# Why Does Utah Have Such A Trout Minded Attitude?



## Grandpa D

As I have been reading through several different threads, it occured to me that the mentality of many anglers in Utah leans very heavily in the direction of Trout.

By this, I mean that it appeares that we want all of our waters to be able to grow large Trout and there is little regard for other fish species.

Why is this?

I must admit that I once had this attitude myself.
This was when I way a young man living in Northern Utah in the 60's and 70's.

After fishing for other species, I have found that there is more to fishing in Utah than just Trout fishing.

I think that we should be more open minded and accepting of other gamefish and not just focussed on Trout.

Utah has a number of reservoirs that are better suited for warm water fish and other reservoirs where Trout can live in harmony with other species.

So what are your opinions on this?


----------



## PBH

It might be easier to answer your question if you'd give some examples of these reservoirs that are "better suited for warm water fish".


----------



## huntnbum

how about Jensen pond in Syracuse, or for that matter all city ponds should have HUGE Bass


----------



## truemule

I have had this same thought Granpa D. I am mainly trout minded myself being raised in Northern Utah. But, talking with people from out of state and watching many fishing shows it seems it is only a local mind set. I think it has a lot to do with the type of fishing available to our parents and grandparents.

Before the creation of such places as willard, jordanelle, and the growingly abundant community fisheries. They only had rivers or high mountain cold water lakes. This is well suited for the native cutthroat trout but not other fish that seem to prefer warmer water. I think it was has an origin of tribal knowledge type thinking and tastes. The people from this area are used to the trout and have fished it for many generations and so it has become as much a part of the culture as green jello with carrots.

I still find myself searching out the isolated populations of native trout that were there when my grandfathers fished them. Instead of the loacl waters that hold bass, catfish, or walleye. Today people seem to make less time for things like fishing but want the same experience they had growing up. This is what has led the DWR to stock primarily trout into the most fished waters in the state.


----------



## PBH

honestly, I guess I don't get what people want.

Jordanelle is a trophy smallmouth bass fishery. Places like Otter Creek, Piute, and Minersville have both trout and smallmouth bass. Yuba doesn't have trout. Deer Creek is a mixed bag. The majority of the community fisheries have multiple species including bass (large and smallmouth), crappie, bluegill, etc. Strawberry doesn't support smallmouth bass (too short of a growing season for young of the year to survive the winter). 

So, I guess I just want to understand from Grandpa (or anyone else) what you're asking for. What lakes are you talking about that you feel should be bass waters instead of trout?


----------



## Grandpa D

PBH,
this is in reference to the Chub thread and the hate/love Perch relationship that I'm seeing.
Yes, there is a trend to have more waters with other species in them and
I like this.

There are reservoirs like Echo, Rockport and East Canyon where Trout have problems.
In these waters, Trout get anchor worm where other fish species don't.

Yes there are other species in these reservoirs and that's great by me.
Who introduced the Bass, Perch and Crappie in these waters?

I don't necessarily have a point here but rather I'm just pointing out that Trout don't seem to be doing very well in some waters, where other fish have been introduced.
At least that's what I have been reading here.


If this is the case, why try to keep Trout in these waters?
Perhaps some reservoirs will support other species better than Trout.

What I'm looking for is the opinion of others on this topic.


----------



## Nor-tah

This is Utah, a rocky mountain state. This is not Texas, Florida, Tennessee or even the Dakotas. Elevation and length of winter makes for a more trout friendly state. The Chub thread was regarding Scofield which like or not, is a trout lake.

I for one love all kinds of fish..


----------



## sawsman

One of the great things about fishing in Utah is the diversity in species. I also think some waters are better suited for trout and some for "warm water species". Take Pelican Lake for example- It obviously seems better suited for fish other than trout. High mountain/alpine lakes seem better suited for a more native trout vs a walleye or sunfish IMHO.

I think it all comes down to personal preference. I, like Nor-tah love to catch ALL types of fish!
If I could only fish one species it would have to be trout. Just my preference.


----------



## Catherder

I am like some others, I feel we have it pretty good here in this state for a nice variety of quality fisheries for both warm and coolwater species. I fish for mostly warmwater species in the spring and summer, (although this year, one resolution I have is to upgrade my junky fly gear and do more river flyfishing) then switch to trout on the fall. (The ice fishing I do involves both) One or the other is peaking almost year round.

Grandpa D, here is how I would answer your specific points.



Grandpa D said:


> this is in reference to the Chub thread and the hate/love Perch relationship that I'm seeing.


I don't see very much hate for perch around here. They have become extremely popular among Utah anglers. What I do see right now is mighty prayer that at least ONE of the Wasatch Front lakes with perch will produce well this ice season.



Grandpa D said:


> There are reservoirs like Echo, Rockport and East Canyon where Trout have problems.
> In these waters, Trout get anchor worm where other fish species don't.


Yes, rainbows get anchor worm, but so what? EC, Echo, and Rockport all grow decent rainbows and sustain good trout fisheries. My biggest Utah rainbow came from EC. Anchor worms are mainly cosmetic. The flesh is still safe to eat and the fish are not generally sickened by them. Jordanelle perch have yellow grub and Pelican bluegills have the red flesh worms (philometra) and no one would suggest that these fisheries are failing.



Grandpa D said:


> I'm just pointing out that Trout don't seem to be doing very well in some waters, where other fish have been introduced.
> At least that's what I have been reading here.
> If this is the case, why try to keep Trout in these waters?
> Perhaps some reservoirs will support other species better than Trout.


I don't know that it is true that trout in lakes with warmwater fish cannot co-exist with them. Two examples come to mind. Deer creek has gone through a period where the bass have had lousy growth and most of the walleyes are pencil thin skinny things, due to the lack of forage. Even with trophy regs, it is hard to catch a DC smallie over the slot. (Hopefully, with better water levels, this will improve) The trout during this time? Excellent growth, and good rainbow fishing throughout. The rainbows thrived the entire time. They must be able to utilize the zooplankton that the walleyes and big bass cannot. The other example is the mighty Jordanelle. the bass are the rock stars up here, but the browns and rainbows also have done great during the years when the bassin is good beyond belief.

I do not think the DWR would toss smallies into their better rainbow ponds like Otter creek and Minersville (water permitting) if they felt that it would ruin the rainbow fishery.



Grandpa D said:


> Perhaps some reservoirs will support other species better than Trout.


Isn't that what was decided at Pineview and to a lesser extent Mantua?


----------



## rick_rudder

id love some more carp!


----------



## lunkerhunter2

I used to be 100% trout. I since have evolved to warmwater and kokes. I would much prefer to catch and eat panfish and bass than anything else.


----------



## Grandpa D

Catherder, the "other fish" in Mantua were illegality put in there and I believe the same happened at other reservoirs like East Canyon.
While I don't condone these actions, have enjoyed the benefits of having these fish in our waters.

I'm a big fan of Perch but I'm troubled with the boom/bust cycle that they apparently go through.
It seams like all the reservoirs have crashed at the same time yet they were booming in different years.

I'm happy with the DWR's new attitude toward non-trout fish in Utah.
With the new position of Warm Water Biologist being added to the force, we are seeing many great things happening for Utah.

My hope is that the anglers of Utah will support these changes and enjoy the variety of species that we now have.

Like others have stated, I love to catch Trout but I enjoy eating other fish a lot more.


----------



## Jeremy28

to me, trout are the prettiest fish and they come in alot of different variations and variations within variations. Bass and othe fish seem to all look generally the same except for size.


----------



## Grandpa D

Jeremy28 said:


> to me, trout are the prettiest fish and they come in a lot of different variations and variations within variations. Bass and other fish seem to all look generally the same except for size.


If you ever hook up with a Willard Wiper, you will change your opinion real fast.
Jordanelle Smallies will also get your attention.
I don't think that a Tiger Muskie looks very much like a Bluegill.
At least the ones that I have caught.

I do my share of fishing for the "Slugs" at Strawberry and pound for pound, these Bass outfight any Trout that I have ever caught.
I'm still waiting to hook up with a 20 plus inch Tiger Trout though.

That's the great thing about fishing in Utah.
We have a nice variety to choose from.
I just hope that we can keep it that way.


----------



## Nor-tah

The 18 inch brook trout I caught this spring fought harder than any smallie I have ever caught. Its just not many people catch big brooks. Wipers though are pound for pound the same as those brooks


----------



## Catherder

Grandpa D said:


> Catherder, the "other fish" in Mantua were illegality put in there and I believe the same happened at other reservoirs like East Canyon.
> While I don't condone these actions, have enjoyed the benefits of having these fish in our waters.


Truth, however the second event that spelled the end of the trophy trout management at Mantua was a series of trout fish kills during August heat waves. The DWR decided at that point to go with primarily warmwater management.



Grandpa D said:


> I'm a big fan of Perch but I'm troubled with the boom/bust cycle that they apparently go through.
> It seams like all the reservoirs have crashed at the same time yet they were booming in different years.


I am with you there. The only saving grace down here in Happy valley is that UL has been kicking out some jumbo bluegills through the ice (if you know where to go) and some nice crappies as well. These are almost as yummy as the perch.


----------



## GaryFish

Trout are just sexier. That's all. 

If a strong fight is what you're after, hook a carp. Better yet, hook a carp on a fly rod. A 20 inch carp will out fight 10 - 20 inch trout any day of the week and twice on Fridays. They are just ugly as sin. 

As for why trout though? They are easier to grow in a hatchery. And in the day of consumptive fishing, it was easier therefore, to sustain. I'm all about the panfish, bass, or whatever is nearby. Its all good to me. Even though I was past 30 before I caught my first non-trout.


----------



## PBH

Grandpa -- I'd just like to throw out one other comment on "trout" vs. "other" species:

population control. How do you control a population of perch in a Utah lake\reservoir? You don't. They boom \ bust like you mentioned. There is no natural system in place to control perch populations -- and there haven't been many man-made systems that have worked to control them either. Look at the devastation they've done to lakes like Fish Lake, where perch wiped out the chub population and forced lake trout to utilize rainbow trout for forage. While lake trout still do OK in Fish Lake, they do not do as well as they did prior to the illegal introduction of perch.

