# Provo/Green River Problems too many fish



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Have to say, I agree 100% with Drew on this. I think the DWR should up limits to 6 fish with only 1 allowed over 18 inches. What do you guys think??
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=12325639


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

*Re: Provo./Green River Problems*

Ok, I guess I will nibble on this.

1. Anyone find it odd that Drew Cushing (the *warmwater* fisheries coordinator) was the one delivering the message. He delivered the same message to the bass guys a few months ago. In fact, you could have substituted "bass" for "browns" for his entire statement and it would have been basically identical. Maybe he has become the designated DWR "harvest" lecturer. That said, I agree with his statement from what I see.

2.


Nor-tah said:


> I think the DWR should up limits to 6 fish with only one allowed over 18 inches.


I agree with you, especially if the reg was for browns only. I would also say that if one was serious about harvest, make it general regs too. The wormdunking crowd certainly is more harvest oriented. If you tried to do it though, the flyfishing crowd would squeal like a bunch of schoolgirls that just heard that the Justin Bieber concert was cancelled. It would be a hard sell.

3. As we discussed in the otter thread, maybe manipulation of the flows in the autumn would help. Back in the day, I used to be a Weber guy, and sometimes they would have the Weeb drained down to a trickle. While upsetting at the time, there were always big fish to be had there and there even seemed to be decent numbers. The browns were always fat. Maybe that was why.

4. We need more otters.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

*Re: Provo./Green River Problems*

Agree with ya, I would also submit that they let people know that these regs are subject to change once a balance is there. I am not so ignorant to say that there are only stunted fish in the Provo. I have personally caught some nice fish in recent years, I think it wouldnt take long to get things back on track.

As for Drew, I feel like he has been anxiously engaged with all the fishing in the state. He actually helped me out with a problem with some regulations for private pond stocking that the Central guys were totally lost on. He being in the main offices and being an awesome employee seems to have him helping with lots of other issues with our fisheries. I see him moving up in coming years and being in charge of more and more things up there.


----------



## Tigru (Oct 15, 2007)

*Re: Provo./Green River Problems*



Nor-tah said:


> Have to say, I agree 100% with Drew on this. I think the DWR should up limits to 6 fish with only 1 allowed over 18 inches. What do you guys think??
> http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=12325639


I read the article earlier today as well.

I like your proposal. There are too many 10"-14" Browns in the Provo. I probably should start bringing a couple home myself from time to time. I would love to see + 17 inchers with more regularity.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

*Re: Provo./Green River Problems*

I just posted on the other thread with the same article. Here goes again. I keep a limit every time I go to the Provo river. If you can't get more people to keep fish the next logical step is to get those who do keep fish to keep more of em. I love fresh trout. If I could keep four I'd keep four. I like the 15 inch reg. but maybe they could make it 4 (or 6) fish with only one being a bow/cut. Keep the bows, cuts and bigger fish in the river and harvest the little browns. The smaller fish taste better anyway.


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

Nor-tah said:


> Have to say, I agree 100% with Drew on this. I think the DWR should up limits to 6 fish with only 1 allowed over 18 inches. What do you guys think??
> http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=12325639


spot on, but what do you think about allowing bait chuckers for a year or so on the middle and lower? oh and also the green, to help thin out some numbers?


----------



## madonafly (Dec 27, 2007)

kochanut said:


> Nor-tah said:
> 
> 
> > Have to say, I agree 100% with Drew on this. I think the DWR should up limits to 6 fish with only 1 allowed over 18 inches. What do you guys think??
> ...


I see a problem with the one year thing. It would be hard to let them use it for a year then try to take it back. So many are still confused as to where the line is to begin with.
Nothing wrong with the Artificial standing. Kastmasters, spinners, etc all work, don't need the styro and old powerbait or salmon egg jars and containers.
Nor-Tah has the right idea.

I have this uncontrollable urge to go buy a really cool creel.


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

thats how regs in WA are for salmon. like you may fish for such and such from ship wreck to an invisible line off the island from april till may.


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

lets get together about 30-40 people together and lets all keep a limit and then get the smokers out and make some smoked trout.


----------



## madonafly (Dec 27, 2007)

Pez Gallo said:


> lets get together about 30-40 people together and lets all keep a limit and then get the smokers out and make some smoked trout.


Right On! But I will just sit back and wait for Koch and Nor to bring back their limit then steal theirs....LOL


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

lol no way i would sit in a lawn chair in my daisy dukes and drink beers


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Pez Gallo said:


> lets get together about 30-40 people together and lets all keep a limit and then get the smokers out and make some smoked trout.


MMMM.... good. |-O-|



madonafly said:


> I see a problem with the one year thing. It would be hard to let them use it for a year then try to take it back.


It probably would take much longer that a year or so to balance, and the browns will still be doing their wild thing, so for a long term solution, if all else stays the same, the regs would either need to alternate back and forth every few years or just stay liberalized. Why not let these super crowded, tuber infested rivers just go to general regs? (As I said before, I know the fly angling community would fight that tooth and nail)



madonafly said:


> don't need the styro and old powerbait or salmon egg jars and containers.


