# DWR posts official position on HB 187



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

http://wildlife.utah.gov/fishing/hb187-position.php


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I'm still not sure how I view this whole process, but being up front like this is a good thing.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

This eases my fears entirely, if its true... I, for one, am no longer worried about Senator Ferry's bill since I rarely fish the listed waters on private ground at this point anyway. I will support the position of those wishing to have a continued access to waters flowing through private ground but I won't vehemently oppose landowners who wish to make their little corner of heaven a little more private, either just because they want it so or because they've had run-ins with the not so enjoyable part of the fishing population. I don't see this whole deal as the sky is falling at all, just a clarification of an existing statutory position. I think its great that the DWR is going to continue to pursue access to privately held water and I liked the part about the committee in the bill that leaves open the opportunity to bring up new waters for consideration of public access so it doesn't appear the matter is cut and dried with no room for flexibility or improvement. True, it doesn't allow for all out, no holds barred access... but is that truly neccessary for our fishing opportunities to be appreciated? 8)


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks GaryFish. Glad to see the DNR take a position.

I fish in Utah as much, if not more, than my home state of Wyoming.

I am trying to gather all the info before I form any opinions.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

As I see it, under the status quo (as outlined in the Conastar Case), anglers in Utah have access to all streams in the state, for recreational purposes. Under HB 187, we have access to a few dozen. 

The other major problem I have that DWR is not addressing - is the Conastar Case wasn't about fishing, or boating, or other things. It was based on the concept that the waters of Utah are owned by the people of Utah and therefore the people have access to what belongs to them, and the activities that are part of that. If this bill passes, then it changes who the water belongs to. I see this as a VERY dangerous position for anyone who lives downstream from where State Water passes over private land. I would think that the agriculture community, municipalities, and anyone else needing water for personal or commercial purposes would be in a complete up-roar over this thing.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

I agree, Gary. Reading through the DWR's decision, it is my understanding that they are yet going to remain neutral on their stance. I wonder if the DWR will provide us with information to fight this bill like they have provided info to Rep. Ferry on the bill. I highly doubt it.

If you have read through it, some waters are set aside for public access. But many streams aren't. Streams such as Diamond Fork and Currant Creek just to name a few. And, as I understand it, takes away some of our access to waters that were previously public even before Conaster. In the bill it mentions that you cannot access through *PUBLIC* water if you are within 500 feet of a house. This would mean that we would now be trespassing if we fished within 500 feet of a private residence. Even on public water! Again, the DWR that we pay millions to in license revenue every year, lets us down. As I have said before, this is about setting a precedence for the future. When they can take away our public water, whats next? The DWR could have saved a bunch of words and said "Our official position is that we aren't going to take a position".


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> I agree, Gary. Reading through the DWR's decision, it is my understanding that they are yet going to remain neutral on their stance. I wonder if the DWR will provide us with information to fight this bill like they have provided info to Rep. Ferry on the bill. I highly doubt it.
> 
> If you have read through it, some waters are set aside for public access. But many streams aren't. Streams such as Diamond Fork and Currant Creek just to name a few. And, as I understand it, takes away some of our access to waters that were previously public even before Conaster. In the bill it mentions that you cannot access through *PUBLIC* water if you are within 500 feet of a house. This would mean that we would now be trespassing if we fished within 500 feet of a private residence. Even on public water! Again, the DWR that we pay millions to in license revenue every year, lets us down. As I have said before, this is about setting a precedence for the future. When they can take away our public water, whats next? The DWR could have saved a bunch of words and said "Our official position is that we aren't going to take a position".


I find it funny that people keep making it sound like we're being forced off of public waters.... on public ground. We aren't. Read the statement by the DWR again....

Right from their statement.

*What the bill does not do is affect, in any way, accessibility to public waters on public lands or private lands that already have easements in place. Many have assumed wrongly that this bill somehow affects the status of our great fishing and other recreational opportunities on public lands.*

For you to get in trouble, the property owner would have to properly post (and I can't tell you how much private ground I've found that is not properly posted according to statutory direction) the area they don't want you fishing. Places like Diamond Fork and a lot of the Currant Creek fishable area aren't even close enough to residences as defined in the bill to even be an issue.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Oh Riverrat, ye of much faith. The DWR is not on the side of anglers on this issue. They are not pursuing private waters, and the board that you mention...not so. The Recreational Access Board is stacked against anglers, and it has no power to legally add a stream in the future even if it wanted to. Any stream that miraculoulsy gets recommended, will have to pass a vote in the legislature. Any stream posted before July 2008, falls under the historical use clause and is off the table for any future additions to the *list of 13 streams *that we will legally be able to utilize. And don't forget about the 150 yards from a dwelling clause. If this bill doesn't affect you, you rarely fish streams in Utah. The DWR is NOT neutral in this at all...they helped write the bill.
R


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

rjefre said:


> Oh Riverrat, ye of much faith. The DWR is not on the side of anglers on this issue. They are not pursuing private waters, and the board that you mention...not so. *The Recreational Access Board is stacked against anglers, and it has no power to legally add a stream in the future even if it wanted to. *Any stream that miraculoulsy gets recommended, will have to pass a vote in the legislature. *Any stream posted before July 2008, falls under the historical use clause and is off the table for any future additions to the list of 13 streams that we will legally be able to utilize. And don't forget about the 150 yards from a dwelling clause. If this bill doesn't affect you, you rarely fish streams in Utah.* The DWR is NOT neutral in this at all...they helped write the bill.
> R


Just because I don't fish the ones affected by the bill doesn't mean I don't fish streams in Utah. I'm wondering where all this wording is that you folks keep conjuring up to convince anglers the boogyman is out to get them.... I read the bill, I read the statement by the DWR and I'm not seeing it. Will you do me the solid of providing in writing where you are finding the grounds for the constant fearmongering? Thanks. :?


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

Riverrat, you must have missed this part of the bill - 

A person may not fish:
192 (a) in a public water:
193 (i) listed in Section 73-6a-202 ; and
194 (ii) located on or adjacent to property to which access is restricted; and
195 (b) within 500 feet of a single family dwelling that is built before May 12, 2009, and
196 qualifies for the residential exemption under Section 59-2-103 if the owner of the single family
197 dwelling posts a notice visible from the bed indicating the segment of public water in which
198 fishing is prohibited by this section. person may not fish:
192 (a) in a public water:
193 (i) listed in Section 73-6a-202 ; and
194 (ii) located on or adjacent to property to which access is restricted; and
195 (b) within 500 feet of a single family dwelling that is built before May 12, 2009, and
196 qualifies for the residential exemption under Section 59-2-103 if the owner of the single family
197 dwelling posts a notice visible from the bed indicating the segment of public water in which
198 fishing is prohibited by this section.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I hope I don't get into trouble for tagging this from another site, but I thoght it was well written and enlightening. Sorry ByteMe, but I had to share your thoughts here.

ByteMe 
UtahOTF Contributor Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: State of Insanity
Posts: 518

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During summer of 2008, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that the public has the right to access natural stream and lake-beds on private lands in Utah for recreational purposes, including fishing. The court based its ruling on a state statute. The statute declares that all the water in Utah is the property of the public. Because the ruling is based on a state statute, the state legislature has full authority to reverse or modify the court decision.

