# What classifies as "Blue Ribbon" waters?



## poiboy (Nov 18, 2010)

So what would you say makes a river "Blue Ribbon"? I ask this because of a comment made by trout bum.

"Re: Fly Fishing In-town Ogden
by trout bum » Nov 22, '10, 6:28 

The term "blue ribbon" is way over used in my opinion. How can anyone compare the Ogden and weber river with the likes of the Green and other "true" blue ribbon fisheries. Really?"

I hear this term used, I've read it in articles in magazines, so what makes it blue ribbon? I don't agree with or disagree with your remarks, trout bum, since I don't know if there's standards for grading a river. Blue ribbon or not, I love to fish the Weber and the Ogden and I catch majority of the time. Most importantly, I enjoy these rivers every chance I fish them.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Great Question and maybe this will potentially help answer your question...you didn't say specifically if you accessed the DWR site and read up on why some waters are designated as Blue Ribbon waters or how Blue Ribbon water designation got started...so here you go

Link below is info on the criteria for selecting a water as a designated Blue Ribbon water. IMHO it has to do with actual fish species for example Pineview is Blue Ribbon designated because of the 'unique attraction' of potential of catching a Trophy Tiger Muskie

http://wildlife.utah.gov/blueribbon/good_idea.php

Utah waters designated as Blue Ribbon

http://wildlife.utah.gov/blueribbon/waters/

Maybe that will help maybe it won't but the above links seem pretty straight forward on the criteria and 'unique attractions' on the specific Utah designated Blue Ribbon waters. But maybe someone else has more intel...

Possibly Mr. Drew Cushing and/or Amy from the DWR will also respond...again great question. OBTW welcome to the Forum...


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

yeah, Blue Ribbon is now synonymous with private/No access.
check out the list


----------



## poiboy (Nov 18, 2010)

k2muskie, thanks for the links.


----------



## trout bum (Oct 5, 2010)

I have my own idea of a "blue ribbon" stream I guess. Some people are happy with fishing a river that runs through a landfill as long as they are catching fish. And thats okay. That is thier perogitive. For me, a succesfull day on the water has nothing to do with fish numbers or size. It is all about the experience as a whole. The opportunity to fish a beautiful river flowing through a a nice canyon or valley.

Criteria:
1. Water quality and quantity. A body of water — warm or cold, flowing or flat — will be considered for Blue Ribbon status if it has sufficient water quality and quantity to sustain a viable fishery.
2. The water must be accessible to the public.
3. The body of water should possess a natural capacity to produce and maintain a sustainable recreational fishery. Management strategies that will consistently produce fish of significant size and/or numbers to provide a quality experience.
4. The water must be able to withstand angling pressure.
5. Selection may be based on a specific species.


1. Can the water quality and quantity sustain a viable fishery? Yes
2. Is the water accessible to the public? Some of it. And as I asked before, is this a tax payer funded project to improve stream habitat on private property that we can no longer use?
3.Will it produce fish of a significant size/and or quantity to provide a quality experience? Probably. Depends on your view of "quality experience".
4.Can it withstand the angling pressure? Yet to be determined.
5.Selection may be based on a specific species. Any trout caught on a fly is a trophy in my book.

I dont know if the Ogden will ever be given "blue ribbon"status but in my view I believe the label "blue ribbon" should be reserved for higher quality rivers. I have lived in North Ogden for 33 years and I know what happens to things that are reconstructed in Ogden. After the newness wears off. The river corridor may look nice for a while but I dont believe it will last. I hope Im wrong.


----------



## trout bum (Oct 5, 2010)

Pez Gallo said:


> yeah, Blue Ribbon is now synonymous with private/No access.
> check out the list


All of those "blue ribbon" rivers that flow on private property should be taken off the list.

