Home | Fly Fishing Features | News | Utah set to halve river access

Utah set to halve river access

By
Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font
Utah's Provo River - access for anglers may be under threat Utah's Provo River - access for anglers may be under threat

According to author Frank Hugelmeyer who is President and CEO of the Outdoor Industry Association, a new river access bill could prove to be a tragedy for Utah anglers.

One of the great moments in the life of any sportsman is that special introduction of a son or daughter to the wonders of the great outdoors. Millions of young outdoor men and women have been thrilled as they learned about the skills and secret fishing holes passed down over generations. This wholesome tradition has brought families closer together and become deeply ingrained in our Western values. Over time, sportsmen and their children's children fueled the emergence and growth of a $700 million angling industry within Utah that has become vital to the economic health of the state and many communities. Tragically, a new law recently passed by the Utah legislature threatens it all.

Most Utahns do not know about — or even realize — the severity of the situation. In one week, more than half of the premier fisheries within Utah may close. Utah HB141 places an immediate one-year moratorium on all land access to and on rivers and streams crossing private land. While the rights of private property owners are obviously important, Utahns, like citizens in other Western states, have had a long-established public easement for river access to enjoy hunting, fishing and other recreational activities. This new legislation brings an unceremonious and abrupt end to generations of riparian access.

For reasons not fully transparent, the Utah Legislature hastily approved a bill that radically changes river access law without collaborating with sportsmen, angling outfitters or outdoor businesses. The impact of this bill will prove to be particularly devastating to the angling business communities statewide. As Utah's summer tourism season begins, access to sections of nationally renowned waters like the Provo and popular local waters such as the Weber, Ogden, Logan, Blacksmith Fork and Huntington, among many others, will disappear. HB141 will have a severe and lasting impact on local businesses still struggling to recover from the recession. Job losses will be noticeable as visiting anglers choose to spend their valuable dollars in neighboring states that boast exceptional and open access to high-quality fisheries like Idaho, Montana and Colorado.

The fate of generations of Utah's outdoor sportsmen and businesses now rests in the hands of Gov. Gary Herbert. Only his veto can preserve the public's access to these venerable rivers and streams and ensure Utah's national competitiveness as a sportsmen-friendly state. For Utah's sake, let us trust that Herbert will choose to support the generations of anglers that have befriended these great waters and protect the quality jobs in outdoor businesses that depend on public easements to exceptional rivers and streams.







Articles by the same author






Comments (44 posted):

