Public access fishing permit

[redlight88]

SL Tribune [url "http://blogs.sltrib.com/fishing/"]has a post about a stream access law [/url]proposal that might require a $5 public access fishing permit for all anglers.
[signature]

[sinergy]

Well this is a load of crap... What do we pay for when buying fishing license ??? Is the 5 bucks per season.. Per water ... or Per Outing. I swear this got to be the dumbest thing the DWR has proposed. Just freaking lame I swear this better not pass.... [pirate][pirate][pirate]


Oh & thanks for the post redlight88 great see someone shed light on a bogus law.
[signature]

[redlight88]

The DWR is not proposing it. This comes from a legislator and could be presented in the 2010 Legislative session. I think you would have to have an access permit on your 365-day license.
[signature]

[sinergy]

You could be right but pages 2 & 3 of the bill really make it sound like the DWR has its paws in this:

[font "Arial,Bold"]
[left]23-19-17. Resident fishing and hunting license -- Use of fee.
[/font][font "Arial"]
[left](1) A resident, after paying the fee established by the Wildlife Board [/font][font "Arial"][#ff0000][font "Arial"][#ff0000]and purchasing a public access stamp [/#ff0000][/font][/#ff0000][/font][font "Arial"], may obtain, as provided by the Wildlife Board's
[left]rules, a combination license to:
(a) fish;
[/font]
[signature]

[LordoftheFlies]

How can they call it "public" access when those who don't pay can't trespass? Are they trying to piss people off?
[signature]

[lundfun]

If you can get people to pay a fee, then the right to public access is reduced to a privilege, which can be taken away. The cost of administering this program easily could exceed the income.
[signature]

[albinotrout]

This has landowners written all over it. I think we all need to contact the legislators on the hill if it ever gets to them to put it down.
[signature]

[Weekend_Warrior]

I'm fine with paying 5 bucks a year if it goes somewhere good. My question is how does this benefit anyone but the DNR? Where is this money going? Will I have to stop fishing and show a land owner my stamp? Good principle, bad plan.
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

The first thing to keep in mind is that the posted bill was a first draft. None of this is firm yet and there will be a lot of give and take. There was a meeting yesterday and the word is that a lot of this is already changed or off the table.

As for the $5, I have no problem with charging anglers utilizing "public water over private lands" for the opportunity. The fund is designed to help pay for access improvements and other projects related to improving the fishing experience while protecting landowners interests at the same time. I would also like to see the DWR include a handout of what the Conatser decision allows and doesn't allow with purchase of said stamp and the opportunity for anglers to work in service projects relating to the stream to "pay off" the fee.


I do NOT favor charging every angler the fee however. Some guy that only fishes community ponds or flings some powerbait up at Tibble fork twice a year should not have to foot the bill for this.
[signature]

[redlight88]

There is an [url "http://blogs.sltrib.com/fishing"]update on the Trib.[/url]
[signature]

[sinergy]

Great to hear that the original draft of this bill was dropped I couldn’t understand how they could charge anglers more money to fish a public\private stream as noted in the article its a right not a privilege.

If private land owners want to make a buck have them sell food & beverages streamside []

Anyway from reading the article looks like they are going to poll to see if anglers are willing to annually pay more for a license. If the money goes only to improve public fishing than Im all for it but Hell No of its going to any Private Land Owner.

If enrolled in the dwrs walk in access program private land owners already get paid to allow anglers to cross there properties I think 1600 bucks a year could be wrong on the amount. I know its not allot but hell its easy money.

I say nay to any increase to pad private landowners pockets.
[signature]

[Marathonman]

Here Here! I agree with you!
[signature]

[Troll]

Meeting yesterday? Meeting amung who? The legislature is not in session.
Or was this some closed door meeting that the public was neither informed of or knowlege of it's existance wanted to be known?

$5 for free reign to cross private property to access public water that flows across someone elses land? Where do I pay? Can I get a lifetime stamp for $200 so when fools ruin it, I still have my privliges for life?
[signature]