# HB 187 resurrected!! Help!



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Never underestimate the power of the good-ol-boys. Ferry planted a stooge in the ranks and now it has been placed up for reconsideration this afternoon! We need one more push with emails to the good folks that voted AGAINST HB 187, and ask them to stand firm and vote NAY on HB187 this afternoon! Thanks again.
R

Here are our friends, send a short meaasge out to all of them.

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

What the crap!

What is this like a little kid, keep going over, and over, and over, until someone gives in?

"Mommy, can I have a cookie? 
"No!"
"Please!"
"No!"
"Pretty please?"
"No!"
"Just One?"
"NO!"
"But I wanna cookie!"
"Judas Priest, here have the cookie!"


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

WTH???


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

_/O _/O _/O Man.... I was worried they would try this. I even talked to FV Gulf Venture today on the phone about it.... ****, they are persistent. And after talking to Bryan, I am NOT a fan of this Ferry guy. Apparently when they met to discuss "compromise" all Mr. Ferry had to say was, "Whatever, you do what you're gonna do" and he apparently thought this bill was a "slam dunk" for him to get through. Hopefully the reps get tired of his antics and soundly defeat this bill again this afternoon. This guy is a total slime.... so its certainly not beneath him to try and sneak this through disguised as something else.... :evil:


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

My inside source tells me, it's almost a guarantee to go to the floor again or Ferry wouldn't even be trying.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Wow I will be anxios to see what happens with this. I'll call Bryan when I get off work. This guy is a snake in the grass!! Highndry is right. This guy is like a two year old.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> Wow I will be anxios to see what happens with this. I'll call Bryan when I get off work. This guy is a snake in the grass!! Highndry is right. This guy is like a two year old.


While I am not real familiar with Rep Ferry, seeing how passionate/persistent you guys are, why is it shocking to have someone as convicted on the other side of the issue? If it was flipped 180 degrees would you guys just let it die? Or would you keep fighting for what you believe is right/just? I'm just saying.... 8)


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I've been in communications with my rep a couple of times today on this. It indeed has a 3rd substitute coming on board, with a an amendment from Drexler, which has Ferry pushing for another vote. It still has problems though - (my problem is in the definition of private waters - lines 123-126 - and the conflict with existing water rights - lines 421-423). I'm working with my rep to get this thing pushed off so a more thoughtful and meaningful discussion can take place over the summer so that isn't an issue. I'd rather see no law passed here, than bad law being passed. The issue still needs resolved, but we can take the next year to get to a better solution. 

Keep at it folks.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Well, it's back to square one. There were several reps that flipped on us...including Brad Dee. That one REALLY hurts!
R


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Bryan, who is my rep? Murray anyone? I'll shoot an email over, just let me know what I need to be saying.... I'm willing to jump in on the side of anglers, if for no other reason than I now believe F/V that while the idea of a compromise on access or at least a clarification is needed, this bill is NOT IT and could be much better written and presented to at least give each side an equal share of satisfaction, as opposed to hosing one or the other. Mr Ferry is not the right person to bringing any bill to the table and certainly is not interested in any sort of compromise... more like he'd rather steamroll those in his way. Quote.... "This state is not a democracy, it is a republic". Got it right from the guy who heard him say that ****..... He's not the guy I want determining my fishing rights.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> Quote.... "This state is not a democracy, it is a republic". Got it right from the guy who heard him say that ****..... He's not the guy I want determining my fishing rights.


In fairness, that IS how this country/state were set up, as a Republic, NOT a democracy.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Welcome aboard!


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Here are some excerps I've shared with my Rep today. Take them for what they are worth.

