Posts: 127
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
Just read in the Post a few days ago that the Kokenee egg harvest fell way short. While Kokes are much bigger there now, they are less numerous. This could spell disaster for the state koke stocking program! They blame the ever expanding Laker population for it.
They also state that there are millions of Perch now in Blue Mesa. Some bonehead illegally planted them and they are exploding. I haven't fish Blue Mesa in five years, is this true? Perch will eat trout and kokenee fry! The Lakers depend on small trout and Kokenee as forage. This sounds like a disaster in the making to me!
For years I have asked the DOW why they let people snag limits of the largest Kokenee in the state at 11-Mile every year instead of taking their eggs? Never got any kind of expalnation on this incredibly stupid policy. I guess now that they have a potential disaster in the making, they are looking into it[mad]
I am not a bioligist, but would this make sense? If all this is true? It is to late to stop the Perch! It seems to me, the only way to control them, is an infusion of teeth! You can't put Pike or Walleye into the Gunnison drainage, and Lakers are way to deep most of the time to take advantage of the Perch. Why not stock Blue Mesa with huge numbers of Brown and Cutt Throat trout? I realize there are lots of natural Browns there anyway, but why not expand them. There are also several strains of Cutt throat that are very predatory. Remember in the 70s and 80s when the Browns and Kamloops reached monster size at Flaming Gorge? It was because the Gorge was full of Chubs and the trout stayed shallow enough year round to take advantage of the chub explosion.
Please DOW!!!! Do something proactive for once? Just once[mad]
I doubt fisherman could make a dent in the Perch on a lake of that size? I would be more than willing to do my part though[cool]
[signature]
Posts: 71
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
Wonderful post neal, I agree with you 100% except for the fact that the lakers and kokanee can survive in complete harmony for the most part. (of course, the main forage of the lakers is kokanee, that is why the lakers are so fat is because kokanee are so fattening.)
Although perch in blue mesa is a bad thing, it is probably not as bad as you would think because lakers in canada and minnesota and those states all eat perch. Look at lake of the woods in minnesota, the lakers and the perch coincide just fine. although in the shortterm this will hurt the fishery, it will not have as big a dent in it as they would have you think it would. I too, am afraid though...[:/]
[signature]
Posts: 133
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
Its tough to say if the perch are going to cause a crash in the lake trout or kokanee chain. I personally don't think they are going to be much of a problem. I've sent many e-mails to Dan Brauch the fish Bioligist in that area and he has told me most of the perch that they have shocked up are in the back of coves and in farely shallow water, which are places kokanee don't spend much time in. If the DOW would just wait another month or two to release larger kokanee fry I doubt perch would be able to eat them although perch are highly fish predatious.
Blue Mesa's kokanee run also has cycles, some years fish run large and arn't as plentiful and some years there's a ton of them but their a couple inches smaller. Last years kokanee egg harvest was terrible but the Roreing Judy fish hatchery reported the largest run they've ever had so I doubt the lakers made that much of an impact in a year. It would be nice if they could live harmany, they are about the finest eating fish there is.
[signature]
Posts: 32
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
I am a little concerned about this. If they can eat a lot of the kokanee and plankton (kokanee forage base) that would hurt the lake trout. However I wouldn't worry about it that much. The CDOW doesn't know what they are talking about when it comes to much of anything. They make a mockery of fisheries management and are the laughing stock among organizations.
Blue Mesa has tons of rainbows, though because again of faulty management, most run small, under 5 pounds. Though there are bigger ones that that, they are few and far between. But with all the rainbows that are stocked and naturally occur in the system, they will help make a dent in the perch population as rainbows love young perch or any baitfish they can catch. The browns eat them as well and so do the lakers. The CDOW also does not like lake trout. They really don't like any large predators. But they do like rainbows and browns, even though they too are large predators. Lake trout and kokanee live in harmony and for Sherman Heibein and others to blame lake trout for smaller kokanee runs is just an attempt to cover their butts. They don't do much of anything right.
Tyler
[signature]
Posts: 127
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
I guess the point I am trying to make, whether you believe or not that the Perch will have a negative impact on the lake? Is that there is now going to be a huge new forage base available! Why not stock massive numbers of predatory strains of trout and make Blue Mesa something special!
