# Possible win-win solution for anglers and landowners / HB187



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I realize that my rhetoric regarding HB 187 has been as stern as anyone and quite honestly, I meant every word I said :lol: . Nevertheless, I do see that landowners have legitimate concerns and to achieve a lasting legislative solution that avoids more litigation afterwards, we need to come to a solution that is close to agreeable to all parties. Additionally, in some committee work I have done, it is recognized that many angling projects are in need of volunteer work, but the State lacks a "carrot" to get angler assistance that the successful Dedicated Hunter program provides hunters.

What would happen if a stipulation for fishing a "public water on a private bed" stream (to use Ferry's terminology) would be to complete a specified amount of service, particularly stream clean up on these rivers in question along with others? While the public has the right currently to recreate on the water, the State has the right to regulate it. Each private stretch would be scheduled for periodic clean-ups as well as habitat and repair work as needed and permitted by the landowner. In return, the angler would receive a "license stamp" permitting fishing on these areas. Since the fisherman would be put in charge of keeping the habitat clean, we would be particularly attentive to keeping the river immaculate. The landowner would no longer be able to whine about litter and such. We anglers would be especially attentive for scuzzbags littering or committing vandalism or trespassing violations, since we would be the ones dealing with it. It may even keep some of the "riff raff" types out of these sensitive areas because, to be honest, most of the jerks that cause us fishermen problems are not going to care enough to work on a clean up project. Mainly, it would unite both us and landowners as co-stewards of the resource. 

I realize this doesn't solve everything, but it could be a way to come to a solution all of us can live with. Oh and kill bill 187 8)


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

Some good thoughts.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

I like your approach in addressing the concerns instead of the standard b!+ching and moaning that is the most common answer. I like the idea, something along those lines would be fairly easy to do and mitigate the landowners primary concerns.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

What about a 5 dollar fee for a 365 day license for those of us that want to fish private waters and the money goes to habitat restoration for these whiney land owners. Say 2000 of us bought them... Thats 10,000 for them. Id pay it.... even though I feel its my right anyway.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Very good idea i think. I would buy it. I already do the garbage mans job when i see it. Now, how do you get this to the capital??


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

good ideas but none are really feasable


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

There are many good ideas that are better than HB 187, that's the point. 187, doesn't address anything, it just restricts.

The answer to Ferrys question is simple, I can see why he wouldn't ask us at the rally this morning.

The stake that anglers and floaters have in the land is the angling and floating. In the second most arid state, these very activities are the stake. The right to access *OUR* water and *OUR* wildlife that inhabits them is the stake.
Land owners argue that the wildlife that inhabits their land is there of it's own free will and that by being there are somehow a burdon and expence to them. The truth is that they should be taxed by the foot for any land that they have chosen to restrict the publics access to that wild life on. By restricting the publics access they are in effect "Harboring" that wildlife. As such they should not be able to access that wildlife themselves either without compensation to the public.

Now for solutions and compromise.

1. There needs to be a bill introduced that defines "stream bed". If it be the area of land that is actually covered by water at any given moment, the historical high water mark or somewhere in between.
2. There needs to be a bill that increases penalties of tresspass, littering, destruction of private property and other concerns while participating in a recreational activity on the access, to loss of wildlife privliges, heavy fines, rewards for people who turn them in and land owner restitution for those infractions.
3. A bill defining "Public Access Point" needs to be introduced. It needs to define what they are, how far they extend and the limits of them. How far can I wade up the Weber onto 1000 peaks ranch property, 1/2 as far as I can travel upstream in as long as I can stay awake? That's not right. 
4. Specify what quanities of water are to small to feasably qualify as public angling and floating waters, either by phisical size or water flow; up stream of waters less than an average of 3' in width for a distance of 1000 feetor up stream of waters having a historical flow of less than 35cfs. Or is it all waters origionating on public lands. A comprimise to owners who worry that they will have someone trampeling up every runlet.
5. Indemnify and make immune land owners for any and all injurys either phisical, emotional or material from use of the access. Look at what that jury just did to that guy in AZ for harrassing illegal alians! He has to pay the illegals $77 grand! We need to have a statue that assures land owners that if some falls or gets kicked by live stock that they will not be held responsible. We use that access at our own risk.

That's about it for now, but there are more.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Troll said:


> Land owners *argue* that the wildlife that inhabits their land is there of it's own free will and that by being there are somehow a burden and expense to them. The truth is that they should be taxed by the foot for any land that they have chosen to restrict the public's access to that wild life on. By restricting the public's access they are in effect "Harboring" that wildlife. As such they should not be able to access that wildlife themselves either without compensation to the public.


What is their to argue? You argue that wildlife is forced upon private property? You also argue that wildlife is not a burden upon private landowners? You don't think deer and elk eating alfalfa is a burden? You don't think elk running through a fence is a burden to a farmer who now has to spend hours and dollars repairing it? How are these wildlife on private land not there by their own will? I am fairly neutral on the topic, but to be taken seriously how can you question such items that are fairly obvious?

