Posts: 1,160
Threads: 1
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
1
It sounds like you want no fish taken out of Willard. This is simply an issue you have with people catching these fish in general(except you maybe). No disrespect intended, but if it were going to adversely affect the walleye population then the biologists would restrict it.these guys know their jobs. I know a few of them and they also love to fish too, so I think we should trust them. It apparently makes very little difference. You kinda took a shot at the gentleman that stated he caught his first two walleyed there this last spring. He did nothing to earn your jibe. Again, I went there twice looking for violations and saw none. I looked hard and still came up empty. I saw a DWR officer only while leaving. So the DWR presence didn't seem to make a difference to those that were fishing. They simply were having fun and obeying the law. Now I ask, have you been there during the spawn? If so, why? If you are against it then you really had no reason to be and can't really comment on the ethics if those fishing there. If you were there then I assume you were fishing or just watching people. Both good reasons to be there, but if it were to watch people, I assume you think that fisherman can't be trusted. Too bad. I feel most obey the law and need no minding. I was watching for violations I'll admit, but that is not while I was there, I was there to fish. It was only so so and they were big so I didn't want to keep them.
I fished there and caught only two and kept neither. (3 if you count one that was foul hooked by the tail, it was promptly released). It wasn't a slaughter by any means. When I fish it in a boat, I usually catch a limit or close to a limit on most trips. I do keep most of these except the largest ones because they don't taste as good. But that is why most people fish for walleyes, they taste incredible!
Don't fish the spawn if you don't want to, but there is no sound biology to back it up in this case. It's not unethical and its probably not much if a violation issue either. Assuming so is nothing more than opinion and should not be forced upon the rest of us.
[signature]
Posts: 35,755
Threads: 262
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
49
[#0000FF]I'm gonna back up Wipermac on this one. If you were fishing during a time you could observe other anglers you were not there when the rape of the inlet was happening. Most of the poaching is in the wee hours of the morning...after DWR officers go home and only the happy harvesters are left. During the first two or three weeks of the walleye run this year there was NO DWR presence...at any time. They showed up only after enough of us started making noise about the wanton snagging and removal of walleyes. During those first two or three weeks there were hundreds of snagged walleyes being removed every night. It was only after the run was slowing down and the fish were thinned out that any effort was made to watch it...and then only during daylight hours or for a short time after dark.
Yes, I have witnessed it...and made my calls. And I have had other respected anglers corroborate what they witnessed also.
It is not uncommon to snag fish accidentally while fishing legally. But it is far more uncommon for someone using a double treble hook setup to hook one legally...in the mouth. And that is how the night shift works. No finesse. Just plunder. Might as well be using dynamite.
Your diatribe against Wipermac was far more out of line than his comments to the other guy. Just because you did not witness any violations do not mean there were none.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 919
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation:
0
Oh contraire my friend. I take as many fish legally allowed and encourage anyone else to do the same. The officers I talked to was also patrolling the marina and I was launching my boat at that time.
The reason I'm so anti inlet is because I did fish it. I fished for half an hour and caught three fish, all in the back! I was using an 1/8 ounce single hook curly tail jig, not a one ounce crocodile spoon with treble hooks. I fished one side of the baffles and watched a guy on the other side bring in four fish, all hooked in the back with big heavy spoons. That's how I come up with my conclusion. Does this make me a hypocrite? I think not. It makes me well rounded and educated in my opinion.
Maybe if I would have gone out caught 3 fish in the mouth and didn't see this poacher next to me snagging and keeping fish I wouldn't have such a horrible opinion of the inlet. If all people could go out and be honest I'd have no problem with the inlet being open. I just don't think that will ever happen.
[signature]
Posts: 5,745
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
Reputation:
0
[quote Fishrmn]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?[/quote]
Domino effect, somewhat. A hot topic for sure, and lots of passionate opinions. Anyone game for some nightly news surveys during the season? Say if a group walked around with video cams, and bright spotting scopes. Confront transgressors, interview them asks questions. That might help deter. What if they installed video surveizllaance, andx signs saying?
In any case, thanks to everyone here who has had a emotion filled debates and discussion without resorting to personal attacks and vulgarity to'make your point'.
