# 2011 Utah Fishing Guidebook



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

We've just sent the 2011 Utah Fishing Guidebook to the printer. Feel free to take a look and let me know if you see any glaring problems in the grammar, wording or layout. Thanks!


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

Amy
On page 19 under "Boulder Mountain" it should state "Oak Creek Reservoir", Not Otter Creek Reservoir.


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

280Remington said:


> On page 19 under "Boulder Mountain" it should state "Oak Creek Reservoir", Not Otter Creek Reservoir.


I just followed up on your comment with our coldwater fisheries coordinator, Roger Wilson. He explained that we modified the Boulder Mountain boundary this year (to a simpler, road-based boundary). Because of that change, we actually do need to list Otter Creek Reservoir as an exception in the main boundary description. We also list Oak Creek Reservoir as an exception in the seasonal restriction (fourth bullet).


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Thanks Amy for allowing input to the 'Draft" 2011 Utah Fishing Guidebook. 

Recommendation Newton Reservoir also be included in Spearfishing for Tiger Muskie. 

Page 11 add Cache County with Weber County. 

Currently on page 11 it reads as follows:

• Pineview Reservoir, with the exception of tiger muskie (Weber County).

Then on page 11 it states Pineview Reservoir, you cannot underwater spearfish for Tiger Muskie.

Then on page 27 it states about Newton Reservoir:

• CLOSED to the possession of tiger muskie. All tiger muskie must be immediately released. 

Rationale if all Tiger Muskie 'must' be immediately released it doesn't say anything about Spearfishing. A loop hole IMHO for Newton WRT Spearfishing. :? 

Rationale currently it's stated on page 27 all Tiger Muskie caught at Newton must be immediately released so it appears that Tiger Muskie Spearfishing is okay for 'any' Tiger Muskie in Newton...kinda a contradiction IMHO if a H&L Angler 'must' immediately release any Tiger Muskie yet Spearfishing is okay. Additionally PV it clearly states this WRT Tiger Muskie fishing and Spearfishing.

Finally recommend ensuring Tiger Muskie is all upper case for the first letters of each word Tiger Muskie thoughout document...Rationale some places Tiger Muskie is upper case other places it isn't...FWIW this fish deserves upper case plus it ensure consistency when describes various fish species.. :mrgreen: 

Thank You again for allowing reasonable and justifable rationale input for the 'Draft' 2011 Fishing Guidebook,


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

k2muskie said:


> Rationale if all Tiger Muskie 'must' be immediately released it doesn't say anything about Spearfishing. A loop hole IMHO for Newton WRT Spearfishing. :?
> 
> Rationale currently it's stated on page 27 all Tiger Muskie caught at Newton must be immediately released so it appears that Tiger Muskie Spearfishing is okay for 'any' Tiger Muskie in Newton...kinda a contradiction IMHO if a H&L Angler 'must' immediately release any Tiger Muskie yet Spearfishing is okay. Additionally PV it clearly states this WRT Tiger Muskie fishing and Spearfishing.


Thanks for taking the time to review and post your feedback about this, k2. I discussed your concern with Drew Cushing, our warmwater fisheries coordinator, a few minutes ago. He noted that Newton isn't one of the waters where underwater spearfishing for game fish is permitted. The waters listed on page 11 are the only places in the state where you can spearfish for game fish.



k2muskie said:


> Finally recommend ensuring Tiger Muskie is all upper case for the first letters of each word Tiger Muskie thoughout document...Rationale some places Tiger Muskie is upper case other places it isn't...FWIW this fish deserves upper case plus it ensure consistency when describes various fish species.


The tiger muskie is definitely an impressive fish.  With that said, our convention in all of the guidebooks is to not capitalize species names unless there's a proper noun in part of the name (like Colorado River cutthroat trout). I hope I've addressed your concerns. If not, please feel free to follow up. Thanks!


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Amy again thank you. I understood this section of the Guidebook but often wondered if it could be misunderstood. So with Newton not identified as a body of water for spearfishing means absolutley no spearfishing for any type of fish. The same holds true for any body of water 'not listed' in this section on spearfishing. If the water isn't listed under spearfishing waters then plain and simple no spearfishing is allowed. 

In the job I have as a program manager implementing policies and procedures and writing technical guidance, I'm truly amazed at times how folks can and very often do misinterpret the meaning of simple guidance. Including twisting the guidance around to read what they want it to read and mean.

Again thank you and Mr. Cushing for your replies and allowing reviews and comments to the Draft 2011 Utah Fishing Guidebook.

Respectfully,
Kim


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

On page 16, it states that an angler CAN continue to catch and release fish, while in possession of a full limit.
I know that this is a change from 2009 but the problem is that people that fish with bait are releasing fish that are dying.
The fish takes the hook deep and when the hook is pulled out, the fish often dies.
I see this a lot at the community ponds.
What needs to happen is to require anglers to use artificial lures or flies only, after possessing a limit of fish and continuing to fish. 
Or even better, stop fishing after possessing a limit of fish.

