What i have found is the perch live in and around the weed line in Fish Lake. Is it possible to reduce or eliminate the weed line so the perch are forced to enter depths where larger lake trout live, and would that reduce the population of perch and increase other populations?
[signature]
Charina, It appears yours is one of the few voices of reason in this whole thread. It would be nice to have more conversations rather than debates on teh forum, but I learned long ago that those rarely happen. Of most use in this thread has been the factual information provided in the article quoted. While I agree that bucket biologists have been, and continue to be a source of frustration for anglers and DWR people alike, I still fail to see where I, can "put my foot down" and make any kind of a significant contribution to the elimination of buckert biologists.
It is not as if multiple anglers were sitting by watching in the 1960's when the perch were illegally introduced into Fish lake and did nothing (maybe they did, I dont' know). If I see someone practicing bucket biology, I will report them, but truthfully, I dont' think that is likely to happen. . . ever. I openly denounce the illegal practice of bucket biology. I will do what I can to prevent it, but I don't see refusing to report a good day of perch fishing with my family as solving the problem. My father-in-law was one of those fortunate people who enjoyed Fish lake in the 70's, God rest his soul. I think it is
that it is no longer possible (at present) to experience that. If there was an easy answer to remove the perch it would have been done. What can I do about it? If I fish for perch in FL, does that mean I condone the law breaking bucket biologists? No. It means I went fishing for perch.
[signature]
[quote smittyts] What can I do about it? If I fish for perch in FL, does that mean I condone the law breaking bucket biologists? No. It means I went fishing for perch.[/quote]
Well, one thing you can definitely do about it is help educate anglers. Every time you go fish Fish Lake or somewhere that has had illegal introductions, bemoan what could have been. Bring up your father-in-law and talk about how you wish you could enjoy what he had and how the illegal introduction of perch has harmed the fishery. Then, and maybe then, you will get through to one of the people out there who actually do illegally introduce fish...
....that's what I try to do! The worst thing you can do is sit back and do nothing!That would kind of be like losing the breaks in your car and deciding that there is no point in steering anymore.
[signature]
Feel free to continue this discussion on this new thread. And thanks for everyone replying in a civil manner.
[signature]
[quote Charina]Interesting thread.
WaBobber, your reply is intuitive, but does not fully satisfy my mind as to why the perch have had a detrimental impact on the fishery. [/quote]
[quote Charina]Thanks for the snark. Needed a chuckle this morning. My post wasn't so much out of ignorance as it was meant to draw out sound reasoning, not flippant answers. [/quote]
Charina -- I have to wonder if the snark was actually called for?
You mention that your post was not out of ignorance, but rather to draw out sound reasoning. However, the answer to your question has been posted in this very thread already in the form of a formal study done on lake trout populations in Fish Lake. So, I have to wonder, have you taken a few minutes to read that report? If not, I would highly recommend you to do so. Same for anyone else wondering the why's and how's and when's of Fish Lake.
[signature]
[quote wormandbobber]The DWR has done diet studies at Fish Lake and [red]have not found a single perch in the stomach of any trophy lake trout[/red]...the truth is that while chubs provided an excellent food source for lakers and big splake, perch have not. [/quote]
[signature]
[quote wormandbobber]
Well, one thing you can definitely do about it is help educate anglers. Every time you go fish Fish Lake or somewhere that has had illegal introductions, bemoan what could have been. Bring up your father-in-law and talk about how you wish you could enjoy what he had and how the illegal introduction of perch has harmed the fishery. Then, and maybe then, you will get through to one of the people out there who actually do illegally introduce fish...
....that's what I try to do! The worst thing you can do is sit back and do nothing!That would kind of be like losing the breaks in your car and deciding that there is no point in steering anymore.[/quote]
What could have been for who? It all depends on your point of view. I sure hope I never run into you on the lake. Talk about a barrel of fun, being bemoaned to while trying to enjoy a day of fishing. Much rather have a barrel of perch......
[signature]
One more thing, read happybob91s report on his trip to Fishlake this past weekend. Sounds like his point of view is in favor of the "yellow scourge of the earth", as I bet is the majority.
But, maybe one day his son-in-law will be bemoaning about how the perch fishing used to be at Fishlake........
[signature]
isn't there a way to poison the edges/weed bed where the bulk of the perch live, when the lakers are in deeper water? you can't kill all the perch, but you could sure curb their numbers. then plant chubs back into the lake in high numbers. there are enough chubs to plant. seems like a possibility to try, if the rotenone didn't disperse into the whole lake.
[signature]
[url][/url][quote doggonefishin]It seems that this subject comes up every 6 months or so and I won't comment on most of this except to say that one should read that study paper. It is worthwhile.
What I will add is some stuff that was presented to the RAC's by the DWR in the last cycle. In the presentation, it was noted that the DWR itself is struggling with what to do with fisheries affected by bucket biologists. They agree that there are no easy answers. A couple of things they are considering are as follows.
1. For fish species that are caught as trophies and are usually C&Red, smallies, pike, etc. they are favoring mandatory catch and kill regs. That makes it such that if an angler wants to fish for them, they will help get rid of them. I tend to agree with this approach and it is straightforward.
