Most of you likely already knew about this (I always seem to be behind the curve), but I thought this very exciting news.
http://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1...rvoir.html
If the wipers grow to be as big and feisty as those in Willard (which I've
ly never fished, regrettably), we should be in for some fun fishing closer to Utah County.
[signature]
I thought part of the management program was to make sure forage species were established before dumping in more predators. Seems like redside shiners and fathead minnows were mentioned in that plan. I'm
...
[signature]
Sounds like you read the same plan I did. But now apparently the 6'' to 12" Small mouth are supposed to be the forage species for the 2'' Wipers and 6" Tiger Muskies.... This should go well [crazy]. Maybe we should throw some knives and forks into the lake to help them choke down those Small mouth.
All kidding aside, I'm sure that adult Wipers and Tiger Muskies could seriously cull the herd on the Small mouth. But what will they forage on to get them to adult size? All I can think of is that the Wipers are going to put the hurt on the Kokanee that just got planted.
[signature]
Yeah I guess some fish will get fed. Does this mean the splake are getting dumped in next month??
Sheesh I got all excited when I read their management plan. A real forage base so fish can get big? Shame on me. The DWR fooled me good.
[signature]
There wouldn't be much reason to put Fathead minnows in while there are too many Smallmouth Bass anyway. At least one of the Tiger Muskies has already grown to 12 inches by eating what's available now. Probably dining on lots of young of the year Smallies. Just what the doctor ordered.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]
Sure that could be. If the goal is to thin the smallies before trying to establish a forage base, maybe changes in limits are just around the corner. That was mentioned in the plan as well. I was hoping that one of the DWR folks who lurk from time to time might chime in and shed some light on the current strategy. I guess I'll stay tuned.
[signature]
[#0000FF]I just about choked when I saw the blurb on Channel 13 news about them dumping 25,000 fingerling wipers into Jordanelle. Hate to say it but I think they will do about as well as they did at East Canyon...with only a very few surviving on meager rations.
The wipers will never begin to approach the sizes of those in Willard. No shad. Very little else for them either. And in Willard there are crawdads to help carry them through between shad sessions. No crawdads in Jordanelle...at least not enough for the smallmouths much less for a hungry new horde of wipers.
I applaud DWR's efforts to bring new fishing opportunities to new waters. But I gotta question dumping wipers in Jordanelle without a reliable food source for them. Utah anglers would have been better served by putting them in Willard...a proven wiper-friendly water.
Don't look for a new state record wiper to come out of Jordanelle in the next few years. Maybe if they keep dumping in a lot of new kokanee tykes for wiper fodder? But I doubt if the wipers will follow the kokes into deep water during the summer.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
It would be great if there were a "one cure fixes all" method to improve fishing in any lake. Wipers aren't - and neither are slot limits, the magical elixir of some who post here.
I really hope that the wiper plant isn't a sign of desperation on the part of the DWR. If it is, they may simply give up on Jordy when/if the wipers fail.
[signature]
[#0000FF]What has me scratching my befuddled noggin is the apparent contradiction between what was stated in the "plan" and the way things are going. I originally bought into the plan only because it assured that there would be adequate study and preparation before the new introductions...and that there would be an effort to establish a better forage base before wholesale dumping of new species.
I harken back to earlier times on both Utah Lake and Willard Bay. At times DWR seemed to be using the Veterans Hospitals method of "cure"...trying anything and everything...proven or not...and seeing how things came out. Their current "plant and pray" program on Jordanelle doth smack of that approach.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
The piscatorial version of "Let Mikey try it!"
[signature]
[quote RockyRaab]The piscatorial version of "Let Mikey try it!"[/quote]
[#0000FF]...But in this case, Mikey got nothing to eat.[/#0000FF]
[signature]
It will be great if the Kokanee survive to go out to deep water next summer. The math says that 60,000 Kokanee vs 25,000 Wipers means each Wiper only gets to eat 2.4 Kokes each. I am no biologist, but there is a old saying that "First you plan your work, then you work your plan." We will see what survives. My guess is few.
I also agree that it is good to see the DWR try multiple species in the same body of water. I think if it is done well it will make it more stable for all species.
