Much to my regret-another view on HB187

[Leaky33]

[url "http://utahwildlife.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14647#p168753"][/url]
I posted this on another forum and decided to see what you folks thoughtso I thought I'd post here.

Was fishing in a small club area (obviously private land). I reported on the trip in the fishing forum, was one of my best. But I diverge! While there, I met up with the ranch manager and he told me about since opening up our waters to us fisherman, he is spending a lot of time chasing folks out. He is fully aware that we have a right to access thru public access ares, but here's the rub. The nearest public access is over 2 miles away, so what folks are doing is simply using the private access with disregard to private, posted property by vehicle and foot (the gate is left open for cow feeding and the owner who drives in and out from her home regularly). They all insist they have a right to access in this maner now. Sure hope this doesn't become prevalent. Are we fishermen going to once again misuse our fishing rights and cause us to go back to where we were? Man I'm so looking forward to a reasonable access right to our rivers and streams. Are we going to screw it up?
Leaky and the Sparkinator
[signature]

[TS30]

Leaky, I'm not going to sit here and say that these things do not happen. We all know that some people are just plain stupid. And stupid people do stupid things. Here is my advice about this issue....it's two-fold.

1- I have learned that it is sensationalism that gets people's attention. I have learned there is a lot of exaggerated stories being spread that are either half truths or blatant lies on what is going on since the Conatser decision. My question to these people....why not call the authorities when people have trespassed? The Conatser court was clear that you had to access from a public right of way. It was explicit. Crossing private land to get to public water-ways is illegal today, as it always has been. If this is so prevalent like some are claiming, why aren't people being cited?

2- This is more a continuation of #1. Enforce the darn law! I believe in and support trespassing laws. There are trespassing laws already in place. Just enforce them. No need to create a new law to enforce an old one. In addition, these types of situations have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Conatser case and HB 187 in my opinion. As I already stated, these actions are already illegal. Conatser did not make them legal. And it even talks about it still being illegal. I could see if a ton of people were having arguments about portage or what in fact the "stream bed" means. Whether it's keep your feet wet or the high water mark. Those would be legitimate concerns created by Conatser. But we're not talking about those issues. We're talking about trespassing. Something that is still illegal today without any further legislation. Just enforce the law as it is if these things are indeed happening.

I call BS on most of these stories to be frank. I'm going to start telling all the stories I've heard of landowners harassing people who were 100% legal in what they were doing.

In fact, I have a close friend who was shot at by a landowner when he was 3 feet away from the bank and had stayed in the water the whole time on the Weber in Morgan. (okay, so that's a lie...but see how it caught your attention????)
[signature]

[Leaky33]

Well, first of all, this ain't BS. I personally know these folks and if you call it BS you call me BS, which is of course your right.
Second, I have followed your postings, and for the most part respect your views and agree with your posts and views and have voiced my objections tor hb187 to my reps..
Third, the folks that I describe just don't want the hassel of calling the sheriff and waiting for an hour or more, trying to restrain em/record license plate #s if they are in a vehicle. or have the sheriff not show up at all. He's simply got more things on his plate running the ranch then to do it and in my opinion we shouldn't put this on them as much as it seems we are.
Personally what I plan to do when I run into them, which so far, has been very few (thankfully) is to lock the gate behind them and see what they do.
Last - I fish the public waters about 90% of the time and truly am very supportive to all the legal and responsible access we can get. But I am a little disappointed in your response. Hopefully, I miss interpreted it and if so I apologize. My point is we as responsible fishermen need to police ourselves so we don't abuse these rights and not put it totally on the land owners. There is nother side of the coin, so to speak.[]
[signature]

[riverdog]

I agree with TS30, it sounds like BS. Trespassing is and has always been illegal. And just because someone is 2 miles from the nearest public access doesn't mean he got there illegally. I routinely travel miles upstream when fishing. I find cover a lot of ground the easiest way to make a 50 fish afternoon routine. You also have to remember that what private landowners do to deny the public access still is and has always been illegally in Utah. This wasn't the first time the Utah Supreme Court has come out saying this. I suspect this crime is at least as common as those trespassing to fish. I'm not aware of any landowner being prosecuted for this crime unlike the trespassers. HB187 is a seizure of the longstanding public rights. Private landowners never owned the waterways no matter when they purchased the land. I don't see why they now think it should be theirs. Actually I do see- it's called greed, the same reason others steal. Small time crooks rob stores and banks the big time ones go into politics[pirate]. And all the politicians who talk about a compromise is like the robber that says just give me 90% of your money that way it's a compromise and not a criminal act. Another thing to remember is that the US Supreme Court has also heard cases on this issue from time to time for more than a century. From what I've read previously they have also almost always sided with public access of our waterways. So even if this law passes it doesn't mean that it'll stand up. Instead one day the wise Utah politicians might be using our tax dollars on a legal team to defend their seizure of our rights. I doubt these politicians have enough competency or ethics to research these precedents before putting together and voting on a bill. It's only our rights and our money they're taking and spending.
[signature]

[sinergy]

When I review HB187 I try to see it from both point of views Yes I see the view from the Landowner not wanting to deal with the public. And Yes there is a small majority that will muck up the land. This small majority needs to be dealt with Ive been on the stance to have these people cited or arrested I know I sounds extreme but if were going to co-exsist there needs to be a so call give and take relationship. HB187 is really a restriction on were one can fish Private or not these rivers were put here by mother nature and restricting ones rights has never gone over well in the past. I understand your saying its a hassle from a landowner to police his land outside of his responsibilities but HB187 or not policing one's lands is part of owning land. The real issue should be concentrating on citing or arresting the small majority of lawbreakers who ruin it for everyone. We can do this by reporting poaching, littering ect ect.

