# Stream Access Proposal



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Brett caught wind of this and posted on his blog. http://blogs.sltrib.com/fishing/
Basically the state is proposing a $5 dollar "trespass stamp". I'm fine with paying 5 bucks a year if it goes somewhere good. My question is how does this benefit anyone but the DNR? Where is this money going? Will I have to stop fishing and show a land owner my stamp? Good principle, bad plan IMHO.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I read the proposed bill yesterday. I have to say that on my first read, I found it pretty good. The $5 tresspass stamp goes into an account that can only be used for enhancing access - such as fence walk-overs, gates, etc... It can also be used to pay for stream access across private lands - so you could walk across a field to get to a stream instead of walking only in the water. 

The other thing good in the bill is that it defines where the access exists - within the high water marks - so that takes things up from where the state supreme court left it. 

The other thing I like in the bill is an emphasis put to further protect the land owner from any kind of liability suit in case someone gets hurt while on his property. If a fisherman gets hurt and sues the landowner and loses the suit, he has to pay all the legal fees for both sides. 

Overall, the bill leaves things where the Montana stream access law sits. Like I said, on my first reading, I like it.


----------



## FishMogul (Sep 8, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> I read the proposed bill yesterday. I have to say that on my first read, I found it pretty good. The $5 tresspass stamp goes into an account that can only be used for enhancing access - such as fence walk-overs, gates, etc... It can also be used to pay for stream access across private lands -* so you could walk across a field to get to a stream instead of walking only in the water. *


I'm all for that for sure :mrgreen: sounds like there might be a few kinks to iron out but I'd be happy to pay the $5 for sure



Nor-tah said:


> Will I have to stop fishing and show a land owner my stamp? Good principle, bad plan IMHO.


Maybe the stamp will be in the form of a bright orange hat :lol: seriously I'd even be okay showing my stamp to the land owner. If that's the only price I have to pay other than the $5 to avoid the struggle of constantly staying in the water I'm down with that. And if it's a place you frequent hopefully the landowner would only need to ask once.

I'm also Okay with paying some sort of lifetime stream access stamp if they ever did that.

anything to avoid this I'm in FAVOR
[attachment=0:gwrrsfx9]P1030680.jpg[/attachment:gwrrsfx9]


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Gary, Thanks for the great clarification! Like I said, I dont have a bit of a problem paying 5 dollars a year. I just dont like seeing money wasted. The way you explained I sure hope this passes. Anyone else?


----------



## Buckskin (Sep 14, 2007)

Brett did a follow up blog - looks like the access permit stamp is dead - at least for now.
http://blogs.sltrib.com/fishing/


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Thanks Buckskin. I dont like all license fees going up one dollar for this either though. :evil: What benefit is that going to give us? I think Lori Fowlke had a good thing going but understand the position of Utah Water Guardians on this. I just worry that if we stand too hard against this we may loose it all together...


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Any news about last years bill?
Will someone try to get it passed again this year?


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

I can't say I'm in favor of raising fees at all. Fees here, fees there, fees everywhere.

I pay taxes, I buy licenses, I fuel my vehicle, I constantly purchase gear and snacks at convenience stores, stimulating local economies...

I already have to put up with ever-increasing access fees to many of the places I frequent (State Parks, AF Canyon, Uintas...some of which _doubled_ over the past two years).

Trying to toss in little extras here and there for whatever reason is starting to get downright frivolous. No new "taxes", please. Just my personal opinion of it. I don't expect the rest of the world to share it with me.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Grandpa D said:


> Any news about last years bill?
> Will someone try to get it passed again this year?


The $5 proposal was part of the first draft of a new bill being put together by a committee of State reps and interested parties on both sides. As GaryFish stated, there is much that is encouraging here. However, it was only the first draft and is a work in progress. As noted, the DWR is reconsidering the access fee and it is off the table for the moment. Hopefully the process will be successful in crafting something we can all live with and continue to enjoy our rights. It was rumored that Rep. Ferry was gearing up to try again with another "HB 187" type bill as an alternative. Don't know how reliable that info was though.

As for an access fee, I don't have a problem with a small fee affixed to use of "public water over private bed" fishing, (I would like to see anglers be allowed to "work off"' the fee by working on river projects too) but I don't believe that the fee should be charged to all anglers. Those that only fish some "put and take" lake once or twice a year and never fish the rivers in question shouldn't be required to pay the bill IMO.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

I don't know if I would benefit from this but iI would be in support of it anyway.
The key to this working, is to have the funds restricted and not allow any portion of it to get into the general fund of the State.

This will be interesting to follow.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The way I understood the access stamp (fee) is that you only would of had to pay it if you were fishing the water that traverse private lands. If you are fishing Strawberry, Jordanelle, Willard, etc... you would not need the additional stamp. (of course, you'll pay state park and launch fees at those places - so why would we expect fishing "private" water to be any different - but that is another story.)

