# The Chaser Proposal for Waterway Access



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

I'm just going to throw an idea out there to see how y'all feel about it. Feel free to give your opinions, both yea and nay, and let's see if we can't get something rolling to help "continue the discussion on this issue", as the governor puts it.

Many of us are upset by the passage of HB141. Some of us are not. Fishermen want access to public water, and landowners want their privacy rights protected in regards to their land, be it adjacent to, or beneath public water. Additionally, one of the biggest arguments of landowners regarding the subject was that of litter, and the ability for "just anyone" to venture onto their land. 

I believe we can find a compromise; a way to open up access to more water around the state, as well as protect landowners from having their properties littered with garbage, or from being sued from trespassers. 

I propose that the state start a "Dedicated Fisherman" program. As part of this program, fishermen and women who would like to have access to more streams and rivers can take an ethics course every 3-5 years, for a yearly fee of say, $50-$100, which would be determined after some research. Yearly service hours would be required as well, and maybe if more service were rendered, the fee could be lowered or dropped altogether; not everyone has the money, but a lot of folks have time to help out. By completing this course and becoming a "Dedicated Fisherman", individuals will be allowed access to waters on participating properties. Landowners would get an incentive to enroll in the program such as a tax break on the portion of land that would be open to access. Furthermore, the fees associated with becoming a "Dedicated Fisherman" would be used to fund clean-up projects, build parking areas, and whatever, if anything, is left over can be used to improve habitat. DFs would not be allowed to sue landowners for injuries or whatever...a "use at your own risk" type scenario. A sign in/out log could be an option so the landowner knows who is using his land.

Anyone not wishing to fish these waters would not need to join, or pay for anything else. I believe a program of this sort would get fishermen more invested in the areas they frequent. They would be more apt to pick up after themselves, and be sensitive towards the land and landowner. Any infraction of the DF agreement would result in a fine and suspension of DF access. 3 strikes and you're out, IOW, permanent dismissal from the DF program.

So, what do you think?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I commend you on thinking 'outside the box', but I don't like it. It all comes down to private property rights for me, if you can get landowners to WILLINGLY sign off on such a proposal then I would have no objections. But, if landowners are forced to participate in the DF program, I will be 100% opposed to it. Coercion is tyranny, and forcing landowners to let people access their property is coercion. Good thoughts, and maybe a solution can evolve from this.


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I commend you on thinking 'outside the box', but I don't like it. It all comes down to private property rights for me, if you can get landowners to WILLINGLY sign off on such a proposal then I would have no objections. But, if landowners are forced to participate in the DF program, I will be 100% opposed to it. Coercion is tyranny, and forcing landowners to let people access their property is coercion. Good thoughts, and maybe a solution can evolve from this.


I thought I had made that part clear- no forcing landowners to join, but give them incentive through tax breaks for that portion of land involved in the access. They don't have to join, but if they choose to, they won't have to worry about trash, who is on their land, and the like.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

I think it's a pretty good idea Chaser, but I'm not so sure you could get all parties involved anymore without having a couple of attorney's present. 

The name calling has been so, should I say, childish.... :?


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

The idea is a great one, but it would never work. Many landowners will not allow access no matter what. The HOA of the houses on the lower Provo were contacted by the dwr several years ago hoping to reach an agreement to get a walk in access program just like the ones over on the Weber between wanship and coalville. The HOA said "no", not enough money. So the DWR came back at them the next year offering to pay double the amount that anyone else makes with walk in access in the state and they still said no, despite the dwr going above and beyond what they normally offer because they realize it is such an important area for angler access. Shortly after this, a couple of landowners posted signs all over the place down there saying "no trespassing unless you pay $50 per rod per day." Needless to say, nobody paid it, especially since some of the guides and landowners got along well and they allowed access. Even after Conatser, when we would be doing trips in the campground, some of the landowners would see us, run and grab their sign, and stand right at the bank of the river holding it in front of us for sometimes an hour or two straight, even though we had full access up and down the river. 

So this whole thing is not about private property rights; its about landowners thinking they are going to be able to sell access and get rich on it. A lot of bad things of been said about Steve Ault, who owns the largest chunk of property on the LP, but we willingly allowed access for years and wasn't looking to make money off the fisherman. It is unfortunate that the general fishing public gets blamed for trashing his property summer after summer when it is done 99% by the rafters down there. If there was some limits on allowing X amount of rafts/tubers a day down there and someone enforcing littering laws, that would cut down on the tension and litter tenfold...


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Is this the Steve Ault who so generously agreed to allow fishermen through his property as he always has and will no matter what became of HB141....a brother-in-law to the Governor?

