# Coming together on HB 187



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

I had a very interesting phone call last night - from my Representative. We talked about HB 187 for about an hour. I learned a lot about the inner workings of the legislature and some of the background dealings on HB 187. I now have a much better understanding of why my Representative voted for HB 187 out of committee even though I strongly disagree with his doing so. I still feel HB 187 is a bad bill and was nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to last years unanimous Utah Supreme Court decision clarifying the publics right to access streams and rivers in the State of Utah. The bill is bad on so many levels, it's difficult to know where to even start pointing out the failures of it.

And because that has already been done in dozens of threads on dozens of forums already, I'll not attempt that here. But I would like to address a breakdown in the process that both my Representative and I agree exists. As has been reported in many places, Representative B. Ferry (the sponsor of HB 187) has supposedly been talking with all parties involved with this issue. But I don't recall seeing a definitive list of just exactly which organizations and individuals were involved in those discussions. Do you?

As some of you already know, Rep. Ferry circled the bill yesterday to allow some further discussions with some as yet unnamed organizations and/or individuals. This supposedly took place yesterday afternoon, Friday, February 27, 2009. If he did in fact talk with individuals representing both sides of the issue, I for one would like to know who is representing my interests as a fisherman and recreationist. Wouldn't you be interested in knowing who that person might be?

And that is the breakdown I'm talking about. We (recreationists, fishers, and hunters) do not have a consolidated, reasonable, intelligent voice to argue our case on this very complex issue. And you can bet your fishing budget for the year that the other side is NOT suffering from the same lack of organization.

So far we have been successful in bringing this issue out into the sunlight and have made our presence known to the legislature. But this issue is NOT going to go away. The State of Utah WILL see a new law passed on this issue at some point in time. If not this year, then certainly within the next 2 years at most. How do we want this new law to address our needs as well as the private property owner's needs? Who is going to present and argue for our needs to the law makers? This is a real stumbling block folks and we need to get it out of our way as soon as possible.

We need a small group of intelligent, articulate people that can think on their feet and do not let their emotions rule their thoughts and comments in an emotionally charged environment. I would think a dozen folks would be the maximum number and half a dozen or so would be much better. There are many organizations that will be impacted by this in some form but fishing organizations probably have the biggest stake in it. I would suggest maybe representatives from a couple of the major fishing forums, the fly fishing fraternity, Trout Unlimited, and the kayakers would be a good mix of users. This of course is only a suggested starting point. It's very possible that there are other groups out there who have just as much interest in this as the ones I've mentioned. But we need to come together on this and we need to do it sooner rather than later.

What say the rest of you?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

To answer the first part of your question.

http://www.utahonthefly.com/forums/show ... hp?t=20366

Basically, the meeting solved nothing and apparently HB 187 will be uncircled on Monday and the vote probably taken then. So please send one final brief note to your reps.

As for the rest of what your rep said, he is absolutely right. Rep. Ferry has said the same thing. There is currently no VOICE of the fisherman. It doesn't justify how Ferry has proceeded, but their statement is accurate.

Some of this has been covered before, but some background does need to be provided to respond properly. Sometime in the fall, Rep. Ferry let the DWR know that he was working on this bill. We don't know the specifics until DECEMBER, when Karpowitz invited a member representing fly shops, a TU leader and the head of a group called the Utah Angler Coalition to meet with Ferry. (possibly one other person too) These were backdoor meetings and the membership of TU and anglers in general had no idea this was happening until mid January when the Tribune broke the story of soon to be HB187. These men stated their positions and may or may not have contributed in some way to the content of what is now HB187. (As an aside, these private meetings with 3-4 men with no public knowledge is what DWR chief Karpowitz repeatedly calls "Angler involvement" in his public statements on the formulation of 187.) Once the story leaked, the grassroots effort you have seen to oppose HB 187 formed when outraged anglers organized their efforts. The Utah Water Guardians was born. There was/is also a lot of outrage directed towards some of the individuals that participated in the "secret" meetings (fairly or unfairly). I dare say that the grassroots effort has done well so far, but you and your rep are right, we do need a voice.

Here is the current list of candidates.

