07-18-2008, 10:25 PM
Does this really mean you can go on any stream in UT as long as you don't go above the high water mark? Or is it just the river the particular incident that the case was about? I looked at the legal document and my brain glazed over. Black Smith Fork River in Cache Valley has been about 50% private property for a long time. It is posted like crazy. The headwaters on Jr. Millers property have been virtually unfished for decades, except by the elite few that are in cahoots. Does this really mean we can just start helping ourselves to whatever we want and wade up stream without digression? If so, I am going to go invest in a bullet proof vest and start fishing[
]. The headwaters mentioned above have been know to be heavily guarded, if you know what I mean.
I like the idea of carrying a copy of the ruling in my pocket, but unless you trespass on the property of a real-estate lawyer they are probably not going to be able to decipher what you have handed them.
How does law enforcement get wind of rulings like this. I am sure if a land owner calls the cops the chances are that the cops are not going to know about this ruling and will cite you, while you are trying to explain that you read that it is OK in the Tribune []. Then do you end up having to hire a lawyer to defend you in court?
[signature]
]. The headwaters mentioned above have been know to be heavily guarded, if you know what I mean. I like the idea of carrying a copy of the ruling in my pocket, but unless you trespass on the property of a real-estate lawyer they are probably not going to be able to decipher what you have handed them.
How does law enforcement get wind of rulings like this. I am sure if a land owner calls the cops the chances are that the cops are not going to know about this ruling and will cite you, while you are trying to explain that you read that it is OK in the Tribune [
]. Then do you end up having to hire a lawyer to defend you in court?[signature]