Posts: 906
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
2
You confirmed my reading of the survey results as correct .
How kind, you only want to slice out 2/3 of those interested enough to respond to achieve a different survey result that would even then not support the final proposal. The remaining 1/3 interested enough to respond will need to be reduced to only a few that supported Rotenone as a desirable improvement to Red Fleet. The final plan like the proposed plan prior to the survey is not supported by the survey results.
This is not he said she said or I did my own survey and the results were different. The survey results were clear and concise, No Rotenone, Leave Red Fleet alone.
[signature]
Posts: 937
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
2
[quote Dog-lover]you only want to slice out 2/3 of those interested enough to respond to achieve a different survey result....
This is not he said she said or I did my own survey and the results were different. The survey results were clear and concise, No Rotenone, Leave Red Fleet alone.[/quote]
I never said I wanted to slice anyone out. I simply asked how much weight do they deserve when they don't use the resource. Should we also allow new Yorkers to determine Utah lifestyles simply because they may have taken a survey and said, "Make all of Utah into wilderness" (hypothetically)? Again, do we implement 100% of the survey or just parts - which parts? The survey was a tool for decision making, not a dictatorial document. I guess you should have been THE committee so it could be done perfectly and everyone would be happy and the world would be perfect and ...
[signature]
Posts: 906
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
2
Your desire to Not consider 2/3 of those surveyed is no different than a plan that didn't consider the results of the entire survey.
Survey's are a tool used to pick and choose arguments that support what you already intend to do. Used by planning commissions, developers, Government Agencies and Cities they almost always have something positive that can be picked from the ashes. Even if the Surveys final determination is that the issue is so mixed that we can do what we intended to do in the first place. Rarely as a tool does a survey's content reflect nothing that could be skewed as support for Rotonene for Red Fleet as this survey does. The outcome, do as we intended to do in the first place is nothing new.
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
Anyone who thought "do nothing" was an option for Red Fleet was delusional. They were going to treat it. They never said they wouldn't. The survey gives them something to go on as to what to put in there after the treatment.
And it ain't the UDWR that was going to insist that the rotenone treatment proceeded. Look to the USFWS for the reasons for the treatment. When there are species present that pose a threat to endangered species they're going to treat the water to get rid of them.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 906
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
2
Exactly. Survey the public so that we can ignore the survey and do what we always intended to do. That should provide the appearance of caring, but it just smoke and mirrors.
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
If the DWR didn't care about all the whining from the walleye guys, then why are they going through all the efforts to put in sterile walleyes, wipers, and whatnot, with a suitable forage base?
It would be a whole lot easier to fill the lake back up with finless Freddie bows along with a few largemouths and bluegills and call it good.
[signature]
Posts: 67
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2006
Reputation:
0
I am rather  as to when this is a good warm water fishery and the angler hours of warm water fishing is increasing (putting additional pressure on the limited warm water fisheries) why so much emphasis is put on trout in this.
Was there a "weighted" average place on desired species as what is interesting in the survey is targeted species are mainly walleye and LMB but they ranked moderate on the fish people would like to see there....does not make a lot of sense from an analysis point of view.
[signature]
Posts: 1,985
Threads: 16
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation:
7
Some historical on Red Fleet. It was originally manged as a 2 tier fishery, LMB/Blue gill plus trout. Then came the recovery program in the Green/Colorado drainage and USFWS putting their 2cents in. You also had the introduction of walleye and SMB to the mix, which really blew the Feds minds.
The use of all sterile game fish should indicate to everyone what is going on !! Sterile Walleye, Wipers (sterile) Tiger Trout (Sterile), what does that say !!! WE DON'T WANT FERTILE FISH THAT ARE GOING TO GO DOWN STREAM AND PREY ON THE ENDANGERED SPECIES DOWN STREAM !!! Does that make sense to you ??? My guess is that if DWR did not agree to the use of sterile game fish, we would have Bony tail chubs, flannel mouth suckers, pike minnow, hump back chub, and NO FISHING !!! Does that make sense to you, there was a compromise that allows the public to have a continuing fishery, that will have to be RESTOCKED on a yearly basis ( can you say $$$$) to maintain, so that we can continue to fish the pond.
Wake up people, when you have to deal with the ESA ( Endangered Species Act) you lose control to the Feds. This is Spotted Owl all overagain, Virgin River whatever it is, the feds take control and make you think you still have a say.
