Posts: 1,996
Threads: 40
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
3
Read about the plan on KSL
[url "http://www.ksl.com/?sid=34079231&nid=1288&title=9-fish-species-to-be-stocked-in-vernal-reservoir-to-rebuild-fishery&s_cid=queue-2"]http://www.ksl.com/?sid=34079231&nid=1288&title=9-fish-species-to-be-stocked-in-vernal-reservoir-to-rebuild-fishery&s_cid=queue-2[/url]
Posts: 906
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
2
Rotenone for Red Fleet, so much for disregarding the results of their own survey.
Article: Enviromental assessment for Red fleet Rotenone
http://www.ubmedia.biz/local_sports/arti...15e76.html
[signature]
Posts: 1,996
Threads: 40
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
3
Well, that is interesting and strange, wonder what the 'real' way ahead is?
[signature]
Posts: 11,123
Threads: 4
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation:
0
Most likely trout trout and more trout [crazy]
[signature]
Posts: 164
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation:
0
"The bonytail, another native fish in the Green River drainage, will serve as an experimental sportfish/forage fish."
http://www.coloradoriverrecovery.org/gen...ytail.html
Not sure why an endangered species is being put in there.. I am not a biologist though..
[signature]
Posts: 672
Threads: 63
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation:
2
Most likely if they put bonytails in the feds foot the poisoning bill.
[signature]
Posts: 937
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
2
What part of their survey are they disregarding? Can you explain with supporting documentation?
[signature]
Posts: 2,043
Threads: 5
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
Seems like a large number of fish species for such a small little pond, but what could I possibly know? Kinda funny if you ask me, all that poison and change to re-introduce walleye they can control the population of. Since I don't fish it, I can sit back and watch more $$ pissed away.
[signature]
Posts: 313
Threads: 18
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation:
0
It would be awesome to see the Colorado Pikeminnow put in there. The can grow 6 feet long and be 80+ pounds. An aggressive ,huge fish sounds pretty awesome. Plus they are native and would help out the species. Check out this old dude's story:
Quote:We would go down into Lodore Canyon until we came to the first rapids. That's as far as we dared to go because we had to turn around and go back upstream. There were hundreds of swallows who had their nests built of mud on the canyon walls. This one time when we were fishing, the baby swallows were just leaving the nest. A lot of them fell into the river ... Every big squawfish in the Green River must have migrated to the canyon to feast on the swallows because we sure caught a lot of them, or let's say, we had a lot of them hooked. The tackle we were using was a little light for a 50-pound fish. We managed to land a lot of 10 to 20 pounders. Every one that we gutted out had a stomach plumb full of baby swallows!
- Chuck Mack of Craig, CO
[signature]
Posts: 937
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
2
[quote albinotrout]Most likely trout trout and more trout [crazy][/quote]
No and no. The committee was not for trout as the main species. It's known that trout can do well in Red Fleet but no one wanted to go with rainbows again so tiger trout were decided upon to see how they would do and they are very popular. Cutthroat are intended to provide primarily a stream component and a native fish reintroduction. The Boneytail chub is there, as an experiment only, to provide a unique sportfishing opportunity (if it works) and hopefully a forage fish for the primary predators. Apparently it has been tried elsewhere in Colorado with some success. The Feds are already chipping in on the cost because of the action to protect the Green River Endangered fish. The primary sport fish will be wipers, sterile walleye, and tiger trout. Secondary sport fish will be black crappie and yellow perch, but they will be managed primarily as forage for the others.
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
[quote Tarponjim]Seems like a large number of fish species for such a small little pond, but what could I possibly know? [/quote]
That was my thought as well. It seems like they are trying to keep everybody happy. I have to wonder if any one species can excel in such a biological hodgepodge.
One other quote caught my eye from the second link posted here.
"Biologists with the Upper Colorado River Endangered Species Recovery Program, which includes the UDWR and other agencies with jurisdiction on the Green and Colorado rivers, have determined a rotenone treatment is necessary to protect endangered fish in the Green River."
It would seem that the DWR and other agencies are serious about protecting endangered species by rotenone, or any means necessary, from bucket biology threats.
.
Food for thought for all you guys cheering on the bucket biologists putting pike in Utah lake and bragging that you would disobey the law and not keep them if you caught one.
[signature]
Posts: 937
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
2
[quote Envenomation09]It would be awesome to see the Colorado Pikeminnow put in there. The can grow 6 feet long and be 80+ pounds. An aggressive ,huge fish sounds pretty awesome. Plus they are native and would help out the species.[/quote]
There actually was a lot of discussion and support of this idea. However it was determeined that the forage needs of the pikeminnow would be tough to meet and still have other more popular species.
