Posts: 62
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation:
0
There's been a lot of discussion in various threads lately about selectively harvesting the fish you take to the cutting board. I was just wondering what the consensus was for selective harvest with hybrid species. I am most interested in hearing others thoughts about Wipers in Willard.
In my opinion, the top 3 reasons to practice SH in order of importance would be:
1-Big fish, make more fish.
2-Big fish control populations of some species
3-Big fish are fun to catch, if I let him go, someone else can catch him too.
-If most hybrids are sterile and can't produce more fish naturally, the main reason to practice SH is not valid with hybrids.
-I am not too familiar with Willard Bay's ecosystem, but are Wipers there to control the population of another fish? If not the second biggest reason to practice SH is invalid.
I guess my bottom line question would be; When I do decide to keep a fish or two from Willard Bay, what size fish would be ideal to harvest to sustain the best possible fishery?
[signature]
Posts: 15,536
Threads: 1,316
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
12
Gizzard shad were planted in Willard Bay so that the predator fish would have more to eat.
[signature]
Posts: 2,436
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
Decide to keep a few when you are going to eat a few.
The bio's determine what to set keep limits at based on creel reports. They take stats on how many fish are caught per angler hour, how many anglers there are out there, how many fish are available, mortality, forage, growth...
Then they set a limit on what can be kept.
As far as size, I don't know what is best for the fishery.
[signature]
Posts: 1,181
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation:
0
I try not to kill any fish. I have seen to many set in the freezer for a year then get thrown away. If you have to kill some please eat the smaller ones, don't destroy the gene pool. Don't matter much with hybrid fish, just more mercury. If I'm paying to keep meat frozen it will be some tasty beef. Nice post, Thanx!
[signature]
Posts: 3,327
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
0
I would say that is a personal chioce. If you are really worried you can always contact the DNR to get the info you need.
[quote dtayboyz] If you have to kill some please eat the smaller ones, don't destroy the gene pool. .[/quote]
One of the greatest misconceptions of anglers is that larger fish pass on "big fish genes" like horses.
Indeterminate growth is something worth researching.
[quote dtayboyz] Don't matter much with hybrid fish, just more mercury.[/quote]
Now you are not making any sense!
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
[quote TyeDyeTwins]
One of the greatest misconceptions of anglers is that larger fish pass on "big fish genes" like horses.
Indeterminate growth is something worth researching.
[/quote]
OMG!!! I'm so proud of you Twins!! You guys are growing up so fast and learning all sorts of good stuff! This post just made my day!
dtayboyz -- twinner-boy is absolutely correct. Fish are not mammals. Fish growth is indeterminate, not determinate. Just look at the lahontan cutthroat -- they were isolated for years out at Pilot Peak, where they only grew to about 12". Their small sizes were not a genetic problem, but rather a habitat issues. When those fish were placed in ponds, they quickly grew to over 10lbs!!
Study up my friend. One day we'll sing your praises like we are the Twins.
(I've uploaded a document that help explain some of what Twinner brought up)
[signature]
Posts: 3,327
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
0
Thank the biology department of Salt Lake Community College for that one PBH ]
[signature]
Posts: 1,181
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation:
0
Kamalop trout, Florida strain lmb. Big fish are sexually mature, if you kill no spawn. Big/older fish contain more mercury, that's science.
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
Fish don't have to be big to be sexually mature. Bigger fish produce more eggs or milt, but they mature whether they are big or not.
[signature]
Posts: 1,411
Threads: 18
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
14
You can put kamloops trout or florida strain LMB in utah waters and get no better growth....research determinate and indeterminate growth as was suggested! Also, as was mentioned, lahontan cutthroat in the wrong water didn't grow large at all despite the genetics. Your argument is way off base...
[signature]
Posts: 1,181
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation:
0
Maybe it's the water? I feel sorry for you guys. Thank God for the Snake River! So bigger fish make more eggs? Isn't that the desired effect? How old is a three pound bass and how many of his frymates are still alive? Mercury?
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
dtay -- look at lake trout. Lot's of studies on them. They are known to be a long-lived fish. Does that mean that all of the old fish are large? No. Does it mean that the large fish must have better genetics? No.
The size of a lake trout depends on diet. Not age. Not genetics.
Taht lake trout might be 10 years old, and only 20" because it eats mostly invertibrates. heck, it might even be 15 years old. One day, on that fishes 16th birthday, it decides it doesn't want to eat scuds and zooplankton and grasshoppers any longer. It wants to eat rainbow trout. So it switches to a pisciverous diet. Bingo -- he grows from 20" to 30" nearly over night. Why? Was it genetics? Was it age? No. It was neither. It was habitat and diet.
