Posts: 919
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation:
0
We make it known that this is unacceptable to us. We do NOT make it appear that we are content with an overpopulated perch fishery. We do NOT celebrate the perch fishery at Fish Lake. We do NOT promote Fish Lake as a perch destination. [/quote]
[font "Calibri"]Would you also like to suggest that we stop promoting the burbot bash and stop telling the public that they have a great opportunity to help another Mac, Salmon, Rainbow, Smallmouth, etc, etc fishery? The Gorge is a prime example of the public coming together to help out as much as they can and to fight back an illegally introduced species. [/font]
[font "Calibri"] [/font]
[font "Calibri"]Yes it’s  that FL has gone south, but I think the best way to help the Rainbows, Splake and Mac’s is to promote the hell out of the perch. I’m by no means a biologist but that makes sense to me. [crazy][/font]
[signature]
Posts: 938
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
Reputation:
0
I remember reading the results of the last major study at fish lake and they recommended adding browns, tiger trout and Kokanee to fish lake. Browns and tigers to eat the perh more effectively and Kokanee to fill all the open water in the middle of the lake and to feed the Macks. Browns and Kokanee are semi self sustaining so that seems economically reasonable.
The perch need controlled. Why not throw in several thousand tiger musky each year, and a bunch of brown trout and tiger trout? Then throw in Kokanee for the Macks?
I hope they implement the recommendations of that study!
[signature]
Posts: 515
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
0
[quote PBH] Preventing it from happening again in the future is priceless -- and inevitable.[/quote]
I don't think it is inevitable or your fight would be over and few things come without a price....
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
How 'bout imperative?
[signature]
Posts: 304
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
0
Just got one question if the perch were dumped in ther 50 years ago and just lately the fishing is down the tubes,why are you blaming the perch that damage to the fishery should have happend a long time ago it doesnt take 50 years for perch to do what they do ya they can hurt any lake im just looking th the time frame it doesnt add up just asking dont want to start some pis#$n match it aint my point
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
It seems that this subject comes up every 6 months or so and I won't comment on most of this except to say that one should read that study paper. It is worthwhile.
What I will add is some stuff that was presented to the RAC's by the DWR in the last cycle. In the presentation, it was noted that the DWR itself is struggling with what to do with fisheries affected by bucket biologists. They agree that there are no easy answers. A couple of things they are considering are as follows.
1. For fish species that are caught as trophies and are usually C&Red, smallies, pike, etc. they are favoring mandatory catch and kill regs. That makes it such that if an angler wants to fish for them, they will help get rid of them. I tend to agree with this approach and it is straightforward.
2. For species illegally introduced for purposes of harvest, such as perch, white bass, crappie, etc. They are considering an opposite approach. Since the bucketheads want to harvest these for food, this will be forbidden and the regs will be C&R only for this species. They also discussed closing lakes altogether in certain situations with bucket biology. I admit that these approaches are more controversial, but maybe it will deter the knuckleheads that do these acts. I will admit that it is hard to know "how far back" to go in implementing these type of approaches, but I think it is at minimum food for thought when discussing bucket biologists and their actions.
[signature]
Posts: 3,327
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
0
Well if you require C&R on the harvest species you will not get the result you are looking for. These guys broke the law in the 1st place and surely they will not follow the regs the 2nd time around either. Plus you really only punish the people who follow the rules since the majority will release the fish,
[signature]
Posts: 515
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
0
Better word for the subject even if I question the statement. It all depends on which side of the fence you view the issue from.
Not condoning bucket biology at all but I do think that by accident, illegally, and more importantly unethically, they have created fisheries that I personally enjoy more because of their acts.
Again, let me be clear, I do not condone the act. But I do believe back in the day that if they hadn't provided some variety we would all be stuck fishing almost completely in one form or another, strictly trout fisheries.
Side note, I do think highly of the quotes from TJ and AE.
[signature]
Posts: 608
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
i agree how about somw walleye,wouldnt they do great in there pbh.
[signature]
Posts: 77
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
0
S@#! I'm sorry I didn't know splake and macinaw were native to fishlake either. The biggest "bucket biology" has been done by the government check your facts
[signature]
Posts: 515
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
0
Absolutely true.......
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
Here is a link to that report you mentioned.
http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/gfo...t_id=71292
[signature]
Posts: 1,395
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
9
[quote BertDawg]S@#! I'm sorry I didn't know splake and macinaw were native to fishlake either. The biggest "bucket biology" has been done by the government check your facts[/quote]
This isn't a debate about what is native or not...it is a debate about what fish would yield the highest potential for fishermen, it is a debate about how some ignorant idiot decided to dump a bunch of perch into a world-class fishery and turn it into a mere shadow of what it should be, it is about allowing the professionals and those who are ultimately held accountable for our fisheries to make the decisions. The "guvment" has been the biggest bucket bios...but at least they have some method to their madness!
[signature]
Posts: 1,395
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
9
[quote zman2]Just got one question if the perch were dumped in ther 50 years ago and just lately the fishing is down the tubes,why are you blaming the perch that damage to the fishery should have happend a long time ago it doesnt take 50 years for perch to do what they do ya they can hurt any lake im just looking th the time frame it doesnt add up just asking dont want to start some pis#$n match it aint my point[/quote]
It is called competition...in Fish Lake, perch were competing with utah chubs, carp, utah suckers, and trout. Chubs, suckers, and carp are also very prolific spawners...yet the numbers of chubs has gone way down. Why? Competition. The perch took a long time to gain the advantage over chubs, but now they have it the chubs are almost gone!
[signature]
Posts: 234
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
0
Interesting thread.
WaBobber, your reply is intuitive, but does not fully satisfy my mind as to why the perch have had a detrimental impact on the fishery.
