Posts: 35,755
Threads: 262
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
49
[#0000FF]I have fished (and loved) Starvation since the 1970s. In days of old (before walleye, smallmouth and perch) the lake was wall to wall chubs. Disgusting. Couldn't even ice fish in the winter because your jig would never make it through the chubs. The predominant predator species was the brown trout. A few cutts and bows but mostly browns...and some bigguns.
I fished it every year at ice out...kicking my tube along the edge of the receding ice and pitching rainbow trout colored Rapalas. Caught lots of nice browns and donated Rapalas to some that might still be running. Yeah, right.
The DWR introduction of walleyes and smallmouths to control the chubs worked well. Too well. Within a short time the newbies had cleaned out the groceries (small chubs) and were stunting. There was actually a contract put on the walleyes and a netting operation in place.
Yellow perch "magically appeared" from somewhere and in a short time the lake became healthy for all species. The browns had taken a hit when the new kids ate all their formerly easy food supply but they established a decent population of at least decent sized fish...with a few big ones.
I like the idea of being able to catch more browns in the mix at Starvation. But after witnessing the rise and fall of species populations...based on the food chain...I question whether there will be enough to feed the new hungry mouths. Especially since the perch population took a big drop a couple of years ago. And those big browns do eat perch. Some eat crawdads but the biggest fish are piscivorous. In fact, browns that grow toward the 10 pound mark feed on newly planted footlong rainbows too. In fact, one of the 18 inch 'bows I caught two years ago had big teeth marks along both sides...fresh. If I didn't know better I would have guessed pike. But of course, we know that bucket biologists would never put pike anywhere they don't belong. Might have been a sabre-toothed carp.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
It's not that we "can't do anything". It's that we have to work WITH numerous agencies and groups to accomplish a certain goal.
As mentioned previously, Quail and Sand Hollow are already excellent bass fisheries. What wasn't mentioned is how excellent Gunlock is as well.
Would introducing shad to these environments actually help or hurt?
The answer to that question should NOT be "dump them in and see.".
Identify the problem before you come up with the solution. What is preventing fish from getting big in those waters you listed? Would adding another species help solve that problem?
in 4 of the 5 lakes listed, I could certainly answer that question with a: NO!
[signature]
Posts: 296
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation:
0
Couldn't agree more.
Plus why should the "DWR have to tell us for or against" introducing non-native species anywhere? perhaps it's a bit obvious to me - but doesn't introducing non-natives anywhere always carry risk?
You can mess with them (sterility, hybrids etc.), but it seems tough enough keeping the buckets in check and then later poisoning the systems (or not, if too expensive - can you say northerns at Utah Lake).
My tax money (and yours) wasted and our public resources and systems destroyed because.....?
[signature]
Posts: 905
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
2
As long as the Only Goal That counts is preserve endangered species, any management plan is finished.
( the whole Colorado River drainage has endangered species )
Can't Rotenone Powell with lots of Walleye but you can spend plenty of Our money killing every fish in Red Fleet.
We are lucky that Utah Lake is too big for the fall back endangered species solution ROTENONE, or it would have happened just like Red Fleet. It doesn't matter that Utah Lake has fished rather well for the last 50 years and that no one was fishing for or missed the June Sucker.
Many species that have come and gone. DInosaur's come to mind, or even more recently the passenger pigeon didn't leave much of a void.
[signature]
Posts: 236
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
0
I am I reading you correctly? To you it doesn't matter if a species goes extinct as long as you have fish to catch? Nothing could be done for the dinosaurs obviously, but I looked up the Passenger Pigeon and it is pretty sanctamonious of anyone to say that man had a right to do that to any species, in the past present or future. Here is what happened to them according to the Audubon Society:
The professionals and amateurs together outflocked their quarry with brute force. They shot the pigeons and trapped them with nets, torched their roosts, and asphyxiated them with burning sulfur. They attacked the birds with rakes, pitchforks, and potatoes. They poisoned them with whiskey-soaked corn. Learning of some of these methods, Potawatomi leader Pokagon despaired. “These outlaws to all moral sense would touch a lighted match to the bark of the tree at the base, when with a flash—more like an explosion—the blast would reach every limb of the tree,” he wrote of an 1880 massacre, describing how the scorched adults would flee and the squabs would “burst open upon hitting the ground.” Witnessing this, Pokagon wondered what type of divine punishment might be “awaiting our white neighbors who have so wantonly butchered and driven from our forests these wild pigeons, the most beautiful flowers of the animal creation of North America.”
