New Utah Tournaments Proposal

[TubeDude]

[cool][#0000ff]We need something as a topic of discussion, with maybe a little controversy and disagreement. This should work nicely.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I was just made aware that there is a new proposal in the works for revamping the regulations for holding fishing tournaments in Utah. Most of us have heard that there have been discussions. But, from what I have been told, the draft of the proposed new changes has not gone through the RAC process, but is still going to be voted on at the upcoming December board meeting. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][url "http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/dec8.pdf"]LINK TO DRAFT OF PROPOSAL[/url][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]A lot of folks know what I went through to try to get Yuba Reservoir opened for perch fishing. Went to the September RAC meeting, made my proposal, got a 7-2 vote in favor, from the committee and was assured that it was a done deal. BUT, at the board meeting it was shot down...BECAUSE IT HAD NOT BEEN INTRODUCED AT THE JUNE MEETING AND THEREFORE WENT AGAINST POLICY. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]There is a lot in this proposal that is good. There are some things that can be argued for and against by both sides of the tournament anglers groups. This is not the issue. The ISSUE is that (according to reliable sources) this proposal is being railroaded through the process by State Parks because they think that having more tournaments on our lakes will increase the revenue they are losing because of their constant rate increases and decreased levels of service.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I will not state my personal feelings, except to say that I quit competitive fishing many years ago, and that I am opposed to giving specialized groups (bass clubs) free rein to run roughshod over recreational anglers. Thankfully, this proposal DOES specify that tournament anglers will not be granted special immunity from slot restrictions, etc.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Anybody out there with a passionate feeling about this...one way or another.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Please keep your comments as objective as possible and refrain from personal attacks.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Thanks.[/#0000ff]
[signature]

[lavaman]

"[font "Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"][black][size 1][font "Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"][black][size 1][#0000ff]I quit competitive fishing many years ago, and that I am opposed to giving specialized groups (bass clubs) free rein to run roughshod over recreational anglers."

[#002850]Amen brotha!

And nice topic btw. Many pros and cons about having state tourney's, and I'd like to hear them as well.

I think that if we do have state tourney's, it should be limited to specified lakes (for obvious reasons). It will bring in revenue, but it also will bring increased pressure.


[/#002850][/#0000ff][/size][/black][/font][/size][/black][/font]
[signature]

[PBH]

[reply]

[#0000ff]There is a lot in this proposal that is good. There are some things that can be argued for and against by both sides of the tournament anglers groups. This is not the issue. The ISSUE is that (according to reliable sources) this proposal is being railroaded through the process by State Parks because they think that having more tournaments on our lakes will increase the revenue they are losing because of their constant rate increases and decreased levels of service.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]
[/#0000ff][#0000ff][/#0000ff][/reply]

I couldn't agree more! Thanks for bringing this up!

two thing:

1. Pressure. Strictly talking about the tagged fishing contests, could our State Park fisheries handle the pressure of a contest like this? Imagine Jordanelle State Park (or Otter Creek, Palie, or Hyrum) offering up a $20,000 bass boat as the prize for catching a tagged fish they have released. Open it up to the general public. How many people are going to show up to fish this contest? CAN THE RESOURCE HANDLE THE PRESSURE? Effects of a contest of this type could last years.

2. RAC Process. Like Tubedude mentioned, aren't all regulation proposals supposed to go through a process? Was this proposal brought up in the Spring RACs like all other proposals are supposed to? Or, is the State railroading us?


Why is this proposal being kept so hush-hush? Is it too late to do anything about it?
[signature]

[CBR]

I am in favor of special regs for bass tournaments. I personally feel that the DWR is disregarding (or smoke screening) the comments made at the meetings about special exceptions for us bass guys.

When will the DWR see that there is long term economy growth and stimulation for businesses close to lakes and reservoirs hosting big tournaments. Even $$ for the DWR if you require participants to pay for a special tag or banner for each event.
[signature]

[dowhatwecan]

