Posts: 124
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation:
0
Those are some nice fish doggonefishin.
I want to jump in the fish and tomato conversation, lol! Some are over thinking this.
First of all the number one rule for having big fish and/or tomatoes is having big fish and/or tomatoes! You cannot allow everyone to take what they want because everyone will take the big, juicy, and ripe tomatoes. They will leave the smaller, green ones. Opening a big fish "slot" for other fish to take won't necessarily work when those fish that would take that slot will get harvested before they can grow because now they are the best fish in the water. Especially when it takes bass a long time to grow big.
You need a limit on how many big one people can take in order to have a good fishery.
The other thing is that fish are not just in competition for food with fish there own size. Having a larger limit on smaller fish makes sense especially since those are found in larger numbers and eat the food that would allow other fish to grow bigger.
Of course there a tons of different variables that will affect fish size and numbers, it's not that simple. Personally I like to fish for bass and I catch and release most of the time. There is nothing like the trill of catching a big one and I want to have the opportunity of catching it again after it's grown a little more. I like eating fish and I will occasionally keep 11, 12, 13 inchers. I don't feel as bad for keeping those.
My 2 cents.
[signature]
Posts: 124
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation:
0
[quote Bad_Crawdad]Sounds logical, and I would agree with that in lakes that have big fish, but how do they get big if they are stunted?[/quote]
Simple, reduce the number of fish and protect the bigger fish. More food for everyone to get bigger.
[signature]
Posts: 1,157
Threads: 1
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
1
I'm no biologist, but if I were a betting man I would think that eliminating the limit altogether, or making it something like 50 on smallmouth bass on these waters that have stunted populations might encourage those that are looking to fill the freezer with fillets to come do their magic!
If those that are willing to catch and fillet 50-100 white bass were able to come up to jordanelle and fill up on tasty smallmouths then it might work. An 8" smallmouth gives up a meatier fillet than an 10" white bass does so it would be well worth fishing for if there was no limit. I know that I haven't been too tempted to drive all the way to a given body of water just to keep six 8-10" smallmouths. If I'm there already fishing for other species I might keep some, but if it is only me or one of my kids fishing with me there just isn't enough meat off of a 6 fish limit of dinky smallmouths. I would need to have the opportunity to fish for them like I'm fishing for perch to entice me to visit the water and start keeping them. In other words, if I could keep 50 I probably would not only go there just to fish for them, but I would keep all I caught, but if I can only keep 6 it just isn't worth it to me.
Maybe no limit on any smaller than 10-12" and one or two over 10-12" would help. The trick here (if stunting is the problem) is to bring the numbers down significantly to balance the predator/prey relationship and it would take a serious effort to pull that off using anglers as the management tool.
This is just my opinion and I have no scientific evidence for what I think, but I remember at flaming gorge the smallmouth limit was increased to 10 and it still didn't encourage too many anglers to keep them. It DID however encourage me and my sons to keep a limit because between the 3 of us we could keep 30 and it made the effort to fillet them worth it.....that, and we were already fishing there for other species.
Mike
[signature]
Posts: 30
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2016
Reputation:
0
[quote AlexB][quote Bad_Crawdad]Sounds logical, and I would agree with that in lakes that have big fish, but how do they get big if they are stunted?[/quote]
Simple, reduce the number of fish and protect the bigger fish. More food for everyone to get bigger.[/quote]
If I'm reading this right your saying harvest small fish and leave the big ones. There was a scenario like that at lake Powell a few years ago. I found an article on it written by the biologist. Basically they upped the limit on smallies and the fishery responded very well. Here's an excerpt on it.
Quote:On January 1, 2002 a new regulation was enacted on Lake Powell that allowed anglers to keep 20 smallmouth bass. The number was not important. It could have been 10 or 30. The philosophical statement was the clincher. I wanted anglers to know that it was okay to keep a smallmouth bass. Catch and release was not working at Lake Powell. Catch and keep would help improve the fishery. Anglers responded to the new keeper philosophy by doubling the bass harvest. In 2002 and 2003 about 25% of bass caught were kept.
