Posts: 2,396
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2006
Reputation:
0
Looks like in the coming weeks were going to have a decision on HB141
In the coming weeks, Pullan is expected to rule whether HB141 runs afoul of the public trust doctrine, but whichever way he goes, the Utah Supreme Court will have the final say.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/557087...qus_thread
Reguardless of how the decisions goes KUDOS to the Utah Stream Access Coalition for putting up the fight for Utah anglers.
[signature]
Posts: 19,235
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
1
Just remember everyone, be polite when voicing your opinion.
[signature]
Posts: 381
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation:
0
If McIff gets his way and his new bill, HB68, ends up passing, it won't matter because he's trying to circumvent the public trust doctrine and pretty much the whole judicial process.
Seriously, anybody on here from Richfield? Why does this ----- keep getting elected?
Here's HB68:
http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/hbillint/HB0068.pdf
[signature]
Posts: 331
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
0
I'm glad this topic finally arose on this forum! People need to bug the living crap out of their legislature about this HB 141 & HB 68 crap. Bunch of corrupt government trying to take what not there's to self benefit. Doesn't surprise me at all.
[signature]
Posts: 2,396
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2006
Reputation:
0
Yep I am in the process of of writing my letter and sending it to my rep, hopefully a good medium will be found. Over the years Ive heard good arguments from both sides, and strongly feel allowing Utahns access to these rivers is in the Public interest. Ive always thought the DWR's walk in access program was a good deal. It gives some cash to the private land owner to assist in any repairs but also give access to the public. But from my understanding the DWR's budget was slashed which really pisses me off due to the fact anglers put up over 700 million in revenue just in licenses. Not to mention the hundreds of million generated from tax on angling equipment.
One of the comments left on the tribs page was dead on.
" It's ironic that folks from out of state, who are a member of Victory Ranch Club can fish the upper Provo, but a Utahan with a fishing license can't. "
Will have to wait and see hopefully they can come to terms sooner than later.
[signature]
Posts: 19,235
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
1
But again, be polite. They can get pissed too if we press them the wrong way.
[signature]
Posts: 705
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
0
[quote flygoddess]But again, be polite. They can get pissed too if we press them the wrong way.[/quote]
Agreed. Diplomacy and reason will be than persuasive than  demands.
The Utah Stream Access Coalition has proposed a reasonable compromise intended to prevent folks from wandering up irrigation ditches onto private property and then arguing that it is a public waterway.
This should be viewed the same as a road right-of-way that passes over private property -- you can drive over it, but if you get off the road, you are trespassing.
Unfortunately, some folks have given the property owners valid arguments that fishermen and rafters trespass and litter or vandalize private property.
[signature]
Posts: 331
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
0
So if fisherman or rafters have access to the high water mark, those that trespass private property past that point, are still breaking the law! Even with access, people that litter are still punishable by law in Utah! There are laws already in place that defend landowners demands. And responsible citizens, back them up on these such laws. I don't want people dumping trash into our waterways! Vandalism to property is covered in other state laws... Everything landowners are trying to do with this HB 141 is already covered by other state laws. It's just easier to post up fences to put no trespassing signs everywhere so they have mental belief that people won't hop a fence where marked. Hate to say it, someone that wants to get on your property, steal or damage what you have, are still going to do it.
