I love it when readers e-mail comments and suggestions that never occurred to me. That's been happening a lot with the controversial Stream Access Limitation bill, House Bill 187, that has been working it's way through the Utah Legislature.
In response to today's story that revealed a possible conflict of interest for a Huntsville lawmaker who owns land on a piece of the South Fork of the Ogden River closed by the legislation to public access, two readers raised some interesting questions.
One “concerned fisherman” wrote that “just because a stream dries up in the summer does not mean it is not a navigable stream, and therefore does not mean it should be taken off a list of accessible streams. That's what Rep. [Ben] Ferry [the bill's sponsor] doesn't understand. The designation of navigable stream refers to the stream in its natural state – that's a national law thing. Streams that are low to no flow due to damming, irrigation or drought are still considered navigable because without those things occurring it would be a very robust river year round.”
Another angler posed this question:
“If our fishing streams are privatized by passage of HB 187, does this bill permit the landowners in question to legally fish the privatized streams even though the fish are state owned? Can the landowner in turn permit fishing to others and charge a fee if he so desires? Are the fish to remain state property or to also be privatized?”
Both comments are worth further examination.
– Tom Wharton