Note criteria #4
"The water must be accessible to the public"


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

Pez Gallo said:


> yeah, Blue Ribbon is now synonymous with private/No access.
> check out the list


unfortunatly this is true. in the state of Utah when a river is called blue ribbon it means that someone is going to make money by charging average joe utahan money to fish it. in utah blue ribbon means private property


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

kochanut said:


> unfortunatly this is true. in the state of Utah when a river is called blue ribbon it means that someone is going to make money by charging average joe utahan money to fish it. in utah blue ribbon means private property


I disagree. I think the whole stream access battle is a separate issue, and should not be confused with the Blue Ribbon PROGRAM.

the Blue Ribbon program has been a success for EVERY water that has been affected by Blue Ribbon program. Regardless of current legislative problems, and legal issues that are out of the control of the BRFAC, those streams have benefited from the Blue Ribbon program.

this is a little bit like the deer management mess currently going on. People are more concerned currently about how the anglers are affected, than how the stream/fish are affected. If the stream and fish can benefit from the Blue Ribbon program, how can that be a bad thing?

Any of you that truly believe that Blue Ribbon is synonymous with private/no access, then let's hook up and go fishing. I'll get you on some public Blue Ribbon water.


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

I think the blue ribbon program is great for the ecology of a stream, but it's unfortunate that this work is improving streams that for the most part won't be open to the public. Sure there are a few small open stretches, and am glad to have them, but too much of those rivers listed as blue ribbon are private now.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Pez -- so, should the Blue Ribbon council work towards removing the work that they have done on those rivers? I could care less about the title. Call the river what you want. But, the Blue Ribbon program is a great program that should continue to improve our fisheries, including urban streams like the Ogden.


FWIW -- blue ribbon monies are also used to secure stream access through purchases. Look at the EF Sevier in Kingston Canyon. What a success story that is, especially considering the current stream access mess.


----------



## fishnate (Sep 11, 2007)

You guys seem to not want any access if you can't have it all  :OX/:. I've fished in Utah all my life, all along the Wasatch Front from Cache to Spanish Fork Canyon, southern Utah, and NE Utah where I live now. Everywhere I go I find private land blocking my access to some stretches of water, however, I almost always can find some public access. I swear if 99% of a stream was public you public access guys would find a reason to cry that the only place with good fishing was on that 1% of locked up, private land :x . I've fished many of these Blue Ribbon steams and had very little problem finding good public access. They all offer public access. It never said all of the access was public. I love the fact that people can own land and, for the most part, do what they want with it including restrict access. I wish I could afford some of that prime land so I could be the target of such hate and disgust. If so many idiots wouldn't disrespect private property, littering, breaking gates, harrassing livestock, etc. access wouldn't likely be so difficult. I've gained access to some pretty sweet waters by being genuinly respectful and courteous and caring for the landowners interests.

Back on track: From what I can see, the criteria of Water quality and quantity, Water accessibility, Natural reproduction capacity, Angling pressure, and Specific species has been met on every water.


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

PBH said:


> Pez -- so, should the Blue Ribbon council work towards removing the work that they have done on those rivers?


No. Like I said, it's a great program for the stream. But, for future projects, I believe that _public_ dollars should NOT be spent on _private_ rivers and streams.

I'm willing to bet a majority of tax paying anglers would agree with me.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Pez Gallo said:


> No. Like I said, it's a great program for the stream. But, for future projects, I believe that _public_ dollars should NOT be spent on _private_ rivers and streams.
> 
> I'm willing to bet a majority of tax paying anglers would agree with me.


In all cases?

What about cases where native species might actually benefit from habitat improvement on private land using public money? Couldn't one make a case that by keeping the general public off the private land through which the public stream flows, the native species might thrive?

Take a look at the Boulder Creek native cutthroat project. Would you really want this project shut down because 1 of the 7 proposed miles flows through private land? Not me. The benefit (native trout restoration) certainly out-weighs the drawback of limited public access.

Blankets are not the solution. We can't simply look at private vs. public land. Each case should be looked at and evaluated to determine whether or not the access is the most important detail.


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

Nope. Wouldn't spend money on ANY private water. It just makes a loop hole private land owners in the future.

Let the land owners foot the cost. Make them be responsible for what happens on "their" waters. If they let fish go extinct on their waters, they should be responsible. It happened on their land after all, right?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I couldn't disagree more. I'm for helping native fish, regardless of whose land they might be on.


