# Salt Creek boat restrictions?



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

i have heard rumbelings about this...

anybody shed some light on the subject??

Thanks


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

It bull **** that what it is.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

There's some rumblings about the proposal on the Refuge, http://www.refugeforums.com/refuge/show ... p?t=704357

It is a proposal to use Salt Creek as a study area to monitor the effects of motorized boats on ducks and aquatic vegetation. It is also to look at the possible effects of changing the shooting hours for the first 10 days of the season.

Seems old AP's crowd ain't giving up yet. :roll:


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Cater to the minority group of people, I call horsechit on this proposal.


----------



## Jonny Utah (Jul 4, 2008)

Change shooting hours? How about for those that shoot a half hour early on opener every year?


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

They probably won't quit bringing this subject up because they feel stongly about it. This version seems more palatable because it suggests studies on certain WMA's to determine if there are measurable impacts being made by our activities. As with all ideas, it will probably need a lot more distilling before it is ready to be actually proposed. I personally think that birds are a lot more flexible than we may think. I know that for 20 years I have run airboats out on the lake and I've watched most birds barely take notice of boat activity. It is not uncommon, especially on Willard Spur where there is *very heavy guided hunting going on*, to see the rafts of ducks part as the airboats go through them and settle back down into the boat wake. They also have almost 60,000 of the 73,000 acres on the Bear River refuge to go rest on (bordering the Spur), but they still choose to hang out in the Willard Spur circus. Weird birds.
R


----------



## Josh Noble (Jul 29, 2008)

The UMMA's stance...

Well...
I've read the proposal four times cover to cover and ya know Andy and ??? have obviously put a fair amount of time in compiling this information. There are a few ideas, informational data and proposals however that just don't add up. 
I'll list each of my questions.

I understand that Salt Creek has a minimal amount of frag, which is great however I'm not sure of another WMA that has more cattails. In my book cattails are right on line with frag if not exactly the same. Understanding little about reclaiming lost acreage due to frag or cattail invasion I'd venture to guess we could take some of the otherwise unusable property turn it into a viable piece of waterfowl heaven and run the study on that. I'm still struggling with the idea of taking currently open boating areas and closing them. I just don't see the logic. 

Who has done the actual on the water biological study of the proposed area? Who has the exact data as to how many birds were harvested off of the area in question? I’m not asking about Farmington Bay, Louisiana, Florida I’m talking about the exact area that is slated for closure. What currently grows there? In what volume? How much affect do low water years have on that area? These in my opinion need to be studied for at least five years so we get a "mean" on what’s really going on. Without that type of research on the actual piece of study property we'll never have an accurate study...it's impossible. 

Funding.. Oh this is where it get's a little shaky. This will inevitably have to be privately funded and in my best estimation will run roughly $100,000 to $125,000 per year. Of course this is my best guess on what it'd cost to have a biologist, two full time employees manning the "check station" and the equipment necessary to really do an in-depth study. The state of the economy and the limited budget the DWR is playing with I just don't see a feasible way to acquire the funding.

There are obviously other issues with the proposal however I’d like to, in all sincerity, congratulate Andy and his team for the copious amount of hours put into this study. 

Josh


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

How many more studies do we need?? Here is the result from a 1 second google search from ONE Website:

References

,hlund, M. and F. G"tmark. 1989. Predation on eider ducklings somateria mollissima: Effects of human disturbance. Biological Conservation 48:115-127.

BTlanger, L. and J. BTdard. 1990. Energetic cost of man- induced disturbance to staging snow geese. Journal of Wildlife Management 54(1):36-41.

Bouffard, S. 1982. Wildlife values versus human recreation: Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 47:553-558.

Bratton, S. 1990. Boat disturbance of ciconiiformes in Georgia estuaries. Colonial Waterbirds 13(2): 124-128.

Burger, J. 1998. Effects of motorboats and personal watercraft on flight behavior over a colony of common terns. Condor 100:528-534.

Gabrielson, G. and E. Smith. 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. Wildlife and Recreation: Coexistence through Management and Research. Richard Knight and Kevin Gutzwiller, eds. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 95-107.

Galicia, E. and G. Baldassarre. 1997. Effects of motorized tourboats on the behavior of non-breeding American flamingos in Yucatan, Mexico. Conservation Biology 11(5):1159-1165.

Hamann, B., H. Johnston, J. Gobielle, M. Hillis, S. Johnson, L. Kelly, and P. McClelland. 1999. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife: a review for Montana. Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society.