Fast forward to 2004. After only two years of "keeping bass" the fishery has responded in dramatic fashion. Shad forage is more abundant. Smallmouth bass are bigger and fatter. Bass tournaments held in 2002 saw winning average weights of less than 5 pounds for five 12-inch smallmouth bass. The first two tournaments held in 2004 had winning weights of over 9 pounds for five fish with a "big fish" over 3 pounds. The ratio of bass over 13 inches in the population (RSD) has improved from zero in 2000 to 20% in 2003. The outlook for 2004 is for continued bass growth and better quality fishing.
How does this work? Smallmouth targeted by our catch and keep program, those 9-11 inch bass, are the most aggressive predators. Young bass are naïve, fearless and always hungry. By keeping the smaller, most aggressive bass, more food was made available for the older, wiser fish that were more selective in feeding habits. Keeping the larger bass would have had the opposite effect of leaving the most efficient predators and not freeing up enough additional forage. Anglers were given information about the goal of the bass harvest program and the target size fish to harvest. They responded with enthusiasm. This was a victory for angler education in action.
Here's a link to the full article.
http://www.wayneswords.com/index.php?opt...&Itemid=50
[signature]
Posts: 156
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2007
Reputation:
0
Now let's talk about Mercury in the Bass at Jordanelle ! Can you eat them ????
[signature]
Posts: 190
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation:
0
multiple waters in utah have mercury containing fish, including jordy and utah lake to name a few. Check the proclamation for all of the listed waters. You can eat them, but sparingly. Smaller fish, as someone else noted, generally have less mercury than larger ones.
Stunting is a fact, and even the casual angler with any time spent on the water year after year can see it; particularly, if a person has ever fished farm ponds with bluegill, high mountain lakes with brook trout, DC and Jordy for SMB, and blacksmith fork, huntington creek, and provo river for brown trout. Watching these fish become more and more plentiful every year and smaller and smaller is readily observable.
I've always thought it might be a good idea to get these numbers down in places like DC, Jordy, and the Provo River, is to open them up every 3 months or so to any type of rod fishing, any type of bait, and no license, with no limits. This might "thin the herd" a little, and might help with the fact that so many fishermen now dont catch and keep what they eat. Could be monitored by biologists, and modified as needed. That might do the trick
[signature]
Posts: 35,753
Threads: 262
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
49
[#0000FF]No mercury problem in Utah Lake. Can't believe how many people believe this. There IS a problem with PCB in large carp and catfish.
[url "http://www.utahfishinginfo.com/dwr/fish_consumption_advisories.php"]UTAH STATE FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORIES[/url]
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
[quote gmwahl] I know that I haven't been too tempted to drive all the way to a given body of water just to keep six 8-10" smallmouths. If I'm there already fishing for other species I might keep some, but if it is only me or one of my kids fishing with me there just isn't enough meat off of a 6 fish limit of dinky smallmouths. I would need to have the opportunity to fish for them like I'm fishing for perch to entice me to visit the water and start keeping them. In other words, if I could keep 50 I probably would not only go there just to fish for them, but I would keep all I caught, but if I can only keep 6 it just isn't worth it to me.
This is just my opinion and I have no scientific evidence for what I think, but I remember at flaming gorge the smallmouth limit was increased to 10 and it still didn't encourage too many anglers to keep them. It DID however encourage me and my sons to keep a limit because between the 3 of us we could keep 30 and it made the effort to fillet them worth it.....that, and we were already fishing there for other species.
Mike[/quote]
I believe your sentiments are very similar to others and myself. For me, 8-10 10 inchers is the perfect meal. It usually isn't an issue as I'll keep a jumbo perch or two plus the bass to get a meals worth. Regardless, if the DWR was serious about more harvest there, then they should change the regs to allow it to happen (10 or 12 small bass limit). And IMO, what was proposed in the survey won't do it. Crawdad posted what was written by the DWR biologist Mr. Gustaveson about lake Powell. He is highly respected both inside and outside the division. I just don't understand the reluctance by the DWR to adopt these same principles in the management of the Northern smallie fisheries.
By the way, Jordanelle just went over 70% of full pool. It was 60% 6 days ago. Runoff is far from over. It might be a good year up there.
[signature]
Posts: 129
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
Reputation:
0
I am no expert but it seems that the water levels of Jordanelle rarely reach full pool enough to utilize newly grown brush and shrubs. Wouldn't the reservoir benefit from some type of pvc (or other) artificial fish habitat? It seems that the state could put together a cost effective plan for a few year budget to supplement the cost and the labor could easily be done by volunteers. Actually there is a things being taken to the dump daily that could be utilized.
