# Minersville Meeting



## GeorgeS (Dec 22, 2010)

If this has been posted before - sorry.
The Southern Region DWR is holding a public meeting in Minersville to discuss the future of the regulations (and ultimately the fishery). There have been a couple of petitions floated to either keep the regs or to get rid of them. If you are interested in keeping this valuable trophy fishery, then your voice is needed. The meeting is May 29th at 6:00 pm in the auditorium of Minersville Elementary School.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Whether you can make the meeting or not, I would STRONGLY urge you to call and talk with the Southern Region biologists:

Richard Hepworth
office 435-865-6100
cell 435-691-2205


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I have to ask. While it is no doubt a good idea to call "Dick"  , wouldn't it be equally important to call your RAC, other DWR personnel, and the WB? Isn't the battle ultimately going to be settled there, if there is a policy/management change being considered?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Cath -- I suppose so.

However, at this point in the game, the RAC and WB aren't players.

There are currently 3 petitions circulating concerning Minersville. One of the groups with a petition contacted the DWR and said "we have scheduled the Minersville elementary school to hold a meeting concerning making changes at Minersville. Would the DWR like to come and join our meeting?"

The DWR said "Yes. However, we would like to make it a 'public' meeting instead of only having your group there. That way, we can get all sides together to discuss the current management plan. If people still want a change, then we can look at forming a committee to review the current management plan.".


So, while it appears that the DWR is "hosting" a public meeting, it really wasn't the DWR that set it up.

The fear that I have, as well as other people, is that the only people that will show up to this meeting is going to be those who are against the current management. If that happens, then what options will the DWR have? They will basically be forced to put together a committee to review the current management plan. Once a committee is formed, all bet's are off. We've already seen this with Panguitch Lake.

So, our best bet is for those in favor of the current management plan to show up and show the DWR, as well as those other groups, that the current management plan is the most favorable plan, and that a committee is not necessary, and thus no changes would ever be proposed to the RAC or WB at all.

If we don't show up, then the fight may indeed end up with the RAC and WB -- which we all know is a bad thing!

Make a call. Show up at the meeting if possible.


----------



## Flyfish4thrills (Jan 2, 2008)

Sadly, I found out today that I have to work out of town and won't be able to be back in time for tomorrow's 6pm meeting. However, this is what I was going to say: 

The locals feel Minersville should be a put and take fishery. How many such fisheries are there in Southern Utah? We should name them so it is better understood. Just starting closest to Minersville, there are the lakes on Beaver Mntn: Puffer's, Labaron, Anderson Meadow, Upper Kents, Kents, lower Kents, Little Res, Three Creeks, Merchant Valley, Indian Creek; Parowan Pond, Paragonah/Red Creek, Otter Creek, Paiute, Koosharem, Fish Lake, Forsyth, Johnson, Yankee Meadow, Navajo, Duck Creek, Aspen Mirror, Newcastle, Enterprise, Leigh Hill, Sand Hollow, Quail, Baker, Gunlock, and I'm still missing some. Do we really need another put and take fishery????? Really?? Seriously?? Yes, I'm sure the people of Minersville and Milford would consider Minersville Res their own personal fishery, but more people fish it and put money towards its upkeep than the tiny populations of those 2 towns. Utah fisheries are now looked at regionally. I have friends that travel from SLC and Vegas to fish there. Do the bait fisherman have to have EVERY SINGLE LAKE in the Region and state as a put and take lake????

I almost would agree with changing the regs at Minersville if it had a consistent dewatering every 2 - 3 years. The last 2 years since the recent drought have been a hard wait. I finally gave in and fished Minersville yesterday and the fishing was great. Nice, large fish...back to its normal self. How does this fishery do so well? Besides the qualities of the water itself that allows the fish to grow big, it is the strict regulations. And those regulations only stop the 50%?? of the honest and informed people from poaching. For example, the 2008 Panguitch Lake report done by the DWR stated that they estimated that about 30% of the harvested rainbows were done illegally (in the slot, over the limit, etc.). Even so, over 75% of the rainbows were equal or greater than the 2 year class (I believe of over 15 inches). On one fall day of fishing in 2008, about 80% of my personal catch of rainbows were over 18 inches and some reaching 23 inches. Now since the rainbows have been taken out of the slot, their average size are now about 12 inches.

Why bring up Panguitch when discussing Minersville? Because it is one of the few other lakes in the Region that yields large fish and could potentially be a trophy fishery. We see what the results have been from changing the regs there. The quality of the fishery has greatly decreased. By removing the regulations at Minersville, the average fish will also drop greatly.

