# Let’s get involved



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

Utah Lake's future the focus of summit


The health and future of Utah Lake is the focus of a summit, bringing scientists and policy makers together.




www.fox13now.com


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

Here’s a not surprisingly dry read. 
A big scary part of this, is the Utah Lake Amendments from 2018. Why did we, as a state decide to weaken the protections of sovereign state land. 



https://pws.byu.edu/utahlakeislands


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

What our lake needs is more water. Not 500,000 people living on it.


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

Bump
Did anybody see this? I can’t believe people aren’t up in arms about this. 
Mods can we move this thread?


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

HB 232 is coming up soon. It’ll create “The Utah Lake Authority” which in my mind is just an untouchable money making scheme for rich developers. 
Please, if you give a shat pay attention to this. Speak up about it. Fight it. Talk to your friends, family, coworkers and neighbors about fighting it. 
Here’s a link to find your representative to let them know you care about The Utah Lake. 







District Map







le.utah.gov


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

one4fishing said:


> What our lake needs is more water. Not 500,000 people living on it.


If that spoon was shot there in the 2021 season, you did incredible! That’s a banner shoot as far as im concerned for how last year went!

as for the rest of your post, if you’ve been following the news and the local hunting related news lately, it’s been made pretty obvious that those elected by the people, like the rest of the government, campaign with fake promises of public representation. In the end, no matter how many letters, emails, phone calls or actual conversations you have about a topic you are passionate about, their agenda is to look out for their best interest first. Not the people they are in office to represent. Look how things have been going with the GSL fight to save it. Sure we have small wins here and there, but every year, we lose more than we win. Doesn’t matter how many are involved.

I love utah lake. I’ve grown up on it. I dare bet I’ve spent more hours hunting, fishing and exploring that lake than anyone on this forum. In my highschool years, I think from October to January, I spent more time at the lake than I did in school. How I ended up graduating with honors is still a giant mystery to everyone who knows me, especially my mother. I’m very fearful of what will become of it in the future. Seems like every year the public is getting locked out of places more and more. There’s a lot of posted areas now that are established public access points or public lands. The developed man made islands, the bike path all the way around it and many other “great ideas” only put money in the pockets of those in charge and the rest of us get hosed again. The public never wins in these situations. I hope I’m wrong and smarter people who know how to fight these things get involved to stop this from happening. But I’m afraid it’ll be a 1 step forward 2 steps back scenario for everyone who isn’t benefiting from the private agenda of our representatives


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

Your elected leaders in this state could care less what their constituents want. They know that your vote is guaranteed. They won't be challenged at election time and they have the job as long as they want it. 

In Utah we have Republican gun control as I call it. You can have as many or any kind you want. Just leave them in your closet or safe. Because in the end. They are going to develop, sell or screw you out of access of any or all lands you can use that gun on. But feel all warm and fuzzy knowing you have those guns. After all it will be our fault for electing these POS into office.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I served on a committee organized by the DWR and Utah Lake commission about 10 years ago. It was an enjoyable and eye opening experience. The committee ultimately disbanded but I still hear regularly from the commission. The truth is that many stakeholders ARE trying to improve and increase access and opportunities for sportsmen and other recreationalists. Sometimes things don't work out and other times users are their own worst enemies and screw it up for the rest of us. (The Knolls) However, we had some success then in procuring/improving access and it looks like more secure access at Lincoln point is now assured. The point is that not all politicians or bureaucrats are out to get us at least regarding UL but O4F is right, involvement is important. 

As the open letter states, basic parameters in water quality have improved over the past few years. There is still a ways to go, but it isn't as polluted as its reputation. That doesn't mean its perfect either, and money and effort towards better water quality is a good investment. 

With regards to the island project, I think it is a horrible idea. However, opponents have an ace up their sleeve in preventing it. As long as the June sucker is endangered and in the lake, I don't see major environment altering activities like this island project seeing the light of day. June sucker recovery also has stimulated a lot of money to come in for the various cleanup efforts and habitat improvements. Yet, on fishing and hunting forums like this one, there is an endless stream of bellyaching and whining about the June sucker recovery program. Maybe it is time that we appreciate the effort, both as a vehicle to clean up the lake as well as a protection against idiotic development plans like the island project.


