# 5-0 Surpreme Court Decision is Doodly Squat!



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I guess the Supreme Court doesn't hold much water (pun intended) in Utah. They're DOODLEY SQUAT! I wish you 400,000 anglers in the state would decline to buy a license in Utah if they change our right to use the water in this state. It's going to get ugly and messy. I will not support the DWR anymore on their cutt restoration if I don't have access to the trout. TU doesn't look too promising. Federation of Fly Fishers can sit around and tie flies and talk how purdy they are, like it's somekind of rocket science to wrap a hook, where you gonna cast 'em?. Fly shops can offer you a place to talk about the good old days, but have to charge for the coffee. Utah will lose tourism dollars becasue we are sending a message that we don't want outdoors people here. Maybe that retail show can find a state that really is "life elevated". Hey Ogden, magazine articles are nice, but don't hike by the Ogden River or those little streams in the valley. Want to go bird watching by Bear River Bird Refuge? Heck no! That'd be Ferry's private swamp!

Clark Kent? Throw his tea into the river tonight!


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

I have recieved VERY positive responces from my reps. I hope they speak up when its time to vote!!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

HighNDry said:


> I guess the Supreme Court doesn't hold much water (pun intended) in Utah. They're DOODLEY SQUAT! I wish you 400,000 anglers in the state would decline to buy a license in Utah if they change our right to use the water in this state. It's going to get ugly and messy. I will not support the DWR anymore on their cutt restoration if I don't have access to the trout. TU doesn't look too promising. Federation of Fly Fishers can sit around and tie flies and talk how purdy they are, like it's somekind of rocket science to wrap a hook, where you gonna cast 'em?. Fly shops can offer you a place to talk about the good old days, but have to charge for the coffee. Utah will lose tourism dollars becasue we are sending a message that we don't want outdoors people here. Maybe that retail show can find a state that really is "life elevated". Hey Ogden, magazine articles are nice, but don't hike by the Ogden River or those little streams in the valley. Want to go bird watching by Bear River Bird Refuge? Heck no! That'd be Ferry's private swamp!
> 
> Clark Kent? Throw his tea into the river tonight!


Dude, from the tone of this post, you sound like we already lost. I don't even think Boss Ferry has entered a bill yet, and time IS growing shorter on him. Keep the faith and keep fighting.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> I guess the Supreme Court doesn't hold much water (pun intended) in Utah. They're DOODLEY SQUAT! I wish you 400,000 anglers in the state would decline to buy a license in Utah *if they change our right to use the water in this state*. It's going to get ugly and messy. I will not support the DWR anymore on their cutt restoration if I don't have access to the trout. TU doesn't look too promising. Federation of Fly Fishers can sit around and tie flies and talk how purdy they are, like it's somekind of rocket science to wrap a hook, where you gonna cast 'em?. Fly shops can offer you a place to talk about the good old days, but have to charge for the coffee. Utah will lose tourism dollars becasue we are sending a message that we don't want outdoors people here. Maybe that retail show can find a state that really is "life elevated". Hey Ogden, magazine articles are nice, but don't hike by the Ogden River or those little streams in the valley. Want to go bird watching by Bear River Bird Refuge? Heck no! That'd be Ferry's private swamp!
> 
> Clark Kent? Throw his tea into the river tonight!


What do mean change the right ? I thought that was already in stone and they were just going 'now' clarify it ! :?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

It doesn't matter what the bill says. The access is based on a constitutional issue. The bill will mean nothing unless they re-write who owns the water in the state. It is based on water ownership - which is defined constitutionally. Don't sweat this one too much. This bill has no teeth in it and will not change the access as defined as a recreational access easement in waters owned by the State of Utah. So no matter how the legislature chooses to define that, they cannot change the decision.

Our legislature surely doesn't know about checks and balances, or balance of power. They ignore the other two branches of government on a regular basis. But that is a whole other tread I guess.