Do you know what Brett Prettyman of the Salt Lake Tribune wrote about Minersville Reservoir in his book "Fishing Utah"? 

"Minersville Reservoir has the dubious distintion of being Utah's most often chemically treated body of water. The 1,130-acre reservoir 12 miles west of Beaver has been treated numerous times to rid it of the prolific Utah chub. In between poisonings, it traditionally provided some of the state's best rainbow fishing thanks to large plants of the trout. Overzealous anglers cramming their freezers full of trout, coupled with a large population of fish-eating birds and increasing chub numbers, forced the DWR to treat the reservoir repeatedly. It soon became apparent that it was too costly (about $20,000 each treatment) and time consuming (the reservoir was treated about every five years) to give trout anglers just two good years of fishing. Special regulations have now turned Minersville into a trophy fishery." 

What a glowing review of the fisherman who fished Minersville. Note also what he stated that the strict regulations have given. What will the results be of lifting the current trophy fishing regulations from Minersville? Simply look at the past. Some of you are asking that we repeat the foolish and costly past.

I petition everyone that is able and wanting to keep the current regulations at Minersville to show up at the meeting tomorrow.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

flyfish -- have you called and talked with the biologists at the Southern Region Office? If not, you should.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I called Richard three times late last week. Or should I say "tried" to call him. He was out of the office. He called me this morning. We talked about the fishery at Minersville and the situation that faces the UDWR concerning the petitions. He encouraged me to send him an email so he would have written comments from me. I live in Utah County, and can't drive 180 miles each way to participate. I attended the Open House in Springville last week and voiced my concerns for Minersville there. The UDWR personnel there made note of my comments, and also suggested that I contact Mr. Hepworth. Done and done.

Minersville as a "Blue Ribbon Fishery" is truly a gem in the desert. Minersville as a put and take fishery is a mud hole next to the armpit of the earth.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> I called Richard three times late last week. Or should I say "tried" to call him. He was out of the office.


Richard was up at Dougherty Basin working the crc spawning stations.



Fishrmn said:


> He called me this morning.


I believe he is in the office for most of today -- until he leaves this afternoon to head to the meeting in Minersville. For those who haven't yet, give him a call or send him an email today!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Fishrmn said:


> He encouraged me to send him an email so he would have written comments from me.


Do you have his email address handy? I'll send off something from work today.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I'm jealous of him. I'm sure he combined pleasure with business.

I sent him an email at [email protected]


----------



## Flyfish4thrills (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks PBH. I called Richard this morning and had a good conversation with him. He was very approachable and very willing to hear your comments. He reiterated that being in person or sending an email is easier/better to document your position than with a phone call. I sent him my previous comments via email. One interesting point he made was that they were concerned that they could continue the fishery as a trout fishery due to the repeated history and expense of the past. Besides all of the retonone treatments, there is the increased cost associated with planting larger trout for survival due to the cormorants eating them. Due to these reasons, the lake may have to be made a catfish, smallmouth bass, wiper lake if the regs are changed. That would be a big loss for trout fisherman.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

Heard things didn't go well for fly fishermen last nite.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I heard just the opposite...I heard that those in favor of the regulations outnumbered those against them. PBH was there; I am sure he will weigh in on this.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

RichardClarke said:


> Heard things didn't go well for fly fishermen last nite.


really?

I was there, and there was overwhelming support for keeping the current regulations in place.

A few observations:

1. prior to the presentation I overheard some anglers talking about days in the past "when anglers could fill their stringers with fish" at Minersville. They also talked about the DWR stocking lots of fish "back then", and now they "hardly stock any, so no wonder we can't keep any fish". More on these comments in a minute.

2. The presentation showed a history of Minersville, including gillnet trend data back to 1970. There was a clear jump in trout per net/night after 1991, when the original management plan was put in place. Another graph showed the chubs per net/night, and again, a marked decline in chub numbers after 1991. It also showed declines in trout numbers on other year after 1991. Each of these declines had a corresponding event that clearly affected the trout: dam repairs (lake drained), fires (two of them), etc.

3. The presentation also showed stocking rates from the 70's through today. Back in the 70's, they were stocking a lot of fish. They were 3". This continued for many years. In the mid 80's studies were conducted on bird predation, and conclusions showed that ~30% of the stocked fish were consumed by birds _within two weeks_! It didn't end there, because birds continued to feed on fish, and by the next year the majority of those stocked fish flew away in birds stomachs! The DWR now stocks 10" fish in Minersville, which are considerably more expensive than 3" fish. The DWR simply cannot afford to stock enough 10" to allow for liberal harvest. They need to maximize the number of times each of those 10" fish can be caught before that fish dies. Thus, restrictive harvest limits.

