I figured that instead of being lost in the list of posts and replies made in the original post from TOADLY "River Access Law Help", I would start a new post with my own reply.
I am the one that TOADLY met on the river and I am the one that called the Poice.
The reply to his post is attached in a .pdf document. It is rather lenghty and am not familiar with the posting size limits of this board.
As I state in my reply, I will not banter back and forth on this issue. This is my side of the story and will leave it at that. It is all very clear and it is all I have to say on the issue.
LA
Moderators, Shut this post down!
This kind of garbage belongs in court not on a fishing forum.
[signature]
Toadly's post on this issue is still open and Moderators have not shut it down as of yet, as you stated. I think this has everything to do with fishing and it's not often you get to actually hear both sides of a story on here. Why did you not have a comment about this kind of "garbage" on Toadly's thread and only the land owners?
Leslie - Thank you for your perspective on the original post. Sorry people on the original post may have answered in ignorance. But many people, myself included, can at times turn into real morons with the anomymity of the internet and a keyboard.
However, you were wrong to call the police, unless Toadly and his friend were on dry land that is. Or you witnessed them standing or walking across dry land. The fact that "the public has an easment on the land which the stream flows over" grants them permission to walk up the high water mark of the river because that is public domain.
Sorry for the boneheads in the past, but if you see me fishing that area, I will be polite, and I will not leave so long as I am in the river. I also will not walk on your private land.
ifishutah your reply was totally bad form.
[signature]
I agree leave this post open its only fair to hear both sides of the story.
LeslieA has every right to tell his side of the story and if its true that he requested Toadly to leave his property he has every right to call the cops.
Again I was not there and im not taking sides sometimes its hard to tell if the person telling you get off there land is really the owner or some jack wagon acting like a cop.
Even though I don't agree with the law its still the standing law and private land owners have the right to kick you off.
I'll admit Ive been in the situation on the upper provo turns out they were victory ranch guys, some guests and 1 guy stated he was the owner but this was Prior to HB141 so the law was on my side. Post HB141 no so much if a private land owner wants you off his land you have to obey or be cited.
[signature]
Thanks for the PDF, that was a lot of typing.
Good to hear your side of the story, Leslie. Sorry for your troubles.
Yes, I did post the correct and current law.
The county GIS maps are better for determining who owns what than the DWR site. They not only give information on what is private and public, they identify who the owner of record on the tax roles is. Useful information, right there.
[signature]
You guys must be correct, this has everything to do wiht fishing.
[signature]
Leslie I would have done the same thing. That type behavior is why so many private areas don't allow trespass. Later J
[signature]
Quote:The fact that "the public has an easment on the land which the stream flows over" grants them permission to walk up the high water mark of the river because that is public domain
If you believe this then you are in for a whole lot of trespassing tickets. You can float through private property, but the moment your foot touches the stream bed, you are trespassing.
[signature]
[quote FishSlayer2112]
Quote:The fact that "the public has an easment on the land which the stream flows over" grants them permission to walk up the high water mark of the river because that is public domain
If you believe this then you are in for a whole lot of trespassing tickets. You can float through private property, but the moment your foot touches the stream bed, you are trespassing.[/quote]
Take the time to read the Conatser decision by the Utah Supreme Court. HB141 has little to no chance of surviving constitutional muster. It is working its way through the courts as we speak. If any tickets are given fight them and they will likely be put hold until the courts rule again. From Conatser the stream bed is considered a public easement. Conatser dealt directly with the Weber River. Additionally, just because somebody purports to have authority to put people on notice of trespass does not mean they actually do. That is also another legal determination that is ripe with gray areas. You may be in for a whole lot of trespassing tickets, however, they are all likely invalid so long as you remain in the stream bed.
[signature]
I know what the court's opinion is on the subject, but what the courts think and what the law is are 2 different things. As of now, you can be charged and convicted for trespass on a private stream bed.
And unless you are rich or have a lot of lawyer friends to appeal a simple trespass conviction, then you are going to get busted if you walk on a private stream bed.
[signature]
[quote pookiebar]
However, you were wrong to call the police, unless Toadly and his friend were on dry land that is. Or you witnessed them standing or walking across dry land. The fact that "the public has an easment on the land which the stream flows over" grants them permission to walk up the high water mark of the river because that is public domain.
[/quote]
Those there the terms Anglers requested in HB187 and the Conaster decision but both were stricken down and HB141 was put in place. NO HIGH WATER MARK NO TRESPASS. Hopefully with the new decision things will change but for now HB141 stands.
[signature]
Yes this has everything to do with fishing because we can't trespass and fish legally.