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
Are we gonna take it to the Utah Supreme Court if we don't like what the Gov does?😩
⫸<{{{{⦅°>
[signature]
Posts: 3,496
Threads: 25
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation:
3
You know my feelings on this big guy, I remember staying until midnight at the RAC meeting back in Sept. held in Brigham City to hear the concerns from some Willard fisherman as they presented their feelings about the inlet staying open to the board members. I talked to several of the biologists afterward and I know you did as well, I could tell by talking to them that their decision had already been made and that the inlet would remain open to fishing year round. Several of the people on this forum don't even fish for walleye much as they stated back in the spring on the BFT site. I get a charge out of the joker who says Utah Lake only has limited spawning areas for the walleye, guess he has never observed the spawn when the eyes are rolling all over Bird Island, Lincoln Beach, The Bubble Up, the dikes near the state park and the list goes on and on, I know he chimes in just to stir S--- up. I appreciate what you are doing my friend but I feel it is a losing battle, thanks again for your efforts on this and looking forward to seeing you on the hard deck. [fishin]
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
Yep. A couple hundred yards of reef at Bird Island is almost exactly the same as 14 miles of dike around Willard Bay Reservoir. I would bet that most of the Walleye at the bubble up are staging to run up Battle Creek.
[size 6]🃏[/size]
[signature]
Posts: 1,160
Threads: 1
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
1
You know tubedude, you may very well be right. I hadn't had much thought about it from the perspective that you and wipermac offered and for that I apologize. I think that both of you are most likely good, upstanding men and I didn't mean for my comments to come across so harshly. I think I understand what wipermac was trying to say and I think he has good cause in his opinion.
Let me cast a little light on the nature of my statements. I've been taught my whole life to teach people correct principles and let them govern themselves and they will by nature start making good ones. Now I've generally seen this to be true. I DO know that poaching happens and I also know that these thieves are crafty and well practiced at their plundering. I guess the problem I have is letting the acts of those we can't always stop ruin it for the rest of us. I'm a very conservative guy that can't stand any more government intervention in my pursuits than I already deal with, so I suppose I came across a little too strong with my comments. The idea of allowing the governor the chance to override the decision of good biologists just stinks in my opinion. We all remember the way he went on stream access don't we? Leave him out of our pastimes.
I think that stopping those that want to enjoy some great fishing opportunity because a few scums can't be trusted just sucks.
I can't help but think that by opening it to people fishing the inlet that it may in the long run deter those that used to sneak in and plunder by the very fact that they can be witnessed now if they break the law. Before they may only bump into each other when fishing illegally. I guess I really don't know what the answer is, but I would like the increased opportunity that fishing the spawn offers, but I do see the dilemma with the poaching that surely takes place. Maybe we all should just do better at getting license plates, descriptions, etc.... And reporting or better yet videoing the people that are snagging and maybe they will back down a bit. I think that closing it won't get rid of the poaching though. They will just do it at night with fewer witnesses.
Again, my apologies to wipermac, I didn't mean to attack you personally. We just have a little different view on the issue.
[signature]
Posts: 35,755
Threads: 262
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
49
[#0000FF]Thanks. I appreciate your open mindedness and I respect the reasons for your opinions. I also apologize if I seemed to be attacking you. All I wanted to do is make the point that folks who show up only once or twice...and during daylight hours...are not likely to see the real problem. Criminals (poachers) do not like to be seen doing their work. They plan their attacks when there is the least likelihood of having witnesses...and they are quick to boogie when there is a threat of being discovered. The main offenders at Willard Bay are a well organized group with lookouts, cellphone communications, etc. They are not "sportsmen" who inadvertently snag a fish and keep it.
I have not voiced my opinion on the biologists or the wildlife board...or trying to get the governor involved. I have had my own "jousting at windmills" experience with that whole process and recognize it for what it is...a sham facade maintained to delude the angling public into believing that all regulations are for the good of the public. They would have you believe that a once a year netting...in arbitrary but often meaningless locations...along with sporadic creel census surveys...among doofus anglers...is enough to provide them with infallible knowledge and understanding of all aspects of any given fishery. And in spite of what some of the most experienced and knowledgeable anglers have to say, the all-knowing biologists form their own opinions and shepherd them through the process...sometimes to the detriment of all the hard work and time put in by concerned angling groups.
For the most part I am a supporter of DWR and I count many of their employees among my short list of true friends. But I allow them the luxury of being human and subject to making mistakes. Making right decisions for the wrong reasons...or vice versa...is a common human trait. Guilty myself more often than I care to admit.
In the case of the Willard Bay inlet closure...or opening...I think they got it wrong. Don't like it but nothing I...or apparently anyone else...can do about it. Too bad for the walleyes. Combining the extreme low water conditions with heavily harvested spawning size fish is almost certainly going to mean that those of us who fish for walleye during the rest of the year are going to find fewer fish.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 2,042
Threads: 5
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
[quote TubeDude][#0000ff] a sham facade maintained to delude the angling public into believing that all regulations are for the good of the public. They would have you believe that a once a year netting...in arbitrary but often meaningless locations...along with sporadic creel census surveys...among doofus anglers...is enough to provide them with infallible knowledge and understanding of all aspects of any given fishery. And in spite of what some of the most experienced and knowledgeable anglers have to say, the all-knowing biologists form their own opinions and shepherd them through the process...
