Gorge Mack Pups--SOLUTIONS?

[Fowl-Hook]

Removes the Bulk of the Oily Fishy Flavor

Cooking Mack Pups up to about 8 pounds.

Filet fish as you would any fish. Remove pin bones.
Lop the filets into pieces about every 3 to 4 inches going down the filet.
Get a big pot of water boiling hard, add 1/2 cup sugar, drop enough pieces in the water while it continues to boil. May take several batches depending on how big a pot and how big or many the pieces are. Remove pieces after 2 min of boiling, place on paper towel and pat dry. The skin will fall off at this point, if you didn't remove it when fileting, I usually have already removed it with the knife.
Flour or bread pieces and fry as you would any fish.
Or barbeque.
As good or better than Trout.

Note - you cant believe how much Fish oil the boiling water will remove from the pieces. Only takes a few minutes as well, very little work for some fine eating..
[signature]

[Duckbutter]

It's reasonable to assume that a burb/pup bash would be a great way to increase the harvest, and lifting the limits for a weekend would be worth a trial run. If it doesn't work out, then no harm done in the long run. I will try that flash boiling mentioned above and give the pups another shot, plus I haven't tried grilling them.

Just poured up 21 more of these to get ready for this ice season, and ordered some fresh paint. I can't wait to hit the hard water again.


[signature]

[Anglinarcher]

OK, I prefer my smoker, 180 degrees, slow smoked with Alder wood or Apple wood.

Fillet, keep skin on, remove pin bones if children will be eating.

Simple, good, .......

[chinook]

It is a long way to drive. If we take the time to drive to FG for a couple of days, we need to keep more than one daily limit. Make it 3 days in possession for starters. That would motivate me to take more trips to the Gorge for fish to bring back home.

The other thing, I used to catch many pups fishing for kokanee. Now I don't catch as many. What is up with that? If there are so many pups and they are easy to catch then why are they not ending up in my boat when I do fish there? Educate us on the way to catch many pups easy from a boat. I have read the posts and it sounds like it is not hard. Almost any method should catch them. But from my experience, I do not catch as many as I used to.
[signature]

[Littlebuck3333]

Painter you catch laker pups like you hunt snow geese,not worth a cap or how you play Texas Holden lmfao, the best way to catch the little bastards is to pop gear big stuff,a giant rappalla with a trailing hook with a big hunk of suckered meat u can't keep me off and it keeps me away from your koke gear staight out of the back of the boat love ya have a merry Christmas see ya at east canyon on the derby
[signature]

[fishjon]

I think there is no chance fishermen are going to make a noticeable impact on Mac populations on a lake that big. I’ve caught lake trout from 13 different lakes here in the intermoutain west. Same story at all of them but one. Big head smaller bodies and a “ few” fish big enough to eat them. The one exception is willow lake up by pine dale. The lake is small by comparison to most others and sees a lot of pressure. Fish are healthy and seem to grow at a better rate but I would guess the amount of fish over 10 lbs is very small. No science behind this they just all have girth. I guess bear lake doesn’t fit the mold either but those fish don’t reach huge and I hear they don’t reproduce much in there.

I fish Lake Powell a lot. I’m convinced the whole keep a striped campaign hasn’t done a thing to stave off the cycles seen there. Too big, too many eggs. And they taste better than macs. And I like macs.
[signature]

[NICH]

Duckbutter those joys look great. How does that front hook help with hookups? What’s the weight and could I snag a few from you to try?
[signature]

[fishalot13]

link might help with a few questions and at the end there is more links to how to catch and also how to cook.


https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Regional-Offices/Gr...ut-in-Flam


The fam and I enjoy catching and eating pups!
[signature]

[TheWeekender]

I have fished the Ducks Unlimited derby for the last few years. They have a category for the heaviest lake trout 28" or less. Only 1 Laker can be weighed in per person.

I usually fish the Gorge 4-6 times a season with 3-4 licensed anglers in my boat. I can't remember a time when I've limited out on pups but almost always limit out on Kokanee. I don't think raising the limit would have that big of an impact. I would definetely support a numbers derby though. I do my part and eat anything under 10lbs. I would way rather eat lake trout over rainbows!
[signature]

[Tarponjim]

[quote fishalot13]link might help with a few questions and at the end there is more links to how to catch and also how to cook.


https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Regional-Offices/Gr...ut-in-Flam


The fam and I enjoy catching and eating pups![/quote]

Great Links Fishalot! Good info here on management and fishing tips.
[signature]

[PBH]

Most of the comments in this thread are focusing on angler harvest, and the issues associated with anglers harvesting lake trout. There are obvious problems, and many of which probably will never change.

That focus on harvest should not be looked at as a solution. We know anglers will struggle to harvest the lake trout. So, what should we be looking at?

Mortality

How do we assure that more lake trout die?

Sure, this may not be a popular way to say it, but that is what needs to happen. More lake trout need to die. If that is by harvest, then great! But we know that won't happen. So, how do we assure more lake trout die?

