HB 141 Task Force meeting - Stream Access

[Fly_Flicker]

I attended todays stream access meeting. The meeting was not quite what I expected.

Basically the task force is saying we ( the legislature)passed HB141 - get over it. Then they threw the DWR under the bus. The legislature said we have all sorts of people upset with this bill - DWR - what are you going to do to appease them.

So the DWR presented about 1 1/2 hours of mitigation plans for increased stream access.

Nothing was mentioned about HB 141's legality or possible challenges in court. No mention of any sort of modification to make it less controversial.

There were probably 50 people in attendance. Maybe 10 were sportspersons. If anyone else reading this attended the meeting please raise your hand so I can put a name to a face!

I'll post the details if an interest is shown - either wise I won't waste the bandwidth.
[signature]

[kochanut]

interested!
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

Foremost, thanks for going and representing. Yes, I would definitely like to hear more.

RE "Basically the task force is saying we ( the legislature)passed HB141 - get over it. Then they threw the DWR under the bus. The legislature said we have all sorts of people upset with this bill - DWR - what are you going to do to appease them."

Considering that the makeup of the task force is very heavily weighted in favor of the very people that crafted 141 and rammed it down our throats, it cannot be a surprise that they said what they said. One cannot seriously expect otherwise from this crew.


RE "So the DWR presented about 1 1/2 hours of mitigation plans for increased stream access."

This is a good thing. I like that the DWR is working for increased public stream access.

RE "Nothing was mentioned about HB 141's legality or possible challenges in court."

Again, not surprising. They are not going to criticize their own creation. BUT, the courts will be where we have the best chance of overturning this ridiculous law, and there isn't a great deal these pro landowner lawmakers can do about it at this point.
[signature]

[riverdog]

Thanks for going. I had to work and couldn't. Are there any additional meetings planned? I support the idea of mitigation plans for increased stream access. Just wish the circumstances of doing it wasn't akin to giving the reward money to the robbers for returning a portion of the loot. What we need to figure out is how to support a group with a plan to challenge this unconstitutional law and make our lawmaker play by the rules of the land.
[signature]

[flygoddess]

Thank you Fly_Flicker, and yes if you would please keep up the great work.
It does feel that this dead horse has been beat to death, but there has got to be something somewhere. It isn't legal, so there has got to be something!

Electing a whole new house is a start.
[signature]

[Fly_Flicker]

Foremost, thanks for going and representing. Yes, I would definitely like to hear more.

RE "Basically the task force is saying we ( the legislature)passed HB141 - get over it. Then they threw the DWR under the bus. The legislature said we have all sorts of people upset with this bill - DWR - what are you going to do to appease them."

Considering that the makeup of the task force is very heavily weighted in favor of the very people that crafted 141 and rammed it down our throats, it cannot be a surprise that they said what they said. One cannot seriously expect otherwise from this crew. [#ff0000]As I mentioned in an earlier post - 9 of the task force members wer pro HB141, including two sponsors, and 3 were against HB141. [/#ff0000]

RE "So the DWR presented about 1 1/2 hours of mitigation plans for increased stream access."

This is a good thing. I like that the DWR is working for increased public stream access.

RE "Nothing was mentioned about HB 141's legality or possible challenges in court."

Again, not surprising. They are not going to criticize their own creation. BUT, the courts will be where we have the best chance of overturning this ridiculous law, and there isn't a great deal these pro landowner lawmakers can do about it at this point. [#ff0000]The problem is that they don't have to do anything! They have what they want. Even if a court challenge is entered onto the dockets now it would be 4-5 years before it is resolved. The faster route would be a sportsmens initiative or a bill that modifies HB141(which I can't see happening). [/#ff0000]
[signature]

[Fly_Flicker]

I will attempt to pass on as best as I can what I saw and heard at the meeting.

The first portion of the meeting was a review of HB141. I somehow completely misunderstood the intent of HB141. According to counsel for the legislature HB 141 was passed to clean up those areas that were ambiguous or not covered by Conatser. Somehow we ended up in a pre Conatser state where the only water usage is to float upon the waters with only incidental touching of the bottom. The counselor did make on interesting offhand comment that "navigable waterways" are handled differently because of federal laws. I do know that virtually all fishable waters in Utah would qualify as navigable under the federal definition.

