DWR's News Release; Jim Morkin's Statement Supporting the Change; Steve Schmidt's Protest Letter

Steve Schmidt, Western Rivers Flyfisher, is so opposed to the regulation change he is calling on the public to send protest letters to Wildlife Board members and DWR officials. Here is part of his statement:

If you care about this matter and it has an impact on your potential fishing experience, we need letters written to the following people. We should not let this pass without letting our feelings be known. Letters from those who fish Utah from out of state are of particular importance. If you have any questions or concerns that aren't addressed in (my) letter, please let me know. Also, please make your letters of an appropriate and professional tone if you want them to have an impact.

Wildlife Board Members
Brenda Freeman: Brenda.FreemanB7PQ@Statefarm.com
Coni Brooks: coni_brooks@hotmail.com
Dr. Max G. Morgan (Chair): m.morgan@castlenet.com
Jim Bowns: bowns_je@suu.edu
Richard Diamond: rdiamond@sisna.com
Allan Smith: aesmith@ubtanet.com

Bob Morgan, Executive Director, DWR: bobmorgan@utah.gov

I'm also concerned about the changes. The Provo is perhaps the most important trout stream in Utah. The Green is bigger and (in my opinion) better, but the Provo is the go-to water for the majority of Utah fly fishers. It supports an incredible number of pleasurable hours of recreation. With continued growth along the Wasatch Front, the river will just become more and more important. It needs maximum protection. Virtually every fishing organization in the state opposed this change. Here are some of my specific thoughts:

1. I'll never argue the biology that went into the decision. I respect DWR's professional managers, their scientific studies and statistical analysis.
2. I'm concerned about the change process. There is a perception that the decision was already made before the public process began - that public comments were sought in a flimsy attempt to appease anglers. I don't know if that charge is true; the mere fact that many people believe it suggests there is a real problem.
3. I believe we need to allow bait fishing on some quality stream sections. Fly fishers shouldn't get all the best waters. But a stream this important, with such great potential, so close to the Wasatch Front, should get maximum protection.
4. When possible, there should be substantial natural differences between stream sections with different regulations, to make it easy to identify where the regulations change. Even after all these years, many anglers are still uncertain where bait fishing becomes legal on the lower Provo. This new regulation will result in considerable confusion.
5. A key reason stated justifying this change was the need to harvest more fish from that section of river. I believe that result could have been achieved without such a drastic change. I believe fly fishers can be educated and persuaded to harvest more fish from specific areas.

-- Dave Webb

The DWR News Release

The quality of trout that anglers catch on a 2¼-mile portion of the middle Provo River above Deer Creek Reservoir should improve after the board voted to allow anglers to use bait, and keep four brown, rainbow or cutthroat trout a day, while fishing between the Charleston Bridge and the Legacy Bridge.

This 2¼-mile section covers less than 20 percent of the middle Provo River, a 10-mile stretch of river in north-central Utah that's one of the most popular fishing rivers in the state.

Until Jan. 1, 2004, anglers may keep only two brown trout a day on the 2¼-mile stretch, and they must continue to use artificial flies or lures only.

"Completion of Jordanelle Reservoir in the mid-1990s, and ongoing work to restore portions of the middle Provo River, have reduced sediment in the river and have greatly improved river flows and fish habitat along the entire 10-mile stretch. With the improved conditions, the number of trout in the river is increasing," said Tom Pettengill, sport fisheries coordinator for the Division of Wildlife Resources.

"At the same time, in 2002 anglers kept only 1 to 2 percent of the brown trout they caught on the middle Provo," he said. "The number of brown trout in the river is increasing and that's impacting the population. The length, weight and overall quality of the fish are declining. Some fish are also dying each fall from fungal and bacterial infections. This loss is occurring because brown trout are too abundant for the resource, and fish are in poor condition.

"If anglers will take more fish, the growth and health of the remaining fish should improve and the quality of the fish in the middle Provo should be back to where it was before it became overpopulated," Pettengill said. "Opening this section to bait anglers, and allowing anglers to keep more fish, should increase the number of fish that are kept and make the middle Provo a premiere fishery again."

On the remaining portions of the middle Provo River, the artificial flies and lures only restriction will remain in effect after Jan. 1, but anglers will be allowed to keep two trout of any species as long as the fish are under 15 inches in length. Until Jan. 1, only brown trout may be kept.

An Elegant Statement Supporting the Change

By Jim Morkin, Northern Region RAC Member

My reason for supporting the Divison proposal is as follows:

1. The change was recommended by a biologist that I (and you) have worked with successfully for a number of years. In balance however, I do not think adequate advance public information was made regarding the change in a timely manner ( I use the changes at Strawberry Reservoir as an example ... the public had many "months" to consider those changes and provide either positive or negative support).

2. In terms of actual history we know that the "theory" of artificial lures only fishing coupled with angler catch and release habits have been found to be wanting since the '60's. One of a number of Cases in Point described to me by a long term Northern Biologist was the Blacksmith Fork River ( I believe section 6)... it was designated as artificials only with a slot limit from 12-18 inches in about 1969. Ongoing surveys indicated size decreases due to Trout over crowding and lack of available forage because of that overcrowding, until the '97 survey never found a fish in that section of the river which would reach the slot limit minimums (12"). A seven (7) year old fish did not exceed eleven (11) inches. At that time the "artificials only" requirement was lifted and standard Statewide rules re-implemented. Today all is better.

3. At the last UAC meeting Danny Potts brought forth a great point regarding the Provo which I took to heart. Anyone who wants a fish dinner will not fish the Provo (at least Danny said he wouldn't). The 2 fish limit encourages either catch and release or break the law and exceed the posted limits, 2 fish is not enough to make a family meal... as a result almost total "catch and release" is practiced, likely to the detriment of both the stream's population and fish size. Population increases, if historical data is reliable, will likely outstrip the ability of the Stream to support healthy growth.

4. As to the point made regarding "not enough data" acquired by DWR to make the change ... except for the fact that history seems to be repeating itself (IE: Blacksmith Fork & others), I cannot speak to that except to say that I tend to trust the instincts of the particular professional biologist who is recommending the change. If it does not work out it can be changed back. We must bear in mind that we are dealing primarily with non-native species and artifically maintained waters here ... and almost everywhere else in Utah below the seven thousand (7000) foot level.

5. I still think, as I stated at the UAC meeting that this is more of an emotional issue than anything else ( I sensed the outrage which permeated the whole room at the thought of giving up any "artificial lures only" water ... period ... and I sympathize) . I am aware of the very hard work done over the years by the cold water folks to attain (almost) a whole major "local" cold water stream which runs for many, many, miles ... from high altitude headwaters to near the borders of a major Utah City in the Valley. I respect those accomplishments ... at the same time I truly believe that we need to take more fish from that stream or lose what we have gained. We will know in short order, one way or the other. If nothing is accomplished by the change it can be corrected.

and finally

6. The fact that only a few voices were raised in opposition to the change at the Northern Region RAC meeting caused me concern. If there had been ten (10) voices in opposition it would have been incumbent upon me to ask that the change "at least" be tabled until a more clear picture was available on which to vote yea or nay. I cannot be sure others on the Northern RAC would have agreed but concerns by at least one NRAC member would have been a matter of record.