live bait?

[bornfishin]

Why is it that in Utah we are not allowed to use live minnows?
[signature]

[RockyRaab]

Because live minnows get loose - and multiply.
[signature]

[bornfishin]

When I lived in Texas, there wasn't any problems like that.
[signature]

[Tres_319]

I don't understand why we can't use live minnows. Cause the dwr want to control every fish known! Or maybe they are afraid of our fish having to much food and being to healthy. Doesn't make sense to me
[signature]

[Ktrout]

It is curious why lots of other states allow live minnows but not Utah. Is only Utah cocerned with this, or is Utah just being overly protective? Regardless, they could use the same regulation they do for live crawdads, they could only be used live in the water they were caught. That of course would hinder the use of live minnows to very few bodies of water, but there would at least be some.
[signature]

[ColdWaterCoord]

The use of live bait represents a real threat to the native fish in Utah. Most of the states west of the continental divide have a similar rule for the same reason. States such as Texas and others allow live bait because those fish are native in those areas and the fisheries are not damaged by their introduction via a bait bucket.

This is not the case in Utah. For example, Utah chubs were introduced into Strawberry Reservoir by someone using live bait. Prior to the last treatment of the reservoir, over 95% of the fish biomass there was comprised of Utah chubs and suckers (another introduced species). That treatment cost the sportsmen of the state nearly 4 million dollars to bring back the fishery. Similarly, Utah chubs were introduced into Panguitch Lake by someone using live bait. The treatment there cost $400,000 of sportsmen money to fix the problem. Scofield Reservoir is currently experiencing a problem with illegally introduced Utah chubs and may cost $1 million dollars to fix if the current biological control does not work. The list of problems caused by the illegal introduction of fish is much more extensive.

Even in those waters where the species may already exist, it is not a good idea to use live bait. For example, red shiners occur in a number of waters already in the state, but they present a threat to native fish downstream. Use of live bait increases the likelihood that their numbers will be enhanced or moved past existing barriers through someone bringing in additional fish and releasing them at the end of the day.

Finally, the number of diseases and parasites that are carried from one body of water by the movement of fish is a major threat to our fisheries.

The bottom line is, we live in a desert and our aquatic ecosystems are fragile. Movement of fish and diseases through the use of live bait has the potential of destroying those resources that we love.

Paul Birdsey
Coldwater Sportfish Coordinator
Utah DIvision of Wildlife Resources
[signature]

[Ktrout]

[quote ColdWaterCoord]Even in those waters where the species may already exist, it is not a good idea to use live bait. For example, red shiners occur in a number of waters already in the state, but they present a threat to native fish downstream. Use of live bait increases the likelihood that their numbers will be enhanced or moved past existing barriers through someone bringing in additional fish and releasing them at the end of the day. [/quote]

Thanks for the info, a lot of it makes sense. But not sure what you mean by barriers and how using live bait from the same body of water (not talking about rivers, just lakes/reservoirs) would get passed those barriers? Yes I understand how people would not follow the rules, was more interested in how there would be a problem for those that do follow the rules.

I'd also guess that about half of the states west of the divide allow the use of live minnows.
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote Ktrout][quote ColdWaterCoord] Yes I understand how people would not follow the rules, was more interested in how there would be a problem for those that do follow the rules. [/quote]

There isn't a problem for those of us that DO follow the rules. It's the bad apple that spoils the bunch!!

This is exactly why anglers need to do more to "patrol" our own sport. We need to take more responsibility to protect our fisheries.

The risk is simply too high to allow the use of live fish as bait at all. Period. No exceptions.

