Posts: 506
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
READ MY POST AGAIN. THE PART ON PENALTIES. IT WORKS FOR MANY OTHER STATES WHY NOT HERE? EVEN IN WYOMING IT WORKING FOR THEM AND THEIR WALLEYE WATERS. ALLINDER PRES AND FOUNDER OF INFISHERMAN AND WALLEYE INSIDER GOES THERE EVERY YR OR TWO AND MAKES MOVIES OF THEIR KILLER EYES. AND HUGE TROUT. SO EXPLAIN THAT TO ME WHY IT WORKS FOR ABUCH OF OTHER PROGRAMS ACROSS THE NATION. EVEN CALIFORNIA THE LIBRAL STATE ALOWS IT.. GO FIGURE... PENALTIES ARE THE KEY IT WORKS OTHER PLACES.
[signature]
Posts: 528
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2003
Reputation:
0
Current Creek is stocked pretty heavily with the cutthroats. Yes there are a lot of fish in there, but it's not from natural reproduction (although I'm sure that spawning does contribute to it to a certain extent). My understanding is that Current Creek is managed as a "buffer" against any claims that cutthroat numbers are low. (i.e. the lawsuit seeking protection of Bonneville cutts). The idea being that if there are a number of lakes which are filled with strong populations of cutts that no one can say that populations atre threatened. However, the person that told me this could have been totally full of it and it may be wrong.
Also, in contrast to what you've noticed, I'm of the opinion that the size of the cutts has actually increased over the last five years. I never used to catch fish over 16 inches, but the last two years that I have fished it at least 1 in every 4 fish was over the 16" mark.
[signature]
Posts: 165
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation:
0
The use of live bait fish works well in many places, I don't know about Utah because theyare not allowed here. I used Golden Shiners in Southern California and they have not ruined any fisheries that I am aware of. In the upper Midwest they are used substantially for Walleyes, and other gamefish. However, you bring up a good point with respect to the native fish that are on the endangered species list and the impact that non-native fish might have on their environment. Nearly every species of fish in Utah has been introduced with the exception of the Bonneville Cutthroat. I myself love to fish for all types of fish, they each pose unique and interesting techniques and challenges. Whether Walleyes should or shouldn't be here is a topic you can debate all day long, the bottom line is they are sought after by many anglers in the state and contribute revenues to many local merchants and state agencies that help manage our great fisheries.
[signature]
Posts: 1,408
Threads: 18
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
13
yeah...it's working wonders in Wyoming...so well, in fact, that reservoirs like Big Sandy Reservoir are chuck full of illegally introduced fish...so well, in fact, that Wyomings regs are probably going to lead to a major change in Flaming Gorge because of the burbot that have been found in the Green River. Bucket biologists are a major problem...but increasing the penalty won't necessarily help. When, in fact, was the last time you ever even heard of someone getting caught illegally transporting fish?Allowing the use of live fish as bait will only increase our state's problems with introduced species.
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
Heck, Utah already has a major problem with bucket biologists. Now, you want to make it legal for certain waters to allow the use of live bait? Let's open Pandora's Box while we're at it!
Fonduvfishing -- I can name you 1 water right here in Utah that has been ruined due to the illegal introduction of Golden Shiners by a fisherman. New Castle Reservoir has been infested with these fish for a number of years. The fishery has completely crashed, unless of coarse you like to fish for Golden Shiners.
Here are but a few other fisheries that have been hurt by the introduction of live bait:
Fish Lake -- perch
Mantua -- perch
Panguitch lake -- chubs
Strawberry reservior -- chubs
[signature]
Posts: 165
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation:
0
I'm sure there are more waters that have been ruined by Golden Shiners, etc. Let me clarify what I should have added to my statement: I don't know of any waters in Southern California that have been ruined by the use of shiners as live bait. Hope that helps.
