# DWR recommendations for fishing in 2012



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

We've posted our recommendations for the 2012 fishing season. Please take a look and attend your local regional advisory council (RAC) meeting if you want to want to share your input with RAC members. (The RAC schedule is at the bottom of the first page of the recommendations document.)

Many of our proposals came from angler input obtained during the survey earlier this year. Thanks to all of you who took the time to participate and share your suggestions!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

So how about it guys? How do these changes look? Remember there are RAC members and perhaps a few WB members that read these forums.


----------



## FC2Tuber (Oct 26, 2007)

Love the slot on Lost Creek and the reduced wiper limit. Hope both of those pass!!!!


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I don't like the change that allows fish to be filleted at waters that have size restrictions. You could take a 21 inch trout at Minersvile, fillet it, and no one could tell exactly how big it was. Trivial maybe, but it opens one more door to allow infractions to be covered up.


----------



## EvilTyeDyeTwin (Aug 9, 2011)

Am I dreaming or did that PDF say that Sand Hollow and Quail Creek are gonna change the SMB regs to unlimited? Wow....if only I lived closer to that area. I am sure a lot of Bass-huggers are not gonna like that change! Thanks for this post Amy...I might show up to the SLC meeting November 3rd. See you people there.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

EvilTyeDyeTwin said:


> Am I dreaming or did that PDF say that Sand Hollow and Quail Creek are gonna change the SMB regs to unlimited? Wow....if only I lived closer to that area. I am sure a lot of Bass-huggers are not gonna like that change! Thanks for this post Amy...I might show up to the SLC meeting November 3rd. See you people there.


These waters are managed as Large Mouth Bass Waters.
Small Mouth Bass are not a part of that plan.


----------



## EvilTyeDyeTwin (Aug 9, 2011)

Grandpa D said:


> EvilTyeDyeTwin said:
> 
> 
> > Am I dreaming or did that PDF say that Sand Hollow and Quail Creek are gonna change the SMB regs to unlimited? Wow....if only I lived closer to that area. I am sure a lot of Bass-huggers are not gonna like that change! Thanks for this post Amy...I might show up to the SLC meeting November 3rd. See you people there.
> ...


I ment to add this to my above post..."I guess the Largemouth Bass are still safe". Glad they changed the Wiper limit to 3...that should reduce the daily slaughter up there a bit. I gotta admit though...I like the taste of SMB's over LMB's.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A few comments;

1.


Fishrmn said:


> I don't like the change that allows fish to be filleted at waters that have size restrictions. You could take a 21 inch trout at Minersvile, fillet it, and no one could tell exactly how big it was. Trivial maybe, but it opens one more door to allow infractions to be covered up.


I agree. It would seem the simple solution would be to add Minersville and some of these other waters to Strawberry, Panguitch, Scofield, and Jordanelle, as places where it is prohibited on site.

2.


EvilTyeDyeTwin said:


> Am I dreaming or did that PDF say that Sand Hollow and Quail Creek are gonna change the SMB regs to unlimited? Wow....if only I lived closer to that area. I am sure a lot of Bass-huggers are not gonna like that change! Thanks for this post Amy...I might show up to the SLC meeting November 3rd. See you people there.


Easy does it cowboy. Bucket biologists have put a few smallies in QC, but there aren't very many to catch in any of these fisheries. It is both a zero tolerance policy for bucket biology and also a concern for several endangered species of fish downstream that the smallies might threaten. This "bass hugger" is fine with the changes. Just make sure you can properly identify a smallie. From what I've seen, quite a few anglers can't.

3. I'm glad to see more regulation of the stocking of private ponds. (The conservative in me cringes to say that.) Helps with safeguarding native cutt restoration and may help with AIS a bit. Too bad it wasn't enacted 20 years ago during the Leavitt administration. :evil:

4. You Willard guys got your limit reduction on wipers. Lets see if it makes a difference.

5. Why does lost Creek need a slot limit? Is it infested with chubs? (just wondering, I have never fished there and don't have any particular insight about it.)

6. The no limit on Northern Pike is a non issue for Utah Lake. It is likely that they have been in there since the 1950's in very low numbers. (They were legally planted then) However, it is a lesson to you bucket biologist turkeys that may have a notion to stock those things elsewhere. Keep it up and you might find the "No limit/must kill" regs applied to places like Yuba and Redmond to insure that they don't spread anywhere else.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Catherder said:


> The no limit on Northern Pike is a non issue for Utah Lake. It is likely that they have been in there since the 1950's in very low numbers. (They were legally planted then)


I kinda got to disagree on that idea. If they were there and sustained a population for nearly 60 years, you would think that someone would have caught at least a couple that were big enough to be considered spawners. Maybe not 30 pounds, but at least over 10 or 12. All that I've ever heard of are in the 20 inch range. Seems like the perfect size to fit in a live well. And the numbers just don't point to a population existing there. If the conditions are good enough for them to survive and spawn, and very few have been caught, where are the rest of them? My opinion is that every one that has been caught there was illegally planted.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

The DWR is working on the LC Chub problem.
The slot will give Utah another place where you will have a better chance of catching a large trout.
I like the idea.

Time will tell how well the lower Wiper limit will work.
I do know one thing. Six Wiper is a lot of meat!
Three is plenty for a possession limit.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Fishrmn said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > The no limit on Northern Pike is a non issue for Utah Lake. It is likely that they have been in there since the 1950's in very low numbers. (They were legally planted then)
> ...


I believe that we discussed this on the "other leading forum" a while back, and it may not be able to be conclusively proven one way or another. Assuming you are correct, (or me for that matter) two conclusions can be made that assert what I was saying in the original post.

1. Northern Pike do not seem to be able to "take" very easily in Utah Lake and are probably not much of a threat to the Junies and the UL fishery. Whether it has been decades of occasional Bucket biology or a very low surviving population from original legal stocking(s), or both, there are very few of them there and they haven't taken off there, despite ample opportunity to do so.

2. Pike enthusiasts *must* stop trying to spread their preferred fish around by bucket biology and actively denounce the clowns on internet forums and elsewhere that support and encourage the action. Otherwise, they may lose what they already have.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Pike enthusiasts *must* stop trying to spread their preferred fish around by bucket biology and actively denounce the clowns on internet forums and elsewhere that support and encourage the action. Otherwise, they may lose what they already have.


The same could be said for Smallmouth Bass in Strawberry. White Bass in Deer Creek. Bullhead Catfish in Deer Creek. Tilapia in Blue Lake. When people practice bucket biology they rob the rest of us by diverting precious funds that could be used to make some great improvements. Davis Lake in California is the perfect example of how expensive and stupid bucket biology is. People need to stop doing it.


----------



## Ton_Def (Dec 23, 2008)

Catherder said:


> A few comments;
> 
> 1.
> 
> ...


Similar subject.. I would like to see something added when fileting at waters where there is a species limit, i.e. Flaming Gorge(only 3 Kokanee). Leaving an identifying piece of skin is easy, just using flesh to determine species is unreliable.

Speaking of Kokanee, I am curious as to why Porcupine would have a bonus limit but a similar water such as Causey does not? It's sizes have declined due to what I would believe is overpopulation. (I'm not a biologist, just fish it extensively) I could see the pressure it receives as one reason, but that aside, why not a bonus limit at Causey? Amy?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Fishrmn said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > Pike enthusiasts *must* stop trying to spread their preferred fish around by bucket biology and actively denounce the clowns on internet forums and elsewhere that support and encourage the action. Otherwise, they may lose what they already have.
> ...


Exactly, but while getting bullheads and white bass out of the UL/Jordan system and smallies out of.....just about everywhere would be nearly impossible, draining Yuba and Redmond and treating the areas in between, while difficult, is quite plausibly done, especially if the Feds mandated it and chipped in some cash to do it. Yet, some of the "toothy critter" enthusiasts seem to be the ones that tacitly cheer on the bucketheads the most on BFT and other sites. I don't get it. (and I don't think they get it either :x )


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

wish they'd have a mandatory kill order on the cutts at strawberry! worthless fish. plant something more fun in there!


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

utahgolf said:


> wish they'd have a mandatory kill order on the cutts at strawberry! worthless fish. plant something more fun in there!


That's a great idea! It would certainly effect a surge in the size/quantity of the chub population. They are the one fish I can't keep off my line. If I have to catch them I'd sure like them big.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

those chubs prob fight harder than the cutts!


----------



## Dwight Schrutester (Dec 3, 2007)

I was hoping that the Rainbows in Panguitch Lake would be put in the slot limit again. The average size Rainbow decreased to 14"-16", while the Tigers and Cutts are 17"-19". I suggested in the survey that the slot limit for the Rainbows be 18"-22" instead of the 15"-22". This way those who want to keep fish can do so, and those who want trophy sized Rainbows can catch those too. 

Seems like a suitable compromise to me.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Clarq said:


> utahgolf said:
> 
> 
> > wish they'd have a mandatory kill order on the cutts at strawberry! worthless fish. plant something more fun in there!
> ...


Another big advantage to killing the Cutts at the Berry is that Utah would no longer have to figure out what to do with all the Federal money that we get for having the Cutts in there.
I'm sure the DWR doesn't need the money and a great body of water would be full chubs. Win Win.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

> Another big advantage to killing the Cutts at the Berry is that Utah would no longer have to figure out what to do with all the Federal money that we get for having the Cutts in there.
> I'm sure the DWR doesn't need the money and a great body of water would be full chubs. Win Win.