1. TU (Trout Unlimited). TU is a conservation organization. It is a good bet to fight for preserving native cutts and for cleaning up streams, but not for fighting access and some regulatory battles. In fact, TU national has a policy prohibiting involvement in access issues. It is absolutely NOT a candidate to be a "voice" in Conatser. Individual members can act as they see fit and I do know that many TU members are fighting hard against HB187. (Full disclosure, I am a TU member)

2. Utah Angler Coalition. This is a loose group of heads of different fishing interests, including bassers, Rocky Mountain anglers, trout/fly fishing, and others. Ed Kent is the leader. This group has done some good things in the past, and Mr. Kent was invited and participated with Ferry in the backdoor meetings. However, most anglers have never heard of this organization, and as it is now constituted, is a pretty weak voice for us. Maybe some reorganization could make it work as a voice.

3. Utah Water Guardians or some new group arising from the HB187 fight. HB187 has brought together fishermen like nothing in the past. Win or lose, this is a good thing for us. Fly fishermen have taken the lead in the fight, but surely realize the major contributions to this fight from other fishermen/women. A unified fishing group could come from this that could serve as a powerful voice for all. (or we could go back to our own specialized groups after this is over and return to criticism of the way "other" anglers do their fishing)

4. The DWR. A lot of fishermen think that the DWR should be OUR voice. HB187 showed very clearly they are not. WE have to do our own talking.

5. The internet groups. Very possible. UOTF has kind of been "anti HB187 central". Maybe our voice will coalesce from UOTF, UWN, and BFT?

I absolutely agree with you that we do need to come together and it will be interesting to see what happens over the next few months.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Catherder....(ouch) you guy's are screwed !!!

According to your own post. TU is no help, UAC is no help, the DWR is no help and according to the Utah Water Gaurdians, there own motto is no help !! *We won't budge&#8230; "Not a Drop".*

Man....you guy's need somebody that can comprimise, create some understanding and agreements between all parties involved. Why not just avoid the state altogether and approach the landowners without the court orders and their crappy version of a clarification ?

I know the Utah Water Gaurdians have some excellent member's aboard, but jeez....drop the motto and the one sided approach, maybe they could get somewhere's...


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

That's great Bob, 

It is very easy to become a lobbiest in UT. I know we all hate lobbiest's, but that is how it works. Then we would have to support the lobbiest with money. Not a little money either. It would take 1/4 the cost of a licence from every licence holder in UT to really get this written to our favor. That's money for meals, gifts, tickets to events, fishing related outings, field trips to rivers that are effected, (hire a bus). 

Why should we buy legislators meals and tickets? Because that buys time. If your eating accross the table from me, you will hear me talking. If your at a game with me, you hear me talking, gifts of fishing tackle or a fishing painting would keep reminding them of us. A guided trip being donated, then spend the day driving around asking to fish on posted property all day and not fishing, would get our point across. A bus tour up the Ogden, down the Weber, would show them where 150' is in relation to the streams. Stop at a couple of fishing shops, show them how much is spent on a new Sage, with a Hardy reel. 

All this would take money. By my thoughts about 150K the first year. That would be 50K for saleries, office help and supplies and 100 K for entertaining, expences and advertising. 
Some will say, "50K for saleries?" if you want someone to work for a full year on this, wear suits, drive all over the state in their vehicle, stay in motels in Bicknell, Hatch, and other remote places, while they meet with lawmakers and show them how this bill would effect their area, that's what it would cost. That's how much I would charge. 

If we really want to have a true say in this it will take money. 
Who here is willing to give?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I know SFW has been involved in this bill from the early stages. Good or bad, they are united and fight for what the members push for. FWIW, I support SFW's stance of being IN favor of HB 187.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

They sold out the UT sportsman a long time ago. SFW is nothing more than Fairy's mouthpiece, or any body else who gives them money.
Realize that because of SFW, if this ever went to a referendum, it would need a super majority to pass.

I oppose everything they do, on principle.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

.45 said:


> Catherder....(ouch) you guy's are screwed !!!
> 
> According to your own post. TU is no help, UAC is no help, the DWR is no help and according to the Utah Water Gaurdians, there own motto is no help !! *We won't budge&#8230; "Not a Drop".*
> 
> ...


Yes, I agree with you, we could be. Or, as I hope, we can get 187 tabled to interim and sit down over the summer with a true voice of all parties and hash out something we all can live with. I would hope the hard line stance at that point would be softened. Believe it or not, I even think we might even be able to work with Ferry. (maybe I am naive)



proutdoors said:


> I know SFW has been involved in this bill from the early stages. Good or bad, they are united and fight for what the members push for. FWIW, I support SFW's stance of being IN favor of HB 187.


