Lawmakers upset with a state Supreme Court ruling that they considered a taking of private property rights passed a bill to close off public access to many streams crossing private lands.
HB141 allows anglers and others to wade in public waters crossing private lands only if there is an established 10-year pattern of public use there.
That thwarts the 2008 court decision, which opened all public waters to public use, though fishing and boating advocates have suggested that a court test of the new law is assured.
The issue has degenerated into a political feud between anglers and ranchers over the last two sessions, and this year the ranchers came out on top.
Cowboy hats filled the galleries of both the House and Senate as they considered the legislation.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Kay McIff, R-Richfield, was amended to preserve a right to float across all public streams where it is possible to do so without touching the bottom. It won a legislative duel with a competing bill that would have affirmed the court's decision. A task force will study the issue.
Email: kaymciff@utah.gov
Address: 225 N 100 E, RICHFIELD, UT 84701
Home Phone: Work Phone: 435-896-4461 Cell Phone: 801-608-4331
I think we need to send a special email to rep kay mciff for trampling on our constitutional rights [mad][mad][mad]
[signature]
Any time you see a add promoting Utah's recreation spit on it.
[signature]
There was a time when you could knock on a man's door and he would let you fish on his land if you had the decency to request and let him fill you in on the rules. Now, nobody is trusted because of all of the disrespectful scum and their disregard for common decency. I say that the biggest way to fight this problem is to report all of the violators as much as we can and get there licenses revoked. I bet representative Fowlkie wouldn't mind introducing a one strike rule for trespassers and litter bugs. If we can get the land owners and the anglers on the same page then, maybe one day, mutual trust will be the rule instead of self-preservation.
[signature]
you forgot about keeping the lawyers out of it..most of the nos you get from land owners is becouse they do want to get sued by you if you get hurt..thats what i find
[signature]
That's another point that should be addressed and I agree with you that what happens on your own excursion should not be held to the land owners unless they are planting razor wire and land mines. Frivolous lawsuits are a discourtesy to justice and those who break the rules and have the money to pay ambulance chasers are even more of a threat to civil liberties then the average scum bag. Laws should precede funding and not be dictated by cash flow. I was just getting at the fact that people used to love one another and now things are different. I don't know if it is possible to go back to the "good old days" but it doesn't hurt to try.
[signature]
bad thing about remembering the good old days is you know your getting old..back in those days internet didnt even exsist good luck[
]
[signature]
[quote lurtch]you forgot about keeping the lawyers out of it..most of the nos you get from land owners is becouse they do want to get sued by you if you get hurt..thats what i find[/quote]
HB80 would have " absolved a property owners of liability for conduct in connection with recreational uses "
Property Owners knew this !!! Its written in a very first lines of the bill
Possible loophole HB80 supports " recognizes a limited recreational floating right on public water" Floating access" means the right to access public water flowing over private property for floating and fishing while floating upon the water.
So if you want to fish private water do it in your tube just dont get out.
( I'm not a lawyer if you do this and get sued im not liable ) LOL
[signature]
this is true i used to fish a local stream this way when i was younger..worked then they dont own the watter only the bottom and then only if they own both sides of the stream..thats what i understood
[signature]
I meant going back to the good old days in the moral sense; not in the technological sense. I'm not very old; just 37 and I have seen the morality of this nation turn upside down in my life time. That's the underlying problem behind every stupid law that we have to deal with. People who have no respect for anything good are the reason that more laws are made for the law abiding to obey while the jerks continue giving the local, state, and federal governments more excuses to encroach on our freedoms. Your quarrel shouldn't be with me because I am no threat to you, so save your snippy misrepresentation of my comments. Get your mind in the right place or your freedom will be totally gone one day.
[signature]
i understood what you meant..didnt mean disrespect..i do beleive that the technology age has alot to to do with the rapid moral decline along with many other things in our times what to do about it..i guess we can laugh a little bit
[signature]
So just who is going to report the bad actors, since the law abiding people are excluded? That is where the landowners missed the boat. Local law enforcement will never have the resources to prevent the "disrespectful scum" as you call them from doing what they do. Not alone, anyway. Increasing access to ethical, responsible recreationist could increase traffic and deny the scum the privacy they need to get away with acting like scum. Crime occurs in dark, back alleys, not well-lit, busy sidewalks.
As nice an idea as it is to ask the owner for access, few of us have the time to waste on a side excursion in the hope that we might get lucky and actually catch the owner at home and get permission. A clear set of uniform rules, as set forth by HB80, seems to me a more workable solution for both sides.
[signature]