Posts: 1,389
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation:
0
I know this is a sensitive issue but Moutainman got me thinking about it. I was wondering what everybody thought about the management plans for Lee's ferry or the green river. I know they are doing electro shocking and flooding to kill the planted fish. I'm sure you all have something to imput and a opinion about what they are doing.
As far as my opinion the FWS is trying different techniques with out much results. I'm sure they are limited by what they can do but those endangered chubs are a critical part of the ecosystem. If we lose those fish who know what impacts it will have. As far as the PETA or the Seirra club and fishing and hunting clubs they should step aside and let the professionals do their jobs with what ever means.
[signature]
Posts: 1,919
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
0
Trash fish is a relative term. In england carp are the number one game fish. In lots of utah reserviors trash fish species are the main food scource and as such are not trash at all, but a very vital part of the lakes quality. Some guys like fishing for sucker. Theres still lots of guys out west that think bass are a trash fish and guys back east that think trout are trash fish.
The one thing I do know is that the Fish and game is responsible for all wildlife species in the state, not just the ones we want to chase. As a result of this, each time a species goes on the endangered list or becomes extinct the financial repercussions are immense.
What does this mean for sportsmen? It means that the DWR gets to spend its money fighting off lawsuits, and trying to re-establish the effecrted species rather than spend the time and money on something that would enhance the quality of our sporting expiriences.
So, the way I see it, theres no such thing as a trash fish. The protection and survival of each species in an ecosystem is as vital and as important as our desire to catch a fish, kill a deer, or anything else.
Theres a lot more involved than our individual enjoyment. And a lot more at stake than just loosing one place to go fish. If those species die out every fishery in utah is impacted with the effects of lost revenue and manpower.
[signature]
Posts: 110
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation:
0
So what exactly is being done at Lee's Ferry? Are they going to completely wipe out all trout? When do they plan on doing this?
[signature]
Posts: 227
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
On that light, I've often heard it said in St. George that "you should flush the toilet often; afterall southern Nevada and California need to drink too!"[  ] LOL.
Oh, sh*^! That could be being said of where I live by residents of Park City! Oh the irony of it all!
In all seriousness, even a little education would go a long way to alleviate water shortages. From informal observations, the Wasatch front is the biggest water wasting area in the west. We have gotten too used to cheap abundant water for too long. It wouldn't be a suprise that if current water usage practices continue, there won't be much left to float a fish.
Posts: 35,757
Threads: 262
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
49
[cool]As a resident of Arizona, I have also been following the US Game and Fish program to reduce the "non native" fish population in the lower Colorado, to enhance survival of the native chubs, suckers, pikeminnows, etc. As a sportsfishermen, I have been opposed to the wholesale eradication of great gamefish. As an environmentalist, I have tried to see the logic in physically addressing the problems created by erecting dams and changing the ecosystem.
My opinion. It is a tragedy to lose even one species of life on earth. But, it is foolish to throw tons of money and manpower towards changing something that can't be changed...and is not that big of a deal in the greater scheme of things.
For those who would like to see the actual gameplan, I picked up a link to a powerpoint presentation from the federal agency working on the program. You need Acrobat reader to access this, and then just click through it. it is interesting...if not depressing.
[url "http://www.gcmrc.gov/Pubs_FS/removal_overview.pdf"]http://www.gcmrc.gov/Pubs_FS/removal_overview.pdf[/url]
I think one of the things I find most distasteful about the trout removal program is that the fish are all being given to the native American peoples in the area to bury in their fields. What an inglorious end to glorious fish.
[signature]
Posts: 935
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2003
Reputation:
0
It just so happens last week I talked to the guy who was the bio at Lee's Ferry until last year. He's stated the reason there are no big trout below the dam any more is high natural reproduction and restrictive harvest. Sounds like some thinning of the herd might bring back a few of those monster rainbows from the past. As far as the endangered species, I truly love all fish and would absolutely hate to see any species go extinct. They all are unique and fascinating and I love them all if I can fish for them or not. Just one mans opinion (albeit an obsessed man).
Good Fish, Kayote
[signature]
Posts: 2,890
Threads: 2
Joined: Feb 2003
thanks for the link tube dude - that explains the reasoning behind it i guess, painful as it is . .
sm
[signature]
Posts: 583
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2002
Reputation:
0
The problem is the damage is already done. The water flows are not natural and much too cold for the endangered species. The habitat has been changed and is pretty much irreversable. It just happens to be perfect trout habitat now. And besides a "Pike Minnow" is a greater predator than a rainbow any day.
tightline
[signature]
Posts: 733
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
Lee's Ferry is a different story than the lower Green out here. The habitat down there has been changed dramatically. That is a big part of what the biologists blame the decline of native species on. Out here, the predators have been more of a problem. Not that I had a probelm with Pike, Walleye, and Smallmouth being there. I only caught the Pike, but it sure was fun while it lasted.