QUITE complaining and be glad you can still use the fishery !!!!
PS: Save your complaints for when the plan at Utah Lake fails due to Northern's and the Fed's decide to turn UL into an exclusive June Sucker pond, what will you say then ???? Wake up and enjoy what you have !!!
Posts: 937
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
2
[quote Therapist]The use of all sterile game fish should indicate to everyone what is going on !! Sterile Walleye, Wipers (sterile) Tiger Trout (Sterile), what does that say !!! WE DON'T WANT FERTILE FISH THAT ARE GOING TO GO DOWN STREAM AND PREY ON THE ENDANGERED SPECIES DOWN STREAM !!! Does that make sense to you ??? My guess is that if DWR did not agree to the use of sterile game fish, we would have Bony tail chubs, flannel mouth suckers, pike minnow, hump back chub, and NO FISHING !!! Does that make sense to you, there was a compromise that allows the public to have a continuing fishery, that will have to be RESTOCKED on a yearly basis ( can you say $$$$) to maintain, so that we can continue to fish the pond.
[/quote]
You are partially correct. The committee compiled a list of sportfish and forage fish that would be allowed by the feds in the system, fish that would not damage the endangered species downstream. Then we narrowed down the possibilities to species anglers wanted. The decision to use sterile fish was to reduce the harm of escapees to the extent of their lifespan. Wiper and sterile walleye can survive in the lower Green and Colorado Rivers but they wouldn't reproduce. Tiger trout would either migrate upstream or die. Fertile prey species -- crappie, perch, mountain whitefish, bonytail chub, fathead minnow -- would do no harm if they escape. Additionally the sterile fish chosen are readily available and quite inexpensive to stock. It is expected that we will have local supplies soon if not already available. Nearly all the forage species will be obtained from Utah waters by netting and angling. There were many gamefish species we could have chosen to restore it to a viable sport fishery and there was never any threat, by DWR or the feds, of making Red Fleet an endangered species haven.
[signature]
Posts: 1,985
Threads: 16
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation:
7
True to a point. I am part of the group that is working on a plan to deal with the effect of quagga mussels in Powell. One of the group is with USFWS recovery program on the Green and Colorado. They are finding stripers, walleye, SMB, LMB, Crappie, and Gizzard Shad up both rivers as far a Grand Junction and Moab. Stripers and Walleye present a major problem to the recovery project . The game fish are following the shad, feeding on them. When the get up the river, they feed on all the endangered species as well. So, having sterile game fish will present a minimal impact on the endangered fish downstream, as no spawning population will be established. The problem of migration out of Powell will still have to be addressed, but it will be addressed as part of the Recovery plan.
I agree that Red Fleet would not become a haven for Endangered Species, however, the mandate to recover endangered species can and has taken precedent over every thing else. Look at salmon in the Columbia drainage, Pike minnow, SMB, walleye, etc are being limited and/or sacrificed in the process. Dams that provide power are being breached, water resources are being co-opted and diverted at the expense of agriculture. So, there are a lot of bad things that can happen with these programs.
Posts: 937
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
2
[quote Therapist]...Red Fleet would not become a haven for Endangered Species, however, the mandate to recover endangered species can and has taken precedent over every thing else. Look at salmon in the Columbia drainage, Pike minnow, SMB, walleye, etc are being limited and/or sacrificed in the process. Dams that provide power are being breached, water resources are being co-opted and diverted at the expense of agriculture. So, there are a lot of bad things that can happen with these programs.[/quote]
Agreed! I hope you guys find a good solution to Quagga's.
[signature]
Posts: 89
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Reputation:
0
looks like Utah is following Colorados lead on Mangement techniques, posion kill net . Walleyes destroyed Red Fleet? really never even thought or heard about fishing Redfleet until I heard walleye were in there! by the way walleye have been in the Green and Colorado river system for 30+ years, how about lets start killing all the RBT and browns as well, they are not native and certainly eat sqaw fish and chubbys.
[signature]
Posts: 222
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation:
0
I agree with doglover on the question concerning rotenone on the survey. Hind sight is always 20-20. We asked that particular question to gauge how much additional work we needed to do with the public on the use of rotenone. It was the wrong time and place for this question to be asked.
