# DWR Survey on Proposed Fishing Regulation changes



## GeorgeS (Dec 22, 2010)

The DWR is seeking comment on some of the proposed changes for fishing regulations in 2013. If you are interested, please check out this link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HNGVVMQ


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

I just finished the survey.
I hope that everyone will take a minute and do it.
This is a great way for you to let the DWR know what you like and dislike about the fishing in Utah.


----------



## 357bob (Sep 30, 2007)

Done.
Thanks for posting this up!


----------



## time4hunt (Oct 4, 2011)

Done.

Hope it helps


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Done. Thanks to the DWR for offering an easy way to share ideas with the public.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Done


----------



## KennyC (Apr 28, 2010)

All Done


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

I completed the survey and suggested they change the possession limit to at least twice the daily bag limit as are every other state I've fished. I would urge others do so as well.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Thanks for putting this up! And kudos to the DWR for doing this. 

A few highlights;

1. I loved that they want to make cutts on the Weber C&R. This should help the small population expand and add to the overall excellence of the Weeb. It also focuses harvest on the browns, which keeps their numbers in check.

2. I loved the expanded limits on the Blacksmith fork with "bonus" brown trout in the limit. Now do that on the Provo river too and we'll see some big fish in there again.

3. +1 on simplifying regs at Fish Lake. Good idea.

4. I voted against doing away with the bait size restriction at Pineview and Newton.

5. I thought closing Forsythe to fishing or not allowing perch harvest there until poisoning was excessively punitive.


----------



## orvis1 (Sep 7, 2007)

Done..


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Cathader

I voted to cancel out your vote and then had about 10 of my friends vote the same way as me.

I pushed this rule because tards were gut hooking the muskie dragging them on the bank stepping on them and then tried to release them back. Those fish had about a 2% chance to live and we would find loads of dead muskie. It is best for trophy potential to limit the bank anglers as much as possible. They simply dont have the gear most of the time to properly handle or practice catch and release on those fish.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

I was neutral on the Muskie issue. I don't use bait for them, so I didn't want my vote to influence the decision.


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

Done.
I said to restrict tiger musky fishing to artificial lures and flies only.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

swbuckmaster said:


> Cathader
> 
> I voted to cancel out your vote and then had about 10 of my friends vote the same way as me.
> 
> I pushed this rule because tards were gut hooking the muskie dragging them on the bank stepping on them and then tried to release them back. Those fish had about a 2% chance to live and we would find loads of dead muskie. It is best for trophy potential to limit the bank anglers as much as possible. They simply dont have the gear most of the time to properly handle or practice catch and release on those fish.


So you guys want any size of cut bait to be allowed at Pineview? That is all that was asked about. How is that going to improve the problem you are describing? I think that the idea of the original regulation is that smaller morsels would be suitable to catch other species of fish but wouldn't be as tempting to the big tigers. What seems to be proposed here would likely *encourage* the use of cut bait IMO and increase the problem you wish to solve. Or maybe not, but do explain. The better course may be to ban the use of cut bait or fish flesh altogether at Pineview.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

The bait should be one inch or smaller.

The problems started when fisherman were using whole perch or carp guts. You throw a one inch or smaller chunk and your success goes way down.

If this is what you were talking about then sorry for miss reading your post. Nothing funner imho when it comes to fishing then to target and catch these big fish.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Nice mount :O||: . And yes, it sounds like we agree on this issue.

I just hope your friends didn't accidentally vote to eliminate the protective restriction because of me. :shock:


----------



## tye dye twins (Mar 8, 2011)

Bears Butt said:


> Done.
> I said to restrict tiger musky fishing to artificial lures and flies only.


And what PV, Newton, etc. would be AF&L? So no scents for bass at PV?


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

tye dye twins said:


> [quote="Bears Butt":2d0fpbl3]Done.
> I said to restrict tiger musky fishing to artificial lures and flies only.


And what PV, Newton, etc. would be AF&L? So no scents for bass at PV?[/quote:2d0fpbl3]

I don't know what AF&L means and I don't understand the "no scents for bass at PV"

What I'm saying is to not allow any bait to be used when targeting Tiger Musky. If you are after any other fish use whatever you want. I suppose if you are throwing a huge chunk of carp gut at a bass and a tiger musky hammers it...well...There is a line where the angler has to decide if he is fishing within the guidelines.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Cathader No they are musky fisherman and they new what to vote for. They were fishing them when there were no restrictions and saw the problems.

