Utah HB 37
- Thread starter ARCHRYBLL
- Start date
I love to fly kites! But everywhere I go that is good to fly kites, I find private land! Some of the best kite flying areas are locked up by big land barons. Doesn't the air belong to all of us? Shouldn't we have access to walk through people's back yards to fly our kites. Seems to me it's a natural right! Support HB37k so we all can have access to everyone's back yard to fly our kites!!!
HAZMAT
HAZMAT
If the law was more definitive about ownership there would be no question about access on way or the other. But does the landowner own the bottom of the river like some states or does the landowner only own to the high water mark like other states. I am not much of a fisherman so really this law does not make any difference to me. I was just wondering what peoples thoughts are.
LAST EDITED ON Feb-18-14 AT 02:06PM (MST)[p]The fishing/kayak/waterfowl groups are definitely for this and pushing it. The biggest opponents are the farmers/ranchers, who clearly have intrest in our public lands (grazing), but are not willing to compromise on public waters. I've never fished or plan to fish waters affected by this legislation, but fully support it on principal.
This and a lot of other discussion/legislation all stemmed from a guy rafting the Weber River who stepped on the stream bed to navigate around a sand bar and was charged with trespassing.
The charge was ultimately heard up through all courts even to the Utah Supreme Court who ultimately ruled unanimously, as detailed in the state constitution, that all waters are publicly owned. The court ruled that being the water is held public, the public has the right to recreate on that water, which would include the stream bed under the water.
A couple years following that ruling, the state legislature passed legislation that was counter to the court ruling, basically legislating away constitutionally afforded rights and adding ambiguity rather than clarity. This has resulted in pending litigation as current legislation clearly violates the Supreme Court ruling.
HB37, as I read it, is a compromise bill where public rights are detailed and private land interests are assured. It basically gives specific guidelines around public use of public water and maintains that private land is not infringed upon. The bill is very similar to Idaho?s law that has been in place and working well for +40 years. It's also similar to Montana?s law that was recently challenge and upheld.
While fishing may not be your thing, it's good for public in general. It's good for your grandchildren who may end up being a fisherman and will have their ability to recreate on public waters defined by this generation.
This and a lot of other discussion/legislation all stemmed from a guy rafting the Weber River who stepped on the stream bed to navigate around a sand bar and was charged with trespassing.
The charge was ultimately heard up through all courts even to the Utah Supreme Court who ultimately ruled unanimously, as detailed in the state constitution, that all waters are publicly owned. The court ruled that being the water is held public, the public has the right to recreate on that water, which would include the stream bed under the water.
A couple years following that ruling, the state legislature passed legislation that was counter to the court ruling, basically legislating away constitutionally afforded rights and adding ambiguity rather than clarity. This has resulted in pending litigation as current legislation clearly violates the Supreme Court ruling.
HB37, as I read it, is a compromise bill where public rights are detailed and private land interests are assured. It basically gives specific guidelines around public use of public water and maintains that private land is not infringed upon. The bill is very similar to Idaho?s law that has been in place and working well for +40 years. It's also similar to Montana?s law that was recently challenge and upheld.
While fishing may not be your thing, it's good for public in general. It's good for your grandchildren who may end up being a fisherman and will have their ability to recreate on public waters defined by this generation.
1911
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 6,196
What we have now is what happens when a bunch of meat heads get "cute" with an interpretation of a court ruling and then are shocked when stronger powers kick back. As always it was the few who ruined it for the many. And to be very clear, the pluck heads reared up as trash "sportsman" and dirt bag landowners alike. Without following this current legislation one bit, I would place my bets with the landowners and real estate lobby.
1911, as much as I don't like it, I think you're right. Landowner lobby (Farm Bureau and real estate) has won on this issue twice already and with this legislative session, public support doesn't seem to have the steam behind it as in years past.
With that said, the pending litigation, and it may take a couple more years to work through the system, I fully believe will clear this up once and for all in the publics favor. The courts ruled unanimously already on constitutional provided public rights to the water. The only thing missing is the definition of that right, meaning ?wet boot? or ?high water mark?. When the courts define that, that's it, the court ruling will trump state law, unless the state constitution can be amended, which won't happen.
The court has already ruled that the public has a right to use the water, worst case ruling for the public, is ?wet boot? meaning you have to be in the water at all times. In the long run, my bet is on the public.
With that said, the pending litigation, and it may take a couple more years to work through the system, I fully believe will clear this up once and for all in the publics favor. The courts ruled unanimously already on constitutional provided public rights to the water. The only thing missing is the definition of that right, meaning ?wet boot? or ?high water mark?. When the courts define that, that's it, the court ruling will trump state law, unless the state constitution can be amended, which won't happen.
The court has already ruled that the public has a right to use the water, worst case ruling for the public, is ?wet boot? meaning you have to be in the water at all times. In the long run, my bet is on the public.
