# Endangered Lake List



## Jitterbug (Sep 10, 2007)

All this talk lately about Utah Lake and the June Sucker and the Carp problem has got me thinking... Is there an endangered lake list that would trump the endangered species list?

Seems to me that the real problem to getting to a solution for Utah Lake is the June Sucker. I don't mean that in a bad way it just seems that there is always a conflict of interest when trying to do something good.

Shaner's post spurred this thought. Don't mind me I'm just thinking out loud.


----------



## Crawdads Revenge (May 31, 2008)

I think most people would agree that the single best thing that can be done for Utah Lake at this point is reducing the number of carp. The fact that this should also help the june sucker goes a long way to securing financial aid to that end, which is exactly what has happened recently.

If the carp reduction is successful then there will likely be room to talk about possibly introducing other species that won't out-compete the suckers as much as carp, like say wipers. 

I'm willing to do my part at Utah Lake as soon as they legalize playing "whack-a-carp" with baseball bats. On a related note, is intentionally running them over with a boat considered legal...?


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Last I heard, carp clubbing was just fine. Hell, take a pitchfork!


----------



## Crawdads Revenge (May 31, 2008)

LOAH said:


> Last I heard, carp clubbing was just fine. Hell, take a pitchfork!


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Yes, let's all take note:

Carp are NOT footballs, they go IN the garbage can, not on the lid, and carp with spears in them should never be eaten.

That is all.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

LOAH said:


> Yes, let's all take note:
> 
> Carp are NOT footballs, they go IN the garbage can, not on the lid, and carp with spears in them should never be eaten.
> 
> That is all.


 :lol: :mrgreen:


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

...but seriously though, what's with the sign? Is that posted somewhere at UL?


----------



## Crawdads Revenge (May 31, 2008)

LOAH said:


> ...but seriously though, what's with the sign? Is that posted somewhere at UL?


No, it's from England. I guess carp are popular table fare in some parts of Eastern Europe, so they've had a problem with immigrants pilfering them from catch-and-release areas. So you've got people fighting over whether to preserve carp or have them for Christmas dinner... those wacky Europeans.

Has anyone let them know we've got a few million pounds of carp to spare?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Jitterbug said:


> All this talk lately about Utah Lake and the June Sucker and the Carp problem has got me thinking... Is there an endangered lake list that would trump the endangered species list?
> 
> Seems to me that the real problem to getting to a solution for Utah Lake is the June Sucker. I don't mean that in a bad way it just seems that there is always a conflict of interest when trying to do something good.
> 
> Shaner's post spurred this thought. Don't mind me I'm just thinking out loud.


Ok, I'll bite. I would first answer by asking, what do you consider "something good?" I look at the June sucker situation causing some money to be available that permits the carp to be reduced, the habitat improved, and the lake cleaned up and consider that "something good". I believe that if Utah lake just had a bunch of catfish, carp, and white bass in it and the same ecological situation, that no one would give a rats rectum about it, especially the people with the public pursestrings. I would also argue that if "something good" includes better sportfishing, that the programs related to the sucker recovery will cause that. Reducing the carp biomass will cause another species(singular or plural) to fill in the niche. That won't likely be suckers, it will be sportfishes. I would also submit that the current fishing at UL is pretty good, even if nothing changed.

I have no idea if wipers would be a problem or not in UL. That is probably a question for the biologists working the lake. They may just mix in with their numberless cousins, the white bass. I would say that if you'd like wipers in other ponds, you may well be asking the same questions about a number of potential lakes. One thing that the biologists have learned about UL is that even with the numerous predators ALREADY in there, none of them are eating the carp in significant numbers. It is called a food web analysis, and is some fascinating stuff that has been presented at the Utah fish forum. Basically, there are two food webs in UL. One is with the white bass, who eat a certain group of small invertebrates and then largely sustain themselves by the bigger WB eating the small ones. The second involves the bluegills, perch, bullheads, and crappie, which eat a different set of invertebrates to start out, then follow a web that peaks with the walleyes and channel cats. Neither food web utilizes carp to any real degree. That is another reason that carp are so bad in there. They are a "black hole" for the lakes resources. With this in mind, I don't know if wipers would actually do all that much better than their smaller cousins the WB. They likely won't sustain themselves on carp, except for the short time when the fry are small.

