Posts: 558
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
Reputation:
0
SALT LAKE CITY — The Division of Wildlife Resources is encouraging Utah anglers to keep fish rather than catching and releasing. Fish in Utah waters are overcrowded, resulting in less food for the fish population and smaller fish for anglers. Surveys of Utah’s active anglers, completed between 2011 and 2014, showed they want to catch larger fish. "You may not realize it but catching and releasing fish — on waters where you're allowed to keep some fish — is working against you,” said Drew Cushing, warm water sport fisheries coordinator for the Division of Wildlife Resources. “Until anglers start keeping some fish, the fish aren't going to grow to the size that many anglers want. Many of Utah's waters simply have too many fish." see full report @ [url "http://www.ksl.com/?sid=31400154&nid=1288&fm=home_page&s_cid=toppick3"]http://www.ksl.com/?sid=31400154&nid=1288&fm=home_page&s_cid=toppick3[/url]
[signature]
Posts: 1,395
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
9
The catch-22 that many biologists face and fishermen don't understand: as soon as a fishery grows large fish, fishermen want special regulations to protect them. The problem is that the water grew the big fish without the regulations; then, once the regulations are put in place to protect the big fish, the big fish disappear because there are too many mouths to feed for the available food. Yuba is the prime example....as soon as fishermen began to learn about the numerous pike in the reservoir and as soon as trophy catches began to be common, what did fishermen want? Special regulations to protect them....and what did the DWR advise? To keep fish....
....moral of the story? Be careful what you ask for!
[signature]
Posts: 2,553
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation:
0
Standing by for the "basslash" from members who believe the exact opposite...
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
[quote RockyRaab]Standing by for the "basslash" from members who believe the exact opposite...[/quote]
Yep.
One more thing. This "directive" from the DWR is nothing new. They have advised this for years on certain waters. However, IMO, they are partially at fault for the lack of cooperation by anglers. Why? They say harvest more fish, yet maintain restrictive harvest regulations on some of the same waters. Take the Middle Provo river. They have been begging for more harvest there for some time, yet a large portion of the river has restrictive harvest regs. Same with much of the LoPro. Maintain these stretches AFL if you must to keep the fly purists happy, but open up the regs so people can take enough fish out for a decent meal. Same with small bass. If the DWR really wanted to get some small bass harvest accomplished as they say and some of our lakes need, increase the small bass limit from 6 to 10-12, if under 12 inches.
[signature]
Posts: 1,984
Threads: 16
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation:
7
Posts: 2,436
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
I did get a chuckle out of the Willard stat on harvest of walleye. I for one have a hard time throwing a walleye back, they just taste to good.
I measure a keeper walleye by holding a hot dog roll up next to it, if the fillet is bigger than the roll, it's not going back till I have a limit, and I'll eat those that night and go back for another limit the day after.
[signature]
Posts: 569
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation:
0
[quote wormandbobber]The catch-22 that many biologists face and fishermen don't understand: as soon as a fishery grows large fish, fishermen want special regulations to protect them. The problem is that the water grew the big fish without the regulations; then, once the regulations are put in place to protect the big fish, the big fish disappear because there are too many mouths to feed for the available food. Yuba is the prime example....as soon as fishermen began to learn about the numerous pike in the reservoir and as soon as trophy catches began to be common, what did fishermen want? Special regulations to protect them....and what did the DWR advise? To keep fish....
....moral of the story? Be careful what you ask for![/quote]
But as soon as a fishery starts growing big fish, the word gets out and pressure increases exponentially. So saying current regulations grew the big fish so keep it the same, really isn't the whole truth if you don't factor in pressure before and after. Yuba is a prime example! No one was really fishing yuba, yuba starts growing big and plentiful fish under very little pressure. Then the word gets out, boats are everywhere and pike being pulled out like crazy. The fishing down there is way down and I won't attribute that to just the limit increase but the tons of extra pressure I believe affected the fishing big time... I don't think you can compare fishing regs and the result it has on fish size/quantity, unless you also factor in pressure of that body of water before and after...
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
[quote utahgolf]
But as soon as a fishery starts growing big fish, the word gets out and pressure increases exponentially. So saying current regulations grew the big fish so keep it the same, really isn't the whole truth if you don't factor in pressure before and after. Yuba is a prime example! No one was really fishing yuba, yuba starts growing big and plentiful fish under very little pressure. Then the word gets out...[/quote]
Lee's Ferry is a better example. In the 70's rainbow trout were growing to 15lbs regularly -- without any type of forage fish, by the way. Word got out, as good fishing typically does. Popularity increased, and anglers screamed for protection of those big fish. Guess what? Protection came. Today you can't find a 20" rainbow trout. Why is that? pressure? No. It's because there is no harvest. Too many fish. Protection ruined that fishery.
