Posts: 28
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation:
0
As far as I'm concerned the DWR is managing our fisheries about like they are managing our big game. Like crap!!!!!! There should never be a water in our state that needs to be poisoned. I remember as a youth fishing Otter Creek countless times and catching nice big fat rainbows.Out of all the years and times I fished it I never caught one single chub!!!!! Yet every 4 or so years they would poison it and ruin it again. Can you imagine what that fishery would be like today if they would have managed it properly instead of doing the quick fix every 4 years. We would be fishing for some world class rainbows!!! When are they going to figure out that big trout eat chubs!!!!!!! Chubs are our friend. So far at Strawberry things are going alright but they better watch it or they will have alot of skinny fish. The same problem they have had at Minersville and now Kolob. Too many fish is also a problem and not enough chubs or perch. They need to manage things yearly based upon gill nettings and samples. If things were done right you would see regulations being changed yearly on every single fishery. Like for instance, one year release the big fish and another year keep a few of them. I agree with selective harvest. Catch and release is not always the answer. Where did these people at the DWR go to school? They need to get them some better books on how to properly manage our wildlife. It's time for them to start doing what every single license holder out there is paying them to do and that is manage things properly!!! The same goes for our big game and the tag numbers. Tag numbers need to be changed yearly!!!!! They need to be based upon harvest, poaching, road kill, drought and habitat, fawn production, predator kills, winter kill,etc.etc.etc. The same thing year in and year out is not working or proper management. It's a very lazy style of management. If proper management was actually taking place you would see fishing regulations and tag numbers being changed drastically every year. Sportsman would actually have to read and carry a proclamation for reference to know what was going on!
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
I fish Minersville about 30 or 40 times a year on average, and I can tell ya without a doubt that the reason the fish get skinny sometimes in there is because EVERY ounce of available food gets eaten by chubs. The trout eat tons of the young chubs. They eat more of them than the smallmouth bass, but they cannot eat enough of them to keep them in check. And until the trout get big enough to eat chubs, and figure out how to eat chubs, they struggle just to survive the warm water and the lack of smaller, easier to eat foods. The chubs like the warmer water, and because of their numbers they eat the trout out of house and home.
I have noticed that the damsel flies have been gone for about 5 years. About 2 years before the draining for the repairs on the dam. Before that you would have six or seven of the darn things hanging on to your fishing pole. But not since the chubs really came on strong again. I saw two or three damsel flies last year total. If the chubs don't get really thick again for a couple of years there will be some toads in there again.
And without special regulatons like Minersville has, Otter Creek Isn't going to be any better than it already is. A trout only lives 5 or 6 years on average if it isn't caught and kept, and is only going to grow so big no matter how long you go without rotenone.
I agree that the regs need to be tweaked quite often, but every time the DWR changes things people are up in arms about how that affects their favorite fishing hole or their favorite way of fishing. The change to a 22 inch minimun lenght on trout, on waters with special regulations, had to be made statewide to make the excuse that "I thought that you could keep one over 20 inches here" wouldn't be every idiots way out of a ticket at Strawberry.
As for not catching a single chub at Otter Creek, so what? I don't catch chubs at Minersville either. They are still a big problem there though. If you aren't using the right stuff to catch them you never will. They still out eat any other fish around. They still out reproduce any other fish around, and unless you have an imbalance of predatory fish in a body of water you won't be able to keep chubs in check. Walleyes, smallmouth bass, and brown trout have eaten all of the young of the year chubs in Starvation for years, but they haven't eliminated them yet. Only when the adult chubs die of old age (soon) will there be a shortage of forage in there. The macinaw in Fish Lake didn't eat all of the chubs in there either. It wasn't until some fool who thought that he knew more than the biologists put perch in there that there was a problem there. And they are NEVER going to run out of chubs at Strawberry with only Bear Lake cutthroats in there. If some joker puts another predator in there via bucket planting, then there might be a problem.
And as soon as the DWR hints that they're going to reduce the number of deer tags in the state or shorten the season in a couple of regions to reduce the harvest or go to 25 regions, about half of the deer hunters in this state scream bloody murder that they can't go out with their family on a traditional deer hunt. They scream that they have to have 10 or 12 tags in camp even if only 4 or 5 guys are actually going to hunt.
No, I'd have to say that the DWR does a pretty good job of trying to deal with 500,000 different opinions on how every water should be managed, and 200,000 differences of opinion on how to make the deer hunting the same as it was 25 years ago. Unless somebody comes up with a time machine, that ain't happenin' either.
My two cents.
