Yuba Perch and RMA

Utah Fishing Reports & Discussion Utah Fishing General
1

:sunglasses:Fair’s fair. As most BFTers know, I was the one who submitted the proposal at the recent RAC meeting in Springville, to get Yuba Lake opened to perch harvest. I reported that RMA (Rocky Mountain Anglers) were the only ones opposed to it, and that there were only two dissenting votes on the RAC committee.

Since then, I have been getting lots of emails and PM’s with “attaboys”, as well as some input and suggestions from several sources to help in my lobbying efforts. Based upon what I have been reading/hearing, I had categorized RMA as “the enemy”.

After discussing the issue with both Roger Wilson (DWR) and Ray Schelble of RMA, I feel compelled to state that nobody is really against opening Yuba to perch harvest, but there are some procedure issues that need to be addressed. I don’t like it, but we need to deal with it, if the changes can’t be made for the 2007 Proclamation.

On the politics and procedure side, they have set up a process to avoid making quick changes that are not well thought out and properly implemented. Basically, anything that someone wants to get put on the next proclamation needs to be submitted before May each year. Since the perch did not show up in force, until about July, we did not know just how much they had exploded in time to get such a recommendation in before the May cutoff time. The RAC process is in place to hear petitions for changes, but even a positive vote in RAC meetings is no guarantee that the DWR board will put a rubber stamp on it. Nothing is automatic.

Could DWR make the change if they wanted to? Probably. Should they? Only if all are agreed that there are more reasons for doing so than not doing so. As anglers, the change is urgent for us, but it does not constitute an emergency measure for DWR. That is reality.

After doing more homework, and getting more in touch with what RMA is all about, I am impressed with their multi-species approach and their work to improve fishing as a whole in Utah, not just for walleyes. For anybody who would like to read about their official position on the perch issue, as well as click on some links that elaborate on the time and money they have invested on Yuba Lake, HERE IS A LINK

2

Interesting…I, as well as others probably, thought that those voicing concerns from RMA spoke for the organization. I am glad that RMA has decided not to take a side in this debate. I believe that anglers all too often believe that their volunteer service should be rewarded with added benefits…in this case, I believed RMA was trying use their work at Yuba as leverage to not open up the regs and allow for perch harvest. By priniciple, I believe that volunteering for such added benefits is wrong. I would hope that RMA is volunteering time and money without expecting something in return.

With that being said, I also believe that opening up the regulations is a good thing and still worth the fight. Take this proposal to the wildlife board…and keep up the fight.

3

:sunglasses:Thanks for the input. You can bet I’ll be there. If we don’t get the change, it will not be from lack of effort…just bad timing.

4

Thanks for the update. It is good to read that RMA isn’t resisting your efforts as a group. (It seemed odd to me that they would) As you mentioned, they should be commended for their efforts in improving the habitat and improving the perch.

One more question. When did the biologists do the spring gillnetting study there? I remember seeing some reports on the results, (and hearing about lots of perch) but I can’t find documentation. As I recall it was in late April or early May. This didn’t allow much time for Mr. Wiley to analyze and compile the results and prepare a recommendation by the May proclamation deadline. I could be wrong about the dates, but it is something you may want to look at.
Good luck this Thursday.

5

:sunglasses:Thanks for the acknowledgment.

The lateness of the spring netting is one of the issues we have to deal with. Technically, it is unfair to not “admit it as evidence”, after the May cutoff period. But, rules is rules.

You may also find it interesting to note that after all the hubbub about whether or not there are REALLY enough perch in Yuba to sustain angler harvest, DWR set some more nets there at the end of last week, and invited a few RMA members to participate in checking the results and picking fish from the nets.

What were the results? According to the reports I got, there were over 400 perch in only one net…about the most ever taken in any Utah survey. Similarly, there were about 300 in one of the trap nets, which are not nearly as efficient in netting surveys. It pretty much served to substantiate that the perch population is as robust as we anglers have been claiming it is.

