Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Panguitch Lake: Transcript of Wildlife Board Comments at meeting on 11/03/2011
#1
For those of you that care about the happenings of Panguitch Lake, I thought you would find the following interesting. I made a transcript of the audio of the Wildlife Board's comments on Panguitch Lake from their meeting on 11/03/2011. You can find the audio here: http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings...-11-03.mp3

The transcript is not perfect, mind you. It begins at 1:14:12 and ends at 1:24:08. I don't know any of the people present so I can't distinguish out specific people by name. Each new paragraph is a new or different person speaking than the previous paragraph, and is marked as P1, P2, etc. to help know when a new person speaks. People later on could be also listed earlier (p11 could be p1). It was simply to help in understanding interactions in the conversation.
Here is the text:

beginning of transcript of the Utah Wildlife Board minutes 11-03-2011 concerning Panguitch Lake

starting at 1:14:12

(supposedly southern rac rep):Mr chairmen, we didn't have any discussion...we had no public there. We had some discussion amongst the RAC related to the status of Panguitch lake and things, but we passed this agenda item unanimously as well.

P1:ok. Do we have....? We've got one comment card. This is the next one. (unintelligible speaking in background).I have no comments from the audience. We've heard a presentation. All of the RACS have vote unanimously. Motion from the board. Ernie?

P2 (Ernie): Chair rep, I'd like to make a comment first. We received, we board members received a lot of public input...strong, very strong public input on the Panguitch Lake topic. And I was extremely disappointed that we didn't see any representation of that opinion and theoretically as significant number of people at the southern region rac. And I'd like to send a personal message to our sportsment and other folks in the State, that if they don't go to a RAC meeting, they do so at peril of what they're supporting. That's the proper place to be doing this and its the right place to be doing it in accordance with our state management system. So with that
comment I think I see maybe another couple of people who are interested in saying something if there's not another motion I'll make one at that point.

P3:I agree with what Ernie had to say there also. So I won't make any more comments on that, but after we vote on this particular item I'd like to discuss one fishing problem that is just a comment.

P1:ok. With no other comments

P4: I'd like to make a motion then that we accept the Fishing Guide book and rule as presented by the division for this year and also ask that the southern region convene a work group or other as the southern division and region have already offered to address this subject over the coming year and see if...

P5Big Grino you think we really need to revisit that or just give it some time to work out? As Drew talked about? I think the way the Panguitch lake fishery is going right now is pretty successful.

P4:My recommendation there was based on..I think there's enough mud and allegations flying around the place that a...and with the division and region in offering to do so, I think that it would be worth the effort.

P6:Ok, let me do this. Bill, go ahead.

P7:Ya, I just want to ask a clarifying question on Ernie's comments about email on this..on the computers here you can see it talks about asking people to share ideas at a rac meeting or email ideas to the division so are we saying we don't want people to send emails if they can't get to a rac meeting?

P4:Thank you Bill. No, I'm not trying to discourage that but the idea that something that has those types of allegations flying around and nobody even comes to the rac meeting to express them is just a.. abhorrent to me.

P1:Ok. Let me sort of divide that up, ok? We're to make a motion...

P8: Can I ask a question before we do this? There is mention of a Panguitch Lake Advisory committee or working group or something like that. Who's the sponsor of that group, and who oversees that and what's their role? Do they have an official role? I'm not familiar with that. And are there other lakes in the State that have a similar group?

P9: That group was put together by the Division of Wildlife because of the nature of Panguitch Lake. It was put together immediately after the treatment....er...before the treatment and was made up of lodge owners, anglers, ....really anyone who had an interest in panguitch lake and at that time.....it's been.....and even though the regulation change, the benchmarks in that plan remain solid..as you know what is or what determines success or failure of panguitch lake, you know, that remains solid even if the rainbows are not protected. However, you know, like you said, we would be interested in putting a group together. It would probably consist of the
same people. Uh, and go through it again.

P8:Well that's not a standing group that meets regularly. Its something that's not even meeting right now? Is that right?

P9 (supposedly DWR rep (Drew Cushings??) or biologist): It is not. It was put together for the sole purpose of coming up with a management plan for Panguitch Lake and benchmarks associated with that plan from all interested parties.

P10:When was that plan put into play?

P9:'06, immediately after the treatment.

P10:And so we've been 5 years in the plan?

P9:Yes.

P10:With 4 changes in 5 years?

P9:a 3 changes....and if we change another that was the 4th that I was discussing.

P10: ok. you think it just needs some time to see what's going on there?