I guess I understand the desire to not be the end of a species. "Dozens of species go extinct every day on this planet with, or without our interference. Let them go in peace." George Carlin
Tightline, the Squawfish has been officially renamed by state and federal entities to Pikeminnow. One of the fish on the endangered list. More of a bottom feeder than a predator.
[signature]
Posts: 733
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
I almost forgot to mention that they are targeting the cats out here too. They were a lot of fun a few years ago. Now, you're lucky to get a bite.
[signature]
Posts: 583
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2002
Reputation:
0
I am very familiar with the squawfish "Pike Minnow". I have caught plenty of them. Many times I have used a 5" rapala. I caught one less than a week ago on a huge streamer. I have also brought them in puking up smaller fish after being landed. Despite popular belief once they get a little size to them they are most definitely predators. They get quite a bit larger than most think as well. I have caught them well over 8 pounds. Look below and you can see what the rest of the world thinks of them. They are not trying to get the rainbows out of these water sheds. It is the "pike minnow" that is the major threat to the salmon and steelhead fry.
[url "http://www.fishsniffer.com/dbachere/022800eelderby.html"]http://www.fishsniffer.com/dbachere/022800eelderby.html[/url]
tightline
[signature]
Posts: 733
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
[angelic]Sorry tightline. I didn't mean to step on any toes. I guess I'm just so used to people not knowing that, that I jumped to an unfair assumption. I have caught them in the Green, using a 5 inch frozen minnow. I know that fish are a part of their diet. We boated a different species of Pikeminnnow over 7lbs. on Pend Oreille jigging a 4" tube. Montana and Idaho also have "Squawfish" derbys to try and thin them out in waters where they are not endangered, and/or not a native species.
I noticed that in the Eel River story, it says:
"Fortunately, some "bucket biologist" introduced the pike-minnow to Lake Pillsbury. The big minnow then made it way down into the main Eel River, where it has ravaged already declining salmon and steelhead populations ever since. Squawfish have coexisted with salmon and steelhead in the Sacramento, American and Feather rivers for thousands of years, but not in the Eel. Right now the squawfish seem to be prevailing over salmon and steelhead populations on the upper Eel."
The Pikeminnow are the intruding fish in the Eel. I hope they can get them out of there and save the fishery.
Out here, they are the endangered natives. They are having to deal with other fish competing for the same spawning areas, and It just so happens that the new fish, can eat the native if he gets too pushy.
Here is the message I got from DWR on the control issue out here.
"Chad, In response to your questions on control efforts for northern pike and channel catfish in the middle Green River I provide the following information. If you have any further question let me know. Project Summary: Nonnative fishes have become established in rivers of the upper Colorado River basin, and certain species have been implicated as contributing to reductions in the distribution and abundance of native fishes primarily through predation and competition. Controlling problematic nonnative fishes is necessary for recovery of endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha), bonytail chub (G. elegans), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) in the upper Colorado River basin. Northern pike became established in the Yampa River in the early 1980's. Originally introduced as game fish in Elkhead Reservoir in 1977, the species escaped and invaded the Yampa River. Since then, northern pike have established a reproducing population in the upper Yampa River and have expanded their number and range within the Yampa and Green rivers. The purpose of this project is to begin active adult northern pike control in the middle Green River and develop and effective control program. The goal of northern pike control in the middle Green River is to sufficiently reduce the abundance of adults such that predatory and competitive impacts on growth, recruitment, and survival of endangered and other native fishes are minimized. The study objectives are to: 1.Capture and remove (lethal) adult northern pike from reaches of the middle Green River.
2. Reduce the abundance of adult northern pike in the middle Green River.
3. Determine the efficiency of removal efforts.
4. Identify the means and levels of northern pike control necessary to minimize the threat of predation/competition on endangered and other native fishes. Methods and Approach Known concentration areas for northern pike in the middle Green River during spring include: mouth of Brush Creek (RMI 304.5), Cliff Creek (RMI 302.9), Stewart Lake Drain (RMI 300.0), Ashley Creek (RMI 299.0) and Sportsman Drain (RMI 296.6). The primary habitats sampled were large relatively deep backwaters and tributary mouths. Sampling methods included the use of fyke nets, trammel nets and electrofishing. Trammel nets were regularly used in conjunction with electrofishing as a productive sample method. A total of 248 northern pike were removed from the middle Green River from March - June 2001. Lengths of pike ranged from 175 mm to 950 mm with an average of 612mm. The cleithra of all northern pike collected were removed from the fish for age analysis. Analysis of the cleithrum of northern pike indicate age classes from age 1+ through ten years old. Most pike collected were of the 2 - 4 year age class and ranged from 400 to 800 mm in length. Only 10 pike were aged older than six years.