I probably should have mentioned SFW, because some fishermen have griped that they haven't fought for us. However, since SFW has been close to powerful private landowners in formulating premium CWMU hunts, and is primarily a hunting organization (IMO), it is a "no brainer" to me that they have the stance they do.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

One other thing on on SFW, the last I heard from them was that Peay would "release a statement at the appropriate time" and hadn't released an "official" position yet. Not that it matters much, but had that changed?


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

Let them do what they want. Next year when UT fishing licences are down, they will see the funding for their projects gutted as $ is re-allocated to support fisheries.
They seperated from us a long time ago, let them eat lead.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Troll said:


> They sold out the UT sportsman a long time ago. SFW is nothing more than Fairy's mouthpiece, or any body else who gives them money.
> Realize that because of SFW, if this ever went to a referendum, it would need a super majority to pass.
> 
> I oppose everything they do, on principle.


Are you serious? This is a GREAT thing for ALL sportsmen! W/o it NON-hunting/fishing interests could push agendas through with a 51% majority vote. Is that really what you want in light of the MANY anti hunting/fishing groups out there with deep pockets?

You also say you "oppose everything they do, on principle". You mean you oppose habitat restoration, increased populations of species of both game animals such as turkey/bighorns/goats/deer/elk and fish species in many lakes/streams, increased funding from the state for habitat improvements/restorations? If that be the case, I am **** glad I am not like minded with you!


Catherder said:


> One other thing on on SFW, the last I heard from them was that Peay would "release a statement at the appropriate time" and hadn't released an "official" position yet. Not that it matters much, but had that changed?


I have received a few emails on the subject straight from Don, whether a publicly released statement as been made I am not sure of. I let my thoughts/concerns on the matter be known BEFORE the bill was introduced, and I am glad they agree mostly with my views onthe matter.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

Oh, your close enough to "Don" that you e-mail each other. He's nothing more than a prostitute, for sale to the highest bidder.
That's right, in a referendum fight *we* would also need a super majority, but in a legislative fight, 51% still wins. So they shifted the playing field to where there were fewer people to buy.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Yes, I consider Don a friend, good enough to email/text each other. BFD.

I notice you failed to answer my questions, what a shock.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

Yes I'm serious.
Yes, I believe that America was founded on the principle of 51%.

Answer your questions?

Answer mine, What good has this done in this situation?
What has Don's organization done to support fishers in this matter?
How many legislators have been bought by intrests other than Don's?


See, it accomplished nothing except tie our hands while the same rich fatcats buy the same politicians and don't have to spend big bucks on a public campaign.

If you don't think so, look at this bill.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Troll said:


> Yes I'm serious.
> Yes, I believe that America was founded on the principle of 51%.


You lost all credibility right there. America was NEVER set up as a democracy. We don't elect the President under the "51% concept", the Founders NEVER wanted US Senators to be elected by the "51% concept" either. We were founded as a representative Republic. We morphed into a "51%" democracy around the turn of the 20th century. If what you wish for were to be followed, urban areas would have disproportionate control over wildlife issues. Is that, in your opinion, what sportsmen want? Most of your 'treehuggers'/NON-sporting people live in the urban areas, and you are wanting them to decide wildlife issues, FREAKING BRILLIANT! :roll:


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> Troll said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I'm serious.
> ...


What an idiot. You must be drinking, not a reasonable thought in your head. Bla, Bla, Bla, "I'm the king of the world", "I'm the king of the world" "I want America to go back to when only white, land owning males could vote!"

See how you sound.

I would bet there are more sporting people living in urban areas. If you think differently, explain to me why SW and Cabela's are not in Bicknell, Tremonton and Hatch?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Troll said:


> I would bet there are more sporting people living in urban areas. If you think differently, explain to me why SW and Cabela's are not in Bicknell, Tremonton and Hatch?


I'm guessing you to be living up to your name, so I won't bite anymore on your silly posts. :roll: There is no way you could be possibly be serious on this, even an 8 year old could see the obvious nonsensical question for what it is. :?


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Troll said:
> 
> 
> > I would bet there are more sporting people living in urban areas. If you think differently, explain to me why SW and Cabela's are not in Bicknell, Tremonton and Hatch?
> ...


