Fishing Forum

Dave Teuscher, the fisheries biologist and manager for the Southeast region, was at the SEIFF meeting last night and presented some great information.

Two or three major things happen this year.

First it is a year where they rewrite the State Fish Management plan that will be the guide for all projects for the next 5 years.

Second, it is also a year where they write the fishing rules for the next two years.

Third, there will need to be changes in the stocking program. The price of feed has increased tremendously, but the revenues coming in have stayed about the same. The cost of growing out planters has become an issue. The State heads have asked for reductions in stocking.

At the moment the largest stocking quantities in Southeast Idaho are going to Blackfoot Reservoir, American Falls Res/Snake R, and the Bear River. One or all of them maybe slightly reduced in the future.

To help them decide, they have tagged some of their planters in those area. It is very important that if you get a tagged fish that you report it. Reporting it helps them to know anglers are getting a return on the stocked fish in that area, and it is a good one to keep up. No returns of tags may mean less fish for an area. They are trying to keep the stocking on the smaller reservoirs about the same.

Another thing they are looking at is reducing the limit at Edson Pond in Pocatello to two fish.

How do you all feel about things? Now is the time to tell your regional F&G what kind of changes you would like to see. Your input is important!

Contact them at the numbers on the F&G website.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/abou...etPage=166

Or PM me and I will give you Dave Teuscher's email address, so you can contact him directly. Take the opportunity to thank them also. They really are working hard to improve our fishery.
[signature]

For myself, I think that they ought to reduce the trout limit at most of the small ponds and reservoirs. Make it either 2 to 4 fish instead of 6. That way they will produce longer for the local kids, and the stocking will provide a better fishing experience.

Another thing I would like to see is a slot limit put in on a few reservoirs. I think that Montpelier should have one. Hopefully if some larger cutthroats survived in there they would prey on the perch and reduce their numbers. Perch size would increase and there would be a trophy trout opportunity in that area.

A slot limit might also be good for Chesterfield. I don't know if it is just me, but the chubs seem to be increasing there.

Those are just some from off of the top of my head. What do you think?
[signature]

Thanks for the information Cpierce....

If the department has to decrease stocking, limits for each pond should be reduced.....depending on which ponds are selected for reduction.

I am quite surprised that some ponds get so heavily stocked and others not so much.....

Match
[signature]

Sorry, I posted only the Southeast Idaho region contact.

Here is the link I meant to post.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/about/offices/

Match T, from what was said I got the impression that only some of the larger places would have a portion of their stocking reduced. I could be wrong on that.

Putting reduced limits on the small places like Edson, Crystal Springs Pond, Kelly's Pond, Hawkins etc would be an additional way of helping to still provide a quality experience at some of the smaller areas.

I also wonder what a 1" reduction in length for all stocked trout would do? Maybe only for some of the large number stockings.
[signature]

There are a lot of things I would like to see.

First I would like to see the definition of float tube changed. The only tubes that are legal for tube only areas are the old round belly boats.

I would like to see a limit put on ALL fish. Two years ago I heard of one family that kept 1800 crappie. A 20 fish limit or 30 fish limit per day is WAY more than plenty.

I would like to see a the same thing for wild catfish. Some kind of limit needs to be in place. I would like to see more wild catfish used as planters like the Boise area does. We got 88 large wild cats planted here in the magic valley area last year from the Parma area. That was a good thing. We normally get 2000 to 3000 planter cats per year. IF we go for less numbers and use our own wild cats to transplant it would be much more cost effective. Leaving it wide open to unlimited harvest is wasteful of the resource.

I would like to see a slot limit and a length limit on all planted catfish. I have seen people keeping buckets of 10" long channel cats. Planter catfish are like you said expensive. There is a limited resource why do they have NO LIMIT on the harvest? One or two guys could wipe out a population of planted catfish in short order.

I think the F&G should discontinue their triploid planting. Having naturally reproducing populations of fish are needed. We can't rely on the F&G truck to bring us every fish we catch. We need mother nature to take over the recruitment. If the F&G are going to plant fish they should be capable of reproduction.

