Boo to the Utah Govenor!!!!

[DeadI]

The govenor of Utah signed a bill today that makes it illegal to step foot on the stream bed or shorline of rivers and streams passing through private proberty. I do not like this one bit.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=10225979

[MuleyMadness]

Yea I saw this also, I figured he would do this.

[Springville Shooter]

I'm having dejavous from back when I was in California. What's next? Moritorium on mountain lion hunting? This is total BS!!!----shooter

[amp713]

"urges private property owners to be generous in allowing access"

You just passed a law that gives them the right to do the exact opposite of that.

He is an oxyMORON!!!

[castnshoot]

This law is a good compromise law to set right an over reaching ruling sent down from the courts.

If you can float it you can fish it. But you can't walk out in 2 inches of water in some guys pasture to shoot ducks.

This goes along with most states in stating that it must be navigable.

Be careful about giving up property rights, even if you don't own property.

The DWR interpretation is laid out in simple terms on there website.

The water is owned by the public [in most cases] but not the land it passes over.

[Springville Shooter]

Giving up property rights??? Explain to me how allowing fishermen access to state waterways by permitting access to the stream bed infringes on property rights? I've never heard of the 2 inches of water in a pasture scenario and the way I interpret the law this would not be considered a streambed of a state waterway, this would be a flood irrigated pasture. The fact of the matter is that property owners lose NOTHING that's rightfully theirs by having guys in waders sloshing up and down the stream through their ranch. In my opinion, waterways that are funded, stocked, and protected by public funds are much like the road that runs through your neighborhood. Sadly this was one of the things that impressed me about Utah when I came here, even common working folks like me could fish and hunt much of the state. Now like in California, miles of water will be only accessible to those who pack $500.00 flyrods and can afford to be members of the "club" to catch fish that we pay to plant for them.------shooter

[NONYA]

You guys got screwed,our streambeds are PUBLIC property,as long as its a perenial water source we can use it,our supreme court recently proved our stream access law,overuling the lawyers of rich out of state POS bigshots who didnt want the locals shooting ducks on slews they have hunted for generations,they dameed em,fenced em off,intimidated people and all it got them was another decision enforcing the public rights,you guys need to start a petetion and get some lawmakers on board.

[castnshoot]

Springville, I agree Utah is a beautiful and unique place. Water rights, usage, and access have always been a huge point of contention, and always will be.

I say the court ruling was over reaching in that it would do exactly as I said, any natural stream of water weather it had fish in it or not could be accessed at any public point of entry.

Yes there is no doubt there is some wealthy people that might be loving this new law. That being said the negative affects to property owners that would have been caused by the recent court ruling would by far fall on the shoulders of property owners who are far from wealthy.

I believe it was a fly fisherman of the type you described that brought the law suit that ended
in the recent court ruling.

I take it that you came to Utah from California, {forgive me if I am wrong about that} so you may not realize this but this law pretty much puts things back to the way it was before 2008.

Like I said these type of arguments have been battled out for ever but they usually end up balancing out on the key word navigable.

No I don,t own any land that would be affected one way or the other, but I do wet a line at least once day a week if not more often.

[Springville Shooter]

I'm on board with the "any stream of water" definition being unfair to landowners, but how is navigable a fair measure in a state like this? In California, the rule was navigable, but we had 4 navigable rivers and 4 navigable lakes just in the area that I lived in. Here, I fish out of a jet boat that can run in less than a foot of water, and there are no places to run it except lakes. I disagree with the part of the law that excludes any of Utah's major fisheries as public domain. This would include a little creek that runs through my town Hobble Creek, maybe you've heard of it. This is far from a navigable waterway but is still a major fishery that produces some great opportunity at big browns to thousands of anglers each year. I agree that there needs to be a happy medium, but I think that they sorely missed the mark with the navigable standard. Face it, we have so few fishing streams in this state that they could rule on them individually as public or private domain and protect BOTH interests involved. I believe that we as the public are the "big money" here and the politicians should watch out for us a little more if they want to have a succesful, profitable fishery. -----shooter

[amp713]

just wanted to post the link to the dwr's sight so you can read what is now "legal" or "illegal"

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/component/ ... b-141.html