# Wipers in Utah Lake, PLEASE comment!



## shaner

Folks, I would love to hear your comments. Before anyone beats up on me, please remember this is a discussion forum. I AM NOT a biologist but I am smart enough to realize Utah Lake has a carp problem that is giving The State fits and is also detrimental to most fishes in the Lake, not to mention plant growth and water clarity.
I personnally cannot find a down side to The State introducing, in limited numbers as an experiment, Wipers in Utah Lake. I think it would be amazing given the size of the lake, the forage base ( carp fry ), and the possibilty of HUGE Wipers.
If it doesn't work, and heaven forbid one less June sucker shows up in a net survey, just don't plant any more Wiper fry.
Before you comment, consider the value to Utahs sportsman that Williards Wipers have given us.
If there are enough sportsman that have similiar feelings, maybe we can all learn together how we can get something like this accoplished. Thank you for your comments. Good fishing!


----------



## Nor-tah

I am with you. I think it is a great idea. Unfortunatly the DWR has no way of putting predators in there. :roll: The government just dumped a bunch of money into helping the endangered specie so they would have a tizzy if any fish eaters were put in there. The Carp are a HUGE problem but they cant see the Carp for the Junies so to speak. :mrgreen:


----------



## wyoming2utah

It won't ever happen....the DWR would never be allowed by the feds to stock another predator into the lake. Nevertheless, the idea would be fruitless...the reason is simple: the problem with Utah Lake is that the fish bucket is already full. The problem with the carp is that they are NOT being used as a forage fish for the predators already present to an extent that limits their numbers...wipers won't change that. The carp are currently stunting and their sizes are limited, but they are still too big to be forage for the predators in the lake. So, you have an unlimited number of mature carp spawning and reproducing and the relatively low--less than 10% of the total biomass of the lake--number of predators trying to make a dent in the fry. Also, adding wipers to the mix won't add the total number of predators; it will simply reduce the number of other predators....


----------



## PBH

One other thing to consider: Where do we get the additional wipers for stocking a lake as large as Utah Lake?

i don't know exactly how tough it is for the hatchery at Powell to raise enough Wipers for the current quotas at New Castle and Willard -- but adding Utah Lake to the list might exceed the current capacity for wiper production.


----------



## Crawdads Revenge

wyoming2utah said:


> The carp are currently stunting and their sizes are limited...


I wonder if the current netting effort will result in some better sizes down the road. Since there will always be carp in Utah Lake, I wouldn't mind if they got up into the 20-30 pound range. It should allow some more breathing room for the cats, also.


----------



## shaner

I am not familiar with Newcastle Reservoir. What conditions or politics led to the stocking of Wipers in that pond?


----------



## ScottyP

Well for one, it is not part of a water system with endangered species like Utah Lake, and for another, it is tiny in comparison. I don't know why they put wipers in newcastle. I assume it was to give the dixie boys a bit of variety.

Edit** Quick research tells me it was to control a shiner problem.


----------



## PBH

shaner said:


> I am not familiar with Newcastle Reservoir. What conditions or politics led to the stocking of Wipers in that pond?


http://wildlife.utah.gov/hotspots/detai ... 1154110450


----------



## shaner

Thank you PBH.
Now someone hurry and put Golden shiners in Utah Lake!
I love the comment of June suckers= dead fish swimming.
Someone once informed me that Utah Lake is the largest fresh water lake this side of the Mississippi. 
I don't know if that is true but Utah Lake has the potential to offer an INCREDIBLE sport fishery and here we all are being held hostage by a sucker fish that we don't try to catch or eat.
Sad.


----------



## wyoming2utah

shaner said:


> I don't know if that is true but Utah Lake has the potential to offer an INCREDIBLE sport fishery and here we all are being held hostage by a sucker fish that we don't try to catch or eat.
> Sad.


Actually, the June sucker is NOT what is keeping Utah Lake from being an incredible sport fishery...it is the carp. People like to blame the sucker, but the truth is that the lake was historically an excellent sport fishery. The problem is that the ecosystem has dramatically changed and carp have not only been part of the reason for this change, but they are prohibiting the lake from being more of a sport fishery. As it is, carp comprise about 90% of the total biomass of the lake...that leaves only 10% for sport fish. IF the feds allowed the DWR to stock wipers, for example, the only good that would occur is that wipers would change the make-up of the 10% biomass sport fish hold. Stocking golden shiners would result in the same problem.

So, as a fisherman, you and every other fisherman, should celebrate when the feds fund the DWR (or any other group) to actively try and remove carp. The removal of carp and the potential lowering of the carp biomass will only increase the biomass of sport fish. As an angler, you should be very happy that the june sucker exists in Utah Lake at the extent it does because without it, nothing would be done to actively fix the carp problem. The "sad" thing is that the very people who have the most go gain from the current june sucker plans are the very ones who seem to oppose it the most--anglers of Utah Lake.


----------



## Jitterbug

Thanks for that post wyoming2utah. Very insightful! It makes a lot of sense to me. I know I may have come across differently in my thread about these issues but I am grateful for the June Sucker and the door it has opened to reclaim Utah Lake back from the Carp. I just hope it works and all that money isn't washed away in vain.


----------



## shaner

Wyoming2Utah,
Point taken, thank you.
Let's hope your plan works.


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool

I'm in agreeance with W2U. Wheres Catherder at I know he has quite a bit of info on UL. I think he knows fairly well what the plan is and the potential for it.


----------



## Jitterbug

So just curious if anyone knows... Has there been any relevant discussion about what species of sport fish will be added to Utah Lake to make up the biomass difference? If so what are they and when will they be added to UL's ecosystem and what is the timeframe for it?


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool

I would imagine they will stick with the fish they already have in there IE Largemouth Bass, but thats just a guess. I would hope they are already stocking them as their taking the carp out. I think the person to ask is Catherder if he chimes in.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Jitterbug said:


> So just curious if anyone knows... Has there been any relevant discussion about what species of sport fish will be added to Utah Lake to make up the biomass difference? If so what are they and when will they be added to UL's ecosystem and what is the timeframe for it?


IF the carp biomass is lowered, the remaining species in the lake will naturally compensate for the loss in biomass. In other words, once the carp biomass begins to be lowered, the remaining catfish, bass, walleye, white bass, blue gill etc...will increase. Obviously, the DWR/Feds would love to see the june suckers replace some of that lost biomass as well. But, if the carp biomass were lowered to say 50% and june suckers replaced 20% of lost 40%, 20% of that lost biomass would still be regained by sport fish. So, it would be a win-win for sportsmen and native species lovers.

One thing to remember, though, is that the DWR will NOT stock more sport fish (they will stock more june suckers, though) into Utah Lake to make up for that lost biomass...they will leave it up to the natural reproductive capabilities of the present fish to determine that. Also, remember that this is ideal. This is what should happen....it is best for sportsmen and the lake for the sport fish to be self-sustaining. It is also the future plans for the june sucker--a wild self-sustaining population.


