# Access to Public lands??????



## Tinez (Dec 16, 2007)

I posted my thoughts on this but no one has answered my QUESTION. If a land owner does not give my access to public land that I have a RIGHT to then is he breaking the law? Please let me know. Thanks Tinez (Hunt Hard Die Rich) :lol:


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

If there is a PUBLIC easment or road and he blocks off access, yes.

If there is no access to public land and he doesn't want to grant you the right to trespass, no.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Tex has it right. I will add that even if the landowner locks the gate on a public easement, you still have no right to take physical action against the property. You must contact the local law enforcement and they deal with the problem. The easement is protected by public officials, not the individual citizen.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

This may be splitting hairs on this one so I'll try to be careful. But publically owned land (Forest Service, BLM, State Lands) may be closed to public access. We do not have a "right" to these lands. There are terms upon which we may use these lands, but it is not a "right" as we understand that term as it is used in the constitution. ("Right to keep and bear arms;" "right of the people peaceably to assemble;" "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures;" etc......)


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

I agree with everything that has been said so far. We sportsmen do not have the right to take the law into our own hands. Gary fish is also right that public lands can be and frequently are closed to public access. But I would add that public lands must be close by agencies responsable for the management of those lands. Private land owners do not have the right to close public lands. They do however have the right to close their private lands to public access. It is unfortunatly up to those management agencies to secure easments through private land to access public land. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't go to the trouble to do so. We can only follow the rules, laws and policies in place.


----------



## Tinez (Dec 16, 2007)

These are the State Laws that are in the D.W.R proclaimation. Mabye I read them wrong I'm not sure!! If the hearings have taken place then who has the Documentation and where might I find it ???I have asked our DWR people and they play pass the hot potato with me and send me on a scavenger hunt to find answers. I still havent found them out. Thats why I'm asking the higher powers that be (fellow SPORTSMAN)(Here is an example ) let's say you have theright to voteand you go to use that RIGHT and the candidate you are not voting for won't let you in to vote because you are not voting for him, then is he breaking the law for not allowing you your Right to vote????

23-21-4. Right of access to lands for hunting, trapping, or fishing reserved to public -- Exception. (1) Except as provided in Section 65A-2-5, there is reserved to the public the right of access to all lands owned by the state, including those lands lying below the official government meander line or high water line of navigable waters, for the purpose of hunting, trapping, or fishing.
(2) When any department or agency of the state leases or sells any lands belonging to the state of Utah lying below the official government meander line or the high water line of the navigable waters within the state, the lease, contract of sale, or deed shall contain a provision that:
(a) the lands shall be open to the public for the purpose of hunting, trapping, or fishing during the lawful season, except as provided by Section 65A-2-5; and
(b) no charge may be made by the lessee, contractee, or grantee to any person who desires to go upon the land for the purpose of hunting, trapping, or fishing. Is this not taking place when public land is land locked and the land owner or land owner's are using that land for hunting and charging people to hunt on his land, and because the state land is land locked and he see's fit to use it as his own land because who is going to question him on it??? 
(3) Lands referred to in this section shall be regulated or closed to hunting, trapping, or fishing as provided in this title for other lands and waters. 
65A-2-5. Protection of leasehold interests.
The director of the Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands, in conjunction with the Wildlife Board, may restrict or limit public use of leased parcels of sovereign lands for hunting, trapping, or fishing:
(1) upon the petition of the affected lessee;
(2) after a public hearing; and
(3) upon a determination that unrestricted public use for hunting, trapping, or fishing substantially interferes with the primary activities authorized by the lease.