Florida strain LMB were tried in southern Utah many years ago (Gunlock Res). Guess what? They didn't do anything different than existing strains Utah used.
habitat and diet. Those are the bottlenecks to fish growth. Not strain. Did you read the document I posted? obviously not.
bigger fish, more eggs, and the desired effect. The original topic of this thread is about Hybrids -- wipers, tiger musky, tiger trout -- sterile fish that do not successfully reproduce. They might try, but it usually doesn't work. So, what is desired? Number of eggs? Or quality fish? If you say quality fish -- then again, you need to read the document I posted so you can understand why "older" fish doesn't = "larger" fish. Determinate vs. indeterminate.
Maybe the Twins can give you a course lecture on the subject to help you understand?
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
[quote dtayboyz]So bigger fish make more eggs? Isn't that the desired effect[/quote]
Not necessarily. Especially with bass. Too many mouths to feed already, and don't need more.
[quote dtayboyz]How old is a three pound bass and how many of his frymates are still alive? Mercury?[/quote]
No one can tell you how old a 3 pound bass is. In some waters it may be a couple of years old. In other waters it may take 6 or 7 years or more, if it can even attain that size. There is no way to even speculate how many of his "frymates" are still alive.
Mercury? It all depends on where a fish lives, what it eats, and how long it lives.
[signature]
Posts: 1,181
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation:
0
I understand some folks like to eat fish, but bigger fish have more mercury. Why would you eat one?
Every species being discussed are not native this side of the divide. The sturgeon are starving!
[signature]
Posts: 1,411
Threads: 18
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
14
[quote dtayboyz]I understand some folks like to eat fish, but bigger fish have more mercury. Why would you eat one?[/quote]
Hmmm...that's kind of like asking the guy at McDonald's why he goes with the "biggie" size instead of the "regular" size...isn't it? I can't speak for everyone, but I may keep the big one to eat because it gives me more meat that will provide me with more food. Mercury isn't much of a concern to me...! Kind of like excess fat/caloriesl isn't a concern to the guy at McDonald's! And, FWIW, heart disease is still the #1 killer today (far outdistancing the damage mercury does to fishermen)!
[signature]
Posts: 139
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation:
0
I say toss the big ones back they are way too awesome to keep. Keep a 14" or two for the dinner table if you need too. But I guess when it comes down to it, it is just my opinion. Can't say what's best for the lake.
[signature]
Posts: 1,734
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2007
Reputation:
0
TDT... excellent! PBH, genetics are occasionally a problem, especially with brook trout. I have inside info [  ] that Richard and our bio friends are finally taking trophy brook trout seriously on the Mountain. Anglers have spoken. They want trophy brook trout to be the focus of management on Boulder Mountain. Dial-down the cutt restoration. Stop the tiger trout madness. It's truly a breath of fresh air to know that Boulder Mountain, under superb leadership from bioligists such as Richard Hepworth, may someday regain it's former brook trout glory.
Sorry for this boligerant hi-jack, but I'm high on optimism!
Thanks for listening, DWR.
[signature]
Posts: 2,841
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation:
0
So I guess Texas has been wasting their time?
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/spdest/visit...lishments/
There isn't one factor that determines whether a fish grows large or not. It isn't black and white. I'll admit, here in this god forsaken frozen desert, water and forage are a huge factor, but genetics do factor in as well. If we could get people to stop watering their lawns every stinking day, in the middle of the day, when it's 100 degrees, sunny and windy, or on a day when it's raining and they leave their stupid sprinklers on all freaking day when nature is watering for them, that would help too. But perhaps in addition, people could use common sense and not be greedy jerks and keep big fish just because their egos are too big and they need to show everyone their big fish that they caught and then throw it in the freezer to spoil, or they're too lazy to clean several smaller fish. I'm sick of people keeping a limit of large fish every time they go out, and then complaining about how the fishing has gone down hill at that particular body of water. Use your heads people.
That article only addresses trout btw. Bass are a different story. They grow much slower, and live much longer in this cold climate. It seems like a shame to kill a fish that is ten years old or older just to eat it when you could keep several smaller fish that are all too numerous. It will take some time to fill the place of a trophy bass, but there is typically a sheer multitude of smaller fish waiting to fill the spot of the 12" bass that people really should be harvesting.
And it's true, mercury really isn't too good for you. It causes brain damage. Maybe that's what's wrong around here [crazy]
But back on the topic of this thread. Hybrids are sterile. They grow fast and die young. I really don't care if people keep the big ones quite honestly.
[signature]
Posts: 11,128
Threads: 4
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation:
0
Interesting article.
[signature]
Posts: 646
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation:
0
People gonna be mad but select harvest theory is a load of crap and is just an excuse for people who want to keep fish. People that want to keep fish are just trying to justify what they're doing. Sometimes they get excessive criticism from others that isn't warranted but other times they do deserve it. Bottom line is people who want to keep fish want to keep fish and don't want to be hassled. That there is the truth.
[signature]
|
