05-13-2012, 03:37 PM
You may not agree with what I am about to write. It's ok, it's my opinion.
Bucket Biology - an illegal act by taking non native fish from one body of water and moving them to another body of water.
Worst Offender - DNR [shocked] (what ate all the insects before the fish got there? Frogs, Bats, Native Fish, etc)
When I say native fish I mean Cutthroat Trout, June Sucker and not Rainbow Trout, Kokanee Salmon, etc
DNR is the law and being the law you can say 'do as I say and not as I do' (This is an over exaggeration, because of the amount of research done before stocking takes place)
So when some ignorant person sees the DNR stocking all these lakes with fish that didn't belong in the ecosystem in the first place. He assumes he knows more about ichthyology and ultimately feels anything the DNR can do he can do better.
Is he wrong?
The answer is yes
when it damages the native fish and natural ecosystem.
The answer is unlawfully
when it damages the artificial ecosystem.
A couple examples
a-Fish Lake: May be the best perch fishery in Utah. An unlawful stock in an artificial ecosystem
b-Yellowstone Lake: Yes I'm gonna climb outside of Utah for this one. The Lake Trout are damaging the native Yellowstone Cutthroat in their native ecosystem.
The DNR sets up an non native ecosystem for the benefit of the angular. By stocking sterile fish (Rainbow Trout, Tiger Trout, etc) they can control the numbers to keep in tact their artificial ecosystem. They can also target problems and fix them without creating a new problem.
A couple examples
a-Strawberry Reservoir- Sterile Rainbows are stocked so they do not interbreed with the native cutthroat trout.
b-Newcastle Reservoir - Wipers are stocked to fix the problem of feral shiners.
The stocking program works great, but it cost money. Where does the money come from our taxes. It is a way to control fisheries rather than manage them and what I mean by that is.
Controlled Fishery - Can die off if not restocked. It is only a matter of time before all the fish that were stocked die or are caught, because they cannot reproduce.
Managed Fishery - Can't be killed by neglect. Fish will survive as long as the are allowed to reproduce and eat. It is managed by angling limits and a balance in the ecosystem.
Wouldn't it make more sense financially to stock non sterile fish and manage rather than control the waters by angling and generous limits?
I realize you could not put unsterilized rainbows in any water than contains cutthroat trout, but I dislike the idea of the DNR playing 'Insert Supreme Being'.I feel like we can make fisheries self substantiated and create an ecosystem that works. We go to Yellowstone, because it is a natural fishery and we should try to make Utah the same.
Wouldn't it make more sense to stock the waters with our native fish rather than the standard cookie cutter rainbow (which is nothing more than a powerbait fed airhead)?
I am not a biologist, but I did take an epidemiology class in college and the one thing I learned is to question everything.
Question who said it. Question if there is any bias? Question the motives? Question the research? Question the test subjects? Basically question everything from every angle that you can think of without getting your own personal bias get in the way.
When the DNR says the Burbot could threaten the native Kokanee at Flaming Gorge by eating them and their eggs, I question it.
Sure a big Burbot can easily take down a Kokanee, but so do lake trout. You really can't prove whether the Burbot will have more of an effect on the Kokanee than the bigger population of lake trout.
Secondly Kokanee start spawning in august and in the summer months the Burbot are down deep in the cold water and don't come up from the deep until the water gets colder. Kokanee spawn in tributaries high above the lake. It is hard to for me to think that the egg would travel all the way down stream and into the lake without hatching or being eaten by anything else before the Burbot could get to it.
Also using the word 'Native' to describe the Kokanee is either a poor choice of words or a ploy to get people to react emotionally.
Don't get me wrong the Kokanee is great fish, seeing them red in the fall running up river is a joy.
I think the Burbot gets a bad reputation from the DNR and I would love to see it introduced to another lake closer to home.Burbot are basically a cold water catfish-like that can keep my occupied during cold winter nights until the kitty waters warm.
Reason's why I think the DNR hates on the Burbot :
1- they are ugly, they look like a mutated monkey-fish-frog
2-It wasn't their idea[
]... ok.. no.. that's mean to say... actually it is because they cannot control them.
