Utah Lake Fish Forum -- Panel Discussion

[Kent]

I attended the Utah Lake Fish Forum -- Panel Discussion last evening. There was at least one other member of BFT in attendance. I will leave it to him (them) if they want to speak up. After everyone introduced themselves, Jackie Watson (I believe with UDWR, but I could be wrong) made a presentation about the history of Utah Lake stocking and significant regulation changes over the years. It was fascinating to find out all of the various fish that have been planted in Utah Lake over the years (lake trout, grayling & salmon to name a few). Then the meeting was opened to discussion. Everyone in attendance was given an opportunity to openly speak about anything related to Utah Lake. Much of the discussion centered on the continuing loss of shoreline access and the misconceptions held by the news-reporting agencies and the general public. Everyone in attendance seemed to be supportive of the plans (the detailed plans were not presented in this meeting) to restore habitat, get the carp population to a manageable number, improve the general fishery for all species (except for carp) and of course increase the population of June Suckers so that they are no longer endangered. I was the one person who spoke up and disagreed. I stated that if in order for the recovery plan to work required the substantial decrease in the population of the carp, and more critically to maintain the carp population at a greatly reduced quantity, I did not think it was realistically possible. I stated the cost to maintain the carp population year after year at a greatly-reduced level would be staggering. I said that I felt the only way this would ever be possible was if an effective biological method of controlling carp was developed. I stated that I was not against saving June suckers from extinction but would encourage them being planted in other waters and not attempt to restore them to Utah Lake. I was pleased that my remarks were treated with respect. One member advanced his theory that when the June suckers reached a certain population level that they would basically out compete the carp for the available food source and the June suckers would flourish and the carp would stay at low levels. Although he did admit that the ongoing removal of the carp may still be necessary.

Some interesting items that I learned:

1) The carp are so thick in Utah Lake right now that they are stunting. I got the impression that the average size of adult carp used to be around 10 pounds and now the average size is 4 to 4 1/2 pounds.
2) The company that offered to remove a large quantity of carp for free has failed to even begin removal of any carp.
3) They have $500,000 to run an experiment to see how many pounds of carp can be removed (and the impact of the removal), and they accepted bids and suggestions for carp removal. They heard from less that 10 entities with ideas on carp removal and they were hopeful that the company that offered to do it for free would be successful (but as I wrote above that has not happened). They are going to allow the Loys (the last commercial company to net carp from Utah Lake) to give it a try. We were told that it would cost $.20 a pound to remove carp this year.

I still have the same concerns that I voiced at the meeting; however, I truly hope that they are successful and I believe the restoration work that will be done will benefit many if not all of the fish species.
[signature]

[Im4Trout]

Thank You for attending and for your update of the meeting.
I agree with you. I also see alot of other fish in danger if the commercial removal of the blasted Carp population is to be done by gill netting.
Hopefully they come to some final decisions soon and start making this lake one to be proud of.
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

Hi Kent. It was good to see you again. Therapist was the gentleman sitting to my left. Here are some of the highlights from the meeting of items that were new. (at least to me)

1. Several of the members discussed the paucity of angler access at Utah lake. The DWR pledged to research the feasibility of adding additional angler access points around the lake. The head of the forum will check with the BLM/Forest service to see if new public access land is already present that can be quickly brought into use now.

2. Many members of the commission did not know about the proposed project at Lincoln beach. (It was brought up in relation to the access discussion.) It is possible that environmental issues could be looked at regarding its development.

3. As Kent mentioned, there was yet another delay in starting to net the carp. (This has continually plagued the program) However, the Loys will be starting in the next few days to start the wholesale netting. He said that he will be able to even net through the ice.

4. PR and the recently released articles were discussed at length. That silly piece in the Deseret news received a fair bit of discussion. There were 2 people from an advertising firm that seemed surprised a bit that this article was less than well received by the fishing public.

5. Subjects of future meetings will be access issues and a detailed explanation of the netting process.

It sounds like gaining additional angler access could be a real and quickly realized benefit to the anglers from the program.
[signature]

[Therapist]

It was good to see the positive response at the meeting last night. I always love to listen to Bill Loy Sr. His knowledge and down to earth way of putting things is refreshing in these times of parsing everything that is said.

