Ok, I've been reading this thread for a long time now, and finally decided to throw my two cents in. It seems clear that the perch have had a detrimental effect on the rainbow and lake trout fishery at Fish Lake. I don't condone bucket biology in any way, but a see no reason to piss and moan about what might have been. Personally, I think it currently is one of the top perch fisheries in the state. No, we don't get the midwest pound plus perch, but on average, the perch in there are far larger than other places I have fished in Utah. (Disclaimer: I have never caught perch from Yuba)
As far as numbers and average size of fish, Fish lake is head and shoulders above my usual perch lakes, i.e. Hyrum, Mantua, Newton, Deer Creek and Rockport.
Do I fish there because there is also a possibility of catching a large laker? Yes, but I wouldn't be there in the first place if not for the perch. The argument has been made that I would like to catch 100 trout more than 100 perch. Not so, for me anyway. No matter how many trout I caught, I could only keep 4, and they don't taste nearly as good as perch anyway. So, I could come home with a few fish that I don't particularly like the taste of, or a bucket load of those I do.
[signature]
Can we just plant a bunch of tiger trout, brown trout, tiger musky and Kokanee for 5 years and be done with it?! Thrown in some brookies too! If they do, I'll be forced to buy a cabin down there!
[signature]
[quote karl_l] Not so, for me anyway. No matter how many trout I caught, I could only keep 4, and they don't taste nearly as good as perch anyway. So, I could come home with a few fish that I don't particularly like the taste of, or a bucket load of those I do.[/quote]
There are many people who would say perch are tastier than trout....I won't argue with you on that. But, I would argue that those 4 trout would potentially give you more meat than the bucket full of perch!
[signature]
My point is similar. The perch were planted in about 1960. We cant change that. Its too bad it was done but it was. We have no way of knowing what fish lake may or may not have been. We do know what it is. Those folks that choose to fish it for splake and trout can do so. If it is declining I hope the Fish professional can come up with a plan. But for those that fish it because they like perch, good for them also. The question about have they fished Johnson? That is up to the individual fisherman. Fish Lake is what it is. Lets enjoy it for that while the fish proffessional come up with a plant to restore it if that is the direction they choose.
[signature]
I think we all know that perch were illegally introduced to Fish Lake. It seems like we all agree that illegal introductions of certain fish can spell danger to other fish in a specific fishery. Everyone is fine with that.
There are now lots of perch in Fish Lake. They've been there for over 50 years. Anyone can choose to look at this fact as a tragedy if they choose, and that's all well and good if that's your view on the current situation.
Not everyone will share that view though.
The way I see it, we can either sit home and wish the fishing was still as great for trout as it was 30 years ago, or we can go and try to enjoy the fishing as it is now, even if it is for perch instead of trout.
That's my view, and I'm no expert. I just like to catch fish.
[signature]
[quote AERO63]I guess I've just stuck to what I know will produce when I'm after perch.
I know you want me or someone to say that they get after the perch at Fish Lake because they might hook into a mac...[/quote]
Actually, the chances at catching a mac is NOT the answer I was looking for -- however, it is the answer I expected most to come up with.
The answer has more to do with your first comment: "...what I know..."
The reason that those thousands of anglers show up at Fish Lake for the perch, and they don't fish Johnson is a simple answer: ignorance. Lack of knowledge or information. They don't know.
Just like with Fish Lake -- they don't know. Which is exactly why this thread has gone on as long as it has -- because there are some people that do know, and want to make sure that everyone knows what happens when anglers try to play biologist.
You are exactly right -- there isn't much we can do about it now. We still fish the place, and love to fish it. But, because we love it, we still make sure that people know the what's, why's, and how's. So that ignorance isn't an excuse. So that people do know. So that someone doesn't come up with a crazy idea to stick walleye in there. Because those who can't remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
Access to Johnson -- on a year like what we currently have, you could probably drive your truck to Johnson. Other years, or later in this year, a snowmachine may be required. Just like Fish Lake 20 years ago.
[signature]
[quote Fishrmn]I've only caught one big laker. I wasn't even thinking about that. I'm talking about the days when I would use 3 dozen or more minnows and catch roughly 70 Splake that were 18 to 24 inches long. And Splake don't exhibit these disgusting characteristics:.[/quote]
So really it seems that this whole thread and your complaints are over a few inches lost in the size of splake. If you go back and read the original hijacked post you see
"In a group of 3 we caught around 75 splake, 47 yellow perch, 25 rainbows".
It appears from the pics that the splake may not be 18-24" but are of healthy size and the "stunted perch" averaged between 8.5 to 10" with some being over 11".
The biology of the lake appears to be healthy unless 15 to 18" splake equates to unhealthy....
