Well the bill went through, 10 to 4,
Rep. Roger E. Barrus, Chair - Against us
Rep. John G. Mathis, Vice Chair - Against us
Rep. Melvin R. Brown - Against us
Rep. Brad L. Dee - With us
Rep. Jack R. Draxler - Against us ---- rolled on us; his (2) rivers are now on the "list"
Rep. Kerry W. Gibson – Against us
Rep. James R. Gowans -Against us
Rep. Neal B. Hendrickson -Against us
Rep. Michael E. Noel - Against us
Rep. Patrick Painter - Against us--- switched was Fence
Rep. Phil Riesen - With us
Rep. Christine F. Watkins - With us
Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox - With Us
Rep. Bradley A. Winn - Against us
There was an amendment made to the 500 foot rule it was changed to 150 ft or within sight whichever is closest.
I suggest looking at the list of Reps and if they are yours letting them know what you think. From now until re-election time I think their actions and decisions should be made known to the general public NOT JUST THOSE CONCERNED ON THIS ISSUE. This is more than a right to public access, its about constitutional rights given us by the Constitution of State of Utah, if this can be taken away, then so can anything else.We dont have many allies in this the UAC and Blue River Advisory council and TU had nothiing of value to add, SFW hasn't been heard of and the DWR well, you know.
[signature]
Unfortunatly, Orvy, this was not a constitutional interpertation made by the court. It was interpertation of statue. If it was interpertation of the constitution it would take a constitutional ammendment to change it, not just a HB that became law. If it was a constitutional matter it would have to go to a general election after passing the house and senate. Like the marrige thing the year before last.
This is much harder on us as the legislat can pass this law and until it is challanged in the courts by someone who is arrested for violating it, the Supreme cannot weigh in again.
This is how politics and politicians work. A series of sneaky end runs.
So we have Wilcox, Watson, Reison and Dee.
I would sugest we all e-mail them and thank them for their support as well as writing the naysayers and let them know that you cannot support them and will contribute to anyone who campaigns against them.
Orvy, where can we find out which of the above reps are ® or (D)?
[signature]
Here is a list of who they represent and their party.
Rep. Roger E. Barrus, Chair (Centerville) -Yes
Rep. John G. Mathis, Vice Chair - Yes
Rep. Melvin R. Brown (Coalville) - Yes
Rep. Brad L. Dee (Ogden) - No
Rep. Jack R. Draxler (North Logan) - Yes
Rep. Kerry W. Gibson (Ogden) - Yes
Rep. James R. Gowans (Tooele) - Yes
Rep. Neal B. Hendrickson (West Valley) - Yes
Rep. Michael E. Noel (Kanab) - Yes
Rep. Patrick Painter (Nephi) - Yes
Rep. Phil Riesen (SLC) - No
Rep. Christine F. Watkins (Price) - No
Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox (Ogden) - No
Rep. Bradley A. Winn (Ephraim) - Yes
Rep. Roger E. Barrus, Chair - Against us (Republican)
Rep. John G. Mathis, Vice Chair - Against us (Republican)
Rep. Melvin R. Brown - Against us (Republican)
Rep. Brad L. Dee - With us (Republican)
Rep. Jack R. Draxler - Against us --- (republican)
Rep. Kerry W. Gibson – Against us (Republican)
Rep. James R. Gowans -Against us (Democrat, minority whip)
Rep. Neal B. Hendrickson -Against us (Democrat)
Rep. Michael E. Noel - Against us (Republican)
Rep. Patrick Painter - Against us--- switched was Fence (Republican)
Rep. Phil Riesen - With us (Democrat)
Rep. Christine F. Watkins - With us (Democrat)
Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox - With Us (Republican)
Rep. Bradley A. Winn - Against us (Republican)
[signature]
Wilcox and Dee both of Ogden, this is good, to have a concentration of support in a populated area. Maybe Godfrey could be a supporter too.
It looks like 80% of ®'s are against us and 50% of (D)'s. Lets get the parties involved now. Add the state party leaders to the list of people to write.
I'm getting tired of writing, but we must all stay excited and committed to this cause. We are out gunned and out numbered by the looks of things, so it will be even harder. We must write each rep who voted against us and let them know we have signed up to the legislative watch website and will be opposing every piece of legislation they introduce, just on principle. We may need to picket their offices and places of business. We can't picket their homes, they passed a law against that. If they are insurance agents, cancel the policies and get with some one else. If they are real estate agents, do a tour then tell them you won't buy because of their position if they are dairy farmers, write Winder and Cache Valley cheese to let them know we won't buy their products if they buy the reps milk.