[signature]
Posts: 937
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
2
Keep in mind that the reservoir currently has 4 top predators -- rainbow trout, LM bass, SM bass, and Walleye with only one forage specie -- bluegill. It's only a marginal fishery right now and the Walleye and SM bass threaten the endangered fish downstream. The new plan calls for 3 top predators -- wiper, sterile walleye, and tiger trout. The other species -- crappie, yellow perch, boneytail chub and fathead minnow are there as forage but it's hoped they will provide sport too. The cutthroat is expected to inhabit the stream mostly. As with most science this has lots of experientation with a hope that it works well. Things will be evaluated regularly and adjustments made to ensure the success of the fishery.
[signature]
Posts: 11,123
Threads: 4
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation:
0
Sounds interesting. I've never fished red fleet but with those species in there I might make a trip out there.
[signature]
Posts: 906
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
2
My Reading of the entire survey results indicated actual disdain for Rotenone treatment for Red Fleet. Appears to me that the survey was a token gesture to do what fisheries management wanted to do in the first place. Possibly others could conclude differently as was done, Imagine That.
[url "http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/red_fleet_results.pdf"]http://wildlife.utah.gov/...ed_fleet_results.pdf[/url]
[signature]
Posts: 231
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation:
0
What is it, that you all want for the resivour ?
What is it you want the DWR to spend your tax dollars on?
I can't figure out why everyone is complaining about this for......please, educate me.
[signature]
Posts: 197
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
0
I personally think it's a travesty to not put largemouth bass back in. They have been in there for 30 years, why take them out now?
[signature]
Posts: 937
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
2
I do not work for nor do I speak for the DWR or the Feds but I am on the committee as one of several representatives for the sportsman. You are correct about the survey results but it is simply one piece of the puzzle to assist in making the descision and is not the final say so. I assure you we hashed this out for a long while and weighed public opinion and science and federal/state legal issues etc. We hope that the rebuild will be more enjoyable and provide better environmental health to the system. We fully recognize that it is impossilbe to satisfy everyone but we hope the results will be enjoyed by many.
It was also mentioned the disappointment in not replanting largemouth bass -- that was a substantial discussion and was difficult to come to agreement also. They are not totally off the table. If it is found that some other specie(s) doesn't work well and fails, the LM bass may yet be reintroduced into the reservoir. But with numerous other good LM bass fisheries in the area it was finally decided to try the other species first to offer more variety, to see how they do and to see public reaction to them.
By-the-way there will be a Red Fleet open house next Wednesday, April 8, 6p-8p at the Vernal DWR building in Vernal for anyone who can and would like to show up.
[signature]
Posts: 906
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
2
The Utah DWR fisheries management study on Red Fleet speaks for itself, if you want to confirm that your agency could care less about the public’s input, survey the public, disregard the survey and do what you intended to do in the first place.
[signature]
Posts: 937
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
2
Interesting how you read the survey. It's pretty obvious you have an opinion and you're sticking to it, which is fine since we still sort of have that right in this country[crazy]. Do you really think the DWR can or should implement 100% of this surveys responses? It's not even possible. Or just 100% of the part you want them to? Again not possible because of the stuff you are demanding there are plenty of others who will disagree. At what percentage does it get right with you and when did you become the arbiter of "fairness," "correctness," "what's right with America?" When did the general angling public become the final say in scientific fishery management?
As I said before I don't work for the Fed or the DWR and I'm not a statistician, but after reading through the survey several times, I think the anglers who actually use the lake are getting a fairly good deal.
Maximum respondents was 329 of any question, a pretty poor response in my opinion.
Ok so most people who responded, a whopping 205 out of 329, rarely or ever fish Red Fleet. How much weight should the committee give to those who don't even fish the lake?
Most anglers target and prefer LMB and walleye with the least going for rainbows. The committee decided to hold off on LMB for now given the opportunity already out this way, eliminate the rainbow fishery and add sterile walleye, wiper and tiger trout for the main sport fishery. Like it or not the Feds have a pretty substantial say in the management of fisheries in this drainage and they don't want fertile walleye and SM bass to remain in Red Fleet to continue to wreck havoc with the endangered species.
I've spoken with lots of anglers who have similar response as albinotrout had, "I've never fished red fleet but with those species in there I might make a trip out there." That's a large objective of the rebuild. I['ve never spoken to or heard of anyone who said they'd never fish there again if it was poisoned and restocked with certain species.
After reading some of the other survey comments concerning options, well... [crazy]
As I read it, a pretty good percentage of anglers who actually fish the lake should be fairly happy with at least some of the rebuild. Nobody gets everything they want. I didn't get everything I wanted, but I'm pretty excited about the new opportunities. The fishery should be up and running again in 2016 and going strong by 2017.
[signature]
|