Unfortunately, the court's ruling left many questions unanswered. Late last summer a group was assembled to discuss the implications of the Supreme Court ruling. The Division was invited to participate in this group along with representatives from the Governor's Office, legislators, agricultural interests, anglers, and others. It was agreed by the group that legislation was needed to help clarify the Supreme Court ruling. Representative Ben Ferry stepped forward and agreed to sponsor a bill that would help clarify recreational use of public waters.

All we needed was a better definition of "river bed" and how to negotiate barriers.

The Division has maintained a neutral position on the Conatser decision as it pertains to landowner rights and recreational pursuits since both anglers and private property owners play a pivotal role in protecting and sustaining Utah's wildlife. Anglers support fishing through license dollars that provide needed funds for management, fish production, and habitat improvement. Private landowners help by providing and maintaining important habitat for fish and other wildlife. The Division appreciates Representative Ferry's willingness to attempt to balance recreational and private property interests. His approach is much preferred to a bill that would completely reverse the Supreme Court ruling.

Disagree. The reversal on Conatser is better than this bill.

The Division has worked closely with Representative Ferry to provide needed information as he drafted the bill. The Division also kept angling groups informed about the status of the bill throughout the past few months and encouraged groups to meet directly with Representative Ferry to express their views.

Which angling groups were informed? Can we get a copy of the information that was provided?

There is a great deal of misinformation circulating about HB 187 and what it does and does not do. The Division believes the public should obtain the correct information about this bill so they can make an informed decision on whether to support or oppose it. The Division encourages everyone interested to go the Utah State Legislature Web site and read House Bill 187 at http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/hbillint/hb0187.pdf.

We have read the bill and we oppose it.

It is important to note that the bill authorizes the public to engage in recreational activities including fishing on many waters in the state that were previously closed to public access prior to the Supreme Court ruling. The bill guarantees access on 17 of the major rivers and streams in the state that in many cases were closed to public access prior to the Conatser decision. The bill defines which recreational uses are allowed on these streams and provides a needed definition of a streambed. The bill authorizes recreationists to leave the bed of the stream onto private land to negotiate around barriers in the stream such as fences, dams, and diversions.

The bill does not guarantee access to all portions of the 17 major rivers and streams listed and in fact it gives landowners the right to limit access to portions that we previously had access to. A property owner can post any stretch of a river that is within 500 ft of a single family dwelling.

The bed definition and the ability to negotiate barriers is good.

The bill also provides a mechanism, where over time, other streams and rivers can be added to or removed from the list as recommended by a "Recreational Access Board". The make up and duties of this board are discussed in detail in the bill. The bill establishes a list of criteria that will determine whether a stream can be added or removed from the list by the legislature.

The board is lopsided. This board consists of seven members, only one of which promotes sport fishing, or any other users of the resource, with the others representing government entities or farming/real estate interests. What are the chances this board will add streams and rivers versus removing more from the list?

What the bill does not do is affect in any way the current accessibility to public waters on public lands or private lands that already have an easement in place. Many have assumed wrongly that this bill somehow affects the status of our great fishing and other recreational opportunities on public lands.

The clause that gives landowners the right to post sections of water that are within 500 ft from any single family dwelling doesn't apply if there is an existing easement. The bill doesn't say that.

The Division remains concerned about several provisions in this bill and will continue to work closely with Representative Ferry and other legislators as it proceeds through the legislative process. The Division's hope is that the legislature will ultimately pass a bill that meets the needs of anglers as well as private landowners.

Tell us what provisions the DWR is concerned about. That would clarify the DWR's position on this bill and potentially alleviate fears.

Regardless of how HB 187 turns out, the Division will continue to make it a high priority to acquire access and to improve fishing opportunities for anglers. In the past several years, the Division has spent millions of dollars to acquire public access and to improve fishing opportunities through direct purchases, easements, leases, and cooperative agreements. The Little Hole purchase on the Green River, an expanded Walk-In-Access program, two new ultra-modern fish hatcheries, stream restoration projects on the Weber and Sevier river systems, and numerous new Community Fisheries all demonstrate the Division's ongoing commitment to fisheries management and angling.

If aquiring access and improving fishing opportuins are such high priorities for the DWR then the DWR representative on the Recreation Access Board will always vote with the angler representative, right, or will higher priorities other than fishing prevail?


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Riverrat, I understand your puzzlement. On Wednesday, I was in a meeting with the Director of the DWR and his Legal guru and a few other sportsmen. The legal guy went through the bill line by line. I'm just reporting it as the DWR explained it to me. I know that this bill is a bit long and tedious, but you must read it very carefully to see the true legal ramifications of these clauses. The DWR has accepted this last wording of the bill as the best it will get by Rep Ferry and it added it's support to the bill. For the record, I voiced my oppostion to it and told Mr. Karpowitz that it was an anti-fishing bill, plain and simple. He said they need to balance the wishes of landowners as well as anglers. I asked what part of 13 streams in the whole state is balanced. We agreed to disagree.
R


----------



## orvis1 (Sep 7, 2007)

The DWR's position how I see it:


We at the DWR get money from bolth fisherman and landowners. We would like to continue getting money from bolth parties so we attempted to go behind closed doors and negotiate a bill that would not satisfy either party. Thus we win and continue getting money from both groups while acting like FRANCE and not getting in the fight. We at the DWR would fight much harder if this were a bill that was anti-hunting instead of anti-stream fisher. We know we will get our licence money from the put and take crowd and think you stream fisherman that hate us will ultimately quiet down. This is how goverment works and we will not take any credit or blame for the bill even though we basically wrote it, without imput from fisherman & hunters who pay our salary. If you don't like it screw off we are the DWR the only DWR so what are you going to do about it?


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Is there an emoticon I can use that has me bending over and grabbing my ankles???  BTW here's the response I got from the governors office:

February 12, 2009



Dear Jack:

Thank you for sending your comments and concerns about the proposed H.B. 187. - Recreational Use of Public Waters. Due to the large numbers of e-mails we have been receiving on both sides of this important issue, we are not able to respond to each e-mail individually. Your comments are being noted and are being shared with Governor Huntsman and members of his senior staff. At this point our office continues to work towards a compromise that balances the rights of private property owners and the rights of fishermen and other river/stream bed recreation enthusiasts.

Thanks again for your valued input.

Regards,

Amanda Smith Mike Mower
Legislative Affairs Director State Planning Coordinator
Office of Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. Office of Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> I hope I don't get into trouble for tagging this from another site, but I thoght it was well written and enlightening. Sorry ByteMe, but I had to share your thoughts here.
> 
> ByteMe
> UtahOTF Contributor Join Date: Jul 2006
> ...


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Here is how it showed up over on UTOF. THe bolded stements were this individules responses to the response he recieved.

What I have seen and what has been said on other forums is that we would be better off to just reverse the conaster bill as they are trying to restrict things more than they were before. I can just see it now... I'm wading up stream on the middle in charlston ON PUBLIC LAND when all of a sudden a land owner shouts out from a house 100 yards away and points to a big tire he has painted that says no fishing. AND HE CAN DO THAT!! We need to fight this!!!