----------



## proutdoors

wyoming2utah said:


> One thing to remember, though, is that the DWR will NOT stock more sport fish (*they will stock more june suckers*, though) into Utah Lake to make up for that lost biomass...*they will leave it up to the natural reproductive capabilities of the present fish* to determine that. Also, remember that this is ideal. This is what should happen....it is best for sportsmen and the lake for the sport fish to be self-sustaining. It is also the future plans for the june sucker--a wild *self-sustaining population*.


 :?: How do you "leave it up to natural reproductive capabilities" if you are stocking? :? Do we believe in "natural reproductive capabilities" or not?


----------



## wyoming2utah

proutdoors said:


> :?: How do you "leave it up to natural reproductive capabilities" if you are stocking? :? Do we believe in "natural reproductive capabilities" or not?


The natural reproductive capablities of sport fish...not the june suckers. The DWR/Feds will leave it up to the natural reproductive capabilities of june suckers once they are well-established and capable of reproducing on their own because their habitat will allow it.


----------



## handsomefish

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> :?: How do you "leave it up to natural reproductive capabilities" if you are stocking? :? Do we believe in "natural reproductive capabilities" or not?
> 
> 
> 
> The natural reproductive capablities of sport fish...not the june suckers. The DWR/Feds will leave it up to the natural reproductive capabilities of june suckers once they are well-established and capable of reproducing on their own because their habitat will allow it.
Click to expand...

Natural reproduction of the the june sucker is the whole point of this plan, The DWR/Feds have spent over 30 million dollars to date planting june suckers it utah lake and under current conditions would have to continue forever
If they can control the carp and improve the habitat for the june suckers then maybe they could stop having to plant it every year
I would rather see them spending money controling the carp and improving the habitat then , providing the reproduction needed to 
keep a species from becoming extinct


----------



## Catherder

USMARINEhuntinfool said:


> Wheres Catherder at?


I'm here, but this subject material is similar to the "Endangered Lakes" thread that is going along concurrently, and I tossed my 2 cents into. (I have over 40 posts, so I don't need to overdo it by repeating myself :wink: ) Besides, the Hepps and others pretty much covered what I would have said (and did say on the other thread) on this particular subject.



fatbass said:


> Emotionally, the loss of the June Sucker is sad but not to the tune of tens of millions of dollars from the pockets of our grandchildren!


The reason I am in favor of this project also relates to my grandchildren. I want them to have a nice clean, pleasant lake to recreate in, free of pollution and full of wildlife. If the June sucker is the vehicle to accomplish this then so be it. After seeing the money flushed down the toilet by the government on AIG bonuses and other buyouts, I really consider the money spent on UL as fiscal crumbs in the bigger scheme of things.


----------



## Jitterbug

Catherder said:


> After seeing the money flushed down the toilet by the government on AIG bonuses and other buyouts, I really consider the money spent on UL as fiscal crumbs in the bigger scheme of things.


Yeah, and at least we know where this money IS going! :wink:


----------



## PBH

fatbass said:


> Sorry, I just don't see the shame in letting the June Sucker go bye-bye.
> ...
> The loss of this fish will NOT have any effect whatsoever on the lives of any of us. At least those of us that are rational. :roll:


How do you know that?? Do you have a crystal ball that can foresee the future? You have no idea what the future holds, and what affects losing a species to extinction might hold. Each living plant or animal may have values yet undiscovered. Your comments of losing a species having no affect whatsoever on the lives of any of us is a very ignorant comment. What a shame!! The extinction of a species could potentially mean the loss of a cure for cancer. We simply cannot allow for the loss of a species simply due to the perceived perception of current value.

Man has the responsibility to do anything and everything in our power to prevent the extinction of a species. We owe it to our children, our grandchildren, and their grandchildren to do what we can to preserve this species.

It's been pointed out numerous times that the very people who will benefit the most from the June Sucker recover program are the sport fishermen. It's also been pointed out numerous times that it is those same sport fishermen who seem to be the biggest opponents of the recovery program. That's pretty sad.


----------



## proutdoors

PBH said:


> Man has the responsibility to do anything and everything in our power to prevent the extinction of a species. We owe it to our children, our grandchildren, and their grandchildren to do what we can to preserve this species.


What an absurd comment. Has the extinction of the Dodo bird caused grief to mankind? How about the THOUSANDS of species that have come and gone since the beginning of time/man? I thought you were a supporter of nature. I can say with certainty that my kids lives will be just fine with/without the June sucker. Talk about ignorance/arrogance, saying we prevent the extinction of a species is akin to saying we must end hunger/poverty. It is part of LIFE! Species either evolve or die off, by design. Spending millions/billions for keeping a species like a sucker fish that brings a very low return of investment, if there is a return at all. It's like spending billions on Chrysler when they have proven to not be adaptable. There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that allows MY money to be TAKEN from me by force to 'save' a freaking fish! If you are so concerned about this fish, go ahead and pony up. But, to FORCE me to fund it is criminal and is nothing more. The ESA is a joke and is morally WRONG, as it forces citizens to fund things that have no/little impact on their lives. Why is saving a fish more important than me feeding my own kids? Because when I am FORCED to fund this fish it is taking food away from my kids.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Pro, that had to be the most asinine and ridiculous post I have ever read....are you drunk? Or really that ignorant and stupid?

A healthy habitat for the june sucker benefits a lot more than just the june sucker. By improving the june sucker's habitat and controlling nonnative fish, the rivers/streams as well as Utah Lake can be better managed to support a balanced fish community that includes sport fish. The benefits of such an improvement would stretch into the economic well-being of all Utah...including you and your apparently starving children! A healthy Utah Lake ecosystem would contribute to the overall well-being of ALL the animals/wildlife that lives within its boundaries...INCLUDING HUMANS!

Sadly, you can't see the forest for the trees....


----------



## PBH

fatbass said:


> There is not one shred of evidence that the June Sucker has any life-saving qualities or any unique properties that make it worth the millions we are spending to save it. Show me some scientific data or just admit it's all a romantic notion.


Unique properties? This comment is simply your opinion. Others may value the "uniqueness" of the fish itself. As far as life saving qualities -- that's something that is potentially undiscovered. But, it's not just the "potential life saving qualities" that we'd be losing. We don't know what else we might be losing. I know that the June Sucker certainly isn't spreading malaria to anyone. Where do you draw the line, and how do you determine what species should be saved and which ones should be left to extinction? How do you determine the monetary value of a species?



fatbass said:


> I'm all for removing the carp but the cost to do so is prohibitive. Add the fact that walleye, largemouth, white bass and channel cats all eat june sucker fry and it's pretty obvious to me that it's a losing battle.


Losing battle? That sounds like a winning battle! Your thinking is flawed! If those predator species eat June Sucker fry, wouldn't it be beneficial to those species (as well as the anglers that target them) to be able to feed on MORE June sucker fry?? Wouldn't eliminating the carp be better for the existing predators as well as the June Sucker?



fatbass said:


> The simple fact is that the june sucker evolved in Utah Lake along with the UL sculpin and the Bonneville cutthroat. Only by returning the lake to it's pre-white settler condition will the june sucker be a viable species again.


