Posts: 33,386
Threads: 420
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
33
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YfL3Avr7S0
Sounds like it could be a great new location to chase them in the coming years, now if we can just the DNR to stock them in Lost Creek[  ]. I know some of you are aware of the kokes being stocked in FL last year but I figured a few were not aware of this.
WH2
[signature]
Posts: 2,040
Threads: 180
Joined: Aug 2007
Reputation:
20
My fishing buddy got one 7" koke at Fish Lake, trolling. He does not have much faith in them making it.
[signature]
Posts: 33,386
Threads: 420
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
33
According to the video, the kokes they stocked, spawn in lake, so they claim that will increase their odds of surviving. I guess time will tell. IMO it is just one more reason to fish that lake but its a little too far for me to go very often.
[signature]
Posts: 1,256
Threads: 2
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
0
I think they will do well in fishlake I hope they put them in other lakes also . such a fun fish to catch 7 inches isn't a bad size for a 1 year old koke [  ]
[signature]
Posts: 33,386
Threads: 420
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
33
Yea and hopefully they will be 13 to 14" by this Summer. According to what they were saying in the video, the kokes they stocked in the 60's did not do good because the streams don't have good spawning areas, so these that spawn in lake will have a much better chance.
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
[quote wiperhunter2] According to what they were saying in the video, the kokes they stocked in the 60's did not do good because the streams don't have good spawning areas, so these that spawn in lake will have a much better chance.[/quote]
When they did the stocking back in the 60's they did not have a plan for continued stocking. They hoped for successful recruitment through spawning -- which doesn't work because Twin Creeks is just simply too cold. They only did 1 stocking.
the new Fish Lake Management plan calls for the following:
1. Stock up to 250,000 kokanee salmon and continue with a stocking rate that will maintain a kokanee salmon fishery( see Goal #6).
#6:
Maintain consistent angling opportunities for fish species during summer and winter months.
Objectives:
A) Achieve and maintain an angler catch rate of > 0.75 fish per hour for all trout and kokanee salmon combined.
B) Achieve and maintain a summer angler catch rate of > 0.5 fish per hour for rainbow trout and kokanee salmon combined.
C) Maintain a winter angler catch rate for splake of > 0.5 fish per hour and summer angler catch rate of > 0.1 fish per hour.
D) Splake and tiger trout combined: Maintain gill net catch rates of 10-15 fish per net-night with an average length of 15”.
E) Rainbow trout and kokanee salmon combined: Maintain gill net catch rates of 15 - 20 fish per net-night.
F) Rainbow trout/kokanee salmon gill net catch should be a minimum of 25% kokanee salmon. If kokanee salmon objectives are not being met after 5 years, evaluate and consider lake trout foraging on kokanee salmon and angler satisfaction with kokanee salmon before continuing with the kokanee salmon program.
G) Reduce annual stocking of rainbow trout as kokanee salmon population establishes and expands to meet objectives E and F.
So, while the previous stocking of kokanee in the 60's was a failure, the new plan has been set up to be a success by utilizing continued stocking of kokanee to supplement the population.
the new stocking is of a strain that has higher lake spawning success, however the management plan is not relying on this spawning success to maintain the population -- they'll do that through sampling and supplemental stocking to achieve the goals set forth in the list above.
Additionally, there are no (almost none) chubs in the lake, which directly complete with kokanee. This should be another plus with this attempt. They previous attempt (60's), the kokanee had lots of chubs to compete with. However, this time there are perch that may prey on juvenile kokanee.
[signature]
Posts: 1,181
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation:
0
Is there a downside for the DWR to stock them in Lost Creek? I guess that for creek spawners they would need to get permission from Deseret, but that shouldn't be a big deal.
[signature]
Posts: 129
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
Reputation:
0
I have seen Kokanee in Lost Creek, 4 years ago. I was getting surveyed by a DWR officer in the fall when a school of 5 reds swam right in front of us on the dam. He was as shocked as I was since he had no recollection of them ever being planted there.
[signature]
Posts: 33,386
Threads: 420
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
33
I don't see there being a down side but according to them(DWR), they(kokes) would not do good there because of the huge numbers of chubs in the lake. They planted Bear lake cutts in Lost creek to get the chub problem under control. I was told a few years ago if the cutts were able to get the chubs under control, they do have plans to stock kokanee in LC but they have no idea how long that could take. I'm not sure if the kokanee running up the creek that belong to Deseret would be a problem but they could always stock the same kind they are stocking in Fish lake, if it were.
[signature]
Posts: 108
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation:
0
I wish they would put some in Jordanelle Reservoir.
[signature]
Posts: 1,256
Threads: 2
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
0
I think they would do great in jordanelle , to bad the place is such a zoo in the summer.