The hatchery truck makes us dependent on the F&G. I don't like the idea of put and take fishing for every body of water. Oster lakes is a perfect place for put and take. The snake river here in the Magic valley area should have natural reproduction of several different types of fish besides chubs, suckers, pikeminnow, and carp. Ron
[signature]

Well said ron! Let us use mother nature more!
[signature]

A lot of good suggestions.

If you use more natural reproducing natives, there will have to be more restrictions on harvest. Is everyone good with that? It doesn't bother me, but it might some. Most of our streams and rivers are already wild only. The only stocked ones are ones that get heavy use. They are the ones that would probably have to go to little or no harvest in order for the fish to produce enough to keep the population going.

How about reservoirs that don't have much in the way of spawning areas? Focus on improving spawning or still stock?
[signature]

I would have to say I do not agree with slot limits. Many of us spent a lot of time getting fish and game to simplify the regulations and get rid of all the slot limits. Adding slot limits back into the regs just reverses all the work that has been done to simplify them.

Limits on fish I can agree with, but they need to be reasonable. The kid ponds should be a 2 or 3 fish limit.

I think F&G could do something better on places like AF Res. The plant over 1 million rainbows every year. Not sure if they are sterile or not, but if they are not, why not dump them into places they could spawn up stream in the rivers and creeks instead of dumping them at the boat docks. That would increase natural reproducing fish and lower the amount of fish that needed to be stocked. I remember times there were tons of fish trying to spawn back to Springfield and Crystal springs, but I have not seen that in years. There are plenty of little places like that around the res they could plant fish and get them spawning and reproducing. Improving the spawning areas is also a better and cheaper investment in the long run.

One other thing I would like to see is the removal of barbless hooks from the regs. F&G has already determined there is not much difference in mortality rate between barbed or barbless hooks. I hate having 50 barbless flies and then having another 50 barbed flies in the same pattern for different waters.
[signature]

The only fish I keep are usually the ones I Accidently kill or a Kokanee once in a while. 6 I think is too high for trout. How many crappie/perch does it take for a meal for one? You should only harvest what you can eat in a weeks serving of fish for a family.
[signature]

Having the regulations simplified is good in that the rules are easier to understand and more people are likely to follow the rules if they are the same all over. But the waters aren't all the same. I think that the tighter the budget gets, the more they will need to individualize some waters to find less expensive solutions. What is good for one, isn't going to work well somewhere else. It is like telling our biologists that we want good fisheries, but then tie their hands before they can attempt to do anything. I don't think they need to go overboard on slot limits, not that many places need that kind of help. That is just my opinion though.

As far as Montpelier goes, poisoning the perch hasn't worked yet, and it costs a lot of money to redo a water that way. Bigger fish to prey on the perch is one answer that I can think of that might work to improve both the trout and perch fishing there. There may be other solutions. I hope one is found soon the perch are getting more numerous and smaller.

Bucket bio really costs us as fishermen, both in lost resources and in funds that have to be used to fix the problems.

In a low water year F&G are going to have to poison Treasureton to remove the illegal bass that are in there. They will soon put a no limit on bass in there (They haven't yet!!), but even then the bass numbers are quickly going to tip the scale there and there probably won't be enough food resources to support a good trout or bass fishery. What a waste of money and a great fishery! This was an excellent trout water in an area where there are multiple good bass waters. Why did someone feel like they had to mess with the balance???

I too wouldn't mind seeing the barbless taken off. I usually use barbless or microbarbs anyway, but I have broken more hooks trying to pinch down that micro-barb! My sight isn't super anymore, and I am afraid that I will miss one and not even realize it. [blush]

I also agree on planting more fertile natives in the streams, but that may not be as easy as it sounds. First you have to find and stock the right fish for the micro area. Then too there is a lot of damage to some of those spawning streams where erosion and ag runoff have silted in the gravel beds. Diversion dams, loses to canals, old culverts and many other obstacles are being mapped, studied, and worked on already. Hopefully there will be enough improvement soon that some areas will no longer need to be stocked to provide fishing.

That kind of work is going on, but it is slow and expensive. One success story is with Henry's Lake. They are seeing an increase in the return of natural trout spawning, so now they will start decreasing the supplemental stocking. That success took a lot of cooperation by land owners, sportsmen, grant moneys, and many other factors. But it does work! I would love to see that happen here with places like American Falls and Blackfoot.
[signature]

Yes! The float tube definition really needs updating!