Quote:Title 41, Chapter 6, Sections 114 & 144.1
41-6-114. Destructive or injurious materials on highways, parks, recreation areas, waterways, or other public or private lands -- Throwing lighted material from moving vehicle -- Enforcement officers -- Litter receptacles required. (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to throw, deposit, or discard, or to permit to be dropped, thrown, deposited, or discarded upon any public road, highway, park, recreation area, or other public or private land, or waterway, any glass bottle, glass, nails, tacks, wire, cans, barbed wire, boards, trash or garbage, paper or paper products, or any other substance which would or could mar or impair the scenic aspect or beauty of the land in the state whether under private, state, county, municipal, or federal ownership without the permission of the owner or person having control or custody of the land. (2) Any person who drops, throws, deposits, or discards, or permits to be dropped, thrown, deposited, or discarded, upon any public road, highway, park, recreation area, or other public or private land or waterway any destructive, injurious, or unsightly material shall: (a) immediately remove the material or cause it to be removed; and (b) deposit the material in a receptacle designed to receive the material. (3) Any person distributing commercial handbills, leaflets, or other advertising shall take whatever measures are reasonably necessary to keep the material from littering public or private property or public roadways. (4) Any person removing a wrecked or damaged vehicle from a public road, highway, park, recreation area, or other public or private land shall remove any glass or other injurious substance dropped from the vehicle upon the road or highway or in the park, recreation area, or other public or private land. (5) It shall be unlawful to throw any lighted material from a moving vehicle. (6) Except as provided in Section 72-7-409, any person transporting loose cargo by truck, trailer, or other motor vehicle shall secure the cargo in a reasonable manner to prevent the cargo from littering or spilling on both public and private property or public roadways. (7) Any person in charge of a construction or demolition site shall take reasonable steps to prevent the accumulation of litter at the construction or demolition site. (8) (a) Officers of the Division of Wildlife Resources and Parks and Recreation, peace officers of incorporated cities and towns, sheriffs and their deputies, deputy state fire wardens, state capitol security officers, and other officers of the state, within their jurisdiction shall enforce the provisions of this section. (b) Each officer in Subsection (8)(a) is empowered to issue citations to any person violating any of the provisions of this section and may serve and execute all warrants, citations, and other process issued by any court in enforcing this section. (9) Each operator of a park, campground, trailer park, drive-in restaurant, gasoline service station, shopping center, grocery store parking lot, tavern parking lot, parking lots of industrial firms, marina, boat launching area, boat moorage and fueling station, public and private pier, beach, and bathing area shall maintain sufficient litter receptacles on the premises to accommodate the litter that accumulates. (10) Cities and towns within their corporate limits and counties outside of incorporated cities and towns shall have power to enact local ordinances to carry out the provisions of this section. 41-6-114.1. Penalty for littering. (1) Any person violating any of the provisions of Section 41-6-114 is guilty of a class C misdemeanor and shall be fined not less than $100 for each violation. (2) The sentencing judge may impose as additional penalties the requirements that the offender devote at least four hours in cleaning up: (a) litter caused by him; and (b) existing litter from a safe area designated by the sentencing judge.
[signature]
Posts: 381
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation:
0
[quote SatanLBZ801] Hate to say it, someone that wants to get on your property, steal or damage what you have, are still going to do it. [/quote]
Amen, brother.
All of these bills are such a circus it is ridiculous. Water access bills ALWAYS get turned into something they're not. Usually, it involves some dipwad legislator trying to convince his peers that fisherman WANT to get on the river and they will do ANYTHING to do so, like cutting fences and cutting across property. Those are both already illegal! We don't need more laws that will do nothing more than punish the law abiding citizens. The property damaging, garbage leaving trespassers don't obey current law. What makes them think it'll change with a new one?
Ugh...I seriously hate this time of year. Time that would otherwise be spent fishing must be devoted to fighting these bills from crooked politicians.
[signature]
Posts: 2,727
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
HB 68 sounds like another bill that is blatantly unConstitutional. I don't think it's ignorance that is causing them to propose another bill that won't stand a chance in the courts and waste taxpayer money defending their greediness. I wouldn't doubt their plan is to pass another bill when they see the last one is about to get the much deserved death blow.
[signature]
Posts: 222
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation:
0
I sent a letter to my Senator and Rep two weeks ago concerning HB68. I received a reply from my Rep. ---- So everybody start sending letters and contacting your Senator and Rep.
[signature]
Posts: 331
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
0
Stole this from UOTF. We need to also contact these people about opposing this HB 68.
House Rules Committee emails: dsanpei@le.utah.gov; derekbrown@le.utah.gov; ehutchings@le.utah.gov; kivory@le.utah.gov; briansking@le.utah.gov; jmathis@le.utah.gov; coda@le.utah.gov; leeperry@le.utah.gov; vpeterson@le.utah.gov; pray@le.utah.gov; lwiley@le.utah.gov
Natural Resources Committee emails: mnoel@kanab.net; dougsagers@le.utah.gov; rogerbarrus@le.utah.gov; jbriscoe@le.utah.gov; melbrown@le.utah.gov; kchristofferson@le.utah.gov; jdraxler@le.utah.gov; sduckworth@le.utah.gov; beckyedwards@le.utah.gov; stevehandy@le.utah.gov; kivory@le.utah.gov; jmathis@le.utah.gov; mmckell@le.utah.gov; mnelson@le.utah.gov; ryanwilcox@le.utah.gov; lwiley@le.utah.gov
And Let's all try and get up there and talk to some of these people to kill this quick or get it changed - the Stream Access Coalition has some compromise language that could be tagged into a bill. here = http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001_sBFu...-FjBp4NJbqdEIx
[signature]
Posts: 19,235
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
1
The reason they do keep bringing up bills that cover basically the same thing, but different wording is the reason we must stay civil on this issue.
