Willard Perch...DWR Response

[TubeDude]

We've been having a couple of productive discussions on Utah perchkind...and specifically on Willard perch.  I sent copies of writeups and links to the discussions to Chris Penne of Utah DWR.  As usual, Chris has provided some great input.  Here is his response to my queries:

Thanks for the update on the perch fishing at Willard and initiating the interesting discussion on BFT.   I was indeed away from my desk for a few days taking some time off with family – I’ve been running both daddy daycare and working on and off for months with the Covid situation, so a few extra days to rest and fish were in order.  I’ve read over the discussion and while there have now been more points made than I can address in one email, I’ll bite and jump in with a few thoughts.


There is no doubt that some of the increases in technology (sidescan sonar, Garmin Panoptix, etc.), social media, and especially Covid have changed use patterns among anglers and their ability to key in on fish.  Also, as one forum member pointed out, the number of licensed anglers is also increasing and so it also seems then that there have been increases in the number of anglers fishing on the hard deck and open water in the early spring and late fall.  Covid has especially shifted things around where we’ve seen a lot of increased shore angler use at a lot of our fisheries.  With all that said, it is not surprising there are more anglers keying in on perch at Willard.

 As you mentioned, perch have not been a high management priority at Willard due to the relatively small role they play in the overall catch.  In addition, their population numbers are small enough that we don’t see a ton in our survey nets; at least not enough fish that we could use to make any meaningful inferences about what the population is doing.  Just because we don’t have much in the way of data though doesn’t mean we can’t consider some sort of proactive regulation to make sure the population isn’t overexploited.  As some have mentioned, it’s rare in recreational fisheries to overharvest a population of yellow perch to the point of impairing their ability to maintain their numbers; however it is indeed possible and more common in panfish fisheries for populations of perch, crappie and bluegill to exhibit what is called “quality overfishing”, where the larger, more desirable fish are cropped off and what we are left with is a population tilted towards smaller, less desirable fish.  Minnesota and Wisconsin have extensively documented this type of quality overfishing in recent years and both states are now studying new experimental panfish limits with significantly reduced limits.  The hope with the new limits is to not only increase panfish numbers, but size – basically they want more opportunity and a reduction in the number of fish anglers have to catch to get an equivalent amount of meat.

Like another angler mentioned, the traditional wisdom and science has been that anglers do not have an impact on panfish numbers and size.  I was taught that in school as well; however, the science is now changing and it is becoming clear anglers can have a measurable influence on panfish populations.  I don’t think the science was necessarily wrong before, I think the growing numbers of anglers, social media and better technology may have pushed us past a threshold in some waters where we are now at the point that populations can be affected.   I don’t view this as a bad thing, just an opportunity to innovate and try out some new management techniques.

If you’re interested, here’s a link to quick write up Wisconsin did on their studies and experimental regulations.   I especially like their figure showing how many fish of different lengths it takes to get ½ lb of fish fillets.  It’s a small world and I actually went to grad school with the biologist in Wisconsin that conducted the study that published a report on those lengths and weights of fillets that were used to create that figure.  On a similar note, here’s another link to Minnesota’s sunfish management page, where they have moved to tighter regulations on bluegill at a number of waters.  Perch are obviously a bit different since they can be both their own predator and a prey fish, but it is of note that Minnesota now has several lakes where the perch limit has been reduced to 10 fish and on some of the bigger lakes they are trying out a 20 fish daily limit and 40 fish possession limit.

Anyway, long story short – I do think that use patterns are changing, that perch can be quality overfished at a place like Willard, and I’m supportive of considering a reduced bag limit.  I say consider, because anything we propose is best if it goes through the online public survey we do each regulation cycle – I don’t want to ram a regulation down anyone’s throat if a majority of the respondents don’t want it.  We just ended a two-year regulation cycle and so it will be 2021 before such a reg would go through the public process and 2022 before it would become rule.   My thought or suggestion would be a 15 or 20 fish daily limit – which mirrors what the upper Midwest states are often implementing and studying.  Ten fish would also be a possibility since it would match the crappie limit, but I would understand if that would appear too drastic and give anglers a bit of shock at the magnitude of reduction.

