# Pacificorp and Cutler



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

I have spoken to Eve Davies with Pacificorp, she is over the Cutler Recreational Area and have invited her here to share some insight on some things she as shared with me this morning about restrictions and Permanent Blinds, I know I was wrong on a few items and was glad to talk to her

Email I sent to her



> Dear Ms. Davies-
> 
> I talked to you on the phone awhile ago about restrictions at cutler. We (the waterfowlers) would love to be enlightened on the rules out there, what is happening, if Permanant Blinds are allowed or if they must be removed before the end of the season, Horse Power Restictions, Wakeless speed, things of that nature.
> 
> ...


I hope she will join us and set the record straight on what exactly is going on out there, she seems like a great lady that is very knowledgeable and going to treat everyone as fair as possible while keeping the wildlife in mind.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Hey that sound pretty good i hope she does come on here. i have got a couple Q to ask her. Im going to work on my email this after noon to send to them.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Travis,

Please post up here her email address. I'd like to email her with the same concerns I sent to Mr. Dixon. Thanks.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Eve recently contacted me again, she was having a little trouble logging on but said she would try again tonight after some meetings she was attending, I hope we hear from her then.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

dubob said:


> Travis,
> 
> Please post up here her email address. I'd like to email her with the same concerns I sent to Mr. Dixon. Thanks.


Im not so sure she wants her email public, but I will ask her, or maybe she will go ahead and post it up when she logs on.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

thats cool.Im looking forward to her post and hopefuly we can get this taken care of soon and get stuff back the right way.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

dkhntrdstn said:


> thats cool.Im looking forward to her post and hopefuly we can get this taken care of soon and get stuff back the right way.


I'm sure this will make me appear anti waterfowling, just as it did on the DWR site but have you guys ever stopped to consider that there is more invested in Cutler than just waterfowl hunting? In your eagerness to run right out and change everyones mind about the restrictions, you're totally overlooking that maybe they just don't want to change them..... :idea: I'm pretty sure they had a good idea what they were doing when they put the regs in place. Maybe Pacificorp will just tighten things up if they get pestered too much... and make it a motorless area.... or just say ok, scratch this... no hunting period. Geez... there are an awful lot of folks who sure take their hunting priveleges and access for granted around here. I'd hate to see what happens if for some reason Pacificorp takes the waterfowl hunting snowglobe and decides to give it a good shake..... :roll:

I know another guy was in the middle of posting on this when the DWR forums got shut down and yeah, I remember the reception his point of view got.... but I just don't care.... some of you folks seem so concerned about your "rights" or whatever that you couldn't see the big picture if it was engraved on your eyeballs. Man, I hope Pacificorp is receptive to this whole "we'll get em with our numbers of dissent" approach so many waterfowlers are advocating. :?


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

we are just trying to find out why they are doing what they did after all of these years. if we just sit back and dont say nothing then we will all lose some it to gether and im mean all of us that mean us waterfowlers. Logan dont got much up there to hunt waterfowl on. about and try to find out what going on. all we want to know why now.and so on.


----------



## hairy1 (Sep 10, 2007)

Stirring the pot again Riley?


----------



## RJ-Max4 (Sep 11, 2007)

Some folks just have to put there 00.2 cents on every post. :twisted:


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

RJ-Max4 said:


> Some folks just have to put there 00.2 cents on every post. :twisted:


Sorry guys... shouldn't have wasted two seconds to reply to this.... :roll: My fault.


----------



## RJ-Max4 (Sep 11, 2007)

:mrgreen:


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

hairy1 said:


> Stirring the pot again Riley?


Hairy... (wish there was a deep sigh smiley), I'm just a non conformist I guess.... I'm just not so eager to jump right on the "bust down the doors" bandwagon. If they want to change things, they will... but I'm glad that "rebel" didn't post up that ladies email.... she doesn't deserve the storm of emails that I'm positive would flow her way.... and I'm sure most of the folks that send them wouldn't be praising her for her insight. Sure, some guys would write something intelligent and well thought out but you and I know (even though we might be on opposite sides of this discussion) that some fool would send something that would be such a turnoff that it would ruin it for everyone else that has a valid interest in the place. So yeah.... I guess because I have a different opinion than anyone else, I'm stirring the pot. Don't worry, big brother is already aware and will keep this discussion under control. :|


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> Man, I hope Pacificorp is receptive to this whole "we'll get em with our numbers of dissent" approach so many waterfowlers are advocating. :?