Good luck with the musky its about to get better in utah.

I also dont know what scent has to do with bass fishing either. I use to fish bass tournaments several years ago and never thought they increased your catch rates much.


----------



## tye dye twins (Mar 8, 2011)

swbuckmaster said:


> Cathader No they are musky fisherman and they new what to vote for. They were fishing them when there were no restrictions and saw the problems.
> 
> Good luck with the musky its about to get better in utah.
> 
> I also dont know what scent has to do with bass fishing either. I use to fish bass tournaments several years ago and never thought they increased your catch rates much.


Crawfish scents. Try it.

As for AF&L (artificial flies and lures only). That mean no scents, baits, etc. So now certain baits should be banned?


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

I voted absoultey NO on cut bait size increase. Why even ask this as a survey question its a NON-ISSUE. Why does this even have to be addressed? TM fishing at Newton and PV are mandatory C&R. Entertaining increasing cut bait size will do what allow more successful C&R of TM at PV and Newton...hmmmmmmmmm......

I'm sure statistics from Musky waters that allow live bait primarily during fall fishing use live bait up to 12" long if not longer in MN, WI etc. show Muskies still get deep gut hooked. We've read all about those issues on various forums dedicated to Musky fishing from the midwest including various magazines we get.

Again this is a NON-ISSUE and to even suggest a change is based on what data? Again NON-ISSUE. To fish for Tiger Muskies with any increase in bait size would be and probably will result in increased mortality of these fish. I can gurantee even now 99% of anglers who try for TM don't even have the proper tackle, line, release tools, and don't even know how to handle this limited resource and to now consider potentially increasing cut bait size. I have to ask WHY??? 

As dedicated TM anglers to a treasured limited resource we don't use cut bait at all never have never will. I know of no TM angler who uses cut bait. Only time you hear about cut bait is every now and again during ice fishing. To me this potential size increase is a NON-ISSUE if anything make it illegal to use cut bait. DO AWAY WITH CUT BAIT at PV and NEWTON!!!!!! This survey question really leaves me scratching my head and asking WHY???????


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Catherder said:


> 5. I thought closing Forsythe to fishing or not allowing perch harvest there until poisoning was excessively punitive.


I totally disagree...I hope they do close the lake to fishing. I am tired of these guys who move fish and then ruin a good fishery. Why not close the lake to fishing until it can be renovated to keep these jerks from being rewarded from their illegal activities?

The problem with not closing the lake is that people continue to have all the incentive in the world to continue moving fish illegally. At some point, the incentive needs to be taken away.


----------



## BrookTroutKid (Oct 10, 2007)

Ha ha love the random spammer  
Well I took the survey I liked the idea of changing the regs at fish lake but I didn't agree with closing forsythe, unless they have funding within the next couple of months to treat it (which I am sure they don't).


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

k2muskie said:


> Why even ask this as a survey question its a NON-ISSUE.





k2muskie said:


> This survey question really leaves me scratching my head and asking WHY???????


Well, K2, it does sound like it is an issue. Make sure you let the DWR know how you feel in detail.



wyoming2utah said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > 5. I thought closing Forsythe to fishing or not allowing perch harvest there until poisoning was excessively punitive.
> ...


I understand the sentiment. However, why punish thousands for the stupidity and selfishness of the few or one. Won't it be punishment enough that the fishery will be closed for 12-18 months when it gets treated? As stated, I voted for no action, but if I had to pick one or the other, I'd select not allowing harvest of perch. That would also accomplish what you want. Then people can at least catch the trout there.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Catherder said:


> I understand the sentiment. However, why punish thousands for the stupidity and selfishness of the few or one. Won't it be punishment enough that the fishery will be closed for 12-18 months when it gets treated? As stated, I voted for no action, but if I had to pick one or the other, I'd select not allowing harvest of perch. That would also accomplish what you want. Then people can at least catch the trout there.


I think the 12-18 months that it takes to renovate a fishery after poisoning is nothing compared to the years they will take away from lousy fishing the perch are going to cause. The punishment for the thousands is already starting...by this fall, the trout fishery will be down to nothing and who will be fishing it? I think the DWR should take the hardline stance and simply say, "OK...fishermen screwed this water up; fishermen should pay the price." Maybe...and only, maybe then, will people start thinking twice about moving fish. You might be right that disallowing the harvest of perch may be enough punishment...I just like giving the harshest punishment possible to create as big of a deterrent as possible.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

The people that put the Perch in there will keep them when caught. They don't care about laws.
Close it and kill it.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Catherder said:


> k2muskie said:
> 
> 
> > Why even ask this as a survey question its a NON-ISSUE.
> ...