Remember, there are only 4 tools to be used for managing populations of fish: (1) rules and regulations, (2) public relations and education, (3) stocking and fish removal, and (4) habitat improvement and manipulation. These 4 tools all interact and have implications with each other. Changing one may affect another.

Using those 4 tools, what options do we have?

(1) Rules and Regulation: change rules to increase fish mortality, including the use of bait, snagging, time of year, limits, waste, etc.

(2) Education: the DWR needs to step up the education platform and get the angling community caught up on the "what's", "why's", and "how's" of lake trout population at FG. If anglers understand the potential benefits of harvesting lake trout (all sizes) then maybe more anglers will harvest more lake trout. Teach them how, why, and when.

(3) stocking / removal: in order to control populations, you have to either add more or remove more. Fish removal can be done by utilizing tools 1, 2, and 4. Again, removal doesn't need to be "harvest" by anglers. Anglers can remove fish without taking them home to eat.

(4) habitat manipulation: This tool can be difficult, especially when dealing with a deep water fish like lake trout. Manipulating their spawning habitat may not be the most effective option. Tools 1 - 3 may be better tools to use in this situation.




So, maybe we need to think more about some un-popular solutions. Mandatory catch-and-kill. Allow snagging. Allow multiple hooks, multiple rods, set lines. Allow lake trout to be used as bait / chum. Allow the use of nets. Implement a bounty reward.


Just some ideas to get people thinking outside the traditional box.

[signature]

[one8sevenn]

I think the easiest thing to do to help is to raise the limit of pups to 24 or 32.

There are not a lot a ton of people that target pups when compared to Kokanee or Rainbows, so this would allow those that target them to keep a boat load.

I also think using 6 rods per person shore/boat fishing when targeting lakers would be a good regulation.

As far as local communities getting behind the burbot bash, 80% of the cars in the parking lots have Utah plates. There are a lot more people in Utah than SW Wyoming. Rock Springs has 24,000 residents and Green River has 13,000 residents. Ogden by itself has 87,000 residents.
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

[quote PBH]
Mortality

How do we assure that more lake trout die?

Sure, this may not be a popular way to say it, but that is what needs to happen. More lake trout need to die. If that is by harvest, then great! But we know that won't happen. So, how do we assure more lake trout die?

So, maybe we need to think more about some un-popular solutions. Mandatory catch-and-kill. Allow snagging. Allow multiple hooks, multiple rods, set lines. Allow lake trout to be used as bait / chum. Allow the use of nets. Implement a bounty reward.
[/quote]


I agree with what you are saying but as previously stated, am skeptical any rod and reel based efforts will have much of an impact. Again, I would use Yellowstone lake as an example. It already had catch-and-kill, no limits, and netting, but population reductions were not seen until the commercial netting was markedly ramped up and sophisticated regimens used to specifically target the lakers. Only then have we seen any population reductions and they still have a ways to go.

https://www.nps.gov/articles/suppressing...e-lake.htm

Is there the political will, the money and the angler support in this type of effort to really deal with this problem?
[signature]

[PBH]

doggone -- I'm with you. I'm also skeptical of any rod and reel based efforts.
[signature]

[Anglinarcher]

I agree that angler pressure has a hard time controlling populations. The bigger the body of the lake, the harder it is.

Case in point is Lake Pend Oreille in Northern Idaho. In the late 90's and early 2000's it had lots of Bows over 10 pounds and bunches of Huge Lakers. In the 70's and 80's it had monster runs of Kokes, but by the 90's the population of Kokes was down.

Now I contend that it was the result of lowering the lake during the Kokanee spawning season every year. There are two "strains" of Kokes. One strain, the one used in almost every state including Utah, spawns in rivers and streams. But, the strain in parts of Alaska and in Pend Oreille, by my contention, is the lake and shore spawner. I once documented this, but The Corps of Engineers was not about to keep the lake at full pool during the winter due to flood control requirements. It matters not, other then to say that Idaho and the Corps of Engineers chose to "reduce" the numbers of Lakers, and Bows, to increase the Kokanee, which they determined was required to feed the "Bull Trout" which they deemed are threatened. Funny how an introduced species is being protected (kokes) to feed a threatened species (Bull Trout) that is so plentiful in that lake that they are a nuisance. OK, enough complaining, it is a complex issue and impossible to fully explain.

As you can see, there are some similarities. Pend Oreille, the Big Pond, is one of the largest natural lakes in the US, perhaps the largest West of the Great Lakes, with a small dam to increase depth for power generation and flood control. FG is a pretty big Reservoir. Both are somewhat remote with limited populations near them.

They took fishing limits off the Bows and Lakers and prohibited catching the Kokes. It did not work. They started stocking the stream spawning Kokes and built hatcheries, but it did not work.

Last I knew, they had put a bounty on the bigger Bows and created a commercial fishery for the Lakers. Now they are allowing some Koke fishing the last I heard.