It happened on their land? No! That's the funny thing with streams and rivers. They move in and out of public and private land. Fish don't know boundaries. They just swim. So, private or public, we still have a responsibility of protecting our native fish. 

You need to be careful for what you ask for...


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

PBH said:


> You need to be careful for what you ask for...


private land owners have demanded private access to the rivers and streams. They should be responsible for what happens on their property, including protecting the wildlife on it. They have asked for it, lets give it to them. If wildlife becomes harmed because of their negligence, then they should be fined, sued, held responsible.

If they open up the access, I'd be open for funding any and all programs that help the habitat and releasing them from their responsibility.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

So, suppose native cutthroat trout are listed under the Threatened and Endangered species act, an action that possibly could have been prevented if restoration work was done on a 1 mile section of private river? then, the whole state is punished?

Sounds crazy to me. But, I guess I'm in your minority.

Don't confuse the issues. Access vs. being a good steward.


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

the dwr has told us about the miles and miles of rivers and streams that are open to the public for use in national forests and parks. All of those miles of streams can hold these trout that may be endangered. 

As for me, I refuse to aquiesce to those who request tax dollars for private streams and rivers.

The whole river access crap has left some deep scars, and I have very little remorse for not improving habitat on private waters.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

I have to agree with Pez Gallo, regardless of the importance of the project if it flows over private land, public dollars shouldn't be used. Its that simple. If the private interests want to grant fishing access to last until infinity then that is a different matter. Also have to agree that the term Ribbon is used too loosely.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Good discussion. A few additional points.

1.


fishnate said:


> You guys seem to not want any access if you can't have it all


You are entitled to your opinion about Conatser/HB141, but the question of paying PUBLIC money to pay for projects on waters that have been rendered off limits to the public by an act of law is a very legitimate one, and is what was discussed here. The courts will settle the HB141 issue, but in the meantime we will have to decide where our limited conservation dollars go. It never ceases to amaze me how many so called arch conservative landowners are eager to step up and feed at the public trough.

2. There is generally a difference between most "blue ribbon" projects and native species restoration. Almost all "blue ribbon" projects are to improve habitat, access, opportunity, and the quality of the fishing in a given water. Native fish preservation involves removing non natives, and reestablishing the indigenous fish species. While the natives may be fun to catch, the goal of the project is to establish native populations, not necessarily improve fishing success.

How that relates to the use of public money IMO is as follows; Since the alternative to doing native species work is a torrent of lawsuits from the "Center for biologic diversity" and other radical enviro and anti fishing organizations, that could affect ALL fishing, I have no problem having public money go to some stretches that includes private areas. The success of these projects usually require that entire stretches and drainages be treated and "leaving out" small privates sections means failure.

Conversely, most "blue ribbon" projects involve improving access and fishing success and quality. A primary criteria of any new project should be PUBLIC opportunity. It may be that a private landowner may get a residual benefit, but the overwhelming bulk of the benefit should be to the public. The blue ribbon criteria already says as much. Places like Victory Ranch and others that have locked up vast stretches of water shouldn't get a nickel of blue ribbon money as the public gets zero benefit from said projects.

3. It may not be the case elsewhere, but in my county, fishing the blue ribbon stream is an overcrowded angler circus with stunted fish. I wouldn't generally be caught dead fishing there. However, the local "non" blue ribbon stream closer to home treats me quite well and anglers are few. In fact I caught a 17 and an 18 inch brown in an hour today before the storm hit. -|\O- Personally, I hope it never becomes a "blue ribbon" designate.


----------



## poiboy (Nov 18, 2010)

As far as rivers go, the only blue ribbon that I've fished is the Weber. I love that river. I've not had any problems with land owners. Fishnate, you speak some wisdom. I've spoke with land owners along that river and agree that being courteous is the ticket. Respect them and the land and the waters, basically, act the way we should act and things work out.


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

Anyone know where the public minutes/notes are to the last Blue Ribbon Fishery's meeting?