[signature]
Posts: 108
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation:
0
We could fish them at first light and be out of there by 9 a.m.
[signature]
Posts: 3,724
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
0
2 weeks ago I caught a 12" Koke while fishing for lake trout [  ]
[signature]
Posts: 1,256
Threads: 2
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
0
I guess week days would be good up there[cool]
[signature]
Posts: 33,386
Threads: 420
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
33
Sounds like some lofty goals but from what your brother was saying in the video, they are only going to stock them for 5 years, unless they have some sort of success with some of the fish reproducing, is that correct?
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
I'm not sure about the 5 year thing.
The #1 goal at Fish Lake is: Maintain a healthy lake trout population.
In order to do that, you have to reduce the perch and provide forage for the lake trout. Historically that forage was Utah chub. Kokanee may provide that missing forage for lake trout, while at the same time reducing the predation on rainbow trout and reduce the need for higher numbers of rainbow trout stocking.
It is hoped that the kokanee will be able to have some success in spawning. Stocking would be done only to keep kokanee at their desired levels -- if spawning is successful, then stocking wouldn't be necessary. However, stocking is part of the plan to maintain those objectives set forth in the management plan.
I'll have to see if the DWR has the Fish Lake Management plan available online -- it would probably be very beneficial for many to read it. I personally think it is a good plan and the working group that came up with it had some very good ideas. I think that we'll see some very good things come from this plan.
[signature]
Posts: 2,284
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation:
0
Thanks for the information. I have just a couple questions if you do not mind. I know Fish Lake has history of producing Big Lakers in the past and the DWR wants to keep it that way. I was wondering about utilizing another predator to keep the Perch in check such as Walleye, Pike or Tiger Musky’s. It just seems to me that is close to some of the natural habitats of these species and that would assist in keeping the perch numbers in check while not affecting the Lake Trout. Am I wrong in my thinking? Granted I am not a biologist, just have a natural curiosity.
Do not get me wrong I love to throw down some nice fresh Kokanee for dinner, but it seems like it is targeting a specific crowd that has all the equipment to target the species. When I would say a lot of the fishermen/woman that go to Fish Lake do not have boats and down riggers, are utilizing the healthy rental fleet of that lake.
Or is this simply financial as we can raise Kokanee cheaper than the other species?
Just curious is all I like to learn new things and this is a hobby that there is always something to learn.
Thank you for your time
Majja
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
maja -- I'm working on getting a copy of the actual plan so that we can post it here for all to see. It covers your questions.
While we wait, here are my personal thoughts on what you asked:
Fish Lake already has some tiger musky, and will continue to receive some due to downstream stocking of Johnson Reservoir. One issue with tiger musky stocking is availability -- Utah already has a problem getting tiger musky. So adding them to the list of stocked species may not be a viable option.
Walleye and pike present a significant risk to the fishery at Fish Lake because their population numbers would be uncontrollable. Just like the perch today, walleye and pike have the potential to over populate and stunt, effectively ruining Fish Lake forever. Whatever species the DWR determines to put in Fish Lake needs to be a species that can be controlled. Our lakes and reservoirs out here in the western US simply do not have natural systems in place to control populations of walleye, perch, or pike. We have far too many examples already of fisheries where these species boom, bust, crash, boom, bust, crash. It's a bad cycle we do not want to see at Fish Lake.
Another thing to consider is that right now the predator vs. prey ration in Fish Lake is high. Adding more predators (walleye, pike) to that mix does not help. You cannot have a lake full of predators and attempt to fix the situation by adding more predators. People fail to remember that perch are predator. Sure, they can be utilized by certain fish as prey, but they are still a predator. We don't need more predators in the lake, we need fewer!
However, this doesn't mean that other options could be possible in the future. Think about species like saugeye -- a sterile cross between a walleye and sauger.
There are options. Right now, I believe that the DWR has come up with the best potential option with kokanee.
Kokanee certainly can provide another sport fish option at Fish Lake for those anglers looking specifically for kokanee. The southern region did not have a single lake with kokanee prior to this stocking. So this is a good option to provide another sport fish previously not available in southern Utah.
Further, kokanee occupy a niche that is currently not being fully utilized in fish lake (open water schooling fish that eats plankton). Rainbow trout demands across the state continue to be high, and can be expensive when raising fish to "catchable" sizes. Kokanee can help fill that niche and provide another angling opportunity, while at the same time providing an additional forage fish for lake trout that are not as expensive to raise as the rainbows.
I'll work on getting a copy of the plan to post.
[signature]
Posts: 1,781
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
0
AMEN!
Should help feed the browns also.
[signature]
Posts: 2,284
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation:
0
Ahh thank you. I never thought of Perch as a predator. Thank you for the insight, and what you are trying to do.
[signature]
|
