According to the SLC Tribune (see link below) a bill will be filed later this week to take back a lot of stream access that was lost through a law passed in 2010.
Hope this gets passed into law. Sounds much better than what we have now.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/558166...r.html.csp
[signature]
Much better than our current situation, let's call our representatives today and let's get this passed.
[signature]
I already E-mailed mine.[laugh]
[signature]
Theres pros and cons to this new law,
Pro: yes it will open up some rivers
Con: Only rivers that can host a 6 foot raft or 6 foot log
Con: It interferes with the current lawsuits The Utah Rivers access coalition is currently fighting, as mentioned in the article
"Coburn said if Pitcher’s bill is passed and signed into law, his clients would dismiss their case, currently awaiting a judge’s ruling, and a related suit in Weber County."
So my question is for river such as the Weber & Provo
1. What are the conditions of being "able to float a 6 foot log"
Does it mean if it touches the bank at some point is that area block off ?
I mean as many rivers do some stretch's are wider deeper than others and for those narrow streches does that mean no access ?
For example on the Lower Weber the section off the Taggrart exit is pretty wide but if you travel toward croyden it gets narrow.
[signature]
Those are good questions. The big drawback I see is dropping the present lawsuits before they get answered. I do think getting access to some of the water is better than what we currently have. Im not sure if the lawsuits would be dropped because the bill satisfies the suit or if that was just an agreement. In either event we do need to continue pushing for stream access. We will also have an obligation to treat private lands with respect if we do get access.
[signature]
I'm all for the new law. It was done with solid understanding of both Utah and American precedent. Doubt it will get passed as greed and ignorance seems to rule our legislature. They won't be happy as that means those trying to steal from the public didn't get away with it. I wish I could join the rally tomorrow but I have to work. Beware the lobbyists and especially legislature aren't the best drivers. I don't think they think our laws apply to them. The highway patrol is usually hanging around but seems to ignore enforcement of traffic laws during the session. Over half the roads around the Capitol is in their jurisdiction. Just laugh and enjoy the chance to flip them off as I did this morning[angelic].
[signature]
[font "Times New Roman"][size 3][/size][/font]
[size 3]Snergy,Couple of things:
1) I think you meant to say Utah Stream Access Coalition, inlieu of UtahRivers... Thier web site is [/size][url "http://www.utahstreamaccess.org/"][#212126][size 3]www.utahstreamaccess.org[/size][/#212126][/url][size 3]
2) The proposed bill is templated from Idaho. The foundation for 6"diameter x 6-ft long log comes from historic rail road tie cuts. It is historic and easily definable.
2a) You missed a key element regarding log float - Referring to the stream -"in its natural state during ordinary high water".
3) It will not interfere with the lawsuits. It will make them a totally moot point.
Frankly, there is much too much conjecture an assumptions being tossed about. Please refrain from posting hyperbole. The issue is confusing enough without all the misinformation. Take a moment to check before posting.[/size]
[font "Times New Roman"][size 3][/size][/font]
[signature]
Not really accurate. They (uhp) have the grounds themselves and all the roads and parking lots inside the street curb. Everything on the surface street is Salt Lake City PD. Be careful when you go up there, because SLC Parking enforcement is out there writing tickets every day.
[signature]
Maybe Utah is different than most states but highway patrol generally have jurisdictional on all state highways and sometimes the entire state. State street up to the Capitol then the road on the edge of the Capitol and north on Beck Street is all designated a state highway.
Have you seen any parking tickets while the session is going? I know when the session is out they're strict. Many cars have been parked illegally this session including one 90% blocking the through lane on E. Capitol in fron of a no parking sig for most of the day last week. No tickets on the dozens of times I went by. I can't recall seeing any enforcement vehicles since quite a few in December strangely enough. Almost like the clowns have another set of rules for themselves and the lobbyiest.
[signature]
[quote mischievous]
3) It will not interfere with the lawsuits. It will make them a totally moot point.
Frankly, there is much too much conjecture an assumptions being tossed about. Please refrain from posting hyperbole. The issue is confusing enough without all the misinformation. Take a moment to check before posting.[/size]
[font "Times New Roman"][size 3][/size][/font] [/quote]
Really did you take 2 minutes to read the trib article Rocky posted? Cause if you did then you would have read. The new bill interfering with the current lawsuit was direct quote from the attorney who filed the lawsuit,Craig Coburn.
so how about you refrane from posting gibberish nonsense about assumptions and like you said take a minute to check ....
