Posts: 3,820
Threads: 6
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
Fished mill meadows with pikeman today from 830-1230.Got only 2 bites no hookups.Pikeman didnt have but 1 bite when i left.The mrs caught 3 perchies and benny caught the same and bryan caught 2 bows and perchies.When i left pikeman decided to have some fun with his 4 wheeler and benny.As i was leaving he was towing benny in a sled all over the lake.About 530 i got a call from pikeman.He told me when he was playing with benny he saw bryan getting a lot of hits.So he drilled 2 holes beside him and they slayed the perchies!They ended up with 55 perch and 10 bows after i left![pirate] It figures just as i leave fishing gets red hot.The perchies in there have been pretty good sized too.They are worth filleting ![sly]
[signature]
Posts: 3,820
Threads: 6
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
Yes MR OCEAN GOT OUTFISHED BY THE MRS![sly]
[signature]
Posts: 1,244
Threads: 10
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
Mill Meadow is a fun little lake. I hate to see it start getting run over by the dang perch. That's what killed Johnson Valley res. Now how many people do you see fishing up there? I wish there was a way they could poison that lake without killing everything downstream.
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
[reply]
I wish there was a way they could poison that lake without killing everything downstream. [/reply]
You mean like setting up a potasium permanganate station to neutralize the rotenone? That's possible, and used all the time. Poisoning a lake doesn't mean that the stream going out the lake also get's poisoned. However, I don't believe that Mill Meadows needs to be poisoned.
The problem with Johnson is NOT perch. It's water quality. Until the water quality problem is solved, the lake will always go in extreme cycles.
[signature]
Posts: 1,244
Threads: 10
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
Interesting.
I don't think Mill Meadow needs poisoning yet, but something needs to be done to put the Perch in check there. They have hurt many good trout fisheries (see Fish Lake!). The good thing is that Mill Meadow isn't all that dependant on naturally spawned trout. Much of it is planted as the reservoir is drained quite low every year by the end of the summer due to irrigation.
I don't know much about the Johnson Valley thing. All I know is that the last time I tried fishing there it was a perch fest with tons of undersized perch. You could catch on every cast and often catch 2 per cast if you had 2 hooks on. It seems the muskies weren't able to make it there, either.
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
[url "http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/fishing/fish_lake/fish_lake_lake_trout.pdf"]http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/fishing/fish_lake/fish_lake_lake_trout.pdf[/url]
I know all about the issues with Fish Lake. I think Mill Meadows is a different situation. Don't get me wrong, I hate perch! But I think it's too soon to talk about poisoning Mill Meadows.
[signature]
Posts: 1,244
Threads: 10
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
Yeah, I was talking about poisoning Johnson. Sorry for confusing you to think I wanted Mill Meadow poisoned. That's why I was curious about being able to poison Johnson without poisoning what's downstream (Fremont River and Mill Meadow).
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
Poisoning Johnson is not the answer, at least not yet. You have to fix the problem first. Poisoning it now, would only result in a couple years of success. Suckers, and perch would quickly re-populate the lake.
Water quality is the single biggest factor in the quality of fishing in Johnson Res. Fix the water quality, then move on towards creating a fishery. Johson is a very large (surface area), shallow lake (like Utah Lake). It get's drawn down by irrigation use every summer. When the wind blows, the lake quickly turns to chocolate milk. The trout (and muskie) quickly make for better water (7 mile, Lake creek, Fremont). Figure out a way to keep the water level high, and prevent irrigation use, and you might fix the fishery.
Many people talk about Johnson Reservoir and the fishery that it once was. They only remember those good years that occurred in between all the bad. It is no different today than it was 20 years ago. The only difference is that is has been a number of years since the last poisoning. Poisoning is only a temporary solution to the problem, and not a very good one at that.
[signature]
Posts: 788
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
No offense here PBH, I just love a good discussion esspecially when it will help our fisherys, but in my mind I would have to assume that 20 yrs ago fishing was better. In any body of water, just for the simple fact of human population. However, I am what many would call a whipersnapper (24). I do think fishing pressure was lighter 20 years ago as seen my the enormous increase in license sales over the years. With the growing number of fisherman come in over all increase in irresposibilty. Not cleaning your equipment well enough tranporting desease. Don't get me worng I not saying that fisherman are irresponsible as a whole, just the fact that the increase in fishermen brings the bad with the good.
Maddawg
[signature]
Posts: 1,244
Threads: 10
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
Well, I also don't think that restricting the irrigation is a good answer. The livelihood of the people in those valleys is far more important than having a few fish in one lake.
That reservoir was created specifically to hold the water for irrigation purposes. Not to create a great fishery for those of us that like fishing. With that in mind, I would rather stick with Fish Lake and Mill Meadow when I'm down there, and leave Johnson for the irrigation.
I know Mill Meadow is for irrigation too, after all, that's where the water from Johnson ends up. From your post it sounds like the surface area of the lake is the big difference between the two.
Anyway, sorry for stirring up a controversy. I was just getting greedy hoping for another fishery but I don't want to let my hobby, however addicting, get in the way of other people living their life, watering their crops, feeding their animals, etc.
I am related to a big part of the people in that area, too.
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
addicted -- Restricting irrigation is not the answer. That is why that option has not been pursued. It was created for irrigation purposes, and that's fine. You, like myself, would much rather stick with Mill Meadow, Forsythe, and Fish Lake. Personally, I think that Johnson should be left how it is. In fact, I wish the DWR could trade their conservation pool in Johnson Res for either a larger C-pool in Mill Meadow, or for a conservation pool in Forsythe Reservoir. Let the water users have all of Johnson, but replace what the DWR owns in Johnson with addtional storage in Mill Meadow or Forsythe.
[signature]
Posts: 1,389
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation:
0
Good point PBH.
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
[reply]
In fact, I wish the DWR could trade their conservation pool in Johnson Res for either a larger C-pool in Mill Meadow, or for a conservation pool in Forsythe Reservoir. [/reply]
Too bad that won't ever happen.
[signature]
Posts: 1,389
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation:
0
I don't see why the water users wouldn't want it. It seems to me that they'll get more water if they did.
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
I don't know specifics....but I do have generalizations!
The problem is not the amount of water, it's getting that water. Currently the DWR owns a C-pool in Johnson. When the water level get's to that level, the irrigation users can't draw it down any more. The reason (as far as I understand) that the c-pool is at the level it currently is, is because there is a problem with the pipe going out the dam on Johnson. I guess it is difficult to draw the water down below the c-pool (maybe the pipe is too high? or running uphill?). The irrigation users know this. Poor engineering I guess. The cost of fixing this would most likely not be worth it to the irrigation users.
I'll see if I can find out the specifics of this problem.
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
I found out a little more on the issue with Johnson.
The issue is not a problem with the dam, or the pipe coming out of the dam. The problem is that the water users want to be able to run more water out of Johnson, than the hydrolics of the river below the dam can handle. (too many cfs for the Fremont between Johnson and Mill Meadow). Mainly, it sounds like the water users want to run it dry, quicker than you really could. The DWR could have come up with a solution, but they weren't willing to foot the bill (over a Million) to do it.
Now, let's tackle the "good old days of Johnson Res" issue.
Again, the problem is the conservation pool. Before Johnson Res had a conservation pool, the lake was routinely drained. Small droughts would have this reservoir empty on a regular basis. This "natural" cleansing kept the numbers of "trash" fish down. Combine that with the state stocking catchable rainbows, and the fishery was typically pretty good.
Now, without the use of rotenone to kill the lake, it never gets a head start on the trash fish.
[signature]
|