My biggest concern is still the politics of the whole thing. As I stated last night, if you tell the public that you are spending $50,000,000 to recover a sucker, you are going to get a lot of resistance. Since the major outcome of the whole project is recovery of the whole ecosystem, that is the way to sell it.

Kent's concerns about the ongoing need to control the carp is also a very important issue. If I understand the math, once the tipping point in the population is reached, recruitment will not be sufficient to maintain the population and it fades. I believe that is what happens at Starvation with the Chub, recruitment is so low that the population there is 15-20 years old and there is no replacement of the adults as they die off.

I am optimistic overall, but still scared of what will happen when the polititicans get involved.

[doggonefishin]

RE:"If I understand the math, once the tipping point in the population is reached, recruitment will not be sufficient to maintain the population and it fades"

That is the most optimistic of the possible outcomes. I get the impression that the biologists are a bit more conservative in their assessment of how it will be and that most of the biologists feel that some measure of supplemental netting of carp will be required down the road. What they are hoping for is that with good enough habitat, the June suckers and others can compete better with carp and release the stranglehold carp have on the whole ecosystem.

RE:"I believe that is what happens at Starvation with the Chub, recruitment is so low that the population there is 15-20 years old and there is no replacement of the adults as they die off."

Man, I wish that was the case! Remember the food web analysis though, presented last month. The little chubs at Starvation are being EATEN by walleyes, browns, perch and smallies. Carp however contribute almost nothing to the food chain and are not eaten (except the tiny fry) by any of the predators to any significant extent. That is part of why they are so bad for the ecosystem and sportfishing there. They destroy habitat AND contribute nothing to the food chain(s).
[signature]

[Roghet]

Thanks for the info, friends. I just heard of this issue from a friend and he said that the report was to get rid of the CATFISH! This startled me and I questioned this, and was pleased to learn that the concern is the carp. Last year I went to that aquarium in the Sandy area and read that they believed if they could get rid of 75% of the carp, the lake would change dramatically.

The question I have is how the netting is supposed to work. My concern is, will the process remove all the channel catfish as well? Were that the case, I would have little reason to go fish there. (My kids grow weary of the hit and miss situation with the w. bass.)

The observation I've made is that the lake has a SIGNIFICANT PR problem, and a general public that is "slow to never" inclined to change its views. When people learn that I fish there, 100% have considered anything from that lake to be "radio active" - and would never recreate in it for any reason.


My wife caught the potential vision I see when we took the kids out there recently and pulled them around in a tube behind and old fishing boat we just bought. She’s loves water skiing, and just salivated at the fact that Utah Lake was as flat that day as anything she’s seen at Bear Lake. []

The problem with angler access is not just LACK of access, but some of what is there is UGLY! Let’s consider the drive to Lindon – it feels like I’m driving thru an industrial wasteland, only to see that huge pipe graffiti pipe that looms over the landscape at the marina…. Many Utahan’s are not aware of the term “visual pollution” the way others of us are. It makes a difference.
And as to the politicians, it is wise to expect extreme ignorance from them on matters. (My experience with something as simple as the legalization of ferrets, that some politicians just don’t know any better. True story, the gal in charge of the legislation many years ago, got her information from ONE newspaper article stating that ferrets were dangerous, and that “they mistake children’s testicles for small voles.” And yet, how many have been killed in the USA – EVER – by a ferret? Now, how many have been killed by dogs? Now, is there a reason those involved with the views of Utah Lake to be any different?) Unfortunately, politicians tend to listen to who shouts their emotional sentiment the loudest – not whom has the most enlightened facts and ideas…


I’m all for the investment to turn the lake into something besides a carp and mosquito breeding ground… But it will take some out of the box thinking and getting the public involved is only smart. (Have any of you seen the PR done for the “reclamation” of land by the copper pit??) I’d like to see some “Save the lake – kill a carp” campaign and get people working on being of the solution. Have contests with prizes to those that can catch the most/biggest carp. If I knew how to reliably catch carp, my kids would be there often – they just want to reel in something big! [] Heck, I’m ‘bout ready to throw away my pole and use a bow and arrow to hunt them!

Our favorite sport at Utah Lake is the channel cat. If anyone would please inform of the impact on that, - thank you in advance for the updates. And thank you to those that are willing to be involved.

Rog
[signature]

[Lundman]

Glab to hear you made the meeting and I have some thoughts about the Utah recovery plan.