I disagree that the Lakers will be able to control them? They will only cross paths at certain times of the year because of water temperature. Like Oats stated, perch could deplete the plankton base the Kokes feed on, and they do eat lots of fry sized fish.
Why not be proactive and call up Wyoming and Idaho and trade anything you have to for some Bear Lake strain Cutts, and some Kamloops. Kamloops regularly reach 20-30 lbs in Idaho! Then plant as many Brown fingerlings as our hatcheries can crank out! Can you imagine the spring and fall spawning runs up the Lake Fork and the Gunnison!
Alas, I know what they will do? Nothing.
The DOW might come back and say that Kamloops eat Kokes in Idaho! O.K. there are lots of other strains that don't. Do something!
[signature]
Posts: 71
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
Neal's got the right idea about making blue mesa something special.
I had a similar idea about some lakes on the grand mesa. Most of the lakes on the grand mesa used to have great big colorado river cutthroat trout, but white suckers have infested those lakes and hurt the trout populations badly. It is hard to get anything but suckers in most of the lakes with fish up there. I proposed to bill elmblad, the local biologist from cdow, to put tiger muskie in a couple of the lakes that are infested with white suckers to help with the suckers to improve the trout fishing. I suggested lakes that the fish cannot escape through streams to other lakes. Most of the lakes on the mesa have perfect habitat for growing great tiger muskies, and the tiger muskies wouldn't bother the trout as much because the suckers are easier prey. Also, it would improve the trout fishing because suckers compete for trout food like plankton and bugs. Many of the fisheries on the grand mesa would easily grow trophy, monstrous tiger muskies,and I refuted every argument bill elmblad had with fact. He could not find an argument to refute my suggestion, except that dow wouldn't do it. What do they want? Trophy tiger musky fisheries with some good trout fishing in them too? Or do they want white sucker fisheries? They just don't listen to people's suggestions and they just don't back their work with common biology.
Some bear lake cutthroat or some kamloops would make blue mesa a fishery people would come to from all over the west; it would be as good or even maybe better than flaming gorge. I guess cdow just doesn't want that...
[signature]
Posts: 127
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
Ever noticed that the bioligists that handle the eastern plains warm water fisheries have pretty much carte blanch to do whatever they want? Thats because they don't have to answer to Trout Unlimited! Just my opinion.
I have argued with the DOW for years about Antero. They drain it once a decade and then stock the exact same species in it. after a couple of years, the suckers take over and fishing flat lines. I sighned the petition that was going around to stock Tigers in Antero, and personally pleaded several times with field officers to try something different. They would just rather find a reason to drain it every six or seven years and then take credit for initial boom that always follows after they refill it.
They will do nothing about Blue Mesa, and the worst scenario will happen, and of course it won't be their fault! It never is!
[signature]
Posts: 32
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
Neal, the CDOW does nothing and cares nothing about people or fisheries. They mostly just do what TU says so they can get more funds. I think the CDOW should NEVER, EVER have carte blanche to do what they want with fisheries. I think they should have to listen to their employers, who are we the people. I think we should have the final say in all management decisions. They will not fix fisheries because all they care about are endangered trashfish and catchable stocker trout. They don't even know how to preserve fisheries. They just have a blanket management plan for all fisheries, rather than go by a water by water basis. If they actually listened to us, most all of these problems wouldn't exist. Really it is time for us to change the CDOW and hold them accountable. We need biologists who don't listen to TU or USFWS tyranny, and who will manage fisheries in the way that the people want. We need more diversity anyway. They would never stock kamloops because they say they would spread downriver and eat endangered fish.
Tyler
[signature]
Posts: 127
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
Totally agree with you Tyler!
As much as I disagree with Bucket Bioligists, I can understand the frustration that causes it.
Look what a misappropriated truck load of lakers did for Flaming Gorge![cool]
[signature]
Posts: 127
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
Seems to me the Perch disappeared when we started catching 20-30 walleyes a day there ]
Then the DOW did a really smart thing! They stocked Chatfield with Gizzard Shad. That is why someone will break the state smallmouth record there in the near future. And to think they didn't even run it by TU!