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

Very colorful post.  Couldn't quit make out the yellow though. Your situation can be very frustrating, and dealing with the dwr can also be eqauly frustrating. People out here run into this all the time dealing with diamond mtn. great animals up there, a lot of trophy quality animals, but it is hard and sometimes imposible to get to them. Feel your pain though


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Skydiving.... and then rent a helicopter to help you get your animal out. Just bypass the stubborn landowner. 8)


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

RiverRat's post is in jest, but not that far off. In the case you are describing, the private land owner isn't denying you access to the state land, he is not allowing you to cross his/her private land. And therein is the difference. Some landowners charge a "trespass" fee to cross their land to get to the public land - because it is usually the easiest route to the public land and in your interest to pay to trespass, than pay to have a helicopter drop you in there. And while I don't like it, the private land owner is totally within the law to cut you off (assuming there is not a legal right of way or road easement in place). But in its most simple form, it is legal. And it sucks.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Perhaps an appropriate analogy - Say you live at the end of the cul-de-sac. Behind your house is the elementary school. It would be a nice short-cut to let all the kids on your street walk through your yard to school every day. But instead, they have to walk back down the street, one block over, and back up to the school - essentially tripling the distance they have to walk. They have every "right" to get to school. But you don't have to let them across your yard to get there.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Perhaps an appropriate analogy - Say you live at the end of the cul-de-sac. Behind your house is the elementary school. It would be a nice short-cut to let all the kids on your street walk through your yard to school every day. But instead, they have to walk back down the street, one block over, and back up to the school - essentially tripling the distance they have to walk. They have every "right" to get to school. But you don't have to let them across your yard to get there.


Most excelent post Fish man!

I think that you should go into the Analagy business and whether you do or don't, you should at least post your statement once a month as that seems to be how often the subject comes up.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

True Garyfish.... you're spot on with the analogy. Another good thing to do is check with the county recorder. You can usually find a way in by looking at "plat" maps.... they'll show you little thin pieces of public land that sometimes don't get bought up when a piece of property is sold and nobody ever thinks about them because they're so odd shaped or small.... It might take a GPS to stay on public land but who knows, you might just find a secret access that everyone else has overlooked. Garyfish is right, my first post was in jest, but I've always wondered what the hunting would be like in little landlocked pieces of public ground.... 8)


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Check with local city governments if at the time of acquisition or applying for a building permit if the land owner had to provide a right-of-away or access point. I know a guy in Summit County who put his house right at the mouth of a very steep canyon but in order to do so had to allow public an access to the canyon. It is all documented but 15 years latter he would never admit that to any one asking and has hastled me for taking game out the bottom of the canyon. I threatened to make his agreement with the city known to every scout troop and hunter in Utah if he hastled me again and he has never said a word since.


----------



## Tinez (Dec 16, 2007)

I have looked into a Helicopter but the law says I would have to be droped off two days before the hunt starts and two days past the end of the hunt. When I asked about the meat going bad because I would have no way to keep it cool I was informed that if it spoiled then I would be ticked for wasting the game.
Its not a matter of walking around the land to get to it, its that I have a right to the land!! Read the LAWS and you tell Me how you read it

Still no one has answerd the QUESTIONS??

The director of the Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands, in conjunction with the Wildlife Board, may restrict or limit public use of leased parcels of sovereign lands for hunting, trapping, or fishing:
(1) upon the petition of the affected lessee;
(2) after a public hearing; and
(3) upon a determination that unrestricted public use for hunting, trapping, or fishing substantially interferes with the primary activities authorized by the lease.

Someone will say leased land or restrict or limit I dont want to play word games I just want to find out the answers to the questions that I have asked. If you dont know then say you dont know! Going further into the laws if its shut down for a certian reason (I.E. hunting-Gravel Pit) then its shut down for hunting or a gravel pit for everybody not just the public.


----------



## Tinez (Dec 16, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> This may be splitting hairs on this one so I'll try to be careful. But publically owned land (Forest Service, BLM, State Lands) may be closed to public access. We do not have a "right" to these lands. There are terms upon which we may use these lands, but it is not a "right" as we understand that term as it is used in the constitution. ("Right to keep and bear arms;" "right of the people peaceably to assemble;" "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures;" etc......)


GaryFish,  my FRIEND we do have a right to these lands read the laws!!I just didnt pull what I wrote today out of thin air!!