Editor on 26/03/2010 15:10:28
avatar
Do we have any locals who can comment on this story please? Interested to know if you were aware of this?
Davo on 26/03/2010 15:39:42
avatar
This is very disheartening news. I'm sure Fyshstykr will have something to say on it. He is one of our Utah members. I look forward to seeing what he has to say.
mcnerney on 26/03/2010 15:41:17
avatar
Wow! I sure hope Utah sportsman write their legislatures and let them know how you feel about lossing access to Utah rivers! This proposal would be a true tragedy if it passes. Larry
Frank Whiton on 26/03/2010 17:03:15
avatar
Hi Everyone, I don't know anything about the story. But, we all know that rich land owners all over the West are trying to limited access to waters crossing their land. Several law suits have been launch over just this problem. Unless sportsman band together and influence this type of law it is only going to get worst In the past people who bought ranch land out West wanted to be a rancher. Now the land is being bought by people to provide private fishing/hunting and the land owner lives elsewhere. I am afraid the outcome of this is not going to end well for us. Frank
mojo on 27/03/2010 03:53:04
avatar
There was a handful of rich redneck landowners that made it up to the capitol during the time the bill was introduced. They can afford to "donate" to certain politician's coffers. That way when it's time to return the favor, it doesn't matter what the majority want, it's what has been paid for. Most fly fishers I know work hard for a living. Not all of us can take time off work and go up and support our cause. It seems like it's no problem for hunters to band together, but when it comes to fishing, the fly fishers seem to be the only ones to try to get something done. We've sent emails to reps and Senators but now it's time to hit up the guv's office. The only thing that can be done now,and it has to be now, is to write the Governor of the state, Gary Herbert's office and tell him NO TO HB 141 It's unconstitutional and damn un-American. A handful of the cowboy caucus of Utah think they can overturn what the Utah Supreme Court decided. Here's something from UOTF site for info on the governor. HB 141 - Gov. Herbert struggling with Bill. - Fly Fishing Utah - The Utah Fly Fishing Resource And for a lot of posts- Utah Stream Access and Use - Fly Fishing Utah - The Utah Fly Fishing Resource Guys and gals from out of the state of Utah, if you ever thought about fishing in Utah, you might want to let Governor Herbert know. If it passes, so does you hard earned vacation dollars that will go to another state. Governor Herbert's phone numbers: 801-538-1000 800-705-2464 His email address: gherbert@utah.gov Hope you can help us out. Alan
katorade on 27/03/2010 05:29:35
avatar
I will be P Off if there is any more private property in the state! All the rivers are all private they better not cut any of the rivers!
fyshstykr on 27/03/2010 07:06:29
avatar
Very well said Mojo. :) The governor has a tough decision to make. We'll see just how badly he wants to keep his job with this one. ksl.com - Gov. Herbert struggling with decision over Stream Access Bill Two of the biggest proponents of this bill are land owners with the Bear River or the Weber River flowing through their properties in Corrinne(Ferry) and West Weber(Gibson). Smells like a "conflict of interest" doesn't it? Utah House of Representatives Utah House of Representatives As Mojo mentioned, please e-mail the governor of Utah @ the link he provided and also both of the represenatives listed above.
mcnerney on 27/03/2010 15:12:59
avatar
Well said Mojo! I will certainly call on Monday. The biggest thing I like about fishing ID, UT and MT is the wide open river access and I sure don't want UT to fall back to the situation in WY and CO where the landowner owns the river botton and thus restricting the wade fisherman to the few public access points along a river which always results in over crowding and over fished fish in those sections of the river. That would be a very sad day indeed. Please everyone that reads this thread, take the time next week to call the number that Mojo posted above and let the Governor of UT know that you will not be spending your vacation dollars in UT if this bill passes! Larry
HuronRiverDan on 27/03/2010 17:50:58
avatar
Passing a bill like that is a shame...I hope you guys and gals from Utah are successful in your fight against it. I'll call the number you listed Monday, tried today, but just got a recording saying we're closed, call back. Dan
Flywgn on 27/03/2010 20:43:45
avatar
I just sent an e-mail to the governor. Allen R
fyshstykr on 27/03/2010 21:15:50
avatar
Thank you everyone. Keep up the good work. :) Alan, I think I've seen that license plate before in Island Park. Right?
Flywgn on 27/03/2010 21:27:16
avatar
...Alan, I think I've seen that license plate before in Island Park. Right? Yep, might have. Over there several times in 2009. Once, embarassing to admit this, I stopped along the Henry's (near confluence with Warm River) to fish only to discover that I had gone off and left my bag of reels on my garage bench :rolleyes:. 'Course had to stop in at ML's place and buy a new one. My wife swears I do this on purpose. Allen R
mojo on 28/03/2010 16:43:18
avatar