[signature]
Posts: 71
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
Hmmm now we're thinking productively. Possibly walleye could be an answer. Everybody has heard about the walleye perch relationship, and it would probably be interesting to see what would happen. The walleyes, although they would eat some fish like a few kokanees, would not be as detrimental to the kokanee population as perch would be because perch eat the same plankton that kokanee love. I know this probably isn't a viable solution and there are probably better ones out there. I very much prefer the idea of kamloops or something like that because It would be less detrimental towards the kokes and a reknowned fishery throughout the west would be born... who knows what may become of this problem.
i suggest we all email the dow at their site and ask them to put a fish like kamloop in blue mesa, and we encourage other anglers we know to do the same thing. I also suggest we discuss this with the biologists that are in charge of blue mesa; so many people saying the same thing may or may not lean their opinion slightly. Now, I know TU is definitely not a group most fisherman approve of, but if we could possibly get their comment on this and we get them to discuss it with DOW, we may have something cooking here...
[signature]
Posts: 32
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
Well the CDOW would never ever stock a warm water fish in a basin like this because of fear of warmwater fish harming the trash fish downriver and also because of a glut of federal regulations against it. The USFWS is to blame for much of the problems in our fisheries because they won't allow anything they claim can harm their precious trash fish.
I really think though that the CDOW could be shocking and removing perch. Maybe put those shock boats to good use for once rather than trying to destroy a fishery.
I agree with Neal that bucket biologists are harmful, but in Colorado the opposite is usually true. We would have little to no warmwater fishing in the west slope if it weren't for bucket biologists. So they can be a good thing.
Tyler
[signature]
Posts: 1,614
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation:
0
I've refrained from weighing in on this topic because I am no fisheries biologist and I have not had the same sort of first hand frustration with DOW that some of the rest of you have. I would like to see a solution that minimizes the perch population (by preying on them) without negative impacts on the laker population. Obviously, we wouldn't have this dilemna without the arrogant actions of some nitwit bucket biologists. It seems to me it needs to be a predator that stays relatively shallow most of the time (40' or less) and doesn't get big enough to prey on the adult/semi-adult kokanee.
Finally, as to the remarks made by some members about Trout Unlimited, while I am not currently a member I have been in the past and some of my good friends are now. I have always found TU people to be very dedicated to preservation and enhhancement of cold water fisheries. You may disagree with some of their proposals, but it is hard to dispute that they are an effective voice for their views and I, for one, don't dispute that they have done a lot to preserve and enhance some of these resources. The rest of the angling world could learn a lot from their organization and dedication, in my opinion. And everyone's entitled to my opinion. LOL
So...having said all of that, who has enough rapport with the biologist in that region that we as a group might start a dialogue with the goal of having some productive conversations and real input??? Oats?
[signature]
Posts: 1,614
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation:
0
So Eric do you think tiger muskies might work? That's what leaps to mind for me. Sterile, an eating machine, able to survive in cold waters, and a terrific sport fish for those who would target them. I don't see a downside (other than the fact that a few worthless stocker trout might get munched along the way).
[signature]
Posts: 133
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
Well if you guys want to pass something on to Dan Brauch, who is the fishery biologist in the Gunnison region his e-mail is [url "mailto:dan.brauch@state.co"]dan.brauch@state.co[/url]. I'm sure he'll be happy to hear any suggestions about this subject.
But don't start barking at him like they're just sitting back watching this happen. I can assure you Dan and his crew have put the most time and effort into Blue Mesa's Lake trout and kokanee population and the last thing they want is a fish that could potentially destroy what they created.
The bottom line is that they are in a situation where they can't do much about this matter. Why they don't shock and transport them is unknown to me right now but this is not going to solve the problem and there's no way their going to plant another preditory fish unless its maybe a hybrid like a tiger muskey.
[signature]
Posts: 1,614
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation:
0
Thanks Oats. I'm generally not a barker. And while I don't always agree with and sometimes don't understand the DOW's thinking, I don't doubt their good intentions. With all the different (and oftentimes antagonistic) constituencies they have in this state it has to be a difficult job, at best.
