03-29-2017, 08:05 PM
I was provided this plan and it must be noted its a living document not yet assigned a publication number as the DNR learns more it will be updated.
[signature]
[signature]
03-29-2017, 08:05 PM
03-29-2017, 09:30 PM
Be nice if they could turn it back into a decent fishery. Right now I don't think its that great.
[signature]
[signature]
03-30-2017, 01:01 AM
Thanks for posting this. Will a catch rate of 1 fish and hour with .8 being perch, .15 being walleye, and .05 being pike really qualify Yuba as a desination fishery? I don't fish for walleye so I don't know how good catching one walleye roughly every 6.5 hours is. Sounds low as a destination fishery to me.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know the targeted musky catch rate for Pineview? 0.05 pike per hour seems low for what Yuba can provide and curious how it compares to musky.
I'm no biologist, just initial thoughts.
[signature]
Out of curiosity, does anyone know the targeted musky catch rate for Pineview? 0.05 pike per hour seems low for what Yuba can provide and curious how it compares to musky.
I'm no biologist, just initial thoughts.
[signature]
03-30-2017, 01:55 AM
When was this last updated? Back in 2013? I don't see any plans beyond 2015. The latest task list is for 2014. Any status updates?
[signature]
[signature]
03-30-2017, 02:54 PM
[quote cje04]Will a catch rate of 1 fish / hour ...really qualify Yuba as a desination fishery?
[/quote]
Yes!
1 fish / hour is a very good catch rate!
This is a pretty standard measurement / target for catch rates.
Compare this to the current Fish Lake Management plan which has the following goals:
[ul][li]angler catch rate of >0.75 fish per hour for all trout and kokanee combined[/li][li]summer angler catch rate of >0.5 fish per hour for rainbow trout and kokanee[/li][li]winter angler catch rate for splake of >0.5 fish per hour and summer angler catch rate of >0.1 fish per hour[/li][li]increase angler harvest rate of perch to >2.0 per hour[/li][/ul]
that last one I listed is significant pertaining to the question from cje04. Look at the numbers of perch anglers catch at Fish Lake -- and the goal is 2.0 per hour.
Again, 1.0 fish per hour is good fishing.
[signature]
[/quote]
Yes!
1 fish / hour is a very good catch rate!
This is a pretty standard measurement / target for catch rates.
Compare this to the current Fish Lake Management plan which has the following goals:
[ul][li]angler catch rate of >0.75 fish per hour for all trout and kokanee combined[/li][li]summer angler catch rate of >0.5 fish per hour for rainbow trout and kokanee[/li][li]winter angler catch rate for splake of >0.5 fish per hour and summer angler catch rate of >0.1 fish per hour[/li][li]increase angler harvest rate of perch to >2.0 per hour[/li][/ul]
that last one I listed is significant pertaining to the question from cje04. Look at the numbers of perch anglers catch at Fish Lake -- and the goal is 2.0 per hour.
Again, 1.0 fish per hour is good fishing.
[signature]
03-30-2017, 03:09 PM
[quote dregs]When was this last updated? Back in 2013? I don't see any plans beyond 2015. The latest task list is for 2014. Any status updates?[/quote]
I think the updates are evident.
Have the objectives that were set in 2013 been met?
According to some recent fishing reports, I do not believe that 1.0 fish per hour goal is being met. I don't believe that 10% of the catch is walleye. I don't believe anglers are utilizing the fishery at 4,200 hours / month. Biomass of carp is certainly higher than 40%, with predators being 5-10%, and 75% of that being walleye.
What I do not see in the plan are actions to take if the goals are not met. However, with the recent public notice I think it is very evident what is to come when the goals listed in the plan are not met:
[url "http://www.richfieldreaper.com/public_notices/article_2ef209fc-14d6-11e7-be38-2ff4cafdd5f6.html"]Public Notice of Sport Fish Restoration of Yuba Reservoir...[/url]
(fixed link. Thanks kent)
[signature]
I think the updates are evident.
Have the objectives that were set in 2013 been met?
According to some recent fishing reports, I do not believe that 1.0 fish per hour goal is being met. I don't believe that 10% of the catch is walleye. I don't believe anglers are utilizing the fishery at 4,200 hours / month. Biomass of carp is certainly higher than 40%, with predators being 5-10%, and 75% of that being walleye.
What I do not see in the plan are actions to take if the goals are not met. However, with the recent public notice I think it is very evident what is to come when the goals listed in the plan are not met:
[url "http://www.richfieldreaper.com/public_notices/article_2ef209fc-14d6-11e7-be38-2ff4cafdd5f6.html"]Public Notice of Sport Fish Restoration of Yuba Reservoir...[/url]
(fixed link. Thanks kent)
[signature]
03-30-2017, 03:41 PM
Your link doesn't work. Hopefully, mine does:
[url "http://www.richfieldreaper.com/public_notices/article_2ef209fc-14d6-11e7-be38-2ff4cafdd5f6.html"]Link to article[/url]
[signature]
[url "http://www.richfieldreaper.com/public_notices/article_2ef209fc-14d6-11e7-be38-2ff4cafdd5f6.html"]Link to article[/url]
[signature]
03-30-2017, 04:08 PM
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Here is a link to a slide presentation that is dated Dec 21, 2016. It is a quick, 22-slide picture of the plan for Yuba Reservoir. There is some contact information on Slide #22 if you want or need more info. Interesting and useful information.[/#800000][/font]
[url "http://utahreservoirfisheries.blogspot.com/2016/12/yuba-reservoir-management-plan-meeting.html"]Yuba Reservoir Management Plan[/url]
[signature]
[url "http://utahreservoirfisheries.blogspot.com/2016/12/yuba-reservoir-management-plan-meeting.html"]Yuba Reservoir Management Plan[/url]
[signature]
03-30-2017, 05:00 PM
Thanks for that link Bob. It's nice to finally see something.
