Lake trout in Payette Lake

[22RMX]

So I'm making this post in an effort to find out the awareness of others and get some public opinion.

At the risk of bringing some unneeded fishing pressure to a specific body of water, I feel some responsibility to make others aware about the management plan for Lake trout in Payette Lake. 

The current management plan being implemented is to increase Kokanee survival by gillnetting Lake trout. From information that I have recently gathered, this is accomplished by removing all age classes of Lake trout from the body of water. For those who are unaware, Lake trout are extremely slow growing and a 30 inch fish can be 20 years old. Upper 30 inch fish can be closer to 30 years old. And some of these fish can survive to 40 years. A significant number of Lake trout have been removed in the last couple years.

Just learning this small piece of information doesn't sit well with me. 

I'm not a biologist, but I do understand the importance of a well-balanced fishery. However, we have a multitude of other Kokanee fisheries in this state. I also understand that there must be available forage in order for these trout to survive. I personally get more excited about catching a 30+ inch Lake trout versus six small Kokanee. I would rather see this lake be managed for Lake trout. So even if that means stocking fish to supplement the forage base, I would be all for it. But that's just me, I'm curious to see what others think.

[mtncntrykid]

My thoughts are that you have a legitimate concern and the management for lake trout would be a nice direction to see happen....but.... in reality, the quest to pursue this species is not shared by many within the residential and tourist population base. Unfortunately another circumstance that is money (economic) driven and the chance to accomplish the goal for lake trout management is probably very slim. I am just as guilty as I chase koke's regularly but only occasionally pursue the bigger lake trout when I visit Warm Lake. Don't have the answer but completely understand the concern.

[meancuznalfy]

My thoughts are that you have a legitimate concern and the management for lake trout would be a nice direction to see happen....but.... in reality, the quest to pursue this species is not shared by many within the residential and tourist population base. Unfortunately another circumstance that is money (economic) driven and the chance to accomplish the goal for lake trout management is probably very slim. I am just as guilty as I chase koke's regularly but only occasionally pursue the bigger lake trout when I visit Warm Lake. Don't have the answer but completely understand the concern.

I agree, lake trout aren't targeted very much, only by a few. I myself have not targeted them, mainly because I heard that they don't taste good, but with the possibility of catching a 30" fish, I'm gonna have to put them on my list of fish to catch. 

[wiperhunter2]

First off, welcome to the site and thanks for voicing your concern. I'm sure you are aware that in lakes like Flaming Gorge and others, the two fish species survive just fine together. It could be the fish and game are going for the same plan but want to give the kokes a little breathing room to kind of jump start the kokes, so to speak. You did not elaporate on the long term plan but do you know if they are they are planning on stopping the gill netting after one year or is it long term plan to keep gill netting the lakers? If they only do it for one year, that might be the head start the kokes need to get a foothold in Payette. The thing I do know is the lakers can eat their selves to starvation, if left unchecked. Mainly that is a result of people not keeping the fish and releasing most of them, that is the very issue that faces the Gorge right now. Just my 2 cents worth.

[22RMX]

First off, welcome to the site and thanks for voicing your concern. I'm sure you are aware that in lakes like Flaming Gorge and others, the two fish species survive just fine together. It could be the fish and game are going for the same plan but want to give the kokes a little breathing room to kind of jump start the kokes, so to speak. You did not elaporate on the long term plan but do you know if they are they are planning on stopping the gill netting after one year or is it long term plan to keep gill netting the lakers? If they only do it for one year, that might be the head start the kokes need to get a foothold in Payette. The thing I do know is the lakers can eat their selves to starvation, if left unchecked. Mainly that is a result of people not keeping the fish and releasing most of them, that is the very issue that faces the Gorge right now. Just my 2 cents worth.

Thank you for the welcome. The duration of this plan is 4 years. This is a direct quote from the management plan: 

1. [b]Objective: Maintain/improve the Payette Lake kokanee fishery by reducing Lake Trout predation.
   Strategy: Reduce numbers of Lake Trout with gillnetting efforts and angler harvest over the next planning period; maintain Lake Trout at low densities to improve kokanee survival.
   Strategy: Supplement kokanee population with fingerling stocking starting in 2020 and monitor results with kokanee sampling gill nets.[/b]
   

Now the specific language "low densities" has no accompanying number identifying how far they will reduce the Lake trout population. From the information I gathered they don't really have a clue how many Lake trout are actually in the lake. It would require an extensive netting survey which is very difficult and would provide a low degree of accuracy. They are just going to implement the plan through the defined time period.

