# A proposal to move the mouth of the Provo....?



## Tigru (Oct 15, 2007)

I just read this on KSL....

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=10048737

Is this old news, or a new development in the "save the junes" campaign?


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

News to me.


----------



## blueboy22 (Sep 30, 2007)

Of course, why not, show everyone who the true Suckers are.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

blueboy22 said:


> Of course, why not, show everyone who the true Suckers are.


Just curious why you think this would be a bad thing? I've never figured out why many are against June Sucker recovery projects. It seems to me that _anything_ done to help the June Sucker will also benefit every other sport fish in Utah Lake. How can this be bad?


----------



## Windage (Mar 11, 2010)

Its amazing that with all he finnancial problems we have going on right now that this is still a priority. They just got done remodeling in the mouth of Hobble Creek maybe they could wait a few years and see how that will impact the sucker population. Most likely all thats going to come form this is they are going to accidently kill all the carp in Utah Lake so in 30 years we will have to re route the rivers again to save the carp.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> blueboy22 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, why not, show everyone who the true Suckers are.
> ...


Federal/state/local economies are in the tank, and you think this is a wise use of funds at this time? WTH, it's mostly others funds, not yours, right? :?


----------



## blueboy22 (Sep 30, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> PBH said:
> 
> 
> > blueboy22 said:
> ...


For one thing, all the money being poured into this in the past just kills me. Also During the worst Drought years we've seen in resent history a while back. We were being told every day to save water or in some case's Stop using water altogether But it was ok for them to drain Deer creek for weeks when there wasn't enough water in Deer Creek in a lot of people's opinion (Yes,including mine)to drain, just so the Suckers can have a high enough water level to spawn, what a joke.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm curious how they think this is going to save anything... they'll change the mouth of the river but the walleye, white bass, catfish and anything else in there will still go up and spawn, still eat young of the year suckers.... the predators will find the bait, and I'm not sure how moving the channel prevents that. Going to the other side of the state park there is a lot of tule and cattail weedlines, but its not that much different than the mouth of the Provo right now. I've hunted all up and down those shorelines.... so I'm aware of whats out there...


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Tigru said:


> Is this old news, or a new development in the "save the junes" campaign?


The specifics of the plan is somewhat new, but the general plan to improve tributary habitat has been part or the recovery program since the outset.



Windage said:


> Its amazing that with all he finnancial problems we have going on right now that this is still a priority





proutdoors said:


> ederal/state/local economies are in the tank, and you think this is a wise use of funds at this time? WTH, it's mostly others funds, not yours, right? :?





blueboy22 said:


> For one thing, all the money being poured into this in the past just kills me.


To all of you bellyachers about the program, I probably am wasting my time, but I will point out that there are a lot of government programs that I see that waste the taxpayers money. Obamacare comes to mind right now, so does idiotic state laws the legislature passes that are destined to be challenged and overturned in court at great public expense. The list is endless. I am a Utah county resident and what do *I* get out of the JSRIP? (besides a fish that I likely will never catch)

1. Habitat improvement: The main goal of the program is to improve the habitat so the YOY can have an increased survival rate. A lot of the work is on improved tributary habitat. The Hobble creek restoration effort is a good example. I will get a nice clean stream to recreate in and around right in my own town, there will be better stream fishing, birdwatching, and more wildlife, and the water quality is improved. Win, win, win.

2.The results from #1 will result in better fishing for sport fish species lakewide. Maybe you guys like slow fishing, but I will be contrarian and vote for better fishing. Win.

3. The water quality will improve. Again, I know how much you guys like that turbid, stinky water, but I'll vote for cleaner water. win

4. In part due to JSRIP funds, fisherman/public FISHING access has been procured and improved. The entire Lincoln point area will soon be purchased by the state with a contribution from JSRIP that will open the best UL walleye area on the lake to public shoreline fishing. This area is currently posted no trespassing. Even you critics would have to call that a win.

So, as a Utah county resident, I am appreciative that a few crumbs of government largesse is being put into my small community and its prominent lake. I am getting real value from the money spent. I can't say that about most government programs.

Two last thing, whining that redirecting the river channel will "ruin the fishing" is absolutely ridiculous. (I have heard that elsewhere, not so much on this forum)
and 


blueboy22 said:


> But it was ok for them to drain Deer creek for weeks when there wasn't enough water in Deer Creek in a lot of people's opinion (Yes,including mine)to drain, just so the Suckers can have a high enough water level to spawn, what a joke.


