Posts: 14,596
Threads: 202
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
15
Just thinking, which is dangerous for me I realize, but with Cutler drained and all the remaining fish concentrated in the little remaining water in the channels... Wouldn't this be a good time to look towards reducing the carp numbers by an aka Utah Lake type effort.... If so would something like this help the fishery? What are your thoughts? Could the state or private group do a gill netting effort to thin the numbers, or do we need them as part of the system? I realize that there's no way to ever get rid of them with the system from Bear Lake to Salt Lake full of them, but would a lower number of them help water quality and perhaps help other species do better? I know I should have kept that thought to myself, but just wondering if it would be helpful? I guess part of my reason to ask, is lately I have been catching carp on jigs and snagging scales quite often in my recent trips, so there must be a ton of carp there seeing how often I'm seeing indications of them... Later J
[signature]
Posts: 19,236
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
1
I can't imagine masses of Carp could be good for any waters. What you say makes perfect sense. I would love to do my part at getting rid of them![laugh]
[signature]
Posts: 14,596
Threads: 202
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
15
Are you or is anyone familiar with how a private group got permission to net Utah Lake? My thoughts are the state probably wouldn't have the budget to take on a project like that, but I wonder if a sportsmans fund or volunteer effort could do something like that? I know it would take permitting and training so non target fish were not harmed, but it sure seems like a great time to reduce the numbers... J
[signature]
Posts: 19,236
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
1
I would say to contact Utah DWR or PM ColdWaterCoord here. He will find out I am sure
[signature]
Posts: 14,596
Threads: 202
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
15
Thanks great tip, I'll ask.... J
[signature]
Posts: 36,168
Threads: 307
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
62
[quote SkunkedAgain]Are you or is anyone familiar with how a private group got permission to net Utah Lake? My thoughts are the state probably wouldn't have the budget to take on a project like that, but I wonder if a sportsmans fund or volunteer effort could do something like that? I know it would take permitting and training so non target fish were not harmed, but it sure seems like a great time to reduce the numbers... J[/quote]
[#0000FF]The Utah Lake carp eradication program is funded by the feds...as part of the endangered June Sucker Recovery Program. New budget approval every year. Without such an "important" need for reducing carp numbers it is doubtful that any of the already stingy DWR budget could be allocated for that purpose. Makes good sense, but not more than most of the other projects that have already been studied and approved.
It was a simple matter to employ the Loy family for the carp netting in Utah Lake. Their operation has been going for several generations. It has evolved from supplying mink farmers to commercial sales in the large enthnic markets in big cities to the present June Sucker Recovery thing. A few years ago it was found that there are unsafe levels of PCB in Utah Lake carp and that pretty much killed the commercial sale potential for the Loys. Without the fed funding they would be forced to find employment elsewhere.
The problem with using a chemical kill is that there will always be objections from downstream water users...or fish-huggers. And it is expensive. Again, DWR has a tight budget and it is unlikely that there could ever be agreement on spending money to kill carp in "non-trout" waters.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 1,428
Threads: 19
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
15
The problem with this kind of a proposal is that it is either a one time thing or an ongoing thing--if it is only done once because of low water, you really don't accomplish anything. Your typical female carp can lay around 300,000 eggs in one cycle (compare that to trout or LMB!). So, you might kill a butt load of carp, but after one spawn the number is probably not really any different. So, you spend a bunch of money killing a bunch of fish and end up with no real change in numbers. Remember, "That repopulation is one reason the eradication project does not have a firm completion date, though officials overseeing the project estimate the fishermen need to pull at least 5 million pounds of carp from the lake each year to stay ahead of the births of new fish.
On the other hand, if you were to undertake this kind of a project year in and year out, you are looking at yearly costs....who is going to do it? That is why the Loy's are employed on Utah Lake...because they are a private business that has found a way to profit from doing it. The DWR is not going to have the money or time to undertake this kind of project on a yearly basis....
[signature]
Posts: 14,596
Threads: 202
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
15
Wonder if there would be commercial potential for the Bear River carp, might cover the costs of someone doing it??? I pretty much knew there wouldn't be public funds to do this, I'm not even sure if they would allow private to do it... What they could possibly do is put it up for bid and allow the highest bidder to be able to fish it for the peroid of the draw down... Or allow the public in general that right to net for a short time... The problem with this idea is the area is very difficult to access now with low water and specialized equipment probably can't get there, so it would be difficult to do, but I'll bet you could really fill the nets as thick as the carp seem to be now... I've got to admit, I'd love to see what else shows up in the nets... Later J
[signature]
Posts: 36,168
Threads: 307
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
62
[#0000FF]There is a lot more to it than someone just setting out some nets...permits, equipment, staffing, etc. And the permits are not only from the state but also any property owners, water users and environmentalists in the mix. Also, there has to be an outlet established for the netted fish...so that the party or parties doing the netting can make money from it. Nobody is going to harvest a bunch of nasty carp unless they have a market for them.
