Letter to the Governor, Willard Bay inlet

[PBH]

[quote WiperMac][font "Calibri"]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][/quote]

If that is the case (ethics), then the Wildlife Board made the correct call.

The solution to correcting what some are calling an ethical issue would be: EDUCATION. Not regulation.


Educate. Take the opportunity to educate, and the regulation part may correct itself.



further -- if violations are the issue (illegal snagging), then again, education would be the answer, not regulation.
[signature]

[Charina]

[quote PBH][quote WiperMac][font "Calibri"]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][/quote]

If that is the case (ethics), then the Wildlife Board made the correct call. [/quote]

The quote of the biologist was apparently qualified only to new recruitment. The existing adult population is still going to be impacted by the take.

I don't know enough about the biology of the spawn in Willard. What is the difference between those that seek to move upstream to spawn and those that use existing lake structure? Is it the genetics of different strains? Chance? Will a female in the inlet this year spawn in the lake next year if she is not caught?
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote Charina]
The quote of the biologist was apparently qualified only to new recruitment. The existing adult population is still going to be impacted by the take. [/quote]

Adults will be replaced through recruitment of walleye spawning outside the inlet.


Look -- this isn't a biological issue. This is a moral and ethical and social issue. It should be dealt with through EDUCATION. Not regulation. The WB got it right.
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

[quote Charina]I don't know enough about the biology of the spawn in Willard. What is the difference between those that seek to move upstream to spawn and those that use existing lake structure? Is it the genetics of different strains? Chance? Will a female in the inlet this year spawn in the lake next year if she is not caught?[/quote]

It ain't genetics. And as much as people will tell you that they return to the same place where they were spawned, the studies prove it doesn't necessarily happen that way. So, there's as good of a chance that they will spawn in the lake, or in the inlet. But when they spawn in the inlet, the eggs don't hatch.
[signature]

[Charina]

[quote PBH]Look -- this isn't a biological issue. This is a moral and ethical and social issue. It should be dealt with through EDUCATION. Not regulation. The WB got it right.[/quote]

First, there has not been sufficient biological information in this thread, or the furor posted here last year to reach such a conclusion. Post what you have that indicates the is no biological component to the decision to keep open or close down if you have anything.

Common sense would indicate there are biological impacts. Whether or not the particular fish in the inlet will ever sucessfully reproduce does not negate the existance of an biological impact - only on a new recruitment impact. Albeit a small percentage, there WILL be less walleye for me to chase this summer due to illegal take.
[signature]

[RockyRaab]

I don't know enough biology to say whether eggs laid in the inlet will survive. Or that there are or aren't enough walleye spawning elsewhere in Willard. But I know this: every large female walleye taken out of the inlet won't be spawning ever again.

It's far too difficult to tell the snaggers from the ethical anglers at the inlet if it is open to fishing. If it's closed, then ANYONE caught fishing there can be cited.

As to comparing Willard to other bodies of water with closed seasons during spawning, all such closures can be said to protect spawning fish, regardless of other arguments.
[signature]

[WiperMac]

[quote PBH]

Look -- this isn't a biological issue. This is a moral and ethical and social issue. It should be dealt with through EDUCATION. Not regulation. The WB got it right.[/quote]

[font "Calibri"]If that’s the case they need to open all reservoirs and tributaries regardless of location and species. Not just pick and choose. [/font]
[font "Calibri"] [/font]
[font "Calibri"]Geographical Utah Lake is probably the closest match to Willard. If it’s unethical there, its here too.[/font]
[font "Calibri"][/font]
Utah Lake tributaries west of I-15, Utah County
Including but not limited to: American Fork Creek, Beer Creek, Dry Creek, Hobble Creek, Provo River, Spanish Fork River, Spring Creek and Spring Run Creek.
All suckers must be immediately released.
CLOSED March 1 through 6 a.m. on the first Saturday of May.
CLOSED to nighttime bowfishing (sunset to sunrise) from the the first Saturday of May through 6 a.m. on the second Saturday of July.
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

The difference is that there is very little spawning habitat around Utah Lake EXCEPT the tributaries. Whereas nearly every foot of shoreline at Willard Bay is spawning habitat for Walleyes. At least on the dikes. ;}
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

[quote PBH]
Look -- this isn't a biological issue. This is a moral and ethical and social issue. It should be dealt with through EDUCATION. Not regulation. The WB got it right.[/quote]


Maybe, maybe not. If the bulk of these violations were due to ignorance of the regulations, then what you say is spot on. If however, the majority of the people going out there are willfully and premeditatedly violating the law, then you can educate them till you are blue in the face and they won't change. The reports we heard last spring suggested the latter. For willful violators, the only way to effect change is to cite them and/or change the law to take away their opportunity to violate.
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote WiperMac][
[font "Calibri"]If that’s the case they need to open all reservoirs and tributaries regardless of location and species. Not just pick and choose. [/font]
[font "Calibri"] [/font]
[/quote]

No. You cannot use a blanket approach. We've tried that and had problems with it in the past.