One more win. Bear Lake would be closed to fishing. The risk of losing the only remaining spawning population of Bear Lake Cutthroats would be too great. In order to protect them, we would have to eliminate the threat of fishermen catching them. The whole secret to these problems is simple. If you don't wanna catch Bear Lake Cutthroats, don't go fishing where they are. If you wanna catch pike, go fishing where you can catch them. Quit worrying about changing the fishing world, and adapt to the world the way it is. You wouldn't expect Tiger Muskies to eat powerbait. Don't expect Strawberry to be anything but a Cutthroat fishery.


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

Ton_Def said:


> Speaking of Kokanee, I am curious as to why Porcupine would have a bonus limit but a similar water such as Causey does not? It's sizes have declined due to what I would believe is overpopulation. (I'm not a biologist, just fish it extensively) I could see the pressure it receives as one reason, but that aside, why not a bonus limit at Causey? Amy?


Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, Ton_Def. I was working in the Wildlife Building at the State Fair yesterday and didn't have access to a computer. I sent your question about the kokanee limit at Causey to Drew Cushing, one of our sportfish coordinators, and he said, "They [kokanee] are overpopulated and small in Porcupine and have a generous limit. In Causey, they are 9-12" and are not considered overpopulated by the region, so the limit is more restrictive."


----------



## Ton_Def (Dec 23, 2008)

Amy said:


> Ton_Def said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of Kokanee, I am curious as to why Porcupine would have a bonus limit but a similar water such as Causey does not? It's sizes have declined due to what I would believe is overpopulation. (I'm not a biologist, just fish it extensively) I could see the pressure it receives as one reason, but that aside, why not a bonus limit at Causey? Amy?
> ...


Now that's service! Awesome! Many thanks for the answer!


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

Have to agree with Dwight Shrutester on Panguitch Lake. The rainbows should definitely be put back in the slot. We quit fishing there the last few years because the size of the bows got so small. But good luck getting that changed.

Anyone with ideas or opinions on Panguitch Lake or other waters in the state should really attend the RAC meeting this month or at least e-mail your thoughts to the RAC members. Don't assume RAC or Wildlife Board members read these internet sites. Take the time to contact your RAC representatives that is what they are there for.


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

utahgolf said:


> wish they'd have a mandatory kill order on the cutts at strawberry! worthless fish. plant something more fun in there!


I'm not a cutt-fan myself but Strawberry is what it is and it deters folks away from better waters. We need that lake!


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

Fishrmn said:


> > Another big advantage to killing the Cutts at the Berry is that Utah would no longer have to figure out what to do with all the Federal money that we get for having the Cutts in there.
> > I'm sure the DWR doesn't need the money and a great body of water would be full chubs. Win Win.
> 
> 
> One more win. Bear Lake would be closed to fishing. The risk of losing the only remaining spawning population of Bear Lake Cutthroats would be too great. In order to protect them, we would have to eliminate the threat of fishermen catching them. The whole secret to these problems is simple. If you don't wanna catch Bear Lake Cutthroats, don't go fishing where they are. If you wanna catch pike, go fishing where you can catch them. Quit worrying about changing the fishing world, and adapt to the world the way it is. You wouldn't expect Tiger Muskies to eat powerbait. Don't expect Strawberry to be anything but a Cutthroat fishery.


BINGO!!


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

I like strawberry for the bows, waitin for them to get bigger! just hate when a pesky cutt snags my lure


----------



## Phragmites (Sep 12, 2007)

Willard Bay, I would like to see a stocking program for more Walleye in Willard Bay. Since that was the primary reason for putting gizzard shad in willard bay in the first place.

Flaming Gorge, I would also like to see slot limit restriction on Lake Trout all fish over 26" must be released and reduce limit in smaller lake trout to 4. Ice fishing, 6 rods should only be allowed for burbot all other fish must be release if using more than two rods. No catch and release on Kokanee salmon.

We really should be protecting the lake trout to help battle the burbot specifically the large fish. Most people that our fishing 6 rods are not just targeting burbot but are also targeting other species using 6 rods. Mortality on catch and release is extremely high because kokanee salmon our exceptable to temp changes and considering the depths the fish our coming from can see a 10 degree temp change which would result in higher rate of mortallity than other catch and release situtations.

Pineview winter regulations the limit for crappie should be reduced from 20 to 10 during the ice fishing season and a possesion limit put in place.

We need a trophy crappie fishery in the state and pineview is not large enough to be a production fishery considering how many people our fishing it during the winter.


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

any word on more law enforcement for the DWR?


----------



## EvilTyeDyeTwin (Aug 9, 2011)

Phragmites said:


> Willard Bay, I would like to see a stocking program for more Walleye in Willard Bay. Since that was the primary reason for putting gizzard shad in willard bay in the first place.
> 
> Flaming Gorge, I would also like to see slot limit restriction on Lake Trout all fish over 26" must be released and reduce limit in smaller lake trout to 4. Ice fishing, 6 rods should only be allowed for burbot all other fish must be release if using more than two rods. No catch and release on Kokanee salmon.


YA.......more Walleyes for Willard!!!!!
The Burbot are bad but hey all 26+ Lake Trout must be released...   .
Sounds like the November 3rd meeting is gonna be packed...full of people and opinions.
See you all there.


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

EvilTyeDyeTwin said:


> Sounds like the November 3rd meeting is gonna be packed...full of people and opinions. See you all there.


I'd actually recommend attending the Regional Advisory Council meetings, which start tomorrow night in Beaver. If you have concerns or suggestions, like many of you have mentioned, the RAC is the place to start. The full RAC schedule is at the bottom of this news release about the proposed changes.



kochanut said:


> any word on more law enforcement for the DWR?


As far as I know, we aren't planning to hire additional officers this year.


----------



## Phragmites (Sep 12, 2007)

Lets face facts here the large lake trout taste like crap and with the invention of making cast replica from photos there is no reason to be keeping the large fish. Flaming George needs our help and having larger predator fish roaming around and more of them in the water will do just that. If we do it now we can protect the world class lake trout fishery that Flaming George is.


----------



## EvilTyeDyeTwin (Aug 9, 2011)

Phragmites said:


> Lets face facts here the large lake trout taste like crap and with the invention of making cast replica from photos there is no reason to be keeping the large fish. Flaming George needs our help and having larger predator fish roaming around and more of them in the water will do just that. If we do it now we can protect the world class lake trout fishery that Flaming George is.


Hmmm tastes like crap or carp...ha ha ha...what counts as a big mac? According to the other poster size 26in + should be released. I have a couple that size in my fridge (yes the proper paper work and all is filled out) and I cant wait to see if it tastes any good. If it does then you CPR guys are gonna have to quit saying they taste awful. Personally the only fish I don't like to eat so far are Bullhead Cats, Chub and Carp. Wonder how the mac will taste?

CPR people need to realize that the regs are put in place by the DWR and fish biologists with full knowlage that anglers will be putting that level of pressure on the fishery. If it was truly damaging to harvest a limit of fish then the regs would change to follow suit with the current conditions of the fish populations. Just because you fish a lake often, with a boat, a down rigger and a fish finder does not make you an expert on fish populations. Talk to a fish biologist next time you hit a lake and ask them their opinion on this topic.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

280Remington said:


> Have to agree with Dwight Shrutester on Panguitch Lake. The rainbows should definitely be put back in the slot. We quit fishing there the last few years because the size of the bows got so small. But good luck getting that changed.
> 
> Anyone with ideas or opinions on Panguitch Lake or other waters in the state should really attend the RAC meeting this month or at least e-mail your thoughts to the RAC members. Don't assume RAC or Wildlife Board members read these internet sites. Take the time to contact your RAC representatives that is what they are there for.


Yes, yes, yes. I have not seen one email in my inbox regarding the upcoming RAC meetings from anglers. Get your emails out. It might not pass this year but those that want a slot for bows back in Panguitch need to speak up NOW! I think this would at the very least be considered and if enough people speak up would be passed in the next couple of years.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Phragmites said:


> Lets face facts here the large lake trout taste like crap and with the invention of making cast replica from photos there is no reason to be keeping the large fish. Flaming George needs our help and having larger predator fish roaming around and more of them in the water will do just that. If we do it now we can protect the world class lake trout fishery that Flaming George is.


Not trying to ruffle your feathers, but I can't say I've seen a replica mount that convinced me. I'm typically not one to keep one for the wall, but if the right fish came along, I'd make the necessary arrangements to get it mounted. It would HAVE to be a skin mount though.

You can't always find the right blank for the shape or size of some fish we see here, plus a custom cast would be left to the artist's perspective. With skin, it's all right there. The replicas just look fake.

Replicas are only that: attempted copies of the real deal. Sorry if others disagree. I've tried to find good replicas and I've seen some excellent artwork, but they still look like plastic.

Aside from that, I'm sure a large mack steak or fillet could be prepared to taste just fine.


----------



## Phragmites (Sep 12, 2007)

I actually consulted my dad who has a fisheries background and I trust his opinion. Trophys our for sports team anyway, I would much rather have a picture and the memory of all the 40 lbs I have caught out of the george that our still swiming in there hopefully that our eating burbot. I am not saying the regulation should be permant but it should be put in place until the burbot population is under control. I want my kids grandkids to be able to experience catching big lake trout out of the george as I have.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Do you think that the Burbot will ever be "under control"?
I'm afraid that they are now a part of the Gorge.


----------



## EvilTyeDyeTwin (Aug 9, 2011)

Phragmites said:


> Lets face facts here the large lake trout taste like crap.


Grilled a 13 pounder with onions, garlic slices, lemons, butter and teriyaki sause and WOW....those macs, in the words of Tony the Tiger, "TASTE GREEEEEAT!!!" I'd have to compare it to a salmon....but nothing compares to those tasty fish.