Perch are indeed a challenge to manage out here in the west with the ever changing reservoir levels, simple fish communities, and the fact that they can be their own predator through cannibalism – but it’s interesting work and I and the team I work with enjoy the challenge.  Over the past several years we’ve done a lot of habitat work in Pineview and Rockport Reservoirs by implementing and studying ways to bolster populations including:
·         Additions of near shore habitat
·         Additions of deep water habitat – we’ve installed hundreds of deepwater structures in both reservoirs now.
·         Changing the fish community and stocking practices to reduce fish predation on juvenile perch and increase their chances of getting to a harvestable size

Bolstering populations takes time, but as we learn more I envision us continuing to branch out to other waters as well.
 One last thing to leave anglers with for discussion – if the work Minnesota and Wisconsin are doing with reduced panfish limits appeals to you, is this something you would like to see at some Utah waters?
 I appreciate and enjoy the feedback and discussion.
 
Chris

[JArner]

Thanks for sharing the feedback.

[SkunkedAgain]

Thanks Pat and Chris, I for one definitely like the reduced limits... I'd much prefer to catch 10 perch over 10" than a hundred around 7... Call me lazy, but I don't love the time I spend filleting fish, I also think the quality is better in thicker fillets.. less chance that i'll burn them... Just my take on it... Thanks Jeff

[FatBiker]

Thanks TD. Both links provided were very educational. Personally, I vote for a ten fish limit.  Personally, I won't wait on a rule change, but commit to not keeping more than 10 Willard perch. 


. Larry

[Cowboypirate]

That is some great feedback. I will read the links later

[Springbuck1]

I like this a lot. What else can we do more of, to prevent stunting in lakes like PV?

[TubeDude]

I like this a lot.  What else can we do more of, to prevent stunting in lakes like PV?

Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing in advance what perch are going to do in any given environment.  Perch were never an issue in Pineview before the 1980s.  Then, for some reason, the population exploded and the lake was suddenly filled with micro perch...no big ones.  Doug Miller held winter ice fishing derbies on Pineview to encourage people to harvest more perch.  And DWR planted tiger muskies...but they were overwhelmed by the sheer volume of perch and didn't seem to have any great effect.

In most waters where there are smallmouth and perch, the smallies help keep the perch in check.  But still a large population of small perch in Pineview...in spite of goodly numbers of predators.

As has been mentioned, perch numbers are more subject to extreme water fluctuations than to angler pressure.  Short of sucking all the water out of Pineview some year it is difficult to come up with a solution...especially when such a radical option would destroy all of the other good fisheries.

[doitall5000]

Putting limits is a valuable way to help manage fish. But how do you manage people??
I think we need to educate fisherman. Who needs to take a full limit everytime they fish..
A few good fishers can limit out day after day on fish like kokanees,  and still obey the laws, but is getting a limit the way we find success?? 
Like most things we love we need to control our pleasures.

[gofish435]

I don't have a fish in this fry but the Utah mentality, for as long as I can remember (and I used to be able to remember a lot more ) is that if you went fishing somewhere it wasn't a good trip unless you could say you limited out.

I for one would like to see lower limits if it will help the resource.  We don't need to fill a bucket every time you go and I'm guessing that like other folks have said, no one likes to filet that many fish so a lot probably end up in the garden or the garbage.

Some great information has been shared here, keep it up.  

I appreciate the time that Pat, Chris, and everyone else have put into this discussion.

[TubeDude]

Putting limits is a valuable way to help manage fish. But how do you manage people??
I think we need to educate fisherman. Who needs to take a full limit everytime they fish..
A few good fishers can limit out day after day on fish like kokanees,  and still obey the laws, but is getting a limit the way we find success?? 
Like most things we love we need to control our pleasures.

Reminds me of one of the routines from the late Zig Ziglar.  "We always had plenty to eat when I was a kid.  I know that because every time I asked for more my dad would tell me I already had plenty."

