Here we go again. . . the people lose and special interests w/ MONEY win. Republicans sell out the people time after time and we just take it. It's about time the 400,000 anglers and the MILLIONS of dollars sportsmen pump into the Utah economy speak out, LOUD AND CLEAR. We're mad as heck and won't take it anymore. Get organized and VOTE out the puppets. Angling generates money for gas stations, restaurants, motels, guides, sporting goods retailers and manufacturers. Call your representative and let him/her know you fish and you vote.

The caption is incorrect - the 500ft rule will allow posting of NO FISHING on sections of the Provo within 500ft of a private dwelling. This will lock out large public water sections of the Provo, Weber, and Ogden rivers to anglers. Kayakers, boaters, and bird watchers are not restricted by the 500ft rule. Why just anglers?

I attended the "Rally" at the Capitol ... no real head count but well over 200 were present, shouting / waving signs / following a well discplined rule of order. Couple of things ... During my tenure as the Aquatics Appointee on the DWR Habitat Council we spent millions of Anglers License fee dollars ( restricted funds out of anglers pockets, not general state treasury funds)purchasing for the water recreaton public "conservation easements in perpetuity" from private landowner parties,either with cash or physical improvements such as flood control, stream control, we installed habitat strucures to keep the fast moving waters in stream centers to prevent erosion of private properties,, planted vegetation for the same purpose, installed gates and ladders for access, built fenced parking lots ... all of which could very well (will) go away with HB187. It's a bad special interest document which will likely cost the State millions in revenue ... please recall that in 2002 more than 70,000 anglers simply faded away when faced with what they deemed to be an unfair license fee increase, that cost the DWR more than $10 millions over time ... plus ... all the retail sales and income taxes supported by those anglers..... GEEZ!

is recreation for the brain dead. The only thing worse is ice fishing.

Rep. Ben c Ferry

I support your bill H B187. Property owners need some control and rights. When outsiders come not all respect prperty rights. I have experenced damage. Land owner need control of their interst. Keep up the good work.
Thank You

Major (BAD) points of this bill:

1. Privatizes and takes management responsibility of fisheries and angling away from DWR if and when an individual decides to close "his section of the water" within 500 feet of his dwelling. Only the Division of Wildlife Resources, under the auspice of the rule making authority of the Wildlife Board, can close a water to angling .

2. If an individual closes a water within 500 feet of his dwelling then that individual, his friends or family may not fish the closed water.

3. If an individual closes a water within 500 feet of his dwelling and his neighbor is within that 500 foot area (Ogden River is a prime example), the neighbor will not be allowed to fish on his stretch of the stream. This is a violation of personal property rights.

4. This bill violates those portions of the Utah Code associated with Easements and Rights-of-Way as defined by the Utah State Supreme Court.

I have not fished a river or stream in quite a few years. That said this regulation is just wronge. Property owners already have rights to restrict access to their property. If they observe someone on thier property and it is properly posted the individual can be cited. The rivers are public domain and should stay that way. The monies that have been obtained through licensing fees have gone to improve these waterways which in essence means that the public has paid for improvements to private property. If these property owners want to restrict access then it is time to pull the public funds and let the property owners take responsibility for any damage caused by flooding, etc... I believe the property owners would be the first in line to sue or blame the state for the water leaving the banks of the river and causing damage. This needs voted down.

Rep Ferry, (And other Representatives),
The waters are owned by the state, not the property owners. Thanks for proposing a bill that that goes against the supreme court and privatizes public water. This bill does not allow people to cross on private property, but only to be in the water. So to the guy who posted his comment above and said he has land on wanter that was vandalized, why doesn't he pay back the money that went into the improvement of the water. I guess its ok for property owners to buy land that have public waters and shut them off from the rest of the world. It must be nice to be one of the elite owners. Most responsible fishermen(women) leave streams better than they are found. Maybe they should close down Farmington Pond because there are houses that back up to it. To the Reps who are voting, this will be brought up during the next election. Vote for allowing people to use PUBLIC waters. If people violate personal property, I am all for full prosecution.

REP. FERRY'S EMAIL ADDRESS:

bcferry@utah.gov

PLEASE everyone send him a quick email telling him what a bad idea this is. Unbelievable. Public sidewalks go through private land -- what's the difference? Land and rivers are two different things, you can own land but not a river, sorry.

I can only echo the above: You can own LAND, but not WATER nor water rights. It's very unfortunate that Utah even has such politicians--shame, shame, shame, shame!!!

The average recreational fisherman is not as much to blame for anger of the property owners as much as the guides who day in and day out use the property owners front yard to conduct thier business. I support sharing the river as long as property is respected. my own personal experience is that for the most part it is, however it only takes one act of vandalism or property negligence to make short work of the trust of owners toward fishermen.

All these fishermen claim to have the right to fish on private land. The owners know they don't own the water, but they do own the land, and they are taxed additional fees for owning land that has water going through it. This isn't an easement! Easements are liabilities to property, they lower value. Streams INCREASE value, so to feel you have the right to private property because you want it is wrong. We pay extra to buy that land, we pay extra because of the water on the land. You aren't paying anything, but expect full rights, and you probably still feel you are entitled to our private land. Regardless of how you feel, the land WAS sold as private. We aren't arguing the water, we are arguing the land, and the land DOES belong to us.

WELL, THAT WAS ABOUT AS CLEAR AS THE JORDAN RIVER.
FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FISH A FEW OF OUR FAVORITE SPOTS. ONE OF THE OWNERS CHASED US OUT WITH HIS SHOTGUN. AND WE CHOOSE TO RESPECT OWNERS RIGHTS. I SURE UNDERSTAND WHY OWNERS WOULD NOT LIKE HAVING SOME ANGLERS ACCESS THE RIVERS VIA THEIR PROPERTY. SOME PEOPLE RUIN IT FOR THE REST OF US WITH THEIR TRASH, NESTS OF LINE, BUTTS AND BEER CANS. WHAT A SHAME. NOT BEING ABLE TO WALK VERY FAR, MEANS I CAN NOT GET TO THE RIVER, SOMETIMES, AND REALLY CAN NOT STRUGGLE MY WAY IN THE FLOW AND ROCKS. I HOPE THAT THIS BILL WILL HELP US ALL TO BE ABLE TO ENJOY OUR WATERS.