Is it mainly that wormchuckers are slobs? Are they worse than the tubers and teeny boppers splashing around in the river?



kochanut said:


> lol no way i would sit in a lawn chair in my daisy dukes and drink
> beers


Ugh, I just lost my appetite.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Haha, I'm down! Pez makes some GOOD smoked trout. They are the only Browns i've eaten from the Provo and they were really tasty. I hope something gets done though, seriously.


----------



## madonafly (Dec 27, 2007)

Reason is the foo foo regs and the Orvis dorks have taken over the river and it is full of stunted dinks.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

madonafly said:


> Reason is the foo foo regs and the Orvis dorks have taken over the river and it is full of stunted dinks.


????, oh, I just followed the padlock on "the other leading forum".

I'm sorry you and Kocanut got hit with that. The sad thing is that possible solutions to the "brown" problem could be a win-win for the different types of anglers. Harvesting anglers can have more fish to take home and C&R anglers can have better quality. Oh well. Can't we all just get along?

As for "foo-foo" regs, (whatever they are) it is clear that no single rule type is the right answer, every time, for every situation. Sometimes we need foo-foo and sometimes we need a sledgehammer.

If its any consolation, I wear Simms, (albeit well worn, frumpy,and unstylish) so I must be a super geek instead of just a dork.


----------



## orvis1 (Sep 7, 2007)

Geez... I wear simms waders and fish and orvis rod.. Dam I am a walking orvis dork!


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

orvis1 said:


> Geez... I wear simms waders and fish and orvis rod.. Dam I am a walking orvis dork!


and an elitist, shame on you sir!


----------



## madonafly (Dec 27, 2007)

Whatever you do, do NOT say the "F" words (fly Fishing) to TD. He invented it you know.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

And I thought it was PVC that he invented- learn something new every day


----------



## madonafly (Dec 27, 2007)

Oh that too...he is That Good....


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

so if i wanted to chuck power bait this weekend, i should only cast it out with my fly rod right?


----------



## madonafly (Dec 27, 2007)

Yes, then you are a fly fisher......too?!


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

I can't keep power bait on my fly.
It falls off every time that I make a cast.
How do you guys do it? -|\O-


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

i tie a rock to the leader and throw it


----------



## madonafly (Dec 27, 2007)

Grandpa D said:


> I can't keep power bait on my fly.
> It falls off every time that I make a cast.
> How do you guys do it? -|\O-


Not to sound bitter or like a broken record, but again, ask TD...he is the one that puts bait on his "Fligs" (Fly/Jigs).

Look at every one of his pictures closely. His pretty home made jigs with a chunk of worm....wouldn't a plain old hook do the same thing?


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

madonafly said:


> Grandpa D said:
> 
> 
> > I can't keep power bait on my fly.
> ...


Why all the TD love?
We all do things our own way don't we?


----------



## madonafly (Dec 27, 2007)

Grandpa D said:


> madonafly said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="Grandpa D":1kzw7bn8]I can't keep power bait on my fly.
> ...


Why all the TD love?
We all do things our own way don't we?[/quote:1kzw7bn8]

Absolutely.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

6 fish? Hell, as long as it was browns i'd like to see the limit over 10, maybe even 20! I encourage clients to keep a limit whenever I can down there. Once you get below hwy 40, catching a fish over 15 inches is worth throwing a party for. Yet, some of you (you know who I speak of) think the restoration project was SUCH a good thing for the river.... :roll: :roll:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> Yet, some of you (you know who I speak of) think the restoration project was SUCH a good thing for the river.... :roll: :roll:


And, some of you can't figure out that too many fish is a result of flows and not the restoration project... :roll:


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=28493&start=20 I have pointed out on SEVERAL occasions that minimum flows are a part of it, but so is the restoration. Again, if you took a drive up north and spent some time on the middle maybe you would understand. When you do, let me know how that goes.... :roll:


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

It's all horse pucky. They used to have fly and lure on the Blacksmith Fork and then they claimed that the fish were stunting because there are too many. They lift the regs years ago(over ten I think maybe longer) and the fish are still stunted and in my opinion worse than they were. The larger spawning size fish are being kept and the little ones are let go. Plus, you have all this private water that doesn't get fished as much and so the DWR has no control over it. Same with the Ogden River--only the bigger fish are kept and taken home, I witness it every year. Plus with the new stream access BS, the Ogden will only get worse. Private property owners who do not allow fishing are a detriment to the resourse. They claim to be good stewards but by not allowing harvest they are a BIG problem for the continued stunted trout problem.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> It's all horse pucky. They used to have fly and lure on the Blacksmith Fork and then they claimed that the fish were stunting because there are too many. They lift the regs years ago(over ten I think maybe longer) and the fish are still stunted and in my opinion worse than they were. The larger spawning size fish are being kept and the little ones are let go. Plus, you have all this private water that doesn't get fished as much and so the DWR has no control over it. Same with the Ogden River--only the bigger fish are kept and taken home, I witness it every year. Plus with the new stream access BS, the Ogden will only get worse. Private property owners who do not allow fishing are a detriment to the resourse. They claim to be good stewards but by not allowing harvest they are a BIG problem for the continued stunted trout problem.