[signature]
Posts: 133
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
Don,
Yes, the DOW has done a few things to make me think twice about their decision making but for the most part they do have good intentions and have made up for some mistakes like Spinney which was one of the greatest come backs I've seen.
OOOOh and by the way I'm starting to get the shakes for hardwater. Its taken me a little longer this season but its finally starting.
[signature]
Posts: 127
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
I have no doubt that the local field officers for the DOW work their ass off, and care deeply what happens to their assigned fisheries. Unfortunately they are not usually allowed to do what it takes to manage their fisheries.
You guys are dreaming if you think Tigers will ever be swimming in Blue Mesa! I have a better chance of being hit by debris from the Space Shuttle! LOL.
The thing is, you can stock different predatory strains of trout in there and then let them use the 13 streams that feed Blue Mesa to propogate themselve's. It may work or it may not? But at least try! There is no magic bullet, the Perch are there to stay.
Maybe the Browns that are there will fill the vacuum and take advantage of the new forage base. But why not help them?
Or just manage it like Antero! Drain it every 6-7 years. I am sure California water users would sign off on that strategy!
[signature]
Posts: 32
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
Unfortunately because of a glut of federal regs to supposedly aid the trash fish it will be unlikely they will ever stock a predator of any kind, let alone a tiger musky or walleye. The only way to ensure that would be a direct ballot measure that would bypass the CDOW and mandate action.
Blue Mesa does have a tremendous population of browns. I think that if they are protected they will put a dent in the perch somewhat. Also the rainbows that are stocked will eat smaller perch as well. Don't forget, Rainbows are predators too. The reason why Blue Mesa does not produce large amounts of massive rainbows is beyond me, especially with both the Gunnison and Lake Fork Rivers feeding it. I have caught many larger bows out of both rivers. Though I know there are big bows in Blue Mesa, it's not excusable that the majority run 12 - 16" long. If a larger population of larger bows ran amock in blue mesa like they do in Elevenmile, Spinney, Lake John, or Antero had, the perch would quickly be gobbled up.
As far as me not being a fisheries biologist? Well I have found that most of the biologists in this state, even senior biologists like Sherman Hebein, hold many false beliefs and have faulty views on things. Sherman does not even know about trout habitat in rivers well. He has his brown and rainbow hideouts completely backwards. He also has a bias against lake trout.
I think most of the CDOW biologists are actually wrong on most issues. We the anglers know better because we are out there more and have less of a bias.
Tyler
[signature]
Posts: 71
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
If I can outsmart elmblad (DOW biologist) on some of his false facts during a phone conversation I had with him the other day, it proves they are dumb. I was pleading with him to put tiger muskies in at least one of the lakes on the mesa that used to have great cutthroats or rainbow trout populations (lots of times both), but now are almost pure white sucker. I asked him to just try it in one isolated lake which does not connect to any others that is mostly suckers (lots of lakes like that to choose from) I told him it would do the following:
reduce the white sucker population, therefore increase the rainbow and cutthroat populations because suckers and rainbows compete for food like bugs. Also, suckers enjoy fish eggs and I have personally seen suckers just "sucking up" trout eggs. Therefore trout pops. would increase and a trophy fish possible in the tiger muskies that would form.
He replied to this by saying: "but the tiger muskies would decimate the trout populations."
To this I replied: the tiger muskies would actually prey on the suckers much more than trout. It is common biology if you think about it; the suckers are bigger, slower, and more oily than the trout. They are the obvious prey of the tiger muskies. Tiger muskies would certainly increase the rainbow population (and cutthroat) because they don't compete with trout for the same food sources (mostly bugs, freshwater shrimp) like the suckers do. Sure the tiger muskies would eat some trout, but you currently have much more suckers than trout anyway in these lakes, and fishing is nothing short of crappy. The suckers would be wiped out, and the trout and tiger muskies would emerge. The tigers, in time, would be caught and kept out of the lake and mostly only trout would remain, which, with the large populations of freshwater shrimp and other bugs, would make the trout grow to large sizes. I have seen it in other remote reservoirs on the mesa with freshwater shrimp, for example Y and S reservoir which was plum full of 3-5 lb. cutthroats (a few bows as well) and many fish easily in the 10 lb. range. The tiger muskies would be the perfect solution.
[signature]
|