I know that this change was made due to places like Pineview, that have catch and release only regulations but this is not a good law.
There are just too many fish dying from poor release practice while fishing with bait.
Now the angler is in violation of a different law,
wasting fish or wanton distruction.

I know that this isn't something that you can do anything about but I would like to see the policy reviewed and if at all possible, changed.
Thanks,
Dale.


----------



## troutwhisperer (Jan 1, 2009)

Yep thats a good one Grampa D I,ll second & third that.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Amy...I believe the info on the 'Second Pole Permit' is not correct...


> Fishing with more than one pole
> Utah Admin. Rule R657-13-7
> If you have a valid Utah second-pole permit,
> and a valid fishing or combination license, you
> ...


I think it should read...._'A second-pole permit *does* allow you to keep two limits of fish, thank you for your donation'._

What do ya think?

PS....watch out for BERG !!!


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

What about fishing with three or four poles? Maybe I missed that part... -O|o- 

I like the cover picture on the new book.  Keep up the good work Amy!


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Grandpa D said:


> On page 16, it states that an angler CAN continue to catch and release fish, while in possession of a full limit.
> I know that this is a change from 2009 but the problem is that people that fish with bait are releasing fish that are dying.
> The fish takes the hook deep and when the hook is pulled out, the fish often dies. Dale.


Not a change at all. Simply a clarification of what was *always* the rule. I tried to get the artificial lure regulation if you're already in possession of a limit, but it ain't gonnna fly. As for getting the rule changed, if I get to vote, I hope it doesn't happen.

As for the second pole permit and a second limit. I don't think you should get another limit, but I don't think you should have to pay to use two poles.

Fishrmn


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

k2muskie said:


> So with Newton not identified as a body of water for spearfishing means absolutley no spearfishing for any type of fish. The same holds true for any body of water 'not listed' in this section on spearfishing. If the water isn't listed under spearfishing waters then plain and simple no spearfishing is allowed.


Thanks for following up, Kim. What you said is correct, unless you're spearfishing for carp. From that same section on pgs. 10-11, "At all waters open to angling-during their open seasons-you can underwater spearfish for carp." (There are a couple of clarifying bullets after that statement.) For all other fish species, however, the waters in the left column of pg. 11 are the only ones where spearfishing is permitted. I don't think we'll be making any changes to this section in the proof of the 2011 book, but I'll make a note about it for when we begin discussing the 2012 Fishing guide. I'll see if the fisheries coordinators want to add a stronger statement about where underwater spearfishing is permitted.



k2muskie said:


> I'm truly amazed at times how folks can and very often do misinterpret the meaning of simple guidance. Including twisting the guidance around to read what they want it to read and mean.


Writing is a huge part of my job too, and I know exactly what you mean. 



k2muskie said:


> Again thank you and Mr. Cushing for your replies and allowing reviews and comments to the Draft 2011 Utah Fishing Guidebook.


Thank you for taking the time to read, think about it and send feedback! It really helps us produce a better guidebook.



Grandpa D said:


> There are just too many fish dying from poor release practice while fishing with bait. Now the angler is in violation of a different law, wasting fish or wanton distruction.
> I know that this isn't something that you can do anything about but I would like to see the policy reviewed and if at all possible, changed.


Thanks for following up on this, Dale. As you mentioned, I can't do anything to change the rule, but I can discuss it with our fisheries coordinators and see if this is something that they're talking about or considering for 2012. I really appreciate you taking a look and sending your concerns.



.45 said:


> Amy...I believe the info on the 'Second Pole Permit' is not correct...
> I think it should read...._'A second-pole permit *does* allow you to keep two limits of fish, thank you for your donation'._ What do ya think?


Nice try. 



sawsman said:


> What about fishing with three or four poles?


That won't work, but here's a compromise: You can use up to six lines through the ice at Flaming Gorge. 



sawsman said:


> I like the cover picture on the new book.


Thanks! We're trying a new look on the 2011 guidebooks, and this is the first of them.


----------



## TOgden (Sep 10, 2007)

Hi Amy,
I did not see a reference to the annual invasive species certification. Is that an annual certification or a one time test? Thanks for taking the time to gather information from the angling public. It is to bad other government agencies don't think to do the same thing. The guidebook is very complicated and necessary in spite of what some of us fishermen think.


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

TOgden said:


> I did not see a reference to the annual invasive species certification. Is that an annual certification or a one time test?


It is an annual certification, and I believe it will be available next year as well. The invasive species article repeatedly refers readers to the Web for decontamination options and information. That is where they can learn about (and immediately link to) the annual certification test. That article is already long, but I'll talk to a few people on Monday and see if we need to add another sentence to it about the annual certification option. Thanks for following up and asking about it!


