New Utah Law May Devastate The Fishing Industry

[flyfishmaster]

I just read about this new "land" law signed yesterday (March 31, 2010) by the Governor of Utah. The law allows property owners the ability to post No Trespassing signs and to keep people off of any streams that run through their land.

I do not how this compares to the Missouri law, but if other Western states allow Utah's lead it will most certainly cause havoc on the fishing industry.

What are your thoughts?

Below are links to an article about the bill and a link to the Rocky Mountain Fly Fishing forum talking about the new "law".

Utah Desert News article: River-access bill is a disaster

Rocky Mountain Fly Fishing: Utah Fishing just died today

Later,

FFM

[ozark trout fisher]

I just read about this new "land" law signed yesterday (March 31, 2010) by the Governor of Utah. The law allows property owners the ability to post No Trespassing signs and to keep people off of any streams that run through their land.

I do not how this compares to the Missouri law, but if other Western states allow Utah's lead it will most certainly cause havoc on the fishing industry.

What are your thoughts?

Below are links to an article about the bill and a link to the Rocky Mountain Fly Fishing forum talking about the new "law".

Utah Desert News article: River-access bill is a disaster

Rocky Mountain Fly Fishing: Utah Fishing just died today

Later,

FFM

This is bad stuff. Utah used to have really good access laws too. No more. Now they'll be just like Colorado.The fish belong to the all of the people, not just landowners. Waterways should be public.It looks like a lot of folks in Utah are dismayed about losing the vast majority of their fishable water. And rightly so!

Let's never let this happen in Missouri.

Thank you for posting FFM

[eric1978]

Pretty sure that MO law states the public has the right to use any navigable stream. The problem we have is deciding what is navigable. I'd say the bigger waters are safe here as long as precedent holds, but the smaller streams and creeks are probably susceptible to this kind of ideology we're seeing in Utah. Not good.

[tippet7]

Unless they have changed the law in Colorado...the river bottom belongs to the landowner, not the water flowing over it. You can drift through private property and still fish the water, you just cannot get out of the boat.

[fozzie.]

That's precisely why I don't fish Colorado (aside from the Nat'l parks there), and why most of my western trips are to Montana as opposed to other states. Their stream laws are much more amenable to wading anglers.

[ozark trout fisher]

That's precisely why I don't fish Colorado (aside from the Nat'l parks there), and why most of my western trips are to Montana as opposed to other states. Their stream laws are much more amenable to wading anglers.

As a former resident of Colorado, I can attest to how bad the navagability laws are out there. Unless it flows through a national forest or state park, forget it. You can't even wade along clearly navigable streams that flow through private property, even if you stay below the high water line. I'm dissapointed Utah is going the same way-they are making a huge mistake.

Just be grateful for our rights to fish much of the private water here in MO, even if the laws are far from perfect. We also need to be ready to defend them if necessary.

[flytyer57]

Having just moved from Wisconsin to Arkansas, I have a problem remembering where I am at sometimes and wade too far. In Wisconisn, if you access a stream or lake without crossing private property and you keep your feet wet, you are not tresspassing.

Here in Arkansas, the landowners own the streambed and it is considered tresspassing to wade a stream without permission, even if you access at a public access.

I like Wisconsins laws better, but I like the fishing here better than that.

[Al Agnew]

It isn't quite as rosy here or in Montana as it seems, either. The property rights zealots are just going at it differently. In Montana, whenever a bridge needs to be replaced, if there is an influential landowner somewhere nearby on the stream, they make sure that when the new bridge is built, there is no place at all to park a vehicle in order to use it for access. So in effect they are gradually closing off sections of streams to the public by default. In Missouri, more and more we are seeing the same thing. Also, the highway departments themselves are not friendly to river access. They don't want the hassle of parking along the road shoulder or under the bridge. And local and county police don't want it either, because they don't want to have to deal with parties and drug use and trash dumping. There's a Finley Creek thread right now about closing off the Hwy. 160 bridge. When I drove around the Springfield area earlier this year I was dismayed at the lack of access at bridges. So while we all like the MDC accesses that we've gained in the last few decades, we're actually seeing a net loss of access to Missouri streams.

It's often just one more instance of money talking. It's getting harder and harder to access private land for hunting by asking permission, because more and more of it is being leased to groups of more affluent hunters. And more and more people are buying up land along rivers and wanting to keep the public off "their" river any way they can. I fear for the rights of the public to use the rivers sometime in the future.

And don't get me started on the whole closing off of traditional accesses because of too much partying and trash. It is the JOB of the law enforcement agencies to police such places, not to close them to everybody because of the actions of a few.

[flytyer57]

It's often just one more instance of money talking. It's getting harder and harder to access private land for hunting by asking permission, because more and more of it is being leased to groups of more affluent hunters. And more and more people are buying up land along rivers and wanting to keep the public off "their" river any way they can. I fear for the rights of the public to use the rivers sometime in the future.

And don't get me started on the whole closing off of traditional accesses because of too much partying and trash. It is the JOB of the law enforcement agencies to police such places, not to close them to everybody because of the actions of a few.

I agree with you there. Wisconsin State Constitution clearly states that the waters of the state belong to the citizens of the state and not single property owners. There are still a lot of access problems. A lot of "old timers" are disappearing and their land is being bought up by developers who close the access and build condos.

On the subject of trash, one thing that really ticks me off is seeing old worm containers and the like lying around at the few access's we do have left. That is not good for the image of us anglers. If the ignorant can't poice themselves, then it is up to the rest of us to clean up after them, or report them.

[ozark trout fisher]

It isn't quite as rosy here or in Montana as it seems, either. The property rights zealots are just going at it differently. In Montana, whenever a bridge needs to be replaced, if there is an influential landowner somewhere nearby on the stream, they make sure that when the new bridge is built, there is no place at all to park a vehicle in order to use it for access. So in effect they are gradually closing off sections of streams to the public by default. In Missouri, more and more we are seeing the same thing. Also, the highway departments themselves are not friendly to river access. They don't want the hassle of parking along the road shoulder or under the bridge. And local and county police don't want it either, because they don't want to have to deal with parties and drug use and trash dumping. There's a Finley Creek thread right now about closing off the Hwy. 160 bridge. When I drove around the Springfield area earlier this year I was dismayed at the lack of access at bridges. So while we all like the MDC accesses that we've gained in the last few decades, we're actually seeing a net loss of access to Missouri streams.

It's often just one more instance of money talking. It's getting harder and harder to access private land for hunting by asking permission, because more and more of it is being leased to groups of more affluent hunters. And more and more people are buying up land along rivers and wanting to keep the public off "their" river any way they can. I fear for the rights of the public to use the rivers sometime in the future.

And don't get me started on the whole closing off of traditional accesses because of too much partying and trash. It is the JOB of the law enforcement agencies to police such places, not to close them to everybody because of the actions of a few.

I totally agree that things are far from rosy and perfect. And I definitely would be willing to stand up against any access concerns here in Missouri. I was just saying it's better out here than in Colorado, and now apparently Utah.