----------



## EvilTyeDyeTwin (Aug 9, 2011)

Grandpa D said:


> Do you think that the Burbot will ever be "under control"?
> I'm afraid that they are now a part of the Gorge.


A buddy of ours caught one of those things up there and she said that when she pulled it up out of the water it wrapped it's lower body around her arm like a snake does. She was so freaked out by that, that she shook it off of her back into the water while screaming wildly. Yes she did get the chew out from both of us for not killing it.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> Yes, yes, yes. I have not seen one email in my inbox regarding the upcoming RAC meetings from anglers. Get your emails out. It might not pass this year but those that want a slot for bows back in Panguitch need to speak up NOW! I think this would at the very least be considered and if enough people speak up would be passed in the next couple of years.


hmmmmm.....

Southern Region RAC was last night. Not a single angler showed up. Further, no RAC members received ANY email comments from anglers regarding regulation changes. That's pretty sad!!

So, the RAC basically went with whatever the DWR recommended. I guess that's good. Who knows. Obviously, nobody really cares.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> hmmmmm.....
> 
> Southern Region RAC was last night. Not a single angler showed up. Further, no RAC members received ANY email comments from anglers regarding regulation changes. That's pretty sad!!
> 
> So, the RAC basically went with whatever the DWR recommended. I guess that's good. Who knows, Obviously, nobody really cares.


I thought that a bunch of you Southern guys were going to make a push for putting the bows back in the slot at Panguitch?

PBH is probably right. Most anglers may complain a bit, but they don't really care. :roll:


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

PBH, Anglers were told no changes to Panguitch would be considered until after the DWR did a survey. No sense in making any proposals until after the survey.


----------



## Flyfish4thrills (Jan 2, 2008)

I almost drove from Cedar to attend the southern rac meeting, but work held me up. I was going to attend simply because I have never attended a RAC meeting and was curious. However, I have the impression (tell me if I'm wrong) that receiving angler input is just a formality. Is it not the Wildlife Board that makes the final decision? I figured since the DWR didn't make that specific recommendation for a slot on bows, then it was a hopeless cause. What basis does the DWR use to make a recommendation? Biological or popularity of an idea? I also didn't know until reading this message board that they would accept emails in lieu of attending. If the rac boards really wanted angler input, they wouldn't have the meeting in Beaver (if only having one), or they would have more than one meeting in different locations. Yes, Beaver is a central location for the area, but Cedar has about 7 times the population and St George about 25 times. That is why I believe that the dwr open houses were more successful....people didn't have to drive 2 hours to attend and later be ignored.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Flyfish4thrills,
you make some good points.
I have attended many RAC meetings and I can tell you that your attendence does make a difference.
You do need to know how the system works though.
At a RAC meeting, if you want to speak to the RAC, you must fill out a paper with some general information on it. When it's time for comments from the floor, those that have filled out the paper will have their names called, one at a time and you will be given time to present your thoughts.

There are several different RAC's across the State. 
After all the RAC meetings are done, members of all of the RAC's get together and make recommendations for the Wildlife Board.

It is the Wildlife Board that makes the final decision on the rules and policies.
The public is welcome at that meeting and you can once again make a comment there.

I have followed several rule changes that I have had interest in over the years and I do believe that your voice is heard and you can make a difference.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

280Remington said:


> PBH, Anglers were told no changes to Panguitch would be considered until after the DWR did a survey. No sense in making any proposals until after the survey.


The RAC told the DWR that there was no reason to form a committee to review the current regulations because there were no anglers in attendance, and the RAC had received 0 comments regarding anything. So, why make a committee to review if nobody gives a **** in the first place?

Flyfish -- it makes no difference where the RAC meeting is held, someone will complain about the location.

Receiving angler input a formality? How on earth does anyone know what anglers want, without input? It may be a "formality", but it is necessary if anglers want to be a part of the decision making process. If anglers don't participate then why have the system?

The DWR makes recommendations based on numerous factors including, but not limited to, biological, sociological, and economical. They want angler input -- which is why they had multiple open houses this year.

RAC members have always accepted emails, phone calls, and written letters. That is why their contact info is available to the general public:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/rac-members.html

Additional reading to further understand the purpose of the RAC and Wildlife Board:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/getting-involved.html

(now you know. No excuses!)

GrandpaD -- it's NOT the "Big Game" Board. It's the Wildlife Board. (Big game wouldn't include our fishy friends!)


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I'll add one additional item. I can't say that I always get as involved as I should, but in my limited involvement in some fishing related issues that interests me, I have come to learn one thing. The DWR and other involved public agencies and entities are practically *begging* for public input. *Any* public input. And if the only public input they get is some reactionary, raving lunatic wanting regs in line with how it was in the 1950's, then the agencies will think a lot of other anglers agree with the guy that shows up. Because attendance is so dismal at most fishing related meetings, if you show up, you may be surprised at how much you are given a hearing. It is good in one way, but it is also scary. At the Central region open house, out of 14-15 or so guys that showed up, 2-3 were complaining about the Strawberry slot and asking that it be removed. Now, I don't think that will happen at this time, but where we do have evidence from some surveys that more Utah anglers *want* slot limits and regs that foster trophy fishing and better ecosystem health, it is scary that the DWR may be getting the opposite message, based on who comes to a meeting.

Food for thought.


----------



## Dwight Schrutester (Dec 3, 2007)

I just emailed some RAC members my suggestion for Panguitch Lake. I am interested to hear their response. I know it may be a little late for now, but there will be other meetings and I will be sure to email again, and even attend an RAC if my schedule allows.


----------



## Dwight Schrutester (Dec 3, 2007)

Here is the email response if anyone is interested.

_Thanks for your email expressing interest/concerns regarding fishing at Panguitch Lake. The September meeting of the RAC focused on fishing regulations at community ponds, and not on outlying bodies of water. One question did come up regarding Panguitch Lake. The DWR indicated that some fisherman were requesting formation of an advisory committee to review the current plan for Panguitch Lake. However, staff felt that the lake was being managed successfully and was meeting the objectives established in the plan. The RAC decided not to recommend formation of an advisory committee at this time. I am not sure when fishing regulations are scheduled for review.

RAC agenda items are set by the DWR staff and are usually scheduled reviews of plans, guidebooks, or specific issues. In my opinion it is far better for you to appear before the RAC and express your opinions when they are considering options for fishing regulations. It is also good to write the RAC members to give them a heads up of your issues so they can take them into consideration before the meeting. While I can take your suggestions before the board, please keep in mind there are many others with varying degrees of opinions that I am also obligated to represent at the RAC meetings. By attending the RAC meetings and providing testimony, you may also find others with similar interests. The DWR website has some good information on when the RACs meet, agenda items, and information on addressing the RAC. I would also suggest you talk to the regional fish biologist at DWR and discuss your concerns. He will be able to provide you with more information on regulation changes.

I hope this was helpful. I will keep you in my address book so I can touch bases with you when the Panguitch Lake regulations are on the agenda in the future.

Thanks,

Mike Worthen_


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

Dwight, below is your answer. Unfortunately it will be impossible to have a regulation change at Panguitch if the biologists believe everything is ok. 

"However, staff felt that the lake was being managed successfully and was meeting the objectives established in the plan".


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

280Remington said:


> Dwight, below is your answer. Unfortunately it will be impossible to have a regulation change at Panguitch if the biologists believe everything is ok.


I don't recall hearing the biologist say that they don't want a regulation change. Consider:



Dwight Schrutester said:


> However, staff felt that the lake was being managed successfully and _was meeting the objectives established in the plan_. The RAC decided not to recommend formation of an advisory committee at this time. I am not sure when fishing regulations are scheduled for review.


This comment is absolutely 100% correct. The current management plan (have you read it? have any of you read it?) is meeting current objectives. *This is why the DWR went to the RAC with the intent of forming a committee to review the current plan.* The DWR biologists DO feel like the objectives of the management plan could use some change in order to increase the quality of the trout at Panguitch Lake. However, just like I mentioned earlier, because there wasn't a single angler in attendance, nor were there any emails sent to the RAC prior to the meeting, the RAC felt it was unnecessary to create a committee to review the current plan. _This does NOT mean that the DWR doesn't want to change, nor does it mean that regulations will not be changed_. It means that the DWR doesn't need to form a committee to review the changes. Instead, the DWR is able to submit their suggestion for future plan changes, and possibly regulations changes, as they see fit.

So, you're quote is exactly right. Management of the lake, according to the current management plan, is successful because all objectives spelled out in the current plan are being met. Unfortunately, anglers don't care enough to get involved. They don't care enough to read a simple management plan. They don't care enough to understand that actuall issues. They don't care enough to take the time to attend the meetings. They do, however, like to bitch and moan on the internet.

Take the letter from the RAC member and put it into the proper prospective: Attend the meetings when they are provided for you.

Dwight -- I would recommend that you pick up the phone and call a southern region fisheries biologist today, and ask them what might be done with Panguitch, and how you can get involved. I'll give you phone numbers and names if you need them.

Remember, managing our fisheries means that plans and objectives need to be spelled out. Panguitch Lake is currently under a management plan that was formed by a group of anglers, concessionaires, and other interested parties, including the DWR. The current objectives created by that committee are _currently_ being met. This doesn't mean that the potential of Panguitch Lake trout is optimal, and can't be improved. However, the plan needs to be changed, which is EXACTLY what the DWR went to the RAC to do -- to propose the forming of a new committee to review the current plan in order to make some changes. Problem is, nobody showed up. Nobody cares.