It was RUMORED TO be said by the BRFC - "BRFC does not care about trophy fish or providing a high quality fishing opportunity. Utah isn't Wyoming, Montana, Idaho or Colorado, Utah is home to the hook and cook 'em, catch 'em and keep 'em crowd"


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

F/V -- you're listening too much to Bill and Sumner -- both of whom have personal issues with members of the council. Both of them hear what they want to hear, and leave everything else out. 


Blue Ribbon is a PROGRAM -- not a title! It does not = "trophy" fish. In EVERY case, when Blue Ribbon money has been used on a fishery in Utah the fishery has improved!

Catherder -- you mentioned that you don't want a certain stream listed as a blue ribbon water. I can appreciate that. However, wouldn't it be nice if that stream had the attention of some blue ribbon $$ -- regardless of listing it as a blue ribbon water? I agree with your comments.

Again, Blue Ribbon is a PROGRAM, not simply a title. It is a good program aimed at improving fisheries across the state -- not just flyfishing waters, not just streams, not just flat water. It includes bass fisheries, hook 'em and cook 'em fisheries, "trophy" fisheries, and aesthetically pleasing fisheries. It is a broad spectrum that includes many different waters, and shouldn't be just a program that benefits a single group of anglers with limited interests.


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

PBH said:


> F/V -- you're listening too much to Bill and Sumner -- both of whom have personal issues with members of the council. Both of them hear what they want to hear, and leave everything else out.
> 
> Blue Ribbon is a PROGRAM -- not a title! It does not = "trophy" fish. In EVERY case, when Blue Ribbon money has been used on a fishery in Utah the fishery has improved!
> 
> ...


Ha! well, yes and no... they do have a valid point.

I understand its not 'trophy waters', I really do. A few mentors of mine have been on that council before, I'm very familiar with the 'ropes'. However, I'd like to see/hear the minutes.

PBH you a smart dude, I always welcome your thoughts but you see the list of waters and you know whats around the state... is this program on target? NO could it use a little rustle of the feathers to get back on track, YES. That's more or less where I see the issue.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I think it (the program)is doing well. In fact, the Blue Ribbon program has given anglers MORE stream access miles in the last 2 years than ANY other group! So, those people complaining about money being spent on private land being a waste -- they're up in the night. 

I think the biggest shortcoming right now is exactly what you are looking for. The Blue Ribbon web page hasn't been updated in a very long time. My understanding is that the committee has been trying to get it updated, but whomever at the DWR that runs the website hasn't been getting it done.

I think that we'll see some updates soon. Maybe even the meeting minutes.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> Blue Ribbon is a PROGRAM, not simply a title. It is a good program aimed at improving fisheries across the state -- not just flyfishing waters, not just streams, not just flat water. It includes bass fisheries, hook 'em and cook 'em fisheries, "trophy" fisheries, and aesthetically pleasing fisheries. It is a broad spectrum that includes many different waters,


I think one of the main problems with the "blue ribbon" program is perceptual. One of my previous stops in life was living 4 years in Colorado. There, the term "blue ribbon fishery" had a very specific connotation. It was a fishery that offered the highest likelihood of catching large fish and all were managed with restrictive regs. (AFL, with limited to no harvest) They were actively promoted by CDOW with all the good ($) and bad (crowds) that went with that. I believe other states have "titles" and programs similar to Colorado. I think that is what many (esp fly anglers) expect here when a stream is declared "blue ribbon". Needless to say, some are disappointed when they discover that it is not.

I agree that our "blue ribbon" program is doing a lot of cool things, esp in light of HB141. Perhaps how we label and market the program and its accomplishments would help it resonate with the angling public better.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

I hear what you are saying Catherder. A few years ago a friend from Grand Junction, CO and I hunted elk and fished in the Manti mountains. There are so-called Blue Ribbon fisheries in the Mantis. My friend made the comment that Utah seems too liberal and loose when using the blue ribbon name. I'm not sure what the right label is: but Blue Ribbon seems ambitious and sets a high bar that someone from out of state might find disappointing.


----------