I disagree with you. As much as I'd like to see Utah Lake back in it's pre-white settler condition, I don't think that is what is needed to preserve the June Sucker. I think that the removal of carp is the key. Further, if you remove the carp, I think you'd see a dramatic change in the condition of Utah Lake. It wouldn't return to the pre-settler conditions, there's simply too much development in Utah County for that (irrigation). But, I do believe that the benefits to Utah Lake would be dramatic.

Again -- anglers such as yourself have everything to gain by attempting to preserve the June Sucker. Anyone that thinks otherwise is foolish.



Pro said:


> I can say with certainty that my kids lives will be just fine with/without the June sucker.


It's not just about you Pro. It's also about me. It's about everyone. What about my kids? Will they be OK with never having the opportunity to see a June Sucker? I can't make that call for them. But, I certainly can do what I can to give them the opportunity to see one and make the decision themselves. Stop being so greedy. Think about someone other than yourself for once.


----------



## wyoming2utah

wyoming2utah said:


> The benefits of such an improvement would stretch into the economic well-being of all Utah...


http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... epage=true

"In 2006, fishing in Utah brought in $402 million and placed Utah 33rd in the nation." If such a large body of water--apparently the biggest freshwater lake in the West--is so close to such a large portion of the state's population, wouldn't it be safe to say that Utah could bring in more than $402 million if that fishery were greatly improved? To me, the spending done to improve Utah Lake is more of an investment.....a very good investment that will pay back many times over what was ever spent on it!

"Not only does spending done by the sportsmen in Utah add to the economy of the state, these sportsmen and their sports add jobs throughout the state. There were 13,000 jobs related to hunting and fishing in 2006, with 6,500 being fishing related jobs and 6,500 being hunting related jobs. This total of jobs related to hunting and fishing put Utah 32nd in the nation, with fishing placing Utah 32nd in the nation and hunting placing Utah 27th in the nation."


----------



## proutdoors

wyoming2utah said:


> Pro, that had to be the most asinine and ridiculous post I have ever read....are you drunk? Or really that ignorant and stupid?
> 
> A healthy habitat for the june sucker benefits a lot more than just the june sucker. By improving the june sucker's habitat and controlling nonnative fish, the rivers/streams as well as Utah Lake can be better managed to support a balanced fish community that includes sport fish. The benefits of such an improvement would stretch into the economic well-being of all Utah...including you and your apparently starving children! A healthy Utah Lake ecosystem would contribute to the overall well-being of ALL the animals/wildlife that lives within its boundaries...INCLUDING HUMANS!
> 
> Sadly, you can't see the forest for the trees....


I see the forest just fine.Can you show me where exactly the federal government has the RIGHT to take my money to 'save' a fish? I have a copy of the US Constitution right here beside me, please direct me to where they are given this RIGHT to forcefully take form me to save a fish. If you think it is a great investment, then you should fund it. But, to FORCE me to fund it is unconstitutional and morally wrong!



PBH said:


> It's not just about you Pro. It's also about me. It's about everyone. What about my kids? Will they be OK with never having the opportunity to see a June Sucker? I can't make that call for them. But, I certainly can do what I can to give them the opportunity to see one and make the decision themselves. Stop being so greedy. Think about someone other than yourself for once.


If it's also about you, the you fund it! Same for your kids vs my kids. You pay for the fish you want your kids to see/eat and I will do the same for mine. What RIGHT do you have to FORCE me to pay out of my pockets so your kids can die happy knowing they were able to lay eye on a June Sucker at some point in their lives? I am NOT the one being greedy, I contend those FORCING others to fund YOUR wishes/hopes/dreams is being extremely greedy/selfish. Pay for you wishes/hopes/dreams your own self, and I will do the same. The federal government is not, at least should not be, in the business of making your dreams come true. They are supposed to protect us from foreign enemies and do MINIMAL intrusion into our daily lives. FORCING me to fund a fish is an intrusion that is NOT warranted nor needed for the "greater good" of mankind.


----------



## wyoming2utah

proutdoors said:


> I see the forest just fine.Can you show me where exactly the federal government has the RIGHT to take my money to 'save' a fish? I have a copy of the US Constitution right here beside me, please direct me to where they are given this RIGHT to forcefully take form me to save a fish. If you think it is a great investment, then you should fund it. But, to FORCE me to fund it is unconstitutional and morally wrong!


Show me where it says they can't smart guy! Show me in the constitution where the government has the right to spend money on any animals/wildlife.... :roll: Talk about stupid arguments...


----------



## proutdoors

I have never contended they could. Again, you and your brother make just grand arguments based on emotions on this topic, are you capable of backing it up with some evidence of it being a wise use of public funds, and can you show where funding is allowed under the Constitution? Come on, you remind me in every post how ignorant/stupid I am, so I am sure you with your superior wisdom/knowledge/smarts you can point me in the right direction.


----------



## proutdoors

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the forest just fine.Can you show me where exactly the federal government has the RIGHT to take my money to 'save' a fish? I have a copy of the US Constitution right here beside me, please direct me to where they are given this RIGHT to forcefully take form me to save a fish. If you think it is a great investment, then you should fund it. But, to FORCE me to fund it is unconstitutional and morally wrong!
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says they can't smart guy! Show me in the constitution where the government has the right to spend money on any animals/wildlife.... :roll: Talk about stupid arguments...
Click to expand...

The Constitution does NOT define what the federal government can't do, it tells what they can do, anything not defined is NOT allowed and is left up to the states/individuals. They should have taught you that in 3rd grade!


----------



## wyoming2utah

:roll: Pro, your arguments are so stupid; they aren't even worth the time to comment on....I suggest reading Article 1 section 8 of the constitution that specifically allows the government the right to tax its citizens. NOTHING is excluded from this tax power except exports (article 9). So, by the constitution the federal government can tax its citizens to fund for wildlife programs that ultimately will help bring health, happiness, prosperity, and well-being to those citizens. In other words, monies spent on funding wildlife programs such as the june sucker's are for the "general welfare" of the United States!

Such programs are for our "welfare" because they help improve our economy, help give jobs to many, and they help bring MILLIONS of dollars into our state through improved hunting and fishing through improved habitat and balance within an ecosystem!


----------



## proutdoors

wyoming2utah said:


> :roll: Pro, your arguments are so stupid; they aren't even worth the time to comment on....


ATTA boy! I realize adhering to the Constitution is "stupid", WTF was I thinking?


----------



## campfire

I hate to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion but I have a question. First, I am all for getting rid of the carp in UL. I can only see benefits from fewer carp. I wish they could be eliminated completely but that is just not realistic. So my only concern is that physically removing carp is only a temporary, short term sulution. The only way it will work is if it is an ongoing program. What will happen if the funds dry up in the future? Now to my real question. I have read that the June sucker and the Utah sucker are "indistinguishable" genetically. If this is true, Utah suckers being quite plentiful in other waters, what if any difference does or should this "fact" or possible fact make in the big picture of the June sucker and utah Lake management?