Let me ask you PRO......VE IT, yeah, i like that. Sounds fitting i think. What have you done for anyone on HB 187? Absolutely nothing huh? That's what i thought. You advertise your dumb website and sit back and watch the cash flow in from the rich hunters, sorry rich wannabees that you "guide". You could care less about HB 187. Why the he** are you even answering posts that have nothing to do with you??


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> Let me ask you PRO......VE IT, yeah, i like that. Sounds fitting i think. What have you done for anyone on HB 187? Absolutely nothing huh? That's what i thought. You advertise your dumb website and sit back and watch the cash flow in from the rich hunters, sorry rich wannabees that you "guide". You could care less about HB 187. Why the he** are you even answering posts that have nothing to do with you??


*Relax lunkerhunter2 !!!*

This is no place for personal attacks on our members !! ............go fight the Courts if you not pleased with HB 187 !!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Yeah, what .45 said. pro's just a _dude_ like the rest of us. And since he is attempting to make money rather than sit on his ass makes his opinions somehow invalid?


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

Prout is the one doing the attacking and belittling of members. If you want to jump on some one, jump on him.

I'll tell you what. I have tried to become active and helpful over here, but every time I or some one else becomes active on an issue, some diamond member attacks them.

I'm about to just give up on being a contributing member. I can lurk and gather information with much less stress.

It seems as though freeform is the only website where real people hang out. People who can take it when they dish it out.

So what do I have to do to advertise my company on here?


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

Troll said:


> Prout is the one doing the attacking and belittling of members. If you want to jump on some one, jump on him.


Troll, your posts and ideas are valued as much as anyone else's. Honest.

There are a few people here who can be annoyingly opinionated, but they don't use terms like "idiot," as you did. Heated arguments are okay, but when logical discussions deteriorate into deliberate insults, the moderators jump in. Nobody's judgment is perfect, including mine, but we do try to moderate this place according to the forum rules.

As for promoting private businesses, nobody's allowed to advertise their businesses in the text of their posts. The rules say that mentioning a business in a signature is okay, and we don't have any rules (yet) regarding avatars (as long as they're in reasonably good taste). This loophole is intentional because it provides a little extra incentive for some knowledgeable sportsmen to contribute here and stay involved in the discussions.

Like I said, your opinions are much appreciated, and it's the variety of opinions that keep this place interesting. That said, don't back down, just try to keep it centered on ideas instead of personal attacks. And above all, don't take it so seriously. We're just shootin' the breeze here and trying to have a good time. :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Now I know why I usually stay out of the fishing threads, you guys take things waaaaaaay to serious. Gawd forbid someone, yes a fellow sportsman who does indeed fish, have a differing opinion than some of you all. I've voiced my view, I have no ill will to people having an opposing view. I guess me being a supporter of property rights makes me only concerned about the 'rich'. :?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Never imagined my avatar would 'offend' anyone, so I have changed it. :|


----------



## mjschijf (Oct 1, 2007)

Troll, come on man. I don't necessarily agree with Pro on this issue (or most issues), but I respect the guy because he makes arguments and justifies them to the best of his ability without name calling. Directly calling people "stupid" is simply not going to accomplish anything. Make your point, justify your point, and argue your point against Pro's, but statements like this simply burn my eyes: 


Troll said:


> What an idiot. You must be drinking, not a reasonable thought in your head. Bla, Bla, Bla, "I'm the king of the world", "I'm the king of the world" "I want America to go back to when only white, land owning males could vote!"


Ok, just wanted to throw that in there. Please continue...


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Hmmm, this thread kind of went far afield didn't it :? . 

Perhaps if we could rewind back to page one and start over.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Hmmm, this thread kind of went far afield didn't it :? .


YES IT DID!

That was not what I envisioned when I started this thread. I REALLY thought we might just be able to come to some sort of a consensus on a viable group of individuals who could reasonably represent our general interests in this issue. I guess I was wrong about that. I'm betting that the key law makers on this issue are probably grinning from ear to ear over our total inability to put together a united front on this issue. I guess the best thing I can hope for at this point is that the individual efforts of contacting our legislators will be enough. I'm not optimistic about that at all at this point. I'll be writing to my representative one more time sometime today.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

I hope they get it right :x


----------



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

*LATEST EVENTS*

We've been lobbying at the capitol all week, thanks to everyone who has taken the time to do so!! It has been another asset in this long winded battle and we gained significant momentum in doing so. We need to keep the pressure on, this week especially.