If we did not have a regulatory agency establishing limits, the "happy harvesters" would have a much greater effect on our fisheries.  Bad enough as it is.  But some people treat our sports fisheries as their own private fish market.  They feel entitled to harvest as many fish as they want on every trip.  With some of these people it is just an ego thing...to be able to brag about large catches.  With others, it is a cultural thing...and the fish caught are always consumed as a big part of the family food budget.  Still others fish for profit...selling off their catch to anyone who will pay for fresh fish.

I grew up in a "modest income" family in Idaho.  Everyone in my large extended family participated in our group fishing trips.  There was a friendly competition to see who could catch the most and the biggest...and there were some heavy harvest trips.  But there was never any waste.  All of the fish were properly cared for and utilized on the table. 

In short, we practiced "subsistence fishing".  This was a fairly common thing then...and I suspect some of that thinking has carried over into the next generation of anglers in many areas.  So we still have whole families fishing for limits...just because they can...and because they have never really been converted to conservation fishing.

As you imply, the problem with fisheries rape is not with faulty regulations.   It is with people.  DWR sets the limits based upon their studies of the waters, the species and "normal" angler participation.  They cannot account for the folks who deliberately set out to violate the regulations...use illegal fishing methods...and often without even buying a fishing license.  In talking with DWR officers I hear plenty of stories about groups caught with over limits, fishing illegally and none of them has a license.  That ain't DWRs fault...but it is their problem.

[PBH]

I like this a lot.  What else can we do more of, to prevent stunting in lakes like PV?

There is only 1 way to prevent a fish population from stunting:  limit population size.

The question then becomes:  how do you limit population size?

The answer to this lies within the 4 management tools available to fisheries managers:
1.  Fishing rules and regulations
2.  public relations and education
3.  fish stocking and fish removal
4.  habitat improvement and manipulation

Every lake and fishery is different, so the tools used may vary by the specific situation.

With Willard, fisheries managers have to first identify what is currently limiting the perch size.  Is it "stunting" (ie:  fish reaching sexual maturity at smaller sizes -- or, rather, slow fish growth)?  Or is it overharvest (ie:  fish being removed prior to reaching sexual maturity - or, rather, fish being removed at a young age).  Fish growth is the key.  You want fish populations to experience fast growth.  Fast growth occurs when population sizes are at the correct level.  Big fish are the result of fast growth -- not old age.

If the problem is stunting (slow growth) -- then adjusting regulations (#1) to restrict the amount of harvest (#3) would be counter productive and exacerbate the problem.  To the contrary, education (#2) should be employed along with regulations (#1) and higher limits (#3) should be implemented to remove more fish.

If the problem is overharvest by anglers (or even by birds or other predator animals!) -- then adjusting regulations (#1), educating the angler base (#2), and decreasing harvest limits (#3) should be implemented. 

Habitat improvement and manipulation (#4) is one of the more difficult tools to use, but is very important.  Most often we see this with stream habitat improvements and spawning area improvements to increase  natural reproduction - like Chris mentioned in his response, the DWR has done some habitat improvement in both shallow and deep water in places like Pineview.  However, this can also go the other way -- consider a reservoir with a dropping water lever after a fish spawn which leaves eggs high and dry.

[SkunkedAgain]

Good points PBH, to me it seems Willard is on the shy side of the population curve for Perch and needs to protect their numbers there, where Pineview is probably on the stunted side and could use some high limits... I know Hyrum seemed stunted for several years, but after some heavy angler pressure the last few years, it's seems like the size is getting better... Unlike Newton that seems to keep getting smaller year after year... Lot for the manager to keep in mind as they decide limits and such... Too bad the division seems to have their hands tied in red tape as far as a two year cycle before they can make a change.... Seems like they need to be able to make management decisions as they see conditions evolve... You can't predict drought years and low water very easy, nor can you guess how long the ice season will be... I don't think bank or boat pressure fishing ever gets heavy enough to make much difference on the fish populations, however, I think ice fishing with the high numbers of folks that love it, can make a difference, but too often lately the season isn't very long and with wicked weather a lot of the heavy fishing days end up being stormed out and not happening, so I do think managers need more flexibility so they can actually manage on the fly... Just my thoughts though... Later Jeff

[doitall5000]

It's very complicated and unique for each fish and each body of water.. that makes it a very hard job..
What will work for perch will not work for kokanees. The DNR really needs our cooperation. And participation

[Anglinarcher]

In Europe I found that I had to take a test, call it the equivalent of a hunting education test, to get a license.  This was back in the 80's and of course I was an American, so who knows what it is now.  But I see this as the "future" of our fishing; I don't know if this is good or not.

