# Provo River Stunted Browns



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

That spearfishing thread gave me an idea. I wonder if it would be okay to invite the spearfishers over to the Middle and Lower Provo to spearfish for the brown while they are on their redds? That would help in reducing their numbers and getting the fish to grow a bit.

Kill all the spawners with spears right before they drop their eggs and milt. Spearfishers?
No limit for the month of November.


----------



## FROGGER (Oct 1, 2007)




----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

Thats a great idea! While were at it lets get rid of every brown in all of our rivers here in the state and replace them with a bunch of finless cutthroat that will eat any dead drifting yarn strike indicator. We can also put in some sterile tiger trout that will never expand their population so our license dollars can go to more stocking instead of habitat improvement and the government can have 100% control of them like Jurassick Park! Anyone selling any fish spears on KSL.com for a great price? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: -BaHa!-


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Nah...just let the stupid C&R only fly fisherman types have the Provo. Leave it worthless and let the wooden-net wannabe's have it...


----------



## rapalahunter (Oct 13, 2007)

Whenever I catch a brown out the provo I throw it on the bank to rot. 

Just doin' my part!!!


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Anyone want to plan a UWN Provo river redd stomp in November? :roll:


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Nah...just let the stupid C&R only fly fisherman types have the Provo. Leave it worthless and let the wooden-net wannabe's have it...


I take it you have issue with us "stoopid C&R fly fisherman, wooden net wannabes". That's not very nice. :x :roll:


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

lol. Thats good stuff. On a serious note I think that the middle provo is proof that trying to get fishermen to kill fish just doesn't work. The general regs have been in place for several years now on the middle below legacy bridge and guess what? The river is still full of dinks just like it was then. Nothing has changed. I think there are even fewer big fish then before. Lets drop the water to next to nothing and get it warm as hell and kill of a good percentage of the fish (not selectively harvesting the larger browns which is exactly what happens) and we can get some results (just like they used to do when the average size fish was incredibe on that stretch.) If I thought redd stomping and bait fishing would increase fish size then I would be for it all the way to Jordanelle Dam. Well, the largest average size in the river is by far much larger up near the dam than down lower. The lower river has more larger macroinvertebrates such as caddis, stones, and drakes but not nearly the amount of smaller bugs such as baetis, pmds, and midges to feed all those fish. Im all for whatever lowers the population _evenly_, not just the larger fish on the lower middle provo.

As far as the lower provo is concerned, just leave it the hell alone. It has never been in such good shape.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> lol. Thats good stuff. On a serious note I think that the middle provo is proof that trying to get fishermen to kill fish just doesn't work. The general regs have been in place for several years now on the middle below legacy bridge and guess what? The river is still full of dinks just like it was then. Nothing has changed. I think there are even fewer big fish then before. Lets drop the water to next to nothing and get it warm as hell and kill of a good percentage of the fish (not selectively harvesting the larger browns which is exactly what happens) and we can get some results (just like they used to do when the average size fish was incredibe on that stretch.) If I thought redd stomping and bait fishing would increase fish size then I would be for it all the way to Jordanelle Dam. Well, the largest average size in the river is by far much larger up near the dam than down lower. The lower river has more larger macroinvertebrates such as caddis, stones, and drakes but not nearly the amount of smaller bugs such as baetis, pmds, and midges to feed all those fish. Im all for whatever lowers the population _evenly_, not just the larger fish on the lower middle provo.
> 
> As far as the lower provo is concerned, just leave it the hell alone. It has never been in such good shape.


I agree, leave the lower alone. People bag on it all the time but it's a great fishery the way it is. There are enough knuckleheads out there that are careless and do plenty of redd stomping.


----------



## rapalahunter (Oct 13, 2007)

Am I the only one that has WAY more success on the middle than the lower? I catch more and bigger fish through the middle and see the lower as the less productive stretch. 

