Discussion about perch in Fish Lake

[Gemcityslayer]

[quote PBH][#0000bf]Removed hijack of thread and made separate thread, Kent[/#0000bf]

perch. At Fish Lake. What a travesty. Oh well.



The perch in Fish Lake are going through one of their "boom" cycles. Typically, you don't find perch outside the weeds. But, when their population starts to get too big, they starting "overflowing" the weeds, and you start finding them outside the weedline. Bad news for all the other fish.

It's hard to imagine what kind of lake trout fishery you could have at Fish Lake if the perch hadn't been illegally introduced. The day they showed up was a , day for Fish Lake....[/quote]

Don't big lakers eat perch?[pirate]
[signature]

[Charina]

first, my apologies for typos and grammar is as I'm doing this text to speech on the phone while I drive. I would not have time to respond if I did not do it this way.

second it is my personal uneducated opinion that the perch have had a negative impact on trophy fish such as lake trout in fish late. adding that much biomass to do any system is going to change the balance. The status quo cannot continue.never the less I do said that personal opinion aside and try to look at this objectively and determine if claims made really are substantiated.

I really appreciate the additional information you gave women bobber and the links at have been posted in this thread. It has all been quite informative. however, I still do not see an answer of why? correlation does not equal causation!

I'd like to also make the point that those papers that many have referred to as studies by so many here definitely are not true studies. not even close. And I have not looked up many of the citations to determine whether those are studies or not either. I have seen several government issued papers by biologist that have been deemed to be studies by state Fish and Game, however they did not meet basic scientific thresholds and were even proven to contain false conclusions within a very short time a publication ( using the term publication very loosely as in the way of printing not that of a peer-reviewed publication). I have seen them discredited by even lay individuals that have no formal training.

I still don't see anything that evidence is the perch are the real problem they are being blamed A.D.

has anyone that has been blaming the perch at the problem considered the changes in vegetation in the lake that coincided with the changes in species constitution? I see in 1 of the papers, I think in 2003, that aquatic vegetation in Fish Lake change drastically during the eighties and into the early ninety's. it is very curious to me that perch work Epps under control for quite a few decades Intel about the time that the vegetation changed.

for the sake of you spell discussion and a lucid 18 the facts of what causes a change, I would throw out the hypothesis that the root cause of changes at Fish Lake is not the fish species introduction, but invasive aquatic plants. I don't know if that is the case or not, but can anybody else rationally understand how it is premature to blame the perch without evidence? according to 1 of the papers the Eurasian milfoil took over in the 19 eighties and early 19 nineties. this seems to coincide very well with the changes in small fish species. it very well could be that the change in aquatic vegetation from a carpet type vegetation to 1 that grows from floor to surface has allowed the perch to overcome chubs. and has prevented the lake trout from being able to forage off of fish that can now hide in more dense vegetation.
furthermore, although I have no personal understanding of the dynamics, I could see it possible that the change in vegetation has not provided as much for forage for the fish. I could hypothesize that the native in 6 in introduced in sex that would feed off of the native plants do not do as well on the Eurasian milfoil. And therefore there is not as much food for the base forage fish.

[quote wormandbobber][quote Charina]
Am I correct to assume your argument is that they outcompete the species you listed as resource takers, but do not fulfill the roll as resource givers for other established species in the lake (i.e. makinaw)?[/quote]

Yes, in fact, they haven't filled that role for the lake trout or the trophy splake. The DWR has done diet studies at Fish Lake and have not found a single perch in the stomach of any trophy lake trout...the truth is that while chubs provided an excellent food source for lakers and big splake, perch have not. So, as a result, the trophy lake trout have turned to rainbows for their food source which, obviously, has impacted the rainbow trout fishery. And, the number of trophy splake has dwindled to the point where they are virtually non-existent in the lake anymore. Why has this happened. Because perch are eating up the small chubs and very rarely venture out into open water where lake trout roam...

