HB 80: 2010 Stream Bill

[TS30]

Here is the final version. Take a look and post up of you have any questions.

http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbillint/hb0080.pdf

I personally support this legislation 100%.
[signature]

[kochanut]

ok, so i read this as well as i could..... i hate legislation because of the wording, so maybe someone could explain things in plain english to me..... what does this mean for access? what does this mean about where i can enter and exit a waterway? sorry, like i said sometiomes the words get jumbled in my head when i read them...

oh one last thing.... whats with this fee of no more then $1 per yera? does that mean if i owned a section on the weber, could i put up a post asking fisherman to pay $1 each to access the river that flows through my property.
[signature]

[TS30]

I'll take my best stab at it.

$1 per year language: Only applies to the level of care a landowner owes someone using his land. If the landowner charges money and invites people on, he has a much higher duty to make the premises safe for those people invited/paying to use the land. What that is basically saying is if you don't charge a fee to use your land, but people are using it, you don't have any raised duty of care. Doesn't really apply to anything from an angler aspect, just a protection in place for landowners not to be sued if you slip and fall while fishing in the river over their property.

Access: This bill isn't about access per se. You can only enter and exit a river on public property, or with permission from the landowner of private property. That isn't changed, and won't change. And it shouldn't change. People shouldn't have free reign of a landowner's entire property to access a river. You must still access the river initially, and exit the river from public property or a public right of way.
[signature]

[HFT]

TS30 Thanks so much for the post!

I think every fisherman in Utah should read through this bill.

I am not sure of the need of all of this bill? I can see some clarification on stream bed laws.

I am concerned on 2 issues: #1 Access Certificate
Takes away freedom of public access ...unless you first pass their test. We all know our government...
Free today Fee tomorrow,this will cost to implement, thus need for fee, once fee is established it is too easy to raise fee for a lot of reasons.Especially were this is to be renewed every 365 days.
People are not stupid and do not need this education every year. This could be a 1 time access education as we do with the blue Card (hunters safety)

#2 for land owner,I see "not more than $1 per year" becoming "not more than $$$ per year"

I hope this was posted on the utah general board also.
[signature]

[TS30]

HFT, good concerns. Here's my take:

1- Public access certificate is no different than a myriad of other types of online education that takes place to recreate in our state. Swans, bow hunting, goats, collecting sheds, etc all require these types of education. In my opinion this will never turn into a fee. The original proposal was a $5 access stamp. The DWR fought against this, stating education was important and they could do it for free. I have to disagree that people are not stupid though. And I happen to think the yearly education is not only acceptable, but needed. That's just my opinion though.

2- The statement at the beginning about "not more than $1 per year" really doesn't have anything to do with anglers or recreationalists. It's only a protection for landowners in the level of duty of care they owe legally. Even if that number changed, it doesn't change anything for the recreationalists using the land. A landowner still can't willfully create dangerous circumstances and situations. They just don't have to take extra care to make it safe if you aren't paying for the use.

I did post it on the general Utah forum. I encourage everyone to get behind this bill. There are some compromises in it certainly (access certificate being one example) but it balances the needs of both sides in this issue and is very workable.
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote kochanut] whats with this fee of no more then $1 per yera?.[/quote]

It means that if you own property and you charge people more than $1 per year to access and use your land that you hold a much higher liability assuring that your land is safe. Those that do not charge hold less liability to the general public recreating on their land.

It's really pretty plain:

...an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge or for a nominal fee of not more than $1 per year any person to use the land for any recreational purpose...does not thereby...assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to persons or property caused by an act or omission of the person or any other person who enters upon the land...

If a person enters private land to fish a stream, then trips and falls on a slippery rock, the private land owner is not necessary liable for that injury. Further, if the person sues the landowner and loses the case, that person is responsible for paying the legal fees for the private land owner.

They're trying to protect the private landowners from being sued by anglers that get hurt while angling on private land. It's a good thing. It's going to help landowners accept allowing people in to the public resource.
[signature]

[HFT]

TS30 wrote:[/quote]
HFT, good concerns. Here's my take:

"1- Public access certificate is no different than a myriad of other types of online education that takes place to recreate in our state. Swans, bow hunting, goats, collecting sheds, etc all require these types of education. In my opinion this will never turn into a fee."

In my opinion this is too easy to turn into a fee being renewed 365.


"The original proposal was a $5 access stamp. The DWR fought against this, stating education was important and they could do it for free."

Kudos to the DWR for having our back!!!

"I have to disagree that people are not stupid though."

You really don't believe that,do you? an education like this is not rocket science. It really could be a one time,and should be, education.



"2- The statement at the beginning about "not more than $1 per year" really doesn't have anything to do with anglers or recreationalists. It's only a protection for landowners in the level of duty of care they owe legally. Even if that number changed, it doesn't change anything for the recreationalists using the land. A landowner still can't willfully create dangerous circumstances and situations. They just don't have to take extra care to make it safe if you aren't paying for the use."

Some stuff besides water flows down hill. Indirectly.

"I did post it on the general Utah forum. I encourage everyone to get behind this bill. There are some compromises in it certainly (access certificate being one example) but it balances the needs of both sides in this issue and is very workable.[/quote]"


I would Like to see this bill with a change to that certificate.
[signature]

[TS30]

Copied and pasted from another site. Let these people know we support HB 80!

