CALL RIGHT NOW TO VETO BILL 141

[snowman22250]

Call the Gov office right now, and tell them you want to VETO house bill #141.

We are NO longer going to be able to walk down the weber, provo, all good Fishing rivers that go through private property.

Someone told me SFW was in support of this bill???

800-705-2464---CALL RIGHT NOW AND ASK THE GOV TO VETO THE BILL>

SNowman

 

[adamsoa]

I called!!!

He says he's on the fence and will listen to pupular oppinion so call



respect my authorita

 

[kawboy]

Thanks snowman!!! Very glad I called.

Rub some dirt on it, ya sissy!

 

[Deerlove]

I actually got secretary. Gave them my vote.

 

[Igottabigone]

BB,
This bill did not "clarify" Conatser. It basically ignores the ruling and does away with common sense. The high-water mark makes the most sense and is what most states use. Do you have a sidewalk in front of your house? Same principle.

 

[snowman22250]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-10 AT 09:50PM (MST)[p]Blanding boy,
I thought we always had the right to walk down a river and fish. The weber for example, and this bill will take away this right. You will no longer be able to walk along and fish all those many many rivers that flow through private property.

Todd, it effects everyone different.
Let me put it in hunting terms.
Let's say the whole san juan elk ridge unit was National Forest, and the only way to get to that national forest was by the way of a public road going though a private land owners property, and this bill was going to close that "public"road going through the private property. Same s**t. Hypothetically speaking.
How would that effect you?????

Snowman

 

[Igottabigone]

>You will still be able to
>fish all the major rivers
>just as we have been
>able to before the conaster
>decision. READ THE BILL.
>
>
>If it would have failed it
>would have resulted in a
>'taking' of the state of
>private lands--period.\, no other way
>to look at it.
>Your example is way off
>two different things. Right
>of way access and trespassing
>in water on private lands
>are too way different things.

BB,
I've read the bill and Conatser. Multiple times. Have you read Conatser? If so, you would know that your "difference" above is the same principle. It all comes down to a public easement. A right of way access is a public easement. The Utah Supreme Court held the rivers are considered a public easement and always have been. The questioned remained where does the easement begin and end across the river. That is why 141 essentially ignores Conatser. A common sense approach is the high water mark.

 

[bggmhtr]

Blanding boy, why do you feel as though you have to slam people on this website when responding to to their posts? I am referring to the Obama socialism comment.It seems to me that a simple explanation to Rob other than slamming him would of been more productive. I have noticed that you do this quite a bit in other posts. Just curious

 

[mo]

I beleive in Oregon you can float private, but can not stand on the land under the water. You can not walk on private property with out permission.

 

[gb22]

The high water mark is not stupid. It is what is done throughout the west.

Those who support this bill are stupid, arrogant and selfish. To all those stupid, arrogant and selfish people who are offended....I apologize for lumping you in with people who support such ideas. I just don't know less flattering words.


Within the shadows, go quietly.

 

[mmwb]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-10 AT 11:00PM (MST)[p]"I beleive in Oregon you can float private, but can not stand on the land under the water. You can not walk on private property with out permission."

I believe Wyoming is the same. I've not read the bill, but don't think it is unreasonable for the land out side of the water to respected as private on private property. The property owner pays taxes on all the acreage. It would be nice to walk the river, but in some states that is not allowed as the ground is the property owners. It is inconvenient to many of us, but again I believe taxes are assessed on all the area of the property, including what the water crosses. Floating is the option. They should make an exception to allow portage if the land owners fence across the water...

I don't own any land with surface water.