Exactly. They did that already. They didn’t need it to be legal to fish them live or to move them.
They did it anyway. Such acts were not carried out by law abiding sportsmen.
Is anyone getting this?
Just saying.
But again, I know I won’t be afforded the chance to fish a live minnow on the Berry, so I can probably quit repeating myself now.
Yeah, I’m getting it. So let’s make it the norm for people to use live minnows. Then they will want to use them everywhere. That is the problem now. People have used them in other places and want to be able to do it here. If they had never been exposed to using live minnows as bait, they might be less likely to want to use them here. If it were legal to use bait fish from the water where you are fishing and EVERYBODY obeyed the law it wouldn’t add to the problem. The problem is that not everybody obeys the law.
Dude! How on earth did you hold that monster up without getting blood on your shirt and pants! I don’t know where that is, but when I go to sleep I dream I’m there.
You do realize that’s what’s called a “tomato” on the Kenai Peninsula. When a king is that red local etiquette is to quickly release it and let it go about it spawning business as it way past keeping quality. If asked if you caught anything most reply just a big tomato. Usually they’ll say something like hope fishing improves for you.
I apologize for complimenting him on catching a lowly tomato. But seriously, I would love to catch one of those.
Exactly. They did that already. They didn’t need it to be legal to fish them live or to move them.
Bad people will continue to do bad things. What we don’t want is to provide an opportunity for GOOD people to do bad things. Allowing the use of live bait opens the door for those good people to do bad things. Keep that door closed, with a lock and a chain on it!!
You do realize that’s what’s called a “tomato” on the Kenai Peninsula. When a king is that red local etiquette is to quickly release it and let it go about it spawning business as it way past keeping quality. If asked if you caught anything most reply just a big tomato. Usually they’ll say something like hope fishing improves for you.
Thanks for the gratuitous comment. Good thing I’m not a local.
Bad people will continue to do bad things. What we don’t want is to provide an opportunity for GOOD people to do bad things. Allowing the use of live bait opens the door for those good people to do bad things. Keep that door closed, with a lock and a chain on it!!
If I were able to speak eloquently this is how I would have stated my opinion. Well said.
**First of all, Paul, allow me to establish that I am a long-time and sincere supporter of the Division. I am happy to count many biologists and COs as personal friends. And I appreciate it whenever DWR personnel respond to discussions on our forum and provide info that helps settle questions or at least enlightens us on topics of concern.
However, I do have to put on my devil’s advocate hat and make some personal observations. You have served for 30 years. I have fished Utah and worked with and against Utah DWR for over 50 years. In that time I have been forced to accept a lot of regulations and rulings that run contrary to the logic employed by fisheries departments in some of the other states in which I have lived and fished.
I received a bit of education in the scientific process of solving problems and in assimilating new ideas. In short, I was taught to accept nothing on face value and to be prepared to question anything that did not seem quite right. That training served me well during a career in business development and consulting for some pretty large companies.
That’s why I get the twitches whenever I am told that I cannot fish in ways that I have come to know and enjoy in other states…simply “because”. Yes, Utahns are a different and interesting species. But no different than the dedicated anglers of any other state. In fact, I would guesstimate that there is probably a higher percentage of anglers in Utah that adhere to the laws than in most other states. I have seen some of the worst.
It sometimes seems as if the Division treats us all like children…making regulations to protect us from ourselves because we do not have the sense to keep from harm on our own. Even worse, the laws often penalize the vast majority of anglers simply to make certain behaviors unlawful by the few who will probably violate the law anyway.
Specific example? The use of corn as bait. I lived and fished " back in the day" when corn-chumming was rampant on Strawberry. I still do not totally accept that the bottom was covered several inches deep in rotting masses of corn kernels. Nor do I subscribe to the notion that fish cannot digest corn and it causes “system backup” and death. I have experience to the contrary and have read reports from biologists who do not support that idea.
I do not want to use corn…especially for trout. But there are a few who do. Even more, there are a growing legion of Utah anglers who enjoy fishing for carp…both for sport and to provide bait for catfish. I have attended RAC meetings and proposed that corn be allowed as bait in non-trout waters…like Utah Lake, Willard Bay, Cutler, etc. Each time there is derisive laughter and the subject never goes any further. I guess it is the eye-rolling and guffawing that bothers me the most.
On the subject of live bait. Again, I have fished all over the country and for virtually all species of fish in the USA. While it is possible to catch almost any species of fish on dead bait, lures and/or flies, there are some kinds of fishing that are dramatically improved with the use of a natural live bait.
There have been repeated requests from anglers to at least be able to use minnows taken from the waters being fished. What is wrong with that?