Yep you can rest assured we along with other TM anglers have provided comments.

Problem we have here is show the data. Is it floaters the DWR has received that show gut hooks??...could be, however increasing the cut bait size will only INCREASE FLOATERS...like I stated a 99% of folks who try to catch a TM to mark off the ole bucket list don't have the proper equipment, tackle, release tools including how to handle/release the fish especially in very warm water. So potentially increase cut bait will increase the survival rate of a Tiger Musky...???? Hmmmmmmm

Fishing with cut bait the fish takes the bait, you wait for the hookset as you see your line moving and set the hook...result deeply hooked/gut hooked fish. If PV and Newton are mandatory C&R how will increasing cut bait size reduce deeply hooked fish? You can't use sucker rigs or quick release rig on chunks of cut bait fish...this type of tackle is used on MN and WI etc waters with live fish up to 12" plus. Yes the quick strike rigs have reduced fish mortality somewhat back in those states...however if you don't know how to use this tackle the fish will get deeply hooked. Just look at using bait when ice fishing or other types of fishing...are the fish barely hooked in the lip or is the hook down the fishes throat? Even when we fish at Willard for Walleye with worm harnesses close to 95% of the Eyes have the hook where...way down the fishes mouth and into its throat including gills...same with ice fishing we do manage to lip hook fish as when we see the indicator move instant hookset. Rest assured IMHO increasing cut bait size will do this treasured resource no good and will result in increased mortality.

Now if the DWR wants to experiment with increasing cut bait size for TM fishing then test the theory and experiment at Bullock or Cottonwood and see what happens. Make it illegal to use any cut bait at PV or Newton when fishing for TM period dot artifical lures ONLY!!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

A couple things: 1) I don't use bait to fish for TM...never have and never will. I also voted to keep the bait size restriction the way it is. But, IF increasing the bait size will increase the survival of released TM, why not? I spend considerable time fishing for splake with cut bait...I have definitely noticed that still fishing with smaller pieces of bait will result in more gut hooked fish. So, I typically use larger chunks to avoid gut hooking the little ones. Why wouldn't the same thing apply to TM? 2) Totally making the use of cut bait at Newton is NOT a good idea. I used to love fishing Newton for catfish with cut bait...other pan fish in Newton are also good with cut bait. I don't think the reservoir's regulations should completely cater to TM fishermen. 3) I think the DWR is pretty confident and pleased with their ability to raise and stock their own TM now...I would also think that mandatory C&R regulations at Pineview and Newton should go away in the next few years. Perhaps, the DWR is hoping to relax restrictive regulations for this reason...


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

With all due respect, fishing for TM is just a tad bit different than fishing for splake, catfish, trout, Walleye, panfish etc. 

Cater to TM Fisherman...hmmmmm what about catering to trout fisherman with some of the survey questions...including other topics wrt various water ways with Trout?? 

Next the DWR based on a recent article is not yet confident in raising their own TM stock as they are confident in raising Trout. They are having issues keeping the fish alive including feeding them a much different species than trout raised in the state. This is based on a recent article I read to include information directly from DWR sources. So they are still working at cracking the TM raising code not a complete success story yet based on the article I read and if I can find the link I'll post. We do hope it becomes a success story for the state as they are not giving up.

I'll also agree as we too see C&R restrictions potentially being lifted...but rest assured we will along with others will voice our strong opposition to this. Just as others have voiced opposition to regulation changes for other Utah fish species...we will voice our opposition with justifiable rationale and eliminating emotions as much as possible...including making justifable recommendations supported by data we've collected on our own as dedicated TM anglers.

With this issue on increasing cut bait size...guess we shall all see come 2013. Just glad they asked the question instead of just making the change without any input from the public.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

k2muskie said:


> With all due respect, fishing for TM is just a tad bit different than fishing for splake, catfish, trout, Walleye, panfish etc.


How? I don't think so...and I spend a lot of time every year doing it.



k2muskie said:


> Cater to TM Fisherman...hmmmmm what about catering to trout fisherman with some of the survey questions...including other topics wrt various water ways with Trout?? .