Utah lakes and reservoir cannot control populations of walleye either. Other species (like sunfish) have also created problems at many places due to overpopulation and competition to other species. This is a huge problem in Utah, and not just with "warm water species". It happens with trout too -- look at brook trout in many Uintah lakes and brown trout in streams all over the state. 

Utah has the perception of being a "trout" state because "trout" (ie: rainbow, cutthroat) are easy to manage population sizes. Cutthroat are native to Utah, and thus very rarely (if ever) overpopulate. Natural systems have evolved over the centuries that have developed to control populations of cutthroat. Rainbow trout have a hard time reproducing in Utah lakes and reservoirs, and thus typically do not overpopulate in our lakes and reservoirs.

Now, look at smallmouth bass. Stock them once in Minersville, Piute, Otter Creek, Newcastle, etc, etc, etc -- and you have a self-sustaining population. They reproduce VERY well in many lakes and reservoirs -- and in some cases too well. But, smallies and trout typically coexist very well. There are exceptions -- like in the case of Granstville, what is going to happen to the brown trout population that relies so heavily on the crayfish now that the smallies are established? 

Managing fisheries is not as easy as asking "what fish do we want in this lake". It's more about finding the right species for each lake. In many cases, "trout" are one of the right species. In my own humble opinion, perch never are one of the right species.


----------



## JAT83

This thread has been interesting and informative. Personally I grew up fishing for 'Bows with Powerbait and that was all I really knew until I started focusing on Catfish, then other species. I am currently trying to mark several species of fish off the list. I still enjoy catching trout, but I really enjoy catching new species that I have never caught before. Makes things interesting.


----------



## .45

JAT83 said:


> This thread has been interesting and informative. Personally I grew up fishing for 'Bows with Powerbait and that was all I really knew until I started focusing on Catfish, then other species. I am currently trying to mark several species of fish off the list. I still enjoy catching trout, but I really enjoy catching new species that I have never caught before. Makes things interesting.


I grew up catching anything Utah Lake, the Jordan River and it's ponds would give up. White bass, walleye, catfish, carp, sucker, blue gill and the occasional trout. Figured if I'm gonna eat fish I didn't want it tasting like duck. I started hitting the lakes and streams in the Uinta's for trout and just haven't got burned out on the trout waters quite yet. Besides, I have no hardware nor desire for warm water species.


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur

Interesting topic Gramps.... I was thinking the exact opposite.To me its seems Utah has a fetish with mutant test tube fish. 

"Why dos Utah have such a Trout minded attitude --> Maybe because it a native fish? or perhaps the State fish : )

A 6 inch native trout tugs on my heart strings. I've caught most every fish Utah has to offer, both on fly and with gear. I target wipers, T.Musky, Splake, carp, Bass, etc, etc. Fun stuff, but none of these fish are as purdy as a trout to me. 

For me, Trout offer solitude and beautiful scenery. I'm not into the lake thing, gets boring after a while. But then again, not into fishing the same waters over and over, year after year. Probably when I old, in my 70's or something, I'll fish a favorite water religiously. I guess I need the "whats around the next bend" stimulation. I'm a moving water type of guy. 

If I wanted big fish, I'd move back to the Salt ; )

I don't like how Utah has a fetish with test-tube fish. I'll be fighting any introduction of these mutants....Maybe they want to be like YNP and fail utterly in fish management ; ) 

Fun topic.


----------



## 280Remington

A perfect example of the "trout at all costs" mentality is Minersville. In down years, which is most years, Minersville ranks about a 3 on a scale of 1 to 10. In a rare good year it ranks about an 8. But the DWR dumps 90,000 trout in it every year even though it continues to have fatally low water and very poor water quality. Minersville year in and year out is much more suited for warm water fish. It is a perfect spot for Wipers and Smallmouth bass. 

Please in 2010, get behind the initiative in Beaver County to convert Minersville back to a purely warmwater fishery. Their motto is "no more slimers in Miners". Urge the DWR to abandon Minersville as a trout fishery. It could be an incredible wiper fishery.


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool

I would venture a guess that some of the big reasons are that any 5 yr old can put powerbait on a treble hook throw it out and catch a rainbow. Also from what I understand rainbows are the easiest and cheapest to mass produce and stock. I like catching about anything I can catch on a pole fly, spinner, or even bait. I just love to fish. I'd like to see them make some big improvements in Utah Lake and see it really boom. Even if they dont you can go down there and catch White bass, LM, crappie, bluegill, sun fish, an occasional trout if your close to the inlets, walleye, chanel cats, mud cats, and the nasty little carp. I'd like to see them improve some beach/recreation/fishing areas. Maybe build some nice fishing piers that go out into the lake with "christmas tree reefs" or other man made reefs around it. That would be really nice. I agree there are some lakes that aren't really good for trout and should be managed for the warm water species. I think its just a matter of getting a like minded group together, coming up with a solution (one that you can accomplish mostly by yourselves with little assistance from DWR), getting it approved through the DWR, then having them stock it. I believe that if you were to invest the time money and resources you could get quite alot done.


----------



## rippnlips

I'm just glad to see the DWR finally start paying attention to the wants of us "other" fisherman who like to fish for all species and not just slimers.

anyone that hasnt experienced a topwater Bass bite will quickly become converted to the dark side :twisted:


----------



## k2muskie

Interesting thread with posts.

1) Trout...fish for generations of Utahans
2) Trout...'family' fish simple and easily caught...no real skill needed and fun to catch
3) Trout...bait/lures are simple and relatively inexpensive
4) Trout...fish of all sizes, shapes, colors, some even with fins and without fins
5) Trout...relatively inexpensive and stocked by the thousands for 'family' fish'n memories
6) Trout...doesn't require one to have a boat or float tube
7) Trout...kinda like a biology class...what combination of Trout produces this Trout :?: :?: 

So with that being said....IMHO that's why Utah is a Trout minded state (changing though  ). Like others have posted, the DWR is really look'n at other fish species for other folks who like fish'n for other species of fish. Thus allowing Utah to expand it's fish'n diversity and experiences. Including learning how to catch other fish without using powerbait, salmon eggs, or marshmellows, etc... Plus these other fish'n experiences will help stimulate local Utah fish'n shops to try something stocking other 'different' i.e. lures/baits/rods/reels/nets overall equipment...a good thing as I see it.

:wink: :wink:


----------



## Grandpa D

Interesting topic Gramps.... I was thinking the exact opposite.To me its seems Utah has a fetish with mutant test tube fish.

F/V,
Yes we do have some cross breeding going on in Utah.
Trout in many flavors for sure. Tiger, Splake, Cut-Bows.
We also have Wiper, and Tiger Muskie.

Why?
Because they are sterile and easy to manage.
Do you see this as a problem?

So back to Utah's fetish with Trout.
As K2 posted, we are seeing a change in attitued in both the anglers and the DNR.
The new hatchery in Northern Utah has a lot of possibilities.

Does anyone know if the DNR plans to raise Wiper there?
What else in planned for that hatchery?

I had someone ask me today, why the state doesn't have the same regulations for Bass at East Canyon as it has at many other waters?
6 Bass limit with only 1 over 12". 

I think that this is a very good question and I would also like to know why and what it would take to have East Canyon added to the list that protects Bass.


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur

Grandpa D said:


> Interesting topic Gramps.... I was thinking the exact opposite.To me its seems Utah has a fetish with mutant test tube fish.
> 
> F/V,
> Yes we do have some cross breeding going on in Utah.
> Trout in many flavors for sure. Tiger, Splake, Cut-Bows.
> We also have Wiper, and Tiger Muskie.
> 
> Why?
> Because they are sterile and easy to manage.
> Do you see this as a problem?
> 
> So back to Utah's fetish with Trout.
> As K2 posted, we are seeing a change in attitued in both the anglers and the DNR.
> The new hatchery in Northern Utah has a lot of possibilities.


Yes, I am very aware of Wipers and T.Musky. Fun fish to catch.

I see a problem where Broodstock lakes are infected with test tube franken fish.

If the DWR and sportsman are so stoked about these fish, why not stock local ponds instead of sensitive lakes off the beaten path?

Granted there are many lakes that could benefit from warm water species. I also like catching them. I just hope Utah doesn't pull a "Yellowstone" and screw it all up more then might already have.

Regarding the comment made my a forum member about how easy trout are to catch.... In my opinion, I believe most lake fishing to be pretty dang easy to the average angler BUT that's kinda the purpose of it, right? Aggressive shoreline fish for the quick fix.... keeping sportsman happy and catching... AND to keep them purchasing licenses.

Anyhow, great topic and good comments by all.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger

*I love trout!!!*
I like to catch them, take them home, and eat them. What is so wrong with that?


----------



## Catherder

Grandpa D said:


> I had someone ask me today, why the state doesn't have the same regulations for Bass at East Canyon as it has at many other waters?
> 6 Bass limit with only 1 over 12".
> 
> I think that this is a very good question and I would also like to know why and what it would take to have East Canyon added to the list that protects Bass.


I have read on a couple of occasions that because the smallies were illegally introduced there, the DWR will not establish protective regulations for them. General non-protective regs will remain. Otherwise, they feel it would be encouraging bucket biology among bassers.


----------



## Grandpa D

I would agree with you on this except the same thing happen to Mantua.
Illigal stocking of Bass and Perch.
The Bass are now protected there.

The DWR thought that the Bass and Crappie would not survive in East Canyon.
Not only have they survived, they are doing very well in there.
Good enough to see Bass Tournaments held there now.

Willard is another place that has me puzzled.
The stocking went from 800,000 to 200,000 fingerlings per year.
At the same time the limit was raised to 6 Wiper.
This doesn't make sense to me.
In the past few years, the Wiper fishing has taken a turn for the worse.
I have read many reports of Wiper anglers that are not catching the fish like they used to.
Yes the low water years have not helped there but lower the stocking and raising the limit just doesn't sound right to me.

On a side note for Willard.

