Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
[quote MasterDaad]I remain of the opinion any money spent trying to "manage" Yuba is money wasted
...
Poision will kill may kill unwanted fish (at a very high price tag).
...
Ergo, "managing" Yuba is a waste of money in my view.
[/quote]
American Fisheries Society, the world's oldest and largest organization dedicated to strengthening the fisheries profession, advancing fisheries sciences, and conserving fisheries resources, thinks opposite of the above statements:
https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/fed...onebro.pdf
[quote "American Fisheries Society"]
Q. Why is rotenone treatment
cost effective?
A. It has been estimated that for
each dollar spent on rotenone
and stocked trout, anglers gained
from $32 to $105 worth of fishing.
On trout lakes that were
stocked but not treated, the gain
from fish stocking alone was
only $10 to $15.[/quote]
If your concern is "wasting money", then how can the DWR, or anglers, not consider rotenone as a management tool for lakes like Yuba??
[signature]
Posts: 1,156
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation:
0
PBH,
You are great at parsing opinions and responding to the part of a post you want and ignoring the bigger picture.
There's more to the forest than the little tree you want to discuss here.
Thanks for the link to the glowing report about poisoning prepared by the Fish Chemicals Subcommittee which did nothing to address the specific difficulties of Yuba.
Kill all the bad fish you want in Yuba and in dry years you'll have an empty mud puddle instead of a carp infested mud puddle.
Anglers don't care about either of those.
Since you seem completely unwilling to address the habitat part of the equation, I see no reason to alter my opinion Yuba is a waste of time and money to manage.
By the way, Scofield has the same problem for the last several years. It's been hovering near 30% full with almost no flooded vegetation areas to provide good food sources to sport fish and low oxygen levels in the winters. Its essentially been a mud puddle breeding ground for Chubs.
We'll see what happens this year when it actually gets some water.
Scofield, however, is a place I would support a treatment because it has a much better track record as a habitat for sport fish.
[signature]
Posts: 35,753
Threads: 262
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
49
[quote PBH] American Fisheries Society, the world's oldest and largest organization dedicated to strengthening the fisheries profession, advancing fisheries sciences, and conserving fisheries resources, thinks opposite of the above statements:
[url "https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/federalassistance/native_trout/rotenonebro.pdf"]https://www.fws.gov/...rout/rotenonebro.pdf[/url]
[quote "American Fisheries Society"]
Q. Why is rotenone treatment
cost effective?
A. It has been estimated that for
each dollar spent on rotenone
and stocked trout, anglers gained
from $32 to $105 worth of fishing.
On trout lakes that were
stocked but not treated, the gain
from fish stocking alone was
only $10 to $15.[/quote]
[#0000FF]In case you have not discerned what the issue is, with Yubaites...it is not trout. We have too many trout ponds as it is and Yuba has never worked for trout.
Right now, Yuba has trophy class pike fishing. And rotenone would forever destroy it. Leave the pike to fight with the carp and whatever walleyes and perch still remain. They might all have a fighting chance in the coming high water year.
Comparing Yuba to Scofield is not a good comparison. Scofield has always been a trout lake. One that goes through its own cycles. But when it fails all you gotta do is put more hatchery pets in it.
Leave Yuba alone and let it regulate itself according to the laws of natural selection...survival of the fittest (and toothiest).
I find it laughable that DWR has done nothing during the past few years that Scofield has been in the dumper...but now that Yuba appears to have a chance to enter a new up cycle they want to kill it.
[/#0000FF]
If your concern is "wasting money", then how can the DWR, or anglers, not consider rotenone as a management tool for lakes like Yuba??[/quote]
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
I don't ignore the habitat. I fully understand that Yuba has no habitat, and has frequent water issues.
What I don't get is how you guys can sit here and ask the DWR to do nothing. How long will that last? How long before the boo-birds come out complaining that the DWR is doing nothing? Isn't that what we've already heard for the last 10 years with Yuba? How will doing more nothing help?
[signature]
Posts: 1,156
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation:
0
The only comparison point between Scofield and Yuba is the recent water difficulties with Scofield (which is THE issue with trying to manage Yuba).
DWR funded a study of Scofield with USU a few years ago. It concluded a Cutt/Tiger planting program coupled with a slot limit should control the chub problem.