[signature]
[quote harlin]
This is why we pay fisheries professionals to manage our fisheries. Believe it or not, the decisions they make reflect what the majority of anglers want. There is no evidence that anybody voted on or agreed upon the completely arbitrary introduction of perch in fish lake.[/quote]
Can you explain the process(es) the professionals have in place to find out what the majority of anglers want and furthermore if they are effective?
[signature]
That translates into 25 Splake each, not 70 or more.
And that was before the 2nd pole permits. Three fishermen with 2 poles each would mean 6 rods.
[signature]
[quote PBH][quote AERO63]I guess I've just stuck to what I know will produce when I'm after perch.
I know you want me or someone to say that they get after the perch at Fish Lake because they might hook into a mac...[/quote]
Actually, the chances at catching a mac is NOT the answer I was looking for -- however, it is the answer I expected most to come up with.
The answer has more to do with your first comment: "...what I know..."
The reason that those thousands of anglers show up at Fish Lake for the perch, and they don't fish Johnson is a simple answer: ignorance. Lack of knowledge or information. They don't know.
Just like with Fish Lake -- they don't know. Which is exactly why this thread has gone on as long as it has -- because there are some people that do know, and want to make sure that everyone knows what happens when anglers try to play biologist.
You are exactly right -- there isn't much we can do about it now. We still fish the place, and love to fish it. But, because we love it, we still make sure that people know the what's, why's, and how's. So that ignorance isn't an excuse. So that people do know. So that someone doesn't come up with a crazy idea to stick walleye in there. Because those who can't remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
Access to Johnson -- on a year like what we currently have, you could probably drive your truck to Johnson. Other years, or later in this year, a snowmachine may be required. Just like Fish Lake 20 years ago.[/quote]
Well I fully admit I don't and have never fished Johnson because of ignorance. New water to me. I'll have to try it. Thanks for the info.
[signature]
[quote The_Red_Leaker]
It appears from the pics that the splake may not be 18-24" but are of healthy size and the "stunted perch" averaged between 8.5 to 10" with some being over 11". .[/quote]
I can't see the pics, so I don't know how the fish "appear" or how you come to your size estimates. However, I do know that the average size perch in Fish Lake is just 4-6 inches long and the mean is just 7 inches long and very few are gillnetted over 10 inches. I also know that I wouldn't consider a perch a jumbo unless it was over 14 inches long. Fish lake perch are hardly quality fish...
30 or so years ago, my father gillnetted a few "jumbo" perch from Fish Lake and had them mounted...they were around 3 pound perch. Perch of that size have not been seen for a long time. The perch in Fish Lake have stunted....their growth rates are severely diminished because of their numbers. That is a fact. About the same time those perch were netted, a near world-record splake was also netted....again, splake of that size haven't been seen since.
[signature]
[quote The_Red_Leaker][quote harlin]
This is why we pay fisheries professionals to manage our fisheries. Believe it or not, the decisions they make reflect what the majority of anglers want. There is no evidence that anybody voted on or agreed upon the completely arbitrary introduction of perch in fish lake.[/quote]
Can you explain the process(es) the professionals have in place to find out what the majority of anglers want and furthermore if they are effective?[/quote]
I can think of three ways: 1) creel surveys 2) open houses 3) RAC meetings. The other ways are much less formal and harder to document (email, telephone calls, etc.)
According to a creel survey completed in 2010, only 13% of anglers went to fish lake to specifically target perch. Which was significantly up from previous years...I would guess that that number has possibly risen slightly since then. My beef is that it seems that the other 87% are either targeting trout or they don't care what they catch. It is
to me that the majority of fishermen--at least according to creel surveys--are experiencing a gradually worse fishery.
[signature]
So the perch got there in the 1960's..
And all through the 50's and into the 70's the Fish & Game now the DWR was planting all kinds of fish all over this state alone with the Feds. so who or why do we blame anyone??
The Feds. have at times put fish in many lakes, that sooner or later get in Utah waters from up stream..
That poor bucket sure gets the blame..
Like Yellowstone and the Lakers in it, the bucket got the blame on that one TOO...
LOL that poor bucket...
[signature]
So are you saying the perch they caught couldnt possibly be the size they stated? It is possible they measured and didnt estimate the sizes. The pictures (the ones you cant see) are of some decent sized fish. Well I think I am done with this thread. There is a difference in opinion about almost everything except that perch were illegally planted by some bozo 53 years ago. I dont condone it but I cant change it. Just enjoy Fish Lake for what it is. I do now consider myself more edumacated due to this thread[:p]
[signature]
So my question to all is... what can we do as anglers to help decrease the population of perch? other than catching our limit everytime we go? I see it as a similar situation as Flaming Gorge, they ask us to harvest the burbot in FG and put on contests, so I show up and do what I know how to do catch fish and have lots of fun doing it.
thanks,
[signature]
[cool][#0000FF]This is Utah. Our lakes are primarily filled and emptied for irrigation purposes...not to maintain fish stocks. And when it comes to angler affect on the perch populations...forget it. No way that anglers can make a significant dent in perch numbers when they are overpopulated. Even when numbers fall after a disease or water level problem there are far fewer perch removed by angling than natural predation and attrition.