Is that not the case for most people?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> Lets drop the water to next to nothing and get it warm as hell and kill of a good percentage of the fish (not selectively harvesting the larger browns which is exactly what happens) and we can get some results (just like they used to do when the average size fish was incredibe on that stretch.) /quote]
> 
> You think the middle doesn't have big fish because the large fish are selectively harvested? That's a laugher...harvest rates for the MP are around 1% of total fish caught. With such a low harvest rate, the big fish harvested are quickly replaced by smaller ones...the problem isn't too much harvest, it is not enough. But, that's what the fly-fishermen want...so give them it. The MP and LP both are lousy fisheries compared to what they should be and could be...if fish densities were lower.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

rapalahunter said:


> Am I the only one that has WAY more success on the middle than the lower? I catch more and bigger fish through the middle and see the lower as the less productive stretch.
> 
> Is that not the case for most people?


I have more success on the lower, but i fish it more often. I also catch a lot bigger fish there as well. But I fly fish only, maybe that's the reason. I don't know. The lower is harder to fish, but once you figure out the secrets it's pretty fun.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

how many days this year have you spent on the middle and lower provo Wyo2?? Just curious. As far as harvest goes, I speak of the stretch from Legacy Bridge to deer creek. Not the entire river. The amont more of larger fish (+ 15") on the upper river (hwy 40 to the dam)compared to the lower river is what is laughable. So again I ask how many days this year Wyo2?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

None...it's not worth it. I have seen the electrofishing samples; I know what is there and what isn't. The middle provo is a little fish paradise and pales in comparison with other streams in Utah....


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

Exactly.  You are arguing a point that you have no first hand knowledge about.  If I read a cook book does that make me a chef?  I don't think so.


----------



## rapalahunter (Oct 13, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> Exactly. You are arguing a point that you have no first hand knowledge about. If I read a cook book does that make me a chef? I don't think so.


No, reading a cookbook doesn't make you a chef. But if you read a statistical report with a large enough sample size and a small enough confidence interval than you can be almost 100% sure about population trends. Including fish numbers and fish size. :|


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

But last time I fished there I caught 3 that I know were over 22 inches and 6 that were pushing 20 inches. I had a cousin's friend's sister who witnessed the size. Just because you guys are not catching them doesn't mean they don't exist! Try a real worm in some of the deep holes. You'll be excited. Not even the electrofishers can get those big ones down in the deep holes. They always electrofish were it's easier to wade. How could they get into those big holes that are 15 feet deep by wading? Huge monster browns are everywhere in the Provo River...atleast, that's what the guides are saying.

Now a spearfisher with a wetsuit or snokle outfit could get into those big holes and spear all those big browns that keep spawning and kill them all out. That would keep the big ones from laying all those eggs and producing the small ones. maybe even open it up to bow fishing? Just shoot an arrow through all those browns on the redds. That would thin them big ones out so when the DWR does the electrofishing there would only be small ones all the time. When do they hold the RAC mtgs? I'm going to propose the option of spearfishing and bowfishing on the Provo from Jordanelle down to Bar't Non-alcohol Beer Bar in Provo City.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

I think you're right on the money HighNDry.  I've spent 114 days this year on the middle and lower provo.  I think I have a pretty good idea of what size fish are in there.  I can assure you its not a midget fest like Wyo2 claims with his "stats" he's read without ever fishing it ONCE!


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

But Wyo2 thinks all river fish are suppose to look like footballs. I wonder if he has ever looked at a Joseph Tomelleri drawing of the trout of Utah? That is what trout look like; not some fat, heavy Purina Trout Chow hatchery feed rainbow. YUCK! Those things taste like reconstituted day old pasta noodles.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Just keep telling yourselves about all those big fish. :roll: ..and stay up there!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

rapalahunter said:


> flyguy7 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. You are arguing a point that you have no first hand knowledge about. If I read a cook book does that make me a chef? I don't think so.
> ...


exactly, Rapala...but fluyguy is the type who refuses to believe the electrofishing samples....


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Say what you want about the shocking studies. I'm sure the numbers are true. I was there this year on the lower and see how they did it. The shocked just below the tunnels at Sundance and the trestle. There were some decent fish, but those of us who fish the lower or middle on a regular basis know these big fish are there. They don't shock the bigger holes, or the runs where these fish are. I wonder why? Seriously? 

I don't know as much about the middle as the lower but on an average day you can catch 5-10 fish that average 15-18", and have one or two that break the 20" mark. 

So my question is to Wy2UT, why so negative? Why so hostile when talking about the Provo? maybe the elitist attitude from UTOF is rubbing off on you?