I equate it to how some other states deal with hunting access on private lands. In Nebraska, I paid $10 habitat stamp that funded hunting access on private lands. I would see this kind of an access stamp similarly. 

You know, I paid an access fee to take my pontoon out on Little Dell this summer. Same thing at Strawberry, Scofield, and many others. If we can pay $5 for accessing what have traditionally been "private" waters, that is a bargin no matter how you look at it. If that can buy me a fence walk-over and permission to walk across a pasture to get to the stream instead of a two mile hike IN the stream, that pretty much works for me. That is what the access stamp was doing.


----------



## FishMogul (Sep 8, 2007)

LOAH said:


> I can't say I'm in favor of raising fees at all. Fees here, fees there, fees everywhere.
> 
> I pay taxes, I buy licenses, I fuel my vehicle, I constantly purchase gear and snacks at convenience stores, stimulating local economies...
> 
> ...


I agree that's why I think if they pass this Bill it should be a voluntary stream access stamp. Why make the guy who only frequents community ponds, state parks, and public access waters pay extra. I for one would pay the $5 but to each his own

Personally if it was me I would raise the license to say $40 annually and your Fishing License would be your ticket into AF Canyon, all the state parks, and other Fee areas.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A couple of points;



GaryFish said:


> The way I understood the access stamp (fee) is that you only would of had to pay it if you were fishing the water that traverse private lands.


Apparently, the original proposal was to charge all anglers purchasing a fishing license the fee. That was what raised some eyebrows when it was released. As stated previously, I would hope that if the fee is reintroduced (definitely a possibility) that it works as you describe above.



GaryFish said:


> If that can buy me a fence walk-over and permission to walk across a pasture to get to the stream instead of a two mile hike IN the stream, that pretty much works for me. That is what the access stamp was doing.


The stamp allowing one to be able to legally "walk across a pasture" may be a liberal interpretation of what would be allowed. However, the stamp would likely fund a fence "walk-over" being constructed adjacent to the river at a public access point that would likely keep the fishermen out of the pasture and not ripping their waders on barbed wire trying to cross a fence.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The 5 dollar access fee or stamp is a terrible idea and should be permanently removed from any bill or legislation...In 2001-02 the state legislature ok'ed a license increase by a similar "small" fraction and more than 70,000 anglers simply went away. Since then we have lost well over $12 million in restricted fund revenue as a result. If the increase applies to "all" licenses we'll lose a hell of a lot more.

The problem is that those die-hard anglers who spent numerous hours chasing fish will by the license or stamp regardless of how much it is; however, there is a really large group of people out there--probably the largest number of license buyers--who are simply family folks who buy licenses as a convenience when they go camping, etc. Also, be aware that license for youth aged 13-14 pay only $5 for a license...so, this access fee or stamp would double their license cost and probably drive this group of anglers away as much or more than any other. The last thing we want to do is discourage young people from fishing...

The special interest bunch who will benefit from this bill are very small in relation to the total number of license buyers. 

If a new bill includes any kind of license fee increase that is mandatory and NOT optional, I am totally against it...


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

I asked Lorie Fowlke about disgarding the funding in this bill and focusing on just defining the easement. The reply came from 2 sides, her and Fred Finlinson the head of the Utah Water Coalition. Fred said, "You are thinking to purely, this is politics." It is very difficult to run an appropriations bill on its own. The DWR is already behind the 8 ball when it comes to funding. If they have to administer and do the field work regarding access ladders and/or stiles there is a cost so how do they fund it. I like what I have read here and appreciate the meaningful feedback.
After the meeting on the 30th we should know more on what the DWR plans to do to tackle this issue.


----------



## stupiddog (Jan 15, 2008)

We cant have it both ways, the DWR is stretched thin on cash and resources. If we want to be able to fish the private areas than we should be willing to pony up a few bucks to help supply the resources to make this a success. Last year it was all cheers when we were told we can fish private waters so lets keep those cheers going and support whatever measures allow us to continue to have that privilege. I don't think an all around license increase is the answer because a lot of local city anglers cant afford it but I would think if you are an angler that travels around fishing the state putting up an extra 5 or 10 bucks for a stamp can be handled. That is a couple gallons of gas, not a ton and if you don't want to pay it then don't buy a stamp and fish everywhere else like we did before the new stream laws.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

*Public waters.* Don't forget, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that the waters are public, and we have the right to use them. Why should we have to pay for that right? Will the people who float, or wade the rivers without fishing them be paying? If not, then why put the cost on anglers?

Fishrmn


----------



## stupiddog (Jan 15, 2008)

National forests are open to the public, you pay for entrance. State parks are for public rec you pay to launch your boat. These fees are what keeps them maintained its part of life.


----------



## stupiddog (Jan 15, 2008)

But yes I do agree the floaters and other recreation users that want to go through the private areas should pay as well.


----------



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

The $5 thing is most likely not going to happen.

