I was watching a video of an 18 lb trout caught at Fish Lake. One of the commenters stated that the big ones don't taste good and are better off being released.
How true is this? I recently started fishing again after years of inactivity and really want to catch a big one.
[signature]
It takes a long time for a lake trout to get that big and they're rare. If you catch one then please, just let it go. And you shouldn't keep it out of the water forever taking pictures either.
[signature]
I think it is just a matter of personal taste and what you are ok doing. You will find on this forum, that lots of members would rather release them because they take so long to grow big and they are a limited resource but in private, I've had many members also state that they taste just fine but are unwilling to say that on the open forum because of public ridicule. Bottom line, if its not against the regs, then you are ok keeping a big fish but its your call as to whether you make a post about keeping it[
].
[signature]
They taste very good -- at least the ones from Flaming George do.
I agree with another poster who described the time involved in growing large lake trout and agree they should be used sparingly.
But if you are set on keeping it, by all means eat it. They taste just fine.
[signature]
What Curt said.... the big ones that I have tried taste fine... However, I haven't really had too big of one either (20 lb)... they are a little oilier and large flake texture, but I had one on a camp trip that fed our whole troop (18 people) and it was delicious... Everyone fought over the seconds... But as a rule I like to let them go as well... Just times that it's a real fun deal to keep a fish that will feed the whole crew..... Boys still hit me up with do you remember that fish we had at camp??? but I usually keep the pups in the 3 - 4 lb range if I'm going to keep fish to eat... (Okay that's usually the size I catch consistently too, but I'll act like I do it by choice...) Later J
[signature]
[quote dregs]It takes a long time for a lake trout to get that big ...[/quote]
Not really. It all depends on the fish. We have reports and documents specifically on lake trout in Fish Lake that show it all depends on diet. For many of those "large" fish, it takes a relatively short amount of time for them to get big -- basically, if the fish converts to a pisciverous diet at a young age, then it grows into a "large" fish
VERY FAST. However, if a fish does not convert to a pisciverous diet, it may never reach "large" sizes and spend it's entire life (20 years+) as a 20" fish.
The part everyone gets
about is when they try to use averages. Sure, if you consider a fish is 20 years old and it is 20lbs, you could say it grew 1lb per year. But in reality, that fish might have spent 15 years as a 2lb / 20" fish, then grew 15 lbs over the next 5 years to become a 20lb fish.
You have to consider diet before you can say how long it took that lake trout to grow to be large. General statements of "it takes a long time for a fish to grow that large" are simply not always true and often times taken out of context.
Taste? I'd love to try one and find out!
[signature]
I appreciate the comments. Now, of course, what I do all depends on catching one. I intend to try many times in the next year, starting with ice fishing. So far all I have is a rod and reel and a few jigs.
[signature]
Quote:unwilling to say that on the open forum because of public ridicule
No ridicule here. Just asking please because they are a limited resource.
If 18 lb fish are more abundant than I think, then please set me straight and let me know how to catch them.
The best I've managed so far was about 20".
[signature]
Sure, some fish may transition quickly to being predominantly piscivorus and get big quickly, but that's not the norm. I'm guessing you've read something similar to the document I've attached. There is a significant bottleneck in forage that enables fish to transition from eating small insects to eating mainly other fish.
I kind of hope that kokanee will widen that bottleneck a bit and enable more lakers to get bigger faster, but I kind of doubt it.
It seems to me like 18lb lake trout are rare and will remain rare at Fish Lake.
[signature]
Quote:I kind of hope that kokanee will widen that bottleneck a bit and enable more lakers to get bigger faster, but I kind of doubt it.
I was thinking maybe the kokanee would be planted small enough, or have enough small minnows that provide forage for those 20" lakers to become pisciverous. But it may have the opposite effect - if they reduce the invertebrate forage it may cause more lakers to become stunted below the transition.
If anyone knows more about this biology and can set me straight here I'd appreciate it.
