03-25-2013, 03:18 PM
[quote k2muskie]
If the biologists determined the walleye harvest was way down, did these biologists even consider increasing the harvest limit from 6 to say 10 or even double to 12? [/quote]
Kim -- this question all depends on how many walleye were currently being harvested. If anglers were only harvesting 4, with a limit of 6, then increasing the limit would not have done anything. It's the same problem we saw (see) with the Provo River. You can increase the limit as high as you want, but if anglers don't keep any fish it doesn't make a difference. However, if you make a regulation change, such as allowing bait (Provo River) or open up the inlet channel to angling (Willard) then you automatically increase mortality.
Saugeye? Who would've thunk it??? (that was for you, tubedude...)
[signature]
If the biologists determined the walleye harvest was way down, did these biologists even consider increasing the harvest limit from 6 to say 10 or even double to 12? [/quote]
Kim -- this question all depends on how many walleye were currently being harvested. If anglers were only harvesting 4, with a limit of 6, then increasing the limit would not have done anything. It's the same problem we saw (see) with the Provo River. You can increase the limit as high as you want, but if anglers don't keep any fish it doesn't make a difference. However, if you make a regulation change, such as allowing bait (Provo River) or open up the inlet channel to angling (Willard) then you automatically increase mortality.
Saugeye? Who would've thunk it??? (that was for you, tubedude...)
[signature]