Fishing Forum

Full Version: Attempts to discourage bucket biologists
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Idaho is proposing to remove limits on illegally planted walleye and northern pike. Obviously, it won't stop all bucket biologists, but if it stopped even one and lessoned the impact of illegal stocking on some waters I am for it for Utah also. Here is the survey question they are using to solicit input from the public.

"Walleye/northern pike limits
Remove limits on walleye and northern pike except in designated waters being managed for these species. There would not be any limits on these species in waters where they have been illegally introduced. Current limits would remain on Salmon Falls Creek Reservoir, Oakley Reservoir and Oneida Reservoir.

Rationale: Designed to discourage illegal introductions of walleye and northern pike into other waters, and to control their populations in waters where they have been illegally introduced.

Agree Disagree No opinion"
[signature]
I'm not knowledgable enough to know if unlimited harvest works for certain species, but even if it does encourage violators, I doubt that they can illegally plant as many extra fish as will get taken out by having no limit.

If they have to make more trips to plant fish, at the very least there will be a slightly better chance of catching a few of the violators. [Wink]
[signature]
Once they start to reproduce, you'll have a tough time controlling their numbers through harvest. One thing that is being tried at Yellowstone Lake is making it illegal to release the unwanted lakers. In other words, you are required to kill, and keep any lake trout that you catch. If I'm not mistaken, they have made the penalty for releasing any lakers unharmed the same as if you were transplanting them from another lake.

Fishrmn
Since they are already reproducing then, why not combine unlimited harvest with mandatory no-release. That seems like it could be pretty effective.

After all, that will get the people who like to catch them to keep more of them, and force the people who don't like to catch them to keep them.

I dunno, like I said, I'm not very knowledgable about managing a fishery but it makes sense to me. This is a pretty interesting topic to me.
[signature]
Thanks for the info Tubedude. I've been doing well. Started a new job so no time for fishing unfortunately.

That's some good info. I understand thing a bit better now.

I can sure understand the problem with pike and their relatives. I just went fishing in Maine with my wife's grandfather about a month ago and we went miles and miles into the woods on some logging roads to find a beaver flowage where he knew we could get some brookies. When we got there we caught one trout, then nothing but pickerel. They weren't planted but they had moved downstream from some lakes up above. He'd been fishing there his whole life and now nothing much but pickerel.
[signature]
I agree on the unlimeted harvest of illigally planted fish. We went up to the Evenston ice derby this last year at Sulpher Creek . Alot of the trout being caught had big gasses or chunks out of them. We talked to one of the fish and game officers and found out someone had planted Walleye in there, and that now they are talking about poisoning of the lake to get rid of them. I hate to see them kill a lake because some idiot didn't want to have to drive to far to catch the wally's.

Also i believe in yellowstone if you don't want to keep the Laker's you are required to kill them and pop the air bladder but then they can be released to become food for other fish. Personally i'll just cook them up, that seems like an awful waste, legally or illegally introduced.
[signature]