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> In the bill it mentions that you cannot access through *PUBLIC* water if you are within 500 feet of a house. This would mean that we would now be trespassing if we fished within 500 feet of a private residence. Even on public water!


I read through the bill very carefully, and that doesn't appear to be the case. The bill is complicated, worded awkwardly and refers to other statutes, sections, subsections that must be read in order to understand the full meaning. That said, the bill would essentially revert the rules back to the situation in place before the Supreme Court ruling except on the 17 waters mentioned in the bill. On those waters, and on those waters only, a property owner could hang up no trespassing signs prohibiting people from wading up the stream and across private property within 500 feet of someone's house. If somebody's house sits immediately adjacent to public property or private property on which the owner allows fishing or where there's an access easement, people can still fish there; they just can't cross onto the private property if it's within 500 feet of a private residence and if it's posted.

The bill also has other provisions for getting around stream obstacles (fences, diversions, bridges, etc.). And it also puts into place the bureaucratic framework for adding or subtracting from the 17 listed waters that remain open to public access.

Is it a perfect bill for anglers? Hardly. It essentially reverses the Supreme Court decision on all but 17 waters. Also, the private residence thing is needlessly restrictive, but it only applies to those 17 waters in certain limited situations. Is this bill the end of the world for fishing in Utah? No. Is it a demonstration of how little the DWR cares about anglers? No, it's a compromise between those who want unhindered access and those who want things closed off?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Good post, Huntergeek, +1


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

> Good post, Huntergeek, +1


 Yea big surprise there.... Who did you work for again, Wyo...?

At least Montana got it right. Their stance is a little different....

http://fwp.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=31366


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

I think what infuriates anglers the most is that the (anglers) have made their voice be heard loud and clear and the governing body of our wildlife resouces will not go to bat for the people in which they set the rules and regulations for.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> Yea big surprise there.... Who did you work for again, Wyo...?


Uhhh...are you implying that I have or do work for the DWR? Sorry, bud, but you missed the boat...


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

HunterGeek said:


> it's a *compromise* between those who want unhindered access and those who want things closed off?


Compromise ? That's a word I haven't heard on this subject !!

All I've heard is 'IT'S OURS' !! 'GIVE IT TO US' !! 'LANDOWNER'S AND RANCHERS ARE OUR ENEMY'S !! THEY'VE BEEN BREAKING THE LAW FOR YEARS !!! 'CROOKS' !!

_Compromise_.........now that's a new concept !! :?


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

.45 said:


> HunterGeek said:
> 
> 
> > it's a *compromise* between those who want unhindered access and those who want things closed off?
> ...


Who asked you anyway?? :lol:


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

.45 said:


> HunterGeek said:
> 
> 
> > it's a *compromise* between those who want unhindered access and those who want things closed off?
> ...


Agreed 45. And what Nortah posted, I respectfully disagree with this scenario. On the middle, I have NEVER once had a landowner give me grief about fishing through their stretch of water. In fact, most of the time the old guys will drive by or ride by on horses in some cases and ask me how the fishing is. They're very polite and unless we act like total mindless rejects while we're out there, I don't see them suddenly becoming antagonistic where they've been nice as can be before.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

In my opinion, compromise is the only way to go...read some of the information from this site: http://www.perc.org/articles/article1072.php#top

In my opinion, much of what this site/group espouses fits my opinions much more than the constant battling back and forth that Montana fishermen have seen for so long. I think the more fishermen butt heads with private landowners, the more problems we will have.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

I agree to a point. Fishermen should NOT be able to trounce around all over private ground and hop private property wherever they seen fit. They SHOULD be regulated to certain access points and have to stay within the "high water mark" of waterways. But the rivers are NOT private and the general public should have access to them. If this bill should be rejected, then anglers should make a conscious effort to respect landowners and rules. No tearing down fences, driving across fields, leaving gates open, littering etc... Being respectful of our privileges will go a long way in avoiding future litigation.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

> Agreed 45. And what Nortah posted, I respectfully disagree with this scenario. On the middle, I have NEVER once had a landowner give me grief about fishing through their stretch of water. In fact, most of the time the old guys will drive by or ride by on horses in some cases and ask me how the fishing is. They're very polite and unless we act like total mindless rejects while we're out there, I don't see them suddenly becoming antagonistic where they've been nice as can be before.


The entire river corridoor along the middle Provo is state land and not private.

http://www.mitigationcommission.gov/prrp/prrp_cmplan.html


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> Riverrat, you must have missed this part of the bill -
> 
> A person may not fish:
> 192 (a) in a public water:
> ...


Did you read the definition of a dwelling? Its pretty restrictive.... oddly enough, on the side of allowing fishermen access to anything other than a house built for the sole purpose of a single family. It doesn't include trailers, mobile homes, duplexes, apartments, commercial buildings, sheds, dog houses, tree forts or anything else other than a single family HOUSE. Anyone mind telling me when the last time was you ran into a single family house on Currant Creek or Diamond Fork? How much of the stretch of the upper or lower provo is running right by single family homes? Doesn't matter if you fish past the mobile home park... they're excluded by the bill. Doesn't matter if you fish the stretch past the auto repair shops, Macy's, apartments, business complexes or anything like that from the mouth of the Provo on up into the canyon... they don't qualify as a "dwelling" according to the bill. Yes, I read every part of that bill, even to the point of looking up statutes, which is tedious as hell by the way, so I'm feeling like I have a pretty good understanding of what is trying to be accomplished here and I think those that like 45 said are all about, "its mine, its ours, give it to us, landowners and ranchers are our enemies or out to get us" will still be spreading this nonsense because rather than give an inch, they'd fight and cost us all by being obstinate and unwilling to think somebody else might have a valid point in the argument. :? What about the rivers that have jogging/walking trails built by the city along their course? You really think some Joe Schmoe landowner is going to be ballsy enough to take on everyone that uses those trails daily by fencing them and hanging a spare tire on a fence post saying you can't come on my property because I'm 500 feet from the water? I don't think so.... and it would be absurd to believe that thats even a realistic possibility. Most of the folks living in town along the Ogden and Provo rivers could give a rats posterior less what fishermen do fishing through town. Just like on the Middle section... I've not EVER had a landowner give me grief about anything related to my fishing practices. I've had them come out and watch me fish, but they're never negative about it. The only two places I've heard of that are on the Ogden below Pineview in the canyon and on the Weber during duck hunting season. Other than that, they aren't going to care.... if anything its a select few that might get bent out of shape. You know how you beat that?? Go around that stretch and fish the next series of holes.... all the fish in the river aren't going to be located in that one section.... and I'm not about to fight over one hole on a long stretch of river I have access to.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> The entire river corridoor along the middle Provo is state land and not private.
> http://www.mitigationcommission.gov/prrp/prrp_cmplan.html


So what is the reference to the Provo for then if we already have or are guaranteed access to it? There are some sections by the tracks and just upstream from the Heber Creeper bridge where folks have their homes. I figured thats what Nortah was referring to. I've seen those farmers/ranchers out taking care of stock or whatever and never had a problem. I am not sure where these folks are running into their issues with landowners but I've yet to see it when I've been out.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> I agree to a point. Fishermen should NOT be able to trounce around all over private ground and hop private property wherever they seen fit. They SHOULD be regulated to certain access points and have to stay within the "high water mark" of waterways. But the rivers are NOT private and the general public should have access to them. *If this bill should be rejected, then anglers should make a conscious effort to respect landowners and rules*. No tearing down fences, driving across fields, leaving gates open, littering etc... Being respectful of our privileges will go a long way in avoiding future litigation.