Two body's of water that I can think of that have a good forage base that would benefit from a preditor species are:
1- Porcupine, the Kokanee need some thinning. Maybe land locked Chinnock Salmon would be interesting. Or Lake trout.
2- Fish Lake, the Perch need some thinning. Maybe steril Walleye. The Lake trout don't really eat them and the Tiger Muskies are few and far between.
[signature]
[#0000FF]I'm guessing that the scenario will play out something like this:
First the small wipers will be eaten by larger smallmouths.
About the only food for the baby wipers will be the 1" newly hatched perch. Any perch that get bigger will be eaten by Tigers. [/#0000FF][#0000FF]There goes the newly growing perch population.
And as the wipers get bigger they will start eating baby smallmouths. Good for the stunting thing but bad for the overall smallmouth population.
There are not large populations right now of either perch or smallmouths. And, as you have pointed out, wipers darn sure won't be able to make a living on kokes. At some point the wipers will run out of food. They will either stunt or die. Sound familiar?
What would Hillary do?
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
I'm glad this thread is getting a little bit of interest. Still no word from any DWR lurkers.
Pat, do you happen to know if your buddy Chris Penne (I think that is his last name) has any information as to why the wiper stocking? I felt like they took that plan that was published and used it for toilet paper. I'm not a biologist. I don't claim to be one. If one of the goals is to make Jordanelle more appealing to anglers (and that was stated in the TP plan), larger fish to catch appeals to me. There are quite a few species (wipers included) that can only get "slab" status when there is a sustainable forage base that is available to snack on for most (if not all) of the year. I just want some info as to why the wipers went in because stocking them first wasn't my impression of the plan. It sounded like forage first along with efforts to thin the smallie population and then here come the meat eaters.
[signature]
Put in eurasian milfoil for the perch! They should do that everywhere...man I love perch.
[signature]
[#0000FF]I will be sending "inquiries" to several sources to try to find out the rationale of planting wipers in Jordanelle...before there was a good food resource. I will post any replies I get back.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
I don't get any of what they are doing at the nelle. i thought they wanted to grow bigger bass and improve the trophy brown trout. I get the Kokanee and even the limited amount of Muskie but the wipers don't make sense to me. I think they should slow down and rethink there plan and hold off on anymore stockings on the wipers or Splake. I don't understand why they don't work harder on the brown trout fishery. Jordanelle is so crowded in the summer why not work on the fishery that is best in the winter and early spring and fall. I don't go near that place in the summer.[fishon]
[signature]
All the Wipers are good Brown Food !!!
[signature]
[quote Jedidiah]Put in eurasian milfoil for the perch! They should do that everywhere...man I love perch.[/quote]
There already are some milfoil stands that appear every year. And yes, they are great places to fish around. The perch are in them and the bass surround it. The problem (such that it is) is that the water gets drawn down there so quickly, the milfoil stands don't get very large before they are left high and dry, thus they don't get very large or at all permanent.
A couple of other comments on what is being discussed generally.
1. In reading the management plan and other communications provided about the new initiatives at Jordanelle, the DWR is expecting the wipers to eat young smallies, chubs, perch, and whatever else they can catch. Their hope is that between the tigers and the wipers, the smallmouth bass population will be knocked way down and there will be better growth and size. With the cover present at Jordanelle, I suppose time will tell whether this actually occurs.
2. As for chubs being a major forage source, almost all of the ones that get pulled from the nets or caught there are very large and getting old. The smallies and perch gobble up the fry presently. I don't see chubs being a major source of food for the wipers.
3. There are NO current plans written down to stock new forage species in there, unless you want to include kokanee salmon as a forage species, and they have already been stocked.
4. If wipers bomb out or cause unintended consequences, they are sterile and will eventually die off, it won't be a disaster for very long, even in the worst case scenario.
[signature]
I can't speak on behalf of others on here, but for me it seems to be a shame to throw 25k Wipers in a body of water that has a high chance it won't be able to sustain them. It wasn't that long ago that the DWR was having a hell of a time producing Wipers.
[signature]