Don,
Hopefully you can answer this, but Is SFW pushing for this?
Prettyman: Stream access may partly evaporate
By Brett Prettyman
Tribune Columnist
Updated: 01/22/2009 03:53:18 PM MST
Anglers knew it was only a matter of time before the seemingly too-good-to-be-true stream access granted them in a ruling last summer by the Utah Supreme Court would evaporate.
The apparent carte blanche access barely had been announced in July when anglers started wondering how long it would last.
Now, state Rep. Ben C. Ferry-R, Box Elder, is sponsoring a bill for the 2009 Legislature that is a response to the ruling. Anglers feared that the proposed bill, which had not been named as of this column's deadline, would ignore the ruling. But angling representatives say it actually may offer more of a compromise than a reversal.
Steve Schmidt, owner of Western Rivers Flyfisher and a long-time angler advocate, is
Latitude & Longitude blog
Brett Prettyman and Tom Wharton write about the outdoors, recreation and travel.
pleased with the amount of time Ferry has spent listening to anglers and is looking forward to the clarity the bill should provide about stream and river access.
"We figured we would get 15 minutes with him, but he gave us an hour," said Schmidt, who is part of a working group representing various Utah fishing interests invited to talk to Ferry. "It was a casual setting with a very open dialogue and I was thankful for that."
What I've heard through the grapevine is that the bill includes a list of popular Utah waters that would become more accessible to anglers, waters like the Provo, Weber, Duchesne, Strawberry and more. Rivers running through private lands not on the list would be off limits to anglers and other
Advertisement
Quantcast
recreationists, unless the landowner decides to allow access.
In a perfect angler world, every drop of water would be open for casting a fly or dunking a worm. Landowners have been incorrectly saying for a long time that they controlled the streambeds and who touched them. It only makes sense that they would defend that right, albeit misinterpreted.
When the Utah Supreme Court unanimously ruled on the case in July the proverbial can of worms was opened. The court didn't actually change the law, only clarified that people are allowed to walk on the beds of all streams and rivers, no matter who owns the land beneath them because the public is entitled to recreate on water, which is owned by the state.
What was not made clear in the ruling was where the public would be allowed to access the water -- usually a right-of-way like a bridge -- and exactly what constitutes a stream bed.
The bill is expected to adopt the Utah Council of Trout Unlimited's suggestion that "the high water mark, or a reasonable buffer, whichever is less" be used as the wording to define a streambed and that the right-of-way access point be followed as well.
If the Legislature strictly adhered to the Utah Supreme Court's ruling, all streams and rivers would be open. But don't expect that to happen.
Access to Utah's flowing waters has been a matter of discussion for at least the past 20 years. It's good to see it finally getting some attention.
Watch for the bill and get involved if you don't think it's fair to anglers.
Brett Prettyman is a columnist. Reach him at [email protected]
Hopefully you can answer this, but Is SFW pushing for this?
Prettyman: Stream access may partly evaporate
By Brett Prettyman
Tribune Columnist
Updated: 01/22/2009 03:53:18 PM MST
Anglers knew it was only a matter of time before the seemingly too-good-to-be-true stream access granted them in a ruling last summer by the Utah Supreme Court would evaporate.
The apparent carte blanche access barely had been announced in July when anglers started wondering how long it would last.
Now, state Rep. Ben C. Ferry-R, Box Elder, is sponsoring a bill for the 2009 Legislature that is a response to the ruling. Anglers feared that the proposed bill, which had not been named as of this column's deadline, would ignore the ruling. But angling representatives say it actually may offer more of a compromise than a reversal.
Steve Schmidt, owner of Western Rivers Flyfisher and a long-time angler advocate, is
Latitude & Longitude blog
Brett Prettyman and Tom Wharton write about the outdoors, recreation and travel.
pleased with the amount of time Ferry has spent listening to anglers and is looking forward to the clarity the bill should provide about stream and river access.
"We figured we would get 15 minutes with him, but he gave us an hour," said Schmidt, who is part of a working group representing various Utah fishing interests invited to talk to Ferry. "It was a casual setting with a very open dialogue and I was thankful for that."
What I've heard through the grapevine is that the bill includes a list of popular Utah waters that would become more accessible to anglers, waters like the Provo, Weber, Duchesne, Strawberry and more. Rivers running through private lands not on the list would be off limits to anglers and other
Advertisement
Quantcast
recreationists, unless the landowner decides to allow access.
In a perfect angler world, every drop of water would be open for casting a fly or dunking a worm. Landowners have been incorrectly saying for a long time that they controlled the streambeds and who touched them. It only makes sense that they would defend that right, albeit misinterpreted.
When the Utah Supreme Court unanimously ruled on the case in July the proverbial can of worms was opened. The court didn't actually change the law, only clarified that people are allowed to walk on the beds of all streams and rivers, no matter who owns the land beneath them because the public is entitled to recreate on water, which is owned by the state.
What was not made clear in the ruling was where the public would be allowed to access the water -- usually a right-of-way like a bridge -- and exactly what constitutes a stream bed.
The bill is expected to adopt the Utah Council of Trout Unlimited's suggestion that "the high water mark, or a reasonable buffer, whichever is less" be used as the wording to define a streambed and that the right-of-way access point be followed as well.
If the Legislature strictly adhered to the Utah Supreme Court's ruling, all streams and rivers would be open. But don't expect that to happen.
Access to Utah's flowing waters has been a matter of discussion for at least the past 20 years. It's good to see it finally getting some attention.
Watch for the bill and get involved if you don't think it's fair to anglers.
Brett Prettyman is a columnist. Reach him at [email protected]