I thought I would clear thing up a little. This change was identified in the spring RAC informational in concept: I cut and pasted exactly what was presented at that RAC below.
nFishing Contests/Tournament Regulations –Consider changes to accommodate live-weigh bass fishing tournaments on size-restricted waters. »Option 1: Relaxation of possession standard (ww only). »Option 2: Changes in limits to allow possession of some of the larger sized bass (i.e. standardized bass regulations). –Consider an increase in the $500 prize restriction for fishing contest COR requirements. –Reduce fishing contest COR processing time from 60 to 45 days. –Make changes to contest rule to correct administrative error for Echo tournament grandfather clause. –[#000000]Consider separate rule for fishing tournaments and tagged fish contests![/#000000] [#ff0000][/#ff0000] [#000000]The intent was for the UDWR to not issue a preference either for or against and let the public weigh in and let them drive the process.[/#000000] [#000000][/#000000] [#000000]Just prior to the fall RAC at which the DWR presented the fishing proclamation changes, Brett Prettyman wrote a lengthy article again discussing the potential changes to the fishing tournament rule. He wrote this I would suppose to excite the public and inform them to potentially what was coming down.[/#000000] [#000000][/#000000] [#000000]At the fall RAC the following is a cut and paste of exactly what was presented:[/#000000] [#000000][/#000000] [#000000] Purpose:[/#000000] [#000000][/#000000] •[#000000]To solicit advice and input from the public on Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) direction concerning the following: Fishing Tournaments, Fishing Contests and fishing clinics.[/#000000] [#000000] [/#000000] [#000000]•[/#000000][#000000] [/#000000] [#000000]•[/#000000][#000000]These are Primarily social issues and would be best suited for discussions in a public forum. [/#000000] [#000000]•[/#000000][#000000] [/#000000] [#000000][/#000000] [#000000] [/#000000][black][size 4]Should the DWR:[/size][/black] [#000000][/#000000] [#000000]•[/#000000][#000000]Reinstate historical rules at Flaming Gorge and Echo Reservoirs where there were no limit to the number of contestants or the amount that can be offered in total prizes. [/#000000] [#000000]•[/#000000][#000000]b) Reinstate the statement in the rule that there may be a contest/tournament held on Echo Reservoir on Free Fishing Day. [/#000000] [#000000]•[/#000000][#000000]c) Not allow live weigh tournaments or contests [/#000000] [#000000][/#000000] [#000000][/#000000] [#000000] [/#000000][black][size 4]Should the DWR:[/size][/black] [size 2][black]maintain the requirements of coldwater fish tournaments as they are currently? This would entail very little control over the specifics as to how the tournament would be conducted except for the number of contestants and the amount of cash or prizes that could be awarded. [/black][/size] [#000000] [/#000000] [size 5][size 2][black]Warm water fish tournaments (Option 1): [/black][/size][black][size 2]Should the DWR?[/size][/black] [/size] [size 5][/size] [size 5] [/size][#000000]allow tournament participants to temporarily possess fish protected in length restricted waters for the duration of specific tournaments? This would allow high publicity events comparing catch at the end of the tournament.[size 3]
[/size][/#000000] [#000000][size 3] [size 2][black]Warm water fish tournaments (Option 2): Should the DWR? [/black][/size] [black][size 2]specify methods to weigh or measure fish at the site of [/size][/black][size 2][black]capture. This would eliminate the need for participants to temporarily possess fish protected under special regulations, and still enable the contestants to weigh fish under DWR guidelines. [/black][/size] [size 3] [/size] [size 5][black][size 3](Option 1): Should the DWR?[/size][/black] [/size] [size 5][/size] [size 5][/size][black][size 2]establish a list of waters where tagged fish [/size][/black][size 2][black]contests could take place and establish guidelines to control those and other types of contests? [/black][/size] [size 3][black]Tagged fish contests (Option 2): Should the DWR? [/black][/size] [size 5][/size] [size 5] [/size] [black][size 2]leave the tagged fish contest as is, which allows [/size][/black][black][size 2]DWR to authorize fish tagging but no oversight [/size][/black][black][size 2]on how the contest is conducted?[/size][/black] [size 5][black][size 3]Option 1): Should the DWR?[/size][/black] [/size] [size 5][/size] [size 5] [/size][black][size 2][black]clearly separate clinics from all other fishing[/black] [/size][/black][black][size 2]tournaments and contests and make every attempt to encourage these types of events as well as reduce the requirements necessary for them to hold a Clinic? [/size][/black] [black][size 2][/size][/black] [size 3][black]Youth Fishing Clinics (Option 2): Should the DWR? [/black][/size] • [black][size 2]control clinics and manage them as contests or [/size][/black] [black][size 2]tournaments?[/size][/black] [black][size 2][/size][/black] [size 2]I attended the spring informational RAC and presented at the fall RAC and will present at the December RAC again, a final rule concerning tournaments. I saw very little attendance at any of the RACs by anglers and at all the RAC's and Wildlife Board there were only two people in favor of liberalizing the possession laws for tournament anglers. There was a high level of support of the concepts within the rule that will be presented in December by the public, RAC's and Wildlife Board. The rule represents those concepts and nothing more. The tagged fish contest portion of the rule was viewed by those same individuals as a mechanism to entice new anglers to go out and give it a try. As far as the resource damage the list and the fish species on that list were created with our DWR regional aquatics folks to target fish that we could replace or supplement (trout) or the species of fish could withstand and perhaps benefit by additional harvest.[/size] [size 2][/size] [size 2]I am still attempting to understand how to guage public opinion on aquatics issues. Like a said before I saw very few and in some cases no anglers attending the fall RAC or Wildlife Board meetings. If you have an idea what other public forum do you have to voice your opinion to the DWR? [/size] [size 2][/size] [size 2]If you guys still think this topic did not go through the public process correctly please help me understand what I can do better next time.[/size] [size 2][/size] [size 2]Thanks[/size] [size 2][/size] [size 2]Drew Cushing[/size] [size 2]Warm Water Sportfish and Community Fisheries Coordinator[/size] [size 2]801-538-4774[/size] [size 2][url "mailto:andrewcushing@utah.gov"]andrewcushing@utah.gov[/url] [/size] [/size][/#000000] [#ff0000] [/#ff0000]
[signature]