Brief history of the idea of "$5" stamp - The 'idea' which in it was created (last year in my basement) is totally off from its intended use now.

Last year after talking to a forum member, he shed some light on a cool opportunity hunters can go through to further their hunts-----for the life of me I cannot think of the proper name of this, I'm certain you guys know what I'm talking about... take a class, sit on a RAC meeting, put in some hours, etc. SO, why not the same thing for fishing...where the user had to earn it, and be responsible for, to use, their right to use, utilize and recreate on public water over private streambeds only. It would put the landowners mind at ease because the folks that are using the water are aware of the sensitive issues, will follow some simple guidelines and are accountable for their actions.... responsibility. Add in some harassment laws for anglers (already have them for landowners) and hopefully everyone is happy.

Bottom line - It was thought as a fair compromise for a win-win. But anyway.... its most likely not going to happen so lets not worry about it.

Yes there will be another Bill. It's rumored (from many sources) that Rep. Kay Mciff (Richfield) is bringing a Bill that is reportedly hostile to anglers. This proposed bill has not been presented to anglers and we do not know all of the facts behind it. I'll keep you posted.

Fishrmn has a valid point. We don't need a Bill, we already have what we want. I'll add, that any Bill is not necessarily a good Bill. However, the idea behind this Bill is to put 'guidelines' on the USC ruling. As anglers is shows good gesture to finding common ground even though we hold the cards,.. why? because its fair and the right thing to do in order to not fight this every single year. I feel that the easement and portage need to be defined. All the rest of the 'copy and paste HB187' language, it needs to go.

Keep in mind-- only one Bill will make out of committee. Theirs or ours. Do we want to fight every year or find common ground?

Bird Hunters - you did not have one person there representing your interests. With hunting being proposed as 'not allowed' how do you feel? Thankfully an angler stood up for you guys and fought for your rights..... as it was the right thing to do.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

F/V thanks for the comments. I know you dont watch this board all that much. I was waiting for someone from UWG to chime in on the $5 stamp.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Good to hear from you again over here.

quote="F/V Gulf Ventur"]

Last year after talking to a forum member, he shed some light on a cool opportunity hunters can go through to further their hunts-----for the life of me I cannot think of the proper name of this, I'm certain you guys know what I'm talking about...[/quote]

That is the dedicated hunter program. Several anglers (including myself) have asked the DWR about a similar program for fishermen. The problem has usually been finding a suitable "reward".



F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> Yes there will be another Bill. It's rumored (from many sources) that Rep. Kay Mciff (Richfield) is bringing a Bill that is reportedly hostile to anglers. This proposed bill has not been presented to anglers and we do not know all of the facts behind it. I'll keep you posted.


McIff was Ferry's right hand man last year. It would be expected that this would be a repeat of HB187 or worse.



F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> Bottom line - It was thought as a fair compromise for a win-win.


Back to the cost to the DWR of administration of and improving the access points at "public waters over private beds", I don't see too much resistance to a small user fee to pay for these improvements, as long as ONLY the stream fishermen using the resource are paying.

Bryan, most of the members here probably do not know about the lobbyist that has tentatively been hired to help us obtain a favorable result in this next legislative session. Many may wish to contribute to the cause. Would you be willing to share that info on this forum?


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

Catherder,
Thanks for bringing the lobbyist issue up, thanks for your donation by the way. I am the one handling the lobbyist and we are about half way there collecting the fee and moving on to what matters, the bill.
Jeff has been involved since February of 09 with helping us and has proven to us the value he brings. We are able to communicate with the legislature in ways we were not afforded last year. For anglers to get a fair shake Jeff Hartley is necessary and proven. We have had meetings we would have never had without his help. If anyone is interested in donating I could surely use the help.
Make checks payable to:
Hartley & Associates
Mail to:
Chris Barkey
14361 Lapis Dr
Draper, UT 84020

I signed the contract for "Utah Anglers" but this issue is about rights not fisherman. This right is for our children and grand children. If I can't raise the entire fee I will ultimately be responcible for the balance at the end of the session and I don't think it takes a genius to realize that in these economic times that would be hard on me. I am not doing this for myself. I have neglected my family and business for 10 months now and I just need this issue to resolve itself or I will start to cry soon. I honestly don't want to foot the bill for all users but I also don't want to lose so any help would be beautiful.

On a side note the DWR admitted this week they have never been brought to the table regarding legislation this far in advance. They have never had the opportunity to shape the bill like we have with this issue.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Good good info here! I really hope you get the donations..


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

> Catherder wrote: That is the dedicated hunter program. Several anglers (including myself) have asked the DWR about a similar program for fishermen. The problem has usually been finding a *suitable "reward".*


How about access to the private land as the reward? And the work done to benefit the landowner?

