Utah Floaters Need Your Help Today!

[robkanraft]

I know all of you have many things going on in your lives and so much asked of you… but if you have ever been a visitor to Utah, or want to be, please take five minutes and make a phone call TODAY to the Governor of Utah expressing your opposition to some very contentious and pending legislation that could restrict your access to Utah’s public waters and possibly have national implications for all boaters.

The folks on the ground opposing HR 187 are most concerned and asking for support, and the battle is unfolding today.

Please call the Governor of Utah’s office today at 1.801.538.1000 and simply say… “My name is ____and I am from ______(state). I am an out-of-state recreational user of the public waters and lands of Utah and would like to go on record as opposed to HR 187.”

That’s all you have to do, you don’t have to talk politics and the folks answering the phones are very courteous and enthusiastic to record your position. Your voices could make a difference. Thanks, rob

[Michele Jackson]

Done. Very easy - took about 20 seconds. Thanks for posting.

[Richard]

Yep. Very easy. They just need to know where you are from and that you are opposed to HR 187

[Lifejacket]

Here is a link I found for those interested in reading it first

http://le.utah.gov/~2009/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0187.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not sure this is such a bad thing; however, it does not look like they have enough streams listed. I also did not agree with the wording "navigable year-round."

[Trismegistus]

All this has me wondering why people who are opposed to open and free passage across privately owned land are seemingly receptive to open and free passage across our stream beds. I guess as long as you run water over a piece of land there are those among us who then assume it should be part of the public domain.

I personally think the Utah Supreme Court was out of bounds when they declared that the public can walk on all privately owned streambeds for recreational purposes regardless of the stream's size, scope, location, or even environmental condition. Not only is it an affront to our constitutionally guaranteed right to own and possess private property but it certainly fails to protect environmentally sensitive streambeds. The current piece of legislation -- and it certainly needs some amending -- at least tries to rectify what is otherwise an overbounding verdict by the Utah Supreme Court.

And if in fact the public does indeed want open and free passage across all our privately owned streambeds for recreational purposes then logic dictates we should also have open and free passage across the entire landscape for recreational purposes as well. Why should a fly fishermen or paddler be given special liberties over a backpacker or cross-county hiker? It's not that I'm opposed to open and free passage on all our stream beds but I do believe our private landowners need some protection to assure their privacy and well-being. And if it so necessitates a "list of acceptable streams" -- then so be it. But to allow "recreational use" to upsurp the rights of private landowners just doesn't sit right with me.

This bill doesn't restrict one's access to Utah’s public waters rather it restricts access to land and streambeds currently deemed to be private property. Big difference.

Addendum: Also note that this bill very explicitly delineates public and private water. "Private water" means water that a person, with a valid right to use the water, has reduced to actual, physical possession and exclusive control by placing the water in a receptacle for storage or conveyance. In contrast, "public water" means water flowing on the surface within a natural channel or ponded in a natural lake or reservoir on a natural channel. Seems to me to be a very liberal definition. Moreover the bill explicitly defines seventeen (17) different rivers for recreational use and thus open to the public and has provisions to add additional waterways. All and all it seems better than what we have here in Arkansas in regards to designation of our public waterways.

[robkanraft]

The Utah governor’s office will accept your call, btw, whether you oppose, or favor 187. Thanks to you who called and opposed it.

[Trismegistus]

I have spent some more time looking at this bill -- and perhaps more importantly the decision of the Utah Supreme Court that all but necessitated this bill -- and stand by my previous statement. Those in opposition to this bill have declared -- I kid you not -- "We hold that the public the right to float, hunt, fish, and participate in all lawful activities that utilize the water." Bull Crap!

That literally means if I enjoy crayfish -- I can wander up any little stream on any piece of property to collect crayfish -- right up to your back door. This bill simply says "no way" -- there have to be limits.

What the bill does not do is affect in any way the current accessibility to public waters on public lands or private lands that already have an easement in place.

What the bill does not do is affect in any way the use of public waters where the mode of use entails use of a boat; rather, this bill is specifically oriented at curtailing fishermen from wading and tramping across the landscape.

What this bill does not do is impair any of our preexisting rights regarding right of passage as they so existed prior to the recent decision of the Utah Supreme Court.

Rather this bill authorizes the public to engage in recreational activities including fishing on many waters in the state that were previously closed to public access prior to the Supreme Court ruling. Moreover, the bill even authorizes recreationists to leave the bed of the stream onto private land to negotiate around barriers in the stream such as fences, dams, and diversions. You'd think we'd embrace this compromise -- the only restrictive aspect of the entire bill is that it prohibits people from fishing within 500 feet of one's home -- I think perhaps 200 feet would be adequate.

I personally feel that if private landowners in our state felt that the ACC and the paddling community is truly in favor of of complete and open access to all waters of the state for any and all recreational activities as so deemed by the Utah Supreme Court we'd encounter a significant backlash. It would certainly put me on the defense and have me standing at my driveway with gun in hand.

Perhaps as a riparian landowner I should be helping to organize other landowners who may someday face a similar disregard for our constitional liberties and rights by the public here in Arkansas. Hmm...

[Trismegistus]

Rob - Interested in knowing as a paddler just how this bill restricts our access to any streams that we currently enjoy in Utah? Or in Arkansas?