I certainly hope that Utah continues to take a hard stance against the use of live fish as bait.
[signature]

[Ktrout]

[quote PBH]The risk is simply too high to allow the use of live fish as bait at all. Period. No exceptions. [/quote]

You can state things as fact all you want PBH, but it is nothing more than conjecture. Everything we do has risks. I do agree that for various reasons Utah will not allow the use of live minnows. But your high risk statement is nothing more than your opinion. What is the risk of using live minnows caught at Scofield in Scofield? Lots of states have specific regulations on this, and even specific regulations at specific bodies of water. Not saying it is easy (one reason it won't be done in Utah is there are probably better things the DWR needs to spend their time doing), but there are things to further protect the resources if this was implemented. Whether this is legal or not, people can illegally transport live minnows to other bodies of water now. Transport will be illegal no matter if live bait use is legal.
[signature]

[TyeDyeTwins]

Out of my own personal curiosity I just have to ask why other states don't have issues with live bait?
[signature]

[ColdWaterCoord]

Your suggestion makes sense if everyone were to obey the rule. Unfortunately some do not. Montana has documented over 500 illegal introductions of bait and sportfish west of the continental divide from east of the divide where the use of live bait is allowed. According to their biologists, the allowance of live bait in part of the state is perhaps the single biggest mistake that the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has made in fisheries management. British Columbia and Oregon have experienced similar problems.

The fact is, live bait catches fish. I have used live minnows in my home state of Pennsylvania to catch tiger muskies and when I have fished in North Carolina for crappie. The temptation to use live bait to catch fish is too great for some people to obey the rules.

Going one step further, if you use live shiners caught in one reservoir to fish in another (where they are already present), you may inadvertently transfer other things such as tapeworms or quagga mussels to the new water.

I grant you that all of the activities I have described are illegal under any scenario you have mentioned, but they would be absolutely impossible to prevent under any rule that allowed the use of live bait in some waters and not others.

We have a very limited and fragile fish fauna in this state. Inadvertent (or intentional) introduction of new species into our waters is perhaps the single biggest threat facing our fisheries. Rules preventing the use of live bait in any water may be inconvenient, but the consequences of even one person not obeying the rule you propose far outweigh any benefit.

Paul Birdsey
Coldwater Sportfish Coordinator
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote TyeDyeTwins]Out of my own personal curiosity I just have to ask why other states don't have issues with live bait?[/quote]


What makes you think they don't?!


Birdsey pointed out that Montanan actually does have this issue.
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

They do. Many states are getting more and more restrictive about using live bait. I would guess that many of them would like to eliminate it altogether, but because it has been legal for so long that it is hard to break the habits of people who want to use live minnows.

Many states now require that minnows be bought from a state authorized bait dealer. Some require a dated sales receipt that is less than a week old accompany anyone using minnows.
[signature]

[LOAH]

I hate to team up on you Paul, you get that enough. However, the illegal activities will happen without regard to what current regulations are. Those folks are basically hopeless anyway.

I agree with Ktrout, that the use of live minnows, only in the exact same body of water (we could say reservoirs only) where they were taken, would contribute nothing to the detriment of our fisheries.

Like crayfish, any that left the water body would have to be killed first.

The people that obey the law will have another way of catching their fish and the people that don't obey the law are still in the same boat. They have no added incentive to continue breaking the law in that situation.

Law abiding sportsmen have no added incentive to start breaking the law.

I don't get the logic at all. I realize that the state fears the potential threat, however that threat is already present, regardless of regulations, since those hold no significance to those that would transport the fish in the first place.

PBH is right when he states that the bad apple spoils the bushel. That bad apple is going to be bad no matter what, so it's best to just remove it instead of letting it affect all the other apples. That's where enforcement comes in. Yes, we could all do more to police our own.

I would LOVE to throw live minnows at Strawberry, if I could find them (and if it were legal, obviously). Currant Creek Res, 9 Mile, Palie, Huntington, Cleveland, and Electric Lake would also be good ones.

Really, I'm not arguing for the sake of it and would rather not, but the current regulations in regard to the use of live minnows do not mean anything to those that would transplant fish illegally in the first place.

It's ridiculous to assume that law abiding folks would stop following the rules if the rules enabled them to utilize a resource more effectively.
[signature]

[BigEZ]

I've never liked that argument that "bad people will break the law, so why limit the good guys with those laws in the first place?".