----------



## nate1031 (Jul 2, 2008)

The provo isn't as good as it could be, but at the same time it's not a horrible fishery. It's just not living up to it's potential. Shocking studies I'm sure are a pretty good indicator of what's in the river but at the same time I will agree that you gotta look at where your shocking. Are you ALSO shocking in the holding water where the big guys are? 12 inch fish don't necessarily hang in the same spots as a 24inch fish. 
Also, I gotta say that I think some of you might need to start carrying tapes with you though because I'm having a real hard time believing when people say they caught 9 fish over 18" in one day on the Provo. I think maybe some 15-16inchers are passing for 18-19 and a solid 18" is passing for a 21. I mean please you want me to believe your cousin's friend's sister's grandma's nephew's girlfriend knows what a 21 inch fish looks like?


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

nate1031 said:


> The provo isn't as good as it could be, but at the same time it's not a horrible fishery. It's just not living up to it's potential. Shocking studies I'm sure are a pretty good indicator of what's in the river but at the same time I will agree that you gotta look at where your shocking. Are you ALSO shocking in the holding water where the big guys are? 12 inch fish don't necessarily hang in the same spots as a 24inch fish.
> Also, I gotta say that I think some of you might need to start carrying tapes with you though because I'm having a real hard time believing when people say they caught 9 fish over 18" in one day on the Provo. I think maybe some 15-16inchers are passing for 18-19 and a solid 18" is passing for a 21. I mean please you want me to believe your cousin's friend's sister's grandma's nephew's girlfriend knows what a 21 inch fish looks like?


There are some people who exaggerate for sure. But people like Flyguy and myself who spend more time on the river than your average Joe know the difference between a 16" fish and a 20" fish.


----------



## nate1031 (Jul 2, 2008)

martymcfly73 said:


> nate1031 said:
> 
> 
> > The provo isn't as good as it could be, but at the same time it's not a horrible fishery. It's just not living up to it's potential. Shocking studies I'm sure are a pretty good indicator of what's in the river but at the same time I will agree that you gotta look at where your shocking. Are you ALSO shocking in the holding water where the big guys are? 12 inch fish don't necessarily hang in the same spots as a 24inch fish.
> ...


Ok. You are officially exempt from my callout.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Sure there's a few big ones but the studies show that there are way too many browns per mile. Some of the fish that are four or five years old and trying to spawn are stunted and only about 13 to 14 inches. If things were in balance these same fish for the age class would be 6 or 7 inches longer.

By thinning the herd it will allow the trout to grow to the size they should be for their age.

I think the guide fishing next to me last week said it best: "Wow! Nice fish. That has to go 19 1/2 inches. Beauty!"

I thought, why not stop at 19 inches? Why did the guide have to add the 1/2 inch in there? Guides arn't putting tapes on the fish either. Guides lie just as much as the next angler.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

The Provo is never going to be a true giant fish fishery.  I would consider good numbers of fish in the 15" - 18" range with a smattering of fish over that size to be ideal.  In all those days this year I can recall maybe 7-8 fish total on the middle and lower combined over 20".    That figures out to be around 15 days fishing for every fish over 20".  I wouldn't really consider that catching giants left and right but each year that passes since the construction era on the middle I am seeing an increase in 14-18" fish from the middle of the valley to the dam. And its still not even close to the glory days of the late 90's, but it working that way. If its BIG fish you want head to that other dirty polluted river named after a barbeque grill. :wink:


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

nate1031 said:


> martymcfly73 said:
> 
> 
> > nate1031 said:
> ...


Thanks. 8)


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Watch out for photoshopped pictures. Putting a 13 inch fish down by a measuring tape and then photoshopping it to make it look 20 happens too.

Pull out a measuring tape right now and look how big a 20 inch trout would be. That's an exceptional trout.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> Watch out for photoshopped pictures. Putting a 13 inch fish down by a measuring tape and then photoshopping it to make it look 20 happens too.
> 
> Pull out a measuring tape right now and look how big a 20 inch trout would be. That's an exceptional trout.