The double edge sward is that one cutting side is more regulations, one for each body of water, the other cutting side is a uniform regulation statewide that leaves most lakes fair, none good.

I don't see a huge problem with our management, but a huge problem exist with enforcement, simply not enough of it.  Too many people fishing without the licenses, without the knowledge.  In Washington State all you need to do is pretend you don't speak English and they leave you alone no matter what fishing law you break.....I hope that is not true in Utah.

With enhanced enforcement, increased ability to create mid-cycle changes would be fantastic, but .....  One of the reasons for a two year cycle is the reduced cost of creating regulation booklets.  Another is the legal reviews for every change.  Still, two years can be two years too long in some cases.

So, the random thoughts above show how  I am on this issue for sure.  I know what needs to be done, just not sure how it should be done.

I do NOT believe that Willard regulations should be imposed on Pineview or Hyrum.  I do believe that habitat improvement or cover in Willard is the proper way to go, harder or not.  If you don't protect the young of the year then no matter how few you catch you will never get to critical mass where the population can sustain itself.  I did and do allow for the possibility that overfishing can impact a perch fishery.  In the case of Willard, the lack of fish in the sample nets tells me that other issues are more of a problem and that of over fishing, but that over fishing can be the final nail in the coffin.

Would I support a 10 perch limit in Willard?  Sure, I release most fish anyway, so that is asking the church choir for an alleluia.  Most of the people on this site probably are choir members in that same church of the fish, so our opinion may not be the most valid.

So many issues, so many thoughts.  But, Thanks Chris for looking into this.  you know that before carp became a major player in Willard I am told that weeds were more prevalent and that even Large Mouth Bass were common.  Carp will never be removed, but weed replacing cover is, in my humble opinion, the smartest investment to that fishery.

But, what do I know?  LOL

[dwayneb]

We've been having a couple of productive discussions on Utah perchkind...and specifically on Willard perch.  I sent copies of writeups and links to the discussions to Chris Penne of Utah DWR.  As usual, Chris has provided some great input.  Here is his response to my queries:

Thanks for the update on the perch fishing at Willard and initiating the interesting discussion on BFT.   I was indeed away from my desk for a few days taking some time off with family – I’ve been running both daddy daycare and working on and off for months with the Covid situation, so a few extra days to rest and fish were in order.  I’ve read over the discussion and while there have now been more points made than I can address in one email, I’ll bite and jump in with a few thoughts.


There is no doubt that some of the increases in technology (sidescan sonar, Garmin Panoptix, etc.), social media, and especially Covid have changed use patterns among anglers and their ability to key in on fish.  Also, as one forum member pointed out, the number of licensed anglers is also increasing and so it also seems then that there have been increases in the number of anglers fishing on the hard deck and open water in the early spring and late fall.  Covid has especially shifted things around where we’ve seen a lot of increased shore angler use at a lot of our fisheries.  With all that said, it is not surprising there are more anglers keying in on perch at Willard.

 As you mentioned, perch have not been a high management priority at Willard due to the relatively small role they play in the overall catch.  In addition, their population numbers are small enough that we don’t see a ton in our survey nets; at least not enough fish that we could use to make any meaningful inferences about what the population is doing.  Just because we don’t have much in the way of data though doesn’t mean we can’t consider some sort of proactive regulation to make sure the population isn’t overexploited.  As some have mentioned, it’s rare in recreational fisheries to overharvest a population of yellow perch to the point of impairing their ability to maintain their numbers; however it is indeed possible and more common in panfish fisheries for populations of perch, crappie and bluegill to exhibit what is called “quality overfishing”, where the larger, more desirable fish are cropped off and what we are left with is a population tilted towards smaller, less desirable fish.  Minnesota and Wisconsin have extensively documented this type of quality overfishing in recent years and both states are now studying new experimental panfish limits with significantly reduced limits.  The hope with the new limits is to not only increase panfish numbers, but size – basically they want more opportunity and a reduction in the number of fish anglers have to catch to get an equivalent amount of meat.