----------



## proutdoors

campfire said:


> I hate to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion but I have a question. First, I am all for getting rid of the carp in UL. I can only see benefits from fewer carp. I wish they could be eliminated completely but that is just not realistic. So my only concern is that physically removing carp is only a temporary, short term sulution. The only way it will work is if it is an ongoing program. What will happen if the funds dry up in the future? Now to my real question. I have read that the June sucker and the Utah sucker are "indistinguishable" genetically. If this is true, Utah suckers being quite plentiful in other waters, what if any difference does or should this "fact" or possible fact make in the big picture of the June sucker and utah Lake management?


It's not near as 'romantic' to do that, it 'feels' better to 'save' a species that doesn't want to be saved with other peoples money.


----------



## PBH

campfire said:


> I have read that the June sucker and the Utah sucker are "indistinguishable" genetically. If this is true, Utah suckers being quite plentiful in other waters, what if any difference does or should this "fact" or possible fact make in the big picture of the June sucker and utah Lake management?


If only it were that simple. We see very similar issues with cutthroat trout as well. Colorado River Cutthroat and Greenback Cutthroat are nearly identical genetically speaking. Bear Lake cutthroat are thought to be Bonneville Cutthroat, but genetics show that there are few differences, genetically, between Snake River and Bear Lake cutts.

Genetics are tricky.

Concerning Utah Suckers and June Suckers and their genetic similarities, read this:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/jour ... 1&SRETRY=0


----------



## Nor-tah

Informative thread till the last page or two! :wink: Thanks for the good help.


----------



## wyoming2utah

proutdoors said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> 
> :WTF was I thinking?
Click to expand...

Good question....WTF were you thinking? Saying that taxing the citizens of the US to fund wildlife programs is unconstitutional? WTF were you thinking...great question!


----------



## wyoming2utah

Nor-tah said:


> Informative thread till the last page or two! :wink: Thanks for the good help.


Yeah...a troll went trolling, and gut hooked a couple of us.

The bottom line to me, as an angler, is that any work done to restore Utah Lake and lower carp numbers will only make the fishing at Utah Lake better...this is a win-win situation for native species lovers and ESA lovers and fishermen alike. Also, the tripple effect will also benefit waterfowl and bird hunters and should help improve our economy through fishing and hunting expenditures. I don't see how any angler would/could complain about money spent removing carp from Utah Lake or improving the ecosystem; it can only have positive consequences.


----------



## proutdoors

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> 
> :WTF was I thinking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good question....WTF were you thinking? Saying that taxing the citizens of the US to fund wildlife programs is unconstitutional? WTF were you thinking...great question!
Click to expand...

I am STILL waiting for you to show me where the feds have the 'right' to do so.


----------



## wyoming2utah

campfire said:


> I hate to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion but I have a question. First, I am all for getting rid of the carp in UL. I can only see benefits from fewer carp. I wish they could be eliminated completely but that is just not realistic. So my only concern is that physically removing carp is only a temporary, short term sulution. The only way it will work is if it is an ongoing program. What will happen if the funds dry up in the future?


This is a big concern...hopefully, some company or entrepreneur can find a way to make money off those carp. I think that is the best case scenario--somehow, we need to find a way where those carp can benefit someone or somebody.

Another thing to think about is the nutrient load to the system if all the carp were eliminated...as is, many hypothesize that totally removing the carp from the system could result in huge algae blooms and mass fish die-offs during summer. Read this link and story:
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/253865/3/

This is also why removing carp from Utah Lake is only a part of the restoration program and efforts...ecosystems are very complex and removing one factor out of them--like the june sucker or carp--can have disastrous effects on the others...


----------



## wyoming2utah

wyoming2utah said:


> :roll: Pro, your arguments are so stupid; they aren't even worth the time to comment on....I suggest reading Article 1 section 8 of the constitution that specifically allows the government the right to tax its citizens. NOTHING is excluded from this tax power except exports (article 9). So, by the constitution the federal government can tax its citizens to fund for wildlife programs that ultimately will help bring health, happiness, prosperity, and well-being to those citizens. In other words, monies spent on funding wildlife programs such as the june sucker's are for the "general welfare" of the United States!
> 
> Such programs are for our "welfare" because they help improve our economy, help give jobs to many, and they help bring MILLIONS of dollars into our state through improved hunting and fishing through improved habitat and balance within an ecosystem! NOT to mention the happiness I get when fishing and hunting improves within the Utah Lake ecosystem!


----------



## PBH

Pro -- I don't know why I'm still responding to you. You're posts have no informational value.


Money for ESA projects, including the June Sucker Recovery, come from federal grants. Where do federal grants come from? Mostly from taxes. Some of those taxes include donations from both individuals and organizations. If you have issues with this money being spent in this way, I would recommend that you stop paying taxes.

I am perfectly fine with the government spending my tax money on improving Utah Lake. I think that's a very good use of my taxes.


----------



## Petersen

Somehow this thread got moved to the forum business section, and I'm unsure how that happened, so I'm moving it back to fishing.

[exclamation:fk55xfh0][/exclamation:fk55xfh0]The bigger issue, though, is that this thread is pretty much out of control, and several of the posts have crossed the line on violating the forum rules. Disagree all you want, but please do not use this forum to call people names and to hurl insults when logic and reasoned arguments fail. Personal insults just aren't permitted here.


----------



## Nor-tah

wyoming2utah said:


> Nor-tah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Informative thread till the last page or two! :wink: Thanks for the good help.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...a troll went trolling, and gut hooked a couple of us.
> 
> The bottom line to me, as an angler, is that any work done to restore Utah Lake and lower carp numbers will only make the fishing at Utah Lake better...this is a win-win situation for native species lovers and ESA lovers and fishermen alike. Also, the tripple effect will also benefit waterfowl and bird hunters and should help improve our economy through fishing and hunting expenditures. I don't see how any angler would/could complain about money spent removing carp from Utah Lake or improving the ecosystem; it can only have positive consequences.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I dont care much for the Junies but I am all for the lake being improved! If thats how they do it then for heavens sakes, SAVE THE JUNE SUCKER!!


----------



## PBH

Petersen said:


> The bigger issue, though, is that this thread is pretty much out of control, and several of the posts have crossed the line on violating the forum rules.
> ...
> please do not use this forum to call people names and to hurl insults when logic and reasoned arguments fail. Personal insults just aren't permitted here.


Peterson -- I don't know who you are referring to specifically. I hope not myself. I would like to make a point of clarification: calling someone "ignorant" is not an insult and it is not calling someone a name. The definition of ignorant is: Unaware or uninformed. If someone takes offense at being called "ignorant" then, by definition, they are ignorant. There is a simple solution to correcting the issue if someone is ignorant: search for information.


