Access Rights Go To Trial

[DKStroutfitter]

https://www.facebook.com/utahstreamacces...=1&theater

Anyone following this?
[signature]

[kochanut]

im following it from across the pond. get involved in the USAC folks!
[signature]

[StillHuntin]

Thanks for the heads up and link!
Everyone needs to get involved!
[signature]

[kochanut]

you are right. getting involved does not mean a "like" on facebook. it means going down to the court house, helping the USAC in anyway you can, be it monetary or in person, etc.
[signature]

[Bovineowner]

As an avid sportsman and a rancher I have very mixed feelings on this case. While I am all for access, I am nervous about the 5% of people who do their dangdest to ruin things for everyone. There are many facets to this issue which bring me concern as a landowner. I hope we can find the middle ground and make sure everyone's interests are protected and concerns alleviated.
[signature]

[castnshoot]

Bovineowner, I feel like you do. My family were the first to europeans to settle on the banks of the upper Weber river and the Chaulk Creek.

People always came and went as they pleased, but make no mistake if you were asked to leave for what ever reason the local authority would always enforce the property owners rights even if you were standing in knee deep water.

That kind of changed for about 19 months with an "over reaching" ruling from the court in the Costner case.

Then the legislature came back with HB141 and my have "over reached" in the other direction.

With the ruling about to be made Utah will likely settle in the same place that the majority of other states have landed.

Navigable! Of which you will only find a handful in Utah.
[signature]

[k2muskie]

kockanut...Thank you for your service...whatever capacity for being over a large pond...[]...SALUTE!![]
[signature]

[bankblob]

i'm with bovineonwe, my dad has land that was prime for pheasants, there was three rules no hunting on sundays, don't shoot the house, don't climb the fence use the gates .
most people followed the rules but there was always some one that chose not to follow the rules, fences don't fix them selves cows like the the other side of the fence and trash doesn't pick its self up.
the actions of a few irresponsible people lost access for allot of responsible people.
[signature]

[Igottabigone]

What the landowners in this situation don't understand is that the public's easement pre-existed their property rights as landowners. Conatser was very clear in that regard. The issues remaining, which are currently being litigated, are what is the scope of that easement and did HB141 over regulate the easement. Eventually, this matter will once again be heard by the Utah Supreme Court. My opinion is that we will eventually have access to waters that traverse private property up to the high water mark of the river. That is a very workable solution that is also easily enforceable by land owners and law enforcement officials.
[signature]

[bankblob]

i'm sure most land owners don't have a problem with people in the river, its getting to the river that is usually the problem.
[signature]

[castnshoot]

"What the landowners in this situation don't understand is that the public's easement pre-existed their property rights as landowners"

That is true on only a few water ways in Utah.


"The purpose of this case is to show that the Weber River was used as a highway of commerce prior to and at the time of statehood based on historical evidence, and therefore its beds are the property of the State held in trust for the public."

The scope of this case is very narrow, yet may be used to open up a handfull of other water ways besides a few sections of the Weber river. And rightfully so.

But the 19 month window that allowed going anywhere there was a few of inches of water flowing will likely stay closed. Also rightfully so.
[signature]

[DKStroutfitter]

There is no one right answer to this issue.

If the court rules in favor of re-granting access to sportsmen, we will have an obligation and duty to help protect the rights of the land owners.

Tread lightly!
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

FWIW, as noted above, the scope of this lawsuit is only to have the Weber river declared as navigable, based on well established legal criteria. If this suit succeeds, and I'm confident it ultimately will be, then it is likely that several other rivers will also be declared such in a similar fashion. Any rivers declared navigable fall outside of the jurisdiction of HB141.

However, there is a second lawsuit also proceeding through the courts that seeks to overturn HB141. If this one is successful, then the rules will revert back to what it was after the original Conatser decision and a compromise will then likely need to be reached to define the rules of access and use to protect both public access rights and landowner rights.
[signature]

[Igottabigone]

Right! This is the lawsuit that will restore the access consistent with Conatser. It is being litigated in Wasatch County. Here is the most recent ruling by Judge Pullan.....which is a big win for USAC.

http://utahstreamaccess.org/usac-wp/wp-c...Ruling.pdf
[signature]