I was talking about referring to just catering to TM fishermen at a water with more than just TM....those other waters mentioned were trout waters. Why have a restrictive regulation on TM at Newton or Pineview that doesn't help TM and hinders others abilities to fish for other fish species?


k2muskie said:


> Next the DWR based on a recent article is not yet confident in raising their own TM stock as they are confident in raising Trout. They are having issues keeping the fish alive including feeding them a much different species than trout be raised in the state. This is based on a recent article I read to include information directly from DWR sourches. So they are still working at cracking the TM raising code not a complete success story yet based on the article I read and if I can find the link I'll post. We do hope it becomes a success story for the state as they are not giving up..


Agreed...I think this is also why nothing has been done yet to change regulations for the harvest of TM at Pineview and Newton. But, as time goes on, I am sure they will only get better and better at raising them. I would expect that in future years TM harvest regulations will get a bit more relaxed.


k2muskie said:


> I'll also agree as we too see C&R restrictions potentially being lifted...but rest assured we will along with others will voice our strong opposition to this. Just as others have voiced opposition to regulation changes for other Utah fish species...we will voice our opposition with justifiable rationale and eliminating emotions as much as possible...including making justifable recommendations supported by data we've collected on our own as dedicated TM anglers.


Which you should do as a concerned angler...personally, I will probably be on the other side of the fence. I believe TM regulations should be relaxed once they have a good handle on the raising and stocking of them.



k2muskie said:


> With this issue on increasing cut bait size...guess we shall all see come 2013. Just glad they asked the question instead of just making the change without any input from the public.


I think maybe you should get in touch with Drew Cushing and ask him what kind of evidence they have to support their idea. Get in touch with the DWR and actually see how serious of an issue this is and how serious they are about changing the regulation. They wouldn't be asking about it if there wasn't some kind of reasoning behind it...


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Great discussion wyoming2utah. I now understand your view on other fish in these waters. Again we use perch meat/eyes when ice fishing. However to increase the size of cut bait one doesn't use 1" cut bait I believe to fish for perch or crappie including other types of panfish. Cut bait of this size is used for one reason and increasing the cut bait is as I see it for one reason. Yes I know folks will use larger pieces of cut bait for cat fish etc but IMHO especially at Newton and PV the current regulations of 1"x1"x1" is for 'one' reason. But I could be wrong.

As a TM angler yourself we agree, fishing for this species is very different and it means knowing and having the proper equipment, tackle, release tools and how to properly handle...do we agree? Not the same as fishing for trout or other species at all as I see it. But hey thats me and yep I'm biased.

Again we shall see and also I'm sure the restrictions will be lifted we will address that issue again with justifiable rationale and supporting data to ensure we do all we can...as that is all one can do.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

So if the DWR does increase cut bait size to help ensure survival rate of TMs...then you'd think they also require the 'mandatory' use of circle hooks when using cut bait to fish for TMs. As circle hooks increase the survival rate of fish when fishing with bait. Hmmmmmm.....wonder if the DWR will require the 'mandatory' use of these hooks if they are interested at ensuring the survival rate of tthis species of fish since the question is directly tied to TM fishing and no other types of fish species as I recall that question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_hook


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

k2muskie said:


> Yes I know folks will use larger pieces of cut bait for cat fish etc but IMHO especially at Newton and PV the current regulations of 1"x1"x1" is for 'one' reason. But I could be wrong.


I think you are right...the reason for the regulation on cut bait is to protect tiger musky. The question, I think, being raised is whether or not that regulation is necessary. Is that regulation really protecting tiger musky? I don't know. I would be interested in what kind of evidence the DWR has that might suggest otherwise. I would also be interested to know what the reasoning is behind the question...


k2muskie said:


> As a TM angler yourself we agree, fishing for this species is very different and it means knowing and having the proper equipment, tackle, release tools and how to properly handle...do we agree? Not the same as fishing for trout or other species at all as I see it. But hey thats me and yep I'm biased.