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

I've been hearing talk about a compromise where they will tell us where we can fish and where we can't. I've also heard that if anglers don't go for the compromise, they have a list of waters they will lock us out of, some of which are prime waters. Sounds like they are trying to use scare tactics. Some dude named Ed Kent, who is suppose to be an angler, is rumored to be selling out and begging for anglers to compromise. Anybody know this guy?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Right now, access is dependent upon the water being open for fishing. So in essence, the legislature would be deciding what streams would be open or not - something they have given power to DWR to do. That is the only thing the legislature really can do, is to legislatively close streams to fishing.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> It doesn't matter what the bill says. The access is based on a constitutional issue. The bill will mean nothing unless they re-write who owns the water in the state. It is based on water ownership - which is defined constitutionally.


I talked to a guy from the A. G.'s office today about a couple of things. He is involved in this very issue. He pointed out that Utah's constitution doesn't define our water rights. Montana and Idaho have that protection. We don't.

It sounds like the compromise bill may be too watered down to mean anything. I hope that the angling community can stick together. I doubt that the legislature would pass a bill, or the governor would sign into law, a measure that would basically end stream fishing in Utah. The tourism dollars make it too lucrative to eliminate.

Fishrmn


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

I don't think Idaho has the same rights as Montana. What are the rights to stream access in Idaho? I may just take HND's advise and not buy a Utah license anymore. Idaho and Wyoming is close enough.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Couple items.

"I talked to a guy from the A. G.'s office today about a couple of things. He is involved in this very issue. He pointed out that Utah's constitution doesn't define our water rights. Montana and Idaho have that protection. We don't.

It sounds like the compromise bill may be too watered down to mean anything. I hope that the angling community can stick together. I doubt that the legislature would pass a bill, or the governor would sign into law, a measure that would basically end stream fishing in Utah. The tourism dollars make it too lucrative to eliminate."

Fishrmn[/quote]

+1, on both paragraphs and esp "I hope that the angling community can stick together."

Next, Remember this article?
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11519012

Here is an excerpt from it.
"Steve Schmidt, owner of Western Rivers Flyfisher and a long-time angler advocate, is
pleased with the amount of time Ferry has spent listening to anglers and is looking forward to the clarity the bill should provide about stream and river access.

"We figured we would get 15 minutes with him, but he gave us an hour," said Schmidt, who is part of a working group representing various Utah fishing interests invited to talk to Ferry. "It was a casual setting with a very open dialogue and I was thankful for that."

What I've heard through the grapevine is that the bill includes a list of popular Utah waters that would become more accessible to anglers, waters like the Provo, Weber, Duchesne, Strawberry and more. Rivers running through private lands not on the list would be off limits to anglers and other recreationists, unless the landowner decides to allow access. "

This nefarious "compromise" is the as of yet unreleased Ferry bill that we have been talking about and fighting all along. This is nothing new! Go back to that original UOTF thread. And since Boss Ferry hasn't released this yet would strongly indicate that our action has at least got their attention, and probably changed the outcome to our advantage (either partially or totally).

I do not know this Mr. Kent, however, I believe he is one of the members that originally went to Rep Ferry and discussed this. For such a supposedly powerful "angling" guy, I sure haven't heard any such pronouncements of compromise from him! Guys, we need to stick together, see this through, and not throw our own under the bus! SHEESH :evil:


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Well, I went to a town meeting last night. My sentor and representative were there. I was prepared to get into the Ferry bill and the 5-0 Supreme Court ruling. I waited to see where the dicussion would go and that was a mistake. Illegal aliens, utah's budget and economic outlook, heath care, public and charter schools, taxes, transportation, alcohol laws, tabacco taxes, and employment outlook, all discussed. Really couldn't get a word in if I wanted. 

I know, I'm a failure as a political player.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Not a failure at all.
Now you can email your Reps and let them know that you attended the meeting.
Explain that you felt that the timming wan't right to bring up the issue.
Let them know how your opinion and that you attended the meeting in hopes of telling them how you feel about stream access.

You have just started the ball rolling.
Now keep it going,
Grandpa D.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Couple items.
> 
> "I talked to a guy from the A. G.'s office today about a couple of things. He is involved in this very issue. He pointed out that Utah's constitution doesn't define our water rights. Montana and Idaho have that protection. We don't.
> 
> ...


+1, on both paragraphs and esp "I hope that the angling community can stick together."

