Yuba 07 partII

Utah Fishing Reports & Discussion Utah Fishing General
1

Pat,

I’ve been trying to login all weekend and shed a little more light on the Yuba Perch situatuion. I’m sorry that you have already locked the thread, but I think this is very important regarding process. SO I hope you will allow me a little latitude.

Good points all around. Let me add something to the process that I think is important. there is really a place outside of the RAC process were regualtions like this are talked about quit frequently. The two top people in the fisheries at the DWR are committed to going to this meeting on a monthly basis. They do take into accounts the issues talked about on a monthly basis.

One last thing I think there are three issues that we need to remember when it comes to Yuba. they are:

  1. When the perch were moved in there they were done so as to give the possible chance of a walleye fishery not a perch fishery ; 2)With Rocky Mountain Anglers oppossing the changes that leads to a split anglers voice. 3)With only two people commenting on the issue and not much more support at the UAC the move was to keep the status qou.

I highly suggest that rather than complaining on this board you go to the next UAC and talk to Roger or Walt and the people from Rocky Mountain Anglers to get their side of the story.

sorry to rehash this again pat, but I think it is importatn for you guys to know where to focus your efforts.

2

:sunglasses:Appreciate your input Dave. All valid points.

However, just so you don’t think I overlooked any opportunities:
1. I did interact with Ray Schelble, of RMA, through emails, phone calls and personal meetings.
**2. I did interact with Roger Wilson before the Board meeting…through email and phone calls. **
3. I did meet with Walt, outside the meeting of the Blue Ribbon Fisheries council which I also attended with Ray Schelble.

**I was never told outright that the proposal did not have a chance. But, virtually everybody I talked to, at every level, pretty much said the same thing: “There is no doubt that the perch can stand some harvest…BUT…”. **

**The “BUT” always came back down to the “process”, and that the process had been put in place to avoid another “Middle Provo Situation”. My frustration was that the MPS was mostly upsetting to the fly flingers…a totally different group than family perch fishermen. And, the bottom line is that the MPS really changed nothing and had no bad fallout. **

Was opening Yuba to perch an emergency? No…not by UDWR standards. Was it a good idea? Yes…for most Utah anglers. Could it have been passed for the 2007 proclamation without harm to the fishery? Definitely. Was the “biology” there, both from nettings and angler input? Yes.

Again, I was disappointed, because I wasted a lot of time, energy and personal resources in chasing a project that made sense and could have been passed…but wasn’t because of “rules”. If I had been told upfront that there was no chance, I would have backed off and gone through the process next year. But, never once was I told anything other than “Be sure you show up to show your support, and be prepared with facts.”

I only lost the effort I put into this. I have the knowledge and the resources to fish wherever I want and catch whatever species I target. Fishermen who like to fish Yuba and catch perch are the losers. That is one more year they can’t take advantage of a booming perch population before the inevitable crash.

Thanks for chiming in. I only locked the other thread because it was turning into a personal issue thing, with sniping overtones. That is usually my signal that the useful life of the thread is at an end. We don’t mind open discussion and controversy, as long as it can be without name calling and personal attacks.

3

Tubedude,

From being at the last UAC it sounds like their is a miscommunication problem. I would invite you to come to the next meeting as my guest (anyone can come) so that I can present your side of the story. I can say that I heard a completely different story when I was there last month and I asked some real specific questions regarding the process.

There is an extremly valid point in your comments that I would like the coalition to take a stand on. I tried to get to that point at the last UAC and I would like to get to it again having you there would help.

The only thing that I strongly disagree with is that the MP situation should be treated different because we are flyfishers. The fact of the matter is that flyfishers use that river more than any other piece of moving water in the state. Flyfishing is by far the dominant form of fishing on moving waters and that group should be listened to. The fact of the matter is that flyfisherman showed up in force at the Central RAc and spoke for almost two hours straight against the MP. They showed up in force at the Wildlife Board and the change was passed anyway. They also sent as many or more people to the Northeast and Northen region as you did on the central.

