Posts: 672
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation:
0
I think the state's money would be well spent to offer some kind of bounty that would be open to everyone. One company gill-netting can't possible be very effective. The DWR has completed some great projects with the dedicated hunter project. Maybe they should form some kind of dedicated fisherman project. If the DWR supplied the equipment , people could work under the direction of one of their agents. Time spent could equal free licensces, state parks passes or whatever else they could come up with.
[signature]
Posts: 571
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation:
1
Yeah a carp bounty. 1¢ a fish. Sounds exciting.
"Hey lets go to Utah Lake and kill some carp and make a small amount of money."
To me that would be a good idea a bounty. 5¢ a fish? Sounds better. Socialistic? To me yes. And I hate socialism.
How about a very very generous reward? Like 1 million dollars? Yearly contest? That would be cool. But again I don't think the state has a right to our tax money with out express individual consent.
Why not a privatized contest where you donate what you can afford and use it as a contest reward, that would work providing it was a yearly contest. Or bimonthly even would work.
By the way there was a bounty in Oregon on the Columbia River for chubs—fifty cents a fish! Believe it or not.
[signature]
Posts: 672
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation:
0
Most people here are trying to make suggestions that might actually be useful. [#0000bf]Please no name calling and please watch your language. -- Kent[/#0000bf]
[signature]
Posts: 571
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation:
1
Please send a PM to me if you have a problem.
Perhaps my statement was an attack to you my apology. I didn't think of it that way.
[signature]
Posts: 571
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation:
1
I have thought about a bounty countless times. Even state-sponsored, but a state-sponsored bounty can go on and on and on. the carp never being reduced fast enough or enough participants. And our taxes would be paying—including folks who don't fish. Thats just not fair to me.
Here is my solution:
When you buy your license—and by the way other states should do this—there should be either a stamp, the stamp would be called a "stamp for trash fish removal" That way when you purchase your license you must pay for the stamp.
How much would it cost? Beats me. Would it work, nope, probably not.
Another option is donation. When you buy your fishing license, an option to donate for carp removal at Utah Lake would at least be the most effective and organized way of getting funds for carp removal.
thats my solution
Sorry folks but carp removal is not gonna be cheap!
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
RE: " Maybe they should form some kind of dedicated fisherman project. If the DWR supplied the equipment , people could work under the direction of one of their agents."
I like this idea. It may not necessarily involve pulling in nets full of carp, but could involve restoring streams and other habitat, helping with studies or sampling, and other tasks that the recovery program may need help with. Dedicated hunters could help for their work requirement and maybe as you say, a dedicated fisherman program could be instituted too for park passes, licenses or other perks.
Would you object if I suggested it for consideration at the next forum meeting?
A couple years ago, I read in a report that JSRIP looked at several possible alternative options for dealing with carp, including bounties. it was determined at the time that it would be a logistical nightmare to distribute bounty funds and also make sure that presented carp were actually from Utah lake and not elsewhere. Also, it was felt the numbers actually killed by bounty fishing and archery was too low to even approach any level of effectiveness.
[signature]
Posts: 672
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation:
0
Please do make the suggestion at the next meeting. If fishermen are given a chance to help I think that the State might be surprised at how much time and effort people are willing to donate. It would also be very beneficial to have a State park on the north end of the lake. I buy a season pass to Lindon every year just so I don't have to drive clear to Provo to launch my boat. I would much rather use my State pass than pay out another $70.
[signature]
Posts: 672
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation:
0
Sorry. I took it the wrong way. I also used a word that seems to be inappropriate. I apologize for that also.
[signature]
Posts: 2
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
First catfish-logic: [#40a0ff]"Ummm....why are we choosing Utah Lake to recover the June Sucker anyways? Bad target, hello McFly hello McFly? Anybody in there,hello? "[/#40a0ff]
We did not "choose" Utah Lake to recover the June sucker. The June sucker are native only to Utah Lake - NO other body of water in the world has the June sucker (naturally). It is something Utahns should be proud of. So June suckers (in some sense) chose Utah Lake. Then their numbers declined due to heavy fishing pressure, they were once a number one food resource for the pioneers, and now we are tasked with recovering the species.
