Southern Region fisheries surveys / Last Call!

[PBH]

My understanding is that the fishing surveys for the southern region will be removed tomorrow. If you haven't already, now would be a good time to participate!

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/fisheries-surveys.html
[signature]

[riverdog]

Thanks,
I filled it out but I doubt they'll implement my keep or kill all brookies under 12 inch suggestion. We need that on most waters in the state to limit their damage to our fisheries. I could clean out a few thousand of those little rodents in a week of fishing alone.
[signature]

[brookieguy1]

What? Rodents? What in Hell's bathroom do you want a bunch of sissy cutts and tiger trout in our alpine lakes? Obviously you haven't caught or found any quality specimens of salvelinus fontinalis or you would never degrade such an iconic species. Native or not, brook trout are a part of Utah and a coveted species by a very strong-minded group of folks that just want some of the great things of the past to keep a tiny stronghold. Boulder Mountain and brook trout go together as far back as anybody living right now can recall. It's nastalgic and I cannot help myself when anyone downplays the importance of NEVER letting our southern waters go the way of the treehuggers and cuttlovers. Right now there are plenty of waters available, including Boulder, where the guys that for some weird reason want to go catch cutts and tigers and whatever sub-species other than brook trout can go fish their little hearts out.
OK, that rant's over.
As far as brookicide on fish under 12", Nope. Except for a couple of places on the southern mountains, 12" brook trout are 12" footballs. Those 12" footballs are 18-20" footballs the next season. Right now you can keep 2 over 14" and 4 under 14". Perfect regulations. Even in the Uintas, where a couple years ago I would have agreed with killing brookies under 12", I decline to concur now. With little or no brook trout being stocked the last 2 years in the Uintas, I kind of want to see how big those fish will get with smaller numbers.
I mean no harsh feelings towards you, Riverdog, but I'm very passionate and protective when it comes to Utah's brook trout!
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

I like the contributions of both of you guys, but I have to admit that this is kind of entertaining. Keep it clean or we'll get the animal pics.


I suppose if I can offer an opinion, it would be that if the brookies can naturally reproduce without winterkill, then it seems the harvest cannot be high enough. It seems one can tell in the Uintas on the first fish where the lake stands. If they either can't or are thinned by winterkill, then its game on for nice ones. Oh, and yeah, keep the stupid frankentigers out of the high country.
[signature]

[riverdog]

Did you take the survey on Boulder Mtn Lakes? They ask if you're in favor of rotenone poisoning lakes overpopulated with stunted brookies. Brookies are fine when they have a chance to grow. But way too many lakes and streams in this state have been ruined by their tendency to overpopulate. I'd rather they'd try with a keep and kill policy on smaller brookies than use rotenone and wipe all the brookies regardless of size and all other fish as they're apparently contemplating from the survey. Makes more sense to me but I don't know maybe someone's brother-in-law at DWR is the supplier of rotenone. I'm not saying it has to be every lake or stream. Would you prefer the rotenone treatments to my suggestion to tackle the problem they've identified? Go take the survey and give them your suggestions.
[signature]

[brookieguy1]

Yes, I took the survey. There are a few lakes that could benefit from poisoning, as long as those lakes are restocked with sterile BROOK TROUT, and not tigers or cutts. I just think as far as killing all brook trout under 12" would leave too much opening to killing or harvesting too many small fish on waters where those smaller fish grow to trophy status. I understand what your thoughts are towards keeping those skinny, stunted brook trout. I've been back in to lots of Uinta lakes where if I would have thrown every 10-12" brook trout I caught on the bank to rot it would have actually helped the fishery. But that was back when they overstocked without no way of knowing the condition of the fish. Now for two years no fish, jncluding brook trout, have been stocked in many Uinta waters. I've seen the benefit this creates with some very respectable brooks from the Uintas. Who knows what the results might be if a few of these lakes are left to themselves or at least stocked with just sterile brookies? I myself would like to give it another year or two to find out.
[signature]

[brookieguy1]

[quote doggonefishin]I like the contributions of both of you guys, but I have to admit that this is kind of entertaining. Keep it clean or we'll get the animal pics.


I suppose if I can offer an opinion, it would be that if the brookies can naturally reproduce without winterkill, then it seems the harvest cannot be high enough. It seems one can tell in the Uintas on the first fish where the lake stands. If they either can't or are thinned by winterkill, then its game on for nice ones. Oh, and yeah, keep the stupid frankentigers out of the high country. [/quote]You're pretty much spot-on. One skinny fish, all skinny fish. But it's incredibly fragile and dynamic. I've seen it change dramatically in one season! I just don't think a radical kill-all scenario will work. Perhaps if a certain body of water that is destined for treatment gets a kill-all-ya-want status implemented it might not be so bad, but those kind of regs can get very involved and complicated. Usually when the fish get this undesirable noone wants them anyway and rotenone is inevitable. I just think a blanket "kill all under 12 inches" plan would open up to much negativeness towards the species so even when the fish happen to be very healthy 12 inchers people will regard them as trash fish and waste or disrespect the resource.
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

RE"I just don't think a radical kill-all scenario will work. Perhaps if a certain body of water that is destined for treatment gets a kill-all-ya-want status implemented it might not be so bad, but those kind of regs can get very involved and complicated."

With so many lakes and streams in the Uintas and Boulders, I might agree with this. However, how many guys know about the current "bonus" brookie regulations? I'm amazed how many folks incorrectly think that the limit for brookies up in the Uintas is only 4. At minimum, brookie fans need to get the word out that brookie harvest is a good thing, not bad. And I'll admit they're quite tasty as well.
[signature]

[riverdog]

Ok- maybe I went overboard. They could set the keep or kill size limit at 8 inches. The problem with even the 8 brookie limit in the Uintas is you have to eat them. Too much hassle with a 6- 8 inch trout. I actually kept 8 small brookies from a lake with golden trout ( about 10 minutes of fishing). I went through the hassle and tried to eat them. They tasted like mud from that lake unfortunately. They should make the short list of waters this doesn't apply but most waters with brookies in the state would surely benefit from substantial thinning where it doesn't occur naturally. Most people are very selective about what waters with brookies they fish to get around all the harm they inflict on our fisheries. Not that every water needs to be a trophy water but a lot of wasted fishing potential. And it isn't an all or nothing situation- poison a few but others with just a bit less stunting or harder to reach get no help. Rotenone is expensive. Figure out the cost to kill a brookie with it and offer a bounty if needed[shocked]. If it fails they can always resort to rotenone in the future.
[signature]