You conveniently forgot that they were doing improvements on Deer Creek dam during that time and were required to have the lake level as low as it was. :roll:

If you guys have strong feelings about this, you can tell the Feds yourselves at a public meeting in a couple of weeks. I have the details at home and can post them if you'd like.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

I am now enlightened Catherder (ouch), thanks for sharing that information. :O||: 

Just what/who is JSRIP?


----------



## hungry3lmb (Mar 19, 2010)

Yeah here's my two cents.......I don't care for moving the mouth of the Provo at all. I like it how it is now. And yes it will ruin the white bass and walleye runs going into the river. A shallow inlet is never useful......it will be out of the water in a drought year. Even the current inlet mouth is very shallow about 3 to 4ft deep on average water levels. If anything, that inlet needs to be dredged deeper LOL. Yeah I do like that muddy water in utah lake. Improving water quality is fine but moving the provo is an absurd idea. And there's plenty of Phragmites to the south of the provo inlet right now and it's shallow littoral habitat too.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Catherder -- I enjoyed your post.



proutdoors said:


> Federal/state/local economies are in the tank, and you think this is a wise use of funds at this time? WTH, it's mostly others funds, not yours, right? :?


Pro -- economies are in the tank. I imagine that this project would include some heavy machinery and construction work. Creation of jobs my friend. Who's going to do the work? A biologist? Nope. They'll send it out to bid, and give some people an opportunity to make some money for themselves. Plus, it just might improve Utah Lake and the sport fish that swim in those waters.

You remind me of many rural Utahns -- if the "government" (it makes no difference which government) is involved, it is automatically a bad thing.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Catherder, why the anger? 

As for my objections, you mentioned Obamacare, which I am 100% against. My point is not whether this is a worthy project or not as I haven't done a whole lot of research on it, but my objection is the timing of it and whether it is warranted in such dire economic times. PBH asked for why someone would be against it, people responded, then you act like we tried to steal your truck. :? 

Here is where I stand on government spending on issues like this: we are cutting budgets big time, MORE cuts still need to be made, especially at the federal level. For those not paying attention, this country is BROKE! So, if the country is broke WTH are we even discussing funding something that is not an absolute necessity, let alone for the hopeful benefit of a fish? People are hurting economically, yet Catherder/PBH want to TAKE funds from families barely getting by to help a FISH. Ask me again why I object to this proposal? This country, and the people in it need to get their finances in order real quick, and funding FISH projects is NOT something that should be high on the list of spending priorities, IMHO.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> Pro -- economies are in the tank. I imagine that this project would include some heavy machinery and construction work. Creation of jobs my friend. Who's going to do the work? A biologist? Nope. They'll send it out to bid, and give some people an opportunity to make some money for themselves. Plus, it just might improve Utah Lake and the sport fish that swim in those waters.
> 
> You remind me of many rural Utahns -- if the "government" (it makes no difference which government) is involved, it is automatically a bad thing.


You must have gone to Obama Economics 101. :? The government produces NOTHING without first taking, and what they produce after taking is ALWAYS less than what they took. Government jobs that are temporary will not help in the long run. Adding to the national debt will add to the bill that WILL be called in very shortly.

I am not anti-government, just anti-government waste. And when times are lean, lean budgets are REQUIRED. Robbing Peter (the tax payers) to pay Paul (the construction workers) will not get us out of the economic crisis we are in. Reduced spending is what is needed, not spending on FISH.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Yikes, the aggies are in trouble at the half.  Ok, a few items to follow up.



.45 said:


> ust what/who is JSRIP?


June Sucker Recovery Implementation Program.



proutdoors said:


> Catherder, why the anger?


Sorry Pro. I guess I have put forth these arguments so many times on the WWW that it comes out a little snarky. I will try to be nicer. but hey, the Obamacare example was picked just for you because I knew we both would agree about that particular example.  :wink:



hungry3lmb said:


> And yes it will ruin the white bass and walleye runs going into the river.


Considering that the whites are broadcast spawners, and "do it" all over the lake, I doubt you will see any dropoff of WB fishing. Walleyes also spawn all over where suitable substrate is found, and I am not buying that the project will make it so the eyes will avoid spawning in the Provo anyway. That is the idea of the project, to improve spawning. What you will hopefully see is enhanced YOY (young of year) survival of the suckers, but guess what? Spawning river walleye fry (and other species) would also have increased survival!



hungry3lmb said:


> it will be out of the water in a drought year.