I'm kind of surprised by the objections to the Sportfish Coordinator's comments. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. If the fishery coordinators tell me that the places I love to fish will be better tomorrow if we don't do X, I won't do X.
[signature]

[LOAH]

Yes, but the people that do X are still doing X, Y, and Z.

Why punish the class because of the loudmouth in the back?

In a successful garden, you remove the weeds to maintain the plants you want to keep, right? You don't just throw your hands up and destroy the whole garden.

You say you don't like that argument. Why? It's apt.

Nobody is saying we should let everyone run around with a bucket full of live fish to do as we please with.

The argument is that it would be in line with the spirit of the law (and the protection of the resources) to allow people to use live bait fish, where they were caught, while they were at the water.

Just like crayfish. They must be dead before they are taken away from that body of water. How can responsible sportsmen who follow the regs possibly damage a fishery like that? They can't and won't.

We can already transport dead bait fish from one body to the next, so long as they aren't flagged for aquatic invasive species.

With the current crayfish regulations, people likely take home buckets of live 'dads to keep them fresh anyway. They're in violation, but obviously don't care. Those people exist and a change in regulations does nothing to dissuade them from doing what they do.

Responsible sportsmen will follow the regulations in place. If the regulation is written in a fashion that would keep law abiding people from transporting live fish from the water body, then those folks will adhere to it.

The people that wouldn't, still won't. Nothing will change, other than what the good guys can use as legal bait. Get it?
[signature]

[PBH]

Loah -- that's opening up pandora's box. If you enable people to legally use live bait, how many will take the one next step and transport them? Possibly by accident, or negligence? You are empowering people to make mistakes. The goal is to eliminate the potential for mistakes.

By your logic, maybe we should approach our legislative representatives to eliminiate a whole slew of current laws on the books. Afterall, the "bad guys" are going to do it whether it is illegal or not.

on second thought -- let's not approach the politicians. That might actually be the first time that they listen to us!
[signature]

[RockyRaab]

Agree. Not to pile onto good friend LOAH, but one could argue that people are going to steal anyway, drive drunk anyway, murder anyway... So why have laws that prohibit such things?

The reason - obviously - is enforcement. If it isn't illegal, you can't stop people from doing it or cite them if they do. If it were legal to use minnows that came from the reservoir you're fishing, and a warden checks somebody using minnows, how can the warden tell that the minnows came from there or not? The fisherman might -- gasp! -- be lying.

And from that one bucket emptied at the end of the day, we get chubs in a new lake. Or carp.
[signature]

[ColdWaterCoord]

I appreciate your response and the reasonableness of your argument. However, it is said that locks are only to keep honest people honest by removing the temptation. People that really want to break into your home or vehicle will do so regardless of the lock. This knowledge does not prevent me from locking my home and vehicle every time I leave them.

Everyone who is committed to the idea of allowing live bait are welcome to present their reasoning to the RACs and Wildlife Board. The DWR only makes recommendations on regulations, we do not actually make any regulation. The DWR will not support this concept if it is presented.

The threats from otherwise honest and ethical people succumbing to the temptation of using live bait in waters where they are not allowed are real and well documented. We only need to look at the Montana experience to see what can happen.

As a professional fisheries biologist with over 30 years of experience I believe this to be a bad idea for the aquatic resources of this state. I may be wrong. However, I would rather err on the side of caution in this case than to try and figure out how to pay for the consequences of people moving fish.

Thank you all for your interest in fishing in Utah.

Paul Birdsey
Coldwater Sportfish Coordinator
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote ColdWaterCoord]

As a professional fisheries biologist with over 30 years of experience I believe this to be a bad idea for the aquatic resources of this state. I may be wrong. However, I would rather err on the side of caution in this case than to try and figure out how to pay for the consequences of people moving fish.

[/quote]

30 years experience has to count for something. I would imagine that Birdsey isn't the only aquatics biologist / manager with this same opinion. At some point the angling public needs to listen to our professionals and utilize their expertise on these subjects. It's OK to ask questions -- we just need to be open to listen to their answers and learn from their experiences.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge, experience, and opinions with us Paul!
[signature]