11-05-2011, 01:06 AM
For those of you that care about the happenings of Panguitch Lake, I thought you would find the following interesting. I made a transcript of the audio of the Wildlife Board's comments on Panguitch Lake from their meeting on 11/03/2011. You can find the audio here: http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings...-11-03.mp3
The transcript is not perfect, mind you. It begins at 1:14:12 and ends at 1:24:08. I don't know any of the people present so I can't distinguish out specific people by name. Each new paragraph is a new or different person speaking than the previous paragraph, and is marked as P1, P2, etc. to help know when a new person speaks. People later on could be also listed earlier (p11 could be p1). It was simply to help in understanding interactions in the conversation.
Here is the text:
beginning of transcript of the Utah Wildlife Board minutes 11-03-2011 concerning Panguitch Lake
starting at 1:14:12
(supposedly southern rac rep):Mr chairmen, we didn't have any discussion...we had no public there. We had some discussion amongst the RAC related to the status of Panguitch lake and things, but we passed this agenda item unanimously as well.
P1:ok. Do we have....? We've got one comment card. This is the next one. (unintelligible speaking in background).I have no comments from the audience. We've heard a presentation. All of the RACS have vote unanimously. Motion from the board. Ernie?
P2 (Ernie): Chair rep, I'd like to make a comment first. We received, we board members received a lot of public input...strong, very strong public input on the Panguitch Lake topic. And I was extremely disappointed that we didn't see any representation of that opinion and theoretically as significant number of people at the southern region rac. And I'd like to send a personal message to our sportsment and other folks in the State, that if they don't go to a RAC meeting, they do so at peril of what they're supporting. That's the proper place to be doing this and its the right place to be doing it in accordance with our state management system. So with that
comment I think I see maybe another couple of people who are interested in saying something if there's not another motion I'll make one at that point.
P3:I agree with what Ernie had to say there also. So I won't make any more comments on that, but after we vote on this particular item I'd like to discuss one fishing problem that is just a comment.
P1:ok. With no other comments
P4: I'd like to make a motion then that we accept the Fishing Guide book and rule as presented by the division for this year and also ask that the southern region convene a work group or other as the southern division and region have already offered to address this subject over the coming year and see if...
P5
o you think we really need to revisit that or just give it some time to work out? As Drew talked about? I think the way the Panguitch lake fishery is going right now is pretty successful.
P4:My recommendation there was based on..I think there's enough mud and allegations flying around the place that a...and with the division and region in offering to do so, I think that it would be worth the effort.
P6:Ok, let me do this. Bill, go ahead.
P7:Ya, I just want to ask a clarifying question on Ernie's comments about email on this..on the computers here you can see it talks about asking people to share ideas at a rac meeting or email ideas to the division so are we saying we don't want people to send emails if they can't get to a rac meeting?
P4:Thank you Bill. No, I'm not trying to discourage that but the idea that something that has those types of allegations flying around and nobody even comes to the rac meeting to express them is just a.. abhorrent to me.
P1:Ok. Let me sort of divide that up, ok? We're to make a motion...
P8: Can I ask a question before we do this? There is mention of a Panguitch Lake Advisory committee or working group or something like that. Who's the sponsor of that group, and who oversees that and what's their role? Do they have an official role? I'm not familiar with that. And are there other lakes in the State that have a similar group?
P9: That group was put together by the Division of Wildlife because of the nature of Panguitch Lake. It was put together immediately after the treatment....er...before the treatment and was made up of lodge owners, anglers, ....really anyone who had an interest in panguitch lake and at that time.....it's been.....and even though the regulation change, the benchmarks in that plan remain solid..as you know what is or what determines success or failure of panguitch lake, you know, that remains solid even if the rainbows are not protected. However, you know, like you said, we would be interested in putting a group together. It would probably consist of the
same people. Uh, and go through it again.
P8:Well that's not a standing group that meets regularly. Its something that's not even meeting right now? Is that right?
P9 (supposedly DWR rep (Drew Cushings??) or biologist): It is not. It was put together for the sole purpose of coming up with a management plan for Panguitch Lake and benchmarks associated with that plan from all interested parties.
P10:When was that plan put into play?
P9:'06, immediately after the treatment.
P10:And so we've been 5 years in the plan?
P9:Yes.
P10:With 4 changes in 5 years?
P9:a 3 changes....and if we change another that was the 4th that I was discussing.
P10: ok. you think it just needs some time to see what's going on there?
P9: don't know. I think maybe. You know it doesn't hurt to check and see what the public would......you know if the public opion has changed about Panguitch lake, I think that's important to know. And from that perspective the group would be worthy to put back together, revisit the plan, make sure that those benchmarks are still consistent with the needs and desires of Panguitch anglers.