Wouldnt dismissing the case be interfering ? Why not get a ruling from a judge Pullman before jumping the gun
Further more who the [#000080]deleted[/#000080] do you think you are telling people they can't post are you an attorney or politician governing over this ? Then your posts are just as much conjecture as the next so how about you stop acting like your superior get off your high horse [#000080]deleted [/#000080]
[signature]
Mischievous is correct. If Pitchers bill passes, it accomplishes all of the goals the USAC is seeking in the lawsuits, thus making continued litigation unnecessary.
RE"Why not get a ruling from a judge Pullman before jumping the gun"
It's judge Pullan. [
]
[signature]
[quote doggonefishin]Mischievous is correct. If Pitchers bill passes, it accomplishes all of the goals the USAC is seeking in the lawsuits, thus making continued litigation unnecessary.
RE"Why not get a ruling from a judge Pullman before jumping the gun"
It's judge Pullan. [
][/quote]
Lol nobody is arguing that it may or may not but what are the specifics. All it says is access to rivers that support a 6 foot log. Big freaking deal there are a ton of small streams this will not cover. Im not going to support a bill just because it's better that what we had. We have the Utah constitution stating other wise. Sounds more like scrounging for crumbs
[signature]
It has nothing to do with the particular Judge. If the State is no longer in violation of the Utah Constitution and legal precedents of our state and country there is no need for a judicial remedy. If you start wanting more than that (ie access to flowing waters that can't float a log during ordinary high waters) then you're asking for more than can be supported. Idaho has a very sound law in place that I doubt a court at any level including the U.S. Supreme Court could find fault with it. When lawmakers actually have the ethics and take the time to make sound laws the state doesn't burn taxpayer money needlessly defending violation of the public's rights. So we're basically screwed in Utah with our current group in office. What percent of thieves return the loot voluntarily? I really doubt Pitcher's bill will pass.
[signature]
This whole bill is bs, 6 foot 10 foot what does it matter. If you were a land owner you would be singing a different tune. If the water way was navigable by boat, float tube ect. year round I could see the concern. Or if land owners were diverting the water causing the public waters to be parched. This is not the case. All this argument boils down to is recreation and people being granted access to places they would not get without Uncle Sam stepping on and giving it to them. When legislation like this goes through those in favor feel like they've won, possibly in the short term, but remember, every time rights are "legally" taken from others you too loose those same rights individually. None of the bill talks singularly about fishing or kayaking or boating. It's all about river bed access by foot from a public access. I still don't know why the 6 foot log floating matters. Most land owners I know would give permission and enjoy watching someone try to get through their land floating on a six foot log sideways. Nobody is stealing your water, just hindering your fun, that they by the way own, not the water, but the ground to the left right and below the water. Maybe you guys should be demanding that the government figure out a way to controll the fish to keep them in the public access areas of the river, might work maybe some signs? They do it with deer, problem is the deer can't read them.
[signature]
A few points.
1. First, Riverdog, I don't think we have any disagreement. (maybe you were responding to other posts) The "Idaho" compromise would be fair to both sides and would end the battles in the courts and legislature. I'm slightly more optimistic about Pitchers bill chances because I think the reps are getting tired of the issue and may vote for it as a compromise to end the debate. It is certain that HB68 will not end the court battles.
2. RE"6 foot 10 foot what does it matter" and
"If the water way was navigable by boat, float tube ect. year round I could see the concern."
It is a Federally accepted standard for navigability. So yes, it does matter, a lot. But, hey, you will probably still argue that the landowners are getting hosed by any compromise standard.
3. RE"When legislation like this goes through those in favor feel like they've won, possibly in the short term, but remember, every time rights are "legally" taken from others you too loose those same rights individually."
Funny, our side says the [#BF0000]exact[/#BF0000] same thing about HB141!
[signature]
Yes, more of a general response to comments. I'm not in significant disagreement with you. I hope you're right and they vote for the Pitchers Bill but I just don't see it happening. You've got to remember it isn't their time or money being spent in the courts. Anyone with a pulse knew this would end up in the Courts. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knew HB 141 wasn't going to make it through the Courts intact.