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

Moose, 
I’m glad you chimed in. You’re kind of the Utah lake “guy” in my mind. I was hoping for a less pessimistic view and more rage though honestly. 
I agree that we’ll probably be railroaded here but I can’t help but hope that maybe some kind of movement could be started to at least slow down this train coming our way. 
Once this commission gets the powers they’re looking to gain there’ll be no stopping them. Then you might see me on the news like the hippies trying to fight the inland port.

Oh, and that bird was from 2020. That’s all dry this year. Kind of sad to see.


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

Jerry,
My vote is not guaranteed. Neither should yours or anyone else’s. I emailed my representative and my senator and let them know that I’d be fighting hard against them if they push that land grab forward. It might not mean anything to them. 
But….. maybe if they got enough emails they might listen a little.


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

Catherder, 
Thanks for your perspective and thanks for being involved. 
I’m not sure the June Sucker will be enough to stop this. These guys claim they can eradicate phragmites, solve world hunger and guarantee open camping spots within 30 minutes of home, on the beach. 
I can see they’re trying to provide more access. But none of the new access will be “Utah Lake like” any longer.
Utah Lake has never been deep, never had sandy beaches and never had more than one island. We need to fight to get rid of this company wanting to “fix” our lake. I’m not totally against fixing issues w the lake but I don’t think it should be done in a for profit way.


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

Here’s the proposal to the Corps of Engineers. 



https://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/regulatory/FOIA/2022/2022.01.06-ULR-Application-201800503.pdf


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

You ever seen Lake of The Woods on the Canadian border?
Are you sure this is such a bad thing?
If UL was dredged to 30’ and 40 lb. Stripers accidentally grew in there I don’t think it would hurt my feelings much.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

one4fishing said:


> Moose,
> I’m glad you chimed in. You’re kind of the Utah lake “guy” in my mind. I was hoping for a less pessimistic view and more rage though honestly.
> I agree that we’ll probably be railroaded here but I can’t help but hope that maybe some kind of movement could be started to at least slow down this train coming our way.
> Once this commission gets the powers they’re looking to gain there’ll be no stopping them. Then you might see me on the news like the hippies trying to fight the inland port.
> ...


There’s plenty of rage in me on this topic, don’t worry about that. My comment comes from 2 perspectives. 1. When has any form of the government done anything purely for the purpose of benefiting the people? They sell us a great story on every topic under the sun, then, if we are lucky, turn around and do something kind of like what they said they would do, but tweak it to benefit themselves or their buddies more than it does the public. The other perspective is 2. There are so many hoops they have to jump through to get these project proposals the funding to even get started. As much as I hate the june suckers and think saving them is a lost cause and a waste of money and time, they might be the reason that will prevent a lot of these proposals from ever getting any traction. It’s been made pretty clear that the feds, state and DWR will do anything they can to ‘help’ grow their numbers to a higher level. I know that fish was the reason they wouldn’t turn mudlake into a WMA. It also halted a few other ideas they had for the same area.

I just don’t see it happening in the big picture of things. But I’ve been wrong many times before. Regardless, I’ve sent my emails to those in charge and encourage everyone else to do the same.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

I claim dibs on the first deer tag when the UL island has 40” bucks on it.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I've been in contact with my Rep and Senator. They haven't expressed which way they are leaning. This is one of the issues that anyone in Utah County should be weighing in on. We either speak up for or against or our silence will be taken as For. I think HB 232 creates an entity which will be detrimental to the public and the Lake. A couple examples-

-Line 187 gives full authority of use to the proposed Lake Authority. There are other State agencies who could/would be supplanted thru such a sweeping measure. Such as the UDWR and their WMAs which are managed for both wildlife and recreation. 
-Lines 166/167 supplants and replaces the Utah Lake Commission, established by interlocal agreement. Are we supplanting "Interlocal Agreements" with "Non-Local" management? Who stands to benefit from such control?
-Line 257/258 May sell.... dispose of any interest in real property. Do we want an "Authority" to be able to sell our State's real property? 
There are many more concerning examples (such as the use of the word "May" found throughout the bill). 

It really isn't that hard to send an email to our Reps and Senators voicing our feelings on the subject. You can make a difference, if you choose. Go here, click on where you live and email your Reps.





District Map







le.utah.gov





..