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> GaryFish said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps an appropriate analogy - Say you live at the end of the cul-de-sac. Behind your house is the elementary school. It would be a nice short-cut to let all the kids on your street walk through your yard to school every day. But instead, they have to walk back down the street, one block over, and back up to the school - essentially tripling the distance they have to walk. They have every "right" to get to school. But you don't have to let them across your yard to get there.
> ...


That is actually an inadequate anaolgy because we are talking about landlocked public land. The school kids still have a way to get to school by taking the paths provided to them. The landlocked public lands may have no way to get to them and therefore the landowner is blocking access to them in full.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

I know we are in a different state, but in Wyoming, the methane drilling companies had to acces spots that were blocked by private land, or on private land that the land owner did not own the mineral rights to. Guess what happened, the drilling rigs barged right through their land and even started drilling on their land. The landowners tried to file suit against this and lost. They had to provide an easement, and if they didn't own the mineral rights, their land got drilled on and had pumps and pump houses put on them. many of the landowners were mad, but once the checks for many grand, sometimes hundreds of grand a year rolled in for having to deal with the methane rigs, they were more than happy to comply. 

I know this is a different scenario, but I need to see court descisions before I would just roll over and assume the landowner can block me from public lands.


----------



## Tinez (Dec 16, 2007)

Nibble Nuts said:


> I know we are in a different state, but in Wyoming, the methane drilling companies had to acces spots that were blocked by private land, or on private land that the land owner did not own the mineral rights to. Guess what happened, the drilling rigs barged right through their land and even started drilling on their land. The landowners tried to file suit against this and lost. They had to provide an easement, and if they didn't own the mineral rights, their land got drilled on and had pumps and pump houses put on them. many of the landowners were mad, but once the checks for many grand, sometimes hundreds of grand a year rolled in for having to deal with the methane rigs, they were more than happy to comply.
> 
> I know this is a different scenario, but I need to see court descisions before I would just roll over and assume the landowner can block me from public lands.


[color=#FF0000]Thanks Nibble Nuts for your help. Like the name[/color].


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Is there a specific piece of property you are referring to Tinez?


----------



## GCKid (Sep 11, 2007)

There are hundreds of roads that go through Private Property to gain access to Public Property. The State and Counties determine which roads are legitimate to use for public access. Maybe if we knew what specific area you are talking about, we could be of more assistance.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Nibble Nuts said:


> elk22hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I disagree. That is still a great analogy. Some places you can go around for several miles to get to said land. Others are completely land locked and you can NOT get to it with out crossing private land. If you don't like it then buy the private land access but continuing to cry over access issues when there is not a leg to stand on is crazy. This is not a squeeky wheel gets the grease issue. This is a law issue and no amount of crying is going to change it.(by the way, i'm not pointing any fingers and saying that any person is crying. Just in general)


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Nibble Nuts said:


> I know we are in a different state, but in Wyoming, the methane drilling companies had to acces spots that were blocked by private land, or on private land that the land owner did not own the mineral rights to. Guess what happened, the drilling rigs barged right through their land and even started drilling on their land. The landowners tried to file suit against this and lost. They had to provide an easement, and if they didn't own the mineral rights, their land got drilled on and had pumps and pump houses put on them. many of the landowners were mad, but once the checks for many grand, sometimes hundreds of grand a year rolled in for having to deal with the methane rigs, they were more than happy to comply.
> 
> I know this is a different scenario, but I need to see court descisions before I would just roll over and assume the landowner can block me from public lands.


NN what you are referring to is land damage payments, they do the same down in OK, you either get royalties (if you own the mineral rights)and damage payments, or if you have no mineral rights you get just land damage payments. I don't know about WY but in OK drilling companies just can't barge in and drill, they have to work out a compensation package first and get approval of the state corporation commission. Your mineral rights can be forced pooled (you are paid the going average for lease payments per acre) if all the mineral rights around your land are acquired by a drilling company, and you will not lease yours; but this a long drawn out expensive process that oil companies like to avoid. I know because I own land in OK and get lease payments off it.