Havera, S., L. Boens, M. Georgi, and R. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:290-298.

Harmis, G.; J. Nichols, K. Pollock, and J. Hines. 1986. The relationship between body mass and survival of wintering canvasbacks. The Auk 103: 506-514.

Hume, R. 1976. Reactions of goldeneyes to boating. British Birds 69:178-179.

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Polygan, Wisconsin. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:242-248.

Kaiser, M. and E. Fritzell. 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron behavior. Journal of Wildlife Management 48(2):561-567.

Knapton, R., S. Petrie, and G. Herring. 2000. Human disturbance of diving ducks on Long Point Bay, Lake Erie. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28 (4):923-930.

Korschgen, C., L. George, and W. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:290-296.

Korschgen, C., L. George, and W. Green. 1988. Feeding ecology of canvasbacks staging on Pool 7 of the Upper Mississippi River. M. W. Weller, ed. Waterfowl in winter. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 237-249.

Mikola, J., M. Miettinen, E. Lehikoinen, and K. Lehtil". 1994. The effects of disturbance caused by boating on survival and behavior of velvet scoter melanitta fusca ducklings. Biological Conservation 67:119-124.

Mori, Y., N. Sodhi, S. Kawanishi, and S. Yamagishi. 2001. The effects of human disturbance and flock composition on the flight distances of waterfowl species. Journal of Ethology 19(2):115-119.

Pierce, G., C. Spray, and E. Stuart. 1993. The effects of fishing on the distribution and behavior of waterbirds in the Kukua area of Lake Songkla, Southern Thailand. Biological Conservation 66:23-34.

Reichholf, J. 1976. The influence of recreation activities on waterfowl. in Proceedings of the International Conference on Conservation of Wetlands and Waterfowl, ed. M. Smart. Slimbridge (Glos) England: International Waterfowl Research Bureau. 364-369.

Rodgers, J., Jr. and H. Smith. 1995. Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human disturbances in Florida. Conservation Biology 9(1):89-99.

Rodgers, J., Jr. and S. Schwikert. 2002. Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from disturbance by personal watercraft and outboard- powered boats. Conservation Biology 16(1):216-224.

Ronconi, R. and C. St. Clair. 2002. Management options to reduce boat disturbance on foraging black guillemonts (Cepphus grylle) in the Bay of Fundy. Biological Conservation 108:265-271.

Serie, J. and David Sharp. 1989. Body weight and composition dynamics of fall migrating canvasbacks. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(2): 431-441.

Simonik, M. 1999. Position statement: personal watercraft. The Conservancy of Southwest Florida.

Tuite, C., M. Owen, and D. Paynter. 1983. Interactions between wildfowl and recreation at Llangorse Lake and Talybont Reservoir, South Whales. Wildfowl 34:48-63.

Ward, D. and J. Andrews. 1993. Waterfowl and recreational disturbance on inland waters. British Wildlife 4(4):221- 229. Upper Mississippi National Waterfowl Refuge


You can spin this any way you would like in my personal belief this is no different than
what is going on with Big Game in Utah. Hell yeah we have elk quality like no other place on earth but nobody gets to hunt!! Well almost nobody except those that can afford a conservation tag or have been in the draw for 15 years.

You have all the data needed to come to a conclusion. If this will in fact benefit ducks and make a major BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE then tell me where to sign up. From an outsider looking in ths smells just like the **** coming off the opportunity VS quality dung heap that dominates Utahs big game hunts


----------



## H20FWLR (Nov 27, 2007)

So just looking at all this great facts on studies on how "BOAT TRAFFIC" affects FEEDING and RESTING BIRDS, then why the HELL havent they done something about it until NOW???? My other concern is that they have had all this SOLID info since the early 1990's. It is now 20 FREAKING years later and now decide to do something??? Smells Fishy to me. How's this in a nutshell. Some PEOPLE have their have alter egos here and are now trying to change the ONLY REAL area or surounding areas that they "GUIDE" on to make it a less used area for them!!!! "Oh my actions are foremost for the birds". I call BS on that. If it was for the sole purpose for BIRDS sake then why stop at salt creek only????


