Posts: 623
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation:
0
Went fishing to day on the lower Weber at the Mountain Green exit. We went east from there until we saw a camping area. There we came up on a guy that claimed we were in a private spot on the river. We saw no posts saying the area was private. But the guy insisted we leave and claimed his family owned clear down steam to the bridge were I parked. I left the camp ground area and stopped fishing.
He called the Morgan Sheriff and later met up with him down stream where I gave my address and personal info.
So now I am waiting to see if I am charged with trespass.
So whats up? Did I violate the law? The area was not posted. Do I have to just take this guys word for it that it is private? What do you think?
[signature]
Posts: 1,151
Threads: 2
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation:
0
bummer deal buddy! I see people fishing that section all the time, I know there is no signs and where you access the water its legal, if my mind serves me right I dont believe it has to be marked to be private property!
I too feel your frustration as their is tons of awesome spots on the weber that are deemed private..
Damn i cant wait for the law to go back to high water mark!
Everytime I fish the weeb with catman, we always pick up tons of trash, kind of a bummer to see people littering on such a pristine beautiful river...
[signature]
Posts: 2,727
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
This link gives you upstream to downstream coordinates of what you can fish in that area that aren't private. Next time print it out, take it and a basic GPS with you. http://wildlife.utah.gov/hotspots/brwaterbody.php
On a side most of the law ( HB141) limiting access / illegally seizing of waterways in Utah has been thrown out already by the courts. http://utahwildlife.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=42717 You still have to access rivers legally like the rest of America. However it was legal and upheld in the courts couple of times prior to HB141 but that didn't stop people from being prosecuted for non existent unAmerican laws. I'd print out the court overturning data as well and keep it with your license next time.
[signature]
Posts: 2,727
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
The first link won't work so go to http://wildlife.utah.gov/hotspots/blueribbon.php
and select the 2nd Weber Listing.
[signature]
Posts: 5,856
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
If the area is not cultivated or irrigated, it must be posted with signs/paint. If it happens to be either of the above, you might be forking out some cash.
[signature]
Posts: 305
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation:
0
Do a little research and you'll find that this is how the how thing began for the Conaster (sp) family, the Utah courts, and the whole Stream bed law crap... If he in fact did own the land you were fishin/walking he can prosecute for trespass, I don't agree with this but is the "current " law, and as far as it changing any time soon...Well i have a better chance of winning th lottery !
[signature]
Posts: 2,727
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
Did you take the exit ( ?92)past the rest stop and rail bridge heading east? If you drive over the train tracks and park before the bridge across the river you're OK from there downstream. Upstream ( East) is private property. It was marked with orange paint on trees about 7 or 8 years ago I think. It wasn't done well then and could easily be missed. I haven't paid attention in a long time so don't know how it's marked now. If I were you I'd go back and take a look tomorrow morning and snap some pictures. Might come in handy showing it wasn't on purpose if it's still not easy to spot. I know if I wanted people to stay off my private land I'd mark it more visible than what it was when they first did it.
[signature]
Posts: 623
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation:
0
That was where we parked. There were no signs or posts of any kind. I crossed no fences. There was no indication it was private property. When talking with the guy he said he was a family member of the owner. I asked him for permission but he said he hadn't permission to give permission. I then ask for the name and number of the owner so I could call and try to verify what he was telling me. This "family member" then said he didn't have the number. So at that point I thought he was some dude fishing the river who didn't want me there. He asked me to leave and I politely refuse so he called the Morgan Police. At that point I went down river of the camp ground and started fishing my way back.
Thats when we met up with the police officer. He took our numbers and told us the guys land ended at the camp ground and we could continue fishing.
Big hassle for only a few fish. Hope thats the last we hear of it, but the officer said we could be sumoned to court if the real owner wants to press charges.
It dissapoints me to find the rich can own our waters.
Our country has become a little less free with this new law.
[signature]
Posts: 2,504
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
Sorry that this happened to you. The way our "enlightened?" legislature has the trespass laws written now, you really need to check access before you go. Hopefully, nothing will come of the incident.
RE"It dissapoints me to find the rich can own our waters.
Our country has become a little less free with this new law. "
Yep, and If any of you out there agree, we can use the help in the Stream Access Coalition.
http://utahstreamaccess.org/
[signature]
Posts: 423
Threads: 11
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
5
Sure hope you don't get a ticket.
The tenth amendment allows each state's legislature to write laws regulating access to waters that are "NOT" navigatable.
Most streams and rivers are not considered navigatable in Utah.