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

HB-240 is currently in a legislative committee being studied before sending it on to the legislature for a vote. It basically allows a new "Authority" to have the power to sell-off our sovereign lands around and UNDER the Utah Lake in order to create islands that will be huge housing developments. The scary part, besides watching our public lands get sold out from under us, is that if this goes though, it will be a working model to start selling off the sovereign lands of the GSL. That should be frightening to any waterfowler! While it may be true that most of our legislators are pro-development, I feel that there is also a good chance to stop this nonsense before it gets it's roots too far into public policy. It is now time to contact your representative (you can just google Utah legislative lookup to easily find your legislator). Send a very short text to him/her...it is easy and it may truly help steer the course of our wetlands in the future.
R


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Isn't this current HB240 is an amendment to existing regulations? My understanding is the proposed amended verbiage is to make it more difficult to dispose of the lands. But I can be mistaken. The changes propose to make the disposal of lands from a "may dispose" to a "may recommend to dispose".
I'm not a lawyer, so maybe this is just a smokescreen to facilitate any development. It just seems to layout that any disposal of real property would have to go thru more levels with the legislature and the Governor.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

JerryH said:


> Your elected leaders in this state could care less what their constituents want. They know that your vote is guaranteed. They won't be challenged at election time and they have the job as long as they want it.
> 
> In Utah we have Republican gun control as I call it. You can have as many or any kind you want. Just leave them in your closet or safe. Because in the end. They are going to develop, sell or screw you out of access of any or all lands you can use that gun on. But feel all warm and fuzzy knowing you have those guns. After all it will be our fault for electing these POS into office.


Einstien once said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. It's irrational to keep electing Republicans and expect them to promote environmentalism and preservation of our public lands. Now, no-bid contracts for hydroxy are perfectly cool.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

one4fishing said:


> Catherder,
> Thanks for your perspective and thanks for being involved.
> I’m not sure the June Sucker will be enough to stop this. These guys claim they can eradicate phragmites, solve world hunger and guarantee open camping spots within 30 minutes of home, on the beach.


Remember, that making claims on a prospectus is a lot different than proving claims under scrutiny and executing the plans. As for the ESA, remember, that ESA litigation would be settled in the Federal court system, so the "home court advantage" of Utah's avaricious and pro development politicians will be neutralized. The ESA (for both good and bad) has been potent in stopping both idiotic and useful development. I realize that for many conservatives, the ESA is not looked upon favorably. Be that as it may, sometimes conservation issues produce strange bedfellows. 

I can also tell you that the current Utah Lake Commission, (not the proposed entity) is quite skeptical, as are a number of stakeholders. Now, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight this, but I don't think that smooth sailing is assured. I will post a couple more papers on it when I get home from work. 

Obviously, we DO want to let our opinions known with our Reps. Thanks for starting the thread.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Let's play a game. What three words do you think best describe our Legislature? Overall, your gestalt after watching their annual shenanigans? I'll go first:

Greed, Hypocrisy, Hubris.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

Here we go.....getting political again.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

2full said:


> Here we go.....getting political again.


Unfortunately! 
There is no reason make this thread political. These are the people currently elected and they will be deciding on the fate of a current topic with Utah Lake. Bend their ear, write emails, participate in townhalls, etc. People can choose to get on board and support or reject the proposed Utah Lake legislation. I have seen Rs and Ds change their stances with enough public input.
But stop with the R vs D and all the other political non-sense. This thread is about one topic- Utah Lake. If one wants to whine about other political topics, then start your own thread.


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

One4fishing

Sorry for the pessimistic response. All I wanted to state was our leaders do what they want. Not so much what the general public wants. 

How about that Inland Port that nobody wanted but Hughes railroaded through.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Packout said:


> Unfortunately!
> There is no reason make this thread political. These are the people currently elected and they will be deciding on the fate of a current topic with Utah Lake. Bend their ear, write emails, participate in townhalls, etc. People can choose to get on board and support or reject the proposed Utah Lake legislation. I have seen Rs and Ds change their stances with enough public input.
> But stop with the R vs D and all the other political non-sense. This thread is about one topic- Utah Lake. If one wants to whine about other political topics, then start your own thread.


So, let me get this straight. Our political representatives are trying to enable LRS to dredge Utah Lake to "restore" it. The plan is to build 18,000 acres of islands. According to today's Trib, 4.7% will be for fish and wildlife habitat, another small portion would be for recreation, and 89% will be for real estate development. LRS will have title to the islands, they can sell them to developers, which I believe are over represented in our Legislature.