----------



## Catherder

Dang, missed all the fireworks. :? A couple of things I might add.

First off, it was argued back and forth that the June sucker will or won't ever be useful to anyone and so forth. While the fish probably won't be an avenue for a cancer cure, we truly do not know when its traits may be useful in fisheries management. For instance, it is an open water fish, evolved to utilize zooplankton in the middle of the water column. It could be an ideal forage for lake trout or some other predatory sport fish in a future management situation. You just never know! Besides the reasons the Hepps already covered, that the critics scoffed at, having more genetic diversity among fishes,(and plants, pigs, and anything else humans work with) gives us more tools for us to solve real problems we may encounter in the future with our fisheries, our food supply, and yes even biological problems like disease prevention and treatment.



campfire said:


> I have read that the June sucker and the Utah sucker are "indistinguishable" genetically. If this is true, Utah suckers being quite plentiful in other waters, what if any difference does or should this "fact" or possible fact make in the big picture of the June sucker and utah Lake management?


PBH gave a good answer already to this, but I would add that morphologically (how the fish actually look) the June sucker is quite a bit different than a Utah sucker. (Much more so than the greenback and Colorado river cutts we have also been discussing.) This demonstrates the shortcomings of some of our genetic analysis that is being used to make management decisions, but even if the two fish are similar genetically, the marked change in gene expression represents true significant genetic diversity that should be preserved.


----------



## .45

Well.................that's pretty informative and all Catherder (ouch)....but how do them suckers taste ? :?


----------



## Catherder

.45 said:


> Well.................that's pretty informative and all Catherder (ouch)....but how do them suckers taste ? :?


They taste like chicken (of the sea?) :wink:


----------



## proutdoors

Honest question Catherder, since you seem able to respond to "ignorant" people without being insulting, why is genetic diversity so important in sucker fish/wolves/trout/other critters? And, is it really the role of the federal government to 'ensure' such diversity exists? Thanks in advance for your answer(s).


----------



## Catherder

proutdoors said:


> why is genetic diversity so important in sucker fish/wolves/trout/other critters?


Genetic diversity in any species is that species best protection against disease. Just like bacteria and antibiotics and bugs and pesticides, all organisms are in an arms race with their pathogens. For instance, an obscure German strain of rainbow trout that would otherwise not be terribly interesting was found to be resistant to whirling disease (Hofer strain) As you may know, Whirling disease is usually fatal to young rainbows. This strain and crosses have been the anchor fish for reestablishing rainbows in streams infected with WD. Besides disease prevention, other unique traits can/are useful for manipulation. The traits of the Bear lake cutt for eating fish at a younger age is key in the Strawberry reservoir management as is well known. If some manager in the 70's had just figured they were "just another cutt" we well may be looking at Strawberry being full of chubs and a lousy fishery. (Of course, then maybe they could put wiper in there, OK, just kidding!!!) Traits involving PH toleration, temperature toleration, spawning time, growth, diet, and a host of other factors can all potentially be used in specific situations.

Getting back to disease resistance, it has been found in agriculture that having a monoculture of a certain supposedly "super" plant or animal can be great for a while, but once the bugs "solve" the monoculture, then it usually is a disaster. Having genetic diversity is natures way of giving species a "fair chance" in the battle.

As for the role in government, that is something for society and its politicians to decide. However, if there is a clear, tangible benefit from insuring diversity, as I believe there is, it would seem to be worth the investment.


----------



## .45

I like the way you splained the reasons for genetic diversity Catherder (ouch). Good article and very well put ! Thank you, now I'm understanding a little more a little better !!


----------



## proutdoors

Catherder, thank you for your response and very well stated explanation. A few more questions; How do you get genetic diversity with an 'endangered' species? For example, the fish 'newly' discovered on the LaSals is low in population and limited to a 1.2 mile stretch of water, how do you get genetic diversity with such a limited pool of genetics? Are herds like the bison/deer/antelope/bighorns on Antelope Island at risk because of a lack of genetic diversity? If not, why not? 

As for the politics of funding ESA, I am 100% against the federal government STEALING from me and others to fund such projects. If people value such species they should fund them themselves or ASK others to help fund such projects. I contend the ESA along with the EPA have taken more from the 'common man' than any other government agencies/policies. I also contend they are in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. But, I will leave the politics aside, as I truly desire to better understand the 'need(s)' of genetic diversity with ALL species. 8)


----------



## Catherder

proutdoors said:


> How do you get genetic diversity with an 'endangered' species? For example, the fish 'newly' discovered on the LaSals is low in population and limited to a 1.2 mile stretch of water, how do you get genetic diversity with such a limited pool of genetics?


If the LaSal population was the only group of greenback cutts on earth, then there indeed wouldn't be any diversity beyond the tiny population. However, in this case, there ARE other colonies of greenies elsewhere. Most of the current populations came from some fish discovered in Rocky Mountain NP in I believe the late 60's. (and it was only from 3-4 headwater populations) If those Utah fish are indeed genetically pure greenies, then they could be combined with the RMNP fish and markedly improve the genetics of the offspring, all the while maintaining a "pure" line of greenies.



proutdoors said:


> Are herds like the bison/deer/antelope/bighorns on Antelope Island at risk because of a lack of genetic diversity?


Potentially, they could be, over a long period of time, except the DWR manages the bejeebers out of those animals and won't let that happen. Also, we often see new "species" form in island populations that are isolated from their mainland cousins for long periods of time. Interesting you brought up Antelope island though. A few years back, when I was an undergrad, the bison of Antelope island attracted quite a bit of interest because someone discovered that they have one extra chromosome compared to most bison herds. I don't know if that was indeed proven true, but for a time, it made the Antelope island bison quite a bit more valuable than your average buffalo, and scientists were quite interested in seeing if these animals had improved disease resistance or other desirable traits.

It doesn't have to be that a species is "endangered" to see a benefit from diversity. Obviously, rainbow trout are not endangered, yet the small subgroup population in Germany will help rainbow populations everywhere whirling disease is a threat, and man can intervene, with introductions of the Hofer genetics.

As for the politics of it all, these are matters of opinion that are obviously subject to debate. The Feds, along with state and local government steal a lot of my money to use for a lot of things I don't necessarily approve of. As a percentage of the whole, what is spent on ESA projects is like a drop in (not ocean) lets say Utah lake. At least I will get a clean lake in my back yard to fish in for the trouble. Also, if one transfers ALL power of restoration to private entities, you may lose the power of public oversight. Who would you rather see in charge of a June sucker restoration. The DWR and the USFWS as it stands now or PETA and the Sierra club? Which group will be sensitive to hunters and fishermen?


----------



## dockrot

The Federal Government needs serious surgery...like a rollback of every regulation thats been written in say the last thirty years or so...good luck you Utah Lake suckers... is what I'd say.


----------



## Catherder

Here is the link that discusses the Antelope Island bison herd.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/cont ... 35,00.html

Here is an excerpt from the article that discusses the phenomenon I mentioned above.