It is better to be informed where you can legally fish. You better be very sure the land you're on is open to the public before refusing to leave when requested. I've had that happen to me once by someone with a grazing permit on public land. But I was 100% certain where I was and even knew the grazing lease holder name ahead of time. I replied to him by his name and told him the laws about grazing permits protected my right to be there. End of story without me having to call the cops on him. Look at the maps/ print out if necessary and take a cheap GPS with you if there is any doubt. Can't get much easier than that.
Thanks Leslie for giving the other side of the story.
[signature]
Actually I would suggest that what the Court's opinion is on the subject is the law. The Court's duty is to say what the law is. Marbury v. Madison. The Utah Congress no doubt passed HB141 which today is the law on the books. However, in my opinion, it is in clear violation of the Conatser decision. The only way HB141 survives is if the Utah Courts overturn the Conatser decision.
I'm a lawyer and I will represent anybody who receives a trespass ticket while fishing in the river clearly on the stream bed. No charge. I have many other lawyer friends who will do the same. Also, as I stated previously, the work to have the Courts rule on the Constitutionality of HB141 is already in the process.
[signature]
Thanks for posting your side of the this story Leslie. I did not read toadly's post but I will. I would have done the same thing as you stated that you did. After sharing with this person that they were trespassing and then to get treated as you did, well....... Crap happens! Press hard, there's five copies to that ticket and here's your copy. Have a great day.
[signature]
I'll take you up on the offer if needed in the future[angelic]. However the original poster has never made it clear he stuck to the stream bed. If you're under the mistaken opinion the property is public then most of us aren't going to be worrying about staying in the stream bed. Maybe Leslie or Toadly will chime in.
I'll donate money to help defend rights to fish in the case if he stuck to the stream bed otherwise it's a live and learn example not to be repeated.
[signature]
As far as I know Utah Stream Access coalition has a couple of law suits going They have already got a judge to agree that HB141 violates the public access to these waters were just waiting for a decision and outcome.
They also filed in state court in Wasatch County, challenges the constitutionality of Utah’s Public Waters Access complaint names as defendants the owners of
Victory Ranch, a Wasatch County development selling luxury home sites offering exclusive access to more than four miles of the Provo River
Go here for more info
http://utahstreamaccess.org/usac-wp/public-waters-case/
[signature]
LeslieA,
Let me first start off by apologizing for having trespassed. I was not knowing of any boundary or of the law requiring me to leave when requested. I merely challenge you to see if you were telling the truth. When you called the police I was convinced and did leave. I asked for a number or for you to call the owner to verify your position and possible make a friendly request for permission to fish those waters.
I posted the other post to gain information about the law and my rights. I learned that I was in the wrong.
I wont trespass again and in the future look up online where the boundarys are.
I do hope you family will drop this and not press charges if they haven't already. It was not my intent to inflame or incite by making this public. My only intent was to learn and share what I have learned.
By they way, I see this was your first post. Welcome to the site. I think you will find it informative. I have made some good friends here and hope you do the same.
Send me a PM if you don't wish to speak on this publicly.
To PM me you click on my name and there you will find a private message application.
[signature]
The heartbreaking thing about all of this is that the landowners have, in most cases, been forced to get hard headed about keeping people out because of the actions of a very few (Marine Drill Instructor expletives deleted) who have littered, damaged fences etc. and otherwise violated the land. We who are responsible outdoors types need to help address this behavior. I propose that we who are responsible outnumber those others by a sufficient factor as to give them cause to correct their ways. All we gotta do is gang up on them and leave them kinda like Sarge leaves Beetle Bailey does when he gets pissed.
Seriously, we all share some responsibility for this mess and I don't know how to right it but I'm madder than he-- that it has come to this.
[signature]
I believe as of now there is only one suit. Your website shows the suit that has had cross motions for summary judgment. The Court has already ruled on a number of issues, some for, some against anglers. The order that came out this past May asked for supplemental briefing on the whether HB141 violates the public trust doctrine. All of the supplemental briefing has been filed and oral argument may be set. I can check the docket in minute. The violation of the public trust doctrine is a very important issue which will decide whether the Court upholds HB141 or rules it unconstitutional.
It is important to remember that the Conatser decision was NOT struck down. HB141 has language to do as much, but the legislature cannot do that and that issue has already been ruled on by the Court. Therefore, the Conatser decision is still good law. The issue really is how much can the legislature regulate the public easement. Also, this will end up at the Utah Supreme Court again and will likely take a year or so to get there from where we are right now. The district court's rulings thus far are important though as Judge Pullan has taken significant care to have very thorough analysis. Both sides of the suit have very good lawyers who come from respected firms.
[signature]