P9: don't know. I think maybe. You know it doesn't hurt to check and see what the public would......you know if the public opion has changed about Panguitch lake, I think that's important to know. And from that perspective the group would be worthy to put back together, revisit the plan, make sure that those benchmarks are still consistent with the needs and desires of Panguitch anglers.

P10: When you put that group together, is that an expense to the division or is that just kind of a voluntary...I mean its an expense for the division personnel to be there, everbody else is just on a voluntary basis so its not a huge budget issue in a time of a budget crunch?

P9:No it would be the work time.

P10:There would be additional work time?

P9:ya.

P11Big Grinrew, let me ask you. when you say, the anglers using the property...I want...would you expand on that...because I want people here to understand what that means.

P9:u...u...users....say that again Dell?

P11 (Dell):The users, the angler use on that lake, 'cause there's two different factions there.

P9 (Drew): We do angler creel surveys. And what that is...it's a determination of the amount of use on per month basis, 6 month basis or a year. And the use is in angler hours. that's how we describe it. And the use dropped dramatically when those rainbows were protected. So when people couldn't take them home the use dropped by 2/3's. We did a follow up creel survey, I believe it was a 3 month creel survey when the rainbows were not protected and that use in those same 3 months rebounded fully back to the original pressure. And that's the best I can describe. Does that help Dell?

P11(Dell): Sure. And...let me just talk for a minute. One of the thinks I'm interpreting and what I'm seeing is that 1. you have out of state fisherman there because of the cabin use from out of state property owners and 2. then you have the local individuals, and so you have...and I was talking to one of the other individuals in the DWR...on holiday weekends, that place is packed with out of state angler use. Am I right?

P9(Drew): I believe 78% is out of state use?

P12(someone in background): It's typically over 50.

P11(Dell): Typically over 50. So I'll make a suggestion. If we're going to have a little committee, we ought to have people from both sides...in state and out of state, if there is any way to do that, you know. With that I'm going to be quiet. Unless...'cause I want to move on and we have a motion on the floor. And I want to separate one from the other.

P13: And what Dell said there...it means a lot to those lake owners. And when Tom Hatch made that motion a couple of years ago to change the way we fish there it made a big difference in the amount of people that came back and those peoples that have survived there and I appreciate Dell's comments there and I should have followed on there myself.

P11(Dell): Ok, Ernie.

P14(Ernie): Ya, I'll restate the motion. Then I'll make first motion ...I move that we accept the Fishing Guide Book and Rule R65713 as proposed by the division.

P11(Dell) I motion a second to accept the proposal as presented by the DWR. All in favor?

(ayes)

end of transcript at 1:24:08
[signature]
Reply
#2
[quote Flyfish4thrills]


(supposedly southern rac rep):Mr chairmen, we didn't have any discussion...we had no public there. We had some discussion amongst the RAC related to the status of Panguitch lake and things, but we passed this agenda item unanimously as well.


P2 (Ernie): Chair rep, I'd like to make a comment first. We received, we board members received a lot of public input...strong, very strong public input on the Panguitch Lake topic. And I was extremely disappointed that we didn't see any representation of that opinion and theoretically as significant number of people at the southern region rac. And I'd like to send a personal message to our sportsment and other folks in the State, that if they don't go to a RAC meeting, they do so at peril of what they're supporting. That's the proper place to be doing this and its the right place to be doing it in accordance with our state management system. So with that
comment I think I see maybe another couple of people who are interested in saying something if there's not another motion I'll make one at that point.





hum maybe they would have more public input.. if they realy lisend to the public input and acted on it with respect to the pudlic that was showing intress in what they are doing and or not doing!!!!!!!!!
[signature]
Reply
#3
Fuzzy, you are exactly right. It is hard feeling sorry for the Wildlife Board. This Perkins guy seems clueless. The real issue here is the fact that the previous Wildlife Board was sold a bill of goods by Tom Hatch regarding Panguitch Lake. The Wildlife Board is finally starting to hear it and they are butt sore. Hunters are pounding the Wildlife Board for snuggling up and spooning with SFW and Don Peay and now they are hearing it from anglers because they swallowed hook line and sinker the sales job Tom Hatch laid on them. I don't feel sorry for these guys. Nice strategy Perkins, nothing like ragging on working class anglers that have to be at work and can't attend 10:00 a.m. wildlife board dog and pony shows.
[signature]
Reply
#4
For us that don't know what they are talking about...

