Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
The great thing with wipers is that they are sterile. If something negative shows up with the smallmouth, and wipers are the culprit, the DWR would simply stop stocking wipers.
Personally, I only see good things coming from wipers in Minersville. Both the trout and smb should benefit from the reduction in chubs. Sure, wipers will prey on those smb fry, but that just keeps those remaining smb in that zone of fast growth!
The pelicans, on the other hand, are probably why you don't catch many cutthroat at Minersville....
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
Why any limit at all? Maybe, just maybe the guys who like White Bass could hammer the Smallmouths at Jordanelle.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 418
Threads: 9
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
5
I agree the Wipers have been good for Minersville, I see chubs way down and some insect life up like Damsel Flies.
As a bird watcher I have seen less Pelicans and Cormorants at Minersville since the introduction of Wipers. But the tonnage of Cutthroats they put in still never seem to take hold.
I have not really seen anything negative concerning the Smallmouth other than not catching any "small" Smallmouth this spring while targeting Trout like I usually do.
I was talking to a DWR guy the other day and he said
the survival rate for Wipers at Minersville was better than they first expected to see, and that the harvest attrition over time has been less than what they expected.
Really no complaints over the last few years, and the lake has actually been coming up the last couple of weeks. With another good hit of warm spring rain to bring down the 4 feet of snow still on top all at once we should be in ok shape for this year.
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
I don't know what it is about Jordanelle. We have one or two of these debates every year, discussing the same stuff over and over and over again. [  ]
Nobody has brought up the new Jordanelle proposal presented in the DWR survey. It proposes to change the regulations from 6 bass with only 1 over 12 inches to 6 bass still but no size restrictions. You could theoretically keep 6 18 inchers. Unless I misread it, the limit is still 6 The stated goal is to increase harvest for reasons that have been brought up in this thread.
My thoughts on it FWIW.
1. I would have changed things differently. I would prefer raising the limit for bass under 12 inches to 10 or 12 fish. At Jordanelle, this has been where the bottleneck has occurred with growth and the slot where an overwhelming percentage of the bass population sits. Some of us have been taking these out for a couple of years, but it is fair criticism that just 6 10 inchers may not make a meal, while 10 or 12 will. For large fish, I probably would keep the limit as it is now.
2. Increasing harvest on the smallest segment of the population (the few big fish) will have little effect on the overall population dynamic, nor will it likely allow more small fish to break through the bottleneck unless the smaller ones have their harvest increased as well . Also, most general non bassin specialists will catch very few large fish sufficient to increase overall harvest by much, while skilled bassers will probably still release these fish. I just don't see how it will increase harvest very much, especially enough to increase growth. A similar change has not helped Deer Creek any, so far as I can see.
3. I'm still one of the pathetic souls that continue to "waste my time" bassin at Jordanelle weekly. I will just say that last year was the first in several years where I DID see some decent growth and fish breaking through the 12 inch ceiling. Why? My non credentialed observation was that the pesky 5-6 incher population was down quite a lot, probably due to partial spawning failure due to the low water. It underscores the argument that overpopulation of the small fish inhibits growth. There are still a ton of 8-11 inchers in there though.
4. What does it really matter. All you hear on the boards are that Jordanelle sucks and is a waste of time. Fine, leave me to myself . [ ]
[signature]
Posts: 6,126
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
1
Weight I will get my decoder ring..
Okay If we remove big fish we will get big fish ???
If we have big fish to be again with, not sure what you are saying??
And not sure how that helps a lake with small fish??
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
Cliff -- that decoder ring is on backwards. Turn it around, then try again.
thanks.
[signature]
Posts: 30
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2016
Reputation:
0
[quote bassrods]Weight I will get my decoder ring..
Okay If we remove big fish we will get big fish ???
If we have big fish to be again with, not sure what you are saying??
And not sure how that helps a lake with small fish??[/quote]
Cliff, I'm not sure you have much experience growing things, but what happens when your tomato plant is crowded with other plants and weeds? They compete for sunlight, nutrients, and water. The product should be pretty obvious. Small plants and small, if any, fruit.
Now put that scenario in Jordanelle's bass. Everything a young bass needs to grow up fast is being competed for with each other and perch. So yes harvesting fish, even a few old ones past their prime, produce more big fish.
I put full trust into what the DWR is doing because it ain't easy managing fish and dealing with politics (whether or not those politics are substantiated with fact or fiction).
I'm curious to see whether or not kokes will provide some forage for smb and bring up their size.
[signature]
Posts: 905
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
2
"Why any limit at all? "
Good thought, apparently no one else's however!
The regulating body apparently differs thinking that sticking to the number 6 will suddenly encourage angles to harvest small bass.
20 years of the magic number 6 evidently will suddenly become a harvest bonanza.
10 bass limit nothing over 16" would probably be a better solution than some version of 6 over and over again.
