06-26-2010, 01:29 AM
I will attempt to pass on as best as I can what I saw and heard at the meeting.
The first portion of the meeting was a review of HB141. I somehow completely misunderstood the intent of HB141. According to counsel for the legislature HB 141 was passed to clean up those areas that were ambiguous or not covered by Conatser. Somehow we ended up in a pre Conatser state where the only water usage is to float upon the waters with only incidental touching of the bottom. The counselor did make on interesting offhand comment that "navigable waterways" are handled differently because of federal laws. I do know that virtually all fishable waters in Utah would qualify as navigable under the federal definition.
So the DWR was tasked with providing mitigation to quell the discontented masses.
At this point the DWR took over and gave a marketing presentation to the task force. The focus was on providing more access to streams and how to get the funding to do so.
On the positive side the fishing community was listed as a 708 million $ industry with 460,000 fisherman. This was mentioned as being larger than the skiing and movie industries.
On the bad side I felt that there were a few slides that left a few things unstated or greatly understated. One slide showed that 7% of fisherman fished streams only, and 28% fished lakes only. What was missed is that 72% fished streams sometimes. The worst item I saw was a slide that showed the private versus public streams. It showed there were 6500 miles of fishable streams in Utah, 4000 public and 2500 private. So where is the problem - that means 62% is public? What wasn't explained was that the vast majority of those streams were all the small streams and creeks in the Uinta's and Wasatch mountains. Most of those streams are not accessible on a "casual basis". For many they are not accessible at all.
It was also mentioned that license fees have not increased since 1993. The DWR did make several comments though that often times raising fees means a reduction in actual income as many people will no longer buy a license.
The DWR presented 4 options to increase stream access:
1) Acquisition - very expensive, would take time to build up noticeable stream access.
2) Easements - often cost up to 90% of acquisition
3) Lease
4) Landowner incentives (mainly used for hunting properties)
The rest of the meeting was spent on the lease option which is called WIA (walk in access) by the DWR. The fishing areas along the middle Weber are an example of the DWR WIA program.
Currently the state has 5.75 miles of stream in the WIA program. Any landowner who has more than 1/4 mile of steam can get paid (rate is approx 863$ per year/mile) to allow stream access. The landowner can tailor how the access is done - only specific entries, exits from the property etc.
As usual money is the issue. The DWR actually mentioned again that an increase in license fees often results in a decrease in revenue as a % of people will not buy after the increase. The DWR stated they were hesitant to raise fees more than a few dollars. One representative mentioned that since only a low % of fisherman fish streams then they should pay for the privilege. Which became a conversation on a “stream access stamp” in the range of 3-10 dollars?
One potential upside to the stamp was that only those that have a stamp would be able to fish the WIA streams. They proposed having a sign in box at each access point. Enforcement would still be an issue.
Many of you will remember the survey the DWR did 2 years ago regarding access and general fishing fees. That was during the period Conatser was in effect. I would expect to see a repeat of the survey in the next few months.
The brief synopsis is – HB141 is fact - deal with it. If you want stream access – pay for it.
This meeting allowed absolutely no input from the public. It was mentioned that they would probably allow some in the next 3 or 4 meetings – which are tentativly scheduled in Heber, Roosevelt, and Panguitch. If I were a cynic I might think this was done because the next three meetings are on much less hostile ground.
On a side note I ran into former SLC mayor Ted Wilson. He was there as a member of Gov. Herbert’s staff – and is apparently heading a parallel task force. If I remember correctly Mayor Wilson was on the board of the Utah Rivers Council for a while. That should make him an ally of sorts. Has anyone heard any details in regards to Gov Herbert’s task force?
If anyone see’s any comments in the media on either task force could they post it here and keep us all up to date?
[signature]
The first portion of the meeting was a review of HB141. I somehow completely misunderstood the intent of HB141. According to counsel for the legislature HB 141 was passed to clean up those areas that were ambiguous or not covered by Conatser. Somehow we ended up in a pre Conatser state where the only water usage is to float upon the waters with only incidental touching of the bottom. The counselor did make on interesting offhand comment that "navigable waterways" are handled differently because of federal laws. I do know that virtually all fishable waters in Utah would qualify as navigable under the federal definition.
So the DWR was tasked with providing mitigation to quell the discontented masses.
At this point the DWR took over and gave a marketing presentation to the task force. The focus was on providing more access to streams and how to get the funding to do so.
On the positive side the fishing community was listed as a 708 million $ industry with 460,000 fisherman. This was mentioned as being larger than the skiing and movie industries.
On the bad side I felt that there were a few slides that left a few things unstated or greatly understated. One slide showed that 7% of fisherman fished streams only, and 28% fished lakes only. What was missed is that 72% fished streams sometimes. The worst item I saw was a slide that showed the private versus public streams. It showed there were 6500 miles of fishable streams in Utah, 4000 public and 2500 private. So where is the problem - that means 62% is public? What wasn't explained was that the vast majority of those streams were all the small streams and creeks in the Uinta's and Wasatch mountains. Most of those streams are not accessible on a "casual basis". For many they are not accessible at all.
It was also mentioned that license fees have not increased since 1993. The DWR did make several comments though that often times raising fees means a reduction in actual income as many people will no longer buy a license.
The DWR presented 4 options to increase stream access:
1) Acquisition - very expensive, would take time to build up noticeable stream access.
2) Easements - often cost up to 90% of acquisition
3) Lease
4) Landowner incentives (mainly used for hunting properties)
The rest of the meeting was spent on the lease option which is called WIA (walk in access) by the DWR. The fishing areas along the middle Weber are an example of the DWR WIA program.
Currently the state has 5.75 miles of stream in the WIA program. Any landowner who has more than 1/4 mile of steam can get paid (rate is approx 863$ per year/mile) to allow stream access. The landowner can tailor how the access is done - only specific entries, exits from the property etc.
As usual money is the issue. The DWR actually mentioned again that an increase in license fees often results in a decrease in revenue as a % of people will not buy after the increase. The DWR stated they were hesitant to raise fees more than a few dollars. One representative mentioned that since only a low % of fisherman fish streams then they should pay for the privilege. Which became a conversation on a “stream access stamp” in the range of 3-10 dollars?
One potential upside to the stamp was that only those that have a stamp would be able to fish the WIA streams. They proposed having a sign in box at each access point. Enforcement would still be an issue.
Many of you will remember the survey the DWR did 2 years ago regarding access and general fishing fees. That was during the period Conatser was in effect. I would expect to see a repeat of the survey in the next few months.
The brief synopsis is – HB141 is fact - deal with it. If you want stream access – pay for it.
This meeting allowed absolutely no input from the public. It was mentioned that they would probably allow some in the next 3 or 4 meetings – which are tentativly scheduled in Heber, Roosevelt, and Panguitch. If I were a cynic I might think this was done because the next three meetings are on much less hostile ground.
On a side note I ran into former SLC mayor Ted Wilson. He was there as a member of Gov. Herbert’s staff – and is apparently heading a parallel task force. If I remember correctly Mayor Wilson was on the board of the Utah Rivers Council for a while. That should make him an ally of sorts. Has anyone heard any details in regards to Gov Herbert’s task force?
If anyone see’s any comments in the media on either task force could they post it here and keep us all up to date?
[signature]