P10: When you put that group together, is that an expense to the division or is that just kind of a voluntary...I mean its an expense for the division personnel to be there, everbody else is just on a voluntary basis so its not a huge budget issue in a time of a budget crunch?
P9:No it would be the work time.
P10:There would be additional work time?
P9:ya.
P11rew, let me ask you. when you say, the anglers using the property...I want...would you expand on that...because I want people here to understand what that means.
P9:u...u...users....say that again Dell?
P11 (Dell):The users, the angler use on that lake, 'cause there's two different factions there.
P9 (Drew): We do angler creel surveys. And what that is...it's a determination of the amount of use on per month basis, 6 month basis or a year. And the use is in angler hours. that's how we describe it. And the use dropped dramatically when those rainbows were protected. So when people couldn't take them home the use dropped by 2/3's. We did a follow up creel survey, I believe it was a 3 month creel survey when the rainbows were not protected and that use in those same 3 months rebounded fully back to the original pressure. And that's the best I can describe. Does that help Dell?
P11(Dell): Sure. And...let me just talk for a minute. One of the thinks I'm interpreting and what I'm seeing is that 1. you have out of state fisherman there because of the cabin use from out of state property owners and 2. then you have the local individuals, and so you have...and I was talking to one of the other individuals in the DWR...on holiday weekends, that place is packed with out of state angler use. Am I right?
P9(Drew): I believe 78% is out of state use?
P12(someone in background): It's typically over 50.
P11(Dell): Typically over 50. So I'll make a suggestion. If we're going to have a little committee, we ought to have people from both sides...in state and out of state, if there is any way to do that, you know. With that I'm going to be quiet. Unless...'cause I want to move on and we have a motion on the floor. And I want to separate one from the other.
P13: And what Dell said there...it means a lot to those lake owners. And when Tom Hatch made that motion a couple of years ago to change the way we fish there it made a big difference in the amount of people that came back and those peoples that have survived there and I appreciate Dell's comments there and I should have followed on there myself.
P11(Dell): Ok, Ernie.
P14(Ernie): Ya, I'll restate the motion. Then I'll make first motion ...I move that we accept the Fishing Guide Book and Rule R65713 as proposed by the division.
P11(Dell) I motion a second to accept the proposal as presented by the DWR. All in favor?
(ayes)
end of transcript at 1:24:08
[signature]
The transcript is not perfect, mind you. It begins at 1:14:12 and ends at 1:24:08. I don't know any of the people present so I can't distinguish out specific people by name. Each new paragraph is a new or different person speaking than the previous paragraph, and is marked as P1, P2, etc. to help know when a new person speaks. People later on could be also listed earlier (p11 could be p1). It was simply to help in understanding interactions in the conversation.
Here is the text:
beginning of transcript of the Utah Wildlife Board minutes 11-03-2011 concerning Panguitch Lake
starting at 1:14:12
(supposedly southern rac rep):Mr chairmen, we didn't have any discussion...we had no public there. We had some discussion amongst the RAC related to the status of Panguitch lake and things, but we passed this agenda item unanimously as well.
P1:ok. Do we have....? We've got one comment card. This is the next one. (unintelligible speaking in background).I have no comments from the audience. We've heard a presentation. All of the RACS have vote unanimously. Motion from the board. Ernie?
P2 (Ernie): Chair rep, I'd like to make a comment first. We received, we board members received a lot of public input...strong, very strong public input on the Panguitch Lake topic. And I was extremely disappointed that we didn't see any representation of that opinion and theoretically as significant number of people at the southern region rac. And I'd like to send a personal message to our sportsment and other folks in the State, that if they don't go to a RAC meeting, they do so at peril of what they're supporting. That's the proper place to be doing this and its the right place to be doing it in accordance with our state management system. So with that
comment I think I see maybe another couple of people who are interested in saying something if there's not another motion I'll make one at that point.
P3:I agree with what Ernie had to say there also. So I won't make any more comments on that, but after we vote on this particular item I'd like to discuss one fishing problem that is just a comment.
P1:ok. With no other comments
P4: I'd like to make a motion then that we accept the Fishing Guide book and rule as presented by the division for this year and also ask that the southern region convene a work group or other as the southern division and region have already offered to address this subject over the coming year and see if...
P5
o you think we really need to revisit that or just give it some time to work out? As Drew talked about? I think the way the Panguitch lake fishery is going right now is pretty successful.P4:My recommendation there was based on..I think there's enough mud and allegations flying around the place that a...and with the division and region in offering to do so, I think that it would be worth the effort.