Nice, hey? I believe we are stewards of this planet and have a God given duty to protect what we can. Should they have just let the Buffalo go also? To come up with any management plan that doesn't take endangered species into consideration is wrong, ignorant and way too self serving. Please take that into consideration before coming down on endangered species and plans to help save any species.
[signature]
Posts: 35,755
Threads: 262
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
49
[#0000FF]There is a lot of difference between wanton destruction of a species and survival of the fittest. There are changes in the environment and in specific ecosystems that make them uninhabitable for some species...if not all. At some point we have to decide what is moral, ethical, economical or just plain what makes sense.
I strongly object to situations in which farmers are suddenly forbidden to use the springs and natural water supplies on their property just because it might be the last known habitat of some obscure invertebrate. A few of those little darlings survive but the farmer and his family who have owned the land for generations are suddenly unable to use it to make a living.
Regrettably, a major part of the demise of the June suckers can be laid at the feet of the early pioneers. The Junies were at first harvested as a means of survival for settlers who would have otherwise starved during the first years in the valley. But then they were wantonly slaughtered just because they were easy targets. And countless thousands were destroyed by allowing the Provo River to flood out into fields for irrigation, during the time the adults and new fry were still upstream.
All that was before the introduction of all the predator species. Largemouth bass and later the channel cats, walleyes, white bass, etc. all found the Junies to be spine free and tasty. Thousands more served to feed the masses.
Now, after Cinderella returns from the ball with her gown torn and her virtue no longer intact the fairy godmother is trying to restore her to her former virginal state. Some things are just plain hard to undo.
No conscientious outdoors type Utah angler really wants to see the Junies disappear. And we all realize that the efforts being made to make Utah Lake a better place for them also benefit the other species. But holy %&$# man, at what point do we realize that the world will not end with the last Junie to disappear down a walleye's gullet?
I once had a boss who put things into perspective for me. He said "If you ever think you are invaluable and irreplaceable, make a fist. Now push that fist down into a bucket of water. Pull it out and the hole you leave is how much you will be missed when you are gone."
Hate to see the loss of any species. But at some point we gotta take some reality pills too.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 656
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
0
[quote Beautiful-Fish]I think your right about the forage fish !
My list of lakes the DWR should stock with gizzard shad !
1. Starvation Reservoir
2. Yuba Reservoir
3. Gunlock Reservoir
4. Sand hollow Reservoir
5. Quail Creek reservoir
" For years, there has been, and continues to be, the widely held belief that gizzard shad are harmful to sportfish populations in ponds and lakes. This belief was held by the public and disseminated as scientific fact by state fisheries agencies. It was also taught as scientific fact at major universities across the country. As with all things scientific, progress is made, technology advances, old dogmas are challenged and things once considered as fact are found to be baseless. Such is the case with stocking gizzard shad in ponds. "
See
Stocking Gizzard Shad at [url "http://www.bassresource.com/fish_biology/gizzard_shad.html"]http://www.bassresource.com/...gy/gizzard_shad.html[/url][/quote]
Before people start telling you that you are crazy and that shad can't be stocked in the rockies...
Wyoming has a couple of lakes that are stocked (more or less annually) with shad. They do reproduce to some extent... but some stocking is required to keep the population up.
Long story short? VERY successful program that without a doubt is the difference maker at these lakes!!! I was shocked and amazed when I first realized there were shad in these lakes... I thought there was no way shad could thrive this far north and in a climate this cold... but they do.
[signature]
Posts: 216
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation:
0
Posts: 656
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
0
Well said.
The extinction rate for all species over a long enough time span is 100%. They are finding new species in the rain forests and other rich biological areas every day (insects, small reptiles, etc)....
When one species goes extinct it leaves a niche for another species to take their role/place.
I'm all in favor of saving struggling species but you do have to weigh the costs with the benefit... you can definitely take it too far and spend outrageous amounts of money on something that in the end won't change things very much. (June suckers going extinct is not going to end the world as we know it!)
[signature]
Posts: 236
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
0
I agree TD. Not trying to save the world here. Common sense is needed all around and there seems to be a lack of it now and in the past. I am totally for introducing bait fish into lakes so the predator species have a solid forage base. I like catching those big predators as much as the next guy. Maybe it even helps save the endangered species as they wouldn't be the predominate prey of the preditors.
What I'm against is the raping and pillaging of the environment for the "benefit" of mankind. One implying that the extinction of the passenger pigeon at the hands of a greedy mankind is like the dinosaurs disappearance does not jive. I think we should leave this earth a better place than we found it.
