# W.B. / Ernie Perkins rips anglers over Panguitch Lake



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

did anyone listen to the Wildlife Board meeting?

Ernie Perkins (Vice Chair Wildlife Board) did a great job in expressing his disappointment and frustration with anglers. He mentioned that the Board had numerous emails voicing strong opinions about the current regulations at Panguitch Lake -- however, nobody showed up at the RAC or WB meetings to support those opinions. He called anglers out. If anglers truly care about these issues, they need to show up and take some action.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meeting ... -11-03.mp3

(if you want to skip everything else, start listening at 1:14:45)

Also -- the DWR was complimented on their efforts to listen and work with anglers to provide fisheries that the anglers want. So, the ball is truly in our court. No more complaining without some kind of action to back it up.


----------



## Ton_Def (Dec 23, 2008)

PBH said:


> (if you want to skip everything else, start listening at 1:14:45)


It starts at 74:42. Some stern words right there!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Ernie is an awesome guy. Wish more were like him.


----------



## Flyfish4thrills (Jan 2, 2008)

*Transcript of Wildlife Board audio concerning Panguitch Lake*

For those of you not wanting/ unable to listen to the audio, here is a transcript of the text (not perfect, mind you) of the Wildlife Board meeting on November 3rd, 2011 , when discussing Panguitch Lake. It begins at 1:14:12 and ends at 1:24:08. I don't know any of the people present so I can't distinguish out specific people by name. Each new paragraph is a new or different person speaking than the previous paragraph, and is marked as P1, P2, etc. to help know when a new person speaks. People later on could be also listed earlier (p11 could be p1). It was simply to help in understanding interactions in the conversation.
Here is the text:

beginning of transcript of the Utah Wildlife Board minutes 11-03-2011 concerning Panguitch lake

starting at 1:14:12

(supposedly southern rac rep):Mr chairmen, we didn't have any discussion...we had no public there. We had some discussion amongst the RAC related to the status of Panguitch lake and things, but we passed this agenda item unanimously as well.

P1k. Do we have....? We've got one comment card. This is the next one. (unintelligible speaking in background).I have no comments from the audience. We've heard a presentation. All of the RACS have vote unanimously. Motion from the board. Ernie?

P2 (Ernie): Chair rep, I'd like to make a comment first. We received, we board members received a lot of public input...strong, very strong public input on the Panguitch Lake topic. And I was extremely disappointed that we didn't see any representation of that opinion and theoretically as significant number of people at the southern region rac. And I'd like to send a personal message to our sportsment and other folks in the State, that if they don't go to a RAC meeting, they do so at peril of what they're supporting. That's the proper place to be doing this and its the right place to be doing it in accordance with our state management system. So with that 
comment I think I see maybe another couple of people who are interested in saying something if there's not another motion I'll make one at that point.

P3:I agree with what Ernie had to say there also. So I won't make any more comments on that, but after we vote on this particular item I'd like to discuss one fishing problem that is just a comment.

P1k. With no other comments

P4: I'd like to make a motion then that we accept the Fishing Guide book and rule as presented by the division for this year and also ask that the southern region convene a work group or other as the southern division and region have already offered to address this subject over the coming year and see if...

P5o you think we really need to revisit that or just give it some time to work out? As Drew talked about? I think the way the Panguitch lake fishery is going right now is pretty successful.

P4:My recommendation there was based on..I think there's enough mud and allegations flying around the place that a...and with the division and region in offering to do so, I think that it would be worth the effort.

P6:Ok, let me do this. Bill, go ahead.

P7:Ya, I just want to ask a clarifying question on Ernie's comments about email on this..on the computers here you can see it talks about asking people to share ideas at a rac meeting or email ideas to the division so are we saying we don't want people to send emails if they can't get to a rac meeting?

P4:Thank you Bill. No, I'm not trying to discourage that but the idea that something that has those types of allegations flying around and nobody even comes to the rac meeting to express them is just a.. abhorrent to me.

P1:Ok. Let me sort of divide that up, ok? We're to make a motion...

P8: Can I ask a question before we do this? There is mention of a Panguitch Lake Advisory committee or working group or something like that. Who's the sponsor of that group, and who oversees that and what's their role? Do they have an official role? I'm not familiar with that. And are there other lakes in the State that have a similar group?

P9: That group was put together by the Division of Wildlife because of the nature of Panguitch Lake. It was put together immediately after the treatment....er...before the treatment and was made up of lodge owners, anglers, ....really anyone who had an interest in panguitch lake and at that time.....it's been.....and even though the regulation change, the benchmarks in that plan remain solid..as you know what is or what determines success or failure of panguitch lake, you know, that remains solid even if the rainbows are not protected. However, you know, like you said, we would be interested in putting a group together. It would probably consist of the 
same people. Uh, and go through it again.

P8:Well that's not a standing group that meets regularly. Its something that's not even meeting right now? Is that right?

P9 (supposedly DWR rep (Drew Cushings??) or biologist): It is not. It was put together for the sole purpose of coming up with a management plan for Panguitch Lake and benchmarks associated with that plan from all interested parties.

P10:When was that plan put into play?

P9:'06, immediately after the treatment.

P10:And so we've been 5 years in the plan?

P9:Yes.

P10:With 4 changes in 5 years?

P9:a 3 changes....and if we change another that was the 4th that I was discussing.

P10: ok. you think it just needs some time to see what's going on there?

P9: don't know. I think maybe. You know it doesn't hurt to check and see what the public would......you know if the public opion has changed about Panguitch lake, I think that's important to know. And from that perspective the group would be worthy to put back together, revisit the plan, make sure that those benchmarks are still consistent with the needs and desires of Panguitch anglers.

P10: When you put that group together, is that an expense to the division or is that just kind of a voluntary...I mean its an expense for the division personnel to be there, everbody else is just on a voluntary basis so its not a huge budget issue in a time of a budget crunch?

P9:No it would be the work time.

P10:There would be additional work time?

P9:ya.

P11rew, let me ask you. when you say, the anglers using the property...I want...would you expand on that...because I want people here to understand what that means.

P9:u...u...users....say that again Dell?

P11 (Dell):The users, the angler use on that lake, 'cause there's two different factions there.

P9 (Drew): We do angler creel surveys. And what that is...it's a determination of the amount of use on per month basis, 6 month basis or a year. And the use is in angler hours. that's how we describe it. And the use dropped dramatically when those rainbows were protected. So when people couldn't take them home the use dropped by 2/3's. We did a follow up creel survey, I believe it was a 3 month creel survey when the rainbows were not protected and that use in those same 3 months rebounded fully back to the original pressure. And that's the best I can describe. Does that help Dell?

P11(Dell): Sure. And...let me just talk for a minute. One of the thinks I'm interpreting and what I'm seeing is that 1. you have out of state fisherman there because of the cabin use from out of state property owners and 2. then you have the local individuals, and so you have...and I was talking to one of the other individuals in the DWR...on holiday weekends, that place is packed with out of state angler use. Am I right?

P9(Drew): I believe 78% is out of state use?

P12(someone in background): It's typically over 50.

P11(Dell): Typically over 50. So I'll make a suggestion. If we're going to have a little committee, we ought to have people from both sides...in state and out of state, if there is any way to do that, you know. With that I'm going to be quiet. Unless...'cause I want to move on and we have a motion on the floor. And I want to separate one from the other.

P13: And what Dell said there...it means a lot to those lake owners. And when Tom Hatch made that motion a couple of years ago to change the way we fish there it made a big difference in the amount of people that came back and those peoples that have survived there and I appreciate Dell's comments there and I should have followed on there myself.

P11(Dell): Ok, Ernie.

P14(Ernie): Ya, I'll restate the motion. Then I'll make first motion ...I move that we accept the Fishing Guide Book and Rule R65713 as proposed by the division.

P11(Dell) I motion a second to accept the proposal as presented by the DWR. All in favor?

(ayes)

end of transcript at 1:24:08


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

Long time fan of this site but my first post. I am confused by what Ernie Perkins is saying or is trying to say. It says right on the DWR website that one of the ways to convey an idea to the RAC and the Wildlife Board is to send an e-mail. Anglers and hunters have been told to send in ideas to the RAC and Widllife Board. I am not sure what Ernie Perkins is complaining about? What did these people do wrong? He says he and the Wildlife Board received a bunch of e-mails about Panguitch Lake. Am I missing something, what is wrong with sending e-mails? I sent in an e-mail because I work two jobs and couldn't attend a RAC meeting or the Wildlife Board meeting. Are we not supposed to send in e-mails any more? Thanks.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

RichardClarke said:


> I am not sure what Ernie Perkins is complaining about? What did these people do wrong? He says he and the Wildlife Board received a bunch of e-mails about Panguitch Lake. Am I missing something, what is wrong with sending e-mails? I sent in an e-mail because I work two jobs and couldn't attend a RAC meeting or the Wildlife Board meeting. Are we not supposed to send in e-mails any more? Thanks.


He is scolding anglers because not a single concerned sportsman bothered to show up in person at the Southern RAC and present a proposal to the RAC about Panguitch lake.

If you read a previous thread here about this, it is a bit more complicated however. Did you read that rather long thread?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=36900


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

Yes I did read the Panguitch Lake thread. But my point is the DWR instructs and encourages anglers to send e-mails. It is right on their website. I sent an e-mail about Panguitch Lake but I couldn't go to the meetings because I work from 6:00 to 2:30 and retail three days a week from 5:00 to 9:00. Is it mandatory that an idea will only be heard if presented at a meeting? If so they should say that. It would be stupid for me to type up an e-mail send it but then also have to drive to Beaver and stand there in the meeting and read my own e-mail.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

I found this on the DWR website. It was on the very front page.

