Posts: 1,774
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
I have tried to read the bill and it is impossible for me to know what it is saying.
If passed, will we be able to fish the Ogden River, even though there are homes all along the river.
The Ogden is on the list of rivers that would be "available for recreational use", but I don't understand how the reference to subsection [3] and subsection [2] and the 500' language would effect fishing the Ogden.
[signature]
Posts: 6,353
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation:
0
The way it was explained to me is if the home is within so many feet of the river then the landowner can post 500' from it. The Ogden would be almost entirely un-fishable.[mad]
[signature]
Posts: 446
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
Oh I'm so sorry I thout this was the site for the HB187
But I can see that it is the site for HB187?????????????//
[signature]
Posts: 382
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation:
0
The way I see it, we should force state representatives to suspend all public funding from licences and fees by refusing to buy a fishing license in this state or even pay to use a state park to roast hot dogs. In areas where the homeowners can monopolize the resources, they should be held personally responsible for the habitat and wildlife conservation of the streams and lakes where they disallow access. Maybe we could force the legislature to put our money where we can use it in public fisheries instead of paying to regulate a dream stream on some greedy bastards plot of funeral dirt. I'm not against private land ownership, but i'm against private monopolies on public resources. Frustrating as hell. [mad]
[signature]
