Additional Provo River Delta info

Utah Fishing Reports & Discussion Utah Fishing General
1

:sunglasses:For those following the discussions on the proposed Provo River Delta project, here is an email and attachement I received from Chris Crockett.

Attached is a summary of the efforts to restore the Provo River Delta. The pamphlet was included in some local newspapers over the weekend. Please feel free to distribute as you see fit. Also included below are links to some recent newspaper articles relative to June sucker and/or Utah Lake. Take Care

The Salt Lake Tribune

Obscure commission produces big results protecting Utah fish, wildlife

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/outdoors/53506348-117/utah-river-commission-fish.html.csp

The Daily Herald ( Provo )

Guest column:

June Sucker Recovery Program works

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/opinion/utah-valley/june-sucker-recovery-program-works/article_6cdc7b82-1210-5162-a888-109bcc0dbdcf.html

Chris Crockett
Native Aquatics Project Leader
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
(801) 491-5655
chriscrockett@utah.gov

2

Not quite shure what im reading pat, seems to me this is all political ,give us you view please.

3

:sunglasses:Of course it is political…and highly charged on both sides.

The PDF file and the links are merely an effort to disseminate more information on the mechanics of the proposal…and the desired effects upon the recovery of the June Sucker. All opinions will have to be an individual matter after you have read the written words…and have read between the lines.

While I am sympathetic to the effort to restore the June suckers…both as prevention of the demise of ANY species and as an overall improvement of the Utah Lake ecology…I am not quite sure it is worth the effort. In my mind the fish are essentially worthless…as food or for sport. Definitely not worth the megabucks that have already been dumped into their salvation…or which are earmarked for future expenditure. Good money after bad? I respectfully suggest that the same amount of money could be channeled into other areas to save the lake…without rechanneling the Provo River.

**June suckers are not bald eagles. And I don’t know how much money the feds put into bringing up the population of bald eagles. But hey, that is our national bird. The good news is that they have now been removed from the endangered species list. **

**When I see all the zeros on the numbers for the money allocated to save a sucker I get the twitches. Call me silly and call me foolish but my sense of values begs the question “Why not take care of US citizens with problems before dumping all that money on worthless fish?” Watch the news any evening and you will see stories about people who have major problems that could be helped by a few bucks in the right place. **

The Provo River Delta Program? To me it is an ANN…another nice notion. Damn the speed. Full torpedos ahead. To hell with the home owners and business people who will be displaced. Lets do some more messin’ with the natural order of things so that MAYBE…JUST MAYBE…a few more baby junies can live long enough to become walleye food.

**I have gotten to know Reed Harris, head of the June Sucker Recovery Program…and quite a few of the DWR biologists who have duties pertaining to the project. They are sincere, dedicated and focused on bringing back that prehistoric pucker lipped piscatorial pawn. But I respectfully suggest that if their paychecks were not tied to saving the suckers that they would not be quite so passionate about them. We all become slaves to whoever or whatever generates our livelihood. **

Those of us in the private sector…especially anglers who enjoy fishing Utah Lake…have a hard time relating to all of the time, money and work that has been allocated to this one species. The suckers have virtually zero impact on our sport, either positive or negative. The predators have plenty of other food without them…but the sucker savers would get rid of all the predators if they could do so.

And the carp? I have known the Loy family (carp seiners) for about 50 years. During those past decades they probably removed more carp each year for commercial purposes than they are removing now under contract from the feds. But once the PCB publicity put a stop to their commercial operation the carp were free to continue procreating without interference. I doubt that the numbers removed under contract to the feds has even approached the increase that took place after seining stopped for a while. I think it is delusional to expect that Utah Lake will ever be depopulated of carp by occasional seining. Like trying to shut off the flow of Niagara falls with a teaspoon.

That’s the long answer. The short answer?

Expletive, expletive, expletive.

4

As someone who has followed this project from the beginning, I second what TD has said. When all this started, I stated in some of the initial meetings that it was all well and good till it got down to the point that water and land was condemned for the “greater good” . We have reached that point with the “delta restoration” portion of the project.