*Learn more, share your ideas

After you've reviewed the ideas, you can let your Regional Advisory Council members know your thoughts by attending your upcoming RAC meeting or by sending an email to them.*

I think there is a mixed message here. The DWR is telling people it is ok to e-mail the RAC members but then the Wildlife Board says that e-mails won't cut it and the people have to show up in person or their voice won't be heard.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

RichardClarke said:


> I think there is a mixed message here. The DWR is telling people it is ok to e-mail the RAC members but then the Wildlife Board says that e-mails won't cut it and the people have to show up in person or their voice won't be heard.


Richard, I don't disagree with what you are asking here. Your question is definitely valid. That IS what they have told us to do if we can't make the meeting. A couple of follow-up points though.

1. In general, angler input and participation in RAC's and other avenues for public involvement with fisheries is abysmal. From the little volunteer stuff I have done, it is apparent that the DWR and other government personnel involved are extremely frustrated by the lack of public input and involvement. They would like much more. Perhaps, this was part of why Mr. Perkins went off.

2. Transcript quotes



Flyfish4thrills said:


> ..it means a lot to those lake owners. And when Tom Hatch made that motion a couple of years ago to change the way we fish there it made a big difference in the amount of people that came back and those peoples that have survived there and I appreciate Dell's comments there and I should have followed on there myself.





Flyfish4thrills said:


> and even though the regulation change, the benchmarks in that plan remain solid..as you know what is or what determines success or failure of panguitch lake, you know, that remains solid even if the rainbows are not protected.


It kind of sounds to me like the WB and the DWR are not too keen on changing things right now at Panguitch. Maybe bashing the email senders is a way to "suggest" that they not pursue this further?


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

When I read and listened to Ernie Perkins comments I got the gut feeling he is frustrated. But I think he is frustrated at the wrong people. Maybe he should look at anglers and the RAC process and try to understand why it doesn't work for fishermen. It seems to me that lashing out at anglers isn't the right approach. Maybe a better plan would be to try and understand why anglers are upset about Panguitch but those same anglers aren't confident in the RAC process or why anglers have not supported and not attended the RAC process. Anglers aren't like hunters they simply don't like to attend these RAC meetings. Instead of bashing on anglers maybe he take a step back and try to figure out how to better engage anglers. Anglers are the customers in this situation. I work retail, if we don't get anybody in our store, we don't stand on the sidewalk and yell at customers walking by for not coming in our store. We try to figure out why they aren't coming in.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

I certainly can't speak for Ernie Perkins, the Wildlife Board or the DWR, but I think you might be misinterpreting some of what Ernie meant, but I think you might be right about him possibly not quite getting it.

From talking to people at the DWR and some RAC members, there's a general feeling that the whole RAC process just isn't working out in terms of public participation. Many times there are sound biological or budgetary reasons that override what the public might want, but other times, like at Panguitch Lake, there are several legitimate ways to approach the management, and knowing what the public wants is the deciding factor.

The RACs were originally set up to gather public opinion from around the state through a series of public meetings. From my opinion these public meetings have not lived up to their potential because it's often a huge time commitment to attend — especially in the Southern and Southeastern Regions where the RAC meetings might be a hundred miles away. Another problem is that when people have attended, expressed their opinions, and had it voted on by the RACs, previous Wildlife Boards have simply overruled the RACs and done what they've wanted. Put these two problems together and, frankly, I'm surprised that anyone attends, which they apparently don't often do. I've attended a few, but really, a few are enough for me.

The RACs were set up several years ago, before the Internet. Now days, there are other ways of gathering public input: email, video conferencing, web narrowcasting, online polls, etc. It seems to me that the DWR has been experimenting around with all these ways of soliciting public participation and trying to gather information on what the average guy on the street wants.

So back to Ernie. I don't think that he's saying that people shouldn't send emails, and I don't think he's chewing out people who did. What I think he's saying is that he's just disappointed that one of the best ways to influence the Board's decisions is to attend the RAC meetings and that he's personally disappointed that more people don't do so.

It could easily be that Ernie's a bit behind the times and just doesn't realize that although people might have strong feelings, they're just not able or willing to take an afternoon off work, drive 75 miles, sit through a long meeting and express their opinions when they don't feel like their opinions count for all that much anyway.

Personally, I think they ought to do away with the RACS and rely more on technology to gather data on public opinion, but then again, I'm a "HunterGeek." E-mail's easy and doesn't require long drives and public speaking abilities. Online polls aren't scientific, but they're great to judge general attitudes. Peer-to-peer Internet conferencing or Webinars are other methods. Creel and hunter surveys are equally valuable, as are half a dozen other ways of gathering public information. Really though, if there's not more participation at the RAC meetings, my preferred methods of collecting data will likely replace these public meetings, and when that happens, I'm sure there will be a chorus of people complaining that the Board and the DWR are no longer willing to listen to the people.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Maybe you guys should either listen to the recording again, or read the transcript. You are discussing and interpreting something that Ernie himself clarified in the meeting:

P7:Ya, I just want to ask a clarifying question on Ernie's comments about email on this..on the computers here you can see it talks about asking people to share ideas at a rac meeting or email ideas to the division so are we saying we don't want people to send emails if they can't get to a rac meeting?

P4:Thank you Bill. *No, I'm not trying to discourage that [sending emails] but the idea that something that has those types of allegations flying around [strong opinions that regulations need to change] and nobody even comes to the rac meeting to express them is just a.. abhorrent to me.*

I understand exactly what Ernie is saying. There were a lot of people that expressed (via email) that they wanted a change. However, nobody showed up to further back up those _strong_ opinions that things needed to change. What kind of message does this send to the RAC and WB? It tells me that anglers are full of hot air -- they are willing to complain via email, but they don't have the commitment (or balls) to show up in person and share those opinions.

Anglers can come up with all the excuses they want concerning the process, the problems with the process, the complications, the inconvenience. BUT there is one thing that they CANNOT excuse and push aside: *Hunters have figured out how to successfully use the system!*

if hunters can do it, why can't anglers???


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

We are in a new age. Computers and emails are now able to do what attending RAC meetings used to do.
If you send a recommendation by way of an email, why would you also have to drive to a RAC meeting?

There are some folks that may still prefer to attend the RAC meeting but I would much rather give my comments to the RAC, DWR and Wildlife Board by way of Emails and questionnaires via the internet.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Grandpa D said:


> If you send a recommendation by way of an email, why would you also have to drive to a RAC meeting?


Maybe because one of the W.B. chairs asked and recommended that you do so???

I'm not so set in my ways that I can't see some room for improvement. Maybe the RAC meetings should be reviewed. But, I keep coming back to hunters: why can they attend the meetings, request changes, make comments / complaints, and then get results? If it is important to hunters -- THEY SHOW UP! Why are anglers so different?


----------



## tye dye twins (Mar 8, 2011)

Grandpa D said:



> We are in a new age. Computers and emails are now able to do what attending RAC meetings used to do.
> If you send a recommendation by way of an email, why would you also have to drive to a RAC meeting?
> 
> There are some folks that may still prefer to attend the RAC meeting but I would much rather give my comments to the RAC, DWR and Wildlife Board by way of Emails and questionnaires via the internet.


+1


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> But, I keep coming back to hunters: why can they attend the meetings, request changes, make comments / complaints, and then get results? If it is important to hunters -- THEY SHOW UP! Why are anglers so different?


My statewide fishing license doesn't limit me to 1 of 30 units for tiger trout, I can buy it OTC without a draw, and if I don't like the regulations on a particular body of water I can typically fill my desire/need fairly easy by going somewhere else. The moment they start splitting me up into 30 units for fishing I'll show up at the RAC. (no need to beat me up there is a lot of sarcasm in this post on purpose). :lol:

If only there was a way to do C&R for Elk/Deer. Hmmmm.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

I guess I'm dense here but I am still having a hard time understanding what PBH is trying to say. E-mails are an acceptable and recommended way to contact RAC and Wildlife Board members. The DWR on their website goes out of their way to explain how anglers can contact their representatives via an e-mail. I see virtually nothing that states that if a sportsman wants his voice heard he MUST attend a RAC meeting in person. As Grandpa D said, this the modern world. This month I get to register and pay my vehicle taxes and fees to the DMV on-line. I don't have to show up in person to do this. Why is Perkins demanding that anglers have to show up in person to a RAC meeting? Why doesn't the RAC's or Wildlife Board refuse to accept e-mails if this is the case? They could just reject all e-mails and say something like 'Dear Sportsman: thanks for the interest and concern but your e-mail will be deleted and not read. You must show up in person to a meeting before we will listen to you'.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I do have to ask PBH and anyone else one question about all this. If 280remington and others *had* gone to the Southern RAC on this cycle, would it have made any difference? In light of some of the quotes in the transcript and other actions, I might suggest no.

It could be that instead of merely bashing the people wanting change, Mr. Perkins has tried to give those that want different regs a template of action on the next cycle that will remove a number of automatic "excuses" that rebuffed them before. It will be interesting to see what will happen next year and what the folks that want it the same will do to counter. 
o-||


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

Catheder, I get the impression this is a controversial subject and there is more to this than I know about. After hearing Perkins and reading the transcript it is apparent any angler that would have shown up was stepping into a lion's den. I get the impression anybody that would have shown up wouldn't have made a difference. I am just assuming this. But I will explain my personal involvement. I work two jobs and couldn't attend the RAC meeting. I live a ways from Beaver. In August I sent an e-mail to Flinders on the RAC, it was very brief. All I really said is I have personally seen the size of the rainbows at Panguitch really go down since they were taken out of the slot and I would like to have the slot placed back on. That was basically my entire e-mail. That is why I find it somewhat offensive that Perkins is demanding that I take off work and drive all that way to say something that took me two minutes to write in an e-mail. Then a few months ago when I saw more about the problem at Panguitch on this website I felt compelled to write a little longer e-mail to the Wildlife Board. I wrote the e-mail because I thought it would be foolish for me to take off work and drive all the way to Salt Lake and talk for two minutes. I think Perkins has more going on internally and is stewing about something and like I said I am not privy to what others know only my personal experiences at Panguitch.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> I do have to ask PBH and anyone else one question about all this. If 280remington and others *had* gone to the Southern RAC on this cycle, would it have made any difference? In light of some of the quotes in the transcript and other actions, I might suggest no.





