Some good news finally

[wileywapati]

This Just In - Weber Case Ruling

Today is an historic day for Utahans and, in particular, the members of USAC. This afternoon, Judge Keith Kelly of Utah's 3rd District Court ruled in favor of the Utah Stream Access Coalition and confirmed that the Weber River is navigable where it crosses over the landowner defendant's properties.
In the 26-page decision, the Court acknowledged the statehood-era use of the Weber River to float logs from the headwaters in the Uinta Mountains downstream to Wanship and Echo where they were taken out and used for such commercial purposes such as construction of railroads, prop timbers for Park City mines, saw timbers and cordwood. These drives played a "significant role in developing the railroad and mining industries in northern Utah and the surrounding region" wrote Judge Kelly.

Many, many individuals contributed to fighting for our rights, and we thank you for what you've done. In particular, we express our deep gratitude to our counsel on this case, Cullen Battle and Craig Coburn, who masterfully wove the history and the law into a strong, cohesive cloth.

Although the ruling has been filed, that doesn't mean the Weber is "open for business." We're still awaiting further details on precisely where the public can access and use the Weber, and there is still some legal legwork that must be done behind the scenes, so don't go grabbing your rod and reel quite yet. We expect those answers in the coming weeks.

When the time does come, we want to remind you of these very important points:

Please respect private property.
Pick up trash where you see it.
Stay below the ordinary high water mark, and never, ever trespass to get on or off the water.
This is a resource that belongs to all of us, and it's of utmost importance that we be impeccable stewards of that resource.

This access was taken from sportsmen by the same group of cronies that are
Eager to kick you off of your public lands now.

It just wouldn't be me if I didn't Fire my parting shot at The Don.

I guess a " GROUP OF GREEDY FLYFISHERMAN" can get things done without
Political connections and a few million in assets from the public trust.

Way to go USAC.




"The future is large scale auction tags.
The majority of the tags should go up
for auction anually. It MIGHT even be
good to allow second sales of auction
tags as in outfitters purchasing tags
and then re-selling them to the public."
TRISTATE 8/17/2012

 

[elkassassin]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-11-15 AT 12:57PM (MST)[p]CAREFUL wiley!

I just heard from some Land Owners that are considering TARDS in Waders/Kayaks/Float Tubers are as Good as Mud Hens!


EDIT:Kinda like CARP!
We laugh, we cry, we love
Go hard when the going's tough
Push back, come push and shove
Knock us down, we'll get back up again and again
We are Members of the Huntin Crowd!

 

[SureShot]

Did this ruling apply only to the Weber River or does it open other waters as well?

 

[wileywapati]

Sure, this ruling is for the Weber only.
What it will do is allow for a common sense
Compromise to be crafted for the other waters
This BS law affected.

this is a win for sportsmen and I also believe in the
Long run, once a compromise is worked out, it will
Also be a win for landowners.


"The future is large scale auction tags.
The majority of the tags should go up
for auction anually. It MIGHT even be
good to allow second sales of auction
tags as in outfitters purchasing tags
and then re-selling them to the public."
TRISTATE 8/17/2012

 

[Deerlove]

Yea thanks a lot Don!

 

[Hawkeye]

Wiley is correct. This ruling is limited to a specific stretch of the Weber River. There is another trial scheduled for August to determine the constitutionality of HB 141 (the law that Utah passed limiting our acess to Utah rivers). Let's hope the court gets that one right as well. Thank you USAC and everyone who has helped work to try to fix this problem.

-Hawkeye-

 

[goforbroke]

Thanks to those that worked to get this open. Hopefully soon all navigable waters will be open to use when accessed through legal access points.

 

[Donger]

This is great news!! Thanks USAC. Next up the Provo!

 

[Donger]

This is great news!! Thanks USAC. Next up the Provo!

