Access Issues

[Fly Goddess]

It is messed up Dave. TRASH? Not buying that, the wind blows trash too. Sure there might be 1 out of 10 that do trash, but out of that 10 I bet there is also 1 that picks up trash. Property owners don't own that land under the river. They have No right claiming they do other than $. It is going to take time but I do think it will be set constitutionally right.
I go fishing to get away from work and other life where I do have to ask permission, I don't want to ask permission to walk on river bottom that is my legal right.
We got our rights briefly for one year and things didn't go crazt except trumped up photos and made up stories by land owners. So, then the law is set in faor of the land owners with a barrier attached?! If that doesn't show how messed up this is, I don't know what else there is. We actually LOST more than we didn't have before that wonderful year.

[Utah David]

Boy, did I stir a hornets nest or what?

I think John Scott got the point I was making, but I'm not sure who else did. So before I go into my long dialogue, let me reiterate it here in its simplest form:

Common courtesy and showing respect for others (and their property) will go a very long way in gaining you access to locations you would otherwise not be able to fish.

I wasn't advocating or suggesting that a property owner (as such) has any more (or less) right to "public land under the river" than the public does. Nor should they have the right to keep the public from using it. But a property owner does (and I believe should) have the right to keep you from crossing their property to get to that "public land".

Think of it this way. If someone decided that they wanted to use your yard as a thoroughfare to get to a public park that your backyard sits adjacent to, (or National Park in the case of Steve?) as the property owner do you have the right to decide if they can or can't do so? Just because there is public land "back there" doesn't make your yard an "entitlement easement" as an access point for it.

Similarly, if the "public" enters your yard from the public park side, and decide to "set-up camp", BBQ, play frisbee, just walk around, or whatever, as the property owner you should have every right to kick them out and/or charge them with trespassing.

As to trash... First of all, Fly Goddess if there wasn't any trash to blow, the wind wouldn't be blowing it. But that's beside the point. Trash was merely an example of a lack of consideration many have for other's property. Ask any landlord, rental car company... heck, go visit your local park and tell me that a certain percentage of the population doesn't lack respect for other's property. Which in the case of a park it's really THEIR own property. Yes, these individuals may very well be the minority. But again, if MY personal property got thoroughly "trashed" a time or two by the public, it wouldn't take long for me to say, "No more."

It may not be fair that responsible individuals have to pay the price for the irresponsible ones. But it's the world we live in. It happens all the time, in all kinds of ways, and I don't see it going away anytime soon. Insurance rates, health care costs, even the price you pay for fly fishing gear has a mark-up built into it to cover "loss" from irresponsible individuals. Be it theft or fraudulent acts.

Now before I get accused of complacency and having a "that's the way it is so get use to it attitude", I'll just say:
I applaud those that are fighting to protect access to "public land", and public lands themselves. Further, I don't for a minute believe that just because, "that's the way it is", means "that's the way it should be".

But I also think that we need to be careful that we don't infringe upon the rights of property owners to "control" what occurs on their property. Even if we don't happen to like it, or it makes what we want to do less accessible.

---David

[Mojo]

David, I was referring to legal access by a public access point. Never mentioned trespassing on anyones land to get to the water. Most of us here are aware of that can land you a ticket or jailtime.
The trash Flygoddess mentioned is prevelant along the lower Provo river, which runs along the highway. I'll be the first to admit that residents here aren't the cleanest when it comes to litter. I've never seen a flyfisher leave a dirty disposable diaper by a riverbank or a shoe or flipflop or a McDonalds bag.

[Utah David]

Mojo,

My concern upon reading the responses to this thread was that it appeared to be heading off on a tangent that wasn't my intent. Which probably came from my erroneous perception of what Fly Goddess was referring to. I was thinking one thing, and she was obviously thinking another. Those of you "close" to the situation immediately went to where Fly Goddess was referring, and rightfully so. While I was still looking at it strictly from an "access" issue. Hence I disagreed. In the context of what was so eloquently portrayed by many, I will gladly retract my statement that I don't agree that the current Utah law is messed up. It may very well be, and I don't really know one way or another in this regard. But I stand squarely behind my statements referring to public access and property owner rights. Not to mention what a little courtesy and respect can accomplish.