[/#0000ff][/quote]
OH, that is the most profound prose I've read on this forum in . . . well . . . maybe ever!
[signature]
Posts: 304
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
0
I thought this thing was done??? I was told by drew that this wouldn't happen again and you wonder why I bag on the dwr??? if you don't see whats going on,,,go take up golf....no deer no phesants no ducks no bass no walleyes whats next, no trout????  day where is tom when we need him,
[signature]
Posts: 1,395
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
9
This argument is undoubtedly an emotionally based issue. Those who want the walleye protected in the inlet are worried that illegal fishing practices may hurt the walleye population and want the inlet closed to deter would-be snaggers. The question I have is what will fishing in the inlet do to the walleye population in Willard Bay. Interestingly, last year's gillnetting report from Willard Bay paints a different picture than what some are saying in this thread..."All signs are pointing towards a bright year for Willard anglers in 2013. Catches were up for wipers, walleye, and catfish. Walleye abundance has the potential to be as high as we've seen in the past decade, with plenty of fish 18 inches and larger. While the outlook on walleye is excellent for next year, anglers should enjoy it while they can because the long-term trend currently suggests the walleye population may have peaked for at least the next few years." If the "trend" appears to be heading downwards, the question I would have for Penne and other biologists is why? Does it have to do with the "poaching" of spawning walleye or are other conditions the cause? With that being said, it seems that the population can go nowhere but down...as the population is already higher than it has been in the past decade.
[signature]
Posts: 92
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation:
0
The few of us who participated throughout the entire RAC process thought common sense may prevail; however, the Wildlife Board went with the DFW recommendation and ignored the Northern RAC recommendation to close the inlet during the spawn.
Go figure!
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
So what made the Northern RAC's recommendation better, or more important, or more significant than the UDWR's recommendation? After all, The Division of Wildlife Resources is the wildlife authority for Utah and is vested with the functions, powers, duties, rights, and responsibilities provided in this title and other law.
http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE23/htm/23_14_000100.htm
[signature]
Posts: 905
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
2
The hole RAC process is just smoke and mirrors to allow Land Owners and large institutions to do what serves them best. (Usually relating to Money) (Or Power)
If you put enough groups in a room and let them disagree on the issues you can adjourn and Do what you intended to do in the first place. The RAC process is usually the excuse used for decision making.
The CWMU program is the classic, RAC meetings stacked with Landowners and special interests creating a program that transfers the ownership of animals (Elk\Deer) from the General Public to themselves for pending sale.
The RAC process is just doing what is was intended to do.
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
Can't argue with that. CWMU is a crock.
[signature]
Posts: 1,395
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
9
[quote Sirfilletalot]The few of us who participated throughout the entire RAC process thought common sense may prevail; however, the Wildlife Board went with the DFW recommendation and ignored the Northern RAC recommendation to close the inlet during the spawn.
[/quote]
Actually, common sense did prevail...if the walleye population is higher than it has been in years and the inlet is not needed for recruitment and spawning, why should it NOT be opened up? Common sense says that if snagging is the issue then fishermen need to be educated on why snagging is wrong and why snagged fish should be released.
But, if overharvest of fish isn't a problem, why should the inlet be closed down?
[signature]
Posts: 92
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation:
0
I would like to think the process works; however, after what I witnessed at the Wildlife Board Meeting. I think you're right.
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
One thing that hasn't been discussed is "how do the Walleye affect the Wipers?" If the UDWR is putting money into the Wiper program, only to feed a bunch of Walleyes, it makes sense to change the Walleye population. How many people go to Willard Bay to target Wipers? Have Wipers increased the number of fishermen; and therefore use of Willard Bay? There is no good reason presented to protect the Walleyes. They're not going to be fished out. They're at higher than normal populations. The fish that are in the inlet aren't contributing to the spawn. It may all play out that the Walleyes will be fine, and the Wipers will do better. The Wipers are sterile, and their numbers can be easily controlled. The Walleyes on the other hand are able to replenish their numbers nearly every year.
[signature]
Posts: 1,181
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation:
0
+100, I'm totally with the DWR on this issue, thing is, they do operate on common sense except that too often they only hear from certain righteous angling groups and therefore legislate accordingly. This time biology prevailed in the decision over politics and socially constructed ideology. It's about time we see more of this. Rather than trying to save every fish till the population crashes. This is just like hunting vs anti hunting peta groups. You have the fish rights group and the others who just want to enjoy fish for sport and food. Pretty soon, people are going to stop fishing and just engage in fish watching.
[signature]
|
