A 2008 Utah Supreme Court ruling that allows recreation on water flowing through private property left questions and confusion in its wake.

An attempt to clarify the ruling sank in this year's legislative session after intense lobbying by anglers and other water users. A new bill will likely surface next year, but until then, landowners and water lovers are left to muddle through on their own.

High runoff means many anglers aren't yet fishing favorite streams that run across private land. But the potential for conflict could warm along with the weather.

"There are few people taking advantage of their new freedom," said Byron Gunderson, who operates Fish Tech, a Salt Lake area tackle shop. "They are fishing the same places they did and not doing much exploring yet. The rule is still in its infancy."

But fly fisherman Bryan Gregson said he's had several run-ins with a guide for a landowner in Summit County who screamed at him, blew a whistle, barked orders and photographed him last summer as he tried to fish a portion of the Upper Provo on a private ranch.

Gregson let the man know he knew what the court ruling allowed and the guide backed off.

"We don't condone trespassing," said Gregson, founder of a group called Utah Water Guardians. "That's not good for anything. But we want to send the message that nobody is above the law and we need to follow the rules."

Dave Van Dyke, general manager of the Lodge at Red River Ranch, manages property used by fly fishing guides and for cattle ranching along the Fremont River in Wayne County. He said he was approached by a couple of anglers who told him they were going to take advantage of the court ruling to fish what had been off-limits.

"I can't stop you," Van Dyke said he told them. "But here are the rules. If you step out of the river, it's trespassing. If you go on land to retrieve a fly, it's trespassing. If you cut line and leave it on the property, it's littering."

Besides, Van Dyke said portions of the Fremont are so deep that they would be nearly impossible for anglers to wade, making it difficult if not impossible to legally reach his property.

"There is no way to go down that whole river without getting on property and we haven't had anybody come down to try it, but that doesn't mean people haven't been there," he said.

Law enforcement officers for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and Morgan and Summit counties say they are pleasantly surprised there haven't been more complaints.

"It's been relatively quiet," said Morgan County Sheriff Gene Ercanbrack. "We were expecting some major problems. We've had a few isolated calls about people trespassing, but some of them were not stream related."

John Pratt, a law enforcement captain for the DWR, said trespassing violations have not increased.

"If anything, we are maybe slightly reduced in the number of violations for trespass," he said. "There has been misunderstanding and rumors. The court ruling only established an easement for folks involved in recreation directed related to the water. It doesn't involve anything outside of that."

One problem is that the court ruling did not define what constitutes a river bed.

"There is no question that dry land is out and wet water is in," said Pratt. "It's the area in between high water and wet water that is debatable and the court didn't give a clear indication."

That's one reason angler groups, landowners and the DWR are meeting with Rep. Lorie Fowlke, R-Orem. , as they seek common ground before the next legislative session. "There is consensus that there does need to be legislation to clarify the rights of fishermen and other recreationists on public waters but also to clarify the rights of private property owners," said Fowlke, who voted against a bill sponsored by Rep. Ben Ferry that was defeated last year. "The decision was unclear, making the law difficult to enforce. There is no question there needs to be legislation."

And she said she is confident consensus can be reached.

Brent Tanner, executive director of the Utah Cattlemen's Association, said landowners worry about increased traffic, resource damage, disease introduction and litter.

"It's hard on both sides," he said. "We need to be able to tell a landowner that this is what you can and can't do. It's hard for fishermen to know what they can and can't do because the court left definitions a bit broad and undefined."

wharton@sltrib.com