Time to pull out all the stops and get mean. Send them a copy of the check you sent to their opponent, promise to volunteer to campaingn for them if they will vote with us, and will volunteer to work against them if they don't.
Keep printing the fliers, keep passing them out. Talk to every fisher we see on the ice, lake, river or launch ramp. Ask every clerk in every sporting goods store, ect. ect.
Thanks for the info Orvy. How do you get this stuff, I searched for an hour last night and could not get the vote count. What is the website?
[signature]
Jeff is a freaking news hog
]
[signature]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 4]Unfortunately, Gibson voted for it. I just fired off my second letter to him and PROMISED to “. . . do everything in my power to oppose you in the next election cycle. I’m fairly sure that I can influence most of my neighbors to also oppose your reelection over this issue as almost all of them are outdoor folks and they all fish.” I’m not sure if I will influence him, but I have to try.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 4] [/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 4]Anybody who is represented by the other ‘YES’ voters should also send letters to them voicing your disappointment and disapproval.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 4] [/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 4]We can not win if we do not fight.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[signature]
Draxler voted to send it through to the floor, but did go on the record stating he still has major issues with the bill. I still think he is more of a 'friend' than a 'foe'. But, that doesn't mean some sound logical persuasion could not help him become more of a friend.
There are definitely 4 people who are not friends to anglers in the House right now. Ferry, McIff, Noel, and Brown. Being in the same room as all 4 of them yesterday made my skin crawl. Those are the 4 that need to be ousted.....good luck!
Anyway, the process has just begun. The bill has only been public for 10 days. One thing we should really be focusing on in these emails, letters, and phone calls is 1- The process has failed in this case. The public has spoken, and the representatives seem to not be listening. 2- The process broke down in that there has been 20 minutes of time for the opponents of HB 187 to be a part of the process. Why not study this thing more so a REAL solution to the problem can be discovered? 3- We are watching closely, and we will take notice of those who do not support sportsmen in this state.
I think we are going to lose based upon the substance of the issue. Most of these legislators can't even spell court precedent, let alone know a thing about it. But if we attack the process behind how this is coming about, being that this is such and important and hotly contested issue, this should have more time and more input before it becomes law.
[signature]
it is not too early to start working on your State Senators. House members have to work through Ferry as the head of the Rules Committee (if they want to get a bill through the House) and the Senators I've talked to expect it to pass the House. If it does and goes to the Senate, I've heard more than one Senator wants to amend it and send it back to the House for interim study. (which is what should have happened yesterday). I sent all of the committee an email a few days ago with that very suggestion of interim study, but none of them wanted to take on Ferry, who is adamantly opposed to further study.
[signature]
Gibson is my rep, and I'm gonna let him know he'll get no votes from our house! That dirt bag didn't even respond to my original email.
[signature]
What about a newspaper article letting the uniformed public know what is going on. If we all pitch in it couldn't be that expensive.
[signature]
I spoke with my rep Ryan Wilcox 3 times including the contact through the rally and am pleased to say he is with us. I wasn't totally sure because he was weighing both sides, which he probably should look at all sides, but he came through. A couple state reps walked by me at the rally and asked what HB187 was and who sponsored it. we need to inform our reps. Everyone, please take the time to contact your reps with many e-mails or phone calls and give them the facts.
[signature]
I'm willing to bet a lot of the reps haven't heard of this bill and would be like to get wind of its contents and hear how their constituents stand on this..
[signature]
I e-mailed my rep Kraig Powell and this was his response."Thanks very much for your interest in the public waters bill. I agree that the bill as written is not in the public interest."
I don't know how it could be written so that he would vote for it but for now he is with us.
[signature]
[mad] It has come to my attention that Rep. Ferry, who is from Corrine, may be representing the many private duck hunting clubs that are found in his community. I wonder if he is a member or has been given free memberships from any of these clubs. Maybe someone could find out if this is true.
[signature]
[font "Verdana"][#ff0000]I e-mailed all the Representatives on the Ut Natural resources committe, my Senator, P Knudson, my Rep, C. Webb, Jim Karpowitz, Walt Donaldson, and Gov Huntsman. This may not be in the best form but here are some examples of replies i have received. It's a struggle but I want you to see we can and are making a difference with this thing. We still have a lot of work to do so don't let up! One thing I think we need to change in the bill if we can't kill it all together is this lame idea of a committee to add waters in the future. Let's deal with it now. I don't see many natural waterways opening up in Utah in the next 100 years. Is it just me or is it a bureaucratic ploy to pacify? The DWR doesn't seem to have any functional voice now and my confidence is close to zero that this board will have any impact other than to spend your tax dollars in the future. Anywho here are some sample replies.[/#ff0000][/font]
[font "Verdana"][#ff0000][/#ff0000][/font]
Thank you for your letter concerning HB-187. I appreciate your thoughts and passion concerning the matter.