The fence access points on the Beaver below Minersville through the Carter property were built by dedicated hunters. Mr Carter was allowing access until the court decision went through and he closed everything.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Strange, I know a guy who was kicked off off the Bell 47 Ranch several times by Carter, before the Conaster decision. It was always my understanding that the access below Minersville was lower downstream, below Carter's property. Carter was only interested in allowing access in exchange for two Indian Peaks elk tags each year. He could possibly net a couple of hundred thousand a year for those two tags. Anybody wanna pay him $200,000 a year to access his property? Especially when the USC has decided that we have the right to use the river. You just have to access the river at a public easement, like the highway bridge.

Fishrmn


----------



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

bowgy said:


> > Catherder wrote: That is the dedicated hunter program. Several anglers (including myself) have asked the DWR about a similar program for fishermen. The problem has usually been finding a *suitable "reward".*
> 
> 
> How about access to the private land as the reward? And the work done to benefit the landowner?


Access to private land? We are talking about 'use', its has nothing to do with access. The public already has a right to use public water and public wildlife (fish) could you please elaborate. Or are you talking 'use' as well.

The reward is actually nothing. It just shows good responsibility. Last year the uproar was that anglers (specifically and potentially) were going to go on a rampage and fish up and down every trickle of a stream while loitering, trespassing and who know what. The politicians wanted a way for anglers to take the ruling in a responsible way. The pressure was on the anglers to make sure it went smoothly this summer. Talks of education etc for the 'angry anglers'. This was just a 'thought' to curb that potential silly notion.

In the end its a tax. It off base from the intent and charging the angling population only is ridiculous. Why not the boaters and water users? Also, why 'tax' those that do not utilize the resource?

However, there are talks of a $1 increase to ALL fishing license. For me big deal, a fishing license dirty cheap already. If its helps the DWR all the better.

So far the DWR (Karpo) is really giving it his all. I'm not getting my hopes up as the DWR has a track record of rolling over at the last second. But I believe in them and so far so good. Great job DWR, keep it up!!


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

> Access to private land? We are talking about 'use', its has nothing to do with access. The public already has a right to use public water and public wildlife (fish) could you *please elaborate*. Or are you talking 'use' as well.


I was talking about tresspass access to and from the water. Since the title of the thread was "Stream *Access *Proposal." Also better relationships between landowners and fishermen.

If there was a dedicated fisherman program and the hours benefitted the landowner I would think relationships could be built and access would be easier.


----------



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

bowgy said:


> > Access to private land? We are talking about 'use', its has nothing to do with access. The public already has a right to use public water and public wildlife (fish) could you *please elaborate*. Or are you talking 'use' as well.
> 
> 
> I was talking about tresspass access to and from the water. Since the title of the thread was "Stream *Access *Proposal." Also better relationships between landowners and fishermen.
> ...


Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

Are you suggestion that users are trespassing across private land to 'access' the water? Entry from public points for the use of public water is the only way to abide by the law.

Yes, better relationships is key, great point.

FWIW - there has been somewhat of a misguided notion that this is an access Bill (just like last year's HB187) in no way shape or form is it about access. The ruling is about use, utilize and recreate.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

> Are you suggestion that users are trespassing across private land to 'access' the water? Entry from public points for the use of public water is the only way to abide by the law.


Yes, just like hunting there will always be a tresspassing problem. The one landowner situation I was talking about had allowed tresspass to public with an agreement with the DWR, and access steps over his fence were built by dedicated hunters and they could walk across his land to the river/creek. He owns a home where the stream goes right through his front yard and he wanted to have control of not allowing people to go right through his front yard,(which I can understand), because some people have messed with some of his stuff in his yard. Anyway, he has stopped the tresspass access across his land.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> In the end its a tax. It off base from the intent and charging the angling population only is ridiculous. Why not the boaters and water users?


It is not unprecedented for sportsmen to have to foot the bill for conservation projects by themselves. This has been the case to a large extent since the 1930's, when the federal excise tax on sporting equipment was instituted. If a use fee permits us to get what we need out of the legislature and allows the DWR to make improvements at key public access points, then I am all for it. Plus, is there a practical way to collect from the other water users?

RE:"Also, why 'tax' those that do not utilize the resource?"
As I and others have repeatedly recommended, the said fee should NOT be levied on every purchaser of a fishing license, just those utilizing the streams in question.


----------



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

Catherder said:


> F/V Gulf Ventur said:
> 
> 
> > In the end its a tax. It off base from the intent and charging the angling population only is ridiculous. Why not the boaters and water users?
> ...


Clarify - boaters as in Kayak'ers, tubers, canoe, etc.

I agree... if you use it, you take a class to earn the eligibility for a 'stamp' purchase.

Tax - IF you charged $5 bucks for everyone that is almost $800,000.00 'extra' dollars. Where is that money going to be used? The Utah politicians have screwed the DWR since the Levitt whirling disease. I wonder what would happen to the money in the future.

But its getting squashed so I guess its useless to even worry about it ; )

How can I attach the pdf file of the Bill here?