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
[quote Dog-lover]
The regulating body apparently differs thinking that sticking to the number 6 will suddenly encourage angles to harvest small bass.
20 years of the magic number 6 evidently will suddenly become a harvest bonanza.
10 bass limit nothing over 16" would probably be a better solution than 6 over and over again.[/quote]
+100. (As I blathered a few posts ago)
Did you tell the DWR in their survey about how you feel? Maybe if they hear from enough people, they will be more comfortable in moving away from their stubbornly held 6 fish limit that accomplishes little.
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
[quote Dog-lover ]
10 bass limit nothing over 16" would probably be a better solution than some version of 6 over and over again.[/quote]
Why have the "nothing over 16 inches" portion?
why not just plain and simple: 10 bass limit.
What would the over 16" be protecting???
Just up the limit to any bass. If you don't feel good about keeping those "bigger" bass, then don't. You already said that the average joe angler can't catch those bigger bass anyway. So, again, what would that regulation be protecting? Just up the limit.
[signature]
Posts: 905
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
2
I have responded to many DWR surveys and concluded that they are tool for doing what was intended in the first place.
Example:Redfleet Survey
Question:
Would you be in favor of chemically removing fertile walleye from Red Fleet Reservoir in order to stock sterile walleye?
Survey results 58% against 28% for
Survey was lip service for what had already been decided, Rotenone.
The use of surveys is a art form that is used to show division and lack of Consensus, regardless of the survey results agency's do what they intended in the first place.
The DWR is a Master of surveys and the RAC process which provide division and justifies doing what they intended to do in the first place.
[signature]
Posts: 905
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
2
"You already said that the average joe angler can't catch those bigger bass anyway."
As usual what you claim is not correct:
However aside from your distortions the 16" limitation would provide a basis for seeing if bigger than 16" fish actually showed up.
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
[quote PBH]
Why have the "nothing over 16 inches" portion?
why not just plain and simple: 10 bass limit.
[/quote]
While it may not matter all that much as a practical matter, here are a couple of reasons why I might prefer some protections on the big fish. (assuming a liberalized limit on small fish.)
1. Foremost, it would focus the harvest on the sizes of fish that need it most. Folks will go ahead and harvest their 10 inchers instead of wasting their time trying to ring up a big one to take home that never shows up and all the while tossing back the fish that need harvesting the most.
2. Mercury. Jordanelle is under a mercury advisory. We do know that the smaller bass generally bioaccumulate less mercury than a big old hog. Folks can worry a wee bit less about the fish they eat.
3. With the proper combination of harvest and better water, I still feel that maligned Jordanelle can still be a trophy fishery. In that instance, some big fish protection could increase the population ratio of bigger fish. You still have to dump the crumbs out of the cookie jar though.
One parting comment. As I mentioned earlier, last year gave me genuine hope for the future there. We finally saw some growth in the medium sized fish and I had some evenings where I went home with sore arms catching a lot of nice fish. Not coincidentally, there were a lot fewer of the 5-6 inch dinks caught by me and my friends. That said, there are still a lot of fish in the 8-11 inch range that may or may not eventually break out. Thinning them would definitely help the survivors along. Now, Jordanelle hasn't been at totally full pool since 2011. Many of the shallow areas are now grown in with weeds and brush sprouts. What will happen when it finally fills and we have decent water for a couple of years, covering all that new nutrition and structure? What happens when this happens at lake Powell? I might suggest that it could be quite good again. Maybe not as good as 2004-06, but a lot of fun. Thats why I would like to see the regs adjust from the mistakes we made 10 years ago.
Anyway, here are a few of the dinks I caught out of there last summer. As many have said, waste of time. Pics are far from all inclusive.
[signature]
Posts: 1,181
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation:
0
We need some water
[signature]
Posts: 6,126
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
1
Yes I do, and what other states has done has worked..
Bass are bass and tomato do not swim..You need big bass to eat the little ones its the only way that works..
[signature]
Posts: 6,126
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
1
That is about as dum as it comes.. Why even have laws or limits at all on any thing????
[signature]
Posts: 30
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2016
Reputation:
0
Sounds logical, and I would agree with that in lakes that have big fish, but how do they get big if they are stunted?
[signature]
Posts: 6,126
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
1
You need to learn what stunting is and how to handle it..
And its not by fishing for little fish..
[signature]
Posts: 6,126
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
1
If it takes 5 years for SM bass to reach 12" how many hooks do you think it has pasted up to get their???
And a 15" bass how old is it and how many hooks???
Then an 18" bass How old?? How many hooks and how many C&R has it had??
Stunting?? only in Utah..Other states call it over harvesting..
[signature]
Posts: 190
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation:
0
Cliff, to be clear, are you saying that stunting doesnt happen in Utah?
[signature]
|
