Posts: 156
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
0
I have been thinking it is time to put a slot limit on the trout at Bear Lake. Most every cutthroat fishery in the state, and all that are considered "trophy" fisheries have a slot limit.
The fish in Bear Lake grow so slow we have to make sure that there are some left for our kids.
Bear Lake has never been better. There has never had so much fishing pressure either. My boys are 3 and 1 years old. I wish I had this kind of fishing when I was little and fishing the lake with my dad. I want to do whatever I can to make sure the fishery continues to thrive. Big hats off to Scott for making it what it is.
I propose a slot be put in place that will that will protect both the cutts and the lakers, especially during vulnerable times of the year when the larger, older trophy fish are more easily caught.
Just a thought. I release all I can anyways, so the thought of catching lots of big fish is always appealing.😃
I think a slot of one fish over 24", and maintain the clipped fin rule would do wonders.
What are your thoughts?
[signature]
Posts: 1,178
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
1
Totally against it.
The limit is only two as it is and even though there may be the perception that there is a lot of pressure, this lake is huge and gets very little pressure compared to other lakes.
Also, things are already working right apparently because the average cutthroat we catch is pretty big and its only been getting better.
There is a big misconception that slot limits are the cure all to a lake turning out big fish. I'm not buying it. They can be helpful when there is a balance problem between prey and predators big enough to eat them, but we've seen none of this problem at bear lake.
With restricting the take at this lake we would just be adding more mouths to feed without an increase of the prey base that they would need to all grow big.
The ciscos are really doing well as are the whitefish. Things seem to be well balanced and I have faith in our local biologist to make the right decisions for this lake. He also loves fishing here and has a personal interest in providing the best fishing experience that it can be for our visitors and residents alike.
Keeping fish hurts nothing and many of us like to keep them when the urge to grill some cutthroat slabs hits us.
[signature]
Posts: 156
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
0
I'm not trying to keep people from keeping fish. I'm trying to keep the breeders from being over harvested, especially during vulnerable times of the year.
The notion that we can't over fish a water is naive. Utah lake had monster cutts once upon a time. Gone from over fishing. The Great Lakes were almost fished to extinction. The list goes on and on.
A slot limit, surely won't do any harm but help breeders make it to the breeding grounds.
[signature]
Posts: 1,178
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
1
I'm all for a healthy breeding population, but I assure you more than enough are breeding. I live on and fish on bear lake. I have my finger on the pulse when it comes to numbers of fisherman here and when the various runs are going it still doesn't get near the pressure that some assume its getting. If there are few dozen fishing boats on the lake at any one time then its considered a busy day. Most boats in the summer are just playing on the water and the boat fisherman only really fish the early morning and late evening hours during the busy time of year. I know that it seems like there are a lot, but the fish are simply not getting much pressure.
Also consider that most fisherman out there fishing during the majority of the year on this lake are getting skunked or only getting a few fish in a day. This is a very difficult lake for most guys to be consistently successful on.
I'm sure you mean well and feel strongly about it, but I am the same way about not fixing something that's not broke. I would hate to see such a well balanced system messed with. You are welcome to your opinion and we welcome you to fish bear lake every chance you get, I just happen to have my own opinion on the matter. Just my two cents worth.
[signature]
Posts: 156
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
0
I never said there wasn't a good balance. I never said the fishery was in trouble. I just hope we have the foresight to do something before there is a problem.
Everyone was pissed when the clipped fin thing came out. Ended up being the best thing we could have done. Who's to say whether or not a slot would do the same thing? Might, might not.
Being pro active is better than waiting for the obvious.
[signature]
Posts: 3,301
Threads: 1
Joined: Aug 2002
Reputation:
0
[quote not-a-purist]Bear Lake has never been better.[/quote]
Bear Lake has never been this bad! 15 years ago and further back, it was MUCH better than it is today ... well, at least for the mackinaw. I've never seriously targeted Bear Lake's cuts so maybe cuts were never this good but as for the macks, it has been 10 or so years since it was "good" mack fishing.
Every time I suggest a limit of some kind, someone much smarter than me, that knows fish biology and state finances better than me, debunks my suggestion. So I would not know how to answer your question.
[signature]
Posts: 1,178
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
1
I agree with being proactive and I was never against the clipped fin, but you say the fishery is in trouble and I've neither seen firsthand or heard of any empirical data on the subject that would substantiate that claim. To the contrary, I think Scott is doing a wonderful job up here and it seems to me that the quality of fish is better now than I can ever remember. The DWR must be doing something right up here and this isn't about me being able to keep fish, its about a balance that seems to have already been struck and trying something new here with no problem presenting itself seems counterproductive in my opinion.