Sorry, but such an assertion causes such damage to my brain cells!! So, by your idea that a landowner who does not allow the public to hunt on their land should be taxed? Well, first of all they are taxed; ask Ferry how much he paid last year in property taxes versus what you paid! Secondly, WTH are you talking about? So, should the same be true that I can come have a party at your house tomorrow night with all of my drinking buddies who are really annoying to you? We might even break some stuff and leave garbage all over the place and you can't be there. You better be okay with it or we will tax the crap out of you because you don't own the air in your house, it is public air. Your idea of a perfect society does exist, but you will not find it here where property owners have rights to use their property as they wish and thereby restrict trespass to who ever they want subject only to the powers of police, escheat and eminent domain. I think what you are looking for exists in places like Cuba or China maybe? Sorry man, but such self centered thought just sounds silly to me.

You do have a good point on your last one. My understanding as came from my attorney who is a relative is that such indemnification is not necessary. AS long as there is not any particular danger posed by the landowner. In our case, a neighbor was riding their atv on my parent's little dirt road against my parent's wishes. In this case we were told that the atv in itself is the danger not the road and they could not sue in the case of an accident. But, I like your evolution of thought in thinking of the interests of others too instead of all centered only on our interests.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

So write your rep about it.

I come in here with suggestions and you want to assualt me for it? Come up with an origional thought of your own., and post it up.

We pass out land owner permits to compensate for any damage deer and elk do, for your information. Tell me about the harm the fish and frogs do now? Make the stream to dirty for cows to defecate in?
I don't get a thing for the damage caused squirrels and rodents that come into my yard or the fetchin geese that defecate and acidify my lawn in the city, all wildlife.

I didn't even read the second half of your post because everything you spewed in the first half was so hateful.

I went back and read the 2nd half, sure, come on over. Kill a cow and bring both loins, I'll make the macaroni salad and Jello. Next week the parties in your living room with my friends and we all have filthy wirling disese covered boots and waders that smell like, well, this is a family site. I'll bring some of *MY* fresh fish from your stream, grilled to perfection on your deck.
You may also come and fish on my piece of property in Coalville, as the supreme court ruled. You have no idea what I pay in taxes on my properties, I'll bet it is about the same as Ferry.

You had better have your lawyer/relative explain to you how the Republic of the United States works. The police do what they are told, as do the legislators, the Supreme courts ruling is eminant domain for the general good of the public. One person, one vote, even if you own a million acres of land and 100 miles of river. they get 1 vote and they don't even have to own a car let alone a house or land. Your out numbered, your out voted. Your about to be overrun. Thanks for the coordinates.

Youor neighbor was tresspassing. End of story, have them arrested if you don't want them tresspassing. The Supremes ruling gave your neighbor no right to be on your road, so unless they were riding the ATV down the streambed, your not talking about this ruling.


----------



## nightfish (Apr 29, 2008)

Troll said:


> There are many good ideas that are better than HB 187, that's the point. 187, doesn't address anything, it just restricts.
> 
> Now for solutions and compromise.
> 
> ...


I agree that what is needed is some thinking outside the box rather than arguing about who owns the box and who owns the stuff inside the box. I have a couple of comments on what is listed so far, and some additions.

1. The high water mark should be the boundary of the easement. The "wet foot" model does not give full access to the public easement in some cases, and in flood stage allows anglers excessive access to private property. The current language in HB 187 says within 5 feet of the surface and below the high water mark. That language is unfair, open to too much interpretation and is difficult to enforce, as the river level can change, causing a sliding boundary that can flood the easement user out of their access. The high water mark is easily recognizable by the landowner, the user and enforcement, and is an internationally recognized standard.

2.I agree entirely, but there also needs to be increased penalties for landowners who damage the easement (movement of streambank or bed, alteration of water course outside allowed and approved irrigation methods, dumping trash in the easement), block user access or progress, or harrass lawful users. It goes both ways.

3.Disagree. The Conatser ruling clearly defines a public access point. There is no need to place distance limiters when you may only enter and exit by a legal public access point. There is also no need to create lengthy and difficult to understand rules. Keep it simple to avoid conflicts.

4. I'm all for creating a set of standards on what is navigable. Better wording may be what is "Useable". But first a definition of that descriptor must be established. This will be the most difficult item to come to an agreement on. I differ on the rest of the above stated, in that I believe it is the burden of the landowner to prove that a streamcourse on private property is useable or not. The easement belongs to the public, so in order to remove it from the public there should be undisputable proof that the course does not fit the definition. As an angler, i would concede that a stream that is intermittent and fishless (truly dry for half the year for an average water year, in its natural state...not because irrigation removes the flow) should be left private. But that would have to be agreed on by all user groups. This is not just an angling issue. Any non-natural water, ie canals, headgates, artificial ponds & lakes not already public, is already considered not public by the Conatser ruling.

5. I agree that the landowner should be free of liability for injury to a user of an easement, so long as that injury is not caused by an alteration to the natural environment by the landowner. Think about a strand of barbed wire across a streamcourse that injures or kills a kayaker.