My concern on it has nothing to do with fishing, though I love the fishing access parts. My issue is in how it essentially privatizes the water when it runs over private property. The repercussions on that are HUGE - for municipalities and industry that are downstream. The bill was intended to clarify and nullify the Conastar decision last year. That decision was based on the concept that the water is the property of the people of Utah, and as such, it serves as a public right of way within the water. To reverse that decision, this bill has to address the ownership of the water. So as the water runs over private land, the land owner has control of that easement or right of way. That also means the land owner may divert that water for his/her own use, regardless of water rights downstream. This is a HUGE problem. 

There is an absolute need to address and clarify the Conastar decision. I think it can be done in a way that protects the private property rights, water needs, and some recreation needs. But this bill is not it. This needs to be studied some more. Heck, I'd be glad to help out in any way I can to really improve things. But it needs more study than has happened to do it right. I'm afraid that if this thing passes it will create more legal sludge than if we hold out for a year. 

As it is considered again today, I hope we can put it down. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help you out.

*************************

Hey Jim. In my look at the Bill as I found it in its current state, the problem lies with the definition of "private water" on lines 123-126. It then provides a conflict with applicability to other rights, as outlined in lines 421-423. 

And all that said - this bill still does not resolve what the Surpreme Court came up with in the Conaster decision. That is, the public has an access easement to public water. If this passes in its current form, the State will find itself in some VERY EXPENSIVE law suits over privatization of water - as the ripples (no pun intended) of this bill will be exceptionally far reaching on that note. 

Like I said, I am totally with you on taking the summer to really look at this thing and get the folks from Div. of Water Rights to weigh in on how to do this right without allowing the privatization of public waters. Let alone deferral of wildlife/fishery management taken from DWR and given to the land owners. That is the part that really puzzles me on how DWR Director Karpowitz was willing and ready to give that up.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

RR

http://www.le.state.ut.us/maps/amap.html

Just type in your address and you'll have your rep. Thanks for the support.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

rjefre said:


> Well, it's back to square one. There were several reps that flipped on us...including Brad Dee. That one REALLY hurts!
> R





> I voted against the motion to reconsider. I have not changed my position. My intern is trying to find out where the idea that I voted for that motion came from.
> 
> Rep Brad Dee
> Utah House of Representatives


Brad is still with us, must have been some miscommunication somewhere.


----------



## RnF (Sep 25, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> Bryan, who is my rep? Murray anyone? I'll shoot an email over, just let me know what I need to be saying.... I'm willing to jump in on the side of anglers, if for no other reason than I now believe F/V that while the idea of a compromise on access or at least a clarification is needed, this bill is NOT IT and could be much better written and presented to at least give each side an equal share of satisfaction, as opposed to hosing one or the other. Mr Ferry is not the right person to bringing any bill to the table and certainly is not interested in any sort of compromise... more like he'd rather steamroll those in his way. Quote.... "This state is not a democracy, it is a republic". Got it right from the guy who heard him say that ****..... He's not the guy I want determining my fishing rights.


[email protected]

he is against the bill, but send him an email anyway.


----------



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

*We need people at the Capitol Building tomorrow morning @9 am. (Thursday 3/5/09 and if need be on Friday 3/6/09) If you can make it, come join us. 
*
CALL and EMAIL your Representative RIGHT NOW!! Tell them to Vote NO on HB 187!

It's down to the wire; we need your support to kill this bill. This cannot and will not happen without your voice!

*This coincides with the standing belief that the overall PROCESS of this Bill is flawed!!* This last ditch effort is unwarranted and honestly, very disrespectful to the public; we should not stand for this type of behavior. Let them know where you stand (in a respectful way) and tell them that this is unacceptable.

*Here is the second substitute HB 187 -->* http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/hbillint/hb0187s02.htm


----------



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

proutdoors said:


> Riverrat77 said:
> 
> 
> > Quote.... "This state is not a democracy, it is a republic". Got it right from the guy who heard him say that ****..... He's not the guy I want determining my fishing rights.
> ...


Yes, maybe true BUT you don't throw it in the public face, especially as a Representative. Then chanting it again on the floor while bashing the Utah Supreme Court. Meanwhile McIff is spouting random gibberish (note that he lost a BIG Utah Supreme Court water case earlier in the day).