They started with the 2018 HB272, the Utah Lake Amendments. Introduced by McKell and Henderson, both Republicans, it passed along party lines by the supermajority Republicans. Now we have HB 232, whose primary sponsor is Brady Brammer, R- Pleasant Grove. I anticipate that if it passes, it will also do so, as all measures dealing with public lands or environmental issues, along party lines. Yet people say that this isn't political? That simply defies reality. "Stop with the R vs D..."? Pull your heads out.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

This is one that fascinates me, actually. Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, this company could actually do all the things they claim they can do. (For the record, I don't think they can...but for sake of this post, we're assuming they can.) I would actually be in favor of this proposal. Yes, it would change the dynamic of the lake, but with the positives it would bring, that change would be welcomed by me in a big way. 

Now, back to reality. I don't think they can do what they claim they can, and therefore, believe this plan should be opposed. It is troubling the lengths that the legislature has gone to clear the way for this. Aside from the environmental issues involved, I think they would receive legal challenges based upon the navigable nature of Utah Lake. I do not believe the state can divest ownership of the beds, or even portions of beds, of navigable waters.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Aside from the environmental issues involved, I think they would receive legal challenges based upon the navigable nature of Utah Lake. I do not believe the state can divest ownership of the beds, or even portions of beds, of navigable waters.


Interesting thought. I haven't heard that argument before. I wonder though if there could be a "work-around" devised where the developer leases the land instead? I still think the ESA challenge is especially strong. June suckers are endemic, currently on the endangered list, and I can't see any scenario where that much dredging wouldn't at least temporarily alter the water quality and environment to pose a risk to them. If the Center for Biological Diversity can sue over Bonneville cutts, and win cases regarding wolves and grizzly bears, June sucker litigation is a layup. 

I thought I had a couple other documents on the subject but do not. Sorry. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

paddler said:


> Let's play a game. What three words do you think best describe our Legislature? Overall, your gestalt after watching their annual shenanigans? I'll go first:
> 
> Greed, Hypocrisy, Hubris.


Let’s Go Brandon


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

MrShane said:


> You ever seen Lake of The Woods on the Canadian border?
> Are you sure this is such a bad thing?
> If UL was dredged to 30’ and 40 lb. Stripers accidentally grew in there I don’t think it would hurt my feelings much.


This common attitude towards Utah Lake is why I fear this scheme might actually go through. 
Most of our population only ever sees the lake as they drive past. Most believe it to be some sort of toxic dump and buy into the talk of it needing to be fixed. 
No, I haven’t been to Lake of The Woods. If I was set on being a striper fisherman I’d live on the coast. But then I’d have to here all the tales of how polluted our coastlines are and how I shouldn’t eat anything out of their waters.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Catherder said:


> Interesting thought. I haven't heard that argument before. I wonder though if there could be a "work-around" devised where the developer leases the land instead?


I’m not sure on the leasing, but if they were planning to build developments and have everything be a lease to be paid to the state? Can you imagine that monthly income?!?!? They couldn’t just do a cheap lease and let the developers cash in. And they couldn’t sell any of it, the state would retain ownership. Under federal law, the beds of navigable waters are held by the states (the people…more specifically) and can’t be sold. They are to be held in the public trust in perpetuity. The Utah legislature does not have the ability to change that.




Catherder said:


> I still think the ESA challenge is especially strong. June suckers are endemic, currently on the endangered list, and I can't see any scenario where that much dredging wouldn't at least temporarily alter the water quality and environment to pose a risk to them. If the Center for Biological Diversity can sue over Bonneville cutts, and win cases regarding wolves and grizzly bears, June sucker litigation is a layup.


I agree.


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

JerryH said:


> One4fishing
> 
> Sorry for the pessimistic response. All I wanted to state was our leaders do what they want. Not so much what the general public wants.
> 
> How about that Inland Port that nobody wanted but Hughes railroaded through.


You’re good Jerry. I don’t know why but every night after a beer or 3 I get so worked up about this. Every day I tell myself I won’t even get on the internet but here I am again. 
Remember the fight against Legacy Highway?
I’m glad guys stood up back then and we still have FB.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

one4fishing said:


> This common attitude towards Utah Lake is why I fear this scheme might actually go through.
> Most of our population only ever sees the lake as they drive past. Most believe it to be some sort of toxic dump and buy into the talk of it needing to be fixed.


I realize this is an issue for some, but I live about a mile from the lake as the crow flies. I’ve spent plenty of time there doing all sorts of activities. When I read stories of the historic cutthroat populations that thrived there before people screwed it up, and then see it today, I can assure you with zero doubt in my mind that the place needs to be “fixed.”