I know it seems like there not enough enforcement to chase down every incident but do you really think the small majority thats breaking these laws is really going to adhere to HB187 its the guy\gals who abide by the law who are going to be penalized.
[signature]

[match-hatch]

I have the perfect solution. Treat the land like you have some ownership, you see someone breaking the law take the time and talk to them. 90% of the people will listen, the other 10% call law enforcement. Win, Win. Landowner has help with the trouble makers and the good guys get to fish.
[signature]

[fuzzyfisher]

what ever happened to the old school way of dealing with trespassers?

a 12 gage filled with salt rock was plenty enough for me not to trespass!

i can only think that if maybe if more of today's fishermen and hunters had been hit once (once is all it takes) with that stuff they would never trespass again!! [sly]..
[signature]

[RiverRat77]

If you're not going to sit there and say its BS, then why make up all the excuses in the world for why its on the landowner to keep people off their property? [#0000bf]Please refrain from name calling... Kent.[/#0000bf] The guy has no reason to do anything but back anglers, has been a member of this club he was fishing for years.... he has no reason to just make up stories about anglers violating the law. It sounds like some of you are just so pro angler (read that as it doesn't matter what anglers do, they must be right) that you couldn't see things from the side of a landowner even if you were there and witnessed the conversation. You guys that are so supportive of this fight for your supposed rights to access are so narrow minded that its no wonder the landowners are finally sticking up for themselves. I've said this on another forum and I'll say it again here.... I'm for the landowners on this. You give anglers an inch, they'll want a mile. Do I own land?? No, but I certainly don't believe its my right to go tromping through somebody's property just because all of a sudden I am supposed to be able to fish water in that area. Give me a damn break.... there is no sensationalism, just a bit of reality check going on here. Anglers are not the little angels some would have us all believe. Leaky, I'm glad the landowner said something to you about it... sounds like she is just asking for a little help and like you I agree, there is much more that goes into ranching than policing your little strip of river. At least she's got good people like you to depend on for help. These other dudes would be too busy telling her she's wrong to even worry about the folks actually breaking the law. Here's a compromise for you "anglers must be right, landowners are in the wrong" fellas. If you can float the river... great, have at it. If you can't, well tough. If the government wanted the public to have access to that waterway, they wouldn't have sold off land around it for somebody else to make private. It sounds more and more like a case of "have nots" being ticked off that the people who have the land won't share their piece of the pie.... my two cents.... too bad.[mad]
[signature]

[RiverRat77]

If you did something like that Fuzzy, you'd have folks like TS30 and Riverdog looking for some reason that the landowner was in the wrong for chasing you off the property. Landowners will always be painted as the bad guys by folks like TS30 and Riverdog... guys who think they're entitled to some sort of protection just because they're an angler. Yeah right.... I agree, a boot on a vehicle, rock salt to a trespassing punks behind, maybe even electric fences with no fishermen ladders for access... its all a good idea but its not measures landowners should have to resort to. If the property is posted folks should just stay the hell out... water on the property or not. TS30 has said some things that I believe anglers are using to their advantage... he says he calls BS on most of the landowner stories "to be frank". Well, I'm the same way from the other side of the fence. I think anglers are making a big deal out of nothing and have gotten so full of themselves that instead of being thankful for opportunities presented, that now they're, or I suppose I should say we're because since I am an angler, I'm lumped in with these sorts of people, we're taking those opportunities for granted.... which leads to this whole argument over thinking we now deserve access to private ground. Folks say the water is public..... great, access that public water after it gets done flowing out of PRIVATE property. Its still the same water... its not like the water has totally changed just because it ran through private ground.... sounds like a case of sensationalism on the part of TS30, Riverdog and their likeminded pals to obtain sympathy from legislators.[pirate]
[signature]

[lunkerhunter2]

I don't believe you have an argument here. We had the right to access OUR water all along and now the landowners can't handle it. Your attitude is telling me you are a landowner or have friends who are and you get to fish their property. Am i right??[]
[signature]

[packfish]

RR- I can understand some of your thought waves- I have always asked permission first. But one of your problems here- at least from what I read from your posts- you do not understand the Conaster decision or haven't read it.
[signature]

[TS30]

RiverRat,

Your posts are evidence enough that you have not taken the time to educate yourself on this matter in any way, shape, or form. If you would like to discuss this matter PM me, I'll be happy to give you my contact information.

