# Fishing Lower Provo - Ault Property (Is it legal or not?)



## HopperLover

I had thought that the Ault Property - just upstream from the railroad tressle - was OK to fish as long as you are on the easement part of the property.

But this thread on another forum makes me question things again:

http://www.bigfishtackle.com/forum/...i?post=812934;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed

It says:


> Well it turned out that the reason for the mass exodus was the DNR official giving everyone upstream of the R/R trestle the boot under the accusation of trespassing.
> 
> Lots of disgruntled FFers in the parking lot when I got up there. Nobody was ticketed as far as I know, but the DNR official told one dude that the access rights were "in dispute" for that area so he acted on behalf of the land owner (until further notice I guess).


Anybody verify this? Anybody from the USAC that could comment?


----------



## nateysmith

I actually know the Aults that own that property, so I can see what I can find out.


----------



## MarkM

Its too bad about all the controversy about that section of the Provo. I learned to fly fish on that section back in the 90's and have a lot of fond memories about that stretch of river.

Mark


----------



## HopperLover

nateysmith said:


> I actually know the Aults that own that property, so I can see what I can find out.


I am pretty sure I can predict what the Aults will say. :yell:

But, for the rest of us, here are the easement details:

http://www.i9studios.com/USAC/AultUDOT_PublicAccessEasement.pdf

It seems clear to me, that the public should NOT be disallowed for fishing within that easement, regardless of what the Aults will say.


----------



## Vanilla

I'd love to hear any explanation from any state official stating why they, an agency charged with acting in the public trust, are forcing people off a legal, public easement. As far as I know there has been no court order or injunction granted stating the easement isn't valid.


----------



## martymcfly73

I'm sure his brother in law has nothing to do with it either.


----------



## browntrout

"I'm sure his brother in law has nothing to do with it either." 

Do you mean our------ Governor?


----------



## martymcfly73

Yup


----------



## Para-adams

Was there yesterday, Sunday, 8/4. A new sign is posted in the public parking lot about the access road being for authorized vehicles and "ranch" guests only. The auto bridge on UDOT property has a new sign on both sides stating that it is private, and there is a new sign posted at the south edge of Ault's property, I didn't get close enough to read it.

Anyone know if the status of the easement has recently changed? It seems the signs are partly a bluff, since that access road is on UDOT property.

The rafters were out in force, trashing the banks. And of course, we'll get blamed.


----------



## fishsnoop

Para-adams said:


> Was there yesterday, Sunday, 8/4. A new sign is posted in the public parking lot about the access road being for authorized vehicles and "ranch" guests only. The auto bridge on UDOT property has a new sign on both sides stating that it is private, and there is a new sign posted at the south edge of Ault's property, I didn't get close enough to read it.
> 
> Anyone know if the status of the easement has recently changed? It seems the signs are partly a bluff, since that access road is on UDOT property.
> 
> The rafters were out in force, trashing the banks. And of course, we'll get blamed.


If anyone is asked to leave the river in this stretch by a DWR/DNR officer or Wasatch County Sheriff please let me know ASAP. This issue is NOT settled with the state and the Ault's do not have the ability to kick you off the river especially if you are in the stream bed. I have spoken to the Attorney General's office as of this morning on the issue and the easement is still in place. [email protected] is my email
Thanks
Chris


----------



## martymcfly73

Thanks for the info snoop! We appreciate all your hard work on this issue.


----------



## Para-adams

Thanks for the response. Good to hear.


----------



## Catherder

fishsnoop said:


> If anyone is asked to leave the river in this stretch by a DWR/DNR officer or Wasatch County Sheriff please let me know ASAP. This issue is NOT settled with the state and the Ault's do not have the ability to kick you off the river especially if you are in the stream bed. I have spoken to the Attorney General's office as of this morning on the issue and the easement is still in place. [email protected] is my email
> Thanks
> Chris


Chris, isn't the act of putting up those signs a violation of law in and of itself?


----------



## fishsnoop

Catherder said:


> Chris, isn't the act of putting up those signs a violation of law in and of itself?


I am not sure on this question, you would think harassment is in play here at the minimum.
One other thing, the issue could be as simple as a new DWR/DNR officer not being educated about the issue and being pressured by the Ault's because of his/her limited knowledge.


----------



## FULLHOUSE

BUMP
Any new info on this subject?


----------



## trout

*Signs/easement*

The new signs posted upstream from the bridge outline the easement and show a map. The sign says something to the effect of "if you proceed past this point you need to be in the river or in the easement." The sign then says the existing dirt road is not part of the easement...which according to the map appears to be true. As far as anglers are concerned it doesn't look like the easement helps access past the bridge, because it is 100ft or so south of the road.

My point... According to the sign you can't be on the dirt road and claim "I'm in the easement."

It does appear that easement intersects the road and river upstream a ways.

My point 2.0 their are just as good if not better stretches of the lower to fish.


----------

