# Share your input about fishing license changes



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

The proposed changes to Utah fishing license fees will be discussed at Regional Advisory Council (RAC) meetings, starting tomorrow night in Beaver. (You'll find the proposals about 1/4 down the document.) I saw the earlier discussion here on UWN and know there are some strong feelings about the proposals.

We've thought through the proposals carefully, and although they increase some fees, they still provide savings for youth hunters/anglers, senior hunters/anglers, and veteran anglers with disabilities. And, as some of you mentioned, we're proposing to do away with the fee for the two-pole permit. We also want to offer the option of multi-year licenses.

The money from those fees comes back to the Division and will be used for a variety of things: enhancing warmwater fish production, covering increased hatchery costs (in feed and utilities), improving our popular community fisheries program, replacing lost federal funding, filling a key biologist position in the Flaming Gorge/Green River area, updating our hydroacoustics trawler, and accommodating increased costs in motorpool/fuel charges.

We'd like to encourage everyone - whether you support the proposals or not - to try and attend your local RAC meetings and share your input. You may support an idea (or oppose it) but if the RAC members don't hear your voice, they won't be able to weigh your concerns in making their recommendations to the Wildlife Board.

The meetings will be held across the state over the next two weeks:

*Southern region*
July 30, 7 p.m.
Belknap Elementary School
510 N 650 E, Beaver

*Southeastern region*
July 31, 6:30 p.m.
John Wesley Powell Museum
1765 E Main Street, Green River

*Northeastern region*
Aug. 1, 6:30 p.m.
DWR Northeastern Region Office
318 N Vernal Ave, Vernal

*Central region*
Aug. 6, 6:30 p.m.
Springville Public Library Meeting Room
45 S Main Street, Springville

*Northern region*
Aug. 7, 6 p.m.
Brigham City Community Center
24 N 300 W, Brigham City

If you're unable to attend in person, please contact the RAC chairs and RAC members for your area and share your thoughts with them directly.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

To clarify, this meeting will cover only the material in the packet and there will be a future RAC meeting to cover the proposed fishing regulation changes, right?


----------



## TOgden (Sep 10, 2007)

I'm in support of the license fee increase as long as the increased funds go toward either more biologists, fisheries programs, hatchery improvements, and overall improvments to fishing in Utah. We have not had an increase in a very long time. The only thing I think should be considered is increasing the non-resident season license to more than $75. I pay $98.25/year to fish in Idaho and Wyoming charges $92.00.
Thanks for asking for input on this important issue.


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

Catherder said:


> To clarify, this meeting will cover only the material in the packet and there will be a future RAC meeting to cover the proposed fishing regulation changes, right?


Correct. The RAC meetings to discuss fishing regulation changes for 2014 will be held September 10-18. The Wildlife Board meeting to finalize those changes will be on November 7.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Catherder said:


> To clarify, this meeting will cover only the material in the packet and there will be a future RAC meeting to cover the proposed fishing regulation changes, right?


But the FEE changes are to be discussed during the July RAC meetings.



> RAC meetings:
> • Cougar Guidebook & Rule
> • Furbearer Guidebook & Rule
> • Waterfowl Guidebook & Rule
> ...


----------



## trout bum (Oct 5, 2010)

Opposed! Give me back my access and we will talk.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

trout bum said:


> Opposed! Give me back my access and we will talk.


who took your access away?


----------



## trout bum (Oct 5, 2010)

HB-141. Why pay more for less. I believe in getting kids out fishing and off the video games for the future of our lifestyle but I don't believe this is the answer. Some kids don't go because fewer Dads and Grandpas go. There favorite places now sit behind a no trespassing sign. I don't know of many teens who buy their own license anyways. And the kids that come from non-fishing families have a harder time getting to rivers and streams that are still public. Just my opinion.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

The fee increase will be a wash for those of us that usually purchase a second pole license.
I support the increase and feel confident that the money will stay within the DWR and not go to the State General Budget.
It's been 10 years sense the last increase. It was due..


