By Matthew Pilling, guest author 

TAYLORSVILLE, UT | 23 JULY 2008 | Since 1982, Utah streams have been open to public passage and recreation, even when those streams passed through private land.  But, eight years ago, an angler was cited for trespassing on private land when he left his raft to wander the river bed.  On Friday, because of a court case stemming from that incident, the Utah Supreme Court ruled to allow the public to “walk on the beds of all streams and rivers, no matter who owns the land beneath them.”

While the ruling shows extreme disregard for basic property ownership rights, the reaction to the ruling by the general public shows even greater lack of concern for principles.  Ed Kent, chair of the Utah Anglers Coalition said, “This is going to open corridors of extremely productive waters to anglers that have only been accessible to individuals who gained permission from friends to fish private land.”  Upon hearing the ruling, the plaintiff in the case, Kevin Conatser, was ecstatic.  “Right on! Sweet! How great! Fishermen are going to love me!”

Somehow, a general lack of understanding of principles has led both the government and the people to the mistaken belief that the public can have ownership in a nation that embraces freedom.  The court should know and act better.  But, until the people become intimately familiar with and committed to basic, foundational principles, what the court says or does is irrelevant. 

Key Points

• Anytime the government steps in to own anything in the name of the public, freedom is inherently lost. 
• Private groups may own land and set specific rules for its use, but that is a voluntary act of the individuals involved in the group. 
• When government tries to do the same, they are stepping beyond their bounds.
• Government control of private property is at the very heart of all socialist agendas.
• Ezra Taft Benson said conversations on “these questions seem to be based, not upon any solid principle, but upon the popularity of the specific government program in question. Seldom are men willing to oppose a popular program if they, themselves, wish to be popular.”
• It could be added that seldom are men willing to oppose a popular program if they perceive a personal benefit in the program.  That mentality never considers the potential infringement on others’ benefits or rights.
• Lack of understanding has also led the government and the people to believe that rights (and principles) are created by man, rather than God.  “Rights” become an offshoot of personal desires and opinions.  Without universal guiding standards, anything can become a “right” if enough people stand behind it.  And, as man creates his own rights, there are bound to be conflicts of interest and unintended consequences. 
• This case pits one man’s perceived right (use of ‘public’ resources) against another man’s God-given right (pursuit of happiness through property ownership).  And, while the government is supposedly founded for the protection of our God-given rights, the public is willing to wield government force for any cause that affects them personally.  How would this fisherman feel if people wanted to use his land without his permission?
• Conatser says “Now we can float down that river without being worried about getting shot by that farmer.”  Those who believe that government force can or will stifle personal agency are mistaken.  The law, in and of itself, has no power to control or engineer individual actions.  It can reactively punish actions, but it will never prevent any action, unless it is coupled with extreme use of unwarranted force.  Hiding behind the new law seems to make Conatser more cavalier and may likely be what does get him shot.

Conclusion

This is just wrong.  This opens up privately owned lands to abuse and damage.  Defense attorney in this case, Ronald Russell says, “Even streams as small as a trickle will be fair game for people who want to fish or wade…[they can] walk up and down it as long as (they) like…If I had a stream in my backyard, I’d be concerned.”

Of greater concern than the wrongness of the decision, this story shows how disconnected people are from principles.  People are overly anxious to use the power of the government to push their personal agendas.  This opens up the foundation of freedom to abuse and damage. In a giddy frenzy, anglers are planning trips to other people’s land, less because of good fishing, and more because of a desire to “stick it” to the landowners that have stood in their way in the past.  (See the comments posted in response to the article in the Salt Lake Tribune—link below.) 

So, if you happen to own land where there is good fishing, a nice watering hole, or any other feature of interest connected to a river or stream, you might consider opening up a lemonade stand to invite your new visitors and guests.  Just be sure to get the proper permits for it before you do.

Action Items

1. Have a frank discussion with someone whose land will be affected by this or a similar ruling.  Discuss with them what could be done to limit the effects of this law or to overturn it.
2. Consider what your own thoughts and feelings would be if your private property was forcefully opened up to public use.
3. Do you support laws based on how they will benefit you, rather than basing your decision on principle?
4. Each of us has stewardships where we can force other’s actions or guide them to make the right choices. Consider whether you tend to use force or persuasion (example—When your children argue over a toy, do you force them to share, or do you help them work something out that they can both agree to?)
5. Read or re-read Benson’s “Proper Role of Government” (link below)

MRFC Principles: 13 (3, 11, 12)

Sources

Stephen Hunt and Brett Prettyman, “Utah Supreme Court: Use of public waterways includes streambeds - even on private land,” The Salt Lake Tribune, July 18, 2008. 

Ezra Taft Benson, “Proper Role of Government,” 1968

(Matthew Pilling is a member of the FreeCapitalist movement known as the Canadian Capitalist. Despite his time in the Great White North, Matthew loves America and all that it stands for. He lives with his wife and two children in Taylorsville and works in finance.)