Utah Wildlife Forum banner

1 - 20 of 93 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
344 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Is it true that all Utah rivers are closed? I live in brigham city and Fish the bear river alot does this mean I can no longer fish it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,330 Posts
I just got this from the USAC.

We just received word that the Utah Supreme Court has granted Victory Ranch and the State of Utah's motions to stay Judge Pullan's November Ruling. In short, this means 2,700 miles of rivers and streams are once again closed to public use, effective immediately.

Although we are disappointed in the court's order, it is of the utmost importance that we follow it. Respect private property and obey all "No Trespassing" signs. Our actions must continue to be above board. We'll repeat this very important point:

DO NOT TRESPASS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT PERMISSION.

We also should note that there tends to be a presumption in favor of preserving the status quo during the appeal period in cases like this, so while we are disappointed that this happened, we are not necessarily surprised.

We got through 5 years of restricted access to our rivers, and we can get through however many more it takes before the Utah Supreme Court rules on this issue. We remain confident in our legal arguments before the court, and we will continue to pursue all means possible to restore and preserve access to Utah's public rivers and streams.

Finally, if you are unsettled by this news, and believe in your rights to use the public's resource, make a donation or come to one of our many fundraising events this spring (see sidebar).

Stand strong. Obey the law. This, too, shall pass.

Board of Directors
Utah Steam Access Coalition
[email protected]
www.utahstreamaccess.org

To answer your question, only those rivers that course over private property are again closed. I don't know where you fish, but a lot of that river has public access and you may be OK.

I suppose this is a good place to point out that it only represents a stay of enacting the ruling, NOT an overturning and the Utah Supreme Court will now hear the case.

On goes the battle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,004 Posts
Why isn't any of this on their site or in the news anywhere? The only source I can find is literally just your post here on UWN.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,004 Posts
Thanks, good point about joining. It seems like a bad idea to make a ruling and not release it to news outlets though, there's good odds that a serious misunderstanding could occur.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Sorry for the dumb question here but... Is there somewhere I can find what rivets and strands are closed or am I supposed to know by looking for no trespass signs?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,654 Posts
Just figure if the river flows through private property it is closed. Also if it has private on one side it may be closed depending on where the property line is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,739 Posts
Sorry for the dumb question here but... Is there somewhere I can find what rivets and strands are closed or am I supposed to know by looking for no trespass signs?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
This is exactly how you're supposed to know...which is one of the problems, especially considering that they changed the trespass law along with closing stream access, and private property is technically not required to even be posted anymore.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,115 Posts
I think a message needs to be sent. This is my proposal and it will only work if everyone gets on board: I say everyone who buys a fishing license does not buy one when theirs expires. Take your old license and mail it into your representative with a note saying you are protesting the legislation (legislatures), and the decision by the Utah Supreme Court in closing down the 2, 700 miles of public water. In the letter we state that it is a one year protest but could be longer unless they change the rule back or make significant compromise.

I know this hurts a lot of people that have nothing to do with it, like sporting goods stores, the DWR, and guide services, but we've got to make a stand.

The Idaho border is not that far away and I would be willing to buy a season non-resident license there and make the trips. I'm really getting tired of this fiasco.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,115 Posts
17,000,000.00 to stream access.

I think there are around 500,000 fishing licenses sold each year. If we take one year off and donate that money to stream access that would be 17,000,000.00.

I would also think that since Ducks Unlimited has come out against stream access that all the yearly dues paid to have a sticker on your truck could also go to stream access.

Trout Unlimited in a (legislative) committee meeting in Utah 5 or 6 years ago said that they have to remain neutral and that their only purpose is to help restore habitat and increase native trout populations. Well, if we can't fish for those populations maybe those yearly dues could go to stream access too.

This will only work if we ALL participate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,017 Posts
I think a message needs to be sent. This is my proposal and it will only work if everyone gets on board: I say everyone who buys a fishing license does not buy one when theirs expires. Take your old license and mail it into your representative with a note saying you are protesting the legislation (legislatures), and the decision by the Utah Supreme Court in closing down the 2, 700 miles of public water. In the letter we state that it is a one year protest but could be longer unless they change the rule back or make significant compromise.

I know this hurts a lot of people that have nothing to do with it, like sporting goods stores, the DWR, and guide services, but we've got to make a stand.

The Idaho border is not that far away and I would be willing to buy a season non-resident license there and make the trips. I'm really getting tired of this fiasco.
Are you serious? You are asking us to go on a one-year hiatus from fishing in Utah? Sorry, but I say hell no! Idaho is a long ways for me to travel and Nevada and Arizona just don't offer much of what I am interested in (also long drives to find fish).

So, regardless of what stupid moves the state legislature make, I am going to continue fishing in Utah and I am sure not going to stop buying licenses.

I agree that losing so much stream access sucks, BUT I will take what I can get and happily fish what I do have. I suggest we continue fighting this stream access problem by continuing to have our voices heard by state legislators, the DWR, sportsmen groups, and whoever else will listen. But, I am not going to stop fishing in Utah.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,115 Posts
So, I am serious, but I also wanted to see where others would be on the selfish meter. I knew there would be some who would not be willing for one year to sacrifice for the good of all. The world is full of these types of people, thus many of the problems we suffer.

If this worked and we are able to get 2, 700 miles of access back for all to use, isn't that worth letting go of your attitude of, "I will take what I can get and happily fish what I do have," for just one year? Surely, you are not that selfish?

Isn't that the attitude that is so prevalent in the world today? "I' will take what I can."

I've lived long enough to see this attitude change. I remember fishing pretty much wherever I wanted. I remember farmers, ranchers, property owners seeing me in the stream and asking how the fishing is and with a smile and a nod wish me luck. I have watched some of these places slowly become posted, big stone fences go up, and new owners or the kids now taking over ownership treat me like a criminal and thug.

