Posts: 71
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
Reputation:
0
Just saw the vote on HB80. It failed 23 yea to 50 nay. They're debating HB 141. Hopefully it will meet the same fate.
We had hopes this bill would settle the debate, but after listening to the anti argument, there is no way we are even close to settling this debate and we are probably many years away. It was hopeful that this bill would have put some protection in place for sportman, but even if it had passed, I think it would have offered little protection in the future as the anti HB80 are hell bent on overturning Conatser.
You can bet I will be spending some time and money educating the voters in my area how my representative voted in hopes he does not get re-elected. I just hope there is a candidate running that supports my position.
We haven't wasted our time or energy. We have put into the minds of our representatives that there is a big group of their constituents that care how they vote. Hopefully this will reflect in the defeat of HB141.
Those in the know, keep us posted on when HB141 gets put back on the floor for debate. I'd like to listen.
[signature]
Posts: 11,123
Threads: 4
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation:
0
This is definately a  thing. Lets hope that they get HB141 to fail as well.[frown]
[signature]
Posts: 81
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
what does this mean in terms of fishing private land?
[signature]
Posts: 421
Threads: 4
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
Email all the representatives tonight and tell them to oppose HB 141. This isn't over and it is critical we keep the emails flowing. Please take action, it only takes a minute!
daagard@utah.gov; rogerbarrus@utah.gov; jbird@utah.gov; melbrown@utah.gov; sclark@utah.gov; dclark@utah.gov; bcferry@utah.gov; gfroerer@utah.gov; kgarn@utah.gov; fgibson@utah.gov; kwgibson@utah.gov; jgowans@utah.gov; keithgrover@utah.gov; nhendrickson@utah.gov; cherrod@utah.gov; greghughes@utah.gov; ehutchings@utah.gov; dipson@utah.gov; blast@utah.gov; blockhart@utah.gov; steven_mascaro@comcast.net; jmathis@utah.gov; kaymciff@utah.gov; rmenlove@utah.gov; mikemorley@utah.gov; mnoel@kanab.net; coda@utah.gov; ppainter@utah.gov; ssandstrom@utah.gov; ksumsion@utah.gov; curtwebb@utah.gov; ryanwilcox@utah.gov; cwimmer@utah.gov; bwinn@utah.gov; sherylallen@utah.gov; tbeck@utah.gov; ronbigelow@utah.gov; jbiskupski@utah.gov; lblack@utah.gov; rchouck@utah.gov; tcosgrove@utah.gov; bdaw@utah.gov; bdee@utah.gov; jdougall@utah.gov; jdraxler@utah.gov; sduckworth@utah.gov; jdunnigan@utah.gov; beckyedwards@utah.gov; jfisher@utah.gov; janicefisher@utah.gov; lfowlke@utah.gov; cfrank@utah.gov; rgreenwood@utah.gov; koryholdaway@utah.gov; neilhansen@utah.gov; wharper@utah.gov; lhemingway@utah.gov; fhunsaker@utah.gov; christinejohnson@utah.gov; briansking@utah.gov; toddkiser@utah.gov; dlitvack@utah.gov; csmoss@utah.gov; merlynnnewbold@utah.gov; mariepoulson@utah.gov; kraigpowell@utah.gov; pray@utah.gov; priesen@utah.gov; jseegmiller@utah.gov; jseelig@utah.gov; evickers@utah.gov; bwallis@utah.gov; cwatkins@utah.gov; markwheatley@utah.gov; lwiley@utah.gov
[signature]
Posts: 11,123
Threads: 4
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation:
0
Posts: 233
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation:
0
Email sent telling them to oppose HB141
[signature]
Posts: 93
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2006
Reputation:
0
I've cut, pasted and forwarded to them all, can we get a list of the yea. So we can tell them how disappointed we are in them.
Keep up the good work
[signature]
Posts: 4,335
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation:
0
email sent last night, pulson already sent me a response saying its a hot topic and will be looked into carefully.
[signature]
Posts: 11,123
Threads: 4
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation:
0
[quote kochanut] pulson already sent me a response saying its a hot topic and will be looked into carefully.[/quote]
Same here
[signature]
Posts: 253
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation:
0
Email sent to the distribution list....thanks for your vision.
[signature]
Posts: 4,335
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation:
0
i also recievd about 15 reject messages stating the addresses are not currently recieveing emails at this time.
[signature]
Posts: 13
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
HB 141 is circled, which means that it could be brought up at any time that a motion is made to uncircle. However, it sounded like they may just resume the discussion when the house reconvenes this morning at 10:00 am. All eyes on the legislature.
[signature]
Posts: 13
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
HB 141 just passed. It will now move on to the Senate. [frown]
[signature]
Posts: 3,883
Threads: 50
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation:
22
[size 2]YEAS - 50
[/size][size 2]A[/size][size 2]agard
Anderson
Barrus
Bird
Brown
Clark, D.
