# Should the State and DWR promote the States fishing more?



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Slow day at the office...

I came across this article a couple of days ago. 
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/outdoors/5 ... r.html.csp

It basically states that the author believes that the DWR, the tourism board, and the State in general should be promoting the States fishing more than it does, especially to out of staters. It cites several reasons to do so, including offsetting declining in-state license revenues, slashed budgets, and increased costs of raising fish and other programs. Apparently an upcoming license fee increase is on the horizon too.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfishi ... s.html.csp

My question is, do you REALLY want more promotion? More promotion means more competition at the local fishing hole, more demands on the fish resources, and other problems. However, increased out of state revenue means that your costs for a fishing license won't likely be as high. Would you rather pay more for having less competition and maybe slightly better fishing or pay less and have to share more. The board is still smoldering from the hotspotting issue a few months ago, it would seem that officially sanctioned hotspotting is what is being promoted in this article.

What do you think?


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

*Re: Should the State and DWR promote the States fishing more*

I think that if they can pump 1.2 million from Tourism and Travel into skiing and 0.00 into fishing and fishing still makes more money than skiing for Utah then they should do it. If it means less stocking, more access, more awareness and cooperation, drives revenue streams that are untapped then why not? Crowding will be on the 2-3 main waters that are already crowded and that isn't where they need the money. Rural fisheries could suddenly become a boon for private business if they were managed and promoted properly. Lodging, emenities, food, etc. could all benefit at all corners of Utah. Relationships could be made instead of fences being built.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Should the State and DWR promote the States fishing more*

I would think that both are needed.
Employee wage increases should not be included at this time though.

Places like Willard Bay needs help and right now.
Look at the stocking report for Willard for the past 3 years. 
Virtually no Wiper stocking has taken place.
Look back to the 4 years before that any you will see what I mean.

The DWR need to have the funds to raise Wiper in-state or we will loose one of the best fisheries that this State has to offer.
Tiger Muskie are also in danger of not getting stocked unless they can be raised in-state.
This all takes money.
The Kamas Hatchery is closed and needs a new filter system in order to reopen.
Where does the money come from for these projects?
License fees.

Promoting fishing to out of state anglers is a good thing in that these anglers are here for a short period of time and don't have that big of an impact on out fish.
They also spend a lot of money when they are here.

Think about this.
How much do you pay for fuel for a trip to Strawberry or any other place for that mater?
For me, it's more than my annual fishing license, for just one trip.
License fees are a very good value, even with a modest increase.

What I am against though is to pay more for my license in order to gain access to private property on public water.
The Utah State Supreme Court has already ruled that we have a right to have that access.
I will fight any attempt to try and make me pay more for that right!


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Should the State and DWR promote the States fishing more*

Don't we have an instate Muskee raising program right now at Lee Kay?

I think if it increases revenue, then yes, they should be promoting it. That being said, we might need to hash out this stream access nonsense for good one way or another before we go bringing tons of folks instate bragging about how good our fishing on ALL our rivers and other contained bodies of water is. I also agree that there will still be hidden gems that people will not make the effort to fish and that the most accessible places will see immediate increases in crowds. Makes me a sound like a complete jerk I guess, but even with crowds, if you were catching fish before, you'll still be able to catch your fish.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

*Re: Should the State and DWR promote the States fishing more*

Interesting. A couple of follow up thoughts/comments.

1. If we are promoting some of our fishing to attract out of staters, should we change the management of certain fisheries to accomplish this? It is fairly safe to assume that someone from California isn't going to trek to Utah to catch a 10 inch "Finless Freddie" planter trout from a community pond or put and take fishery. What kind of fisheries attract Out-of staters? Exotic fish like Tiger muskies and wipers? Trophy fisheries with (or without) AFL regs? Our bass? Or is our product already good enough with current regs and we just need to get the word out?

2.


fishsnoop said:


> Rural fisheries could suddenly become a boon for private business if they were managed and promoted properly. Lodging, emenities, food, etc. could all benefit at all corners of Utah. Relationships could be made instead of fences being built.


I happen to agree with this and for some reason, a certain Southern Utah mountain range near Bicknell (that always stir up controversy when mentioned here) came to mind as a possible promoted fishing destination for the out-of stater. Back to the original post though. Will the local accept the influx of people and their dollars or will they bellyache about the d*@$# Nevadans/Californians etc?

3.


Riverrat77 said:


> we might need to hash out this stream access nonsense for good one way or another before we go bringing tons of folks instate bragging about how good our fishing on ALL our rivers and other contained bodies of water is.


I intentionally left out that subject when introducing the topic, because I wanted to focus (in this thread) on other aspects of what the Trib author was discussing, even though it was brought up in the article. Funny how so many issues work their way back to Conatser -Ov- .


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

*Re: Should the State and DWR promote the States fishing more*

wiper production has nothing to do with money. It has everything to do with frogs.

seriously.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

*Re: Should the State and DWR promote the States fishing more*

Oh the DWR and "State" have already sent a message to tourists..."We do not have enough open water here to support fishing, stay out." HB141, McIff, Brown, Perry, Herbert and the rest of the cowboys on the hill are doing a better job than what Brigham Young did in keeping the rif-raf and heathen gentiles out of Utah. Now if we can get back to Brigham's idea of "The State of Deseret" we can control more federal lands get back parts of Arizona, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada and Colorado--that should give us plenty of water to fish and attract tourists.