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> How many more studies do we need?? Here is the result from a 1 second google search from ONE Website:......
> 
> You can spin this any way you would like in my personal belief this is no different than
> what is going on with Big Game in Utah. Hell yeah we have elk quality like no other place on earth but nobody gets to hunt!! Well almost nobody except those that can afford a conservation tag or have been in the draw for 15 years.
> ...


wiley, this is exactly the thing. There is all sorts of info showing that this type of program has worked all over the world but the nay sayers go on and on saying "that may be true in Florida or Arkansas or anywhere else, but our marsh is totaly different so that info is bunk." IMO the study isn't necessary other than to prove that this type of management WILL work here in Utah to improve duck hunting just like it has elsewhere.

I agree, Utah's big game hunting has gone in a very poor direction. The implimentation of motorless areas will be IMO like closing areas to 4-wheelers. People can still hunt there any time they want, they just have to use a different method of travel to get there. It is still huntable! If closing areas to hunting completely provide additional flight paths through huntable areas, therefore improving the hunting in those areas, where is the problem? On top of that, if closing A FEW areas to motorized boats will in fact keep more birds in the area and improve hunting overall then where is the hang up?


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

H20FWLR said:


> "Oh my actions are foremost for the birds". I call BS on that. If it was for the sole purpose for BIRDS sake then why stop at salt creek only????


We are proposing a study be done at Salt Creek to show that this type of management here in Utah will work the very same as it hase elsewhere. Once it is shown that our marshes and ducks react in a similar POSITIVE way, we would encourage the DWR to impliment further non motorized and rest areas through out the other WMA's.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

the discussion has progressed much more over here, please read...
http://www.refugeforums.com/refuge/show ... p?t=704430


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Another problem I see by limiting access to boats is that you will have more hunters butthole to elbow on the dikes (and we thought it was bad now) The other problem I have is in regards to "damage to aquatic plants from motor props" Is this something added to the proposal just to try to justify the proposal? I don't buy into this theory. The other problem I have is this proposal is written by a person(s) that uses our public property to guide on. I won't support any proposal that takes away my freedom to go where I want when I want. I can't believe when people are so willing to give up their rights and freedoms to use our public land. I thought treehuggers and PETA were bad, now I have to argue with my fellow Sportsman...Oh Geez!


----------



## kingfish (Sep 10, 2007)

Fowlmouth said:


> . The other problem I have is this proposal is written by a person(s) that uses our public property to guide on. I won't support any proposal that takes away my freedom to go where I want when I want. I can't believe when people are so willing to give up their rights and freedoms to use our public land. I thought treehuggers and PETA were bad, now I have to argue with my fellow Sportsman...Oh Geez!


the few folks that i have talked with say this is the biggest beef they have about it. as i have been told by these folks the conflict of interest just alone is enough to make them really question the motives on this.

also some of my thoughts is that mud motors are simply a target or a way to justify such a proposal. i like the idea tyson posted up on the fuge, the area to complete a study already exists. why create a whole new area when one is set up. that way you burn nobody and can still do the study! makes more sense to me.......


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Tyson Rassmusson"s idea about using Public Shooting Grounds seems to be a great method of testing Andy's hypothesis about motorized boat use. It is more affordable and doesn't drasticly change or infringe on people's hunting methods. If money can be found for research, then this idea would give us the best bang for the buck. I hesitate to support any idea that takes DWR funds away from habitat issues (like phrag) to spend on motorboat studies. but I'm not completely against the idea either.
R


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

How many red flags need to pop up before somebody calls BULL ****??
Contact the Feds and let them tell you what you need to know for free. 
You've got a proposal written by a guide. You've got the interest and support of a few key people. You've peeked the interest of more key people. Since nobody that has received my waterfowl related membership dollars for several years is willing to step up and do it I will. 

BULL ****!!!

You mentioned in the proposal somewhere that QUALITY is involved in this equation. What kind of QUALITY hunt will I have if I can't get my son and I to our blind because I didn't draw a spot?? You Delta Guy's that support this should be freaking ashamed!!! Did you not read the VANISHING HUNTER SERIES in your own publication??? Was access and opportunity not one of the big four as far as losing hunters??? DU and UWA you guy's are just as bad for even thinking of supporting anything that will take away my families privlidge to hunt for another person's definition of QUALITY.

Let me explain this as plainly as I can. If you take a Predator out of the Predator Prey relationship Prey will thrive. Predator will starve and die. Prey will eventually reach an unhealthy balance and nature will take over and do what she does. THIS IS HOW IT WORKS.

****!! I ain't asking a lot, but would one of you Waterfowl Related groups grow a pair 
and earn your members money by defending our opportunity to hunt???