Do you speak from experience? :wink:


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

No. I had a special measuring tape made years ago when I first married. :shock:


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> No. I had a special measuring tape made years ago when I first married. :shock:


 -BaHa!-


----------



## nate1031 (Jul 2, 2008)

HighNDry said:


> Watch out for photoshopped pictures. Putting a 13 inch fish down by a measuring tape and then photoshopping it to make it look 20 happens too.
> 
> Pull out a measuring tape right now and look how big a 20 inch trout would be. That's an exceptional trout.


I'm not really worried about anybodies pictures. I'm just saying that some people's mental tapes aren't very accurate. If you want to dr. a photo to make your junk look bigger then more power to ya. You still got small junk.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

martymcfly73 said:


> There were some decent fish, but those of us who fish the lower or middle on a regular basis know these big fish are there. They don't shock the bigger holes, or the runs where these fish are. I wonder why? Seriously?
> 
> I don't know as much about the middle as the lower but on an average day you can catch 5-10 fish that average 15-18", and have one or two that break the 20" mark.
> 
> So my question is to Wy2UT, why so negative? Why so hostile when talking about the Provo? maybe the elitist attitude from UTOF is rubbing off on you?


1) There always are a few "decent" fish in the samples, but far fewer than what there could/should be. Also, every year certain "reaches" or "study sites" are shocked to maintain an accurate record. They don't need to shock the bigger holes or runs to see if samples are showing changes in trends. The recent trends for the MP, for example, have been mostly negative showing decreases not only in fish sizes but also K factors or health and subsequent increases in fish numbers. Shocking the "bigger holes" or better runs might yield 1 or 2 bigger fish, but it doesn't change the reality of what is present in the river and what isn't. The bottom line is that the Provo River fish are smaller than what they could/should be and are below biological standards for healthy fish in terms of K factors...

2) As productive as the Provo River is, I would think it would pump out 15-18 inchers on average and 20+ inchers frequently. My favorite streams do...I know one local stream where an electrofishing sample revealed over 20 20+ inch fish in a 30 yard section. I also frequent a couple of streams that have flows less than 15 CFS on average and pump out 18+ inchers every trip and 20+ inchers frequently.

3) My negativity recently probably stems from a local football/basketball/baseball star who has some serious character issues and personality flaws. His actions have cost him the chance to play in the upcoming football playoffs and possibly the upcoming basketball season...the whole situation ticks me off and probably carried over to this thread.

But, my overall negativity towards the Provo stems from the potential of the place compared to what it is...

...I would love to get some of you guys who fish the Provo down on some of my favorite streams just to see how you would compare them.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> martymcfly73 said:
> 
> 
> > There were some decent fish, but those of us who fish the lower or middle on a regular basis know these big fish are there. They don't shock the bigger holes, or the runs where these fish are. I wonder why? Seriously?
> ...


What are your favorite streams ? :?


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Okay, how does this figure in: I have a secret little stream that rarely gets fished. It has naturally reproducing browns and cutts. The fish are on average bigger than those in the Provo. I'm thinking that maybe winter kill keeps it in balance more but it's just speculation. Why would this little creek have bigger fish than the Provo?


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

They will not be mentioned because the are not stable or healthy enough to handle the pressure the provo does, LOL!


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> martymcfly73 said:
> 
> 
> > There were some decent fish, but those of us who fish the lower or middle on a regular basis know these big fish are there. They don't shock the bigger holes, or the runs where these fish are. I wonder why? Seriously?
> ...


And I would love to do that too. Let us know when you are getting too old to get there. :wink: Seriously though....


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Whats all this talk about stunted fish on the Provo anyway? I'm I the only one still catching 5 and 6 lb. browns?? :?


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Like these?
http://www.haleyshome.blogspot.com


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> Like these?
> http://www.haleyshome.blogspot.com


No..no...those fish are dinky and discolored.... :lol:

Your 'blog'? Pretty cool, I think I even saw somebody I recognised...


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> martymcfly73 said:
> 
> 
> > There were some decent fish, but those of us who fish the lower or middle on a regular basis know these big fish are there. They don't shock the bigger holes, or the runs where these fish are. I wonder why? Seriously?
> ...