It might be because of the Coastguard, I don't really know who decides that, but I think an electric motor on a float tube or pontoon shouldn't require licensing. The tube or pontoon isn't suddenly bigger, nor do they necessarily require boat launches, trailer parking, and all of the other things that go with that.
[signature]

As you all read this remember I am a F&G Reservist. I am not just hacking from the outside. I have seen problems from the inside.

I talked to the F&G about the tube definition they didn't want to do anything until the next set of rules and they also were not going to do anything until a lot of someone's complained. An FC4 or SFC type tubes are not legal by the letter of the law. The RCO told me as long as the persons butt was wet they would be ok. I asked him if he would help someone that went to court because of that. The F&G can change the definition but they are not going to touch it until people complain. I wrote about this last year I think.

As for slot limits. Maybe I used it and I should not have. Planted catfish should have a size limit nothing under 16" to harvest. My big complaint is if you keep a 10" channel cat it is not worth killing. There is just no meat on them. Lets compare,

this is a 10" channel cat. Nothing on this little guy.



This is a meal.




Small mouth have size limits. The F&G protect these guys.



Your right as the budget gets tighter something is going to have to give. The biggest problem for the F&G is the hunting side. Wolves were eating Deer, Elk, and Moose at an alarming rate. The F&G buried their heads in the sand hoping no one would notice. For a long time they said fall weather being too dry or too wet was the reason for less harvest. Eventually they quit giving a opening weekend harvest report for opening weekend because it was looking so bad they didn't want to give bad news and cause people not to buy tags. That ploy didn't work in the internet age. Word spred quickly in some cases slower in others. There was several Moose hunts that had not had 1 moose harvested in over 5 years. Those hunts were closed. They helped to spell it out to those who were watching.

Well, now the Non-residents have vanished. With a mountainous loss on the Game side there is less money to go around. So the F&G say that the cost of feed is the problem for fisheries. Yes the cost of feed is outrageous I work in a feed mill that makes trout feed. But the cost of feed is not what is totally breaking the bank. The fact that people don't want to come to Idaho to hunt, THAT is the problem and it will fall eventually on the fish side the hardest.
Naturally reproducing fish are the one and only answer as I see it. Limits will have to be cut to offset the lack of planting. But something tells me that with the F&G's track record, that won't happen to the extent it needs to until the fish side of things are in the same place the game side is in now.

Here is how i see things boiling down for the F&G and us. The F&G are going to see less and less money on the game side. Poor deer, elk, antelope, and moose hunting are going to be the reason for lost revenue we already know that. As the belt gets tighter the Fishing side will see less plantings. As the fishing gets poorer and poorer fewer non-residents will want to come to Idaho. That will cause a raise in rates to help things keep going. Those rate increases will cause fewer residents to buy licences. This is what happened to the game side. I am not a fortune teller.

Now what the F&G could do is separate the Big game side from the Fish side. Allow both sides to be individuals and let the chips fall where they may. If fishing is self sustaining as it is keep that going but don't allow money to be siphoned to the game side.

If you look at large companies that own many smaller companies do they keep running those small company's at a loss forever dragging down the parent company?
Like a drunk that has to find rock bottom the F&G needs to find bottom. Their lack of management in the game side is going to take the whole thing down unless they do something about it and do it now. I love to hunt and fish. I don't want hunting and fishing to hit rock bottom but I am afraid that there will be no stopping it.

I hope for the best but I have been accused of only seeing the bad side of things. Right now I am just having a hard time seeing much of anything good when it comes to the F&G's problems. I do wish them luck and hope that some how they can turn it around without hurting the sports we love. Ron
[signature]

I definitely agree that hunting and fishing should be split. I don't hunt, but I fish a ton. I don't want the fishing to suffer because of something I am not interested in takes all the resources. If I'm buying a fishing license, I want that money to go to sustaining and improving the fisheries.
[signature]

Greetings from Eastern Idaho. Long time forum lurker, first time registered poster.

IMHO, I have yet to see Idaho Fish and Game really listen very well to the public. They ask for input and hold meetings but it seems to me, that is as far as it gets...for the most part.

