I may be biased, but I think this is the most important post you will read this year. We are going to set the legacy for how our children and grandchildren can use public streams and lakes based on how our elected representatives vote on this stream access bill.
Here is the latest bill up for discussion in the Utah State House this year regarding our rights to use and access public waters. This is tons better than HB 187 from last year which would have removed about 300 streams that can be fished by the public. This bill clarifies the Supreme Court decision and puts into place a way to educate the public and states more clearly use laws for both landowners and us. This is a very good bill for fisherman and doesn't exclude or include any streams by name.
I have also heard about another bill that they are working on that will like HB 187. We need to jump on this now and email your representative and tell them you want this bill. My rep voted for 187 last year and I've already had a couple days worth of dialogue on why this is a much better bill. Here is a link to the bill and a link to how you can get your reps email address. Be courteous and show respect in your emails and they almost always answer them. Please, email your rep today.
[url "http://le.utah.gov/%7E2010/bills/hbillint/hb0080.pdf"]http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbillint/hb0080.pdf[/url]
http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/District.../State.htm
I'm a hunter and fisherman and have no vested interest in this bill other than myself and my children may want to fish many of waters that will be protected under this bill. I'm also not an expert on this bill and will do my best to answer questions or point to the ment that can answer questions.
[signature]
Amen born2fish! This one is vitally important. Not only for stream fishermen, but for Utah citizens in general!
I too will do my best to answer any questions anyone has. I support the bill 100%. It was the result of long, hard work by all sides to come to a working solution.
[signature]
Which parts are complicated if I might ask? I'd be happy to try and clarify.
The bill really only has 3 essential parts. 1-Defines the easement 2-Provides for education 3-Protection for landowners and anglers alike.
It's hard sometimes to just read a piece of legislation because with ANY bill, there is a lots of cross-references to other bills and statutory jargon that is really meaningless at the end of the day. So if there are any parts that seem overly complicated, lets discuss them. Getting to know the basics is very important.
[signature]
[quote GUIDEMAN]I don't like the Bill, Just more Gov. hassles for everyone! It is too complicated!
[url "http://www.adventuresports.com/river/nors/us-law-public.htm[/quote]"][/quote][/url]
vs. the alternative????
This is bar far the best we've seen yet. Much, much better than the bill that anglers defeated at last years sessions. This is the product of anglers getting involved -- which is a huge accomplishment for anglers!
[signature]
I hope BFT'rs are reading this bill and making their opinion known to their reps.
I used the link on this thread,and sent him a Message.
This bill is a lot better than HB 0187!
After several days of mulling over the access pass I still don't find the need for it to be renewed 365.
[signature]
HFT, let me ask you this question about the certificate. Would you prefer no bill, or this bill how it is written?
I'm surprised with the amount of people who don't like the education part of this. I really think quibbling over renewing the certificate every year is counter-productive at this point. It originally was a $5 access stamp that anyone who bought a fishing license or combination license would have to purchase. This is where it has gone from there. Absolutely your opinion is as valid as anyone's. But I personally view the renewed education is not only "no big deal", but necessary. It's amazing to me to hear some of the stories of anglers asserting their "rights". This thing is so misunderstood and having regular check-ups to make sure everyone understands will only protect landowners and anglers alike.
This education is going to be so easy. If anyone has ever hunted swans, or put in for the swan tag draw....expect something similar I would believe. It's just not a big deal, but boosts our cause by submitting to it to protect landowner rights. It's about compromise, and this is one area where we need to compromise.
I agree with HFT, please contact your representative and ask him/her to support HB 80! We need a strong showing again this year in support of a good bill, just like we had last year in opposition of a bad bill!
[signature]
Like I said this bill is better than what I have seen coming at us. Unfortunately I am not privy to what chains need to be yanked for a compromise Or what we are compromising anything for? I was under the impression the courts had settled that problem. Now we are having to Compromise for what we already have?
Why is this bill better than no bill at all? from a fishermen point of view.
Why the need for a pass to walk on the inside of the high water mark? when the courts said it's okay. Am I wrong?
I told my rep. " HB 0080 is a good bill. If he could find a way to get the access pass removed it would be a great bill".
[signature]
HFT
The UT Supreme Court, in Conatser, NEVER said it was okay to walk on the inside of the high water mark. That is the whole reason for the need of HB 80. The Court in the Conatser ruling continued to use "water's bed". What is water's bed? The landowners and FB interpreted that to mean an angler must have a "wet boot" at all times. Others felt it really meant "stream bed" which typically includes all the way to the ordinary high water mark, like it is defined in Idaho and Montana. Thus the need for HB 80 to clarify it.
I am not sure what the big deal about a little piece of paper or certificate. We as Americans have a constitutional right to vote. But we still have to carry a voter registration card to show we are legally entitled to vote. How is this really any different?
