I am curious to see how many people want them brought back and how many would rather not spend the money on a failing project. Please vote so we get a good comparison. Also state the main reason for your answer.[cool][cool]
[signature]
I have no problem bringing them back as long as they do it the proper way. Which would be to treat the lake and the jordan and restore the cutthroat, june sucker ecosystem. It would also get the federal government off our back about both fishes.
Otherwise it is a fruitless cause and they will never have the traditional balance which allowed BOTH species to THRIVE in great numbers.
If not, then throw some shiners or chub in there for the walleye and bass to eat and be done with it.
[signature]
I'm still pretty new to the fishing world, so I cant give an educated guess. I guess I'll have to read up on it a little more.
[signature]
I'm all for the recovery program. It's not that I really care that much about the June Sucker, I just love Utah Lake. Anything that can be done to help the lakes ecosystem I am all for. If that benefits the sucker, more power too them.
[signature]
I would amend it to say "Bring them back at all REASONABLE costs..."
Reasons:
#1: Federal Law (Endangered Species Act) requires it.
#2: When species decline, it is a sign that the overall system has problems - the ecosystem, food web, and habitat are out of balance, polluted, or some other problem. Restoring the system will restore the endangered species, which will in turn benefit the entire system.
#3: The improvement (so far) being made are beneficial to the sport fishery. This includes removal of carp and habitat restoration. These will greatly benefit all gamefish in the lake in addition to the June Suckers. Who wouldn't want that?
#4: I believe we have a responsibility to care for this planet, its animals, and the environment. Within reason, we need to be willing to spend to consume resources in a responsible way.
[signature]
I don't care much about June suckers, although I certainly would choose them over carp.
I think Utah Lake is an underutilized resource that should be developed and protected. If the June sucker recovery ends up being beneficial for Utah Lake, that is great.
[signature]
I personally feel all that money could really benefit a whole lot of other species of fish. Utah lake is too big to effectively poison, it would cost a boat load of cash to even try. Carp reproduce by the bajillions, so trying to catch them all is hopeless. My idea is to build a dike system or "mini" lakes around a few of the tributaries, treat only those streams and mini lakes, then focus the june sucker efforts on a more manageable sized project. If it can't be done...let them go the way of the dinosaur. No love lost.
[signature]
Here is my final ideas: some of them not so great.
Contradictory to what I have said at other threads. How about poisoning Utah Lake with retonone. Its a very large lake but its shallow. I mean poison poison poison enough that the whole entire Utah Lake watershed has absolutely no Carp. Canals, ditches, lower Provo River, ect, ect.
The other idea is this:
Stock tons and tons of Utah Chubs in Utah Lake so that they compete with the Carp. I think they would, but only up to a point.
Last but not least: the Atom Bomb. Utah County residence could be evacuated out of Utah Valley, the Cedar Fort area would work. And just nuke 'ol Utah Lake. Joking but I'm serious about the above two options.