What are they talking about??
[signature]
Reply
#5
Bassrods: Tom Hatch was a former southern Utah politician from Panguitch. For a while he was under investigation for poaching a bull elk during a cow elk hunt. Witnesses testified he shot a bull elk illegally. But at the time he was a Utah state senator and knew he would be sunk if convicted. The focus of the investigation shifted to his brother who he was hunting with. His brother took the fall and was charged. After getting out of politics Hatch had a chip on his shoulder about the DWR. He got appointed to the Wildlife Board but only wanted to be in there long enough to gut the DWR's law enforcement budget and make radical changes to Panguitch Lake. He is no longer on the Wildlife Board, but the current Board is now hearing the fall out from anglers.
[signature]
Reply
#6
Thanks for letting us know, but what about Panguitch??
[signature]
Reply
#7
Bassrods: for a few years after the last treatment Panguitch Lake had lots of big rainbows. They were placed in a protective slot with the cutts and tigers. But the good ole boys from Panguitch didn't like rainbows being in a protective slot. Hatch wanted to help his old cronies out but knew it would be a hard sell to convince anyone to change the regulations based on some old timers grumbling about the regs. Hatch decided to change his strategy and he started claiming the businesses around the lake were suffering. This was not true because at the time the big resort at the lake was going through a major expansion and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on new cabins, an rv park etc. The recreation manager at Panguitch Lake resort even went to a RAC meeting and said they were happy with how things were going and business was fine. since Hatch was on the Wildlife Board he pushed through a change in rules and strong armed the board members into changing the regulations. He did not go through the RACs or get the blessing from the DWR to do this. Shortly after that he resigned from the Wildlife Board because he got what he wanted. Now the wildlife board realized they got duped and are hearing the anglers complain. Perkins on the Wildlife Board is sick and tired of getting emails from anglers complaining. If the Wildlife Board had questioned Hatch originally and pushed him to actually prove his point we probably wouldn't be in this mess. But the board got suckered into his sales job and now they are payin' the price. Good ole boy Utah politics and backroom dealings at its best. The DWR probably didn't want to speak up because Hatch held a powerful position in the senate and was on the committee that decided the DWR's budget.
[signature]
Reply
#8
Ah, good ol' politics. Reminds me of Levitt. Once you get in the position of power, you get to systematically destroy those that picked on you and embarrassed you.

I guess this is proof that attendance to the RACS is important.
[signature]
Reply
#9
The head of the DWR reports to the govener and that is wrong! The DWR should not answer to politics. It should be governed by public in put and biologist employed by the DWR, that is the reason they are there. The majority of the budget comes from sportsmen and women. Politicians should not be allowed on the wildlife board or any other position in the DWR. Don't get me wrong, unfortunately politics are involved. When sportsmen marched on the capitol rally in support of proposition 5 (constitutional amendment) to protect fishing and hunting for all, the money going from Utahs budget to the DWR was $250,000.00 a year. When the govener saw the turnout, around 5000 sportsmen, the govener signed a bill changing that funding to 1.5 million. It turned out to be the second largest capitol rally in utah history. Who organized the rally Don Peay with SFW. Who was the govener Mike Levett. It was a big help in the building of the now famous elk hunting in Utah. It was the beginning of the eventual funding to rebuild all Utah fish hatcheries.
[signature]
Reply
#10
Yes I see what you mean..[crazy]

I use to help the DWR but the politics was more then I could take so I left..

The Rack is all politics ..
[signature]
Reply
#11
[quote skeeterfishn1]The head of the DWR reports to the govener and that is wrong! The DWR should not answer to politics. It should be governed by public in put and biologist employed by the DWR, that is the reason they are there. The majority of the budget comes from sportsmen and women. Politicians should not be allowed on the wildlife board or any other position in the DWR..[/quote]


I could not disagree more!!!!!
the best way to keep the DWR in line with what the public wants is to make them answer to the public that is paying there wages!!!! right now NO ONE WITH THE DWR ANSERS TO THE PUBLIC FOR ANYTHING THEY DO!!!
no elicited official work for the DWR that can be voted out if the public don't think they are doing there job's!!

that would do away with a lot of speical intrest groups geting sweet hart deals and the public getting a shaft!
[signature]
Reply
#12
I don't understand your post. The govenor would not make public input any different. In my post it said that it should be governed by PUBLIC input and BIOLOGY, not politics. Like Bass Rods says to much politics!
[signature]
Reply
#13
yeah i can see you dont understand!!

right now the DWR Answer's to no one! not even the Govenor!! no one elected by the PUBLIC!!!!!! so no one to blame when things are not in the public intrest!!!

how much input do you think they will take from the public if they dont have to answer to the public for there actions???

put someone in there that has to answer to the public and they will take a lot more notice of what the public wants done with public resorcess!!!!
[signature]
Reply
#14
Ouch...this thread is really hurting the intelligence of Utah fishermen. Ernie Perkins happens to be the best WB member Utah has. He has, time and again, been the one who has stood up for the voices of angler/hunters across the state. HE is NOT the one you guys should be complaining about.

