# Panguitch Lake Meeting 5/8 and 5/9



## Dwight Schrutester (Dec 3, 2007)

Hey all, I received this email from a Southern Region Biologist that I have been in contact with. Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend as I can't get time off work. I will, however, be sending him an email. He is a real nice guy and spent a good 45 minutes on the phone with me the last time I talked to him.

_All,
The Division of Wildlife Resources Southern Region Aquatics Section is looking for your input. We will be offering 2 opportunities to discuss current and future management at Panguitch Lake:

1. Gill Net Survey - 5/8/2012, 9:00 a.m. South Boat Ramp Panguitch Lake
2. Public Meeting - 5/9/2012, 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. Panguitch High School Auditorium

The gill net surveys will allow all interested parties to view and discuss monitoring activities, and see current conditions at Panguitch Lake.

The Public Meeting will consist of a brief presentation (discussing current conditions and management plan), question/answer period, and public comment period.

If you are interested please attend, if you know of anyone that may be interested please pass this information along.

Thank you_

_Richard Hepworth
Southern Region DWR
Aquatics Biologist
(435)865-6107_

Just thought I would pass this along.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

Thanks for posting this Dwight. I got the same e-mail. Anglers need to email both [email protected] and [email protected] and say Put The Rainbows Back in the Slot. After the treatment around 2007-2009 a fisherman could catch a lot of fat trophy rainbows in the 18" to 22" range. Then the place went into the toilet after a certain Wildlife Board member conspired with some whiny business owners along the lake and got the regulations changed and they took the rainbows out of the slot. Now according to the fish and game the average rainbow trout is only 12.5" in Panguitch. 
We can't let politicians and business people manage our fisheries. Send an e-mail to Andrew and Richard and the RAC tell them to protect the rainbows at Panguitch Lake. The last committee that was formed, anglers were outnumbered 2 to 1 by politicians and business owners! Put the rainbows back in the slot. Put the rainbows back in the slot. Please.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

RichardClarke -- don't just send an email: ATTEND THE MEETINGS!

that's why they are having them. If anglers won't show up to the meetings, then it is all for nothing.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

I'm still unclear on the mandate to physically have to attend. I got an email from fish and game saying an email was ok.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

You can believe what you want, and you can listen to who you want. I'm of the opinion that a physical presence speaks MUCH LOUDER than an email ever will. If anglers are willing to put forth the effort to show up and support their stance in person, they will get further than they will by simply sending out an email.

I get lots and lots and lots of emails every day. Many of them get deleted after I _skim_ throught them. I don't read each one of them. I forget a lot of them.

I also get a lot of people that show up at my desk in person to speak with me. I remember those conversations much more than the email messages.

My point is that emails will only get you so far. At some point you need to back up your email messages by attending the public meetings that are specifically held for the very topic that you send emails concerning. If business and political interests are the only people that show up, what kind of message does that send?

I can hear it now:

DWR: "but the anglers want to change things."
Business owner: "what anglers"
DWR: "I received 537 emails from anglers saying they wanted a change"
Business: "where are these 537 anglers that sent you the emails?"
DWR: "I don't know."
Business: "well.....there are 15 people here right now, and none of them want a change. Where are these mystical people that you claim want a change?"
DWR: "They live in the magical land of www and interweb forums."
Business: "isn't that nice."
RAC Member: "we got emails too! It would have been nice if some of them could have come to this meeting so that we could discuss the issues amongst all of us. Oh well."
RAC Member: "so, business and politcal people: what would you like us to do here at Panguitch?"
DWR: mumbles under his breath "so much for any angler support..."


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

I was on a committee several years ago that dealt with problems and changes needed for the Community Ponds Program in Utah.
It was at those meetings that we came up with the current rules for the Community Ponds.
In attendance were people from the DWR, Bass Clubs and Civilians like me.

I was very impressed with the meetings and how we all worked together to achieve a workable program.

If you have an interest in Panguitch, you should call and reserve a spot at the meeting.
Your time spent there will be well worth it.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

PBH, I can't make this meeting. I work two jobs my regular job and retail nights. I flat out can't make this meeting. Im doing the only thing I can possibly do. I tried swapping nights with a guy at work and couldn't. I will send an e-mail it is all I can do. If business owners want it a certain why at Panguitch Lake they will get it and the fish and game will cave. Happens all the time. Lowly fishermen are way down on the food chain compared to politicians and business owners. Welcome to utah fish and game management. I will do what I can in an e-mail. i can't take off work and lose money. wish I could.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Richard -- I understand your predicament, and would probably make the same choice that you are. May I recommend making a couple phone calls to find out what more you can do to be involved with any future decisions made on Panguitch Lake (if Panguitch Lake is a concern to you)?