Thanks to all that are going to call or email. We need all your help in this fight. Some of the legislators were involved in researching Idaho's, Montana's and Wyoming's fishing rights laws, but I think these guys here have their own agendas- they don't care about the little people. We have no money to spare towards any election or re-election campaign. In politics- it seems the one with the dollars gets the favors/help . They are out of touch with the majority of the constituents but hopefully this November, things will be different. The more calls and emails that reach the guv's office that are AGAINST HB141 the better. Please we need your support on this one. The good thing is Governor Herbert is looking at the big picture. There's a lot of money coming in from tourism- fishing, biking, skiing. A lot of fisherpersons do all three. If the state is going to loose money it makes him look bad and hopefully he'll do the right thing and veto the bill. BTW, here's another interesting article Herbert has family ties with stream bill proponents - Salt Lake Tribune The interesting thing in the article was Ault's comment on garbage along the river. Most of that river is next to a canyon 4 lane highway. I fish it quite a bit and if there's trash, it ain't coming from fly fishers or spin fishers (no bait allowed)- there are rental places that rent tubes and kayaks to float the river and we call it the bikini hatch during the summer months. It's quite an experience if you've never had to share a river with tubers floating down in front of you. Picture it now, here comes 3 tubers, two false casts, let it drift and pull it out while they float in front of you waving. Are we having fun yet?
HuronRiverDan on 29/03/2010 12:18:21
avatar
Mojo, we have the same problem here in MI as far as the "Hatch" goes; here it's called the Aluminum Hatch. Too many of these floaters make it a point to get themselves wasted way more then they should. Their exhuberance and blood alcohol levels cause them to do things they would never do at home. They get the attitude that they paid to use the kayak,canoe, tube; so they can do what they want. Trash the banks? Who cares... This attitude is the reason for bills like this. It's just a shame that the offenders can't be singled out; but under todays legal climate we know that won't happen. I'm calling today and sending an E-Mail to support your cause, I hope the outcome is favorable for you. Dan
mojo on 29/03/2010 22:59:29
avatar
Mojo, we have the same problem here in MI as far as the "Hatch" goes; here it's called the Aluminum Hatch. Too many of these floaters make it a point to get themselves wasted way more then they should. Their exhuberance and blood alcohol levels cause them to do things they would never do at home. They get the attitude that they paid to use the kayak,canoe, tube; so they can do what they want. Trash the banks? Who cares... This attitude is the reason for bills like this. It's just a shame that the offenders can't be singled out; but under todays legal climate we know that won't happen. I'm calling today and sending an E-Mail to support your cause, I hope the outcome is favorable for you. Dan Interesting. Out here the fish cops would give them DUI/DWI tickets. Thanks for the support Dan.
mojo on 31/03/2010 00:57:51
avatar
If you want to hear a one sided infomercial by the politician that sponsored the bill here it is= http://pandora.bonnint.net/audio/2010_03_30_doug2.mp3 This was on KSL radio today and interestingly enough, some landowners got to talk, while a friend of mine Dave S. get cut off. FYI- listen to him explain how some ranchers contacted him about the courts suddenly letting the public on their land. No such ruling guys.
mcnerney on 31/03/2010 04:14:12
avatar
If you want to hear a one sided infomercial by the politician that sponsored the bill here it is= http://pandora.bonnint.net/audio/2010_03_30_doug2.mp3 This was on KSL radio today and interestingly enough, some landowners got to talk, while a friend of mine Dave S. get cut off. FYI- listen to him explain how some ranchers contacted him about the courts suddenly letting the public on their land. No such ruling guys. Mojo: This certainly is a sad state of affairs being conducted in Utah by big money land owners. I sure hope we get enough grass roots support from the public calling and emailing the governor and he does the right thing in the end and supports the public interest not the interest of a few rich land owners. Larry
Joni on 31/03/2010 19:08:55
avatar
It was signed!!!! What next?!
fyshstykr on 31/03/2010 19:13:21
avatar
Utah Supreme Court again. I think the governor just shot himself in the foot as far as being re-elected.
Joni on 31/03/2010 19:22:04
avatar
I am going to get a list of all YES people and make sure they don NOT get my vote. I wish I could say all one party, but there where a few Demo's that said yes. The scary thing is, they got this and pretty easy when you think about it. We didn't matter at all, well maybe for ONE YEAR. So, what next?
FrankB2 on 31/03/2010 19:48:03
avatar
I love the USA, but I don't know how un-American these sort of thing is. The first european settlers had a very clear idea of private land and enforcing boundries. The Native Americans didn't agree, and the fight was on. The Indian Removal Act of 1830, forced eastern tribes to accept treaties that moved them to western reservations, and securing lands for white settlers. The Mormon migration into Utah resulted in the Shoshone Indians becoming essentially beggars in their own lands. While Mormons thought it was better to feed the Shoshone than fight them, things did not work out well, and the result was the Bear River Massacre. I'm not on the side of the landowners in Utah, but we can get a small taste of what native americans felt with this sort of legislastion. Give them hell, and fight the good fight. We stand a much better chance than the Shoshone did.... ---------- Post added at 01:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ---------- Here is some info regarding Easement: Easement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It's wikipedia, but it's something... ;)