----------



## KennyC (Apr 28, 2010)

*Re: Should the State and DWR promote the States fishing more*

PBH-The DWR has been purchasing wiper "black fry" from KEO Fish Farms for years. and Utah only raised 30,000 in 2010. When they say Purchasing that means spending money. For Utah to produce Wiper, which they have been working with Kansas on this all cost money. Money for the Biologist, facilities, water purification and filtration, Transportation, and tons of other expenses not mentioned. Frogs? Anytime anything is created for recreation there is a major cost associated with it.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Should the State and DWR promote the States fishing more*

I think that PBH is trying to tell us that UDWR is only good at raising frogs.
Is this what you mean?
Perhaps PBH is right on this one. -O|o-


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

*Re: Should the State and DWR promote the States fishing more*

FROGS?

Free the Republic of Government Stupidity!


----------



## KennyC (Apr 28, 2010)

*Re: Should the State and DWR promote the States fishing more*

Oh, now I got it. PBH I stand corrected. Didn't realize it was an acronym.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

*Re: Should the State and DWR promote the States fishing more*

Actually -- KennyC is more correct. My comment was directed to "wiper production in our hatcheries". This is limited because of frogs. Yes, frogs. Frog contamination, transportation, and introduction. Yes, frogs.

However, as Kenny noted, we are not "raising" wipers in our hatcheries (because of frogs) -- we purchase them. They are flown to Utah, then handed off to biologists for stocking in the few reservoirs that we have in Utah with wipers. Obviously, this costs money. It is not your typical "hatchery stocking" program.

I look forward to additional wipers in additional lakes in Utah in the future.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

*Re: Should the State and DWR promote the States fishing more*



HighNDry said:


> Oh the DWR and "State" have already sent a message to tourists..."We do not have enough open water here to support fishing, stay out." HB141, McIff, Brown, Perry, Herbert and the rest of the cowboys on the hill are doing a better job than what Brigham Young did in keeping the rif-raf and heathen gentiles out of Utah.


While it is well known here that I agree with you on 141, I do not believe that the ONLY draw to out-of-staters is our trout streams. Which begs the question that seems not to be quickly or easily answered here. What kind of fisheries most attract the nonresident angler and his dollars?

On a related note, the DWR will be raising license fees soon. You can read about it partway through this thread here.
http://www.bigfishtackle.com/forum/Utah ... ead#unread

Personally, I have no problem with an increase. It has been quite a while and I do know that the money is sorely needed for a variety of projects. (Including, I presume, raising frogs  ) And I am intrigued by the idea of promoting our fishing to lure nonresidents in to help offset these costs. However, I have some doubts that a lot of the "product" the DWR is offering is appealing to the outsider. I know that out of staters have been coming to Jordanelle to catch trophy smallies the past few years, but the DWR is moving away from trophy regs there, which should diminish the appeal I would think. I know some out-of-staters come to Pineview for the tiger muskies. We have been back and forth on trophy trout regs, slot limits in places like Panguitch, and AFL. It seems to me that in order to attract nonresidents, Utah has to offer something that the angler cannot catch in his own state. Otherwise, why spend the extra money and time? I know that there are multiple factors in many regulatory decisions/changes, but one of the ones the DWR has been touting of late is *simplification* of the regs. It would seem to me that to provide unique experiences to the nonresident, a drive to simplification and one size fits all regs and fisheries is not what you want to do.

Thoughts?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

*Re: Should the State and DWR promote the States fishing more*



Catherder said:


> ...I have some doubts that a lot of the "product" the DWR is offering is appealing to the outsider.
> 
> Thoughts?


A good product needs no marketing. I feel this has been a weak area for the DWR in it's current administration. Things change. They have in the past, and they will in the future. Create a good product, and people will come.


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

*Re: Should the State and DWR promote the States fishing more*



fishsnoop said:


> I think that if they can pump 1.2 million from Tourism and Travel into skiing and 0.00 into fishing and fishing still makes more money than skiing for Utah then they should do it. If it means less stocking, more access, more awareness and cooperation, drives revenue streams that are untapped then why not? Crowding will be on the 2-3 main waters that are already crowded and that isn't where they need the money. Rural fisheries could suddenly become a boon for private business if they were managed and promoted properly. Lodging, emenities, food, etc. could all benefit at all corners of Utah. Relationships could be made instead of fences being built.


Do you have a source for your statement that fishing still makes more money than skiing does for UT?
I don't think that statement is right, but if you provide a source, then I may be convinced.
The reason I don't believe that statement is because I don't know of any fishing area that has caused hotels that charge $1,200 a night to be built at the rate of one every year for the last several years.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

*Re: Should the State and DWR promote the States fishing more*

Yeah, It was done by Southwick and Assoc. research and also distributed by the DWR in a pamphlet. I still have a few if you want one. There is even 2 copies in my truck as we type. Can you say more than 20 mil more. Fishing makes more money than hunting in Utah. The birdwatchers bring 1.1 bil to the state every year while fishing is 708+ mil. Hunting 523 mil. Skiing is 692 mil.


----------