The presentation sheds some light on bleak fishery.
Numerous people have commented lately about the "trophy" status of the pike in Yuba. The slide show confirms that there are a good number of "big" pike in there right now -- which would certainly lead many anglers to question why the DWR would consider a change to that fishery. It's an easy conclusion to question when you don't see the whole picture.
As pointed out in the presentation, the pike are in trouble -- where are the small pike?? If recruitment is now failing, as evidenced by the sampling, then those large pike are not being replaced because there are no small pike. The writing is on the wall. The fishery is doomed.
The biomass is dominated by carp, of which only large pike are utilizing. This good for those big pike, but it is not sustainable. The small pike are not utilizing the carp -- and are disappearing. There are no perch.
It is very evident to me what needs to happen. It must also be evident to managers, thus the public notice and work already being done with NEPA / funding.
It's time to face reality.
Rotenone is the only good solution. Anything else is just wasting time and money.
[signature]
The presentation sheds some light on bleak fishery.
Numerous people have commented lately about the "trophy" status of the pike in Yuba. The slide show confirms that there are a good number of "big" pike in there right now -- which would certainly lead many anglers to question why the DWR would consider a change to that fishery. It's an easy conclusion to question when you don't see the whole picture.
As pointed out in the presentation, the pike are in trouble -- where are the small pike?? If recruitment is now failing, as evidenced by the sampling, then those large pike are not being replaced because there are no small pike. The writing is on the wall. The fishery is doomed.
The biomass is dominated by carp, of which only large pike are utilizing. This good for those big pike, but it is not sustainable. The small pike are not utilizing the carp -- and are disappearing. There are no perch.
It is very evident to me what needs to happen. It must also be evident to managers, thus the public notice and work already being done with NEPA / funding.
It's time to face reality.
Rotenone is the only good solution. Anything else is just wasting time and money.
[signature]
03-30-2017, 05:48 PM
[quote PBH][quote cje04]Will a catch rate of 1 fish / hour ...really qualify Yuba as a desination fishery?
[/quote]
Yes!
1 fish / hour is a very good catch rate!
This is a pretty standard measurement / target for catch rates.
Compare this to the current Fish Lake Management plan which has the following goals:
[ul][li]angler catch rate of >0.75 fish per hour for all trout and kokanee combined[/li][li]summer angler catch rate of >0.5 fish per hour for rainbow trout and kokanee[/li][li]winter angler catch rate for splake of >0.5 fish per hour and summer angler catch rate of >0.1 fish per hour[/li][li]increase angler harvest rate of perch to >2.0 per hour[/li][/ul]
that last one I listed is significant pertaining to the question from cje04. Look at the numbers of perch anglers catch at Fish Lake -- and the goal is 2.0 per hour.
Again, 1.0 fish per hour is good fishing.[/quote]
Thank you. Good to have a benchmark.
[signature]
[/quote]
Yes!
1 fish / hour is a very good catch rate!
This is a pretty standard measurement / target for catch rates.
Compare this to the current Fish Lake Management plan which has the following goals:
[ul][li]angler catch rate of >0.75 fish per hour for all trout and kokanee combined[/li][li]summer angler catch rate of >0.5 fish per hour for rainbow trout and kokanee[/li][li]winter angler catch rate for splake of >0.5 fish per hour and summer angler catch rate of >0.1 fish per hour[/li][li]increase angler harvest rate of perch to >2.0 per hour[/li][/ul]
that last one I listed is significant pertaining to the question from cje04. Look at the numbers of perch anglers catch at Fish Lake -- and the goal is 2.0 per hour.
Again, 1.0 fish per hour is good fishing.[/quote]
Thank you. Good to have a benchmark.
[signature]
03-31-2017, 04:22 AM
I thought Yuba was suppose to have a fishable channel cat population what about keeping the cat fish in Yuba I would like the fish and game to as
answer that ? Chanel cats are a good game fish
[signature]
answer that ? Chanel cats are a good game fish
[signature]
03-31-2017, 02:06 PM
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]I don't know why you would think that. The management plan lists Northern Pike, Walleye, and Perch as the only sport fish of concern. Channel Catfish are not even mentioned in the plan and the State Park website says Channel Catfish may not exist in there any more. While I agree that Channel Catfish are a worthy sport fish, I think you are mistaken in thinking they are, or will be, a managed species in Yuba Reservoir.[/#800000][/font]
[signature]
[signature]
03-31-2017, 02:34 PM
I don't think that Yuba has been a catfish reservoir for many many years. Although some may be caught on a very rare occasion, I don't believe the DNR has, was, or will maintain for that species. I think the intent, from what I've read of the public postings etc. is that they would really like to get back to managing it as a Walleye fishery, with a large population of Perch for prey. I went and fished it last week with my brother and father for the fist time in a couple decades. It has changed a lot since then. The water was much murkier than before, obviously from all the Carp, which we literally saw thousands of. They have completely taken the reservoir over as they have done in UL. It makes sense to me to kill it and start over. Hopefully by doing so they can reproduce the fishing experience the reservoir used to provide. The only issue I see is that now that the Carp have been in there so long the reservoir is nearly completely void of vegetation etc. which may take a few years for growth to be stimulated, which makes it hard for the prey fish to maintain a sustainable population. This could be mitigated by man made structure which has been done back east and in the midwest when trying to revive reservoir's and lakes. They often make "christmas tree reefs" and things of the sort. It will be interesting to see where it goes.
[signature]
[signature]