Will the new hatchery at Lee K be raising Wiper?
If not, are they being raised in Utah at all?


----------



## PBH

Grandpa D said:


> On a side note for Willard.
> 
> Will the new hatchery at Lee K be raising Wiper?
> If not, are they being raised in Utah at all?


I don't know if the new hatchery will be raising wipers or not, but I do know that the hatchery at Wahweap already raises wipers.


----------



## k2muskie

PBH said:


> Grandpa D said:
> 
> 
> 
> On a side note for Willard.
> 
> Will the new hatchery at Lee K be raising Wiper?
> If not, are they being raised in Utah at all?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if the new hatchery will be raising wipers or not, but I do know that the hatchery at Wahweap already raises wipers.
Click to expand...

Per Google here's the intel I was able to find this Lee Kay and Wipers.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/fes/approval.html

By look'n at this kinda looks like in May 2010 the Lee Kay Ponds have been approved for healthy bass and wiper raising.

:wink: :wink:


----------



## Catherder

Grandpa D said:


> I would agree with you on this except the same thing happen to Mantua.
> Illigal stocking of Bass and Perch.
> The Bass are now protected there.
> 
> The DWR thought that the Bass and Crappie would not survive in East Canyon.
> Not only have they survived, they are doing very well in there.
> Good enough to see Bass Tournaments held there now.


This if from Drew Cushing: (4th post down)
http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/gf ... 543;page=1

A couple more points; 
1. Bass have been in Mantua for years and were not illegally introduced. Ditto with Rockport, Echo, DC, and Jordanelle.

2. The reason bass tournaments are frequently held at EC is because of the general regs. The contestants can keep 6 bass of all sizes in their livewells and do a full weigh in. At the other ponds, size restrictions eliminate this as a possibility. This is a sore point among tournament bassers.


----------



## Grandpa D

So was it just Perch that were illigally stocked in Mantua?
There are both Smallmouth and Largemouth in Mantua.
Were both stocked ligally?
I have been told that one or the other were not stocked by the DWR.
I could be wrong on this because I got my info from an angler and not the DWR.


----------



## Catherder

Grandpa D said:


> So was it just Perch that were illigally stocked in Mantua?
> There are both Smallmouth and Largemouth in Mantua.
> Were both stocked ligally?
> I have been told that one or the other were not stocked by the DWR.
> I could be wrong on this because I got my info from an angler and not the DWR.


The largemouth were not illegally stocked. I was unaware of smallies being present in significant numbers. (I have only heard rumors of their presence). If there, I do not know if they were legally or illegally introduced. Regulations wise, it may be hard for the average non bassin Joe to tell the difference between the two, so they just have one set of regs for both.

It might be a good question for Mr. Cushing to answer.


----------



## Jacksonman

I think this is a crazy question. Utah is trout minded because it is a trout state. If you had to identify the top pure trout states in the US, you would have Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and Utah. Sure other states have some systems or areas that produce well. But Utah is a trout state. They were native here and the altitdue with the colder temps make Utah an ideal place for several types of trout. I really get tired of hearing this question (no offense). It is like asking why Florida is a warm-water fishery or why the pacific northwest is a salmon and steelhead fishery. Certain areas and states are better suited for certain fish. Look at what survived naturally in that state and that gives you an idea for what type of fishery the state is best suited for.

That being said, I am very happy with the warm water options that Utah has. I have caught several bass, a 48"+ musky, perch, crappie, etc. No state has the freshwater diversity that Utah has. We have multiple lakes within reasonable distance of the major populations with musky, pike, bass, wipers, etc. We also have talapia,, trophy brookies, huge tiger trout and splake, macks, etc. We also have kokanee. There is something for every fishermen within reasonable distance and there are trophy classes for most of these species. 

I know when I think of moving out of the state, I don't think I will ever be able to find a location which has the possibilities and option that my Utah Valley location currently offers. I love chasing big tiger trout so I may be biased but we are spoiled here in Utah. WHen I hear this complaining for more warm water fisheries in Utah I think of spoiled children who don't realize how good they have it. :twisted:


----------



## Bassrods

Why does Utah have such a trout attitude.......

MONEY, MONEY, MONEY....

No water is warm or cold water, to me, let me explan why I say this...

If there is food and water most fish can live in the same lakes or WATER, bass trout walleye blue gill and lots of others with cover and food...No water is warm or cold, let the types of fish tell if they can live in the water at the same time...

This state grows trout and sells trout to us fisherman and even other states, bass and other so called warm water and cold water fish, and all the other states already have them and more than Utah does....

If Utah is only a trout state why do the bass do so well in most lakes or ponds????
No I think we here in Utah have some one sided people who want us to think we Utahens are or should be a trout state...I like ALL fish and think any water that the fish will grow in they should be in for all types for us to catch...


----------



## Bassrods

Another myth... Not all trout are natve to Utah....


----------



## PBH

Bassrods said:


> Another myth... Not all trout are natve to Utah....


correct. Only cutthroat are native. But, no bass are.

Here's something that isn't a myth: Utah has MORE water with "warm water" species than it does "cold water". That's a fact. This is why I don't understand when "warm water" guys start to complain about Utah being a "trout" state!

Cliff -- good to see you around. Did you have a nice Christmas?


----------



## Grandpa D

PBH,
You are once again correct.
With the size of places like Powell added into warm waters, Utah does have more warm water fishing.

I didn't start this thread with any issues in mind, just pointing out an attitude that many of the anglers and DNR folks have.
Yes we do have a lot of places that are well suited for trout but these places can and many do support other species.

The DNR uses trout because the facilities have been set up to raise trout for many, many years.

There are very few places in Utah that raise other species and that is partly because once a species like bass, perch, bluegill and crappie are introduced into a water, ther do very well on their own.

There seems to be a growing interest in fish like walleye in Utah and I for one would like to see more management plans for these fish.
Willard for example was once a great place to fish for walleye.
Now the wiper is the focus of Willard and the walleye numbers have dropped off significantly.
I have heard the same about Starvation.

In recent years, I have seen the focas changing and with the new position of Warm Water Biologist being added to the ranks of the DWR, I hope to see even more changes.
The Lee Kay Hatchery is a very good start.

Please don't get me wrong here.
I am not knocking anything that the DWR is doing and I am a big supporter of them.

My point is that it is up to the anglers to have their voices heard about changes.
If we don't let our desires be known, then how is anything going to happen.
Change takes time and we won't see a lot of major changes over night but a little at a time, things are getting better and more diverse, for fishing in Utah.

This will continue to happen and more good things will come, as we loosen up the trout minded attitude in Utah.


----------



## k2muskie

Grandpa D +1...Utah is a Trout minded state and I for one am happy to see this attitude changing and it will be a very good thing for the state as a whole. :wink: :wink:


----------



## PBH

Grandpa D said:


> There seems to be a growing interest in fish like *walleye in Utah* and I for one would like to see more *management plans for these fish*.
> Willard for example was once a great place to fish for walleye.
> Now the wiper is the focus of Willard...


Grandpa -- you must consider the species, and the legitimate ability of the DWR to be able to "manage" them. Walleye have proven time and time again that their population numbers are uncontrollable in Utah reservoirs and lakes. This is not an uncommon thing when dealing with non-native species. It's not just fish -- it's any non-natvie species introduced into a non-native habitat. Look at European rabbits in Australia. Look at Zebra Mussels in North America and Europe. Closer to home, look at brown trout in Utah streams. All are non-natives introduced into habitats with no natural system to keep tabs on populations. They grow out of control. They boom and bust (Yuba?).

Walleye are no different. They thrive for a time in new systems without natural limitations. Then, they overpopulate, eat themselves out of house and home, then starve to death. This drastic boom \ bust cycle just continues on, and on, and on, and on....

Native species don't have this problem. Brook trout do not overpopulate and stunt along the East Coast. They certainly do here in the West. Cutthroat do not overpopulate here in Utah.

Thus, species like tiger trout, tiger musky, and wipers. Sterile species whose population numbers can be controlled through stocking (or the lack thereof). Rainbow trout struggle in Utah to successfully recruit and procreate. There are very few reservoirs where rainbow are self-sustaining -- again, another reason why rainbow trout are used in our reservoirs; population control.

Managing fisheries populations is all about controlling numbers. If you can't control the numbers, then there is no management. Perch, walleye, pike -- they have no place in Utah. They cause problems. They boom and bust. They are never consistent. They are uncontrollable.

This doesn't mean that many anglers, like myself, don't enjoy fishing for these species. However, some of us understand why these species are not a good fit in Utah.


----------



## Grandpa D

PBH,
Have the Biologists tried to create a sterile species of Walleye?

I understand and also agree with you about the inherent problems that come with non-native fish species, here in Utah.
I also see why it is a good thing to stock sterile fish in places where natural reproduction can be destructive.

A very good example of this are the boom and bust cycles that Perch go through in places like Pineview, Rockport and Echo.

Like you, I love to fish for these species and I will go even farther and say that I hope that we will continue to have these fish in some of ouerwaters.

It appears to me, that we as anglers, need to educate ourselves better about these non native species of fish and become more informed about their life cycles and compatibility in Utah.

Thank you for sharing this with us,
Grandpa D.


----------



## PBH

Grandpa D said:


> Have the Biologists tried to create a sterile species of Walleye?


Not to my knowledge. Utah doesn't have a brood stock of walleye to experiment with, and with all of the disease issues (think about what the state went through just to get a clean musky source) I don't see it happening any time in the near future.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Read the link below...it addresses specifically the idea of stocking and using sterile walleye in Montana.
http://www.fisheries.org/units/AFSmonta ... 312004.pdf


----------



## Daisy

What is the big deal about planting sterile walleyes. Colorado does it on the west slope even in the drainages that have T&E fish. http://dnr.state.co.us/newsapp/press.asp?pressid=4884

Colorado does not have broodstock either, they just collect spawning fish and take eggs and milt. Why can't Utah do the same thing? Jeez, they can make all those Tigers and Golden Rainbows but not sterile walleye?