[signature]
Posts: 35,753
Threads: 262
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
49
[#0000FF]Jordanelle has not reached full pool during the past 4 years of drought conditions. However, prior to that it filled every year...with water extending well past the stump fields and up into the Provo River inlet area. When the water is at full pool there is plenty of cover and structure.
We need water in the lake...not junk.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 6,126
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
1
In every thing I have read about stunting, it happens in bodies of water 20 acres or less of water.
.On all other waters over 100 acres over harvest of the bigger fish like bass Crappie, Blue guile, Perch, will have fish of a bigger size in spring but will be smaller in average size by mid summer cause of slower growth and over harvest..
Look up states with slot limits and then look at why they have them.. Look at the Berry and why they have the slot limit on the cuts, it works out to the same thing..
[signature]
Posts: 129
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
Reputation:
0
[quote TubeDude][#0000FF]Jordanelle has not reached full pool during the past 4 years of drought conditions. However, prior to that it filled every year...with water extending well past the stump fields and up into the Provo River inlet area. When the water is at full pool there is plenty of cover and structure.
We need water in the lake...not junk.
[/#0000FF][/quote]
Obviously we need water but we can't control that, wouldn't a alternative during the low years help? This isn't a idea I just thought up, lots of states have implemented these with great success. Like I said I'm just making up ideas but to dismiss a proven tactic in other states as just junk isn't very open minded...
[signature]
Posts: 35,753
Threads: 262
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
49
"Actually there is a things being taken to the dump daily that could be utilized."
[#0000FF]That statement was the basis for my remark on "junk". But I fully agree that structure can be important.
How much have you fished Jordanelle? If you really know the lake you will know that there is probably no other water in Utah that has so much structure already. They left a lot of scrub oak and other growth in the lake when they flooded it. Consequently, there are ABUNDANT snags on the bottom in all parts of the lake...even at its deepest point. Trout trollers and bassers...as well as ice anglers...all have their stories about the megabucks worth of tackle they donate to the bottom structure of Jordanelle.
Proven tactics in other states are not typically a basis for making good management decisions for Utah. If that were the case we would have seen some "forage augmentation" planting of forage species for the fish in Jordanelle. Instead, all fish still have to rely on perch fry as their sole source of food...and the perch population took a big hit about 6 years ago and all species have suffered since. There is only a smattering of crawdads in Jordanelle. Not enough to feed the hungry hordes of smallies.
There are no chubs left. At one time there were wall to wall chubs and the smallies grew to 8#. The smallies and perch ganged up on the chubs and they are gone. There is no other forage species in Jordanelle. In other states they routinely plant fish food as well as maintaining gamefish numbers. But everytime suggests planting the native food source (chubs) in Utah everyone in DWR rolls their eyes and go into seizures. Plant chubs? In trout waters? Heresy. Even if there were not rainbows in Jordanelle it is doubtful we would get chubs planted.
Sorry. Not trying to denigrate your suggestions. Structure is not the problem. It is too many mouths and not enough food.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 129
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
Reputation:
0
I believe you, your far more seasoned then me. So the lake needs more chubs?
[signature]
Posts: 35,753
Threads: 262
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
49
[#0000FF]I say chubs because that is the most abundant and easiest forage to catch and plant from other waters...without having to have a special hatchery and nursery. But even a healthy population of bluegills or green sunfish would help. And unless the new plantings of kokanee are larger than fingerling size I fear that many of them will simply go toward the smallie feeding plan.
Actually, a ton of crawdads would make the smallies very happy. But talk of planting crawdads anywhere in Utah makes the DWR folks almost as nervous as talking about chubs.
Jordanelle has gone through a typical new lake cycle. Started out very fertile, with lots of flooded vegetation, etc. The chubs exploded. Ditto for the perch. The smallies were overfed and porked out in a hurry. Everybody was catching 18 to 20 inch fish and there were more than a few bigger than 20 inches. But all of a sudden the small chubs began to be snarfed up each year as fast as they were hatched. All that was left were bigger chubs. And the dwindling number of survivors got big...up to 15 inches...too big for footlong smallies. The big chubs spawned each year but none of the young ever survived to spawn themselves.
