Posts: 474
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
I didn't want to hijack the other thread on burbot ,but I wanted to throw a question out there.
If the Utah and WY DWR DON'T want the burbot in FG then why do they have a limit on this fish?? Also whats the big deal about chumming for them on the Utah side if WY allows it on there side.I just don't understand the DWR's thinking just like the Yuba deal.
[signature]
Posts: 864
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2003
Reputation:
0
I wondered that, too. Only thing I can figure on the chumming is that it can also attract other species, making them easier to catch. Plus it would be abused, I'm sure.
The limit is rather ridiculous, isn't it?
"KILL 'EM ALL! WE WANT 'EM OUTTA THERE! But you can only have so much fun, then you have to quit. Sorry ... "
Excuse me. But I do feel better now!
[signature]
Posts: 474
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
Lets say you caught your 25 burbot and moved and you were catching trout but then you caught another burbot and the law states you must keep burbot,then what??..The DWR can't have it both ways.Whats the big deal of making it easier (chumming) and catching a few more trout than you usually would,once you reach your limit you cant keep anymore,so i don't think chumming would do that much harm..(maybe I am wrong??..)
[signature]
Posts: 36,038
Threads: 301
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
[cool][#0000ff]We've already played the "What if" games on this in past threads. What it boils down to is that burbot are new and not wanted. The 25 fish limit is the same as Wyoming...for the present. I suspect that once these fish start showing up in greater numbers that the limits (and restrictions) will change to reflect that.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Right now it is highly unlikely that anybody will catch a limit of 25. If you catch more than that, you have to decide which law you want to violate...keeping over a limit or not killing all the burbot you catch. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]With most species, the implied law is that once you finish killing your limit you are DONE for the day. Otherwise, if you kill even one more fish you are in violation. DWR officers take a dim view of releasing mortally wounded fish after you have already kept your limit.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 2,562
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation:
0
I had a meeting with Drew Cushing the other day, and I asked him this same question. Drew explained that anglers harvest more fish when there is a limit or "goal". Many anglers will look at the 25 limit, and try and reach it, whereas if there was no limit.... they may just catch 8 and call it a day.
As TD indicated, the likelihood of catching 25 right now is unlikely.
[  ]
[signature]
Posts: 1,051
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
thats like reverse psychology! Lets put a 100 fish limit on carp in Utah Lake![cool]
[signature]
Posts: 904
Threads: 5
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation:
0
There is truth to the "goal-reaching" limit of 25 fish. The other thing is the Gorge is an interstate water, and Wyoming and Utah work together toward management of the reservoir. When the threats of burbot in the Gorge were first identified, Utah and Wyoming decided on 25 fish because burbot are still classified as a sportfish in Wyoming. They are actually native to northern Wyoming in the Wind River and Bighorn drainages. Its kinda funny, but they're observing declining trends in their native habitats. Go figure!
I believe Wyoming is trying to make a special reg for the Green River drainage, that will remove the limit off burbot and make it legal to toss them on the bank. That way if an angler catches a burbot, doesn't want to keep it or eat it, they can legally toss it without getting a "waste" ticket. Utah will likely try to push the same reg.
[signature]
Posts: 3,614
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
only one problem with that! the carp in ut lake dont tast good [  ].. the burbot does from what i have heard from the guy's i talked to.. [sly]
[signature]
Posts: 7
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
Reputation:
0
There is no reason for the limit on Burbot, It is just their policy.
"WE ARE FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND WE ARE HERE TO HELP YOU"!
[  ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[signature]
Posts: 1,150
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation:
0
I can see the reason for having a limit on burbot.It does give one a goal compared to just catching a few and then calling it quits.Right now no one is catching a limit of these unwanted guests,but just how long will it before limits are being caught.When that starts to happen I hope to see either the limit doubled or done away with all together.
Personally i would like to see the regs changed to make it so all burbot caught in the Green River drainage can not be returned to the water.Some what along the same lines as to catching macks in Yellowstone lake. You don't have to eat them ,just don't release them back into the water.