First off - anyone building around the lake should pay an Utah lake impact fee to offset the cost of maintaining this resource.

Second - Possible ways to reduce Carp populations -

Have a $1000 contest to come up with the best way to get rid of the carp.

I have always thought that netting them and placing them in railroad cars and dumping them in Nevada/Utah desert would be the cheapest. Of course - have the BYU student body do the netting for free. Then have some railroad bridge be the dumping ground where they could be covered by dirt or ??

Third - bring train/truck loads of sand from the Dunes or else where to different locations to sand beaches - this would have the immediate effect of attracting people to the lake. Increased usage means increase $$$ that could be used to improve the resource.

Fouth - if Lincoln Beach was to be developed I would make them use the dirt to make a large holding pond/lake that could be used to hold the June suckers. This impoundment would be a large enough to ensure their continued existence while the rest of the lake is de-carpped.

Fifth - since the lake is shallow use a eco-friendly dredge built & ran by BYU to create a dyke to hold the june sucker

The reason I keep using BYU is because they would bennifit the most by having the lake become an asset to Utah.

Sorry if all my ideas aren't win win but at least I'm trying..
[signature]

[Kent]

I have asked for a response from a panel member on what they do to minimize deaths to other species during the netting process.
[signature]

[Kent]

[quote Lundman]
Second - Possible ways to reduce Carp populations -

Have a $1000 contest to come up with the best way to get rid of the carp. [/quote]

I believe they already tried that and the contest was worth $500,000; however, the winner actually had to prove that their plan works. If they are going to have to pay $.20 a pound to have carp removed this year perhaps they could set up some sort of bounty program for the removal of carp that anyone could participate in.
[signature]

[Im4Trout]

[quote kentofnsl]

If they are going to have to pay $.20 a pound to have carp removed this year perhaps they could set up some sort of bounty program for the removal of carp that anyone could participate in.

That would almost pay for each .45 caliber bullit I could put into each Carps head>>>>[laugh][sly][cool][][]
[signature]

[Kent]

Perhaps, but it wouldn't cover the fine that you would have to pay.[frown]
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

RE:"Our favorite sport at Utah Lake is the channel cat. If anyone would please inform of the impact on that, - thank you in advance for the updates."


The Loys will be the operators of the netting that will begin soon. They have operated a commercial fishing enterprise on Utah lake for a few generations. Their permit allows them to take some white bass that incidentally are caught, but other species are required to be returned. Catfish, being the indestructible critters they are, tend to survive the netting process fairly well and are usually safely returned. Other species apparently don't survive the thrashing meelee of fish as well, and thus may be affected more by heavy netting operations than cats.
[signature]

[Kent]

Here is the response that I got from Bill Loy:

"The by-catch is very low manly White bass they gill in nets and the walleye we get out when we are pulling in the nets."

I have asked him to clarify, but it sounds like the size of openings in the net are small enough that anything larger than a white bass won't get their heads stuck in the nets and can be safely released (except as pointed out by doggonefishin the thrashing of the other fish takes its toll on other fish caught in the nets).
[signature]

[txfishgirl]

Just browsing through here, did not have enough time to read everyone's comments but thought I could address one.
When removing carp we know there will be some mortalities to other species - like most things involved with carp removal we do not know the full impact. Once removal begins DWR will have observers on-board to monitor the process and take of other species.
Something to think about for the next forum meeting: Removal of some individuals from species other than carp could be useful for the management of game fish populations - it may help reduce competition. Think about what kind of fishery you'd like to have at Utah Lake. Do we want a lot of fish or fewer, but bigger fish? Are there any species that anglers would be "ok" with being removed alongside carp (perhaps black bullhead)? Knowing there will be some level of mortality - what level of mortality would be acceptable?
I really feel like carp removal can be a means for creating a great fishery at Utah Lake.
Hope this helps answer some concern and spark some thoughts!
[signature]

[Kent]

Thanks for your comments Jackie. To me, the bullhead has little value except that it is a fish that children can often easily catch, and that alone makes it worthwhile to have in a fishery. I have learned that other adults like to catch bullheads and also enjoy eating them. Like just about any other topic that is discussed (whether or not it is fishing related) it is difficult to get a consensus of opinion.
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

RE: "Are there any species that anglers would be "ok" with being removed alongside carp (perhaps black bullhead)?"


