Fishing Forum

"Judge rules in favor of public access, recreation on Weber River

The ruling is following a lawsuit filed by the USAC which sought to establish navigability and public ownership of the beds on the Weber River. Kelly instructed the landowner defendants to remove any “no trespassing” signs that restrict use of the streambed, and prohibited them from continuing to interfere with the public’s right to use the river and its beds for recreation purposes."

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=34196859&nid=968...d=toppick2
[signature]

Does this mean we can walk throughout the whole river or just float it?
[signature]

no wonder i saw people in places you normally arent allowed. ill be taking full advantage of this.. NOT saying i wont respect the river and the property owners... Ive been eyeballing spots from the fences..
[signature]

Does this mean we now have immediate access to the whole river as long as we park on public property?
[signature]

YES! Probably still not the end of the fight, but definitely a victory of one battle. Now, respect the landowners land, access the water legally, leave no trace, and enjoy the stream bed wherever you can access it. Let's hope law enforcement will follow the judge's order.

This is from USAC's page:
Although the ruling has been filed, that doesn't mean the Weber is "open for business." We're still awaiting further details on precisely where the public can access and use the Weber, and there is still some legal legwork that must be done behind the scenes, so don't go grabbing your rod and reel quite yet. We expect those answers in the coming weeks.

And:
Finally, while this is a significant win, we must not forget that this is only another step in a much longer journey. We still are prohibited from using what the Utah Constitution grants us, "any waters of the State," but this is a strong step in the right direction. The Provo Case goes to trial in late August, and the legislative session will follow shortly after. Be ready.
[signature]

Totally agree! Nothing more than seeing trash all along a beautiful river. pack it out
[signature]

Wouldn't surprise me of Herbert, Noel and McIff don't orchestrate something to negate this via a special session.
[signature]

Then it's time to have a recall election for Herbert, McIff, and Noel.



[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]

I agree that our gov will still try to take these rights away from us once again.

The fight is still on and there is still a need for money to fight the fight.
Perhaps someone will chime in and let us know where and how we can help financially.
It takes all of us to win the war.
[signature]

Whoohoo! is right, this was a good test case and the win is something positive for all Utah recreationists. This ruling should lead to being able to access the Weber at any public point and then to stay within the high water mark while fishing, floating or recreating.

This is the first in several court battles, USAC needs donations of what ever you can give, become a member and give if you can. They are fighting to give us access to the places that we have always supposed to have access to. That is every river or stream that was used before or after statehood as a means to float a 6" round, 8' long log or other cargo.
Hopefully this will make the Provo case easier to win and from there maybe get the courts to overturn the part of the law enacted by the legislature after Conatser v Johnson's supreme court ruling, that requires each part of each stream or river to be challenged individually. With that a survey of historical records around the state to find any river or stream that had several years of log drives and they are open too.
I would that includes about every sizeable river or stream in the state.

Remember, this is not taking, this is establishing that title to the land beneath the water was transferred to the ownership of the state by the federal government at statehood. It has been legal for the public to use it since then.
This particular part of the river is above Rockport reservoir where Browns Canyon road crosses the river. I would expect the next move to be to declare any other part of the river that can be shown to have log drives as their riverbed being state property.
[signature]

I respectfully disagree with you all that this is a good ruling. It is another shot at private property rights. As a sportsman and fisherman and rancher, I cannot see how this will not hurt private property rights. I know you all feel differently and I don't want to start a fight. I just wanted to add another perspective to the discussion.
[signature]

Very good! Thanks for the info. Even though I don't use the rivers in this way I am glad that others can.
[signature]

[signature]

If the river or stream is in fact navigable, then the land beneath the water has never been "Private Property", ever, it has always been public property. That is long established law. This ruling forces that law to be enforced. Owners who bought land on those rivers and streams thinking they owned the land beneath the water were duped when they bought the land and have been living the lie ever since.

Not one trespassing law has changed and landowners still have the option to post their land, just not the publics land beneath the water of navigable rivers and streams. If you walk across an irrigated field to get to a river or stream with out written land owner permission, you are breaking the law. That is trespassing.
If you walk into the stream at a public bridge and stay in the water, you are on public land and not trespassing.

Remember, as of now, this ruling only applies to a 1 mile stretch of the Weber River above Rockport Reservoir, no where else, so don't get carried away.
[signature]

And when a cow or bull on my property stomps someone into the mud of said streambed, who do you suppose is liable? Don't tell me to "not get carried away"! This is a huge can of worms to say the least. It is a huge concern to ranchers, thanks to a population base that loves litigation. It has the potential to threaten my livelihood. But that is just me getting "carried away"?