[signature]
Posts: 506
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
WHY NOT? ISNT IT GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY? ISNT IT ALREADY? ITS JUST A MATER OF TIME WITH THE BB,S. WALLEYE WILL SHOW IN THE BERRY IN BEAR LAKE AND SOME OTHERS. AND IF WALLEYE ARE SUCH A GOOD CLENSING TOOL WHY NOT EVERY WATER WITH ELEGLE BAIT FISH. CHEEPER THAN TREATING IT WITH ROTE. SOME DAY ALL WATERS WILL BE DOMINATED BY EYES AND SHINERS CHUBS. HOPE I LIVE TO SEE IT.
[signature]
Posts: 626
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
0
I dubbed this the thread of the year! Most informational banter here so keep up the good work boys!
I guess walleye is a reality here in Utah whether people like it or not. The truth is, we have a real growing population of walleye anglers here in Utah... because people love the challenge of catching an eye and having it for a real sweet dinner! Can you imagine a yummy monster walleye's white meat steaming on a dinner plate?! Ahhhhh the humanity!
[signature]
Posts: 15,493
Threads: 1,312
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
11
I realize it isn't one of the most talked about bodies of water, but you could add Koosharem Reservoir to the list of bodies of water that has been repeatedly ruined by the illegal introduction of chubs.
[signature]
Posts: 89
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
Going back to Paul's earlier question on some of the legal reasons preventing the planting of forage fish, the June sucker in Utah lake is a listed threatened/endangered fish. So, like the Colorado River system, it would be impossible for DWR to legally introduce a foreign species into the Provo River waters because of the Endagered Species Act. Willard, being the "end of the line", was a perfect spot for introducing shad (so long as they don't start showing up somewhere else from the BBs). Isn't the Sevier River a dead end basin, running its course into the usually dry Sevier Lake bed in the west desert? It appears Yuba would be another prime spot for attempting a forage introduction. Even if the Endangered Species Act doesn't apply, the other legal hurdles are probably insurmountable.
[signature]
Posts: 474
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
PBH,
I guess the only way you will be happy in life if all the EYES in Utah are dead.I dont belive in the guys who take it upon themselves to be bucket Bio's,leave it to the DWR even though they screw things up to once in a while.Walleyes are here to stay and thats a fact,they are a great tasting fish they are a challange to catch.If they were so bad and infested all of the lakes like DC or lake X then you would catch them every cast.I hope the berry stays EYE free because of the fishery up there.Lake X will not fall to into walleye control like many of you guys think.Let us EYE guys fish for them and you guys fish for your trout and everyone will be happy.Its refreshing to be able to fish for diffrent types of fish in this state other than the boreing/predictable trout fishing.Lets just all take a deep breath and relax and enjoy the lakes we have to fish.[  ]
[signature]
Posts: 6,126
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
1
In response to the mention of June suckers in the Provo river drainage system. The last time (last year) that the DWR did genetic tests to try to find a true June Sucker. The closest they could come to a genetic match was 30% June Sucker. Which makes me wonder if there are any genetically pure June Suckers left in this drainage. If in fact there are no genetic June Suckers...why are they on the endangers species list...when 30% genetic material does not make it a June Sucker...it makes it a hybrid sucker. Perhaps they should now be called an April Sucker or September Sucker.
As far a Gizzard Shad goes, they do not ruin the lakes in the south or eastern part of the country. They are native to those parts.
As for putting Blue Gills in as a forage fish...that would be great...for the fisherman. Because as we all know...the minute a bluegill reaches the size of a 50 cent piece or bigger...the killem and grillem goes into effect. Look what happened to Pelican. It took a drastic limit decrease to protect the bluegill in Pelican.
The only reason Newcastle is being touted as a ruined fishery is because the trout are suffering. The smallmouth that were previously stunted are growing fat and are reaching trophy size.
Yuba is an end drainage...so there is no logical reason why gizzard shad or shiner's cannot be introduced.
Strawberry...has always had chubs and suckers...perhaps if they close enough...they may find that elusive June Sucker...peacefully co-habitating with the chubs and cutthroats, and rainbow up at the Berry. Another point...if it wasn't for the chubs and suckers in the Berry...how large would the trout really be?
