08-23-2006, 05:04 PM
Sorry to inform you, but our walleye lakes in Utah have the lowest use...in fact, when lakes like Yuba and Starvation were first stocked with Walleye (Starvation was actually stocked by the DWR), the fishermen hours on those reservoirs went way down. Starvation will be better fishing for more people under the "CURRENT" conditions...but those conditions won't last. That's what these dumb Utah walleye fishermen don't get!
Also, the boom and bust cycles Yuba sees are more bust than boom...the fishing there has been good the past couple of years because the walleyes aren't there in number...but, as soon as the walleyes start reappearing in good numbers, the bust will be back.
It is funny how much misinformation is out there...in the late 1990's or early 2000's the DWR with cooperation from other angling groups began gillnetting and removing small walleye in hopes of allowing chubs to recover so that the walleye fishery could rebound from its declining/dismal state. About that same time perch were discovered and the DWR knew that any attempts at helping the chubs rebound would be for naught because the perch would also prey and outcompete the chubs so the gillnetting practice ended. The good fishing now in directly related to those gillnetting years back five or so years ago...we are now seeing those effects. The problem is that the perch will decline in numbers just as the chubs did and the walleye will eat themselves out of house and home...but don't believe me. Here are the facts:
The Starvation Forage Enhancement Project
"A promising walleye management strategy on a prime Utah walleye water is lost to an illegal fish introduction"
By Ray Schelble
The Starvation Forage Enhancement Project actually had its start in the mid-1990s when the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) contracted with Dr. Chris Luecke of Utah State University to study predator/prey relations in several Utah walleye reservoirs. RMA and the Utah B.A.S.S. Federation were invited by the DWR to participate in a steering committee to help guide the focus of the study, as was Utah State Parks. Starvation Reservoir was one of the waters in the study.
In the 1990s Starvation became a trophy walleye fishery that gained a national reputation. RMA members regularly went there to catch large walleyes that tipped the scales at 10-pounds and over. The lake’s smallmouth bass also became a source of pride to biologists and anglers. The Utah chub, a problem in other Utah reservoirs, provided the forage for Starvation’s success. The idea to form RMA was hatched on Starvation’s boat ramp in the late 1980s, and if any water could be considered a home water for RMA members, Starvation was it.
But biologists, particularly Ed Johnson of the DWR Northeast Region, warned that all was not good with Starvation. It was hard for anglers to believe given the beautiful trophies that were being brought to boat. But as the new century neared anglers detected a noticeable drop in the fishery. By then, Dr. Luecke’s study had documented a problem that showed up all too frequently in other Utah walleye waters: a decline in the forage base.
The numbers of chubs declined in Starvation to the point where the fishery’s future was in jeopardy. The root of the problem appeared to be overpredation of small chubs by undersized predators. The lake had disproportionately high numbers of small walleye and smallmouth bass under 12 inches long. Predation by the numerous smaller-sized fish virtually eliminated young chubs each year long before they could grow to spawning size. In addition, the chubs these gamefish ate were so tiny they did not provide adequate nutrition for the gamefish to grow. In 2000, the average age of chubs in the lake was about 20-years-old, and these old fish provided virtually all the yearly chub spawning. Year by year, chub numbers in the lake dwindled as these old fish died off. The fear was that when these older chubs were gone, the lake would crash due to lack of any younger chubs that could spawn and provide forage. A setback like this could take a decade or more to recover from, if at all.
After studying and discussing options, the Starvation Forage Enhancement Project was proposed to address this problem. Biologists emphasized that a minimum three-year commitment would be necessary to see if it could help the reservoir recover. The majority of the steering committee members agreed it was worth trying and the DWR laid the groundwork. Over a period of four weeks each summer, small-mesh gill nets were set throughout the reservoir daily to trap the smaller (under about 12 inches in length) walleye and smallmouth bass and remove them from the reservoir. In theory, removing these smaller predators for several years would reduce the pressure on the young chubs enough to allow at least some of them to reach a size where they could spawn and reestablish the reservoir’s productivity. Given that the chubs presently in the reservoir had supported the walleye fishery for some 20 years, it was hoped that if the project succeeded the gillnetting could be repeated periodically to maintain a spawning population of Utah chubs.
The idea of removing walleyes to help walleyes was controversial. It went against the instincts of anglers who had grown to think of carefully catching and releasing caught fish as protecting a fishery. In 2000, the project began amid skepticism from some anglers and others. Some of the opposition was very vocal. DWR biologists continually emphasized that the results of an undertaking like this may not be apparent for up to five years or maybe longer.
Volunteers, an average of about a dozen a day, figured heavily in making it all work. The volunteers included members of RMA, B.A.S.S., the Salt Lake County Fish and Game Association, many participants in the Utah Dedicated Hunter program and anglers and others who were just interested in participating. The gillnetting was conducted five days a week for four weeks. The nets were put out on Sunday afternoon and pulled and reset each day. Fridays and the day before the July 24 holiday they were picked up so they would not be a hazard for weekend boaters.