----------



## Dwight Schrutester (Dec 3, 2007)

> I'll give you phone numbers and names if you need them.


Ya, if you are willing to. I will call them.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

PBH, Are you absolutely certain the objectives outlined by the Panguitch Lake advisory committee are being met? Are you saying all four are being met:The gillnet catch rate, age of the rainbow trout, number of predator fish/cutts/tigers vs. rainbows and the angler catch rate? Again are you absolutely certain these objectives are being met?
I believe none of these are currently being met.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

280 -- AWESOME!!! This is great! Now we're getting somewhere! This is exactly what needs to be done -- asking good questions concerning the current management plan. The only problem? It should have been done two weeks ago -- because the RAC was last week.

Here's the thing: asking to change the regulations is crazy. You've hit the nail on the head by asking questions directly at the management plan. What is the current plan? Are the objectives being met? If so, why? If not, why?

When you go to the doctor, you tell him that something "hurts". You DON"T tell him to "remove your appendix". You allow the doctor to diagnose the problem, and then come to the conclusion that your appendix needs to be removed. You should do the same with the DWR and RACs. Don't go in telling them to change the regs and "put the rainbows in the slot". Go to them and tell them "the objectives are not meeting angler satisfaction, and we want larger rainbows". Let them decide that the rainbows need to be included in the slot.

So, let's get back to 280 and answer his questions:

Panguitch Lake currently has 4 objectives:
1. Maintain an average catch rate of 50 trout per net-night in annual trend nets.

2. Maintain at least 10% of the rainbow trout captured in annual trend nets as 2-year old or older fish (at least 15 inches in length).

3. Increase predator trout (Bear Lake Bonneville cutthroat trout and tiger trout) to 25% of the total annual trend netting catch.

4. Produce mean angler catch rates of at least 0.5 trout per hour.

So, are these objectives being met?

According to the 'Panguitch Lake 2011 Trend Netting" report by the DWR:


Panguitch Lake 2011 Trend Netting said:


> As of 2011,
> current management strategies are meeting or exceeding all objectives except number
> four. Average catch rates during 2010 and 2011 exceeded 50 trout per net-night... and
> over 20 percent of the rainbow trout sampled exceeded 15 inches in total length. Interestingly,
> ...


Further, the report goes on to say:


Panguitch Lake 2011 Trend Netting said:


> Although current management at Panguitch Lake is meeting most of the objectives
> outlined in the current management plan, many anglers are not satisfied and are
> suggesting changes. Given that the management plan is now 5 years old, and preferences
> of some anglers using the lake have apparently changed, it may be advisable to re-
> ...


So, 280 -- it very much sounds to me like the DWR isn't only aware of the issues, but they are proactively trying to help get some things changed. Unfortunately, it's the anglers that aren't cooperating. Sure, they'll complain on internet forums, and complain here and there -- but they WON'T take advantage of the opportunities that are given to them -- like the RAC. As has been said already, the RAC said "why make a committee? There aren't any anglers concerned anyway -- so go do what you (DWR) want...". That might not be such a bad thing to allow the DWR to skip the committee....

(280 -- if you want the full report, let me know and I'll send it to you -- or to anyone else that wants it).

PBH


----------



## jhj (Jun 2, 2011)

Could you send that report to me too? 

Thanks


----------



## Flyfish4thrills (Jan 2, 2008)

PHB,

I believe most anglers care. It comes down to time management and priorities. Unfortunately for most, our hobby comes last after family, work, school, church, etc. People can get away with taking out 15 minutes of their day to write on a forum, but can't justify to their wives why they need to take 3 hours of the day (2 driving, 1 hr meeting?) to tell a government committee that the fish they catch at Panguitch Lake need to be bigger. It is important to them, just not as important as everything else. .
Again, my point of why the current RAC system should be reviewed for change. I know that the DWR was pleasantly surprised by the number of responses to a recent survey that touched upon these regulation changes, and were also pleased by the turn out to their open houses. If they really want angler input, and not just making that part of the process a formality, they will seek better ways to obtain that information from the anglers instead of depending on the angler coming to them. It is analogous to having voting booths placed 1 hour away and complain about voter turnout.
I would love to have access to these management and gill net reports you cite, that tax payer money funds. Why doesn't the DWR publish them all on the web? I found the Panguitch Lake management plan on a government website by doing a google search, but it was not on the DWR site. http://utah.ptfs.com/awweb/awarchive?ty ... item=21254 I can't find the Panguitch Lake 2011 Trend Netting anywhere. Why are not all of the gill net, electroshocking and other biological studies available on the DWR site? I guess my peev is that other states freely publish this information on the web and here, only a select few have access to it. Sorry to vent.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Flyfish4thrills said:


> PHB,
> 
> I believe most anglers care. It comes down to time management and priorities. Unfortunately for most, our hobby comes last after family, work, school, church, etc. People can get away with taking out 15 minutes of their day to write on a forum, but can't ...


Can't. That's it.

They CAN complain on an internet forum, but they CAN'T take that 15 minutes and type up an email and send it to the RAC members?

Nope. Flyfish -- I don't buy your complaint. If you can type on an internet forum, you can certainly type an email and press the send button. The RAC received 0 emails concerning Panguitch Lake.

But, why stop now? Have you picked up the phone and talked with the biologists? Have you typed an email to the biologists?

Can't. what a stupid word. I can't believe it.



> Why doesn't the DWR publish them all on the web


http://publications.utah.gov/

Further -- like was already mentioned -- pick up the phone, or send an email. How do you think I got the report??? Take some initiative.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> 80 -- AWESOME!!! This is great! Now we're getting somewhere! This is exactly what needs to be done -- asking good questions concerning the current management plan. The only problem? It should have been done two weeks ago -- because the RAC was last week.
> 
> Here's the thing: asking to change the regulations is crazy. You've hit the nail on the head by asking questions directly at the management plan. What is the current plan? Are the objectives being met? If so, why? If not, why?
> 
> ...





PBH said:


> How do you think I got the report??? Take some initiative.


I don't doubt for a minute that everything you discussed here above is valid. And sure, taking some initiative is important. However, I am willing to bet that a sizable number of people concerned about Panguitch Lake have no clue about the management plan you cited and wouldn't know where to begin to look. As part of helping out the UWN with fishing issues, I have discussed this issue with them (with one RAC member being included in the discussion) and the management plan has not been included in any of these discussions. I will admit that PL is "not my fight" so maybe thats an excuse for me not having researched it into greater detail, but if we didn't know these details, I doubt some Joe six-pack from Parowan is going to have any clue at all. Anglers *should* be ripped for inaction, but not ripped for not always digging up Byzantine details that could make a difference in their activism. Also, wouldn't it have been better to proactively have this discussion before the RAC and then go in united instead of having the "post mortem" discussion now? It might even spur a few folks to show up.

Lastly,



Flyfish4thrills said:


> I would love to have access to these management and gill net reports you cite, that tax payer money funds. Why doesn't the DWR publish them all on the web? I found the Panguitch Lake management plan on a government website by doing a google search, but it was not on the DWR site. http://utah.ptfs.com/awweb/awarchive?ty ... item=21254 I can't find the Panguitch Lake 2011 Trend Netting anywhere. Why are not all of the gill net, electroshocking and other biological studies available on the DWR site?


Exactly. I (and others) have asked for this from them at the open house and elsewhere and they have said they will do it "in the future". Lets hope that happens soon. I do feel the DWR can do a better job here.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

PBH and others thank you for the passion towards Panguitch Lake. A point of clarification for PBH, anglers did go out of their way and voice their opinions regarding Panguitch Lake in the on-line angler survey. There were over two dozen comments in the angler survey in which anglers wanted a change to the regulations. PBH, you need to acknowledge this. I mentioned in my first or second post that the DWR in very clear wording, subsequently told a number of these anglers in various e-mails that they would NOT consider ANY changes to Panguitch Lake until after another survey was completed. The first survey done this spring online was not valid according to the DWR Salt Lake Office. I have pasted a quote I had forwarded to me in an e-mail. The source of the email is from a headquarters DWR employee in regards to Panguitch Lake:

_"Also keep in mind that the on-line survey represents the most vocal folks but is not a scientific survey. We do need to get a formal angler survey completed prior to making any drastic management changes down there. If out of state anglers represent the majority of angler use at Panguitch Lake then their wants and needs will have to be weighed as well."_

_"I think it is important to have balanced opportunities for all types of anglers. I wonder if you believe that you truly represent the average or the majority of all 415,000 anglers in Utah. If not then perhaps they deserve a voice as well. That is why we are currently completing our Statewide Angler Survey. We will use the results to provide us direction that is based on a larger sample size. Like I said earlier we definitely need to complete a Panguitch Lake survey in order to objectively determine what the anglers who are using Panguitch Lake would like prior to any major management changes."_

The key words PBH, in the above quotes is the DWR's Salt Lake office told concerned anglers they would not make any changes to Panguitch Lake until AFTER another survey was conducted. From what I know there were three different anglers, one from Ogden, one from St. George and one from Trout Unlimited in Las Vegas that planned on doing a talk at the southern region RAC meeting last week but they were told not to bother because no changes would be made until AFTER the DWR did another survey specifcally on Panguitch Lake. I appreciate your help in this PBH realize we are not professionals at the RAC process and I truly believe a few anglers would have done a talk if the DWR Salt Lake office hadn't told them no changes would be considered.


----------



## jhj (Jun 2, 2011)

So how is this Statewide Survey conducted? Do you know? 