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

Amy you are the bomb! Too bad others in the public sector think we are beholden to them instead of understanding they work for us. I hope you and those that think like you will someday outnumber the folks that cowtow to the politicians and politics that surround wildlife management in our great state.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

This may be more of a clarification than a typo kind of question.

Page 6

Concerning recriprocal fishing permits for Flaming gorge, I was under the impression that having a valid either Utah or Wyoming fishing license *AND* a valid non resident fishing license from either Utah or Wyoming (whichever is the other state) meant that you were not required to have a recripocal permit to fish the opposing states waters of Flaming Gorge.
For example a person in possession of a valid resident Utah fishing license and a valid Wyoming non-resident fishing license would be exempt from having to purchase a recriprocal permit as long as both states licenses were valid. As I am understanding the rulebook a recripocal permit is required regardless of having a valid license from both states.

This situation is not mentioned in the rule book, that I saw.

Page 8

Bait: The line stateing "Use or possess artificial baits that are commercially
imbedded or covered with fish or fish parts" may want to have the words added *in all waters *as most people I know are under the impression that such artificials may be used in waters where bait is allowed.


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

Troll said:


> For example a person in possession of a valid resident Utah fishing license and a valid Wyoming non-resident fishing license would be exempt from having to purchase a recriprocal permit as long as both states licenses were valid. As I am understanding the rulebook a recripocal permit is required regardless of having a valid license from both states. This situation is not mentioned in the rule book, that I saw.
> 
> Page 8
> Bait: The line stateing "Use or possess artificial baits that are commercially
> imbedded or covered with fish or fish parts" may want to have the words added *in all waters *as most people I know are under the impression that such artificials may be used in waters where bait is allowed.


Good questions, Troll. I'll check on both of these tomorrow and follow up with you. Thanks for taking a look at the guidebook!


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

Yesterday afternoon, I followed up with our fisheries coordinators on some of the questions and concerns you've posted:



Troll said:



> For example a person in possession of a valid resident Utah fishing license and a valid Wyoming non-resident fishing license would be exempt from having to purchase a recriprocal permit as long as both states licenses were valid. As I am understanding the rulebook a recripocal permit is required regardless of having a valid license from both states. This situation is not mentioned in the rule book, that I saw.


You are correct, Troll. Unfortunately, we don't have the space to add this clarification this year (not without bumping copy onto subsequent pages at $40 per page). We've added it to a list of clarification items we're considering for the 2012 guidebook. Thanks!



Troll said:


> Bait: The line stateing "Use or possess artificial baits that are commercially imbedded or covered with fish or fish parts" may want to have the words added *in all waters* as most people I know are under the impression that such artificials may be used in waters where bait is allowed.


The biologists felt this was pretty straightforward, and didn't think it needed additional clarification.



TOgden said:


> I did not see a reference to the annual invasive species certification.


Great catch - we thought we had it in there! Because we still have room in the article, and because it's an important option, we're going to add a couple of sentences about it. Thanks very much!



Grandpa D said:


> I see this a lot at the community ponds.
> What needs to happen is to require anglers to use artificial lures or flies only, after possessing a limit of fish and continuing to fish.
> Or even better, stop fishing after possessing a limit of fish.
> 
> ...


When I talked to the coordinators, they agreed that this law is in place because of places like Pineview, Strawberry and the Green River (places with slot limits or catch-and-release regulations). What they suggested we could do is maybe add an educational article to next year's guidebook about using proper catch-and-release techniques. (And possibly strategize on another way to educate anglers on this issue.) I know that's probably not the answer you were hoping for, but we'll likely tackle it from an educational angle, rather than a regulatory one. Thanks for relaying your concerns about this, Dale.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

Amy
I don't mean to throw a wet towel on this discussion, but I am wondering why Utah puts out a guidebook EVERY year. Idaho's current fishing proclamation covers a two or three year span. Wyoming's covers two years. It seems like the UDWR spends a lot of money printing and distributing a guidebook every year. Why not solidify the regs. and then carve them in stone and print out a guide book for say 2011-2013. If there happened to be a need for a quick on the spot change just do an emergency reg. change, put signage up on the specific water impacted and do a news release. It seems to me it would save money and our bordering states don't seem to have an issue with not printing one every single year.


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

280Remington said:


> I don't mean to throw a wet towel on this discussion, but I am wondering why Utah puts out a guidebook EVERY year. Idaho's current fishing proclamation covers a two or three year span. Wyoming's covers two years. It seems like the UDWR spends a lot of money printing and distributing a guidebook every year. Why not solidify the regs. and then carve them in stone and print out a guide book for say 2011-2013.


I'm right there with you, 280. This is something the fisheries guys have discussed, and I know it's the direction they want to go. I think it's just a matter of time (maybe a year or two). So, not a wet towel at all.  When I hear that we're definitely headed down that road, I'll follow up here.


----------

