DWR ----says keep fish

[PBH]

[quote doggonefishin][quote riverdog] And of course the nutrient rich flow of early releases where long gone. [/quote]

That is a factor that cannot be underestimated in discussing the early giants of Lees Ferry.[/quote]

The invertibrates below the dam are the same invertabrates that were there in the 70's.

what early release nutrients were causing those fish to grow that isn't there today?

It's population size. The more fish per mile you have, the smaller average size you have. It's simply math. It's not genes, it's not food, it's not nutrients. It's population size. Plain and simple. Reduce the population size, and average size fish will go up.

This isn't some new theory. This is documented.
http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/research_managi...erry.shtml

[quote Arizona Game and Fish]Shortly after completion of the dam, the Arizona Game and Fish Department stocked rainbow trout...
...The trout began to flourish in the Lees Ferry reach from 1970-1985 when catches of rainbow trout above 10-pounds were not uncommon, and angler pressure was relatively low. In 1991, however, the Bureau of Reclamation implemented the Record of Decision flow regime, which consisted of higher minimum and more stable flows and allowed for increased trout reproduction and survival. Under these conditions, a huge population of trout developed causing individual fish growth rates to decline. Quite simply, there was a large number of fish competing for limited space and food items, resulting in a fishery where trout less than 14-in were dominant.[/quote]

population size. That's it.
[signature]

[riverdog]

It's all the organic matter that was at higher levels with initial flows. That plus sunlight allows grow of algae, phytoplankton and plants that is the basis of the river food chain. 4th grade seems like a blur I know so here's a refresher
http://www.combat-fishing.com/LowestReac...eamSFW.JPG.
It's never as simple as one factor but to quote E. Hemingway " Isn't it pretty to think so". Be carefully your starting to sound like Cliff with that simplicity.
[signature]

[sinergy]

[quote harlin]Anybody else notice the trend that successful anglers very ever rarely whine? And many of them have quit posting on this site altogether because of the BS.

The quality of this site has gone way down because it seems fishing has degenerated to a childish game of bickering imbeciles.

As for the rest, keep bickering and worrying about what other anglers are doing..More fish for the rest of us.[/quote]

You got a respect a man for telling it how it is. Much respect !!!
[signature]

[wiperhunter2]

[quote harlin]Anybody else notice the trend that successful anglers very ever rarely whine? And many of them have quit posting on this site altogether because of the BS. The quality of this site has gone way down because it seems fishing has degenerated to a childish game of bickering imbeciles. [/quote]
I agree with the rest of your statement but the part in the quotes has me concerned. What do you think could be done on the BFT Utah board to change this tread of members not posting? Do you or anyone else that wants to respond, think if another board was created so that this board could be used just for fishing reports and not discussions like this, would that help?
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote riverdog]It's all the organic matter that was at higher levels with initial flows. [/quote]

I guess the AZ Game and Fish missed that. Population density obviously is not the issue down there. I guess i was wrong.

wont this affect fish health, and not just size? All reports i've read state that fish health is good. Not sure what to think about all the reports stating population sizes being too high...
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

[quote wiperhunter2] Do you or anyone else that wants to respond, think if another board was created so that this board could be used just for fishing reports and not discussions like this, would that help?[/quote]


It has been tried on other forums I've been on and didn't work. I see no reason to believe that things would be different here.

I also don't believe that the debating has been getting worse either. It seems like we hash over the same old issues about twice a year, for as long as I've been on here. Usually the same participants as well, making the same points.
[signature]

[riverdog]

[quote PBH][quote riverdog]It's all the organic matter that was at higher levels with initial flows. [/quote]

I guess the AZ Game and Fish missed that. Population density obviously is not the issue down there. I guess i was wrong.

wont this affect fish health, and not just size? All reports i've read state that fish health is good. Not sure what to think about all the reports stating population sizes being too high...[/quote]
I doubt AZ F&G missed that very basic detail that is well described. Population density is a big issue just not the sole issue. At this point you can't easily reproduce the higher nutrient waters the way you can manipulate the size of the fish population. It would clearly take changing both to begin to reproduce conditions of 40+ years ago. As far a fish health- the answer is no. For example the Pyramid Lake strain of Lahotan cutts on Pilot Peak were generally healthy even if less than 5% of their potential size in Pyramid Lake. Fish adaptation to less abundant food resources isn't comparable to what you see in mammals.
[signature]

[Fowl-Hook]

Very enlightened responses and without feeling the need to imply that everyone else is simply uneducated or ignorant articulating their opinion.
Very Refreshing!!
[signature]