•	Rep. Ferry circled the bill (HB 187) and it appears to be un-circled again -- http://le.utah.gov/~2009/status/hbillsta/hb0187s01.htm
•	There was a meeting Friday with Rep. Ferry -- A number of angling interests, URC, DWR, landowners, Farm Bureau, Real Estate, Attorney Generals office, a "listener" from the Governor's office, half dozen Representatives, etc 
•	Nothing was offered, no compromise took place. All spoke with a unified voice - The Process is flawed.
•	Rep. McIff tried to ram home that the Conatser, JJNP and most every other Utah Court cases that Conatser ruled on are "not accurate" And we were told, in my opinion, misleading information.
•	Rep. Ferry was surprised to hear that the Air boat, waterfowl, duck guys, etc, are upset - "why are they upset? &#8230;It has nothing to do with them".
•	Navigable NOT easement seems to be their issue. Easement IS THE issue..

*In a nut shell -*

Rep. Ferry did not offer us anything other than the HB 187 as is. I believe that Representative Ferry might use this meeting against us/you/public. (a) If nobody attends it would be twisted into an unwillingness to cooperate or communicate. (b) If we go and do not agree to THE terms, we will be viewed as uncooperative --> _its not that we weren't wiling to listen to the other side or add genuine dialogue, but it remains the same, the Bill is clearly unacceptable._

We all know something needs to be done, BUT right now, this late in the game, now is not the time to scramble to get "something" passed. No band-aid is big enough to fix this, and observing the dozen amendments provides insight that Representatives feel there are many important flaws with HB 187, and obviously it's just plain confusing. We need to remain steadfast; these issues are too important to speed through or attempt to patch. This goes right back to the point about the entire "process"&#8230;.. Is this how important issues should be approached?

I must say that everyone should know that the DWR stood up for facts and we should all send them a note thanking them. I know lately the DWR in the public's eye, unfortunately, has been a sore subject. Their actions and words have not always echoed one another, and it created tension. The public's prompt heavy handed response (to past weeks statements and articles) struck deep I'm sure. BUT the public should be just as quick to respond in a positive way, encouraging them to stand on the foundation they represent and the public will stand behind them. It s my humble opinion that a sincere thank you is a good gesture to show that the public is fair and recognizes integrity. I'm not suggesting they spoke out against HB 187 directly, but voiced out loud and spoke on fact whether it was for one side or the other. They commented on fact&#8230; and in this case it's a positive thing for water users, as this is all we have, the fact and the honesty. "It would be an enforcement nightmare" said Mr. Karpowitz.

Like many individuals, I've tried to find out all the facts involved and expose these events to the public. I do not speak for anyone but myself. I do not have the power, or the right, to negotiate, compromise, to speak on the behalf of, or do anything other than exercise my right to free speech. Get informed, knowledge is power, questions are the answer. The Utah Water Guardians is just a website, its nothing more than an easy way to figure out how to contact your representative. Bottom line here -we are where we are today because of the masses, the public. If we lose momentum, interest and do not maintain pressure we will ultimately lose. We all need to keep going; the public as a whole cannot continue this without the masses. If you think that this Bill is dead, I assure you that the public has not won anything. The reality of this bill passing has not changed.

I hope this clears things up,
Bryan

http://utahwaterguardians.wordpress.com/


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Hey F/V, thanks for the update. That was superb. (and thanks for your work with UWG)

Re"