Yuba is no different. Pressure only affects a fishery if anglers are keeping too many fish; ie: is the bottleneck angler harvest? Can the pike reproduce faster than anglers can keep them? That's the DWR's fear at Yuba, and it isn't a far-fetched idea. We've seen it happen over, and over, and over again. Yet anglers continue to say the same thing: protect the big ones!
Look at McGath on the Boulder. Same thing. People started to worry about all those big fish getting harvested through the ice. So, anglers cry "foul!" and get regulations changed so that ice fishing is restricted. Fast forward to today, and what do you have? Smaller average size fish in McGath. Why? Because we protected something that didn't need it.
Why do you think so many lakes are being proposed opened for ice fishing again? Because the protection anglers asked for isn't helping the fisheries.
History has a bad habit of repeating itself. Too bad.
[signature]
Posts: 669
Threads: 62
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation:
2
Pbh the rainbows at lees ferry taste like dirt(unlike the ones at strawberry) because they eat bugs. Now if they stocked some brookies and browns. I ate one of those there and it was very good.
[signature]
Posts: 569
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation:
0
[quote PBH][quote utahgolf]
But as soon as a fishery starts growing big fish, the word gets out and pressure increases exponentially. So saying current regulations grew the big fish so keep it the same, really isn't the whole truth if you don't factor in pressure before and after. Yuba is a prime example! No one was really fishing yuba, yuba starts growing big and plentiful fish under very little pressure. Then the word gets out...[/quote]
Lee's Ferry is a better example. In the 70's rainbow trout were growing to 15lbs regularly -- without any type of forage fish, by the way. Word got out, as good fishing typically does. Popularity increased, and anglers screamed for protection of those big fish. Guess what? Protection came. Today you can't find a 20" rainbow trout. Why is that? pressure? No. It's because there is no harvest. Too many fish. Protection ruined that fishery.
Yuba is no different. Pressure only affects a fishery if anglers are keeping too many fish; ie: is the bottleneck angler harvest? Can the pike reproduce faster than anglers can keep them? That's the DWR's fear at Yuba, and it isn't a far-fetched idea. We've seen it happen over, and over, and over again. Yet anglers continue to say the same thing: protect the big ones!
Look at McGath on the Boulder. Same thing. People started to worry about all those big fish getting harvested through the ice. So, anglers cry "foul!" and get regulations changed so that ice fishing is restricted. Fast forward to today, and what do you have? Smaller average size fish in McGath. Why? Because we protected something that didn't need it.
Why do you think so many lakes are being proposed opened for ice fishing again? Because the protection anglers asked for isn't helping the fisheries.
History has a bad habit of repeating itself. Too bad.[/quote]
so how can you say that the fish in yuba or any pond, thrived under the same set of regs without factoring in pressure? Having a 6 fish limit but only a handful of anglers fishing there, is entirely differently than having a 6 fish limit and thousands now fishing there. Proportionality makes a big difference. If a pond has a 4 fish limit, and starts taking off and becoming good but only 50 people fish it. that's only 200 fish theoretically taken out a day. Well imagine 1000 people now fishing it. Could you still compare the two and say that the fish under previous regs succeeded, so why not keep the same regs in place for the 1000 people now fishing it?
[signature]
Posts: 761
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
0
If biologists can see that this is the case... why wouldn't they plant less fish?
[signature]
Posts: 646
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation:
0
Posts: 304
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
0
im sorry but that's a load of horse shit there is nothing to eat in our lakes but each other put some food fish in and see what happens,,, sorry drew im on the other side of the fence on this one unless you can back this up thanks for all the work that you do I just cant see your logic,,, scotty.
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
[quote FishMcFisherson]If biologists can see that this is the case... why wouldn't they plant less fish?[/quote]
Probably every fishery the DWR wants more fish harvested involves species that are naturally reproducing and are not stocked. (Browns, brookies, smallmouth bass, perch, walleyes, etc.)
[signature]
Posts: 761
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
0
That makes sense. He should have said that.
[signature]
Posts: 558
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
Reputation:
0
Perhaps the answer is just increase the limit of fish caught for that area or lake, this would help each area as to a making a decision that affects the entire state! [fishin]
[signature]
Posts: 222
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation:
0
There are a couple of reasons for this recommendation this year.