Second Bigguyone1: The idea of a dyke is not a horrible one - I'm not sure the logistics of it, but maybe? Several ideas I've seen posted here regarding carp removal would likely work. In response to your statement below - may I invite you to attend one of our Utah Lake Fish Forum meetings? I can offer a short explanation here about June sucker recovery, but I think you'd benefit by attending one of the meetings where you can talk to a number of different people involved in June sucker recovery. Most of whom have been working at this for far longer than I (I've been on the team for only two years). [#40a0ff]"I do have a degree in Biology but do not have a complete understanding of the HUGE significance that the June Sucker plays in the success of the fishery. Please infom me further for the reasoning in spending millions of dollars to keep the june sucker population growing?" [#000000]So the short and dirty - Because June sucker has made it onto the endangered species list we are required to spend resources (time and money) to recover this species - it's the nature of the beast. However, please understand that while the primary goal is to recover the species the June sucker Recovery Program is focused on recovering the ecosystem - which is a benefit to us all (fish and humans alike). I like to think of Utah Lake as being the Lake Erie of the west. When I was a kid I went swimming in Lake Erie with my aunt and her kids - my parents were horrified. They grew up thinking of Lake Erie as a polluted sesspool (because it was). But with a lot of work and effort, by the time I was swimming in it, the lake was nothing of the sort. Through June sucker recovery, Utah Lake (hopefully) will no longer carry the negative perceptions it once did.[/#000000][/#40a0ff]
[#40a0ff][#000000][/#000000][/#40a0ff]
[#40a0ff][#000000]Finally kentofnsl, doggonefishin, therapist: Thanks for your comments and input. I know that the issue of a "carp bounty" has been brought up a number of times within the program, but can not remember all of the reasons it was left behind. It is an idea that we should discuss in more detail at one of our next meetings. [/#000000][/#40a0ff]
[#40a0ff][#000000][/#000000][/#40a0ff]
[#40a0ff][#000000]May I say, I'm just one fish loving biolgist with an optimistc view of Utah Lake and June sucker recovery. What I write on this website are merely my personal opinions and experiences. There are a lot of caveats and discussions happening constantly in the program. I'm super excited to have opened lines of discussions with folks outside of the recovery program - I like the idea that we're all in this together. And I hope I can help clear up any "vagueness" associated with recovery of June sucker.[/#000000]
[/#40a0ff]
[signature]
Posts: 15,424
Threads: 1,298
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
11
[quote txfishgirl][#40a0ff] Please infom me further for the reasoning in spending millions of dollars to keep the june sucker population growing?" [#000000]So the short and dirty - Because June sucker has made it onto the endangered species list we are required to spend resources (time and money) to recover this species...[/#000000][/#40a0ff]
[/quote]
Thanks for your input, I and hopefully many others find your comments very beneficial. It would probably be helpful to many on here if you elaborated on what you wrote above. For example, what exactly does it mean for a species to be on the endangered species list? Whose list is this? What organization(s) require that resources be spent? And anything else that might be helpful to know?
Thanks,
[signature]
Posts: 3,535
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
I can answer some of that. The 'list' is kept by the federal government. The 'law' is the Federal Endangered Species Act (of 1973).
This law requires protection and improvements to be made to increase the numbers of 'threatened' or 'endangered' species (those in danger of going extinct). The Utah DWR has no choice but to work to save the June Sucker. It is a huge side benefit that habitat improvements for the June Sucker will also benefit other species in the lake.
[signature]
Posts: 1,985
Threads: 16
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation:
7
CL, your fears are well founded. It is going to be very expensive to remove the carp, BUT, it is going to be MORE expensive to not try. The Endangered Species Act ( ESA) does not make any [/u]exceptions for the economic feasibility in recovering a listed species. It MANDATES that all listed species be recovered, period, by what ever means, no matter the cost.
Therefore, we cannot say it costs to much to recover the June Sucker and move on. The ESA mandates that we recover the sucker. The recovery is dependent on the recovery of the Utah Lake Eco System. Carp are the primary destructor of that ecosystem, hence we have to remove/control them. The fac that by restoring the Utah Lake EcoSystem we will be benefitting the LMB, SMB, WB, Channel cats, perch, crappie, walleye, etc, is not even part of the consideration for the ESA, as far as it is concerned, they don't exisist, the only organism that the ESA is concerned with is the listed one, the June Sucker.
We, on the other hand, who fish and love Utah Lake, are passionate about all the other fishies in the pond and desire to see them survive and thrive. So even though we don't like the current method and process, the alternative is far worse, so we need to get behind this and hope it works.
|
