New Utah Law May Devastate The Fishing Industry

[Al Agnew]

OTF, I definitely agree with you there. Colorado is a very frustrating state in which to try to fish and get away from the crowds, since the amount of public access is so limited that the anglers are concentrated. And from what I've heard, you'd think that the private landowners must hire full-time river use police, since I've talked to guys who were floating and the instant their boat touched a mid-stream rock some guy would come out of the brush and accuse them of trespass.

[ozark trout fisher]

OTF, I definitely agree with you there. Colorado is a very frustrating state in which to try to fish and get away from the crowds, since the amount of public access is so limited that the anglers are concentrated. And from what I've heard, you'd think that the private landowners must hire full-time river use police, since I've talked to guys who were floating and the instant their boat touched a mid-stream rock some guy would come out of the brush and accuse them of trespass.

Those kind of stories sound like they can't be true, but they do happen.

There were stretches of my home river that you just didn't float. Even if you stayed totally within the law (the bottom of your boat never touches the bottom, you never get out, etc.) you were really risking your lives to float these runs. The fact is, the country is so incredibly remote out on some areas of the west slope that if some insane landowner wants to give you a whole lot of trouble, he can pretty much get away with it.

I know this is off the subject, and I apologize.

[ness]

Wall Street Journal article this morning

[flytyer57]

Wall Street Journal article this morning

Dude has a major malfunction.

While many of us fishermen/women in this country are fighting for access rights to rivers, he's becoming one of those who would deny us access.

When I lived in Wisconsin, I would fish the Milwaukee River for smallmouth. On nice days, there were plenty of canoers and kayakers floating the river. (It's not a whitewater rafting scene. Too mellow of a river.) If I was fishing the left bank, the rafters would almost always move to the right. There were a few that would come straight down the river, and a polite explanation of river etiquette would always be returned with an appology.

Here in Arkansas, while kayay fishing the Buffalo, the few times I've had the chance, all the canoers and fellow kayakers would give me plenty of space to fish. Not once did my errant back casts come close to them for the distance they kept.

If the clowns in this article would learn to live with each other, there probably wouldn't be the hostilities that they see.

The states give us the right to float and fish the rivers, and no-one should be allowed to take what little rights we do have away. Not even some Dude with a Dude Ranch for fishing.

[KCRIVERRAT]

Wall Street Journal article this morning

Interesting article in that I've camped at Three Rivers a couple of times and I know where that ranch is located. Fished the Taylor while there using only the few public access areas provided. Sure is a shame things get to this point. Guy in the article who claimed "he's not there to talk, he's there to fish" needs to loosen up IMO.

[ozark trout fisher]

Dude has a major malfunction.

While many of us fishermen/women in this country are fighting for access rights to rivers, he's becoming one of those who would deny us access.

When I lived in Wisconsin, I would fish the Milwaukee River for smallmouth. On nice days, there were plenty of canoers and kayakers floating the river. (It's not a whitewater rafting scene. Too mellow of a river.) If I was fishing the left bank, the rafters would almost always move to the right. There were a few that would come straight down the river, and a polite explanation of river etiquette would always be returned with an appology.

Here in Arkansas, while kayay fishing the Buffalo, the few times I've had the chance, all the canoers and fellow kayakers would give me plenty of space to fish. Not once did my errant back casts come close to them for the distance they kept.

If the clowns in this article would learn to live with each other, there probably wouldn't be the hostilities that they see.

The states give us the right to float and fish the rivers, and no-one should be allowed to take what little rights we do have away. Not even some Dude with a Dude Ranch for fishing.

I agree. Rafters have as much right to our rivers as fisherman. Closing access to anyone using a river for a legitimate cause is wrong. I don't care if he paid big bucks to fish his little private dude ranch stream. Guys like this one are exactly the reason I never would consider fishing a private fee area.

[flytyer57]

I agree. Rafters have as much right to our rivers as fisherman. Closing access to anyone using a river for a legitimate cause is wrong. I don't care if he paid big bucks to fish his little private dude ranch stream. Guys like this one are exactly the reason I never would consider fishing a private fee area.

The sorry thing is, if the "property rights" people keep winning all the court cases having to do with fishing access, we may all end up having to pay to fish "their water."

Keep the waterways free!!!!

[troutfiend1985]

Well, maybe. I can see this from two ways. First let me say that I am a broke law student who loves public access fishing who will probably never make a dime off of his law degree becasue I want to get into federal law enforcement. I love public access, I think its good for the community.