1. Anglers largely aren't keeping limits of many of the warm and cool water fish. The creel surveys that we have completed (including Willard Bay, Pelican, Jordanelle) indicate pressure and harvest is down quite a bit. The pressure doesn't bother me as much as the harvest, when you combine it with the age and growth information that our regional biologists have been gathering for the last 2-3 years. The DWR continually hears angler complaints about the smaller fish in Jordanelle, Pelican and the over harvest of fish at Willard Bay inlet. We then share the data from creel surveys and age and growth studies and the anglers either don't believe us OR choose to continue releasing fish for perceived ethical reasons. Meanwhile the fisheries continue to decline. We completed a statewide angler survey in 2011 that indicated that anglers want/desire more quality fish and that catching a lot of smaller fish isn't really appealing. How can we achieve this if anglers aren't willing to remove fish (up to the limit) so the remaining fish have a little more to eat and grow.
2. If people currently don't take a limit home then a more liberal limit won't achieve anything. The removal of the at home possession will allow folks to keep a few more fish at home and perhaps feel OK about going back out and going fishing.
3. Lastly....there are an alarming number of people who either didn't know about the current possession law or didn't care and thereby didn't adhere to it. To my knowledge the DWR has only pressed two of these violations, over the past 12 years. These were for gross violations. This means that perhaps 5 million anglers over the past twelve years did what they felt compelled to do whether this law is in place or not. It is my personal belief that this law didn't impact peoples decision in the past and won't in the future.
My hope is that a person who just returned from Lake Powell and has a good number of walleye in their possession (no limit) doesn't feel like they can't then go out to Starvation, Willard Bay or Utah Lake fish for walleye. Same thing for black bass at any water in Utah that has a more liberal limit than six fish. I personally go up to Oregon and fish Brownlee Reservoir for Crappie every spring. There is no limit on crappie on that reservoir. When I cross the border into Utah, I am technically over limit and for sure can't keep any crappie in Utah until I eat my crappie from Oregon.
To summarize, DWR hopes that if anglers don't utilize the daily limits that are set in place (creel survey data) then perhaps we can entice a few additional anglers to harvest a couple of days instead of one.
Drew Cushing
Warmwater Sportfish Coordinator
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
[signature]
Posts: 569
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation:
0
I completely agree with harvest from certain waters. But just a blanket harvest order to the masses might not be the correct message for certain waters. Knowing when and more importantly where to keep fish is something that gets lost. Selective harvest.
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
[quote utahgolf]
so how can you say that the fish in yuba or any pond, thrived under the same set of regs without factoring in pressure? ... imagine 1000 people now fishing it. Could you still compare the two and say that the fish under previous regs succeeded, so why not keep the same regs in place for the 1000 people now fishing it?[/quote]
you are not factoring in fish population size and reproduction capabilities. The biologists ARE. And they continue to promote more harvest. WHY?
Because even with the additional pressure they can see that harvest isn't going to be high enough to keep the population of pike at a "quality" level.
The pressure at Yuba is a good thing if you want to catch big pike. If you want to catch lots and lots of hammer-handles, then promote more selective harvest and protection of the "big ones".
[signature]
Posts: 3,883
Threads: 50
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation:
22
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]I mean no disrespect UG, but I do have a couple of questions/comments.[/size][/#800000][/font][quote utahgolf]But just a blanket harvest order to the masses might not be the correct message for certain waters.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Do you have an data sets or research studies that would support that theory?[/size][/#800000][/font][quote utahgolf]Knowing when and more importantly where to keep fish is something that gets lost.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]John Q Public doesn't have the education/knowledge to intelligently determine the when and/or where. The State does in the form of paid employees who have both the education and knowledge to make those kinds of decisions based on factual, scientific data and set up a system of rules to manage the harvest for the benefit of the people who fish.[/size][/#800000][/font][quote utahgolf]Selective harvest.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Selective harvest is a two edged sword. Some fish species don't survive very well being caught on hook & line. Folks that continue to catch & release kokanee salmon after their limit has been obtained or only want to keep fish over a certain weight are killing a lot more salmon than just the ones they keep. Depending on the conditions, mortality can be anywhere from 20% to 80%.
I'm going to side with Drew on this one. I think he and his crew are in the best position to make those kinds of decisions.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[signature]
Bob Hicks, from Utah
I'm 81 years young and going as hard as I can for as long as I can.
"Free men do not ask permission to bear arms."
|
