Hopefully the tone of my response to the “slam” was that even though I disagreed with the disagreement, I tried to respect the RAC member’s reasons for doing so. I did not take it personally at all. I did not attack him and tried to mellow out any such feelings from other BFT members.
**And, about the “policy”, and not being able to change policy, I have always felt that budgets and policies are supposed to provide guidelines and roadmaps…not serve as barriers to progress or making necessary changes in a timely manner. There are situations in every organization in which new information comes to light, or situations change, and making a NEW decision is the right thing to do. I felt strongly that the perch population of Yuba was larger and stronger than many of the RAC members knew…even after the biologist reports. I also found that the Rocky Mountain Angler members who dissented were basing their reluctance more on personal feelings than any real knowledge of actual conditions. They are much less familiar with actual fish populations and the balance of the biomass in Yuba. All they know is that they DID put in a lot of time, money and effort to help restore the walleye. What they are upset about at this point is that the walleye population has not exploded but the perch have. The perch can well sustain some harvest until the walleye numbers become large enough to cull the herd. **
One of my (un) favorite quotations is “There’s no good reason for it. It’s just a matter of policy.”
[reply]
** There are situations in every organization in which new information comes to light, or situations change, and making a NEW decision is the right thing to do. ******[/reply]
Which is exactly why I’m on your side on this, and not John’s. I think it’s fantastic what fishermen did at the RAC last night. Congrats on a successful battle won.
It was nice to meet some more members at the RAC meeting last night and see how the process works. I went more to hear about the changes to hunting then fishing but wanted to stay and see how things work as there were no changes offered on any of the hunting issues.
I understand there needs to be procedures but if you can’t make exceptions to the procedures why have the meetings and ask for input? The biologist for Yuba admitted that the only reason for no recommendation was that he didn’t give it to his boss in time this spring. It sounded like they just didn’t have the information early enough for the bigger bosses to consider so it was left out. No good reason not to open Yuba but then again no threat to the perch if it didn’t so it was left out. When questioned the biologist said that the perch population was healthy and that anglers couldn’t do much to dent it at all. I think that statement right there gave most of the board what they needed to know to vote.
I don’t agree with the two members that voted no but respect their right to do so. I hope their votes were based on more then the new rules hadn’t been followed. I also hope they didn’t base their votes on a lack of a study. Studies are nice but not everything.
If Yuba is open to the taking of perch in 07 then the system worked and the people were heard. If it isn’t opened up this year I think the system still worked but maybe the new deadlines for information need a little work so items aren’t missed just because the question was asked later on.
So, far - as has been mentioned already - only a battle has been won. The war is NOT over.
The Wildlife Board STILL NEEDS CONVINCING!! If the Rocky Mountain Anglers group shows up in full force to the Wildlife Board meeting, and there is a lack of support from those fishermen wanting the perch regulation changed, this proposal may still fail.
Just a word of advice to Pat, and those others concerned about the perch regulation at Yuba: You better show up at the Wildlife Board meeting to support this proposal. If no one shows up, don’t expect the recomendation of the RAC commitee to be enough to change the regulation.
Pat – you might want to think about creating a new thread to build support for the Wildlife Board meeting.
Thanks for the headsup. PM me with the details and I will post it well in advance and do what we can to make sure we are represented.
**By the way, I read your input on “Brand X” website. I think you were the voice of reason in an emotional situation. Sounds like there is more of a “grudge match” thing than a real concern for what is right and appropriate. Too bad. **
Hey that’s great news, you guys! Those that went to the meeting deserve a “GOOD ON YA!!!” Unfortunitely I had to work, but was with you guys in spirit!
Hmmm…maybe I will ice fish that place this year afterall (if it gets a good ice-cap). Being able to take home 10 nice perch with also the prospects of hooking into a monster slimerocket and a chance of an 'eye or northern too makes that lake very intriguing now for ice fishing…
[reply] Thanks for the headsup. PM me with the details and I will post it well in advance and do what we can to make sure we are represented.
** **[/reply]
Well in advance? The time is NOW! The Utah Anglers Coalition (Rocky Mountain Anglers) are not sitting around waiting for the right time. They are already working the system. They have already been in contact with the RAC Chairman, as well as the DWR.
There are some that are saying that this change was only supported by the two individuals who spoke at the RAC.