Next, Remember this article?
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11519012

Here is an excerpt from it.
"Steve Schmidt, owner of Western Rivers Flyfisher and a long-time angler advocate, is
pleased with the amount of time Ferry has spent listening to anglers and is looking forward to the clarity the bill should provide about stream and river access.

"We figured we would get 15 minutes with him, but he gave us an hour," said Schmidt, who is part of a working group representing various Utah fishing interests invited to talk to Ferry. "It was a casual setting with a very open dialogue and I was thankful for that."

What I've heard through the grapevine is that the bill includes a list of popular Utah waters that would become more accessible to anglers, waters like the Provo, Weber, Duchesne, Strawberry and more. Rivers running through private lands not on the list would be off limits to anglers and other recreationists, unless the landowner decides to allow access. "

This nefarious "compromise" is the as of yet unreleased Ferry bill that we have been talking about and fighting all along. This is nothing new! Go back to that original UOTF thread. And since Boss Ferry hasn't released this yet would strongly indicate that our action has at least got their attention, and probably changed the outcome to our advantage (either partially or totally).

I do not know this Mr. Kent, however, I believe he is one of the members that originally went to Rep Ferry and discussed this. For such a supposedly powerful "angling" guy, I sure haven't heard any such pronouncements of compromise from him! Guys, we need to stick together, see this through, and not throw our own under the bus! SHEESH :evil:[/quote]

+1

If anglers are smart, they will get behind what people like Steve Schmidt, Ed Kent, and groups like TU are trying to do.

For what it's worth, Ed Kent is the central region RAC chair....he has also been a strong fishing advocate and active in local fishing organizations for years. He is on the side of anglers...

The bottom line for me is that we shouldn't be butting our heads against private landowners but working with them. We should be striving to find win/win compromises that both us as anglers and private landowners can benefit from. I am a huge proponent of the DWR's walk-in access program for this very reason. Check out this video from the DWR's website:
http://dwr.smugmug.com/gallery/6709454_ ... 6muwG-A-LB

Butting our heads against landowners could, in fact, lead private landowners to be poor stewards of wildlife habitat on their private land. Forcing these private landowners to allow access may even give them incentive to allow the destruction of fisheries habitat to discourage the public from entering their land....


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

Ed's a good guy----------- Idaho's access law reads
When fishing in navigable streams bordered by private property:
• You must stay within the normal high-water marks of the
stream, unless you have landowner permission to get out
on the bank, or have no other means of getting around an
obstruction in the stream (such as a fence or diversion dam).
• When getting outside of the stream to go around an
obstruction, take the shortest, most direct route around the
obstruction to get back in the stream.
• Do not allow pets or children to trespass on adjacent private
property, without landowner permission.
• You may enter and exit navigable streams at other public
rights of way, such as county road bridges.
• ASK FIRST! Always get landowner permission before
crossing private lands outside of a public right of way.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

"The bottom line for me is that we shouldn't be butting our heads against private landowners but working with them. We should be striving to find win/win compromises that both us as anglers and private landowners can benefit from. I am a huge proponent of the DWR's walk-in access program for this very reason. Check out this video from the DWR's website:"

How many of us have tried this in the past?
How many times have we been granted access to places like Deseret, Stoddard Slough, sections of the Provo and Weber, by asking for permission from a landowner.

They have kept from fishing on waters that our rightfully ours, for years.
It's time that we take back our rights.
Yes we are going to be stepping on some toes, but what about all the years that we have been denied access.

There will not be a win/win, everyone is happy ending to this.
I can see the side that landowners will be taking, but these are our waters and we should have had access all along.

The landowners are trying to protect something that never was theirs to begin with.

They won't like anything that changes what they thought that they were intitled to.
I don't blame them for their thinking.
This should have been resolved many years ago.

If we do keep our rights to access these waters, we should always respect the landowners and their property.

I hope that the DWR's access program will continue and that landowners and sportsmen will be able to work together and make this work.

It will take time and there will be some landowners that will never accept the ruling, but as sportsmen we need to step up and show these landowners that we are not trying to do anything to disrupt their way of live.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Packfish said:


> Ed's a good guy----------- Idaho's access law reads
> When fishing in navigable streams bordered by private property:
> • You must stay within the normal high-water marks of the
> stream, unless you have landowner permission to get out
> ...