 

[1911]

Slobs literally taking a dump on private property, littering, shooting up signs and equipment, essentially started the legal wrangling they will never contribute a single dime to. Combine that with the smart a$$es who a few years ago seemed to think they could use any drainage or as they put it in legalese, high water mark, to dwtf they wanted, and here we are. Never underestimate the power of a fool.

 

[Hawkeye]

1911-

There were already plenty of laws on the books to prosecute the "slobs" that were "taking a dump on private property, littering, shooting up signs and equipment." There was no need to pass HB 141 and shut down public access to rivers and streams for lawbiding citizens and sportsmen. Besides, when was the last time you saw a flyfisherman or kayaker pull out a weapon and shoot up signs and equipment on adjacent private property? Sorry but those myths and horror stories are akin to Don Peay blaming the "greedy flyfisherman" for the passage of HB 141. In my opinion, this had a lot more to do with a few well positioned and well funded private landowners who wanted to control access to and monopolize the rivers and streams running through their lands. While it is true that a few bad apples can spoil the barrel, let's try to focus on the problem (to the extent there even was a problem) instead of simply shutting down access for everyone.

-Hawkeye-

 

[huntin50]

I agree. Good news.

 

[grizzly]

>1911-
>
>There were already plenty of laws
>on the books to prosecute
>the "slobs" that were "taking
>a dump on private property,
>littering, shooting up signs and
>equipment." There was no
>need to pass HB 141
>and shut down public access
>to rivers and streams for
>lawbiding citizens and sportsmen.
>Besides, when was the last
>time you saw a flyfisherman
>or kayaker pull out a
>weapon and shoot up signs
>and equipment on adjacent private
>property? Sorry but those
>myths and horror stories are
>akin to Don Peay blaming
>the "greedy flyfisherman" for the
>passage of HB 141.
>In my opinion, this had
>a lot more to do
>with a few well positioned
>and well funded private landowners
>who wanted to control access
>to and monopolize the rivers
>and streams running through their
>lands. While it is
>true that a few bad
>apples can spoil the barrel,
>let's try to focus on
>the problem (to the extent
>there even was a problem)
>instead of simply shutting down
>access for everyone.
>
>-Hawkeye-


Hawkeye, Don Peay did more than blame greedy fly fisherman for the passage of HB141. What he said was, "This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy. People violated their private property rights."

He officially claimed neutrality on HB141 (just like he does with the Land Grab fraud) while clearly speaking against the very sportsmen he claims to represent. He was also publicly defending "private property rights" of landowners instead of protecting the Public Access rights of Sportsmen that had existed for generations.

Hmmm, I wonder what will happen once the State starts selling the now-public land. Anybody think he'll suddenly start defending public access?

This is great work by the Stream Access group. Fabulous job guys. Keep it up and good luck on the next court battle this summer.

Grizzly

 

[wileywapati]

>Slobs literally taking a dump on
>private property, littering, shooting up
>signs and equipment, essentially started
>the legal wrangling they will
>never contribute a single dime
>to. Combine that with
>the smart a$$es who a
>few years ago seemed to
>think they could use any
>drainage or as they put
>it in legalese, high water
>mark, to dwtf they wanted,
>and here we are.
>Never underestimate the power of
>a fool.
>

.45, how many people do you know that intentionally trash hunting
And fishing areas??

Conversely how many sportsmen do you know that always clean up
Their mess as well as anything else they see??

Personally I don't know ANY person that would trash property, public or
Private. I'm not saying these scumbags don't exist, but for every one of
These plicks, I can name 5 that are just like me. Always pack out more than
You bring.


"The future is large scale auction tags.
The majority of the tags should go up
for auction anually. It MIGHT even be
good to allow second sales of auction
tags as in outfitters purchasing tags
and then re-selling them to the public."
TRISTATE 8/17/2012

 

[crimedog]

Wiley,

The problem is that the 1 scumbag that leaves his trash and crap everywhere does more damage then the 5 who clean up.

I am grateful for the passing of this but all it takes is 1 or 2 leaving there crap everywhere and we are right back where we started again

 

[wileywapati]

CDOG, I'm with ya. There are fools no doubt.