FWIW -- the DWR fisheries biologists and managers are not the people caving to the pressure when it comes to managing our fisheries. They can ONLY do what they are mandated to do by way of the Wildlife Board. When the WB says to make a regulation change, the DWR MUST make the change. So, instead of blaming the DWR, take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why the RAC and WB people are making those decisions and how you can help to get them to listen to your side. Maybe you can make a difference by changing your voting habits, attending meetings when possible, sending additional emails, making more phone calls, or donating more money to your favorite political party. I don't know the answers -- but blaming the DWR is the wrong call.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

RichardClarke said:


> I'm still unclear on the mandate to physically have to attend. I got an email from fish and game saying an email was ok.


The Wildlife Board (you know, the people that actually do decide what the rules are) made it very clear last fall that they expected attendance at the RACs for them to strongly consider changing rules. Obviously, do what you can but if you have friends that can make it, then coerce them to go. For all the people who have advocated a change down there, I would think that at least some of you Southerners don't have to work during the meeting time. This likely includes some folks participating in this thread. -Ov-


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

PBH 
The issue I have with your dialogue is the Utah fish and game is answering to the business owners. Wrong approach. The Utah F&G has a duty to the angling public, they do not have to justify or explain their answers or actions to business owners. That is a huge problem in this state. 
Catherder
I have to question the location of this meeting. It highly favors local business people. The business owners are local but the anglers aren't. I saw a few reports by the Utah fish and game where they estimate anywhere from 60%-70% of the anglers are non-local. In fact they aren't even Utah residents! Take the meeting to the people who are using the lake. 

THE DWR NEEDS TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO USE THE RESOURCE, NOT THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE MONEY OFF THE RESOURCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Flyfish4thrills (Jan 2, 2008)

RichardClarke said:


> PBH
> The issue I have with your dialogue is the Utah fish and game is answering to the business owners. Wrong approach. The *Utah F&G has a duty to the angling public*, they do *not* have to justify or explain their answers or actions *to business owners*. That is a huge problem in this state.
> Catherder
> I have to question *the location of this meeting*. It *highly favors local business* people. The business owners are local but the anglers aren't. I saw a few reports by the Utah fish and game where they estimate anywhere from 60%-70% of the anglers are non-local. In fact they aren't even Utah residents! *Take the meeting to the people who are using the lake*.
> ...


Richard is absolutely correct on every point. Why is the meeting being held in Panguitch, where the population is *1500*??? Obviously to facilitate all of the Panguitch business owners attending. This goes along with RAC meetings held in Beaver, etc. If the guv'mnt is truly worried about the voice of the NV/Las Vegas anglers, it should be held in St. George, the city in UT nearest them. That would also attract the most anglers (*who are purchasing the licenses*), as *the population in Washington county is 138,000 and combined with Iron county is 183,000. * Garfield county has about 5,200 people and Beaver county 6,600 (as of 2010). 
Since it will be held on a weekday at 6pm, how will someone from Las Vegas be able to attend? It would take about 3hrs and 40 minutes to get to Panguitch from Vegas. So, including the time change, someone would have to get off work at 1pm at the latest to be there. Who is going to ask off work to attend vs Panguitch business owners that go to the meeting 1 hour after 5pm? That goes for most Utah locations. I guess somebody working in Cedar until 5 could barely make it. Someone in St. George would have to get off early. Am I pro-Nevadan? I have to admit, definitely not. However, this only shows that when the date, location and time for this meeting was determined, it was made to be highly in the favor of the tiny populace and businesses of Panguitch. Or possibly those that set it didn't think about these other issues.
*This only further illustrates why emails and phone calls should hold equal weight to attending the meeting in person.*


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

RichardClarke said:


> Catherder
> I have to question the location of this meeting. It highly favors local business people. The business owners are local but the anglers aren't. I saw a few reports by the Utah fish and game where they estimate anywhere from 60%-70% of the anglers are non-local. In fact they aren't even Utah residents! Take the meeting to the people who are using the lake.
> 
> THE DWR NEEDS TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO USE THE RESOURCE, NOT THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE MONEY OFF THE RESOURCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You certainly have a valid point about the meeting time, and I can sympathize with your situation. My previous comments may have been a bit harsh as well. (although they were by no means directed at any one particular person). The problem you have however is the Wildlife Board (esp Ernie Perkins) laid it out for you last year in no uncertain terms. If Southern anglers do not show up at the meetings, esp these type of meeting and Southern RAC meetings, then the Wildlife Board will take no action and all the emails in the world will do nothing. That appears to be the rules of the game given you and I suppose that means some road trips. While I agree that there ought to be "a better way", I suppose that is the hand you are dealt.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