F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> *LATEST EVENTS*
> 
> "I must say that everyone should know that the DWR stood up for facts and we should all send them a note thanking them. I know lately the DWR in the public's eye, unfortunately, has been a sore subject. Their actions and words have not always echoed one another, and it created tension. The public's prompt heavy handed response (to past weeks statements and articles) struck deep I'm sure. BUT the public should be just as quick to respond in a positive way, encouraging them to stand on the foundation they represent and the public will stand behind them. It s my humble opinion that a sincere thank you is a good gesture to show that the public is fair and recognizes integrity. I'm not suggesting they spoke out against HB 187 directly, but voiced out loud and spoke on fact whether it was for one side or the other. They commented on fact&#8230; and in this case it's a positive thing for water users, as this is all we have, the fact and the honesty. "It would be an enforcement nightmare" said Mr. Karpowitz."
> 
> I am very glad to hear this and yes, I will send a note of thanks today to the DWR. It appears that they ARE responding to the wishes and opinions of their constituents. Tomorrow, we shall see if our Representatives will do likewise.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Thanks Bryan. We know that you guys went to the meeting with the understanding that you couldn't speak for the overall community, and that's a good thing because it is a very large, diverse crowd. What DUBOB seems to be asking is: who WILL be our voice? I don't think that TU can be our voice in these matters because they have to remain neutral. The UAC remained neutral for whatever reason. The Blue Ribbon Rivers (I may have the name wrong) Council has to remain neutral, and the SFW seems to have forgotten that the F stands for fish. This may be the time to come up with a new coalition that can actually make a statement. Maybe put it together like the UAC, but with a voice. Maybe include a wide variety of stream users, like kayakers, rafters, fishers, and give it a name. I'm just thowing this out there, maybe I'm just wishin.
R


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

rjefre said:


> What DUBOB seems to be asking is: who WILL be our voice? I don't think that TU can be our voice in these matters because they have to remain neutral. The UAC remained neutral for whatever reason. The Blue Ribbon Rivers (I may have the name wrong) Council has to remain neutral, and the SFW seems to have forgotten that the F stands for fish. This may be the time to come up with a new coalition that can actually make a statement. Maybe put it together like the UAC, but with a voice. Maybe include a wide variety of stream users, like kayakers, rafters, fishers, and give it a name. I'm just thowing this out there, maybe I'm just wishin.
> R


I agree. DUBOB's question is important, especially if this goes to interim. We will need to have someone(s) representing us at the interim committee or we would just get HB187 all over again. In my previous response to DUBOB, before it got crazy, I didn't really say what I thought would be best. I agree with rjefre that a redone UAC type organization would be optimal. Just think, an SFW type organization for the fishing and river resource? With 400,000 anglers, it could wield a lot of clout if it could actually come together. (big if)


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

In years past, I was a member of a wonderful conservation organization that appealed to a very broad base of recreational users. That organization was the Izaak Walton League of America (IWLA). We do not have an IWLA Chapter anywhere in the State of Utah and that is a shame on many levels. I'm not really sure that our current situation with HB 187 is something that they could help us with, but I've sent off an email to the Executive Director of the IWLA to see if they can help in any way. If they can, it may be just the umbrella organization we need to build a cohesive bargaining unit to represent us in future battles if we can get HB 187 into an interim study status. I'll of course pass on anything I get back from them, good or bad.

I can tell you that the 5 or more years I was a member of IWLA, I was very impressed with the variety of issues that they dealt with and the successes they had all over this country. It's another shame they aren't already vested in Utah.

Stay tuned.


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

The thing I'm having a hard time understanding about these Fishing groups or clubs is what is their actual purpose? If they are involved in stream restoration and protection of species and that is it, then they are no different than PETA. PETA wants the protection of fish and animals and that's it.

There must be a goal of preserving, protecting and maintaining for USE. If there is not a use clause, then they have the same purpose as PETA to protect and preserve only.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Catherder said:


> rjefre said:
> 
> 
> > What DUBOB seems to be asking is: who WILL be our voice? I don't think that TU can be our voice in these matters because they have to remain neutral. The UAC remained neutral for whatever reason. The Blue Ribbon Rivers (I may have the name wrong) Council has to remain neutral, and the SFW seems to have forgotten that the F stands for fish. This may be the time to come up with a new coalition that can actually make a statement. Maybe put it together like the UAC, but with a voice. Maybe include a wide variety of stream users, like kayakers, rafters, fishers, and give it a name. I'm just thowing this out there, maybe I'm just wishin.
> ...


I was reading on another forum today about a political action committee in the works as is described above. I wish I had more concrete info, but I sure hope to see it come to fruition.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I will donate the $26.00 I use for my fishing license to them.


----------



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

Catherder said:


> I was reading on another forum today about a political action committee in the works as is described above. I wish I had more concrete info, but I sure hope to see it come to fruition.


You have mail


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

http://le.utah.gov/~2009/comreport/HB187H10.pdf

Wow it just got more confusing, 150 yards or within view of a house, so if you can't see it then you can't post it? I see a lot of trees being cut down over that one.


----------

