# right or wrong?



## hutch14 (Dec 10, 2008)

The other day two buddies and I were jump shooting off the weber river. The river itself is public land but everything on both sides is private. You have to be atleast 200 yds away from roads and buildings when you shoot and we were well aware of those regulations. We were very selective with our shots "we only shot birds that we knew we could retrieve without trespassing and only shot straight up or down at birds". While we were walking down the river a rancher approached us and said he had called the warden and he would "shoot back" if he heard us shoot again. We had not shot towards him, his cattle, or his buildings (his buildings were atleast 1/4 mile away). He yelled a few more obsinities at us and we left not wanting more confrontation. On our way back to the truck another rancher yelled at us and told us to get the blank out of there. Even though we didnt break any rules and never trespassed it spooked my buddies pretty bad and it looks like they are done with that spot for the year. I want to know what you guys think. I can admit when I am wrong and welcome criticism. I can see why ranchers would be annoyed hearing shots all morning but we had a right to be there too as long as we followed all regulations which we did.


----------



## Gee LeDouche (Sep 21, 2007)

for best diagnosis, we will need exact locations. have GPS directions for us?


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

hutch14 said:


> The other day two buddies and I were jump shooting off the weber river. The river itself is public land but everything on both sides is private. You have to be atleast 200 yds away from roads and buildings when you shoot and we were well aware of those regulations. We were very selective with our shots "we only shot birds that we knew we could retrieve without trespassing and only shot straight up or down at birds". While we were walking down the river a rancher approached us and said he had called the warden and he would "shoot back" if he heard us shoot again. We had not shot towards him, his cattle, or his buildings (his buildings were atleast 1/4 mile away). He yelled a few more obsinities at us and we left not wanting more confrontation. On our way back to the truck another rancher yelled at us and told us to get the blank out of there. Even though we didnt break any rules and never trespassed it spooked my buddies pretty bad and it looks like they are done with that spot for the year. I want to know what you guys think. I can admit when I am wrong and welcome criticism. I can see why ranchers would be annoyed hearing shots all morning but we had a right to be there too as long as we followed all regulations which we did.


Sadly, the stipulations(if you read them) allow for landowners to have you leave or removed if the noise level is too high for whatever you are doing. They pretty much have you by the sack. I suggest you read the full report and see for yourself what has been decided and said. :wink:


----------



## Fowl habits (Dec 4, 2007)

I'd have to agree that you were within your legal rights, i had a chance to talk to the DWR's lawyer that helped draft the new changes this year and he also does the training for the wardens, and althought i believe you were within your rights based on what you said, it doesn't suprise me that you got that response. There is a lot of interpretation that is read into law, for example LH2 brought up the nuisance thing, which i believe is just a loop hole to appease the land owners, think of all the noise the trains make, he does have valid point though. I know there is a particular stretch of the weber that has some unusually grumpy land owners, a few years back a owner let some guys hunt on his property down on the river, and one of them ended up raping his daughter he has made it VERY clear to the locals and to anyone that come and asks that he will shoot first and ask later, alot of the owner up there have adopted the same grumpy attitude. so i guess it comes down to what is the law and what is the LAW. Interesting to note that after talking to the lawyer it was very apparent that the wording has left a lot of holes and grey areas, when i asked him about it, he said that we would have to see what happened in case law and how it was interpreted by the judge seated for the case, I.e. some sorry sucker is going to have to try it and see what happens, and hope for the best, I know there has been a lot of discussion as to the wording and how it would affect the private clubs out on the GSL


----------



## Fowl habits (Dec 4, 2007)

if your looking for some light reading here is the supreme courts decision and the situation that started the whole thing----another interesting fact, the supreme court specifically states "hunting" as an acceptable activity under this new law, as far as the noise thing i guess it could be construed as archery or trapping or even better a sling shot :shock: lol nothing personal i'm just passionate about this


----------



## SFWG (Sep 8, 2007)

You would have lost due to the amount of noise you were making. All though it may be considered a loop hole, it is still the law.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

I feel that you were within your rights. This may be a stupid question but did you try to talk to him and explain that you were trying to do everything right? To me, the noise should not be an issue. If you are more than 200 yards from the homestead, lets say 300 yards, a shotgun would be fairly quiet from down in a river. This is a tough deal since the law says you can hunt. :? Thanks for the report though. Did you shoot some birds?


----------



## HuntingCrazy (Sep 8, 2007)

Those ranchers are still trying to make something that is public property their own private haven paid for my public monies. 
I had a similar situation up Spanish Fork Canyon. Some rancher tried to run me out and threatened to call the sheriff. I just kept on my way and called the sheriff myself when I got some cell phone service. The deputy I talked to said if he were in my shoes, he would just keep on hunting and let the rancher call the sheriff, at that time they would refer the rancher to the new laws and say there is nothing the sheriff's office can do to someone who is within his/her legal right.


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

Assuming what you said is true. You are right- stand up for yourself. Right now the Utah Supreme Court has opened a window of opportunity for hunting and fishing this state's waterways. We all have to seize that opportunity respectfully and vote out any half-wit legislator that seeks to undo this right to use our waterways- a right which according to the Utah Court has always existed- we just didn't know it.