If, this bill is passed the way it stands, it could be used to set an example for future modifications to this bill. Good or bad. I hope we as sportsman can set a good example and hopefully in the future more lands and access to them will open up.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

I agree with flyguy. From what Ive heard, Ferry owns plenty of land that he leases out for thousands of dollars each year. This is an agenda to restrict access and our stinking DWR is siding with them. 

My stance is this... Dont be an idiot and tear down fences, dont wade up a trickle through backyards in mill creek but there is nothing wrong with me working hard and wading in water over my waist in Thistle creek. I should not be hassled my the land owner who thinks its his river...


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> I agree with flyguy.


Oh yeah !!! Just cuz flyguy7 ties better flies than I do !!! :twisted:


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

Riverrat, this is more of an issue on the lower Provo than the middle. And think of the Ogden. Almost everywhere you fish in the Canyon is 500 feet of someones house. From what I understand from the bill even in the listed "public waters" that you still may not approach water that is posted 500 feet from a house. This also affects the logan, the SF of the ogden, the weber all the way from rockport through riverdale. Maybe I am reading it wrong but this is my understanding.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> My stance is this... Dont be an idiot and tear down fences, dont wade up a trickle through backyards in mill creek but there is nothing wrong with me working hard and wading in water over my waist in Thistle creek. I should not be hassled my the land owner who thinks its his river...


Have they ever hassled you before or given you any inclination that they want to just sit there and give you a hard time? This could be Ferry's personal agenda, I have no idea. What I do believe sincerely is that I don't think landowners who aren't really tough on access at this point are all of a sudden going to come out totally hardnosed about kicking people off as long as we're respectful about our trespass. Its a situation where attitude will either win or lose a lot of battles with landowners. Sure, some will be total jerks about it because they feel they can be, but most won't be....at least I don't think so. I suppose if things go the way of passing the bill, you and I will be able to test my theory first hand on the creek we want to go fish. 8)

Flyguy, it sounds like most of the issues are on the northern rivers, other than perhaps the Sevier (but folks have had fights about that place on here for a while). I agree on fishing the canyon but if they don't want you in there, fine, go fish through town or something. There is just so much water to fish that I think not fishing next to somebodys house because they want to post their property doesn't seem to me to be that big of a restriction on my fishing possibilities.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

I think that you are missing the big picture here, Riverrat. This will just set a precedence. After this, there is no telling on what they will want to take away next. Our rivers have always been public, even if the stream bed wasn't. If this is passed, then they are taking away our water that was ours even before the Conaster decision. If it wasn't for anglers rallying together, then there would be a great big lodge on the other side of the river from little hole on the green.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> Our rivers have always been public, even if the stream bed wasn't. If this is passed, then they are taking away our water that was ours even before the Conaster decision.


I didn't read anything in the bill about transferring ownership of the water to the property owners. Instead, the bill simply says, from my reading, that you can't touch the private stream bed over which the public water flows. In other words, the same as before Conatser except on those 17 streams where it's now mostly okay to trespass and walk on the stream bed and to even walk up on the bank to get around fences, diversions and such.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

I was hassled once but you are right on having a good additute. He just asked me to leave and I did. Its easy for them to be nice to you!! Your a big dude with a mean goatee :mrgreen: I wouldnt hassle you either. :wink:


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Great, Can't wait to deal w/Putnam on the lower now.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

-BaHa!- :rotfl: It was so nice not to have to deal with Putnam this year! If this goes through, all hell is going to break loose with him. He almost bit the dust I heard last summer.


----------



## 357bob (Sep 30, 2007)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they make it illegal to fish within 500 feet of a residence, does it really matter what the land owner wants? If you don't get express permission, it will still be illegal and anyone would be able to turn you in for it. :?:


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

I think they have to post it and it has to be visable from the river bed.


----------



## 357bob (Sep 30, 2007)

Riverrat said:


> Did you read the definition of a dwelling? Its pretty restrictive.... oddly enough, on the side of allowing fishermen access to anything other than a house built for the sole purpose of a single family. It doesn't include trailers, mobile homes, duplexes, apartments, commercial buildings, sheds, dog houses, tree forts or anything else other than a single family HOUSE. Anyone mind telling me when the last time was you ran into a single family house on Currant Creek or Diamond Fork? How much of the stretch of the upper or lower provo is running right by single family homes? Doesn't matter if you fish past the mobile home park... they're excluded by the bill. Doesn't matter if you fish the stretch past the auto repair shops, Macy's, apartments, business complexes or anything like that from the mouth of the Provo on up into the canyon... they don't qualify as a "dwelling" according to the bill.


That's all wonderful. Ever try fishing the bear river through Corrine? Hell, I normaly bank fish closer than that and we boat within 200 feet.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

Thats the way I read it, 357bob....



> That's all wonderful. Ever try fishing the bear river through Corrine? Hell, I normaly bank fish closer than that and we boat within 200 feet.


 - Ironic, considering Rep. Ben Ferry is from Corrine.....


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> -BaHa!- :rotfl: It was so nice not to have to deal with Putnam this year! If this goes through, all hell is going to break loose with him. He almost bit the dust I heard last summer.


I agree. It was nice. He gets so worked up I'm surprised he hasn't stroked out yelling at someone. One of these days, he'll take a dirt nap unless he calms down. I'll even be nice enough to do CPR on him. :lol: But Flyguy7 you have to do mouth to mouth.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

martymcfly73 said:


> flyguy7 said:
> 
> 
> > -BaHa!- :rotfl: It was so nice not to have to deal with Putnam this year! If this goes through, all hell is going to break loose with him. He almost bit the dust I heard last summer.
> ...


You guy's knock it off !! He's my friend !! :mrgreen:


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

357bob said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they make it illegal to fish within 500 feet of a residence, does it really matter what the land owner wants? If you don't get express permission, it will still be illegal and anyone would be able to turn you in for it. :?:


I think thats only if its properly posted, at least thats how I read it. Otherwise, posting property wouldn't do anyone much good because you could turn in the landowner for fishing less than 500 feet from their house. I find it odd that if there is private property along the Green, there isn't any provision in the bill regarding the Green River and its access. I haven't ever fished along the Bear in Corrinne... driven over it, but never fished it. Same thing... if people don't give you grief up there now, what makes you think it'll change just because this bill goes through... and if you can boat it, why couldn't you fish it? That would make it a navigable water correct?


----------



## LawMan (Sep 25, 2007)

You are not seeing the big picture nor the potential implications of HB187.

What has happened in the past does not matter.
What you think will happen in the future does not matter. 
What matters is *WHAT COULD HAPPEN* under the law.