However, I wanted to thank fishnate and therapist for their involvement in the two committees that they participated in. These committees are to assist the DWR in understanding public wants and desires in sportfish management on specific waters and then working through a collaborative process that increases trust between the DWR and the anglers and results in management plans on these specific waters that the anglers appreciate and HOPEFULLY result in higher angler satisfaction and use on those specific waters.
There are many folks on these committees, anglers, National Park Service, Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah State Parks, County Commissioners, etc. There is one agency that is only there as a facilitator for the process (DWR). We facilitate the discussion, we provide biological or social data or historical information. We take this role because we believe the sportfisheries of Utah belong to the anglers. We merely manage them using the best biological and social science tools at our disposal within the legal framework we have to work within.
It is unfortunate that we have folks out there that are merely wrench throwers and not willing to assist in problem solving. The DWR has made huge strides in involving the public in all aspect of what we do and we will continue to do so in the future.
Please don't tear down a process that you didn't participate in and therefore don't understand.
Drew
[signature]
Posts: 1,774
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
Thanks for chiming in, Drew.
I will never understand why so many people like to complain about things but are not willing to be a part of the solution.
It is easier to complain than to act I guess.
The irony to this is that most of the people that are complaining about what is happening to Red Fleet, don't even fish there.
One can only hope that after all the work is done at Red Fleet, we won't see the bucket biologists ruin it again.
[signature]
Posts: 937
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
2
Thanks for chiming in Drew. This has been an interesting conversation with lots of differing opinions. I've really enjoyed working with you and all the others who have been involved with the Red Fleet planning. We've had some great discussions and it's been very interesting to work through all the issues involved.
After all the negatives of this thread, I just want to say that I am extremely excited for the future of Red Fleet. If everything works out well we may soon have a great fishery with wipers and sterile walleye that will make lots of anglers very happy while protecting our endangered native fishes. I think the tiger trout will be a great addition if they work out. I can't wait to fish for the crappie which I haven't fished for since I moved from Cache Valley 8 years ago. Perch are lots of fun too and hopefully will provide a great forage base.
[signature]
Posts: 1,397
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
9
I just read through all the comments from the survey results....you, sir, have your work cut out for you! It is  to me how uneducated, dumb, ignorant, whatever you want to call it, fishermen on the whole are....I really really hope that our state's angling public is smarter than those comments hint at!
[signature]
Posts: 376
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
0
Colorado has quite a few pike lakes that feed the Green and Colorado Ecosystems.
Rather than Walleyes, what about Sterile Saugeyes or Sterile Saugers?
Rather than Black Crappies, what about Sacramento Perch or White Crappies?
Rather than Bluegill, what about Orangespotted Sunfish or Pumpkinseeds?
Rather than Tiger Trout, what about Sterile Bear Lake Cuts?
Rather than Wipers, what about Sterile Musky (Non Tiger)?
Why not make it truly unique?
Once the Feds get involved you really have two options: Make a plan to involve game species to minimize the impact of the predation on endangered species or eliminate the impact of the predation on endangered species.
[signature]
Posts: 937
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
2
There are those who throw rocks (too easy to do on the Internet) and there are those who solve problems despite the nay sayers. I think I know who the rock throwers are here and after giving it a reasonable attempt to educate and persuade them based on my behind the scenes understanding of the issues we just have to move forward . The plan isn't perfect but we have tried to do something positive based on the constraints we had to work with [fishin].
I like your quote at the end.
[signature]
Posts: 89
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Reputation:
0
ok not throwing rocks at anyone, Utah does a very good job with thier fisheries IMHO. I just see this move as what is happening over here in Colorado. The fact of the matter here in Colorado is that they throw millions of dollors at removals , shocking yampa and Colorado rivers. No noticble gain in endangers recovery. the eco system has been changed since these fish thrived, dams, irragation ditches , lose of habitat. sometimes throwing money at things or in this case in Colorado kill everything that swims (trout exempt ) does not fix the problem. With the recent posionings in Colorado to appease the FEDS it appears they have gained allot of strength but you cannot bring back the dinasours sorry.....
[signature]
Posts: 376
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
0
I witnessed a shocking on the Yampa and have caught a few tagged pike.
I am actually surprised that more poisonings have not gone on in Colorado, given the amount of lakes that contribute pike directly into the Green/Colorado river system.
[signature]
|
