The though of stocking baitfish into Utah lakes and reservoirs was brought up in another thread, but instead of addressing that thought in that other thread, I thought I would start an entire new thread. I have read numerous fishermen on this site and others ask why the DWR doesn't stock more baitfish to supplement what is or is not already present to help allow game fish to grow.
Here are some reasons why:
1) baitfish may compete with gamefish--especially juvenile gamefish--for the same food source and eventually outcompete the very fish they are supposed to help.
2) high reproductive rates of many baitfishes force the biomass of many fisheries to transition from predominantly game fish to predominantly baitfish. Fisheries where the biomass is comprised mostly of baitfish or nongame fish are generally not very appealing to fishermen.
3) ESA. Many of our streams or inlets to reservoirs and their associated drainages have endangered species issues that do not allow the DWR to stock some species of fish for fear that they will outcompete endangered species.
4) By adding a new species to a reservoir, many times growth rates of other fish actually decline and average sizes of game fish decline because of competition for food. In such cases, some very large fish are found because they are able to get through a bottleneck that is created and become entirely dependent on prey species for food, but most fish remain small. Joes Valley Reservoir is a prime example of this...some very large splake exist, but most trout are small and relatively skinny and unhealthy. The reservoir actually gets very little fishing pressure compared to when it did not have high numbers of chubs.
5) Disease certification. Because of the rampant spreading of diseases like VHS and whirling disease, all fish stocked must first be certified as disease free. This becomes very problematic for many species of fish...especially those fish that are not native to Utah.
The link below has some good information on the reasons shad are not stocked in more reservoirs/lakes to supplement prey species. The same concepts would apply to other minnows/chubs/shiners...
http://fishing.about.com/od/fishfacts/a/shad_2.htm
http://www.ncwildlife.org/news_stories/p...r04_16.htm
[signature]
Most if not all you said tends to be about trout not walleye or bass or wipers or Tiger Muske or even lakes like the Berry with slots to keep bigger trout in them, and yes lakes that have spawning trout or planting 3" to 5" trout they may be over powered by chubs...
but not lake trout or lakes with slots on them...
[signature]
[quote bassrods]Most if not all you said tends to be about trout not walleye or bass or wipers or Tiger Muske or even lakes like the Berry with slots to keep bigger trout in them[/quote]
You didn't read the links did you? They had nothing to do with trout...but focused on walleye and bass lakes.
Also, what is your reasoning then for the large numbers of skinny and unhealthy small fish at Joes Valley...which, by the way, has had a slot for a number of years?
[signature]
Hey cliff -- did you read either of the links w2u posted? Obviously not, based on your reply. Neither article had anything to do with trout.
The fact remains, whether with trout or walleye or pike or catfish: stocking forage fish doens't work. In fact, with species like walleye and pike it can actually compound the problem and drastically increase the boom \ bust cycle that special like walleye are associated with.
The problem is simple: increased forage increases the prey's numbers. The greater the prey's population size, the more forage you need. The more forage you stock, the more the predator species reproduce. The more they reproduce the smaller they get. More and more forage is needed to be stocked. Eventually, your "bucket" overflows with small fish, and the fishery crashes.
It makes much more sense to attempt to manage the predator's population to meet the forage base. Limit the number or predators and let the forage manage themselves.
When the coyote population explodes, and they eliminate all the rabbits, what do we do? Plant more rabbits? Seems to me like planting rabbits is a silly solution. Let's go hunt some 'yotes!
[signature]
The reason I ask about this is due to the fact that when I go to Minnesota/Canada and other places it seems like they are able to support many more fish and larger fish than our lakes do...the baitballs in mid summer are often times the size of a VW bug when you see them...amazing your first time of seeing them.
How do lakes support the high number of predator fish (pike, walleye, musky, largemouth) and other such species there that it seems our lakes lack here? I have been on lakes and consistently had 100+ fish days with 2 guys...with average fish being 4lbs with the occasional 20+lb fish and 40+ lb fish roaming the waters(bass and pike mainly) whereas here what lake can I catch that many fish in a day consistently - especially having that size to them? I am trying to much better understand this as I do have a biology degree and a good understanding of the basics of the fisheries biology yet it seems Utah lakes (maybe I should only use the word reservoir) the structure and cover that lakes in other places have. The draw down on these reservoirs really plays havoc on the baitfish cover and ultimately I think it impacts the food chain dramatically. I would like to know how to duplicate those catch rates and sizes here in Utah...and yes I will say it...with fish that fight hard in a lake unlike cutts (I had to say it for the trout diehards as I use to be one and now I feel it is true that bass and pike are much better fighters pound for pound).
It seems like no where is really managed as a trophy fishery (even the gorge) but simply to be a big "community pond" with 10-16" trout.... What adult dreams of a great day of 12" fish? Just my take...