RichardClarke said:


> After hearing Perkins and reading the transcript it is apparent any angler that would have shown up was stepping into a lion's den. I get the impression anybody that would have shown up wouldn't have made a difference.


I disagree with both of you. The DWR went to the southern RAC prepared with a presentation to encourage the creation of a committee to evaluate the current management plan of Panguitch Lake. The intent would be to look at current strategies, including current regulations, and determine a new course of action. The RAC basically said "why? there is no one here to discuss it."

Again, at the Board meeting the DWR brought up the creation of a committee. It is unclear to me, after listening to and reading the transcript, exactly the outcome. The Board again said: "why? there are no anglers here to discuss changes".

The problem, at least in my eyes, is that the DWR is trying to get anglers involved -- they've had multiple open houses, and invited anglers to speak out regarding what they want done with Panguitch. However, anglers don't show up to the meetings, and thus the Board looks at that "participation" (or lack of) and says "why?".

I do think that had 1 person representing either themselves or a group showed up at the RAC or the Board meeting we would currently be looking at the formation of a committee with the assignment of evaluating the current management plan at Panguitch.

Perkins is a good guy. He wants good things, and he's one of 2 Board members that I believe has a solid background in wildlife decision making. He's actually on sportsmen's side, and he wants good things for us. He expressed his disappointment at anglers, which I feel was well deserved: We complain in emails, and on forums, but we can't back up those complaints with any action. Many people have mentioned in this very thread that this is a new age -- a digital era where we should be able to sit behind our keyboards and simply type up a comment, a complaint, or a suggestion from the comfort of our office, or home. We are in a new age. Computers are now able to do what driving to a lake or stream used to do. I live a ways from my favorite fishing hole -- so, Bassmaster 2012 for Xbox here I come!

It's one thing to send someone an email complaining about a regulation. It's another thing entirely to show up at a public meeting and speak directly to those same people face to face and express your opinion verbally. Hopefully we'll all learn something from this, and figure this RAC /WB game out.

(I'm still not hopeless with Panguitch)


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

PBH thanks for that long response. I guess it is my turn to disagree with you. You still haven't convinced me why I have to attend a RAC or Wildlife Board meeting in lieu of sending an e-mail. Does the RAC really need to have a face or a body to associate with the problem or suggestion? I have no idea how many e-mails were sent regarding Panguitch. If it was 10 or 2000 it sounds to me that you and Perkins are saying that still isn't good enough. I guess I was supposed to show up at the meeting and say 'howdy I am Richard Clarke I took off work and drove two hours to get here, please bear with me while I stand here for 90 seconds and read my e-mail out loud to you'. Also if I remember a person can't talk for more than 5 minutes right? So I was supposed to drive four hours round trip to Beaver to talk for 5 minutes max. No wonder nobody that is a fisherman shows up. No wonder people send e-mails instead. Grampa D is right man this process is outdated.

Again I have to say if e-mails aren't the proper way to convey an idea the DWR should not encourage people from sending them. What I heard in the audio piece was someone from the DWR suggested if the committee was started up again it would consist of the same members as before. Forgive me for being ignorant but wouldn't that get the same conclusion as before? If it is the same members as before how could the end result be expected to change? The smartest idea mentioned was the guy that said they should involve someone from Nevada since the majority of anglers that fish Panguitch are from Nevada. It seems the most vocal and vested people in this issue are the people that want bigger rainbows and the Nevada fishermen and guess what, neither of those two groups were on the last committee and it doesn't sound like they will be on a future committee either. Why did 1/3 of the committee have to be Panguitch Lake business owners? Couldn't the business owners just pick one person to represent their interests? Catheder I believe is onto something, it sounds like a stacked deck to me. PBH the more I read your stuff and listen to the audio and read the text I believe anglers wanting a change here are toast and the DWR and the Wildlife Board decided they like things just the way they are. Like Catheder pointed out, convince us that if someone would have taken the time and gone to the meeting it would have mattered. The RAC and Board and DWR could have said 'hey man we are getting a butt load of e-mails on this Panguitch Lake deal let's form a committee to study it again'. But that didn't happen and you and Perkins claim the reason that didn't happen is one or two guys didn't show up in person and read their e-mails out loud. PBH you must work for the DWR or the Board or know someone that does. Something isn't adding up here and the more I read your stuff the more skeptical of you I am getting. Sorry. Don't take it personal but something isn't adding up here.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

PBH I found a major flaw in your argument after re-reading your last post. Ok you claim that the DWR had a presentation prepared and all teed up to present at the RAC. You claim this presentation was to convince the RAC to form a Panguitch committee. But here is where you hung yourself and the ***** in your armor, then why didn't the DWR write back to the people that e-mailed them and urge them to attend the RAC meeting? Why didn't the DWR simply write back and say 'hey thanks for the good e-mail, but to help your cause it would be beneficial if you could find the time and show up at the RAC meeting'. They never did that, if they were begging and desperate for people to show up and discuss Panguitch wouldn't the logical thing to have done was craft a simple request that maybe they should try to attend the RAC meeting if possible? I sent e-mails to Flinders on the RAC, the biologists in the southern region and the wildlife board and not one of them responded and said it would help my cause if I showed up in person. Dude if you want somebody to come to your party you have to send out an invite. You can't throw a party, not invite anybody, then complain that nobody showed. PBH I am skeptical of you and find flaws in your arguments. Sorry. I will shut up now.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Richard -- I appreciate your responses. The DWR held open houses to discus fishing related issues. They invited, published, sent out new releases, and personally invited anglers to come out to the open houses. They held one in Richfield and one in St. George. I could count the number of anglers on 1 hand that showed up.

RAC meetings, their agendas, notes, etc. are all posted on the internet. Messages are posted all over concerning upcoming meetings. What more does the DWR need to do to invite anglers?

You think that the DWR and WB/RAC has some hidden agenda together -- I don't believe they do. I feel that the southern region biologists are trying to do everything they can get anglers involved with Panguitch Lake -- in fact, the DWR was AGAINST the current regulations at Panguitch, which were imposed by the WB.

You believe that the deck is stacked against you (anglers). I have to wonder if the deck is stacked against anglers because anglers continue to fail to get involved on a personal level.

The suggested committee was not to be made up of "the same people" from an individual perspective, but from a group perspective. A committee made up including anglers, business owners, and others with a vested interest in Panguitch. They certainly would not use the exact same individuals. Give these guys a little bit of credit.

If you guys feel that things should change, then make it happen. But I worry that sitting behind a keyboard is the wrong way to make those changes.




It's voting day. How many of you will email your vote?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Just a couple more thoughts, then you guys can go on your merry way:

1. Email is very good for "yes" and "no" type questions. It is a poor medium to use for communication with complicated "conversations". Email conversations can very easily be misinterpreted. Emotions are hard to convey with text. For one-way communication that require little discussion, then email is certainly the best and most effective communication vehicle.

2. Many businesses caution against using email exclusively. Face to face meetings reduce the potential for miscommunication. Meetings allow for individuals to share ideas and feedback with the benefit of facial expressions, vocal emphasis, and body language; all of which are essential to good communication.

3. If the topic will involve debate or requires reaching a group consensus then a meeting is appropriate to address the matter at hand. 

4. The inability to develop personal rapport over email makes relationships fragile, especially when in a situation of conflict. Personal relationships are important.

5. My final thought on email communication vs. public meetings, or face-to-face communication: technology (email, text messaging, internet forums) makes us lazy. Have we forgotten how to communicate? Of course, I believe that "not communicting" is the point of many email and text messages. Oh how easy it is to just send an email, and NOT have to talk to someone!


I think it is a very slippery slope we're traveling by trying to use exclusively email and do away with a public forum. Obviously, there are some shortcomings withe the RAC process, and obviously some things need to change. Real communication takes effort, but it is vital. Communication is important, and should certainly not be limited to electronic means.


Personally I think this is why Ernie Perkins was upset with the lack of anglers showing up to any meetings. Of course, he's "old school", and times have changed...


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> 2. Many businesses caution against using email exclusively. Face to face meetings reduce the potential for miscommunication. Meetings allow for individuals to share ideas and feedback with the benefit of facial expressions, vocal emphasis, and body language; all of which are essential to good communication.


Many times this is a "personal" shortcoming of the individual and can manifest itself whether they are writing an email or standing in front of a group.

An email allows an individual to sit down and write out what he/she is trying to say. Review it for errors and sometimes delete it if it crosses too many lines. I've seen many times in "public forums" individuals who can't control their feelings/emotions not be able to get their point across. Also what about those people who struggle with speaking in front of a group (isn't that one of biggest phobias in the world - public speaking). They might be able to go but it would be hard for them to voice their opinion. It too should be a vital component of this process and shouldn't be thrown aside just because a WB/RAC member isn't comfortable with it.