I'll try and find it online, but if someone has info about it, they should post the info on this site so we all can participate.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

It was posted on the site by the DWR but it may have been before you joined.
They will do it again next year.
You can also go the the DWR's site and email them with you thoughts and concerns at any time.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Catherder / 280 

You guys make some good points. I still have to disagree with some things, however (it's just my nature!).

Cath -- you want everything posted online. Sure, it would be nice, but it also takes time. But what gripes me is that far too often people want things handed to them on a platter without having to ask for. Pick up a phone, or send an email. Ask those guys "what kind of current info do you have on XXX lake?". It's that easy.
Also -- remember that the survey was conducted by the DWR -- not the RAC. The DWR is aware of desires of anglers to make a change, which is why the DWR went to the RAC with the purpose of asking to form a committee to review the current management plan and make possible changes. The DWR followed through on their part -- they wanted to include anglers in the process of making change. It was the RAC that couldn't see any interest on the part of anglers. 

I also had conversations with the UWN regarding Panguitch. I specifically told them that they should NOT ask to change regulations, but rather ask specifically to review the current management plan and recommend a change to the current management plan. They were fully aware that it is the management plan that needs to be reviewed and changed. By changing the management plan, you would get regulation changes.

Next -- if you want to get GOOD information regarding a fishery in Southern Utah -- STOP CALLING SALT LAKE!!! Call the local office and talk to the people that work with those waters!

280 -- keep in mind, it is the Wildlife Board that makes the regulations. They do this utilizing information gathered from the RAC. The DWR doesn't make the rules. So if the DWR told you not to bother going, you should have told the DWR that it's none of their business whether you go and suggest changes or not. It's up to the RAC / WB. If enough people want a change, they just might make a change regardless of what the DWR wants. The WB makes numerous changes against the wishes of the DWR - heck, just look at the current regulations on Panguitch; the DWR didn't want the rainbows outside the slot in the first place!

Finally -- it isn't too late. All is not lost. If you want to see things change, then pick up the phone and make a phone call. Do it right now. Call the southern region office and speak with a fisheries biologist. Ask them what is going on. Ask them what they think. Ask them what you can do to make a change. It's easy. They are nice people. You don't have to be an educated person to make a phone call and ask questions. What better way to learn?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH, 

Just out of curiosity, what was the role of the esteemed former WB member, Tom Hatch, in removing rainbows from the slot when it was originally changed? (I thought I had heard this before) Is it possible that some of the events described in this thread are being caused by his persistent long shadow over the WB and DWR?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

My personal belief is that the whole reason Tom Hatch was on the WB was for purposes related to the regulations of Panguitch Lake, and once that agenda was fulfilled, Tom resigned.

I do believe that Mr. Hatch played a very significant part of getting the rainbows removed from the slot, contrary to the wishes and recommendations of the DWR. That's how I saw things.

I also believe that the DWR would like to see average size rainbows at Panguitch Lake increased, as well as eliminate any potential issues caused by anglers that cannot distinguish the difference between a rainbow trout and a "trout with cutthroat markings". How do you accomplish this? You put the rainbows in the slot.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

If I may add just a little here.....last night during the central RAC meeting the Panguitch Lake situation came up. The division is in fact looking to put together a committee to discuss the situation with the Rainbows in the lake. The online survey did show lots of passion from both fishermen that want to harvest fish and fishermen that want bigger fish. There will be some ideas exchanged to see if there is some middle ground. No timelines yet but it's on their radar. 

I will say this though....if all you have is time for an email PLEASE, PLEASE at least send an email to RAC and WB members. Speak out to an organization like UWC with your opinion and ask that they act on your behalf. The OVERWHELMING sentiment at the meeting last night among RAC members what there was not ONE email in our inboxes and not one angler showed up to voice their opinion about Panguitch or much at all for that matter. It is critical that anglers voice their opinion to the RAC's and WB and stay on top of it either representing yourself or through and organization that can speak for you. Otherwise you come across as it's not a big enough issue for you to pursue and the RAC's and the WB have nothing really to act on. The survey was good but RAC's and WB's cannot vote on a survey. You must pursue these issues. This is politics gentlemen and ugly or not it's how our system works. You've got to be a squeaky wheel.

In fact the only real public comment came from a gentlemen that asked to have the spear fishing seasons change. He single handedly got the division to committ to at least look at it and discuss the situation.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

PBH said:


> 280 -- AWESOME!!! This is great! Now we're getting somewhere! This is exactly what needs to be done -- asking good questions concerning the current management plan. The only problem? It should have been done two weeks ago -- because the RAC was last week.
> 
> Here's the thing: asking to change the regulations is crazy. You've hit the nail on the head by asking questions directly at the management plan. What is the current plan? Are the objectives being met? If so, why? If not, why?
> 
> ...


Just my 2 cents but I will partially agree with you and partially disagree with you on this. It's not quite that simple. While I agree that if we want to see changed results the key is to look at the management plan and asking biologists to make biological recommendations is important based on THEIR expertise there are also very many social impacts built into mangement plans and that need to be considered.

We may ask the biologists, "how can we grow bigger fish?" They will typically give you several options and it's up to you to decide which answer best fits the social climate. The biological and social impacts is a colaborative effort. The problem I have is when people start calling BS on the biology so that what they want to be true, can be.

Going back to your analogy you may tell the doctor something hurts, the doctor will typically diagnose your problem and in most cases give you options to resolve the problem. It's then up to you to decide which treatment you feel is best for you.

At the end of the day you probably shouldn't walk into a meeting and ask that rainbows be put in the slot and you should initially ask for bigger fish but that may be the conclusion an individual comes to after hearing all the discussion and possible impacts and may be what an individual ultimately asks for once an issue has been hashed out and as long as your decision is imformed I think it's ok to ask for something specific. In fact if you walked into a RAC meeting and asked for something specific as long as you have done your homework you would be a very pursuasive speaker on the issue.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> I think it's ok to ask for something specific. In fact if you walked into a RAC meeting and asked for something specific _*as long as you have done your homework*_ you would be a very pursuasive speaker on the issue.


After reading through this discussion, how many informed, educated anglers do you believe we have that have done their homework? I doubt a "very persuasive speaker on the issue" could be found, based off of this thread.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

PBH said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's ok to ask for something specific. In fact if you walked into a RAC meeting and asked for something specific _*as long as you have done your homework*_ you would be a very pursuasive speaker on the issue.
> ...


That may or not be true but the key is folks need to get involved one way or another. You'll never score sitting on the bench!


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

PBH, Not to be critical but I believe you need to be educated on a few things. Like Bullsnot said, you seem to have a way of oversimplifying things. Also you appear to not understand the history or purpose of the RAC and Wildlife Board. Back over 20 years ago there was the Board of Big Game Control and the Utah Wildlife Board. Both set policy for the DWR. The problem was hunting as well as fishing, was getting to be more of a socio-economic challenge instead of a biological one. At the time the public felt as if they weren't being allowed enough input into the decisions these two boards were making. One an experimental basis, the two boards were collapsed into one and the RAC's were created. The original purpose of the RAC's was three-fold. The RAC's were to solicit ideas from the public, educate the public and ultimately provide recommendations to the Utah Wildlife Board. 

The problem is anglers never bought into the process. On the contrary, hunters and hunting groups such as SFW, embraced the new system and knew the framework in which the RAC's operated. Over the years angler participation dropped to almost nothing. This year the DWR decided to abandon the "May fishing informational" RAC meetings and go with both a series of open houses and more importantly, an on-line survey. The DWR felt if anglers weren't attending the RAC's maybe they would respond to an internet survey. Anglers attended the open houses and more than 1,000 anglers completed the survey. Numerous anglers voiced their concern in the survey about Panguitch Lake. These survey responses were in lieu of a RAC proposal. The DWR chose to honor the public's wishes by making proposed regulations to other specific waters such as Willard Bay and Lost Creek Reservoir. The DWR, for whatever reason, chose to not honor the public's wishes in regards to Panguitch Lake. It chose not to advance any Panguitch Lake proposals. 

Anglers did what they were supposed to do. There was not a May RAC meeting for fishing ideas. It was replaced by the online survey. Over 1,000 anglers took the survey and provided input. Panguitch Lake was one of the top three lakes mentioned in the survey. I do not buy your idea that we should have ignored the Salt Lake office and contacted the southern region office instead. You claim the southern region office sees things differently at Panguitch Lake than the DWR headquarters does. Well, son that is a DWR problem, not an angler problem. Maybe the DWR should huddle and get on the same page. The proper place for all of this to be decided is at the Wildlife Board level. PBH is right about Tom Hatch. While on the Wildlife Board he rammed through the Panguitch Lake changes. The Wildlife Board was the scene of where this mess got started it should also be the scene where it gets fixed.


----------



## Dwight Schrutester (Dec 3, 2007)

So I just googled Tom Hatch to find out more about him and read that Wildlife Board Members are appointed by the Governor.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/news/42-ut ... board.html

So my guess is that the businesses around Panguitch Lake complained to the Governor because they were losing money because fishermen were fishing elsewhere due to the slot limit restricting fish harvest, so the Governor then appointed Tom Hatch to the Board to change the regulations. Maybe I'm right. Maybe not. But it makes sense to me.

This thread has been an eye opening experience for me about how the fisheries are regulated/managed. I had always assumed the fish biologists were the decision makers.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

280 -- I agree with much of what you said. One thing you fail to recognize is that the DWR did listen to anglers that showed up at the open houses. The DWR went to the southern RAC prepared to suggest to the RAC that committee be made to come up with a new management plan for Panguitch Lake. They did this in response to numerous angler suggestions that things needed to change at Panguitch Lake. It was the RAC, NOT the DWR, that said "there is no angler interest". The DWR is working with anglers to make changes.

