Posts: 35,769
Threads: 262
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
49
[cool][#0000ff]I don't recall the exact number of baby June suckers planted by DWR into the Provo River recently, but I question their thought processes. The fish they dumped were about 4" to 5"...ideal forage size for walleyes. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]There are still lots of walleyes up in the Provo River and they are feeding heavily on the new food source.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I have heard a few reports of anglers taking walleyes from the Provo recently that were bulging with June sucker younguns...an average of 3 to 5 per walleye.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I have to admit that I really don't care much about whether the June suckers ever make a comeback or not. BUT, when it comes to the DWR...WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? With only a small number of healthy sucker fry, why did they time the release to coincide with the walleye post spawn feeding frenzy, and why did they not keep the young until they were large enough to escape most of the predation potential?[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]And they wonder why there is such a small survival rate? SHEESH![/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 6,126
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
1
You should post this on the DWR for more effect, that way they might see it.[  ][ ]
Good for walleye bad for suckers!!!!![cool][cool]
[signature]
Posts: 574
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation:
0
I read an article one time where Utah Lake had been much deeper when the pioneers came into the valley. Depths to 50'. The runoff from farms, sewer, Geneva etc have resulted ijn a much shallower lake. So at a meeting on the June Sucker recovery I asked the man in charge about why they didnt make the lake deeper to restore the June Sucker's habitat. And he replied that would change there current habitat, and the feds won't allow it to happen. Now they are feeding walleyes. Sounds like a doomed recovery effort to me.
John
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
Man, how many times do we have to debunk that story. The silt from the Spanish Fork River has been flowing into Utah Lake for thousands of years. The lake has been shallow for thousands of years as well. No white man has ever seen Utah Lake any deeper than we saw it back in 1983 to 1985. We have even added dikes and pumps to the north end of the lake.
The runoff from farms had more phosphates, and changed the ecosystem, but it didn't fill up the bottom of the lake.
Fishrmn
Posts: 35,769
Threads: 262
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
49
[cool][#0000ff]Right you are. Utah Lake was never much more than it is as you see it...minus a lot of development around the edges. It was never a forested, deep alpine lake, as some would have you believe. It was a shallow lake in a desert environment.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]There may be a layer of sediment over some of the deeper pockets in the lake, but the layer of hardened volcanic mud, limestone and other materials that form the bottom are never very far from the surface of the mud.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Cutthroat trout, suckers, chubs and perhaps a few other species lived in peaceful coexistence until the pioneers arrived. They harvested all of the native species for food and eventually depopulated the lake of the cutts and a large percentage of the suckers.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]In the early 1900's carp were introduced as a food source, but were never heavily harvested. We live with that mistake. They have wiped out natural vegetation in the lake and ruined spawning habitat for all species except themselves.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]DWR and bucket biologists have combined to try just about every other species of both predator and forage fish in the USA. Most have been unsuccessful. The predators that have survived have made it a tough neighborhood for the native species that are still left.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I continue to shake my head in wonder as I watch the fisheries departments of our western states try to rebuild populations of endangered native species. Sure, I hate to see any species go extinct. But, once a river system or lake has been irretrievably altered, by man's intervention, and the conditions have been changed to exclude the native species, I think it is both foolish and wasteful to keep "throwing good money after bad" by spending sportsmen's dollars on species that will never make it in the long run. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]What's more, fisheries departments are killing off the sports species they once introduced and protected, in ill-advised attempts to correct the uncorrectable. Look at what they did to the trout below Lake Powell. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]And, down in Arizona, they took one of my favorite tubing lakes (Horseshoe Reservoir, near Phoenix) and flushed it dry, to eradicate the once great populations of bass, crappie, catfish and sunfish. Now it is being maintained as a nursery for Colorado Pikeminnow (squawfish) and some native suckers and chubs. Those fish are no good to fish for and you are arrested if you keep any of them. There is no limit on sports fish taken from the reservoir, in an effort to keep them out.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]DON'T GET ME STARTED.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 35,769
Threads: 262
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
49
[cool][#0000ff]I addressed the issue with a fisheries biologist, who was conducting research around Utah Lake. Her response was that they expected some natural predation, but that their surveys had not revealed a significant impact by predators on the newly planted suckerettes.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Ignorance or head in the sand. Pull the blanket up over your head and the monster won't get you.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 3,820
Threads: 6
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
Thats just another way to throw tax dollars down the toilet but in this case down the prover river!But on the upside at least the walleyes are getting big and fat![ ]
[signature]
Posts: 224
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
[  ] [#505000]Being a government employee I get to often see first hand some waste. I think someone high up gets what in their opinion is "The best idea EVER" and nobody has the cajones to point out what a retarded idea it really is. [/#505000]
[#505000][/#505000]
[#505000]I have to second what Pat says. The damage to these natural fisheries has been already been done years and years ago. Trying to spend millions to undo it is a waste of time effort and money. [/#505000]
[#505000][/#505000]
[#505000]Some species are hardier than others and in nature it is survival of the fittest. Those species that do well in a particular enviroment thrive while those who don't decline. Carp much to our mutual dismay are a strong species, they thrive most anywhere!![/#505000]
[#505000][/#505000]
[#505000]Mistakes were made, and forgien species were introduced into lakes like Utah Lake and others (I'm not complaining about it though [cool]). Obviously the game fish (and non-game fish like Carp) are more suited to the enviroment and some do prey on the June Sucker. I'm no stinking June Sucker expert but from the little I do know it doesn't seem to do well outside of Utah Lake and it's tributaries, frankly it doesn't seem to do well IN Utah Lake and its tributaries either!! This tells me that as a species the June Sucker is very fragile. Based on how tough a time they have with the June Sucker I firmly believe that if it wasn't an aquatic species it would be sexually attracted to fire. I've said it before and I'll say it again.... It's almost like God wants it to die!! I once made the mistake of pointing this out to a pair of researchers who were pestering me you while fishing at Utah Lake and I sure got a lecture on how wonderful it would be if we could really bring it back. I'm not sold.[/#505000]
[#505000][/#505000]
[#505000]The biggest "benefit" I see to them spending these millions are the improvments which will benefit the game fish also. I guess this includes feeding the game fish June Sucker fry! [ ][/#505000] [#505000] [/#505000]
[signature]
Posts: 1,020
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
What they need to do is create an on-lake or lake attatched hatchery. There is so many areas around the lake that they could easily do this.
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
What is all of the fuss? The walleyes have been a bit skinny out there this spring and this will certainly help.[ ]
Seriously, (I think) what they are trying to do is attempt to establish a "run" of hatchery raised June suckers that go up the Provo to spawn as their ancestors have. This used to happen in June, hence the name. Maybe they feel that the 4-6 inchers will be more likely to "imprint" and do it and planting in June is key to get the timing right. Otherwise, I agree, it seems a dumb time and especially, a questionable size to plant hatchery pets.
[signature]
Posts: 111
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation:
0
I've always kind of wondered, is there any benefit to the ecosystem for having June Suckers around? Is there something they offer that no other fish can? I just can't stand to think of all those wasted dollars if it's just because some people don't want it to go extinct for no real reason. I wouldn't mind as much if the June Sucker was important for some reason. I just can't imagine what that reason would be.
Posts: 3,535
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
There was a lot of talk and fluff last year from the DWR about how they were going to start several programs to help bring down the incredible numbers of carp in Utah Lake. I haven't heard anything for a long time. Does anyone know what's going on with that? If the DWR wants to throw their money away, they should do it by trying to control the carp numbers.
[signature]
|
