Posts: 384
Threads: 29
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
6
Helped DWR pull gillnets at Deer Creek yesterday. Same tour of duty as last week at Jordanelle: two boats each hauling in four nets that were set at 3pm the day previous. Nice to personally witness what I'd heard about re:walleye gathered last week: dozens --- yes, dozens ---of 18-25" answering the roll call. Including some pics that don't do their size or numbers justice. As expected, more largies than smallies. Plenty of slimers, no surprise there. But the swarm of 6-8" bullheads yanked along the tracks up Charleston way was disconcerting to the Fish & Gamers. Oodles of 7-9" perch, even a crappie or two.
[signature]
Posts: 3,826
Threads: 8
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
You gotta be kidding me mudcats in DC what will the bucket biologists think of next!! [mad] Looks like plenty of eyes in Dc though gonna have to target them next year.
[signature]
Posts: 6,126
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
1
If you think that the eyes in Deer Creek was planted by any one but the DWR you need to think again...
They was planted by the DWR in the 80's...
[signature]
Posts: 36,051
Threads: 300
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
60
[cool][#0000ff]Thanks for helping and thanks for the report.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]What depths were they setting the nets?[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 407
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation:
0
[shocked]I don't understand why the DWR can't find a different way to do their studies on our lakes without killing all those fish. It seems to me that the amount of fish they kill when gill-netting is very unnecessary. I helped with one of these netting studies years ago at willard bay and it made me sick to my stomach the amount of nice fish that were killed. And what do they need this many fish for anyway, can't they find what they need in about a dozen fish or so? [mad]Where's the public fish fry after all these fish are pulled out of our lakes or are they just wasted. I might have the wrong idea about this but it seems kind of fishy to me. Can any of you help me to understand why this method has to continue.
[signature]
Posts: 807
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation:
0
CALM DOWN!! I think the biologists who have Masters degrees or better in the sience they are doing know a little bit more about what they need then you or I.
I helped do a kokanee study at the Pig about 15 years ago. We were assigned to either 1) net every kokanee that swam by in a 2 hour period, on a specific turn in the river, or 2) stop when we had netted 100 fish and note how long it had taken us to net that many fish.
Well we go a hundred of the salmon, took us about 1:45 to do it. Every fish we measured, sexed, and cut the head off to give to the DNR. They said we could keep some of the fish, and they SUCKED, horrible tasting once they turn red and get all hook jawed.
But the Pig does fine with Kokes still. That 100 fish made no real difference over all.
Bucket Biology does far more damage than anything the DNR does for studies.
[signature]
Posts: 222
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation:
0
That is absolutely not true.
The DWR never has stocked black bullheads in Deer Creek Res. I looked back through historic stocking records, fish population surveys and talked with our regional personnel and until last fall there has never been any record of bullheads in Deer Creek Reservoir. I assume that the knucklehead that illegally moved white bass into Deer Creek Reservoir also moved black bullhead. Deer Creek is a fantastic fishery as is and I can't understand why anyone would intorduce those two species. More importantly can't understand why anyone would assume that the DWR would have moved them.
Drew
[signature]
Posts: 2,841
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
Thanks for taking the time to looking that up Drew.
[signature]
Posts: 222
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation:
0
You are welcome and no problem!
Drew
[signature]
Posts: 243
Threads: 1
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation:
0
I believe bassrods was referring to the DWR stocking walleye, not bullheads.
[signature]
Posts: 222
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation:
0
You are correct! Sorry I should have read more carefully.
Drew
[signature]
Posts: 3,826
Threads: 8
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
[quote bassrods]If you think that the eyes in Deer Creek was planted by any one but the DWR you need to think again...
They was planted by the DWR in the 80's...[/quote]
I was talking bout the cats not the eyes.I know the eyes were planted i n there .
[signature]
Posts: 5,745
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
Reputation:
0
[quote bassrods]If you think that the eyes in Deer Creek was planted by any one but the DWR you need to think again...
They was planted by the DWR in the 80's...[/quote]
I think you got your lines crossed. It was the mud-cats that were suggested as having been introduced by the knucklehead bucket biologists. And - sounds like white bass too....
It's another res that I'd heard the 'eyes where "replanted". Was it Starvation?
I'd agree though that doing a study has value to maintaining a fisheries quality. It may "cost" some fish, but I've heard they do get offered to the volunteers. Yeah, too old, or into spawn mode - not good for eating. Might as well fillet a mudcat!
Heard there was a monster [url "http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=294&sid=12829358"]Cutty [/url]pulled from Strawberry. Judging by the photo - um, I don't think it was released. Probably not good eatin at that size...34 inch, 14 pounder. Woof!
