DWR Advises "Catch & Keep"

[TubeDude]

LINK TO ARTICLE

In the above linked article, DWR is asking anglers to keep more fish from several bodies of water.

Release in the grease.

[BearLakeFishGuy]

LINK TO ARTICLE

In the above linked article, DWR is asking anglers to keep more fish from several bodies of water.

Release in the grease.

This is really interesting about Pelican.  The new proposal is limiting the number of bluegill over 8" that can be taken, yet right now they are asking people to catch and KEEP more bluegill.  Mixed message??

[Cowboypirate]

Interesting that they called out Brown trout on the Blacksmiths.

[WET1]

LINK TO ARTICLE

In the above linked article, DWR is asking anglers to keep more fish from several bodies of water.

Release in the grease.

This is really interesting about Pelican.  The new proposal is limiting the number of bluegill over 8" that can be taken, yet right now they are asking people to catch and KEEP more bluegill.  Mixed message??

Not really, there's lots of studies out there showing that over harvest of the larger bluegill stunts the overall growth. 

When there are not enough large bluegills in a lake, smaller bluegills may become stunted and reproduce less. Here are some reasons why:
When there are too many small bluegills, they compete with each other for food and grow more slowly. They may also eat the eggs and larvae of young bass, which can reduce the number of adult bass that prey on bluegills.
Large male bluegills occupy the best spawning sites in the center of colonies, while smaller males are relegated to the periphery, where they may be more vulnerable to predators. Large males are also more attractive to females and can suppress the gonad development of smaller males. When large males are removed from the population, smaller males may mature at a younger age and compete with each other for the best spawning sites.
Smaller males may reproduce less because they are less attractive to females and may be in sub-optimal spawning sites.
With bluegill density reduced by harvest, surviving fish should grow faster. But if high harvest selectively depletes larger male bluegills, smaller bluegills mature earlier, more energy goes to growing gonads, and growth rate slows.

[RockyRaab2]

They've known for decades that releasing the big breeders is good for most species. Anglers, however, tend to do the opposite.

"Make room for the little ones to grow" does NOT work.

[BearLakeFishGuy]

LINK TO ARTICLE

In the above linked article, DWR is asking anglers to keep more fish from several bodies of water.

Release in the grease.

This is really interesting about Pelican.  The new proposal is limiting the number of bluegill over 8" that can be taken, yet right now they are asking people to catch and KEEP more bluegill.  Mixed message??

Not really, there's lots of studies out there showing that over harvest of the larger bluegill stunts the overall growth. 

When there are not enough large bluegills in a lake, smaller bluegills may become stunted and reproduce less. Here are some reasons why:
When there are too many small bluegills, they compete with each other for food and grow more slowly. They may also eat the eggs and larvae of young bass, which can reduce the number of adult bass that prey on bluegills.
  Large male bluegills occupy the best spawning sites in the center of colonies, while smaller males are relegated to the periphery, where they may be more vulnerable to predators. Large males are also more attractive to females and can suppress the gonad development of smaller males. When large males are removed from the population, smaller males may mature at a younger age and compete with each other for the best spawning sites.
  Smaller males may reproduce less because they are less attractive to females and may be in sub-optimal spawning sites.
With bluegill density reduced by harvest, surviving fish should grow faster. But if high harvest selectively depletes larger male bluegills, smaller bluegills mature earlier, more energy goes to growing gonads, and growth rate slows.

Then the UDWR should say to harvest small bluegill, not just all bluegill.  If I (or many others) make a several hour drive to Pelican, I am not coming over to harvest 5-6" bluegill.  The ones I will harvest are are 8-10" size.   So, the wording of UDWR is contradictory.  In the last have of 2024 they want to harvest more bluegill, but magically in 2025 only a few can be >8".  With the fluctuation in water levels at Pelican, I would think they would just accept the cyclic nature of bluegill in there.  It has been that way for 30+ years that I have lived here and without water law changing in the western USA, I don't see any change coming with boom and bust cycles.  But if the UDWR only wants few anglers fishing Pelican then they will get their wish with the proposed 2025 regs.

---

Interesting that they called out Brown trout on the Blacksmiths.

The browns have been an issue on the Blacksmith for years.  The bonus limit is a great way to let the "harvest oriented" anglers take a few extra fish so there is less competition and fish can then grow larger.  The problem is, there are fewer and fewer "harvest oriented" anglers out there, so biologically it may not make a difference in the population.  I hope people will harvest more, but there is a high likely hood that it won't happen.  I've seen creel information from the Logan River from areas where harvest is permitted and I believe (I could be wrong) that something like 90+% of the fish caught are then released.  Even though the regs allow for harvest!  (Of course, the harvest percentages did not include the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd dam impoundments, where harvest is much higher).

[Cowboypirate]

LINK TO ARTICLE

In the above linked article, DWR is asking anglers to keep more fish from several bodies of water.

Release in the grease.

This is really interesting about Pelican.  The new proposal is limiting the number of bluegill over 8" that can be taken, yet right now they are asking people to catch and KEEP more bluegill.  Mixed message??

Not really, there's lots of studies out there showing that over harvest of the larger bluegill stunts the overall growth. 

When there are not enough large bluegills in a lake, smaller bluegills may become stunted and reproduce less. Here are some reasons why:
When there are too many small bluegills, they compete with each other for food and grow more slowly. They may also eat the eggs and larvae of young bass, which can reduce the number of adult bass that prey on bluegills.
  Large male bluegills occupy the best spawning sites in the center of colonies, while smaller males are relegated to the periphery, where they may be more vulnerable to predators. Large males are also more attractive to females and can suppress the gonad development of smaller males. When large males are removed from the population, smaller males may mature at a younger age and compete with each other for the best spawning sites.
  Smaller males may reproduce less because they are less attractive to females and may be in sub-optimal spawning sites.
With bluegill density reduced by harvest, surviving fish should grow faster. But if high harvest selectively depletes larger male bluegills, smaller bluegills mature earlier, more energy goes to growing gonads, and growth rate slows.

Then the UDWR should say to harvest small bluegill, not just all bluegill.  If I (or many others) make a several hour drive to Pelican, I am not coming over to harvest 5-6" bluegill.  The ones I will harvest are are 8-10" size.   So, the wording of UDWR is contradictory.  In the last have of 2024 they want to harvest more bluegill, but magically in 2025 only a few can be >8".  With the fluctuation in water levels at Pelican, I would think they would just accept the cyclic nature of bluegill in there.  It has been that way for 30+ years that I have lived here and without water law changing in the western USA, I don't see any change coming with boom and bust cycles.  But if the UDWR only wants few anglers fishing Pelican then they will get their wish with the proposed 2025 regs.

---

Interesting that they called out Brown trout on the Blacksmiths.

The browns have been an issue on the Blacksmith for years.  The bonus limit is a great way to let the "harvest oriented" anglers take a few extra fish so there is less competition and fish can then grow larger.  The problem is, there are fewer and fewer "harvest oriented" anglers out there, so biologically it may not make a difference in the population.  I hope people will harvest more, but there is a high likely hood that it won't happen.  I've seen creel information from the Logan River from areas where harvest is permitted and I believe (I could be wrong) that something like 90+% of the fish caught are then released.  Even though the regs allow for harvest!  (Of course, the harvest percentages did not include the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd dam impoundments, where harvest is much higher).

I got go up that way Saturday. Will see if I can talk cookie into her first post surgery catch and cook