" The lake trout population in Fish Lake has struggled since the proliferation of yellow perch (Chamberlain and Hepworth 2002). However, recent surveys have shown an increasing trend since 1992. Fall gill net catch rates in 2009 were the highest recorded since the current monitoring program began in 1992 (Figure 15). Additionally, lake trout catch rates for both small (< 24 inches) and large (> 24 inches) fish has trended upwards since 1992 (Figure 15). This increase in population has not resulted in an increase in catch and harvest by anglers.
During 2010, anglers caught an estimated 661 lake trout, a 400% reduction from previous surveys (Table 9). Although the overall population of lake trout appears to be increasing, the number (or proportion) of small lake trout is increasing at an even faster rate. In 2009, the majority of lake trout captured (77%) were less than 24 inches TL while Chamberlain and Hepworth (2002) reported that 63% of lake trout captured were less than 24 inches TL. A review of all marked lake trout stocked in 1989 and 1991 and recaptured between 1993 and 2010 revealed a split growth curve (Figure 11). The separate or split growth curve represents two different groups of lake trout, one that was able convert to a piscivorous diet and one that was not able to make the conversion to an entirely piscivorous diet. It is apparent that a high percent of lake trout in Fish Lake do not have the resources available to reach sizes exceeding 24 inches TL. Prior to the introduction of yellow perch, Utah chubs were the most dominant food source available for lake trout in Fish Lake (Wright 1942; Hepworth and Duffield 1984). The Utah chubs provided lake trout an intermediate size forage base, easing the transition from
invertebrates to fish (Bulkley 1958). Yellow perch now dominate the niche once occupied by Utah chubs; however they do not appear to be available or utilized as forage by lake trout (Chamberlain and Hepworth 2003). Converting to piscivory is difficult for small lake trout when the most available prey choice is a catchable-sized (8-10 inches) rainbow trout.

Summer forage fish netting has shown a declining trend in Utah chub and sucker populations since 2002 (Figure 9). The decline can most likely be contributed to a large population of yellow perch. Yellow perch have been shown to prey on and out compete young-of-year fish in other Utah waters (Hepworth et al. 2004), and are most likely affecting recruitment of both Utah chubs and Utah suckers. Utah chubs are an important food source for lake trout and splake in Fish Lake (Chamberlain and Hepworth 2002) and reductions in their numbers require lake trout to find alternate food sources. The most likely results of this shift in prey source are increased predation on stocked rainbow trout and a reduction in large lake trout."

From the paper:
Angler Survey and Monitoring Results Fish Lake, Utah 2010[/quote]
[signature]

[Fin-S-Fish]

Oh wow, excellent rhetorical criticism skills here! LOL I thought this was just going to be another one of those arguments with one highly biased group vs. another doggedly arguing their side in a hateful way, but this is very good insight you have about ideological hegemony here. One group wants trophy trout, another wants whatever they can catch even if it's ordinary panfish. All kinds of power and social issues at play here! I have a good theory about who will prevail. Hegemony works all the time everywhere, even in discourse about outdoor recreation. Kinda like that whole catch and release ideology vs frying them puppies all up. While an egalitarian approach might say each to their own way of thinking, a hegemonic approach will involve one side denouncing the other as inferior or less than, thus insidiously making the others conform to the dominant ideology making people feel shameful of their actions. Yes , bucket biology is problematic, but denouncing someone's enjoyment of perch? LOL Telling them what they would like better? Let them decide for themselves what they like better! You make a pretty good point here. This is why some people get cynical and cease to bother posting reports.
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

[quote Charina]however, I still do not see an answer of why? correlation does not equal causation!][/quote]

Perhaps not, but the bottom line remains this: perch have NOT filled the void for lake trout....but rainbow trout have. If perch are not being used as a prey source for lake trout, and trophy splake numbers have declined since perch numbers have risen (which they have), what conclusion should I come up with? And, chub numbers have declined as a direct result of perch predation. What more evidence do I need? Had perch never been illegally stocked into the reservoir would this have ever happened? The answer is a definitive no.

As for your questions on whether the papers refer to studies or not, all I can say is this: What in the heck is a study then? Honestly? The Utah DWR has been monitoring fish lake closely for over 100 years now...with this monitoring they have stocking numbers, mark recapture numbers, gill netting samples, growth rates of tagged and fin-clipped fish, forage fish numbers, diet samples, angler exploitation numbers from creel surveys, among other numbers. Now, if that is not a study, then what in the heck is? The truth is that the DWR has more information and knowledge on what is going on up there than anyone else. Sorry, but I don't need a peer reviewed publication on a study to know that studying is going on and valid scientific conclusions can be made.

Also, in regards to the weeds...the weeds--eurasion millfoil if I am not mistaken--were also most likely brought to the lake by fishermen to the detriment of the fishery. Here, again, we can just throw up our arms and say the weeds are there and there is nothing we can do, or we can try to educate fishermen as state game agencies have done across the US and tried to stop the spread of the weed.