I am in complete agreement that fish populations need to be managed, especially since many were introduced by man, so the body of water will remain a good fishery. I enjoy Kokanee fishing myself, but would personally like to see this body of water managed for Lake trout.

[wiperhunter2]

4 years seems a little extreme, especially if the don't have any idea what kind of numbers are in the lake. You would think they would base it on the numbers of lakers they catch ever year and if the numbers they are catching takes a steep decline, they stop or slow the rate they are removing from the lake. I do agree with you that it's nice to have a lake that they manage for lakers. One thing to consider is that as long as they don't wipe the laker population out, once the koke population is established they will be a really good food source for the lakers when they stop the gill netting and the lakers will come back stronger than ever, just a thought.

[duksnfish]

I dont remember which lake it is over by Redfish Lake, but, they are doing the same thing with a plan similar to this one. I remember reading in that article that they said they had 550 lake trout and were weird that the lake trout would end up getting into the same water system as one of the salmon that they are working to recover. I'm sorry I cant remember more on the issue, but those are some of the highlights that seemed to stand out to me and I couldnt figure it out there either. Sounds like the same plan. Now I dont fish lake trout as there are not any places around where I am at, that I know of, but I too cant see managing a little more for multiple fish species if they havent had trouble with them so far and dont know how many years they have been in these lakes, but, I guess I just dont understand multiple fish species management instead of a single species. Especially if multiple species are getting along now. It's kind of like the walleye that were illegally introduced into Ririe reservoir many years ago. They havent really taken hold and it is so rare when one is caught but F&G and some others are so worried about them getting into other waters and affect other fish species. I, like many on here, am not a fish biologist but dont get some of the reasoning behind some of the logic that F&G tries to put out there for all of us to believe. I know its an uphill battle in many instances for the public to get behind what F&G is trying to do, but, I dont think they do well with public information. And this doesnt go toward fishing only, it applies to many other activities as well. Dont get me wrong, I fully stand behind F&G on most matters, but, their public information programs really lack in trying to get the public behind them. Instead of asking for public help before hand in many instances, they are trying to ask for forgiveness after the public finds out about what they are doing with no real reasoning after the fact and it doesnt work in todays world. Sorry this is a bit off track, but, I think it does have a lot of merit in that there are several current plans to get rid of lake trout that were kept hush hush until someone finally heard about it then started asking questions to which there really hasnt been a good solid reason by F&G that can be accepted by the public who funds these activities. I would hope that F&G would really chime in on subjects like this on these forums and give us more information because I know many of their employees are also members but just wont speak up. Thanks for bringing this topic up and I hope that we the public can get more solid and valid information than us just guessing as to why they are doing it instead of having the facts.

So, I found the article I was referencing. It was in the Post Register. The title of the article is what caught my eye. - https://www.postregister.com/news/local/...72831.html

[Kent]

I don't have an answer to your issue; however, many years ago I had an interesting experience with lake trout at Payette Lake. My in laws had a cabin at Payette Lake for years. One summer we were playing on their beach and I watched a nice-sized lake trout swim by and grab about 1/2 of a hot dog that one of the kids had thrown into the lake. Who knows, maybe we are using the wrong bait to pursue them.

Down here in Utah, I get frustrated with the few places that we can pursue lake trout. I have been pushing for them to stock them in a few more lakes, but so far have had not received any positive support from the fish and game folks.

[mtncntrykid]

After reading the above linked article, I could see this being exactly the reason for F&G doing the same thing in Payette Lake in an effort to protect downstream fisheries like Cascade Reservoir that are such a highly traffic kokanee and other species fishery. Funny thing is that in 50+ years I have lived and fished here lake trout have always been a presence in Payette Lake so it is hard to see how that would ever happen.

[22RMX]

4 years seems a little extreme, especially if the don't have any idea what kind of numbers are in the lake. You would think they would base it on the numbers of lakers they catch ever year and if the numbers they are catching takes a steep decline, they stop or slow the rate they are removing from the lake. I do agree with you that it's nice to have a lake that they manage for lakers. One thing to consider is that as long as they don't wipe the laker population out, once the koke population is established they will be a really good food source for the lakers when they stop the gill netting and the lakers will come back stronger than ever, just a thought.

