09-20-2006, 09:50 PM
Weis is a smart person. He may not agree with what all of us want, but he voted against the proposal for good reasons -- although I don't agree with those reasons.
1. Roger Wilson did not promote the raising the regs in his presentation, and he spoke plainly that the new process we have for aquatic reg changes is to introduce such measures in May for discussion, and then come back in September to vote. The DWR RAC process has adopted this measure in large part because the central RAC requested this so we would NOT be blindsided by last minute reg changes as happended with the middle provo regs. Roger tried to do the right thing to us by sticking to that game plan and NOT propose changing Yuba regs.
2. The sportmans groups, such as Rocky Mountain Anglers, who put time and money into this project did not support the opening of the fishery to harvest. They suggested to wait until the Jan 2008 for opening the fishery. These are the people most involved and their preferences deserved my attention, respect, and, ultimately, vote.
Those are straight from John. Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with him, but he has some legitimate reasons for voting against this proposal (among others...).
The DWR came up with the idea to introduce new measures in May then come back in September to vote on them. In May, Yuba perch was not on the agenda. They were scheduled to look at the perch regulation in 2007. So, should this have come up for voting in September? John argues no, according to the DWR's policy. I would argue yes, due to a situation that needed to be looked at and changed.
I don't think anyone (except maybe myself, or W2U) should sit here and call this board member an idiot, a jerk, uneducated, stupid, or anything else. He is a good fisherman. He is a conservationist. He has some good things going for him and bad. But, he had legitimate reasons for his vote -- and we shouldn't beat him up over that. Or should we?
[signature]
1. Roger Wilson did not promote the raising the regs in his presentation, and he spoke plainly that the new process we have for aquatic reg changes is to introduce such measures in May for discussion, and then come back in September to vote. The DWR RAC process has adopted this measure in large part because the central RAC requested this so we would NOT be blindsided by last minute reg changes as happended with the middle provo regs. Roger tried to do the right thing to us by sticking to that game plan and NOT propose changing Yuba regs.
2. The sportmans groups, such as Rocky Mountain Anglers, who put time and money into this project did not support the opening of the fishery to harvest. They suggested to wait until the Jan 2008 for opening the fishery. These are the people most involved and their preferences deserved my attention, respect, and, ultimately, vote.
Those are straight from John. Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with him, but he has some legitimate reasons for voting against this proposal (among others...).
The DWR came up with the idea to introduce new measures in May then come back in September to vote on them. In May, Yuba perch was not on the agenda. They were scheduled to look at the perch regulation in 2007. So, should this have come up for voting in September? John argues no, according to the DWR's policy. I would argue yes, due to a situation that needed to be looked at and changed.
I don't think anyone (except maybe myself, or W2U) should sit here and call this board member an idiot, a jerk, uneducated, stupid, or anything else. He is a good fisherman. He is a conservationist. He has some good things going for him and bad. But, he had legitimate reasons for his vote -- and we shouldn't beat him up over that. Or should we?
[signature]