidential election. :roll: As far as the UWC goes, you're on the administration board; I see that as a leader of the group. If you respond to this with meanness, I'm taking my ball and going home  I am not on the "administration board" of UWC, such a board doesn't exist. I DO have administrative 'powers' that let me clean up the page, send announcements out to members, and monitor the comments for out-of-line language. That's all the 'power' I have been granted. :RULES:
> 
> And, I want whoever lets me on to hunt and fish to own the land, and resoundingly that is NOT landowners. Again IMHO. In many cases for good cause, in others, things needs to be ironed out. I personally would prefer such efforts were done WITHOUT the legislature AND the courts intervening. Every time we ask the government to 'fix' things, unintended consciences arise that are often worse than the original 'problem'.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

I don't think we will agree on every issue for sure, we have to compromise on things so we can make sure the bigger picture is seen. I don't want to roll you in with the special interest groups, as I think you would be a good administration for the UWC, as long as you fight for public rights. I didn't realize that UWC did not have an administration, I have been enlightened  . 
I don't think all landowner are wealthy, but I think they have a lot more opportunity to be up on the hill than the average Joe. I hate our system is set up to favor special interest groups who have time and money to go up and shmooz the bimbos up there, and I do think that is what happened (I could be wrong but I don't think I am). You may agree with the end result but the way it happened, IMHO, was not right. Due to the fact the system is jacked up, as delineated by this issue IMHO, I think in the long run we are in big trouble. Both of my house rep and Senator told me they were not in favor of 141 but voted for it anyway. I have little faith in my representation on the hill
I like how you inserted your answers in my post, that’s super cute. You're a good man PRO, keep doing your thing and I'll keep doing mine and maybe we can make a difference in the areas that we are passionate about.


----------



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

IMHO...The majority landowners were puppets for the few Ranches, but more so, the Real Estate interests are the ones pulling the strings.
_
People in crowds behave just like sheep, scientists claim, by blindly following one or two people who seem to know where they are going._
--Science


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> _
> People in crowds behave just like sheep, scientists claim, by blindly following one or two people who seem to know where they are going._
> --Science


Weren't you trying to get a "crowd" to rally at the capital?  :wink:



Guns and Flies said:


> I like how you inserted your answers in my post, that's super cute. You're a good man PRO, keep doing your thing and I'll keep doing mine and maybe we can make a difference in the areas that we are passionate about.


Cute?  I do that because I am too **** lazy to cut and paste all over the place. :twisted: Thanks for the props, and I have respect for anyone willing to get in the trenches and fight the good fight, even if they are in the 'wrong' trench on occasion. :mrgreen:


----------



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

proutdoors said:


> Weren't you trying to get a "crowd" to rally at the capital?  :wink:


LOL!!! why yes, yes I was... long live the resistance.

I guess you have to be aware of the bills and what was being said... In all due kindness to those sheeple, most are uneducated fools. Its amazing what people will believe when told rather than looking at the facts. Not too worry, the water will return to the people.

If the Real Estate folks "sold" something they do not have the power to sell.... who exactly should provide that "just compensation" they've been touting for?.... and, why would the Real Estate folks lobby against us and whisper "just compensation" int o the ears of the sheeple? AND demand compensation to be provided by the STATE OF UTAH? Hummm.... maybe, because they should be the ones paying for their mistake. :idea:

This issue has nothing to do with Private Property vs. the public trespassing or takings, its a WATER issue. Why when I told a head "Real Estate dude" the landowners should be suing "you guys", he stated, yeah (with a smile), that's what insurance is for and besides, most people never read the fine print....There were about5 people that heard that conversation. Come on PRO, keep up man


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

stupiddog said:


> Thanks, every dollar helps, I saw your order and called the shop an told them to pick ya some great flies. So we got about 5 orders yesterday and today but I will personally throw another couple hundred bucks out of my pocket into to pool if we have lets say 25 orders Monday when I get up there. I really wana get this going. Please tell all your friends and buddies. There will not be a dime of profit kept from these so keep them coming. Lets raise some funds here.


