September 22,2003

Dear Dr. Max Morgan;

I am very troubled, as are all of my constituents, as to the Wildlife Board's approval of the Middle Provo River regulation change. I attended the Board and the Central RAC meetings. Having the opportunity to speak at both was appreciated. Yet, in all meetings it was rather apparent that this decision had been made sometime ago. You even stated prior to entertaining public comment that the board had already made its decision based on the RAC process and input.

Many of us questioned the process. You eluded that this proposal was not given appropriate time to involve or educate the public and those this decision impacts. You also mentioned that public comments made before the Board would have little if no effect on the your, the Board's, decision. Yet given the shortness of the process and the lack of opportunity to be involved, we felt we had no choice.

We were criticized in the Central Region for beating a dead horse. Later, we were criticized for not having enough public comment. There was so much opposition in the Central Region that the Chair criticized the public, and did so several times. Most in the audience were stunned to see the vote reached a 4-4 tie. There were only two people who spoke out in favor of the change. There were ten times as many who spoke out against the proposal. Yet the vote came to a tie. Many of those who spoke in that meeting are the same who spoke before the Board. Percentages against in both were comparable. We do give the Chair in the Central RAC credit for recognizing the overriding public sentiment against this regulation change. Otherwise the motion to accept would have passed. If the process is supposed to respond to public comment, there was little evidence of this that night.

One of your board members criticized Byron Gunderson, a RAC member from the central region, for having potential financial ties to this decision. Just a refresher, Mr. Gunderson owns and operates Fist Tech Outfitters. For your information, he has done more to educate and promote fishing in the Central Region than any other board member. This decision may affect his business, but in all my discussions with him regarding this matter, not once did Mr. Gunderson mention this fact. The Central RAC representative who spoke out in defense of Mr. Gunderson's position mirrored this sentiment. If your board member had taken the time to see the effort and time that Mr. Gunderson has contributed to support all aspects of fishing in this state, most recently the Willow Pond project, he would never have made such a statement. By the way, Mr. Gunderson's business sells bait and caters to those who choose to fish this way.

The Board and RAC members quickly made this issue out to be a bait vs fly-fishing issue. Those opposed never did. This wasn't an issue about allowing bait fishing on this section of the Provo. The issues we wanted resolved before an educated decision could be made involved the validity of Mr. Wiley's data. We strongly feel that Mr. Wiley's data was outdated, inconclusive and incomplete. This river today is a completely different river from the year 2000 and it is ever changing given the ongoing mitigation project and drought.

Members of the Wildlife Board and RAC continually referred to this Section of the Provo River as being fly-fishing only, catch and release. In fact it was mentioned several times that many of the state's fisheries that serve the "elite" fly-fishing group as having such a regulation. For the Board's clarification there are only two fly fishing only rivers in the state. Neither are catch and release. The Middle section of the Provo River is not one of these. In fact, if you check your regulations you'll find that it is artificial fly and lure. The current regulation serves over 80% of Utah's fishing public. It also allows for the taking of fish, 2 for that matter. If the taking of trout is truly needed at least the biologist could have given the current user group that opportunity. But, such was never the case. Instead, it was stated over and over again that fly fishers would not keep a trout. However, those who choose to fish with a fly are not the only user group that fishes this river. And, all who choose to fish with a fly are not alike.

There is another inference that needs clarification. Mr. Wiley, the Board and several RAC members insinuated that if you fished with bait you couldn't fish the Provo River. You can, you just can't use bait as your method of fishing. In fact many who fish with bait in other waters also fish the Provo in this particular section, but in doing so abide by the regulations. The regulation doesn't detain anyone from fishing this or any other river for that matter, unless it is closed. It's a matter of choice. As the older gentleman said: "it was his choice not to fish the special regulation section of the Provo..." just as it is our choice to fish the way each of us chooses.

And, as far as bait fishing goes on this and the lower section of the Provo, even though it is not legal, there is plenty of it going on. If you ever joined us on one of our clean-ups it would be very evident that there are a lot of anglers who fish this river with bait. Their bait containers, jars of cheese and salmon eggs litter the river's banks.

It kept coming up that many can't take their kids to fish this river or others with similar restriction because of the regulation. That is their choice and if they choose not to fish these particular waters because of the regulation, there are many quality waters close by they can. Last time I checked, there was nothing in the regulation that said you couldn't take your kids to fish the Middle Section of the Provo. If those who reflect such concerns really care about taking their kids to fish, there are a number of quality fisheries in the central region that provide a great fishing experience that they can fish using all approved methods of angling. I should know, since I also fish many of these waters in addition to those waters that have special regulation and I fish them with my kid. The problem here is it takes a little more time to teach a kid to fish with lures or fly. If they don't want to take the time to teach them how to fish using these techniques, that is their choice. There is definitely no lack of water for them to choose from to enjoy the fishing experience. Having taught many kids to fish, what is lacking, if you ask me, is effort. But, what do I know. I've only been fishing for 40 years and have taught countless anglers of all ages to fish for the past 20. Many of these anglers have been kids.