----------



## PBH

Daisy said:


> What is the big deal about planting sterile walleyes. Colorado does it on the west slope even in the drainages that have T&E fish. http://dnr.state.co.us/newsapp/press.asp?pressid=4884


From the article posted by W2U, the big deal is this:



American Fisheries Society said:


> Currently, there is no proven procedure to produce 100% sterile walleye. This is a major limitation because the proposal is founded on the fact that sterile walleye will be used for introductions in western waters. Female adult walleyes produce approximately 25,000 eggs per pound, which has proven to be more than enough reproductive capacity to cause significant impacts on existing fisheries, including Canyon Ferry Lake. Therefore, if a few fertile fish are accidentally released in a given water body, because there is not a 100% success in sterility procedures, there could be significant impacts to other waters. This threat is exacerbated by the high rate of illegal fish introductions in western Montana.


further, "A major problem of introducing walleye west of the Continental Divide is that people will likely move them to other waters illegally..." and "The biology of walleyes makes them poorly suited for most waters west of the Divide".

I really liked this comment, and wish more anglers would do the same in Utah: "Finally, we believe that the Commission should carefully consider the recommendations of
fisheries experts throughout Montana. The people of Montana rely on state and federal officials to make wise decisions on the use of our fisheries resources to provide recreational fishing opportunities and conserve native fishes for future generations."

Daisy -- prior to Utah being able to use any wild source fish for egg and milt collection the water body must be certified as "disease free" -- a process that is not exactly easy. Just because Colorado is currently in the middle of a 5 year "experiment" using sterile walleye does not mean Utah should do the same. Walleye are a problem in the west. There are just too many documented cases that prove walleye to be problematic. They've already ruined many Utah fisheries -- why on earth would we want to jeopardize more of our fisheries in Utah?


----------



## Daisy

The link that was provided from Montana is over 5 years old. Science evolves. Is Colorado that reckless to stock a top level predator into a watershed that drains into the Colorado River system where Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and the Feds have spent millions to eradicate these non-native species in favor of the native T&E fish, without some degree of certainty that these walleye they are stocking are indeed 100% sterile. 

Utah is well suited for "coolwater" fish. Trout are an easy way out.


----------



## PBH

Daisy said:


> Is Colorado that reckless to stock a top level predator... without some degree of certainty that these walleye they are stocking are indeed 100% sterile.


It's never 100% certainty. Ever. Especially considering that walleye are not a hybrid.

Also, the San Juan drains into Lake Powell, where there are already walleye. I'm pretty sure that Colorado chose the two lakes they are using very carefully, and did not just haphazardly go about stocking sterile walleye in them. One other thing to consider in this "experiment" is that Colorado has been stocking fertile walleye in Puett and Narraguinnep reservoirs for many years. The introduction of sterile walleye was NOT an introduction of a new games species to these reservoirs.

That does not justify Utah, or Montana, to do the same.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Daisy said:


> The link that was provided from Montana is over 5 years old. Science evolves. Is Colorado that reckless to stock a top level predator into a watershed that drains into the Colorado River system where Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and the Feds have spent millions to eradicate these non-native species in favor of the native T&E fish, without some degree of certainty that these walleye they are stocking are indeed 100% sterile.


As of yet, science--even though it evolves--has NOT found a way to get 100% sterility from walleye. Although Colorado has heatshocked their walleye and made them triploid, this method is not going to guarantee sterile fish.

"Currently, the only method that has been used to produce sterile walleye is triploidization. This technique uses a heat or pressure shock to cause recently fertilized eggs to retain an extra set of chromosomes. The fish that subsequently develop have three sets of chromosomes (triploid) rather than the normal two sets (diploid). Complications with meiosis in triploid fish typically cause them to be functionally infertile. However, triploidy in walleye is difficult to induce consistently. The only way to ensure that 100% triploids are stocked would be to individually screen each fish, a practice that would not be practical for a production facility."
http://www.webs.uidaho.edu/aquaculture/ ... ewltrl.pdf

Of course, though, the link is 5 years old...I am sure science has evolved since then, right? But, just like Colorado biologist Mike Japhet said, "The switch to stocking sterile walleye is something new. It will be a couple of years before we know how the experiment to produce and stock sterile fish will work."


----------



## Daisy

PBH and Wyoming2Utah- do your responses mean that you would not be in favor of stocking walleye (sterile) in certain Utah waters? The DWR has shown a trend towards stocking fish popular with anglers such as splake, tigers, and albino rainbows. Why not show some love for the walleye angler.


----------



## PBH

Daisy -- where in Utah do walleye need to be stocked?


I would be 100% against the introduction of walleye (sterile or not) to any water that has not had walleye in the past. Those waters that already have walleye (Yuba, Utah Lake, Deer Creek, Lake Powell, etc), I wouldn't care of sterile walleye were stocked in those places -- but is there a need? Aren't walleye problems typically associated with too many fish? So, why would we need to stock walleye?


----------



## Bassrods

pbh do you think that Utah should plant any other kind fish but trout???


----------



## PBH

Bassrods said:


> pbh do you think that Utah should plant any other kind fish but trout???


that's a pretty open-ended question. I could answer it numerous ways. How's this:

Yes.

fish like tiger musky and wiper need to be stocked unless we determine they are no longer beneficial to our fisheries.

smallmouth bass need to be stocked in certain cases -- like when lakes are drained (ie: Piute, Otter Creek, Minersville) for dam repairs, etc. Once established, there is no reason to continue to stock them. They are very well adapted to reproducing in Utah's reservoirs.

Gunlock Reservoir has recently been stocked with large mouth bass from Sand Hollow. Same with bluegill. Once established, this reservoir won't need additional stocking. These fish are very capable of reproducing in Utah's lower elevation reservoirs.

species like walleye have no place in Utah (or the West), if you ask me. Perch would also fit this category. Pike are a scary species as well. All of these species have tremendous potential for their populations to grow uncontrollably.

Is that what you were looking for? What species would you like to see stocked in Utah, and where. Don't forget the "where" part. That's a pretty important piece of the puzzle.


----------



## Daisy

PBH said:


> Daisy -- where in Utah do walleye need to be stocked?
> 
> I would be 100% against the introduction of walleye (sterile or not) to any water that has not had walleye in the past. Those waters that already have walleye (Yuba, Utah Lake, Deer Creek, Lake Powell, etc), I wouldn't care of sterile walleye were stocked in those places -- but is there a need? Aren't walleye problems typically associated with too many fish? So, why would we need to stock walleye?


I have never heard of fishermen complaining about too many walleye. I could be wrong.

Why not stock sterile walleye into waters with an obvious chub problem. Then you are taking care of the chub problem, and it is a fish that fishermen like to take home.


----------



## JAT83

Daisy said:


> PBH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daisy -- where in Utah do walleye need to be stocked?
> 
> I would be 100% against the introduction of walleye (sterile or not) to any water that has not had walleye in the past. Those waters that already have walleye (Yuba, Utah Lake, Deer Creek, Lake Powell, etc), I wouldn't care of sterile walleye were stocked in those places -- but is there a need? Aren't walleye problems typically associated with too many fish? So, why would we need to stock walleye?
> 
> 
> 
> I have never heard of fishermen complaining about too many walleye. I could be wrong.
> 
> Why not stock sterile walleye into waters with an obvious chub problem. Then you are taking care of the chub problem, and it is a fish that fishermen like to take home.
Click to expand...

I like that idea...especially since I have still never caught a Walleye


----------



## wyoming2utah

Daisy said:


> Why not stock sterile walleye into waters with an obvious chub problem. Then you are taking care of the chub problem, and it is a fish that fishermen like to take home.


Because stocking sterile walleye isn't really possible. Right now, the science isn't capable of stocking sterile walleye...only almost-sterile walleye. So, the problem is that eventually the walleye overpopulate, eat themselves out of house and home, stunt, and the boom-bust cycle begins. Why risk ruining a lake with walleye when other options exist...like what has been done at Panguitch Lake and Strawberry?

The bottom line is that walleye are NOT a good option for Utah....


----------



## Daisy

wyoming2utah said:


> Because stocking sterile walleye isn't really possible. Right now, the science isn't capable of stocking sterile walleye...only almost-sterile walleye. So, the problem is that eventually the walleye overpopulate, eat themselves out of house and home, stunt, and the boom-bust cycle begins. Why risk ruining a lake with walleye when other options exist...like what has been done at Panguitch Lake and Strawberry?
> 
> The bottom line is that walleye are NOT a good option for Utah....


You seem to be making some pretty big leaps in logic here. You are assuming that any walleye stocked are 100% reproductively viable. Additionally, you are assuming that any walleye spawn is successful, which is uncommon in the western USA. With the stocking of sterile, and for the sake of arguement, there is a 90% sterility success rate, walleye populations could easily be controlled. The boom bust cycle you mention might occur decades or centuries later... if ever. Supplemental stockings of walleye could occur when recommended by the Fish Managers to meet the management objectives.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Daisy said:


> You seem to be making some pretty big leaps in logic here. You are assuming that any walleye stocked are 100% reproductively viable. Additionally, you are assuming that any walleye spawn is successful, which is uncommon in the western USA. With the stocking of sterile, and for the sake of arguement, there is a 90% sterility success rate, walleye populations could easily be controlled. The boom bust cycle you mention might occur decades or centuries later... if ever. Supplemental stockings of walleye could occur when recommended by the Fish Managers to meet the management objectives.


Leaps in logic? How? If stocked walleye were 90% sterile, that leaves 10% of the fish non-sterile. Spawning success in Utah reservoirs has been excellent...see Starvation, Deer Creek, Yuba, etc has examples. Good grief, why do you think biologists all over the West have been decrying the stupidity of fishermen who choose to take fish stocking into their own hands--bucket biologists. The examples of walleye being illegally introduced and ruining fisheries across the West are numerous. It only takes a handful of fertile walleye to ruin a fishery...10% of a stocked population would be more than enough! Boom and bust cycles are common in much shorter time periods at reservoirs like Starvation, Yuba, and Deer Creek...as would be the case in most Utah reservoirs!


----------



## Packfish

[?