Fishrmn
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
"[size 1]Where did these people at the DWR go to school? They need to get them some better books on how to properly manage our wildlife"[/size]
The southern regional fisheries manager graduated from USU with a bachelors in fisheries management, then went on to CSU and got his masters. He now has over 30 years of experience. It sounds to me like you have all the answers. What schooling do you have? How much experience do you have?
With Otter Creek, it was a boom and bust cycle. About every 4 years, the chub population would explode, and the trout population would take a dive. The reason you got such good growth, and large trout was because they were given a fresh start after poisoning. No competition from chubs for a few years, and plenty of food produced fantastic fishing for the trout. It is in the same situation right now. When the dam was repaired, it was once again given a fresh start. Fishing has been fantastic for the last 3 years. Give it another 4 years, and let's see where it is at. Minersville is another good example. Chubs have always been a bit of a problem out here, along with angler, and bird, harvest. The fish could never get big enough to take advantage of the chub population. So, with the introduction of special regs, and a new stocking schedule, the fish are now able to get big enough to start eating chubs. This doesn't always keep the chubs in check, and I think Minersville was starting to get a chub problem, before the dam was repaired, and the lake was drained. If we get some water in Minersville, you can be sure to have some fantastic fishing again in a year or two.
"[size 1]They need to manage things yearly based upon gill nettings and samples." Why do you think they decide to poison lakes? Gill netting is done all the time. When was the last time you were around to pick chubs out of a gill net that was set in a lake with a chub problem? I can promise you, that isn't too much fun. [/size]
[size 1]The DWR does a great job managing our resources. They can't, and never will, be able to satisfy every outdoorsman. They try to do what they think is best for the resource, and I think that for the most part, they do a pretty good job. I'd like to hear from everyone which lakes they think the DWR has screwed up, and why.[/size]
[signature]
Posts: 1,395
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
9
Fishbladder, I am still laughing...that has got to be the dumbest post I have ever seen. Are you educated? Do you know anything about fisheries or wildlife management? Or do you just talk out of the south end of your ass?
[signature]
Posts: 179
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation:
0
tooting your own horn eh PBH. the southern region fisheries are in bad shape. I would say that with all your schooling and experience you should be able to a better job than you do. but that is just my observation, I have watched the fisheries go down hill for years and nothing is beeing done to fix the problem, your answer is poison and restock, It's not working.
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
tooting my own horn?? I'm  . I happen to be an information systems specialist....I only have a bachelors in BA...no fisheries stuff for me.
My question still stands. Name a lake (especially in the Southern Region) that has gone down hill due to the DWR's mismanagement.
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
As a former 10 yr. Las Vegas resident (moved up to Happy Valley 8 mo.s ago) who spent the majority of his fishing time in Southern Utah, I feel I need to agree that the Southern fisheries ARE in bad shape. BUT the problem is drought, not the DWR. The South has been creamed by this drought and the fisheries are suffering the effects. The current water year will help, but it will take years to get some of those lakes and streams back to good water levels and improved fishing action. As for the DWR, unless they can find Lorenzo Snow somewhere, (inside Mormon joke) they are somewhat helpless to do much. There are a few occasions where their policies have left me scratching my head, but by and large, I feel they do an overall good job at applying biological science to decision making. I do feel they are superior in that respect to their colleagues in Colorado and Nevada. (My most recent homes until now.) Sometimes politics supersedes science in decision making and they are hamstrung in this instance.
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
doggonefish -- you have hit my point exactly! The majority of problems with fisheries in the south are mainly due to factors that are out of the DWR's control (mother nature, bucket biologists, private hatchery entreprenuers; ie: Whirling Disease).
It's good to hear from someone that does not have the "grass is greener on the other side of the mountain" mentality.
I can attest to the fact that DWR biologists do their job out of a love for the resource. They fish just like you and me. They don't want to see a poor fishery, and they don't like not catching fish. They are going to do what needs to be done to make quality fisheries wherever they can. One thing that helps is fishermen. Sad thing is that fishermen are also one of the biggest obstacles. Fisheries management has turned into a PR nightmare, and biologists spend much more time managing people than they do managing fish. Sad, but true.
[signature]
Posts: 935
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2003
Reputation:
0
Fishbladder,
Wow, where have you been all these years?. You should show up at the RAC and share all your insights and all our problems will be solved. You go girl. LMAO
Kayote
[signature]
Posts: 349
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
[size 1]>>The majority of problems with fisheries in the south are mainly due to factors that are out of the DWR's control (mother nature, bucket biologists, private hatchery entreprenuers; ie: Whirling Disease).
[/size]
[size 1]Don't forget the moratorium imposed by the Fish & Wildlife Service on the introduction of new species into the Colorado River system and its drainages (which includes a good number of our waters).[/size]
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
Gumbo -- that's a big one.