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

> Bird Hunters - you did not have one person there representing your interests. With hunting being proposed as 'not allowed' how do you feel? Thankfully an angler stood up for you guys and fought for your rights..... as it was the right thing to do.


 :shock: What and who(m) are you talking about here? In other words, who proposed not being allowed to hunt what? All birds? Sage grouse? You can't just throw one out there like that without an explanation, man!


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

bowgy said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > That is the dedicated hunter program. Several anglers (including myself) have asked the DWR about a similar program for fishermen. The problem has usually been finding asuitable "reward".
> ...


Just playing devils advocate for a moment...

The DWR's Dedicated Hunter program requires those who enroll to put in the equivalent of several hundred dollars worth of work during their enrollment period - 40 hours, if I remember right.

I would assume that the work required for this trespassing privilege (for lack of a better word) would be considerably less. Previous posts were mentioning a $5 or $10 stamp to accomplish the same thing. Five or ten dollars worth of labor donated to a landowner wouldn't be worth the effort to oversee the program. I mean, the fisherman shows up, works half and hour and calls it quits. Not much would get done in a situation where the labor quits every few minutes.

What about anglers who might not have skills that landowner needs? Not everyone is a carpenter or a fence builder or a backhoe operator. Also, if the reason for this Dedicated Angler time would be to compensate landowners, just how would this effort be divided up in a fair way? Not every landowner needs or would even want a volunteer farm hand for an afternoon.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Good questions Pete. The question was about a dedicated fisherman like the dedicated hunter program.

Now the dedicated hunter program, without checking for exact figures, last time I check was $180 plus 40 hours. I think the hours are rated at $18.50, add that together and add in the driving to and from the work and other incidentals and it could go over $1000. That is a lot of money for 2 deer in 3 years time.

So yes $5 or $10 per year is cheaper than a dedicated fisherman but $35 per tag drawing out everyother year for deer is also cheaper than dedicated hunter.

So I would think that the dedicated fisherman would need to do alot more than $10 worth of work. 

Also to your other concern, hauling hay, fixing fences and that type of work does not take a lot of skill.

Anyway it was just a thought thrown out there for consideration about the dedicated fisherman reward question.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> It was always my understanding that the access below Minersville was lower downstream, below Carter's property. Carter was only interested in allowing access in exchange for two Indian Peaks elk tags each year. He could possibly net a couple of hundred thousand a year for those two tags. Anybody wanna pay him $200,000 a year to access his property? Especially when the USC has decided that we have the right to use the river. You just have to access the river at a public easement, like the highway bridge.


Carter's property below Minersville was comprised of two sections adjacent to each other. The first section directly below the reservoir was marked off-limits to the public. The second section was open to the public and have several different access points that Carter had helped create for anglers...

...I have never heard a single word about Carter granting access for the exchange of elk tags. In truth, I think it is BS. But, on thing I do know is that Carter took away our access rights to the second section of river after the USC ruling. The sad thing is that this section of stream has too many spots where wading through the stream is not feasible regardless of the USC and we lost access to much of this section...

...butting heads with private landowners is NOT the answer. We really need to work with them and not against them!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> Tax - IF you charged $5 bucks for everyone that is almost $800,000.00 'extra' dollars. Where is that money going to be used? The Utah politicians have screwed the DWR since the Levitt whirling disease. I wonder what would happen to the money in the future.
> 
> But its getting squashed so I guess its useless to even worry about it ; )


The idea of charging $5 bucks more to everyone was squashed for good reason...basically because it woiuldn't net the DWR any more money; in fact, it would have COST the DWR loads of money!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

HunterGeek said:


> I would assume that the work required for this trespassing privilege (for lack of a better word) would be considerably less. Previous posts were mentioning a $5 or $10 stamp to accomplish the same thing. Five or ten dollars worth of labor donated to a landowner wouldn't be worth the effort to oversee the program. I mean, the fisherman shows up, works half and hour and calls it quits. Not much would get done in a situation where the labor quits every few minutes.


A couple of things about a possible work program. First off, you are right, the monetary reward is less than what a hunter would expect to get and this is generally the rub on potential "dedicated angler" plans. However, in relation to stream use on private beds/Conatser etc., this is what I might envision.



HunterGeek said:


> What about anglers who might not have skills that landowner needs? Not everyone is a carpenter or a fence builder or a backhoe operator. Also, if the reason for this Dedicated Angler time would be to compensate landowners, just how would this effort be divided up in a fair way? Not every landowner needs or would even want a volunteer farm hand for an afternoon.


First off, it would be a logistical fiasco of questionable legality to have a "free" labor force run by the state for landowners to use. We must keep in mind that the USC has given the public the right to use of the water already. It is not the landowners that have access or other services to trade to the state for the labor in question. If a private individual wanted to trade labor for hunting access (or easier fishing access), that is fine, but that would be a private matter.