What you guys should be complaining about is all of the fishermen who lack the balls to stand up for what they believe, show up to a RAC or WB meeting, and actually fight to have fishing waters managed the way they believe. Sadly, as is, it looks like Utah fishermen are pansies.

I, like Mr. Perkins, am appalled that fishermen show so much apathy....and, frankly, I don't buy the idea that the RACs and WB just don't listen argument. You can either learn to play the game like many hunters have or you can sit behind a computer and whine about things...it is your choice. It looks to me like Mr. Perkins is tired of fighting for fishermen that would rather sit home and complain!
[signature]
Reply
#15
[quote wormandbobber]You can either learn to play the game like many hunters have or you can sit behind a computer and whine about things...it is your choice. It looks to me like Mr. Perkins is tired of fighting for fishermen that would rather sit home and complain![/quote]

that's the ironic part of all this. Anglers send emails, chat on boards, and complain about the process not working. Hunters, on the other hand, organize groups and hold meetings -- then they attend the RACs and WB meetings and see end results.

Why is it that hunters have figured out how to use the system, but anglers are still complaining behind their keyboards???

I thought Ernie's comments were very appropriate. (Jake Albrecht's, on the other hand, were a bit further than left field!)
[signature]
Reply
#16
I can see your frustration. The board members are appointed by the govener. Unfortunately politics are part of the DWR but they shouldn't be. I don't see any way around it. They should only hire and appoint sportsman to any position in the DWR. The biggest problem we have is how to change it. I watched and worked with Don Peay and saw the man hours and money it took to make the changes in the DWR. There are not many people that are willing to put that much effort. It is better than it used to be by far. The hard question is how do we make it even better.
[signature]
Reply
#17
RE" NO ONE WITH THE DWR ANSERS TO THE PUBLIC FOR ANYTHING THEY DO!!!"


I think you are trying to give the DWR credit for being more powerful than they really are. The truth is that the DWR is one of the most impotent agencies in state government. They do not even have the power to enact their own regulations! Every fish and game regulation is enacted by the Wildlife board. And how many DWR personnel are full voting members of the Wildlife board? Yep, zero. Ask the hunters how well the wildlife board listens to the DWR when they ignored the biologists and DWR in enacting the new deer hunting regulations. [mad]
The Wildlife board is the ultimate in politicians that have absolutely zero public accountability. Personally, I would prefer the DWR to have more power to enact their own regulations. I think they would be less prone to special interests than the current system. I would also say that the PL issue notwithstanding, the DWR has recently seemed to do a better job in soliciting and when possible enacting what the public wants. Willard bay is a good example.

As for Panguitch lake, while I believe that the issue is far more complex than being only an issue of angler apathy at the RAC level, Mr. Perkins and the Hepps are right that angler involvement in participating in the decision making process is generally a disgrace.
[signature]
Reply
#18
Well said, just to change the date on a hunting season it has to go the the legislature.
[signature]
Reply
#19
[quote wormandbobber] He has, time and again, been the one who has stood up for the voices of angler across the state. It looks to me like Mr. Perkins is tired of fighting for fishermen that would rather sit home and complain![/quote]

wormandbobber can you please provide some specific examples where Mr. Perkins has fought for fishermen as a member of the Wildlife Board?? With the internet now and the board meeting minutes available online you should have no difficulty finding examples of Mr. Perkins tireless fight to help anglers. Since you made the bold comments above you must already know of instances where "time and time again" he has fought for us anglers. Oh and when you find those examples please post them on this site. Thank you.
[signature]
Reply
#20
They do not even have the power to enact their own regulations! Every fish and game regulation is enacted by the Wildlife board. And how many DWR personnel are full voting members of the Wildlife board? Yep, zero. Ask the hunters how well the wildlife board listens to the DWR when they ignored the biologists and DWR in enacting the new deer hunting regulations. [mad]
The Wildlife board is the ultimate in politicians that have absolutely zero public accountability.



you seprate wildlife board from DWR.. maybe you have a point! but i dont seprate the 2 thay are one in the same!!
any government agencie that has control of public resorses that dont have to acount for they'er actions too the public shoud not exist in the USA.. this is why the founding fathers fought the for independense...
[signature]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)