In that regard I think some questions need to be addressed. Do we really know how the loss of one species can affect others down the road? Is the state of mind that allows one species to disappear because we don't see any immediate harm or impact a slippery slope that lets herring go away, blue fin tuna disappear, coral reefs fall by the wayside or rain forests disappear? Is there a domino effect? Where is the line drawn is what I'm asking and who gets to decide? To err on the side of caution seems prudent because once a species/ecosystem is gone it's gone. As it stands now-- ain't no bringin it back.
[signature]
Posts: 35,755
Threads: 262
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
49
[#0000FF]I like the old saying "Hindsight is always 20/20". I have coined my own: "History is never wrong".
Our forefathers (with plural wives) can be blamed for a multitude of bad decisions. We are living with the fallout today. Thankfully some of their actions and inventions have been beneficial. Sadly, a lot of them have proven catastrophic. The permanent loss of a whole bunch of different species is one of the worst examples of poor planning and rash actions.
New settlers in a new land did not have an "owner's manual" on how to make the best of it without trashing it for future generations. They often got giddy with the overabundance at the time, with little thought of what might come after. Without history and guidelines to deter their wanton destruction of wildlife and habitat how could they know?
In some cases more modern generations have been able to recognize, halt and at least partially reverse the impending loss of individual species. In other cases not so much. Sometimes a species has declined beyond the tipping point, where they can no longer reproduce at a rate sufficient to rebuild a population.
In other cases...such as the coral reefs and other manifestations of changing climatic conditions...we have little or no chance of affecting those changes. They are beyond human control. We don't have to like it but we have to accept it. And...as you suggest...the dinosaurs ain't comin' back. Forget Jurassic Park.
All that being said, we can all take individual responsibility for the things we can control. We can respect nature and our surroundings and avoid doing things that will cause harm to any of it. And we can be proactive enough to stand up to our law makers and let them know how we feel...and that they should not sacrifice our environment and our future recreation for the selfish desires of big campaign contributors.
As far as the reluctance to add forage species to an existing ecosystem. My opinion is that it is usually more a matter of "won't" instead of "can't". When something is being done successfully elsewhere it is only reasonable that it is worth trying in Utah. Yeah, we have funny liquor laws and some strange ideas about a lot of things. And our clocks all run about 100 years slow. But if anybody at the top REALLY wanted to give something a try it COULD happen. It's just that in a top-down political system that is our DNR it is usually safer to make NO decision than a wrong decision. People would rather avoid doing anything rather than risk damaging the walls they have built up around themselves in their hard won positions.
Domino effect? Definitely. Some worse than others. But the loss of a nonessential species is not going to bring on the Millenium.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 236
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
0
I totally agree. Thank you for putting into words what I was thinking. Kindred spirits!
The only point I would question is climate change. Although there might not be anything that gets done about it I do believe man has some hand in its advancement and if the will was strong enough and the economic incentives were not against it something could be done to at least stall or slow it down if not reverse it. However, we may have reached the tipping point where you are correct and nothing can be done. Sad if that is the case because if climate change is indeed mostly a man caused phenomenon and nothing was done about it there is whole lotta change comin'. Hopefully not all bad but we will see what shall be, won't we?
That's a bureaucratic phenomenon--don't do anything to rock the boat and cya will ensure a long peaceful existence. God forbid anyone tries something innovative.
[signature]
Posts: 190
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation:
0
+1... seems lots of folks could care less about any fish management strategies that don't benefit them directly. I call it the "get mine" syndrome. Don't care about the ESA or anything else, as long as I "get mine". It should also be noted that pretty much all of the fisheries noted in this thread are artificial; artificially made, artificially stocked (sometimes with artificial fish) , and managed to an artificial action plan.
Basically, fishing in many cases these days comes down to fishermen demanding that a government agency provide them with a lake that is essentially a government funded amusement park for fishermen, with the "right" species, of course.
While I do find myself conflicted when it comes to fish on the ESA list, eg chubs, suckers, et al, I think its important to recognize the successes and foresight of the ESA in general and to note that there aren't exceptions to the Act....ie because a fish isn't deemed attractive, sportworthy, or of good table fare, doesn't mean you remove it from the list.
Overall, I think the DWR does a pretty good job with what they have - they're caught in the middle. Provide "fisheries" for all of us, while maintaining a balance with the natives and protected species.
The reference to the passenger pigeon by the previous poster is appalling. Wiping out an entire species with no thought to preservation or conservation of any kind is certainly not anything to be applauded or endorsed IMO. Imagine if it were one of your favorite species that it happened to....diminishes us all when we wantonly destroy another species to protect our "right" to fish.