3-Money- Kokanee are not cheap and kokanee bring the angular and his wallet to the Gorge
4-They are not as popular as the Kokanee and the DNR loves to please it's followers
I think that Flaming Gorge can be a world class Burbot Fishery (Now Cringe) [cool]
Back to the Questioning.
Question who said it. -DNR- they set up an ecosystem to promote good fishing and this is contrary to their plan.
Question if there is any bias? -Any thing directed negatively towards their plan of conservation would be met with vendetta to eliminate to issue before it could be proven otherwise.
Question the motives? -Financial Kokanee are not cheap and if the Kokanee fishery suffers angulars may stop coming, which is a cut in the revenue from entrance fees.
Question the research? What if this is just a natural predator/prey boom/bust relationship? What if it is the Lake Trout and not the Burbot the cause of the Kokanee problems?
Question the test subjects? -When you cut open 1000 burbot what do you find? Crawfish? Kokanee? Rainbows? Small Lake Trout? Bass?
In all fairness no one should ever ever ever ever without the proper documentation and research. I think we as angular's together with the DNR need to educate everyone on the dangers of bucket biology. It is like eating asparagus & beans before a long road trip. Sure we might make it out alive, but until then we are all going to suffer.
I think it should start with the guidebook. I know there is a disclaimer in there and a warning. The only reason I know this is, because I was bored one day and flipped through the whole thing. Put a disclaimer on every other page in the bag limits section. This is the only section of the guide book the average angular cares about.
In big game hunting if you catch a poacher you receive that tag for the next year. In fishing this is not possible, but you know what it is? An all expenses paid fly fishing trip down the green river. (I would have my eyes open to find those evil 'Insert Bad Word' bucket biologists)
Catch & Kill is a good method, but to the evil 'Insert Bad Word' bucket biologists that could be a win. He can now go in to the area that he 'Insert Bad Word' up and catch his intervention species at no limit. What would be a loss, well if the fishery was closed due to illegal stocking.If Flaming Gorge was closed I guarantee we would find who was responsible. This is an extreme method, but I would report anyone transporting fish in a bucket live or dead.
In the End there are GOOD bucket biologists (DNR) and EVIL 'Insert Bad Word' bucket biologists. We must fight evil. May the Force be with us
[signature]
Bucket Biology - an illegal act by taking non native fish from one body of water and moving them to another body of water.
Worst Offender - DNR [shocked] (what ate all the insects before the fish got there? Frogs, Bats, Native Fish, etc)
When I say native fish I mean Cutthroat Trout, June Sucker and not Rainbow Trout, Kokanee Salmon, etc
DNR is the law and being the law you can say 'do as I say and not as I do' (This is an over exaggeration, because of the amount of research done before stocking takes place)
So when some ignorant person sees the DNR stocking all these lakes with fish that didn't belong in the ecosystem in the first place. He assumes he knows more about ichthyology and ultimately feels anything the DNR can do he can do better.
Is he wrong?
The answer is yes
when it damages the native fish and natural ecosystem.
The answer is unlawfully
when it damages the artificial ecosystem.
A couple examples
a-Fish Lake: May be the best perch fishery in Utah. An unlawful stock in an artificial ecosystem
b-Yellowstone Lake: Yes I'm gonna climb outside of Utah for this one. The Lake Trout are damaging the native Yellowstone Cutthroat in their native ecosystem.
The DNR sets up an non native ecosystem for the benefit of the angular. By stocking sterile fish (Rainbow Trout, Tiger Trout, etc) they can control the numbers to keep in tact their artificial ecosystem. They can also target problems and fix them without creating a new problem.
A couple examples
a-Strawberry Reservoir- Sterile Rainbows are stocked so they do not interbreed with the native cutthroat trout.
b-Newcastle Reservoir - Wipers are stocked to fix the problem of feral shiners.
The stocking program works great, but it cost money. Where does the money come from our taxes. It is a way to control fisheries rather than manage them and what I mean by that is.
Controlled Fishery - Can die off if not restocked. It is only a matter of time before all the fish that were stocked die or are caught, because they cannot reproduce.
Managed Fishery - Can't be killed by neglect. Fish will survive as long as the are allowed to reproduce and eat. It is managed by angling limits and a balance in the ecosystem.
Wouldn't it make more sense financially to stock non sterile fish and manage rather than control the waters by angling and generous limits?
