# Bonus limit in roadside Uinta lakes?



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

On my Uinta lake trip today, I noticed several signs at Moosehorn, Mirror, and Trial lakes that said something like: Attention Anglers. Limit four trout. Consult Utah 2011 fishing guidebook for special rules and regulations. 

However, I had noticed in the guidebook that a bonus limit of four brook trout was allowed in the Uinta mountain lakes and streams. Mirror lake and others in the vicinity are well within the boundary allowing for this bonus limit, yet the signs told of a four-trout limit. 

I can't find anything in the guidebook about these roadside lakes being exempt from the bonus limit, but the signs clearly said four trout. 

So... could someone get ticketed for keeping extra brook trout from Mirror lake? Are these lakes exempt? Or is the DWR just putting those signs up to keep things more simple?

Any info? Thanks


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

You can keep a total of 8 trout in the Uintas if at least 4 of those are brook trout. In most Uinta lakes and streams, it actually helps the fishery to keep a limit of brookies to help reduce the "stunting". However, when I happen upon a Uinta lake that is producing 17-18" healthy brook trout, I am quite protective and practice selective harvest. Kind of my own personal "lake management system".


----------



## trout bum (Oct 5, 2010)

I agree with your "lake managment system".


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

I suppose another way to ask my question is:

If there is an official sign stating a fishing regulation but it has different information than what is found in the Utah fishing guidebook, which one should be followed?


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Clarq said:


> I suppose another way to ask my question is:
> 
> If there is an official sign stating a fishing regulation but it has different information than what is found in the Utah fishing guidebook, which one should be followed?


When in doubt, call the DWR and get the answer from them.
You can't be sure other than asking them.
An example of this was when the regs changed for Tiger Muskie at Pineview.
The Proc stated a size limit but new signs put up at Pineview stated that all Tiger Muskie muse be released.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Usually posted signs trump the regs since rules can be changed after the regs are printed. 

I do agree that you really should go to the horses mouth and ask the division to be on the safe side if you have any question.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

If they change the rules, they have to publish a change to the guide book. Here's an example:http://wildlife.utah.gov/guidebooks/2011_emergency/11-06-30_ferron_reservoir_emergency_change.pdf

There hasn't been a change to the regs concerning the brook trout limit in the Uintas.

Fishrmn


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

brookieguy1 said:


> However, when I happen upon a Uinta lake that is producing 17-18" healthy brook trout, I am quite protective and practice selective harvest. Kind of my own personal "lake management system".


Wait a minute. Let's think about this.

So, the bonus limit allows, and promotes, harvesting more fish. Obviously, there are lakes it is working because you are finding a couple lakes with 17-18" brook trout. So your "help" is to go against what got those fish big -- and you release more fish? Isn't that bassackwards?

Consider Round Willow Bottom on the Boulder. Under general regulations this lake has flourished with tiger trout and cutthroat trout. Tigers up to 8lbs have been caught from this lake this summer. In response to the fantastic fish in this lake, numerous anglers have requested that the DWR place special regulations on the lake "to protect those big fish". One has to ask oneself: "how did those fish get big in the first place"? If the fish grew to "trophy" size under general regulations, why change and go restrictive -- and possibly screw things up?

So, back the Uintahs -- if the lake has 17 - 18" brook trout, and also has a regulation to allow a bonus limit of brook trout, why on Earth would you try to "protect" the lake by releasing fish? It's obvious to me that harvesting those larger fish isn't going to have a negative affect on it.


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

The reason why is cause people would like to catch more than one big fish at willow bottoms


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I think what PBH is trying to point out is that the reason there are bigger fish isn't because someone is releasing them. It is because they are harvesting fish. The conditions exist to grow fish to that size. If you remove the competition, the remaining fish will grow to that size by utilizing the same forage that allowed the first one to get big. Leaving them in there could actually be counterproductive. If the bonus limit of brook trout was causing a problem the UDWR would change the regs. But, hey, if you wanna release them somebody else will be happy to catch them too.

