# Fish Harvest



## barney (Nov 5, 2008)

Thought this might be of interest.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=12325639


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

I find this article puzzling.
The Green River has a slot limit on it.
You MUST release all Trout within the slot.
This is almost every fish that I catch on The Greeen.
If the DWR wants us to keep a few, they need to change the slot limit.
I like the slot on The Green and I don't see a problem with the size of fish that I catch there.

Now The Provo and Ogden Rivers are a different story.
These rivers do need to have more Browns harvested.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

What I don't understand is, if there really does need to be more harvesting of brown trout on the Provo, why don't they up the limit. Maybe say 4 trout under 15 inches and only one may be a rainbow/cut or something like that? You keep the bows, cuts and bigger fish in the river but thin out the smaller browns. I keep a limit every time I go up but two fish every couple of weeks doesn't do much for thousands of fish per mile.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

The hardest thing about keeping fish on these rivers are the threats and all-out dis-respect you get for doing so. I have not fished the Provo for a few years(the W is much better)but when i did fish it, i tried to keep a limit of the snakey browns. The dirty looks and threats i got have kept me from going back. There are larger fish elsewhere and you don't get punished for keeping a few.


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

If river browns were edible, maybe folks would consider keeping some. Hopefully those otters can stomach them and munch a bunch of the sickly little snakes.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Sorry for the double post, didnt see your thread and looked for it. Some good responses on both. Maybe Drew can chime in and let us know what is being done??


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

What a ridiculous article from a writer who obviously did not do his homework. On the Green, there were periods in the past where the average size fish was substantially higher than what it is now AND there was a higher number of fish per mile to boot. Maybe its just coincidence that the quality of the fish started to decline at the same point in time that the Bureau of Reclamation approved daily, year 'round double peak releases from 1400 cfs, up to 1800 cfs early morning, then 2,250 by mid morning. In the winter its worse: 800 to 1700 to 2250 every day. Here's a picture of the real time streamflow grapg from the past 30 days to show to the severity of the situation. This has been going on now for 5 years so Western Power can generate more power for less money during peak to ship out of state,


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks for the added info, flyguy7.
Back before these flow changes, the Green was one of the best dry fly rivers in the West.
The new flows have washed everything downstream.
The results, now I nymph the Green.
So now the lower end of the slot has been raised to 15".
I doubt that this will bring back the old Green River.


----------



## barney (Nov 5, 2008)

GREEN R Daggett RAINBOW 3069 8.56" 06/08/2010 

GREEN R Daggett RAINBOW 3069 8.56" 06/08/2010 

GREEN R Daggett RAINBOW 427 8.56" 06/08/2010 

GREEN R Daggett RAINBOW 3031 8.18" 06/08/2010 

GREEN R Daggett RAINBOW 3060 8.57" 06/08/2010 

GREEN R Daggett RAINBOW 3519 8.18" 06/09/2010 

GREEN R Daggett RAINBOW 3519 8.18" 06/09/2010 

GREEN R Daggett RAINBOW 3519 8.18" 06/09/2010 

GREEN R Daggett RAINBOW 1955 8.18" 06/09/2010 


PROVO R Summit RAINBOW 251 10.44" 07/06/2010 

PROVO R Summit RAINBOW 249 12.13" 07/19/2010 

PROVO R Summit RAINBOW 249 10.44" 08/03/2010 



I'm not a biologist and I might be missing the mark completely here but if a trophy brown trout fishery is the goal why stock the rivers with additional competition. It seems there are a couple of factors aiding the overpopulation of the rivers: the success of the brown trout spawn, and the lack of sufficient forage. Adding fish to a ecosystem that is already lacking sufficient forage to produce large numbers of large brown trout doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Less fish added each year should equal more food to go around. Then again the article does state that rainbows are getting larger while browns are getting smaller which also confuses me.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

I know that the Green is stocked with snits every year, so there are some smaller fish that you can keep.
Many of these fish reach the slot though.
I agree that this stocking adds to the total fish population and therefore adds to the total fish that are competing for food.
Large Browns do have a different diet from these small Rainbows though.
I'm still not sure why the Green is mentioned in this report.
What does the DWR want here?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> What a ridiculous article from a writer who obviously did not do his homework. On the Green, there were periods in the past where the average size fish was substantially higher than what it is now AND there was a higher number of fish per mile to boot. Maybe its just coincidence that the quality of the fish started to decline at the same point in time that the Bureau of Reclamation approved daily, year 'round double peak releases from 1400 cfs, up to 1800 cfs early morning, then 2,250 by mid morning. In the winter its worse: 800 to 1700 to 2250 every day. Here's a picture of the real time streamflow grapg from the past 30 days to show to the severity of the situation. This has been going on now for 5 years so Western Power can generate more power for less money during peak to ship out of state,


Uhhh...did you not read the article? "... on the Green River for example, the change in flow affects available nutrients for those fish. More nutrients or less will be available at different times of the year and that will have an impact on the number of fish vying for that food...Low flow or high flow, they can still find adequate river bed sediment to successfully establish their redds to lay eggs and fertilize them."

