Angler Survey

[catchandrelease]

This morning when I opened my e-mail I had a survey from the DWR. It was talking about the Supreme Court ruling that made river beds public. It sounds like the legislature is wanting to change things around again. Has anyone else had this survey?

C&R
[signature]

[troutgass]

I got the survey as well. I filled it out, but I am not sure what organization is sponsoring it. I had the feeling that it was pro angler rights.
[signature]

[catchandrelease]

I thought it was pro angler as well. The part of having to by an extra $50 permit bothered me.
[signature]

[sinergy]

If im not mistaken its a survey to justify a increase in taxing your fishing license due to the recent changes in the HB187 bill. Please take these survey's seriously they could mean major changes on how the public can or cant access so called private waters.

You may also want to PM TS30 seems he keeps pretty up to date on the new bill but here is a previous thread outlining some of the changes.

http://www.bigfishtackle.com/forum/Utah_...ead#unread
[signature]

[albinotrout]

$50???? What happened to the $5?????[mad]
[signature]

[troutgass]

I could be wrong, but I thought it said "Would you mind paying and extra $1 on your next license" I didn't see the $50.
[signature]

[albinotrout]

I never saw the survey. Someone willing to send it to me so that I may see what they are up to?
[signature]

[catchandrelease]

Here is the exact wording from the survey

Would you support a $50 permit required only of individuals who fish in rivers/streams flowing over private land now open to anglers due to the Utah Supreme Court decision? (The money would fund a program to manage those waters.)
[signature]

[rippnlips]

I got the survey too, but i havent taken it yet. If someone wants to take it be my guest .

I'm sure no matter what happens we as sportsman will end up flipping the bill [:/]
[signature]

[FishinHippy]

I recieved mine a few days ago. The one I recieved appears a little different then yours. Instead of $50 dollars it had asked if I would be okay with a $10 dollar increase.

It seems to me that they are testing the waters, to see how much they can charge for access to the rivers that flow through restricted land. I am all for compromise, but $50 to access water the government ruled I have access to, just doesn't seem right.
[signature]

[troutgass]

Here is the exact wording from Question #9 on my survey:
*
9. Would you support a $1 increase to the cost of all fishing licenses to fund a program that manages rivers/streams flowing over private lands that are now open to angler access due to the Utah Supreme Court decision?
[signature]

[Troll]

It appears that like a computer game, depending on how you answer some questions it directs you to a set of questions that are dependent on that answer.
Like the first one concerning county, depending on which county you say dictates which question you will be asked next.
FYI, mine said $5.
There is more on this over on UWN.
[signature]

[cat-tech]

mine said ten also.
[signature]

[Fish-or-die]

I also recieved this email. As TROLL stated it is likely to have different questions depending on your anwer. Mine just asked if I would be willing to pay for a permit that would allow access, no dollar amount attached. I said yes because it would allow others to participate and if you didn't want to you were exempt, like two pole permits.

I do feel that if the State of Utah maintains the rest of the river everyone should have access to all. Fish swim up and downstream. Just my opinion.
[signature]

[TS30]

Sorry for coming to the game late here, but here's the deal with the survey. Rep Lorie Fowlke (Orem) has taken the bull by the horns to put all interested parties at the same table and work a fair bill out for this session. THIS IS NOT HB 187! This is a completely different bill, and we're all grateful for this. Ben Ferry's HB 187 was a train wreck and died and ignominious death for a reason. Rep Fowlke has been meeting with anglers, boaters, property owners, farm bureau, DWR, etc on a fairly regular basis, really trying to work things out for the best possible solution. This is also a welcome change from last session. But last month language was finally put on paper for everyone to give feedback on this. (realize this was a VERY rough draft and was only a starting point, not even a proposed bill)

Part of the language included a provision that everyone who purchased a fishing license or a combination license in Utah would have to purchase a $5 public access stamp as well. This money would go to help build stiles over fences that cross rivers on private lands, educating the public on the law, enforcement, fish stocking, etc. Basically the costs associated with the Conatser decision. (or alleged costs....I'm not sold there will be any more costs incurred) The DWR opposed the idea of an extra stamp. They stated that IF an increase needs to take place, it would be better served in small increase in license fees. But, they stated that they would not support that increase unless the general fishing public supported the increase. So they volunteered to put together a survey with anglers to find out how they felt. I believe it was 4,000 anglers who were randomly sampled (from license purchases) and sent the survey. I would assume the differences in $$ figures is only to account for outliers, etc. Nobody is trying to trick you. And the DWR endorsing the increase will only happen if the public at large in the survey is in favor of an increase.

I want to say that the DWR has really stepped up this time around to work to get a recreational user friendly bill that is fair to everyone involved. Last time, at least in the public realm, they were very neutral. This time they are active and engaged, helping the cause but keeping a sound idea of fairness. I've been really impressed in my limited interactions with them on this. Kudos to Director Karpowitz and the DWR!

If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me through the site and I'll do my best to answer them, or put you in contact with someone who can if I can't.

-Tyson
[signature]

[bassrods]

Why should all pay for the few to use, $5 no we pay for most of what was said already why pay two times....
[signature]

[TS30]

I personally believe that's a very reasonable position bassrods. Tell the DWR in the survey. I really believe they will go with what the public expresses by the majority in this thing.
[signature]

[flygoddess]

I would pay the $5.
[signature]

[Troll]

Well Cliff, not everybody uses the launch ramps either. Not everyone fishes the same or needs the same facilities.
Now if we were to compare the cost of installing a launch ramp and parking lot for the trailers and trucks to the cost of a wooden step ladder over a fence, I'll bet we could get a whole lot of step ladders for the cost of 1 ramp.

You may arue that you pay for the ramp use because you have a state parks pass, well that money goes to Parks, not DWR.
What I don't want to pay for is a right, and the Supreme court said I have a right to fish those waters to try to catch OUR fish.
[signature]

[bassrods]

Boat ramps comes from more then one sores...State funds Parks and other....

The funds for people to get over a fence should come from more then one sores as well, and fish planting don't they do that now with only trout....Every time some one wants to do something they want every one else to pay for it...
[signature]