Provo river running dry? Actually, the JSRIP has assured a guaranteed flow down the Provo river, that both allows for good water to be available for all of the UL fish species, but also guarantees stable river flow down the Provo all season, assuring good fishing for the crowds of anglers hitting the Lower Provo. (another JSRIP benefit I forgot in the first post). If there is a severe generalized drought, then there won't be a heck of a lot of difference in the lakes situation how deep the Provo channel is.

Was I nicer this time? :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Catherder said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Catherder, why the anger?
> ...


Much better. :mrgreen: 8)


----------



## stupiddog (Jan 15, 2008)

I'm with the sucker on this one, if it was any species that any of us enjoyed to catch we would be all for it. Just because we don't fish for them does not mean destroy them. Bonus we get some temp jobs out of the deal. The sucker has lived here longer than any of us and has the right to live on.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Pro -- do you know where the funding for this proposed project will come from? How is that funding "taking" anything from you?



Pro said:


> Government jobs that are temporary will not help in the long run.


Tell that to the guy hired to run the track hoe.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> Pro -- do you know where the funding for this proposed project will come from? How is that funding "taking" anything from you?


Do tell how this is being funded with NO tax raised funds.



PBH said:


> Pro said:
> 
> 
> > Government jobs that are temporary will not help in the long run.
> ...


Talk about missing the boat. :? I underlined the part you seemed to miss. :roll:


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

PBH said:


> Pro -- do you know where the funding for this proposed project will come from? How is that funding "taking" anything from you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not only that, but if the funds are appropriated, use 'em. With bids going for almost 50% less than estimated, it's a 'win, win' situation..


----------



## RnF (Sep 25, 2007)

blueboy22 said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > PBH said:
> ...


They drained Deer Creek because the dam needed repairs. It wasn't because of the June suckers, that's was mis-information that went wild.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Do tell how this is being funded with NO tax raised funds.


You're paying those taxes regardless of whether or not this project happens. Why not let those taxes go towards something that could benefit locals? Or, would you rather those taxes go towards some other project in some other state?

I'm still curious -- where is the funding coming from? How is it taking money directly out of your pocket? Is the added benefit (improved sportfishing in Utah Lake) worth the money?



Pro said:


> Government jobs that are temporary will not help in the long run.


Without a short run, there is no long run. Work is work. People that want to work and make some money will jump at the opportunity.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> You're paying those taxes regardless of whether or not this project happens. Why not let those taxes go towards something that could benefit locals? Or, would you rather those taxes go towards some other project in some other state? I am guessing you are unaware that if spending is reduced, taxes can/should be reduced as well. :shock: Reduced taxes allows those barely getting by to have more funds at hand to hire more employees, give employees raises, pay off debts, SAVE funds, buy things from other businesses, you know, things that really HELP the local/state/federal economies. So, my question is: Why not let the taxpayers keep their own money instead of you deciding where THEIR money is best spent?
> 
> I'm still curious -- where is the funding coming from? How is it taking money directly out of your pocket? Is the added benefit (improved sportfishing in Utah Lake) worth the money? I say NO! Not only that, I don't think it is the proper role of the government to do so even during economically good times.
> 
> ...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Pro -- you crack me up. Should government use ANY tax money for ANYTHING? Your post sounds like you'd like to see all taxation go away. :shock: (see, I can use emoticons too!)

If it's not the government's job to help protect species in need, to improve habitat, to clean up an ecosystem as abused as Utah Lake is, then who's job is it? Yours? Mine? If that is the case, why aren't we doing anything???

we each have an opinion. Yours differs from mine. That's what makes this country great.

I'm all for spending any amount and doing whatever it takes to turn Utah Lake's water clear again!