I think you will find that there are "fans" of each species one could list and actively pursuing another species for removal would be controversial to say the least. Remember, also the food web analysis presented at the first meeting. Except for the nasty old carp, each other species contributes in some way to one of the food chains and removal or reduction of a given species could have a ripple effect up the chain.

People also need to take into account that improved habitat will improve spawning success and recruitment and it is reasonable to expect that this will more than offset losses seen with the netting process.
[signature]

[Therapist]

While I am concerned that the impact of the netting will have on the game fish in the lake, it is all moot as far as I am concerned.

If we are not successful in removing the carp and getting things back to where the June Sucker can recover, we are going to be toast. What will happen will be that some zelot for the Endangered Species Act will file a lawsuit, a federal judge who doesn't give a rat's rear end about the Walleye, Channel Cats, or even boating or waterskiing, will make a half @#$!$ ruling that will require the Fish and Wildlife Service and DWR to do what ever is necessary to recover the sucker's and the heck with the cost and damage to the other users of the lake. They might even say that we can't use the lake for other purposes as it will disturb the Junies.

So if they remove some walleye, LMB, SMB and channel cats with the carp, so be it. If what they are proposing works and the lake recovers, the sport fishing will be better than it has ever been, and really folks, it is as good now as I have ever seen it.

I don't get out as much due to other duties, but when I do, I catch LMB, WB, with much more regularity than I have in the last 30 years fishing the lake. I fished Utah Lake for 20 years before I caught my first LMB, now when targeting them, 4-6 a trip.

I am also glad that the Loy's are going to be removing the carp. They know what, how, and when to do it and how to minimize the bycatch.

Please be supportive of this, because the alternative is REALLY BAD, you can't imagine, but it will be our worst nightmare, trust me !!!

[Kent]

Very well said and I totally agree.
[signature]

[Bigguyone1]

How about building a large dyke and then "decarping" that area and then begin netting the rest of the lake to "decarp" it and place all gamefish (walleye, cats, bass) in the decarped dyke area when caught and ultimately you could clean out the main section significantly. Once this is completed open the dyke for the gamefish to move over the lake, add some cover then get the warm water hatchery to work with some musky, LMB and pike - and maybe some wiper. From there move forward.
I do have a degree in Biology but do not have a complete understanding of the HUGE significance that the June Sucker plays in the success of the fishery. Please infom me further for the reasoning in spending millions of dollars to keep the june sucker population growing?
I think the added cover, fish and sand (great idea) will add much more to the lake and the state income than will the June Sucker - yeah I am a capitialist I guess (maybe my understanding of the June Sucker will alter my perception). If the June Sucker is about ecobalance and feed....is there a substitute fish that could be introduced?

[catfish-logic]

I just can't take this "carp removal program" seriously; without thinking of some geeky thought running through my head.

Hey its almost Halloween lets all wear our scary Halloween costumes and dive into Utah Lake and attempt to "scare the death out of out the fish".

How about a giant Walleye robot fish 100 feet long with big scary teeth that makes a loud noise and then drive them 'ol carp down the Jordan River. With tax payer support they can buy about over 10,000 of them; however many it takes, start at the south end of the lake then to the north. You know some sort of "brigade" across the east and west side of Utah Lake. And then scare the carp down the Jordan River and into the Great Salt Lake.

How about a long canal with "female carp #5": when those 'ol spawners smell that nice scent all the males go up the canal: then trap them in the canal and of course, dry the canal up.

For female carp "hot stud carp #7" the same plan but with a different canal.

We could could possibly go on and on with funny and sarcastic "solutions".

Ummm....why are we choosing Utah Lake to recover the June Sucker anyways? Bad target, hello McFly hello McFly? Anybody in there,hello?

One solution I thought up. Is to get a Shaman psychic "animal communicator". A person gifted to telepathically communicate with all of the carp in Utah Lake. He or she can tell the carp telepathically to commit suicide by digging deeper and deeper into the muddy bottom of the lake and suffocating— or else. Or to stop eating,spawning,ect,ect... sound good to you? Or to do continual dolphin flips out of the water before the mighty Walleye God does whatever. That would be a sight wouldn't it? However I don't think that TubeDude would like it if he were at The Knoll.

You know thats not funny but hey its a better idea than what the Utah DWR can think up.

By the way I promise I don't have a psychiatric hospital record, not yet.
[signature]