I believe we're on the same side here.

I also believe that things will still change, and those changes will be favorable to what anglers are currently asking for. As you pointed out, the Wildlife Board is where things will matter. For those people that still want to make a difference, they need to communicate with the southern region biologists, and then send comments to the Wildlife Board.


Dwight -- like you're seeing, the biologist can only make recommendations. It's up to the Board to make the decisions / rules. Obviously, those biologists have an opinion that should carry significant weight with respect to what the WB decides -- but not always. It's a political game.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I tried to get involved in the past. I came to the conclusion that it doesn't matter. I'm mostly a stream fisherman and Utah has closed most of the stream fishing areas I used with the passing of HB141. I now travel to a neighboring state to stream fish. This past year has been wonderful. I plan to spend more time and money in the neighboring state and will contact the F&G for projects I can help them with. I've already called 2 offices to ask about the management of certain waters. I would recommend getting out of the Utah "politics" and spending time and money in a place where it is welcomed. 

We have a DWR that didn't even know about an easement on the Provo. We have a governor and legislature that is not angler friendly. We have a flawed system and it is getting worse.

Oh and I might add to those who will come on here now and post about "if you don't like it then help get it changed", ----been there done that. This pretty great state is going down in the national publications as a pretty pathetic state.

So my recommendation for fishing is 2012 is to fish where you are wanted. I hope to eventually get to a point where I don't need my Utah license anymore.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

280 your comments about the abondoning the May informational RAC's, the online survey, and recent proposals are right on. 

In the central RAC meeting on Tuesday we specifically talked about Panguitch Lake. Drew Cushing told us that the survey revealed some very polarizing view points on the lake and is the reason no changes were proposed however the division confirmed that forming a committee makes sense and is in the works. No timeline was given.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

Bullsnot, whether you know it or not, your post actually sums up the entire problem with the Panguitch Lake issue. The quote below is the heart of the issue.

_"Drew Cushing told us that the survey revealed some very polarizing view points on the lake and is the reason no changes were proposed..." _

Bullsnot, this is a completely untrue statement by Mr. Cushing, unless you took him out of context or misquoted him. There is nothing polarizing about the views on Panguitch Lake. A polarizing issue is something like abortion, the war, immigration, role of government, etc. Polarizing means there are LARGE groups of people with strong views and opinions on EACH side. Mr. Cushing's statement is false. With Panguitch Lake there is nothing polarizing about it. Close to 90% of the people that mentioned Panguitch Lake in the survey wanted a regulation change. Yes, 90%.

This is the problem, the Salt Lake office, in particular Mr. Cushing, does not want to acknowledge anglers are crying out for a regulation change. He wants another survey, wants to form a committee to study it further. He is hoping another survey or a self-appointed committee will result in something favorable to him.

Next step is the Wildlife Board. No use in beating this dead horse. PBH, 280 Remington, Tom Hatch, Dwight, Shrutester, Bullsnot, the RAC's, the DWR, can't and won't do anything. The Wildlife Board can.


----------



## drew cushing (Jan 19, 2010)

I have been watching this thread for a couple of days and I thought it has finally reached the point that I should at least offer my opinion. The DWR protected rainbows in the same slot limit as the cutt's initially and they stacked up in the slot. There were a tremendous number of rainbows and cutts in the slot and harvest was impossible. According to our Southern Region fisheries folks the use dropped by 1/3 at this time. Rainbows were removed from the slot and the angler use fully recovered by 1/3. That decrease in use is a concern to the DWR. The aquatics sportfish section of the DWR is funded by fishing license sales and federal aid. A reduction in license sales amounts to a reduction by 2/3 in the ability for the aquatics section to perform effectively This is due to a 3-1 match (Federal Aid to License dollars). There have been a number of comments about why the DWR moved forward on some regulation changes that were supported by the surveys (2005 Statewide Survey and Online Survey) and not Panguitch Lake. The reason is epitemized by this thread. Apparently the other regulation changes were not controversial and Panguitch Lake is. Like I said there are over 400,000 anglers in Utah that need to be considered. I might also add that there were no anglers at the SRO RAC!! Why not? The DWR is making a concerted effort to address changes that make sense biologically and also make a positive impact on angler satisfaction. One noisy angler on an angler survey or a internet survey does not address the biology or the 400,000 anglers and their wants or needs. The DWR is willing to put together a committee to discuss the Pantuitch Lake issue and will implement a statistically valid Panguitch Lake angler survey to determine what the total number of anlgers who use Panguitch Lake want. If there is a better way to address this issue please bring it forward at the Wildlife Board in November.

Thanks,

Drew Cushing


----------



## EvilTyeDyeTwin (Aug 9, 2011)

drew cushing said:


> The DWR is making a concerted effort to address changes that make sense biologically and also make a positive impact on angler satisfaction. One noisy angler on an angler survey or a internet survey does not address the biology or the 400,000 anglers and their wants or needs.


+1
...biological needs should ALWAYS over rule anglers satisfaction.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

Drew Cushing, I hate to inform you but a drop in use doesn't equate to a drop in license sales. Do you really believe these people quit fishing entirely? Did it ever cross your mind that they simply fished somewhere else? You have no proof that license revenue decreased. Use is down on Scofield Reservoir, do those people sell their fishing equipment and quit fishing? No, they simply went somewhere else where it is better fishing. 

Also, with all due respect, this issue involves more than "one vocal" angler. You know for a fact that at least two dozen anglers commented on Panguitch Lake in the on-line survey. Why don't you come back on here and state how many anglers mentioned Panguitch Lake in the on-line survey. In your own DWR news releases you state Panguitch Lake was one of the top three fisheries mentioned in the survey. Also the Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee has informed the DWR they are not satisfied with the current regulations at Panguitch Lake. Did you not see that memorandum?

Lastly the reason anglers did not attend the SR RAC was you told them in a series of e-mails that the DWR would not consider any changes to Panguitch Lake this year. Why in the world would anglers drive two hours from St. George, four hours from Las Vegas and Ogden for a mere 5 minutes of floor time to discuss an issue that the DWR stated they won't address this year?


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

I received the below responses to the angler survey from another angler in an e-mail he received from the DWR. These are the survey responses from the on-line survey in which anglers mention Panguitch Lake. Hardly just one vocal angler.

_Larger fish. Panguitch lake prior to 2009 was the best I had ever seen it in my 40
plus year life. I think that a 2 fish is enough.

i would like to be able to keep 6 trout instead of 4

My biggest concerns: 1. Stop changing the regulations simply to simplify. Make
regulations to increase the quality of the fishery and the catching depending on
the desired outcome of the water

Panguitch Lake rainbow trout have gone way down in size. Put them back in the
slot please._

_Panguitch Lake rainbows. What happened to the size? PUT THE RAINBOW
TROUT BACK IN THE SLOT AT PANGUITCH LAKE

My only recommendation at this time has to be that
the DNR reconsider the current size of Rainbow Trout that may be kept as part
of the possesion limit at Panguitch Lake. I recommend that the DNR place the
Rainbow Trout in this lake back to a 15"- 22" trout slot limit. I have been
observing the overall sizes of the Rainbow Trout over the last 2 years, and it is
very apparent that the overall size is decreasing. As an angler I would much
rather catch 1 trout 22" or bigger and have a meal for 2-3 people, than catch 3-4
trout @ 13"- 15" inches in size.

I want you guys to keep the restriction on Panguitch Lake. I have fished it my
whole life and I love catching the good sized cutthroats_

_Panguitch Lake management should be done by DWR Biologists and not Tom
Hatch and the greedy merchants. Panguitch Lake almost became a destination
fishery.

Restore Panguitch Lake to it's previous regulations. The current regs are killing
it.

I would propose putting the rainbows back in a slot

I would love to see better conservation pool levels in southern utah...to grow
bigger fish !!! Kamloops Rainbows put in Panguitch Lake.

Make the regulations so that all trout species have the slot placed on them but allow one fish to be kept within the slot_

_I THINK THE RAINBOW TROUT SHOULD BE PUT BACK ON
THE SLOT LIMIT BUT INSTEAD MAKE THE SLOT LIMIT FOR RAINBOWS BE
18" to 22"
_
_I would like the sizes of keeping cutthroats at Panguitch Lake to lessen. Instead
of 15-22 must be relaesed, I think it should be 18-22. I go there and always
caych cuts between those sizes and i have to throw them back. Please change
this rule

Put Rainbow trout in the slot at Panguitch Lake!

