[HopperLover]

This just in...

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/...uling.html?soid=1104773210955&aid=WOgfNd-lYOo

And for you legal folks...

http://utahstreamaccess.org/usac-wp...campaign=20150410+usac+blast&utm_medium=email

 

[lunkerhunter2]

That is the best news I've got all morning thanks for posting!

 

[Springville Shooter]

Awesome!

 

[Catherder]

Sweet!

 

[martymcfly73]

Awesome!!!!

 

[Lonetree]

This is promising for the future case regarding the constitutionality of the legislatures 2010 law that revoked the right of access on ALL stream beds running through private property in Utah. I am glad that "compromise" legislation was shot down.

This has legal implications with regard to the land "swap" as well. Especially with regard to the role of precedent and public trust.

This is very very good news!

 

[wyogoob]

Hmmm, very interesting. http://myemail.constantcontact.com/...uling.html?soid=1104773210955&aid=WOgfNd-lYOo

The same "navigable" language could be applicable for the Bear River, the Black's Fork, and even the Henry's Fork all on the north slope of the Uintas where, collectively, huge volumes of logs were floated down the streams to sawmills to be made into railroad ties.

.

 

[wyogoob]

Hmmm, very interesting. http://myemail.constantcontact.com/...uling.html?soid=1104773210955&aid=WOgfNd-lYOo

The same "navigable" language could be applicable for the Bear River, the Black's Fork, and even the Henry's Fork all on the north slope of the Uintas where, collectively, huge volumes of logs were floated down the streams to sawmills to be made into railroad ties.

.

Duh, all that stuff is in the court ruling document. http://utahstreamaccess.org/usac-wp/...m_medium=email

thanks for posting the story HopperLover.

.

 

[Jedidiah]

Huh, wonder why the "Get off my lawn!" crowd haven't chimed in. Come on guys, explain to us that your share of the water comes off the top so people should have to drive 30 miles around your single acre when they want to fish the other side.

 

[wyogoob]

Huh, wonder why the "Get off my lawn!" crowd haven't chimed in. Come on guys, explain to us that your share of the water comes off the top so people should have to drive 30 miles around your single acre when they want to fish the other side.

Slow crowd today, I'm thinking most of the Utah water rights guys are in Wyoming where you have to drive 40 miles around my single acre of private land to fish the other side....and without any complaint, by the way.

As a "Get off my lawn!" guy from Wyoming and a Moderator I've learned to "chime in" later on the Utah water rights issue....waiting, inevitability, until a handful of water rights guys break Forum rules and make asses out of themselves ruining it for those, on both sides, offering intelligent dialog.

.

 

[ridgetop]

Huh, wonder why the "Get off my lawn!" crowd haven't chimed in. Come on guys, explain to us that your share of the water comes off the top so people should have to drive 30 miles around your single acre when they want to fish the other side.

It's amazing to me to see the "entitlement" that so many guys have on this issue.
Even a smart guy like Lonetree should have seen how poorly written that first bill/law was, in which it eventually got overturned.
I sure do hope this one does hold up and all the "entitled" idiots will stay off and out of peoples private property when trying to gain access to these waters.

 

[Kwalk3]

It's amazing to me to see the "entitlement" that so many guys have on this issue.
Even a smart guy like Lonetree should have seen how poorly written that first bill/law was, in which it eventually got overturned.
I sure do hope this one does hold up and all the "entitled" idiots will stay off and out of peoples private property when trying to gain access to these waters.

I am a proponent of property rights. Private property rights should absolutely be respected. As should the rights of the public to access a resource that belongs to the public. I may be misreading you, but I don't believe that anglers believing they should be allowed access to a public waterway(below high water mark) constitutes an error in a sense of entitlement.

 

[Jedidiah]

It's amazing to me to see the "entitlement" that so many guys have on this issue.
Even a smart guy like Lonetree should have seen how poorly written that first bill/law was, in which it eventually got overturned.
I sure do hope this one does hold up and all the "entitled" idiots will stay off and out of peoples private property when trying to gain access to these waters.

I definitely agree the second and third sentences, people need to stay within the boundaries, respect privacy and absolutely never litter.

In my view, entitlement is when people buy land on a major river like the Weber, Provo, Bear or Green and think they can put a fence across the water. Even people who don't own land on those rivers are paying for you to have clean water flowing through your land. Creeks and streams are a different story entirely, I'm totally on board with those being owned solely by the land owner, but the big rivers in the state are public property.

And actually, the way this law is written, people won't even own the river from the high water mark down. End of argument, people wanted to fight over people walking on "their" land, now it's not even theirs. Looking forward to the same happening on the rest of the bigger rivers in the state.