Last I looked there were several million acre feet of water that waterfowl have the ability to esacpe to just a short flight to the west of most of the area's were discussing here. If the guides can't get to them that ain't my fault.


----------



## stucknmud (Dec 2, 2008)

wileywapati said:


> How many red flags need to pop up before somebody calls BULL ****??
> Contact the Feds and let them tell you what you need to know for free.
> You've got a proposal written by a guide. You've got the interest and support of a few key people. You've peeked the interest of more key people. Since nobody that has received my waterfowl related membership dollars for several years is willing to step up and do it I will.
> 
> ...


+1...Well said somebody needs to grow some stones here and say HELL NO!


----------



## diverfreak (May 11, 2008)

I beleive Noble has always had a pair and said hell no in a nice way!!!!!



DiverFreak


----------



## kingfish (Sep 10, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> You Delta Guy's that support this should be freaking ashamed!!! Did you not read the VANISHING HUNTER SERIES in your own publication??? Was access and opportunity not one of the big four as far as losing hunters???


i can assure you that delta has not taken a stand on this. however, many folks that i have talked with inside of delta are not happy with this restriction talk. no one from delta is on board with this as far as putting the delta stamp on it!!!!!!!!! my personal note: the UWA will hold the key to putting a stamp on it and if i was a betting man this thing has as much chance as a fart in the wind!!!!!! once again a personal note!!


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

D.F. good to hear that J.N. 

FISH not taking a stand is just as bad as lending support. I can guarantee that the RACs and Wildlife Board are wanting to know what these groups will think about this proposal.
If they get no input then they will satisfy whoever is standing in front of them at the moment
or push their own personal agenda ( unfortunate but true!!! just ask a bowhunter ) 

The Waterfowl RACs are in July if my memory serves me correctly. I would urge as many of you that care either way about this to get to your regional RAC and speak up. Send E mails to the RAC members and members of the Wildlife Board and let them know how you feel about this.

The quicker the groups express an opinion on this the quicker the momentum will be stopped.


----------



## 10Tenner (Oct 7, 2007)

> I beleive Noble has always had a pair and said hell no in a nice way!!!!!


 Is not Noble a guide, were does the membership money go for a UMB association, does the merchandise begin sold go back to waterfowl management? If my line of work (Money from hunters) enables me to buy 30,000+ air boat, and 12,000+ boat, I am darn sure going to fight against this proposal. 10tenner


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I feel that it is premature to get our panties all wadded up just yet. There is no submitted proposal yet, just a presentation to get some feedback. I would much rather talk to a fellow hunter and work out differences before it gets to the point of jumping up and down yelling "hell no!"...although it may come to that. I hope not. I prefer to give it time and see how his ideas progress, maybe help with the good parts and voice opposition to the bad parts. I believe an open mind may help diffuse a potentially expolsive situation.
R


----------



## Josh Noble (Jul 29, 2008)

10Tenner said:


> > I beleive Noble has always had a pair and said hell no in a nice way!!!!!
> 
> 
> Is not Noble a guide, were does the membership money go for a UMB association, does the merchandise begin sold go back to waterfowl management? If my line of work (Money from hunters) enables me to buy 30,000+ air boat, and 12,000+ boat, I am darn sure going to fight against this proposal. 10tenner


10tenner,
Thanks for the laugh, I needed that!!! 
I'm not sure why I'm going to attempt to explain this to you but being that you brought it up I'm guessing there are some others on here that probably have the same question so here goes.
Yes I'm a guide I've guided on BRC for 15 years. I generally spend 9-15 days a year guiding there, is there a problem with that? The membership/merchandise dollars generated by the UMMA (Not the UMB???) are 100% put back into the system via boat docks, frag control, light structures, goose nesting platforms and any other voted on projects. Currently the UMMA has 29 active members, using simple math @ $30 per annual membership we're still along way away from my personally purchased airboat and mud motor rig. (Both were purchased in full prior to the organization of the UMMA) I know you and your brother have issues with DF and I suppose through osmosis the UMMA and I are guilty by association, correct? The reason the UMMA has a firm stance against this rough draft proposal has already been documented and posted. If you have any further questions please give me a call on my cell phone (801)721-0297. 
Be good.
Josh Noble


----------



## 10Tenner (Oct 7, 2007)

> I know you and your brother have issues with DF and I suppose through osmosis the UMMA and I are guilty by association, correct?