[signature]
just joined- just for this post-
i don't understand why this isn't the #1 topic on this board.
Question from me:
I think this says that if a landowner posts, or farms the property, it then becomes property to which access is restricted. then, if we touch the "private bed" , we are guilty of trespass. so, what's changed? what would we gain?
Oh yeah. went to pine view yesterday. south of the swim beach. wanted to avoid the crowds... Also avoided the fish. Two dink perch in 4 hours.
[signature]
No, that's not even close to what it's saying. And this is the most important topic that will be before the legislature for sportsmen this session. It would behoove everyone to be involved, whether you fish streams or not. As this applies to 'ALL WATERS OF THE STATE' and the public. This is not just a stream angler's bill. It's a Utah bill.
HFT, these posts are EXACTLY why the education aspect is so important. The Court only said that there is an easement for LEGAL RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY in a stream bed. It is not for any type of use at all, but only for LEGAL RECRATIONAL ACTIVITY that UTILIZES the water that does not cause unnecessary damage to private property. Fishing is not a right. An easement for "LEGAL recreational activity that utilizes water in a stream bed" is. But who determines what is a legal recreational activity, and who determines what makes it legal?
The misconceptions of this Court decision and bill are the exact reasons why education is needed, for anglers and for private property interests.
[signature]
"I am not sure what the big deal about a little piece of paper or certificate"
Liprippa, Not a huge deal,I just crindge at the government intrusion at every turn we make for example : every year now we have to call for a hip # before my duck liscence is valid. Pain in the _ _ _. If only this was like the voter registration card,can you imagine the out cry if we had to take voter educatiton every 365 to be able to vote.
[signature]
HFT
The nice thing about living in the United States is we have the freedom to chose certain things. Nobody is forcing you into any of this. You don't have to fish, you don't have to hunt, you don't even have to vote. But if you chose to do so there are responsibilities and requirements. If you don't like those requirements and they are just too intrusive, simply don't fish or hunt.
I also think this hardly qualifies as "government intrusion"!!
Maybe a little inconvenience, but definitely not "big brother", "wiretapping" or "black helicopter" material.
[signature]
And we all have the right to voice our opinion and not let a Big brother make the decisions for us all. For this reason I will make a lot of noise to keep the regulations at a minimum.
Even the "Lazy" and "unintelligent" of us can make a deference by contacting their reps.
Your right I don't have to go fishing. But if I do I must agree to be hog tied in regulations. Lets just keep piling up the little inconveniences! It isn't the huge boulder to navagate around to get up river,its the little pebble in your wader, that stops you.
[signature]
Something will be done to address this issue, whether it is HB 80 or another monster that was HB 187. This one is pretty good for everyone involved. It clarifies some points that the court did not address. Is it perfect? Probably not, but it looks like a nice compromise for all sides.
[signature]
I just e-mailed my rep. I agree with theekillerbee, not perfect but this is the first attempt to please both sides.
[signature]
The certificate would probably be like the extended archery situation. Pretty easy to comply. Just need to get online, go through the material and answer quick questions on what you read. Print it off and you're done.
What happened through the Summer? Was Ferry involved in the entire process? Is he on board with the group's recommendations which formulated HB80 or is he going to come out of the woodwork with something totally different than the group agreed to? Sorry, I haven't followed it more closely but I'm just curious.
[signature]
There was a tour organized by water users, specifically anglers, that included a handful of representatives, the DWR, and some landowners. This tour visited various streams and showed places where public have been given access to private lands by the landowners, and places where landowners have done everything in their power to cut the public off. The tour was apparently very effective in showing the issues to people who really had never seen them before. I know Ben Ferry was along for that ride. I'm not sure how many of the meetings that took place he attended, if any. Some of his "posse" were there at various meetings though.
It is rumored that Ferry has another bill that is still in "protected status", meaning only those who he hand picks can read it and see its content. The "rumor" is it will completely overturn Conatser and be worse than HB 187 last year. But that is all just "rumor" at this point. It is really time for anglers to unite and stand up to this guy and his groupies in the legislature that don't think they have to answer to the people. There are a handful of representatives who feel "untouchable" in the elections because they've always ran unopposed or with little contention. These are the guys we have to watch out for, and Ben Ferry is one of them.
Sorry, I got off topic, that little tangent is not what this is about. This is about THIS bill, HB 80, that is a very good bill that will work for Utah if voted in as law. Please email, call, or visit your representatives and ask them to support HB 80.
[signature]
THANKS for the heads up on Ben Ferry, Any of the legislature that votes to suspend fishing access should be sent packing and I don't care which Party there from.
http://utahwaterguardians.org/?page_id=21
[signature]
Thanks TS30,
I'll keep an eye out for a sneak attack and let the others I communicate with be aware as well.
Hammerem.
[signature]