09-23-2013, 06:26 PM
[quote Highmth]
You realize that the DWR could easily keep the fish population in check in most of the boulder mountain lakes if they would just plant fewer fish or do a quick survey of the lake and only plant fish if the lake needed it. Instead they have blindly planted 50 Brookies per acre per year in most lakes. It has ruined some very productive fisheries on that mountain. If the DWR understands what you are preaching I hope they act accordingly and only plant the Boulder Mountain lakes as needed and only with the amount of fish needed to keep things in balance.
[/quote]
Without knowing the exact lakes you are referencing, I can only respond to the basics of what you are saying here...but, I can't help but say a few things:
1) For many of the boulder mountain lakes, there is no such thing as a quick survey--population surveys can be very time consuming when access to a lake is not possible via truck or atv. With the number of biologists and number of fisheries and work that is needed to be done, quick yearly surveys of all fisheries simply is not feasible.
2) The word "ruined"is probably not only excessive but also incorrect...your beef is that the trophy quality of some of your favorite fisheries has declined because fish densities are up and quality is down. Since you understand the basic concept of growth and density, you should also understand that these trophy fisheries can be easily returned to trophy status via decreased stocking...so nothing has really been "ruined"!
3) You mentioned that the DWR "blindly" stocks lake at 50 fish per acre on the Boulder....again, I believe your word choice is excessively harsh. Stocking rates on the mountain were established by a lot of trial and error. And, for many years these rates worked fabulously for much if not all of the mountain. So, what has changed to make those rates no longer successful in creating trophy fisheries now when they were in the past? In my eyes, the big change over the years was the regulation change that disallowed winter fishing in some lakes and the slot limit. Is it possible that the reduced harvest and fishing pressure has actually adversely affected these trophy lakes....I think it has! To fix this problem it is probably time to revisit the stocking rates...
4) The last comment I would like to make deals with the idea of expectations...the reality is that fishermen fit into a lot of different hat sizes. Some want to just catch a few fish for dinner, some want to catch a few nice ones, and some want the chance at a trophy. Because we all have different expectations, it is important, in my opinion, that some lakes are managed for casual anglers that just want to catch a few and some lakes are managed for trophy anglers. I think the DWR recognizes this too and will try to accommodate all types of anglers as best they can with both stocking rates and regulations...
[signature]
You realize that the DWR could easily keep the fish population in check in most of the boulder mountain lakes if they would just plant fewer fish or do a quick survey of the lake and only plant fish if the lake needed it. Instead they have blindly planted 50 Brookies per acre per year in most lakes. It has ruined some very productive fisheries on that mountain. If the DWR understands what you are preaching I hope they act accordingly and only plant the Boulder Mountain lakes as needed and only with the amount of fish needed to keep things in balance.
[/quote]
Without knowing the exact lakes you are referencing, I can only respond to the basics of what you are saying here...but, I can't help but say a few things:
1) For many of the boulder mountain lakes, there is no such thing as a quick survey--population surveys can be very time consuming when access to a lake is not possible via truck or atv. With the number of biologists and number of fisheries and work that is needed to be done, quick yearly surveys of all fisheries simply is not feasible.
2) The word "ruined"is probably not only excessive but also incorrect...your beef is that the trophy quality of some of your favorite fisheries has declined because fish densities are up and quality is down. Since you understand the basic concept of growth and density, you should also understand that these trophy fisheries can be easily returned to trophy status via decreased stocking...so nothing has really been "ruined"!
3) You mentioned that the DWR "blindly" stocks lake at 50 fish per acre on the Boulder....again, I believe your word choice is excessively harsh. Stocking rates on the mountain were established by a lot of trial and error. And, for many years these rates worked fabulously for much if not all of the mountain. So, what has changed to make those rates no longer successful in creating trophy fisheries now when they were in the past? In my eyes, the big change over the years was the regulation change that disallowed winter fishing in some lakes and the slot limit. Is it possible that the reduced harvest and fishing pressure has actually adversely affected these trophy lakes....I think it has! To fix this problem it is probably time to revisit the stocking rates...
4) The last comment I would like to make deals with the idea of expectations...the reality is that fishermen fit into a lot of different hat sizes. Some want to just catch a few fish for dinner, some want to catch a few nice ones, and some want the chance at a trophy. Because we all have different expectations, it is important, in my opinion, that some lakes are managed for casual anglers that just want to catch a few and some lakes are managed for trophy anglers. I think the DWR recognizes this too and will try to accommodate all types of anglers as best they can with both stocking rates and regulations...
[signature]