I’m not sure it can. But given the choice, I’d take what it was over what it is any day of the week. If we could get that, I’d support it 100%. That would be incredible. But Utah Lake, even with its faults, is worth protecting today too.


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

Vanilla said:


> This is one that fascinates me, actually. Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, this company could actually do all the things they claim they can do. (For the record, I don't think they can...but for sake of this post, we're assuming they can.) I would actually be in favor of this proposal. Yes, it would change the dynamic of the lake, but with the positives it would bring, that change would be welcomed by me in a big way.
> 
> Now, back to reality. I don't think they can do what they claim they can, and therefore, believe this plan should be opposed. It is troubling the lengths that the legislature has gone to clear the way for this. Aside from the environmental issues involved, I think they would receive legal challenges based upon the navigable nature of Utah Lake. I do not believe the state can divest ownership of the beds, or even portions of beds, of navigable waters.


Nilla 
What do you like about the promised stuff? Not trying to bash here because honestly I’m kinda curious to what they could actually do myself. 
If they could seriously eradicate phrag I think the state should keep them on full time. I can see the draw for sandy beaches and cold clear water for all the wakeboarding crowds but I’m just not into that. 
I can’t help but think of San Francisco Bay. I loved fishing the bay while I was working out there. But what a changed habitat that place is. I can’t fathom all the wetlands lost there.


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

one4fishing said:


> You’re good Jerry. I don’t know why but every night after a beer or 3 I get so worked up about this. Every day I tell myself I won’t even get on the internet but here I am again.
> Remember the fight against Legacy Highway?
> I’m glad guys stood up back then and we still have FB.


A beer or 3! You just more street cred from me.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

one4fishing said:


> This common attitude towards Utah Lake is why I fear this scheme might actually go through.
> Most of our population only ever sees the lake as they drive past. Most believe it to be some sort of toxic dump and buy into the talk of it needing to be fixed.
> No, I haven’t been to Lake of The Woods. If I was set on being a striper fisherman I’d live on the coast. But then I’d have to here all the tales of how polluted our coastlines are and how I shouldn’t eat anything out of their waters.


Trust me, I am not just part of the population that sees they lake “as they drive past”.
I have driven my airboat almost all the way around the lake, caught hundreds upon hundreds of fish out of it, watched the old ice racing with studded motorcycles, ice fished on it out of vehicles on the ice, caught Rainbow Trout out of it, and owned waterfront property for awhile.
You?
What Vanilla said is true, back in the day when the lake bottom was covered with grasses and the lake was full of eight pound Cutthroat it does sound more appealing.
Don’t you agree it could use a restoration to return it to it’s old glory?
And MM is correct, the Junie is a dead fish swimming if the lake is not brought back to it’s pre-nineteen hundreds status.
We definitely don’t want it to go from being a lake, turning in to a swamp, and then becoming a bog.
We are only a 10-14’ sediment layer away from that happening.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

one4fishing said:


> Nilla
> What do you like about the promised stuff? Not trying to bash here because honestly I’m kinda curious to what they could actually do myself.
> If they could seriously eradicate phrag I think the state should keep them on full time.


Fair question. I’m talking about their claims to dredge it fully, making it a deeper, cooler, cleaner lake that could support native species again like the cutthroat. The islands for bird nesting, refuges, and general habitat could be really cool and in theory could really increase fishing and hunting opportunities. And as you said, phrag eradication would be incredible!

Now these are all their claims, and again, I don’t believe personally that they could pull all this off, so overall am against the project. But in my hypothetical where they are able to do it, I’d be all for it.


----------



## Daisy (Jan 4, 2010)

Forestry Fire and State Lands administers the lake bed of Utah and GSL. These are called "Sovereign Lands," which are based on the elevation of these bodies of water at statehood. Anything below those elevations are owned by the State. FFSL routinely leases sovereign lands via Special Use Lease Agreements (SULA). Currently any improvements made on a SULA are owned by the State. This would have to changed legislatively for any title/ownership to be conveyed. Any yes, I think it would surely get a legal challenge.

The 800 pound gorilla sitting in the back of the room is the US Army Corps of Engineers. They are very hard to please and do not work quickly. A project like this could take years to get permitted.

Let your rep know how you feel.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

So, the goal is to get the lake back to a more "historic condition" by dredging but put islands with housing in the middle of it? How is that second part "historic" at all? I smell a rat. Housing would require access which would require roads which would require all sorts of modifications which would engender changes to the way the lake "breathes". Just look at the differences caused by the railroad causeway on the GSL that seperates the northern and southern portions of that lake. While not identical, the concept is the same.