"Bates said he has no trouble selling the island animals.
One reason is the animals are among the purest strains of buffalo in the country.
A few years back a biologist from Texas A&M, who conducted studies on the island buffalo, said he found that some of the early settlers hybridized buffalo and cattle, and, as a result, the cattle gene is now found in some buffalo. A group of buffalo he checked from the island showed no sign of the cattle gene, which, he said, "makes them pure buffalo."
He said he also found through testing that other than diet, there were few differences between the bison 150 years back - when it was estimated they numbered around 60 million - and the bison on the island.
It has also been discovered that the Antelope Island buffalo have an extra allele in their genetic makeup.
Bates said he's not sure how this came about or of what benefits it offers, "But, we're doing research to answer these questions. We do know it's unique to buffalo on the island."

As it says, we do not yet know the significance of this.


----------



## proutdoors

Catherder said:


> Also, if one transfers ALL power of restoration to private entities, you may lose the power of public oversight. Who would you rather see in charge of a June sucker restoration. The DWR and the USFWS as it stands now or PETA and the Sierra club? Which group will be sensitive to hunters and fishermen?


I will take the private sector and its track record over the federal government and its track record for successful projects every day of the week. The federal government is a model of ineptness and waste. The 'true' cost of the ESA isn't just in the tax dollars spent on projects to 'save' species, you have to account the 'costs' of the project to businesses/families/local economies. Take the Spotted Owl fiasco. How many people lost their jobs over a bird? Loggers/mill workers/construction workers/etc/etc were greatly affected by the actions put in play by the ESA. All for what, a bird. The irony is that because logging was shut down in many areas a 'new' owl moved in, and it's favorite meal is the spotted owl. This 'new' owl has killed MORE spotted owls than the loggers could ever dream of killing. So, in the end the spotted owl was not helped but the industries and the local economies that rely on logging were hurt big time. The costs were NOT worth it. I could point to numerous examples similar to this of the dismal track record of the ESA. Having politics in control of 'science' is a horrible practice IMHO.

Back on the genetic diversity subject, when a species dwindles down to near zero such as the California Condor, is it possible to obtain the desired diversity?

And, just for the sake of curiosity, how many wolves does it take to get genetic diversity in Wyoming/Montana/Idaho in your opinion? I hear some 'experts' say more are needed than the current population allows for, yet others say there are more than enough to get diversity. This is my concern when politics are in the drivers seat for such programs, that those with the most money/passion get what they want whether it is supported by science or not. One major sore spot for me is the beetle infestation on my stomping grounds, the Manti LaSal's. Logging was stopped because of 'concerns' over the forest grouse population in the area, so that a 'study' conducted by those with an agenda could be conducted, that caused the local logging company to close down causing 200+ plus in the small community of Gunnison to lose their jobs and the beetles to spread killing even more trees which hurt the **** bird that was supposedly being 'protected! I am a firm believer NO species should be placed ahead of humans.


----------



## Catherder

proutdoors said:


> I will take the private sector and its track record over the federal government and its track record for successful projects every day of the week.


While I would agree with your statement in a majority of contexts, the entities that would potentially undertake such a restoration project (and with it gain management authority) would scare me to death meddling with the public's wildlife. Again; PETA, the Sierra club, or other well funded yet extremist wildlife organization vs the DWR and the USFWS for in being in control of even some of our wildlife, in a restoration project. I will go with the government in this one, but all are entitled to ones opinion.



proutdoors said:


> Back on the genetic diversity subject, when a species dwindles down to near zero such as the California Condor, is it possible to obtain the desired diversity?


It is recognized that when a population gets that low, that what is called a genetic "bottleneck" occurs. It may or may not result in a concentration of negative inbreeding traits that finish off the species, but one hopes for the best.



proutdoors said:


> Having politics in control of 'science' is a horrible practice IMHO.


True, but private and especially academic entities also have specific political agendas, some of which are very unwelcome IMO.



proutdoors said:


> And, just for the sake of curiosity, how many wolves does it take to get genetic diversity in Wyoming/Montana/Idaho in your opinion? I hear some 'experts' say more are needed than the current population allows for, yet others say there are more than enough to get diversity.


I don't know.



proutdoors said:


> This is my concern when politics are in the drivers seat for such programs, that those with the most money/passion get what they want whether it is supported by science or not.


I couldn't agree more, but turning the programs over to the "highest bidder" in the private sector would just about guarantee the result you fear.


----------



## proutdoors

Catherder said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will take the private sector and its track record over the federal government and its track record for successful projects every day of the week.
> 
> 
> 
> While I would agree with your statement in a majority of contexts, the entities that would potentially undertake such a restoration project (and with it gain management authority) would scare me to death meddling with the public's wildlife. Again; PETA, the Sierra club, or other well funded yet extremist wildlife organization vs the DWR and the USFWS for in being in control of even some of our wildlife, in a restoration project. I will go with the government in this one, but all are entitled to ones opinion. I assert that these very groups are steering the ESA right now for the most part. Who pushed the **** wolf issue, the spotted owl issue, the forest grouse issue?
> 
> 
> 
> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back on the genetic diversity subject, when a species dwindles down to near zero such as the California Condor, is it possible to obtain the desired diversity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is recognized that when a population gets that low, that what is called a genetic "bottleneck" occurs. It may or may not result in a concentration of negative inbreeding traits that finish off the species, but one hopes for the best. I am not overly comfortable spending millions/billions on "hopes".
> 
> 
> 
> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having politics in control of 'science' is a horrible practice IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but private and especially academic entities also have specific political agendas, some of which are very unwelcome IMO. As I said above, I think they are the ones steering the out of control beast.
> 
> 
> 
> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, just for the sake of curiosity, how many wolves does it take to get genetic diversity in Wyoming/Montana/Idaho in your opinion? I hear some 'experts' say more are needed than the current population allows for, yet others say there are more than enough to get diversity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. Thanks for being honest. That is what I am afraid is the real/honest answer should be from those calling the shots.
> 
> 
> 
> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is my concern when politics are in the drivers seat for such programs, that those with the most money/passion get what they want whether it is supported by science or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't agree more, but turning the programs over to the "highest bidder" in the private sector would just about guarantee the result you fear. At least then it would be more out in the open instead of buried in bureaucracy and red tape.
Click to expand...


----------



## The Naturalist

Catherder said:


> .......
> Bates said he's not sure how this came about or of what benefits it offers, "But, we're doing research to answer these questions. We do know it's unique to buffalo on the island."
> 
> As it says, we do not yet know the significance of this.


Good discussion going on here! Bates is right on in the above statement. I might add that we don't know the significance of 95%, perhaps 99% of the living things this planet has. IMHO that is why we should try to preserve as many as possible. Where the money comes from to fund these projects is definitely debatable, and one I sure don't have the answer for, but if some of my tax monies go to help recover a species like the California Condor so be it, I don't have problem with it. If private enterprises fund it through donations - even better.