my GF ordered the red G Loomis hat, not sure if it got sent to my place or hers, but theres her contribution to you guys, thanks!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> "So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community" - William Blackstone


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

In case you don't know who Blackstone is:


> U.S. courts frequently quote Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England as the definitive pre-Revolutionary War source of common law; in particular, the United States Supreme Court quotes from Blackstone's work whenever they wish to engage in historical discussion that goes back to the era of the nation's founding, to illuminate the legal and intellectual culture that helped to shape the intent of the Framers of the Constitution.


 8)


----------



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

proutdoors said:


> In case you don't know who Blackstone is:
> 
> 
> > U.S. courts frequently quote Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England as the definitive pre-Revolutionary War source of common law; in particular, the United States Supreme Court quotes from Blackstone's work whenever they wish to engage in historical discussion that goes back to the era of the nation's founding, to illuminate the legal and intellectual culture that helped to shape the intent of the Framers of the Constitution.
> ...


You obviously have not studied The Blackstone Commentary's, but I still give ya ya 5 brownie points for your Google skills. 

Use those special search skills with the words Magna Carta or Public Trust or Equal Footing or Navigability :idea:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I have read/studied the Magna Carta, I come away from my studieS of Blackstone, and the Founders who studied him as well, with the opinions that I have expressed on here. Google wasn't needed for me, but maybe that is telling me your source. :wink:


----------



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

LOL! Nice one PRO!... but no. Really, you've studied the Magna Carta (and all such data?) and you came to this conclusion? OK. I appreciate your debate and I'm confident will once again agree to disagree. 

In the end we'll see this back in Court. It will be interesting to reflect back on this dialogue when we regain the Public's right to utilize Utah's rivers


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

GO F/V. Thanks for your time and effort. I have a strong belief that this is the right thing and I am willing to fight for the cause!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> > "So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community" - William Blackstone


It would be safe to assume, then, that you feel it is ok for taxpayer dollars to be spent rehabilitating, stocking, and improving public streams for the enjoyment of private property owners? Do you pay taxes?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> [
> I am confused when people act offended that I would rather land ownership in Utah be owned by Utah, or individuals that call Utah home, than it be owned by the federal government. :? Right now, around *70%* of Utah is owned and *CONTROLLED* by the federal government. Is that really what is in the best interests of Utah, Utah wildlife, and Utah citizens?


As evidenced by the damage private property owners have done to wildlife not only in Utah but throughout the world...yes, without any doubt, it is BEST for wildlife for the FEDS and state government to own more land! My heck, Pro, are you delirious...do you know anything about the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation? Have you ever compared European models of wildlife conservation to our's in North America?

One of the biggest threats to the recruitment of new hunters and fishers throughout the US is access...too many prospective hunters/fishers don't have land to hunt or fish on because too much wildlife habitat is occupied by private landowners. And now, you support a bill that *FURTHER* restricts access? Are you a proponent for the masses or the select few?


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

My prediction of what might become of hunting. It will become more and more secluded; to the point fewer and fewer will bother with it. Then PETA, ACLA, Insert all animal loving groups here, will come and make it illegal to harm an animal. I guess we can all still go golfing!


----------



## hoghunter011583 (Jul 21, 2008)

I've been reading this thread for a while and thought I'd put my .02 in because I think I have a better understanding about this issue than most Utahns.