----------



## hutch14 (Dec 10, 2008)

Nor-tah said:


> I feel that you were within your rights. This may be a stupid question but did you try to talk to him and explain that you were trying to do everything right? To me, the noise should not be an issue. If you are more than 200 yards from the homestead, lets say 300 yards, a shotgun would be fairly quiet from down in a river. This is a tough deal since the law says you can hunt. :? Thanks for the report though. Did you shoot some birds?


haha well we tried to talk to him but he wasnt gonna have it. He had his mind set and it didnt really matter what we said. and i didnt particularly want to see if he was serious about shooting back either. but on a brighter note we did get 6 big fat green heads and one drake golden eye


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> I feel that you were within your rights. If you are more than 200 yards from the homestead, lets say 300 yards, a shotgun would be fairly quiet from down in a river.


I agree, especially as thick as some of those trees are on the river banks... combine that with snow banks and this goofball appears to just be somebody out to hassle a hunter who was well within his legal right to hunt a public waterway. I'd say you did the right thing also leaving when you did, since you already had a good wad of birds from your jumpshoot. I figure this won't be a solitary confrontation, I'd imagine landowners all over the place are going to start being real asses about the new access when they used to have their land and water all to themselves.


----------



## ktowncamo (Aug 27, 2008)

hutch - care to make a generalization of where you were? (Wanship? Coalville? Peoa? Oakley?) 

I only ask because I was on the Weber near Coalville and although I didn't see any landowners I wondered if I'd get a confrontation. Especially with my 9 year old son along I didn't want to have him see some rancher or land owner getting all steamed up or worse firing back :shock: .

Thanks to those that have clarified the rights of hunters and fisherman. Let's be sure we be respectful regardless of how fired up a landowner gets. Easy to say here and hard to not get fired up when you're in the heat of the moment.


----------



## hutch14 (Dec 10, 2008)

ktowncamo said:


> hutch - care to make a generalization of where you were? (Wanship? Coalville? Peoa? Oakley?)
> 
> I only ask because I was on the Weber near Coalville and although I didn't see any landowners I wondered if I'd get a confrontation. Especially with my 9 year old son along I didn't want to have him see some rancher or land owner getting all steamed up or worse firing back :shock: .
> 
> Thanks to those that have clarified the rights of hunters and fisherman. Let's be sure we be respectful regardless of how fired up a landowner gets. Easy to say here and hard to not get fired up when you're in the heat of the moment.


haha well im not planning on going back there so ill just tell you. it was about a mile south of the peterson/stoddard exit. there are a few places you cant shoot but where we were confronted was completely legal


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

hutch14 said:


> ktowncamo said:
> 
> 
> > hutch - care to make a generalization of where you were? (Wanship? Coalville? Peoa? Oakley?)
> ...


There is a section of river in Peterson that is closed to hunting. It sounds like you were clear of that area if you were 1 mile south of the exit. The DNR and sheriff will cite you in that area if you get caught. :wink:


----------



## gander311 (Dec 23, 2008)

So, have there been any updates or clarifications added to the Utah Supreme court ruling that came out last summer about this?

The lawyer I had read it for me said it was fairly black and white as far as water access rights for the public, including hunting use. I just want to make sure there hasn't been any additions saying differently!!!


----------



## sharpshooter25 (Oct 2, 2007)

With this new law in effect I have a question, and Gander311 if you can ask your DWR lawyer about this that would be great. Can the state own parts of Rivers? The reason why I ask is because there is a Bird Refuge right along the Green River which has literally thousands of ducks and geese that fly right over this river. There are signs posted on the banks of the river which tell you that you are entering this bird refuge and that hunting is not allowed, but if the river itself is public, then can I still hunt down that river? So again the question remains, can they actually own that part of the river? I mean, I am not about to go and try my luck being as how it is a government program, but if I am within my legal right to hunt there, then I will do it. And if you are wondering what refuge it is, it is the Ouray Refuge.


----------



## SFWG (Sep 8, 2007)

You can not hunt a refuge.


----------



## hutch14 (Dec 10, 2008)

There is a section of river in Peterson that is closed to hunting. It sounds like you were clear of that area if you were 1 mile south of the exit. The DNR and sheriff will cite you in that area if you get caught. :wink:[/quote]

really? i actually talked to a dwr officer and he didnt say anything about that, he just said to be aware of where structures were and to clean up our shells. that was about it


----------



## Gee LeDouche (Sep 21, 2007)

Matt said:


> You can not hunt a refuge.


like the BRBR??


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

hutch14 said:


> There is a section of river in Peterson that is closed to hunting. It sounds like you were clear of that area if you were 1 mile south of the exit. The DNR and sheriff will cite you in that area if you get caught. :wink:


really? i actually talked to a dwr officer and he didnt say anything about that, he just said to be aware of where structures were and to clean up our shells. that was about it[/quote]
It is on the state ground in peterson. Everything to the south of that is no shooting. Better ask again. Who did you talk to?
P.S. There are signs warning you of this in the area. :wink:


----------



## sharpshooter25 (Oct 2, 2007)

You still didn't answer my question. The question was can the bird refuge actually own that part of the river? Not the ground, I know you can't hunt the refuge, but the green river goes right through it. And according to the law that I read, I have the right to hunt any "public" water. So in other words, if the refuge does not actually own the river, then I could take my boat with blinds, set out anchors, and hunt the river since it is a public river according to the law.


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

I believe any water within a refuge can be posted as no hunting regardless of other state law. Otherwise you could drift in to a rest pond and shoot all you want. Maybe they need to tweak the wording of the law??


----------



## SFWG (Sep 8, 2007)

The State can close any water they wish to hunting.


----------



## sharpshooter25 (Oct 2, 2007)

Does the state have to specify the boundaries in the proclamation if they are going to close certain public areas?


----------

