# 2022 Legislative Session



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I often talk to people that complain after laws passed that say, "I didn't even know about this until it was already passed!" Well, how about a thread for people to post up outdoor recreation related bills? I'll start with a couple I'm aware of:


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Trespassing changes that will allow for treble damages in wildlife trespassing cases: SB68






SB0068







le.utah.gov


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Navigable waters changes. Not much of a change in the definition, simply streamlines (no pun intended) the process for determination. This would save everyone a whole lot of time and money if this passes. HB129 






HB0129







le.utah.gov


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

So help a guy out. How do they figure damages in wildlife trespassing? Damage to fences or buildings and machinery I get but is that it?

It will be nice to see a defined list of navigable waters.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

No clue on how they determine the damages. But knowing you won't just get a ticket, but have to pay treble damages civilly and potentially lawyer fees may make some people think twice about trespassing.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I wonder how Seegmiller will vote.

Streamlining designation process seems like a win.

Does Utah have an automatic notification process in which you can set search terms for, ie "stream", "wildlife", for proposed legislation? Or do you just have to search it manually?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

You can search topics on the legislative website, but it isn’t super intuitive IMO.


----------



## TheOtherJeff (Oct 7, 2021)

middlefork said:


> So help a guy out. How do they figure damages in wildlife trespassing? Damage to fences or buildings and machinery I get but is that it?


It's a matter of legal damages, not just physical damage. Generally, there are many claims for damage one could make (see Trespass to Land - FindLaw). The bill establishes statutory damages of $500, so there's your minimum. Utah Code 23-20-S4.5 has a schedule of restitution amounts for illegally taking an animal, which a landowner could make the basis of a claim if someone takes an animal while trespassing. A landowner might also claim the trespass cost them fees that they could have otherwise charged the trespassing hunters as a loss of market value. Treble all that on the right property, taking the right animal and you can buy yourself a new truck.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

TheOtherJeff said:


> It's a matter of legal damages, not just physical damage. Generally, there are many claims for damage one could make (see Trespass to Land - FindLaw). The bill establishes statutory damages of $500, so there's your minimum. Utah Code 23-20-S4.5 has a schedule of restitution amounts for illegally taking an animal, which a landowner could make the basis of a claim if someone takes an animal while trespassing. A landowner might also claim the trespass cost them fees that they could have otherwise charged the trespassing hunters as a loss of market value. Treble all that on the right property, taking the right animal and you can buy yourself a new truck.


Thanks. Sounds complicated but that is how lawyers make a living. LOL

Good luck in Iowa. Sounds like you should have a ball. Hope you find some land to hunt.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Navigable waters changes. Not much of a change in the definition, simply streamlines (no pun intended) the process for determination. This would save everyone a whole lot of time and money if this passes. HB129
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just heard about this the other evening from the USAC. This looks like a goodun that could save everyone a lot of money and court time. It looks like our member Hawkeye has been busy recently. I wonder if he will be up for a legislative review of the Expo bidding process any time soon?  

Nilla, any idea if the usual list of access adversaries will oppose this? It would seem that passage could get us out of their hair once and for all and they might not fight it, but what do I know.🤷‍♂️ 


My addition to the thread regards the Great Salt Lake. There is a legislative fund set up to study solutions and bills like this one addressing the issue. (I'm not sure this one is likely to pass.) all of these developments are worth following. 

The proposed plan to save the Great Salt Lake from drought


I can just hear the cynics say that throwing money into study is a waste of time and nothing will happen, but if nothing is done, then the result is pretty much guaranteed.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Not sure why this bill on navigable waters would get pushback, even from the regulars. It codifies what is already the legal standard in the courts.

If I’m reading it correctly, all it does is takes what would be a long drawn out and very expensive court case and uses the same standard to make the designation via administrative process. We get quicker answers. It costs everyone involved way less money. Seems like a win-win all around. Unless landowners really want to fight it out with expensive court battles on the exact same standard and win or lose the same anyway.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Not sure why this bill on navigable waters would get pushback, even from the regulars. It codifies what is already the legal standard in the courts.
> 
> If I’m reading it correctly, all it does is takes what would be a long drawn out and very expensive court case and uses the same standard to make the designation via administrative process. We get quicker answers. It costs everyone involved way less money. Seems like a win-win all around. Unless landowners really want to fight it out with expensive court battles on the exact same standard and win or lose the same anyway.


That's how I read it too and the courts have already set up the standards, if I understand correctly. 

I could see some folks that know that the current standard would result in a ruling unfavorable to them pitching a fight. I'm not sure the "big guns" like the Farm Bureau would be as motivated to fight however.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

The standard is already set. Either the water is navigable based upon its use for commerce at the time of statehood, or it isn’t.

I think if I was a major player in landownership adjacent to streams that I’d rather get that answer quickly and cheaply than after spending tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars and several years to get the exact same answer.

Tim Hawkes really did his due diligence on this one, it appears. He’s a very smart human, it does not surprise me he took a very measured and thorough approach to this complicated and emotional issue.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

This feels like a big one!






HB0033







le.utah.gov


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I think this one is a decent start, although I hope more directed action can be taken in the future. 









$40 million Great Salt Lake bill unveiled, but critics say it's not enough


A highly anticipated bill aimed at protecting the Great Salt Lake has been unveiled on Utah’s Capitol hill. House Bill 410 is sponsored by House Speaker Brad Wilson (R-Kaysville) who has called efforts to address the lake’s declining water levels one of his top legislative priorities this...




kutv.com










HB0410







le.utah.gov


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

SB0205







le.utah.gov





Found this one today that might be of interest to people. Wildlife Board has to make rules for air rifles.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> SB0205
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I saw this discussed yesterday at the workshop. I honestly still don't see the need. Although it sounded like to only problem the WB has had all along is not getting PR funds from the sale of air rifles. Is the code to try and force the Division to figure out a way to get that done or supply another revenue stream?


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

Off topic but in the real world this should be the kiss of death for Lee. But not in this State. 









Donald Trump endorses Mike Lee, takes shots at Evan McMullin, Mitt Romney


Former President Donald Trump endorsed Sen. Mike Lee on Friday while taking shots at one of his challengers — including calling him an unflattering name — and Sen. Mitt Romney.




www.ksl.com


----------