With established flows, the biomass of the river may very well have changed from years ago when the numbers of fish per mile were higher and fish were larger. In other words, even if trout numbers were higher years ago when fish sizes were up, flows could have affected the biomass of the river to shift towards smaller fish. The point of the article, though, doesn't change...if anglers refuse to harvest fish or if mortality of fish doesn't increase substantially annually, fish sizes will continue to drop.

One other thing to note...in the past, rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, and brook trout numbers on the Green below the gorge had much higher numbers. This competition helped keep a better balance...right now, brown trout dominate the catch.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

I catch a lot more Rainbow than Brown Trout on the A section.
It changes very noticably on the B section where the Browns out number the Rainbows.
I would think that the Rainbow stocking that is done on the A section every year would be the cause of this.
I still wonder why the DWR stocks the Rainbows and then states that the Browns are haveing problems.
Isn't the stocking of Rainbows a big part of this?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Grandpa D said:


> I still wonder why the DWR stocks the Rainbows and then states that the Browns are haveing problems.
> Isn't the stocking of Rainbows a big part of this?


it's not the rainbows that are overpopulating. Intra-species competition is actually a good thing, and should help increase the health of the fishery. The problem is brown trout, and reproduction. How do you limit their reproduction?


----------



## barney (Nov 5, 2008)

PBH, 
Can you explain how intra-species competition increases trout size? I could use some education on the subject.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

barney said:


> if a trophy brown trout fishery is the goal why stock the rivers with additional competition.


Speaking about the Green, the rainbows do not reproduce there in any meaningful degree, so cessation of planting bows would mean the end of the bow fishery there. And the bows are still fat, sassy and popular. Cessation of the bow fishery would also still leave you with a river full of snakey browns.

Certainly flows and also the New Zealand mudsnails have their effect here, but the gist still doesn't change. There are too few chunky fish there and lots of skinny browns.

It seems that a sensible solution would be to do what is done on some other Western rivers.
Make the regs for browns more liberalized, say 4-6 fish at any size, and make the bows C&R only or maybe 1 over 20. It would focus the harvest onto the browns and at the same time keep a good # of bows in the river. The bow C&R regs would also validate the continued use of tackle restrictions that the flyfishing community greatly desires. Since the DWR seems to be on a rules simplification kick, don't bet on it happening though.



barney said:


> PROVO R Summit RAINBOW 251 10.44" 07/06/2010
> 
> PROVO R Summit RAINBOW 249 12.13" 07/19/2010
> 
> PROVO R Summit RAINBOW 249 10.44" 08/03/2010


Summit county would be along the Mirror lake highway. (the "upper" Provo) This isn't the area the DWR is worried about and I don't think a few netfuls of catchables for the Mirror lake highway crowd is going to hurt anything.


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

Get rid of planting rainbows on the green.

Get rid of all special regs on the green.

Put in 30 more Otters and 1500 Tiger Muskies.

Get that fish population down to 1500-2000 fish per mile and watch the fish grow!

Who the hell wants to go fish an overcrowded river for average sized fish? Might as well go to the local kiddie pond.

Instead of a "Blue Ribbon Fishery" I would much rather have a "Trophy Fishery"


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

barney -- I should have said "inter" not "intra". I never did say that it would increase size, I only said it can be good. I say that based solely from a diversity point of view. I believe that it is a good thing to have multiple species. Brown trout and rainbow trout do not always inhabit the same niches, although they certainly do overlap. At certain times of the year the species feed on different food sources. The rainbows do not reproduce in any real numbers, and thus their niche and food sources are somewhat better than the brown trout. Putting rainbows on top of a population of browns isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Pez -- your idea would only work for a short period of time, then we'd be right back at square 1 with the same problem. At some point, you have to fix the problem: brown trout reproduction is too high. How do you control brown trout reproduction?


----------



## barney (Nov 5, 2008)

I don't think a change in regulations alone will fix anything on overpopulated rivers like the Green and the Provo. C&R anglers are not going to start harvesting fish simply due to a change in the number of fish you can legally harvest and anglers that consistently keep fish will still migrate to lakes and reservoirs. Education might encourage the keeping of some fish but overall those that don't keep fish will keep releasing them the way they do now. I have never released a fish because a regulation said I should do so. I release fish I catch because that's what I have always done and watching the thing swim away is almost as great as bringing it in. And yes, I'm part of the problem. 