I voted against the bill in committee Friday because I feel that the amount of confusion and conflict surrounding the matter deserves further study before any legislation is passed. I plan to continue my opposition to the bill as it makes its way onto the floor.
Thanks again for your concerns.
Rep. Phil Riesen
Dist. 36
--------------------------------------------
[font "Verdana"][#ff0000][/#ff0000][/font]
My name is Martin Bushman and I am an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Utah. Due to the legal nature of your comments, I have been asked to respond to your February 5, 2009 e-mail to Governor Huntsman concerning HB 187 and recreational access in public waters.
First, thank you for expressing your concerns over the limited number of waters designated in HB 187 as subject to the recreational easement recognized by the Utah Supreme Court in Conatser v. Johnson. Many others share your feelings. Although HB 187 identifies a relatively small number of waters open to recreational access, it also provides a process for adding new waters to the list. The Bill creates a Recreational Access Board charged with responsibility to consider petitions submitted by the public to include additional waters that meet specified legal criteria. After arriving at a determination on a given petition, the Board then makes recommendations to the Legislature to add waters to the list. Through this process, we anticipate the list of waters accessible to the public for recreational purposes to grow.
The bill is certainly not perfect, but it does attempt to strike a balance between recreational access rights and private landowner rights. Several key aspects of the bill are concerning and need to be addressed. Efforts are currently underway with Representative Ferry to reconcile them. Recreationists should likewise discuss their concerns with Representative Ferry while there is still time to amend the bill.
Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you.
Martin Bushman
Utah Attorney General's Office
1594 West North Temple, Suite 2110
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
-------------------------------------------------
the DWR has and is a strong advocate for getting angler access to waters on private ground. Unfortunately, there are a lot of rumors going around on HB187 that are simply not true. The State Supreme Court ruling on Conatser this past summer defined that anglers had a right to recreation on streams flowing through private land based on state statue (legislative authority), not state constitutional law. Some folks were pleased with this ruling, while others were not. (Note that it does not affect access to streams on federal or state lands that were and are open to the public prior to the ruling.)
If you will go to the DWR's website at [url "wlmailhtml:{929D8C6E-2421-4EDA-BD8C-428B3A65ABB4}mid://00000072/!x-usc:http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/fishing/waters_access.php"]www.wildlife.utah.gov/fishing/waters_access.php[/url] , you can obtain more information on HB187. The DWR is still in contact with angling groups and the bill's sponsor on issues of concern. As such, we strongly encourage you to contact your legislator and express your views on this matter.
Thank you for taking the time to ask about this issue.
Walt Donaldson
[url "mailto:WaltDonaldson@Utah.gov"]WaltDonaldson@Utah.gov[/url]
--------------------------------------------------
As you have said, this is a classic conflict between access rights and property rights. I'm watching it closley. I know that the parties are looking for a reasonable compromise. I realize that "reasonable" is a debatable term.
Rep. Webb
----------------------------------------------------
[signature]
Let me agree that Jack Draxler is not against us.
I think he is practicing politics as "the art of
the possible" and trying to give anglers as much as
he can, given the leanings of our legislature.
Like it or not, many reps have "Limbaugh-tomies"
which is brain operation where all decision-making
ability not based solely on ideology is removed.
We saw enough in the committee of reps beating
the "private property" drum. That will be hard
to overcome (not that we shouldn't try).
An email I got from Rep. Draxler:
Bob,
Thank you again for following up with me on HB 187.
You need to know that I have prepared four floor amendments that will
significantly improve the bill. These amendments would eliminate what is
now the 150’ provision, which is arbitrary, unwieldy, and
un-enforceable. Other amendments deal with the composition and functions
of the Recreational Access Board. The board would have a “public”
neutral member and would have rule making authority, not just advisory
function. Hence, in my opinion, rivers could be added in a much more
realistic and timely manner.
There is no doubt that the Conatser decision left room for legislative
action. Therefore we must be realistic and realize that if Rep.
Ferry’s bill passes we want it to be balanced and fair for both
property owners (private property rights) and recreationists (stream
access easement rights).
I hope this clarifies my goals and intentions. From the beginning I
have been determined to be a voice in behalf of the fishing and other
recreational uses that a 5 to 0 Supreme Court decision decreed that we
have.
Sincerely,
Rep. Jack Draxler
jdraxler@utah.gov
[signature]