Posts: 36,012
Threads: 296
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
[cool][#0000ff]We had the monthly meeting of the Utah Anglers Coalition yesterday. There were several things covered that may be of interest to BFTers.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]1. Roger Wilson (DWR) flatly stated that the rainbows in Strawberry will NOT be subject to the slot regulations. They are in Strawberry to provide harvestable fish for those who want to take fish home. In response to questions about planting more rainbows, Roger said that DWR would probably plant fewer...but bigger bows. New rainbows will be allowed to reach about 8" before being planted in the fall, to help escape cutt chomping. They grow fast and would be within the slot by open water time the next spring, so there would be very few harvestable rainbows until they got to 22". The bottom line is that there will be more "survivors" and more rainbows overall.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]2. Drew Cushing, the new warm waters fisheries director, said they would not be recommending any changes in bass regulations, on any waters, for the coming year. He wants to complete a thorough study and get the "biology" right before making any changes.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]3. There was a lot of discussion on the issue of mercury testing. This is a big issue nationally and in Utah. There are several spots in Utah that have developed levels of mercury in the water and the fish, but there has not been enough funding allocated by state legislature to do thorough testing. Anglers and other concerned citizens need to make some noise to their state representatives to spring loose with some money so that adequate tests can be completed. It is always about money.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]4. There was also some discussion of the Little Hole project on the Green River, where SITLA is going to hold an auction on May 11 to sell off a piece of it's holdings for the development of a commercial lodge. DWR has completed having an appraisal for the value of that land and plans to be an active bidder. One of the major issues remains the road access problem. If that is not available, the auction will not happen. It could go either way. And, it could even go to court. Anglers groups are working feverishly to do everything possible to derail the sale and development of this great resource.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]5. Look for some strong new controls on the import and sale of frozen and processed baits from out of state. The spread of VHS (nasty fish disease) from waters in the midwest has DWR very concerned and doing everything possible to keep it out of Utah. For one thing, importing live salamanders will likely be eliminated.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 5,964
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
thanks for the info Pat.
[signature]
Posts: 203
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
Thanks for the info. Looks like they have some work to do.
[signature]
Posts: 2,284
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation:
0
Thanks for the info TD.
[signature]
Posts: 6,353
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation:
0
Very good stuff. Thanks for the info.
[signature]
Posts: 2,012
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation:
0
Pat will the action for land on Green River be eliminated if no access is granted to the land up for auction ? This cannot happen.
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
[reply]
[#0000ff]1. Roger Wilson (DWR) flatly stated that the rainbows in Strawberry will NOT be subject to the slot regulations. [/#0000ff][#0000ff][/#0000ff][/reply]
This will definately be the case if anglers DO NOT APPROACH THE DWR AND THE RAC!!!
I wish the DWR would actually look and see if anglers would support this, and if this would benefit the fishery. Why does the DWR NOT want to explore this option? What is Roger and Alan scared of?
[signature]
Posts: 2,504
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
Thank you for the update. A few opinions;
1. Interesting response. The enforcement problem remains however. PBH's proposal does have merit. Perhaps ongoing enforcement headaches at the 'Berry will change opinion eventually.
2. That sounds good. It will be interesting to see what they find in their studies.
3. The aggravating part of hearing about a funding shortfall in getting these studies done is that the Legislative session is already OVER! If fishing groups had known that we needed to pressure the legislature for funding on this, we could have done so 8-12 weeks ago. The state did have a surplus, and we likely could have gotten a few crumbs to finish these studies. I feel the DWR dropped the ball on this in not lobbying for the money in the legislative session, and in not letting us know so we could pressure our representatives AT THE RIGHT TIME.
4. Did the DWR people say if there was anything we the people could do to help the division succeed in getting the property?
