Ferry said the ruling was vague and that "people need to know where they can and can't go and at the same time where does the easement exist and where doesn't the easement exist. These are all problems the (Supreme Court) ruling threw wide open … and rather than follow common law, they proceeded? to 'make their own rules' and legislate from the bench."?

Boaters and anglers contend that key recreational waters, such as the Huntington Creek, the Price River and Currant Creek, all popular with recreationists, are among those that could be closed under this bill.

Prior to the Supreme Court decision, owners whose property has rivers or streams passing through could close access. Under existing trespass laws, any land posted, cultivated or fenced is automatically closed. This bill would restore those guidelines.

In jeopardy, pointed out Wilson, is Utah's $700 million fishing industry. Any reduction in fishing and boating opportunities would threaten those areas of tourism, "and in this economy, I don't think that's very wise."?

"We've not only got to think about today, but what about 20 years from now when the population is expected to double. If we start restricting waters, where are all these people going to fish? That's why people move to Utah, for the outdoor experience," said Gunderson.

Ferry contends the bill will not impact fishing revenues, since it expands access to the 14 waters listed in the bill. Fishermen contend those waters are already open and that overriding the Supreme Court decision would ultimately reduce fishing and boating opportunities, which would impact revenues.

Wilson said he was involved in two meetings with Ferry in which concerns were presented. "The end result is anglers and boaters are second choice to public waters. Property owners are the first choice.

"What (the Utah River Council) asked is that we slow this train down. There are ways to compromise. No one wants (private land owners) to be harmed. Lets take a year, take a deep breath and work together. We don't want to harm them, we just want them to tolerate us."?

Gunderson said Idaho has been living with access laws similar to those ruled on by the Supreme Court, "without any serious issues. There's no reason we can't."

Ferry said the Legislature could overturn= the Supreme Court decision, "180 degrees. But from my perspective, that would have only ended up in court … so it's better to find compromise."?

The boating and fishing groups contended this bill is no compromise and say that if it does pass, there will be court challenges with respect to the Supreme Court ruling and constitutionality issues.?

Ferry said he is preparing the bill to submit to committee. In the meantime, the various groups involved are planning a large rally on the Capitol steps this week to bring attention to a bill they contend "is totally unacceptable."?