Posts: 919
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation:
0
[font "Calibri"]This post is to inform you all that despite the recommendation of the Northern Region Advisory Council (RAC) and many concerned anglers, the DNR board of directors voted to keep the killing field known as the south inlet of Willard Bay open during the walleye spawn. That is the first time since 1975 that I or any of my counterparts can remember the board completely disregarding the recommendations of the RAC. [/font]
[font "Calibri"][/font]
[font "Calibri"]Let me start by saying this IS NOT a dispute with the biology of Willard. I completely understand the majority if not all of the eggs laid in the inlet will not survive because of silt over. This is solely an ethical matter. The fish that swim into the inlet are essentially trapped in an area no bigger than the size of most living rooms and completely without natural defense. They’re there to spawn, not eat, period. This completely goes against what I would call “fair chase”. [/font]
[font "Calibri"][/font]
[font "Calibri"]Last March I put a poll up on the forum asking you if you thought the inlet of the south marina should be opened or closed during the walleye spawn. 74% came back saying that the inlet should be closed because it’s simply not ethical because of the snagging that goes on. Well, I’m now asking you to help me try to overturn the rash and misguided decision of the DNR board. The ONLY person that has the power to overturn the board is Utah Governor, Gary Herbert.[/font]
[font "Calibri"][/font]
[font "Calibri"]Below is the link were comment and requests can be made to the governor, but time is rapidly running out!!!! If you still fill the illegal snagging and harvesting of walleye must stop, please log into [/font][url "http://www.governor.utah.gov/goca/form_comment.html"][font "Calibri"][url "http://www.governor.utah.gov/goca/form_comment.html"]http://www.governor.utah.gov/goca/form_comment.html[/url] and copy and paste the follow:[/font]
[font "Calibri"][/font]
[font "Calibri"][/font]
[font "Calibri"]Dear Governor Herbert,[/font]
[font "Calibri"]I’m writing in regards to the decision made by the Utah Wildlife Board, 11/7/2013 to keep the south inlet open during the walleye spawn at Willard Bay. For the last 34 years the inlet has been closed from March 1 to the last Saturday of April to fishing to protect these fish. The fish are without natural defenses while spawning and snagging was/is a major problem. This all happened even against the recommendations of the Northern Region Advisory Council (RAC) which went on record saying that the inlet should be closed. I beg of you to revisit this issue and not allow the illegal harvesting of these fish. The following are all Utah reservoirs and streams that have closures for this exact reason: [/font]
[font "Calibri"]American Fork Creek / Aspen Lake / Bear Lake and Tributaries / Beaver River / Beer Creek / Benches Pond Tributaries / Big Spring Creek / Boulder Mountain Lakes and Reservoirs / Brown Duck Basin / Causey Reservoir / Cold Springs Lake / Dougherty Basin Reservoir / Dry Creek / Duck Creek / Duck Creek Springs lake / Honeyville ponds / Huntington Reservoir Tributaries / Kolob Reservoir / Kolob Reservoir Tributaries / Lake Canyon Lake / Logan River / Manila Creek Pond / Manning Meadow Reservoir and Tributaries / Mountain Dell creek / Otter Creek Stream /Panguitch Lake Tributaries / Paragonah Reservoir Tributaries / Red  Creek Reservoir / Parleys Creek / Petes Hole Reservoir / Porcupine Reservoir / Provo River (partly) / Scofield Reservoir Tributaries / Sheep Creek / Spanish Fork River / Spanish Oaks Reservoir / Spring Creek / Spring Run Creek / Parts of strawberry River tributaries / Swan Creek / Upper Kents Lake Inflow / Utah Lake / Utah Lake Tributaries west of I-15 / West Fork Duchesne River / Whitney River tributaries / West Fork, Duchesne River / Whitney Reservoir Tributaries / Wolf Creek / Yankee Meadow Reservoir ...[/font]
[font "Calibri"]Please help[/font]
[font "Calibri"]Signed__________[/font]
[signature][/url]
Posts: 2,553
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation:
0
The editor in me advises that in your last sentence before the lake list, the correct word is "closures" not "closers."