The project removed 2,758 small walleye in 2000. In 2001, with some fine-tuning of the mesh size in the nets, 6,468 small walleye were removed. The opposition to the project slowly began to dissolve when anglers excitedly started reporting consistent catches of larger walleyes. Although the chubs were not yet showing up as hoped, it appeared the project was having a positive impact.
When the gillnetting began in the summer of 2002, there were thoughts that the project may be extended for a year or two given the indications of its success. Shortly after it started, though, a complication started to become apparent—yellow perch started showing up in the gillnets in numbers. Apparently, the perch had been illegally introduced into the reservoir. The totals for 2002 came to 7,067 walleyes and 1,098 yellow perch.
The impacts of yellow perch to the reservoir are largely unknown. For the short run, the project has been ended because the additional predation of the yellow perch on the chubs cannot be overcome by gillnetting. Biologists feel that with perch eating the young chubs now as well as the walleyes, the Utah chubs will likely lose any chance of making a comeback. On the other hand, the forage that perch will provide to the walleyes will undoubtedly improve the walleye fishery for the next several years.
In the long-run, however, the outlook may not be as rosy. Even in waters where perch are native they are prone to ups and downs in their numbers. Some worry that Starvation could end up like other perch/walleye reservoirs in Utah, such as Deer Creek and Yuba, where the walleye and perch are subject to cycles of boom and bust. Hopefully, Starvation will be different.
What it does mean is that a promising walleye management strategy had to be ended. It may have been possible to repeat the gillnetting in cycles, say every decade or so, to allow some Utah chubs to get to spawning size and rejuvenate the fishery. The illegal introduction of perch eliminates this option and leaves precious little beyond changing fishing regulations that can be done.
Some observations from working on the Starvation Forage Enhancement Project:
• The DWR is willing to experiment with reasonable management options when anglers support them and work to help make them happen.
• This type of project provides many public relations benefits for the DWR. Numerous anglers have a new appreciation of the work DWR does because of the hands-on, on-the-water experience they got on this project. They also got to know and talk to biologists, law enforcement personnel and other DWR employees for an extended time while working together.
• On the flip side, DWR personnel get to work alongside anglers in an informal setting. They have the opportunity to see first-hand the support and enthusiasm for what they are doing ahd hear what the anglers have to say.
• Illegally adding another species to a water may seem like a good idea but it never is. It can have unforeseen consequences.
• Although the ultimate goal for Starvation of new spawning-sized chubs was not realized, much was learned that could benefit other waters.
RMA will continue to work with the DWR and other fishing organizations to ensure that Starvation and other waters are managed in the best way possible.
[signature]
Also, the boom and bust cycles Yuba sees are more bust than boom...the fishing there has been good the past couple of years because the walleyes aren't there in number...but, as soon as the walleyes start reappearing in good numbers, the bust will be back.
It is funny how much misinformation is out there...in the late 1990's or early 2000's the DWR with cooperation from other angling groups began gillnetting and removing small walleye in hopes of allowing chubs to recover so that the walleye fishery could rebound from its declining/dismal state. About that same time perch were discovered and the DWR knew that any attempts at helping the chubs rebound would be for naught because the perch would also prey and outcompete the chubs so the gillnetting practice ended. The good fishing now in directly related to those gillnetting years back five or so years ago...we are now seeing those effects. The problem is that the perch will decline in numbers just as the chubs did and the walleye will eat themselves out of house and home...but don't believe me. Here are the facts:
The Starvation Forage Enhancement Project
"A promising walleye management strategy on a prime Utah walleye water is lost to an illegal fish introduction"
By Ray Schelble
The Starvation Forage Enhancement Project actually had its start in the mid-1990s when the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) contracted with Dr. Chris Luecke of Utah State University to study predator/prey relations in several Utah walleye reservoirs. RMA and the Utah B.A.S.S. Federation were invited by the DWR to participate in a steering committee to help guide the focus of the study, as was Utah State Parks. Starvation Reservoir was one of the waters in the study.
In the 1990s Starvation became a trophy walleye fishery that gained a national reputation. RMA members regularly went there to catch large walleyes that tipped the scales at 10-pounds and over. The lake’s smallmouth bass also became a source of pride to biologists and anglers. The Utah chub, a problem in other Utah reservoirs, provided the forage for Starvation’s success. The idea to form RMA was hatched on Starvation’s boat ramp in the late 1980s, and if any water could be considered a home water for RMA members, Starvation was it.
But biologists, particularly Ed Johnson of the DWR Northeast Region, warned that all was not good with Starvation. It was hard for anglers to believe given the beautiful trophies that were being brought to boat. But as the new century neared anglers detected a noticeable drop in the fishery. By then, Dr. Luecke’s study had documented a problem that showed up all too frequently in other Utah walleye waters: a decline in the forage base.
