The central RAC sustained a motion to implement a 10 perch limit for Yuba for 2007 at tonights meeting. Tubedude made the recommendation and a few others spoke for or against it. Don (don't know his last name), who is a DWR biologist basically spoke in favor of harvest, saying that he felt it would not make a negative impact on the perch numbers. He said there are 4 year classes of perch , they are fat and healthy, and the 4 year olds are going from 12 to 14 inches. I'm not sure what has to happen now for the reg change to make it in the proc, but I'm sure TubeDude will chime in, as he is more familiar with the process than I am.
[signature]
I was there and it went very good.Pat did a great job speaking .The ones opposed to opening the perch harvest said they needed more studies and research done but the bilogists were down there this spring and did gill net studies showing perch in the big numbers and size.They stated that there are up to 4 year class perch in there right now.
[signature]
The wildlife board has to hear the recommendations from the RAC now. They almost always accept the RAC's recommendation.
Then it will go to the state legislature to formally become law.
[signature]
[font "Times New Roman"][#ff4040][size 3]That's some pretty good news, seeing that the perch down there are getting pretty big.[/size][/#ff4040][/font]
[signature]
[cool][#0000ff]Yeah, I was happy with the results. The only dissenters seemed to be one RAC board member who was completely unfamiliar with Yuba...but was set straight (grudgingly) by the biologist for Yuba. The couple of audience members who spoke against lifting the perch ban were also guys who have not fished Yuba and were simply sentimental about having the perch ban lifted before their beloved walleyes had a good return. In talking with one of them, he seemed to blame the perch for the slow return of the walleye...but he had not fished the lake since he participated in the structure program two years ago. He had no clue about how prolific the perch were. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Glad we had a good BFT showing there. I rode down with GEEZER, who also said his piece in support of new perch regs on Yuba. Met up with tlspyder13 there and he sat with us. Good to see Ocean, Mrs. Ocean and the Ocean sprouts there too. I was wondering how many other BFTers or lurkers were there. I had a couple of folks note the BFT shirt I was wearing and come up to me to compliment us on the great site we have.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]As Cat_Man stated, it is now up to RAC to present their recommendations to the board and for the board to implement them. It looks pretty solid for the perch ban to be lifted on the 2007 proclamation. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Oh, by the way, one of the things that was emphasized last night is the DWR effort to make the regulations easier to read and understand and to make them more "user friendly". Toward that end the Proclamation will henceforth be called the "Fishing Guide". [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]On another note, they mentioned that Grantsville Reservoir has a confirmed population of illegally introduced smallmouth. They are making a special note in the new Fishing Guide that there is a mandatory kill on all bass caught from Grantsville...and no limit. They also said that their new policies are going to be that they will not manage any fishery for an illegally introduced species.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]But...when I mentioned this, and suggested either a higher limit (or no limit) for perch in the fisheries where they had been illegally introduced, it didn't get much reaction. Part of my official recommendations were to increase the limit of perch at Starvation to 50 fish. That did not even go to a vote. Not sure if it was because Starvation is in another district. We need to work on that.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Strong work TubeDudeimuss Maximus! I really hope they open it up a year early.
[signature]
I think this is great news! I was fishing there a couple of weeks ago and the surface was alive with jumping perch (never seen this before) and we couldn't keep them off our hooks. However, the perch we caught were 7 1/2 inches in length (never saw anything 12-14 inches).
This is definitely a place you want to hit after it ices over.
[signature]
The Legislature doesn't have to approve all fishing regulations, mostly the ones with fees associated. Once the Wildlife Board approves it, the proc - er fishing regulation - will change.
[signature]
[reply]
[#0000ff] [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]On another note, they mentioned that Grantsville Reservoir has a confirmed population of illegally introduced smallmouth. They are making a special note in the new Fishing Guide that there is a mandatory kill on all bass caught from Grantsville...and no limit. They also said that their new policies are going to be that they will not manage any fishery for an illegally introduced species.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]
[/#0000ff]
IT'S ABOUT TIME!!! This is a great step forward towards combating our bucket bios!
Looks like the RAC process actually works!
[signature]
For a point/counterpoint--
Do you think there's any validity to the argument that bucket biologists are actually encouraged by a "no-limit" approach? That is, if they illegaly introduce a species into a lake and it gets established, then they can get a "no-limit" regulation and fish that species to their heart's content?
I suppose in the long run the mandatory kill will affect the population, but in the short run, it's open season on the bb's species of choice. I assume that's how it would work, but we all know about the word assume...
I'm really just asking, because I sincerely dunno' if that's a bona fide argument to be made. Thoughts?
lurechucker
PS-Sorry for the thread hijack, if you think it needs to be moved, please mods, by all means.
[signature]
I think you have a good point there lurechucker. Who knows the motivation of each bucket bio., but I bet many of them want a lake to bring home as many fish for the table as possible. So this would give them what they want.
I don't think this will deter bucket bios, but it might allow us to minimize the damage that they cause, by minimizing the population of intruders.