The people that own properties along the river will not always own those properties. Therefore, just because you have been able to fish property in the past does not mean you will be able to fish it into the future.

In order to understand the potential implications of HB187 you have to look at what is possible. You have to look at what it says. It is rather complicated, but I'll do the best I can through this medium.

First: Look at the definition of a "Private Bed" which is anything that is not navigable.

Keep in mind that navigable means generally that at the time Utah became a state (1/4/1896) the body of water was being used, or could have been used as a transportation route for boats, ships or as "highways for commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water. Under HB187's definition of Navigable, none of our reservoirs would even count.

Second, HB187 says:
"Except as provided by Subsection (2), a person who touches a *private bed* (remember....this is anything not Navigable) is subject to liability for trespass."

What that means is that unless sub(2) permits it, it could be made illegal under the proposed bill.

Now, lets see what Sub(2) says: "Except as provided by Subsection (5), a person may engage in a recreational activity [*defined in the statute as fishing, swimming or floating in/on a raft, canoe or kayak....thereby excluding hunting, tubing, wading, hiking or anything else*] on or within a public water (i) listed in Section 73-6a-202; AND (ii) located on or adjacent to property to which access is restricted.

Therefore, ALL "PRIVATE WATER" would/could be off limits. Private water is defined as any water that someone has a right to that has been or is being stored or diverted.

Additionally, unless the public water is listed in 73-6a-202 AND it's located on or adjacent to property to which access is restricted [which is also defined in the statute as means real property that falls into one of the following 4 categories:

(a) that is cultivated land, as defined in Section 23-20-14; 
(b) that is: (i) properly posted, as defined in Section 23-20-14; or (ii) posted as described in Title 76, Chapter 6, Part 2, Burglary and Criminal Trespass;
(c) that is fenced or enclosed as described in Title 76, Chapter 6, Part 2, Burglary and 124 Criminal Trespass; or
(d) that the owner or a person authorized to act on the owner's behalf has requested a person to leave as provided by: (i) Section 23-20-14; or (ii) Title 76, Chapter 6, Part 2, Burglary and Criminal Trespass.]

it also would/could be off limits

Now look at the waters listed in section 202. You could legally fish, swim or float (but not hunt, tube or float tube) over those sections of those rivers, BUT you could not fish (you could still swim or float on a canoe, raft or kayak) in any of those sections of rivers OR on/in any "Public Water" if it was located on or adjacent to property to which access is restricted; and within 500 feet of a single family dwelling that is built before May 12, 2009.

The wording of this bill is pathetically bad and could definitely be used for way more than it is even intended to do.

There are also major problems with the proposed creation of a board. Here is my quick take on that. First, the board could take away anything this statute gives. Second, its make-up is six land interested reps and one angler. No hunters, no boaters, no average joes. Third, the board only exists for 6 years. The board members' terms are for 3 years each and they can serve twice. That means that throughout its life there will only likely be one board. By then they should be able to vote everything off of the usability list they want and lock us out entirely without recourse.

While I am not opposed to some sort of compromise, HB187 IS NOT IT. HB187 attempts to address problems that have not even arisen yet. It is like outlawing all food because there is salmonella in peanut butter. It's overkill driven by the personal interests.

Don't believe anyone that says this won't happen. If its written in there (or not written in there) it could happen and at some point it probably would.

We need to fight against this bill and if necessary support something that addresses REAL needs and REAL problems not personal interests.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm off work and don't have the internet at home or I'd question some of the things you just said.... a lot of it is contradictory. You say its not about what could happen but then you say the bill affects things that could happen in the future.... HUH? :shock: You say that the bill is worded badly to the effect that it can be interpreted with a negative turn towards the angling side of things... I see the bad wording as an opportunity ripe with loopholes for anglers to take full advantage.... if this hasn't completely died off by Tuesday, I'll pick it back up then, otherwise, I've said my piece. Oh.. .and I'll probably be taking advantage on Monday. See ya, you guys have a good weekend. 8)


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I think the reasons for the contridictions are that the bill is so poorly written, it creates several contridictions.

One problem UtahTU and I were discussing today was the 500 foot rule. What happens if Joe owns the land on the east side of the River, and Bob on the West. Joe is fine with guys fishing it, but Bob posts it closed. Then what? 

If Bob closes the river behind his house, can his grandkids get a ticket when he takes them fishing there? Can Bob be ticketed as well? Or can he open and close it as he pleases? 

Can Bob also change the limits on his own little private stretch of river? 

This bill creates far more questions than it resolves. It is BAD BAD BAD BAD.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

LawMan said:


> Don't believe anyone that says this won't happen. If its written in there (or not written in there) it could happen and at some point it probably would.


Bet on it...it isn't written that way by accident or oversight. Good evaluation there, Lawman.

The committee's purpose is obviously to make future refinements. It's an open admission that the bill is incomplete as is and a great political ploy for recruiting support in good faith. Problem is, I don't believe this is a good faith agreement.

I'm all for compromise, but a pig in a poke isn't a compromise.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

A family friend we have is in the legislature told us that 90-95% of people contacting him are against the bill; it’s hard to imagine numbers across the state being much different. Thus to my recognizing if the bill is passed the Utah legislator ignored 90-95% of the state. Thank you REPRESENTATIVES!!! If you don’t vote it down who are you representing??????

I can't believe the DWR is behind this bill, how can they be for a bill that would close access to hundreds of miles of fishing for the public. I CAN'T BELIVE IT!!! The DWR should be 100% for access and the public. And putting our faith in some committee to look out for the public interest, the only thing they will do is restrict more. How can anyone put their faith in the DWR and their protecting the public's interest. How can fishermen in the state of Utah be for a bill that restricts access to hundreds of miles of river? :evil:


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Guns and Flies said:


> A family friend we have is in the legislature told us that 90-95% of people contacting him are against the bill; it's hard to imagine numbers across the state being much different. Thus to my recognizing if the bill is passed the Utah legislator ignored 90-95% of the state. Thank you REPRESENTATIVES!!! If you don't vote it down who are you representing??????
> 
> I can't believe the DWR is behind this bill, how can they be for a bill that would close access to hundreds of miles of fishing for the public. I CAN'T BELIVE IT!!! The DWR should be 100% for access and the public. And putting our faith in some committee to look out for the public interest, the only thing they will do is restrict more. How can anyone put their faith in the DWR and their protecting the public's interest. How can fishermen in the state of Utah be for a bill that restricts access to hundreds of miles of river? :evil:


You sound FIRED up!! Run with that and contact everyone you can.


----------



## troutscout (Feb 12, 2009)

I believe on some strange level the DWR wanted some clarification on the original ruling. Why they thought that Ferry could provide this is way beyond me. Of course he misled them, used them and then left them naked on the side of the road. He's a politician in the pockets of wealthy landowners. Anyone check his contributions? What was it, like over 1 million from developers? Of course he screwed them over. I'm ticked at them for believing they could work something out with a dude like Ferry. He doesn't have a personal interest or stance on this at all, does he?? This statement only reaffirms the stupidity of the DWR.

It time for the DWR to be on SNL on "Really?!? with Seth and Amy"

"The Division appreciates Representative Ferry's willingness to attempt to balance recreational and private property interests. His approach is much preferred to a bill that would completely reverse the Supreme Court ruling."