The problem is that this landowner will tell you that
EVERY hunter or fisherman that accesses the stream bed
is a slob, trashes his property, and tries to go "all ELKASSASSIN" with his sheep.

It's a myth, plain and simple.






"The future is large scale auction tags.
The majority of the tags should go up
for auction anually. It MIGHT even be
good to allow second sales of auction
tags as in outfitters purchasing tags
and then re-selling them to the public."
TRISTATE 8/17/2012

 

[Vanilla]

This is great news, but people need to realize that this does not open up the entire Weber River. This ruling is only for a specific section of the Weber at this point.

So in actuality, it is a small victory on its face. However, the implications are huge. Not ironically, the vast majority of the landowners that opposed the Supreme Court Conatser decision and lobbied the legislature to take away the public's rights on this were landowners along the Weber River. I spoke to many of them face to face. I was in meetings with them. I was on the governor's working group task force with them after HB 141 passed. I tried to tell them that their "no compromise" stance would backfire and they'd lose title to the stream beds entirely, but they wouldn't listen. I have a feeling they are going to listen now.

As for Don Peay, he can say he was neutral, but he wasn't. I met with him and a legislator personally, face to face, in the same room and heard him give his stance on this. In fact, his position was the following: "What these fishermen want to do is be able to come and stand in my vegetable garden, because all water in the state is owned by the public, when I water my garden they will just be able to come and stand in the middle of my garden or my yard. This is what worries me the most." That is not second hand, I watched him and heard him saying with my own eyes and ears. And I literally laughed in his face, and the legislator he was trying to convince was not impressed by his rhetoric. (She ended up voting for public access. I can't help but think Don actually helped us on that one with his ridiculous statement.)

This is a huge development. A lot of pissed off landowners are going to be going Kay McIff and asking why this is happening in court when he guaranteed them it would not. Hopefully some of the legislators that have been on the fence will realize that we are now 2 for 2 in the courts, and it is of more benefit to the landowners to compromise than to lose in court. What I can assure them is they won't get it as good as they had it in an agreement with HB 80 though. There were some major concessions in that bill that the public made that likely won't be in the next bill due to the recent court ruling.

 

[Castnshoot]

HB141 closed a 19 month window that was opened by the Costner ruling.

The Costner ruling was way over reaching, opening up even an
inches deep seep going across some poor dirt farmers pasture.

In a knee jerk reaction the legislature came back and some what over reached in the other direction with HB141. (there right under the 10th amendment)

Utah is very late to this battle. This battle has been fought out in most states long ago.

Utah will likely settle on opening up a few truly navigatable waters. If a water can not be shown to be navigtable the stream bed will be considered privet property.

That is pretty much how this battle has played out in the majority of states.

There is not many waters in Utah that will be opened up. A handfull of stretches of a hand full of "Rivers".

"Stream "Access is a missnomer when it comes to this whole access issue in Utah.

Lawyers on both sides will be the big winners like always.

 

[Vanilla]

I'm going to break out some of your post into sections, because you couldn't be more wrong in some of your comments. Here it goes:

>HB141 closed a 19 month window
>that was opened by the
>Costner ruling.

No, the Court actually ruled that this was always this way, not just after the ruling. In actuality, anyone prohibiting use of the stream was doing so illegally.

>The Costner ruling was way over
>reaching, opening up even an
> inches deep seep going across
>some poor dirt farmers pasture.

Wrong. This couldn't be more wrong. It did not open up an inches deep seep going across any pasture. That is blatantly false rhetoric that anyone that has actually read the decision understands is 100% false. Just like Don Peay tried to claim because of sprinklers someone could go stand in his yard or vegetable garden, this statement above is 100% false. The Utah Supreme Court decision did not do what you are saying it did here. Not even close.