I do, in fact, agree that the perch proliferation and dramatic change the fishery has seen over the past 20-30 years is due to a combination of factors including the weeds; however, the fact still remains that the perch PROBLEM--and it is a problem--would never have occurred had some well-meaning ill-informed fishermen not dumped perch in the lake.

As for those who believe that it is just opinion as to whether the lake is better with or without perch, all I can say is this: the perch population has stunted. If your fishing enjoyment would not be better with a healthy population of trout over a stunted population of perch, you need to get out and fish more! And, honestly, like PBH said, how many good lake trout fisheries do we have in Utah? How many trophy splake fisheries do we have in Utah? By way of comparison, how many stunted perch fisheries do we have in Utah?

I think it is great that people can go up to Fish Lake and catch loads of little perch and then take them home and eat them...but sorry, I just don't buy into the idea that the lake is better with those stunted perch. Call that an opinion or whatever you want, but biologically I know it isn't true!
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

[quote Gemcityslayer]Don't big lakers eat perch?[pirate][/quote]

No, they don't
[quote wormandbobber]The DWR has done diet studies at Fish Lake and [red]have not found a single perch in the stomach of any trophy lake trout[/red]...the truth is that while chubs provided an excellent food source for lakers and big splake, perch have not. [/quote]
[signature]

[fish_fear_me2]

I dont think anybody said the lake was better off with the perch. They simply said since they are there they enjoy catching them. If and when a solution to the perch problem comes from the DWR I will support it. Until that time I support catching perch. We may not dent the population but it sure isnt hurting anything either.
[signature]

[The_Red_Leaker]

[quote wormandbobber]I do, in fact, agree that the perch proliferation and dramatic change the fishery has seen over the past 20-30 years is due to a combination of factors including the weeds; however, the fact still remains that the perch PROBLEM--and it is a problem--would never have occurred had some well-meaning ill-informed fishermen not dumped perch in the lake.

As for those who believe that it is just opinion as to whether the lake is better with or without perch, all I can say is this: the perch population has stunted. If your fishing enjoyment would not be better with a healthy population of trout over a stunted population of perch, you need to get out and fish more! And, honestly, like PBH said, how many good lake trout fisheries do we have in Utah? How many trophy splake fisheries do we have in Utah? By way of comparison, how many stunted perch fisheries do we have in Utah?

I think it is great that people can go up to Fish Lake and catch loads of little perch and then take them home and eat them...but sorry, I just don't buy into the idea that the lake is better with those stunted perch. Call that an opinion or whatever you want, but biologically I know it isn't true![/quote]

Again, you pushing your opinion and view of what you think to be right for everyone. I would like to see a study completed in which the anglers that frequent Fishlake are asked what species they are there to hunt and what they expect to see or would like to see in the future. This should have been completed in the study that you so love as they already made contact with anglers to ask age and residency. This study does appears to show that perch have impacted the biology of the lake in manner that goes against your likes and thus you stand behind its validity for all to bow to.

Wonder if you would feel the same if the study read that the introduction and increase of perch has successfully brought down chub numbers thus decreasing the number of Lake Trout which should be positive for the lake as a rainbow fishery.

Rainbow lovers would be happy, perch lovers would be happy, lake trout lovers would be up in arms as would splake lovers because the fish wasn't mentioned.

It's all in the eye of the viewer.

The study shows one thing, that the perch may have a negative impact on trout. It does not show, nor can I immediately find any data that shows this upsets the majority of anglers. There is however data that it upsets you......
[signature]

[The_Red_Leaker]

I needed a dictionary but thanks[].
[signature]

[Highmth]

I hate what the perch have done to Fishlake as well. If I made the rules I would make it mandatory to kill every damn perch caught out of There. I understand that there are many anglers that like the perch but I would have traded all 127 of the perch I caught last weekend for 1 10+ pound Mac or even 1 20 inch rainbow. I feel that the silent majority agrees with me.
I doubt the perch will ever be controlled in Fishlake, unless they can poison the whole lake and start over again. Maybe the DWR should survey the people the fish Fishlake and find out what the anglers want to do with the perch?
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