Those opposed to the regulation change are not backing down, and they are not going away quietly. The will be present at the Wildlife Board Meeting. If you are a person that wishes to get this regulation changed, then you need to start doing the same. Continue contacting whoever (board members, Roger Wilson, etc.) you think needs to know. This fight isn’t close to being over…and those opposed aren’t sitting around doing nothing about it either…
Thanks. I’m all over it. If it goes down, we won’t go down without taking our swings.
The info that I have (from the DWR website) is that the next board meeting will be October 5th, and that they will post an agenda prior to that time. I hope to prepare a good offense/defense by then.
“Those opposed to the regulation change are not backing down, and they are not going away quietly.”
I can at least see why Mr. Weis voted as he did, but it seems to me that the only reason the Rocky Mountain Anglers club is opposing this change is because the DWR and the central aquatics chief didn’t go to them first to ask for their “permission” or “approval” to make a change. (because they contributed some money and time in the perch reintroduction) It apparently is not based on the results of DWR studies or biologists opinion. (Please correct me if I am in error on this!) If so, the opponents position is ridiculous and good luck to TD and others supporting the change.
It seems the RAC process is working as it should. There has been a groundswell of support for some perch harvest by those that regularly fish Yuba, (sadly I have not the last 2 yrs.[:(]) as evidenced by the numerous discussions here and on the DWR forum. The public went to the DWR in the proper channels and a change (hopefully)took place. This is a good thing to see.
I do not know if you read Mr. Weiss’ remarks on UTOF board, but the tone is exactly what you point out…that his main objection is the WAY it was handled…not the actual change proposed. He is still rankled by having the change made on the Middle Provo in a similar manner and tends to reject all such future proposals based upon the same set of protocols.
The suggestion I have made is that the rules for submission were put in place as guidelines and not absolutes. If something needs to be changed…or should be changed…then it should be subject to the voting process without being arbitrarily tabled because of “Da Rules”.
Unfortunately, some folks are more reactive than proactive and need set rules to run their lives. They become disoriented if they are asked to think outside the “box” of conformity…regardless of the obviousness of a need to do so.
As I mentioned in a previous post, when I asked one of the dissenting members of the Rocky Mountain Anglers group whether he had actually been fishing Yuba, to ascertain the populations and fish census figures, he admitted that he had not. His main argument was that he was unhappy with DWR for not planting more walleye. To me, that does not constitute a valid argument for denying hundreds of other anglers the right to keep a few perch.
With the current balance (imbalance) of walleye to perch in Yuba, there needs to be some harvest on the perch before they completely obliterate the forage base (fathead minnows) and once again have to become cannibals (of their own young) to survive. That is usually the first step in the downward spiral of the crash cycle.
The exploding perch population has already knocked the heck out of the vast swarms of fathead minnows we saw last year. I suspect they are already having some kind of effect on the growth rate of the rainbows. All the big rainbows last year were stuffed with minnows. It will be interesting to see how big the fish are this fall and what they are eating.
On the positive side of things, I have some personal friendships within the RAC central group and I am actively working behind the scenes to be sure that we are not blown away by the opposition.
I did read the UOTF thread. (slow workday) It is actually a very good read if one wants to get more background on this issue. I guess the thing that I don’t understand is why the RMA would be so vehemently opposed to this. So they are mad that the walleyes aren’t back in force, but harvesting a few perch before they (perch) start to stunt is not going to slow the eyes return. Like I said before, it just seems like they are bent out of shape because they weren’t consulted in order to confer a “blessing” on the regs change.
I did have one question for you about this. Why was the limit proposed to be 10 fish? It would seem that if reports are correct about the population, then a standard 20 fish limit would be acceptable. That apparently was a reason given by the RMA for fighting this. “The population should be high enough to sustain standard statewide harvest regs.”
I (mistakenly) believed that proposing a smaller limit to begin would be an easier pill to swallow for any of those opposed. The 10 fish number was what I suggested, in order to offer a compromise. Unfortunately, the opposition is more on a matter of principle than on whether or not the perch population can withstand some harvest.
Believe me, I would like to see the standard limit too, but I am a patient person. I believe that if the “biologicals” next year show that there is still a lot of recruitment and no decline in numbers that it will be easier to adjust the limit upward.
Hopefully the tone of my response to the “slam” was that even though I disagreed with the disagreement, I tried to respect the RAC member’s reasons for doing so. I did not take it personally at all. I did not attack him and tried to mellow out any such feelings from other BFT members.