The extreme rise and fall of perch populations is almost always a result of water level fluctuations and/or disease die-offs.
Because perch need high water levels in the early spring...with flooded vegetation for spawning...they only bring off a good spawn on an irregular basis. That good spawn may create a huge year class that stunts because of insufficient food for the hordes. The survivors of the poor spawn years are usually the ones that grow bigger. Anglers have very little impact.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
[quote wormandbobber][quote The_Red_Leaker][quote harlin]
This is why we pay fisheries professionals to manage our fisheries. Believe it or not, the decisions they make reflect what the majority of anglers want. There is no evidence that anybody voted on or agreed upon the completely arbitrary introduction of perch in fish lake.[/quote]
Can you explain the process(es) the professionals have in place to find out what the majority of anglers want and furthermore if they are effective?[/quote]
I can think of three ways: 1) creel surveys 2) open houses 3) RAC meetings. The other ways are much less formal and harder to document (email, telephone calls, etc.)
According to a creel survey completed in 2010, only 13% of anglers went to fish lake to specifically target perch. Which was significantly up from previous years...I would guess that that number has possibly risen slightly since then. My beef is that it seems that the other 87% are either targeting trout or they don't care what they catch. It is
to me that the majority of fishermen--at least according to creel surveys--are experiencing a gradually worse fishery.[/quote]
Unless there is conflicting information in your study, page 3 reads as follows.
"Only 13% of all anglers were targeting a
specific game fish while angling. Five percent were targeting rainbow trout, 1% lake trout, 1%
splake, 5% yellow perch, and 1% tiger muskie or brown trout (Salmo trutta)."
That means 87% were there to catch whatever species was willing to nibble and of the13% targeting a specific species, 38% were targeting perch while all other species each held 7% of that 13% pie. Hmmm....
As to my question of effectiveness of DNR methods to acquire input this article sums up the point I was trying to make.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/outdoors/52...s.html.csp
The article refers to a survey done in 2011 in which 1,100 anglers participated in the pole. That is .002% of the fishing/combination license holders in the state at the time. It also says that the DNR plans on making changes to waters due to the results of the survey. Making changes to waters from .002% input.....wow.
True, anglers need to more involved but the DNR should also look at methods of getting input that are more effective. I highly doubt creel surveys and RAC meetings will catch enough of the 514,438 licensed anglers (2010 number) to get accurate opinion of the majority.
Just to be clear I am not making the DNR out to be the bad guys, just trying to spark a thought.
[signature]
Not to throw fuel on this fire, but "IF" I were to ever go to Fish Lake, which I have talked about for years but one reason or another, never made it. If I had made it, it would have been for the Lakers.
Reading these posts, I am 99.9% sure I will not waste the time now, but it is pretty there.
[signature]
[quote Fishrmn]Just to clarify; 1,100 out of 514,438 isn't .002%. It is .20%, or 1/5 of 1%. A rather small sampling indeed.
Quote:"Only 13% of all anglers were targeting a
specific game fish while angling. Five percent were targeting rainbow trout, 1% lake trout, 1%
splake, [red]5% yellow perch[/red], and 1% tiger muskie or brown trout (Salmo trutta)."
That means 87% were there to catch whatever species was willing to nibble and of the13% targeting a specific species, [red]38% were targeting perch[/red] while all other species each held 7% of that 13% pie. Hmmm....
Don't know where you went to school, but where I come from 5% doesn't equal 38%. 5% of the 13% were targeting perch. Unless there are typographical errors in there somewhere.[/quote]
My bad on the .002% didn't move the decimal after the calculation.
As for the 38% maybe I wasn't clear in communicating.
5% of the total 100% of anglers were after perch. But of the total amount of anglers that were targeting a specific species 38% were targeting perch. I did however miss that the rainbow fisherman there were also 38% of the total amount of anglers targeting specific species while lake trout, splake, etc. each took approx. 7.6%. of target anglers - different from total anglers.
[signature]
RE "So my question to all is... what can we do as anglers to help decrease the population of perch?"
Why don't we do what the DWR itself recommends?
From the DWR's own recommendations for the management of Fish Lake.
Continue
to promote and encourage yellow perch fishing and harvest at Fish Lake.
I realize that this comes from the DWR's own study and management reccs, so some of you will automatically dismiss it out of hand, but the DWR wants us to go catch and harvest all the perch we legally want. It may have only a modest effect, but it can't hurt and it does seem that the perch are getting a hair bigger the past few years. That's what I do and I hate bucket biologists as much as anyone. Then when you have your perch, enjoy the "mediocre" (not!) splake and bow fishing and see if you can catch a mac or two while you are at it.
And for heavens sake take home only dead fish or fillets and leave the biology to the professionals!
[signature]