[signature]
Posts: 1,178
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
1
I don't know what you consider bad, but I've never seen Macks as big as I've seen here the last couple years. Honest 20+ pounders have been caught and prior to this they were very rare. Most "20 pounders" previous to two years ago were probably more like 15 pounders.
The lake is being managed more for trophy cutts than lakers and its starting to show. The Macks may be a little more thinned out, but I still catch a bunch. I can't think of any other lakes in utah with such quality cutts in it. Quite a unique experience in my opinion.
[signature]
Posts: 156
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
0
You need to read my posts again gmwahl. I did not say the fishery was in trouble. I said its never been better, at least for the cutts. I gave props to Scott. He's done an amazing job.
I was only saying something could be done before the fishery does get in trouble, should a problem arise.
Read before reply
[signature]
Posts: 1,178
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
1
Your right, my apologies. You didn't say it was in trouble. My eyes and brain aren't on the same wavelength apparently [crazy]
I agree, its never been better. Best cutthroat fishery in the state for trophy cutts. Lakers aren't bad either.
[signature]
Posts: 807
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation:
0
Why mess with something that is working? If they were to make a change I would suggest making it like Henry's Lake. You keep your second trout and you are done fishing for the day.
[signature]
Posts: 108
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation:
0
Slot limits don't work ! They just kill a lot of fish ! When the bait fisherman through back there gut hooked fish.They did not work at Strawberry ! Did not work at the Provo river, they just produced a lot of stunted fish.
[signature]
Posts: 34,004
Threads: 448
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
36
When the state started to change the way they managed BL, that was the beginning of the end for catching macks in the numbers once caught up there. Now we are hearing of folks catching 12 lb cutts and still catching big macks but not nearly the numbers we once caught, now that all macks are being planted are sterile. I too think the overall numbers are better now than they use to be but most of those fish are cutts now.
[signature]
Posts: 5,277
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation:
0
There is a lot more natural reproduction going on in the cutthroat tributaries now. With that in mind, they may end up needing to either reduce trout stocking numbers or increase the limits in the future. There is more danger of future crowding rather than reduced numbers.
Trust the fishery biologists. They keep a pretty close eye on the numbers of not only the lakers and cutts, but the whitefish, sculpins, and cisco too. The whole food chain is important.
[signature]
Posts: 156
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
0
I like the keeping the second fish idea, but how do you enforce it?
Any suggestions on how to keep the big Lakers from getting slaughtered every fall? Short of closing laker fishing entirely for a month I don't see how else to help with anything but a slot limit.
True that some fish will die when released because of the slot, but I can catch and release all day and have the same problem. The slot only ensure that if I catch 2 trophy fish, one has a chance of survival.
Just thinking out loud.
[signature]
Posts: 807
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation:
0
The rule is enforced pretty well at Henry's. If you have 4 guys in a boat and 8 dead trout, lake or cut, then they better be done fishing. Tickets are given to all 4 guys no questions asked. Don't know how to help the macs and kind of don't care.
[signature]
Posts: 231
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation:
0
I like the idea of changing the regs on BL, not a big slot limit guy. But I agree with keeping clipped fin in place and only one cutt and one laker over a certain size..
I'm Sure that all the self proclaimed BL biologist will be upset with this post, but it's an opinion post.
[signature]
Posts: 530
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation:
0
The best eating trout are 6 to 14 inches any way.
[signature]
Posts: 6
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2014
Reputation:
0
I would have to agree with gmwahl. I don't fish the lake much, but I know personally people who are catching 30+ fish on their trips out there every time they go out. One friend met up with a die-hard fisherman this fall who boated 21 macks in one trip and 5 of those were over the 15 pound mark and he had the pictures to prove it. So I agree, don't mess with a good thing.
If it ain't broken, don't try and fix it. The biologist up there has THE BEST handle on things from everyone I've talked to. His input would probably be the best that anyone can add to this thread.
Here's hoping he chimes in soon.
[signature]
Posts: 156
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
0
Those are some impressive numbers. Those numbers are the very reason I like the idea of a slot, or some other management tool to help save large fish.
Hypothetically, of that guy were to keep those 5 over 15 pounds, that is one hundred plus years of fish gone. A 15 pound mac is between 20 and 30 years old. That is a long time to replace those fish. I hope someone is smart enough to recognize that and let them go, but they usually end up dying.
Ill be an old man by the time they are replaced.
Food for thought.
[signature]
|