I have never once said anything you are accusing me of. In fact, I have constantly asked for this bill to go to an interim study so that all sides can sit down together and work it out. I don't think that is being closed minded. That is only asking for anglers and other recreational users to have a seat at the table when our rights are decided. Is that too much to ask? Plus, I never questioned Leaky. I questioned the person who told him his information.

Like I said, you act like I am this landowner hating freedom fighter or something. You couldn't be further from the truth than with that position. PM me, we can chat. Otherwise, I suggest you stop trying to spout off about things you know nothing of. There is no reason to sit and argue on an online forum. That accomplishes nothing and only makes people look immature. Like I said, if you want to really learn about it, you know how to get a hold of me. I'd be happy to discuss it with you or anyone else for that matter. The offer is open to all.

(Edit: Sorry Kent....edit of a few words)
[signature]

[Kent]

Ok fellow anglers stop the name-calling and watch your language.
[signature]

[shelby]

It only takes a handful of bad anglers to really mess things up. In almost 50 years of fishing, I've had four really bad experiences with other fishermen on public waters. Unfortunately those were bad enough that I now very carefully watch my back on any body of water and I never fish unarmed.

I think in most cases the benefit of the doubt will have to go to the landowner because he has the most to lose. I live in a formerly rural area that borders on public land. Two or three times a year I catch people trying to dump truckloads of garbage--usually broken concrete, rocks, cardboard, or yard waste. I get deer and elk carcasses and hides dumped every year. I looked out the window one morning to find that a Scout group camped overnight on my posted property. I have had tools stolen and animals harrassed.

Every year ot two I see someone fishing in the stream that runs on the back of my property, which is pretty funny because it only runs four months out of the year.

Usually when I explain to these people that they are on private property instead of apologizing they try to justify why they have the right to be behind my fences.
[signature]

[fishguru73]

There's always a group of low class hooligans that leave their beer cans laying around, leave gates open, and even vandalize the property. These people ruin it for everyone. I think the way to take care of the problem is to impose stiff fines and penalties that are paid directly to the land owner on top of state fees; including cash payments and set periods for labor to be delegated by the landowner for serious offenders that trash, burn, or vandalize property.
I personally feel that there should be points of access set every half mile or so to public waters because I don't like paying for a license to maintain fisheries I can't utilize while people who can afford land monopolize them. I also think that if you are walking the bank, even if you get a ways from the water because you are looking for a better route to another part of a stream, the landowners shouldn't bellyache about this water line crap because it isn't that painful to share a foot trail.
This place is filling up with all of these people moving in and, eventually, I don't think we'll have anything left but memories of our honey holes if this bill is passed. For crying out loud, there are new housing editions on Utah Lake, the perfect example of an urban fishery, where they are buying up the land and denying access to anyone who doesn't live in their little communities. What's really stupid is that alot of these people aren't into boating or fishing so they aren't utilizing the honey holes they're denying to everone else. Makes me mad.[mad]
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

A couple of comments are worth noting;

1. The act Leaky describes is as illegal now as it was prior to Conatser.

2. If HB 187 passes (as presently constituted), nothing will change in this instance either since the Weber is on the list of approved rivers for fishing access.

We as anglers have a responsibility to respect private property rights and report violators ourselves. The rhetoric regarding HB187 has been sharp, but I have to disagree that all HB187 opponents are not cognizant of landowner rights. I have read on various forums and have proposed myself ways to help protect landowners while maintaining the rights clarified by Conatser.

As for violators, if they are wantonly violating the law, I say bust them and throw the book at them. If they ignorantly are violating the law, still bust them but we as anglers need to educate our fellows as to what is legal. I feel that is the DWR's job as well, but they were very slow in putting anything out to guide anglers[:/] on what Conatser means and thus a lot of misinformation is still out there. (another story for a different time) Anyway, it will fall on us the anglers to educate and be the eyes and ears of the landowners when we are fishing "public water over a private bed". If we do, we can all peacefully co exist.

Oh, and Kill bill 187[]
[signature]

[davefishman]

TS30 -

I have read all of your posts on this and I appreciate the respectful tone that you have taken when discussing this issue. Thank you.

I can't say that I am an expert in legal proceedings, but I can say that nothing makes me as mad as when I stumble and ankle twist my way up a stream only to find that someone has trespassed to beat me to the hole. Throw the book at those guys. The existing laws are fine. Don't throw the Baby out with the bath water!
[signature]

[davefishman]

Shelby,

I would like to hear your stories.
[signature]

[flygoddess]

I am going to go with TS30 on everything he has said. This is not a question of Private land...this is seizure! OMG...500 ft barrier, then 150' come on!
It won't go back to the way it was, it will be MUCH WORSE! Not okay with me.
100 people fish, 2 screw up......That two stands out, but come on, pretty good odds.
I don't own waterfront property, but if someone is on my property un- invited, I CALL THE AUTHORITIES!

I really don't think it is happening that much, and the fact it happens at all is a shame, but again...It has always been illegal. Nothing has changed there.
[signature]

[bigfish6]

im with fishguru73 on this one, the only thing i have a problem with is a fine directly paid to the land owner. hell i can start my own hay on fire if i see a person on my property and then say it was that guy over there. then he has to pay me because the cops will never believe his story.
[signature]