Oil companies are required by law to clean up drilling locations and restore the land after they finish with a site. A landowner usually ends up with a good road built on his place and electrical power ran out to it, not to mention a good gravel pad that makes an excellent camping site. I know I did.

Back to the main topic, I believe if a private landowner has public tracks landlocked with no access and use them for their benefit, then the landowners should be REQUIRED BY LAW to allow access to the public land or have to provide an equal acreage of private land open for public use.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

Mojo1 said:


> Nibble Nuts said:
> 
> 
> > NN what you are referring to is land damage payments, they do the same down in OK, you either get royalties (if you own the mineral rights)and damage payments, or if you have no mineral rights you get just land damage payments. I don't know about WY but in OK drilling companies just can't barge in and drill, they have to work out a compensation package first and get approval of the state corporation commission. Your mineral rights can be forced pooled (you are paid the going average for lease payments per acre) if all the mineral rights around your land are acquired by a drilling company, and you will not lease yours; but this a long drawn out expensive process that oil companies like to avoid. I know because I own land in OK and get lease payments off it.
> ...


In the cases that I am refering to there actually were many incidents of people greeting the drillers hostily, or even at gunpoint because they were unaware that this was going to happen. Would I call that barging in? Yes. Is it standard protocol? No.If it didn't happen this way, then the local paper sure hyped it up wrong, but I had a friend who helped run his families drilling company and he basically confirmed this. I know the payments are required, but I was illustrating an example of private land owners blocking up a public resource. This stuff happened in Gillette Wyoming in the late 90's early 2000's if you are skeptical of my claims. I do agree with you that these landowners should be required by law to create an easement to the public land if they are completely blocking access to this resource. Their rights end where others' rights begin. So an easement would be reasonable.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> I disagree. That is still a great analogy. Some places you can go around for several miles to get to said land. Others are completely land locked and you can NOT get to it with out crossing private land. If you don't like it then buy the private land access but continuing to cry over access issues when there is not a leg to stand on is crazy. This is not a squeeky wheel gets the grease issue. This is a law issue and no amount of crying is going to change it.(by the way, i'm not pointing any fingers and saying that any person is crying. Just in general)


I disagree with your disagreement. That is an incomplete analogy. He ties in something that is completely blocked with something that isn't. This is apples to oranges. You are right, this is a law issue, so please show me some legal precedence to back up these claims. What you call crying, I call a reasonable, civil objection, in which case those concerned should make their voices heard. How is never challenging these issues ever going to solve this?


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Nibble Nuts said:


> Mojo1 said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="Nibble Nuts":ftw35nq1]
> ...


In the cases that I am refering to there actually were many incidents of people greeting the drillers hostily, or even at gunpoint because they were unaware that this was going to happen. Would I call that barging in? Yes. Is it standard protocol? No.If it didn't happen this way, then the local paper sure hyped it up wrong, but I had a friend who helped run his families drilling company and he basically confirmed this. I know the payments are required, but I was illustrating an example of private land owners blocking up a public resource. This stuff happened in Gillette Wyoming in the late 90's early 2000's if you are skeptical of my claims. I do agree with you that these landowners should be required by law to create an easement to the public land if they are completely blocking access to this resource. Their rights end where others' rights begin. So an easement would be reasonable.[/quote:ftw35nq1]

NN, I didn't doubt your story, we both know the law isn't allways followed. :shock:


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Nibble Nuts said:


> elk22hunter said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree. That is still a great analogy. Some places you can go around for several miles to get to said land. Others are completely land locked and you can NOT get to it with out crossing private land. If you don't like it then buy the private land access but continuing to cry over access issues when there is not a leg to stand on is crazy. This is not a squeeky wheel gets the grease issue. This is a law issue and no amount of crying is going to change it.(by the way, i'm not pointing any fingers and saying that any person is crying. Just in general)
> ...


I'm sure if a person owned that landlocked land instead of it being public, they would be howling for access, would that be called crying too?


