# Results of 2016 fishing regulations survey



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

Thanks again to everyone who took our regulations survey earlier this year. For those who are interested, here are the results.

We will not be proposing any tiger muskie changes this year but plan to examine the issue a bit more based on the feedback we received. We'll likely propose some changes for muskies in 2017.

Our proposed changes for 2016 will be going out for public input at the Regional Advisory Council meetings next month (Sept. 8-17). We'll have more information about the proposals on our website in the next week or so, and I'll post a link here after everything is online.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Thanks Amy!


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Awesome Thank you Amy...will be interesting for the TM species...a 40" TM is a nice fish but nowhere near a trophy for the species. 50" is a trophy especially for a sterile non reproducing fish..:


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Wow, there is a lot of comments. 

I don't envy this position of deciding the regulations.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

After reading each and every one of those 850 comments (I really did - now my brain hurts), I can see that many people used this as an opportunity to complain about how terribly our fisheries are run. 

Really? No constructive feedback, just ranting on most of them.

I might have seen about two dozen comments that actually had something productive to offer the DWR.

On the positive side, I believe the DWR has sufficiently been made aware that people are sick of poaching at Willard. Perhaps we'll see more enforcement there as a result.

We're very fortunate that our DWR has conducted these surveys and even more so to have an open comment section at the end of them. These are wonderful opportunities to provide valuable feedback and anyone leaving a comment should really put some thought into what they say before they click the "submit" button.

Posting quick one-liners about "More tiger muskie", "stock bigger fish" or "more bass" without anything else isn't going to do anything but waste the readers' time.

The intent of the surveys is to collect suggestions and to get a read on angler interests, not to show them how poorly most of our anglers write/spell.

If you have a complaint, be constructive with it. Outline the issue, examine the limitations (if any), and provide a suggestion as to how it can be resolved. Otherwise, you're just making noise.


----------



## neverdrawn (Jan 3, 2009)

LOAH said:


> After reading each and every one of those 850 comments (I really did - now my brain hurts), I can see that many people used this as an opportunity to complain about how terribly our fisheries are run.
> 
> Really? No constructive feedback, just ranting on most of them.


I hope most of that comes from the wording on the survey. Something along the line of do you have any suggestions? Much like anything to do with opinion most people won't go to the effort to find out why and how things work, they just express an opinion. If they had asked how a person feels about the general condition of Utah's fishing experience I would like to think there would be more positive responses.

I for one believe the past decade has been the best for fishing in the state (and I have been around for a few decades). I applaud the efforts of the DWR. I don't agree with all of the policies but most of that is from a selfish point of view. I loved the size restrictions on Panguitch lake rainbows they implemented a few years ago. There were some awesome fish coming out of there but the people who wanted to harvest more complained and the restrictions were lifted. I see their point but from my selfish point of view I loved the restrictions. Just an example of opinion. For the most part I believe there is a good balance. I hope the trend continues and we have the same quality of fishing for decades to come.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

LOAH said:


> After reading each and every one of those 850 comments (I really did - now my brain hurts), I can see that many people used this as an opportunity to complain about how terribly our fisheries are run.
> 
> Really? No constructive feedback, just ranting on most of them.
> 
> The intent of the surveys is to collect suggestions and to get a read on angler interests, not to show them how poorly most of our anglers write/spell.


Yeah I hear what you are saying and agree, however, I must say that I thought this survey was tame compared to the rantfest that was the Red Fleet survey. I think when some folks saw that their comments would be publicly posted, they behaved themselves. (a little)

RE"Posting quick one-liners about "More tiger muskie", "stock bigger fish" or "more bass" without anything else isn't going to do anything but waste the readers' time."

+1 on this too. I think the one that gets me is the comments like "no more rainbows, I want bass, etc...." without naming a single example of a water that could be managed such. At least where I live, *every* water that is at minimum, marginally suitable warmwater habitat already has warmwater species in them. I can't think of any examples otherwise. What do these folks want? Largemouth bass in Lake Mary? Walleyes in Granddaddy lakes? Additionally, in many/most of our mid level lakes, like Starvation and Jordanelle, trout and warmwater species coexist just fine.


----------