Thanks for bringing this to light. While I don't use UL as much as many or most, I can see its importance and value. It should be protected and conserved - not developed and sold!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I think you’ve illustrated why this is going to have a hard time passing the permitting process. This is a MAJOR project with a lot connected to it. This won’t breeze through a public process easily. Especially if people stay involved and speak out against it.

When I mention what the lake was historically, I’m talking more the health of the lake itself rather than the look of the lake itself. And for some of the reasons you mentioned (IE- causeways, etc.), I don’t believe they can restore it to historical health. And yes, if they could return the lake to a cutthroat trout paradise with all the ecological benefits they claim will happen, I’d be okay putting homes on some of the islands. But again, I don’t think they can do it. So it’s more than a pipe dream.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Vanilla said:


> Fair question. I’m talking about their claims to dredge it fully, making it a deeper, cooler, cleaner lake that could support native species again like the cutthroat. The islands for bird nesting, refuges, and general habitat could be really cool and in theory could really increase fishing and hunting opportunities. And as you said, phrag eradication would be incredible!
> 
> Now these are all their claims, and again, I don’t believe personally that they could pull all this off, so overall am against the project. But in my hypothetical where they are able to do it, I’d be all for it.


Phrag isn’t as big of an enemy to waterfowl or hunters on that lake as they want everyone to believe. It isn’t choking out the feed for birds like it does on other water bodies. Birds use it for refuge from the elements and hunters. It also creates incredible hunting pockets of you are willing to work to get to them. I’d be sad to see it disappear. I think others would too once they saw the impact it would have. And those island wont improve hunting opportunities for anyone. It’ll restrict hunting opportunities even more.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MooseMeat said:


> Phrag isn’t as big of an enemy to waterfowl or hunters on that lake as they want everyone to believe. It isn’t choking out the feed for birds like it does on other water bodies. Birds use it for refuge from the elements and hunters. It also creates incredible hunting pockets of you are willing to work to get to them. I’d be sad to see it disappear. I think others would too once they saw the impact it would have. And those island wont improve hunting opportunities for anyone. It’ll restrict hunting opportunities even more.


I’m aware of the opportunities phrag presents for hunting, but phrag is bad, no matter how you slice it. Phrag needs to be eliminated for about 57 different reasons. Even if that means people’s hiding spots from birds are reduced.

I don’t know that I ever stated that islands would increase hunting opportunities, and I think I’ve been MORE than clear that I don’t believe the claims made by the developer are possible. Not sure what else I can say more.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I want to say that the last time I recreated around or on Utah Lake was oh .....maybe 60 years ago.
But the only possible way I could support the idea of dredging if any island created was a designated green space. Any development would be a hands down no. Everything I've read about it amounts to trying to justify the expense by development.

And just for fun Utah Lake is a tributary to the GS not to mention aquifers to the west and south.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Vanilla said:


> The islands for bird nesting, refuges, and general habitat could be really cool and in theory could really increase fishing and hunting opportunities.


maybe im misunderstanding what you’re trying to say here then…

ain’t no way they are going to allow any kind of hunting anywhere near those islands. I can even see the layout boat guys being told to get phucked hunting near them. It’ll just be another city refuge the birds (mostly geese) will use to stay safe, adding to the city goose problems we have right now.

the bike path around the lake is another terrible idea. We don’t need it. It’ll create way more problems than it will solve. It’ll shut down hunting in many places it’s currently allowed. Much of the land they would use is, DWR, blm and state. Then there’s the private land issue that many will throw their lawyers at, creating more road blocks. The places we could still hunt, would be one good duck beat down witnessing away from the bunny humpers rioting over to end that from happening ever again. That would be a huge mess.

either way, phrag isn’t the worst thing to happen to utah lake. It doesn’t do well in deeper water and the ice shreds it at year end on low water years and when the water gets high again, the old root systems don’t take off like they do on the GSL for instance, where the fresh water levels stay relatively the same all year, every year. The south end of utah lake is a great example of what I’m describing. There is (was) phrag right now, where a year from now (hopefully) will be nothing but open water. The larger cattail areas haven’t been over grown by it for as long as I’ve been there (25+ years). I firmly believe phrag on the lake is hated as bad as it is because it makes the carp removal process impossible. And that’s a whole other issue. I don’t care what they say on the progress they’ve made on carp eradication from that pond. They haven’t even made a dent in the numbers.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I don’t mean increased hunting opportunities on the islands themselves (which would have residents on them) but in general.