I disagree with the general "lazy" comment as well. Yeah it makes some lazy, but not all. I believe most of us use this medium due to time constraints, not because we are lazy. I've got to pick and choose my commitments outside of the family/church/scouts/work/etc. just like everyone else. If someone can make the meeting i think that is great, but when we have this medium so readily available to gather input/share ideas from across the state instantly, it seems a little stupid to just throw it aside. Doesn't it?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> PBH said:
> 
> 
> > 2. Many businesses caution against using email exclusively. Face to face meetings reduce the potential for miscommunication. Meetings allow for individuals to share ideas and feedback with the benefit of facial expressions, vocal emphasis, and body language; all of which are essential to good communication.
> ...


"Time constraints" can also be labeled as priorities. So, if one's priorities aren't conducive to showing up to a RAC meeting, should they have reason or right to complain about the outcome? Afterall, it wasn't a "priority", right?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

What all this boils down to is that Ernie Perkins and the WB has come out and told anglers what needs to happen for anglers to make a difference in fishing regulations....like the method or not, they have given you as an angler the opportunity. Now, as anglers, we have to take the initiative to do what they have told us and put the pressure back on them. The WB has basically come back and told the anglers that emails are NOT enough! You can either listen to them, or you can sit behind your computer and bitch and moan...it is your choice.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> JuddCT said:
> 
> 
> > PBH said:
> ...


I agree and I'll keep my priorities where they are (family/church/scouts/work/etc.). My point is that the RAC/WB doesn't know each and everyones reasons for not being at that meeting (they can make the general assumption that is because Anglers/Hunters are "LAZY" and don't care but that is a lame a** generalization to put it kindly). Like I said before, I'm glad certain people can make such meetings to voice their opinions directly to the WB/RAC, but some of us simply can't and an email to said WB/RAC voicing concern should not be thrown to the wayside. Simple as that!

PBH said something about voting. Is my vote really counted as equal in the RAC/WB meetings? If so they really need to state this and maybe it will be a higher priority in the future. But based on the RAC/WB meetings I've gone to or listened to the live audio I haven't noticed anyone tallying my vote. PLEASE GET OUT AND VOTE TODAY. That is where your opinion really matters and where your vote is counted as equal to everyone elses.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> What all this boils down to is that Ernie Perkins and the WB has come out and told anglers what needs to happen for anglers to make a difference in fishing regulations....like the method or not, they have given you as an angler the opportunity. Now, as anglers, we have to take the initiative to do what they have told us and put the pressure back on them. The WB has basically come back and told the anglers that emails are NOT enough! You can either listen to them, or you can sit behind your computer and female dog and moan...it is your choice.


I understand and like I stated before I'm fine with our current fishing regs and couldn't care about Panguitch Lake. I just disagree with the stand they have taken regarding public comment/opinion and the method of which they will respond/give credit. Continue on!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > JuddCT said:
> ...


So, what's the difference between someone who "simply can't" and someone that shows up? I still see it as a choice.

Also, contextually, Ernie's comments make sense. In my mind he was speaking to the people that have an opinion on the matter, but *chose* not to show up. Lazy? Dunno, but it definitely didn't matter enough. IMO, It's all about choices, can't doesn't fly. If it did, it could be used as an excuse in any situation one chose to use it in.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> So, what's the difference between someone who "simply can't" and someone that shows up? I still see it as a choice.
> 
> Also, contextually, Ernie's comments make sense. In my mind he was speaking to the people that have an opinion on the matter, but *chose* not to show up. Lazy? Dunno, but it definitely didn't matter enough. IMO, It's all about choices, can't doesn't fly. If it did, it could be used as an excuse in any situation one chose to use it in.


Look Tree, I agree with the whole priorities thing and I agree with you that there is a choice in everything. But isn't this one of the bigger reasons why the UWC was created? To be the voice of the "average outdoorsman". Well I guarantee you the average outdoorsman chooses not to attend these meetings or even listen to their outcomes. Isn't that one of the reasons why the UWC is out there?



> *UWC offers a presence at public meetings including all RAC & WILDLIFE BOARD meetings. UWC will be there, and will be heard.*


This is a big reason I donated and joined the UWC because as an average outdoorsman it is hard to make the choice to attend all of these meetings and believe that my voice/opinion matters. I'll continue to write my emails/letters to the WB members when issues arise that I feel strongly about.

On a side note: Who was "our" representative at this meeting and what was the stance of the UWC on the matter? Did Ernie Give credit to the UWC and all of its members as if they were there? I guess I'd like to know how a entity of combined sportsman are viewed?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> > *UWC offers a presence at public meetings including all RAC & WILDLIFE BOARD meetings. UWC will be there, and will be heard.*
> 
> 
> This is a big reason I donated and joined the UWC because as an average outdoorsman it is hard to make the choice to attend all of these meetings and believe that my voice/opinion matters. I'll continue to write my emails/letters to the WB members when issues arise that I feel strongly about.


If you donated to UWC and joined their group, and were under the impression that UWC would show up and voice their support/disagreement, and they didn't show up - I'd find a new group to support...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I guess if you feel "strongly" about something, you will show up and voice an opinion....I am glad that my parents always found it important enough to them to support me in person during the important times of my life instead of just sending an email or writing a letter. I can just imagine how well it would have gone over had my parents just wrote me an email congratulating me on my wedding or the birth of my first boy...if it really matters enough, you will show up!


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I guess if you feel "strongly" about something, you will show up and voice an opinion....I am glad that my parents always found it important enough to them to support me in person during the important times of my life instead of just sending an email or writing a letter. I can just imagine how well it would have gone over had my parents just wrote me an email congratulating me on my wedding or the birth of my first boy...if it really matters enough, you will show up!


Are you really comparing family priorities with fishing? :lol: They don't even come close! Although when done at the same time they are still a family priority!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> Are you really comparing family priorities with fishing? :lol:


I thought fishing _WAS_ the family priority?

grandpa once told grandma (after coming home late from a day of fishing): "there are 3 things in life that are important. Fishing, beer, and you [grandma]. Keep them straight, and we'll stick together for a long time!"

sound advice.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

What I am saying is that when something is really important, we do more than just send a note or letter...we show up! The message anglers sent was that the matter wasn't that important...


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

A couple of thoughts.....

First if the RAC's pass something by majority the WB has to be really convinced to go against it. So first convincing the RAC's in ALL 5 REGIONS is a critical step in getting something passed. The WB still has the power to override the RAC's but having RAC support can go a long way.

Second emails are definitely a good thing but let me put something out there for you to consider. If you are a RAC member and you get 2 emails in support of something yet no one shows up (including a sportsmans org) to support a measure then how convinced would you be as a RAC member that you need to support it? If you get 30 emails and 5 people show up and you have a sportsmans org also supporting something you've got a powerful message I can promise you that.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Chris, I get that you thought that maybe I was leaning on you personally, I wasn't, so my apologies if you felt my statements were just for you.

The gist was that "civic" duty is becoming less and less common, even with items of great concern to individuals. I've been a member of almost every major conservation org. in the state. I can tell you that every single org. struggles with getting active participants in whatever capacity. This is part of the problem we are faced with today. The public as a whole is virtually inactive, so really successful orgs. have found it necessary to make it a business and pay the people who run them. Well, who's gonna show up to all of this stuff time and time again? The paid org. guys, cause it's their day job. 

I'm not diminishing the effort that goes into contacting RAC, board and division folks, but as bullsnot mentioned, warm bodies get the respect and are listened to. 

It really does only take a handful of people at these meetings to get noticed and listened to. In the days of post RAC DH hours, a turnout of more than 20 is fairly amazing. Of those that show up, I speculate from experience that less than 15% of them get up and say something. Plenty grumble, but few stand.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> A couple of thoughts.....
> 
> First if the RAC's pass something by majority the WB has to be really convinced to go against it. So first convincing the RAC's in ALL 5 REGIONS is a critical step in getting something passed. The WB still has the power to override the RAC's but having RAC support can go a long way.
> 
> Second emails are definitely a good thing but let me put something out there for you to consider. If you are a RAC member and you get 2 emails in support of something yet no one shows up (including a sportsmans org) to support a measure then how convinced would you be as a RAC member that you need to support it? If you get 30 emails and 5 people show up and you have a sportsmans org also supporting something you've got a powerful message I can promise you that.


I'm sorry to say this, but hog wash. If I as an individual was to voice my opinion in the current format of RAC's and that opinion was different then that of the WB, I would get less thought by the WB then the E-Mails. To say that I as an individual would be taken at the same level respect as others that are well known to WB members, whether as an individual or group does not happen. Period.......


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Chris, I get that you thought that maybe I was leaning on you personally, I wasn't, so my apologies if you felt my statements were just for you.
> 
> The gist was that "civic" duty is becoming less and less common, even with items of great concern to individuals. I've been a member of almost every major conservation org. in the state. I can tell you that every single org. struggles with getting active participants in whatever capacity. This is part of the problem we are faced with today. The public as a whole is virtually inactive, so really successful orgs. have found it necessary to make it a business and pay the people who run them. Well, who's gonna show up to all of this stuff time and time again? The paid org. guys, cause it's their day job.
> 
> ...


No problem, just keeping you on your toes! :lol:


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A couple of points worth discussing.

1.


bullsnot said:


> if the RAC's pass something by majority the WB has to be really convinced to go against it. So first convincing the RAC's in ALL 5 REGIONS is a critical step in getting something passed. The WB still has the power to override the RAC's but having RAC support can go a long way.


That is an issue with respect to the RAC's that has always concerned me. While an issue like the new deer hunting management is a statewide concern, most fishing issues are regional. Panguitch lake is certainly a big deal in the Southern region, but many folks in the North could care less about it. I don't think that is unusual with most angling issues that come up. When I attended the Central regional open house, the scope of the discussion was pretty much restricted to Central waters (and regs). I don't have an easy solution to this, but it would seem to me that the region where the issue resides ought to have a lively discussion at that RAC meeting and as we saw, it didn't happen in this case.