I do agree with many of the responses in this thread about the F&G reducing or even changing their practice of put and take "cookie cutter" stocking program. It seems the faster the fish can get from the hatchery, to the truck, to the water, and into the frying pan, the better in too many eyes.

I doubt you will get too much support from put and take fishermen about reducing limits or worse yet, trying to get them to see how a regulated fishery of wild and self sustaining trout is the best approach to management. The practice of catch and release fishing or minimal limits is not going to sit too well with these types of fishermen. I am a fly fisherman and have been for over 30 years. Seldom does a trout I catch go to the frying pan, but fishing is fishing and the bait fisherman who goes out to catch a limit of trout for the frying pan also pays into the budget and should have his/her needs and approach to the sport met too. The quest to make all kinds of outdoorsmen happy in their sport is near impossible. Probably the best thing to do in a tight budget is to reduce the offering and lower the limit...with the possibility of slowly changing some waters over to wild self sustaining populations of trout, quality trout.

I know this is a long reply but even if they do away with the barbless hook regulation, I will go on using them. I mash the barbs before the hooks even go to the tying vice. For me, is is more than just ease of releasing fish, it is ease of getting a hook out of my hide, or one of my kids hides. I've done it this way for decades, after a long ago experience removing a barbed bugger from my hand, far from my car, let alone from a doctor. I know there are tricks to barbed hook removal...just safer and better to mash barbs from the getgo. True, I loose some fish to barbless hooks...saves me from having to handle them.

OK, I've gone on long enough for a first post.

Dave

[signature]

Hi,

I have lived in Idaho all my life of 61 years and love the place. However I would sure like to see the trout is the only fish mentality go away. There are so many other fish that would do well and cohabit the waters. If you go to the northern states in the midwest they all have waters with walleye, pike, salmon, trout, perch, smallmouths, and many others in the same lake and they all have their own place to live. I believe there is way to much emphasis on trout only waters. Are there not many species that would support themselves once introduced? And as far as the people who want to keep some fish for eating there are alot better fish to eat than trout. Just my opinion though. Thanks for the chance to express my thoughts.
[signature]

I'm not in the southeast part of the state and have never fished there, but I think I do have one or two points to add...

Trout need running water in order to reproduce naturally. They cannot spawn without access to streams or rivers. In many bodies of water, all the trout come from the hatchery truck. If they don't stock there won't be any because there is no access to spawning grounds. If they didn't stock Lucky Peak, after a few years there wouldn't be a single trout in it. If they need to cut stocking, they should emphasize stocking on waters with no spawning grounds that are close to population centers.

I agree that they place too much emphasis on trout in general. Fish and game should do more to enhance fishing for species that do not need constant reproductive assistance. They are doing better than they have in the past. The summer catfish transplants around Boise are a step in the right direction, but I agree with Ron. They need to put limits on stocked/transplanted cats so a few fish hogs don't wipe them all out. Washington has a limit on stocked cats in several ponds. I don't see why we can't.

As for introducing new species or spreading pike and walleye to more waters, I don't think that's going to happen due to the potential for negative impacts on fish that are in threatened or endangered ESA status. Even if they don't put them in ESA species waters, there's too many bucket biologists happy to move fish where they shouldn't. However, I think F&G should stock sterile predators like tiger muskies in waters where an overabundance of rough fish and stunted fish are a problem. Since they can't reproduce, their impact would be minimized if they ended up where they shouldn't. Make them C&R only or give them a VERY restricted size and a limit of one fish.

Wow, that turned out longer than I thought it would.
[signature]

I think that reducing the size of stocked trout will only prove to better feed the pelicans and cormorants. I agree with reducing the limit on planted trout, and reducing some of the enormous numbers of stocked trout into the larger bodies to favor continued or higher numbers in the smaller bodies. Of the "million" that get planted in AF reservoir what % gets harvested, vs. the couple thousand that get planted at Edson Fichter and the % that gets harvested there.

I think that the Fish and Game could do more work with outside businesses and companies to help fund some of the stockings, like they do with Idaho Power Co.

The problem with changing all the limits and slot sizes becomes enforcement. I fish quite a bit, maybe not as much as most of you on here, but I rarely see F&G officers in the field, 2 or 3 times in the last 6-8 years.

Throwing my 2 coppers in.

JP
[signature]