In the RAC and Board meetings it was obvious that most of the members present had little or no knowledge of the current condition of the Middle section of the Provo. If they had, they would have known that the flashy presentation Mr. Wiley put before you only highlighted those misleading facts that supported his argument while not having or emphasizing the data that pointed to the contrary. For example, the data on silt he added for your benefit, which the public nor the RAC's were privy to, couldn't have been more skewed. Successive years of drought and construction on the river have yielded layers of smothering silt over expansive sections of this river. There is hardly a rock that you disturb when wading the river today that doesn't give off a cloud of deposited silt. In many sections it's over ankle deep. If you fished this river on a regular basis, you would know this. It is obvious! We have seen silt deposits steadily increase since the beginning of the mitigation project. Until the drought and construction end the continued impacts of these deposits will thwart the development of this fishery. To say that siltation has not been a factor in the demise of the fishery is just not true.

The build up of silt from construction and drought has also had a profound effect on this river's food base. The river's macro-invertebrates and the effects these impacts have had on them were not even a factor in Mr. Wiley's presentation. If you talk to any guide or anyone who has fished this river on a regular basis since it's peak in the late 90's, you'll quickly learn that the once prolific insect life has been decimated. This fact and data to support it was brought before the Wildlife Board yet, like many of our facts, fell on deaf ears. There was no data presented that even talked about this and I can understand why. Over the past several years the DWR has continued to plant fish in this section of the Provo even though their data from the year 2000 showed that there were too many trout in this river for the conditions present at the time. Those conditions have continued to erode over the years. The Division by it's own accord is not suppose to plant fish in a fishery that is under duress, and this one, given drought and extensive reconstruction still underway, most certainly is. If Mr. Wiley's data is correct and there are too many trout in this river, then why is the DWR continuing to plant fish there? More importantly, how can they make such a critical decision without appropriate macro-invertebrate data to support the stocking program?

Mr. Wiley stated in the RAC Central meeting that flows were not an issue here. That is absurd. In his presentation it showed they were, yet he avoided that particular fact. We may have a minimum stream flow of 125 cfs in the river, but if you go back to the middle and late 90's you'll see that the average minimum stream flows were significantly higher than what they are today. In fact the average flow in 1997 was 292 cfs at the Midway gauging station. In the year 2000, the last year of data available from Mr. Wiley's report, it was 147 cfs. You do the math. In the year 2003 these flows have even dropped more. This morning when I looked, the Midway Gauging Station flows were 108 cfs. In the late to middle 90's the average summer flow was three times this number. Flows have had a profound impact on the current condition of this river.

Fish counts! I walked this section of the Provo this past Sunday. Over the past six to seven years I have been here often. It's part of my job. The fish that Mr. Wiley alluded to as overpopulating this river dates back to the year 2000. Since that time much has changed, as I have alluded to. Those changes, especially over the past 3 years, have impacted the river's trout population. Drought stricken flows, continued construction, and a dramatic decrease in the rivers food base as a result of the previously mentioned conditions has led to significant fish kills since the year 2000. If you talk to the public and those who derive their living from this river you will hear this fact echoed. The Division is well aware of this as well. There have even been a number of articles in the paper, supported by the Division, that publicized this fact. Mr. Wiley alluded to this in his presentation before the board and again in the Central RAC meeting. The data that Mr. Wiley presented is outdated and there is no recent data to support his theory that there are too many trout in this river. Again, I don't see how a decision of this significance could be made without more recent information.

Your Board talked of the decrease in license sales and that this regulation change would help to stimulate such sales. This couldn't be further from the truth or the direction you need to move to stimulate the angling public's impetus to buy Utah fishing licenses. Your decision has given anglers many additional incentives to purchase their fishing licenses from our bordering states instead. If you check, you will find that the bordering state's license sales have declined as well. Almost every major sport has had a decline in participation since the year 2001. It's called the economy. For us in the West, toss in a five year drought on top of the current economic climate and you'll have your answer to the decline in license sales we are currently experiencing. Good water and a good economy will go a long way towards increased fishing license sales.

Your votes collectively slammed the door in the face of the group who does more to stimulate angling sales than any other group. We teach all anglers how to fish, we participate and voice our opinions in the process, we are involved, we donate significant time and money to involve and improve the angling experience in Utah. This "elite" group also does more to champion the DWR efforts and programs than any other group. This relationship has been significantly compromised. If you want to increase license sales and improve the angling experience, pray for rain. Creating regulations that lead to additional conflicts and overcrowding will not improve the angling experience, and will not resolve the problem.

In recent discussions with those involved in the reclamation project, it was stated that the direction the Division sought to change the regulation made little sense, especially if this was an enforcement issue. As you are aware, the enforcement concern involves Spring Creek, which for the moment and in the near future won't be open to the public or reclaimed. This being the case, there was no need to rush this decision. It was also felt by those involved in the reclamation process and made far more sense to make Spring Creek regulations mirror that of the Provo, as they currently exist. This would have avoided conflicts, avoided overcrowding and would of more easily resolve the enforcement issue.

This has been a long letter but you can't simply put this all into a single paragraph. If you are still with me I have one final question and comment: What was the urgency in moving the regulation change forward? There is much at stake here. You and the board were well aware of issues and concerns facing this decision, yet those issue and concerns were never resolved nor addressed at any level in the process. The public wasn't asking for this change, neither were the users. Again, all we were asking for was time. Time to study the data, time to complete the data, time to involve the users, and time to make a better decision. In the grand scheme of things there are no winners here.

Sincerely,
Steve Schmidt
President, Western Rivers Flyfisher