05-15-2012, 02:51 AM
Against my better judgement, one final response on this neverending thread.
1. RE"How can you keep saying the "DWR screwed up with Scofield" when they didn't and don't make the rules? "
To be fair, the DWR did propose the ill fated 8 fish Scofield limit and the Wildlife board signed off on it. So yes, I agree that the DWR made an error then. How many of you are 100% perfect every time in your job or at home? To their credit, they at least changed things when the evidence showed things were going South.
RE (Jacksonman) " I was pissed at the 8 fish limit, called for a slot and reduction of limit, then predicted the state record would be obliterated at Scofield once they did. Not a biologost, but hands on experience proved just as valuable and accurate as biologist conclusions but years sooner. "
Good grief , don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back for your brilliance. There were several of us that posted objections at the time to the 8 fish limit, not just you, and predicting the tiger record would come out of there doesn't require a great stretch of imagination.
2. RE" we are educated fishermen who may not know the ins and outs of the system, finances or technicalities. But we have educated practical knowledge from a fishermans point of view, and I thought almost all of this was for the fishermen, especially those paying to support the resource. Correct me if I am wrong?"
"If my and duckdog's opinions don't mean anything from a fishermans point of view, than who's does?"
I don't believe that the DWR discounts angler input. In fact, in my limited involvement with them, they actually almost crave it, and definitely want to get more than they do. So don't think they simply discount what you have to say or even your suggestion about the tigers.
However, the problem with angler input is that there is almost never universal agreement among anglers, even those that intensely fish the same water. For instance, I consider myself as knowledgeable about the Berry as you do and I think you are
ly mistaken if you think that 5 inch tigers will be eaten less than 5 inch bows or cutts. One of us is wrong. Both Bassrods and I fish Jordanelle at least weekly during the bassin season, yet we infrequently agree on management issues. So who is ultimately right? At some point, you have to resort to the science and the agencies commissioned to protect the resource.
3. The thing that the tiger proponents have not really answered is the point Mr. Ward made in his letter. Most anglers that fish the Berry want rainbows and they don't want the bow quota cut for any reason. Even if tigers do everything you guys say they will do and don't harm anything, most guys simply don't desire it if the bow #'s are affected. The majority of Utah anglers just want to go out, chuck out the powerbait or troll popgear, and catch a few bows for the grill. If you guys show up at the open house, you will likely hear them whine for more bows to harvest and/or removal of the slot.
This could be why you have only 37 signatures on your petition as I type this.
[signature]
1. RE"How can you keep saying the "DWR screwed up with Scofield" when they didn't and don't make the rules? "
To be fair, the DWR did propose the ill fated 8 fish Scofield limit and the Wildlife board signed off on it. So yes, I agree that the DWR made an error then. How many of you are 100% perfect every time in your job or at home? To their credit, they at least changed things when the evidence showed things were going South.
RE (Jacksonman) " I was pissed at the 8 fish limit, called for a slot and reduction of limit, then predicted the state record would be obliterated at Scofield once they did. Not a biologost, but hands on experience proved just as valuable and accurate as biologist conclusions but years sooner. "
Good grief , don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back for your brilliance. There were several of us that posted objections at the time to the 8 fish limit, not just you, and predicting the tiger record would come out of there doesn't require a great stretch of imagination.
2. RE" we are educated fishermen who may not know the ins and outs of the system, finances or technicalities. But we have educated practical knowledge from a fishermans point of view, and I thought almost all of this was for the fishermen, especially those paying to support the resource. Correct me if I am wrong?"
"If my and duckdog's opinions don't mean anything from a fishermans point of view, than who's does?"
I don't believe that the DWR discounts angler input. In fact, in my limited involvement with them, they actually almost crave it, and definitely want to get more than they do. So don't think they simply discount what you have to say or even your suggestion about the tigers.
However, the problem with angler input is that there is almost never universal agreement among anglers, even those that intensely fish the same water. For instance, I consider myself as knowledgeable about the Berry as you do and I think you are
ly mistaken if you think that 5 inch tigers will be eaten less than 5 inch bows or cutts. One of us is wrong. Both Bassrods and I fish Jordanelle at least weekly during the bassin season, yet we infrequently agree on management issues. So who is ultimately right? At some point, you have to resort to the science and the agencies commissioned to protect the resource. 3. The thing that the tiger proponents have not really answered is the point Mr. Ward made in his letter. Most anglers that fish the Berry want rainbows and they don't want the bow quota cut for any reason. Even if tigers do everything you guys say they will do and don't harm anything, most guys simply don't desire it if the bow #'s are affected. The majority of Utah anglers just want to go out, chuck out the powerbait or troll popgear, and catch a few bows for the grill. If you guys show up at the open house, you will likely hear them whine for more bows to harvest and/or removal of the slot.
This could be why you have only 37 signatures on your petition as I type this.
[signature]