12-16-2017, 07:08 PM
So . . . What to do? I started this thread so as not to congest the other one and toss out proposals for solutions. The problem is identified. Too many pups. At the end of this, I ask you for your input, what would motivate you to keep more?
Apparently the campaign to cook 'em and eat 'em has peaked, and is no longer enough. That message has been out for nearly 20 years now. (I have video tape and text of that message beginning in the mid-90's from previous biologists from both Utah and Wyoming) One Wyoming biologist asked me in the late 90's, "Jim, how can we get more people to keep those small lake trout?" I told him, "Make them taste like walleye!" We both laughed, but realized it was a tough question.
Ongoing efforts to popularize more recipies might maintain that motivation to keep smaller fish, but it's showing it's not enough.
Everybody seems to have contest fever these days, espeecially those that like to ice fish. So . . . How about something resembling the burbot bash, a Pup Smashup, or something more catchy? Could/would DWR consider eliminating the daily and possession limits during the contest, under the permit, so that an unlimited number of pups could be harvested, studied, and counted? I'm sure the local communities would get behind it like the burbot bash. I never thought I'd be the one saying this lake needs another fishing derby (like a hole in the head!), but, the bash works, and that's undeniable. The open water derbies could be modified to be more beneficial as well.
How about the existing open-water derbies? Instead of the existing payout for the largest lake trout (even if released), how about eliminating that all together and creating a BIG payout for the most pups brought in during the derby? I'd get behind this in a heartbeat, donate a guided trip right off the top, and I'm sure could raise side cash to make it a payout worth fishing for. I'm talking tripling or quadrupling the current payout. That might motivate some participants. Again, lifting the 8-fish limit would greatly increase the draw to the category, the sponsorship to grow the winnings, and the effectiveness of changing the priority in the first place. I'll kick in $500 cash plus a guided trip worth $1,000 right now, on the record, if the above happens. I would approach Jerry at Lucerne with the idea as well.
If I'm not mistaken, Ducks Unlimited has been doing this with its June Derby, though inhibited by the 8-fish limit? I'm not around for it, but I think they thought things through and don't have a big laker category. Maybe someone can confirm? Not sure what Buckboard does, but there's three derby weekends that could do wonders for thinning the pups if enough fishermen were motivated to do so. No-limit pup fishing. Thousand of pups dead! Boom. This year. No red tape. mitigate the damages. Solution.
Is it possible, necessary, or effective to raise the general possession limit on pups as someone suggested earlier in this thread so that people visiting for more than one day can take a limit every day? That doesn't sound like rocket science to me.
And/or, should the daily limit be raised? In this case, I personally don't have the exact biological data or studies to show what effects raising the possession or daily limit might have, or have had in other similar situations, but logic would tell me it couldn't hurt. Think of some of the out of area anglers who might now come if they could take home a bunch of fillets. I get phone calls from Californians monthly where the first question is "how many can we keep and bring back with us?" I"m sure others all around the country might wonder the same thing. Bottom line on both ideas is would increased limits increase harves outside of competitions? Don't know until you try is the most reasonable answer, since nobody can know for sure.
When regulation changes to benefit fisheries have been proposed in the past, they have often been dragged out through the RAC and legislative processes. In this case, its sounds as if it could be deemed an emergency change. It's been done at other fisheries, and for other wildlife, so why not now. I'll raise money to pay for signage at the boat ramps. I bet some kind of go-fund-me kind of thing would pay for those signs in less than a week. I'll do it. On the record, right now.
Proposed solutions. The "Keep the pups, they're good to eat" message hasn't been enough. Nor has the idea of keeping them just to keep them to benefit the lake biologically. Money talks,
but true. Meat hunters like lots of meat. That's logical. Makes sense. Make it worth their time and expense. Fill those smokers in a weekend. Let's get it rolling.