Bigguyone1 -- simple answer to your question: native fish in their native environment.
When you are in Minnesota \ Canada, you are fishing areas that pike, walleye, musky, as well as the bait fish they are preying on are indigenous to. They evolved together. The lakes they are in have natural systems that help control population sizes.
Now, head to your favorite Utah reservoir (take your pick). Introduce a non-native species (walleye, pike, whatever) into a non-native environment, and what happens? No natural controls to prevent them from overpopulating.
You don't see this happen with cutthroat trout here in Utah. You do see it with brook trout and brown trout. Same issue.
You also see this with rabbits and sheep in New Zealand. You also saw it with the American Bullfrog in Australia in the Simpson's. Same issue.
When you bring non-native species into a non-native environment, you can expect to have issues like this. The reservoirs of Utah did not evolve with walleye, pike, musky, or the forage species those species evolved with. They might be excellent places for them to survive, but they do not have the natural systems in place to control populations.
Has anyone ever looked at Utah Lake and the carp? Same thing...
Now, put a spin on it, and reverse things. What kind of cutthroat trout fishing do the lakes and rivers of Minnesota have? Why can't they duplicate it?
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to duplicate the production of a system that evolved together over the course of thousands of years. Utah's reservoirs just aren't the same as Minnesota's lakes, and thus the production of those species indigenous to Minnesota's lakes will never be duplicated here in Utah.
[signature]
In lakes that freeze the bait fish will die off in winter like the perch at ALL lakes that have perch shad, the young of the year die off up to 60% or 80% on some lakes and two year old bait fish lose about 34% to 50%...
The bigger the fish like pike and bigger walleye and bigger bass take bigger bait fish, fishing limits and amount of fisherman size limits and more is a big player in the lakes along with cover and habitat and more all play in...
In Utah most lakes are like bath tubs (no cover) like deer creek is...
Yes you can have too many game fish and not enough food...Look at Lake Powell for the last 3 to 5 years the stripers have been skinner and weak sense the rise of the lake and the new cover the shad have come back in numbers that are the best in years...
The Stripers and all the other game fish are in much better shape and more smaller bass are growing and stripers and all the rest...
It is like say we have a field, if you don't water the grass but keep putting more and more cows in the field they will all run out of grass get skinny or die, if you water the grass and don't put as many in their or take out one size when reached all will get fat..
The same with fish, but over planting of one type of fish will keep all the fish to about one average size, you need the bigger fish to keep all the rest under control...
But we in this state have one thing that other states may not, that is water draw down...On lakes that don't go up and down each year like ours do and moss and grasses can grow up in do not have the boom and bust like we do, or at leased not as often...
All most all of our lakes are man made and very few if any fish are native and the food they eat are not in the lakes, that is why we need to put it in..I call there type of food as feeder fish or fish food, if we plant fish in a lake we need to put in some food for them...(after all we plant hay or grass for the cows don't we)
[signature]
But here in this state every thing starts with trout, or ends with trout...
And even the trout get food in the hatchery, how many could they raze with out food???The same with the fish, if we want bigger fish they need food (or feeder fish) put in the lakes that don't have it...
And chubs are only one type they can use, and Joes valley it has only trout and chubs I call that poor management on the DWR side...
[signature]
The grass is always greener on the other side...even in a state like Minnesota (that has perhaps the most and best pike habitat in the country) there are relatively few lakes that grow large pike. Most Minnesota lakes have an overabundance of small pike...and in the lakes that have both trout and pike, it takes the average fisherman about 14 hours to catch a single pike...
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fish/northern...ement.html
...in Minnesota waters that are bass/panfish waters, though, the catch rate for pike goes way up and the average fisherman catches a pike every six hours. I think that stat alone shows some vast differences between trout waters with pike and the more suitable panfish waters with pike.
A few other points: "Fish managers have found that a "slot" limit protecting all bass between 12 and 15 inches increased the average size of the bass caught and caused bass to grow faster. Among the di
vantages of a slot limit are the catch rate drops as bass become not only large but also fewer. If the average size of the bass increases, the average size of the bluegill may decline. Why? Probably because a few large bass do not eat as many bluegill as a lot of smaller bass. So bluegill proliferate and begin to show signs of "stunting." Yellow perch, too, may figure into this complicated equation."
Read this link to the problems in North Dakota:
http://gf.nd.gov/multimedia/ndoutdoors/i...atters.pdf
The threat of VHS:
http://www.fws.gov/lsnakecomplan/Reports...'08%20.ppt
[signature]
This might be headed to a different direction, but another thing that might emphasize the difference between species that evolved together vs. species that didn't is Whirling Disease.