And yet the Governor was accused of favoritism toward his relatives? Unbelieveable.... :roll:


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

Favortism or not, still a conflict of interests and a bad bill no matter which way you slice it.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Sounds somewhat similar to something I proposed last year in context of the HB187 debate.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14479

I have asked the DWR a couple of times about some sort of a "dedicated fisherman" program, both in context of the Conatser decision and also with respect to some stuff I participate in with Utah lake. The net result has always been "NO". They don't feel there is enough of a "reward" to institute the program. Also, as long as HB141 is the law of the state, and public access is shut off for public waters over a private bed, it is a non issue.

What I have heard rumblings of when I was visiting the "hill" this session was "CWMU"s for fish. I guess some of these landowners think they are going to get filthy rich by having CWMU style fishing trips on their exclusive private waters. I doubt they will earn diddly squat, but I suppose more power to them to try. (Until the Utah Supreme Court nukes 141 and brings us back to where we are now :wink: )


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

> Until the Utah Supreme Court nukes 141 and brings us back to where we are now


Well....if they nuke it, I'm sure they should be accused of _'conflict of interest'_ as I would assume somebody in one of those 5 families probably likes to fish... :|


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

HB 80 was kind of what you are talking about anyway isn't it? I will not pay a landowner to fish waters that are rightfully ours in the first place. The UTSC will tell us that shortly i presume.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

.45, stop trying to infuse logic into the equation.


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

*The Existing and Cost Effective DWR Walk In Access Program*



Chaser said:


> I'm just going to throw an idea out there to see how y'all feel about it. Feel free to give your opinions, both yea and nay, and let's see if we can't get something rolling to help "continue the discussion on this issue", as the governor puts it.
> 
> Many of us are upset by the passage of HB141. Some of us are not. Fishermen want access to public water, and landowners want their privacy rights protected in regards to their land, be it adjacent to, or beneath public water. Additionally, one of the biggest arguments of landowners regarding the subject was that of litter, and the ability for "just anyone" to venture onto their land.
> 
> ...


Utah has had an existing and cost effective DWR Walk In Access program that includes fishing since around 2006.






http://wildlife.utah.gov/wr/0805walkin/0805walkin.pdf

Karpowitz obviously has known about this program and said nothing so he's gotta lotta splainin' to do. Since private access to private beds is and has been covered under the WIA program, there was never a need for any legislation concerning the private access to/from private bed perspective. Since Conatser is about USE of beds rather than ACCESS to/from beds, Ferry, then McIff, simply created access focused legislation to suit their constituents' perspectives.

You may want to ask Karpinski to conduct a time limited and complete watershed by watershed person to person outreach survey with the riparian landowners to expand the program's coverage while other routes are pursued to get rid of that 141 monstrosity.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> The idea is a great one, but it would never work. Many landowners will not allow access no matter what. The HOA of the houses on the lower Provo were contacted by the dwr several years ago hoping to reach an agreement to get a walk in access program just like the ones over on the Weber between wanship and coalville. The HOA said "no", not enough money. So the DWR came back at them the next year offering to pay double the amount that anyone else makes with walk in access in the state and they still said no, despite the dwr going above and beyond what they normally offer because they realize it is such an important area for angler access. Shortly after this, a couple of landowners posted signs all over the place down there saying "no trespassing unless you pay $50 per rod per day." Needless to say, nobody paid it, especially since some of the guides and landowners got along well and they allowed access. Even after Conatser, when we would be doing trips in the campground, some of the landowners would see us, run and grab their sign, and stand right at the bank of the river holding it in front of us for sometimes an hour or two straight, even though we had full access up and down the river.
> 
> So this whole thing is not about private property rights; its about landowners thinking they are going to be able to sell access and get rich on it. A lot of bad things of been said about Steve Ault, who owns the largest chunk of property on the LP, but we willingly allowed access for years and wasn't looking to make money off the fisherman. It is unfortunate that the general fishing public gets blamed for trashing his property summer after summer when it is done 99% by the rafters down there. If there was some limits on allowing X amount of rafts/tubers a day down there and someone enforcing littering laws, that would cut down on the tension and litter tenfold...


I'll miss Mr. P when he strokes out because he's so angry. I stared at that sign alot last year. I even have a picture w/some clients and I standing in front of it while they were posing for a picture w/a fish they caught. Mr.P tried to ruin the pic by being in the background. :roll: If I would have started collecting flip flops and selling them on ebay, I could have made some serious bank over the years. :shock:


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I like the fact that you are thinking of creative solutions to the problem of access to our streams, but the stage is set now though. The water has always belonged to the public, and the Supreme Court ruled that we can have incidental touching of the streambed while using our water. This will go back to the high court and we will once again be allowed to use our water without paying a landowner a fee to access it. Patience...
R


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

Interesting idea, I like the idea of compensation for land owners.


----------