 :roll: What? Does not matter who posted it, and you do not even know who I am. Do you not make a living of Waterfowl Hunters? I was making point that you would not cut of the hand that feeds you. I personally do not like seeing were our sport is heading with the commercialization, it is headed the same direction as big game. 10tenner


----------



## Billcollector (Oct 31, 2007)

[quote="10Tenner :roll: What? Does not matter who posted it, and you do not even know who I am. Do you not make a living of Waterfowl Hunters? I was making point that you would not cut of the hand that feeds you. I personally do not like seeing were our sport is heading with the commercialization, it is headed the same direction as big game. 10tenner[/quote]

Apparently you do not know Josh either. What does selling avery products have to do with a local boat restriction proposal? I can gaurantee he does more for our sport/ resource than you do, and yep, i don't know you either.

So I guess you don't buy decoys, blinds, clothing, guns, or dream about going on guided hunts anywhere, right??? because you would just be adding to the commercialization epidemic thats happening. :roll: :roll:


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

10Tenner said:


> :roll: What? Does not matter who posted it, and you do not even know who I am. Do you not make a living of Waterfowl Hunters? I was making point that you would not cut of the hand that feeds you. I personally do not like seeing were our sport is heading with the commercialization, it is headed the same direction as big game. 10tenner


 :roll: :roll:

Josh is lucky enough to make a living doing what he loves. I think it is a pretty big stretch to imply that he is in part responsible for the commercialization of the sport. If you hunt, you ought to be glad that companies hire Josh and others to get their products in stores like SW, Cabela's and other sporting goods stores. Josh is good at what he does and is lucky enough to have a job most of us would kill for.

As far as the UMMA goes, I trust Josh 100% to manage that organization how it ought to be managed. I'm certain the money will go where it is needed and that is not Josh's MM and Air Boat. The only thing wrong with the UMMA is that they don't support the proposal this thread is supposed to be about. :wink: :lol:

Now back to the topic at hand!


----------



## 10Tenner (Oct 7, 2007)

Billcolector,


> So I guess you don't buy decoys, blinds, clothing, guns, or dream about going on guided hunts anywhere, right???


 I buy very few decoys, 6 decoys in the last two years, never owned a blind, and do honestly do not dream about guide hunts, never have been on one, never hunted a private club. Clothing yes, when on sale, guns two used waterfowl guns in the last nine years. Do I have some sponsors, no, do I get paid for advertisement no. And last Am I a successfully hunter yes! 
D.F. should not have brought up Joshes name if he did not expect some criticisms, and if I were in Joshes shoes I would be against the proposal as well, but I am not in his shoes so I am for it. 10tenner


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

10Tenner said:


> Billcolector,
> 
> 
> > So I guess you don't buy decoys, blinds, clothing, guns, or dream about going on guided hunts anywhere, right???
> ...


 :roll: :roll:

Biased unsubstantiated accusations aren't going to help win that proposal any support from those who are responsible enough to refrain from such actions.

As for the proposal; I'm flat out against it, no matter how they package it. Further more I'll stop supporting any organization that supports it in any form, I'm sure I may not be the only one who thinks that way either.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

[/quote]Biased unsubstantiated accusations aren't going to help win that proposal any support from those who are responsible enough to refrain from such actions.

As for the proposal; I'm flat out against it, no matter how they package it. Further more I'll stop supporting any organization that supports it in any form, I'm sure I may not be the only one who thinks that way either.[/quote]

+1 im with you jimmy.


----------



## 10Tenner (Oct 7, 2007)

> Biased unsubstantiated accusations


 :roll: :roll: Josh answered my questions about the UMMA, and I was not referring to the UMMA for his being able to buy his boat and air boat, he most likely had those before the UMMA, am I correct or not? I am not that ignorant to think he was able to spend that kind of money from a new organization. But, I will not retract what I said about sponsors, or advertising. Mojo1 I can tell you have not seen the affects of the explosion the motorized boats on some the areas I had hunted. I spent some time last year out of state, and those in control of that states water and land closed areas to boats,(not some small section) and some completely from hunting to hold birds. I will go back more often.  10tenner