You go out and "take what you can." (Sounds so familiar.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,089 Posts
You can still float down the waterway as long as you don't touch bottom or banks, is that correct

that is affirmative. floating will always be legal as the state owns the water.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,017 Posts
Let's ask ourselves what would really happen IF enough people did what you recommend...what other consequences could come of such an action? We may get back some of that stream access that you so desire, BUT couldn't we also lose in other areas? What about those awesome new solar powered aerators being put on Boulder top...could the loss of revenue cost us a couple more of those aerators? Couldn't losing something such as those aerators also cost us more waters to fish? What about a place like Navajo Lake where the dike just broke a few years ago and money is badly needed for a permanent fix...could losing the revenue cost us fixes like the one done? What about fewer fish being stocked or no fish being stocked in some of our streams? Could we lose some brown trout in the Fremont? The Sevier? Otter Creek? Because of lost revenue?

Sorry, selfish or not...your idea isn't all that good! And, selfish or not, I am not sacrificing a year of fishing in Utah in hopes of getting back something that I have never really lost because I always assumed stream beds that flowed through private property were private.

What I do know is this: with or without those 2,700 miles of access to streams that flow through private property, we have miles upon miles of streams that we do have access to and many reservoirs and lakes that we are allowed to fish. What is selfish is this idea that I should sacrifice for you because you feel the loss more than I do...even more selfish is that you are asking me to possibly sacrifice some of my favorite fishing spots so that you can get some of yours back!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,330 Posts
The thing to keep in mind about this most recent action is that, in looking at the big picture, very little has changed from it.

1. It is just a stay in the enacting of Judge Pullan's ruling. It was in no way overturned. The legal guys on our forum can feel free to correct me, but my understanding is that this action was routine and expected.

2. We knew going in that the case would go to the Utah Supreme Court and that the State would fight us. It has now arrived and will be decided in due course. It would seem we are right on schedule.

3. There has been no new action by the legislature or court decisions that represents a setback or is a new source for outrage. The enemy is still HB 141.


My point in bringing this up is that IMO the best course of action we can take in fighting for stream access is to continue to support the USAC both monetarily and otherwise in the court cases and in legislative issues as they come up. There may possibly be a time for more extreme action like boycotting Utah fishing, but right now (IMO) is not that time and I don't see that it would accomplish a whole lot. More effective action would be to skip a lunch or say no to SFW's (anti stream access)expo tag drawings and send the proceeds to the USAC. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,115 Posts
Let's ask ourselves what would really happen IF enough people did what you recommend...what other consequences could come of such an action? We may get back some of that stream access that you so desire, BUT couldn't we also lose in other areas? What about those awesome new solar powered aerators being put on Boulder top...could the loss of revenue cost us a couple more of those aerators? Couldn't losing something such as those aerators also cost us more waters to fish? What about a place like Navajo Lake where the dike just broke a few years ago and money is badly needed for a permanent fix...could losing the revenue cost us fixes like the one done? What about fewer fish being stocked or no fish being stocked in some of our streams? Could we lose some brown trout in the Fremont? The Sevier? Otter Creek? Because of lost revenue?

Sorry, selfish or not...your idea isn't all that good! And, selfish or not, I am not sacrificing a year of fishing in Utah in hopes of getting back something that I have never really lost because I always assumed stream beds that flowed through private property were private.

What I do know is this: with or without those 2,700 miles of access to streams that flow through private property, we have miles upon miles of streams that we do have access to and many reservoirs and lakes that we are allowed to fish. What is selfish is this idea that I should sacrifice for you because you feel the loss more than I do...even more selfish is that you are asking me to possibly sacrifice some of my favorite fishing spots so that you can get some of yours back!
I can live with your attitude.

My main point is this: I'm not asking this for just me. I'm not worried about any water that was closed off to me--in fact--I never did go through property that was opened up with the original supreme court ruling, or with the latest Judges ruling. So don't tell me I'm crying about water that I had closed off. I'm not as selfish as you think. I really want water opened up for all anglers. That is where you and I differ. Yes, I could go off and fish my forest service water and be just as happy as can be. But you see, that is where you and I differ. I am concerned about others getting a chance to fish where they want. I am concerned with kids having water to fish. I'm concerned that if this trend of closing off water continues that future generations will not enjoy the things I did. Yes--you and I differ a lot. I'm not selfish. This isn't about me.

If it was about me, then I would do just like you--go happily fish want I can. I decided I wanted to help others so I've been down to the capitol visiting with my representative face-to-face. I've written letters to the governor, the senators, the representatives--not because of what I want, but because of what I feel is right.

You sir, have read me wrong. I'm not worried about any water that I've missed, but water that others have missed, or suddenly lost. You call that selfish?

Maybe what I proposed wouldn't work. Maybe it would do more harm, but at least I'm thinking about it, and asking about it, and trying to do my part.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,002 Posts
This discussion is exactly why I support the DWR making more, and more land purchases whenever available. It is exactly why I was so thrilled with the Kingston Canyon land purchase when many others were upset about it. It's also why I get upset when I hear counties like Wayne saying "we won't sell to the State" because so much of the land in that county is already under government ownership. Land that belongs to the State and the Feds isn't a bad thing -- it's land that typically is accessible to all of us. Private land is what hurts.

I don't know what the solution is. Giving up my fishing license for a year probably isn't an option for me. I guess I'll just have to continue to not vote for these creeps that want to take away all of my access to public land.
 
  • Like
Reactions: colbyatepaste
1 - 20 of 93 Posts
Top