2.


JuddCT said:


> On a side note: Who was "our" representative at this meeting and what was the stance of the UWC on the matter? Did Ernie Give credit to the UWC and all of its members as if they were there? I guess I'd like to know how a entity of combined sportsman are viewed?


I am not a UWC board member, just a fishing "advisor" and if I say something wrong, Bullsnot, feel free to slap me down, but the UWC did submit opinion about Panguitch lake. The results showed that 2 of 3 members do favor rainbows being back in the slot. However, I am not aware that we were solicited to advance any formal proposals by our members. In communications with others in UWC, we were expecting others to advance RAC proposals at the Southern RAC and then we would act in support accordingly (based on our survey). Obviously, this didn't happen.

If the membership formally want us to advance a specific PL proposal next cycle, I will be happy to help, as I bet the board will too. While I have some interest in PL because I used to regularly fish there a decade ago, it hasn't been "my fight" of late because I don't live down there anymore and I haven't felt I was as informed as I should .


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Speaking of fishing, UWC has 2 service projects on Saturday, one on the middle weeb. I'll be there with my rod and a smile. Consider this an invite to all readers. :lol: SEE YOU THERE!!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Huntoholic said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > A couple of thoughts.....
> ...


We aren't even talking about the same thing....so to give a rebuttle here would be pointless.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Speaking of fishing, UWC has 2 service projects on Saturday, one on the middle weeb. I'll be there with my rod and a smile. Consider this an invite to all readers. :lol: SEE YOU THERE!!


I know, and it also is my anniversary. I guess it dovetails into the priorities discussion, but Mrs. Catherder's plans and priorities for the day dictate that I won't be able to come.  (My back really aches when I sleep on the couch.)


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Haha, perfect segue.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Yeah it is my daughter's 5th birthday on Sat as well. But I'm still holding out hope that I can go for a short amount of time in the morning and jet back to Draper.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > bullsnot said:
> ...


Maybe I used the wrong term RAC member vs WB, but the problem is still the same. People provide a response via E-mail because it is convenient. It does and should provide the RAC/WB with input, that should be weighed equally with all other forms of input. To indicate that the support (in favor or not) for the subject of this thread only has validity if an individual shows up is what is wrong with the system. It is like saying your vote is only good if you go to Washington D.C and cast it.
I got tired of going to these type of meeting, when while I'm talking their attention was in other places. Hence that is also, I thought why, UWC was started.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Huntaholic, you are right on all accounts, but the fact still remains that most involved view people showing up in person as more valid than an email, letter or phone call. an email is the least common denominator. To me, The fact that being there in person is more valid is more a result of the audience, not the WB or the RAC. 

When certain individuals raise the bar by writing emails and making phone calls and on top of that, they show up in person, it can't help but send a message to the powers that be that they are more serious and passionate than the guy who just sent an email. As unfortunate as it may be, it's not something I see changing.

Put it this way, If I throw an open invitation to the neighborhood kids to come shovel horse **** out of my stalls for an equal hourly pay and one kid shows up for 3 hours a day, compared to the others that show up randomly, when the time comes for me to hire a permanent **** shoveler, I'm going to that kid first. That part of the equation is completely sensical. Now, there are obviously some differences between the politics in wildlife management and shoveling ****, but seeing someones face time and time again, whether in a meeting or otherwise, is in many cases how anyone in this system has accomplished anything.

So I guess what I'm asking is, if there's a problem, what's the alternative? And, if the RAC receives a much larger number of emails on a certain topic, some of them being fairly acrid and impassioned but no one shows up to the meeting, what message does that send?

Be clear, I'm not sitting here saying that I agree with any of it, but I'm not seeing a clear plausible alternative.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

"Tree"
The point is that the E-Mail should not be the least common denominator. There should be no bar to raise. Their job is to weigh information from the public. All information, from all groups, in all forms. 

There is a reason for each type of input or form. If I'm expressing a opinion and not looking for a response, then an E-mail, letter, or 30 seconds at a podium are good platforms to do this. Each should be viewed and weighed the same. If I'm looking for interaction, then phones, luncheons, or longer periods at a podium (where the members engage with the speaker) are the platforms that would be used. But when it is time to vote and I have a hundred E-mails that say "A" and one speaker at a RAC that says "B", then that member better be heading to "A".

You asked if there is a problem and I'm telling you, Yes. Is all the problem with the board members, No. The tough part for the board members is they are dealing with the public. We are all not elegant at speaking or expressing are opinions. But respecting the fact that time was taken to express an opinion, in what ever form, would be a good place to start. 

And as far as recieving a large number of e-mails and nobody showing up, it tells me that people have lost faith in the RAC meeting itself. 

Maybe an alternative for Ernie is to try to understand why people have stop coming to the RAC's. I know I would go if I thought my opinion mattered.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

There are some excellent points here. I think there are a couple of different camps. There is the group that wants to bag on anglers as being lazy because they have the energy to send an e-mail but not drive to a RAC meeting. Then there is the group that thinks there are flaws with the system that need improved upon. A couple of key points that have been said before but bear repeating. The RAC and WB process was established before there was widespread internet and e-mail. That is a problem in my opinion. Times change. With fishing, Catheder is spot on about the regional and geographic issues. Fishermen tend to care more about fisheries right near their home base. Why should a RAC located in Vernal in the northeastern region even be allowed to weigh in on an issue involving a place such as Panguitch in the southern region? Ridiculous. Lastly let's think for a minute or two about the youngsters and our future hunters. Right now those kids are 12 maybe up to 16 years old. They can't drive. But what if a 15 year old kid wanted to weigh in on the future of hunting or fishing with an idea. Ernie Perkins would tell the poor kid 'ya better get a ride from your mother's boyfriend to a meeting, cuz I aint going to read yer e-mail son'. Also remember some people are uncomfortable and ineffective when making a presentation in front of a crowd. They are better off doing it when they can take the time to craft a letter. But the most important thing we have to remember is even if a person does attend a meeting they are only allowed 300 seconds to make their point. Rules are rules and a person is only given a piddly 5 minutes of a time slot to get their point across. With an e-mail a person can provide attachments, cut and paste from different sources, attach photos, and so forth. It is much harder to do this by standing in front of a group of strangers and only having 300 seconds to get your message across.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

RichardClarke said:


> .... With fishing, Catheder is spot on about the regional and geographic issues. Fishermen tend to care more about fisheries right near their home base. Why should a RAC located in Vernal in the northeastern region even be allowed to weigh in on an issue involving a place such as Panguitch in the southern region? Ridiculous......


I humbly disagree with this part. Sportsman care about the areas they use the most. And the area I use might be in the farthest part of the state. While I only may make it a few times or even just once a year still should not have a bearing as to the weight that is put on to my opinion. I am a resident of Utah. This is my state as well. Every part of it. And if I take the time to write an E-mail, Letter, phone call, stand up in a RAC, or have a conversation at the local pub, they should all be given the same respect, attention, and weight of merit. To ignore, blow off, roll the eyes, or any other action that shows disrespect is unexceptable. From any board members point of view that is the hard part. Dealing with the public is not easy. Some of us are crack pots. But their job is to receive all our inputs with respect. If not, there is no need for them.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

Double H my point is more about RAC's and how they have drawn lines in the sand based on regions. Please continue to read on past the fishermen part. The point I was trying to make is should Northeastern RAC members vote on an issue that only impacts a southern region water? There are five regions I would hate to see a scenario where an issue is only specific to one region and the other regions actually go against the wishes of that region's RAC. If I recall that is what happened a number of years ago on an issue with the Middle Provo river. The central region RAC, where the Middle Provo is located, actually voted against a proposal. But other regions, far away from the Middle Provo voted for it and it passed!

Also you stated this is your state and you are a resident of Utah and you want to weigh in on all issues regarding Utah. I don't dispute that. But what about enviro liberals in New York City or San Francisco that want to tell Utah how to run it's federal lands? Isn't it the same argument? They are residents of the United States and national forests and parks are property of all people of the United States.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

RichardClarke said:


> Double H my point is more about RAC's and how they have drawn lines in the sand based on regions. Please continue to read on past the fishermen part. The point I was trying to make is should Northeastern RAC members vote on an issue that only impacts a southern region water? There are five regions I would hate to see a scenario where an issue is only specific to one region and the other regions actually go against the wishes of that region's RAC. If I recall that is what happened a number of years ago on an issue with the Middle Provo river. The central region RAC, where the Middle Provo is located, actually voted against a proposal. But other regions, far away from the Middle Provo voted for it and it passed!
> 
> Also you stated this is your state and you are a resident of Utah and you want to weigh in on all issues regarding Utah. I don't dispute that. But what about enviro liberals in New York City or San Francisco that want to tell Utah how to run it's federal lands? Isn't it the same argument? They are residents of the United States and national forests and parks are property of all people of the United States.


These are great points/questions and they are tough to address. For me, I guess that I try to find the middle of the ground and then work out from there. But in my mind these kind of issues would come under the evaluation of the issue by the board members. I believe this is the toughest part of their jobs. It is also an easy task to get out of hand.

In the issue above on the middle, the fact that the one wanted it and the rest did not does not make the final out come wrong.