[signature]
Posts: 190
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation:
0
Tubedude, I remember those 70's days as well....there were some huge browns in there; I remember my dad catching one over 9 pounds trolling a silver flatfish, which was the biggest live trout I'd ever seen at that point in my life....also remember the chubs. Me and my brother would catch dozens of them (what else are kids gonna do..)
You're right on the browns too; when the planter truck arrives, the dinner bell rings as they pretty much turn pisceverous once they get over 22" or so...
While I don't generally like to be too critical of the DNR and their management plans, in this case I don't "get it" with the browns. I think we currently have a lot of stunted walleye, basically no perch, and the chubs are essentially gone. Don't know what those browns are supposed to eat and the rainbow is a better sport fish anyway. Don't see the logic on this one.
[signature]
Posts: 35,755
Threads: 262
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
49
[#0000FF]I really miss the "olden days" on Starvation...at least for the big browns if not the chubs. I used to fish it only in the late fall and at ice out for the browns. The rest of the year it was not very good unless you liked the chubs. On several of my ice out tubing trips I saw one of the "locals"...an old boy with a banged up tin boat...who launched his cartop at different places around the lake depending on where the ice was off. I saw him with a bent rod many times and also saw him bring in some browns that looked like big king salmon. But even in those days he was mostly a C & R guy and released most of the bigguns. Only saw him keep a couple of "small" 4 pounders.
Yeah, I miss the days when I was often one of the only two or three anglers on the lake...and hooking big league browns on every trip. But today I am just as happy with the variety...walleyes, perch, smallies and the "Starvation steelhead". The only problem is that the great multi-species angling and growing population has made the lake a dangerous place to be on a busy weekend...and even a lot of midweek days during the summer months. I have had to go back to fishing early and late in the year if I want any kind of peaceful angling session. The PWCs are especially bad. The kids on them seem to view float tubers as racing pylons for their slalom courses.
Just like the saying n Jurassic Park..."Nature will find a way". The newly planted browns will find enough food to survive and grow...up to a point. But without lots of larger food items (baby perch or chubs) their growth will slow down or stop if they can't ever graduate from the smaller invertebrates that everything else in the lake is eating.
I applaud DWR for their efforts on Starvation. By planting large numbers of rainbows they have really added a new dimension to the angling opportunities. I can't believe how many anglers show up there primarily for the trout fishing. It will be nice if the browns do find a niche and can add significantly to the mix.
[/#0000FF]
[#0000FF] [#000000][size 3]"I think we currently have a lot of stunted walleye," [/size][/#000000]
I might challenge that statement. The walleyes I have caught and observed the past year are not stunted. They are mostly pretty healthy. And there are plenty of double digits in poundage in that lake. It's just that the casual "average" angler doesn't fish for them at the right time with the right gear. Definitely not like some years in the past when we were overrun with "seegars" and "hammer handles".
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 236
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
0
I wonder if any of the DWR guys who are on this site care to comment on what the the thought process was to stock the browns in Starvation and what they think the primary food source is going to be for them?
It would be interesting to see. Not trying to be critical just curious.
[signature]
Posts: 490
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation:
0
Why is it considered more right and good that we try to keep the world in some kind of pristine pre-humanity state instead of making it better for humans, anyway? Maybe the June Sucker is an inferior species and it's better that they fade away.
I think the psychology of the not-a-trace mentality includes at least a small measure of personal self-loathing for every subscriber to the philosophy.
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
Maybe they're intended as a food source for the walleye.
They were 2 1/4" long, after all.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 3,327
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
0
[quote fishday]I wonder if any of the DWR guys who are on this site care to comment on what the the thought process was to stock the browns in Starvation and what they think the primary food source is going to be for them?
It would be interesting to see. Not trying to be critical just curious.[/quote]
You should contact them via Email and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts they'll answer that for you. Every time I email them with my questions I get an answer.
[signature]
Posts: 35,755
Threads: 262
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
49
[quote Jedidiah]Why is it considered more right and good that we try to keep the world in some kind of pristine pre-humanity state instead of making it better for humans, anyway? [/quote]
[#0000FF]That is a WHY question. Any time a question begins with the word WHY...and it has to do with people...there is not likely to be a good or simple answer.
One of Newton's laws states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I guess that is why there are people who want to keep everything as it is (or was) and others who seem hellbent on destroying it.
I don't think the Junies are an inferior species. But they are having a tough time surviving against all of the other predatory and destructive species put into Utah Lake in later years. One of the bad things is that so far they have proven to be difficult to get established in other waters. If they flunk out in Utah Lake school is over.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
|