[PBH]

Drew -- Tubedude was told that he had to bring up his perch regulation change at the SPRING RAC.

Yet -- this proposal was brought up at a September RAC that didn't deal with fishing regulation changes? How much fishing support should have been expected at a RAC covering waterfowl issues?

This whole thing is fishy. If an angler wants to change a fishing regulation, they can bring it up at a RAC and take it to the Wildlife Board -- at which point the angler will be told that they didn't bring the proposal up at a Spring fishing RAC. However, if the State wants to change a regulation they can bring it up late in the year? What about public comment? [b]Has the list of specified waters ever been given to the public for public comment? [/b]

Why is there such a double standard? Why have fishermen been kept in the dark with this? Why try to push it through this late in the year, and not done on the same schedule that fishermen have been told time and again to follow?

Drew -- this is a fishy proposal. If the Wildlife Board has any balls, they'll tell the state the same thing they told Tubedude with the Yuba perch -- bring it up in the spring, open it to public comment, then vote on it next year in the fall / winter.
[signature]

[wiperhunter2]

From the sounds of it, it won't change anything on the smaller(class2) tournaments. So I guess it won't effect me at least for a few more years[]. One thing is for sure, I don't think they should be able to run this threw without going threw the same process you had to follow. If they have rules they need to abide by them[mad]the same as everyone else.
[signature]

[dowhatwecan]

Where was this passion at the spring RAC the Fall RAC and the wildlife Board meetings. This was not presented with the waterfowl, it was presented with the rest of the fishing proclamation changes.

Broad concepts were presented in the spring and based on that RAC and Wildlife Board more specific concepts were presented in the fall RAC and Wildlife Board. Based on that feedback the DWR drafted a rule. There has been nothing secret about this rule or process.

I would hope that if there are specific issues anyone has with the rule they attend the December RAC and make their opinion known.
[signature]

[TubeDude]

[cool][#0000ff]Sorry Drew. No personal potshots intended. But, "cutting and pasting" from an agenda and then running it through the board without review and voting, from the rank and file, on the final result, is just not the same as going through the "process".[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]You wanna know why there are few anglers at the RAC meetings? Precisely because of what several of us have experienced. The angling public has very little say in what finally happens. We can make proposals and argue our causes but DWR pretty much runs things the way they intended anyway.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]You have no idea how many personal emails and PMs I have received over the past year or so...both in favor and against what I tried to accomplish at Yuba. The bottom line is that most Yuba fans remain apalled at the overall lack of "management" for anglers. If Rocky Mountain Anglers had not put perch in the lake, there would be nothing but trout in there now...and some fat northern pike. As it was, the perch were allowed to overpopulate the food source, to eat up all of the fathead minnows and start going the other way (stunting) without any angler harvest. What a waste...and all because of politics. "It is outside the process".[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]On the other hand, we see a lot of attention being paid to the hunting issues, and new regulations being instituted at the drop of a hat. Sure, there are money and lobbying issues that come into play, but standards are standards.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Again, I find no fault with most of the provisions of the new tournament regs. They seem to be well thought out and really do help clarify many areas that were unclear before. I am not being critical of tournament fishing or of the proposal. The only QUESTION I ask is how can running it through without benefit of the "established process" be justified?[/#0000ff]
[signature]

[PBH]

Drew -- why is the DWR caving in to the State Parks?