Will these things affect the final vote on removing the perch ban on Yuba? That remains to be seen. The big sticking point is still the failure to present the issue before May…procedure rather than practicality.

But, am I biased? Nah. Not at all.

6

Good luck Pat. It’s sad to see that the DWR has internal issues to work out…

The way the process has been worked will only lengthen the process of changes. It’s not a bad thing when you look at the big picture. May is typically too early for most recommendations coming from spring sampling. Spring sampling will be the early works for a following year change. In some cases this will work just fine, but in others it might not be soon enough.

Regardless, it’s good to see anglers getting involved in the process, and learning how it works and how to use it. In the future, anglers should be able to use this process to their advantage, just like Don Peay and SFW do currently. We’re all just a little bit slow, I guess.

Hopefully, the Wildlife Board will see the support from anglers, and make a regulations change. Good luck.

7

:sunglasses:**I appreciate your comments and encouragement. Also appreciate the suggestions and guidance you have provided. **

It definitely has been a learning process. I have learned much about both what is right and what needs tweaking in the “system”. Right or wrong it’s what we must work with to get the changes we want.

On a positive note, I have had encouragement to continue to be a part of the evaluation and recommendation process. I am satisfied that DWR does listen and does want to be sensitive to the real issues. I am also a believer that the system will work…even if it is not sudden service.

I hope that RMA, BFT and other angler groups can form a “coalition” to help identify necessary changes and to get them before the appropriate regulatory committees in a professional and timely manner. I think we are all working toward the same thing…better fishing in Utah.

8

Nice effort TubeDude!!!
It is important to begin removeing perch before the stunting begins. Once you have a lake full of small fish even the fishermen can’t dent the population. Like Fishlake Perch. Then we would be forced to actually plant Walleye to expedite perch control. [sly](javascript: top.editor_iframe.addTag(‘sly’))

9

:sunglasses:Fish Lake is a good example of a couple of things. First…what can happen with illegal introductions. The perch grew big and fat for a few years, until they destroyed the chubs. Second, that not only caused the perch to stunt, but wiped out the major food source that grew big macks and splake.

During the up and down history of Yuba Lake, the cycle has never lasted long enough for the perch to stunt. They always get big and fat by first eating all of the minnows and then their own young. But, when the walleye population passes the “ideal balance point”, the walleyes slurp up baby perch and midsize perch too. Once there are no survivors (recruitment) of the young of the year perch, the older fish die out and there is no more reproduction…no food for either perch or walleye…and the crash happens.

**Right now there are 4 identifiable year classes of perch in Yuba. The two larger classes must be assumed to come from the initial plants, after the drain and refill program. The larger perch are there, but not in great numbers yet. The next two sizes are the abundant survivors of the last two years of ideal spawning conditions, with miles of flooded brushy shorelines. These are about 7 inches and 4 inches in size. The larger ones will spawn next spring and their offspring will explode the total population of perch in Yuba. **

**By next year, one of the major year classes of perch will be in the 9-10 inch range. They will be too large for walleye to eat (mostly) but a good size for angler harvest. It is always nice to catch the 12" plus fish, but that is probably another year away, for most anglers. **

**Once the perch get to be harvestable size, they are also capable of producing more and more fry. The fathead minnows will be long gone, as will any trout fry planted at less than six inches long. The primary food source for ALL predators will be perch. If there are enough walleye and pike by then, anglers will need to aggressively remove some of them from the lake, along with the big perch. **

Hopefully, with enough angler harvest, and a few good water years, to allow the perch to keep bringing off hefty spawns, there will be a balance among the warm water species. The trout will always do fine, because of the abundant zooplankton and other aquatic insects.

BUT…it is doubtful that the perch will ever stunt in Yuba. There are either there…and big…or they disappear almost overnight.

At least that has been my observation, and is echoed by a lot of other longtime Yuba fans.

10

:sunglasses:Doug Miller (R.I.P.) did a segment on this on his show back like May or June I think it was.