>In a knee jerk reaction the
>legislature came back and some
>what over reached in the
>other direction with HB141. (there
>right under the 10th amendment)

"Somewhat over reached"? When the Utah Supreme Court rules that all waters of the state are owned by the public, and by virtue of that ownership have the right to utilize it, then the legislature comes back and says, nope...the court is wrong, we're closing off EVERYTHING...that is "somewhat over reached"??? Yikes...

>Utah is very late to this
>battle. This battle has been
>fought out in most states
>long ago.

Not entirely true. In fact, the battle has not been fought in many of the western states. It's about to start, however, due to New Mexico's recent passing of a statute similar to Utah's. Idaho never litigated this because their legislature was smart enough to put a common sense compromise bill on the books almost 40 years ago that has helped them avoid this whole mess. Wyoming, due to the way their state constitution was written, won't have the same issues as Utah. There may be other issues, but many of the arguments in Utah won't apply in Wyoming due to the differences in their respective constitutions. Colorado may be where the next fight happens. Time will tell. But this is not something that is settled in the west. Not even close.

>Utah will likely settle on opening
>up a few truly navigatable
>waters. If a water can
>not be shown to be
>navigtable the stream bed will
>be considered privet property.
>
>That is pretty much how this
>battle has played out in
>the majority of states.
>
>
>There is not many waters in
>Utah that will be opened
>up. A handfull of stretches
>of a hand full of
>"Rivers".

This is a part that nobody really knows how it will turn out. The big lawsuit is the one that asks the courts to find HB 141 unconstitutional. That is set for trial later this year on one of the issues. USAC has already received summary judgment on almost every claim they articulated in the lawsuit. The one left the judge said there was enough in controversy to take it to trial. I feel very good about that case, knowing all the issues and facts in play. If USAC wins on that issue, we go back to Conatser, with "all waters in the state" being able to be utilized by the public for recreational purposes, and the touching of the stream bed as a lawful incidental action to those activities. That will be a lot more than "a few stretches of a few streams"...which is why the landowners and legislators that fought this were wrong from the beginning. We tried to compromise, their side would not. I was there. I was part of it. I saw it with my own eyes. It will be interesting how much they will want the public to "compromise" if we win on all issues in court? Will that "compromise" ship have already sailed at that point? Again, only time will tell on this.


>"Stream "Access is a missnomer when
>it comes to this whole
>access issue in Utah.

This is actually the most accurate part of your post. The "Utah Stream Use Coalition" probably just didn't have the same ring. Fact of the matter is this: If USAC wins in court, and HB 141 is found unconstitutional, it does not mean you and I have "access" to every stream. In fact, there are a lot of waters that the public will still never legally see or be able to legally use. You still have to enter the river lawfully from a public point. No, I can't go across a farmer's field to get to the river. That is still trespassing. If I can't get to the water to use it without trespassing, then I can't utilize that stream. So this is much more about use and utilization than access. You are correct there.

>Lawyers on both sides will be
>the big winners like always.

I can't speak for the lawyers defending the landowners, but the lawyers handling this for USAC are doing this pro bono. Knowing these people and the work they generally do, at this point their fees would likely be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars already, and there is still a lot to do. So again, you're at least half-way wrong on that statement.

I really don't mean to be a jerk about this, however, I have been involved in this for over 6 years now and the thing I am so unbelievably tired of seeing is the false rhetoric that is put out there. I'm tired of the bull crap arguments that are completely untrue. That is why I love that it is in the courts and not the political arena now, because the stupid, emotional, and false rhetoric doesn't have a voice anymore. .

 

[Birdman]

I suspect this will eventually end up in the Supreme court.

 

[Deerlove]

Birdman where do you stand?

 

[flatlander]

>HB141 closed a 19 month window
>that was opened by the
>Costner ruling.
>
>The Costner ruling was way over
>reaching, opening up even an
>
> inches deep seep going across
>some poor dirt farmers pasture.
>-----------------
---------I would say that statement is inflammatory and overreacting! I remember in 2009, the ranchers and landowners lobbying groups attempted to amend the stream access law in MT. There argument was that as the law stands now it opens them up to extreme liability and that the law allows fisherman to fish their irrigation ditches and fields and thus it is not trespassing.