I'm certain it will work if everyone remains diplomatic and cordial about it. I believe PacifiCorp, like most companies, cares about public opinion. If people submit their opinion like Travis and others have PacifiCorp will listen. If people are belligerent and rude then you are right it will take things in the wrong direction. Sitting back and saying "oh well we'll just live with it" isn't the best way to have your opinion herd. The people who have posted on here and the now defunct DWR forum were right that some of the regulations seem redundant. If we can peacefully convey that to the powers that be they will listen to what we have to say and respond accordingly.

just my .02 worth


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

donttreadonme said:


> Riverrat77 said:
> 
> 
> > Man, I hope Pacificorp is receptive to this whole "we'll get em with our numbers of dissent" approach so many waterfowlers are advocating. :?
> ...


Hey Joel, I totally agree with you. I don't think that this *"if everyone remains diplomatic and cordial about it."* is very realistic. Just look at the reaction (well, I guess we can't now) that the guy got on the DWR forum when he posted a response against what everyone else thought.... I'd love to see his PM box.... 8)


----------



## hairy1 (Sep 10, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> hairy1 said:
> 
> 
> > Stirring the pot again Riley?
> ...


Riley, I like you and I think you know that.
I know from your posts that your a non conformist. 
But to protect the sport that we all love we need to band together.
The anti's wouldn't be as strong as they are by expressing themselves singley
They know that if you want to get something accomplished you need to band together.
Whether you agree or disagree on every aspect of what hunters are fighting for sometimes it is better to bite your lip and fight for the big picture.

signed,
Lovin life in Happy Valley


----------



## birdboy (Sep 11, 2007)

I have not ever hunted Cutler and I do not see myself up there anytime soon. Therefore I have no idea what they are changing and what it was like in the good ole' days. 

However it is pretty evident that they made some sort of decision that isn't popular with the hunters.... Someone may have already contacted the Utah Waterfowler Association (UWA) but that is what they started for was to be a voice for the hunter in state. 

If they have been contacted are they doing anything about it? If they haven't been contacted those of you that care should contact Steve Early or Carl Taylor. 

Just a thought...


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Man, I wish I could pull up this post from the DWR. Some folks have said they want to know, "why now?".... well if I remember right, it had said on the other topic that it isn't really a matter of why now... these regs have been in place for 3 years (I think) but they just haven't been enforcing them as strictly. Its only a shock because there are new gates, new signs and there will probably be more enforcement. To me, that says that whoever runs the res will be taking this season a little more seriously.... and there won't be any more ignoring the regs and doing whatever we want. There was never an issue until somebody thought their toes were getting stepped on by an entity that doesn't hunt. I think the "its all good" attitude may have put hunters behind the 8 ball on this one.... and its been known for a while. Oooops.... :?


----------



## wingmanck (Sep 7, 2007)

birdboy said:


> However it is pretty evident that they made some sort of decision that isn't popular with the hunters.... Someone may have already contacted the Utah Waterfowler Association (UWA) but that is what they started for was to be a voice for the hunter in state.
> 
> If they have been contacted are they doing anything about it? If they haven't been contacted those of you that care should contact Steve Early or Carl Taylor.
> 
> Just a thought...


+1
I appreciate everyone's concern about the regulations (not new, just publicized better) but I agree that it would be better to have a single voice represent everyone. Everyone's response has been great and that's what it takes sometimes to hold on to what we have. I just think it's more professional to have an "Association" (or whatever) go to bat for large groups of people rather than have everyone flood some poor public relation representative's(who probably doesn't have the power to change things one way or the other anyways)inbox.