It it were all to work, then of course there would have to be a check in the system to maintain harvest levels at that "balanced" level. I wouldn't want it to get out of hand like it has in a neighboring state where "reducing" lake trout numbers turns into a giant massacre of all they can get. This selective and managed harvest needs to be done while still maintaining the population of larger, non-operpopulated fish, which despite rumors and conclusions, have plenty of desirable forage to eat on this 16th day of December 2017. I see and handle as many as anybody. They ain't starving.
However, I have also seen the populaton explosion (my term) of pup lakers. There's a whole bunch of 22-28 inchers out there that weren't there less than a decade ago. Even in just the past 2-3 years, they're showing up everywhere like never before.
For those who may not know, I spend 130 days a year fishing exclusively for lake trout on the Gorge. I started fishing for them in 1981, and guiding for them in 1990. I used up over 5,000 full days of my life fishing the gorge, so I've seen the fishery through most of its path. The fish-eating sized fish 30" and over are still looking good for the most part, though not as big and fat as they were, on average, in the 90's when the majority were "footballs". I don't count 'em or keep stats. on every fish caught, but I see enough, with enough regularity, to be able to rely on emperical evidence for general conclusions. We take length, girth, and weights on many of the really big ones, and I've seen the weights drop a little for given lengths and girths. I stand by that. With that much evidence, the conclusions are as accurate as all the (very limited) gill net data from each year, and I'd argue more accurate, though that's not the purpose of this discussion. I sample fish all year, for decades, with no lapses, at the same places, at the same times, all up and down the lake. And in the case of too many pups, which is the topic we're discussing by itself, even the limited biological data appears to confirm my emperical data. There isn't any disagreement that I've heard.
We need to thin the herd, figure out what will motivate more anglers to do so, and get it implimented in a timely fashion before its a huge uphill battle.
Can anybody with an interest say what would motivate you to harvest more pups than you do now? Tell us. I'm sure I'm missing some things. Somebody out there has more positive ideas! Keep it focused on reducing pups.
[signature]
Apparently the campaign to cook 'em and eat 'em has peaked, and is no longer enough. That message has been out for nearly 20 years now. (I have video tape and text of that message beginning in the mid-90's from previous biologists from both Utah and Wyoming) One Wyoming biologist asked me in the late 90's, "Jim, how can we get more people to keep those small lake trout?" I told him, "Make them taste like walleye!" We both laughed, but realized it was a tough question.
Ongoing efforts to popularize more recipies might maintain that motivation to keep smaller fish, but it's showing it's not enough.
Everybody seems to have contest fever these days, espeecially those that like to ice fish. So . . . How about something resembling the burbot bash, a Pup Smashup, or something more catchy? Could/would DWR consider eliminating the daily and possession limits during the contest, under the permit, so that an unlimited number of pups could be harvested, studied, and counted? I'm sure the local communities would get behind it like the burbot bash. I never thought I'd be the one saying this lake needs another fishing derby (like a hole in the head!), but, the bash works, and that's undeniable. The open water derbies could be modified to be more beneficial as well.
How about the existing open-water derbies? Instead of the existing payout for the largest lake trout (even if released), how about eliminating that all together and creating a BIG payout for the most pups brought in during the derby? I'd get behind this in a heartbeat, donate a guided trip right off the top, and I'm sure could raise side cash to make it a payout worth fishing for. I'm talking tripling or quadrupling the current payout. That might motivate some participants. Again, lifting the 8-fish limit would greatly increase the draw to the category, the sponsorship to grow the winnings, and the effectiveness of changing the priority in the first place. I'll kick in $500 cash plus a guided trip worth $1,000 right now, on the record, if the above happens. I would approach Jerry at Lucerne with the idea as well.