House Natural Resources Committee
Rep. Roger Barrus
Rep. John Mathis
Rep. Melvin Brown
Rep. Brad Dee
Rep. Jack Draxler
Rep. Kerry Gibson
Rep. James Gowans
Rep. Neal Hendrickson
Rep. Michael Noel
Rep. Patrick Painter
Rep. Phil Riesen
Rep. Christine Wakins
Rep. Ryan Wilcox
Rep. Bill Wright

The above committee is vital to the success of HB80. We need everyone, regardless of who your representative is, to start getting in touch with these folks. They need to hear from everyone that HB80 deserves it's time on the floor for debate. Please get them a message ASAP. Thanks everyone.

Here is a link to get their contact info:

http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/members/...le2add.asp
[signature]

[HFT]

Thanks TS30

You didn't mention,that there is a rally at the capitol on 02/05 a friday at 11:30 for the supporters of this bill.

Make you voices heard!
[signature]

[Tapajos]

On my hands and knees today, I had to crawl under a barbed-wire fence that was placed over a river(yes I got wet). The fence had been bent up PRIOR to my arrival making this possible.

I have 2 questions.

1. If it was to become an issue with law enforcement there is no way that I know of to prove that the fence was bent PRIOR to my arrival that I can think of. Any suggestions?

And 2. Who exactly defines the passage in relation to (not verbatim) "No fence shall be placed with the sole purpose of keeping people from using the river bed"? For this particular land owner this fence was placed in a very large "yard" area not used for livestock. Couldn't they simply say it was to keep the dogs in the yard? And then not have to make any concessions for those of us wanting to use the stream bed?
[signature]

[albinotrout]

Yes this is a good question.
[signature]

[TS30]

Good question. If this bill (HB 80) passes, you won't have to worry about that. It allows an angler, or any recreational water user, to portage around the man-made obstacle (fence) above the ordinary high water mark and get back in the river above/below the man made obstacle.

In plain English, if this bill passes, and a landowner puts a fence across the river that you can't get by in the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), you can get out of the OHWM, cross the fence, get back in the river, and proceed on your merry way. It is a way of preventing landowners from blocking the easement by just throwing up a fence.
[signature]

[Tapajos]

So this fence would eventualy have to come down or have a walkway built over it, as its 7ft high and barbed-wire. There is no way around it as it incircles the property and has 500yds of river within 3 sides of fence......Or I guess I could walk right up the land owners driveway across the lawn and out onto the water? lol.
[signature]

[TS30]

There's always going to be a case like this where there is no easy answer. There are always extremes that the rules won't easily fix. I don't know what to tell you on that other than the bill would allow for portage if the fence can't be safely crossed/passed within the OHWM. I'm not sure what else to say having not seen the fence or know the area you're talking about.
[signature]

[SirAngler]

Many fishing advocates support HB 80 and SB 267. Utah Water Guardians is telling everybody to email their representative and ask them to pass the bill. Fish Tech supports it too. I think they are wrong. Here is why:

I’ve read HB 80 and HB 290. SB 267 is supposed to be SIMILAR to HB 80, but the text has not been placed in the bill as of this morning (2/9/10). There are supposedly a couple of other bills being introduced too.

HB 290 is bad. I don't think HB 80 is that much better. I see a big problem with the way HB 80 differentiates between man-made obstacles and natural obstacles. This creates confusion. It should not matter if an obstacle is man-made or natural. A user should be able to go around any obstacle in order to continue navigating the stream.

Have you ever tried to walk down a stream without stepping out and onto the river bank above? It very hard to do. Users who float may have little problem drifting down stream, but fishermen will have a very difficult time walking in the natural stream bed all of the time, even if they are walking downstream. Going upstream is even more difficult. Can you imagine the damage to fish spawning beds if everybody had to stay in the natural stream bed?

This bill is still too restrictive. I urge you to ask your representatives to make fishing access more reasonable. We must have the ability to walk along the stream bank. Fishermen often walk just far enough away from the bank so that only their head is visible to the fish. Nobody want to bushwhack through the tall grass and bush. Mostly they stay on trails that already exist. Sometimes those trails are 100 feet from the stream. Floaters and Fishermen alike should not have to risk their lives trying to get through one type of obstacle, while legally allowed to go around another type. And remember, it will almost always be the landowner with a gun who decides if an obstacle is man-made or natural.

Last year there were four gunshots fired. None of the shots were fired by floaters or fishermen. Last year there was no law restricting access. If any bill passes, it will restrict access to a lessor or greater degree. How many shots do you think will be fired then?

If no bill passes, it will be better than passing a bill that does not fully protect water users rights.

Don't support this bill just because it is the best one so far, or because opposition claims we are really good at always saying 'no' but never agreeing to anything. Remember, they lost in the Supreme Court when they tried to take away river user's rights entirely. There is no reason we should settle for anything less than full unrestricted easement along rivers.

Fo goodness sake don't contact your representative until you have read the bill yourself and know what it says.
[signature]

[kochanut]

you just did a copy/paste three times.....
[signature]

[SirAngler]

Yeah, pretty much. Actually, I wrote it once and pasted it into the other two threads.

Three separate threads. Only one of them popped up in my Google search, but they are all applicable. If there is a way to combine the threads, let's do it.
[signature]

[kochanut]

maybe HFT could just make one massive thread for this
[signature]

[HFT]

Welcome aboard Sir Angler, you make some good points! Our representatives and senators are working hard at repressing us by piling up the laws. (I am reminded of this every time I get a seat belt ticket)No matter,one way or another one of these geniuses are going to keep throwing this issue back into the ring. I'd throw down a pretty hefty bet that even if HB80 passes we will be back to fighting this issue again and again.

Your post would have been viewed just as much if you would have picked a thread,instead of pasting several.

I don't think I have the ability to combine threads or that is it prudent.
[signature]