4. The reservoir was poisoned with rotenone ever 5-7 years from 1959 - 1991. Rotenone is expensive, and also comes with controversy. The State determined in 1991 that rotenone would no longer be used as a "management" tool at Minersville moving forward. The management plan HAD to be adjusted so that chubs could be controlled and so that rainbows could survive and remain in the lake to provide a fishery. The results? over 20 years of Minersville Reservoir being a great fishery.

5. After the presentation, the public was given an opportunity to make comments. The overwhelming majority were flyfishermen (WAY TO GO!!!) supporting the DWR in the current management plan. In fact, the DWR eventually pleaded with the group that "there are a few of you with differing opinions -- Please step up and give us your opinions so that we have those on record..."

6. A handful of people did make some comments about changing the regulations. EVERY one of them played the "kids" card. What about the kids? How are they supposed to fish? Can't they be allowed to keep a couple? To be honest, I don't know how far I give on the "kids" complaint. Kids are allowed to fish at Minersville. They just can't use bait. They can also keep 6 smallmouth bass, or 6 wipers -- although it might be another couple years before the wipers turn on.

7. The 22" size restriction came up a couple times. Honestly, I don't think it would bother many people to see this reduced back to the original 20" regulation. If that ended up being the "compromise", I think all of us could live with it. The only reason it is currently 22" is to be consistent with other waters in Utah with a size limit.

Overall, I think the DWR did a great job with their presentation. It clearly showed that the current management plan has worked, and that changing back to general regulations would result in Minersville Reservoir no longer being a trout fishery. Most people in attendance understood this, and agreed that general regulations cannot work. The biggest issue, after the presentation, was "the kids". And, like I said before, I don't believe that to be a real issue.

Comment forms were passed out, and everyone was asked to leave some written comments. It wouldn't surprise me if the written comments end up being different than the oral comments made -- some people just don't like to speak in public, and that's fine. But I believe that this one meeting showed that anglers currently using Minersville aren't going to just sit back and allow this fishery to be changed. If it isn't broken, don't fix it!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> EVERY one of them played the "kids" card. What about the kids? How are they supposed to fish? Can't they be allowed to keep a couple?


It's too bad that Minersville is the only place in the entire county where kids can fish and the poor youngsters can't use bait. :roll:

Good report. So are they going to convene a dreaded "committee" to study this more?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> So are they going to convene a dreaded "committee" to study this more?


That is yet to be determined.

Two of the petitions (1 to change, 1 to leave alone) will both be submitted to the RAC by the respective parties. If the RAC thinks there is a need to create a committee, then the DWR will have to form a committee.

I would hope that the DWR would show the same presentation to the RAC and WB. It was an excellent presentation that truly leaves little question on the importance of the current management plan to Minersville.

Like I said, during the public comment portion of the meeting, nobody came out and asked to change the regs back to general regs. No one. I don't know if that was due to the presentation, or due to a lack of courage to speak out. Maybe the written comments will show something different. But from what I saw and heard, the only real request was "to all the kids to keep a fish". If that means that the size restriction needs to be reduced back to 20", then I don't see a problem.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Wow, that's great to hear. I've never fished Minersville and would like to someday, but hearing about the public getting so involved in a meeting with the DWR is excellent, no matter what the outcome.

From what I understand, public input is practically begged for and rarely given in these types of meetings. Good job, people.

Flyfish4thrills, I really like the factual side of your argument. Yes, there are plenty of other spots, just up the road to take the kids.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Thanks PBH. Sounds like it went as well as could be expected. FWIW, my kids love Minersville, and do quite well there. I've also heard the "I don't own all that expensive fly fishing stuff, or a lot of lures" complaint.


----------



## GeorgeS (Dec 22, 2010)

Great report PBH! I was at the meeting as well and concur with everything you said. One thing that was mentioned was in order to continue the past (before special regulations) stocking program and allow general reg.'s, that it would cost upwards of $250,000 per year. The current system is very efficient considering all of the problems faced by that fishery.
My impression was that if the upper end size restriction was changed to 20" that a lot of the complaining would go away.


----------



## hedged (May 20, 2012)

GeorgeS said:


> My impression was that if the upper end size restriction was changed to 20" that a lot of the complaining would go away.


The same people who are complaining about the 22" size restriction will complain no matter what the size restriction. I'm happy the DWR has a standard size restriction. It seems that people forget why there is bigger in trophy lakes.


----------