Catherder
The point here is the angling public is the customer. I believe the DWR and Wildlife Board should look at who they are supposedly serving. The angling public pays the bills of the DWR. The average joe anglers are the customers. I do not believe the fish and game and the Wildlife Board should be telling anglers 'to take or leave it and if you don't like the way we do things too bad'. The fish and game and wildlife board needs to take a step back and ask themselves who they are serving and are they taking care of and listening to their customers? The 'our way or the highway' philosophy that Ernie Perkins is spouting off works fine in a government or monopoly setting but I seriously doubt he was ever a successful small businessman who had customer to take care of. In the real world it doesn't work that way. Actually it works the exact opposite.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

RichardClarke said:


> Catherder
> The point here is the angling public is the customer. I believe the DWR and Wildlife Board should look at who they are supposedly serving. The angling public pays the bills of the DWR. The average joe anglers are the customers. I do not believe the fish and game and the Wildlife Board should be telling anglers 'to take or leave it and if you don't like the way we do things too bad'. The fish and game and wildlife board needs to take a step back and ask themselves who they are serving and are they taking care of and listening to their customers? The 'our way or the highway' philosophy that Ernie Perkins is spouting off works fine in a government or monopoly setting but I seriously doubt he was ever a successful small businessman who had customer to take care of. In the real world it doesn't work that way. Actually it works the exact opposite.


I cannot disagree with anything you say above. However, if the rules of the game require jumping through hoops to succeed, then that is what it will take if one wants change. Mr. Perkins may have been trying to *help* instead of "spouting off" when he said what he said. He may have been giving you guys the one plan of action that may succeed. It seemed last year that some in the DWR didn't want to change things. (Why I don't know. Possibly they didn't want to tangle with Tom Hatch again, or they fear that if they change Pangiutch, they will be pressured to change Strawberry and Scofield as well) It is obvious that some folks in Panguitch don't want to change things. So you have to fight some opposition.

Which gets me back to my original post. There have been several folks on here besides you (And it is clear you have good reasons not to be at the meeting) that fish there regularly and live in the South that have eloquently argued for changing Panguitch back to bows in the slot. It is extremely difficult to believe that *all* of these folks have airtight excuses not to attend the meetings.


----------



## Dwight Schrutester (Dec 3, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Which gets me back to my original post. There have been several folks on here besides you (And it is clear you have good reasons not to be at the meeting) that fish there regularly and live in the South that have eloquently argued for changing Panguitch back to bows in the slot. It is extremely difficult to believe that *all* of these folks have airtight excuses not to attend the meetings.


I wish I lived in Southern Utah, but living in Utah County pretty much eliminates me from attending these meetings held in the middle of the week. The next meeting I hear of that is on a weekend, *THIS GUY* will be there.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

The main point in all of this is if a person cares about how are fisheries are managed or how Panguitch Lake is managed they should provide input. We can only do what we can. If you can't attend a RAC meeting do the next best thing which is pick up the phone or e-mail.

Even if you don't have a dog in the Panguitch Lake fight I would stress to anglers to send e-mails to [email protected] and [email protected] letting them know you want anglers and sportsmen in Utah to be heard in management decisions, not local politicians or business owners making money off public resources.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Richard, I agree that fishermen should be the ones who have the say in fishing regulations and management decisions; however, that is NOT the way it is. In Utah, RACs and the Wildlife Board are set up so that all the different interest groups are supposedly represented in the decision making process including the business owners. "There are five Regional Advisory Councils (RACs). Each council consists of 12 to 15 members. The members include individuals who represent the following groups:

agriculture
sportsmen
non-consumptive wildlife
locally elected public officials
federal land agencies, and
public at large (including business)."

"The Wildlife Board consists of seven members. The members shall have expertise or experience in at least one of the following areas:

Wildlife management or biology;
Habitat management, including range or aquatic;
Business, including knowledge of private land issues; (and)
Economics, including knowledge of recreational wildlife uses."

Really, the DWR has no real power in making any decisions regarding regulations...all they can do is provide a recommendation. I know that Richard did not want the rainbows removed from the slot at Panguitch....but all he can do is give his recommendation. Also, these committees that have been formed to discuss regulations and management plans are also often forced on the DWR by the Wildlife Board because Utah law and past legislation says that all wildlife management issues should receive input from all different interest groups...including business owners. It doesn't really matter if we like it or not because that it is the way it is. So, really, you have only a couple of choices: 1) change Utah law and the way decisions are made or 2) work within the system as best you can to try and manipulate the outcome. Sadly, business owners and the local politician have done a better job at fixing the outcome. Also, remember that the committee has no real power...the real decisions are made by the Wildlife Board. If you want to make a difference, start getting in their ears....