However, if a person, such as this guy in this article, pays more money for land so that he owns the riverbed and makes his living from this river, who is to say that he is wrong? It seems that the state law in Colorado is unsettled as to the tresspassing if your boat crosses the property line. And, why are we talking about public access on private property? The last time I checked you cannot fish a large amount of streams in MO because they are privatley owned. This man owns this streambed, and while I think its wrong to say that a streambed can be owned, it is the law of his state. Obviously there is confusion in the State of Colorado as this law passed the house but not the state Senate. At best this law is unclear.

I actually feel a little sorry for this guy. I think both sides need to work this out, but it seems more likely that this is his property according to Colorado law. Now the guy might be a jerk, but I don't think we can make a guy out to be wrong solely on his "moral delinquencies."

I want access like anyone else, but I respect property owners. I have only been on this earth for 25 years, so correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't the public access in a lot of states risen in the last decade? Hasn't MDC purchased multiple lands in this last 10-15 years? I know that Utah and Colorado have their own issues, but it seems that MO is well settled on our rules other than navigability. I don't see public access deteriorating to the point of very limited access, but I can't see the future either and this is only my opinion.

Just my .02, I like seeing different opinions. Tight lines

[ozark trout fisher]

Well, maybe. I can see this from two ways. First let me say that I am a broke law student who loves public access fishing who will probably never make a dime off of his law degree becasue I want to get into federal law enforcement. I love public access, I think its good for the community.

However, if a person, such as this guy in this article, pays more money for land so that he owns the riverbed and makes his living from this river, who is to say that he is wrong? It seems that the state law in Colorado is unsettled as to the tresspassing if your boat crosses the property line. And, why are we talking about public access on private property? The last time I checked you cannot fish a large amount of streams in MO because they are privatley owned. This man owns this streambed, and while I think its wrong to say that a streambed can be owned, it is the law of his state. Obviously there is confusion in the State of Colorado as this law passed the house but not the state Senate. At best this law is unclear.

I actually feel a little sorry for this guy. I think both sides need to work this out, but it seems more likely that this is his property according to Colorado law. Now the guy might be a jerk, but I don't think we can make a guy out to be wrong solely on his "moral delinquencies."

I want access like anyone else, but I respect property owners. I have only been on this earth for 25 years, so correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't the public access in a lot of states risen in the last decade? Hasn't MDC purchased multiple lands in this last 10-15 years? I know that Utah and Colorado have their own issues, but it seems that MO is well settled on our rules other than navigability. I don't see public access deteriorating to the point of very limited access, but I can't see the future either and this is only my opinion.

Just my .02, I like seeing different opinions. Tight lines

I see what you're saying, but guys like the one who ones this ranch on the Taylor River are huge problems out west. I do not care that the man owns the property around the river-navigable water should be public, so I have no sympathy for the guy whatsoever. I also think that the idea of charging folks to fish is fundamentally wrong-the fish belong to the people, not the landowner here in the U.S, so how can you charge someone (who by rights already owns the fish as much as anyone) to catch them?

It reminds me of the Spring Ridge Club debacle in Pennsylvania.

[troutfiend1985]

I see what you're saying, but guys like the one who ones this ranch on the Taylor River are huge problems out west. I do not care that the man owns the property around the river-navigable water should be public, so I have no sympathy for the guy whatsoever. I also think that the idea of charging folks to fish is fundamentally wrong-the fish belong to the people, not the landowner here in the U.S, so how can you charge someone (who by rights already owns the fish as much as anyone) to catch them?

It reminds me of the Spring Ridge Club debacle in Pennsylvania.

Actually I don't think that wild animals belong to anyone. only when you come into possession of a wild animal are you deemed to own an animal. How/Why can they charge for the fishing, because according to the State of Colorado he owns the stream of the bed. Agian, I'm not trying to get into an argument about ethics, I don't think that people should be charged for fishing outside of permits. But, MO charges for daily tags on publicly owned property, where's is the cry about this? Isn't this double taxation? I pay for my fishing permit, a portion of this goes to stocking trout, then I am charged again to fish for these trout if I choose to fish at Bennett or Roaring. How is this more acceptable than what this person in Colorado is doing?

I like seeing your thinking Ozark Trout Fisher and I respect your opinions.