Are you willing to argue _anything_?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> I'm all for spending any amount and doing whatever it takes to turn Utah Lake's water clear again! Then do it! Just don't force everyone else to do like wise. How **** arrogant can one be to FORCE others to fund YOUR pet projects.
> 
> Are you willing to argue _anything_? No, just mostly anything written by you or your brother. :-|O|-:





PBH said:


> Pro -- you crack me up. Should government use ANY tax money for ANYTHING? Your post sounds like you'd like to see all taxation go away. :shock: Darn close. I believe we could/should cut taxes in half, cut spending by at least half. You know, balance the budget and let people keep THEIR money. Crazy I know.
> 
> If it's not the government's job to help protect species in need, to improve habitat, to clean up an ecosystem as abused as Utah Lake is, then who's job is it? Yours? Mine? If that is the case, why aren't we doing anything??? Yes, it yours/mine. Get the government out of the way and it will likely happen at much cheaper at that. You/I aren't allowed to move the mouth of a river thanks in large part to federal regulations.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

> If it's not the government's job to help protect species in need, to improve habitat, to clean up an ecosystem as abused as Utah Lake is, then who's job is it? Yours? Mine? If that is the case, why aren't we doing anything??? Yes, it yours/mine. Get the government out of the way and it will likely happen at much cheaper at that. You/I aren't allowed to move the mouth of a river thanks in large part to federal regulations.


Of all the giant steaming piles you've layed out over the years, this one may be the biggest PRO! Come on now, people statewide are going to donate months on end, not work their jobs, and spend their own money to do the project? Get a shovel...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> > If it's not the government's job to help protect species in need, to improve habitat, to clean up an ecosystem as abused as Utah Lake is, then who's job is it? Yours? Mine? If that is the case, why aren't we doing anything??? Yes, it yours/mine. Get the government out of the way and it will likely happen at much cheaper at that. You/I aren't allowed to move the mouth of a river thanks in large part to federal regulations.
> 
> 
> Of all the giant steaming piles you've layed out over the years, this one may be the biggest PRO! Come on now, people statewide are going to donate months on end, not work their jobs, and spend their own money to do the project? Get a shovel...


You may be right, but in today's economic climate I care a whole lot less about a fish not able to adapt to its environment that I care about people being able to put food on the table! If YOU/PBH and others feel so **** strong about moving the mouth of the Provo, fund it yourselves! Who the hell are you to demand every American fund YOUR pet project? Especially when doing so puts families in a bind. This mindset of YOU know where MY income should be spent is exactly what has gotten us TRILLIONS in debt as a nation.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Pro -- should all habitat projects be cancelled? Or should you be allowed to pick and choose which projects and which animals benefit?

I'm wondering if we should also cancel all funding for big game habitat improvement?

Just because YOU don't agree with it doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do.'



Pro said:


> I care a whole lot less about a fish not able to adapt to its environment...


Wouldn't the mule deer in Utah fit this very same comment? How do you feel about projects aimed towards helping Utah's struggling deer herds?


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

Personally I have no opinion either way about moving the mouth of the Provo River. I just pointed out your ridiculous point and "idea". My biggest concern right now is with HB 141 that was drafted by a small handful of wealthy, conservative landowners with the intention of "sticking it to the general public" because of the Supreme Court's ruling with Conatser vs. Johnson ruling in 2008, which is an INTERPRETATION of the constitution, not a new decision. If HB 141 is put into law, I STAND TO LOOSE FOOD OFF OF MY TABLE so i'll be damned if I let that happen without a fight. No other state in the country would this be allowed to happen. Even in similar minded Montana was access granted to waterways, WHICH ARE PUBLIC! Utah is the KING of you scratch my back, i'll scratch your back politics. Lori Fowlks, who drafted HB 80, was not part of the "good ole' boys" club so her bill was shot down despite being the only bill that consulted the issues of all parties involved as well as professional consultation on all facets of the bill.


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

> Feds seek public input on rerouting river for suckers
> By Donald W. Meyers
> The Salt Lake Tribune
> 
> ...


I for one feel this project is much needed. Not just for the june sucker but of other fish as well. Remember the river was moved way back when so people could use the water. IT would be a good Idea to put it back to a more natural state.

Here is a link to the public scope meeting handed out from the other day.
http://www.bigfishtackle.com/forum/Utah ... t_id=58979


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

In tough economic times priorities MUST be made, whether it be personal economics or societal economics. If I take a pay cut, I don't stop eating, but I do stop eating out as often. I don't walk around naked, I wear less expensive clothes. If the country is hurting, it doesn't shut down, it slims down. Why that is so complex for someone so 'educated' as PBH is perplexing.

As for HB141, at least flyguy7 is honest about why he is against it. It isn't about whether it is right/wrong to him, it's about how it affects his wallet. You say no other state would allow something like this, really? I assume you've fished Wyoming streams. Even under HB141 Utah is more 'liberal' with access than the Cowboy State.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> In tough economic times priorities MUST be made, whether it be personal economics or societal economics.