Finally, most of our drainages have endangered species in them. There is no question that this results in management options being taken "off the table". Nothing trumps the ESA, but I guess it depends on your perspective as to whether a given policy is good or bad. I suppose I have seen it go both ways IMO.

Sorry to be a windbag. :wink:


----------



## Jitterbug (Sep 10, 2007)

By "something good" I mean everything that is being done to make UL a better place. The point I was trying to make has more to do with the methods used to remove the carp. I know this has been beat to death on here but a plan to remove the carp in 7 years is the quickest way that could be devised? Sure there's a lot of carp in there but what is holding efforts back from utilizing other methods at the same time? Are the June Suckers the reason they won't poison the lake or even parts of the lake?

My understanding of the netting program is to remove the bigger carp within 7 years but what about all the fry those fish will leave behind during those years? If the game fish don't forage on all the carp fry and the nets aren't going to get the fry either we will eventually still have the same problem right?

I guess my reasoning is more of an attempt to understand the resolution that has been approved and if there was a better plan that had been suggested but not approved because of an endangered species of fish.

Sorry for my running on and on about this. Just trying to understand the logic of this whole thing.


----------



## Gameface (Jun 7, 2008)

My buddy was looking for info on carp and heard about something called Koi herpes that is deadly to koi (aka carp). Apperently it can devestate a koi population. From what he told me it also only affects carp. Sounded like an interesting solution to me.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

RE: Why won't they poison the lake to get rid of the carp?

There are enough June suckers at Red Butte reservoir and other locations that could be planted to repopulate Utah Lake if it could be successfully poisoned. The option has been studied a good bit and there are two main reasons it hasn't been pursued. First, it is felt that there are too many springs, tributaries, marshes and other places that couldn't be treated and the result would be unsatisfactory. Second, a possible UL treatment would probably exhaust the national supply of rotenone. At the time Strawberry was treated a few years back, it was the largest lake ever to undergo a rotenone treatment. Utah lake is much larger still. It would likely be almost impossible to get enough rotenone to do the job and logistical obstacles related to the lakes size would be enormous.

Focal treatment of smaller areas where carp are known to congregate in the fall is currently being looked at and may be attempted. Enormous congregations of carp occur in the Southern part of the lake each autumn, and may be a good target for a localized treatment.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Word on poisoning the lake..... Rotenone is extremely expensive, there's no way to treat the whole lake at once, there are too many inflowing areas that would dilute and poison and or wreck the even distribution of the poison, there are too many good species in the lake that would be killed off, since the rotenone isn't selective. True, you could re-deposit species into the lake, but thats also more expense to consider. There are just a schload of reasons why poisoning the lake won't work... hell Geneva tried that for years and the fish survived. :wink: I think all this hubbub about the carp is just political noise.... carp have been in there for at least the ten years I've lived here and haven't hurt the fishing yet. Yeah, they're gross, obnoxious, make the lake supposedly "unappealing" or whatever.... but they're just part of the whole "Utah Lake experience". Take the good with the bad and you can still have a great time at Utah Lake, whether there are millions of carp in there or not.


----------



## Jitterbug (Sep 10, 2007)

Cool thanks for all the responses guys! Whatever happens to the lake I just hope the game fishing stays good!


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

I would imagine that if they meet their netting goals, and are able to successfully area poison them in the fall, this whole thing might work. Now it will be shortlived if they don't continue to net them at a high success rate, and they will need to either plant more of the current predators or introduce new predators to replace the biomass of the carp removed and prey on the carp left. Carp will not be erradicated but if they are able to do all this successfully the population will be smaller. Then if they can get all of that done and are able to replant vegitation sport fishing will become more popular on the lake. Then if they dredge it and revegitate it sport fishing and recreational boating will increase. Then if they dredge it revegitate it put in the boat ramps they've been talking about and improve some beach and shore areas it will become an attraction for more local people. Bringing them to spend their money and bringing an economy boost to the shoreline towns and municipalities. So in theory I can see why they want to do it and what the benefits could potentially be and sounds like a good idea to me in theory anway.


----------



## americanforkdude (Sep 13, 2007)

I know they say it's impossible to think like a fish, but think about it, why the hell would you chose to eat a carp if you was a predator fish?? I'de rather eath the small amount of vegetation the lake may have or the numerous amount of other species the lake provides.. There's no cure to the carp problem but eradicate the ones we can.. that's all.


----------