Other than that tiny error, I agree completely.
[signature]
Posts: 919
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation:
0
[font "Calibri"]Oops. [/font][font "Calibri"]That part of the post was a copy paste from an email received earlier this week from a friend. Thanks![/font]
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
If we're going to edit, I would change the sentence; "For the last 34 years the inlet has been closed from March 1 to the last Saturday of April to fishing to protect these fish.", to read: For the last 34 years the inlet has been closed to fishing from March 1 to the last Saturday of April to protect these fish.
[signature]
Posts: 3,129
Threads: 84
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation:
3
Because I am sure that the Governor cares! Have him fix the Stream Access Law while he's at it. Just my .02
[signature]
Posts: 15,412
Threads: 1,297
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
11
Great idea and thanks for posting. IMHO it will be more effective if everyone writes their own letter, rather than copying and pasting the same identical text.
[signature]
Posts: 1,395
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
9
Although I agree that the inlet should be closed if illegal fishing practices are taking place at an alarming rate--and I am sure they are--I disagree with some of your reasoning in the letter. Many of the waters you listed as being closed to fishing for parts of the year are closed not because of illegal fishing practices or snagging but to protect valuable spawning portions of the population. Without these spawning fish, the fishery itself may be jeopardized and, in some cases, multiple fisheries may be jeopardized. In the case of the willard bay inlet, spawning walleye are NOT contributing to the population of walleye in the fishery by successfully reproducing....
....so, technically, your letter is not 100% correct. I would correct the letter to make this distinction clear!
[signature]
Posts: 919
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation:
0
[font "Calibri"]This is just a starting point. Feel free to tweak and edit as you see fit. [/font]
[signature]
Posts: 92
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation:
0
WiperMac, I'm happy to do what I can to help. I also added a couple of personal comments before signing and sending. I called my fishing partner in Idaho who buys a Utah fishing license every year to fish Willard for Walleye with me. He is sending an e-mail also.
I would like to urge all of you who agree with closing the Willard Bay Inlet during the Walleye spawn to send an e-mail to the Governor.
Thanks!
[signature]
Posts: 919
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation:
0
[font "Calibri"]My question to you is this. When a fish enters into its spawning mode do you believe the fish has all of its natural defenses? Whether it be a “valuable spawning portion” or not the answer will always be no. How can Utah can it’s self a “fair chase” state when we knowing allow corralled fish to be pursued in that faze of its life. In my humble option that’s what the list is about. [/font]
[font "Calibri"][/font]
[font "Calibri"]Not looking for an argument, just saying.......[/font]
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
I'm all for people participating in the political process, but I don't like the concept of the RACs, the Wildlife Board, or the Governor overruling the biologists who have studied the situation. The biologists suggested the change to open the inlet. The biologists are still for the inlet being opened. Why would we want the Governor, the Wildlife Board, or one out of five RACs to make policy that goes against what the biologists suggest?
[signature]
Posts: 1,395
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
9
I am not arguing that point at all....but in your letter you said that the inlet should be protected during the spawn for the "exact" same reasons as listed waters. Sorry, but the reasons are not "exactly" the same. Saying so is being intellectually dishonest and it could make your point much weaker...
....if you really want to be heard, you should at least compare apples to apples and not compare the situation at Willard with spawning areas of waters that are NOT similar. For example, comparing the situation at Willard to Kolob or Paragonah Reservoirs or Manning Meadow Reseroir is totally different because at Kolob and Paragonah fish populations are almost totally reliant on successful spawns. And, a reservoir like Manning Meadow--which is used as a hatchery--is even more different because the eggs of spawning fish are used to stock fish throughout the state. The spawning fish at the inlet at Willard are NOT relied upon to sustain the fishery by reproducing.
Again, I agree that illegal snagging should be stopped and closing the inlet to fishing will do this. However, your list of fisheries that are closed to spawning are NOT closed to fishing for the exact same reasons...