..[/quote]

You seem to be making some pretty big leaps in logic here. You are assuming that any walleye stocked are 100% reproductively viable. Additionally, you are assuming that any walleye spawn is successful, which is uncommon in the western USA. With the stocking of sterile, and for the sake of arguement, there is a 90% sterility success rate, walleye populations could easily be controlled. The boom bust cycle you mention might occur decades or centuries later... if ever. Supplemental stockings of walleye could occur when recommended by the Fish Managers to meet the management objectives.[/quote]

Walleye really are not a good option for 95% of Utah- Don't see any of the above statement based of facts but only on wishful thinking. I grew up on Lake Eire and loved walleye fishing- but this isn't the mid west.


----------



## PBH

Daisy said:


> With the stocking of sterile, and for the sake of arguement, there is a 90% sterility success rate, walleye populations could easily be controlled. The boom bust cycle you mention might occur decades or centuries later... if ever.


Tell that to Yuba, Deer Creek, and Starvation. Those boom bust cycles happen within years. Not decades or centuries.

Remember: it only takes two!

Using your own numbers, if 3,000 walleye were "sterilized" with a 90% success rate, that would leave 300 sterile walleye. Stocking those fish in a reservoir where managers were hoping to keep control of a walleye population would be catastrophic.

If managers wanted 100% sterile fish, they'd have to screen those 3,000 fish first and remove those 300 sterile fish from the stock pool. Seems a bit time consuming, and most likely expensive.

Now, stocking those fish in a lake that already has walleye in it (like those you mentioned in Colorado) might not be so harmful. The problem in Utah is that our reservoirs that already have walleye typically have too many walleye -- or, rather, too many predators and not enough prey, and thus a boom\bust cycle. There, again, is the problem. Utah's reservoirs simply do not have the natural systems (ie: a system where predator vs. prey populations balance themselves) to support species like walleye, perch, and pike. In nearly every lake \ reservoir in Utah where these species live, they stunt. They overpopulate. They starve. They crash. They don't work. Why take that risk (or waste the time) with "sterile" walleye?


----------



## wyoming2utah

Daisy said:


> i. The boom bust cycle you mention might occur decades or centuries later... if ever.


According to the DWR, "...currently provides good fishing on a cycle that runs about every five years; fishing will be good for about five years and then it will be poor for a few years. The relationship between forage fish and walleye the reason for the cycle. The forage fish produce an abundant year class for a couple of years then the walleye population eats most of the forage fish that are produced and the walleye population expands. This causes the forage fish population to decline, and then the walleye population declines too. After the declines, the cycle stars all over again."

Also, "In their native eastern habitat, walleye and salmonids are able to limit interaction by living at different water temperatures (depths) and in different habitats (McLean and Magnuson 1977). However, in western reservoirs the lack of a strong thermocline and a small littoral area does not permit this separation (McMahon and Bennett 1996). Numbers and health of brown trout Salmo trutta were found to decrease after introduced walleyes consumed a large portion of the crayfish population, the brown trout's favorite food (McMahon and Bennett 1996). When the walleye initially was introduced into Salmon Falls Creek Reservoir, Idaho, yellow perch Perca flavescens comprised 80% of the sport fish. However, 12 years later, walleye made up 80% and perch only 1% of the fish in the reservoir (McMahon and Bennett 1996). Similar perch collapses also have happened at two other reservoirs in Wyoming (McMahon and Bennett 1996). A crash in the yellow perch population in Canyon Ferry Reservoir may be related to past walleye introduction; studies are being conducted to look at the problem; in addition, it has been predicted that walleye will have a large impact on the trout fishery in the reservoir (White, personal communication). In many cases introduced walleye deplete the forage base. As a consequence, the surviving walleye population consists of stunted individuals and the species no longer serves as a valuable fishery (McMahon and Bennett 1996). Some states now prohibit the introduction of walleye into certain waters."

http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactShee ... ciesID=831

I am dead set against the stocking of walleye into any water in Utah unless 100% sterility is possible! Again, read this link from Montana's branch of AFS...their reasons for not wanting walleye stocked in Montana are the same reasons Utah should not want them:
http://www.fisheries.org/units/AFSmonta ... 312004.pdf


----------



## Daisy

Boy, you two guys need to relax, are you guys related?

Nowhere did I advocate to stock these sterile walleye in every piece of water in Utah, but you two guys have made that assumption. There are obviously some waters in this state can use a few more mouths. OK, maybe sterile walleye are not the best choice, maybe tiger musky are. It is good to hear that Utah will now start growing TM. Maybe the sterility rate on Walleye is higher than 90%, I do not know, but you guys have not proven either that it is not 100%.

I can see now why Utah has such a trout minded attitude, "it is easy to do what we always have done."


----------



## Grandpa D

Great responses on the Walleye issue. Thanks for posting info that can be backed up.

Now my next question is this.
Why is the Walleye population in Willard Bay declining?
The same for Starvation.

What I have read from your posts, the Walleye should be booming in these Reservoirs.


----------



## wyoming2utah

From what I have read about Starvation, is that the walleye population is beginning a bust cycle. The population has exploded, the forage base--chubs--is gone, and now the walleye population is declining because the fish are starving.

I haven't read anything about Willard, but I would imagine that it too is in the bust portion of its cycle...


----------



## wyoming2utah

Daisy said:


> Nowhere did I advocate to stock these sterile walleye in every piece of water in Utah, but you two guys have made that assumption. There are obviously some waters in this state can use a few more mouths. OK, maybe sterile walleye are not the best choice, maybe tiger musky are. It is good to hear that Utah will now start growing TM. Maybe the sterility rate on Walleye is higher than 90%, I do not know, but you guys have not proven either that it is not 100%.
> 
> I can see now why Utah has such a trout minded attitude, "it is easy to do what we always have done."


I didn't claim nor did I imply that you did think walleye should be stocked in every piece of water in Utah. There are ZERO waters in Utah that could/should have heat-shocked-not-100%-sterile walleye stocked into them because the risk is simply too high. The fact, though, is that heat-shocking walleye does not eliminate fertility 100%. The fact, as the AFS so eloquently stated, is that "Currently, there is no proven procedure to produce 100% sterile walleye. This is a major limitation because the proposal is founded on the fact that sterile walleye will be used for introductions in western waters. Female adult walleyes produce approximately 25,000 eggs per pound, which has proven to be more than enough reproductive capacity to cause significant impacts on existing fisheries..." Nothing in science has changed since this letter was written...

Utah is a trout-minded state because trout are better-suited to most of the habitats Utah presents. If situations or habitats present themselves where the use of non-native species other than trout may benefit a fishery, I am all for it. I love catching smallmouth bass, wipers, tiger musky, and other species of fish other than trout. But, the bottom line is that a species like walleye that is NOT 100% controllable is not a good answer for a variety of reasons...many--if not all--were presented in the letter written by the AFS.


----------



## PBH

Daisy -- tiger musky are a much better fit for some Utah reservoirs. They are sterile (hybrid). Their numbers can be controlled through stocking. Thus, Utah has gone to a lot of work developing the resources necessary for producing tiger musky here in Utah. Same with wipers. They are much better management tools than walleye or pike.

I never accused you of wanting walleye everywhere. However, you haven't once mentioned where you want sterile walleye stocked. So, I'll ask you again: Where are you wanting them??


----------



## k2muskie

wyoming2utah said:


> I haven't read anything about Willard, but I would imagine that it too is in the bust portion of its cycle...


Think'n the low water level in the past greatly contributed to the Willard Walleye bust cycle. However this past season we pulled out some very nice and healthly look'n Walleye. So I personally don't believe Willard is in a Walleye bust cycle...but I'm no aquatic biologist. :|

Next TMs have done a great deal of good for PV...the panfish are larger compared to when PV was stocked with Trout in years past per conversations I've had with old timers. The DWR learned with the dam Trout could not adequately survive in PV because of the huge fluxuations of water level including the water temps. Hence stunted panfish as a result of really no predatory fish until DWR introduced Tiger Musky, LMB, and SMB. Yes there are still Trout in PV but nowhere's close to what there once was from folks I've talked to that used to line the banks of PV fish'n for Trout.

Utah is a Trout minded state without a doubt...but that mind set is changing and I'm glad as I'm sure others are also. We enjoy fish'n for Walleye, Perch, Crappie and of course the sport of catch'n a trophy size 45-50" TM. Bottom line, fish for what you want but if someone doesn't fish for Trout and support the Trout mindset this state anglers have don't hold that against them. We can choose what we fish for...and we choose not to fish for Trout. :wink: :wink:


----------



## Bassrods

We will have a boom and bust as long as we keep trying to get read of chubs and all the other feeder fish....

What we need to do is put more feeder fish in the lakes, Willard has shad another has golden shiners others have chubs Powell has shad and others.. Willard and the Berry and Powell because of the chubs and shad grow lots of big fish and seem to not have the boom and bust that other do...

Yuba with only Perch and walleyes and carp keep having the same boom and bust Deer creek Starvation Yuba all seem to fall in with the same boom and bust, Powell was the same till the shad got in the lake now it is back as one of the best lakes in the country for lots of big fish...

To me I see we need to have more then one or two feeder fish in our lakes, but the flat head minnows or red sided minnows don't seem to work as well as chubs and shad and golden shiners, its like with deer elk and cows to get big they have to eat and the more food the bigger they get and the more we have....


----------



## Catherder

"Powell because of the chubs and shad grow lots of big fish and seem to not have the boom and bust that other do..."

Powell isn't boom or bust for stripers? Did you sniff a rancid bag of gulp grubs yesterday at Deer Creek?

One more thing I would like to throw out in this discussion. As I stated 5-6 pages ago :roll: , I am primarily a WARMWATER guy for large parts of the year. What species get hurt when illegal predatory fish get dumped into a fishery? Deer creek is a fine example. The rainbow trout fishing has been consistently good for many years, both before and after walleye were put in. The bass and perch? Before the eyes, DC was an outstanding bass fishery for both smallies and largies. Now it is a great place to catch stunted 6 inch smallies, even with trophy regs. The DC perch fishing (before the eyes) attracted ice fishing crowds that exceeded cougar stadium during the Crowton years. Those days are long gone and overall DC use is down. So who gets hurt by these predatory fish plantings? Not trout guys, but warmwater anglers, esp bassers.