[signature]
An 18 pound fish at Fish Lake is the likely case for the argument of big fish not tasting good, because their diet there is limited. At least, it has been....right about now the midsize lakers have probably eaten half those kokanee planters and are on the way to being bigger and better tasting.
I'd release a big lake trout at Fish Lake, but not at Flaming Gorge. If you wanted to keep a 20 lb fish at Fish Lake I wouldn't care. Whatever we do as anglers that is legal and has little impact on the fishery as a whole is up to each individual. Also the logic that says we should try to keep our lakes full of huge fish is classically circular, because big fish get bigger through lack of competition, case in point: Jordanelle.
[signature]
[quote dregs]Sure, some fish may transition quickly to being predominantly piscivorus and get big quickly, but that's not the norm. [/quote]
Dregs -- you are changing your stance. Is the question whether or not fish grow quickly? Or transition to a pisciverous diet quickly?
Read that document you posted again. Read it slowly. Then read it again.
We know at Fish Lake that there is a significant bottleneck transitioning from a diet of insects to a diet of fish. This does not mean that fish grow slowly.
Those fish that do grow to large sizes at Fish Lake do so quickly! Once they transition over to a fish diet, they quickly grow large. There isn't necessarily a shortage of those large fish (over 35"). There are good numbers of big fish in there.
There are also good numbers of small fish (under 24").
Where are the middle-size fish? They are non-existant. Why?
Once chubs, the primary forage fish for lake trout, disappeared, lake trout were forced to switch over to rainbow trout as their main forage. Large lake trout don't have a problem with this. Small lake trout struggle to switch. But those that do make the switch quickly grow from 24" to over 35"! This leaves that middle sized group vacant.
this is exactly why kokanee have been stocked in Fish Lake -- to provide a better forage species than the rainbow trout currently provide. Hopefully those kokanee will provide that niche necessary to help small lake trout make that transition easier, and provide more of those "middle" sized lake trout for all of us.
If you catch a "large" lake trout -- keep it! Be proud of it! Don't let anyone try to shame you for keeping one of those fish!
[signature]
Quote:Also the logic that says we should try to keep our lakes full of huge fish is classically circular, because big fish get bigger through lack of competition
I'm not sure that's entirely correct, particularly for Fish Lake. That document (which is admittedly old) describes a situation where there is limited ability to transition to into piscivores - once they make it through it seems they can chow down.
Fish Lake may have plenty of resources to maintain an abundance of trophy-sized lakers - that doesn't necessarily mean that removing large fish enables an equal number of fish to grow and take their place.
Alas this is all guess work based on a limited set of facts from an old document. Perhaps other information will show there's a relatively constant number of large lake trout regardless of harvest.
In the absence of more information I'll ask again: please release large fish!
[signature]
Read what I've said. Read it slowly. Then read it again. The fact that they grow quickly to 20-ish", then slowly, if ever transition to piscivores, then grow quickly again vs a steady, slow growth isn't the point.
[signature]
[quote dregs]
In the absence of more information I'll ask again: please release large fish![/quote]
My opinion is that we have plenty of information that suggests that the regulations governing the harvest of large lake trout in Fish Lake are based of sound scientific observations of the lake trout in Fish Lake through annual sampling and monitoring, and thus the harvest of said lake trout is justified. (4 trout, only 1 over 24")
If the large lake trout population of Fish Lake were in some state of threat due to angler harvest of fish, then I would certainly guess that the DWR would adjust harvest regulations to compensate for that threat.
Instead, the DWR is utilizing other tools (ie: stocking kokanee) to attempt to help further improve lake trout populations, particulary that missing 22 - 29 inch size group.
Personally, I think things are looking up for Fish Lake!
[signature]
Quote:If the large lake trout population of Fish Lake were in some state of threat due to angler harvest of fish, then I would certainly guess that the DWR would adjust harvest regulations to compensate for that threat.
First, I would love to believe the DWR is always that proactive. But I think more likely is that some day they'll find there are very few large lakers, then take several years coming up with a plan.