If I'm not mistaken, Ducks Unlimited has been doing this with its June Derby, though inhibited by the 8-fish limit? I'm not around for it, but I think they thought things through and don't have a big laker category. Maybe someone can confirm? Not sure what Buckboard does, but there's three derby weekends that could do wonders for thinning the pups if enough fishermen were motivated to do so. No-limit pup fishing. Thousand of pups dead! Boom. This year. No red tape. mitigate the damages. Solution.
Is it possible, necessary, or effective to raise the general possession limit on pups as someone suggested earlier in this thread so that people visiting for more than one day can take a limit every day? That doesn't sound like rocket science to me.
And/or, should the daily limit be raised? In this case, I personally don't have the exact biological data or studies to show what effects raising the possession or daily limit might have, or have had in other similar situations, but logic would tell me it couldn't hurt. Think of some of the out of area anglers who might now come if they could take home a bunch of fillets. I get phone calls from Californians monthly where the first question is "how many can we keep and bring back with us?" I"m sure others all around the country might wonder the same thing. Bottom line on both ideas is would increased limits increase harves outside of competitions? Don't know until you try is the most reasonable answer, since nobody can know for sure.
When regulation changes to benefit fisheries have been proposed in the past, they have often been dragged out through the RAC and legislative processes. In this case, its sounds as if it could be deemed an emergency change. It's been done at other fisheries, and for other wildlife, so why not now. I'll raise money to pay for signage at the boat ramps. I bet some kind of go-fund-me kind of thing would pay for those signs in less than a week. I'll do it. On the record, right now.
Proposed solutions. The "Keep the pups, they're good to eat" message hasn't been enough. Nor has the idea of keeping them just to keep them to benefit the lake biologically. Money talks,
but true. Meat hunters like lots of meat. That's logical. Makes sense. Make it worth their time and expense. Fill those smokers in a weekend. Let's get it rolling. It it were all to work, then of course there would have to be a check in the system to maintain harvest levels at that "balanced" level. I wouldn't want it to get out of hand like it has in a neighboring state where "reducing" lake trout numbers turns into a giant massacre of all they can get. This selective and managed harvest needs to be done while still maintaining the population of larger, non-operpopulated fish, which despite rumors and conclusions, have plenty of desirable forage to eat on this 16th day of December 2017. I see and handle as many as anybody. They ain't starving.
However, I have also seen the populaton explosion (my term) of pup lakers. There's a whole bunch of 22-28 inchers out there that weren't there less than a decade ago. Even in just the past 2-3 years, they're showing up everywhere like never before.
For those who may not know, I spend 130 days a year fishing exclusively for lake trout on the Gorge. I started fishing for them in 1981, and guiding for them in 1990. I used up over 5,000 full days of my life fishing the gorge, so I've seen the fishery through most of its path. The fish-eating sized fish 30" and over are still looking good for the most part, though not as big and fat as they were, on average, in the 90's when the majority were "footballs". I don't count 'em or keep stats. on every fish caught, but I see enough, with enough regularity, to be able to rely on emperical evidence for general conclusions. We take length, girth, and weights on many of the really big ones, and I've seen the weights drop a little for given lengths and girths. I stand by that. With that much evidence, the conclusions are as accurate as all the (very limited) gill net data from each year, and I'd argue more accurate, though that's not the purpose of this discussion. I sample fish all year, for decades, with no lapses, at the same places, at the same times, all up and down the lake. And in the case of too many pups, which is the topic we're discussing by itself, even the limited biological data appears to confirm my emperical data. There isn't any disagreement that I've heard.
We need to thin the herd, figure out what will motivate more anglers to do so, and get it implimented in a timely fashion before its a huge uphill battle.
Can anybody with an interest say what would motivate you to harvest more pups than you do now? Tell us. I'm sure I'm missing some things. Somebody out there has more positive ideas! Keep it focused on reducing pups.
[signature]
] I would also support the limit to be raised to 12 for Lakers less than 26 inches if Lakers over 26 inches are required to be caught and released. Just my opinion. I want my son to see some monsters when he is older and a picture is all need![fishon]