Thankfully MT legislatures didn't buy into that boloney and believe that silly argument and the stream access law remains intact. I believe there are very few fisherman who desire to fish irrigation ditches and headaches.


USAC keep up the excellent work and know that properly owners, special interests, sportsmen all around are watching this issue closely.....


>
>In a knee jerk reaction the
>legislature came back and some
>what over reached in the
>other direction with HB141. (there
>right under the 10th amendment)
>
>
>Utah is very late to this
>battle. This battle has been
>fought out in most states
>long ago.
>
>Utah will likely settle on opening
>up a few truly navigatable
>waters. If a water can
>not be shown to be
>navigtable the stream bed will
>be considered privet property.
>
>That is pretty much how this
>battle has played out in
>the majority of states.
>
>There is not many waters in
>Utah that will be opened
>up. A handfull of stretches
>of a hand full of
>"Rivers".
>
>"Stream "Access is a missnomer when
>it comes to this whole
>access issue in Utah.
>
>Lawyers on both sides will be
>the big winners like always.
>

 

[BuzzH]

Doubtful it will get the SC...but I can almost assure you that stream access will be upheld in the lower courts.

 

[Castnshoot]

From some of the reaction to my explanation of this whole access issue it looks like I pretty much nailed it.

It will all play out with a good common sense balance in the end.

Fight for what is yours and don't covet that which is not.

 

[Birdman]

Deerlove, Not sure how I feel on this issue. Being a person who loves to fish I am excited about that part but the streams are going to be hard to get to in most places. I have waded enough streams even small creeks where you come to a deep hole and need to get out to get around it you will still have to honor the high water mark. That will create a problem. I also feel it will open the door to more issues with private property. Also with the stream needing enough water to navigate a 6 foot log 6 inches in diameter down the stream when water gets low, then what happens. So far this is just one of several rulings going on. And this is just on one portion of the weber river.
I sit on several boards on fishing in the state and this has been followed and talked about in every meeting. The feeling and discussions have been that no matter who wins these first rounds it will probably go all the way to the Supreme court.

 

[BeDawg]

I feel great about what USAC is doing. I am a member and donate to this just cause. I have met lawyers who are working on this at Trout Unlimited events and they are awesome. I am also an individual who has ownership access to areas of awesome river fishing in NE Utah so I see the point of both sides. Saying this, I would gladly and will gladly give up the small amount of streambed that I have access to for thousands of miles of fishing access. I feel it is better to have access to everything than to own a small piece of sectioned off river.

 

[Vanilla]

>From some of the reaction to
>my explanation of this whole
>access issue it looks like
>I pretty much nailed it.
>
>
>It will all play out with
>a good common sense balance
>in the end.
>
>Fight for what is yours and
>don't covet that which is
>not.


Trust me, I will! "All waters of the state" are mine (and yours). I will continue to fight for them.

What people miss is this is not a fishing only issue. This is a constitutional issue. Go read Article 17 of the Utah constitution. I love to fish, but I might just love the upholding my constitution rights by elected officials even more. Maybe.

 

[Vanilla]

>The feeling
>and discussions have been that
>no matter who wins these
>first rounds it will probably
>go all the way to
>the Supreme court.


Birdman, unfortunately I think you are correct on that. It's a terrible tragedy that the legislature is so unwilling to come to a common sense compromise on this and end it. It forces Utah citizens to fight each other in courts and a side to lose everything. If the legislature passes HB 80 in 2010, these landowners along the Weber River still have title to the stream beds.

Many more stand to lose the same. Millions of dollars in property taxes are at stake. Potentially hundreds of thousands in litigation expenses will be spent on all sides. All because the legislature refuses to be reasonable. It's a crying shame, really. We have a 5-0 Utah Supreme Court ruling on the books already. Don't we know how this is going to go?