I'm totally against government controls etc. 
Let me first address the hunting issue. Being from Louisiana let me just give you a little taste of the hunting in the "sportsman's paradise".
ALL the land is owned, either by private induviduals or the state leases or owns WMA's I think they have 2 national forest.
These WMA's are on average between 8,000 acres to 80,000 acers. Sounds pretty big to hunt deer or ducks but now consider you can only access it from 3-5 spots. Now place 500 guys on those 3-5 spots. Now drive your boat down the canal and walk into the swamp. How far can you drag a deer through swamp?? About 2 miles if you are superman!! So, all along that canal withen a mile of that canal the deer are pretty thin and the hunters are of course thick!! Now, consider the fact that because the oil companies bought tons of this land 40 years ago and started cutting it all apart to make canals for the drilling exploration, the saltwater from the gulf is now all the way up to the swamps. So, 80-90% of the swamps are dead and withen 20 years won't hold deer or ducks at all!
So, when I came up here and heard that it is 70% public land I was PUMPED. I understand the argument about government controlling all the land. Well, I still see plenty of lots and farms for sale!!!
Just my opinion and I'll admit I'm not to informed about the land ownership in this state so I might have this one wrong. I love the fact that we have so much public land, I do think we need to stay on the poloticians butts to keep them from doing harm with it though!!

Now for the fishing issue.

I understand how it would feel if I paid 2 million for a awesome piece of land with a river on it and some billybob came and trashed it up. But lets talk about what happens when it goes to the private owner.
Louisiana again, used to say that you can't own a navigable waterway. They define it as, if you can get a canoe through it on low tide without draging the bottom it was navigable. If you dig the canal or pond it is private and you can own it, if it is a natural body of water you can't own it. That was a good law.

Now, it has gone more and more in favor of protecting the private property. Now if it runs through private land, you can post it. Also, you don't even have to post your land down there and if someone is on it you can give them a ticket!! It isn't even the land owners job to post his land, it is the publics job to know what is private and what is public, without having and fence or signs up??????
So if you are fishing in the marsh just drifting through the little ponds and canals looking for some redfish you are TRESSPASSING!!! They now think a navigable waterway is a big body of water that can be used for navigation. The laws have NEVER been changed they just have changed the way they rule the court case!! 
The place I used to duck hunt was Salvador WMA. You had to go through about 500 yards down this ditch that was about 3 feet deep and about 20 feet wide. That portion was outside the WMA boundries and the land owners made you pay a $100 land pass fee each year. If you didn't pay you couldn't launch your boat because they owned the launch!!

I'll take the Utah public lands and waters and I agree we need to stop the swing towards the landowners being able to own water!!!
If a land owner wants a private fishing spot let him dig a catfish pond!!


----------



## caddisguy (Sep 10, 2007)

During Governor Herbert’s monthly news conference on KUED ch. 7 last night he said he was taking a close look at HB 141. This bill is still very controversial and the Gov. says it “Causes all of us a little bit of pause.”

He did stop short of saying he might veto the bill but that still is an option. Just that he mentioned it gives me some hope. Herbert has until Wednesday to veto the bill, sign it or let it go into law without his signature.

Being as Herbert is a past president of the realtor board I truly doubt he will do anything to cross land owners but I hope he has more integrity than that. There sure are a lot more voters fishing than milking cows and I hope he gets it, if not now then in November.

I contacted his office requesting he veto HB 141 and I suggest you do the same. It ain’t over ‘till the fat lady sings.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

http://www.sltrib.com/outdoors/ci_14712385
More good news..


----------



## caddisguy (Sep 10, 2007)

Call the governor at 801-538-1000 and request he veto HB 141


----------



## ajwildcat (Mar 27, 2008)

Is anybody else sick of the government thinking that they have to RUN everything in our lives? I think back to my Grandpa's time and things sure seemed much simpler with out the government telling you where you could and could not fish.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Seems to be going back to British Rules. The Heirachy and Rich buy up everything and then expect us to work for them, produce for them, send our tax money to them--wait--didn't we kick the british out and start a government by the people, and for the people?


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> Seems to be going back to British Rules. The Heirachy and Rich buy up everything and then expect us to work for them, produce for them, send our tax money to them--*wait--didn't we kick the british out and start a government by the people, and for the people*?


HA! I do believe that did happen


----------