Works for crawdads. But even taking it one step further and using an approved species in specific lakes should not be a great leap either.
Seems to me that all the arguments against using live bait are of the “what if” genre. What if someone illegally transplants a chub into a non-chub water? What if this and what if that? Whether we care to admit it or not, bad stuff is gonna happen because of the actions of a careless few who do not think the laws apply to them. We are already living with plenty of illegal introductions.
And the argument that the use of live bait would contribute to the spread of quagga mussels? Maybe I’d better go back and retake my online test again this year because the main carriers identified did not include the use of live minnows. And if minnows are a potential threat, why not eliminate the use of dead ones too? As the laws are right now we can use dead minnows from virtually any source as bait in virtually any lake open to the use of bait. That includes baits processed in other states and some salt water fish parts that could theoretically harbor some nasties as well.
I hate to state this but my personal feeling has always been that the Division is so trout-oriented that there is almost a pathological fear of allowing anglers any advantages that might remove more of the hatchery darlings from the system. That attitude became evident in my early years of fishing in Utah…before other species began to gain more popularity. The “other species” were largely treated as illegitimate orphans and were always last to get favorable attention from DWR. It would seem that at least a vestige of this attitude has been handed down over the years…each successive new wave of DWR recruits being required to chant the litany of the revered trout…and that all others are filthy and loathsome creatures.
Thankfully, Utah HAS made great progress in the past few years…even establishing a “warm water” department. All hail exalted leader Drew. But until we anglers can pursue some of these non-trout species in ways that have proven to be most effective…in other states…we will always have to settle for the “get by”…just because.
To summarize: I believe that each water is different and should be deserving of individual management. And to set up Utah regulations based upon results…positive or adverse…in other states…is not always fair or accurate. As an absurd example, trying to set halibut regulations for Utah simply because they have them in Alaska.
I’ve said my piece and I’m done. I have tried to work within the system…RAC meetings, proposals, board meetings and all that. I have wasted a lot of my time and mental energy. When the DWR personnel in the outlying areas state that they feel it is “us against them”…rank and file against ranking officers…that tells me that it is more political than benevolent.
Peace.
**
Not quite as old and eloquent as TD, but I have been in the trenches almost as long as he has been. When I first started getting involved, Utah was a TROUT haven, stock here, stock there. Warm water species were relagated to a small number of waters that would not support trout, Utah Lake, Yuba, Willard,etc. We started seeing some new waters appear, as bucket biologists began stocking their favorite water, Pineview with Crappie out of Willard, Walleye in Deer Creek, etc, etc.
Back then, the primary reason given for not allowing live bait was they would compete with the trout and mess up the fishery. Utah lake had a lack of forage and Charlie Thompson tried to suplement it with Spot tail shinners and Pond Smelt. They have flourshed in the back water areas of the lake and in someof the canals, but not to the extent that was hoped. Willard had nothing but crappie for the channels and walleye until it was decided to put Wipers in there, then a forage base had to be established and Gizzard shad were introduced. We attempted to have them introduced in both Utah Lake and Yuba at the time, but got slapped in the face. By then the June Sucker was primary at UL and we never really got a good reason about Yuba.
The days of Trout haven are gone. We have some excellant fisheries for trout, but most of our waters are better suited to warmwater species that are self sustaining. We starve our warmwater fisheries by not establishing a forage base and utilizing some of our native fish for that.
Our club built a trap for Charlie to use on Strawberry to trap chubs to move back to Utah lake, the reasoning was that Utah chubs were indignious to Utah Lake and there for existed with the June Sucker. Unfortunatly the trap idea did not get approval from the suits in SLC. Charlie proved that hecould trap chubs and transport in the empty hatchery trucks, but could never get approval for the project. He also needed to beef up the hoist on the release boat because the traps weighed to much when full. So rather than spend a small amount of money on trying the trap and transport, we spent millions of dollars to poison the Berry. We now have the same problems on both waters, to many chubs at the Berry and no forage at Utah Lake.
We need to really look at the live bait issue and utilize the overabundance of forage in some of our waters to supplement the lack of forage in others. Live chubs and shinners would make great walleye and catfish bait in UL, and not compete with the blessed june sucker !!!
[#0000FF][b]First of all, Paul, allow me to establish that I am a long-time and sincere supporter of the Division. I am happy to count many biologists and COs as personal friends. And I appreciate it whenever DWR personnel respond to discussions on our forum and provide info that helps settle questions or at least enlightens us on topics of concern.
I forgot to say something to the same extent and I meant to.
I do appreciate the DWR and what they do FOR US. Our fishing options in Utah are incredible and it’s due to the hard work they do.