 

[wyogoob]

It's amazing to me to see the "entitlement" that so many guys have on this issue.
Even a smart guy like Lonetree should have seen how poorly written that first bill/law was, in which it eventually got overturned.
I sure do hope this one does hold up and all the "entitled" idiots will stay off and out of peoples private property when trying to gain access to these waters.

Let me tell ya something. Name-calling, the term "idiots" for example, is not good here. Please respect members that have different views than you or I'll shut this thing down in a second.

Good grief, lets see if we can do a water right's thread that doesn't it end up getting locked.

.

 

[Springville Shooter]

As a "Get off my lawn!" guy from Wyoming and a Moderator I've learned to "chime in" later on the Utah water rights issue....waiting, inevitability, until a handful of water rights guys break Forum rules and make asses out of themselves ruining it for those, on both sides, offering intelligent dialog.

.

Oh come on Goob, if it wasn't for rule breakers and asses we wouldn't have much of a forum now would we?

I'm all for public access within the bounds of the high water mark of the prominent waterways in an area. This is an area where I diverge from my conservative self a bit and venture into the realm of a free thinker........or maybe I'm just a selfish guy who likes to fish, hike, swim, float....etc. ------SS

 

[wyogoob]

Oh come on Goob, if it wasn't for rule breakers and asses we wouldn't have much of a forum now would we?

.......................------SS

Leave me alone. I'm honing my Moderator skills, practicing for the 2016 election.

This is a very important issue for Utahns and personally I find the opinions from both sides fascinating. But the threads have a history of turning sour and getting locked....and I've not been the Mod(s) that have locked them.

.

 

[Jedidiah]

You have to admit, my first post could be called baiting. Hope it works out ok for you landowners, I understand the point of view of wanting to keep the beerdrinking, signshooting, garbage-strewing masses off of your slice of the pie. One day I'll own a little plot next to a stream and I like to think I'll still feel the same way I do right now. You have to understand, I'm the kind of guy who picks up trash on both public and private land and fixes your fallen down fences so I don't feel like it's a big deal to let me wade or float through.

 

[martymcfly73]

Oh come on Goob, if it wasn't for rule breakers and asses we wouldn't have much of a forum now would we?

I'm all for public access within the bounds of the high water mark of the prominent waterways in an area. This is an area where I diverge from my conservative self a bit and venture into the realm of a free thinker........or maybe I'm just a selfish guy who likes to fish, hike, swim, float....etc. ------SS

This forum died a long time ago...it's only good for ruffling feathers.

 

[Catherder]

Slow crowd today, I'm thinking most of the Utah water rights guys are in Wyoming where you have to drive 40 miles around my single acre of private land to fish the other side....and without any complaint, by the way.

Why would I be up there? Too many Utards. We were out in the West desert this weekend finding topaz and red beryls. While I was ecstatic about this news, it was too much hassle to type much with my wife's small tablet from the in-laws house.

As a "Get off my lawn!" guy from Wyoming and a Moderator I've learned to "chime in" later on the Utah water rights issue....waiting, inevitability, until a handful of water rights guys break Forum rules and make asses out of themselves ruining it for those, on both sides, offering intelligent dialog.

Does this mean that when the (anti) water rights guy calls me again an illiterate, wanna-be eco-terrorist thug, that probably never fishes when he has nothing better to say, something will be done? I've never been so insulted. He said I never fish? :roll:;-)

 

[Catherder]

It's amazing to me to see the "entitlement" that so many guys have on this issue.
Even a smart guy like Lonetree should have seen how poorly written that first bill/law was, in which it eventually got overturned.
I sure do hope this one does hold up and all the "entitled" idiots will stay off and out of peoples private property when trying to gain access to these waters.

It should be pointed out that there was no "first law" that got overturned. There were court decisions that came down defining some of the rights but leaving some questions. The anglers tried to get legislation which would define things better for all parties, (HB80) but the legislature decided to ignore the courts (and us) and passed HB141. It certainly can be argued that HB141 is poorly written on multiple levels and that is the basis for a separate lawsuit going through the courts.

As for interactions between landowners and anglers, I hope all anglers will heed what the USAC said in its news release.

Please respect private property.
Pick up trash where you see it.
Stay below the ordinary high water mark, and never, ever trespass to get on or off the water.

This is a resource that belongs to all of us, and it's of utmost importance that we be impeccable stewards of that resource.


It probably also should be repeated that access to the waters in question is ONLY via a public access point. The Conatser decision never allowed a recreationalist to cut through private property at any time.