[signature]
[font "Times New Roman"][#000000]I am in strong favor of restoring the June Sucker. History doesn't lie. The fact is that with the June Sucker and the lake ecosystem that previously existed there was thriving game fish population. If cutthroats could live and grow there why wouldn't even more bass, cats, gills, and eyes? I think as soon as the original lake vegetation is given a chance to come back the lake will fix itself. [/#000000][/font]
[font "Times New Roman"][#000000][/#000000][/font]
[font "Times New Roman"][#000000]Also keep it mind that this restoration project will bring better water conditions to Utah Lake. Most residents of Utah County don't know the huge impact their wonderful lawns have on the lake. From wasted water to fertilizer runnoff. Think of the Willamette River in Oregon. Portland and its suburbs have a much larger population than even Salt Lake City. Yet the State was able to noticably increase the quality of the water in the river. And they had many more streams and creeks to worry about than we do at Utah Lake. [/#000000][/font]
[font "Times New Roman"][#000000][/#000000][/font]
[font "Times New Roman"][#000000]If we can't bring back the June Sucker how do we expect to keep or improve othe waters in the Utah when the population is expected to be 3-4 times greate by 2050-2060? To me it is now or never. [/#000000][/font]
[signature]
I'm in favor of reducing pollution in Utah lake, and or curtailing further contaminants from reaching the water but absolutely nothing needs to be done about the sportfish population there......it has more diversity and numbers of warmwater sportfish than any other fishery around these days. A VEHEMENT no to the rotonone idea. If these guys want to get radical.....i'm for the sportfish only. I do not want it to be "restored" to a cuttthroat-sucker "pristine" ecosystem. Yes my comment is anthropocentric. Never said i was ecocentric. Just somewhat envrionmentally conscious. Honestly I don't really care if nothing is done at all, even carp removal is of no significant consequence to me. The sportfish are thriving already. And being underutilized is actually a good thing. That means masses of large uneducated gamefish and no significant angler competition. This is why some people waste thousands on vacation trips to Canada. To get far enough away to waters with little pressure and numbers of sportfish. Why ruin what we have already in our backyards?
Would I like to see it, sure, I don't want to see any species zapped. Unfortunately, with todays conditions it is not likely the june sucker can continue to survive in this system. Even if we killed every non-native species out and replaced the native species, "bob the bucket bio" would introduce another experiment and it would all be for not.
It seems it is time to let go....
[signature]
Very interesting thread. As I have stated before and others have also stated, we DON'T HAVE A CHOICE !! PERIOD!!! The only thing that we have any control over is the how. The recovery people have a really good plan in place and if it works, future generations will have one of the best lakes in the country to fish. I am almost 60 and if I live to be 80, I might see some of the results, but it will be 20 - 30 years down the road to see any dramatic results. But we will see some immediate changes. Another member of the group called today and reported that they netted over 75,000 lbs of carp in 3 days, so they are at it and getting results. I encourage everyone with an interest in the lake and project to come to the meetings, they are open and you will learn a great deal.
You all know what you are going to get from me. I have been arguing for this project, on this forum, almost from the day I found BFT. (and the subject comes up every few months) I must say that in previous years, I was almost alone in supporting it. Now the poll results,such that they are, show a majority support for at least one of the first 2 options. That is cool.
A few additional random comments;
1. Therapist wrote that we don't have a choice. He is absolutely right. We don't. If you are opposed to this, it is a waste of effort to complain to or about the DWR. If you want to complain, write your national congressman if you feel the Endangered species act is bad. (I would argue that it may need some tweaking on some areas, but the ESA is a good thing.) Also, the program will go on whether one likes it or not. I feel that involvement with it will be more helpful and perhaps help in achieving a vision of what I would like Utah lake to be for my kids than grumbling about it on an internet forum.
2. Bigguyone said this "The state needs to move beyond the June Sucker issue and see the lake as an asset that if treated properly can have a much greater positive impact on the area than the june sucker can possibly hope for....a nice marina, removal of carp, 2M planted fish....will bring MUCH MORE enjoyment and value to the area than will the june sucker."
The goal of the program IS more far reaching than just saving a species of fish. The JSRIP is a vehicle to allow the carp to be removed, to clean up the lake, to improve the habitat, AND to improve angler access and use of the lake by both fishermen and non fishers. The JSRIP sees UL as that asset you describe.
3. It cannot be repeated enough, so I'll say it again. THE HABITAT IMPROVEMENT AND CARP REMOVAL WILL IMPROVE THE SPORT FISHING! There, I feel better. I can't wait to see what the fishing will be like in 5-6 years, once the carp numbers are down. (assuming good water years) I also can't wait to see what this Hobble creek project fishes like in 2-3 years when it grows in. It might be quite a hot spot.