----------



## duckmaster (Nov 2, 2008)

Just a response to this thread. Considering who is behind the proposal should answer the question. Just like everything else over the recent years there is always hidden motivations. The proposal is not from a waterfowling loving advocate; but rather it's about closing down areas so this individual/individuals will be able to provide a better guide experience; thus making more $$$$$$$$$. Most of us are using the resource because we enjoy the resource; being out with friends, boats and our dogs. Others are making money off of all of our State owned resources. Maybe we should start requiring outfitters by state law to become licensed; insured; and approved by an outfitting board like other states; maybe we should do a study on this. The rest of us taxpaying waterfowlers should contact our legislators about changing the outfitting requirements after the study is done!!!! Maybe we should do this study at Harold S. Crane; there is much more to study there!!!!!! Oh!! wait this might interfere with what else is going on out there. -


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

duckmaster said:


> Just a response to this thread. Considering who is behind the proposal should answer the question. Just like everything else over the recent years there is always hidden motivations. The proposal is not from a waterfowling loving advocate; but rather it's about closing down areas so this individual/individuals will be able to provide a better guide experience; thus making more $$$$$$$$$. Most of us are using the resource because we enjoy the resource; being out with friends, boats and our dogs. Others are making money off of all of our State owned resources. *Maybe we should start requiring outfitters by state law to become licensed; insured; and approved by an outfitting board like other states;* maybe we should do a study on this. The rest of us taxpaying waterfowlers should contact our legislators about changing the outfitting requirements after the study is done!!!! Maybe we should do this study at Harold S. Crane; there is much more to study there!!!!!! Oh!! wait this might interfere with what else is going on out there. -


They just passed this law. HB173 (I know it got through the house. It may not have got through the senate though.)

her is the link:

http://le.utah.gov/~2009/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0173.htm


----------



## MudInBlood (Apr 10, 2008)

donttreadonme said:


> duckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > Just a response to this thread. Considering who is behind the proposal should answer the question. Just like everything else over the recent years there is always hidden motivations. The proposal is not from a waterfowling loving advocate; but rather it's about closing down areas so this individual/individuals will be able to provide a better guide experience; thus making more $$$$$$$$$. Most of us are using the resource because we enjoy the resource; being out with friends, boats and our dogs. Others are making money off of all of our State owned resources. *Maybe we should start requiring outfitters by state law to become licensed; insured; and approved by an outfitting board like other states;* maybe we should do a study on this. The rest of us taxpaying waterfowlers should contact our legislators about changing the outfitting requirements after the study is done!!!! Maybe we should do this study at Harold S. Crane; there is much more to study there!!!!!! Oh!! wait this might interfere with what else is going on out there. -
> ...


When I looked at the bill it defined game as big game animals and bears and cougars. My understanding was it did not apply to small game, ie waterfowl guides do not need to be licensed. Maybe I'm wrong, but that was my understanding.


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

Gotcha. I hadn't read it, I just heard about it and never heard big game only. Thanks for the info Nathan.


----------



## duckmaster (Nov 2, 2008)

Happy to hear about the house bill. I'l have to read it more thoroughly but I believe it surrounds big game. It may have come about due to problems in Central Utah; not sure this is the case but it would be a good guess.

If this bill doesn't cover waterfowl guides then we as taxpaying sportsmen need to take a good look at how guiding on our State owned marshes are affecting waterfowl movement; rest time for the birds and how that effects the quality of the hunting for the rest of us that are not making a living off State owned resources.

I really believe that we need to take a look North were guiding for waterfowl is NOT allowed. I really think we need to approach the new outfitting board; the DWR: and our law makers to consider this; who knows maybe this would improve the quality of the hunt to restrict or abolish the commercial use of State lands. Idaho sure has it right on this one.


----------



## getsomecoot (Apr 1, 2009)

duckmaster said:


> Just a response to this thread. Considering who is behind the proposal should answer the question. Just like everything else over the recent years there is always hidden motivations. The proposal is not from a waterfowling loving advocate; but rather it's about closing down areas so this individual/individuals will be able to provide a better guide experience; thus making more $$$$$$$$$. Most of us are using the resource because we enjoy the resource; being out with friends, boats and our dogs. Others are making money off of all of our State owned resources. Maybe we should start requiring outfitters by state law to become licensed; insured; and approved by an outfitting board like other states; maybe we should do a study on this. The rest of us taxpaying waterfowlers should contact our legislators about changing the outfitting requirements after the study is done!!!! Maybe we should do this study at Harold S. Crane; there is much more to study there!!!!!! Oh!! wait this might interfere with what else is going on out there. -


well y dont u call the guy behind this whole PROPOSAL may b u will learn something.......


----------