P6:Ok, let me do this. Bill, go ahead.
P7:Ya, I just want to ask a clarifying question on Ernie's comments about email on this..on the computers here you can see it talks about asking people to share ideas at a rac meeting or email ideas to the division so are we saying we don't want people to send emails if they can't get to a rac meeting?
P4:Thank you Bill. No, I'm not trying to discourage that but the idea that something that has those types of allegations flying around and nobody even comes to the rac meeting to express them is just a.. abhorrent to me.
P1:Ok. Let me sort of divide that up, ok? We're to make a motion...
P8: Can I ask a question before we do this? There is mention of a Panguitch Lake Advisory committee or working group or something like that. Who's the sponsor of that group, and who oversees that and what's their role? Do they have an official role? I'm not familiar with that. And are there other lakes in the State that have a similar group?
P9: That group was put together by the Division of Wildlife because of the nature of Panguitch Lake. It was put together immediately after the treatment....er...before the treatment and was made up of lodge owners, anglers, ....really anyone who had an interest in panguitch lake and at that time.....it's been.....and even though the regulation change, the benchmarks in that plan remain solid..as you know what is or what determines success or failure of panguitch lake, you know, that remains solid even if the rainbows are not protected. However, you know, like you said, we would be interested in putting a group together. It would probably consist of the
same people. Uh, and go through it again.
P8:Well that's not a standing group that meets regularly. Its something that's not even meeting right now? Is that right?
P9 (supposedly DWR rep (Drew Cushings??) or biologist): It is not. It was put together for the sole purpose of coming up with a management plan for Panguitch Lake and benchmarks associated with that plan from all interested parties.
P10:When was that plan put into play?
P9:'06, immediately after the treatment.
P10:And so we've been 5 years in the plan?
P9:Yes.
P10:With 4 changes in 5 years?
P9:a 3 changes....and if we change another that was the 4th that I was discussing.
P10: ok. you think it just needs some time to see what's going on there?
P9: don't know. I think maybe. You know it doesn't hurt to check and see what the public would......you know if the public opion has changed about Panguitch lake, I think that's important to know. And from that perspective the group would be worthy to put back together, revisit the plan, make sure that those benchmarks are still consistent with the needs and desires of Panguitch anglers.
P10: When you put that group together, is that an expense to the division or is that just kind of a voluntary...I mean its an expense for the division personnel to be there, everbody else is just on a voluntary basis so its not a huge budget issue in a time of a budget crunch?
P9:No it would be the work time.
P10:There would be additional work time?
P9:ya.
P11
rew, let me ask you. when you say, the anglers using the property...I want...would you expand on that...because I want people here to understand what that means.P9:u...u...users....say that again Dell?
P11 (Dell):The users, the angler use on that lake, 'cause there's two different factions there.
P9 (Drew): We do angler creel surveys. And what that is...it's a determination of the amount of use on per month basis, 6 month basis or a year. And the use is in angler hours. that's how we describe it. And the use dropped dramatically when those rainbows were protected. So when people couldn't take them home the use dropped by 2/3's. We did a follow up creel survey, I believe it was a 3 month creel survey when the rainbows were not protected and that use in those same 3 months rebounded fully back to the original pressure. And that's the best I can describe. Does that help Dell?
P11(Dell): Sure. And...let me just talk for a minute. One of the thinks I'm interpreting and what I'm seeing is that 1. you have out of state fisherman there because of the cabin use from out of state property owners and 2. then you have the local individuals, and so you have...and I was talking to one of the other individuals in the DWR...on holiday weekends, that place is packed with out of state angler use. Am I right?
P9(Drew): I believe 78% is out of state use?
P12(someone in background): It's typically over 50.
P11(Dell): Typically over 50. So I'll make a suggestion. If we're going to have a little committee, we ought to have people from both sides...in state and out of state, if there is any way to do that, you know. With that I'm going to be quiet. Unless...'cause I want to move on and we have a motion on the floor. And I want to separate one from the other.
P13: And what Dell said there...it means a lot to those lake owners. And when Tom Hatch made that motion a couple of years ago to change the way we fish there it made a big difference in the amount of people that came back and those peoples that have survived there and I appreciate Dell's comments there and I should have followed on there myself.
P11(Dell): Ok, Ernie.
P14(Ernie): Ya, I'll restate the motion. Then I'll make first motion ...I move that we accept the Fishing Guide Book and Rule R65713 as proposed by the division.
P11(Dell) I motion a second to accept the proposal as presented by the DWR. All in favor?
(ayes)
end of transcript at 1:24:08
[signature]