I know where my license dollars, gas, food and lodging will be going, heck, I think I'll start buying all my outdoor gear from Idaho shops too.

Why is Utah DWR not pushing for something like this?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

HighNDry said:


> Well, I went to a town meeting last night. My sentor and representative were there. I was prepared to get into the Ferry bill and the 5-0 Supreme Court ruling. I waited to see where the dicussion would go and that was a mistake. Illegal aliens, utah's budget and economic outlook, heath care, public and charter schools, taxes, transportation, alcohol laws, tabacco taxes, and employment outlook, all discussed. Really couldn't get a word in if I wanted.
> 
> I know, I'm a failure as a political player.


You know, this is something that is actually to our advantage. Our legislators have a lot of very weighty issues to take care of in this session that are a h*#@ of a lot more important to our state than changing the stream access laws. If Boss Ferry sees that he will have to expend a lot of time, energy, and political capital to fight this through instead of working on education, transportation, or health care, he likely will see that it just isn't worth it to him as a politician to pursue this now.

It is OUR job to continue to demonstrate that he will indeed need to spend that capital if he wants to proceed by continuing to voice our opposition to the types of changes he has proposed.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Grandpa D said:


> It will take time and there will be some landowners that will never accept the ruling, but as sportsmen we need to step up and show these landowners that we are not trying to do anything to disrupt their way of live.


I guess this is what I have a problem with...regardless of how much we may try NOT to do anything to disrupt a private landowner's way of life, in some cases we are and cannot avoid doing it. Take the private section of the Fremont River below the bridge on highway 24 for example. Here is a section of stream that was purchased by a private group and a group that has done much to restore the habitat of the stream to make it an exceptional fishery. The private landowner recognized an opportunity to make money by improving the fishery and allowing only paying customers to fish the land with guides. Allowing access to this stretch of stream to the public undoubtedly hurts the business opportunity of the landowner....AND, the landowner would have NEVER done the restoration work on the stream had it not had the incentive to do so. Had the Conatser ruling been made sooner, it is very possible that this private landowner would have never purchased that land, never improved the fishery, and it would have remained marginal at best. Or, even worse, a different landowner would have purchased it, grazed it heavily, and destroyed what little habitat was already there. As is, we may not have access to the stream without forking over some dollars and fishing it with a guide, but that is better than the alternative.

I really think the best solution to this issue is for the state to give incentive to private landowners to be good stewards and by working with private landowners to gain public access through programs like the DWR's walk-in access program....


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

So based on that above information we can assume that cattlemen and farmers are poor stewards of the land, and for them to claim some guy walking up a stream catching a few trout is the one ruining the vegetation, breaking down the stream banks and messing with livestock. Hmmmm. I've seen what free ranging cattle do to riparian areas. It's not pretty.

I would assume that if the general fishing public had access to the water and knew they could fish it, they would help restore it. Tell me where these restoration projects will be held and tell me I have access after it's done, and I'll make time to help out. Don't lock me out!

Where does it stop? When all the waters are private? Then everything will be perfect because someone is making a buck off of it and only the elitist, rich someBees will have access. Why do we want that?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> So based on that above information we can assume that cattlemen and farmers are poor stewards of the land, and for them to claim some guy walking up a stream catching a few trout is the one ruining the vegetation, breaking down the stream banks and messing with livestock. Hmmmm. I've seen what free ranging cattle do to riparian areas. It's not pretty.
> 
> I would assume that if the general fishing public had access to the water and knew they could fish it, they would help restore it. Tell me where these restoration projects will be held and tell me I have access after it's done, and I'll make time to help out. Don't lock me out!
> 
> Where does it stop? When all the waters are private? Then everything will be perfect because someone is making a buck off of it and only the elitist, rich someBees will have access. Why do we want that?