So the DWR was tasked with providing mitigation to quell the discontented masses.

At this point the DWR took over and gave a marketing presentation to the task force. The focus was on providing more access to streams and how to get the funding to do so.

On the positive side the fishing community was listed as a 708 million $ industry with 460,000 fisherman. This was mentioned as being larger than the skiing and movie industries.

On the bad side I felt that there were a few slides that left a few things unstated or greatly understated. One slide showed that 7% of fisherman fished streams only, and 28% fished lakes only. What was missed is that 72% fished streams sometimes. The worst item I saw was a slide that showed the private versus public streams. It showed there were 6500 miles of fishable streams in Utah, 4000 public and 2500 private. So where is the problem - that means 62% is public? What wasn't explained was that the vast majority of those streams were all the small streams and creeks in the Uinta's and Wasatch mountains. Most of those streams are not accessible on a "casual basis". For many they are not accessible at all.

It was also mentioned that license fees have not increased since 1993. The DWR did make several comments though that often times raising fees means a reduction in actual income as many people will no longer buy a license.

The DWR presented 4 options to increase stream access:
1) Acquisition - very expensive, would take time to build up noticeable stream access.
2) Easements - often cost up to 90% of acquisition
3) Lease
4) Landowner incentives (mainly used for hunting properties)

The rest of the meeting was spent on the lease option which is called WIA (walk in access) by the DWR. The fishing areas along the middle Weber are an example of the DWR WIA program.

Currently the state has 5.75 miles of stream in the WIA program. Any landowner who has more than 1/4 mile of steam can get paid (rate is approx 863$ per year/mile) to allow stream access. The landowner can tailor how the access is done - only specific entries, exits from the property etc.

As usual money is the issue. The DWR actually mentioned again that an increase in license fees often results in a decrease in revenue as a % of people will not buy after the increase. The DWR stated they were hesitant to raise fees more than a few dollars. One representative mentioned that since only a low % of fisherman fish streams then they should pay for the privilege. Which became a conversation on a “stream access stamp” in the range of 3-10 dollars?

One potential upside to the stamp was that only those that have a stamp would be able to fish the WIA streams. They proposed having a sign in box at each access point. Enforcement would still be an issue.

Many of you will remember the survey the DWR did 2 years ago regarding access and general fishing fees. That was during the period Conatser was in effect. I would expect to see a repeat of the survey in the next few months.

The brief synopsis is – HB141 is fact - deal with it. If you want stream access – pay for it.

This meeting allowed absolutely no input from the public. It was mentioned that they would probably allow some in the next 3 or 4 meetings – which are tentativly scheduled in Heber, Roosevelt, and Panguitch. If I were a cynic I might think this was done because the next three meetings are on much less hostile ground.

On a side note I ran into former SLC mayor Ted Wilson. He was there as a member of Gov. Herbert’s staff – and is apparently heading a parallel task force. If I remember correctly Mayor Wilson was on the board of the Utah Rivers Council for a while. That should make him an ally of sorts. Has anyone heard any details in regards to Gov Herbert’s task force?

If anyone see’s any comments in the media on either task force could they post it here and keep us all up to date?
[signature]

[TS30]

I have no general problem with the WIA program the DWR runs. I do 100% oppose the institution of a stamp that requires anglers to foot the bill for the WIA program.

Here are my reasons why:

1- This is "public access" not just angler access. This is a "public issue" not just an angler issue. The public should pay, not just anglers. Kayakers, tubers, bird watchers, hunters, waders, swimmers, all have a right to access these waters. Why should then anglers have to foot the bill?

2- The WIA program allows a landowner to set private regulations on their land in the program outside of the state's reach. They can limit the amount of people who go on per day. The type of fishing they can do. These are state waters, with state fish in them. The landowner should not dictate what regulations are in place. They own the land underneath the water, but NOTHING in the water. They should not regulate what takes place in the water. The state should do that.