Like W&B already mentioned, many places (Kolob, Paragonah, Manning Meadow) rely on successful spawning to sustain those fisheries. Is this the case with Willard and the inlet?? The answer has already been told to us: no. Recruitment is not happening.
So, the issue is whether or not we should protect these "vulnerable" fish. The decision was "no". The question that should be asked of the biologists is: why not? How might this affect the overall population.

Speculation on the answer may not be as obvious as many anglers might think.

consider: McGath on the Boulder Mountain. Known for trophy brook trout. These trophy brook trout are extremely vulnerable during winter months. So, the public asked to have regulations in place to restrict angling during those months to protect those fish. Fast forward to the present -- people are upset because average size fish in McGath are below historic averages. Stocking has not changed. What did change? We started protecting those fish from harvest, and now average sizes have dropped and population numbers are up.




Be careful what you ask for. You may end up with it, and then you'll have to live with it.


personally -- I think education would be the best solution for Willard. It could kill multiple birds all at once, instead of just creating more regulations for people to ignore. Teach a man to fish......you get the point.
[signature]

[WiperMac]

[quote Fishrmn]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.[/quote]

1.[font "Calibri"]We were an entity dealing with issues primarily as they related to "our" region unless otherwise specified. If the issue was of a statewide nature and not an individual region issue it was so stated. I'd certainly frown on folks from Saint George or Blanding weighing in on rules for our local waters ... that's simply why there are "five" RAC Boards.[/font]
[font "Calibri"][/font]
[font "Calibri"]2.That inlet area is simply an unethical killing field for "all" the fishes that seem to want to go upstream to spawn ... not just walleyes. Going upstream is simply the nature of the beast in a certain percentage of most all of the species of fishes. Portions of all resident species in that Bay are seen up there each year trying to do their thing..[/font]
[font "Calibri"][/font]
[font "Calibri"]3. As to whether we fish during the spawn at all or for any species in that particular water is the question ... Even the Wipers who are hybrids still have the instinct to "try to" spawn and you will find them up there during their normal Striper or White Bass spawning period.[/font]
[font "Calibri"][/font]
[font "Calibri"]4. Comparing the angling during the spawn in that small restricted inlet pool as opposed to seeking out spawning fishes in the 14+ miles of Willard Bay shoreline are two totally different issues.[/font]
[font "Calibri"][/font]
[font "Calibri"]5. Does two wrongs make a right (Strawberry)?????[/font]
[signature]

[WiperMac]

[quote PBH]Be careful what you ask for. You may end up with it, and then you'll have to live with it.



personally -- I think education would be the best solution for Willard. It could kill multiple birds all at once, instead of just creating more regulations for people to ignore. Teach a man to fish......you get the point.[/quote]

[font "Calibri"]I could live with that. It’s worked just fine for the last 34 years hasn’t it?[/font]
[font "Calibri"] [/font]
[font "Calibri"] [/font]
[font "Calibri"]I do get your point but you can only teach people that want to learn. The simple fact is far too many people fall to temptation. This is like leaving the vault door at a bank open, unattended with no cameras…. [/font]
[signature]

[gmwahl]

I think that asking the governer to override the dwr is a big mistake. He's not a biologist so therefor has no legitimate business poking his nose in it.
The subject of the walleye spawn issue at Willard bay is more of an emotional one than anything. Some don't want people fishing the inlet because in their eyes only those that would snag them would fish at such a time and place. I fished there twice this spring to see what the excitement was all about and although I did accidentally snag one(shook it loose at the edge), I only caught two others. It wasn't a slaughter. There were several other anglers fishing and a couple also accidentally snagged fish and also let them go. I didn't witness any illegal activity and I was watching for it.
My point is this, if someone is against fishing the spawn then don't! If your conscience tells you it's not ethical then don't do it, but to tell me that what I was doing was wrong is a crock! I broke no law, I took no more advantage then the angler fishing the rocky dikes. MY ethics tell me that the DWR has set rules and I obey them regardless of who's looking because that is how I am. Though there are certainly some that will break the rules and commit unethical acts, they are the minority in my opinion. Everyone should not be suspect because they fish where the fish are. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't go fishing to fish empty water an get skunked. I hope to catch fish every time. Sometimes I keep them and sometimes I don't.
It's fine to have feelings and opinions about this, but ultimately its probably not as big of a deal as some are making it out to be. Trust fisherman to make their own decisions without compelling them to follow the minority that yells the loudest. I've also had fisherman rip into me when they see me bring a limit of fish in to the cleaning station, was it ok for them to do this just because they dont want to keep or eat a fish? i obey the law and i believe that MOST other fisherman do too. 13 citations seems like a small amount and most of those were fishing without a license? they dont represent the rest of us anglers. They would break the law anyway and probably sneak in if it was closed to fishing. This is a problem that we are having with hunting right now. Trophy hunters are squawking the loudest and its devastating our traditional family hunting experiences.
Bottom line? If you don't want to fish the spawn then don't. My guess is it won't affect the fishery much one way or another.
[signature]

[DKStroutfitter]

I helped the DWR with their Gill Net Survey last year.
I spent one day on Willard Bay with Chris Penne, collecting the fish that were netted.
In one of our conversations while we were at Willard, Chris commented that the information gathered indicated that there was a drop off on the amount of younger Walleye.
He predicted that the number of Walleye would be lower
than it had been in the past.
It appears that he was correct.

