See attached.
Open house in St. George (Sportsman's Warehouse) Wednesday May 18 from 5pm - 7pm.
[quote UDWR]
[center]Division of Wildlife Resources to hold Fisheries Management Open House[/center]
The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources will host a Public Open Houses in Washington County on May 18 at Sportman’s Warehouse. Fisheries biologists from the Division's Southern Region will be on hand to discuss fisheries management activities and issues, and will gather input from the public.
Some of the topics of interest will include: proposed rule changes for fishing in Utah in 2012, current management and monitoring results at Southern Region waters, expanding fishing opportunities for warmwater fish, stream restoration and enhancement project, the Walk-in-Access Program, native fish programs, and the effort to control Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS).
The open house meeting is being held to give people interested in fish and fishing a chance to talk directly with biologists to give input and better understand fisheries management programs and issues.
Sportsman’s Warehouse is located at 2957 East 850 North, St. George. The open house will run from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
A sampling of some of the current fisheries monitoring and projects underway in the Southern Region as well as the rest of the state can be viewed on the DWR website DWR Facebook page.
[/quote]
[signature]
*bump*
Don't miss this opportunity to speak with the biologists of the southern region. It's a great time to bring up your concerns, ideas, and thoughts on our fisheries.
[signature]
How come this isn't in Beaver? These replace the fishing RAC didnt' they?
[signature]
I'm going to jump in here, and PBH can correct me if I'm wrong. There will still be a fisheries RAC meeting this year — it's planned for Sept. 20 in Beaver.
Tonight's meeting is more of an informal chance for the DWR to answer your questions about particular fisheries, explain what we're doing with certain waters and to take your suggestions for fishing changes.
As for why it's in St. George, my guess is that it was where a meeting spot was readily available (and well known to many anglers in the area).
There will also be similar fisheries open houses in other areas of the state over the next month. There will be one in Vernal on Monday night and one in Springville next month. Here are the details:
Vernal — May 23 from 5–7 p.m. at the Uintah Basin Fire Center (340 North 100 West. Note: this is the small building behind the Forest Service Supervisor's Office on Vernal Avenue.)
Springville — June 14 from 7–9 p.m. in the conference room of the DWR's Central Region office (The address is 1115 N. Main St. in Springville, and the conference room is located on the northeast side of the hatchery raceways.)
Amy Canning
Communications Specialist
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
thanks Amy. Will there be one in the northern region where most of Utah lives?
[signature]
Yes. I think our Ogden office is just in the process of getting a place and time finalized. As soon as I know more, I'll post it here.
[signature]
Keep up the good work Amy.
[signature]
[quote Liprippa]How come this isn't in Beaver? These replace the fishing RAC didnt' they?[/quote]
I can't answer that with any certainty. But, let's put it this way:
Last year 0 anglers showed up at the Fishery RAC meeting (southern region, Beaver). Zero. Nada. None.
approximately 19-20 anglers showed up at the Open House in St. George this evening. That's a pretty nice increase. So, my conclusions are that the Open House in St. George was a bigger draw than the RAC in Beaver.
I can also make another conclusion: Obviously, our fisheries managers are doing something right. People show up to the RAC meetings to complain, and to make changes. If nobody is showing up, there must not be much to complain about!
Kudos to the guys in the southern region for leading the way and holding this open house. I think they'll be a good thing for the whole state.
[signature]
PBH, I am glad there was a sizable increase in attendance. Regarding your conclusion; does this say more about the appeal of open houses or more about the negative perceptions of fishing RAC's? What are you saying was the reason for the increase? The St. George location? The fact that it was an open house and not a fishing RAC? What if the fishing RAC was moved to St. George in September?
[signature]
Lip -- I think people have felt like the RAC system needs improvement -- like, it isn't working.
I also think that an Open House is much more inviting. It's not an atmosphere of "drawing a line in the sand". It's a time to talk with managers and biologists one-on-one.
I don't think that St. George will automatically become the lone location for these open house discussions. I imagine that you'll see these open houses at numerous locations - depending on demand and circumstance. I'd imagine that if these open houses become more popular, locations will be determined based upon that popularity and the location of certain waters that might be up for specific discussion.
There is no way to satisfy everyone. Ever. Hold the meeting in Beaver, and those people in Washington County will cry "foul" -- because the majority of the population in the southern region lives in Washington County. Hold it in St. George, and those in Richfield will cry "foul" because St. George is too far away, and the majority of fishing waters are more central to Sevier County. Hold it in Panguitch and those in Tropic will cry "foul" because Panguitch is evil. Hold it in Cedar, and Parowan will cry "foul" because "we're the county seat!".
You have to start somewhere. I think Sportsman's Warehouse is as fitting a place to hold a discussion as any. Maybe next time, we can get together at Fish Lake?
[signature]
For what it's worth. The RACs do have a reputation for being "useless" and extremely bureaucratic. I'm not being negative, only pointing a common feeling for those that have attended them before.
I think it's great that open houses are being held. Well done.
What was discussed during the meeting? Any info?
[signature]
I believe that most of the discussion centered around regulations at Panguitch Lake. Since rainbow trout were removed from the slot at Panguitch Lake, their average size has decreased dramatically. It is my understanding that there are very few rainbow trout over 16" currently in Panguitch. The cutthroat and tiger trout are different. there are a lot of very nice cutts and tigers.
