04-13-2018, 03:24 PM
You may be right about a new set of regulations. But, like Chris also said, when the inlet was opened it was based on two things: 1) those who did show up to the RACs and 2) the survey which showed overwhelming support to open it.
I have hard time believing that a bunch of law-breakers showed up a the RAC and pushed the RAC to change a law so that they could continue breaking the law. I could believe, though, that a bunch of fishermen who knew that the walleyes stacked up in the inlet showed up because they wanted to catch those vulnerable fish. I think there is a difference there and your wording is very presumptuous and offensive.
Personally, I never liked the RAC process and the power of the WB from the day it was first instituted in Utah. I believe it gave a small number of people way too much power and decision making authority. BUT, it is the system we have. Our choice is to either work within it or deal with the consequences of not. Like my analogy of voting, I don't think it is right for someone to complain about a politician when that same person didn't vote. The process is what it is. Surveys can help the DWR gather input and I, too, am glad they are using them more and more. It is also interesting to note that more and more often committees are being formed to come up with management plans of fisheries...like with Yuba, Panguitch Lake, the Boulder Mountain, and others. I think these are good tools that managers are beginning to use more and more. My suggestion would be to push this type of thing for Willard as a way to steer regulations.
Like others, I really don't have a dog in this yearly fight because I don't fish Willard. My interest in the subject is based on my interest in regulations and the whys and why nots behind changing them. I believe strongly that fishing regulations should reflect first and foremost the biology of a particular water. In Willard's case, the biology says we don't need to close the inlet. But, I also understand that social issues can and should be a part of fishing regulations. I just do not want fishermen to be unnecessarily restricted at too many waters. To me, this could open up a can of worms and set a bad precedence. I don't want every water across the state have season or day time closures because of spawning fish. This could be bad both biologically and socially!
[signature]
I have hard time believing that a bunch of law-breakers showed up a the RAC and pushed the RAC to change a law so that they could continue breaking the law. I could believe, though, that a bunch of fishermen who knew that the walleyes stacked up in the inlet showed up because they wanted to catch those vulnerable fish. I think there is a difference there and your wording is very presumptuous and offensive.
Personally, I never liked the RAC process and the power of the WB from the day it was first instituted in Utah. I believe it gave a small number of people way too much power and decision making authority. BUT, it is the system we have. Our choice is to either work within it or deal with the consequences of not. Like my analogy of voting, I don't think it is right for someone to complain about a politician when that same person didn't vote. The process is what it is. Surveys can help the DWR gather input and I, too, am glad they are using them more and more. It is also interesting to note that more and more often committees are being formed to come up with management plans of fisheries...like with Yuba, Panguitch Lake, the Boulder Mountain, and others. I think these are good tools that managers are beginning to use more and more. My suggestion would be to push this type of thing for Willard as a way to steer regulations.
Like others, I really don't have a dog in this yearly fight because I don't fish Willard. My interest in the subject is based on my interest in regulations and the whys and why nots behind changing them. I believe strongly that fishing regulations should reflect first and foremost the biology of a particular water. In Willard's case, the biology says we don't need to close the inlet. But, I also understand that social issues can and should be a part of fishing regulations. I just do not want fishermen to be unnecessarily restricted at too many waters. To me, this could open up a can of worms and set a bad precedence. I don't want every water across the state have season or day time closures because of spawning fish. This could be bad both biologically and socially!
[signature]