A healthier ecosystem, in theory, equals more birds, animals and fish. More birds, animals and fish…in theory, equal more hunting and fishing opportunities.

All in theory, because I don’t think they can do what they claim, and won’t get the approval to try. The second part of that mostly because I’m banking on people being willing to comment where it actually counts as freely as they do on this forum. Scary assumption, I know.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Gotcha.

there’s not much other hunting on the lake aside from waterfowl, maybe pheasants on the shoreline. Ducks are literally here one day, gone the next. Our resident birds that actually live on the lake is very small compared to what migrates through the rest of the year. Hunting and waterfowl benefits from the islands? I see zero impact personally. Even with the supposed ecological improvements the islands might have, that won’t be a deciding factor on birds choosing to stay at or leave the lake. Water level is what is #1 on the priority list when it comes to attraction and retention for waterfowl. Hunting opportunity will naturally follow that trend. Fishing I could see improving over time with the project, but I have zero care about that topic and no dogs in that fight.

But I do agree 100% on your opinion on the matter. It’s got a snowballs chance in he11 at happening. But, the fact the discussion has made it even this far with the people in charge is very scary for what might be headed down the pipe in the future.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Back in the 1990s there was a push at the County level to dredge the lake and put the sediment in the middle to create an island which would have been used as a park and was to remain public. The cost of the dredging was estimated at $18-20 million and would have increased the depth by 4-10 feet. I thought it was a good idea and would still support something like that, although the cost has probably increased 20 times.... The idea of cleaning up the Lake has been around for decades. The current proposal is a mess.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Never in my life has increased development equaled more hunting opportunity. On the contrary, it has ALWAYS been less.


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

Sooo… We’re not the only ones talking about this. 
Good





__





Demonstrators rally at Capitol Hill to protest plans for Utah Lake restoration project


Hundreds of people stood on the steps of Utah’s Capitol Hill on Monday to rally against dredging Utah Lake and creating islands and development around it.




www.fox13now.com





I meant to make it to the capitol for this but thought it was tomorrow.


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

Here’s a more critical look










Artificial islands as real estate? The murky finances behind the Utah Lake Restoration Project


Documents obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune shed some light on the Utah Lake Restoration Project’s murky financing.




www.sltrib.com





There’s whispers of a municipality helping to back this hair-brained scheme. Any citizens of Vinyard here? Go to you council meetings and be heard.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

This group pushing this initiative just comes across so shady!

Listened to a radio ad on my way home and “Mike” who has been boating in Utah Lake since he was 4 years old claims nobody will launch their boat there anymore and nobody will swim there. This is why we have to clean it up. 

I challenge him to sit on the corner of my street and count boats headed to the lake each day here in a few months. I don’t have a boat but my family recreates often on the lake with kayaks, swimming, etc. If you have to lie to convince people of your position, then your position is wrong.


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

I heard that ad yesterday morning and got all worked up again. 
We have to shuttle into the job and all the guys in the van w/ me were like WTF? Who shat in your Cheerios? Most of them are from Utah county and are very much against building islands on the lake. 
It’s funny, I read something that someone from the “restoration”(development) company said. He was complaining about how his project was being brought to light by nothing but negative opinions and neigh sayers. And then here they are pushing lies on us with expensive ad campaigns. 

I seen on Fakebook that HB232 was brought in front of committee today. Anybody hear how that went?


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Vanilla said:


> This group pushing this initiative just comes across so shady!
> 
> Listened to a radio ad on my way home and “Mike” who has been boating in Utah Lake since he was 4 years old claims nobody will launch their boat there anymore and nobody will swim there. This is why we have to clean it up.
> 
> I challenge him to sit on the corner of my street and count boats headed to the lake each day here in a few months. I don’t have a boat but my family recreates often on the lake with kayaks, swimming, etc. If you have to lie to convince people of your position, then your position is wrong.


Not just in the summer months. Go look at mill race any day of the week from October to January. The lake gets recreated every day by all user types. “Mike” is a lying dirtbag!


----------



## altarip55 (Sep 3, 2020)

MrShane said:


> You ever seen Lake of The Woods on the Canadian border?
> Are you sure this is such a bad thing?
> If UL was dredged to 30’ and 40 lb. Stripers accidentally grew in there I don’t think it would hurt my feelings much.