Like I said before, I certainly hope the Wildlife Board has the balls to stand up to the State Parks and tell them the same thing they told Pat. "Come back in the spring".


Again, why was the public not given this list of waters for public comment?

Why is the DWR allowing the State Parks to continue to limit access to the fish the DWR is providing? At the same time, the DWR is allowing the State Parks to railroad this proposal, simply because the State Parks have shot themselves in the foot? Where is the common sense in this? Is a tagged fish contest going to benefit Otter Creek Reservoir, Deer Creek, Palie, Piute, etc...? No. It will only draw large crowds to fisheries which depend upon stocking to sustain populations.

Like I said, this whole thing is fishy...


...but, what are fishermen to do? We've been told time and again to follow the process -- but what is the process? And why are fishermen the only group forced to follow it?
[signature]

[CBR]

Thanks for the clarification.
[signature]

[CBR]

[reply]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]You wanna know why there are few anglers at the RAC meetings? Precisely because of what several of us have experienced. The angling public has very little say in what finally happens. We can make proposals and argue our causes but DWR pretty much runs things the way they intended anyway.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff][/reply]

Exactly why I haven't ever attended. Being in a position where I hear what happens at meetings and what never happens year after year it is a big waste of my time.

Great words here dude.
[signature]

[tomegun]

The reason why the DWR is even considering such proposals is lack of funding. License sales are down. Not enough money is coming in. I didn't read the entire thing very intently, from past meetings this a major concern. Two pole permit is a great example of things going in the right direction, yet there are additional things that need to be done. Fisherfolk want to play. We see things on TV in other states and we aren't allowed to do in Utah. Things need a change. Thinking needs to change. There are lots types of fish and ways to chase them. We need to look and move forward with our fishing ways.

State Parks want more people going into the parks. Fees will continue to increase cuz expenses are greater. Drought has hurt our Parks with water. People are doing different things. Camping and fishing are no longer important to our society.

[signature]

[PBH]

[reply]
The reason why the DWR is even considering such proposals is lack of funding.

State Parks want more people going into the parks.
[/reply]

Exactly my point! Why is the DWR concerned about the State Parks funding issues? It is NOT the DWR's responsibility to try to increase the State Park's lack of funding through license sales, or by increasing traffic to the State Parks!

The State Parks are trying to dictate DWR regulations in order to attract more peopel (not fishermen) to the State Parks. They are trying to do this at the detriment of the fishery!

So, in a few years the State Park fees will be higher than ever, access will be limited and the fishing will suck because of long-term effects sustained due to the over user of tagged fishing contests that are aimed at bringing back people that couldn't afford to recreate at an already over-priced entrance fee State Park!


Thank the Good Lord that the State dropped Minersville!!
[signature]

[Fin-S-Fish]

Well stated, I couldn't agree more. Having done much graduate research specifically on the topic of public participation and environmental decision-making, I am well versed in how environmental decisions have been historically and for the most part are still being made.......predominantly with what theorists might label as a "decide, announce, and defend approach." Although there might be public meetings, stakeholders have little or no power to influence actual decisions made. In most cases, the decision is preconceived, either broadly, such as in this case at first, or more narrowly, then public comment must be solicited to make the legislation constitutional. Just because all the public comments are duly noted, heard, (or in some case not) does not necessarily mean they will influence the actual decision in any way whatsoever. Basically the reason there is so little attendance at these Rac meetings is because the public has realized that although they might be allowed to "bitch and moan," in the end, it is futile and in vain as it won't matter in the actual decisions. The special interest groups with power, and of course money will always prevail.

[tlspyder13]

This shows the double standard that is used by the state and justified by the RAC process.

The DWR comes with a concept yet fisherman must bring a specific proposal.

DWR supports their facts with a internet search and no real up-to-date data. Fisherman must prove their data is current and correct. The biologist responsible for the lake wont do as a expert for the fisherman.

DWR says something must be done because no action is the wrong action when asked why now. Therefore it should be done now. Fisherman must show how the action they want will not be hurt if it is put off for a year or two while it is thought about.