3- The WIA also allows an owner to pull out of the program "at any time." What the heck good is increased fees for me to fish in this state if it doesn't get me perpetual access? The state should be purchasing permanent easements through the general fund if they are doing anything on this.

The landowners cried for just compensation. McFiction and his cronies cried for just compensation. Justly compensate the landowners and end the conflict.
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

Stuck here at work[frown], a couple more comments.

RE "The public should pay, not just anglers. Kayakers, tubers, bird watchers, hunters, waders, swimmers, all have a right to access these waters. Why should then anglers have to foot the bill?"

I agree with you in principle, but how do you practically extract money from these other groups to fund a WIA program? Or for that matter, perpetual easement or outright purchase acquisitions? Considering that the general fund cannot properly pay for schoolteachers and roads, and has to fund several legal challenges to the legislature's and Herbert's frivolous legislation, I doubt that is a practical answer.


RE (from Fly Flicker) "[#ff0000]The problem is that they don't have to do anything! They have what they want. Even if a court challenge is entered onto the dockets now it would be 4-5 years before it is resolved. The faster route would be a sportsmens initiative or a bill that modifies HB141(which I can't see happening).
[/#ff0000]
[left][#ff0000][/#ff0000]
It is true they don't have to do anything and the the ball is in "our" court so to speak. But they are going through this "task farce" to at least put on a show that they are willing to consider multiple sides. Reports I have heard is that at least Stowell is interested in talking. Whether it can be used to our benefit or not, I don't know, but again, thanks for representing the other day.

I would also say that if we do win in court, (which I believe will happen) that we will need to eventually be able to come together with the other side in an HB80 type compromise. Perhaps the dialogue with this task force may be beneficial in that way.
[/left]
[#ff0000]
[/#ff0000]
[signature]

[TS30]

[quote doggonefishin]

I agree with you in principle, but how do you practically extract money from these other groups to fund a WIA program? Or for that matter, perpetual easement or outright purchase acquisitions? Considering that the general fund cannot properly pay for schoolteachers and roads, and has to fund several legal challenges to the legislature's and Herbert's frivolous legislation, I doubt that is a practical answer.
[/quote]

They found $100M+ for Capitol renovation last year. They found millions for the forthcoming lawsuits you mentioned they've already set aside. It's not my job to find the money in the budget. That's why we elect these people. It doesn't have to all happen at once. If they spread it out over 5 years it wouldn't cost much at all compared to the annual budget. They may decline to do it, but then they should be held accountable. It absolutely is the practical answer to the issue.
[signature]

[pa]

Wish I could have attended as well. Thanks for covering for the rest of us. As far as the solution, it like I told my representives when all this was going on" I FISH AND I VOTE". That is the only way this will ever really be settled once and for all. Same with the mouthpiece that calls himself Utah's "Guv". They all need to go.[mad]
pa
[signature]

[Fly_Flicker]

It is true they don't have to do anything and the the ball is in "our" court so to speak. But they are going through this "task farce" to at least put on a show that they are willing to consider multiple sides. Reports I have heard is that at least Stowell is interested in talking. Whether it can be used to our benefit or not, I don't know, but again, thanks for representing the other day.

I would also say that if we do win in court, (which I believe will happen) that we will need to eventually be able to come together with the other side in an HB80 type compromise. Perhaps the dialogue with this task force may be beneficial in that way.


[#ff0000][/#ff0000][#ff0000]I agree completely. The worst part of HB141 is that it is a waste of time and money. Because it is not a compromise it will end up back in court. Until a legitimate compromise is reached the "losing" side will be looking to overturn the bill "du jour"[/#ff0000]
.
[signature]

[mojorizing]

The statistics they quoted were compiled by who?
And hopefully they'll understand that they too could become statistics. It's called anti-incumbency statistics. The arrogant s.o.b.'s. Did someone remind Ferry not to let the door slam him in the arse come January.
Bye, Bye Ben. Can't say we'll miss you much.
[signature]

[Fly_Flicker]

The statistics quoted were presented by the DWR and I believe are from their own data.
[signature]