Yup, spent a lot of time on Lake of the Woods and I have no idea what you mean. There are a lot of islands but nothing else is even remotely the same.


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

I seen on FB that HB 232 was passed. What a shame. If this commission is anything like The Inland Port well….. here come the dozers.


----------



## lifesshort (Apr 3, 2017)

Vanilla said:


> Fair question. I’m talking about their claims to dredge it fully, making it a deeper, cooler, cleaner lake that could support native species again like the cutthroat. The islands for bird nesting, refuges, and general habitat could be really cool and in theory could really increase fishing and hunting opportunities. And as you said, phrag eradication would be incredible!
> 
> Now these are all their claims, and again, I don’t believe personally that they could pull all this off, so overall am against the project. But in my hypothetical where they are able to do it, I’d be all for it.


If everything they claimed to be able to do is true. They should be willing to post a bond with the state for enough money to return the lake back to the condition it is before they start. A deeper lake does not help with algae blooms. Reducing excess nutrients does. If the dredging does not accomplish everything they claim they should have the money set aside to return the lake to what it is now. If they believe all they say is true this should be no problem for them. The following was posted on another forum. Read this study and decide if all the dredgers claims are true or not.
Fishing Forum


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

FYI-- When this bill went to the senate for a vote, there was an amendment offered that would protect wetlands in certain areas of Utah Lake. The amendment was voted down and the bill was passed without the requested wetland protections. We get what we vote for. Yay us!
R


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

Man, I’ve tried to get over this and move on. It seems set in stone to me after 232 passed. I can’t help but get pissed off though every time I learn more. 
Here’s a page contesting a lot of the b.s. LRS spews. Click on the link to see the fundraising brochure they’ve put out, that says even if they do zero reclamation phase 1 will still provide returns to billionaire investors. 













__





Fundraising materials show primary objective of islands is for revenue generation, not restoration | Conserve Utah Valley







conserveutahvalley.org


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

The proposal is dead.





__





Utah Lake proposed dredging plan stopped in its tracks






www.msn.com





-DallanC


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

DallanC said:


> The proposal is dead.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice! Although bad ideas where dollar signs and avarice are involved tend to have more lives than an alley cat. 

The spokesperson mentioned the project presented significant legal challenges. I do bet the June Sucker/ESA was one. (thank you Junies) I also wonder if the legal questions pointed out by Nilla earlier about lake bed ownership and navigability also shot this thing down?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Catherder said:


> I also wonder if the legal questions pointed out by Nilla earlier about lake bed ownership and navigability also shot this thing down?


This is exactly what they’re talking about. When they mention “unconstitutional” and “public trust” they are referring to that question I raised. Which is interesting to me, I’m not a water law expert and that is the first thing I thought of when I heard about this. I would think those experts involved should have raised that question a lot earlier. I guess all those days in the stream access fights weren’t a waste of time! #LongliveUSAC #UtahWaterguardians









Utah Lake islands plan 'unconstitutional' and legally unsound, official tells lawmakers


KUTV CBS 2 provides local news, weather forecasts, traffic updates, notices of events and items of interest in the community, sports and entertainment programming for Salt Lake City and nearby towns and communities in the Great Salt Lake area, including Jordan Meadows, Millcreek, Murray...




kutv.com


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> I would think those experts involved should have raised that question a lot earlier. I guess all those days in the stream access fights weren’t a waste of time! #LongliveUSAC #UtahWaterguardians


Yeah, those were heady times when many of us were trekking up to the Capitol. 

Educational for even the non lawyers too.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Catherder said:


> Yeah, those were heady times when many of us were trekking up to the Capitol.
> 
> Educational for even the non lawyers too.


While things have not gone exactly as I had hoped (it's not over, by a long shot), it actually gave me a lot of hope that the public process can work if people will simply just get involved. I spent more time at the capitol than I'd like to acknowledge during those years, and I saw how we collectively as a group influenced legislators and policy in general. Heck, even mega-developer Greg Hughes became one of our biggest allies. 

When many talk about not having a voice I think back to these days and remember that you only don't have a voice if you choose not to use it. 

Think about the response if 50 UWN members showed up to every RAC and WB meeting with a united voice calling for change to something for the next three years. That would not be ignored, I promise you.


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

Hey thanks for the update Dallan. I haven’t been keeping up on the news lately. 
I’m glad to hear that some people in power can see past the glitter of the promised wealth from developers.


----------