Where a "dedicated angler" program potentially could provide a benefit in relation to Conatser is as follows;

1. The DWR could put in "walkovers" or stiles at key public access points to major rivers abutting private land. This project would entail considerable labor and cost and would likely be the major focus of any potential "access stamp" program. There also would likely be signage that could be placed as well, to inform anglers and other users of both fishing regs and what the laws are regarding the Conatser decision.

2. Litter control. The landowners major supposed gripe during the previous legislative session was that the public would throw trash all over the stream. While I believe that the stream fishermen are the cleanest of anglers, I can see where this could be a concern. Anglers could clean up the streams as needed. Such a program would keep the landowner complaints to a minimum.

3. Conservation. "Dedicated anglers" could serve in conservation projects. These projects do not need to just involve private beds, but could involve the entire spectrum of efforts the DWR has going. For instance, in my (limited) participation with the Utah Lake fish forum, there are several projects on Utah lake that hopefully will come to fruition next year that may benefit from such labor.

I do not think that the labor should be used beyond the scope of these three areas. I suppose also that the "dedicated anglers" could also be required to sit through a couple of RAC meetings, same as the hunters.  :wink:


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Catherder said:


> We must keep in mind that the USC has given the public the right to use of the water already. It is not the landowners that have access or other services to trade to the state for the labor in question.


Another thing to keep in mind is that the Utah Supreme Court based its decision on ambiguities in state law, not constitutional protections. In other words, the state legislature very well could eliminate that easement by simply changing the law.

After the fiasco in the last session, they certainly won't go that far, but we will likely see some sort of compromise legislation come out of this next session. And that legislation might very well undermine the easement that now exists by restoring more stream access control to the landowner, and possibly compensating them in some fashion for whatever access control they lose or choose to give up in a voluntary program. At this point most everything seems to be on the table. I think the goal should be a good compromise that most everyone can live with.


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

*This Draft Bill Based on HB 187 Wording and Format. NO!*

HB 187: http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/hbillint/hb0187.htm

Presently Proposed Draft Bill: http://www.utahonthefly.com/forums/atta ... 1255399664

My posts on this issue are regularly made over on Utahonthefly.com under my same user id and invite your comments there and/or here. I'll reply here or there.

After marking up the copy of the draft bill I got at Utah Representative Lorie Fowlke's Water Law meeting held last Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at the Utah State Capitol building (I also attended the July 7, 2009 Water Law meeting, met one on one with Rep. Fowlke, Lobbyist Jeff Hartley, Sterling Brown/Farm Bureau, et al and have been centrally involved with HB 187 and now the present proposal since January, 2009, especially with Chris Barkey (Chris on uotf) and Bryan Gregson (F/V Gulf Ventur on uotf) of Utah Water Guardians) and, seemingly, running out of ink and putting my arm in a sling as a result, it should be pointed out, first and foremost, that the format and wording of this newly proposed bill is modeled after 187 and carries with it many of its complex and confusing wording that is raising the questions found in this thread.

Is that what we want, format and wording wise, in a draft bill or do we want a bill that has no 187 basis... or no bill at all?

Richard Strauss


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

That link didnt work for me. Could you repost it?


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

*Is This Draft Bill About Access or Use or... What?*

HB 187: http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/hbillint/hb0187.htm

Presently Proposed Draft Bill: http://www.utahonthefly.com/forums/atta ... 1255399664

Keeping in mind that the wording of this draft bill is either word for word or directly derived from the confusing, complex, unenforceable, etc. HB 187...

There is no Specific Description, or Title, of this draft bill.

There immediately follows, as bills are required, no General Description, Highlighted Provisions, Monies Appropriated, Other Special Clauses or Utah Code Sections Affected sections of this draft bill.

Such being the case,
1 Is this draft bill about Access... or Use... or What?

2 If this draft bill is about Use, is it, and/or, should it be, about the use of beds, use of waters, or what?

3 If this draft bill is about Use, why is the stamp an "Access" stamp?

4 If this draft bill is about Access, why is the term "Access" mentioned only a couple of times (only in the context of an Access stamp) and not defined in the Definitions section?

5 If this draft bill is about Access AND Use, shouldn't both terms be described, defined and differentiated in several main sections?

Richard Strauss


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

That makes sense. I read that link and it it pretty confusing. Did you say REp Fowlke is writing it? She is my Rep, I was the one who posted the pic of the guy peeing on the trail cam over on UTOF. She sent it to me in an email. I have some clout with her. I actually got he involved on this and as I understand it, she was pretty influencial with shutting down HB187 last year.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

First off, while some of my fellow access warriors may or may not agree with me, 


HunterGeek said:


> I think the goal should be a good compromise that most everyone can live with.


I definitely agree with you here.

