stream access

[smokepoles]

It's getting a bit hard to decide which thread to post to on this, so I'll just start anew. Rep. Web did an online survey, and the question and response.

Think there was some bias built in as to how the question was worded and associated with guns?

13. The concept of "individual property rights" is typically held in high regard by the public and therefore by the legislature. There are however many other highly valued rights that occasionally come in conflict with individual property rights. Please choose as indicated below:


a) If a private property owner (including businesses) seeks to ban firearms from that premises, should the property owner be allowed to do so?
68% Yes 26% No

b) If a private property owner seeks to prevent anglers from fishing natural streams that cross that property, should the property owner be allowed to do so?
48% Yes 46% No
[signature]

[riverdog]

Biased just a bit. Think the percentages might be a bit different if the question was:
Access to waterways has been a historic right upheld by the highest courts since the founding of our country. Should private landowners in Utah now be allowed to seize this rights from the public? Should Utah Lawmakers allow this? If yes are you willing to have your tax dollars spent to defend the seizure of this American right despite many historical precedents that suggest the highest courts would ultimately rule such a seizure as illegal?
[signature]

[sinergy]

Were was this online survey posted ?

Not big fan a online surveys whos to say a private land owner did jump online and vote a million times ... Im sure it could be track by IP address but whos to say, one vote per house hold.

In any event, question 13 A. has some merit when hunting not all kills are going to fall on the high water mark, it would be trepassing to retreve your bird or kill on private land. On the flip side allot of anglers including myself legally conceal & carry and would have a issue with leaving our weapons in the cars.

On 13 B. The questions say is it all "prevent anglers from fishing natural streams " These streams are just that natural and should NOT be considered private property. In patient law you cannot patient anything in Mother nature so why should private landowners get to regulate these natual streams. Absurd
[signature]

[packfish]

The survey was given to the voters of his precinct. I happen to be one. Over the summer he has received many emails from me and this provoked a few more.
Now by actually looking at his voting record I think he voted 7 out of 10 times the way I would have liked him to.
This area just happens to be 1 of them that is not. I am glad he pulled his proposed counter bill to the HB80.
I would certainly hope everyone looks into how their reps vote on everything. Look up your rep
[url "http://www.votesmart.org/program_about_pvs.php"]http://www.votesmart.org/program_about_pvs.php[/url]
[signature]