Now on to the inlet debate.
Chris told me that the Walleye that spawn in the inlet are not productive. This has already been discusses here. The DWR tries to stay neutral on issues like this but they will give their educated, professional input.

From what I have learned, keeping the inlet open will not have an adverse affect on the Walleye population at Willard Bay.
Trying to keep anglers compliant is the issue.

In my opinion,
closing the inlet isn't the answer to this problem any more than not allowing bait to be used at places like Strawberry, where there are slot limits.
Education and enforcement is what is needed.
[signature]

[TubeDude]

"Look -- this isn't a biological issue. This is a moral and ethical and social issue. It should be dealt with through EDUCATION. Not regulation. The WB got it right."

[#0000FF]You are talking in generalities. The specifics are that the hardcore snaggers are already well educated in the arts of poaching. They have an organized network that designates who does the snagging and who does the lookout work...watching for suspicious (DWR) vehicles or officers and calling ahead to those on the water. Anybody in violation can switch gear and tactics before someone shows up...or take their catch and boogie out the back door. Then, when the observers depart it is back to business as usual.

This is not speculation. Many of us have watched this going on not only at Willard but around Utah Lake as well. There are thousands of oversized spawning walleyes dragged from our public waters every year by people who are selling them or filling freezers with them. And they do not operate during daylight hours or when there is any chance that someone else in the area may be either an officer or an informant.

Why don't we report it? We do. But unless the infraction is witnessed by an officer there cannot be a citation.

Education? for what?
[/#0000FF]
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

Sounds like an organized crime ring. Time to set up surveillance with night vision scopes and enforce the Lacey act. Instead of taking away their licenses, and banning them from fishing for a few years, they could send them to a federal penitentiary for a few years.
[signature]

[Fin-S-Fish]

+100 This whole uproar is is merely an emotional one. There is no biological basis for closing that inlet. Nor is there a biological basis at Utah Lake either. Folks at the dwr confirmed the closure at the UL tribs is merely because of social pressure from over outspoken advocate groups, not because of any real danger to the walleye population. Even at UL most recruitment happens on the main lake spawn areas. The problematic thing is that idealistically, autonomy is an important thing to have. We should each be able to have individual thoughts and feelings, and be able to have freedom to act in accordance to our own moral standards. We don't have to force everyone else to share our opinions or force others to conform to our own personalized moral standards. People have a right to fish the inlet if it is legally open. There is no need to force a closure on it. No need to create a law that merely supports one viewpoint, that limits fishing opportunity. I think it's great to open the inlet. I've only caught two walleye out of willard in over 30 years. And they were both in the inlet opening this year. Those walleye do bite and can be taken legally and, it's walleye fishing, get real folks, people are lucky to even catch one walleye a night. Plus, it was well guarded, the dnr folks stayed till past midnight every day last year at the inlet and were "fishing" along with the crowd. I doubt many eyes were poached if really at all.
[signature]

[Flyfishinglover]

Thanks for posting about this as well the message with the URL. I just send one and hope they close it because it's just crazy how many people were there from this year and all the combat war was going on just for a walleye [:/].
[signature]

[Sirfilletalot]

Have you seen the level of the water in Willard Bay? Do you really believe, with all of the reservoirs upstream of Willard low also, that there will be a successful spawn for walleye in Willard this spring? The majority of the historic spawning areas around the dyke are "high and dry".

The walleye in Willard have survived for decades with the Inlet being closed. These are self sustaining fish along with several other species in Willard. They cost us nothing to reproduce.

Why fix something that isn't broke! The walleye population is said to be on the decline in Willard. Do you believe that opening the channel and letting people even accidentally snag walleye is a good idea? And every fish taken legally or not will never spawn again.
I also think fishing after spawning fish that are confined in a small area is a terrible example for our young fisherman.

I sent a letter along with several other people that I have contacted and made them aware of this situation. I was surprised at how many people were not even aware that the inlet was opened last year.
[signature]

[WiperMac]

[quote Fin-S-Fish] Plus, it was well guarded, the dnr folks stayed till past midnight every day last year at the inlet[/quote]

This also brings up another issue that I mentioned at the RAC and DNR openhouse. Premium funds!!! Do you honestly think the DNR folks was there til midnight on their own dime? The government as a whole doesn't have a pot to piss in and we pay premium overtime funds to keep the inlet open.[crazy] I hope you enjoyed your two walleyes because it cost not just you but me a bundle.

And its not just that. I talked to two officers that wasn't even assigned to Willard (most weren't). They had been pulled from other districts to provide that additional coverage. Meaning other lakes now don't have the coverage they need. Its just absurd.
[signature]