Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
If it was trout they (DWR) would replant....
#46
My question is why is everyone so quick to jump and claim that perch, walleye and other fish were first introduced by bucket biologists when the DWR or back in the early days when most of these fish wound up in our lakes and streams (the Fish & Game Dept.) were legally introduced? They didn't know then what they think they know know and in most cases it has improved the recreational fishing, the economy and provided jobs and revenue for the state.

As for not catching most of those fish on the list of natives in your neck of the woods, you would have if you'd have been a native and should be now if Utah were only stocking native species which means that those touting purity of fishing are now fishing for non-native species.

And while we're at it...we can blame bucket biologists for improving our lakes and streams because when there is a mass die off of game fish...not to be Confused with "trash fish" like chubs, carp & suckers, there is an outcry as to why did it happen. Yes...we can thank the perch and all the other non-native species for being the watchdogs for our environment.

We have improved water quality and created total industries around all of the "non-native" species.

If it wasn't for the perch, walleye and bass...the lowly and often tried to be eliminated Utah chub, would not have any value. Also, who would really care about the June Sucker or any of the other so called trash fish...that are now proving to be so valuable in our "altered" eco-systems.

And let's thank the Utah Carp for becoming the new "fresh water halibut" fish sandwich and fishsticks. [cool]

.
[signature]
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: [hedgesd] If it was trout they (DWR) would replant.... - by bassrods - 12-18-2005, 02:51 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)