The numbers of chubs declined in Starvation to the point where the fishery’s future was in jeopardy. The root of the problem appeared to be overpredation of small chubs by undersized predators. The lake had disproportionately high numbers of small walleye and smallmouth bass under 12 inches long. Predation by the numerous smaller-sized fish virtually eliminated young chubs each year long before they could grow to spawning size. In addition, the chubs these gamefish ate were so tiny they did not provide adequate nutrition for the gamefish to grow. In 2000, the average age of chubs in the lake was about 20-years-old, and these old fish provided virtually all the yearly chub spawning. Year by year, chub numbers in the lake dwindled as these old fish died off. The fear was that when these older chubs were gone, the lake would crash due to lack of any younger chubs that could spawn and provide forage. A setback like this could take a decade or more to recover from, if at all.
After studying and discussing options, the Starvation Forage Enhancement Project was proposed to address this problem. Biologists emphasized that a minimum three-year commitment would be necessary to see if it could help the reservoir recover. The majority of the steering committee members agreed it was worth trying and the DWR laid the groundwork. Over a period of four weeks each summer, small-mesh gill nets were set throughout the reservoir daily to trap the smaller (under about 12 inches in length) walleye and smallmouth bass and remove them from the reservoir. In theory, removing these smaller predators for several years would reduce the pressure on the young chubs enough to allow at least some of them to reach a size where they could spawn and reestablish the reservoir’s productivity. Given that the chubs presently in the reservoir had supported the walleye fishery for some 20 years, it was hoped that if the project succeeded the gillnetting could be repeated periodically to maintain a spawning population of Utah chubs.
The idea of removing walleyes to help walleyes was controversial. It went against the instincts of anglers who had grown to think of carefully catching and releasing caught fish as protecting a fishery. In 2000, the project began amid skepticism from some anglers and others. Some of the opposition was very vocal. DWR biologists continually emphasized that the results of an undertaking like this may not be apparent for up to five years or maybe longer.
Volunteers, an average of about a dozen a day, figured heavily in making it all work. The volunteers included members of RMA, B.A.S.S., the Salt Lake County Fish and Game Association, many participants in the Utah Dedicated Hunter program and anglers and others who were just interested in participating. The gillnetting was conducted five days a week for four weeks. The nets were put out on Sunday afternoon and pulled and reset each day. Fridays and the day before the July 24 holiday they were picked up so they would not be a hazard for weekend boaters.
The project removed 2,758 small walleye in 2000. In 2001, with some fine-tuning of the mesh size in the nets, 6,468 small walleye were removed. The opposition to the project slowly began to dissolve when anglers excitedly started reporting consistent catches of larger walleyes. Although the chubs were not yet showing up as hoped, it appeared the project was having a positive impact.
When the gillnetting began in the summer of 2002, there were thoughts that the project may be extended for a year or two given the indications of its success. Shortly after it started, though, a complication started to become apparent—yellow perch started showing up in the gillnets in numbers. Apparently, the perch had been illegally introduced into the reservoir. The totals for 2002 came to 7,067 walleyes and 1,098 yellow perch.
The impacts of yellow perch to the reservoir are largely unknown. For the short run, the project has been ended because the additional predation of the yellow perch on the chubs cannot be overcome by gillnetting. Biologists feel that with perch eating the young chubs now as well as the walleyes, the Utah chubs will likely lose any chance of making a comeback. On the other hand, the forage that perch will provide to the walleyes will undoubtedly improve the walleye fishery for the next several years.
In the long-run, however, the outlook may not be as rosy. Even in waters where perch are native they are prone to ups and downs in their numbers. Some worry that Starvation could end up like other perch/walleye reservoirs in Utah, such as Deer Creek and Yuba, where the walleye and perch are subject to cycles of boom and bust. Hopefully, Starvation will be different.
What it does mean is that a promising walleye management strategy had to be ended. It may have been possible to repeat the gillnetting in cycles, say every decade or so, to allow some Utah chubs to get to spawning size and rejuvenate the fishery. The illegal introduction of perch eliminates this option and leaves precious little beyond changing fishing regulations that can be done.
Some observations from working on the Starvation Forage Enhancement Project:
• The DWR is willing to experiment with reasonable management options when anglers support them and work to help make them happen.
• This type of project provides many public relations benefits for the DWR. Numerous anglers have a new appreciation of the work DWR does because of the hands-on, on-the-water experience they got on this project. They also got to know and talk to biologists, law enforcement personnel and other DWR employees for an extended time while working together.
• On the flip side, DWR personnel get to work alongside anglers in an informal setting. They have the opportunity to see first-hand the support and enthusiasm for what they are doing ahd hear what the anglers have to say.
• Illegally adding another species to a water may seem like a good idea but it never is. It can have unforeseen consequences.
• Although the ultimate goal for Starvation of new spawning-sized chubs was not realized, much was learned that could benefit other waters.
RMA will continue to work with the DWR and other fishing organizations to ensure that Starvation and other waters are managed in the best way possible.
[signature]