I just got off the phone with our biologist and we did get 220k last year. We have been as low as 160k. I was told that we have a 40% survival rate but I have a hard time believing that.
I recently posted that they are going to cut the numbers but I was told that was false so I will revoke that comment for the time being.
I have posted some more information about who to contact for each state on my website in the "Fishing Report" link. If you want to let Utah dictate how this fishery should be handled and not have any feedback then don't worry about it. If you would like to actually catch fish on this lake on a regular basis you better get your opinions out there and quickly because if this is what really happens we can all kiss Bear Lake goodbye!
I am hoping that we can get more information and when I have something with more detail I will report that.
As for the numbers of cutthroats we did not ever get 346k last year. I am not sure where you pulled up that information but you are way off!
116 Square Miles of Lake.......How many fish can it sustain?
Utah 170k cutthroats a year!
Idaho 17k mackinaw a year!
YOU DO THE MATH!
[signature]
Two things - we will need to lean on them to make sure and deliver all they say they will and 2nd of all with budgets getting lower and lower - which possibly leads to fewer fishing being planted in many lakes it is time to be very aware to conserve...especially on the larger fish...this is on all lakes/rivers!
I see people holding up 8#+ cutts on stringers and then they complain about the lack of fish in a lake...that one 8# fish could produce many, many more fish and few people subsistance fish if they can afford decent tackle.
Hand lining is understandable if you need fish to eat but if you have a 20k boat you probably can afford food.
If you are out there to enjoy fishing - make sure to put them back in the water so they are there for down the road.
[signature]
Last year's stocking report shows a total of 346,962 Bear Lake Cutthroats planted in Bear Lake. The majority of which were in the 7 inch or larger class. I think the survival rate for that size of fish is way higher than 5-10%.
Has anyone seen why the agencies involved are cutting back? Is it to protect the ciscoes? Is it to allow natural reproduction?
[signature]
Budget cuts. Everyone is broke right now. Fishing may become less of a priority to the state government.
As a fisherman that sucks, but as a logical person that makes sense.
[signature]
I totally agree with only take what your going to eat .so don
t bash someone for having a nice boat one knows what that person had to do to get that boat and maybe they like fish and love fishing and would rather catch there own food and teach there kids how to be self independent and do things the right and "lawful" way...
[signature]
[quote Fishrmn]Last year's stocking report shows a total of 346,962 Bear Lake Cutthroats planted in Bear Lake. /quote]
That seems kinda odd...planting in the lake they originated in...do we do better than Mother Nature??
Just an observation [blush]
[signature]
Quote:That seems kinda odd...planting in the lake they originated in...do we do better than Mother Nature??
Yes. Sometimes Mother Nature needs a little help. For Bear Lake and her cutts, it has been an issue of enough water at the right time. Most of the tributaries have been used for irrigation. The adults would swim upstream and spawn, but the eggs or fry wouldn't have enough water left in the streams to hatch, survive and return to the lake. Which is why there are some extreme regulations on the tributaries. No harvest at all and artificials only in these two, and closed for three months of the year.
Quote:Bear Lake tributaries, Rich County (a) Big Spring Creek from Lamborn Diversion (approximately 500 yards below SR-30) downstream to Bear Lake and that area extending from the mouth out into the lake 1,000 feet, or as buoyed.
• CLOSED April 15 through 6 a.m. on the second Saturday of July.
• CATCH AND RELEASE ONLY, AND ARTIFICIAL FLIES AND LURES ONLY (Jan. 1 through April 14 and from 6 a.m. on the second Saturday of July through Dec. 31).
(b) Swan Creek from the headwater spring downstream to Bear Lake and that area extending from the mouth out into the lake 1,000 feet, or as buoyed.
• CLOSED April 15 through 6 a.m. on the second Saturday of July.
• CATCH AND RELEASE ONLY, AND ARTIFICIAL FLIES AND LURES ONLY (Jan. 1 through April 14 and from 6 a.m. on the second Saturday of July through Dec. 31).
And they clip a fin on every cutt that they plant and you can only keep cutts at Bear Lake that have a fin clipped.