Second, and this is the key question - if more anglers released large lake trout, would there be more large lake trout caught? I suspect the answer is yes, as I believe Fish Lake has plenty of forage for large piscivores. Assuming that's correct (and that I'm not the only one having trouble finding large fish) then please, release big fish.
It's possible that large lakers also consume small fish (the kind that would enable 20"ers to become predominantly piscivores), so returning large fish to the lake only serves to further stunt medium-sized fish trying to make the transition. Even if that's the case, returning large fish that can feed on the abundance of planter rainbows seems like it would result in some truly world-class lakers available.
I don't get to Fish Lake that often (and Flaming Gorge never). For me an 18lb laker would be the fish of my life. Do you catch one that big every time you go out? I catch smaller lakers almost every time, is it just me that doesn't know how to catch the bigger ones? Is it just me that wishes for more big fish available?
I hope that the konanee widen the bottleneck, and they become the answer to having more big fish available to anglers.
[signature]
[#0000FF]Be careful you don't embarrass yourself. PBH is a longtime member who is extremely knowledgeable. He comes from a family of well known and respected DWR biologists and is continually "in the loop" of most of what happens with Utah fisheries. Since he lives in the central region, he is also very experienced on Fish Lake and the changing ecology over the years.
We are all entitled to our own opinions and we all have the right to ask pointed questions...and either accept or reject the answers. But it is wise to be sure your suppositions and accusations are based on good biology before challenging someone who already knows the drill.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
Dregs -- you need another document. Please find it attached. While you feel that it will take years to come up with a plan -- they already have the plan. It is in place. If fall gill-netting catch rates for lake trout >28 inches falls, regulations will be changed to restrict harvest. So far, this has not happened.
Q: If more anglers released large lake trout, would there be more large lake trout caught?
A: not necessarily. Read the second document (4 step method) and pay attention to the Fact or Myth section.
According to the data already in your hand, we know that the fish that convert to a pisciverous diet quickly grow from 23 --> 29 inches very fast, which would certainly replace any fish removed from the >29" pool!
many people underestimate the number of large lake trout in Fish Lake because they don't catch them hook and line. This is a mistake! Those fish are not big because they get caught -- to the contrary, they are big because they don't get caught.
Every year the DWR does lake trout sampling in October when the lake trout are spawning. This is an eye-opening experience -- something I have participated in multiple times. It is a very frustrating experience too, because of what you said. I can't catch them. The bad thing is I know they are there! I've held them! I've seen them!
Your 18lb lake trout dream may become a reality! But it won't be because anglers are releasing those fish for someone else to catch. Those 10 - 18lb lake trout are currently non-existant in Fish Lake! We have a lot of 8lb lakers. We have a lot of 20+ pound lakers. We have virtually 0 in the middle.
Again, this is due to the primary forage being rainbow trout. Hopefully kokanee will change this, and provide the lake trout population to expand in the "middle" size group, providing many of us that opportunity for "teen" lb lake trout.
[signature]
[quote TubeDude][#0000ff]
Since he lives in the central region, he is also very experienced on Fish Lake and the changing ecology over the years.
[/#0000ff][/quote]
no, no, no. Southern Region. Just like Fish Lake, I'm in the Southern Region. My rod points south!
[
]
[signature]
I'll read what you posted. In the mean time what makes you believe this:
Quote: which would certainly replace any fish removed from the >29" pool
Are > 29" lakers eating the same small fish that a < 20" would otherwise eat while transitioning? I assume (because of the mention of chub decline) that it's the lack of small fish that bottlenecks the transition from insects to fish?
I have been assuming that > 29" fish would (most often) be eating larger fish, and not competing as much for the smaller "transition" food. Therefore I also assume that removing a large laker doesn't ease the bottleneck (and adding large fish wouldn't make it worse).
And I only use 18lb because that's what was mentioned at the beginning. If I was catching a 50lb fish every time out, I wouldn't mind if there was nothing between 10 and 18.
[signature]