I wouldn't want to tell anyone else what to fish for, or what to enjoy, but I would rather have Fish Lake the way it was before the perch. If I had my way there wouldn't be a perch anywhere in the state. I won't get my way, and I know it. How about we just settle for perch where they are, and not in any more places. Even the places where they have done extremely well they've been sporadic at best. Yuba used to have a ton of nice perch. Used to is the key. Starvation seems to be tough to judge. Haven't heard much good lately. Not size wise or numbers wise. Deer Creek perch struggle. Rockport is off. Pineview is struggling. Utah Lake has a few, but no size, and never very many.
[signature]

[AERO63]

All the more reason to view Fish Lake as a solid perch fishery in Utah...the little suckers are pretty much hit and miss everywhere else, but at least for now Fish Lake produces. Granted, not a ton of size but plenty fillet-able.
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

Lousy trade. Millions of dinky perch vs. a once superb Splake, Mac, Rainbow fishery.
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

Red Leaker, what I am talking about is the biological issues the lake has--stunted perch, stunting lake trout, declining splake fishery, and declining rainbow trout fishery. This isn't an opinion....this is fact. True, some people might like those stunted perch, but biologically, it sure as heck ain't ideal.

If the introduction of perch had had a positive effect on the fishery as a whole, I would be all for them. But, it hasn't...not only on the other fishes but on the perch as well. Right now, it is a poor perch fishery. Yeah, there are loads of them, but they are really small. In Utah, right now, we don't have a single good perch fishery...
[signature]

[fish_fear_me2]

I agree there arent any great perch fisheries in Utah, I do think the introduction of perch and possibly invassive vegetation have had an impact on Fish Lake. I also believe there are far too many variables and unanswered questions for us to say what this lake might have been. As I mentioned before the fond memories of all the BIG trout you could catch are a bit exagerated. It was a great Fishery but not as great as some on here want to say it was. There were a lot of times one had to work hard for fish. To moan about something that was done 60 years ago, in the name of educating the masses, seems a bit mundane. Those bucket biologist from 1960 probably got what they wanted from their illegal deed. I dont think education will deter many who are inclined toward that sort of activity. Most of us agree that bucket biology is creating havoc in many of our fisheries. Those that dont agree wont be moved by the education provided here. The perch problem is there, I will let the experts figure out a plan to fix that. There are still many people that are happy catching a bucket of those perch.
[signature]

[The_Red_Leaker]

[quote wormandbobber] Yeah, there are loads of them, but they are really small. In Utah, right now, we don't have a single good perch fishery...[/quote]

Then maybe we should manage Fishlake to be a "single good perch fishery" so that anglers of this State have one..... but I realize that is not what you want and therefore cannot be discussed as an option.
[signature]

[The_Red_Leaker]

Solid open minded post with good insight and honesty...... the only thing that I might suggest is when the opportunity presents itself communicate with the "experts" on what you would like the results to be from their plans concerning Fishlake, whether it be positive for trout or perch or maybe even both.
[signature]

[isda]

I have a question... What makes a "great perch fishery" and what can we do to create one here in UT?
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

[quote The_Red_Leaker]
Then maybe we should manage Fishlake to be a "single good perch fishery" so that anglers of this State have one..... but I realize that is not what you want and therefore cannot be discussed as an option.[/quote]

This is where you are wrong and where your assumptions are totally skewed....I have nothing against perch or perch fishermen. What I want is for Fish Lake to be a healthy fishery. I don't care if that means trout, bass, walleye, pike, or whatever else. What I don't want is for bucket bozos to continue making great fisheries worse....
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

[quote isda]I have a question... What makes a "great perch fishery" and what can we do to create one here in UT?[/quote]

That's the real trick...the problem is that perch are not well-suited (or, in some cases, too well-suited) for utah waters. Perch either tend to overpopulate stunting their growth rates and fishermen aren't able to harvest them quickly enough or abundantly enough to control their populations or they cannot reproduce enough to overcome predation.

So, in order to have a great perch fishery, we would have to control their numbers to the point where their growth rates are at their optimum. A good predator/prey relationship would certainly help...but even where perch predators exist, habitat issues don't allow the perch to reproduce as they need.

Read this discussion:
http://www.insideline.net/index.php/comp...re-twotier

It refers directly to your question in regards to Utah and perch.
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

Thin out the number of Northern Pike in Yuba. Oh, wait... then the guys who want to catch Northerns think the UDWR has a war on Northern Pike.
[signature]