Hope it works out for those who hunt there. Although I only live 10 mins away, I'm not one of them, but I do understand the importance of keeping it accessible for those who do.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Riley-
Just a little background on where I stand on this, I am a fourth generation hunter on cutler and in the benson area. My family is from Benson and I grew up hunting out there and that was all we knew. I have a serious love for hunting out there and I can tell you that why you might want to sit back and watch, Im going to try to voice my opinion. Your right, there will be someone who gets boligerant, and thats exactly why her email was not put on here. You are also right in the fact PacifiCorp could pull the plug any second and end it for everyone. 
I knew about the Motor Restrictions, and I was against it, but, the hardest part for me was the wakeless restrictions from October 1st to March 31st up North, to me, that makes very little sence. Anyone from around Utah and that spends anytime in the Marsh knows that waterfowl are nesting between April and the end of May, with chicks still pretty plentiful into June. If they wanted to put wakeless restrictions to help protect wildlife, why is it they do not extend into at least June????


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

What did she have to say about the wakeless thing when you asked her? Was there any good reason they extended the wakeless period if not to protect young birds? I think that was very cool of you to have a one on one conversation with this lady about the marsh..... sounds like you were very professional about how you approached it and I think you might be able to expand that relationship to speak for a lot of folks who want to use the marsh during hunting season. Good for you Rebel. I hope there is some sort of compromise that can be built around the good intentions and intelligent, thought provoking discussions you guys can have with Pacificorp. I hope it works out for you.... at least to the extent that they are willing to modify the regs during hunting season to allow you to keep your boats in the area to get you on birds. Four generations.... :shock: yeah, I can see why that would be important to you. Good luck man. 8)


----------



## evedavies (Sep 14, 2007)

Hey all- 
Never used one of these discussion sites before, so I was much dismayed to have just lost a version that I spent a lot of time on as it is a complicated issue, and deserves the effort. If the smilies in the box are the new punctuation, I need a really unhappy one for that. Unfortunately, I'm sure this version won't be anywhere the magnus opus the last one was. That being said, please feel free to forward this on to whomever may be interested.

I'm glad Travis contacted me, and happy to see all the passion that Cutler evokes-- it does in me, also. So you know something about myself and my history with Cutler, I've worked for PacifiCorp for the last 10 years; originally I was hired to implement our new license provisions at Cutler Marsh. Currently I am the environmental compliance program manager for 17 small hydros in Utah and Idaho (Cutler at 10,000 acres is the largest), from the Henry's Fork up north to the Santa Clara River in southern Utah. I am a biologist by training and no longer get to spend as much time at Cutler as I once did, given all the travel to other areas I now do. I only mention that because my extensive travel schedule results in me being a terrible e-communicator. I am currently weeks behind in my inbox. So, if your time line isn't urgent, feel free to e-mail me. If you'd like something a bit more timely, call me-- my office number is listed at all the rec sites at Cutler (cell phone is always listed on my office phone if I'm not there). I'm glad you all care so much about the habitat and opportunities at Cutler Marsh-- the best work I've ever been privileged to do has it's heart there at Cutler, and it's nice to know others feel such an affinity for it also.

You may remember that last year a proposal was advanced by UDWR that was not formally adopted for a number of reasons. Foremost, it was not universally supported by us as the landowners, UDWR, and State Parks, as the only legal entity that can make boating regulations in Utah. That support was lacking for a variety of reasons, but fundamentally because it did not address all the problems, nor present an enforceable solution. We got more urgency about the matter this year, when a long-term nesting colony of a rare non-game bird species was abandoned in the area south of the old Benson RR trestle bridge. Travis' contact to me is timely because next week I will be presenting a formal proposal that does have unanimous support from the three entities I listed-- before I tell you about the proposal, let me tell you about why we need it.

Most of you are aware that there have been restrictions posted for many years now (since the late 1990's), that essentially asked for users to limit their speed and motor size in the area south of the old RR trestle bridge (just south of Benson Marina) for several reasons, including the impacts that large motors and high speeds were having on water quality (average depth in that area is less than 2 feet), sensitive wildlife habitats, and recreation uses, including waterfowl hunting and other low-speed or non-motorized uses. However, the area is also apparently ideal for slalom waterskiing and jetskiing, and high speed and high hp recreation uses have been common in that area over the past several years. Because the earlier restrictions were essentially voluntary, we needed to re-evaluate our needs to appropriately manage the marsh. We value all responsible recreation uses of Cutler Reservoir, but it is clear that we need some regulations to make sure we have appropriate uses in appropriate areas. Also, we recently posted a preliminary draft of the proposed regulations at Cutler, along with maps that show each of the zones (the maps are being stolen faster than I can post them, however), although that proposal has no been altered somewhat as a compromise from speaking to a number of folks about motor size. The text below contains the current proposal; what is posted out there now is similar but does have a few differences.