Instead of Ernie ripping on anglers for not showing up in person, he should instead focus on the inputs that have been presented, in what ever form, evaluate, and then vote. But if and I say "If" members are ignoring input for some lame reason, they should find a new job.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

Double H: Bingo! After six plus pages of this topic you nailed it. Perkins flipped his wig and went beserk over all of these e-mails and zero public appearances at the RACs. Isn't his job to evaluate and discuss these e-mails? He was so bent on calling out anglers he actually forget what the [email protected]# his job was supposed to be! Thanks to Perkins none of these e-mails were discussed or evaluated. We have no idea what the proposals were or what the public wanted. He took the podium and whined about the delivery of the ideas and somehow forgot about actually discussing the public's comments!!!!!!!!


----------



## Flyfish4thrills (Jan 2, 2008)

1. Please tell me which Nevadans (Las Vegans) drove 3.5 hrs one way to Beaver, UT to a Southern Rac meeting? Or how about a local business owner? However, the Wildlife Board and DWR surely defended their interests at the meeting. $$$$$$$$$$$


2. It seems like the S. RAC/ Wildlife Board is more upset that people didn't show in person to the S. Rac so they could confront their retractors rather than give ideas. This is shown here: "P4:Thank you Bill. No, I'm not trying to discourage that but the idea that something that has those types of allegations flying around and nobody even comes to the rac meeting to express them is just a.. abhorrent to me."

3. It appears that the RAC and Wildlife Board really don't want public input. Compare where you can purchase a license and how convenient it is (every little town with a sporting goods store or a Walmart, etc. or better yet, buy it online) vs the ease of attending a rac meeting (only one location, many hours away from the high public density of the region). They show with their actions that emails mean nothing. However, license sales = important, public input = not so important. Similarly to what Huntaholic stated, 1 person showing at a rac meeting against item "A" means more than 100 emails in favor of item "A". That is wrong. (especially considering how Nevadans won't be showing). St. George has 25 times the population of Beaver and is a heck of a lot closer to Nevada, so why not move the RAC meeting there? Cedar has 7 times the population. Put voting booths near the voters!!! Don't complain about voter turnout when the booths are hours away! It is if they want the deck stacked and then have an excuse for doing as they wish. 

4. I still think that if even 40 anglers showed up in favor of the rainbow slot, they would state that, "You are all flyfisherman and Utahns, which make up a small percentage of the fisherman. Nevadans make up over 50%. So thanks for the input, but we'll do what keeps bringing in the money regardless of results to the fishery. Since out of state license are 2.5 times as much as in state, the money talks. When it comes to Panguitch, your voice means nothing unless it coincides with the money flow and the pre-designed choices of who makes the decisions. That is why I really don't want to waste the many hours it takes to attend a RAC meeting about Panguitch. Other waters? Sure.

5. I wrote the Wildlife Board an email and sadly received no reply. In a nutshell, here is my opinion on the lake. My preference is to put the lake under artificial flies and lures only regs (we know that's never gonna' happen :lol: ). My biggest peeve is that on two different occasions last month, when leaving the lake, 2 different anglers bragged about catching and releasing with bait, 50 - 70 fish, cutts and bows alike. I wonder how many times they cut the lines and left their hooks in the fish, increasing their chance for survival and re-geared their lines vs simply ripping their guts out and killing the fish, then "releasing it"? I also wonder how many of them can tell the difference between a Bear Lake cutt and a rainbow? 

Why not have regs that 1.bait fisherman must keep the first 4 fish caught, regardless of size or species (as they will die anyways after ripping out their guts)? 2. Make catch and "release"(kill) using bait prohibited. This way, bait fisherman don't have to worry about differentiating species, they have a chance to keep a fish that was once in the slot, and more fish ultimately survive. 3. When doing any other style of fishing, you must obey the slot limit. 4. And put rainbows back in the slot so afl fisherman only have to worry about length. I don't know if that would work (or any combination of that), but how I see the current regs, the fishery is on a fast decline. You can't count on the local businesses to do what is best for the fishery (even though they think it is their private water). They didn't want to treat it in the first place! They would have rather left it as 99% chubs than to lose any business. I guess there are 5 - 10 more years of decent fishing and then crap until it is finally treated again.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

There were 9 members on the original Panguitch Lake Advisory Committee. Three of them were Panguitch Lake business owners. That shows how the deck is stacked. Who gets to pick the members of this committee, who decided that a full 1/3 should be business owners? You are right the Nevadans and the business owners were virtually invisible during this whole process but man they sure got represented. The DWR and the Wildlife Board had no problem expressing the concerns they had with the Nevadans and business owners. How many of them went to the RAC or sent e-mails? But man they sure got represented. It might be too late this year to impact a change. But maybe the effort or cause we need to focus on is making sure this new committee will be fair and all interested parties represented evenly, not slanted towards one group. Anybody know when this committee will be formed? There was an article in the Salt Lake tribune yesterday about the need for a committee to be set up.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

just one last thing on this topic, and I'm done: Just because the majority wants it does NOT mean it's the right thing to do.

I'm all for having votes, and having opinions weighed equally, etc. But when it comes down to it, sometimes we're wrong. This may not be the case with the current Panguitch Lake management. But that is something that everyone needs to keep in mind. Sometimes anglers don't fully understand the dynamics of fisheries management, and thus even if they have an idea that the majority are in favor of, it may not be the right decision to make.

With regards to Panguitch Lake -- I believe the DWR is doing everything they can to work with anglers in coming up with a solution to manage the lake how anglers want it managed. Remember, the DWR MUST also participate in the RAC /WB process, and sometimes they don't get what they want either. It doesn't mean they aren't trying. The proposal to form a committee to review the current plan is plenty of evidence to me that the DWR _wants_ some changes. Unfortunately, the W.B. and RACs have prevented them from doing this recently.

I'm honestly glad that so many people are upset with Ernie's comments. I think Ernie is getting exactly what he intended. This was a wake-up call for all of us -- and whether we attend meetings or not, I think we're all more aware of what we need to do if we want to see changes in the future.

RichardClarke -- can I make a suggestion for you? Please call the southern region biologists (Mike Ottenbacher) and ask them how you can get involved in the Panguitch Lake committee. (I can get you phone numbers if you want) What better way to make sure that your interests are met, and that things are fair with all interested parties?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Huntoholic said:


> Maybe I used the wrong term RAC member vs WB, but the problem is still the same. People provide a response via E-mail because it is convenient. It does and should provide the RAC/WB with input, that should be weighed equally with all other forms of input. To indicate that the support (in favor or not) for the subject of this thread only has validity if an individual shows up is what is wrong with the system. It is like saying your vote is only good if you go to Washington D.C and cast it.
> I got tired of going to these type of meeting, when while I'm talking their attention was in other places. Hence that is also, I thought why, UWC was started.


Well here is what I'm saying in a nutshell.

If WB/RAC members only get a few emails on a subject they will view this as only a "light" desire from the public for something.

If the WB/RAC members get some emails AND some folks show up they will view this as the public desire for something is "stronger".

If the WB/RAC members get emails, some folks from the public show up, AND you have an org show up lobbying for something then this is view as a "very strong" public desire.

I'm not saying TO ME that an email means less than physical precense, I'm just saying that if no one shows up it's generally viewed as "not all that important" to the public. If I got 1,000 emails all saying the same thing and not one person showed up, I'd still view it as a pretty important thing to the public.

It's a complex formula with many variables BUT I will say this, I have heard certain WB members say that emails don't mean as much as people showing up because it shows "how strongly" they really feel about it. I won't name names but I've heard it said behind closed doors. I perosnally don't agree with that but it's out there.

I do think that orgs, like UWC, do carry a lot of weight. But again if you add on top of that emails and people show up then you have ceated a very powerful argument. As a conservation org grow in membership the message they carry gets more and more powerful but RAC/WB members always want to hear from folks that are not part of any org to see the bigger picture.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Huntoholic said:


> RichardClarke said:
> 
> 
> > .... With fishing, Catheder is spot on about the regional and geographic issues. Fishermen tend to care more about fisheries right near their home base. Why should a RAC located in Vernal in the northeastern region even be allowed to weigh in on an issue involving a place such as Panguitch in the southern region? Ridiculous......
> ...


I too don't necessarily buy this one. Where the water is located is irrelevant. People from all over the state use specific waters. Some are used by locals more than others and some weight should be given to that but the RAC's are spread out across the state to give people a chance to attend a meeting locally, not address issues specific to that region.

Heck Tree and I fished Panguitch this year he lives in the northern and I live the central regions. Sure you could fire back that we should drive to the southern RAC but the larger point is if my fishing license covers all waters statewide then it's a statewide issue AND not anglers at a water are local. They come from all over the state.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

As I have already said.
The system is in need of change.
Where it once was very important to attend a RAC meeting, it no longer should be needed.
It's time for the RAC and WB to accept the change in the way things are done.
Even the DWR is showing a lot of interest in online poles and surveys.

I hope the RAC and WB will get on board with this way of communication.
It will be in their best interest to accept it.
They will get a lot more input electronically than they ever will at RAC meeting.
Our emails and surveys should weigh heavily on issues at hand.

It's just time to accept that.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Grandpa D said:


> As I have already said.
> The system is in need of change.
> Where it once was very important to attend a RAC meeting, it no longer should be needed.
> It's time for the RAC and WB to accept the change in the way things are done.
> ...


I absolutely agree!

Automate it all and make the results transparent.

There's where you will get friction. The DWR PR funds depend on the public input process. Take away the process, you take away a substantial amount of their operating capitol. So, what we get is a process that in some ways exists to go through the mandatory motions to receive PR monies. IMO, to a certain degree, the powers that be, lemme scratch that, we ALL prefer a bit of gray. Things being black and white doesn't leave wiggle room and is more difficult, because we are required to toe a clear line.

If there were complete transparency and accountability an automated input system would never meet much opposition.