4

:sunglasses:I would be happy to join you at the next UAC meeting, but not just to make noise. I really would like to take a more active role in seeing how things work and to become better informed.

Also, I apologize if I seemed to make light of the Middle Provo thing. I can understand how it might be deemed hallowed water for a large number of serious fly fishermen. Such places are too few and changes should not be made without considering all perspectives, especially from those who should have the greatest input. My only point was that the fish populations have not changed appreciatively, outside of the changes in water flows, etc. At least that is what I have been led to believe. I make no claim at being an expert on that stretch of water.

One of my favorite “old sayings” is “Anything that is not clearly understood…is misunderstood.” We don’t need any more misunderstandings.

Send me a PM with the particulars of the next UAC meeting and we will hook up.

5

[reply] The fact of the matter is that flyfisherman showed up in force at the Central RAc and spoke for almost two hours straight against the MP. They showed up in force at the Wildlife Board and the change was passed anyway. They also sent as many or more people to the Northeast and Northen region as you did on the central.[/reply]

BUT, the big difference is that the regional biologist was providing information and data supporting the change for the MP; whereas, the regional biologist provided information supporting the change with Yuba. That is a very noticeable difference…

6

But the regional biologist failed to get the data in on time for the dwr process and failed to get that data to the angler groups who had paid for the perch relocation prior to the article in the paper. All it took was a phone call and that is also a very noiceable difference.

7

Only because the data wasn’t available and couldn’t be available until after the deadline. Also, the regional biologist didn’t know that this proposal was going to be made until right before the RAC…why should he have put the data together and presented it to angler groups earlier? This is definitely a circumstance where the system’s new process failed the anglers.

Dave, you have asserted that RMA was against the regulation change…where it has been stated otherwise on this site. You are also asserting that the special interest groups that paid for relocation and habitat projects should have special priveleges…I disagree. Isn’t that bribery?

8

Stu,

All I can say is what I personally heard from the Rocky Mountain guy. I do believe they did say something against it at the RAC. Did they change their position since I talked to him? I don’t know and it is very likely. It’s not that this really was that big of hot button issue.

The issue with money is this the Blue ribbon fisheries gave $40,000 for perch relocation into a yuba to create a blue ribbon Walleye fishery. There was a specific plan in place for recovery. The members of the blue ribbon at the last UAC said there had not been a Yuba update to the blue ribbon. The proposal was a deviation from that plan. Yes, in my opnion they do have the right to know what is going on there, and it is just common sense and courtesy to let them know.

Once again, I take issue that they did not know. It’s been all over this site and we both know that this site as well as others are commonly “browsed” by Dwr biologist. Even beyond that if the biologist are in ignorance you two will keep them informed. There was an article written in the paper a week before.

Stu, ultimately the reason I am having this conversation is I would like to work with Pat in making a change to the process, that will give the anglers a little more flexibility in the future in cases like this.

9

[reply]
Stu, ultimately the reason I am having this conversation is I would like to work with Pat in making a change to the process, that will give the anglers a little more flexibility in the future in cases like this.[/reply]

Good…because there should be some flexibility. The sake of following a rule just for the sake of following a rule is dumb…there are times when rules need to be broken.

10

:sunglasses:Just a point here, for all concerned. The money spent for improvements and restocking at Yuba was not private money. It was taxpayer money, voted upon and spent by the Blue Ribbon Waters council and supervised by RMA…whose members also donated/invested a lot of personal time to the project.

However, in listening to the discussions within the groups, there seemed to be a “proprietary” claim on the results because of the funds allocated.

Bottom line was that it was anglers’ money, spent by committee. Then, the anglers were turned away when they wanted to enjoy some of the benefits.

11

Just to clarify, the anglers were turned away when they wanted to deviate from the origional plan. Not because they wanted to enjoy some of the benefits.
The anglers $ is still there, doing it’s work. The anglers will get to reap all of the benefits of all of the work in 2008. It should be spectacular.