Sadly this is not an April Fools post...

Fellow fly angler, Kurt Finlayson, sends sad news to all anglers thinking about spending their hard earned cash to fish in Utah. He writes:

"Anglers in Utah recently lost a major stream access battle.The Utah Legislature passed the bill during this past legislative session. Gov. Gary Herbert signed the bill on March 31 in the face of extensive public outcry.The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources has placed some information on its Web site regarding how the bill affects anglers.The information is available at www.wildlife.utah.gov/streamaccess .The new law goes into effect May 11, 2010."

We also found a few facts on the web via the Utah Anglers Coalition.

Licensed anglers constitute 21 percent of Utah’s population.*
Angling generate(s) over $11-million in Utah sales tax, over $5-million in state income tax, nearly $12-million in federal income tax, and over $3.5-million in Sport Fish Restoration excise tax.**

The economic impact of anglers’ expenditures generate an additional $468-million in other benefits to local communities.

Send An Email - Save River Access

Our pal Tom Chandler over at the Trout Underground blog, urgently needs your help in his battle to protect access rights on his home water. He is fighting a county government body that wants to declare his home water non-navigable. This means that anglers would lose their right to wade the river between the high water marks.

The vote on this matter is set for next Tuesday and at present it appears that the measure will pass. Tom is asking that you take 90 seconds to copy and paste an email to the parties involved to let them know how you feel about the subject of taking away stream access.

Here is a link to Tom's post with the contact info. Don't think this sort of thing couldn't happen on rivers all across the country including your favorite fishing hole.

In the interest of getting the word out we are also posting a copy of Tom's request:

Here’s What’s Gotta Happen

I need as little as 90 seconds of your time. My only admonition? Be polite! You’ll see why below.
You’re simply going to email three of the supervisors and also “cc” the county clerk (and copy me).

Why the clerk? To make sure these emails become part of the official record, which may not have happened to your earlier emails. (How’s that make you feel?)

Michael Kobseff (mkobseff@co.siskiyou.ca.us)
Bill Overman (bandm@nctv.com)
LaVada Erickson (erickson5031@sbcglobal.net)
Colleen Setzer, County Clerk (csetzer@co.siskiyou.ca.us)
Trout Underground (tom.chandler@gmail.com)

Here’s What We Need to Say

We’re going to stick to the basics. No need to clutter your e-mail with anything beyond your name and the issues that matter. If you’ve only got 45 seconds, then simply cut and paste my bullet points, add your name and a closing line, and mail away.

If you’ve got a couple minutes, rewrite my stuff so the supervisors can’t devalue your effort by calling it a “form letter campaign.”

Still, what counts here is volume. If we can send the fisher-friendly supervisor into that meeting room with 100 emails — if we can jam the Supervisor’s packets with a triple-digit outpouring of “the public is watching you” — we might be able to turn this thing.

Maybe.

Here are the bullet points:

The Proposed Natural Resources Plan and Committee damages Siskiyou County’s sustainable, renewable tourist economy. Fishermen won’t come here, even if just the Scott and Shasta Rivers are declared non-navigable (though the plan clearly includes “all” rivers in the county). When half the County’s tourist-related businesses start suffering, what will the Board of Supervisors do?

The Proposed Natural Resources Plan and Committee Ordinance avoids public comment. Modoc County invested eight months writing their plan, and held a half-dozen public meetings. Siskiyou County’s draft policy document shuns public input, and was apparently written by one person — who somehow retains the “right” to accept or decline public comment. How is that good public process?

The Proposed Natural Resources Plan practically guarantees expensive, wasteful legal challenges. Despite one supervisor’s protestations to the contrary, a half hour of research makes it clear the Scott, Shasta, Upper Sacramento and McCloud Rivers qualify as “navigable” under Federal and State definitions. It’s also clear that all rivers not designated non-navigable are to be considered navigable (not vice versa). Why are we essentially asking for lawsuits — which the county will lose?