With that being said, it wouldn't surprise me to see an overhaul of the system, especially if the federal and state government continue to get badgered like they have. Word on the street is that more than one head is going to roll. I've even heard talk of criminal investigations. But that's a different subject.........


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

+2 Grandpa D. Heck the UWC had a meeting with the division and told them just that.


----------



## GeorgeS (Dec 22, 2010)

In defense of Ernie's comments about the emails to the WB: I believe Ernie was referring to a couple of persons who have inundated the DWR and the WB with written and emailed comments about Panguitch Lake. These people indicated that they had a proposal and that they were going to SHOW UP and present this proposal. I believe their letters and emails were strongly worded. I would be pissed if I had to endure all of this harassment and the parties didn't attend to at least give the proposal they were so adamant about. 

Yes, electronic communication is the future of this system. I don't think anyone knows how to make it effectively work in this particular situation. It seems to be a lot easier to call names via email than it does in person.

George


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

That adds a lot of context to the WB's comments. Make a lot of sense.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > RichardClarke said:
> ...


Let me clarify a bit what I originally "meant" to say. I was responding to the idea that a RAC fishing proposal being expected to pass all 5 RACs to really be considered legit. (this quote)

"So first convincing the RAC's in ALL 5 REGIONS is a critical step in getting something passed. "

Certainly, I realize that most of us have fishing and/or hunting interests that extend beyond the region where we live. I live in the Central region but 90% of the deer hunting I've ever done has taken place in the South. I fish all over the state when time allows. However, for purposes of a RAC proposal, it unfair IMO for a few people from St George to be expected to present a proposal about a Southern water to all 5 RACs in order to obtain legitimacy. It seems to me that presenting it to the Southern RAC would be sufficient and if it passes, then it should be considered by the board. Expecting that much travel of a few people discourages participation in "grass roots" efforts IMO and limits proposals to the "big guys" like SFW.

One last thing and then I think I'm done with this too. When we were fighting HB141 and 187 in the legislature a few years ago, we started out with emails. However, it soon became apparent that face-to-face encounters with the reps worked the best and gave us respect we otherwise wouldn't have received. When I took days off and drove up to the Capitol to talk to my rep, the first thing he said to me was, "you drove clear up here today to talk to me about this fishing thing?" but then he truly listened. It was amazing that we beat 187 and sadly we lost 141 when our opposition regrouped and put in a similar effort, but there is no doubt that we would have been quickly brushed aside except for our face to face lobbying. I doubt it is any different with RACS and the WB.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Catherder said:


> However, for purposes of a RAC proposal, it unfair IMO for a few people from St George to be expected to present a proposal about a Southern water to all 5 RACs in order to obtain legitimacy. It seems to me that presenting it to the Southern RAC would be sufficient and if it passes, then it should be considered by the board. Expecting that much travel of a few people discourages participation in "grass roots" efforts IMO and limits proposals to the "big guys" like SFW.


I don't disagree with this point but there will be pro's and con's with any system. As long as you are holding face to face meetings this will be a challenge no matter system you use. If you present it in only one RAC then you are asking anyone that resides in another region to travel long distances that wants to speak on the issue. If you present it in all RAC's then one group may have to travel to all the meetings. Either way you are asking folks to travel. The idea is the get the opinion of those that are located farily close in locale and get a general concensous statewide and get a concensous among the 5 RAC's. I should've worded this better but if you convince 3 RAC's (not all 5) then you've won that battle. The WB would then have to go against the RAC's and by law give a written explanation to go against it.

This whole discussion though just add's the idea that we need a better system to gather public input although I do not believe that conversations and aloud interaction should be eliminated.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I have to wonder: should city council meetings, county commission meetings, etc., all also be updated to "online" and email based?


At some point, people MUST speak to each other face to face.


George: Bill?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Catherder said:


> One last thing and then I think I'm done with this too. When we were fighting HB141 and 187 in the legislature a few years ago, we started out with emails. However, it soon became apparent that face-to-face encounters with the reps worked the best and gave us respect we otherwise wouldn't have received. When I took days off and drove up to the Capitol to talk to my rep, the first thing he said to me was, "you drove clear up here today to talk to me about this fishing thing?" but then he truly listened. It was amazing that we beat 187 and sadly we lost 141 when our opposition regrouped and put in a similar effort, but there is no doubt that we would have been quickly brushed aside except for our face to face lobbying. I doubt it is any different with RACS and the WB.


This is what I find sad about our system. No respect by our reps unless we are lobbyist or we come out and get in somebodies face. And people wonder why the average person stops going to government type meeting or even writing letters.


----------



## GeorgeS (Dec 22, 2010)

PBH - yes he was one. There was at least one other I am aware of.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> I have to wonder: should city council meetings, county commission meetings, etc., all also be updated to "online" and email based?
> 
> At some point, people MUST speak to each other face to face.
> 
> George: Bill?


This is a very good example.
How many people show up to a City Council meeting?
Normally very few, unless there is a very hot topic going on.

The city that I work for conducts most of it's dialog with the citizens through emails and phone calls.
Complaints and problems are emailed or called in to the City and then forwarded to the appropriate Department for action.
Very few times does a citizen drive to the City Offices to make a complaint.
It just isn't necessary.

It works very well.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

PBH said:


> I have to wonder: should city council meetings, county commission meetings, etc., all also be updated to "online" and email based?
> 
> At some point, people MUST speak to each other face to face.
> 
> George: Bill?


To a point I disagree. If all, you as a rep, are looking for is an opinion on a subject, then you should not need a face to face. The majority of what happens at a government meeting is one sided. A person giving their dog & pony, then sitting down. There is no dialogue. A face to face has a place in the process, but should not be required just to be considered.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> It's a complex formula with many variables BUT I will say this, I have heard certain WB members say that emails don't mean as much as people showing up because it shows "how strongly" they really feel about it. I won't name names but I've heard it said behind closed doors. I perosnally don't agree with that but it's out there.
> 
> I do think that orgs, like UWC, do carry a lot of weight. But again if you add on top of that emails and people show up then you have ceated a very powerful argument. As a conservation org grow in membership the message they carry gets more and more powerful but RAC/WB members always want to hear from folks that are not part of any org to see the bigger picture.


I do understand that E-mails, letters and such really for the most part mean nothing to our reps. Like I said, to me that is sad and wrong. 
I am really sorry for saying this, but it is how I feel. The WB/RAC do not care about my opinion as an average individual. Plain and Simple. If they really wanted to see the bigger picture I would think that they would welcome any and all input, in what ever form.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Grandpa D said:


> How many people show up to a City Council meeting?
> Normally very few, _unless there is a very hot topic going on_ [like changes to regulations?].
> 
> The city that I work for conducts most of it's dialog with the citizens through emails *and phone calls.*
> ...


The DWR has the same thing. You can call, email, or visit face to face for the majority of your "complaints and problems". However, when it comes to _changing laws, regulations, and mangement plans_ you need to have more than just a simple email exchange. Thus, public meetings.

huntalholic: have you ever had a direct conversation with a RAC or WB member? DWR biologist?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> The WB/RAC do not care about my opinion as an average individual. Plain and Simple. If they really wanted to see the bigger picture I would think that they would welcome any and all input, in what ever form.


This idea is what frustrates me...as a whole, you may be right. But, I do think that there are members of both RACs and the WB who are different. Ernie Perkins is one who will listen. Also, I don't think Mr. Perkins was saying that he did NOT welcome the email input....he just wanted someone to back that input up in their presence at the meetings. I still think he is right in thinking so...

...God help us if all of our public meetings turn into email meetings and are not held in public face-to-face forums. Personally, I think this isn't showing our advancing as a society but the decline of our society...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> The WB/RAC do not care about my opinion as an average individual. Plain and Simple.


A couple years ago a single individual showed up at a RAC and requested the bait restrictions be lifted off of Kolob Reservoir. That one person got the RAC/WB to recommend that the DWR form a committee to evaluate the management plan at Kolob. The end result? Restrictions at Kolob now allow bait to be used for the majority of the summer months, with more liberal harvest.

Anyone that says that the RAC and WB do not listen to individuals is wrong. It works -- but you have to play the game to see the end results.

(again, just becuase you want it, doesn't mean it's right! That is something that anglers far too often forget with this system.)


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

PBH said:


> ...huntalholic: have you ever had a direct conversation with a RAC or WB member? DWR biologist?


RAC/WB - No to a conversation. But I have stood before WB (I'm not sure if that is what it was called in the '80's) and spoke.

DWR Biologist - Yes. But it was a conversation on subjects. Most lasted more then 5 mins.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > The WB/RAC do not care about my opinion as an average individual. Plain and Simple. If they really wanted to see the bigger picture I would think that they would welcome any and all input, in what ever form.
> ...


Then it needs to be a two way street, with respect shown on both sides.

Back it up in what way. If he is wanting a dialogue, then I again a face to face is valid. If he is looking for some one to stand up, read a statement and sit down, then that meeting is a waste of time.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

PBH said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > The WB/RAC do not care about my opinion as an average individual. Plain and Simple.
> ...


Humbly speaking, my experience was just the opposite. I was there in the '80's when the Board tried to change the minimum caliber size from.45 to .50 for muzzleloader elk. I spoke and watched as the board ignored me and then have a change of heart when one of the muzzy groups jumped on the wagon. 
I know there are times that what I want is going to different then the final out come. I can handle that. What I cannot handle is the lack of respect given to an individual sportsman.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> What I cannot handle is the lack of respect given to an individual sportsman.


none of us like that. Which is a very good reason why relationships need to be attempted. Communication must be more than just email. Pick up the phone. Get to know these guys. Find out why they do what they do, and let them understand why you want what you want. This is exactly why limiting things to just email is a poor way to go. Develop a relationship. Always remember that respect is also a two-way street. Respect is earned, not given by title.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

PBH, nobody is talking about just limiting it to just E-mails. But E-mails can be used as a door to open to the one on one dialogue, if used. But if they are just read and put in a file, never responsed to, then what? 