I agree that if they can establish a strong Kokanee population, it will be a good food source for the Lake trout. This was brought up in a conversation I had with an F&G employee. The point was also made by this employee, that these fish don't reach sexual maturity until six years of age and have such a slow growth rate, it will take a number of years for these fish to rebound in numbers and size.

---

After reading the above linked article, I could see this being exactly the reason for F&G doing the same thing in Payette Lake in an effort to protect downstream fisheries like Cascade Reservoir that are such a highly traffic kokanee  and other species fishery. Funny thing is that in 50+ years I have lived and fished here lake trout have always been a presence in Payette Lake so it is hard to see how that would ever happen.

From the people I've spoken with at F&G, there was never any concern expressed about having the Lake trout in Payette spread to other waters. The sole reason for an enacting this plan is to improve the Kokanee population. 

[duksnfish]

4 years seems a little extreme, especially if the don't have any idea what kind of numbers are in the lake. You would think they would base it on the numbers of lakers they catch ever year and if the numbers they are catching takes a steep decline, they stop or slow the rate they are removing from the lake. I do agree with you that it's nice to have a lake that they manage for lakers. One thing to consider is that as long as they don't wipe the laker population out, once the koke population is established they will be a really good food source for the lakers when they stop the gill netting and the lakers will come back stronger than ever, just a thought.

I agree that if they can establish a strong Kokanee population, it will be a good food source for the Lake trout. This was brought up in a conversation I had with an F&G employee. The point was also made by this employee, that these fish don't reach sexual maturity until six years of age and have such a slow growth rate, it will take a number of years for these fish to rebound in numbers and size.

---

After reading the above linked article, I could see this being exactly the reason for F&G doing the same thing in Payette Lake in an effort to protect downstream fisheries like Cascade Reservoir that are such a highly traffic kokanee  and other species fishery. Funny thing is that in 50+ years I have lived and fished here lake trout have always been a presence in Payette Lake so it is hard to see how that would ever happen.

From the people I've spoken with at F&G, there was never any concern expressed about having the Lake trout in Payette spread to other waters. The sole reason for an enacting this plan is to improve the Kokanee population. 

If this is the sole reason for removing lake trout, it is pretty lame reason/excuse. And, same goes for any place around where that is the reason given for any reduction of one species to promote another one. To me, and just my thoughts, i have heard that before from some F&G personnel with no other reason so is it just their reason or want to manage for just one species or has there been a public out cry for a certain species.  If you read the above paper article that I referenced, there wasnt many public against the lake trout just a reason by F&G yet with everything I am reading on this thread, and just like the walleye issue in Ririe that they have cried wolf about, they just dont develop. And, I am not sure they are listening to the public at any public hearings they have on fisheries meetings for comment or input into future regulations etc. I really dont think anything can be done with any of these situations as I dont think F&G is really interested in what the public does have to say on issues like this, other than to have a meeting and do nothing about it. 

So, like some others have said, not sure what the answer to any of this is, but, sure is upsetting that its all kept hush hush until someone slips up and the word gets out and then there is a scramble to put something together to try and appease those that want the most popular species in the water they are treating. Again, I hope that someone from F&G is reading all of this and will give the public some sound and reasoned information.  If not, maybe there is a way to get the F&G commission involved and cut some funding with out a good solid plan and reason for some of these activities that they are carrying on.

[22RMX]

Here's an article that was just released.

https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/after-promi...yette-lake

I have a couple issues with this article.

"In 2018 and 2019, Fish and Game staff removed over 1,400 Lake trout from Payette Lake. The suppression effort primarily targeted smaller, younger fish, leaving the larger, older fish for anglers to continue to catch in the popular lake trout fishery."

They report 1400 as the number of lake trout removed, but from the information I gathered this number is misleading because that was a minimum amount removed each year. So the number is actually over 3000.

The statement of  "leaving the larger, older fish for anglers", is not true. From studies done in other fisheries they found that all age classes must be removed for a successful population reduction. I was specifically told that they are now killing all age classes of fish.

"The kokanee stocked this year should reach catchable sizes for anglers in two years, and lake trout enthusiasts can expect bigger, fatter fish thanks to a more abundant prey species."

As I stated in a previous post, Lake trout are extremely slow growing. I believe it's very misleading to state that, "Lake trout enthusiast can expect bigger and fatter fish". If they continue to remove all sizes and age classes of Lake trout until 2024, how long will it take the population to rebound? It takes them around 10 to 15 years to average 20 inches in length.