They still work for us though and when the public’s liberties are limited based on fear of what a few might do, then I think it’s a bit silly.
Let’s ban alcohol and cars because people might be tempted to use both at the same time.
RE"**It sometimes seems as if the Division treats us all like children…making regulations to protect us from ourselves because we do not have the sense to keep from harm on our own.
**
Considering the rampant bucket biology already committed by Utah anglers, is this any surprise? If folks showed they could be trusted, then maybe the DWR could change their stance. Fisheries biologists work their tails off both to provide good fishing and to preserve native (often endangered) species. Illegal introductions mess up both. They simply cannot afford to take the chance when the track record is all too clear what will happen. Plus, like it or not, the Feds will have some say in any regulation that could compromise some endangered species program. (far more of these than just the June sucker.)
Don’t count on any changes on live bait regs and personally, I’m quite fine with that in this case.
I use live bait quite frequently… Earthworms[:)]
Uh oh! Loah’s pulled out the big blue! Wasatch now!
teasing.
I would like to thank all of you for having a hearty, full spirited debate/discussion without getting nasty personal on it all, maybe a few jabs a prods here and there, but not full on facial punches… Kudos!
and that all others are filthy and loathsome creatures.
I enjoy trout, but have succumbed to favoritizm toward the “other” species. I like Big Bass, I cannot lie. I’m a panfish handler, no doubt. Kitty’s are courageous, and Walleye could always use more love.
I’ve found plethora of Shad at the base of Cutler, presumably hopped the scotch from Willard. That’s a long road to Memphis - if you will. Don’t know that they’ve skipped above the dam, but I don’t get - what’s the harm in using dead Shad a willard?
There is no harm. But then it’s one step closer to using them elsewhere. And one step closer to someone having one that ain’t dead and using it somewhere. And that’s one step closer to having them everywhere.
Thirty years ago it was accepted that it was ok to poach a deer if “the family needed the meat”. Through a long process of education, the public has learned that poaching is stealing and now are willing to turn in someone who engages in that activity.
Similarly, thirty years ago it was not a societal taboo to drive drunk. Thanks to the efforts of MADD and others we are now fully aware of the potentially horrific outcome of that activity. As a society we are currently becoming educated about the consequences of other forms of impaired or distracted driving such as texting while driving.
The laws against impaired driving are enforced by thousands of highly trained officers statewide. Even with that number of law enforcement officers, they still rely on tips from an informed and ethical public to spot impaired drivers.
The illegal movement of fish and other aquatic species has far greater ecological consequences than the poaching of a single deer or elk. And, this activity is stealing our resources both aquatic and financial. The people that could not resist using live bait at Strawberry Reservoir in the past reached into the pockets of Utah sportsmen and stole 4 million dollars, not to mention the millions that have been spent since 1990 to try and keep the chubs and suckers under control. Whoever illegally transplanted yellow perch into Jordanelle Reservoir stole that resource from the anglers of this state by contributing to the decline of the forage base in the reservoir.
Unlike the laws against impaired driving, the illegal movement of fish laws are enforced by about 100 or so Conservation Officers statewide. These trained and dedicated officers cannot be everywhere at once, so are very reliant on calls from ethical anglers to report offenses. Right now, how do you know someone is breaking the law against the use of live bait? Simple, they have it. No one needs to know whether it is allowed in that water or not, what species it is, where it came from, etc. Black and white. Being in possession of live bait is illegal, period. And the person that is in possession of that live bait is threatening to steal our resource.
And while I am on the subject, the fish part of the live bait equation is bad because they may harbor parasites or disease. There is still some scientific debate as to whether all of these things are killed during the drying, freezing, or preparation process for dead bait, but the risks are deemed acceptable at the moment. However, it is the water part of the equation that is worse. The water in that bait bucket may contain quagga veligers or a single strand of milfoil, or some other nasty that will go into that water along with the fish at the end of the day when that bucket is emptied.
That illegal transplants will happen, and will be done by otherwise ethical anglers is beyond question. All we need to do is to look at the spread of whirling disease, New Zealand mudsnails, zebra and quagga mussels and a host of other invasive organisms. In the latter cases, all it would have taken is to adequately clean their equipment before moving between waters. The information was out there on how damaging that failure could be, but it was too inconvenient, or they were in a hurry, or whatever.
Finally, you implied that my belief in the legitimacy of the prohibition against live bait is a result of “following a party line” or a failure of critical thinking on my part. Nothing could be further from the truth, but what the heck; you are entitled to your opinion. If it was just me saying these things, you might be right. However, there are dozens of my peers nationwide, with hundreds of years of combined education and experience, studying thousands of waters, that all say the same thing. I would suggest those who are interested visit: http://stopstocking.cowyafs.org/?page_id=55 for a brief introduction to the issue.
