01-12-2010, 08:25 PM
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]
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]