Utah politics are a joke. What an embarrassment.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I had a long talk with my rep about this tonight. The bill will be on its 3rd substitute tomorrow. That version is not on the net yet. He said he's been getting pounded on this thing from both sides pretty hard. I talked over my concerns with him - that is - the issues of privitization of water. That was something he had not heard yet. I explained that it left enough of a question that this thing needs to be delayed until that can be resolved. He agreed with me that the Conaster case needs to be clarified. But the water thing - that is something that hasn't been talked about. 

A show of force will be nice - but a meaningful discussion - a thoughtful discussion has to take place. Do not go to your rep whining about needing to fish these streams. They have heard all of that. Be as specific as you can with your issues with THIS bill. And show that you have read the bill - not just "heard about it." 

As a side note - this is a good case study of why you need to KNOW YOUR REPRESENTATIVE. As I talked with my guy tonight, it was very clear he respected me first as a person, and second professionally, and third, as a voter. You need to know them, and they need to know you. Then when there is an issue important to you, you can call them and they will talk to you about it.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Hey, I just got to my computer tonight. Talk about a kick in the crotch. -)O(- 

I have heard that there are new amendments that are being introduced with this next go round. Does anyone know what specifically has been added or taken away from the bill that was defeated? This may be key in our communications with legislators.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

This is what I wrote tonight. To my Rep. Jackie Biskupski. 

I just wanted to thank you for your support in opposing HB 187-09. I understand that the bill has been resurrected after being defeated in a house vote of, 34 for and 41 against. Thank you for voting against. I hope that you will continue to oppose HB 187-09 and look forward to your support next year when a better Public Use of Recreational Waters bill can be introduced that protects all citizens and does not seek to directly negate a unanimous decision of the Utah Supreme Court.
Thank you for your support, you will have mine.


----------



## grousehunter (Sep 11, 2007)

All this HB187 B.S. got me thinking that I need to get involved in my local politics. I am a Roy resident and I am not a registered Republican, although I almost always vote that way (mostly due to Democrats support more anti-gun and other nut job anti-hunting groups -)O(- ). I e-mailed my Rep. Mr. Greenwood and expressed my concern for this bill, He originally stated the first time he was planning to vote no, but we all know how trust worthy Politicians are :roll: . I decided that if this bill passes then I will register and try as hard as I can to become a thorn in these peoples sides. I do know there are quite a few Roy residents on this forum and maybe we can join forces and really cause a ruckus. :twisted:


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

grousehunter, I live in Roy as well and i have phoned Mr. Greenwood about making sure he stays a no, I have not hear back. I want to get into politics more as well, I'm always up for a little hell raisin :wink:


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Riverrat77 said:
> 
> 
> > Quote.... "This state is not a democracy, it is a republic". Got it right from the guy who heard him say that ****..... He's not the guy I want determining my fishing rights.
> ...


So, although it was a democracy that got him elected, he chooses to forget that when its convenient for him? I would also say that things have changed a good bit since this country was created.... maybe Mr. Ferry needs to catch up with the times. His total lack of respect for how the legislative process is "supposed to work" is what makes me think this guy is a real slimeball. His thought apparently is well, now I'm here so I can do whatever I want regardless of the concerns of everyone else, including the people who voted for me to even be here. That doesn't concern you at all? We elect these folks to represent us yet some or at least he is willing to deny the duty to represent their constituents in favor of what the representative wants instead? That doesn't sit well with me, I'm sorry.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

F/V Gulf Ventur said:


> *Here is the second substitute HB 187 -->* http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/hbillint/hb0187s02.htm


Bryan, that link isn't working for me... says something like page unavailable. I would like to read the amendments before I email my rep. Thanks.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The second subtitute is at:
http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/hbillint/hb0187s02.pdf

My rep told me there was a 3rd substitute coming up this AM. When I see it, I'll post up a link.