Unfortunately Mother Nature decided not to feed Scofield much water over the past several years (2011 is the last time Scofield was above 50% capacity) so those new planter Cutts and Tigers haven't enough food to grow into the Chub eating Monsters like the on in my Avatar (Scofield Nov 2014).
The persistent low water caused a host of other issues up there (see Algae Bloom last year as an example).
The comparison point with Yuba is about the critical role of Mother Nature in any management plan.
A key difference is Scofield has a much better historical track record of maintaining a sustainable flood/draw down cycle to support a great trout fishery.
I agree a good strategy for Yuba is to let the carp and Pike fight it out in whatever environment the Yuba water owners decide to leave in the lake for them.
I guarantee no one is  der about the crash of Scofield than me. Just look at my fishing reports from 2011-2014 from up there on the board -- I very much miss those days.
However, I know there is a scientifically-backed plan for Scofield. Work has been done to get it back in balance. The plan hasn't been effective so far.
And a very good possibility is the lack of water, not improper management.
One other difference: DWR could poison Scofield and it would provide a good habitat from day one and be nearly guaranteed to be a good Trout fishery in a couple years.
With hindsight about the water limitations, it's easy to argue poisoning Scofield two years ago would have been a better choice.
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
Tube -- it isn't about trout. It never has been. I'm not advocating trout at Yuba. I will recognize, however, that after the last issue at Yuba trout did very well for a short time period. That's not a bad thing.
And, the issue at Yuba is very similar to Scofield. You guys get too caught up in "species". Forget what kind of fish they are for a minute, and just look at numbers and what is happening.
I'll fully support you guys in leaving Yuba alone. If that's truly what the public angling community wants - nothing - then i'd support it, even though I know that it is detrimental to the fishery. I think, just like teenagers, sometimes we have to learn the hard way. If
I'm on the bandwagon: LEAVE YUBA ALONE.
One final question: Why don't any of you fish Commins Lake, NV??
[signature]
Posts: 447
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
0
It's funny to me Pat when folks address you in particular basically saying you don't know what your talking about.
The fact is THE DWR IS GOING TO DESTROY A TROPHY PIKE FISHERY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you guys are so set on your agenda....we don't give a crap about trout don't you get it! This state time and time again does what they want without the voice of anglers.
If Yuba were in a failing state I could understand intervention but it's not. This is simply so they can have ever another little trout fishery...I'll sit back with my popcorn and wait for a real fish (pike, walleye) to come gobble up those frail little gray meat planters..
Sorry the above is not so professional, but it is the voice the DWR is not hearing.
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
[quote MasterDaad]T
Unfortunately Mother Nature decided not to feed Scofield much water over the past several years (2011 is the last time Scofield was above 50% capacity) so those new planter Cutts and Tigers haven't enough food to grow into the Chub eating Monsters like the on in my Avatar (Scofield Nov 2014).
[/quote]
It isn't water that's preventing the cutts and tigers from growing into chub eating monsters. The problem is that the chubs are out-competing smaller cutts and tigers for plankton, thus preventing those fish from growing large enough to take advantage of the plentiful chubs.
[quote MasterDaad]
However, I know there is a scientifically-backed plan for Scofield. Work has been done to get it back in balance. The plan hasn't been effective so far.
[/quote]
you realize that the DWR is going through the NEPA process right now to poison Scofield?
Again, mother nature won't balance. She won't do it at Yuba. She never has. She never will.
Yuba isn't about trout. Never was. Never will be.
Let's go fish Commins together.
that's where Yuba is headed.
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
This is the first I've heard of this plan. I'll refrain from commenting on the rest, but my one question, if I understand what is being proposed, is that the DWR will rotenone the entire system from Redmond to Yuba in an effort to get rid of the pike.
This would seem like a tall order. If a few are missed, they will simply return as before. If a few chubs are missed in a chub treatment, as is often the case and frequently anticipated, then a slot limit for predatory trout will keep the remainder in check. This has proven to work. However, there is no such option for an apex predator like pike. What then, if one doesn't get a complete kill?