We are proposing the following regulations for boater use, which would be formerly adopted as Utah regulation for Cutler Marsh:

1)South Boater Use Zone, south from the old RR trestle bridge.
Requested Action: That State Parks regulate motorized boat and personal watercraft use south of the Railroad Bridge Walking Trail to create a year-round wakeless zone with a motor size restriction of 30hp or less. 
Purpose: This proposed restriction on use is consistent with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and agency accepted 1994 Cutler Resource Management Plan that governs the management of approximately 10,000 acres of PacifiCorp lands for natural resource protection and recreation. The proposed regulation will help to protect a variety of sensitive wildlife and waterfowl species that use this area, and will benefit water quality in this shallow area, as well as protect the historic use of the area for waterfowl hunters and other low-speed or non-motorized recreation users. Buoy and/or other marker signs would be placed at the reservoir restriction formed by the railroad bridge and maintained by PacifiCorp; this regulation and appropriate maps would also be posted by PacifiCorp at access points to the reservoir.

2) Bear River Boater Zone, east of the confluence with the Bear River, up to the Cutler project boundary that is just upstream of the Upper Bear River Access, near the Benson Bridge.
Requested Action: That State Parks regulate motorized boat and personal watercraft use from the confluence of the Bear River with Cutler Reservoir, including the "horseshoe" area, to the limit of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Cutler Hydroelectric Project Boundary on the Bear River to create a seasonal wakeless zone). The wakeless speed would be required from October 1-March 31 each year. Note: no additional regulation is proposed beyond state boater regulations outside of the restricted season.
Background: This proposed restriction on use is consistent with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and agency accepted 1994 Cutler Resource Management Plan that governs the management of approximately 10,000 acres of PacifiCorp lands for natural resource protection and recreation. The proposed regulation will help to protect a variety of sensitive wildlife species as well as improve habitat for waterfowl and benefit traditional waterfowl hunting. Buoy and/or other marker signs would be placed at the confluence area of the reservoir, and would be maintained by UDWR; this regulation and appropriate maps would also be posted at access points to the reservoir. UDWR would also publish notice of this restriction in the annual waterfowl proclamation.

3) North Boater Zone, north of the old RR trestle bridge and west of the confluence with the Bear River.
No action is requested of State Parks. No restrictions beyond state boater regulations are proposed. All motor sizes and safe speeds will be allowed in all other areas of the reservoir, as indicated. This should allow for higher speed and larger motor size access for all recreationists in this area of Cutler Reservoir.

I am certain that the proposed restrictions will not make everyone happy, as I know I have already alienated some of the motorized water sport enthusiasts. I do hope however, that regardless of whether you agree, everyone can understand the need to compromise to help protect this amazing resource. The proposal (the one currently posted on-site) originally contained language for a 20 hp restriction in both the south area and the Bear River area; in response to hearing from several waterfowl enthusiasts, I suggested the compromise of the higher 30hp limit, as well as the wakeless speed only with no motor size restrictions in the Bear River area. I hope the recent changes meet more folks needs.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, again note that by e-mail can often be the slow boat for me. Please enjoy and be safe out there during the upcoming season and always! Hope to see you out there sometime-

Best regards-
Eve Davies
[email protected]


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

Eve, Great detailed response. I appreciate you taking the time and effort to explain (very well) these regulations and why they are needed. I will be getting an e-mail off to you soon with some other thoughts I have.

Joel


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Eve, thankyou for coming on here, I appreciate your willingness to cooperate and work with all partys involved. I know you have answered a lot of my questions.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

donttreadonme said:


> Eve, Great detailed response. I appreciate you taking the time and effort to explain (very well) these regulations and why they are needed.


+1. Thanks for coming on and explaining Pacificorp's side of the story.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

thanks for coming on here and answering lots of Question. I know you ahve answerd most of mine and i have a couple more that i will be sending you in a email. thanks again for this. Now we have some idea why this all happend and what there trying to do. Thats all we wanted.