[signature]
[quote pookiebar]Budget cuts. Everyone is broke right now. Fishing may become less of a priority to the state government.
As a fisherman that sucks, but as a logical person that makes sense.[/quote]
You are only part right.
"As fishermen that sucks but as a politition that's buisness as usual."
Didn't I hear our our Govenor say that?
[signature]
[quote Pugstones]As for the numbers of cutthroats we did not ever get 346k last year. I am not sure where you pulled up that information but you are way off![/quote]
It ain't like I pulled 'em outta my hat.
http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/fishing/sto...?year=2010
From the UDWR website: 2010 stocking report for Bear Lake:
Quote:BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 18460 7.29" 04/14/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 19028 7.29" 04/15/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 5145 7.14" 04/27/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 5488 7.14" 04/27/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 5488 7.14" 04/27/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 5145 7.14" 04/27/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 19620 7.26" 04/27/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 4459 7.14" 04/27/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 5232 7.26" 04/27/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 5232 7.26" 04/27/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 5232 7.26" 04/27/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 5232 7.26" 04/27/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 4578 7.26" 04/27/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 18984 7.5" 04/28/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 17052 7.77" 05/03/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 3959 7.77" 05/03/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 18984 7.5" 05/03/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 43670 7.25" 05/03/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 4407 7.5" 05/03/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 12789 7.77" 05/03/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 2800 7.33" 05/05/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 4200 7.33" 05/05/2010
BEAR L RICH RAINBOW 5000 10" 05/24/2010
BEAR L RICH RAINBOW 5001 10.44" 07/01/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 2493 3.34" 10/28/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 41745 3.51" 11/08/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 21175 3.38" 11/09/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 25764 3.21" 11/09/2010
BEAR L RICH CUTTHROAT 20601 3.39" 11/09/2010
Add 'em up. Don't count the 10,001 rainbows though. It looks like there were roughly 224,000 of the 7-8 inch size planted, and about 112,000 that were about 3 1/2" long. Those 3 1/2" fish may have a higher mortality rate, leaving maybe a 10% survivor rate.
[signature]
I have an idea hows about not planting bait and plant some cutts that will live longer than 2 weeks at best.... we need then to plant 200,000 cutts that are 3lbs or bigger I would like to see them plant 200,000+5lb cutts then we will have some damn good fishing for a long time....
[signature]
I think everyone would agree with you on that one, however if they don't even have enough money to plant quantities of smaller fish, there is no way they will spend the money to raise quantities of 3-5 pound fish. I agree with the person that stated catch and release of the larger fish. Take the 2-3 pounders home to the frying pan and let the big ones live another day.
[fishin]
MM
[signature]
your totally right the smaller ones are better eating anyway.... take pics of the big ones and let them live to fight another day.....
[signature]
Well said buddy, welcome to the site.
MM
[signature]
[quote monstermasher] agree with the person that stated catch and release of the larger fish. Take the 2-3 pounders home to the frying pan and let the big ones live another day.
[fishin]
MM[/quote]
OK, I've held my
long enough....
I can't figure this out. There are so many things wrong with this line of thinking, that I really don't know where to start. Oh well....I'll ramble for a minute.
1. If there is a problem with hatcheries not being able to stock trout in numbers to satisfy the angling public, how on earth will protecting the "large" fish benefit anything?? If this is truly an issue, then ALL trout should be protected from harvest.
2. If the issue is about recruitment, or natural reproduction and less stocking, then why in the world would we only protect the "large" fish? We should protect an "age" of fish -- spawning age fish. Little fish spawn too. Size doesn't matter when it comes to reproduction. So, why save the "big" fish? It makes no sense, if the issue you are trying to solve is making more fish for other anglers to catch.
Let's keep this real. If you guys are concerned about fish populations, then forget about size restrictions and the whole "let the big one's go" stuff, and concentrate on all the fish. Don't let the greed of "big" fish cloud the issues. There is no reason for people to not be allowed to harvest a couple "big" fish, as long as regulations allow for it. There is no ethical reason to shame people for harvesting those large fish.