1) I never said anything about fishermen hurting riparian areas or damaging habitat. I said that private landowners don't have incentive to fix habitats if every tom, dick, and harry can access it. Also, I never claimed that all farmers and ranchers are poor stewards...but, in terms of private property, if practices that hurt fisheries mean more money--grazing stream banks for example--why wouldn't a landowner continue doing it? Especially if it meant keeping people from accessing the property?

2) IF the public has access to private water, they still have to have permission from a landowner to do any kind of stream restoration because the land under the stream belongs to the landowner. Just because the public has the desire to improve something on private land, doesn't mean he has the right. The Conatser ruling didn't change that. The public has incentive to improve a fishery, but the private landowner does not. That has been the biggest success of the DWR's walk-in access program...we get permission to restore habitat with the exchange of access.

3) We don't want that, again, because by fighting with public landowners--and not working with them--we are giving them incentive to destroy habitat. That way, they can keep people off their land just because land with poor habitat wouldn't be worth accessing. Take DLL, for example, they have been excellent wildlife stewards because they benefit from having good wildlife and fishery habitat. Take their personal rewards away, and what reason do they have of being good stewards?

Also, we definitely don't want all water to become private...we definitely don't want fishing to become an elitist sport where only the rich can participate. Again, though, that is the benefit of working WITH landowners and NOT against them. The DWR's walk-in access program is the perfect example, landowners get compensation for allowing access and we get to improve fisheries.

FWIW, I have a hard time getting all worked up about something that hasn't even been released yet. To my knowledge, this bill(s) that every one is up in arms over, isn't even real yet.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

And if we stay all worked up about it,
it may never become a bill.

We can only hope!


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

Ferry's bill does not have to be pushed through this session. A senator mentioned that he was a little uncomfortable about a bill and asked that it be set aside for a year to allow a more detailed study of the bill's content.

Why does the Ferry bill have to be pushed through this session? The Supreme Court ruling is only 7 months old. Why not let it go another summer and see how it goes?

It seems like they are banking on getting this done fast so few are aware of it. It reminds me of how the DWR wouldn't wait an the Middle Provo regulation change. Had to be done RIGHT NOW! 

Seems to me when there's a skunk in the chickens' eggs, they like to work fast before the stench hits the air.

Secret meetings, invitation of idiots in seclusion. They know damned well they are trying to pull a fast one and got caught.


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

While you were out fishing today, HB0187 was introduced without content. Little sneaky politicians are up to something. WHEN will we know the content? WHY dont they want us to KNOW the content? WHY such a hurry to introduce this year? WHY not wait and see how the Supreme Court ruling plays out for a year or so?

I'm telling you, these landowners don't want YOU in "their" water. They've been rude about access for years. A humble little angler asking for permission to fish some water and have to take the verbal abuse. This thing stinks like a skunk (skunks are black and white so I should be okay).

Years ago, they were nice, but the selfish offspring that inherited this land want to lock it up. Or maybe it's the wealthy developers who want us out?


----------



## LawMan (Sep 25, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> It doesn't matter what the bill says. The access is based on a constitutional issue. The bill will mean nothing unless they re-write who owns the water in the state. It is based on water ownership - which is defined constitutionally. Don't sweat this one too much. This bill has no teeth in it and will not change the access as defined as a recreational access easement in waters owned by the State of Utah. So no matter how the legislature chooses to define that, they cannot change the decision.


The law in Utah right now is that all water is owned by the people of Utah. There is an easement over private property any where that water flows. The question, until conatser was the scope of that easement. Before Conatser it was limited to floating on the water. Conatser, however, clarified that the public's easement included the right to touch the beds over which the water flows while engaging in non-destructive and non-intrusive recreational activities.

It would be easy for our legislature to pass a law that changed the scope of the easement. I have not read the text of the bill, but am anxious to see what it says.

Most of the legislators that I have communicated with have been against such a bill, but only time will tell. We have to become and stay as vocal as possible with as many people as possible, both on and off the hill. Letters to the editor, (If we write 10 letters, one might get published), calls or e-mails to reporters and discussions with people we come in contact with will help, but doing nothing should not be an option.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

Where can I find the E-mails of the judges that are on the UT SC?


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

I've e-mailed every e-mail that has been posted, keep em coming!  STOP HOUSE BILL 187!!!!!!!!!


----------