And why as a paddler this bill would have any adverse implications at the national level with regard to our access?

And do you really believe that the public has the right of free passage on all water for all recreational activities regardless of the stream's size, scope or location?

And lastly, are you a socialist or communist? Or do you simply believe that riparian landowners have no constitutional rights?

Just curious.

[Zach]

And lastly, are you a socialist or communist? Or do you simply believe that riparian landowners have no constitutional rights?

Ah, the old 'Do you kick babies or eat them?' argument.

Right up there with 'I know you are, but what am I?' and 'NAH NAH NAH NAH...I'm not listening!'.

Though I think I prefer the classic 'Do you still have that rash?'

I tried to read the bill, but I couldn't figure it out.
Here is a link to a Utah paddling club page with some links to a few articles.

LINK

Of which these seem to be the best:
This One
This One

Seems the main argument against the bill is that any stream not on the list wouldn't have protected access. With only 17 on the list, and obviously 100s if not 1000s that would be navigable for boating or appropriate for fishing, could be a horribly long and difficult process to get streams added back on. Whereas a grandfathered clause where streams that have been fished or boated for years (if not decades and centuries) would be automatically protected might be more amicable to boaters and fishers.

Edit: Additionally, the fisherman are upset that as written the legislation could limit access to streams that have been stocked with taxpayer money.

[Trismegistus]

Zach -- You're a man of my heart! Well done.

And I like the 'Do you still have that crouch rot?" spin. Very good.

And indeed the key will be to add more streams to the list -- but I also note that many streams are not listed which I know have and always will have open access. Thus these seventeen are being added to a set of streams -- such as the Green -- that are already considered freely open and other streams that are are already fully contained within Utah's public lands -- and Utah has a lot of public land. Thus taken collectively it seems to me that most -- and probably all -- the current streams we paddle in Utah will still be open to paddlers.

Foremost this bill is about fishermen. Fishermen who will traverse private property in pursuit of their prey. I have spent a lot of time fishing in Utah and I myself have wandered up streams I could easily step over, streams that traverse feed lots and wheat fields held by private landowners. And even the most conscientious fishermen is going to spend as much time on the bank of these small streams as he will walking on the stream bed -- that's just the facts and "nature of the game" -- so even as I am a big proponent of open and free passage, I still believe the private landowner should have some level of protection and I think that is what the bill tries to provide -- and I personally feel it's a fairly good compromise especially given that there is always going to be "winners and losers" in any land use battle.

[Richard]

I did an automatic, "If it is posted on the ACC message board and if it is conservation oriented I need to support the motion." Unfortunately, I called before I knew all the facts. After making the call I then did a search to see what it was all about. I found that the Utah legislature records its sessions and I was able to listen to over two hours of discussion on this matter. OK, I didn't listen to the entire thing. At some point I dozed off. But it was interesting to listen to the two sides on this issue. They are trying to restrict roaming to 150 feet of the stream or less if a home's privacy is intruded upon. This seems reasonable to me. It was also pointed out that 75% of Utah is government owned and this bill only applies to privately owned land. If only people could be courteous and responsible, this legislation would not even be thought about.
There is a mindset that may need to be changed. If I am not mistaken there is no such thing as trespassing in England. People have learned to respect each others rights and needs.

[Trismegistus]

I know what you mean Richard -- I too just about followed my first gut reaction and then as I looked into the piece of legislation I quickly retrenched -- too often we make these leaps without really looking. This is one of the aspects of environmentalism and the green movement that I find most disturbing. It seems like than in every conflict between the needs of people and the preservation of nature, environmentalists either call for the sacrifice of human interests or attempt to pursue their own self-serving needs. The underlying premise behind environmentalism is that nature has intrinsic value apart from its value to human existence and we are called upon to accept this premise without question. What folks fail to understand -- and whether we like it or not -- sustaining human existence is a process of reshaping the environment to meet our own needs. Either humans have a right to exist or we don't; there can be no middle ground. If nature is intrinsically valuable and does not include humans, every meal is immoral, every house built is an evil committed against nature. Human existence is an act that should bring with it a never-ending sense of guilt.

Under a pure capitalist system nature is preserved only to the extent that it benefits man. Companies cannot dump waste into rivers at whim, because those rivers are the property of someone else. The same applies to any other form of pollution that is harmful to man -- nobody wants to pollute their own property, and no one is allowed to pollute anyone else's, so waste management is handled in a very clean fashion. At the same time, no one has the right to prevent someone from using his land for his personal benefit -- including privacy and well-being -- as long as it doesn't adversely impact the health and well-being of others. Not saying there needs be no regulations but that we have to be careful when regulating the affairs of other people. One might argue that impinging on the constitutional rights and liberties of others as advocated by misguided environmentalists is often far worse than the environmental problems that we face individually and globally

It is time for Americans to reject environmentalism and to celebrate the value of trees and oil fields -- not for their own sake, but for the benefits they bring us.

Of course I guess I could have summed up this lengthy post the way you did: "People have to learn to respect each others rights and needs."

[Clif]

Indeed, guys.

If only people could be courteous and responsible, this legislation would not even be thought about..

Could that not be said of much legislation?

"I see trees of green........ red roses too........"

"Love your neighbor as yourself...
and love your enemies."