# UWA Board Meeting Report



## king eider (Aug 20, 2009)

Board Meeting Report: (This is a long read, but if you want to know what the UWA is up to then please take a few minutes and read this.)
The Utah Waterfowl Association Board met April 25, 2018. Given the magnitude of issues that are on the horizon we (UWA) thought our members would benefit by a communication that identifies these issues and the plan we have developed to address them.
Discussion topics
- Bear River Bird Refuge Access - Increase hunting access within the Bear River Bird Refuge boundaries. This has been a challenge for many years. Given the extensive investment by hunters in the refuge for nearly 100 years, we believe it is time to fully and fairly recognize the millions of dollars and thousands of hours contributed by hunters for the refuge and the original understanding as to how much of the refuge would be open to hunting. Consideration needs to be given to use of the refuge by those who made the refuge possible. We intend to work directly with the BRBR and other governmental officials and conservation organizations to achieve this outcome.
- North Davis Sewer District - It has come to our attention that the North Davis Sewer District is evaluating a shift of its discharge of effluent to the north side of the Antelope Island Causeway. Farmington Bay has higher water quality standards than the Great Salt Lake, which would allow continued discharges of nitrogen and phosphates that cause algae. The alternative would be to install very expensive infrastructure to treat that water which would open the potential for reuse of the water resulting in less water in the lake. This is an issue of water quality versus quantity. More information is needed before we will take a position on this issue. We plan to meet with the sewer district in the coming days.
- Bear River Development - There has been a lot of news over the years about the development of the Bear River (and most recently Bear Lake) and the effects it may have on the Great Salt Lake and the Bear River Bottoms. We have analyzed this issue and are working with the state as a stakeholder on options that may satisfy water users without a net loss of flow of water to the GSL and perhaps could result in additional flow to the lake. This is a very complicated matter that involves a three-state compact, water law in three states, 100 years of history of water use, changing needs for water, and increasing concern for the health of the lake. Because of the complexity of the issue, there is no single solution and we have witnessed a lot of miscommunication and misunderstanding. We are working diligently on a concept but considerable work needs to be done. We anticipate the state will develop a long range plan and direction over the next six months and will work as a stakeholder with the state and elected officials to protect waterfowl habitat in the short and long term.
- Political Engagement - There has never been a time when the resource is more at risk than today. Development, limitations of natural resources, sustained drought, climate change, and growth of the state will continue to put pressure on the resource and the future of places we waterfowl hunters cherish. Members of our board have met with many elected and appointed officials in the past few months, as we have for years, on issues ranging from the Inland Port, to water quality, to water diversions, to mitigation efforts. We maintained an active presence at the state capitol during the 2018 legislative session. Board members have also attended many public hearings, agency meetings and met with many other organizations in an effort to achieve our goal of preserving waterfowl habitat and our waterfowling heritage. Ducks Unlimited has retained part time a highly regarded lobbyist, Douglas Foxley, which we deem as very positive. While this will no doubt be very helpful it will not be enough by itself. Much more political effort, engagement and contribution will be needed. Members of the board, as individuals, have supported certain candidates in the upcoming elections. Two candidates in particular will be very supportive of waterfowl issues, Joel Ferry and Casey Snider. Both candidates are hardworking and resource-minded individuals who also happen to be duck hunters. We strongly encourage you to learn more about both of them and lend your support if you agree with their politics. The UWA is also considering developing a political action committee (PAC) and taking the larger role in government decision-making that will be essential to preserve our habitat and duck hunting tradition. Funding is the primary issue.
Electric Assisted Bikes - The board will consider at its next meeting whether to ask the Wildlife Board to preclude or restrict the use of electric bikes in the marshes. The two primary issues are that this may open up WMA's to other types of electric vehicles and also these bike can be used beyond the dikes and cause damage to the marshes. We expect to make a decision as a board at the next meeting after we give further consideration to this issue.
Biologist - It has been over a decade since DWR had a paid biologist devoted to waterfowl in Utah. We applaud the efforts of the resource managers and Blair Stringham, DWR's program manager, but see the need for a biologist devoted to waterfowl science in Utah. We discussed the possibility of working with universities and private funding for a full-time biologist. Utah used to nest more redheads than anywhere else in the Pacific Flyway. Bear River Bay was historically considered one of the most prolific waterfowl nesting areas on the continent. There are many theories on why that changed and there are a lot of other subtle changes that happen incrementally over time that go unnoticed. These are clearly not being addressed and slowly degrading waterfowl habitat. It's time we started paying more attention to the resource and changing that trajectory.
These are the issues we focused on at our most recent board meeting but there are many others that have our attention as well. We welcome your input.
2018 Member Meeting
- Scheduled for Sept 19, 2018
- Location yet to be determined.
Also stay tuned for a new updated website that will help put more of a name and face to the UWA and an offical place we will release statements to the public and our fellow members.


----------



## king eider (Aug 20, 2009)

If you have questions for me I would ask that you be patient as I am leaving on vacation for the next week. I will not be in an area with electricity let alone internet service. you can also ask questions on our Facebook page.

We at the UWA are just trying to do our part (and myself for that matter) in protecting the marsh system of the GSL that we all love. If you have unsubstantiated claims I ask that you refrain from saying something that can not be backed up factually.


----------



## king eider (Aug 20, 2009)

The UWA board met last night.
Meeting notes/minutes are posted on our facebook group page.

Fascinating info with lost happening.