Panguitch lake recieves a high number of out of state fishermen with
little knowledge of the regulations, this lake needs a higher number of officers to
enforce the regulations that are in place_

_I have seen bait fisherman drag the cutthroat up on shore and let them flop around in the dirt
while trying to measure them and then get the hook out. Then they release them
and the fish goes belly up. Better education on catch and release would be
helpful.....or partial seasons on lakes where bait is allowed and then barbless
hooks and lures only. Great fishing at both places.....would just like to see more
respect for the fisheries from shore fisherman using bait. I don't have a problem
with keeping fish and eating them as long as you follow the rules and don't waste
or kill the fish your not supposed to
_
_I believe a lot of fish that are released
with bait fishing die because people do not know to cut the line instead they try
to get the hook out and kill fish. They need to be educated more about this. Also
need to change the rainbow slot limit at panguitch back to how it was so that
thier will be bigger rainbows at panguitch. all fish under 22 must be released. It
should be a trophy lake

Return some amount of protection to rainbow trout at Panguitch Lake. In 2009,
DWR biologists recommended allowing one trout to be taken in the 15-22" slot.
This regulation would allow anglers to harvest some fish while maintaining the
high quality of the fishery that was produced after the 2006 treatment. In
addition, this regulation would eliminate issues with species identification--a
serious problem at Panguitch Lake where a significant portion of the anglers are
non-residents._

_I want to see the entire lake have the same slot limit for all
species of trout, and not allow bait fishing. First of all, many anglers are too
uneducated to know the difference between cutts and rainbows and simply keep
them all. Further, many anglers that catch a cutt with a hook and bait in the slot,
will not cut the line to save the fish. They will rip its guts out to save a 20 cent
hook. The gill net survey shows that the people keep everything they catch and
leave nothing big in the lake.

include the rainbow trout in the slot at Panguitch Lake. It will simplify regulations
as well as increase average size of the rainbows in the lake

Rainbow trout at Panguitch lake need to be placed under a
protective slot limit, the same as the cutthroat trout and tiger trout

Include rainbow trout in the slot limit at Panguitch Lake - Make consistent with
Kolob all fish in slot - No bait restrictions

_


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

280Remington said:


> Drew Cushing, I hate to inform you but a drop in use doesn't equate to a drop in license sales
> Also, with all due respect, this issue involves more than "one vocal" angler. You know for a fact that at least two dozen anglers commented on Panguitch Lake in the on-line survey. Why don't you come back on here and state how many anglers mentioned Panguitch Lake in the on-line survey.


A couple things: 1) even if 3 dozen people made comments about Panguitch and wanted rainbows back in the slot, I don't think that means the angling public agrees and there isn't polarization 2) if the regulations are changed again, I would be willing to bet that a significant number of people get fired up and fight the change.

I don't believe for one second that fishing regulations should change because a couple dozen people complained....


----------



## Flyfish4thrills (Jan 2, 2008)

I have to agree with 280Remington. It is hard to believe that people would stop fishing/not purchase a license due to the regs on 1 single lake. Paiute, Otter and Minersville have been fishing poorly as of late and people still purchase a license and fish elsewhere. I bet you can find a dwr survey/study that shows most anglers fish a variety of locations and styles. 

If anglers can't catch and keep a "full" rainbow limit at Panguitch, they'll find another place nearby. In that very area is also Navajo, Duck Creek and Aspen Mirror, Yankee Meadow, Paragonah, and the 8 lakes on the Beaver/Tushar mountains, where they can be in the "mountains" and still keep all of the fish they want that are not restricted with a slot. Do I need to name all of the other places between Fish lake and St. George that have no special regs at all and are not necessarily in the "mountains"? What does that number compare to those lakes with special regs? You can't avoid controversy, because even though they can fish unrestricted on 95% of the lakes in Southern Utah, they want to have them all. 

I found one statistic very interesting in the Panguitch Lake Management Plan. It stated that 29% of fish were illegally harvested. I don't know how they came to that number, but it shows that a large number of people that fish Panguitch are uneducated and/or don't care about the law and the resource. So you can't count on them caring about the length of the fish or the specific species that they catch, let alone cutting the line instead of ripping out the hook. The state/dwr/wildlife board wants to cater to the out of state, bait and shore crowd. I would argue that they they already are, and far more than they should.


----------



## EvilTyeDyeTwin (Aug 9, 2011)

wyoming2utah said:


> A couple things: 1) even if 3 dozen people made comments about Panguitch and wanted rainbows back in the slot, I don't think that means the angling public agrees and there isn't polarization 2) if the regulations are changed again, I would be willing to bet that a significant number of people get fired up and fight the change.
> 
> I don't believe for one second that fishing regulations should change because a couple dozen people complained....


+1 on that. Biologists know the population numbers and their affect on the fishery better than an angler.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A few more comments FWIW.

1.


EvilTyeDyeTwin said:


> +1 on that. Biologists know the population numbers and their affect on the fishery better than an angler.


Uhh, this is about political pressure being applied to change the regs the *biologists* originally wanted. The biologists originally had rainbows in the slot and vocal locals and politicians rammed through the change to the current regs. Back to the Jordan for you to harvest some more whities.

2.


wyoming2utah said:


> 1) even if 3 dozen people made comments about Panguitch and wanted rainbows back in the slot, I don't think that means the angling public agrees and there isn't polarization 2) if the regulations are changed again, I would be willing to bet that a significant number of people get fired up and fight the change.


Wyo, (and Drew) are actually right about this. There is no doubt in my mind that the local businesses and politicians (like Tom Hatch, but not probably not limited to him) will array their side to fight any changes to the regs just as they did before. The more I study the issue, it seems that the DWR just doesn't have the stomach to be in the middle of another whizzing match between trophy anglers and some locals and fairly powerful politicos. That, above all, seems to me to be why they appear to be dragging their feet. But who knows, maybe the newer survey will tell us something we don't already know? :roll:

3.


280Remington said:


> with all due respect, this issue involves more than "one vocal" angler. You know for a fact that at least two dozen anglers commented on Panguitch Lake in the on-line survey.


I do disagree with Drew about this. The interest from anglers to make a change is far more than just 1-2 squeaky wheels. Dismissing this group as such out of hand is not a good action for the division.

4.


Flyfish4thrills said:


> I have to agree with 280Remington. It is hard to believe that people would stop fishing/not purchase a license due to the regs on 1 single lake.


I believe the concern for license sales comes from out-of-state (read Southern Nevada) sales. I agree with you guys that in state sales won't be affected. However, being a former Southern Nevadan, I would assert that they will come regardless of the regs. I know I did. If you want to get out of the heat, be in the mountains, and catch trout, you came to Utah. And Nevadans eagerly came to AFL Kolob in droves with the special regs. I bet they came to Panguitch too when the bows were in the slot. I would submit that the people who quit coming to Panguitch were the locals used to slinging powerbait and harvesting everything they caught. They probably headed up the road to Otter creek or elsewhere. That said, it would be interesting to see nonresident sales data for the period in question, which might be available via a gramma request, and prove or disprove whether sales to Nevadans did suffer with bows in the slot at PL.

5.


280Remington said:


> Next step is the Wildlife Board. No use in beating this dead horse. PBH, 280 Remington, Tom Hatch, Dwight, Shrutester, Bullsnot, the RAC's, the DWR, can't and won't do anything. The Wildlife Board can.


This, of course, is true. However, considering that the WB is one of the most politicized entities in the state, and your opposition has recently been ensconced in one of the seats, what chance do you really think you have to succeed here, in light of what has happened so far? I suppose you never know until you try.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> I suppose you never know until you try.


I agree. Good mantra.


----------



## tye dye twins (Mar 8, 2011)

Catherder said:


> 1.
> 
> 
> EvilTyeDyeTwin said:
> ...


Hey what do you know, the regs were changed! Do you really think the biologists didn't have a say in that? My bet is they did!

Look, leave it to the biologist's that KNOW more than a few sqeaky anglers that THINK they know what is best for managing the fishery. These biologists study the lake specifically and have degrees to their name that make them more informed and more qualified on how to deal with the fishery than some of you guys. Sorry but it is true. -)O(- :| 

Nothing wrong with the jordan by the way, close to home and packed with fish!


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Well Alrighty then...let me toss my novice .02 into the mix...here we go and buckle up this is IMHO.

Yes waters get managed...yes the DWR uses biologists however, are there enough biologists for them to be out 24/7/365…hmmm thinking not…so with that being said they rely on others.

For example, over the past few years we have had folks (not biologists) at Echo, Willard and PV visit us on the hard deck and coming off gathering ‘fish’ information. They asked us a series of questions from how deep, what we used, what time etc , etc…then asked to see our fish if we kept them. They took pictures and measured the fish. These folks were gathering information for the DWR and I firmly believe biologists.

So, wrt to this body of water…if any panel/group/committee is eventually formed one thing I’d suggest is asking or having ‘key words here’ trained folks to do creel samples of anglers at locations where anglers enter and exit a body of water…including during the hard deck these trained folks are out on the ice gathering information. 

I can tell you they’re not likely the ‘actual’ biologist visiting and interacting with anglers asking questions and doing creel surveys they are gathering information for the DWR and the biologists. We’ve had these folks visit us on Echo, Willard, and Pineview over the past several years both soft and hard water.

Again my .02, biologists can only get so much actual hands-on in the field information be it from using gill nets (kill fish) or electro shocking. They must rely on others means of information gathering such as folks out and about asking questions and doing creel surveys and on line surveys.

So just my suggestion here if folks are looking at a particular body of water have issues with what they are catching as an agnler…ask yourself are all the tools in the tool box and go from there…find out what tool is missing and get that tool in place and use it.


----------



## EvilTyeDyeTwin (Aug 9, 2011)

Hmm K2...just because amature folks have a boat, a fishfinder, and time on the water does not make them expert enough to manage a fishery. Lets leave fishery management to the professionals.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

I have asked the questions of these folks and what they were doing if they didn't identify up front (most did) and the response from these folks and I don't consider them unknowledgeable or amature they were gathering information for the managment of the water most likely students in the fishery division...and some even told me that.

So again just my .02 when we had folks come up to us. OBTW they were
not in boats, they had no fish finders they had boots on the ground and on the ice working to assit the DWR. They were walking the hard deck and at entry and exit points when soft water. I can only tell you what has happened to us and what I stated above what was told to us so take it for what its worth and maybe a tool that hasn't been adequately employed at this particular body of water. 

OBTW these folks never asked for a fishing license they were out doing a survey and measuring and photographing fish for the DWR...period dot. I'm sure other anglers on this forum and other Utah forums have had these folks come up to them on the soft water after a day of fishing and visit them on the hard deck.