Well...we do and we don't. I have enjoyed fishing for tiger musky with virtually the same tackle I use for trout--spinning gear and/or fly gear. True, the spinning rod and fly rod I use to catch them is heavier duty, but I use the same basic tactics. Normally, I fish for them from a float tube or pontoon boat and don't remember ever netting one. I am also a bit different when it comes to their release...I have learned that a good pair of wool gloves will act like velcro (a trick I learned from my father who spent his career working with fish) on big fish and if they are not handled carefully, brought in as quickly as possible, and released quickly, they will die (I think this is very similar to other fish). For me, though, I don't see any major differences. Based on what I have seen on this site, it seems as though TM are your passion and you are trying to protect that passion...I commend you for that.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

k2muskie said:


> So if the DWR does increase cut bait size to help ensure survival rate of TMs...then you'd think they also require the 'mandatory' use of circle hooks when using cut bait to fish for TMs. As circle hooks increase the survival rate of fish when fishing with bait. Hmmmmmm.....wonder if the DWR will require the 'mandatory' use of these hooks if they are interested at ensuring the survival rate of tthis species of fish since the question is directly tied to TM fishing and no other types of fish species as I recall that question.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_hook


Hmmm....I think the question in the survey is more about whether anglers should be unnecessarily restricted. Again, to me, the question is do we need the bait size restriction to ensure the success of the TM program at Newton and Pineview? If the answer is "yes", then by all means keep the restriction. If, though, the answer is "no", I think the restriction should be lifted and/or changed. Why have a rule restricting anglers when the lack of the rule doesn't have a detrimental effect?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> the reason for the regulation on cut bait is to protect tiger musky. The question, I think, being raised is whether or not that regulation is necessary. Is that regulation really protecting tiger musky?


The main reason I voted against removing the restriction was that if it were removed, I would expect more anglers to try and use large cut baits to score a TM. As it stands now, most folks recognize that putting a tiny cut bait out there is not likely to interest a big muskie, and I haven't heard of too many folks doing this at present. Even if "big" cut bait was safer than "small" pieces, it is pretty likely that cut bait in general will have a much higher hooking mortality than artificial lures, especially since a lot of the bait users probably are "Joe 6 pack" types that don't have the correct gear to handle TM.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Catherder said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > the reason for the regulation on cut bait is to protect tiger musky. The question, I think, being raised is whether or not that regulation is necessary. Is that regulation really protecting tiger musky?
> ...


The main reason I voted against it is because I don't see it affecting very many people. I think the majority of TM fishermen don't use bait...and the majority of those using bait are probably fishing for perch, catfish, crappie or some other panfish. So, I don't see the need for change. However, there also may be no need to restrict people either...I don't know.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

I'm hoping Mr. Cushing responds to my e-mail on this as yes I did send him an e-mail and hopefully he'll repond or possibly even repond and provide some insight to this question on this forum. Maybe being the tight mouthed secretive TM anglers we are theres more to the issue we're unaware of. I sure hope so. As for us and other tight mouth secretive TM anglers what is the WHY to even ask this question and potentially change the regulations? I'd for one really like the Paul Harvey...'and now you have the rest of the story'...on why even entertain changing this regulation especially on TM waters that are mandatory catch and release...... :? :? :? :?


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Done.


----------



## hedged (May 20, 2012)

Done.


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > 5. I thought closing Forsythe to fishing or not allowing perch harvest there until poisoning was excessively punitive.
> ...


BINGO!! +1000


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

W2U 
to me it sounds like you are just getting into the TM fishing. 

I can say this if you continue to use a wool glove to land your fish you are asking for an injury especially if you are using plugs or rapala type lures. You are also asking to get your tube popped lol. The best way to handle these fish is with a large cradle or a net that is made out of a material that will resist getting snagged with your lure. It is also best to use a barb less lures. The lure will fall out when it is landed and the fish can be imediatly released. There really isnt a need to even bring the fish in the boat unless you are trying to get a photo. 

If you cant see the problems with cut bait or big bait on catch and release fish I dont know what to say. These fish are way different when it comes to catching them with bait then catching trout with bait. Ive seen first hand the floaters from almost any bank angler that has tangled with these fish where they were allowed to use perch for bait. I helped lobby the bait restriction. There is no need to go back and do further studies to see if gut hooked fish will die. 

Im also not in favor of relaxing any rules on these fish. There is no need to bring home a cooler of dink TM fish. These fish are strictly raised for sport and to control the smaller fish. I would be in favor of making it 1 fish 45" or larger. This way you could mount one or two if you want. There are plenty of fish in Utah you can take home and eat. leave these fish for the trophy guys.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

I received a reply from a designated POC at the DWR. I was provided 2 pdf files. One study was for Northern Pike and the other study was circle hooks. We scanned the circle hook study but have yet found time to fully digest this study to repond back.

