# Fishing Public Water On Private Land- Why I Don't Like HB187



## neveronsunday (Oct 1, 2007)

Growing up in Montana I learned from a friend’s dad the rules and etiquette that applied to fishing public water on private land in Montana. We would walk in the stream or keep below the high water line. We would leave the stream and stay immediately on the shoreline around obstacles such as deadfall or steep undercut banks that put the water deeper than our chest. Being 11 years old and in a hurry to get to the next good hole I didn't always follow those rules exactly all the time, to which I was taught to respect the landowner and gained an appreciation for them. 
One day we walked up a knee-deep stream no bigger than a neighborhood sidewalk in the upper reaches of the Bighorn in some high prairie rangeland. A half mile up I found a hidden beaver dam in a tangle of willows full of remarkable native fish that I am sure had not seen a fisherman since Sacagawea or the last time a Grizzly bear wandered through. I had forgotten a stringer or creel, but no problem, I was wearing bib overalls. By the time I left I had fish tails sticking out of every pocket of those bibs headed for the smoker. The system worked well.
Another time we were hiking out of the Rattlesnake Range down Grant Creek northeast of Missoula on a terrific fishing trip and came to the private land border. You could walk down the creek to the public road bridge and get back to town that way except someone had (illegally) strung chicken wire and barbwire across the stream blocking this access. We diverted around it onto a private dirt road for about 150 feet and were met with an ignorant toothless recluse pointing a shotgun and cursing threats. I think he must have been a friend with the Unabomber. Respect needs to go both ways.
In Montana the (people) state owns the water and waterbed. In Utah the (people) state own the water but the waterbed can be private land. In Utah the Supreme Court ruled that the public could "incidentally" touch this private land streambed while on public water but only by state statue not constitutional right. That means another law can be passed to change it and "compromise" or deny access to public water (HB187). In my mind many Utah landowners have used fear and intimidation and now the legislature to unfairly monopolize public resources because of the "proximity" of these resources to their land. 
The system can work here, but again respect runs both ways. Even if the public corridor is no wider than a neighborhood sidewalk through private land it is still public property and shouldn't be exclusive to private interests. If you haven’t gotten involved with this yet by contacting your government representatives, get to it or chances are you may loose it - sad day for Utah.


----------



## copper (Sep 11, 2008)

Nice post. I always think of _A River Runs Through It_ whenever someone brings up Montana stream fishing.

The water and bed should be public land, I think that is how it should work. I also agree that respect should be shown by those who are essentially trespassing to get away and fish for a few hours. Unfortunately, not all fisherman behave in such manner. And unfortunately, according to law they own that land.

I think Private Property is one of the most sacrosanct rights we have in America. As long as they own those lands, I feel it is their right to dictate what goes on within its bounds.

If anglers want to ensure their rights in the future, they really need to start lobbying their government. The only way your stream rights will be secured is if you engage your State Government to enact a new law that makes stream beds public property and have land owners justly compensated through eminent domain. You could gather the funds through extra user fees attached to the 365 day license for a few years until the debt is payed off.

I will say HB187 stinks from 10 miles away.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I own the land under the sidewalk that passes in front of my house. I pay taxes on it. I have no right to block anyone from any legal activity while on it. I have to either shovel the snow off of it, or pay someone to do it for me if I am incapable of doing it. It is still my property. Is someone going to compensate me for it? No. And there is no need to compensate a landowner for a stream bed. How much control does a landowner have over a stream? He cannot legally change it's course. Unless he has water rights, he cannot divert any of it onto his property. He cannot plow below the high water mark. Why should we pay to be able to walk on it. 

Fishrmn


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

Some good points brought up here. I feel it was unfortunate that it ever got to the point that private land owners were led to believe that the land was theirs and could keep people from entering, thus some compromise should be set that will help mitigate the clarification ruling by the Utah Supreme Court; HB 187 should not be that compromise. I strongly believe that public should be able to access all rivers and streams.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Guns and Flies said:


> Some good points brought up here. I feel it was unfortunate that it ever got to the point that private land owners were led to believe that the land was theirs and could keep people from entering, thus some compromise should be set that will help mitigate the clarification ruling by the Utah Supreme Court; HB 187 should not be that compromise. I strongly believe that public should be able to access all rivers and streams.


There should also be a Grandfather clause that gives the land under the water back to the state whenever the property is sold or changes ownership in any way.