----------



## k2muskie

Catherder said:


> So who gets hurt by these predatory fish plantings? Not trout guys, but warmwater anglers, esp bassers.


Very good point there. Fish'n PV we've pulled out some nice look'n smallies a couple seasons ago. However last season we managed only 6-9" SMB and LMB. I've yet to hook into a LMB except for this past season and nothing over 9". But SMB in previous seasons largest we pulled out was push'n 18"...had none of that last year. But could be changing up our style of fish'n lures the larger SMB and LMB don't find appealing.

So even though I'm a TM angling nut...your point is noted that possibly the TM has put a hurt on SMB and LMB. I will say the Perch and Crappie are much larger. Will be interesting to see what happens at Newton and the LMB with the TMs in there. Good point though. I don't believe Trout get as impacted with predatory fish sharing the waters as much as some may think. But again I'm no fishery biologist.


----------



## Catherder

K2, I'm not against the tigers as they are used currently. The fact that they are sterile means they can be controlled if a problem arises. But they may not be appropriate for all fisheries, such as Jordanelle or Sand Hollow, where the bass fishery is exceptional. Pike and walleyes however, would be a disaster in these locations.


----------



## k2muskie

Catherder said:


> K2, I'm not against the tigers as they are used currently. The fact that they are sterile means they can be controlled if a problem arises. But they may not be appropriate for all fisheries, such as Jordanelle or Sand Hollow, where the bass fishery is exceptional. Pike and walleyes however, would be a disaster in these locations.


I took no exception and I agree with you and believe you made a great point about predatory fish impacting Bass. :wink: :wink:


----------



## Grandpa D

Once again, as I read through everyones thoughts here, I see a common result.
Bass, Perch, Crappie, etc. will continue to go through boom and bust cycles in Northern Utah.
Why?
Because our eco-system isn't set up for them.

Trout, on the other hand have it made here.
Why?
Because the State has hatcheries for these fish and can replace them as needed.

To me it appears that the ansewer is for Utah to have hatcheries for these other species of fish.

The good news is that we are statring to see this happen.
Utah will always be a Trout minded State because Trout are a great fit here.
Other species will struggle but they can do very well with help.

I hope that the State will continue to expand beyond Trout and make or keep opportunities for our anglers to have a varity of fish to ppuesue.

I am a big supporter of our DWR and appreciate what they do for us.
Changes will cost money and that money must come from us, the licensed anglers.
Please remember this when ever you see license fees go up.
If we want varity and ample fish in our waters, we must be willing to pay for it.


----------



## PBH

Grandpa D said:


> Once again, as I read through everyones thoughts here, I see a common result.
> Bass, Perch, Crappie, etc. will continue to go through boom and bust cycles in Northern Utah.
> Why?
> Because our eco-system isn't set up for them.
> 
> Trout, on the other hand have it made here.
> Why?
> Because the State has hatcheries for these fish and can replace them as needed.
> 
> To me it appears that the ansewer is for Utah to have hatcheries for these other species of fish.


Well....not quite. The issues are almost opposite. Bass, perch, crappie, etc. all are very capable of reproducing in Utah's reservoirs. In many cases they reproduce too well.

On the other hand, trout do not. Rainbow trout struggle to reproduce naturally in Utah's reservoirs. I can only think of 1 reservoir in southern Utah that has self-sustaining rainbow trout. Cutthroat are native to this area, and thus they don't overpopulate. I've never heard of a case in the west were cutthroat trout were overpopulated. Brown Trout can hold their own in many reservoirs, and typically are not stocked in reservoirs -- they are, however stocked in many streams and rivers. Lake trout are rarely stocked. Brook trout are stocked, and in lakes and reservoirs where they can reproduce they typically stunt (overpopulate).

Those other species don't need additional stocking. Perch are a menace, just like walleye. bass (small and large mouth) are self-sustaining once established, and utilizing Utah's natural 'hatcheries' (Newcastle Reservoir, Sand Hollow, Flaming Gorge) to get those populations established is a good practice -- removing a few hundred of these fish from these reservoirs probably does more good than it does harm.

so -- I'll ask Grandpa a question (since Daisy doesn't seem to want to answer any....):
What reservoirs would you suggest that need to be stocked with other "warm water" species? Is there truly a need?


----------



## UTFSHR

Simple.

The DWR has invested so much into trout hatcheries that it becomes the easiest and most cost effective means of delivering a managable fish.

I do love the fact that they are reaching outward into tiger musky hatcheries/fisheries.


----------



## Daisy

PBH said:


> so -- I'll ask Grandpa a question (since Daisy doesn't seem to want to answer any....):
> What reservoirs would you suggest that need to be stocked with other "warm water" species? Is there truly a need?


How about some additional stocking of sterile walleye into Utah Lake? That lake could use some additional top level predators to control the non-game fish.

How do you quantify or qualify if there is truly a need? Since the DWR seems to havea significant focus on satisfying its customer base. It is also clear that Utah anglers have an increased interest in warm water fish. Is this not a clear trend towards providing additional non-trout opportunities.


----------



## Grandpa D

PBH,
I don't see a particular need, as far as where should warm water fish be stocked.
What I do see though are places like Pineview and Jordanelle, that have very good fishing for Bass for a few years and then the Bass become very hard to locate and catch.
Reports from Pineview over the last 2 years, indicate that the Bass numbers are down, or the fish are just not being caught, like in the years before that.

Our own Leaky, is one of the people that has posted about this.

Willard Bay Wiper fishing has been reported to be a lot slower then normal for the past year or so.

I'm not complaining here, just asking how these places are managed and what can be done as far as improving the fishing.

As I look at the stocking reports for Willard, I see a sharp decline in fish stocked over the pase few years.
As I understand it, bringing in Wiper from out of state is becoming difficult because of the danger of also bringing in disease.
Raising Wiper instate will take care of this, as long as we have the facilities to raise the numbers needed.

I am just starting to fish for Bass and my knowledge is very low as to management of these fish.
This is why I'm asking a lot of questions and have no answers.


----------



## PBH

Daisy -- stocking of walleye in Utah Lake isn't going to happen because of native endangered species like the June Sucker. That's a Federal issue, and the UDWR would pretty much have it's hands tied trying to stock more walleye in that fishery. That would pretty much go for any additional predatorial fish in Utah Lake.

How do you quantify a need? You have to first identify where the possibility exists, what the current system contains, what the current bottlenecks are, then identify if the possibility is there. Just dumping fish somewhere because an angler wants them is certainly not a qualifying reason.

Grandpa -- you have to identify the problem before you can fix it. If the problem isn't stocking, then stocking fish won't fix it. At Pineview, maybe the problem with the bass is actually a result of the perch. Is the lake currently at it's maximum level of biomass? If so, you can't just add more fish to it. The bucket is full. This is the problem with lakes that have species like perch and walleye. They overpopulate to the point that other species suffer.

Wiper are produced in Utah at the Wahweap hatchery. Hasn't Willard had water issues for a number of years? Fisheries typically struggle without water. Fix the problem and you'll have a good fishery. You must identify what the bottleneck is. If you aren't attacking the bottleneck, you won't get anywhere. (FWIW -- there were nearly 300,000 wiper stocked in Willard in 2009 and 200,000 in 2008).


----------



## HighNDry

I like trout because they are pretty. They have neat color to them. They are works of art. They live in cold, clear, and somewhat clean waters, and in environments that are beautiful. That's my preference.

I don't mind the guy that wants to go sit on the dike at Willard in a manmade environment and catch fish that like warm water--it's just not my preference.


----------



## Daisy

PBH- It is not only a Federal issue, it is a State issue, Utah has the final say here. Of course if the State does not follow the Fed's recommendations there will be a price to pay.

The possibility always exists. You just have to have a good management plan, garner support from the stakeholders, and be brave enough to follow through.

Even if PV is at its maximum level of biomass, there can be justification to add additional fish. Of course this is only workable if the correct fish are added, to hopefully balance the system.


----------



## Grandpa D

FWIW -- there were nearly 300,000 wiper stocked in Willard in 2009 and 200,000 in 2008).

PBH, 
This is correct.
Now if you go back a few more years, you will see that there were 800,000 Wiper stocked in Willard back then.

It just seems funny that when there were 800,000 Wiper stocked, the limit was lower than it is now with the lower stocking limits.

I would think that Willard could have the limit lowered back to 3 until the stocking numbers go back up.

PS:
Wiper are less than 2" long when they are stocked in Willard.
I don't know what the mortality rate is but it has to be very low at that size.


----------



## Bassrods

Grandpa 
The big thing we have trouble with is food for all the predators we have like bass trout walleye white bass crappie and alike...

Yuba is one that needs the help...Willard got help when they put shad in it, Lake Powell was in bad shape as well the stripers bass and all the predators in Powell was skinny and said to be over populated like other bodes of waters and the fish in them....

For years the chubs have been killed off or tried to be, the Berry would not have the size of fish with out the chubs, some of the feeder fish we need is golden shiners and shad for the two best....

With the shad or golden shiners in Yuba we may not have the boom or bust we have now....

If you put a cow in a field with out any grass or hay it will starve as well...Walleye and all the fish in the lakes are the same...


----------



## PBH

Daisy said:


> PBH- It is not only a Federal issue, it is a State issue, Utah has the final say here.


Wrong. Federal law supersedes state law. While Utah is currently doing a good job with the June Sucker program, the Feds ultimately make the decisions.



Daisy said:


> The possibility always exists. You just have to have a good management plan, garner support from the stakeholders, and be brave enough to follow through.


'

That's very subjective. It's very possible that the current plan is the right plan, with support form the stakeholders, and the DWR is being brave enough to follow through, even though many don't like it.



Daisy said:


> even if PV is at its maximum level of biomass, there can be justification to add additional fish. Of course this is only workable if the correct fish are added, to hopefully balance the system.