Dee
Draxler
Duckworth, S
Dunnigan
Ferry
Fisher, Julie
Frank
Froerer
Garn
Gibson, K
Gowans
Greenwood
Grover
Hansen
Hendrickson
Herrod
Hunsaker
Hutchings
Ipson
Kiser
Last
Mascaro
Mathis
McIff
Menlove
Morley
Moss
Newbold
Noel
Oda
Painter
Powell
Ray
Sandstrom
Seelig
Sumsion
Vickers
Wallis
Webb
Wheatley
Wilcox
Wiley
Wimmer
Wright
[/size][size 2] [/size][size 2]NAYS - 25
[/size][size 2]Allen
Beck
Bigelow
Biskupski
Black
Chavez-Houck
Clark, S.
Cosgrove
Daw
Dougall
Edwards
Fisher, Janice
[/size][size 2]Fowlke
Gibson, F
Harper
Hemingway
Hughes
Johnson
King
Litvack
Lockhart
Poulson
Riesen
Seegmiller
Watkins
[/size]
[signature]
Bob Hicks, from Utah
I'm 81 years young and going as hard as I can for as long as I can.
"Free men do not ask permission to bear arms."
Posts: 11,123
Threads: 4
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation:
0
I guess our only hope now is the senate.
[signature]
Posts: 236
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
FYI, I spent a half hour on the phone yesterday with my representative talking about the two bills and related issues. He seemed to think that one of the two bills would pass.
Two key points were mentioned. First, that the land owners are paying property taxes on the property under the waterways. It seems unfair to the landowners to be paying taxes on so called "public waterway." We both agreed that needs to be changed.
Second, according to the attorneys he has talked to, the Conaster ruling only referred to code and not directly to the state constitution. That seems to lessen the credibility of the court decision in the eyes of the legal eagles and law makers.
There was also concern about the "trash" issue. I agreed that is a concern among many sportsmen as well.
Also, many opponents to the court ruling are playing this up as a few "wealthy elitists" trying to take care of their own interests. In my mind, that is rediculous on many levels.
[signature]
Posts: 1,395
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
9
[quote ParrMark]
Two key points were mentioned. First, that the land owners are paying property taxes on the property under the waterways. It seems unfair to the landowners to be paying taxes on so called "public waterway." We both agreed that needs to be changed.
[/quote]
I have a real hard time with this idea...in front of my house is a sidewalk under which I own property and pay taxes on. With the line of thought above, I either should have the right to fence off that sidewalk and keep the public from walking up and down on it, or I shouldn't have to pay taxes for the land which it crosses...
...along those same lines, all sidewalks in neighborhoods across the state should either be viewed as "private" property and give the owners the allowance to fence, post, and keep tresspassers off, or landowners shouldn't have to pay taxes on this land.
The right to fish and recreate on public water is no different than the public's right to walk down a sidewalk along 70th south or any other street.
[signature]
Posts: 133
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation:
0
Listened both days to the whole discussion.... I love how in this country someone can write a bill up with no input and get it to pass against one with input from both sides. It sounded like someone well spoken and with connections convinced everyone that his bill was in their "best interest" on the hill.
One thing interesting is that land owners arent going to pack up and take all that 14billion dollars a year(or whatever it was) in agricultural business from the state. But it does make it a lot easier for someone like me to say goodbye, pack my stuff up and move to Montana.
[signature]
Posts: 233
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation:
0
The legislature does not care about the kids!!! Cut education spending and strip them from good outdoor adventure. I guess they are happy having kids waste hours of time in front of video games getting fat.
Glad my rep voted for HB80 and against HB141.
I too want to fence off the sidewalk in front of my house and ask for a refund of the property taxes I paid last year!!! How dare the public walk on my property!!! [:p]
[signature]
Posts: 382
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation:
0
I personally think that since the state has given us community fishing ponds with no fishing after hours, sporadic and unreliable stocking, fish and game officers spotting law breakers from the fence lines of city housing developments instead of busting poachers on streams and lakes with wild, native, or threatened species, filthy bathrooms (sometimes closed seasonally in certain locations for all you winter coffee guzzlers,) the opportunity to cross lines with 200 other anglers, $9.00 a pop for state park access with the option of a $70.00 yearly pass, and no public fishing docks with fish attracting features such as planted brush piles in the state parks we should all just be content and shut the hell up. There's the mother of all run on sentences right there.[sly]
I think a monopoly on publicly stocked and regulated waters should be available to anyone who can afford to pay off a politician. Okay... maybe that was overstated. Then again, it probably happens more than we know. It could be that the governing representatives are private land owners themselves?..... Do ya think!?[mad] As the old adage goes; the real golden rule is that he who has the gold makes the rules.
Not to say that everyone with money enough to buy land on public water front hoards it all greedily or that all politicians are corrupt. However, there seems to be a pattern here that doesn't favor the rights of the tax payers. For the amount of private land popping up on frequented fishing holes of people who have always obeyed the rules, the price of a fishing license should be going down. Quite the opposite; it goes up on occasion.
We've all heard the arguments of the land owners about gates being left open and livestock getting out, polluters leaving their beer cans strewn all over the bank, and thieves and perverts stalking the premises. I think it is reasonable to assume that most people have respect and good will toward each other and that any laws on the books to regulate such activities should enforce strict penalties for miscreants. Of course, that's another bill to squabble over.... GRRRR! I think I'll have a beer..
[signature]
|