I understand that I have been talking about the illegal movement of fish and that you and others are advocating use in waters where they already exist and you will claim that they are not the same thing. The fact is that one facilitates the other. I do not need to reinvent the light bulb every time I want to illuminate the darkness. In the same vein, I do not need to allow live bait use in Utah to see if it will lead to widespread illegal introductions. I only need to look at the experiences of Montana and others to see that it will.
Against my better judgment, I entered into this discussion because I feel strongly that part of my job is to educate anglers on why things are the way they are. I recognized that this thread had the opportunity to degenerate into drama but I took that risk when I first posted. Trust me; I will count to a hundred or higher before I make the effort again.
Paul Birdsey
Coldwater Sportfish Coordinator
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
The real irony of this whole thread is that the folks who are saying they really really want to use live minnows are the folks who already are so good at fishing that they leave the other 90% like me with only 10% of the fish.
thanks Paul!
Your love for our sport is why fishing in Utah is so great. I hope that your desire to educate in order to continue improving the fisheries of this great state will never cease.
Hey, it’s a forum for discussion and your input is extremely valuable. Thanks for taking your time to contribute to this thread.
If anything, it shows you that there are people out there that believe that the transport of fish is inevitable, by irresponsible people and that the public should not be punished for it. 'Nuff said there.
I appreciate your time to try and sculpt our perception of the regulations as they stand.
I can’t help but dispute statements that just don’t jive though:
(edit: this first part is about aquatic invasive mussels) There’s no way I’m buying that humans are solely responsible for their spread. We don’t have wings and spend much of our lives sitting/standing/pecking in the water or mud.
Perch in Jordanelle? Perch were already in the system before the dam was built. We can’t blame bucket biology for their presence in the 'Nelle, since they were probably there from the beginning.
Perhaps there was a treatment prior to the filling of the reservoir, but we all know that it doesn’t guarantee that all the fish die (ie Strawberry).
I’m sorry to keep debating you, but those above statements have too much room for error.
Again, thank you for your input.
If anything, it shows you that there are people out there that believe that the transport of fish is inevitable, by irresponsible people and that the public should not be punished for it. 'Nuff said there.
'Nuff said? Huh? Come on…the actions of those people who illegally transport fish are punishing the public already, even without the current laws in place. The list of fisheries that have been negatively impacted by illegal introductions is long…in each of those cases, the public has been punished. Anything that will help deter other introdcutions–like the current live bait law–is good.
According to the paper: “Unauthorized Fish Introductions: Fisheries Management of the People, for the People, or by the People?”:
“Legislation can reduce the opportunities for illegal introductions by restricting the use of nonnative baitfish species. Ludwig and Leitch (1996) defined the probability of a bait-bucket transfer as a product of three independent event probabilities: (1) the probability of transportation across a basin boundary, (2) the probability that a bait-bucket contains a nonbaitfish species, and (3) the probability of anglers releasing baitfish alive after use. Based on empirical estimates of these probabilities for baitfish use in the upper Midwestern United States, they concluded that the single event probability of a nonbaitfish transfer was
0.01. When the total number of angler-days was considered, at least 1,000 successful bait bucket trans-fers from the Mississippi River basin to the Hudson
River basin in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota were estimated to occur each year. Restricting use of baitfish to the drainage where the fish were collected and/or prohibiting live baitfish use in certain drainages will reduce the probability that anglers will move fish across basin boundaries.”
I can’t believe that some fishermen are willing to further risk fisheries–and, yes, they will be further risked–by allowing live bait. If, for example, live bait were allowed in the water where they already exist but not allowed to be transported, wouldn’t fishermen be given incentive to move them to other waters where they are not present? Why would we want to give fishermen this incentive?
Here is another link talking about the problems:
http://www.taconictroutunlimited.org/CouncilEC/articles/Bait%20minnows%20bad%20news.pdf
Just out of curiosity…if the live bait restriction were removed and people were allowed to fish with live bait as long as that bait came from the water they are fishing, how does a CO know that the bait came from that water or if it came from somewhere else?
Yeah, perch were in the “system” or drainage of the Provo River. They weren’t upstream of Deer Creek. They weren’t in Starvation. People who think they know better than the professionals just keep screwing things up for everyone else.
Humans moved Whirling disease from the European continent to the North American continent. Humans moved New Zealand Mudsnails, Quagga Mussels and Zebra Mussels. There is no way to dispute it. Birds can’t be blamed. Once they were on the continent birds may get some credit, but it is easy to prove where mankind has moved these organisms.