Fishrmn


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

PBH said:


> brookieguy1 said:
> 
> 
> > However, when I happen upon a Uinta lake that is producing 17-18" healthy brook trout, I am quite protective and practice selective harvest. Kind of my own personal "lake management system".
> ...


Not to argue your point, because I agree with you to an extent. The few Uinta lakes I am speaking about have big fish for more natural reasons, none of which are due to harvest. In other words, I am probably one of the very few fishing them. You are probably right in the fact that if I harvested 8 it would help the remaining fish grow, but on a 2 acre pond with maybe 30 fish, I feel the need to restrain a bit.


----------



## HighmtnFish (Jun 3, 2010)

I like the limit situation on the Boulder Mountain. I believe that you can keep a limit of 8 brook trout but only 2 fish can be 14 inches or longer. I believe that Round Willows bottoms falls under these regulations. In lakes with stunted fish, a group of anglers can keep a bunch of fish and in the trophy lakes like Round Willow Bottoms a guy can only keep 2 "big" fish so there's some others big ones left for the other anglers. This slot limit seems to have worked fairly well, and a limit like this might be a solution for the Uinta lakes. I would actually like to see the slot raised to 16 or 18 inches on the Boulder Mountain lakes. I know of a few lakes on the boulder that have a bunch of stunted fish at 14 1/2 inches.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

HighmtnFish said:


> I would actually like to see the slot raised to 16 or 18 inches on the Boulder Mountain lakes. I know of a few lakes on the boulder that have a bunch of stunted fish at 14 1/2 inches.


You made great sense, until your last two sentences -- they blew it.

Again, look at Round. When large fish start showing up, people immediately want to _change_ the regulations to "protect" those large fish. Making the change --even something like increasing the slot by 2" -- could have very negative consequences. You need to look at why those fish got large in the first place - or why the fish are not getting big. What is the bottleneck? If the fish are "stunting" (your term, not mine) at 14 1/2 inches due to overharvest -- then certainly an increase in the slot would help. However, the bonus limit means that overharvest isn't the issue -- population size is. The reason the fish are not growing larger is because there are too many of them. In this case, an increase in the slot size would negatively impact the fishery. If anything were to change it should be a decrease in the slot (from 14" down to 12"). Get more fish out, and the number of large fish will increase.

So, if you want those 14 1/2 inch fish to get bigger, you simply need to harvest more of those 10" fish -- thus the bonus limit.

Fshrmn -- thank you for you post. It was much clearer than my own.


----------



## HighmtnFish (Jun 3, 2010)

PBH said:


> So, if you want those 14 1/2 inch fish to get bigger, you simply need to harvest more of those 10" fish -- thus the bonus limit.


good point.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

I e-mailed the DWR my question last week. I got a response today saying only that my e-mail had been "passed on to the appropriate folks." 

I don't know if I'll ever get another e-mail regarding this but it will be interesting to see if something changes.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

[quote="Clarq"

I don't know if I'll ever get another e-mail regarding this but it will be interesting to see if something changes.[/quote]

Pick up the phone.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

It pains me to say this but I agree with PBH. you can have big fish or lots of fish: usually not both. (Unless a set of extremely unusual circumstances presents itself). Many of the rivers I fish out west have small populations, general regs, and huge fish. There's only so much food to go around and personally I'd like to see it go in a few great big mouths than lots of little mouths. I'm on my way to one pf those places in Wyoming right now.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> It pains me to say this but I agree with PBH. you can have big fish or lots of fish: usually not both. (Unless a set of extremely unusual circumstances presents itself). Many of the rivers I fish out west have small populations, general regs, and huge fish. There's only so much food to go around and personally I'd like to see it go in a few great big mouths than lots of little mouths. I'm on my way to one pf those places in Wyoming right now.


I'll get my stuff ready


----------