However, we did thoroughly read and digest the Northern Pike study including found it on the internet. This study was pointed out by the DWR in their e-mail to us. I've provided the link to this study below. Interesting study.

At this time I don't feel it fair to air on a public forum our analysis of the study and what we sent to the DWR POCs. Thats just me. Link is below for anyone who wishes to review for ones own analysis and subsequent conclusions. This is the exact same study on Northern Pike we reviewed and provided our analysis back to the DWR on. Enjoy the read if you desire to read....some higher level math and scientific terms but grasping that stuffage I do believe the common JP public can draw their own opinions and conclusions of this study. I'll leave it at that.

http://unio.igb-berlin.de/abt4/mitarbei ... M_2008.pdf


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> W2U
> to me it sounds like you are just getting into the TM fishing.


I caught my first TM in 1995...my first 40 incher the same year (I mounted a TM in 1998...I guess you could say I have been at it a little while). I have been hooked ever since. Wool gloves are the best way to handle big fish...even tiger musky. Again, they act like velcro. I don't see any need to use any kind of cradle or net...besides nets and cradles are too big of a pain to hawl on a tube. And, by the way, I have had one tiger musky tear a hole in my pontoon and another tear a whole in my waders...that is all part of the experience. Catching TM any other way is only half the fun...

I am in favor of relaxing the regulations for one simple reason....there is no harm in allowing a fisherman to take home a trophy. Just last year I kept a 40+ incher that fed my wife's whole family...they loved it. With the DWR learning the ropes of raising and stocking their own fish, the risk of ruining the fishery is going to gradually decline more and more. I also don't see any need to keep smaller fish. But, in cases like Pineview and Newton, the regulations could be changed to allow the harvest of a trophy fish.

The bait question is a matter of need...do we really need this restriction to protect the TM? I don't know. Again, though, I voted against the idea simply because I don't think it will change much. Either way, I don't care. I don't bait fish for them and probably never would. I just think we need to be careful about limiting fishermen and regulating them without a biological justification.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

We and other die hard and truly dedicated TM anglers believe in the near future the mandatory C&R on 2 bodies of water will be eventually lifted. Unfortunately. TM are a hybrid sterile fish...the brightest candle will burn out the fastest as we've had said to us...said but true...meaning 9-11 years is the life span but the DWR has no real data to support been trying to find out facts we've been told they have not data....hmmm why...however TM a true trophy fish for Utah needing to be fully appreciated by others who don't target them.

We whole heartily agree with swbuckmaster yea for someone catching a 30"-40" titich over 40" fish can be seen as OMG this is the biggest fish I've ever caught'...however we agree again with swbuckmaster a fish 45-50 plus" behemoth in the eyes of truly dedicated TM anglers takes on a whole different appearance and a whole new level of respect for the species. Again based on this being a hybrid that doesn't live nearly as long as the natural parents being a true Pike and Musky. We have cataloged numerous photos and only and let me emphasize only a 45" plus a fish pushing 50" plus can be really appreciated and respected...again I'm partial and we know what a true trophy TM looks like...been there, C&R them along with other die-hard dedicated TM anglers...they are a completely different breed of fish compared to what Utah has. Yes on my soap box but so be it...

Not many folks in Utah are die-hard TM anglers like us and others. I'm sure TM anglers in this state doesn't even come close a .001 probably even less % to the Utah Trout anglers...but I'm here to tell you whatever potential changes are proposed I can only hope (bet on us) we'll be vocal and attend all meetings and send e-mails and do whatever we can to protect this very limited sport resource especially at known trophy potential waters...yes I'm partial so be it...it isn't like these bodies of waters are 20,000 plus acres in MN or CA even WI, IL etc.

The Utah DWR (again huge THANK YOU TO THEM) once they crack the code and issues they have with raising their own TM fry will again find it fitting to adjust the ROEs...that’s only fair...but mind you the very few we may be as dedicated TM anglers we'll make our case known with justifiable rationale and not just someone wanting to place a notch one the ole rod butt.

TM in Utah are a treasured resource to those who target them and not to be taken for granted as a self sustaining population.

We shall see and only hope when changes are proposed others will belly up to the bar and provide justifiable rationale, emotions removed to the best possible on suggested proposals.


----------