6. Related to the above, a landowner has the right to fence across the streamcourse so long as he owns the property outside both sides of the easement or the fence defines a property line, provides or allows reasonable portage around the fence, and posts a warning upstream for the safety of floating users.

7. Private holders of the streambed shall have the land within the easement exempt from property taxes, while still holding title to those lands. Further tax incentives should be given to the private landowner for habitat restoration to the riparian or streambed areas, so long as those works are properly permitted and approved by the State and the Army Corps of Engineers. Properly implemented improvements shall not be considered not natural in relation to liabilities mentioned in #5.

8. Hunting shall be allowed as provided by state and local laws, so long as the user has permission from the landowner to retrieve fallen game and return immediately to the easement. "Permission to Retrieve" shall be defined and permitted by the absence of signage placed by the property owner stating otherwise. Signage will be considered adequate and appropriate when posted at the upstream and downstream terminus of the property, and in a manner visible from within the easement. A uniform signage should be established, and signage should be provided by the Division of Wildlife Resources, the property should be registered with the Division of Wildlife Resources, in order to protect landowners against damage or removal of the signage. There are already laws in place related to safe shooting zones around structures, roads and utilities.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

OK, back at this after watching the Jazz win.  A few comments:



flyguy7 said:


> good ideas but none are really feasable


OK, why? I won't necessarily argue with you. The "dedicated fisherman" issue is something that has been kicked around by the DWR and others, and the problem always is the "reward". Conatser may provide us just such an opportunity. Many of us do "extra" for the resources already, but it is sadly a proven fact that incentives help (a lot) insure greater participation.

Nightfish wrote;
1. The high water mark should be the boundary of the easement. The "wet foot" model does not give full access to the public easement in some cases, and in flood stage allows anglers excessive access to private property. The current language in HB 187 says within 5 feet of the surface and below the high water mark. That language is unfair, open to too much interpretation and is difficult to enforce, as the river level can change, causing a sliding boundary that can flood the easement user out of their access. The high water mark is easily recognizable by the landowner, the user and enforcement, and is an internationally recognized standard.

I agree. The high water mark allows the easiest enforcement, is clear to users and is least likely to be abused by would be trespassers in high water. The "5 ft. rule" in 187 presents marked enforcement issues.

Quote: 5. I agree that the landowner should be free of liability for injury to a user of an easement, so long as that injury is not caused by an alteration to the natural environment by the landowner. Think about a strand of barbed wire across a streamcourse that injures or kills a kayaker.

Agreed, however, it was my understanding that the landowner already is released from liablility related to normal use of the easement in the Conatser ruling.

Quote: 8. Hunting shall be allowed as provided by state and local laws, so long as the user has permission from the landowner to retrieve fallen game and return immediately to the easement. "Permission to Retrieve" shall be defined and permitted by the absence of signage placed by the property owner stating otherwise. Signage will be considered adequate and appropriate when posted at the upstream and downstream terminus of the property, and in a manner visible from within the easement. A uniform signage should be established, and signage should be provided by the Division of Wildlife Resources, the property should be registered with the Division of Wildlife Resources, in order to protect landowners against damage or removal of the signage. There are already laws in place related to safe shooting zones around structures, roads and utilities.

+100 Best solution related to the issue of Conatser and hunting I have read yet.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

Thank you both for your consructive critisisim and not bashing me for my suggestions.
These kind of things are what must be plead befoore the committee today. We have to let them know that we are concerned for the well being of land owners while exercising our right to access of our easement.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Troll said:


> Thank you both for your consructive critisisim and not bashing me for my suggestions.
> These kind of things are what must be plead befoore the committee today.* We have to let them know that we are concerned for the well being of land owners while exercising our right to access of our easement*.


That's the best comment I've heard on this subject from all 23+ threads !! 

Good luck to you guy's to-day !! It would be good to see everybody involved and all parties somewhat satisfied.... :|


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

All good suggestions. Two days ago, some guys from the group of folks fighting HB187 met with Ferry. He wasn't willing to negotiate at all. He feels he doesn't need to, because he will have the votes. Good suggestions are only good when they fall on the ears of a legislator willing to listen. Mr. Ferry is not that person.
R


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

rjefre said:


> All good suggestions. Two days ago, some guys from the group of folks fighting HB187 met with Ferry. He wasn't willing to negotiate at all. He feels he doesn't need to, because he will have the votes. Good suggestions are only good when they fall on the ears of a legislator willing to listen. Mr. Ferry is not that person.
> R


I am hearing that some legislative leaders and the Governor are recommending that 187 be studied via an interim committee over the summer and not be definitively voted on up or down. This approach sounds like a reasonable way to make sure we all "get it right" and allow good new ideas from all sides to be considered. (Or it could mean we get to do this all over again in 2010)


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

Too late, the bill was passed by the committee and will now move to the floor.

I was at the meeting today and I can tell you, the landowner side came across as somewhat bitter, especially those who live along the Weber River. They do not want you anywhere near their river or homes.

I don't think you will get very far negotiating anything with this type of landowner, They are not interested in anything but keeping you (anglers) out.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

I recommend that everyone read the book "The Monkey Wrench Gang", by Edward Abbey, just because.


----------