Thanks for the info. I was always curious as to why they chose the sites for the shocking that they did. That's too bad about your athlete. I will forgive you. :wink:

I guess the reason I don't have a problem with the Provo, is that for the size of the river I can consistently catch 15"+ fish on every trip. Sure the 20+ are rare, but they are there and that's one reason I keep going back. I would obviously support anything that would help the river become an even better resource. Any ideas as to how that could happen Wyo2UT? You seem like an educated guy on these matters. Especially for someone who doesn't fish the river on a regular basis. (I'm not being a smart ass here either. Mine are serious questions and responses.) 8)


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The MP used to be a hotbed for nice fat healthy trout...and good numbers of large fish too. But, recruitment and reproduction of brown trout is way up. Just before the mitigation project on the MP started, minimum flows were acquired below Jordanelle which kept consistent flows throughout the winter months. Overall, this is a good thing and was a big step towards restoring the river...however, for trout sizes and health it has been detrimental. Low winter flows meant low recruitment and low reproduction...this was a natural way of keeping the fish numbers in check and the fish densities stayed low enough to translate into high growth rates and high K factors. However, with the acquisition of flows and the restoration of the river, came higher recruitment levels, better juvenile habitat, increased fish densities, lower growth, and lower K factors.

The key to restoring high trout growth rates is lowering fish density and recruitment. The bottom line is that there are too many fish and not enough food to support high growth rates...so, how do you fix the problem? Well, fishermen could start harvesting more fish--right now the harvest rates hover around 1-2%--or the habitat/flows could be altered to discourage recruitment. Either option is difficult.

The key to fast growth and large fish is fish density...
http://wildlife.utah.gov/blueribbon/4-step_plan.pdf


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

So the Madison River in Montana claims one of the highest fish densities and still produces large fish. You sure Utah knows what it's doing?

www.utahcutthroat.blogspot.com


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Did you read the link I provided?

The Madison boasts roughly 1300 fish per mile between Hebgen Lake and Ennis, about 1600 fish per mile betwen Ennis Dam and Black's Ford, and about 500 fish per mile downstream of Black's Ford (most recent info I could find). By way of comparison, the Green River boasts from as high as 13,000 fish per mile near the dam to just 2000 fish per mile at Brown's Park. And, the Provo River sports about 3,000 fish per mile. So, by way of comparison in terms of fish/mile, the Madison hardly compares in fish density. The Madison is, by the way, considered to have among the highest fish density among streams in Montana...

But, too often fishermen look at streams and evaluate them based on how many fish per mile are present. This is, however, not a good measuring stick to compare streams because it puts larger streams on an unequal playing field compared to smaller streams. A better way to evaluate a streams productivity is to look at how many pounds of fish are present per acre. The Provo River, for example, has consistently put out over 250 pounds of fish per acre (with some sections exceeding 300). The overall average for trout streams throughout the West is about 50 pounds/acre...the Provo River is an exceptionally productive stream. But, most of the biomass is tied up in smaller fish...

...let's put this into perspective: "Platts and McHenry (1988), studying streams in seven western ecoregions, found standing stocks <60 pounds (trout and char) per acre were most common (55 to 96% of observations) for streams across all seven ecoregions, suggesting that streams sustain trout to carrying capacity. About 55% of estimated trout stocks in Wyoming streams are <60 pounds per acre, 80% are <120 pounds per acre, and 90% are <200 pounds per acre; only 10% of Wyoming streams have trout standing stocks greater than 200 pounds per acre (Wiley 1992)." In other words, the Provo River is more productive than 90% of Wyoming streams.

...so, with such a high biomass, I can't be happy about the present state of the Provo River. It is far too exceptional in terms of potential and biomass to be pumping out so few large trout.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Thanks for the info Wyo2Ut. You learn something new every day.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

One other thing: "Comparing trout biomass to other streams, the MPR is among the top 10% (Wiley and Thomson 1997, Behnke 1992; Platts and McHenry 1988). Although increased trout biomass in the MPR has significantly increased, trout density has increased at a much greater rate. As a result, the average size (length and weight) of trout has decreased. In addition, the condition of the trout has been declining in the MPR since 1997."


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

Please enlighten me with the date of your latest study on the middle provo. There has not been a EIS done on the river since the completion of the construction. You are stating points that have been addressed already.