They call this bill a balance? 17 rivers that we can't fully access isn't a balance. Ferry has removed us from the scale. What this bill could do is worse than a reversal. At least with a reversal we would have what we had before. With this bill even that is at stake.

"The Division has worked closely with Representative Ferry to provide needed information as he drafted the bill."

All they did was to provide Ferry with stats he needed to size up the competition and squash us. They gave him the info to saw we're only 4,000 fly fisherman, who cares? The DWR was stupid enough to hand him all that ammo so he could mow down sportsmen.

"There is a great deal of misinformation circulating about HB 187 and what it does and does not do. The Division believes the public should obtain the correct information about this bill so they can make an informed decision on whether to support or oppose it. We encourage everyone to go the Utah State Legislature Web site and read House Bill 187"

I've read it pleanty of times, slowly, line by line, as we all have. What do they think we are missing? The info is all right there, blaring at us. Just because we are pissed and don't like it doesn't mean that it's miss information. The only misinformed people are the ones at the DWR.

"What the bill does not do is affect, in any way, accessibility to public waters on public lands or private lands that already have easements in place. Many have assumed wrongly that this bill somehow affects the status of our great fishing and other recreational opportunities on public lands."

Again, have they read the bill?? Throughout this whole statement they constantly contradict themselves.

"Regardless how HB 187 turns out, the Division will continue to make it a high priority to acquire access and to improve fishing opportunities for anglers."

Give me a break. High priority? The bus keeps backing up and driving forwards. It's too bad all the money they spent(we spent) on restoration and upkeep is going to go to waste if the bill passes. This whole statement only proves what we already knew in the first place. It's absurd!

^^ike


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Guns and Flies said:


> A family friend we have is in the legislature told us that 90-95% of people contacting him are against the bill; it's hard to imagine numbers across the state being much different. Thus to my recognizing if the bill is passed the Utah legislator ignored 90-95% of the state. Thank you REPRESENTATIVES!!! If you don't vote it down who are you representing??????
> 
> I can't believe the DWR is behind this bill, how can they be for a bill that would close access to hundreds of miles of fishing for the public. I CAN'T BELIVE IT!!! The DWR should be 100% for access and the public. And putting our faith in some committee to look out for the public interest, the only thing they will do is restrict more. How can anyone put their faith in the DWR and their protecting the public's interest. How can fishermen in the state of Utah be for a bill that restricts access to hundreds of miles of river? :evil:


The response form the Governors office is claiming that they are receiving equal amount of email from both sides of this issue. Liers!


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

troutscout said:


> I believe on some strange level the DWR wanted some clarification on the original ruling. Why they thought that Ferry could provide this is way beyond me. Of course he misled them, used them and then left them naked on the side of the road. He's a politician in the pockets of wealthy landowners. Anyone check his contributions? What was it, like over 1 million from developers? Of course he screwed them over. I'm ticked at them for believing they could work something out with a dude like Ferry. He doesn't have a personal interest or stance on this at all, does he?? This statement only reaffirms the stupidity of the DWR.
> 
> It time for the DWR to be on SNL on "Really?!? with Seth and Amy"
> 
> ...


+1000000000000

No way the Governers office is getting equal on both sides. You bet I'm fired up, there is hundres of miles of rivers and streams on the line here. This is such a big deal, it is too bad a lot of people don't realize what is at stake here.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

For those who are sincerely interested in becoming better educated on the subject; here is a comment board on KSL on the topic http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&si ... ments=true
It would appear that a couple of these guys know what they are talking about; if nothing else it seems to be a pretty enlightened discussion. I gained a little better understanding. I personally would not be affected directly by this ruling either way, so I think I have a fairly objective point of view. The one thing that really gets me is that technically a guy who has a tiny stream or spring or even a ditch that starts ten feet outside of his fence on public property would give some of these guys who do not appreciate or respect anything the right to cross into their land in this tiny stream only two inches deep walk in for a mile (in the water the whole time) into where he has built up ponds with blinds on his very expensive land that he has invested millions in and had to buy the water rights. Maybe I have misunderstood, but I think in this example some guy could enter such private land staying in the water and hunt and fish all he wants as long as it originates or leads to a public property or even a public easement. * If that is the case, does anyone really think that there is not a need for a change (from the way the law is now with the court ruling)? * In the spirit of full disclosure, I own a whole 0.17 acre lot, the end. My fam owns about 10 acres of farm land, nothing that can legally be hunted on or fished on since there is no water.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

I feel like you are preaching to the wrong coir on this one. I am pretty sure no one on this forum would do that. You present a valid point but I dont see where this is possible? Well maybe left fork of Hobble. What gets me about this whole thing is that you would think that an actual land owner on say the weber would fight this and and have some crazy story of someone breaking in at night and letting all his livestock out and they were all lost or something.


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

It just doesn't happen. Fisherman are not looking for little ditches to walk up just to get on some private property. All the fishermen want to do is catch a few trout and then go home. We are not camping on someones property. We are not shooting holes through barns and dwellings. We are not cutting down fences or letting livestock run wild. We are not pulling up vegetation and digging in stream banks. All of these acusations are made up to try to lock us out. We are not criminals. Most of us don't even harvest the fish we catch, although the DWR would like us to. We are not looking to cause trouble. I don't know why they want to paint with such a broad stroke and claim it is the fishermen who are trashing places and ruining property. If you are one of the small minority that is a vandal and a jerk to landowners, knock it the heck off!

It is possible to respect the private property and still fish these areas. If someone is already in an area, then don't go in. Having several parties of fishermen in on someones property is not good for the fishing anyway. If you find trash pick it up. If it's fishing realted trash, for sure pick it up. We must let the landowners know we respect their land and that we will help them maintain it and that we will stay in the stream or river.


----------



## nightfish (Apr 29, 2008)

Huge29 said:


> The one thing that really gets me is that technically a guy who has a tiny stream or spring or even a ditch that starts ten feet outside of his fence on public property would give some of these guys who do not appreciate or respect anything the right to cross into their land in this tiny stream only two inches deep walk in for a mile (in the water the whole time) into where he has built up ponds with blinds on his very expensive land that he has invested millions in and had to buy the water rights. Maybe I have misunderstood, but I think in this example some guy could enter such private land staying in the water and hunt and fish all he wants as long as it originates or leads to a public property or even a public easement.


There is some misunderstanding in this scenario. A ditch is not a natural water of the state, and the court ruling does not allow for an easement through any manmade streambed, or to pass over a headgate, upstream or downstream. There may be an easement if it is a natural spring, but there also has to be a legal point of public access (public road right-of-way, or outright public land). *The ruling does not allow for an easement outside the streambed* so while it may be legal to hunt through the private property while within the easement, it would not be legal to exit the streambed to retreive the fallen game.

As for the private ponds, that's iffy. It could be said that a private artificial pond contains waters of the state, it may also be categorized the same as a ditch, canal, headgate etc. And if the dam or dike used federal or state money for construction, there would be a case for an easement for public use. Use of the blinds however, would clearly be tresspassing.