....also, part of the reason that the meeting is being held in Panguitch is because that is where the reservoir is and much of what will be discussed is the gill netting which will be done on the 8th. Also, I will be damned if I want the meeting to be held in St. George on a water in Garfield County....any regulation changes at Panguitch affect the locals far more than they will affect people in St. George regardless of population. That's like saying that all public meetings regarding Bryce Canyon National Park or our National Forests should be held in NYC because the population is higher there...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

a few comments:

1. W2U is correct: it is the WB that holds the power. Not the DWR. It doesn't matter what the DWR wants, says, or does, the decisions are made by the WB. It was the WB that told the DWR to get a committee together for Panguitch and hold some meetings -- and thus the DWR is doing. I feel that the DWR is doing a good job trying to get all interests involved.

2. I'll be in Las Vegas for work on Wednesday. I'm leaving work early so that I can attend the meeting in Panguitch that evening. Flyfish4thrills -- it's all about priorities.

3. Location. It's interesting to me how people's opinion of location changes depending on the issue at hand. When it comes to State ownership of Federal land, we want the meetings held 'locally' so that those people with a "higher" population base can't have their say. Like W2U said, we don't necessarily want those outside of Utah determining how best to manage our Utah lands. Except when it comes to something a little closer to home, where the majority of Utahn's may want something different that those in the tiny populace of Panguitch. Where do we draw the line on who's voice gets the best accomodations? No matter where you hold the meeting, someone will be mad. You cannot please everyone. Holding the meeting at Panguitch seems a logical choice to me, considering the location of Panguitch Lake (Garfield County). Like W2U mentioned, changes regulations at Panguitch will affect Garfield County much more than Washington County, or Iron County.

Keep in mind, the biologist who sent the email was in favor of rainbows in the slot. He's on the same side as you guys. But, it's not up to him. It's up to the WB. How do you get the WB in favor of your side? You do as they suggest: you attend the meetings and show that you truly want a change. That, or you vote for a governor who appoints a better selection of WB members. You have options here. Now it's up to you to act on them.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

RichardClarke said:


> The main point in all of this is if a person cares about how are fisheries are managed or how Panguitch Lake is managed they should provide input. We can only do what we can. If you can't attend a RAC meeting do the next best thing which is pick up the phone or e-mail.


I completely agree.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

I just saw on the DWR website under the RAC meeting material and agenda that fishing will NOT be discussed!!!!!!

So much for fishing interests in the May RAC meetings...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Fishing is discussed in certain RAC meetings....as well as Board meetings. Just keep an eye on the meeting agendas to find out when. Any regulation changes are made prior to the guidebooks that are printed...no rule changes in fishing will be made until next fall (except emergency changes).


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

It was established a few years ago that the May meeting would serve as an informational aquatics/fishing meeting. The September RAC meetings were to be the meeting where the May ideas were discussed and possibly voted on and finalized. Look at the original RAC agenda on the website. May was supposed to be nothing but a fishing discussion, now it has been trumped by nothing but hunting issues. The big question is when is the Fishing informational meeting going to be?????????? Is there even going to be one?........................


----------



## BrookTroutKid (Oct 10, 2007)

Here is a thought, if the business owners are the only one in attendance then don't they obviously care more about the resource than the die hard internet campaigners? Food for thought


----------



## mjschijf (Oct 1, 2007)

Does anyone know if there will there be any way to provide input if I'm able to attend the gill netting on Tuesday, but not the meeting on Wednesday? I don't work on Tuesday, but Wednesday I don't get home from work til after 6. Distance isn't too much of a problem for me (I live in Kane county), but my work schedule probably won't allow me to attend on Wednesday.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

Brooktroutkid- I believe you meant to say they care more about their wallet than the resource. Food for thought.


----------



## BrookTroutKid (Oct 10, 2007)

RichardClarke said:


> Brooktroutkid- I believe you meant to say they care more about their wallet than the resource. Food for thought.


The resource in question is the same however the utilization Is different. I don't think it's fair to blast business owners over wanting to protect their livelihood, we do live in a capitalistic society the last time I checked. there are still big rainbows in the lake, there are also some very large cutts and tigers. The point is if you care soooo much then show up at a meeting or get a lot of people to go!!!!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

RichardClarke said:


> The big question is when is the Fishing informational meeting going to be?????????? Is there even going to be one?........................


There will be fishing information open houses/meetings for the Central region on May 22nd and 24th. I will put up another thread on the subject here shortly. I don't know when the Southern open house will be.


----------