 ?? If the bucket is full, how can you possibly add more to it? That's the whole problem. You must reduce the biomass in order to make anything work. Adding more bass to the system isn't going to solve the problem. When you have a bag of jelly beans and that bag is full, you can't add more large jelly beans just because that is what you want. You have to remove some jelly beans first.

Cliff always wants to add more prey. But, the analogy still fits. If the bag is full of large jelly beans you can't add more small jelly beans for the large jelly beans to eat if the bag is already full!

Cliffs arguments show EXACTLY why species like walleye, and perch are poor species for our waters here in the west. They eat themselves out of house and home. Once they do that, the system is broken. You can't just keep adding more prey to the sytem and expect better results. As soon as you add more prey, the predators population grows even more. Add more prey, the predators population grows again. When the lake is at capacity, how do you possibly continue to add more???

grandpa -- wipers amazingly enough seem to survive when stocked at those small sizes. I don't have the numbers on survival rates, and I would agree with you that I'm sure many are lost -- but they seem to be doing OK with those sizes. I do not know the exact plan, or issues, with Willard. However, I wouldn't jump to any conclusions without speaking with the bilogist over willard. Obviously, something has changed to make the biologist change the stocking rates. That could be a number of different factors. I'd recommend calling the biologist over Willard and asking about it.

Cliff -- there were no chubs in the Berry back in 1930 when Mrs. E Smith caught her 26lb cutthroat trout. What was it eating that made it so large? Invertebrates.

If you put a cow in a field and fill the field with other herbivores that outcompete the cow for food, the cow will starve. If you put a bunch of rabbits in the field, that cow might get desperate enough to eat the rabbit. It will not convert over to rely entirely on rabbits to sustain itself.

If you have a field full of coyotes, then they will start to prey on the rabbits. But, what happens when the coyotes run out of rabbits to eat? They starve. Is the solution to add more rabbits? If you add more rabbits, what happens to the coyote population? It grows. Which means now you need to add even more rabbits to sustain the coyotes. Then the coyotes population grows again. So, add more rabbits.....it's a never ending cycle. You don't add more food. You limit what's eating the food. Fewer predators. No walleye. No perch.


----------



## Bassrods

pbh 
You talk in buckets I talk in lakes, you don't like any thing put in any water but trout, and it shows....

Bucket this and bucket that the truth is all you want is trout trout trout, I have been to lots of other waters and worked with the DWR in this state and other states and have been told not to rock the boat in this state, the thing is if you kill all the other fish (big and small) you have more room for trout...But even they have to eat....

Walleye and bass, crappie and lots and lots of shad can and do live in the same lake, if the shad run out of food they die of in winter and fall to the bottom to be eaten by the rest, the small go first that is how it works just like at willard and Powell or is the buckets in those lakes just bigger...


----------



## Daisy

PBH- I sure am glad there are guys like you around to pick us yokels up when we fall off the turnip truck.

The State sits at the same table as the Feds when an ESA management plan is created. In the past decade the Feds have realized that State ESA related efforts are more effective both practically and economically. legally I agree with thout comment, practically, the State has the real power with implementation. It is a balancing act.

Subjective, yes, but no less valid. Wildlife management is a very young science, theory and practices are ever changing.

I clearly understand the concept you have repetedly tried to bash into our collective heads, but you are making the wrong basic assumption that the bucket is full at PV, it is not. You clearly undertsand that fish populations are not static, but fluid. The amount of biomass a system can hold is finite. All I am saying is that the composition of that biomass can be adjusted to achieve balance, this is where PV can be improved.

I would stock sterile coyotes to eat those pesky wabbits.


----------



## Grandpa D

Quote from Daisy:
"I would stock sterile coyotes to eat those pesky wabbits."

Now you are catching on.
If we sterilize everything, we can control everything!

Now how do we sterilize some of our law makers?


----------



## tyler11385

I like fishing for everything, but the only thing I have really gotten into is trout. I'd really like to catch some more bass.


----------



## Bassrods

tyler11385
No you don't want to catch any bass, stick to trout you will save more money that way... :wink: 
Bass toys cost more money then trout toys..


----------



## Nor-tah

Do they make 800 dollar casting rods??? How about 700 dollar waders? Haha But them shiny boats are pricey. Its all that glitter in the paint!


----------



## Bassrods

Nor-tah
our poles are only $350 and reels around $350 to $450 each, but we have 20 to 40 of them + boat at $50,000 to $60,000 and lures from $10.00 to over $30. each but we my have over 100 of them...
Bass fishing is fun and costly that's why we get up set if we don't catch many bass... :mrgreen: :lol:


----------



## wyoming2utah

Daisy said:


> I would stock sterile coyotes to eat those pesky wabbits.


NO, actually, you would stock some sterile coyotes and some fertile coyotes....you would hope that all your coyotes would be sterile, but you would rely on methods that have been proven NOT to be 100% successful. And, because of that, your plan would fail and the coyotes would still propagate at rates higher than the prey base can sustain...so, eventually, your coyote population would crash in a boom and bust cycle just like your population of rabbits.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Daisy said:


> I clearly understand the concept you have repetedly tried to bash into our collective heads, but you are making the wrong basic assumption that the bucket is full at PV, it is not. You clearly undertsand that fish populations are not static, but fluid. The amount of biomass a system can hold is finite. All I am saying is that the composition of that biomass can be adjusted to achieve balance, this is where PV can be improved.
> .


I am trying to understand what you are saying here. You believe that the metaphorical bucket at PV is NOT full. What makes you think this? IF it is not full, and you want to balance the biomass better by stocking predators, does that mean that the lake is below carrying capacity in terms of both predators and prey? Because, if the predator base is low, wouldn't that allow the prey base to quickly grow to keep the bucket full? What has changed that suddenly lowered fish populations to levels below carrying capacity?


----------



## wyoming2utah

Daisy said:


> Even if PV is at its maximum level of biomass, there can be justification to add additional fish. Of course this is only workable if the correct fish are added, to hopefully balance the system.


Right. So, what is the right fish? I have felt like tiger musky were the right fish...a sterile predator whose numbers can be controlled. The problem recently is that VHS disease issues have made this difficult and until just recently Utah has been unable to stock these fish. Hopefully, the problems have been solved for the long term and not just the short term...


----------



## Phragmites

I decided that this post needed to be revived, there is some interesting conversation here. I personally would love to see one of our reserviors stocked with 10,000+ 12" crappie. I believe the general public has a true desire to catch warm water species specifical crappie in Utah and we should have several reserviors managed strictly for that. Would Mantua be a good place to stock crappie or pelican, would there also have to be a minnow stocking project as well?


----------



## Clarq

Phragmites said:


> I decided that this post needed to be revived, there is some interesting conversation here. I personally would love to see one of our reserviors stocked with 10,000+ 12" crappie.


I'd also love to see that. I'd have a great time joining the entire state of utah in an effort to catch as many 12" crappie as possible before they got fished out. And I'm sure most of Utah would love to see fewer trout stocked so the DWR can pay for all these adult crappie to be stocked.


----------



## josh12ga

I too would like to see bigger pan fish in a lot of these lakes and ponds... But so many different minded people, it will be difficult to know what's the right thing to do.. untill we have tryed and find the best pattern for success..

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk


----------



## k2muskie

Not from Utah but interesting readings on various fish stocking with the whys and why nots to stocking a species.

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/fishing/po ... ocking.asp

http://ohioline.osu.edu/a-fact/0010.html

:| :|


----------



## Bax*

We have fish other than trout?!


----------



## Grandpa D

Wow,
Talk about resurrection!
I hope that many who have read and posted about this will email the DWR with your concerns and desires about more warm water fish in Utah.
This is the best was to get the changes that we are wanting.


----------



## tskorc

coming from northern WI, I can tell you Utah is definitely trout centric.

I like it for the most part (we only have so many trout streams back home), but I think the DWR here could do better with the warm water species with respect to the community fisheries. There are enough of them with the right climate that they can afford to experiment every once in a while. Plus it would gives the chance to introduce people to new species. Education is part of the community fisheries mission.


----------



## Clarq

tskorc said:


> coming from northern WI, I can tell you Utah is definitely trout centric.
> 
> I like it for the most part (we only have so many trout streams back home), but I think the DWR here could do better with the warm water species with respect to the community fisheries. There are enough of them with the right climate that they can afford to experiment every once in a while. Plus it would gives the chance to introduce people to new species. Education is part of the community fisheries mission.


I too would love to see more warmwater species in the community ponds. The DWR has stocked bluegill in many of them, and they usually just stunt out quickly. The largemouth bass they stock usually get fished out soon after they're planted.

The ponds are a tricky situation because they get so much pressure. If a bonus bluegill limit was put in place, I think it may reduce stunting. Largemouth bass, on the other hand, need to be released or they will get fished out. It's up to anglers to do this, and I don't think most anglers would release one if they caught it.

The only way I could ever see a viable bass fishery in a community pond is if they were stocked at catchable lengths and large quantities, just like trout and catfish are managed.


----------



## Grandpa D

"The only way I could ever see a viable bass fishery in a community pond is if they were stocked at catchable lengths and large quantities, just like trout and catfish are managed."

Not the only way.
Mandatory catch and release of any Bass caught in a Community Pond would also work.
Yes it's true that some of the Bass would be illegally taken but with the cooperation of everyone that fishes the Ponds, we could police others and keep the Bass in the Ponds.


----------



## Clarq

Another concern for pond bass are the cormorants. How are they supposed to reproduce if the cormorants eat them all?


----------



## Catherder

A few random comments on this golden oldie.

1.


Phragmites said:


> I believe the general public has a true desire to catch warm water species specifical crappie in Utah and we should have several reserviors managed strictly for that.


Considering that crappie are found in varying numbers in Willard, East Canyon, Deer Creek, Jordanelle, Utah Lake, and a few more I forgot, where else would you want them to be planted? You mentioned Mantua and Pelican, but Pelican is one of the best bluegill ponds anywhere, why mess with it? The bluegill fans wouldn't like it. Mantua is already a biological "free-for-all", with the bass, perch, and bluegills, all having their fans, so who knows what would happen and who would be disappointed. Many of our lakes are simply not ideal for crappies.