----------



## EvilTyeDyeTwin (Aug 9, 2011)

These DWR assistances sound like a good idea K2. I am not against these guys in any way. Maybe you got the wrong idea about who I was talking about back there. For the record....it does bother me to hear complaints from average anglers that claim that they should be in charge just because they have fished the lake for 2 years. Perfect example is "bassrods". The guy thinks that all the trophies are gone from the nelle just because he is not hooking into them anymore. These lake fisherman are acting much the same way...just because they are not hooking into huge fish it must mean that there are none left. WRONG....That kind of thinking is complete folly. As I have stated too many times now....educated and qualified biologists should be calling the final shots on if a fishery is in trouble and they should be the ones creating regs to follow suit with those conditions...not anglers with fishfinders, tackle ect....


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

OK, this is my last entry on this one. There is one point that apparently didn't get through that holds some general importance and it is a concern of mine.



tye dye twins said:


> leave it to the biologist's that KNOW more than a few sqeaky anglers that THINK they know what is best for managing the fishery. These biologists study the lake specifically and have degrees to their name that make them more informed and more qualified on how to deal with the fishery than some of you guys.





EvilTyeDyeTwin said:


> Lets leave fishery management to the professionals.


It appears to not be getting through, but *NOBODY* is disagreeing with this opinion regarding Panguitch Lake or other fisheries. I'm not, PBH and Wyo definitely aren't and I don't think anyone else talking about PL is either. However, what IS a concern is non biologists, politicians, locals, and non biologist bureaucrats making regulations without regard for what the actual biologists want. You said



tye dye twins said:


> Do you really think the biologists didn't have a say in that? My bet is they did!


Well, what appeared to happen at PL is that the *biologists* wanted the bows in the slot. A bunch of local businessmen and politicians, including a wildlife board member that has, shall we say, a rocky relationship with the DWR, put pressure on the WB and DWR to change the regs. The *biologists* were overruled. If what PBH said is true, and he would know, the Southern regional *biologists* at least WANTED the public to have a dialogue with the RAC about a regulation change to get back to bows in the slot. If what was presented by 280 is true, leaders in Salt Lake tried to discourage this from happening. IMO, it seems that what has happened here is not based on what biologists want, but is due to non biologist political pressure. Or in other words, the opposite of what you twins keep repeating. And that is a concern to me.

If you really want a good example of how easily and often *biologists* get ignored in making regulations, go over to the hunting section and read the threads that deal with how the Wildlife Board totally ignored the DWR biologists and did their own thing in making the new deer hunting regulations, with the support of a powerful hunting group.

One final thing, the Jordan thing was only a half dig, I used to fish there as a kid and you have only scratched the surface of its potential. Have you caught a walleye,trout, or a body out of there yet?


----------



## tye dye twins (Mar 8, 2011)

Catherder said:


> One final thing, the Jordan thing was only a half dig, I used to fish there as a kid and you have only scratched the surface of its potential. Have you caught a walleye,trout, or a body out of there yet?


Look if there was really such an issue with the slot being removed then the Biologists would have had something to say about it and something else would have been done with it. Of course they spoke with the biologists about it. Period! It is silly for you to continue to say they had no say in the process and that it was everyone but the biologists that had a say in the process.

Get over it, you guys are not going to have your way this time, it isn't going to be that perfect trophy lake you guys want so bad. Just get out there and fish for christs sake and enjoy anything that tugs on your line!

Give me more than 3 times to catch the walleye, trout, and bodies ok. Sheesh I am not a master of the jordan in less than 6 hours. We all have to start somewhere.


----------



## jhj (Jun 2, 2011)

Interesting stuff I found on another site:

http://www.utahonthefly.com/forums/show ... ot+minutes


----------



## jhj (Jun 2, 2011)

Some more:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meeting ... /08-09.pdf

Educating the out-of-staters was a big concern.

_We just felt that it was worth a try of using that nonspecific slot limit to accommodate those folks. To make it as simple as possible to still have a restrictive regulation that accomplishes our biological objective. I don't know if it's going to work. Eventually we may have to go up to a species- specific slot but I really want to give this non-specific slot a try. I think it is valuable statewide. You know we're struggling with restrictive limits and slots in other parts of the state. If it works here at Panguitch it might provide us another option to use statewide. So I guess that in a nutshell is why we haven't gone or patterned ourselves exactly after Strawberry. So it's the hope that we would be able to do something a little bit simpler, a little bit more acceptable to that clientele that uses Panguitch and still achieve our objectives. 
_


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

k2muskie said:


> ...
> 
> For example, over the past few years we have had folks (not biologists) at Echo, Willard and PV visit us on the hard deck and coming off gathering 'fish' information. ...
> 
> I can tell you they're not likely the 'actual' biologist visiting and interacting with anglers asking questions and doing creel surveys they are gathering information for the DWR and the biologists. We've had these folks visit us on Echo, Willard, and Pineview over the past several years both soft and hard water.


I went to the doctor the other day. I checked in with the receptionist and she handed me a clipboard with document full of questions that I need to fill out. I went through and checked the boxes, wrote answers, and circled choices. There was one question I didn't understand, so I went back to the receptionist and asked her to clarify. Her answer was: "I'm not sure. You'll have to ask the doctor when you see him".

I wasn't upset a bit, because I understand that her job was simply to collect information -- information specifically asked for by the doctor. That's what she was doing. She obviously did not understand all of that information. Big deal. Obviously, the doctor didn't have the time to collect the information himself because he was busy doing other things.

Why is it that fishermen always think differently of our wildlife biologists? For some reason, our biologists are always dumb. They never do anything right, and fishermen (or hunters) always know the better way to do it. When they (biologists) attempt to be proactive, sportsmen complain because "that's not how other states do it". When they (biologists) attempt to collect information sportsmen complain because "some seasonal is out conducting the creel survey...". It is truly pathetic.

K2 -- your complaints are crazy. The information gathered during creel surveys is important. But it is not something that biologists have to do. They can certainly send out another person to check the boxes on questionnaire. If you have specific questions concerning the fishery -- THEN GO ASK THE DOCTOR AND NOT THE RECEPTIONIST!

Twins -- you guys are coocoo too. I don't believe you guys truly understand that situation concerning Panguitch Lake. You'd be better off closing your mouths, and doing a bit more reading prior to joining discussions that are over your heads (or hair).


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Thanks PBH!! So to ensure I wasn't up in the night on my previous suggestion and thats all it was, suggestions/recommendations in this thread I contacted the DWR. Because if I'm up in the night I have no problem learning the 'correct' information.

So here's my e-mail I sent and the answer I received back:

Drew,

Got a couple questions for you&#8230;I know you posted up on UWN to the DWR Recommendations for 2012. I also posted a comment and appears another individual thinks I'm up-in-the-night&#8230;maybe I am who knows now-a-days. So if I'm wrong about what I posted I'd like to know

Anyway here's my questions.

Who are the folks that came up to us on Willard (soft water), Echo, Pineview (both on hard deck) asking questions about the fish we've caught and measuring them and at times took pictures? Are they the actual biologist or folks gathering information for the DWR and Biologist? What is the data they gather used for?

I'm just curious as I was under the impression these folks may not be the 'actual' biologist over that body of water but possibly students in the field assisting with field gathering information for the biologist.

Again thanks for your time with my questions.

Respectfully,
Kim

Response I received back from Mr. Cushing:

"They are creel clerks. We have creel surveys every five or so years on many of our priority waters. Their job should be to count and measure fish and then as a series of questions about harvest, time spent on the water and then some angler satisfaction questions. They are sometimes a biologist, sometimes a technician but once a person takes the job on they are trained they are it. You want the same person to ask the creel questions all through the survey so the bias is reduced. Our biologists then compare this information with the biological surveys to make management decisions."


----------



## EvilTyeDyeTwin (Aug 9, 2011)

PBH said:


> Why is it that fishermen always think differently of our wildlife biologists? For some reason, our biologists are always dumb. They never do anything right, and fishermen (or hunters) always know the better way to do it.


Maybe because biologists are actually educated in their field. Wow PBH I can tell you DONT have a degree in biology....I guess in that case you'd make a perfect spokesman for how Utah should run it's fishery :O•-: . Could you sound more dumb? I met the Bear Lake biologist this weekend and that man is DOING everything right if you ask me. That man is intelligent, educated, does his job of fish management as well as reg advice way better than some idiot fisherman that thinks he is "a know it all" just cause he catchs/doesn't catch fish at a lake. Sorry but the person with the masters degree + time on the local water will always be listened to over the angler. Too bad so sad PBH.
o-||


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

hehehehe.

tyedye -- you're missing the boat. This is actually kind of funny. Like I said, you might be better off doing more reading and less talking (typing).

Feel free to remove your foot from your mouth at any time now. :roll:


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

I think that PBH and you are actually saying the same thing.
He was just playing the Devil's advocate in that quote.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

k2muskie said:


> Who are the folks that came up to us on Willard (soft water), Echo, Pineview (both on hard deck) asking questions about the fish we've caught and measuring them and at times took pictures? Are they the actual biologist or folks gathering information for the DWR and Biologist? What is the data they gather used for?


FWIW I've done this before for my dedicated hunter hours. The information I gathered was used for nothing more than for the fishing reports that you see on the DWR site. Well I can't for sure that it wasn't used for anything else but the primary purpose was to gather fishing reports for the DWR site.

Here is an example:

Blacksmith Fork River
2011-10-07
Slow Dedicated Hunter Ron Wamsley reports that fishing is really slow. The water levels are starting to get low, but water clarity is good.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hotspots/reports_nr.php


----------