To circumvent this you must show" Beneficial Use" under "Public Trust".
For the most part only three things have been recognized as being "Beneficial Use".
Farming, Grazing, & Mining.
Fishing and recreating do not constitute "Beneficial Use" under the laws of "Public Trust".
The majority of the states have there access laws set pretty much the way Utah's access laws are set now. Not all, some state legislatures grant more liberal access.
There was a 19 month window where a court ruling did allow high water access on all waters in Utah. The Utah legislature considered the the ruling to be over reaching, bring about the much hated HB-141. So now things are back the way they pretty much have always been in Utah. As far as stream access law.
I hope people don't get misled by the so called over turning of HB-141 posted above. All that does is opens the door for negotiations between the plaintifs and the state to determine the navigatability of some rivers in Utah. Also some arguments may be allowed as to the states defanition of "Beneficial Use"
The most fishermen in Utah can hope for is more access to portions of 3 or 4 larger rivers. That is unless there is a big change in the state legislature.
[signature]
Posts: 81
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation:
0
I was the guy you stopped and talked to at the big hole, i cant believe he actually called the sheriff!! I saw at least 5 more guys head up through the same section of river. And last i checked the property has to be properly posted at some point to get in trouble, and that stretch doesn't have a single sign. So hopefully nothing happens. Its a shame the access issues we have to deal with on the Weber...
[signature]
Posts: 4,335
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation:
0
Keep an eye out for spry painted rocks. That counts as a property marke as well
[signature]
Posts: 66
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
I think you'll be ok. If I remember right, un-fenced private propert has to be clearly marked with a sign(s) and or orange paint. Now, south of that bridge is fed property (private). I've never fished east of there but I assumed, as did you, that it was public.
IANAL, but any lawyer will tell you not to talk to cops, and always plead not guilty, and drag that thing out, and if you are convicted, then appeal.
[signature]
Posts: 2,436
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
Properly marked or not, when you refused to leave after being requested to do so, you tresspassed.
Sorry to say, that's how it is. No matter what the markings, once you've been asked to leave and refuse, you're tresspassing.
Here is the law as written concerning tresspassing.
[url "http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE23/htm/23_20_001400.htm"]http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE23/htm/23_20_001400.htm[/url]
[signature]
Posts: 66
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
Good point, prob should of listened to the guy. However, the person who told you to leave is not the owner, or a representative of the land.
And I believe only the owner, employee, representative of the land can post private property.
[signature]
Posts: 21
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2011
Reputation:
0
Sounds like he needed a swift kick in the front bum to me! Amazing!!! Another Utarded moment!
[signature]
Posts: 66
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
This is the section of law that will apply to you.
" (2) (a) While taking wildlife or engaging in wildlife related activities, a person may not:
(i) without permission, enter upon privately owned land that is cultivated or properly posted;
(ii) enter or remain on privately owned land if the person has notice to not enter or remain on the privately owned land; or
(iii) obstruct any entrance or exit to private property.
(b) A person has notice to not enter or remain on privately owned land if:
(i) the person is directed to not enter or remain on the land by:
(A) the owner of the land;
(B) the owner's employee; or
© a person with apparent authority to act for the owner; or
(ii) the land is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner that a reasonable person would recognize as intended to exclude intruders."
[signature]
Posts: 2,727
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
Overturning of most of the provisions of Hb141 says most of what was written isn't legal in Utah or the United States. Utah would have to succeed from the Union and then amend it's constitution for those provision to be allowed. The courts basically have said that landowners have chronically violated the law. C-N-S you should look into the history of this in Utah since the pioneers arrived and the United States and our original colonies. The State legislature doesn't have the power to seize our waterways. This precedent has been in effect longer than our right to vote as Americans.
[signature]
Posts: 2,436
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
I love the part about:
"the land is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner that a reasonable person would recognize as intended to exclude intruders."
First, I'm not reasonable, ask my wife.
Second I interpert this to mean chain link fence. See a power station? Chain Link. Boat storage in a state park? Chain Link. Temperary construction fencing, chain link. irrigation ditches? Chain link.
Barbed wire is to keep live stock in, not people out. People can simply crawl right through barbed wire, cows cannot.
So, unless it is a mesh type fence, it's not to keep people out, it's to keep livestock in.
IMHO
[signature]
Posts: 66
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
I totally agree. Most of the law is clearly written, but that part leaves you with some question marks.
I think it's going to come down to whether this "family member" would be considered someone with "apparent authority to act for the owner". And I would say, maybe. But the guy told him that he "did not have permission to give permission".
[signature]
|