What was interesting was at the public meeting the other night, was the way in which the discussions were being directed by the PR people. 5 proposals were on the table and 3 were obviously not viable, the other 2 entailed the diversion of the Provo River out onto what is now private land and shutting down of the last mile or so of the river. The PR folks were very insistent that no other options were available. What was [/b]NOT[/b] given to the public at that point was that an agreement that gave the project water from the CUP was already in place and [/b]THAT[/b] agreement required that the river be diverted and the lower river dewatered.

I question the premise that is being put forth that the June Sucker and the Mountain Sucker are sharing genetic material to preserve their ability to survive in lean times, then they separate themselves in good times. Hybridization is Hybridization and once combined, I don’t see how the two can be separated again. That is saying that you can take a mule and breed it and get a horse and donkey again. You might be able to do that with bacteria and lower life forms, but I would postulate that fish are to complex, that once the genes are mixed, they stay that way.

So we are back to, do we allow the Project to condemn water and land for this to continue ?? Personally, I don’t feel the benefits outweigh the negatives.

5

i understand why but how is this going to inpact the other fish that spawn in that river the walleye white bass you know the fish us fishermen do care about i know it only one tributary but it is a main one

6

:sunglasses:I have fished the Lower Provo and have observed the ecology over about 5 decades. I don’t pretend to be a degreed fisheries biologist but my primary study in college was zoology…and I have maintained a lifelong course of independent study on all things piscatorial…and ecological.

I reckymember when the walleyes swarmed up the lower Provo and filled the holes…waiting for the right temperatures and conditions for spawning. Those that survived the armies of snaggers got the job done and there were LOTS of walleyes for everybody. I also remember that as soon as the walleye headed back to the lake their places were taken by suckers…mostly common Utah or mountain suckers. Bajillions of them. Easy to catch for catfish bait.

Shortly thereafter came the white bass and the catfish. Yes, the channel cats used to swarm up the river too. Even caught them on fly rods and stonefly patterns…as they were gorging on the then abundant stoneflies in the less polluted and better regulated Provo River.

**My point? All species have done very well in the Provo River as it is…and has been for many generations. Plenty of flow and deep holes for resting and protection. The problems with declining populations and changing ecology have been mostly human created…water flows, water quality issues, etc. **

I just can’t wrap my head around a proposal that advocates cutting out the deep runs and holes along the lower Provo…with the only POTENTIAL benefit being to create a better nursery for a species that is relatively unimportant in the greater scheme of things. The flip side is that it will create a greater hardship for spawning and recruitment for ALL of the other species that have historically used that lower river and are doing just fine as it is…thank you.

Ideally, we all learn to recognize those things that are possible to change…and a change would be an improvement. And even better is to recognize those things that may not be worth the time, effort and money to change…especially when the change is for a marginal or questionable improvement.

It almost suggests something as ridiculous as workers going on strike for longer hours and less pay. Why?

**Like most of us who try to be “team players”…and sensitive to the ecology…I originally accepted the proposal of a Delta plan with “Okay…maybe.” But the more I have learned about it and profiled it against my knowledge and experience with Utah Lake, the less sense it makes to me. **

As they say in the investment business…“The upside potential is not as great as the downside risk.”

7

For those that are not aware of the proposals, they will divert the river at a point just below the new bridge over the river, about where the river meets the Harbor Drive, into the fields to the north and west of that point. Then, one will fillin the current channel and create recreational land to the lake in the old channel. Another will allow a small stream to continue to the lake, but the majority of the river will be diverted.

The other three proposals are not viable. One is leave things as they are, not acceptable due to the agreement that gave the project CUP water. Another dams the river at afformentioned point and then allows the lake to flow back, forming a large stagnant pond from the lake to the dam. The last has some flowages and ponds, that are shallow and would have very little flow to prevent stagnation.

I would go to the June Sucker Recovery Program website and look at all 5 of these. None of them are acceptable in my estimation as they require the condemnation of private land to accomplish.

TD’s observations and comments are consistent with what I have also observed. The lower river ecology is extremely divers and none of the options other than leaving it the way it is seems viable to me !!!

PS: He is older than I am, I only have 3.5 decades of observation !!! Well, closer to 3.8 but who is counting !!!