2. For species illegally introduced for purposes of harvest, such as perch, white bass, crappie, etc. They are considering an opposite approach. Since the bucketheads want to harvest these for food, this will be forbidden and the regs will be C&R only for this species. They also discussed closing lakes altogether in certain situations with bucket biology. I admit that these approaches are more controversial, but maybe it will deter the knuckleheads that do these acts. I will admit that it is hard to know "how far back" to go in implementing these type of approaches, but I think it is at minimum food for thought when discussing bucket biologists and their actions.[/quote]
So with these regs I can see how the mandatory kill reg will hurt what the bucket biologist wanted to achieve with trophy fish because honest law abiding anglers will kill them. But for food fish like perch if the competitions the reason they outdo the chub and hurt fisheries like fish lake then wouldn't the lack of predation from us humans make them outcompete the natural forage fish even faster therefore speeding the effects of damage?
[signature]
[quote The_Red_Leaker]
What could have been for who? It all depends on your point of view. I sure hope I never run into you on the lake. Talk about a barrel of fun, being bemoaned to while trying to enjoy a day of fishing. Much rather have a barrel of perch......[/quote]
Yeah....I guess you're right. What could I be thinking...a barrel full of stunted perch are a lot better than a lake full of healthy trophy-sized trout especially when there are no other lakes in Utah with stunted dink perch.
Biologically speaking, the lake was better without perch....
[signature]
[quote The_Red_Leaker]One more thing, read happybob91s report on his trip to Fishlake this past weekend. Sounds like his point of view is in favor of the "yellow scourge of the earth", as I bet is the majority.
But, maybe one day his son-in-law will be bemoaning about how the perch fishing used to be at Fishlake........[/quote]
I would bet money that he would have been even happier had those little yellow dinks been 16-20 inch splake! And, I would bet that the majority would too. That's what Fish Lake used to be...you would go up there and catch fish after fish after fish as fast you could get your line in the water of nice healthy splake, rainbows, and the occasional lake trout (with the chance of a fish of a lifetime).
Yeah, habbybob91 went up and couldn't keep the perch of his line...and I am sure he had a good day, BUT his day would have been better if he could have replaced those perch with something that could actually pull back!
[signature]
[quote Gooseberry]isn't there a way to poison the edges/weed bed where the bulk of the perch live, when the lakers are in deeper water? you can't kill all the perch, but you could sure curb their numbers. then plant chubs back into the lake in high numbers. there are enough chubs to plant. seems like a possibility to try, if the rotenone didn't disperse into the whole lake.[/quote]
You're talking about a bandaid approach and something that would have to be done yearly...it is very cost ineffective and really not reasonable. Perch proliferate at too high of a rate and rotenone is too expensive for this to really work.
[signature]
It appears that uyou guys are talking about something that is done and cant be easily changed. It is what it is. I hate bucket biology but I cant change what happened to fish lake nor can you. It is not fair or sportsmanlike to pee on someones wheaties because he had fun catching perch. I fished fish lake back in the 70s. It was good but not as good as some of the fond memories you guys are tossing out there. There were still plenty of days guys trolled deep with copper line and got no hits, plenty of days when a couple 15 inch rainbows was all you got. We cant change it. But dont condemn those that enjoy the resource as it is today.
[signature]
I don't think any of us are trying to ruin someone's fun...we aren't trying to rain on someone's parade. What we are trying to do is help educate people on what could have been. The point here is that we should remember the past so that the mistakes of yesteryear aren't repeated. If we just throw our hands up in the air and stop steering the car, we are going to wreck and make the same mistakes. The hope is that the same idiots that are willing to dump fish on their own won't do it again...I love the resource as it is today; just not nearly as much as I loved it 20-30 years ago. What I don't want is for some fool to go dump burbot in there or some other fish that could negatively impact it yet again...
[signature]
RE"But for food fish like perch if the competitions the reason they outdo the chub and hurt fisheries like fish lake then wouldn't the lack of predation from us humans make them outcompete the natural forage fish even faster therefore speeding the effects of damage?"
Possibly, but maybe the DWR feels that human harvest is insignificant in controlling perch numbers and it won't matter. (speaking generally and noting that these are at this point ideas the division is kicking around and not firm policy for a specific fishery at this time.)
In the case of Fish lake, the management plan does not call for this but calls for encouraging harvest by anglers and other means.
Quote from the management plan that I posted a link to earlier.
.3. The illegal introduction and proliferation of yellow perch has led to the decline of
important forage fish and increased competition with other sport fish species. Continue
to promote and encourage yellow perch fishing and harvest at Fish Lake. Investigate
other alternatives to decrease the yellow perch population. Stocking of other salmonids
that may be more effective predators on yellow perch, such as brown trout or tiger trout
should be evaluated. A reduction in the yellow perch population could improve the
splake, rainbow trout, and lake trout fishery and improve the size distribution of yellow
perch
[signature]
While we are at it, it might be informative to post all the recommendations from the 2010 study. in spite of all the gloom and doom posted on this thread, the DWR seems to have a good idea on what to do.