[signature]
In years past the high water mark has been 150 yards past the river banks, does this mean that you have a right to tresspas that far onto private land? I also said year round as far as navigability goes, get on your boat and navigate 90% of the rivers in this state and see how far you get without touching bottom during normal water conditions. Land owners feel they have the right because they bought and paid for the land, maintain and care for it, your group feels they have the right to it because you were born, big difference. Like is stated earlier, no one is keeping you from utilizing the water, it will get to you eventually, they are just keeping you from waltzing all over what is rightfully theirs, the ground that they own. And lest ye forget, there is such a thing as water rights, so in fact a person can own the water or share as its called, how are you going to stop that? If a person owns water front propery on a lake do you have the right to beach your boat and have a camp out on that land? What's the difference? If you want access to private ground with river access or without for that matter, try asking permission instead of trying to take it. Another question, if a person gets injured on "legal" river access through private ground, who gets the blame?, the land owner that's who. Your side keeps bringing up Idaho as the poster child for this argument which is ridiculous, not even the same as far as population density goes, especially near coveted bodies of water. I was told once by a old farmer when I was a kid that got caught trespassing while fishing he said if I could walk on water I was more than welcome to continue on my way, made sense to me then, still does. If you're looking for solace in the passing of this bill, good luck, the private waters will fill up with the public just as fast as the current access already does.
[signature]
One more, not that it will do much good.
1. RE"In years past the high water mark has been 150 yards past the river banks, does this mean that you have a right to tresspas that far onto private land?"
No, it does not, and all compromise bills have addressed that. Even what was called the "ordinary high water mark" is not what you describe here. We have never asked for that and to say so otherwise is 100% fear mongering on your part.
2. RE" I also said year round as far as navigability goes, get on your boat and navigate 90% of the rivers in this state and see how far you get without touching bottom during normal water conditions."
It really isn't very important what you said about navigability. What IS important is what Federal courts have said in their precedent setting judgements. That is where the law will be written and legal judgements passed. And that is where the "log" standard came from.
3. RE"Land owners feel they have the right because they bought and paid for the land, maintain and care for it, your group feels they have the right to it because you were born, big difference."
Yeah, I feel the same way about my sidewalk, but easement codes dictate otherwise. And yes, we feel the public has a right to access and use that dates back to the 1700's. You also act like stream access is about traipsing all over private property. To suitably settle this issue, trespassing laws will have to be strong to protect the landowner and you will find we favor that. It's the only way a compromise will work.
4. RE"there is such a thing as water rights, so in fact a person can own the water or share as its called, how are you going to stop that?"
Nothing regarding stream access affects water rights. But, if you care to look objectively to HB68, you may find that Mciff's proposed abrogation of the public trust doctrine regarding water regulation possibly could.
5. RE" Your side keeps bringing up Idaho as the poster child for this argument which is ridiculous, not even the same as far as population density goes, especially near coveted bodies of water."
Why does it matter what the population density is? It works pretty well for Idaho, it can work well for here. Besides, Boise is pretty population dense and they don't have problems. Silly argument, as usual.
6. RE" if a person gets injured on "legal" river access through private ground, who gets the blame?,"
We tried to resolve this last time to remove liability to landowners, and it will need to be remedied in any compromise. Which is probably still not good enough for you.
[signature]
The 6"X6' at high water is very generous indeed.
Somebody above said this is a " Federally accepted standard for navigability."
That standard may be "Federally accepted" but it is far from mandated.
Every state sets it's own definition of navigability on smaller flows of water that do not flow outside there borders. {per the tenth amendment}
In fact there are plenty of states that have there stream access laws set just the way Utah's law is now set.
Yes, those behind the law suit would be quick to take this 6X6 standard as written and passed law,,, or as a judges ruling.
Neither are likely to happen.
The most Utah anglers can hope for is that a small handful of rivers might be determined to be navigable {not the 6X6 standard} by the time all is said and done.
You are NOT going to be able to fish your way through somebody's farm yard just cause a piece of 6X6 can float through it for a couple of weeks at snow melt.
But... at the rate Californians are moving to Utah that could soon change along with a lot of other things!!
[signature]
And I agree with you the 6 foot rule is BS I think anglers are so starved for access they take any little morsel that thrown to them. Even more so HB141 already states these waters can be floated so the 6 foot rule should be a given but its not.
Yes you are right about this being about recreation, but this recreation comes with a 700 billion dollar price tag .Reports prior to HB141 show Fishing & hunting provided over 700 billion dollars of revenue and close to 7000 jobs. So its not just about recreation.
The DWR budget was slashed in 1/2 last year and the funds for the Walk In Access program cut. As I mentioned in earlier posts Im all for the Walk in Access Program. It creates a nice Co-Op for anglers and Private land Owners. Private Land Owners get some cash and anglers get access. But if we keep things the way they are there no cash to be given.
To be honest nobody asking to fish Farmer Joes property I know there stretches of river you have access too and you dont want others fishing your sections. Fair enough, but when people exploit entire stretches of river then Yes we need Uncle Sam to step in
"It amazes me someone from another state can buy a membership and fish these sections when a Utah Citizen with a fishing license is banned. "
[signature]