5. Good move.
[signature]
Posts: 36,012
Threads: 296
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
[cool][#0000ff]It is not a simple cut and dried situation. There have been quite a few articles and many forum discussions on this issue. What it boils down to is that there is a historic "path" that is virtually impassable by vehicle at this time, and has been for many years. It is on old maps, but never identified as a county road or as public access. SITLA and potential developers need to prove that it has been used as such to "grandfather" it in. If they can provide "witnesses" who claim they have used that road in the past, then the ruling will be made that access should be granted. It is a matter of who they can dig up as witnesses. Oldtimers who could argue either for or against are dying off and there are few left.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]If land access cannot be guaranteed to a potential purchaser/developer the land has no value to them. They need to construct and maintain adequate roads, according to county codes, in order to bring in equipment and supplies and then to get paying customers in and out. That would take a lot of money, even if it was approved. But, because of the remoteness and the quality of the fishing and wilderness experience, developers could generate some high dollar customers once they had their project completed. And, such developers often have deeper pockets and kinkier attorneys than DWR or other state agencies.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]There are lots of Utah folks who have experienced the beauty and quality fishing on the Green River. Most of these people get a lump in their throats and a tear in their eyes when they think of what will be lost forever if a developer gets access to that piece of the Green River.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 36,012
Threads: 296
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
[cool][#0000ff]Don't shoot the messenger. I'm already half shot.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]There's no denying that the trophy minded angler would benefit from including rainbows in the slot. But, as you well know, the rainbow hatchery program is designed to pacify the hook and cook crowd.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Even with the expanded limit (8) on Scofield that is not enough for old Strawberry fans who still wanna fill a cooler on their family lake.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]DWR can't keep everybody happy. But, as you point out, they are forced to listen if enough anglers show up at RAC meetings with well prepared presentations supporting their interests.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I have been involved in "the process" for less than a year now. My observation is that whenever there is a controversy it is DWR procedure to do NOTHING rather than to take a proactive approach and do SOMETHING that history may show to be a bad move.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]In retrospect, maybe we should have Utah DWR running US government. We would not be involved in our current world conflicts.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff](Unpaid political announcement)[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 36,012
Threads: 296
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
[cool][#0000ff]3. This is a water quality issue [url "http://www.deq.utah.gov/search_results.htm?cx=003215417047777185873%3Asg4mqgvgk-m&q=Mercury+in+Fish+Tissue&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A9#1102"]DEQ MERCURY PAGE[/url] . DWR and citizen groups pretty much have to rely on them to get the funding and do the tests.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]We did get input from Jeff Salt, who is our Coalition environmental representative (Great Salt Lakekeeper) who tilts with these guys every year. He related how tough it is to pry the money loose and that much of what they request gets knocked down or allocated to other sources...like transportation.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]It really is time to start making noise about wanting to know what is safe and what is not. Legislators need to know that the voters will be looking for new representation if they do not step up to the plate. Otherwise, they just blow with the winds.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]4. The public is pretty much out of the loop on the Little Hole issue at this point. It now boils down to legal wrangling and negotiation. Once the access thing is decided, then there is the auction. While DWR funds are limited, there are sources of private "assistance" that should permit staying in the bidding game.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]1 &2...nuff said.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
[reply]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Even with the expanded limit (8) on Scofield that is not enough for old Strawberry fans who still wanna fill a cooler on their family lake.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]
[/#0000ff][#0000ff][/#0000ff][/reply]
I'm not attacking you Pat. I want others to understand where I'm coming from.
Does the DWR know what kind of impact to harvest would result from rainbow trout being protected by the slot?
Is it possible that harvest could actually increase by placing rainbows in the slot? Could more pounds of fish be harvested?
It's questions like these that we as anglers need to be asking the DWR to explore.
Pat -- I'd like to send you a paper via email. Can you PM me with your address?
I'll also send this to anyone else who might be interested the DWR exploring this option.
[signature]
Posts: 2,841
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
As always thanks for the timely information.
[signature]
Posts: 2,562
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation:
0
Thanks for the info Pat. It looks like the DWR is taking a "let's wait and see policy".
PBH, I would like to read the paper if you would send it. [url "mailto:tyandbrand@yahoo.com"]tyandbrand@yahoo.com[/url]
[signature]
Posts: 2,504
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
[#0000ff][size 1]"It really is time to start making noise about wanting to know what is safe and what is not. Legislators need to know that the voters will be looking for new representation if they do not step up to the plate. Otherwise, they just blow with the winds."[/size][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][size 1][/size][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][size 1][/size][/#0000ff]
This is exactly right, but it has to happen right before or during the legislative session. Now, the representatives are back home doing their day jobs, and mercury and PCB testing is the farthest thing from their minds. If we don't like how the testing is progressing through the year, we can organize for the 2008 legislative session, but we are out of luck for this year to effect any immediate changes.
It just would have been nice to know a couple of months ago. I sent enough emails to those guys, one more would have been no trouble.
[signature]
Posts: 36,012
Threads: 296
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
[cool][#0000ff]Better never late...or better late than never. However that goes.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]None of us knew what was going on...or not going on...in time to do anything about it for the past session. But, there will be no excuses for ignoring the issue for the next go-round.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]We were not fully represented by all of our groups at the last UAC meeting, but some of those not there are "well connected" and accustomed to whacking at the lawmakers. I can assure you that we will be making ecology and chemicals a bigger part of our monthly agendas and that we will identify the proper channels to get the turnaround started. If I can dig up anything for members to do, on an individual or group basis, I will definitely post it up.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
|
