Fishing Forum

Well, Representative Webb's bill in response to HB 80 is out. You can view it here:

http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbillint/hb0290.pdf

Some key points in my opinion. He was crafty in using most of the same definitions as Rep Fowlke did to frame this bill. I'm sure the rhetoric will be "We are only changing a little bit of the bill, but have left all the hard work that Rep Fowlke did mostly intact!" But it is a very different bill. First of all, "bed" is defined only as the ground underneath water at the time, not ground within the ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK. And I there is some tricky language in other places as well.

By the statements in lines 89-90 of the bill, I would think this would allow any landowner to charge someone $1 per year to fish their land and it then blocks access by the public at large. And probably even more importantly, in lines 123-128 this bill completely overturns Conatser and makes anything stating the public has access in this current bill very moot.

So basically Rep Webb has framed the bill to look very much like HB 80 and piggy-back off the hard, public work that Rep Fowlke put in on this issue. But his bill takes away every right to an easement recognized by a unanimous Utah Supreme Court as early as 1982, and reaffirmed in 2008. This bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing for the public in Utah.

Rumors are that McKiff's bill to overturn Conatser is numbered, but it's not showing it yet on the legislative website. My guess is this bill will be pushed by the HB 187 crew as the "compromise" between McKiff and Fowlke, even though Fowlke came to the table already with the compromise.

It's time to mount up and let the House Natural Resources committee know that they should put HB 80 through to the House floor for an open, fair debate.

Here is the contact information for the Natural Resources Committee. Let me emphasize my opinion, we don't need to ask them to support HB 80 at this time. We need to ask them to give it it's fair opportunity in a debate on the House floor. No need to amend it, let it go to the floor and let the debate begin! We'll ask our rep's to support it when it goes there. It just needs it's fair shake, get it there and see what happens.

Rep. Roger E. Barrus, Chair rogerbarrus@utah.gov
Rep. John G. Mathis, Vice Chair jmathis@utah.gov
Rep. Melvin R. Brown melbrown@utah.gov
Rep. Brad L. Dee bdee@utah.gov
Rep. Jack R. Draxler jdraxler@utah.gov
Rep. Kerry W. Gibson kwgibson@utah.gov
Rep. James R. Gowansjgowans@utah.gov
Rep. Neal B. Hendrickson nhendrickson@utah.gov
Rep. Michael E. Noel mnoel@kanab.net
Rep. Patrick Painter ppainter@utah.gov
Rep. Phil Riesen priesen@utah.gov
Rep. Christine F. Watkins cwatkins@utah.gov
Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox ryanwilcox@utah.gov
Rep. Bill Wright billwright@utah.gov

This should make it easier to email the entire bunch....
rogerbarrus@utah.gov
jmathis@utah.gov
melbrown@utah.gov
bdee@utah.gov
jdraxler@utah.gov
kwgibson@utah.gov
jgowans@utah.gov
nhendrickson@utah.gov
mnoel@kanab.net
ppainter@utah.gov
priesen@utah.gov
cwatkins@utah.gov
ryanwilcox@utah.gov
billwright@utah.gov
[signature]

seet, ill set up a copy and paste e-bomb for all these guys, so they get the same message close to 1000 times!! [:p]
[signature]

Be respectful and cordial. If they get bad stuff they may just ignore it all.
[signature]

if i were to do that i would of course be respectful
[signature]

TS30, when you say, "Representative Webb's bill in response to HB 80 is out, " it is unclear if you mean it is defeated, or if you mean it is no good.

It is not defeated. In fact, many fishing advocates support it. Utah Water Guardians is telling everybody to email their representative and ask them to pass the bill. Fish Tech supports it too. I think they are wrong. Here is why:

I’ve read HB 80 and HB 290. SB 267 is supposed to be SIMILAR to HB 80, but the text has not been placed in the bill as of this morning (2/9/10). There are supposedly a couple of other bills being introduced too.

HB 290 is bad. I don't think HB 80 is that much better. I see a big problem with the way HB 80 differentiates between man-made obstacles and natural obstacles. This creates confusion. It should not matter if an obstacle is man-made or natural. A user should be able to go around any obstacle in order to continue navigating the stream.

Have you ever tried to walk down a stream without stepping out and onto the river bank above? It very hard to do. Users who float may have little problem drifting down stream, but fishermen will have a very difficult time walking in the natural stream bed all of the time, even if they are walking downstream. Going upstream is even more difficult. Can you imagine the damage to fish spawning beds if everybody had to stay in the natural stream bed?

This bill is still too restrictive. I urge you to ask your representatives to make fishing access more reasonable. We must have the ability to walk along the stream bank. Fishermen often walk just far enough away from the bank so that only their head is visible to the fish. Nobody want to bushwhack through the tall grass and bush. Mostly they stay on trails that already exist. Sometimes those trails are 100 feet from the stream. Floaters and Fishermen alike should not have to risk their lives trying to get through one type of obstacle, while legally allowed to go around another type. And remember, it will almost always be the landowner with a gun who decides if an obstacle is man-made or natural.

Last year there were four gunshots fired. None of the shots were fired by floaters or fishermen. Last year there was no law restricting access. If any bill passes, it will restrict access to a lessor or greater degree. How many shots do you think will be fired then?

If no bill passes, it will be better than passing a bill that does not fully protect water users rights.

Don't support this bill just because it is the best one so far, or because opposition claims we are really good at always saying 'no' but never agreeing to anything. Remember, they lost in the Supreme Court when they tried to take away river user's rights entirely. There is no reason we should settle for anything less than full unrestricted easement along rivers.

Fo goodness sake don't contact your representative until you have read the bill yourself and know what it says.
[signature]

[quote SirAngler]
Fo goodness sake don't contact your representative until you have read the bill yourself and know what it says.[/quote]

I agree, you should probably do the same. This bill defines the stream bed as the area within the ordinary high water mark. That is not the area in the water itself. I don't know what else you think the public should be entitled to. If you think you or any other angler is entitled to walk trails on someone else's land, you will only be disappointed. And I don't think we should be able to.

Ordinary High Water Mark. That is accurate and fair.
[signature]

[quote TS30][quote SirAngler]
Fo goodness sake don't contact your representative until you have read the bill yourself and know what it says.[/quote]

I agree, you should probably do the same. This bill defines the stream bed as the area within the ordinary high water mark. That is not the area in the water itself. I don't know what else you think the public should be entitled to. If you think you or any other angler is entitled to walk trails on someone else's land, you will only be disappointed. And I don't think we should be able to.

Ordinary High Water Mark. That is accurate and fair.[/quote]


Agreed
[signature]

now I am . I thought HB80 went to the senate instead.
[signature]

In the political games that are apparently played, it ended up back in the House. I know this has been confusing at times, but stick with us! We're close.....getting close!
[signature]

I already emailed my rep on this a couple of weeks ago. She is aware of it and should keep me up to date.
[signature]

I have info from two legislators tonight that support this bill (HB80).

Edwards and Seegmiller. Keep up the great work!
[signature]