FrankB2 on 31/03/2010 22:13:36
avatar
Start scalping 'em.... :D Is there a TU presence in Utah? Do landowners want to sell access to their property?
cromney on 31/03/2010 23:00:22
avatar
It is a shame and a huge loss to all who fish in Utah.
mojo on 31/03/2010 23:35:03
avatar
I love the USA, but I don't know how un-American these sort of thing is. The first european settlers had a very clear idea of private land and enforcing boundries. The Native Americans didn't agree, and the fight was on. The Indian Removal Act of 1830, forced eastern tribes to accept treaties that moved them to western reservations, and securing lands for white settlers. The Mormon migration into Utah resulted in the Shoshone Indians becoming essentially beggars in their own lands. While Mormons thought it was better to feed the Shoshone than fight them, things did not work out well, and the result was the Bear River Massacre. I'm not on the side of the landowners in Utah, but we can get a small taste of what native americans felt with this sort of legislastion. Give them hell, and fight the good fight. We stand a much better chance than the Shoshone did.... ---------- Post added at 01:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ---------- Here is some info regarding Easement: Easement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It's wikipedia, but it's something... ;) The Shoshone were more in Idaho (but then a lot of it was settled by Mo pioneers.) It was just amazing the bull$hit thrown by ranchers and landowners and the legislatures ate it al lup. No one was asking to camp, lunch, or play around on their land. I'm sure there were some incidents of tresspassing, but there is no public record of any that we could find. Politics- but the angler and I hope the Utah water enthusiast will remember this in November at election time. BTW, the argument from most landowner is- how would you like to have someone walk into your house and sit on the couch and make themselves at home. The fact of the matter is from the USC- the water user has the right to touch the bottom of the stream or river and fish it. Access must be from a public access and they must leave at a public access.
mcnerney on 01/04/2010 03:40:41
avatar
Wow! This is a huge set back for fishing access in UT. I sure hope the Utah outdoor enthusiasts vote Gov Herbert out of office, this is a total shame! Larry
FrankB2 on 01/04/2010 16:12:36
avatar
I posted a link for easements earlier in this thread. The new law in Utah is basically in line with the common law definition of public access and easement. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, "The Utah House has voted to restrict public access to streams that cross private property except where anglers and others can prove a continuous use has existed for at least 10 years." (see article here: Utah House votes to curb stream access - Salt Lake Tribune ) Edit: Here's the bill itself: http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbillint/hb0141.pdf ---------- Post added at 10:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 AM ---------- Edited Again.... Here's Utah's DWR take on the new law: CLICK HERE You can still float any water in Utah, and can go around any obstructions that might be placed in your way. Regarding the one year moratorium, I can't find any mention of this other than Frank Hugelmeyer's statement. The governor also signed a senate bill that would establish a task force to further examine this issue.
cromney on 02/04/2010 17:38:39
avatar
Being able to float the water sounds good and looks good on paper but reality is only the Green below the gorge is really float able water in the state for trout. We are loosing over 7,000 miles of river water. As far as the 10 year rule, that access has to be proven in court. I can only imagine how that will play out. The task force, I don't have much faith in them at this point but will try.
FrankB2 on 02/04/2010 21:25:23
avatar
I don't want to post a link to another flyfishing forum, but there is a Utah FF'ing forum, and this is being discussed there. Where is it stated that access has to be proven in court? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I didn't read that in the bill. The bill does state that the winning side does have the right to recoup attorney fees and cost in a court case.
cromney on 03/04/2010 00:39:52
avatar
Yeah, I'm aware of the Utah forum and thats where I keep updated on the matter. As far a access for 10 years being proven in court, I got that tidbit from the a person that is very involved on the bill. It does say in the bill "proven access" and I assume that is here it would have to be proven in court, if it goes that far. Frank, your comment didn't come across to me as argumentative, no worries! The next year or so is going to be interesting to say the least, wish us well!!!
FrankB2 on 03/04/2010 00:49:57
avatar
Best of Luck! ;) I lived in Ocean City, NJ during the 1990's, and there were beach front owners who believed that their property extended out to the middle of the Atlantic Ocean....REALLY. They would post signs, and put up fences, but the town didn't recognize their claims. Property owners can be PITA's, but I wouldn't give up on the whole lot in Utah. I'm sure plenty of landowners will still welcome anglers, especially if you're courteous, etc.
cromney on 03/04/2010 01:15:15
avatar
That beach claim is funny, I hear they have the same issues in Cali with property owners putting up fences all the way to the ocean to block off "their beach." Agreed Frank, I would bet most wouldn't have an issue granting access to the polite who ask with good intentions. I'll let you know how it goes.
