People gonna be mad but select harvest theory is a load of crap and is just an excuse for people who want to keep fish. People that want to keep fish are just trying to justify what they’re doing. Sometimes they get excessive criticism from others that isn’t warranted but other times they do deserve it. Bottom line is people who want to keep fish want to keep fish and don’t want to be hassled. That there is the truth.
Really?
So I guess Texas has been wasting their time?
not necessarily, no. Neither is Utah.
But the facts here in Utah are that the bottleneck in growing large fish in Utah is almost NEVER a genetic, or strain, problem. BUT, where strain is a problem, the DWR addresses it. Spring vs.fall spawning rainbows (bird predation issues) are a good example (Minersville Reservoir).
Like you said, this god forsaken frozen desert – don’t forget, it’s the second driest state in the Union – isn’t exactly ideal conditions for growing fish. There are so many factors that come into play that strain isn’t necessarily going to be the determining factor in growing a trophy trout. Find the limiting factor first. At Jordanelle, I’d be willing to bet that population numbers are the limiting factor. In a case where populations are too high, how would using a “larger growing” strain help? It wouldn’t. You’d still have the same stunted (fish reaching sexual maturity at smaller than desired sizes) problem.
Bass are no different. No matter the species, given good habitat and population numbers that are not in excess, growth rates will be fast! That’s where fisheries managers want populations to be: in the zone of maximum growth – NOT at full capacity and NOT at an overharvested zone:
you want growth rates to be in that magic zone – get outside of that zone, and growth rates decline and anglers complain because you can’t find those large fish. So, identify the problem: overharvest vs. underharvest.
Also, in regards to brook trout on the Boulder – I’m excited for the study looking at alternate strains of brook trout, but I’m guessing that this has more to do with hatchery production than trying to break the existing record. But, let’s study it first – we don’t want to start throwing a different strain up there only to find out that they perform worse! If the hatchery guys want a different strain only because they are easier to raise, but perform worse in the wild, then why change?
I’m all for people harvesting more fish in many cases, but I’d really prefer that they keep a whole bunch of the overabundant smaller fish and leave the much rarer large fish. I’d rather go out and catch 30 fish in a day, but have a lot of nice ones in the mix than go out and catch 100, but have the majority be dinks. I’d definitely like to see some more waters treated as trophy waters and managed as such instead of being receptacles for copious numbers of planters for people to fill their freezers with. But, I guess the majority of fisher people in this state are of the latter persuasion, so that’s how it is [:/]
I’m all for people harvesting more fish in many cases, but I’d really prefer that they keep a whole bunch of the overabundant smaller fish and leave the much rarer large fish.
Hmmm…this thought seems to make the assumption that by protecting those large fish you will have more large fish. And, in many cases that might be true…however, it again boils down to whether or not those large fish are being overharvested or if the number of large fish is limited because of fish density. IF the number of large fish is limited because of fish density and NOT overharvest, it doesn’t matter which fish are harvested. The harvest of any fish within the population will be good. PBH talked about fish being in the zone of maximum growth rates…in a population of fish that is limited because of fish density, the removal of a large fish quickly opens up space for another large fish to replace it. And, in the end, you are left with the same number of large fish. ON the flip side, if several dinks are removed from the population, the same thing occurs. Either way, you are left with the same mix of fish sizes.
At Jordanelle, the problem may very well be overharvest of the large fish…IF that is the case, a slot limit would help as long as bass fishermen are willing to harvest enough fish to allow some of the smaller ones to grow up. However, if the problem is fish density and overpopulation, I don’t think a slot limit will do much good…
But that takes time, especially with slower growing warmwater fish. I’d still prefer people take smaller fish, because that is immediate. Those little fish won’t be missed, but taking out a bunch of large fish will reduce the number of large fish available right then. I’ve seen this happen on smaller bass waters. People discover that there are some good bass in there, so they treat it like their meat locker, and then wonder what happened to the fishery. The only good part of the scenario is that people then lose interest in the fishery and stop going there. In a few years it becomes good again.
I agree though, it is a challenge to get people to harvest any fish. Catch and release has been so ingrained into people’s heads that it has become blasphemous to keep a fish, when doing so would actually be beneficial. It’s quite evident on the Provo and Blacksmith, and there are way too many small bass on most of the bass waters I fish.
But that takes time, especially with slower growing warmwater fish. I’d still prefer people take smaller fish, because that is immediate. Those little fish won’t be missed, but taking out a bunch of large fish will reduce the number of large fish available right then.
…even with bass, growth rates can be very fast in Utah if population densities are not too high. I have seen exceptional growth rates in places like Newcastle, Minersville, Otter Creek, and Piute and even northern reservoirs like Mantua of newly stocked bass because competition was low. But, growth rates slow as density increases. The end result of harvesting a large fish may be immediate…but, if overharvest is NOT the issue, you are talking about a drop in the bucket and no noticeable difference will be seen by fishermen.
