DWR ----says keep fish

[wormandbobber]

[quote utahgolf]
But as soon as a fishery starts growing big fish, the word gets out and pressure increases exponentially. So saying current regulations grew the big fish so keep it the same, really isn't the whole truth if you don't factor in pressure before and after. Yuba is a prime example! No one was really fishing yuba, yuba starts growing big and plentiful fish under very little pressure. Then the word gets out, boats are everywhere and pike being pulled out like crazy. The fishing down there is way down and I won't attribute that to just the limit increase but the tons of extra pressure I believe affected the fishing big time... I don't think you can compare fishing regs and the result it has on fish size/quantity, unless you also factor in pressure of that body of water before and after...[/quote]

Although pressure and harvest are not the same, I am going to assume that you meant harvest when you said pressure. What you have to understand about harvest is the added component of mortality and the opposite component of stocking/reproduction. With current regulations, fishing pressure/harvest may been lower as fish grew large and then as word of mouth spread of large fish and the subsequent request of the DWR to harvest fish fishing pressure/harvest may have increased. What you are not taking into account, though, is the opposite component of fish being added to the fishery via stocking/reproduction. In the case of Yuba, harvest could increase without harming the number of pike because reproduction was increasing exponentially and at a rate greater than harvest is increasing. So, to keep up with the curve, more mortality must be attained in order to keep habitat and food availability similar to what they were when fish numbers were lower.

So what about where stocking is the method of adding fish to the fishery and not reproduction....shouldn't we add regulations to protect fish in that case? The answer is maybe....it all depends on the rate of harvest and the stocking rates. If stocking is not adjusted, restrictive harvest regulations could hurt a fishery by adding fish to the fishery and thereby creating more competition for available food sources and slowing overall fish growth.

The problem we have with many of our fisheries--specifically those with reproducing populations of fishes--is that once the scale has been tipped too far and fish numbers are so high that growth is stunted, fishing harvest can NOT overcome reproduction. The examples of this are numerous--think perch at Fish Lake. In other words, it is always easier to add restrictive regulations to help improve a fishery.....it is almost impossible, though, to liberalize limits that actually make a difference. In other words, we can remove the harvest regulation of perch at Fish Lake, but will we ever see a noticeable difference in perch numbers if nothing else is done (remember, at Fish Lake, weevils are being stocked to try and help eliminate perch habitat to help lower their numbers)?
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

[quote utahgolf]

so how can you say that the fish in yuba or any pond, thrived under the same set of regs without factoring in pressure? Having a 6 fish limit but only a handful of anglers fishing there, is entirely differently than having a 6 fish limit and thousands now fishing there. Proportionality makes a big difference. If a pond has a 4 fish limit, and starts taking off and becoming good but only 50 people fish it. that's only 200 fish theoretically taken out a day. Well imagine 1000 people now fishing it. Could you still compare the two and say that the fish under previous regs succeeded, so why not keep the same regs in place for the 1000 people now fishing it?[/quote]

You are forgetting about the fish added to the population....the problem is that in Yuba, for example, many more fish are being added to the population via natural reproduction than what are being taken out via harvest.
[signature]

[utahgolf]

we'll leave yuba out of this, because management of yuba is too hard with water level and I believe the division was 3 years too late if they wanted to prevent anything... and the spawn the last two years down there has been poor. But again, very hard to predict what to do at yuba....

so, not talking about a specific lake, I'm more trying to understand the basic concept of your broad statement, "The problem is that the water grew the big fish without the regulations." How can you make such a statement without factoring in pressure/harvest before and after? If pressure/harvest remains constant, than yes, your broad statement is true. But if pressure/harvest increases exponentially, then you can throw that statement out the window. Imagine only having 20,000 deer hunters in utah. Well lets say we can now have a two deer limit. Well imagine deer hunting grows in popularity, and there's a 100,000 deer hunters. Well we should have no problem keeping the 2 deer limit because the herd thrived under such regulations.. Would that ring true? The broad statement of leave regs the same cause that's what grew them, doesn't make any sense if pressure/harvest changes greatly. Trying to wrap my head around that. Help!
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

Again, you are forgetting about the number of fish/deer being added to the population through natural reproduction. The problem is that if you try to protect fish when natural reproduction is increasing the fish numbers exponentially, you will end up hurting the same fish you are trying to help. In other words, pressure/harvest can remain constant and even increase twofold and you can still end up with a lot more fish.

In your deer analogy, if we did have a 2 deer limit and the number of hunters increased from 20 thousand to 100 thousand hunters, we could feasibly keep the same regulations without hurting the population....IF deer bred like fish do and gave birth to thousands of viable offspring. We both know that they don't....so, the analogy doesn't work because you are comparing apples to oranges.

Also, even if Yuba has had poor spawns the past two years, the sheer numbers of fish produced prior to that will still lead to a lot more young fish even during poor spawning conditions....so, your population is still increasing exponentially.
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

You have to remember that a single large female pike can lay up to about 600,000 eggs....so, even at 1% survival rate, that is still 6000 pike. Also, pike will mature usually in their second year...even with poor spawning conditions, that is some serious reproductive rates! Walleye produce similar numbers and perch can even produce more....
[signature]

[Outfishing13]

Drew,

Thank you for the clear explanation. I was personally very glad to see this KSL article come out, since many people, including fishermen, need an education on why harvesting fish is good for the overall fishery.