I have been told that there has already been more than one attempt to get permits for seining carp out of Utah waterways...including Yuba Reservoir and the Bear River habitats. At least one of the parties is already doing it in other states and has a ready market for the carp. But bureaucracy and terminal inertia amongst permit givers shot them down.
Road sign: Now entering Utah. Set watches back 100 years.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 3,088
Threads: 22
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
13
[quote SkunkedAgain]The problem with this idea is the area is very difficult to access now with low water and specialized equipment probably can't get there, so it would be difficult to do, [/quote]
well....there's one answer to your question.
[quote SkunkedAgain] I've got to admit, I'd love to see what else shows up in the nets... [/quote]
And now you've brought up a whole 'nother issue. How do you only target the carp, and not other game fish? Who's going to enforce that it's only carp, and not game fish? How much would game fish be affected by an increase in casualties due to nets being non-discriminate?
[signature]
Posts: 14,596
Threads: 202
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
15
I know you're right that a one time deal wouldn't fix the problem, but I was wondering if it would help get the big hog carps that aren't affected by preditors... In the last 20 years or so it seems like the carp numbers are actually decreasing somewhat, and that has been in the time frame when the smallies have shown up and the walleye have become more established along with the channel cats and I believe these preditors are taking their toll on the carp minnows and that has reduced the total number of carp... and I think the water actually seems to be much clearer now than it ever used to be.. I also think the numbers of mudcats has decreased a whole bunch in that time frame... It used to seem like you couldn't catch a channel cat before the mudcats had your bait, now I don't catch very many of the mudcats anymore... not that I'm complaining about that, it's been a good change... Anyway I guess I'm just dreaming and throwing out what if's.... I'm not even sure if it would be a good thing, since I think a lot of the sportfish rely on the carp for a food source... Later J
[signature]
Posts: 14,596
Threads: 202
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
15
Yup, I was dreaming thinking that this could possibly happen in a short time... No way permits and studies could be completed fast enough to make this happen... But it would be a good time to catch them if it was possible... Thank TD for bringing me back down to earth... Later J
[signature]
Posts: 14,596
Threads: 202
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
15
Good questions, I think the Utah Lake thing would be a good place to turn to get some similar answers to those questions, had my bubble not already been popped by other problems with this proposal.... But I assumed if it worked on Utah Lake there must be some acceptable rates to answer your questions, unless they consider saving the sucker to be worthy of the losses to other game fish.... Personally I'd hate to see the losses to other species more than I'd like to see the carp reduced, since this time of year the netting is probably rough on the non target species... I haven't ever seen the netting up close so I have no idea what the mortality rate is for the non-target fish, but I suspect it is probably higher than I would want to see... Guess you guys all talked me out of this idea.... Later J
[signature]
Posts: 2,436
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
Mesh size. 6" mesh size lets all but the biggest diameter fish pass through or get away.
Carp are about the only thing big enough around to get caught up in that big of a mesh size.
Not saying to do it, but that is one way commercial fishers target specific species or sizes of fish.
Net placement is another way. Nets that float and are only 4' deep won't get the big cats which tend to hang on the bottom if the water is 8' deep. Nets that have weights heavy enough to sink them to the bottom with floats to keep them stretched out won't catch many top dwellers.
Time of year is another way, fish congregate in different places at different times of the year.
[signature]
Posts: 14,596
Threads: 202
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
15
Good points, you must have some commercial fishing background... DWR didn't say anything about my crazy idea when they got back with me, so I guess it was too far out to get an answer... They used the politician answer and redirected the conversation another direction, but that's okay it was a little crazy to think something like this could happen in a short time... Anyway thanks for the good info... Later J
[signature]
Posts: 2,841
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation:
0
I like the idea, but there are so many carp in the river upstream, they'd just repopulate it in no time. Darned vermin.
[signature]
Posts: 14,596
Threads: 202
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
15
I know you're right, but I wonder if the predators would hold down the repopulation for a while longer. Hey were you driving through sardine about 3:45 this afternoon? Seen a white car with personalized license plates that was _Stott. Don't remember the letter in the blank spot? Anyway catch ya later. J
[signature]
Posts: 2,841
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation:
0
Weird, not me though. I have a black car and I was stuck at work at Logan Regional this afternoon.
I wish they could give thinning the carp a try. I'd love to see Cutler really take off as a fishery.
[signature]
Posts: 14,596
Threads: 202
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
15
Posts: 5,745
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
Reputation:
0
And add whitebass, stock tigermusky, pike, and walleye.
And I was about to take the bow out of the back of the rig to get ready for ice. Maybe we should get the bows, gigs, pitchforks, and castnets. Grab some waders and muck boots, and see what damage we can do!
|