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Nibble Nuts said:


> elk22hunter said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree. That is still a great analogy. Some places you can go around for several miles to get to said land. Others are completely land locked and you can NOT get to it with out crossing private land. If you don't like it then buy the private land access but continuing to cry over access issues when there is not a leg to stand on is crazy. This is not a squeeky wheel gets the grease issue. This is a law issue and no amount of crying is going to change it.(by the way, i'm not pointing any fingers and saying that any person is crying. Just in general)
> ...


That is called a double disagreement and is against forum rules. The first disagreement trumps the second and thus makes the disagreement of the first disagreement not count. :mrgreen:


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Tinez said:


> These are the State Laws that are in the D.W.R proclaimation. Maybe I read them wrong I'm not sure!! If the hearings have taken place then who has the Documentation and where might I find it ???I have asked our DWR people and they play pass the hot potato with me and send me on a scavenger hunt to find answers. I still havent found them out. Thats why I'm asking the higher powers that be (fellow SPORTSMAN)(Here is an example ) let's say you have theright to voteand you go to use that RIGHT and the candidate you are not voting for won't let you in to vote because you are not voting for him, then is he breaking the law for not allowing you your Right to vote????
> 
> 23-21-4. Right of access to lands for hunting, trapping, or fishing reserved to public -- Exception. (1) Except as provided in Section 65A-2-5, there is reserved to the public the right of access to all lands owned by the state, including those lands lying below the official government meander line or high water line of navigable waters, for the purpose of hunting, trapping, or fishing.
> (2) When any department or agency of the state leases or sells any lands belonging to the state of Utah lying below the official government meander line or the high water line of the navigable waters within the state, the lease, contract of sale, or deed shall contain a provision that:
> ...


No, the fee is for crossing the private citizens private property not for hunting on private property.

I think Gary has answered the question a few times; we do not have the right to access all land owned by the government aka the public; I have tried to barge into the Governor's Mansion with no success; I then went to Camp Williams and was not able to access that property owned by the government, to end the day I went Treasury Building downtown and...well that did not go over so well. No, a land owner who has obtained the deed to land is not breaking the law by not allowing a person to cross their personal property to access public land (again, we do not necessarily have the right to access all public land). Most public land at issue is likely STLA, which is not necessarily accessible. Even when a landowner has another land owner landlocked, the landlocked owner does have the right to an easement, however the land owner must pay for that easement; my family has had to deal with this. I forget the details of the cost for the easement, but it has a calculation figure similar to eminent domain, but no the landowner is not breaking the law, he simply must grant the easement for a price and I will guess that the subject parcel is likely to insignificant for the state to worry about.

I have heard of cases much worse; an adjoining landowner to some family land was recently deemed nearly inaccessible as we sold off some land, which the DWR obtained second hand. The other landowner had an easement (unrecorded no doubt) across our old land to access their land. Well, the DWR has since built a fence across the old and fainting road. The AG himself rendered an opinion that it is not legal, but that the DWR does it regularly.

Another case where the DNR was ilegally taking water not claimed....settled by subordinating water rights to other landowners seeking the unclaimed rights...


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

Property owned by the government doesn't necessarily equate to being public land. Some of your examples are of government property that I don't think any of us would consider public land, like Camp Williams. I guess I'm not fully following what your saying with the DNR stealing water, illegally maintaining easements, etc. Now if any of this landlocked public land is also consuming any funds that are supposed to be dedicated to maintaining it for the public, and then some private landowner is blocking access, I can think of a few violations right there. I'm not saying that is happening, I'd have to check the annual reports and analyse the governmental funds (which are supposed to be reported so accountability can be established but it is possible). So no you have not shown any final answers Huge29, so if you could offer more details your post might be more understandable. But hey, its late and I'm tired too, and probably am not making much sense right now either.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> That is called a double disagreement and is against forum rules. The first disagreement trumps the second and thus makes the disagreement of the first disagreement not count. :mrgreen:


Sorry, I'll remember to follow forum rules next time. :wink:


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

Mojo1 said:


> I'm sure if a person owned that landlocked land instead of it being public, they would be howling for access, would that be called crying too?