Gary


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> So, although it was a democracy that got him elected, he chooses to forget that when its convenient for him? I would also say that things have changed a good bit since this country was created.... maybe Mr. Ferry needs to catch up with the times. His total lack of respect for how the legislative process is "supposed to work" is what makes me think this guy is a real slimeball. His thought apparently is well, now I'm here so I can do whatever I want regardless of the concerns of everyone else, including the people who voted for me to even be here. That doesn't concern you at all? We elect these folks to represent us yet some or at least he is willing to deny the duty to represent their constituents in favor of what the representative wants instead? That doesn't sit well with me, I'm sorry.


It was NOT a democracy that got him elected, even in 'modern' times. Is he only supposed to represent the people who agree with you? What about his other constituents that are in favor of the bill? Is he supposed to represent them as well, or just you? He was elected to use his judgment on what he feels his constituents want/need, not just what a few loud/motivated voices clamor for. Lets take a step back and see the whole picture instead of just the 5% of it you seem to be locked in on.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Just to address the represenation thing - We all need to remember that the reps have a very broad swath of views in their perspective distircts. So while you might feel slighted on one issue, you may come out validated on another. The rep has the obligation to try to balance the many points of view from the district in how they vote. The other point of advise I might offer - is before you go out to boot your rep on this one vote - review the whole body of their poltical behavior. Where your rep might vote against your ideas 2% of the time, he just might vote with your ideas 98%. As an example - in my senate district, my neighbors re-elected our senator because of his views on one specific issue that was important to them. They fail to recognize how he has sold our district out on several other very important issues. Its a tough one to balance. You won't agree with your rep 100% of the time. My wife and I don't agree on everything. Life would be pretty boring if we did. So while HB 187 is very important to all of us here, don't let it be the sole reason to vote for/against your rep. Let it be one of many reasons as you get to know them, and get to know their position on many things, and probably more importantly, their philosophies about the role of government and willingness to put district over party loyalty.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Riverrat77 said:
> 
> 
> > So, although it was a democracy that got him elected, he chooses to forget that when its convenient for him? I would also say that things have changed a good bit since this country was created.... maybe Mr. Ferry needs to catch up with the times. His total lack of respect for how the legislative process is "supposed to work" is what makes me think this guy is a real slimeball. His thought apparently is well, now I'm here so I can do whatever I want regardless of the concerns of everyone else, including the people who voted for me to even be here. That doesn't concern you at all? We elect these folks to represent us yet some or at least he is willing to deny the duty to represent their constituents in favor of what the representative wants instead? That doesn't sit well with me, I'm sorry.
> ...


You can dig as deep as you would like into it but it is really simple. The general public was overwhelmingly against the bill. The House of Representatives was against this bill. It is NOT a representation of the general public trying to lobby or pursway Reps to change their vote after they have already represented the general public opinion.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> *It was NOT a democracy that got him elected, even in 'modern' times.* I don't understand that at all.... isn't the fact that he had to be voted into office instead of being appointed considered a democracy?
> 
> Is he only supposed to represent the people who agree with you? Of course not.... he has to represent the majority of his constituents of course, but for him to claim that he is part of a republic, as opposed to a democracy tells me he would do whatever he and the money he's getting to propose this bill (I know, I'm not supposed to bring up the dirty side of politics) had already decided to do, regardless of what the majority wanted. The way he's conducted himself confirms what I believe about it and him, regardless of what others opinions of the man are.
> 
> What about his other constituents that are in favor of the bill? Is he supposed to represent them as well, or just you? He was elected to use his judgment on what he feels his constituents want/need, not just what a few loud/motivated voices clamor for. Lets take a step back and see the whole picture instead of just the 5% of it you seem to be locked in on. I've been trying to look at this from both sides but I consider it especially shameful the way he's conducting himself and if I were a landowner, granted, I'm not one and may never be, I would consider it dirty dealing to have somebody like Mr. Ferry presenting something on my behalf, whether he was doing it on his own or otherwise. Not to mention the fact that he boldly opposed any sort of compromise or anything Bryan or the other legislators or public representatives might have been able to bring to the table or add to the bill to make it more agreeable to both sides of the issue. The fact that he's entirely, as you said, locked into his position without regard for public opinion, desire, or the possibilities of improvement to the bill other than those benefitting his position is what makes him so flawed as a representative as far as I'm concerned..