If the perch are competitive resource-users for chub, and fill the same niche (as I think they do in large part), then it I could reason that they would fulfill the same niche as resource-givers (food for larger fish) that the chubs did.
Am I correct to assume your argument is that they outcompete the species you listed as resource takers, but do not fulfill the roll as resource givers for other established species in the lake (i.e. makinaw)?
While I have no doubt that perch will have an effect, I do worry that there may be some effect of being a "red herring", even to researchers, causing an oversight of other factors.
[quote wormandbobber][quote zman2]Just got one question if the perch were dumped in ther 50 years ago and just lately the fishing is down the tubes,why are you blaming the perch that damage to the fishery should have happend a long time ago it doesnt take 50 years for perch to do what they do ya they can hurt any lake im just looking th the time frame it doesnt add up just asking dont want to start some pis#$n match it aint my point[/quote]
It is called competition...in Fish Lake, perch were competing with utah chubs, carp, utah suckers, and trout. Chubs, suckers, and carp are also very prolific spawners...yet the numbers of chubs has gone way down. Why? Competition. The perch took a long time to gain the advantage over chubs, but now they have it the chubs are almost gone![/quote]
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
[quote Charina]If the perch are competitive resource-users for chub, and fill the same niche (as I think they do in large part), then it I could reason that they would fulfill the same niche as resource-givers (food for larger fish) that the chubs did.[/quote]
Pop a 2 or 3 inch perch in your mouth. When its spines stab you in the throat, tell me how many more of them you want to eat.
[signature]
Posts: 1,395
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
9
[quote Charina]
Am I correct to assume your argument is that they outcompete the species you listed as resource takers, but do not fulfill the roll as resource givers for other established species in the lake (i.e. makinaw)?[/quote]
Yes, in fact, they haven't filled that role for the lake trout or the trophy splake. The DWR has done diet studies at Fish Lake and have not found a single perch in the stomach of any trophy lake trout...the truth is that while chubs provided an excellent food source for lakers and big splake, perch have not. So, as a result, the trophy lake trout have turned to rainbows for their food source which, obviously, has impacted the rainbow trout fishery. And, the number of trophy splake has dwindled to the point where they are virtually non-existent in the lake anymore. Why has this happened. Because perch are eating up the small chubs and very rarely venture out into open water where lake trout roam...
" The lake trout population in Fish Lake has struggled since the proliferation of yellow perch (Chamberlain and Hepworth 2002). However, recent surveys have shown an increasing trend since 1992. Fall gill net catch rates in 2009 were the highest recorded since the current monitoring program began in 1992 (Figure 15). Additionally, lake trout catch rates for both small (< 24 inches) and large (> 24 inches) fish has trended upwards since 1992 (Figure 15). This increase in population has not resulted in an increase in catch and harvest by anglers.
During 2010, anglers caught an estimated 661 lake trout, a 400% reduction from previous surveys (Table 9). Although the overall population of lake trout appears to be increasing, the number (or proportion) of small lake trout is increasing at an even faster rate. In 2009, the majority of lake trout captured (77%) were less than 24 inches TL while Chamberlain and Hepworth (2002) reported that 63% of lake trout captured were less than 24 inches TL. A review of all marked lake trout stocked in 1989 and 1991 and recaptured between 1993 and 2010 revealed a split growth curve (Figure 11). The separate or split growth curve represents two different groups of lake trout, one that was able convert to a piscivorous diet and one that was not able to make the conversion to an entirely piscivorous diet. It is apparent that a high percent of lake trout in Fish Lake do not have the resources available to reach sizes exceeding 24 inches TL. Prior to the introduction of yellow perch, Utah chubs were the most dominant food source available for lake trout in Fish Lake (Wright 1942; Hepworth and Duffield 1984). The Utah chubs provided lake trout an intermediate size forage base, easing the transition from
invertebrates to fish (Bulkley 1958). Yellow perch now dominate the niche once occupied by Utah chubs; however they do not appear to be available or utilized as forage by lake trout (Chamberlain and Hepworth 2003). Converting to piscivory is difficult for small lake trout when the most available prey choice is a catchable-sized (8-10 inches) rainbow trout.
Summer forage fish netting has shown a declining trend in Utah chub and sucker populations since 2002 (Figure 9). The decline can most likely be contributed to a large population of yellow perch. Yellow perch have been shown to prey on and out compete young-of-year fish in other Utah waters (Hepworth et al. 2004), and are most likely affecting recruitment of both Utah chubs and Utah suckers. Utah chubs are an important food source for lake trout and splake in Fish Lake (Chamberlain and Hepworth 2002) and reductions in their numbers require lake trout to find alternate food sources. The most likely results of this shift in prey source are increased predation on stocked rainbow trout and a reduction in large lake trout."
From the paper:
Angler Survey and Monitoring Results Fish Lake, Utah 2010
[signature]
Posts: 234
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
0
Thanks for the snark. Needed a chuckle this morning. My post wasn't so much out of ignorance as it was meant to draw out sound reasoning, not flippant answers.
A better, more useful answer would have been along the lines of: "Yellow perch generally are effective at escaping predation by lake trout during summer due to their high thermal tolerance - higher than the lake trout or native chubs."
[quote Fishrmn]Pop a 2 or 3 inch perch in your mouth. When its spines stab you in the throat, tell me how many more of them you want to eat.[/quote]
[signature]
Posts: 3,496
Threads: 25
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation:
3
Walleye Love Perch![crazy]
[signature]
Posts: 202
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation:
0
"Pop a 2 or 3 inch perch in your mouth. When its spines stab you in the throat, tell me how many more of them you want to eat".
-Fishrman
+1
[signature]
|
