Posts: 2,841
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
Bassbugging posted this link on the national fly fishing board.
[#ff4040][/#ff4040][url "http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Conatser071808.pdf"]Link to decision
[#ff4040][/#ff4040][/url]
[#ff4040][/#ff4040][#000000][/#000000]The public has the right to use public waterways and rivers are public. You don't have to float you can walk.
[signature]
Posts: 59
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation:
0
Yeehaw!!
This is the best news I've had since my divorce decree became final.
I have waited for a case like this to be decided for years.
Fishned celebrates by doing a happy dance around his office.
[signature]
Posts: 296
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation:
0
Seems like all fisherman owe the Conasters a big thanks for carrying this to the Supreme Court for a decision.
[signature]
Posts: 182
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
0
I am deeply surprised they mention hunting so often in that brief. The problem with that is they have already ruled a bullet cannot fired into or over private property, so if you want to fire a gun on a river passing through private property, you have to shoot directly into the water or in some fashion that the projectiles never leave the area the water is contained in. Very odd ... they should have left hunting out of that ruling IMO.
-DallanC
[signature]
Posts: 2,562
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation:
0
This is excellent news!!! Can't wait! [cool]
[signature]
Posts: 938
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
Reputation:
0
What an awesome ruling!!
I would bet that we have a few outdoorsmen in the Supreme Court. At least there are a few reasonable, practical judges left in the world!
Time to go impliment this holding - anyone up for claiming easement rights on private property??!!
[signature]
Posts: 510
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2007
Reputation:
0
That is indeed good news! But let us tred litley, pick up trash. We should show the land owners that we don't want to piss them off, that we are responsible and also respect their rights as land owners. Otherwise we can see this going back to court and lose the rights we enjoy.
I'm happy. Don't screw it up!
Humpy
[signature]
Posts: 6,353
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation:
0
YES! YES! YES! YES ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
This is the best news i have heard since they invented the fishing pole!!!!!!!!! This changes EVERYTHING!!!! Thank you Conasters!!!!!! If i ever meet these people i will give them a huge drawn out hug!!!!![ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[signature]
Posts: 61
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation:
0
Thanks for posting this! This is fantastic news. I'll probably need to carry a copy of this in my vest until word gets out that the rules have changed. I can imagine some very upset landowners.
[signature]
Posts: 7
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation:
0
there goes the neighborhood! this will make it easier for certain people to access my land haul every fish they catch out leave more beer cans than before leave smoldering fire pits every where drive through the hay fields steal anything they can get their hands on abuse whatever equipment and buildings we have there, yeah sounds like an excellent idea way to think it through
[signature]
Posts: 59
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation:
0
[quote humpy]That is indeed good news! But let us tred litley, pick up trash. We should show the land owners that we don't want to piss them off, that we are responsible and also respect their rights as land owners. Otherwise we can see this going back to court and lose the rights we enjoy.
I'm happy. Don't screw it up!
Humpy[/quote]
Good post humpy,
If we, as a fishing community, can't appreciate what we have just been given, and pull together and show the landowners respect for their property and their rights, then we really don't deserve it.
[signature]
Posts: 2,436
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
Think it through? Like you did?
let me reply;
This will make it easier for all recreationalists to access the alnd you own that lies beneath a waterway that crosses your land.
They may only haul out a legal limit of the state's fish, the fish are most cerianly not yours, they are the states.
The instant they litter they are causung harm to your land and are subject to criminal prosecution.
They may not build a fire, it is not an incidental use of the water. They would be subject to criminal prosecution.
They may not drive on your land, only the waterways.
They may not steal, abuse equipment, buildings or otherwise tresspass on your land.
They may now enter a streambed at a public crossing, wade in the streambed, walk around obstuctions in the river by the least impacting way possible and contine to wade in the streambed.
[signature]
Posts: 194
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
Reputation:
0
What are you taking about? I don't see anything giving people the right to cross private land and destroy property. I gives us the right to travel along the river beds only to fish all of "our" waters, yours and mine. Once they leave the immediate bed it seems to me that they are still tresspassing.....
[signature]
Posts: 188
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
0
Posts: 2,436
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
Absolutely. A few bad apples could spoil this. All that has to be done is to show that "harm" is being done to the private property and out we could go.
Now is a wonderful oppertunity for fishers like most of this board to reach out to land owners. Learn who they are, what they do. Close gates, pick up trash, offer to catch a few for their dinner. Now is a time to make relationships so that when they pass, they wave, stop and ask if you know the guy up the river. "No, but I'll keep an eye on him"
Maybe a good waterway relationship will develop into a few small game hunts and allowing to achery hunt.
It is very important that we the responsible sportsman police the irrisponsible. Call the poaching hotline on poachers and tesspassers. "Get into it" with litterbugs and help land owners to see no impact on their land due to this ruling.
[signature]
Posts: 837
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation:
0
[#6000bf]So, in addition to floating, a person may walk in the river[/#6000bf][#6000bf]without being cited??? That is be fishing on foot only, wading the river?[/#6000bf]
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
WhoooHooooooooooooooooo[ ][ ][ ]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![ ][ ][ ][ ].
This is such good news, I might get back into trout and flyfishing more and bag the smallies. (OK just kidding on that.)
What this really means is that I now have the opportunity to get back to the 2 main places where my father taught me to fish and then later flyfish, and where he and I spent countless days together. I haven't legally been able to get back on to these spots since I moved back to the state. (Until now!) I am sure I am not the only one that will now be able to renew an old "acquaintance" with a favorite run. I wish dad was still around to go with me.
[signature]
Posts: 126
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
0
Does this really mean you can go on any stream in UT as long as you don't go above the high water mark? Or is it just the river the particular incident that the case was about? I looked at the legal document and my brain glazed over. Black Smith Fork River in Cache Valley has been about 50% private property for a long time. It is posted like crazy. The headwaters on Jr. Millers property have been virtually unfished for decades, except by the elite few that are in cahoots. Does this really mean we can just start helping ourselves to whatever we want and wade up stream without digression? If so, I am going to go invest in a bullet proof vest and start fishing[ ]. The headwaters mentioned above have been know to be heavily guarded, if you know what I mean.
I like the idea of carrying a copy of the ruling in my pocket, but unless you trespass on the property of a real-estate lawyer they are probably not going to be able to decipher what you have handed them.
How does law enforcement get wind of rulings like this. I am sure if a land owner calls the cops the chances are that the cops are not going to know about this ruling and will cite you, while you are trying to explain that you read that it is OK in the Tribune [ ]. Then do you end up having to hire a lawyer to defend you in court?
[signature]
Posts: 2,841
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
It doesn't say that at all. It says the public owns the river and can use it. When was the last time you drove on a road past private property. Did that give you the right to leave cans, build a fire or steal everything? I don't think so.
As for the fish they never belonged to you anyways so what does it matter if someone keeps a legal fish.
[signature]
Posts: 2,841
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
Applies to all public waters. Even if they cite you it won't hold up.
[signature]
|