So, I'm gathering from your response that you believe that big game is higher priority than native fish? Isn't that just your opinion?

What makes you think priorities aren't being made? What makes you think that other projects are not being put on hold?

we understand that you don't give a **** about native fish, but that doesn't mean that projects to improve habitat for those native fish (as well as every other sport fish in the lake) shouldn't be done. "tough economic times" or not. What size pants do you wear? Maybe I could help you out a little.



proutdoors said:


> As for HB141, at least flyguy7 is honest about why he is against it.


Who's not being honest about it, and what benefit does their dishonesty grant them?

Me -- I'm against it because MY dollars -- you know, those dollars that make these times so economically challenging -- are being spent to improve habitat on OUR rivers. MY dollars are being spent to stock fish in OUR rivers. Yet our legislature doesn't want to allow ME in (not all private land owners want the public out). So, when MY dollars are spent to improve the Sevier River, and MY dollars are spent to stock that same river with PUBLIC fish, and the PUBLIC is then told by the legislature "screw you", then I'm against it. Tough economic times Pro. Public water. Public fish. Public money. Private gain. Sound anything like hunting in Utah?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> So, I'm gathering from your response that you believe that big game is higher priority than native fish? Isn't that just your opinion? I never said any such thing. I said priorities MUST be set, and ANIMALS take a back seat to humans in my book.
> 
> What makes you think priorities aren't being made? What makes you think that other projects are not being put on hold? Such as? Are people having to suffer to fund YOUR pet fish project(s)?
> 
> ...


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> ..............................................You say no other state would allow something like this, really? I assume you've fished Wyoming streams. Even under HB141 Utah is more 'liberal' with access than the Cowboy State.


True. Can't touch the bottom or anchor on private ground here in Wyoming.

Somehow, we get by.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> Those who say they are against HB141 based on it being 'wrong', when in truth it is because it impacts them directly. Support of laws should be based on whether it is a 'good' law, not on how it directs an individual.


Considering that my fairy wand and wading shoes will not get any serious work until about August, (while I spend the summer bassin,) I can say that my opposition to HB141 at least meets your criteria of not impacting me for some time and is indeed to it being "a bad law". Glad to get your moral stamp of approval. :wink:

While we are discussing these to topics, I would humbly point out that while our legislature took steps to restrict public fishing access (as PBH eloquently pointed out), the June sucker program has been a key contributor in INCREASING public fishing access and opportunity at UL.



proutdoors said:


> In tough economic times priorities MUST be made,


I couldn't agree more!
The average angler and Utah County resident will get far more out of a dollar spent by JSRIP than he/she will from a dollar spent in litigation spawned off from ramming HB141 and other similar laws of questionably legality through the legislature. Save the lawyer stimulus bills for a time when the state is flush with cash. 8)


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

> In tough economic times priorities MUST be made,


I do agree to some point with that statement. But I don't feel it applies to this restoration project, as this project will not happen untill 2015 or 2016. I would hope by then from an economic stand point things would be better. The only reason that the project has even come up at this time is so the public input period can be done to get the impact study underway. That study will take years to put out. This project will effect more then just the june sucker. It will help with other fish speices as well as wildlife.

IMO
There has been alot of history with Utah lake. Man has been its biggest down fall. They exploited that large cutts that used to be there and replanted the lake with carp for a food sorce. Then every few years new spieces of fish were put in. It created a tipping point in the lake that went from foraging fish to predatory fish with the exceptions being the carp and june sucker. The carp destrouyed that habitat. Over fishing desctroyed the trout. And that combined with the other fish that were introduced killed the utah lake sculpin. In the 1930 the lake hit its all time low. Many fish died. The carp populated like mad. Not to metion all the polution that was dumped in. Rivers were moved to water fields and raise crops destroying natural habitat and the eco systems within the lake. Right now times may be hard but that is no reason not to try and repair some of the damage. I think most of us have felt life get just a bit harder with the way things have gone latley but life still goes on and thats not a reason not to make an effort to make it better.


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

IT also would have been nice to see this thread as an information and educative discussion rather then a rant an rave about economics and HB 141 as there are a bunch of other threads for that.


----------



## Fleigenbinder (Feb 3, 2010)

June Sucker Recovery Implementation Program.

BTW: was it the June Sucker that the Native Americans in Provo used to prefer for smoking because of the quality of the flesh? They are not bottom feeders and eat zooplankton. Quite unique but I wonder if they will ever become a sportfish?


----------