I'm still waiting for the complainers to give me an example of a fishery that has gone down hill...
[signature]
Posts: 1,791
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
A fishery that has gone down hill???? Lake Bonneville!!![sly] I know that is corney!!!!
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
As I stated yesterday, I agree 100+% with you in this discussion. I do have one question that I hope you might be able to answer. I am disappointed that the DWR hasn't hastened to return the walleyes to Yuba. I believe that you stated in an earlier post that the "locals" wanted a trout fishery there. I am to understand that your relatives are DWR personnel. Did they elaborate on that situation? Even with the inevitible boom-bust cycles, Yuba was in my view the best walleye lake in the state. Even "eye" challenged anglers like myself could catch good ones in quantity. Please do not construe this post as adversarial, which is not my intention. This is also not an attempt to "give an example" either, but I would be interested to know what pressure the "locals" brought to bear.
[signature]
Posts: 3,535
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
I don't know for sure but I think I have an answer for you.
The DWR has always planned on returning Walleye to Yuba, they just want to let the perch and other forage take hold again so that the walleye don't dessimate them before they can get a stronghold.
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
That does make sense. I hope that is all there is to it.
[signature]
Posts: 1,791
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
I heard last spring when the DWR planted all those fingerling rainbows, that was to produce fishing recreation for Yuba and to start building a ecosystem. They did do that project last fall when they went to Jordanelle and gill netted and caught perch from Jordanelle and took them down there to get a strong hold on perch, plus to get some mature perch last fall from jordanelle, so they could spawn and reproduce this spring.
With that i also read somewhere they were going to see how successful the perch transplant was and then make a decision on how soon and how fast they could transplant eyes into Yuba and the possibility of gill netting them out of starvation. But then again i dont believe everything I read, but it makes sense.
A way to find out is by attending the RMA walleye seminars coming up (see link below for details) they most certainly will discuss Yuba and what they know about the future of the reservoir for walleye.
[url "http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/gforum/gforum.cgi?post=113652;search_string=search_string;#113652"]http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/gforum/gforum.cgi?post=113652;search_string=search_string;#113652[/url]
just food for thought!!! [url "http://kutv.com/millerarchive/local_story_325141512.html"]http://kutv.com/millerarchive/local_story_325141512.html[/url]
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
The trout aren't in there to make it a trout fishery. They're there to have something to catch instead of perch while the perch start to grow and reproduce. As soon as the perch and walleye get back in shape they'll probably stop putting trout in Yuba again.
Fishrmn
Posts: 27
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
0
I'm waiting also, which waters have gone downhill because of mismanagement? I don't always agree with PBH but this time I'm with him all the way.
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
I think your question has already been answered by those above pretty well. The perch need to be established before the walleye go in and wipe them out. Rainbows are there to provide something to catch before the perch and walleye take hold.
My comments about the locals wanting a trout fishery come from a business standpoint. Would you rather have a constant, steady fishery for trout, or a boom and bust cycle of walleye/perch? I'm not saying that either one is better than the other....but, not to worry, the walleye will return...
Some other comments reguarding walleye and bait fish...Starvation has a problem with the walleye not having much forage fish to feed on. The chubs have been pretty much wiped out. Some have suggested that the DWR rear chubs (or other bait fish) in hatcheries and plant them in lakes (starvation) for forage fish for the walleye. Would this solve the problem? Or, would this just compound the problem? I think it would make the situation worse. Once the forage fish were stocked, the walleye would once again go through an very good cycle...and reproduce more, which only creates more, and more predators, while at the same time reducing the newly stocked prey to nill. This would be a never ending cycle of stock more forage, prey population go's up again, and prey is once again wiped out. The DWR would be spending lots and lots of $$$ to raise more and more forage fish to feed the walleye. The way it is right now, mother nature is taking care of this cycle herself. The walleye have decimated the chubs, the walleye population suffers, and declines to the point that the chubs can once again make a comeback, then the walleye will start to go back up again...that's the name of the game with walleye...boom, and bust.
Good discussion so far! Hey mods -- can we keep this one open?
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
Thank you for your reply. It sounds then that there is no formal or organized objection to the "eyes" returning to yuba and that as stated, the ecosysyem is being rebuilt, which makes perfect sense. That actually sounds great to me. Now the scientist in me want to throw out another tidbit for consideration. Whereas Yuba drains ultimately into the west desert (Sevier dry lake or more accurately the agriculture around Delta) It does seem like a candidate for gizzard shad. The carp in DMAD may be slightly impacted but the eyes and perch in yuba would be absolute hogs if it were possible and it would lessen the boom-bust. No Colorado river fish or June suckers to worry about either. just wondering??
[signature]
|