Your last sentence is true for both. "Respect is earned, not given by title."


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

Mr. PBH: the Kolob situation was hardly one guy showing up at a RAC. I used to live in Washington County and know all about what went on with that deal. It had more to do with local politics and a certain mayor. The guy that showed up at the meeting was part of a much bigger more influential group. He was just the voice and face the politicians and cabin owners decided to use. I hope you know this and I wanted to go on record to clarify that. Please don't give the wrong impression with that Kolob situation. Back to this Panguitch Committee again who is it that decides who sits on the committee?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Richard -- you need to remember that the one guy that DID show up did NOT claim to represent any group. He showed up and said "I want the regulations changed at Kolob to allow for bait to be used and fish to be harvested".

That spawned all sorts of actions -- including petitions, etc.

1 individual made a huge difference at Kolob.


(please don't think I'm ignorant on the subject. FWIW -- I live in Iron County, and I also know very well what happened).

Richard -- I would strongly urge you to call Mike Ottenbacher in the southern region office and speak with him. don't email him. Call him. Ask him how you can get involved with Panguitch Lake. I'll give you his number if you would like it.


Huntaholic -- I don't believe that emails are simply set aside. I understand that emails are an important part of the gathering process. That's what bothers me with this whole deal. The process stopped at emails. Anglers did nothing more than send emails. Where were the phone calls? Where was the face-to-face dialog? Why did absolutely NO anglers show up to the RAC? Obviously, because this issue wasn't a priority.

there is no going back at this point. The only thing to do from here is move forward with the process we currently have. The emails have been sent. The DWR, RAC, and WB already understand that anglers are not in full support of the current plan. There is no reason to stop now. Now is the time to pick up the phone and make a few phone calls. Call the southern region fisheries biologists and find out how you (any of you!) can get involved. Call Ernie Perkins. The whole point of Ernie calling us out, and the whole point of me posting this thread, was to keep the ball rolling on this. The ball is in our court, and if we want change, we need to act! Let's push for this committee and make sure that we have good representation. Let's look at what the DWR is currently doing, and see if there is room for improvement. For once, let's get anglers to work together for a common good. Let's show the WB that we will back up our emails.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Well put PBH.
I agree that emails are going to be a big help but we also have to follow up with other measures like face to face discussions.
It's a package and all of the pieces have to be there for it to work.

It's great to see so many of our members asking questions and wanting to learn more about getting involved in the rule making process.
Together we can and will make a difference.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

PBH said:


> ..... Why did absolutely NO anglers show up to the RAC? Obviously, because this issue wasn't a priority.


Or they felt (right or wrong) that they were not going to be given an honest chance and listened too, hence a waste of time.

I know that I'm not the only one who feels the way we have talked about. UWC was born because indivduals feel like they are not getting represented. This is just as much a wake-up call to the Boards as it is to the sportsman, if they choose to listen.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

DoubleH: exactly. Panguitch Lake is a priority for me. I would give anything to see it back to the way it was when rainbows were in the slot. There is a difference between deciding something isn't a priority and deciding something is a waste of time. I sent e-mails to the biologists, RAC and Wildlife Board. To me it was a priority that is why I took the effort to write e-mails. Not attending the RAC and presenting my case was a work decision and a personal decision. I do not believe my voice would have been heard and I determined it was a waste of time to attend. After reading numerous posts on this website, listening to the wildlife board minutes and reading Drew Cushing's response on this website I believe I made the right decision by not attending. 

Mr. PBH: please get your facts together man. Here is the exact wording right off the DWR minutes of the Kolob discussion at the RAC:
"Steve Cox, Kolob Property Owners: I'm Steve Cox. I represent the property owners on Kolob."

Mr. PBH: please please don't say Kolob was one guy. The dude even introduced himself as being part of a group of property owners. He was their spokesperson. It was a group effort made up of the Water District, Mayor Hirschi and the Kolob property owners.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Richard -- What about Clare Woodbury in 2007 when he specifically asked about Kolob being a family fishery, not a trophy fishery? He got the ball rolling, all by himself, simply by showing up and asking some questions. That was 1 year prior to Steve Cox showing up and representing the group.

1 individual got the ball rolling.

The fact is that Clair got the ball rolling, then Steve acted as a mediator for the group, then a committee was formed to evaluate, and changes where then presented to the RAC / WB, which were then passed. The system worked. And it worked because people did MORE than send emails.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

RichardClarke said:


> To me it was a priority that is why I took the effort to write e-mails. Not attending the RAC and presenting my case was a work decision and a personal decision. I do not believe my voice would have been heard and I determined it was a waste of time to attend. After reading numerous posts on this website, listening to the wildlife board minutes and reading Drew Cushing's response on this website I believe I made the right decision by not attending.


The right decision? And where did any of that get you? Did anything change? I guess you can continue down the same path you have already trod, but expecting anything different then would be asinine. The bottom line is that Ernie Perkins gave you a huge hint as to what needs to be done, and you want to ignore it or simply complain about it. Whether you like it or not....you must do more than send a few emails. And, whether the RACs or WB ever agree and follow your ideas through to fruition, is all immaterial....if you ever want to make a difference, you have to get more involved.


----------



## drew cushing (Jan 19, 2010)

I urge all and any anglers to get involved in the public process. I find it very troublesome that anglers didn't show up in support of some of the regulatory concepts that they did initiate through the on-line suvey or emails that I received. 

Willard Bay wiper limit reduction was an angler concept that was implemented.......How many folks who have criticized the process on this thread showed up to support their own idea? What if an angler or two or three had showed up in opposition to this concept? It seems that the anglers who did not show up to support their own idea left this in jeopardy.

We made some pretty substantial adjustments in the NRO this coming year with an experimental trophy limit on Hobbs Reservoir (Catch and Release all trout over 15 inches) in order to provide a little variety to our diverse group of anglers. How many folks who support or are in opposition to this concept showed up?

Lost Creek Reservoir will change as well with a 3 trout under 15 inches and 1 over 22 inches. Who showed up to defend or criticize this proposal?

Panguitch Lake has always been a controversial water. There are a lot (over 50%) of out of state anglers who use it. It has had 3 regulations in the past 5 years. It had enough interest in it to implement the committee in 2006 after the treatment. For those of you who are critical of the make up of the group, the group members were the folks who showed up and wanted to be involved. 

Emails are great to provide input but please get involved. If I were one of the critical folks on this thread about the Panguitch Lake issue I would call the Southern Region Aquatic Manager and ask to be on the Panguitch Lake Committee. In my opinion the Aquatics folks within the DWR are more willing to listen to the anglers now than ever. The anglers pay our bills. The fisheries are the anglers fisheries. We at the UDWR just have the honor of managing them. We however can't possibly implement all recommendations, they have to make biological sense as well.

I do understand that the process is not perfect. How many of you have stepped up and been part of the solution? I can name one, GPA D was involved in the Community Fisheries Task force several years ago and provided the DWR recommendations for the future direction and implementation of that program. Most of those items that were identified in that group have been implemented and as time and budgets allow, more will be implemented.

In short it is extremely easy to be critical behind a computer.......Please step out, step and get involved. After all they are your fisheries. 

Drew Cushing
801-230-6119
Sportfish Coordinator 
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

Mr. PBH. Clair Woodbury was a RAC member. He was not a member of the general public. So no in the Kolob deal one individual from the general public DID NOT make a difference. 

Mr. Cushing: Thanks for responding. I realize you are busy and appreciate the input. You mention a proposal must make biological sense. The issue we are up in arms about is the rainbow trout management at Panguitch Lake. Not to be critical but that isn't a biological decision. That is a SOCIAL decision. That is the rub here. Biology decisions I don't have a problem with, you guys are biologists we respect that. It is the SOCIAL decision you made at Panguitch Lake that is the heartburn we are having. We aren't talking about the cutthroats or tiger trout we are talking about the rainbow trout that make up about 9 out of every 10 fish in that lake. The rainbows are there for a social reason. 

Also hasn't it become clear after 10 years the RAC process is not endorsed or supported by anglers yet? I applaud you and the DWR for coming up with the open house and the internet survey. You guys I think get it, anglers don't like the RAC process. But Ernie Perkins is jamming a process down our throats that we don't like and don't want to participate in. Thanks again Drew I for one appreciate you coming on here.


----------



## drew cushing (Jan 19, 2010)

No problem. Like I said. Please get organized, and get involved. 

Drew


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

Mr Cushing: I imagine it would take a legislative change, but could anglers remove themselves of the RAC and Wildlife Board process? If I contacted my representative could legislation be considered to remove angling from the RAC's? I believe hunting is a perfect fit for the RAC process. But I believe if angling and aquatics issues and non-consumptive issues were removed the state's fisheries and fishermen would be better off in the long haul. Pardon my grammar but it has been over 10 years now and it just ain't working with fishermen. Leave hunting in the RAC process but a legislative task force should be considered to look at ways to get anglers out from under the umbrella of the RAC and Wildlife Board process. Anglers haven't been convinced it works. It has been over 10 years, time to try something new for anglers. I once again applaud the DWR for the on-line survey and the open houses you guys realized anglers weren't buying into the RACs but you still wanted public input so you guys come up with an alternative. It is time the legislature consider an alternative also. I saw where over 1000 anglers responded to the on-line survey. They cared enough to voice concerns and provide comments. Did those 1000 anglers fall off the face of the earth when the RAC meetings were held? I'm not thinking they did.


----------