Any suggestions the navigability of rivers “was frozen at statehood” ignores the Fall River decision (and others), where attempts to impede public access to navigable rivers were thrown back by lawsuits.


Don’t use abusive or accusatory language (two of the names on the list above are our friends). One supervisor’s been whining about the small number of nasty emails (the same guy who cryptically accuses Trout Underground e-mail writers of being “misinformed” — and repeatedly characterized your public input as “bizarre and irrational”).

The only whining they get to do comes after they’ve lost their attempt to run you off “their” rivers.

Otherwise, Supervisor Marcia Armstrong — who’s already trying to pack the Natural Resources Committee with her hand-picked cronies; who is already deciding which public comments are acceptable; and who wrote this ridiculous, illegal natural resource policy — will win.

And we lose.

Also, if you know any business owners up here who depend on fishermen to make a living, then drop them an email. Let them know that their own Board of Supervisors are willing to sacrifice south county businesses so extractive industries can prosper.

That’s the action plan. From here on down is just more fuel for the fire.


FlyfishMagazine.com sent their emails today!. If you need more information about this subject please see Tom's previous postings.

Stream Access Issues: Read'em and Weep

Our Dad told us that when your friends are in the middle of a fight there is only one course of action. You take off your rings and jump in the middle of it with them. Our comrade and fellow fly fishing blogger, Tom Chandler of Trout Underground fame, is currently involved in just such a fight over stream access on his home water, the upper Sacramento River.

It seems that a resolution happy county board of supervisors went off the deep end and has crafted a so called "Natural Resource Policy" that declares all of the rivers in the county non-navigable. This would effectively prevent public access to the stream bed between the high water marks and give ownership of the river to land owners on either side. In addition to the stream access issue the resolution all but endorses suction dredge mining in the stream bed and says that they feel it has no impact on fisheries.

Read Tom's excellent post about the subject and be sure to make use of the email addresses that he provides to express your opinion to the appropriate parties. This is just the sort of thing that can make an impact on the question of stream access

We should get such good reviews ourselves..

Ahh Spring, when a young man's thoughts turn to .....reviews. Spring must be in the air because I currently have three books and two DVD's awaiting reviews at FlyFishMagazine.com. It's a tough job but we do enjoy getting a first look at much of what is out there in the world of FlyFishing media.

Perhaps our job would be easier if we just gave them all five stars like the Spring Ridge Club gets over at the Helium Report site.

Trout Unlimited tables stream access resolution

A source who is on the front lines of the stream access fight in Colorado, writes to tell us that Trout Unlimited board member Bob Tueful has withdrawn the resolution to prohibit TU's participation in disputes with private land owners over access to public waters. From his email:

"Bob Teufel offered to withdraw draft Resolution #1, dated March 9, 2007, that he had co-authored with Ted Roosevelt, regarding prohibiting TU involvement in disputes that pitted TU against private landowners. After extensive discussions with TU leaders from around the nation, and after learning of the opposition of the NLC to it, he decided that withdrawing the draft resolution was in the best interests of TU. In its place he offered a substitute proposal which puts the matter to some degree back in the hands of the National Leadership Council. However this issue is not settled and will continue to cause difficulty…..the heat on the Board of Trustees got intense! "

This is good news for anglers who must have found it absurd that their own conservation organization was not going to go to bat for their ability to fish some of the very waters they have worked to conserve. The very fact that this has been considered could lead some to believe that TU's future efforts might be less than enthusiastic.

You might want to take a look at the text of this letter from TU President and CEO, Charles F. Gauvin to members of the National Leadership Council. The letter attempts to explain the TU Board's support of the access amendment. It also provides some insight into an organization trying to maintain relationships with both rank and file members as well as wealthy and often philanthropic landowners.

As our source put it, this issue is not settled and continues to be tested in the courts. The Billings Gazette reports that Atlanta media mogul James Kennedy is bringing a suit that challenges Montana residents right to reach their state's waters even via public roads and bridges.

Tom Chandler from The Trout Underground weighs in on the issue as well.