The subject of Genetic diversity goes beyond the gene pool for just one species. It encompasses the variety of genetic information in *allliving organisms. So, even though a critter such as the Condor may be limited within its own gene pool, it does add to the total.*That may be a philosophical approach, but does have credence in scientific circles.



proutdoors said:


> ...... Take the Spotted Owl fiasco. How many people lost their jobs over a bird? Loggers/mill workers/construction workers/etc/etc were greatly affected by the actions put in play by the ESA. All for what, a bird. The irony is that because logging was shut down in many areas a 'new' owl moved in, and it's favorite meal is the spotted owl. This 'new' owl has killed MORE spotted owls than the loggers could ever dream of killing. So, in the end the spotted owl was not helped but the industries and the local economies that rely on logging were hurt big time. The costs were NOT worth it. I could point to numerous examples similar to this of the dismal track record of the ESA. Having politics in control of 'science' is a horrible practice IMHO. The battle in the Northwest was all about old growth forests. The Spotted Owl only came into play when the extremist environmentalists were about to lose to the logging industry in the battle for old growth forests - then the Spotted Owl suddenly appeared to save the day. I guess there could be some unscrupulous individuals who would transplant one there, but if there were, noone is talking  :wink:
> 
> Back on the genetic diversity subject, when a species dwindles down to near zero such as the California Condor, is it possible to obtain the desired diversity?
> 
> And, just for the sake of curiosity, how many wolves does it take to get genetic diversity in Wyoming/Montana/Idaho in your opinion? I hear some 'experts' say more are needed than the current population allows for, yet others say there are more than enough to get diversity. The Wolf Biologists I've talked to believe that there is enough diversity present, and when the Wolves reach the point where they fit into the individual State's Wolf Recovery Programs that they (the Wolf Biologists) have no problem with them being delisted and contolled according to the State's guidelines.This is my concern when politics are in the drivers seat for such programs, that those with the most money/passion get what they want whether it is supported by science or not. One major sore spot for me is the beetle infestation on my stomping grounds, the Manti LaSal's. Logging was stopped because of 'concerns' over the forest grouse population in the area, so that a 'study' conducted by those with an agenda could be conducted, that caused the local logging company to close down causing 200+ plus in the small community of Gunnison to lose their jobs and the beetles to spread killing even more trees which hurt the **** bird that was supposedly being 'protected! I am a firm believer NO species should be placed ahead of humans.


I guess the question here is would the logging have controlled the Beetle? I would have to look more into it - it is my understanding that the Beetle and the Logging industry, for the most part, target different age groups of trees, and fire suppression is the major cause for the spread of the Beetle. There is also a natural cycle between Forests and Beetles. But, like I say it has been a while since I've brushed up on this subject. Anyway, it is a sad situation when families have to go through these sorts of problems.


----------



## proutdoors

The Naturalist said:


> I guess the question here is would the logging have controlled the Beetle? I would have to look more into it - it is my understanding that the Beetle and the Logging industry, for the most part, target different age groups of trees, and fire suppression is the major cause for the spread of the Beetle. There is also a natural cycle between Forests and Beetles. But, like I say it has been a while since I've brushed up on this subject. Anyway, it is a sad situation when families have to go through these sorts of problems.[/color]


Saterwhite(spelling?) offered to log the infected/dead trees and plant new pines as they cleared areas. I have yet to see a single grouse in the dead forest areas, but this is what put a halt to the program. The logging company had been logging living forests in the area, but they had ran out of approved areas to log while there was/is acres and acres of beetle infested areas that are still there doing NOTHING. I agree that fire suppression is the primary cause of beetles infecting more stands of pine than in years gone by, but when the wacko's won't allow logging they sure won't be allowing fires in the area. :?


----------



## Catherder

Pro, some of these items we could go back and forth on ad infinitum, but let me finish up on a couple of points and then I'll let you all have at it.



proutdoors said:


> I assert that these very groups are steering the ESA right now for the most part. Who pushed the **** wolf issue, the spotted owl issue, the forest grouse issue?


I can mainly speak for the June sucker program, but in my (extremely) limited role in it via participation in the ULFF, I can confidently say that the program is not run by nor is the agenda pushed by left wing extremists. The local people controlling the program are very sensitive to fishermans and other local citizens concerns and desires and in fact, will bend over backwards to increase ANGLER involvement. This is why the ULFF was formed. The same appears to be the case with the Bonneville cutt program. If the extremists were getting their way, they wouldn't frequently be pestering the court system with their dumb and dead end lawsuits. Also, having some experience through my occupation with the "other side", I can tell you that turning over this kind of work to the extremist groups would represent a disaster to all sportsmen of unimaginable proportions. The hostility they have toward fishing and hunting is difficult for some of you to appreciate.



proutdoors said:


> It is recognized that when a population gets that low, that what is called a genetic "bottleneck" occurs. It may or may not result in a concentration of negative inbreeding traits that finish off the species, but one hopes for the best. I am not overly comfortable spending millions/billions on "hopes".


Well, the homely birds have gone from 24 to about 127 in about 16 years, so it looks like "hopes" worked fairly well in this instance. heck, they are even in Utah now.



proutdoors said:


> I couldn't agree more, but turning the programs over to the "highest bidder" in the private sector would just about guarantee the result you fear. At least then it would be more out in the open instead of buried in bureaucracy and red tape.


[/quote]

I would assert that the sportsman and the average citizen have a greater voice on wildlife matters currently than what you seem to propose. Aggrieved citizens are able to complain to their local and regional politicians and sue in the courts. Since the pols are motivated by local votes, they will be responsive to them. Conversely, once a project is turned over to an extremist type of organization, they will most certainly give the "middle finger" to anyone who has concerns about how things are being done.


----------



## shaner

I don't think I'm going to get Wipers in Utah Lake anytime in the near future, back to Willard I go. Caught a couple at Willard thursday night, what an amazing fish!


----------



## Artoxx

*I am not a scientist, so I will not be talking about alleles and such things, but I do have what I think is a pretty good example of the need for genetic diversity that most on here will be able to relate to.

Mans best friend.

You start with your basic wolf, you breed it in ways that YOU control for hundreds or thousand of years, breeding puppies to their parents and siblings to get certain characteristics that YOU feel are good, and eventually you get a chihuahua. God knows why you would want one, but that is what YOU did by limiting the genetics available in that group of canines. Meanwhile your neighbor does exactly the same thing with a different group of canines and ends up with a Great Dane, while down the street the Labrador Retriever was born.
That was possible because of the incredible variety of possibilities implicit in the original genetic diversity of the species. A pug nose in a wolf pack would be a hindrance to that animals survival. But a pug nose on your PUG, is considered "cute". :roll:

Consider the drawbacks of this type of thing. How many of you have a dog or have known a dog, that has suffered from hip dysplasia, or some of the other genetic issues that have been so detrimental to an otherwise perfectly good idea? My lab and my GSP both, have had to be certified Dysplasia free, just to be sold to me in the first place. The mutt down the street with the heinz 57 background is WAY less likely to have any of those types of abnormalities, for the simple reason that it still retains, or has regained, much more genetic diversity.