...in essence, what you are, then, asking is that fishing should be closed to protect all spawning fish. And, I would totally disagree with this notion as would most fishermen!
[signature]
Posts: 72
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
0
WiperMac, If ethics are the issue, why don't you recommend that all of Willard Bay be closed during the walleye spawn? I've had success catching spawning walleyes off the dikes around Willard. I have also accidentally foul hooked walleyes at this time. These spawning fish are the the ones actually doing the recruitment for Willard Bay.
You also failed to mention the DWR polled 20,000 licensed anglers and over 65% of those were in favor of keeping it open.
The Wildlife Board made a good call. It's nice to see science prevail over emotion. Keep the opportunity open for those who want to fish the inlet.
[signature]
Posts: 35,755
Threads: 262
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
49
[#0000FF]I've been around long enough to observe "open seasons" on both the lower Provo River and the inlet at Willard Bay. Both were initially nothing but snagfests during the annual walleye spawning runs. The Provo was closed to fishing during the spawn for several years before the Willard inlet was.
4 or 5 years ago I was attending a meeting in Springville...at the DWR offices. A couple of the biologists and COs were trading stories about the efforts to police the closure on the Provo River...and the devious and ingenious tactics that local poachers were using to continue their illegal harvests...day and night...on the closed waters. These guys admitted that there was no valid reasons for keeping the Provo closed during the spawn...because of the high reproduction and recruitment of other spawning in other areas of the lake. But they felt they had to continue with the closures simply to MINIMIZE the illegal harvest. They knew they could not stop it completely but they could slow it down.
Most of us who know and love Willard have witnessed the wholesale illegal taking of walleyes by the happy harvesters...even when there has been a closure. Opening it for everybody to join in is tantamount to admitting that walleyes are an orphan stepchild and nobody cares about them.
True, there are some folks who are only able to catch walleyes during the spawn...when they are vulnerable to "force feeding". But that should not be an excuse for penalizing serious anglers who fish for them all year long and spend lots of time and money in sophisticated pursuit.
The early walleye snaggers on the lower Provo River all used that reasoning...they ain't bitin' nothin' so ya gotta snag 'em.
Willard Bay is a lot different than Utah Lake. The walleyes are susceptible to population variations because of a wide range of changing conditions. They seem to take a big hit for some reason or other every few years. Let's at least give them a fighting chance by not removing a big percentage of the spawning adults every spring.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 919
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation:
0
[font "Calibri"]Because the fish are not trapped in an area the size of your living room and stacked like cordwood on the West and North dikes. Accidental foul hooked walleye in those areas would be the exception, not the norm. I fish both the West and North dikes as well in the early spring but I’ve only foul hooked one fish in all my years. That can’t be said of the fishermen that hit the inlet. [/font]
[font "Calibri"] [/font]
[font "Calibri"]
Of those 20K licenses how many actually fish Willard or knows the geographic of the reservoir? If you were to ask me about lakes outside my normal range I’d most likely go with the recommendations of the biologist as well. Sorry but to me that doesn't hold much water. Oh, and if we’re going to talk about the biologists, both Drew C. and Chris P. was blown away and couldn’t believe the board overturned the RAC.
[/font]
[font "Calibri"][/font][font "Calibri"] [/font]
[font "Calibri"]The only reason I posted this is because of the overwhelming support (74%) I received from this forum back in March. It was an extremely hot subject back than and a lot of folks was up in arms over this. [/font][url "http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/gforum/gforum.cgi?post=806824;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;page=unread#unread"][font "Calibri"]http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/gforum/gforum.cgi?post=806824;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;page=unread#unread[/font][/url][font "Calibri"] [/font]
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
So… Let's see if I've got this straight. It's okay for the Governor to overrule the Wildlife Board, but it's not okay for the Wildlife Board to overrule the RAC? And it's okay for the RAC (one out of five) to overrule the biologists?
