11-30-2020, 08:53 PM
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
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