The RAC process is a dog and pony show to tell the state the DWR listens and cares. The truth is money talks. If your organization raised money for a lake the DWR listens. You just fish there you don't count. The bass clubs wanted different rules and they mostly get a we will look into it attiude. State Parks want more money. The DWR seems to be listening and we need action now.
[signature]

[lunkerhunter2]

Last year was the first year i bought a state parks pass because i could not afford to pay each time i went and it ususally ended up being in the hundreds of dollars for the season. I figured that spending the $70 would be a much better choice but if the fees keep increasing i will not be able to afford a season pass either. Come on, $9-$15 to get in and launch a boat, or not even that just fish from the bank?? What the hell is this?? And pineview is another matter. You pay the $115 or whatever and it is the only place you can use the pass. There are some people in power that need to be taken out. What a joke this all is...
[signature]

[Tarponjim]

[reply]

[#0000ff]You wanna know why there are few anglers at the RAC meetings? Precisely because of what several of us have experienced. The angling public has very little say in what finally happens. We can make proposals and argue our causes but DWR pretty much runs things the way they intended anyway.[/#0000ff] [/reply]
BINGO!!
[signature]

[wackmaster]

[pirate]
Tube Dude, for the record I support changing the regulations for bass tournaments. I as many others have attended three RAC meeting where I proposed a rule change that would allow a permitted catch and release tournament to have a live weigh in. The response I have received is that they are not going to change the rules for any special interest group. I was also told at one of the meetings that it wasn't right that the tournament guys who arrive at the lake first get all good parking spots, and that the public would be upset.
First of all, in response to the special interest group remark. If they knew some of their own history, it is the BASS Clubs that are called upon to do volunteer work, in fact, it was tournament Bass anglers who worked with the DWR in the early days to help them transplant bass to many of the lakes that we enjoy today. Many hours have been donated by this "special interest group" helping the DWR with habitat projects, lake clean ups, and promotion of conservation and fishing in general. For all the time and energy donated to improving our waters, tournament guys are just asking for the opportunity to have a fair tournament on some of the great fisheries in Utah.
In return, their state will be able to receive some positive exposure, showcasing what great fisheries they have to offer. Not only do they create increased revenues through license sales at the tournament, but to all the people, both residents and non-residents, who like what they see and decide to fish some of these waters. The local communities also benefit by the revenues they receive from anglers. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent each year by this "special interest group" (many who already spend well over 100 days a year on the water fishing), on license sales, fuel, lodging, tow vehicles, boats, and tackle to mention a few. (Remember, a part of this money is put back into wildlife management. This improves the DWR's ability to maintain our fisheries and hunting interests), thus, helping to offset some of the negative effects of having more fishing pressure i.e... Stocking fish.
Finally, Bass tournament anglers are conversationalists. They have a love and passion for the Bass they pursuit. The last thing they would want is to do something that would ruin a fishery or kill off the Bass. Changing the regulations with regards to Bass tournaments would only improve the great fishing the State of Utah has to offer.
Tight Lines
[signature]

[StrictlyBiznuss]

I pretty much back everything that wackmaster just said. I personally see no reason why bass tournaments cannot get like a special permit in order to have live weigh-ins. It has always driven me nuts that we cannot do that here. Maybe it's just me, but something about having a live weigh in makes tournaments just that much more exciting. Not only that...but it eliminates some of the cheating that could take place in a tournament. Of course, I know that if a guy wants to cheat, he will probably figure out a way to do it no matter what. I just think that it's a bit more of a temptation to cheat with paper tournaments. I only fish like one tournament a year here in Utah because of the whole paper tournament thing. I just don't like it. Fact of the matter is, I am planning on moving to Texas come next summer so that I can actually pursue my goals in competitive bass fishing...because I sure as heck can't do it here. I believe that much of the reason why competitive bass fishing hasn't really caught on in this state like it has in almost every other state is because of many of the regulations we have here. I personally think that most of the arguments saying that it will hurt our fisheries isn't very valid. You must realize that I have spent my fair share of time in California doing some competitive bassing, and I can't think of ANY fishery there that has been really hurt because of it. Two of the biggest attractions for bass tournaments in northern CA are the Delta and Clear Lake. Those locations have tournaments on them nearly EVERY weekend, and those are two of the best bass fisheries in the west! It really doesn't seem to me as though the tournament pressure has killed those fisheries at all...maybe it's just me...
[signature]