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

RR - 
On the democracy vs. republic thing - 
In a democracy, everyone votes on every issues. Were we in a democracy, all of us would be casting a ballot on this bill. But the practicality of that approach is problematic in many ways. There are times when we do vote on an issue - the definition of marriage thing, or school bonding issues, the Renew the Zoo vote, those things were all done democratically as everyone voted. But most things we do through a representative republic format.

In a republic system, the voters choose representatives to do things for them. The initial idea is that most people don't have the time, background, or resources to leave what they do to address the everyday affairs of running our government. So if we could send someone to represent us, then there would be effeciencies gained. 

So the bottom line difference is that in a democracy - everyone votes on every issue. In a republic, we vote for representatives to vote for us.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> RR -
> On the democracy vs. republic thing -
> In a democracy, everyone votes on every issues. Were we in a democracy, all of us would be casting a ballot on this bill. But the practicality of that approach is problematic in many ways. There are times when we do vote on an issue - the definition of marriage thing, or school bonding issues, the Renew the Zoo vote, those things were all done democratically as everyone voted. But most things we do through a representative republic format.
> 
> ...


Thank you for clarifying that.... next question. What or who determines what is decided by the vote of our representatives vs. a popular vote by the public? With all the apparent outcry over this bill, why is it not being submitted for public decision?


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Petersen said:


> Riverrat77 said:
> 
> 
> > What or who determines what is decided by the vote of our representatives vs. a popular vote by the public? With all the apparent outcry over this bill, why is it not being submitted for public decision?
> ...


So if an organized group of both landowners and outdoor enthusiast groups got together, wrote a proposition that was agreeable for the most part to both groups, then it could be submitted for a vote by the public once enough interest was raised? My reason for asking is that the few folks (and one in particular) that I've talked to about the bill say that this bill is horribly written and that although there are good portions for both sides out there, that it needs to be defeated for now and then rewritten for resubmission next year. Generating enough public interest would be the key to having a vote by the public then, as opposed to having to submit it for approval through the House and then the Senate?


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

You're right there IS room for movement on both sides. It's too late for that now, but with the opportunity to start over, they could do it right this time and involve the public. At least, it wouldn't be percieved as an evil, underhanded, secret plot against fishermen. That is the perception of HB 187 by many people. That's not a good way to make laws. Sunshine, baby, SUNSHINE!
R


----------



## TLB (Jul 13, 2008)

I sent my thoughts on to all the reps you listed. I agree I am not out for all out no holds bar access, that is a ridiculous concept. However with a little forethought our leadership should be able to come up with laws that have common sense as their basis, and allow anyone to understand without a law degree and a tape measure.

Tim


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

This issue really isn't the kind of thing that usually goes to a referendum vote. But we could certainly try it.

As for what goes to the legislature and what goes to the people - that is outlined in the State Constitution.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> This issue really isn't the kind of thing that usually goes to a referendum vote. But we could certainly try it.
> 
> As for what goes to the legislature and what goes to the people - that is outlined in the State Constitution.


Would it be more likely that the bill would have to be drawn up and then have a sponsor selected for it to try and get it though the legislature?


----------



## Thunderstick (Oct 23, 2008)

Just sent an e-mail to my Representative again urging him to vote no on this bill. I agree with many of you that there needs to be some discussion that both Property owners and sportsmen can agree with.


----------