mojo on 03/04/2010 01:33:17
avatar
Take a look at 73-29-202 and 203. The big thing is water that has been fished for 10 years continuous can be changed as soon as the law goes into effect. All a land owner has to do is (this year) put up a no tresspassing sign and it's over. In order to counter that, one would have to produce dated photos. Public recreational access is established if: 185 (a) the private property has been used by the public for recreational access requiring the 186 use of the public water for a period of at least 10 consecutive years that begins after September 187 22, 1972; and 188 (b) the public use has been: 189 (i) continuous during the season conducive to the recreational access; 190 (ii) open and notorious; 191 (iii) adverse; and 192 (iv) without interruption. 193 (2) The permissive use of a public water on private property granted by the owner is 194 not an adverse use. 195 (3) A property owner's overt act intended to interrupt uninvited recreational access is a 196 sufficient interruption to restart any period of use that may have already begun under 197 Subsection (1) if the evidence, taken as a whole, shows that the act came to the attention of the 198 public or resulted in actual interruption. Read 195 and 196 carefully Next is the Quite title action 73-29-203. Quiet title action. 211 (1) (a) A person, including the division, may file a quiet title action in accordance with 212 Title 78B, Chapter 6, Part 13, Quiet Title, to obtain a judicial declaration of the existence of a 213 right to public recreational access under Section 73-29-202. - 7 - H.B. 141 02-09-10 7:47 AM 214 (b) The division may intervene in a quiet title action filed in accordance with 215 Subsection (1). 216 (c) The division may not be compelled to: 217 (i) file a quiet title action; or 218 (ii) join a quiet title action filed by another person. 219 (2) The claimant in a quiet title action under Subsection (1) shall: 220 (a) name the property owner of record as a party; and 221 (b) notify the division of the suit by certified mail no later than 20 days after the day on 222 which the quiet title action is filed. 223 (3) The division shall post notice of a quiet title action under this section on its Internet 224 website. 225 (4) The burden of proof for a quiet title action under this section is on the claimant to 226 prove the existence of a right to public recreational access under Section 73-29-202 by clear 227 and convincing evidence. 228 (5) A quiet title action under this section is limited to a declaration concerning the 229 property and property owner joined in the action. 230 (6) The court may award attorney fees and costs in an action under this section if the 231 court finds that the losing party's arguments lack a reasonable basis in law or fact. Cromney, was it Chris you've been talking too? The guy knows his stuff.
cromney on 03/04/2010 01:46:00
avatar
Take a look at 73-29-202 and 203. The big thing is water that has been fished for 10 years continuous can be changed as soon as the law goes into effect. All a land owner has to do is (this year) put up a no tresspassing sign and it's over. In order to counter that, one would have to produce dated photos. Public recreational access is established if: 185 (a) the private property has been used by the public for recreational access requiring the 186 use of the public water for a period of at least 10 consecutive years that begins after September 187 22, 1972; and 188 (b) the public use has been: 189 (i) continuous during the season conducive to the recreational access; 190 (ii) open and notorious; 191 (iii) adverse; and 192 (iv) without interruption. 193 (2) The permissive use of a public water on private property granted by the owner is 194 not an adverse use. 195 (3) A property owner's overt act intended to interrupt uninvited recreational access is a 196 sufficient interruption to restart any period of use that may have already begun under 197 Subsection (1) if the evidence, taken as a whole, shows that the act came to the attention of the 198 public or resulted in actual interruption. Read 195 and 196 carefully Next is the Quite title action 73-29-203. Quiet title action. 211 (1) (a) A person, including the division, may file a quiet title action in accordance with 212 Title 78B, Chapter 6, Part 13, Quiet Title, to obtain a judicial declaration of the existence of a 213 right to public recreational access under Section 73-29-202. - 7 - H.B. 141 02-09-10 7:47 AM 214 (b) The division may intervene in a quiet title action filed in accordance with 215 Subsection (1). 216 (c) The division may not be compelled to: 217 (i) file a quiet title action; or 218 (ii) join a quiet title action filed by another person. 219 (2) The claimant in a quiet title action under Subsection (1) shall: 220 (a) name the property owner of record as a party; and 221 (b) notify the division of the suit by certified mail no later than 20 days after the day on 222 which the quiet title action is filed. 223 (3) The division shall post notice of a quiet title action under this section on its Internet 224 website. 225 (4) The burden of proof for a quiet title action under this section is on the claimant to 226 prove the existence of a right to public recreational access under Section 73-29-202 by clear 227 and convincing evidence. 228 (5) A quiet title action under this section is limited to a declaration concerning the 229 property and property owner joined in the action. 230 (6) The court may award attorney fees and costs in an action under this section if the 231 court finds that the losing party's arguments lack a reasonable basis in law or fact. Cromney, was it Chris you've been talking too? The guy knows his stuff. Yeah, Chris. Agreed, he is definitely in the know. Is he a Jedi:)