I think there is currently some push to get the rainbows back in the 15-22" protective slot (or whatever the current slot is). I agree -- put all of the trout at Panguitch Lake in the slot.
This will probably be a topic that turns into a roller coaster thing from year to year. Rainbows in, rainbows out, rainbows in, rainbows out...
[signature]
sounds like the hokey pokey[laugh]
[signature]
PBH, your account of the open house seems contradictory. At first you said everything must be okey dokey because nobody is showing up at the fishing RAC's complaining and wanting change. But then in a later post you say the primary topic at the open house was the decrease in rainbow trout size at Panguitch Lake and possibly putting rainbows back under a slot. So it sounds to me like anglers were complaining and were wanting change? Did you actually go to the meeting?
Amy C, are there minutes being recorded for these meetings?
[signature]
As far as I know, there aren't minutes for these meetings. They are supposed to be fairly informal and interactive. (Different people talking with various biologists throughout the room.) I'm not 100% sure, though. I'll check on it and let you know.
[signature]
[quote Liprippa]PBH, your account of the open house seems contradictory.[/quote]
you didn't expect people to just show up and say "you're doing a fine job", did you? I think constructive criticism is always a good thing. There are always things to improve on, and sometimes it is things that you are already aware of, yet have no control over.
Considering the amount of waters in the southern region, some concern over 1 or 2 waters would be expected. And, further, I think that placing the rainbows in the slot at Panguitch would be something that the biologists would like to see -- in fact, it was something that the biologists recommended to the RAC. Unfortunately, the RAC and the Wildlife Board did not see eye-to-eye with the managers and biologists, and rainbows were removed from the slot. Sound familiar? (it's not just sportsmen that get frustrated with the RAC system)
Call it contradictory if you like, I still think it shows that our fisheries managers are doing a good job.
compare this with the current big game issues.
riplippa -- you seem a bit critical of the DWR for this open house. I'm curious, do you currently participate in the RAC system? Do you have any open communication with managers or biologists? What suggestions do you have for better communication?
[signature]
PBH.
I think the open houses are an excellent idea. I have no issue with them other than some concerns about their location. But I'm not sure what can be done. You mentioned all of the waters in the southern region. I am not sure anglers in Richfield, Beaver, Panguitch, Cedar City, Loa, would have the same concerns and comments as those in St. George. But going back to the RAC, you say the anglers aren't attending RAC meetings and the DWR biologists are frustrated with the RAC's. What is their purpose then? Are RAC's serving fishermen? To me the RAC process is not democratic since anglers and biologists aren't represented. To answer your other question I have had some communication with DWR biologists mostly about hunting issues.
[signature]
[quote Liprippa] I am not sure anglers in Richfield, Beaver, Panguitch, Cedar City, Loa, would have the same concerns and comments as those in St. George. .[/quote]
I agree. Anglers in St. George may not have the same concerns as those in Richfield, etc. Which is why I mentioned that I belive open houses will be held in other locations in the future. Remember, this was just the first. You have to hold that first meeting somewhere, and you won't satisfy everyone with that first location.
[quote Liprippa] But going back to the RAC, you say the anglers aren't attending RAC meetings and the DWR biologists are frustrated with the RAC's. What is their purpose then? Are RAC's serving fishermen? To me the RAC process is not democratic since anglers and biologists aren't represented. .[/quote]
You tell me. What is their purpose? Are they serving anglers? Oh, wait -- you already did answer the questions: "To me the RAC process is not democratic since anglers and biologists aren't represented."
[quote Liprippa]To answer your other question I have had some communication with DWR biologists mostly about hunting issues.[/quote]
Again, I think this shows that our fisheries managers and biologists must be doing a pretty good job. Most outdoorsmen are currently more upset with big game issues than they are with fishing issues. My dad always said "hunting is a waste of fishing time". I often think he's right.
[signature]
RE" Most outdoorsmen are currently more upset with big game issues than they are with fishing issues."
Perhaps, but there always seem to be a lot of complaining on BFT about the DWR. Do people on here know how regulatory decisions are made in Utah?
RE"Unfortunately, the RAC and the Wildlife Board did not see eye-to-eye with the managers and biologists, and rainbows were removed from the slot. Sound familiar? (it's not just sportsmen that get frustrated with the RAC system)"
and
" "To me the RAC process is not democratic since anglers and biologists aren't represented."
This may be a surprise to many of you, but the DWR does not have any power at all to make regulations. The Wildlife Board does. The reason that hunters are more vocal right now is that the Wildlife board took some highly controversial actions that many hunters disagreed with. The WB has the same power over fishing. Does this affect you, the angler? Yes. Case in point that some of you are familiar with. When Tube Dude presented his Yuba perch plan a few years ago, the plan passed the Central RAC and had the blessing of the biologists working Yuba. What happened? The Wildlife board summarily dismissed it, with little discussion. The WB is 6 political appointees picked by the Governor. The DWR does not have a voting member on the board. They may or may not have biological experience, and often are political pals of certain powerful people. The most recent nominee was an officer of the Sportsmens group that most supported the recent deer hunting changes and according to some, exerted undue control over the WB in the deliberations.
Anyway, food for thought. If you guys want to see reform in our wildlife agencies, here is a good place to start. (and when you whine on here that the DWR doesn't do this or does that, consider that the Wildlife Board is the entity really calling the shots.)
[signature]