I remember, as a youth, in the 70's when the Provo River produced some really nice fish. I haven't fished it for a long time.

I was really surprised at the quantity of small fish at Scofield this year. On one trip we landed 55 cut throat. 3 in the slot and the rest less than 15 inches. No other species were caught except chubs. We took our limit home. A fellow fisherman and his party caught over 100 cuts with only a handful in the slot. Nothing over the slot.

I just wonder if there were less of these cuts in there if there would be more big ones.

I have also observed that some streams have long skinny stunted mature fish. Big heads and long skinny bodies.
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

[quote Outfishing13]Drew,


I was really surprised at the quantity of small fish at Scofield this year. On one trip we landed 55 cut throat. 3 in the slot and the rest less than 15 inches. No other species were caught except chubs. We took our limit home. A fellow fisherman and his party caught over 100 cuts with only a handful in the slot. Nothing over the slot.

I just wonder if there were less of these cuts in there if there would be more big ones.

[/quote]

The issue at Scofield goes a lot deeper than too many small fish. One of the biggest reasons you are not seeing very many cutts outside of the slot at Scofield probably has to do with the slot. Most fish are going to be within the slot, once they exceed the slot, they are prone to harvest. This is typical of lakes with slots--most of the fish are going to be within the slot once they exceed it, they get caught and kept!
[signature]

[utahgolf]

[quote wormandbobber]Again, you are forgetting about the number of fish/deer being added to the population through natural reproduction. The problem is that if you try to protect fish when natural reproduction is increasing the fish numbers exponentially, you will end up hurting the same fish you are trying to help. In other words, pressure/harvest can remain constant and even increase twofold and you can still end up with a lot more fish.

In your deer analogy, if we did have a 2 deer limit and the number of hunters increased from 20 thousand to 100 thousand hunters, we could feasibly keep the same regulations without hurting the population....IF deer bred like fish do and gave birth to thousands of viable offspring. We both know that they don't....so, the analogy doesn't work because you are comparing apples to oranges.

Also, even if Yuba has had poor spawns the past two years, the sheer numbers of fish produced prior to that will still lead to a lot more young fish even during poor spawning conditions....so, your population is still increasing exponentially.[/quote]

so forget yuba, like I stated before. In your analogy, increased harvest at even an exponential rate, has very little negative effect on fish population. So why increase limits or advertise harvest if it has very little effect whatsoever? Aren't we just screwed? It seems harvest isn't a management tool like we're all led to believe in your blanket statement that because fish succeeded under little harvest, it should do so at even greater harvest. Can you ever fish a place out? If a pond has a handful of anglers with a liberal limit,, increased harvest by thousands of new anglers shouldn't matter and the liberal limit doesn't need to be changed. That's what I'm hearing hear.
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

[quote utahgolf]]

so forget yuba, like I stated before. In your analogy, increased harvest at even an exponential rate, has very little negative effect on fish population. So why increase limits or advertise harvest if it has very little effect whatsoever? Aren't we just screwed? It seems harvest isn't a management tool like we're all led to believe in your blanket statement that because fish succeeded under little harvest, it should do so at even greater harvest. Can you ever fish a place out? If a pond has a handful of anglers with a liberal limit,, increased harvest by thousands of new anglers shouldn't matter and the liberal limit doesn't need to be changed. That's what I'm hearing hear.[/quote]

Again, you are failing to look at the other factor--fish added via reproduction. It all depends on the number of fish added....the problem with many of our fishes--YUBA included--is that fish populations are growing exponentially and harvest is NOT!

You can't just look at increased harvest as a problem or a benefit unless you have an idea of the recruitment....so, you could increase harvest by thousands of new anglers and not affect a fishery if tens and hundreds of thousands of fish are replacing those harvested.
[signature]

[bassrods]

Yes I was one of the many fisherman that fished Lee's in the 70's and in the start very few fisherman was fishing there..
Then the word got out and the fisherman numbers went way up and the bigger fish was being hauled out by the LIMITS then can the fisherman that wanted the bigger fish to be protected (after the over harvesting was over) and the fishing has not been the same sense..

So who was or is right??
[signature]

[utahgolf]

[quote wormandbobber][quote utahgolf]]

so forget yuba, like I stated before. In your analogy, increased harvest at even an exponential rate, has very little negative effect on fish population. So why increase limits or advertise harvest if it has very little effect whatsoever? Aren't we just screwed? It seems harvest isn't a management tool like we're all led to believe in your blanket statement that because fish succeeded under little harvest, it should do so at even greater harvest. Can you ever fish a place out? If a pond has a handful of anglers with a liberal limit,, increased harvest by thousands of new anglers shouldn't matter and the liberal limit doesn't need to be changed. That's what I'm hearing hear.[/quote]

Again, you are failing to look at the other factor--fish added via reproduction. It all depends on the number of fish added....the problem with many of our fishes--YUBA included--is that fish populations are growing exponentially and harvest is NOT!