4. The JSRIP knows that it would be almost impossible to return Utah lake to pre pioneer days. While it is occasionally talked about, they have no immediate or long term plans of returning it to a cutt only lake with no warmwater species. Diking and similar ideas have and are being considered as fallback plans, but the recent work is actually looking promising. We shall see.
There will be another Utah lake fish forum meeting in about 3 weeks. I hope to see more of you there if this interests you.
[signature]
If it were a 100% kill ratio with rotenone, i think it would be a very good idea. Unfortunately, there is no way in hell that any amount of rotenone will kill all of the fish in the uL ecosystem. Carp are far too tough to be wiped out this way. There are litterally hundreds of areas rotenone wouldn't touch including ALL tributaries. You would have to introduce it at all dams and water sources simultaneously with probably millions of gallons or more of the stuff. I still don't think it would work, plus it would wipe out most of the other fish in the process. Take for example Lost Creek, they drained and killed(i think) the entire reservoir when they fixed the dam. Now look at it 5 or so years later. Thousands of chubs are back in there.
The commercial fishing takes HUGE numbers of carp from UL but it is really a drop in the bucket when the biomass is 95%(not sure if that number is accurate)carp.
If the June sucker program is going to make a major difference on the carp and ecology, then it would be a good thing. I just don't see how it is going to work that way.[cool]
[signature]
True, the majority of the Biomass in Utah Lake is in Carp currently, however, the removal of the Carp from the system will free up that energy to be used in and by other organisms. Dr. Crowl from USU has a really great presentation on this subject that everyone needs to see. Again, I don't do it justice, however, the basic idea is there is a tipping point where the carp are unable to sustain their population because recruitment ( new individuals being added to the system ) is below the number of individuals being removed. Once that point is reached, the carp are no longer self sustaining, numbers dwindle, and they become a non issue. They are unable to sustain their numbers and the population becomes unviable.
Rotenone is not a viable treatment for several reasons. First, it would be impossible to cover all the areas of the lake where the carp can take refuge. Second, rotenone is non slective, it kills everything from the carp down to the insects and invertabrates. Third, because there is a surviving population of Junies in the lake and they have planted over 250,000, you would be destroying all the work that they have done up till now.
It sounds like pie in the sky, but this really has the potential to work. Please come to the meetings and listen and learn.
[font "Times New Roman"][#000000]Where can I view this Dr. Crowl presentation? I am growing increasingly regretful about not making a better effort to attend the firts two meetings. [/#000000][/font]
[font "Times New Roman"][#000000][/#000000][/font]
[font "Times New Roman"][#000000]I think this is going to be the Utah Fishing highlight of the year. Can you imagine a Utah Lake with very little carp? I can hardly wait to see this project through to its end. [fishin][/#000000][/font]
[signature]
There is always a choice ... It would seem that the federal and state governments have made one. As I have stated, I hate to see any species eliminated (with the exception of carp and carnies).
Now, I guess it depends what you call successful... so I digress and wish all the "sucker lovers" lots of luck.
[signature]
It is going through final review prior to publishing. You should be able to get it when available through the June Sucker Recovery Implementation Group. Here is an email and other contact data.
Michael Mills
JSRIP Local Coordinator
Central Utah Water Conservancy District
355 West University Parkway
Orem, Utah 84058
801-226-7132
I would like to see the suckers come back BUT this is what I see...
1. Rotenone would only work IF you went up each stream creek or water way (take the Provo river) and Deer creek above all the way to Jordanelle would have to get the treatment...
That is why it would cost so much...Just think of all the fish that would die, trout bass perch walleye and the list goes on...
And then who would say what would go back in the water????
And what food source??(minnows or what kinds)
If they had gone with rotenone from the start and started at the tops and been working down all these years and replanting as they worked down it mite have got enough carp out of the waters and the biomass of carp would be as low as they could get...
And this way they could work one big stream at a time till they hit the valley..
But like said already that is hinded sight and not the plain...Just what I think I would have done with what I know at this point...
I only hope how they are doing it works...
[signature]