Posts: 1,157
Threads: 1
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
1
Chris,
I really appreciate the time you take to post on here so that we can fully understand what it is that you guys do. I know you are busy, but it helps a lot to know our DWR biologists are out there and listening. I've had the opportunity to help Scott up here on Bear lake before and I can attest to all of the hard work that you guys do for us!
Mike
[signature]
Posts: 1,395
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
9
Chris, thanks for the lengthy response. It reminded me what my now retired father used to say about fishing regulations when he still worked for the DWR--he used to say that he hated unnecessarily restricting anglers unless the majority of anglers wanted to be restricted.
When I was younger, I wanted restrictive regulations placed on a lot of different waters in hopes of growing bigger fish. I saw the success restrictive regulations had on the fishery at Minersville Reservoir and wanted similar harvest restrictions placed on other fisheries around. But, my father would caution this approach and explained that fisheries where anglers already were mostly pleased should be left alone. What he was trying to get me understand was the social vs. biological side of restrictions.
In the case of the inlet, I would say that biologically there is no reason to change the restrictions. Closing the inlet at night or at all is biologically unnecessary. However, if the angling public wants that change to be made for whatever reason, it should be made. I would urge any of those fishermen passionate about closing the inlet to get involved with the RAC process and get serious about letting your voice be heard. It sounds to me like the reason it is open is because the majority of the angling public wanted it left open.
[signature]
Posts: 447
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
0
I also don't have a dog in this fight. Very rarely do I fish the inlet as I prefer targeting eyes out in the bay and elsewhere. What I will say is the only reason I would support closing the inlet to fishing during the spawn is if scientific evidence showed a decline in overall numbers related to the inlet being open for fishing.
The fact is folks who snag fish will do so until the existing laws are enforced. We have laws and limits for a reason! This reminds me of banning the sale of firearms so we can keep them out of the hands of criminals when such laws already exist.
The fact is most of us are self regulated and law abiding. The few who are not...well that is why we have laws. Sometimes a good hefty poaching fine goes along way in helping implement change.
[signature]
Posts: 236
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
0
Thanks for all the info Chris.
[signature]
Posts: 330
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2005
Reputation:
0
Chris I really feel the best alternative is a night time closure, what are your feelings on this idea?
[signature]
Posts: 9
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
0
Someone should ask Tom Pettengill about Walleye fishing the inlet during the spawn. After all the professional biologists of his era turned Willard Bay into a world class fishery.
[signature]
Posts: 32,625
Threads: 383
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
33
Last I heard Tom P. retired around 15 years ago and moved out of state. Here is a link to Tom's profile page, you can read some of his post there.
http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/com...rname=TomP
[signature]
Posts: 9
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
0
Doug Miller announced Pettengill's retirement in November 2005. Sad to see them both go.
http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/gfo...ost=227219
[signature]
Posts: 24
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation:
1
Thanks for asking, but as stated above I don't think my opinion matters on the inlet. A night closure is a fine idea, it's just a matter of whether or not there are other anglers that feel the same way.
[signature]
Posts: 35,752
Threads: 262
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
49
"it's just a matter of whether or not there are other anglers that feel the same way."
[#0000ff]Probably a wise idea for you to stay neutral. No matter which side you choose, there will be plenty of opposition.
Unfortunately, if you leave it up to "other anglers" I am guessing that the ones who fish (and plunder) the inlet are likely to be in the majority. Most guys I know who really "fish" for walleye in Willard do not ever go near the inlet...mostly for the reasons we state for closing it.
If you would like an "informal" survey, I have been in communication with quite a few Willard regulars who spend many hours on the lake and who devote a lot of time, money and energy to catching walleyes. With few exceptions, most are in favor of either closing the inlet during spawn time...or at least making a nighttime closure. For the record, I have not talked to anyone who likes to fish the inlet for walleyes...or who adamantly wants it to remain open. I guess I fish in the wrong circles.