[signature]
Posts: 582
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2002
Reputation:
0
Gotta lighten this one up...
Ok... for those that want to "play" with population dynamics, download this
[url "http://www.kovcomp.com/wator11.zip"]http://www.kovcomp.com/wator11.zip[/url]
unZIP it and run it. It's a very simplistic view of the predator prey relationship, but it's kind of fun to play with. Pay particular attention to the cycles on the population graph and note the relationships you see. You'll see the basic tenants of the predator prey relationship displayed there. Watching the waves in the age class graph is pretty cool too.
You don't have many parameters to play with but breeding age is one of them and you have to work with what you've got. FishBase.Org says Yellow Perch will double their population size in 1.4 - 4.4 years and Walleye in 4.5 - 14 years. I'm not sure how accurate the numbers are but it's the best I could come up with without much work and we're just playing with this thing anyway right. Take the averages of those two ranges (2.9 and 9.25 respectively), round them off, and plug them into breeding age. Because were talking in units of years for breeding age, I think 1 year is more then reasonable for Walleye starvation time don't you. Start with whatever initial population sizes you want and run it. If the whole thing doesn't go bust quickly it will stabilize as indicated by the predator/prey graph and continue to run for a long time. Want to simulate a bad year (disease, low reproduction, whatever) for one or the other, lower the initial number to half or even a quarter of the other, initialize a new simulation, run it and see what happens. Like I said, it's a simplistic view of the predator prey relationship but it is kind of fun to play with and the basic relationship is simulated.
[signature]
Posts: 1,408
Threads: 18
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
13
The biggest reason gizzard shad cannot be used in Yuba is because of their threat to a "threatened" species....the Sevier River holds probably the biggest and strongest population of leatherside chubs this state has...if we start stocking gizzard shad into Yuba, they could very easily outcompete the leathersides and put them on the endangered list...bad news.
Also, the smallmouth fishing at Newcastle is excellent...the fish are numerous and big. They have not been hurt drastically by the golden shiners, but they do not occupy a majority of the lake. The reason the DWR doesn't want to poison Newcastle is to save these smallmouth; hence, the attempt at finding something that will control the shiner numbers and utilize them as a forage. The great thing about wipers is that they probably won't impact the smallmouth one bit.
[signature]
Posts: 15,493
Threads: 1,312
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
11
Sometime ago I emailed Tom Pettengill inquiring about putting gizzard shad into Yuba. He replied that the UDWR was initially optimistic about being able to plant them, but that the Feds would not approve it. The Feds logic was that if gizzard shad were in Yuba and Willard that would double the chances of a bucket biologist planting them into Utah Lake. So once again, the reality or even the fear of bucket biologists strikes again.
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
[reply]
PBH,
I guess the only way you will be happy in life if all the EYES in Utah are dead.[/reply]
Not true. Leave them where they are. That would make me happy. What concerns me is the number of people that want them everywhere else, and go to extreme measures to get them there. We already have enough illegal moving of fish going on. Why promote it?
[signature]
Posts: 574
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation:
0
The Dwr new chubs would be back in Strawberry when they poisoned it. That is why they went with kokanee to compete for food with the chubs and Bear Lake Cuttthroat to eat the chubs. The fact of the matter is all the water that comes in from the ladders comes from a source were the chubs were never poisoned. Therefore Chubs would eventually make there way back into the lake. As for other waters that are poisoned most dont get the comprehensive poisoning that Strawberry received.
John
[signature]
Posts: 2,436
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
I am suprised that no one has mentioned the aging of resiviors as a factor in fish population dynamics. It is a fact that must considered.
Yuba and deer creek are older resiviors that have lost their underwater structure that the perch need to reproduce in. Jordenelle is by comparason a new resivior with lots of flooded vegitation. That is where the perch lay their eggs. There will be a walleye/ perch boom and bust cycle. Enjoy the boom because when the bust happens it be almost impossible to reverse it. There are only so many x-mas trees to dump into the res. and Yuba needs them all.
That being said J is going to be a fantastic walleye water for a while. enjoy it.
[signature]
|