> Lets drop the water to next to nothing and get it warm as hell and kill of a good percentage of the fish (not selectively harvesting the larger browns which is exactly what happens) and we can get some results (just like they used to do when the average size fish was incredibe on that stretch.)


 the larger browns are only harvested from legacy to deer creek, and still has an abundance of smal fish. Personally I would like to see a limit of at least 8-10 fish, brown trout only under 15" here.

Wyo, nobody is arguing with you that there isn't an abundance of small fish on the river. Nobody is arguing there isn't room for improvement in fish quality and size. My initial point is that the river _is_ improving-especially this year. Your studies do not show that in real time, and you have no room to even argue the fact that you havent even thrown a line here once this year. Grouping the river as a whole is pointless because insect biomass is different on each reach of the river. Different reaches have different carrying capacities depending on the amount of insects in that reach. The upper reach supports many more insects (primarily small mayflies, micro caddis, and midges) than the lower reaches of the MP and consequently has a higher abundance of larger fish.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...the Provo will never be a true trophy fishery. I don't think the state would want it to be anyway. The Provo has as many angler days as any river in the United States. The ease of access to the newly reconstructed river has increased angler use on the middle provo exponentially (it has also decreased angler pressure on the lower, a nice side effect). To make it a trophy fishery, trout numbers would need to take a serious nose dive to somewhere well below 1,000 fish per mile. Some would like this, (I know I would) but there are too many anglers of all skill levels to keep happy. Not everyone wants to fish there tail off all day for 2 or 3 large fish (there are other fisheries around you can go do that). Most people would like to catch a decent number of decent sized fish. When catch rates fall through the floor, angler interest follows, as does license revenue.

If you do not fish it, why are you so hell bent on letting everyone know what a terrible fishery it is anyway? Why would you feel so strongly about it? If you're ever around this way I bet I can point you in the direction of some really nice fish on this horrific fishery. You just have to know where to look.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> Please enlighten me with the date of your latest study on the middle provo. There has not been a EIS done on the river since the completion of the construction. You are stating points that have been addressed already.
> 
> 
> > Lets drop the water to next to nothing and get it warm as hell and kill of a good percentage of the fish (not selectively harvesting the larger browns which is exactly what happens) and we can get some results (just like they used to do when the average size fish was incredibe on that stretch.)
> ...


1) You claim that fishermen are negatively impacting the size of the fish...no study including the most recent creel surveys support this theory. In fact, with a harvest rate around 1% of the total fish caught, large fish definitely have enough time to be replaced. The selective harvest harms the stream in no way because the small fish replace the large ones once they are removed...

2) Electrofishing samples have been done every year since the beginning of the restoration. It doesn't matter when the last EIS was done, the river's fish trends are being looked at every year and they aren't changing. By the way, an Environmental Impact Study shouldn't be done because nothing new is going to be changed. But, biologists continue to monitor fish populations and trends...I don't need to fish it to see what is there.

3) Any kind of slot limit is worthless when such a small percentage of fish are harvested...

4) Any improvements to fishing you may have seen--if in fact real--are probably due more to the natural fluctuations populations see while at carrying capacity. Again, did you read the link I posted earlier on fish densities and populations?

5) The whole problem with the Provo is that it SHOULD be a fishery where people can go and catch lots of nice fish--16-18 inches. Instead, it is a fishery where fishermen go and catch lots of small fish 10-15 inches and a few larger ones. Again, the Provo River's productivity places it among the top 10% in the Western US. It is a shame that such a productive river so close to a large population is not better...it should be. I don't believe that people would be at all disappointed if their catch rates decreased slightly and sizes went up...I am not suggesting for the Provo to be at dismally low catch rates and only a trophy fishery. It is just sad that people like you seem to enjoy catching fish with such low condition factors (which, by the way, haven't been improving despite your perception that they are).

6) I am hell bent on letting people know what kind of stream they actually have and how good it should/could be. IT is a travesty that we have one of the most productive streams anywhere and it is so far below its potential. I can go fish the Sevier River in my backyard which has far fewer fish/mile, a much lower biomass, and much higher harvest rates and catch bigger fish on average than the Provo River--middle, upper, or lower. To me, that is sad.


----------