I respectfully disagree with this ruling. While it now applies only to the Weber river section, it will soon becoming to streams throughout Utah. And it will effect working ranch families like mine. That is a fact.
[signature]

The can of worms was opened when people thought they had the right to keep others out of the rivers that belong to everyone.



[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]

[quote Fishrmn]The can of worms was opened when people thought they had the right to keep others out of the rivers that belong to everyone.



[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000ff]>[/#8000ff][/quote]

So if my hypothetical neighbor hovers over your swimming pool in a helicopter and I jump in, there isn't a thing you can do until I set foot on your lawn right?

How is that any different that walking up a stream? My deed says from section corner to section corner. Now suddenly thanks to a judge, my deed is not valid?

When a stream moves its course or is in flood stage, suddenly I own less ground than when it stays in its streambed?

And nobody on the stream access group can answer my VALID concerns over liability! They ignore me like you did, which isn't very comforting when my livelihood is at stake.

We all own the state snowplows too, but that doesn't mean I can drive one anytime I'd like. I can see your side of this issue. What is frustrating, is hardly anyone from your side cares at all about what this will do to working ranch families.

I am not a wealthy corporation ranch. I have a full time job as does my wife and we run our cowherd. This ruling DIRECTLY EFFECTS LOTS AND LOTS OF FOLKS LIKE US. But that isn't nearly as important as fishing for recreation right? In a state with over 60% of the land owned by the government and therefor, PUBLIC.

My family settled on our land 40 years PRIOR to statehood. We have a deep respect for the land and its wildlife. We work hard and take great pride in being responsible stewards or the water, the grass and the land. It has been improved and treasured for 5 generations. There is blood, sweat and tears invested in every clump of grass and stand of trees. Please forgive me if I am protective and not very trusting when issues like these are pointed at us like a gun barrel.

I am a proud sportsman, hunter, hiker, fisherman and shooting sports participant. I know that a very large percentage of guys on this site respect private land and the relationship we all have as neighbors on this planet.

But it only takes one lawsuit, one lengthy litigation, to wipe out everything I just described above. Why cant my rights as a land owner and your rights as sportsmen co-exist?

I will continue to be respectful to your opinions and hope that same courtesy would be extended to mine. But this ruling, in my opinion, is a direct threat to small family ranches and farms in Utah. Not by the majority of you all, but by the few who will not be happy until I have no say at all on what happens on my private land.

I hope you take my comments in the spirit in which I mean them.[] It is not my intent to rile ya'll up. It is my intent to fight for what happens on my land, regardless of what one judge decrees. I will do so with vigor and as respectfully as I can. You have yourself a great evening.

And remember, simply eating, is an agriculture act. If it isn't mined, then its grown. So don't think for a minute, threats to agriculture aren't threats to you as well. Is up to all of us to work together for solutions to issues like this.
[signature]

[quote DKStroutfitter]
The fight is still on and there is still a need for money to fight the fight.
Perhaps someone will chime in and let us know where and how we can help financially.
It takes all of us to win the war.[/quote]


Here is the link to donate to the stream access coalition.

http://utahstreamaccess.org/usac-wp/dona...coalition/
[signature]

First and foremost. As I recall from some of the previous legislative battles, landowners did have some liability protection in the Conatser decision. I also would say that if the landowners had an unacceptable liability exposure, the anglers would likely support giving you the legal protection you need against such a scenario. I know I would support it. Sadly, liability issues are a reality of running any business. My small business is no different than yours with those worries presently.

As for the rest of what was posted, I could argue with multiple points you presented, but I'll pass on that right now and only say that many of the questions you pose could have been resolved by the legislation previously presented by a coalition of anglers and other parties (HB80). However, landowners, the Farm Bureau, and the legislature decided to go a different direction and ignore the Courts and proverbially shove the anglers heads in a turd with HB141.

Hopefully, now the landowners, the Farm Bureau, and the legislature will be ready to compromise and craft legislation that protects both you and us.
[signature]

[quote Bovineowner]My family settled on our land 40 years PRIOR to statehood. We have a deep respect for the land and its wildlife. We work hard and take great pride in being responsible stewards or the water, the grass and the land. It has been improved and treasured for 5 generations. There is blood, sweat and tears invested in every clump of grass and stand of trees. Please forgive me if I am protective and not very trusting when issues like these are pointed at us like a gun barrel.[/quote]

And the river ran through that property for thousands of years BEFORE your family came to this continent.



[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]