2.


Phragmites said:


> I personally would love to see one of our reserviors stocked with 10,000+ 12" crappie.


12 inches, huh. Heck the trout guys will want 18 inch "catchable" trout put in their lakes. The cost would be prohibitive.

3.


Phragmites said:


> would there also have to be a minnow stocking project as well?


Go back and read what PBH originally wrote in this thread.

4.


Grandpa D said:


> Not the only way.
> Mandatory catch and release of any Bass caught in a Community Pond would also work.
> Yes it's true that some of the Bass would be illegally taken but with the cooperation of everyone that fishes the Ponds, we could police others and keep the Bass in the Ponds.


+1

5. Anyone know how Nor-tah is doing?


----------



## Cooky

Bax* said:


> We have fish other than trout?!


When I was a kid there were trout and trash fish. Thankfully, I eventually learned that those trash fish are darn fine eating. I would have probably learned sooner but the trash fish didn't eat corn or Velveeta.


----------



## sawsman

Catherder said:


> Anyone know how Nor-tah is doing?


He seems to be doing well. I speak with him once in awhile on another forum.


----------



## sawsman

Cooky said:


> Bax* said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have fish other than trout?!
> 
> 
> 
> When I was a kid there were trout and trash fish. Thankfully, I eventually learned that those trash fish are darn fine eating. I would have probably learned sooner but the trash fish didn't eat corn or Velveeta.
Click to expand...

 :lol:


----------



## Bax*

sawsman said:


> Cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bax* said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have fish other than trout?!
> 
> 
> 
> When I was a kid there were trout and trash fish. Thankfully, I eventually learned that those trash fish are darn fine eating. I would have probably learned sooner but the trash fish didn't eat corn or Velveeta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> :lol:
Click to expand...

Thats why I have a hard time with tilapia, they are worse than trash fish they are sewer fish! I really wish I hadnt seen that episode of Dirty Jobs, I'd probably still eat them if it wasnt for that episode _/O


----------



## Phragmites

Catherder said:


> A few random comments on this golden oldie.
> 
> 1.
> 
> 
> Phragmites said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the general public has a true desire to catch warm water species specifical crappie in Utah and we should have several reserviors managed strictly for that.
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that crappie are found in varying numbers in Willard, East Canyon, Deer Creek, Jordanelle, Utah Lake, and a few more I forgot, where else would you want them to be planted? You mentioned Mantua and Pelican, but Pelican is one of the best bluegill ponds anywhere, why mess with it? The bluegill fans wouldn't like it. Mantua is already a biological "free-for-all", with the bass, perch, and bluegills, all having their fans, so who knows what would happen and who would be disappointed. Many of our lakes are simply not ideal for crappies.
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> Phragmites said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally would love to see one of our reserviors stocked with 10,000+ 12" crappie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 12 inches, huh. Heck the trout guys will want 18 inch "catchable" trout put in their lakes. The cost would be prohibitive.
> 
> 3.
> 
> 
> Phragmites said:
> 
> 
> 
> would there also have to be a minnow stocking project as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go back and read what PBH originally wrote in this thread.
> 
> 4.
> 
> 
> Grandpa D said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the only way.
> Mandatory catch and release of any Bass caught in a Community Pond would also work.
> Yes it's true that some of the Bass would be illegally taken but with the cooperation of everyone that fishes the Ponds, we could police others and keep the Bass in the Ponds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> +1
> 
> 5. Anyone know how Nor-tah is doing?
Click to expand...

The lakes in which you mention all have what I would call a poor population, most people that chase bluegill will readily fish for crappie as well as other panfish and the reason the go to pelican is because of the trophy quality bluegill in the reservior, if there where trophy crappie and bluegill in the reservior how would that make a difference.

Why our we talking about trout? What would the cost be? do you have a break down comparible to what the cost of the division to grow a trout compared to a crappie, instead of just a blanket statement it to expensive?

I did read that is why I posted what I did about minnows without the correct forage there will never be a good fishery, that is reason that gizzard shad where put into willard bay was to provide more forage for walleye. I appreciate the new oppurtinity for wipers in willard bay the orginal purpose for the wipers was to eat the larger shad that the walleye would not eat. I vividal remebering helping the division plant gizzard shad into willard bay and putting them in our livewell and carrying them out into main lake area because they where worried about just releasing them into the north marina, I was involved in the project and no the reasons behind it.

I agree about selective harvest and should be applied everywhere specifically with sound biology behind it.

I don't think it to much to ask for the division to maintain at least 1 water as a trophy water for crappie. I would love to catch some more 17" plus Crappie on a regular basis in the state.

I would love to see more crappie and walleye put into willard bay, and the wiper numbers reduced to a level to still provide an oppurtinity for those anglers that wish to pursue them to do so.

I think nor tah is catching fish out of storm drainages.


----------



## PBH

Phragmites said:


> I don't think it to much to ask for the division to maintain at least 1 water as a trophy water for crappie. I would love to catch some more 17" plus Crappie on a regular basis in the state.


So tell me: what's wrong with Lake Powell???

This discussion has nothing to do with species management. It's truly not a trout vs. "other" fish discussion. It's not about bass. It's not about crappie. The true discussion here is: greed.

Yes. Greed.

It's the "I want my personal fishery in my backyard" discussion. It's the "I want my preferred fish in the pond 5 miles from my house" discussion.

Truth is this: There is more water in utah with "warm water species" than there is "cold water species". The problem is that anglers aren't willing to drive further than an hour to fish them.

17" crappie. Yep -- head to Powell. You've got a world class crappie fishery right there. Let me guess: Too far away?


----------



## Catherder

PBH said:


> This discussion has nothing to do with species management. It's truly not a trout vs. "other" fish discussion. It's not about bass. It's not about crappie. The true discussion here is: greed.
> 
> Yes. Greed.
> 
> It's the "I want my personal fishery in my backyard" discussion. It's the "I want my preferred fish in the pond 5 miles from my house" discussion.


well put.

One more item, then I'm done.



Phragmites said:


> the reason the go to pelican is because of the trophy quality bluegill in the reservior, if there where trophy crappie and bluegill in the reservior how would that make a difference.


Yes, there are trophy bluegills in Pelican. What would happen though if you added crappie? Maybe they both would thrive, OR maybe like a lot of lakes with too many panfish, both species would stunt and fishing would be mediocre for both. I really don't know what would happen, and in truth, the biologists may not know 100% either. But we do know this. Pelican right now is a truly special trophy class bluegill destination. Why risk screwing it up because some people want their different species du jour?

Also, don't overlook Utah Lake either. if you are a crappie guy, you should be able to do well and UL is currently undergoing a crappie population explosion.


----------



## Phragmites

PBH said:


> Phragmites said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it to much to ask for the division to maintain at least 1 water as a trophy water for crappie. I would love to catch some more 17" plus Crappie on a regular basis in the state.
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me: what's wrong with Lake Powell???
> 
> This discussion has nothing to do with species management. It's truly not a trout vs. "other" fish discussion. It's not about bass. It's not about crappie. The true discussion here is: greed.
> 
> Yes. Greed.
> 
> It's the "I want my personal fishery in my backyard" discussion. It's the "I want my preferred fish in the pond 5 miles from my house" discussion.
> 
> Truth is this: There is more water in utah with "warm water species" than there is "cold water species". The problem is that anglers aren't willing to drive further than an hour to fish them.
> 
> 17" crappie. Yep -- head to Powell. You've got a world class crappie fishery right there. Let me guess: Too far away?
Click to expand...

Maybe I am pursuming to much here just when I see 400 plus anglers on pineview fishing for panfish I was kinda of under the impression that is what utah anglers want more oppurtinity for slab or jumbo panfish, at least in Northern Utah. Can I ice fish on lake powell that is my perfered method for panfishing, not just to catch fish.

I don't think it is too much to ask the division to look at panfish species and see if the could do something to satisfies the public demand for slab and Jumbo Panfish closer to larger population bases in Utah. If isn't the correct thing to do for the fisheries than so be it.

I also was just throwing out Pelican as an example it not like I am backing up the truck and getting ready to plant crappie in there. You bring up valid concerns about doing that at pelican, all I am looking at having a spirited debate about it.

I guess the real question is do you feel the Division is doing a good job of managing the panfish species in the state? Would you like to see more trophy waters managed strictly for "SLAB, JUMBO" panfish, specifically in Northern Utah?

I am fish guy really, I have caught trophy trout all over the state, and set multiple world line class records for Kokanee, I enjoy ice fishing this time of year and like many who fish enjoy eating fish, but with that said I practice selective harvest.

The resource is the most important thing to me so that I can go back year after year and catch, release or harvest what I choose per the fishing regulations, and that my kids and the neighbors kids and the neighbor and the guy that lives in cedar city can do the same thing.

My time is devoted to solving the phragmites issue on the GSL, I just think the panfish in the state specifically in Northern Utah could be a lot better, not that it isn't good just more of a trophy caliber, but really my opinion doesn't matter I am just joe public fisherman with internet access. I am going fishing, this internet stuff is too much work.


----------



## Bassrods

pbh is right, it's all about greed the greed of only managing for trout and to hell with what the other fisherman want...

Trout get planted all over or there would not be any at all, the other fish are left to try and live on their own.. Look at perch the ups and downs of them, the only thing that stop's the trout from the same thing is the way the dwr plants the lakes...


----------



## brookieguy1

Nor-tah gave up on this sight a year or so ago. Couldn't take all the "loose lips". He lives in Arizona right now, but we speak often. He's actually starting up his own forum.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt

brookieguy1 said:


> Nor-tah gave up on this sight a year or so ago. Couldn't take all the "loose lips". He lives in Arizona right now, but we speak often. He's actually starting up his own forum.


I think its more of a blog similar to The Rise that he has been writing for for the last couple years. I believe the title is Time To Sleep When Im Dead. I didnt save it to my faves but I joined through FB. I will see if if he minds if I post a link here.


----------