I should also point out that while a landowner directed, state sponsored workforce would probably not fly legally or logistically, the landowners would definitely derive benefits from a DWR run initiative to improve public access points, signage, litter control, and conservation issues. Entry to the streams would take place without the potential of damaging fences or gates and would not likely involve accidental trespassing, litter would be controlled, and landowners definitely would derive benefit from improved habitat. For instance, in a stretch of the Weber river where I learned to fish as a youngster, a number of wrecked car bodies line the stream. While I have caught a large number of fish out of these junk cars, it is not especially aesthetically pleasing or environmentally ideal. A "public water over private beds" program run by the DWR and fueled by "dedicated angler" labor could clean up this mess and put in more natural and ideal habitat.

Lastly,


HunterGeek said:


> Another thing to keep in mind is that the Utah Supreme Court based its decision on ambiguities in state law, not constitutional protections. In other words, the state legislature very well could eliminate that easement by simply changing the law.


This is true, but much of the underlying issues the USC decision relates to are grounded in Federal law as well (esp navigability laws). Many of us on both sides recognize that getting a GOOD bill completed will save us all a lot of grief and legal expense. I think even our occasionally myopic legislature recognizes that a blanket overturning of Conatser would unleash a torrent of litigation that does all of us little good.


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

Nor-tah said:


> That makes sense. I read that link and it it pretty confusing. Did you say REp Fowlke is writing it? She is my Rep, I was the one who posted the pic of the guy peeing on the trail cam over on UTOF. She sent it to me in an email. I have some clout with her. I actually got he involved on this and as I understand it, she was pretty influencial with shutting down HB187 last year.


Representative Fowlke "wrote" it with Chris Parker, the assigned legislative attorney. Emily Brown, who wrote HB 187, was the legislative counsel until she was transferred. I met one on one with Rep. Fowlke and Emily Brown for 1/2 hour after the July 7 Water Law meeting.

It makes no sense to me that 187 is used pretty much word for word as the basis for the new legislation. I'd like to see forum members read the draft section by section, compare it with 187 and comment on whether to retain, delete or modify in an orderly fashion. My belief is that the draft will, upon examination, be tossed like a house salad.

After going over the present draft bill, my alternative solution, which Representative Fowlke has seen, and entered, in part, into the draft bill, will be appropriately presented so that forum members can retain, delete or modify as well.

Have at it, folks!

Richard Strauss


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

rstrouts said:


> Is that what we want, format and wording wise, in a draft bill or do we want a bill that has no 187 basis... or no bill at all?
> 
> Richard Strauss


Richard, whereas it was only a first draft, I do not have a huge problem with "HB187" being used as a template. It was a starting point to get both sides on the same page as far as the issues are concerned. I would expect, as successive sample bills come forth, we will move away from the tangled mess that was hb187. While our side has a lot of work yet to do, I am concerned that us whining about "187" wording being used in the initial work could undermine the positive efforts that Rep. Fowlke, you and others have accomplished already.

I do look forward to seeing what your new effort is as well.


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

*4-26-4. Failure to close entrance to enclosure -- Class "C"*

HB 187: http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/hbillint/hb0187.htm

Presently Proposed Draft Bill: http://www.utahonthefly.com/forums/atta ... 1255399664.

Section by Section, line by line, of the Draft Bill, would you Revise, Delete or Retain?

4-26-4. Failure to close entrance to enclosure -- Class "C" misdemeanor -Damages.

Delete.

It's an unnecessary Section as damaging fence cutting and its penalties is already covered under other laws.

This section, as are most, if not all, of the other sections are derived from 187, which I believe, on its face, right from the git go, is a poor choice for a basis of a new bill, wouldn't you agree?

Richard Strauss


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

*Re: 4-26-4. Failure to close entrance to enclosure -- Class "C"*



rstrouts said:


> It's an unnecessary Section as damaging fence cutting and its penalties is already covered under other laws.
> 
> This section, as are most, if not all, of the other sections are derived from 187, which I believe, on its face, right from the git go, is a poor choice for a basis of a new bill, wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Richard Strauss


Sure, it is unnecessary. However, sections such as this can easily be excised too as the process moves forward. I guess that whether one starts from scratch, or "cuts the fat" from the first draft also depends on Rep. Fowlke and the other reps, and the Farm Bureau. Have you spoken to her recently about her "devotion" (if you will) to using 187 as a template? I would just hate to see the initial good dialogue that has taken place be derailed by an overly hard line stance that isn't required on our side.

We know what we will get out of the McIff crowd.


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

*Re: 4-26-4. Failure to close entrance to enclosure -- Class "C"*



Catherder said:


> rstrouts said:
> 
> 
> > It's an unnecessary Section as damaging fence cutting and its penalties is already covered under other laws.
> ...


From her few references to the format at the meeting, no, her devotion to using the 187 wording was rather ambivolent. She used the wording as a starting point, as is even more apparent in some of the other sections that are even less on point to access and/or use than 4-26-4. I think she just put these sections out there knowing that they would obviously be changed or deleted. If common sense calls for a replacement or modification of the format or substance rather than a deletion, then I'm sure that she would be all for it as would I. I just don't think there's a common sense logic for those options. Deletion of this Section makes the bill more simple and clear. The less words, the better.