This would be a living and ongoing document and it would let the new owners of the land knowthat the land uthe water is the property.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Petersen said:


> Fishrmn said:
> 
> 
> > I own the land under the sidewalk that passes in front of my house.... It is still my property. Is someone going to compensate me for it? No. And there is no need to compensate a landowner for a stream bed.
> ...


Ignorance of the law is no excuse! The easement has existed for decades. The fact that people were wrongfully blocking public access doesn't mean that it was okay. It wasn't "forced" upon them after the property was purchased. The Supreme Court decision didn't change the law. It didn't grant an easement that didn't exist before. It pointed out that the easement did in fact exist, and that many landowners were blocking access, and were denying the rights of the legal owners of the stream from using it. Just because they thought they could do it doesn't make it right. And it hasn't changed! There is no "new" legislation. I would argue that foot traffic has followed streams since the beginning of time, unless of course some misguided landowner thought he could have his little piece of heaven and block the rightful owners of the stream from using it.

Fishrmn


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I think there is a fear form landowners that the Supreme Court ruling is going to clog up their streams with fishermen, like the crowds found on the middle Provo. I think this is what they don't want to see. Yes, there are jerks out there that just don't want anyone on "their" water at all. One expressed his opinion of that in the committee mtg.

I am still of the opinion that if they would just let the Courts ruling go for a year or two and test it to see if an increase in traffic, damage occur, then go back to the drawing board and see what the issues are and what can be done.

To have met two days after the ruling suggests to me that the landowners are not willing to compromise. This bill proves that fact.

I fished a public small stream 5 times last year and I only saw 1 other fisherman. Some waters are not attractive to the masses and will never receive much pressure. I just don't see hundreds of anglers flocking to the small streams all at once. 

Has anyone heard of small streams that need to be locked-up becasue of all the anglers lined-up to fish them? Which ones?


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

> Foot traffic through a public stream flowing over private property, however, seems to be a different matter. First off, the stream bed is there to channel flowing water, and unlike a sidewalk, foot traffic through it is incidental. Second, new legislation enabling foot traffic along the privately owned stream bed is a substantive change in the rules under which the property was purchased.


That is incorrect. Last year's supreme court ruling was not a new bill, as HB 187 is. It was an interpretation of article 17 of the Utah Constitution that has been there since 1908. Im guessing that most of those houses were built _after_ 1908.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> I think there is a fear form landowners that the Supreme Court ruling is going to clog up their streams with fishermen, like the crowds found on the middle Provo. I think this is what they don't want to see. Yes, there are jerks out there that just don't want anyone on "their" water at all. One expressed his opinion of that in the committee mtg.
> 
> I am still of the opinion that if they would just let the Courts ruling go for a year or two and test it to see if an increase in traffic, damage occur, then go back to the drawing board and see what the issues are and what can be done.
> 
> ...


Excellent points here. I was as excited as ANYONE about this Supreme Court ruling, I did not step once on private land last year because I respected the private landowners' loss and did not want them to think that here we come to storm across their land in giant hordes. I still plan to respect their privacy and if I saw them on their land recreating or doing anything, I would go somewhere else (with the ruling there are many many places to go). I am not planning on attacking private land opportunities; there is a lot of public that is excellent to fish!


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

I fish a lot of Forest Service land and find that I will even go around camping areas if someone has a tent or trailer close to the river. I'm not about getting in someones way. Then again, If I see another fisherman in an area I try to find another area to fish too.

This probably won't come out right, but I see a lot of the "New" fly fishers who don't give enough room, fish in groups, hoop and holler when catching a fish, and seem to be more interested in competition and social aspects of angling. I see posts where they say where they are going to meet and then gather in groups to hit the water. In my opinion the smaller waters are not the places to hit for party fishing and may be one of the concerns of landowners.

Again, common sense seems to be missing.


----------



## Nueces (Jul 22, 2008)

Dead Drifter said:


> , but I see a lot of the "New" fly fishers who don't give enough room, fish in groups, *hoop and holler when catching a fish*, and seem to be more interested in competition and social aspects of angling.


 :shock: I was on the Green River where the canyon walls will let voices travel, but there was a guy that wanted to MAKE sure EVERYONE heard him when he hooked a fish...talk about hoop and hollering! -)O(- I guess he felt better if EVERYONE on the river thought he caught a fish? :?:


----------