In order to achieve the desired result of having more big fish, you always have to discover what the limiting factors are keeping a fishery from having more. Your post again seems to assume that overharvest is the problem. But, again, when the problem is density, the removal of any fish allows for faster growth rates of all fish.
I’ve seen this happen on smaller bass waters. People discover that there are some good bass in there, so they treat it like their meat locker, and then wonder what happened to the fishery. The only good part of the scenario is that people then lose interest in the fishery and stop going there. In a few years it becomes good again.
This above example, though, is the result of overharvest. Again, if overharvest is an issue, the larger fish should be protected. But, if overharvest isn’t the limiting factor, harvest of all fish sizes can help.
Great thread folks, lots of good information. The number on killer of fish in Idaho is a Mexican family and their 5 gallon buckets, they take everything they catch. Then they plead ignorance when they get caught. I like beef, so I don’t kill fish.
Remember: Big fish are lazy and aware.
Yes. That’s what is has to do with. Think about it… 1- Taking home lots of small fish, planter sizish ones makes there be less fish that have the potential to grow up big. 2- Keeping medium size fish reduces the amount of ones that could potentially get large. It also takes a bit of time for them the reach medium size so replenishing them isn’t that fast. 3-Taking large fish home home obviously eliminates the ammount of the type of fish you want and it takes a long period of time for fish to grow that way. The larger the fish, the longer its going to take another one to grow that big and make up for it.
Select harvest is a no duh type of thing. It’s just leaving bigger fish inside of the water. Obviously being in the water is required to get big but the main factors in how big fish are going to get has to do with the lake size, the ammount of feed and the total number of fish including undesired fish like carp, chubs, etc. Ultimately people wishing to keep fish are doing the right thing with keeping a variety of sizes of fish except the large ones. If literally everyone started only keeping small ones then there wouldn’t be very many left to try and make it to adult hood. Keep to many medium ones and there’s not enough once to get potentially big.
People just need to let people who want to keep fish do it and this is coming from a guy who never keeps his fish. They aren’t doing any more harm keeping a variety of sizes except the large ones because obviously they’re rare and take a long time to go that long.
Remember…in Utah large fish are rarely the result of age but fast growth! That is really important…
3-Taking large fish home home obviously eliminates the ammount of the type of fish you want and it takes a long period of time for fish to grow that way. The larger the fish, the longer its going to take another one to grow that big and make up for it.
No it doesn’t.
when you remove a 5lb bass, you don’t replace it with a fry or fingerling. You replace it with the 3lb bass that’s been waiting to fill the niche that the 5lb bass was occupying. Once that 3lb bass fills the niche, then the 2lb bass fills the void left by the 3lb bass, and on, and on.
That’s where you guys fail to understand. You’re not replacing the “big” fish with an egg. There are other fish just waiting to fill the void.
in a situation where growth rates are high, you will never miss that removed 5lb bass, because another bass will QUICKLY grow and replace the removed fish. However, in a situation where population numbers are too high and growth rates are slow, then it will take significant time to replace that big bass, if it happens at all. So, how do you correct the issue of slow growth rates due to overpopulation? YOU HARVEST MORE FISH. Regardless of size, you want to remove more fish to reduce the population so that you move back to a higher rate of growth.
Why do new reservoirs always seem to have great fishing for the first few years? It’s because of high growth rates! Rotenone a lake and stock it with new fish, and BOOM! you’ll have high growth rates with lots of nice fish.
Look at an older reservoir (ie: Jordanelle), and what do you have? Slow growth rates, high, high, high numbers of small fish…why? too many fish.
this is EXACTLY why you see trophy brook trout on the Boulder mountain – but ONLY in lakes that have poor spawning habitat or partial winterkill. You have to keep the population of all fish in check so that the growth rates stay high. As soon as you move out of that zone, the growth rates slow and the average fish size goes down.
but, you guys just keep saying “protect the big ones” and we’ll continue to have a fishery full of small ones. Sounds like that’s the consensus.
So how much affect will removing trophy Mac’s have? If a 40 lb fish is removed, a 15 lb will get there but when?
So how much affect will removing trophy Mac’s have? If a 40 lb fish is removed, a 15 lb will get there but when?
it’s not the 15lb one that you have to worry about. That 15lb mac has already switched to a pisciverous diet, which means it’s growth rates should be high - especially in Fish Lake. You need to stop thinking in averages. Sure, if you take a 20 year old lake trout that is 20lbs you can easily say that it grew 1lb per year, and took 20 years to grow that large. In reality, that same fish may have spent the first 15 years at 20" and 4lbs. In the 16th year, the fish switched to a pisciverous diet and grew to 15lbs in 2 years. That happens with lake trout.
you’re going down the wrong road with a lake trout discussion. We already know that places like Fish Lake have other issues, and reasons for slot limits. Again, it comes down to populations numbers.
Read the attached study.