That type of condition was/is caused by breeding to close to the main line. It removes genetic diversity by definition, taking an animal, of whatever kind and limiting it to an inbred or limited genetic condition will result in problems in almost every case.
The results of the California Condor population getting so small before being "rescued" may not have all been seen yet. If you took a Condor from NOW and sat it side by side with one from say 1000 years ago, it might be very obvious that there have already been problems that we don't even have the knowledge to recognize.
Same thing for the Buffalo, the Antelope, and other animal species that we have "rescued" from the brink of extinction.
We don't even have accurate enough records of how they were before they were almost wiped out to be able to recognize how much they may have changed.
But it gives us a very good reason to promote MORE genetic diversity in those areas where we have both the knowledge AND the ability to do so.
I hope that may be helpful to those who may not have understood, if any. If not, I tried. :wink:

I am neither for nor against the June sucker as such. Not sure I would recognize one if it were in my hand. But I don't have anything AGAINST it either. 
I agree with the sentiment that the government is doing highly illegal things with our money. So many spring to mind instantaneously, that I would have trouble naming ONE.
On the other hand, if they are going to take 30-50% of my money away from me without my consent anyway, I would just as soon that they spent it trying to fix Utah lake as trying to find a way to eliminate the Second Amendment and take away my right to Keep and Bear Arms. 
Or give amnesty to a bunch of criminals who should by rights be dead or well, DEAD.
It is a given that the government is going to waste most of what they steal, so let them waste it on things that could actually improve something we care about, if only theoretically. The revolution has not arrived yet, until it does, we are at the mercy of the stupid people. Whether they be in government or in support of government. Let them fix Utah Lake if they can, because after the revolution, we are going to be busy with other things, and a handy food supply might just come in handy. I would rather eat catfish, bass, and white bass, than CARP, but that is just my personal opinion, there is actually quite a bit of meat on a carp if you can get it off the bones. :twisted: *


----------



## handsomefish

shaner said:


> I don't think I'm going to get Wipers in Utah Lake anytime in the near future, back to Willard I go. Caught a couple at Willard thursday night, what an amazing fish!


Even if there wasn't a problem with the june suckers I don't see them putting wippers in utah lake because of the white bass 
They seem to have a identifacation problem at strawberry between a rainbow and a cutthroat, I had a C/O tell me they had written out about 50 tickets one weekend mostly because of that
I think I would have a hard time telling the differance between a 8-10 inch white bass from a 8-10 inch wipper
I think the DWR would have a hard time enforcing a limit on wippers when there is no limit on white bass
And I don't see them planting wippers anywhere without putting a limit on them


----------



## .45

Artoxx said:


> *I am not a scientist, so I will not be talking about alleles and such things, but I do have what I think is a pretty good example of the need for genetic diversity that most on here will be able to relate to.
> 
> Mans best friend.
> 
> You start with your basic wolf, you breed it in ways that YOU control for hundreds or thousand of years, breeding puppies to their parents and siblings to get certain characteristics that YOU feel are good, and eventually you get a chihuahua. God knows why you would want one, but that is what YOU did by limiting the genetics available in that group of canines. Meanwhile your neighbor does exactly the same thing with a different group of canines and ends up with a Great Dane, while down the street the Labrador Retriever was born.
> That was possible because of the incredible variety of possibilities implicit in the original genetic diversity of the species. A pug nose in a wolf pack would be a hindrance to that animals survival. But a pug nose on your PUG, is considered "cute". :roll:
> 
> Consider the drawbacks of this type of thing. How many of you have a dog or have known a dog, that has suffered from hip dysplasia, or some of the other genetic issues that have been so detrimental to an otherwise perfectly good idea? My lab and my GSP both, have had to be certified Dysplasia free, just to be sold to me in the first place. The mutt down the street with the heinz 57 background is WAY less likely to have any of those types of abnormalities, for the simple reason that it still retains, or has regained, much more genetic diversity.
> 
> That type of condition was/is caused by breeding to close to the main line. It removes genetic diversity by definition, taking an animal, of whatever kind and limiting it to an inbred or limited genetic condition will result in problems in almost every case.
> The results of the California Condor population getting so small before being "rescued" may not have all been seen yet. If you took a Condor from NOW and sat it side by side with one from say 1000 years ago, it might be very obvious that there have already been problems that we don't even have the knowledge to recognize.
> Same thing for the Buffalo, the Antelope, and other animal species that we have "rescued" from the brink of extinction.
> We don't even have accurate enough records of how they were before they were almost wiped out to be able to recognize how much they may have changed.
> But it gives us a very good reason to promote MORE genetic diversity in those areas where we have both the knowledge AND the ability to do so.
> I hope that may be helpful to those who may not have understood, if any. If not, I tried. :wink:
> 
> I am neither for nor against the June sucker as such. Not sure I would recognize one if it were in my hand. But I don't have anything AGAINST it either.
> I agree with the sentiment that the government is doing highly illegal things with our money. So many spring to mind instantaneously, that I would have trouble naming ONE.
> On the other hand, if they are going to take 30-50% of my money away from me without my consent anyway, I would just as soon that they spent it trying to fix Utah lake as trying to find a way to eliminate the Second Amendment and take away my right to Keep and Bear Arms.
> Or give amnesty to a bunch of criminals who should by rights be dead or well, DEAD.
> It is a given that the government is going to waste most of what they steal, so let them waste it on things that could actually improve something we care about, if only theoretically. The revolution has not arrived yet, until it does, we are at the mercy of the stupid people. Whether they be in government or in support of government. Let them fix Utah Lake if they can, because after the revolution, we are going to be busy with other things, and a handy food supply might just come in handy. I would rather eat catfish, bass, and white bass, than CARP, but that is just my personal opinion, there is actually quite a bit of meat on a carp if you can get it off the bones. :twisted: *


 :shock: :shock: :shock:

-_O- -_O-


----------



## Artoxx

What's so funny, dude? -oOo- 
I am dead serious. :twisted:


----------



## .45

I just think it's comical that this thread has covered wiper, trout, carp, white fish, bass, wolves, buffalo, grouse, owls, beetles and the condor. The thread has also covered Antelope Island, the La-sals, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming along with the ESA, the DWR, PETA, the Sierra Club, USFWS, taxes and the constitution. I may have missed a few...

And then this came up....



> The revolution has not arrived yet


What revolution is that ?? The Revolution by "The Beatles" or the revolution started by Johny Bangerter to overthrow the government with all his 8 sand bags and his little brothers .22 rifle?

Speaking of genetic diversity.....I hear there is a new 'strain' of skin heads in Northern Idaho that may be looking for new recruits... :roll:


----------



## Jitterbug

Woww! This thread is still going on?!

:lol:


----------