Noiso on 03/04/2010 16:00:54
avatar
This sets a precedent that endangers the rights of all, no matter what state or country you come from. I went and read a good portion of the bill. There is an html version here. If it can happen in Utah it can happen in your state. I imagine phone calls and emails won't do much good now that it is signed. If there is any action I can take please let me know.
mojo on 04/04/2010 01:44:43
avatar
This sets a precedent that endangers the rights of all, no matter what state or country you come from. I went and read a good portion of the bill. There is an html version here. If it can happen in Utah it can happen in your state. I imagine phone calls and emails won't do much good now that it is signed. If there is any action I can take please let me know. The only thing now is to vote certain Rep's and Senators out of office come November. Idaho, Montana and Wyoming fly fishers need to see what might happen down the road. Montana's been struggling with landowners but the courts keep striking them down. Let's hope their politicians can't be bought.
HuronRiverDan on 05/04/2010 12:03:53
avatar
Mojo, I'm sorry your Governor signed that legislation...It's a shame that politicians can't do the right thing and do what they were elected to do, Represent all the people. You are right though, come November vote the politicians who aren't doing what there people asked for need to be voted out. I would suggest getting the ball rolling now toward that end. Any gathering that brings Outdoor Sportsmen and Women together will be a great place to get the word out... Dan
wjc on 05/04/2010 15:29:55
avatar
The best way to fight these slimeball politicians who continue to steal from the public and give to the rich is to start websites dedicated to put these actions in the limelight via google, yahoo etc, in a way that everyone doing a search prior to elections sees what he has done, and everyone on his campaign re-election committee also sees it every time they do a search to see what is being said about him. The hosting costs are peanuts as well as domain name costs. Less than $100 a year for both. As I write this, utah-governor.com is an available domain name. That domain name would cost under $10/year, and would apply to every future governor as well. Combine that domain name with a website title, home page title, description of the website, good keywords, headings and text containing all of the above words; and links to it from fishing group websites, commercial websites and plenty of bookmarks from fishermen to it; and google would very soon have that site placed very high on the first page of search results for a variety of searches. Horrible publicity to force a politician off the gravy train is the only way to change things. Individual letters to them go into the trash can. Websites can follow them, and/or the political office they hold, throughout their entire lives for just a few bucks a year. Cheers, Jim
mojo on 07/04/2010 23:24:01
avatar
To all the Utah anglers and members that have family that live here. Anglers For Corroon. He's running on the D ticket against Herbert. He's been the mayor of Salt Lake County and Herbert's was picked as Jon Huntsman's running mate. So when Obama chose Huntsman for the U.S. Ambassador to China, Herbert slid in. Anglers for Corroon - corroonforgovernor
mojo on 09/04/2010 23:47:23
avatar
Hopefully the horse hasn't been beat too badly. In todays Salt Lake Tribune. Great article Brett. Prettyman: Legislative foolishness could cost us big bucks - Salt Lake Tribune
mcnerney on 10/04/2010 03:22:49
avatar
Hopefully the horse hasn't been beat too badly. In todays Salt Lake Tribune. Great article Brett. Prettyman: Legislative foolishness could cost us big bucks - Salt Lake Tribune Mojo: Thanks for posting that article, it was very interesting. Doesn't sound like the battle has been totally lost. Larry
garybillshaw on 27/04/2010 14:50:08
avatar
I think Frank is misinformed about Colorado access. Idaho and Montana, yes. But Colorado has the worst stream access laws of the 50 states, and as rich landowners massage the legislature, it's possible that it will get worse. I live in NW CO and I have seen access to the Yampa and Elk Rivers shrink to almost nothing as landowners and fishing companies that lease access points shut out the public. garybillshaw
mcnerney on 27/04/2010 15:03:06
avatar
I think Frank is misinformed about Colorado access. Idaho and Montana, yes. But Colorado has the worst stream access laws of the 50 states, and as rich landowners massage the legislature, it's possible that it will get worse. I live in NW CO and I have seen access to the Yampa and Elk Rivers shrink to almost nothing as landowners and fishing companies that lease access points shut out the public. garybillshaw Gary: I couldn't agree more. Wyoming is in the same situation. Have you ever gone fishing up to the Grey Reef section of the North Platte? The landowners along the river patrol the river on four wheelers and cameras. The Wyoming legislature is controlled by rich ranchers, so I don't ever see WY ever changing the water access laws to allow the public to wade below the high water mark.
mcnerney on 01/08/2010 23:04:01
avatar
This month's issue of American Angler has a very good article on the recent ruling in Utah titled "Closing the Gates", very worth while reading. Larry
Add/View Comments
  • Email to a friend Email to a friend
  • Print version Print version
  • Plain text Plain text

Tagged as:

utah, provo

Rate this article

4.00

Follow NA Fly Fishing Forums!