This was in this morning Trib and also KSL web site.
[url "https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46204056&nid=148&title=anglers-win-access-to-stretch-of-weber-river"]https://www.ksl.com/...retch-of-weber-river[/url]
[signature]
This ruling is in fact is BAD news for all those who think they are going to some day get the right to trespass every dribble of water in Utah.
More precedence leaning towards navigability being the bases for Utah access law.
The whole argument is based on navigability,,, as it should be. There are so many in this "Right To Trespass" movement that just plain ignore that fact.
Those behind the moment are in fact having a very hard time showing many consequential waters in Utah that have historical navigability.
They would have better luck if they called themselves River Access, not Stream Access.
[signature]
Troll, I don't know why you are sorry I feel the way I stated above. I pretty much agree with everything that you said.
I have always said that the Conatser decision was an over reach and that HB 141 reached too far in the other direction in a knee jerk reaction.
By the way the legislative process you described is the pretty much the way it works most places.
Also I have said that the whole issue will be played out on a case by case basis with each case being based on navigability. As it should be.
Am I wrong in saying it should be River access not Stream access.
I just happen to love my privet property rights even though I do not have any water ways running though my property. Just saying be careful what you ask for.
[signature]
For those following the cases this was a big deal. As stated above me the fact that it was navigable at statehood means the river bed up to high water mark is public property, whether it is navagable now or not, as long as it was at statehood. Think of all the rivers and streams that have been dammed up and aren't navagable to float through, that before the dams were built would have been. The definition of navagable does need to be more clearly defined and I think that is where your view of it may come from. And I belive the definition of navagable doesn't mean a passenger vessel needs to be able to travel the river, it could be a small raft carrying timber, or anything else, which is how they would have hauled such things before cars existed. Does anyone know when the Provo case is to be decided?
[signature]
After much testimony from Potamologists, Limnoloigists, Historians, and lawyers their will be very few waterways in Utah that will fall into most definitions of navigable.
You might notice that USAC has backed away from the "2700 miles of waterways" in
Utah that should be opened up to trespass. They are no doubt coming to the realization that a very few of those 2700 miles will be opened up.
Yes next up is the Provo. At 68 miles long much is already open, some of it now running through a reservoir another third of that 68 miles has a classification order no more than a 3 on the waterways order scale.
It will play out case by case so you can see where this right to trespass movement is going. Not very far and not very fast.
[signature]
Nobody is asking to trespass. We are asking for the right to use what is ours.
Nothing more, nothing less.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]
[quote Fishrmn]Nobody is asking to trespass. We are asking for the right to use what is ours.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I agree.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF][/quote]
[signature]
But the Provo case is not about navagabilty at all. It is about the right to use public water ways that was made illegal by HB141, which they have already decided was against the Utah constitution.
Both cases are being contested with different arguments, of which the combo of navagable and also a public right to use public water in our constitution will be the basis for opening up access to use what is ours.
This is not a trespass issue, it's a public land issue. We have a right to use the water and doing so is not treaspassing in anyway according the the Utah state constitution.
[signature]
At this time the issue of navigability is the only thing that has had any effect on the weakening HB141.
There is not much precedence for using recreation as an argument to over turn private property rights law. As it it should be.
The whole argument is very slowly playing out just like it has in the vast majority of states. And like those states Utah's waterways trespass laws will finally settle on the issue of navagability.
[signature]
[quote castnshoot]The whole argument is based on navigability,,, as it should be. There are so many in this "Right To Trespass" movement that just plain ignore that fact.[/quote]
Spot on assessment. I was back in UT this past week. We have family that owns several miles of land that the Weber flows through. The only way to get to it is to basically swim upstream from a bridge (no way you can wade there) or park roughly 2 miles above it and wade down. We watched an individual open, and leave open, a gate used to keep cattle in. we confronted them and asked that they access from upstream. they were rude, tried their best to cuss at me, and tell me that they were following the law. Once i got the phone out to call the sheriff they changed their tune.
the family member that owns this land has zero issue with anyone fishing the river, if they access it legally. he even put a sign up near the public access that explains on how to do this, but some people still believe they can do what ever they want to get to the river.
[signature]
Yeah some people want their cake and to eat it too. Makes us all look bad as anglers. I think your family has the right attitude about the situation and I would call the sheriff myself if the river wasn't accessed through a public easement. And to leave a cattle gate open to boot. Make me shake my head.
[signature]