04-21-2011, 02:34 AM
[quote Mojo1][quote Bmarsh]This has been on my mind for a long time. On the South Fork of the Snake in the past 5-10 years there has been a huge push to preserve the cutthroat strain/fishing and drop the rainbow population. So much to the point that we now have no limit on rainbows of any size and the F&G has even gone so far as tag some with dollar amounts attached to the tags to encourage the harvest of the rainbows.
Now here is where I’m looking for some insight. Why haven’t the regulations on the browns changed? The regs still only let the harvest of 2 browns per day and they need to be at least 16 inches. I may be wrong and I am not a biologist by any means. From my understanding, that the browns when they hit that size change their diet so that aprox 70% of it is made up of other fish and only 30% is made up of insects. If we are limiting the browns so that they are hitting that point in their life isn’t it detrimental to the Cuts? The latest F&G news letter shows that down around Lorenzo the browns outnumber the Cuts 3 to 1. As you move up the river to Conant the Cuts dominate with 42% of the population and the browns are only 17%, but they said that both of them have increased while the bows have dropped. If we are really looking to increase and preserve the Cuts wouldn’t it be better to loosen up the regs on the browns?
Just a question I have had for a while now, just doesn’t make sense to me to leave a limit that lets a more aggressive fish get larger and more predatory while trying to promote another species in the same water.
And no I don’t hate browns or bows, truth be known I like them both better since they seem to fight much harder than the Cuts do.[/quote]
Browns = invasive species. I support increased harvest to protect the native, threatened cutts. My 2 cents...[/quote]
Don't you think biologists have taken this into consideration and set the limits according to the need?![[Image: rolleyes.gif]](http://www.imhooked.com/forumsyabb/Templates/Forum/default/rolleyes.gif)
Brown limits are less about the ecology and more about money. If you ask me, most of it is promoted for money for guiding organizations.![[Image: wink.gif]](http://www.imhooked.com/forumsyabb/Templates/Forum/default/wink.gif)
[signature]
Now here is where I’m looking for some insight. Why haven’t the regulations on the browns changed? The regs still only let the harvest of 2 browns per day and they need to be at least 16 inches. I may be wrong and I am not a biologist by any means. From my understanding, that the browns when they hit that size change their diet so that aprox 70% of it is made up of other fish and only 30% is made up of insects. If we are limiting the browns so that they are hitting that point in their life isn’t it detrimental to the Cuts? The latest F&G news letter shows that down around Lorenzo the browns outnumber the Cuts 3 to 1. As you move up the river to Conant the Cuts dominate with 42% of the population and the browns are only 17%, but they said that both of them have increased while the bows have dropped. If we are really looking to increase and preserve the Cuts wouldn’t it be better to loosen up the regs on the browns?
Just a question I have had for a while now, just doesn’t make sense to me to leave a limit that lets a more aggressive fish get larger and more predatory while trying to promote another species in the same water.
And no I don’t hate browns or bows, truth be known I like them both better since they seem to fight much harder than the Cuts do.[/quote]
Browns = invasive species. I support increased harvest to protect the native, threatened cutts. My 2 cents...[/quote]
Don't you think biologists have taken this into consideration and set the limits according to the need?
Brown limits are less about the ecology and more about money. If you ask me, most of it is promoted for money for guiding organizations.
[signature]