01-30-2013, 06:57 PM
[quote Gemcityslayer][quote PBH][quote Darkcloud]I am for more waters haveing other kinds of fish other then TROUT. Does every lake have to have trout? [/quote]
It always ends up being a "trout vs. other species" argument. But that's only by those who don't fully understand. It isn't "trout". It's more "habitat" than anything else.
Habitat affects everything, including the successful ability of a fish to spawn. Recruitment.
What do we know about rainbow trout in Utah?
1. We know that very few lakes in Utah support natural recruitment of rainbow trout.
2. We know that we can control population numbers in species that cannot successfully spawn and reproduce.
3. Due to being able to control population numbers, managing a consistent fishery is a realistic possibility.
What do we know about walleye and perch in Utah?
1. We know that they successfuly reproduce in nearly every reservoir they are introduced into.
2. We also know that we cannot control their population numbers in the majority of lakes and reservoirs they end up in.
3. Due to the inability to control their population numbers, we see extreme boom and bust cycles that result in inconsistent, underutilized fisheries.
Managing fisheries is all about managing numbers. If you can't control the numbers, then you can't manage the fishery. How do you control walleye and perch populations in Utah? If you figure that out, then you have a valid argument for more walleye and perch fisheries. The way it is right now, there is no way to control those populations, and thus there is no reasonable reason to attempt to create more fisheries with those species.
What many of you should be looking for are sterile alternatives to walleye. Something like saugeye. A hybrid cross between sauger and walleye, but lacking the ability to successfully procreate. Controllable species.
If you still think it's a "trout" issue, then just look at much of the state's management plans concerning brook trout. It's no different with them than walleye. The state wants to get rid of them in lakes where their numbers are not controllable (ie: where they can successfully spawn).
It's not trout vs. other species. It's manageability of species.
FWIW -- rotenone is NOT a waste of money. It is a very valuable tool in fisheries management. Read the attached article concerning fisheries management.[/quote]
I think in some cases, tiger muskies could be used to help manage walleye and perch numbers.[/quote]
Yes you might be right.
The water level in deer creek is the problem, so what I am saying is, its not always the walleye thats the problem, like everybody thinks. The bass in jordanel are doing good, because the water level stays more constant. They only let the water out when they have too. Now Im not saying that the walleye dont add stress to the bass because they do, its just funny how the walleye are always to blame.
[signature]
It always ends up being a "trout vs. other species" argument. But that's only by those who don't fully understand. It isn't "trout". It's more "habitat" than anything else.
Habitat affects everything, including the successful ability of a fish to spawn. Recruitment.
What do we know about rainbow trout in Utah?
1. We know that very few lakes in Utah support natural recruitment of rainbow trout.
2. We know that we can control population numbers in species that cannot successfully spawn and reproduce.
3. Due to being able to control population numbers, managing a consistent fishery is a realistic possibility.
What do we know about walleye and perch in Utah?
1. We know that they successfuly reproduce in nearly every reservoir they are introduced into.
2. We also know that we cannot control their population numbers in the majority of lakes and reservoirs they end up in.
3. Due to the inability to control their population numbers, we see extreme boom and bust cycles that result in inconsistent, underutilized fisheries.
Managing fisheries is all about managing numbers. If you can't control the numbers, then you can't manage the fishery. How do you control walleye and perch populations in Utah? If you figure that out, then you have a valid argument for more walleye and perch fisheries. The way it is right now, there is no way to control those populations, and thus there is no reasonable reason to attempt to create more fisheries with those species.
What many of you should be looking for are sterile alternatives to walleye. Something like saugeye. A hybrid cross between sauger and walleye, but lacking the ability to successfully procreate. Controllable species.
If you still think it's a "trout" issue, then just look at much of the state's management plans concerning brook trout. It's no different with them than walleye. The state wants to get rid of them in lakes where their numbers are not controllable (ie: where they can successfully spawn).
It's not trout vs. other species. It's manageability of species.
FWIW -- rotenone is NOT a waste of money. It is a very valuable tool in fisheries management. Read the attached article concerning fisheries management.[/quote]
I think in some cases, tiger muskies could be used to help manage walleye and perch numbers.[/quote]
Yes you might be right.
The water level in deer creek is the problem, so what I am saying is, its not always the walleye thats the problem, like everybody thinks. The bass in jordanel are doing good, because the water level stays more constant. They only let the water out when they have too. Now Im not saying that the walleye dont add stress to the bass because they do, its just funny how the walleye are always to blame.
[signature]