As I've mentioned in previous threads elsewhere, Rep Fowlke's draft appears to be well intentioned, just wrong in format and lacking, so far, in substance. However, the first Section, so far, is unnecessary to be in any access/use bill to further those positive intentions and I see that your first two sentences agree with my assertion about necessity and place in a bill. How do any of you others feel about this Section's necessity and place in a bill?


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

*Revise 23-19-21.1 Public Access Stamp*

Present Draft Bill: http://www.utahonthefly.com/forums/atta ... 1255399664

23-19-21.1 Public access stamp.

&#8230;

(4) Upon appropriation by the Legislature, monies from the [DELETE 'Public Access'] (REPLACE with ***"Livestock Control, Property Management, Public Access and Use"***) Restricted Account shall be used by the division [DELETE 'for protecting and preserving public access to public waters, including by'] 
(REPLACE with ***"to protect, preserve and increase public rights of way easements, for, from, through and/or across, that provide sufficient passageway to control livestock, manage property, access and utilize privately owned beds of publicly owned waters incidental to recreational activities, including the authority to"***): 
(a) [DELETE 'stocking fish;']
(b) [DELETE 'enforcing wildlife laws on public waters flowing over private beds'] (REPLACE with ***"enforce wildlife laws for, from, through and/or across public rights of way easements that provide sufficient passageway to access, control livestock, manage property and utilize privately owned beds of publicly owned waters incidental to recreational activities"***), as defined in Section 73-6a-102; 
(c) [ DELETE 'educating the public about access to public waters;'] 
(REPLACE with ***"clarify the public about public rights of way easements, for, from, through and/or across, that provide sufficient passageway to control livestock, manage property, access and utilize privately owned beds of publicly owned waters incidental to recreational activities"***)
(d) [DELETE 'constructing fence ladders to assist the users of public waters, as requested by'] 
(REPLACE with ***"construct, locate and prioritize improvements for, from, through and/or across public rights of way easements that provide sufficient passageway to control livestock, manage property, access and utilize privately owned beds of publicly owned waters incidental to recreational activities, as required by the division, Department of Natural Resources, Agriculture and the Environment and/or the enactment of this or other existing state laws; and"***) 
(e) [DELETE 'construction of improvements to fences across public waters.'] {covered in paragraph above}
(5) The division shall report annually until December 1, 2016 to the Legislature's Natural Resources, Agriculture, and the Environment Interim Committee concerning: (a) the division's expenditures from the fund; and 
(b) other matters concerning [DELETE 'public access to public waters'] 
(REPLACE with ***"public rights of way easements, for, from, through and/or across, that provide sufficient passageway to control livestock, manage property, access and utilize privately owned beds of publicly owned waters incidental to recreational activities"***) of which it is aware.

Richard Strauss


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

rstrouts said:


> Present Draft Bill: http://www.utahonthefly.com/forums/atta ... 1255399664
> 
> 23-19-21.1 Public access stamp.
> 
> ...


Are we to assume from this addendum that the Public Access/now"Livestock control, Property management, Public access and use" stamp is back on the table?

As for the specifics of the changes, no big problem with what was amended. I don't see any language though on WHO will be assessed the fee for the stamp.


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

*Private Gets to Control Livestock, Public Gets to Access Bed*



Catherder said:


> rstrouts said:
> 
> 
> > Present Draft Bill: http://www.utahonthefly.com/forums/atta ... 1255399664
> ...


Nope. That's the title given to the fund, if funds are to be provided. The source is a different story. That's why the revision starts at (4).

As to who would be assessed, DWR will come up with something, ***maybe***. If you think about it, though, we're not talking a lot of money. I've talked with Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks about their bridge access law projects and, to date, no project cost has exceeded $200. A little wire here, fenceposts there, some half diameter cut PVC to place over the wire so boats can be slid over the fence and, bingo!, public interests get access and private interests get livestock control. That bill passed into law in April, 2009 by votes of 96-3 in the House and 48-2 in the Senate. Cattleman's, Farm Bureau, MT TU, MT Wildlife Federation, etc all supported the bill.

Using 187 wording in the new draft makes things tough and may, ultimately, be this draft bill's undoing. One thing begets another... a definition here, a section there. The private interests need a bill, the public interests already have a law. If a bill is introduced and gets defeated, no prob. Conatser is still there. For now, we'll see how a compromise/modification of Conatser, etc. goes "within the system". If it doesn't go, then there's the hard stand/solidification of Conatser, etc. There will be no preemption of Conatser, etc.

Both the private and public interest will be served, according to new, or existing, law.

The next Water Law meeting is this Friday, October 30, 2009 involving about a 12 member or so subcommittee, so, if you have something to say, like support for my revision, you may want to email Rep Lorie Fowlke at [email protected] or others on the subcommittee.


----------