----------



## wingmanck (Sep 7, 2007)

Ms Davies ~

Thank you so much for taking the time to post, not once, but twice...here's your sad face  (perhaps not sad enough). 

I understand the importance of making Cutler accessible to all and can only imagine what a difficult task it is to find that perfect balance that works for everyone. From what I have read from others, my only real concern would be that the wakeless restrictions in the "horseshoe area" should be more in line with the nesting/brooding periods of the birds that use the area. 

The year round wakeless in the south is brilliant.

Too bad there's no plan for eradicating all of those destructive carp! Hoefully some time in the future! :wink: 

Looking forward to the changes. I think people will be surprised what a difference some active management can make out there.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Thank you Ms. Davies for taking the time to listen and respond. And thank you for allowing us the opportunity to correspond with you directly. My email to you went out today.


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

Guys I will be having lunch with Bryan Dixon who is one of the higher ups in the Bridgerland Audubon Society. My main goal is to see if Bryan (BAS) is willing to help us out on these restrictions. I don't know where he/they stand but I have my feelings on the matter. I will hold off my opinion until I have spoken to him face to face. Are there any certain topics or questions you all would like me to bring up? Thus far I want to establish:

1. BAC's involvement up to this point in getting these restrictions put in place.

2. BAC's feeling towards motorized use in general.

3. BAC's feelings on hunting.

4. BAC's willingness to work with us in coming up with regulations that appease all Cutler users. You know we give a little, they give a little, if need be.

5. BAC's willingness to help us propose and follow up with agreed upon regulations.

Let me know what you all think. I will be leaving my office at about 11:30 tomorrow (9/18/2007) for lunch. I know I am taking things into my own hands here but I figure we better act now rather than wait and see what happens. If you all feel like I am not the man for the job feel free to let me know and I will gladly give the reigns to someone else.

Joel


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Well, it looks like we are going to have some new rules to live with when hunting Cutler Marsh. While I'm not totally in agreement with the new proposal, I now have a much better understanding of the reasoning behind them. And honestly, the reasoning is sound to my way of thinking. Ms. Davies was kind enough to answer my email in a timely and well thought out manner. It is apparent that she is very much in tune with the situation at Cutler Marsh and the new proposals are a serious attempt to address some real concerns associated with public use of private lands.

With her permission, I will share with you our correspondence on this issue. The situation at Cutler Marsh is what it is and we should ALL do our best to abide by the restrictions so our future use of the area is not put in jeopardy. If you start reading at the bottom of the quote, you will be following the flow of the correspondence.



> What a pleasure it was to read your response. While it doesn't present the desired outcome I was hoping for, it presented a view that I had not seen and explains completely the rational behind the proposal. It is sad indeed that you can not get the enforcement that is needed. Again, thank you ever so much for taking the time from your busy schedule to respond. I will post this information on the appropriate web sites so that all of the concerned individuals will have a better understanding of what is really going on at Cutler Marsh.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Robert Hicks
> ...


__________________
Bob Hicks, from Utah
"Free men do not ask permission to bear arms."


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

That was cool of her to write back to you. Thats too bad that even though this appears to be a big issue to waterfowlers, we can't get the right amounts of LE there to enforce the regs Pacificorp already tried to get people to go by. Its too bad that its also non waterfowlers that are part of the problem.... we can police ourselves but I have no idea how we'd get others to abide by the regs. Still, good to see the decent communication. 8)


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Joel, I would love to see Wakeless Restrictions Cutler Wide, from say like March to end of May. I think it would be great during the nesting and brooding season of the waterfowl out there and Im sure (BAS) they would love to see restrictions like this as well. I know Virl Hantchet (former Fish and Game Officer) was trying to get those restrictions in place in years past but with no success it sounds like.


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

Well all I just got back from lunch with Bryan Dixon. I have to say it was a great education for me both about Cutler and the Bear river but also about Bryan. First off I need to apologize for any negative comments I have made toward Bryan. He is a stand up guy that is very easy to talk with. He has a wealth of information that made me feel like I had never even heard of Cutler. I was very impressed with Bryan and the information he had to share with me.

I feel like we covered each of the areas I wanted to and will post what I feel the answers were.