I'm afraid I am not your greatest ally when it comes to promoting RAC attendance. I used to go...and even made a few of my own proposals. Without going into too much detail, I was largely disappointed in the process and the results. Granted, many of the issues of the past have been modified or eliminated with the changes in people at the top of the Division. It is gratifying to all of us anglers to see the new proactive approach and the new open-mindedness in exploring new horizons.
A large part of the problem with getting people to attend and participate is the "Utah Syndrome". That is that 10% of the people are willing to do all the work...and the other 90% are willing to let them. The corollary is that those who do nothing are usually those with the most complaints.
[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 92
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation:
0
I participated in the RAC process after the opening of the Willard inlet. Attended several late night meetings and the few people that attended were able to convince the RAC members to take the issue to the Wildlife board for a vote. The Wildlife Board meeting was held during the week and very few people attended. The Wildlife board voted to leave the inlet open and the lead member stated "That just because of a few poachers we don't close deer season!" In my opinion, it was a total waste of time and I see why not many people participate in the RAC process.
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
[quote Sirfilletalot]The Wildlife board voted to leave the inlet open and the lead member stated "That just because of a few poachers we don't close deer season!" [/quote]
Sounds about what the WB members would likely say.
I don't fish Willard much, but we have the same identical thread every year. I have no reason to dispute what the biologists have said regarding the impacts of the snaggers/harvest at the inlet. I applaud the egg collection efforts and the stocking program. As for some mortality with the egg collection, it is a small price to pay for a program that pays handsome dividends.
That said, I have always been baffled that the DWR and WB allow a situation to be present that requires the almost constant attention of the Northern region conservation officers. Considering that our CO's are already stretched thin as it is, having a situation present where they have to constantly babysit the anglers at the Willard bay inlet, they are certainly less available to enforce the law in the rest of the region. Were one inclined to poach a big game animal or commit other violations elsewhere, the walleye spawn would be the right time to do it. As others have said, even closing the inlet at night would ease the burden of enforcement a fair bit.
[signature]
Posts: 1,395
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
9
This is one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't situations. The DWR gathered feedback via surveys and the RAC process, took that information to the RACs and the Wildlife Board, and now we have regulations in place that represented the majority of the opinions expressed....
....and some are mad about that and claim the process is a sham, so they refuse to be a part. To me, that is like voting for a candidate for a political position and then being so mad that that candidate didn't win that you quit voting. Not every fishermen gets his wish, not every idea should be followed, the DWR did the absolutely right thing with the inlet in keeping it open because it is what the MAJORITY wanted. Getting mad about the process because your side lost sounds like the tantrum a little kid pulls when he doesn't get candy at the grocery store.
The process is in place so that those who express opinions at the RACs are heard...it sounds to me like they were. IF you want to be heard, you have to express your opinion. How often do we hear of people complaining that they weren't heard?
[signature]
Posts: 35,752
Threads: 262
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
49
[#0000FF]Logical...but subject to human weirdness. When a group of anglers with an agenda (being able to snag walleye) gets together to flood the meeting and slant the outcome they can get their vote over the paltry few who show up for the other side. That is what happened.
In recent communications with Chris Penne we discussed how poor the turnouts are for the RAC meetings. He readily recognizes that even after the hunting and fishing RACs were split...and we can go to either one we wish...there is still poor turnout. He admits that having to drive a long ways for a long winded meeting on a weekday night is not attractive to many folks...no matter how passionate they are about the single issue they want addressed.
Howsomever, based upon the much better rate of response to online surveys they are going to put more effort into getting the word out on these and encouraging anglers to chime in...and to also use the special options available to communicate in a non-survey format.
My personal prediction is that there will be a new set of regs for the inlet by the end of this year. It may be only a nighttime closure but whatever they can do to reduce wholesale walleye slaughter will be an improvement.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 1,395
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
9
You may be right about a new set of regulations. But, like Chris also said, when the inlet was opened it was based on two things: 1) those who did show up to the RACs and 2) the survey which showed overwhelming support to open it.