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

trout bum said:


> *HB-141*. Why pay more for less....Their favorite places now sit behind a no trespassing sign. I don't know of many teens who buy their own license anyways. And the kids that come from non-fishing families have a harder time getting to rivers and streams that are still public. Just my opinion.


Oh. I get it. Your elected officials took away your rights, and you're going to hold it against the DWR. I see your logic. Makes perfect sense.

Go buy a license and continue fishing. Then, when elections roll around vote for someone who values public access.

The DWR has actually been working with land owners to secure access to hundreds of miles of streams. They also use money to purchase land when available, for public use. My favorite streams here in southern Utah are sections where the DWR has either purchased the land, or secured public access and restored streams. I'm sure glad they are doing what they can to get us access to our streams and our fish. I'll support their license increase for this reason alone.


----------



## trout bum (Oct 5, 2010)

So if your a fly fisherman, who only fishes rivers, who has had a ton of access taken away all I see is paying more and getting less. Just like everything else now days I guess. It says some of the extra money goes to hatcheries. Hatcheries that raise fish that go into water that I can't use. I agree with TOgden, raise non-resident fees the what we pay to go to Idaho or Wyo.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

trout bum said:


> So if your a fly fisherman, who only fishes rivers, who has had a ton of access taken away ....


So, basically: me.

But, I don't see it the same as you.

I have more access on the Sevier River post HB141 than prior to it hitting the floor. That's a fact. That's also thanks to the DWR.

this might not be true for all streams in Utah. I'm glad the DWR did what they could to secure access on the Sevier, as well as other streams in Utah too. I'll support them and their efforts.

It was your elected officials that took away your access, not the DWR. They (DWR) are trying to give you more.

but, if you want to go to Idaho, that just leaves more miles of stream for me! :smile:


----------



## trout bum (Oct 5, 2010)

It's not the same for all streams. And if I were to see more river miles being opened up in my area due to DWR efforts maybe I would feel differently. Until then all I see is a higher price with no return. But I guess that's just the reality of the times we live in. Since 141 I do take my money out of state. Ya they have access issues too but a better return. And by the way, they weren't MY elected officials who took my access away and while I'm catching catching fish in Montana and Wyo. my extra money will continue to go to USAC to help get my access back. Not to feed and raise fish that will be put in private property.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> Oh. I get it. Your elected officials took away your rights, and you're going to hold it against the DWR. I see your logic. Makes perfect sense.
> 
> Go buy a license and continue fishing. Then, when elections roll around vote for someone who values public access.
> 
> The DWR has actually been working with land owners to secure access to hundreds of miles of streams. They also use money to purchase land when available, for public use. My favorite streams here in southern Utah are sections where the DWR has either purchased the land, or secured public access and restored streams. I'm sure glad they are doing what they can to get us access to our streams and our fish. I'll support their license increase for this reason alone.


PBH,
do you remember the DWR purchasing land on The Green River by Little Hole?
This would have been 3 or 4 years ago.
As I recall, the land was going to be sold to investors that would have built a resort there. That would not have been good for the public and would have been a windfall for the private investors.
The money to purchase the property and leave the access open to the public was from license sales revenue, if I remember correctly.
Just one of many times that the DWR has saved open access for us.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

PBH said:


> Oh. I get it. Your elected officials took away your rights, and you're going to hold it against the DWR. I see your logic. Makes perfect sense.
> 
> Go buy a license and continue fishing. Then, when elections roll around vote for someone who values public access.
> 
> The DWR has actually been working with land owners to secure access to hundreds of miles of streams. They also use money to purchase land when available, for public use. My favorite streams here in southern Utah are sections where the DWR has either purchased the land, or secured public access and restored streams. I'm sure glad they are doing what they can to get us access to our streams and our fish. I'll support their license increase for this reason alone.