Recommendations
1. Continue the annual stocking of 40,000 splake. The decrease in quotas implemented in
2006 has improved growth and condition of splake in Fish Lake. [#FF0080]Funny, I thought that the splake fishing had gone to pot, reading this thread. Yes, the perch are a problem, but splake do eat perch, unlike the lakers (per the study) and are benefitting from a better stocking strategy. If you aren't catching decent splake, get the $@*& out of the weeds and go get them. [/#FF0080]
2. In order to evaluate the rainbow trout stocking regime initiated in 2009, stocking quotas
must be more consistent from year to year. Ideally, spring and fall quotas should consist
of single lots stocked at the same size and batch-marked. After additional monitoring it
may be necessary to change the size, number, and timing of stocking in future years to
improve survivability and return of rainbow trout to the creel. [#FF00FF]This is unscientific as heck, but it seems to me that the DWR's changes here have yielded some dividends and I've been getting much better rainbows out of there the past 3 years. [/#FF00FF]
3. The illegal introduction and proliferation of yellow perch has led to the decline of
important forage fish and increased competition with other sport fish species. Continue
to promote and encourage yellow perch fishing and harvest at Fish Lake. Investigate
other alternatives to decrease the yellow perch population. Stocking of other salmonids
that may be more effective predators on yellow perch, such as brown trout or tiger trout
should be evaluated. A reduction in the yellow perch population could improve the
splake, rainbow trout, and lake trout fishery and improve the size distribution of yellow
perch.
[#BF0060]The body of the paper also mentioned tiger muskies as a possibility. I think that holds the most promise for perch control, but that is just my opinion only. Others no doubt will disagree and that's fine. [/#BF0060]
4. Investigate the potential for an additional forage base for lake trout. Kokanee salmon
were stocked in Fish Lake in 1961 and maintained a reproducing population through
1968 (Bangerter 1968). However, kokanee were unable to establish a self sustaining
population most likely due to limited stream spawning habitat. Water temperature in
Twin Creeks was most likely not conducive to high yield reproduction. With the
development of lake-spawning Kokanee salmon in Flaming George and Strawberry
reservoirs it may be possible to establish a population in Fish Lake, thus providing an
additional sportfish and forage fish for lake trout with only supplemental stocking.
[#6000BF]I hope this happens too![/#6000BF]
5. Encourage anglers to harvest lake trout. Currently very few lake trout are caught and
harvested at Fish Lake. Investigate the potential of holding seminars or fishing events
targeting lake trout and educating fishermen. Additionally, evaluate the possibility of
changing harvest regulations at Fish Lake that may encourage additional harvest. [#BF00BF][/#BF00BF]
[#0080FF]This hasn't been talked about much on here. We need more small laker harvest. [/#0080FF]
6. Conduct an angler survey in 2015. This may be a good opportunity to further evaluate
the fall and spring rainbow trout stocking regime with batch marked fish. Additionally,
public comments could be collected regarding stocking additional sportfish (i.e. kokanee
salmon, brown trout, and tiger trout) and possible changes in lake trout regulations.
7. Continue with annual spring gill netting for monitoring rainbow trout and splake
populations. Conduct fall and summer gill netting every 3rd year (i.e. 2012) to assist with
monitoring the lake trout (fall) and forage fish (summer) populations.
[signature]
The interesting thing about this subject is that it's so based on opinion on what is "better" in terms of perch or trout.
Illegal introductions are...illegal. As they should be. True statement.
But for many, much to the chagrin of some others, the perch in Fish Lake provide exactly what is wanted in a fishery. A desirable table fish, and plenty of them, which are generally easily accessed and caught.
It doesn't really seem fair or realistic to ask someone to complain about how terrible a fishery is thanks to a illegal introduction that took place 50 years ago right after they've spent a good day filling thier buckets on the lake and freezers at home with fillets. Not to mention having FUN doing it, the reason most of us choose to fish.
[signature]
[quote wormandbobber]
Yeah....I guess you're right. What could I be thinking...a barrel full of stunted perch are a lot better than a lake full of healthy trophy-sized trout especially when there are no other lakes in Utah with stunted dink perch.
Biologically speaking, the lake was better without perch....[/quote]
And there are no other lakes in Utah with a healthy trout population? Biologically speaking better without perch is your view for your needs and wants.
[signature]
[quote wormandbobber]
I would bet money that he would have been even happier had those little yellow dinks been 16-20 inch splake! And, I would bet that the majority would too. That's what Fish Lake used to be...you would go up there and catch fish after fish after fish as fast you could get your line in the water of nice healthy splake, rainbows, and the occasional lake trout (with the chance of a fish of a lifetime).
Yeah, habbybob91 went up and couldn't keep the perch of his line...and I am sure he had a good day, BUT his day would have been better if he could have replaced those perch with something that could actually pull back![/quote]
You're putting your opinion into happybobs mouth. His words were and I quote " It was mostly perch, (which was extremely fun)"....
You cannot say that his day would have been better catching trout because you do not know that. Just as you cannot say that for me.
[signature]