I’ll bet that title got your attention. It’s not a description of the legislature today….although it could be. My husband and I went to see “12 Angry Men” at PMT at the UofU tonight. It was an amazing performance and actually did have implications for the legislature as it discussed the nature of facts, the process of arriving at truth, and how perception and prejudices affect dialogue. Also, the courage it takes to be a dissenter and the power that has in affecting change in others.
Every day we discuss and form opinions on bills that we have read, possibly have background or have done research on, and listen to discussions on the floor. I try to be judicious and open minded in my analysis, but sometimes the issues are complex enough that the task is really challenging. One example is the stream access debate and the two bills the address that issue: HB 80 and HB 141. The two sponsors, Rep. Lorie Fowlke and Rep. Kay McIff, are two of the finest minds in the House and I respect both of them immensely. This is a classic case of property rights vs. public access to waterways. One is backed up by language in statute of the Utah Code (bills passed by the legislature) and the other relies on language in the Utah State Constitution. Both bills are set to be heard Monday afternoon on the time certain calendar for 2:30 and 2:35. Someone asked if that meant the debate on the first bill would only last 5 minutes. Ha! I will be spending a lot of time this weekend examining this issue, reading the Utah Constitution, the section of the Utah Code that the Utah Supreme Court used as their basis for the Conatser ruling. Last year a different stream access bill failed on the floor, and I voted against it, but these two bills have a very different approach and deserve a thorough and thoughtful analysis.
No need to get too bogged down in the minutia. Blink. Consider the obvious. Consider your constituents. Most of us don’t own stream beds, we don’t want to behave disrespectfully to the owners or damage their property, but we do want access.
I am not really up to speed on this issue, but my general reaction would be in favor of public access.
HB80 provides protections to both anglers and landowners. It identifies what is trespassing with regards to the easement and establishes people that violate these are guilty of a class B misdemeanor. It states that the public may not damage private property (including littering) or harass landowners or livestock. It also states that access to public waters must be obtained from public property, i.e. anglers are not allowed to otherwise trespass across private land to access public waters. Finally it absolves landowners from liability from injuries that recreationists might incur while recreating. THIS IS A FAIR BILL. I HOPE YOU VOTE “YES” FOR HB80, AND “NO” FOR HB141.
HB80 is the right way to go. I keep coming back to the fact that the great fisheries in this state have been created and preserved because of two major factors: (i) the state’s resources and (ii) the changed ethics (catch and release, etc) and energies of the fly fishing community over the last few decades. Completely disallowing public access to these sections of streams takes value created by the public funds and energies and awards it exclusively to individual land-owners.
Even though I have been an owner of a stream right of way, I am very much a supporter of public access with reasonable restrictions on use. HB80 seems to provide sufficient protection for the private land owner so let’s pass it! It’s the anglers who in the end want the most protection of these streams let’s help them!
I own a stretch of land beneath the Weber River and I strongly support public access. Even though I give up the right to exclude the public from my property, I gain the right to walk up and down the river to fish and recreate. I have never had any problems with anglers and boaters using my property.