I realize you could not put unsterilized rainbows in any water than contains cutthroat trout, but I dislike the idea of the DNR playing 'Insert Supreme Being'.I feel like we can make fisheries self substantiated and create an ecosystem that works. We go to Yellowstone, because it is a natural fishery and we should try to make Utah the same.
Wouldn't it make more sense to stock the waters with our native fish rather than the standard cookie cutter rainbow (which is nothing more than a powerbait fed airhead)?
I am not a biologist, but I did take an epidemiology class in college and the one thing I learned is to question everything.
Question who said it. Question if there is any bias? Question the motives? Question the research? Question the test subjects? Basically question everything from every angle that you can think of without getting your own personal bias get in the way.
When the DNR says the Burbot could threaten the native Kokanee at Flaming Gorge by eating them and their eggs, I question it.
Sure a big Burbot can easily take down a Kokanee, but so do lake trout. You really can't prove whether the Burbot will have more of an effect on the Kokanee than the bigger population of lake trout.
Secondly Kokanee start spawning in august and in the summer months the Burbot are down deep in the cold water and don't come up from the deep until the water gets colder. Kokanee spawn in tributaries high above the lake. It is hard to for me to think that the egg would travel all the way down stream and into the lake without hatching or being eaten by anything else before the Burbot could get to it.
Also using the word 'Native' to describe the Kokanee is either a poor choice of words or a ploy to get people to react emotionally.
Don't get me wrong the Kokanee is great fish, seeing them red in the fall running up river is a joy.
I think the Burbot gets a bad reputation from the DNR and I would love to see it introduced to another lake closer to home.Burbot are basically a cold water catfish-like that can keep my occupied during cold winter nights until the kitty waters warm.
Reason's why I think the DNR hates on the Burbot :
1- they are ugly, they look like a mutated monkey-fish-frog
2-It wasn't their idea[
]... ok.. no.. that's mean to say... actually it is because they cannot control them.3-Money- Kokanee are not cheap and kokanee bring the angular and his wallet to the Gorge
4-They are not as popular as the Kokanee and the DNR loves to please it's followers
I think that Flaming Gorge can be a world class Burbot Fishery (Now Cringe) [cool]
Back to the Questioning.
Question who said it. -DNR- they set up an ecosystem to promote good fishing and this is contrary to their plan.
Question if there is any bias? -Any thing directed negatively towards their plan of conservation would be met with vendetta to eliminate to issue before it could be proven otherwise.
Question the motives? -Financial Kokanee are not cheap and if the Kokanee fishery suffers angulars may stop coming, which is a cut in the revenue from entrance fees.
Question the research? What if this is just a natural predator/prey boom/bust relationship? What if it is the Lake Trout and not the Burbot the cause of the Kokanee problems?
Question the test subjects? -When you cut open 1000 burbot what do you find? Crawfish? Kokanee? Rainbows? Small Lake Trout? Bass?
In all fairness no one should ever ever ever ever without the proper documentation and research. I think we as angular's together with the DNR need to educate everyone on the dangers of bucket biology. It is like eating asparagus & beans before a long road trip. Sure we might make it out alive, but until then we are all going to suffer.
I think it should start with the guidebook. I know there is a disclaimer in there and a warning. The only reason I know this is, because I was bored one day and flipped through the whole thing. Put a disclaimer on every other page in the bag limits section. This is the only section of the guide book the average angular cares about.
In big game hunting if you catch a poacher you receive that tag for the next year. In fishing this is not possible, but you know what it is? An all expenses paid fly fishing trip down the green river. (I would have my eyes open to find those evil 'Insert Bad Word' bucket biologists)
Catch & Kill is a good method, but to the evil 'Insert Bad Word' bucket biologists that could be a win. He can now go in to the area that he 'Insert Bad Word' up and catch his intervention species at no limit. What would be a loss, well if the fishery was closed due to illegal stocking.If Flaming Gorge was closed I guarantee we would find who was responsible. This is an extreme method, but I would report anyone transporting fish in a bucket live or dead.
In the End there are GOOD bucket biologists (DNR) and EVIL 'Insert Bad Word' bucket biologists. We must fight evil. May the Force be with us
[signature]
...not a grimace...is a trait I never developed. Hats off to them.[/#0000ff]