Like another angler mentioned, the traditional wisdom and science has been that anglers do not have an impact on panfish numbers and size.  I was taught that in school as well; however, the science is now changing and it is becoming clear anglers can have a measurable influence on panfish populations.  I don’t think the science was necessarily wrong before, I think the growing numbers of anglers, social media and better technology may have pushed us past a threshold in some waters where we are now at the point that populations can be affected.   I don’t view this as a bad thing, just an opportunity to innovate and try out some new management techniques.

If you’re interested, here’s a link to quick write up Wisconsin did on their studies and experimental regulations.   I especially like their figure showing how many fish of different lengths it takes to get ½ lb of fish fillets.  It’s a small world and I actually went to grad school with the biologist in Wisconsin that conducted the study that published a report on those lengths and weights of fillets that were used to create that figure.  On a similar note, here’s another link to Minnesota’s sunfish management page, where they have moved to tighter regulations on bluegill at a number of waters.  Perch are obviously a bit different since they can be both their own predator and a prey fish, but it is of note that Minnesota now has several lakes where the perch limit has been reduced to 10 fish and on some of the bigger lakes they are trying out a 20 fish daily limit and 40 fish possession limit.

Anyway, long story short – I do think that use patterns are changing, that perch can be quality overfished at a place like Willard, and I’m supportive of considering a reduced bag limit.  I say consider, because anything we propose is best if it goes through the online public survey we do each regulation cycle – I don’t want to ram a regulation down anyone’s throat if a majority of the respondents don’t want it.  We just ended a two-year regulation cycle and so it will be 2021 before such a reg would go through the public process and 2022 before it would become rule.   My thought or suggestion would be a 15 or 20 fish daily limit – which mirrors what the upper Midwest states are often implementing and studying.  Ten fish would also be a possibility since it would match the crappie limit, but I would understand if that would appear too drastic and give anglers a bit of shock at the magnitude of reduction.

Perch are indeed a challenge to manage out here in the west with the ever changing reservoir levels, simple fish communities, and the fact that they can be their own predator through cannibalism – but it’s interesting work and I and the team I work with enjoy the challenge.  Over the past several years we’ve done a lot of habitat work in Pineview and Rockport Reservoirs by implementing and studying ways to bolster populations including:
·         Additions of near shore habitat
·         Additions of deep water habitat – we’ve installed hundreds of deepwater structures in both reservoirs now.
·         Changing the fish community and stocking practices to reduce fish predation on juvenile perch and increase their chances of getting to a harvestable size

Bolstering populations takes time, but as we learn more I envision us continuing to branch out to other waters as well.
 One last thing to leave anglers with for discussion – if the work Minnesota and Wisconsin are doing with reduced panfish limits appeals to you, is this something you would like to see at some Utah waters?
 I appreciate and enjoy the feedback and discussion.
 
Chris

I fish willard on a regular basis.  Honestly, I dont see the same issues based on my experience.  I can on any given day mark thousands of perch using side scan.  Personally I dont know of a single person whom has filled their live well this year.  Most of us catch 10-25 perch and call it a day.  

If limits are being considered, what makes willard any different than Echo, Rockport, Mantua, etc.   Do we then lower the limits on all perch fisheries?  Last year on Echo the perch bite was terrible compared to the previous year.  That doesn't mean the numbers are down.  Echo had an abundance of baby perch which im sure played a major role in the catch rate..  The comments about "I'd rather catch 10 over 10" then a bunch of small ones is completely relative.  Just because the limit is reduced doesn't mean a guy is gonna go catch 10 jumbos.  I can do that any day of the week right now.  

For the record Pat is a great friend who has taught me plenty about fishing Utah.  My opinion is based on what I see from my boat.  What I will say is the migration of perch this year is very different from that of past years.  