[signature]
I can't believe this PB but I actually agree with you on this one.[cool] I love how some people are so quick to judge others for keeping big fish. If the same people where out deer hunting and saw a 30 inch 4x4 walking fifty feet in front of them would they pull out thier camera and take a pic, or would that deer be dead in it's tracks in about 2 seconds? Kill a big deer your a hero, kill a big fish and all the sudden it's time to pull out the torches and pitch forks. Just because your not catching fish does'nt mean their not there.
[signature]
I also would love 200,000 5lb Cutts stocked in Bear Lake...but that would take a huge piece of the entire states stocking budget. It would cost the state at least 2.5 million to stock 5lb fish and that is a rough estimate. Then you have the issue of logistics raising and storing fish, so they can reach that size. Currently the size they stock can be raised yearly and the cost would be around $400,000.
Would you want them to stock only one out of every six years? That would be a long time for those fish to last.
In that same time frame, they could stock over 1.2 million smaller fish with a 40% survival rate that is still over double the amount of fish in the same period of time.
I love to fish the big blue, but there are a lot of other waters in UT to be managed.
[signature]
I am just assuming a big old fat female has more eggs in it[crazy] which would mean better chance of producing more fish in the future. But take it home kill it, stuff it, eat the old reasty thing, do whatever makes you happy. I am not a big fan of killing big female fish unless I am salmon or steelhead fishing on a river. I live very close to a walleye fishery that has been ruined by others with the same attitude as you, i know we are talking about cutthroat here and maybe the same concept does not apply to cutthroat trout but I assume it would be similar.
So to answer your question protecting large female fish will in turn generate more fish for people to catch. How many eggs are in a 2 lb fish compared to a 10 lb fish??
Maybe you should have held your
a little longer[shocked]
[signature]
What percentage of fish are 10lbs and what percentage are 2? I would bet that the two lb'rs out number the tens by a long shot. Just like it was posted earlier, the big ones aren't the only ones spawning. I've been watching the forum all winter and there is only one 10lb cutt that was kept that I can rember and good for him, that's why there called tropy fish, so you can take em home and hang them on your wall you know, like a tropy. I hit the big blue a lot this winter and we did great every time, I don't think that the lake is hurting we caught a lot of smaller fish and some nice wall hangers, some went back and some came home, that's fishing. You should'nt judge dudes or dudets for keeping what they lawfully are allowed regardless of size. The cutts reproductive success will not be because of a few large fish, it will take all sizes from the first year spawners to the oldest fish in the pond.
[signature]
[quote monstermasher]I am just assuming a big old fat female has more eggs in it[crazy] which would mean better chance of producing more fish in the future.[/quote]
you're not taking into consideration HABITAT for natural reproduction. What is the current percentage of natural recruitment? Due to irrigation constraints, it's not as good as it historically was. So, that "big old fat female" with all those eggs doesn't really matter when it comes to reproduction.
FIX THE PROBLEM. If natural reproduction is the issue, then correct the habitat so that those eggs from the "big old fat female" can go to some good use. Until then, that big old fat female full of eggs is just going to die, and no good beneficial use will come of her.
Saving the "big" fish isn't going to help anything.
As far as your walleye fishery that was ruined by angler harvest: NAME IT. Guaranteed it wasn't in Utah -- and I'd make a wager that when you actually look at the fishery, that it wasn't over harvest by anglers that "ruined" it. I'd bet it was some other issue. My attitude is an educated attitude.
[signature]
Well it seem like there are alot of ppl like me that love fishing bearlake!!! If we want some change or if we just want to protect bearlake and keep the fishing good then we need to put all of are thoughts together and email them to david.teusher@idfg.idaho.gov AND craigschaugaard@ytah.gov.....everyone on this website"bigfishtackle" has nothing but good to say about darin pugmire.. He has a great ideas for bearlake and he has alot of pull so if "YOU" love to fish bearlake then lets get with him and "LETS" do something about it.. If we want something done we need everyone to get together and make it happen...just talking about it on a chat website will do little to solve any problems.. it might just create problems...Things get done when people get together and it will take EVERYONE..... So email the 2 people mention above and lets "get ur done"
[signature]