1. BAS's involvement up to this point in getting these restrictions put in place. *The restrictions were put in place by PacifiCorp and decided upon by them primarily. BAS was not in there trying to get it shut down to motorized users.*

2. BAS's feeling towards motorized use in general.
_*BAS feels that motorized use is one small part of a huge resource. Motorized use is fine as long as it isn't a detriment to the environment. Responsible motorized use is the key.*_

3. BAS's feelings on hunting.
_*I did not know this but the Audubon society was started by hunters who wanted to conserve a resource that they loved. Initially the Audubon Society was focused on stopping market hunting. Today they still advocate conservative responsible hunting. I was glad to hear that.*_

4. BAS's willingness to work with us in coming up with regulations that appease all Cutler users. You know we give a little, they give a little, if need be. 
_*Bryan was more than willing to see if we could make things happen. We spoke of how we could jointly see Cutler move in a more positive direction for all users. I felt like Bryan would like to have our help and would like to do what he can to help us out as well. This was huge for me. I think we have to join with groups such as BAS so as to present a valid balanced proposal no matter who that proposal is to.*_

5. BAS's willingness to help us propose and follow up with agreed upon regulations.
_*I think that was covered in #4.*_

I was glad to have met with Bryan one on one and see where he and BAS were coming from and headed to on Cutler marsh. Cutler is a big area with a whole lot more at stake than just hunters and the use of boats. If any of you have questions about our meeting, feel free to ask me and I will try and answer them.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

did you guys talk about the gates geting closed by 8 or what ever it was ? Im glad you guys got to meet and talk about this. now there more light shinning on this then befor. thanks joel. Like i said WE AS WATERFOWLERS GOT TO GET TO GETHER AND FIGHT THIS no matter if you are a FOOT SOLDER OR A BOATER OR DONT EVEN HUNT THERE.we need to stay to gether on this guys. thanks again joel. keep us posted if you hear any more or any one hears anything on it.


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

Dustin I didn't bring up the issue on the gates. Everything I have been told is that it is to stop people from camping in the parking lots. Cutler is a day use area, no camping.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

alright thanks joel sounds good. i guess we will just have to wait in line and get off befor the gates get closed on us. thanks again joel.


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

I copied this from the utahwaterfowler.com forum. Everyone should give Carl Taylor a big thanks. He and some of his associates made this happen. Thanks Carl! 

Quoted from an email recieved today from Eve Davies: 

Hi Carl- 
Thanks for the info. Just to let you know, based on your information and then a subsequent discussion with UDWR, State Parks, PacifiCorp, and the Boating Advisory Council yesterday at their meeting, our proposal was modified slightly to include a 35hp limit as well as year-round wakeless speed in the north and south marsh areas of Cutler (south of the old RR trestle bridge). The Bear River unit will remain wakeless speed only, although the date range was modified slightly to start on the last Saturday of September, rather than 1 October as previously stated. 

PacifiCorp's only concern, shared as well by council members, State Parks, and UDWR, is that the motor size growth that apparently has happened, and logically will continue to happen, not influence our hp restriction at Cutler. That is, I think everyone there was ok with the additional compromise to 35hp, but I particularly am concerned that future increases in motor size will not be a trend we are following with the restrictions. I don't think we are interested in having the conversation next year that the new common motor size is now 40 or 50hp, so that's what the new limit should be. That being said, I am sure that Cutler will not dictate market availability for these motors, but I hope that expectations for the users/buyers of these motors are clear that any larger motor size will impair out ability to provide the resource protections mandated by the Cutler Resource Management Plan, and that additional upward migration of the motor hp limit is unlikely. 

Thanks again for providing us with some great info to make a reasoned determination with the Boating Advisory Council. Please feel free to contact me with any further comments or questions. 

Best regards, 
Eve Davies 
Cutler program manager 
Hydro Resources, PacifiCorp Energy


----------



## RAM4X (Sep 12, 2007)

I haven't responded to any of the threads regarding this issue, as it doesn't affect me directly. But, I would like to say that everyone who took the time to contact these people and go to the meetings should be commended. I'm glad that the people in charge of Cutler didn't just dig their feet in and were able to compromise as well. It seems that these days it's easier just to close something down, whenever a controversy arises, than it is to take the time to take rational action.


----------