At the end of the day we all want a sustained fishery.  I would argue the pressure from anglers doesn't hold a candle to population changes compared to water levels.  Low water like we have now will probably lead to a poor perch hatch.  If limits are changed hopefully its done using real data.  However, drastically reducing the limit to 10 in my opinion would eventually lead to over population.

[Springbuck1]

When the wind storm flattened half the tees in Bountiful, we should have lined the dikes of Willard with them, sunken whole....

[PBH]

Last year on Echo the perch bite was terrible compared to the previous year.  That doesn't mean the numbers are down.  

If limits are changed hopefully its done using real data

Bingo!

Anglers determining population size based on fishing success is never a good way to go.  If you start lowering limits because anglers aren't catching as many fish, you may certainly exacerbate the problem.

What are the DWR sampling results showing? (numbers of fish per net, etc.)
What are growth rate trends showing?
What are the "k" factors showing?


Those are what you guys need to find out.

---

When the wind storm flattened half the tees in Bountiful, we should have lined the dikes of Willard with them, sunken whole....

Another way to look at this is:  Maybe the DWR should utilize fish that require habitat that is already found in the fishery?


manipulating habitat is one of the harder tools (of the 4 already mentioned) to utilize.

[Tin-Can]

Putting limits is a valuable way to help manage fish. But how do you manage people??
I think we need to educate fisherman. Who needs to take a full limit everytime they fish..
A few good fishers can limit out day after day on fish like kokanees,  and still obey the laws, but is getting a limit the way we find success?? 
Like most things we love we need to control our pleasures.

Reminds me of one of the routines from the late Zig Ziglar.  "We always had plenty to eat when I was a kid.  I know that because every time I asked for more my dad would tell me I already had plenty."

If we did not have a regulatory agency establishing limits, the "happy harvesters" would have a much greater effect on our fisheries.  Bad enough as it is.  But some people treat our sports fisheries as their own private fish market.  They feel entitled to harvest as many fish as they want on every trip.  With some of these people it is just an ego thing...to be able to brag about large catches.  With others, it is a cultural thing...and the fish caught are always consumed as a big part of the family food budget.  Still others fish for profit...selling off their catch to anyone who will pay for fresh fish.

I grew up in a "modest income" family in Idaho.  Everyone in my large extended family participated in our group fishing trips.  There was a friendly competition to see who could catch the most and the biggest...and there were some heavy harvest trips.  But there was never any waste.  All of the fish were properly cared for and utilized on the table. 

In short, we practiced "subsistence fishing".  This was a fairly common thing then...and I suspect some of that thinking has carried over into the next generation of anglers in many areas.  So we still have whole families fishing for limits...just because they can...and because they have never really been converted to conservation fishing.

As you imply, the problem with fisheries rape is not with faulty regulations.   It is with people.  DWR sets the limits based upon their studies of the waters, the species and "normal" angler participation.  They cannot account for the folks who deliberately set out to violate the regulations...use illegal fishing methods...and often without even buying a fishing license.  In talking with DWR officers I hear plenty of stories about groups caught with over limits, fishing illegally and none of them has a license.  That ain't DWRs fault...but it is their problem.

"In talking with DWR officers I hear plenty of stories about groups caught with over limits, fishing illegally and none of them has a license.  That ain't DWRs fault...but it is their problem."

     Yes, it isn't DWR's fault.  And it is maybe their problem from an enforcement view.  But I think the issue may be even bigger that that.  I have only seen a DWR ranger at Willard maybe 2 or 3 times in the past 2 years. I've seen one driving along the top of the dike once, and I saw one earlier this year driving thru the south ramp parking area obviously checking for passes.  Not saying they haven't been out there, but I have only seen their boat on the water once in over a year.  And yet I see lots of anglers along the shore lines, down near the inlet baffles, and even in boats that are never checked for fishing licenses, catch amounts, or type.  In my opinion, there just are not ENOUGH,  DWR enforcement rangers to get the job done. And that's a problem the state legislature  needs to deal with.