[signature]
[cool]
[#0000ff]Who knows what evil lurks in the minds of bucket bozos? I think sometimes we humans give too much credit for conscious thought both to animals and other humans.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I prefer to compare these lawbreakers to arsonists. They do what they do not to get individual recognition but to watch all the chaos they cause. Thrillseekers go about their business in unusual ways.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]The 
part is that it is virtually impossible to catch and punish the perpetrators because by the time their heinous crimes are discovered they are long gone with no traces of their actual act. The only way to get them is to observe them, take pictures, record their license plate number and report them. Then, hopefully, officers can capture some of the newly released transplants to verify and then try to make a case. Tough to do.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]But, for a self-styled transplantologist to dump a few fish in a lake, strictly for their own future benefit, is the mark of an exceedingly patient and optimistic criminal. I seriously doubt there are many bucketeers who really care about what happens, other than ultimately seeing what a commotion they have caused.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
[reply]
[#0000ff]On another note, they mentioned that Grantsville Reservoir has a confirmed population of illegally introduced smallmouth. They are making a special note in the new Fishing Guide that there is a mandatory kill on all bass caught from Grantsville...and no limit. They also said that their new policies are going to be that they will not manage any fishery for an illegally introduced species.[/#0000ff] [/reply]
How do you enforce a posession limit when there's a mandatory kill and no limit on even one lake? I think this should be a concern for the lakes surrounding Grantsville and any other areas that may be forced to use these methods.
[signature]
[cool][#0000ff]That can get tricky and is sometimes left to the judgment of a CO. For example, the perch limit on Jordanelle is 50, but is only 10 at Deer Creek. If an angler harvested 50 perch on Jordanelle and then slipped down to Deer Creek for some trout and/or smallies...and was checked by a CO...they could be found in violation of the possession limit while fishing on Deer Creek.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]The best policy is to be aware of the regulations and to think things through carefully. Do not put yourself at risk by having fish in your possession from one water that might violate the regs on another water if you stop to fish there later. CO's have a tough enough job trying to enforce the laws without us making them mind readers and mystics. They have to go with what they are able to observe and not try to translate every possible permutation of any given regulation.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
[size 1]"Do you think there's any validity to the argument that bucket biologists are actually encouraged by a "no-limit" approach?"[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]As has been already stated, who knows what goes through the minds of a given "buckethead", but in the case of bass, I don't think that the goal is harvest opportunities. The goal is more likely one to have a nearly water that has the perpetrators "favorite" in it. Look how East Canyon has had an illegal introduction of smallies, and is now a Mecca for bassers, especially tournaments. Because no special regs are in place, the public is begged to practice C&R there by the bassers. (Full disclosure, I haven' t bass fished EC yet, but would probably C&R myself. Old habits die hard.) Therefore, I believe that the no limit and must kill regs are a good way to counter bucket biology in some situations. The politics of when to implement it and for what species will no doubt cause a lot of controversy though.[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]To the state bass federations credit, they offer a reward for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of anyone illegally transplanting bass in this state. [/size]
[signature]
[reply]
[cool][#0000ff]Yeah, I was happy with the results. The only dissenters seemed to be one RAC board member who was completely unfamiliar with Yuba...but was set straight (grudgingly) by the biologist for Yuba. ] [/reply]
That guy is a complete [#ff0000]jerk[/#ff0000]. They ought to toss him off the rac just for being so stupid. good job tubedude
[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Sorry not trying to stir the pot, but if the bass in east canyon are doing well. How long till they are doing well in the berry! East canyon has to be as cold as the berry and they say they will not reproduce in the berry Just wondering.
[signature]
[cool][#0000ff]Sorry, I edited your comment. We try to maintain a family-friendly board here.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I was kinda peeved at the guy's comments. They were mostly "We need to study things longer and get more "biologicals" before we make any decision to change the proclamation." [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]There are two sides to that story. One, some people would rather make NO decision than to make a wrong decision. They are called politicians and lo they inhabit the halls of legislature throughout the land. They are many and they are mighty and we get mighty tired of their foot-dragging.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]The other side of the story is that it is good to have a "devil's advocate" in any group. Otherwise, the whole group can be swung to vote on any given issue just by what seems to be common consensus. It is not bad for someone to ask WHY? [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]This member raised his concern only after a quick move and second on the motion to just go along with my recommendation. His dissent brought up some further discussion and ultimately led to the biologist presenting even more good points in favor of adopting the motion. I think those that voted for it afterward, felt better about it than they did before.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]None of us likes to be questioned or challenged, but we should all be happy that there are a few officials who are looking out for us...either because they care or just because they like to "stir the pot"...like some of our members.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
The wildlife board will make the decision on allowing harvest of perch at yuba. The legislature only approves thing like change in license fees. The wildlife board will meet on october 5th so we will know in a couple of weeks. gshorthair
[signature]
Weis is a smart person. He may not agree with what all of us want, but he voted against the proposal for good reasons -- although I don't agree with those reasons.
1. Roger Wilson did not promote the raising the regs in his presentation, and he spoke plainly that the new process we have for aquatic reg changes is to introduce such measures in May for discussion, and then come back in September to vote. The DWR RAC process has adopted this measure in large part because the central RAC requested this so we would NOT be blindsided by last minute reg changes as happended with the middle provo regs. Roger tried to do the right thing to us by sticking to that game plan and NOT propose changing Yuba regs.
2. The sportmans groups, such as Rocky Mountain Anglers, who put time and money into this project did not support the opening of the fishery to harvest. They suggested to wait until the Jan 2008 for opening the fishery. These are the people most involved and their preferences deserved my attention, respect, and, ultimately, vote.
Those are straight from John. Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with him, but he has some legitimate reasons for voting against this proposal (among others...).
The DWR came up with the idea to introduce new measures in May then come back in September to vote on them. In May, Yuba perch was not on the agenda. They were scheduled to look at the perch regulation in 2007. So, should this have come up for voting in September? John argues no, according to the DWR's policy. I would argue yes, due to a situation that needed to be looked at and changed.
I don't think anyone (except maybe myself, or W2U) should sit here and call this board member an idiot, a jerk, uneducated, stupid, or anything else. He is a good fisherman. He is a conservationist. He has some good things going for him and bad. But, he had legitimate reasons for his vote -- and we shouldn't beat him up over that. Or should we?
[signature]