[signature]
Posts: 919
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation:
0
[font "Calibri"]
Exactly!!!! Chris Penne, Aquatics Biologist for Willard Bay has been predicting for the last two years that the walleye numbers are dropping with few younger class fish to fill in the ranks. I can personally attest to this because he was kind enough to allow me to spend an 11 hour day with him just last month pulling and setting gill nets at the bay. The numbers just aren’t there like in years past. Why open the opportunity for illegal harvest on a fish population that is already in decline???
The idea that DWR Law Enforcement personnel could keep illegal snagging in check is terribly flawed, as snagging occurs at all hours. This clearly makes the case for 24/7 DWR Law Enforcement coverage if there is any hope of preventing the illegal taking of walleyes through snagging. However, DWR data provided at the 18 September 2013 Northern RAC meeting showed that 248 hours were expended by 20 law enforcement personnel (both uniformed and undercover) over the entire 41-day walleye spawn. Using the 24/7 requirement shows that only 10.33 days of coverage were achieved (248/24) for the 41 day coverage requirement. This is only 25 percent of the entire 24/7 coverage requirement. How much illegal snagging occurred during the “uncovered” time is unknown.
The DWR briefer stated at the Wildlife Board Meeting that only 15 citations were issued, 2 for willful snagging and the rest for having no license. Does anyone really believe that someone caught without a fishing license would be bothered by anti-snagging regulations?
Despite the facts that DWR Law Enforcement CANNOT keep the illegal snagging in check with the personnel resources available and the Wildlife Board’s utter disregard of the northern RAC’s recommendation to close the inlet, leads one to the conclusion that “the end justifies the means”. Unfortunately, it also, in a de facto way, sanctions illegal snagging because of the Board’s foreknowledge of Law Enforcement’s inability to provide the necessary policing coverage. This is morally and ethically reprehensible and it taints Utah’s reputation as a place where the idea of “fair chase” for the taking of fish and game prevail. [/font]
[signature]
Posts: 919
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation:
0
[font "Calibri"]If you would have taking the time to come to the Northern RAC meetings, spend countless hours email DNR, Parks and Rec, Bureau of Reclamation, GSLM, Weber Basin Water, etc etc you would also have a different option on the subject. To have a differing opinion as your signature would suggest is fine. But to speak just to speak, I can only discern that you are trying to stir the pot.[/font]
[font "Calibri"] [/font]
[font "Calibri"]But be that as it may, there was no overruling the biologists (they don’t have a dog in the fight). They were asked a simple and point blank question. Will opening the inlet have a negative impact on NEW recruitment of walleye? The answer was and still is “no” That’s not what this is about. Ethics my friend, ethics. [/font]
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
It was my understanding that the biologists were in favor of opening the inlet to fishing. Is that not the case? One RAC shouldn't override their recommendation. If the biologists are still in favor of the current rule, the Wildlife Board was right to ignore the RAC proposal. If the biologists are still in favor of the current rule, then the Governor shouldn't overrule the Board. If, however, the biologists have recommended closing the inlet then the Board should have closed it.
[quote WiperMac][font "Calibri"]
The DWR briefer stated at the Wildlife Board Meeting that only 15 citations were issued, 2 for willful snagging and the rest for having no license. Does anyone really believe that someone caught without a fishing license would be bothered by anti-snagging regulations?[/font][/quote]
Even if the 13 caught without licenses were also snagging, I doubt there are any fewer violations most days at Strawberry. Between people who don't, or can't, safely measure a fish and obey the slot, and people who can't, or won't, tell the difference between rainbows and cutts, or who willfully take more than their limit, I'd guess that there are easily more violations at Strawberry.
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
[quote runnoft]
You also failed to mention the DWR polled 20,000 licensed anglers and over 65% of those were in favor of keeping it open.
[/quote]
When did this happen? I don't remember Willard bay questions on the statewide survey. (Which I thought was surprising, considering the initial uproar caused by the change)
Wipermac, well thought out letter, but I wouldn't expect Sherberts office to do anything. It would be unprecedented. Next year will be key. Keep working with the biologists, try to document violations come spawning time, and try to present your proposal for change in 3 separate RACs next year if your group can do so. Good luck!
[signature]
|