I have hard time believing that a bunch of law-breakers showed up a the RAC and pushed the RAC to change a law so that they could continue breaking the law. I could believe, though, that a bunch of fishermen who knew that the walleyes stacked up in the inlet showed up because they wanted to catch those vulnerable fish. I think there is a difference there and your wording is very presumptuous and offensive.
Personally, I never liked the RAC process and the power of the WB from the day it was first instituted in Utah. I believe it gave a small number of people way too much power and decision making authority. BUT, it is the system we have. Our choice is to either work within it or deal with the consequences of not. Like my analogy of voting, I don't think it is right for someone to complain about a politician when that same person didn't vote. The process is what it is. Surveys can help the DWR gather input and I, too, am glad they are using them more and more. It is also interesting to note that more and more often committees are being formed to come up with management plans of fisheries...like with Yuba, Panguitch Lake, the Boulder Mountain, and others. I think these are good tools that managers are beginning to use more and more. My suggestion would be to push this type of thing for Willard as a way to steer regulations.
Like others, I really don't have a dog in this yearly fight because I don't fish Willard. My interest in the subject is based on my interest in regulations and the whys and why nots behind changing them. I believe strongly that fishing regulations should reflect first and foremost the biology of a particular water. In Willard's case, the biology says we don't need to close the inlet. But, I also understand that social issues can and should be a part of fishing regulations. I just do not want fishermen to be unnecessarily restricted at too many waters. To me, this could open up a can of worms and set a bad precedence. I don't want every water across the state have season or day time closures because of spawning fish. This could be bad both biologically and socially!
[signature]
Posts: 463
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation:
0
I am with TubeDude (and others) arguing for the wholesale slaughter theory. Let's throw the whole success of the inlet spawners debate aside for a minute and look at the sheer numbers of keeper sized walleyes (and wipers, but since they weren't ever protected there, I'll just stick to walleyes for the purpose of this post) that get removed from the reservoir during a very short time. I can't imagine what fishing would be like during the rest of the year if all those fish were still in there. They really haul bucketloads out of there all day long every day. It's like a conveyor belt of dead fish coming out of Willard Bay. 24 hours a day. 7 days a week. Do the math people.
The vast vast majority of my time spent at Willard is trolling and casting out of my boat. Nevertheless, I have made several trips to fish the inlet. Last year I fished it twice, and caught 2 inside the mouth, that actually bit my lure. This year, I fished it three times (afternoons on March 24, 29, and 30) and caught 1 in the mouth that actually bit my lure. I hooked 2 others that were snagged, and caught enough scales to make a nice pair of boots. One of the 2 that were foul hooked appeared to be hooked underneath the lower jaw (on the outside of its mouth), but I do not believe that it bit my lure.
I consider myself to be an above average walleye fisherman, and I was in constant astonishment that there could be that many walleyes in that thing, and that I wasn't just catching them left and right. But for the most part, walleyes were getting caught left and right by everyone else. In my observation, it was an absolute rarity that I witnessed a fish landed that was hooked in the mouth. I witnessed foul hooked fish that were landed and reduced to possession. And most fish landed away from the direct observation of the crowd were also reduced to posession. In all fairness though, I did witness many foul hooked fish that were released. I can't imagine what goes on there at night though, and that's when the crowd shows up! I don't know about you, but I have a hard enough time getting a good enough presentation to trick a walleye into biting in good enough light that I can see my line, where it's going into the water, and how much slack is in it, let alone complete darkness!! Apparently those walleyes can see a heck of a lot better than I take them for!
Anyway, I had my license checked 2 out of 3 trips this year. During the second check at the parking lot, I mentioned to the Officer that there was a tremendous amount of fish being harvested illegally over there if he was interested in that, and he didn't even bat an eye. In fact, there wasn't any indication whatsoever that he even heard one word of my statement. Weird.
I have fished for spawning walleyes plenty and I rarely snag fish or bring scales in on my hook. They ususally eat my lures. Bite them. Strike them. Whatever you want to call it, but they take them in their mouth. But they sure don't seem to bite very much at that inlet, I'll tell you that.
[signature]
|