Huge29 said:


> If that is the case, does anyone really think that there is not a need for a change (from the way the law is now with the court ruling)? [/b]


I do not believe there is a need for a change of the ruling handed down by the supreme court. I do believe, however, that there is a strong need for further defining of the courts ruling. In particular, what is the streambed. I would suggest the natural high water mark, because it is a clear delineation that is understood by landowner, user, and enforcement. The rules of portage (crossing fences, gates etc for the purpose of navigating around obstacles in the streambed) need to be provided.

I believe new laws, as they relate to Conatser v. Johnson, should allow for harsher penalties of tresspass outside the easement (between the high water marks), harsher penalties for damages to private property as a result of tresspassing from a public easement. Harsher penalties for improperly posting public waters as private. Specific penalties for the harrassment by landowners of users legally using the easement, and landowners being harrassed by users of the public easement.

I believe that user groups have the responsibility to cooperate with landowners, and that the landowners have the same responsibility, by assisting with the procurement and placement of stiles (ladders) for crossing fences for the purpose of portage, and for the placement of signage encouraging respect of private property and information on what the laws are regarding the easement.

And I would hope that everyone understands that it is a very small minority of anglers, hunters, rafters and other public users, and landowners that are the bad guys in how things are perceived overall. The average user and landowner is respectful, tolerant and neighborghly, and another minority on either side goes out of their way to accommodate and defend the rights and interests of the other side of the fence.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> I feel like you are preaching to the wrong coir on this one. I am pretty sure no one on this forum would do that.


Kyle,
I am just thinking of a different scenarios as to why this change is being pushed for--not an issue of who would do that, it is an issue of what anyone could do at any point legally, more on that below.


Dead Drifter said:


> It just doesn't happen. Fisherman are not looking for little ditches to walk up just to get on some private property. All the fishermen want to do is catch a few trout and then go home. *We* are not camping on someones property. *We* are not shooting holes through barns and dwellings. We are not cutting down fences or letting livestock run wild. *We* are not pulling up vegetation and digging in stream banks. All of these acusations are made up to try to lock *us* out.


I don't know who "we" are??? I take your comments as ... uninformed. Your bias is so strong that it seems to sway your ability to analyze the situation logically. Why do landowners let friends enter, but not strangers? Because they know that friends will respect their property. I own no property, but hope to in the distant future. I have seen property damage and blatant trespass. The only false accusations I have heard are ironically...yours possibly?? No where was damage or camping mentioned in my scenario (but yes I have seen that happen too). Obviously, most sportsmen are pretty good, I simply try to see the other person's point of view to better understand both sides instead of only focusing on mine and then bad mouthing the other side's, it is counter productive.



nightfish said:


> There is some misunderstanding in this scenario. A ditch is not a natural water of the state, and the court ruling does not allow for an easement through any manmade streambed, or to pass over a headgate, upstream or downstream. There may be an easement if it is a natural spring, but there also has to be a legal point of public access (public road right-of-way, or outright public land). *The ruling does not allow for an easement outside the streambed* so while it may be legal to hunt through the private property while within the easement, it would not be legal to exit the streambed to retreive the fallen game.
> 
> As for the private ponds, that's iffy. It could be said that a private artificial pond contains waters of the state, it may also be categorized the same as a ditch, canal, headgate etc. And if the dam or dike used federal or state money for construction, there would be a case for an easement for public use. Use of the blinds however, would clearly be trespassing.


Good points NF. I was a little vague on purpose. To pin it down exactly, here it is: theoretical Land owner owns land with natural springs all over. One natural spring originates on north side of state highway, goes under highway and then continues back on to private property (same private landowner on both sides of highway). This spring has minimal water of probably 3" deep and 12" wide. The spring leads to ponds and dikes where the landowner has invested thousands of dollars in blinds and vegetation. A person would not have to cross any head gates to access these theoreitcal ponds, only jump a fence from the highway/public easement. From my humble understanding, this could legally happen and the hunter could then hunt as long as he stays in the water. If that is correct, I have a problem with that and I think anyone who believes in freedom would too. In this case, do you guys believe there should be a change? * Should we be able to take advantage of the landowner in this case where the actual spring would not have ever had any fish or waterfowl on it? *
No preaching, just a thought. I think the Weber, Provo, Price, Logan, etc. etc. are a different topic all together. Another possible question is: should a person be able to access a river through an area known to be a spawning area crossing private property that would destroy the eggs? I think the supreme court case was clearly an abuse by the land owner, but I think that was as rare of a case as the scenario above.


----------



## troutscout (Feb 12, 2009)

I think the intent matters. If someone is walking up that ditch their intent is to get onto someone's property, not to fish or recreate. Ponds, lakes, man made and natural are off limits. I understand what your saying with your scenario but it's not really that plausible. 

I think the we he was referring to was sportsmen, who in the majority, take care of and respect private land. Like everything else in life the rules are made for those few who can't follow them. Punished those people, cite them heavily, but don't punish everyone for a small groups mistake. I'm am more than willing, as well as most will be, to work with landowners to prove we deserve this. Before the Supreme court ruling there were plenty of access points along all rivers that we established by working together with the owners. But just like the few sportsmen who piss of the landowners there are the few landowners who never want to see someone within 500' of their property. We both have alot to prove to each other. 

^^ike


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

troutscout said:


> I think the intent matters. If someone is walking up that ditch their intent is to get onto someone's property, not to fish or recreate. Ponds, lakes, man made and natural are off limits. I understand what your saying with your scenario but it's not really that plausible. ^^ike


I agree with you that the bad apples are few, but they sure leave an awful bitter taste in the landowner's mouth for a long time. BUT, the theoretical situation is not just theoretical, this is a real land set up mentioned. In my humble understanding, you, I or anyone could enter on this spring and then hunt or fish his pond, correct? As long as we stay in the water, correct? That is my one and only point. Hopefully there is an exception to this based on some law, but from what I understand we can all enter and enjoy. Maybe this is an exception as there are man made dikes, but if they were natural lakes coming from this one small spring of many, I think we all have access. Please enlighten me. I think many folks here are only hearing what they want to hear on this subject. I am undecided as I have more to learn, just like on this issue.


----------



## nightfish (Apr 29, 2008)

Huge29 said:


> Good points NF. I was a little vague on purpose. To pin it down exactly, here it is: theoretical Land owner owns land with natural springs all over. One natural spring originates on north side of state highway, goes under highway and then continues back on to private property (same private landowner on both sides of highway). This spring has minimal water of probably 3" deep and 12" wide. The spring leads to ponds and dikes where the landowner has invested thousands of dollars in blinds and vegetation. A person would not have to cross any head gates to access these theoreitcal ponds, only jump a fence from the highway/public easement. From my humble understanding, this could legally happen and the hunter could then hunt as long as he stays in the water. If that is correct, I have a problem with that and I think anyone who believes in freedom would too. In this case, do you guys believe there should be a change? * Should we be able to take advantage of the landowner in this case where the actual spring would not have ever had any fish or waterfowl on it? *
> No preaching, just a thought. I think the Weber, Provo, Price, Logan, etc. etc. are a different topic all together. Another possible question is: should a person be able to access a river through an area known to be a spawning area crossing private property that would destroy the eggs? I think the supreme court case was clearly an abuse by the land owner, but I think that was as rare of a case as the scenario above.


