02-04-2013, 09:04 PM
I understand that all fish eat other fish, but the trout in the pictures above are not on the top of the northerns diet, the small 4" trout is. So all the big trout got ate by northerns? Its a combo of everything. Other lakes at the same elevation might have trout but its also the food in the lake as posted above.
The reason why I dont think people are for the idea is because it seems like you are all against the idea. It doesnt have to be white bass, but are we just going to manage the lake for carp and northerns? I understand that it takes years to study the impacts of a new fish, and thats good. At least we know that the state is not doing bucket biology. It just seems that all of you are against change in the lake.
You guys act like I am the one that started this post, I am just adding what I was told right from a division officer, at the lake, and some of my opinion. I have never said that we need white bass in there now, just throwing ideas out there to possibly improve a fishery.
[signature]
The reason why I dont think people are for the idea is because it seems like you are all against the idea. It doesnt have to be white bass, but are we just going to manage the lake for carp and northerns? I understand that it takes years to study the impacts of a new fish, and thats good. At least we know that the state is not doing bucket biology. It just seems that all of you are against change in the lake.
You guys act like I am the one that started this post, I am just adding what I was told right from a division officer, at the lake, and some of my opinion. I have never said that we need white bass in there now, just throwing ideas out there to possibly improve a fishery.
[signature]