Oh yeah, they'd be instantly howling for the government to fix this.


----------



## scott_rn (Sep 11, 2007)

Mojo1 said:


> I'm sure if a person owned that landlocked land instead of it being public, they would be howling for access, would that be called crying too?


I used to hunt deer on a few acres that were landlocked (two private owners and a creek). Some people bought it assuming one of the nieghbors would let them put in a driveway for access. The neighbors did not give them access, they cried, and the city put a bridge across the creek. Now it's suburbia and I can't hunt there. O|*

Honestly, I have to respect the guy who denied them access accross his property. It would have decreased his property value to put an access through his land and he stood his ground.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Nibble Nuts said:


> elk22hunter said:
> 
> 
> > That is called a double disagreement and is against forum rules. The first disagreement trumps the second and thus makes the disagreement of the first disagreement not count. :mrgreen:
> ...


You only get one breech of etiquette exception here; you are on the record, one more strike and you are out. One more policy that is often overlooked is the one so well demonstrated in Christmas Story; the act of jumping directly to the triple dog dare directly from the dare; it is a risky move that is often discouraged, but sometimes has its place in the debate forum.


----------



## Tinez (Dec 16, 2007)

Nibble Nuts said:


> Mojo1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure if a person owned that landlocked land instead of it being public, they would be howling for access, would that be called crying too?
> ...


Oh and it would not be on the internet for EVERYBODY to see or to put in there two cents on that public land!!


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

OK. I think I get where the point of disconnnect is now. You quoted the statute:



> The director of the *Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands,* in conjunction with the Wildlife Board, may restrict or limit public use of leased parcels of *sovereign lands *for hunting, trapping, or fishing:


The key issue here is that it refers only to lands that below to the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands. This is a completely different agency than State Institutional Trust Lands Agency (SITLA). Most lands identifiied on your quad maps as "State Lands" belong to SITLA. SITLA is the agency given ownership and management charge of all the lands set aside for the school trust. These lands are managed for the singular purpose of generating revenue for the School Trust. They are not public lands, and yet they are not entirely private lands. But for trespass issues, they really function as private lands. Unlike BLM or Forest Lands (lands with multiple use mandates) SITLA lands only charge is to generate money. They may be sold, leased for grazing, mining, exclusive hunting/fishing, whatever. Heck, SITLA themselves could charge an access fee for hunting if they felt it would generate positive cash flow for them. And yes, access to them is not included in your "right to access public lands" as they do not fall under that definition.

I don't know the parcel you are referring to - but most lonely, isolated and land-locked sections out there marked as "State Lands" belong to SITLA.

Now, some of these lands are made available to hunters through basically a lease agreement with DWR, and DWR pays several hundred thousand dollars to secure this access. But it does not apply to all SITLA lands - but mostly applies to areas where SITLA lands have been blocked up through trade, to form much larger parcels.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

I'm no lawyer or law expert but it seems that some laws are changed when one breaks the law and then challenges it with a great lawyer (laws are sometimes vauge and only interpreted in court). Lets send someone across private land to hunt public land when when they get sited lets all pitch in to hire an expert lawyer and get the law changed. I think we should also send someone to fish a river on private so we can get the the law changed so you can fish rivers on private land as long as your under the water mark. We also need to change the BLM land included in CWMU's, the yellow tag says "public access is allowed for all purposed except hunting", I would like to challenge that one with a good lawyer. Where is the UCLA on this one for us?

Utah Wildlife Network Versus Private Landowner of Utah

Supreme Court Verdict: All 4 points are own by the state thus all public can persue said state owner animal on public or private land (and you can fish in rivers under water mark


----------



## GCKid (Sep 11, 2007)

The UCLA? Not familiar with them.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

Guns and Flies said:


> Where is the UCLA on this one for us?


They're in Pasadena recovering from a blocked field goal.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Did anyone at UCLA actually even know their football team played in a "bowl game"? And of those that knew, how many cared?


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Did anyone at UCLA actually even know their football team played in a "bowl game"? And of those that knew, how many cared?