You can't just look at increased harvest as a problem or a benefit unless you have an idea of the recruitment....so, you could increase harvest by thousands of new anglers and not affect a fishery if tens and hundreds of thousands of fish are replacing those harvested.[/quote]

so we agree there are many variables other than just a blanket statement that because fish did ok under one set of regs, means they should continue to do so even if the regs on the books were completely arbitrary because no one was fishing that place.. A limit is an arbitrary number if you don't factor in all key variables, recruitment is a huge one but also harvest before and after, if harvest is increased exponentially. In some areas, it can handle/needs the extra harvest but in other areas, the added harvest due to an increase in 100x the amount of anglers, could also hurt the fishery in theory? yes? but you're saying that is never possible in your earlier statements?
[signature]

[riverdog]

Lee's Ferry is way over loaded with relatively small fish for the size of that river. The regulations promote quantity over quality there by design. You can't keep any trout greater than 14 inches. So you end up with a gazillion 16-18 inch trout per mile and pretty much none greater than 21 inches. I fish creeks with less than 0.5% of the water flow of that through Lee's Ferry that produce bigger fish routinely. Look if you fly in from the East where a 6-8 inch brookie is the norm, catching 17 inchers all day long seems great. This is their target population of fishermen the regulations were made for.
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

[quote utahgolf]
so we agree there are many variables other than just a blanket statement that because fish did ok under one set of regs, means they should continue to do so even if the regs on the books were completely arbitrary because no one was fishing that place.. A limit is an arbitrary number if you don't factor in all key variables, recruitment is a huge one but also harvest before and after, if harvest is increased exponentially. In some areas, it can handle/needs the extra harvest but in other areas, the added harvest due to an increase in 100x the amount of anglers, could also hurt the fishery in theory? yes? but you're saying that is never possible in your earlier statements?[/quote]

That's just it....if the regulations aren't broke, don't fix them. What too many people want to do once big fish are grown is change the regulations when nothing is broke to begin with--LIKE YUBA!

Also, just to be clear, I NEVER said that harvest would NOT hurt a fishery. That is YOU putting words into my mouth. What I said, was that we shouldn't change the regulations on a fishery if the regulations are working....I stand by that.

My "blanket" statement holds true...don't change the regulations that are working.
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote bassrods]...
Then the word got out and the fisherman numbers went way up and the bigger fish was being hauled out by the LIMITS. Then came the fisherman that wanted the bigger fish to be protected ([#FF0000]after the over harvesting was over[/#FF0000]) and the fishing has not been the same sense..

So who was or is right??[/quote]

Where is your proof that overharvest happened?? Fish populations exploded! They did NOT decline!

Size went down as population numbers went up. This was a direct result of protecting the big fish.

Those big fish have never returned due to regulations as pointed out by riverdog.




there was a very good reason why those rainbows were growing to the sizes they were in the 70's. Harvest was a major factor in those sizes. Anglers were keeping population numbers down, which meant that fish growth was FAST, which = BIG fish.


come on Cliff. Open your eyes. Lee's Ferry is a slam-dunk case.
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

ONe more thought: overharvest is a an easy problem to fix compared to underharvest...especially on water with reproducing populations of fish--like YUBA, Fish Lake, and many others...!
[signature]

[Fowl-Hook]

It is difficult for anyone to understand regulations that encourage the taking of 20 Northern pike from water when None were planted (Yuba), and a 3 cutthroat regulation with a very restrictive slot at Strawberry where 650,000 thousand were planted this year and additional natural recruitment is claimed to occur.
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

Dog-lover....you are probably exactly right. People don't understand the reproductive capablities or inablities different fish have. People, for example, don't understand that pike or perch can produce hundreds of thousands of eggs compared to a trout that will only produce a thousand.

So, when they see that 650,000 trout are stocked they see it as an exceptional number...what they don't understand is that a handful of perch or pike or walleye can do that all by themselves and that a few thousand pike or perch or walleye could quadruple that number!
[signature]

[utahgolf]

Well no one is catching 20 pike now. Maybe last spring or the year before but completely an arbitrary number now.
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote Dog-lover]It is difficult for anyone to understand regulations that encourage the taking of 20 Northern pike from water when None were planted (Yuba), and a 3 cutthroat regulation with a very restrictive slot at Strawberry where 650,000 thousand were planted this year and additional natural recruitment is claimed to occur.[/quote]

If it is difficult to understand, what should you (as an angler) do?

You have many options. Two options are:

1. You can fight against whatever it is you don't understand (ie: [url "http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorance"]ignorance[/url])

2. You can educate yourself by listening to those who might know (professionals, educators, etc.). (ie: search for [url "http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wisdom"]wisdom[/url])
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

[quote utahgolf]Well no one is catching 20 pike now. Maybe last spring or the year before but completely an arbitrary number now.[/quote]


Great...that's a good thing! If no one is catching 20 pike now, maybe fisherman have harvested enough to keep their numbers down and the regulations DON'T need to be changed to protect the big fish because their numbers will be down far enough to allow more small ones to get big!

But, my guess is that pike numbers are still really high....
[signature]