Under the ice about 6 years ago there was a huge perch dieoff. There was no CSI done on them but speculations were some kind of fishy virus. That really put a dent in the food supply for the smallies. By the time for smallies to spawn the next year, a lot of them had starved out...or died of natural causes at the end of their life cycles. And with no food for the smaller smallies they never made it over the hump to teen-incher status.
The perch have been slowly coming back. And with them the smallies have had more to eat and there are a few larger ones showing up. But the big problem is that the yearling smallies...under 6 inches long...raid the schools of new perch hatchlings...like they do at Deer Creek. Thousands of baby perch are sucked up before they ever reach fingerling size. And those that survive to 1 1/2" yearlings are eaten by the trout as well as the smallies...and by their own adult perch. Tough to be a baby perch in Jordanelle.
The problem has never been that people are keeping all the big fish. There are just no big fish to catch.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
[quote bassrods]In every thing I have read about stunting, it happens in bodies of water 20 acres or less of water.
.On all other waters over 100 acres over harvest of the bigger fish like bass Crappie, Blue guile, Perch, will have fish of a bigger size in spring but will be smaller in average size by mid summer cause of slower growth and over harvest..[/quote]
WHAT?!
Hell, that's an easy one to bust! Just look at Lake Powell and stripers!!!
Summit Lake in Alaska -- a great case study on rainbow trout stunting -- is 130ha (~321 acres).
http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/FDS15-27.pdf
Cliff -- I'll throw you a bone. Here is the definition of "stunting" fish populations: [#FF0000] when fish reach sexual maturity at less than desired sizes.[/#FF0000]
It has nothing to do with forage. It has everything to do with fish reproducing, and reproducing, and reproducing to a point where growth rates slow down.
AGAIN, what you want is a population of fish in the FAST growth rate zone! You can't do this when there are too many fish.
Look at Powell. The stripers, no matter how skinny and malnourished they are, will spawn each year. They can be starving to death, literally, and yet still spawn and create more fish. This is a compounding problem! Adding more forage doesn't work when the forage bucket is already full (ie: Jordanelle). So, you MUST reduce your fish population. Not just little fish, or big fish, or medium fish: all fish!! Reduce their numbers and you will increase growth rates.
Cliff wants to talk about how fast (or slow) bass grow -- increase the growth rate to it's maximum and you will have big fish! That's the magic of fish populations and densities! Fast growth rates = big fish.
stunting is not only happening in Utah. Ask the anglers and managers about Comins Lake in Nevada. A perfect example of stunting (outside of Utah!). Mandatory catch and kill regulations on pike. No limit. Why? STUNTING!
http://www.ndow.org/Bodies_Of_Water/Comins_Lake/
If stunting is just a Utah thing, why does Google have so much information on stunting populations of fish??
http://bfy.tw/5ubU
[signature]
Posts: 129
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
Reputation:
0
So a strong perch spawn would help? Wouldn't alternative cover on a low water year assist in perch spawning? I know I'm just beating a dead horse hear but I'm still not convinced it wouldn't help. Btw thanks for the back and forth and the insight .
[signature]
Posts: 4,630
Threads: 2
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation:
0
Grab your gear, gas up and go. Pick your spots around Utah, there is always somewhere that is doing well. I have found better fish elsewhere but ya gotta be willing to travel a little bit. Even in the places that the spear anglers killed all of the fish [laugh] there are still some bruisers to be caught.
The sun peeked out for just a few minutes here and there last weekend.
[signature]
Posts: 6,126
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
1
Like most things you say it just a bunch of BULL, Stripers had a lack of food for a few years ALL lakes go through this at one time..And in the far north who knows or cares..
Do I need my Decoder ring????
[signature]
Posts: 156
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2007
Reputation:
0
I predict a good bass year at Jordanelle . Two years ago lots of 8-10 inch Bass , last year lots of 12 to 14 inch Bass . I caught lots of small perch through the ice !! Just hope the perch had a good spawn. Lets hope the Lake fills this year !! The Smallmouth will be back !!! I did not see a stunt in the Bass . Nice and healthy !! Good Fishing everyone !!!!! PS. Browns also look very healthy !!!
[signature]
|