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
My guess is Tiger Muskie. Look at how good of a job the adult Northerns are doing on juvenile pike. Seems like a few thousand Muskies would keep the pike from being able to do much. And the Muskies would be swimming in the exact places that the juvenile pike would want to inhabit.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 15
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation:
0
What would it take to get some habitat or structure in there? Old trees, concrete anything to make a place for smaller fish to hide or big fish to ambush prey. What about poisoning it and putting tiger Muskie in there where they can control there population? Also once structure is in put other fish like perch, walleye, small mouth bass, wipers etc. I know we have a water issue is there anyway we can only depot certain level then no more? Just questions I have not sure what a good solution is.
[signature]
Posts: 1,855
Threads: 14
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
2
At this point there is no reserve pool set in place to keep the reservoir from being drained dry if the water useres choose to do so. This is what makes it such a challenge to manage. A couple of dry years and all the hard work would go right down the drain.
[signature]
Live to hunt----- Hunt to live.
Posts: 69
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
0
Yuba is now producing record pike, which when the DWR raised the limit to twenty a day a couple or few years ago, that was their stated goal. More big trophy pike with less smaller ones to compete for food.
If I read the one article correctly, the average size is now over 35"! Holy smokes! What more opportunity could folks ask for in Utah??
With walleye numbers stable, increasing in numbers and size, perch increasing in numbers and size, and a good water year looming, seems the lake is headed in the right direction without wasting much needed sportsman dollars.
Seen more than a few 14" carp down the gullet of a 35" pike, tail sticking out into the throat of the pike. Pike love carp. Almost every one has carp in their stomachs, even sizable carp.
Still vote to leave it be and see how big the state record is going to be in the near future..
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
Lovetofish: Your questions are not new. These are questions frequently asked by anglers, and for good reason. Unfortunately, the water in Yuba is not owned by the State, and the water owners do not want "structure" in the resesrvoir. We have had some "rock piles" dumped in there in the past, but have more habitat work done in the future will be a challenge, and will be governed by the water owners (IPP).
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
Water levels: keep in mind, much of the water in Yuba is not for irrigation. Thus, even with high water years, draw-down is subject to extremes. However, the water volume in Yuba for 2017 is not expected to drop below 15% (which is the highest volume for a treatment).
Attached is the Scoping Notice for Yuba, which just went public today.
I've been looking for the Yuba Management Plan, but cannot find a copy. Maybe someone should request it from Crockett and post it for everyone to see, so that we can all be better educated on what the DWR, along with the Yuba working committee, has decided to do.
[signature]
Posts: 313
Threads: 18
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation:
0
Well Comins Lake was treated with rotenone to remove pike last year. So no one who wants pike will be heading that way anytime soon.
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
[quote Envenomation09]Well Comins Lake was treated with rotenone to remove pike last year. So no one who wants pike will be heading that way anytime soon.[/quote]
wait. Just stop it.
Are you telling me that NDOW used rotenone to remove stunted pike from Comins AND Basset lakes??
Why on earth would any state other than Utah want to rid a lake of a trophy fish???
comment from Joe Doucette of NDOW concerning the treatment of Comins: "This is worth millions to White Pine County,” Doucette said. “Businesses are expecting it.”
[fishin]
[signature]
Posts: 313
Threads: 18
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation:
0
Precisely what happened there. Pike population stunted and crashed, and ate everything in the lake. Comins should be a destination fishery once again in a few years. Good thing Yuba is not stunting at least, though they still wanna poison it for some reason.
[signature]
Posts: 15
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation:
0
I was down there last Saturday and the water is a lot lower than last year at this time. Hopefully it will fill up this spring.
[signature]
Posts: 421
Threads: 4
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
[quote PBH]Water levels: keep in mind, much of the water in Yuba is not for irrigation. Thus, even with high water years, draw-down is subject to extremes. However, the water volume in Yuba for 2017 is not expected to drop below 15% (which is the highest volume for a treatment).
Attached is the Scoping Notice for Yuba, which just went public today.
I've been looking for the Yuba Management Plan, but cannot find a copy. Maybe someone should request it from Crockett and post it for everyone to see, so that we can all be better educated on what the DWR, along with the Yuba working committee, has decided to do.[/quote]
PBH. Thanks for posting this notice.
Does anyone know what species will be planted back into the system after the treatments?
[signature]
|