To pin it down exactly, I would need to know the exact location of that property and how the exact state right of way affects the access as it pertains to lawful entry as defined by Conatser vs. Johnson. As a person interested in fairness and protection of the rights on all sides, I would love a chance to see this place in person and talk to the landowner about his concerns. Would you be willing to help me make that connection?

Back to your intentionally less vague scenario  , a hunter may very well have legal access to the spring fed streamcourse onto the property. But he still would not have the right to leave the easement to retreive game. And while the waters impounded by the dikes and ponds may still be questionable, the blinds, dike structures and roads around the property would still be very clearly private and protected by existing tresspass laws. If, as you state, the water never had fish, why would you be concerned with an angler attempting to access the property? If that was my land, I'd grab a soda and a bag of popcorn and enjoy watching the idiot flail the water! To say that it would never have had waterfowl is ridiculous though. Ducks do fly to water, and springs are very attractive to them, especially as they are usually free flowing in our icebox winters.

I understand the landowners concerns on this specific issue, but a law intended to cover a whole state should NEVER be written to suit a single and specific citizen or property.

As for the spawning issue, no, I am not concerned with the risks to redds (fish egg nests) in a stream running through private land and within a public easement. It is a very easy thing to educate users on how to recognize and avoid stepping on redds (a photo on a stick with a very skinny paragraph of information would do). As trout are not broadcast spawners, a wading angler would not risk crushing eggs with every step. Further, most trout (basically what we're talking about here in utah) don't spawn at high water, so a standard easement defined as the high water mark would normally give anglers plenty of dry land passage around spawning habitat. Finally, if the spawning population was truly at risk, the Conatser vs. Johnson ruling in no way affected the ability of the DWR to set open and closed seasons on any species or on any water. If that were the case, signage informing the non-angling user could easily be placed educating that user about redds, why they should be avoided, and ask to please stay out of the water and within the easement (high water mark). Cows, on the other hand, are a significant risk to spawning populations. Cows can't read signs, so you can't teach them to avoid a redd. They crush way more eggs than a human foot could, they remove riparian growth that cools the water and shelter fry, and they increase the sediment load which smothers redds and raises water temperatures. So no, I have no concerns for spawning populations as they may be affected by anglers. At least no more concern than I have for spawning in public waters.


----------



## troutscout (Feb 12, 2009)

129 (9) (a) "Public water" means water:
130 (i) described in Section 73-1-1 ; and
131 (ii) flowing on the surface:
132 (A) within a natural channel; or
133 (B) ponded in a natural lake or reservoir on a natural channel.
134 (b) "Public water" does not include private water.

I guess it depends on the specifics. If the ponds or lakes are man made or not. I guess its more plausible than I originally thought. This just points out how this bill is going to a mess for everyone to understand and even worse to try an enforce. It's way too unclear on too many points. I do agree someone should not be able to walk up a trickle and fish a nice private pond. 

^^ike


----------



## LawMan (Sep 25, 2007)

Regarding ridiculous scenarios of infringement on private property rights, it is important to remember that the "recreation easement" over public waters that are not really navigable, is limited to touching the beds where that touching is non-destructive, non-invasive and incidental to the recreation that is being engaged in. The easement is not a transportation easement. This would prevent someone from walking miles up an unfishable, unfloatable, unhuntable water way to get to privately developed property.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

LawMan said:


> Regarding ridiculous scenarios of infringement on private property rights, it is important to remember that the "recreation easement" over public waters that are not really navigable, is limited to touching the beds where that touching is non-destructive, non-invasive and incidental to the recreation that is being engaged in. The easement is not a transportation easement. This would prevent someone from walking miles up an unfishable, unfloatable, unhuntable water way to get to privately developed property.


Good points Troutscout and Lawman! This type of scenario was discussed on the KSL board and insinuated that such access was possible on there. That kind of puts the kabosh to my scenario discussion. I was just trying to explore the landowner's concerns, which has not been hit very well on this thread IMHO. It seems to be mostly extremely biased fishermen who don't care about anyone else's interests than their own; and then came nightfish, Lawman and Troutscout and ruined all of the fun by interjecting logic into the discussion, nice goiing guys! :wink:


----------



## troutscout (Feb 12, 2009)

From the landowners I've talked to directly and what i've heard from other people they are worried about trespass on their property, damage and in many cases their livestock. There seems to be some confusion about the original ruling and some people thought that they could access the river where ever they wanted on someone's property. That's simply not true. Access still has to be obtained legally through establisted easements or through public land. For instance on the Weber below Rockport. I could access the river at the campground right below the dam and walk all the way down to Echo. I couldn't pull up someone's driveway and walk around their house to the river (at least not without their permission). I've heard second hand stories of just that happening over the last year. I would say to landowners - If someone is illegally accessing your property, then call the sheriff and have them cited. Don't try to deal with it yourself. That just turns ugly for both parties and then the horror stories circulate on both sides. This past year, as I've fished through newly opened sections I've had people come out and talk with me kindly, thank me for picking up trash and sit and watch me cautiously. It's hard, even though I'm there legally, to sit and fish under a microscope.

When I was young and had just started fly fishing I was on the upper Weber, at the bridge, at the mouth of Browns Canyon. I had just fished there with my uncle and we put in on the other side where there weren't any signs. I thought it was fine and legal what we were doing. So later I was there by myself and didn't know that the stream bed wasn't mine to walk on. I'm fishing, standing in the water, near the other side of the river and look up and see an angry dude, holding a shotgun. He yells at me this is private property and I had better get off his property. I told him I was sorry and didn't know I had done anything wrong but he didn't care. He continued yelling at me to leave while threatening to fill my back with rock salt. To a 16 year old this is pretty scary. I booked it out of there. Luckily I had a shorter walk to my car than he did. I haven't been back there yet, which is too bad because it's an awesome stretch of river. 

I still it's going to be vital in the future to work together to secure access with landowners. This issue isn't going to go away and is going to be hashed out one way or another. I doubt ether side will be happy with any compromise made. 

^^ike


----------



## ByteMe (Feb 12, 2009)

HighNDry said:


> I hope I don't get into trouble for tagging this from another site, but I thoght it was well written and enlightening. Sorry ByteMe, but I had to share your thoughts here.


No Problem, HighNDry.

I sent my comments and questions regarding the DWR's official position on HB 187 that were referenced earlier in this thread to Karpowitz last Friday but have not received a response.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

So any idea when this bull, I mean house bill goes before the House? I do I still need to be grassrooting?


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

From here on out, the grass rooting must never stop. Tell everyone you see and talk to.


----------



## Nueces (Jul 22, 2008)

Guns and Flies said:


> A family friend we have is in the legislature told us that 90-95% of people contacting him are against the bill..


I hope that is the case. That is just "him" ... what about all the other representatives and their position. I'm sure the landowers don't like it just due to statistics - there are fewer land owners than the general public, not everyone can own huge amounts of land, there isn't enough to go around.

I know some streams that are great fishing that are not listed on this bill. It will be interesting to see what happens.


----------

