Fishing Forum

[#0000FF]BLK and myself met with Ben Stireman (Div. of Forestry, Fire and State Lands), Chris Crockett (DWR) and a couple of DWR COs at Lincoln Beach yesterday. Our goal was to define the issues and to come up with some potential options to allow public access to at least a small part of the Utah Lake bed during extreme low water conditions...such as we have had the past couple of years.

The current statutes prohibit any vehicular access to exposed lakebeds...for a lot of good reasons. But the rock shelves at Lincoln Point are different than the soft muddy shorelines at Sandy Beach, the Knolls and other areas popular with idiots who like to churn up the exposed bottom sediments.

For many years it has been a natural thing for anglers to drive out onto the exposed rock shelves during low water. This area becomes "the only game in town" for anyone who wants to catch fish from Utah Lake at this time. There is deeper water close to shore and it is possible to launch small boats, float tubes and pontoons from the edges.

This fall the Utah County sheriffs began chasing anglers out of those spots and threatening hefty fines if they returned. And indeed, the statutes provide for fines up to $750 for some offenses...and even more for others.

After contacting DWR and Utah FFSL, we agreed that we should at least explore the possibility of working out a variance during low water conditions. That was the reason for the meeting.

I am copy/pasting part of the email I got back from Ben (FFSL). Doesn't sound like we will get to fish or launch from the rocks during this low water period. I only hope that something gets done in the future for other Utah anglers.
[/#0000FF]
I wanted to recap our meeting yesterday for those that attended and those that have interest regarding access issues at Lincoln Beach. When the water is low the access to one of Utah Lake's best fishing spots is not accessible for people that have trouble walking or are carrying heavy loads such as canoes or float tubes. I think we all agreed that this is not much of an issue when the water is high, and I think that it is safe to say that small watercraft can be launched at from the boat ramp during high water periods. We will need to decide if any improvements or accommodations that will be made will be permanent or will only be in place during low water periods. I have listed some of the proposals below:

[ul][li]Allow fisherman and non motorized boaters to utilize a specific area for parking. This would require an improved or defined parking area and signage indicating that anyone outside of the parking area would be ticketed. [/li][li]Expanding the Lincoln Beach improvements to help accommodate sportsman that would like to access the area we described. [/li][li]Allow sportsman to drive down to the said area to drop off equipment and return to the parking lot to drop off their vehicles.[/li][/ul]
None of these ideas or solutions seemed to satisfy everyone. It was apparent that many of these proposals would make it very difficult for law enforcement officers to delineate between who is using the access point for the above described purpose and those who are disobeying the law. Another drawback to some of the proposals that I am curious about is the amount of liability put on the state for allowing people to drive in an area that would otherwise be illegal to drive on. Would the State be liable for someone who damaged their vehicle or got their vehicle stuck? I am also a bit concerned that this may set a precedent for other areas of the lake and make an already difficult law to enforce even more difficult to enforce. Lastly, any improvements that are permanent in nature may be adversely affected during high water periods. Improvements may create navigational hazards during high water periods that would put additional liability on the State.
[#0000FF]


[/#0000FF]
[signature]

Thanks Pat for the update. If I understand correctly you can carry or roll your craft to the waters edge then you would not be in violation?
[signature]

Interesting meeting. Hard for me to get too excited about a solution but I did take note of a potential $750 fine or more depending on the mood of the judge. I don't see anything by way of an access solution this year but at least the ball is rolling. I have never been a fan of the government being able to move with alacrity in making changes to established rules and regs.

Ben presented some workable proposals for consideration but does access for "non motorized boaters" exclude tubes, toons, and tin tubs with electric motors?

Seems like all at the meeting were in agreement that access would be desirable, especially for the fishermen. It didn't help the meeting to have some clown drive his truck a half mile out on the south shore line while we were talking about potential damage to the exposed lake bottom. It was encouraging to see the channel covered with water now but the outlook for significant help from a good winter is looking pretty bleak. I see a very short boating season next year unless we get more water from up-stream and/or a very heavy snow fall this winter. Not really optimistic. I'm startin' to think both the drought and that 36 inch catfish will outlive me.[]

Big thanks to TD for arranging the meeting and presenting the access dilemma with his word power and knowledge of the lake's history.

Hope springs eternal.

BLK
[signature]

[#0000FF]That is about it. No vehicle access allowed but unless you are on private property you can walk almost anywhere during low water.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]

"Ben presented some workable proposals for consideration but does access for "non motorized boaters" exclude tubes, toons, and tin tubs with electric motors?"

[#0000FF]I'm pretty sure he was alluding to gas powered boats.

As we both know...from personal experience...the wheels of progress grind slowly when governmental agencies are involved. It has been over three years in negotiating public access for the Knolls. Agreements in principal have been there from the beginning, but with all the people involved...including attorneys...they keep "modifying" the language of the paperwork until everybody is screaming for a final conclusion.

I think Ben is an intelligent guy and readily sees the simple solution we seek. But because he is shackled by the concerns for budget, liability and other issues he can see that there will be no quick and easy solution.

Like yourself, I believe I will likely not live long enough to see the kind of simple temporary waiving of restrictions we seek to help our fellow anglers.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]

Quote:Another drawback to some of the proposals that I am curious about is the amount of liability put on the state for allowing people to drive in an area that would otherwise be illegal to drive on. Would the State be liable for someone who damaged their vehicle or got their vehicle stuck?

This seems like an excuse to me, is the state liable for off-roaders in Moab or on any other BLM or forest service roads in the state that get stuck or damage their vehicles? No.
[signature]

[#0000FF]If someone were to sue BLM or Forest Service they would likely get nowhere. Fed stuff. On the other hand the state finds it easier to simply keep people out than to go through the expense and hassle of potential litigation.

We have to save people from themselves. Good cases around Utah Lake recently. Vehicles all around the lake getting bogged down in mud up to their running boards...then having to call towing services. And even if they go past "DO NOT ENTER" signs to access the mud flats they still try to sue for the costs of getting towed out.

Heard more than a few examples of the state trying to accommodate the public...only to have signage destroyed and fragile resources burned, shot up and/or otherwise damaged.

We live in a litigious society. Folks are programmed to bring frivolous lawsuits solely to try to get a nice settlement...from a company or agency with deep pockets...just to avoid going to court.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]

Thanks all those who participated for taking time and energy to try!
[signature]