The thing that is horsepucky is the lack of understanding and ignorance that goes with many fishermen...why have C&R regulations on a stream with too many fish? That doesn't make sense. Why restrict fishermen when those restrictions do NOT help the fish?

In a healthy fishery, even if the largest fish are taken home and kept, smaller fish quickly replace them because fish growth is fast. However, in streams like the Blacksmith Fork and the Ogden, growth is really slow because there are too many fish. Keeping fish of any size is productive.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> http://utahwildlife.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=28493&start=20 I have pointed out on SEVERAL occasions that minimum flows are a part of it, but so is the restoration. Again, if you took a drive up north and spent some time on the middle maybe you would understand. When you do, let me know how that goes.... :roll:


You just failed to mention that in your last post...also, even without the restoration, you would still have lots of small stunted fish. Fish sizes began taking a nosedive well before the restoration ever began. Blaming stunting on the restoration is totally false. I don't need to take a drive up north to understand because I read the studies to see what happened...the funny thing is that some guide who fishes it regularly thinks he knows more than the professionals who have studied the problem. Kind of like the plumber who knows more about heart surgery than the hear surgeon because he saw somebody have a heart attack. :roll: Besides, why fish a crowded river with lots of little skinny browns?


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> HighNDry said:
> 
> 
> > It's all horse pucky. They used to have fly and lure on the Blacksmith Fork and then they claimed that the fish were stunting because there are too many. They lift the regs years ago(over ten I think maybe longer) and the fish are still stunted and in my opinion worse than they were. The larger spawning size fish are being kept and the little ones are let go. Plus, you have all this private water that doesn't get fished as much and so the DWR has no control over it. Same with the Ogden River--only the bigger fish are kept and taken home, I witness it every year. Plus with the new stream access BS, the Ogden will only get worse. Private property owners who do not allow fishing are a detriment to the resourse. They claim to be good stewards but by not allowing harvest they are a BIG problem for the continued stunted trout problem.
> ...


Where did I say to put C&R regs back in place? I am just pointing out that the DWR told us if they pulled the regs and we kept fish the fish would get bigger. It hasn't worked for the reasons I tried to explain. 1) What big fish are there are killed. 2) You can't keep or kill fish on private property if you can't fish it. 3) Most regular Joe fishermen can't catch browns. They are not like planted rainbows that are going to go suck up some power bait or other odd offering. Yes, a good worm fisher and lure fisher will catch them, but they are the guys taking the bigger fish. Regardless of whether a smaller fish fills in the space where a bigger fish lived, it's still a bigger fish that is missing now. That is why I like slot limits. Keep small ones and let the ones that are long and skinny go. Maybe the best thing to do is kill all the browns out of the system and replace with the hated cuuthroat? Don't get me wrong Wyoming, I know you come from biologist stock and you know what your talking about--but even the guys with the answers (DWR) can't seem to get anything accomplished. Open up the Middle Provo and Lower Provo to anything goes. Why don't they do that if they feel it is best for the resource?


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

I know of very little fly fisherman that keep anything on the blacksmith- I do my part just because- but if I ma going to keep them it sure would be a bit more reasonable to start up the smoker if the limit was 4 or 6.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Let me ask you if you've noticed this pack: On the upper reaches below Hardware where it is unimproved camping and people can get to the river, I have had very poor fishing and when I helped the DWR electrofish that area a few years ago, even the electro fishing, in my opinion, was poor. The stretches downstream had tons of small fish. Have you noticed this?


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

HighNDry said:


> Let me ask you if you've noticed this pack: On the upper reaches below Hardware where it is unimproved camping and people can get to the river, I have had very poor fishing and when I helped the DWR electrofish that area a few years ago, even the electro fishing, in my opinion, was poor. The stretches downstream had tons of small fish. Have you noticed this?


 Oh sure- trying to get the hotspots with a diversionary tatic- 
I do see some of what you refer to- but after a few years of this fishing- I have concentrated my efforts mainly in other stretches in this quad and this year have not fished once where you refer to. 
Now if you can get some dynamite I have a beaver or two for you to discuss their living arrangements with.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I know where the beaver have screwed up the water. I've trapped a few over the years but not up there. What is really disturbing is one area I know of the State paid big bucks to have someone come in and move rocks, make meanders, repair the erosion, and stop siltation. Within 3 years of the project the beaver had moved in and made connecting dams and flooded the whole section that was "rehabilitated". I don't mind a beaver dam here or there, but they can cause trouble if there are too many of them.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

True on that-


----------