The DWR caved to the farm bureau and landowners. Yes I blame them. As we speak they are kicking people off Steve aults property that is a public easement because aults brother in law is governor. They are spineless in this matter.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

My perspective on this, FWIW.

Overall, the DWR's record on stream access has been mixed. They have done some great things and have opened themselves up for deserved criticism.

First the good.

PBH wrote "I have more access on the Sevier River post HB141 than prior to it hitting the floor. That's a fact. That's also thanks to the DWR."

If you are referring to the Kingston canyon project, I couldn't agree more! That was some of the best spent money the DWR has ever put out for a project. They did a great job down there. I love that place and yes, the access has increased from what it was pre HB141. It is outstanding. Also, (admittedly in response to HB141) they have tried to increase the walk in access program as best they can. There has been some modest success there too. In light of the fact that HB141 is unfortunately law right now, I don't see how anyone can gripe about these efforts.

Grandpa D wrote "As I recall, the land was going to be sold to investors that would have built a resort there. That would not have been good for the public and would have been a windfall for the private investors.
The money to purchase the property and leave the access open to the public was from license sales revenue, if I remember correctly."

Another good example, although I think that Blue ribbon fishery money was a large part of that purchase. Nevertheless, the DWR has tried and succeeded in several areas to improve access.

On the other hand.

Martymcfly wrote " As we speak they are kicking people off Steve aults property that is a public easement because aults brother in law is governor. They are spineless in this matter. "

I am not sure if it is fear of rural politicians, Sherbert, or the Farm Bureau, SFW and the Don, or whatever, but Mcfly is right. It also is happening without any public explanation or statement. It opens them up to more litigation and it definitely shows the stream angler that the DWR is not on their "side" in the stream access battle.

McFly wrote " The DWR caved to the farm bureau and landowners."

This was especially true after the Conatser decision and the first major legislative battle (HB187). Karpowitz especially led us to believe that the DWR was against the Conatser decision and was hoping the legislature would shut it down. To their credit, they did try to help some in the Hb 80 compromise, but I've *never *felt that the DWR has ever been truly pro Conatser or stream access.

Perhaps this isn't surprising. The division has to deal with the Farm Bureau when big game herd size objectives are set, with depredation issues, and other hunting issues. It has to deal with landowners in its CWMU programs and other things. It has, fairly or unfairly, been accused of being in the sack with SFW (anti stream access) and other groups. It does have a justifiable fear of the legislature and especially windbag rural politicians that can make their existence miserable. It probably would be too much to expect for the DWR as an entity to come out strongly for the repeal of HB141 and the type of "Conatser level" stream access that the USAC is fighting for.

Now, as for the license fee changes, I'm all for it. Since I buy a 2nd rod permit for ice fishing, I would end up paying less than now and I certainly feel I get my moneys worth out of a fishing license.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I think Catherder gave a good rundown of the some of the issues.

We're in a hole. No doubt about it. One positive is that the "pro big game" Karpowitz -- who's fishing answer was "build more hatcheries and stock more fish" -- has since retired. We don't really know at this point what Sheehan will do, or what direction he'll go. Is he on SFW's "privatize everything" agenda? Or is he pro public? Time will tell. I hope he likes native fish.

I will give kudos out to Stan Beckstrom in the southern region. He's done a ton of work WITH private landowners in an effort to both create better streams (rehab) as well as secure access for the public. His efforts have given us miles of access. Good working relationships with both the DWR and private land owners does wonders for us all. It's the carrot and stick approach.

Another major issue we have today, as I've already mentioned, is our elected officials. Scary.


----------



## trout bum (Oct 5, 2010)

For what it's worth, I don't mean to sound like I'm blaming DWR. They have done some good things. I know they weren't responsible for taking away our access. And i know they have exspenses too. It's just hard to pay more for less.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

trout bum said:


> For what it's worth, I don't mean to sound like I'm blaming DWR. They have done some good things. I know they weren't responsible for taking away our access. And i know they have exspenses too.
> 
> "It's just hard to pay more for less."
> 
> ...


----------

