Posts: 1,919
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
0
[size 1]We enlisted Utah State University to conduct research on Starvation, Yuba and Deer Creek in 1996 and have had an ongoing program for Starvation and Yuba until this year. [/size][size 1]Relative to Starvation's population dynamics, the research has demonstrated that it is very poor in forage and that the walleye population far exceeds its food supply. The chubs that provided the forage base could not produce enough young each year to meet the needs of the walleye population. As a result it appears that there has not been any recruits to the adult population in over 20 years. This concerned us as the population is expected to die off soon leaving no forage base whatsoever. So in 2000 we initiated a gill-netting program to remove as many walleye less than 14 inches in length as we could in an intensive 4-week program. That program has resulted in the removal of about 16,343 walleyes during the past three years. However, the results have not been encouraging. While the walleyes have shown better body condition and probably better growth the young chubs are still not making it to adulthood and are being totally consumed by the end of August.[/size] [size 1]Also, a new element has been added. Yellow perch have become established in the reservoir and changes the situation significantly. They were first seen in 2000 and the netting this past summer showed that they have increased substantially with over 1,000 being caught in this year's netting program.[/size] [size 1][/size][size 1]Since there is little likelihood that any chubs will survive in the face of this added predator, the effort to reduce the predatory pressure by removing walleyes is being abandoned.[/size] [size 1]The good side to all this is that for a time the forage situation will probably improve substantially for the short term and we should see good growth and condition of the walleyes. However, this is likely to become a very cycling situation with walleye numbers expanding to over exploit the yellow perch population and slowly decline until their numbers have declined enough to allow a resurgence in the yellow perch population and then the cycle of boom and bust will repeat itself. We may be able to manipulate this cycle in a modest way by encouraging anglers to catch and keep good numbers of walleyes during the boom years and possibly shorten the bust period with a timely netting and removal program.[/size] [size 1]For the time being I think we'll see some good walleye fishing that can be extended if we can convince anglers to take their legal limits of walleyes and have a liberal limit.[/size] [size 1]You may be wondering why we did not introduce the yellow perch or some other forage. We are inhibited from introducing exotic fishes into the Colorado River basin because of potential threats to the four native Colorado River fishes which are listed as endangered and for which an extensive recovery program is underway. Federal law prohibits any agency from taking any action which would threaten their survival and new species could add to the many already established non native fishes that have been a major factor in their demise already.[/size]
Posts: 238
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation:
0
[size 2]No new info there. Seems to me the best way to stabilize the walleye/perch populations in our walleye waters for the DWR to QUICKLY implement new limits. At Yuba there was no change until the walleye population had already crashed. A little effort and angler education several years earlier might have changed the outcome--or at least minimized the downtime.[/size]
[size 2]This brings us back to slot limits--like unlimited walleyes under 15". That would be better than using them for fertilizer. Or outlaw perch fishing, or restrict it to only perch over 10" or something like that.[/size]
[size 2]The thing is, the DWR needs to be able to manage each water dynamically and quickly. Use us anglers as tools to control fish populations.[/size]
Posts: 3,614
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
that is all vary interesting but i did not hear any thing in all of that about all the small mouth in the lake as well i think that you have to acount for them as well.. they are a vary savage predator as well..with all of that going on the food bace is going to be hard pressed.. and if any of you can tell if this works os well for geting reid of chub WHY IS THE D.W.R. STILL POISONING LAKES TO GET REID OF THEM???
[signature]
Posts: 1,495
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
I have to agree here that the DWR needs to take action using the best resource that they have. That is us, meaning the fisherman of Utah. Rather than waste this resource that WE have paid for, let us harvest it. I for one am not above keeping extra fish from and over populated body of water. I can share it with friends and neighbors. Heck I have a father-in-law who loves fish and is too ill to go fishing. He alone counts for about hafl the fish I keep. On the same hand on waters that are stressed to their limits WE need to be extra careful to return and protect those fisheries. JMO and yours may vary but we need to do something now and not wait until it is to late for anther Utah fishery.
[signature]
Posts: 1,919
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
0
Dennis, yeah no new info there, I just thought I would post it up as it was the latest email reply I have recieved. The thig I was impressed with was the ammount of removed fish. Over 16,000 in three years! I have the study reports and info on the way to me in the mail. Hopefully there will be some new and very interesting info in the reports from the last few years. As well, a new report will be coming out this year. I was unaware that due to the colorado river drainage situation that the dwr is helpless in the planting more baitfish populations in there, but definitley agree that since the perch are in there, they should be protected and allowed to establish themselves before opening it to harvest. I will let you know if I find any intersting info in the reports. Still cant believe how good the fishing is down there with the 10 fish limit, and all those fish being removed. Its just too bad that lake is such a far drive.
Posts: 35,982
Threads: 288
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
[cool] Ain't it strange how there is often a correlation between ease of access, harvest rate and quality of fishing?
[signature]
Posts: 1,596
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation:
0
ah men tube. on a side note the smallie population is way out of wack in starvation as well. i do believe if they dont up limits on all predatory fish it might be a bust either way. i use to catch huge browns in that lake and now you cant hardly catch a brownie. 10 smallmouth and a prolific number of 12 in walleye get boring after awhile.
[signature]
Posts: 238
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation:
0
[size 2]It's just as tough to teach bass anglers to keep bass as it is to teach Strawberry old-timers to release a fish now and then. But keeping limits of all those ultra-aggressive SMB under 12" would really benefit our fisheries. Same for walleyes--keeping all the small ones will help too.[/size]
[size 2]We need to get a group together and head out to Starvation this spring, or summer, or both. I too am guilty of wimping out due to the long drive. I need to go and stay for a few days.[/size]
Posts: 1,596
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation:
0
I think your right about that Dennis. It seems to be two distinct bass anglers in this state. The natural ones from the south who keep them all for good eatun. And the converted which respect the species and let them all go. Either one is great in their own rights but starvation seems to need a few cajun style stir fryes on order for the residents there. haha
[signature]