Over the course of 16 years (and currently) I lived/owned property in Orem, American Fork, Elk Ridge, Woodland Hills, Parowan, Cedar City, and Brian Head. I still have two sons living in Utah. One in West Jordan, and the other in Cedar City. My occupation during that time required me to work closely with small municipalities across the state. (I was employed by the Lt. Governor's Office and DCED.) So I've pretty much been to every incorporated town that existed there during that time, and most of them on multiple (if not numerous) occasions. As such I've also fished most of the major trout fisheries in the State, and a lot more of the minor or unknown ones. Here in Indiana, I typically seek out similar "unknown" water, and in both States it never ceases to amaze me how much "junk" there is in these environments. I agree that as a demographic, fly fishermen are not generally the guilty parties. But fly fishermen also do not constitute the general public. In fact, we are a very small minority of just the angling public. So what legislation does for us as a group, will also go for the rest of the public. Including those with diapers, flip-flops, and McDonald's bags.

---David

p.s. By the way everybody. Happy New Year.

[DeadDrifting]

The North Platte river bottom in Wy is one that i'm told is owned by the land owner.
I wonder if that is really true?

That is correct. In Wyoming, the landowner "owns" the stream bottom and banks. Can't anchor, can't wade, can't touch it. More BS.

[sagefisher]

There different colored markers along the shoreline, one color means you can anchor or wade fish the other color means no touching, no anchor, no wading, can't even grab the brush along the side of the river. I would only fish that river from a boat if I had a guide, otherwise you run a serious risk if violating a law and getting run into the local jail. Great fishing by they way, the trout were shaped like footballs and all either made great runs or danced across the top of the water. I really had fun floating the North Platte. The wind can be a serious problem, it blew us off the river the second day we were there, 50+ MPH winds.

Larry ---sagefisher---

[Gigmaster]

I grew up in Texas, and there, it is illegal to block access to any water that is navigable, and navigable means not a stock pond. It doesn't matter if you wade it, or whatever. If it goes through property, then it is public as far as the stream bed goes.

It should be that way everywhere. If it is not exclusively on your property, where you are responsible for maintaining it, then it should be accessible.

[Big Bad Wulff]

I'd like to see what happens when the dirt that is under the water(landowner's property) moves and causes damage somewhere else, if the landowner is now going to be so willing to now say "that is my land"...

[Fly Goddess]

I wanted to post this:
The Coalition brought this case to overturn Utah’s ill-named Public Waters Access Act (HB 141) on constitutional grounds. In 2008, in the case of Conatser v. Johnson, the Utah Supreme Court unanimously held that the public’s right to lawfully access and use its public waters in place for any lawful activity, including recreation, allowed the public to reasonably touch the privately-owned beds of public waters in ways incident and necessary to such use. In 2010, with passage of HB 141, the Utah legislature purported to overrule the Conatser decision and to abolish the public’s right to touch privately-owned streambeds when using public waters in place. The Coalition contends that the public’s right to use public waters in place was recognized and confirmed in the Utah Constitution at statehood and that HB 141 violates this right. It further contends that HB 141 violates constitutional and other public trust and separation of powers principles. A favorable ruling in this case will restore the public’s right to use public waters in place as confirmed in Conatser.
Ever since the pioneers first entered the Salt Lake Valley, the waters in Utah’s rivers and streams have been owned by the people and managed by the territorial and state governments in trust for the benefit of the people. Brigham Young confirmed this principle his second day in the Valley when he proclaimed that there would be no private ownership of water.
The Coalition filed suit because the Act, contrary to its title, abandons this fundamental principle of Utah law and prohibits public access to hundreds of miles of rivers and streams in Utah, many of which have benefited from publicly-funded habitat restoration, stream bank restoration and other projects, and effectively gives riparian landowners exclusive rights to access and use these valuable public resources and to sell that exclusive access to the highest bidder. From a legal perspective, the Act violates the State’s obligation to hold and manage Utah’s public waters in trust for the benefit of the people.
An essential function of the courts is to correct governmental breaches of the public trust and the Coalition looks to Utah’s courts to do that here.

Anyone interested in the rest of it, and keep in mind, that while this is Utah, it can also effect other states with whatever the out come is

http://utahstreamaccess.org/usac-wp/public-waters-case/

[Flybyknight]

That is correct. In Wyoming, the landowner "owns" the stream bottom and banks. Can't anchor, can't wade, can't touch it. More BS.

Same holds true in New York State, for example the Douglaston Salmon Run area of the Salmon River in Pulaski NY

Dick