HUGE changes a coming!!!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/263929757011728/


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

I talked on a few occasions with Blair and Jason about e-bikes. It looks like they're going to be around for awhile. Unfortunately.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

The manufacturers of E-bikes can't build them fast enough. The UWA will be pushing to keep them off wetlands and riparian areas and contain them to roads and dikes in order to protect our wetlands. The DWR will soon be dealing with motorized bicycles towing trailers going down the dike in the dark at 28 miles per hour. There will be injuries, there will be accidents, and there will be trouble...but, for now, they are OK with that. 
R


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

There are signs that clearly state "No motorized vehicles beyond this gate" on every WMA. It doesn't say only combustible engines not allowed, so how is it that electric motors are okay? I guess electric cars are okay too. I'm going to need a key to the gates......


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Fowlmouth said:


> There are signs that clearly state "No motorized vehicles beyond this gate" on every WMA. It doesn't say only combustible engines not allowed, so how is it that electric motors are okay? I guess electric cars are okay too. I'm going to need a key to the gates......


It's about Utah law from what I've heard. "Electric assisted" bikes are legal behind the gates, which means the assist only happens when you're peddling. I spoke to Jason about banning all e-bikes at the end of the 2016-17 season and he was all for it. It didn't happen at the last RAC or Board meetings and from what I hear likely won't. Once again regulations are way behind technology. I've even toyed with the idea of putting an e unit on my fat bike, but I'm training on the stationary bike at the gym instead. We'll see.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

rjefre said:


> The manufacturers of E-bikes can't build them fast enough. The UWA will be pushing to keep them off wetlands and riparian areas and contain them to roads and dikes in order to protect our wetlands. The DWR will soon be dealing with motorized bicycles towing trailers going down the dike in the dark at 28 miles per hour. There will be injuries, there will be accidents, and there will be trouble...but, for now, they are OK with that.
> R


Does a E bike do more damage to wetlands than a regular bike or a cart full of decoys?

Are there not already people high tailing it on regular bikes down the dike without injury?


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Does a E bike do more damage to wetlands than a regular bike or a cart full of decoys?
> 
> Are there not already people high tailing it on regular bikes down the dike without injury?


e-bikes make it easier to get down the dikes, so they will increase in number and power over time. This is much like the path taken by MM. Increasing pressure, increasing impact. Utah has never responded to MM impacts and it doesn't look like they plan to respond to e-bikes. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of personal opinion.


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

paddler said:


> e-bikes make it easier to get down the dikes, so they will increase in number and power over time. This is much like the path taken by MM. Increasing pressure, increasing impact. Utah has never responded to MM impacts and it doesn't look like they plan to respond to e-bikes. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of personal opinion.


Blame it on Zinke. Sorry I just couldn't help myself lol


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

E-bikes are not a problem right now, but they will be reaching a much higher number in the coming years. They are being advertised as able to traverse wet bogs, snow, mud, hills, and steep trails. An E-Bike does the same damage that a regular bike (or motorcycle) does as it cuts through riparian areas and wetlands, except it has a motor to go farther and faster...neither is good for wetlands. If there is not an effort very soon to clarify where they can be used, they will reach critical mass and nothing will be able to be done without massive outcry. We will focus on protecting wetlands, and we can let the DWR deal with the liability issues of allowing motorized bicycles on the dikes later. Every once in a while we can see a nasty problem arising down the road and actually make a proactive change of course. This is one of those times. 
R


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

JerryH said:


> Blame it on Zinke. Sorry I just couldn't help myself lol


D*mn Obama anyway. Or maybe Bush, everything used to be his fault until Trump was elected. Most of the drive units are made in China, maybe we should put tariffs on them and leave our nice neighbors to the north alone.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

rjefre said:


> E-bikes are not a problem right now, but they will be reaching a much higher number in the coming years. They are being advertised as able to traverse wet bogs, snow, mud, hills, and steep trails. An E-Bike does the same damage that a regular bike (or motorcycle) does as it cuts through riparian areas and wetlands, except it has a motor to go farther and faster...neither is good for wetlands. If there is not an effort very soon to clarify where they can be used, they will reach critical mass and nothing will be able to be done without massive outcry. We will focus on protecting wetlands, and we can let the DWR deal with the liability issues of allowing motorized bicycles on the dikes later. Every once in a while we can see a nasty problem arising down the road and actually make a proactive change of course. This is one of those times.
> R


Agreed, I think they're capable of damaging the marsh once they get off the dikes. Like the area north of FB, I've heard they get out into AB territory up there. They won't damage the dikes, of course, but it's dispiriting to peddle for nearly an hour and have an e-bike pull up behind you, having left the parking lot 15 minutes before they arrived and looking fresh as a daisy. It'll be a zoo in a couple of years.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I actually think they are pretty cool for some applications. I've ridden a few and they are *very* powerful and fast. There is just no place in our wetlands, playas, or riparian areas for wheeled vehicles...they inflict an oversized amount of damage to the terrain, and wetlands are slow to recover from that kind of damage.
R


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

rjefre said:


> I actually think they are pretty cool for some applications. I've ridden a few and they are *very* powerful and fast. There is just no place in our wetlands, playas, or riparian areas for wheeled vehicles...they inflict an oversized amount of damage to the terrain, and wetlands are slow to recover from that kind of damage.
> R


They're quite controversial in the mountain biking community also. I think they should be confined to pavement.;-)


----------