I still don't understand how dumping more fish into an overpopulated fishery is good for the ecosystem. I would rather catch wild fish than stocked fish anyway. Of coarse it's just my opinion.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> flyguy7 said:
> 
> 
> > What a ridiculous article from a writer who obviously did not do his homework. On the Green, there were periods in the past where the average size fish was substantially higher than what it is now AND there was a higher number of fish per mile to boot. Maybe its just coincidence that the quality of the fish started to decline at the same point in time that the Bureau of Reclamation approved daily, year 'round double peak releases from 1400 cfs, up to 1800 cfs early morning, then 2,250 by mid morning. In the winter its worse: 800 to 1700 to 2250 every day. Here's a picture of the real time streamflow grapg from the past 30 days to show to the severity of the situation. This has been going on now for 5 years so Western Power can generate more power for less money during peak to ship out of state,
> ...


Way to make absolutely zero sense as usual, Wyo2! We've come to expect that from you... The issue will the flows is NOT about spawning habitat. Browns will spawn on that river very successfully, period. Regardless of the flow regime. This obviously has to do more with the overall management of water resources in the river and less to to with keeping some fish. With better management of the water, the need to keeping fish will be a non issue. Besides, if anglers kept three times as many fish as what they due now, it still wouldn't be enough to have any real impact on the numbers of fish. The double peak have other drawbacks. One being with drastically changing water levels. With major fluctuations in water levels, the fish are unable to establish feeding lies where they can sit day after day and gorge themselves. Three times a day they have to move into a different spot to sit and pick off bugs. The second is water temperature. Along with the fluctuating flows, summer water temperatures have been much colder than normal; dropping often times into the 30's for much of June. With those temps, the fish are going to have ultra low metabolisms, which, in turn, means they are not going to bulk up on food to gain much in the length or girth department. Its not a coincidence that C section has FAR more dense insect hatches and a larger percentage of big fish around. This water gets a chance to heat up during the day unlike A and upper B section in the canyon stretch.

Bottom line is is that keeping more fish is like putting a band aide on a gunshot wound. Its better than doing nothing , But the entire management of the river and its water resources management needs to be addressed. Keeping more fish is just a meaningless attempt of trying a quick fix on a very large, permanent problem.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

> How do you control brown trout reproduction?


Stomp on their reds in the fall!! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Uhh...again, you didn't read a word I said. Here, I will post it for you again:


wyoming2utah said:


> ... on the Green River for example, the change in flow affects available nutrients for those fish. More nutrients or less will be available at different times of the year and that will have an impact on the number of fish vying for that food...Low flow or high flow, they can still find adequate river bed sediment to successfully establish their redds to lay eggs and fertilize them."


So, in other words, I said that the flows affected the nutrients available for fish...and, it doesn't matter what the flows are browns can still find enough sediment to successfully spawn.



flyguy7 said:


> The issue will the flows is NOT about spawning habitat. Browns will spawn on that river very successfully, period. Regardless of the flow regime.


Ding, ding, ding....isn't that what I just said? Hmmm....



flyguy7 said:


> This obviously has to do more with the overall management of water resources in the river and less to to with keeping some fish. With better management of the water, the need to keeping fish will be a non issue.


Ok...and who manages the flow regimes? The DWR? The DWR is responsible for managing fish not flows. Right now, the flows are part of the reason we have too **** many fish and fish sizes are dropping. Right now, the flows are part of the reason fish aren't as healthy as they used to be. The bottom line is that fish numbers need to be reduced. I agree; I don't think anglers--especially the high falutin' goofy hat wearers of the Green--will ever change their c&r mindset and harvest fish. My question, though, is why have a restrictive slot limit on a fishery that doesn't need one? Why protect fish when they shouldn't be protected? If fishermen did change their mindset and harvest 3 times as many fish which would equate to approximately 4.2 percent harvest, we are still making a difference.



flyguy7 said:


> Its not a coincidence that C section has...a larger percentage of big fish around.


Yeah...it is not a coincidence, there are fewer fish in the C section and so each fish gets a larger slice of pie. As for the nonsense about 30 degree water in June...that made me LMAO. So, do you have a hard time with the ice?


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Folks,
Please keep within the rules of the Forum.
This thread is becoming a bit heated.
Thanks,
Grandpa D.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Grandpa D said:


> Folks,
> Please keep within the rules of the Forum.
> This thread is becoming a bit heated.
> Thanks,
> Grandpa D.


It's also had some very good information.


----------