Probably none of them since there 6 -6 team had nothing to play for, is a terrible team and yet they got to play our conf. champion. Irony is that they should have beat the cougars with there walk on quarterback and second string safety and corner in the game and the mighty cougars still sucked and sqeaked out a victory. No offense cougar fans but that was embaressing, and the funny thing is you are proud of it. Should have blown them out and represented the conf. better. Think about it our conf. best team took on a tied for 4th place pac 10 team, a 6 -6 team and played very very badly. Wasn't good.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm true blue to the core, but I have to agree with bowhunter3. The thing that I took from the game is that the Cougars played probably their worst game of the year, and still found a way to win, and I guess that is a good thing. I think. Go Cougs! Northern Iowa is coming!


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> I'm true blue to the core, but I have to agree with bowhunter3. The thing that I took from the game is that the Cougars played probably their worst game of the year, and still found a way to win, and I guess that is a good thing. I think. Go Cougs! Northern Iowa is coming!


Obviously I am a Utah fan, but I really wanted ybu to destroy UCLA. FIrst off I was mad that our conf. champ had to play them again, and then to play like that sucked, Utah didn't play much better, there opponent was better but they should have shown better as well. The good thing is they both won, I just wish we as fans could have our champ play a more meaningful game and the only way to do so is to show better in the bowl games and fire the commish and well, I don't want to get into this again, gets me to mad, but he needs to go, he has done nothing but bad things for the MWC, hell the WAC our old conf. is now getting the pub, that the MWC should be getting.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Byu has a football team???? :shock: :wink: 

Back to the original topic; I will pose another question and stir the pot a little. What’s the difference between the state making a landowner grant an easement thru for public land access and it taking houses and land thru imminent domain to build roads? 

o-||


----------



## Tinez (Dec 16, 2007)

Mojo1 said:


> Byu has a football team???? :shock: :wink:
> 
> Back to the original topic; I will pose another question and stir the pot a little. What's the difference between the state making a landowner grant an easement thru for public land access and it taking houses and land thru imminent domain to build roads?
> 
> o-||


Good question MoJo I just wanted to see what everybody thought about this subject and get some more info on it. thanks Tinez


----------



## Tinez (Dec 16, 2007)

bowhunter3 said:


> GaryFish said:
> 
> 
> > Did anyone at UCLA actually even know their football team played in a "bowl game"? And of those that knew, how many cared?
> ...


GO UTES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Mojo1 said:


> What's the difference between the state making a landowner grant an easement thru for public land access and it taking houses and land thru eminent domain to build roads?


Take this as an answer from a person who has had some real estate classes; not an attorney, my understanding is that eminent domain is essentially used for when land is needed for the good of the "general public...." yada yada for a new road or school or to widen a road (look how small the front yards are of the people who live on Redwood in places, or 7th East, 72 South, etc. where the road has been widened) or to continue Bangerter to meet I-15 or for other things maybe more trivial like Franklin Covey field where about 5 elderly couples were forced to sell their homes at "fair market value" to be able to expand the field; somehow that was for the public good.... In Murray the city refused oddly to condemn Southern Exposure to allow for the new hospital; I do not understand that one, a hospital certainly does benefit the public...It is a pretty easy argument that roads benefit the public in general; some other situations may not be so easy. I guess in being forced to sell an easement is also fairly similar in that in both cases the fee simple owner of the land must sell the easement or the portion of the land, but in both cases the owner is compensated for the loss of ownership; does that answer the question?


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

UCLA, HA, I ment ACLU. I am a BYU fan but am no too pridful to cheer for the Utes when they are not playing BYU. The game was sad and BYU did not represent well, although last year they blew the doors off of Oregon. I wish Urban Myers Utes could have played Georgia this year instread of sorry Pittsburg, I think that Ute team could have beaten any team this year. How sweet would that be, a MWC team take the national title. 

I think it is in the best interest of the public if the public have access to animals owned by the state. So we should be allow access to all public animals to hunt them


----------