Just like using the pike\walley and bait fish thriving in Minnesota, but not in Utah example -- Whirling Disease evolved in Europe alongside brown trout. Brown trout evolved with a resistance to the effects of W.D. When WD moved across the Atlantic to the east coast of the U.S., it started hammering native trout populations. It has slowly moved across the U.S. and had devastating affects on trout populations. Why? Non-native species introduced into a non-native environment that lacks natural systems to control the non-native species.
It's no different with walleye and pike. Without those natural systems that evolved along-side those species, systems to control them are not effective.
cliff -- I read your posts, and end up scratching my head trying to make rhyme or reason out of them....
[signature]
Why is everyone afraid of baitfish. Not all are like the Chubs. Redsided shiners for example. Look at the Berry they have been controlled by trout so well they barely exist anymore. They are small full of nutrition for the larger fish and relatively harmless. I love to fish lakes with emerald and redsides in them. Can you give me one case where either of those baitfish have caused a downturn on a fishery. Also we kill of lakes or impoundmants on a regular basis what do we do to get them established again besides add predators. It is all about balance. I don't agree with all that Cliff is saying but we are missing something.
[signature]
What are you talking about? I seem to have lost the point of this.
[signature]
My point is if they have no food they can't grow...
If you plow the field and then put your cows in it can they eat the dirt???
Our lake are like that field that was plowed until you plant grass or hay the cows will not grow, and the fish are the same...No food or feeder fish no big game fish...
[signature]
Ok...I have to go check on the cows...
[signature]
I know it sounds dumb but ...Think about our lakes and how they were made...
They would dam off a river or creek and remove all trees and brush then stock only game fish...What are they going to eat???
The smaller one can eat bugs, but what are the bigger fish going to eat???
In the past all we had was trout, and they planted them and a big ones was 3 to 4 lb at best...Now we have bass walleye cat fish and so on, and for them to grow they need food bigger food then bugs...
Now in alot of our waters they eat their own young or each other...
Look at the Wipers take away the shad and no more wipers...Or big wipers...
[signature]
Cliff -- if there isn't a food supply for them, then why should we stock the predators?
Isnt' that the whole problem with the walleye? They eat themselves out of house and home. Your solution is to "stock some bait fish". That won't work -- because the walleye will just eat the stocked fish, reproduce some more, and create a bigger problem - to which you'd respond with "stock more bait fish". It's a never ending cycle!!
Get control of the predator species, and you don't have to worry about stocking bait fish. Like another guys said - balance. You can't balance when you can't control populations. In Utah, it has been proven time and again that species like walleye cannot be controlled. Other states have proven time and again that pike populations cannot be controlled either. So, my question is: why would we want to introduce species that we cannot control?
Stocking bait fish isn't the answer. Controlling predators is.
Again, you don't add more rabbits when the coyotes knock them down. You reduce the coyotes to a point that the rabbits can sustain themselves. Just like Strawberry.
[signature]
[quote tightline]Why is everyone afraid of baitfish. Not all are like the Chubs. Redsided shiners for example. Look at the Berry they have been controlled by trout so well they barely exist anymore. They are small full of nutrition for the larger fish and relatively harmless. I love to fish lakes with emerald and redsides in them. Can you give me one case where either of those baitfish have caused a downturn on a fishery. Also we kill of lakes or impoundmants on a regular basis what do we do to get them established again besides add predators. It is all about balance. I don't agree with all that Cliff is saying but we are missing something.[/quote]
You are making some very strong assumptions...the reason we are afraid of baitfish is this: for every pound of baitfish added to an ecosystem, you lose a pound of gamefish. That's the biology. The bucket--or the fishery-- can only hold so many pounds of fish. Cliff and others have this notion that we can't or won't grow big fish without bait fish. This is untrue...trout growth/size is greater without competitor baitfish such as emeralds and redsides are no different.
Also, you mention Strawberry as an example of where the redsides have been controlled by trout...I don't necessarily agree. Trout may very well be controlling chubs, but the shiners could be getting outcompeted by chubs and suckers. The thing is, though, that Strawberry would get more cutthroat growth and larger average size fish without the chubs...the chubs compete with trout for the available food. Redsides have been a major problem in reservoirs up Beaver Canyon...Little Reservoir, Kents, and Upper Kents. Both of the KEnts, in fact, have been poisoned because trout numbers crashed when shiners took over...
The same thing happens with bass in utah's reservoirs...the periods of most growth in reservoirs like Sand Hollow and Quail Creek were when they first began filling and were originally stocked...when NO baitfish existed.
[signature]
You say it your way and I say it mine...
But no matter how you say it, With out food you can not have big fish...
Planter trout can eat bugs but to grow bigger then 15" they need bigger food...
You say walleye and I say ALL fish...
If you don't like walleye say so... I like all fish that I have caught over the years and each have there place...And to have bigger fish any fish they need food...
[signature]
Well said PBH.
[signature]