Hell Brett, you said exactly what I was thinking. Really.
just an excerpt from that attached study in my previous post:
The relatively high number of lake trout and limited forage created a bottleneck where few fish are found between 21 and 28 inches. To reach larger sizes, lake trout must convert to a piscivorus diet. Individual fish that squeeze through this bottleneck quickly grow to trophy size. However, many smaller lake trout remain on invertebrate diets for their entire lives, some reaching old age.
Growth rates among individual fish were highly variable (Figure 3). Age 9 lake trout, stocked in 1991 and recaptured in 2000, ranged in size from 15 to 33 inches. Mean growth rates for various
size groups ranged from 1.4 to 2.8 inches per year. The highest growth rates occurring in fish from 25 to 30 inches (Table 5 and Figure 4). Growth slowed after fish reached 35 inches.
and, if you want to read more about lake trout, in specific regards to Fish Lake, you can read an updated survey monitor report here:
http://utah.ptfs.com/…vs&menu=on#toolbar=0
Dude it takes a year or more for a fish to grow even a few inches. When you go fishing one day and take home some monster fish, that just created a year or more times worth required for some medium-large fish to get to that point. Not to mention that the one that’s going to “fill” the others larger size some day would get to be that big anyway! As far as lakes like Jordanelle are concerned, none of us know what’s going on. A) Maybe big ones are in there and people just aren’t catching them. B) Maybe people are keeping to many bigger ones and like i’ve already explained it takes substantial amounts of time for them fish to grow to that size.
New lakes have nice fish at the beginning because they usually stock them with larger ones. Lakes like the the Boulder Mountains have crap loads of fish dude. Going into winter before winter kill occurs, there’s TONS of fish. It’s a matter of survival of fittest meaning who was able to find the deepest part of the lake with the best oxygen quality and the best feed.
But Ya go ahead and keep keeping that monster one and telling yourself one will get to that point in no time at all.
I wasn’t referring to Fish Lake, I fish the Gorge, typically for Kokes. Just wondered what the actual repercussions are if people do harvest the big lakers. I know its a hot button but you appear to have some science behind you, so I was asking your opinion. Myself I’ll let them go to get even bigger.
Fishermen “tend to think that fish growth is governed by the same rules as other animals. In contrast, fish have evolved and are genetically programmed to be very plastic and adaptive…” We have to remember that a fish’s maximum growth potential is determined by its genetics; however, a fish’s actual growth and size is a result of its environment. An environment in which individual fish have a larger share of the total available food because there are fewer fish will allow individual fish higher growth rates.
Also, when moderate harvest of “trophy” size fish is happening on a yearly basis, under good growth environments, younger fish will quickly grow to replace those harvested within the same year. Studies have shown that even when 80-90% of the “trophy” fish are harvested, they can be replaced each year and there are still some left to grow even larger. But, again, this all depends on the environment…fish will grow to match their environment.
Moving this back to the original topic…
I attended the Walleye class early in the year and the topic of Wipers and Willard was brought up specifically.
What I recall is this:
The Wipers and Walleye are essentially complimentary. When spawning is good for the Walleye, they tend to dominate the harvest of forage fish. Their numbers and growth rates equally adjust.
When the Walleye suffer, the Wipers are the beneficiaries of more forage fish so they grow quicker.
Fishermen, it seems, are a smaller factor to these two items.
From a general argument standpoint, my science background favors the “environment over Harvest patterns” being the significant factor in fish size for most lakes in Utah.
I personally love fresh fish (particularly Trout, Perch and Bass). Heavy emphasis on “Fresh”. When I keep fish (and I don’t always) they get cooked within a day or two.
When I’m cooking for larger gatherings (or smoking which requires some additional effort) then obviously bigger fish are better because more meat is obtained with the same effort.
And since the bag and possession limits are the same, there is even more incentive to keep the larger fish for consumption.
I believe they are fixing that quirk next year and doubling the bag limit for possession.
Just wondered what the actual repercussions are if people do harvest the big lakers.
my personal opinion is that harvest of some large lake trout isn’t going to hurt the overall population, including the trophy sized group.
There are obviously some exceptions: guides taking people out every day, and catching large lake trout every day may have more impact than your typical recreational angler. Also, in regards to spear fishing, I don’t find it sporting to spear fish lake trout when they are in shallow spawning.
At Fish Lake, we have two groups of fish: small and large. There are no medium. Harvest of some large lake trout isn’t detrimental to that fishery. As soon as a large fish is removed, a small fish is converting to a fish diet and moving into that high growth rate zone, and quickly becomes large.
People always want to talk about how slow fish grow. Again, they are the people that can’t think outside of an average. Fish will grow quickly when conditions provide the opportunity.
On the Boulder, again, it only take 3 years to grow trophy sized brook trout. 3 years, and 20". That’s 7 inches per year, if you want an average!! That’s because of low population size and high abundance of food.
Thank you for the non emotional response. Its rare when lake trout are mentioned. What you’re stating seems very logical to me.