Other nonnative species collected included 1170 channel catfish of which 1082 were collected near the mouth of the Duchesne River , 91 smallmouth bass with highest concentrations in the Duchesne River and Pariette Draw, and 33 walleye, mostly caught in the section of river from Split Mountain to the razorback spawning bar. Native species sampled included 235 flannelmouth sucker, 70 Colorado pikeminnow, 33 razorback sucker, 18 bluehead sucker, and 5 roundtail chub. 2002 Results: River flows were extremely low in the middle Green River during 2002. This made it difficult to find areas to sample and remove northern pike. Several traditional backwater and other flooded areas that have produced many northern pike in previous years with higher flows were to shallow or nonexistent. A total of 42 northern pike were removed from the middle Green River from March - June 2002. Lengths of pike ranged from 295 mm to 896 mm with an average of 632 mm. The cleithra of all northern pike collected were removed from the fish for age analysis. Analysis of the cleithrum has not been completed. Other nonnative species collected included channel catfish, smallmouth bass, and walleye. Native species sampled included flannelmouth sucker, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, bluehead sucker, and roundtail chub. Recommendations: Continue with northern pike control in the middle Green River. Focus more on areas known to be concentration areas for northern pike including the Jensen and Duchesne River areas. Continue length at age analysis using cleithra to track changes in the composition of the middle Green River northern pike population. Continue collection of data on other sympatric species encountered while conducting removal efforts. The goal of the northern pike control program in the middle Green River doesn't include total removal of northern pike from the Green River. The goal of northern pike control in the middle Green River is to sufficiently reduce the abundance of adult pike such that predatory and competitive impacts on growth, recruitment, and survival of endangered and other native fishes are minimized. There will continue to be downriver migration of northern pike from the Yampa River as result of the continued presence of northern pike in Elkhead Reservoir and a reproducing population within the Yampa River. However, current control efforts on the Yampa should slow the rate of this migration. (I took out his name. I didn't ask if I could pass this along.) Aquatic Biologist"
[signature]
Posts: 583
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2002
Reputation:
0
Your fine Curtisfish. I actually totally agree on the thinning of non native predators in the areas where the natives can recover. I just get frustrated when things go a little too far and we don't just face the fact that places like Lee's Ferry and both the A and B sections of the Green. Are no longer habitat for Razor Back chubs and the likes. I know they have not gotten to the A or B section of the Green yet, but I never thought in a million years they would try to kill the trout in Lee's Ferry either. I am actually glad to see they are trying to manage the lower mid sections of the Green where the water is a little warmer and more promising for a come back. But if they try and eliminate trout on the A or even B section I will be very upset to see the trout die and many hours and $'s completely wasted that could be spent in other more productive areas.
tightline
[signature]
Posts: 1,389
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation:
0
Lee's ferry has tried flooding to rebuild the sand bars with those endangered speices need to bread and feed. I've fish Lee's ferry and the fish are small because of the high flows and lack of habitat for a good food base. It's still a great fishery but with out those 10 pounders.
The area of interest and rehabilitation is below Lee's ferry where most people don't fish so it's not much a problem to eliminate that group of trout.
[signature]
Posts: 185
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2003
Reputation:
0
When I called them trash fish I was actually referring to the fact that most people don't go to Lee's Ferry to catch native colorado fish. They go there to catch trout. Let's face it, as much as we want the species to stay around, we'd rather have the good fishing opportunities. I mean, what would you northerners say if they killed all the sportfish out of the Provo and Utah lake just to keep the June Sucker? It's not the fact that I want a species to dissappear, it's the fact that they're sacrificing our good fishing to TRY to correct a mistake they made.
[signature]
Posts: 1,389
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation:
0
Moutain man made a good point basically every problem around today is caused by man so lets do our part and keep the lakes and rivers clean.
By picking up a little trash every time we go the problem will be nonexistant.
[signature]
Posts: 935
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2003
Reputation:
0
Hedgesd,
That's not what the Arizona bios say. They're small because of too much reproduction and no harvest.
Good Guessing, Kayote
[signature]
Posts: 1,389
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation:
0
Ya their is thousands of fish and most people conscider it over populated but this is a huge river with the possibilities of tons of food plus what ever the dam kicks out. I've talked to the biologist over Lee's Ferry last time I was there and basically it's a combinatin of things that keep the fish small. Lack of food mainly the high low flows doesn't allow good habitat to form. The flooding kills off the bigger older fish and the lack of harvesting but considering how many people fish there the hooking fatalities is high which helps keep the numbers under control. If the fish were big and had the same population you wouldn't consider it over populated, just a great place to fish.
[signature]
|