It is the commercial netting program that is/was making the difference.

I do know that smaller bodies of water can be impacted by fishing, but in the big waters, and waters with Lakers, well I am just not sure.

We have a tough condition, a real tough condition. I hope that a solution can be found. At this time, I can only recall what happened to the Big Pond. At least we could eat well while the Lakers and Bows were plentiful.

Sad memories, very .

[Charina]

It won't have an immediate impact, but for the long term balance, I would be in favor of shocking/vacuuming some redds as has been done elsewhere.
[signature]

[N.E.T.O.]

An interesting topic!

I'm sort of with Chinook. It's just a long drive for me and I'm not retired yet, so I don't have a lot of days I can go. However, when I am lucky enough to get a day or two to fish there I DO keep as many pups as I can catch and keep legally. Lake trout are the only "trout" that my wife and I keep and enjoy. It's one of the best sources of Omega 3 which is actually good for you. But really, we think they taste way better than other trouts and taste great smoked.

I get the opportunity to go to flaming gorge maybe 1/2 dozen times a year. I like to ice fish and fish from a boat in the summertime. I would love the limit to be raised. I'd keep more. If I don't eat them, I've got a whole lot of neighbors that love them.

Randy
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

Here is another article about additional tactics that are being used at Yellowstone lake. They gillnet lakers, grind them up and spray the slurry over spawning areas, choking out the embryos of oxygen.

http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/envir...27ea3.html


Stuff like this could potentially help but it would cost some money and ,based on experience from angler response to the June Sucker program at Utah lake, the complaining from anglers would be intense.
[signature]

[MACMAN]

Wow, that seems extreme...and morbid. I don’t think the goal here is to eliminate the macs as in Yellowstone. I know some theories will disagree, but with macs I think you need to conserve the large fish. They are so long lived and growth rates are so slow, removing them to make “room” for other fish to fill their spot does not seem viable. I understand that theory with stunted bass or really any short lived fish, but not lake trout. The crowning jewel of the Gorge is the trophy Mac. We shouldn’t mess with that. It seems more reasonable to at least try to target the specific problem size, which appears less than 28”, rather than the entire specie. I realize that manage by angling may not work, but why not try. I know if I catch a 26” Mac next year while trolling for kokes, it will get turned loose unharmed, unless the wanton waste law is lifted. If I can legally pop the air bladder and sink it, I will. One less breeder and one less mouth to feed. Can’t hurt- seems like a no brainer decision by the DWR.
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote MACMAN]They are so long lived and growth rates are so slow, removing them to make “room” for other fish to fill their spot does not seem viable.[/quote]

Ask yourself a couple questions:

A. Why are the growth rates slow?
B. What can be done to improve growth rates?


The comment from MacMan is exactly why fisheries managers struggle when the general angling community gets involved. No offense to MacMan -- but a lack of understanding of fish biology often causes more harm than good. Even with good intentions, which I believe MacMan has.


[quote "A Simple 4-Step Method to Manage For Quality Fishing"]
Fact or myth? -- Catch -and-release fishing regulations allow fish to live longer and thus, grow larger. Acceptance of catch-and-release practices among many anglers has generally been good and much needed...
...In simple terms, fish can be caught, utilized, and enjoyed more than once. On the other hand, the assumption that released fish are predestined to become large with old age is false...
...The size-limiting factor is often not age (or time) but the environment. Fish grow to match environmental conditions. Catch-and-release can lead to over-crowded conditions and small fish. In many cases, some harvest is beneficial and needed to maintain quality-size fish.
[/quote]

those "old" "slow growing" fish are only slow growing because the environment is too crowded at those smaller sizes! Growth rates will increase if you remove fish and reduce the overall population. This is not a theory, but a proven concept!

When looking at age of fish, and average growth rates you have to remember that it is an average! That 40" goliath might be 35 years old. He might have an average growth rate of <1" per year. However, that fish very well could have grown to 35" in 6 years, and only 5" over the next 29 years.

Get those fish growth rates increased, and you'll replace those "old slow growing" big fish FAST!

[quote "A Simple 4-Step Method to Manage For Quality Fishing"]
Consider another example. The world's largest cutthroat trout historically came from Pyramid Lake, Nevada. Roughly 80 years ago [~1924], some eggs or fry from Pyramid Lake were moved to a small stream on Pilot Mountain near Wendover, Nevada-Utah. This new population persisted for about 50 years before being discovered again in 1978. Although there were no individual fish in the stream that exceeded 10 inches, once they were put into small ponds with increased forage and feed they grew dramatically to over 36 inches and 14 pounds...
...although these fish had persisted in the small stream for many generations and their genetics and growth potential may have been somewhat altered, they still remained amazingly adaptive and responsive when they were again removed from the restrictive small stream habitat. This most recent change occured with fish taken from the stream, not even requiring the next generation to complete the transformation to 14-pound trout.
[/quote]



If you change the environment in FG by reducing the population size, you'd have more big fish. Not fewer.

[signature]