[signature]
Posts: 2,775
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation:
0
This is my first time chasing the burbot and first time at the Gorge and has yielded me 13 burbot . So if I know what I am doing and the water , It might be possible to get a limit in a day . Surprise me how thick they are up here . Chasing macks this morning , no time for burbot .
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
Sure there is a reason.
1. Placing a special limit on Burbot brings about awareness. If there was no limit on Burbot, how many of us would be discussing Burbot on these forums? Seems like the 20 fish limit is working VERY well -- 'cause we're all talking about them.
2. Wyoming has a limit because Burbot are a sport fish in Wyoming. Since Wyoming and Utah share FG, Utah tried to keep the regulations very similar to Wyoming -- thus to avoid confusion. So, Utah adopted the same limit structure as FG.
Why is this such a big deal? How many people have gone to FG and caught 15 Burbot? How many have acutally caught 20? If someone does catch that many, do you really seriously think a CO would ticket you for having 26? I don't.
I just don't get the big deal over this non-issue.
[signature]
Posts: 36,038
Threads: 301
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
[cool][#0000ff]OOPSIE. Regs say a limit of "25" burbot...not 20.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
See what I mean? Why make the big deal over that reg? In all reality, who's going to go catch 25 of those dudes? 26?
It's a non-issue.
[signature]
Posts: 36,038
Threads: 301
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
[cool][#0000ff]Like perch in/from Yuba?[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
yep. Non-issue. We'll be able to harvest them soon enough.
[signature]
Posts: 474
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
If its not an issue then why are both the WY and UT side promoting the crap out of the need to keep and fish for burbot.I here them say "WE DONT WANT THEM IN FG".You can't chum for them on the Utah side like you can on the WY side (that dosen't make any since).I guess the reason I brought up the question there 25 limit of burbot makes no since when they have the other law you have to keep them if you catch them,but there is a limit and you can't chum for them on the utah side.As for Yuba..They screwed that one up and its the politics that won that decision.With the lack of snow this year we might be in for the start of another drought,so therefore you will have a crash cycle starting for the perch in yuba.I just don't understand why its so hard for the DWR to make right decisions when its looking them in the face.Its called common since and I don't think you need a biology degree to figure that out.
[signature]
Posts: 2,044
Threads: 5
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
Hey man, you better be careful what you say about the DWR. "The Dude" might send you a nasty pm[ ] They're our "special friends" you know, and we mustn't say anything that might ruffle their little downy feathers.[cool] Besides, what could fishermen who are on the water more in a year than the genius biologists are in a lifetime? Geeze, we're just uneducated civilians you know. Don't be critical of the men in uniforms. This is the United States. Be sure to kiss them in thier posterior if you see them, on your knees. Or at least on this site.
(This message may vanish at any time on a moderators' whim!)
LMAO
[signature]
Posts: 36,038
Threads: 301
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
[cool][#0000ff]No worries, mate. I gotta rub shoulders with some of them folks, but that don't mean that I agree with everything they say and do. Fur frum it. I got plenty of issues with the regs and how they are administered. My opinion is that there is no beaurocracy or dumb decisions so bad that they couldn't be corrected with some common sense and open mindedness. But, some things are in short supply these days. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]What? I actually said that? Next thing you know I will be saying the same thing about marriage. You can't live with them...and you can't live with them. Right?[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 474
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
LOL..Very nice!!..I am curiouse Jim about your feelings on this subject.You spend more hours on the lake than anyone.Whats your take on the burbot and also a chum law.I guess I look at the chum law as dumb law (I also understand why its a good law on some waters),you still have to know what the fish want and when you get your limit your done(in a perfect world) now in the real world it would cause people to break the law by keeping more fish,mortality rates go up and also snagging the big lakers (like they all ready do),BUT on FG if the WY side allows it why not Utah??..Your fishing the same fish right??..I am no FG expert in any means only fished there a few times,but I think I am making a good argument??..
[signature]
|