I can still go their way.
As far as fences, many land owners have cattle and the fence is to keep them in. This presents a problem to them if they have land on both sides of the river/stream.
Should be, but it is our problem as well as theirs.
[signature]
Posts: 331
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
0
Here's a copy of the e-mail I sent out. You guys are welcome to use/modify it if you like as that's what I've done with a few others I've read with good input. And I prefer you personalize your e-mails as well.
To whom it may concern~
Thank you for your service. I am writing to you because of GRAVE concerns I have over the unconstitutional water access rights bills HB 141 which was  ly passed 3 years ago and now HB 68 which further attempts to curtail outdoor recreation in our beautiful state. You may be aware that the state is being sued by it's own citizens through the Utah Stream Access Coalition to have the rights restored to us which I first feel are God given and secondly granted to us by our state's founders and as well through the state constitution. It is wrong for state legislators to bend to the will of special interest groups in taking away these rights.
HB 68 is not only unconstitutional, it infringes on the rights of individuals participating in recreational activities in Utah. You may already be aware that recreational tourism in Utah generates over $700 million+ to the state each year as Utah has been recognized as a tourist friendly outdoors paradise. However, this bill would threaten my rights as a citizen engaging in recreational activities, and more widely impact the revenue generated by tourism in this state. I have engaged in fishing in this state since I have lived here and in light of recent changes in the law (HB 141), I am concerned that what I once loved for so many years is now in jeopardy.
I can definitely feel for landowners that are having damage done to their property. Items getting stolen, thief etc. I understand that cattle may graze their fields daily and a fence needs to be placed along the rivers or even straight through them. I would be willing to give my effort and time in helping set these fences up so their livestock can remain safe, while at the same time, engineering a way for recreation to still go on through these such fences. None of the things above, require HB 141 nor HB 68 to fix or achieve.
There are other state laws currently in place that protect landowners against damage to their property. Me, not even living on a river, can respect such laws. There are laws that fight against littering in our waterways! This includes public and private waterways! If ANYONE shall see this happening, one should call the authorities to come handle the situation. It's un-acceptable!!!
Many of these concerns with landowners are much the same as the people wanting rights to access water that is our right by our fathers and grandfathers and their fathers before that. Denying rights to water on "Private land," (I use this term loosely as I believe the water and land to the high water mark in which rivers flow over, belongs to the public, not the private owner) is not a way to solve anything!
Please do your part to not only oppose HB 68, but also to support an effort to seek settlement with USAC and agreement so that we as citizens don't have to spend our hard earned money in these tough economic times to preserve our rights from an aggressive state government that seems to take pride in continually overstepping their boundaries. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
(Your Name)
[signature]
Posts: 19,235
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
1
Thanks Satan...very nicely put.
[signature]
Posts: 4,335
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation:
0
My wife and I are going to usevthatband modify a few words if hats ok with you?
[signature]
Posts: 4,335
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation:
0
Use that and.............. I hate my ipad
[signature]
Posts: 331
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
0
That's why I posted it. I struggled to find talking points so. Hopefully everyone reading mine can improve upon it.
[signature]
Posts: 1,774
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
I'm in support of anglers rights but I have to question your dollar amounts.
If there were 300,000 fishing licenses sold last year at $26.00 each, that's a total of $7,800,000.
Where did you come up with 700 million?
[signature]
Posts: 2,396
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2006
Reputation:
0
Its quoted form the trib atricle
Such actions undermine an important economic driver in Utah, said USAC member Chris Barkey, an angler from Draper. In 2006, 375,000 anglers bought Utah fishing licenses. Their fishing generated a total economic impact of $708 million that year and supported 7,000 jobs, according to a Utah Division of Wildlife Resources [url "http://www.southwickassociates.com/portfolio-view/utah-2006-economic-contributions-of-fishing-hunting-and-wildlife-watching-in-utah/"]analysis[/url].
the study was taken from
[url "http://www.southwickassociates.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/UtaheconomicsreportFINAL11_16_071.pdf"]http://www.southwickassociates.com/...rtFINAL11_16_071.pdf[/url]
From my understanding again I didnt write the report its the "impact" of anglers buying of fishing. Its
detailed on page 42 of the pdf above. If you read the entire reports crazy how much $$$ is generated from fishing.
[signature]
|
